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?
|