Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Any "What If" thoughts on D-Day?
cnflyboy2000
Posted: June 07, 2004 03:10 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 371
Member No.: 221
Joined: February 18, 2004



I'm a day late, but this is from BBC. Thoughts?
:cheers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3732417.stm

What if D-Day had failed?

By Dr David Stafford
Centre for World War Two Studies, Edinburgh University


How were the huge risks involved in D-Day overcome, and if the D-Day landings had not succeeded, what kind of a Europe would have prevailed?

D-Day success was no sure thing and failure would have meant military and political catastrophe.

No-one knew this better than the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D Eisenhower.

On the night of 5 June, after he'd given the final order for the Allied invasion to proceed, he took a scrap of paper from his pocket and wrote out the text of the press release he hoped he'd never have to give.

It read as follows: "Our landings have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops.

"My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available.

"The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do.

"If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

Then he put it in his pocket and forgot about it. What if he'd had to use it?
PMYahoo
Top
Marius
Posted: July 24, 2004 08:01 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Member No.: 310
Joined: July 23, 2004



QUOTE

D-Day success was no sure thing and failure would have meant military and political catastrophe.  



I think you are exagerating. D Day passed on through carrefull planing and tactical reviews. Still there where a lot of mistakes specialy on OMAHA beach... :wink:
PM
Top
Bernard Miclescu
Posted: July 25, 2004 06:59 am
Quote Post


Plutonier major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 335
Member No.: 53
Joined: July 22, 2003



From Galland's memoires the number difference between the air forces was 20 to one. I think that OVERLORD was very well planned and the indesicion of Hitler and his generals made the Overlord success.

Bm
PMMSN
Top
dragos
Posted: July 25, 2004 07:18 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



I've heard of a theory that said whether the Anglo-Americans had landed in France in 1943, the war would have been much shorter. In 1943 the Germans were not so strong in France like in 1944.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Bernard Miclescu
Posted: July 25, 2004 09:08 am
Quote Post


Plutonier major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 335
Member No.: 53
Joined: July 22, 2003



QUOTE
I've heard of a theory that said whether the Anglo-Americans had landed in France in 1943, the war would have been much shorter. In 1943 the Germans were not so strong in France like in 1944.


The Allies had problems with the equipement (logistic pb??) to make the big ARMADA that cross the sea in june 1944. Transport of the troops over the Channel was a big problem. After the failed landing at Dieppe in 1942, the Allied command didn't want to take any more risks. Of course until 1944 the Germans had time to built the so called "Wall of Atlantic" but today we know the result.

Bm
PMMSN
Top
Matt820
Posted: September 12, 2004 04:27 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Member No.: 341
Joined: September 12, 2004



The Normandy landings could of well been a huge catastrophe for the Anglo-Americans. If the 101st , 82nd, (American) 1th, and 6th (English) Airborne divisions hadn't suceeded on the pre-invasion drops over Normandy, Panzer divisions would of reached Utah, Juno, and Sword and then Gold and Juno. The Anglo-American forces, if they suceeded in breaking through the "Atlantic Wall" the Panzer divisions would of driven them back into the sea. Hundreds of thousands of Anglo-American soldiers would of died, the Germans would of invaded England again. With the Anglo-American's dieing by the thousands in the English channel and southern England (and maybe eastern England if the Germans decided to attack england from Scandanavia) Russian morale would of wavered. Stalingrad might not of been such a sucess for the Red Army. Moscow would of fallen, and Russia would be in Nazi hands. A puppet facist ruler would be placed in charge of Russia. With the shift of troops from Russia, England would've fallen. The English in North Africa, having lost their fatherland would've surrendered or be annihlated. A puppet facist ruler put in power there too. The American fleet, pre-occupied by the Japanese at the time, would of had trouble stopping a mainland invasion. Eastern America would fall. I beleive if the war lasted that long a long war of attrition, like WWI, would of started. Causing years more of bloodshed. The Americans would have to shift troops from Japan to mainland America. The Japanese would of pushed the Americans back and would eventually make it to the west coast of America. The Americans would probably press for peace by then. If the Americans produced atomic bombs they still might not of won becuase if they use money needed for military production they would have less and less troops untill America is occupied.

Maybe I'm getting too far ahead of myself, but the Normandy invasions, if they had failed, would've caused huge problems for the Allies. Communism would not of spread. Hitler would of conquered the world for all I know. Hitler's empire would most likely fallen becuase of wide spread partisan activities, and suffer a similar fate as the Romans.

This may not of been caused becuase the D-day invasion failed, but if it did we will never know if it changed world events.
PM
Top
enedan
Posted: September 17, 2004 06:18 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 7
Member No.: 346
Joined: September 17, 2004



I think you are overreacting, by 1943 the URSS was already able to win the war by itself, in terms of industrial power.
On the other hand I don't think the allies would have ceased their struggle in opening another major front.
There was nothing that Germany could have done to win the war. In my opinion,only some nuclear weapons (quite a few, actually) could have changed the strategic balance as late as 1944.
PMYahooMSN
Top
Victor
Posted: September 17, 2004 07:14 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4336
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Probably true, but without the Normandy invasion, most of Western Europe would have ended up with Communist regimes.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
enedan
Posted: September 17, 2004 07:34 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 7
Member No.: 346
Joined: September 17, 2004



This is a too complicated matter, even for this what-if scenario.
maybe, maybe not...
My only sorrow is that the romanian anti-communist resistance has sacrificed itself hoping that "the americans would come", but this is not what this topic is about.
PMYahooMSN
Top
Abu El Banat
Posted: September 19, 2004 01:19 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 9
Member No.: 349
Joined: September 19, 2004



The actual wide-spread landings of the American divisions, actually helped in delaying the German response. The scattering of the men confused the Germans as to the focus and strength of the assualt.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Iamandi
Posted: September 20, 2004 11:48 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004



QUOTE (Abu El Banat @ Sep 19 2004, 01:19 PM)
The actual wide-spread landings of the American divisions, actually helped in delaying the German response. The scattering of the men confused the Germans as to the focus and strength of the assualt.

Under the air superiority of allyes, german army had a pretty hard momment to organize and counter the atack. And "wide - spread landings", in this condition (air inferiority) was more hard to counter.


About topic - what if, like Victor "says without the Normandy invasion, most of Western Europe would have ended up with Communist regimes".

But, whitout Normandy invasion, what time was necesary for Red Army to touch the Atlantic (to conquer all Europe land)? 1,5 - 2 years? Or more? And in this time, germans may develop improved models of his arms...
??????????????


Iama
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted: September 20, 2004 05:22 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4336
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



How can you develop something when you are under constant bombardment and you have no fuel to move your armies of defend your airspace. Germany was defeated and no wonder weapon Hitler boasted with could save it.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Iamandi
Posted: September 21, 2004 06:40 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004



QUOTE (Victor @ Sep 20 2004, 05:22 PM)
How can you develop something when you are under constant bombardment and you have no fuel to move your armies of defend your airspace. Germany was defeated and no wonder weapon Hitler boasted with could save it.



Like they did. In tunnels, and other places hidden. With fuels, is more bad... Maybe some "pottato fuel"? Maybe a new inovation? :) Yes, you are right, no chances...


Iama
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Abu El Banat
Posted: September 21, 2004 12:20 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 9
Member No.: 349
Joined: September 19, 2004



One must remember that the Allies had already invaded mainland Europe in 1943, by there invasion of Italy.

I would suggest that if the Normandy invasion didn't go ahead, then more Allied resources would have been pumped into Italu and thus a quicker resolution to that campaign would have been at hand
PMEmail Poster
Top
Iamandi
Posted: September 21, 2004 12:49 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004



QUOTE (Abu El Banat @ Sep 21 2004, 12:20 PM)
One must remember that the Allies had already invaded mainland Europe in 1943, by there invasion of Italy.

I would suggest that if the Normandy invasion didn't go ahead, then more Allied resources would have been pumped into Italu and thus a quicker resolution to that campaign would have been at hand



And from my point of view... is hard to forget one thing: Italy had mountain, and is not a country for maneuvres like flanking (short distance East to West, or reverse :) ). With more AAA to cover the front is a problem for USAAF to obtain results. If - wht if thing - US and co. forces are blocked in South, and in this way no airbases for strategic bombers... one of the results are Prahova petroleum (*???) zone are more secure, and Axis have enough fuel for his engines.
How many tons want Hitler? He tells to Antonescu some like 4 mil. t. fuel/ year, or so.
If you want a "wat if" from this period of time, things are chanced. Is a more permissive land of gaming. It is a long way to ... GAME OVER... ;)

Iama
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0261 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]