Defence on the Western Front

How can Germany put up the best defence possible on the Western Front, post Normandy landings?

heres my ideas,

I think the goal for the Germans should be to withdraw from Normandy and save as much troops as possible to garrison the Westwall. The Germans, if they withdrawal early enough, would avoid both the Falaise and Mons pockets, which together amounted to around 80,000 German troops killed, wounded or captured.

The withdrawal in Normandy could begin in late June, early July, after the meeting between Rommel, Rundstedt and Hitler at Berchtesgarden and be conducted in phases, with rearguards and delaying actions, to minimize losses.

Leaving rearguards in St.Lo, the Loire Valley, and Caen, the Germans in Normandy could withdraw to a new position running along the Seine river. Most of the German forces in southern France as well would withdrawal north to the vicinity of Dijon. The German 15th Army along the channel coast would also begin withdrawing east.

From the Seine River line the Germans could then begin the second phase of their withdrawal by falling back towards the Somme River and Reims. In Reims German forces should prevent any direct Allied drive towards the Saar. From this new position the Germans could then finally start to fall back towards the Westwall.

The Germans when they arrive at their final position should focus most on holding Antwerp in the north, Aachen and the Hurtgen Forest in the center and Metz and Fort Driant in the south.

By holding Antwerp i suspect the Germans will hurt the Allied supply situation and cause issues in the future. How badly i'm not sure?

Aachen and Hurtgen Forest as OTL will be very costly battles for the Allies. The Germans should try to mass a large armoured force east of Aachen in order to prevent any attempts by the Allies to envelope the city, this should drag out the battle even longer.

Metz and Fort Driant, especially with the extra troops, will as in OTL be a strong barrier which will halt the Allies advance.

Manpower and Armoured forces

Additional manpower can come from the six Fallschirmjager regiments and 10,000 Luftwaffe ground released to AGW in fall 1944 as well as the incoming Volksgrenadier divisions. The armoured losses from the retreat can be replaced by the influx of the Panzer brigades, also in the fall.

Also note this OTL is a roll over from some of my other threads so the Russians are held off in the east and the German air force is having success some level of success in combating the Allied bomber offensive.

thanks

the falaise pocket was a result of operation luttich so if that's to be avoided then hitler has to be convinced to cancel the operation. That's not happening because 1944 Hitler doesn't listen to his generals.

Perhaps the best option would be to slowly withdraw to the rhine in an orderly fashion while preparing a defensive line on the rhine and making sure all bridges are blown up including that famous one at remagen

what exactly is the point?
By this time, Germany is getting invaded, occupied and denazified and withdrawing only allows the allies more ground earlier.

There's actually an interesting tradeoff here. If the Germans withdraw earlier, they lose less troops in Normandy, but that also means the French can start to mobilize the vast latent manpower of metropolitan France. (OTL, I think French divisions were entering the line almost as fast as US divisions by the start of 1945).

IMHO the defence they put up OTL held the allies back two months from the German border. Withdrawing without to much of a fight means that the allies can build up both their forces and their supply and build airfields. Then when they think they are ready they will advance and reach Rhine even faster

In other threads I have promoted more significant German withdrawals in the East, but in the West this is a bad idea. THe West was not battle hardened and more careful. If Germany gives up all of their gains in western Europe by August-September 1940, they open themselves up to major attacks and sudden collapse before the winter sets in. The German people did not want to surrender to the Russians, but they had less issues surrendering to the west.

Late-war, the Western Allies generally had a tougher time breaking through German tactical defense-in-depth doctrine then the Soviets did. So an even better managed defense of the West at both the Siegfried line and Rhine river line can pay dividends better then they can in the East.

That said, as Patterson points out, it is not remotely in Germany's interests to do this. But then it wasn't in their interest to continue the war past 1942 either. Then again, at this point the country was run by a man who at this point had descended into total nihilism while still insisting on micromanaging everything... so yeah.

mattep74 said:

IMHO the defence they put up OTL held the allies back two months from the German border. Withdrawing without to much of a fight means that the allies can build up both their forces and their supply and build airfields. Then when they think they are ready they will advance and reach Rhine even faster

Click to expand...

I was thinking a withdrawal, not without a fight, but when the fight could no longer be won. In the aftermath of Operation Epsom the German forces in Normandy had nothing left to throw in so withdrawing is really the only option other than the total defeat of OTL.

In OTL the Siegfried line was an empty shell due to lack of manpower. If the Germans are able to withdraw generally intact from Normandy, they will actually be able to properly man these powerful defences.

I'm not sure on the supply situation. In this OTL the Germans will hold Antwerp much longer, which would make the Allies supply lines more tenuous. The Allies in OTL already had a fuel crisis and that was with control of this key supply port.

Saphroneth said:

There's actually an interesting tradeoff here. If the Germans withdraw earlier, they lose less troops in Normandy, but that also means the French can start to mobilize the vast latent manpower of metropolitan France. (OTL, I think French divisions were entering the line almost as fast as US divisions by the start of 1945).

Click to expand...

Good thing you pointed this out it never even occurred to me

not mentioned yet but there were approx. 300k Axis troops in southern France, nearly half killed or captured during Operation Dragoon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dragoon

(my scenario, posted in OP thread was to direct Operation Steinbock towards Italy to stall the Allies there. https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=311628 mentioned in the Wiki entry on Operation Dragoon was that reversals Allies suffered at Anzio DID affect at least the planning for Dragoon.)

one simple scorched earth plan for southern France would be to damage/mine the ports of Marseille and Toulon as much as possible and withdraw troops to the Vosges and Alps. if it had been decided to sacrifice territory, the Germans could have sent the one Panzer division in southern France across the border to aid Italian campaign (when the Allies were stalled at Anzio?)

in the north, what if Germans had appeared to Allies to be further building defences at Calais? almost as if their deception about the landing point of Overlord succeeded beyond expectations?

end up with majority of German forces north of Somme?

my interest would be what if German rocket launch sites were held six months longer and continue to fire on Great Britain.

hasdrubal barca said:

Good thing you pointed this out it never even occurred to me

Click to expand...

Yeah, the French metropolitans were not interested in fighting at all; in fact the US was moaning about the fact that after liberation all the French men wanted to do was go to the cafe with their girlfriends rather than fight, which left much of the French army as colonial conscripts from Africa.

hasdrubal barca said:

I was thinking a withdrawal, not without a fight, but when the fight could no longer be won. In the aftermath of Operation Epsom the German forces in Normandy had nothing left to throw in so withdrawing is really the only option other than the total defeat of OTL.

In OTL the Siegfried line was an empty shell due to lack of manpower. If the Germans are able to withdraw generally intact from Normandy, they will actually be able to properly man these powerful defences.

I'm not sure on the supply situation. In this OTL the Germans will hold Antwerp much longer, which would make the Allies supply lines more tenuous. The Allies in OTL already had a fuel crisis and that was with control of this key supply port.

Click to expand...

I was thinking they DO withdraw without a fight AND move all the units and equipment they can north of the Somme and over the Alps in the south.

so do the germans then try to hold the rhine border + benelux on the defense while launching an offense against Italy? What's going on in the USSR, surely some of these troops could do good that way and if the Germans can hold...

Well, they still end up getting bombed eventually but, oh well.

hasdrubal barca said:

I'm not sure on the supply situation. In this OTL the Germans will hold Antwerp much longer, which would make the Allies supply lines more tenuous. The Allies in OTL already had a fuel crisis and that was with control of this key supply port.

Click to expand...

Wasnt that because they advanced to fast and the supplylines couldnt keep up?

Withdrawing to the German frontier has implications for the air war as well.

Germany loses the established night fighter defence line, strategic depth for daylight bombing, and Allied tactical airforces based in Belgium will devastate the Ruhr.

As for the Westwall, Operation Veritable showed how the German defences would be chewed up.

Yes because attempting to move road bound and horsedrawn troops whilst in contact with a fully motorised enemy with total command of the air and bailey bridges across a devastated transport net when there are 15 hours of daylight is SUCH good idea.

Lets call it the napalm death march.

You probably lose 50% of the remaining infantry divs strength, as well as the ammo and stores and in the first few hours of the withdrawal, the only thing keeping them alive is being dug in. The transport echelons are dead by the end of the first day, stuck on the roads. If the rearguard are strong enough to delay anything for a meaningful period of time thats just more losses. And then the allied troops moving at about 10x your speed catch up anyway.

Once of the Bocage the US armies can do what they are trained to do and fight a pursuit. The British may have more issues because of the concentration of mobile forces on their front but without the inf divs they have to be committed up front rather than being able to react and get beaten to death by HE fire.

The overall effect is to reduce alllied manpower losses and if you are really trying to withdraw opening up of the french ports early.

And on the French it take a while to train and organise men with guns into a force capable of fighting real live battles so the earlier raised ones would be fighting more quickly. even so taking the ETO as a whole French infantry managed 75 division months in combat vs US infantry 500 div/month deployed overseas.

Gannt the chartist said:

Even so taking the ETO as a whole French infantry managed 75 division months in combat vs US infantry 500 div/month deployed overseas.

Click to expand...

And, as has been noted, the US "deployed overseas" doesn't necessarily mean in combat. A division deployed to Britain in June 1943 and put ashore on D-Day would accumulate twelve months "deployed overseas" before ever fighting.
In other words, the US "deployed overseas" counts for "less" than the other nations "in combat".

Gannt the chartist said:

Yes because attempting to move road bound and horsedrawn troops whilst in contact with a fully motorised enemy with total command of the air and bailey bridges across a devastated transport net when there are 15 hours of daylight is SUCH good idea.

Lets call it the napalm death march.

You probably lose 50% of the remaining infantry divs strength, as well as the ammo and stores and in the first few hours of the withdrawal, the only thing keeping them alive is being dug in. The transport echelons are dead by the end of the first day, stuck on the roads. If the rearguard are strong enough to delay anything for a meaningful period of time thats just more losses. And then the allied troops moving at about 10x your speed catch up anyway. .

Click to expand...

Their dead anyway if they stay in Normandy and the withdrawal can't be any worse then the Falaise pocket, right?

Even if most of the Normandy forces get wasted it is still beneficial to get the 15th Army and the forces in Southern France back to the German border intact.

mattep74 said:

Wasnt that because they advanced to fast and the supplylines couldnt keep up?

Click to expand...

They may advance even faster this time, right?