WI: D-Day Landings Fail?

Well, as was noted earlier in this thread, even AFTER the war there sere plenty of senior German officers who still didn't believe that Normandy hadn't been planned as a feint that became the main axis of attack after it was unexpectedly successful.

Once you fall in love with a strategic believe it is difficult to let it go.

Especially when it makes sense. Normandy was a worse location, that's why the Allies picked it over the better (and better defended) options, isn't it?
 
Especially when it makes sense. Normandy was a worse location, that's why the Allies picked it over the better (and better defended) options, isn't it?

It wasn't the worst, but it was far from the best... which in one of those military paradoxes is also why it was the best. ;)
 
Last edited:
It wasn't the worst, but it was far from the best.

All I can say is, if you have to bring your harbors with you, it's definitely one of the worst - except for considerations like why the Allies felt it was worth it.

And I think the Allied planners knew what they were doing there. Not just because it worked, but because of how.
 
Oh I'm not saying a more co mpetent Abwehr is impossible, just that it isn't going to get there suddenly, and it isn't going to surprise the allies in doing so either, because they're going to be reading the German messages.

ll it might take was an Abwehr offiicer at the right level or maybe just a few in key positions to interpret information differntly and draw the correct conclusions. The Allies may well realise what has happened due to Enigma intercepts but, even in this case SD Day probably must go ahead anyway.
 
ll it might take was an Abwehr offiicer at the right level or maybe just a few in key positions to interpret information differntly and draw the correct conclusions. The Allies may well realise what has happened due to Enigma intercepts but, even in this case SD Day probably must go ahead anyway.
The problem is, Canaris is the head of Abwehr, and had a fair few followers, so it would be quite easy for critical pieces of information to get 'lost'.
 
And even if that's avoided, this is an extremely sophisticated plan. You're not going to unravel it by someone "interpreting information differently".

Not to mention that even if that's handled, and Canaris (and his followers) are handled, that leaves convincing the people who would make a decision on what to do about it that you have the correct information in time to do anything about it.

"Easier said than done" doesn't even begin to describe thwarting Overlord's deception aspect.
 
Very few officers on the exercise new of the location D-Day. Ike made sure all were accounted for after the loss.

True and true. But the body of the last one took a while to find. My thought was that had the Germans shown a little more initiative, it is at least plausible that they could have captured one or more of those individuals before they drowned/died of exposure. Naturally, I can understand them not wanting to dally in enemy-controlled waters when they had no reason to know what they'd just stumbled across.
 
All I can say is, if you have to bring your harbors with you, it's definitely one of the worst - except for considerations like why the Allies felt it was worth it.
w.

:confused: they had to bring their own harbours because the existing ones wwere both well defended and mined. To avoid that theyd have had to make tthe primary invasion through southern france or the balkans.
 
All I can say is, if you have to bring your harbors with you, it's definitely one of the worst - except for considerations like why the Allies felt it was worth it.

They were probably going to have to do that no matter where they landed. Dieppe had shown the folley of directly attacking a defended harbor and all of the ports along the occupied coast of northern Europe had some kind of German garrison.

No, Normandy wasn't the worse location they could have landed at. There were other locations that were almost identical to Normandy in terms of their beach make-up... except they were outside the range of Allied (land-based) tactical airpower.
 
:confused: they had to bring their own harbours because the existing ones wwere both well defended and mined. To avoid that theyd have had to make tthe primary invasion through southern france or the balkans.

They were probably going to have to do that no matter where they landed. Dieppe had shown the folley of directly attacking a defended harbor and all of the ports along the occupied coast of northern Europe had some kind of German garrison.

No, Normandy wasn't the worse location they could have landed at. There were other locations that were almost identical to Normandy in terms of their beach make-up... except they were outside the range of Allied (land-based) tactical airpower.

One of the worst. Not "the worst".

And I know that they had (heavier than Normandy) defenses, thus the whole "except for considerations like why the Allies felt it was worth it." - normally, one does NOT invade when one has to bring one's harbors with you, which is why the Germans expected the Allies to regard needing a harbor as an overriding concern instead of suspecting the Allies would have something like the Mulberries, which were an extremely clever - but not exactly inconceivable - solution.

If I was Ike, the better part of the reason for picking Normandy is not that its a good location to having to land and supply an army from but that the good locations are too tough to crack (at a reasonable price in men/materials/time).

Which is not to fault the decision - as stated, I think the Allied planners made the best choice of their available options, with the benefit of seeing how they went about dealing with the reasons against Normandy (very, very effectively).
 
Top