Visualizing The Allied Invasion of Normandy

Tyler Durden's picture

Via Stratfor,


On June 6, 1944, Allied forces from the United States, United Kingdom and Canada launched the largest seaborne invasion in history by landing nearly 160,000 troops on the beaches of Normandy in a single day. This opened the long-awaited second front in the war against Nazi Germany and started the chain of events that ended in the fall of Berlin in May 1945. D-Day was the longest day in that assault and a pivotal moment of the war. In the intervening period, amphibious assaults have been exceedingly rare. Were one to be carried out today, revolutionary shifts in technology and strategy would make a contemporary amphibious operation radically different.

The single most significant difference would stem from the introduction of precision-guided munitions. During the Normandy landings, German defenders used inaccurate artillery such as the 88 mm Flak gun to strike approaching Allied landing craft. A contemporary landing force would approach the beachhead in an amphibious landing vehicle such as the U.S. Assault Amphibious Vehicle, which moves at around 13 kilometers per hour (8 miles per hour). This would be vulnerable to anti-tank guided missiles fired from positions onshore. On D-Day, ships in the Allied invasion fleet were also able to come relatively close to shore to deploy landing craft. The deadly threat of anti-ship cruise missiles in modern warfare would force a modern fleet to remain farther out to sea, leaving amphibious vehicles even more exposed. Even the insertion of airborne troops farther inland, key to disrupting the enemy and holding chokepoints, is riskier given the advent of surface-to-air missiles, including man-portable air defense missiles, now widely available. Presently, no other nation can match U.S. capabilities in launching a major amphibious operation against entrenched opposition. Advances in defense capabilities, however, have left even the United States struggling to maintain amphibious landing as an option while remaining within tolerable risk parameters.

Regardless of technological advances, the art and science of amphibious landing remains indispensable to the U.S. global arsenal. Technology and strategy have shifted over time, but geography remains fixed. Populated littoral environments and strategic islands are still key points of incursion in almost any theater. As seen during the U.S. ground invasion of Iraq during the First Gulf War, there are alternatives to amphibious landings, including land routes, blockades and island hopping, but the United States will need to maintain amphibious capabilities in order to respond to both strategic and political circumstances in the future.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Skateboarder's picture

The difference between then and now is that people are 10x more retarded now.

ACP's picture

Flip that over and it looks like the latin american allied invasion of the US.

knukles's picture

How come I haven't heard of any big celebrations in DC by Happy Leader and His Stompy Foot Followers.
But then again, we have had enough of war with that Bergdahl (whatever his name is) who served so honorably and valiantly. (That's what Susan Rice said... just Google it, Bitchez)

Saving Private Bergdhal?

max2205's picture

Next war will be fought by robots video screens and joy sticks...

Only the poor civilians will get splattered

NoDebt's picture

Did you hear about the 90 year old WWII vet who disappeared from his nursing home (unannounced, because he knew nobody would let him go if he asked permission) and showed up at Normandy to meet up with his fellow veterans for the 70 year anniversary?

If there isn't a little piece of you that would consider doing that, you might want to spend some time reflecting on why not.  That's one badasas veteran to do that at age 90.

COSMOS's picture

Kind of weird seeing the good guys become the bad guys as the USA is overthrowing a democratically elected govt and supporting Nazis who then Shell the East Ukrainians.  I think Eisenhower would be turning in his grave if he knew, especially the Founding Fathers of the USA.  What a shit stain of a country have we become to be so evil to support the killing of civillians for a profit margin for well connected corporations and kids of USA politicians ala Hunter Biden.  I know we did similar things in South and Central America back in the day also, I guess we can trace this stuff back to the creation of the Central Bank.

palmereldritch's picture


All the Nazis and their creators have yet to be accounted for

palmereldritch's picture

Apparently that -1 suggests they are as close as this thread!

The International Jew's picture

Shut your kike hole you rotten jew.  Go pray about killing more goyim.

svayambhu108's picture

A lot of the US troops drowned because of an error ... never touched the beach

Mr. Magoo's picture

Sadly a waste of lives time and money, here we are 70 years later and the nazis have established the 4th reich in the U.S.S.A

palmereldritch's picture

Member for 1 week and 3 days....

Goose stepping out from Stormfront for a change to spread the hate in return for a little more feudal federal fiat?

Your slanderous attempt at controlling the dialogue and shutting down free expression is readily apparent.  Take a hike scum.

bonin006's picture

Here is a similar story, claimed to be true, and you'd never believe it is a commercial for a bank.   TC Bank - Dream Rangers:

Dr. Destructo's picture

"If there isn't a little piece of you that would consider doing that, you might want to spend some time reflecting on why not."

No need to reflect. WWII was a sham war meant to loot and pillage other nations for the benefit of the few. That man was part of that whether or not he was a victim or a willing participant. Many veterans are proud of their service, but that service wasn't toward the American people -it was for the corporations that are part of the MIC.

I'd rather spend time with my family than fellow veterans that fought in an exploitative war with me (GWOEverything), but to each their own.

economics9698's picture

All I learned in the military was there really was discrimination and it was called affirmative action.

Joe A's picture

The nazis back then couldn't stop him so for sure he wouldn't let a nursing home stop him.

skeeterpi's picture

Skateboarder, if I could give you 100 up arrows I would.

HelluvaEngineer's picture

I think it was written by a "non-native English speaker."  I work in the same building with a lot of them.

post turtle saver's picture

goddamn but that's the most useless article I've seen in a while...

current US doctrine is all about pre-positioned forces, air superiority, C4I/logistics, and stealth... hell, the last "conventional" war the US fought was Korea... which, oddly enough, was the last war where the US used WW2 era amphibious assault tactics to any real advantage...

maybe all Stratfor was trying to point out is that none of the D-Day stuff would work today... well, duh, no kidding, my watch says 2014 not 1944...

tonyw's picture

and since the US has giant oceans on either side, there is no chance any other country or collection of countries could invade.

No, porous border crossings don't count as in a war situation they would be mined, wired and have oill boxes to machine gun any that made it that far.

For an idea of what that is like watch the opening minutes of saving ryan.


And if no other country could invade then there is no pretence of "defence" it is all about attack.

HelluvaEngineer's picture

God bless those boys who were thrown into the meat grinder.  It never should have happened.

NOTaREALmerican's picture

You mean the invasion or war in general?

disabledvet's picture

World war II was the least surprising war in history.

How it turned out was nothing but surprises.

So much for the rebuild after the Great Depression.

If your interested in history try Operation Citadel.  Easily the biggest mass slaughter in human history.

They say Hitler called off the attack after the Allies took Sicily.

That was the first "second front."

World War I was barely twenty years old.

I don't think World War II ended...more like "stopped."  Everyone was pretty much dead by 1945.

Apparently the worst thing to come of the peace was the Thirty Year mortgage.

luckylogger's picture

What would the world be like if the USA had been alied with the germans in ww1?

It was a european war and we really had no business in it.....

Just imagine.... 

I think it would have been a much better world...

Hitler would have never come to power.... you can just go on and on......................

Anybody here from Germany have any thoughts?

Wolferl's picture

It´s actually not even about the US being an ally of Germany. WW1 was pretty much over when the US decided to join in. (Spot the simularity with WW2?) Should have been ended a with tie and reasonable people from all sides could have come together to sort things out for peace. But the banker cartel decided that was not in their best interest so they made some stupid US Politicians send troops over to Europe to lay the foundation for the next major war. Those banker guys really know what´s best for their profits.

Dingleberry's picture

WW1 and WW2 were another 30 years war, with a brief respite.

Actually, there were no surprises at all as to how WW2 turned out. Except for the kamikazes, it was a forgone conclusion. 

The US already had war plans drawn against the Japanese. They knew what and how they were going to defeat them. The only thing they did not plan for was suicide bombers.

Churchill wrote that he slept like a baby once the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the US.  He knew the war was over from that point on. It was mathematical.

When the city of Pittsburgh ALONE produces several times the amount of steel than the 3 axis powers combined, there is no guessing the outcome.

Only the timing. 

Regardless, it took balls to hit a defended beach. Aside from a paradrop against a hard target, amphibious assualt against a hard target is the next worse thing for an attacker.

Which is why you have not (nor ever will not) see another amphib assault against a heavily defended beach. Ever.

The USMC has changed their M.O. from "amphib" to "epeditionary" for that very reason.


Cumulus Nimbus's picture

I agree about  WWI and WWII being the same war seperated by 30 years. Disagree that the result was a foregone  conclusion. Britian did not really need to get involved but, rightly or wrongly we declared war on Germany. Let me say that again. WE DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY IN BOTH WWI AND WWII.The germans did not want to fight the UK and her empire. In fact Hitler admired and repected the British.

The only reason to fight Germany was to stop her becoming too powerful so that we could not hope to fight her in a later war. I can't help but wonder what would have happened if we had just stayed out.

U4 eee aaa's picture

Same reason they went after Napoleon. Britain can't stand against a united Europe so they will attack anyone who tries to conquer the continent

post turtle saver's picture

I think your notion of "mass slaughter" for battlefield casualties is pretty low... the battle of Kursk was nothing compared to the battles of Leningrad, Berlin, Stalingrad, Kiev...

the US contribution was material, the Russian contribution was blood... not even the casualties in the Chinese Civil War can compare to what Russia had to endure in WW2... I try not to forget this when discussing the Russian people, anyone who can live through a combination of Stalin and WW2 is going to be one tough SOB

thatthingcanfly's picture

Work with me here:

If we Confederates had won at Gettysburg, and Lee had taken advantage of the clear shot at D.C. he would then have had, burned it to the ground, and accepted Lincoln's surrender on the steps of the smoldering hulk of the White House,

...there would have never been a widespread adoption of the ideology of American Exceptionalism as it currently exists. And, therefore, the "need" to intervene in foreign affairs would hever have been established as "normal."

Therefore, no Span-Am war.

And also therefore, no needless intervention in WWI by Woodrow Wilson (who never would have been elected), which, without U.S. intervention, would have ended in 1916, vice 1918, and would not have resulted in an unnecessarily punitive (on Germany) Treaty of Versailles.

And therefore, the probability of the rise to power of a German sociopath named Hilter would have been dropped to close to zero, rendering WWII a remote possibility.

Therefore no Cold War. No Korean War. No Vietnam. No funding of arms to Al Qaeada in Afghanistan to fight the Russians. No 1991 attack on Iraq. No 911. No Patriot Act. Etc.

We lost everything at Gettyysburg.


knukles's picture

And den weda all had one toof each.

Crisismode's picture



That was a really intelligent thing to say.




TheMeatTrapper's picture

"And den weda all had one toof each."

It was common for Southern planters to send their children abroad to study. Many Southern families had dinner conversation in French to keep their language skills dusted off. 

You should read contemporary diaries. The command of the English language far surpassed what is accepted as English today. 

Winston County, Alabama stayed loyal to the Union - refusing to join the Confederacy. The Confederacy respected their decision and left them unmolested. The Confederacy also had a Creek General, General Stand Waitie; as the Confederacy intended to honor the treaties the Federal government routinely ignored. 

You should educate yourself. Seriously. 

SmackDaddy's picture

Well, if it's any consolation, the south really turned the tide there in the 20th century.  Just look at the invasion of Detroit!

Uber Vandal's picture

Hitler was Austrian, not German.

He could have also have just as easily been taken in as art student and spent his life as a lesser known artist.

While the theory seems good on the surface, once one mole is whacked, another is ready to take its place.

We will never know what alternate Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Osama, Mugabe, Kim Jong, Saddam, Mao, or contrived boogeyman, is ready to take the spot of the mole that was whacked.

Pure Evil's picture

Ah yes, what would life have been like if Al Gore had been elected?

Hmmmm.......what alternate reality indeed!

disabledvet's picture

How about "some guy no one has ever heard of."

Oh' wait...

Joenobody12's picture

Al Gore would have been compromised by the Israelis just the same. No matter who becomes the president, the God chosen ones are in control and there will be no peace until the Arab countries are broken up into tiny tribal domains and Iran wiped off the face of the earth.

You can change presidents but you cannot change Israeli paranoia.

COSMOS's picture

Right on the money.  Every action across our borders has made things worse and had a destabilizing consequence.  That is why the founding fathers counseled against getting involved in the affairs of other nations.

nonclaim's picture

[from the book of prepared statements for copy-and-paste activists]

TheReplacement's picture

Be that true or not, cosmos' posts are relevant and intelligent (even if I don't agree always).  You should try it.

scraping_by's picture

No, the slaveholding aristocracy had its eyes on the Caribbean, specifically Cuba, as a place to spread the chattel slavery system and give all their sons and grandsons plantation seats. Not to mention all unorganized territory to the west and much if not all of Mexico. While they could sabotoge the national government and create gridlock in Congress (sound familiar?), they couldn't get a positive program of imperialism through the system.

And given the slaveholders' Anglophilia, they probably would have shipped troops just as fast as the Commonwealth nations when it came to general war in Europe. So, no, Gettysburg just resulted in the old myth that humans could be property drifting away in history. Which is what Jefferson and all the other slaveholding liberals said would happen.



thatthingcanfly's picture

I'm not even going to dignify this gibberish with a response.

Surging Chaos's picture

I don't have an ounce of Southern blood in my family, but seeing how things have unfolded I wish the CSA became a thing. It blows my mind how everyone and their mother thinks that it wasn't ok for the South to leave the US but it was perfectly kosher for the colonies to "secede" from Great Britain. I mean, what's the difference really, apart from the geography?

Lincoln was America's version of Caesar. Just like the Roman republic before it, our own republic was never the same after that fucker became president. Lincoln is without question the worst US president in history.

Jam's picture

Where do you get the idea it was "kosher" for the colonies to secede?Maybe you mean "kosher" like the pickle between your legs

palmereldritch's picture

If the South had won then the European Central Bank sponsors would have won directly and explicitly unlike the slow march to Neofeudalism we walk today.

So what you're saying is you don't like your Thorazine on a slow drip

luckylogger's picture

If the queen had balls, she would be king..............