D-Day, June 6th, 1943???
 

You don't convince me, August. It is not a matter of hindsight in my opinion. The knowledge was there, it was a matter of lack of urgency.

Emergency plans had been made to invade N.W. Europe in Brittany in 1942 if the Soviet front would collapse. (Operation SLEDGEHAMMER). These plans were premature, a succesful invasion in 1942 would have been an illusion. But invasion plans were constantly updated and it was clear to the Allied Supreme Command that a decision could only be reached in N.W. Europe.
At the Roosevelt-Churchill meeting in Washington (August '41) it was decided that N.W. Europe should be invaded in the spring of 1943 (Operation ROUND-UP). Stalin was even informed about this "Second Front in 1943"!
Plans and preparations were consequently made, but the Allies, especially the Brits, were too much distracted by the Mediterranean Theater Of Operations and subsequently lost too much time to realise the invasion in 1943 and end the war that year.

From a strategic viewpoint, 1943 was - in Europe - a lost year.
As I said, it was just a lack of urgency...

Re: D-Day, June 6th, 1943???
 

But Abraham, the Allies tactic that could only work was an overwhelming advance, with millions of men. That's what happened in the end. In equal number allies could never beat the germans. Germans had better army, and were better in defending and organizing after routes! Who cares about tanks, they had not enough menpower on the ground. Look up Metz 1944 if you want proof of what the crappies german garrison could do against a mighty US 3rd Army. In 1943 it was impossible, because Allies used a flawed tactic of attacking the germans. They needed MAXIMUM of people to get the offensce going, and even in 1944 after successful landing they got bogged down for months. Agree to disagree, but facts are not on your side here. ;)

No, German army was better all the way to the end, as 44 proved. Arguing against facts with Allied propaganda you are!


First, yes, I am saying exactly that. Tank was devised as a machine to break through the trenches, barbed wire, etc. By WW2 it was hardly a superb cross terrain vehicle it was designed to be and all armies preferred to use road highways to move tanks around – which is a key to my statement (and in 39 germany's main battle 'tanks' were less armored than WW1 french Renault Tanks... talking about Mk1 and Mk2 thingies that were the 'terror' of the allies with their machine guns in turrets!). That’s a fact. Another fact is that cross terrain they had much less speed, and ate much more fuel. That made the tank hardly a superb cross terrain vehicle. Your ‘What?!’ is a classic example of jumping to conclusion without trying to understand the point, but it’s ok. You as many others keep thinking of a tank as a perpetual moving machine, but at least you are in great company – along with Churchill, and other military leaders of the era.

On second point, yes hedgerows are mainly in Normandy but as far as I know the direction of Allied travel was through the hedgerow lands so your point is a bit mute. Breakthrough to south (as US did) was a little bit in the wrong direction to put it mildly. This is all about planning (or lack of it). Refer to my Andheim example. It doesn’t need to be hedgerows around. Small towns that were in the way of main roads with tightly packed houses made a mess of tanks. And those tightly packed towns were all over France and Belgium hence further making ‘blitz’ advances difficult. And if there were no hedgerows but soft swampy lands around, Sherman with its thin tracks was not too impressive there either.


Those 2 divisions were hardly anything spectacular if you actually look at it. Yet allies simply chose to ignore the intelligence and paid the price not to mention they thought the german army collapsed after the retreat of summer 44, and were surprised that parts of 15th army appeared there which was thought to be trapped behind!. The fact that after 5 years of fighting, they still couldn’t figure out that tanks had certain drawbacks and needed terrain to fight well (goes back to my point of modern tank of WW2 being not so super cross terrain!!) proves the point they were not so good at tactics, while Germans were! Remember, this ain’t Poland 1940. it’s almost the end of war.

Well, by that time noone could tell Hitler otherwise. But at least Germans could recruit people still, while Allies didn’t complement themselves the way Germans did (i.e. brits were badly in need of infantry by 44 thanks to pointless of war in Italy). And what I mean by this is Germans would recruit navy and Luftwaffe personnel into infantry when necessary – something Allies were not doing. Hence Germany was being so much harder to put down. And the further back they went to Germany, the better their communications got, the more will they had to fight, etc. Hitler’s decisions were known to fail and I believe the people on the ground planned for that. There is a story about a captured Kriegsmarine diver in the Ardennes offensive! :D



.

Wrong. Before WW1, Germans had 100000 officeers roughly speaking and French had about 60000. During war much more officers from France died than from germany. Surving german officers in an army that was limited to 100000 people did wonders for training of personnel. But by 30s, this aristocratic approach was replaced by the more brutal and no less effective nationalistic approach of SS and Luftwaffe. While SS is remembered for its crimes against civilians and its pure disgusting brutality, as a fighting force it was very very capable on officer level. So your thesis is they were ‘innovative’ is a bit weak. They had more experience because they were much better at WW1 to begin with and fared much better and learned much better. Add to that better doctrines, etc and you get the picture. Allies didn’t have anywhere near of comparable numbers of officers of WW2. In Britain it was almost non existent!


I find it hard to follow your logic there, but I’ll say this: while germans with their 100thou army limited were able to get the best of the best from those of WW1, in Allied countries the BEST were weeded out as they were proponents of an old warfare and were concedered old fashioned. You know who got into their place? Blind worshippers of modern doctrine of the Tank and the Bomber. And as shown those were very much a wrong thought of warfare. Tanks was not perpetual all killing machine and bomber was invulnerable to AA fire. But the ideas were received and theorists got into place of experienced officers who knew how to fight on the ground. In fact so many commanders of top operations of allies were with irrelevant or small experience. Those who conducted parachute drops for Market Garden have never actually done that before. So much for experienced people in place, huh? No, germans had always better officers and subcoms, and allies did not. If you take Soviets, they had the Stalin purges to make things worse as well, but that’s separate.

First of all Eisenhower had to give command to Monty originally. That meant he had to let the details to be taken car of him. He was in favour of broad based attack, but in 43 the plan was in place for a NARROW thrust. Thanks to Monty the narrow trhust got to be NOT SO NARROW, but still was a problem. So in 43, its’ too early. They had no manpower as I keep saying but seems like you guys only listen to yourself. No manpower. 1m people in Italy. Bogged down. No infantry for the brits. And I don’t suppose the war in atlantic had an effect on things either…

And second, the Hamburg thing is a MYTH as I previously wrote. In 4 (!!!) months it was back to 80% efficiency and only kept on climbing. It was NOT a success of any chance. To the Bomber worshipper, Dresden was a bloody success. Bloody it was alright, but not a success by any human standard.

Fun topic to debate though. But I see you have some small misconception about tanks and bombers and belive in the blitzkrieg myth – something I complete disagree with. �

D-Day, June 6th, 1943???
 

At least with me you have a misunderstanding here.
In my vision the invasion of North West Europe should have taken place in 1943 instead of those of Sicily (Operation HUSKY) and Italy (Operation AVALANCHE). So moost of the 1.000.000 military in the Med Theater would have been available. Perhaps there would have been an opportunity to invade Sardinia, which would have put a lot of pressure for an amphibious landing on the West coast of Italy, if only to pin German troops along the Italy coast.
Certainly the Normandy landings should have coincided with a Soviet offensive to make it impossible to withdraw troops from the - by then still extended - Eastern Front. Even a combination with landings in Southern France would have been possible, men and material wise, as was planned all along (the later Operation ANVIL DRAGOON).
I keep saying that the whole German resistance would have collapsed...
Germany did not have the manpower to fight on so many fronts, so extended and remote from one another at the same time.

Sure.
Nice debate. No politics. No moderation needed. Everybody happy!
:rotfl:

oh, if you throw away Italy landing, it's a whole different ballgame. Wouldn't have been easy though. But that's pure wonderland. I was thinking in realities of that time and situation with 1m tied in Italy fighitng 400000 germans.

And had italy not invaded North Afrika... :P This can go into many directions now!

D-Day, June 6th, 1943???
 

Well, in August 1942 the Allied leaders decided to invade N.W. Europe mid 1943 after Operation TORCH. That was the original plan, of which Stalin was informed.
The unnecessary six months delay to conquer Tunis, the landings in Sicily and Italy were later adaptions/distractions.
The Allies originally intended to skip the Mediterranean and it was Gen. Alan Brook CCIS who pushed the Allied war effort into the Med. theater.
I want to stick as close as possible to the original Allied strategy an prove that 1943 was wasted by the Allies.

it was Churchill's idea of invading Italy and attacking Germany from south, the 'soft underbelly' of europe (in reality riddled by alps). So don't pin it on some GI, this came from the brilliant man himself. ;)

No! You are the one basing your information on the post-war accounts of German generals! 1944 proved that the Allies were effective. Just look at the results of operations Cobra and Bagration!

The MkI only had machine guns, but the MkII had a 20mm cannon. The MkIII (early versions) had a 37mm, and the MkIV a 75mm. All these were in the French campaign, and all were effective against infantry that had few AT weapons (this is where the terror comes from). When the Germans had to deal with the French heavy tanks, they needed to get side/rear shots or bring up the 88s.
The German tanks may have had poor off-road ability compared to the Sherman and T-34, but they were faster then the tanks that they faced.

Also, while there might have been a few extremely light tanks (tankettes I think they were called) in the 1920s armed with machine guns that were fast with good off-road ability, most were not. In WWI, tanks were slow on road and off-road, much slower in both areas then most WWII German tanks. What is your source for these off-road 1920s tanks? The Onwar site has some early ones, but only the tankettes seem to have good off-road ability.

The Allies landed in Normandy historically, but in 1943 they may have landed in Pas de Calais. Even if they landed in Normandy, the hedgerows would have been less of a problem because there would be fewer Germans at first. Thus, by the time German reinforcements arrive, the Allies might be mostly out of hedgerow country. If the Germans transfered enough forces to counterattack, it might have been them learning the problems with hedgeorws...

Generally, northern France and Belgium are good tank country, with the exception of the Ardennes and Alcalse (mountains there...). Entering Germany, one begins to encounter more forested areas. The Netherlands have some good tank country, but also alot of swampish areas where tanks can bog.

Poland 1939 you mean...
The 9th and 10th SS panzer divisions were indeed VERY depleted, but to parachute divisions, they could still pack quite a punch. Market-Garten was indeed an example of poor Allied planning.
Of course, right afterward, the Germans launched Wacht Am Rhein, sending their tanks into a dense forest with only a few roads. Not exactly the smartest thing to do...and they paid the price for that. It was their last major offensive.

The Allies (especially the British) could certainly have managed their personell more effective, but the reason they did not transfer personell from the Air Force and Navy was becuase thier Air Force and Navy did not get destroyed, like the Germans' did. Their air force and navy actually needed the personell! :ping:


The Germans benifited signifigantly from their officer advantage in WWI. However, the armies changed alot in that war. By the end of the war, I doubt they had twice the number of officers the French, British, and Americans had in their armies per capita.

The 100,000 man army does not have anything to do with the effectiveness of Germany. The Germans would have had those officers whether it was 100,000 or 300,000. The 100,000 army did indeed ahve a high concentration of officers because Germany wanted to be able to expand its army quickly in time of war. By the time war broke out, Germany had sufficient numbers of officers and non-comissioned officers as well. I'm not sure about how many officiers per capita they had at this point compared to the allies, but the important thing was that their officers were much more effective. This was due to superior doctrines, particularly the emphasis of agressiveness and initiative at the small-unit level.

The Heer was responsible for its on training. Luftwaffe ground and SS units made up only a tiny, tiny percentage at the beginning of the war.

On the countrary, there were many theorists that had extremely good theories. Some good ones were listened too, and some bad ones were listened too. The people that prepared for the previous war, mostly the French, did very poorly. This was becuase they did not accept new doctrines very well. They planned for static defense (for example, spread the tanks to 'stiffen up the line'), and got a mobile war. There were some French advocates of mobile war (they belatedly formed a few mobile divisions), but they were not heeded enough.

As was mentioned, a 1943 invasion of France would DEFINITELY be in lieu of Italy. When I refered to a broad front strategy, I meant to strategy after the landing, not the strategy of the actual landing (one of the things that Monty got right - it was important to have a decently sized beachhead).

In my post, I agreed with you that night bombing was usually ineffective (I don't have enough information to form an opinion on daylight bombing). However, Hamburg was a success. As you said, it took FOUR MONTHS just to build back up to 80% efficientcy. This damage was inflicted in just ONE NIGHT of bombing! If the British could inflict a firestorm each time they made a major bombing raid, then bombing would have won, or at least made a huge contribution, to the war. They could not, of course, so night bombing was not too effective.
The actual damage was little, but the Germans did expend resources to defend against it. It is these wasted resources of the Germans that was the real contribution of night bombing, but Britian wasted even more resources on it, so it was definitely not a success overall.

The bombing of Dresden actually killed far less then was thought for awhile (there is an Armchair General article about this, and I have seen other sources as well). The death toll was comparible to toher bombings. I am not sure if it was a success. Did it destroy any industrial targets or signifigantly damage the war economy? I don't think damaging the regular economy would be too important this late in the war, but am not 100% sure...

As for the 'Blitzkrieg Myth', I am not exactly sure what you are talking about. I definitely do not believe that superior German tanks smashed everything in sight. The French tanks were better. It was operational and tactical ability of German officers and soldiers that was responsible for their victories. The fastness of operations is why the warfare was called 'blitzkrieg'.

D-Day, June 6th, 1943???
 

@ Type941:
Actually it was Gen. Alan Brooke's idea. He lured the Allies into the Mediterranean Campaign when Roosevelt & Churchill still favoured Marshall's plan to attack N.W. Europe in 1943.
Alan Brook pointed out to Churchill the political advantages of a possible Balkan campaign, the Colonial importance of appearing as a strong power in the Middle East, and played on his fears for a repetition of a trench war WW I style.
That, and some serious delays in 1942 that I pointed out earlier, swung Churchill to the idea of knocking Italy out of the war first, instead of getting France into it...

@ Neutrino 123:
Ha, another convert for D-Day, June 6th, 1943!
:D

Abraham I found another thing that went bad for the Allies because of the Sicily/Italy campaign. It tied up two of the Royal Navy's eastern fleet Flattops when they could have been helpful at the Solomons! HMS Indomitable and HMS Illustrious could have been helpful as could any Battleships and Battlecruisers the RN could spare. The RN CVs only carried about as much planes as a US CVL but two together could have been a sufficient fighting force although the Swordfish and Fulmar would probably be brutally slaughtered by the Zero. (or were the RN's flattops fielding the Wildcat and Advenger at this time?)

We started with Saratoga, Hornet and Enterprise and ending with just Saratoga operational, Enterprise badly damaged and Hornet sunk after the battles of Santa Cruz and Eastern Solomans.

Would have been nice to have a few British BBs at the Guadalcanal Naval Battles. Although we managed a bloody victory.

But of course while all this was going on those RN ships were busy invading Madagascar and “the soft underbelly�. Forget D-Day ’43 what about winning the Solomans and taking out Truk mid ’43 then Iwo Jima in mid ’44? :rock:

D-Day, June 6th, 1943???
 

Good one, TLAM Strike.
I bet the RN would have switched to Wildcats & Avengers if it had operated in the Solomons Campaign. British carrier were armoured - one reason for their reduced air complement - and therefor better resistant to a hit by a single bomb.

But I don't agree about forgetting D-Day 1943. The basic decision to tackle Nazi Germany first was politically and militarily sound. Germany was the bigger danger, Japan was doomed fromday one (or at least from the Battle of Midway).

More personal: my parents were living under German occupation and didn't like it at all.
:D

Neutrino it's hard to keep qouting and replying so I will only address main issues I disagree.

1. No, German army was better than allies 1 on 1. Always. And that's not an account of some nazi diary, more like an american one that fought against them. :roll:

2. German army was superior in many key places, but perhaps the key was its use its integration of airforce into the ground troups offensive. Luftwaffe never fought its own war, unlike RAF for example. That's a key difference.

3. Blitzkrieg myth is that germans won in poland and france due to some new tactic they used. Which is bollocks and untrue but reading your belief in tank I see you still perhaps in illusions about that part, but I tried my best to despell that. I don't know what that site had, seems only tech data and few paragraphs. I recommend you read a book called Blitzgrieg Myth by John Mosier. You'll know I meant later about the bombing, the doctrines, and why german army was better - outnumbered but better.

Re: D-Day, June 6th, 1943???
 

Indeed. It also reportedly made them "Kamikaze-Proof". But considering that about ½* of the CVs (Full sized ones) the US lost in the Pacific were due to torpedo hits from subs I don’t know if it would have mattered.

*US CV Losses
Hornet to Aircraft at Santa Cruz
Lexington to Aircraft at Coral Sea
Yorktown to Submarine (damaged but maybe salvageable after Air Attack) at Midway
Wasp by Submarine in route to Guadalcanal
(The light Carrier Princeton was sunk to aircraft but there was no real way to give it an armored deck so I discount that)

As for CVEs (also incapable of handling an armored deck)…
Bismarck Sea to Aircraft
Block Island to U-Boat
Gambler Bay to Gunfire
Liscome Bay to IJN Submarine
Ommamey Bay to Kamikazes
St Lo to Aircraft

So only three ships (Lexington, Yorktown and Hornet) might have survived (Yorktown could go either way since she was already damaged IIRC) if they had an armored deck, but all took torpedo hits (Lexington 1, Yorktown 2- only counting Aircraft ones here, Hornet 4- also took 14 from USN and IJN forces trying to scuttle her, felt that was also of note) which an armored deck would do squat for so IMHO Lexington might have been the only one that might have been saved from sinking by an Armored deck.

Errr well I didn't mean don't do a NE Europe invasion (I think it could have been pushed up a few months at least, maybe not ’43 but early ‘44). I ment imagine instead for discusson a sooner end to some of the PTO battles. I guess my American way of talking makes that kind of confusing.

oh, one more point. You said Dresden was not so bad. If 200,000 + dead (according to german police, which was looked quite reliable) is not so bad, than I am a bit stunned. Allies would not wont to say how much they really killed in there, nor had they any means to actually verify it. Germans are known to count things well though... In any case 200 to 260 thousand is the figure that's believed died in Dresden bombing and dismissing that as some minore thing is just wrong. Saying No to my Yes is hardly a way to argue this. ;)

Re: D-Day, June 6th, 1943???
 

Hey not supposed to bring suffering populations in rememeber? ;) Others were unhappy with German occupation and also Japanese. My great-grandmother and other relatives were under German occupation in Greece, my gandparents and parents part of the greek community in Egypt were mmost fortunate thanks to lots of brave Commonwealth (and indirectly Soviet ;) ) troops NOT to experience that.