What if no Normandy landings at all

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
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 9:18 am

Matrose71 wrote: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.


An undeveloped potential - Germany unlike Japan was faced with land invasion by the Soviets and made no serious attempt to complete development and deployment of such weapons against their main enemy - the Soviets. Toxic chemicals could also have been used against London during the Blitz, and later with the V1 and v2, however their use was never proposed.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

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

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby Matrose71 » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:26 am

The A4 is the V2!

A4 is Aggregat-4 = V2

And I have written, what perhaps would happen after a fictional atomic bomb drop at germany!
Toxic warheads were produced in Nazi Germany from primary sources, but after the experiences at WWI and especially Hitler's own experiences (he was blind for several month), he didn't want to have chemical weapons in action, but Naz-Germany produced thousand of tons of chemical warheads with Sarin and Tabun.

What would be happen after an atomic bomb drop is totaly open.

The potential was developed and ready.

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 » Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:28 pm

Matrose71 wrote:The A4 is the V2!

A4 is Aggregat-4 = V2

And I have written, what perhaps would happen after a fictional atomic bomb drop at germany!
Toxic warheads were produced in Nazi Germany from primary sources, but after the experiences at WWI and especially Hitler's own experiences (he was blind for several month), he didn't want to have chemical weapons in action, but Naz-Germany produced thousand of tons of chemical warheads with Sarin and Tabun.

What would be happen after an atomic bomb drop is totaly open.

The potential was developed and ready.


Are you implying that a chemical attack is somehow equivalent to an atomic bomb?

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

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby Matrose71 » Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:59 pm

I imply that 20-30 A4's (V2) with 1000kg Sarin or Tabun warheads, which would explode 100m-200m above a city, would have near the same effect from dead people as an atomic bomb fom 1945. The destruction would be very much less, the effect to people near the same.

An atomic bomb is a weapon of mass destruction against civilian people and was used as such against Japan. The attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only terror attacks to the civilian people with very little military impact. An atomic bomb to Munich would be the same, as also a fictional counterattack from Germany with 20-50 A4's with nerve agents to an allied city.

The germans fired roundabout 3200 A4's in 6 month (September 8.1944, to March 27.1945). There would be no problem to fire 20- 50 A4's at the same day to the same city.

The germans had 12500ts of tabun.

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 » Thu Aug 28, 2014 2:40 pm

Matrose71 wrote:I imply that 20-30 A4's (V2) with 1000kg Sarin or Tabun warheads, which would explode 100m-200m above a city, would have near the same effect from dead people as an atomic bomb fom 1945. The destruction would be very much less, the effect to people near the same.



That is ridiculous.

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

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby Matrose71 » Thu Aug 28, 2014 2:59 pm

Ok for you it is ridiculous!

Perhaps you should read some sources about chemical attacks and the impact on solldiers at WWI with artillery shells, which had bursting charges of 2-4 kg.
The main chemical weapon at WWI was chloric gas.

The A4 had a warhead of 750-1000kg and we are talking about nerve agents of Tabun and Sarin. I think you should read some sources!
Sarin was the main chemical weapon of all Army's (mainly the US Army) from the 50's forward.

As I have written chemical weapons have no destructive impact, but Tabun and Sarin could contaminate a huge territory (for example a city) and every contact in very little quantity with the skin, respiratory system or the eyes are deadly for a human being.

Also we are talking here about the destruction power of a nuclear weapon from 1945 not 1950, 60, 70 or today.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
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 5:23 pm

Steve Crandell wrote:
Matrose71 wrote:I imply that 20-30 A4's (V2) with 1000kg Sarin or Tabun warheads, which would explode 100m-200m above a city, would have near the same effect from dead people as an atomic bomb fom 1945. The destruction would be very much less, the effect to people near the same.



That is ridiculous.


I am inclined to agree.

The V2 weapon (to which I allude you call the A4, which in fact was the name for a two stage rocket that never got off the drawing board) was detonated by impact into the ground, the main force of the explosion being vertical thus leaving a crater and throwing up the earth and debris. A chemical warhead would simply be absorbed into the debris rather than into the air and thus would be ineffective and extremely local. There was no means that I am aware of for the V2 to detonate above ground, prior to impact.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

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

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby Matrose71 » Thu Aug 28, 2014 5:35 pm

Perhaps you should also read some sources!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregat-4
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregat_4

Aggregat 4, A4 was the technical name of the V2!
V2 was the name from Goebbels as Vergeltungswaffe 2 (repayment weapon 2)!

It is totaly logic that a convential warhead had a piercing fuse, but you think that a chemical warhead would also have the same fuse?
The germans had tested opportunities of other fuses, which were able to fuse at a certain height.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
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 5:54 pm

Matrose71 wrote:
The germans had tested opportunities of other fuses, which were able to fuse at a certain height.


But were still not in a position to accurately use such fused rockets in the level of mass attack required, or able to target areas far beyond the front line.
The Wiki article highlights that the V2 was a localised weapon, even at the end used on targets inside Germany itself.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

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

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby Matrose71 » Thu Aug 28, 2014 6:06 pm

Ah ok,

Antwerp was inside Germany? Last shot with a A4 at March 27.1945.
Read some sources about the impact of the A4 against Antwerp and the harbour and which problems the allied had for several month with the shooting of the A4, especially at Antwerp, which was the main target after London with 1610 A4's.

And the accuracy with a nerve agent which explodes at height is not very extensive.

The A4 was only shot one time to a german target and that was Remagen to destroy the bridge. 11 A4's were shot.

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

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby Matrose71 » Thu Aug 28, 2014 6:45 pm

alecsandros wrote: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...)


You numbers are too smal after primary sources.

After primary sources there were 1,4 million german soldiers at the west and from the required strength of the units roundabout the half of the whole fighting power of the Wehrmacht

Also most of the elite and fresh german Panzer Divisions were at the west.
1., 2.,9.,10 and 12 SS Panzer Divisions and the 2., 21., 116 and Panzerlehr Division.

I have no doubt that sooner or later the Red Army had won, but the war with all these troops at the east had continued much longer.

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 Aug 29, 2014 1:15 am

Many years ago I received training in dealing with nerve agent. All US soldiers do. You obviously know very little about these weapons.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7490
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby RF » Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:59 am

Matrose71 wrote:Ah ok,
Antwerp was inside Germany?


Nobody has said that it was.

You have answered your own question by reference to the Remagen bridge even though you have managed to make it out of context of the war being practically over.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 3990
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby alecsandros » Mon Sep 08, 2014 5:52 pm

Matrose71 wrote:

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...)

You numbers are too smal after primary sources.

After primary sources there were 1,4 million german soldiers at the west and from the required strength of the units roundabout the half of the whole fighting power of the Wehrmacht

Also most of the elite and fresh german Panzer Divisions were at the west.
1., 2.,9.,10 and 12 SS Panzer Divisions and the 2., 21., 116 and Panzerlehr Division.
I have no doubt that sooner or later the Red Army had won, but the war with all these troops at the east had continued much longer.


Sorry, late reply

Many elite divisions were deployed in the East: 3 Totenkopf, 5 Viking, 1 Herman Goering, and others.

The important thing to observe is that the eastern divisions were more heavily armed and equipped.

Many divisions that were caught during the Normandy assault, and later during operation Market Garden, were actualy in the area for rest and refit...
The only full strength division sent especialy for the Normandy assault was Panzer Lehr.

This is why I would estimate the maximum number of German combatants at under 1 million in June 1944 in France.

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

Re: What if no Normandy landings at all

Postby Matrose71 » Tue Sep 09, 2014 5:44 pm

Sorry after my sources this is not correct.

The SS 2 and 12 were absolut fresh and had required strength, the SS 9 and 10 had both a strenght of 17500 men at the began of D-Day, only 1 SS was groggy.
The normal 2, 21, 116 and the Panzerlehr had all required strength and were fresh.

My source is http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de

Here you can read, when the divisions were out of the frontline for refresh and there strenghts at given dates.

By the way the 1. Hermann Göring was never a elite Division from fighting power.


Return to “World War II”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest