Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if Overlord fails?

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

  • #16
    I was actually planning on asking this a coupla months ago and forgot all about it.

    Couldn't the allies just redirect to Italy and work from there? Would it be possible to take the British and US troops out of Africa and launch them into Italy to begin a much stronger push from there, and then maybe try Normandy in a year or so, once the Germans were more depleted by the simultaneous Russian push from the East and the US/British push from the South?
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

    Comment


    • #17
      Ben,

      The way I see it, there is the terrain which is very favorable for the defenders (Germany) and the thing that once Allies reach the North of Italy they'd face opposition from North West and East.

      Bleh, it's only me ;)

      PS. I forgot to mention it, but the allies were massing in UK since 1942.
      Last edited by Doktor; 17 Jun 13,, 10:27. Reason: another thought
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #18
        The Allies were also surrounded on all three sides in Normandy, didn't seem to stop them.

        Seems to be that an inland run from Italy in any direction might be something tailor-made for Patton. If Patton were to break through from Italy all the way to Normandy, ~2,000 km in a quick run, clean out Normandy from behind and the Italy and Normandy groups could link up in a month or so. Following the link up, Hitler now has a massive US-British-Canadian line to deal with on his west flank, a massive Russian line on his right flank, and whatever is left in Sicily to hold the line and act as a base, until Hitler's forces are weakened enough for them to push north as well. One of the benefits to this is that Switzerland stands as a partial buffer between Germany and Italy, giving the Allies some breathing room and security on their right flank.

        Another option instead of the overland run all through Italy is to use Sicily as a staging area and invade into France from the Marseilles region, once again cleaning out Normandy from behind, allowing the landing and the linking up of the groups.
        Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

        Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

        Comment


        • #19
          Dude,

          Look at the Calendar when Rome was taken ;)

          Now, add up the time for logistics to mass up for your Patton run.

          If I understand you correctly in both of your plans you risk to get outflanked.
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
            The Allies were also surrounded on all three sides in Normandy, didn't seem to stop them.
            Not by mountains. Italy sucked. It played to Germany's strengths due to the central mountain range & lots of lateral rivers. Made it very hard for the Allies to either stretch germa nlines via maneuver or 'breakout' once a defensive line was breached. Freeing up transports from Overlord might make flanking by sea easier, but those don't seem to have gone so well for most of the campaign. The point is that extra forces don't necessarily help as much as you might think.

            Seems to be that an inland run from Italy in any direction might be something tailor-made for Patton. If Patton were to break through from Italy all the way to Normandy, ~2,000 km in a quick run, clean out Normandy from behind and the Italy and Normandy groups could link up in a month or so. Following the link up, Hitler now has a massive US-British-Canadian line to deal with on his west flank, a massive Russian line on his right flank, and whatever is left in Sicily to hold the line and act as a base, until Hitler's forces are weakened enough for them to push north as well. One of the benefits to this is that Switzerland stands as a partial buffer between Germany and Italy, giving the Allies some breathing room and security on their right flank.
            1) Normandy is already gone.

            2) if it is holding on then those troops are being pumped in to the pocket to hold it.

            3) Even if you take the whole of Italy there is only a narrow coastal strip along which to move anything - very vulnerable.

            4) Even if you do take all of Italy the obvious move is into Yugoslavia & Austria. Of course, you hit more mountains eventually, but it makes more sense logistically than basically driving all the way around the Alps clockwise.

            5) The logistics are nightmarish & probably don't work - if he couldn't get enough fuel to do his thing in the relatively good supply environment of Nth France he sure isn't going to get it gong the long way around from Italy....which won't happen anyway because Italy isn't falling in a hurry.


            Another option instead of the overland run all through Italy is to use Sicily as a staging area and invade into France from the Marseilles region, once again cleaning out Normandy from behind, allowing the landing and the linking up of the groups.
            You must have missed the references Asty & I made to operation Dragoon. In OTL this took place in mid-August 1944. Extra forces & supplies designated for Normandy can be re-routed here. Check out my post for details on possible outcomes. If Normandy goes down this is where the major effort will fall.
            sigpic

            Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

            Comment


            • #21
              yeah, as BF said, the allies weren't going to break out of the alps, not without some insane casualties. the fights that the US did have -close- to the area were bad enough, the gothic line offensive.

              mihais,

              The German losses due to Allied landing far extend their losses on the Western Front.Romania switching sides is due to Western presence in Europe and the (misguided) belief they were going to keep the Soviets at bay,somehow.That means the loss of AG South Ukraine,the defensive positions in the Carpathians,the oilfields at Ploiesti,the Balkans,Hungary.The indirect losses caused by the Allied landing far outreached what was caused in Normandy.

              The Red Army was defeated in the first Iasi-Chisinau operation and with some mobile reserves can be beaten again.The Vistula -Oder offensive will face thrice the forces it historically faced,with increased depth and operational reserves.It's outcome is uncertain in such circumstances.
              oh, i agree that the soviets will take more casualties.

              however, recall that the Soviets threw ~1.5 million men into taking Berlin, and had what, another million+ in reserve. they threw another 1.6 million men at the japanese in Aug 1945, after the insane bloodletting of Berlin.

              in the case of the vistula-oder offensive, even if the germans threw in 3x the troops (which i find quite unlikely; not as if the western Allies were going to be sitting around doing nothing), that means the Germans are outnumbered 2x instead of 6x. even assuming all went insanely well for the germans, a grinding April 1945 stalemate where the Soviets are sitting on Poznan and Danzig and Eastern Prussia (instead of Berlin) probably does not bode too well for them.

              especially if the Allies decide that now's the time to try again for France, although my guess is that they'd already be there by then.

              seems to me that a normandy victory buys Germany at most another 6 months, which in reality means they buy themselves a ticket on the nuke train. it would suck to be european, though, because that means another six months of getting worked over, and most likely a whole bunch more central/eastern europeans will get conscripted to Mother Russia and the proletarian cause.
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • #22
                Fortress Russia one side to the other.
                T
                otal number of Soviet and European German troops.

                Date German forces Red Army forces
                June 1941 3,767,000 (900,000 in the west) 2,680,000 (in theater) 5,500,000 (overall) (~700,000 in Far East[30])
                June 1942 3,720,000 (80% in the East) 5,313,000 (~700,000 in Far East[30])
                July 1943 3,933,000 (63% in the East) 6,724,000 (~700,000 in Far East[30])
                June 1944 3,370,000 (62% in the East) 6,425,000 (~700,000 in Far East[30])
                Jan. 1945 2,330,000 (60% in the East) 6,532,000 (Soviet build up in Far East accelerated greatly since February[30])
                Apr 1945 1,960,000 6,410,000

                https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...to_1944-12.png
                ^note position of the Russian advance as of 30th of April

                My belief is that The Belorussian Offensive would have had to have started earlier but would still have been a success plus the Russians had the best General on their side Adolf Hitler.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I don't think Hitler would have offered France back to the Allies, and here's why: the simple reason that the U-Boat ports stood on the coast of the Bay of Biscay. Since the U-Boat fleet was one of the most essential parts of the German arsenal, it's doubtful that he would have done anything of the sort. If Overlord had indeed failed, the US could easily have ferried supplies over to Great Britain, paving the way for another and even more destructive assault on Normandy in 1945 or '46.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    seems to me that a normandy victory buys Germany at most another 6 months, which in reality means they buy themselves a ticket on the nuke train.
                    I am not so sure that Germany was(/would/could???) be a viable nuke target for the early A-bomb designs. At least not until the B-36 or B-47 enters service. German air defenses even right up to the very end were much more effective than Japan. A solo bomber or 3 ship flight invites annihilation if tried against the Luftwaffe. The allies might be able to hit a border city once they were up to the German border, but anything deeper invites destruction. Plus if the allies are already up to the German border there is no need for a nuclear attack.

                    The B-29 flew high enough and fast enough to make intercepting it with Japanese or Russian aircraft a challenge. To the Luftwaffe with the Me-262, FW-190d and Ta-152 supported by robust radar, C3 and AAA assets a single ship or 3 ship formation wouldn't even break a sweat.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      A solo bomber or 3 ship flight invites annihilation if tried against the Luftwaffe.
                      the luftwaffe was destroyed over the course of the Combined Bomber Offensive, which would have continued irrespective of Normandy's success or failure.

                      and if the Allies had a bomb they would have used it, regardless of whether or not allied troops were already close to the German border. recall during planning for Operation Downfall, the US considered using up to 7-15 (!!) nuclear bombs in a tactical (!!!) role.
                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by astralis View Post
                        the luftwaffe was destroyed over the course of the Combined Bomber Offensive, which would have continued irrespective of Normandy's success or failure.

                        and if the Allies had a bomb they would have used it, regardless of whether or not allied troops were already close to the German border. recall during planning for Operation Downfall, the US considered using up to 7-15 (!!) nuclear bombs in a tactical (!!!) role.
                        My point is the skies over Germany were never swept free of Luftwaffe fighters. The probable loss of the 3 ship flights that hit Japan would have likely happened if they were sent over Germany all the way to the end of the war. At least until the B-36 (high and fast) or B-47 (really fast) made it into operational status. Figure with war time compression of development time the B-36 could have been in squadron service by mid-late 1947. Before that, nuking Berlin is a bridge too far me thinks. That is why I said they might hit a border city like Aachen, but wouldn't need to. Well Patton would have loved to nuke Metz.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X