Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lots of live radio coverage in the UK this morning of the unveiling of a new memorial on Gold Beach.

One of the presenters was saying what a gamble D Day was.

Obviously there is never 100% guarantee of success in war. We may not see it now, looking back from the viewpoint of knowing how well it turned out.

What could have gone wrong at D Day and could it have turned into a dismal failure? What would have been the consequences.

Given the force brought to bear on the Atlantikwall I don't really think there could have been any other outcome barring a freak storm strong enough to overpower the landing crafts.

I suppose if something similar to Market Garden had happened the invasion could have been contained somewhat but once the USA's industrial might was fully committed to the Allied cause the ending was inevitable. Though I suppose with additional delays to the breakthrough the following Cold War borders might have turned out somewhat differently at the outset.

Still 75 years ago. How little we seem to have learned. Or rather, how quickly we seem to regress.

If the German army didn't take the bait about Dover, far more would have died on the beaches.
Those inflatable tanks in Operation ‘Fortitude’ must have saved hundreds of lives.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What would have been the consequences.

US/UK have to spend some time preparing another attempt, the Soviet army takes Berlin and more of Europe in the final peace agreement, and there's a decent chance Germany lasts long enough to get nuked instead of Japan.

Well, we know what a failed attempt would have been like in the instant, 'cause Operation Jubilee tried and failed to take Dieppe in '42. So like that, only more so.

In a wider sense, Stalin might, like Tsar Aleksandr, make it to Paris. Perhaps then Operation Unthinkable becomes not so unthinkable?

AFAIK, the 'funnies' were highly-experimental and no-one really knew if they would work, the mulberries could have sunk/been damaged leaving us without a working-port... Getting onto the beaches, getting bogged-down and then cut off was probably the biggest danger.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What would have been the consequences.

US/UK have to spend some time preparing another attempt, the Soviet army takes Berlin and more of Europe in the final peace agreement, and there's a decent chance Germany lasts long enough to get nuked instead of Japan.

^^^^^

Largely this. The ultimate importance of the Normany landings weighs much more on how the postwar map looks and reducing the final bodycount than deciding the final fate of the 3rd Reich.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Given the force brought to bear on the Atlantikwall I don't really think there could have been any other outcome barring a freak storm strong enough to overpower the landing crafts.

I suppose if something similar to Market Garden had happened the invasion could have been contained somewhat but once the USA's industrial might was fully committed to the Allied cause the ending was inevitable. Though I suppose with additional delays to the breakthrough the following Cold War borders might have turned out somewhat differently at the outset.

Still 75 years ago. How little we seem to have learned. Or rather, how quickly we seem to regress.

This basically. With the amount of force and preparation that was brought to bear there was unlikely to be another outcome except for a freak storm aborting the landing. The Germans put up almost the best effort they had bottling the Allies up in Normandy given the balance of power. Of course more people could have died on D-Day, but the outcome of the war was clear.

 Skinnereal wrote:
If the German army didn't take the bait about Dover, far more would have died on the beaches.
Those inflatable tanks in Operation ‘Fortitude’ must have saved hundreds of lives.

Not to mention double agents like Garbo, who received both the Iron Cross and an MBE for his supplying the Germans with information leading up to D-Day (including telling them the invasions were happening on the day of the invasion so that later when he said it was a feint for a larger force at Dover he would be absolutely credible).

Not to mention Garbo's network of fake agents in the UK brought in a nice sum of money for the UK, direct from Nazi Germany

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Given the force brought to bear on the Atlantikwall I don't really think there could have been any other outcome barring a freak storm strong enough to overpower the landing crafts.

I suppose if something similar to Market Garden had happened the invasion could have been contained somewhat but once the USA's industrial might was fully committed to the Allied cause the ending was inevitable. Though I suppose with additional delays to the breakthrough the following Cold War borders might have turned out somewhat differently at the outset.

Still 75 years ago. How little we seem to have learned. Or rather, how quickly we seem to regress.

This basically. With the amount of force and preparation that was brought to bear there was unlikely to be another outcome except for a freak storm aborting the landing. The Germans put up almost the best effort they had bottling the Allies up in Normandy given the balance of power. Of course more people could have died on D-Day, but the outcome of the war was clear.

The Germans didn't really give the best possible defense.

If the Panzer divisions had been immediately deployed its possible the invasion could have been stymied on the beaches. A failed invasion of Europe would have been very demoralizing for the UK and America.

The Normandy invasions were also conducted in large part because of pressure from Stalin. he wanted the allies to open a 2nd front to ease his efforts. In hindsight, the Russians would have beaten the Germans on their own eventually. However, the fog of war that exists during a conflict can make lopsided victories possible because the superior side falters with doubt about how things might proceed.

If the Germans had thrown back the Normandy landings, and a quick counterattack with the Panzer divisions might have been able to do that, the invasion could easily have been called off. The allies aren't going to throw all their troops into a meatgrinder on the beaches if it looks like they can't do it. And pulling back would really cause issues back home.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Given the force brought to bear on the Atlantikwall I don't really think there could have been any other outcome barring a freak storm strong enough to overpower the landing crafts.

I suppose if something similar to Market Garden had happened the invasion could have been contained somewhat but once the USA's industrial might was fully committed to the Allied cause the ending was inevitable. Though I suppose with additional delays to the breakthrough the following Cold War borders might have turned out somewhat differently at the outset.

Still 75 years ago. How little we seem to have learned. Or rather, how quickly we seem to regress.

This basically. With the amount of force and preparation that was brought to bear there was unlikely to be another outcome except for a freak storm aborting the landing. The Germans put up almost the best effort they had bottling the Allies up in Normandy given the balance of power. Of course more people could have died on D-Day, but the outcome of the war was clear.

The Germans didn't really give the best possible defense.

If the Panzer divisions had been immediately deployed its possible the invasion could have been stymied on the beaches. A failed invasion of Europe would have been very demoralizing for the UK and America.

The Normandy invasions were also conducted in large part because of pressure from Stalin. he wanted the allies to open a 2nd front to ease his efforts. In hindsight, the Russians would have beaten the Germans on their own eventually. However, the fog of war that exists during a conflict can make lopsided victories possible because the superior side falters with doubt about how things might proceed.

If the Germans had thrown back the Normandy landings, and a quick counterattack with the Panzer divisions might have been able to do that, the invasion could easily have been called off. The allies aren't going to throw all their troops into a meatgrinder on the beaches if it looks like they can't do it. And pulling back would really cause issues back home.

Those tank formations would of had to have survived the artially envelope of nearly 200 warships and massive allied Air power though. Inside 10 - 20 orso miles it would be a death trap.

They may have stalled it maybe but the sheer amount of allied fire power in place would of hammered thr tank formations. Especially when they redirected the sheer massive allied air forces to delay a xoj ter attack.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Given the force brought to bear on the Atlantikwall I don't really think there could have been any other outcome barring a freak storm strong enough to overpower the landing crafts.

I suppose if something similar to Market Garden had happened the invasion could have been contained somewhat but once the USA's industrial might was fully committed to the Allied cause the ending was inevitable. Though I suppose with additional delays to the breakthrough the following Cold War borders might have turned out somewhat differently at the outset.

Still 75 years ago. How little we seem to have learned. Or rather, how quickly we seem to regress.

This basically. With the amount of force and preparation that was brought to bear there was unlikely to be another outcome except for a freak storm aborting the landing. The Germans put up almost the best effort they had bottling the Allies up in Normandy given the balance of power. Of course more people could have died on D-Day, but the outcome of the war was clear.

The Germans didn't really give the best possible defense.

If the Panzer divisions had been immediately deployed its possible the invasion could have been stymied on the beaches. A failed invasion of Europe would have been very demoralizing for the UK and America.

The Normandy invasions were also conducted in large part because of pressure from Stalin. he wanted the allies to open a 2nd front to ease his efforts. In hindsight, the Russians would have beaten the Germans on their own eventually. However, the fog of war that exists during a conflict can make lopsided victories possible because the superior side falters with doubt about how things might proceed.

If the Germans had thrown back the Normandy landings, and a quick counterattack with the Panzer divisions might have been able to do that, the invasion could easily have been called off. The allies aren't going to throw all their troops into a meatgrinder on the beaches if it looks like they can't do it. And pulling back would really cause issues back home.

They did given what they had. To actually have that tank counterattack as a valid tactic all of them would have had to be in the right area, the Germans clearly didn't know where the Allies would land. Its unlikely that they would have been able to, firepower was heavily in favor of the Allies as was air superiority. Tanks might survive for a while but all their soft skin and infantry support? Plus why would the Allies not be aware of such a concentration of tank divisions where they plan to land? As for the meatgrinder, its exactly what the Allies did at Anzio, stubbornly cling to their beachhead until they broke out. It saying that if everything went the way of the Germans they might have won WW2

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Given the force brought to bear on the Atlantikwall I don't really think there could have been any other outcome barring a freak storm strong enough to overpower the landing crafts.

I suppose if something similar to Market Garden had happened the invasion could have been contained somewhat but once the USA's industrial might was fully committed to the Allied cause the ending was inevitable. Though I suppose with additional delays to the breakthrough the following Cold War borders might have turned out somewhat differently at the outset.

Still 75 years ago. How little we seem to have learned. Or rather, how quickly we seem to regress.

This basically. With the amount of force and preparation that was brought to bear there was unlikely to be another outcome except for a freak storm aborting the landing. The Germans put up almost the best effort they had bottling the Allies up in Normandy given the balance of power. Of course more people could have died on D-Day, but the outcome of the war was clear.

The Germans didn't really give the best possible defense.

If the Panzer divisions had been immediately deployed its possible the invasion could have been stymied on the beaches. A failed invasion of Europe would have been very demoralizing for the UK and America.

The Normandy invasions were also conducted in large part because of pressure from Stalin. he wanted the allies to open a 2nd front to ease his efforts. In hindsight, the Russians would have beaten the Germans on their own eventually. However, the fog of war that exists during a conflict can make lopsided victories possible because the superior side falters with doubt about how things might proceed.

If the Germans had thrown back the Normandy landings, and a quick counterattack with the Panzer divisions might have been able to do that, the invasion could easily have been called off. The allies aren't going to throw all their troops into a meatgrinder on the beaches if it looks like they can't do it. And pulling back would really cause issues back home.

They did given what they had. To actually have that tank counterattack as a valid tactic all of them would have had to be in the right area, the Germans clearly didn't know where the Allies would land. Its unlikely that they would have been able to, firepower was heavily in favor of the Allies as was air superiority. Tanks might survive for a while but all their soft skin and infantry support? Plus why would the Allies not be aware of such a concentration of tank divisions where they plan to land? As for the meatgrinder, its exactly what the Allies did at Anzio, stubbornly cling to their beachhead until they broke out. It saying that if everything went the way of the Germans they might have won WW2

Also. Unlike Italy, Britian was one was gigantic aircraft carrier, even of thry got into a pocket. The concentration of force they could brig the to breaking it was enermous.

Its hard to mantain a pocket when your enemy can redirect a thousand heavy bombers to turn the entire area to crators.

Also the big guns. Outdated at times but big.
7 battleships. Anything inside 20 miles was a target and those shells would knock out anything land based and could unlike a airstrike be maintained for hours at a time.

The allies where also landing Suplies at a rate that Germanny could not imagine and had war matteral by the mountain in England to keep it going.

Pluto meant there was a direct, hard to disable, constant supply of fuel to feed the army, its tanks, guns, trucks and armoured engineering machines purpose built for breaking through defences.

Through sheer force and scale they would of broken the panzer even in a worst case delay.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Given the force brought to bear on the Atlantikwall I don't really think there could have been any other outcome barring a freak storm strong enough to overpower the landing crafts.

I suppose if something similar to Market Garden had happened the invasion could have been contained somewhat but once the USA's industrial might was fully committed to the Allied cause the ending was inevitable. Though I suppose with additional delays to the breakthrough the following Cold War borders might have turned out somewhat differently at the outset.

Still 75 years ago. How little we seem to have learned. Or rather, how quickly we seem to regress.

This basically. With the amount of force and preparation that was brought to bear there was unlikely to be another outcome except for a freak storm aborting the landing. The Germans put up almost the best effort they had bottling the Allies up in Normandy given the balance of power. Of course more people could have died on D-Day, but the outcome of the war was clear.

The Germans didn't really give the best possible defense.

If the Panzer divisions had been immediately deployed its possible the invasion could have been stymied on the beaches. A failed invasion of Europe would have been very demoralizing for the UK and America.

The Normandy invasions were also conducted in large part because of pressure from Stalin. he wanted the allies to open a 2nd front to ease his efforts. In hindsight, the Russians would have beaten the Germans on their own eventually. However, the fog of war that exists during a conflict can make lopsided victories possible because the superior side falters with doubt about how things might proceed.

If the Germans had thrown back the Normandy landings, and a quick counterattack with the Panzer divisions might have been able to do that, the invasion could easily have been called off. The allies aren't going to throw all their troops into a meatgrinder on the beaches if it looks like they can't do it. And pulling back would really cause issues back home.

The Allies were prepared for this.
Immediately means the armor travels during the day through wave after wave of aircraft attacks, into Allied tanks and antitank guns. Its the bockage fight but in reverse, except the Allies have more armor and massive air support.

Additionally, I believe Anzio shows what happens when armored formations attack an Allied beach head with naval support.
Finally if the tank divisions bottle up the beachheads, they are in a pincer when Dragoon strikes. Remember Anvil was originally intended to occur simultaneously. If the Normandy invasion gets bogged down, then Anvil will be given a full go (except now Normandy becomes the Anvil to Dragoon's hammer). And of course there's the small matter of 1.6mm screaming Russians joining the party in late June...

Once the allies get the beachnhead, the juggernaut starts rolling.

 Frazzled wrote:

The Allies were prepared for this.
Immediately means the armor travels during the day through wave after wave of aircraft attacks, into Allied tanks and antitank guns. Its the bockage fight but in reverse, except the Allies have more armor and massive air support.

If I remember correctly, there were indeed some panzer counterattacks in the bocage that performed dismally. The German warmachine had been designing tanks for sniping on the Russian steppe, which is very different from the close-range brawl of tank combat in Normandy. The big cats performed well in ambush, but were very poor at responding to being ambushed themselves, especially Panthers. Panthers suffered from a combination of restrictive turret optics and poor side armour relative to the front. The very long guns also frequently had issues traversing in close terrain. By contrast, the ubiquitous Sherman had a lot of advantages in this regard, being nimble and quick to aim at unexpected targets.

 Haighus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The Allies were prepared for this.
Immediately means the armor travels during the day through wave after wave of aircraft attacks, into Allied tanks and antitank guns. Its the bockage fight but in reverse, except the Allies have more armor and massive air support.

If I remember correctly, there were indeed some panzer counterattacks in the bocage that performed dismally. The German warmachine had been designing tanks for sniping on the Russian steppe, which is very different from the close-range brawl of tank combat in Normandy. The big cats performed well in ambush, but were very poor at responding to being ambushed themselves, especially Panthers. Panthers suffered from a combination of restrictive turret optics and poor side armour relative to the front. The very long guns also frequently had issues traversing in close terrain. By contrast, the ubiquitous Sherman had a lot of advantages in this regard, being nimble and quick to aim at unexpected targets.

In a reserve. Also the allies turned German tank barricades into improvised cutting devices to go though the bocage and go round strong points.

The Good old basic sherman was mechanically reliable, able to use its shorter guns, and could bypass some strong points.

 Haighus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The Allies were prepared for this.
Immediately means the armor travels during the day through wave after wave of aircraft attacks, into Allied tanks and antitank guns. Its the bockage fight but in reverse, except the Allies have more armor and massive air support.

If I remember correctly, there were indeed some panzer counterattacks in the bocage that performed dismally. The German warmachine had been designing tanks for sniping on the Russian steppe, which is very different from the close-range brawl of tank combat in Normandy. The big cats performed well in ambush, but were very poor at responding to being ambushed themselves, especially Panthers. Panthers suffered from a combination of restrictive turret optics and poor side armour relative to the front. The very long guns also frequently had issues traversing in close terrain. By contrast, the ubiquitous Sherman had a lot of advantages in this regard, being nimble and quick to aim at unexpected targets.

Plus its absolutely made for dudes with PIATs, Bazookas, and M10 TDs to get side shots. Who wants to be the Jerry with almost no training trying to go down a bocage road against a bunch of Achilles M10s and Fireflies, after the column of Hanamogs and troops was just rocketed to pieces by Typhoons?

Do ya'll know the story of USS Herndon?

It was the first ship in on the D-Day that was supposed to draw out German fire so that the artillery locations could be pinpointed.

It was essentially a suicide mission.

The thing is, they all knew they were on a suicide mission.

All of them wrote letters home saying goodbye. I've seen something of them. Amazing what 16/17/18 year old boys would write home knowing they were probably going to die.

Here's a good source:
https://patch.com/virginia/herndon/remembering-herndons-history-uss-herndon

 Haighus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The Allies were prepared for this.
Immediately means the armor travels during the day through wave after wave of aircraft attacks, into Allied tanks and antitank guns. Its the bockage fight but in reverse, except the Allies have more armor and massive air support.

If I remember correctly, there were indeed some panzer counterattacks in the bocage that performed dismally. The German warmachine had been designing tanks for sniping on the Russian steppe, which is very different from the close-range brawl of tank combat in Normandy. The big cats performed well in ambush, but were very poor at responding to being ambushed themselves, especially Panthers. Panthers suffered from a combination of restrictive turret optics and poor side armour relative to the front. The very long guns also frequently had issues traversing in close terrain. By contrast, the ubiquitous Sherman had a lot of advantages in this regard, being nimble and quick to aim at unexpected targets.

Additionally we have to remember, the Germans were defending 2,000 miles of coastline. If they put tank units close to the beaches, the Allies would not have actually had to face very many tanks. The remaining tanks would have been spread penny packet along the costs, to be shot up on the roads for weeks as they gathered.

My understanding was that the german armour was held en masse as a deterrent to an invansion - it's just that they thought the Normandy landings were a diversion from the main attack on Calais. As Skinnereal points out, a load of inflatable tanks, some double agents and a dead Welsh tramp helped convince them of that until it was too late.

IIRC, the main German force stayed near Calais for a day or two after D-Day, still waiting for the "main" attack.

Wasn't Rommel on vacation when D-Day happened, also?

Giving his wife some birthday shoes or something IIRC/as the story goes.


https://marinamaral.com/2019/06/d-day-in-color/?fbclid=IwAR2Vm6xyLCWOhBO4lnS4-vxOck2gSlszCr6tBnDE6IG7k-FkbCAm-sVnj5E

very nice colourised photos.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

IIRC, the main German force stayed near Calais for a day or two after D-Day, still waiting for the "main" attack.

More than a few days and they weren't just sitting there, they were being reinforced. 2 armoured divisions 19 infantry divisions were sitting at Calais throughout July and August. In fact there were more German forces at Calais 2 months later than there had been on D-Day itself. The Field Marshall in command refused to send them to Normandy.

I've just finished panzer leader, an excellent book by heinz guderian (the father of armoured manoeuvre warfare) and in his notes about d day, he explained that the German OKH refused to allow the panzer divisions to be pulled back to form mobile reserves able to perform counter thrusts, and forced them to remain as part of the initial defence. So this is another example of Hitler and the high commands lack of tactical acumen affecting the German war effort. They placed all their faith in the Atlantic Wall, and placed no emphasis on strong points or fortifications to fall back on.

I would be wary of Panzer Leader. Guderian had an absolutely massive agenda writing it. Besides clear falsehoods and hiding his own Nazi ties, he misrepresents his own influence in manouvre warfare. He was far from the first or even only one in Germany alone when it came to doctrine, although he was influential the book is ego on display. Blame Hitler is also a postwar favorite of German generals, who weren't all that flawless themselves.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I've just finished panzer leader, an excellent book by heinz guderian (the father of armoured manoeuvre warfare) and in his notes about d day, he explained that the German OKH refused to allow the panzer divisions to be pulled back to form mobile reserves able to perform counter thrusts, and forced them to remain as part of the initial defence. So this is another example of Hitler and the high commands lack of tactical acumen affecting the German war effort. They placed all their faith in the Atlantic Wall, and placed no emphasis on strong points or fortifications to fall back on.

Rommel was the one who didn't want a mobile reserve. Fire brigades were more effective in Eastern Europe because the Soviets weren't able to fly thousands of interdiction sorties daily. Once D Day started the Germans were effectively unable to move assets during the day. It took weeks to move one division that should have been able to move in hours.

There is an excellent two books of D Day from the German perspective. its actual eyewitness accounts. The ones not on the beach are filled with constant notations of allied planes attacking bunkers and anything that moved in absolute waves of aircraft.

Lets also remember Rommel was injured by aircraft during DDay. When you can't keep your field marshal from getting strafed how are you going to protect mile long columns of hanamogs and trucks trying to get to the coast?

Lets also remember that, when the Germans did throw fire brigades at the allies - particularly the American right hook coming around - that they were absolutely obliterated time after time.

The Germans bickered over the best approach, it wasn't just Hitler, in the end they went with the little bit of everything one.

Also I think they were named Hanomags after the factories in Hanover, like the Bf line of planes.

Even when The Allies already have The Mediterranean under their control by then ('Imperial' Italian Navy decimated to the point that it exists on papers and not as a real fleet, Sicily taken with Mafia boss recruited to Allies rank, Anzio/Antium and Via Appia became the next target.. etc.). There are other potential landing points Allies may exploit by the Med sea. (and even Monte Carlo, which also occupied by Axis). Why choose a beach that located next to Caen?

 Frazzled wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I've just finished panzer leader, an excellent book by heinz guderian (the father of armoured manoeuvre warfare) and in his notes about d day, he explained that the German OKH refused to allow the panzer divisions to be pulled back to form mobile reserves able to perform counter thrusts, and forced them to remain as part of the initial defence. So this is another example of Hitler and the high commands lack of tactical acumen affecting the German war effort. They placed all their faith in the Atlantic Wall, and placed no emphasis on strong points or fortifications to fall back on.

Rommel was the one who didn't want a mobile reserve. Fire brigades were more effective in Eastern Europe because the Soviets weren't able to fly thousands of interdiction sorties daily. Once D Day started the Germans were effectively unable to move assets during the day. It took weeks to move one division that should have been able to move in hours.

There is an excellent two books of D Day from the German perspective. its actual eyewitness accounts. The ones not on the beach are filled with constant notations of allied planes attacking bunkers and anything that moved in absolute waves of aircraft.

Lets also remember Rommel was injured by aircraft during DDay. When you can't keep your field marshal from getting strafed how are you going to protect mile long columns of hanamogs and trucks trying to get to the coast?

Lets also remember that, when the Germans did throw fire brigades at the allies - particularly the American right hook coming around - that they were absolutely obliterated time after time.

The Eastern front was also partly on the wide steps. Of Russia, the vast areas of Eastern Europe. Its very much a ideal terrain for mass movement. Easy to go round a problem.

The bocage, the fact France was so riddled with those sabotaging routes, roads got blocked by wrecked stuff. Thr heavy tanks where too heavy for regular wreckers to move and required teams of trucks to do.

Rare trucks.

France was a very much diffrent terrain and situation to Russia.

True, it took a elite panxer unit some 2 weeks to reach Normandy. Thry lost a fair few machines and men to to hit and run, and mines etx.

 Lone Cat wrote:
Even when The Allies already have The Mediterranean under their control by then ('Imperial' Italian Navy decimated to the point that it exists on papers and not as a real fleet, Sicily taken with Mafia boss recruited to Allies rank, Anzio/Antium and Via Appia became the next target.. etc.). There are other potential landing points Allies may exploit by the Med sea. (and even Monte Carlo, which also occupied by Axis). Why choose a beach that located next to Caen?

It was the shortest distance from England to Germany.

Calais was a major port, and the closest to France. The Allies wanted a deepwater port very badly to avoid supply problems (as later occurred once they advanced). They invented Mulberries just to have their own portable harbors.

Interestingly, there is an argument made by experts better than myself, that the Mulberries didn't end up being critically important. The real tonnage was brought over by LSTs, LCTs, and LCIs. When you look at the numbers of ships involved, its really staggering.