Poll: Which defensive strategy for Normandy made more sense?

Best defensive strategy to defend against D-Day

  • Armor on the beaches (Rommel)

    Votes: 21 42.0%
  • Armor inland for massed counterattack (Schweppenberg)

    Votes: 22 44.0%
  • I have my own idea and I'm special

    Votes: 7 14.0%

  • Total voters
    50
To gauge your ideas and insites

which defensive idea made more sense to defend France against the Overlord landings which the Germans knew where eventually coming however they didn't know where

1. Station all available reserves right on the beaches for immediate counterattacks (Rommel's plan)

2. Station all available reserves in a centralized task force around Paris, allow the landing to go inland a little bit and then launch a massive counterattack (Rundstead, Guderian, Schweppenberg's plan)

if you have your own idea for the deployment that would have been better than the other two by all means share
 

Makty

Banned
To gauge your ideas and insites

which defensive idea made more sense to defend France against the Overlord landings which the Germans knew where eventually coming however they didn't know where

1. Station all available reserves right on the beaches for immediate counterattacks (Rommel's plan)

2. Station all available reserves in a centralized task force around Paris, allow the landing to go inland a little bit and then launch a massive counterattack (Rundstead, Guderian, Schweppenberg's plan)

if you have your own idea for the deployment that would have been better than the other two by all means share


Rommel's plan is perhaps the only option, next to abandoning France and falling back to the Rhineland. But Hitler would never have allowed that, Hitler was quoted as saying that he would never stay put and defend (in part because that reminded him of Germany during WW1; in the trenches)


Though the Generals supported the second idea, as they believe the conflict would had resembled Barbarossa (entire Allied armies encircled and destroyed) and consequentially they would convince the Allies to sue for peace, leaving the Germans to focus on the Russians.

Rommel's plan on the other hand would tie up resources that were needed for the Eastern front.
 
Rommel's plan is perhaps the only option, next to abandoning France and falling back to the Rhineland. But Hitler would never have allowed that, Hitler was quoted as saying that he would never stay put and defend (in part because that reminded him of Germany during WW1; in the trenches)


Though the Generals supported the second idea, as they believe the conflict would had resembled Barbarossa (entire Allied armies encircled and destroyed) and consequentially they would convince the Allies to sue for peace, leaving the Germans to focus on the Russians.

Rommel's plan on the other hand would tie up resources that were needed for the Eastern front.

Rommel's idea completely disregards the nature of the French transportation network. There are very few lateral roads along the coast. So his divisions in the Pas De Calais would actually have to entrain for Paris and then for Normandy which makes them have to run the gauntlet of allied airpower twice and further disorganizes them. By moving at night the Germans could have marshaled most of their mechanized forces to the Normandy battlefield within 2 weeks and launched a massive counterattack.

The entire Atlantic wall was folley because you can't defend 2200 miles of coastline from Narvik to Marsaille whilst fighting a massive war in Russia. For all Rommel's intense effort in laying mines and building beachhead defenses he killed less than 10,000 allied troops in the beach defense zone. Those pill boxes and mines would have been better served building up the west wall or the Vistula line whilst the panzer reserves massed themselves for a major counter attack and following that took advantage of France's natural defensive river lines (seine, aisne, meuse etc)
 

nbcman

Donor
v Schweppenberg's plan was more sound from both a tactical and a strategic sense. Germany didn't have the resources to defend everywhere so allowing the landing then making a counterattack was the more sensible option. It would have allowed the counterattack to occur where the advantages of the W Allies air and naval power were lessened. However, from a political standpoint (i.e., Hitler's view point) the Germans had to defend as far forward as possible.
 
Due to Allied air superiority transportation was very hard if not impossible, so I'm going to with Rommel. Though it doesn't look much better than the other strategy. The battle (and by extension, the war) was already lost at that point, really.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
If dug in enough to avoid being picked off by air and sea bombardment, forces at the coast stand a chance of preventing a beachhead. An inland counterblow is going to get interdicted before it can do much good. Rommel knew this from fighting the western allies in North Africa. The other generals lacked this insight, so their plans were flawed.
 
Last edited:
If dug in enough to avoid being picked of by air and sea bombardment, forces at the coast stand a chance of preventing a beachhead. An inland counterblow is going to get interdicted before it can do much good. Rommel knew this from fighting the western allies in North Africa. The other generals lacked this insight, so their plans were flawed.

American infantry were well trained in calling in supporting airstrikes and artillery fire. Each battalion had its own destroyer on D-Day if they came under attack by armor they would call in strikes to destroy the armor and both sides would have heavy losses (Anzio, Salerno) Kesselring lost tanks that were irreplacable by attacking the beacheads directly

The other general's felt the weakness in airpower could be overcome by moving at night and reallinging the flak forces to march with the columns... they had served in conditions of air inferiority in Russia (albeit to a lesser degree) so they were not stupid on the subject... Rommel's appreciation of allied airpower whilst correct wasn't particularly useful given Germany's limited mechanized reserves in the theater
 
Rommel's defenses made sense in terms of increasing the forces needed to launch an invasion as it would hardly help Germany if the Allies could land and raid with brigade groups twice a week, not to mention slowing an invasion, causing increased casualties and just possibly holding long enough for a counter-attack to defeat the invaders.

Removing most or all(!) of the barbed wire, mine fields, fortifications and other defenses and especially reducing the troops to a trip wire would mean the most vulnerable part of an Allied invasion is made much less risky and costly for little gain as most of the coastal troops were not equipped as well as field units and exceptionally lacking in mobility.

I can see reports of Allied landings in battalion to regimental strength at 20+ different French locations from the trip wire/observation posts with another 40-50 posts not responding due to being wiped out by the Allies or the French resistance and now the Germans aren't even sure where the main target is.


Once an invasion appears unlikely to fail the sensible move would at least be to withdraw from the range of the Allied navies...
 

terence

Banned
Neither strategy would have succeeded. The Atlantic defences at Normandy were only 18% complete (remember the story of the commando raid on huge concrete gun emplacements that had no guns in them).
An inland battle of decision makes the best sense, but when did Hitler and his General Staff show sense? A successful inland battle would presuppose German air superiority--impossible!
Better-a rearguard action and a withdrawl to the line of The Seine or, the von Rundstedt strategy. When Jodl called von Rundstedt on 6th June and whined "What shall we do?"-- VR told him "Sue for peace you fools!"
 
Rommel's defenses made sense in terms of increasing the forces needed to launch an invasion as it would hardly help Germany if the Allies could land and raid with brigade groups twice a week, not to mention slowing an invasion, causing increased casualties and just possibly holding long enough for a counter-attack to defeat the invaders.

Removing most or all(!) of the barbed wire, mine fields, fortifications and other defenses and especially reducing the troops to a trip wire would mean the most vulnerable part of an Allied invasion is made much less risky and costly for little gain as most of the coastal troops were not equipped as well as field units and exceptionally lacking in mobility.

I can see reports of Allied landings in battalion to regimental strength at 20+ different French locations from the trip wire/observation posts with another 40-50 posts not responding due to being wiped out by the Allies or the French resistance and now the Germans aren't even sure where the main target is.


Once an invasion appears unlikely to fail the sensible move would at least be to withdraw from the range of the Allied navies...

I wasn't saying not to have a scattering of machine gun posts and AA pits but you can't defend 2200 miles of coastline even semi adequetly whilst having 150 divisions embroiled in a death struggle with the soviet union. the concrete and barbed wire and pill boxes would have been better served forming tough defensive lines along the seine, aisne and meuse which the allies would HAVE to cross as opposed to building 2200 miles of defenses where you have no idea where you are going to be attacked
 

Makty

Banned
Then I guess neither strategy was possible. And as I pointed, Hitler would had never allowed a strategic withdraw to the Rhineland and Low Countries.


If I had to nominate a strategy.
Keep Hitler in the dark. Elastic Defense emphasizing river defense in Northern France. Blow up all bridges and infrastructure and slow the Allied advance. Use the time alloted to restore defenses in the Siegfried line.


Of course as soon as Hitler finds out he'll be furious and scream "NEIN NEIN NEIN", and probably dismiss a few Generals, but at least the Germans would not have to deal with a successful western front invasion of the Rhineland.
 
The use of mustard agent and tabun against the British and the Canadians. Take the troops that were facing those beaches, and send them against the Americans. The UK was already facing manpower shortages and a prolong chemical war would not favor them. I know there would be an Allied response, but if you could drag the war out(and nothing slows down a war like chemical weapons), you might get an armistice. Unless of course they just nuked Berlin.
 
Zanford, that means that the Allies do an even worse job of protecting Europe from the USSR in the long run. Even more of Germany gets occupied by the Red Army in the long run. And that, in the long run, means that your country is even more effed than it is in real life. And Europe. And, well, anyone who isn't aligned with Josef Stalin is going to have a very interesting Cold War trying to keep him at bay. So, in the long run, you have managed to shoot your own party's aims (of destroying Bolshevism, among others) in the foot. Such is the nature of alternate history.

Besides, there is the problem that the Allies may learn about your gas before attacking with their intelligence services, French Resistance etc, and see to it that their opening bombardment on the beaches results in a lot of Germans getting gassed to death, before they move onto the beach in safety anyway, pausing to glance only at the choked men in their bunkers.
 

terence

Banned
The use of mustard agent and tabun against the British and the Canadians. Take the troops that were facing those beaches, and send them against the Americans. The UK was already facing manpower shortages and a prolong chemical war would not favor them. I know there would be an Allied response, but if you could drag the war out(and nothing slows down a war like chemical weapons), you might get an armistice. Unless of course they just nuked Berlin.

1/. The Germans didn't even use gas against the sub-human Russians even in the most desperate fights. The reason was not morality or fear of retaliation (although that may have affected the older men, like Hitler who had been gassed in WW1), but the fact using chemical weapons reduces the effectiveness of your own troops so much as to negate the advantage. They have to put on their protective equipment not just to attack, but to handle the munitions, transport them and prepare them.

2/.WW2 troops ( and civilians) were all prepared for gas attacks--every soldier carried a gas mask all through the war to VE and VJ day.

3/.Look at the weather map below.
Strong Westerly winds blew across the battlefield in the first few days (that's one of the reason so many of the parachute drops went wrong).
We also know that there was a single rainless day in June in Normandy-- the last thing the German's would want to do is to mount a a botched chemical attack.

d_day_map.gif

North Atlantic June 5th 1944
 
Zanford, that means that the Allies do an even worse job of protecting Europe from the USSR in the long run. Even more of Germany gets occupied by the Red Army in the long run. And that, in the long run, means that your country is even more effed than it is in real life. And Europe. And, well, anyone who isn't aligned with Josef Stalin is going to have a very interesting Cold War trying to keep him at bay. So, in the long run, you have managed to shoot your own party's aims (of destroying Bolshevism, among others) in the foot. Such is the nature of alternate history.

Besides, there is the problem that the Allies may learn about your gas before attacking with their intelligence services, French Resistance etc, and see to it that their opening bombardment on the beaches results in a lot of Germans getting gassed to death, before they move onto the beach in safety anyway, pausing to glance only at the choked men in their bunkers.

If the D-Day landings are unsuccessful, then you free up lots of German troops to go to the Eastern front. The forces used in the Battle of the Bulge can know be used against the Soviets. I do not think the Allies would be the first to us chemical weapons in the war(not in their national character). If they did retaliate after the initial attack it would slow down the landings. If the landings are slowed down, more Allies die on the beaches and the Germans have a chance to push them back into the sea. The Nazis are not trying to lose to the Americans/English, while fighting the Russians. At this point their best option is a stalemate.

1/. The Germans didn't even use gas against the sub-human Russians even in the most desperate fights. The reason was not morality or fear of retaliation (although that may have affected the older men, like Hitler who had been gassed in WW1), but the fact using chemical weapons reduces the effectiveness of your own troops so much as to negate the advantage. They have to put on their protective equipment not just to attack, but to handle the munitions, transport them and prepare them.

2/.WW2 troops ( and civilians) were all prepared for gas attacks--every soldier carried a gas mask all through the war to VE and VJ day.

3/.Look at the weather map below.
Strong Westerly winds blew across the battlefield in the first few days (that's one of the reason so many of the parachute drops went wrong).
We also know that there was a single rainless day in June in Normandy-- the last thing the German's would want to do is to mount a a botched chemical attack.

d_day_map.gif

North Atlantic June 5th 1944

1) That is why you take your troops and attack the American beaches. You use the chemical weapons to deal with the British/Commonwealth troops. Attacking into a chemical weapons is a bad idea(we agree on that). The longer you keep the troops on the beach, the more you can kill.

2) Mustard agents and tabun do not have to be inhaled to be damaging(they are not gases). If you get either on your skin you can become a causality. The most devastating effect with chemical weapons is achieved when initial deployed. Over time they become less effective.

3) Here is a map of the landings beaches:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Allied_Invasion_Force.jpg
To the west of Gold, Sword, and Juno beaches is mainly the sea. I do not believe that the winds would be a major problem for the Nazis. Now the rain would hinder the chemical weapons, but a slurry of mud and mustard agents(even diluted) is not something you want to fall down in. Mustard agents after all are not really gases, more like a fine baby powder. Tabun on the other hand is normally used as a liquid that vaporizes on contact with air. With all the moisture in the air it might just stay as a liquid, but being splashed with liquid nerve agent(even if it was 10% agent, and 90% water) would cause your death. Tabun is about half a lethal as sarin, but takes about four times as long to breakdown. It is effective(either kills or wounds) in very small doses. It would be a perfect denial of area weapon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabun_(nerve_agent)

Oh, by the way I'm not a terrorist or anything. I was in the military and trained in NBC warfare.
 
I think that the Panzers should have been used to oppose the landings as quickly as possible. At this time, the 'invaders' would be more disorganized and not all of the divisional resources would be ashore. There was probably no other time they were are vulnerable.
Once a beachhead is established, it is extremely difficult to dislodge.

Regarding naval gunfire support, there are a number of factors not being considered. From my experiences in NGFS in Viet Nam and related trainings, it is not easy to call down heavy gunfire close to friendly lines - there is too much opportunity for damage from friendly fire.

Once the panzers got mixed in with the allied forces on the beachs, it would be difficult for any fire support (or air support) for that matter to respond with out risking their own forces.

While there were x number of miles of coast to defend, only a small portion of that was suited for invasion.
 

terence

Banned
If the D-Day landings are unsuccessful, then you free up lots of German troops to go to the Eastern front. The forces used in the Battle of the Bulge can know be used against the Soviets. I do not think the Allies would be the first to us chemical weapons in the war(not in their national character). If they did retaliate after the initial attack it would slow down the landings. If the landings are slowed down, more Allies die on the beaches and the Germans have a chance to push them back into the sea. The Nazis are not trying to lose to the Americans/English, while fighting the Russians. At this point their best option is a stalemate.

1) That is why you take your troops and attack the American beaches. You use the chemical weapons to deal with the British/Commonwealth troops. Attacking into a chemical weapons is a bad idea(we agree on that). The longer you keep the troops on the beach, the more you can kill.

2) Mustard agents and tabun do not have to be inhaled to be damaging(they are not gases). If you get either on your skin you can become a causality. The most devastating effect with chemical weapons is achieved when initial deployed. Over time they become less effective.

3) Here is a map of the landings beaches:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Allied_Invasion_Force.jpg
To the west of Gold, Sword, and Juno beaches is mainly the sea. I do not believe that the winds would be a major problem for the Nazis. Now the rain would hinder the chemical weapons, but a slurry of mud and mustard agents(even diluted) is not something you want to fall down in. Mustard agents after all are not really gases, more like a fine baby powder. Tabun on the other hand is normally used as a liquid that vaporizes on contact with air. With all the moisture in the air it might just stay as a liquid, but being splashed with liquid nerve agent(even if it was 10% agent, and 90% water) would cause your death. Tabun is about half a lethal as sarin, but takes about four times as long to breakdown. It is effective(either kills or wounds) in very small doses. It would be a perfect denial of area weapon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabun_(nerve_agent)

Oh, by the way I'm not a terrorist or anything. I was in the military and trained in NBC warfare.

1. Attacking the Commonwealth troops with chemical agents make less sense than attacking the Americans because:-
(a) The Commonwealth troops included a far higher proportion of battle hardened soldiers, less likely to panic than the Americans.
(b) The British could have retaliated with gas airstrikes on German positions or civilian centres within 24 hours. They had stocks of chemical agents at Dover Castle and elsewhere and delivery systems available and the decision could have been made even during the first German attack. The Americans had probably had stocks ( they had an accident in Italy that year) but a request would have had to go all the way to Washington for use.
(c) As you would guess, the allies had thought about this and the plan was that, if one beach received too much resistance or took too many casualties, 2nd and 3rd waves would be diverted to another beach

A Westerly wind means it blows from the West. in other words across the Battle Front. In a chemical attack you want a very low wind behind you or none at all.

2/. Apart from the first shock attacks, chemical agents accounted for less than 3% of casualties in WW1 in battles after 1915--respirators were not even available for all troops--many on the British side used balaclavas and motorcycle goggles--yet they managed to carry on fighting. Mustard gas on troops with the right kit would have had a negligible effect--Tabun, another story but see below.

3/. How are the chemicals to be delivered? By air? Too risky. By Artillery? You are assuming that the Germans had the munitions close to Normandy--they didn't. At the end of the War the British acquired ALL German chemical stocks from two locations in Germany. None had ever been deployed. How long to bring the shells up to the front? Faster than the tanks?

So, lets say that Tabun works on denying an advance off of Juno, Gold and sword on day one. The gas-delivering artillery must be in range of the beach, so its also within range of the Naval guns and the 2nd TAF.
Day two--absolutely no gas delivering artllery left and a lot of coughing in Berlin, Hamburg and elsewhere. (Which would surely have led to gas-armed V1s).
Day Three, British troops diverted to Utah and ,maybe, Omaha beach and the advance continues.
 
Top