- Thread starter
- #21
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
but i thought the British had already invaded Norway before the invasion of France
Why did D-day even happen?
- Thread starter 102first_hussars
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
They did, but a good portion of Norway was still occupied right up till the end of the war...
- Thread starter
- #23
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
there was the Suez Canal, which maybe could have seen supplies come from South Africa straight to Venice or Ports in Greece or Albania , maybe it wouldnt have been worthwile, but then again GB depended on supplies from across the Atlantic Ocean, U-boats wouldnt have been nearly as bad at this point of the war in the mediterranian
syscom3
Pacific Historian
S Africa was not exactly an industrial powerhouse.
All manufactured war material came from the US and Britain.
And again, why do you want to land and then support 1,000,000 men so far away from the Germany's borders and having to fight through mountainous terrain?
All manufactured war material came from the US and Britain.
And again, why do you want to land and then support 1,000,000 men so far away from the Germany's borders and having to fight through mountainous terrain?
The German Gebirgsjaeger were first rate. Very well trained and they knew the terrain better than anyone. (I give credit to mkloby for bringing up this thought first
). Today they are even considered first rate of there kind, infact the US military still trains with them at the German Mountain Schools. We would fly everyonce in awhile down to the school and use our helicopters to assist with the training fo the German and US forces there.
That hits the nail on the head.
It is quite obvous and anyone with understanding of military operations understands this why it was not chosen to go through Italy into Germany.
Why would you use Venice anyhow. It is in Northern Italy. The ground troops would have to get there first. If they invaded that high up then they would have the mountains to there north full of Germans and Germans and Italians to there south. They would have been completly circled in. Pointless.
An invasion anywhere other than the short distance to Northern France means capturing a port or ports(usualy well defended). Even with the Mulberry Harbours the Allies effort was logistically stretched.
Also the allies tactical airforce is less effective in mountainess regions.
The anglo/americian allies were a democrocy and in order to appease public opinion they needed to finish the war quickly(This means landing in France). Unlike Stalins who could halt advancement and make massive land grabs.
The more important question is shouldn't Eisenhower have dismissed a broad front campaign for a narrow front given the logistics and the need to get the job done quickly. Also should have stopped the sweep south and headed straight for Berlin before the Russians(debatable whether the Germans would have put up such a stiff defence against the allies).
Also the allies tactical airforce is less effective in mountainess regions.
The anglo/americian allies were a democrocy and in order to appease public opinion they needed to finish the war quickly(This means landing in France). Unlike Stalins who could halt advancement and make massive land grabs.
The more important question is shouldn't Eisenhower have dismissed a broad front campaign for a narrow front given the logistics and the need to get the job done quickly. Also should have stopped the sweep south and headed straight for Berlin before the Russians(debatable whether the Germans would have put up such a stiff defence against the allies).
Maestro
Master Sergeant
I'm not sure about that... Imagine all of them landing at Omaha Beach or all of them being stuck in front of Caen for a full month like the British/Canadians did. It would have been a real blood bath.
May be the Germans in Berlin would have put a less stiff resistance against us, but the German war criminals would have surrendered to the Russians... Who would have took care of them quickly... So no Nuremberg trial for the @ssholes, and may be we would never had heard of the Haulocost. That's why I say let the Russians go in first and pick up the prisoners.
Nonskimmer
Captain
If by "Britain" you're including Canada, then pretty much.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Yes, I included Canada with Britain.
- Thread starter
- #32
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
oh yeah that was assuming they made it up there, they would have used the porst in Taranto, or Rome maybe
There was just no point in making the main invasion of Fortress Europe in Italy. It would have taken longer and the logisitics would have been a nightmare.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
I have a different question but don't want to start a new thread about it:
What would have been the allied next step had Overlord failed?
Let's assume that they invade Normandy but more things start going wrong, more German opposition than expected, more bad weather, whatever. The allies manage to evacuate most of the invading forces. Both sides suffered big losses but nothing which cannot be quickly replaced/rebuild.
So what would have been the next allied step? Invasion in the south of France? Everything for Italy? A Balkan invasion? Waiting for 1945 to give it another go?
Not asking what YOU would have done. I'm curious about what you think the allies' next step would have been. I also wonder if they had taken this into account and had plans ready for this event.
Kris
What would have been the allied next step had Overlord failed?
Let's assume that they invade Normandy but more things start going wrong, more German opposition than expected, more bad weather, whatever. The allies manage to evacuate most of the invading forces. Both sides suffered big losses but nothing which cannot be quickly replaced/rebuild.
So what would have been the next allied step? Invasion in the south of France? Everything for Italy? A Balkan invasion? Waiting for 1945 to give it another go?
Not asking what YOU would have done. I'm curious about what you think the allies' next step would have been. I also wonder if they had taken this into account and had plans ready for this event.
Kris
Good question Cive. Off the top of my head, I would guess they go with Southern France. Gets them into France, thins out the Germans even more. But it is not the main act. More like a strong diversion.
At some point, they have to go back across the Channel into North Western Europe and stay there. Some time in early 1945 is my guess. May? But by that time, they are going to be wondering if they can get to the Rhine before the Russians.
One thing is for sure, if Overlord fails, the war ends later. Maybe even as late as 1946. But late 45 looks like a better bet.
At some point, they have to go back across the Channel into North Western Europe and stay there. Some time in early 1945 is my guess. May? But by that time, they are going to be wondering if they can get to the Rhine before the Russians.
One thing is for sure, if Overlord fails, the war ends later. Maybe even as late as 1946. But late 45 looks like a better bet.
Cojimar 1945
Airman
- 28
- Dec 23, 2006
I don't see how the Germans would have been a problem if the allies had maintained a strong military force in Germany following World War I. This seems like a far better strategy than invading France in the 1940s.
- Thread starter
- #37
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
I think the Allies would have still taken France after a failure, but chances are the Russians would have engulfed Germany before the Allies reached Antwerp, if it was 1945 or early 46
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
Maybe the Russians would have taken half of Paris instead of half of Berlin by 1946. We would have arrived a bit late to take the other half. No big victory for us marching through all Paris.
What would "Old Blood and Guts" have said?
What would "Old Blood and Guts" have said?
Bullockracing
Airman 1st Class
I think BigZ and Soundbreaker Welch are closest. Ever since Dunkirk, the French government in exile was wailing for the "Second Front" to be opened, and they weren't buying the Allied air offensive in the west as an official front. So the Allied leaders had to balance the French whining, the strength of the Nazi forces, the readiness of Allied forces to invade, and the Russian advances and determine when and where the second front would be opened.
I agree as well. Either way it was much better that Overlord succeded because it not, Western Europe would have been under the Red Flag.
The only thing I would have done differently is told Germany as punishment for what they did they had to keep France!
The only thing I would have done differently is told Germany as punishment for what they did they had to keep France!
