AHC/WI: WAllies invade the Cote d'Argent

So awhile back I was playing an alt-interwar nation game as the UK, and needed to invade France (long story). Since the obvious move would be to repeat OTL and go for Normandy or Calais, I decided to go the non-obvious route and aim for the Cote d'Argent off the Bay of Biscay. It worked out alright in the game, but I've been turning it over in my head ever since, and figured it couldn't hurt to ask.

So, basically, could/would the WAllies have invaded the Cote d'Argent, as an alternative to either Overlord or Dragoon? As far as landing sites go, the Cote d'Argent isn't that bad: long flat beach, no cliffs (so the Atlantic Wall won't be as great a threat), close to two ports that can be captured (Bordeaux and Arcahon), and was (as I understsand it) relatively under-defended. While it doesn't really work as an alternative to Normandy (too far from Paris and, more importantly, the German border), it would be a solid alternate to Dragoon, and one that would not require the securing of North Africa to stage (it would, however, probably need an at least solidly pro-Allied Portugal).

So, invading the Cote d'Argent: good idea or Frisian Island II: Electric Boogaloo?
 
I think the most obvious reason is distance from the staging ports.

It would also mean that it would be harder to get fuel to the beachhead: In Normandy (and Calais, should that route have been taken) a fuel line was run from the south coast of England all the way to the beachhead once it was secure. Cote d'Argent would have made that a much more difficult thing to do and might have prevented the option all together.
 
So awhile back I was playing an alt-interwar nation game as the UK, and needed to invade France (long story). Since the obvious move would be to repeat OTL and go for Normandy or Calais, I decided to go the non-obvious route and aim for the Cote d'Argent off the Bay of Biscay. It worked out alright in the game, but I've been turning it over in my head ever since, and figured it couldn't hurt to ask.

So, basically, could/would the WAllies have invaded the Cote d'Argent, as an alternative to either Overlord or Dragoon? As far as landing sites go, the Cote d'Argent isn't that bad: long flat beach, no cliffs (so the Atlantic Wall won't be as great a threat), close to two ports that can be captured (Bordeaux and Arcahon), and was (as I understsand it) relatively under-defended. While it doesn't really work as an alternative to Normandy (too far from Paris and, more importantly, the German border), it would be a solid alternate to Dragoon, and one that would not require the securing of North Africa to stage (it would, however, probably need an at least solidly pro-Allied Portugal).

So, invading the Cote d'Argent: good idea or Frisian Island II: Electric Boogaloo?

It's out of air support range, so no go.

Dragoon was, iirc, in range of bases in Corsica. Also, it was a secondary invasion, after Normandy and with the German forces concentrated to the north.

Normandy was, of course, the main invasion, and was in reach of even short legged land planes from Britain.

An attack in the Bay of Biscay, while looking attractive in some ways, would need to be totally supported by naval air power, and since they'd be up against the bulk of the Luftwaffe, this would mean dozens, maybe 100 aircraft carriers. Which simply aren't available in the Atlantic at this point.

Besides, movement forward would be limited by supplies, which would be more difficult. Normandy meant supply shipping could simply shuttle back and forth to the stockpiles in the UK, making a trip a day or so (AFAIK). Supply to e.g. Bordeaux, even if the port were taken with little damage (unlikely - the Normandy ports took some time to be brought back into full operation) would be a lot slower. Also, options like PLUTO (a pipeline bringing fuel from Britain) would likely be impossible with the extra distance.

SO... Even if you did land and secure ports, the RATE of advance would be slower than from Normandy landing sites, and the DISTANCE would be greater, which would mean the Soviets conquer more of Germany which would have interesting implications.
 
I think the most obvious reason is distance from the staging ports.

It would also mean that it would be harder to get fuel to the beachhead: In Normandy (and Calais, should that route have been taken) a fuel line was run from the south coast of England all the way to the beachhead once it was secure. Cote d'Argent would have made that a much more difficult thing to do and might have prevented the option all together.

Good points, though perhaps this doesn't completely disqualify it as an alternative to Dragoon, where (AFAIK) there was no fuel lines being run to the mainland. In addition, if Bordeaux is seized relatively intact, that could be used to ship in supplies to support the ground troops.
 
What was weather like in the Bay of Biscay during the summer of 1944?
How many storms?
How strong were the winds?
How steep were the waves?
How high were the tides?
How big were the ports?
Were the docks and cranes intact?
Did those ports still have intact rail lines headed inland?
 

Good points. Would an Allied, or at the very least, pro-Allied Portugal, one that allowed the WAllies to base fighters/bombers out of, give them the neccesary air cover to pull off the assault?

I do agree it's not really suitable as an alternative to Normady, but it might work as an alternative/supplement to Dragoon.
 
Good points. Would an Allied, or at the very least, pro-Allied Portugal, one that allowed the WAllies to base fighters/bombers out of, give them the neccesary air cover to pull off the assault?

I do agree it's not really suitable as an alternative to Normady, but it might work as an alternative/supplement to Dragoon.

Portugal is still too far away for effective fighter support. Monty was adamant that maximum air support was a prerequisite for Overlord, which is one of the reasons why Normandy was chosen. And the Bay of Biscay is also a very nasty place for shipping during unsettled weather, let alone storms.
 
It's out of air support range, so no go.
The P51 & P47 with drop tanks could easily range & loiter over Bourdeux in january 1944. thats the month they were destroying the best of the German fighter squadrons over Germany. The B26 medium bombers of the 9th AF could also attack targets from Bourdeux northwards. As could anything possesed by the US 8th AF.

Out of the 12,000 Alied combat aircraft in the UK 1 June roughly 60% could effectively reach Bourdeux. Between 2000 & 3000 of the 8th & 9th AF could reach Bourdeux.


An attack in the Bay of Biscay, while looking attractive in some ways, would need to be totally supported by naval air power, and since they'd be up against the bulk of the Luftwaffe, this would mean dozens, maybe 100 aircraft carriers. Which simply aren't available in the Atlantic at this point.

German AF distribution 1 June 1944, source Alfred Price 'Luftwaffe' & John Ellis 'Brute Force':

France/Belgium .300

Norway............300

Eastern Front..2,400

Mediterranean.1,200

Germany........1,000+

These numbers are operational aircraft as of 1 June. They are rounded off to the nearest hundred. Including aircraft that could be brought to operational status in a few days brings to totals on each front up about 10-12%

On 6th June the Germans launched slightly over 300 sorties against the invasion. I dont have exact numbers on how many reached Normandy by it was slightly over half. German losses ran roughly 25% on 6th June. Around 30% of the losses were accidents or mechanical malfunctions. As far as I can tell maybe 15% of the German aircraft in France/Belgium were in range of Bourdeux on 6th June.

By late June the Germans were able to occasionally surge over 1000 sorties against the Normandy lodgement. Most of those were at night as daylight losses in the first days were pushing towards 30%. In July the sorties against the Allied enclave peaked at between 1,300 & 1,400, nearly all at night. German doctrine was to attack the invasion fleet, which were using the proximity fuzes & other assorted radar assistance, so losses were severe among the night attacks.

Allied sorties on 6th June were surged in a maximum effort to some 14,000 sorties. After the 8th AF was redirected to bombing Germany Allied sorties over France averaged over 4000 per day. Many of those sorties were directed specifically at the German air bases and bomber/fighter sorties.
 
So awhile back I was playing an alt-interwar nation game as the UK, and needed to invade France (long story). Since the obvious move would be to repeat OTL and go for Normandy or Calais, I decided to go the non-obvious route and aim for the Cote d'Argent off the Bay of Biscay. It worked out alright in the game, but I've been turning it over in my head ever since, and figured it couldn't hurt to ask.

I've seen in done many times in WWII games. Had a opponent suprise me with it in a game of Fortress Europa this year. Its fairly easy to get ashore against the German historical defense, or even when reinforced with another corps or two. Few game designs allow for specifically for Operation Chasity, but even with a ahistorical reduced logistic effort the Allies can build a army group up in a few weeks on the game boards.

One significant problem with this region is the railway connection to the interior & Germany. If you go to Brittiany there are enough high capacity railways to support a couple US sized army groups. Thats why the Breton ports were originally selected for the supply base for the US 12th Army Group, & Op Chasity organized. Further south the railways are thinner on the ground and the trunk lines less capable. Swing around to Marsailles & once again you have a very high capacity rail connection to central & eastern France. Historically that railroad was catured nearly intact by Patches 7th Army, which gave Devers 6th Army Group a greater offensive capability in September - november than Bradleys 12th AG which was drawing across a rail network that was still being rebuilt.

The trunk railways from Bourdeux either head SE to the Marsailles region, or NE to the Paris regional hub, and that was part of the area wrecked by the Allied transportation campaign in the spring & early summer of 1944.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Logistical nightmare. Four times the distance to the Channel ports, twice as far to Paris. Outside of useful fight-bomber air cover. Worth noting that at least half of the sorties of fighter bombers were RAF, many of them Spitfires. Can't even reach the landing zones. Typhoons can barely manage it with drop tanks and no weapons. You would lose half the aircraft and effectively ground the 8th AF because the only aircraft that can support the landings are also the long range escorts for the Bomber groups.

Could it be done? Probably. No advantage to it and lots of disadvantages.
 
Logistical nightmare. Four times the distance to the Channel ports, twice as far to Paris. Outside of useful fight-bomber air cover. Worth noting that at least half of the sorties of fighter bombers were RAF, many of them Spitfires. Can't even reach the landing zones. Typhoons can barely manage it with drop tanks and no weapons. You would lose half the aircraft and effectively ground the 8th AF because the only aircraft that can support the landings are also the long range escorts for the Bomber groups.

Could it be done? Probably. No advantage to it and lots of disadvantages.

Fair points. In fairness, when I invaded the coast in the nation game, I was at war with France, and the intent was to open up a second front in order to relieve pressure off of Germany (like I said, long story). It was also the inter-war period, so fighter/bomber cover was a moot point.
 
Top