Could the Ardennes Offensive succeed?

Wait, what?
Er, if this is OTL where lend-lease is still fully happening and but somehow D-day never happens, the germans are not going to face a slight defeat like I described, they're fucked, completely. The repercussions are mostly going to be post-war. And by that point the WAllies would be itching for a fight and the US would probably be willing to go it alone if the british bowed out.
Agreed, even if D-day "didn't" happen the allies are going to try an invasion of France.period. It wasn't just about defeating the Germans at that point, it was also a combination of trying to stay on good relations with Stalin (who was pissed that the allies were letting the Glorious peoples army go through the German meat grinder while they twiddled their thumbs) and checking soviet expansion. Everyone knows Stalin isn't going to let go of what he gets easily, and if the western allies are to keep a piece of the pie so to speak, they have to launch an offensive at some point. I also don't see Hitler retreating into France, as Germany is pummeled by the Soviets......sorry it just sounds kind of odd.
 
...A soviet alliance would be unlikely-not to mention the fact that after WWII went in the Axis Powers favor Germany, Japan, the USSR, and the minor Axis nations would all go to war sooner or later.

Well a PoD could be found, say if the British intervene in Finland.

It's certainly not as unlikely as Nazi Germany winning the war.
 
Flying Weather.

One reason the offensive got as far as it did was the bad weather. Since Germany had a lot less aircraft at that point the Allies had the advantage in the air. Had the weather been clearer the offensive wouldn't have gone as fae as it did.
 
He's not suggesting you're a Nazi.

He's asking if you come from an alternate time line; i.e. an ATL, because your questions and suggestions reveal an astounding level of ignorance regarding the situation.

Hey, care to stop acting like a later day Bill Cameron? You're knowledge is appreciated, your attitude is not.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Agreed, even if D-day "didn't" happen the allies are going to try an invasion of France.period. It wasn't just about defeating the Germans at that point, it was also a combination of trying to stay on good relations with Stalin (who was pissed that the allies were letting the Glorious peoples army go through the German meat grinder while they twiddled their thumbs) and checking soviet expansion. Everyone knows Stalin isn't going to let go of what he gets easily, and if the western allies are to keep a piece of the pie so to speak, they have to launch an offensive at some point. I also don't see Hitler retreating into France, as Germany is pummeled by the Soviets......sorry it just sounds kind of odd.

That's a pretty important point; the Soviets were justifiably angry at it considering they were the ones doing most of the bleeding in Europe. I'm not sure Yalta would fly without some sort of D-day, even if it involved the US with the dominions giving the finger to a Britain that's trying to make a peace with whatever tinpot dictator replaced Hitler after an assassination, or tried to make peace for whatever reason the ASBs can concoct, but by Yalta there is no way for the axis to win, period.
 
No more than John Bell Hood's invasion of Tennessee in 1864. By any standard in December 1944, after the series of drubbings the Wehrmacht took in the East from Belgorod-Orel through to Bagration and and the Baltic Offensive there was no victory in the West that negated the series of defeats in the East, and by this point, too, the Soviets have the better military in every sense of the word.
 
The Alies Respond

As German fources fought their way toward Antwerp, Alied generals decided this called for a bold responce. Canada forces turned south. They found little German reargard. They did releave pockets of surrounded Americans. American troops moveing north found the same. The two linked up cutting German supply lines. There was little comeing to them in the way of resupply our reinforcements. Amunition, food and fule ran out. As the weather cleared and the Alies recovered from the surprise. Airplaines were redeployed. Wile Hitler ordered the surrounded forces to fight to the death, everybody agreed that it was futile to sit there and freeze. At first only and few German soldiers sliped away at night and surrendered. Soon more and more did so. Then whole unites did so in broad daylight. What had started out as a mjor counterattack ended in failer.
 
regarding the Tiger tanks:

I know people always cite it's shitty reliability and the fact that it was a resource hog as the main reason that it shouldn't have been built. However I tend to think that while those weaknesses prevented the Tiger I and especially Tiger II from being the war winners many lay people mistakenly assume they could have been, the thought process behind them wasn't that flawed, when you consider that it more or less was an attempt to counteract Germany's primary weakness(aside from Hitler's batshit insanity) which was numbers. It could successfully achieve a highly favorable kill ratio, one which a T-34 clone or tons more Panzer V's could not. The problem is that no matter how effective the Tiger I or Tiger II were, they could never achieve the necessary kill ratio to counter Allied numbers, no matter how hard they tried.

Also, the argument that the germans could have taken the resources put into developing and building the Tigers into other weapons that could have done better also seem kind of a bit mistaken, as there is no known weapon that the germans had developed that could have changed the major facts of the war on the ground or more importantly, in the air.

I think that the real change that the germans should have made was not in what weapons they produced, but what political or strategic courses they should have taken, since that seems to have been the only thing that could have resulted in any kind of "win" for them.
 
Sepp Dietrich said:
All I had to do was to cross the river, capture Brussels, and then go on to take the port of Antwerp. The snow was waist-deep and there wasn’t room to deploy four tanks abreast, let alone six armored divisions. It didn’t get light until eight and was dark again at four, and my tanks can’t fight at night. And all this at Christmas time!

:cool::cool::cool:
 
Yes, but Germany isn't Finland, and it will have similar frontline strength, like you yourself said.

Offensive operations are very risky for the Soviets, especially if Germany is prepared.

----

EDIT: I'm just not sure what all of this has to do with Ardennes?

Of course attacking Finland in winter, along a narrow well-fortified front using a mechanized army with limited mobility in rough arctic terrain with Kliment Voroshilov in command. Is never going to end well. Comparing the Winter War to any hypothetical conflict with Germany is a bit of a stretch.

As to the Ardennes it was hopless from the start, just like the German offensives in the east. By the end of 1944, the Heer was finished. For Germany to do better against the Western Allies you need a POD a few months before Ardennse.
 
Top