Could the Germans stop the dday invasion and what if they did?

ken76 · 14-10-2015 9:04am #1

Hi

I was just wondering, in what set of circumstances could the germans of repelled the DDay invasion or did they not have necessary resources?

If luck had gone their way could it of happened?

Even if they had of repelled it would the out come of the war changed in anyway? Or would it just of delayed the war by an extra year or 2?

So basically if they had moved more soldier to Normandy or tanks could they of stopped it and what would've happened if they did?

Thanks

mrDerek · 14-10-2015 9:09am

I dont think they would have been able to stop the invasion unless they knew about the exact location of the landings which was kept under wraps until the actual invasion.
The Germans built up a force along the most likely areas of landing but were caught unawares further down south.

In terms of outcome of the war had they not invaded Russia when they did i think they would have won, As we all know fighting on two fronts was a major factor for what did them in in the end. They were close to developing a nuclear weapon and were also first to develop jet Tech combined with their rocket advances these technologies would have swung the war and we would all be saying Ich bin ein Berliner at this stage :P

Manach · 14-10-2015 9:24am

My understanding, based on books like the "Big Red One" and Von Luck's memoirs that had the Allies been unlucky with the weather or less skilled in getting troops on the beaches, then it could well have gone awry. On the German side, they were hampered by near total Allied command of the air, but if they had been more flexible at freeing up tank reserves (High command believed that Normandy was initially a feint) and getting them to the beachhead, then it could have severly impacted the landings.

Jawgap · 14-10-2015 1:25pm

Could they have stopped D-Day on the day?

Probably not.

Could they have won the subsequent Battle of Normandy?

Quite possibly. An amphibious operation carried out with total air supremacy and supported by significant naval gunnery by a force that had already developed it's experience through 4 other similar (and in one case larger) landing would be difficult to stop on the beach.

In all probability the Germans would never have been able to prevent the initial lodgment from being achieved.

The follow-up phase to an amphibious landing is basically a race - if the the landing force can pour more divisions, more manpower and more supplies into the lodgment than the defending force can then they will likely prevail.

The Germans certainly had sufficient forces available to overwhelm the Allies but for various reasons including the wrecked rail infrastructure, the command arrangements and - to a lesser extent - the Allies control of the sky - they were unable to react quick enough.

If Hitler and OKW had been quicker to realise that Normandy was the Allies main effort (in other words if they'd tumbled FORTITUDE) and reacted swiftly to release available divisions to the local commanders it might have ended very differently for the Allies - it would also have likely led to the war ending with the Soviets on the Rhine (or even the Seine) instead of the Elbe.

Even if things had developed the way they did, the Germans could probably have frustrated Allied attempts to move on Paris by not undertaking operations like the Mortain counter-offensive and by retreating in good order to the Seine instead of letting themselves get chewed up.

Tzar Chasm · 14-10-2015 9:01pm

mrDerek wrote: »

I dont think they would have been able to stop the invasion unless they knew about the exact location of the landings which was kept under wraps until the actual invasion.
The Germans built up a force along the most likely areas of landing but were caught unawares further down south.

In terms of outcome of the war had they not invaded Russia when they did i think they would have won, As we all know fighting on two fronts was a major factor for what did them in in the end. They were close to developing a nuclear weapon and were also first to develop jet Tech combined with their rocket advances these technologies would have swung the war and we would all be saying Ich bin ein Berliner at this stage :P

I have read up on this a bit, the Germans were nowhere near development of an effective nuclear weapon, a reactor might have been a possibility but they just didn't have the capacity to build a bomb. They had the missile delivery system, but no bomb.

That said a functioning reactor might still have helped if they had more time to develop it

Jawgap · 14-10-2015 9:18pm

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

I have read up on this a bit, the Germans were nowhere near development of an effective nuclear weapon, a reactor might have been a possibility but they just didn't have the capacity to build a bomb. They had the missile delivery system, but no bomb.

That said a functioning reactor might still have helped if they had more time to develop it

As a weapon the V2 was a bit of a disaster. It soaked up huge resources in terms of R&D and production and in terms of destructive capacity delivered it was very limited - about 1300 were fired at London killing about 2 people for every missile.

They probably killed 10 times as many slave labourers building them as they did from firing them.

Also building a nuke would have been just the first phase, to get it on to a missile they'd have had to develop the miniaturisation technology.

Manach · 14-10-2015 9:31pm

In defence of the Nazi's V2 WMD (a sentence that I thought I'd never have to the opportunity to say :-) ) the book V2 by Tracy Duggan does indeed back up what Jawgap said. However it also mentioned that the creation of the weapon did do significant damage to areas which were beyond the reach of the Axis at that point, it acted as a weapon that significantly effected civilian moral and it caused major diversion of Allied resources to hunt down and destroy V2 sites.

ken76 · 14-10-2015 9:41pm

Manach wrote: »

My understanding, based on books like the "Big Red One" and Von Luck's memoirs that had the Allies been unlucky with the weather or less skilled in getting troops on the beaches, then it could well have gone awry. On the German side, they were hampered by near total Allied command of the air, but if they had been more flexible at freeing up tank reserves (High command believed that Normandy was initially a feint) and getting them to the beachhead, then it could have severly impacted the landings.

Did the Luftwaffe have any capabilites then in western europe in 1944?

Jawgap · 14-10-2015 9:47pm

ken76 wrote: »

Did the Luftwaffe have any capabilites then in western front?

Significant capabilities, but most of it was concentrated on defending the Reich from the CBO. Basically, the Germans were 'happy' to leave France etc to be pounded from the air by the Allies. I think on D-Day the Luftwaffe managed to launch about 30 sorties whereas the Allies flew over 5,000.

Their problems in late 44 into 1945 related not to available aircraft, but to fuel. They lacked sufficient fuel to run proper basic and operational training.

Tzar Chasm · 14-10-2015 9:56pm

Jawgap wrote: »

As a weapon the V2 was a bit of a disaster. It soaked up huge resources in terms of R&D and production and in terms of destructive capacity delivered it was very limited - about 1300 were fired at London killing about 2 people for every missile.

They probably killed 10 times as many slave labourers building them as they did from firing them.

Also building a nuke would have been just the first phase, to get it on to a missile they'd have had to develop the miniaturisation technology.

Thats an accurate appraisal of the V2 program, however the technology was evolving and improving continuously, they had the back broken on the R&D aspect, but obviously the war was taking its toll

Victor · 14-10-2015 9:57pm

ken76 wrote: »

I was just wondering, in what set of circumstances could the germans of repelled the DDay invasion or did they not have necessary resources?

The Germans didn't take the invasion seriously, as they didn't think the Allies could keep it supplied, especially with fuel. However: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pluto and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbour

If luck had gone their way could it of happened?

Luck is the combination of chance and the presence or absence of hard work.

Even if they had of repelled it would the out come of the war changed in anyway? Or would it just of delayed the war by an extra year or 2?

The war was probably won or lost in 1942-43, not 1944. The war would have lasted longer, but the ultimate conclusion would have been much the same.

So basically if they had moved more soldier to Normandy or tanks could they of stopped it and what would've happened if they did?

I think the Allied effort was too much to overcome. If the Germans concentrated in Normandy, the allies might have invaded elsewhere.

Jawgap wrote: »

As a weapon the V2 was a bit of a disaster. It soaked up huge resources in terms of R&D and production and in terms of destructive capacity delivered it was very limited - about 1300 were fired at London killing about 2 people for every missile.

The V1 and V2 campaigns made a million people homeless in London, which can't be overlooked.

Dating back to the First World War with the Zepplin bombing raids and the Blitz, it has to be appreciated that 'unstoppable' weapons have a strong effect on morale.

Jawgap · 14-10-2015 10:05pm

Victor wrote: »

The Germans didn't take the invasion seriously, as they didn't think the Allies could keep it supplied, especially with fuel. However: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pluto and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbour
......

That's a good point. The Germans thought you could not supply and sustain a large invasion force over the beach and assumed the Allies would have to go for a port. Consequently, they thought as long as they garrisoned the ports they could hold off an invading force, bring up reinforcements and chuck it back into the sea.

Hooooooowever, the Allies learned from Dieppe (JUBILEE) that attacking a port was pretty much suicide, while the Siciliy and Italian landings showed that an amphibious landing could be sustained over the beach with proper organisation.

skooterblue2 · 14-10-2015 10:43pm

ken76 wrote: »

Hi

I was just wondering, in what set of circumstances could the germans of repelled the DDay invasion or did they not have necessary resources?

If luck had gone their way could it of happened?

Even if they had of repelled it would the out come of the war changed in anyway? Or would it just of delayed the war by an extra year or 2?

So basically if they had moved more soldier to Normandy or tanks could they of stopped it and what would've happened if they did?

Thanks

One of the most important things we forget about World War 2 is that the biggest part of the war was won and lost on the Eastern Front. That is not to take away from D-day, the Battle of the Atlantic, Battle of Britian, North African campaign, breaking Enigma and many others.....

World War 2 could never have been won out right by the Germans but IF everything had gone differently AND IF Germany had kept peace with Stalin (some hope of that). AND IF Invaded Ireland before Britian AND forced a stalemate with the US .......... (see how many IFs and ANDs I used). Germany would have been totally exhausted after the war and Stalin could have marched from Moscow to London unopposed.

I am very confused about the D-day landings. Mathemathically the numbers say they could have lost many more as the Germans had planned a landing at Calais. But all I ever hear is the huge losses on D-day and shortly there after. I agree if it werent for Operation Pluto and the fuel lines it could easily have been another Dunkirk, or worse.

I feel that Germany had all the better training (6 years prep), equipment (MP 38, MG 34, uniforms, 88 guns) and vehicles (Panzers) and they needed a short swift end to the war. Europe of today would have looked totally different if the Americans didnt keep a presence in Europe through the cold War.

purplepanda · 25-12-2015 1:56am

The germans wouldn't use women for production tasks in their arms factories, believing a woman's place was at home, breeding the master race & looking after children. Unlike the allied nations, who would use women for transport & supply duties, as well as factory workers in their tens of millions.

Meanwhile the germans used forced & slave factory labour instead of a motivated patriotic population. They also devoted much of their potential military resources to brutalising & mass murder of conquered populations & political enemies.

The soviets, in particular, used many women for front line combat duties, such as the "Night Witches" biplane harassment bombing pilots.

In the age of total war, failure to seriously make productive & military use of half of the population in the war effort was a very costly mistake, especially when your enemies do so. Freeing more soldiers for front line duty.

Hardly surprising that the Nazi's had serious manpower shortages, and couldn't have won any long drawn out conflict even without invading Russia.

German war policy & planning was severely flawed in many aspects despite having advanced military hardware & innovative warfare methods. The allies could produce military equipment in much larger numbers more quickly after the first years of war were over.

Germany's failure to match allied military production meant defeat was inevitable.

The Chieftain · 16-01-2016 7:49am

What seems to be overlooked here is that even if the Germans had performed better with the D-day landings, and had managed to contain them - which was a serious possibility - their hold on France would still have been lost just two months later, with the landings in Southern France, which they had no realistic possibility to contain.

TerrorFirmer · 16-01-2016 3:25pm

It's not overlooked. If the main landings were thrown back into the sea, the southern landings would never have happened.

Tony EH · 16-01-2016 3:34pm

ken76 wrote: »

Hi

I was just wondering, in what set of circumstances could the germans of repelled the DDay invasion or did they not have necessary resources?

If luck had gone their way could it of happened?

Even if they had of repelled it would the out come of the war changed in anyway? Or would it just of delayed the war by an extra year or 2?

So basically if they had moved more soldier to Normandy or tanks could they of stopped it and what would've happened if they did?

Thanks

The Germans never had a chance to stop the D Day landings. Not in a 100 years.

By 1944, they were a spent force. By 1943, they were essentially done.

BTW, soldiers and tanks weren't going to stop the landings. What was needed was an intact air force, which the Germans didn't have. Years of attrition on the eastern front and constant whittling away in the west had reduced the Luftwaffe to a shadow of former self. Even before the allies had got going seriously in 1943, the Luftwaffe was on its last legs.

There's simply no realistic scenario whereby the Germans can repel the allied landings on all beaches, even if they knew exactly where the landings were to occur.

Even as it stands, Omaha was merely a slight setback and the rest of the beaches landed pretty much unopposed.

It would have taken monumental efforts far, far beyond what the Germans possessed, even in 1942, to stop the landings.

Tony EH · 16-01-2016 3:39pm

mrDerek wrote: »

They were close to developing a nuclear weapon and were also first to develop jet Tech combined with their rocket advances these technologies would have swung the war and we would all be saying Ich bin ein Berliner at this stage :P

The Germans were, at the very least, ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon still in 1945.

Once the hard water facility in Norway was hit, the German nuclear weapons program was effectively finished.

Tony EH · 16-01-2016 3:47pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Significant capabilities, but most of it was concentrated on defending the Reich from the CBO. Basically, the Germans were 'happy' to leave France etc to be pounded from the air by the Allies. I think on D-Day the Luftwaffe managed to launch about 30 sorties whereas the Allies flew over 5,000.

Their problems in late 44 into 1945 related not to available aircraft, but to fuel. They lacked sufficient fuel to run proper basic and operational training.

That wasn't the Jagdwaffe's only issue.

By 1943, their training programs had been slashed in order to get more pilots into the air. Contrary to popular belief, the Germans didn't have things all their own way in the skies over Russia and the attrition rate was more than the Germans could cope with.

The "experten" could deal with life flying 3 or 4 sorties a day and knew how to deal with combat, but the average fliers took the brunt of the loss stats.

The older pilots, the ones who had been around for a while, were dismayed by the lack of hours that the "kids" had arriving at the front, knowing many were not going to see beyond 10 sorties.

Jawgap · 16-01-2016 6:16pm

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

It's not overlooked. If the main landings were thrown back into the sea, the southern landings would never have happened.

Quite possibly - they used a lot of same landing craft. If the landings had failed there may not have been sufficient landing craft for ANVIL/DRAGOON.

Also, replacing the losses would have meant drawing on landing craft earmarked for the Pacific which may not have been politically possible in the wake of a failed European landing.

Capt'n Midnight · 13-02-2016 2:36am

Jawgap wrote: »

As a weapon the V2 was a bit of a disaster. It soaked up huge resources in terms of R&D and production and in terms of destructive capacity delivered it was very limited - about 1300 were fired at London killing about 2 people for every missile.

A V2 cost about the same as a fighter aircraft. The fuel was alcohol based so took a lot of potatoes when they were already short on food. And yes slave workers were most of the people killed by the V2.

V2 had a payload of 1 tonne , far too small for the first generation of nukes. Also they V2 used special insensitive explosives because of the rigours of launch. And besides 1,000 bomber raids could do as much damage as an A-Bomb. In an the alternative history where the Germans had nuked London and the Allies didn't have the bomb it's likely that poison gas would have made a comeback from last part of WWI. Yes Germany had nerve agents, but we're right back at the 1,000 bomber raids again and don't forget that Scottish Island with the Anthrax.

Manach wrote: »

In defence of the Nazi's V2 WMD (a sentence that I thought I'd never have to the opportunity to say :-) ) the book V2 by Tracy Duggan does indeed back up what Jawgap said. However it also mentioned that the creation of the weapon did do significant damage to areas which were beyond the reach of the Axis at that point, it acted as a weapon that significantly effected civilian moral and it caused major diversion of Allied resources to hunt down and destroy V2 sites.

Oddly enough the V1 was a greater drain on resources because it was possible to intercept it so the effort had to be made with the barrage balloons and moving all the AA to the south coast and sending planes up fly close enough to affect the airflow over it's wing. Actual contact was stupid.
The V2 was impossible to stop once it was on it's way and IIRC only one was ever caught in flight and it had only just lifted off. AFAIK they didn't catch any of the SCUD launchers during the Gulf war either.

As for D-Day look at Anzio, that wasn't contained.

Snickers Man · 24-02-2016 1:54am

Manach wrote: »

had the Allies been unlucky with the weather..... then it could well have gone awry...

Absolutely. And I also believe that if they hadn't bitten the bullet and gone across on June 6th, after a 24 hour postponement because of bad weather, they wouldn't have been able to attempt an invasion for another month because of tidal and other meteorological issues.

And the only reason they were able to go on the 6th was because of an update report from an Irish weather station in Mayo which indicated that there was going to be a break in the bad weather which would have given them the necessary window to make the landing.

So WE won the war. Even though we weren't in it.

:D

gizmo555 · 26-02-2016 5:34pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

And the only reason they were able to go on the 6th was because of an update report from an Irish weather station in Mayo which indicated that there was going to be a break in the bad weather which would have given them the necessary window to make the landing.

So WE won the war. Even though we weren't in it. :D

Naval Service Recruit Class "Sweeney" just passed out yesterday (Feb 25) at Haulbowline.

Their class, Recruit Class Sweeney, is named after Ted Sweeney, the late Irish Coast Guardsman and lighthouse keeper whose weather forecast from Blacksod in Co Mayo was crucial to the success of the invasion.

Mr Sweeney’s weather forecast from the western tip of Europe on June 3rd, 1944, persuaded Allied Supreme Commander, General Dwight D Eisenhower, to delay the D-Day invasion by 24 hours.

Despite Ireland’s neutrality during the second World War, the Irish Free State had continued to send meteorological reports to Britain under an arrangement which had been agreed since independence . . .

D-Day was originally planned for June 5th, 1944, but June 6th and June 7th were also pinpointed as possible dates because moon and tide conditions were deemed ideal for seaborne landings.

Mr Sweeney’s first report at 2am on June 3rd showed unfavourable weather conditions for June 5th, so Gen Eisenhower decided to delay the huge operation to invade Hitler’s Fortress Europe.

Then, at 12pm on June 4th, Mr Sweeney sent another report that offered hope to Eisenhower and the Allied commanders and enabled them give the go-ahead for Operation Overlord on June 6th.

Some 5,000 ships and more than 11,000 aircraft carrying approximately 156,000 Allied troops participated in the Normandy landings which led to the liberation of France and ultimately helped defeat Hitler.

Those events from more than 70 years ago will be recalled at Haulbowline Naval Base in Cork Harbour today, when Mr Sweeney’s son Edward will watch the class named in honour of his father, graduate.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/key-irish-role-in-d-day-landings-to-be-marked-at-navy-hq-1.2548177

Snickers Man · 08-04-2016 9:25am

You know I was really speaking tongue in cheek. But it's interesting how many people claim to be the main agents in the war against Hitler.

The British are convinced that THEY won the war. Because after all didn't they "stand alone" against the might of the Third Reich after France and Poland (and Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Norway) had all been defeated? Until with some typically tardy help from their American cousins, they finally managed to turn the tide after D-Day.

The Americans, for their part, just know that they had to intervene for the sake of humanity and liberate the poor miserable Europeans who couldn't do the job for themselves. So it was Uncle Sam who came along and won the war against Hitler, without which everybody in Europe would be speaking German now.

The French like to inflate their role in the enterprise. De Gaulle kept "l'honneur et la gloire de la France éternelle" alive from his government in exile while the majority of his countrymen were kept in thrall by a collaborationist government in Vichy.

What few in the West care to acknowledge is that it was essentially the Soviet Union who defeated Hitler. They occupied most of his army, even after D-Day. The war on the Western Front was, literally, a side show.

And anyway, it was the Irish who were responsible for making that victory possible.

Jawgap · 08-04-2016 10:32am

I think Stalin had it right - the British provided the time, the Americans provided the materiel, the USSR provided the blood.

Tony EH · 08-04-2016 11:30am

Snickers Man wrote: »

You know I was really speaking tongue in cheek. But it's interesting how many people claim to be the main agents in the war against Hitler...

The Russians won the war in Europe. Over 80% of the Whermacht was destroyed by Russia.

Everything else is a bit part in comparison.

For Hitler, Russia was the war.

Snickers Man · 08-04-2016 11:53am

Tony EH wrote: »

For Hitler, Russia was the war.

I think, with the passing of time, this is finally becoming acknowledged as the greater truth even in the west. Although there are plenty of hints in the historical record that it was obvious to many people much earlier.

I think in particular of German fighter ace and later General of Fighters, Adolf Galland, being interviewed for the World at War documentary series in the early 1970s about Operation Sea Lion, the putative German invasion of Britain in 1940. "It wasn't serious!" he said.

The implication being that it was basically a pressure ploy, along with the Luftwaffe bombing raids, to get the British to make peace and drop out of the war. Which would have done Hitler grand because he wanted to concentrate on his real enemy to the east. Fair play to them; they didn't but it still doesn't change the basic numbers game about who did what to whom the most.

Tony EH · 08-04-2016 12:04pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

I think, with the passing of time, this is finally becoming acknowledged as the greater truth even in the west...

It already is, to a very large degree, by serious students of the war as the historical record bears the facts out.

It was the cold war, when the Russians were reverted back to the status of "enemy" after their usefullness was at an end in 1945 that framed the war as a western allied victory for a lot of people. That coupled with the endless soft propaganda of hollywood war movies went a long way to solidifying that impression in a lot of people's minds.

But the popular history of the war has changed since the 90's and the general idea of the war in Europe has been expanded a great deal for the average Joe. Beevor's 'Stalingrad' and 'Berlin' being No.1 best sellers would have been unheard of in the 60's for instance.

A lot of factors went into the allied victory over the Germans in WWII. It's a complex series of events leading to an inevitable conclusion IMO. The Germans could never have won the war, once they invaded Russia, which Hitler was always going to do, as that was the whole point of the war, in the first place.

As for Sealion, even Churchill knew it was a ruse.

"I'm not saying they won't come...but they won't come by Sealion."

Jawgap · 08-04-2016 12:20pm

There's no doubt that the Eastern front was the decisive campaign of WWII in respect of Germany, but I think it's always worth remembering that while the US & Brits only had a series of land campaigns that, in comparison, were small, if not tiny, compared to the Red Army's efforts, they still had to do almost all the heavy lifting in respect of the naval and strategic air campaigns.

And before anyone jumps up and down, I'm not saying an undistracted Germany would have enjoyed victory in the East - in fact far from it, the USSR simply could not, in my view, be defeated by Germany. The Germans may have reached a 'conclusion' of sorts where they occupied large swathes of European Russia, but it's highly doubtful they could have consolidated and held their gains beyond the short-term.

nuac · 08-04-2016 12:52pm

gizmo555 wrote: »

Naval Service Recruit Class "Sweeney" just passed out yesterday (Feb 25) at Haulbowline.

Their class, Recruit Class Sweeney, is named after Ted Sweeney, the late Irish Coast Guardsman and lighthouse keeper whose weather forecast from Blacksod in Co Mayo was crucial to the success of the invasion.

Mr Sweeney’s weather forecast from the western tip of Europe on June 3rd, 1944, persuaded Allied Supreme Commander, General Dwight D Eisenhower, to delay the D-Day invasion by 24 hours.

Despite Ireland’s neutrality during the second World War, the Irish Free State had continued to send meteorological reports to Britain under an arrangement which had been agreed since independence . . .

D-Day was originally planned for June 5th, 1944, but June 6th and June 7th were also pinpointed as possible dates because moon and tide conditions were deemed ideal for seaborne landings.

Mr Sweeney’s first report at 2am on June 3rd showed unfavourable weather conditions for June 5th, so Gen Eisenhower decided to delay the huge operation to invade Hitler’s Fortress Europe.

Then, at 12pm on June 4th, Mr Sweeney sent another report that offered hope to Eisenhower and the Allied commanders and enabled them give the go-ahead for Operation Overlord on June 6th.

Some 5,000 ships and more than 11,000 aircraft carrying approximately 156,000 Allied troops participated in the Normandy landings which led to the liberation of France and ultimately helped defeat Hitler.

Those events from more than 70 years ago will be recalled at Haulbowline Naval Base in Cork Harbour today, when Mr Sweeney’s son Edward will watch the class named in honour of his father, graduate.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/key-irish-role-in-d-day-landings-to-be-marked-at-navy-hq-1.2548177

I agree with above.

I had a chance to look at the Normandy beaches last year on a day when a SW Force 3 was blowing. There was quite a swell on those long flat beaches. Crewing and handling small boats would have been difficult, especially as there was no pier or jetty available. The day's postponement, based on the Blacksod info, was imho crucial.

There were a few other matter which were relevant i.e.

1. Hitler worked late and slept late. His personal permission was needed to release to Normandy armoured divisions stationed elsewhere. They were afraid to waken him early with the bad news. Rome had fallen a few days before so further bad news would not have been welcomed. Valuable time lost,

2. Because of the bad weather the Germans assumed that no invasion would happen those few days. Rommel went home to visit his wife and to talk to Adolf. Another high ranking officer went back to Paris to see his mistress. Other officers were at war games in Rheims. If only they could have tapped the line from Blacksod to UK!

3. Even with the massive advantage in terms of men and materiel, absolute air superiority, naval gunfire etc Normandy was close run e.g.

(1) Some battle hardened divisions from the Russian front were in the Caen area to rest and refit. They were used to tough fighting in Russia, and were able to dig in and counterattack. In one area the German counterattack nearly broke thru to the beaches.

(2) The plan was to capture Caen within a day of landing, They got to the outskirts on D-day, but could not capture it for at least another month. The failure to get this strategic communication centre by D +1 held up the enlargement of the bridgehead.

(3) Because of (1) and (2) above the beachhead had a depth of only approx 20 miles for at least a month. Obviously at risk if the Germans of counterattacked in force.

Therefore imho the reports that month from the Sweeneys of Blacksod cannot be overestimated

Victor · 08-04-2016 9:40pm

Tony EH wrote: »

The Russians won the war in Europe.

I think you mean the Soviet Union.

Tony EH wrote: »

The Russians won the war in Europe.
....
Everything else is a bit part in comparison.

While the Eastern Front saw the bulk of the fighting, it was the cumulative effect of being attacked on all sides that won the war. Remove the British or Americans and the war would have been very different.

nuac wrote: »

(3) Because of (1) and (2) above the beachhead had a depth of only approx 20 miles for at least a month. Obviously at risk if the Germans of counterattacked in force.

Something like 100,000 men landed on the first day. Within a month, I imagine that was much larger. Squashing them would have needed a vast force, which the Germans didn't have in France. The Allies bided their time to build up their supplies, broke out and barely stopped in the next few months.

Jawgap wrote: »

There's no doubt that the Eastern front was the decisive campaign of WWII in respect of Germany, but I think it's always worth remembering that while the US & Brits only had a series of land campaigns that, in comparison, were small, if not tiny, compared to the Red Army's efforts, they still had to do almost all the heavy lifting in respect of the naval and strategic air campaigns.

I think the effect of these are boosted by propaganda / popular culture during and after the war.

The 'bigging up' of the Battle of the Atlantic was as much about managing expectations ("no, you can't have fancy tea every day") on the home front as winning the battle. A lot of the strategic bombing was wasted - not much use in sinking ships of iron ore off Norway if that ore can be replaced by ore from France or Poland. The latter policy of targeting fuel, railways and ball bearing manufacture was much more effect - hundreds of nearly fully-complete tanks 200km behind the front with no ball bearings and no fuel is a much greater waste of German resources than making people homeless.

Could the Germans stop the dday invasion and what if they did?

Comments