Successful Invasion of Calais

**Ænema** · October 26, 2009, 07:44 PM

If the Allies invaded Calais instead of Normandy, do you think the invasion would of been successful? If the invasion force was a considerable size and with enough air support and naval support, I think they could pull it off, but at considerable casualties.

Thoughts? Or was the German 15th Army really a considerable threat?

**Salem1** · October 26, 2009, 07:52 PM

The western allies couldn't fail. It doesn't matter where they'd invade, they couldn't really fail - they could try again and again, even if they lost they would be bleeding Germany's manpower and equipment. That's also why Germany couldn't win against USSR when Germany stopped getting decisive victories, the attrition factor set in. From a tactical perspective they could fail, but from a strategic perspective Germany was already done for no matter how victorious their armies were from that point onwards.

**Darkhorse** · October 26, 2009, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Salem1

The western allies couldn't fail. It doesn't matter where they'd invade, they couldn't really fail - they could try again and again, even if they lost they would be bleeding Germany's manpower and equipment. That's also why Germany couldn't win against USSR when Germany stopped getting decisive victories, the attrition factor set in. From a tactical perspective they could fail, but from a strategic perspective Germany was already done for no matter how victorious their armies were from that point onwards.

I'd doubt the Allies capabilities in 1944 would extend to more than 1 try at invasion whether at Normandy or other location, I think that would be it until at least mid 45 that another attempt could be made, imagine Dieppe times 200 (yes, 200 that's right). If it wasn't for the pressure Stalin piled on us, I doubt we would have gone in 1944 at all. And it was down to a few mistakes on the German side, and some lucky mistakes on ours, that it was a success in the first place. At Calais this probably would not have been the same. Even if we launched in 1945, where we would undoubtedly have been better prepared. I still don't think we could just try and try again if that had failed.

Same goes for the campaign after in the Bocage. If another 60,000 troops escaped at Faliase, who knows how longer (the end game would still be the same) it would have dragged on for.

**uzi716** · October 26, 2009, 08:22 PM

Yeah no matter what the allies were gonna succeed in invading France. It really didn't matter where, unless they invaded in the Netherlands because that would be bad..

**Boer** · October 31, 2009, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by Salem1

The western allies couldn't fail. It doesn't matter where they'd invade, they couldn't really fail - they could try again and again, even if they lost they would be bleeding Germany's manpower and equipment.

Yes, but which would have bleed faster, German manpower or allied will after a crushing, costly defeat? Could the FDR and Churchill governments survive a failed invasion the size of D-day?

**Salem1** · October 31, 2009, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by Boer

Yes, but which would have bleed faster, German manpower or allied will after a crushing, costly defeat? Could the FDR and Churchill governments survive a failed invasion the size of D-day?

It would've been a costly victory for the Germans anyhow. No way that they were going to achieve Barbarossa-like crushing victories anymore, that's just fantasy. Germany was by and large spent while UK, free French and USA had suffered relatively light losses in comparison to Germany at that point. The allied will was already proven by the time of the Battle of Britain and Churchill certainly wasn't going to just sit there and watch it fade away incase of a defeat. I believe that a failed invasion of Normandy would have the same consequences as Operation Market Garden, ie. none except a temporary setback.

The Germans had no air force left (so if the allies wanted to they pretty much could just slowly bomb the German army away without using land forces, not much they could do about it), no navy, their veteran submarine fleet was wasted away and completely destroyed, German supplies were low even before this point but now it just became worse and worse not to mention the lack of manpower. Most of Germany's good soldiers were dead or dying on the eastern front while USA was another USSR to face but in Germany's rear, when Germany couldn't match either of them in strategic capability and industry in the first place. Not to mention that there was the Italian front to defend as well.

Something I have however wondered about, is why the allies didn't land in northern Germany instead of France. By doing so they would've captured Berlin far before any Russian soldier sat foot in Germany. I don't think that anyone would be expecting an attack right north of Berlin.

**MathiasOfAthens** · October 30, 2009, 03:07 AM

Hitler forbid the panzer corps in the calais region from moving to normandy because he still feared an allied invasion at calais. If the allies had landed at calais it would have been very stupid in the first place but would they have won, definitely but with far higher casulaties. The allies would of knocked out the Luftwaffe in a matter of days and then they would of proceeded to bomb the panzer corps and if they couldnt be found then they would have been divided and destroyed by allied infantry. This is what happen in the battle of Normandy in the hedgerows.

**wearenemesis** · October 30, 2009, 04:19 AM

Um...the only reason a large number of German troops were in Calais was because of the deception campaign.

If the allies wanted to invade Calais in the first place they would have done the deception campaign for Normandy no doubt and the results would probably simliar...

It makes no sense to fake going to Calais, luring a large number of German troops (Particularity Panzers) and then going to Calais anyway.

**Thalassocrat** · October 30, 2009, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by wearenemesis

Um...the only reason a large number of German troops were in Calais was because of the deception campaign.

If the allies wanted to invade Calais in the first place they would have done the deception campaign for Normandy no doubt and the results would probably simliar...

It makes no sense to fake going to Calais, luring a large number of German troops (Particularity Panzers) and then going to Calais anyway.

First post to point out the obvious!

**Ahlerich** · October 30, 2009, 01:01 PM

if germany would have guessed the place of the invasion and could have defended that place well i think there is a tiny chance they they would have repelled the invasion. ultimately that would have ment that the soviets would have gotten most or even whole germany.

**OTZ** · October 30, 2009, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Ahlerich

if germany would have guessed the place of the invasion and could have defended that place well i think there is a tiny chance they they would have repelled the invasion. ultimately that would have ment that the soviets would have gotten most or even whole germany.

No matter the location - there was always a good chance the Allies would end up getting repelled. Normandy's success was as much luck-based as it was a tactical/strategic stroke of genius. June 6th wasn't a sure thing - the Allies just happened to have a lot of things go there way - enough to ensure kicking them back into the sea would be challenging for zee Germans.

**hellheaven1987** · October 30, 2009, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by OTZ

No matter the location - there was always a good chance the Allies would end up getting repelled. Normandy's success was as much luck-based as it was a tactical/strategic stroke of genius. June 6th wasn't a sure thing - the Allies just happened to have a lot of things go there way - enough to ensure kicking them back into the sea would be challenging for zee Germans.

Indeed. In fact, Wehrmechat already expected an invasion came since March 1944, and they knew the invasion was coming at June from the capture radio set of French Resistance (and they also noticed Allies increased the supply drop for Resistance). However, Rundstedt stated that he expected an invasion from Calais direction and concentrated more force over that region. Hence, an amphious assault from there would mean less chance of success.

However, even Operation Overlord failed, the success of Operation Dragoon mean Allies still had a foothold on France. Failure of Operation Overlord means more force could send to southern France, which might mean an early thrust into Rhine...

**~~Heavy Weapons Guy~~** · October 31, 2009, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by Ahlerich

if germany would have guessed the place of the invasion and could have defended that place well i think there is a tiny chance they they would have repelled the invasion. ultimately that would have ment that the soviets would have gotten most or even whole germany.

USSSR could only go offensive against Germany with only Allies supplies, if they wouldn't get them their army would die from hunger and they couldn't do anything to Germany! Even if it have happened at 1944.

**Sphere** · October 30, 2009, 04:51 PM

I think Ambrose desribed the Atlantic wall as the greatest military blunder of the war. It was supposed to be a massive defense to keep the allies out of continental Europe, but it held up for all of a morning.

Obviously an invasion at Calais with the built up defenses would have had great trouble and would probably have failed, especially if a counter attack was mounted. But the Allies had the whole North Atlantic French Coastline to choose from, and thats the point; they would never have chose Calais.

**Lysimachus** · October 30, 2009, 06:15 PM

An attempt at Calais would fail. The German concentration there was stronger, and considering Operation Neptune nearly went wrong at the lighter part of the German positions in France, an attempt at Calais would be repulsed. On the other hand, it could be a replay of the Hermann Göring Panzer-Division's attempts at hitting the Americans at Husky near Gela where they were only warded off by the naval guns. Then again, the troop concentrations in France were stronger than those in Italy so enough force may have been put down to even overcome that as well.