Why Overlord?

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
U.S David said:
I'm not saying Overlord was a bad idea, I would have wanted it. But would it not be better if we also invaded Yulglosvia and Greece? And then move into Hungry or Bulgria. Would it not be better for these countries not to be communist?
Click to expand...


There are a finite number of landing craft, personnel and material available. The Balkans were, at best, a sideshow. Logistically the area is a nightmare. The concern of politics post war took a back seat to actually winning the war, but a Balkans offensive would do anything but improve the post war world overall. Rather than have Hungary under Soviet control, you wind up with all of Germany and probably France inside the Soviet sphere.

The attack into France was the only one that made logistical sense. The supply line is short, you have plenty of air support available and its located on land, not a carrier that needs to withdraw on a regular basis to refuel and is vulnerable to the lucky enemy sub or bomber pilot, and you have to cross under 100 miles of water which allows you to directly deploy LCM from UK ports.

The reason that Dragoon went as well as it did was that the Heer was already badly disorganized due to losses and pressure from Normandy.

Italy is a REALLY bad idea. The terrain get WORSE for the attacker as you move further up the Peninsula. There is very little space to maneuver, and the vastly superior logistical and CAS capacities of the WAllies. It is worth remembering that the German positions in Northern Italy didn't fall until May 2, 1945.
 

DoomBunny

U.S David said:
I'm not saying Overlord was a bad idea, I would have wanted it. But would it not be better if we also invaded Yulglosvia and Greece? And then move into Hungry or Bulgria. Would it not be better for these countries not to be communist?
Click to expand...

Where are we getting the troops? Where are we landing exactly?
 
Simon

Simon

DoomBunny said:
Where are you getting the troops, where are you going to land, and where are you planning to go to?
Click to expand...
Well if you can get the Bulgarians to switch sides as they did to the Soviets they were able to put 3 armies totalling roughly 350,000 men into the field. Now granted that was for the most part just leg infantry and you'd have to help supply them logistically but it means the Western Allies could concentrate on landing armoured and artillery units to operate with and support them. You'd most likely have to get the Turks to open up the Bosporus to shipping to supply them via ports like Burgas or Varna though. Even then at best I think you could probably get away with liberating Bulgaria itself, Yugoslavia and most of Romania.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Look at a topo map of Europe.

Seriously? You have to ask this question?

If the topo map doesn't convince you, look at a railway map of Europe.

Note which lines end at the sea ports closest to the UK.

Note which of those lines cross large blue lines or the parts of the topo map that are colored white, gray, or brown.

Then look at a map of the northern hemisphere.

Note which parts of Europe are closest to the east coasts of the United States and Canada.

Best,
 

Maniakes

Mosshadow said:
How hard are places like Denmark , the Netherlands and Germany to land on?
Click to expand...

Not good.

For the Netherlands and the western portion of the German coast, the coastal waters are very shallow out to several miles, making naval support of the landings difficult and requiring troops to wade ashore for an unreasonably wide distance. And then they wind up on barrier islands and have to make another amphibious hop to the mainland, and until they get there, there's no port infrastructure to capture and nowhere good to put up Mulberries or similar temporary ports. See this thread for excrutiating details.

Further up the coast, around Hamburg, the same problems apply but not quite as badly, but you're well out of range of British-based tactical air cover, and German lines of support and reinforcement are extremely short.

I don't know much about the Danish coast, but it's even further out of range of air support, and once you're ashore, the defenders have the option of yielding Jutland and trying to bottle you up along a short front at the neck of the penninsula.
 

Gannt the chartist

The Issue is not so much the landings as the build up after the landings. Germany has access to a rail net and unless that is interdicted they will be able to react faster than the invaders can build up.

Also there seems to be a vision that there is somewhere an alternative to fighting the German army and beating it. There is not. The choice is where you meet it and maximising the advantages to allied forces.

Plentiful supply and tactical air support are essential, thats how the wallies fight and fighting that way means they know they can obliterate any German force opposing them.

The Normandy landing OTL both destroys OB west adds 500k Frenchmen to the allied OOB and puts the allied armies at the edge of the German border.
 

deathscompanion1

Banned
Also anywhere else makes Hitler's idiocy of having strong formations the length of Southern Europe defending against attacks that will never come suddenly becomes a feat of strategic foresight as the Allies have to do more with less.
 

Starslayer_D

The soft underbelly of europe consists at worst of mountaneous terrain and at best of narrow valleys betweeen said terrain (Rhone valley). Bonus is you get to cut off more fuel in Ploetzi.
In the north, the danish coast is just a continuation of the frisean coast, and the danish straits were mined. Then there is a lot of narrow places to stop you Also, you'd have the norwegian garisons and airforce garisons at your back to add to the fun and joy. Also you are moving down a small peninsula, and the Kiel channel is a very nice water barrier cutting across its neck.
Landing in portugal or spain has you moving along those countries then sparse infrastructure and then gets you stopped latest at the pyrenees, which are a formidable mountain barrier with way less passes than the alps (I've wandered them a few times, very nice, very steep, sparsely wooded slopes.. have fun hoisting your sherman across).

In comparison the french west coast offers reasonably flat terran near deep water, short flight time for land based air support, and flat terrain all the wa to Berlin, ideal for tanks. And France would add a lot of population and armed forces to your OOB.
 

lionhead

Maniakes said:
Not good.

For the Netherlands and the western portion of the German coast, the coastal waters are very shallow out to several miles, making naval support of the landings difficult and requiring troops to wade ashore for an unreasonably wide distance. And then they wind up on barrier islands and have to make another amphibious hop to the mainland, and until they get there, there's no port infrastructure to capture and nowhere good to put up Mulberries or similar temporary ports. See this thread for excrutiating details.

Further up the coast, around Hamburg, the same problems apply but not quite as badly, but you're well out of range of British-based tactical air cover, and German lines of support and reinforcement are extremely short.

I don't know much about the Danish coast, but it's even further out of range of air support, and once you're ashore, the defenders have the option of yielding Jutland and trying to bottle you up along a short front at the neck of the penninsula.
Click to expand...

Actually the Netherlands West coast is much like Normandy, with the big port of Rotterdam close. No barrier islands. There are big rivers running through the Netherlands though that can pose a problem but there won't be any shoals or flats to worry about in the West, only in the North. On the other hand, a lot of wetlands, polders and dikes that can be flooded.
 

Readman

Just because I feel obligated, Normandy/Overlord is one of my 'things': NW Europe via France-to-the-Rhine was logistically and geographically the only logical and reasonable place the WAllies could have gone, the US would *not* have, ever, agreed to any dissapation or diversion. the US General Staff/Combined Chiefs would not have ok'd it and it would have caused all sorts of inter-alllied squabbling. And, again as others have said, on the one hand you have the generally flat and open terrain of NW Europe--or the craggy, rocky, mountainous Balkans/Greece--no brainer for sure. Cheers
 

wietze

i wonder how the germans would react to a deception by the british that the landing would take place at the frisian islands.
 

Alex1guy

EDIT

Untitled.png


Which route is the shortest? (HINT: This is not a trick question).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top