PDA

View Full Version : What could have been done instead of overlord?



oreminer
06-27-2007, 10:57 AM
Ive been thinking wouldnt it been more safer to begin the invasion of fortress europe on some other front instead of losing thousands of soldiers in normandy?

Anybody have any idea what could have been done instead of overlord....

Nickdfresh
06-29-2007, 03:44 PM
There was talk of invading through Norway (Hitler feared this in particular) or even from the Baltics. But as the slow, plodding march through Italy showed, the only viable option was to land in terrain that favored rapid maneuver and that was relatively close to German industry. An invasion through France was really the only plausible, and most direct route, to the German industrial heartland along the Ruhr. Take that, and the War was just a matter of time. Normandy was chosen because it was one of only two really suitable landing sites in France for the sheer numbers of men and materials being landed. The other, Palais De Calais, was closer to Britain, but far more heavily defended as the Germans had been led to believe this was where the primary assault would take place...

Firefly
06-29-2007, 04:02 PM
Maybe it would have been better to invade a year earlier? Maybe then we could have saved Eastern Europe from the Soviets?

overlord644
06-29-2007, 04:16 PM
that would have drawn more troops away from the eastern front earlier allowing the USSR for a more rapid advance

Nickdfresh
06-29-2007, 06:47 PM
Maybe it would have been better to invade a year earlier? Maybe then we could have saved Eastern Europe from the Soviets?

You know, the US Army high command was lobbying for an invasion of France in as early as 1942. But this was impossible for a whole host of reasons, I'm not sure the invasion could have gone forward much earlier than it did because of the numbers of German divisions available in France, and the Western Allies inability to deliver enough troops to the battle zone quickly enough until very late in 1943 or early 44.' Then the weather is the consideration, and also the battles in North Africa and Italy that needed to be either won, or stabilized, before a major invasion could move forward...

Although, I think Italy might have been a big waste of time, after the taking of Sicily...

royal744
06-29-2007, 07:38 PM
I think Overlord or something very similar to it was the only reasonable solution. I agree that the Italian invasion, especially north of Rome was probably a waste of time and materiel, especially since attacking through the Italian alps north would have been an extremely costly and difficult way of getting at Germany. The other possibility, launching an invasion of the south of France (from captured North African bases) in lieu of Normandy would also have posed extreme problems because of all the troops and supplies that would have to be ferried there. Too easily discovered.

No, I think Overlord was the way to go and it would have been difficult to impossible to avoid it if we wanted to have a hand in the liberation of Europe. Invading earlier sounds great, but I believe "we" invaded as early as we could. The logistics simply weren't there, and although there were plenty of nut cases around who demanded an early invasion, I don't think any of them actually had a clue as to what was involved. It's one thing to have a political thought or idea and quite another to have sufficient gasoline to put into engines that haven't been delivered yet and food into boys who haven't arrived yet.

Tony Williams
06-30-2007, 05:16 AM
To add: one important factor in deciding the site of the invasion was the necessity of providing massive fighter cover in case of a Luftwaffe response. So the landing beaches had to be within range of the UK fighter bases.

Another issue was the ease of getting off the beaches - some locations were ruled out because of the very narrow access routes from the beaches to the countryside beyond. Yet another was the suitability of the beaches for LSTs to land tanks, and so on.

There was a huge range of factors to take into account, and the Normandy beaches represented the best compromise location.

As to the timing, the U-boats had to be defeated before it was practicable to ship the vast quantities of men, materials and supplies across the Atlantic for the invasion.

Rising Sun*
06-30-2007, 09:46 AM
The other possibility, launching an invasion of the south of France (from captured North African bases) in lieu of Normandy would also have posed extreme problems because of all the troops and supplies that would have to be ferried there. My bold.

Exactly.

Too much attention is focused on the titanic land battles.

WWII was determined largely by logistics, and most of all by shipping, on all sides outside the USSR. Both by the shipping available to a given side and its ability to destroy the shipping of the other side.

Tonnage for a given exercise is a function of the weight or volume of men or materiel to be carried by ship for a given distance. In simple terms, one ship can do in a one day return trip what thirty ships can do in a thirty day return trip. If you have only one or even twenty ships, you can't succeed in the exercise needing thirty ships.

Then there is the problem of the fuel oil required for the ships on the longer trips, which requires greater tanker tonnage; fuel storage; and possibly refuelling at sea which then needs refueller ships.

And so it all goes infinitely.

There simply wasn't the tonnage to support a Mediterranean invasion on the same scale as Normandy.

Carl Schwamberger
08-05-2007, 10:27 PM
During the interwar years the US Army Staff College at Leavenworth had the students of each class run through detailed planning for a major operation. Sometime in the mid 1930s one or more of these exercises was specified for a hypothetical invasion of Europe. Normandy was choosen by the students as the optimal location for landing a large army group.

bwing55543
08-06-2007, 10:22 AM
Maybe it would have been better to invade a year earlier? Maybe then we could have saved Eastern Europe from the Soviets?

Interesting. You do realize that the Allies wouldn't have won the war without the Red Army? The German army had suffered roughly 88% of its losses on the Eastern front. The Eastern front was also where the majority of the more experienced German commanders were stationed.

overlord644
08-18-2007, 01:47 AM
Interesting. You do realize that the Allies wouldn't have won the war without the Red Army? The German army had suffered roughly 88% of its losses on the Eastern front. The Eastern front was also where the majority of the more experienced German commanders were stationed.

even with the Soviet contribution to WW2, does that really excuse putting eastern Europe under a dictatorship for 50 years?

Carl Schwamberger
08-19-2007, 11:03 PM
Even if a 1943 attack into France had been sucessfull its unlikely Eastern or Central Europe would have been 'saved' from Soviet occupation. The German forces were not as near collapse in 1943 and a much slower and tougher fight across France and the Rhineland would have been the fact. If the Anglo/American armys do batter down the German defense faster this only makes it easier for the Red Army to advance.

There was also the matter of supply. While the Allies could have supported several armys in France in 1943 the supplies, transport & construction capability of January 1945 simply was not available in 1943, or even in the first half of 1944. Trying to support a couple of Anglo/American army groups in a lunge across the Rhine to Warsaw & Prague was just not possible, unless the Wehrmacht is vaporized with fairy dust.

bwing55543
08-27-2007, 10:33 AM
even with the Soviet contribution to WW2, does that really excuse putting eastern Europe under a dictatorship for 50 years?

I know some American history books try to say the good has triumphed over evil, when in reality it was a greater evil that triumphed over that evil. The Anglo-American armies might have lost, actually, had the Soviets not contributed.

overlord644
08-27-2007, 05:35 PM
i never said they would have

Strangy
09-07-2007, 04:47 AM
even with the Soviet contribution to WW2, does that really excuse putting eastern Europe under a dictatorship for 50 years?



i agree, but i believe the reason we waited to massively invade Europe was to just let Stalin and Hitler wear themselves out against each other. Even though we had a happy face towards communism, http://image.mplib.org/wp/MPW00288.jpg

as you can see, Roosevelt and Churchill were both very wary about what may happen in post war Europe. And there nightmares ultimately came true.



But, in sense of your original question. I believe Normandy was the only logically position. We could have attacked and cut in half German forces at the Rhine, but imagine the increased cost of life and the struggle might have lasted even longer.

Nickdfresh
09-07-2007, 07:00 AM
i agree, but i believe the reason we waited to massively invade Europe was to just let Stalin and Hitler wear themselves out against each other. Even though we had a happy face towards communism, http://image.mplib.org/wp/MPW00288.jpg

as you can see, Roosevelt and Churchill were both very wary about what may happen in post war Europe. And there nightmares ultimately came true.


at le
But, in sense of your original question. I believe Normandy was the only logically position. We could have attacked and cut in half German forces at the Rhine, but imagine the increased cost of life and the struggle might have lasted even longer.


It is true that Roosevelt, and especially Churchill, were very cognizant of the inevitable post-War struggle with the USSR. This was shown most notably with their continued interest and active support to the Greco-Balkan resistance movements throughout 1941 to the end of the War. But to say that some in the US gov't and military were not interested in invading France very early on is just wrong and is another myth about the "Machiavellian" Western Allies sitting on the sidelines, waiting for the Osteer to 'weaken' the Soviets."

The US Army devised war plans for the invasion of France that were proposed as early as 1942. These included ideas for what was essentially an incursion that was limited in scope designed to capture a "foothold" in a port city, then fortify it against the inevitable German counterattacks, leaving the area open to reinforcement and a future breakout once the US forces were completely trained and equipped. But it was pure fantasy. The Germans had more divisions in France than the Allies could hope to deploy in such a small area in the near future. At best, it would have been a bottleneck - and they may very well have been driven into the sea in a second Dunkirk, which could have ultimately prolonged the war. As far as the future Cold War - the US military was more concerned about Soviet forces collapsing in 1942 and the spectre of fighting the Third Reich without a nation-state Eastern European ally more than they were about Stalinism, because remember, this was BEFORE Stalingrad. As indeed, with the Red Army being pushed towards Moscow and looked like it was about to buckle once-and-for all after its initial routes.

The US generals had to be overruled and essentially tricked by the British high command into a progression of campaigns starting in North Africa, then Sicily, which in hindsight was the best operational attrition of German forces in the West, since the newly raised US Army was by no means ready to fight the Wehrmacht on equal terms. Also, total air superiority was not achieved over the Luftwaffe until 1944 and the transport centers of Europe had to be raised to deny the Wehrmacht and SS proper transport and reinforcement. Unfortunately, this also entailed FDR going along with the Italian campaign. This possibly could have been avoided, many think the Italian campaign was indeed a blunder, and France could have been entered earlier. But even then - we're talking months, not years, earlier than June 1944. Maybe the fall of 1943, but I don't even know if the weather and tides were conducive to this...

Strangy
09-07-2007, 07:19 AM
That is why im posting, thank you, i am young and still learning. :D

I see the overall picture now

A_rod
07-16-2008, 11:20 PM
I know that Russia kept up the pressure for a 2nd front assult as they did not feel the Itlay invasion a real 2nd front

A_rod
07-16-2008, 11:28 PM
I know that Russia kept up the pressure for a 2nd front assult as they did not feel the Itlay invasion a real 2nd front

Chevan
07-17-2008, 02:52 AM
Actualy the Italy wasn't a second front at all.
The few GErmans divisions have regrouped and succesfully hold the more Allies troops almost eight month , using the tactical advantage of relief ( mountains).
Interesting historical moment:In one of telegram to Stalin , Churchill hinted
- whe have already opened the Second front , according you demands.
Stalin just sarcastically answered:
- the Italian compain is not a front, but rather a big partisan operation.

Nickdfresh
07-17-2008, 10:22 PM
Actualy the Italy wasn't a second front at all.
The few GErmans divisions have regrouped and succesfully hold the more Allies troops almost eight month , using the tactical advantage of relief ( mountains).
Interesting historical moment:In one of telegram to Stalin , Churchill hinted
- whe have already opened the Second front , according you demands.
Stalin just sarcastically answered:
- the Italian compain is not a front, but rather a big partisan operation.

But for what it is worth -- Churchill honestly believed it to be a second front. He had dreams, or delusions (take your pick), that somehow highly mobile, industrialized Allied armies were going to drive through easily defended Alpine passes to invade Austria in such easily defensible, bottle-neck terrain...

A major point of contention between the US and British commands. The Americans thought there was too much emphasis on the Italian front whereas I think the British thoughts were mixed. I'm pretty sure Monty wanted no part of conducting an offensive campaign in such defensible terrain and he couldn't get out of the mainland campaign fast enough whereas Brook and Churchill seemed to really believe the "soft underbelly" of the Axis would compensate for numerous rivers, uneven terrain, and mountain passes --all making for ideal defensive lines-- and overcome the German's ability to resist. It didn't..

Although it should be said that abandoning the Italian people to Nazi occupation when they clearly wanted Mussolini deposed would have been rather cynical...

Chevan
07-18-2008, 12:56 AM
But for what it is worth -- Churchill honestly believed it to be a second front. He had dreams, or delusions (take your pick), that somehow highly mobile, industrialized Allied armies were going to drive through easily defended Alpine passes to invade Austria in such easily defensible, bottle-neck terrain...

It was pure political aims of CHurchill.
In his book "Second World war" he showed his aims very well.
His real dreams ( or delusions , as it was shown later) was to involve the Turkey into the war in Balcans in allied side.He specialy pointed in Tehrain conference - that if Stalin give the guaranties to declare the war on Bulgary ( if the Bulgaru , nazi ally at that time, declare the war on Turkey after its joined to the allies).
It was pure political aim - with this Churchill was wanted to restore the Balcans in british sphere of influence.
That's why he pulled Americans into Italia as strong , as he can.
Germans still had about 20 divisiond in Balcans, those forces have been tied in fight with Yugoslavian poartisans . However the attack of Balcans would bring the serious casualties to the allies.Later the Churchill plans showed its delusions.
there was a famouse phrase of Rosswelt to his son Elion-" I don't see the reasons to sacrifice the lives of american soldiers for REAL or VIRTUAL british interests in Balcans":)
Americans who start the strategical bombings of Romanian oil fields, right after the capturing of Sicily( probably the ONLY positive moment of whole Italian compain) wasn't in delight from Churchill plans also.
Besides the Comride Stalin had OWN plan to Balcans:)That was later realized in practice.


Although it should be said that abandoning the Italian people to Nazi occupation when they clearly wanted Mussolini deposed would have been rather cynical...
I think not as much Italian peoples , but leaders of Resistense:)
Who were mostly pro-communists...
And nobody want to abandon them , Stalin for instance in Tehrain conference clearly has expressed his oppinion, the USA troops do the good job in Italy, creating mostly negative political impression to Axis rahter then military one.
Stalin , however was agains the FURTHER expantion of Italian and Balcan operation , becouse this expantion should inevitably divert the Americans from the real second front in France ( overlord).
He was right , in sense.

Rising Sun*
07-18-2008, 07:54 AM
It was pure political aims of CHurchill.
In his book "Second World war" he showed his aims very well.
His real dreams ( or delusions , as it was shown later) was to involve the Turkey into the war in Balcans in allied side.He specialy pointed in Tehrain conference - that if Stalin give the guaranties to declare the war on Bulgary ( if the Bulgaru , nazi ally at that time, declare the war on Turkey after its joined to the allies).
It was pure political aim - with this Churchill was wanted to restore the Balcans in british sphere of influence.

The above isn't an area I know anything about, but on reading it I wondered whether any of it went back to Churchill's interests in Turkey as pivotal and his failures at Gallipoli in WWI causing him to focus on Turkey in a different light in WWII?

Carl Schwamberger
07-18-2008, 11:50 PM
Occasionally I see remarks that Marshall Brooke the British Chief of Staff proposed delaying the invasion of France until 1945, as the Allies were not ready and it would be too bloody to do this in 1944. This was susposed to have occured sometime in December 1943 or January 1944.

Chevan
07-19-2008, 04:44 AM
The above isn't an area I know anything about, but on reading it I wondered whether any of it went back to Churchill's interests in Turkey as pivotal and his failures at Gallipoli in WWI causing him to focus on Turkey in a different light in WWII?
I don't know mate why Churchill was so possessed by Turks in 1943, probably it was due to the pro-british turkish symphaties at that time (or caused of other reasons).Anyway the supposed Turkish attack of balcans can prevent the red amry to approach to here.
As remind Churchill ,Britain spend about 25 millions of pounds to arm the Turkey , they also pretty well trained their army.
However the turks refuse the call of Churchil openly tear with Germany, and declare war on them till the most end in mid 1944 when the Red Amry has arrived into the nother Balcans and Romania was puled out of Germany. In the september of 1944 it was too late for Churchill's plan.

Chevan
07-19-2008, 04:59 AM
Occasionally I see remarks that Marshall Brooke the British Chief of Staff proposed delaying the invasion of France until 1945, as the Allies were not ready and it would be too bloody to do this in 1944. This was susposed to have occured sometime in December 1943 or January 1944.
In the desember 1943 there were th teheran's conference where the allies has already accepted the final decision to start overlord in may 1944. No one reason can't deny it.
Rosewelt even have to press the Churchill not to divert the ships and transports away from FIRST planned operation Overlord.
There were a several complains of Churchill that in Nothern Africa still failed to take an active fight 5-6 divisions that can't be transported to the Italy , becouse a lack of transport-ships.( according the preparation to Overlord , all the rest of the transports should be moved to the England before the may of 1944).

Nickdfresh
07-19-2008, 07:19 PM
It was pure political aims of CHurchill.
In his book "Second World war" he showed his aims very well.
His real dreams ( or delusions , as it was shown later) was to involve the Turkey into the war in Balcans in allied side.He specialy pointed in Tehrain conference - that if Stalin give the guaranties to declare the war on Bulgary ( if the Bulgaru , nazi ally at that time, declare the war on Turkey after its joined to the allies).
It was pure political aim - with this Churchill was wanted to restore the Balcans in british sphere of influence.
That's why he pulled Americans into Italia as strong , as he can.
Germans still had about 20 divisiond in Balcans, those forces have been tied in fight with Yugoslavian poartisans . However the attack of Balcans would bring the serious casualties to the allies.Later the Churchill plans showed its delusions.
there was a famouse phrase of Rosswelt to his son Elion-" I don't see the reasons to sacrifice the lives of american soldiers for REAL or VIRTUAL british interests in Balcans":)
Americans who start the strategical bombings of Romanian oil fields, right after the capturing of Sicily( probably the ONLY positive moment of whole Italian compain) wasn't in delight from Churchill plans also.
Besides the Comride Stalin had OWN plan to Balcans:)That was later realized in practice.

Well there is little doubt that Churchill, as well as the Americans, wanted Turkey into the war. But Churchill was indeed fixated on the "soft underbelly" and the Mediterranean Theater more than the battle for France. It would take a good deal of armwrangling to force both Churchill and Brooke to accept that France needed to be taken in 1944, and that Italy was not the main theater. And think what you wish regarding the Balkans, though Churchill was obsessed with them as evidenced with his vain defense of Greece. But he did genuinely believe that the Allies could force and end sooner if they drove into Austria through the Alps --like Hannibal in reverse-- but of course there was a bit of folly in this. The Allies also didn't realize the extent that the Germans would go to to hold on in Italy...


I think not as much Italian peoples , but leaders of Resistense:)
Who were mostly pro-communists...
And nobody want to abandon them , Stalin for instance in Tehrain conference clearly has expressed his oppinion, the USA troops do the good job in Italy, creating mostly negative political impression to Axis rahter then military one.
Stalin , however was agains the FURTHER expantion of Italian and Balcan operation , becouse this expantion should inevitably divert the Americans from the real second front in France ( overlord).
He was right , in sense.

It wasn't just the Partisans, but even Mussolini's own party that wanted him out. Various factions both within and out of the Italian gov't plotted against him and there were numerous contacts between the Allies and members of the Italian gov't prior to the invasion.

When the Italians did defect, the German reprisals for the "betrayal" were swift and often brutal. And as far as resistance, it wasn't just the guerrillas in the mountains. In fact, in one of the few genuinely successful spontaneous uprisings in history, the Germans were driven out of Naples by a rebellion. Of course, the approaching Allied armies certainly allowed this to happen, but the Italian residents of Naples prevented the German army from mounting a coherent defense the city...

jumpwings
08-05-2008, 06:46 AM
Churchill had the bigger picture in mind -What happens after the War-and wanted to stem the potential tide of the Soviets, Eisenhower wanted to kick in the front door....

Turkey into the War?....It wasn't that long at the time that Turkey had been part of the sick man of Europe, and Turkish Forces where nothing to brag about (even with the armaments supplied by both sides), besides Inonu wasn't daft, he waited to see who would most likely win before making his move...Turkey was though, placed strategically (Geographically) to be a threat to the Soviet Unions expansionist aims, which the Germans seemingly gave the excuse to carry through...

If Churchill hadn't went for the "soft underbelly" Stalin would have marched farther into Europe than he did....

Semper Fi
08-09-2008, 10:47 AM
Well Operation Overlord was the onlt was that the allies could stop the German military form keeping controle over the EU sector. Stalin wanted the Allies to creat a second so that the Russians could bet the Germans back. But Churchill wanted to attack the German Army from under the bell of the Beast. But Stalin wanted a second front. So operation Overlord was the only thing to Shut Stalin up.. It was going to be in (43) but the invasion would not work in the allies faver..

namvet
08-10-2008, 09:59 PM
I don't have the final total count of the dead at Normandy. but didn't the Americans suffer the highest at Omaha???? I don't think the british or canadians had as many KIA's as the Americans. right????? but omaha was a disaster because they hit the wrong beach. they were miles from their landing area. am i right here????

flamethrowerguy
08-10-2008, 10:26 PM
I don't have the final total count of the dead at Normandy. but didn't the Americans suffer the highest at Omaha???? I don't think the british or canadians had as many KIA's as the Americans. right????? but omaha was a disaster because they hit the wrong beach. they were miles from their landing area. am i right here????

You're right about that. First of all Omaha Beach was the biggest sector with a width of about 10km (about 6.25 miles), this is one part to explain the high casualties. Only A-company of the 116th regiment (29th Infantry-Division) landed at the spot they were supposed to, all other units drifted due to strong winds and tide. Another fact is that the bombing raids of 2nd bomber-division missed the german fortifications and dropped their load back in the rear where it caused no damage but killing cows. So the 13 fortified german positions and the trench system at Omaha remained mostly intact. The LCR's on the other hand aimed too short and the rockets hit the water line. All this plus the steeps and cliffs (about 100 ft. high) manned by german 352nd Infantry-Division caused the enormous casualties. Not to forget that only 5 of the american DD-tanks reached the shore, 27 tanks (including crews) sank. I do not know the exact numbers of KIA's but I read that already about 2000 G.I.'s were killed by 10 a.m.

Churchill
08-10-2008, 10:29 PM
The Americans did get pounded on Omaha. Landing at the wrong beach, I don't know about. The Brits and Canadians didn't have as many killed as the Americans, yet the Canadians were the only group to acheive all their day one objectives.

namvet
08-10-2008, 10:34 PM
You're right about that. First of all Omaha Beach was the biggest sector with a width of about 10km (about 6.25 miles), this is one part to explain the high casualties. Only A-company of the 116th regiment (29th Infantry-Division) landed at the spot they were supposed to, all other units drifted due to strong winds and tide. Another fact is that the bombing raids of 2nd bomber-division missed the german fortifications and dropped their load back in the rear where it caused no damage but killing cows. So the 13 fortified german positions and the trench system at Omaha remained mostly intact. The LCR's on the other hand aimed too short and the rockets hit the water line. All this plus the steeps and cliffs (about 100 ft. high) manned by german 352nd Infantry-Division caused the enormous casualties. Not to forget that only 5 of the american DD-tanks reached the shore, 27 tanks (including crews) sank. I do not know the exact numbers of KIA's but I read that already about 2000 G.I.'s were killed by 10 a.m.

so in 20/20 hindsight if they hit the right place and don't kill cow's etc..... Normandy was the best place to hit. its was just FUBAR day on Omaha. I have no idea of a better place to hit. thanks for the info...........

flamethrowerguy
08-10-2008, 10:35 PM
You're welcome. You can say it that way: Would could go wrong, went wrong. Murphy's law.

namvet
08-10-2008, 10:36 PM
The Americans did get pounded on Omaha. Landing at the wrong beach, I don't know about. The Brits and Canadians didn't have as many killed as the Americans, yet the Canadians were the only group to acheive all their day one objectives.

because they were not looking up at cannon barrels...........ha

Churchill
08-10-2008, 10:58 PM
Yeah, the cannons at Point du Hoc wern't there; They had been moved.

jumpwings
08-11-2008, 05:41 AM
Well Operation Overlord was the onlt was that the allies could stop the German military form keeping controle over the EU sector. Stalin wanted the Allies to creat a second so that the Russians could bet the Germans back. But Churchill wanted to attack the German Army from under the bell of the Beast. But Stalin wanted a second front. So operation Overlord was the only thing to Shut Stalin up.. It was going to be in (43) but the invasion would not work in the allies faver..


Not sure what yer writing there, but there was indeed a second front, Italy...

namvet
08-11-2008, 08:56 AM
Yeah, the cannons at Point du Hoc wern't there; They had been moved.

and they took to find them. and they did

namvet
08-11-2008, 08:59 AM
my dad's naval squardon covered the southern invasion of france. which was no where as big or major as normandy.

southern france (southern france)

Semper Fi
08-13-2008, 07:41 PM
Yeah, the cannons at Point du Hoc wern't there; They had been moved.

Well they only moved them inland and they still could fire on the beach.

BadKharma
08-13-2008, 08:05 PM
Considering the terrain and routes to Germany itself I do not think there is a better alternative to Operation Overlord. The fact that the US was able to overcome the difficulties encountered at Omaha beach, and the ability of the Rangers to scale the cliffs at Pointe Du Hoc show the determination of the American fighting man. The level of casualties is regrettable, unfortunately in war there will always be casualties.

jumpwings
08-14-2008, 02:57 AM
I think there where a lot of mistakes which might have been learnt by the time of Dragoon...

btw, read this about Dragoon, Churchill and his "bigger picture": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dragoon

Overlord: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord

BZikica
08-23-2008, 09:23 AM
...or US terror all over the world?

pdf27
08-23-2008, 09:38 AM
...or US terror all over the world?
You what?

Rising Sun*
08-23-2008, 10:06 AM
...or US terror all over the world?

There's no denying that the Yanks can be a major pain in the arse internationally, but in 1944 I completely prefer whatever form of terror you think they were offering to the fascist form they were fighting, as I currently rather prefer whatever forms of terror the Yanks are offering to the Islamo-fascist form of terror they are fighting.

Not a great choice at times because of the clumsiness of Bush the Younger, but still a hands down win for the Yanks.

BadKharma
08-24-2008, 03:12 PM
...or US terror all over the world?

What?

Comrade Commisar
08-30-2008, 12:49 AM
Winston Churchill wanted to free the Balkans by landing in Greece.

Churchill
08-30-2008, 04:37 PM
Yup, but I don't think it would have worked that well. It probably would have drained resources like Italy, and it would have been taken by the Russians eventually... The tanks on both sides wouldn't have been able to maneuvre, and the German infantry would have made more Gustav-type lines in the mountains.

Nickdfresh
08-30-2008, 05:45 PM
Winston Churchill wanted to free the Balkans by landing in Greece.


Um no, that was only a diversion. He actually wanted to go through the "soft underbelly" over the Alps and into Austria...

Carl Schwamberger
09-07-2008, 08:35 PM
Um no, that was only a diversion. He actually wanted to go through the "soft underbelly" over the Alps and into Austria...

That never works on the game board. At least I never played against a opponent dumb enough to botch the defense of the mountain ranges. There are not enough large capacity ports and of those that are large enough Marsailles is the only one with good highways and railroads leading north to Germany. The Italian, Greek, Yugoslavian railroads did not have the capacity to support a couple Allied army groups in offensive operations northward. And forgetabout decent automotive highways in those parts.

Adrian Wainer
09-08-2008, 05:33 PM
Once the Allied forces got turfed out of Europe, there really was not any land invasion alternative to an invasion of the French Atlantic coast, other places did have some advantages but had more disadvantages too. That said, more could have been made of the Italian campaign, the whole emphasis in Italy should have been on speed [ once a landing on the Italian mainland had been made ], in that whilst Italy was relatively weekly defended, it is excellent terrain for a defender to engage in positional defense from an enemy advancing from the South, as the country has a central mountain spine which degrades transport from coast to coast and means most rivers and roads run East West and West East , so that any attack on Italy from the South which fails to knock the defenders off balance and keep them off balance, will degenerate in to a series of set piece slogging matches as the defenders fall back on one natural line of defense after another. The only possibility that might have worked would have been if the Allies had been able to knock out a crucial industrial aspect of the German War machine using air-power, in which case they would still have gone for Normandy but had a much easier time of it.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
09-08-2008, 06:18 PM
...or US terror all over the world?

Or maybe you would prefer

The NKVD heroes of Katyn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_Massacre

Or the glorious Red Army's Liberation of the oppressed Polish Masses in 1939
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939)

Or the bountyful harvests and happy lives of peasants in the USSR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Or the restrained and humane manner in which the Soviet Authorities dealt with people who were misguided enough to obstruct the advance of Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

Or the freedom from Hunger which the Great Helmsman Chairman Mao brought to China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

Or the present day strugglers for freedom for the Arab peoples
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer