The OP seems to be approaching this topic as if the British Empire and the U.S. were just sitting around with nothing to do.

Nearly every major offensive in history has required redirection of forces and supplies to such a degree that the subsequent military build up is noticable by the enemy and can usually be anticipated. Couple this with the ongoing wars and constant battles throughout europe and the pacific islands the allies could do little else than fight hand and claw until the benefits of successive victories allowed them the breathing room to organise D-Day. I also put some extra stock in that the capture of Rome a few days previously had diverted attention eastwards and away from France.

The organisation of the D-Day landings themselves were not straight forward, location and terrain were considered, testing of beach landings with heavy artillery and mechs demonstrated the unsuitability of heavy armaments and specific technologies were created or adapted purely for the beach landings.

If you think they could wage war against the combined forces of Germany, Italy and Japan and plan a full scale invasion of a continent under seige, and do so in such a short timescale; you are mistaken.

Rome Existed wrote:In regards to North Africa the UK didn't want to lose the Suez Canal for strategic reasons and controlling that and the med made sending ships to and from India and the Pacific a lot easier and quicker.

More than just control of the Suez canal, if the British had lost north africa it would have been much, much harder for them to retain their holdings in the middle east which included the oil fields in Iraq, access to those would have strengthened german industrial power considerably as it was well known that oil was the one critical war resource that germany had somewhat limited access to.

David M wrote:

Rome Existed wrote:In regards to North Africa the UK didn't want to lose the Suez Canal for strategic reasons and controlling that and the med made sending ships to and from India and the Pacific a lot easier and quicker.

More than just control of the Suez canal, if the British had lost north africa it would have been much, much harder for them to retain their holdings in the middle east which included the oil fields in Iraq, access to those would have strengthened german industrial power considerably as it was well known that oil was the one critical war resource that germany had somewhat limited access to.

True. That may also have convinced some countries, like Turkey, that maybe refusing to join the Axis was a bad idea being surrounded and all and giving the Axis another way to attack the USSR.

I went to the D-Day museum, today, in Portsmouth. I enjoyed it and learnt alot. I guess I now realise how much planning and organisation went into this massive venture... and now agree that doing it a year earlier wasn't really possible.

jamest wrote:I went to the D-Day museum, today, in Portsmouth. I enjoyed it and learnt alot. I guess I now realise how much planning and organisation went into this massive venture... and now agree that doing it a year earlier wasn't really possible.

Nothing like a good old museum to get a grasp on things... I visited the D-Day Museum in 1988, as part of a trip that could almost be described as a campaign (the battlefield outside Hastings, Portsmouth w/ HMS Victory + Mary Rose + the D-Day Museum, the Tank Museum at Bovington Camp, Warwick Castle, the RAF Museum in Hendon, and the Imperial War Museum in London).

Varangian wrote:

jamest wrote:I went to the D-Day museum, today, in Portsmouth. I enjoyed it and learnt alot. I guess I now realise how much planning and organisation went into this massive venture... and now agree that doing it a year earlier wasn't really possible.

Nothing like a good old museum to get a grasp on things... I visited the D-Day Museum in 1988, as part of a trip that could almost be described as a campaign (the battlefield outside Hastings, Portsmouth w/ HMS Victory + Mary Rose + the D-Day Museum, the Tank Museum at Bovington Camp, Warwick Castle, the RAF Museum in Hendon, and the Imperial War Museum in London).

Museums are great, aren't they? We have a wealth of them here and I really should make an effort to visit more of them. For instance, from your list, I've only done the D-Day and HMS Victory/Mary Rose museums. Which is embarrassing, considering you're from Sweden.

The highlight of my visit today was seeing two old veterans from the D-Day landings themselves. They were sat at tables, talking about their experiences with anyone willing to listen. Quite awe inspiring.

jamest wrote:

Varangian wrote:

jamest wrote:I went to the D-Day museum, today, in Portsmouth. I enjoyed it and learnt alot. I guess I now realise how much planning and organisation went into this massive venture... and now agree that doing it a year earlier wasn't really possible.

Nothing like a good old museum to get a grasp on things... I visited the D-Day Museum in 1988, as part of a trip that could almost be described as a campaign (the battlefield outside Hastings, Portsmouth w/ HMS Victory + Mary Rose + the D-Day Museum, the Tank Museum at Bovington Camp, Warwick Castle, the RAF Museum in Hendon, and the Imperial War Museum in London).

Museums are great, aren't they? We have a wealth of them here and I really should make an effort to visit more of them. For instance, from your list, I've only done the D-Day and HMS Victory/Mary Rose museums. Which is embarrassing, considering you're from Sweden.

The highlight of my visit today was seeing two old veterans from the D-Day landings themselves. They were sat at tables, talking about their experiences with anyone willing to listen. Quite awe inspiring.

Not too many of those guys left I bet. I think 98% of Australians who served during WW2 are now dead.

Well, the last of the WW1 veterans have passed away, and they were about 110 years old. If we assume that the youngest soldiers participating in WW2 were born in 1928, the last WW2 veteran will pass away around the year 2040.