Reversed Beaches For the D-Day Landings?

As I roughly understand things the general train of thought for the D-Day landings in Normandy was successfully land, get far enough inland to build up a decent defensive perimeter, join the different landings together, build up your forces, capture a port like Cherbourg to secure a supply line and then break out. The Commonwealth forces were to attack Caen and pin down the German troops and hopefully provide and easier breakout for the western troops with the American forces then following a modified plan to swing around on the Commonwealth pivot/hinge. One of the drawbacks of this though was that it caused the Commonwealth forces quite a large number of casualties, something they couldn't really afford - IIRC it was about then or a little later that the British started having manpower problems, whilst, to be blunt, the US never really had that sort of worry with a ready supply of bodies to chuck at things.

So what might happen if the beaches and roles had been reversed? US troops land on what in our timeline were Sword, Juno (and possibly) Gold beaches with the Commonwealth forces landing on Omaha and Utah. Other than reduced Commonwealth casualties would it make much of a difference? Only thing I can think of it possibly a slightly more successful closing of the Falaise pocket but that could really go either way.
 
The British and Canadians get hung up in the Bogage (sp?) same as OTL with the Americans.

Allenbrooke was aware of the diffuculties of the boccage, if its definate the British forces are going to be fighting in it then maybe there is more effort at finding a way through sooner?
 
There was an old Economist article (20+ years ago) that suggested that if this had happened, then post war it potentially puts more of the US forces assigned to NATO on the likley Warsaw pact lines of attack, the North German Plain as well as the Fulda Gap.
 
I've often wondered the same thing...

The lack of American amphibious tanks would cause them to take more casualties than the British did if they take Sword/Juno beaches but far less than they took at Omaha. Once they push inland though they're going to run head on into the 21st Panzer which could make things interesting...Will the Americans be better equipped to handle the bulk of the German forces?

Hobart's Funnies are going to be deployed in full force at Omaha which means probably that the British are going to take more casualties than they did on Gold/Sword, but fewer than the Americans did in OTL.
 
To look at the early stages at least large parts of the plan would require deconstructing and reworking so you could see what effects there are later on. Basically the British and Americans had different theories and strategies for getting the men across the beach and not only that the airborne operations would have been significantly altered.

How would the US have dealt with Merville, the Orne river crossings or the bridges across the river Dives? Conversly would the British have used airborne troops at Pont du Hoc or had any clearer objectives than capture the causeways from the beach and St Mare Eglise?

Would the British have coped any better than the Americans on Omaha utilising Hobart's Funnies and would the Americcans have made the same mistakes as they did but on different beaches?
 
Last edited:
Conceptually feasible but it means relocating the CW forces to the west of England in the first place, that’s the simple way.

It also may require a restructure of US in particular forces.

The problems are solveable but its not a simple transposition. 3 CW div and 2 US on 5 beaches, and 2 US AB vs 1 Brit is one of the structure issues, and Uk AB div are smaller than US.

Later on there are more US forces which tends to mean the CW swinging further south to make room and being sandwiched between two Us forces while the supply columns crossed over. Later on the US were supplied direct from the US the CW will always be mainly from the UK. I think there would also be a need to change air force bases.

Unless there is a radically different plan it also means the US taking responsibility for not only attacking and fixing german forces in place but also clearing the channel ports again different kit needed.

In the Normandy fighting the Brits would probably have a better understanding of the Bocage and issues re Omaha and I always get the feeling that the CW forces were more concerned with potential problems on the beach in the first place and would have put effort into solving them some way. Even something as simple as landing tanks in wave 1 on Omaha would have made a difference. The US would probably have not done as well on the British beaches as the brits OTL did for the same reason.

On casualties the US did start running out of infantry in the autumn but for other reasons, with higher casualties in Normandy that may come earlier, and the US greater willingness to accept casualties would not help either.

In short its all doable but the devil is in the detail.
 
Hobart's Funnies are going to be deployed in full force at Omaha which means probably that the British are going to take more casualties than they did on Gold/Sword, but fewer than the Americans did in OTL.
I have seen a view that without Funnies Sword would have been a repeat of Omaha. Logically then the US forces will be cut to pieces on Sword whilst the British take Omaha with the same effort as OTL.

This of course does not allow for differences of geography or for that matter a change in the bomber squadrons used on any particular beach. If you switch those used for Utah and Omaha around you should get more accurate hits on the bunkers on the latter and less on the former. Have no idea what impact that would have on a Utah landing, but each bunker eliminated on Omaha makes it that much easier for OTL US or AH British forces to take the beach.
 
Simon said:
The Commonwealth forces were to attack Caen and pin down the German troops
That was Monty's revisionism postwar.:rolleyes: The plan called for "setting the front on fire'...
Simon said:
the US never really had that sort of worry with a ready supply of bodies
Wrong again. Both sides had problems with infantry casualties, because the projections were based on faulty assumptions. Also, the Brits had a number of intact formations that weren't employed. (IDK why...:confused:)
Simon said:
So what might happen if the beaches and roles had been reversed?
Given Patton is in charge, I expect Caen to be taken in the first week (if not on the first day, lacking the "funnies" & presuming nobody has the wit to use LVT(A)s...:rolleyes:). I expect Patton to be ready for 21. Pz (which Monty seems to have ignored, despite intel warning it was in Caen.:confused:) I expect Monty (suffering severe casualties on Omaha on 6 june) is at least as cautious as OTL, at least at first. I''d expect the Falaise Pocket to be closed tight, & much sooner than OTL. This probably has Eisenhower moving toward the Rhine by July.

I wonder if the Scheldt is cleared sooner & Antwerp opened in August or September...or if Patton is too fixated on Berlin.:rolleyes:
 
Given Patton is in charge, I expect Caen to be taken in the first week

:confused:

The Third Army isn't supposed to be activated until a pre-determined advance line is achieved and that might not happen in the first week. Until the Third Army is given the go ahead, Patton is going to be sitting in Britain. It's going to be all Bradley's show at the beginning.
 
Yes, rush into Caen armed with only standard M-4s only a handful of which will be equipped with the 76mm gun. The battle for Caen saw wide German deployment of Panthers and King Tigers, so I'd expect the Americans to make heavy weather of it.
 
Given Patton is in charge,

He is sitting in Great Britain as part of Operation Fortitude, and letting Patton be in charge of D-day will cause German troops to be pulled from Pas de Calais to Normandy, which will make things worse for the Brits, Canadians, and Americans
 
He is sitting in Great Britain as part of Operation Fortitude, and letting Patton be in charge of D-day will cause German troops to be pulled from Pas de Calais to Normandy, which will make things worse for the Brits, Canadians, and Americans
Taken from an article by Henrik Bering "The German View of Patton"
In Yeide’s view, Farago’s assertion that the Germans concentrated on Patton as the general likely to command American forces in the invasion of France is mainly based on a misinterpretation of an entry in the German High Command’s war diary and on a routine Air War Academy paper entitled Invasionsgenerale. In fact, says Yeide, in a copy distributed in February 1944 Patton is “the only senior Allied general in Britain and the Mediterranean notprofiled with a brief, one paragraph summary.” Bradley appears and so does Montgomery, but no Patton. Yeide does not rule out his inclusion from a later version now missing, but anyway, such papers were standard products with the all services, from which nothing much can be inferred.

What is significant, however, he notes, is that the German High Command did not identify Patton as the commander of this fake U.S. 1st Army Group until well after they had fallen for the Calais ploy. So Patton’s presence in Kent was not the decisive factor in the German miscalculation.

“The Germans did not track Patton’s movements as the key to allied intentions. They never raised his name in the context of worthy strategists.” Hence their intelligence efforts were much more focused on people like Montgomery and Eisenhower, because this was the level on which strategic decisions were made.
Note: Harry Yeide is the author of the book Fighting Patton: George S. Patton Jr. Through the Eyes of His Enemies.
 
Also, the Brits had a number of intact formations that weren't employed. (IDK why...:confused:)

Details please

I expect Patton to be ready for 21. Pz (which Monty seems to have ignored, despite intel warning it was in Caen.:confused:)

The British seemed ready enough for the armoured counter-attack and stopped it dead on D-Day, with units being warned of 21st Panzer located near Caen in late May.

I''d expect the Falaise Pocket to be closed tight, & much sooner than OTL.

Why? It should have been the US Army on the open flank closing the pocket but they headed off to Paris instead.:)

That was Monty's revisionism postwar.:rolleyes:

Plenty of post-war revisonism to go round - especially as there were significant operational differences between the COSSAC plan and the actual Overlord plan.
 
Aber said:
Details please
Working from fuzzy recall, so few to be had. (Have a look at 1943, IIRC.)
Aber said:
units being warned of 21st Panzer located near Caen in late May.
Monty appears to have ignored it...
Aber said:
Why? It should have been the US Army on the open flank closing the pocket but they headed off to Paris instead.:)
IIRC, they had French troops under command, which might account for it.:p
Aber said:
significant operational differences between the COSSAC plan and the actual Overlord plan.
This is outside the COSSAC plan. This is something Monty more/less proposed for Epsom, Charnwood, & Goodwood.:rolleyes: (Those codenames are suggestive of his intent, too.:rolleyes:)
 
So how was Patton planning to deal with the huge number of heavy tanks around Caen? the 76mm gun was decent enough, but lacked the long-range penetration of the 17 pounder.
 
Top