OPERATION OVERLORD A FAILURE

I tried to check this but didn´t find anywhere. Sorry though if I´m telling this one again.

So, this time every beach´s an Omaha beach, and due to the bad weather the invasion troops aren´t getting into mainland. As well the clouds stop the allied air forces from hitting the german troops on the ground. Hitlerjugend gives the final kiss of death as the allied are driven to the sea! Ike resigns. Hitler shows some dance steps and sends iron crosses to every HJ man.

How do you think this would change the situation for Germany? Could germans release troops to the eastern front? When would the allied try again and where? What happens to Ike, and who would take his place? Would they hold a big victory parade in Berlin? How about the bombings of Germany, would the failure stop them for a time or would they be harder? What will happen to the allied morale? Would USA pull out after crushing defeat and carry on fighting the japanese?

 

Definately, some 20 fine divisions would have been transferred to the East and they could have held the Russian ofensive a bit. Perhaps stopping "Bagration", who is really an operation 1.000 times more important than "Overlord"...

Yes, right on the iron crosses, there would have been many and many promotions. Imagine some three new field marshals or so...

Ike would have been raplaced by... Bradley? Don't know... But the American would have continued pushing on Germany by air and in Italy. The war would have been longer. New technologies could have been more effectively used. But still, the problem, as always was, was in the East...

 

There was an alternative allied strategy: the Mediterannean. Invade the Balkans? Pump more forces into Italy and Dragoon?

The Us would not have pulled out of the war, but they may have brought Marshall over from the Pacific or accepted Brooke as Supreme Commander.

Ike would have had to go, but I don't think anyone would have blamed him for a disastrous D-Day: everyone knew the risks.

Jumbo

 

I disagree. I do not think that Ike would have been dismissed. I do think that he would have submitted his resignation but it would have been turned down. Number 1 reason....no worthy replacement. There would have been a division between the allies on that point. Ike was the only one who could have kept the allies united. Nobody else. If Monty got it, the Americans would have walked. If Bradley got it, Monty would have walked.

As for the war, the Germans would have received a repreive and may have been able to release some units but the Americans still had a lot of men waiting to land so it would have given the Germans one year to play with.

Another landing would have had to taken place. Italy was a quagmire. The Balkens would have offended the Russians. The invasion would have been attempted against France or the low countries.

 

Well. They would have tried another invasion on France later. BUt meanwhile they would have pushed stronger in Italy. And the Red Army would have advanced furthermore than it did by 1945...

 

PzJgr is right about Ike. Even if he submitted his resignation, he would have to be kept on. Patton or Monty could have disastrous in that position. Also, the Balkans were a possibility, but I dont know how a united front with the Russians would have worked out. Italy would have held because Germany would send many troops to the east, but also some to Gustav, to make sure the Allies dont try anything. Perhaps the Allies would have gone ahead and invaded Southern France. Perhaps in an attempt to get around Gustav...In any case, by the time Overlord came around, Germany was facing certain defeat. Overlord just hastened the process.

Worst Case Scenario: Russia drives all the way through Germany and into Western Europe. Perhaps they conveniently forget about occupation zones and turn all of Germany into a communist puppet. If theyt are quick enough, maybe even attempt the same thing in France. With the only Allied foothold as Italy, the Russians could sovietize all of Europe. Overlord needed to succeed.

 

Das Reich

 

Das Reich

I think Ike would have had to go, the political pressure and personal sense of responsibility he would have felt may have made it inevitable.

Nobody would have suggested Patton or Montgomery. Remember that Montogomery was, in effect, in command of all allied land forces operationally until 1st September 1944. His enemies (and they were many, including Winston) would have got rid of him too if he failed operationally on 6th June.

So over to the Med' Perhaps my old mate Jumbo is moved on from Supreme Command in the Med to make way for Marshall? After all he is the other option the US have with sufficient seniority. Or perhaps bring the seemingly successful MacArthur over from the Pacific to "sort out the mess".

I think you underestimate the willingness of Roosevelt to replace Ike if there is a failed assault with 10,000 dead and god knows how many captured.

Jumbo

 

Supposing the Germans decided to recklessly abandon the whole of France and the Low Countries and throw everything into the Eastern Front (at best in one last strategic attack to push back the Reds), the chance of gaining a real respite would be good. In fact, if Hitler had the mind to it, it might be possible to make a seperate peace with Stalin, assuming the German counter-attack went well, and, for example, destroyed a large part of the force used for Bagration.

However, the chance that the German high command would actually expose the coast thus is small, IMHO. It would certainly require a bold man in command, and there weren't many of those very high up in the German command structure.

Anyhow, assuming a best-case scenario for Germany so far, and the Russians are licking their wounds, being driven back in places and making peace overtures, what would the Americans and British be doing?

I agree that there would be some dismissals. But I, wrongly I suppose, never give commanders the all-powerful importance some of you tend to give to these individuals. I think of them as additional benefits or intolerable nuisances (esp. Hitler himself) but not as the deciding factor.

Apart from the damage to morale, the Allies could lose very little even in a failed Operation Overlord. How many casualties could they possibly sustain? Not more than 20 000 I should think. Certainly not over 50 including POWs. What is that on the scale we are talking about?

Equipment is even more laughable. Even if a few dozen LSTs, a couple of battleships and scores of landing craft were lost (which would be wildly beyond the likely capability of the Germans!), it would take only a few months to replace anything they could possilby lose. IMHO, they would be ready to prepare another invasion on a similar scale within three months. The only question is would they actually do it.

The planning of "D-Day" was immaculate. The operation achieved total surprise, almost everything went off as planned, and yet, the Germans beat them. The planners would be perplexed, baffled, dismayed and probably frustrated. How to do it again? Here, the core of the problem might lie. Perhaps they would indeed decide to ship additional troops to Italy. But seeing that most of the problems there developed not due to lack of troops but difficult terrain, it is difficult to envisage a significant difference in the outcome of the campaign if more troops had been sent there.

So, why not send an American and British army to help the Russians?

 

I totally agree with Andreas. Althought it is hard to imagine a BEF and an AEF within the lines of the Red Army. But it was plausible.

A failure of Overlord would not have meant more than 10.000 casualties. A total bearable number, even for the Western allies. And the materials, that would not have been a lot either, were no problem at all.

A push in Italy and a greater help to the USSR would have happened. And in some months, another invasion. But it would not have been so risky as the first one.

 

I totally agree with Andreas. Althought it is hard to imagine a BEF and an AEF within the lines of the Red Army. But it was plausible.

A failure of Overlord would not have meant more than 10.000 casualties. A total bearable number, even for the Western allies. And the materials, that would not have been a lot either, were no problem at all.

A push in Italy and a greater help to the USSR would have happened. And in some months, another invasion. But it would not have been so risky as the first one.

 

Ike sure had a lot to decide! The weather was far from ideal, the landing being postponed a couple of times due to it on 3. and 4.6. I think. The last date to attack ( full moon on and low tide ?! ) would have been 7.6. and as the weather was acceptable on 6.6.Ike decided to attack. It could have been worse on 7.6. and the attack would have been moved one month further.

If the landings would have failed, it is true that the loss of men would not have mattered, but the propaganda value would have been massive, as well as it would have taken time to gather the troops again and plan something new. And during the winter the allied might not have tried a new landing so we may be talking of summer 1945 of a new operation overlord. Instead southern France could have been the place to hit meanwhile, I think. To boost the morale and also to show other countries that something is going on to throw the germans out of France.

Also we know that Hitler was adamant that the attack would happen around Calais. After this one he would release his troops faster and it would be even tougher for the allied to gain ground on the mainland.

The germans were fortifying also the coast in Norway and Danmark heavily. What do you guys think of these places? Any reason to make a landing here? Also what do you think what would have happened if Rommel wasn´t the one to take care of the the atlantic wall since 1943? Would the operation Overlord been far easier to accomplish?

 

Kai

I think S France would have been the key place too. After all Dragoon was already in the planning stages and could have been beefed up.

10,000 casualties may not sound many, but I am assuming an early response by German armour: pushed into the sea by 8th June. Loss of materiel could have been quite high by then, and prisoners too. I don't think anything of the scale of taking the troops OFF the beach has ever been contemplated.

Norway was a favourite of Churchill. It's a nightmare place to fight in unless you like poor roads and lots of hills. He may have got his way to take at least the northern half and cut ore supplies to Germany in winter.

Jumbo

 

I always fancied an invasion of Denmark myself. The garrison troops there were not too strong, and the defences (apart from Helsinborg) were not impossible either. The beaches would have made for easy landing, however I am completely in the dark about the waters close inshore (for example, would heavy combat units actually be able to come close enough for supportive fire).

From Denmark, it would be possible to threaten Germany directly, and disrupt German trade routes in the Baltic.

 

Denmark looks good on a map, but there were very heavy minefields to cover the approaches to Kiel, and Fighter support would have been far slimmer. When you actually start thinking about German counter-moves and struggling down the narrow neck of Schleswig and Holstein it starts to make Italy look like a wide expanse.

Jumbo

 

Kiel is on the Baltic? So where were the minefields? I'm a little confused here.

Perhaps you're right about the neck of Schleswig Holstein being difficult to attack through. Also the Nord-Ostsee-Kanal would have been quite an obstacle to overcome. In fact, part of our post-war defence policy was to let the Soviets (whom we expected) come crashing through the North German Plain and then attack their northern flank from Schleswig. That would have been some battle!

But anyway, wouldn't gaining air bases so close to Germany and cutting off Norway be a certain advantage?

 

I think that one of the areas that the Nazis would have had a breather on is their wonder weapons.

The allies get kicked off Normandy and it gives the Germans more time to prepare their V1 and V2 sites.

It also gives them the chance to amass their jet fighters, assuming Hitler doesn't use them all as bombers, and he then gets the upper hand over the Reich by decimating the allied bomber formations.

I don't think the war would have been won by Hitler, there was too much opposition from both sides for that, but I do think that this reprieve would have prolonged the war for at least another two years.

Whether you agree or not one of my favourite sites on the net is

www.luft46.com

There are some seriously excellent designs and artwork on this site as to what might have been.

 

Sorry Siedel, meant the Jade.

Jumbo

 

No, I do not think that Denmark was a good place to come ashore. It is very near to German coasts, and a lot of the main naval bases in the Altlantic, beside, to bring reinforcements would have been quite easy. Althought the strategic loss of Denmark wold have been tremendously important, because if the allies could stablish an air-base there, Hamburg, Bremen and Kiel, main naval production sites would have been a few miles away...

I don't think that Rommel contributed that much to the Atlantic wall. He indeed fortified Normandy a bit more than ordered and came up with a lot of good inventions: all the hedgehogs, mines, wires, etc. Well, he was a "fox", wasn't he?

Norway would have been another Gallipoli. Oh, my dear Winston, you don't learn!!! Althought the menace of cutting the iron supplies from Sweden was inmensely of strategic importance.

But I still go for a push in Italy and Southern France.

 

Eisenhower would be dismissed and Dempsey or Bradley would have been given the job.

Hitler would have withdraw a part of his troops in the west to fight the Russians. The Allies wouldn't have the possibility to attack in 1944 another time.

They would try an invasion in october in South France. And they would give the Italian troops.

Here is an WI-scenario which I found on the internet:
http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/AH1944b.htm