Originally posted by sapper@Dec 3 2004, 03:17 PM Ah! There's the rub....That just proves what I have said...So many authors have tp write what their readers want to read. Sapper [post=29838]Quoted post[/post] I'm sort of expected to be like that TV psychic in America, Miss Cleo, who gives out all the answers on 50-ents-a-minute phone lines.
Originally posted by Dpalme01@Dec 3 2004, 01:05 PM [ I have to admit that I was always under the impression that the Americans got the harder beaches. [post=29825]Quoted post[/post] Just for the record, the casualties at Utah beach were the lowest of the five, so beaches plural is not so.
Originally posted by angie999+Dec 13 2004, 08:28 PM-->(angie999 @ Dec 13 2004, 08:28 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dpalme01@Dec 3 2004, 01:05 PM [ I have to admit that I was always under the impression that the Americans got the harder beaches. [post=29825]Quoted post[/post] Just for the record, the casualties at Utah beach were the lowest of the five, so beaches plural is not so. [post=30137]Quoted post[/post] [/b] right, of course. But if the Americans had landed where they were supposed to land, they would have had much higher casualties wouldn't they? I believe it was the wind that carried them off. But yeah, i guess it should be singular. Dp
Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Dec 3 2004, 05:36 PM Sapper, I know how you feel. Some guy in an armchair, sipping his bourbon, watching a documentary on TV, becomes an instant expert on what you lived through after watching 20 minutes of said documentary. Walter Lord said it best in his book on the Titanic, "After the sinking, the bronzed men of the sea were replaced by a pallid cast cast of journalists, investigators, and ultimately, historians." [post=29832]Quoted post[/post] Hey! thats me Ok not quite- I try hard not to be like that
What ever I write about, I would be upset if it was seen in any way as "Anti-American" That is never my intention. When I recall the memory of the fallen, it is not just the British, but all our Allies... I fought along side of the "Yanks" we got on very well together. That does not mean that I cannot comment on what I see as constructive critisism. That brings me back to "Bloody Omaha" For no matter what or how the history of that operation is delved into, the fact appears to me that they went in without the proper preparation. They had no Assault Engineers tasked to provide a way through the enemy defences, they had no special teams to open the beach to the road, and to remove anyone that stood in the way. In truth they landed with a "gung Ho" atitude, but came under heavy and concentrated fire and the whole damn thing fell completely apart. Much later they forced the defences. but by then the slaughter had been catastrophic. If they had tackled the defences immediately they landed, then things may have been a lot different. I have no wish to to fall out with any of my American friends, but I do feel that so many bright young American lives could have been saved. "Had they prepared properly" Sword Beach with huge defences, and with several huge enemy strong points just inland capable of swamping the beach with a deluge of fire. All that was neutralised. No Beach was as heavily defended as Sword, or anywhere near it. The legend that Sword was an easy landing was the direct result (in my opinion) of the sacrifice of the Assault Engineers that went in before anyone, except the DD tanks and prepared the way. They continued to try to remove the obstacles even after the tide came in, and many drowned while doing so. I recall the bravery of those men with great honour, "Greater love hath no man" PLease do not think this an attack on the "Yanks" far from it. It is what I see as an honest appraisal of what happened and why. I am no military expert and I am sure that someone will try to prove me wrong. We all make mistakes, those that make the least mistakes wins the war. Sincerely Sapper
Originally posted by Dpalme01+Dec 15 2004, 08:25 AM-->(Dpalme01 @ Dec 15 2004, 08:25 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by angie999@Dec 13 2004, 08:28 PM <!--QuoteBegin-Dpalme01@Dec 3 2004, 01:05 PM [ I have to admit that I was always under the impression that the Americans got the harder beaches. [post=29825]Quoted post[/post] Just for the record, the casualties at Utah beach were the lowest of the five, so beaches plural is not so. [post=30137]Quoted post[/post] right, of course. But if the Americans had landed where they were supposed to land, they would have had much higher casualties wouldn't they? I believe it was the wind that carried them off. But yeah, i guess it should be singular. Dp [post=30157]Quoted post[/post] [/b] First to Sapper, I agree very much with your last post. I do think that the terrain at Omaha was exceptionally difficult and that the American plan was inadequate, for the reasons you state and some others. Regarding Utah, yes they had some luck. Luck does play a part in war. Where they landed, in the sector guarded by strongpoint W5 (where the present day museum is located) was less well guarded than the correct location, guarded by the stronger W6, although the inland area behind W5 was guarded by additional strongpoints. I am sure that casualties would have been higher further along the beach, but there is no reason to think it would have been another Omaha.
Originally posted by Dpalme01@Dec 3 2004, 01:05 PM I agree completely with the funnies part. The Americans were almost as bad as the french- stuck in a rut and refusing to use any thing new. They were lucky to have accepted the landing craft [post=29825]Quoted post[/post] Well, you might call it a rut, but the reason (-ing) behind the US rejection of the Funnies lies partly with the peculiar circumstances surrounding American mobilisation, partly with US doctrine. The architects of the Army, personified by Lt. Gen. Leslie J. McNair, on the one hand wanted a lean and flexible army, on the other envisioned modern war as basically an infantry/artillery slugging match with armour and airpower in the supporting role. At the same time, the high priority afforded US service- and air force troops encouraged McNair to economise. This lead to train of thought whereby the creation of specialised units were avoided if possible - McNair in fact proposed to disband both the airborne- and armoured divisions because their functions were thought to situation specific and thus wasteful of resources. Instead of the former he proposed light divisions (infantry with fewer motor vehicle and less artillery) which could be made glider-borne as needed. Instead of the latter a pick&mix concept of putting together armoured task forces of independent tank battalions, motorised infantry, and armoured cavalry as the need arose - in doctrinal terms, the armoured division was perceived as a weapon of exploitation only, and thus not needed very often. As can be imagined, the concept of investing in units not only with a specific function in mind but a specific mission, didn't go down well with McNair et al. In fact the thinking behind the Funnies was about as far from the American philosophy as you can get. The American reasoning was something like this: Invest 800 men in a battalion of Funnies which will save us 400 casualties on D-Day but then be useless for the rest of the war = equals net loss of 400 men. That US units would later on several occasions request and recieve the services of Funnies, in particular the flail tanks, is another story. Also, with reference to D-Day, it should be borne in mind that the Americans were throwing two reinforced divisions onto Omaha, supported by vast air- and sea-power, and with a good chance of tactical surprise. Expecting succes was thus not unreasonable, Funnies or no Funnies. As it happened, V Corps suffered about 2,200 casualties on D-Day - 1,200 by the 1st Division, 700 by the 29th, the rest by corps troops, or about 0.25% of total US Army battle casualties during WWII. Omaha was bloody, but far from uniquely so, and by no means the worst comparative action fought by the US Army in WWII. In strategic terms, it was a slight cost compared to the benifits reaped.
Originally posted by Dpalme01+Dec 15 2004, 04:39 AM-->(Dpalme01 @ Dec 15 2004, 04:39 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Kiwiwriter@Dec 3 2004, 05:36 PM Sapper, I know how you feel. Some guy in an armchair, sipping his bourbon, watching a documentary on TV, becomes an instant expert on what you lived through after watching 20 minutes of said documentary. Walter Lord said it best in his book on the Titanic, "After the sinking, the bronzed men of the sea were replaced by a pallid cast cast of journalists, investigators, and ultimately, historians." [post=29832]Quoted post[/post] Hey! thats me Ok not quite- I try hard not to be like that [post=30158]Quoted post[/post] [/b]It's all right, I'm part of that "pallid cast," myself. Speaking of alleged historians, You should read the memoirs of American Civil War generals. They showed more energy in denouncing each other for their own failures than in some of the battles they lost. One pair of Union Civil War generals of very high rank could not get along because one insulted the other when both were superintendents of the Quicksilver Silver Mine in California two decades before. So bronzed heros aren't always.
I do find some of the postings irksome, in that young people write sometimes with such conviction, with a refusal to listen to those who experienced those days of long ago. Here I must repeat what I have hammered on about so many times before..The only reason that I write, talk. give lectures, is that my long lost mates and friends will be remembered,,,I have no personal axe to grind..Only that the truth be known..I have made this statement over and over, till I am blue in the face. For truth has suffered greatly over the last 60 years. We have Authors writing the history of this, and the history of that, each one quoting from others writings. Often garbled and totally untrue. To illustrate; one author wrote about D day, he had the Canadians landing on Sword. There was no mention at all of Third British infantry...They did not exist. The whole book was a jumble of rubbish really with not an iota of what really happened. And so these writings are constantly quoted as genuine history..Much of that is twisted and bent out of all recognition by a torrent of Hollywood films and documentaries, many of them revealing the directors personal prejudices. With all that in mind, I am quite saddened that the real men that gave so much have become "Nothing" Those that sacrificed so much for the cause of freedom are completely forgotten. That Saddens me. Deeply saddens me, Sapper
One of the friends mentioned luck in war....Amen to that... also it is sometimes forgotten that war is a two sided thing. We have two sides. Reading some of the postings, it would appear that we should win every battle, and the enemy slink away. Its just not like that...Ever! War ebbs and flows, sometimes you make an attack, and virtually walk in, another time in that same place a horrific blood letting could easily take place. That happened at "The Bloodiest Square Mile in Normandy" We walked in, but then it developed into a hand to hand bloodbath of complete and utter savagery. No quarter asked or given..... Another example of pure savagery was Le Bisley wood, North of Caen. the British Tommies and the German Panzer Grenadiers set about each other with such brutal hand to hand fighting that they killed each other. When we arrived, the Germans and the British were laying just where they had died, their bodies mixed uo where they had been killing each other hand to hand.. a pretty dreadful sight to see these enemies bodies, piled up on each other. Sapper
I think there is some confusion about "Hobart's funnies". Apart from the Sherman DD's, which the American forces did use, many of the other designs, such as flail tanks, AVRE's, etc. were not special for D-day. They were used on D-day, but continued in use for the rest of the campaign. In fact, from them has descended further generations of speciast armour, mainly engineer equipment, which is in service today.
Sapper, I know how you feel about the historical errors. They enrage me, too. Here in America, schoolteachers still spout the myth that Columbus proved the world was round. That canard was invented by Washington Irving for that noblest of purposes: to sell his book, which was humor. But everyone took it seriously, and schoolteachers have been inflicting it for all time. I have run into people who don't know who Churchill and Goering are. The sheer amount of misinformation that is dispensed about history is incredible. There's a column on my web page about it.
Originally posted by sapper@Nov 9 2004, 02:38 PM May I (Without prejudice) offer this, as a main reason why they suffered so badly on Omaha? Despite the losses of the DD tanks they needed, there were two vital elements missing from the American landings. The first, but in my opinion, not the most important, was the refusal of the Americans to make use of “Hobarts Funnies” to assist the landings. But, what I think was of the greatest importance was the lack of “highly specialised Sapper teams” tasked with the vitally important job of removing anything that stood in the way….. No matter who, or what… and also to provide a mine free passage off the beach to the lateral road that ran parallel with the beach. The reason why so many young Americans were killed, it seems to me, was this lack of small, but highly trained assault teams. That element was missing. For in the end they forced a way off the beach, but not before a massacre had taken place….With those teams it would have been the initial task, no matter what, to open up the Enemy defences. It has often been said that Sword Beach was easy…That is just not so. I can provide all the proof that is needed for that statement. Sapper.. A member of the Royal Engineers Company that provided the three assault teams that opened up the path from the beach to the road beyond, on “Sword” Queen Red, and Queen White, sectors without letting anyone get in the way. I am not trying in any way to belittle my American friends, for I fought alongside them. And I might add, Factual History in the cold hard light of day, is so often, completely different from the Hollywood versions, for they tend to cloud what actually occured. Sapper [post=29309]Quoted post[/post] I would agree with Sapper that the impression given is that the British beaches are always portrayed as "quieter" than the US Beaches and this is not the case. And even in the fighting inland the British and Canadians faced tougher line fomrations than the US did. But it was a joint effort. And both armies worked together towards a common end.
Nowhere...But Nowhere! was there such a concentration of defence in depth as there was facing Sword, The other landings had nothing approachimg the massive defence positions inland from Sword. If you question that statement? have a look at the maps..."Hillman" alone stood 650 meters by 450 meters in size, Massive. Brian
Originally posted by sapper@Mar 9 2005, 10:57 AM Nowhere...But Nowhere! was there such a concentration of defence in depth as there was facing Sword, The other landings had nothing approachimg the massive defence positions inland from Sword. If you question that statement? have a look at the maps..."Hillman" alone stood 650 meters by 450 meters in size, Massive. Brian [post=32035]Quoted post[/post] Sapper, you know this better than I do, of course, but if memory serves, Hillman and the other strongpoints codenamed for British cars were still holding out at the end of D-Day. One of them was the fortified Luftwaffe radar station/control post at Douvres, which is now a museum of both the Atlantic Wall and German radar. So that speaks to the determination with which the 716th held out in their bunkers. The 716th was not the best division in the German Army, and certainly not mobile, but it had plenty of bunkers and firepower, and the Germans, being good engineers, knew how to prepare a static position. None of the D-Day beaches were "easy" or jokes. In fact, the more I study World War II, the less humor I can find in the fighting. Which is probably why the men who fought it relied so much on humor in all of its incarnations, simply as a means of surviving unbelievable horrors, as any Bill Mauldin cartoon (or "Two Types" cartoon) would show.
No Kiwi. Hillman was taken on D day, the way in to this massive posr was provided by Lt Arthur Heal Croix De Geurre, of my company, 246 Field RE, who being invited by the Commander of 1st Suffolks. "In the nicest possible way" to open up a path through the massive defences, Arthur Heal with a few other Sappers, lay on their bellies, and worked their way through the enemy defences under very heavy fire, eventualy creating a "Sheep track" through, then opened up another wide enough for tanks, it is not generally Known, I dont think? but the Hillman was defeated by the efforts of Arthur Heal and his brave little band under a heavy onslaught of cross fire. The Sappers got MMs not much of a reward for being responsible for the taking of Hillman! Two years ago, I spoke to Arthur Heal on the phone, the last I heard? he is still going strong. I also found my old Platoon officer would you believe? he is Major "Digger" Trench, keeps me up to date with what and who, every christmas.,now there is another brave officer. Stop me before I get cramp! So much pure drivel is written about those times with not the faintest or tenuous link with the truth. Sapper
The fact remains that the delays caused at Hillman and Morris are one of the more important causes of the failure to begin the advance on Caen early enough on D-day, with all the consequent problems on the British front.
If you dont mind me saying so Angie, that is a comlete distortion. Morris packed it in double quick time..No trouble. Allover just like that! Hillman I have already written about. What is not realised, was the size of Hillman, it was huge area of concrete bunkers, of artillery all over the place, deep underground tunnels and passages, the size at that time was enormous, all covered with barbed wire, and sown thick with mines of every description. What did make it difficult was that not one shell or bomb had landed on it. Just try to imagine an area of heavily armed defences some 650 meters by 450 meters. a huge area. tackled and opened up by our Officer, Arthur Heal. What you see of Hillman today bears little relation to its original size. At the time there was the story of a Sapper laying on his back, shuffling along under the wire towards one of the concrete gun positions, on his chest, a pound block of gun cotton, with a primer, a detonator, and a bit of black safety fuse. When he got right up close, he lit the safety fuse with his cigarette, waited a second and then shoved it through the rectagular gun window, over his head and backwards, a pound of gun cotton exploding inside an enclosed area would spread the occupants around the walls like jam. What stopped the drive towards Caen was getting the armour off the beaches. Sapper
Oh, I understand the problems with Hillman, but none the less the time and forces committed were not allowed for in the plan. Getting armour off the beach was part of the problem, I agree, but the infantry component of the armoured brigade were never going to be enough for the task and it depended on 3 Div infantry following up, which happened late and without adequate pace due to the holdups.
