D-Day Fails

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

D-Day Fails

#1

Post by Futurist » 08 May 2016, 01:22

What if, for whatever reason, D-Day would have (completely) failed?

What exactly would have happened afterwards?

Indeed, any thoughts on this?
Last edited by Futurist on 08 May 2016, 05:48, edited 2 times in total.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: D-Day Fails

#2

Post by Futurist » 08 May 2016, 01:34

Would there be a larger Operation Dragoon in this scenario, or what?


User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: D-Day Fails

#3

Post by T. A. Gardner » 08 May 2016, 03:21

I'd think that hinges on exactly how and why it fails.

First, all five beaches would have to be defeated in detail. The paratroop landings, likewise, would have to be crushed. The naval forces off shore bringing in subsequent waves, etc., would have to have suffered serious losses. Somehow, the Allied air forces would have to lose domination of the air.
Once we know the reason for the Allied defeat, then we can postulate what the alternatives might have been.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: D-Day Fails

#4

Post by OpanaPointer » 08 May 2016, 05:04

The reserve panzers wouldn't have mattered much, except to give more work to the guys who stencil tank silhouettes on Typhoons and P-47s. Interdiction of ground traffic prevented troop movement to concentration points.

A serious problem for the Germans is developing.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: D-Day Fails

#5

Post by Futurist » 08 May 2016, 05:49

T. A. Gardner wrote:I'd think that hinges on exactly how and why it fails.

First, all five beaches would have to be defeated in detail. The paratroop landings, likewise, would have to be crushed. The naval forces off shore bringing in subsequent waves, etc., would have to have suffered serious losses. Somehow, the Allied air forces would have to lose domination of the air.
Once we know the reason for the Allied defeat, then we can postulate what the alternatives might have been.
What about having the Germans somehow find out about D-Day in advance and thus position much more troops in Normandy in May 1944 and beyond? Would that work for this?

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: D-Day Fails

#6

Post by Futurist » 08 May 2016, 05:50

OpanaPointer wrote:The reserve panzers wouldn't have mattered much, except to give more work to the guys who stencil tank silhouettes on Typhoons and P-47s. Interdiction of ground traffic prevented troop movement to concentration points.
What about if these reserve panzers would have been moved to Normandy when there is cloudy weather, though?
A serious problem for the Germans is developing.
Developing what, exactly? Better military technology?

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: D-Day Fails

#7

Post by OpanaPointer » 08 May 2016, 14:30

Panzer that aren't mobile are pill boxes. Moving panzers catch the eye of the tank-busters. So if they move in when it's cloudy they'll still be destroyed. They wouldn't be able to make much of a difference, local delays only.

And I meant much the same as when Hirohito said "the war has developed not necessarily in Japan's favor".
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: D-Day Fails

#8

Post by OpanaPointer » 08 May 2016, 14:30

Now, if you want to get into an interesting what-if, consider moving Dragoon to the Netherlands.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

maltesefalcon
Member
Posts: 2047
Joined: 03 Sep 2003, 19:15
Location: Canada

Re: D-Day Fails

#9

Post by maltesefalcon » 08 May 2016, 14:35

There are already several similar threads on this topic.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: D-Day Fails

#10

Post by Futurist » 08 May 2016, 22:41

OpanaPointer wrote:Now, if you want to get into an interesting what-if, consider moving Dragoon to the Netherlands.
Done. :)

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: D-Day Fails

#11

Post by Futurist » 08 May 2016, 22:42

OpanaPointer wrote:Panzer that aren't mobile are pill boxes. Moving panzers catch the eye of the tank-busters. So if they move in when it's cloudy they'll still be destroyed. They wouldn't be able to make much of a difference, local delays only.
OK. Thus, would you say that the success of D-Day was inevitable? Completely serious question, for the record.
And I meant much the same as when Hirohito said "the war has developed not necessarily in Japan's favor".
Well, Yeah, but that's pretty obvious. :) Of course, Adolf Hitler appears to have believed that there might be a last-minute miracle for him and for Nazi Germany just like there previously was for Frederick the Great and Prussia back in the Seven Years' War. Seriously.

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: D-Day Fails

#12

Post by OpanaPointer » 09 May 2016, 02:17

D-Day's success wasn't inevitable, but it was certain.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: D-Day Fails

#13

Post by Futurist » 09 May 2016, 04:06

OpanaPointer wrote:D-Day's success wasn't inevitable, but it was certain.
What exactly is the difference between "inevitable" and "certain," though?

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: D-Day Fails

#14

Post by OpanaPointer » 09 May 2016, 10:54

Futurist wrote:
OpanaPointer wrote:D-Day's success wasn't inevitable, but it was certain.
What exactly is the difference between "inevitable" and "certain," though?
The initial landings may have been repulsed in places, but the attack would have accomplished its goal despite that. And if by some utter miracle the whole landing had been a failure we would have come back. The effect of a failed landing on the Germans would have been, I believe, to draw more troops from the Ostfront, weakening Germany further in that sector.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: D-Day Fails

#15

Post by BDV » 09 May 2016, 14:30

Futurist wrote:What if, for whatever reason, D-Day would have (completely) failed?

What exactly would have happened afterwards?

Indeed, any thoughts on this?

As T.A. Gardner pointed out, the devil is in the details. The reason is mighty important.

Basically the germans dared the Wallies to attack at Pais de Calais:

"I bet you cannot go through here"

And the unexpected Wally retort on June 6 was:

"you're right, we'll try somewhere else"

Geman reactions post invasion, in particular when they flooded one of Utah forces' flanks thereby rendering that flank secure for the US troops shows they were caught with their pants down.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Post Reply

Return to “What if”