WI: Beaches at Normandy switched

Saphroneth

Banned
What would be the longer-term knock-on effects if the western beaches at Normandy (the area of OTL Omaha and Utah, as well as Gold) were the ones the Commonwealth forces landed on, while the OTL Juno and Sword were where the US forces landed?
What effect would it have on the perception of D-Day?
Would the subsequent fighting have been different if the Americans were the ones having to deal with Caen and the Commonwealth forces with Cherbourg?
 

sharlin

Banned
TBH I think the invasion would still be fine, at Omaha the UK forces would have their engineering vehicles which they offered to the US commanders but were turned down. So they'd have funnies with them on the beach and they could deal with the fortifications no problems.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
TBH I think the invasion would still be fine, at Omaha the UK forces would have their engineering vehicles which they offered to the US commanders but were turned down. So they'd have funnies with them on the beach and they could deal with the fortifications no problems.

But would that just mean, say, that the OTL Juno beach (called, IDK, Maine in ATL?) took on the mythic dimensions of OTL Omaha beach?

And what about the fighting around Caen? I mean, I'm fairly sure the invasion would still *work*, it's just a question of what goes different. The journey, not the destination.
 
If the Omaha defences get missed by all the bombardments as per OTL, things will still be tough, but perhaps with the funnies not as tough as it was for the Americans, so fewer losses than OTL.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
If the Omaha defences get missed by all the bombardments as per OTL, things will still be tough, but perhaps with the funnies not as tough as it was for the Americans, so fewer losses than OTL.

And what about OTL Juno? Would the Americans make headway without funnies, or would they get held up like OTL Omaha?
 
Are we assuming they still lose the funnies? I'm given to understand the weather around Omaha was particularly bad, so off Juno more of the DDs might make it ashore.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Are we assuming they still lose the funnies? I'm given to understand the weather around Omaha was particularly bad, so off Juno more of the DDs might make it ashore.

Well, the DDs might well if the weather was better. But there'd be no AVREs, as I understand it, which might cause problems at Juno itself.
 
I think even without the AVREs, just having the DDs would make a difference.
Plus facing off against an enemy on whom at least some of the pre-invasion bombardment has fallen would help.
 
The Problem with the DD's at Omaha was that the US did not take account of the poor weather and launched the tanks way to far offshore, unlike the British/Commonwealth forces where the LST's carrying the DD's came much closer inshore before launching. Just that change could make a real difference to the initial assault. Further if the LST's came in closer to launch the DD's then there is a greater chance that the landings take place in the correct beach sectors.
 
Yeah, I mean even if only a third of them make it ashore, that's still more than four times as many as OTL landed on Omaha, so that's going to make a real difference.
 
What would be the longer-term knock-on effects if the western beaches at Normandy (the area of OTL Omaha and Utah, as well as Gold) were the ones the Commonwealth forces landed on, while the OTL Juno and Sword were where the US forces landed?
What effect would it have on the perception of D-Day?
Would the subsequent fighting have been different if the Americans were the ones having to deal with Caen and the Commonwealth forces with Cherbourg?

Knowing Hollywood, if the commonwealth forces covered themselves in glory in Normandy, then in any movie adaptation they would find themselves converted into Americans with a small disclaimer at the end. ( à la U571)

Unless this wasn't the perception you were after? In film D-Day is already portrayed as a primarily American affair.. Don't see that changing.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Knowing Hollywood, if the commonwealth forces covered themselves in glory in Normandy, then in any movie adaptation they would find themselves converted into Americans with a small disclaimer at the end. ( à la U571)

Unless this wasn't the perception you were after? In film D-Day is already portrayed as a primarily American affair.. Don't see that changing.
Partly I'm interested with that, partly with how it might change the view of (say) Patton, if his role in Normandy is to slug it out around Caen. Or might he break through earlier? Later?

The Commonwealth and US forces had some quite different situations to face.
 
Knowing Hollywood, if the commonwealth forces covered themselves in glory in Normandy, then in any movie adaptation they would find themselves converted into Americans with a small disclaimer at the end. ( à la U571)

Unless this wasn't the perception you were after? In film D-Day is already portrayed as a primarily American affair.. Don't see that changing.

Don't be so sure - one of the few bits of WWII Hollywood has been pretty good showing the international scale of was WWII - see the Longest Day.
 
Don't be so sure - one of the few bits of WWII Hollywood has been pretty good showing the international scale of was WWII - see the Longest Day.

That was close enough to the actual events (1962) that nobody would have believed it was the US alone. In the last 20 years or so it's all been focussed on the US and in the event any other allied forces are shown they are not shown in the same light. It's understandable to market films to a certain group but the amount of revisionism can also border on offensive.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
That was close enough to the actual events (1962) that nobody would have believed it was the US alone. In the last 20 years or so it's all been focussed on the US and in the event any other allied forces are shown they are not shown in the same light. It's understandable to market films to a certain group but the amount of revisionism can also border on offensive.

Think if they made Sink the Bismarck today it would have been USS Ranger pulling off the torpedo-bomber strike?

And yes, cultural perception is one thing I'm interested in here.
 
Partly I'm interested with that, partly with how it might change the view of (say) Patton, if his role in Normandy is to slug it out around Caen. Or might he break through earlier? Later?

The Commonwealth and US forces had some quite different situations to face.

The plan was always for the British to capture Caen and create a strong shoulder for the US forces to pivot around to their right. If you switch the forces around then you also change the general strategy. Whoever is tasked to take Caen becomes the major threat in the eyes of the Germans - they were afraid of an attack in the direction of Paris, which is why almost all the Panzer divisions were sent against the Commonwealth forces in Normandy. If Patton gets sent to Caen then he'll have a hard time breaking through the SS scum.
 
This may hurt inter-allied cooperation a bit.

If Montgomery's plan is for the US to take and hold Caen, then sit and soak up German counter-attacks or grind on to Falaise while the British (and Poles and Canadians) cut around through open country, then there could be an element of "Monty let the US do the hard work and the dying while he let the Brits take it easy".

Omaha would have gone easier for the British, with the Funnies to help, but the US would have still found the other beaches harder than the British. Overall there would be less Allied casualties on the day.

I don't think Patton would have done so well, his performance at Metz suggests he wasn't so good at dealing with solid defences as were found around Caen.

After, the US and British armies would swap places compared with OTL, with the British aiming for Lorraine and the US working up the coast. This could lead to the US launching a version of Market Garden and the British defending in the Battle of the Bulge!
 

Saphroneth

Banned
This may hurt inter-allied cooperation a bit.

If Montgomery's plan is for the US to take and hold Caen, then sit and soak up German counter-attacks or grind on to Falaise while the British (and Poles and Canadians) cut around through open country, then there could be an element of "Monty let the US do the hard work and the dying while he let the Brits take it easy".

Can't bloody win, poor old Monty. OTL he was accused of having the "slows"...
 
If the Omaha defences get missed by all the bombardments as per OTL, things will still be tough, but perhaps with the funnies not as tough as it was for the Americans, so fewer losses than OTL.

My Mums cousin was an LCT Crewman on D-Day and he told me that just before the invasion the senior RN officers in charge of the Landing craft decided that the Tanks would not make it ashore and so decided to run the LCT in to the beach and risk losses to them and launch the DD tanks closer to the beach - prior to this the plan had been to launch them several mile out as the US Units did - in order to preserve the LCT's (they only had a couple of hundred of them).

Im not sure if the defences at Omaha dictated that the British would have had to do the same as the US?
 
Think if they made Sink the Bismarck today it would have been USS Ranger pulling off the torpedo-bomber strike?

And yes, cultural perception is one thing I'm interested in here.

**Warning. Potential off topic post here**
Wow! It seems you are looking for ways to be offended! For pity's sake, a Hollywood movie can't possibly tell the whole story of D-Day, giving equal weight to all of our international partners, and keep the movie within a watchable running length! If they tried it, you would be sitting in the theater for 24 hours straight! Movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers" were very narrowly focused on one particular aspect of the battle (even with SPR being fictional) and therefore don't cover the whole battle. With all of that said, "The Longest Day" did about as fair a job as possible in portraying the British and French contributions to the battle as any movie could.

The British contributions to the success of the battle were key to eventual victory. The U.S. could not have won it alone. No one can deny this. But if you want to tell more of the British side of the story, then convince a British movie company to make a British movie in Britain about Britain's role in D-Day, and don't blame an American company in Hollywood, USA for making a movie that covers the American side.
 
Top