Dieppe Raid, Operation Jubilee

10500 men were committed for Jubilee (mostly but NOT ALL Canadians) ,and the losses (WIA included) were some 4300 = 40 %:I don't see that losses of 40 % can be used to claim that an operation was a disaster.

The aim of Jubilee ? The plan was t conduct a major division size raid (in fact it was a brigade size raid) on a German held port at the French chanel coast :this was done and to hold it for the duration of at least 2 tides :here there was a problem :the troops did not succeed to hold it for the expected duration.

but OTOH,the majority of the men returned,and,would that not ofset the failure to hold the port for the expected duration ?

Whatever, IMHO, it is a big,very big exaggeration to label Jubilee as a disaster .

 

LJ,
You hold a high standard for what qualifies as a fiasco.
Your initial premise that the raid was conducted is questionable. With 4,300 casualties, virtually no attackers getting off the beaches and almost none of the objectives being met, it might be more accurate to say it was "attempted". Other than being pinned down on the beaches, the attacking force never really "held" anything of consequence during the limited time ashore.
The losses have always been regarded as grossly excessive for the results achieved.

 

While Dieppe has become something mythical in Canada, the Canadian role in the defense of Hongkong is mostly forgetten .

Some 2000 Canadian soldiers became casualties during and after the battle of Hongkong ,of whom 557 were KIA,were murdered by the Japanese:none returned before the end of the world .But no one is saying that this was a disaster,no one is saying that there were no results but excessive casualties .

At Dieppe,,2850 Canadians were lost (WIA not included) on a total of some 6000: most returned .

I think we should let the use of "disaster" to journalists and their cousins,the politicians, people wholesale dealers of such words .

I also do not think that there were any allied disasters in WWII (possible exception being the battle of France in 1940).

And,for Dieppe,you are forgetting that most men returned .

What would be better?

a)Dieppe being held for at least 2 tides,but no one returning

b)The beaches being held for a few hours,but most men returning .

The most important mission (but not mentioned) was to bring back as much men as possible .

 

LJ,

I will be patient with you. Please reread Jedburgh22 post #86 and the youtube clip posted by Wills from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interviewing Monty.
And, may I ask you the following question? Have you ever been to Dieppe?

 

Churchill, for one, called it a disaster and here in Canada it has not been treated as anything but a debacle. The mistreatment of those men by the Japanese during and after the battle has overshadowed the action itself. The fact that the Canadian contingent (2 battalions) was part of a much larger Commonwealth force and did not have full command and control made it less controversial.

 

LJ,
We are experiencing a time difference. I have not checked your profile to find out what part of the world you call home.
To answer> a) Dieppe being held for at least 2 tides, but no one returning>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suicide mission- let's get the Canadians.
b) The most important mission ( but not mentioned) was to bring back as much men as possible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sheer absolute lunacy.
I am a Canadian. I have been there. I have spoken to Dieppe veterans. I have visited the cemetery. Any arguments stating this Dieppe was worth the effort is complete and utter horse excrement.

 

I disagree with post 86

 

A reporter for the Deutsche Alleghenies Zeitung, who was visiting a nearby Luftwaffe air base, wrote of the Allied assault: “As executed, the venture mocked all rules of military logic and strategy.”

Shown below are 916 additional reasons why it was in fact a fiasco. In March 1944, most of the bombers returned from a raid on Nuremberg but the 94 lost from the total of 795 qualified it as the most disastrous raid by Bomber Command. That "most" of the troops returned from Dieppe is a simplistic and biased criteria by which to judge the outcome of the raid. Those who were there would take extreme exception to anyone calling it a success.

 

I disagree with post 86

 

LJ, the question asked was if you have been to Dieppe?

 

LJ,
One last question to you. Would you think that a casualty rate of 40%+ to be satisfactory.

I am a Canadian.

 

L J
2 brigades landed with supoort troops...isnt that considered a Divisional level attack? FYI the Canadians losses were in the range of 70% with no objectives acheived, on what scale cant this not be considered a disaster? no tanks got off the promenade all lost their tracks on the impassable cobble; which, also crippled the infantry in their attempt escape the writhing fire. the Germans didnt have any atillery that could take on tanks because the ground was known to be impassable to tanks. While you are out s)trolling why dont you try to have a walk up a 20% grade covered with 3" cobble' in a pair of patent leather shoes held together with metal studs (for traction), while carrying 30 kilos of Ammo and supplies. No worries there wont be anyone shooting at you. Just MHO. By far Canada's worst day of the war.
Hong kong was another peicemeal strategy which cost 100's of Canadian lives for no gain, again the defence was lead by second sons and nare do wells of the of aristacracy.
Seems every August we have to go though this again.
Matt

 

I have been at Dieppe, I have been at Passendale, at Tyne Cot,at Langemark,etc and I am planning to go to Vimy,where 3600 Canadians were killed = 4 times more than at Dieppe .

 

I never said that a casualty raid of 40 % would be satisfactory,it would depend on the circumstances : some times, a casalty rate of 5 % would be to high, in other cases 40 % would not be to high : the losses of the USMC at Saipan were high,but that does not mean that Saipan was a disaster .

 

I find it also more than unfair (and this is an euphemism) to blame Britain for the Canadian losses at Dieppe : if you want to blame some one ,blame the Germans .

Maybe one should consider the following points:

a) The Canadian government did send troops to Britain

b)These troops were committed at Dieppe with the consent of the Canadian government,without this consent,no Canadian troops could be committed at Dieppe,thus it is not so,as was writing some one,that Canadian troops were picked for a suicide mission

c)I repeat : I object to the use of the number of losses in this discussion :

At Dieppe,900 Canadians were KIA,at Vimy 3600, in Normandy 2336

Thus ? .

 

I object to the use of a German source to give a judgement about Jubilee .

I disagree with your comment about Nuremberg : this raid was not the most disastrous raid from BC,it was the raid with the most losses .(in absolute numbers),because in may 1940 there was a joint British/French attack on the brodges on the Meuse,and ,in % the losses were higher ,and none said it was a disaster .

A military operation can be a disaster with 5 % losses and a success with 25 % losses .

 

2)Proof that the defense was lead by second sons and nare do wells of the aristocracy ? Besides,why would this be something bad ?

 

On what grounds?

Simply another source of insight and given that they were the victors, less tainted by any motivation to justify or rationalize?

 

A quibble if we're trying to provide accurate information here. I toured Dieppe with a reputable Canadian guide last month and he indicated that almost all of the tanks did in fact make it off the beach but were stopped from advancing into the town by anti-tank barriers. The failure of the attached engineers to deal with these due to enormous casualties resulted in most of the tanks returning to the beach where over the course of the morning they did eventually throw tracks as they maneuvered. The nature of the cobble was well known and similar to many (most?) UK beaches.

No sources, but worth digging into if you are interested.

 

A quibble if we're trying to provide accurate information here. I toured Dieppe with a reputable Canadian guide last month and he indicated that almost all of the tanks did in fact make it off the beach but were stopped from advancing into the town by anti-tank barriers. The failure of the attached engineers to deal with these due to enormous casualties resulted in most of the tanks returning to the beach where over the course of the morning they did eventually throw tracks as they maneuvered. The nature of the cobble was well known and similar to many (most?) UK beaches.

No sources, but worth digging into if you are interested.


klambie
Not to quibble, your quibble but the promenade is not the beach and as you aptly point out (but I will be more direct) the engineeres who were to blow the obstacles were all casualties, the tanks that reached the promenade (all 4 of them) returned to the beach and resolutely remained in their tanks to provide whatever cover fire they could until their ammo was depleted. they then wisely chose to remain in their tanks rather than add to the casuatly toll of those unprotected on the beach. as for the cobble they friggin' well should have known it was impassable to tanks before when they planned this fiasco.