Originally Posted by MontyB

4) Even had the allied air force stayed away any German counter offensive within 10 miles of the beach was going to be met with naval gun fire.

This point is precisely why German panzer formations should have been based inland. The counter-attack ideally for the Germans wouldn't have come anywhere near the coast. The idea was that 2 armoured pincers would engage when the Allies neared Paris, in a large-scale envelopment reminiscent of the encirclements in 1941 and 1942 on the Eastern Front.

Tanks are not beach weapons. By sticking them on such a surface you basically relegate them to mobile pillboxes. The best use the Germans could have made of their forces, regardless of air supremacy from the Allies or not, was to use their concept of Elastic Defence in Depth to suck in the Allies and then counter them as described above. Disasters for the Germans such as the Falaise Pocket would probably never have occurred.

Hehe I didn't actually mean run them down to the water line and start shooting, the problem I have with the "let them get ashore and then engage them on our terms" approach is that (and I know I am repeating myself here) allied air superiority would have meant disaster.

Lets face it the scenario you are talking about is similar to the Ardennes Offensive, no allied air power and no naval support and a slightly stronger German army with easier ground to travel over. However I believe the result would have been the same 2 days to a week of hard fought slow advances and then the armour would have been decimated in open ground by the allied air force.

Essentially I guess what I am saying is that much like every war thats ever been fought since WW2 if you do not control the air you may as well give up as you are not going to win. Without the Luftwaffe to support and defend the armour any attack was going to be met with eventual destruction hence the reason I agree with Rommel on this D-Day had to be stopped at the shore in Normandy not Paris.

Much stronger forces than were available for the Battle of the Bulge but yeah, you're right, tactical air power over modern battlefields is so important and I think it would probably have been decisive over France in 1944 no matter what the Germans did.

It would have been interesting to see how things would have gone had the Luftwaffe been able to compete even at a weakened level, I guess had that been the case D-Day may never have gone ahead at all and the French would have been speaking Russian.

I think events on the Eastern Front in 1943, plus the political pressure Stalin was putting on the Western Allies, more or less guaranteed a D-Day in 1944 at some point. If we can hypothesize that the Luftwaffe was able to maintain a least some parity in tactical air support and fighter cover then the task of the Western Allies would have been much more difficult. If D-Day had never gone ahead then possibly the July bomb plot wouldn't have happened either. With only one front to fight on and Hitler still allowing some military judgement to prevail the Germans could have eventually stalled the Soviet advance. Historically the Red Army was beginning to run short of manpower in 1945 and the Germans had ever shortening supply lines and defensive fronts that would have made things easier for them. Of course, they'd need to hold on to the Ploesti oilfields in Romania to have any chance.

The Germans really seemed to make things hard for themselves. They had the best tactical and operational organisation in the world but their upper command structure was a mess of bureaucracy, secrecy and mistrust. Too many chiefs basically and Hitler making all the decisions.

Of course, they'd need to hold on to the Ploesti oilfields in Romania to have any chance.

These were bombed in conjunction with the synthetic refineries. As a result German petroleum production dwindled and their ability to fight any prolonged war would have been impossible anyway. Interesting then that the petroleum sources were really devastated only after D day. A total collapse of the Eastern front followed by problems of the Western Allies making headway in Normandy would have indeed meant a Iron Curtain advancing to the English Channel. I am surprised why historians haven't discussed this more.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

The Germans really seemed to make things hard for themselves. They had the best tactical and operational organisation in the world but their upper command structure was a mess of bureaucracy, secrecy and mistrust. Too many chiefs basically and Hitler making all the decisions.

I think this is something the world should be grateful about to, things may have turned out totally different had Hitler just played at being a politician instead of god.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I think this is something the world should be grateful about to, things may have turned out totally different had Hitler just played at being a politician instead of god.

Indeed. We are lucky that Hitler was his own worst enemy. However, Nazi Germany would never have achieved the things they did, good or bad, without his influence. In many ways, Hitler was a great man. Unfortunately, he also condoned acts of great evil to take place.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

You're absolutely right Monty. Rommel, and to a lesser extent Rundstedt, Kesselring and Model etc have all taken all the headlines, primarly as they fought against the Western Allies from 1943 onwards. Guderian and Manstein are known to people who have looked into things a little more but there are plenty of commanders who deserve to be mentioned yet are almost unknown to most people. Aside from the excellent generals you already mentioned you could add the likes of Hoepner, Balck, Schweppenburg, Eberbach, Dietrich, Bock, Leeb. I could go on and on. I think the German system of Auftragstaktik, where commanders were given mission-style orders by their superiors and given a great deal of autonomy in achieving those orders, developed commanders who were quick to use initiative and think for themselves. This system created and nurtured some excellent commanders. It is notable that as soon as Hitler started micro-managing the Wehrmacht much of its ability and dash disappeared. Even so, NCOs and upwards were still encouraged to think for themselves and is one reason why even the 1944-45 Wehrmacht was still a very effective combat force, albeit on the defensive.

Ok so in a head to head battle who do you rate best von Arnim or Rommel?

They both fought in the same region and separately and they both had very different ideas on the way things should have been done with von Arnim being the more cautious.

Good question. Arnim came up through the ranks under Guderian, although he got injured in the opening days of Barbarossa and thereafter Guderian's influence was lost to him. I just don't know enough about Arnim's DAK career to say one way or the other. What I do know is that Rommel took the freedom that mobile warfare allowed him to extremes which might have spelt disaster on the Eastern Front say. Even Guderian was quick to ensure that his flanks were protected when advancing. From that perspective Arnim was probably the more rounded commander but without the flashes of genuis that Rommel had.