Western Allies v German Wehrmacht 1944

[Doppleganger]

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?

 

[USAFAUX2004]

Wait they actually defeat the rooskies? now how does that work?

 

[Doppleganger]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[MontyB]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Doppleganger]

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).

 

[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.

 

[MontyB]

I tend to agree with PershingOfLSU on this even with the bulk of the German army in the east released to assist in the west it simply could not have operated or deployed effectively without air superiority.

Regardless of the fate of the 6th army at Stalingrad the Germans would have continued to suffer casualties to its units throughout 1943-44 in Russia and I have no doubt that any attempt to move large volumes of troops to the west would have been difficult given the state of the western european transport systems and the damage the Russians would have done internally before giving up, this combined with allied air superiority almost from Romainia back to Britain troop redeployment would have been a nightmare.

I think the best the Germans could hope for was to have delayed the allied advance through Europe long enough to reorganise and then stop them I dont think once the allies were established in France they could have driven them out.

 

[Darcia]

if the war continued however Germany(Hitler) could have gone ahead with his Nuclear weapon also. The Difference between Hitler and Roosevelt(and Truman I know) having the weapon is Hitler would use it more than twice.

 

[Arclight]

if the war continued however Germany(Hitler) could have gone ahead with his Nuclear weapon also. The Difference between Hitler and Roosevelt(and Truman I know) having the weapon is Hitler would use it more than twice.

I was under the impression that the Allies had taken care of their heavy water production facilities. And why would the nuclear program have gone any differently if Russia fell?

 

[PershingOfLSU]

The allies would have had nuclear weapons long before Germany. Germany relied entirely on heavy water from Norway for its nuclear weapons program. The plant was attacked and reduced by Norwegian insurgents and Germany's heavy water stocks were destroyed by an allied air raide on the ship transporting them. By 1944 Germany had no chance of producing a nuclear weapon before the allies, nor did Germany have a reliable means of delivering it.

 

[MontyB]

By 1944 Germany had no chance of producing a nuclear weapon before the allies, nor did Germany have a reliable means of delivering it.

Maybe they couldnt deliver it to the US but they certainly could have hit anywhere in Europe via the Luftwaffe's jet aircraft and I am reasonably confident that had Germany had the bomb then a V2 (V3 in the case of the USA) would have been adapted to deliver it.

 

[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 strategic bomber force. The Ju-188 could carry 4,400 pounds, the H-111 could cary 2,200 pounds. A V2 could only carry one ton, and the V3 is just a cross channel weapon. Hypothetically the Luftwaffe could have used a strategic bomber prototype to deliver an atomic weapon, not that one existed. Even the HE-177 couldn't have carried Little Boy. The only German plane that could take off with Little Boy was a transport, and it wouldn't have stood a snowballs chance in hell. The Ju-287 would have been slower then propellor based interceptors and even if it could carry the weight, well you couldn't fit the bomb inside it. They certainly didn't have an assembled jet that could carry something as massive as an atomic bomb and out run allied interceptors.

If Germany had tried to deliver a nuclear weapon to any major allied city the bomber in question would have been shot down before even reaching England or Paris. Just about the only method they could have used to deliver an atomic weapon to a city is a U-Boat, and even that was risky for an important harbor.

Not to mention that the Allied nuclear program was literally years ahead of any Germany program.

 

[MontyB]

What you're forgetting is that the first atomic bombs were incredibly heavy. Little boy weighed 9,000 pounds. Germany did not have a strategic bomber force. The Ju-188 could carry 4,400 pounds, the H-111 could cary 2,200 pounds. A V2 could only carry one ton, and the V3 is just a cross channel weapon. Hypothetically the Luftwaffe could have used a strategic bomber prototype to deliver an atomic weapon, not that one existed.

I am assuming you are talking about the Ju287 which had a capacity of 8900lb and the prototypes flew in mid 1944, given its performance stats it would have been a tough job for the Allies to bring down.

Ju 287 Forward Swept Wing Bomber
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 348 mph (560km/h)
Maximum Speed: 537 mph (865km/h)
Initial Climb Rate: 2,697 ft/min ( 822 m/min ) at sea level
Ceiling: 35,400 ft (10,800m)
Range: 985 miles (1585km) with maximum bombload

However on the whole I agree with you it would have been very difficult for Germany to drop a nuke given the total allied superiority.

PS I am not sure what I was thinking but I was under the impression that the V3 was to be the "trans-atlantic" missle.

 

[PershingOfLSU]

The V3 version of the Ju287 had the bombload of 8,900 pounds. However the Germans only got the V1 version air born. The V3 would never fly and the V2 was flown only after the war by the Soviets. The stats you posted were deliberately misleading in that you didn't make the distinction between different versions of the Ju287. Hence, the lower top speed is the speed the germans were able to obtain. The higher speed of 537 mph was never achieved during the war. Also you removed the section where it listed bombload with the number you gave with the clear marking of being for the V3 which never left the drawing board.

And even if the Germans did somehow manage to come up with a V3 Ju287, it would also face very serious weight balance issues trying to carry a bomb it wasn't designed for. Not to mention that a 1944 P-51 can both outclimb and out run it especially when it's carrying more then its maximum weight.

 

[Darcia]

The Germans also had a so called 'Piloted' V2 rocket and something similar to the B-2 Bomber. However the germans did have the capabiliteas to produce a Nuclear weapon, the main reason it never went through was because the Fuhrer thought himself to be invinsible and that nothing could ever stop him. therefore he called the program off and diverted the funding mostly to the airforce fighter division.

 

[MontyB]

The V3 version of the Ju287 had the bombload of 8,900 pounds. However the Germans only got the V1 version air born. The V3 would never fly and the V2 was flown only after the war by the Soviets. The stats you posted were deliberately misleading in that you didn't make the distinction between different versions of the Ju287. Hence, the lower top speed is the speed the germans were able to obtain. The higher speed of 537 mph was never achieved during the war. Also you removed the section where it listed bombload with the number you gave with the clear marking of being for the V3 which never left the drawing board.

And even if the Germans did somehow manage to come up with a V3 Ju287, it would also face very serious weight balance issues trying to carry a bomb it wasn't designed for. Not to mention that a 1944 P-51 can both outclimb and out run it especially when it's carrying more then its maximum weight.

Actually I didnt cut any info out of what I posted but I only posted the performance stats (all 5 lines that were available and there was no version distinction made there either) to indicate that they did have a bomber close to production that would have been capable of delivering a "small boy" and would have been a handful for 1944 grade fighters, nothing else as this is somewhat off topic.
(sorry it wasnt a great web site but it had the general info I wanted to pass on)


Like I said though I dont really want to argue over this point as it seems we pretty much agree with each other over the question at hand.

Oh and by V3 I was meaning the rocket ie an upgraded V2 not an aircraft version.