Allied invasion through Denmark
Allied invasion through Denmark
Hello Forum,
Does anyone know about any plans or studies done by the Allies on the subject of an invasion through Denmark
instead of Normandy? I believe several scenarios where studied before deciding on Normandy and it would
be very interesting to know more about this.
Best regards, Peter
Does anyone know about any plans or studies done by the Allies on the subject of an invasion through Denmark
instead of Normandy? I believe several scenarios where studied before deciding on Normandy and it would
be very interesting to know more about this.
Best regards, Peter
Re: Allied invasion through Denmark
I found some good discussion in the link below, but for the record, it does seem Denmark would have been an interesting choice (maybe even better) with hindsight.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Allie ... gh-Denmark
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Allie ... gh-Denmark
Re: Allied invasion through Denmark
The link you provided made some very valid points against an invasion of Denmark, so how do you come to the conclusion it would have been a better choice?pintere wrote:it does seem Denmark would have been an interesting choice (maybe even better) with hindsight.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb
~Babylonian Proverb
Re: Allied invasion through Denmark
1) The main considerations for not attacking Denmark in these posts appeared to be mainly based on naval and airpower related concerns. But the Allies had overwhelming strength in both of these categories. I think it highly improbably that by 1944 the Germans could have effected any kind of really decisive interdiction of Allied sea routes.Kingfish wrote:The link you provided made some very valid points against an invasion of Denmark, so how do you come to the conclusion it would have been a better choice?pintere wrote:it does seem Denmark would have been an interesting choice (maybe even better) with hindsight.
2) Though Denmark itself may have been a tough slog at first, if the Allies break through the Germans have a major problem on their hands. If we were to, say, repeat the situation in Normandy, then when the Allies finally unhinge the German defenses the prize is not Paris, but Berlin.
I haven't done a whole lot of research into this line of attack, but it does seem to be worth consideration.
Re: Allied invasion through Denmark
That may be, but overwhelming strength means nothing if it can not be applied where it is needed, hence the reason for keeping the list of potential landing sites down to those within the air umbrella.pintere wrote:1) The main considerations for not attacking Denmark in these posts appeared to be mainly based on naval and airpower related concerns. But the Allies had overwhelming strength in both of these categories. I think it highly improbably that by 1944 the Germans could have effected any kind of really decisive interdiction of Allied sea routes.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb
~Babylonian Proverb
-
- Member
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: 13 Aug 2011, 19:02
Re: Allied invasion through Denmark
no good ports were readily available. Copenhagen is on the wrong side, its too close to Germany and thus as easily isolated and too many airbases for the Germans to use
Re: Allied invasion through Denmark
Wargames offer the possibility to simulate a late war Denmark invasion.
There is little Germans can do to stop the Allied onslaught in Denmark proper. Supply is not a major problem, although not insignificant either: it is easier for the German air force / submarines to be nuisance so close to their bases. The Allies can leverage some ports on the west side of Denmark (like Ebsjberg) and also Frederikhavn could be of use.
The main trouble is not to land but how to move south: the Schlewig bottleneck (and the Kiel canal) force a fight on a narrow front where the numerical superiority of the Allies cannot play. A secondary landing on the Cuxhaven peninsula, to unlock the situation, is too scripted to work and is in any way cumbersome to link to the main effort because of the Elbe estuary.
Hence, in wargames, a Denmark landing usually ends up in a dead end. The main benefit is it gives the Allies a formidable air base to strike directly at the heart of Germany.
There is little Germans can do to stop the Allied onslaught in Denmark proper. Supply is not a major problem, although not insignificant either: it is easier for the German air force / submarines to be nuisance so close to their bases. The Allies can leverage some ports on the west side of Denmark (like Ebsjberg) and also Frederikhavn could be of use.
The main trouble is not to land but how to move south: the Schlewig bottleneck (and the Kiel canal) force a fight on a narrow front where the numerical superiority of the Allies cannot play. A secondary landing on the Cuxhaven peninsula, to unlock the situation, is too scripted to work and is in any way cumbersome to link to the main effort because of the Elbe estuary.
Hence, in wargames, a Denmark landing usually ends up in a dead end. The main benefit is it gives the Allies a formidable air base to strike directly at the heart of Germany.
Re: Allied invasion through Denmark
According to General Morgan's memoirs, the COSSAC planning team considered the merits of every country from Portugal to Norway in their initial appreciation of the options for operation Overlord, carried out in May/June 1943. Denmark was discounted because there is insufficient room to deploy 100 allied divisions and the neck of the Jutland peninsular is narrow enough to be easily sealed.Peter A wrote:Hello Forum,
Does anyone know about any plans or studies done by the Allies on the subject of an invasion through Denmark
instead of Normandy? I believe several scenarios where studied before deciding on Normandy and it would
be very interesting to know more about this.
Best regards, Peter
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Allied invasion through Denmark
Invading Denmark seems an impracticable proposition.
It is much further away than Normandy and so supporting any landing would have been more difficult by sea or air. There could have been no PLUTO and no major ports like Cherbourg to exploit. Air and sea interdiction from both north and south would have been easier for the Germans than in Normandy.
Furthermore the Jutland Peninsula can be sealed off with comparitively few forces, making exploitation by Anglo-American force much more difficult. And right behind it lay Germany proper, with all the resources of the Ersatzheer closely at hand.
Cheers,
Sid.
It is much further away than Normandy and so supporting any landing would have been more difficult by sea or air. There could have been no PLUTO and no major ports like Cherbourg to exploit. Air and sea interdiction from both north and south would have been easier for the Germans than in Normandy.
Furthermore the Jutland Peninsula can be sealed off with comparitively few forces, making exploitation by Anglo-American force much more difficult. And right behind it lay Germany proper, with all the resources of the Ersatzheer closely at hand.
Cheers,
Sid.
Re: Allied invasion through Denmark
By now Allied long-range fighters would have been able to cover the gap to Denmark, and since in naval terms Denmark isn't that far from Britain, I think the Allies would have been able to achieve the same kind of naval and air supremacy as they did in Normandy. And of course, once they secured airbases in Denmark, they'd be able to increase that superiority even more.Kingfish wrote:That may be, but overwhelming strength means nothing if it can not be applied where it is needed, hence the reason for keeping the list of potential landing sites down to those within the air umbrella.pintere wrote:1) The main considerations for not attacking Denmark in these posts appeared to be mainly based on naval and airpower related concerns. But the Allies had overwhelming strength in both of these categories. I think it highly improbably that by 1944 the Germans could have effected any kind of really decisive interdiction of Allied sea routes.
The Jutland peninsula is of course a potential obstacle. But even if the Germans crammed loads of divisions to plug it up, they would be very vulnerable to Allied firepower. I don't know too much about the terrain there, but I reckon it would not lend itself to the terrain nearly as well as in Normandy or Italy. Furthermore, the fact of the peninsula itself would play right into Allied hands as they would be able to bring heavy naval guns to bear throughout the course of the battle. The Allies would've broken through eventually, especially if they landed close to the neck of the peninsula.
Re: Allied invasion through Denmark
pintere wrote:By now Allied long-range fighters would have been able to cover the gap to Denmark, and since in naval terms Denmark isn't that far from Britain, I think the Allies would have been able to achieve the same kind of naval and air supremacy as they did in Normandy. And of course, once they secured airbases in Denmark, they'd be able to increase that superiority even more.Kingfish wrote:That may be, but overwhelming strength means nothing if it can not be applied where it is needed, hence the reason for keeping the list of potential landing sites down to those within the air umbrella.pintere wrote:1) The main considerations for not attacking Denmark in these posts appeared to be mainly based on naval and airpower related concerns. But the Allies had overwhelming strength in both of these categories. I think it highly improbably that by 1944 the Germans could have effected any kind of really decisive interdiction of Allied sea routes.
The Jutland peninsula is of course a potential obstacle. But even if the Germans crammed loads of divisions to plug it up, they would be very vulnerable to Allied firepower. I don't know too much about the terrain there, but I reckon it would not lend itself to the terrain nearly as well as in Normandy or Italy. Furthermore, the fact of the peninsula itself would play right into Allied hands as they would be able to bring heavy naval guns to bear throughout the course of the battle. The Allies would've broken through eventually, especially if they landed close to the neck of the peninsula.
Err the Allied planners disagreed.
#1 Denmark is at extreme range for fighters such as the Spitfire, P38 and P47 even with drop tanks. It is around 350 miles from airfields in the UK to Jutland peninsular. The spitfire Mk IX has a range of 434 miles on internal fuel. Once it drops any drop tanks there is only fuel for 84 miles at cruising speed before the aircraft has to return, that is just under 30 minutes @ 170mph. Allowing for a safety margin in case of a head wind on the return journey the aircraft can afford to loiter for 20 minutes over the target and might need to disengage after less than ten minutes on maximum throttle. The transit time to Jutland is four hours at a fast cruise of 175mph meaning six fighters in flight for perhaps 20 minutes loiter time.
To maintain each aircraft in a CAP for 16 daylight hours it would take 6 x 3 x 16 = 288 single engine aircraft sorties, and I doubt any pilot could fly more than one four and a half hour sortie per day. Maintaining an umbrella of 100 fighters would take 28800 sorties. Jutland is well with the range of the hundreds of single seat German fighters massed to defend the reich from allied bombers.
Even with the disparity in fighter numbers in June 1944, the allies could not maintain air superiority over Jutland.
#2 Naval forces operating off the Danish Coast would be vulnerable to attack from the air and by submarines and patrol craft operating from home bases.
Re: Allied invasion through Denmark
Hello
Well, has´nt the question been answered by this answer?
The other answers is in my opinion a "what if" scenario
Regards
Kurt
kstdk
Well, has´nt the question been answered by this answer?
The other answers is in my opinion a "what if" scenario
What is there to be found in the archives regarding the planning or proposals for and against any landing in Denmark??Sheldrake wrote:According to General Morgan's memoirs, the COSSAC planning team considered the merits of every country from Portugal to Norway in their initial appreciation of the options for operation Overlord, carried out in May/June 1943. Denmark was discounted because there is insufficient room to deploy 100 allied divisions and the neck of the Jutland peninsular is narrow enough to be easily sealed.Peter A wrote:Hello Forum,
Does anyone know about any plans or studies done by the Allies on the subject of an invasion through Denmark
instead of Normandy? I believe several scenarios where studied before deciding on Normandy and it would
be very interesting to know more about this.
Best regards, Peter
Regards
Kurt
kstdk
Re: Allied invasion through Denmark
Hello,
My question was if anyone knows where to find any material related to studies made by i.e. COSSAC or others. National Archives is one guess
but maybe there are other places....
On the other discussions:
When the Allies finally decided on Normandy, Churchill convinced the planning team not to count on a capture of a major port until quite
long after the invasion. Hence, the development of the Mulberry Harbours. If I am not wrong the majority of supplies came through the beaches
in Normandy several month's after the invasion. The Jutland west coast has one major harbor (not comparable to Cherbourg or Le Havre), Esbjerg, and the Germans fortified that area quite considerably with coastal artillery. Maybe they had some indications that the area around Esbjerg was considered?
The discussion about air coverage is interesting and that was probably a major item for not selecting Denmark. It would be very interesting to
read the discussions in the original documents from 1942-1944.
Regards, Peter
My question was if anyone knows where to find any material related to studies made by i.e. COSSAC or others. National Archives is one guess
but maybe there are other places....
On the other discussions:
When the Allies finally decided on Normandy, Churchill convinced the planning team not to count on a capture of a major port until quite
long after the invasion. Hence, the development of the Mulberry Harbours. If I am not wrong the majority of supplies came through the beaches
in Normandy several month's after the invasion. The Jutland west coast has one major harbor (not comparable to Cherbourg or Le Havre), Esbjerg, and the Germans fortified that area quite considerably with coastal artillery. Maybe they had some indications that the area around Esbjerg was considered?
The discussion about air coverage is interesting and that was probably a major item for not selecting Denmark. It would be very interesting to
read the discussions in the original documents from 1942-1944.
Regards, Peter
Re: Allied invasion through Denmark
In "Prelude to Overlord" Frederick Morgan dismissed the Jutland Peninsular in one line as "presenting a combination of every disadvantage" in his overview of the possible landing sites.Peter A wrote:Hello,
My question was if anyone knows where to find any material related to studies made by i.e. COSSAC or others. National Archives is one guess
but maybe there are other places....
On the other discussions:
When the Allies finally decided on Normandy, Churchill convinced the planning team not to count on a capture of a major port until quite
long after the invasion. Hence, the development of the Mulberry Harbours. If I am not wrong the majority of supplies came through the beaches
in Normandy several month's after the invasion. The Jutland west coast has one major harbor (not comparable to Cherbourg or Le Havre), Esbjerg, and the Germans fortified that area quite considerably with coastal artillery. Maybe they had some indications that the area around Esbjerg was considered?
The discussion about air coverage is interesting and that was probably a major item for not selecting Denmark. It would be very interesting to
read the discussions in the original documents from 1942-1944.
Regards, Peter
Re Ports and Mulberry harbour. The issue was not whether to land supplies over beaches or Mulberry Harbour. In the lodgement phase the allies needed to capture SEVERAL ports. Cherbourg alone did not have the capacity to support operations by 90 + divisions. Nor did Calais Dunkirk Boulogne and Ostend. The choices came down to landing at the Pas de calais and capturing le Havre & Rouen or Antwerp or in Normandy and capturing Cherbourg and either Brest or le Havre & Rouen. In the event the allies needed Antwerp, Cherbourg, Le Havre and Marseilles
Re: Allied invasion through Denmark
fortification was just a symptom of Hitler's 1st world war type fixation on fortified lines, and that's it. The allies only considered places with sufficient air cover i.e. short range fighter cover as much as anything else