WI: Patton commanded the Normandy landings?

Anaxagoras

Banned
I have always thought George Patton was overrated as a general and that his fame today is due mostly to the movie than his actual career. His aggressive tactics might have been well-suited to the breakout from Normandy following the success of Operation Cobra, but I have often wondered if his methods might have lead to disaster during the two months of fighting after the Normandy landings.

So, how about it? How different would the Normandy campaign have been had Patton been in command of the American contingent rather than Bradley?
 
Well, I can't comment specifically on how Patton would have done as a general, though I think you are underestimating him. Certainly he was amongst the most esteemed American Generals by the Germans.

What I can count on is that many amongst the German High Command spent quite a while believing that Normandy was a diversionary attack precisely because they are so sure that Patton would command. If Patton had commanded, it is likely that the Germans would not have back reserves that in OTL were not committed to the battle until it was too late to dislodge the allies from their beach heads.

--
Bill
 
Give Patton command of Normandy and there going to bee some shake up in the way the landings are dealt with. Patton would firstly use more forward focus elements by using tanks at platoon level followed by breakthroughs with infantry.

The problem I see with this is that Patton would be using troops to breakthrough into area which could be easily counter-attacked and surrounded by mecennized infantry. However, since he has full air superioty, that means he can strike at will where he needs to.

I don't know how far he would get in the landings and what he would do after that but I do think he will throw more risks on the table ?

Does anyone have any ideas for this thread. This is to do with Patton being in command and you xan use his history to show flaws and strageic brillance in how he would plan this operation.
 
Well the POD would definitely have to come from Italy. If Patton doesn't show his ugly side there then he would have gone on to be the commander of the American forces in Europe.

A number of historians, notably Carlo De'Este, believe that Patton being in command of the American forces in Europe would mean a quicker end to the war there not, per say, because he was any better or would have done better than Bradley but more because he wasn't as petty as Bradley was and would have worked better with Monty than Bradley did.

As for the Normandy landing I can tell you unequivocally the Patton being in command of the Americans would not have changed the overall plan because the entire campaign was controlled by Monty however Patton probably would not have gone with the broad front strategy that Bradley used and as a result would probably break out quicker.

From there one...its anyone's guess.
 
And the landing is under overall command of Monty untill Eisenhower goes to normandy, which won't happen untill there's more room in the bridgehead.

Patton would have faced the same congestions on the beaches etc as Bradley would have.

Monty's plan for the inmediate post-landing was aggressive enough without Patton around. Because of the much higher tide then usual, the beaches were smaller leaving the Allies with much traffic congestion and unable to land the armoured brigades Monty wanted to use to strike inland.

The Allies did try to take Caen on the first day, but couldn't do that without more armour.

Nytram01;
Which one by Carlo D'Este is that? I have 'Decision in Normandy' by him and can't remember reading that in it.
IIRC he does mention some minor differences between Monty and Bradley (Bradley didn't like Monty) but not enough to make a true difference during Overlord.

A better idea IMHO would be to drop Leigh-Mallory. He didn't allow the 1th Airborne division to be dropped towards Caen to break the shell of German troops corsetting the landing.
Or have the Naval part of the landing agree with a cease-fire for several hours (which they didn't out of fear for the absent Luftwaffe) so the transport aircraft don't get shot down.

The wiki confirms that:
In January 1944, Maj. Gen. Roy Urquhart was given command of the division. On D-Day, 1st Airborne remained in reserve, while British 6th Airborne Division made the airborne drops into France. During the early stages of the fighting in Normandy it was planned to drop the division south of the city of Caen in support of Operation Perch, however the operation was vetoed by the air force as being too risky for the men of the division as well as the pilots who would fly them in.[1][2][3][4]
 

Redbeard

Banned
The more I read about Patton the more I'm moved towards the conclusion of him being mainly a liability to the allies.

As long as the allies played it safe and just kept applying their growing strength they would eventually win. That asked for careful, meticolous and firepower based leaders that didn't take too many risks.

A very aggressive allied leader like Patton would constantly scan for opportunities for aggressive manoeuvres. On a good day he would shorten the war, but on a bad he would be caught out on a limp and suffer a cripling defeat - perhaps enough to give the Germans an armistice.

On Axis side Patton's talents would have been useful (although they had plenty of aggressive talent already), but unleashed on allied side I think he is about the only German chance to avoid defeat.

I'm not so much afraid of Normandy in mid 44, here the terrain did not offer many opportunities for swift movement anyway, but Patton in command in late 44 would I fear be tempted to try a deep push into Germany over the Westwall/Rhine - and risk being cut off by the forces OTL used at the Bulge.

Imagine Patton after annoying just about everybody, not at least the British and French, force through a major offensive with a central role for himself - and then suffer humiliating defeat?! I'm afraid the cohesion of the alliance would be in danger. In that context a meticolous planner like Monty making a calculated risk at Market Garden (and Ike as moderator) is much to prefer than a mentally questionable Patton putting all in one bet. Anyway if Monty had won Market Garden (and the war) he probably would have taken the final steps into the dark world of megalomania - Patton already was there.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

hammo1j

Donor
Yes, I agree, Steffan. Part of the problem for Allied generals was casualties and the reaction of the public in a democratic state to Somme like casualty figures. The Russians and Germans did not have this 'problem' and fought more effectively man for man but for the individual it was suicidal.

Morale was severely affected by the casualties the attacking allied infantry took and this restricted the actions of the commander.
 
When Pattion lead his actural breack out from Normandy rember he used the Roads that William the conqure did to invade England .
He said if they could support William in his invation they would suport him in his attack and they did .

He was a nut case but he knew his military history and the terrain he was fighting on .
 
Top