Did Western Allies really only face a fraction of the Wehrmacht in Europe?

Hello!

I've been watching a few documentaries and such about WW2 and supposedly the Western Allies only faced about 20% of the Wehrmacht while Russia faced the majority of it, is this actually true?

If so then would the Western Allies achieve the same amount of success they had if they had to wade through the same amount of German troops that Russia did?

I imagine D-Day will succeed still but would it take longer for them to reach Germany/Berlin?
 
Depends on how you add up the pairs of boots. I've followed this same discussion & related ones all over the web. 20% is the result of cooking the books. Applying the same methodologies to the Allies you can show they defeated the Wehrmacht with 10% of their strength, which does not sound right either.

One perspective to understand is that while the west Allies were not fighting many German units from Dec 1941 to May 1944 the balance of the German forces were not on the eastern front. From 1942 on the majority in the east declined, becoming fairly slim, tho still a majority. the rest of the German soldiers were actually idling away, or in some cases training in Norway, Denmark, western Europe, or fighting in the Balkans.

When you break the numbers into categories different pictures emerge. At the start of 1943 slightly over half the German air forces was in the east. Roughly 2,800+ out of a total operational strength of about 5,200. As the year passed that declined & there was a major shift in latter 43 when the bulk of fighter plane strength was shifted from the east to the defense of Germany. When you look at where new production aircraft were sent the numbers clearly favor the west. German AF losses in the west were far higher than in the east. in 1943 two thirds of the aircraft losses were in the west & the proportion of pilot losses a little higher. In early 1944 the German air force strength in the east had declined to somewhere between 1,500 & 1,800 operational aircraft, while the total strength still lay a bit under 5,000.

One can go on with this sort of thing through hundreds of posts. Maybe I'll return to it later.
 

Deleted member 1487

Hello!

I've been watching a few documentaries and such about WW2 and supposedly the Western Allies only faced about 20% of the Wehrmacht while Russia faced the majority of it, is this actually true?

If so then would the Western Allies achieve the same amount of success they had if they had to wade through the same amount of German troops that Russia did?

I imagine D-Day will succeed still but would it take longer for them to reach Germany/Berlin?
After Normandy over 30% of divisions actually. They also fought a disproportionate number of elite German division (paratroopers, Panzer/mobile units, well equipped SS units), most of the Luftwaffe by 1943 (in 1940 of course the RAF faced 100% of the Luftwaffe), and throughout the war over 90% of the Kriegsmarine. So while on land they faced a much smaller part of the German army until probably late 1944/early 1945, they faced a hugely disproportionate share of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine throughout the conflict (except in the case of the Luftwaffe for about 16 months from June 22nd 1941-November 1942) which gave the USSR a huge free ride there. Beyond that in terms of air defense the Wallies faced the majority of German AAA throughout the war, even during Barbarossa and in 1942.
 
... and throughout the war over 90% of the Kriegsmarine. ...

Heres another perspective. In the case of the navy, do you only count the crews of the operational ships, or the naval support staff ashore? If you dont include the support staff then what support units in the east do you not count? This can get really slippery.

Some years ago I followed a couple threads a Russian amature historian started. Those looked at the question from the perspective of how much damage each nation inflicted on Germany or the Axis. This was equally difficult or slippery, but it painted a different picture than created by counting boot pairs or division HQ.
 
If so then would the Western Allies achieve the same amount of success they had if they had to wade through the same amount of German troops that Russia did?
The only way they'd have to face the same number of troops as the Red Army did IOTL would be if the Reich defeated and occupied the USSR early in the war, which certainly would make the Allied effort to defeat Germany many times more complex, difficult and costlier.

Here are some very informative threads where the idea of the US/UK vs Nazi Europe is discussed. I highly suggest you look through them.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ies-be-if-the-reich-defeated-the-ussr.409987/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...e-wallies-plausibly-attempt-a-landing.406981/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...de-peace-if-stalin-dropped-out-of-ww2.399353/

From the poll for one of the above threads the majority of those that answered stated that if the USSR was knocked out of the war the US/UK would most likely make peace with Nazi Germany but if they continued to fight on the earliest they could plausibly attempt an amphibious landing like OTLs D Day would be in 1946/1947 or later.

The majority of those that answered the other poll concerning the number of casualties the WAllies would have taken in a war without the USSR chose the option that stated they would take 5x or more the casualties they did IOTL.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Heres another perspective. In the case of the navy, do you only count the crews of the operational ships, or the naval support staff ashore? If you dont include the support staff then what support units in the east do you not count? This can get really slippery.
Depends, how much of the army/luftwaffe support staff off the front do you count especially units at home that are supporting multiple fronts? Personally I count everything at base that is dedicated to one front as part of that front...but then not the stuff that is not dedicated to any front.

Some years ago I followed a couple threads a Russian amature historian started. Those looked at the question from the perspective of how much damage each nation inflicted on Germany or the Axis. This was equally difficult or slippery, but it painted a different picture than created by counting boot pairs or division HQ.
Right, it's effectively impossible to say with any sort of exactitude, but in a general sense I'd say the Wallies (you can't really disentangle them) inflicted much more if you factor in the role of the economic blockade/warfare, strategic bombing, the naval war, air war, and ground war. Even if you say that the majority of ground ground troops and civilian dead were inflicted by the Soviets, you really need to consider the wider war effort and the economic factors that played a role in terms of 'national damage'.
 
Right, it's effectively impossible to say with any sort of exactitude, but in a general sense I'd say the Wallies (you can't really disentangle them) inflicted much more if you factor in the role of the economic blockade/warfare, strategic bombing, the naval war, air war, and ground war. Even if you say that the majority of ground ground troops and civilian dead were inflicted by the Soviets, you really need to consider the wider war effort and the economic factors that played a role in terms of 'national damage'.
Are you saying the damage inflicted on the Reich by the WAllies and the USSR was something like a 55/45 split?
 
I would suggest counting home forces based on who they are directed to defend / fight as the primary threat. The overwhelming bulk of the Navy was aimed at the Western Allies, and the overwhelming air threat against the homeland was from the Western Allies, so it is not unreasonable to say that the bulk of the Navy and Air Force were facing the Allies. As the flak units where primarily Air Force units (at Home) they count as the Air Force as well.

as to ground forces, this link is reasonably accurate and takes into account the fighting against the Yugoslavs (who shouldn't count as either a Western Ally or part of the Eastern Front)

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nat...-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii
 

Deleted member 1487

Are you saying the damage inflicted on the Reich by the WAllies and the USSR was something like a 55/45 split?
Not sure I would put hard numbers on it, I think it was impossible, but it was a majority Wallies.
 
Depends, how much of the army/luftwaffe support staff off the front do you count especially units at home that are supporting multiple fronts? Personally I count everything at base that is dedicated to one front as part of that front...but then not the stuff that is not dedicated to any front.


Right, it's effectively impossible to say with any sort of exactitude, but in a general sense I'd say the Wallies (you can't really disentangle them) inflicted much more if you factor in the role of the economic blockade/warfare, strategic bombing, the naval war, air war, and ground war. Even if you say that the majority of ground ground troops and civilian dead were inflicted by the Soviets, you really need to consider the wider war effort and the economic factors that played a role in terms of 'national damage'.

Well, if we're going to do that, then we should also count the resources (in supplies, fuel, rubber, materials, etc.) spent to sustain operations, not simply those destroyed by bombers. The balance would swing decisively to the Soviet contribution again. Not to mention how we factor German armor itself into this, and other support vehicles.
 
At the peak strength of German forces facing the WAllies, towards the end of 1944, constituted ~40% of combat-capable German ground forces.
 
Some sources say that WW2 was won on the farms and factories of North America. LL kept the USSR in the fight despite massive losses.

Another source says that WW2 was won with Russian blood. The war of attrition killed a generation of Germans.

A professor said that Germany deployed 200 divisions on the Eastern Front, but only 26 divisions in Normandy. Perhaps the professor exaggerated slightly, but his concept matches statistics posted earlier. 20 of those 26 German divisions faced the British and Canadians which explains their slow advances until August 1944. OTOH if only 6 German divisions faced the American Army, that explains why Americans were able to break out of Norman bocage and sweep eastwards to close the Falaise Gap.
 
How did you estimate this?

The number of German divisions deployed on the Western Front in Autumn-Winter 1944 is ~75, plus another ~25 in Italy (the exact number fluctuates by month, but only within a few). Total is ~100 divisions. Total divisions on the Eastern Front come out to ~135. 100+135=235. 100/235=0.42. 42%. I rounded to account for any discrepancies.
 
How difficult in your opinion would the Allied campaign have been if the USSR was defeated and occupied in 1941/1942, allowing stronger and better equipped German forces (Heer/Luftwaffe) to be placed in Western Europe in addition to a far stronger Atlantic Wall?
 
Last edited:
The best case for Germany is the Normandy landings ITTL would probably have multiple panzer divisons trying to reinforce instead of 1 and more infantry divisions included on the side of the German army. If the Germans could for example have 300,000 men in the battle being as it was one of the most obvious places to the German leadership then the chances of Allied success go down seeing as they were limited to how many men could land by the number of landing craft. Of course were this the case they may never land there. They chose Normandy because Pas de Calais was so well defended and Normandy was not. And if they do somehow gain a foothold the full attention of the German army will be on that pocket.

Edited
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Well, if we're going to do that, then we should also count the resources (in supplies, fuel, rubber, materials, etc.) spent to sustain operations, not simply those destroyed by bombers. The balance would swing decisively to the Soviet contribution again. Not to mention how we factor German armor itself into this, and other support vehicles.
In that case no, the Wallies still have it.
https://www.amazon.com/How-War-Was-Won-Cambridge/dp/1107014751/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdt_img_top?ie=UTF8
You'd need to factor in all the air defense money spent (not just AAA but civilian and military bunkers, radar/electronic aids, AAA shells and propellant, etc.), damage on German cities from strategic bombing, the Atlantic Wall, the V-weapons programs and other Wunder Waffe, naval transport to Africa and Norway, the fighting pre-Barbarossa, housing/resettlement for dehoused civilians due to bombing, occupation/anti-guerrilla efforts all over Europe fighting SOE and OSS supplied partisans, and so on.
 
Hi guys,

Thanks for the replies, much more detailed and interesting than what I was watching on the History Channel!

Jack
 
How difficult in your opinion would the Allied campaign have been if the USSR was defeated and occupied in 1941/1942, allowing stronger and better equipped German forces (Heer/Luftwaffe) to be placed in Western Europe in addition to a far stronger Atlantic Wall?

Vastly, but not something they could not ultimately surmount in physical terms. The only question is if their political will holds and that, frankly, is an unknown.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Hello!

I've been watching a few documentaries and such about WW2 and supposedly the Western Allies only faced about 20% of the Wehrmacht while Russia faced the majority of it, is this actually true?

If so then would the Western Allies achieve the same amount of success they had if they had to wade through the same amount of German troops that Russia did?

I imagine D-Day will succeed still but would it take longer for them to reach Germany/Berlin?
Wehrmacht? No. As others have mentioned the WAllies faced effectively the entire Kriegsmarine, with Soviet naval assets rarely engaging in combat against the KM. By late 1943 the Combined Bommer Offensive had resulted in the overwhelming majority of Luftwaffe fighter strength (including increasing numbers of converted light bomber like the JU-88 pressed into service as night fighters) and virtually all of the Luftwaffe anti-aircraft strength.

Heer, pretty much.

The number vary considerably, depending on what is/is not included. As an example, where does one place the 400,000 members of the Wehrmacht that spent the war in Norway? Some of them had retreated from Lapland, others were posted near the Northern Capes, close to Murmansk. Most of the force was aligned to resist any WAllied invasion of Norway. With the exception of some AA gunners and small units facing partisans and SOE, none of the Heer forces engaged in any combat once Norway capitulated. KM forces raided in the Atlantic, or sought shelter there, and Luftwaffe long range assets operated against the P/Q convoys (so the fought mainly WAllied naval forces, but sank materials meant for the USSR). The same can be said for force in Greece, which, after the invasion, faced partisans (some sponsored by the British, some by the Soviets).

The Allies would have been hard pressed to have successfully mounted D-Day of the Heer had somehow managed to increase in size by 70% and placed all those forces into France. The number of troops needed to secure the landing zones would have required three time the number of landing assets, up from a landing force that was already the largest ever assembled.
 
Top