Operation Overlord - Allied invasion of Normandy

Submitted by ristinvoitto t3_zqicsa in history

Operation Overlord was the code name for the Allied invasion of Normandy during World War II. It was one of the largest amphibious military operations in history, and it was a crucial turning point in the war. The operation was led by General Dwight D. Eisenhower and involved the landing of over 150,000 American, British, and Canadian troops on the beaches of Normandy, France on June 6, 1944, also known as D-Day.

The operation was carefully planned and involved a complex network of naval, air, and land forces. In the months leading up to D-Day, the Allies conducted a number of deception operations to mislead the Germans about the location and timing of the invasion. On the day of the invasion, the Allies faced heavy resistance from the German forces, but they were able to establish a foothold on the beaches and push inland.

The success of Operation Overlord was a major turning point in the war and allowed the Allies to begin the liberation of Western Europe from German occupation. It was a costly operation, with over 9,000 Allied soldiers killed or wounded, but it ultimately proved to be a decisive victory that helped bring an end to the war in Europe.

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UJYYkK4d8s

83

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

occasional_cynic t1_j0zs5zb wrote

> On the day of the invasion, the Allies faced heavy resistance from the German forces

One nit - besides Omaha beach the Germans were not able to strongly resist the landings. They did not have force available to man all the beaches. Resistance only stiffened significantly when the Germans were able to centralize their forces as the Allies tried to push inland away from their artillery support.

28

HUP t1_j0zxmp2 wrote

Omaha wouldn't have been nearly as bad if there weren't so many artillery and bombing miscues. Naval artillery hit short and caused a lot of deep underwater holes that drowned heavily ladened soldiers. And aerial bombardment fell far behind the line of defense. There were supposed to be a lot of craters from bombing on the beach to give cover. Instead Omaha was pretty flat with few places to hide from German fire.

17

Frammingatthejimjam t1_j10m8a9 wrote

And something like 21 out of 22 tanks sunk on their way to the beach.

Had things gone as planned Omaha wouldn't have been nearly as bad as it was.

10

BikeCharlie t1_j1b1x34 wrote

The DD tanks at Omaha were deployed too far out from coast which, coupled with the rough seas, saw them sink. At Sword beach they were much more effective as deployed closer to shore. The loss of their support definitely made things tougher.

2

Arisdoodlesaurus t1_j10eylf wrote

They also lacked the required Panzer divisions if I’m right since Hitler decided to appease both Gert Avon Runstedt(?) and Rommel’s different demands for the exact location of the tanks

2

occasional_cynic t1_j111q6f wrote

Eh, it would not have mattered. Hitler was micro-managing everything at that point. Also, subsequent actions proved the panzer divisions were useless near the beach. The Germans never had any hope of repulsing the invasion without enough air power to repulse the Allied naval force.

6

Gdub3369 t1_j10zn8s wrote

Hadn't the turning point of the war already happened? This sounds like Americanizing WW2. Democratic ally-centrism. What about the Russians beating back the Germans? Germany was already going to lose the war.

6

DatGums t1_j11bblv wrote

Russians*

With years of massive US operational support, and equipment and personnel support starting in 1941, without which they’d be speaking German now

12

srkrk t1_j1em2og wrote

this. prior to pearl harbor roosevelt’s lend lease program kept everyone’s head above water.

2

FillThisEmptyCup t1_j1ahsji wrote

Yes, Bagration in the spring of that year had really pushed the Germans back and was more than decimating their forces. The western theater was always a sideshow for the Germans worried about Russian payback.

4

BikeCharlie t1_j1b2bcz wrote

It's arguable that Germany was always going to lose the war the moment the UK held it's nerve and didn't surrender in May 1940. They couldn't win at that point.

3

AHorseNamedPhil t1_j1lphuv wrote

They couldn't conquer Britain but they also couldn't lose. On it's own Britain had no means of returning to continental Europe.

Germany lost the war with it's Soviet misadventure.

3

Known-Strength7652 t1_j12a8sd wrote

I’ve seen interviews of vets that’s survived this. And their stories were heart breaking. Talk about that part.

2

sciguy52 t1_j11yvcd wrote

I have looked up some websites that describe this operation hour by hour. The amount of men and material they landed there in 24 hours was just mind blowing. 156,000 men and all the weapons, ammunition, armor, food and fuel moved over the channel in just 24 hours. The numbers are so huge it is hard to comprehend. When they say logistics wins the wars, you see this and realize how true that is.

1

MyStoopidStuff t1_j12ccmb wrote

Thanks! This is another interesting video on D-Day from the 20th anniversary, which I recently found in my YT suggestions (glad it was there). They interviewed Eisenhower, and visited some of the locations with him to provide some insights on the planning for the invasion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNaxTXfjfXk

1

KrazieDr t1_j12xy5d wrote

This hardly was a “turning point” in the war. Or was Stalingrad a battle that never happened? Good God the propaganda is cringeworthy.

1

ThatGIRLkimT t1_j15usy0 wrote

I remember one of the videos about the veterans who survived this.

1

brokenteller t1_j29blkm wrote

Ive visited the grave site at Normandy. It's heart breaking but I appreciate the sacrifice and would do the same to keep our country free.

1

Dodirorkok t1_j12bwb6 wrote

'Major turning point' really? Why is the US always so desperately trying to convince the world they did free the world? Where was Hitlers army? Where the hardened Wehrmacht and SS? Western Europe was used to rest the sickened and tired troops. The real battle was in eastern part. Where millions where fighting each other.

You could say it has helped a lot, oh yes.. But like with Napoleon, the Russians would have come to the Atlantic to free us..

Hitlers army was a considerable fighting machine and although I am not pro-russian atm, these people did the tremendous job..

Read only War's Unwomanly Face from Svetlana Alexievich. They where going through hell and beyond. And they had their reasons. It's always good to fight for a reason. Just take a look at the ongoing dispute in Ukrain.

0

AgoraiosBum t1_j13emj1 wrote

Stalin himself was constantly asking for that front to be opened. It's silly to say it wasn't significant.

The Russians also didn't beat Napoleon alone; to go on the offensive against Napoleon it took a giant confederation that fought at Leipzig

3

MaxApocalyptc t1_j10aeux wrote

Normandy beaches we're almost empty. The only reason US gone there was to avoid the soviets liberating the entire Europe. 2/3 of the entire Nazi army were involved in invading URSS and we're defeated.

−13

andonemoreagain t1_j10jd9h wrote

Oh I think the percentage is way higher than that. Practically all of the fighting capacity of the german nation was spent on the eastern front. And one hundred percent of the decisive actions occurred there. The Normandy landings were an irrelevant sideshow. Only important in determining who would rule in europe after the war.

−14

raymondcy t1_j1109mw wrote

> The Normandy landings were an irrelevant sideshow. Only important in determining who would rule in europe after the war.

While the Soviets have often been unfairly undermined for their role in the ending of WW2, what you just said is a huge stretch and, frankly, fairly offensive to the other Allied nations that gave their lives in that effort.

Could the Soviets keep running over Europe without the western front? maybe, is the answer; certainly not in a reasonable time frame. As the history of the war showed, the farther armies got away from their supply lines the more vulnerable they were. Just as in Stalingrad, there is nothing to say that Germany couldn't have regrouped and held out in their own position somewhere to amass an army for a major counter attack. And let's not forget Germany was by far technologically superior to the Soviets.

Because the German army had to defend on two fronts there is no possible way they could concentrate their forces in one position and overwhelm either front; especially after the affect that the west air power had against the Luftwaffe.

20

scottstots6 t1_j11e6w6 wrote

That ignores some pretty important stuff like the roughly 30% of the German army that was tied down in the west and the annihilation of the Luftwaffe at the hands of British and American pilots and the strategic bombing of German industry. It also ignores the other two major Axis powers but yeah go off with your Soviet-centric view of the war.

6

andonemoreagain t1_j11r1m3 wrote

If 30% of the army was occupied in the west they would be the 30% sprinting to surrender to the Americans so they could continue to re-establish the fascist order in Western Europe together after the war. It was not a decisive theater of war. No matter how many times you study the documentary saving private ryan.

−10

scottstots6 t1_j11s20c wrote

I don’t know what you are trying to say about post war fascism, pretty clear it never got reestanlished in Europe. Also, the vitriol and ad hominems are unnecessary. I like how you glossed over the Luftwaffe being destroyed by the Western Allies and the other two Axis major powers that were defeated almost entirely by the West. Also the lend lease to the Soviets and the fact that the Soviet started the war by helping Germany invade and conquer countries. If you want to talk about helping fascists look no further than the Soviets. Obviously, the Eastern Front absorbed the bulk of German troops but industrial output by theater is a different matter. And the Soviets couldn’t have done it without the support of the Western Allies.

4

MaxApocalyptc t1_j10kbbn wrote

And the fact that the soviets defeated the Japanese is something worth notice. The atomic bombs were just a demonstration of power that US aimed to scare the soviets. But under Stalin leadership the soviets developed atomic bombs in 1949.

−14

HUP t1_j10ot9k wrote

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. The US was planning on invading the Home Islands. The firebombing campaign killed many more Japanese than did the A-bomb drops. And had not weakened Japanese resolve to fight to the last. The atomic bombs were meant primarily to show Japan that we would not NEED to give them a "glorious end" by a land invasion. Ancillary it was a sign to the USSR that we had a technological advantage. The USSR stole their Nuclaer program via espionage. They would've been years farther behind without these guys.

6

MaxApocalyptc t1_j10rfvp wrote

Yes, the atomic bombs were product of inteligentia. But the fact is that the us were late to do anything at the final conflict in Manchucko. Soviets liberated China and Korea, the us came late and proposed the division of the Korea. The fact is that the bombs were not necessary, the bombs were dropped in the beginning of August and the Japanese just surrendered later that month, even after the bombs they kept fighting the soviets. The bombs did nothing to end the war.

−10

SailboatAB t1_j129syc wrote

Interesting. It's not often one sees a Russian propaganda bot so clearly. Usually they're better disguised.

4

andonemoreagain t1_j10kli5 wrote

Ha, we might be the only two people that agree with each other in this thread. But yeah what percentage of Japanese soldiers were defeated by red army on the mainland of Asia? Way more than half.

−9

wheresmysnack t1_j10zc32 wrote

What? Where did you get this information from? There was LITERALLY no fighting between Russia and Japan until the final months of the war.

Edit: It wasn't even until after the atomic bombs dropped that the USSR even declared war on Japan.

13

MaxApocalyptc t1_j1123q0 wrote

I got tons of bibliography cause I'm a historian. But just looking to your profile gives me the vibe "don't waste your time"

−9

The_Etch t1_j115nig wrote

His references go to another school

6

GargantuanGorgon t1_j118cs9 wrote

You may be a historian, but he did say "literally" in all caps so...

0

MaxApocalyptc t1_j119l58 wrote

I guess I have to rip my credentials and start studying in a renowned neoliberal business university to learn the real history.

−1

Appropriate-Weird795 t1_j11g9ul wrote

Considering the comments on this thread Max, there is no shortage of opinion- just facts. You are entitled to your opinions; just not your own facts, sir.

3

scottstots6 t1_j11cmyq wrote

This isn’t even a little true, the two militaries that inflicted the most casualties on Japan were the Chinese Nationalists and the United States with Commonwealth forces in 3rd. The Red Army isn’t even close to inflicting half of the casualties on the Japanese forces. During the war, the only fighting between them was the Invasion of Manchuria where the Soviets fought a badly trained and under equipped Japanese army.

5

occasional_cynic t1_j111ycq wrote

> Way more than half.

Is this a joke? The Japanese basically had nothing more than a large army corps in Manchuria by 1945.

4

MaxApocalyptc t1_j112bjf wrote

I think he meant the entire japanese forces occupying the north. I think 50% is low too tbh

−1