why normandy? | Forums

[xplosiv05]

just a quick question.....
why did the allies choose normandy for the dday landings?
I already no that they chose normandy because it looked like the most unlikely place as it was the furthest away from england. (the germans expected calais as it was the closest point to england)
But is there any more reasons why normandy was chosen? when there were many different places to launch the invasion.

thanks

[xplosiv05]

just a quick question.....
why did the allies choose normandy for the dday landings?
I already no that they chose normandy because it looked like the most unlikely place as it was the furthest away from england. (the germans expected calais as it was the closest point to england)
But is there any more reasons why normandy was chosen? when there were many different places to launch the invasion.

thanks

[DarkAutumn]

LONG-WINDED ANSWER...

About 'Other Places' the Allies could've landed:

The place that the Brit PM Winston Churchhill wanted was up through the Dardanelles/Balkans.
(Through Hungary, Romanian and that general region, instead of Normandy.)

Historical side note:
All the German satellite nations were in secret contact with the Allies. All were fully willing to turncoat the Germans because they'd rightfully predicted Russian annexation and wanted to avoid it at all costs.

Turkey indicated their willingness to come in on the Allied side provided a beachhead was established in the region.
Romania alone would've added 20 Divisions to the Allied cause...

The Allies were in a good position to do just that after fighting their way up Italy.

That would've been desirable because of this:

If we could've physically captured Ploesti in Romania (where the Germans were getting their oil) then we could've ended the war sooner.

As for Ploesti, the Yanks bombed the **** out of it, but the Germans used forced labour to keep rebuilding.

HAD THE ALLIES DONE THAT, they would've ALSO cut off the Russians from taking Berlin and then keeping half of Europe. (The half we would've been in had things worked out that way.)

However, the Americans disagreed for a number of reasons. Mostly political. The Yanks feared the Brits had ulterior motives (Imperialism) amongst other things. Plus Roosevelt felt he could handle Stalin because, as he wrote to Churchill, Stalin "hates the guts of all your top people."

And, of course, the Russians were against it...

As for Normandy:

It was something that the Allied political leaders could agree to. It also meant shorter supply lines than a Second Front up through the Balkans would've been.

It was chosen was because specific physical and environmental conditions were needed to pull off a landing:

Tides had to be just right for one thing.

The sand had to be the right type and texture to be able to support the weight of tanks.
(The slaughter of a Canadian Division at Dieppe in 1942 was proof of that.)

It had to be a wide enough stretch of coastline for the Americans, British, and Canadian armies plus the contingents from the other Allied nations (Free French, Poles, etc) to land simultaneously.

It had to be close enough for Allied air superiority to protect the fleet and the landings. England was, in terms of the air war, one big aircraft carrier sitting off the coast of France for both fighters and bombers.

The German 'fortress europe' defenses were weaker in Normandy than in the Pas de Calais. And for a European invasion, the Pas de Calais WAS the logical invasion point because it was the shortest distance from England.

Normandy also had Caen. The city of Caen was the German communications centre for Normandy.
It was a vital linchpin in their defenses, and in their command and control of their forces in Normandy. It's why the British and Canadians were hell bent on taking it; why the Germans were equally bent on defending it, and why the Germans thought the British and Canadians were attempting the Breakout through Caen.

Historical sidenote: Utah beach was added to the plan to put a deep-water port (Cherbourg) within striking distance of the landings.

There's a bunch more similar, technical details.
These are just the tip of the iceberg.

But at least you have a better idea of "Why Normandy?"

For less boring details, check this:
http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/BA..._inv_sites.htm

[xplosiv05]

thanks m8

[SantaCruz_rule6]

How many troops died at normandy?

[DarkAutumn]

D-Day Casualties:

Airborne (U.S.) - 2,499
Airborne (Commonwealth Forces) - 1,500

Utah Beach (U.S.) - 197

Omaha Beach (U.S.) - 2000

Gold Beach (Brit.) - 413

Juno Beach (Canada) - 1,204

Sword Beach (Brit.) - 630

Conservative Estimate - 8,443 (total)
Reasonable Guess - 9,000.
(Of which about 3,000 were killed in action.)

"Only Canada, it appears, has prepared post-war casualty statistics on the basis of the records of individual soldiers of the units concerned."


Best guesstimate is that roughly one third of those who went in on D-Day were wounded/killed/died of wounds off the battlefields.

Source: http://www.warchronicle.com/numbers/...asualtyest.htm

[ryan_v]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarkAutumn:
LONG-WINDED ANSWER...

About 'Other Places' the Allies could've landed:

The place that the Brit PM Winston Churchhill wanted was up through the Dardanelles/Balkans.
(Through Hungary, Romanian and that general region, instead of Normandy.)

Historical side note:
All the German satellite nations were in secret contact with the Allies. All were fully willing to turncoat the Germans because they'd rightfully predicted Russian annexation and wanted to avoid it at all costs.

Turkey indicated their willingness to come in on the Allied side provided a beachhead was established in the region.
Romania alone would've added 20 Divisions to the Allied cause...

The Allies were in a good position to do just that after fighting their way up Italy.

That would've been desirable because of this:

If we could've physically captured Ploesti in Romania (where the Germans were getting their oil) then we could've ended the war sooner.

As for Ploesti, the Yanks bombed the **** out of it, but the Germans used forced labour to keep rebuilding.

HAD THE ALLIES DONE THAT, they would've ALSO cut off the Russians from taking Berlin and then keeping half of Europe. (The half we would've been in had things worked out that way.)

However, the Americans disagreed for a number of reasons. Mostly political. The Yanks feared the Brits had ulterior motives (Imperialism) amongst other things. Plus Roosevelt felt he could handle Stalin because, as he wrote to Churchill, Stalin "hates the guts of all your top people."

And, of course, the Russians were against it...

As for Normandy:

It was something that the Allied political leaders could agree to. It also meant shorter supply lines than a Second Front up through the Balkans would've been.

It was chosen was because specific physical and environmental conditions were needed to pull off a landing:

Tides had to be just right for one thing.

The sand had to be the right type and texture to be able to support the weight of tanks.
(The slaughter of a Canadian Division at Dieppe in 1942 was proof of that.)

It had to be a wide enough stretch of coastline for the Americans, British, and Canadian armies plus the contingents from the other Allied nations (Free French, Poles, etc) to land simultaneously.

It had to be close enough for Allied air superiority to protect the fleet and the landings. England was, in terms of the air war, one big aircraft carrier sitting off the coast of France for both fighters and bombers.

The German 'fortress europe' defenses were weaker in Normandy than in the Pas de Calais. And for a European invasion, the Pas de Calais WAS the logical invasion point because it was the shortest distance from England.

Normandy also had Caen. The city of Caen was the German communications centre for Normandy.
It was a vital linchpin in their defenses, and in their command and control of their forces in Normandy. It's why the British and Canadians were hell bent on taking it; why the Germans were equally bent on defending it, and why the Germans thought the British and Canadians were attempting the Breakout through Caen.

Historical sidenote: Utah beach was added to the plan to put a deep-water port (Cherbourg) within striking distance of the landings.

There's a bunch more similar, technical details.
These are just the tip of the iceberg.

But at least you have a better idea of "Why Normandy?"

For less boring details, check this:
http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/BA..._inv_sites.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good synopsis. I don't think a Balkans invasion would have been probable for those political and practical reasons. Not to mention you want to force Germany to spread its forces as far as possible, meaning that an opposite front than that of the Russians was probably a better idea.

[DarkAutumn]

Had the Americans gone along with Churchhill, and had the German satellite nations onboard for that, the axis of attack would've been a straight shot up the Po valley in Hungary.

Part of why Germany attacked Russia was ideological: National Socialism versus Communism.

Part was political: Russia was a powerful, rival nation that could threaten/interfere with German aims.

And lastly it was practical: To get their hands on Russian resources that Germany needed. A German thrust of advance was to gain Russian oil fields in the Caucasus.

Had the Germans lost their access to Romanian oil at Ploesti, and had they lost their regional "allies" (Hungary, Romania, etc.) they would've been hard pressed continue hostilities.

They needed oil for their industry at home. They needed it to enable their military to conduct operations abroad. There just wasn't enough of everything within Germany. Allied bombing was systematically blowing the bejeezus out of what they did have. (Population included.)

Both the German economy and the German war machine would've come to a halt as a result.

Germany would've had to spread their forces out considerably had the Western allies and the Soviet armies gotten on line and presented one continuous battlefront arcing across all of Eastern Europe, Russia, and the Ukraine.

That's not to say Germany wouldn't have put up one heck of a fight. Until what ammunition and shells, etc they did have ran out.

But they would've lost sooner than than they did.

As an addendum to that, Allied nations that talk of liberating the German-enslaved millions of Occupied Europe would not have had the hypocrisy of liberating Nazi-dominated millions in Western Europe only to allow the Soviet-domination of millions in Eastern Europe.

Which is exactly what was predicted by so many at the time.

A further example of the sad state of the German supply situation comes from the Battle of the Bulge: It depended on capturing American fuel dumps in order to complete their drive to the Channel coast. It failed, in part, because they didn't.