Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Operation Roundup - invasion of Europe in 1943

Options
  • 02-11-2008 1:37am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 470 ✭✭


    Operation Roundup was the planned invasion of North western Europe in 1943. Pushed by the americans, the British though feared it would end in disaster. What are people thoughts here on its likely success or failure?

    Personally I think that it the advantages of a successful outcome very much outweighted the possible risks. The main one being an advance into eastern Europe by the allies would forestall the Soviet domination and possibly prevent the cold war.

    Another year gave the allies more time to get ready for the invasion but of course it also gave the Germans more time. They were being worn down in the east for sure but the West Wall was being built and it was this wall which caused most problems for the allies on the day of the actual invasion (at Omaha) A further year gave the Germans more time to organise their economy for total war - Arms production kept rising in Germany throughout the war dispite allied bombing I believe.

    Of course it would have commited the allies to a greater share of the fighting and therefore greater casulties but to the victors go the spoils and they would have been able to stand up to Stalin holding a lot more territory and from a position of greater relative strength.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    Can't imagine anything but failure. Even if you just take into account air power alone - the situation in early-mid 1943 did not remotely resemble the Allied dominance in June 1944. The estimated date for the invasion was early 1943 - prior to Kursk. The war in the east was still hanging in the balance - if the Allies had invaded, the Germans could have transfered divisions from the east easily and postponed offensive operations - their manpower was sufficent at that time to remain defensive in the east. The most decisive stage of any invasion would always be the first few days and weeks at a stretch - I highly doubt an Allied army could remain entrenched in France in early 1943 for very long against German air attack and armor attack vastly more powerful, air-supported and better manned then in 1944. The arms production doesn't really come into it - sure by the end of the war German factories were producing more tanks then they had either crews or fuel for. The German army of 1943 was in a much, much better position to not only counter, but absolutely crush an Allied invasion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    D-Day was planned to avoid harbours, as the allies had already got a very bloody nose from the raid on Dieppe, so the designing and construction of the mulberry harbours was a vital part of sustained operations in France, these alone would not have been ready in May 1943.

    Add to this the fact that German U-Boats were still very much a threat until late 1943, I believe the allies would have been slaughtered.

    that's ignoring the other factors, such as the eastern front at the time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭dogmatix


    It would have been a disaster for all of the reasons offered above. I'm also thinking no overall air dominance for the allies, severe logistics and supply difficulties and the respective quality of the troops on each side. As for the west wall - this proved to be pretty much a paper tiger anyway. Many of the difficulties encountered at Omaha where caused by other problems and not necessarily due to the "west wall".


  • Registered Users Posts: 470 ✭✭Shutuplaura


    Thanks for your responses. I initally reckoned it was worth a go but have swung back to the idea that while possible, it was an unacceptable risk. I did find the below while reading up some more of the difficulties Roundup would have encountered.

    http://books.google.com.au/books?id=FHE_3Piqw_MC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=operation+roundup&source=web&ots=DzGOHd9YrK&sig=xbQsT9F4ywoCHXeIBRgKpkcXlLE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA88,M1


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,436 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    To invade France, I imagine it would have meant not invading Italy and Italy would have remained on Germany's side.

    The was a suggestion to invade the west coast of France, but this would have meant fighting the U-boats in home waters with .... troopships and aircraft carriers. Compared to Normandy, the re-supply cycle would have been weekly instead of daily and there would be no land-based fighter cover.

    Invading north of west France in 1943 would have turned into a bloodbath like the eastern front.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement