Could the Western allies have won it alone?

Ah-hah!
Good answer sir.

I still think the actual establishment & survival of the beachead will be more risky...

I do. btw - Burma is a minor role?


How many ships and men were needed for Overlord? How many more would be needed if there were no handy support base within 3,000 miles, if you did want to attempt decoy 'landings' to confuse the Germans, and if you wanted to have extra men / material to overcome the extra German defenses. Oh, and keeping them all supplied for a Continental war with a 3,000 mile logistical trail...

I'm sure the US could do it, but again, it is a slightly larger operation than anything attempted in WW2.

Are you sure it was that many that surrendered?
(I was thinking that very few did, but here [ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... battle.htm ] which has some nice stats shows at least 4,265 as surrendering)

 

Oh, one last point...

If Britain is removed forom the war (big if, I know) what happens to the 'Battle of the Atlantic'?
Most of the groundwork in ASW was done by us Brits. Without that knowledge transfer, the USA would have to learn it all again for themselves. Which could set timetables back a bit.

 

also the germans had much better equipment than the japanese and a lot more of it and often superoir to what the americans had.

it is much more difficult to invade a continent than an island...an island can be isolated and surrounded like okinawa, europe cannot..you cannot stop the germans from resupplying their forces in france!

so effectiuvely okinawa just becomes a garrison/pocket of resistence that will fall given a matter time.

 

The scenario I outlined was a reference to; if the Russians capitulated for good reason. (total war on their homeland) Then Germany should be expected to do the same.

With or without nukes..

Germany collapsed rather quickly in both WWII and WWi.

Once the tide turned, they fold.

The Rusians lost a lot of men taking Berlin,



As to the landinds, well If I posted a list of the landings conducted by the USA, I would fill up most of the rest of the page.

North Africa, Scilly, Italy, the South of France and countless/ dozens places in the Pacific.

Landings on the coast of mainland Japan were planned..





Hitler could not even manage Operation Sealion, the invasion of England.


This is most tellleing...

Discuss Hitlers inability to master even one landing of an island, 26 miles away.

Americans found themselves building roads through Burma into China.


http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/72-38/72-38.htm


BTW whats the name of those mountains?


jmmm

 

Further Readings
The most extensive and detailed analysis of World War II operations in the China-Burma-India theater remains the three-volume Army official history of the theater by Charles F. Romanus and Riley Sunderland: Stilwell's Mission to China (1956), Stilwells Command Problems (1956), and Time Runs Out in CBI (1959). For flavor, The Stilwell Papers, edited by Theodore H. White (1948) is still recommended, while for a critical appraisal, see Chin-tung Liang's book General Stilwell in China, 1942-1944. The Full Story (1972). Japanese perspectives can be found in Meirion and Susie Herries, Soldiers of the Sun. The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army (1991); Saburo Ienaga, The Pacific War: World War II and the Japanese, 1931-1945 (1978), and Saburo Hayaski and Alvin D. Coox, Kogun: The Japanese Army in the Pacific War (1959).

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/72-38/72-38.htm



Burma covers a land area of 676,552 sq km and stretches for over 1,930 km from the inaccessible N Himalayan region to the S tip of the Tenasserim region, which extends down the Kra of Isthmus and faces the Andaman Sea. It is about the size of the United Kingdom and France combined and twice the size of Vietnam. Burma borders India and Bangladesh to the NW and W, China and Laos to the NE and Thailand to the E and SE. It is shaped like a rhomboid with the long, narrow Tenasserim region with jungle covered mountains. Its borders do not correspond to ethnic boundaries - they are mainly defined by mountain ranges, which surround Burma on 3 sides and form a great horseshoe enclosing the Irrawaddy, Chindwin and Sittang river systems. Burma's mountains pose great obstacles to commerce and transportation, impeding E-W communication. Even during British colonial times, when Burma was part of the Indian Empire, the links between Burma and India were exclusively by sea. The mountains also prevent the SW monsoon from blowing into central Burma: the annual rainfall on the W Arakan coast usually exceeds 5,000 mm, whereas in central Burma - the Dry Zone - the annual rainfall may be as low as 640 mm.
The huge and rugged Shan Plateau borders Thailand and runs the length of the states of Karen and Tenasserim. The N borders are high in the remote Himalayan region, which is partly a continuation of China's Yunnan plateau. The Burmese, Chinese and Indian frontiers meet next to Burma's highest peak, the Hkakobo Razi (5,881 m), which overlooks E Tibet. The N border with China runs for 2,185 km and the Kachin Hills has long been a disputed area. The Bangladesh and Indian borders follow the natural barrier formed by the Chin, Patkai, Manipur and Naga hills. These are actually substantial mountains, rather than hills, and the frontier line runs from mountaintop to mountaintop.

 

A seemingly minor but important point,

Hitler could not even manage Operation Sealion, the invasion of England.

Actually, more accurately, Hitler did not even attempt Op Seelowe.

Germany collapsed rather quickly in both WWII and WWi.

Not really, the Germans hardly "collapsed" against the Soviet Union in spite of the fact they were steadily loosing territory more or less after the Battle of Moscow, yes there were territorial gains in summer 1942, but basically for the rest of the war there they lost steadily, yes they still lost but Collapse...?

Even in WWI I don't see how 4 years of continual war followed by blockade, starvation and mutiny at home can really be considered a "rather quick" collapse.

 

i dont think the usa would condone the destruction of germany and the killing of 30 million civilians in the process...the allies were far more civilised than that!

the goal would be to win with the least number of casualties sustained on both sides with the minimum amount of effort.

 

http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2395


I find it interesting that some would consider discussing the notion that Patton would attack the USSR after Germany's demise..

(most telling

If Japan was defeated first... Perhaps..

How does that relate to this thread.

Ok Japan is defeated, Patton is Supreme Shaef commander, the European landings are a success.

What next, after Russia capitulates..


He coulda been a happy man..with or without the bomb, which was sucessfully tested while Truman was in Potsdam. So would Churchill been happy.. As an excuse for pusshing the point, Churchill could site Russias help in invading Poland in 1939.


The question comes..

Wouild the western allies connquered Germany AND Russia..

Which is a real possibility, and negates the topic of this thread..

I KNOW THE GAMES (THREADS) NOT OVER, BUT I CAN SEE A POSSIBLE CHECKMATE SOLUTION.

ooops caps off..


Patton and Russia: another 'what if thread' at least...

http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2395








what conclusions can be drawn?

 

I got the impression they would have carpet nuked Japan

"Wars End" Chas Sweeny- Bocks Car commander..

 

History would seem to suggest otherwise, prime examples being the Hamburg Firestorms, and the incendiary bombing campaign against Japan. Not condemning these actions (Not condoning them either), but these don't seem to fit with the actions of a wartime beligerent taking great care to avoid civilian casualties.

 

I am trying to think, in 230 years of American history has there even ever been an unsuccesfull American landing?

Well, there were about 100 American rangers at Dnieppe and at Anzio we took a drumming. Inchon however was a success.

1804
Feb 16 Lt Stephen Decatur leads 74 men into Tripoli harbor, boards the captured US frigate Philadelphia, kills all but 2 of the crew, torches the Philadelphia and escapes without losing a man, in an act British Admiral Horatio Nelson later calls the "most daring act of the age."


Africa, Asia, Pacific, Europe, Central America. Caribbean.. Tampico MX




Please correct me if I am wrong.


I feel this is a point to be considered.






I wonder about Germany and Russia allied against the USA and GB.

I posted about this earlier. My source was:

www.kp.ru 24 Feb 2005

If Moscow and Berlin were simutaneously nuked, would it it have been different than in Japan?

 

Stonewall... lets keep on topic here.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong.


I feel this is a point to be considered.

Why? With all due respect the men that took part in the 1804 raid were long dead by the time of 1943/44 and in any case that was a very different time and a very different war with very different technology to WWII.

Inchon was much later (Korea) and under different circumstances.

So they'd never failed before? So what? There's a first time for everything.

When before had they attemped something as audacious as Overlord? If that'd done that before against a modern army of a major power (1940's standards) then yes, there's a precedent, otherwise I don't think that's particularly relevant.

I wonder about Germany and Russia allied against the USA and GB

Very unlikely scenario, the Germans in particular would have been far more likely to throw their lot in with the western allies...

 

Psanzerman...

What is 'off topic'?

The notion of a united Germany and Russia, after the USSR capitulates, or the notion of that thaere has never been an unsucessfull American landing in 230 years?


You have posted only once before on this thread...

There are many pages here, have you even read the whole thread?...

 

Well, Simon, if I am Manchester United, and I had a lifetime record of 100-0.

Where would you put your money? That would be the best example I can come up with.

>There's a first time for everything


Sure, but that does really refute the facts, I have never made a hole in one either. I doubt I ever will.

If you were playing golfer that did, every hole he ever played, would you bet that you could beat him in 18 holes?

Even if he didn't make a "hole in one" on one try, I doubt you would win the match.


But you are right, the allies could have possibly been defeated in one try.

Even if the US and the allies had been beaten once.. Try, try, again.

It is hard to argue against an undefeatedted record.

Generally undeated world heavy weight champs get old and retire by 45.

230 years is a bit longer.

As I said, nobody can mention one unsucessful American landing anywhere, ever.

It is possible though.


The Germans believed they could have stopped us at Calais..

But it never happened, did it.

 

Honestly, I do not really understand this thread.
Maybe some things should be clarified, since it appears that no one really knows which scenario were talking about.

- Are Germany and Russia allies?
- Is Russia just neutral?
- Has Russia been conquered by Germany?

- Is Britain still in the war?
- Is Britain neutral?
- Has Britain been conquered?

After this is answered one can really discuss how a US landing in Europe could have taken place.

 

good point ..

Indeed, there are a variety of scenarios

 

The problem is that there are such huge differences that to use your analogy it's like saying:

"Manchester United have a 100-0 winning streak at football, who are you going to bet on for this Golf match?"

I do agree with you thought that I still believe that the Western Allies could be successful and that all the ingredients that established a successful beachhead during Overlord could be successful in an alternative history.

What I disagree with is the relevance of looking back that far in history.

Taken as a whole mounted troops were very successful in combat against infantry, didn't make them too good in WWI against infantry though.

 

*sighs & shakes head*

the nearest and best example we have was Overlord itself. As Simon pointed out, all other examples are irrelevant. It is like Lord Chelmsford pointing out that the British have always defeated he zulus before, so we must win now...

Right, Overlord.
America, Britain & Canada invade at 5 points in Normandy, against reasonable German infantry & fortification opposition.

They fail to meet their objectives, but do gain a toehold which they keep thanks to massive air & naval support.

After a grinding fight they break out of the beachead and start to move quite rapidly across Europe, were supplies permit!

Ok, so, Now imagine that scenario again, with minor changes.

1) a better prepared, better equipped Atlantic Wall.
2) much more German units in the area
3) possibly more Luftwaffe prescence

Would they even get their toe-hold?


But Castelot is right, each different scenario will have its own probable outcomes.

 

"Manchester United have a 100-0 winning streak at football, who are you going to bet on for this Golf match?"



LOL, I would bet they could beat me in one...

Seriously... They play football, knda like the New York Yankees.. (damn them) play baseball, the game has changed in 100 years, but they still win a lot of championships.