WW-II: Normandy landing

[rattmuff]

Operation Bodyguard

It is worth mentioning Operation Bodyguard.

The operation had three main goals.

1. To induce the German command to believe that the main assault and follow up will be in or east of the Pas de Calais, thereby encouraging the enemy to maintain or increase the strength of his air and ground forces and his fortifications there at the expense of other areas, particularly of the Caen area.

2. To keep the enemy in doubt as to the date and the time of the actual assault.

3. During and after the main assault to contain the largest possible German land and air forces in or east of the Pas de Calais for at least fourteen days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodyguard

The allies made alot of things to make this work. Building a fake invasion force , not just make alot of stuff but also fill the air with radio messages from made up units on various locations. Another job was to hide the actual invasion force. They also used captured german spies to send "wrong" intelligence to the german high command.
The allies thought of everything and planed everything, for example the bombings of bridges, roads and other places of value. They bombed theese places in such way that the invasion would accure at Pas de Calais and still the bombings had the expected effect when Normandy was taken... I belevie the operation started in 1942 or could it have been 1941.

Operation Bodyguard played a significant role before/during/after the Normandy landing.

 

[steve33]

There is a perception that if the German forces had got to the beaches in the first 24 hours they would have destroyed the allied forces but it would have been interesting to see how the german Panzer divisions coped with all the warships ranging from destroyers to Battleships which would have opened fire on them with everything they had and we also had i understand 6,000 aircraft available that day with total air supremacy and the German forces coming forward would have been totally exposed.

 

[TrangleC]

Warships back then were capable against fortifications, but not so much against a moving tank force they can't see. Another problem would have been that they might have accidently fired at the retreating allied troops in such a case.

I agree that the air superiority would have been a bigger problem for the Wehrmacht troops, but maybe not such significant.
1.) Back then tanks could hide from aircraft pretty good.
2.) Only a fraction of this 6000 Aircraft were equiped for ground attack missions.
3.) It needs time to call in air support. And the target most likely will have done what it wanted to do and moved on till the attack aircraft arrive.
4.) Accuracy of air attacks against moving targets was not very high. At least with bombing attacks. That is why the Germans developed "destroyer" aircraft that used big guns to hunt tanks instead of bombs. For a long time the Luftwaffe kept air superiority on the eastern front but bomb dropping fighters turned out to be not very effective in a tank hunting role.

Air superiority certainly won the war, but only because it enabled the allies to perform massive bombardements on cities and industrial facilities. The armed forces of all sides weren't bothered so much by the lack of air superiority, once they were out in the field.

What you hear about the Kosovo campaign, even modern attack aircraft didn't do so well against tanks and other armoured vehicles in a terrain with an average percentage of forrests.

 

[steve33]

If the German forces had to wipe out the beaches they would not really be able to sit still and be hidden they would have to come forward and that would expose them and even a fighter with just cannons could have caused enough problems for the German infantry to stop them going forward espically with the number of aircraft we had available.

The German forces found in Normandy they had a terriable time trying to move in daylight and attempting to mass for attacks was nearly impossiable because the airpower would come in and disperse them.

The airborne forces we had landed inland may have been able to call in gunfire from the ships but either way the normandy landings were do or die for us if the germans started to really threaten the landings they would have opened fire with everything they had and some of the forward troops would have been sacrificed to save the operation and many other lives.

There was a landing at i think it was Salerno in Italy and we used ship and airpower to turn the tables.

 

[TrangleC]

You don't have to move directly on to the beach where the ships can see you to drive back a invading force to it. And also the most common and most successful tactic back then was to encircle enemy forces and to cut them off from supplies and more important in this case, from retreat.
Why else do you think the german tank forces specialized on swift advances? Mobility wouldn't have been an issue and there wouldn't have been a "Blitzkrieg" if just moving forward towards the enemy would have been the tactic. That was outdated.

I am not a specialist for tactical/historical details of the "Ardennen Offensive", but as far as i know the few successful actions of the Wehrmacht were just done like that, by tanks moving through half dried out river banks and appearing in the backs of the allies when not expected aso.
So if Rommel would have gotten free hand from Hitler before it was too late, i suspect that was what he would have done on a much larger and better organized scale and extend.
He most likely would have encircled the allied forces and driven them away from the beach, towards fortified infantry forces, while shelling the so created "Kessel" (german for kettle) with artillery.
That basically was how all the big land battles of WW2 were won first by the Wehrmacht, then by the Red Army, till the western allied forces joined in and pretty much just advanced in closed lines and drowned their enemies in reinforcements where neccessary, the old fashioned way.

And i'm not exaggerating or bragging (because i take no pride of the military achievements of the Wehrmacht just like i feel no shame for the crimes against humanity they committed) when i say thet the organisation of the Wehrmacht troops was advanced enough not to be bothered too much by aircraft harassment maybe preventing them from massing for attacks.
The Wehrmacht was the first armed force to realize that it is more effective to scatter an army into small groups, hold together by radio communication and rejoining them IN and not before battle, if neccessary, instead of bulking them to big and slow forces.

It seems to be common sense by historians (and i am not only talking about german historians, because it was american and british documentations i learned this from) that Rommel could have defeated the invading force if he would have had a free hand and if Hitler wouldn't have been unavailable for him at the first day of the invasion.

 

[steve33]

As far as historians go it,s just there opinion as what i am saying is just my opinion.

At i think it was salerno the Germans had us on the ropes and we used our air power and ships to prevail and get ashore and i have no doubt the same would have happened at Normandy.

They would have to break our flanks to encirle us and we had over 100 warships from destroyers to Battleships and there fire was being directed from planes and ground observers so it would be accurate and continuous we would have been able to put down devastating forepower on our flanks and we also had an air force consisting of 2,800 heavy bombers,1,500 medium and light bombers and 3,700 single engine fighters of which 1,700 were fighter bombers armed with anti tank rockets.

I have a book and it states that German accounts of the battle speak of the paralyzing effect of overwelming ship bombardments that shattered the offence spirit of the infantry and halted almost every attempted counterattack,notably that of the 12th SS Panzer Division of sep7th and they were one of the best German divisions in Normandy.

The Germans could have hurt us more if they had reacted quicker but the overwelming firepower we had to throw against them would have prevailed allowing us to build up a solid beach head and then start to more inland and from there it would have been a battle of attrition which germany couldn,t win,they were a great army but the end was coming for them they were to over stretched.

Thats just my opinion as i said before.

 

[Big-E]

Once Germany opened up a second front against the USSR the war was over. The only way they could have stopped the Normandy landing is to of had the Eastern forces available for a counter offensive.

 

[Rich]

The Germans could have hurt us more if they had reacted quicker but the overwelming firepower we had to throw against them would have prevailed allowing us to build up a solid beach head and then start to more inland and from there it would have been a battle of attrition which germany couldn,t win,they were a great army but the end was coming for them they were to over stretched

I question just how "great" they actually were. In the early war they fought well but most of what they achieved was thru audacity and spinelessness in the west. In the east they achieved much, early, due to poor Soviet judgement and inept leadership. The Germans did use combined arms very effectively in the early war.

But by June 1944 they were not in the same league as the Allied juggernaut being launched against them in the west. I would say their tank corps were pretty good but the average German soldier on the Atlantic war wasnt worth much. The exception of course being at Omaha where the battle hardened 352'nd waited.

Normandy was, if anything, an example of all that was wrong with the German army. The leadership of the front was divided and Rommel couldn't make many decisions due to the diluted chain of command. He rightly judged keeping armor away from the beachheads wasnt a solution because allowing the Allies to establish a beachhead, in the first place, would guarantee the armor would be destroyed in the end result anyways.

But going back to my point, in 1944. man for man, the German army wasnt what it was in 1939. By June 1944 Germany was sending its children off to fight and many units had very little training. Even the Battle of the Bulge had many volksturm and poorly trained units involved. But going back to Normandy while there were some fine, and capable, units like 12'th SS many of the German units in theatre were far undermanned and under-equipped.

I think air power was far less a factor at Normandy, and Pre-Falaise pocket, then many think. German records dont reflect allied air power as being decisive, tho I'm sure it had impact. The day, and days immediately following 6 June had poor weather conditions which neutralized allied air power. The Germans acclimated by moving mostly at night. Of course once we broke into the open country, and the weather improved, all hell broke loose from the Jabos. But naval gunnery had far more impact on D-Day, and the days after, then air power did.

 

[FutureTank]

Of course it was a tactical error and I think, even a strategical one.
Hitlers decision to attack the SU was largely a political and idiological one. To give some keywords here, one could name "Lebensraum" or the dominance of the germanic race over europe and the inferiour "weak" races.
Yet Russia was always, even back to the 19th century, considered a threat to Europe as a whole. Just have a look at Bismarcks policiy to contain Russia on the Balkans and the UK's actions to prevent them reaching the Dardanelles. When the communist regime was raised in Russia, this became even worse and Russia/SU was always considered a long term threat by the allies as well..

It seems to me Russians can also make the argument that Bismark was seeking to expand Germany (Bavarian King of Greece), and British were looking for a foothold in Middle east, which they secured later.

(Also remember: we won the war against Russia in 1917! .
I don't think you can say "won" when the other army packs up and goes home!

Now with Stalin and his purge of the red army most people thought, its a piece of cake!).

Who? Most of his own General Staff were against it.

As everybody knows, we lost the battle over britain and that was the main reason (besides the russian campaign) to shelve the invasion plan for the UK (operation "Seeloewe" or "Seal"). We lost the BoB for some reasons, mainly because we had no strategical bomber command and only tactical bombers..

I must be a bit slow, but I thought it was the failure of the Luftwaffe to realise the British had radar controled interception of the German bombing raids, and therefore filure to destroy these radars. One doesn't need strategic bombers to support amphibious landings.

We should have concentrated ops on strategical targets such as industry and the military complex in the south western part (around the invasion area). Then, since no invasion in the SU would have taken place, transfer all available man power to France, build some useful landing fleet (the one we had was crappy to most parts) and even if we had no complete air dominance in Britain, we should have tried the invasion. I firmly believe that as soon as we would have gained a foothold in south western GB they would have been lost since then the transfer of additional troops could take place. We had about 3 million troops to attack the SU, most of these troops battle proven and now available to the invasion of GB..

The only problem is that this would have left USSR an obvious next target, and made surprise (albeit to Stalin by denial only) impossible in 1941.

As for Russia, even if there would have been an imminent risk of attack from their side (and I seriously doubt that regarding their reaction to the invasion in june 1941), I would have strengthened our defenses in Poland and continued relations as usual..

Good, because Soviet tactics strongly emphasised breakthroughs of fortified regions

When we would have reached control of GB, you could say "game over". Now we would have been able to transfer large parts of the Luftwaffe to the eastern "front" as well as army units. Our submarines now could operate freely in the Atlantic Ocean without being forced to shut down trade lanes to Britain. The navy yards now would concentrate on builing A LOT more subs (as they did in 1944, when everything was already lost) to effectively deter the US from launching an invasion of some kind. Now we would have concentrated our ressources to the SU. I will wait for responses and post my thoughts about such a campaign another time..

One problem. Firstly, as mentioned above, the Soviet Union would have been forewarned. Secondly, all those submarines still needed fuel, and USA had a lot more of it then Germany.

Cheers
Greg

 

[FutureTank]

In point of fact the 'English' is derived largely from Germana nd French as it is. There is very little of the original Britonic Celt left in it
Cheers
greg

 

[Big-E]

(Also remember: we won the war against Russia in 1917! .
I don't think you can say "won" when the other army packs up and goes home!

Really?

 

[FutureTank]

There was a Russian Revolution...beginning of Soviet Union. Troops introduced unit elections and Imperial officers were replaced with Commisars which promptly disbandoned many units and sent them home. The Tzar abdicated and the General Staff begun to fight the Bolsheviks whech were supported by clidestant means by Germany. The Baltic states and Ukraine declared independence and requested German troops as occupation forces to maintain order and restrain Communists. All other available troops were sent to the Western Front.
Cheers
greg

 

[FutureTank]

Normandy, the right decision?

It seems to me a strange question!
How else does one invade a sub-continent? The USSR would not 'share' its front, and Italy was a b**** to move through.
Most of the troops were in UK, so it made sense from logistic point of view to retain shortest lines of communications possible for most of troops possible.
However if Allies had air superiority, they may have tried to invade in Danmark rather then France. This may have forced earlier end of war by placing Allied forces closer to Berlin, and caused less destruction in France.
It seems to me the use of airborne troops was a bit of a waste in terms of overall planning.

 

[Big-E]

There was a Russian Revolution...beginning of Soviet Union. Troops introduced unit elections and Imperial officers were replaced with Commisars which promptly disbandoned many units and sent them home. The Tzar abdicated and the General Staff begun to fight the Bolsheviks whech were supported by clidestant means by Germany. The Baltic states and Ukraine declared independence and requested German troops as occupation forces to maintain order and restrain Communists. All other available troops were sent to the Western Front.
Cheers
greg

Russian actions at Tannenburg ,the Masurian and Naroch Lakes battles were pathetic. Germany crushed them at every turn, Russia lost that one.

 

[FutureTank]

Ok Big-E, but did these battle outcomes decide the course of war on the Russian front?

 

[Big-E]

Ok Big-E, but did these battle outcomes decide the course of war on the Russian front?

It is my belief that these losses are what caused the Bolshevik revolution. If Nicholas had been kicking Wehrmacht butt I doubt it would have been succesfull. It was after all the deserting soldiers that made up the bulk of Bolshevik forces and the October Revolution. If everyone was happy with progress in the war they would keep the powers that be. It was after all the strain of the war that made life so hard.

 

[TrangleC]

If Nicholas had been kicking Wehrmacht butt I doubt it would have been succesfull.

Not that it would be important, but there was no Wehrmacht in WW1. The german army was called "Kaiserliche Armee" (= Imperial Army) at that time.

 

[Big-E]

Not that it would be important, but there was no Wehrmacht in WW1. The german army was called "Kaiserliche Armee" (= Imperial Army) at that time.

I thought Heer was army?

 

[FutureTank]

Russian actions at Tannenburg ,the Masurian and Naroch Lakes battles were pathetic. Germany crushed them at every turn, Russia lost that one.

This is a very unbalanced presentation of WW1's Eastern Front!
Tannenberg was in 1914, and failed so far as strategic goals go. Masurian lakes were indecisive. What about the Brusilov offinsive?
What about Germans having to bolster Austria-Hungary, and Romania entering the war when Russian crossed the Carpathin Mountains?

It seems to me that by 1917, just as in 1944, the end was in sight for all to see. The difference was in the pre-existing political fracturing in the Russian Empire. In WW2 Stalin thwarted that in 1937.
In 1917 Germans, French, Russians and others were deserting or refusing to fight. Even the citizenry realised that their generals raised on lessons of 1871 had no way of preventing wholesale slaughter. This is what made commanders like Monash stand out later.
Communism was not far from minds of Germans either...remember Bavaria?

It seems to me that Normandy landings were an incredible achievement in the light of other amphibious operations, and could easily have been a defeat for the Allies. It is difficult to think of alternatives.

 

[Big-E]

It seems to me that Normandy landings were an incredible achievement in the light of other amphibious operations, and could easily have been a defeat for the Allies. It is difficult to think of alternatives.

This thread brings back the war stories my grandfather would share with us about D-Day. He was part of the forward logistics train that came in the second wave on Omaha beach. These were the guys who actually had to deal with helping the corpsman pick up and care for the wounded... His vivid detail would give me nightmares to this day. It was these men who died to save not only France but the Soviet Union as well. Without the second front it was hopeless. It was also the "doughboys" of WWI that saved France and again the Soviet Union from being the pawn of Germany. In WWI even though Germany lost they still got a peace treaty from the CCCP that just wreaked of "YOU LOST!"