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

[errol]

I am reading Max Hastings "Overlord". It makes it plain that the Germans put up a tremendous defence considering they were outgunned, outnumbered, with no Luftwaffe, OKW nuttered by Hitler, most of their best units tied up or destroyed in Russia. Could the Allies have invaded Europe successfully without the Russian Front or would the Germans, particularly their SS Panzer Groups have given us another belting and thrown us back into the sea?

 

[Doppleganger]

The short answer is no and the Western Allies would never have attempted an invasion without there being a significant Eastern Front in place. The Germans, with their best units to hand and a far more significant Luftwaffe presence, would have thrown us back into the sea.

BTW most of the SS Divisions were not elite and the ones that fought with such determination in Normandy were mainly substandard in terms of equipment and especially training. The premier SS units though, those that comprised the II SS Panzer Korps for example, were as fine a formation as anything else in the German Army. If there were no Eastern Front, those would be waiting for us, along with excellent German field commanders such as Guderian, Hoth, Kluge, Manstein et al who spent most of their time on the Eastern Front.

 

[LeEnfield]

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

 

[MontyB]

I am reading Max Hastings "Overlord". It makes it plain that the Germans put up a tremendous defence considering they were outgunned, outnumbered, with no Luftwaffe, OKW nuttered by Hitler, most of their best units tied up or destroyed in Russia. Could the Allies have invaded Europe successfully without the Russian Front or would the Germans, particularly their SS Panzer Groups have given us another belting and thrown us back into the sea?

To be honest the Germans could have had their entire army parked on the Eastern Front and Overload would not have taken place had the Luftwaffe maintained air superiority over the channel instead of being smeared all over southern England.

 

[AikiRooster]

Lack of patience did the Nazi's in I think.

 

[LeEnfield]

It just a case of fighting to many people on two many fronts, Lets face it Germany and their allies topped about 100 million, and they had taken the Allied forces with about Billion people. Well it was never going to work with these odds.

 

[mmarsh]

I am not so I agree that it would have been a German victory.

Remember it was the BOB that cost the Luftwaffe their best pilots. And most of the fighter aces were shot down by Allied Planes not Soviet. The allies had more planes and better quality too. The Me-109G (the most common German fighter) was inferior to almost every allied plane. The Thunderbolts, Spitfires IX, + XIII and Mustangs ate it for breakfast.

The Luftwaffe had 2 exceptional fighter groups JG 26 and JG 52. Both the USAF and RAF had dozens of "good" squadrons such as the 352nd and 354th FG. In both the ETO and PTO, the few exceptional Axis squadrons eventually lost out to the endless supply of qualified Allied pilots. Therefore I would think that the allies would have air superiority.

The allies had fantastic Fighter-Bombers, Overlord proved that Germany couldn't move its tanks during the day because of them. Furthermore the best German Tanks were built in response to Russian Armor, if they never faced the T-34 then they never would have invented the various heavy armor vehicles (Tiger, panther, jadspanther) that they did. Therefore the Allies would have only faced Panzer III and IV which the Shermans could face on equal terms. And again, given the numerical superiority of allied Tanks, advantage allies.

Of course the Germany Army would have been under the continually bombardment of the Allied Fleet.

Lastly the allies had better infantry, they were less experianced but they were better equipped and better supported with artillery and heavy weapons. Remember the German Army was outnumbered by the American Army Alone, excluding the other Allies.

Overlord would have been more costly for the allies, perhaps in the 10s of Thousands KIA, but I think the result would have been the same.

 

[Doppleganger]

Hi mmarsh. I felt compelled to respond to your post, nothing personal.

Remember it was the BOB that cost the Luftwaffe their best pilots. And most of the fighter aces were shot down by Allied Planes not Soviet. The allies had more planes and better quality too. The Me-109G (the most common German fighter) was inferior to almost every allied plane. The Thunderbolts, Spitfires IX, + XIII and Mustangs ate it for breakfast.

It's simply untrue that the Battle of Britain cost the Luftwaffe their best pilots and also untrue that most of the fighter aces were downed against allied aircraft. Erich Hartmann, the leading German ace of the war (and the highest scoring fighter ace in history) was never shot down and spent the vast majority of his time on the Eastern Front, under JG52. He did not even complete his fighter pilot training until 1942 so to say that most of the fighter aces were shot down against the RAF is sadly, untrue.

Hans Ulrich Rudel, although a Stuka pilot, again was not downed by the RAF. Rudel was the highest decorated German individual in WW2 and claimed over 2000 kills. I think it's safe to say that the Luftwaffe lost some good pilots in the Battle of Britain but to say that they lost their best pilots is a falsehood.

Better planes? Again I'm not so sure. The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 was superior to the Spitfire MKV when it was launched in 1941. German fighter design would eventually lead to the ME 262; had this plane been available in decent numbers it would have caused the Allies nothing short of a nightmare. Even historically they inflicted a 4-1 kill ratio on Allied bombers and fighter escorts.

The main problem for the Luftwaffe was 1) lack of trained pilots and 2) lack of fuel. Neither of these points would have anything like the impact they had historically without the presence of an Eastern Front.

The Luftwaffe had 2 exceptional fighter groups JG 26 and JG 52. Both the USAF and RAF had dozens of "good" squadrons such as the 352nd and 354th FG. In both the ETO and PTO, the few exceptional Axis squadrons eventually lost out to the endless supply of qualified Allied pilots. Therefore I would think that the allies would have air superiority.

You are assuming that a 'fortress Britain' would still have been built up had there been no Eastern Front. This is a rather optimistic assumption given that Europe (USSR aside) would be under the domination of Germany, with their full combat strength available to apply against the Western Allies. Politically, it's an absolute non-starter in my eyes; I can't envisage the US being prepared to fortify the UK under those circumstances. Just say for argument's sake that it did happen then the Allies might generally have had local air superiority but they would have nothing like the air supremacy they enjoyed in reality.

The allies had fantastic Fighter-Bombers, Overlord proved that Germany couldn't move its tanks during the day because of them. Furthermore the best German Tanks were built in response to Russian Armor, if they never faced the T-34 then they never would have invented the various heavy armor vehicles (Tiger, panther, jadspanther) that they did. Therefore the Allies would have only faced Panzer III and IV which the Shermans could face on equal terms. And again, given the numerical superiority of allied Tanks, advantage allies.

My comments above partly dismiss this. The Allies would not enjoy the air supremacy they had in actuality. It's also untrue that the best German tanks were built in response to the T-34; only the Panther was as a direct result as the Tiger was already in the advanced planning stage in 1941. though admittedly the T-34 did cause some requirements to be changed. Moreover, it is likely that the Germans would have found out about the T-34 at some point so designs such as the Panther would have followed eventually. Finally you are forgetting about the famous '88 AA gun, that the Germans put to great use as an AT gun. The '88 would take care of any allied tank short of the M26 Pershing and would be highly effective for a defensive German Army.

The allied armoured divisions would not be facing just Panzer IIIs and IVs but also at least Tiger Is and '88 AT guns, a vastly different scenario.

Of course the Germany Army would have been under the continually bombardment of the Allied Fleet.

Only if they were stupid enough to place their divisions in range, which I doubt they would be.

Lastly the allies had better infantry, they were less experianced but they were better equipped and better supported with artillery and heavy weapons. Remember the German Army was outnumbered by the American Army Alone, excluding the other Allies.

It's highly debatable that the Allies had better infantry - why do you say this? One of the things to consider is that the US Army, in their Air/Land Battle 2000 concept devised in the 1980s, recommended adopting the mission style tactics used by the Wehrmacht in WW2. I think that speaks volumes on the impact that the German Army, made up largely of infantry divisions, had on US commanders during WW2. The Allies had some excellent infantry but to say that they were better than Germany infantry... All I can say is that you'd be in the minority with that opinion.

Overlord would have been more costly for the allies, perhaps in the 10s of Thousands KIA, but I think the result would have been the same.

IMO the results would have been far different. The only way to ensure Allied victory in Europe had an Eastern Front not taken place would bring a terrible price.

Anthrax contamination of Germany or the dropping of nuclear weapons on Germany. Take your pick.

 

[Ski8799]

I am reading Max Hastings "Overlord". It makes it plain that the Germans put up a tremendous defence considering they were outgunned, outnumbered, with no Luftwaffe, OKW nuttered by Hitler, most of their best units tied up or destroyed in Russia. Could the Allies have invaded Europe successfully without the Russian Front or would the Germans, particularly their SS Panzer Groups have given us another belting and thrown us back into the sea?

The Reich expended an enormous amount of resources in its eastern campaign as Hitler's top staff urged him to withdraw, but he was relentless and blinded with unreasonable delusions of grandeur. This certainly helped the allies greatly and of course expedited the end of the war, i would say that the Russians didn't win the war, but their contributions were greater than that of the allies. My .02 cents.

 

[mmarsh]

Doppleganger

1. I didnt say every single ace met his end at BOB, naturally some survived or arrivied later. But the core class of 1940, those that fought in Spain, Poland, the low countries and France got decimated in Aug-September 1940. Aside from JG 26 and 52 (and they took heavy losses as well) the average Luftwaffe JG was significantly weakened overall. The Luftwaffe lost 1100 aircraft thats (30% of their total strength) and most of those experianced aircrews were either KIA or were POW. Those pilots whom were lost were not there to train the next generation and by 1944 it showed, because on all fronts the average FG (excluding the JG 26, 52, and 54 as Goering liked to have most of his top Aces assigned together) was never equilivant to the pre-1940. As for the bomber force, it simply was a shadow of its former self.

On the allied side, there were far more Dick Bongs, J.Johnsons, or Hub Zemke then there were German pilots of Hartman's caliber. On a 1-1 to basis MAYBE (debateable) Germany had the edge, but in 1944 the Germans had far few aces and far more rookies than the allies did. It takes years to train a great pilot, you dont lose 30% of your total strength without reprocussion later on.

First of all there were far fewer 190s than 109s. Total production was 12000 (all varients). The 109 was still the mainstay German fighter. You forget that in 1942 the Spitfire V was replaced with the IX and later by 1944 the XIII. The Vs were either converted to high MKs, sent to 2nd line units, or were used as fighter-bombers. Both of those MK were superior to the FW.190. Not to mention the Tempest, P-47, P-51 and P-38. Your also mistaken about the Me-262. First of all it wasnt operational for Overlord, and secondly the ME-262 was a bomber interceptor not a fighter. It was totally unsuited for dogfighting because it couldnt menuever at all. it was also too fast, it would have overshot a piston based fighter, or it would have had to reduce speed (which would have been suicide because it would have deprived the 262 of its sole advantage). Either way the Allies would have either rolled or dived out of the way, it was no threat in a dogfight unless the Allied pilot was caught unaware. In 1945 the American P-51 tactic was catch the 262 in a turn (as they did to make passes on bombers) but because turned so slow and so wide the 51's could open the throttle and catch up to it, turn inside the 262 turn radius and blast it.

Your mistaken on the Tiger. The german were working on a heavy Tank prior to Barbarossa thats true, but it was the encounter with the T-34 that lead to fundimental changes in the original designs Armor and Armament. Thats what made the Tiger a poor cross country preformer, because its drive train and engine were not designed for the increased weight these modifications made. Had the Germans stuck with the original plan the tank (it was called Durchbruchwagen II) probably would have resembled the Char 1Bis is the KV-1 with a low velocity 75mm/L41 gun like the Panzer IV. In short, the Tiger was NOT the same tank. Same with the panther, its sloping armor was a direct copy of the sloping armor of the T-34. I don't think EITHER of these tanks would have made it in their present form without the Soviet influance.

I do think the allies had better infantry. The germans were more experianced, (but again many of their top units were gone in 1944) but even so the still green US was able to hold its own against veteran German units and that was the sole advantage the Germans had. The reason I say the Allies were better was, aside from the squad MG-42 and the typical NCO MP-38/40 the *typical* Wahrmacht rifleman had no semi-automatic weapons. The Gewehr 41/43 never reached widespread distribution, and so the typical infantry weapon was the Mauser K98. They were not motorized and they lacked both air and artillary support. An American infantry squad by contrast was fully automatic. Your typical US squad usually was two LMGs, a .30 cal and a BARMAN with the rest semi auto rifles or SMGs. That means that US squads firepower could and did pin down a larger enemy force. The Americans also had much easier access to heavy weapon units (bazookas, flamethrowers and Mortars teams). US rifle squads were modular, add a Bazooka team to the squad was easily done). The German infantry doctine revolved around the MG42 and allowed for little else. Heavy weapons were treated as seperate units that were moved upon request (usually too late). Furthermore Allied were much further ahead in communications, most platoons had a radioman which could easily relay information and even request air or artillery strikes. The germans never mastered this effectively, partly because german Radios were inferior and partly because of political rivaliries between the air and army corps made cohension difficult.

Allied infantry squads were always moved and accompied by halftracks, and even tanks. Having the 50.cal support fire from a M3 halftrack provided a edge in small arms combat. Only the Panzer grenadiers could regularly rely on regular motorized or armored support.

And of course, the Allies could rely on vast array of artillary, of which the British and the Canadians were absolute masters, espicially in counter-battery work, they had no equal.

 

[Supostat]

Could the Allies have invaded Europe successfully without the Russian Front or would the Germans, particularly their SS Panzer Groups have given us another belting and thrown us back into the sea?

No. Allies won't be able to concentrate a superiority of forces needed for successful invasion as well as necessary air support.

 

[mmarsh]

Another point,

I dont see how Germany could have successfully defended the Atlantic Wall. The French Coastline is over 3000KM long and the allies didnt have to invade Normandy they could have landed anywhere including the south with an invasion from either Italy or North Africa. Normandy was one of a list of possible landing sites. Or the Allies could have invaded Belgium or the Low Countries, the distances by sea are all relatively the same, and I simply cannot see how Germany could Fortify such a vast stretch of territory, the French couldnt do it with the Maginot Line and that was over a smaller landmass.

 

[Ski8799]

No. Allies won't be able to concentrate a superiority of forces needed for successful invasion as well as necessary air support.

Disagree.

Victory of allied forces was certain, but without Russia, it would have taken much longer. Because of this; US produceability, the Reich could not compete with what Eisenhower later referred to as the US military-industrial complex. All of our auto manufacturing plants were converted to support the war effort, the US led the world in automaking at the time. The Panzer units were far superior but we absolutely overwhelmed them with numbers, we would match 4 Shermans to 1 Panzer Tiger, with those odds, superiority is really a moot issue.

It would have just been a matter of time.

 

[perseus]

Another point,

I dont see how Germany could have successfully defended the Atlantic Wall. The French Coastline is over 3000KM long and the allies didnt have to invade Normandy they could have landed anywhere including the south with an invasion from either Italy or North Africa. Normandy was one of a list of possible landing sites. Or the Allies could have invaded Belgium or the Low Countries, the distances by sea are all relatively the same, and I simply cannot see how Germany could Fortify such a vast stretch of territory, the French couldnt do it with the Maginot Line and that was over a smaller landmass.

The allies needed airpower, this largely restricted the landing zones to Normandy, and the North Eastern France/Belgium coast. The Germans knew this, but mainly defended the latter. Given the problems of previous amphibious landings the outcome was far from certain even with the meagre resources the Germans could muster together. Suitable reconnaissance may have been possible a month later with the new jet aircraft. This together with the early release of armour on D-day would have spelt disaster for the allies. It was a case of who made the least errors.

 

[Ski8799]

The allies needed airpower, this largely restricted the landing zones to Normandy, and the North Eastern France/Belgium coast. The Germans knew this, but mainly defended the latter. Given the problems of previous amphibious landings the outcome was far from certain even with the meagre resources the Germans could muster together. Suitable reconnaissance may have been possible a month later with the new jet aircraft. This together with the early release of armour on D-day would have spelt disaster for the allies. It was a case of who made the least errors.

All of that is nice, but you can't discount the enormous resources with which the allies had at their disposal, the US had just awoken to establish themselves into the war machine that they had become by 1945.

 

[Doppleganger]

MMarsh.

I've read your reply to my counter-reply and the basic gist I get is that you're approaching things from a historical perspective; i.e. forgetting that this is really a 'what if' question. German forces in 1944 (with no Eastern Front remember) would be far more numerous, rested, front line units would be at near full establishment, the German Army as a whole would be more fully motorized, the Panzer IIs and IIIs would be completely replaced. You get my drift. The downside is that these troops would be less seasoned than historically and German development of AFVs, aircraft and associated military arms would not follow down the same path to their general detriment.

There would no political will for the Americans to involve themselves in a European war if there was not a significant Soviet involvement. How long do you think the UK would last alone with no Soviet involvement pulling away 80% of German military resources? Not very long. Churchill would likely be ousted, replaced by someone like Lord Halifax who would be more inclined to sue for peace.

There would be no need for a 'Fortress UK' because the UK would possibly already be at peace.

Another point is that it would be far easier for the US just to send over their long-range bomber fleet and nuke Germany from afar. D-Day was only planned and implemented out of necessity and mainly to ensure that Europe did not turn entirely red, if you believe secret British war plans like 'Operation Unthinkable'.

 

[Supostat]

Disagree.

Victory of allied forces was certain, but without Russia, it would have taken much longer. Because of this; US produceability, the Reich could not compete with what Eisenhower later referred to as the US military-industrial complex.

Problem is a bit different: to use their results of superior produceability, Allies will need a beachhead from which develop their assault. And achieving such beachhead in case entire Wehrmacht is free because of not binded in East, would be quite difficult. I do not want say `impossible`, however imo degree of risk of unsuccess will be about 50:50.

 

[mmarsh]

Doppleganger

"What if" are always difficult to predict because there are always unexpected contigents in any bar scenario.

Would the German Army be fully motorized/mechanized, again I am not so sure. It was only 3 years between 1941 (Barbarossa) and 1944 (Overlord). Germany was industrialized, but it wasnt the mass production centers of Detroit or Cleveland. I am not sure they would have been able to produce enough vehicles for its roughly 18 Million Man Army within enough time.

The Chrysler plan in Detriot averaged 5 Tanks a day and the Germans were not as skilled as the Americans and British in mass production and of course this is 1940 not 2008. Remember also that the Germans didn't put alot of stock in motorized units, because the distances in Western Europe were much smaller.

I would hypotheize the the main German tank had there been no Barbarossa would have been a later varient of the Panzer IV, such as the "J" or "N". A good MBT, but one the Shermans could face on a 1-1 basis.

I agree that the Wehrmacht would be larger as 4.5 Million would be free to use, but not all of those men would be on the French coast. Some would be garrisoned around Western and Northern Europe while others would be sent to Afrika to help Rommel. The total Strength of the German Army from 1935-1945 was 18.2 Million. Thats a total, never what was ever fielded at a single time. The US military was 12 Million in 1944 alone. That excludes all the other Armies (British+Canadian) and the remains of defeated Armies that still wished to fight (French, Polish). So even if Germany had had the 4.5 Million available they still would have been outnumbered.

I also think US entry into the war was inevitable. First of all Germany had been sinking US ships throughout 1940 and 1941, secondly Roosevelt hated the Germans as did most politicans from BOTH political parties. And lastly it was Germany that declared war on America first after Pearl Harbor (because of Hitler's Alliance with Japan). I think that last bit of it was inevitable.

Persus

The First German Jet Aircraft wouldn't be ready until Jan 1945, thats not 1 but 6 months after Overlord. Second of all the Allies flew regular bomber sorties to the Pas de Calais to bluff the Germans into thinking the invasion was going there. And again even if Hitler had released the Panzer Lehr earlier Allied Airpower would have Knocked it out as they moved to the front. Perhaps they might have lost at Omaha, but the rest of the landings would still have proceeded.

 

[perseus]

Doppleganger

Persus

The First German Jet Aircraft wouldn't be ready until Jan 1945, thats not 1 but 6 months after Overlord. Second of all the Allies flew regular bomber sorties to the Pas de Calais to bluff the Germans into thinking the invasion was going there. And again even if Hitler had released the Panzer Lehr earlier Allied Airpower would have Knocked it out as they moved to the front. Perhaps they might have lost at Omaha, but the rest of the landings would still have proceeded.

Mmarsh

The Arado 234 Reconnaissance jet is what I was thinking of
http://www.abc.net.au/gnt/history/Transcripts/s1110428.htm

In fact close tactical airpower was poorly co-ordinated on D-day itself. Airpower was also of limited use in poor weather. Suitable reconnaissance should have revealed the mass of armies in the South and the diversion in the South East of England.

Moreover quantity isn't everything, it can be one's undoing without suitable training and battle hardened troops. What prevents the Germans simply overrunning the allied lines and stealing their supplies and repairing broken down tanks. This wouldn't have been beyond Rommel's thinking.

 

[Doppleganger]

Doppleganger

"What if" are always difficult to predict because there are always unexpected contigents in any bar scenario.

True.

Would the German Army be fully motorized/mechanized, again I am not so sure. It was only 3 years between 1941 (Barbarossa) and 1944 (Overlord). Germany was industrialized, but it wasnt the mass production centers of Detroit or Cleveland. I am not sure they would have been able to produce enough vehicles for its roughly 18 Million Man Army within enough time.

Not the full German Army no but the panzer, panzergrenadier and motorised divisions might be. In the relatively short distances involved on the Western Front, the Germans wouldn't need any of the other divisions to be fully motorised.

The Chrysler plan in Detriot averaged 5 Tanks a day and the Germans were not as skilled as the Americans and British in mass production and of course this is 1940 not 2008. Remember also that the Germans didn't put alot of stock in motorized units, because the distances in Western Europe were much smaller.

I don't think the problem is how many tanks the Western Allies were able to produce but the logistical and military operation to get them on the field of battle. The establishment and exploitation of beachheads would be far more difficult with most of the Wehrmacht waiting for them. D-Day historically was hard enough to pull off as it was.

I would hypotheize the the main German tank had there been no Barbarossa would have been a later varient of the Panzer IV, such as the "J" or "N". A good MBT, but one the Shermans could face on a 1-1 basis.

Late variant Panzer IVs were still better tanks than the Shermans but I would expect there to be some kind of improved German design on the field by mid 1944. There's no reason to expect that the Germans would stand still in AFV design. There would definitely be a Tiger I, although perhaps not the Tiger as we would know it.

I agree that the Wehrmacht would be larger as 4.5 Million would be free to use, but not all of those men would be on the French coast. Some would be garrisoned around Western and Northern Europe while others would be sent to Afrika to help Rommel. The total Strength of the German Army from 1935-1945 was 18.2 Million. Thats a total, never what was ever fielded at a single time. The US military was 12 Million in 1944 alone. That excludes all the other Armies (British+Canadian) and the remains of defeated Armies that still wished to fight (French, Polish). So even if Germany had had the 4.5 Million available they still would have been outnumbered.

Again see my point about actually getting these troops onto the field of battle. The Germans would hold the advantage of being on the defensive and having shortened lines of communication and supply. Without air supremacy, the Allies would not be able to simply rely on their CAS aircraft to destroy the bulk of German armour. The Germans, if they were sensible and listened to commanders like Guderian and Schweppenburg, would simply allow the Allies to break-out and advance before outflanking and encircling them. The Allies would not be able to get enough of their numerical superiority onto the battlefield at any one time to make that superiority count. The general ratio of forces to guarantee offensive success is 3:1 for the attacker. I cannot see the Allies being able to get that ratio onto the field of battle quickly enough simply because their logistical structure would not be up to it. It was creaking in reality as it was. The German armies would have time to bleed the Western Allies white.

I also think US entry into the war was inevitable. First of all Germany had been sinking US ships throughout 1940 and 1941, secondly Roosevelt hated the Germans as did most politicans from BOTH political parties. And lastly it was Germany that declared war on America first after Pearl Harbor (because of Hitler's Alliance with Japan). I think that last bit of it was inevitable.

Sure, but it's one thing for the US to declare war on Germany and quite another for them to commit major resources to a European invasion with a full-strength German Army and Luftwaffe waiting for them. Why wouldn't they just develop their long-range strategic bomber force and carpet bomb Germany instead? After all, we are in the era where strategic bombing was seen as a war-winning weapon.