Changing The War

[sean9898]

Most examinations of WW2 appear to be based on ways to change German strategy, preparedness, or divine intervention to discuss whether a campaign might have been won, or the war might have been won. What I'd like to do is outline a couple of allied changes which might make the war very different, but from the other side.

1) No breakthrough at Sedan
A competent French defense during the river crossing at Sedan might have made it impossible for a German breakthrough. While the French forces were outnumbered, they were dug in across a river. Although the Luftwaffe devastated the French defense, there were still enough troops to hold off the tenuous crossing. Is this enough to blunt the breakthrough and subsequent drive to the coast?

If France successfully defends the initial breakthrough might they hold out for 1940?

What might a Western Front look like under these circumstances, how long can France hold out, and what impact does this have in other theatres. I would assume no Barbarossa until later, and Italy is left to sort out their later mess in the Balkans.

2) No Greece
Without diverting sizable numbers of O'Connor's men to Greece, he may have fully conquered Libya in early 1941. However, without Wavell's series of mistakes, the Greece diversion may not have mattered.

At the outset the offensive was supposed to be little more than a large raid by two divisions. Wavell could have attacked with three, but chose instead to rotate the Australian division in for an Indian division rather than throw all three at the Italians. He also forgot to inform O'Connor of the switch, resulting in the offensive being delayed for 2 weeks.

In January 1941 possibly the most lopsided battle of the war took place at Bardia. The 6th Australian Division lost 454 men, capturing killing or wounding 40,000 Italians, hundreds of vehicles, 140 tanks and 400 artillery pieces.

Despite an amazing series of victories Wavell did not support O'Connor's request to continue the advance, putting potential difficulties in front of Churchill, so the British halted in front of El Agheila. O'Connor's force was stripped of the 7th armoured division, and his corps headquarters torn up. Having conquered an area larger than Britain and France, the British force was ordered to dig in and defend, Rommel arrived and the rest is history.

So what if Wavell decided to hold off on Ethiopia, launch a three division attack, starts without the 2 week delay in swapping divisions and convinces Churchill that a victory in the desert is imminent, thus O'Connor continues his advance?

Rommel may not even be sent to Africa, the last Italian troops to escape Libya might be leaving a British controlled North Africa in February/March 1940, and a 2 year war in the desert might be avoided.

What effect does this have on the war? While the Germans diverted only a small number of troops to the front, it remained the British focus for 2 years of the war. What does Britain do with it's good fortune, and where do they fight if not the desert?

3) A bridge not quite too far
The oft criticized attack by Montgomery through Holland has been blamed for ensuring the war continue into 1945, and allowed the Germans enough time to mount yet another Ardennes offensive.

However, in August 1944 with the Germans in full flight Montgomery and Patton were both ordered to halt. Montgomery was on the border of Holland. In an interview after the war Horrocks, Monty's corps commander claimed his greatest regret was in not disobeying the orders to halt. He had enough emergency gasoline to reach the Rhine, and only 2 divisions of low quality troops in front of him. It would have been a gamble, left his tanks without any fuel by the end of the advance, and may have left a dangerous bulge in allied lines, but is it worth the risk?

After getting Market-Garden approved, sorting out logistics and launching the offensive, the defense in Holland was considerably strengthened. The original M/G plans called for a link up at Arnheim in 2-3 days, based on the speed of advance before the halt. It's quite possible that Horrocks could have been in Arnheim within 2 days had he not halted.

So what if Eisenhower takes a risk, allows Montgomery to advance for another couple of days in August? It's possible that the British would be over the Rhine, no need for a complex airborne operation, and by the time September rolls around, the allies are in Germany with a clear road to the Rhur.

These are just three from the western theatre, your thoughts, or other possible changes.....

[Calvin]

First of all, the Allies would have still won WWII under these scenarios.

1) I don't think France could hold out against the full strength of the Whermach (sp). The Germans could bypass Sedan, or if they couldn't, make a signifigant breakthrough elseware, or just throw everything they have on the defenders. At the most, the fall of France would be delayed.

2) Well, this saves germany a couple hundred thousand PoWs, to be used in Russia, or S. Italy, and a dozen U-boats for the Atlantic. Dunno if they would make a difference, though, they would just make it harder for the Allies. And if the French offensive is delayed, Hitler could maybe hit il Duce for some more troops, perhaps delaying or stopping the Italian offensives.

3) Don't know enough about Monty to tell weather he would suceed, but if the Ardennes offensive is stalled, the Germans can use their resources more effectively, say, to attack Monty w/his tanks showing an "e" on their fuel guages.

Just some thoughts...

[Agelastus]

(2) is the most interesting one, it seems. Although the Ethiopian operation did have a degree of importance, since a quarter of a million Italians were technically sitting at Egypt's back-door.

The first thing we might postulate is that the British might decide to neutralise Vichy North Africa-the Dakar operation might have been a failure, but now we have a land frontier to attack, fortified perhaps, but without easy reinforcement from the homeland. Grabbing Tunis as early as possible would be vital to this strategy. To those who think this unlikely, consider the Syrian operation. This would go a long way to securing the Mediterranean lifeline by providing airbases along the entire African coastline.

The second is that the British don't really have anywhere left to use its troops in the west-an earlier Sicily might be an idea, but the British don't have the landing craft or carrier air support for this much before 1943-so we have the possibility that more resources are immediately available to fight the Japanese, including modern aircraft. This might not change Singapore's fate (total incompetence caused that) but perhaps Burma might have been held-so no closure of the Burma road, no need to concentrate so much transport capacity for the "hump", and the Allies contemplating operations to reconquer Singapore long before the Fall of 1945.

[Jacobs40K]

Here is another: The allies should have backed up Czechoslovakia's bid to fight Hitler.

They had another chance to stop him when Poland was invaded. But the allies were not bold enough to move into western Germany to challenge Hitler's armies. One reason they probably did not want to challenge him was the prospect of facing Stalin's armies.

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Jacobs40K
They had another chance to stop him when Poland was invaded. But the allies were not bold enough to move into western Germany to challenge Hitler's armies. One reason they probably did not want to challenge him was the prospect of facing Stalin's armies.

The main reasons no significant advance into western Germany occurred were, firstly, the French knew they were the weaker side population wise, and wanted to wait until the British could raise the size of their army-based on WWI comparisons this was expected to take about a year. Secondly, Poland fell to quickly. Thirdly, the French had a very narrow front to play with, since they didn't want to violate the territorial integrity of neutrals, and they were in no position to force a crossing of the Rhine. Fourthly, the experience of WWI had created a defensive mindset. Finally, the French army upon mobilisation was not actually a particularly effective force, since they had altered the mobilisation arrangements from the WWI model, and many reserve formations no longer included men from the same locality, or who had served/trained together before, or even had a sufficiently large core of officers or veteran noncoms-the French army actually benefited from the six month delay in major operations on the western front to improve its training!

Since joint action with the Soviets had been a real possibilty in 1938 over the Czech crisis, despite the Nazi-Soviet pact, no real consideration of the Soviet armies would have preyed on western minds in this period!

[sean9898]

Originally posted by Calvin
First of all, the Allies would have still won WWII under these scenarios.

Yes I agree, wondering whether it could have occurred faster, or slower depending on circumstances. Ironically, the fall of France might have led to a faster allied victory, no Russia while France holds out.

1) I don't think France could hold out against the full strength of the Whermach (sp). The Germans could bypass Sedan, or if they couldn't, make a signifigant breakthrough elseware, or just throw everything they have on the defenders. At the most, the fall of France would be delayed.

They chose Sedan to make their breakthrough, and without the Meuse river crossing there is no blitzkrieg. It does not take much more than a modest improvement in French defense to blunt the attack, and delay a German crossing giving the retreating units in Belgium time to regroup and form a stable front.

There's no need for Dunkirk if those British and French troops are not cut off, so while I don't doubt that another point of attack will be made, possibly resulting in a breakthrough it may not be quite so traumatic.

2) Well, this saves germany a couple hundred thousand PoWs, to be used in Russia, or S. Italy, and a dozen U-boats for the Atlantic. Dunno if they would make a difference, though, they would just make it harder for the Allies. And if the French offensive is delayed, Hitler could maybe hit il Duce for some more troops, perhaps delaying or stopping the Italian offensives.

Yes I agree, a quick desert war might be good for the allies, but not necesarily bad for Germany.

3) Don't know enough about Monty to tell weather he would suceed, but if the Ardennes offensive is stalled, the Germans can use their resources more effectively, say, to attack Monty w/his tanks showing an "e" on their fuel guages.

The Ardennes offensive isn't scheduled for another three months, the war might have been over by then. It only takes a maximum of 2 weeks to hold the Rhine bridges before the gasoline and bullets are flowing again. Model's panzers can't get to Arnheim overnight, and it may take some time before Germany is able to counterattack.

This is certainly the riskiest gamble, but well worth it given what was to happen when they did try to liberate Holland.

Originally posted by Angelastus
The second is that the British don't really have anywhere left to use its troops in the west-an earlier Sicily might be an idea, but the British don't have the landing craft or carrier air support for this much before 1943-so we have the possibility that more resources are immediately available to fight the Japanese, including modern aircraft. This might not change Singapore's fate (total incompetence caused that) but perhaps Burma might have been held-so no closure of the Burma road, no need to concentrate so much transport capacity for the "hump", and the Allies contemplating operations to reconquer Singapore long before the Fall of 1945

I agree, can't think of any use for the desert army before 1943. Maybe a stronger force in Greece, maybe Crete but nothing dramatic. A lot of men, equipment and logistics are saved though, and not wasted going backwards and forwards through Bengazi for the next two years.

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by sean9898
I agree, can't think of any use for the desert army before 1943. Maybe a stronger force in Greece, maybe Crete but nothing dramatic. A lot of men, equipment and logistics are saved though, and not wasted going backwards and forwards through Bengazi for the next two years.

Which is why I postulate the possible use of additional resources in Asia-and the possible retention of the Burma Road and freeing up all that air transport is not entirely insignificant.

Considering Churchill's fears, we're certainly not looking at an earlier overlord if he has his way. On the other hand the British won't be able to use the prospect of Torch as a distraction-I wonder if that might mean more American forces for the Pacific, despite Roosevelt's predelictions?

[sean9898]

Originally posted by Agelastus
Which is why I postulate the possible use of additional resources in Asia-and the possible retention of the Burma Road and freeing up all that air transport is not entirely insignificant.

Considering Churchill's fears, we're certainly not looking at an earlier overlord if he has his way. On the other hand the British won't be able to use the prospect of Torch as a distraction-I wonder if that might mean more American forces for the Pacific, despite Roosevelt's predelictions?

Yes, agree about Burma, is there any way to hang on to Singapore?

Perhaps the desert war, while expensive was necesary in learning to fight. Without it there's no Kassarine, no Torch, no Alamein. American troops won't engage Germans until Sicily.

What happens to Monty and Patton? If Wavell isn't shipped off to his Burmese purgatory we might be learning to spell Field Marshall Wavell

[Agelastus]

Singapore's mostly incompetence-can we change commanders?

Monty can probably find something else to do-Patton's got a problem though.

Do you think we'd have seen a '42 Sicily if Torch was rendered unneccessary? I'm willling to bet we'd have seen a cross-channel landing in '43, despite Churchill's understandable reluctance.

[sean9898]

Originally posted by Agelastus
Singapore's mostly incompetence-can we change commanders?

Well, Monty's unemployed send him out east.

Do you think we'd have seen a '42 Sicily if Torch was rendered unneccessary? I'm willling to bet we'd have seen a cross-channel landing in '43, despite Churchill's understandable reluctance. [/b]

Well, I still think the "soft underbelly" will still be a temptation. Perhaps Sicily goes ahead early, I'd have to read up on how America can accelerate their deployment and training. They were certainly leisurely about it IRL, can we speed it up and transfer Torch to Sicily?

We might also see more raids on occupied Europe. Perhaps until a Dieppe style disaster the allies are free to raid Norway, the Balkans, maybe even France. You know how crazy Churchill was for those amphib ops.

D-Day 1943? I don't know, is the Luftwaffe sufficiently strong enough to deter a full scale invasion. Allied anti-tank air isn't quite so advanced, there's no Mustang, and Germany's cities aren't yet destroyed. I think the allies might get away with a 43 landing, but it might be bloodier. Would they be able to build an artificial harbor and pipeline in 43? Do the allies have sufficient air transport for the paratroops and enough trucks for the ground forces?

[SoleSurvivor]

A 1943 landing surely will succeed and those additional 100.000 dead in the west will save some 1.000.000 in the east.

Why are you so excited in destroying cities? Never in WWII has terror bombing achieved anything other than making people angry and killing a few. London, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden... You should have learnt it.

The British terror bombing was a waste of resources and even the US precision bombing in daylight wasn't half as effective as we thought in earlier decades. 1943 Landing means virtually no heavy tanks in the west, less coastal defense etc...

Of course, it would be better for germany to have the war end earlier too.

[Calvin]

Here is another: The allies should have backed up Czechoslovakia's bid to fight Hitler.

The British chiefs of staff reported to Chamberlain in 1938 that the supplies of their armaments were so poor that war in that year would mean certain defeat. They had hardly any anti-aircraft guns or radar, one armored brigade, and five divisions of troops. The French had 70 divs and the Czechs had 15, to Germany's 70. However, Germany had the most powerful and modern armnaments industry in the world, and as they had 70 million citizens to France's 30, they could field an extra 7 divs a mth. Plus, they had the Luftwaffe, which gave them a phychological edge over their opponents, as they feared the bombing of their people. Their 2,800 planes would be met by 1,200 antiquiated British planes, and 700 each of French and Czech. Germany could make 700 a month, while their opponents lacked manufacturing capability to make many more. Also, days before the planned German attack, the Western allies told the Czech's that they would not come to their aid if war came, afraid of the war preperations that Germany was undertaking (men of millitary age were stopped from leaving the country, tens of thousands of workers were bolstering the Western Wall's defenses, food supplies near the border were moved to the heartland, railroads were refusing commercial freigh because of the burden of the military.) True, Hitler was convinced to back off at the request of his generalls, and Mussolini, but if war came, Germany would come out on top.

[sean9898]

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor
A 1943 landing surely will succeed and those additional 100.000 dead in the west will save some 1.000.000 in the east.

If you were Churchill or FDR would you make that deal? I don't think so, the western allies couldn't care less how many extra casualties were inflicted on the Eastern Front. I think the western allies wouldn't have minded if the German and Russian armies annihalated each other.

Why are you so excited in destroying cities? Never in WWII has terror bombing achieved anything other than making people angry and killing a few. London, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden... You should have learnt it.

The British terror bombing was a waste of resources and even the US precision bombing in daylight wasn't half as effective as we thought in earlier decades. 1943 Landing means virtually no heavy tanks in the west, less coastal defense etc...

I'm not excited about strategic bombing, but it was a most effective method of destroying the Luftwaffe, and during the latter stages dsestroying German infrastructure. There were three threads on this topic, the latest at http://www.europa-universalis.com/fo...threadid=12582

In 1943 the allies would not have the overwhelming air superiority they enjoyed in 1944.

The coastal defenses in 1944 were breached within hours of D-Day, the hard work was the month spent in Bocage country.

The German heavy tanks weren't that much of a factor, as they could not be moved during daylight. The Panzer mark IV is more than a match for a Sherman, the same swamping tactics the British and Americans used against Panthers and Tigers would still have to be used against Pz IVs.

While all those are important, the major factor in an early D-Day is do the allies have the logistical support for a campaign in France in 1943? That means the special equipment, the harbor, pipeline, uncontested air and sea superiority over the channel, enough trucks and airplanes, enough support personnel, and enough trained soldiers to invade. I don't know the answer to those questions, as we'll never know if the preparation for D-Day could be accelerated by an entire year.

Remember, without Africa, Germany has another 350k-500k men to spread around. Without Africa as an allied distraction then they have to defend France or the Balkans from 1942 on.

Of course, it would be better for germany to have the war end earlier too.

What if a 1943 landing failed? The war drags on, maybe Stalin is convinced the allies cannot open another front and makes peace. The Western allies cannot win the war without the Eastern front, a failed D-Day might result in a negotiated peace.

[Agelastus]

Hmmm-the reason I suggested a 1943 D-Day is because that is what the Americans wanted-it was British diplomatic finesse that got it delayed and the Italian operation substituted for '43. Hell, Marshall wanted a '42 D-Day at one point! But if Sicily replaces Torch, and Italy gets knocked out earlier, then the British don't have a leg to stand on and we would probably see a '43 Overlord.

Which in my opinion would have been much more of an iffy proposition than Normandy '44 was.

[sean9898]

Originally posted by Agelastus
Which in my opinion would have been much more of an iffy proposition than Normandy '44 was.

It's ironic that earlier allied success in France or Africa might lengthen the war and worsen their position long term.

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by sean9898


It's ironic that earlier allied success in France or Africa might lengthen the war and worsen their position long term.

Quite true-one can imagine Eisenhower (or whoever) having to release the a similar prepared statement to the one that was prepared in case Overlord failed. What was it-something like"....lodgements unsuccessful.....have ordered withdrawal."

As for Monty being sent east-if he was he was a competent defensive planner, so we probably have a series of defensive lines dug along the northern approaches to Singapore island, on the Malayan peninsula-there was certainly plenty of men available. So we now have a fortress that can hold out for about six months-but we don't have a Royal Navy capable of relieving it. I've actually thought about this before, when developing variants for WiF-still in the works by the way.) So what we would see would have to be a joint US-UK task force, say the Yorktowns and a couple of British Armored carriers against the six carrier First Air fleet (Coral Sea is unlikely in this scenario, but the US navy couldn't uncover Pearl completely) fighting, let's say, the "Battle of the Andaman sea", with the possibility of shore based air support for both sides. Now that is a fascinating fight to contemplate.

[Conanhutt]

No breakthrough at Sedan would mean that the BEF gets engaged in much heavier fighting, further from the coast. The potential exists for the BEF to be destroyed in combat or cut off from evacuation (this time Hitler doesn't stop his panzers). No Dunkirk occurs and the BEF is destroyed. The lose of the BEF would have been a tremendous blow to British morale as echoes of the Somme reverberate through England.

Would British public opinion have forced a negotiated settlement? The war ends in 1940 or 41 and Hitler has only one front when he goes into the Soviet Union.

Actually it was a fluke that the German's came through the Ardennes at all. The original plan was to have the Whermacht come through Belguim as in WWI. The location of the attack was changed because a light plan carrying a staff officer with the German battle plan accidently landed behind allied lines and was captured. Had this not happened the allies and germans would have collided head on in the Belgian countryside.

[SoleSurvivor]

what ifs... why not

What if... Italy gets really pissed. They find out Germany has supplied ethiopia and now they even annex Austria in violation of Versailles treaty. Italy joins France, Hitler gambles at Munich, success or war. If success then war starts on 1st september of 1939.

With the southern flank in danger, there are just another few divisions off for other duties. Poland is sacked after so 30 days, the Norway invasion occurs or doesn't, I don't really care. now things get tricky as there is a possible line of attack from the channel to the alps. Italy isn't the right terrain for Blitzkrieg and occupying it costs another number of troops. without any fights in the desert there is a real threat for the southern flank of an eastern campaign through Greece. This means even more time is lost. Germany can't attack russia before 1942 or has a real threat in their back, namely airbases in bombing range of Ploesti Oil fields and a continental deployment space for British forces.Either scenario is a desaster right from the beginning of the eastern campaign.

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Conanhutt
Actually it was a fluke that the German's came through the Ardennes at all. The original plan was to have the Whermacht come through Belguim as in WWI. The location of the attack was changed because a light plan carrying a staff officer with the German battle plan accidently landed behind allied lines and was captured. Had this not happened the allies and germans would have collided head on in the Belgian countryside.

Manstein's plan was knocking around well before this-in fact, it had got him transferred to the command of a corps a long way from France to get him out of the way! Hitler wasn't enthusiastic about the original General Staff design, so it might not have survived anyway. Although the general staff weren't actually particularly keen on the whole idea of invading France!

Hey, Sean9898, you abandoned/ing this thread?

[sean9898]

Agelastas, no I'm not abandoning the thread, I was looking to see if I shut my big mouth for a while, whether the traffic would pick up. It's still very quiet in here

I find it very strange, that just about any alternative, or what-if based on a different German strategy will prompt dozens of posts, but no one seems the slightest bit interested in any allied what-ifs

You've done me a favor though, as I didn't notice Sole Survivor's Italian scenario, must have missed it on my last read through, so.....

With the southern flank in danger, there are just another few divisions off for other duties. Poland is sacked after so 30 days, the Norway invasion occurs or doesn't, I don't really care. now things get tricky as there is a possible line of attack from the channel to the alps. Italy isn't the right terrain for Blitzkrieg and occupying it costs another number of troops. without any fights in the desert there is a real threat for the southern flank of an eastern campaign through Greece. This means even more time is lost. Germany can't attack russia before 1942 or has a real threat in their back, namely airbases in bombing range of Ploesti Oil fields and a continental deployment space for British forces.Either scenario is a desaster right from the beginning of the eastern campaign

I don't think Italian participation will necesarily change the fall of France. It's unlikely that the Italians will try a unilateral invasion of Germany while the French are sitting in Maginot and the British drilling on the Belgian border.

So, after France falls is Vichy doomed under this scenario? Will Germany have to occupy the whole of France, at least until the conquest of Italy?

What does Britain do? It looks like after Dunkirk they are off the hook for a while, as Hitler has to deal with the Italian problem to the south. I don't think Italy wil last very long, after all it didn't take the Germans too long to conquer Yugoslavia and Greece, both countries with similar terrain to Italy, and a Napoleon type advance south might knock Il Duce out of the war within weeks. Having barely escaped France with their army, I'm sure Britain will be extremely reluctant to send ground troops to Italy, although with Churchill you never know.

So, if no Vichy France and a swift conquest of Italy, what happens to the French and Italian fleets? Britain was prompted to sink a couple of French battleships in Oran under the misconception that they might fall into German hands, will they do the same to the Italian fleet? Even if not and those forces fell into the hands of the Germans, the lack of trained German sailors means that those boats will sit in the med for a while, unable to move.

So, lets imagine that Italy falls by August. Does the loss of two continental allies make a difference to Churchill, or does he stubbornly refuse peace? IMHO I think he chooses to fight on.

It's too late to consider Sealion so no Battle of Britain, and no chance for a desert war (perhaps Rommel dies in relative obscurity somewhere in Russia later.)

This might be an advantageous position for Germany. Instead of an improvised attack on Britain, perhaps they actually give the matter some solid thought and don't waste all those aircrews in Britain. Perhaps with the need to occupy a much larger European territory Hitler ignores Yugoslavia dropping out of the Axis and as there is no Italy, no war in Greece. This potentially allows Germany to begin Barbarossa in Spring 1941, without distraction and with a more experienced and undefeated Luftwaffe.

It would appear, that under these conditions, yet again, any early changes to allied performance and deployment benefits Germany. Further, where does Britain fight? They don't even have a desert war to participate in, what do all those troops do?