What would be the effects of D-Day and the subsequent Normandy Campaign being bloodier for the allies? Not a complete repulsion, just harder fought with much heavier casualties and slower progress. Would the Soviet Union possibly conquer all of Germany, if Western Allies suffered significant enough setbacks? Would the Italy and Pacific campaigns be affected? Is Eisenhower's political career affected such that he never becomes President?
Consequences of Bloodier Normandy Campaign?
- Thread starter Jito
- Start date
Heavier casualties from harder fighting would also include the Germans. The allies, or at least the USA, were able to replace heavy losses with men of similar age, health, etc, but the Germans were not. They already had 'ear battalions' full of people with hearing problems, 'stomach battalions' full of people with intestinal problems...
Significantly higher casualties might mean shifting American units from the Pacific but the 'Germany First' policy would make that acceptable. The Germans already had a Hitler Youth division in Normandy with soldiers so young that the cigarettes were taken out of the ration packs and replaced with sweets.
Significantly higher German losses in the west, at the same time as Bagration - aka 'the destruction of Army Group Centre' - was causing just under a million casualties, including forty-four Generals Killed in Action, would be catastrophic for the Heer. I have been given to understand that one of the reasons for the failure of the Battle of the Bulge in December was the poor quality of the German soldiers, 'grey-bearded old men and boys who didn't shave yet'. Having these troops arrive a few months early, to face divisions fresh from the Pacific Threatre does not sound like a recipe for Axis success.
Not much on the US, as the Normandy campaign only included 22 of the 61 divisions eventually allocated to the ETO, and the original expectation was that it would take more than a year to reach the Rhine.
It would be very difficult for the British, as they only have 2 divisions that were not committed to Normandy in reserve. A longer bloodier campaign would quickly shrink their contribution to the campaign.
Result: Still the same but with a higher butchers bill all round. Most nations could not afford that. The USA could.
Absolutely - Hench the steel not flesh approach (or lethargy as the Yanks see it ;- ) ) to fighting the post D- Day campaign. I would also say Germany could ill afford higher casualties.
Absolutely - Hench the steel not flesh approach (or lethargy as the Yanks see it ;- ) ) to fighting the post D- Day campaign. I would also say Germany could ill afford higher casualties.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Monty is even more frugal with Commonwealth lives. The replacements are simply not there.
The German Army in the West managed to retreat to the German Border / Belgium / Netherlands with about 20 Divisions worth of men (organised into about 40 divisions) and 100 AFV's (and a number of those men were holed up in ports now behind enemy lines) and had lost a massive amount of equipment during its retreat from France.
They only just about managed to put up a robust defence with what they had into the Autumn of 44.
Any increased losses from a worse Normandy campaign are going to make a successful defence of the German Border and the Netherlands much harder with fewer experienced troops.
We might even see a total collapse of the German Army in the West with fewer forces to keep the Allies in check when they did break out and in poorer shape to effect an escape.
Also we might see Dragoon pay even greater dividends with the Germans having fewer resources to oppose it.
As has been mentioned Monty would have to be even more frugal with his Army group and we might see him refrain from MG and instead focus fully on opening Antwerp
I would add at this point my only critique of MG is that it failed!
They only just about managed to put up a robust defence with what they had into the Autumn of 44.
Any increased losses from a worse Normandy campaign are going to make a successful defence of the German Border and the Netherlands much harder with fewer experienced troops.
We might even see a total collapse of the German Army in the West with fewer forces to keep the Allies in check when they did break out and in poorer shape to effect an escape.
Also we might see Dragoon pay even greater dividends with the Germans having fewer resources to oppose it.
As has been mentioned Monty would have to be even more frugal with his Army group and we might see him refrain from MG and instead focus fully on opening Antwerp
I would add at this point my only critique of MG is that it failed!
Deleted member 1487
First of all how are the Germans inflicting heavier losses on the Allies? Second how much bloodier and slower? ITTL when would they reach Germany?
The Soviets would probably face more resistance than they did IOTL if there was a substantial delay in the Wallied advance, as they'd be more contained than IOTL, so Hitler would have no reason to use all the extra forces intended for the East in the West ITTL. The Battle of the Bulge forces would probably be used in the East and to greater effect too if well aimed. The Soviets didn't have the logistics to conquer all of Germany and they did stick to the OTL agreements about the division of Germany; they might conquer more of Austria and Czechoslovakia ITTL and maybe move west a bit more, but that depends on how the Hitler reacts towards the end; if he focuses more on the Soviets in the last 12 months they may not get any further ITTL.
But as I said it comes down to the specifics of the scenario, once we know those then we can give you a more detailed response.
Edit:
One potential POD is the Germans have gotten the Panzerfaust sooner than IOTL, so have something like the PzF 150 in large numbers by June 1944 (better armor penetration, reloadable for 10 shots, better range and accuracy). Of course that also likely changes the Eastern Front quite a bit too, but it would really complicate Allied efforts in Normandy without a major POD that really changes the course of the war to that point or adds anything major in terms of equipment or manpower to the German side. It would replace the Panzerschreck too, which is a big savings in terms of cost due to having one system instead of two, plus it would be less heavy, less complex, and most importantly less visible due to backblast.
Before anyone says that 'hey it's just a small arm, that doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things', remember that in Normandy the most common Panzerfaust was the Pzf 30 with 30m of range. That wasn't even the most produced Panzerfaust of the war either, which was the Pzf 60 introduced in September 1944 (well after Normandy), yet in Normandy Panzerfausts they were one of the most deadly anti-tank weapons despite being only available in quite limited numbers and only having 30m of range (which was optimistic for those models). In 1944-45 they accounted for nearly as many Allied tanks as German tanks. Having 1945 levels of Panzerfaust availability with 5x more range and better penetration the OTL Normandy model and more importantly very good anti-infantry performance would be a very serious firepower enhancement. See how well the RPG platform has performed historically in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan.
Here his how they turned the Panzerfaust into a very potent direct fire anti-infantry weapon:
Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck
Two of World War II's most distinctive weapons, the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck offered German and other infantrymen the ability to destroy enemy tanks singlehandedly at close ranges. While the Panzerschreck owed its origins largely to the US bazooka, the Panzerfaust was a revolutionary design...
books.google.com
Last edited by a moderator: