What would be the effect on the Normandy landings and the following battles on mainland Europe if the landing beaches had been reversed with the British and Canadians landing on the western beaches and the Americans on the eastern beaches – assume the same equipment was used by the landing forces on their ‘alternate’ beaches.
Do you mean that the locations remained the same, meaning that now the Americans were to draw the German armour upon them and the British were to secure the breakthrough, or that the roles remained the same, creating a whole different look of the battle? I wouldn't know, but I don't think there would be any difference if you switched the countries that took the separate roles in this campaign. When facing comparable circumstances the nations all behaved roughly comparable. What you propose, however, is logistically impossible because the Americans were encamped in the southwest of England while the British already occupied the southeast. To switch the forces around, by land or by sea, would be completely impossible.
Interesting thought. I would say the American forces would have captured Caen much quicker with two airborne divisions instead of one, and the American tendency to advance quicker. After that, though, I think the American forces would have had just as hard a time of it as the Brits did, maybe worse since I think the Brits excelled more than the Americans at slow, slugging fights. I shudder to think of Monty in charge of operation Cobra and the "breakout". Perhaps Paris would be speaking Russian today.
Well, the British reinforcement situation required them to be more careful in attacking and defending, therefore everything they did maybe could have been done faster by the Americans but not necessarily would have. I think the British and Canadian forces were exactly in the right place, fighting the best of the German army in a war of firepower more than of movement.
