Originally Posted by Spartacuss

Oh yeah... George Patton and his never defeated 1st Army. Patton was appoplectic at getting this assignment, as he thought his punishment for his faux pas in the Med were over. It was, but he still looked on the assignment as continuing punishment and thought his combat command career was over. He was told later, and well into the implementation of Operation Fortitude, that he would be given command of the Third Army and turned loose in France once the objectives of the invasion were pretty much secured. There was a second fake army established in Scotland, I think, headed by a British officer. The ficticious British Fourth Army. Intended to keep the Germans fully invested in defending Norway and Scandinavia as well. Oddly, the command of this group was a Colonel Rory MacLeod, rather than a General. Apparently the Germans never picked up on this, unless MacLeod was referred to as a general in all the fake communications and such. The entire Operation Fortitude can be looked on as one of the greatest and most successful deceptions in warfare.

Originally Posted by diddyriddick

Thanks for the additional information.

As an aside.....It seems to me that choosing Patton as the commander of this fictitious army was a particular stroke of genius (whether the brainchild of Eisenhower or Marshall, I don't know). The beachhead wasn't going to be secured by armor, but rather by infantry, artillery and airpower. Keeping Patton on ice saved his talents for when they could be used most effectively, ie. after Cobra had opened the doors for the armor to run.

Originally Posted by srb7677

The landings pretty much had to take place on the north coast of France or Belgium, in order to be within effective range of British based fighter cover. In these areas, only two locations were fully suitable for widespread beach landings - the Pas de Calais and Normandy. Of the two, the Pas de Calais was the shortest sea crossing and the more direct route into Germany. Because of this, however, it was better defended, with more fully prepared defensive works. It was thus believed that the chances of successfully getting ashore were greater in the less well prepared Normandy sector.

Originally Posted by diddyriddick

An excellent point. There are a limited number of beaches suitable for a large scale invasion on the northwestern coast of continental Europe. There are tide, sand, and other issues to consider.

Additionally, the only place that would have given deeper air cover was the Pas de calais. Since the logical choice would be the Pas de Calais, the allies chose Normandy to confuse the German high command. It worked-Hitler wouldn't release the armor reserves because he thought Normandy was a diversion from the "real" invasion, the pas de Calais.

Finally, the allies had to consider how they were going to supply the armies in the field once on the continent (this became a real problem for the allies in the winter of 44-45). The western french ports offered the shortest route for the allied convoys coming across the Atlantic. Moreover, taking out the western French ports severely curtailed U-Boat operations outside of the Baltic/North Sea.

Originally Posted by Maundu

Ok.. I forgot the air part of the hypothesis.. I never realized that they actually tested the sand of the beaches.. that must have been a dangerous job.. To crawl on the beach and take samples..

Although I doubt that was the reason why Zeeland was eliminated as a possible landing site.. because on 1 November 1944 the allies did land on the dutch coast at Walcheren to secure the naval apporach to the port of Antwerp. I have pictures of Sherman DD tanks on the beaches.. So I guess that the fighter coverage would be the main reason for eliminating the dutch as a potential landing site..

Originally Posted by pugsville

Landing in the Netherlands could have been problematic in terms of being able to grow the bridgehead as the Germans may well have been able to flood much of the areas.

Normandy was the logical choice, quality of landing sites, available air cover, availability of ports, known defenses, ability tp secure the lodgement area, and access to expand the lodgement area in the breakout phase.

Originally Posted by Maundu

yeah.. We (the Dutch) have relied on water for our defence for centuries.. (not always successfull I know )
The Holland water line is an area to the east of Amsterdam and Utrecht which could be flooded in case of invasion ever since the 16th century (the new water line was established in 1871 to incorporate the city of utrecht) the line was fortified with 46 forts. The line was used during both world wars.

Anyway, i believe the Germans did flood area's in Normandy as well didn't they?