Overlord: Would it have been successful without an Eastern Front?

It is foolishness to think that Germany would have been defeated without the Soviet Union draining the cream of the German army. The US would have gotten tired of the war. If the force that was assembled for Kursk was in France in 1944 ready to counter an invasion it could have been a mess.

Germany could not have won and the Allies could not have won the result would be stalemate.
 
mmarsh, you need to read Max Hastings book "Overlord". After reading it I was astounded as to how inept the Allies were. There planning and deception was great but considering the overwhelming superior firepower and numbers, it was amazing how difficult a time they had with the Germans. It's embarassing really!!!
 
mmarsh, you need to read Max Hastings book "Overlord". After reading it I was astounded as to how inept the Allies were. There planning and deception was great but considering the overwhelming superior firepower and numbers, it was amazing how difficult a time they had with the Germans. It's embarassing really!!!

I am not sure I would agree with inept they were lucky in spots but not inept, I think it has to be remembers that the Overlord plan required a lot of untried events to come together at once and for the most part they did and where things went wrong they adapted and still completed their mission.

As to whether D-Day could have failed yes it could and this where I disagree with Doppleganger as I believe that had Rommel's plan been implemented (ie having the Panzer divisions closer to the beaches) it could have been a lot closer than it was, however once the beachhead had survived the first day there was nothing more the Germans could do as the numbers ashore and overwhelming allied air superority made the result a foregone conclusion.
 
It is foolishness to think that Germany would have been defeated without the Soviet Union draining the cream of the German army. The US would have gotten tired of the war. If the force that was assembled for Kursk was in France in 1944 ready to counter an invasion it could have been a mess.

Germany could not have won and the Allies could not have won the result would be stalemate.

You've made a mistake here. The German Army gathered most of its experience in Russia as it was the first enemy capable of resisting them. No Barbarossa means the German army would be almost as green as the Allies and their equipment wouldn't be the same. As I discussed with Doppleganger the heavy armor would not be the same as we know it because the Russia experience was instrumental in german tank design and military thought.
Remember the Allies DID face the German cream and managed to beat it. The Americans at St. Lo and the British/Canadians at Caen. Both were very bloody battles and the Germans fought hard but in the end they were defeated.

I agree with Doppelganger on one point, the success of Overlord would have depended on Air Superiority. The allies nor axis would not have succeed without it. However all things considered, I feel that although the Luftwaffe continued to fight on after 1940, the BOB was a defeat they never recovered from and thus the allies would have won the skies after a bitter struggle.
 
Last edited:
You've made a mistake here. The German Army gathered most of its experience in Russia as it was the first enemy capable of resisting them. No Barbarossa means the German army would be almost as green as the Allies and their equipment wouldn't be the same. As I discussed with Doppleganger the heavy armor would not be the same as we know it because the Russia experience was instrumental in german tank design and military thought.
Remember the Allies DID face the German cream and managed to beat it. The Americans at St. Lo and the British/Canadians at Caen. Both were very bloody battles and the Germans fought hard but in the end they were defeated.

I agree with Doppelganger on one point, the success of Overlord would have depended on Air Superiority. The allies nor axis would not have succeed without it. However all things considered, I feel that although the Luftwaffe continued to fight on after 1940, the BOB was a defeat they never recovered from and thus the allies would have won the skies after a bitter struggle.

During the first 24 hours of D-Day close air support was not that effective primarily because of the weather and because the two sides were too close together however it was effective in preventing German reinforcements getting to the beaches.

It is for this reason that I believe Rommel was correct in his assessment that the time to defeat the invasion force was when it first hit the beaches. To that end, he worked to have the strongest units stationed along the coastline and built coastal batteries and strongpoints, augmented by thousands of anti-invasion obstacles and millions of mines.

If you look at D-Day only the 21st Panzer Division launched a counter attack almost 24 hours after the landings and it was effective even though it was unsupported, had more of the armoured reserves been based forward as Rommel had argued the landings would have been put in severe jeopardy.

Basically I believe that the first few hours of D-Day were the only chance the Germans had to push it back as that negated allied air superiority and had the beaches been isolated it would have negated a lot of the allied naval artillery due to the closeness of operations and due to limited space it would have been impossible to reinforce the beaches with significant numbers.
 
Last edited:
According to Max Hasting's the German's were a mixed bag at this stage of the war but out-fought the Allies on several occasions, eventually being worn down by overwhelming firepower and material. Caen was not fought well by the Allies. Some British and Canadian formations were unimpressive. Some American divisions were excellent, particularly the 82nd and 101st airbourne, but others were very ordinary. The quality of the American troops in the GI was not that great.

The Germans were terrific at infiltration and there equipment was excellent. The Germans always felt they were better than Allied soldiers over-all but were overwhelmed by allied material.
 
According to Max Hasting's the German's were a mixed bag at this stage of the war but out-fought the Allies on several occasions, eventually being worn down by overwhelming firepower and material. Caen was not fought well by the Allies. Some British and Canadian formations were unimpressive. Some American divisions were excellent, particularly the 82nd and 101st airbourne, but others were very ordinary. The quality of the American troops in the GI was not that great.

The Germans were terrific at infiltration and there equipment was excellent. The Germans always felt they were better than Allied soldiers over-all but were overwhelmed by allied material.


That is a bit unfair the Germans had been badly mauled on the Eastern Front but the units on the Western Front were still well trained units and in many cases top class units. In terms of whether the American forces were "ordinary" or not I think describing them as such is doing them a bit of a disservice as they were inexperienced soldiers going up against a nation that had been at war for 5 years and the Germans knew this which is shown in the fact that every major German counter offensive targeted American positions (Kasserine Pass, Ardennes, Operation Lüttich) but in every case they failed.
 
That is a bit unfair the Germans had been badly mauled on the Eastern Front but the units on the Western Front were still well trained units and in many cases top class units. In terms of whether the American forces were "ordinary" or not I think describing them as such is doing them a bit of a disservice as they were inexperienced soldiers going up against a nation that had been at war for 5 years and the Germans knew this which is shown in the fact that every major German counter offensive targeted American positions (Kasserine Pass, Ardennes, Operation Lüttich) but in every case they failed.

Monty, I think you need to get Max Hastings book and have a good read. It's a real eye opener. Hastings was quite fair in his assessment of the Allies in Normandy. The Germans were amazing fighters. They were the best throughout the war (despite Hitler's interference) but were simply ground down by relentless pressure, overwhelming numbers and material.
 
No offence but being ground down by relentless pressure, overwhelming numbers and material is the price you pay for attempting world domination.

I have the utmost respect for the capacity of the German soldier in WW2 but I would hope that I stop short of revisionism when it comes to actual history, yes the German army was well trained and well equipped but they weren't supermen.
 
You've made a mistake here. The German Army gathered most of its experience in Russia as it was the first enemy capable of resisting them. No Barbarossa means the German army would be almost as green as the Allies and their equipment wouldn't be the same. As I discussed with Doppleganger the heavy armor would not be the same as we know it because the Russia experience was instrumental in german tank design and military thought.
You know mmarsh, I just can't agree with you (might come as a surprise to you I know :p). It's true that the Red Army was the first enemy capable of resisting the Germans (due to many factors, not least of which was their ability to recover from losses that would shatter any other army in the world) and it's also true that the resultant battle experience did help shape some factors of German arms development.

Not all arms development though and it's folly to think that in a hypothetical 'no Eastern Front scenario' that the Allies would be facing basically the same army that fought in France. It would be a lot less seasoned for sure but nonetheless it would still would be an army with several campaigns worth of battle experience and data to assimilate. I've already argued that German AFV development would still continue as would other aspects of their equipment. Militaries still continue to develop in peacetime and the German Army isn't going to stand still for the 4 years between the end of the Battle of France and a D-Day event in 1944.

Remember the Allies DID face the German cream and managed to beat it. The Americans at St. Lo and the British/Canadians at Caen. Both were very bloody battles and the Germans fought hard but in the end they were defeated.
It was hardly the German cream though. Sure enough, some of the officers and NCOs were battle-hardened from the Eastern Front but most of the new German recruits at this time were receiving very little basic training. Given that the Western Allies had a) air supremacy, b) a logistical chain that made the Germans green with envy, c) fresh, well-rested troops and d) a numerical superiority they ought to have done better in France than they did historically. The German Army in 1944 was stripped of mobility, low on fuel and had virtually no air cover. Don't fool yourself that the Western Allies beat the cream of the Wehrmacht. The only nation that can claim that distinction is the Soviet Union.

I agree with Doppelganger on one point, the success of Overlord would have depended on Air Superiority. The allies nor axis would not have succeed without it. However all things considered, I feel that although the Luftwaffe continued to fight on after 1940, the BOB was a defeat they never recovered from and thus the allies would have won the skies after a bitter struggle.
Well they did recover and as I earlier pointed out, some of the top German pilots of the war were trained after 1940. The only reason why the Luftwaffe did not fully recover from the losses during the Battle of Britain was because they had no real time to.

It might be an idea to have a read of the following article, if you have time. It examines many of the attitudes regarding the respective performances of both the US and German Army in 1944 and is written by an American author.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/armies/chapter1.aspx
 
Last edited:
I recall Max Hastings said in Overlord (something like) in all theatres of war in WW2 there was never any occasion in which German army were beaten except by a force greater in material strength.
 
Well - the end of WW11 onwards was my time, I was 10 in 1945. I trump Max Hastings on this one because he wasn't even born until 1945.

I knew, met, saw, celebrated with, heavily involved warriors returning from all fronts of WW11, in the air, at sea, Monte Casino, Desert Rats,subs, Queen ships, Burma,with russian forces, etc.etc. I knew guys who had been prisoners of war of Germans and Japs. Many of them were family, and fellow soldiers.

One thing I have to say - I never heard ONE of them commenting on the great quality of German forces at the time, far from it. They held no big reputation that I was ever aware of.

I also question Max Hastings on another point - did he ever serve up front in any arm?

How many Brit generals etc. were ever in awe of these German troops glorified by some so far from the action? I think I am happy with the face to face professional opinion of the time and place.

I do not accept the big IF for one minute; they called the time, they called the place, they called the action - now 'foul' is constantly called. Look - let's be honest. There was nothing noble or admirable about Germany's part in that war worth shouting about. Nothing.

Just my opinion you understand.
 
Last edited:
Well - the end of WW11 onwards was my time, I was 10 in 1945. I trump Max Hastings on this one because he wasn't even born until 1945.

I knew, met, saw, celebrated with, heavily involved warriors returning from all fronts of WW11, in the air, at sea, Monte Casino, Desert Rats,subs, Queen ships, Burma,with russian forces, etc.etc. I knew guys who had been prisoners of war of Germans and Japs. Many of them were family, and fellow soldiers.

One thing I have to say - I never heard ONE of them commenting on the great quality of German forces at the time, far from it. They held no big reputation that I was ever aware of.

I also question Max Hastings on another point - did he ever serve up front in any arm?

How many Brit generals etc. were ever in awe of these German troops glorified by some so far from the action? I think I am happy with the face to face professional opinion of the time and place.

I do not accept the big IF for one minute; they called the time, they called the place, they called the action - now 'foul' is constantly called. Look - let's be honest. There was nothing noble or admirable about Germany's part in that war worth shouting about. Nothing.

Just my opinion you understand.

You will need to read Max Hasting's book. In the revised edition there is an interesting chapter at the end which includes comments from returned soldiers and generals who were there in Normandy. Most were in awe of the German performance given the odds against them. We are talking about the German soldier here, not the politics.


Even soldiers who were there didn't always have a good overview of what was going on. I think Hastings book (this book was written in the 80's) put some balance back into the discussion on fighting ability. The Germans would have belted us even without Ostfront experience!!!
 
Last edited:
Overlord was designed for the conditions as they stood at the time, now had the whole Atlantic wall been packed with Panzer's, then no doubt the the Atom bomb would have been dropped on Germany before it was dropped on Japan. Ain't life just full of ifs and buts


And Germans would have hit back with G-series nerve agents! Which would have killed the invasion right there on the beach!

I am shocked that no one chimed in on this, Germany had nerve gas ready for use in the Second World War it could have been a very desisive weapon if properly employed. Good thing it was not we had nothing like it we only had our WW1 style gasses.
 
Last edited:
One alternative to consider in this scenario would have been an all out invasion of Spain/Portugal. This would have allowed the western allies to get a solid foothold on the continent. Of course the Germans would have came to Franco's aid but would have been stretched even further from their main supply lines. Once established they would have fought eastward while also having the ability to threaten the whole european coastline with follow up landings. If the western allies had the will I think ultimate victory would have been achieved with obviously much greater losses.
 
One alternative to consider in this scenario would have been an all out invasion of Spain/Portugal. This would have allowed the western allies to get a solid foothold on the continent. Of course the Germans would have came to Franco's aid but would have been stretched even further from their main supply lines. Once established they would have fought eastward while also having the ability to threaten the whole european coastline with follow up landings. If the western allies had the will I think ultimate victory would have been achieved with obviously much greater losses.
I seriously doubt the Western Allies would consider an invasion of Spain or Portugal; Napoleon did this and he had nothing but trouble for his efforts. Also, the logistical exercise in getting even the forces that were required for D-Day (which would be insufficient in this scenario) would be far greater than the short hop across the English Channel. It's a no-go as far as I'm concerned unless the Allies were somehow able to get Franco's permission.

Short of using WMDs the Allies would face a very uncertain outcome if they took on a fully intact Wehrmacht and a much stronger Luftwaffe than historically. The Red Army broke the spine of the Wehrmacht in WW2, albeit with critical help from Lend-Lease. IMO no Eastern war = no victory for the Western Allies.
 
One thing I have to say - I never heard ONE of them commenting on the great quality of German forces at the time, far from it. They held no big reputation that I was ever aware of.

Interesting comment, my Father had the same opinion of the prisoners of war they captured in Italy. A scruffy ramshackle bunch begging for a cigarette. I suppose those who surrendered were not the prime of the army like those first encountered on D-Day.
 
One alternative to consider in this scenario would have been an all out invasion of Spain/Portugal. This would have allowed the western allies to get a solid foothold on the continent. Of course the Germans would have came to Franco's aid but would have been stretched even further from their main supply lines. Once established they would have fought eastward while also having the ability to threaten the whole European coastline with follow up landings. If the western allies had the will I think ultimate victory would have been achieved with obviously much greater losses.

Surely this would have been even worse than Italy, with a mountain range acting as a barrier to the continent, but even more remote to Germany. At least you could expect the Italians to surrender.
 
Interesting comment, my Father had the same opinion of the prisoners of war they captured in Italy. A scruffy ramshackle bunch begging for a cigarette. I suppose those who surrendered were not the prime of the army like those first encountered on D-Day.

Are you sure he was speaking of the Germans when he said that,my Father said almost the exact same thing of the Italians but he always said that the Germans would beg for nothing they would take things if offered but that was it.
 
Interesting comment, my Father had the same opinion of the prisoners of war they captured in Italy. A scruffy ramshackle bunch begging for a cigarette. I suppose those who surrendered were not the prime of the army like those first encountered on D-Day.

My Uncle, talked very little about the war, one day he did open up a just a bit and said that the Germans were extremely tough. He was one of the first who enlisted after Pearl Harbor and saw a lot of blood.

Considering the losses on the eastern front it's amazing the German Army functioned as well as it did. They never ran out of good NCOs until the end of the war. I believe a British General commented on that point.
 
Back
Top