Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: What if Overlord fails?

  1. #1
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    2,645

    What if Overlord fails?

    Say the great Anglo American invasion of France in June 1944 had failed... it's not inconceivable after all. So around July 1-3 Montgomery, still in operational command, is badly mauled and with no main harbours and the artificial 'mulberry' harbours wrecked the reinforcement rate simply isn't enough to support a build up and break out. He decides he has to get as many men back across the Channel as possible and a second Dunkirk occurs.

    Hitler then offers an armistice... He will liberate France.

    How long before the Anglo Americans can again launch a cross channel attack? 1945? Do they decide to enter the Balkans instead? Accept an armistice and get France? The French would urge an acceptance presumably. The US would Navy would want to get on with the Japanese war and might be inclined to accept.

    If the Western allies don't accept the armistice does Hitler have enough time to transfer forces to the Eastern front and stabilise if not defeat the Russian front before another cross channel invasion can be launched?

    If Britain and the US do accept the armistice does Hitler win in the East? How far does he go?

  2. #2
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    11,870
    I don't think Hitler would offer France right after his troops repelled the allies from landing in the said France.

    Even if he can send ALL of the western troops to the East, I don't believe he could have stopped the Soviets. Even more, it's commonly accepted opinion that failure of Overlord would bring Soviets at least to Rhine.
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    2,645
    Hence an Anglo American intervention in the Balkans to stop the Soviet advance to the Atlantic. Hitler never wanted 'lebensraum' in the Balkans or in the West and would trade France and the Balkans for his Eastern colonisation.

  4. #4
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,739
    We (the U.S.) could just go back home and stock up on nuclear weapons and B-36 bombers.
    dave lukins likes this.

  5. #5
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    7,320
    Simple.

    Once the Germans leave the Allies come back into France and now push to the German frontier with limited battles.

    Germany starts the fall on 1944 in the same position....but the Allies are actually stronger and their logistics position is better.

    No way in hell that FDR, Churchill, the American people and the people of the Commonwealth were going to the Nazis control central Europe.

    War ends in fall of 1945 as a couple of German cities are taken out with atomic bombs 3 & 4.

    By 1944 unconditional surrender was the ONLY way out for Germany.
    Doktor and DarthSiddius like this.
    “Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something.”
    - Robert A. Heinlein

  6. #6
    Regular Mandala's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Jun 13
    Location
    North Eastern United States
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Hitler then offers an armistice... He will liberate France.
    I do not think the liberation of France without an invasion was likely. In planning the Battle of the Bulge, and the defense of Berlin, Hitler demonstrated that he was intent on going down fighting. The failure of the invasion of Normandy would have convinced Hitler and many of his wavering generals that some kind of victory was still possible.

    Also I doubt Hitler would have trusted an armistice. He would suspect that if he gave up France the Allies would still invade Germany from the west.

    There may have been another invasion of France. It would have made more sense from the beginning to invade further south where German defenses were lighter.

    If an additional invasion of France had failed I suspect that the U.S. would have used atomic bombs on Germany, and that the War would have ended with the Soviet Army occupying all of Germany.
    cataphract likes this.

  7. #7
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Chogy's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Apr 09
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
    We (the U.S.) could just go back home and stock up on nuclear weapons and B-36 bombers.
    Exactly. Once a major German city is nuked, the allies can dictate whatever terms they want. The alternative is nuclear fire and an obliterated Reich.

    Not as sexy as a campaign in the Balkans or through Italy and France, but much easier to execute. The Germans were nowhere near a nuke, and would have been unable to respond.

  8. #8
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    4,153
    V2&chemical weapons..Not as fancy as fatties and little boys,but lethal nevertheless.

    If Overlord fails,the war in the East gets prolonged.For a start,there is the stabilization on the Vistula and the prevention of Romania renouncing the alliamce with Germany(with the subsequent collapse of the Germans in the Balkans,the invasion of Hungary as well as the survival of many German troops that got lost in these battles.With the arrival of ~half the Germans from Normandy & the Romanian front stable,the force ratio in Poland looks much nicer for Germany.More important,the density of the defense is incresead,mobile reserves are strong and the Germans have more fuel to maneuver. Guderian is the man leading the show.A Soviet victory is not certain.Forget about reaching Berlin in 2 months.The big question is not how fast the Soviets can reach the Rhine,but how many Seelow's can they afford.
    The Soviets can't become better,but the Germans can.Six months to prepare fortifications and train men,without being bothered in the West.
    If the Soviets don't win decisevely in their winter offensive,they have a problem.They are on their last manpower resources and have the perspective of breaking increasing fortified lines on narrower fronts,with little opportunities for surprise.Add the Allied sitting on their butts and Joe will think twice.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  9. #9
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    11,870
    Can the allies gamble leaving the Soviets in full offensive?

    Let's say they do get better and reach Rhine, when they gonna stop?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  10. #10
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    4,153
    If Overlord fails,the Allies are done for.The sea storms begin,a new operation is needed.You don't do this overnight.Landing in France is easy from a logistic pov.You have one day trip by ship.A major operation in the Med is not feasible in 1944.Landing in S France was a supporting effort and they faced little resistance.

    So the allies have no choice,but wait.And the Red Army can't get to Rhine.Because we're talking of Stalin here.The man doesn't wants to face the Allies with no army.Because that's what it takes to get to the Rhine.There's plenty of Seelow's and many Berlins in the path.
    Last edited by Mihais; 16 Jun 13, at 23:09.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    11,870
    Was gonna comment about Soviets reaching Berlin with vast army and how French were already more in favor of the commie acceptance...

    But, you are right, Stalin would want to place 3 million soldiers in Paris
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  12. #12
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    11,162
    think it would depend on how badly overlord failed.

    if it was close, then the allies continue pushing in italy and elsewhere, and try again with a buffed up operation dragoon, is my guess.

    if it wasn't, then just the first...and then Hitler gets to have the first few atomic bombs go his way.

    mihais,

    A Soviet victory is not certain.Forget about reaching Berlin in 2 months.The big question is not how fast the Soviets can reach the Rhine,but how many Seelow's can they afford.
    The Soviets can't become better,but the Germans can.Six months to prepare fortifications and train men,without being bothered in the West.
    even without an allied success at normandy, the germans still need to commit resources to having stopped the attack. plus, hitler's paranoia would almost definitely mean that even after a normandy failure, he'd put more troops in the west to forestall another invasion. obviously it wouldn't be as much as what happened with a successful landing, but it wouldn't be insignificant, either.

    operation bagration and the lvov–sandomierz offensive still results in a stunning soviet success. you're right that the next soviet offensives would hit a better-resourced Wehrmacht (no Falaise pocket), but what's the difference? by august 1944, when the freed up western front units could be transferred over, the russians are already at the gates of warsaw.

    i can't see the germans being able to throw together more than 350,000-450,000 men to reinforce the eastern front by fall 1944 (roughly what they lost in normandy). i don't think that's sufficient to stop the russians. moreover with no race to berlin, stalin wouldn't have a geopolitical incentive to insist on berlin at all costs.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."¯- Isaac Asimov

  13. #13
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    8,426
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    think it would depend on how badly overlord failed.

    if it was close, then the allies continue pushing in italy and elsewhere, and try again with a buffed up operation dragoon, is my guess.

    if it wasn't, then just the first...and then Hitler gets to have the first few atomic bombs go his way.
    Resources get redeployed.

    The loss at Normandy isn't going to be Stalingrad or Tunisia redux. Allied air power is too strong. Most of those who went ashore and are able to travel get home. The exception here is probably airborne troops - who get hit really hard. Heavy equipment losses, but that can be replaced. That which can shifted to the Med is shifted, in part for a beefed up Dragoon.

    German forces are going to pay a heavy price for victory. Allied & naval power are going to hurt them badly (if they are pressuring withdrawing Allied troops on the coast naval artillery comes into play). many of those troops will have just enough time to catch breath & do a bit of reorganizing refitting before they get sent south to face Dragoon. Some will stay on the coast. Next to none will end up on the Eastern front.

    The Allies won't accept any sort of deal. Sth France isn't a great place for Germany to fight - longer & more vulnerable supply lines. The Allies have issues too - big enough to ensure that this doesn't become the basis for a drive to the Rhine in '44 - but they are in better shape to supply their front with most stuff than Germany. Allied priorities also change - they need to force the Germans out of Nth France before they can really drive into Germany. My bet is that priority will be given to taking Toulouse & taking a port somewhere in the bay of Biscay. Once that is done Allied forces can be more easily supplied & reinforced, further stretching German resources.

    Of course, in the end Hitler eats a nuke....providing there is still a Germany to bomb by mid-1945.

    even without an allied success at normandy, the germans still need to commit resources to having stopped the attack. plus, hitler's paranoia would almost definitely mean that even after a normandy failure, he'd put more troops in the west to forestall another invasion. obviously it wouldn't be as much as what happened with a successful landing, but it wouldn't be insignificant, either.
    Correct. There may be a few more troops for him to juggle than in OTL, but it doesn't free up huge amounts of resources.

    operation bagration and the lvov–sandomierz offensive still results in a stunning soviet success. you're right that the next soviet offensives would hit a better-resourced Wehrmacht (no Falaise pocket), but what's the difference? by august 1944, when the freed up western front units could be transferred over, the russians are already at the gates of warsaw.
    Germany would be lucky to slow events by 6 months. Once Russia sweeps through the Balkans (which will still happen) it is going to be able to concentrate forces on 2 sides of Germany & probably join up with Allied forces in Yugoslavia.

    i can't see the germans being able to throw together more than 350,000-450,000 men to reinforce the eastern front by fall 1944 (roughly what they lost in normandy). i don't think that's sufficient to stop the russians. moreover with no race to berlin, stalin wouldn't have a geopolitical incentive to insist on berlin at all costs.
    That is probably an upper limit. Remember that Germany is still going to have a front in France and still has a long coast to defend. Not losing those troops is great, but they will still be needed. One thing about the liberation of France is that is shortened German defensive lines & threw those troops back on their lines of supply - Sth France was barely defended in OTL from memory & the two fronts quickly merged further north. In this TL German forces will be trying to defend in Southern France on a longer front.

    The Russians are still coming.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor Mihais's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    4,153
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    think it would depend on how badly overlord failed.

    if it was close, then the allies continue pushing in italy and elsewhere, and try again with a buffed up operation dragoon, is my guess.

    if it wasn't, then just the first...and then Hitler gets to have the first few atomic bombs go his way.

    mihais,



    even without an allied success at normandy, the germans still need to commit resources to having stopped the attack. plus, hitler's paranoia would almost definitely mean that even after a normandy failure, he'd put more troops in the west to forestall another invasion. obviously it wouldn't be as much as what happened with a successful landing, but it wouldn't be insignificant, either.

    operation bagration and the lvov–sandomierz offensive still results in a stunning soviet success. you're right that the next soviet offensives would hit a better-resourced Wehrmacht (no Falaise pocket), but what's the difference? by august 1944, when the freed up western front units could be transferred over, the russians are already at the gates of warsaw.

    i can't see the germans being able to throw together more than 350,000-450,000 men to reinforce the eastern front by fall 1944 (roughly what they lost in normandy). i don't think that's sufficient to stop the russians. moreover with no race to berlin, stalin wouldn't have a geopolitical incentive to insist on berlin at all costs.
    The German losses due to Allied landing far extend their losses on the Western Front.Romania switching sides is due to Western presence in Europe and the (misguided) belief they were going to keep the Soviets at bay,somehow.That means the loss of AG South Ukraine,the defensive positions in the Carpathians,the oilfields at Ploiesti,the Balkans,Hungary.The indirect losses caused by the Allied landing far outreached what was caused in Normandy.

    The Red Army was defeated in the first Iasi-Chisinau operation and with some mobile reserves can be beaten again.The Vistula -Oder offensive will face thrice the forces it historically faced,with increased depth and operational reserves.It's outcome is uncertain in such circumstances.
    Those who know don't speak
    He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

  15. #15
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    11,870
    Mihais,

    Would the allies just quit strategic bombing?

    Besides, who holds more in reserve, Soviets or Axis?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Irony alert: IRS fails government audit
    By Julie in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01 Jul 10,, 18:33
  2. The UK fails again.
    By toemag in forum International Politics
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 24 Nov 09,, 11:29
  3. US panel says India fails to protect minorities
    By xizhimen in forum International Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 14 Aug 09,, 22:01
  4. Exodus of americans fails to materialize
    By smilingassassin in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07 Aug 05,, 16:21
  5. G7 Fails to Reach Deal on Debt Relief
    By Lucien LaCroix in forum International Economy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17 Apr 05,, 00:50

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •