Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 88

Thread: What if thread #2: D-Day Fails

  1. #16
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    FYTW
    Age
    44
    Posts
    14,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptMorgan68 View Post
    I think at that point Nazis were pretty much *****ed with the way things were going on the Eastern front. Maybe US would cut its aid to Russia via the lend lease program to stall Russian advance to Rhine since at that point it was obvious that it was more about who is going to control Europe when the war ends. US and Britain would most likely attempt another landing and another offensive. In any case Germans committed their most capable troops to the war with the Russians. Many of those troops were dead or captured anyways despite Germans staunchly defending themselves. I think they lost the war when they lost at Moscow and then Stalingrad. Psychologically that loss is hard to underestimate and was the beginning of the end for the Nazi Germany, D-day or not.

    Now a negative ***** storm is surely to follow) but that is my very humble opinion on this subject.
    I pretty much agree with this, although I doubt public opinion in the UK or USA would allow for the cutting of Lend-Lease etc to the USSR. Public opinion at the time (bearing in mind that critique of Stalin's rule was severely censored at the time) was very behind the USSR as "the only team really fighting the Nazis".

    Quote Originally Posted by Soldat_Américain View Post
    Interesting Scenario.

    Churchill wanted a Balkans invasion before the cross channel attack so your push could be there. If not once Italy has been pacified you're fighting your way through the Alps. You may be able to invade the south of France from the Pyrenees while also using amphibious landings on the southern coast or the Bay of Biscay. Either way stopping the cross channel attack puts the allies into a pickle, however I'm sure Doenitz would not have any aspiration/imagination to attack the United States, and you'd have a European state that wouldn't be hindered by blockade. During the time that it would take to regroup the Germans would transfer troops East and they'd probably either fight to a draw or get the tactical victory while also making a separate peace leaving Britain and United States on their own again giving Germany the advantage.
    Churchill's government wouldn't have survived a failed D-Day regardless of the fact that he was somewhat ambivalent about the whole thing. Roosevelt would have had a hard time of it too, possibly accelerating his decline and death.

    As for Churchills "invade the Balkan's" idea, a worse idea really couldn't have been come up with if you had a government committee working on it for 6 years. Logistics through the Balkans were awful. There would have been no way of bringing the allies strengths against the German's weaknesses in the restricted hills and mountains.

    A revamped bombing campaign (maybe you could have Harris have a stroke and be replaced by someone with an ounce of sense) that targeted the German transport infrastructure (especially the canals and rivers) as well as the oil industry while not capable of bringing down the Germans, could certainly have made life a bit easier for the Red Army.

    The Wehrmacht would still be forced to keep pretty much the same forces in France to prevent the allies from trying again even though they'd tipped their hand as to where they were going to try it, so the Red Army is still facing almost exactly the same sized force as it did in reality. As a result of that, I think Berlin still falls in May or June at the latest, denying any chance of it going up in atomic fire. And once Berlin falls, I suspect the German forces in France and the rest of the West are going to surrender, maybe giving the western allies a chance to occupy some areas (apart from Italy which is certainly going to be an all Anglo-American affair anyway).

    However post war I expect that the "liberation" factor will certainly play a fact in even those countries that the Red Army didn't reach, with communists enjoying significantly greater support (at least until the USSR does something dumb which no doubt would happen here as it did in our reality).

  2. #17
    Moderator James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Washington
    Age
    40
    Posts
    15,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flagg View Post
    Just my 0.02c
    Pretty good .02c. Nice when someone looks beyond tomorrow.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaijinsamurai View Post
    Victory might have been delayed, but I don't see the German units which may have been able to be freed from France in order to move to the Eastern Front as being significant enough to make a difference, other than to buy the Germans a little more time before the inevitable.
    I agree - I edited my second post. I think the outcome of the war favored the Allies regardless, it might just have been in 1946.

  3. #18
    Member hank2222's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Age
    54
    Posts
    475

    Default

    i allways thought about this fact in ww2 what if they had got the m262 in the air in the spring of 42 era and made it a fighter unit instead of a fighter bomber typle and had the numbers of air craft to make the daylight bomber raids in the two year time frame in the summer of 44 a fact to the people in England that the air war is not going well with the loss of a lot of the long range bomber aircraft from both militarys at the time and have the stg44 model assault weapon as the main German inf weapon at the time in all the German inf units though out the Europe..

    if the invasion had failed and the Germans offered peace talks to let us out of the war and let them deal with the Soviets alone without any help from any other nation at the time with supplies and other war items that they may need at the time ..

    for mr Churchhill want the Soviets out of the way as a world power after ww2 for he feared the Soviets as a emeny more then a friendly nation towards England for he felt that the soviets wanted all of Europe not stoping intill they reach the coast of France and down into the end of the boot of Italy

  4. #19
    Senior Member SoSo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Steven Ambrose believed the Western Allies would have ended their participation in the European war, leaving it to be fought out between Hitler and Stalin.

  5. #20
    Moderator James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Washington
    Age
    40
    Posts
    15,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Phillips View Post
    Steven Ambrose believed the Western Allies would have ended their participation in the European war, leaving it to be fought out between Hitler and Stalin.
    Because of... ?

  6. #21
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    FYTW
    Age
    44
    Posts
    14,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hank2222 View Post
    i allways thought about this fact in ww2 what if they had got the m262 in the air in the spring of 42 era and made it a fighter unit instead of a fighter bomber typle and had the numbers of air craft to make the daylight bomber raids in the two year time frame in the summer of 44 a fact to the people in England that the air war is not going well with the loss of a lot of the long range bomber aircraft from both militarys at the time and have the stg44 model assault weapon as the main German inf weapon at the time in all the German inf units though out the Europe..
    The Me-262 really wasn't as good as is made out. The engines in particular were very poor quality, with a service time of only 20 hours of flight. Despite some (post war) German claims that it could have been in service early if not for Hitler, the troubles with designing it and getting it reliable enough to fly AND to fight mean that 1944 was the earliest it was ever going to get into combat.

    Meanwhile the Meteor's engines were doing almost 200 hours between replacements, and the Meteor's speed and climb rate were practically as good as the Me-262.

    Both sides were working at the cutting edge of metalurgy and aerodynamics, but the west have much greater access to rare metals.

  7. #22
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    FYTW
    Age
    44
    Posts
    14,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    Because of... ?
    The fall of the Churchill government, and because it would put huge pressure on the US government to shift resources to the Pacific. (That's what he wrote, not what I think).

  8. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Age
    27
    Posts
    136

    Default

    The Meteor wasn't the same class as the Me-262 at all. Although the engine part is true.

  9. #24
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    FYTW
    Age
    44
    Posts
    14,217

    Default

    I found 5 sources on the 'Net that all indicate the Swallow (262) had a top speed of 540 MPH (870 KPH. The speed on the Meteor is a bit more vauge, ranging from 580 MPH (930 KPH) to 600 MPH (965 KPH). In any case that makes the Meteor at LEAST 40 MPH faster than the Swallow.

    The simple fact is that the Swallow, Meteor, & F-80 Shooting Star had virtually identical performance (in regular operational conditions), both in speed AND manueverability, with the British & American designs having a slight advantage in straightline speed performance. The Meteor & Swallow had short legs (max range 600-650 Miles/1000-1100 kilometers), making them unsuitable for bomber escort over Europe, and the F-80 lacked the range to escort bombers deep into Germany (F-80 1200 Miles vs. P-51 1680 miles).

    It was the range factor, as much as any other single issue that ensured that the three aircraft would never meet in combat. The Swallow was used as a point defense aircraft, as was the Meteor. The P-80 was never deployed as an escort, and had only been deployed to Europe in small numbers by the time the war ended.

    Given the relative equality of the aircraft, things would, as is so often the case, depend on the skill of the pilots involved. Although the German's were putting their best pilots into the 262, their training programs had gone downhill since the beginning of the war, the opposite of the allies. And the allies could out produce the Germans in the air by 5 - 10 :1

  10. #25
    Senior Member zad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    1,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flagg View Post
    Long term geopolitics of an Overlord failure leave me thinking it could have ironically been US/UK beneficial, and Soviet detrimental.....could have potentially been a less chilly Cold War with an even less equal pair of post WWII superpowers...every day the Soviets continued to fight a MORE focused and LESS distracted German killing machine the weaker it would be coming out the other end of the WWII meat grinder.
    ...........
    I have no idea how it would/could have changed geopolitics postwar in Asia......but by mid-late 44 even without the loss of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Japan no longer represented a credible offensive threat to the United States, the Imperial japanese Navy was littered across the bottom of the Pacific, the Home Islands were completely cutoff from strategic natural resources, and was being systematically burned to the ground starting a week or so after Overlord was underway.

    Just my 0.02c
    The post-war peace in Europe was settled in Yalta,Soviets will keept at less what they signed in Yalta treaty.

    Soviets casualties will be a bit higher but when you have lost 23 millions of citizens, half a million more casualties between injured and dead is not such a big deal.

    War in Europe take 4 to 6 months more to be finished. That means that invasion o Japan mainland is delayed, nukes are already used in Europe, no surprise element in Japan and Japan scatter its troops and population to minimize the effects of nuclear attacks.

    The fail of D-Day take a toll on western allied minds while preparing the invasion of Japan.

    Soviet Union is displeased with the perfomance of his allies in Europe so SU doesn´t declare the war on Japan, no August Storm in 1945.

    Japan is assured the neutrality of the SU, Japan send part of the Kwantung army to mainland Japan.

    Japan have six more months to prepare for the invasion of it is mainland.

    Western allies launch a dozen of nukes over Japan, Japan doesn´t blink.

    Operation downfall begins, US run out of purple heart medals after 6 months.

    SU waits until Japan is nearly defeated to launch August Storm 1947 and take Manchuria and North Korea.

    Chinese reds are supplied with all the discarted soviet equipment of WWII.

    Operation downfall D-Day plus one year and a half. Japan is ashes. USA population has a Vietnam trauma square by two. France and UK are in the same mindset than after WWI, avoid a future war at all cost.

    Soviets test their first nuclear bomb in 1949.

    Chinese reds defeat Chiang Kai-Shek in 1951.

    Western allies have to conduct counter-insurgence operations in Japan until 1952.

    Toshio Maeda parents are killed in the war, he doesn´t born, japanese tentacle **** is no re-invented until 1996.

  11. #26
    Deserter Soldat_Américain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Borderlands with Nantan Lupan
    Age
    25
    Posts
    14,782

    Default

    Well then this also begs the question of whether the United States and England would have made their peace with Germany, if not joing Germany and sending the USSR back to the twilight zone.

  12. #27
    Senior Member zad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    1,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soldat_Américain View Post
    Well then this also begs the question of whether the United States and England would have made their peace with Germany, if not joing Germany and sending the USSR back to the twilight zone.
    A pact with post-nazi Germany will be hard to explain to the public opinion once the fate of jews, gipsies, **********s and the rest of groups on the nazis hit list.

    You can´t turn the public anger 180ş so easily.

  13. #28
    Deserter Soldat_Américain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Borderlands with Nantan Lupan
    Age
    25
    Posts
    14,782

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zad View Post
    A pact with post-nazi Germany will be hard to explain to the public opinion once the fate of jews, gipsies, **********s and the rest of groups on the nazis hit list.

    You can´t turn the public anger 180ş so easily.
    You know, some said about the red scourge that since we had the Army there we might as well keep on fighting. I'm pretty sure the final solution would have received a nice abrupt halt also freeing the Soldiers that were guarding concentration camps for duty on the Eastern Front.

  14. #29
    the Ralph Wiggum of Mp.net. timetraveller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    7,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    I think the Western Allies would have attempted another landing in May or June of 1945. Operation Anvil, the invasion of Southern France, was contingent upon a successful invasion of Normandy, so I don't think that would have replaced the D-Day landings. The Allies in Europe would continue slogging north, albeit at heavier cost, since the Germans wouldn't have so many forces tied down in France. Stalin would have been furious with Churchill and Roosevelt, but I think the USSR would have continued to crush everything in it's path. If one considers the real pace of the Manhattan project, I think it well within the realm of possibility that we might have seen atomic weapons used against Germany. I also think the Soviets would have advanced farther west; the Rhine seems a natural place to stop.

    In the end, I think there would have been another invasion, and that it would have been successful. The Allies would defeat Germany, but in 1946. I think the biggest changes would be in what took place after the war.


    I think the nuclear bomb would have been used on Berlin if am not mistaken the Enola Gay flight's over Japan was around that time as time as well ..

    Still Hitler made some right belters of mistakes by attacking Russia and changing bombing tactics in the UK from airfields to Cities ..

    Even though some in the Ranks questioned his mentality they dared not speak out .. if he had left it to his Military maybe things would have been very different ,.,

    No point opening up a new front when the other isn't secure
    Last edited by timetraveller; 12-07-2009 at 01:40 PM.

  15. #30
    Senior Member BlackFlag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hockeytown
    Posts
    4,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    I think the Western Allies would have attempted another landing in May or June of 1945. Operation Anvil, the invasion of Southern France, was contingent upon a successful invasion of Normandy, so I don't think that would have replaced the D-Day landings. The Allies in Europe would continue slogging north, albeit at heavier cost, since the Germans wouldn't have so many forces tied down in France. Stalin would have been furious with Churchill and Roosevelt, but I think the USSR would have continued to crush everything in it's path. [b]If one considers the real pace of the Manhattan project, I think it well within the realm of possibility that we might have seen atomic weapons used against Germany.[b] I also think the Soviets would have advanced farther west; the Rhine seems a natural place to stop.

    In the end, I think there would have been another invasion, and that it would have been successful. The Allies would defeat Germany, but in 1946. I think the biggest changes would be in what took place after the war.
    This kind of caught my attention. Wouldn't using Nuclear weapons on Germany stop the Red Army's advance? The use of Nuclear weapons against Japan was to some extent seen as a message from Truman to Stalin.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •