Early May Overlord

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Juan G. C.
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 18 Aug 2017, 17:57
Location: Madrid, España

Early May Overlord

#1

Post by Juan G. C. » 07 Dec 2020, 22:06

This is a question that I have never seen discussed. Operation Overlord was originally planed for the beginnig of May, 1944, but it was postponed to June un order yo have more landing craft. What would have happened had it not been postponed and had it been launched at the beginnig of May 1944, say May 5? Would it have been successful or would it have failed?

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Early May Overlord

#2

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 08 Dec 2020, 00:40

The additional landing craft were used to create the fifth beachhead, UTAH Beach. The plan presented in January proposed four beach heads on the Calvados coast. Subsequent wargames suggested US First Army would have a difficult time pivoting right and advancing to the critical port of Cherbourg.

Adding UTAH Beach placed a corps on the Cotientin coast a third of the distance closer. There were probablly other benefits. I've not gamed it enough myself to judge on way or another. Landing on 6-8 May does give you a less well prepared defense.


OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5643
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Early May Overlord

#3

Post by OpanaPointer » 08 Dec 2020, 02:40

Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6347
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Early May Overlord

#4

Post by Richard Anderson » 08 Dec 2020, 04:03

It wasn't just additional landing craft, as Carl mentioned the additional craft requirement was for the additional landing. No craft, equals no invasion, because neither Eisenhower nor Montgomery were willing to go without those criteria. One other factor is training. The last exercise, Tiger, was at the end of April and resulted in casualties that required various adjustments. The last factor was craft operational availability. Much of May was occupied in getting the massive number of craft up to at least a 95% operational readiness rate. They actually managed to exceed it, but it was an all hands on deck exercise that was complicated by worries about possible British dockyard strikes affecting it.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Early May Overlord

#5

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 08 Dec 2020, 11:01

Richard Anderson wrote:
08 Dec 2020, 04:03
... Much of May was occupied in getting the massive number of craft up to at least a 95% operational readiness rate. They actually managed to exceed it, but it was an all hands on deck exercise that was complicated by worries about possible British dockyard strikes affecting it.
A Royal Marine related to me his experience. He was part of a RM group redesigned as boat crews in the spring of 1944. Reporting for training he observed "hundreds" of landing craft docked and anchored in the Thames estuary without crews. His impression was the boats were not entirely crewed and ready until late May. His naval career was ended later in the summer when the RM crews turned the boats over to Navy personnel and were redistributed into the Commando groups.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Early May Overlord

#6

Post by Sheldrake » 08 Dec 2020, 12:16

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
08 Dec 2020, 00:40
The additional landing craft were used to create the fifth beachhead, UTAH Beach. The plan presented in January proposed four beach heads on the Calvados coast. Subsequent wargames suggested US First Army would have a difficult time pivoting right and advancing to the critical port of Cherbourg.

Adding UTAH Beach placed a corps on the Cotientin coast a third of the distance closer. There were probablly other benefits. I've not gamed it enough myself to judge on way or another. Landing on 6-8 May does give you a less well prepared defense.
It was more than Utah. Ir was the result of the decision by Eisenhower to back Montgomery's criticism of the three division seaborne assault and insistence on a five division assault on D Day. Sword Beach was the other beach added.

There were other factors in the background:

1. The timing of the Allied spring offensive in Italy which would draw German reserves away from France.

2. The timing and strength of OP Anvil/Dragoon the invasion of southern France.

3. Willingness or reluctance of the US Navy to provide landing craft and crews from the Pacific.

4. The 1st May Op Ov erlord date was driven by Stalin. source of the 1st May date was pressure from Stalin. It was raised in discussion between the heads of government on 28th November 1943 Brooke concluded that this was a desire by Stalin to push American and British effort as far away from possible Soviet gains in central and south eastern Europe.

Alanbrooke's diary entry for 28th November on the Terhan meeting mentions the date 1st May for the cross channel assault -advocated by Stalin at the expense of all else. His comment is that Winston replied and not at his best. The Preisedent chipped in and made matters worse. We finished the meeting with the suggestion partly sponsored by the president that we should close operations in Italy before taking Rome. That we should land some six divisions in the South of France by the beginning of April and carry out Overlord on 1st May. He also notes that "after complaining that we were not holding sufficient divisions away from Russia, Stalin's suggestion was that practically no action should take place during the winter months!"
Brooke's post war comments were that after watching Stalin with Churchill and Roosevelt he thought Stalin stood out as a strategist compared to the other tow war leaders. "The had a military brain of the highest calibre. Never once in any of his statements did he make a strategic error, nor did he ever fail to appreciate all the implications of a situation with a quick and unerring eye." "His new outlook on Italy was also interesting. There was now no pressure on our forces to push up the leg of Italy. Such an advance led too directly to Yugoslavia and Austria on which no doubt he had covetous eyes."

By 30th Nov 1943 the CCS - Combined Chiefs of Staff, after much argument, agreed that a target date of 1st June was more achievable.

Juan G. C.
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 18 Aug 2017, 17:57
Location: Madrid, España

Re: Early May Overlord

#7

Post by Juan G. C. » 09 Dec 2020, 10:32

Sheldrake wrote:
08 Dec 2020, 12:16
By 30th Nov 1943 the CCS - Combined Chiefs of Staff, after much argument, agreed that a target date of 1st June was more achievable.
Nevertheless, Roosevelt changed the date to "during May" when submiting it to Stalin. As far as I know, the postponement from May 1 to May 31 was agreed by the Combined Chiefs of Staff around February 1. I wonder if this decisión needed Roosevelt's agreement.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Early May Overlord

#8

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 10 Dec 2020, 02:52

Juan G. C. wrote:
09 Dec 2020, 10:32
I wonder if this decisión needed Roosevelt's agreement.
Technically perhaps. But Roosevelt tended to stay out of the details once he set general policy. He liked to follow events & be informed but his management style leaned heavily on letting his subordinates do their job.

Juan G. C.
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 18 Aug 2017, 17:57
Location: Madrid, España

Re: Early May Overlord

#9

Post by Juan G. C. » 10 Dec 2020, 10:38

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
10 Dec 2020, 02:52
Technically perhaps. But Roosevelt tended to stay out of the details once he set general policy. He liked to follow events & be informed but his management style leaned heavily on letting his subordinates do their job.
Had Roosevelt believed it necessary for Overlord to take place in early May (e. g. If he believed he had to reassure the Russians because otherwise they would make a separate peace), could he have vetoed the postponement?

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Early May Overlord

#10

Post by Gooner1 » 10 Dec 2020, 12:55

Sheldrake wrote:
08 Dec 2020, 12:16
Alanbrooke's diary entry for 28th November on the Terhan meeting mentions the date 1st May for the cross channel assault -advocated by Stalin at the expense of all else. His comment is that Winston replied and not at his best. The Preisedent chipped in and made matters worse. We finished the meeting with the suggestion partly sponsored by the president that we should close operations in Italy before taking Rome. That we should land some six divisions in the South of France by the beginning of April and carry out Overlord on 1st May. He also notes that "after complaining that we were not holding sufficient divisions away from Russia, Stalin's suggestion was that practically no action should take place during the winter months!"
Brooke's post war comments were that after watching Stalin with Churchill and Roosevelt he thought Stalin stood out as a strategist compared to the other tow war leaders. "The had a military brain of the highest calibre. Never once in any of his statements did he make a strategic error, nor did he ever fail to appreciate all the implications of a situation with a quick and unerring eye." "His new outlook on Italy was also interesting. There was now no pressure on our forces to push up the leg of Italy. Such an advance led too directly to Yugoslavia and Austria on which no doubt he had covetous eyes."
That was Montgomery's view too.

I wonder if all the landing craft and ships used for Anzio may have made an earlier landing in Normandy possible?

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Early May Overlord

#11

Post by Sheldrake » 10 Dec 2020, 17:31

Gooner1 wrote:
10 Dec 2020, 12:55
Sheldrake wrote:
08 Dec 2020, 12:16
Alanbrooke's diary entry for 28th November on the Terhan meeting mentions the date 1st May for the cross channel assault -advocated by Stalin at the expense of all else. His comment is that Winston replied and not at his best. The Preisedent chipped in and made matters worse. We finished the meeting with the suggestion partly sponsored by the president that we should close operations in Italy before taking Rome. That we should land some six divisions in the South of France by the beginning of April and carry out Overlord on 1st May. He also notes that "after complaining that we were not holding sufficient divisions away from Russia, Stalin's suggestion was that practically no action should take place during the winter months!"
Brooke's post war comments were that after watching Stalin with Churchill and Roosevelt he thought Stalin stood out as a strategist compared to the other tow war leaders. "The had a military brain of the highest calibre. Never once in any of his statements did he make a strategic error, nor did he ever fail to appreciate all the implications of a situation with a quick and unerring eye." "His new outlook on Italy was also interesting. There was now no pressure on our forces to push up the leg of Italy. Such an advance led too directly to Yugoslavia and Austria on which no doubt he had covetous eyes."
That was Montgomery's view too.

I wonder if all the landing craft and ships used for Anzio may have made an earlier landing in Normandy possible?
Anzio only used a handful of LSTs. 6-12 LST and 24 LCT after the beginning of February. The Washington conference in May 1943 assigned 643 LCT for Op Overlord - barely enough for three divisions - even before an allocation had been made for close support craft that would need to use LCT hulls. By the end of 1943 the deficit in LCTs was in the hundreds - even before adding Utah beach.

As explained in post #2, the postponement of D Day was to do with building landing craft, manning them and and training their crews.

At least some of the LCTs used in Anzio were used in Normandy.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Early May Overlord

#12

Post by Gooner1 » 11 Dec 2020, 13:12

Sheldrake wrote:
10 Dec 2020, 17:31

Anzio only used a handful of LSTs. 6-12 LST and 24 LCT after the beginning of February.
Must have been hard worked - they were discharging over 5,000 tons daily in March.

JKernwerk
Member
Posts: 1338
Joined: 23 Dec 2010, 18:43

Re: Early May Overlord

#13

Post by JKernwerk » 11 Dec 2020, 19:53

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
08 Dec 2020, 11:01
Richard Anderson wrote:
08 Dec 2020, 04:03
... Much of May was occupied in getting the massive number of craft up to at least a 95% operational readiness rate. They actually managed to exceed it, but it was an all hands on deck exercise that was complicated by worries about possible British dockyard strikes affecting it.
A Royal Marine related to me his experience. He was part of a RM group redesigned as boat crews in the spring of 1944. Reporting for training he observed "hundreds" of landing craft docked and anchored in the Thames estuary without crews. His impression was the boats were not entirely crewed and ready until late May. His naval career was ended later in the summer when the RM crews turned the boats over to Navy personnel and were redistributed into the Commando groups.
Could it be that these boats where part of the camouflage campaign to make the Germans think they were to attack at the Pas de Calais?
If so they had only to do with "Overlord" as just being there and not to be intended to use for real.
I do not know where the boats came to shore from America but why store them in the Thames and then use boarding harbours in the South of England.
When you want to move these boats in the Thames through the strait of Dover before they were able to use these the Germans would have a nice clue because the whole strait is observable from France.
Many guns could cover the whole strait and could (easily?) aim the slow fleet of crafts.
JK

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Early May Overlord

#14

Post by Sheldrake » 11 Dec 2020, 20:27

Gooner1 wrote:
11 Dec 2020, 13:12
Sheldrake wrote:
10 Dec 2020, 17:31

Anzio only used a handful of LSTs. 6-12 LST and 24 LCT after the beginning of February.
Must have been hard worked - they were discharging over 5,000 tons daily in March.
DUKW were heavily used at Anzio instead to discharge from shipping to shore. About 450-490 were used.

EwenS
Member
Posts: 446
Joined: 04 May 2020, 12:37
Location: Scotland

Re: Early May Overlord

#15

Post by EwenS » 12 Dec 2020, 14:28

JKernwerk wrote:
11 Dec 2020, 19:53
Carl Schwamberger wrote:
08 Dec 2020, 11:01
Richard Anderson wrote:
08 Dec 2020, 04:03
... Much of May was occupied in getting the massive number of craft up to at least a 95% operational readiness rate. They actually managed to exceed it, but it was an all hands on deck exercise that was complicated by worries about possible British dockyard strikes affecting it.
A Royal Marine related to me his experience. He was part of a RM group redesigned as boat crews in the spring of 1944. Reporting for training he observed "hundreds" of landing craft docked and anchored in the Thames estuary without crews. His impression was the boats were not entirely crewed and ready until late May. His naval career was ended later in the summer when the RM crews turned the boats over to Navy personnel and were redistributed into the Commando groups.
Could it be that these boats where part of the camouflage campaign to make the Germans think they were to attack at the Pas de Calais?
If so they had only to do with "Overlord" as just being there and not to be intended to use for real.
I do not know where the boats came to shore from America but why store them in the Thames and then use boarding harbours in the South of England.
When you want to move these boats in the Thames through the strait of Dover before they were able to use these the Germans would have a nice clue because the whole strait is observable from France.
Many guns could cover the whole strait and could (easily?) aim the slow fleet of crafts.
JK
From mid-1943 to mid-1944 large numbers or Royal Marines (Wiki says 500 officers and 12500 men) were reallocated to man landing craft in time for D-Day. These came from breaking up the Mobile Naval Base Organisation and other shore units and from the RM detachments on ships that returned from the Far East in late 1943 to be laid up e.g. the R class battleships Revenge, Resolution and Royal Sovereign and various D class cruisers.

The RN took on 13 Empire class LSI(L) between Oct 1943 and Jan 1944 each of which had to be fitted out with 18 LCA and 1 LCM which were built in the UK. All took part in the D-Day landings. Crews had to be found for those 247 small landing craft and many came from newly formed RM manned landing craft flotillas. Add to that all the ships that were temporarily fitted out as LSI for the Normandy invasion which also needed LCAs. Like the tanks and other vehicles stored in vehicle parks across the south of the country those small landing craft had to be stored somewhere pending their crews being trained and allocated as they weren't all built in the last few months before D-Day. Unlike larger vessels, LCA/LCM crews did not live aboard their craft for more than a few days at a time. The facilities to care for them aboard just did not exist. So the story is entirely believable. You will find photos here of a batch being handed over to the RN on the Thames at Reading in Sept 1944.
https://www.combinedops.com/NEW%20LANDING%20CRAFT.htm

Such was the manpower shortage in late 1944 that many of these RM boat crew were then remustered to form 2 RM infantry brigades for service in NWE.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”