In the meantime, we're still waiting for more sources about how uncontested were Gold, Sword, Juno. Poor old EP expert is doing his best not to answer this one. -Navy warships would not come in below 12 miles out for fear of French Artillery (that one can go on the Sea Lion thread where I was told ships were immune to shore artillery in the channel). In fact our EP expert was told there that the Fire Control of German Coastal Artillery was hardly efficient enough at that time to ensure a decent hit rates on ships at a range of 20 miles and beyond. Being the honest chap he is, it is translated now into : ships were immune to shore artillery.
With so many words (and not one reference) I hardly know where to start. So with the beginning USA failed to get much armour ashore as the DD tanks were dropped to far out in dreadful conditions. That is well known. UK tanks did get ashore because we realised the danger and either dropped them close in, or on the beach. The USA could have got the tanks ashore is the LCT's had gone for the beach. This was recognised after the battle by the USa in the report they wrote. The British did go for shore and most of the kit survived. This is how the Funnies got ashore on the other beaches and how they would have got ashore on Omaha. I suspect that you are the one mistaking Sword with Omaha. As I clearly said I have been unable to find any M7's being landed at Omaha in the assult stage and was happy to be proved wrong. I invite you to prove me wrong. Please prove to me that the British landed 3 battalions of M7's in the assult stages on D Day whole you are at it. Its somethng that I haven't been able to track down. For the assult the British developed a wide range of landing craft to supply direct fire to the Beaches and as far as I can tell these were not M7's. These were designed to get close inshore with the landing craft and supply the fire they needed at short range. These included LCT's with 2 x 4.7 in guns. Others with 2 x 25pd guns and others with 2 x 17pd guns. The 25pd and 17pd LCT's were in turrets so that MG fire would be ineffective and A/T guns would be needed to knock them out. We also had some Landing craft with 2 x Centaur tanks (early Cromwell with Liberty not Meteor engines) armed with 95mm. Its possible there might have been a version of this with M7 but I have been unable to find one. You talk about hiding behind a tank. I wasn't. I was talking about using the tank to get around the beach and using it as cover while you demolish the defences. You cannot do that in a Sherman due to the design differences. We agree that a tank that is firing is a better option than a dead tank. Only the 88 posed a danger to the Churchill and there were only 2 for the whole 6 mile beachead. The Sherman was vulnerable to the 50mm as well and there were a lot more of those around. I am afraid the dead tank is far more likely to be the Sherman Next the fact that the Germans were firing on the beach. Suprise, everyone is waiting for you to prove that the Germans were not firing on the beaches in the other landing areas. Evidence please The specialized tanks that we are talking about on D Day {flame tanks and Engineer tanks with Petard) have to be Churchills as the USA didn't have any alternative tanks on D Day. This isn't unfounded speculation, its a statement of fact. Again happy to be proved wrong Next you ask why the USA would want to increase the spares. The reply is that they wouldn't, if they didn't want to. The 79 Division (which operated the Funnies) was the only UK Divison to frequently operate with USA forces for operations, This arrangement could have been used in the landings. The tanks would have had UK crews but been integrated into the USA plans. Its what happened for the rest of the war. This might suprise you but a 75HE shell will not knock out a proper tank. If they did why did we have AP, APDS, APHE etc shells. Please prove that this statement is correct. You keep going on about a 6 mile range for the M7. What is the point if the beach is 400 yards wide? At 400 yards MG fire is a major risk. I could hit it in the rear with a rifle every time. Panzerfuasts were very rare on the beach defences if only because you couldn't fire one in a bunker. The backblast would do serious damage. Please supply examples of them being used on the beaches. Again I am happy to be proved wrong. As for saying that the M7 has an advantage as the 88 loses its penetraton after 1/2 mile you have to be kidding. The gun that could take out Heavy tanks a thousands of yards couldn't penetrate an M7 at half a mile. Part 2 I will deal with later. As ever your evidence is awaited
Thants is an amazing claim. However, could you be more specific about which quoted works does not work for you. Really, I could. Like jimbotsome's claim that Sword Beach was undefended? You don't consider this as rubbish? Even when Brian who was THERE himself says so? DO I REALLY NEED TO CHALLENGE THAT?? But I did. I posted that there were 1000+ casualties and this was brushed off as if it was nothing. In the past I have posted many objections to jimbotsomes' postings. Read the Hollywood argument if you like. After a total waste of time he went running off unable to meet a simple challenge I offered. That's why. He talks rubbish and challenging it is a waste of time. Even Sapper has said it is a waste of time. That's good enough for me.
If the reading offends you, do some writing. Another person that obviously agrees that Sword was uncontested then. Also no doubt you think that 1000+ casualties isn't even worth counting, huh?
I agree. Jimbo spouts his 'opinions' with the assurance of 'facts', without ever actually supporting it with any evidence. That wouldn't be so bad were it not for the fact that he then brushes off anyone elses opinions as worthless, even if they do provide evidence to back their claims. But it's been said before and it seems Jimbo will always be the 'best' in his 'crowd of one'. One day he'll develop the maturity to back arguments with evidence rather than forwarding his ideas as a 'just so' story. Then maybe people will actually listen to what he has to say with interest rather than distain.
Part 2 You want to put the engineers in Jeeps or trucks? On a beach that is swept with gunfire, the infantary suffering many hundreds of casualties and the Senior officers thinking of abandoning the landing. All this and you want to put the engineers in Jeeps and trucks, this is exceptional by any standards. As this didn't happen in real life I assume this is your often quoted common sense. Can I ask you to explain the logic and how they were to stay alive more than a minute or two? The Engineer tanks with the Petard are not mineclearing tanks, the flail tanks were there for that purpose. The Petard tanks were to clear bunkers and obtacles which they did well. You keep mentioning that the other beaches were poorly defended but have given no evidence. I and a lot of other people are asking for your evidence. Before you go to far Juno beach had a sea wall twice the height of Omaha and 11 batteries of 155mm guns far more than Omaha had to face. Your comments about concrete gun emplacements being buried in the rock, enfiling the beaches and thousands of mines applied to all the beaches. Navy warships unable to come in to 12 miles is so wide of the mark. Suggest you look up the USS Arkansas who traded loads of braodsides with the shore batteries from as little as 3000 yards offshore and reveived a number of 8in hits for her trouble. PS the Sea Lion Thread was where you were claiming that the shore batteries would decimate fast moving battleships at 20 miles. Not quite the same thing is it? Comments about weather, tides, currents, sea swell, scatered paratroop drops, in fact all the points in this list apply as far as I can tell, to all the beaches. Please prove which are unique to Omaha? Monties failure as a ground commander. This I don't get as far as the D Day landings. Be fair, he insisted that half of all the funnies should be available to US forces even if the UK went light. It was a brave decision and you cannot blame him if the US didn't take up the offer. You mention my irrelavant references. Which do you mean, the map of the Omaha defences or the reference to the Funnies dealing with difficult bunkers on other beaches. Please explain the irrelavance? Be fair at least I submitted some. Where is your evidence? I have highlighted where you have made statments and have asked for supporting papers or information. I have even pointed out where I do not know but believe you to be incorrect but am happy to be proved wrong, inviting you to support your belief or statement. As I and a number of others have asked where is your supporting evidence. All we are asking you to do is back it up.
"I invite you to prove me wrong. Please prove to me that the British landed 3 battalions of M7's in the assult stages on D Day whole you are at it. Its somethng that I haven't been able to track down."most of the sources i have tried list the total to be either a few or some rather than specific numbers. Where the confusion may have arisen was the use of Bishops as part of the british forces.
I agree. Jimbo spouts his 'opinions' with the assurance of 'facts', without ever actually supporting it with any evidence. That wouldn't be so bad were it not for the fact that he then brushes off anyone elses opinions as worthless, even if they do provide evidence to back their claims. But it's been said before and it seems Jimbo will always be the 'best' in his 'crowd of one'. One day he'll develop the maturity to back arguments with evidence rather than forwarding his ideas as a 'just so' story. Then maybe people will actually listen to what he has to say with interest rather than distain. Ouch man! That hurts! Yanks have feelings too! I do hope that I am not over-revving the engine here. I am having fun, but I think some are getting hot under the collar, and this is just a debate. Let's be friends here first and foremost ok?. Those of you with uncivil responses, I can't respond to those without responding in kind and that just brings me down to your level so I am not doing that anymore. The rest I welcome. As far as quoting references, my recent posts have had quite a few. I operate mostly off of memory of things I have read so I have to go look it up. Sometimes it comes from books and sometimes it comes from the web. The reason I don't post them often is that with as much as I post: 1) it is laborious, 2) when I do when I do get off my lazy butt and go find them; the person demanding them never concedes the point they predicated on the challenge, they just quickly run to another one and oppose it just as vociferously. That just makes it uninspiring. I will be glad to post references to things I have stated or implied as fact. For my opinions, I will be glad to tell you how I arrive at it. Ask for them one by one, folks. You have to understand, I am the only active yank here. That's like being a lone lion eating a carcass he killed, and a pack of hyenas come up and decide they want the carcass, and start attacking in a pack. There is “strength” in numbers but there is not “truth” in numbers. This reminds me of the time I volunteered to dress up as a clown for a kids get together. At the time I didn't realize that kids believed it was ok to beat on kick an hit clowns. Sometimes they hit me in a place where a man would rather not be hit in. Be nice to the clowns, they are people too! Also, don't over-vilify me. Some of you enjoy engagement, I can tell. It's probably why you are here. Some of you check in just for the opportunity to take a swing at my posts! In that sense, I add a service here, you know.
Ouch man! That hurts! Yanks have feelings too! As far as quoting references, my recent posts have had quite a few. I operate mostly off of memory of things I have read so I have to go look it up. Sometimes it comes from books and sometimes it comes from the web. The reason I don't post them often is that with as much as I post: 1) it is laborious, 2) when I do when I do get off my lazy butt and go find them; the person demanding them never concedes the point they predicated on the challenge, they just quickly run to another one and oppose it just as vociferously. That just makes it uninspiring. I will be glad to post references to things I have stated or implied as fact. For my opinions, I will be glad to tell you how I arrive at it. Ask for them one by one, folks. You have to understand, I am the only active yank here. That's like being a lone lion eating a carcass he killed, and a pack of hyenas come up and decide they want the carcass, and start attacking in a pack. There is “strength” in numbers but there is not “truth” in numbers. This reminds me of the time I volunteered to dress up as a clown for a kids get together. At the time I didn't realize that kids believed it was ok to beat on kick an hit clowns. Sometimes they hit me in a place where a man would rather not be hit in. Be nice to the clowns, they are people too! Also, don't over-vilify me. Some of you enjoy engagement, I can tell. It's probably why you are here. Some of you check in just for the opportunity to take a swing at my posts! In that sense, I add a service here, you know. Note that our EP expert friend is again doing his best not to answer the references that would allow him to come to the conclusiong that the British beaches were undefended. All we have is another tiresome mantra about, well the usual off-topic crap. Though this part is a gem: when I do when I do get off my lazy butt and go find them; the person demanding them never concedes the point they predicated on the challenge, they just quickly run to another one and oppose it just as vociferously. That just makes it uninspiring. Can anyone describe better the way our EP expert is usually dismissing other poster's effort to backup their claims ?
The issue of battalions of British having M7s comes from a book on Sword Beach. Here is a link to it and you will even see it description area. It is also quoted in a lot of places over the web. There may be other sources too, but it was the one I used. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0850526736/002-5623205-3457617?v=glance&n=28315502-5623205-3457617?v=glance&n=283155 The part about Monty was tongue and cheek. I thought most of you being British can spot the dry humor. I qualified it with a parenthetical comment just incase you missed it but that seemed to be missed as well. Calm down, Monty had nothing to do with the Omaha beach problems. I do beleive that.
Glider, the destroyers you mentioned did indeed save the "afternoon". But they could have done that earlier in the day and saved a lot of lives. When they moved in and risked beaching, the battle was finished. They pretty much ruined the Germans day and helped get things going. The issue of the fear of the Navy and 12 miles comes from "A General's Life", Bradley's autobiography. Since he was on one of those ships, I have to take his word for it. If you need the page number (yet more distrust) I will give it to you by specific request. The irrelevant references I was referring to are references were (for reasons I don't know) that a Petard could have saved the day when no armor was allowed on the beach do to the strenuous request from the Germans. If no armor was on the beach how can you possibly argue that a Petard was of greater value to the US than an M7 or Sherman. If armor can't get on the beach, armor can't get on the beach so please, no references on the tactical capabilities of the Petard if it can't be on the scene. The rest you seem to have questioned everything I have stated. That’s overloading my resources and a tad insulting. I am not Geoff, you know, and have everything I have ever read or seen memorized to where I can post it immediately (he must have photographic memory). I tried to spell out that to you, that you yourself wouldn't like every sentence you post questioned. I would be glad to answer my claims. If you distrust everything I say then that's not a discussion that's simply unfair and something you wouldn't want me doing to you. If you have specific points you want me to address, bring them up. If I am Bulls***ing you then it will come out in the fact that random challenges often CAN'T be met. Like I said, one by one please, and if I say the sky was blue that day, take it for granted unless it is material to the issue.
Jimbo, did you ever conceed that you can't throw a grenade 100 yards? Or are you still in the the ' over 5 x the weight of a baseball doesn't make any difference' school of thought? :mellow:
Jimbo, did you ever conceed that you can't throw a grenade 100 yards? Or are you still in the the ' over 5 x the weight of a baseball doesn't make any difference' school of thought? :mellow: Did you ever concede that that is a strawman argument since I never said that? Misquoting people makes me think you don't read things looking for understanding but just to find some trite issue to debate. I just can't drop to that level pilot. I am sorry, but it just seems so demeaning.
Did you ever concede that that is a strawman argument since I never said that? Misquoting people makes me think you don't read things looking for understanding but just to find some trite issue to debate. I just can't drop to that level pilot. I am sorry, but it just seems so demeaning. So says the one who seems to have himself some trouble properly quoting other people's posts when it doesnt fit his own uneducated view.
The issue of the fear of the Navy and 12 miles comes from "A General's Life", Bradley's autobiography. Since he was on one of those ships, I have to take his word for it. Naval gunfire would commence at H-40 minutes and continue to H-3 minutes. The battleships TEXAS and ARKANSAS (mounting a total of ten 14inch, twelve 12-inch, and twelve 5-inch guns) would fire from 18,000 yards off shore. About 600 rounds of their heaviest shells would be aimed at the enemy coastal battery at Pointe du Hoe and at the enemy strongpoints defending Exit D-3. Three cruisers, with 6-inch or 152-mm guns, had as targets for 950 rounds the enemy defenses near Port-enBessin and the strong-points near D-3 and E-1 draws. Firing at 1,800 yards from swept lanes on the flanks of the landing-craft approach area, eight destroyers (4- and 5-inch guns) were to put 2.000 rounds on the beach strongpoints. In addition to the ships, a large number of fire-support craft were to place area fire on the beach defenses, and point fire on certain other targets. Five LCG (L)'s with two 47-mm guns each, accompanying the leading assault wave, were scheduled to fire 630 rounds on selected strongpoints beginning at H-20 minutes. Sixteen LCT (A and HE)'s, carrying tanks to land in the first wave, were each fitted so that two M-4's could fire over the ramp, beginning from a range of 3,000 yards at about H-15 minutes; each gun had an allowance of 150 rounds. Ten LCT (5) s carried the 36105-mm howitzers (self-propelled) of the 58th and 62d Armored Field Artillery Battalions, due to land in the third hour of the assault. These howitzers were mounted to fire from the LCT's, opening at a range of 8,000 yards about H-30 and closing at a range of 3,700 yards by H-5 minutes. Their allowance was 100 rounds per gun. Finally, 9 LCT (R)'s stationed in positions 3,000 yards o shore were to fire 1,000 HE rockets each when the leading assault wave was 300 yards from the beach. http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/100-11/ch2.htm#Pre-Assault
If no armor was on the beach how can you possibly argue that a Petard was of greater value to the US than an M7 or Sherman. At H Hour eight LCT's would land Company A of the 743d Battalion on Easy Green and Dog Red. This unit had a mission similar to that of the other tank companies. With Company A were landed eight tank dozers, towing trailers of explosive and scheduled for use by engineers in demolition work on obstacles. All three companies were attached to the battalion landing teams to insure closest coordination with the infantry assault. The Initial Assault Wave Ninety-six tanks, the Special Engineer Task Force, and eight companies of assault infantry (1,450 men), landing just before and after 0630, were to carry out the first assault missions (Map No. V). On the right, the 743d Tank Battalion brought in all its tanks on LCT's. Company B, coming in directly in face of the Vierville draw, suffered from enemy artillery fire. The LCT carrying the company commander was sunk just of shore, and four other officers were killed or wounded, leaving one lieutenant in Company B. Eight of that company's 16 tanks landed and started to fire from the water's edge on enemy positions. The tanks of Companies C and A touched down to the east at well-spaced intervals and without initial losses. In the 16th RCT one, only 5 of the 32 DD tanks (741st Tank Battalion) made shore; of Company A's 16 standard tanks, 2 were lost far off shore by an explosion of undetermined cause, and 3 were hit and put out of action very shortly after beaching. The surviving third of the battalion landed between E-1 and E-3 draws and went into action at once against enemy emplacements http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/100-11/ch3.htm#initial uiotyuioppokijij
it seems that we are desending into yet another slanging match and it is becoming tiresome to keep issuing warnings. lets keep to a discussion on the issues and not make comments on others integrity, intelligence or mental health. Quick note jim, Many posters here go to great lengths to include sources when quotes facts and figures and it is understandable if they get a bit miffed, if you do not reply in kind
Just a small point about the M& Priest, the cliffs on Omaha beach were something like between 85 and 100 ft tall. The upper elevation of the M7 was 35 degrees which meant that it could not raise its gun far enough to fire over the cliffs, even from the beaches.
it seems that we are desending into yet another slanging match and it is becoming tiresome to keep issuing warnings. lets keep to a discussion on the issues and not make comments on others integrity, intelligence or mental health. Quick note jim, Many posters here go to great lengths to include sources when quotes facts and figures and it is understandable if they get a bit miffed, if you do not reply in kind That's fine Morse so long as they expect every single thing they say to be implicitly challenged and never pose a single thing without a reference, which you and I both know, no one does. I do make references and quote sources where I got things when they are fundamental or significant. The proof is in the threads. But, when I am challenged on virtually everything I post it makes it seem like the hyena attacks I mentioned and has only the purpose to win by attrition and exhausting me. I realize as a Yank, I am a minority here and have a reasonably good attitude about it, but when being challenged on my integrity as you have, here, I find it quite unfair and a double-standard and something that should not happen for minority view reasons. You can go back and look at places I have posted references and see for yourself, but what is really meant by their “miffing” is not that I don’t post references but that I don't post references for everything single thing I said. Regardless of this I get some baseless “Jimbo NEVER gives reference rhetoric” by some of the more disingenuous and accusatorial amongst them. In this particular situation a definitive charge that a gung-ho attitude of the Americans in refusing 80 yard mortar tossers was why they got so many men killed on Omaha. Perhaps you can never find a more outrageous claim than that. The issue of rejection of the Petard was never sourced by Bradley or Ike in a lament (or even mentioned) so I am certain it never entered their minds in their retrospectives where they are quite candid about their mistakes and failures. Therefore the tremendous burden of proof is not on me but on the ones that support that point of view so why should I give a single reference if they give none? Like I posted earlier, I was not the one that made the outrageous claim so that means I held the logical high ground. It’s like claiming that I have an obligation to prove the world is not flat because I disagreed with the antagonist’s “unequivocal” statement. The fact is that the antagonist owns the burden of proof, which also, as I said before, is tremendously conspicuous by its absence in my constant requests for facts to support such improbable and seemingly outrageous claims. These requests go ignored and even evaded by acting as though they didn’t read them and instead, trying to change the issue to some tangential part of my statements calling for this proof. In the US, the word hypocrite means “someone who accuses someone else of an act (rightly or wrongly) that they do themselves”. In this case, the rest of this is just tangential points that people took us in persistently avoiding to give references to support the point that the US had the wrong Armor on the beach on Omaha which we know is false because they really had NO armor at Omaha when these men were dying. So, I don't buy that people are going to great lengths to back up their claims; in fact I believe people are going to great lengths to avoid having to address these fundamental challenges and are endeavoring to throw in so many spurious details in order to "muddy the water". For instance, in my claims, I said that an M7 or a Sherman can defend itself whereas a Petard could not and that the British believed that too and landed M7s first. Rather than covering the rationale of that statement I was told definitively that the British had no M7s at Sword, which is obviously not because they knew this (since it wasn't true) but because it would be an affront to their entire position of whether the Petard would be the lifesaver at Omaha since the British didn’t believe in them that much either. There was not a single reference to this “fact” proving I was wrong and I posted a reference and you saw, that once again, “no one” said, you got me there, they simply found yet another tangent to run off on causing even more calls for references when I make counterarguments. When they are out of tangents then comes the ad hominem pot shots, which don't bother me but don't do anything but waste my time. It is an endless exercise to which no amount of facts are capable of proving them wrong. That’s not history debate, its a game of tag. Again, on this issue, I hold the logical and now moral high ground because I have posted relevant references but refuse to post them on every tangential point they have drummed up because it would be exhausting. I have no problems giving references or sources when asked. But, when the game I just described above, a game you can see being played in the thread, then I don’t have the inclination to rundown sources as it is simply an exercise in futility. I posted that if someone wants a reference let them ask it one at a time and do so civilly. This prevents broadcast challenges. I find it hard to believe my behavior here has been unreasonable as to call it out. While I of all people am NOTabove reproach, as I just finished stating, in this case I feel it is unfair; and just more of the same.
Morse, that is 8 hours afterward and long after the destroyers came in and opened up. Before this, especially in the early waves, was when the heavy infantry and armor casualties and losses were taken. I think you are making my point, not refuting it. The only mass kill of engineers was in the water to blow the underwater barricades and open up a corridor for LCTs and LCIs. No AVRE, especially the Petard is going to help you out in the deep surf where dragons teeth and mines are on top of them. When the destroyers came in and started firing on the guns they could see, (some were not visible as they had been built into the cliffs). Then AND ONLY THEN could they begin to get armor ashore because the guns were busy trying to hit the destroyers who were working over the shore guns pretty good. The destroyers were almost sunk themselves having near misses in very shallow water where they had to keep maneuvering. When the armor finally got to the shore, the infantry made it to the high ground, the defenses were cleaned out very quickly by their flamethrowers so engineers could work the beaches at their leisure and a Petard would certainly not be necessary. The Petard, as best I can figure has NO utility on a beach landing, especially not Omaha Beach with the high cliffs and the guns cut into the side of that bluff. Bradley is extremely clear in his statement that if he could have gotten the DDs on shore that most of these losses could be avoided. Do you need a page number and paragraph or does common sense rule the day here? If so I will be glad to “reference it”. But lest I be accused of arguing what should be obvious, here is a reference to a synopsis of the role of the destroyers and the problems they were having at Omaha. It is by the US Naval Institute. Please read it because it tells the story of the guns at Omaha beach. The Petards could not have gotten to the cliffs through the heavy mine fields (thousands of mines) and if they had they couldn’t have gotten a round that high. A mortar round is capable of going much further than it can high (obviously, since we are dealing with gravity which I should not have to prove right?) and since its range is only 80 yards so this means they could have gotten more than probably 20 or 30 yards in the air at best. It would unquestionably useless. Not using them did not get the men at Omaha killed. That’s simply a glib argument. I have argued this from day 1. http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/articles04/NHAllenJun-2.htm Omaha and Sword are simply not the same battles. Sword was heavily bombed and pounded for two hours before the troops and equipment got there. If Sword was the most heavily defended beach of the invasion, it certainly was NOT by the time the troops came ashore and nothing like it. At Omaha, they were dealing with heavy guns embeded in the cliffs. They had a 2 hour pre-bombardment that took out everything heavy and why they were able to cruise in. Sure the Brits had to fight their way off the beach but they didn't have an extra crack infantry division training at those beach sites. Omaha did. It was in tact when the first waves hit the beaches. It wasn't that the Americans didn't want armor on the beaches. Its that they simply couldn't get armor to the beaches. This was not the same situation as the other four beaches fortunately. Minimizing it or blaming it on the incompetence of the US to recognize useful equipment, or because they were irresponsibly gung-ho has no substance to it whatsoever.
