Resisting on the FNB line, in August-September 1944!

QUOTE

The Allied air superiority efficiency against supply lines is overstated.

It is not at all overstated.
Actually the bombing campaign against the German communication system is what caused much trouble to the German war economy, not the bombing of the fafactories. If you cannot get the resources to the plants, you cannot produce. Also if you cannot move the fuel to the front, you cannot operate your machines.

QUOTE

The war was lost before the June 1944 Normandy landings anyway.

I do not agree with that. But I accept a statement like:
The war could be considered lost at the end of June 6th, 1944.

Florin

QUOTE

Anyway, Allies were so overstretched they should be glad Germans didn't attempt a counter-offensive that may have been desperate at first but could very well have turned into an allied debacle.

At that moment, the Germans already tried a counter-offensive. It was that who tried to cut off the advanced American elements who were pouring through the southern part of the front, in Normandy.
Maybe that German offensive would prevail if it wouldn't be bombed by the Allied airplanes. Pounded (to don't say knocked-out) by the Allied air force, these rests of the German armored divisions (sometimes without any tank left) were unable of any counter attack at the end of August/beginning of September.
This being said, do not forget that after the landing of the Allies near Marseille, at August 19, the only thought of the Germans in France was to escape encirclement. If I remember right, that quote of Eisenhower in "Crusade in Europe" was about the risk of a German attack to the Allied rear, if the 2nd Allied landing, that near Marseille, wouldn't take place.

QUOTE

Simple maths though, one day you have 15 front line divisions fighting alongside you, 2 days later you have them fighting against you (it's an approximation)....... The Ardennes offensive proved the Germans still were a fighting force at the end of 1944. The industrial base was under their control, 1944 was the peak of their war production, the lines of supply became shorter. The outcome was certain but the strategic attack directions weren't so many, the fall of a natural defense position like the Carpathians was a heavy blow.

Here you start to build your case. To help you, I would say that the defection of Romania made wide open the doors toward:
1- Bulgaria, Greece, Albania
2- Yugoslavia
3- Hungary and Austria
4- western part of Czechoslovakia, starting from Hungary

Now, let me assume that Finland would defect anyway (a questionable matter - it happened 3 days after ours). This means the nickel from Finland would be lost any way in September 1944.

But because Romania's defection, the formidable German industry lost with months earlier:
1. natural petroleum from Romania; later from Albania, then from Hungary and Austria
2. chrome from the Yugoslavian mines (the supplies from Turkey were already lost in April 1944)
3. bauxite from Hungary (the ore to obtain aluminum)
4. all manufacturing plants from these countries; yes, not a big deal excepting Czechoslovakia, but whatever
About wheat... I wouldn't mention it. It was cropped in June, delivered in part to Germany, and the missing of the next crop was to be felt only next summer/autumn.

So, even if it is arguable that Romania's defection ended the war with 6 months, I cannot accept those only 6 weeks forwarded by others. Actually, the more minimized our contribution was, the more politically convenient was for Soviet Union and for the Allies.

The only concern I have now: was that time of any good use for the Axis?
We know today that, with or without Romania on her side, Germany wouldn't be able to have an operational atomic bomb before America.

Also, the Germans indeed were using their Me-262 and Me-163. These last ones, because of their non-appropriate 2 little machine guns, had only 1 (one) confirmed victory! They indeed were about to produce the He-163, the cheaper mass production plane, but worse than Me-262.
But the British also had their Hornet ready for battle at the end of 1944.

And the Horton airplane (the bomber to reach New York, and return with no refueling) was not to be ready, as prototype, even in Autumn/Fall 1945.
To end, the German research was involved in many spectacular fields of research, from flying-saucers, particle-weapons (something like LASER) and long range rockets to a new generation of submarines, but I am wondering if anything spectacular would evolve from a delay with 3...5 months of the war.

The biggest advantage of shortening the war was for the people kept in concentration camps, labor camps or extermination camps, and for the Russian POW's hold by Germany.
I dare to say that without Romania's defection, another 1 million...2 millions people in those camps would die from starvation and exhaustion.

But this thread started about the advantages Romania may have for her negotiations around Bessarabia and her future, for resisting on FNB.
I think that with a Romanian-German resistance on FNB or the Carpathian Mountains, Stalin would try to punch through Poland. The big offensive on Vistula would start not on January 12, 1945, as happened, but sometimes in October or November 1944. Depending on the depth/gravity of this Russian offensive, the German offensive in Ardennes may take place, or may not.
Only if a Russian offensive would bog down somewhere in Poland, and Stalin would see that the Allies took advantage of the Russian-German clash to reach Rhine river in Germany, or to pass it, only then Romania may grasp some concessions about Bessarabia and Romania's destiny.
About the German wonder weapons, I would forget them. America would have ready her atomic bomb in July 1945 whatever scenario would be on.
This thread rise another question: supposing Germany would capitulate with Romania and Hungary still on her side, what could be worse for Romania than it already happened in the real history?
Maybe the border, as it was after the Vienna Treaty - 30 August 1940, still in place?
Well, no need to comment. This is just another "what if".

Florin

QUOTE

1. natural petroleum from Romania; later from Albania, then from Hungary and Austria

The oil fields in Austria were lost in late April 1945. Not much of a gain there.

QUOTE

Actually the bombing campaign against the German communication system is what caused much trouble to the German war economy, not the bombing of the fafactories. If you cannot get the resources to the plants, you cannot produce. Also if you cannot move the fuel to the front, you cannot operate your machines.

We have here 2 distinct kinds of supply : 1. the supplies needed by the factories and 2. the supplies needed by the front line troops.

The 1st could be considered strategic objective the 2nd tactical.

I was refering to the second mostly.

It is not crystal clear anyway if the first was so succesful considering the output the German war industry could deliver. Those tanks, airplanes, etc. were produced in large quantities so the raw materials and other kind of input did arrive.

There is room for a discussion about the kind of aircrafts involved for these kind of missions. And for sure with the shortening of supply lines for the German troops came the increase in air support for the allied troops due to the proximity of advancing airfields, for instance.

for Florin - the landing in Normandy wasn't the turning point for WW2 European theatre. It shortened the war and changed the post-war configuration to some extent. That's all.

Just for a tease, maybe you pick some time in July 1944. On June 6th and the following days the allied positions were extremely vulnerable. It isn't a what-if scenario, it's an observation others made, the Germans didn't react as vigurously as they should and there are people who consider they had the on-ground capability to do better.

As a general consideration: with the exception of Bretagne as beachhead, a peninsula that could be, theoretically isolated with fewer forces any other consolidated beachhead rose immense tactical problems. The Germans had just one chance for victory - to crush the beachead. They knew it and didn't play their card well. Would have been a political victory too. In a way, they repeated the mistake at Dunkirk, only this time it not so obviously.

If one single event is to be considered, preferably one that can be associated with a specific day, I think december 7, 1941 is the day when the last major actors entered the war and a comparison between the 2 sides clearly showed who will win in the long run.

[quote]The oil fields in Austria were lost in late April 1945. Not much of a gain there.[/quote]

I know. I knew.

I dare to say: With a continued Romanian-German resistance on the Carpathian Mountains, the oil fields in Austria would still in the grasp of Nazi Germany in... June or July 1945!
But as I mentioned in my long post, Germany was still in the position to lose the war.

Florin

[quote]
If one single event is to be considered, preferably one that can be associated with a specific day, I think december 7, 1941 is the day when the last major actors entered the war and a comparison between the 2 sides clearly showed who will win in the long run.[/quote]

OK, you are right.
Just because America would have available her atomic bomb in July 1945, and Germany wouldn't have hers in time.
A worse development in Europe could only result in even more resources invested in the Manhattan Project. Also, a worse situation in Europe for Soviet Union and the Allies may slow down the German desperate research for "wonder weapons", including the A-Bomb.

By the way, Inahurry, an old evil smart fox like Wilson Churchill had the same thought like you, at December 7th, 1941.
In his memories he mentions he called Roosevelt:
"Mr. President, what is happening with the Japanese?"
"They just attacked us at Pearl Harbor. We are now in the same boat."
Churchill mentioned he had no doubt in that moment that the alliance between United States, Soviet Union and United Kindom will crush the Axis.

However, if Soviet-defeated Stalingrad would fall in 1942 and the Russians wouldn't succeed their encirclement, and if the Germans and Romanians would reach the oil fields of Baku, Russia may sue for peace at the end of 1942. That may result in a strong involvement of Axis in North Africa, in 1943. The result could be the throwing out of the Americans from the French North Africa, and the conquering of the Suez channel and the Arabian oil fields.
In such eventuality, I doubt the will of the Nazi regime to dominate the world could be curbed with "just" one, two or three atomic bombs, especially knowing that the German researchers were also pursuing the matter.
Regards,
Florin

[quote]
for Florin ...
Just for a tease, maybe you pick some time in July 1944. On June 6th and the following days the allied positions were extremely vulnerable. It isn't a what-if scenario, it's an observation others made, the Germans didn't react as vigurously as they should and there are people who consider they had the on-ground capability to do better.
[/quote]

They were the most vulnerable on the 6th of June.
I mentioned in another post that a anti-Nazi German general kept on hold the counterattack of 3 German armored divisions.

As you know, in June the morning starts very early. The point is that many German units had few hours at the end of the night between 5 and 6 to counterattack, but they lacked orders. Hitler was sleeping (his nap was between 4AM and 10AM), and Rommel was in Germany to celebrate the birthday of his wife.

The Germans got the order in the morning, several hours after dawn. At that moment everything was easy to be observed from the air, and about Allied were 10,000 airplanes buzzing around (this include fighters, transports, observers, bombers). Also, as long the Allied controlled strip was close to the beaches, the Allied Navy helped them with a hell of heavy shells barrage.

However, in your support you may consider Eisenhower's memories, who said that if the Germans would pull out from Pas de Callais their forces, especially the 15th Army, and throw them in Normandy, they could crush the allies any time in June.
Regards,
Florin

[quote]The saving private Ryan is accurate at start, with the landing, but is fantasy when a P51 destroys the tanks at the end. [/quote]

I was not surprised when I saw that in the movie.

The British guys had Typhoon equipped with air-to-ground rockets, especially for tanks.
In "The Grand Circus", by Jean Pierre Closterman, he wrote he saw during a break in Normandy 4 wrecks: 3 Shermans knocked-out by a Tiger, and the Tiger who did that. He mentioned the Tiger was not destroyed from the ground, but by 3 rockets launched by these Typhoon airplanes.

So I agree it would be a fantasy to use a P51 equipped to fight in the air with other airplanes to destroy a tank. The place of a Tiger were was the smallest protection (horizontal face of the hulk, in the rear of turret - the radiator area) was still covered with 20mm steel plate.
But if the Americans had some P51 adapted to be a "tank booster", as Ryan told to the Captain in the movie, I wouldn't be surprised.

The Germans also had operational air-to-ground rockets, but I don't know to what extent they used them.

Regards,
Florin

[quote]...this interesting debate will turn around many questions :

1. Could Romania defend that line without mobile reserves (like panzers)? There was the Romanian Armored Division "Romania Mare" equipped with Pz IV, Stugs and TACAMS...
[/quote]

Well, I was never a professional in the Army, but as amateur I dare a opinion.

The Oriental Carpathian Mountains were a good backbone for a defense, so eventually the problem was the area between the mountains and Danube.
The Russians already passed their own big rivers since 1943, so I wouldn't be surprised for them to try to force the lower Siret.
If local break-throughs couldn't be patched by local reserves and by diving attacks of Stukas and IAR-81, I don't think anybody could stop the Red Army in the area south of the Carpathians.
Regards,
Florin

QUOTE

The Germans also had operational air-to-ground rockets, but I don't know to what extent they used them.

Well, in another American movie, involving another Ryan, you can see these German air-to-ground rockets, launched from one motor, one pilot airplanes (maybe Me-109).

The movie is "Colonel Von Ryan's Express", issued in 1965 by 20th Century Fox. The main actors: Frank Sinatra and Trevor Howard.
The action I am talking about takes place about 25...15 minutes before the end of the movie.

Well, the movie was again on TV in Romania, after 1990, so maybe you remember the moment.
Regards,
Florin

Hello,

I'm a new on this forum. I'm interested in fortifications of 1944 - I see that you write a lot about FNB line.
Can anyone attach to this post any map of FNB line?
And also, what types of buners were built on this line? I can read, that it was very modern fortifications. Does anyone have any plans or pictures of these bunkers?

regards
herring

Florin,
Those two SS armored divisions that you refer to were really motorized infantry brigades that were called armored divisions to deceive the Allies. They were later disbanded and used to rebuild 17. SS-Panzergrenadier Division.

Jason

Pilots wildly overclaimed kills against tanks in general throughout the war. Allied claims in Normandy were proven to be overstated by an order of magnitude by research teams that examined most every German tank wreck after the battle was over. Conversely German claims to have destroyed a Soviet tank brigade with Hs 129s in the early stages of Kursk cannot be reconciled with recorded Soviet losses.
See Montgomery's Scientists for copies of the Allied reports.

Jason
PS Pay no attention to anything you see in movies for anything other than entertainment!

The line would have NEVER held long! The most vulnerable place, the flat land Dobroja, would have needed half a million men and German tank reserves to repel any breakthroughs. For Germany in July 1944 the order of battle: Normandy, East Prussia, Poland, Italy, Southern France and then Romania. In light of that priority, and without German help Romania could not have held out against 1 million Soviets. The Ploesti oilfields were of importance but they were being bombed anyway and the USAAF could have supported the Russian advance as they could bomb the Romanian communications into submission.