RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster

RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/6/2014 10:08:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Are you saying that D-Day did not involve a frontal assault? Well I'm sure if you tell the 4,000 + dead, they will be interested to know that [;)] If you can't outflank your enemy, yes, it's a frontal assault. But pay attention: the front in Europe was from Denmark to Spanish border. Ergo you knew the enemy ie the Germans had necessarily spreaded their forces. Your concentrated forces would not meet the bulk of their forces, only a part of them. Now imagine (Twilight Zone scenario) the Germans had gathered ALL of those forces in... Normandy. Then that's what happened in Guam, Peleiu etc. etc. etc. All the Japanese forces were concentrated there. And that's what they were trying to assault (and sometimes, to bypass). A brutish frontal assault, obviously [8D] As stated by Hotschi, there had been a massive planning and build-up (2 years). That was not adventurism, amateurism, it was a really well calculated move. Ask Stalin, the Red Army, they had waited 2, 3 years? LOL

warspite1 -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/6/2014 10:15:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Are you saying that D-Day did not involve a frontal assault? Well I'm sure if you tell the 4,000 + dead, they will be interested to know that [;)] If you can't outflank your enemy, yes, it's a frontal assault. But pay attention: the front in Europe was from Denmark to Spanish border. Ergo you knew the enemy ie the Germans had necessarily spreaded their forces. Your concentrated forces would not meet the bulk of their forces, only a part of them. Now imagine (Twilight Zone scenario) the Germans had gathered ALL of those forces in... Normandy. Then that's what happened in Guam, Peleiu etc. etc. etc. All the Japanese forces were concentrated there. And that's what they were trying to assault. A frontal assault, obviously [8D] As stated by Hotschi, there had been a massive planning and build-up (2 years). That was not adventurism, amateurism, it was a really well calculated move. Ask Stalin, the Red Army, they had waited 2, 3 years? LOL warspite1 quote: the front in Europe was from Denmark to Spanish border. Three things. No. It. Wasn't. quote: As stated by Hotschi, there had been a massive planning and build-up (2 years). That was not adventurim, amateurims, it was a really well calculated move. You seem to move the goalposts to suit your argument at the time. So D-Day involved massive planning and build up? Correct, and which btw was vital to its success. So maybe Churchill was right not to rush into a second front after all eh? [;)][:D]

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/6/2014 10:26:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 So maybe Churchill was right not to rush into a second front after all eh? [;)][:D] Churchill had a war to win AND British interests to protect [;)] His approach was strikingly similar to the British approach during the Napoleonic Wars... Raids here and there, arm people in the continent to attrit Napoleon, avoid a direct confrontation until the last moment... The only problem in this equation is that two big powers appeared: the URSS and USA. I guess he expected the end of the war would be like the end of the Napoleonic Wars: reorganisation of Europe (needless to say, the British leading the whole thing). Problem is, the two new variables in the equation: URSS and USA [;)] So instead of a post-Napoleonic era, poor Churchill perhaps never understood the end of the war would bring the end of... the empire [8D]

warspite1 -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/6/2014 10:46:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 So maybe Churchill was right not to rush into a second front after all eh? [;)][:D] Churchill had a war to win AND British interests to protect [;)] His approach was strikingly similar to the British approach during the Napoleonic Wars... Raids here and there, arm people in the continent to attrit Napoleon, avoid a direct confrontation until the last moment... The only problem in this equation is that two big powers appeared: the URSS and USA. I guess he expected the end of the war would be like the end of the Napoleonic Wars: reorganisation of Europe (needless to say, the British leading the whole thing). Problem is, the two new variables in the equation: URSS and USA [;)] So instead of a post-Napoleonic era, poor Churchill perhaps never understood the end of the war would bring the end of... the empire [8D] warspite1 Yes Churchill had to win the war and protect British interests - a bit like De Gaulle with the French, Roosevelt with the USA, Stalin with the USSR etc etc. Same as it ever was. Not sure what that has to do with not wanting to run the risk of another Gallipoli, but you can’t keep a good old conspiracy theory down for long [;)] There were striking similarities to the Napoleonic War period, mainly because Hitler failed to learn from history. With Britain's tiny land army there was little they could do directly once Hitler (Napoleon) had defeated France and Poland (Austria and Prussia). At the same time, the UK was not under threat thanks to the Royal Navy. Then Mussolini (Napoleon) gave Britain a way of fighting the Axis (France) directly by buggering about in North Africa (Spain). It was small scale fighting compared to what had happened and what was to come, but it all helped attrit the enemy and basically be a PITA. Hitler (Napoleon) then very helpfully invaded Russia before they had defeated the British. The British, and other Allies were then able to exploit this strategic faux pas by kicking bottom in France (Belgium). One thing I can guarantee is that of all the world leaders, Churchill would have been the least likely to have read the tealeaves wrong. He knew only too well what was coming with the two power blocs – the USA and the USSR. You think Churchill didn’t understand what was happening? You believe he thought the British would be calling the shots unilaterally? Please……you have Churchill completely wrong I’m afraid.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/6/2014 11:13:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Yes Churchill had to win the war and protect British interests - a bit like De Gaulle with the French, Roosevelt with the USA, Stalin with the USSR etc etc. Same as it ever was. Not sure what that has to do with not wanting to run the risk of another Gallipoli, but you can’t keep a good old conspiracy theory down for long [;)] I'm afraid this "conspiracy" -as you incorrectly call it- was shared by MOST (if not all) the High allied officers (British excluded obviously). And the source of this is... Churchill himself in his memoirs! [:D] Funny you mention Prima Donna* De Gaulle protecting "French interests" [:)] *Roosevelt himself had called De Gaulle a "prima donna" [:D]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/6/2014 11:59:44 PM)
One thing that could have made the landings a disaster was if the Germans had employed their nerve gas advantage. They thought that the Allies were on par with them so didn't use it. They were wrong. The Germans had Sarin in large quantities. It was especially deadly due to the fact that it could be absorbed through the skin. So you needed a full body suit to survive it - something the Allies didn't have. And an amount equal to 1/1000th of a rain drop would kill you in one minute. The Allies could counter with Phosgene - but that could be countered by just a gas mask. The report mentions Anthrax, but that, obviously, has no effect for several days and can even be countered by vaccine (at least nowadays). So, the invasion could have been wiped out by the time that even had effect. I'm not sure, but I think a gas mask counters Anthrax as well. The other thing I always wonder about is what if the Germans had gone for broke and shifted a huge force from the East for a counter offensive? In reality, they did shift one panzer corps, but, perhaps in conjunction with a intentional pullback there, they might have had the margin to temporarily shift enough to be much more dangerous. Knowing that the invasion was imminent, it could have all been pre-planned. They had interior lines. Why not use them?

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 1:07:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay The other thing I always wonder about is what if the Germans had gone for broke and shifted a huge force from the East for a counter offensive? In reality, they did shift one panzer corps, but, perhaps in conjunction with a intentional pullback there, they might have had the margin to temporarily shift enough to be much more dangerous. Knowing that the invasion was imminent, it could have all been pre-planned. They had interior lines. Why not use them? Germans did not have strategic reserves. Had they stripped this front, it's the collapse and the Red Army would have been at the gates of Berlin before the end of 1944.

Capt. Harlock -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 4:16:04 AM)
quote: What's the fuss about the "mulberries"? An artificial harbor is of no use during an invasion (maybe because it needs to be built first ), only afterwards when huge amounts of supplies and additional units are landed. BUT - in the Pacific, the American already made dozens of landings without any artificial harbors installed afterwards. Right at the same time of the Normandy landings, the Americans landed in the Marianas - against opposition I might add - and didn't use artificial harbors afterwards either. Nor at Leyte. Nor at Iwo Jima. Nor at Okinawa. And American landings of course were unopposed (Solomons, New Guinea mostly) - as well as opposed, see Tarawa. In my opinion, the Mulberries were "nice to have", but not essential at all, and it's irrelevant whether WSC claims in his memoirs that he himself had a hand in inventing them. Just capture a harbor early, and you have your unloading facilities. Or do it the US Navy way in the Pacific, unload stuff onto smaller and smaller crafts which beach themselves or are able to sail in shallower water. The reasons were twofold: first, the Normandy landing and the follow-on reinforcements were on a much larger scale than any invasion mounted in the Pacific. Over-the-beach supply would not have been adequate to support a force of that size, especially one that included more armor and artillery than the Marines generally carried. Second, the Allies could not count on capturing a major harbor in usable condition for a significant time after D-Day. From experience, they knew the Germans would mine and otherwise sabotage all the port facilities before the Allies could seize them.

gradenko2k -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 4:25:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay One thing that could have made the landings a disaster was if the Germans had employed their nerve gas advantage. They thought that the Allies were on par with them so didn't use it. They were wrong. The Germans had Sarin in large quantities. It was especially deadly due to the fact that it could be absorbed through the skin. So you needed a full body suit to survive it - something the Allies didn't have. And an amount equal to 1/1000th of a rain drop would kill you in one minute. The Allies could counter with Phosgene - but that could be countered by just a gas mask. The report mentions Anthrax, but that, obviously, has no effect for several days and can even be countered by vaccine (at least nowadays). So, the invasion could have been wiped out by the time that even had effect. I'm not sure, but I think a gas mask counters Anthrax as well. Operation Vegetarian would have been executed if the Allies even caught a whiff of the Germans using chemical/biological warfare, and Allied air superiority at that point was so complete as to ensure that the entire German countryside could have been rendered uninhabitable for literal decades. Sure, they might have killed enough Allied soldiers to cause D-Day to fail, but the trade-off would have been pretty much their entire country. On the political/personal spectrum, Hitler was also very much against the use of chemical warfare because of his own experience with it in WWI.

warspite1 -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 4:39:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Yes Churchill had to win the war and protect British interests - a bit like De Gaulle with the French, Roosevelt with the USA, Stalin with the USSR etc etc. Same as it ever was. Not sure what that has to do with not wanting to run the risk of another Gallipoli, but you can’t keep a good old conspiracy theory down for long [;)] I'm afraid this "conspiracy" -as you incorrectly call it- was shared by MOST (if not all) the High allied officers (British excluded obviously). And the source of this is... Churchill himself in his memoirs! [:D] Funny you mention Prima Donna* De Gaulle protecting "French interests" [:)] Roosevelt himself had called De Gaulle a "prima donna" [:D] warspite1 I know* there was no conspiracy - I was being ironic given the falsehoods directed at Winston. Not sure why you needed to explain Roosevelt thought De Gaulle was a prima donna. Everyone thought he was a prima donna. A brave man, and a patriot, but also a total PITA.[:D]

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 12:31:41 PM)
Oops, wrong thread.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 1:52:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay The other thing I always wonder about is what if the Germans had gone for broke and shifted a huge force from the East for a counter offensive? In reality, they did shift one panzer corps, but, perhaps in conjunction with a intentional pullback there, they might have had the margin to temporarily shift enough to be much more dangerous. Knowing that the invasion was imminent, it could have all been pre-planned. They had interior lines. Why not use them? Germans did not have strategic reserves. Had they stripped this front, it's the collapse and the Red Army would have been at the gates of Berlin before the end of 1944. But they could have created reserves by rationalizing their lines instead of clinging to every square meter of territory. This could have been combined with a pull back to a pre-constructed fortified line as well, if they'd had the foresight. Considering how 1944 turned out on that front, they would have ultimately been better off. And remember that a fractionally small deduction from the east is a huge addition to Normandy.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 1:58:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay One thing that could have made the landings a disaster was if the Germans had employed their nerve gas advantage. They thought that the Allies were on par with them so didn't use it. They were wrong. The Germans had Sarin in large quantities. It was especially deadly due to the fact that it could be absorbed through the skin. So you needed a full body suit to survive it - something the Allies didn't have. And an amount equal to 1/1000th of a rain drop would kill you in one minute. The Allies could counter with Phosgene - but that could be countered by just a gas mask. The report mentions Anthrax, but that, obviously, has no effect for several days and can even be countered by vaccine (at least nowadays). So, the invasion could have been wiped out by the time that even had effect. I'm not sure, but I think a gas mask counters Anthrax as well. Operation Vegetarian would have been executed if the Allies even caught a whiff of the Germans using chemical/biological warfare, and Allied air superiority at that point was so complete as to ensure that the entire German countryside could have been rendered uninhabitable for literal decades. Sure, they might have killed enough Allied soldiers to cause D-Day to fail, but the trade-off would have been pretty much their entire country. On the political/personal spectrum, Hitler was also very much against the use of chemical warfare because of his own experience with it in WWI. I'm not sure the Allies would come out ahead in such a scenario. Sarin being delivered to London by V-weapons would have been far worse, since there was no defense against it. The Allies didn't have anything comparable. I also doubt that such a threat would have deterred Hitler. He was all for making Germany a wasteland as it was.

warspite1 -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 2:02:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay The other thing I always wonder about is what if the Germans had gone for broke and shifted a huge force from the East for a counter offensive? In reality, they did shift one panzer corps, but, perhaps in conjunction with a intentional pullback there, they might have had the margin to temporarily shift enough to be much more dangerous. Knowing that the invasion was imminent, it could have all been pre-planned. They had interior lines. Why not use them? Germans did not have strategic reserves. Had they stripped this front, it's the collapse and the Red Army would have been at the gates of Berlin before the end of 1944. But they could have created reserves by rationalizing their lines instead of clinging to every square meter of territory. This could have been combined with a pull back to a pre-constructed fortified line as well, if they'd had the foresight. Considering how 1944 turned out on that front, they would have ultimately been better off. And remember that a fractionally small deduction from the east is a huge addition to Normandy. warspite1 Exactly. And which is why an Allied invasion of Europe in 1943 could have benefited Germany in two ways; a) they would very likely have twatted the invading forces (with all that meant in terms of how long it would take the Allies to recover), and b) there would have been no Kursk, no death ride of the 4th Panzer Army etc. The Soviets would instead have been the ones bleeding themselves against the German defenders. German defenders who would soon find a lot of reinforcements heading east....

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 2:07:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock quote: What's the fuss about the "mulberries"? An artificial harbor is of no use during an invasion (maybe because it needs to be built first ), only afterwards when huge amounts of supplies and additional units are landed. BUT - in the Pacific, the American already made dozens of landings without any artificial harbors installed afterwards. Right at the same time of the Normandy landings, the Americans landed in the Marianas - against opposition I might add - and didn't use artificial harbors afterwards either. Nor at Leyte. Nor at Iwo Jima. Nor at Okinawa. And American landings of course were unopposed (Solomons, New Guinea mostly) - as well as opposed, see Tarawa. In my opinion, the Mulberries were "nice to have", but not essential at all, and it's irrelevant whether WSC claims in his memoirs that he himself had a hand in inventing them. Just capture a harbor early, and you have your unloading facilities. Or do it the US Navy way in the Pacific, unload stuff onto smaller and smaller crafts which beach themselves or are able to sail in shallower water. The reasons were twofold: first, the Normandy landing and the follow-on reinforcements were on a much larger scale than any invasion mounted in the Pacific. Over-the-beach supply would not have been adequate to support a force of that size, especially one that included more armor and artillery than the Marines generally carried. Second, the Allies could not count on capturing a major harbor in usable condition for a significant time after D-Day. From experience, they knew the Germans would mine and otherwise sabotage all the port facilities before the Allies could seize them. I believe there is also the reason that they eventually had to pull their amphibious vessels out for use elsewhere (Southern France?). Once they're gone, you can't resupply via the beachhead.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 2:29:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay But they could have created reserves by rationalizing their lines instead of clinging to every square meter of territory. This could have been combined with a pull back to a pre-constructed fortified line as well, if they'd had the foresight. Considering how 1944 turned out on that front, they would have ultimately been better off. And remember that a fractionally small deduction from the east is a huge addition to Normandy. This scenario is absolutely impossible with Hitler in charge. Not one step back, no surrender. And by the way, ironically this order possibly saved the Wehrmacht during the first winter, Soviet counter-offensive [:D] Not that he was a genius. As some scholars said, he was ready to grab bold ideas (Manstein) on the offense. But when it came to defence... the WW1 Bohemian corporal resurfaced. There were of course the 400.000 German troops in Norway doing basically nothing but still that north flank (ie the vital Swedish iron ore) was [basically] in Churchill's radar. So there they stayed.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 2:41:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay But they could have created reserves by rationalizing their lines instead of clinging to every square meter of territory. This could have been combined with a pull back to a pre-constructed fortified line as well, if they'd had the foresight. Considering how 1944 turned out on that front, they would have ultimately been better off. And remember that a fractionally small deduction from the east is a huge addition to Normandy. This scenario is absolutely impossible with Hitler in charge. Not one step back, no surrender. And by the way, ironically this order possibly saved the Wehrmacht during the first winter, Soviet counter-offensive [:D] Not that he was a genius. As some scholars said, he was ready to grab bold ideas (Manstein) on the offense. But when it came to defence... the WW1 Bohemian corporal resurfaced. There were of course the 400.000 German troops in Norway doing basically nothing but still that north flank (ie the vital Swedish iron ore) was [basically] in Churchill's radar. So there they stayed. And yet, in Italy, that's pretty much what they did: Successively fell back to pre-constructed fortified lines.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 3:05:15 PM)
In Italy they knew the enemy was basically going... nowhere. A narrow mountainous peninsula where outflanking was impossible (other than landings in your rear like in Anzio). Frontal assaults all the way. That was a sloooooow campaign. Given the small surface of this theatre, had the STAVKA, Red Army used a similar tempo, they would have kicked the Germans out possibly not before the 1980s [:D] In the open (big European plain --from Aquitaine in France to the Urals) the mobile enemy units (Soviet cavarly and tank and mechanised armies) might get to your prepared fortified lines before you are ready. In fact, Bagration would have swollen those fortified second lines, unless the Germans were ready to give up enormous chunks of land. And this Hitler, never accepted. And next step or offensive, they would give up the whole of Poland and Berlin is next.

gradenko2k -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 3:26:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus This scenario is absolutely impossible with Hitler in charge. Not one step back, no surrender. And by the way, ironically this order possibly saved the Wehrmacht during the first winter, Soviet counter-offensive This is one of the bigger myths of the Eastern Front, so much so that historians have picked up on it as much as Hitler did. The "not one step back" order didn't save the Wehrmacht during the Winter 41 counter-offensive, but rather it was Stalin taking Hitlerian personal control of the Red Army, not concentrating his forces properly and setting way too ambitious goals relative to the logistical and command-and-control capabilities of the Red Army at the time. That the Wehrmacht was able to defend against the Soviets while under hold-at-all-costs orders is coincidental to the Soviets delivering an open-palm slap instead of a closed fist.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 4:41:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000 This is one of the bigger myths of the Eastern Front, so much so that historians have picked up on it as much as Hitler did. The "not one step back" order didn't save the Wehrmacht during the Winter 41 counter-offensive, but rather it was Stalin taking Hitlerian personal control of the Red Army, not concentrating his forces properly and setting way too ambitious goals relative to the logistical and command-and-control capabilities of the Red Army at the time. Your analysis of the Soviet Counter-Offensive and Stalin's role is indeed correct [:)] But not really sure this was a myth. An army totally lacking winter equipment (the men and the machines)... caught in the open, without fortified positions behind... There's a thin line between an organised retreat (and the machines? Russian winter = machines will hardly start) and rout after all. Hmmm...

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 6:24:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus Given the small surface of this theatre, had the STAVKA, Red Army used a similar tempo, they would have kicked the Germans out possibly not before the 1980s [:D] Which is the way it probably should have gone. The Soviets could have had to fight through endless steel-reinforced concrete defenses all the way to Berlin. quote: In the open (big European plain --from Aquitaine in France to the Urals) the mobile enemy units (Soviet cavarly and tank and mechanised armies) might get to your prepared fortified lines before you are ready. I can't buy that. Look at France in 1944: A completely routed German army still out-runs a fully motorized Anglo-Allied force to the West Wall (or wherever they decided to halt). In contrast, the Soviets still have most of their forces on foot, and the Germans would be making a planned retreat in good order. Retreaters have lots of delaying ability: Blown bridges, minefields, delaying forces, etc. And they can even move forces by rail. And they are moving towards their supply heads while the pursuers are moving away from theirs.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 7:22:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus Given the small surface of this theatre, had the STAVKA, Red Army used a similar tempo, they would have kicked the Germans out possibly not before the 1980s [:D] Which is the way it probably should have gone. The Soviets could have had to fight through endless steel-reinforced concrete defenses all the way to Berlin. In WWI maybe, but in WW2? [&:] The Red Army succesfully cracked many times many fortified defensive lines, that was not a problem at all. Needless to say, encircling and annihilating divisions by the dozens [:'(] Hell, the whole Army Group Center was destroyed during Bagration. But most important, if you are Hitler what's the point of such a war? Unprovoked, you attack and invade another country, then you are forced back, and start delaying actions. What for exactly? To go back to your own borders, the enemy following you? If you want to keep the enemy out of your home, why are you inviting them? The Germans had plenty of time to realize this... From the Volga (Stalingrad) Chuikov's 8th Guards Army (former 62nd Army) made it to Berlin [&:]

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 9:01:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Well my guess is that this has something to do with the size of forces attacking (and defending), the amount of supplies and reinforcements the attacking army required every single day, not to mention the need to land tanks and other vehicles given that the enemy had Tigers and Panthers as a reception committee..... The landings in the Pacific, and even those at Salerno or Sicily for example, were on a different scale. The landings in the Caroline Islands, just a week after D-Day in Europe, involved 126.000 US troops. That's a lot of troops, Warspite. They were not coming from the other side of a narrow channel. They were coming from thousands of miles away: Pearl Harbor and Guadalcanal. And unlike in Europe, when they assaulted, they were pretty certain the small island, atoll they were forced to frontally assault, was full of entrenched enemies, ready to die (and kill in the process). Ok, the biggest landing was D-Day but overall it's in the the Pacific where a real modern naval war, and multitude of amphibious operations took place. What happened in Europe is a kid's game [;)] To be fair to western hemisphere invasions, though, at no point did US troops ever storm ashore in the pacific faced with the possibility of an entrenched enemy being reinforced. I vaguely recall something about a company of troops being canoed in to Okinawa or something, but otherwise, once surrounded the Japanese were living on borrowed time. On the general question, I'm not convinced Normandy stood a real chance of failing once the Luftwaffe were swept from the sky. The Allies comfortably beat off German armoured reserves whent they arrived with air and naval gun power. If the Germans had a chance, it was at the water's edge. Had one of 21st or 12th SS Panzer's PZGR battalions been deployed with an hour's drive of Omaha, you could see issues there if they reached the beach with the American's still pinned down. However, given the number of troops they had, the frontage they had to cover, the smashed rail and transportation network they had to contend with and Allied decepition, I'm not sure the Germans were ever really going to stop it, although much hard fighting was required on that first (and subsequent days) nonetheless.

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 9:04:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000 quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus This scenario is absolutely impossible with Hitler in charge. Not one step back, no surrender. And by the way, ironically this order possibly saved the Wehrmacht during the first winter, Soviet counter-offensive This is one of the bigger myths of the Eastern Front, so much so that historians have picked up on it as much as Hitler did. The "not one step back" order didn't save the Wehrmacht during the Winter 41 counter-offensive, but rather it was Stalin taking Hitlerian personal control of the Red Army, not concentrating his forces properly and setting way too ambitious goals relative to the logistical and command-and-control capabilities of the Red Army at the time. That the Wehrmacht was able to defend against the Soviets while under hold-at-all-costs orders is coincidental to the Soviets delivering an open-palm slap instead of a closed fist. Sort of. Whilst it's true Stalin was too ambitious and opted to attack everywhere rather than concentrate and strike hard in just a few places, had the Germans yielded ground, it would have cost them a lot of heavy equipment and the retreat might have ended up anywhere. The situation was certainly bad enough in many places than most WWII era Armies would have withdrew, for all of Stalin's costly interference.

panzer cat -> RE: Five Ways D-Day Might Have Ended in Disaster (6/7/2014 10:30:44 PM)
The landing force at Omaha breached the west wall in under a day, the other beaches even faster. Fighting through the bocage country is what slowed down the allies.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.90625