What if no Normandy landings at all

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby alecsandros » Fri Jun 06, 2014 9:14 am

Gentlemen,

Today we celebrate 70 years from the largest amphibious assault in history, D-Day, the Normandy landings.

With this in mind, I propose the folollowing theme of discussion: what do you think would have happened in Europe if there was no Normandy invasion, and no other invasion that would replace it ? (ie. no Pas de Calais invasion, no Norway invasion in 1944, no southern Greece or Southern France invasion, etc, etc). [presumably because the Japanese Empire would pose much more of a challenge, and after destroying much of the US surface fleet and carrier units at Pear Harbor/subsequent battles, and taking all the Hawaian chain, it would seriously threaten the US western coast. OR, simply, the USA would want to get out of the war in 1944. OR any other reason that suits you.]

Do you think that the Germans could have defeated the Russians in the east if they could have transferred all available resources to the eastern front ?

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby Steve Crandell » Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:16 pm

alecsandros wrote:Gentlemen,

Do you think that the Germans could have defeated the Russians in the east if they could have transferred all available resources to the eastern front ?


No.

User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby RNfanDan » Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:23 pm

Wow, that's a lot of supposition! I thought this was a "no Normandy invasion" scenario, not a complete re-write of the global war! You might just as well throw in Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader in there, too... :lol:

Oh, and forget the Atlantic ocean....an ancient comet wiped out half the planet and no sea exists except the Pacific, and it's just a crater catching rainfall.
Image

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby Dave Saxton » Fri Jun 06, 2014 2:38 pm

Steve Crandell wrote:
alecsandros wrote:Gentlemen,

Do you think that the Germans could have defeated the Russians in the east if they could have transferred all available resources to the eastern front ?


No.


I agree. The Germans were already being defeated in the east before the Normandy Invasion. Part of this was the western Allies bombing campaign which forced the Luftwaffe to divert assets from the east (and reduced German war production and infrastructure). Air superiority was the key component of operations on the battle field. The Russians out numbered the Luftwaffe 5:1. After Kursk it was just a matter of how much time it would take.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby Dave Saxton » Fri Jun 06, 2014 2:46 pm

The most important contributions of the Western Allies to victory in Europe was winning the Battle of the Atlantic, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe. This made victory in the other campaigns (including Normandy) on the other fronts ultimately possible.

We must not forget that the Battle of Normandy may well have been lost, as well as the Battle of the Atlantic may have been lost if not for Ultra.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3986
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby alecsandros » Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:49 pm

Gentlemen,

Still the forces concentrated in France were quite significant. In the entire Normandy campaign, no fewer than 400.000 German soldiers were lost to all causes. Over 500.000 troops retreated across the Rhine. That's almost 1 million men...

My guess is that , with the western flank secured (ie. some kind of certainty no invasion would occur), the Russians would have an extremely hard battle to fight. Remember the Red Army took 12 months to get from Kursk to Kiev (500km).
By late 1944, the Russians were running short on men. They also had mounting ressuply problems, which forced them to wait for weeks on end.

With 1 million more Germans in front of them, it may have been possible that the front line would have stabilised somewhere in present day Ukraine (which is again a battlefield...)

ede144
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby ede144 » Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:24 pm

If no landing operations in Europe shall occurs, than the Km has not lost the Battle of Atlantic. This would prevent the American troops stationed in England, reduce the supplies to Russia and Bombing war over Germany. With this in mind, I believe the Wehrmacht could stop the Red Army somewhere in Ukraine till 1945 Stalin run out of men

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby RF » Sun Aug 24, 2014 6:57 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
Steve Crandell wrote:
alecsandros wrote:Gentlemen,

Do you think that the Germans could have defeated the Russians in the east if they could have transferred all available resources to the eastern front ?


No.


I agree. The Germans were already being defeated in the east before the Normandy Invasion. Part of this was the western Allies bombing campaign which forced the Luftwaffe to divert assets from the east (and reduced German war production and infrastructure). Air superiority was the key component of operations on the battle field. The Russians out numbered the Luftwaffe 5:1. After Kursk it was just a matter of how much time it would take.


I also agree. Don't forget that even with no invasion the Germans still have to be prepared for it - it is the threat of invasion and the need to keep the whole of France occupied that is bearing down on the Germans. They cannot simply move all their occupation troops to the Russian Front if D-Day never happened!
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby tommy303 » Mon Aug 25, 2014 7:53 pm

There is also the matter of the atomic bombs. Had an invasion of the continent not taken place, the war would have gone on a few months longer in all probability, and Fat Man and Tall Boy might well have been deployed against Germany rather than Japan (assuming the war in the Pacific was going in a satisfactory manner). I seem to recall the atomic bomb priority had Germany as the original target and only the collapse of the Reich had made Japan the target historically.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby Dave Saxton » Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:12 am

The Atomic Bomb opens several interesting questions. One is that; would the Third Reich have surrendered if the bomb was used against Germany? Hitler and his ilk didn't really care about the German nation or its people or how much sacrifice they would be called on to make. This is made clear by the actions and attitudes of Hitler during the last year of the war. Would they just keep fighting regardless of the death and destruction? Even in Japan there were factions that would not surrender even after the first two bombs had been dropped. It took the intercession of Emperor to finally bring about the surrender.

Another question is; would a few more months been in time?

http://www.ww2pacific.com/u-234.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/s ... ooks.italy

Perhaps it is best that it all came down the way it did.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby RF » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:36 pm

tommy303 wrote:There is also the matter of the atomic bombs. Had an invasion of the continent not taken place, the war would have gone on a few months longer in all probability, and Fat Man and Tall Boy might well have been deployed against Germany rather than Japan (assuming the war in the Pacific was going in a satisfactory manner). I seem to recall the atomic bomb priority had Germany as the original target and only the collapse of the Reich had made Japan the target historically.


The atomic weapons were developed by the US specifically for use against Nazi Germany. They even had a designated target - Munich, the cradle of the Nazi Party, with Nuremburg as a possible second target. The objective was to obliterate these targets and leave the Nazi leadership alive in Berlin to sign the act of unconditional surrender.

For the same reason the atomic bombs targeted on Japan were not dropped on Tokyo.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby RF » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:51 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:The Atomic Bomb opens several interesting questions. One is that; would the Third Reich have surrendered if the bomb was used against Germany? Hitler and his ilk didn't really care about the German nation or its people or how much sacrifice they would be called on to make. This is made clear by the actions and attitudes of Hitler during the last year of the war. Would they just keep fighting regardless of the death and destruction?


This is true - but the answer lies in what actually happened. The surrender came after Hitler committed suicide, from the OKW high command, when they signed the instrument of surrender at Luneburg Heath. With atomic bombs the authority of Hitler would be reduced, and the loss of control would give the OKW the means to surrender in the face of annihilation. Indeed it might have been better to have dropped it on Berlin and the Fuehrerbunker for that reason, to take out the melogomaniac to enable surrender.

Even in Japan there were factions that would not surrender even after the first two bombs had been dropped. It took the intercession of Emperor to finally bring about the surrender.


Japan had no capability to continue the war - with no surrender there was the prospect of a few more atom bombs, gradual starvation and invasion. The generals such as Anami who opposed surrender would not have any effect in preventing any of that.
The only strategic change would be that a delay to Japanese surrender would have allowed the Soviet Union to occupy the whole of Korea and then threaten Japan with the prospect of a Soviet invasion....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

ede144
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby ede144 » Wed Aug 27, 2014 6:01 pm

@RF
Do you have a source for the targets Munich and Nürnberg.
I red Mannheim (BASF) as first target.
Unfortunately I don't have this book anymore

Matrose71
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby Matrose71 » Wed Aug 27, 2014 6:35 pm

Also do not forget, that Nazi Germany had thousand of tons of Sarin and Tabun with the A4 as a long range military plattform, which was unstoppable.
To my sources the allieds knew about the Sarin and Tabun and also about the A4 and it's potential.

Nazi germany wasn't absolut defenseless against weapons of mass destruction, they had a certain potential to strike back.
A4's with 1000kg chemical warheads, which could be triggered at 50-100m are not funny in any thing.

Nazi Germany wasn't as helpless as Japan and I think the allieds were aware about this.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7477
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby RF » Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:12 am

ede144 wrote:@RF
Do you have a source for the targets Munich and Nürnberg.
I red Mannheim (BASF) as first target.
Unfortunately I don't have this book anymore


The source comes from quite a few years ago from a US television documentary on Robert Oppenheimer and his role on the development of the A bomb. The project initially was specifically aimed at the defeat of Nazi Germany and no consideration at that time was given to it being used on Japan. Munich was specifically identified as a target because of its significance for the Nazi Party and was sufficiently far away from Berlin and occupied countries (excluding Austria and Bohemia which ethnically German speaking) for them not to be affected by nuclear fall out.

Unfortunately I cannot remember the name of this documentary, which I believe was shown on Channel 4 in Britain at least ten years ago.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.


Return to “World War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest