WI: Operation Compass extended?

[575]

Apr 5, 2022 1:56:51 GMT melanie said:

Despite what "The Big Hooter" (De Gaulle) and his acolytes claimed once the war was safely over, Vichy was, on paper at least, the legal government of France and the USA in OTL was *very* reluctant to abandon the Vichy-ists.

If the Germans occupy Vichy due to a French North Africa defection there will be no legal French Government and de Gaulle may assume that function.

[575]

Apr 5, 2022 4:45:40 GMT simon darkshade said:

Early victory in North Africa changes the whole war. Full stop.

It not only changes the scope of the logistical/shipping war by opening up the Med, but it cuts off a running sore of RN losses in 1941 and even 1942. It would remove a front where the Germans could be engaged on land, which is a detriment to experience, but an immense saving in money, men and equipment - the majority of the ~35,000 killed/220,000 casualties will not occur, nor the loss of ~2000 tanks. Both of these factors add up to the potential for Japan to be utterly stuffed in SE Asia, which then has a further flow on effect on men, money and munitions for elsewhere.

Germany will be bombed more heavily, but there will be a perceived need to be seen to be aiding the USSR against ze Germans; the numbers of troops diverted to the Western Desert and Balkans are minor enough in the Brobdignagian scale of the Eastern Front. What form will this take? In my view, most likely a descent upon Northern Norway. This would allow for a more efficacious flow of supplies via the Arctic and squeeze the U-Boat threat that little bit more.

There would still be an additional perceived need - take on/knock out Italy. I can see the logical towards neutralising Sicily in some fashion, particularly if FNA is 'friendly'.

Where does this ultimately flow in my view? A D-Day landing in 1943.

Oi, Winnie would definitely like this one. And it would pave the way for much less losses in Arctic Waters.

Hitler would be out of his mind to reinforce Norway and recapture whats lost IF the British pulls it off.

Sure the British will like to take out Italy for real and the French aid in this though the build up will be Huge and the British doesn't have the experienced Para's. Of course all dependent upon US entry (at least in my book).

[melanie]

If the Western Allies invade Norway in TTL. Hitler *will* have to divert troops to both Norway - *and* also Denmark so there isn't an immediate Allied attack after the Allies win Oslo. This will substantially weaken *other* German-held areas and fronts. I think old Adolf will be going poo poo in his trousers.

[stevep]

Apr 5, 2022 4:45:40 GMT simon darkshade said:

Early victory in North Africa changes the whole war. Full stop.

It not only changes the scope of the logistical/shipping war by opening up the Med, but it cuts off a running sore of RN losses in 1941 and even 1942. It would remove a front where the Germans could be engaged on land, which is a detriment to experience, but an immense saving in money, men and equipment - the majority of the ~35,000 killed/220,000 casualties will not occur, nor the loss of ~2000 tanks. Both of these factors add up to the potential for Japan to be utterly stuffed in SE Asia, which then has a further flow on effect on men, money and munitions for elsewhere.

Germany will be bombed more heavily, but there will be a perceived need to be seen to be aiding the USSR against ze Germans; the numbers of troops diverted to the Western Desert and Balkans are minor enough in the Brobdignagian scale of the Eastern Front. What form will this take? In my view, most likely a descent upon Northern Norway. This would allow for a more efficacious flow of supplies via the Arctic and squeeze the U-Boat threat that little bit more.

There would still be an additional perceived need - take on/knock out Italy. I can see the logical towards neutralising Sicily in some fashion, particularly if FNA is 'friendly'.

Where does this ultimately flow in my view? A D-Day landing in 1943.

  The question is would a 43 D Day landing work?  If we're assuming no combat in the Med other than a possible conquest of Sicily then will the allies have enough experience at amphibious assault in such circumstances.  There would be some gained from Sicily and possibly lessons transferred from marine experience in the Pacific but landing in stormy northern waters is going to be more difficult.  Would there be the knowledge and time to develop things like Hobart's funnies and the Mulberry harbours?  Also it gives a year less to weakened the Luftwaffe and also defeat the U boats so that massive forces could be trained, built up in Britain and supplied there.  OTL it was only really in spring 43 that the ASW forces started really getting on top of the U boats.

  Also without Operation Torch and the German reaction there are not going to be ~300,000+ men lost in Tunisia and a hell of a lot of air forces and other equipment.  Some of this is likely to be lost in a larger Stalingrad or aftermath - although as discussed elsewhere things could go badly here but your likely to have more German forces in N France than OTL 1943 and possibly than OTL 44.

  I'm not saying that a 43 invasion will inevitably fail.  However I think its going to be a hell of a lot closer than OTL and could be a disaster for the allies.  Furthermore such an invasion will interact with any operations on the eastern front, which could go well or badly for the allies.

 

[stevep]

Apr 5, 2022 12:44:37 GMT melanie said:

If the Western Allies invade Norway in TTL. Hitler *will* have to divert troops to both Norway - *and* also Denmark so there isn't an immediate Allied attack after the Allies win Oslo. This will substantially weaken *other* German-held areas and fronts. I think old Adolf will be going poo poo in his trousers.

  OTL Hitler was expecting an invasion and kept ~300,000 men garrisoned there right to the end of the war.  An operation to liberate northern Norway could work and reduce the losses on the northern convoys to Russia but its going to be risky and simply operating so far north will be costly in itself.  Advancing southwards could be difficult as well given the terrain favours the defence and Germany could resupply easier than the allies.  Unless we could possibly persuade Sweden to enter the war - also likely have Finland switching sides which would be unpopular with Stalin I suspect.

  If we could open a successful Scandinavia front - although whether getting Swedish support is practical I don't know - then that could greatly shorten the war.  Without that however its likely to be a relatively limited backwater.

[stevep]

Apr 5, 2022 10:51:15 GMT 575 said:

Apr 4, 2022 13:15:10 GMT stevep said:

   575

   If FNA goes allied then while he would like to go into Spain I don't think Hitler will be able to do so because he really, really wants to attack the Soviets ASAP.  He's already been using the excuse that Britain is continuing the war because its relying on Soviet support at some stage and IF captured he would gain a lot of raw materials, provided the Germans could efficiently exploit them.  I can't see him being willing to delay past later spring/early summer 41, especially if he has some idea how heavily the Red Army is reequipping. 

  If FNA went allied which would mean allied control of Tunisia especially then the obvious next step for them would be Sicily.  It would actually take some time given how stretched British resources are but its a viable target and sooner or later Hitler might have to think about it, although he would probably wait for the 'successful' conquest of the USSR this summer/autumn.

  If FIC was to try and join the allies then I suspect Japan will at least consider occupying the south - they already occupy the north.  How Britain responds to this I don't know.  It doesn't really have the forces to fight Japan as well as Germany and Italy but it may feel it has no choice and also we have Churchill in charge.  It would cause issues for both powers as well as the US.  I can't see Germany seeking to restrain Japan from doing this, especially if the colony has declared for the FF.  They didn't act OTL when either part of the colony were taken over by Japan despite Vichy being still in existence.  I suspect that Thailand would still feel obliged to favour Japan simply because their the immediate threat on the border while the Japanese OTL [and possibly even more of it here] gave the Thais territory from FIC.

  Gaining a lot of the French fleet, especially if its sailors would serve with the FF - calling them that for the moment although it could merge with other groups - would be a big gain.  Also without such heavy fighting in N Africa and the Med there is a lot less pressure on the RN and merchant marine.  Lighter units can be freed up to help against the U boats while supplies for forces in the region can be landed in Morocco and then shipped overland rather than having to be shipped around Africa.  It could actually be harder to get supplies such as oil from the Gulf to any front line as with the lack of a railway in Libya or western Egypt they would have to be shipped by sea and vulnerable to Axis air and sea attack so could see as much as practical come from the Atlantic.

  Steve

Steve

I looked up Fuhrer Directive 18 Gibraltar- regarding Gibraltar but really is toughts on how to manage before Barbarossa. Dated 12. November 1940. This is post the Italian attack on Egypt which is mentioned but also post the meeting of Hitler and Franco in Hendaye 23. October. This timeline suggest that the planning of Operation Felix - invasion of Spain to capture Gibraltar was nothing but a contingency plan. The Canaris mission to Spain envisioned in the Directive had been undertaken from 22. July 1940 and a meeting of Canaris and Franco. Canaris met on 7. December 1940 Franco who rejected participating in the war as he did 23. October 1940.

The Directive also outlined the Balkan campaign Marita-Mercury though the Italian call for support in the war against Greece only took place on 28. December 1940.

Even if Directive 20 on the execution of Marita-Mercury only was signed by Hitler 13. December 1940 the plan had been in place since 12. November 1940 though it don't detail occupation of Yugoslavia.

No I don't think a German go at Gibraltar through Spain is in the cards; if FNA rebels then Spain would be even less eager to join up for fear of losing its NA colonies and Atlantic possessions which would only reinforce the British.

As Hitlers roadmap (yes I know modern term..) is leading to Barbarossa as soon as possible anything else will be a distraction. The real stone in the shoe would be FNA rebellion which SHOULD bring Directive 19 - occupation of Vichy - into effect. Though avoiding a garrision of 100,000 German troops there is it going to happen?

The British Middle East Reserve would be freed once Italian East Africa is defeated by May 1941 the rest being mopping up till 27. November 1941.

IF FNA rebelling don't trigger Directive 19 occupation of Vichy there still shouldn't be a Rashid Ali rebellion and quiet in ME. Dentz French commander in Syria may waver back and forth as what to do; besides a relative large motorized force he don't have much to impede the British.

So if the Japanese decide to occupy the rest of FIC by the end of the FIC-Thai war ending late January 1941 the British does have a force to send there; maybe even into Burma to keep the Road open? That may disrupt some Japanese planning having to put more emphasis on Burma to close the Road.

With the US and others in light of the British success in NA few may like to give in to the Japanese except the FIC that have their warships cruising its waters post the FIC-Thai War. The situation may prompt the Japanese to an earlier decision to go south than 2. July 1941 and speed up preparations.

575

  I think if FNA switches sides then Hitler, even if he continued to recognise a rump Vichy government, probably under Lavel, would have German forces occupying parts of it, especially the main ports and landing areas. 

  If Japan occupies FIC earlier, possibly because it seeks to join the allies, then that could well speed up their plans for a drive to the south.  Especially since this would draw UK and allied forces eastwards for garrisoning Malaya and Burma more and also trigger US and UK sanctions earlier.  However not sure of two factors.

a)  Their last two CVs for the start of the war, Shōkaku & Zuikaku were only commissioned in August and September 41 so they would be without them and also possibly other units.  Also until Hitler goes into Russia and the army suggests to also attack the Soviets the army will strongly oppose such a strike.  Both because it would mean more prestige for the navy, their bitter rival, and because without the Germans tying down the Soviets they would fear them possibly attack Manchuria.

b)  One issue is the monsoon, which see Monsoon in south and east Asia seems to affect those regions between ~May and September.  Those hit areas across from India to S China and Taiwan so its unlikely that Japan would launch an attack until this was over.  Which would restrict the time gained by Japan.  I think given how long Japan spent anyway negotiating with the US I think would happen anyway.  So I suspect that an actual attack may be only a couple of months earlier than OTL.  Which would give time for Britain to clear E Africa and start moving forces east and the US wouldn't lose much time either in terms of preparation.

[simon darkshade]

Apr 5, 2022 13:52:38 GMT stevep said:

Apr 5, 2022 4:45:40 GMT simon darkshade said:

Early victory in North Africa changes the whole war. Full stop.

It not only changes the scope of the logistical/shipping war by opening up the Med, but it cuts off a running sore of RN losses in 1941 and even 1942. It would remove a front where the Germans could be engaged on land, which is a detriment to experience, but an immense saving in money, men and equipment - the majority of the ~35,000 killed/220,000 casualties will not occur, nor the loss of ~2000 tanks. Both of these factors add up to the potential for Japan to be utterly stuffed in SE Asia, which then has a further flow on effect on men, money and munitions for elsewhere.

Germany will be bombed more heavily, but there will be a perceived need to be seen to be aiding the USSR against ze Germans; the numbers of troops diverted to the Western Desert and Balkans are minor enough in the Brobdignagian scale of the Eastern Front. What form will this take? In my view, most likely a descent upon Northern Norway. This would allow for a more efficacious flow of supplies via the Arctic and squeeze the U-Boat threat that little bit more.

There would still be an additional perceived need - take on/knock out Italy. I can see the logical towards neutralising Sicily in some fashion, particularly if FNA is 'friendly'.

Where does this ultimately flow in my view? A D-Day landing in 1943.

  The question is would a 43 D Day landing work?  If we're assuming no combat in the Med other than a possible conquest of Sicily then will the allies have enough experience at amphibious assault in such circumstances.  There would be some gained from Sicily and possibly lessons transferred from marine experience in the Pacific but landing in stormy northern waters is going to be more difficult.  Would there be the knowledge and time to develop things like Hobart's funnies and the Mulberry harbours?  Also it gives a year less to weakened the Luftwaffe and also defeat the U boats so that massive forces could be trained, built up in Britain and supplied there.  OTL it was only really in spring 43 that the ASW forces started really getting on top of the U boats.

  Also without Operation Torch and the German reaction there are not going to be ~300,000+ men lost in Tunisia and a hell of a lot of air forces and other equipment.  Some of this is likely to be lost in a larger Stalingrad or aftermath - although as discussed elsewhere things could go badly here but your likely to have more German forces in N France than OTL 1943 and possibly than OTL 44.

  I'm not saying that a 43 invasion will inevitably fail.  However I think its going to be a hell of a lot closer than OTL and could be a disaster for the allies.  Furthermore such an invasion will interact with any operations on the eastern front, which could go well or badly for the allies.

 

Steve,

A lot of what you raise is correct, but I think there would be pressure to do it anyway:

- Regarding experience, there was Sicily, Salerno and Anzio pre D-Day in @, along with the Pacific ops. The latter two weren’t the decisive factors in influencing Overlord in my view.
- Yes to the Funnies and Mulberry, which came from overall drivers rather than Sep 43 and Jan 44 drivers; both were the children of Dieppe.
- Opening the Med means more ships (escorts) in the Atlantic in 1941 and 1942, making it a case of swings and roundabouts.
- Knocking the Luftwaffe for six did take 18 months, so will be a factor.
- It would be a closer run show, but put up against it is the potential for a fair bit of force available otherwise chewed up in Africa.

It is the first piece in a winning puzzle. Deter or strangle Japan’s push south and there is the better part of 40 Allied divisions freed up.

[stevep]

Apr 5, 2022 16:00:54 GMT simon darkshade said:

Apr 5, 2022 13:52:38 GMT stevep said:

  The question is would a 43 D Day landing work?  If we're assuming no combat in the Med other than a possible conquest of Sicily then will the allies have enough experience at amphibious assault in such circumstances.  There would be some gained from Sicily and possibly lessons transferred from marine experience in the Pacific but landing in stormy northern waters is going to be more difficult.  Would there be the knowledge and time to develop things like Hobart's funnies and the Mulberry harbours?  Also it gives a year less to weakened the Luftwaffe and also defeat the U boats so that massive forces could be trained, built up in Britain and supplied there.  OTL it was only really in spring 43 that the ASW forces started really getting on top of the U boats.

  Also without Operation Torch and the German reaction there are not going to be ~300,000+ men lost in Tunisia and a hell of a lot of air forces and other equipment.  Some of this is likely to be lost in a larger Stalingrad or aftermath - although as discussed elsewhere things could go badly here but your likely to have more German forces in N France than OTL 1943 and possibly than OTL 44.

  I'm not saying that a 43 invasion will inevitably fail.  However I think its going to be a hell of a lot closer than OTL and could be a disaster for the allies.  Furthermore such an invasion will interact with any operations on the eastern front, which could go well or badly for the allies.

 

Steve,

A lot of what you raise is correct, but I think there would be pressure to do it anyway:

- Regarding experience, there was Sicily, Salerno and Anzio pre D-Day in @, along with the Pacific ops. The latter two weren’t the decisive factors in influencing Overlord in my view.
- Yes to the Funnies and Mulberry, which came from overall drivers rather than Sep 43 and Jan 44 drivers; both were the children of Dieppe.
- Opening the Med means more ships (escorts) in the Atlantic in 1941 and 1942, making it a case of swings and roundabouts.
- Knocking the Luftwaffe for six did take 18 months, so will be a factor.
- It would be a closer run show, but put up against it is the potential for a fair bit of force available otherwise chewed up in Africa.

It is the first piece in a winning puzzle. Deter or strangle Japan’s push south and there is the better part of 40 Allied divisions freed up.

  Simon

  Its not just amphibious experience but also general experience.  If N Africa is liberated in 1941 and later the allies take Sicily there is very little experience gained, especially by the US army in terms of general operations.  You could have something like the Kasserine Pass occurring during the landing operation which could be disastrous for the entire operation.  Ditto with both UK & US experience in air support for ground forces.

  With Mulberry its not just the idea, assuming Dieppe still occurs, but the time and resources.  Will the UK be able to spare such in 1943 with the U boat war still not won.  The forces freed up from the Med being a lot quieter will help but you could see an earlier war with Japan and that would drain RN resources especially.  Even without that I doubt your going to have a clear victory in the Battle of the Atlantic significantly earlier than OTL and you need to get a lot of forces and supplies for them into the UK without the country suffering even greater shortages itself.

  Deterring or strangling a Japanese drive south could still tie up forces for most of 42 and a good chunk of 43.

  Also would there be the necessary resources for the transport network in N France to be pounded like it was for about 6 months by the strategic bombers and what opportunity costs would there be for that?

  As I said I'm not saying that a 43 invasion of France will definitely failure but its going to be a hell of a lot less certain than OTL Overlord and failure here could have wider consequences as well.

  Steve

[575]

Apr 5, 2022 12:44:37 GMT melanie said:

If the Western Allies invade Norway in TTL. Hitler *will* have to divert troops to both Norway - *and* also Denmark so there isn't an immediate Allied attack after the Allies win Oslo. This will substantially weaken *other* German-held areas and fronts. I think old Adolf will be going poo poo in his trousers.

As stevep pointed to Hitler did build up a substantial force in Norway. Its size would make a landing difficult but also the terrain in Norway is difficult to say the least. It is also very from Britain so a large Carrier force would be needed to establish air-supremacy/superiority if possible though on the other hand the terrain don't make for much space for large airfields.

In contrast Denmark do so and the Jutland airfields were some of the largest in German occupied Europe. Jutland isn't very invadable the coast is very shallow and only one real port at the time in south - Esbjerg. When you get in land there is the possibility of getting bottled up in Jutland due to the narrow front at the border 50km/31mi.

[simon darkshade]

In Norway, the target would be going ‘oop north’. Nothing south of Bodo and focus on grabbing Narvik. Go just before winter.

Steve might remember the notion presented from APOD/FFO a dozen years ago or so. Hit the North, take Narvik and get access to the iron; plus getting the Soviets to do their part in pinning down Jerry for Overlord.

[575]

Apr 5, 2022 14:17:43 GMT stevep said:

Apr 5, 2022 10:51:15 GMT 575 said:

Steve

I looked up Fuhrer Directive 18 Gibraltar- regarding Gibraltar but really is toughts on how to manage before Barbarossa. Dated 12. November 1940. This is post the Italian attack on Egypt which is mentioned but also post the meeting of Hitler and Franco in Hendaye 23. October. This timeline suggest that the planning of Operation Felix - invasion of Spain to capture Gibraltar was nothing but a contingency plan. The Canaris mission to Spain envisioned in the Directive had been undertaken from 22. July 1940 and a meeting of Canaris and Franco. Canaris met on 7. December 1940 Franco who rejected participating in the war as he did 23. October 1940.

The Directive also outlined the Balkan campaign Marita-Mercury though the Italian call for support in the war against Greece only took place on 28. December 1940.

Even if Directive 20 on the execution of Marita-Mercury only was signed by Hitler 13. December 1940 the plan had been in place since 12. November 1940 though it don't detail occupation of Yugoslavia.

No I don't think a German go at Gibraltar through Spain is in the cards; if FNA rebels then Spain would be even less eager to join up for fear of losing its NA colonies and Atlantic possessions which would only reinforce the British.

As Hitlers roadmap (yes I know modern term..) is leading to Barbarossa as soon as possible anything else will be a distraction. The real stone in the shoe would be FNA rebellion which SHOULD bring Directive 19 - occupation of Vichy - into effect. Though avoiding a garrision of 100,000 German troops there is it going to happen?

The British Middle East Reserve would be freed once Italian East Africa is defeated by May 1941 the rest being mopping up till 27. November 1941.

IF FNA rebelling don't trigger Directive 19 occupation of Vichy there still shouldn't be a Rashid Ali rebellion and quiet in ME. Dentz French commander in Syria may waver back and forth as what to do; besides a relative large motorized force he don't have much to impede the British.

So if the Japanese decide to occupy the rest of FIC by the end of the FIC-Thai war ending late January 1941 the British does have a force to send there; maybe even into Burma to keep the Road open? That may disrupt some Japanese planning having to put more emphasis on Burma to close the Road.

With the US and others in light of the British success in NA few may like to give in to the Japanese except the FIC that have their warships cruising its waters post the FIC-Thai War. The situation may prompt the Japanese to an earlier decision to go south than 2. July 1941 and speed up preparations.

575

  I think if FNA switches sides then Hitler, even if he continued to recognise a rump Vichy government, probably under Lavel, would have German forces occupying parts of it, especially the main ports and landing areas. 

  If Japan occupies FIC earlier, possibly because it seeks to join the allies, then that could well speed up their plans for a drive to the south.  Especially since this would draw UK and allied forces eastwards for garrisoning Malaya and Burma more and also trigger US and UK sanctions earlier.  However not sure of two factors.

a)  Their last two CVs for the start of the war, Shōkaku & Zuikaku were only commissioned in August and September 41 so they would be without them and also possibly other units.  Also until Hitler goes into Russia and the army suggests to also attack the Soviets the army will strongly oppose such a strike.  Both because it would mean more prestige for the navy, their bitter rival, and because without the Germans tying down the Soviets they would fear them possibly attack Manchuria.

b)  One issue is the monsoon, which see Monsoon in south and east Asia seems to affect those regions between ~May and September.  Those hit areas across from India to S China and Taiwan so its unlikely that Japan would launch an attack until this was over.  Which would restrict the time gained by Japan.  I think given how long Japan spent anyway negotiating with the US I think would happen anyway.  So I suspect that an actual attack may be only a couple of months earlier than OTL.  Which would give time for Britain to clear E Africa and start moving forces east and the US wouldn't lose much time either in terms of preparation.

Hitler having to occupy even parts of Vichy France may offset the advantage of not comitting forces to Africa; thus little gain in Russia.

Japan occupying FIC early may accelerate the British - US - Dutch sanctions leading to war (I had to read the 2. sentence of a) a couple of times!) though prior to 22. June 1941 the Japanese Army may be reluctant to go.

ITTL the British will have the possibility of moving troops from the Mid East Reserve to SEA.

Hmm, monsoon. The FIC-Thai war ended 28. January 1941 so some time may elapse before the Japanese occupy the rest of FIC and subsequent responses may take monsoon into account though still a period of some three months to consider.

Any British action will depend on troops moved into the area; the Dutch in SEA won't do much aggression and the US isn't at war. Getting French reinforcements to FIC will probably be a kind of hit or miss as to the timeframe; overcome politics in FNA - train troops for FIC - move troops to FIC.. The British if things in East Africa goes OTL timeframe can release troops by 16. May 1941 when the Italians in EA surrender; the French will need time to talk it out from late February 1941 OTL that process following Operation Torch took almost 7 months. Here with no ally to complicate matters the British may have an earlier result but still it will leave little time for moving French troops to FIC.

[575]

The positive about an invasion in Western Europe in 1943 is that German beach defences is still point defence not really invasion defences.
Norway should be up north - if it succeeds it will help the Swedes moving closer to the Allies as well as cutting communications for the German Army in the Arctic with Norway.

[stevep]

Apr 7, 2022 17:52:31 GMT 575 said:

The positive about an invasion in Western Europe in 1943 is that German beach defences is still point defence not really invasion defences.
Norway should be up north - if it succeeds it will help the Swedes moving closer to the Allies as well as cutting communications for the German Army in the Arctic with Norway.

  That assumes that they don't react to the changing circumstances.  If there's clear signs of a massive build up of US ground forces especially in Britain and a major campaign of attacks on the rail infrastructure of N France then their likely to start preparing defences and sending more forces to the theatre.  Plus as I say without the OTL Tunisia disaster at a similar time to Stalingrad both Germans and Italians are going to lose a lot less men and equipment.  The Italians are important here as it might mean less German forces committed to Italy.

  Also assuming Rommel doesn't have a significant role, due to no dramatic career in N Africa you may not get the problems the Germans have with the armoured reserve of OTL.  I.e. it being split between close defence of the beaches and a strike force further back and also the latter only being released on Hitler's personal say.  True their likely to be hammered by air power but the allies are probably going to be weaker in air strength and less experienced in ground support/air interdiction.

  Although factor, presuming that the eastern front goes roughly similar to OTL how does that affect the dynamics.  If a large scale invasion looks likely in the west and also the Germans have suffered heavy losses in the east but has a slight revival to counter attack as OTL what do they do?  Assuming there is still an obvious attack point, i.e. a Kursk salient then there are three options

a)  Attack in July as OTL - which seems unlikely to me, especially as the allied invasion is likely to occur before then and going to pull reserves westward if its not defeated or allow units to go eastwards if it is.

b)  Try to attack in the east once the mud drives and before the Soviets have built up their forces and massive defensive positions.

c)  Wait for both allied attacks to occur.  Seek to drive the allies back into the sea and then counter attack any Soviet attack in the east.  This would also raise the question of co-ordination between the western allies and Stalin.  Do they try and time things for a simultaneous attack?  This could see Stalin insisting on waiting for the allied landings to occur before he launches any attack.  Or him angry if there is an appointed time and either bad weather delays the western landings or causes the latter to be quickly defeated. 

[575]

Apr 8, 2022 9:58:14 GMT stevep said:

Apr 7, 2022 17:52:31 GMT 575 said:

The positive about an invasion in Western Europe in 1943 is that German beach defences is still point defence not really invasion defences.
Norway should be up north - if it succeeds it will help the Swedes moving closer to the Allies as well as cutting communications for the German Army in the Arctic with Norway.

  That assumes that they don't react to the changing circumstances.  If there's clear signs of a massive build up of US ground forces especially in Britain and a major campaign of attacks on the rail infrastructure of N France then their likely to start preparing defences and sending more forces to the theatre.  Plus as I say without the OTL Tunisia disaster at a similar time to Stalingrad both Germans and Italians are going to lose a lot less men and equipment.  The Italians are important here as it might mean less German forces committed to Italy.

  Also assuming Rommel doesn't have a significant role, due to no dramatic career in N Africa you may not get the problems the Germans have with the armoured reserve of OTL.  I.e. it being split between close defence of the beaches and a strike force further back and also the latter only being released on Hitler's personal say.  True their likely to be hammered by air power but the allies are probably going to be weaker in air strength and less experienced in ground support/air interdiction.

  Although factor, presuming that the eastern front goes roughly similar to OTL how does that affect the dynamics.  If a large scale invasion looks likely in the west and also the Germans have suffered heavy losses in the east but has a slight revival to counter attack as OTL what do they do?  Assuming there is still an obvious attack point, i.e. a Kursk salient then there are three options

a)  Attack in July as OTL - which seems unlikely to me, especially as the allied invasion is likely to occur before then and going to pull reserves westward if its not defeated or allow units to go eastwards if it is.

b)  Try to attack in the east once the mud drives and before the Soviets have built up their forces and massive defensive positions.

c)  Wait for both allied attacks to occur.  Seek to drive the allies back into the sea and then counter attack any Soviet attack in the east.  This would also raise the question of co-ordination between the western allies and Stalin.  Do they try and time things for a simultaneous attack?  This could see Stalin insisting on waiting for the allied landings to occur before he launches any attack.  Or him angry if there is an appointed time and either bad weather delays the western landings or causes the latter to be quickly defeated. 

Of course the Germans will start building invasion defences at some point however when will depend on ITTL sequence of events. If the Allies (Britain, France, US) pulls off a successful invasion of North Norway during 1942 or -3 that will of course prompt the Germans into action.

Another trigger may be a vigorous Allied (British, French) activity in the Med 1941-2/3 going for islands in the Greek part (Crete, Rhodes) and Sardinia, Corsica and Sicily. That should alert the most thickheaded German to the danger.

Hmm 1943 I haven't yet reached 1942 in my mind.

Will think this over - have to go to work at 5 PM! Perhaps a broadside tomorrow or Sunday (won't be going to Church - well don't anticipate but then predictions about the future fail so often..)

[melanie]

575, stevep, Good points. How will the Norwegian Resistance/Norwegian anti-German partisans react and coordinate with the Allied invasion of Northern Norway?