ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Dili
I disagree with warspite1. Resources tell us that Britain might have not lost their possessions in Asia even if it did not attacked German occupied France.
Without Italy, D-Day would be more than one year earlier. More probably Spring,Summer 43. Depending how things are going in Asia.
Even possible that invasion of France was done from North and South simultaneously. Or the Southern invasion was done trough Balkans directly to the oil fields of Romenia.
warspite1
Sorry Dili I didn't understand the first sentence.
As for an earlier D-Day I disagree wholeheartedly - and funnily enough so does O'Hara in
Torch. Looking at Italy, looking at French North Africa, I believe that a 1943 and certainly a 1942(!) invasion would have been disaster for the Allies. Huzzah! another discussion topic [:)]
Are you sure there was enough invasion shipping for simultaneous landings? Also are the Allies going to invade Greece to get to Romania?
I meant that British might not have lost Asian possessions if they decided to not make an earlier D-day.
-------
The biggest and more extensive world ever naval invasion was Husky Sicily, not D-Day Normandy. That was summer 1943 and by 1943 there wasn't much of Atlantic wall...neither Sudwall.
By 1943 Britain would have probably more than 4000 aircraft, now they could have just spend part of that resources in more 4 engine bombers but they would be much stronger, since they would have not to build crap stuff like Blenheims, Hurricanes, 2pdr just because they needed to have something in frontline.
The extensive shipbuilding by British was much due to being in Mediterranean combat.
If Britain is not in Med except for a cover force, then they have much more ships - many not sunk -, they have much more aircraft, tanks, they would have spent much less fuel and send merchants around the cape that needed replacing and shipyard time. How many divisions the British lost /rebuild in Med? Those lost in Greece, those lost fighting in NA, 7 Armored was probably rebuild twice, thousands of tanks lost not comparable to those lost by Germany.
So to recap without Med the British need much less resources in land combat and much less resources in shipbuilding. Air resources could be employed in a more dedicated manner and not just the need to fill the frontline.
With that extra resources Churchill could go fully in Asian colonies: which means will follow more or less US resources spending: more aero-naval team, or if a Europe first strategy which is more probable with full continental invasion by 1943, then resources would be more directed to the aero-land team since so many ships are not necesaary, better(earlier) tanks and guns, better(earlier) attack aircraft.
Edit:
Instead the Germans don't need to do any major change in industrial resource allocation.
