Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if Overlord fails?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    the luftwaffe was destroyed over the course of the Combined Bomber Offensive, which would have continued irrespective of Normandy's success or failure.

    and if the Allies had a bomb they would have used it, regardless of whether or not allied troops were already close to the German border. recall during planning for Operation Downfall, the US considered using up to 7-15 (!!) nuclear bombs in a tactical (!!!) role.
    My point is the skies over Germany were never swept free of Luftwaffe fighters. The probable loss of the 3 ship flights that hit Japan would have likely happened if they were sent over Germany all the way to the end of the war. At least until the B-36 (high and fast) or B-47 (really fast) made it into operational status. Figure with war time compression of development time the B-36 could have been in squadron service by mid-late 1947. Before that, nuking Berlin is a bridge too far me thinks. That is why I said they might hit a border city like Aachen, but wouldn't need to. Well Patton would have loved to nuke Metz.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    A solo bomber or 3 ship flight invites annihilation if tried against the Luftwaffe.
    the luftwaffe was destroyed over the course of the Combined Bomber Offensive, which would have continued irrespective of Normandy's success or failure.

    and if the Allies had a bomb they would have used it, regardless of whether or not allied troops were already close to the German border. recall during planning for Operation Downfall, the US considered using up to 7-15 (!!) nuclear bombs in a tactical (!!!) role.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    seems to me that a normandy victory buys Germany at most another 6 months, which in reality means they buy themselves a ticket on the nuke train.
    I am not so sure that Germany was(/would/could???) be a viable nuke target for the early A-bomb designs. At least not until the B-36 or B-47 enters service. German air defenses even right up to the very end were much more effective than Japan. A solo bomber or 3 ship flight invites annihilation if tried against the Luftwaffe. The allies might be able to hit a border city once they were up to the German border, but anything deeper invites destruction. Plus if the allies are already up to the German border there is no need for a nuclear attack.

    The B-29 flew high enough and fast enough to make intercepting it with Japanese or Russian aircraft a challenge. To the Luftwaffe with the Me-262, FW-190d and Ta-152 supported by robust radar, C3 and AAA assets a single ship or 3 ship formation wouldn't even break a sweat.

    Leave a comment:


  • D2theShizzle
    replied
    I don't think Hitler would have offered France back to the Allies, and here's why: the simple reason that the U-Boat ports stood on the coast of the Bay of Biscay. Since the U-Boat fleet was one of the most essential parts of the German arsenal, it's doubtful that he would have done anything of the sort. If Overlord had indeed failed, the US could easily have ferried supplies over to Great Britain, paving the way for another and even more destructive assault on Normandy in 1945 or '46.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leor Rubin
    replied
    Fortress Russia one side to the other.
    T
    otal number of Soviet and European German troops.

    Date German forces Red Army forces
    June 1941 3,767,000 (900,000 in the west) 2,680,000 (in theater) 5,500,000 (overall) (~700,000 in Far East[30])
    June 1942 3,720,000 (80% in the East) 5,313,000 (~700,000 in Far East[30])
    July 1943 3,933,000 (63% in the East) 6,724,000 (~700,000 in Far East[30])
    June 1944 3,370,000 (62% in the East) 6,425,000 (~700,000 in Far East[30])
    Jan. 1945 2,330,000 (60% in the East) 6,532,000 (Soviet build up in Far East accelerated greatly since February[30])
    Apr 1945 1,960,000 6,410,000

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...to_1944-12.png
    ^note position of the Russian advance as of 30th of April

    My belief is that The Belorussian Offensive would have had to have started earlier but would still have been a success plus the Russians had the best General on their side Adolf Hitler.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    yeah, as BF said, the allies weren't going to break out of the alps, not without some insane casualties. the fights that the US did have -close- to the area were bad enough, the gothic line offensive.

    mihais,

    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.
    oh, i agree that the soviets will take more casualties.

    however, recall that the Soviets threw ~1.5 million men into taking Berlin, and had what, another million+ in reserve. they threw another 1.6 million men at the japanese in Aug 1945, after the insane bloodletting of Berlin.

    in the case of the vistula-oder offensive, even if the germans threw in 3x the troops (which i find quite unlikely; not as if the western Allies were going to be sitting around doing nothing), that means the Germans are outnumbered 2x instead of 6x. even assuming all went insanely well for the germans, a grinding April 1945 stalemate where the Soviets are sitting on Poznan and Danzig and Eastern Prussia (instead of Berlin) probably does not bode too well for them.

    especially if the Allies decide that now's the time to try again for France, although my guess is that they'd already be there by then.

    seems to me that a normandy victory buys Germany at most another 6 months, which in reality means they buy themselves a ticket on the nuke train. it would suck to be european, though, because that means another six months of getting worked over, and most likely a whole bunch more central/eastern europeans will get conscripted to Mother Russia and the proletarian cause.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    The Allies were also surrounded on all three sides in Normandy, didn't seem to stop them.
    Not by mountains. Italy sucked. It played to Germany's strengths due to the central mountain range & lots of lateral rivers. Made it very hard for the Allies to either stretch germa nlines via maneuver or 'breakout' once a defensive line was breached. Freeing up transports from Overlord might make flanking by sea easier, but those don't seem to have gone so well for most of the campaign. The point is that extra forces don't necessarily help as much as you might think.

    Seems to be that an inland run from Italy in any direction might be something tailor-made for Patton. If Patton were to break through from Italy all the way to Normandy, ~2,000 km in a quick run, clean out Normandy from behind and the Italy and Normandy groups could link up in a month or so. Following the link up, Hitler now has a massive US-British-Canadian line to deal with on his west flank, a massive Russian line on his right flank, and whatever is left in Sicily to hold the line and act as a base, until Hitler's forces are weakened enough for them to push north as well. One of the benefits to this is that Switzerland stands as a partial buffer between Germany and Italy, giving the Allies some breathing room and security on their right flank.
    1) Normandy is already gone.

    2) if it is holding on then those troops are being pumped in to the pocket to hold it.

    3) Even if you take the whole of Italy there is only a narrow coastal strip along which to move anything - very vulnerable.

    4) Even if you do take all of Italy the obvious move is into Yugoslavia & Austria. Of course, you hit more mountains eventually, but it makes more sense logistically than basically driving all the way around the Alps clockwise.

    5) The logistics are nightmarish & probably don't work - if he couldn't get enough fuel to do his thing in the relatively good supply environment of Nth France he sure isn't going to get it gong the long way around from Italy....which won't happen anyway because Italy isn't falling in a hurry.


    Another option instead of the overland run all through Italy is to use Sicily as a staging area and invade into France from the Marseilles region, once again cleaning out Normandy from behind, allowing the landing and the linking up of the groups.
    You must have missed the references Asty & I made to operation Dragoon. In OTL this took place in mid-August 1944. Extra forces & supplies designated for Normandy can be re-routed here. Check out my post for details on possible outcomes. If Normandy goes down this is where the major effort will fall.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Dude,

    Look at the Calendar when Rome was taken ;)

    Now, add up the time for logistics to mass up for your Patton run.

    If I understand you correctly in both of your plans you risk to get outflanked.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigross86
    replied
    The Allies were also surrounded on all three sides in Normandy, didn't seem to stop them.

    Seems to be that an inland run from Italy in any direction might be something tailor-made for Patton. If Patton were to break through from Italy all the way to Normandy, ~2,000 km in a quick run, clean out Normandy from behind and the Italy and Normandy groups could link up in a month or so. Following the link up, Hitler now has a massive US-British-Canadian line to deal with on his west flank, a massive Russian line on his right flank, and whatever is left in Sicily to hold the line and act as a base, until Hitler's forces are weakened enough for them to push north as well. One of the benefits to this is that Switzerland stands as a partial buffer between Germany and Italy, giving the Allies some breathing room and security on their right flank.

    Another option instead of the overland run all through Italy is to use Sicily as a staging area and invade into France from the Marseilles region, once again cleaning out Normandy from behind, allowing the landing and the linking up of the groups.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Ben,

    The way I see it, there is the terrain which is very favorable for the defenders (Germany) and the thing that once Allies reach the North of Italy they'd face opposition from North West and East.

    Bleh, it's only me ;)

    PS. I forgot to mention it, but the allies were massing in UK since 1942.
    Last edited by Doktor; 17 Jun 13,, 10:27. Reason: another thought

    Leave a comment:


  • bigross86
    replied
    I was actually planning on asking this a coupla months ago and forgot all about it.

    Couldn't the allies just redirect to Italy and work from there? Would it be possible to take the British and US troops out of Africa and launch them into Italy to begin a much stronger push from there, and then maybe try Normandy in a year or so, once the Germans were more depleted by the simultaneous Russian push from the East and the US/British push from the South?

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    Mihais,

    Would the allies just quit strategic bombing?

    Besides, who holds more in reserve, Soviets or Axis?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mihais
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X