What would happened if the D-Day had finished in a fiasco? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Gallo Rojo -> What would happened if the D-Day had finished in a fiasco? (12/14/2000 11:12:00 PM)

I saw a movie named “Fatherland” on TV yesterday night . The movie argument is that the there is a nazi government in German during the ’50, since they had defeated the western allies at Normandy. In the movie the war in the eastern front continues in a form of guerrilla actions. What’s your opinion guys? If the Germans had won in Normandy, would they have been able to stop the USSR? Personally I think that the Soviets would have defeated them anyway. It’s clear that the STAVA had clamed for a second front during 1941 to 1943, but after Kursk the strategic initiative was on Russian side. On the other hand, although it seems clear that by 1944 it was not possible for the Germans to force the URSS to surrender (take Moscow, etc.), they may be had been able to force a pace agreement (if they defeated the soviets in some crucial battles).



jpkeenan -> (12/14/2000 11:42:00 PM)

I dont have an opinion as to what would have happened, but this sure is fodder for our expert scenario designers to make some "what if" scenarios ... Are you listening W.B. ?? JPKeenan Proud son of an 86th Blackhawk division dad during WWII



Scipio Africanus -> (12/14/2000 11:54:00 PM)

I agree with you Gallo Rojo- The Soviets would have defeated them anyway- It would have taken longer as more troops could have moved east, but the strategic bombing campaign would have continued and there were just too many determined Russians. But, if Hitler hadn't violated his treaty with Stalin in the first place, the world might be much different... Cheers, ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus



David F. Wall -> (12/15/2000 12:02:00 AM)

Gee, I wish they'd show that movie around here. I can't find it on tape, either. The movie is based on a book, and while the book is a lot more concerned with its central murder mystery plot, it puts forth some interesting alternate history. I don't believe the U.S. ever goes to war with Germany in the book -- they content themselves with stomping on Japan and slipping the Russians supplies on the sly. I'm also fairly certain the books alternate history includes a successful invasion of the United Kingdom, though it's been a while since I read it. Even in this book, which cuts Nazi Germany several substantial breaks, the Germans still haven't managed to completely conquer Russia after twenty-two years of more or less continuous warfare. Stephen Ambrose has asserted that if the invasion of Normandy had failed and no successful equivalent were mounted, that the war in Europe would have been ended in April, 1945 by Little Boy. It is not clear to me that Stalin would not have been prepared to cut some kind of deal with Hitler (or whoever) without the successful opening of a second front. I agree, it would make fascinating scenario fodder. As would the aftermath of any of the misfired attempts to assassinate Hitler. [This message has been edited by David F. Wall (edited December 14, 2000).]



Rhone -> (12/15/2000 12:23:00 AM)

Don't mean to stop the what if situations, but if we failed at Normandy, and the issue still looked in doubt in mid 1945 we would have dropped an atomic bomb on Germany to get them to surrender. Those guys had an awesome responsability. Bet they didn't know they were fighting for German families as well.



Ilja Varha -> (12/15/2000 1:04:00 AM)

...But what if the Germans shot down the plane carrying the atom bomb and the whole bomber fleet would have been blasted in mid air... Maybe consider the next bomb a bit more carefully... And what if the Japs won Midway and the Russians lost Typhoon and Rommel won el Alamein and Finns won the Winter War by advancing as far as to Ural??? It's full of possibilities, which will never happen... You all know why. And that's why the real scenarios get me playing, not the what if ones... Ilja



Bonzo -> (12/15/2000 2:44:00 AM)

I think that an early failure at Normandy, before the bulk of the Allied forces got inland, would have resulted in more resources being sent into Italy, which had seen a substantial reduction in resources leading up to D-Day. ------------------ Robert (Bonzo) Lindsay, Coordinator 28th (North-west) Battalion Headquarters Main http://nwbattalion.tripod.com Mirror http://dreadnaught.home.icq.com E-mail [email]nwbattalion@icqmail.com[/email]



Rhone -> (12/15/2000 3:23:00 AM)

Or perhaps the western landings...I believe that the Germans would still have gone with Plan B and retreat to the Westwall. Probably would have not delayed the Allied Plans too much but fuel would have been a much bigger problem then.



Wild Bill -> (12/15/2000 5:03:00 AM)

All speculation, of course. By the way, I was listening John [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]. The 2nd alternate battle of Utah to the Rhine is an evacuation of Utah Beach under fire. I don't think anyone has done badly enough to play that one, so we may just convert it into a scenario in itself. Interesting. If the invasion had failed, it would have been a few months before another could be mounted. It would have given Germany a lot of time to slow the Soviet advance and to continue in the manufacture of advanced weaponry, including jets, rockets and work on the A-bomb. Resources used to fight the Allies in France (petrol, steel, etc) could have been used both for development and defense on the Eastern Front. But then of course, the attempted coup and assasination of Hitler in July might have succeeded, changing the whole tenor of the war. It might have gotten very ugly. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



Anatoly Chekov -> (12/15/2000 5:26:00 AM)

Hey guys, I'm a newbie to this message board but have just spent the past month developing a scenario which you might find of interest. Hitler fortified the Channel Islands against the advice of his generals and diverted much needed resources to achieve his aim. The British put together Task Force 135 with the 115th Infantry Brigade as its core with the plan to invade and retake these Islands. Those of you who are familiar with the campaign to secure Cherbourgh will probably be aware of their existance. A re-inforced German Infantry Division 319 was based there and eventually cut off after the successful D-Day landings. My "what if" scenario is centred around the notion that a foothold has been secured after D Day but the Brits are bogged down (historical), Omaha is a bit of a disaster and no progress has been made. (See "Disaster at D-Day" by Peter Tsouras), Utah has been successful but the Americans are not gaining ground in their drive on the port of Cherbourgh. The Brits propose a relief landing on the west of the Contentin peninsular but first of all have to neutralise Jersey, the largest of the Channel Islands, where 170 artillery pieces control the access to the French beaches. In this scenario the German positions are historical (down to actual leaders) and the British Task Force has been strenghened by Special Forces. I have been play testing this for a while now and it is very large and quite challenging. I have written it using version 4.4 and wonder if any of you guys would be interested in trying it out. ------------------



Don Doom -> (12/15/2000 5:35:00 AM)

Interesting, beatin at d-day. hmm Well lets start with the german side first: a win would have risen moral up serval points. The odds of the july plot going through would be small. The germans would have lost equipment that they could not efford to lose if they were to then turn to fight the russians. Their factorys could not replace any large losses. Even small to medium would be hard to replace. The US would be able to replace losses very easly. The British and others who had been fighting since 39 would not be able to replace the losses in men, equipment maybe but not men. The allies most likly figured out that after d-day the only other way to invade was futher north, possibly thru Denmark. Who knows. The russians would have had a harder time but would have worn down what little resourses the germans would have left. The war would have most likly lasted maybe year to a year & haft more but doubt any longer. Well that is my two cents. Don D.



Lou -> (12/15/2000 5:42:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Wild Bill: If the invasion had failed, it would have been a few months before another could be mounted. It would have given Germany a lot of time to slow the Soviet advance and to continue in the manufacture of advanced weaponry, including jets, rockets and work on the A-bomb. Resources used to fight the Allies in France (petrol, steel, etc) could have been used both for development and defense on the Eastern Front. But then of course, the attempted coup and assasination of Hitler in July might have succeeded, changing the whole tenor of the war. It might have gotten very ugly. Wild Bill
You paint a grim picure, WB. Espeically the "Still Life With Jet Fighters". You also add a provocative question to the mix. What would have happend had someone capped Hitler? Most of the histories I've read say that the war would have lasted longer without H's meddling. Folks who knew how to fight would be running the show. Brrrr. The biggest difference? No Battle of the Bulge. Estimates say that that one battle shortend the war by six months. It's funny how things work out Lou



Lou -> (12/15/2000 5:54:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Don Doom: The germans would have lost equipment that they could not efford to lose if they were to then turn to fight the russians. Their factorys could not replace any large losses. Even small to medium would be hard to replace. Don D.
Actually, you might be off on the production estimates. There is an excellent book by John Ellis called "Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War" that claims that for every war material except oil, production went up. Of course, having the stuff to fight a war but not having the fuel to run it hurts. Also, using that production capacity to build the wrong material is a dead end as well. I agree with your assesment of US material. No matter how much stuff got trashed, the US could just make more (within some limits, of course). Lou



Skorpion -> (12/15/2000 8:57:00 AM)

There IS a book out called "Disaster At D-Day" by Peter Tsouras (I think). Heckuva read. The premise is that had just a couple things gone differntly, the whole Normandy campaign could have turned into a bloodbath that resulted in .... well, I don't want to give away the ending.



McGib -> (12/15/2000 9:05:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Lou: You also add a provocative question to the mix. What would have happend had someone capped Hitler? Most of the histories I've read say that the war would have lasted longer without H's meddling. Folks who knew how to fight would be running the show. Brrrr. The biggest difference? No Battle of the Bulge. Estimates say that that one battle shortend the war by six months. Lou
Actually Lou there is a book out called "Fox on the Rhine" by David Nissen (I think thats the authors name) and it starts out with the July plot succeeding. I've read a bit of it and it seems very good. I know its available in Canada through Chapters, I'm sure its available elsewhere though. ------------------ McGib Ready Aye Ready



Alexandra -> (12/15/2000 10:11:00 AM)

If the invasion had failed, it would have been a few months before another could be mounted. It would have given Germany a lot of time to slow the Soviet advance and to continue in the manufacture of advanced weaponry, including jets, rockets and work on the A-bomb. I'd have to disagree with you, respectfully here, Bill. Carlo D'este in his quite excellent "Decision In Normandy" indicates that it was the clear view of the Combined Chiefs of Staff that Overlord was a one shot operation. The main reasons for this, IMO - and I can't back this up with hard data - are the lack of transports, and the begining of war weariness in the US. By June '44, there was already the political whispers of the everpresent, it seems, US Peace Movement. Britian, as well, as again shown in "Decision in Normandy" was at the end of it's manpower and economic tether, and may now have been able, even if willing, to try an Overlord Two. However, even had a second effort been made - perhaps an upgunned Anvil, or a new push in Italy, it may have made no difference. According to - among others - Andrei Gromyko, Stalin had already floated peace feelers - based on Status Quo Ante to Hitler in both '42 and '43, using contacts between his own and the German Ambassadors in Sweden and Switzterland. Given Joe's paranoia, and insitance on the Second Front, I truly feel that had Overlord failed he would have made broader concessions to Hitler to end the War in the East. As for the Bomb argument, I don't think so. I don't feel that any US President would have, at that point, authorized the atom boming of any European nation, and, with respect to the Atom Bomb therorists - what difference would it have made? We had two, and every city of note in Germany was already rubble. We may have killed the upper elements of the NSDAP and OKW and OKH, but, it could be argued that would have made the Wermacht - or more specifically the Heer, stronger not weaker. Guderian, for one, wouldn't have minded seeing Hitler and OKH go up in a big cloud of dust [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] However, the worse case scenario for the bomb is that someone like Himmler would have come to power... Alex



Flashfyre -> (12/15/2000 10:11:00 AM)

quote:

There IS a book out called "Disaster At D-Day" by Peter Tsouras (I think). Heckuva read. The premise is that had just a couple things gone differntly, the whole Normandy campaign could have turned into a bloodbath that resulted in .... well, I don't want to give away the ending.
You are correct, Skorpion. That book deals factually with "what might have been". Small details, not easily noticed, even by hardened D-Day historians. Things like a change in weather, a general's decision to delay his trip east by 24hrs, an unlucky shell hit, etc. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the Normandy possiblities. ------------------ The Motor Pool http://www.geocities.com/aurion_eq/index.html?976419304550 [email]kmcferren@cvn.net[/email]



Rhone -> (12/15/2000 10:32:00 AM)

quote:

As for the Bomb argument, I don't think so. I don't feel that any US President would have, at that point, authorized the atom boming of any European nation, and, with respect to the Atom Bomb therorists - what difference would it have made?
Everybody suspected that Hitler's secret weapon to end all secret weapons was the Atom bomb. We were in a race to make the atom bomb before Hitler did, not the Russians. (Well, both) Where was Hitler intending on using his bomb had he had an opportunity to use it? I am quite certain that if the Allies had to make a choice between 100,000 German civilians or 250,000 Allied troops, they would have dropped the bomb on Germany. They didn't totally understand the bomb, MacArthur wanted to drop 40 or 50 of them on Communist China in 1950...and I'm not so sure that the long term affects of the bombs themselves were what shot that down, it was the overall immediate destructiveness that nixed that idea. Thank God. I guess it is fun to think about what would have happened, I of course wish Germany (and Russia) would have called it quits prior to Sept. 1st, 1939...that way we would have had 50 years of production from Eastern Europe as opposed to the 50 years of stagnation we had to deal with. because of that fateful decision to invade Poland.



Rhone -> (12/15/2000 10:34:00 AM)

Wait a second, had Germany not invaded Poland, there wouldn't have been WWII, and what the hell would I do with my free time?????? [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



Bonzo -> (12/15/2000 10:55:00 AM)

Don't fret Rhone, you still would have had the war in the pacific. ------------------ Robert (Bonzo) Lindsay, Coordinator 28th (North-west) Battalion Headquarters Main http://nwbattalion.tripod.com Mirror http://dreadnaught.home.icq.com E-mail [email]nwbattalion@icqmail.com[/email]



Wild Bill -> (12/15/2000 2:29:00 PM)

On that note, has any of you viewed the Canadian movie, Hiroshima. 3 1/2 hours. Excellent film, developed much like "Tora, Tora, Tora" or "Midway." I learned a lot from it and highly recommend it to all of you. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



bbbf -> (12/15/2000 2:56:00 PM)

The interesting thing to me was why Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour. I think this was the single largest strategic error of the Third Reich. Why bring the nation with the biggest industrial potential into a conflict against you!



frank1970 -> (12/15/2000 3:54:00 PM)

That was exactly Hitlerīs main error. No US President could have told his land to declare war to Germany after Pearl Harbor. The US ressources would have been directed to the Pazific, what means no (or little) help for England and surely no help for Soviet Union. But back to the film "Fatherland": In the book is an other history presented than in the film. In one Germany shot a V4 with a nuclear warhead on New York what lead to a stalemate, in the other Germany told the British they would dropp the bomb on London and so war ended. To the questions of an ending of war: in Pacwar there is the possibility you loose the game as Allies when your losses of manpower are too high. The same persons that would have caused that end would also have forced the US Government to stopp war in Europe when D-Day would have been an error. But with the end of war in the west all the supplies and weapons could have been used on the eastern front. ALL the tanks built, no tanks destroyed on the way to front by allied planes (that caused nearly 60% of all tank losses!) Oil would have been a little problem because without needing lots of aircraft fuel in the West the little number of panzerdivisions would have been supplied with fuel. The large number of German Army were infantry division without any lorries or anything needing lots of fuel. I think havin lost D-Day would have been the end of the war in Europe in about 2 months. Hitler and Stalin would have made a stalemate and the Allies would have done so either. (Churchill was the only leader who really wanted this war and he wasnīt sure in the end of the war if it was right to fight against Germany, not against Soviet Union). Having dropped a nuclear bomb on Germany would have lead to two things: a) Hitler would have given ressources to making a German nuke (what would have been much easier in Germany than in the US, because Germany had/has great ressources of high qualitity weapon uran. b) He would have allowed his generals to use chemical weapons. Germany had really lots of them, millions of liters in many depots all over Germany. The Kriegsmarine had prototypes of "strategic submarines" wich would have carried 3 V3 rockets to the coast of the US, for example New York. Having fired some of these V3 filled with Sarin or Tabun would have caused real panic in all US cities in a 200km zone along the Atlantic. The only way to stop the usage of this weapons was to go to Germany and take them. You could not take anything by plane or by nuking.



Ballacraine -> (12/15/2000 6:56:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by bbbf: The interesting thing to me was why Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour. I think this was the single largest strategic error of the Third Reich. Why bring the nation with the biggest industrial potential into a conflict against you!
I was watching a programme on Discovery channel the other day which covered this topic. Apparently Japanese diplomats gave the impression that if Hitler declared war on the USA, they would declare war on Russia. He did & they didn't !!!



Hortlund -> (12/15/2000 7:41:00 PM)

We had a lengthy discussion about this subject in the art of war forum a few weeks ago. This is what I said then, and I guess I still think it might be right. I think the outcome would have been enormous. The allies would have had to regroup in England. No more invasion attempts for at least a year (A loss in Normandie would most certainly mean the loss of 2-4 armies as well). The fightings in Italy would have continued though, perhaps some invasion in greece or something. But they would still face autumn in the mountains and valleys of Italy. The rate of advance in 43 was abysmal, why would it be better in 44? (Historically it wasnt) Germany would most certainly reinforce Italy as well. The Germans would have been able to shift several divisions to the eastern front. Perhaps not enough to turn the tide. But probably enough to stop the Soviet steamroller. I think the Soviets would have *real* problems to pull off Bagration if the Germans could reinforce the east with 50+ divisions. Of these divisions 5 would be elite Waffen SS divisions (LAH, DR, HJ, Fru, Hoh) thats enough for two SS Pz Corps ala Kursk. I'd like to see the soviets try to do a blitzkrieg through that, throwing thousands of T-34's against an iron wall of Tigers, it would be a slaughter of epic proportions. Ok, the Germans would probably not have been able to hold the frontlines of 1/1 1944, but they would have been able to hold say the old Polish-Soviet border. Here supply becomes a major factor for the soviets. The soviets were never that good at supplying their forces. And at the polish border its not a matter of rolling the T-34s out of the factory and into the front line, its out of the factory, on to the 300 mile road, then to the front. So, with Europe entering 1946 we would see more and more German super tanks and jet fighters/bombers. Perhaps the Yanks would have dropped both a-bombs over Germany. But I doubt that would have convinced Hitler (If he survived) to surrender (After all he was willing to sacrifice most of the German population anyway). This would mean that Japan was still in the fight (No a-bombs to make them surrender) and the US would have had to invade those islands..there's a nightmare for ya. The Germans would probably be able to hold a defensive line by some great river in the east, such as the Vistula or the Oder ( why? -soviet equipment and tactics facing desperate Germans, Soviets fighting at the end of an enormous long supply chain). Stalemate in Italy and the west. Mounting civilian losses in England due to V-2 attacks (And then US with the V-4:s?), and jet bombers. Mounting losses to the US and UK strategic airforce due to German jets. New German submarines having a second "glory days" period due to new equipment (Scnorkels and new torpedoes). Japanese infantry with panzerfausts. Combine all this with the tension between the allies and the soviet union, and you might reach the conclusion that a separate peace might not be that far away after all. As for the German production. I seem to recall that the German production peaked in august 44, that is compared to the entire war. Low on oil and some minerals sure, but not out of them. Rumanian oil fields still in German hands, Luftwaffe with jets protecting the reich...I'm not so sure the allies would pull that one off. As for the German offensive weapons. The Brits would have a hard time on their island. New German subs would have made supplying that island hard again. Combine that with jet-bombers and V-2 rockets. And the brittish will to press on for an unconditional surrender might be undermined, why not settle for peace? Why go for the throat? Then the US, the Germans would have had V-4:s ready for deployment in October 45. When they started landing in New York and Chicago, perhaps public opinion in the US would have accepted peace? Combine all this with the friction between the US and the UK (Never did like that Monty anyway), and the friction between the allies and russia. I think Germany would have surrendered (Probably after a succesful assasination of Hitler), but not unconditionally, and I dont think we would have had the kind of eastern-europe-communist-dictators we ended up with. Well, thats my two cents anyway Steve ------------------ Panzerjaeger Hortlund -=Fear is only a state of mind=- [This message has been edited by Panzerjaeger Hortlund (edited December 15, 2000).]



GrinningDwarf -> (12/15/2000 10:23:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Wild Bill: The 2nd alternate battle of Utah to the Rhine is an evacuation of Utah Beach under fire. I don't think anyone has done badly enough to play that one, so we may just convert it into a scenario in itself. Interesting.
At least, no one has admitted to doing that badly, huh? [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]



PerryC -> (12/15/2000 10:48:00 PM)

A failed landing at Normandy would have been similar to the results of the Canadian landings at Dieppe (19 August 1942). Only on a much larger scale. I am unaware of British and American casulty figures from that day. The British landed with two Commando groups with a third in reserve (this one included part a US Ranger battalion). Just over 5000 Canadians were involved in the landings-- 2210 returned to England, many were wounded; 1946 were captured, again many were wounded, 907 died on that day. The Calgary Tank Regiment lost every single Churchill tank, only one crew made it back to England. What ever the reasons for the landing, the mistakes made here led to the sucess of Normandy. Yet, it was a high price to pay for that knowledge. I forgot to mention earlier the losses the Germans took- 333 casulties, 121 of which were killed. There was no pre landing bombardment from ship or aircraft. We took them by surprise. Perry pro patria [This message has been edited by PerryC (edited December 15, 2000).] [This message has been edited by PerryC (edited December 15, 2000).]



Alexandra -> (12/16/2000 1:47:00 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rhone: I am quite certain that if the Allies had to make a choice between 100,000 German civilians or 250,000 Allied troops, they would have dropped the bomb on Germany. Intersting reasoning, yet faulty in one significan regard. Politics. The bomb was not political trouble to drop on Japan. Why? Because then, and now really, there was no significant Japanese voting block. However, in the '40s, there were whole states, and some important ones, domninated by the German-American (to use a modern term) vote. So, while militarily one could argue that a bomb drop on the Reich, after a failed Overlord would have been useful, and I'd argue that, by the way, the political fallout would have been tremendous. I don't think FRD would have even considered it, nor, Truman, who was more in tune with the politcal feelings of that part of the country. Also, as a side note, was the bomb even realitically droppable? Enola Gay was basically unopposed in her drop on Hiroshima, the limited enemy aircraft available being drawn off by side sorties, as the planners, if I recall correctly, didn't want to risk an escort getting caught in the blast. So, what are the odds of a lone B-17 or B-24 getting though to a decent target in Germany? The above said, had one been dropped on the Reich, my target of choice would have been Kiel. Alex



Rhone -> (12/16/2000 3:08:00 AM)

Excellent point and one I didn't consider. 1945, Germans were considered civilized and Japanese were considered evil little people. That does indeed make things different. Thanks for pointing that out.



Rhone -> (12/16/2000 3:09:00 AM)

BTW, My target would have been Frankfurt, so long as the atomic winds blew away from Wiesbaden. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125