Operation Sledgehammer

[Sunforged General]

So what do you guys think on the feasibility of Operation Sledgehammer, the WW2 plan to invade Western Europe in mid 1942 to help alleviate the Russian front. The operation was eagerly pressed for by both the United States military and the Soviet Union.

Now I know at first this plan sounds like suicidal gibberish, but hear me out. We have 2 major factors that make this plan at least somewhat realistic.

1. In 1942, the Atlantic Wall defenses were just starting construction. There would be almost no fortifications on the Normandy beaches and other beaches.

2. In 1942, 80% of the German army was on the eastern front, while in 1944 when D-day happened, only 62% of the German army was on the eastern front. If a naval invasion was launched in 1942 by the allies, the Germans would only have half the forces that they did in 1944 available for the western front.

Since the operation would have been scheduled for Autumn of 1942, this means the Germans would either have to call off their assault toward Stalingrad to send troops west, or press the assault on Stalingrad and risk not having enough troops to contain the allies in France. Meanwhile, as soon as the Soviets hear about a front being opened up in Western Europe, they would go over on to the offensive, as happened during D-day with Operation Bagration. (I know D-day wasn't the main reason for this operation, but none the less, the two happening at a similar time was a great blow to Germany.)

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

This would be just dumb luck for Germany.
Hitler would propably call off the Stalingrad operation and the Allies would likely get a major defeat in France.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

And let's not forget that while the Wehrmacht would have had less troops in the west than in '44 so the invasion force would have been far smaller compared to Overlord.

 

[Sunforged General]

This would be just dumb luck for Germany.
Hitler would propably call off the Stalingrad operation and the Allies would likely get a major defeat in France.

So, the allies lose replaceable forces in France, while the Germans go onto the defensive in 1942 instead of 1943. Operation Uranus becomes about retaking Ukraine instead of destroying the 6th army in Stalingrad. Not to mention the industrial center of Stalingrad escapes destruction and contributes more to the Soviet War effort. The real question is, would the Germans be able to move enough forces west to crush the allies, without destabilizing their already stretched lines in the east.

 

[Herbert West]

What troops, what equipment, what experience is used in this operation?

Also, while German mil int was bad, it was nowhere near so bad as to miss a whole invasion force assembling. The untrained, inexperienced US army running into the 1942 Whrmacht is not going to end well.

 

[Sunforged General]

What troops, what equipment, what experience is used in this operation?

Also, while German mil int was bad, it was nowhere near so bad as to miss a whole invasion force assembling. The untrained, inexperienced US army running into the 1942 Whrmacht is not going to end well.

Doesnt take much experience to break through an unfortified beach. Granted, this invasion would involve lots of inexperienced American conscripts, but the US military was confident it could defeat 20% of the German army.

 

[Rubidium]

A huge problem is the lack of landing craft. They could do Torch (although even that relied heavily on the expectation that the Vichy forces would not seriously resist), but a landing in France would be much more extensive, and I'm skeptical that the Allies could have pulled it off (and of course, things like the Mulberries would be right out).

 

[Kovax]

The landings in North Africa were relatively essential to prepare the troops, and more importantly the officers, for the bigger challenge ahead: the invasion of Europe. Without that relatively "safe" experience and chance to iron out the logistical and tactical bugs in the system before launching the main event, it would have been an extremely costly operation at best. I'm not positive it would have failed, but not convinced that it would have succeeded, either.

 

[Eusebio]

Dieppe.

 

[Dina1954]

Doesnt take much experience to break through an unfortified beach. Granted, this invasion would involve lots of inexperienced American conscripts, but the US military was confident it could defeat 20% of the German army.

You forget that luftwaffe was not deafeted in 1942 so wehrmacht can move on days instead of nights.

 

[DukeDayve]

Was it even possible in 1942? I thought the allies waited until 1944 because that was how long it took to build up the colossal amount of men and supplies? Not to mention all the aircraft and bombers and everything that would later be used to get air superiority.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

Was it even possible in 1942? I thought the allies waited until 1944 because that was how long it took to build up the colossal amount of men and supplies? Not to mention all the aircraft and bombers and everything that would later be used to get air superiority.

I guess if they really, really would have wanted to (like in: That's the only chance to win the war) they could have pulled it off.

 

[DukeDayve]

I guess if they really, really would have wanted to (like in: That's the only chance to win the war) they could have pulled it off.

But what did the US even have in Britain in the spring/summer of 1942? (It would be launched in spring/summer because any other month is silly). Did they have 1,000 Shermans, 10,000 artillery pieces, a few thousand good fighter planes + pilots and unfathomable quantities of supplies built up and ready to go?

I guess we could go alternate history route and pretend operation Torch never happened, so they could use those troops and equipments for an invasion of France instead... but then the Germans would have extra troops and equipment in France and not defending North Africa.

I dunno. I don't see it working tbh.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

But what did the US even have in Britain in the spring/summer of 1942? (It would be launched in spring/summer because any other month is silly). Did they have 1,000 Shermans, 10,000 artillery pieces, a few thousand good fighter planes + pilots and unfathomable quantities of supplies built up and ready to go?

I guess we could go alternate history route and pretend operation Torch never happened, so they could use those troops and equipments for an invasion of France instead... but then the Germans would have extra troops and equipment in France and not defending North Africa.

I dunno. I don't see it working tbh.

I didn't say that it would have been successful.

 

[yerm]

I believe it would have absolutely and assuredly helped the situation for the USSR in the short term. A serious attempt at a landing in Europe will have Germany do whatever it sees as necessary to defend, even if it comes at the cost of the campaign in the east.

In the long term, I take a view that wars are fought by more than just what's seen logistically. An immediate counterattack has the sole long term advantage of currying good will from the soviets. Meanwhile, it has the disadvantage of squandering untold numbers of lives and supplies towards what I suspect to be a doomed occupation - 1942 can and would repulse it. It has a dramatic impact on the resolve of the axis as they would have to assume that the allies are desperate for launching such a rushed plan in spite of their obvious long term advantages. If repulsed, it then hinders the potential for success in the future (eg actual dday) since supplies and I assume resolve are "used up" here.

Even if successful, it puts a hefty strain on allied logistics earlier than I suspect they are ready for it. Germany is not yet brought to heel in the east, nor is its airforce on as much borrowed time, its populace as scraped dry for manpower... and they may very likely see the ability to win decidedly here as a chance to secure the west against such a thing and bring the Brits to the negotiating table.

It also has to mean the allies are gunning for air superiority and close support early over bombing and strategic focus, and the navy is commited to support of a landing and then resupply ops years earlier at the expense of distant convoy support and/or pressuring Japan.

My assumption in this case is that Germany ends up only slightly better off and still loses the war in 1945, but the USSR has pushed much harder in the end while the allies are lucky if they're even in the low countries or Germany proper when Berlin is sacked by Russians or just nuked.

 

[Sunforged General]

But what did the US even have in Britain in the spring/summer of 1942? (It would be launched in spring/summer because any other month is silly). Did they have 1,000 Shermans, 10,000 artillery pieces, a few thousand good fighter planes + pilots and unfathomable quantities of supplies built up and ready to go?

I guess we could go alternate history route and pretend operation Torch never happened, so they could use those troops and equipments for an invasion of France instead... but then the Germans would have extra troops and equipment in France and not defending North Africa.

I dunno. I don't see it working tbh.

Its worth mentioning that huge amounts of men and equipment would not be needed on the scale of D-day, because Operation Sledgehammers plan was not to take all of France, but establish a beach head on either the Brest or Cherbourg peninsulas, fortify it, then ship in supplies for a year and launch the main offensive in 1943. Also, again, the German force in the west was much smaller in 1942 than it was in 1944.

 

[DukeDayve]

Its worth mentioning that huge amounts of men and equipment would not be needed on the scale of D-day, because Operation Sledgehammers plan was not to take all of France, but establish a beach head on either the Brest or Cherbourg peninsulas, fortify it, then ship in supplies for a year and launch the main offensive in 1943. Also, again, the German force in the west was much smaller in 1942 than it was in 1944.

Sounds silly to me. Probably sounded silly to the allies which is probably why they didn't do it lol. Germany was much more capable in 1942 than they were in 1944 and they still had an airforce too. I suspect this would've ended in disaster for the allies.

They kind of did the same thing in Italy but it was so easy for the Germans to defend I'm sure they wouldn't have kicked them back into the sea even if they could. If they're slowly crawling up the easily defensible terrain of Italy they're less likely to hit anywhere else.

 

[Sunforged General]

Sounds silly to me. Probably sounded silly to the allies which is probably why they didn't do it lol. Germany was much more capable in 1942 than they were in 1944 and they still had an airforce too. I suspect this would've ended in disaster for the allies.

They kind of did the same thing in Italy but it was so easy for the Germans to defend I'm sure they wouldn't have kicked them back into the sea even if they could. If they're slowly crawling up the easily defensible terrain of Italy they're less likely to hit anywhere else.

The British are actually the ones who said no, the US military was all for Operation Sledgehammer. Its not as silly, like I said, its technically easier to attack before all those nasty Atlantic wall fortifications get built. If they take the Peninsula, all the allies have to do is fortify the only way in. The Germans cant go around it via sea due to the superior allied navy.

 

[Cavalry]

The British are actually the ones who said no, the US military was all for Operation Sledgehammer. Its not as silly, like I said, its technically easier to attack before all those nasty Atlantic wall fortifications get built. If they take the Peninsula, all the allies have to do is fortify the only way in. The Germans cant go around it via sea due to the superior allied navy.

The Atlantic wall is a myth, a Hitler ad anyway though. The Allies can assault it in 1944 with only 10,000+ casualties in just a day. I don't have more info but someone should be responsible for letting millions of Allies troops idle. Especially at the time the Germans could broke through Stalingrad and capture Caucasus Oil!

1942 can be too early, but why not 1943?! One year preparing is not enough?!

 

[Sunforged General]

The Atlantic wall is a myth, a Hitler ad anyway though. The Allies can assault it in 1944 with only 10,000+ casualties in just a day. I don't have more info but someone should be responsible for letting millions of Allies troops idle. Especially at the time the Germans could broke through Stalingrad and capture Caucasus Oil!

1942 can be too early, but why not 1943?! One year preparing is not enough?!

The Concrete fortifications at Normandy are still there, I've seen them with my own eyes. Its no myth.