Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Would D-Day have been sucsesful without the Americans?

Discussion in 'World War 2' started by finnishsoilder, Jun 24, 2006.

  1. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    Thats an interesting point Gunter; Hitler would have invaded Russia for sure... But do you think he would have invaded France if she hadn't declared war?
    I am sure neither Britain nor France would leap to aid Bolshevik Russia in such a scenario... But then, would Hitler risk having France ally with Russia as happened in WW1?? Or would the Allies just watch Hitler and Stalin battle it out without getting involved
     
  2. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    Frankly I dont think the France would have been invaded as if Hitler decid to invade Russia it would be likely that the Allies of WWII would help both sides and let each destroy the other.
     
  3. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
    So where do you draw the line?

    As the Reich gobbles up smaller countries it becomes stronger and stronger. Britain / France see that and are more and more reluctant to fight "on principle" as their chances are seen to be less good.

    Eventually demands are made directly on Britain & France and they must either fight at a great disadvantage or cave in meekly.
     
  4. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I am not sure if Hitler would be willing to invade Russia with his Western flank still open. Although he might have been happy to trust in the Siegfried Line and the apparently weak nature of the British & French (ie: hope they don't declare war because Germany looks too powerful)
     
  5. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    By the way how close was the Siegfried line to the Maginot Line?
     
  6. Ossian phpbb3

    Ossian phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bonnie Scotland
    via TanksinWW2
  7. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    Isn't it amazing that the French are castigated for spending their defense budget building the useless Maginot line, yet it looks like the Germans did exactly the same thing. If I'm reading the map correctly, the Siegfried line was built between 1936 -1940. I wonder how many more panzer divisions could have been outfitted instead?
     
  8. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    Germans were preparing for a possible invasion from the west it seemed logical at the time. If for example the Allies launched a large attck on Germany the line could slow them down for a few hours or a few days and allowed troops to move back into Germany as they pulled much of their forces from the West to attack the East. If the Allies launched a major attack the line would have probably have been broken but they did not just a few small skirmishes.
     
  9. King Randall

    King Randall New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Romania
    via TanksinWW2
    like i said in the post above this, america was the whole backbone of the operation. without america it woulda been a suicide attempt on englands part
     
  10. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes it would be unlikely that it would not be possible but that does not mean it wouldnt have happened. The only thing the British lacked was landing craft. I beleive they supplued the 2 supply bridges. The Americans build their quickly and it fell appart in a storm the British did it slowely and secured it and it did not fall apart.
    Anyways the British forces and other nations such as Poland and France also took part in the invasion. Like i said in an earlier post , althought I think the nomber 2/3 would be more likely instead 1/2.
     
  11. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    And the number of troops & equipment needed to sustain a campaign on Continental Europe...
     
  12. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Gunter:
    While I think it important to note that it was through the close-cooperation of "ALLIES" that the Normandy landings were ultimately successful...
    you seem convinced that the American role was negligible and the slack could have been pulled together by the Poles and French?
    HOGWASH.
    The British were vital both for staging the invasion fleet on the English coast, and their highly valued contributions of men, materiale and air/sea assets.
    The French underground provided invaluable support through sabotage of communications, bridges and rail-lines in preparation of the invasion-effort. The "Free-French" did not land at Omaha nor Sword beaches to MY knowledge.
    The Poles?
    Other than providing fighter-pilots that made-up various Polish Squadrons, and some airborne troops--ie. A Bridge Too Far--I'm not aware of them being present in any great numbers, nor even contributing materiale in support of the invasion. While they were fierce fighters, they were--unfortunately--not present in great numbers, and dependant on their allies for equipment and materiale support.
    I would expect the contributions of the Canadians outweighed those of the Free-French and Poles combined. Odd that you would overlook this...
    Frankly, your arguement is without merit... and without any significant historical basis to support it.

    Tim
     
  13. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Indeed? The only thing they lacked was landing craft? I guess they didn't really need the 31 billion ( million, million ) dollars in aid that they had received from the US then ?
    Poppycock. Not only did Britain not have the material resources they did not have the manpower.
    Insofar as the mulberry's go you are misinformed. The part of the coast where the American mulberry was secured was subject to much more wind and wave action than where the British units were moored. It had nothing whatsoever to do with construction techniques.
     
  14. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes it does if the british didnt put theirs togethor properly it would also be likely to fall apart in the storm. It would be like building two identical bridges side by side. One done quickly and one done slowely but properly. Which one would stay up longer? Thats right the one that was constructed properly!
     
  15. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Read Greig's post fully, especially the part about the US Mulberry being subjected to more wind.

    Now it'd be more like building two bridges side by side and subjecting one to greater force than the other. Which one is more likely to give way first?
     
  16. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    True but if they at least connected it properly after they build it than it might not have failed. I dont beleive the Americans were involved in the actual manufactureing of the bridges. I dont think they would build bridges in the US and ship them all the way across the Atlantic.
     
  17. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Both Mulberrys were built in Britain. The American one that was destroyed in the storm was partially salvaged to repair the one the British forces were using that was also damaged in the same storm. As to who was responsible for mooring them properly I haven't run across that bit of information. They may very well have both been moored by the same people. I have also not run across any claims that the US mulberry was destroyed due to being moored improperly.When you consider that mooring consisted of sinking the concrete structure it's difficult to imagine how it could be done improperly.
    FYI there was controversy within the Admiralty from the outset regarding the wisdom of building artificial harbors as some belived that they would be destroyed in the first storm and litter the beaches and be a waste of effort.

    EDIT found this concerning the wisdom of using the Mulberrys versus loading across the beaches.


     
  18. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Where's the evidence that the weather was worse on the US beaches ? Seems unlikely given the geography and proximity.

    PS. The Mullberry Harbours were one of the great, mainly British, inventions for D-Day. Think I'll start a new thread ...
     
  19. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The evidence is the geography. The beaches in the American sector especially Omaha are known to be more subject to weather, wind and waves than those in the British sector. For example they both landed on the same day (June 6) yet the weather as measured by wind and wave action off Omaha beach was far worse than on the other beaches.
    That is the opinion of the participants, the meteoroligists and the historians, not my opinion.
     
  20. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    OK. Fair point.
     

Share This Page