What If - Overlord at Calais

[Neutrino 123]

Historically, the Western Allies invaded Normandy on 6 June 1944, but another possibility was considered, an invasion of the Pas de Calais area. I contend that this would, in fact, have been a better area in which to invade then historically for several reasons:

1. The Calais area is closer to Britain then Normandy. This means that air sorties could be mounted more rapidly. Also, landing craft would have a faster turn-around time, allowing for faster reinforcement and more supplies.

2. There are three ports in the Calais area (Dunkirk, Calais, and Boulogne), increasing the chances of capturing one intact. In addition, these ports are closer to the area of immediate fighting then Cherbourg was (it was all the way up the Cotentin peninsula), making the ports more useful once opened. Also, the landings could be much closer to the ports, further increasing the chances of capturing them intact. It is likely that two of the ports would be right next to the landings (perhaps on two sides).

3. The terrain in the Calais area is much better for attacking the Normandy. There are no hedgerows in Calais, which is mostly farmland. Thus, the Allies could better use their superiority in artillery and armor (though not superior compared to the German armored units, of course).

4. The geometry of the Calais area means that the front would increase in size as the Allies advanced (as opposed to Normandy, where capturing the Cotentin peninsula did not increase the frontage). Though sometimes seen as a problem, this is in fact an advantage. The troop densities in Normandy were quite high, making attacking more difficult. Meanwhile, the Germans are the ones with the manpower problem.

5. The beaches are more heavily defended in Calais, but the Allies, in fact, got onto the beaches quite handily at Normandy. Even in Omaha (where they encountered one of the better German infantry divisions of a greater quality then those manning the Calais area – see map) this was accomplish with much smaller casualties then expected. The casualties in a Calais invasion might be somewhat greater (in the non-Omaha beaches), but not enough to have a significant impact.

6. Once a breakout is achieved, the distance to Germany is much shorter from Calais then Normandy. The infrastructure supporting the advance would be less devastated by Allied bombing. Also, Antwerp could be captured in the middle of the breakout, rather then near the end of it (which caused delays).

7. Look at the map below. One can see that Normandy in roughly in the center of the concentration of German units. This means that German units can move into the beachhead from all sides. Calais, meanwhile, is significantly north of the German center-of-mass. This means that the German units must move usually northward. Some have a medium distance to travel, but others have a much longer distance to travel then to Normandy. Also, once the breakout is achieved, there will be no units remaining on the coast between the beachheads and Germany. The units that remain in France would probably be cut off. The breakout from Normandy failed to trap the troops that were north along the French coast. This was especially costly in that it allowed the 15th army (in the Calais area) to escape and help stop the Allied offensive.

8. One can also see from the map that the better German divisions are better positioned to move to Normandy then Calais. In Normandy, the 21st panzer was counterattacking on the first day, with the 12th SS and Panzer Lehr (both very powerful units arriving shortly afterward). At Calais, there would be no panzer counterattacks for awhile, with the 1st SS and 2nd Panzer arriving later then the 12th SS and Panzer Lehr. High-quality German infantry units would also take longer to arrive. Note that some German units have a ‘-’ sign, but I am unsure exactly what that means for each unit. The 12th SS certainly was very strong (as the minus sign would seem not to indicate).

9. Finally, with an invasion in Calais, the map below might look even more favorable to the Allies. There was a fairly successful deception operation that made many Germans think the invasion would be at Calais (though Rommel strongly suspected Normandy). If the operation was aimed at focusing German strength around Normandy, Calais may be more lightly defended.

Anything I missed?:ping:

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/89/usaesupremei8si.th.jpg (http://img118.imageshack.us/my.php?image=usaesupremei8si.jpg)

[Dowly]

...Allies, in fact, got onto the beaches quite handily at Normandy.

Say that to one of the veterans and you must start learning to speak and eat without teeth. :)

[Neutrino 123]

I think not. I did not say that the fighting was not tough (which it definitely was on Omaha and to a lesser extent the British beaches - the fighting WAS extremely nasty for the first units that landed, but once the beaches were secure, things went smoothly), simply that the Allies suceeded quite well. The D-Day museum estimates that the two divisons at Omaha, the 1st and 29th, took about 2,000 casulties together on the first day. Total casulties for the Allies were about 10,000 out of a total force of about 156,000.

[STEED]

Pas de Calais would had been a very bad place to invade, the German defence net work in that area was 90% complete, unlike Normandy which was only 60% complete. And the German High Command expected an invasion there; talk about playing into the German hands, the cost would have been too high for the Allies. If the Allies tried too bluff the Germans about not invading Pas de Calais, the Germans still would had not risked moving the bulk of there forces away from Calais, I think the Allies made the correct decision.


Four possibilities existed:

Dieppe - Soon ruled out. The 1942 raid demonstrated the difficulties of a direct attack upon a defended port.

Pas de Calais - Shortest crossing and the direct route to the heart of Germany. But Germans expect the invasion here - thus more fortifications & heavily defended.

Brittany - Too far - out of fighter range.

Normandy - Suitable beaches, within fighter range, less well defended. However a landing on the Cherbourg peninsula alone was ruled out for fear of being bottled up.

[blue3golf]

Calais would have been one of the worst spots to hit. Normandy was well within fighter cover and by June '44 the Allies had air superiority. Calais did have closer ports but once again, the Allies built a breakwater out of sunken ships and then constructed a makeshift port just off the beaches. Invading where they did achieved the surprise that was being looked for since Calais was the expected spot for the invasion and Rommel would have been all over that. He was convinced that was the place. If the invasion would have come there I have serious doubts that the beach ever would have been taken, Normandy was in jeapordy for a few hours and that was the "weak" resistance.

[bradclark1]

Along with everyone else: It was the worst place they could have chosen. Thats where the Germans expected the invasion and thats why the allies picked Normandy.

[Skybird]

Maybe someone with more historical knowledge would mind to set up a scenario for TOAW3 : "Overlord at Calais"...!? :-? Could be interesting to play out these "what if" scenarios with a good strategy sim like this.

[Neutrino 123]

I have all the information needed to make this scenario (and a Roundup to Berlin scenario) at my house and at a close library, and other similar scenarios could expediate the process. Indeed, I am playing TOAWIII right now and began to start making a scenario, but the horrible interface of the editor was just too much time...
There is a scenario that lets one choose the beachhead, but it covers the entire Western Allied area.

To the above comments, look at the map! (Note also that the German division in the Channel Islands was able to quickly reinforce, and that there was a German parachute unit in the Cotentin peninsula, a regiment I think). There are no panzer reserves to counterattack on the first day at Calais. The beach defenses are stronger, but not notably stronger then Omaha (no cliffs at Calais), and the British had the equipment to deal with strong defenses.

There are fewer natural terrain obstructions in the Calais area in Normandy, so that means fewer bridges for the paratroopers and glider infantry to seize. Perhaps they could have attacked the coastal defenses from the rear? Paratroopers are lightly armed, but so are the German units at Calais (though there might be a handful of StuGs - assault guns). It might make the landings easier, but I am unsure of the specifics of this method, or if was even considered.

Another thing I forgot: the Germans flooded a large marshy area in the Cotentin peninsula, confining the Allied advance.

Look at these sites:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/normandy/nor-pam.htm
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/atlanticwall/efforts.aspx

The Germans started out thinking that Calais was the main area (though some Germans, such as Hitler and Rommel thought it would be Normandy). The deception operation strongly reinforced this belief.
However, if the deception opration was targeted at Normandy instead of Calais, then the Germans would probably have put somewhat less forces at Calais, and somewhat more at Normandy, unless you think the the histroical deception operation did absolutely nothing in convincing the Germans to put their assets at Calais.