Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

D-Day November 1942

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by craven View Post

    Also if this landing holds on through the winter then the Brits and American can do a secondary landing.
    If a port is established then the amphib fleet is freed up for use elsewhere. The Germans are presented with the problem of anticipating another landing elsewhere. Even in 1941 German intelligence services and the senior leaders were frequently guessing wrong about their enemies. By early 1943 Allied deception operations had them leaping at shadows across Europe. The same can be accomplished in this scenario.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Cyberknight View Post
      Neither the US or UK have any measningful number of real landing ships and too few landing craft. The US landing on Guadalcanal was an over the side affair and because of the threat of enemy air attack, the heavy artillery, armor and prime movers were not unloaded at all. This included the najor warships as well as assault units. I have no reason to believe that the Luftwaffe would be less of threat to invasion in 1942 nor do the small craft need to engage fleet units but rather the transports. That seems make the small craft relevant indeed.
      This is just wrong.

      First, the US used just over 1500 landing craft in Torch of various size. The British have a dozen specialist amphibious assault ships like the Glen class while the US has far more. The British have their own on top of the US craft as well.
      Yes, LST are in short supply but once a port is in hand they are not really a necessity any longer. Given that the Germans have just one (1) two regiment third rate static division, the 333rd stretched over 20+ miles of French coast to contend with the defenses are minimal at best.
      As the landings call for the same size amphibious force as used in Torch at the same time I can't see where the "US or UK have any meaningful number of real landing ships and too few landing craft." They managed just fine in Torch. They should here too.
      Of the Torch landings the only one that got hit by the KM was the Atlantic ones where three (3) U-boats managed to sink a dozen transports over a period of about 10 days for the loss of two of their own. Their impact on the landings was negiable.
      This would be harder to replacate in Quiberon Bay due to its shallow waters that restrict u-boat operations.
      S-boats would have to contend with a range of Allied surface units of every size just to get to a point where they might attack. Off Normandy they proved worthless. The same goes for units in the Med versus Allied landings there.

      Then there are the mineplanters to deal with. The US sent Terror and Miantonomah hauling well in excess of 1000 sea mines that could put up barriers across most of the smaller access channels to the bay.

      Comment


      • #48
        Okay, if the units involved in Torch did not stagger around due to lack of supplies, there is no reason to think that they would have had a problem with that in France. They would have been much closer to the supply bases in Britain anyhow.

        Anyhow... what I was wondering is how much ground the Germans would loose in the east if they reacted strongly to the Allied landing in Frnace; would they have been pushed all the way back to Kiev, or would they have had to pull back all the way to Poland?
        "Why is the Rum gone?"

        -Captain Jack

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by kendrick View Post
          The Allies would have been swept into the sea by a German army, yet not bleed to death in Russia.
          Sure. The 333rd Infantry Division (Bodenstande) with its two regiments of overage and marginally trained troops armed largely with hand-me-downs and captured equipment scattered in penny packets over 20+ miles of French coast would have been a real contender to push the Allies back. Once the US and British are ashore, unlike in North Africa, they hold a continious front and the divisions are intact orgainzationally; two things that led to the disasters the US had in N. Africa.
          The Germans arrive peicemeal and have to commit most of their initial troops to just holding a continious line let alone having anything whatsoever for an actual offensive. By the time they do have sufficent concentration to formulate an offensive the Allies are not only dug in but outnumber the Germans significantly along with having far more firepower.

          All the Allies have to do at that point is sit tight and fend off the Germans until spring 1943. By then the Germans are finished on every other front having wasted all their reinforcements for those fronts in France.

          Comment


          • #50
            Logistics, logistics, logistics

            The main concern for the Allies was not getting ashore on 6th June but the 'battle of the build-up' ie could the Allies land divisons faster than the Germans could get them there by land - which I doubt in your scenario.

            In November 1942 the Allies could not rely on air supremacy and the transportation plan to slow German reinforcements. The turnaround time from the UK to Quiberon bay would be much longer than the round trip to Normandy. Landing over beaches exposed to Atlantic winds in November would have been far more difficult than in June and July. I doubt German U-boats would have disappeared - surface night attacks within range of their home bases of L'Orient and St Nazaire would have seemd more attractive than trying to find convoys in the Atlantic.

            Overall while I am not certain that it would have failed, I don't think that the Allies would have taken the risk.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Aber View Post
              Logistics, logistics, logistics

              The main concern for the Allies was not getting ashore on 6th June but the 'battle of the build-up' ie could the Allies land divisons faster than the Germans could get them there by land - which I doubt in your scenario..
              Yes logistics are they key to this. Tho repeating the word over & over takes us no closer to understanding it, or how it actually affects amphibious operations. So far the data or examples I've seen posted here have been either so brief they are uninformative, or wrong.

              Originally posted by Aber View Post
              I doubt German U-boats would have disappeared - surface night attacks within range of their home bases of L'Orient and St Nazaire would have seemd more attractive than trying to find convoys in the Atlantic.
              Or not. Surface night attacks suffer from the winter weather so often cited here. The submarines already had problems transiting the Bay of Biscay due to British ASW aircraft. Earlier that year a order had been issued directing the subs not to make a high speed surface transit of the Bay in daylight. A surface transit had to be made at night,or a slow submerged transit made. Allied airfields on Brittiany would aggravate this problem. So would the light short ranged ASW ships based in Britian or Brittiany. so the subs are trying to stalk convoys at night, in frequent bad weather, in shallow waters, patroled by the same ASW ships that drove them off the Western Approaches a year earlier and which caused crippling losses when Donitz tried to return their patrols to the Western Approaches.

              German sucess also depends in part on which 'codes' the Allied ships in this area use. A significant part of the sucess of the subs in the North Atlantic in the winter of 1942-43 came from the breaking of the Brit convoy code used in that area. RN & USN combat ships did not use the same code system & neither did all convoys in different geographic areas use the same code system. I cant say if the cargo ships transitng from Britian to the beachhead would or would not use the same radio codes as the Atlantic Convoys. There is a fair chance they would not be
              Last edited by Carl Schwamberg; 08 May 09, 06:14.

              Comment


              • #52
                If the Allies did land here then there would have been within less than a week a follow up convoy of 45 more ships full of supplies and equipment that were loaded and waiting to sail in the US on the signal that the landings succeeded.
                This was the first of several scheduled just as with TORCH.

                Comment


                • #53
                  And to put the final nail in the logistics problem- all they would have had to do was divert the arctic convoys to Russia to have all they could have ever wanted.

                  In Decamber, one convoy of 14 ships (JW.51B) carried 2,000 trucks, 200 tanks, 87 fighter planes, 43 bombers, 20,000 tons of fuel oil and 54,321 tons of other supplies to Murmansk... without any losses.

                  So, it would have worked.... why didn't they do it?
                  "Why is the Rum gone?"

                  -Captain Jack

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
                    And to put the final nail in the logistics problem- all they would have had to do was divert the arctic convoys to Russia to have all they could have ever wanted.
                    Which were all going to a fully functioning port out of range of the enemy.

                    So, it would have worked.... why didn't they do it?
                    Well the first thing missing from the plan, and probably the most important part of any plan, is any possibility of surprise.
                    Consider "Between 26th October and 3rd November [1942] the enemy received five reports (four from U-boats and one from a Focke-Wulf aircraft) of warships and convoys on a southerly course, but failed to deduce that anything was unusual was afoot."

                    What do you reckon the chances of the enemy failing to deduce anything unusual would be underfoot once those convoys started routing East-North-East towards the French coast?

                    So surprise has gone, the Germans might not devine exactly where the force is headed but they'll institute their long prepared standard plans. Maximun alert, all leave stopped and exercises cancelled; coast defence forces will put finishing touches to their positions - laying more mines, preparing obstacles, wire and demolitions, dumping more ammunition; the mobile forces will be gathered, fueled and prepared for rapid movement; orders to standby for an immediate move to west France will be dispatched to units far and wide from the specialist Lw anti-shipping units in Norway and Crete to the Panzer units embarking for Africa.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      What Panzer units were embarking for Africa in November?
                      "Why is the Rum gone?"

                      -Captain Jack

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
                        What Panzer units were embarking for Africa in November?
                        In France at this time there are the 6th, 7th, 10th, and 26th Panzer.

                        6th is in the process of being shipped East in November
                        7th remained in France
                        10th is in the process of being shipped to North Africa at this time.
                        26th is still forming and not combat ready.

                        In addition the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd SS PanzerGrenadier divisions are in Northern France refitting too. These units are in the process of being upgraded to panzer divisions so they each have about a battalion of armor.

                        There are no Tigers in France. The panzer divisions are about equally split between Pz III and IV. The Panther isn't even in production yet.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Oh hell, the 6th Panzer?

                          That's trouble. That Division had about 170 tanks when it arrived to lead the drive to relieve Stalingrad, and had a commander named Rauss.

                          That unit alone could have made life very interesting for Patton and his boys.

                          Given that, would Hitler have given von Paulus orders to pull out, instead of leaving his rescue up to the exhausted units present in Russia?
                          "Why is the Rum gone?"

                          -Captain Jack

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Von Paulus couldn't pull out. He lacked the transport. He might have abandoned all heavy equipment and gotten a fraction of his men out but that's it.

                            The problem for the Germans is that when 6th panzer arrives they can concentrate it for an attack they need it to cover the gaping 20+ mile hole in their non-existant lines just as happened with the first panzer divisions arriving in Normandy two years later. The division would have then been ground up peacemeal.

                            Or, by D+7 or so, the US and British now have several times that many tanks and tank destroyers ashore. Aside from that, panzers are no match for naval gunfire. They lose every time.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              Aside from that, panzers are no match for naval gunfire. They lose every time.
                              Except that in this what-if:

                              They are much further from their home ports - turnaround time for refueling and ammunition resupply for the naval forces will be much higher
                              The Allies will not have control of the air over the landing beaches - there will be losses
                              They are within a very short distance of major U-boat bases - there will be significant losses as U-boats will be able to stand-off, fire a full salvo at night into a crowded anchorage and retire safely
                              When there are storms (which I know about living on the Atlantic coast) naval support will be lost

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                EDIT: wrong thread. D-day 42, Germans slaughter us, we look like fools. War continues on to final victory and Cold War with Reds. The End.
                                Last edited by Wolery; 10 May 09, 09:25.
                                How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
                                275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X