Early May Overlord
-
- Member
- Posts: 196
- Joined: 18 Aug 2017, 17:57
- Location: Madrid, España
Early May Overlord
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?
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: Early May Overlord
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.
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.
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
-
- Member
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
- Location: Bremerton, Washington
Re: Early May Overlord
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
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
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: Early May Overlord
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.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.
Re: Early May Overlord
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.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑08 Dec 2020, 00:40The 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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 196
- Joined: 18 Aug 2017, 17:57
- Location: Madrid, España
Re: Early May Overlord
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.
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: Early May Overlord
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 196
- Joined: 18 Aug 2017, 17:57
- Location: Madrid, España
Re: Early May Overlord
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?Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑10 Dec 2020, 02:52Technically 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.
Re: Early May Overlord
That was Montgomery's view too.Sheldrake wrote: ↑08 Dec 2020, 12:16Alanbrooke'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."
I wonder if all the landing craft and ships used for Anzio may have made an earlier landing in Normandy possible?
Re: Early May Overlord
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.Gooner1 wrote: ↑10 Dec 2020, 12:55That was Montgomery's view too.Sheldrake wrote: ↑08 Dec 2020, 12:16Alanbrooke'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."
I wonder if all the landing craft and ships used for Anzio may have made an earlier landing in Normandy possible?
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.
Re: Early May Overlord
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?Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑08 Dec 2020, 11:01A 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.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.
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
Re: Early May Overlord
DUKW were heavily used at Anzio instead to discharge from shipping to shore. About 450-490 were used.
Re: Early May Overlord
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.JKernwerk wrote: ↑11 Dec 2020, 19:53Could 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?Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑08 Dec 2020, 11:01A 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.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.
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
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.