Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So, if the USSR was near collapse, could the western allies mount ANY kind of action to draw off German pressure?
Thinking Sledgehammer, Roundup and Roundhammer here.
Bill - there is no upcoming Sicily op without Torch, that being the main premise of the thread. Without Torch, most of the US aircraft historically shipped to the North Africa end up in UK in 1942/43, and a good deal of RAF.
This couldn't be done a year earlier.
It's not because the aircraft are committed elsewhere, it's because most of them haven't even been built.
Don't make too much of the numerical inferiority of the Luftwaffe in NW Europe.
The ratio in favour of the western allies is already substantial in mid 1943. Quantity was not the issue for the Luftwaffe, quality, and later the ability to operate at all, were.
Cheers
Steve
What do you think the Allies would do if the Soviets did collapse in 1942, say due to Moscow falling in 1941 and Stalin being couped and a power struggle breaking out? Would the Allies then make peace or continue to fight the war to the bitter end?Survival of the Soviets as a major allied partner was a vital interest for the allies, and they made extraordinary sacrifices to try and ensure this remained the case, as the losses in PQ-17 and other operations clearly illustrate. There were other costs, perhaps less obvious, but no less real. One example I can think of is the horrendous famine in Bengal in 1942-3, brought on, not by a shortage of food, rather by a shortage of rail transport, after most of it had been shifted to the middle east to support the transfer of Lend Lease through through Iran.
Okay this is just silly. You're completely leaving out that there was Operation Torch/Tunisia/Sicily going on, which sucked in thousands of aircraft and hundreds of thousands of US and UK troops. Sicily alone had almost 500k men involved at its peak.In London the BOLERO Committee estimated that in order to take on the defences of Western Europe, the Americans alone, in 1943, would need 1,147,000 US troops, including 137,000 replacements. They were at about 30% of that strength as at June 1943. To pull off the attack, there would need to be a massive German drain out of troop concentrations in the west.
The problem with your numbers is that that only factors in the strategic bombing directive that was initiated in 1943. USAAF/RAF army support and operations in the Mediterranean, especially against Sicily. So much of the bombing of 1942-43 was not strategic/economic in nature, it was in support of the army via bombing enemy airfields and units. That was then operational and tactical in nature, which the bombing in 1943 in support of an invasion would be, not strategic in nature as your chart is. So its measuring two different things and is thus not relevant to the discussion about what would be possible.
The chart also represents in an easy to read way the tonnages dropped which directly relates to the lift capacity of the three air forces involved. In 1942/43 no matter what the targets, that level of bombing was impossible because the aircraft to carry it out were not in Europe, in fact they hadn't been built. To carry out the sort of bombing that was executed in support of the 1944 invasion of NW Europe you would somehow, magically, have to conjure up the hundreds of bombers required do it at least a year earlier.
My argument is that any invasion of France was totally dependant on many factors including the contribution of the strategic air forces.
Maybe a chart of the aircraft available and total bomb lift capacity would make this clearer.
The large spike in bomb lift relative to the number of operational aircraft in 1944 is due to the shorter missions being flown in support of the invasion allowing a heavier average bomb load per sortie.
Cheers
Steve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CorkscrewIn the June of 1943 14,203 bombs amounting to 4,119 tons were dropped on 16 batteries. Out of 80 guns bombed 43 were damaged 10 beyond repair.
Maybe this will put the numbers in perspective - USAF aircraft in the ETO vs. total USAF aircraft in theaters vs. Germany. Total minus ETO = MTO; MTO > ETO. Please open the pic separately for hi res.
View attachment 308399
Actually:
View attachment 308400
With 5000 first line aircraft in Europe in June 1943 with just the USAAF that's plenty to invade and provide the necessary air support.
Really. Those figures show 346 fighters in the ETO for June 1943 and 2,048 in the MTO. Are you seriously going to count the 347 P-39s and 717 P-40s as viable for operations in NW Europe against the Luftwaffe? The USAAF clearly didn't. It had a combined total of these types of 5 in the ETO.
Take just them out (not figures for 'others') and you now have 984 first line fighters in the MTO which, added to the 346 in the MTO gives a total of 1,320 first line fighters to take on the Luftwaffe. This might be the figure that matters.
I'd suggest leaving the P-38s behind in the MTO as well, now you've got well less than 1,000 first line fighters
Cheers
Steve
Tomahawks and Kittyhawks bore the brunt of Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica fighter attacks during the North African campaign. The P-40s were considered superior to the Hurricane, which they replaced as the primary fighter of the Desert Air Force.[9]
The P-40 initially proved quite effective against Axis aircraft and contributed to a slight shift of momentum in the Allied favor. The gradual replacement of Hurricanes by the Tomahawks and Kittyhawks led to the Luftwaffe accelerating retirement of the Bf 109E and introducing the newer Bf 109F; these were to be flown by the veteran pilots of elite Luftwaffe units, such as Jagdgeschwader 27 (JG27), in North Africa.[31]
The P-40 was generally considered roughly equal or slightly superior to the Bf 109 at low altitude, but inferior at high altitude, particularly against the Bf 109F.[32] Most air combat in North Africa took place well below 16,000 ft (4,900 m), thus negating much of the Bf 109's superiority. The P-40 usually had an edge over the Bf 109 in horizontal maneuverability (turning), dive speed and structural strength, was roughly equal in firepower, but was slightly inferior in speed and outclassed in rate of climb and operational ceiling.[9][31]
Funny. I could apply that to you below. If the fight is low and there is a need for fighter-bombers then the P-40 is just fine. High altitudes in Europe were only an issue for strategic bombing, not tactical combat that would be the issue for an invasion. You keep comparing apples to oranges and think you're making a sound point.There is no way that P-40s could have operated at the combat altitudes of the ETO. That's why they were in the MTO. You are just paddling furiously to stay afloat
A winner from WW2 did rightly say "numbers have a quality all their own". Swamp an already overloaded defender and he's done for. By mid-1943 the Germans were outnumbered ~5:1 overall in the air according to your own chart.The total number of combat aircraft isn't the relevant number. I'm sure the RAF still had plenty of Hurricanes and other older types on its books as well. They were sensibly sent to other theatres where they continued to serve. They didn't take on the Bf 109Gs and Fw 190 As in the ETO.
Not really, just force him to fight on your terms in an area you can keep covered and you'll wear him down even if you're taking 2:1 losses. Worked for the Soviets at Kuban and historically for the USAAF in Tunisia and over Sicily. As it was in terms of combat aircraft the Luftwaffe was outnumbered over 5:1 in the Mediterranean in June 1943 and 3:1 in Western Europe.To defeat the Luftwaffe you need competitive fighters. Allowing the P-38s the USAAF can provide about 1,300. That's more than the single engine fighters that the Luftwaffe had in the west, but it too could free resources from elsewhere in this scenario.
I don't think that the Americans could provide enough fighters in 1943. They certainly couldn't provide enough bombers.
Cheers
Steve
There is no way that P-40s could have operated at the combat altitudes of the ETO. That's why they were in the MTO. You are just paddling furiously to stay afloat
The total number of combat aircraft isn't the relevant number. I'm sure the RAF still had plenty of Hurricanes and other older types on its books as well. They were sensibly sent to other theatres where they continued to serve. They didn't take on the Bf 109Gs and Fw 190 As in the ETO.
To defeat the Luftwaffe you need competitive fighters. Allowing the P-38s the USAAF can provide about 1,300. That's more than the single engine fighters that the Luftwaffe had in the west, but it too could free resources from elsewhere in this scenario.
I don't think that the Americans could provide enough fighters in 1943. They certainly couldn't provide enough bombers.
Cheers
Steve
Okay this is just silly. You're completely leaving out that there was Operation Torch/Tunisia/Sicily going on, which sucked in thousands of aircraft and hundreds of thousands of US and UK troops. Sicily alone had almost 500k men involved at its peak.
As per the OP that wouldn't happen here, all that would be directed to the UK instead.