Who was right, Rundstedt or Rommel?

On paper there is no doubt that Von Runstedt's plan was the best option and he was the finest of the German commanders in the West, much more experienced than Rommel.

But I absolutely agree with Bish. Where are they going to bloody land? Von Runstedt, Rommel, Hitler, Dollmann, Sperrle, etcetera believed that the place was going to be Calais. Normandy was just a secondary posibility. However, it was still a posibility and you had to defend it. But you do not have enough units to defend a coast that big! So, it was a wise decision to have a central reserve and deploy it as the situation demanded.

The gunfire is not quite a big problem while fighting on the beaches. The Germans had experience; you should know that the Russians fought the Germans as close as they could during 1941-1942 to avoid the Germans from using their major advantages: artillery and air support...

But in the actual situation in June 1944, Rommel's was the best strategy. A big annihilation battle in Von Runstedt's way there were for sure needed several uthopic factors: a stronger Luftwaffe, much more mobile forces (Von Runstedt's were not motorised and the armour was heavy armour, totally ineffective for Blitkrieg style), more forces (at least, 40 divisions more than he had) and much worther units (Rommel's forces were mainly 3rd class and other filthy units with no combat value...)

So, where are you going to get the fuel, the planes and the pilots to have a Luftwaffe which can reach the quantity and quality of the RAF, USAF and RCAF?

Where are you going to get the fuel and vehicles and fast tanks to have a lightining surrounding?

Where are you going to get the other 40 divisions+ you need to annihilate ALL the Allied forces in-land? Remember that you have 150+ divisions being smashed by the Red Army 3.000 kilometres from there...

Where are you going to take the good quality divisions? Remeber that most of them were annihilated or bled in "Barbarossa", "Blau", Stalingrad, Khárkov, Kursk, Leningrad, North Africa and Italy...

So, in June 6th 1944 there was no other way to defeat the invasion but counterattacking the weakest beachheads by the afternoon of the same days with all the forces available...

 

both were probably right. if either one had been allocated the resources he wanted for his type of defence then either may of worked. hitlers meddling in the command system forced a compromise which lead to neither strategy working. his holding back of the panzers lead to to confrontation over the proper type of defence.

 

Indeed. Hitler´s orders led to the fact that German armor was destroyed one by one and it´s actually quite amazing that the 15th army was waiting for the "real" invasion at Calais still in late July 1944...

Great deception by the allied and stupid stupid Hitler...

"Movements of any significance did not occur until after the Allied breakout from their beachhead, when the Battle of Normandy was already lost for the Germans."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Wendell.htm

 

Besides, you must know that the actual Normandy defence did not involve Rommel nor Von Runstedt's plan. It only included the worst aspects of both plans...

And reconsidering about naval guns, I must say that they would have been tremedously important. How do I know it? History. You should remember that when the remains of Army Group North were trapped in Lithuania and Eastern Prussia with their backs against the Baltic Sea, more than three Russian attempts of destroying these forces were annihilated by the Kriegsmarine's guns... And that naval force only included a couple of cruisers...