A strategic discussion about D-day

[mapuc]

It's more a what-if-you-were- discussion

You are the highest in the german military in Western Europe and it's June 5th in the evening. you know the story what the German knew at that point

Would you have acted different? Remember you can only use the same info as they had in the evening June 5th and in the morning and noon June 6th

You are Ike the highest military in the allied forces

Same date. what would you have done different from what Ike and the other did?

Got the idea when I was re-watching The Longest Day

Markus

[Gargamel]

Define your givens.

What info did they have, and what assets were available to them?

There are probably many many accounts of their situation, and they probably all differ slightly.

[vienna]

I'd have to think about it to give a real answer, but, offhand, if I were in that position, I probably would have thought to myself "That paper-hanging git in Berlin is barking mad and I don't want to put anyone else through any more misery. Schultz!!! Get me Eisenhower on the radio, mach schnell!!"...


<O>

[Oberon]

Pffft, the Americans and Englanders don't have six thousand ships.

[Armistead]

I think most of us know the basic details, but we would have to have all info to even guess. The fact is if we all acted based on what both sides knew, we'd do pretty much the same thing. The planning was there, but much of it went to pieces.

[TarJak]

I'd be on my way to Berlin for my wife's birthday.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by TarJak

I'd be on my way to Berlin for my wife's birthday.

Exactly, deal with the biggest threat first.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Would you have acted different? Remember you can only use the same info as they had in the evening June 5th and in the morning and noon June 6th

Quite frankly, since we know the result, it is hard to give an honest answer. As a top-level commander, there are only three things that can potentially be done better now that the Allies are onshore:

1) Recognize that it is Normandy and Normandy only and act with greater decisiveness.

2) Accept more risk in the defence line and try to assemble substantial armored forces for some kind of organized counterattack.

3) To say goodbye to the German doctrine of immediately counterattacking seized positions.

But if we had the same info as them, to be honest these questions are balanced enough (not an obvious idiocy like the Soviet Purges or to not raise units to full war readiness) that there is a very good chance we'd do as they did, but not entirely. We just can't honestly know.

[Wolferz]

No plan survives after first contact with the enemy.

If your attack is going well, it's really an ambush.

I doubt any of us could come up with a better plan for either side of the coin. The defenders were faced with overwhelming numbers coming ashore in front of them, being dropped in behind them and those poor sods were caught in the middle.
Hitler had been way too optimistic when he opened up a three front war plan that was doomed to fail from the start. He should have listened to his generals. He might have done better if he hadn't been gassed blind and stupid in WW I.

[CaptainMattJ.]

I believe it was Rommel himself who noticed the similarity of the normandy beaches to the beaches in italy. Rommel knew normandy was the kind of thing the allies were looking for. He just wasnt decisive enough in his plans to reinforce it. Then again, Germany was already stretched too thin and the allies had been pretty effective in convincing the germans that they were landing elsewhere such as southern france and the pas de calais.

So, in effect, Rommel had both reasonable incentive from deception and pressure from hitler and other generals to reinforce other areas with a lighter focus on normandy. Rommel did a good job of upgrading the atlantic wall with the time he was given, and had he been given enough time to complete it, it may have proven to be damn near suicidal to make a frontal assault on.

In addition, the allies completely dominated the air. Many panzer divisions were moved too far inland to be effective, so as to be safe from naval and air bombardment, which also made them practically useless to Rommel in the event of invasion. Even if Rommel had his panzers closer, it probably wouldnt have completely shut down the invasion (though it would've been extremely difficult). Either way, the Allies domination of the air was the nail in the coffin. Germany was now fighting a war of attrition it couldntve even dream of winning. Ground attack aircraft were devastatingly effective against armor. It was nothing less than a turkey shoot. Without air superiority, who knows how costly and atrocious the fighting wouldve been for the allies. Hitler made a terrible mistake when he slowed development of new fighters (along with the failures in the battle of britain). If the Me 262 had come around sooner and in greater numbers, and been used solely for air superiority, Germany wouldve had a much, much better chance of defending france.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Exactly, deal with the biggest threat first.

Happy wife = happy life.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

If the Me 262 had come around sooner and in greater numbers, and been used solely for air superiority, Germany wouldve had a much, much better chance of defending france.

I doubt it would have made much difference unless it entered service much sooner like early 1942. The die was cast the moment Germany invaded the Soviet Union and failed to capture Moscow from that point on it was only a matter of time.To be facing to enemies with massive man power and logistical capability that Germany had no effective means to seriously damage or disrupt(I am fully aware of U-boats by the way I am talking about actually damaging industrial capacity) that in the long term is a loosing situation.

One thing people tend to forget about warfare is that once one foe fields a superior weapon everyone else will soon develop a counter so a single weapon or weapons system is never the trump card it seems to be.

The classic example would be armor once someone makes a bit of tough armor someone else comes along and makes a weapon that can penetrate it.

[Jimbuna]

Take Hitler and his dithering out of the equation and the eventual outcome would remain unchanged but would take a bit longer and with higher allied casualties (the time and numbers are anyones guess).

[Downunderjock]

Hi all.

Depending on where you are in the World, we here in Australia, have just had screened on TV, an hour Doco on D-Day. (now about and hour ago, our time.)

Called D-Day Laid Bare. Apparently, made this year.

On our:

http://www.sbs.com.au/

See this link for 7:30pm Australian Eastern Standard time.

http://www.sbs.com.au/guide/#/

D - Day Laid Bare


It was, I think quite interesting.

Mainly, about "OMHARA" beach, spoke abit about both sides. US and German. And about the Town of Bedford in the US.

I thought it was also, going to look at all the Beach's, but no matter.
(plus the things leading up to and after D-day, alittle more.)

Didn't "UTAH" beach also, have some major, not so good things, happen, too?? At first?

Anyway, hope you will all not mind this.

See Ya.


PS. If you know of other sites, like Sub Sim (Army, Air Force, Navy, etc.)


Whose members might also, like this thread, pls pass on to them.
(and those of computer games, sites too.)


Oh, and as we say: " Lest We Forget"

Too, all Veterans, all sides, who fought in that battle.
(and others, too.)

Let us not forget their deeds, so we can have this life, we live.

[STEED]

Nothing, why increase the length of the war? Let that bohemian corporal carry on making bloody awful decisions, Manstein knew the war was lost after Stalingrad and Rommel knew once the Allies landed game over. The smart ones saw the writing on the wall.