What if we ignored N. Africa and the MTO?

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:21:57 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


There werent as many available for the follow up
waves however.

In 1944, Allies used around 35 divisions in the period between June
6th, 1944 and August 1st, 1944. Within that period, Allies invaded,
repelled German counterattacks, established a bridgehead, liberated a
major port and on the last day, broke through the German front.

Same number of divisions would have been on Allied disposal if it
weren't for operation Torch.

Allies had enough landing craft to perform Husky in summer 1943 and
Torch in autumn 1942. There were certainly enough craft to land the
five divisions of the first wave and immediate support.


But not the follow up forces

It depends upon what do you call the "follow up" forces. The vessels
used in Torch and Husky (which wouldn't have happened) should have
been enough until the capture of the major port.


The Luftwaffed most certainly did cause casualties in Italy in 1943

In no case Allies suffered prohibitive losses anywhere in the
Mediterranean during 1943. Quite the contrary, it was Luftwaffe that
was taking higher losses and was incapable of preventing Allies from
conducting all sorts of air missions.


That depends on what you mean by success. Sitting in an enclave
under artillery attack isnt typically considered a success

I'd call an establishment of second front in northwest France by
Autumn 1943 a success.


But they did to defeat the German air force in the West
which was much stronger than taht in the med.

In same way, Allied air forces in the West would have been
proportionally stronger if it weren't for redeployment of US air
groups to the Mediterranean. In addition, RAF Fighter Command could
have been utilised.


But not to advance into Germany and win the war which
is the point.

Had Allies established a second front in France by Autumn 1943, they
would have won the war, there is no question about it. It is not
correct to demand the same tempo of advance from 1943 invasion as it
was historically achieved in 1944 because Allies were stronger in 1944
and Germans were weaker. But if Allies liberate Paris in April 1944
that they are definitely ahead of historical schedule.

Allies could afford additional year by spending Soviet lives. There is
little doubt that invading in 1944 was sound political move, I am not
entirely convinced that American and British lives thus saved were
more worth that Soviet ones who were lost in that year when Germans
could deploy the bulk of their ground forces in Russia.


Its a long way fro El Agheila to El Alamein but they managed that

And were stopped. And could not move any further given the historical
level of logistics on their disposal.


Which gives them lots of oil in 1944

By 1944 it doesn't matter any more since Americans are in the theatre
in strength and I don't think a lot of oil automatically means a lot
of tankers or an increased capacity of raphineries or significant
increase of tanks or fighters produced.

Note that captured oil fields in Indonesia never reached the prewar
level of production.


How many German workers do you think were suitable to
provide army replacements in 1943 ?

Enough to cover all sectors previously held by Italians.


Drax
remove NOSPAM for reply