Could Britain carry out Operation Overlord by themselves?

[Sanny]

Imagine a situation where the Americans focused solely on Italy and perhaps had Operation Dragoon planned anyway for invading south of France.

Could the British forces carry out Operation Overlord by themselves? Presumably with less invasion beach heads and less pre-battle airborne operations?

 

[Henry IX]

How much help are the Americans giving them? The Allies, in general, cooperated very effectively with there being a significant amount of specialisation from each in a lot of equipment. AFIK the Americans produced virtually all of the Allies' landing craft, which would leave the British unable to actually perform an effective landing.

If the British were to concentrate all of their resources against for a Normandy landing and have American support for the landing then it becomes plausible. Certainly if the formations that in Italy were diverted to Britain for the landing (leaving the Americans to deal with Italy) there would be enough trained and equipped soldiers available for the initial landings. The follow up forces were mostly American and the British would have struggled to have supplied enough trained manpower for the follow on operations.

So Overlord could have been managed by the British alone, so long as they had active support from the Americans, but the breakout and subsequent operations become less and less likely without the American ground forces' contributions.

 

[Kovax]

I'd pretty much agree with Henry IX. The British could very likely have landed and secured a beachhead, but expanding that into a full-scale invasion without extensive American support or direct participation would have been difficult, if not impossible.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Imagine a situation where the Americans focused solely on Italy and perhaps had Operation Dragoon planned anyway for invading south of France.

Could the British forces carry out Operation Overlord by themselves? Presumably with less invasion beach heads and less pre-battle airborne operations?

No.

Yes, Britain could have forced a beachhead, reinforced it, and kept it open via massive tactical air operations. And, imho, Montgomery would still be sitting on the beaches consuming reinforcments when the Russians reached the Rhine River.

However, it was the illusion of the fictional American army group that kept German armor pinned down at the Pas de Calais, and US armored / mechanized forces that broke out of the bridgehead and rolled through France, liberating vast amounts of the country in mere weeks.

 

[Sanny]

However, it was the illusion of the fictional American army group that kept German armor pinned down at the Pas de Calais, and US armored / mechanized forces that broke out of the bridgehead and rolled through France, liberating vast amounts of the country in mere weeks.

That's right, I completely forgot about that. But the British did their own fakery too to deceive the enemy.

 

[Holmes]

Imagine a situation where the Americans focused solely on Italy and perhaps had Operation Dragoon planned anyway for invading south of France.

Could the British forces carry out Operation Overlord by themselves? Presumably with less invasion beach heads and less pre-battle airborne operations?

No.

Not enough LST/LCI/LCM to perform a 3 div assault. ( over half was USA provided as was 46 warship to Uk 143) Not enough naval or air assets to shape the battlefield before D day. Not enough manpower to effect invasion let alone exploitation. Not enough logistics from Uk economy to maintain itself if US is going elsewhere, so is all its logistical support.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

That's right, I completely forgot about that. But the British did their own fakery too to deceive the enemy.

The Americans learned much from the British in Fakery. That was their great power in WWII. Deception. And it worked brilliantly.

 

[Easy-Kill]

How much help are the Americans giving them? The Allies, in general, cooperated very effectively with there being a significant amount of specialisation from each in a lot of equipment. AFIK the Americans produced virtually all of the Allies' landing craft, which would leave the British unable to actually perform an effective landing.

If the British were to concentrate all of their resources against for a Normandy landing and have American support for the landing then it becomes plausible. Certainly if the formations that in Italy were diverted to Britain for the landing (leaving the Americans to deal with Italy) there would be enough trained and equipped soldiers available for the initial landings. The follow up forces were mostly American and the British would have struggled to have supplied enough trained manpower for the follow on operations.

So Overlord could have been managed by the British alone, so long as they had active support from the Americans, but the breakout and subsequent operations become less and less likely without the American ground forces' contributions.

Henry and @Holmes are absolutely correct. It is unlikly that if you take the historical course of action, Britain would be able to undertake an overlord like operation. But the same is equally true for the USA.

The USA excelled in pure industrial output, producing (among other things) the landing craft that were critical for both Overlord and the wider allied strategy. Britain on the other hand provided a logistical base, it's hugely effective intelligence system, and some less obvious contributions like it's radar technologies and the volumous destruction of French infrastructure to limit movement.

The only real way to ask this question is to go back to 1941 and switch the US strategy. In this case, it's entirely likely that the UK would undertake overlord, but it would be in a very different war and in a very different way. Overlord didn't exist in isolation.