Was there an alternative to Normandy?

hammo1j

Donor
It took 6 years to build the Channel Tunnel in OTL. That is with modern equipment and working from both ends. With 1940's tech, working from one end, The Allies might be able to launch the invasion by 1952...

Good point GL :)

OTH the channel tunnel was built when H&S was paramount and to handle 2 way traffic. I know the victorians got a good few miles before they stopped their attempt. Would a quick and dirty tunnel, that was not built to last, be possible in, say, 18 months?
 
I'm surprised that the German High Command didn't figure out that Normandy was the best potential spot for an allied invasion force to land in Europe. After all, Saxon England was invaded from bases in Normandy in 1066 by William, Duke of Normandy; how much more information like that did the GHC need to realise that one day, the British could pay a return visit? When Rommel was put in charge of the Normandy sector of the Atlantic Wall, he realised that this was a distinct possibility, and started building up defences in the area at a rapid rate. If you want to know some of the strategems the Allies used to fox the Germans in June '44, get hold of a copy of the book 'The Dambusters' by Paul Brickhill--in that regard it's very interesting...

Apropos to the above post regarding a Channel Tunnel from southern Britain to Pas de Calais, I'm surprised that it didn't cross Hitler's mind. He had millions of potential slaves to use in the construction project, and would have had no qualms at all about working them to death to get the tunnel built as quickly as possible. After the failure of the German effort in the Battle of Britain, and the cancellation of Operation Sea Lion, and particularly after Pearl Harbour pushed America into the War, he must have known that he had only a few years grace before the Allies became strong enough to launch an invasion of the Continent.
 
Good point GL :)

OTH the channel tunnel was built when H&S was paramount and to handle 2 way traffic. I know the victorians got a good few miles before they stopped their attempt. Would a quick and dirty tunnel, that was not built to last, be possible in, say, 18 months?


I'm not an engineer, So I would not be able to answer that.

I was basing my estimate on the fact that it took 6 years with modern equipment. I figure that adding four years is not out of the question.
 
Well considering this is an discussion to an alternate option to Normandy perhaps the western allies listen to Churchill and push the Italian front. If it succeeds it would be interesting to see what post-WW2 Europe would look like.
 
The problem with Med and other distant invasion sites was that Germany had to be defeated by the occupation of its heartland powerbase and the further the landing site is from this heartland the longer the war will go for.
 
Good point GL :)

OTH the channel tunnel was built when H&S was paramount and to handle 2 way traffic. I know the victorians got a good few miles before they stopped their attempt. Would a quick and dirty tunnel, that was not built to last, be possible in, say, 18 months?
You are either insane, dumb, or sleep deprived, or all of the above.
A 30km+ tunnel in 18months???:rolleyes: Even if they did build a tunnel, ever thought about the Bottleneck Of Bottlenecks it would create? A single infantry company and one anti-tank gun platoon could keep it contained for eternity.
 
Top