Question About Western Contribution to the War

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
Kelvin
Member
Posts: 2114
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby Kelvin » 29 Dec 2017 07:18

ljadw wrote:
Sheldrake wrote:
ljadw wrote:6 june 1944 : 60 divisions in the west; 70 elsewhere; 170 (a lot existing only on paper= Kampfgruppen) in the East . Question : if there was no landing , how many of the 60 divisions in the west would be available for the east ? Answer : 1 or 2 ,because : the less forces in the west ,the greater the probability of a landing .

`
Hitler rightly identified 1944 as the year that the Western allies would attempt a cross channel invasion. There was a political and strategic imperative for the allies to mount an invasion. The allies could not maintain an army of 100 divisions indefinitely. Any added time would allow the Germans to perfect their revenge weapons

The question you pose is a counter factual. The most likely circumstance under which the allies did not mount a successful cross channel invasion might be:-

1. The cross channel assault is defeated with the loss of around ten divisions. If this happens the Germans have a breathing space. Much depends on the allied reaction. If the Americans switch to a Japan first Pacific focus the threat of a second assault is much diminished. The Germans could release all full strength Panzer formations from the West and twenty full strength infantry formations, to be replaced by cadres for rebuilding.

2. The German V weapons achieve their intended effects. Ten tons of HE a minute on London forces the British to agree an armistice and the repatriation of US troops who focus on the Pacific war. Release the bulk of the Wehrmacht apart from internal security troops for a glorious victory parade through the Brandenburg gate en route for the east.

No one knows how close the Red Army was to breaking point in 1944. Would a reverse Kaiserschlacht have resulted in a Soviet Armistice?


All full strength PzD from the West ? Which means : 2Pzd, PzL, 21 PzD, 12 SS .The others left the east to be rebuilt .

Don't forget 9.SS Hohenstaufen and 10.SS Frundsberg Pz divisions both were combat ready in everything like full strength Pz.Gren. Btl(gep) and Pz.Aufk.Abt. What was lack were Panther Abt. which were common in most of Pz divisions.





And if these 4 divisions left France, the Allies would land very easily ,because the less German units in France, the less Allied units would be needed for a successfull landing .

20 full strength ID ? There were no 20 full strength ID in France on 6 june 1944 .

There is no proof at all that the Red Army was to breaking point in 1944 .

Kelvin
Member
Posts: 2114
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby Kelvin » 29 Dec 2017 07:27

ljadw wrote:
krimsonglass51 wrote:ljadw, what do you think were the West's greatest contributions to the war in Europe?


This is impossible to answer as these contributions are not measurable and can not be compared one to another and also not to the Soviet contributions .
I would say that the least important contribution to the war in the east was LL.

For the other 2 contributions : the air war and the ground war ,there is no answer possible as you can't compare both . The only thing one can say is that their importance was relative and that without the Western participation to the war (= DoW and fighting ) the SU still would have won. It is also the same for the Soviet contribution : without a Soviet participation, the West would have won . Germany was doomed when in june 1940 Britain decided to continue the war .


Germany was doomed when British continue the war without Soviet participation is questionable. I would think let say US would be on British side and US participation is of vital importance to British war effort if she can resist until 1942.

If attacking Russian was no longer a option, German had a free hand elsewhere to strike British 's weakness other than Channel Crossing invasion. Malta is much more easier to achieve as Italy was closer to it. And perhaps longer negoitation with Franco, possibly convinced him to provide based for invasion of Gibraltar. Some more divisions in 1940-41, Egypt will be on Hitler's hand. Three main points of the Meditterean Sea : Malta, Gibraltar and Suez Canal were controlled by the Axis Powers which at least this would make English to rethink again whether to continue the war.

Kelvin
Member
Posts: 2114
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby Kelvin » 29 Dec 2017 07:34

ljadw wrote:
Sheldrake wrote:
ljadw wrote:6 june 1944 : 60 divisions in the west; 70 elsewhere; 170 (a lot existing only on paper= Kampfgruppen) in the East . Question : if there was no landing , how many of the 60 divisions in the west would be available for the east ? Answer : 1 or 2 ,because : the less forces in the west ,the greater the probability of a landing .

`
Hitler rightly identified 1944 as the year that the Western allies would attempt a cross channel invasion. There was a political and strategic imperative for the allies to mount an invasion. The allies could not maintain an army of 100 divisions indefinitely. Any added time would allow the Germans to perfect their revenge weapons

The question you pose is a counter factual. The most likely circumstance under which the allies did not mount a successful cross channel invasion might be:-

1. The cross channel assault is defeated with the loss of around ten divisions. If this happens the Germans have a breathing space. Much depends on the allied reaction. If the Americans switch to a Japan first Pacific focus the threat of a second assault is much diminished. The Germans could release all full strength Panzer formations from the West and twenty full strength infantry formations, to be replaced by cadres for rebuilding.

2. The German V weapons achieve their intended effects. Ten tons of HE a minute on London forces the British to agree an armistice and the repatriation of US troops who focus on the Pacific war. Release the bulk of the Wehrmacht apart from internal security troops for a glorious victory parade through the Brandenburg gate en route for the east.

No one knows how close the Red Army was to breaking point in 1944. Would a reverse Kaiserschlacht have resulted in a Soviet Armistice?


All full strength PzD from the West ? Which means : 2Pzd, PzL, 21 PzD, 12 SS .The others left the east to be rebuilt .

And if these 4 divisions left France, the Allies would land very easily ,because the less German units in France, the less Allied units would be needed for a successfull landing .

20 full strength ID ? There were no 20 full strength ID in France on 6 june 1944 .

There is no proof at all that the Red Army was to breaking point in 1944 .


Both 9. and 116.Pz. Divisions were almost combat ready ( possessed both Pz Abt. armored infantry btl, SP artillery pieces ) in late July 1944 and were sent Normandy to back up exhausted Pz Troops. No need to fix all units should be combat ready on Juni 6 1944. During Allied landing in Southern France, 11.Pz division was also combat ready on August 01st 1944 with both Pz battalions. 1.SS LAH was debatable even in August 1944 as she had both Pz battalion, but armored infantry and Pz.Aufk.Abt had some shortage like lack of sd.kfz.251/9. The number of Panther is inadequate too.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 7946
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby ljadw » 29 Dec 2017 09:12

Kelvin wrote:
ljadw wrote:
krimsonglass51 wrote:ljadw, what do you think were the West's greatest contributions to the war in Europe?


This is impossible to answer as these contributions are not measurable and can not be compared one to another and also not to the Soviet contributions .
I would say that the least important contribution to the war in the east was LL.

For the other 2 contributions : the air war and the ground war ,there is no answer possible as you can't compare both . The only thing one can say is that their importance was relative and that without the Western participation to the war (= DoW and fighting ) the SU still would have won. It is also the same for the Soviet contribution : without a Soviet participation, the West would have won . Germany was doomed when in june 1940 Britain decided to continue the war .


Germany was doomed when British continue the war without Soviet participation is questionable. I would think let say US would be on British side and US participation is of vital importance to British war effort if she can resist until 1942.

If attacking Russian was no longer a option, German had a free hand elsewhere to strike British 's weakness other than Channel Crossing invasion. Malta is much more easier to achieve as Italy was closer to it. And perhaps longer negoitation with Franco, possibly convinced him to provide based for invasion of Gibraltar. Some more divisions in 1940-41, Egypt will be on Hitler's hand. Three main points of the Meditterean Sea : Malta, Gibraltar and Suez Canal were controlled by the Axis Powers which at least this would make English to rethink again whether to continue the war.


The British decision end of june 1940 to continue the war, implies US help and US intervention .Both (Britain continuing the war and US intervention ) are tied. A US intervention after a British defeat is less likely,and a British decision to continue the war knowing that US would not intervene is out of the question . Already in august 1940 when at the GOP convention the isolationists (Taft) were defeated by the interventionists (Willkie) it was obvious that US would intervene .If lindbergh was chosen as candidate /president, would Britain have continued the war ? And if Britain had given up, would Willkie or Lindbergh become GOP candidate and would FDR be reelected ?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 7946
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby ljadw » 29 Dec 2017 09:26

About aluminium : there is a misunderstanding : the discussion is not about the absolute importance of LL ,but which of the following was more important for the SU : Allied ground war (D Day/ Italy ), Strategic Air Offensive against Germany, or LL .

Imagine that on 1 june 1944 FDR and WSC told Stalin : we have a problem : we can't do all three : you have to choose: D Day, the air attacks or LL .

Stalin would choose what in his opinion was the most important for the SU , and it would not be LL .That does not mean that LL was unimportant .It would mean that one of the other two was more important .

And this is related to the question " what was the most important allied contribution to the war in the east " .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 7946
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby ljadw » 29 Dec 2017 09:31

Kelvin wrote:
.


Both 9. and 116.Pz. Divisions were almost combat ready ( possessed both Pz Abt. armored infantry btl, SP artillery pieces ) in late July 1944 and were sent Normandy to back up exhausted Pz Troops. No need to fix all units should be combat ready on Juni 6 1944. During Allied landing in Southern France, 11.Pz division was also combat ready on August 01st 1944 with both Pz battalions. 1.SS LAH was debatable even in August 1944 as she had both Pz battalion, but armored infantry and Pz.Aufk.Abt had some shortage like lack of sd.kfz.251/9. The number of Panther is inadequate too.[/quote]

Reality is that these divisions were not combat ready on June 6, which is why they were not sent to Normandy .They were committed much later, when the dies were already cast .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 7946
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby ljadw » 29 Dec 2017 13:08

Sheldrake wrote:
1. The cross channel assault is defeated with the loss of around ten divisions. If this happens the Germans have a breathing space. Much depends on the allied reaction. If the Americans switch to a Japan first Pacific focus the threat of a second assault is much diminished. The Germans could release all full strength Panzer formations from the West and twenty full strength infantry formations, to be replaced by cadres for rebuilding.


This is very unlikely .

In 1942 there was a" failed" / "successfull " allied landing : Dieppe:it did not give the Germans a breathing space :the Germans did not withdraw troops from the West .

Even if Overlord was a failure, there still would be Dragoon,and without PzD and 20 ID , who would oppose Dragoon ?

Even after a failed Overlord, a second Overlord in the North would still be possible, and,without PZd and full strength ID, who would oppose Overlord bis ?

In 1940 there was a British/Free French attack on Dakar which failed, but the result was not that Vichy France was neglecting the Dakar defenses.

After 22 june 1941, the Sealion threat was leaving, but the British did not neglect the defenses of Siuth East England .

The most likely result of a failed Overlord would be that almost no forces would leave France for the East .

Kelvin
Member
Posts: 2114
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby Kelvin » 30 Dec 2017 07:20

If just loss of ten divisions in Normandy landing, the allies still had other chances to launch another attack. But other than coastal landing, German had another strategy to resist the allied landing like Rundstadt suggested deploying Panzer reserves in Northeast of Paris and German front units seduced the allied advance and German Panzer reserves dealt a blow to allied LOC. If somehing like that, or like Hitler later prediction in his Ardennes offensive in late 1944 : destruction of 30 allied divisions probably led to allied threat to Fortress Europe diminished forever or at least two years.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 1619
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby Sheldrake » 30 Dec 2017 10:43

ljadw wrote:
Sheldrake wrote:
1. The cross channel assault is defeated with the loss of around ten divisions. If this happens the Germans have a breathing space. Much depends on the allied reaction. If the Americans switch to a Japan first Pacific focus the threat of a second assault is much diminished. The Germans could release all full strength Panzer formations from the West and twenty full strength infantry formations, to be replaced by cadres for rebuilding.


This is very unlikely .

In 1942 there was a" failed" / "successfull " allied landing : Dieppe:it did not give the Germans a breathing space :the Germans did not withdraw troops from the West .

Even if Overlord was a failure, there still would be Dragoon,and without PzD and 20 ID , who would oppose Dragoon ?

Even after a failed Overlord, a second Overlord in the North would still be possible, and,without PZd and full strength ID, who would oppose Overlord bis ?

In 1940 there was a British/Free French attack on Dakar which failed, but the result was not that Vichy France was neglecting the Dakar defenses.

After 22 june 1941, the Sealion threat was leaving, but the British did not neglect the defenses of Siuth East England .

The most likely result of a failed Overlord would be that almost no forces would leave France for the East .


#1 Re Dieppe. in July 1942 Hitler ordered high quality troops from the East to France in anticipation of an allied cross channel attack. These included LAH and Das Reich , 7th parachute division and a gruppe of bombers. By 1943 they had been redeployed in the east.

#2 Here is a thought experiment. Suppose Op Overlord failed in June 1944. The allies lose 80% of ten divisions. All three airborne divisions plus the infantry of the five assault divisions and two follow on formations sent to redress the failure. About a thousand landing craft litter the Bay of the Seine. How long do you think it would be before the allies launched a second attack 1) the next week? 2) The next month? 3) The next quarter?

When the Soviets still launch Op Bagration against a weakened army Group Centre a few weeks later. Are you seriously suggesting that the Germans would not strip out the west to reinforce the East?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 7946
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby ljadw » 30 Dec 2017 15:24

1) Re Dieppe : LAH was already in the West before Dieppe . It was not a high quality division . Afaics 7 airborne (also not a high quality division ) was not in the east . The remainings of the LSS were withdrawn from the east to be refitted and to be transformed in a Motorised (or Infantry ? ) division . The withdrawal started already in the spring of 1942 but there was a delay because of transport problems . Units of the LSS paraded already on the Champs Elysées in Paris in July 1942, before Jubilee .

Later a reply for "2

ljadw
Member
Posts: 7946
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby ljadw » 30 Dec 2017 17:40

A reply for "2"

Your question : how long would it be before the allies launched a second attack " ? is not correct :my opinion is not relevant,what is relevant is what the Germans were thinking about this.

2 months after a successfull Overlord, the Allies launched a succesfull Dragoon .

Where would the Germans get these 20 ID and these PzD ?

In June 1941, when the situation in France was better for the Germand, they still left 38 divisions to defend a territory that was smaller than in 1944,when Vichy France also was occupied :if they would transfer 20 ID and X PzD to the East, who would defend the French coasts against a second landing ?

All they could do would be to send a few divisions, which would not help AGC and who would arrive too late .

reality is that the threat of a landing was as important as a landing .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 7946
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby ljadw » 30 Dec 2017 20:02

Kelvin wrote:If just loss of ten divisions in Normandy landing, the allies still had other chances to launch another attack.


But other than coastal landing, German had another strategy to resist the allied landing like Rundstadt suggested deploying Panzer reserves in Northeast of Paris and German front units seduced the allied advance and German Panzer reserves dealt a blow to allied LOC. .



1) Yes


2 )The other strategy implies the presence of the mobile divisions in France and not in the East,thus no reinforcements for Bagration(which also would arrive too late)

3) Deploying the Panzer reserves northeast of Paris,implies the absence of PzD in the south when Dragoon was launched .

It was Mission Impossible for the Germans : the few mobile divisions of Pzgruppe West were needed north of the Seine, south of the Seine ,on the Mediterranean Coast,and in Russia .

If they were in Russia to stop Bagration,Overlord would succeed, if they were in Normandy, Dragoon would succeed.

The Germans needed simultaneously sufficient mobile forces and in Russia, and in the South of France, and south of the Seine, and north of the Seine :at least 40 full strength (in all aspects ) divisions .

And if they had them,the allies would attack elsewhere, or would concentrate on air attacks .

In WWI ,the Germans were able to move forces to the east,if AH was in difficulties,or to the west,if there was a big allied attack .

They could not do this in WWII .The West could not reinforce the east,even when there was no fighting in the west : there was already a second front on 22 june 1941 .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 7946
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby ljadw » 30 Dec 2017 22:02

This has already been discussed here in 2009 in a What IF thread : Operation Overlord failure and the conclusion was that the failure of Overlord would be a Pyrrhic victory for Germany .

I like to add that it would also be the same if Bagration had failed, or if Barbarossa had succeeded .

Kelvin
Member
Posts: 2114
Joined: 06 Apr 2007 14:49

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby Kelvin » 01 Jan 2018 07:54

Should Barbarossa succeeded, in short terms, pyrrhic victory for German in terms of manpower and materials but in long terms, He controlled the land came from Franco-Spanish border to Vladivstok and controlled so much stragetic materials he badly needed for war like, Manganese ore in Chiatura and Nikopol , Iron ore in Kursk and Krivoy Rog, Oilfield in Maikop, Gronzy and Baku, Nickel ore in Norilsk, copper deposits in Kazakhstan and larger coal field in Donbass area. Hitler had enough resoures to pose challenge against combined power of Anglo-Amercian alliance.

I agree the pyrrhic victory for German even she defeat Russian attempt in Bagration. But keeping Byelorussia at least keep Russian out of Berlin one more year.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 7946
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Question About Western Contribution to the War

Postby ljadw » 01 Jan 2018 08:29

Kelvin wrote:Should Barbarossa succeeded, in short terms, pyrrhic victory for German in terms of manpower and materials but in long terms, He controlled the land came from Franco-Spanish border to Vladivstok


Hitler had enough resoures to pose challenge against combined power of Anglo-Amercian alliance.



1) Not to Wladivostok,but, in the best scenario, to the Urals

2) No country could dominate Europe .


Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]