Largest Strategic Mistake(s) Made By The Allies

What? I still don't get it...

Hitler what?

 

I think he is trying to say that Hitler couldn't get supplies to troops already there.

 

Having thought on this a bit, I would suggest that the single biggest Allied strategic failure was in not taking a "bigger picture" view of how they were to go about defeating Germany following the fall of North Africa.
What I mean by this is that after North Africa (a necessity to 1. Defeat the Axis / Rommel there, 2. To gain the use of addditional French resources (initially the gain was 6 divisions eventually expanding to about 12) and, 3. To give US units some combat experiance they needed badly.) the Western Allies committed themselves to a series of small steps if you will in the reconquest of Europe. What they really needed by 1944 was a much more grand plan to get on the continent, break the German front and then use maneuver on a large scale to literlly sweep the German opposition from the field in the same sense that Germany had done to France in 1940.
The Soviet summer 1944 offensive (Bagration et al) was a bold initiative showing great strategic planning. It was stretched Soviet resources to their limit and in doing so collapsed much of the East Front.
The US and Britain could have done the same in France and, had a plan in place to ensure one or two deep thrusts (and no, Montgomery has no place in such a plan. His plodding style was totally incorrect for such an operation as shown in Market-Garden). I think two were possible. Certainly, the Western Allies had the resources to do this. Had they done this by keeping the Germans in a position where they could not recover following a breakout to a static line of defense they were through.
The original run across France was an unexpected result that Allied logistical planning was unable to accomidate. Thus, the Germans gained a short breathing space and were able to establish a static defense line and even make several limited counter offensives because of it.
In such a proposal I suggest that the Allies ignore Italy altogeather. Instead, they make two cross-channel invasions simultaneously. They then build up, crush the crust defense the Germans attempt to establish to contain the invasion sites and push two massive mobile columns across France and the Rhine by late 1944. The Germans never are able to recover. With the collapse of the East Front the Germans are facing defeat on both sides of their nation.

 

Excellent analysis, T. A., I never had thought about this!

Only objection: I think, it would have been wrong to ignore Italy. Why wait until the invasion of France is prepared, when you can open a new front against the Germans earlier? Stalin demanded an assault asap, and the Western Allies had enough reason to be worried.

 

Sorta agree with you T.A.

Anyway, to my knowledge the US side wanted to land on France in 1942 already ( the Torch instead ) and this did not happen due to the British resistance. I am not saying it was wrong as the US troops had not seen war and it was better probably to start with something easier. AS well the air superiority had not been reached, but then again there were moments when the western front was quite "empty" of German troops, I think. Don´t have the details with me now.

What comes to the supply problems as Patton could not move ahead; I have read that Patton´s initial target was Brittany where a new harbour, far bigger than the Mulberries would have been constructed. Instead patton attacked east, which did not seem bad at the time.But when they needed more supplies they did not have them. The Caen area and railroads from Normandy had been bombed to stop the Germans from getting reserves in but as well this worked against the allied at this time. Instead the railroads from Brittany around the Normandy had been saved to get the supplies going.

 

I agree somwhat to his idea. I mean there had to be a second front quickly and italy was closest. Problem was at this time it was more hevaly defended and shouldn't have been attacked. Wouldnt it have been more effective to stage out of Africa into Vichy France? (think about it)

 

T.A. has some good points.

However, the Italian campaign had to happen. Just to think that D-day couldn't have happened without the amphibious landings experiences learned in North Africa, Sicily, Messina, Salerno and Anzio. Also, the American forces were not experienced enough even after North Africa. They needed the Italian campaign to become the mighty force they became.

And two main attacks in the Soviet style, so mighty and unstopable in France were not possible with the bizarre combination of too impetuous and too cautious generals... They certainly did have the resources to do that, but it was a risky operation and can be totally taken away of the British forces' mind. The Americans had the materiel and men to do that, the British didn't have that many men. And they were not going to risk them like that. In paper, it seems very good, but stretching the Allies' resources to the maximum in reality is not possible. Unlike the Soviet Union, there was a rough space of sea between their supply depot and their battlefields and a whole ocean in beween their supply source their supply depot.

 

Ok but did Italy needed to be ivaded that way i mean it could have been attacked many other ways. One such is the idea that they could have landed higher on the boot and trapped the German/Italian forces at the bottom! This would have easly split up the suplly line and the lower troops would quickly have to surrender.

 

This was my idea until some weeks ago when we extensely discussed this matter. In paper, Napoléon's suggestion that Italy as a boot must be invaded by the neck, thus isolating it, remains the best. But this was not applicable in 1943. Aerial and naval bases were closer of Salerno than anywhere else, besides invading northwards meant a much longer supply route completely exposed to naval and aerial attacks by the Axis and it would have meant that Allied air cover would have been not conviniently close from its bases.

And a modern amphibious invasion WWII-like recquired all that to succeed.

 

True but couldn't they just use Sisaly as a base after they captured it sence it would also cause them the shift troops south more!

 

Sicily? Still a quite along way from northern Italy.



Maybe Corsica or Sardinia for this? But then again southern France is quite close now and it would probably cause more problems to transfer troops to Southern France for Germans...(?!)

 

The Defence of Hong Kong and Dieppe are two major allied errors.

Market garden failed, but it wasn't an error. They should have given the British Armoured corps a few more days to move up the road before dropping in the 82USA, 101USA, and 1Brit Divisions. That would have given the armoured corps more time to reinforce the airborne.

Now Hong Kong was stupid. Churchill was angry when the British command decided to reinforce Hong Kong with 2 green Canadian rifle battalions. When they where deployed, Britain had told Canada "War with Japan is not forseable in the near future"(I'll get a better quote if you like...thats the 'jest' of it). So Canada sent 2 battalions and a few months later they had to fight off 30,000 Japanese soldiers with only 2 Canadian Battalions and 1 Indian Battalion. If you ever get the chance to read about this battle, its actually a very shocking read. Its better if you read it yourself rather than here it from me.

Dieppe...well, Dieppe was a mistake from day one of the planning.

 

Oh yes, another large mistake was when the USarmy and a contigent of Canadian soldiers flanked the Germans in Italy by doing water landings behind the Cassino line. Instead of attacking right away, and catching the Germans off gaurd and capturing Rome in two days they beached the entire invasion force. Churchill made a reference to something of the effect of "I had expected to land a wild tiger cat, but instead we got a beached whale". (Note: Not the EXACT quote...but close)

 

How bout Dunkerck that was luck because hitler stoped has panzers!

 

Very good posts, BKB!

For further references and discussions about Anzio and Cassino, Click here.

Alpha, you also Click here for Dunkirk...

 

Are we talking about Anzio or some other landing?

US Army and a contingent of Canadian soldiers???

U.S. 3d Infantry Division; the British 1st Infantry Division and 46th Royal Tank Regiment; the U.S. 751st Tank Battalion, the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82d Airborne Division, and the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion; No.9 and No.43 RM British Commandos; and three 1, 3 and 4 U.S. Rangers. The U.S. 45th Infantry Division and Combat Command A (CCA), a regimental-size unit of the U.S. 1st Armoured Division, were directed to land as reinforcements once the beachhead was established.

Approximately 2,600 Allied aircraft were to gain air superiority over the beach, provide close air support for the invading forces, and destroy enemy airfields and hinder communications. The 64th Fighter Wing was charged with protecting the battle area during the actual landings from some 2,000 German aircraft believed to be stationed in Italy and the Balkans.

Anzio/Nettuno


The Germans had moved forces south to counter the main assault on the Gustav, starting with that on the Garigliano on 18 January, leaving one nine-mile stretch of beach at Anzio defended by a single company.

By midnight over 36,000 men and 3,200 vehicles, 90 percent of the invasion force, were ashore with casualties of 13 killed, 97 wounded, and 44 missing. Allied troops captured 227 German defenders.


Re ‘leaving Italy alone’ etc, the British/Churchill’s plan was to push right through to Vienna and beyond into Germany. This would isolate German forces in Yugoslavia, Greece etc, squeeze the Germans on the Eastern Front and prevent the Soviets making the advance into Europe which they eventually went on to do. Germany could not deplete its forces on the Atlantic Wall because there was the ever present threat of raids/beachheads taking place across the Channel while absolutely no prospect of Germany responding in kind.

The American's were insistant on the French invasion and couldn't see any other way.

No.9

 

Oops, ok i think I got that wrong. I think it must have been British soldiers...but thats odd because I remember reading that it was Canadian troops, not British.

Anyways, the Black Devils where the only Canadian group from what I can see....my bad .

 

You’re right there BKB, the 1st Special Service Force (aka The North Americans or the Black Devils - because they blacked-up for night sorties) comprised both Canadian and American volunteers. However, they were not brought into the Anzio beachhead until the start of February and remained for about 100 days holding, and raiding from, the right flank formed by the Mussolini Canal. Fair to say this was the least contested sector which looked out over the flat Pontine Marshes, but a sector the 1st SSF patrolled constantly and very effectively.

The Force was mixed because it was formed in 1942 for a mechanised Arctic sabotage project which was abandoned. Having got ‘all dressed-up with nowhere to go’, so to speak, in complete contrast they were sent to the Med and served in the Italian campaign in an assault role. They served bravely (though not quite as some ‘boys own’ accounts on the web suggest), but took unacceptable casualties – by British Commando standards anyway. By the time all 1’233 of them (three regiments) were put in at Anzio, (just after the Rangers were decimated and withdrawn), it was believed casualties and quick replacements had taken the edge off the original Force.

No.9