
The most important weather forecast in history
In memory of my father Hans who, in 1944, took part in the liberation of Europe with the Royal Engineers in the Italian Campaign. –Benny Peiser
1) The Weather Forecast That Saved D-Day
Christopher Klein
Years of detailed planning went into the D-Day invasion on June 6, 1944, but success hinged on one element that no military commander could control—the weather. In the days leading up to the invasion, Allied meteorologists delivered the most important weather forecast in history. If they got it wrong the Allies might have lost tens of thousands of men and World War II might have been lost forever.

In contrast to the bright morning about to dawn over Portsmouth, England, on June 4, 1944, gloom settled over the Allied commanders gathered inside Southwick House at 4:15 a.m. Years of preparation had been invested in the invasion of Normandy, but now, just hours before the launch of D-Day operations, came the voice of Group Captain James Stagg urging a last-minute delay. As Operation Overlord’s chief meteorological officer, the lanky Brit was hardly a battlefield commander, but the ultimate fate of D-Day now rested in his decision-making.
The disappointed commanders knew that the list of potential invasion dates were only a precious few because of the need for a full moon to illuminate obstacles and landing places for gliders and for a low tide at dawn to expose the elaborate underwater defenses installed by the Germans. June 5, chosen by Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower to be D-Day, was the first date in a narrow three-day window with the necessary astronomical conditions. The massive Normandy landings, however, also required optimal weather conditions. High winds and rough seas could capsize landing craft and sabotage the amphibious assault; wet weather could bog down the army and thick cloud cover could obscure the necessary air support.
The critical, but unenviable task of predicting the English Channel’s notoriously fickle weather fell to a team of forecasters from the Royal Navy, British Meteorological Office and U.S. Strategic and Tactical Air Force, and as D-Day approached, storm clouds brewed inside the meteorological office. Observations from Newfoundland taken on May 29 reported changing conditions that might arrive by the proposed invasion date. Based on their knowledge of English Channel weather and observations, the British forecasters predicted the stormy weather would indeed arrive on June 5. The American meteorologists, relying on a differing forecasting method based on historic weather maps, instead believed that a wedge of high pressure would deflect the advancing storm front and provide clear, sunny skies over the English Channel.
Stagg, the only meteorologist allowed direct contact with Eisenhower, had to make the final call. Although the sky was clear and wind negligible in the early hours of June 4, Stagg believed foul weather was only hours away. He sided with his fellow British colleagues and recommended a postponement. Knowing that the weather held the potential to be an even fiercer foe than the Nazis, a reluctant Eisenhower agreed in the early hours of June 4 to delay D-Day by 24 hours.
On the other side of the English Channel, German forecasters also predicted the stormy conditions that indeed rolled in as Stagg and his fellow Brits had feared. The Luftwaffe’s chief meteorologist, however, went further in reporting that rough seas and gale-force winds were unlikely to weaken until mid-June. Armed with that forecast, Nazi commanders thought it impossible that an Allied invasion was imminent, and many left their coastal defenses to participate in nearby war games. German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel even returned home to personally present a pair of Parisian shoes to his wife as a birthday present.
German Luftwaffe meteorologists, however, relied on less sophisticated data and models than their Allied counterparts, says John Ross, author of “The Forecast for D-Day: And the Weatherman behind Ike’s Greatest Gamble.” “The Allies had a much more robust network of weather stations in Canada, Greenland and Iceland; of weather ships and weather flights over the North Atlantic and observations by secret agreement from weather stations in the neutral Republic of Ireland,” he says. Those weather stations, in particular one at a post office at Blacksod Point in the far west of Ireland, proved crucial in detecting the arrival of a lull in the storms that Stagg and his colleagues believed would allow for an invasion on June 6. As rain and high winds lashed Portsmouth on the night of June 4, Stagg informed Eisenhower of the forecast for a temporary break. With the next available date for an invasion nearly two weeks away, the Allies risked losing the element of surprise if they waited. In spite of the pelting rain and howling winds outside, Eisenhower placed his faith in his forecasters and gave the go-ahead for D-Day.
The weather during the initial hours of D-Day was still not ideal. Thick clouds resulted in Allied bombs and paratroopers landing miles off target. Rough seas caused landing craft to capsize and mortar shells to land off the mark. By noon, however, the weather had cleared and Stagg’s forecast had been validated. The Germans had been caught by surprise, and the tide of World War II began to turn.
Weeks later, Stagg sent Eisenhower a memo noting that had D-Day been pushed to later in June, the Allies would have encountered the worst weather in the English Channel in two decades. “I thank the Gods of War we went when we did,” Eisenhower scribbled on the report.
He could also have been thankful for Stagg overruling the advice of the American meteorologists who wanted to go on June 5 as planned, which Ross says would have been a disaster. “The weather over Normandy contained too much cloud cover for Ike’s greatest strategic asset, the Allied air forces, to effectively protect the landings from German armor, artillery and infantry reserves. Winds were too strong for the deployment of paratroopers to secure bridges and crossroads inland from the beaches thus preventing German reinforcement of coastal positions. Waves were too high for landing craft to put soldiers and supplies ashore. The key element of surprise—location and time—would have been lost, and the conquest of western Europe could well have taken another year.”
2) D-Day: The Sceptical Meteorologists Who Surprised The Nazis By Saying ‘Yes’ To June 6
Simon Pearson
The outcome of D-Day was decided not on the beaches of Normandy, but by weather systems in the mid-Atlantic and the ability of rival teams of meteorologists to interpret the forces of nature. The Americans were confident in long-range five-day forecasts. The British were sceptical, believing they could forecast only two days ahead at best. The teams clashed repeatedly.

The outcome of D-Day was decided not on the beaches of Normandy, but by weather systems in the mid-Atlantic and the ability of rival teams of meteorologists to interpret the forces of nature.
As unfavourable conditions developed during that early summer 70 years ago, three teams of meteorologists produced reports for the Allied commander, General Dwight D Eisenhower, who laid down the conditions necessary for invasion — and his preferred date: June 5. Across the Channel, a single team of Germans watched the weather.
One of the men who took part in this great drama was Lawrence Hogben, a New Zealand naval officer, who, as a Rhodes Scholar, studied mathematics at New College, Oxford and trained as a meteorologist with the Royal Navy. Today, he lives in a care home in southern France, the country he helped to liberate and, even at the age of 98, retains vivid memories of events in June 1944.
Hogben had already distinguished himself as a naval officer before he was asked to work with Geoffrey Wolfe, a Cambridge-educated engineer, in the Admiralty team forecasting the D-Day weather.
As an instructor lieutenant, responsible for training, intelligence and meteorology on HMS Sheffield, he had witnessed several major naval actions: the sinking of the German battleship Bismark in May 1941; the Battle of the Barents Sea — when Sheffield engaged the German pocket battleships Admiral Hipper and Lutzow in the Arctic in December 1942; and Operation Torch, the invasion of French North Africa a year later.
Decorated for bravery and promoted instructor lieutenant-commander, he had also developed his skills as a weatherman. “OnSheffield, I was making forecasts every day from the data coming in and from the state of the sea,” he says.
Hogben and Wolfe were one of two British teams. The second, put forward by the Met Office, consisted of Charles Douglas, the chief forecaster who was known for his photographic memory of meteorological events, and Sverre Pettersen, a Norwegian. The third team was American, with Irving Krick and Benny Holzman, two well-known weathermen from the California Institute of Technology. Each day, the three teams reported their findings to Group Captain James Stagg, a Scot who had been superintendent of the Kew Gardens observatory in 1939. He briefed Eisenhower.
For operational reasons, the American commander needed a full moon, a low tide, little cloud cover and light winds so that troops in landing craft could get ashore quickly, the gliders and parachutists could operate efficiently, and the Allied fighters and bombers could find their targets.
The forecast was not good. Indeed, climatic data suggested the odds against the forecasters finding the right conditions was 13-1 in June 1944. The Americans were confident in long-range five-day forecasts. The British were sceptical, believing they could forecast only two days ahead at best. The teams clashed repeatedly.
According to William Bryant Logan, author of Air: The Restless Shaper, they succeeded, “not because of the brilliant work of any solitary forecaster, but because a group of forecasters imitated the weather. They jostled, yelled, scribbled, and cast malevolent looks at one another. They fought it out and voted. And in the end, they were just right enough.”
Full story (subscription required)
About 2,500 died on D-Day. Not counting Germans.
“The outcome of D-Day was decided not on the beaches of Normandy, but by weather systems in the mid-Atlantic and the ability of rival teams of meteorologists to interpret the forces of nature.”
wait … we didn’t send men with guns ashore then ?
“””””…..Michael Palmer says:
June 6, 2014 at 9:15 am
George – I’m aware of that. I was just quoting from the article, and I assume that the author is aware of the losses, too. He probably meant to say that tens of thousands more would have died……”””””
Well Michael, I wasn’t being critical.
You say you are aware of that, and you opine that the author of that line also is.
But HE did not mention it; and neither did you.
So I DID
I suspect a consensus of about 97% is in fact NOT aware of that fact.. I’m thinking that some 2,500 US soldiers died on Omaha Beach on just that first day. And historians think that was remarkably low.
How many GI s died on Iwo-Jima ?
timg56 says:
June 6, 2014 at 10:36 am
German manpower above Omaha averaged about 1000 troops per mile, but of course they were concentrated in strong points.
German strength in the Omaha sector was much stronger than Allied intel had estimated, because, among other reasons, Rommel had moved a German mobile field division into the forward defenses instead of holding it in reserve. The Allies expected only a static division manned mainly by Russian & Polish former PoWs. Besides which, the defenses & additional offensive weaponry available to these men greatly multiplied their combat power.
Besides which the air bombardment that was supposed to soften up the defenses didn’t, but did kill a lot of Norman cows inland. And the swimming tanks thought essential for success sank at great loss, depriving the poor bloody infantry of armored protection & firepower.
Approximate German defensive power:
7,800 infantry
8 artillery bunkers
35 pillboxes
4 artillery pieces
6 mortar pits
18 anti-tank guns
45 rocket launcher sites
85 machine gun sites
6 tank turrets.
climatereason says:
June 6, 2014 at 10:46 am
The US 4th Division lost over four times as many men at Slapton Sands as on Utah Beach & the drive inland on June 6. The official death total for all servicemen in the fiasco is 946.
You’re right. There was a number of ways in which D-Day could have failed, despite Allied numerical superiority on the invasion beaches, as the breakout operation, which lasted much longer than expected, shows. High on the list is, as you note, the risk of German discovery of Overlord’s objective.
jimmaine says:
June 6, 2014 at 10:45 am
And speaking of D-Day…
The articles just keep on coming:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-06/world-war-ii-skeletons-washed-from-graves-by-rising-seas.html
__________________
I read that article and was not surprised at the factual inaccuracies, as that is all that is to be expected from the modern press.
“””””…..milodonharlani says:
June 6, 2014 at 9:35 am
george e. smith says:
June 6, 2014 at 9:08 am
We did not lose tens of thousands on D-Day itself. Ground forces casualties were around 9000, of whom about a third were killed or “missing”, as in direct hit from artillery projectiles. Precise figures aren’t available……”””””
Well it depends on how you view it. Maybe they didn’t all die that day. But that day, they were committed to that specific operation, that resulted in those numbers. Somewhere I saw Omaha first day was about 2500, and total for allies first day around 4,000, and I think that was just for the beach landings. But the cemeteries record the real numbers (on both sides).
Today, we are not willing to tolerate such losses; yet we do. 9/11 gave us such numbers; yet some are still upset at our response.
george e. smith says:
June 6, 2014 at 11:10 am
We suffered over 2000 casualties on Omaha Beach, not fatalities. Besides our heavy losses on Omaha, casualties were also high among the two US airborne divisions, over 2000 casualities, IIRC. Utah, as noted, got off easy on June 6, with fewer than 200 dead (but dozens missing). However, it suffered disastrously in training.
Iwo was Marines, not GIs. Marines don’t like to be lumped in with “doggies”, although they sometimes are.
But to answer your question, the 36-day assault on Iwo-Jima cost more than 26,000 American casualties, including 6,800 dead, of whom a few hundred were sailors on the ships sunk or damaged (not counting Navy medical corpsmen ashore). Don’t know about casualties among the Coast Guard coxswains of the landing craft.
george e. smith says:
June 6, 2014 at 11:21 am
You have confused casualties with fatalities. Total Allied casualties on D-Day might have reached 10,000, but fewer than 3000 were KIA or died later of mortal wounds. Precise figures have been hard to come by, but the recent revisions cited in this link may now be the best available:
http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/d-day/d-day-and-the-battle-of-normandy-your-questions-answered
World War II would not have been lost. But the Beastly Sovs might have been in Paris.
My father was one of the first off the landing craft. (Fortunately for him, that was on Jun 7th!)
Mr. Palmer, I do take exception to the first part of this:
“Between the heavy damages to its cities and industries inflicted by the allied bombings and the overwhelming force of the Red Army, there was only one possible outcome.”
Allied bombing did little damage to industries. The strategic bombing campaign was a dismal failure in its primary objective. Because only 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within 1000 feet of their intended target. The bombing campaign did have other very important results, but damaging industry wasn’t one of them.
I’m aware of that. I was just quoting from the article, and I assume that the author is aware of the losses, too. He probably meant to say that tens of thousands more would have died.
Tens of thousand did not die that day. By far the greatest loss of life (~5000) fell upon French civilians.
evanmjones says:
June 6, 2014 at 11:46 am
Had VE Day been postponed into summer ’45, we’d have nuked Germany into submission.
Good for your dad on D+1.
The Met Office now relies more on models and less on data.
evanmjones says:
June 6, 2014 at 11:55 am
Again, good figures are hard to come by, but probably the number of civilians & soldiers killed that day were about equal, ie ~3000:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10877137/D-Day-French-torn-over-criminal-British-and-American-D-Day-bombings-of-Caen.html
War is atrocious. Caen probably didn’t need to be destroyed, but mistakes in war cost lives. It’s impossible to fight even on the right side without making horrible errors.
Jimbo says:
June 6, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Plus they get to make up their own data to support the models.
On this day all I can say is I have the greatest respect for the allied troops involved and sadness for all those who suffered throughout the war.
Had VE Day been postponed into summer ’45, we’d have nuked Germany into submission.
I doubt it. By August 1945, the beastly Sovs would have been in Bordeaux. The Destruction of Army Group Center followed on by “Second Stalingrad” (in Rumania) made rapid German defeat inevitable (if it wasn’t already — which it was, really). The Germans were toast after Kursk at the latest. Not even Heinrici, Manstein, Kleist, or the other “Lions of Defense” could have saved them after that point.
The only real question is what the postwar map was going to look like. In that regard, though, the result of Op. Overlord was critical.
Hot under the collar says:
June 6, 2014 at 12:05 pm
I wish that Sgt. Slaughter could have lived two years and weeks longer to have attended the 70th anniversary:
http://www.examiner.com/article/john-robert-slaughter-d-day-survivor-dies-at-the-age-of-87
He was among the handful of enlisted men, some who died before their deeds could be recorded, who picked themselves up off the beach, found paths up the cliffs, led their comrades under murderous fire to the top & assaulted the formidable, much stronger than expected German defenses, taking them by storm without the bombardment & armored support which planners felt would be needed.
One important factor that is apparent here is the military significance of atmospheric data, and hence its secrecy aspects. Be extremely wary of any publicly published data from theaters of military or naval operations. This has been impressed on me by a U.S. Army meteorologist who was present on D-Day, a metaorologist with the Soviet Army, and one with the Wehrmacht (he was lucky enough to have been stationed in southern France!). This whole question of the validity of atmospheric data from the many war zones of the twentieth century demands a thorough investigation and careful reconsideration.
One of the more interesting events of D-Day was the Dambuster squadron, who spent all morning in their Lancaster Bombers, going round and round in circles over the Channel.
What they were doing, is dropping chaff, at a groundspeed of 10 knots, that looked like a huge invasion force of ships heading for Calais. And so even up to the last minute, the Germans thought the primary landings would be at Calais (the nearest port).
R
Directive issued February 12, 1944 by the Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff to General Eisenhower: “You will enter the continent of Europe and, in conjunction with the other United Nations, undertake operations aimed at the heart of Germany and the destruction of her armed forces. The date for entering the Continent is the month of May, 1944”.
Easy to be wise with hindsight but this involved huge risk: first as inherent in any seaborne landing, second in breaching and overcoming the Atlantic Wall fortifications and third in opening the new front in France which could so easily have become bogged down into static warfare with huge loss of life, as 30 years earlier.
Eisenhower judged it right, including the vagaries of the British weather (which still confounds us natives to the point there are days we often talk of little else). From one born 4 years after the landing and (due to previous generations’ sacrifices) always having lived at peace, I can only say a sincere and heartfelt thanks to all who fought in that campaign, which liberated and has achieved peace in Europe throughout my lifetime.
evanmjones says:
June 6, 2014 at 12:06 pm
It took the Red Army from June 1944 to May 1945 to get from the Dnieper to the Elbe, across flat terrain ideal for armored warfare. Without continued American aid, the Soviet offensive would have ground to a halt, especially with having to reduce Berlin. (Truman would have been less likely to keep supporting Stalin than FDR, dead in April.) The Red Army also would have run into the Luftwaffe, which had been stripped from the East to defend the homeland, along with the ten thousand 88mm AAA/AT guns used against the British & American air forces over Germany instead of against Russian tanks.
If the western Allies were advancing from the South of France, IMO we’d have shaken hands on the Rhine, at best, but even that’s dubious. With Hitler gone, the Germans would have let western forces in & concentrated everything against the Soviets.
We tested the Pu implosion device in July, but the gun-assembly U bomb could have been ready sooner, since it wasn’t felt to need testing (& there was not then enough U available for both a test & a bomb).
But who knows?
=======================================================================
Or tens of thousands of the Allies lost at sea for zero gain.
climatereason says:
It is incorrect to believe the Germans were already defeated.
Gen. George Patton wrote in his autobiography War As I Knew It: “We could still lose this war.” Patton wrote that in his daily diary while commanding the 3rd Army in Europe, so he would know.
[There is a p.s. to history: Patton was murdered with the connivance of Eisenhower and the Russians.]
++++++++++++++++++++
Eliza says:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
Wow the guardian published THIS???
Amazing. Another crack in the consensus.