D-Day, June 6th, 1943???
 

I would like to provoke a discussion about the question if the Allies could have invaded Europe succesfully in the summer of 1943, had they decided so at the Casablanca conference in January 1943.

As you probably know, the Allies choose to invade Sicily, then Italy, both in 1943. According to Churchill this was the indirect approach through "the soft underbelly of Europe".
Only on June 6th 1944 was N-W France invaded, followed, on August 15th 1944, instead of coinciding as originally planned, by the landings in Southern France (ANVIL-DRAGOON).

I have the idea that an invasion in 1943 would have been succesfull, but before I give my arguments, I would like to hear your opinions and argumentation.

Please don't go into what if the invasion had happened in 1943, I just want to know if you think it would have been feasible.

Might have been possible. The Battle of the Atlantic had already turned in the allies favour and they posssed by then a good body of Intel from cracked Enigma ciphers and other sources. Also the Italians were clearly more hindrance than help, while at the same time things were not going so well on the Russian front. At least that's my initial reaction.

D-Day, June 6th, 1943???
 

The first two sound arguments! Both valid.

Basically what scandium said...with the caveat that the LW was far from defeated in 1943 and would have been more of a problem.

Interesting question. The invasion would probably have been on a smaller scale, as the planning period would have been shorter and there wouldn't be so much equipment and troops ready to be used for an invasion. On the other hand, the defenses would have been less completed as well.

It might have been a success, but my guess would be that it would be less of a success than the actual Operation Overlord was. The advancement and low casualties of the landings stunned even the Allied Command.

Also, the Germans might have been able to deploy more troops to the Western Front at this point and establish a front line somewhere in France. Of course, this would lead to that the Eastern Front would have fallen even faster than in our timeline.

But what would have happened in Italy if it had been left unchecked?

:hmm: Need a bit of a think and hit the books :yep:

One point would Operation Torch gone ahead in late 1942 due to it was a major operation.

Invading one month before the Germans committed themselves to Operation Citadel does present Hitler with an handy excuse to cancel it and bring some of those nasty SS Divisions west. So maybe we would have been watching all those new Panthers breaking down with teething problems in northern France instead of at Kursk. :hmm:

D-Day, June 6th, 1943???
 

TORCH was essential in many aspects, first and foremost the liberation of the North African coast, but also as the first combined Allied operation, the first huge amphibious landing and the first 'blooding' of US troops in the European Theater of Operations (ETO).
So I pose my question in the post-TORCH period let's say the Casablanca Conference (January 1943).

It boils down to:
What was the fastest way to conquer Germany?
Through HUSKY (landings in Sicily) and consequently Italy or by skipping a year and going straight for OVERLORD in the summer of 1943 (my exact date June 6th 1943 was of course a teaser, around July 1st would be more realistic).

And yes Torplexed, through ULTRA info it could be somehow be coincided with CITADEL.

Let's take a step and have a think for the build up in England most of the supplies would come from the U.S and in 1942, the U-Boat war was raging and the outcome was far from certain. And don't forget the Allied bombing as well with no long range support from fighters, the Americans more so as they bombed in day light would had taken even more of a higher casualty rate.

Yea yea... and if Rommel accepted Patton’s challenge to a armored desert death duel the war could have been over in '42. :roll:

Torch was also a very valuable experience for the Allies; things probably would have gone much worse for them on D-Day if they didn't have that 'practice run'.

Possible? Yes, very. But I think they were quite justified in holding it off; time was on the allies side and, ultimately, striking with full force is always better than a half-hearted committment.

Here are a few random facts I sometimes see overlooked in 1943 invasion discussions.

Torch would definitely still have taken place. A 1943 Overlord (Roundup I think?) would have been held at the same time as the invasion of Sicily, early July, when the Germans were bogged down in Kursk (the west knew of the impending Kursk offensive and warned the Soviets, though they had plenty of warning by themselves).

Husky was a big invasion, so I don't see the inital forces being vastly different then the historical overlord (unless of course, the invasion was at Pas de Calais, a distinct possibility due to the Atlantic wall being much worse in 1943 then 1944).

Another factor to consider would be the air forces. The luftwaffe was certainly more capable in 1943 then 1944. However, this would not be as great a factor as it might first appear. If the Luftwaffe wanted to attack, it would need to operate bombers against the Western air force, a very difficult proposition. To contest the skies, the Luftwaffe would only need fighters. These fighters were historically used to attack the U.S. strategic bomber offensive (which lacked effective long-range escort until the P-51). Now they would have to deal with Allied short-range fighters too, so they would probably be killed faster then historically.

A rarely considered factor is the level of American commitment to the European Theatre of Operations. With a 1943 invasion in France, Paciifc Operations (in terms of Army ground firces) might be scaled down. This could slow the war in the Pacific, but make noticibly more resources avalible for Europe (due to distance considerations, it is easier to supply a division in Europe then the Pacific). Divisions would also suffer fewer non-combat casulties in Europe then the jungles of Pacific islands.

Finally, the armor avalible to the Allies in 1943 was much better compared to the Germans then in 1944. In 1943, the Germans were mostly composed of Mk IV tanks that were roughly on par with the early Shermans. Tigers were rare, and the first use of Pathers (a brigade of 100) was at Kursk. I'm guessing that the forces initially in the west were worse then average, and probably had alot of MkIIIs, Sherman meat except at close range. Meanwhile due to the scale of the invasion. the Allies might realize how much the Sherman sucked sooner (despite the initial much easier time it will have, there will still be a few Tigers scattered about and other factors), and bring in the later-model Shermans and Pershings earlier then historically.

D-Day, June 6th, 1943???
 

Ah, more arguments pro & con...

@ CCIP:
I don't agree with your time argument. Not on the short term, that is. As soon as OVERLORD was planned, the troop level was fixed. On the German side, defenses grew in strenght by the month after Rommel took over. Serious work on the Atlantic Wall started only in the 3rd quarter of 1943, till then only harbours and coastal cities were fortified.

@ Neutrino 123:
Some good arguments.

HUSKY (Sicily July 1943) was a big invasion indeed, even more ships were used than in OVERLORD, contrary to popular and Hollywood belief.

As far as air forces are concerned, I agree that the defensive strenght of the Luftwaffe was not weakened in 1943 as much as in 1944, but a 2 or 3 months long agressive air offensive might have easely changed that. The offensive capacity of the Luftwaffe was already greatly reduced. Allied long range fighters, essential for the air offensive, were ready to be built, the P-51 with the Rolls Royce Merlin, only lacking an official requirement.

Indeed in 1943 with the postphonement of ROUND-UP there was a notable shift of US Army troops and landing craft towards the Pacific. The ETO never overcame that loss of landing craft...

Your argument about Allied armour is also valid. There were much more Shermans then Mark IV's especially of the late versions. The Mark IV H were not available yet, very few Tigers and brand new Panthers with teething troubles.

Your remark about the M 26 Pershing is interesting. This tank was ready for full production as early as January 1944. However, the US Military, which had strange ideas about tank warfare, did not want to switch production with the inevitable loss of productions of the standard Sherman (with the blessing of Patton, by the way).


Do we see the possibilities of an 1943 invasion in Europe taking shape?
Anyone with more argument pro and con?

I would say all in all 1944 was the first good opportunity for a number of reasons.

Logistically, the balance in the BotA, the bombing campains to destroy/damage German industries, certain German battle fatigue and decreasing German public moral, in a small way also the occ. territories' underground movements, and some more factors.

The allied would have taken much harder knocks in 43 and a succesful outcome of the operation would have been highly doubtful.

Btw, hasnt there been a historically pretty obscure smaller scale invasion attempt in 43 on the N-France coast (by Canadians I think it was ?) which resulted in utter catastrophe ? I cant recall from memory when this took place.