Why didn't the WAllies land in Germany?

Schondloss

Why didn't the WAllies attempt a landing on the North Sea German coast, bringing them directly into Germany, as opposed to the longer route through France?

If carried out, how would this scenario play out?
 

Schondloss

M. Adolphe Thiers said:
Where are they coming from, Britain? That's a logistical nightmare. Crossing the Channel is a lot easier to keep supply lines going.
Click to expand...

I'd guess they would still come from Britain. But given their overwhelming naval superiority, couldn't they make it happen somewhere between Wilhelmshaven and the Danish border?
 

Look More Closely Later

Gone Fishin'
?

To make a successful landing, if you intend to stay (rather than making an in-and-out 'raid'), you have to be able to establish a beach-head and then protect it, whilst bringing in reinforcements and supplies faster than your enemy can concentrate force to cut out and destroy your beach-head.
 

aktarian

Look More Closely Later said:
To make a successful landing, if you intend to stay (rather than making an in-and-out 'raid'), you have to be able to establish a beach-head and then protect it, whilst bringing in reinforcements and supplies faster than your enemy can concentrate force to cut out and destroy your beach-head.
Click to expand...

Plus whole "staying in range of land based planes" thing.
 
Beedok

Beedok

A shorter trip loaded with supplies is good for the boats in those choppy waters, and a shorter trip is good for the stomachs of the soldiers too.
 

Carl Schwamberger

1. More acessable ports on the Franco Belgian coasts. ..and a lot more of them. Bremen & Hamburg had a collective total discharge capacity of thirty to thirty five thousand tons per day under Allied management. Cherbourg & the Marsailles port group were at forty thousand tons daily in late September, with Le Havre & Antwerp adding in another thirty thousand tons daily by late November. This average total discharge of of 60k to 70k tons daily was just adaquate for Allied needs in December. The Hamburg/Bremen port group could probably not manage enough to supply much more than 36-38 Allied divisions & supporting corps/army units.

2. Terrain: The approaches to the beaches from Pas de Calais to Britainy were fairly deep & open until close in. The approaches to Frisia are marked by shoals with restrictive channels & easily mined, unlike deep water coasts. The beaches are not as plentiful as on the Channel or Atlantic coasts. Some of the beaches terminate on coastal islands or dunes with channels or tidal basisn behind them. Others have extensive marshlands inland. There was usually better ground inland from the Channel or Atlantic beaches with areas like the low ground behind Utah Beach the exceptions.

3. No nearby air bases. While the Allies can in 1944 provide some VLR fighter cover a lot of their inventory cant make the flight, and many of the medium bombers like the B26 or A20 are not effective at that range.

I could keep on, but those three are seperately & together show stoppers.
 

Schondloss

Carl Schwamberger said:
1. More acessable ports on the Franco Belgian coasts. ..and a lot more of them. Bremen & Hamburg had a collective total discharge capacity of thirty to thirty five thousand tons per day under Allied management. Cherbourg & the Marsailles port group were at forty thousand tons daily in late September, with Le Havre & Antwerp adding in another thirty thousand tons daily by late November. This average total discharge of of 60k to 70k tons daily was just adaquate for Allied needs in December. The Hamburg/Bremen port group could probably not manage enough to supply much more than 36-38 Allied divisions & supporting corps/army units.

2. Terrain: The approaches to the beaches from Pas de Calais to Britainy were fairly deep & open until close in. The approaches to Frisia are marked by shoals with restrictive channels & easily mined, unlike deep water coasts. The beaches are not as plentiful as on the Channel or Atlantic coasts. Some of the beaches terminate on coastal islands or dunes with channels or tidal basisn behind them. Others have extensive marshlands inland. There was usually better ground inland from the Channel or Atlantic beaches with areas like the low ground behind Utah Beach the exceptions.

3. No nearby air bases. While the Allies can in 1944 provide some VLR fighter cover a lot of their inventory cant make the flight, and many of the medium bombers like the B26 or A20 are not effective at that range.

I could keep on, but those three are seperately & together show stoppers.
Click to expand...

Perfect. That clears it up nicely. Thanks!
 

Maniakes

There's also the opportunity to liberate Metropolitan France along the way, bringing it into the war as a source of men and supplies. About 1.3 million French soldiers in 40 divisions took part in the Allied invasion of Germany, of whom about 900,000 were recruited during or after the liberation of France.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Alex1guy said:
Haha this one has been thoroughly researched, you have inadvertently referenced an infamous discussion about invading by the Frisian Islands here a few years back :p
Click to expand...
Ya, I had palpitations for a second.
EcoBOOM said:
Could an Allied invasion of Norway then Denmark do it?
Click to expand...

Could? Maybe. Should? Not really.

Norway has the same issues that directly invading Germany has, except magnified by distance and geography. The Reich always expected the WAllies to attack Norway, Churchill would get on his hobby horse about it on a regular basis. There was a very well kitted out force in occupation literally until the end of the war (300k+ troops, several bomber and fighter squadrons, plus light naval units, biggest waste of Heer manpower outside of the Africa, especially as things went to hell).

The best way to Germany was exactly the way it was done (although there is a valid discussion to be had regarding if Normandy was the idea location, opposed to north of Calais). Landing France played to the WAllies strength, namely the shortest possible supply lines and largest arc of air cover from the UK.

There were a number of tactical errors by the WAllies, but the strategic plan was very solid,
 
Michel Van

Michel Van

So obvious is idea to Invade Third reich at it coast, has allot of problems

Distance
the Allies has to cross 700 km or 435 miles from Britain to east Frisian, for Denmark even longer
from Britain to Normandy are only 160 km or 100 miles was give much faster transit time and better logistic

the Nazi were not so stupid as they were, they consider a landing of Allies on east Frisian coast and build heavy fortress along coast line.
and most part of the east Frisian coast (and Denmark) are the Wadden Sea aka mud flats

the Wadden sea in Blue
Morze_Wattowe.png


800px-13-09-29-nordfriesisches-wattenmeer-RalfR-34.jpg

at Low tide there mud coast line of dozen km or miles.
try to storm that with boots and heavy tanks
320px-Watt2.jpg
 

euromellows

If Norway successfully held against the Nazi invasion, and subsequently staved off further invasions, would it make a good staging area for this scenario? It is still unlikely in my view versus the easier option of France.
 

Cryhavoc101

Its all down to supplies and ability to move forces etc

Germany has excellent internal lines of communication and a landing on the North Sea or Baltic Coasts might work in a computer game like one of the HOI series but in reality the ability to reinforce and supply any such landing would be grossly inferior to Germany's ability to do the same and as a result any such enterprise would be doomed.

Landing in Normandy means that the allies principle supply bases (Portsmouth and Southampton) are less than a days round trip and of course easily within range of single seat fighters based in Hampshre and Sussex.

Also PLUTO (the undersea pipe line) would not be possible and I suspect that moving the artificial harbours would be many times more difficult
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top