Alternate D-Day locations?

[krull1m]

Originally Posted by UrbanRedneck

I disagree. Partly because your not talking just a couple of carriers. The combined US and British navies could have put around 20 aircraft carriers into service giving them around 1,000 aircraft which is a pretty big CAP. Long range aircraft flying from the UK like the P51 Mustang and the P38 Lightning, could reach Into Germany and would have had no problem covering many bases located in France. Also once they take Jutland or the rest of Denmark they could have used those land bases.

But the logistical nightmare that would come with trying to support 20 carriers outweigh any benefits. The longer and more complicated supply lines, risk of bad weather, risk of enemy action and generally less -capable naval fighters are all good reasons to avoid this plan.

Not to mention that 1000 planes isnt actually that many in the scheme of things. At the beginning of June the 2nd TAF had over 1300 aircraft alone, and that doesnt include US planes which will easily add another 50-60 squadrons of fighters alone before you get to the other aircraft.

Final point is that to do this the allies would have had to strip pretty much all their carriers from the pacific theatre, leaving their forces over there without significant mobile air support. That sounds like a huge and unjustifiable risk given that the allies had a massive and unsinkable carrier they could use instead (Britain)

[Gingerdave]

Originally Posted by AdA

That rules out anything much east. The one choice I would be interested in discussing is a landing in the Somme estuary. Dieppe is not a big harbour, but that opens up the possibility of an eastwards strike more and could be a good compromise btw 1st day casualties and breaking out casualties. It also maximizes fighter cover. (and critically Fighter Bomber action)

A landing immediately to the East of the mouth of the Seine might have worked, between Le Havre and St. Valery.

Obviously you don't try to land directly into a fortified port, but a landing to the north of Le Havre would allow the early objectives to include the isolation of Le Havre by reaching the north bank of the Seine inland of the city. Easier than isolating Cherbourg?

This would also allow the western flank of the landing to rest on the Seine, which IIRC was/is good defensive terrain. The German retreat was too fast, but there was a possibility for a serious defensive stand on the river.

I'm sure there were reasons for not doing this, though i don't know them. It's that much further from the French Atlantic coast, and there were good reasons for clearing those ports (reinforcements directly from the US, denial of bases for the u-boats - I know they were beaten by then), or maybe the terrain wasn't suitable.

[Gunnarnz]

Originally Posted by UrbanRedneck

Yes they could concentrate defenses but alot of Jutland was in range of heavy offshore guns of the navy which could fire shells 15 miles inland.

This is starting to sound familiar... "we'll encourage the Germans to concentrate, then pound them continuously with artillery and air power for a couple of months while we build up supplies for the invasion". It wasn't plausible when suggested with respect to the Friesian islands, and I doubt that there are enough relevant differences to make it work any better here.

[Starkad]

Originally Posted by UrbanRedneck

Yes they could concentrate defenses but alot of Jutland was in range of heavy offshore guns of the navy which could fire shells 15 miles inland.

Except that from just south of Esbjerg, you have the tidal sea going all the way to Frisia... Low shallow water, littered with flat islands, gently sloping bottom, mostly with muddy bottom. Often 5 or even 10 miles between the waterline at low and high tide. I can't wait for my copy of Time Magazine with the picture of the battleship stuck at low tide, listing 30 degrees ......

[Rich Rostrom]

Originally Posted by Cook

One thing to remember concerning the Mincemeat deception plan; it worked because it reinforced what the Germans already were already thinking and simply stopped them from reacting correctly when the landings actually took place at Normandy.

MINCEMEAT was the "Man Who Never Was" deception for HUSKY (the 1943 invasion of Sicily).

The deception plan for OVERLORD was BODYGUARD (FORTITUDE being the mock Calais invasion; there were other elements).

[Rich Rostrom]

Originally Posted by Shaby

But these results were only possible with Germans being bled dry in Normandy. I think Southern France offers even better defensive grounds than North western part?

Much better. The coast from Italy to Marseille is the Riviera. If you've seen movies like To Catch a Thief, then you've seen cliffs between the beaches and the mountains rising up behind.

[bobinleipsic]

Originally Posted by MUC

Probably ASB, but:

Denmark!!!

I am probably getting into ASB territory here, but how would Uncle Joe Stalin viewed a Denmark invasion? Would he have seen it aw a threat to the USSR and/or his plans to control Eastern Europe?

bobinleipsic

[Rich Rostrom]

Originally Posted by Beedok

What about a thrust in the south to draw the Germans out and then strike somewhere in the North like Belgium?

That's what Hitler and the German high command thought the Normandy attack was.

There is no doubt about it; it was confirmed in postwar interviews. The FORTITUDE deception, and especially the work of the double-cross agent GARBO, was swallowed completely.

Three days after D-Day, GARBO sent an urgent message to his controllers. He had met with his three chief sub-agents, and they all agreed that the Normandy attack was a feint, with the main attack still to come at Calais. (GARBO had provided the Germans with copious detail on the FUSAG forces poised for that attack.) That message was passed up to the highest levels of OKW. Field Marshal Keitel (Hitler's personal chief-of-staff) confirmed after the war that they had seen and believed GARBO's message, and that it persuaded them to cancel 1st SS Panzer Division's move to Normandy.

The Germans never did see through BODYGUARD/FORTITUDE. They eventually concluded that the Normandy attack had been unexpectedly successful, and so the Allies had decided against the second invasion, and shifted forces. When divisions GARBO had identified as part of FUSAG appeared in Normandy, they saw this as confirmation of his reports.

GARBO was awarded the Iron Cross, and became the chief German source for V-weapon impact data.

[AdA]

Originally Posted by Gingerdave

A landing immediately to the East of the mouth of the Seine might have worked, between Le Havre and St. Valery.

Obviously you don't try to land directly into a fortified port, but a landing to the north of Le Havre would allow the early objectives to include the isolation of Le Havre by reaching the north bank of the Seine inland of the city. Easier than isolating Cherbourg?

This would also allow the western flank of the landing to rest on the Seine, which IIRC was/is good defensive terrain. The German retreat was too fast, but there was a possibility for a serious defensive stand on the river.

I'm sure there were reasons for not doing this, though i don't know them. It's that much further from the French Atlantic coast, and there were good reasons for clearing those ports (reinforcements directly from the US, denial of bases for the u-boats - I know they were beaten by then), or maybe the terrain wasn't suitable.

D day planning was essentially a trade off btw first day(s) casualties and breaking out casualties. I was particulary referring to the possibility of landing in the Somme rather than the Seinne estuary. Dieppe would be the first port to be taken, and there would be a big diference in operations from D Day on. I'm thinking of studying this option deeper, and was interested in other peoples opinions on it.
What you said about not landing directly into a port made me immediately think of Inchon...
Inchon style assault on a Frnch port, anyone?

[MattII]

Here's an idea, why not really push the boat out and just land at Kiel?, it's only a couple of days from Hamburg, and they it's an easy week-long ride to Berlin.

[von hitchofen]

Originally Posted by MattII

Here's an idea, why not really push the boat out and just land at Kiel?, it's only a couple of days from Hamburg, and they it's an easy week-long ride to Berlin.

sounds good, I'll nab that for my ASB/ISOT - might be able to capture the Bismarck as well

it'll all be over by Hannukah....

[Shaby]

Originally Posted by von hitchofen

sounds good, I'll nab that for my ASB/ISOT - might be able to capture the Bismarck as well

it'll all be over by Hannukah....

And make sure Habakkuk makes an appearance. Allies need all the air support they can get.

[von hitchofen]

Originally Posted by Shaby

And make sure Habakkuk makes an appearance. Allies need all the air support they can get.

six - engined B-29 Super-Superfortresses off a lump of wood-pulp and ice in the Skaggerak - v. plausible...

[BlairWitch749]

Originally Posted by Shaby

And make sure Habakkuk makes an appearance. Allies need all the air support they can get.

The Habakkuk could ram the kiel canal and block it preventing the KM from sortieing

[Shaby]

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

The Habakkuk could ram the kiel canal and block it preventing the KM from sortieing

It could ram entire Denmark out of the way for invasion of Pommern, given the size of this thing.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by von hitchofen

six - engined B-29 Super-Superfortresses off a lump of wood-pulp and ice in the Skaggerak - v. plausible...

Originally Posted by BlairWitch749

The Habakkuk could ram the kiel canal and block it preventing the KM from sortieing

Originally Posted by Shaby

It could ram entire Denmark out of the way for invasion of Pommern, given the size of this thing.

Sheesh. Yes the thing was huge, but not that huge. It was, iirc, 2000 ft long, twice the length of a modern carrier. The idea was to fly twin engine bombers off her, not six engine ones.

In addition to sheer size, it was also almost immune to sub attack. Once the uboot threat went away, so did plans for the pyecrete monstrosity.

[merlin]

Rather than a different landing place - ther could be an accidental variation of OTL.

For example, I like the idea of stray Paratroopers (and there were a lot of them, or indeed lost trooper carrying aircraft - dropping them astray.
As a few disparate groups come together, no one seems to have a map or know where they should be going - so head for coast.
When, they find it, it could either be a unguarded cove, or a small fishing village - either of which gets reinforced!

[Xavier]

There were no unguarded bits of coastline between the Pyrenees and the very north-end of Norway. Each and every bit of coast had at least a few bunkers looking out over it, especially ports, no matter how small.