Originally posted by Dpalme01@Apr 27 2005, 02:53 PM But the Americans hadn't had nearly as much experience as the British. For the past 10 years they had been isolationalists with a minimal army. Alot of the american soldiers were still green. The only main operation that the americans had done before had been Italy. [post=33619]Quoted post[/post] North Africa, Sicily and Italy were the only assault landings on any scale attempted by either Brtiish or US forces prior to D-day and the lessons of the disastrous Dieppe raid were shared round. I would say experience was about equal. The US army used inexperienced divisions on D-day, but so did the British and there is no evidence that experienced divisions performed any better. What is clear is that there were fundamental differences in opinion on technique between the British and Americans. Prior to D-day, the americans had basically deferred to the British. They were no longer prepared to do so in 1944, but the resuly was a plan based on hybrid doctrine. I believe that the American plan at Omaha could have worked if the beach bombing had been on target. It wasn't and the result was that the bombardment phase (a key element of American doctrine in place of tactical surprise) failed, leading to high casulaties. I agree with sapper that engineers could have been used much more effectively at Omaha, but the plan didn't permit it.
Originally posted by angie999+Apr 28 2005, 08:51 AM-->(angie999 @ Apr 28 2005, 08:51 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dpalme01@Apr 27 2005, 02:53 PM But the Americans hadn't had nearly as much experience as the British. For the past 10 years they had been isolationalists with a minimal army. Alot of the american soldiers were still green. The only main operation that the americans had done before had been Italy. [post=33619]Quoted post[/post] North Africa, Sicily and Italy were the only assault landings on any scale attempted by either Brtiish or US forces prior to D-day and the lessons of the disastrous Dieppe raid were shared round. I would say experience was about equal. The US army used inexperienced divisions on D-day, but so did the British and there is no evidence that experienced divisions performed any better. What is clear is that there were fundamental differences in opinion on technique between the British and Americans. Prior to D-day, the americans had basically deferred to the British. They were no longer prepared to do so in 1944, but the resuly was a plan based on hybrid doctrine. I believe that the American plan at Omaha could have worked if the beach bombing had been on target. It wasn't and the result was that the bombardment phase (a key element of American doctrine in place of tactical surprise) failed, leading to high casulaties. I agree with sapper that engineers could have been used much more effectively at Omaha, but the plan didn't permit it. [post=33668]Quoted post[/post] [/b] The government and planners did not have as much of an excuse, but the soldiers and their "gung-ho" attitude, and many of their foolish mistakes, were because this was their first time in battle for many of them. alot of them had never seen a real German Soldier. But I do see your point in the planners having experience
i think it was because the night before bombers were supposed to drop bombs on the beach to give the soldiers more cover. but they missed and dropped thier bombs 3 miles in land.
Originally posted by omaha44@Apr 29 2005, 05:16 PM i think it was because the night before bombers were supposed to drop bombs on the beach to give the soldiers more cover. but they missed and dropped thier bombs 3 miles in land. [post=33770]Quoted post[/post] It was not the night before. During the night, the RAF bombed a series of specific targets such as gun positions. The USAAF was tasked with beach bombing immediately before the scheduled landings and missed by this margin because of cloud cover. It was the missing key element of the bombardment plan and without it the naval gunnery available was not sufficient.
The cloud cover helped more than hinder the allies. No invasion has been perfect though and the bombers had done rather well considering the cloud cover and radio silence.
Originally posted by Dpalme01@May 12 2005, 04:28 PM The cloud cover helped more than hinder the allies. No invasion has been perfect though and the bombers had done rather well considering the cloud cover and radio silence. [post=34397]Quoted post[/post] I would like to know how it helped, considering that it led to the total failure of the 8th AF bombing effort and denied the allies tactical air on D-day until the afternoon when the cloud cleared. For instance, with clear skies, tactical air might have been able to disrupt the movements of 21 Pz Div in the Caen area during the morning while they were deploying for the attack they put in late in the day. And as far as I can establish, at Omaha no bombs hit the beach as planned on D-day just prior to the first assault wave. I have a photo taken from a USAAF aircraft on this bomb run and the cover was 10/10 - all they could see was cloud.
The cloud cover itself didn't help, but just the fact that it was there and therre was bad weather decieved the germans enough to send Hitler to sleep for two days and to sent Rommel to visit his wife. It also covered the moon a couple nights before for esponiage by sappers to the beach. Besides, what God sends, God sends, and that was the best time for them to go By itself, yeah, the clouds hindered the Allies, but on the whole, I think they helped. I may be wrong, you know more than me.
Originally posted by Dpalme01@May 13 2005, 10:37 PM The cloud cover itself didn't help, but just the fact that it was there and therre was bad weather decieved the germans enough to send Hitler to sleep for two days and to sent Rommel to visit his wife. It also covered the moon a couple nights before for esponiage by sappers to the beach. Besides, what God sends, God sends, and that was the best time for them to go By itself, yeah, the clouds hindered the Allies, but on the whole, I think they helped. I may be wrong, you know more than me. [post=34440]Quoted post[/post] Agreed that the bad weather deceived the Germans and nearly led to postponement of the entire operation to July (when, ironically, the weather would have been even worse). My point is that the cloud cover hindered the allies and worked in the favour of the Germans tactically on the morning of D-day. I don't think we disagree - we were approaching the subject from different directions.
Yes, I do think that we arelooking at it from two angles, and I do agree that it helped the Germans on the actual day.
Don't know if this is any help, but I know a Royal Navy DEMS gunner who was running the GI's into Omaha on the landing craft. He says it was one of the worst places he has been, and one particular boatload refused to get out and make their way to the beach. The sergeant took the boat's machine gun and literally drove them off into the water by shooting at their feet. Bill then adds that not a single one of those boys survived. They all died on the beach. If anyone knew Bill Large, of Congleton in Cheshire, let me know so I can pass it on. If you think you did, then you will, he's a very hard man to forget. Women in every port, shall we say?
Originally posted by angie999@Jun 8 2004, 06:33 PM 2. Overlooking the beach there are bluffs up to 170 ft high and the only exits are a series of draws, only two of which, heavily barricaded, were suitable for tanks. This meant that unless the Americans could force the exits quickly, they were in a German killing zone. [post=25888]Quoted post[/post] Having read that interesting posting from Angie I have a couple of questions. I suppose they are more linguistic and geographical questions than questions of military history. However, can anyone please tell me in English English exactly what "bluffs" and "draws" are? From the context I would guess that a bluff might be a cliff and a draw a ravine or a gully? Can anyone say for sure?
Originally posted by sapper@Aug 29 2005, 11:56 AM Right first time! Sapper [post=38331]Quoted post[/post] Thanks for that Sapper. It's always good to be sure!
Much of the trouble on Omaha was caused by the American outlook on war..The Yanks! bless them, always had this inherent "Gung Ho" attitude. That had a part in the beach tragedy. They had been offered the use of some of "Hobarts Funnies" prior to the invasion, but turned the offer down, their attitude, as I recall it, was "We dont need them" as it happens, that is just what they did need! While the British struck at Sword Beach. The most heavily defended area in the whole of Normandy beach head, because of our preparation, and our dogged fighting quality, we made it look easy. It was never that, and many times since the end of the war the Americans claimed that the British had it easy,....That is complete rubbish. Nowhere in the American sector did they have to face the long prepared enemy defences, that faced the British. There was no "Morris" or "Hillman" for them to have to overcome. They never faced anything like the British. For example just take the enemy defences at "Hillman" The size of those defences alone was an array of concrete machine gun and artillery posts, that were surrounded by a heavily mined area and covered in barbed wire. The extent of that concrrete defences was 650 Meters by 450 Meters, A huge and very powerful place indeed. IF you read about it? It was an officer from my Company, 246 Field Company Royal Engineers, that opened up "Hillman" Lt Arthur Heal C de G On the Sword Beaches "Queen red and Queen white" The first ashore was the DD tanks. at the same time the Rpyal Engineer Assault teams landed to prepare the way for the infantry, and follow up forces. My companies part in this operation, was to land early, and open up paths from the beach to the road that ran along the beach, and to remove "anything or anybody" that stood in the way...."Anything" We provided three teams to open up three paths as quickly as possible off the beach, it was done. My officer, now Major, is still around, his was the first to open up that path off the beach area. To overcome any concrete gun posts we were armed with Beehive explosive charges, to remove the gun positions. It all went very well. Now the question for the Americans is this; What teams did you have? For the account tells, that only after a pretty severe mauling, and the loss on many good men, that some one gathered the courage to get off the bloody beach!!!! That in my opinion, is letting your men down, by not providing them with the teams to do the job. The hoary old tale about the British having it easy, is one of the greatest load of rubbish ever trotted out to the public. I would point out further, that of all the little Assault Craft that were launched from the Mothers ships, 29 were lost out of total of 38...hardly an easy landing but that is the power of the Media......Not what you should know....But what we want to tell you. BY the way, my officer is still around, and a while back I talked to Arthur Heal on the phone. Got his Cruix de Geurre citation upstairs somewhere. Sapper
I quite agree Sapper. For sometime the British landings at Normandy have been portrayed as 'Walk-in the parl'. I go to Normandy every year as part of a University module that focuses on the British campaign and most people seem to arrive with the opinion that the British had things easy... They tend to change their minds after a little run up Sword beach at low-tide and the thoughts of German defences and the ease of observation to the beach!
Cheers! What I find so amazing is that these officers are still around. I get an update on who, and what, every Christmas from my old officer. Digger, bless him! I am often quite surprised that there are so many old veterans still around, for I was one of the youngest (just 19 on D Day) and I am in my 80th year, so many of the others are up to or beyond 95. I have lost my two best Veteran mates, Ted Brown, North Africa, Sicilly, Italy, and Normandy, and my other great friend, Derek Hinton Bless his memory, he of the RE from The Beaches of Normandy to France, Belgium, Holland and Germany. My other officer has been gone for some time now, Captain Edwards RE. Great men.....Great men, and great comrades in arms, as well as being great friends, Rest in peace old and dear friends. Sapper
One of the causes of the problems on Omaha beach. A special kind of sacrificial heroism was demanded of the DD crews that morning when, by a serious error of judgement, 32 were launched 6,000 yards from the beach. Each one, as it dropped off the ramp of the landing craft, plunged like a stone to the bottom of the sea, leaving pitifully few survivors struggling in the swell. Yet the following crews drove on into the water undetered by ghastly example. The lose of so many DDs' left the Americans at Omaha critically short of direct fire support on the beaches. While they would have lost many of the DD tanks to German fire, if they had actually made it to the beach in the numbers planned, it's possible their presence would have been decisive in open up routes off the beach.
Originally posted by sapper@Aug 29 2005, 11:34 AM Only men can fight their way off a beach. DD tanks cannot do that, Sapper [post=38351]Quoted post[/post] Were'nt the tanks used to suppress the beach defences, to aid the men in advancing inland. One of the prolbems at Omaha was the fire was so intense that when anyone tried to advance they were hit by German fire. This had the result of making the survivors reluctant to even try to advance.
