Discussion:
Fastest Hitler could be beaten
(too old to reply)
SolomonW
2015-10-25 05:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Let assume that you are an allied planner in early 1942. What could you do
that would significantly speed up Hitler's fall? Could it cause a change
that has Hitler defeated in 1944?
Don Phillipson
2015-10-25 20:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Let assume that you are an allied planner in early 1942. What could you do
that would significantly speed up Hitler's fall? Could it cause a change
that has Hitler defeated in 1944?
On the Western front, the likeliest changes seem to be
(1) Better army tactics, to reduce the casualties actually
suffered in Normandy before Op. Cobra, and thus enable
continued advance beyond the Scheldt or across the upper
Rhine in 1944. But this may have been unfeasible (i.e. there
was not time for even the lessons of Kasserine let alone Anzio
to travel up to US army command and then down through the
training system.
(Plenty of Allied commanders believed in August they
could win victory before Christmas, thus lost heart in
November after Market Garden failed and Patton's advance
was held back by lack of fuel. Tactics altered when
commanders agreed they would have to support troops
in the field through the winter.)
(2) The British rather than the American replacement
system (e.g. rotating battalions or brigades out of the
front line, returning healed wounded to their old units
rather than sending them to the most undermanned, etc.)
(3) Strategic decision to focus SHAEF power on either
Patton in the south or else Montgomery in the north.
But this would probably have required fuel and supply
resources SHAEF may have been unable to provide.
(3b) General Alan Brooke to SHAEF instead of either
Montgomery or Bradley ?

No plausible changes seem in view for the Eastern front.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Malcom Mal Reynolds
2015-10-26 18:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by SolomonW
Let assume that you are an allied planner in early 1942. What could you do
that would significantly speed up Hitler's fall? Could it cause a change
that has Hitler defeated in 1944?
On the Western front, the likeliest changes seem to be
(1) Better army tactics, to reduce the casualties actually
suffered in Normandy before Op. Cobra, and thus enable
continued advance beyond the Scheldt or across the upper
Rhine in 1944. But this may have been unfeasible (i.e. there
was not time for even the lessons of Kasserine let alone Anzio
to travel up to US army command and then down through the
training system.
(Plenty of Allied commanders believed in August they
could win victory before Christmas, thus lost heart in
November after Market Garden failed and Patton's advance
was held back by lack of fuel. Tactics altered when
commanders agreed they would have to support troops
in the field through the winter.)
(2) The British rather than the American replacement
system (e.g. rotating battalions or brigades out of the
front line, returning healed wounded to their old units
rather than sending them to the most undermanned, etc.)
(3) Strategic decision to focus SHAEF power on either
Patton in the south or else Montgomery in the north.
But this would probably have required fuel and supply
resources SHAEF may have been unable to provide.
(3b) General Alan Brooke to SHAEF instead of either
Montgomery or Bradley ?
No plausible changes seem in view for the Eastern front.
I've brought it up before, but strategically if Containerized shipping
had been implemented it might have been likely that more material would
have reach England quicker and thus to the front after Normandy
Alan Meyer
2015-10-27 04:17:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
...
No plausible changes seem in view for the Eastern front.
I disagree. I think the biggest changes with the greatest impact could
have been made on the Eastern front.

The first, biggest change would have been in 1937. Do NOT murder
Mikhail Nikolayevich Tukhachevsky and almost all of the other leaders of
the Red Army.

Do NOT terrify all of the surviving officers so that they'd rather
follow stupid orders that got all their men killed than say a single
word of criticism against the plans coming down from Moscow.

Do NOT order the entire air force to throw away their lives and their
aircraft on the first day of the war.

Do NOT order major armies to stand still and allow themselves to be
surrounded and completely annihilated.

Do NOT throw away hundreds of thousands of soldiers in frontal assaults
on impregnable German positions.

If Stalin had listened to his generals instead of killing most and
brutalizing the rest, he'd have done much better.

Alternatively, if Tukhachevsky had managed to shoot Stalin in 1937
instead of the other way around, I think the Russians could have won the
war sooner and with many fewer casualties they actually suffered.

There are some who argue that only a ruthless dictator could have
mobilized the Soviet peoples as Stalin did. Maybe. We'll never know.
But there is some reason to believe that Stalin's blunders did more harm
than his ruthlessness did good.

Alan
SolomonW
2015-10-27 15:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Meyer
The first, biggest change would have been in 1937. Do NOT murder
Mikhail Nikolayevich Tukhachevsky and almost all of the other leaders of
the Red Army.
Even if this is true, the problem here is the orginal post states

"Let assume that you are an allied planner in early 1942. What could you do
that would significantly speed up Hitler's fall? "

There is nothing a planner in 1942 could do about what happened in 1937.
Alan Meyer
2015-11-16 05:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Alan Meyer
The first, biggest change would have been in 1937. Do NOT murder
Mikhail Nikolayevich Tukhachevsky and almost all of the other leaders of
the Red Army.
Even if this is true, the problem here is the orginal post states
"Let assume that you are an allied planner in early 1942. What could you do
that would significantly speed up Hitler's fall? "
You're right of course.
Post by SolomonW
There is nothing a planner in 1942 could do about what happened in 1937.
But I wouldn't go as far as to say there was nothing that could have
been done in the east.

Even after the incredibly wasteful Russian counter-offensive at Moscow,
Stalin continued to order attacks that often amounted to sending men to
charge against massed artillery and machine guns. That continued to be
a feature of war in the east at least up until 1944 and continued to
account for excessive Russian casualties, at Kursk for example.

I can think of a number of things that could have been done in the east
to wrest control of the air away from Germany significantly earlier than
was actually done. One would have been to beef up the pilot training
regimen. Sending large numbers of unprepared pilots into combat was not
the solution to combating German air superiority. It would have been
better to give up air superiority over significant parts of the front
and come back a few months later with much more effective forces.

Another was improving tactics. Fighters were not properly coordinated
with bombers and ground attack planes until later in the war. Surely
the Red Air Force should have learned the lessons that the Luftwaffe was
teaching them much earlier than they did.

Alan
yauming
2015-11-11 19:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Meyer
I disagree. I think the biggest changes with the greatest impact could
have been made on the Eastern front.
The first, biggest change would have been in 1937. Do NOT murder
Mikhail Nikolayevich Tukhachevsky and almost all of the other leaders of
the Red Army.
Do NOT terrify all of the surviving officers so that they'd rather
follow stupid orders that got all their men killed than say a single
word of criticism against the plans coming down from Moscow.
It will always be a mystery to me why good men don't take action against
brutal horrible leaders.

Maybe it takes a truly wicked horrible man to be a leader.

Stalin, Mao, Chang Kai-Shek, Hitler... who allowed them to live so long?
Alan Meyer
2015-11-16 05:19:34 UTC
Permalink
On 11/11/2015 02:25 PM, yauming wrote:
...
Post by yauming
It will always be a mystery to me why good men don't take action against
brutal horrible leaders.
There were several known attempts to kill Hitler but he lucked out. He
escaped a bomb attempt by leaving a rally earlier than expected. He
escaped a bomb in his airplane planted in a wine bottle on the Russian
front when it failed to go off. And he escaped the famous attack by von
Stauffenberg.

Aside from luck, Hitler and Stalin were surrounded by security that was
pretty near impenetrable.

Alan
Rich Rostrom
2015-11-16 15:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Meyer
There were several known attempts to kill Hitler but he lucked out. He
escaped a bomb attempt by leaving a rally earlier than expected.
The Burgerbraukeller bomb in November 1939, on the
anniversary of the Munich putsch attempt.
Post by Alan Meyer
He escaped a bomb in his airplane planted in a wine bottle on the Russian
front when it failed to go off.
Operation FLASH in March 1943; the bomb was disguised
as a package of two bottles of cognac.
Post by Alan Meyer
And he escaped the famous attack by von Stauffenberg.
There were also two plots to suicide-bomb him in late
1943 and early 1944. The new winter uniform for the
army was to be modeled for him (and Himmler and Goering)
in December 1943. Captain Axel von dem Bussche volunteered
to be the model - with a bomb concealed in the knapsack.
Unfortunately, the night before the presentation, the
sample uniform was destroyed in an Allied bomber attack.

A few months later, a colonel volunteered to carry explosives
in his coat while escorting Hitler through a new military
museum. But it was a very cold day and Hitler left early.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
dumbstruck
2015-10-25 20:17:32 UTC
Permalink
I hate to be a Schellenberg bore, but I must be a rare person who has
access to the memoirs of this SD intel guru. Out of the blue he said they
were very vulnerable to Churchill's proposal to invade thru the Balkans
rather than Italy, and could have folded rapidly.

I don't understand it, because it is all mountains right into southern
Germany, but he said something like that was by far the least defended
part of Germany, ripe for collapse. Usually he backs things up with more
explanation, but remember the Germans were tricked into thinking the
invasion of Sicily would be the Balkans instead, so it had plausibility.
Don Phillipson
2015-10-27 15:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by dumbstruck
I hate to be a Schellenberg bore, but I must be a rare person who has
access to the memoirs of this SD intel guru. Out of the blue he said they
were very vulnerable to Churchill's proposal to invade thru the Balkans
rather than Italy, and could have folded rapidly.
As is widely documented, Schellenberg's lifelong speciality was
deception. He died of cancer at 42 and his (posthumous)
memoirs are likely to be no less deceptive, i.e. composed
with one eye to the fact that he could not be possibly proved
"wrong," whatever he chose to write.
Post by dumbstruck
I don't understand it, because it is all mountains right into southern
Germany, but he said something like that was by far the least defended
part of Germany, ripe for collapse. . . .
The empirical evidence is that no part of Germany became "ripe for
collapse" until April 1945 (and where surrounded, as in Berlin,
many units fought to the last man, knowing their task hopeless.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
John Dallman
2015-10-25 20:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Let assume that you are an allied planner in early 1942. What could
you do that would significantly speed up Hitler's fall? Could it
cause a change that has Hitler defeated in 1944?
For the bombing offensive, starting attacks on oil targets earlier, and
attacking the German electricity grid would have weakened German ability
to resist.

John
Mario
2015-10-26 01:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Dallman
Post by SolomonW
Let assume that you are an allied planner in early 1942.
What could you do that would significantly speed up Hitler's
fall? Could it cause a change that has Hitler defeated in
1944?
For the bombing offensive, starting attacks on oil targets
earlier, and attacking the German electricity grid would have
weakened German ability to resist.
More Mosquitoes than Lancasters?
--
oiram
dumbstruck
2015-10-26 01:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Here is a crazy brainstorm, but maybe true. Brits should have focused
more on killing Hitler rather than Heydrich. After Heydrich was killed
with British assistance, his secret safe was found by the nazis to
contain detailed and valid "proof" (medical, psych, etc) that Hitler
and Himmler were unfit to lead the party/gov't. His extreme cunning
might have later led to overthrow or at least an early surrender.

Part of the reason the Brits wanted to kill him was because he was
becoming too successful in ruling Czech lands in pragmatic way rather
than the common full bore brutality which inspired resistance. Even
Himmler became pragmatic and dealt with Swedish and Swiss officials
to release Jews in early 45, to withdraw from Norway/Denmark, and
to stop the concentration camp death marches (mostly overruled).

The Brits put a stop to some promising Hitler assassination attempts
both before and late in the war. So what if Adolph is more a hindrance
than a help to the German army... he is insanely tenacious. Himmler
and Goering lost their loyalty to a failing Hitler, but wouldn't
decisively act. Schellenberg, as a protege of Heydrich, depicts him
as far more aware, cunning, and decisive than any other henchmen.
Post by John Dallman
attacking the German electricity grid would have weakened German ability
Yes, Speer emphasized that. Also he wrote they absolutely depended on
a rare metal from a Turkish mine and only ever had a few week supply.
Anyone know what the metal was, or used for?
Bill Shatzer
2015-10-26 04:06:36 UTC
Permalink
dumbstruck wrote:


Yes, Speer emphasized that. Also he wrote they absolutely depended on
Post by dumbstruck
a rare metal from a Turkish mine and only ever had a few week supply.
Anyone know what the metal was, or used for?
Chromite ore, I'm guessing.
Jim H.
2015-10-26 18:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by dumbstruck
Yes, Speer emphasized that. Also he wrote they absolutely depended on
Post by dumbstruck
a rare metal from a Turkish mine and only ever had a few week supply.
Anyone know what the metal was, or used for?
Chromite ore, I'm guessing.
Per a brief portion of Reginbogin's "Faces of Neutrality"
that I found by Googling "nazi rare ore turkish mine", yes,
tho' he calls it 'chromium ore'. ('Chromium' is properly the
pure metal, 'chromite' is the mineral ore, AIUI. Pretty much
interchangeable terms, I suppose.)

"Turkey supplied extremely rare and valuable chromium ore
since chromium's properties resemble those of tungsten.
Chromium ore was critical to the German armament industry
and stocks were insufficient."

I think it was much used in the steel known as 'high speed
steel', which was used for metal cutting (machining) tools
at the time. I don't know it it could be substituted for
tungsten in armor piercing solid core shot, or if Germany
used such; anyone?

Jim H.
Mario
2015-10-26 18:59:10 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 12:06:38 AM UTC-4, Bill
Post by dumbstruck
Yes, Speer emphasized that. Also he wrote they absolutely
depended on
Post by dumbstruck
a rare metal from a Turkish mine and only ever had a few
week supply. Anyone know what the metal was, or used for?
Chromite ore, I'm guessing.
Per a brief portion of Reginbogin's "Faces of Neutrality"
that I found by Googling "nazi rare ore turkish mine", yes,
tho' he calls it 'chromium ore'. ('Chromium' is properly the
pure metal, 'chromite' is the mineral ore, AIUI. Pretty much
interchangeable terms, I suppose.)
"Turkey supplied extremely rare and valuable chromium ore
since chromium's properties resemble those of tungsten.
Chromium ore was critical to the German armament industry
and stocks were insufficient."
I think it was much used in the steel known as 'high speed
steel', which was used for metal cutting (machining) tools
at the time. I don't know it it could be substituted for
tungsten in armor piercing solid core shot, or if Germany
used such; anyone?
Jim H.
Chrome plating.

IIRC it was sometimes used in pistons inside high performance
engines.

Also for plating bumpers, but German tank buyers didn't like
chrome plated bumpers on their PzKpfWen.

:-)
--
oiram
Phil McGregor
2015-10-27 14:58:13 UTC
Permalink
I think it was much used in the steel known as 'high speed steel',
which was used for metal cutting (machining) tools
at the time. I don't know it it could be substituted for tungsten
in armor piercing solid core shot, or if Germany
used such; anyone?
As far as I am aware it was used in high temperature (resistant)
steels as a substitute for tungsten ... it was, for example, used in this
way in the Turbine blades of the Me-262's engines.

And, AIUI, it was an inferior substitute, but Germany simply couldn't get
enough Tungsten and, largely, relied on stockpiles that had been
built up before the outbreak of war ... and when it became obvious
that the war was going to last longer than expected and they would not be
able to replenish stocks they cut out production of Tungsten cored projectiles.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@tpg.com.au
Don Phillipson
2015-10-26 14:43:38 UTC
Permalink
. . . After Heydrich was killed
with British assistance, his secret safe was found by the nazis to
contain detailed and valid "proof" (medical, psych, etc) that Hitler
and Himmler were unfit to lead the party/gov't. His extreme cunning
might have later led to overthrow or at least an early surrender.
So what? No evidence in Germany and no Allied military doctrine
suggests documentation of any leader's "unfitness" had any
practical role in how either Germans or Allies actually deployed
and fought. This suggestion is on a par with wartime consultation
with astrologers about what Hitler might do, or attempts by voodo
practitioners to send him bad dreams . . .
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
dumbstruck
2015-10-26 23:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
. . . After Heydrich was killed
with British assistance, his secret safe was found by the nazis to
contain detailed and valid "proof" (medical, psych, etc) that Hitler
and Himmler were unfit to lead the party/gov't. His extreme cunning
might have later led to overthrow or at least an early surrender.
So what? No evidence in Germany and no Allied military doctrine
suggests documentation of any leader's "unfitness" had any
practical role in how either Germans or Allies actually deployed
and fought. This suggestion is on a par with wartime consultation
with astrologers about what Hitler might do, or attempts by voodo
practitioners to send him bad dreams . . .
--
Don Phillipson
"This suggestion" that you ridicule wasn't mine, but a figment of your
imagination. Obviously I was talking about a surviving Heydrich
usurping Hitler's power and then reducing or ending hostilities. Even
Himmler negotiated with Sweden starting 1/45, for instance to accept
custody of all German troops in Norway and Denmark.

Heydrich wasn't like the other henchmen who were loyal to Hitler as
an alpha dog or at least respected the power of his personality cult.
Heydrich at first thought of Hitler as a kindred spirit for evil and
depravity, but lost respect for his abilities early in the war and added
Adolph to his list of folks he collected damning evidence against.
This could be used for blackmail, execution, or gathering dissent.

He has been called the puppetmaster of the Reich because of his
ways of sabotaging powerful colleagues thru use of secret info.
He was killed well before the "unconditional surrender" demand,
and even absent him there were various movements for truce with
the Russians alone or the western allies alone. I could see him
even getting Goering/Himmler/etc to go for total surrender early,
because he was a realist and self-serving rather than a fanatic.
Rich Rostrom
2015-10-27 15:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Let assume that you are an allied planner in early
1942. What could you do that would significantly
speed up Hitler's fall? Could it cause a change that
has Hitler defeated in 1944?
1) How early? January? I assume that.

2) "Allied"... Does that include the USSR? If so,
see below.

2) First change to Allied strategy. Put sufficient
naval strength (cruisers and destroyers) into the
Mediterranean to blockade Libya, immediately, thereby
insuring the final defeat of the Axis in Africa by
March. This is going to be costly - but cheaper than
another year and change of the North African campaign,
including the costs of fighting convoys through to Malta.
OTOH January may be too late; Rommel counterattacked on
21 January. And later on it's not practical; there was
a "window of opportunity" in the immediate wake of
CRUSADER that closed.

3) Focus very hard on the political context of the war
in Europe. Be prepared to take _full_ advantage of the
opportunities political shifts will provide.

The Allies did not do this historically, and there
were consequences. When the Allies landed in French
North Africa, they rather casually expected that all
the French would cooperate. Instead the French
resisted the Allies, and allowed the Axis to occupy
Tunisia.

What should have been done: a systematic effort to
identify all key French officials and commanders,
and then co-opt or neutralize them when the Allies
move in. When push comes to shove, arrange to have
persuasive American representatives whispering in the
ears of all these men. Contact the community of bar
owners, gamblers, brothel keepers, and so on: hold out
the arrival of hundreds of thousands of free-spending
Allied troops. "Flood the zone" with American "business
representatives", who buy up any plausible export goods
at high prices. (They'll be untouchable, and can win over
the business community. Also, they can each have an
entourage of operatives, posing as servants.) ISTM that
if this had been done, TORCH would have swept French
North Africa as expected, and the North African campaign
would have ended several months sooner.

Italy was another muffed opportunity. When Italy
surrendered, there was no resistance whatever from
Italian forces (AFAIK), some Italians cooperated with
the Allies, and a few Italians even resisted the
Germans. But the Allies were not sure of this; they
did not act to seize as much Italian held territory as
possible, nor did they establish contact with Italian
commanders to get them on side. Had the political
opportunity been foreseen, and the ground prepared,
and the required forces allocated, the Allies could
have taken Corfu and the Dodecanese, landed in force
in Albania, and attacked stronger in Italy. (For
instance, if the Allies had _known_ that there would
be no resistance at Taranto, they could have landed
with a different force and attacked north immediately.
Or Bari - the Italians there prevented a German attempt
to demolish the docks, and the commander was in a panic,
yelling for Allied help when Popski's Private Army got
there on 11 September. If the Allies had been in
contact immediately, they could have rushed a battalion
in by sea on 9 September.)

One might ask - where would the Allies find troops for
any additional operations? I would ask - where would
_Germans_ find troops to cope with all of them? And in
any case the Allies could have had more troops available,
which were sent or transferred to Britain to prepare
for OVERLORD instead. And no additional troops would be
required for the suggested Taranto and Bari operations;
and IMO Corfu could have been held with a modest force.

What would this gain? German forces could have been
run out of central as well as southern Italy; and the
Allies could have had a strong beachhead in the
Balkans, on the mainland of Europe, with ports to
support operations (Valona and Durrazo) a year or more
in advance of OVERLORD.

A third political opportunity existed with regard to
Germany, IMHO. If the Allies had been willing to talk
to the Schwarze Kapelle; provide assurances that Germany
would not be dismembered or stripped of all industry;
and collaborate in the removal of Hitler... IMHO the war
could have been dramatically shortened. Note, BTW, that
the original condition is "speed up _Hitler_'s fall."

4) If as "Allied planner" I can redirect _Soviet_ war
policy...

First, I would revise Soviet strategy for the winter of
1941-1942. Cancel the Kerch Strait offensive - all it
achieved was the temporary recapture of Kerch, and it
cost about 200K losses. Also the Izyum offensive, which
gained only a small salient that was eventually crushed
with 300K losses. Instead concentrate all these resources
for the relief of Leningrad.

Second, I would revise Soviet policy on formation and
deployment of units (at the battalion or regiment level).
AIUI, new Soviet regiments were sent into battle and kept
there till completely exhausted or largely destroyed.
IMHO this was wasteful. A regiment should have been
withdrawn after 60 days or 25% losses, then have its
losses replaced with fresh men, and get two weeks to eat
properly, sleep warm, and "work in" the replacements.
_Then_ back into the line. All new regiments should have
a substantial cadre of veterans. IMHO this would have
increased the combat effectiveness of Soviet troops by
25% to 50%.

Third, I would pursue political opportunities such I
mentioned above.

Suppose the Allies, including the USSR, offered
Finland restoration of its pre-Winter War borders, no
Soviet occupation, no reparations, and US/UK troops on
the ground as a guarantee... IMHO Finland could have
been induced to change sides - a huge blow to the
Axis. Not perhaps until it appears that the Axis is
going to lose, but a lot sooner than the summer of
1944, when Finland actually did change sides.

A similar deal could flip Romania - again, not until
the Allies are clearly winning, but still much sooner
than August 1944.

(Obviously Stalin would never agree to either deal,
but we're hypothesizing about what an "Allied planner"
with complete authority could do to accelerate the
single goal of Nazi defeat.)

5) One of the banes of Allied strategizing in WW II
was the idea of "panacea" targets, which if hit hard
enough would be fatal damage to the Axis. Iron ore
via Narvik and synthetic oil were among them. But there
may have been one the Allies overlooked: the horses of
Europe. The German army was extremely dependent on horse
drawn transport. Goering said after the war that the
Allies could have paralyzed Germany by using gas weapons
to knock out the horses (he noted that horses can't be
made to wear gas masks and still work). I would not
advocate such gas warfare; but targeting horses in every
other possible way could achieve similar results in time.

Resistance forces could be directed to shoot horses
whenever possible. Likewise Soviet aircraft strafing
German rear areas. African horse sickness could be
spread or injected by some of the thousands of non-
Germans working as grooms and stable hands. And horses
_can't_ be replaced quickly.

6) It's 1942, and the western Allies can't do much
against the German army. But all the Allies can attack
the Luftwaffe. As of 1942, the Allies, collectively,
have (by my estimate) more airpower than the Axis. It's
the only battlespace where the Allies outweigh the Axis
and can reach the Axis. (The Allies have vastly more
seapower, but ships can't go overland.)

(Britain proportionately emphasized airpower much more
than Germany, and the RAF alone was about equal to the
Luftwaffe. And the Red Air Force was comparable. US
air power was still pretty small, but _erupted_ over
the next year - so even if the Allies don't have the
edge as of January, they will soon after.)

Air-to-air warfare is intrinsically attrition warfare
- the only target is the enemy's forces. If all usable
Allied power was directed against the Luftwaffe, then
even in 1942 there could be serious and potentially
decisive attrition of the Luftwaffe. (True, one can't
attack enemy aircraft in the air at will, as they may
not come up to engage. But one can bomb and strafe
airbases, which will destroy aircraft, kill pilots and
aircrew, and kill ground crew, too.)
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Don Phillipson
2015-10-28 14:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Let assume that you are an allied planner in early
1942. What could you do that would significantly
speed up Hitler's fall? Could it cause a change that
has Hitler defeated in 1944?
. . . 2) First change to Allied strategy. Put sufficient
naval strength (cruisers and destroyers) into the
Mediterranean to blockade Libya, immediately, thereby
insuring the final defeat of the Axis in Africa by
March. This is going to be costly - but cheaper than
another year and change of the North African campaign,
This seems unrealistic because of U-boat warfare in
Jan. 1942 to the summer of 1943, the peak period for
German success (sinking supply ships.) I doubt any
British commander would further weaken Atlantic Ocean
convoy escorts and ASW in order to fight for control
of the Mediterranean, let alone the Indian Ocean as well
(where the RN sent two capital ships, Prince of Wales
and Repulse, both promptly sunk.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Rich Rostrom
2015-10-29 14:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
. . . 2) First change to Allied strategy. Put sufficient
naval strength (cruisers and destroyers) into the
Mediterranean to blockade Libya, immediately, thereby
insuring the final defeat of the Axis in Africa by
March. This is going to be costly - but cheaper than
another year and change of the North African campaign,
This seems unrealistic because of U-boat warfare in
Jan. 1942 to the summer of 1943, the peak period for
German success (sinking supply ships.) I doubt any
British commander would further weaken Atlantic Ocean
convoy escorts and ASW in order to fight for control
of the Mediterranean...
This is not about controlling the whole
Mediterranean, it is about controlling
the waters north of western Libya, to
block Axis supply to Libya for three
months.

I wrote that it would be costly. But
if the opportunity that was open at that
moment was seized, other costs would be
reduced later on. I mentioned the reduced
need to supply Malta through an Axis
gauntlet. (Once Libya falls, there's a
clear run from there to Malta.) There
would also be no need for the aircraft
ferry runs from Gibraltar to Malta, which
tied down (and risked) WASP and EAGLE.

The supply needs of the Middle Eastern
theater would also diminish greatly, easing
the strain on Allied shipping. (Though
perhaps the shipping would be used to supply
the USSR via Iran or the SE Asia.)

But perhaps most important for the sea war,
the fall of Libya would erase the Axis from
Africa and bring Allied troops to the border
of French North Africa. Under these conditions,
a TORCH-equivalent operation could be almost a
formality, and possibly several months earlier.

(Particularly if the methods I outlined in my
earlier part 2 are employed.)

_That_ would be a huge dividend for the sea war;
the Allies would have the use of French bases
in Morocco and at Dakar, greatly improving their
position in that quarter of the Atlantic, and
easily making up for the diversion of some ships
earlier on.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Haydn
2015-11-08 16:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
I wrote that it would be costly. But
if the opportunity that was open at that
moment was seized, other costs would be
reduced later on.
In order to achieve that result a major concentration of British naval
and air forces should have been brought to bear (for several months) on
Central Mediterranean, as the ones historically in place in 1941 simply
could not establish sea control there. That would have meant stripping
the Atlantic of a large portion of British naval forces *and*
relinquishing to the Americans the task of keeping Britain and the
Commonwealth war effort supplied across the oceans.

Would the US have been ready - in 1941 - to take on the task in its
entirety? And would the British have been *politically* ready to let the
Americans take over the vital logistical work worldwide, thereby handing
world hegemony over to the US two years before it actually happened?

And losing many ships in the process, because the Germans would almost
with certainty have sent more Luftwaffe in and in conjunction with a
desperate all-out Italian effort that would probably have caused carnage
among Royal Navy forces. Ships that would have then been sorely missed
elsewhere afterwards, and their absence would have tilted the world sea
power balance further in favor of the US.

Haydn
Rich Rostrom
2015-11-09 07:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Haydn
I wrote that it would be costly. But if the
opportunity that was open at that moment was
seized, other costs would be reduced later on.
In order to achieve that result a major concentration of British naval
and air forces should have been brought to bear (for several months) on
Central Mediterranean...
Yes. Though "several months" seems too long.
Three months should do.
Post by Haydn
as the ones historically in place in 1941 simply
could not establish sea control there.
Yes. Additional strength was needed there.
Post by Haydn
That would have meant stripping
the Atlantic of a large portion of British naval forces *and*
relinquishing to the Americans the task of keeping Britain and the
Commonwealth war effort supplied across the oceans.
Would the US have been ready - in 1941 - to take on the task in its
entirety?
1) This decision is to be taken in early 1942.

2) It will require a substantial chunk of British
naval power, but not everything from the Atlantic.
Post by Haydn
And would the British have been *politically* ready
to let the Americans take over...
3) The OP's question is "What _could_ Allied planners
do differently, starting in early 1942 (January)?" "No
political constraints" was part of this. He has even
added the proviso that the hypothetical "Allied planners"
would also control _Soviet_ policy.
Post by Haydn
And losing many ships in the process, because the Germans would almost
with certainty have sent more Luftwaffe...
Historically, the British lost many ships
in the Mediterranean in 1942-1943. The need
to run convoys and ferry aircraft to Malta
through Axis gauntlets was a huge burden on
the Royal Navy. If the war in Libya can be
finished quickly, that burden goes away.

Yes, the Axis can respond to an Allied "surge"
in early 1942 with a "surge" of their own. But
if the Allies act first, their initiative will
dominate - in my opinion.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
IndSyd
2015-11-09 19:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Sorry meant to post earlier but got bounce back with
lines too long message.

Invade France after dress rehearsals, if Generals
thought it necessary to expose or blood soldiers.

Avoid Sicily & Italy that hardly achieved much in
for the big goal of defeating Hitler's Germany.

Go for the throat, wrap up North Africa & then invade in
1944 summer with more forces, expand beachhead faster.
Coordinate better with Red Army's Op Bagration aimed at
Army Group Center.
The shock of slamming the Wehrmacht
on 2 major fronts simultaneously
would have strained them politically also.
GFH
2015-11-10 15:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by IndSyd
Sorry meant to post earlier but got bounce back with
lines too long message.
Invade France after dress rehearsals, if Generals
thought it necessary to expose or blood soldiers.
Avoid Sicily & Italy that hardly achieved much in
for the big goal of defeating Hitler's Germany.
Go for the throat, wrap up North Africa & then invade in
1944 summer with more forces, expand beachhead faster.
Coordinate better with Red Army's Op Bagration aimed at
Army Group Center.
The shock of slamming the Wehrmacht
on 2 major fronts simultaneously
would have strained them politically also.
You completely overlook the reality that the
USSR, not the Western Allies, defeated Germany.

The Germans were unable to recover from the
Battle of Kursk (summer 1943).

IMHO, the only benefit of the Normandy invasion
was that the USSR stopped their advance in Germany.
I think that without that invasion the USSR advance
would have stopped at the Atlantic.

The Normandy invasion was massive. The Allied forces
totaled 330,000 -- 150 troops plus 180 support (air,
Navy, etc.) And LSTs were not available in the
numbers needed until 1944. 1943 was not in the cards
unless the Western Allies were willing to risk a loss.
Not in Ike's thinking (or anyone else higher up).

GFH
and did not
Rich
2015-11-13 15:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by GFH
You completely overlook the reality that the
USSR, not the Western Allies, defeated Germany.
And you completely overlook the reality that the
USSR was unlikely to defeat Germany, absent Germany
having to fight the Western Allies.
Post by GFH
The Germans were unable to recover from the
Battle of Kursk (summer 1943).
The Battle of Kursk had almost zero effect on the
Wehrmacht's ability to recover. Statistically, the
month of July 1943 on the Ostfront was little different
from any other month on the ostfront to date.
Post by GFH
IMHO, the only benefit of the Normandy invasion
was that the USSR stopped their advance in Germany.
I think that without that invasion the USSR advance
would have stopped at the Atlantic.
The Soviets "stopped their advance in Germany" on 6
June 1944? That is news to me...and the Soviets I suspect.

(snip)
Post by GFH
Navy, etc.) And LSTs were not available in the
numbers needed until 1944. 1943 was not in the cards
unless the Western Allies were willing to risk a loss.
Not in Ike's thinking (or anyone else higher up).
Many things were not available in sufficient quantity in
June 1943. Aircraft numbers and types. Troop numbers.
Organization. Training. Experience.

Indeed, 1943 wasn't in the cards, not that "Ike's thinking"
had much to do with it, given he was CinC AFHQ at the time. I
suspect Sir Bernard Paget's and Jake Devers' thinking was a
bit more relevant at the time.
The Horny Goat
2015-11-14 17:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich
Post by GFH
IMHO, the only benefit of the Normandy invasion
was that the USSR stopped their advance in Germany.
I think that without that invasion the USSR advance
would have stopped at the Atlantic.
The Soviets "stopped their advance in Germany" on 6
June 1944? That is news to me...and the Soviets I suspect.
Hmmmm - I understood him to mean "in 1945 on the Elbe".

Had the Allied advance been slower (or non-existent due to losses in
Normandy) I have no doubt the Red Army would have been ordered to go
as far west as possible. Similarly if the Red Army were still east of
the Dniepr (or in any event nowhere near the Soviet border - in OTL
there were no German troops on Soviet soil from about 10/1944 onwards)
at the time of *Yalta the Allied armies would have been ordered to go
as far east as possible.

Similarly France could have been invaded earlier if the U-boats had
been defeated earlier. Allied losses to U=boats fell off dramatically
after June/July 1943 - there are several ways this critical victory
could have been advanced.
Rich Rostrom
2015-11-16 15:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Had the Allied advance been slower (or non-existent due to losses in
Normandy) I have no doubt the Red Army would have been ordered to go
as far west as possible. Similarly if the Red Army were still east of
the Dniepr (or in any event nowhere near the Soviet border - in OTL
there were no German troops on Soviet soil from about 10/1944 onwards)
at the time of *Yalta the Allied armies would have been ordered to go
as far east as possible.
Had the Allied advance been slower on one front,
the Germans would have shifted troops to the
other front, and _that_ front would then slow
down. If the US/UK don't land in France, Germany
will reinforce the Eastern Front until the
Soviet army is stopped or slowed to a crawl.
By the time Soviet forces reach the borders of
Germany, the Atlantic Wall would be stripped
to a skeleton force. When Soviet forces overrun
Prussia and Silesia, Germany will evacuate
southern and western France except for a few
holdouts (as historically Germany did in Greece).
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
m***@netMAPSONscape.net
2015-11-15 05:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by GFH
Post by IndSyd
Sorry meant to post earlier but got bounce back with
lines too long message.
Invade France after dress rehearsals, if Generals
thought it necessary to expose or blood soldiers.
Avoid Sicily & Italy that hardly achieved much in
for the big goal of defeating Hitler's Germany.
Go for the throat, wrap up North Africa & then invade in
1944 summer with more forces, expand beachhead faster.
Coordinate better with Red Army's Op Bagration aimed at
Army Group Center.
The shock of slamming the Wehrmacht
on 2 major fronts simultaneously
would have strained them politically also.
You completely overlook the reality that the
USSR, not the Western Allies, defeated Germany.
The US supplied something like half Russsia's ammo, oil, significant portions
of their tungsten, rubber, as well as actual tanks, etc.

How much of each did the Soviets provide the US?

Logistics win wars.

Mike
The Horny Goat
2015-11-14 17:24:58 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 02:02:33 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Historically, the British lost many ships
in the Mediterranean in 1942-1943. The need
to run convoys and ferry aircraft to Malta
through Axis gauntlets was a huge burden on
the Royal Navy. If the war in Libya can be
finished quickly, that burden goes away.
Yes, the Axis can respond to an Allied "surge"
in early 1942 with a "surge" of their own. But
if the Allies act first, their initiative will
dominate - in my opinion.
For the British couldn't most of those goals be achieved by minimizing
support for Greece? (Or alternately not sending troops at all to
Greece either because the Greeks collapsed quickly to an Italian
attack or that Greece overcame the Italian invasion decisively and
quickly)

The point being that at this point the British were in the midst of an
offensive that had taken most of Cyrenica and was pushing on El
Agheila and already planning further attacks towards Tripoli along the
lines of what was actually done in OTL after Torch and 2nd Alamein.

What I'm saying is that I think the Allied forces in Cyrenica were
strong enough they could have gotten to Tripoli had they not had to
divert forces to Greece since if Britain DIDN'T send them armed aid
which British ally would count on them again?
Rich Rostrom
2015-11-16 15:42:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
For the British couldn't most of those goals be achieved by minimizing
support for Greece?
The OP is "What could Allied planners have done
differently in early _1942_?"

So the Greek campaign is long over.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
SolomonW
2015-10-29 14:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by SolomonW
Let assume that you are an allied planner in early
1942. What could you do that would significantly
speed up Hitler's fall? Could it cause a change that
has Hitler defeated in 1944?
1) How early? January? I assume that.
Sometime in 1944
Post by Rich Rostrom
2) "Allied"... Does that include the USSR? If so,
see below.
YES
Post by Rich Rostrom
2) First change to Allied strategy. Put sufficient
naval strength (cruisers and destroyers) into the
Mediterranean to blockade Libya, immediately, thereby
insuring the final defeat of the Axis in Africa by
March. This is going to be costly - but cheaper than
another year and change of the North African campaign,
including the costs of fighting convoys through to Malta.
OTOH January may be too late; Rommel counterattacked on
21 January. And later on it's not practical; there was
a "window of opportunity" in the immediate wake of
CRUSADER that closed.
Crusader is too early for this POD which starts in 1942.
Post by Rich Rostrom
3) Focus very hard on the political context of the war
in Europe. Be prepared to take _full_ advantage of the
opportunities political shifts will provide.
The Allies did not do this historically, and there
were consequences. When the Allies landed in French
North Africa, they rather casually expected that all
the French would cooperate. Instead the French
resisted the Allies, and allowed the Axis to occupy
Tunisia.
What should have been done: a systematic effort to
identify all key French officials and commanders,
and then co-opt or neutralize them when the Allies
move in. When push comes to shove, arrange to have
persuasive American representatives whispering in the
ears of all these men. Contact the community of bar
owners, gamblers, brothel keepers, and so on: hold out
the arrival of hundreds of thousands of free-spending
Allied troops. "Flood the zone" with American "business
representatives", who buy up any plausible export goods
at high prices. (They'll be untouchable, and can win over
the business community. Also, they can each have an
entourage of operatives, posing as servants.) ISTM that
if this had been done, TORCH would have swept French
North Africa as expected, and the North African campaign
would have ended several months sooner.
I doubt the allies could do this, contact between them and the French in
North Africa was minor. Another issue was the French were divided. Also the
other issue is that there was bad blood between the British and the French.

<..>
Post by Rich Rostrom
yelling for Allied help when Popski's Private Army got
there on 11 September. If the Allies had been in
contact immediately, they could have rushed a battalion
in by sea on 9 September.)
Popski's also reported that the way to Rome was open and a fast and strong
allied assault could have taken Rome much earlier.



<..>
Post by Rich Rostrom
What would this gain? German forces could have been
run out of central as well as southern Italy; and the
Allies could have had a strong beachhead in the
Balkans, on the mainland of Europe, with ports to
support operations (Valona and Durrazo) a year or more
in advance of OVERLORD.
If such a thing had been done, then it certainly puts the allied bombers
closer to North Italy the industrial heartland of Italy and nearer to the
German factories too.

Can the allies break through the alps into Germany? Stalin when asked
before the attack on Italy stated that they would not be able too.
Post by Rich Rostrom
A third political opportunity existed with regard to
Germany, IMHO. If the Allies had been willing to talk
to the Schwarze Kapelle; provide assurances that Germany
would not be dismembered or stripped of all industry;
and collaborate in the removal of Hitler... IMHO the war
could have been dramatically shortened. Note, BTW, that
the original condition is "speed up _Hitler_'s fall."
Even if the Allies had there is only a small chance of them bumping off
Hitler. He survived many assassination attempts.
Post by Rich Rostrom
4) If as "Allied planner" I can redirect _Soviet_ war
policy...
First, I would revise Soviet strategy for the winter of
1941-1942.
To late for this POD.
Post by Rich Rostrom
IMHO this would have
increased the combat effectiveness of Soviet troops by
25% to 50%.
You could also save a lot of Soviet losses by making better planned
attacks.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Third, I would pursue political opportunities such I
mentioned above.
Suppose the Allies, including the USSR, offered
Finland restoration of its pre-Winter War borders, no
Soviet occupation, no reparations, and US/UK troops on
the ground as a guarantee... IMHO Finland could have
been induced to change sides - a huge blow to the
Axis. Not perhaps until it appears that the Axis is
going to lose, but a lot sooner than the summer of
1944, when Finland actually did change sides.
After Stalingrad, Finland was looking to make peace, she almost certainly
could not move until the Russian came close to the border though, yes the
peace could have been made slightly earlier in 1944 if the USSR had offered
more earlier. Still its not like the Finns did much after the initial
stages of the war, till the Soviets came close to their lines.
Post by Rich Rostrom
A similar deal could flip Romania - again, not until
the Allies are clearly winning, but still much sooner
than August 1944.
Same probelm as Finland, if they tried to switch too early the Germans as
in Italy would come running.

<..>
Post by Rich Rostrom
but targeting horses in every
other possible way could achieve similar results in time.
How do you target horses?
Post by Rich Rostrom
Resistance forces could be directed to shoot horses
whenever possible.
In which countries could resistance forces significantly shoot horses?

<..>
Post by Rich Rostrom
African horse sickness could be
spread or injected by some of the thousands of non-
Germans working as grooms and stable hands. And horses
_can't_ be replaced quickly.
This would be politically impossible for the allies, and I doubt such a
program could be done without the Germans not finding out.

<..>
Post by Rich Rostrom
But one can bomb and strafe
airbases, which will destroy aircraft, kill pilots and
aircrew, and kill ground crew, too.)
After the BoB, this policy was tried by the British over France, and it
failed.
Rich Rostrom
2015-10-29 21:38:11 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by SolomonW
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by SolomonW
Let assume that you are an allied planner in early
1942. What could you do that would significantly
speed up Hitler's fall? Could it cause a change that
has Hitler defeated in 1944?
1) How early? January? I assume that.
Sometime in 1944
No, when in _1942_. January 1942?
Post by SolomonW
Post by Rich Rostrom
2) "Allied"... Does that include the USSR? If so,
see below.
YES
That's very big.
Post by SolomonW
Crusader is too early for this POD which starts in 1942.
As of January 1942, the Allied pursuit of the
PAA after CRUSADER was still on or just over.
Post by SolomonW
I doubt the allies could do this, contact between
them and the French in North Africa was minor.
_That_ is the point. _Expand_ those contacts. The
U.S. and Vichy France still have diplomatic
relations; they can even have trade relations.

Grab that, build on that, _push_ that.
Post by SolomonW
Popski's also reported that the way to Rome was open
and a fast and strong allied assault could have
taken Rome much earlier.
No he didn't. PPA passed through the Anzio region
in fall 1943, and saw very few Germans, but the
Allies had no way to reach that area then.
Post by SolomonW
Can the allies break through the alps into Germany?
No. That's not the point.
Post by SolomonW
Even if the Allies had there is only a small chance
of them bumping off Hitler. He survived many
assassination attempts.
Post by Rich Rostrom
4) If as "Allied planner" I can redirect _Soviet_ war
policy...
First, I would revise Soviet strategy for the winter of
1941-1942.
To late for this POD.
January 1942 is the middle of winter. The Kerch
Strait attack was launched in the last week of
1941, so it can't be cancelled, but the forces
in the Taman Peninsula (the eastern lobe of Crimea)
could be withdrawn. The Izyum attack was launched
on 18 January, and renewed on 12 May 1942. So those
debacles could be avoided.
Post by SolomonW
You could also save a lot of Soviet losses by making
better planned attacks.
A completely generic statement; almost tautological.
I personally have no idea what to change in Soviet
planning activity to get better plans.
Post by SolomonW
After Stalingrad, Finland was looking to make peace,
she almost certainly could not move until the
Russian came close to the border though...
Soviet forces were right on the Finnish border during
the entire Continuation War; the Finns refused to
advance much beyond the 1939 boundary. And at no time
were there more German than Finnish troops in Finland,
except in the far north.

Finland was in no way hostage to German arms.
Post by SolomonW
yes the peace could have been made slightly earlier
in 1944...
"Slightly earlier"?
Post by SolomonW
if the USSR had offered more earlier.
The USSR never offered Finland anything except not being
occupied and Sovietized. If the Allies offer Finland all
the land seized in 1940, with a guarantee of no further
problems from the USSR - that's everything Finland could
want. The only thing that would hold them back from making
a deal is a sense of obligation to Germany - which went by
the board in 1944 anyway.
Post by SolomonW
Still its not like the Finns did much after the initial
stages of the war, till the Soviets came close to their lines.
They tied down hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops,
kept Leningrad under siege, and broke the rail connection
to Murmansk.

Besides which, this is not about what Finland did for
the Axis, it's about what Finland could do for the Allies.

If Finland changed sides... Very probably the Allies
could retake northern Norway from the Germans. Also,
Allied airpower reaching from SW Finland can hurt
Germany a lot in the Baltic, and harass the dickens
out of Army Group North's rear areas.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Rich Rostrom
A similar deal could flip Romania - again, not until
the Allies are clearly winning, but still much sooner
than August 1944.
... if they tried to switch too
early the Germans as in Italy would come running.
Obviously; the point is to prepare for it, get it
sooner, and take maximum advantage. In the historic
case of Italy, the switch was bungled, and most of the
Italian army simply dissolved for lack of leadership.
In many cases strong Italian forces tamely submitted
to German control (and on several acc
Romania actually did much better - Romanian troops
defeated German attempts to seize control of Bucharest
and impose a pro-Axis government, and the Romanian
army in the field fought the Germans a fair amount;
even contributing some troops to Soviet campaigns
going west.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Rich Rostrom
but targeting horses in every
other possible way could achieve similar results in time.
How do you target horses?
Aim guns at them...
Post by SolomonW
Post by Rich Rostrom
Resistance forces could be directed to shoot horses
whenever possible.
In which countries could resistance forces significantly shoot horses?
France, the Low Countries, Norway, Denmark, Poland,
Bohemia-Moravia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece, the
USSR.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Rich Rostrom
African horse sickness could be
spread or injected by some of the thousands of non-
Germans working as grooms and stable hands. And horses
_can't_ be replaced quickly.
This would be politically impossible for the allies...
Why? Would it be more politically contentious than
heavily bombing French railyards and lines, with
concomitant French civilian deaths? Or area firebombing
of German cities?
Post by SolomonW
and I doubt such a
program could be done without the Germans not finding out.
What if they do? It doesn't require total stealth.

Consider the OSS caltrop - four conjoined spikes
pointing to the vertices of a tetrahedron. Toss it
anywhere, it lands with one spike up, and will destroy
tires very nicely. On a runway, it can cause crashes.
The Germans knew about it: anyone caught with one was
summarily executed. But that didn't stop resistance
operators from using them.

In the case of African horse sickness: the Allies
could maintain a population of infected horses (or
better yet, donkeys or mules, which are much less
susceptible to the effects of AHS). From the infected
herd they collect midges which carry the virus. The
midges are packaged in tiny envelopes or vials which
are smuggled to resistance groups, which pass them to
members working for the Germans as grooms.

The grooms release the midges in stables and corrals,
and the horses get sick and die. The Germans may catch
a few of the equine saboteurs, but they can stop this
only by excluding all non-Germans from stable work.
Post by SolomonW
Post by Rich Rostrom
But one can bomb and strafe airbases, which will
destroy aircraft, kill pilots and aircrew, and
kill ground crew, too.)
After the BoB, this policy was tried by the British
over France, and it failed.
The "Rhubarb" operations were badly managed. Also,
they included few bomber attacks. German _bomber_
attacks on RAF bases in 1940 caused heavy damage
and casualties. I don't see that the Allies couldn't
do as much - or more, considering the much larger
Allied bomber force.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
SolomonW
2015-11-01 21:09:23 UTC
Permalink
<..>
Post by Rich Rostrom
As of January 1942, the Allied pursuit of the
PAA after CRUSADER was still on or just over.
However, the allies were not in much of a position then to do much even if
the Afrika Korps were partially cut off as they were not in a good state as
shown by the beating they took at El Agheila.

<..>
Post by Rich Rostrom
_That_ is the point. _Expand_ those contacts. The
U.S. and Vichy France still have diplomatic
relations; they can even have trade relations.
Interestingly so did Australia have diplomatic relations with Vichy so the
British do have an avenue too, but its a big step from there to develop
something that could actually turn the Vichy in North Africa to the allied
side. The other issue as I stated the French were not united. If one
faction goes one way, the other groups have a vested interest in going the
other way.





<..>
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by SolomonW
Popski's also reported that the way to Rome was open
and a fast and strong allied assault could have
taken Rome much earlier.
No he didn't. PPA passed through the Anzio region
in fall 1943, and saw very few Germans, but the
Allies had no way to reach that area then.
Popski wrote a bit later after these events that they found a road that
went to Rome. It was not protected, the next day he went back on that road
again and found it was protected by one German tank. He then criticized the
allied command for not taking advantage of this route he had discovered and
making a bloody assault taking months somewhere else. He described it as a
lost opportunity.


<..>
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by SolomonW
You could also save a lot of Soviet losses by making
better planned attacks.
A completely generic statement; almost tautological.
I personally have no idea what to change in Soviet
planning activity to get better plans.
Neutralize Stalin, he does not have to be removed from power only removed
from his managing and daily micro managing of the Russian army.

<..>
Post by Rich Rostrom
Soviet forces were right on the Finnish border during
the entire Continuation War; the Finns refused to
advance much beyond the 1939 boundary. And at no time
were there more German than Finnish troops in Finland,
except in the far north.
Finland was in no way hostage to German arms.
Finland making a separate peace with the Soviets, without effective Allied
(Soviet) support must be a major concern to Finland.


<..>
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by SolomonW
if the USSR had offered more earlier.
The USSR never offered Finland anything except not being
occupied and Sovietized. If the Allies offer Finland all
the land seized in 1940, with a guarantee of no further
problems from the USSR - that's everything Finland could
want. The only thing that would hold them back from making
a deal is a sense of obligation to Germany - which went by
the board in 1944 anyway.
Yep, I agree that would have been a very tempting offer to Finland.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by SolomonW
Still its not like the Finns did much after the initial
stages of the war, till the Soviets came close to their lines.
They tied down hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops,
kept Leningrad under siege, and broke the rail connection
to Murmansk.
Once the Finns took what they thought was theres, I think you will find
that they did very little they did not even provide much help to the German
forces to help them in their war with Russia. Basically they sat it out.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Besides which, this is not about what Finland did for
the Axis, it's about what Finland could do for the Allies.
Which would be very little.
Post by Rich Rostrom
If Finland changed sides... Very probably the Allies
could retake northern Norway from the Germans. Also,
Allied airpower reaching from SW Finland can hurt
Germany a lot in the Baltic, and harass the dickens
out of Army Group North's rear areas.
Finland certainly would have told the Germans to go, but it would not allow
the allies to use their country as a base to attack German positions. As it
was they only acted very reluctantly

<..>
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by SolomonW
Post by Rich Rostrom
Resistance forces could be directed to shoot horses
whenever possible.
In which countries could resistance forces significantly shoot horses?
France, the Low Countries, Norway, Denmark, Poland,
Bohemia-Moravia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece, the
USSR.
Most of these had very small resistance forces, in places like Russia where
it was large, the main focus of the resistance forces was on the trains, I
am sure there was good reasons for this.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by SolomonW
Post by Rich Rostrom
African horse sickness could be
spread or injected by some of the thousands of non-
Germans working as grooms and stable hands. And horses
_can't_ be replaced quickly.
This would be politically impossible for the allies...
Why? Would it be more politically contentious than
heavily bombing French railyards and lines, with
concomitant French civilian deaths? Or area firebombing
of German cities?
Biological warfare would be much more politically contentious than
conventual bombing.

<..>
Post by Rich Rostrom
In the case of African horse sickness: the Allies
could maintain a population of infected horses (or
better yet, donkeys or mules, which are much less
susceptible to the effects of AHS). From the infected
herd they collect midges which carry the virus. The
midges are packaged in tiny envelopes or vials which
are smuggled to resistance groups, which pass them to
members working for the Germans as grooms.
I am not sure how well this would spread into Northern, central and Eastern
Europe but if it does spread it would certainly affect the Russian war
effort too.

<..>
Post by Rich Rostrom
The "Rhubarb" operations were badly managed. Also,
they included few bomber attacks. German _bomber_
attacks on RAF bases in 1940 caused heavy damage
and casualties. I don't see that the Allies couldn't
do as much - or more, considering the much larger
Allied bomber force.
The allies did exactly this once they got their long ranger fighters.
Kenneth Young
2015-11-02 15:39:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
He described it as a
lost opportunity.
It seems that every Commanders memoirs are full of other peoples lost
opportunities. You might think there is a touch of bias.
GFH
2015-11-03 15:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenneth Young
Post by SolomonW
He described it as a
lost opportunity.
It seems that every Commanders memoirs are full of other peoples lost
opportunities. You might think there is a touch of bias.
That seems unfair. Commanders knew their weaknesses far better
than the opposition did. So, the opposition often assumed greater
strength and capability than actually existed.

GFH
The Horny Goat
2015-11-08 00:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by GFH
Post by Kenneth Young
It seems that every Commanders memoirs are full of other peoples lost
opportunities. You might think there is a touch of bias.
That seems unfair. Commanders knew their weaknesses far better
than the opposition did. So, the opposition often assumed greater
strength and capability than actually existed.
To me one of the most amazing books I've read is Patton's Gap by
retired air force general Richard Rohmer where he writes it as a
mystery before reaching the conclusion that the main culprit for the
non-victory at Falaise was Montgomery - Canadian writers tend to see
history in line with the British view of things but this was a major
exception.

In case you haven't gotten it, I recommend this one. Rohmer is best
known as a writer of fantastic political scenarios but he does know
his military history.
Les
2015-11-08 06:11:22 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 8:07:49 PM UTC-4, The Horny Goat wrote:

(stuff deleted)
Post by The Horny Goat
To me one of the most amazing books I've read is Patton's Gap by
retired air force general Richard Rohmer where he writes it as a
mystery before reaching the conclusion that the main culprit for the
non-victory at Falaise was Montgomery - Canadian writers tend to see
history in line with the British view of things but this was a major
exception.
(rest of post deleted)

I have to disagree. "Patton's Gap" was written in roughly in
three "voices:" one which was a dry objective view of the action,
another with a more opinionated look of how the campaign was
progressing, and the third with his own local account (he was
a scout pilot during the campaign).

That in itself isn't too bad, but his conclusion that Montgomery
deliberately left the gap open in order to deny the Americans their
glory is completely unsupported. He even admitted the stop order
given to Patton was issued by General Bradley. How Montgomery
was able to influence Bradley (who hated Montgomery), Rohmer
chalked up to behind-the-scenes influence that somehow failed to
make it into Bradley's and Eisenhower's memoirs.
Rich Rostrom
2015-11-03 23:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
_That_ is the point. _Expand_ those contacts. The
U.S. and Vichy France still have diplomatic
relations; they can even have trade relations.
... but its a big step from there to develop
something that could actually turn the Vichy in North
Africa to the allied side.
That's not the goal - it's to shift political and public
sentiment in French North Africa so that when Allied
forces enter North Africa, there is no effective resistance,
and to make this possible several months sooner.
The other issue as I stated the French were not
united. If one faction goes one way, the other
groups have a vested interest in going the other way.
The Allied bandwagon is roomy5 enough for everybody, and
also big enough that there's no "vested interest" for
anybody in sticking with the Axis and getting run over.
Popski wrote a bit later after these events that they found a road that
went to Rome. It was not protected, the next day he went back on that road
again and found it was protected by one German tank.
I've read Peniakoff's memoirs several times. I don't
recall reading anything even remotely like this.
Finland making a separate peace with the Soviets, without effective Allied
(Soviet) support must be a major concern to Finland.
Why should effective support be a worry? The Soviet army is
present in large numbers to keep Germany out. That's all
the support Finland needs.
Once the Finns took what they thought was theres, I think you will find
that they did very little they did not even provide much help to the German
forces to help them in their war with Russia. Basically they sat it out.
As I noted: they blocked a very important rail line and
tied down hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops. You
might notice this as a significant contribution to the
Axis war effort.
Finland certainly would have told the Germans to go, but it would not allow
the allies to use their country as a base to attack German positions.
Why not? If Finland has declared war on Germany, Finland
is committed. Besides which that could be made a condition
for Finland getting its land back.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by SolomonW
In which countries could resistance forces significantly shoot horses?
France, the Low Countries, Norway, Denmark, Poland,
Bohemia-Moravia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece, the USSR.
Most of these had very small resistance forces....
Define your terms. I count 11 countries. At least
five had considerable Resistance forces:

France, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, the USSR.

At least three others had overwhelming support for
the Resistance against Germany, though there wasn't
much scope for Resistance operations: Norway, Denmark.
Netherlands.

That's eight of eleven, leaving three, which is not "most".
Biological warfare would be much more politically contentious than
conventual bombing.
An assertion; I don't see why a biological attack on horses
and not people would provoke a strong reaction.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The "Rhubarb" operations were badly managed. Also,
they included few bomber attacks. German _bomber_
attacks on RAF bases in 1940 caused heavy damage
and casualties. I don't see that the Allies couldn't
do as much - or more, considering the much larger
Allied bomber force.
The allies did exactly this once they got their long ranger fighters.
Huh? Long range fighters were used to escort bombers
on long range daylight missions. These missions were
against targets in Germany, including aircraft
factories, rail yards, synthoil plants, and other
industrial targets. This forced Luftwaffe fighters to
come up and try to intercept.

In 1942, this would not be possible, but Allied airpower
could be directed at Luftwaffe bases in France and Belgium,
which is within short-range fighter range.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
The Horny Goat
2015-11-08 00:06:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:38:11 -0400, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
If Finland changed sides... Very probably the Allies
could retake northern Norway from the Germans. Also,
Allied airpower reaching from SW Finland can hurt
Germany a lot in the Baltic, and harass the dickens
out of Army Group North's rear areas.
You will remember that the whole point of Hitler invading Norway in
1940 was to assure an ice-free port for shipping Swedish iron in
winter.

Losing Narvik (which is what I think you're talking about) is the
whole point of them being in Norway in the first place.

Kind of like describing taking Eindhoven and Nijmegen but not getting
over the Rhine to Arnhem in Market-Garden as a "mostly successful
operation! (i.e. getting over the Rhine was the whole purpose of the
operation)

In short losing access to Swedish iron in winter would definitely have
had an impact - not sure if as great as some of the alternatives
suggested by others in this thread by certainly significant.
Rich Rostrom
2015-11-08 16:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:38:11 -0400, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
If Finland changed sides... Very probably the Allies
could retake northern Norway from the Germans. ...
Losing Narvik (which is what I think you're talking about)...
Nope. The northernmost part of Norway extends
about 400 km east, past northern Finland to the
Russian border. That's the area that would fall
to the Allies.

Narvik is 150 km to the SW. However, if the Allies
were that close, they could probably shut down Narvik.
Post by The Horny Goat
In short losing access to Swedish iron in winter would definitely have
had an impact - not sure if as great as some of the alternatives
suggested by others in this thread by certainly significant.
If Finland changes sides, Germany certainly loses
access to the Swedish ore via the Baltic, so if Narvik
also falls to the Allies, the ore is cut off completely.

But after 1940, Germany had access to the French iron ore
mines at Briey, so the Swedish ore was not essential.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
The Horny Goat
2015-11-14 17:24:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 11:51:37 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:38:11 -0400, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
If Finland changed sides... Very probably the Allies
could retake northern Norway from the Germans. ...
Losing Narvik (which is what I think you're talking about)...
Nope. The northernmost part of Norway extends
about 400 km east, past northern Finland to the
Russian border. That's the area that would fall
to the Allies.
Narvik is 150 km to the SW. However, if the Allies
were that close, they could probably shut down Narvik.
I'm well aware that Narvik is not that close to the Norwegian /
Finnish border and logistically it would have been a challenge BUT the
Red Army DID occupy part of northern Norway after the Finnish
surrender.

I am skeptical whether logistically in this scenario the Luftwaffe
could have launched enough planes to seriously interdict any Allied
fleet attempting to re-take Narvik after 1943. To me the main obstacle
would seem to me that diverting enough landing craft to Norway could
have jeopardized Overlord.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by The Horny Goat
In short losing access to Swedish iron in winter would definitely have
had an impact - not sure if as great as some of the alternatives
suggested by others in this thread by certainly significant.
If Finland changes sides, Germany certainly loses
access to the Swedish ore via the Baltic, so if Narvik
also falls to the Allies, the ore is cut off completely.
But after 1940, Germany had access to the French iron ore
mines at Briey, so the Swedish ore was not essential.
Meaning the invasion of Norway was superfluous and seriously damaged
the Kriegsmarine's ability to damage North Sea and Channel shipping.
Obviously that's a more long term effect than simply the 1940
campaign.
Rich Rostrom
2015-11-16 15:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Meaning the invasion of Norway was superfluous and seriously damaged
the Kriegsmarine's ability to damage North Sea and Channel shipping.
There's an interesting What-If?

1940 German planners decide that if they beat
France, they won't need the Swedish ore, and
if they don't beat France - they won't need it
either, because they'll lose the war right away.

So they leave Denmark and Norway alone...
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Stephen Graham
2015-11-16 19:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by The Horny Goat
Meaning the invasion of Norway was superfluous and seriously damaged
the Kriegsmarine's ability to damage North Sea and Channel shipping.
There's an interesting What-If?
1940 German planners decide that if they beat
France, they won't need the Swedish ore, and
if they don't beat France - they won't need it
either, because they'll lose the war right away.
So they leave Denmark and Norway alone...
I'm very skeptical that Denmark would be left alone. There's no real
reason not to overrun the country prior to the launch of operations
against the West and many reasons to occupy the country.

Similarly, the perception was that the risk to the Norwegian operations
were centered around the occupation of Narvik. The arguments for the
occupation of Southern Norway and presumably the quick surrender of the
entire country appear to be reasonable. The only real question would be
timing and allocation of resources.

Roman W
2015-10-29 20:00:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:09:04 -0400, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
Resistance forces could be directed to shoot horses
whenever possible. Likewise Soviet aircraft strafing
German rear areas. African horse sickness could be
spread or injected by some of the thousands of non-
Germans working as grooms and stable hands. And horses
_can't_ be replaced quickly.
This is both very cruel and highly unrealistic. Local resistance
would have known better that to kill horses, as the Germans would
replace them with the horses confiscated from the local population,
thereby increasing food shortages. Introducing contagious diseases
which would spread from army horses to civilian animals is an even
crazier idea.

Also many people would sooner shoot an enemy soldier than an innocent
animal. People are funny that way.

RW
Rich Rostrom
2015-10-30 14:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Local resistance would have known better that to kill
horses, as the Germans would replace them with the
horses confiscated from the local population,
Whereas killing an enemy soldier often resulted
in multiple hostages executed; but that didn't
stop partisans from attacking German forces.
Introducing contagious diseases which would spread
from army horses to civilian animals is an even
crazier idea.
African horse fever is not directly contagious
between horses; that's why it has never spread
into Europe.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Haydn
2015-10-29 23:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
2) First change to Allied strategy. Put sufficient
naval strength (cruisers and destroyers) into the
Mediterranean to blockade Libya, immediately, thereby
insuring the final defeat of the Axis in Africa by
March.
Libya could be blockaded either by a surface nightly attack force
sailing out of Malta harbor to ambush and savage the Axis traffic, or by
many more submarines than the number thereof the British had in the
Mediterranean in 1941.

September to mid-December 1941 they tried both ways - apparently,
without great conviction on the part of a realistic Royal Navy, somewhat
recalcitrant to Churchill's urge to use surface ships as the best and
most effective traffic busters. Both ways failed. Force K proved a
deadly killer but it didn't last long, facing Italian battleship escorts
(a measure taken in despair that however worked) and deep water minefields.

The submarines also met with some big success - offset to some extent by
the loss of a battleship and a carrier to U-boats - but they could not
tip the scale against the traffic. If the British had considerably
increased the Malta-based submarine force summer through winter 1941,
their chances of severing the sea lanes to and from Libya would have
also increased. Could they have done it? Wouldn't that have caused an
Axis reaction to counter the threat - an early return of the Luftwaffe
to Sicily for instance?

Haydn
Geoffrey Sinclair
2015-10-27 16:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Let assume that you are an allied planner in early 1942. What could you do
that would significantly speed up Hitler's fall?
Almost nothing if significantly is end 1944.

Put it another way you need to adjust a whole series of
interlocking plans and production programs then have the
commanders use the resources better and even then you are
taking weeks off the end of the war in Europe, not months,
given a starting time of 1 January 1942 Far too much of what
you could do had been decided by then.

It is not a case of just the available combat units, it is their
support forces and doctrine as well. And effective doctrine,
proper mixes of forces, requires experience.
Post by SolomonW
Could it cause a change that has Hitler defeated in 1944?
No, not without lots of knowledge handed back through time,
mainly on how to conduct effective operations and a big
assumption the earlier opening of such operations does not
allow the time for the Germans to mount some effective
counter moves.

Starting 1 January 1942.

Want to systematically bomb Germany's synthetic oil refineries?
This will not do a lot to the Heer but will hurt the Luftwaffe. You
need long range high performance fighters, so you need the
Merlin P-51, the historical P-51B or later.

The first 2 stage Merlins were built at the end of 1941, the British
had built 900 by the end of 1942. Packard started 2 stage Merlin
production about a year later but only built 9 to the end of April
1943. P-51 production ended in September 1942, replaced by
A-36, P-51A production began in March 1943, P-51B in April,
P-51C at the new plant in Dallas in August.

The first Mustang mark I, the NA-73 (The P-51 was the mark Ia)
arrived in Britain in October 1941, followed by 7 in November and
24 in December. First squadron service was on 5 January 1942.
The RAF had decided by 24 January it wanted 10 squadrons of
them. First operation was on 24 May 1942. By April 1942 Rolls
Royce had done the calculations on a Merlin version and in June
the US was informed of the idea, 3 conversions were ordered on
15 June. By the end of August the RAF was talking about accepting
engineless P-51 airframes for UK Merlin installation. The British
conversion first flew in October 1942. The US conversion first flew
at the end of November. US combat units were flying missions in
Britain in November 1943.

So

1) you need to speed up 2 stage Merlin production
2) need to speed up Merlin Mustang trials.
3) need to bring the Dallas factory on line quicker.

So say the P-51A becomes the first Merlin Mustang, an extra 310
aircraft, March to May 1943, versus 283 P-51B to end August 1943.
So you have gained 3 months, so operations start around August
1943.

Meantime the Jumo 213 was around in 1943 and you have given the
Luftwaffe a lot more incentive to get the Fw190D into production.

Also of course is the fact the 8th Air Force dropped a total of 47,452
short tons of bombs in 1943, 12,577 of that in December. So even
having the fighters you lack the bombers and it took around 12 months
to train a bomber group. Now add to go after a specific set of targets
the bombers needed electronic bombing aids. The US first tried H2S
in September 1943, by end February 1944 two 8th Air Force bomber
groups had been equipped with H2X, end May it was 6, end July 11,
end August 24.

Then add the acute shortage of people trained to use the sets and
the way February serviceability of the sets was around 77% while
for the second half of 1944 it was around 88 to 90%.

The loss of merchant ships and in particular tankers off the US east
coast and in the Caribbean during 1942 would hurt the allies for most
of the war, forcing convoys from the start, along with blackouts etc.
would cut the losses but again you are talking in terms of weeks of
improvement.

The one thing you could do was stop the LST orders being cancelled
for DE only for DE orders to be cancelled for LST when the U-boats
were defeated in the first half of 1943.

So the allies have enough LST to launch the historical Overlord
operation in mid 1943 except of course there are the German forces
historically committed to Kursk and the much reduced allied air
power available and the fact the US army, in order to field the forces
it had in 1944, was continually splitting formations to create cadres
during the 1941/43 period. So a nominal 5 divisions in September
1939 to 23 in December 1940, to 39 in October 1941 to 76 in
December 1942 to 94 in August 1943 (including 4 Marine and 1
cavalry, the cavalry was disbanded in May 1944, 2 more Marine
divisions were formed, in January and August 1944). So the actual
effective formation count was lower than the total until 1944 and
even then formations had to give up trained men as replacements
for the units in combat.

So you have the invasion shipping but not the merchant shipping in
1943 or the airpower or the trained ground troops. Remember how
much the allies learnt about proper tactics in the Mediterranean?

Maybe you can take Tunisia as part of Torch. So the allies can
move to say Sicily in early 1943, say 3 to 4 months early. Except
the US forces would be still green, the German losses of the
troops sent to Tunisia, like an extra Panzer division, the loss of
Luftwaffe instrument instructor crews in transports would not have
happened. Also like the 8th Air Force the 15th Air Force will
take time to build up. So the extra invasion shipping allows the
allies to continually go round the German defensive lines in Italy
so by the end of 1944 they are at the Alps. Then where?

Another important lesson learnt by the US in 1942/43 was the ability
to ship lots of supplies overseas with the minimum of problems
finding it again at the other end. The troops for Torch ended up
receiving much equipment several times as shipments became
lost "somewhere in England". With associated flow on effects
on troop training in the US due to lack of equipment there. In 1943
the US army forces moving overseas generally had to take their
own equipment with them, costing weeks of training time before
and after the move for packing and then unpacking, in 1944 they
turned their equipment in, moved and were issued new equipment
at the other end, in Europe anyway.

The extra invasion shipping from 1942/43 would enable an
earlier Overlord operation, say in mid April 1944 given the
problems with winter weather, at which time the 8th Air Force
had 31 bomber and 13 fighter groups, versus 40 and 15 on
6 June while the 9th Air Force strength was even further from
its historical D-Day strengths. So the Germans will have better
strategic mobility, given less allied airpower to attack the rail
network and less time to do the attacks.

So it all works and you arrive at Antwerp 6 weeks earlier than
historical. The final operation of the pursuit is an all out effort
to clear the approaches to the port. It took 11 or so weeks
between port capture and opening, so say halve this and the
allies have the historical December supply situation in
September thanks to the invasion being 6 weeks early and
the 6 weeks quicker clearing the approaches. By the way the
usual sequence of a port opening was 1) supplies pile up on
the docks as transport out of the port is inadequate, 2)
supplies pile up on the associated depots as they have
inadequate transport to the forward depots, 3) the forward
depots end up with lots of supplies on wheels waiting to be
unloaded with too much arriving relative to the unloading
capacity, which caused problems further back due to a lack of
transport. It took a few weeks from port opening to everything
working assuming there was no change that caused a
reallocation of transports or change of depot positions.

In September 1944 the allies would have gladly swapped
combat formations for more supply units.

Add of course the time needed to build things like the fuel
pipelines from the channel ports to the front line.

End August 1944 the US Army had 23 divisions in France and
5 in Britain, end September it was 32 divisions in France and
2 in Britain. End December it was 46 and 6. At peak it was
61 divisions in France/Germany in March 1945.

So you are 3 months ahead in terms of territory captured,
and troops supplied and this is everything going reasonably
well, but you are behind in terms of US military power available.
So everything else happens in the same time scale and
the war ends in early February 1945, assuming for example
the Germans defend on the west bank of the Rhine and lose
as many troops as historical. And so on.

Note given how close Antwerp was to the front line the allies
used other French ports for things like ammunition, fuel and
personnel, so they have to be opened as well.

So again like any hypothetical you can arrange a result,
especially if the other side is confined to their historical
time lines and reactions, so all the improvements are on
one side. The reality of how long it took to build the
equipment and train the personnel, the way the allies gained
knowledge of how to do operations over the course of the war,
things like amphibious assaults, army group level supply,
combined arms tactics is it all takes time and unless the
answers are handed back through time and believed or
enforced it is very hard to change the overall result and the
later you make any start point the less changes can be made.

In the east you need Stalin to allow better objectives for the
1941/42 winter offensive, the May 1942 operation and
generally over extending his forces on the attack in the
1942/43 period. That will help but again it is still a 1945
victory.

Finally according to the British Germany imported 114,558
tons of Chrome Ore from Turkey in 1939, 25,498 tons in 1943
and 21,182 tons January to August 1944, the Turks say the
exports were 104,156 tons in 1939, 13,564 tons in 1943 and
59,649 tons in 1944.

German imports of chrome ore from the USSR were
23,382 tons in 1940.

The USN chrome plated its big guns for a useful increase
in barrel life.

Wolfram/Tungsten came from Spain and Portugal.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
SolomonW
2015-10-29 14:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Post by SolomonW
Let assume that you are an allied planner in early 1942. What could you do
that would significantly speed up Hitler's fall?
Almost nothing if significantly is end 1944.
I agree. I think it says much for the skill of the Allied generals.
Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
Starting 1 January 1942.
Want to systematically bomb Germany's synthetic oil refineries?
<.. I agree>

Long range fighters are a problem partly as they had low-priority.
Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
The loss of merchant ships and in particular tankers off the US east
coast and in the Caribbean during 1942 would hurt the allies for most
of the war, forcing convoys from the start, along with blackouts etc.
would cut the losses but again you are talking in terms of weeks of
improvement.
Probably not even weeks.


An early assault on France in 1943 was very risky, particularly as the
Uboats were not beaten and also as comparatively the German forces would be
much bigger than in 1944.

A bridgehead may be possible a breakout is unlikely also leaving Italy in
the war adds about 15% to German power.

<..>
Post by Geoffrey Sinclair
So the extra invasion shipping allows the
allies to continually go round the German defensive lines in Italy
so by the end of 1944 they are at the Alps. Then where?
It would be very hard to cross the alps. Still airbases in Northern Italy
would be a big help.

<.. good stuff which I agree with>
yauming
2015-11-11 19:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Long range fighters are a problem partly as they had low-priority.
Its no surprise that long range fighters were a low-priority.

Both the USAAF (and RAF) were dominated by a pro-Bomber "Billy Mitchell" faction
who
believed that the bomber would make all other forms of weapons obsolete.

Hence the thinking behind the "Flying Fortress" - the Air Force generals argued
that it would fight its way through. No need for puny fighter planes.
GFH
2015-11-12 18:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Let assume that you are an allied planner in early 1942. What could you do
that would significantly speed up Hitler's fall? Could it cause a change
that has Hitler defeated in 1944?
If ending the war before Christmas (1944) is good
enough, then I suggest:
It the British had continued their attack after the
capture of Antwerp instead of taking a two week "tea
break", then the Germans who were on the run out of
the Low Countries would have not regrouped.

Yes, the British forces were exhausted and supplies were
running low, but IMHO, there is no way that Patton would
have rested to regroup like Monty did.

Of course if Monty had not paused he should not have
attacked to the north, but to the east. IMHO the Germans
would have withdrawn from the western Netherlands within
a few weeks (as fast as they could).

I should note that I am not the only one who has
advanced this theory. It was a popular theory about
50 years ago.

I see two major objections:
1) Was cooperation between Monty and Patton possible?
2) How well would this speed up fit with very high level
USA-USSR agreements? Yes, I mean FDR and Stalin.

GFH
Rich Rostrom
2015-11-13 15:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by GFH
If ending the war before Christmas (1944) is good
enough...
It would be, but this would not accomplish it.
Post by GFH
It the British had continued their attack after the
capture of Antwerp instead of taking a two week "tea
break"...
21st Army Group didn't stop fighting after taking
Antwerp on 9/4/44. They were fighting all along the coast
against German holdout garrisons in Le Havre (till 9/12),
Boulogne (9/22), and Calais (9/30). Also fighting in Ghent
until 9/6; an attack on the Breskens Pocket south of the
Scheldt on 9/3 had been repulsed.
Post by GFH
then the Germans who were on the run out of
the Low Countries would have not regrouped.
Yes, the British forces were exhausted and supplies were
running low, but IMHO, there is no way that Patton would
have rested to regroup like Monty did.
U.S. Third Army ran out of supplies in early September,
and had to stop while the logistics caught up. This
"coffee break" halted Third Army while the Germans in
Lorraine rallied. When Third Army resumed its advance,
it was stopped cold west of Metz.
Post by GFH
Of course if Monty had not paused he should not have
attacked to the north, but to the east.
Due east from Antwerp and Brussels was U.S. 1st Army's
area. The British axis of attack was NE.
Post by GFH
IMHO the Germans would have withdrawn from the western
Netherlands...
Why? The western Netherlands, being heavily broken up
by open water (it's called Zeeland for a reason) was
extremely defensible. There were also canals and flooded
areas to get through. The Germans wanted to hold out
there as long as possible to block the use of Antwerp.
Historically, the Breskens Pocket held out until 11/2.

Of course, even if there was an opportunity for some
further US/UK advances in September 1944, that wouldn't
have much effect on the Eastern Front - the Soviets
weren't ready to attack in Poland until January 1945.

(They had reached the area of Warsaw at the end of July;
but instead of attacking westward, they took a five-month
"borscht break". Right? Pfui.)
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Roman W
2015-11-14 17:25:31 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:36:34 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
(They had reached the area of Warsaw at the end of July;
but instead of attacking westward, they took a five-month
"borscht break". Right? Pfui.)
Well there was a well-known political reason for that, too.

RW
Mario
2015-11-16 18:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roman W
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 10:36:34 -0500, Rich Rostrom
Post by Rich Rostrom
(They had reached the area of Warsaw at the end of July;
but instead of attacking westward, they took a five-month
"borscht break". Right? Pfui.)
Well there was a well-known political reason for that, too.
Field Marshal Alexander told Italian partisans to stop
operations in winter 1944-45.

Five months tea break?
Political reasons?

Sorry, no English WP page.
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclama_Alexander
--
oiram
Mario
2015-11-16 18:42:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Let assume that you are an allied planner in early 1942. What
could you do that would significantly speed up Hitler's fall?
Could it cause a change that has Hitler defeated in 1944?
Maybe the Allies have a bout of imagination and set up a plan
to wedge and split the Axis inducing the weaker ally, Italy,
to reverse its policy 180° so if anything goes right the front
line is on the Alps mid 1943.
--
oiram
Loading...