Operation Tractable- "friendly" Fire?

Discussion in 'NW Europe' started by peter.hyslop, Nov 14, 2005.

  1. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    If you read the TOTALIZE story at spidge's link, you can see that Harris stressed concerns over using heavies in a role they were not trained for. His worst fears were realized. Even after the problems of COBRA.

    If there was an inquiry as you say there was, you can bet it had nothing to do with the high command. Ike was in charge. He had no interest in creating some suspicion of treason or incompetence in the mission. The potential for the friendly fire incidents was not only expressed by Harris but also experienced by Doolittle who had the same reservations that Harris did at the outset of COBRA. What would be the point of an inquiry other than to create an opportunity to sew a suspicion and create distrust and demoralize the troops? Is there an officer that would do such a thing? Perhaps members of Parliament from the Labor party looking to undermine Churchill even at the sacrifice of hurting the military (sort of like the liberals in US Senate is trying to do to Bush in Iraq right now). But I can't imagine it being initiated by Ike or anyone that gave a crap about the cohesiveness of the military.
     
  2. Gibbo

    Gibbo Senior Member

    (sapper @ Nov 16 2005, 11:43 AM) [post=41614]Goodwood? Bombed short? I have no knowledge of this? We were in the Vanguard of the battle. We watched as 2000 heavies bombed the Heights along with 700 guns, (Grand stand view) At no time did we experience any friendly fire from the bombers. Not from the start line, right up to the Bourgebous Ridge.

    Nowhere, to my knowledge, was there friendly fire on the Goodwood operation.[/b]

    I jumped to the assumption, based on the quote from John Keegan in my previous posting, that there had been casualties from short bombing in GOODWOOD. I've now looked at his book, 6 Armies in Normandy, more carefully & he makes no such allegation. I've also looked at John Terraine's history of the RAF in WWII, The Right of the Line & he mentions such casualties only in relation to COBRA (USAAF), TRACTABLE (RAF) & an operation on 9 August (USAAF).

    Obvipously you had a good view at the risk of your life so you know the truth, which is that the short bombing occurred in other operations, not GOODWOOD. It was, however, my mistake in interpretation of Keegan's view rather than his error.

    Sorry
     
  3. peter.hyslop

    peter.hyslop Junior Member

    I saw the reference to Harris's reservations to use close support heavy bombing, but I would have to see letters or transcripts to actually believe it. Just because it is in a book, does not make it so. Now, he may have references to back his claim that Harris thought his crews were not trained well enough for such operations, but it would be easy for him to say, after the fact, "oh, I knew they would screw up"! I'm more and more interested in getting hold of this report. I kmow that they do inquiries on friendly fire incidents immediately, so that the mistake may be prevented from happening again. Why would it be so different 60 years ago, it wasn't like they were fighting the Revolutionary War or anything. Interview the bomber crews when they return to thier home base, have the affected parties on the ground interviewed, seems like a pretty easy thing to do. Most of the info likely could have been gathered in 24-48 hrs. I'm expecting word from Hendon anytime- may be a fax, which no doubt would be fuzzy.
     
  4. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    Peter, I am not sure the war was laden with conspiracy. They make analysis but a formal inquiry is usually done to only to find the real problem. The real problem was never in doubt. It was known before the mission. The risks were known going in. It was Harris’ concern. There was no secrecy or conspiracy about that. There was no suspicion. You analyze something to make sure you understand the problem so it is not repeated. You typically have an inquiry to determine if there is someone to blame either by incompetence, neglect or treason. To Ike it was irrelevant. He simply was not going to use them in that role again, even if it saved lives in the long run. He makes that clear. He was the boss. If you wanted to document the problems for posterity, you would hardly need private detectives, you simply get input from the reports filed by the ground commanders and the air crews. That’s SOP.

    The inquiry:

    Harris before hand: “I afraid that they will miss short!.”
    Air Crews afterwards: “We missed short.”
    Ground Forces: “They missed short. “
    Result of the Inquiry: “RAF missed short.”
    Ike afterwards: “Not going to try that again.”

    What’s the point?
     
  5. peter.hyslop

    peter.hyslop Junior Member

    Are you saying you have a copy of an inquiry, or just trying to be funny? I like people with open minds....

    I have recieved a copy by fax from Hendon, pretty good in fact, of a 12 page report dated August 25, 1944, titled "Report on the Bombing of our own Troops during Operation "Tractable"", signed by A.T Harris, in which "the two Pathfinder crews implicted were made to relinquish their Pathfinder badges and were re-posted to ordinary crew duties"; "Squadron and Flight Commanders were made to relinquish their Commands and rank"; "all crews implicated have been "starred" as not to be employed within 30 miles forward of the bomb line, until they are re-assessed"; "and a reminder that yellow flares are to be used to mark friendly troops"... he also complains of "the delorable and largely untrue Press stories permitted to emenate through the RAF and Army controlled sources in France". This is all quoted from the from page, which seems to be a summary.

    I think that there must have been more than a little error, sounds like negligance with all the re-assignments and busted ranks! there could be some people alive that have a heavy load to bear....I have not read the entire report, but will try and post it, if I can. Attached is my father's account of the incident, he does not mention the fact that it was our bombers involved, RCAF as a matter of fact! He told me later that they knew they were allied and our troops were shooting back in frustration, ultimate in futility considering the altitude. The German ground troops, on the other hand, thought that their bombers were pasting our troops.
     
  6. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (peter.hyslop @ Nov 17 2005, 08:54 PM) [post=41729]Are you saying you have a copy of an inquiry, or just trying to be funny? I like people with open minds....

    I have recieved a copy by fax from Hendon, pretty good in fact, of a 12 page report dated August 25, 1944, titled "Report on the Bombing of our own Troops during Operation "Tractable"", signed by A.T Harris, in which "the two Pathfinder crews implicted were made to relinquish their Pathfinder badges and were re-posted to ordinary crew duties"; "Squadron and Flight Commanders were made to relinquish their Commands and rank"; "all crews implicated have been "starred" as not to be employed within 30 miles forward of the bomb line, until they are re-assessed"; "and a reminder that yellow flares are to be used to mark friendly troops"... he also complains of "the delorable and largely untrue Press stories permitted to emenate through the RAF and Army controlled sources in France". This is all quoted from the from page, which seems to be a summary.

    I think that there must have been more than a little error, sounds like negligance with all the re-assignments and busted ranks! there could be some people alive that have a heavy load to bear....I have not read the entire report, but will try and post it, if I can. Attached is my father's account of the incident, he does not mention the fact that it was our bombers involved, RCAF as a matter of fact! He told me later that they knew they were allied and our troops were shooting back in frustration, ultimate in futility considering the altitude. The German ground troops, on the other hand, thought that their bombers were pasting our troops.
    [/b]
    I like open minds too. It appears you think RAF men killed Canadians just because they were incompetent and you are looking for evidence to support that conspiracy theory despite the fact they didn't find one. I don’t consider a retrospective witch hunt looking to second guess the people there, an open mind at all. As you posted, he found the press reports “deplorable and largely untrue”. Any idea what the press would print about such an incident?

    A report is not the same thing as an inquiry. A report is always filed. The move you see appears to me to be an attempt to put the fire out of the liberal newspaper reporters trying to start chaos to sell copy (yes they had soulless liberal newsmen in WWII as well, our generation didn’t invent them). Taking those men off the line was probably a way to defuse the situation much like the US had to defuse the situation where the US soldier shot the Iraqi in the head in Fallujah last year because he was injured and rolled over. What the papers didn’t tell you was that the previous day, that same soldier lost his closest friend and even took shrapnel in the face when an insurgent rolled over with an unpinned grenade, “playing injured”, just as this guy was. The US also took him “off the line” (this is standard procedure) investigated it (i.e. read the reports, and interviewed the major players) and later after the newspaper firestorm that fueled and abetted the enemy had died down, and said they found him in justifiable self-defense. Those parts about that being a practice of the suicide bombers and the fact that that man was shooting from the mosque minutes earlier when a group came through and moved on, are conveniently left out of the liberal media reports to get the frenzy cranked. Many narrow-minded people seek conspiracy and accusation and omitted details where they can “fill in the blanks” to help their paranoia and distrust reach its zenith. It’s what they live for. Are you one of these people Peter?
     
  7. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    (peter.hyslop @ Nov 18 2005, 12:54 PM) [post=41729]Are you saying you have a copy of an inquiry, or just trying to be funny? I like people with open minds....

    I have recieved a copy by fax from Hendon, pretty good in fact, of a 12 page report dated August 25, 1944, titled "Report on the Bombing of our own Troops during Operation "Tractable"", signed by A.T Harris, in which "the two Pathfinder crews implicted were made to relinquish their Pathfinder badges and were re-posted to ordinary crew duties"; "Squadron and Flight Commanders were made to relinquish their Commands and rank"; "all crews implicated have been "starred" as not to be employed within 30 miles forward of the bomb line, until they are re-assessed"; "and a reminder that yellow flares are to be used to mark friendly troops"... he also complains of "the delorable and largely untrue Press stories permitted to emenate through the RAF and Army controlled sources in France". This is all quoted from the from page, which seems to be a summary.

    I think that there must have been more than a little error, sounds like negligance with all the re-assignments and busted ranks! there could be some people alive that have a heavy load to bear....I have not read the entire report, but will try and post it, if I can. Attached is my father's account of the incident, he does not mention the fact that it was our bombers involved, RCAF as a matter of fact! He told me later that they knew they were allied and our troops were shooting back in frustration, ultimate in futility considering the altitude. The German ground troops, on the other hand, thought that their bombers were pasting our troops.
    [/b]

    Peter,

    Are you aware of this link?

    http://www.legionmagazine.ca/features/cana...story/00-01.asp

    Simonds was either unaware of the depth of this problem or determined to ignore it. As a corps commander he could not allow his men to focus on reasons for failure. He had to plan for success and employ the resources available to him. At a commanders conference held just before launching his second armoured Blitzkrieg–Operation Tractable–Simonds was highly critical of the performance of both armoured divisions. He accused them of every known sin under the sun, including lack of drive. He was especially disappointed in the Poles and for Tractable, the massive daylight attack of Aug. 14, he paired the veteran 2nd Cdn. Armd. Bde. with 4th Div. This left the Polish Armd. Div. to form "a firm base."

    The decision gave the Poles time to recover from their first battle and from the ordeal of a second short bombing–this time by the Royal Canadian Air Force –that inflicted more than 200 casualties.


    Regards

    Geoff
     
  8. peter.hyslop

    peter.hyslop Junior Member

    "Many narrow-minded people seek conspiracy and accusation and omitted details where they can “fill in the blanks” to help their paranoia and distrust reach its zenith. It’s what they live for. Are you one of these people Peter?"

    I do not appreciate your tone, my father was injured, many of his comrades were killed or horribly maimed during this incident, something that bothered him all his life. I was asking questions about what actually happened, and I get accused of being a "conspiracy theorist" and of being being "paranoid"? Everyone else seems to be willing to help in my seach for some answers to questions as to what actually happened to my father and his friends, except you...

    I have found out that our troops were bombed by their own air force, and that gross negligance was a part of the equasion, people did not do their jobs! All I hear from you is unsubstantiated supposition..... I am a firm believer of going to the horses mouth, the inquiries (reports if you want to mince words) and the original combatants, not the horses ass, you. I'd appreciate if you kept your posts to yourself if you have nothing to contribute, or only wish to insult me and my father's memory.

    Thankyou, I appreciate your help. This is a very interesting link, as it shows the inexperience of Simonds...it does not take a rocket scentist to figure that if you restict movement and concentrate armour, an enemy with decent firepower (an the 88s were much more than "decent") the result could well be the old adage "like shooting fish in a barrell"! A real problem with the Canadian officers was their lack of experience, due to the downsizing of the Candian forces between the WWs. But a sign of a good commander is the ability to assess and utilize his various element to their full potential, and with limited loss of life, either civilian or allied forces. His decision to hem in and restrict the Polish armour was a sign of not only his his inexperience but inflexibility and lack of common sense and vision. Armour needs room to manuver. No wonder he was replaced by Crear soon after. If it is true that he was un-aware or the weaknesses of the Sherman, it again would show a lacking on his part of assessing of the situation, how could he not know why so many of his tanks were being destroyed? He must have asked the question. the lack of plate on his armour would necessitate a change in tactics on Simonds part, use their mobility, don't restrict them, keep themon the move. I had heard, from my father, that tankers were trying to improve their survivablity by wiring spare tracks on the sides. I can't remember the term he used for tanks, after seeing them burn they were given a nickname, dammed if I can remember what he used to call them.....

    In any case, the brief reference to the August 14 bomding is not quite accurate, it was not just RCAF bombers, but also RAF and Polish, although the majority were RCAF. More to follow.

    Please don't take my previous post as being a sign of my ingratitude for all your help! But I can be pushed so far, and do not like to be insulted by someone who is not open minded. Thanks to all who are helping me!

    Peter
     
  9. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (peter.hyslop @ Nov 18 2005, 07:30 AM) [post=41750]I do not appreciate your tone, my father was injured, many of his comrades were killed or horribly maimed during this incident, something that bothered him all his life. I was asking questions about what actually happened, and I get accused of being a "conspiracy theorist" and of being being "paranoid"? Everyone else seems to be willing to help in my seach for some answers to questions as to what actually happened to my father and his friends, except you...

    I have found out that our troops were bombed by their own air force, and that gross negligance was a part of the equasion, people did not do their jobs! All I hear from you is unsubstantiated supposition..... I am a firm believer of going to the horses mouth, the inquiries (reports if you want to mince words) and the original combatants, not the horses ass, you. I'd appreciate if you kept your posts to yourself if you have nothing to contribute, or only wish to insult me and my father's memory.

    [/b]
    Those two statements are in stark contrast. In one you say you are not a conspiracy theorist but on in the other you conclude gross negligence. That's an egregious charge of people that were not charged with that and that are not here to defend themselves. I don't appreciate your tone either.

    I would also appreciate you not calling me a horse’s ass. I am not the one using my father's memory as a shield to denigrate men with baseless charges that they were never charged with. You in no wise showed anything that said the troops were “grossly negligent”. That’s merely the an "unsubstantiated supposition” of yours, for which you seek some vague statement that can be twisted to validate your theory. I told you what Ike said about it, if there is a horse’s mouth, it would have been his. If it had been anything to do with negligence, he would not have ceased all further use of heavies in the rest of the war, but would have simply mentioned the court marshal of these men and scheduled more missions with their replacements. That premise is absurd and offensive.

    I read your father’s letters. He, unlike you, had enough character not to make this a personal matter but rather a terrible misfortune. He made no accusations against the RAF whatsoever. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that people here who genuinely want to help you find information, are equally willing to help you with a witch hunt. Your accusations against these men are dishonoring to their son’s memories of their father. How would you like it if someone came along 60+ years later and accused your father of being grossly negligent in killing women and children because they read of some collateral damage where innocents died? If the press had accused his group with “deplorable and largely untrue” claims, they would have pulled him off the line to shut the press up and defuse the situation as well. Would that have made him guilty of gross negligence as you insist it does with these men?
     
  10. peter.hyslop

    peter.hyslop Junior Member

    Again, you have nothing to contribute. You showed that in your earlier incorrect posting. I do not have any of "Ike's" letters or a copy of his response to Harris's report... do you? As far as there being a "conspiracy", you are the one contending that! I do not believe that our allied forces would "conspire" to bomb their own men and equipment. Any conspiracy I would be suspicious of is higher ranks trying to protect their reputations "after the fact", which is why I need to see primary documents before I would believe a general saying after something bad happens "oh, I knew that would happen". But this is more than just an "accident" as you contend. There was negligance, or heads would not have rolled- just because no one was "charged" does not mean that there was no negligance. I am a realist, I would rather read that the Americans or the British bombed my fathers battation, not the RCAF. But this is a Canadian mis-adventure that took Canadian and Polish lives. Please do not post on this thread again, as you are obviously unwilling to change your view of your version of history... this is personal and you do not care or understand that. You should change your handle to "jimbosahoresarse". And do not presume to know my father or what he said, you did not know him. He was more open on the war in later years when he was either with a war buddy, or a bit "under the influence". He said things then that he would not repeat to his sister, wife or parents I'm sure. I am not using my father a "shield". I want to find out what happened. Please keep your posts to yourself!
     
  11. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    From your post Peter, I would guess you are about 10 years old. Does your mother know you are using bad words like that?
     
  12. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor

    Guys can we cool it please, this is meant to be a friendly (and family) forum, please keep the language clean (relatively)
     
  13. peter.hyslop

    peter.hyslop Junior Member

    How many times to I have to ask you, keep your posts to yourself, if you have nothing positive to contribute. Does anyone know how to block someone from a thread, although there is not much more info that I can be provided with. Thanks fo all the people who helped me!
     
  14. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Nov 17 2005, 04:31 PM) [post=41686]Perhaps members of Parliament from the Labor party looking to undermine Churchill even at the sacrifice of hurting the military (sort of like the liberals in US Senate is trying to do to Bush in Iraq right now). [/b]

    Best not jump to conclusions about wartime British politics. Nothing like the current US Senate.

    The Labour Party were part of the wartime coalition government, so they would not be in the business of undermining Churchill in Parliament.

    There was a very small number of members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords who habitually raised awkward questions over bombings. They got short shrift and went generally unreported at the time.
     
  15. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    I do not know if this helps, because it is not an original source, but at least it may add some perspective for anyone reading this in the hope of establishing what happened.

    Bomber Command, having been developed as a night bombing force, was trained to bomb onto target markers dropped by the pathfinders and this practice was continued during daylight bombing missions.

    According to Robin Neillands in his The Battle for Normandy 1944 (Cassell paperback edition 2003, pp 364-365), it was about 80 of the 800 bombers employed which bombed "short", not the whole force. He says that 44 of these bombers were, ironically, from 6 Group, the RCAF group in Bomber Command. He says that the ground troops used their yellow smoke flares to indicate their position, but the bomber crews took these to be pathfinder target markers and bombed on them.

    It looks to me as though there was poor co-ordination between the ground formations and the bombers over marking protocols. There was no conspiracy and the bombers tried to be as accurate as possible, but there were serious flaws in the methods employed.

    The lesson to me from this and other incidents is that the strategic bomber forces were neither trained nor equipped for this tactical bombing role when the opposing ground forces were in such close contact.

    <span style="color:#006600">And finally, placing moderator's hat firmly on head, any further trading of abusive posts on this topic is going to get the censor's pencil employed.</span>
     
  16. peter.hyslop

    peter.hyslop Junior Member

    You are correct to a point Angie, the RCAF were involved, and not all the bombers mistakenly bombed Allied troops. And there was no "conspiracy" as you accuse me of, why, when someone asks questions, does he get accused of that in this forum? But there was more just mis-reading of smoke markers, as the standard story goes, even that is iffy. This is why I was asking for info in the first place, not because I thought at the time that there was more than just a mistake involved, or a few bombs drifting. That was a concern, and was considered an acceptable risk by Harris, and assumededly those above him. Because of the great success of previous close support heavy bombing, evan at short notice he believed that this operation as worth the risk, at least he said so, in a report written 11 days later. He did have the thought of bringing the aircraft in lower, to reduce the risk on our men on the ground.... There was, according to the report, a failure of basic procedure, the worst of which was not timing from the coast! In Harris's report:

    "Phase 1- from 1441 to 1459 hrs- one Pathfinder, 4 crews of No.6 (RCAF) Group mistakenly bombed near St. Aigan within our own lines. The Pathfinder was a "non-marker" aircraft and it has been clearly established that no markers fell in that vicinity" -from report

    (the enemy line/territory was marked by my Father's Battalion using 25 pound yellow coloured smoke shells.)

    "I can see no excuse for these bombing errors, not even for the errors of the aircraft which followed on behind those initiating the mistake.- from report

    Phase 2- from 1514 to 1518hrs- 12 additional aircraft from No.6 (RCAF) Group and 1 PPF bombed in error St.Aigan. The bombing this time was started by a backing up aircraft of the PFF Group carrying ground target indicators. The air bomber of this aircraft saw what he thought were yellow target indicators already burning on the ground and considerable smoke from the previous bombing.- from report

    Here again attention to the timed run from the point of crossing the coastline would have made these errors impossible by any of the aircraft concerned"- from report

    (at this point, my Father's Battalion and the Polish Armour I believe they we attached to at the time, had not been bombed)

    "Phase 3- from 1514 to 1520 hours 23 aircraft of No. 6 (RCAF) Group bombed the quarry at Haut Mesnil in error " ( this is where my Father and his Batt were bombed) "This was started by two aircraft of No 428 (RCAF) Squadron who bombed almost simultaneously. They appear to have mistaken the smoke rising from the erroneous bombing of St Aigan for the smoke from Aiming Point 21. The Master Bomber concerned, who was operating on and viewing the correct target, instructed arriving aircraft to 'bomb yellow Target Indicators. You will find them when you have passed the first column of smoke'. This appears to fit the picture as the aircraft saw it and also claimed to have seen yellow smoke Target Indicators burning in the vicinity of the supposed target.- from report

    Here again proper attention to a lapsed time run from the point of crossing the coast line would have made this mistake impossible.- from report

    Phase 4- the quarry at Haut Mesnil was again bombed from 1532 hrs onward. This was started by aircraft of 460 (RAAF) Squadron. The air bomber of this aircraft claims that he saw though the smoke of previous bombings what he thought were red Target Indicators burning on the ground 'which he had previously seen cascading'. At the same time, another aircraft bombed what he claimed to have seen yellow Target Indicators. This target (again, my father and his group) was bombed by a total of 26 aircraft of No. 1 (RAAF) Group" -from reoprt

    There was a total of 77 allied aircraft, 44 of which were RCAF, bombed within our lines. Of those, 49 bombed the quarry where the Canadian Artillery and Polish Armour were waiting out the bombardment, 26 of which were RCAF Lancs.

    It is pretty obvious that this was not just a few errant bombs, this was a basic error of not following procedure. If they would have kept the timing going from the coast, none of this would have occured. Its also pretty obvious that Harris thought that these errors necessitated some form of punishment- which I have already described in previous post from Harris's report- "I have recieved a copy by fax from Hendon, pretty good in fact, of a 12 page report dated August 25, 1944, titled "Report on the Bombing of our own Troops during Operation "Tractable"", signed by A.T Harris, in which "the two Pathfinder crews implicted were made to relinquish their Pathfinder badges and were re-posted to ordinary crew duties"; "Squadron and Flight Commanders were made to relinquish their Commands and rank"; "all crews implicated have been "starred" as not to be employed within 30 miles forward of the bomb line, until they are re-assessed"; "and a reminder that yellow flares are to be used to mark friendly troops"... he also complains of "the delorable and largely untrue Press stories permitted to emenate through the RAF and Army controlled sources in France". This is all quoted from the from page, which seems to be a summary."

    The reference to untrue press reports involves Very Flares fired over our lines in an attempt to warn off the bombers, but it did not work, they kept on bombing... The press, according to the report, were asserting that the entire bomber force would have bombed our troops if not for the Very Flare action. The demotions ect had nothing to do with a possible reaction to the press or public. I believe that Harris believed that some crews did not do their jobs. Just the same as the demotion of Schmitt was not public ot politically motivalted after he bombed Canadian troops in Afganistan on a training mission. I can tell you that I'm not happy with that friendly fire incident, but the parents and spouses of the dead soldiers are a little more POed, but I'm sure they will forgive.

    I do not think that there was a "'conspiracy"as J would has said. I was not and am not conducting a "witch hunt" as J has asserted. I am not "narrow-minded" or "paranoid" as J has accused me of. I ask questions, I got a tip from the Canadian Artillery Museum that an inquiry (or report) was done, and was directed to Hendon Air Museum- they forwarded this report to me. I cannot help it if J, and possibly others, do not wish to believe the report- I called it getting the info from the "horse's mouth" being Harris's Report of 11 days after the incident, and not the "horsesarse". I must apologize for that.... but an un-informed, narrow-minded, blind-to-the-evidence person can push me only so far. He keeps quoting a book "Ike" wrote as if it were the holy grail and has no respect for historians, or their efforts! As one poster exclaimed in frustration with him recently- "Historians are clueless? Are you kidding me? Who are you to say that?" lol

    There is more to this report, including the fact that allied ground troops routinely display, of all things, yellow smoke or flares, or yellow markers in a triangle shape if they are under air attack from friendly forces (which you have brought up Angie). An investgator that Harris dispached to France and reported to HQ No. 84 Group in France and filed his own report on the possible use of yellow markers by the ground troop. He found no evidence that these were used early on in the Operation- ie: Phase 1, but they could well have been used after the initial bombing error.

    Notwithstanding all of the contributing factors outlined in the report- short notice of the action, the late evening of Aug 13, wow...the lack of training in such delicate, close quarters operation, the wind, which can push marker smoke willy nilly, the altitude and therefore the difficulty in ground recognition at the best of times, the basic rule was not followed in timing. If person who had the responsiblity for dropping the bombs, and I am not exactly sure who that crew member is, but I assume it is the bomb aimer, had kept track of the elaped time, as the vast majority of the aircraft did, this would not have happened. Harris makes a disparaging remark about Air Bombers, and I feel a bit too much of a generality, which I will not repeat since there could be former WWII Air Bombers in the forum. I can't believe he said what he said frankly!

    I am not out to "blame anyone" for my Fathers injuries, slight physical, more emotional, or the loss of some of his friends during the incident.... but only to ask questions and get answers, from primary sources, preferably. Harris points out in the report that there were many friendly fire incidents against allied aircraft over the war period, and I would expect that those involved were likey punished in some manner, but living with their mistake, or possibly negligance in some cases, for the rest of their lives would be greater punshment. It is ironic that the incident was initiated by the RCAF.... Canadians bombing Canadians....

    I can appreciate that some people would not want to know what is contained in this report, but to deny it exists show a real lack of appreciation of history and the truth. Thanks for closing down my "historian" thread, there was no interest in my views anyway (no one had the same type of experience as I had with J) and it was a bit personal... It was started after my father's death, and my receiving his medals, pay book and some letters, and the arrival of the first Nov 11th, Remembrance Day without my Dad. This question was personal, which is why i took Js condensation and accuations very personally. I don't believe I am a good forum member, although my son did warn me that there are A..holes in every forum, I'm not very patient with that kind of thing. I'll sign off and will not sign on again. If anyone is interested in the truth, at least when it comes to August 14, 1944, they know where to find it!

    Thanks for your help.


    Peter
     
  17. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (angie999 @ Nov 20 2005, 05:48 AM) [post=41841](jimbotosome @ Nov 17 2005, 04:31 PM) [post=41686]Perhaps members of Parliament from the Labor party looking to undermine Churchill even at the sacrifice of hurting the military (sort of like the liberals in US Senate is trying to do to Bush in Iraq right now). [/b]

    Best not jump to conclusions about wartime British politics. Nothing like the current US Senate.

    The Labour Party were part of the wartime coalition government, so they would not be in the business of undermining Churchill in Parliament.

    There was a very small number of members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords who habitually raised awkward questions over bombings. They got short shrift and went generally unreported at the time.
    [/b] Angie, you may be right that it was a limited number, but I posted that because that’s what I read in Churchill's book. I remember when reading it and thinking "the more things change, the more they stay the same". Not only that, but the press held the same line they do today. Perhaps back then, the threat was too hard to deny like it is today. But that comment was not limited to the government liberals alone. For instance the London Times ("The Times" for you folks, the NY Times is "The Times" for us) was perpetually trying to get a rift going between the US and Britain by spinning every event into the US trying to neglect or abuse the British. They too like the liberals today are the “hope of the enemy”. The Labor party in the UK is the equivalent to the Social Democrats in Germany and the Democratic Party here in the US. I assume every other nation has the same base division. Though I am sure there are exceptions, as a rule, liberals in capitalist countries tend to be very socialist, hate any form of nationalistic pride, and hate the military. That’s true whether the rest publicly participate in the undermining of the interests of the nation. Sometimes they become a silent majority.

    I don’t know how much you folks know about what is going on here in the US because I believe most of your media input is extreme-liberal as is ours (The Beeb, The Times, etc and for us, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC), but the Democrats/liberals have developed an intense hate for Bush and will absolutely demoralize and sell out our soldiers in the field to undermine him to the point of treason. I think it stems from Clinton’s “asleep at the wheel” political philosophy that caused all the bombings where he failed to sufficiently respond. The steadfastness and single-mindedness of Bush was such a contrast that it has shamed Clinton/them and they are bitter about it. Fortunately the US citizens have had enough of them over the last 14 years since Clinton and have begun to systematically remove them from office and has led to the first conservative majorities in decades. Their attempts to undermine the effort and discourage the troops is surreal. I cannot believe they are that stupid.

    Didn’t mean to get political, I just wanted to clarify that the statement was not an offhand comment but rather a poignant and apropos one based on what I have read. I have to admit though; I have a bit more respect for the British Labor party in their character though I am not into socialism. Blair is very well respected in this country by conservatives. There is probably no other man alive outside of this country that has more influence on US policy.

    BTW: You folks from the Commonwealth are spelling words like “color, labor, caliber, etc” wrong. I didn’t want to say anything about it but you do it an awful lot. That’s ok, I can read your misspelling and usually know what you mean. I am just that kind of guy. images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif
     
  18. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    (peter.hyslop @ Nov 20 2005, 04:32 PM) [post=41851]And there was no "conspiracy" as you accuse me of, why, when someone asks questions, does he get accused of that in this forum? [/b]

    I did not accuse you of anything. I said there was no conspiracy - because the term had been used in previous posts on the topic.

    It is my view though that to use yellow TIs and yellow position markers is asking for it and was a probable cause of errors. Bomber crews were always liable to bomb on the earliest possible target and head out of Dodge, which is why creep-back happened.


    (jimbotosome @ Nov 20 2005, 04:49 PM) [post=41852][BTW: You folks from the Commonwealth are spelling words like “color, labor, caliber, etc” wrong. I didn’t want to say anything about it but you do it an awful lot. That’s ok, I can read your misspelling and usually know what you mean. I am just that kind of guy. images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif
    [/b]

    That is because none of us has a copy of Webster's Dictionary. You can buy us each one for Christmas if you like and then we will have no excuse.


    (jimbotosome @ Nov 20 2005, 04:49 PM) [post=41852]Angie, you may be right that it was a limited number, but I posted that because that’s what I read in Churchill's book.
    [/b]

    Churchill never really claimed that he was writing accurate history after WWII. He was writing books which made him look good and said as much, but I cannot remember the actual quotation.

    (jimbotosome @ Nov 20 2005, 04:49 PM) [post=41852]I don’t know how much you folks know about what is going on here in the US because I believe most of your media input is extreme-liberal as is ours (The Beeb, The Times, etc and for us, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC), but the Democrats/liberals have developed an intense hate for Bush and will absolutely demoralize and sell out our soldiers in the field to undermine him to the point of treason. [/b]

    I don't care what Churchill might have written, the situations are not comparable. At the time, the deputy Prime Minister was Atlee, the Labour leader and other notable Labour ministers included Morrison, the Home Secretary (interior minister) and Bevin, Minister for War Production. The Labour Party was in government, not in opposition and party discipline was much tighter in Parliament than it is in the American Congress.

    I do follow what is going on in Congress now and the situations are not comparable. The Labour Party supported the war effort throughout the war. There was a very small cross-party awkward squad who objected to Bomber Command operations on principle who did raise opposition, but they had little support. And you have to remember also that when discussing sensitive issues, the wartime Parliament sometimes met in unreported closed session.

    As for the Times and other papers, due to limited availablility of newsprint and the small number of pages they could print, the amount of political comment was a lot less then than now.
     
  19. Reverend Bob

    Reverend Bob Senior Member

  20. Gibbo

    Gibbo Senior Member

    The strongest opposition to Churchill's government during the War came in via a motion of no confidence in July 1942. It was defeated by 477 votes to 25. Several of the MPs who spoke against Churchill were members of his own Conservative Party; he didn't enjoy universal support from it. He had left it in 1904 & then been a prominent member of a quite radical Liberal government before rejoining the Conservatives in the 1920s & some had not forgiven him for this. Throughout the 30s, he was a backbench critic of the government
     

Share This Page