Western Allies v German Wehrmacht 1944 -


Read more about Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU What you're forgetting is that the first atomic bombs were incredibly heavy. Little boy weighed 9,000 pounds. Germany did not have a st

Military Medals Store

  International Military Forums > >

User Name
Password

View Poll Results :Western Allies v German Wehrmacht 1944 - who wins?
Western Allies push Germany back to Berlin 10 55.56%
German Wehrmacht pushes the Western Allies into the sea 6 33.33%
Stalemate, with neither side gaining the upper hand 2 11.11%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

 
December 17th, 2004   #1
Doppleganger
 
 

Western Allies v German Wehrmacht 1944 info


Hello.

Another one of these 'what-if' scenarios. Although this scenario is unlikely to have ever happened in reality, who would you choose against the Western Allies v German Wehrmacht at 1944 combat strength BUT with all of her forces to choose from.

For this scenario we'll assume that Germany took until early 1944 to defeat the USSR and has been weakened as a result. Many of the German Panzer (and other) Divisions will not be at 100% combat strength but tanks like the Tiger 1 and Panther are more widely available than historically, although Panzer IV's still make up the main bulk of the panzers. The D-Day landings have happened and the Allies have managed to secure the Normandy beaches but no further.

Who would win and why?


"An Emperor is subject to no-one but God and justice."

Frederick 1, Barbarossa
 
-
AVG Advent calendar: daily offers
December 21st, 2004   #2
USAFAUX2004
 
 
Wait they actually defeat the rooskies? now how does that work?
 
December 21st, 2004   #3
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFAUX2004
Wait they actually defeat the rooskies? now how does that work?
Well look man, it is a hypothetical scenario and in any case, the Germans had it within their own power to defeat the USSR.
 
June 10th, 2005   #4
MontyB
 
 
While I think the Wehrmacht at all stages of the war was capable of matching the allies I voted for the west to win simply because by 1944 the luftwaffe had been effectively destroyed and much like today without air superiority your ground forces are more or less paralysed (in both terms of production and capacity to manoeuver safely).

Something I was thinking a little while back though was a scenario where the Germans had their 1940 capabilities (manpower, training) but 1944 equiment during the battle of the bulge, I think that would have gone Germany's way.


Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. - Voltaire 1694-1778
 
June 11th, 2005   #5
Darcia
 
However in theory if Russa had follen the the US and the Uk would eb able to divert supplies they were sending to Russia and begin building newer weapons,also this would limit the war front to only 2 war fronts. However this would open the Middle east to nazi expantion. the Allies however already had forces down there waiting for such an atack.


^_^
 
June 11th, 2005   #6
Jäger
 
 
I think in this scenario could the german production of planes have been better, so the german airforce is not as weak as it was, but even in this scenario is the only possible end a more or less defeat of germany. The greatest problem is the lack of resources. Even if Germany would have won on the eastern front, what was defenetly not possible, the allied forces were much bigger and had much more resources an that is the reason why the war only could have ended this way. But maybe it might have been a much longer an bloodier.


\"I am a soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight.\"

-- General George S. Patton
 
June 11th, 2005   #7
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jäger
I think in this scenario could the german production of planes have been better, so the german airforce is not as weak as it was, but even in this scenario is the only possible end a more or less defeat of germany. The greatest problem is the lack of resources. Even if Germany would have won on the eastern front, what was defenetly not possible, the allied forces were much bigger and had much more resources an that is the reason why the war only could have ended this way. But maybe it might have been a much longer an bloodier.

The way I read the scenario was that the war had gone pretty much the way it did however the Germans beat the Russians just prior to D-Day so they had still suffered the losses to that point.

I agree that the ability to transfer a large proportion of the aircraft/troops on the eastern front would have been an option but I am really basing my argument on a lack of quality, trained and experienced pilots and a severly battered transport system incapable of safely transfering men and material safely (by 1944 all of Germany was within bomber range) to the west.

On top of this if you look at March - May 1944 (which is where I assume this scenario begins) you have the allies at Monte Cassino in Italy so there is already a second front and they have approx 4000 combat aircraft available to them compared to the Germans approx 450 which in the scheme of things is just to much to overcome in the short term (these numbers dont take into account what was in Britain preparing for D-Day and I imagine that was an even greater number).

I also agree that with Russia out of the war it gives them a lot of extra production capacity for the long term (ie oil, food, raw materials) as well as secure (out of bomber range) space to train, rest and replace units but I think for it would have taken at least 1-2 years to get the German military back to the capacities it had in the early 1940s.
 
June 12th, 2005   #8
Darcia
 
However if Hitler had been able to create some kind of peace plan with the Uk (Unconditional Surrender was Rooselvelts Idea,not Chruchhills,it is said they never discussed it before FDR annouced it) Then He could have used that time to rebuild the forces. Also after Russia fell the Americans and british would most likley lose alot of moral.
 
June 12th, 2005   #9
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I also agree that with Russia out of the war it gives them a lot of extra production capacity for the long term (ie oil, food, raw materials) as well as secure (out of bomber range) space to train, rest and replace units but I think for it would have taken at least 1-2 years to get the German military back to the capacities it had in the early 1940s.
We're assuming that D-Day takes place as historically, giving the Wehrmacht about 3-4 months to get ready for the invasion. In this scenario the loss of the German 6th Army probably never happened and the forces available to meet the Western Allies would be quite substantial. The quality of the Wehrmacht would also be pretty high as we are talking about an army that has been constantly at war for over 4 years and without some of the debilitating losses suffered at Stalingrad and Moscow. The core Officers and NCOs would be in place and the quality of equipment would be higher than the 1940 Wehrmacht, in particular in tanks and AT guns. So IMO it wouldn't take anything like 1-2 years to rest and refit the OstHeer. The main difficulty would be transporting the units from the Eastern Front in time.

The Luftwaffe facing the Western Allies would also be much stronger than historically, although it would definitely still be at a substantial numerical advantage. Air power would be the biggest Allied card to play. The other big 'if' would be whether the Wehrmacht's Panzer spearheads engaged the Allied armies at their beach-head (as Rommel favoured) or whether the Germans allowed the Allied armies to move inland before engaging (as Guderian wanted).
 
June 12th, 2005   #10
PershingOfLSU
 
Realistically the greatest chance, and a great fear of the western allies, was that Stalin would stop at the Russian border and sign a peace treaty with the Germans. Which is the most likely cause for the Russians leaving the war in 1944. And if Germany had conquered Russia there wouldn't have been a massive influx of troops to the west. Why? Because Germany has to militarily occupy the largest country in the world with a very lively resistance movement. Consider that it took 100,000 troops just to occopy Norway.

Had Germany tried a major force shift to the west they would undoubtably have suffered losses to air raids en route. And once they arrived on the scene they would have faced a massive allied air force. After the Normandy invasion German tanks couldn't move in the day time for fear of air attack. So during the day they simply hid in the trees when they could. Allied air power was so complete at by the Normandy invasions that it nullified many of Germany's qualitative advantages in ground forces. There is a reason why the German victories during Battle of the Bulge were under the cover of clouds.

However the greatest factor would have been Germanys lack of strategic resources. Even had the USSR been conquered, Stalin had a scorched earth policy that would have ensured the destruction of Russia's oil fields. Allied bombings were destroying Germany's synthetic oil and ball bearing plants. Without even one of these items you can't build or maintain tanks.

Ultimately Germany would have delayed Allied progress in the west. And the first military of an atomic bomb wouldn't have been against Japan.
 



Tags
1944, allies, german, strength, wehrmacht

MilitaryClothing.com