In 1942, the allies landed in North Africa and in '43 they began their invasion of southern europe via Italy. Allied planners were pressed by Stalin in '42 to open a second front in western europe. Allied war planners felt an invasion in 1942 would've ended in disaster.
Could they have done it with the forces at hand in '42 or '43? Did they have air superiority in '42- '43 over western europe?
Let's look at the situation in '42 and '43. The German Werhmact was near its peak in '42 (or at least they still had the 6th Army and 4th Panzer Army prior to Stalingrad). The Americans and British did not roll over the Africa Corps and had their noses bloodied at Kasserine Pass in '42, the Africa Corps was a shadow of its former self, what would've happened had they faced stronger forces in Northern France? Consider the largest tank battle in Kursk involved thousands of new Panzers...if the allies had invaded in '43, would that tank force been used in the west to defeat any American/british attack. It's true the Atlantic Wall was not as formidable in '42 and '43 as it was in '44. The Luftwaffe still had dominance in '42 and saw it slip away in '43 on both fronts. In '44, the Luftwaffe made tiny strafing attacks on the beaches, what would've happened if they had larger forces which were available in '42 and '43.
Looking at the strength of the Wehrmact and Luftwaffe in '42 and '43, and the relative inexperience and strength of the Americans/british, any attack on Western Europe in '42 or '43 would've been doomed to failure.
2007-04-23 10:24:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Massive beach invasions require tremendous amounts of planning. Allied leaders had to assemble a massive attack force without giving away their plans to the Germans. Also, tide and daylight times were a big part, the Allies landed in the early morning just when the Germans would least expect it. Also, the Allied leaders had promised to open a second front against Hitler as the war in the eastern front was quite unstable, it was not clear that Russia was going to win at that point.
2007-04-23 16:30:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by Aaron S 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Everyone else is wrong.
The weather was too bad.
We wanted to hit on a specific time frame where the waters would be at their highest. This only lasted for 5 days (or so) out of the year. This also would be a rainy time and the Germans would mostly be hunkered down out of the storm.
The problem was that the weather was also too bad for the American forces to land. The window was about 5 days and we hit on the very last day as soon as it cleared up.
2007-04-23 16:38:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Burn It 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There had to be enough troops trained and supplied and ready to go.
Specifically, it had been scheduled for a few days earlier, but the weather was bad, and it was postponed a bit.
Have you never read any history? Have you never read a biography or any of the published papers of any of the key military or political leaders of the time?
2007-04-23 16:32:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you are referring to the Normandy invasion, I agree reagrding the planning and logistics. The invasion was also delayed because they were waiting for better weather, a channel crossing can be treacherous in bad weather.
2007-04-23 16:30:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
to plan a massive stike it takes time and planning
2007-04-23 16:27:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Winston was still finishing his cigar.
2007-04-23 16:28:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by David H 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
because we all still want to live
2007-04-23 16:27:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by Honey Badger Doesnt give a Shat 5
·
0⤊
2⤋