"What if... Patton had been at D-Day?" Topic

Well?

Inclined to believe not much changes.

To an extent, D-Day was just a question of throwing enough shells and enough men against the defenders until they broke through.

That's not an indictment of how it was carried out, btw. But when you're storming a beach, there's not that many ways to do it.

Possibly the Germans would have been easier to convince this was the real invasion, and released their armoured reserves earlier?

Patton was deliberately left out of the invasion plans for June to give the diversionary plans credence.
It may also have been partly to keep Monty and him apart for as long as possible!!!

D-Day was a soldiers fight. The generals out on the ships or back in England had no effect on how the fight went on June 6th. They had made all the plans and now it was time for the soldiers to get the job done--and they did. If Patton had been there all he could have done would be to watch and wait.

I'm also thinking not much would change. And the Germans HQ may not have bought the chance of a later invasion.

Not any more effective since initial operations were infantry affairs. His role was perfect for his tactical style.

Doing what?

Watch "FDR American Badass" and you would know.

The Germans would have surrendered by nightfall, and everyone would have had an incredible Summer vacation in Europe.

Due to all the warm feelings, there would have been no Cold War, no AQ, or ISIS, every family would have a flying car in their garage, there'd be a thriving space colony on Mars, and we'd be launching manned missions to Alpha Centauri.

You got it Mako

Possibly the Germans would have been easier to convince this was the real invasion, and released their armoured reserves earlier?

Since Patton was the red herring the the entire operation, I tend to agree with this assessment.

@ScottWashburn

Brig. Gen. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. landed with the first wave on Utah, and when told the landings were a mile south of plans, decided 'We'll start the war from right here!' He then coordinated follow up units and inspired the troops by ignoring enemy fire as he walked the beach.

It partly depends what role you envisage for the good General. Planning the entire operation? Coming ashore with the first wave?

I've got fairly good idea which Patton would have preferred…

The allied deception plan was brilliant and Patton played his part by NOT being in Normandy, or indeed, anywhere near the place.

As others have noted, Patton in Normandy would probably simply have confirmed for the Germans that Normandy was indeed the real invasion.

Which, I suppose, says interesting things about the German perceptions of Monty and Bradley.

Mako's got it!

He would have insisted in landing in an amphibious tank and would most likely have drowned.

NeD,

Roosevelt was a divisional 2IC, same as Cota on Omaha.

Patton was an army commander. How many army commanders (or even divisional or corps commanders) would be in the first wave?

Like a lot of other WWII "facts" the German assessment of Patton appears to be largely an apocryphal story that grew bigger with each telling.

link

As for his presence, it would have not made much of a difference neither in the early days or in the Bocage.

If Patton landed on D-Day, Caen would have fallen on schedule.

And would have fallen to the 12th SS on D+1.

And remember that had Patton landed on D-Day, he would have been under Montgomery's command…

In the spirit of ing stupid "USA -Yeah!" comments: US on Sword means British or Canadians on Omaha, so Commandos, Funnies, beach taken with minimum casualties, defences broken by AVREs, Jerry given a taste of our British/Canadian spunk and St Lo taken on D+1. God Save The King!

@ zoneofcontrol
Really? And I expect he'd be carrying an anvil under each arm, having just swum all the way from England.
Oh sorry, you must have meant Caen on Alpha Centauri.

"And I expect he'd be carrying an anvil under each arm, having just swum all the way from England."

Presumably while mine-sweeping the Channel with his gonads…

"If Patton landed on D-Day, Caen would have fallen on schedule."

Well that didn't take long did it.

There are some people who read military history and others who are just ignorant of it . The whole premise of this thread demonstrates the latter quality . Great Jemima , just pause and smile , perhaps feel slightly saddened by it but under no circumstances comment on such dross as you will only demean yourself.

What the heck does Patton have to do with Caen? That was not in the Yankee sphere.
If you want to claim Paris by June 10, that's another story.

Why would I pass up a chance to mock? ;)

Well, I suppose it is back to the question I originally posed.

In what capacity is Patton taking part? Is he a US Army commander, or is he commanding a US Army Group instead of Bradley, or is he overall Commander of Allied Ground Forces instead of Montgomery? Or maybe Supreme Commander of Allied Forces instead of Ike??

It does make a difference, in terms of how he might influence the outcome.

I suspect he would have been happiest riding a tank in with the first wave and taking it all the way to Berlin in one go.

I can't see him having a positive impact – and it seems neither could Ike who 'benched' ole blood and guts until after the bridgehead was thoroughly secure.

What Patton could do was exploit fluid and volatile situations when a willingness to take massive risks was needed.

I don't see him having the meticulous attention to detail needed to plan anything very well.

Ha Ha – I had to throw the Patton v Monty gag in for all the little people who poop their pants over the US v UK "best general" shtick. That goes around here on a regular schedule. Now departing on the Hogwarts Express at platform 9-3/4.

As a more serious reply to the question…

At his level of command, Patton would have influenced planning subject to review and acceptance by higher ups. It would be interesting to see his take on the amphibious assault. Next he would have the bocage country to deal with. Something that got overlooked or under appreciated by the planners. Again, had he known or realized what he was up against, it would be interesting to see his approach to solve the problem.

His strength was maneuver combat and all the little ingredients that go into it. I do not see an amphibious assault and the bocage campaign as playing to his strengths. Just my take.

A comment by Robin Neillands:

why is it that when Bradley's First Army took a month to cover the last five miles to St. Lô this is attributed (correctly) to the bocage and the enemy but when the British Second Army took as long to cover the six miles into Caen that is attributed to Monty's "timidity," "caution," and "slowness"?

….and SS panzer divisons

I never got why Roosevelt's decision was such a big deal.
What else was he going to do. Evacuate and start over?

It would have gone the same, but he would have found some way to take all the credit, and it would officially be called "Patton Day" instead of D-day.

I know as an american I should like patton, but Sure enough would not have wanted to be under his command.

I am a lot more interested in what really happened instead of which commander better imitaties a rock star

Owen

He would have slapped Montgomery.

… If he could stop polishing his helmet for long enough…

Difficult to see how things, realistically, could have gone much better than Eisenhower / Montgomery managed in reality.
Worth remembering just what a monumental achievement planning and executing the D-Day landings was.

Alan Brooke's diary written during the war recorded his impressions of Patton. I do not have it to hand but the essence of his assessment was that Patton excelled as a driver of men but lacked the creativity needed to find solutions to military problems requiring more than that.

It is difficult to imagine Patton contributing anything material in the lengthy planning phase that preceded D-Day, and I wonder if even his most ardent admirers would claim his input would have helped. Patton's strengths best suited him to breakout and exploitation, and I'm sure Eisenhower called this one correctly by sidelining him until he was needed. As a breakout in the US sector required sufficient strength and logistic support to be built up first, having Patton there from the start would have left him as a rather fractious spare part for two months, something I doubt Eisenhower would have relished.

Could the Cotentin have been been cut off sooner or Cherbourg captured earlier if Patton had commanded there? Again I doubt it as this was an infantry battle and by all accounts Collins pushed his divisional commanders very hard.

So, I cannot see any upside from having Patton involved from the start, although I suppose it might have left us with more contemporary film footage of the battle.

If the Metz campaign of 1944 is any indication of how Patton/3rd US Army did against prepared enemy defences then Patton's blokes would still be trying to get off the beach in September 1944.

Dal.