6th D Day landing beach and their code names - Band Beach etc.

good names those.yours,4th wilts.

 

Hi. A bit more on the beach code names. I e mailed Battlebus the tour operator that I used and here is their reply. Does`n really help much but at least it sounds like there is some truth in the story.

Dear Myriam,
Just a short line to tell you how much we enjoyed our recent tours. We
did the British,Canadian,and American tours and all three were
excellent.The guides Sean and Dale seemed to know their stuff and made
the visits very interesting.Standing on the sites and seeing the photo`s taken in 1944 is an excellent idea.
I have one question arising from the trip. Either Sean or Dale said that the non American beaches were all named after fish.
GOLDfish,SWORDfish,BANDfish (cancelled). He said the Canadians were
given JELLYfish but refused to use it and instead used Juno which was
the name of a Canadian officers wife.I can`t find any one who has heard this. Is it a "wind up" or really true? If it is a "wind up" can you tell me how they got their code names?
Thanks once again
Frank Kelsall


Hi Frank,

Thanks for the feedback. As far as we know the Jellyfish story is true, certainly at one point during the Cossac planning JELLY was assigned as the codename for the Canadian beach. It was of course later changed to Juno, and this does indeed appear to be because of a planner using his wife's name.

Best regards

Paul Woodadge
Battlebus

 

o.k,found something.morgan wanted 3 beaches,directly above caen.2 eastern beaches for british and canadian forces to get caen,then attack east,to form barrier against the seine.1 western beach for u.s forces to attack west,capture cherbourg,and then let more follow up forces in there.

 

after the capture of cherbourg,morgan wanted the u.s 3rd army to attack into brittany from cherbourg,to free up more ports,then swing east toward the other armies,lined up along the seine.morgan makes it all seem so easy.

 

I obtained this exerpt from an article published "US Army in WWII : Cross-Channel Invasion".

Before the end of the month planners had ruled out assaults at Le Havre and on the Cotentin Peninsula. But with rejection of the Pas-de-Calais, the decision had actually been made that the main attack would take place in the vicinity of Caen. Assault landings would be confined to three beaches (Lion-sur-Mer--Courseulles, Courseulles--Arromanches-les Bains, and Coleville-sur-Mer--Vierville-sur-Mer). This, General Morgan decided, was the maximum area that could be successfully attacked with the limited forces at his disposal. He rejected the earlier idea of a simultaneous landing on the eastern beaches of the Cotentin, although he recognized its value, and told the British Chiefs of Staff that he would like such a landing if he could have craft for an extra assault division.

As it was, the plan was to land two divisions over the two eastern beaches in the Caen sector, one U.S. division over the western beach, and two-thirds of one British airborne division in the vicinity of Caen. In addition, various subsidiary assaults would be necessary by commandos and parachutists to neutralize key enemy coastal batteries, secure crossings over the River Aure, and form a defensive flank on the Vire. Details of these missions were left for later planning.
The link to this article is HyperWar: US Army in WWII: Cross Channel Invasion [Chapter 2]

 

perhaps bandfish beach was indeed going to be assaulted by commando and ranger battallions then,but like i said before,that area is an estuary.how difficult would that have been.yours,4th wilts.

 

I can understand why the Canadians didn`t want Jelly.
Imagine your Grandson asking "what did you do in the war Grandad?"
Answer - to fits of mirth "I landed on Jelly beach in France".

 

Hi Gottard. Very interesting post. I`ve been ploughing my way through the US army link. Makes fascinating reading. We all know lots about the battles etc but when you read this type of stuff it makes you realise how much went on behind the scenes to make it happen.No wonder that there were 10 people keeping every fighting man on the front.
Frank

 

There was a recent question about Band Beach

 

Tropper, I have copied that image is that ok? For private use only understand.
Never understood why so little seems to be known or written about 'Band'. Any ideas?

Mike

 

Interesting, I think now its mentioned, its in one of the D-Day Then and Now volumes.

Tropper do you have a larger picture of the map to see the detail?

Cheers
Andy

 

Interesting Tropper, I'm not sure I've ever registered the existence of Band Beach at all.
Must have seen mentions (?), as it's not like I haven't read any D-Day books, but it's obviously never stuck in my mind.

Did the name survive into the actual operation? or was it only used in the initial planning?

Adam,

It looks very much like you suggested.

I have compared maps and it does appear that Band Beach was included in the preliminary planning, but not used for whatever reason on the actual Assault.

Regards
Tom

 

I pinched the map out of a book I bought the other day "Charts of War " By John Blake An ex RN officer with some great maps and charts in it, the map is PRO ADM 234/366 and I think an early planning map of the beaches showing the arcs of fire of the shore batterys

 

Tropper, I have copied that image is that ok? For private use only understand.
Never understood why so little seems to be known or written about 'Band'. Any ideas?

Mike

As I pinch most of the stuff, please feel free to use anything I post,

 

I recall looking at this map in the previous thread but deceded not to post because the thread went off all over the place and was I pleased it was closed. I found a little more about the map but lost that info in a computer crash - anyway here are my thoughts -
This is not a "real" map, it has been made up by adding information to some map that may have been used at one time for planning.

First a thought about beaches and assault areas - I would describe Sword as an Assault Area which comprised the beaches "Oboe", "Peter", "Queen" and "Roger". You will notice that this map does not have any beaches listed for the Band assault area [they would have continued alphabetically with names beginning S, T etc.]

Second- notice the demarcation line between Utah & Omaha [the dash, dot, dash line], it sureley would not run in that direction. My thougt is this map was originally drawn before Utah was added

Thirdly the map shows the actual cleared shipping lanes and the actual points assaulted [ by adding Red, White, Green to indicate the sub-beaches used] Such a map, if drawn at the time these matters were decided, would surely not include the location of "an area which we've decided not use".

Hope you can follow my ramblings. I stand ready for my reasonings to be shot to pieces
Noel

 

It was never anything else than a "near battle area" No one landed on it, nor was it the scene of conflict.

Nothing happened there ....
Our area of Queen red and white on Sword, was the most Easterly of the landing beaches ..And oddly enough, the most heavily defended. (by a long way)
Sapper

 

Band Beach was named and shown as it contained targets for bombardment and the area of the British Para drop, The map shows the planned divisions of the approach and return lanes of the ships bombarding the beach, the dot dash lines show the areas contolled by the admirals involved, the one you mention shows the demarcation between Rear Adm Moon,and Rear Adm Hall USN. Its not a landing Map, its a Bombardment Chart