What if British ground forces not involved in Normandy

[Major Destruction]

I don't often cross post but this what if question intrigues me. I don't suppose many of the folks from the WW11 forum come here but if you do, feel free to chip in.

Supposing the US army is forced to fight the battle of Normandy without help from British land forces - for whatever reason. For example, suppose they said to the Brits, look you guys can have the soft underbelly of Europe. We're gonna pull out our forces from the Med, concentrate everything we've got for an invasion of France. Then the Brits reply, very well old chap we will assume complete command in the Med and you can take complete and sole command of ops in France.

Do you think that the US army offensive would have been as successful as it was? Could they have mounted a five beach offensive?

Or assuming they went for the original plan of only three beaches, could the American forces alone have taken Caen on D+1?

[oi_you_nutter]

politicaly letting the yanks steal all the glory in the sexy north west europe theatre and leave the Brits to slog it up the boring old Italian sideshow... rather an unlikely scenario old bean, but assuming it happened

the US operations would miss out on a lot, i.e.
1. with no British involvement then all the experience in amphibious warfare (hard earned) would not be used
2. none of Hobarts funnies, specialised Tanks that were sorely missed on Omaha beach
3. Royal Navy gunfire, minesweeping support
4. RAF aircover and offensive bombing support
5. Less Airbourne troops would mean less para and glider landings to capture bridges, occupy the German forces so could cause the reduction to 3 beaches.
6. IIRC the US forces commited to Italy and Operation Dragoon in the South of France would be less than the British, Canadian and Polish Forces that operated in NW Europe, therefore less troops on the ground.
7. Reduction to from 5 to 3 beachheads would let the Germans concentrated on a smaller frontage
8. would the Mulberry harbours have been built or less of them built and could that supply chain keep up with demand, probably not I think

9. on the other hand the supply situation would be simplified
10. no inter-country rivalry would ease the command structure, but then again Patton might be more troublesome


baring a calamity like multiple Omahas beach landings or major sub attacks on the invasion fleet then the invasion would suceed and the US would have its beachheads.

assuming the Germans reacted the same way as IRL with the Panzers not being released, the US would consolidate the beachheads and land supplies and more troops, perhaps at a lower rate than IRL.

if a more aggressive (or reckless [:D]) US general had been tasked with taking Caen then then they could have done so, Patton would take Caen. but also with a different German response they could have been mauled badly and pushed back as well by over extending themselves.

I have never been a fan of Monty myself, he was too cautious yet I can understand the need to be sparing with Commonwealth troops, Britain itself was running out of men by 1944. Market Garden was an example of a cautious man being too optimistic.

thats my quick thoughts on the matter

[Marc von Martial]

Caen would have been taken at D-Day allready . More ammo supplies would have hit the beaches at D-Day +1, instead of tea and biscuits. [;)]

[Major Destruction]

1. The American 5th army had plenty of amphibious warfare experience in Torch and the landings on Sicily, Italy and Anzio. General Clark would have done a fine job on Gold and Sword

2. Agreed. This would have been the main problem for the American landings in the British sector.

3/4. Assuming RN/RAF support as IRL

5. Good point. Perhaps there would be a rush to get the 17th AB Div operational - with less than satisfactory results. However, I am not sure the American glider regiments would not have performed as well on the East flank as did the British AB Div's but the resulting reduction in firepower support for the US parachute drops on the western flank would be hard to swallow.

6. Not sure about the total numbers of troops. Let's leave the Canadians and Poles in the fight, perhaps removing the Canadian forces from Italy prior to D-Day to beef up Juno.

7. 3 beaches probably not a good plan from the POV of a Montgomery type of leader but the American armoured thrust could be more of a hard hitting punch and a "punch has no flanks"

8. Some say the reliance of the Britsih on Mulberry actually slowed transfers of supplies. After the great storm, US deleiveries increased by using the same methods of ship to beach transfer as was practiced in the Pacific.

9. Simpler supply with fewer ammunition types to deal with.

10.

and one more. Placing the US 1st Armoured Div on the beach in place of British 7th AD, might have resulted in less chance of a disaster like Villers Bocage. ...assuming they got off the beach on d-day.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Major Destruction

1. The American 5th army had plenty of amphibious warfare experience in Torch and the landings on Sicily, Italy and Anzio. General Clark would have done a fine job on Gold and Sword

That's debatable. Clark wasn't a very good general, and Salerno and Anzio were NOT successes. Salerno was contained for months, and Anzio was paralyzed by poor US leadership.

8. Some say the reliance of the Britsih on Mulberry actually slowed transfers of supplies. After the great storm, US deleiveries increased by using the same methods of ship to beach transfer as was practiced in the Pacific.

That's true. In the week of 22nd to 29th of June (the storm was on the 19th), the British landed 11,000 tons of supplies through their Mulberry, whilst the Americans landed 20,500 tons directly over Utah and Omaha beaches.

and one more. Placing the US 1st Armoured Div on the beach in place of British 7th AD, might have resulted in less chance of a disaster like Villers Bocage. ...assuming they got off the beach on d-day.

I don't think Michael Wittman would have cared about whose vehicles and troops he shot the hell out of. The Americans weren't automagically better soldiers than the British.

[IronDuke_slith]

Interesting thread.

There seem to be several questions. I don't want to duck any, so please feel free to pull me up if I miss anything.

1. Would a US landing on 3 beaches have worked.

2. Would the US have been able to pull off a five beach assault and sustain a NW Europe Campaign into Germany

3. Would the US have reached Caen on day one.

Firstly, we have to assume for any of this to be possible that the RN and RAF assets deployed in reality will be deployed in support. I don't think it was possible otherwise, although you might suppose a three beach assault was possible without British support. I personally doubt it very much, so we have to assume the RN deploys everything they did and the RAF does likewise. This isn't a great leap really, so no problem assuming it.

Firstly, three beach landing.

This would never have worked. The original COSSAC plan back in 43 (IIRC) supposed a three beach assault and Montgomery rewrote the plan entirely when he was appointed 21st Army Group Commander. To be fair, it wasn't rocket science to recognise the three beach issues and Eisenhower concurred completely.

You have two basic issues. At one end of the proposed landing area lies Caen, the rail and road centre, and the place most German reinforments will come through. At the other end in Cherbourg lies the deep water port you believe you need to ensure the campaign's success, particularly in a logistics heavy Army like the US Army. Of the five beaches used, any combination of three presents problems. Assault Sword, Gold and Utah, and you are too strung out. By D-Day + 3, 21st Panzer, 12th SS Panzer and Panzer Lehr are all probing the gaps, or even worse, concentrating against one beachhead and giving it a bad day. Take Omaha, Gold and Juno and you are too narrow and threaten neither of the two key objectives the first phase of the campaign requires. The flooded area around Carentan presents a barrier to attacking Cherbourg and Caen is out of reach since the German front is quicker to solidify as it is shorter.

Concentrated Naval gunfire might keep the beachheads alive, but at night all hell is going to break loose and I think casualties would be horrendous. A narrow bridgehead also gives German artillery a more target rich environment than they otherwise got. It is also quicker and easier to seal off, and you get less space to deploy in meaning a slower build up.

I don't believe three beaches would ever have worked.

Turning to an American five beach assault. This depends. I think the US only had 6-7 Divisions in Italy in May 1944, 21st Army group deployed 16 Commonwelath Divisions to Normandy (IIRC). You could accelerate the arrival of some of the American divisions that did eventually arrive in the Autumn and winter, but these were all green formations, and I wouldn't like to have to predict what would have happened had their training been in any way hurried or curtailed. Bradley deployed (probably) enough troops eventually that if he had kept the Free French and another Army from Italy might have got the job done but I have my doubts.

Remember, American units rarely got rested in NW Europe in Paris or Marseille, they tended to get sent to quiet portions of the line (a la Bulge). A longer front would only have exacerbated this problem. Also, many of the British Divisions involved had been training for a long time, and at least three (albeit with varying combat records when they got ashore) had extensive combat experience replacement American units wouldn't have matched (50th Infantry, 51st Infantry 7th Armoured).

As others have noted, you need another Airborne formation, Sword beach (and by extension Caen) wasn't on without airborne troops dropping east of the Orne. I'm not sure 17th Airborne would have been ready.

You could have put the whole thing off to facilitate an American build up, but if you weren't going in the Summer of 44, I'd argue there was no point going at all.

Finally, we have Caen. I have to say from the outset, I don't think it was on to take the City on day one, and had the troops landing on Sword been American, I don't think it would have made any difference whatsoever.

Firstly, I don't see any evidence that American troops got off the beaches and into the hinterland any quicker than the Brits or Canadians. Leaving aside Omaha (which did count some intertia amongst the myriad of problems that beset it) the 4th Division on Utah moved inland quite slowly, against negligible opposition. I think it was in places at speeds of half a mile an hour, which against light or non-existant opposition was quite slow. The US 4th Division finished the day 4 miles short of it's D-day objectives. Judge that against their casualties and it rather illustrates the popular misconception that British troops somehow sat back on D-Day and failed to reach Caen because of timidity. The more formidable defences around Sword would not have done anything to increase 4th Division's speed.

All US units had trained using the same tactics and exercises, so we've no evidence anyone else would have been any quicker.

Turning to Caen itself, I think all talk of taking the City falls because of two basic reasons. (This assumes the Americans have resolved the problem alluded to above about securing their left flank across the Orne. ) Firstly, the defences in the British and Canadian sectors were often tougher than on Utah or even Omaha so quite how a US unit would have been quicker against these defences escapes me. Sword beach was well defended and had a well developed network behind it including a number of strongpoints.

Secondly, most of 21 Panzer's Panzer Regiment 22 and Panzergrenadier Regiment 192 was through Caen and west of the Orne by 15.00, perfectly placed to strike any Armoured spearhead blindly charging off Sword beach in the direction of Caen. Furthermore, the heaviest counter attack of the day was carried out by 21st Panzer in late afternoon, elements of which struck Sword beach and were beaten off. There was nothing slow or timid about the 3rd Division that day, and I don't think any Allied division in the Order of Battle would have done any better.

Finally, had anyone reached Caen, 12SS would have counterattacked in force the following day and I think retaken the place.

ORIGINAL: Major Destruction

1. The American 5th army had plenty of amphibious warfare experience in Torch and the landings on Sicily, Italy and Anzio. General Clark would have done a fine job on Gold and Sword

Clark should have been arrested (IMHO) after he took Rome rather than cut off the German troops retreating from the Gustav and Hitler lines in Italy. I don't share your confidence.

5. Good point. Perhaps there would be a rush to get the 17th AB Div operational - with less than satisfactory results. However, I am not sure the American glider regiments would not have performed as well on the East flank as did the British AB Div's but the resulting reduction in firepower support for the US parachute drops on the western flank would be hard to swallow.

This is a good point. There were elements of two american divisions on the American right soaking up all the German pressure in that sector (one of the reasons 4th Us infantry had it so quiet). If only one badly scattered and mis dropped airborne division had been there, things might have gone very badly around St Mere Eglise etc.

7. 3 beaches probably not a good plan from the POV of a Montgomery type of leader but the American armoured thrust could be more of a hard hitting punch and a "punch has no flanks"

Where do you punch from? When does the punch go? Armoured Divisions take time to get ashore in the numbers required for this, and beyond the beaches lay some of the most tank unfriendly country in Europe. It is no coincidence that the US broke out when the Germans ran out of defenders to put in front of them.

8. Some say the reliance of the Britsih on Mulberry actually slowed transfers of supplies. After the great storm, US deleiveries increased by using the same methods of ship to beach transfer as was practiced in the Pacific.

Not something I was aware of, although you might argue they were expending a lot more effort than usual to catch up with the schedule. I'm happy to concede the point, though.

9. Simpler supply with fewer ammunition types to deal with.

Yes, but I don't know anyone in Normandy ever really lacked ammo. Immense stockpiles were created for all the major offensives. It might have been a simpler supply situation, but not necessarily a better one.

and one more. Placing the US 1st Armoured Div on the beach in place of British 7th AD, might have resulted in less chance of a disaster like Villers Bocage. ...assuming they got off the beach on d-day.

Why? In the face of 88s American Armour disappeared as easily as British Armour. 7th Armoured had problems in Normandy, that can't be denied, but Villers Bocage was a tactical defeat. I don't know that anyone else would have escaped unscathed.

Regards,
IronDuke

[IronDuke_slith]

That's debatable. Clark wasn't a very good general, and Salerno and Anzio were NOT successes. Salerno was contained for months, and Anzio was paralyzed by poor US leadership.

Exellent point. The opposition in front of Anzio on day one was (IIRC) very light, and a scratch force from this forum armed with our mousemats could have penetrated several miles inland. This was not the troops fault, but the Commanding Officers.

Clark has never impressed me, and the glory charge on Rome was unforgiveable.

Regards,
IronDuke

[Sarge]

It would have been virtually impossible for the American Airborne to support a five beach invasion, the numbers are just not there. You would have had to reduce the 101st and 82nd drops by as much as 1/3 to make up for the 4000+ Airborne Brits dropping.


This alone would have left you with no alternative but to reduce the invasion to three beaches.


Edit: Also remember the casualty estimate for the invasion the Allied command received was as high as 60-70% for the Airborne.

[Brigz]

Considering that even with the Brits the invasion nearly failed, I doubt very much if the US could have done it alone or would have even attempted it.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Dave Briggs

Considering that even with the Brits the invasion nearly failed, I doubt very much if the US could have done it alone or would have even attempted it.

Agreed,

With out the Brits its just not possible,. Sure the Americans would have taken ground in the opening days of the invasion. But holding that ground would have been next to impossible.

Caen would have been taken but the resources to hold would have drained the Americans to the point of a long drawn out blood bath in other parts of the brakeout that would have been WAY TO COSTLY.

As IronDuke stated

It is no coincidence that the US broke out when the Germans ran out of defenders to put in front of them