Roundup in 1943 and the Soviets

[phil5775]

Quite a few historians and authors have convincingly argued that an Allied invasion of France in 1943 (code-named Roundup) would have been successful. With no Mediterranean operations in 1943, there would have been 63 divisions available in Britain for an assault scheduled for sometime between June 1st and June 8th. Those divisions would have included 19 British, 5 Canadian, 1 Polish, 1 mixed (Belgians, French, Czechs, Dutch) and 37 American, with 5 new US divisions available every month. Rommel's defenses on the Normandy coast would not yet be in place, and the number of German forces opposing them would be minimal, as the bulk of their army was deep in Russia, with the front line running from Leningrad south to the Black Sea. The landing craft used for the Sicily / Italy invasions would be ready and available in the UK.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say the Allies, with nearly 3/4 of a million troops available, invade France the first week of June 1943. With minimal resistance, they quickly establish beacheads and rapidly begin their push inland. According to the scenario, they clear out France and the Low Countries, and push into Germany and into Berlin itself within a year. In the meantime, they also smash into Austria and take Vienna, and push into occupied Czechoslovakia and capture Prague.
With Hitler pulling trroops from the Eastern front to confront the onslaught in the west, the Soviets move further west themselves and get to the Polish border, and maybe as far as Warsaw before the ends.

The war therefore ends in May 1944 with the Allies in control of all of Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, maybe Hungary and perhaps part of Poland. Soviet territorial acquisition is decidedly less than it was in OTL, as is their sphere of influence.

But...

With all this going on in Europe, in May 44 the US forces in the Pacific are still along way from victory. Nimitz is still a month away from the Caroline Islands assault, and MacArthur's forces are still bogged down in New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago.

So does Stalin, perhaps stung by the Allied victory on the continent, take a look towards the Pacific, see an opening , and proceed to send his ever-increasing and battle hardened armies east? Could he have launched his "second front" agains the Japanese in Manchuria a year earlier? And, with US forces not even close to the Philippines, much less the Japanese home islands, would he have taken advantage of the US absence and taken all of Korea, the Kurile islands, and at leat Hokkaido? It's not hard to see him supporting Mao's armies in China, against not only the Japanese but against Chiang's forces as well. Then, instead of an Iron Curtain across Europe, there is a Bamboo Curtain extending into the Pacific encompassing Japan.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Quite a few historians and authors have convincingly argued that an Allied invasion of France in 1943 (code-named Roundup) would have been successful.

True, "quite a few" do.

With no Mediterranean operations in 1943, there would have been 63 divisions available in Britain for an assault scheduled for sometime between June 1st and June 8th. Those divisions would have included 19 British, 5 Canadian, 1 Polish, 1 mixed (Belgians, French, Czechs, Dutch) and 37 American, with 5 new US divisions available every month. Rommel's defenses on the Normandy coast would not yet be in place, and the number of German forces opposing them would be minimal, as the bulk of their army was deep in Russia, with the front line running from Leningrad south to the Black Sea.

I'll believe this. I don't know details, but it sounds plausible.

The landing craft used for the Sicily / Italy invasions would be ready and available in the UK.

Which weren't nearly enough for a proper invasion of France, but might well allow a toe hold.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say the Allies, with nearly 3/4 of a million troops available, invade France the first week of June 1943. With minimal resistance, they quickly establish beacheads

You're fine to this point.

and rapidly begin their push inland. According to the scenario, they clear out France and the Low Countries, and push into Germany and into Berlin itself within a year. In the meantime, they also smash into Austria and take Vienna, and push into occupied Czechoslovakia and capture Prague.
With Hitler pulling trroops from the Eastern front to confront the onslaught in the west, the Soviets move further west themselves and get to the Polish border, and maybe as far as Warsaw before the ends.

The war therefore ends in May 1944 with the Allies in control of all of Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, maybe Hungary and perhaps part of Poland. Soviet territorial acquisition is decidedly less than it was in OTL, as is their sphere of influence.

OK, this is where it falls off the rails. Completely.

Can the WAllies get a beachhead? Quite possibly. Will they "rapidly ... push inland"? Nope. No way. No how.

1) they don't have anything like the air superiority they had in '44
2) Logistics will be a total mess. There's no Mulberry harbors or PLUTO in '43. The Germans will likely do as good a job at destroying harbours as in '44, so ALL the WAlly supplies (including fuel) have to be landed on beaches and carried to where needed.
3) the lessened air superiority means the French transportation network isnt' destroyed, so the Nazis can move all the armour and troops they want to the front. Unlike'44. Also, in '44 the same WAlly air superiority meant that what few troops the Germans could move basically had to move by night, as the WAllies ruled the skies and killed anything that moved.
4) the hedgerows (bocage) is still the same, and gives huge advantages to the Germans on defence. Also, Hobart's funnies aren't ready yet, so the Brits/Canadians will have tougher times. The US didn't use them, so no change there.

The WAllies are going to be doing well to keep their beachheads. They CAN'T move forward until they take a port. And then reconstruct it. So, it will be 6 months before they can move out of Normandy. And then it will be a slow slog, with massively increased casualties.

I wouldn't be surprised if a landing in '43 got the WAllies to Berlin faster than landing a year later. But it wont be much. And it will be far, FAR more expensive, in terms of men, materiel, and money.

It would even be possible for the Germans to throw the WAllies off the beach, so the landings don't succeed at all. I think "quite a few" other historians think that's at least as likely as the invasion succeeding.

 

[phil5775]

Dahti, you're missing two points.

1. Everything I posted about the 1943 invasion was based on published materials. The "quite a few" propose the scenario as an alternate history, which is is speculation, which in turn is the whole premise of this site, as you may or may not have guessed.

2. The thread questioned what the scenario would be had it happened as stated. It was not meant to be an argument whether or not the invasion would or would not have succeeded.

 

[BlairWitch749]

that scenario is so incredulus that it simply can't be entertained to look for follow on effects

 

[iddt3]

Perhaps if America got involved in the War earlier? say early '41 or even '40?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Dahti, you're missing two points.

1. Everything I posted about the 1943 invasion was based on published materials. The "quite a few" propose the scenario as an alternate history, which is is speculation, which in turn is the whole premise of this site, as you may or may not have guessed.

2. The thread questioned what the scenario would be had it happened as stated. It was not meant to be an argument whether or not the invasion would or would not have succeeded.

Except that "alternate history" has to work as history. Unlike certain brand name writers who throw reality to the winds, we require that a TL work. If you want to do other stuff, there's the Writers Forum and the ASB Forum.

Seriously, the probability of any Roundup invasion moving fast is very, very small.

 

[Beedok]

Well the Soviets have probably lossed a heck of a lot less soldiers, while the WAllies will be hurting quite a bit more from a longer slog in Europe I'm going to guess.

 

[jmc247]

June 1943?

That might be interesting. Hitler would likely cancel the Battle of Kursk and it would put him in much more of a defensive position realizing he has to fight two foes in Europe at the same time.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

If this is possible than this profoundly effects the Pacific War. The full weight of British and US forces not only moves more quickly but leads a much more destructive bombing campaign. Japan could surrender without the atomic bomb. The Soviets take over China and throw Jaing out.. c China is a Soviet satellite and Mao is a figurehead. There is no Great Leap Foreard or Cultural Revolution. The occupation of China is huge financial strain. Soviets can start supplying Ho Chin Minh in early 1945.

 

[AdA]

In 1943 the Germans had their hands full in Russia. Kursks went bad, but the soviet post Kursk offensive went very bad for the Germans. At the time they were able to contain the allies in Italy with minimal forces, and kept a force in France to keep a watch on the sea. An allied landing in France will be likely to secure a beachhead and create a lot of targets for allied aircraft to hit when they secure air superiority, wich they will. The beachead will hold, at a price, and the breakout will probably take longer than in 1944. But all the allied losses in Italy will be factored out, some Germans units will still be in Italy to shore up the Italians and there will be less German troops, tanks, and critically aircraft, to contain the soviets.
It boils down to how important we think Italy was. If kicking Italy out of the Axis was not important, the ressources used for that purpouse would have been indirectly more useful to the soviets in France. Ultimately it was up to the soviets to defeat Germany, for the Wallies to help them.
A quick look at German tank production summer 1943/summer 1944 is useful for this discussion. A 2nd front in 1943 would make the Germans seriously short of decent tanks...

 

[phil5775]

Except that "alternate history" has to work as history. Unlike certain brand name writers who throw reality to the winds, we require that a TL work. If you want to do other stuff, there's the Writers Forum and the ASB Forum.

Seriously, the probability of any Roundup invasion moving fast is very, very small.

Your point is taken, but here's mine. The TL COULD work, when considering all aspects and not just dismissing it on uncertain probablilities. And the possible invasion of Europe in 1943 has been discussed on other threads, and I didn't want this one hijacked to become another one. What I asked was IF such an invasion took place, and followed through on this particular scenario, what strategy would the Soviet Union follow.

 

[kclcmdr]

Did the Western Allies have enough LSTs, transports and cargo ships for lifting three divisions to any invasion beach??

Heck... did they have enough air transports to lift two Airborne divisions ??

I not sure if the Western Allies have air superiority at this time ...
I think that the WAllies Bomber Offensive was having issues due to not having sufficient long-range Fighters to escort the Bombers...

And beginning 1943 ... wasn't this the height of the Battle of the Atlantic where cargo ships and tankers among with Allied ships and planes were battling it out with the Kriegsmarine's submarines for control of the sea lanes from America to Britain??

 

[Anaxagoras]

Everything I posted about the 1943 invasion was based on published materials.

You are committing the logical fallacy of arguing from authority. Just because "published materials" says something does not make it valid.

 

[oudi14]

I'm far from an expert on this, but I could see the Allies landing on Utah Beach and a few other places around the Cotentin Peninsula, and successfully capturing this piece of real estate, and holding the base of the peninsula against the inevitable counter attacks until the following spring, when they would have a beachhead for the main breakout. This may sound a bit simplistic, but you get my drift.

 

[phil5775]

You are committing the logical fallacy of arguing from authority. Just because "published materials" says something does not make it valid.

I can't disagree, but I'm not referencing them as fact.

 

[hipper]

Us troops in uk

I'm not sure about 37 us divisions in the uk in 1943

Historically the us troop build up was from 40k to 265k ground troops in the Uk August to December 1943 say 2 - 13 divisions optimistically

While for the invasion of Sicily July - August 1943 the us provided 6 divisions

So a US contribution of 8 divisions in August plus 2-3 divisions per month for the rest of the year is more realistic

Souce Hyperwar Logistic support of the armies and wiki operation husky

Cheers

hipper

 

[Archibald]

I smell a lethal odor in the air... coming from some Frisian Islands...

 

[mattep74]

If the allies havent complete controll of the skies, then the beachhead will mean the end of Luftwaffe as they will hurl everying they got at it. The Luftwaffe will be weaker as the campaign continue while the allies become stronger. The Luftwaffe will also loose pilots with experience from 39 and in some regards going back to Spain and 36. The allies will have BoB veterans, but also green pilots that will learn the game wery fast.

The Germans will also send every tank not in Russia towards the beachhead. In 43 the invasion means stalemate while the allies build up their strenght.

 

[phx1138]

1) they don't have anything like the air superiority they had in '44

Granted.

2) Logistics will be a total mess. There's no Mulberry harbors or PLUTO in '43. The Germans will likely do as good a job at destroying harbours as in '44, so ALL the WAlly supplies (including fuel) have to be landed on beaches and carried to where needed.

This is presuming the OTL planning schedule. Who's to say the Mulberrys can't be ready sooner? If the planners expect not to invade Italy...

3) the lessened air superiority means the French transportation network isnt' destroyed, so the Nazis can move all the armour and troops they want to the front.

My sense is, that had more to do with Allied control of the sky than railway. Also, lesser destruction might actually be beneficial to moving Allied forces.

4) the hedgerows (bocage) is still the same, and gives huge advantages to the Germans on defence.

Conceded.

Also, Hobart's funnies aren't ready yet, so the Brits/Canadians will have tougher times.

Again, if you know you're going to change the schedule, why can't they be?

It would even be possible for the Germans to throw the WAllies off the beach

That would appear to demand better beach defenses than existed...

If this is possible than this profoundly effects the Pacific War.

That's for sure. At a minimum, you're going to divert some LCs from PTO ops to carry off the Roundup landing. (Unless we presume Roundup never exceeds the Husky or Avalanche numbers, which seem too low to me.) Probably you have to divert shipping to keep it supplied, too.

leads a much more destructive bombing campaign.

How?

Japan could surrender without the atomic bomb.

Very possible.

The Soviets take over China and throw Jaing out.

Why? They were supporting Jiang...&, so I've read, didn't really trust Mao.

Soviets can start supplying Ho Chin Minh in early 1945.

If Japan is beaten sooner, it's also possible FDR refuses to hand back Vietnam to France, & the 10,000 Day War is butterflied entirely.

It's also possible to install a Viet patriot who isn't Ho, nor a Communist, nor Diem...

The Germans will also send every tank not in Russia towards the beachhead.

As heavily committed in SU as Germany was, it wouldn't take much to tip the balance there--& the threat to France is going to mean the Sovs do better. So, it becomes a case of, can the Normandy landing advance fast enough when the Sovs draw strength away from it? Or advance at all? Since this appears to predate the "Speer miracle"...

And beginning 1943 ... wasn't this the height of the Battle of the Atlantic...??

No. By June '43, the U-boats were effectively defeated. The Brits didn't believe it...

 

[MUC]

I thunk the problem here is timing and planning. In order to have a successfull invasion of France in June 1943 the W. Alllies need to decide upon this objective in early 1943. They need to stockpile troops, material, train trrops in landing ops and start a strategic bombing of defenses and railyards in France.

The problem is, that the course of the war in the Eastern Front only became apparent after Stalingrad ended ank Kursk failed. The Germans even went in the offensive in between (Kharkov). Furthermore, until May 1943 it was mot certain how the Battle of Atlantic would turn out, while the strategic bombing of Germany was just starting to materialize in great scale. The Luftwaffe was not broken in 1943, hiding and protecting the invasion fleet would not be trivial.

With hindsight it's logical to propose Roundup in 1943.
But can you propose it and decide upon it without hindsight in January 1943?