"Hitler got it right for Normandy 1944"

[RichTO90]

Surely this is correct:
Any landing in Belgium would still have to clear western France No movement directly East in force could have been made until the Allied left flank had been cleared ..

Why? The historical campaign did nothing of the sort, although something like that was planned. 21 Army Group was to press eastwards and 12th Army Group southwards, compressing the German presence and compromising their rail-bound communications. Why is it so different if shifted to the northeast? Historically, movement east and northeast occurred even when the Allied right flank had not been cleared...or the left flank for that matter.

7th Army would have to shift its mobile divisions in support of 15th Army, the same problems would still exist for the Germans in movement and supply.

However, yes your second part is precisely correct, 7. Armee could only shift its mobile elements, just as historically 15. Armee (and 1. Armee and 19. Armee) shifted mobile elements in their desperate attempt to contain the Allies. Shifting the arena doesn't change the game.

[RichTO90]

Why ? In the OTL,Antwerp was captured intact,why would it not be in the ATL?

Because in the real world (I hate "OTL" and "ATL") Antwerp was captured by a coup de main during the pursuit, which is unlikely to happen during the deliberate phase of an amphibious invasion. The analogy from the real world is Cherbourg and Brest.

[doogal]

RichT090 wrote: Why? The historical campaign did nothing of the sort, although something like that was planned. 21 Army Group was to press eastwards and 12th Army Group southwards, compressing the German presence and compromising their rail-bound communications. Why is it so different if shifted to the northeast? Historically, movement east and northeast occurred even when the Allied right flank had not been cleared...or the left flank for that matter

Fair point

Surely though if they land in Belgium the German reaction would have been different???
If the majority of German armour had been on the left of the Allied lodgement, (admittedly they could move northeast and east) could this following a landing in Belgium not force a German withdrawal through Picardie, due to the decreased distance to the German border that the Allied forces would have to travel.

[RichTO90]

Surely though if they land in Belgium the German reaction would have been different???
If the majority of German armour had been on the left of the Allied lodgement, (admittedly they could move northeast and east) could this following a landing in Belgium not force a German withdrawal through Picardie, due to the decreased distance to the German border that the Allied forces would have to travel.

The cases are pretty well documented and are pretty schematic. They involve graduated reactions by mobile forces, depending on where the landing occurs. The only thing that changes is who goes where.

Sorry, I don't quite follow your concluding phrases? The majority of the German armor was on the left, because that is where the communications lines from where they were took them.

[doogal]

RichT090 wrote: Sorry, I don't quite follow your concluding phrases? The majority of the German armor was on the left, because that is where the communications lines from where they were took them.

Looking at a Situation Map(haven't put a map in cos im sure you know this stuff off by heart) of France in June 1944 it would seem that if the landing was in Belgium this would naturally due to communication lines (and the time it would take German formations to move), allow the majority of German Armour to concentrate properly rather than be drawn into a defensive line which could be broken through and encircled.???

I get the feeling you will tell me that what actually happened drew the German Armour to the Right flank of the Normandy lodgement, and being defeated why would it be any different in Belgium if German armour was on its Left flank... (ill have a think about that while at work)

I will though defer to your greater knowledge on the subject Rich.

[RichTO90]

Looking at a Situation Map(haven't put a map in cos im sure you know this stuff off by heart) of France in June 1944 it would seem that if the landing was in Belgium this would naturally due to communication lines (and the time it would take German formations to move), allow the majority of German Armour to concentrate properly rather than be drawn into a defensive line which could be broken through and encircled.???

The problem - for the Germans - always came down to what was operational and could be moved considering the assumed threat of Allied landings in other sectors. Landing in Pas de Calais would have the chief objection that it was what the Germans expected, so there likely would be less delay in moving 21. Panzer from 7. Armee and Lehr and 12. SS-panzer from the reserve. That implies that the mass armored counterattack the Germans planned for, but never executed, might come off. Which, given the Allies were planning themselves for just such an eventuality, may have resulted in the German armor being written down even earlier.

The other problem - again for the Germans - was that while 15. Armee was larger and had more infantry divisions, the density wasn't very different. Which implies they too would suffer the shortage of infantry to hold the line that 7. Armee had, which in turn implies that if the armored counterattack doesn't kick off, then the same pattern as Normandy follows - Panzer committed to holding the line and getting worn down that way. Essentially, what Ob.West needed was about another 100,000 infantry that the Reich simply didn't have.

I get the feeling you will tell me that what actually happened drew the German Armour to the Right flank of the Normandy lodgement, and being defeated why would it be any different in Belgium if German armour was on its Left flank... (ill have a think about that while at work)

I'll give you my speculation, but without knowing which beaches the Allies would have chosen, it is difficult to figure the routes the Panzers would have followed to concentrate at the front. They likely would have ended on the Allied right instead of the left, which means the Americans would have taken the brunt. Beyond that is truly speculative.

I will though defer to your greater knowledge on the subject Rich.

Not necessarily greater knowledge, but possibly a larger collection of documents and books, along with a longer time to think about it and discuss the matter with other interested parties.

[ljadw]

The following point should not be forgotten : would a landing on the Belgian coast not be easier for the Allies? Are there informations about the Atlantikwall on the Belgian coast,and is a comparison with the fortifications in Normandy possible ?

If it was easier for the Allies,could they not go quicker to the south than the German mobile divisions to the east ? If the Seine bridges were destroyed,would it not be very difficult for the PzD to go to Belgium?

Was it not possible for the Allies to execute a second landing in Normandy shortly after the landing on the Belgian coast,and would this not have as result that the PzD would be tied in Normandy and not be able to intervene in Belgium ?

[RichTO90]

The following point should not be forgotten : would a landing on the Belgian coast not be easier for the Allies? Are there informations about the Atlantikwall on the Belgian coast,and is a comparison with the fortifications in Normandy possible ?

Yes, somewhere I have the data. Short version is that the defenses in the Pas de Calais were more complete and extensive than in Normandy.

If it was easier for the Allies,could they not go quicker to the south than the German mobile divisions to the east ? If the Seine bridges were destroyed,would it not be very difficult for the PzD to go to Belgium?

Paris. And the Seine was not really closed to traffic outside of Paris until after the invasion.

Was it not possible for the Allies to execute a second landing in Normandy shortly after the landing on the Belgian coast,and would this not have as result that the PzD would be tied in Normandy and not be able to intervene in Belgium ?

Sure, the opposite of what FORTITUDE was trying to indicate. Except that the Allied forces were nowhere near as strong as the Germans supposed, which would have meant the 30-odd divisions available to the Allies would have been separated by a considerable distance. One then could have been massed while the Germans concentrated on the other. Still a German victory is unlikely, but it gives them a better chance. Why do so when the Allies can follow the safer course of action?

[Sheldrake]

Eisenhower's staff did make a contingency plan for a second landing in the event that the Germans successfully contained 21 Army Group in Normandy. This explored options to make an airborne and seaborne assault near Brest. The strategic view of the lodgement phase of Operation Overlord was to use C.30 divisions to seize an area with the port capacity to land formations directly from the USA and supporting an army of 100 divisions.

There contingency plans to occupy Germany or territories abandoned by the Germans, but the allied plan was not based on the assumption that the advance guard could win the war in '44. The historic course of events would have been regarded as an optimistic scenario at the time. Despite the press moans at the time about the slow allied progress in the first 60 days after landing, (and the back biting afterwards in memoirs and history books) , allied progress by D+90 was ahead of expectations and by D+120 they were well ahead of what had been envisaged before D Day.

[ljadw]

I am talking about a second landing in Normandy (with smaller forces than in the OTL (sorry)) shortly after a successful landing on the Belgian coast .In the OTL (sorry) the German mobile forces were after D Day concentrated in Normandy .in the ATL,the German mobile forces would have to be in Belgium and in Normandy,something which would weaken the Germans .If they were in Normandy,making live miserably for the Allies (to paraphrase some one),it would help the Allies in Belgium ,and opposite . It would be a variant on Dragoon (which was planned to happen in june ):the Germans were the weaker party : they could not allow to divide their forces .

[steverodgers801]

Ljawd, Antwerp was captured because the commander and units fled. As I stated, Hitler would have recognized this for the real landing and not think it was a diversion, so he would have known Antwerp would be an immediate target and would have reinforced it immediately. Hitler had a correct obsession with ports and made a point of reinforcing them and demanding they be held to the last and be damaged if taken.

[ljadw]

If in the OTL Antwerp was captured,because the Germans fled,would the Germans also not fled in the ATL?And,where would Hitler get the forces to reinforce Antwerp? Besides,would Antwerp have the same importance in the ATL as the importance it had in the OTL/the importance of which it was claimed it had in the OTL ? Why would Antwerp be an immediate target ?

At the end of August 1944,the Germans were fleeing on the whole front,would they also not flee on the whole front at the end of june 1944,if there was a landing on the Belgian coast ?

[RichTO90]

If in the OTL Antwerp was captured,because the Germans fled,would the Germans also not fled in the ATL?And,where would Hitler get the forces to reinforce Antwerp? Besides,would Antwerp have the same importance in the ATL as the importance it had in the OTL/the importance of which it was claimed it had in the OTL ? Why would Antwerp be an immediate target ?

No. Antwerp was captured intact because the German Army was fleeing in disarray, and the threat came from the south and southeast, instead of the north and northeast its defenders were oriented for. These are the defenders.

712. Inf.Div. (bo) (15 K.V.A.-A2)
Gefechtsstand – Antwerp
Kdr: Generalleutnant Friedrich-Wilhelm Neumann
Ia: Major Arnold Wentzel
IIa: Rittmeister Rochus Freiherr von Lüttwitz
K.V.-Gr.-Bresken
K.V.-Gr.-Antwerpen
K.V.-Gr.-Knokke-West
K.V.-Gr.-Knokke-Ost
K.V.-Gr.-Zeebrugge
Heeres-Küstenartillerie-Batterie (H.K.B.) Zeebrugge (Stp Barbara) (six 8.35 cm
Flak 22 (t) )
Ost-Btl. 628 (Russiches) (I./Gren.Regt. 745)

They were still there in the first week of September, but they were facing the wrong way. By 17 September they had fled to the northern sections of Antwerp - leaving all their fixed heavy weapons behind - and were holding the Scheldt line.

At the end of August 1944,the Germans were fleeing on the whole front,would they also not flee on the whole front at the end of june 1944,if there was a landing on the Belgian coast ?

They were not "fleeing the whole front". St. Malo, Brest, La Rochelle, Le Havre, Boulogne, Calais, and Dunkirk were all being held. Antwerp was fumbled. Given a landing across the Pas de Calais beaches, then it is likely that Antwerp and the others take the role of Cherbourg, Brest, and St. Malo. It is more likely that when the Pas de Calais front breaks like the Normandy front did, then it would be Hamburg that would be the new Antwerp.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Sandeep,Hi Sandeep,

You post, "The number of attempts and conspiracies against Hitler's life are well documented I guess?"

Doubtless they are (though your "?" rather leaves in doubt whether you know how many there were!)

Furthermore, it doesn't answer my question on your proposition, "But the bouts of "good fortune" were too many.. too frequent.."

Who says so, by what measure and too frequent for what?

Cheers,

Sid.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Hi Sandeep,Hi Sandeep,

You post, "The number of attempts and conspiracies against Hitler's life are well documented I guess?"

Doubtless they are (though your "?" rather leaves in doubt whether you know how many there were!)

Furthermore, it doesn't answer my question on your proposition, "But the bouts of "good fortune" were too many.. too frequent.."

Who says so, by what measure and too frequent for what?

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Sid...

I had put the ? out of politeness and not to rub it in harder than necessary pl.

As I type at this moment, I wont be able to quote verbatim how many and which attempts on Hitler's life were made and when. I know there were very many and if necessary will dig them up. Though this isnt the thread for that.

The bouts of good fortune roughly correspond with those very many attempts since repeatedly escaping a bunch of determined killers determined to get you, does require good fortune.

Ciao
Sandeep