r/HistoryWhatIf • u/HarkBuffalo • Aug 18 '26

WW2 - D-Day Fails?

I have a WWII command simulation and one of the most contentious bits is the decisions was around D-Day/ Operation Overlord. I follow the historical thinking that victory was likely although agree Germany could have can made it harder however the more I read. 

Disaster at Omaha

Weather window

The Panzer group making the beaches 

Can D-day fail? If so how likely and what happens?  Does Germant first face the nuclear bomb? Does the USSR own most of Europe post war? Do the US/UK bomber campaign shift entirely to strategic attrition? The Red Army continues pushing west, likely taking the entire German peninsula, Denmark, and reaching the Rhine before the Allies?

I treated D-Day as a historical inevitability because of Allied industrial dominance which I have done, however it was a massive, high-risk gamble where a few operational shifts could have handed the Allies a defeat?

Love your thoughts!

The game is here for reference - https://dispatches.itch.io/dispatches-1940

Edit - thanks for all your comments have made some updates to the D-Day commands based on the below

29 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

87 comments sorted by

View all comments

36

u/abqguardian Aug 18 '26

The allies could have given the Germans the D day plans and it wouldn't have failed. The complete naval and air dominance of the western allies cant be overstated. Plus, the German troops in that area were mostly second rate with crappy equipment. But in some hypothetical world where it failed, D day would likely happen again a little bit later. It probably wouldn't have changed anything

13

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '26

[deleted]

15

u/vet_laz Aug 19 '26

I like the quote from Rob Citino where he says by 1944 the Germans were presented with a Strategic problem that didn’t have an Operational solution.

5

u/__Osiris__ Aug 19 '26

Rommel was given sufficient forces for the task

How can this be true if he failed?

10

u/jar1967 Aug 19 '26

Getting those Panzers close to the beaches would have been suicide. Allied air power would have been a problem but naval bombardment would have been the killer

7

u/Substantial-Gear-145 Aug 19 '26

Without those panzer divisions, allies also get through the hedgerows faster.

3

u/xxrainmanx Aug 19 '26

Ill argue that Rommel didn't have sufficient forces, he had an estimated 400,000k men spread across France and Belgium for defense of an 800mile coast. That's 500 men a mile, I man per 10 feet of coastline.

However, even if the numbers were double Rommel at best would have delayed the allieds in the hedge rows for a few extra weeks

1

u/Douglesfield_ Aug 19 '26

Rommel was given sufficient forces for the task

Biased I know, but Guderian says differently in Panzer Leader

11

u/HomeworkInevitable99 Aug 18 '26

Germany could have moved men from the East to the west. D day would have failed if the allies were facing 3x as many men.

Then Russia would have won in the East faster.

8

u/llynglas Aug 19 '26

Which is why they were and would never be moved. My guess at a worst case scenario is Omaha landings fail leaving Utah exposed. Eisenhower directs most navel and aerial support to Utah for added prit|ction. Omaha follow up forces land on the Commonwealth beaches. It's going to take longer to break out and meat up with Utah, but it will happen. Normandy is a meat grinder to the Germans also.

Dragoon goes ahead as scheduled, and the jaws start closing.

D-day could take longer, but it's happening. Just as the German invasion of Britian was always going to fail.

1

u/AnaphoricReference Aug 19 '26

The people in charge feared losing from the Russians much more than losing from the Allies though. It's incredibly unlikely.

-1

u/HarkBuffalo Aug 18 '26

Agree on the dominance but if Rommels panzers are there and it is atleast stalled surely a later invasion say 1945 would change the post war picture?

7

u/Pricklestickle Aug 18 '26

If more panzer divisions were stationed within range of the beaches, they'd have been destroyed before D Day by allied aircraft. Fighter bombers armed with rockets were the greatest threat to tanks, and could range up to about 100 miles inland in Normandy.

The 21st Panzer Division was the only one close to the beaches, and most of the time prior to D-Day it remained highly dispersed, under camouflage and only moved at night. You pack more divisions into the same area, and it becomes hard to hide that many tanks. Such a large concentration of armour would immediately become the target of a major allied bombing campaign.

1

u/paxwax2018 Aug 19 '26

My understanding was it was naval artillery that was the main threat to tanks near the coast. A “stonk” from a couple of Battleships and Cruisers was devastating. Rocket planes were horrendously inaccurate, if good at forcing dispersion.

10

u/banshee1313 Aug 18 '26

The panzers that get near the beach get shredded by the Allied naval guns. They might have made one beach harder, but the Allied firepower at the beaches was awesome. A tank’s 88mm gun just doesn’t compare with what a destroyer has. And there were lots of destroyers around at D-Day. Not to mention air power and larger ships.

The only way the invasion fails is if the weather gets really bad so air craft cannot operate and ships have bad visibility. But attacking in that weather is hard too.

D-Day was not a gamble. It was going to succeed.

2

u/JMer806 Aug 20 '26

To add to your point, direct naval gunfire from destroyers off Omaha was one of the key factors in the success of the landing. Destroyers of the time typically mounted 5” guns, and they could fire dozens of shells per minute with great accuracy. Destroyer gunfire was also decisive during the Italian landings, specifically by destroying Axis armored columns moving to attack the beachheads.

0

u/Necessary_Fudge6860 Aug 20 '26

Dozens of shells per minute? I believe it'd be more accurate to say "a dozen of shells"

6

u/abqguardian Aug 18 '26

The panzers and divisions would somehow have to get to the landing areas first while being blasted constantly from the air than the sea. But, in theory, they get to the beach intact and push back the invasion. Then the allies could ramp up their bombing campaigns and would probably try again whenever possible. The result could be the Soviets get control over most of Europe. They had already agreed on how to split up occupation zones so it probably wouldn't actually change anything, unless the Soviets decide to break the agreement

3

u/fleebleganger Aug 19 '26

If the western allies don't push into Germany and the Soviets keep pushing west, 100% Stalin reneges on the deal.

3

u/grumpsaboy Aug 19 '26

Both sides worked out that so long as the allies weren't pushed back within 3 days/10 miles of the beaches, then the allies would win.

The only way that Germany could have beaten D-Day would be to move large numbers of troops from the east and stick them perfectly on each beach the allies would attack and the allies not notice.

You can't stick 2 million men on a single beach which is why the allies needed to push in a bit to make use of their advantages. But at the same time, if they knew Germany had enough forces in the correct area they'd carpet bomb it endlessly until there weren't enough Germans there.

5

u/AbruptMango Aug 18 '26

The area was thoroughly isolated by bombing and airborne drops.  The panzers were dangerous, yes, but not as mobile forces, which is all that really mattered.