(Gotthard Heinrici @ Feb 13 2006, 10:03 AM) [post=45761]Jimbo, I hardly think that Gold Juno and Sword were uncontested. you may need to refer to some reading materials on the subject if that is what you think. [/b] Coming off the water they were relatively uncontested. They had the crap bombed out of them by Navy and Air. The higher tide helped them get their armor in. I you don't believe that I would suggest you go read about them too.
(plant-pilot @ Feb 13 2006, 11:44 AM) [post=45770]It's not actually very often I dislike someone's attitude so much as to say it, but jimbotosome's is one of them. None of the beaches were unopposed. And to say so is being very disrespectful to the soldiers that fought and died on those beaches. I take it he wasn't on any of them or indeed had to take any position opposed in conflicts past or present. Beach landings are notoriously difficult. The fact that his assumption that the demolition gun on the AVRE's may be correct doesn't bring the conclusion that any of the 'funnies' wouldn't have helped. Indeed, the 'funnies' were each developed to counter a specific predicted threat. Each project was researched, developed and tested to meet that threat and many that failed to do it were scrapped. The Americans knew what they were going to encounter. They had every opportunity to develop their own 'funnies' that could do the job. Firing grapnels, hedgehog type mortars to get firepower on top of the cliffs, smoke generators or a myriad of other possibilities. They decided against it and went with infantry in strength. It worked, but at a very high cost. Could it have been different? Who knows. But to say that other beaches were unopposed just because your losses may have been higher is disrespectful and from the evidence just wrong. [/b] Are you talking to me, or is this some soliloquy you decided to have in my honor? Again, jimbotosome didn’t start this line of discussion it was started as a blame of how come the Americans lost so many men, they didn’t have this unit that fires mortars 80 yards. Seems to me if it was so efficient at clearing the beach it would have help them take Caen on the first day. You can have a “Funny” on the beach or you can have an 88 guarding the beach, but you can’t have both, so make up your mind. Had you have unloaded a funny on Omaha, the last thing you would hear before the big bang of the 88 would be the German gunner yelling “Danke Gott”. Imagine what happens when 290mm mortars start detonating inside of a tank with men all around? If they are tough on the enemy’s position, imagine what they would have done to your own? That would give friendly fire a whole new meaning. BTW: Did you folks realize the British had quite a few M7-Priests on the beach on D-Day? Somebody in British command must not have believed in the Funnies. There is just no way the American Chiefs are going to spend good defense dollars on a piece of equipment that arguably does one single task that can easily be done by other equipment that have other applications. They are simply way too practical for that. The British built them because they had some old chassis sitting around and were experimenting. As far as my “attitude”, I usually get that when I have deviated from the party line in my opinion and violated some politically correct agreement obligation. Isn’t that “Funny”? Sorry pilot but I can’t please everybody and you know how much I desire to do that. But if all I do is post the same old point of view as so many of you, what fun is that? If you only want to hear what you believe, get a tape recorder. (Glider @ Feb 13 2006, 05:00 PM) [post=45783]I also doubt that you have ever thrown a live Hand Grenade as 80yards is a lot further than I have seen one thrown. [/b] No I haven't thrown a hand grenade but I know enough to tell it is the size of a baseball and major league players throw those over 100 yards from the fences. Heck there are QB's in football (the real one) that can throw a large oblong football 80 yards. But you know, its hard to get any distance out of the Funny when it is on fire and exploding. How would you get it out of the way when something that can defend itself has to come up behind it and being blocked by the burning metal? You don't have the time to wait for it to cool.
(jimbotosome @ Feb 13 2006, 11:51 PM) [post=45791](Gotthard Heinrici @ Feb 13 2006, 10:03 AM) [post=45761]Jimbo, I hardly think that Gold Juno and Sword were uncontested. you may need to refer to some reading materials on the subject if that is what you think. [/b] Coming off the water they were relatively uncontested. They had the crap bombed out of them by Navy and Air. The higher tide helped them get their armor in. I you don't believe that I would suggest you go read about them too. [/b] Lol history is so simple when explained by our EP expert. Now if all the Allies had to do was to bomb German positions to make the landing uncontested, how come it wasnt that easy on Utah and Omaha ? Or maybe some nasty British planner (prolly a relative of Monty, mark my words) withdraw all kind of AA and naval support for the US troops.
</div><div class='quotemain'> Heck there are QB's in football (the real one) that can throw a large oblong football 80 yards. [/b] I am not disputing the fact that a QB can throw a oblong shaped ball, after much training, a distance of 80 yards. What i would like to point out that a american football is a lot more aerodynamic that a standard handgrenade. Also a QB is not crouching down behind cover under fire before trying to throw a ball before being hit by a round.
</div><div class='quotemain'>Lol history is so simple when explained by our EP expert. Now if all the Allies had to do was to bomb German positions to make the landing uncontested, how come it wasnt that easy on Utah and Omaha ? Or maybe some nasty British planner (prolly a relative of Monty, mark my words) withdraw all kind of AA and naval support for the US troops[/b] Now...Now...No throwing stones in our glass house (on the beach at Normandy)
Jimbo Can I ask for one example or quote from a reconised source to back up your claim that the Funnies didn't save lives and make the landings more effective? You may be right, I don't think so but you may be and I would like to review the evidence you have. Would appreciate it
Think of it theother way round...I can think of many instances where the funnies saved lives, specially at the Molen Beek, between Overloon and Venraij (Operation Aintree) Sapper
(morse1001 @ Feb 13 2006, 06:48 PM) [post=45799]</div><div class='quotemain'> Heck there are QB's in football (the real one) that can throw a large oblong football 80 yards. [/b] I am not disputing the fact that a QB can throw a oblong shaped ball, after much training, a distance of 80 yards. What i would like to point out that a american football is a lot more aerodynamic that a standard handgrenade. Also a QB is not crouching down behind cover under fire before trying to throw a ball before being hit by a round. [/b] I believe the British handgrenades are shaped almost identical to a baseball in size and shape. Like I said, most outfielders in the US - MLB can throw over 100 yards. Virtually any male adult can throw one 80 yards. But this idea of launching mortars up a cliff, when your distance max is 80 yards (meanin your trajectory is much less than that), what happens if you guess wrong because of the high arc you need with even short cliffs (say 40 yards up). You realize that what goes up...and if it comes down, it comes down on your men. Is that ok? Besides, if you need to kill some men on top of a cliff, why not use the M79s? They launched 40mm grenades up to 380 yards and could be carried by any soldier. The US Rangers got up Pointe du Hoc which was 100 yards up. No funny could help them there. They got up those cliffs guarded by two hundred men and lost only 15 of their own. There are more ways to skin a cat than choking it to death with butter. Like I said, if you found a scenario where a funny would get you more than a tank or an M7 and worth the fact that it cannot defend itself from the German gunners, it would be so incredibly coincidental that you could never bank on that improbable scenario. You are not going to waste money and delivery space on your LCTs for something that may be a sitting duck. If the British did indeed find a use for it, then more power too them. But it is unreasonable to expect the US to invest in that idea because of its improbabilty of ever finding an application that would justify its fuel usage and crew. No way that Omaha beach would have been any different if the tanks that were sinking when the LCTs were getting hung up in the underwater barricades would have been Funnies instead of Shermans or M7s. Can we agree on the long tested principle that "a sunk tank fires no rounds" and that regardless of the caliber and range of the tank that is sunk?
(Glider @ Feb 14 2006, 12:25 AM) [post=45834]Jimbo Can I ask for one example or quote from a reconised source to back up your claim that the Funnies didn't save lives and make the landings more effective? You may be right, I don't think so but you may be and I would like to review the evidence you have. Would appreciate it [/b] You are asking me if I have sources that say no Funnies saved lives on Omaha Beach? After all, you do realize this is the entire argument don't you? You are saying there is a dispute whether or not there were Funnies on Omaha Beach? Sapper claims there weren't. Do you consider him a reliable source? Now, may I turn the tables? There were plenty of 88s on Omaha beach. This we know. Do you have some proof that the Funnies could defend themselves against these weapons? Would an 88 round not cut through a Funny like it would any other variant of a Churchill? And if it cuts through the Funny, can you tell me what the spare 290mm mortars would do from the explosion? Could you guarantee no collateral damage from secondary explosions of the Funny's ammo? I mean if its 290mms shells can pound through a thick concrete wall, then wouldn’t the armor on the Funny simply become shrapnel in the worlds biggest artillery round killing anything on and approaching its position on the beach? Now, let’s say you are an American chief determining what equipment to use in your invasions. You are shown this piece of equipment and told it will do what your engineers will do as long as there are no enemy defenses. Wouldn't you be inclined to ask to "promoter" of the item, "if there are no defenses, why not use my engineers"? Like I said, if it worked for the Brits then "good at ya, mates". Stranger things have happened. But, if you think the Americans didn't use it “even though they saw its utility”, and this ostensively because they didn't like British weapons or because they were simply gung-ho, then you, not me, possess the burden of proof. But, like it or not, I hold the logical “high ground” on this issue. (sapper @ Feb 14 2006, 08:56 AM) [post=45867]But the point is the British had the teams to tackle the beach obstacles. [/b] So, did the Americans.
(jimbotosome @ Feb 14 2006, 03:14 PM) [post=45869](Glider @ Feb 14 2006, 12:25 AM) [post=45834]Jimbo Can I ask for one example or quote from a reconised source to back up your claim that the Funnies didn't save lives and make the landings more effective? You may be right, I don't think so but you may be and I would like to review the evidence you have. Would appreciate it [/b] You are asking me if I have sources that say no Funnies saved lives on Omaha Beach? After all, you do realize this is the entire argument don't you? [/b] I hope no one was really hoping for a source there
Jimbo You are maintaining that the Beaches in the British Sector were uncontested and that is the reason that the funnies worked. I say you are wrong. I call on Sapper to let us know what the beaches were like on that day. Why? Because unlike you or me, he was there. And as he isnt a Historian maybe you will appreciate his testimony better. We are asking you for sources to back up your assertions. As for me doing some reading, I suggest you read, as I have, Max Hastings Overlord and Carlo D'Este's Decision in Normandy. For example, you have made the claim that the British "built them because they had some old chassis sitting around and were experimenting" . Where did you find this out? Did you read it or are you just "Telling it like it is" off the top of your head?. You posted this earlier in the thread: As far as my “attitude”, I usually get that when I have deviated from the party line in my opinion and violated some politically correct agreement obligation. Isn’t that “Funny”? Sorry pilot but I can’t please everybody and you know how much I desire to do that. But if all I do is post the same old point of view as so many of you, what fun is that? If you only want to hear what you believe, get a tape recorderThats it. Opinions. with nothing to back up any claims except opinions. I like debate Jimbo and opinions but if that is the only essence of someones arguments then they come up a bit vacuous???? Here is a link to some tape recorders: http://mytapedecks.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/
Here is an account taken from a web site of the Canadian "North Shore Regiment" on the usefullness of a Petard against an '88. http://collections.ic.gc.ca/regiment/chp8c.htm
My company had three platoons, and number three was commanded by the late Captain Edwards RE. He was invited by his CO to write notes as a record of what too place. many years later, after the war, he wrote a description of what took place, and because he had been ordered to make notes, all of them are "Live" records. He entitled the work "Bash on with 246 RE to Bremen" I have described the losses on Sword, for as I stated earlier, Sword beach was the most heavily defended area anywhere on the invasion coast. Not only from the immediate area, but from the Enemy defences inland. All from the rising ground that rose up in front. That incoming fire was greatly increased by fire coming in from Le Havre. Nowhere, was there the intenisty of fire as on Sword. That became so heavy, that all the ships anti aircraft balloons were taken down, as it appeared the big guns were "Zeroing in on them" Indeed, it may not be well known, but Sword was abandoned as a landing beach because of the weight of artillery fire that swept the area. I stated previously that we lost 29 out of 38 Assault craft. Source? Stan Hough Royal Navy. I have his record, or log. Oddly enough when the talk is about the dangers of the landing beaches, and our losses. That is conveniently forgotten.
Sapper, Thank you for the post. I hope this clears up this ridiculous assertion that the beaches were uncontested. I woudnt go to the trouble quoting sources though. Jimbo doesnt believe in them.
The 88s took a toll on anything that came within their range. Including our beloved "Coles Crane" that we used right up in the front line. Our faithfull old crane, having dodged many a solid shot. Eventually succumbed to a solid anti tank round from an 88, while lifting aircraft bombs sunk in the road upside down....BOOM! The old girl burst into flames, and was never the same again! The Petard was no more at risk than any other tank...but was twice as lethal. Sapper
</div><div class='quotemain'>I believe the British handgrenades are shaped almost identical to a baseball in size and shape[/b] Here is a picture with details of the standard british grenade of ww2, you can clearly see the shape was is not really aerodynamic View attachment 1528 </div><div class='quotemain'>Besides, if you need to kill some men on top of a cliff, why not use the M79s? They launched 40mm grenades up to 380 yards and could be carried by any soldier.[/b] the Blooper was not delivered to the American army until 1961, I do not think the rangers on Omaha beach would be prepared to wait that length of time before breaking out. </div><div class='quotemain'>The US Rangers got up Pointe du Hoc which was 100 yards up. No funny could help them there. They got up those cliffs guarded by two hundred men and lost only 15 of their own. There are more ways to skin a cat than choking it to death with butter. [/b] nobody is disputing the heroism and ingenuity of the Rangers, however, you think about how long they had been on the beach, how many men had died in the mean time and more importantly, the planned assult on the beach and the importance that placed on having armour in posistion before landing the engineers and then troops. had the DD Shermans been in place then there would have been covering fire in the intial stage, as there was no 88s at beach level then the DDs would have some protection as the angle of depression of the 88 was not all that good. </div><div class='quotemain'>But it is unreasonable to expect the US to invest in that idea because of its improbabilty of ever finding an application that would justify its fuel usage and crew. [/b] I know it is outwith the subject matter of this forum but America did employ "Funnies" in both korea and Vietnamese wars. </div><div class='quotemain'>No way that Omaha beach would have been any different if the tanks that were sinking when the LCTs were getting hung up in the underwater barricades would have been Funnies instead of Shermans or M7s.[/b] Lets not forget that the DD sank because their commander ordered them to turn beam on to the waves and they werer swamped. He had no training in operating in anything other than inland waters. View attachment 1528
Morse, It was not my intention to go "Close to the Line" with that post and if that is the way it came across I apologise. If Jimbo feels that it was insulting I will happily edit it out and change it.
(Gotthard Heinrici @ Feb 14 2006, 04:54 PM) [post=45893]Morse, It was not my intention to go "Close to the Line" with that post and if that is the way it came across I apologise. If Jimbo feels that it was insulting I will happily edit it out and change it. [/b] Thanks for that
