What If The Germans Successfully Repelled the ....

[maltesefalcon]

Further to my previous post.

My point was that if the German forces had sufficient strength to crush the invasion at its source (which they did not) and if they had the thousands of aircraft in Northern France required to counter the Allied naval and air elements (again they did not).

If Germany had these resources, then it is inconcievable that the D-Day landings would have been attempted in the first place.

With this many aircraft they would have been a real threat to the Allies in Britain, preventing or delaying the buildup.

To respond to Hauptman's post: Some posts regarding these what-ifs may appear unduly critical, but it is because the situation itself may be unlikely.

One of the most often repeated errors in what ifs, is that one element changed will still result in the exact same expected behaviour in your opponent. Suppose for example, you said " What if France had fortified Sedan more heavily in 1940, so that the breakthrough did not occur?" Why then would the Panzers even attack there? They would find an alternative weak spot and go there instead.

[Xanthro]

I've been noticing that it is always suggested that atomic bombs be dropped, and i ask myself is the US that desperate or is it that careless of human lives?

Once again, the US would have never dropped Atomic Weapons on Germany, because Germany could retailiate and obliterate English cities.

Germany retained chemical warfare capabilties to strike at English cities until the last days of the war.

If the US nuked a German city and no Allied troops were in France, then V2 would rain Sarin gas down on every British city within reach. Nobody would risk that.

It's only because Japan is an island and totally lacked any offensive capability to retailate against an atomic strike, while still maintaining a formidible defensive strength that lead to a nuclear strike.

Xanthro

[Sam H.]

Further to my previous post.

My point was that if the German forces had sufficient strength to crush the invasion at its source (which they did not) and if they had the thousands of aircraft in Northern France required to counter the Allied naval and air elements (again they did not).

If Germany had these resources, then it is inconcievable that the D-Day landings would have been attempted in the first place.

With this many aircraft they would have been a real threat to the Allies in Britain, preventing or delaying the buildup.

To respond to Hauptman's post: Some posts regarding these what-ifs may appear unduly critical, but it is because the situation itself may be unlikely.

One of the most often repeated errors in what ifs, is that one element changed will still result in the exact same expected behaviour in your opponent. Suppose for example, you said " What if France had fortified Sedan more heavily in 1940, so that the breakthrough did not occur?" Why then would the Panzers even attack there? They would find an alternative weak spot and go there instead.

Is it not possible that Germany could repeal the invasion and still not have sufficient aircraft and other arms to contest the allies control of the skies.

It is entirely within the realm of possibility that the Germans could have simply made better use of the assets on hand and repealed the allies at Normandy. A few well placed panzer divisions and, perhaps, some higher quality infantry divisions in Normandy could have been the diffrence maker (along with Rommel having a free hand to react to the invasion at once - without delay).

Imagine a panzer division striking towards Utah and the 82 and 101st airborne divisions before dawn on June 6th. Another panzer division is deployed north of St Lo and strikes at Utah a few hours after dawn.

Two additional panzer divisions are deployed near Caen and strike at the British/Canadian beaches within the early morning hours.

It is conceivable that with four good panzer divisions, great reactions and a few good infantry divisions that the tide could have been turned.

[maltesefalcon]

Without air support, large scale (panzer) formations would have been destroyed at the beachhead even more easily than they were at Falaise.

In addition, the Navy could have lent fire support as required.

I do agree that the Wehrmacht's best chance at repelling the invasion was on Day 1. Therefore they should have made their best effort on that day. That being said, I'm still convinced they were so badly outnumbered, the Allies would win out. German efforts would only slow or temporarily stop them.

[Sam H.]

Air support was more effective in disrupting logistics and communications than it was in stopping armored formation in battle. In theory, by closing the range, the panzers could join battle with the allies and negate a large portion of the allies ability to project fire support for the troops ashore.

Granted, its not a sure thing ... but I think you will agree that it is in the realm of possibilities and that it offered Germany its best chance (with its limited resources) of stopping the invasion.

Certainly waiting to engage the allies once they are safely ashore and established is not the way to victory in Normandy.

[Kenshiro]

Well if the Germans was able to repulse the Dday in normandy, im sure Hitler would use the same task force to "try" to defeat the Soviets, who was moving closer and closer to Berlin. If they managed to stop (not repulse)the advancing Soviet forces then maybe he would reinforce the force in Italy.

[Panther]

Greeting everyone!

If tha allied assault at D-day would fail, the only diffrense it would make would be that soviet crushed germany alone and would also occupy it. As the allies would try again later (if still neccesary) With soviet troops they would secure France and then there would be peace. Only the 'slight' diffrense of a Soviet-Germany i central Europe that might shange the cause of the cold war... However back to the subject. The failure would also possibly tense the situation between US, brittain and soviet wills. As the allied ambition was to strike fast not to let soviet influence grasp all of europe before the allied did.

/regards Panther

[Duncan]

Hi
There have been a variety of What If's relating to D Day - past and current.

Try the book:
Disaster at D-Day: The Germans Defeat the Allies; June 1944 by Peter Tsouras, includes photographs, maps and illustrattions.....

Duncan

[snookie]

If all the defenses at the American's Beaches were like Omaha, if the German command structure had control of the panzers and were a bit more flexible, I believe the German's could have prevailed.

Even with all the limitations on the German side they basically castrated every British attempt to gain Caen, the American's were making slow but steady progress against a German Army basically without armor for it was mostly tied up against the British.

If the German's could have pushed the Americans off the Beach, mopping up the Allied Paratroopers and the British around their beach head wouldn't have been too tough (costly yes) even without air and sea supremacy.

I do not think they would've tried another assualt that year as they'd still be smarting from the loss both Militarily and Politically. I do not believe this would have created any change of the situation in the east against the Russians nor do I believe it would've stopped the US from going "Nuclear" the next year.

[Andy H]

In all these scenario's nobody has shown how the huge Allied Air Supeiority would have nulified so not to have destroyed any hope German of a German victory.

The best scenario for the 'Panzer this and that Brigade' is a stalemate through the winter in Normandy, and then a breakout by the Allies in early '45, in a worst case scenario for the Allies

Andy H

[Lkefct]

If the allies get any sort of beachhead established, they are going to win. If nothing else the sustained gunfire from the naval support, and the air support is going to wear down the german army to the point of collapse sooner or later. This along with the collapse in the east. the only way the allies are replulsed is at the waters edge.

Had the allies been repulsed at the waters edge, I still think they have a strong chance to land and advance quickly in 1945. The air war continues through 1944. It continues to wear down the German military during the remainder of the summer, and fall. The German army can afford to transfer troops back east and counter attack the russians, hurting them badly, and retaining a lot of territory, most imporantly Romania. With the oil source intact, Germany can continue to fight in the east, and contest the soviet advance, albeit at a staggering price. Then when the allied attack comes again in the spring of 1945, they are able to quickly wear down the tired and depleted German army. The german army in 1945 would be a shell of it former self with the losses at Normandy in 1944, and the east in 1944 and 1945. The size might be comparable to 1944, but the quality of the manpower is likely to be low, and the vast majority of the allied troops would remain intact from 1944, plus the replacements for the men killed in the ground fighting that did occur in 1944, would be avaible for more formations, or for replacements units ready to replace casualties, which was one of the cheif difficulties to the allies in the 1944 campaign in western europe. Only the assualt units would need to be rebuilt, giving the allies the vast numerical edge, and a substantial qualitative edge. With the experience and material advatanges, they would be able to roll over the Germans for a collapse in the fall of 1945, or early spring of 1946.

[Panzerfaust XxX]

It would mean alot of things. It would cause alot of problems for the Allies. Kiss the 101st and 82nd Airbornes good-bye and Red Devils gone as well. The landing forces would also be crushed. Eisenhower would be shacked for sure. And all of the Britians would be going for Churchills jugar.

The Germans on the other hand would move their power from France and into the East. This would buy Germany much needed time to produce wonder weapons like jets. And could with some luck create (not likely) a stalemate.

[seppalar]

If we are asking how the Allies might have lost the Normandy Invasion we must allow for the possibility of very bad weather suddenly popping up a day or two after D-Day. Something very similar did historically save Japan. (Kamikaze)

It is also possible that, if Germany used the other kind of Kamikaze tactics, the invasion fleet could have been battered so badly that an invasion would have failed. Fifteen hundred or so Fighter-Bombers diving at maximum speed onto the Allied Fleet might have made a pretty big impression. The Germans obviously did not use this tactic, but in retrospect it might have served them well. We can hardly believe that Nazi leaders had any moral qualms whatsoever.

What would the Allies do? Perhaps they would massively increase the forces employed in Italy. They were steadily advancing with what they had, tripling or quadrupling their strength might have made things go faster. They might also have invaded the Balkans, Norway, or even somewhere like Spain. There is only so often that Germany can be lucky enough to have a freak Cyclone and only so often that they can use their fighters as suicide-bombs.

Rick Seppala

[kstdk]

Hello all

Just to add some "firewood" to the discussion, please see this article:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/rundstedt/index.html

PS: Remember to have a look at the other articles at this site, quite interesting things among them !!

Regards
Kurt
kstdk.

[Kriegspieler1672]

Really great site!!!! There's enough there to keep me reading for weeks...