D-Day, why not the German North Sea Coast

[iamcanjim]

Why didn't the allies land either in Lower Saxony or Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, for D-day. I recognize the coast is low and covered in mudflats, however, couldn't there have been WWII technology to overcome that limitation? Were their too many fortifications?

 

If you land in Lower Saxony, you threaten both Hamburg and the Ruhr, assuming you can get inland out of the tidal wilderness and onto the road network. If you land in Schleswig-Holstein, you threaten Berlin and Hamburg.

 

I recognize that the landing casualties would be higher, however, if you include the casualties from Normandy, Market Garden and the Crossing of the Rhine it seems you still might save some lives. A successful landing would certainly end the war in 1944.

 

So, reasons not to were

 

Technological limitations on landing across mudflats instead of beaches?

To many fortifications?

Distance from English Channel ports?

Excessive numbers of defensive troops stationed in that area?

Excessively long supply lines from the UK?

 

It seems like the advantages could outweigh the disadvantages, but since it wasn't tried or seemingly considered there must have been a fatal flaw in the strategy.

 

But offhand, i don't know what that fatal flaw was.

[Cinaruco]

More German troops? Liberating France was a priority?

 

I guess Ike played it safe, if Overlord could be called that.

[Marek Tucan]

Too long distance = less air cover and support.

Too long distance = slower reinforcing of the beachchead.

Good communications network on enemy side + long distance = difficult communications interdiction, resulting in quicker German reinforcements.

Minefields.

[DougRichards]

Technological limitations on landing across mudflats instead of beaches?To many fortifications?

Distance from English Channel ports?

Excessive numbers of defensive troops stationed in that area?

Excessively long supply lines from the UK?

 

It seems like the advantages could outweigh the disadvantages, but since it wasn't tried or seemingly considered there must have been a fatal flaw in the strategy.

 

But offhand, i don't know what that fatal flaw was.

Was landing across mudflats at all viable, without hovercraft and or miles and miles of duckboards or similar from the sea to solid land?

 

Even LVT would have had massive difficulty is progressing at anything faster than a slow walking pace through mud.

 

British WW1, arguably the most 'mobile' tanks in history in terms of dealing with mud, trenches and the like, would have gotten mired in the mud.

 

This BBC article is informative: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7332402.stm

 

Also the assault at Inchon was across mudflats, where LST had to be left in place between tides, which would have been suicidal in the face of possible German defences.

 

Also, wasn't it a longer distance from Britain to Lower Saxony or Schleswig-Holstein than to Normandy? Longer distance means that the defences have longer to prepare, as well as longer ranges from any naval support to the defences, due to the mudflats. Shorter loiter time for fighters / fighter bombers providing air cover as CAS.

[lastdingo]

The German North Sea coast has few ports, a very difficult maritime geography (moving sandbanks and moving shoals, lots of mud), strong tide and would have cut Allied air support by probably 2/3 due to the distance.

[Ken Estes]

The German North Sea coast has few ports, a very difficult maritime geography (moving sandbanks and moving shoals, lots of mud), strong tide and would have cut Allied air support by probably 2/3 due to the distance.

Equally, one must look at British ports for the invasion and I don't see any with capacity approaching, let alone rivalling those of the SE of England, where most of the invasion troops had also concentrated.

 

Just too hard to do for manifold reasons.

[Archie Pellagio]

Plus your beachhead becomes a pocket surrounded by german armies expecting an invasion of france and emergency forces from the east...

 

The LOC's would've been a serious issue too.

 

It would've been "complicated" unless the opposition were a lot more hopeless...

[Delta tank 6]

More German troops? Liberating France was a priority?

 

I guess Ike played it safe, if Overlord could be called that.

 

General Eisenhower had nothing to do with the location of the invasion, that was decided before he took command. There is a book entitled "Croos Channel Attack" and it lists the factors that the invasion site had to posses in order for it to be considered as a viable option.

 

I found it on line: http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-4/7-4_2.htm#46

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is from page 56.

 

They then analyzed the conditions essential for such an area. It first had to be within range of fighter planes based in the United Kingdom in order that air supremacy might counterbalance the unusual hazards of a major amphibious assault. At the time the study was made, fighter cover extended only over the coast between Cherbourg and Knocke (in the northwest corner of Belgium). Further to insure air supremacy, the area selected had to contain airfields or sites for airfields which could be made available to Allied fighters at an early date.36

 

The beach defenses had to be capable of reduction by naval fire, air bombardment, or airborne troops. It was desirable, obviously, that the beach defenses be as weak as possible, but the essential thing was that there should be a reasonable chance of neutralizing them. This requirement, in fact, ruled out only small beaches dominated by well-defended cliff positions and areas, such as the Netherlands, where the enemy could defend by large inundations which the Allies had no means of combatting.

 

The selected assault area must permit the Allied rate of build-up to compete with that of the enemy. From this, other conditions followed. The area had to contain one major port that could be captured quickly. It was also desirable that a group of ports be close at hand with sufficient combined capacity, when developed, to support the entire force in later phases of the operation. Since there was no hope of being able to put captured ports into workable condition until about three months after the landings, it was equally important that the selected assault area have beaches suitable for prolonged maintenance operations. They therefore had to be sheltered from the prevailing winds in order to insure continuous operations even in bad weather. More important, the beaches had to have sufficient capacity to receive and rapidly pass inland the required vehicles and supplies. The critical considerations here were not only the size and firmness of the beaches but also the existence of adequate vehicle exits and adequate road nets behind the beaches.

 

Having established the conditions essential to an assault area for a major invasion, Generals Sinclair and Barker then proceeded to examine various coastal sectors, matching each with the ideal. None fitted. Only one came close-the sector around Caen. The Netherlands was ruled out because it was out of the range of fighter cover, because its beaches were too exposed and, being backed by sand dunes, had inadequate exits for vehicular traffic. Finally the Germans could too easily defend them by flooding. A scarcity of beaches-and those small and exposed-disqualified Belgium unless enemy resistance was comparatively light and good weather could be counted on for at least

 

Enjoy!

 

Mike