Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WHAT IF.....The D-Day Invasion (June 6th Again)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WHAT IF.....The D-Day Invasion (June 6th Again)

    Commenced on June 6th, 1943? (In The Year That Roosevelt Wanted it To Be Started).

    What would have happened?

  • #2
    Same result as a 1942 invasion I should think. Where would the forces for this attack come from? It would mean a serious drawdown of forces in Afrika, and absolutely no invasion of Sicily, or Italy. Could the Allies have finished off the Afrika Korps in May, and then had the ability to move all of those men to England, train them, re-equip them, and deploy them to France? I just don't thinks so, therefore they either go to France very short-handed, or units are pulled out of the Med. possibly even cancelling the Torch invasion, and Afrika waits for 1944? to be finished off. In the east, Operation Citadelle would have been called off before it even began, insuring no major German offensives, and a large amount of reserves (men, material, equipment) having already been made ready for the cancelled Kursk attack in place along the Panther-Wotan line to counter any Soviet offensives. Does this lead to a Soviet equivalent of the Kursk failure and Soviet push for negotiations with Hitler? that is for another thread.....

    Comment


    • #3
      What is this fixation on Soviet negotiations? It was not going to happen. Let's move along.

      A 43 invasion would force the same dilema's on the Germans. I agree that the Kursk assault would be cancelled but then the bulk of the tanks would still have to be sent west along with the air forces and supporting arms. Since the landing would likely be on a larger scale the amount the Germans need to counter it would also be increased.

      The situation in Tunisia would likely resolve itself much as it did. If the allied commitment is smaller they would still push the Germans out as "no Torch" would also mean "no reinforcement" of Africa to the scale that happened to maintain a presence there. A June 43 landing probably would see a German pull out of Africa and the troops re-deployed to the west while some additional garrison troops move to help bolster the Sicilian and Sardinian defenses.

      The Red Army would still launch its summer offensive, perhaps in late July instead of early Aust and the fight would still be tough. It depends on how many panzer divisions are sent west that would effect the question of how well the Red Army would do. The retreat west would still take place but it may have been a bit slower unless the additional time allowed the Red Army the chance to be more devious on where they attacked and strike the Germans where they are weaker (farther north).
      The Purist

      Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Duke William View Post
        Commenced on June 6th, 1943? (In The Year That Roosevelt Wanted it To Be Started).

        What would have happened?
        It wouldn't have had the same result as the 1944 invasion.

        Regards
        "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

        "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

        Comment


        • #5
          I'd like to say that the results would be somewhat similar, but I think there are too many factors to consider. The weather for one, the drawback of the Luftwaffe, the wargames taking place. These are just a very few factors that helped, but weren't necessarily end all be all factors.

          I'm going to screw up this quote, and I forgot who said it, but they said you have to crawl in the desert before invading France. Yeah, I screwed that up, but someone said it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Logistics win wars and in June'43 the Allied logistics were not in the same league as June'44.

            Regards
            "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

            "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              A 43 invasion would force the same dilema's on the Germans. I agree that the Kursk assault would be cancelled but then the bulk of the tanks would still have to be sent west along with the air forces and supporting arms. Since the landing would likely be on a larger scale the amount the Germans need to counter it would also be increased.
              With a little luck the commitment to the Kursk battle would be so far along when the Channel is crossed that either way the Germans screw themselves.

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              The situation in Tunisia would likely resolve itself much as it did. If the allied commitment is smaller they would still push the Germans out as "no Torch" would also mean "no reinforcement" of Africa to the scale that happened to maintain a presence there. A June 43 landing probably would see a German pull out of Africa and the troops re-deployed to the west while some additional garrison troops move to help bolster the Sicilian and Sardinian defenses.
              Hopefully the Axis find themselves stuck with a couple armys still in the stratigic dead end of Tunisia. One might assume Eisehower is not reinforced in the winter/spring of 1943, turning his African army into a economy of force diversion. Indeed if the Allies get really clever they might withdraw in the face of Kesselrings spring offensive thus drawing the Axis in deeper. A panzer army strung out across the African littoral grasping at Oran or Algiers is a desirable thing when the Allied main effort crosses the Channel. Let the Germans deal with the problem of transfering men & equipment from the Med to NW France.

              It is alos possible deception operations, like Mincemeat, would encourage the Germans to prepare for attacks elsewhere in the Medthrough the spring & early summer.

              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              The Red Army would still launch its summer offensive, perhaps in late July instead of early August and the fight would still be tough. It depends on how many panzer divisions are sent west that would effect the question of how well the Red Army would do. The retreat west would still take place but it may have been a bit slower unless the additional time allowed the Red Army the chance to be more devious on where they attacked and strike the Germans where they are weaker (farther north).
              If Citadel is canceled at the last minute then I'd certainly think the RKKA would accelerate its offensive schedule, as fast as preperations allow. Why wait for the unreliable western Allies to be defeated. Take advantage of the distraction while it lasts.

              Personally I dont think it is a certainity that Hitler would cancel Citadel. An cross Channel attack in 1943 will probablly not have the same degree of imeadiate threat as later. the best case is he continues with plans in the east and trys to deal with the battle in France with half measures furnished from elsewhere.

              Comment


              • #8
                Anyone have any recomendations for literature on Bolero, the US build up in Britian? I need more itmes for my impossibly large reading list.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I came across yet another remark about Montgomery favoring a 1943 attack into France. These have all been third hand & I am wondering about the wence they come from. Any one know of a reliable dource for this?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    No idea and it seems unlikely given that Montgomery was in North Africa at the time, unless it is a retrospective view.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                      I came across yet another remark about Montgomery favoring a 1943 attack into France. These have all been third hand & I am wondering about the wence they come from. Any one know of a reliable dource for this?
                      'Monty-Master Of the Battlefield' by Nigel Hamilton, page 257

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by redcoat View Post
                        'Monty-Master Of the Battlefield' by Nigel Hamilton, page 257
                        Which chapter? Page 257 of my copy has Monty discussing modifying the Sicily landings so that the allies landed across the south and southeast corner of the island instead of two split landings in the SE and NW.
                        The Purist

                        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Notwithstandting the confusion over the page number, I appreciate the title & authors name. Is this gentleman considered a reliable source?

                          If this is some off hand remark it may not carry much weight. if Monty supports the view with some solid observations its worth a further look.

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X