"3 Choices in 1942" Topic

The Americans wanted to strike against Germany before 1943. Churchill made three suggestions:

* a strike at Norway
* a campaign in the Middle East
* a landing in North Africa

Which option should the Americans have accepted?

I believe history shows the correct answer. Cheers!

Logistically and chance of success wise, NA wins by a landslide.

Norway is a pain in the ass to attack. Take a drive along modern roads in Norway and try to imagine trying get thousands of troops and vehicles down narrow roads. With artillery and AT guns in the wood-covered hills and mountains.

Strategic bombing of Norway. Take out the aquavit distilleries and they would crumble like a stale kransekake.

Yes … North Africa …

Liberating Norway would have made it harder for the Germans to attack supply convoys going to Murmansk and would have given the Allies the heavy water project. I'm not sure how useful Norway would be as a launching point for an eventual attack on Germany.

It could be an interesting scenario to wargame out, probably using the GDW / GRD Europa rules.

Actually, the Norway operation was a ruse. The British and Americans put on a great show of planning and gathering troops and equipment (most of which, in the end, went to the Med), and deliberately kept very poor security. The Germans bought the whole package and tied up an unnecessarily large garrison in Norway waiting for it.

'A campaign in the Middle East'

Against who? (Or is it whom?)

Churchill would have "suggested" invading Antarctica if he thought there was any chance Marshall would agree. His only concern was that we not invade France. Of the three, TORCH was clearly the best option. But France 1942, working with Petain, would have been interesting.

Scott, I think "Middle East Campaign" is a shorthand for reinforcing 8th Army. Cute on a wargame table, but a logistical mess. FDR finally stripped 1st Armored Division of its new Shermans and sent them instead, which is why 1st AD landed still using some M3 mediums.

North Africa

North Africa was the correct decision. After that Sicily was a good move. Then IMHO a mistake to go to Italy "the soft underbelly" strategy. I've wondered why the Allis didnt go for southern France in mid/late 43? Not much German presence in southern France.

North Africa

I think French North Africa was the right choice for a number of reasons.

But Norway … I don't dismiss it as quickly as others. It would have helped the Murmansk supply convoys. Yeah, but yawn. I mean, save a bunch of merchantmen's lives for sure. But there is little impact on the war after 1942 of the losses on shipping to Russia. So fewer losses doesn't make much difference.

Get the heavy water? Who cares. Wrong approach anyways. Would have added comfort to the US lead in atomic research, but comfort wouldn't change the course of the war.

But it would also have made it possible to interdict Swedish ore shipments to Germany. THAT might well have made a difference. The German economy gets less metal and less coal, and the German military gets fewer tanks and guns and planes.

How much less? I don't claim to know all the stats, but I believe in the immediate pre-war period Germany imported almost as much iron ore from Sweden as they sourced inside Germany itself. I think there were some other sources of imported iron ore that remained in place for Germany during the war (Denmark and Luxembourg IIRC), but they also lost some sources in Africa. Sweden also supplied high quality steel and ball bearings for at least a part of the war.

So we might see interdiction of Swedish exports to Germany as reducing German production resources for metal goods by as much as 35% (just a WAG -- no strong claim to accuracy).

That might have had some real influence on the war.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

In a way Churchill was right to postpone D-Day as long as possible. By 1943 the end of the war was not in doubt – just a question of how long and who paid the price.

Churchill would naturally rather it was the Soviets who did the fighting. It might not seem fair but it was the smart move from his point of view.

If you are rethinking 1944 with hindsight, an invasion around Pas de Calais might actually have been better. Sure it would be hard to build up forces faster than the Germans could. I don't think the Atlantic Wall was such a big problem. In the long run it might have been the better option since the fighting in the bocage was very costly and Allied airpower and armour could have more impact in the very open Pas de Calais area.

Something we tend to ignore is that D-Day was planned very far in advance. The decision to land in Normandy was made in May 1943, I understand.

Anyway – at least we got an invasion in June 1944. Had they put it off to 1945 the Soviets might have liberated Paris!

I think that it is overlooked that the Boccage was a two-edged sword (or perhaps a two-sided shield is a better metaphor). While it made it hard for the Allies to attack out of the beachhead, it also made it just as hard for the Germans to attack into the beachhead. The few times the Germans tried, they ran into exactly the same problems as the Americans did.

Good point, Scott. In the old AH board game Fortress Europe I always found Normandy to be the best place to invade because of that very factor -- couldn't be driven into the Channel by a counter-attack.

I think that it is overlooked that the Boccage was a two-edged sword (or perhaps a two-sided shield is a better metaphor).

Scott I find that to be a very interesting statement. And it makes perfect sense.

But I am left wondering. I can't recall ever having that perspective called to my attention before. Do any period sources indicate that it was raised in the discussions of where to make the landings?

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Senior moment here but I believe the original allied plan for Normandy was that Monty would lead the breakout into the "tank country" beyond Caen. That left Bradley to secure Cherbourg and hold the flank. In this plan The Bocage would assist holding the flank of Monty's advance.

I'm also not sure that the full extent of the difficult terrain The Bocage represented was appreciated from pre invasion recon and resistance reports.

Finally, I totally don't buy into the Patton Myth and that the Germans were duped as to the likelihood of Normandy as a landing site. See Zetterlings Normandy 1944, not for his conclusions, but for his list of formations and equipment. Normandy was well defended and the Germans moved key units in prior to D-Day belying the myth that they "knew" Calais was the target (then why did they reinforce Normandy?).

Further, a study of German forces shows they were critically short of transport. And the Allies had smashed the bridge and rail nets leading to Normandy. So the slow German buildup was more due to lack of ability to reposition forces than to being duped by Pattons Fake Army.

The Panzer Lehr, 12th SS and 21st Panzer were arguably the 3 best equipped panzer divisions in France on June 6th. And they were at or near Normandy. Whether or not the Germans believed it was Normandy or Calais they couldn't ignore the rest of France, that's why units like the 2nd SS were farther away.

Along with Pattons Fake Army duped the Germans here are my other favorite myths.

1. Hilter was asleep. So what? It took the Reserve Panzers over a day to move to Normandy. Hitler would have had to release them during the day on June 5th to matter.

2. The German air force was "MIA" (including the absurd 2 plane attack in the movie The Longest Day). The Germans made hundreds of sorties against the beachhead but AT NIGHT as they had been doing for years – daylight ops were death in the face of allied air supremacy.

3. After their heroic assault on Point Du Hoc (spelling ? It's late lol) the guns were missing. Duh no. They'd been removed a ways inland to protect them from bombing and naval gunfire. They were found and destroyed. What has come out even more recently is that those guns were only part of a larger fort complex that it took several days for the Rangers to capture.

So much for Myth & Hollywood lol. Cheers!

Mark in the context of options for 1942 Norway is a non starter. Even for summer ‘43 it is a very risky undertaking. The North Sea is not a very forgiving environment and gives a long supply line, with German U boats and surface assists available to attack it. Norway is very defensible. Air support for the invasion would have to come from carrier based planes, dodgy in itself as the Luftwaffe is still a force to be reckoned with in the summer of ‘43. Honestly don't see Norway as a useful option. There were good reasons why it was left.

But it would also have made it possible to interdict Swedish ore shipments to Germany. THAT might well have made a difference. The German economy gets less metal …

They could have also positioned themselves to occupy, or interdict shipments from, the nickel mines at Petsamo in Finland. IIRC, this was the Germans' main source for that metal, used in making armor plate. Late war German was prone to crack when hit due to a lack of nickel, caused by the Soviets occupying Petsamo.