AHQ: Did the Western Allies make any important mistakes in Strategy in 1942 and later?

Garrison

Donor
There are a few, but relatively small.
A). Did spend enough effort to develop a more powerful tank then the Sherman. (Armor and or gun)

The US did develop a more powerful tank, the M26 Pershing, they just didn't deploy it for the tangled reasons explained in the wiki article. The British on the other hand did upgun the M4 to good effect, Sherman Firefly. They also deployed the Comet and had the war gone on a little longer the Centurion would have seen service.
 

Garrison

Donor
Abandoning the Ruhr campaign and focusing on city busting

The Ruhr campaign in 1943 was an excellent use of the bomber forces and created a real problem for German production - the switch to city busting and support for the Normandy invasion and not then switching back again allowed it to recover.

POL, Power generation and transport attacks would have made far more sense but I am not 100% convinced that the allies could have effectively conducted such attacks much before they did or fully appreciated their impact - but such attacks would have been better than the city busting.

Certainly a return to a Ruhr like campaign would have been far better and resulting in greater damage to the German war industry.

This would be absolutely my top pick. The disruption caused to German industry in 1943 was substantial and if the Allies had maintained the focus there until they had to switch focus in support of the D-Day preparations the impact would have been huge.
 
This would be absolutely my top pick. The disruption caused to German industry in 1943 was substantial and if the Allies had maintained the focus there until they had to switch focus in support of the D-Day preparations the impact would have been huge.

I recall that the losses to tank production incurred due to the bombing (i.e. tanks not built that would otherwise have been built) exceed tank losses on the Eastern front during the same period.
 
Saving Stalin's skin with Lend Lease and pro-Soviet propaganda rather than telling the truth. Not backing the German Resistance.
The Red Army won World War II. At any point in time the Germans had at least 2/3 of their troops on the eastern front. ( See https://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/2085-number-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii#:~:text=Number of German divisions by front in World, 98 65 more rows )
Had the Eastern Front not existed I have serious doubts about the Western Allies and D Day,
As for the German resistance I am not sure what could have been done to support the resistance, I think you also have to ask whether the successor to Hitler would have fought a smarter war. If you posit a military dictatorship I think the war would have been much harder to win.
 
Last edited:
I'd say one of the strategic mistakes for the USA was the issues with the ordinance bureau. Possibly could have skipped the torpedo problems and not being prepared for tank warfare (m3 tank) so close to the entry of the US even if the military was small.
 
It was mentioned already, but bears repeating: The Strategic Bomber Offensive had some fairly seriously flaws the politicians didn't manage well. Churchill not firing Harris in 1943 was a significant mistake.

Not trying to prop up outright Nazi-Collaboroteurs in Yugoslawia and Greece would also have been helpful.
 
Just want to echo what everyone said about the Sherman. If you would like a more coherent argument check out Nicholas Moran aka
"the Chieftain" video lectures on the US tank development. He goes over how the Sherman came in to being, as well as the prototypes that were developed but discarded due to various issues. He also lays out a timeline for the development of the Pershing and concludes there was not enough to time to develop it and deploy it in sufficient numbers by 1943/44.

Myths of American Armor

US AFV Development in WW2, or, "Why the Sherman was what it was"
 
Thanks for the response.
A) Yes, to an extent. Possibly simply upgunning the Sherman to the 76mm gun ( or UK "77mm") for 1944 would have been enough? Or the UK getting the Comet in service earlier.

B) More an Operational issue within the overall NW European campaign. But does suggest insufficient resources allocated to maintain the advance.

C) thanks, getting rid of MacArthur is always a priority. Although the SW Pacific campaign was probably still necessary. Should Formosa have been the target instead of the Phillippines.

D) yes. Understandable political reasons but yes

E) yes, thanks

F) agreed

The 75mm Sherman was a better infantry support tank. It fired a more powerful HE shell, and unlike the 76mm a deadly WP round. The British 17 pounder was really too big for the Sherman turret, and was too tightly crammed in to be effectively used. The NW European Campaign was the most lavishly supplied in history, it's hard to imagine what more could've been done. MacArthur's SW Pacific Campaign was the high point of his military career, at least after Buna & Gona. The decision to invade Luzon rather then Formosa was made because Luzon required 9 Divisions vs 14, and yes it was the right geopolitical decision.
 
It was mentioned already, but bears repeating: The Strategic Bomber Offensive had some fairly seriously flaws the politicians didn't manage well. Churchill not firing Harris in 1943 was a significant mistake.

Not trying to prop up outright Nazi-Collaboroteurs in Yugoslawia and Greece would also have been helpful.

What would be gained by firing Harris? With all it's flaws in conception the Bomber Campaign devastated the German war machine. Given the timescale of the war what was the alternative? There were really no good options in Yugoslavia, or Greece.
 
Not moving into Italy sooner following the Armistice, starting the campaign further up the peninsula would be nice.

Mackenzie King insisting that the Canadians fight in Italy and France simultaneously rather than concentrating their limited manpower.

Dumpstering (rather than delaying) the original plan for the Arakan Campaign, scraping the amphibious element entirely, not giving the freshly raised 14th Indian Division time to train in Jungle Warfare, and not preparing proper command infrastructure (the 14th's divisional HQ ended up commanding three times as many brigades as it was supposed to).
 
What would be gained by firing Harris? With all it's flaws in conception the Bomber Campaign devastated the German war machine.

The crippling of German industry did not occur until several months into 1944. John Ellis 'Brute Force' has a chapter analyzing th relation ship between bomb weight & & production decline. The tipping point in bomb weight did not come until early 1944 & its effect a bit later.

Harris grossly mis estimated where that critical mass of bomb weight was. He told the other Brit leaders it would happen in 1942, & then in 1943. As par of his frantic effort to prove his point he was able to block the provision of sufficient VLR aircraft to Coastal Command & the British fleet for anti submarine warfare. In 1942 Bomber Command under Harrisis leadership failed to cripple German industry, but the German submarine fleet came its closest to winning the Battle of the Atlantic. Provisioning a decent number of VLR aircraft to Coastal Command from the start would have built up a much more effective ASW force for 1941-42. Likely winning the Battle of the Atlantic a year or more earlier.
 
The Dodecanese campaign was not well conducted. Either drop it (preferably) or carry it through with adequate resources.
 
Provisioning a decent number of VLR aircraft to Coastal Command from the start would have built up a much more effective ASW force for 1941-42. Likely winning the Battle of the Atlantic a year or more earlier.
Yes, that is the most important error the allies(/british) made.
I think that if 10-20 squadrons bombers would be transferred to Coastal Command it would have made a major impact on the BotA.
 
The crippling of German industry did not occur until several months into 1944. John Ellis 'Brute Force' has a chapter analyzing th relation ship between bomb weight & & production decline. The tipping point in bomb weight did not come until early 1944 & its effect a bit later.

Harris grossly mis estimated where that critical mass of bomb weight was. He told the other Brit leaders it would happen in 1942, & then in 1943. As par of his frantic effort to prove his point he was able to block the provision of sufficient VLR aircraft to Coastal Command & the British fleet for anti submarine warfare. In 1942 Bomber Command under Harrisis leadership failed to cripple German industry, but the German submarine fleet came its closest to winning the Battle of the Atlantic. Provisioning a decent number of VLR aircraft to Coastal Command from the start would have built up a much more effective ASW force for 1941-42. Likely winning the Battle of the Atlantic a year or more earlier.

Your correct in all your criticisms of Harris, but all these decisions about the allocation of resources were approved by the service chiefs, and the top political leadership. It wasn't the responsibility of one man for getting so much wrong. By 1942 the UK was committed to the Bomber Offensive, there was no turning back. About 25% of the British War Economy was geared to the production of 4 engine bombers, and the RAF had a massive training program for flight crews to carryout the campaign. Operation Point Blank has many critics who can argue that the myopic allocation of resources was inefficient, and wasteful of lives, but it proved to be the most effective way of directly striking at Germany before the Allied armies could engage them in the decisive ground war in France.

By early 1943 Point Blank had forced almost all Luftwaffe fighter groups back to Germany for homeland defense, paving the way for tactical air forces to have total supremacy on all fronts. Large numbers of Ju-88's, and their derivatives were used as night fighters, rather then as tactical bombers. The German electronics industry was forced to devote almost all it's resources to the defense of the home front. Huge resources of men, and material were expended to build massive concrete Flak Towers. Thousands of 88mm and larger caliber guns, and millions of rounds of ammo were devoted to home defense, that otherwise would have been used as AT Guns, or general service artillery. 500,000 personnel were engaged in the Home Defense effort.

It's true German War Production continued to rise till late in 1944, but how much higher would it have been without the bombing? The disruption of fuel production, and transportation in 1944 proved decisive. Yes your right that 50 to 100 4 engine bombers would've won the Battle of the Atlantic a year earlier, and their absence from the bombing of Germany wouldn't have been felt, but I'm just saying you can't lay that all on Harris, there was a lot of blame to be spread around for those mistakes.
 
Just want to echo what everyone said about the Sherman. If you would like a more coherent argument check out Nicholas Moran aka
"the Chieftain" video lectures on the US tank development. He goes over how the Sherman came in to being, as well as the prototypes that were developed but discarded due to various issues. He also lays out a timeline for the development of the Pershing and concludes there was not enough to time to develop it and deploy it in sufficient numbers by 1943/44.

Myths of American Armor

US AFV Development in WW2, or, "Why the Sherman was what it was"

Its an excellent lecture
 
One of the political decisions with consequences was to NOT utilise Italy as a strategic trap as Brooke wanted.

Brooke wanted to ensure that maximum of german troops were in Italy. it is not easy to move anything through the Alps; hence what was in Italy at the start of Overlord would stay there for some time.

Southern France (according to Brooke) would only get the troops out of Italy and onto the excellent French railway system.

Brooke saw Overlord as the final push, not the first push.

But he was not exactly supported to the hilt in this.

When he did not get access to enough landing craft (traded off really - he was bitter abut that) there was no way that much more German troops could have been trapped in Otaly - the simple threat of invading somewhere would have been enough to trap even more German forces

The other big one was not to tell Monty to get on with clearing Antwerp - as he was tasked to do.

Eisenhover should have focused on one big thrust with all resources behind it. Not this aligning along the river. He might have ended the ward in 1944
 
The Sherman was a great infantry support tank that was extremely dependable and often gets a bad wrap (more then it deserves) but by the end of the war it was fighting against tanks it was not ment yo fight against and could have used a big brother to fight those bullies while it did it’s normal job.
And yes the US was working on a better tank fighting tank but it did MOT get to Europe in a timely manor in the numbers needed. And this caused problems.

As for Market Garden. It was a good CONCEPT and if it had worked It would have been amazing. But the problem is.. it was NEVER going to work. You can’t move that number of troops that far down that limited of a road network against resistance. As such the plan SUCKED. I have a great concept for retirement l IHit The Lotto for 150 million. Concept wise it is brilliant. So the plan is to mortgage my house and use every last dollar to buy lotto tickets... This is a good concept if you can do it (win Lotto) but the plan is horrible because it is never going to happen...

Marget Garden was never going to work, And it is a testament to the troops involved in it that it came as close as it did.
 
The clearing of the Scheldt estuary.

This is not a critique of MG but how the operational boundaries were made between army's and the over burdening of the Canadian army while at the same time not allowing some British army units to exploit sudden advances due to no longer being in their agreed boundary's.

This resulted in some very hard fighting where the Germans had been given in some cases several weeks to improve their defences than might have otherwise have been the case.

Quick fix - shift the boundary for 2nd BR army north West / West of Antwerp as soon or before it was captured by 11th Armoured Division and the Belgian resistance and shifting the remaining army's accordingly - my 'back of a cigarette packet' changes in red below- allowing 2nd Army to continue its exploitation and reducing the burden on the 1st Canadian army (who were also reducing the channel ports after the Normandy breakout).

Some of the resources thrown at MARKET-GARDEN would have been far better used clearing the Scheldt Estuary when the chance was there. The Allies could have had use of Antwerp a full two months sooner, which would have vastly improved their logistics.
 
The NW European Campaign was the most lavishly supplied in history, it's hard to imagine what more could've been done.
Up to a point.

There were 2 critical issues at a strategic level - not enough US transport units were allocated to the campaign, and IIRC the US had to ration 105mm ammunition from about the first week. Both would have helped in accelerating the campaign.

RE: Market Garden and the Scheldt
The tactical problem of Walcheren Island means it is very difficult to take it on the bounce in early September, as it needs an infantry and artillery lead operation.
Even if you clear the Scheldt, you also have to clear at least as far as the Maas river to remove the threat of artillery fire and German counterattack.
Opening Antwerp would not be a panacea as it would take time for any supplies landed to reach US forces (the British did not need Antwerp for supply).
Market Garden was a reasonably good plan at the time it was made. However perception is driven by hindsight, but it would be remembered very differently if say (a) Nijmegen bridge was captured on the first day; or (b) Nijmegen bridge was demolished by the Germans before the Allies crossed.
 
Top