a question regarding D-day 6/6/44(vanity)

11/18/04

[Se7eN]

In my opinion, it's the American thing to do. If we helped Japan and Germany rebuild after they attempted to destroy us, why wouldn't we liberate a known ally regardless of how unappreciative they might be?

[blau993]

1. Belgium and Holland are too far from any of the English ports for a fleet to have sailed and landed an invasion force with any hope of surprise.

2. Belgium and Holland are too close to Germany and therefore would be too easy for the Germans to reinforce.

3. An invading force trying to fight their way into Belgium would have had massive German forces in the Pas de Calais region poised on their right flank -- not an appealing prospect.

4. And if that wasn't enough, the supply lines would have been impossibly long and highly vulnerable to being cut on sea and on land.

[SampleMan]

Not possible with equipment then at hand.
- Too far from English ports, surprise less likely and support much harder.
- Beach heads could be flooded (many already were)
- Lines of attack would have been narrow and predictable once ashore. This went against the broad front (hit them everywhere) tactic that capitalized on our having more stuff (if not better).
- Too far from fighter bombers.
- German aircraft pulled back for the defense of the Reich would have been available to counter landings.
- The German forces in France and those in reserve in Germany would have both been able to hit us, while our ability to hit their transit lines with our attack aircraft would have been much reduced.
- The Frenchies probably would have attacked us in the back.

[Owl558]

It is not D-Day that should have been different, but the post-war reconstruction and governmental structure of France that should have changed. I regret every dime spent on reconstruction in certain parts of Europe, although I understand why we had to do it.

[konaice]

In fact the tactics of war have changed so much that we would never do D-Day that way again. Even back then, we had the ability to insert special forces (if we had anything that could compare) and bomb our way ashore.

The numbers in which we squandered men in that era (not just us, but all armies) was disgracefull and sad.

At the time this route was thought best, because the Netherlands always ran the risk of getting large numbers of troops drowned if the Germand blew the dikes.

[Billdawg]

Only one problem sir....we didn't have all that stuff in 1944.

[socal_parrot]

Darn. ;)

[Racehorse]

". . . why wouldn't we liberate a known ally regardless of how unappreciative they might be?"

Sometimes less than appreciative.  The Vichy French defended . . . with tanks, artillery and infantry . . . against our landing in North Africa in 1942.  But then, later you had different elements of the French Foreign Legion fighting on opposite sides in Syria.  Ah, the French . . .

 

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Normandy was chosen for tactical and strategic reasons.

Strategic Reason #1: The Germans expected the invasion at Pas de Calais, so they held their reserves in place too long, convinced Normandy was a feint.

Tactical Reason #1: The further west we invaded, the greater the comparative advantage in length of supply lines. Allied Air Supremacy made ground transport difficult for the Germans, so we could pour men and materiel in relatively faster. Invading further east would have given the Germans a definite advantage.

[MeekOneGOP]

haha!

Spell-check is our friend. :^D

[LS]

Ike and FDR both thought that D-Day was the ONLY way to win. It's called the "western way of war." Meet the enemy head-on and crush him; don't "nibble around the edges." That was Churchill's strategy because he lacked the army to defeat the Nazis.

Both Ike and FDR wanted to go sooner (i.e., 1943) but we lacked sufficient landing craft. Ike couldn't support both the Italian invasion and the D-Day invasion in terms of landing craft, so he settled for the former and lots of bombing.

If we had tried to "island hop" this, the war would have lasted 2 more years.

[FreedomCalls]

I can't understand why we invaded France anyway. Weren't we at war with the Nazis in Germany? Why didn't we land on the German coast? Wasn't it the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time? </sarcasm>

[Blzbba]

"and so what if i screw up a word i din't use the spell check this time sorry.big deal"


Ummm...I wasn't the one who grammar-Nazi'd you. Direct that to someone else.

[PAR35]

was it possible??

U-Boats and minefields. An attack aimed at Holland would have had to cross the North Sea where losses in transit would have been much higher. The Germans also could have used S-boats and other surface craft against the invasion fleet as the covering force was strung out over a much longer distance.

Ports. The invasion fleet had the advantage of launching from the major ports of Plymouth, Southampton and Portsmouth as well as the smaller ports on the channel. For a move east, there were no comparable ports. Harwich is pretty much it.

The greater distance would have required daylight movement of the ships, with the armada likely seen by German aircraft.

Others have pointed out the difficulties of moving inland from the Dutch beaches. Most of Holland was under German control until after the general surrender at the end of the war.

[An Old Marine]

I do remember Lafayette, as a matter of fact my grandfather helped make a payment on that debt at a place just outside Paris called Belleau Wood. @0 years later my uncles raced across Europe cleaning up any interest.

Since then however France clearly has decided to make herself our enemy. Argue anything you want BUT France armed Saddam with modern weapons taken from her own military. Some deliveries were made only days ahead of our invasion. This is not the act of a friend or ally.

I will never again visit France, buy anything from France, and do never miss an opportunity, no matter how insignificant, to express my displeasure with France and all things French.

[SampleMan]

Not arguing that human loss wasn't more acceptable, but can't concur with you assertion that Special Forces and bombing could have worked. In effect, paratroops were special forces, and they were used to the greatest extent possible and at tremendous cost. Bombing was highly ineffective at displacing troops.

One thing available (at least in production) at the time that could have lowered losses a lot, was the tracked amphibs (especially the ones with tops) coming into use in the Pacific theater. They could have gotten troops through the small arms fire to the dunes.

Finally, specialized amphibious troops would have done better, but the USMC was completely missing from the European theater in WWII.

Special Forces lose their effectiveness when you are looking at high concentrations of motivated enemy troops. They aren't supermen or bullet proof, just highly skilled.

[Jackknife]