Could the Germans have won D-Day ?

Do any of you think that the Germans could of won D-Day or the Battle for Normandy, and if so how could they of done it ?

 

I think if the weather was alittle worse than it was then mother nature would have won the battle for the Germans. I am sure the allies would try again but not any time soon. The seas were very rough and many people got very sick on the way over and some drown getting off the transports. The fuel line they ran from England was nearly lost and the tempory docks they built were wrecked by the bad storms.

 

Yes, this one is all about 'ifs'....

On the way across, if the E-Boat fleet hadn't been effectively destroyed by bombing....

The situation at Omaha shows all too clearly that if the Germans had had stronger forces 'on the ground'....

The later battles in the bocage - if the Germans could have moved stronger forces to the area much quicker....

But I think that once the Allies were ashore and the bridgehead was formed, German defeat was inevitable. Without the months of preparation, interdiction, the 'railway plan', 'Operation Taxable', '1st USAG' etc etc etc D-Day would have failed. As it was, it was a closer-run thing than many think. But the Allies got it ( largely ) right and luck went their way....

 

Well, I think they could have won it. How? If Rommel would have had more time to prepare the defences and had a larger armoured force and counter attack immediately.

However, the thought of many big naval guns makes me hesitate a lot. We just have to remember that the mighty Red Army was annihilated several time by a few German ships' guns in the Baltic Sea. And the Western Allies' invasion naval force was 15 times bigger than the German naval forces in the Baltic...

 

I dont think that the Germans could have won it on D-Day but I think they could have won it within the following weeks if they moved the Panzers that were in reserve to the front and if the troops that were at Calais to move into Normandy.
I think that the only way the Germans could have won it on D-Day was (like you said Friedrich)if Rommel had had more time to prepare the defences (and if Hitler had not moved so many troops into the Calais region).

 

Thanks largely to Allied Tactical and Heavy air bombardment, moving Panzers in France before and after D-Day was extremely difficult.

A superb description of the hazards and problems involved in moving a Panzer Division through France in the immediate post-invasion period is given in Max Hastings' book, ' Das Reich ' .

 

Personally, i think that given the right circumstances, Germany could have won on D-Day. One thing that is mostly overlooked, is the troops who were manning the defensives positions in and around Normandy. These troops were not of the same quality or skill level of those fighting the Russians. These troops were from the Ost Division - comprising of Poles, Japanese (who had been captured/forced to fight for the russians, then captured/forced to fight for the Germans), Slavic/Serbian peoples, etc -mainly people who really did not want to fight or were too old for the other German divisions. Half of these troops would rather surrender then fire a shot - in one case, 8 Polish soldiers shot their German commander and surrenedred to two -TWO- US Paratroopers.

 

Well. I also agree with Mussolini. If all the German divisions in Normandy would have been good and expereinced divisions like that at Omaha, 352. Infanteriedivision, it would have even more difficult to land...

 

the key was in getting the most experienced units to the front immediately once the landings were identified. I can see where Rundstedt could have thought the Normandy invasion was a diversion had it not been for the airborne troops. Those are major units to just throw away on a diversion. Once identified, beef up the air support over the units on the move with what was left of the luftwaffe. It would have been worth the price of forcing the landings to fail.

 

Well, Ike. I agree with your post, but I have a little objection.

The German paratroopers launched over Holland in 1940... this was part of Von Bock's DIVERSION attack... Maybe, experience taught them that the invasion could be anywhere...

I also have to agree with Martin that the German deployment of troops prior, during and after D-day was a nightmare for the Germans, because of the complete Allied air superiority.

 

Point well taken my friend.

 

In fact the defense of the beaches at Normandy was a combination of the tactics of Von Rundstedt and Rommel.

I think that if Rommel would have done what he wanted, D-Day might have failed.

Build heavy defenses on the coast, bunkers, mines, ... and place experienced troops there. They know much better how to defend against the Allies.

Also the Panzer divisions should have been placed much closer to the shore. That way they wouldn't been disturbed by bombardments on the railway.

 

It is true that the allied air dominance was very effective but yet the Germans managed to make operations and stop the allied in their tracks for almost two months.As well as hindering the German supply the bombing caused great damage to roads etc and as well slowed down the allied attack.

On the troops, I think the allied managed very well to trick Hitler in believing that the allied would attack in several places or were planning to do so.

If Hitler had moved several troops closer to France ( Norway!!! ) or had given freedom of movement to main part of the 15th army at Calais things might have looked different. I´m saying might because you never know, just guessing here.

So what could have been moved closer to invasion area:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Wendell.htm

150,000 additional combat troops, an accompanying air force, and a Panzer division reinforced from Norway garrisons.As well as 1,500 coastal defense guns.

-- The 18 divisions ( or less but not one ata time ) of the 15th Army were immediately sent from Calais to counter-attack the actual invasion at Normandy.

 

With such an amount of troops, they probably would have defeated the Allies.

 

Well, as we have discussed mnay ocassions earlier, Rommel's view were the most adequate for that moment, but they wouldn't have necessarily worked out... You simply can't leave Norway and even less Calais! Remember that German intelligence was very bad at the moment and they only had some spies to thrust at. Spies like 'Garbo' who was telling them that invasions might take place in the Balcans, Norway, Brittany and Calais, of course.

Heavy defenses were built, not enough because lack of time and Germany's supplies crisis. And as old Napoléon I said: "Troops? Where the hell do I get them from?! I cannot manufacture them!" Experienced troops couldn't be produced in mass thanks to Speer's measures in the factories along with some Tigers... Remember that you are also facing 400 Soviet divisions in the other side of Europe and some 30 Allied divisions in Italy...

 

They could have used a part of the 300.000 soldiers in Norway who were there untill the end of the war.

 

Why not? If everythings going for the last man then an army of 400 000 men would be worth alot in Central Europe. I could think of giving the north up for the plain reason of having to fight for the Reich´s existence.

I guess you have a good reason to think so, and like Hitler did.

 

It is for the best if you don't withdraw all your troops from Norway, because the Northern flank would be open for smaller operation from the Allies.

Also the transportation of iron wouldn't take place anymore.

 

I agree on the situation. But it is a catch 22. He who defends everything, defends nothing. The Fatherland needed those 300,000 men but at the cost of the iron ore.......hard decision.

 

I think Erwin the iron you mean was from Kiruna-Gällivare which is in northern SWEDEN. Of course the Germans had more power on Swedes when Norway were under their ruling but anyway it was Sweden´s call to sell or not to Germany iron ore.