How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

[Michael Kenny]

No they can't but equally the Allies can only invade near a large deep sea port, within fighter cover range and where the beaches are suitable for landing heavy equipment and not prone to excessive tidal extremes.

You should check up on OPERATION CHASTITY. This was the plan to tow a pre-fabricated port into Quiberon Bay and supply the US Army dierect from the USA. The only reason it was abandoned was the advance was so swift and the German collapse so total that it was deemed not worth the effort.

[T. A. Gardner]

Probably not on D-Day itself. But the German Army would had a year and to rebuild its formations in the case of the those divisions historically available on D-Day itself 709th Infanterie-Division (12,320 men), 352nd Infanterie-Division (12,000 men) and 716th Infanterie-Division (7,000 men). It would have been possible to bring these units upto full strength with younger and fitter recruits provide a cadre of experienced NCO/Officers. they would not have been denuded on a regular basis of their best men for the Eastern Front, re-equip them with their full complement of standard German heavy weapons, mobile anti-tank guns and organic assault gun units, removed the Ostlegionen troops from a fighting role and added 1-2 full strength infantry divisions (released from the USSR fighting) to the garrison of the area - you have maybe doubled (or more) the fighting capability of the German formations available on D-Day itself without spreading the jam to thinly.

Who's to say they launch a "D-Day?"
But, in the MTO / ETO the Allies made 7 major amphibious assaults, and a number of minor ones and raids. The only one you could possibly classify as a failure might... might... be Dieppe. It wasn't intended to stay ashore and it did pretty much overrun the German defenses locally. It was certainly no worse for casualties than Omaha beach...
North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, Anzio, Southern France (Dragoon), Normandy, and the Scheldt Island landings all succeeded. At Salerno two British and one US infantry division not only landed against a full strength panzer division but then faced in the immediate days afterwards 3 more full strength panzer divisions, two strong panzergrenadier divisions, and the full strength 1st Fallschirmjäger division fighting them to a standstill and carving out a significant beachhead at the same time.
In Normandy, only Omaha beach faced real opposition on D-Day. I doubt reinforcing the other divisions would have changed the outcome significantly. The Allies get ashore, and stay ashore.
Who's to say in this scenario? The Allies decide their choice of landing site is too well defended so they drop a couple of nukes on it. Or, the simply sail up with a fleet and do an "Tarawa" on the defenders. That is, they pound the snot out of them for say 36 hours straight then land.
The one thing the Atlantic wall didn't have was large guns capable of putting a dent, or at least a scare, in a fleet off shore. Sure, there were a few spots where such guns existed, but those could be avoided.
Another possibility in this scenario is the use of the USMC instead of Army in the initial assault. Now you have the first assault wave coming ashore in LVT's that can land on a wider variety of beaches instead of in landing craft.
The Allies could have landed anywhere along the European coast with suitable beaches. It doesn't have to be Normandy. That's what having mass sea power gives you: Strategic mobility. You get to decide where to engage a land power. All the land power can do is wait until you do then respond.

There are only so many sites suitable for a large-scale invasion

Enough that you're going to have to heavily defend thousands of miles of coastline to ensure you have something waiting when the Allies show up.

No they can't but equally the Allies can only invade near a large deep sea port, within fighter cover range and where the beaches are suitable for landing heavy equipment and not prone to excessive tidal extremes.

No, the Allies don't have to take a port. Remember the Mullberry's? They brought two ports with them. As they also discovered, they can support a large army directly over a beach using landing craft, LST's, barges, and such. As for "fighter cover," by 1945 the Allies could have put over 1000 aircraft from carriers up over a beach so they don't need land based aircraft for the initial landings. Once ashore and inland to a point where there's room for an airfield, the US (as proven repeatedly) could have built an all-weather airfield in a matter of a week. Review the Advanced Landing Fields in Normandy some time. ALF A-6 at Beuzeville-la-Bastille opened for operations on 7 June 1944, the day after the landings...

Actually, only the beach type and gradient really matter. In Iceland where the tides were extreme, for example, the US brought large numbers of pontoons to build causeways and floating piers in with the landing force. These got around the tidal extremes.
The British took poor beach soils into consideration with things like having AVRE tanks with bobbins of portable roadway. The Allies would also quickly improve road and beach conditions using engineering equipment, just as they did historically.

Remember, if one side in this scenario changes what they do you have to consider what the reaction of the other side to that would be.

[magicdragon]

No they can't but equally the Allies can only invade near a large deep sea port, within fighter cover range and where the beaches are suitable for landing heavy equipment and not prone to excessive tidal extremes.

You should check up on OPERATION CHASTITY. This was the plan to tow a pre-fabricated port into Quiberon Bay and supply the US Army dierect from the USA. The only reason it was abandoned was the advance was so swift and the German collapse so total that it was deemed not worth the effort.

Fair point but do you think that US/UK Joint Chiefs would have ignored capturing a large port and placed all their logistical eggs in the Mulberry basket? Plus Operation Chastity also suggests even if you build an artificial port you have to secure the capture of local ports (Brest and Lorient) for tactical defence of the sea routes into the pre-fab port.

[Kingfish]

Fair point but do you think that US/UK Joint Chiefs would have ignored capturing a large port and placed all their logistical eggs in the Mulberry basket? Plus Operation Chastity also suggests even if you build an artificial port you have to secure the capture of local ports (Brest and Lorient) for tactical defence of the sea routes into the pre-fab port.

Bear in mind this WI calls for a move on German occupied Europe only after Japan is defeated, so the full strength of the allied carrier and amphibious fleets would be available.

Just a glance at the plans for Operation Olympic and Coronet should give an indication of the allied potential for landing, supplying and supporting a massive invasion force.

[Carl Schwamberger]

No they can't but equally the Allies can only invade near a large deep sea port, within fighter cover range and where the beaches are suitable for landing heavy equipment and not prone to excessive tidal extremes.

No, the Allies don't have to take a port. Remember the Mullberry's? They brought two ports with them. As they also discovered, they can support a large army directly over a beach using landing craft, LST's, barges, and such. ...

Actually it was three prefabricated ports. Operation Chasity was to place a third in Quiberon Bay. Since that was not captured on schedule the equipment & port operations personnel were sent to Normandy where they helped boost Cherbourgs daily intake from its peace time discharge of 8,000 to 10,000 tons to 20,000 tons. Also boosting the daily intake of Utah Beach, Omaha Beach & Mulberry B by a additional 15%+ over designed capacity.

Plus Operation Chastity also suggests even if you build an artificial port you have to secure the capture of local ports (Brest and Lorient) for tactical defence of the sea routes into the pre-fab port.

Only suggests. When Quiberon Bay was finally secured the material & personnel for Op Chasity were already emplaced or enroute to the Cherbourg port group. There was also the decision by the commander of the US Army Communications Zone to relocate the primary logistics hub to the Paris region & points east vs Rennnes as had been planned. The unexpected advance east in August made the Breton logistics hub less useful. Had it been necessary they might have stuck with the plan and brought the full weight of 3rd Army against the Breton ports rather than leaving a single corps there in a weak siege of multiple locations.

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
No they can't but equally the Allies can only invade near a large deep sea port, within fighter cover range ...

Since Allied 'fighters' were roving beyond the Rhine River from the UK at the end of 1943 I'd think they'd have the Atlantic coast fairly well covered.

[T. A. Gardner]

Fair point but do you think that US/UK Joint Chiefs would have ignored capturing a large port and placed all their logistical eggs in the Mulberry basket? Plus Operation Chastity also suggests even if you build an artificial port you have to secure the capture of local ports (Brest and Lorient) for tactical defence of the sea routes into the pre-fab port.

You use the Mullberry until you capture a port. This is another area the Germans have no real clue how to deal with. The Allies captured Cherbourg. The German commanders thought they'd thoroughly sabotaged and demolished the port to a point the Allies wouldn't be able to use it for the rest of the war.
They were wrong. The port opened in less than 60 days after capture and by 90 days after capture was handling more tonnage than it had pre-war. Part of the reason the Allies were able to open it so quickly was the Germans did a poor job of wrecking it from an engineering / salvage / technical point of view. They placed block ships poorly, didn't take measures to make salvage of those ships as difficult as possible, and they left their plans behind which were captured.

Things they could have done but didn't...

Remove all the hatches and most valves, etc., from the ship before sinking it. That makes sealing it up much harder for the salvage teams.
Add booby traps and explosives to the wreck. That makes the salvage slower and more dangerous.
Make sure the ship capsizes when it goes down. That means you have to right the wreck before you can raise it.
Pile wrecks on top of each other. You are forced to clear one after another, and the tangled wrecks make raising any of them harder.
Fill the ship with concrete or sand to make clearing or raising the wreck harder.

[Richard Anderson]

At Salerno two British and one US infantry division not only landed against a full strength panzer division but then faced in the immediate days afterwards 3 more full strength panzer divisions, two strong panzergrenadier divisions, and the full strength 1st Fallschirmjäger division fighting them to a standstill and carving out a significant beachhead at the same time.

Terry, while I agree with your essential premise, there is no need to exaggerate to make your point.

The German forces opposing AVALANCHE were very much a hodge-podge and, aside from 16. Panzer Division in place at the start were nowhere near "full strength".

16. Panzer was effectively full strength in personnel terms, reporting just 8 men short on 1 September. It had a strong Panzer Regiment with about 105 Panzers and 40 StuG operaational on 9 September.
26. Panzer Division was committed piecemeal, was about three-quarters strength personnel-wise, and committed just a mixed Panzer battalion with about 40 Panzer and StuG to the battle.
HG Panzer Division was recovering from the Sicilian evacuation and casualties. It too was at three-quarter strength, including the attachments of Scheutzen Regiment (mot) 115, Batallion Reggio, and I./49. Flak. It had a mixed bag of about 86 Panzer and StuG.

I have no idea what the fourth Panzer division was?

15. Panzergrenadier Division was just as badly off from the Sicilian experience as was HG in terms of organizational disruption and equipment losses, but was only about 10% understrength. It brought only a very understrength mixed Panzer and StuG battalion of about 23 vehciles to the action.
29. Panzergrenadier Division was mostly in Calabria delaying the advance of Eighth Army. It contributed a battalion-sized KG initially, increasing in strength as units moved north. The division had a personnel shortfall of 20-25% and fielded about 37 StuG.

1. FJD was present in the form of a couple of battalion-sized KG, with the rest of the division working with 29. PGD versus the British advance. It had a personnel shortfall of about 20% and was sorely lacking equipment.

Cheers!

[T. A. Gardner]

I probably counted wrong... It's still a fairly formidable mix to go up against 3 Allied infantry divisions. And, the point remains, the Allies simply didn't lose amphibious assaults. They could be planned too well and carefully against a landing site where the defense was well known.

[Richard Anderson]

I probably counted wrong... It's still a fairly formidable mix to go up against 3 Allied infantry divisions. And, the point remains, the Allies simply didn't lose amphibious assaults. They could be planned too well and carefully against a landing site where the defense was well known.

Indeed, as i said i agree with your main premise. Salerno was actually the extreme in terms of miscalculation by the Allies in regards to "knowing" what the defense was.

[Cult Icon]

I probably counted wrong... It's still a fairly formidable mix to go up against 3 Allied infantry divisions. And, the point remains, the Allies simply didn't lose amphibious assaults. They could be planned too well and carefully against a landing site where the defense was well known.

You rely too much on so little

you've been posting the same partisan arguments for a decade

The German army would not be organized as watered-down as it was in 1942.

[magicdragon]

Fair point but do you think that US/UK Joint Chiefs would have ignored capturing a large port and placed all their logistical eggs in the Mulberry basket? Plus Operation Chastity also suggests even if you build an artificial port you have to secure the capture of local ports (Brest and Lorient) for tactical defence of the sea routes into the pre-fab port.

You use the Mullberry until you capture a port

The salient points still remains 1) why totally rely on Mulberry before its proved itself (by Chastity it had but on D-Day it had not) 2) you still are going to go for a large port because it would dumb not too why risk the success of an operation because you had closed your mind to an alternative viable plan? Then if you accept a large port is needed you want to attempt to seize one not too far away from the initial assault beaches ipso facto one of the key criteria for finding a suitable landing site would it was near a large port.

[Phaing]

"Allied" Casualties?
Jeez, how about the Russian casualties?
How about the GERMAN casualties by then? What would be left of them?

IMHO, the Western Allies could probably have negotiated the liberation of Western Europe at the conference table if they had their heads on straight.

[Michael Kenny]

You rely too much on so little

you've been posting the same partisan arguments for a decade

The German army would not be organized as watered-down as it was in 1942.

And you constantly disparage the Western Allies in order to advance your belief only the Eastern Front mattered.
In short 'you've been posting the same partisan arguments for a decade'

[Michael Kenny]

The salient points still remains 1) why totally rely on Mulberry before its proved itself (by Chastity it had but on D-Day it had not) 2) you still are going to go for a large port because it would dumb not too why risk the success of an operation because you had closed your mind to an alternative viable plan? Then if you accept a large port is needed you want to attempt to seize one not too far away from the initial assault beaches ipso facto one of the key criteria for finding a suitable landing site would it was near a large port.

You seem unable to grasp the fact the Allies brought their 'ports' with them. They looked at the options, formed a solution and....it worked.
This 'what if', like 99% of all 'what ifs' is just another way to come up with a scenario where Germany wins. Where exactly is the evidence that Germany could double the casualties it inflicts by doubling her numbers? I believe it would result in the German casualties rising by a factor of 4.