Is there any way the wehrmacht or Hitler can do differently to defeat the allies on the beach and roll the invasion back into the English Channel or is that just completely ASB?
Is it possible to defeat the Normandy landings?
- Thread starter idontlikesand
- Start date
BigDave1967
Banned
It might have been a different story had Hitler not been asleep from sleeping pills and let the Generals bring in the panzers that were sitting at Calais.
Genghis Kawaii
Gone Fishin'
I doubt it. Even if the panzers were rolling immediately, they would arrive too late and lose too many vehicles to allied aircraft and artillery to push back our own tanks (the floating tanks were worthless, but the LCVs got the job done just fine). If our diversion operation failed and Hitler somehow became aware Normandy was the actual invasion target we'd notice increased fortification around Normandy and modify our plans accordingly (Those extra troops have to come from somewhere. It may very well be Calais, in which case we could exploit that.).
The British would disagree with you there. The DD-Tanks at their beaches made it ashore safely and proved devastatingly effective against German pillboxes. Just bad luck that most of our DD's got sunk.
In any case, delay the invasion two weeks and have the attack go in right during the worst channel storm of the year. That will do the job.
Although it means the Soviets wind up holding everything east of the Rhine.
TFSmith121
Banned
Answers: No, there's no way, and yes, it is ASB.
Answers: No, there's no way, and yes, it is ASB.
Nazi Germany was doomed as of Dec. 10, 1941.
The economic differential between Germany and its command economy in Europe and the USSR and its+the UK's economy was one thing, but Germany still might have managed a stalemate; adding the US to the mix was assured destruction.
Best,
Answers: No, there's no way, and yes, it is ASB.
Nazi Germany was doomed as of Dec. 10, 1941.
The economic differential between Germany and its command economy in Europe and the USSR and its+the UK's economy was one thing, but Germany still might have managed a stalemate; adding the US to the mix was assured destruction.
Best,
It's worth noting that very few amphibious landings were truly repulsed during World War II. At best, you have an Anzio-esque situation, where the beachhead is contained (and indeed, the early Allied advances fell significantly short of the pre-invasion expectations, but they eventually broke out). And of course, air supremacy and naval gunfire support are going to make it hard to drive them out once they get established, while supporting future efforts at breakouts.
There's also Operation Dragoon coming to the South of France in August, which OTL pretty much swept everything before it. So eventually the Germans are going to have to retreat.
There's also Operation Dragoon coming to the South of France in August, which OTL pretty much swept everything before it. So eventually the Germans are going to have to retreat.
Witch0Winter
Banned
I think the problem here is that, like much of the rest of the war, in order for the Wehrmacht to win or achieve any sort of stalemate, they have to be perfect. The tanks at Calais are brought up a lot and, as one poster already pointed out, their ability to even reach Normandy is up in the air as total Allied aerial dominance is assured well before they get there, making the tanks easy targets for aerial ordinance, which doesn't even count Allied artillery or even naval bombardment.
The fact of the matter is, to throw the Allies back Hitler would have to be given perfect weather (in this scenario, stormy/choppy seas that severely hurt the invasion), have all his defenses work perfectly the way they are supposed to, and have support show up at exactly the right time in full force to drive the Allies back. Suffice to say, that isn't going to happen. Operation Overlord was so big, that the margin of error was large enough for the Allies to fuck up pretty bad (hell, at Utah Beach they landed in the wrong place) and still win, due to sheer numbers and both naval and aerial superiority. The Wehrmacht might slow down the advance, but they can't really stop it.
The fact of the matter is, to throw the Allies back Hitler would have to be given perfect weather (in this scenario, stormy/choppy seas that severely hurt the invasion), have all his defenses work perfectly the way they are supposed to, and have support show up at exactly the right time in full force to drive the Allies back. Suffice to say, that isn't going to happen. Operation Overlord was so big, that the margin of error was large enough for the Allies to fuck up pretty bad (hell, at Utah Beach they landed in the wrong place) and still win, due to sheer numbers and both naval and aerial superiority. The Wehrmacht might slow down the advance, but they can't really stop it.
Dan Reilly The Great
Banned
One also has to remember that only Omaha Beach was really that much of a close-run thing. The other beaches were pretty handily taken. And this is with the preliminary airborne landings turning into a total cluster fuck. The Germans might have been able to push the allies back at Omaha, but that still leaves the other four beaches plus Point du Hoc and the scattered airborne elements behind German lines.
Keep in mind that the the total strength of both sides was 10,000 for the Germans and over 150,000 for the Allies. Obviously, this was justified under the circumstances, but it strongly demonstrates just how big a problem pushing the Allies back into the Channel would have been.
Keep in mind that the the total strength of both sides was 10,000 for the Germans and over 150,000 for the Allies. Obviously, this was justified under the circumstances, but it strongly demonstrates just how big a problem pushing the Allies back into the Channel would have been.
Norway had about 300,000 men on occupation duty according to wikipedia. That seems a bit much. What if 100k of those were stationed at Normandy instead or at least spread out throughout the Atlantic wall in France. Im not sure how badly the rail infrastructure was bombed but presumably they could have been at Normandy soon enough to at least contain the invasion.
Witch0Winter
Banned
From what I've heard and read, the big problem with the soldiers in Norway is that, by 1944, the Nazis don't have a way to get them all home. So yes, you have a whole lot of Wehrmacht soldiers in Norway, but no way in hell they can get to Normandy in time for the invasion. Besides, even if they do, all those trains or ships are going to be easy targets for Allied bombing.
It's a bit of a long route but if its before leningrad is relieved get military access through sweden and finland and have the troops wave past leningrad and bring them in overland across europe. Allied bombers won't touch them in neutral territory and they'll be out of range coming in through the eastern front. Granted it would pose a logistical and supply challenge.
sharlin
Banned
Short of the nazi's getting nukes, no not really. Also Re Norway. The Germans and Hitler in particular were quite worried about allied landings in Norway which could then cut off the supply or ores being sent to Germany from the North and provide closer bases for attacks on Germany and threaten invasion from the North itself. Hence the HUGE garrison force in Norway.
Witch0Winter
Banned
The siege of Leningrad ended in January of 1944, well before any allied invasion. Besides the logistical impossibility of this (Sweden won't let Germany move their troops through their territory because the Allies will bomb them), all the Allies have to do is switch where they're invading. If the Germans send the troops from Norway, we land at Norway. If they send the troops from Leningrad (somehow...) the Soviets smash into Germany's northern flank, meaning Germany needs its men elsewhere. The Wehrmacht just doesn't have the numbers to win.
Dan Reilly The Great
Banned
On top of that, the Allies would have responded accordingly. Normandy Beach was the most heavily defended beach, and consequently had the largest force slated to land there. If a significantly larger force was present at Normandy, the Allies would have either allocated a larger force to land, or landed somewhere else.
Each step the Germans could have taken to better prepare for a landing at Normandy or respond to it better would have resulted in a response from the Allies in turn. The simple fact was that Overlord happened and succeeded because the Allies had ready, willing, and able to do such a thing.
What good does having landing in Norway do? The allies are going to have to do another landing in Denmark or the German Baltic coast which is bound to be extremely well defended.
sharlin
Banned
Also there's the huge imbalance of forces, the allies had utter air supremacy, they had prepared the ground for months in advance and had largely wrecked the regions road and rail infrastructure which would slow german re-deployments and if you threw Panzers at the beaches the faint cheering you just heard was the gunnery teams on the warships off the coast able to fire upon them as well as the TAF pilots rubbing their hands together in glee.
Moving German troops south via Finland is definitely not an impossibility prior to autumn 1944. Finland and Germany would be allies through early 1944, until June-July at the very least. Because of many logistical problems to do with Lapland and the Finnish railway and road system it would be pretty damn slow and expensive, of course, but there is nothing inherently impossible with it.
AFAIK the Germans had somewhere north of 400 000 troops in Norway andFinland in early-mid 1944, of which over 200 000 were in Finnish Lapland holding the front against the Soviets (20. Gebirgsarmee).
Operation Overlord was planned and executed in such a way as to have multiple fail-safes in case things went south. Hence multiple landing beaches, para drops, enormous battle fleet lingering just off shore and able to cover the radius of at least 20 km around the beaches with devastating fire, overwhelming air supremacy and finally overwhelming firepower advantage of the troops at the beachheads.
The margin of error for the Allies was comfortable and even if bad weather grounded aircraft, naval support would make up for the slack and hold the line until the weather improved (and it is June, how long can it be overcast, after all?).
The storm destroyed one of Mulberries but the supply was able to reach the troops over the beaches, thanks to the thousands of landing craft. At worst the landing can turn into huge attrition battle and we know who holds the upper hand there...
The margin of error for the Allies was comfortable and even if bad weather grounded aircraft, naval support would make up for the slack and hold the line until the weather improved (and it is June, how long can it be overcast, after all?).
The storm destroyed one of Mulberries but the supply was able to reach the troops over the beaches, thanks to the thousands of landing craft. At worst the landing can turn into huge attrition battle and we know who holds the upper hand there...
This is soemthing that is usually ignored. even if Germans manage to contain the landings or even overrun Omaha (very big if that requires loading the dice) once Dragoon rolls in Germans will have massive force behind them they have no ways of countering let alone defeating which makes and success in Normandy moot.
Bevin Alexander has a book titled "Sun Tzu at Gettsyburg" where he takes principles from Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" and applies them to battles from the American Revolution up to the Korean War. He describes the German situation like this.
The solution would be for Germany to figure out the potential landing sites that were under the Allied fighter cover: the Pais-de-Calais, Normandy and the Cotentin Peninsula. From there they could station 3-4 panzer divisions behind each site. Rommel would have tanks right on the beaches and Guderian would have mobile reserves for unexpected contingencies.
Unfortunately for the Germans (and fortunate for the rest of the world), the ultimate decision lay with Hitler, who had countless examples of being unable to make up his mind and of seizing on anything that struck his fancy or aroused his fears. He couldn't make a logical decision and had the panzers spread so far around they weren't able to concentrate their forces.
- Heinz Guderian wanted to station 10 fast divisions north and south of Paris so they'd be far enough inland to be switched to the main invasion and that allied air superiority could be overcome by the troops moving at night.
- Erwin Rommel knew how effective allied air cover was and that Germany's best chance was to determine where the invasion would be (which he believed would be the Pais de Calais) and that German forces had to fight the Allies right on the beaches.
The solution would be for Germany to figure out the potential landing sites that were under the Allied fighter cover: the Pais-de-Calais, Normandy and the Cotentin Peninsula. From there they could station 3-4 panzer divisions behind each site. Rommel would have tanks right on the beaches and Guderian would have mobile reserves for unexpected contingencies.
Unfortunately for the Germans (and fortunate for the rest of the world), the ultimate decision lay with Hitler, who had countless examples of being unable to make up his mind and of seizing on anything that struck his fancy or aroused his fears. He couldn't make a logical decision and had the panzers spread so far around they weren't able to concentrate their forces.