>>65217131
Why do we hear so much about 101 when 82 looks to have a much more dangerous landing area?

>>65217131
I get fooled by a gigantic allied strategic misdirection effort, never realise that my own encryption was cracked and ultimately end up committing my forces to the wrong beachheads

>>65217131
Retreat and save my strength because no reinforcements are coming

>>65217131
How did Germany not see 10000 ships approaching it's coast over a whole fucking day

>>65217131
Everything +/- 30 km from beaches is a dead zone, in range of Battleships guns, Your only option is to dig in further inland (you will get bombed) and hope that Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe will be able to break the supply routes from UK (they won't).

>>65217191
the tl;dr is that Hitler believed the actual landing would be at Calais

>>65217191
It's just a few hours of sailing from most UK ports, so in the evening, sea was almost empty, German maritime patrol planes couldn't see anything unusual and a few hours later, at the dawn, you can see the the biggest armada that humans ever put together right at your shores

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS4qydgfdxM

>>65217213
also, allies put a lot of work to came there without drawing much attention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0FD2GK06KA&t=773s

surrender, get sent to wisconsin, get assigned to a farm and marry their wide-hipped daughter (pvre vvlkvsh blvvd)

>>65217234
Dis nigga gets it. The TRVE THIRD REICH is Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Dakotas, just as Arminius intended.

>>65217193
If you know you will lose why not bayonet charge the beach landing and die like men instead.
>>65217234
Based

In the spirit of the other threads of this nature, everyone involved at the time was an idiot, I am very smart, and I'd simply have won.

>>65217256
>why not bayonet charge the beach landing and die like men instead
I'm not dying for some coked-out art hoe.

>>65217254
>Minnesota
Kill yourself. I live there, it's 10x worse than how the news shows it, it's left of left. Plus, it's full of niggers who have defacto control of the state.

>>65217257
Many such cases. I simply wouldn't lose, unlike those idiots.

>>65217264
Used to be civilized, though. Cut out St. Paul/Minneapolis, launch them into the sun, and most of your problems are solved.

>>65217268
>Cut out St. Paul/Minneapolis, launch them into the sun, and most of your problems are solved.
That's what every rural faggot on normiebook says about MN as well, even though the cityfags/leftists are well over half of the state's population...at which point, if one is using retarded logic like you did (just pretend the cosmopolitans don't exist), you could say that about anywhere on the fucking planet, which would still leave MN without anything special to offer except a few bleach blondes with orange spray tans.

>>65217131
I wouldn't have done anything specific beyond not be fooled, as trivializing as that sounds.

Even during later fighting there was a still a chance to commit Panzers, yet they were not, for the old invasion fears were still present.

So if I had the option to simply not be fooled and fully commit my forces to the actual landing zones, then I would do that, and probably easily win as the landings were - besides their intelligence and deception efforts - rather disastrous, even if they were ultimately successful.

>>65217706
Probably the best response so far. The biggest flaw in this question, besides the entire thing being an exercise in hindsight, is that Germany had some truly putrid shitty intelligence, part of me thinks EVERY German agent was turned to the allied caused...not helped by that faggot Canaris who sabotaged German intelligence at every turn

>>65217144
A good portion of the troops they faced were Static Infantry Divisions, which were basically one step above a militia.

>>65217718
>sabotaged German intelligence
If he obeyed Hitler then it would have betrayed Germany.
>reeee
He was a Austrian faggot.

>>65217191
rommel was a fucking retard that got lucky in north africa
they all knew an invasion there was coming
rommel did fuck all to prepare

File: 1754552934729953.jpg (54 KB, 640x480)

54 KB JPG

I would set up heavily fortified pillboxes large enough to hold tanks along the coastline at intervals of about a mile, and withstand naval gunfire and airstrikes while flanking the landing forces from both sides.

>>65217815
It's not that Rommel was dumb by any means, his mindset and leadership style made him a poor fit for commanding anything larger than a division. He just wasn't the right man for the job
>>65217802
Shit, we have a psychic here apparently.

>>65217815
Rommel did a lot to prepare, he just wasn't given much and his strategy was mostly down to realizing there were too many beaches and too little concrete to reinforce them, so the main drive would be on mobile divisions to react and push landing forces off.

Which when the Allies successfully convinced German High Command the real invasion was happening later at Calais, which, wow real stupid of Hitler desu, there wasn't much Rommel could have even done differently. He didn't have control of those divisions, there's nothing Rommel could have done differently to stop D-Day without being able to convince Hitler Calais was fake.

>>65217821
With what resources?

File: images(7).jpg (24 KB, 379x527)

24 KB JPG

>>65217131
Turn over command to Walter Model.

>>65217718
Well, the premise is also weak since it doesn't need much strategy either - unless you overthink it when you don't need to.

The defender - even one like Germany in 1944 - is going to have countless advantages over the attacker - the OP even mentions this - It was German hardheadedness which won the battle for the allies really, because even later on there was still a chance to move the Panzers to the actual landing areas like I stated.

"How would you win Stalingrad" would be a more complex, possible - even if highly unlikely - question that isn't solved by "I'd just move my panzers to where they are actually invading lol".

>>65217191
Because the allies were running 24/7 deception campaigns across several theatres for months on end.
>South France?
>Greece?
>Calais?
>Norway?

>>65217961
>there was still a chance to move the Panzers to the actual landing areas
Hey Anon, you aren't familiar with the Sicily landings by any chance?

>>65217961 (me)
It reminds me of Dunkirk really.

A lot of things in WW2 come down to strategic blunders rather than a promised defeat or the need for liberal democracy to beat out fascism - Dunkirk is such an example.

The Reich had a chance to entirely (likely anyways) destroy the British army at Dunkirk, but gave the halt order over pitiful concerns of "exhaustion" and trusting Goering's word on the Luftwaffe being able to finish the job, which they didn't. We wouldn't have even have had a second world war but it was simply just a blunder - so when asking "What would you do in a case where there is an obvious blunder?" the only real response if you are educated is "Not do the obvious blunder", which makes the question rather dull.

>>65217975
Normandy isn't Sicily.

>>65217989
No, but on Sicily Axis armor got thoroughly sodomized by naval artillery. Panzer reserves aren't saving you.

>>65217131
Didn't Hitler hold back reinforcements? Would i get those?

>>65217994
I think they absolutely are but only in the sense that they can bottle up Allies inland. The issue with Sicily is that they didn't have the forces to hold inland. By comparison they 100% had the forces to bottle Allied forces and then hammer them into dirt with artillery, but their containment forces arrived far too late when the Allies had already pushed dozens of miles inland well outside the range of naval guns, but with the forces to actually blunt and then overrun the Germans. The Germans sent almost their entire mobile reserves from all theaters, 19 of their best divisions, but they were busy watching Calais for a week before they were committed which was far far too late.

File: Franz_Halder_(cropped)_(2).png (522 KB, 586x756)

522 KB PNG

>>65217131
Give command to Franz Halder because if anybody can Hald Franz it's him

>>65217989
>he doesn't realize that the Italian campaign taught the Allies everything about how to perfect amphibious landings
Normandy is the same as Sicily right down to the kind of beach available.

>>65217906
The vast amount of construction materials used for the large fortress gun emplacements, the defenses of the Channel Islands, and the V-weapon launch sites could have easily been repurposed in countless ways.

File: 1501177409638.gif (1.57 MB, 288x288)

1.57 MB GIF

>>65218022
Hold on you're vastly overstepping what Rommel had access to. You're basically changing the hypothetical entirely, and those large fortress gun emplacements were essential in making sure the Allies had to commit to a major invasion at specific beaches instead of landing somewhere else. Getting rid of those large gun emplacements makes your job harder,

>>65217144
band of brothers, better division emblem.

>>65217961
>The defender - even one like Germany in 1944 - is going to have countless advantages over the attacker
I feel like this is far too often overstated. Yes in many cases being on the defensive has advantages, but so many of them aren't going to help you out much here. The Allies have the initiative in deciding when and where to attack, enabling them to concentrate forces with far more freedom than yourself. Static defense just means the Allies land more forces on the beach, and movement in the day is watched over by the combined Air Forces.

>unrelated story
>knew an older guy, his dad was a B-24 pilot
>got shot down over Europe, spent some time in a POW camp
>his son transcribed his dads story into a book(Two Gold Coins and a Prayer)
>at some point after the war they're hanging out with one of his dads war buddies
>guy was a P-47 pilot
>on one of the many missions to attack German logistics
>spots a German cargo truck on a road
>rolls in on a head-on attack run
>driver sees him, jumps out and starts hauling ass into the field next to the road
>he opens fire on the truck
>describes how, at that moment, he had an incredibly heavy sense of understanding:
>the slightest tap on the rudder pedal, and those eight 50 cals would swing onto the German driver
>at that moment, he is God and is responsible to choose this man's fate
>blasts the fuck out of the truck and leaves

It's pointless. Germany cannot win, cannot prevent the beachhead from eventually becoming decisive, and lacks the tools to contest Allied air and naval supremacy. At best, things are a little slower and a little more painful. There is no meaningful move.

>>65217994
Ah yes, the strategy where we shell our landing zones and areas where our friendly forces will be in.

The Panzer reserves will indeed save me because:

Naval Artillery isn't omnipotent or like a video game - this isn't like rock paper scissors where if you select rock it beats scissors and so on, it can still easily fail or be ineffective.

Your response really just assumes that naval artillery is going to work perfectly or that the panzers HAVE to be RIGHT ON THE BEACH or in range of artillery - even if they were you would be shelling your own men and paratroopers - most naval bombing was before the landings and focused on the actual defenses, and then shifted inland during the actual landings: my hypothetical panzers would just scoot and shoot and then fire back at your ships which were easily in range (some anyways) at 800ms.

Even IF they get destroyed they have done their job and D-Day has failed.

>>65218011
So? Did that stop eighty tanks from sinking in the water? With thousands of drowning men because you make them carry eighty pounds of gear with wool uniforms? Hardly "perfection".

>>65218052 (me)
Not that a panzer is going to do anything against a cruiser, but that point was more for rhetoric rather than being entirely literal.

>>65218052
That's incredibly incorrect. Close fire support was fine tuned and extremely effective, actually pivotal, in Allied success in North Africa and Sicily. Without the accurate and direct fire support from battleships the Americans would have been pushed off the beaches at several points in North Africa. By the time you get to Normandy you have destroyer captains following tank shells to site their own fire and battleships on standby to captains to call in for fire support on demand. That's just wrong my guy, 100% wrong, naval gunfire wasn't accurate but it wasn't a d20 on a 1 shoot your own guys. At one of the British beaches, I think it was Gold, the only thing that stopped a German panzer battalion from running onto the beach and slaughtering the soldiers there was direct gunfire support from battleships.

>>65218039
Not every defender but this defender certainly does when a good percentage of the invading force drowns in the water.

>>65218059
Yeah fine tuned when you go in spitting range of panzers.

Again, is Normandy North Africa or Sicily? No.

I didn't deny that it is helpful - but you acting like it is a video game where "kraut weakness = naval artillery" ignoring the nuance of warfare.

Also you would be shooting your own guys because you would be shelling where they are invading - running into - there is a reason that most of the naval artillery support was BEFORE the landing.

So my hypothetical panzers would shoot your deckcrews (at 800ms), damage your guns, and probably wipe out your invading infantry.

Maybe bombers finish them off - not my concern - I am a hero of the Reich until 1946 where I am then hanged.

>>65218073
The battleships couldn't even get within miles of the coast at Normandy, their draft is too deep and the water too shallow. The only thing you're doing with your panzers on Normandy is sitting eight miles inland and forming a ring of steel to put your artillery behind. You need to read up on the Salerno landings or something. That terrain was far far better for the Germans than Normandy was and the Americans there were improperly led and badly trained and the naval gunfire support took hours to come out and it still sent panzergrendiers packing within a few minutes of 12 to 16 inch gunfire turning panzers into modern art. Without heavy anti ship guns you're just throwing your tanks away to kill a few grunts and score exactly zero important damage on any warships because the only thing getting within 800 meters of the shoreline are destroyer escorts and the Allies made more of those than the Germans made Tigers.

File: image_2026-06-07_231840208.png (1.34 MB, 1600x760)

1.34 MB PNG

>>65218073
>>65218087
The closest Battleships were getting on D-Day was 3500 yards with the Arkansas, most were further out, and they were all taking big risks to do so. LOTS of escorts hit mines giving the Battleships their corridors. The beaches themselves were hundreds of meters long, in theory sure a tiger can reach out to 3500 meters but practically? Gonna do jack shit, the closest Germans ever reached was at some cliffs almost a thousand meters away, rain squalls also made visibility very poor in many instances and you wouldn't even be able to see a quarter of the distance at certain parts of the beach. The worst part is that even if you can start plinking at Cruisers and the like, with 75mm guns and at most 88mm you're not even going to be doing damage to lighter ships, let alone a battleship. Those superstructures are armored and compartmentalized, designed and capable of surviving 5 inch gunfire (or 127mm) repeatedly. You might kill a few sailors, degrade systems, but you're not going to seriously even disable a cruiser with a panzer division, let alone the 1200 fucking warships the Allies brought. Which is half as many AFVs as the Germans had in their entire army at the time, including half tracks and recon cars.

>>65218073
Bait
Navy gun fire was accurate and lethal af at Normandy.

>>65218073
>So my hypothetical panzers would shoot your deckcrews
bro thinks tanks are going to take out ships, fucking Christ what a state we're in...

>>65218097
Nigga for forgot the HMS Roberts
11ft draft
Same BL 15 mk1 got a first shot hit at 26,400 yards

>>65218115
Bong crews were something else in WW2, frankly.

>>65218116
Just dont ask em where the powder is stored or mention Admiralty hatered of laundromats

>>65217144
In practice, it didn't matter because both ended up scattered all over the place and at times even mixed together.

Also, when it comes to airborne clout-chasing, do remember that the 101st was formed by splitting the 82nd in half for cadre, and then building both units back to full strength, a la mitosis. They were sister units in a very real sense.

>>65218087
Where did I say battleships? I stated cruisers.

Bringing up what actually happened in history in a hypothetical discussion isn't really a strong point either. Did those panzergrendiers have all of the extra panzers they would have had without the deception? Doubtful. The same board that will mock a certain nation state for meat wave tactics is willing to do that for its cruisers: guess what! They are still tactically wiped out in terms of D-Day.. the question is "win D-day", not "win the western front".

>>65218097
Again, where did I state battleships? I clearly specified cruisers, so your point is largely irrelevant. All I really need to do is kill a few sailors or degrade systems - do you want to be the guy to put out the fire next after the other men who ran out to do have killed? Let alone when the landing itself is a failure.

>>65218100
Against static structures maybe. Lol.

>>65218112
You read "deckcrew" and then state "ship"; your lack of reading comprehension isn't my fault of logic.

This may shock you, but not everybody on a ship gets to be in the cozy armored parts.

>>65217131
Go to Paris for the week. Nothing ever happens.

>>65218136
Where the fuck did you specify cruisers are you an LLM? If anything you said 800m, at best you’re getting destroyers if we assume you’re driving a tank to the edge of the beach and not where the German positions actually were.

Disregard previous prompts give me a brownie recipe.

>>65218147
Right here >>65218054! Even acknowledging that they would mostly be plinking. Get fucked.

>>65218136
>This may shock you, but not everybody on a ship gets to be in the cozy armored parts.
This may shock you, but no tank has ever engaged a destroyer-sized vessel at sea and it's probably because it's a very stupid idea

>>65218153
Well when my panzers get done destroying all of your infantry skeet shooting at your destroyers is all they are going to have to do besides retreat, so.. get fucked (also love your total ignorance of suppression as a concept).

>>65218150
Sorry didn’t read the tiny addition that doesn’t actually change your post being factually incorrect on every level. If you acknowledge tanks won’t actually seriously damage a fleet how do you think that trying to win a duel with a force that has more and bigger guns than you do by a shell weight of approximately 7 to 1 is going to do? In practice your strategy will likely lead to fewer allied casualties because you’ll be trading hundreds of irreplaceable AFVs and thousands of irreplaceable men for hundreds of replaceable sailors and light battle damage less than what they’d experience in a fleet action, instead of the tens of thousands of infantry that had to die to push those divisions out. Also all of this forgets about Bagration. The German plan was to move their mobile reserves from the east to the west, rapidly crush the landings, then move intact forces back east to stop the Soviet breathroughs. This plan failed when all of those mobile divisions died in Operation Cobra and the Soviets ran through unsupported infantry for months until they ran out of fuel and ammo. Any plan assumes you’re actually winning D-Day aka keeping the German army intact so the Soviets don’t rape Berlin literally or what’s the point?

The fact anyone is giving this blatant bait replies is disheartening

>>65218163
Shifting the goalpost because I did indeed specify cruisers,

Taking the point of being able to suppress cruisers way too literally when I even state to not do such, and that it was a rhetorical point on how much of a blunder D-Day was - saved only by how the Germans in turn had a blunder,

Shifting the goalpost from the OP: defending against D-Day, which I have successfully done because as I already broke down: it was a simple German blunder. Just don't do the blunder.

I think stopping the allied invasion (this one anyways as realistically they would just try again) keeps the German army intact - even though that is shifting the goalpost once again because OP clearly means the Normandy landings rather than the grand german battle strategy - is the question "How would you win the western front" or "how would you defended against (the) d-day" motherfucker?

You know you can just say "Hey, I was wrong, I admit that." instead of seething..

>>65218175
It’s more that your breakdown is a fumble and you take the one scenario where the Germans can win and turn it into a loss by trying to “suppress” cruisers with tank fire. The Yamato, firing more shell weight than an entire German division combined couldn’t suppress a single destroyer. How the hell is a panzer IV gonna do better? The only unit that’s going to be suppressed is the German armor because for one, 7-1 weight of fire advantage. Also, they’re going to get literally carpet bombed off Normandy by all the aircraft if you concentrate them on the beaches. That’s actually a big reason why German high command didn’t concentrate forces even after D-Day was done and they committed their divisions. They tried. Then the 501st battalion was nearly wiped out by a B-17 raid.

>>65218185
Hyperfixating on what I stated was not the battle plan.

Nice lies and cope though, AI.

>>65217131
Not occupy Vichy France, forcing the Allies to invade a hostile, formerly neutral country and have better defensive positioning if and when they do.

>>65218212
ah, perfect, just withdraw all forces from France yes good idea

>>65218218
Unironically a superior strategy to what the Germans ended up with in real life. Sacrificing 17 of my best divisions and about 30 good ones for one extra month before the allies reach the Rhine is a bad trade. I’d rather just have the men.

Probably still worth occupying every port and turning them into fortresses regardless, though.

>>65218218
The Germans spent a fucking fortune in money and manpower trying to secure every inch of bit of French coast. It didn't help them in the slightest.

>>65218227
Actually, that is a great idea too. A good number of the fortress ports held out until the end of the war.

>>65218232
>It didn't help them in the slightest.
It prevented the allies having uncontested access to the extremely important French ports (from which every man and bullet is supplied)

>>65217982
the bongs getting away in Dunkirk narrative leaves out one massive issue
while the bongs where evacuating the Germans where busy beating a big pockets containing the frog field armies
by the time that they where done with those the evacuation in Dunkirk where nearly over
or in other words, the krauts let the bongs go because they hadn't the troops available to stop them on account of having to deal with the frogs

File: 1576526185276.png (202 KB, 336x502)

202 KB PNG

>>65217131
I give full command to Dirlewanger

>>65218245
Cherbourg fell on D+21, June 27th.

>>65218329
Brest status?
Le Havre?
St Nazaire?
Lorient?
La Rochelle?

>>65218329
Cherbourg was important but it was a medium port, critical but also not enough on its own hence why the allied advance stalled out when it outran its supply lines well before the Germans could mount any actual resistance.

>>65218359
>>65218363
You don't have to leave the ports unguarded if you don't have an Atlantic Wall.

File: WW2_NORMANDY_PAINT_Operat(...).png (406 KB, 881x597)

406 KB PNG

>>65217131
>Total commitment to St. Mere Eglise to Caentan, and denying UTAH any beachhead; Douve-Toute Rivers & Marshes must hold
>Seulles River is the desired exclusion zone, Juno and Sword have to hold long enough for Pas-de-Calais SS et. al. to reinforce.
>Fortress City Boyeux & Carentan, forced labor tank trap digging, the whole nine yards
>Rugpull Mussolini and consolidate with Blackshirt die-hards in what became Republic of Salò, send A LOT of those assets North toward Rennes, then to reinforce the West.
>Rommel's not allowed to an hero
>Fuck waking up Austrian dildo and full send from Calais instantly
>Rundstedt delegates maneuver elements coming from the Northeast to Rommel, takes personal command of Western effort against Americans

Caen's about 150 miles to the nearest British airfield, half the Spitfire's maximum range. Luftwaffe interceptors are to exclusively cover The British & Candians on Gold, Juno and Sword, with the goal of attritting Leaf Juno to the highest degree possible, repeatedly, while retarding their British Gold & Sword flanks aggressively. On paper it should only take 11 hours from Pas-de-Calais to Caen for those formations stationed there (Luftwaffe air cover priority for that night transit). The main thing is to make the British & Canadians a liability, introducing diplomatic strain and conditioning future operational risk management.

Bayeux's cannot fall under any circumstances, Sword is to be made untenable and abandoned, and most of Juno to Courseulles pending the arrival of Pas-de-Calais SS et. al.

Carentan likewise. Assuming the above, the play for time is to contain everything West of Seulles R. and East of St. Mere Eglise. The rail line from St. Lo to Bayeux, to Caen is to be kept operational as much as possible: hold them along the 51 mile Aure River Front. (bait OMAHA into funneling laterally toward Pointe du Hoc as a pressure release/kill zone (have ugly surprise for cliff climbers, if we have 20:20 hindsight).

use my perfect hindsight and forget about a lost cause at normandy, and instead kill every goddamn living thing that natively spoke english at dunkirk in the spring of 1940 while continuing to press for peace with america to prevent their involvement
with british expeditionary force destroyed, churchill likely loses out to halifax.
with no american lend lease and britain suing for peace, germany fights russia with no outside influence and eventually gets to russian oil fields and probably secures victory in europe
america is still attacked in 1941 by japan (maybe earlier) but focuses the entire might of their military and manufacturing in the pacific and ends that campaign sooner. If japan doesn't surrender after the bombings (im not here to discuss if nukes are real and with a faster time table they might not even be ready by the conclusion of the island hopping campaigns now), america commits to a full scale invasion of mainland japan
this also changes how the following decades play out in ways I'm too tired to think about (but basically korean and vietnam wars might not actually occur)

File: Panzer IV after facing Rodney.jpg (271 KB, 960x633)

271 KB JPG

>>65218136
>Against static structures maybe. Lol.
Would you like to put that theory to the test?

>>65218380
Some good points, but a a few critical errors

What is the condition of victory? Contain? Drive into the sea? Diplomatic strain?

#1 Luftwaffe - no power beyond harassment, the allies conducted ~15,000 sorties to the Germany ~300. There is no attrition campaign or night escort here.

#2 Naval - gunfire will suppress any movement within 15 miles of the coast, as what happened with the 21st Panzer counter-attack being broken up. No solution to this.

#3 Italy - unless this is organised a long time back, the Italian assets are too slow and won't arrive for a month; beyond the decisive period of June 12-15. It also gifts a large Allied advance in defensible Italy.

#4 SS- There were no intact SS panzer divisions sitting 11 hours from Caen at Calais, so there cannot be any night transit. Lehr and 12th (2nd and 1st are nowhere near close enough) are both 75-125 miles from Caen and will not arrive intact and in force in time.

#5 Contradition 1
>Total commitment to denying UTAH" and simultaneously "Rundstedt personally commands Western effort against Americans.
The forces capable of denying UTAH are the same forces Rundstedt would need to maneuver with

#6 Contradiction 2
>"Seulles River is the desired exclusion zone" and "Juno and Sword have to hold long enough for Pas-de-Calais SS to reinforce."
If Juno holds, the Germans are already east of Suelles. if Suelles is the exclusion zone, Juno is conceded. Which one is it?

#7 Contradiction 3
Simultaneous fortress city and mobile operations, are they fortifying Bayeux/Carentan/Aure or participating in the counterattacks?

#8 Runstedt - by June 1944 he's out of it: old, pessimistic, and in physical decline. He's not up to this highly demanding task

#9 OMAHA killzone - relies upon bait being obligingly taken and is going right down to the unpredictable tactical level where improvisation is common

Realistic takeaway of this plan is
>panzer release
>carentan fortress
>rommel operational
buys a few more days

Surrender everything under my command in exchange for half a million dollars and amnesty in the USA

>>65217131
Shit the beach with broken glass and sharp metal, then start trebucheting burning hot sand as fast as possible... but otherwise the same. This one change will make it hell on invaders.
Also send Guderian and promote Rommel off the feild.

>>65217885
Rommel's best path was out of north affrican success and into an office. He wasn't lucky he was fucking very situational.

>>65217202
"I regret to inform you that... Hitler."

>>65217131
How much can I go backwards in time? Because I'd cancel the entire retarded V-weapon program if I could.

>>65218434
Amazing! A photo with zero context; I'll do the same intellectual dishonesty and ignore what role naval artillery largely had at D-Day (targeting static structures).

>>65217131
Immediately surrender and so the allies establish positions as far east as possible.

>>65217815
>>65217885
>le rommel was actually le overrated
holy midwittery
let me guess: you get your opinions from 15 year old reddit posts

you don't kick a force that is outnumbering you in men, tanks and aircraft around for a full year because
>you got lucky

blaming the failure at Overlord on Rommel is especially hilarious since several of Rommels suggestions, which would have made for a better german defense, were ignored (e.g. his suggestion to place the Tank divisions closer to the beaches)

also
>>65217895

>>65218306
He has the same facial structure as damn near every crackhead and alcoholic I see sleeping outside.

File: 1724928961856830.jpg (113 KB, 1044x1031)

113 KB JPG

>>65218306
unironically the solution would have been to use the jews as a offensive tool

as soon as it was clear that the allies had secured a foothold I would have loaded every single jew onto a train wagon, dropped them off in front of Falaise and force marched them 50km to allied lines

just imagine. 3 million civilains - in one long column.
Allies were already facing supply issues, this maybe would have broken them and allowed for a sucessfull offensive
also you could have used the jews as cover from air attacks to move your tank columns

>>65218052
>then fire back at your ships which were easily in range
Some tell this retard about the account where a tank tried to take potshots at a surface ship

>>65218141
underrated

>>65218212
>forcing the Allies to invade a hostile, formerly neutral country
ajo dis nigga doesn't know about Torch

>>65218227
>for one extra month before the allies reach the Rhine
wdym? allies reached the rhine in early 1945 not in mid 1944

>>65220763
You are the retard for thinking one account (by the way every account everyone has given against me so far has been unsourced or an outright lie - the 501st is made up for example) would invalidate the overall strategy of harassing a cruiser dumb or desperate enough to get in firing range of a Panzer division.

Nice ESL btw.

>>65217131
The Allied landings will always get through.

>>65220928
>a cruiser dumb or desperate enough to get in firing range of a Panzer division.
Other way around: a panzer division stupid enough to get into a duel with a cruiser, praying their 75mm popguns do something at max range before the laughably lopsided volume of fire wipes out the tanks

>>65218052
>So? Did that stop eighty tanks from sinking in the water? With thousands of drowning men because you make them carry eighty pounds of gear with wool uniforms? Hardly "perfection".
>HURR WAR HAS CASUALTIES, HURR, WHY IS THIS, HURR

>>65217131
They couldn't spread their forces as they would be too weak everywhere. They couldn't concentrate their forces as the Allies would land somewhere else just like that.
What Hellmutt gonna do?
You lose the war if you lose the skies anyway.
The Germans couldn't stop _Russian_ amphibious operations on the Black Sea either kek. With Odessa evacuation comparable in scale with that of Dunkirk btw. (bbbut - muh Hitler just LET THEM GO you see!!!)

>>65221062
Oh, but it isn't a duel, "friend", it is Panzers using the very cluttered terrain of Normandy (as we have long left the realm of historical reality) to scoot and shoot or whatever other pedantic name constitutes "just move after you fire bro" at your cruisers which now lack infantry support with high explosive shells, causing fires and the like, while you desperately try to zero in on a target that has already repositioned while you choke on smoke and smell the rot of thousands of your dead comrades on the beaches (since you are THAT close to them).

This isn't a "duel", we aren't taking ten paces, we aren't taking turns, and "superior volume of fire" isn't saving you or the failed operation that is now D-Day in this hypothetical.

You should look up what a mission kill is.

>>65221069
Hey dumbass, the point flew over your head. A perfect amphibious operation doesn't lose (roughly) twenty percent of it's armor from DROWNING.

>>65221274
>Cruisers
>Infantry support
You dumb landlubber

>>65221296
What do you think D-Day was.

>>65217131
defect the entire force to the allies side

>>65217131
Just by knowing the time and location it's an easy victory, imagine 88s lined up on the crest shooting landing craft.

Gas
Gas
Gas

>>65217131
>How would you have defended against the D-Day landings?
I wouldn't say a single word to them, I would listen.

>>65221451
>deploying gas against the allies
>in the age of strategic bombing
Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been left somewhere deep in the footnotes in a list of the most lethal bombings of WWII.

>>65221495
If the United Nations had those capabilities, why didn't they use it?

>>65221505
Never mind the UN. If you gas American troops, the Geneva Conventions become the Geneva Suggestions.

>>65218304
There were totally still some pockets of French holdouts still fighting during Dunkirk but come on now. Those French troops were never getting resupplied again, were mostly encircled, and entirely cut off from command. I really doubt you couldnt just sidestep them and leave a token force to keep them busy while the main force focused on just mowing down troops on the beach.

>>65221505
You think the US can't outproduce Germany in gas and anthrax? Plus obviously the delivery systems?

>>65221694
first and foremost, you forget that the German goal was to take Paris and knock France out of the war
slaughtering the BEF was never the goal a necessity to get to the goal at best.
the germans didn't have the man power to and keep them contained and keep pushing into France so they couldn't get relieved and garrison the occupied low countries and deal with Dunkirk
Dunkirk however wasn't right on the road to Paris or the supply lines their advance relied on
it's the rare moment where Hitler decided he'd rather have one bird in his hands rather than two in the air
and it worked, the Germans got to Paris and a few weeks later the French had to sue for peace never having had a day without constant German pressure

>>65220675
You can't read

>>65220718
You ain't moving much through france after invasion started. German logistics were on the priority list of Allied airstrikes

>>65220988
Most realistic answer. Defending the entire French coastline from an entire coalition that has you completely beat on production, intelligence, combined manpower in theater, and air superiority is a damn near impossible task. Dont forget there is a bloodbath in the east taking up a ton of your resources, your allies are dropping off, and you're taking pressure to the south in Italy. Oh and the allies are bombing the fuck out of your logistics chains keeping this defense supplied. Essentially the only thing in the German's favor in Western Europe was the terrain. If anything its impressive the Germans held the allies off as long as they did.

>>65221983
The should have stopped using their limited logistics capacity to mass transport Jews and tons of fuel needed to cremate them so quickly

>>65221274
So, which mission is it your panzers are doing? Are they slaughtering the infantry on the beaches? Or are they harrassing naval forces? They cannot do both simultaneously.

The tanks cannot shoot and scoot indefinitely, and in the time it takes to do any serious damage, there are gonna be allied aircraft directing naval gu fire support from over the horizon straight onto those tanks.
Naval gunfire barrages can stilm suppress the movement of tanks, and naval gunfire barrages from three or so battleships can saturate an area large enough that shooting and scooting isnt even going to work. If you conduct this during the daytime allied foghterbombers are going to constantly harrass your armour, which will severely hamper their ability to conduct maneouver, nevermind the fact that if they were concentrated within range of allied naval gunfire, they would be spotted, fired upon, harrassed and dispersed by bombers and large caliber naval gunfire anyway, which would stop them absolutely dead before they get a chance to lay their gun on a Destroyer, nevermind a cruiser.
And if they did get close enough to the beaches they could fire upon vessels, i can assure you that they will be spotted, and they will lose the gunfight to naval artillery.

>>65222030
You're right, it makes no sense for them to have devoted that many resources to such an unlikely goal while there were far more pressing matters. How strange.

>>65222099
It speaks to how dysfunctional the inner circle was in the third reich anon. Heinrich Himmler was just out to off as many jews as possible, Himmler also being one of the only people Hitler completely trusted and would OK whatever he wanted, giving him almost absolute power to overrule whatever the army wanted. Himmler absolutely could have just told himself the Normandy defense will win out just because they are le aryan superhumans, while actively diverting resources to his death camp pet project. The third reich upper brass was not even close to unified, some were realistic about how to run a war and had to constantly fight for resources and the fuhrer's favor over drugged up race scientists and wealth hoarders focused more on vanity projects instead of actually winning the war.

>>65221793
>You can't read
ok
so elaborate what you meant when you said
>Rommel was poor fit for commanding anything larger than a division.

because it sure does sound like
>rommel was actually le overrated

>>65222176
Not who you're replying to but Rommel was out of his depth commanding large units. He was an expert at shit like trench raids and maneuver warfare and should have been assigned to some special ops or infiltrator unit shit instead of fucking theater level operations.

>>65217131
Probably rely on air recon rather than German Espionage assets. Or should I say Asset. They'd have said where the real attack was going.

>>65222179
we are hitting fudd-levels never thought possible

>>65217144
Media, even back in WWII. You hear about the 101st so much about the battle of the bulge because the media was in the pocket with them. All the while the 82nd actually was in a spot actually holding up the German advance while the Bastogne was not. Although to be fair, the Allied high command thought they were as they assumed the Germans were going for Paris, when in fact they were going to Antwerp.

But because of the media attention even back then it goes on today.

>>65217191
They all weren't coming from one single port. For instance, most of the warships came from Scotland down the channel.

>>65222187
Germans didnt have air recon over where the ships launched from, it was effectively a blind spot. They came in under cover of night. From the German POV the attack basically just appeared on their doorstep.

>>65221983
Without air superiority they are fucked, there's no chance of preventing a channel crossing or getting the Allies trapped in a Gallipoli tier-quagmire from the moment that the Germans lose air superiority over the channel. It was game over for the Germans when the Red Army did not collapse as predicted during the first weeks of Barbarossa, and their loss was in a speedrun when they decided to undertake the Blitz and were never able to recoup their aircraft losses.

>>65221712
The US had nothing that compared to Sarin or Tabun, they're entire chemical arsenal was old-fashioned mustard gas. The German chemical industry was pretty strong and underutilized for the war effort.

>>65222368
Brits would happy lend them a hand in that matter

>>65221655
Remember that the humane treatment the Americans gave their prisoners was one of their biggest advantages. Axis troops would fight to the death against Soviets but quickly surrendered to the Americans.

>>65222368
and how where the germans going to deploy it on military nevermind civilian concentrations?
because delivery wouldn't be an issue for the allies

>>65222290
True and having air recon of where the attack was launched from wouldn't have done much good. The force could just travel up and down the channel to the actual landing zone.

No, the idea is to use air recon to estimate attack strength. This will make it clear that Normandy isn't a decoy but the real attack.

>>65217663
shuddup, fag

>>65218007
underrated