What If The Germans Successfully Repelled the ....

[Kurt_Steiner]

Just a problem. To do that, the USSR would need a huge logistic system, and I don't think they would be able to advance facing the Western Allies. And about the "red danger" in France, well... a bit too dramatic, I think.

[glenn239]

This thread has taken on two topics. First if Germany could have stopped an Allied invasion and second what would happen if they did so.

I think that the likeliest chance of a repulse would be the result of a "lucky choice" forward defense with the panzer and elite divisions. For all of the Allied air and naval power, Omaha Beach was a near run thing; air interdiction against Panzer formations was most effective when the units were moving, not when already in static positions.

I don't believe that any measure of success would have prevented a follow-up invasion as soon as weather conditions allowed another attempt. As others have suggested, Germany was simply going to LOSE this battle. But if we suspend disbelief and try to imagine what the Germans may have done differently assuming any number of lucky guesses, luck in developing technology, and enough time, I'd guess that a better defense might have adapted a few of these random ideas:

Communications -

Ensuring that A.A. assets were in place to set up the necessary "flak corridor" from the interior to the bridgehead. The Germans only realised this necessity when it was too late.

Diverting some of the resources expended on fortifications to the support of communications. For instance, was it possible to design a bridging system where the permenent foundations lay under the water during the day, and the bridge itself was ratcheted out from the shoreline at night? That sort of thing.

Coastal Defenses.

As other posters have suggested, the V-1 had some serious potential here. Though I doubt a kamikaze scheme was likely at this time, it may not have been necessary. Other possibilities might be to use Fritz X technology for coastal defense; fortify the guidance systems along the coast with their V-1 derived missiles. This would allow an effective answer to naval bombardment.

Given the density of invasion traffic, the invention of a sea-skimmer device (a crude proximity radar to measure the distance to the surface of the sea?) should open the possibility to heavy damage being inflicted upon the attacking forces. If the V-1 could have been made to fly at 5-10 feet above the sea, saturating the invasion area with sea skimmers could have resulted in large numbers of hits by chance alone.

If something like a coastal Fritz X were developed, this would allow the heavy coastal guns to be placed further back into the interior, where they could be put to better use interdicting the beaches with heavy calibre fire during the first critical day of the invasion. This role implies that ammunition transfer from various batteries around France must have top priority - the theoretical objective being to fire every heavy-calibre round available in France onto the invasion beach.

Another interesting adaptation would have been to use the Nerbelwerfer in an anti-shipping role. Coastal rocket batteries would try to locate the channels in the offshore minefields the allies have swept, and then drop "fresh" mines into these gaps via rocket artillery salvos to close Allied communications with the beaches.


Implications of a German Victory in France.

Should the defense succeed, the most immediate and pressing concern for the Allies would be that the Buzz-bomb crisis would not be overcome. Instead, attacks would rapidly esculate as German production ramped up in the fall of 1944 - perhaps as many as 6,000 - 8,000 per month. The damn things were just so cheap to make.

Next, these events would have had an impact on Stalin's assessment of the situation. This thread has assumed that the Russians would continue to attack the Germans. And that is probably the case. But a cynic might note that if getting to Berlin rapidly was tops in Stalin's books, then he certainly took his sweet time of if after his armies halted outside Warsaw in August 1944...

If my read of Stalin is correct, he'd have tried to "pay back" the allies for the percieved tactic of bleeding mother Russia by slowing the advance toward Germany to a crawl, instead securing the Russian sphere of influence throughout the entire Balkan region.

If the Germans collapsed in France, the Red Army would roll forward. If they did not, and instead the war raged on in the west (preferably with WMD's flying back and forth), well, why on earth would Stalin want to wreck that party? The snail would continue to advance at a rate that takes Berlin - say in 20 or 30 years time.

[agibaer]

Hmm what seems to be forgotten by our members here who support the "soviet army taking germany alone" theory is all the material that the germans put to france AFTER the invasion to stop the allied troops would be thrown at the eastern front. Means Germany wouldn't only move forces from france to the eastern front but everything that's being produced in the Reich would be put on eastern front, also all drafts. And it would also be a huge moral plus for german propaganda motivating forces & allies (The Endsieg theory being plausible again)...

regards
robert

[glenn239]

I think this overestimates the German position. Whether or not the Germans were to repulse Overlord, the Russians still will have overrun Germany’s major source of oil at Ploesti in Rumania. At the same time the USAF was systematically targeting Germany’s synthetic oil production facilities, meaning that Germany’s strategic options were obviously going to be limited to the defensive for the rest of the war. Certainly massive mechanized offensives a la Barbarossa would be absolutely out of the question, meaning that Stalin holds the high hand.

Panzer reserves could be concentrated in the east, but given the fact there would be less and less gas for them, they would be virtually useless for significant offensive purposes. At some point the German defense must collapse simply because Russian tanks could move and their opponents could not.

Germany’s best option would be to accept the fait accompli in the east and pray that Stalin did not continue to come west. This would be best accomplished by demonstrating forcefully why a return to the 1940 status quo would be of interest to Stalin. The Russian dictator would probably be favorably inclined by a successful Type XXI offensive, and an escalation in strategic warfare in the west.

[Serus]

As someone already stated - few days of very bad weather could be disastreous, add better german command and voila - d-day failed, otherwise it is impossible. Later Germany can use more troops in eastern front but not as much as one can think because: - they still have to defend France in case of a second allied atempt, -WA can move more troops to Italy or try a smaller landing somewhere else. Final result: east front can hold few months/1 year longer but at the end Soviets can occupy all Germany, maybe Danemark and Benelux countries. Not a pleasant perspective - strong communist movements in France and Italy with soviet armies just on the other side of the border... this is my scenario...
Off topic - use of atomic bomb in Europe in 45 is VERY unlikely imo...

[glenn239]

I sincerely doubt Stalin would have gone too far west - this would force him between war with the United States or a humiliating retreat back to "his" side of Europe. I can see no circumstance by which the United States would accept the Red Army that far into Western Europe.

[Serus]

I sincerely doubt Stalin would have gone too far west - this would force him between war with the United States or a humiliating retreat back to "his" side of Europe. I can see no circumstance by which the United States would accept the Red Army that far into Western Europe.

Maybe because they accepted Red Army in Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Budapest - why not in Copenhagen, Hamburg, Munchen and Koln?

[glenn239]

Maybe because they accepted Red Army in Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Budapest - why not in Copenhagen, Hamburg, Munchen and Koln?

Because allowing Stalin to control most/all of Germany would give Moscow the combined resources of two Great Powers, plus a host of smaller ones. Much like Persia, I do not think it would have been tolerated.

[Virgil Hiltz]

One thing that is overlooked so far here is that the US had a large amount of Amphibious trained units in the Pacific. The war against Japan may have been delayed a year or two and the forces moved from the Pacific to the ETO. The 6 marine divisions were equipped with alligator amphibious tractors that could bring men ashore much quicker than the barges.The 20th Air Forces B-29s would have completed the total anililation of the fuel industry much sooner and helped with the tactical scenarion re:bridges and railways etc making it almost imposible to shift troops quickley and efficently. The first goal of the US was to defeat Hitler and with conventional weapons. There was a lot that had not been brought to the table and it would have been a matter of time but the Pacific assets would have made it impossible top repulse another invasion. What for instance had the Pacific fleet come through th eSuez cannal and struck Through Greece? There are a lot of potential scenarios that there involvement would engage. None of which the Germans most likely would have planned for. Horse drawn Armies were still not going to make it in 1944. Even with Albert Speers increased production, they could not sustain the figures for long. The end was inevitable even with a defeat at Normandy, Italy or The South of France. The sheer numbers of free men out numbered anything the Reich could do.

[Reviewer]

Maybe because they accepted Red Army in Berlin, Warsaw, Prague, Budapest - why not in Copenhagen, Hamburg, Munchen and Koln?

Because allowing Stalin to control most/all of Germany would give Moscow the combined resources of two Great Powers, plus a host of smaller ones. Much like Persia, I do not think it would have been tolerated.

Would that have caused them to rescue Germany by joining the wermarcht in the resistance against the red army invasion.

[glenn239]

Would that have caused them to rescue Germany by joining the wermarcht in the resistance against the red army invasion.

Good question. My guess is no. I think that the Allies would allow the Soviets to defeat Germany, then would demand they withdraw.[/quote]

[josin]

Hello all

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

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

I read the article. I'll quote Rundstedt:
"Had I been able to move the armored divisions which I had behind the coast, I am convinced that the invasion would not have succeeded." Von Rundstedt made this emphatic statement as he told of continued interference from higher levels with the disposition of his inadequate forces. "If I had been able to move the troops, then my air force would also have been in a position to attack hostile ships."

...

"That is all a question of air force, air force, and again air force," he commented.
--------

What would have "his air force" achieved? Little other than getting shot down.
He himself says that air was key. And the ones with most planes and most fuel for them were the Allies.

As for his panzers, weather allowing, they would have been trashed in route to the coast by Allied Air. Even if they got near the beaches, they still would have been very vulnerable to air attack, and to big-caliber naval guns.

[josin]

Would that have caused them to rescue Germany by joining the wermarcht in the resistance against the red army invasion.

Good question. My guess is no. I think that the Allies would allow the Soviets to defeat Germany, then would demand they withdraw.

Joe withdrawing from West-Northern Europe or just from Germany proper? Tough, he would be "holding the ground". The Allies would have had to fight him for it.

Given the Soviet way of throwing massive formations into battle, with little regard for human losses, a tough fight for the Allies to stomach. Probably would have to rely heavily on Allied four-engine bombers used at relatively low altitudes for accuracy bombing against Soviet formations.

Back to the enclosed quote of Allies joining the Wehrmacht against the Soviets:
That obstinate buttheaded "total surrender" Allied policy probably caused the War to last longer (in Europe & Japan T's)
It would have been more likely that German officers had *again* dared to try get rid of Hitler, if they had been offered a deal:
Token resistance or no resistance in the West, and let the Allies take over even before Warsaw fell --in exchange for Germany going back to its pre-War borders, and democracy. German generals knew they were losing badly, and rather than seeing their country destroyed & partitioned, civilians killed & raped, Soviet occupation, etc., many in OKW would have gone for that, IMO.

Perhaps Poland would have been lost, but maybe other countries besides Germany would have been saved.
So what if we betrayed Uncle Joe, it wouldn't have been the first time in history that a word had been broken!

[Andy H]

Please keep this thread on track. No further posts concerning WI the Western Allies joined the WH against the Russia will be allowed.

Andy H

[Von Schadewald]

What exactly were the Allied contingency plans had Hitler released all the panzers in the first hour? An immediate "Super Dieppe" withdrawl under fire? Or waves of Lancasters and B17s coming in at tree top height?