WI: Western Allies Open Second European Front in 1943

Now now Gentlemen even serving MPs did not appreciate the Allied army in Italy at the time!

In order for the OP's idea to be realised the battle of the Atlantic has to be won a year earlier - OTL it was not effectively won until May 1943 when an almost perfect alignment of Technology's, Intelligence gathering and the practical application of it, sufficient numbers of suitable Long range Aircraft, Escort carriers, enough escorts - with skillful crews and commanders, maturing of the RCN and merchant ship building exceeding losses - which all contributed to a significant decrease in merchant losses and a significant increase in U-Boat losses.

Until this is achieved the massive buildup for a cross channel invasion cannot be achieved.

Had it been achieved in 1942 then the US may very well have pushed for a 1943 cross channel invasion at the expense or degradation of any further adventures in the Med/North Africa.
 
Had it been achieved in 1942 then the US may very well have pushed for a 1943 cross channel invasion at the expense or degradation of any further adventures in the Med/North Africa.
Alternatively, since Greenville has left things pretty open ended, in a better world you would see the North Africa campaign being taken care of much sooner than in our timeline. Now whether that would then translates to an earlier invasion of French North Africa and Italy, missing those out, nullifying them via diplomatic means, invading Sicily but stopping there, or something else who's to say?
 
Not really a new topic, eh.
The main reason why this wasn't possible with OTL assets is that the Allies were already using their landing ships for OTL operations. So there are two options:
- scrap most/all of the OTL operations of 1943, or
- have, for some reason, built many more specialized landing ships and landing craft up to 1942.
 

Deleted member 1487

I believe Greenville is referring to an invasion of France in 1943, in addition to the Italian front.
Can't happen without foregoing the Pacific offensives, which was politically impossible.
 

Deleted member 1487

Which Pacific offensives, all of them?
To invade both France and Italy in the same year? Yeah, all of them. 1942 Guadalcanal would probably be the only operation that can happen until France is decided one way or the other.
 
To invade France in 1943 would have worked if via Southern France with no Germans behind a beach wall. But then what? All of France then becomes a battle ground, while the Germans had not yet built the forts along the Atlantic in Northern France that would be there in 1944 the Germans still had most of their air power. 1943 would have been a blood bath in Northern France and not much better in the South of France.
 
Lose 3-4 carriers in Midway. You can't protect or support a landing operation but you still have Atlantic sea supremacy so you launch an invasion of France. These ships are not very useful in the Pacific with no carriers so are available.

That said you still need to win the convoy battle.
 
To invade both France and Italy in the same year? Yeah, all of them. 1942 Guadalcanal would probably be the only operation that can happen until France is decided one way or the other.

I'm okay with that - open up the 2nd front in 1943 and Germany is finished in 1944 - Italy can wait as it cannot oppose the Wallies on its own, can be contained once kicked out of Africa and might very well seek terms even without an Invasion of Sicily and subsequent invasion of mainland Italy!

Once Germany is finished in mid/late 44 - a staggering amount of equipment and manpower can be sent to the Far East - actually earlier than OTL

I appreciate that politically it will be difficult but the US did push for a cross channel invasion in 43 it was Churchill who demurred and instead looked to the extremities!

If the conditions are more 'favourable' by mid 1942 Churchill will find it more difficult to refuse a 1943 Overlord.
 
To launch an attack on France in 1943 we need to ship more than 1.5 million American troops to Britain (Plus aircraft, tanks, Canadians etc) in less than 18 months. That is an average of about 90,000 per month (historically 20,000 was all that could be sent per month in 1942).

How much was this figure limited by available shipping, how much limited by the War in Atlantic and how much by available trained men?

My instinct says that all three needed to be overcome before a proper build up could start but I have nothing to support that. Any body have any figures to help?
 
I appreciate that politically it will be difficult but the US did push for a cross channel invasion in 43 it was Churchill who demurred and instead looked to the extremities!

If the conditions are more 'favourable' by mid 1942 Churchill will find it more difficult to refuse a 1943 Overlord.

Up to a point...

The US pushed for a 1942 landing (Sledgehammer), but when the British didn't agree because it was seen as unlikely to succeed and involved mostly British troops, they agreed to Torch.

Marshall wrote CCS 94 which documented that agreement. This managed to both state that planning would continue for an invasion of France by 1 July 1943 (in its opening) and that Torch rendered Roundup in all probability impracticable of successful operation in 1943 (in paragraph C subsection 4). In reality Marshall and King used this to divert resources to the Pacific and slowdown/stop the US buildup in the UK (without making it clear to the British). One under-rated military skill is the ability to write memos which give one impression, but on closer reading support another view. :)
 
To launch an attack on France in 1943 we need to ship more than 1.5 million American troops to Britain (Plus aircraft, tanks, Canadians etc) in less than 18 months. That is an average of about 90,000 per month (historically 20,000 was all that could be sent per month in 1942).

How much was this figure limited by available shipping, how much limited by the War in Atlantic and how much by available trained men?

My instinct says that all three needed to be overcome before a proper build up could start but I have nothing to support that. Any body have any figures to help?

The figures on troop and cargo movements are in Ruppenthal Logistical Support of the Armies - I think I download my copy from Boston Public Library. The one other constraint is dock capacity, as they could only work daylight hours (no floodlights in wartime;)).

On troop number, peak monthly arrivals in the UK was 74k in August 1942; this dropped to 53k total for the 6 months November 1942-April 1943, before rising to 174k in November 1943. Certainly getting a million men to the UK by mid 1943 looks possible.

The number of trained divisions is complex, as stripping out cadres for later divisions reduces the training state of the earlier formed divisions. There should be enough trained divisions for a 1943 invasion, although the build up afterwards will be slower.

Shipping capacity is the unknown - as far as anyone can tell there is not an sensible analysis of what shipping might be available if it were not used in the Pacific. Again there is probably enough shipping if Pacific operations were put on hold.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm okay with that - open up the 2nd front in 1943 and Germany is finished in 1944 - Italy can wait as it cannot oppose the Wallies on its own, can be contained once kicked out of Africa and might very well seek terms even without an Invasion of Sicily and subsequent invasion of mainland Italy!

Once Germany is finished in mid/late 44 - a staggering amount of equipment and manpower can be sent to the Far East - actually earlier than OTL

I appreciate that politically it will be difficult but the US did push for a cross channel invasion in 43 it was Churchill who demurred and instead looked to the extremities!

If the conditions are more 'favourable' by mid 1942 Churchill will find it more difficult to refuse a 1943 Overlord.
I meant the American public would not tolerate the inaction in the Pacific.
 
Top