WW-II: Normandy landing

[Gremlin29]

First consider this, Barbarosa started 6 weeks late. There is no question that the Germans simply ran out of time (the set of winter) when they were a mere 30 km from Moscow (the closest they ever came). Nobody could argue that the Germans would have encircled Moscow had Barbarosa started earlier as was planned and encouraged by the generals but Hitler was always very squimish about starting a campaign and prone to delaying them day after day.

When the Germans launched Zitadelle they were within 2 weeks of producing a significant defeat on Russian forces when Hitler called it off so he could pull divisions from the eastern front to be sent to Italy.

The Germans didn't lose the oil fields of Rumania until 1944, and that's because even more divisions were tied up in the west.

As far as war making capacity, the German armaments industry produced more of everything in December of 1944 than at any other time. At that time they also assembled a large force (nobody thought they had the resources to do this) to attack through the Ardennes which was a huge gamble that could have paid dividends if Hitler would have listened to his generals reduced the strategic objectives of the offensive. The Me 262 was just enetering service and many USAAF planners concluded that this airplane alone and in sufficient numbers could have reversed the Germans fortunes in the air war and could have in fact ended the strategic bombing of the allies once and for all.

While it is often said that Hitler was a terrible military strategist he was the driving force behind every victory the Germans ever had simply because the German generals argued against every single campaign Hitler proposed. Hitlers greatest failure was his inability to understand global warfare, that is he could not be convinced to think about strategic interests outside of europe. They could have tied up the British much sooner in the Med theater which would have produced significant strategic advantages for the war in europe, this is perhaps the first fatal step towards ultimate failure.

I agree, France was a political mess. It's a shame really because France had the resources to end WW2 before it ever started. French communists have much to be blamed for in this instance.

 

[turin]

1) Hitler has relinquished interference and blessed autonomy to the Theatre Commanders

Cant give examples for all the decisions that would have been influenced by that, but the loss of the 6th army at Stalingrad would have been avoided. That would have helped in stabilizing the eastern front, giving time to reorganize and adapt german capabilities on the situation.
As was mentioned before, it is correct that without Hitlers "ideas" some very big successes for the Wehrmacht woud have not existed. However due to his interference esp. towards the end of the war all these successes were paid for with similar losses.
The Me 262 jet fighter would have been operational much earlier at a time when there were still many good pilots available (the most serious problem in the last two years) without Hitlers interference (tactical bomber conversion) as well. same goes for rocket and cruise missile development, though their success is debatable.

2) If the germans had adequate logistics and bypassed Stalingrad and Moscow and pushed further behind

I am not sure wether its a good idea to leave hot spots behind. If the campaign started only two weeks or so, Moscow would have been seized most certainly. The symbolic value of that might have been an important factor. As for Stalingrad, it depends on the term "adequate". If it would have been enough to go for the oil fields and emergeny industries of the russians at the Ural, that would complete the major objectives of Hitler. I am still not convinced that this approach would have ended problems on the eastern front. As neel24neo pointed out, the issue of control remains, binding major ressources. Complete control of Russia was an illusion thinking of available troops and ressources. Containment remained the only option IMO.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If it would have been enough to go for the oil fields and emergeny industries of the russians at the Ural, that would complete the major objectives of Hitler.

That becomes a multiple objective. ie, Romania for Oil and Moscow for neutralisation.

That then raises the issue of whether under those circumstances Churchill might have then seriously entertained letting Turkey come in as an underbelly strike and create another front.

Romania is a substantial key to continuing and maintaining any degree of success.

 

[Gremlin29]

That then raises the issue of whether under those circumstances Churchill might have then seriously entertained letting Turkey come in as an underbelly strike and create another front.

Romania is a substantial key to continuing and maintaining any degree of success.

This is precisely why Hitler saved the Italians who were having there butts kicked in Greece. Hitler's biggest worry concerning the allies in 1942/43 was an invasion through Greece and the taking of the Rumanian oil fields.

 

[Awang se]

I think the real knock out punch came during Ardennes Offensive or better known as Battle of the bulge. German Failure in this offensive help to open up Berlin to the Invasion. Hitlers came up with the most irrational plan one could imagine given the status of the german army at that time, to retake antwerp. then he come up with another disasterous plan that he called the great blow. In this operation, hitler lost most of its best troops, aircrafts and train pilots. So when the Allied and the Russian invade germany, there not much left to defend the country except some inexperiance conscripts and reserve troops.

 

[yasin_khan]

That was the best part of war by the Allied side but late.

 

[tatra]

I think the real knock out punch came during Ardennes Offensive or better known as Battle of the bulge. German Failure in this offensive help to open up Berlin to the Invasion. Hitlers came up with the most irrational plan one could imagine given the status of the german army at that time, to retake antwerp. then he come up with another disasterous plan that he called the great blow. In this operation, hitler lost most of its best troops, aircrafts and train pilots. So when the Allied and the Russian invade germany, there not much left to defend the country except some inexperiance conscripts and reserve troops.

Those inexperiance conscripts and reserve troops (and fanatical 12 year old hilter youths) put up a hell of a fight locally. Not a cakewalk.

 

[Gremlin29]

Actually the Ardennes offensive was bold and reallistically the only viable option left to the Germans. If Hitler would have settled for a smaller more localized objective, the war could have been prolonged at least another 6 months and quite possibly Germany would have been on semi favorable terms to sue for a peace in which she would have still come out of the war with more than she went in with. This could have possibly also fueled some alternative history policitcally speaking.

What is amazing about the Normandy operation itself is that the Germans actually had the means to repel the invasion however Hitler forbade any troop movement without his expressed permission. nearly 48 of the most critical hours of the invasion were carried out with 2 German armor divisions plus panzergrenadier divison being withheld from the fight because Hitler could not be reached for permission to move them into battle. Had the German generals acted like Americans in this one instance, there is a very good chance that the invasion could have been repulsed.

What is so fascinating about WW2 is the numerous times the allies simply "lucked out". It can almost be said that the allies won despite themselves.

 

[neel24neo]

What is so fascinating about WW2 is the numerous times the allies simply "lucked out". It can almost be said that the allies won despite themselves.

IMHO luck has a crucial role in all wars ,battles and engagements.caesar was the first one(AFAIK) to acknowledge the role of luck in combat.
analyse any major battle and in most you would see that the victor won because he was lucky.not just in europe,in the battle of midway islands,the japanese lost because they couldnt destroy the four american aircraft carriers at pearl harbour(they were out at sea that day) and during the battle itself the pilots from american carriers had more than their share of luck in spotting the japanese fleet.
further to say that the war could have been won if they had done this or that(our way)is not quite logical,because warfare is a very complex system.you change one variable,and the implications of that change is beyond us because the system is too complex.you cannot predict to certainity what changes would be made in the outcome.thats the way life is...

 

[Pendekar]

Luck is one of the vital part in war

 

[ajay_ijn]

What is amazing about the Normandy operation itself is that the Germans actually had the means to repel the invasion however Hitler forbade any troop movement without his expressed permission. nearly 48 of the most critical hours of the invasion were carried out with 2 German armor divisions plus panzergrenadier divison being withheld from the fight because Hitler could not be reached for permission to move them into battle. Had the German generals acted like Americans in this one instance, there is a very good chance that the invasion could have been repulsed.

Hitler had direct command over panzer divisions,So Erwin rommel immediately tried to contacted Htiler but it was being said that Hitler was sleeping at that time and not to be disturbed.

Poor rommel had to wait for many hours.Even after hitler was contacted,he kept saying that it was not the main line attack so he would not deploy any panzer divisions.
In the evening Hitler realized but it was too late,Allied soldiers secured the beachheads.
The moment Allies landed in france nothing could stop the defeat of germany.

But panzer divisions got their credit by giving allies stiff resistance at st.nazaire and in battle of hedgerows.

 

[tatra]

... IMHO probably one of the reason that Rommel was involved in the Stauffenberg plot to assassinate Hitler.

 

[Odorf]

Napoleon, employing about half a million troops, marched in a straight line towards Moscow. He did not care for seizing territory except for securing his flanks and supplying his army. But his army shrinked more and more since he had to secure his rear as well with garrison troops. When he approached Moscow he met the russian winter as well, what proved to be disastrious.

Just for your info, timeline of Napoleon's invasion of Russia:

June 24 - Great Army crosses the frontier
September 7 - Borodino battle
September 14 - Napoleon enters Moscow
October 19 - Napoleon leaves Moscow
October 24 - Battle of Maloyaroslavetz, after which Napoleon was on full retreat along the same route he came.
November 26 - Beresina crossing, the core of the remaining army is destroyed. The river has not been frozen yet btw.
December 6 - Napoleon leaves his troops and runs to Paris.
December 14 - Russian army reaches the frontier.

You might be amuzed with this fact, but winter had very few to do with Napoleons defeat.

 

[Col.Gen.]

In my opinion Hitler should have never tried to invade Russia in the first place. Of course history allows us to tell what was done improperly but...
Invading the Soviet Union was an operational level mistake in that the SU had the ability to fight the war on one solid front while the Germans had to deal with occupying France, fighting the Tunisian Campaign and dealing with Russia. When you gentlemen open a forum about what should have been done then I'll go in depth but I think its safe to say that Hitler made a fatal mistake fighting Stalin.

 

[General_Conway]

In my opinion Hitler should have never tried to invade Russia in the first place. Of course history allows us to tell what was done improperly but...
Invading the Soviet Union was an operational level mistake in that the SU had the ability to fight the war on one solid front while the Germans had to deal with occupying France, fighting the Tunisian Campaign and dealing with Russia. When you gentlemen open a forum about what should have been done then I'll go in depth but I think its safe to say that Hitler made a fatal mistake fighting Stalin.

I agree on both counts. By the way, Col, I love your signature statement!

 

[stephen weist]

as a soldier in WW1 Hitler should have known better than to launch a second front. I think his mistake was to jump at the western powers too quickly when they declared war over Poland. His main goal was to the east anyway and if he would have launched east at this time Russia was his. He should have contained the west until defeating Russia and then sued for peace with the west. Churchill was no great fan of the Russians and I think would have been agreeable to a peace with Germany.

 

[turin]

as a soldier in WW1 Hitler should have known better than to launch a second front. I think his mistake was to jump at the western powers too quickly when they declared war over Poland. His main goal was to the east anyway and if he would have launched east at this time Russia was his. He should have contained the west until defeating Russia and then sued for peace with the west.

Actually would he have not marched into France, then the french forces would have posed a significant threat to Germany. The french military had better equipment and superior numbers. Its defeat was achieved through the heavy use of combined arms and other new tactics not seen before. The element of suprise was substantial. Also in 1939 the Wehrmacht did not have the numbers to seize and hold a substantial part of russian territory. It took a considerable amount of the german forces only to invade Poland. It was very much to the advantage of Hitler that France did not undertake any offensive operations since there would have been barely a defense.

 

[crazypole]

Though the French had superior numbers and in some ways technology, it would have been unlikely that the French would have attacked. Post-1918 the French commanders were firmly entrenched in the idea of fighting a defensive battle, to try and not reproduce the losses of WW1. Basically the whole french army was not set up to attack, the French could not visualise the 2nd World War to go any differently from the 1st, ie. initial assault by the Germans followed by fairly static defensive warfare. The only difference this time was that the French intended to keep the German troops off French soil, hence the Maginot Line.
The French actually had such an opportunity to attack during the time that the German forces were engaged in Poland, and Scandinavia. But the French would have been limited to atacking across a much narrower front than the Germans eventually did, because French forces would have maintained the neutrality of Belgium. This means that the Germans could also have needed a lot fewer divisions to hold back any incursion by the French, seeing as they only needed to cover a much shorter front.

 

[Ender89]

One thing hitler could have done different was change the fortifications so that his forces could have had flanking position on the invading troops. My idea was a T-shaped structure the entered the shore line.

EX: T^T^T^T^T T=structure ^= shore

This would have given the allies less area to spread out and make it easier for german forces to use devastating cros fire on the invasion force.:gun

 

[Brenus]

Actually would he have not marched into France, then the french forces would have posed a significant threat to Germany. The french military had better equipment and superior numbers. Its defeat was achieved through the heavy use of combined arms and other new tactics not seen before. The element of suprise was substantial. Also in 1939 the Wehrmacht did not have the numbers to seize and hold a substantial part of russian territory. It took a considerable amount of the german forces only to invade Poland. It was very much to the advantage of Hitler that France did not undertake any offensive operations since there would have been barely a defense.

First of all hello everyone and sorry for digging through old threads.
I am answering Turin because i am not totaly agree with him, at least on the tactics point.
in 1940 the French defense has prouved its effectiveness during several battles, well maybe one or 2
The reason of the fall of France begin with Belgium neutrality, you have to remember where the main French forces are, all along the Belgium border and waiting for the Germans to invade Belgium, then and only then the French and English will be allowed to enter Belgium to fight the Germans. but when the French and English forces are moving through Belgium the Germans are moving through Ardennes. The so basic and so expected but unexped plan schleifen threatened the main forces flank in Belgium and when they are finally in position to fight back the Germans they are forced to move back to avoid the German wraping move. what a waste of time and ressources.
And when your forces begin to move back you are offering your equipments to your enemies. Tanks running out of fuel are abandoned, damaged vehicles are abandoned, usually in a battle if your tanks are damaged this is not a problem if you are not losing ground, just repair them and they will be ready for the days after. I am blaming Belgium for this terrible mistake, but i am of course blaming the French generals much more for their incredible stupidity.
even when recon planes are reporting the Germans tanks moving slowly through the Ardennes they are ignoring the information. :flaming

And sorry for my Frenchized English. :