If D-Day hadnt occured

[LloydyBoy]

on June 4th gerneral Dwight Eisenhower had made the decision that the only break in the bad weather on June 6th was to be the invasion set day,

but what if he hadnt made that decision and D-Day hadnt occured till Mid-July

my question for years has been this how would this of effected the war????

edit: due to me not fully understanding Trizzdogs Posts, i've done as he as asked, (i hope i did atleast)

as you can see when Eisenhower made the decision to invade Normandy on June 6th the troops were already sea sick, but others were sick of waiting, so basicly morale was reasonbly high,

but the german troops were still building its defences and their morale was quite high too, but most of their equipment wasnt at the landing area of the Allied Forces,

if the delay had occured then i think this is what would of happened...

Allies: more training for the men, more equipment issued..., more men, more bombing times (more raids on the beach areas)

Germans: more men and machines, more Defences, more training, less time for german tanks to arrive at beach area, and basicly the germans had the advantage

the whole thing cancelled out the whole strategy and resulted in stalemate

the paratroopers wouldnt of drowned in the flooded plains, but the german tanks could of crossed the plains

more mines on the beach, but lots more Allied troops could of over come them it could go on and on

but if there was a delay who would of won in the end

[Pyro Paul]

it is rather interesting if you think about it retrospectively...

if you push everything back a month and then ask 'what now'? you may get some intresting answers...

push D-Day a month back into mid july... well there would be less rain on france, so the fields would be much less flooded. this means axis troops and armor would better move around the terrain rather than having to depend purely on the roads which are the only unflooded areas. this could of well been the diffrence between victory and defeat for either side to be honost.

like Caerintan(sp?) because of the fields being flooded around the town axis armor could only approch from the north. if these fields where not flooded then the axis could of engaged from any direction. so instead of sending troops out to defend the direction the assault would come from they would of more fortified their position in the city. this could lead to many more casualties and possibly create a stalemate as armor from either side gets funneled into the narrow streets of the town forced to 'knife fight'.

[Trizzdog]

A moderation note: "what if" threads are very broad and are difficult to discuss. To make things more reasonable (and therefore promote discussion), please try to be as specific as you can about any battles it could have affected within that theatre of war (and timeframe, of course). As long as we keep things within reason and avoid simple replies, we can hopefully get some decent discussion going on in here. Anyways...

Carry on.

[say1988]

I doubt it would have much impact. Just delayed things everywhere slightly, and over time that would likely decrease. The only major difference I could see would come if the time frame makes Market Garden seen as unviable. I just don't see a month making a huge difference in the grand scheme of things.

Pyro: you also have to see from the Allied perspective. The flooding caused major problems first for the airborne forces (men drowning where the land, funneling troops to killing zones) and major barriers to getting the men off the beaches. There is a reason the Germans wanted fields flooded, sure it may hamper counter-attacks, but it slows down attacks just the same.

[LloydyBoy]

note for the Moderaters IE trizzdog

well Trizzdog, i had no idea that it was this hard to discuss 'What if Threads' i assumed that people could of just responded in their own views pretty much like the 2 posts by Pyro Paul and Say1988, thus i am assuming that this could build a discussion between the Germans an Allies way of defeat or Victory EG

guy 1: "German Counter-Attacks were hampered"
guy 2: "yes but the Allies were being forced into Killing zones plus with good weather the germans could of got tanks to the beeches faster"
guy 3: "yes but like Guy 1 sayed their Counter-Attacks were hampered

and so on and so forth

if this builds into a argument then please lock thread

[Trizzdog]

I don't think stating more than mere opinion is "hard to discuss". As it is, the thread has the potential to become full of "one liner" opinions (IE "oh, I believe it would have a minor / major effect if D-Day was delayed!"), and we don't want that. Perhaps if you want to foster discussion about your topic, you'd do something like go through the steps of D-Day. What would happen first? What would happen next? And so forth. Iterate through the battles, and perhaps we can get some discussion going and maybe even a reasonable conclusion.

For example: Pyro Paul is off to a good start. He provides a specific situation in which the delay could affect the outcome of the battle. The first paragraph of say1988's post is what we want to avoid. It's an opinion that wipes a broad stroke over the entire topic. But then the debating response in the second paragraph is fine. We're again discussing the specifics of the circumstances. I hope you understand what I'm trying to promote. If the thread was handled otherwise, the discussion would be over very quickly.

I'd hate to side track the thread further, so if you have any more questions PM me.

[Sturmhaubitze]

The fortifications across the Normandy coastline were still in progress when D-Day occured, so pushing it back a month would have meant more progress in completing them. The Allied invasion force would have encountered more completed bunkers and obstructions, which might have delayed their push inland a bit more.

EDIT: Though the beach obstructions that used mines would have been in poor shape. Many of the tellermines strapped to the poles below the surface failed, as they were never designed to be submerged, and another month would have meant more would have failed.

I think a more important question is whether a month delay would have meant German intelligence could have discovered the Allied ruse being played on them. The Allies were using dummy formations to make it seem as if they were ready to invade across the short stretch of the channel at Calais, rather than at Normandy. If the Germans had discovered this, and positioned their forces to respond quickly to Normandy, the fight would have been much bloodier.

Training of the infantry divisions guarding the beaches would have been a little bit better, but probably not noticeably so. These men were not the veterans of the Eastern Front, and by German standards were somewhat second-rate. They were only to hold the beaches until the mechanized and armoured forces arrived; they were never expected to completely repel the enemy alone.

[Pyro Paul]

what trizzdog is trying to say keep it down to one event or one general period of time or specific conflict other wise it would become to broad and hard to discuss as either sides of the debate would produce term paper length posts which would subsquently be responded with short 'TL;DR' replies.

Training of the infantry divisions guarding the beaches would have been a little bit better, but probably not noticeably so. These men were not the veterans of the Eastern Front, and by German standards were somewhat second-rate. They were only to hold the beaches until the mechanized and armoured forces arrived; they were never expected to completely repel the enemy alone.

acctually this is an intresting point.

German command was poised to start rotating in more experienced german troops when the invasion kicked off, given the extra month the german command could start rotating in more veterned forces into the defences of the atlantic wall to suppliment the basic conscripted forces stationed there.

the primary reason why the british on sword and juno beaches went so smoothly is because a bulk of the ill trained conscripted forces abandoned their posts and moved inland when the allied forces started to make some progress after the first wave.

however, with the example of Omaha beach the 352nd Infantry Division, veterans of fighting in Russia, supplemented the conscripted forces defending it. and unlike sword and juno, omaha was a feirce and bloody battle. if more of these expereicned infantry forces had time to be filed into defencive line the assault may of turned out very diffrently.

even though the allies would eventually push through the atlantic wall much like they did in omaha, they wouldn't have the strength or man power to push as deeply into the bocage as quickly as they did.

[say1988]

I think a more important question is whether a month delay would have meant German intelligence could have discovered the Allied ruse being played on them. The Allies were using dummy formations to make it seem as if they were ready to invade across the short stretch of the channel at Calais, rather than at Normandy. If the Germans had discovered this, and positioned their forces to respond quickly to Normandy, the fight would have been much bloodier.

As I thought more about it, this became the biggest possible turning point. If German focus is turned south, and/or perhaps even someone convincing high command to move the armour closer to the beaches (especially if potential landing sites were eliminated). If this happened it becomes a very different fight during the first few days, perhaps enough to through the Allies into the channel, but the difference is too large that it would just be very vague speculation.

Pyro: I always thought that there were significantly better defensive positions on Omaha accounting for a large part of the difference, along with American refusal to use most of the British specialist tanks.
As for rotating forces, was the very likely? I am unsure of any Soviet Offensives during June '44 that could have prevented troops from being rotated out. Or perhaps the propaganda from the fall of Rome may have given Italy a higher priority. I am really unsure about these, just speculating.

As for improving the German defensive forces, the Allies would have time to improve their forces prior to the invasion. Most notably the Commonwealth armoured units would likely have gotten more fireflies, along with other things such as M7s could have been replaced with Sextons simplifying logistics etc..
Though these would become noticeable if the beachhead could have been secured.

Also the bocage was primarily in front of the US forces, not the Commonwealth, leading to the Germans focusing their armour in the north where it was much more viable, believing the breakout would be attempted there to take advantage of the better terrain for armour.

[Pyro Paul]

a host of things contributed to why Omaha was more of a disaster than any other beach... however the largest part of it was that Omaha was where the 352nd infantry division where based. Utah, Sword, Gold, and Juno where manned by the german 709th Static Infantry Division...

while the 352nd where experienced troops which fought on the russian front, the 709th was a poorly trained group comprised of mostly young boys, old men, and wounded rotated back into combat, most of which had little to no combat experience. ontop of this The Division comprised a number of "Ostlegionen", or other troops conscripted from occupied countries, most of them being Russian and polish prisoners of war whom volenteered to fight in the german army rather than suffering the horrid conditions in the POW camps...

although there where multipule other things which lead to omaha beach being such a blood bath, the biggest contributor to it was the fact that the beach was defended by hardened soldiers, not conscripts. you spread them out more across the line and suppliment elements of other hardened divisions across the line it compliments your conscript force and you have a much harder defence to crack.


but note, i'm not saying an entire division would be deployed to replace the 709th... but i am saying, small elements, possibly a company of vet soldiers which could of plausably been redeployed across the 709ths line, which would of made the assault all that much more difficult.

[Nashnir]

I doubt if D-Day hadn't occurred it would have affected the whole war. USSR would have marched later into Germany with or without Allied help.
Now, what if Operation Barbarossa hadn't occured is something to discuss about

[Pyro Paul]

that is an entire other argument on weither or not USSR could of won alone.

the simple truth of the matter is that with out Operation Avalanche and Operation Overlord the russians would of been crushed by the germans. they desperatly needed a second front to be opened against the germans and where begging the americans and british to do something along those lines.

but that is an entirely diffrent argument.


try and keep it to the D-day being pushed back a month 'what if's...

[say1988]

the simple truth of the matter is that with out Operation Avalanche and Operation Overlord the russians would of been crushed by the germans. they desperatly needed a second front to be opened against the germans and where begging the americans and british to do something along those lines.

That is horribly wrong, the Germans were getting beaten time and again by June '44, Kursk was the last major German offensive against Russia. It would have been longer and bloodier, by in hindsight Germany could not have won without some miracle.

[Trizzdog]

Woah now, let's stop there. If you really want to discuss the "what ifs" of Operation Barbarossa, go ahead and make a thread about that. Though it probably would be ideal to stick to one "what if" thread at a time.

Any more side tracked / off topic / one liner posts will be deleted. And Nashnir, discuss the topic at hand or don't post at all.

The discussion was going well. I suggest we continue from post #10.

[say1988]

but i am saying, small elements, possibly a company of vet soldiers which could of plausably been redeployed across the 709ths line, which would of made the assault all that much more difficult.

More difficult, yes, but with few exceptions (due to mistakes or bad luck), the Commonwealth beaches were decisively and easily secured (no offense to the people that gave their lives there, I don't mean they just walked over any beach). I don't see how a company or two of experienced troops could have made a decisive difference with the number of troops they were facing (some of the best trained in the world, though lacking combat experiance, with high morale and very eager to do something) and the amount of artillery and air support provided. Also, I believe there were some elements of the 352nd at Gold, which was one of the most easily secured (granted the defenses were also relatively weak there, lacking fortifications and support guns) and there was a notable amount of armour attacking Gold that night.

[Pyro Paul]

well the thing is that the poor morale and half hearted effort given by the 709th and its conscripts ment that a bulk of their forces left the battle prematurely. these men barely saw combat and where poorly trained and where then subjected to what of may seemed like hell on earth in the form of some of the largest man made artillery on earth lobbing shells directly at them... and after that you expect them to hold their position?



also i believe the elements of the 352nd supporting gold beach where dispatched to engage some airborne which had set up shop nearby further inland which is what tied them up to the point where they couldn't aid in the defence of gold. one of those 'bad decisions, bad timing' situations which greatly aided the allies during their amphibious assault.

[LloydyBoy]

@all except Trizzdog

yes Trizzdog knows how to do these threads if we stick to 1 'What if' thread at a time then we're doing ok

anyway i forgot to tell the rest of you but yesteday i updated the 1st post (not sure if any of you noticed)

[Nashnir]

Operation Barbarossa was just a side note. I didn't say forget this topic and start a new one here.

I did answer the thread in the first sentence.

Operation Overlord was put into effect far later into WWII. At that time the USSR was recoiling from Barbarossa and was about to launch Bagration. The losses occurred to the Axis during these two Operations were astronomical in experienced personnel if not in numbers and equipment from which the Germans could never hope to recover from.
The Allied invasion assured one thing mainly - Opening a war on both sides for Germany. Which again had been demanded by Stalin a long time ago.
Operation Avalanche though had a far better strategic importance as it Assured that Italy was out of the war.

Edit :

I case of even a Delay Allies would have won it. Airborne troops were already in place ( although desperately holding positions ) preventing tanks from reaching the coast. Even if Germany could compensate the lack of man power they were mostly inexperienced and most of Hitlers Commanders were directed Eastwards.

[say1988]

well the thing is that the poor morale and half hearted effort given by the 709th and its conscripts ment that a bulk of their forces left the battle prematurely. these men barely saw combat and where poorly trained and where then subjected to what of may seemed like hell on earth in the form of some of the largest man made artillery on earth lobbing shells directly at them... and after that you expect them to hold their position?

I understand what you are saying, but would a few hundred men allow them to do much better? It would most certainly cost more lives to take the beaches, but I can't see that many men being decisive, the bulk would still be poorly trained conscripts facing what must have made hell look like a good place to them. And these would take a significant amount of troops off Omaha.

Also it was the 716th SID at the Commonwealth beaches, not he 709th. Effectively no difference, though.

Nash: The Germans had some pretty good divisions near the French coast. The 12th SS was in Normandy, 1st SS near Calais, 2nd SS further South, Panzer-lehr on the front the 8th.
They were spread out due to the many possible landing sites (especially Calais). The armour was also held back of the beaches. If the Germans could concentrate their forces in Normandy it would have been a very different thing, so the delay could have been most significant if the German intelligence provided some good info and Hitler believed it.

[Nashnir]

Also the 12th SS consisted of adolescent kids >.> ( Weren't they Hitler's Youth ? )
As far as I know only Panzer Lehr even though it was a reserve put on a great fight.

And three of the divisons u mentioned were centered around Caen and St. Lo. Which are only near the coast. There no other notable battles.

My point is most of the divisions on the coast or defending the Overlord offensive were troops taken out from the Barbarossa front or newly formed division compensating for the loss in the Soviet Offensive.

Guess I will stop there. I am biasing my points leaning too much towards the Soviets which is bad for a discussion I guess. >.>

[say1988]

The 12th SS Hitlerjugend was a young unit and the bulk of the men lacked combat experience, but most of the enlisted troops were 18 years old, fanatical, well trained, and well equipped. meanwhile the officers and NCOs were combat veterans. While not the best troops, their fanaticism had a value.

Caen was the main front in Normandy until Cobra (the Germans believed the terrain was enough of a deterrent to stop a breakout by the Americans), around St Lo. The troops went where the fighting was.
The 1st SS Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler was one of Germany's best divisions from the start of the war. Based near Callais (in reserve like all the Panzer divisions). It was devastating around Caen.
The 2nd SS Das Reich was as famous and been as effective as any division.
These were well equipped and had a core of the best men the Waffen SS had to offer.
They were devastated and some close to annihilated during the Normandy campaign.

Granted these are all Panzer divisions and had suffered heavy casualties in the East or Italy, but they were very powerful and effective. The infantry in generally are just not as famous as the panzers so I know less about them. But if these troops could be concentrated off the beaches on June 6, the Allies would have had a major challenge, but they couldn't concentrate them and due to disagreements they were positioned horribly, too far off the coast for Rommel to use, yet too close for the other guy, whose name I cannot recall right now.

[Nashnir]

^^^
The other guy : Gerd von Rundstedt

[Pyro Paul]

I understand what you are saying, but would a few hundred men allow them to do much better? It would most certainly cost more lives to take the beaches, but I can't see that many men being decisive, the bulk would still be poorly trained conscripts facing what must have made hell look like a good place to them. And these would take a significant amount of troops off Omaha.

Also it was the 716th SID at the Commonwealth beaches, not he 709th. Effectively no difference, though.

yeah, whoops.

709th guarded Utah beach and withdrew into cherborg.
the 716th (not much diffrent than the 709th) was stationed on juno, gold and sword.
the 352nd basically held omaha.

well the point is that the victories on the beaches of gold, sword, and juno would not be decisive, the troops would get bogged down and take more casualties. even though they would still eventually break through the beach head, it would take much longer to do so giving the ground forces more time to marshall the forces to counter the assaulting allied troops.

[termites2]

posted by Nashnir Also the 12th SS consisted of adolescent kids >.> ( Weren't they Hitler's Youth ? )

They were Hitler Youth from 1939.

posted by say1988 The 12th SS Hitlerjugend was a young unit and the bulk of the men lacked combat experience, but most of the enlisted troops were 18 years old, fanatical, well trained, and well equipped. meanwhile the officers and NCOs were combat veterans. While not the best troops, their fanaticism had a value.

They were considered CRACK troops, Vets from the 1st SS Panzer Division LSSAH were there NCOs and commanders.

[Caesar]

Does our timeline still have Rommel having to commit suicide?

[say1988]

They were considered CRACK troops, Vets from the 1st SS Panzer Division LSSAH were there NCOs and commanders.

They had some problems early, since this was the first combat experience for most of the men, fanaticism (this cannot be understated among these men), training, and equipment made them very formidable from the start, though, even without their elite officers and NCOs. While very good on the whole, I would take the 1st or 2nd SS over them on June 6th.

[DrEvil....EVIL!]

They had some problems early, since this was the first combat experience for most of the men, fanaticism (this cannot be understated among these men), training, and equipment made them very formidable from the start, though, even without their elite officers and NCOs. While very good on the whole, I would take the 1st or 2nd SS over them on June 6th.

Contrary to common belief, the 1st SS LSSAH and the 2nd SS Das Reich consisted mostly of fresh troops prior to the Normandy invasion.

edit: took the liberty of adding some information on the armored strength of the Waffen-SS divisions involved in the Battle of Normandy Perhaps this list also can be useful for future discussions in this forum.

Waffen-SS operational Panzer strength in Normandy 6 June to 13 August 1944

AFVs per date: 1 June/1 July/18 July/25 July/3 August/13 August

Panther

1st SS: 38/25/46/34/46/7
2nd SS: 25/26/unknown/41/1/3
9th SS: 30/19/25/23/11/15
12th SS: 48/24/21/37/9/7

Panzer IV

1st SS: 42/30/61/45/57/14
2nd SS: 44/50/unknown/37/4/5
9th SS: 41/10/20/21/8/11
10th SS: 34/20/12/14/10/11
12th SS: 91/32/16/21/37/17

StuG III/IV

1st SS: 44/31/35/32/27/8
2nd SS: 33/36/unknown/25/6/8
9th SS: 38/22/15/14/8/14
10th SS: 32/25/6/11/7/5
17th SS: 42/18/?/10/?/?

Tiger I

101st SS: 37/11/6/13/20/8
102st SS: 28/16/19/30/20/7

Jagdpanzer IV

12th SS: NA/NA/NA/NA/10/5
17th SS: NA/NA/NA/NA/31/unknown

Source: SS Steel Rain: Waffen-SS Panzer Battles in the West 1944-1945 by Tom Ripley (p. 215)

[say1988]

Contrary to common belief, the 1st SS LSSAH and the 2nd SS Das Reich consisted mostly of fresh troops prior to the Normandy invasion.

True, I thought I included that they were being rebuilt from losses in the East/Italy. But I believe they had more veterans spread throughout their ranks than the 12th SS (though the LSAAH is questionable as it supplied many officers and NCOs to the 12th).
The point remains that these, and others, were skilled, and effective combat units stationed in the west in 1944. Crushing the common view that all troops available in the West were poorly trained conscripts (like the SIDs). Yet they also weren't pulled off the line in order to defend France, as most of these units were there for other purposes (rest, rebuilding, and training of reinforcements), and being in position was as much convenience as anything (over time they likely would have rotated to various fronts when other divisions came off).

[Pyro Paul]

well oddly enough the argument could also go the other way.

some of the more properly trained and skilled combat groups such as the 352nd and elements of the SS, even the conditioned and trained elements of the SIDs could be transfered from the atlantic wall to the russian front.

even before june and D-Day happened, elements of the 709 and 716 which where considered 'trained' where rotated off and shipped to the russian front. it was acctually not uncommon to take off the cream of the crop which was protecting the wall and ship them to the russian front. in a months time it is quite possible that more seasoned troops would be stationed on the wall, or possibly the conscript level troops would get at least a basic level of combat profesency under their belts which would make it much harder for the allies to take the beaches and possibly put the entire assault in question...

however in the same period of time more experienced troops could be rotated off the line and more young and inexperienced recruits could be shuffled into it. so possibly the blood baths which where seen in the normandy fronts in the bitter fought battles where concentrations of trained troops where capable of holding the allies at bay for a period of time would of been as quick and decisive as the beaches.

monty's plan of Caen being a D-day objective could very well of been achievable if the elements around Caen where thinned out or shipped off to the eastern front.