Were the Brits Right?

[morvwilson]

The thing to consider here is that you had two general staffs coming from different historical experiences.
The British had been isolated to their island, or mostly so, in a previous war against Napoleon. Thus their strategy was to nip around the edges and make their enemy spread themselves out and thus expose a weakness. You can't be strong every where. While I don't particularly agree with the invasion of Italy, specifically Salerno. It did have one major effect. Italy was knocked out of the war.
The American leadership came from a different experience all together. The Civil war. In that war the Americans learned to gather as much strength as possible and drive directly at the heart of your enemy. This is why the American generals wanted to hit France in 42/43.
Italy was a compromise.
There was already an allied army in Africa. What were they to do?
If they redeployed to England, that would invite the Axis to try their luck again in Africa. Then the allies would have to ship their troops back to the med and refight the African campaign. However, the allied armies at that time lacked the strength to hit France from the south.
If I remember, Churchill wanted to hit the Balkans either in Yugoslavia or Greece and short circuit Stalin. (IMO Churchill was a much better statesman than FDR)

[sapper32]

Yes is the answer to that question,Until 1944 there was just not enough landing craft,landing ships,aircraft the list goes on and on look at how many ships it took to mount the D Day landings then supply the ever increasing number of troops that fought in NW Europe supply is everything for a modern army and it all had to come from around the world to Normandy.
Someone said the Brits were NEVER right not sure what planet he is from??

[Southernland]

They could have attacked via Spain?   
 
 
Mental note: must not confuse HOI II with reality any more!!!

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I beg to differ, but the only front that mattered was the one in Russia. Anything the Western Allies did was nothing more than a diversion of effort, which, of course, the Russians demanded as early as 1942. Arguably, by 1944 is was a moot point.

This is an interesting "what if", but we are gamers, not trained diplomats. Inevitably, this will lead into politics, which is inseparable from the conduct of war. However, political discussion is frowned upon here, so it will also inevitably lead to the thread being locked up.

Now, to answer your question: no, the Brits were NEVER right. They consistently made shortsighted judgements, and thus lost their empire, starting in the 18th century up until the 20th.

WoW.. KG you really out did yourself with this nugget.......

[planner 3]

Southern land: Curious how the Mountains between France and Spain would have been for LOGISTICS traffic versus Normandy ?????

OH ! another thought....how about extended sea route to Espana ?

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Now, to answer your question: no, the Brits were NEVER right. They consistently made shortsighted judgements, and thus lost their empire, starting in the 18th century up until the 20th.

Which leads to the question, if they never made the right judgement how did they get an empire? [;)]

[wilecki]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Now, to answer your question: no, the Brits were NEVER right. They consistently made shortsighted judgements, and thus lost their empire, starting in the 18th century up until the 20th.

Which leads to the question, if they never made the right judgement how did they get an empire? [;)]

It was a sort of civilizational head start which they didn't fully exploit. [;)]

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Dixie
Which leads to the question, if they never made the right judgement how did they get an empire? [;)]

Don’t expect a rational explanation to defend his statements ,
He puts up some ludicrous statement then cuts‘n paste his cool aid disclaimer..............[8|]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
This is an interesting "what if", but we are gamers, not trained diplomats. Inevitably, this will lead into politics, which is inseparable from the conduct of war. However, political discussion is frowned upon here, so it will also inevitably lead to the thread being locked up.

He's been doing this crap for years...........[:D]

[Lützow]

ORIGINAL: wilecki

It was a sort of civilizational head start which they didn't fully exploit. [;)]

Don't forget the terrorially advantage. UK had not to face foreign invasions or domestic land combat for centuries. Hence we suggested to build that tunnel and told them it would be merely about civil traffic. Next time Sealion will become a cakewalk. (j/k) [:D]