D-Day 1943

I agree with you Za. It was to big of an operation to risk thankfully the allies got it right.

 

Za I did not imply that Germany got ALL it's iron from Sweden, I replied to the bloke who mused that taking Norway would block iron going to germany.

 

We (the allies) just wernt ready! 1. We had to get the troops, materials to the UK, then we had to train them. That takes time. I'am glad we waited tho.

 

Jaeger, I'm sorry if what I wrote seemed to imply any criticism of you, I should have responded to Hands.

 

hmm....neither did I. I was just saying that Swedish iron was important to Germany's war efforts.

 

If Norway was invaded, the allies could simply just forced Sweden to stop selling iron ore to Hitler.

 

All right, Hands, sorry for my misunderstanding, but in amy case you gave me the chance to add another post on war economy

 

US CHUTE'S DEADLY DELAY

The 957 men of the US 82nd Airborne Division suffered a 16% casualty rate on landing among the Normandy hedgerows. Twenty five men were killed, fourteen missing and 118 wounded. Everything depended on a quick dispersal after landing and to get to the nearest cover. The delay caused by the difficulty of getting out of their chute harness proved fatal to many.

In later drops, the buckles were dispensed with and the British quick-release mechanism was adopted.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/1944.html

----------

Operation Husky and gliders/paratroopers

The British 1st Airlanding Brigade mounted in 137 gliders, were the first to land. They were to seize the Ponte Grande Bridge south of Syracuse. These landings were, on the whole, unsuccessful. Of the 137 gliders, 69 came down in the sea, drowning some 200 men. A further 56 landed in the wrong area of Sicily and just 12 reached the target area and managed to take the bridge. The US paratroopers had difficulties too, the pilots were inexperienced and dust and anti-aircraft fire resulted in the 2,781 paratroopers being scattered over an area 80km radius.

http://www.war-experience.org/history/anniversary/husky1943/index.html

-------------

Even with some practice quite unexpected problems which could lead to fatal losses! Thinking about Overlord 1943.

 

Kai,

the losses on the Sicily landings were jointly caused by poor weather and by the RN & USN taking the undertrained C-47 pilots under fire.

This also caused the scattering of those who made landfall.

In April 1943, the Wermacht in the West included 7 Pz & 43 Infantry Divs (Some were in transit to the East)

On 15 April, the Panzers were equipped with
46 Pz II, 61 Pz IIIf, 14 Pz IIIm, 111 Pz IIIj, 18 Pz IIIn, 31 Pz Ivf, 152 Pz Ivh, 298 Captured, 17 Command Tanks for a total of 748 AFV.

By June 20 1943, this had increased to
107 Pz II & Pz IIIf, 351 Pz IIIIm,j,n & Pz Ivf & h, 400 Captured, 17 Command Total 868

From Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wermacht vol 3 pp265-335
Das Heer (Mueller-Hildebrandt) vol 3 pp 125-125

The British Army in June 43 had the following
BRITISH TANK STRENGTH June 1943
United Kingdom
28 Arm Bde / 9 Arm Div 394 Cromwell/Centaur
29 Arm Bde/11 Arm Div 304 Sherman/Centaur
30 Arm Bde/42 Arm Div 303 Cromwell/Centaur
5 Gds Arm Bde/ Gds Arm Div 435 Sherman/Centaur
27 Arm Bde/79 Arm Div 247 Spec Duty, Churchill,Grant, ValentineDD
10 Polis Bde/Polish Arm Div 402 Crusader
4 Can Arm Div 248 Ram/Sherman
5 Cdn Arm Bde/5 Can Arm Div 279 Ram/Sherman
137 Arm Bde 114 ?
31 Tk Bde/53 Inf Div 246 Churchill
33 Tk Bde/3 Inf Div 98 Churchill
34 Tk Bde/43 Inf Div 205 Churchill
35 Tk Bde 280 Matilda II/ Churchill
36 Tk Bde 61 ?
10 Tk Bde 141 ?
11 Tk Bde/77 Inf Div 113 Churchill
1 Cdn Tk Bde 253 Sherman
6 Gds Tk Bde/15 Inf Div 252 Churchill
3 Cdn Tk Bde? 129 Ram/Sherman
Total 4,556
From Tank return United Kingdom June 3 1943 PREM 3/425 & WO 199/587

As an Armoured Bde had a TOE of around 160 AFV, these include training machines , local reserves and obsolete types kept on strenghth.

In addition there were 1925 fit for duty, 1553 in repair & 758 in transit to North Africa.

I have no info on US AFV holdings at the time.

The British Army in the UK at this time included 5 Arm Divs plus 79 Arm Div & 8 Armoured/Tank Bdes.
There 14 British Inf Divs (some reserve) 2 Airborne Divs (6 Div was nearly ready), 2 Cdo (SS)Bdes, Canada had 4 Inf & 1 Armd Divs plus a Tank Bde and Poland an Armd Div.

These numbers leave the Units based in the Meditteranean out though if the landing craft were committed to the French assault I assume many could have been shifted to NW Europe. Surely the NZ & Polish Divs plus 2 British Armd & about 6 Br Infantry . This would have left the Indians & Sth Africans to garrison NW Africa.

The USA had 8 Infantry, 2 (Hvy)Armd & 2 Airborne Divs in Europe by April 43.

Would the 30ish Divisions in place plus about a Div per month from the USA been enough??

 

I also doubt Normandy as the target, Aircover was not strong enough at the time.

More likely on the Coast between Boulogne and the Somme.

 

If dday did happen in 43 its likely that it would of cost alot of deaths on bothsides possible in the milions.

 

I have been looking into this what if situation and there is something interesting here. A spot of digging showed up some information.

It seems the British were doing a spot of ear bending, by getting the attention of the Americans. Or so did the disaster at Dieppe 1942, influence the American thinking.

Or so was the Allied casualty figures higher in Italy than Normandy?

 

Richard,
I have "Wedemeyer Reports"

The Brits were lucky to get Ike, Bradley & Patton because Wedemeyer seemed like one SOB.

His way was THE way.

Strangely, I have yet to see any US plans for a 1943 invasion yet they complain the British didnt want to land.

As noted above, the vast majority of the landing force would have been British. IFF it is assumed that the losses suffered in Italy didnt occur, the Brits might have kept those Divisions in the field.

The german defenses wouldnt have been all that formidable, while many of the heavy positions were in place, Rommel found massive gaps where nothing had been done and his impetus got a lot done in the last months before DDay.

Another question is whether "FORTITUDE" would have been effective.

IMHO, the whole scenario has to go back to before "TORCH" to plot strategic moves and decisions.

 

I found a book on Amazon on this very what if subject.

I found a book review on Amazon from a person who had read this book; here are some of his comments.

This part the book the reviewer gives an outline of the book.

And here's a snippet of what he thought about the book.

I decided not to buy this book.

 

If they wanted to make an ivasion on the European continent in 1943 why not the Vichy France part? Of course the Vichy government could have made the men fight back but definitely they would have been less dangerous than Germans for the operation. And getting German troops to south France would have taken awhile.



And maybe then Spain could have been "forced" to help in supplying the troops.

 

Perhaps lack of proper facilities for a invasion force in North Africa? And the longer distance for the invasion force to move towards Germany ? And the distance the invasion force has to travel exposed in the mediterranean sea to reach the coast in France. Lack of air cover another hinderance?

Actually I think it would be a good idea. The seas in the mediterranean sea is much calmer than in the english channel. And the coast will certainly be less defended than the "atlantic wall".

 

Definitely the Allied wanted to make operations that minimized the possibility of failure. However if they wanted in 1943 to open a new front that Germans considered a real threat on the continent turning the Torch forces here would have opened that possibility. Of course problems with supply would have been bigger but you cannot make an omelette...etc etc.

 

Kai,

They opened a new front, in Italy.

What date do you suggest for an Invasion.

Sicily was attacked 10 July, Italy on 3 Sept. Until Italy surrendered Sarinia & Corsica were occupied by Axis troops so you dont have a firm base to work from until these Islands are occupied and built up.

Also, the French south coast is pretty rugged, and the German & Italian forces which moved in after the TORCH landings would have not been under the air assault that the Normandy landings had plus one year less drain on their numbers.

To be possible, TORCH would have had to work better than in real life. If Tunis fell around January 43 and the Allies gone Sardinia-Corsica rather than Sicily-Italy, they might have been in better position to land .

IMHO, Sardinia-Corsica was the better attack line and a landing in the south more of a threat/follow-up to a landing somewhere in Northern France.

 

Yes, Ali thanx for the comments!

Actually I was thinking of a possible change of object for the Torch landings in Nov 1942. (Later in 1943 also might be considered.) I know this involves alot of risks but definitely would bring the war several times closer to Germany than starting from Southern Italy. At the time there were no Germans around so the landing would be easier to create if the Vichy troops could be handled beforehand. Also this might cause Italy to get out of war earlier and would threaten the supply shippings to DAK. The Germans would not give up easily ( just how they reacted with Anzio ) so would require alot of troops landed in short time as well as the Air force support. It might be wise to get Sardinia-Corsica axis safe first but I´d think of getting Spain letting the some forces through and maybe air fields as well there(?!) Don´t know if Spain would be ready to that because Germany was not that weak yet.

 

IMHO opinion, TORCH had to happen first.

The supply line to Malta wasnt secure and the 8th Army was back at Alamein. The risks were tooo high for the Allies to attempt.

But if TORCH worked better, 2-3 mths rather than 6 mths, the Allies could have been better placed at the start of the 1943 campaign season to try Sardinia/Corsica/Sthn France.

Sardinia/Corsica in Axis hands would have been a continual threat to shipping lanes into Southern France.

I dont believe Franco would have joined the Allies, at best after they had secured the Pyrennes frontier. But Marseille, Toulon et al were still better Ports than most Spanish Ports.

It would be interesting to coincide an Allied Landing with Zitadelle!