What would have happened if Normandy Failed? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

GYBLIN -> What would have happened if Normandy Failed? (7/25/2002 12:10:38 AM)

Hello gents
My first thread so bear with me.In a previous one we were discussing "pivatol" battles of WW2.I believe Normandy was the Keystone to all land battles involving Europe.What are your thought over how things would have turned if Omaha beach collapsed and the whole thing turned into dunkirk2?,a complete route of all allied forces?:(



Bernard -> (7/25/2002 5:55:00 AM)

as it is, Omaha was difficult partly due to bad bombardment, partly to refusal of using the Hobbart funnies" (like amphibious shermans) by us commander and partl to arrival of good german unit.

However things were fine on Juno, Gold and Sword. Also on Utah.
So losing Omaha was affordable, but would have put germans in bettter position.

What really could have been tricky is a counterattack by Pz corps on first or 2d day. As it is, only 21st div (if i'm not mistaken) counterattacked, but with limited forces (some kamfgruppen had been sent against paras) and retreated while in sight of the beach due to lack of support.



NaKATPase -> (7/25/2002 7:34:49 AM)

I really wonder whether such a defeat could even have been possible...

Allied air power over the area rendered German offensive actions rather ineffective, and the allies were able to bring reinforcements into the area just as fast as the Germans despite having to ferry them across the channel...

The only possible scenario I could think of wherin the allies would have a big chance of a catastrophic defeat would be if the storm that happened at the end of the 2nd week after the invasion (the one that destroyed the Omaha beach 'mulberry' artificial port) had happened on the 7th or 8th... Given 2-3 days without allied air interdiciton and without reinforcements or supplies coming over the beaches so early after the invasion, that Germans could perhaps have launched a credible counterattack and destroyed the allied troops at one or more of the beachheads...



Brigz -> (7/25/2002 8:55:03 AM)

It's difficult to say what would have been an alternate time line if a particular historical thing hadn't have happend. You know what they say about hind-site being 20/20. My best guess, if the Normandy invasions would have failed, is that the war would have just lasted a few years longer. Historically, with the invasion, the war ended just under a year later. Without a succesful invasion I think the war would have lasted maybe two or three years longer. Germany, by summer 1944, was clearly losing the war. The Soviets were defeating the Germans in the east, even without the second front. Allied aid to them would not have ceased. I think the Allies would have started making plans for numerous, smaller invasions and would certainly have increased the strategic bombing campaign and the A-bomb would have Berlin as it's first target instead of Hiroshima. I think the main consequence of a failed Normandy invasion would have been the threat of Soviet hegemony over all of Europe and this may have led the Western Allies to a negotiated peace with Germany instead of the unconditional surrender that the Allies desired. Although everyone wanted the war to end as soon as possible I think the Soviet threat and an unconditional surrender by Germany were the main reasons for the invasion in the first place.



Raverdave -> Books on this subject (7/25/2002 10:08:54 AM)

There is a book on this very subject called "Disaster At D-Day....The Germans Defeat the Allies, June 1944.

Writen by Peter G. Tsouras ISBN 1-82367-411-7.



runes -> (7/25/2002 12:29:26 PM)

Well, i think Overlord had a very, very small chance of failure.

- Let us remove ourselves, and ignore the human loss and whatnot. Let's look at it from a Grog's point of view. Purely tactics and whatnot.



Not only because the, more or less, unseasoned german troops were met with a huge, HUGE wall of allies. One that is not necessarily known about. We only hear about the sort of, hopeless, "hurl ourselves against a line of Germans", thing, but the truth is, there were MANY more troops waiting to take the fallen positions. More troops were constantly coming ashore, i don't know the numbers of the reserves and how many more soldiers could have been sent, anyone wish to enlighten me? Even a ballpark figure?



Mike C -> (7/25/2002 1:03:22 PM)

We all also know that the Germans were severely outgunned on the Eastern Front. And I believe Germany had about 80 or 85 percent of it's resources defending that onslaught.

So had the invasion failed, the Allies would have had to delay to rebuild their invasion forces, or concentrate on Italy, or perhaps if things went really bad, put those troops into Russian and help that side of things (what a terrible tragedy that would have been for us).

But in any event, even if Fortress Europe was free of Western assault, the additional resources that would have freed would not have stopped the reds.

And again, if not, the Bomb was just a year and half away and that would have been put right into Berlin...and with that devastation and the removal of Hitler, the German high command would have stopped the war right then since they were apparently still sane in 44/45.

So bottom line is that things would have changed (that should be obvious), but the Germans would still lose no matter how you dice it up.



Mike C -> (7/25/2002 1:09:15 PM)

quote:

More troops were constantly coming ashore, i don't know the numbers of the reserves and how many more soldiers could have been sent, anyone wish to enlighten me? Even a ballpark figure?


D-Day (Ambrose - probably stolen from another author so it's legit :D )

"As Full Darkness came to Normandy, about 2200, unloading at the beaches ceased. Nearly 175,000 American, Canadian, and British troops had entered Normandy, either by air or sea, at a cost of some 4,900 casualties*."

*No exact figures are possible, either for the number of men landed or for casualties, for D-Day alone



runes -> (7/25/2002 1:17:32 PM)

So, they had 175,000 troops they could have sent. How many landed on the beaches during the actual invasion?



CCB -> (7/25/2002 7:56:02 PM)

I have to agree with the above posts that doubt that Overlord could have failed. The odds favored the Allies.

IIRC, the closest the Americans came to a failed amphibious assault was at Tarawa. But in the end the USMC carried the day and won the battle.

The Dieppe Raid could could be viewed as a failed amphibious assault, but they never planned to hold any ground for any length of time anyway.



Nemesis -> (7/26/2002 8:29:15 PM)

Had Normandy failed.... The remaining troops would have propably be sent to Italy. There was no time to plan for another complicated invasion. But Germany would have lost in the end. The increased number of allied forces in Italy would have allowed them to reach southern Germany before the war would have ended. Rest of the Germany would have fallen to the soviets. Germany's fate in the East was already sealed, regardless of the success or failure of the Overlord. That is the same reason Hitler decided to attack in the Ardennes. Germans could have driven the soviets back several hundred kilometers, but it wouldn't have really mattered. It would only delay the inevitable. In the West, that kind of success would have caused alot more problems for the allied.

Now, the interesting thing is: What would have happened AFTER the WW2 in that scenario (Soviets controlling most of Germany, allied in the southern Germany)?



Vincent Prochelo -> (7/26/2002 10:02:42 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bernard
[B]as it is, Omaha was difficult partly due to bad bombardment, partly to refusal of using the Hobbart funnies" (like amphibious shermans) by us commander and partl to arrival of good german unit.

However things were fine on Juno, Gold and Sword. Also on Utah.
So losing Omaha was affordable, but would have put germans in bettter position.[/quote]

Losing Omaha would have allowed the Germans to possibly roll up the Allied flank. Which would not have been good for the Allies. But even if this were accomplished, they still would have needed Rommel's Panzers closer to the beach than they were...

-V



Bernard -> (7/27/2002 2:38:30 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nemesis
[B]Had Normandy failed.... The remaining troops would have propably be sent to Italy. There was no time to plan for another complicated invasion. [/B][/QUOTE]

no way nick.:o
There was a plan, it was invasion of south of france (Anvil) which was planned on 6.06 but delayed due to lack of transport.

So they landed on around 15.08 south of France near Cavalaire (just coming back from the region - great wine 50 kms inshore : "Chateau de Berne", very good "Cotes de Provence"). :D
You can still see at least one LCA on one the beaches there.

Anyway, other plans had been proposed by Churchill (you were talking about great leaders here is one) to invade Greece, or Balkans. This guy had some insight and foresaw Stalin's getting too much territory. So, to his fury, Anvil was still done when there was nothing to gain from it (on 15.08 it was fater Cobra and Germans wee in full retreat)...

I however disagree with you guys when you say it couldn't fail. :o Everything can fail, even if risk had been minimalized here.
15th army stayed in Pas de Calais thanks to Fortitude and other intox; yes, a lot of aircraft, also big marine big guns (quite dissausive - just play Utah beach).

But ... with a bit of luck on german side and lot of badluck on allied side, it could have failed. on D-Day or up to 2 weeks after.

Have a good day.



Nemesis -> (7/27/2002 5:42:14 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bernard [B]no way nick.:o
There was a plan, it was invasion of south of france (Anvil) which was planned on 6.06 but delayed due to lack of transport.[/B][/QUOTE]

I'm well aware of the Operation Anvil. It's purpose was to support Overlord, but if Overlord failed, I don't think they would have proceeded with the Anvil.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8291016