Most plausable good breaks for D-Day

In OTL the Nazi invasion of Western Europe in the Spring and early summer of 1940 went better than they could reasonably have expected.

What might have happened to allow the Liberation to have gone as well. One thought is better weather so that the invasion is a week earlier.

Any thing else.

Could the Rhine have been crossed by say September?

Were there any specific allied decisions that might plausable have changed things.



PS does this make any difference to the Cold War. I tend to think that short of US/UK troops in Poland the die was cast for that in from 1939-41 but who knows?
 
Last edited:
Here's a few ideas:

You could have the 352nd Infantry Division not being deployed around Omaha Beach as it was only moved there in March 1944. The Allies believed it was near St. Lo IIRC. Without them, Omaha beach should go better.

Recognising that the bocage was a serious obstacle before the landings and having tactics worked out instead of having to improvise them could make the advance quicker.

Better weather is of course always possible and would benefit the allies. I'm particularly thinking of the Mulberry that was destroyed, but air support would be better too.

Preventing the 21st Panzer Division counterattack near Sword beach somehow might help the British take Caen on Day 1, but is less plausible IMO.

The US paratroop landings not being so scattered would be good.

Capturing Port-en-Bessin on Day 1 would enable more supplies to be landed faster and might speed the breakout in the British/Canadian sector. The Commandos who were supposed to attack it were delayed searching for a German artillery battery which had in any case been knocked out by the navy so better communications might have got them to Port-en-Bessin quicker.
 
Here's a few ideas:



Recognising that the bocage was a serious obstacle before the landings and having tactics worked out instead of having to improvise them could make the advance quicker.

In his book 'Decision in Normandy' Carlo D'Este mentions 'Sir Alan Brook being extremely pessimistic at all times about the prospect of fighting there'.
 
Patton is apointed commander of all American forces on D-Day. As he suggested in his book, Omaha Beach is not the second American beach and Americans land on Utah Beach (OTL) and the Real Utah Beach. After getting ashore Patton leads the Americans in a big hook behind Omaha beach and links up with the British. Later Patton smashes entire German Army at Falaise (as he suggested in the OTL) with a deep front narrow strike toward Paris. Allies roll into Germany easily. What if 1 or 2 has a Patton scenerio that end the war on September 22
 
Patton is apointed commander of all American forces on D-Day. As he suggested in his book, Omaha Beach is not the second American beach and Americans land on Utah Beach (OTL) and the Real Utah Beach. After getting ashore Patton leads the Americans in a big hook behind Omaha beach and links up with the British. Later Patton smashes entire German Army at Falaise (as he suggested in the OTL) with a deep front narrow strike toward Paris. Allies roll into Germany easily. What if 1 or 2 has a Patton scenerio that end the war on September 22

With such a gap, isnt it possible for the germans to send in troops to have the landings separate from eachother?
 
After getting ashore Patton leads the Americans in a big hook behind Omaha beach.....

......and suffers the same fate that befell the British and Canadian forces around Caen.

The Americans had the same tank, in fact they were worse off as they did not have the Fireflys. Their tanks were no less vulnerable to 88mm shells and Panzerfausts, Patton couldn't wave a magic wand to change the properties of his equipment.
 
Patton is apointed commander of all American forces on D-Day. As he suggested in his book, Omaha Beach is not the second American beach and Americans land on Utah Beach (OTL) and the Real Utah Beach. After getting ashore Patton leads the Americans in a big hook behind Omaha beach and links up with the British. Later Patton smashes entire German Army at Falaise (as he suggested in the OTL) with a deep front narrow strike toward Paris. Allies roll into Germany easily. What if 1 or 2 has a Patton scenerio that end the war on September 22

The OP did request plausible good breaks you know. Any terrain less suitable for blitzkrieg than the Boccage is hard to imagine.

Also, regardless of plausibility, you've outlined a completely different Allied Strategy not a lucky break. Your PoD would have to be way back to make Patton commander of Overlord.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
There are several that spring to mind

1. The Allied bombing of the beach defenses is far more successful and manages to eliminate the barricades on the beach exits from Omaha. This will mostly reduce losses rahter than change the war, but it still a substansive difference.

2. Somebody actually asks a former resident or investigates the terrain in the boccage country and plans accordingly. This will allow the Allies to reach France with tanks already modified to cut through the hedge roots rather than having to suffer losses and serious delays until a fairly clever sargeant assigned to a tank units creates one using steel from the beach defenses.

3. The strategic bomber force is kept in a support role longer, perhaps two extra weeks.

4. More heavy gun ships (14" and larger) are dedicated to the initial gun line. The German High Command stated during post war interrogation that the most puzzling (and frightening) thing about the Allied invasion was how to deal with the sea based fire support. The Heer commanders couldn't understand why the Allies, with all their battleships, didn't have more there to pound the defenses and troops moving up to interdict the invasion force.

5. Better weather in the two months following the invasion. More clear days = way more destroyed Gernam columns

6. Better training for the C-47 pilots. This will greatly improve the results of the airborne landings AND will reduce losses in the Airborne Army, this will pay dividends for the rest of the war.

Now for a couple that will probably cause some disagreement-

7. Bring in USMS ground controllers and Marine/Navy fighter bombers to support the landings. These men were the experts on close air support and should have been used.

8. Either give the object of taking Caen to the Americans or replace Montgomery with a different British commander (my personal first choice would be Field Marshal Blamey, followed by Wavell). Blamey is my choice because his presence also would mean...

9. At least one Australian division as part of the Overlord TOE. The Australians, along with the Canadians, were the best troops the Commonwealth had to offer. The 6th or 7th Australian would have been a major asset in France.

10. Reduce forces in Italy & redeploy them to France. The place was dead end. Keek enough men to force the Heer to maintain its defensive deployment send the rest to France.
 
IMO no military force on earth at the time could have taken Caen on D1 given the 21st Panzer Division was deployed in the way. It takes more than one day to get an entire Panzer Division out of the way. The British did about as well as could be expected under the circumstances IMO. Some PoD that gets 21st PD out of the way is required IMO, a diversionary attack or something. I've often wondered why the British 1st Para Division wasn't landed although I assume it was a logistical impossibility on D1.

On the USMC, I've read before that the Army had an incredibly dismissive view of their hard won experience, so yeah I'm sure there's a bunch of things that could have been done better if they'd listened to them.
 
On the USMC, I've read before that the Army had an incredibly dismissive view of their hard won experience, so yeah I'm sure there's a bunch of things that could have been done better if they'd listened to them.

By 1944 the US Army had conducted four very large scale amphibious operations (North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, Anzio) while the USMC's opposed landings had been of small scale (Tarawa, Marshalls) against an isolated and lightly armed opponent.
 
What if Rommel isn't put in charge of the Westwall, IIRC he put a lot of time and energy to shore up defenses prior to D-Day. Not sure how much of an effect it would be but it might have some.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
By 1944 the US Army had conducted four very large scale amphibious operations (North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, Anzio) while the USMC's opposed landings had been of small scale (Tarawa, Marshalls) against an isolated and lightly armed opponent.

The difference is that none of the Allied landings in the ETO had been "kick in the door" style landings. (in North Africa the only credible defense was by the Vichy French forces in Morocco and it was minimal, Sicily didn't have any noteworthy beach defenses at all, Salerno was a hodge-podge affair, with the opposition ranging from none at all to action by mobile units that had arrived in the previous week- ten days, Anzio was conducted with virtually no opposition at all) The Marines faced more water's edge opposition taking the door at Tarawa that the Allied did across the Med.

The Marines had very little, if anything, to teach the Army about fighting once they got a few miles inland. Taking the door is a different matter. The Marines had spent 20 years inventing amphibious doctrine and at least a decade developing close air support doctrine (going all the way back to Nicaragua). Navy and Marine pilots were also much more experienced in close air support at the water's edge, and in iffy weather, experience gained across the Solomons and in the early Pacific attacks in the Gilberts and Marshalls. Most importantly, the Marines and Navy had learned, the very hard way, what did & didn't work against an defended beach.

The Army's distaste for allowing the Marines any access into the ETO wasn't a big deal, except at Omaha and later in the war when the General Marshall refused to allow specially trained Marine air units to attack the V2 sites with Tiny Tim rockets.
 
Top