zukkov Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 don't know why this just occurred to me, but i was wondering if the allies had a back up plan if d-day failed. i went to one sight that suggested there wasn't one, that it was an all or none proposition. but it's hard to fathom that it wasn't at least discussed by the brass... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdeaL Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Good question (although i doubt there would of been much of a backup plan) Anyone got anything they could share? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 What do you mean by a backup plan? The plan was to beat Germany until it surrendered, many Allied strategic operations had failed and I don't see how Overlord is any difference. If one plan fails, you try something else. Now, this would have resulted in huge supply stockpiles that weren't needed in France, as well as air support not to mention all the divisions that never shipped to France. Some of those resources would have been used to support Italian campaign, some extra supplies would probably have been shipped to Murmansk, and Churchill might have insisted on an invasion of Greece or Norway to keep the pressure on the Nazis. An eventual invasion of southern France would also have been likely. In the end, Red Army would have taken Berlin and if Germany had kept fighting until August 1945, they would have been nuked. The biggest permanent loss would have been that of three elite airborne divisions, and this would have been very difficult to replace. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 many Allied strategic operations had failed Name four? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Name four? Defeating Germany in 1939, defeating Germany in 1940, defeating Germany in 1941, defeating Germany in 1942 and defeating Germany in 1943? Oh wait, that's five. You could also add defeating Germany in 1944, but they deserve recognition for being close there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simmox Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 in the event of total failure of overlord,which was unlikely, i think they wouldve just swiched back the priority to italy myself,what other choice was there?the tough old gut wouldve got alot tougher im sure but regardless the russians had them beat anyway,just may have taken longer the reds would still have captured berlin eventually imo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Defeating Germany in 1939, defeating Germany in 1940, defeating Germany in 1941, defeating Germany in 1942 and defeating Germany in 1943? Oh wait, that's five. You could also add defeating Germany in 1944, but they deserve recognition for being close there. Those are aims or objectives, not operations. (and, actually, defeating Germany in 1939 was never an Allied objective. Neither was 1940.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejetset Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Plan B for D-day?? .... Simple. Nukes We would have continued to focus on air-superiority from bases in the UK and held our foothold in the south. The war would have continued AT LEAST until August '45. (Germany could have devoted more material to the Eastern Front to prolong the Russian advance) We would have based B-29's in both the European and Pacific theaters. In August of '45, Germany would have been nuked too. (we might have even gone for Germany before Japan since Japan was more isolated by that time) Both theaters would have been concluded by August-September '45. Plan B was the nuclear bomb. That is why US, Canada and England teamed up and devoted so much manpower and resources into the Manhattan Project. Also, if Normandy would have failed (June-July '44), production of the fission material for the A-bomb was already well under way and people "in the know" knew that the A-Bomb was eminent. Top Brass in charge of strategy would have known this and the A-Bomb-Europe project would have become the new "Plan A" at that time for defeating Nazi Germany. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted March 4, 2012 Author Share Posted March 4, 2012 The biggest permanent loss would have been that of three elite airborne divisions, and this would have been very difficult to replace. yah, it's that part that bothered me the most. lol.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetori Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Name four? If by failed one can attribute a failure to achieve the planned strategic goals (so that something else had to be tried instead). Norway 1940 (forces evacuated) France 1940 (some forces evacuated, rest epicfailed) Market Garden (didn't open the road to Germany as planned nor did it trap the German forces west of the Rhine) Italy (terrible stalemate although it did push Italy out of the war). Then one could claim that the entire strategical bomber campaign was a failure as the resources invested could have been put to better use elsewhere. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetori Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Also, if Normandy would have failed (June-July '44), production of the fission material for the A-bomb was already well under way and people "in the know" knew that the A-Bomb was eminent. Top Brass in charge of strategy would have known this and the A-Bomb-Europe project would have become the new "Plan A" at that time for defeating Nazi Germany. Then again, hindsight is always 20/20. Very little was actually known about the a-bomb at the time. The strategic implications was not something thoroughly understood at the time and all but the most senior brass actually involved in the project were pretty oblivious to the possibilities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 i don't think Anzio could be considered a victory.. or the battle for Monte Casino.. tho not losses, but i think it could have been handled better.. Nukes? the German's would have had them 1st.. are you sure you want to go there? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 i don't think Anzio could be considered a victory.. or the battle for Monte Casino.. tho not losses, but i think it could have been handled better. Should I assume you understand what 'strategic' means? Nukes? The German's would have had them 1st. Are you sure you want to go there? Kettler? Is that you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 yes, you can assume i know and no.. not Kettler (should i know him?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 your question of 4 Strategic "Operations" is somewhat misleading - as the 3 levels of conflict are commonly referred to. i took Anzio and MC as "operational"... were there even 4 'strategic' levels for the US? Pacific theater, European, the Air war i guess could be called separately... what am i missing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ridethe415 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 If by failed one can attribute a failure to achieve the planned strategic goals (so that something else had to be tried instead). Norway 1940 (forces evacuated) France 1940 (some forces evacuated, rest epicfailed) Market Garden (didn't open the road to Germany as planned nor did it trap the German forces west of the Rhine) Italy (terrible stalemate although it did push Italy out of the war). Then one could claim that the entire strategical bomber campaign was a failure as the resources invested could have been put to better use elsewhere. The fall of Tobruk. The withdrawal from Greece was a failure, which led to Crete. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 what am i missing? this Originally Posted by Sergei many Allied strategic operations had failed {padding} 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Nukes? the German's would have had them 1st... I've dealt with this question in this thread, in case you are interested: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1345025#post1345025 Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The fall of Tobruk. That was tactically and operationally embarrasing, but ... so what? The Germans got, briefly, another six hundred kilometres of desert coastline. Whoopty do. Strategically the Allies didn't lose anything there. The withdrawal from Greece was a failure Actually, the withdrawal from Greece went quite well, and largely achieved its aim. Withdrawing from Greece was a failure, I suppose, but then that begs the question of what the British were trying to acheive in Greece. If they achieved their aim, can the campaign there be considered a failure? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Withdrawing from Greece was a failure, I suppose, but then that begs the question of what the British were trying to acheive in Greece. If they achieved their aim, can the campaign there be considered a failure? Very good question. Militarily, it was a wasteful disaster. In the short term it was also a PR disaster as it provided yet another instance of Britain being thrown off the continent. And by diverting forces from NA, it also put their position there in jeopardy. But it did demonstrate that Britain would take big risks to stand by its allies, which at that juncture of the war may have been of greater importance. Churchill and company were desperately trying to get US support, including active belligerency, and showing that the UK would not run out on its allies was thought to be crucial. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Agreed. I'd argue that the naval actions around Greece and Crete (Cape Matapan, etc.) were even more important, ringing down the curtain decisively on 500 years of naval surface warfare. Air power trumps naval power. Although it took Pearl Harbor and the sinking of King George V/Repulse to truly bring that lesson home. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejetset Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Then again, hindsight is always 20/20. Very little was actually known about the a-bomb at the time. The strategic implications was not something thoroughly understood at the time and all but the most senior brass actually involved in the project were pretty oblivious to the possibilities. True. But it would have become the "Plan A". It would have taken at least several months to organize another option (be it a major push through Italy or a different landing etc ...) And by that time, the bomb reality would have been a lot clearer. By early '45 "Plan A" for Japan was already the A-bomb. "Plan B" was the landing. By early '45 "Plan A" for Germany would have been the same. ... However, there would have been (and would have been preparations for) Plan B, C and D. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejetset Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Nukes? the German's would have had them 1st.. are you sure you want to go there? You are joking right?? I don't recall that the Russian or the US forces ever encountered the MASSIVE facilities and resources into refining fission material to weapon's grade, building launching devices, testing fission reactions, heavy water facilities, electric plants, refinement plants etc .... The Manhattan Project had it's origins back in '39 and was a combined project by the US, British and Canadians. By '42 it was one of the biggest projects undertaken in man-kind in both resources and man-hours ... with full government commitment and virtually unlimited resources. The Manhattan project was Nation-Wide. We built large coal-burning power plants that were several Mega-Watts in capacity in Ohio JUST for the energy requirements to refine the Plutonium. ... this project was massive. It is pretty well proven that the Germans were no-where near close to building the bomb ... especially starting in '43 when their production capacity was not even capable of replacing material losses and producing enough gas ... let alone undertaking a Manhattan project. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 i wasn't joking.. thinking that the Germans had the scientists.. but your facts have proven me wrong, well at least enlightened me thanks ~ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejetset Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Hi sarge. Sorry if I was a bit abrasive!! But you are also correct. The German's had the THEORY for sure! .... They were, and still are a clever lot of people! Which is great when you don't have some madmen like Hitler and his Nazi's running the show!!! But attrition on the eastern front (one heck of a meat grinder over there) and B-17s, B-24s and Lancasters pounding their industrial heartland and oil-refining facilities ...... Manhattan projects were just not a viable option (thank God) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.