Omaha beach

Jimbo Re, the Destroyers that you say I mentioned that saved the day. The only ship I mentioned by name the USS Arkansas was in fact a Battleship. There is no doubt that the destroyers did a sterling job.

There is in fact one ponit on which we can agree on. Shore batteries were not as good as hoped when firing at warships

 

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/100-11/ch2.htm#Pre-Assault

Morse, Thanks for the quote. Its just the thing that I was after. I had heard of the Shermans and Cenataur tanks being fitted on ramps but not the M7's.

 

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.

I' sorry, it's not demeaning, I'm not attacking your mental state or your intelligence. But you post 'opinion' as 'statement of fact' without evidence. When counter challenged you either ignore what doen't fit or put it down as irrelevent. My comment on whether you had conceeded that you can't throw a grenade 100 yards was to illustrate your sloppy arguments and that when proved wrong you don't have the maturity to say so. But yet you say you are here for the discussion. Now you go one further and say that that wasn't your argument at all and I am misquoting you??

I provided you with the actual weights of a baseball and a mills bomb when you said during your argument against the Petard, that a man can throw a grenade 100 yards as it is the same and shape as a baseball....

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.

You were provided with a picture, the dimentions, and the weight difference as well as the difference between throwing something on a sports field compared to a battlefield. To which your argument was....

The Mills grenade is almost the exact side of a baseball (that's not the thing you hit with a cricket bat). Though slightly heavier weight would work to its advantage because of its small drag/weight ratio. You need to find out about things before you spout off. You know, that bores me.

Please note at this point out the 'You need to find out about things before you spout off' put down as if you are talking from a position of authority. It is obvious that you have no idea about what you are on about, dispite being confident enough to tell others they are doing the same. It was then pointed out to you that rather than slightly heavier, the grenade is in fact over 5 times the weight of a baseball (something that you should have known because the figures were already provided) and that it is far less aerodynamicaly efficient. You were expecting us to accept your 'knowledge' in saying that something less aerodynamic and over five times the weight could be thrown the same distance as a baseball.... because of 'its small drag/weight ratio' and this from someone who had already said that they had never even thrown a real grenade! Talk about arguing from a position of power??

Your reply to that? Nothing. You just continued to argue on things you still believed in, hence my question as to whether you actually conceeded that you were mistaken.

The thing is, this is just an example, not an isolated incident. There are many examples of your non-arguments ignoring not only facts, but experience as well. You say you are here for the historical discussion, although you don't like historians, and argue with the logic of a school child, failing to support your ideas, stating opinion as fact, dismissing counter argument and ignoring things when you are wrong. Is it any wonder that you rub some up the wrong way? Wouldn't you rather do that by proving them wrong rather than ignoring their arguments?

 

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.


Fact is people are not "harassing" poor EP expert because he is a Yank, but because he keeps making shallow unsubstantiated claims and because he obviously doesnt know that much thing about WW2. And lastly, because he is overbiased and overdishonest.

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”.

Means Jimbo is the biggest hypocrite out there.
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.

Seems that some British posters had asked our EP expert to post his sources backing up his claims that the British beaches were uncontested. So far, the audience is still waiting for those sources. And note that even when asked by a Moderator to bring forward some references, he just goes on for another endless tirade, so he can avoid the issue again.

 

Jimbo
The problem is that on occaisions you state a belief which is fundamentally wrong. The following then tends to happen.

i) When this is brought to your attention you insist that you are right.
ii) When Historians or books are quoted you let eveyone know that common sense overides what historians have written or that they are baised.
iii) When asked for evidence to support your claims/views you tell us that you are to busy / don't have the time / read it some time ago
iv) When asked to explain some of your common sense suggestions which are way off the mark, it all goes quiet.
v) When the point is crystal clear that your view was incorrect its rarely if ever acknowledged, it just isn't mentioned by you ever again.

This isn't people picking on you for any reason. How exactly do you expect us to react, in particular when the statements you make are hurtful i.e. sword beach was almost undefended?

The only person it hurts, is you. The idea behind a forum is give and take, to check where possible before going into print and conceed where you are wrong or the other person has more recent evidence.

I urge you to do this.

 

Jimbo Re, the Destroyers that you say I mentioned that saved the day. The only ship I mentioned by name the USS Arkansas was in fact a Battleship. There is no doubt that the destroyers did a sterling job.

There is in fact one ponit on which we can agree on. Shore batteries were not as good as hoped when firing at warships
Glider, that post was addressed to and in response to Morse, not you.

The battleships did a poor job of shelling because they didn't have spotters due to the weather and didn't bomb for two hours like Sword was. They bombed for 30 minutes and stopped when the landings began. The British didn't chance the weather and waited two hours. This gave sufficient time to bomb the shores. The destroyers moved in later after the casualties and STILL not armor had made it ashore because it could not possibly do so. We don’t agree the batteries were not good on Omaha, in fact quite the opposite had you have read that “reference” I posted. The destroyers had to constantly move in the shallows to avoid direct hits were almost hit several times, in fact one suffered crew casualties from a near miss. They also risked getting beached. I realize now why you think I post no references, it is that you ignore them when I do.

The deal is that it proves the Churchill Mortar shooters could not have prevented the losses, the very opposite of the position you have taken on this debate. But it will be a cold day in Hades before you acknowledge the obvious. In fact, I wonder with Omaha being an American beach if any of you know anything about it all. Seems to me you had spun Sword into an Omaha type of battle and spun Omaha into a Sword type of battle.

When you are that adamant to the point of ignoring accounts, references, and common sense, then there is nothing I can post to convince you otherwise. You simply refuse to be wrong.

 

I have read some well thought-out, researched and substantiated posts on this thread, particularly from Glider and Plant-Pilot. Most enlightening.

However, I just don't know why anybody bothers arguing with the self-righteous "georgebushtoothers"

Wouldn't it just be better to ignore him ?

 

I' sorry, it's not demeaning, I'm not attacking your mental state or your intelligence. But you post 'opinion' as 'statement of fact' without evidence. When counter challenged you either ignore what doen't fit or put it down as irrelevent. My comment on whether you had conceeded that you can't throw a grenade 100 yards was to illustrate your sloppy arguments and that when proved wrong you don't have the maturity to say so. But yet you say you are here for the discussion. Now you go one further and say that that wasn't your argument at all and I am misquoting you??

I will kill two birds with one stone here. I will post the original to show you are misquoting me with a strawman argument that you twisted and that it was not stated as fact but opinion. It is the original and it comes from post #95 lest you accuse me of not posting references like you often do yourself:

I hardly think a mortar with a range of only a paltry 80 yards is going lob a round anywhere near a cliff much less up over one. You could throw a grenade much further than that. I would be afraid the round would simply fall back down on me. I do think it would offer one big fat target for an 88 in which it had no chance of taking out, you can imagine what the bull-eye insignia on the side of it looked like through the optics of an 88. The German gunner could use it to zero his gun.
As you can see 100 yards was not listed in that statement. Later I mentioned when challenged that pro players can throw over 100 yards so I would believe they could get it higher above the cliffs than a Petard assuming the Perard was not on fire and full of dead engineers (which requires a stretch of the imagination on Omaha in the early hours). What is demeaning is that you are starting to get so petty like Max and Exxley.


I provided you with the actual weights of a baseball and a mills bomb when you said during your argument against the Petard, that a man can throw a grenade 100 yards as it is the same and shape as a baseball....
Again, its not my argument its your argument. It’s called a “strawman argument” when you build up a position for your opponent and tear the false argument down.

You were provided with a picture, the dimentions, and the weight difference as well as the difference between throwing something on a sports field compared to a battlefield. To which your argument was....

Please note at this point out the 'You need to find out about things before you spout off' put down as if you are talking from a position of authority. It is obvious that you have no idea about what you are on about, dispite being confident enough to tell others they are doing the same. It was then pointed out to you that rather than slightly heavier, the grenade is in fact over 5 times the weight of a baseball (something that you should have known because the figures were already provided) and that it is far less aerodynamicaly efficient. You were expecting us to accept your 'knowledge' in saying that something less aerodynamic and over five times the weight could be thrown the same distance as a baseball.... because of 'its small drag/weight ratio' and this from someone who had already said that they had never even thrown a real grenade! Talk about arguing from a position of power??

Your reply to that? Nothing. You just continued to argue on things you still believed in, hence my question as to whether you actually conceeded that you were mistaken.
First of all that was a quote to Max who had used the term “spout off” and “bored” in reference to me which is why I used it in correcting some unfounded statements of his. That’s exactly what I mean when I say you are getting petty and personal and it draws me down to that level, and makes me ashamed I got suckered into such childishness. This is why I don’t answer Max or Exxley in their personal attacks. This as I explained to Morse is yet another example of a tangential discussion and the meaning of when I say some folks are using “hyena” tactics here to win by attrition. It is not material to the argument and I will not get of on another topic just to distract me from the one you are losing. But the last thing I am going to say about baseballs and grenades are that they are similar in size and shape, though less aerodynamic, not so much so that they would halve its distance. Pro baseball outfielders routinely throw a baseball between 120 and 130 yards. But when throwing upward, they could definitely throw further than a Petard which can only launch a horizontal range of 80 yards (which means its upward direction is far more limited than that, maybe 25-35 yards in the air). That, as is obvious, is NOT a statement of “fact” but one of common sense and opinion, since I don’t believe the height range of a Petard’s projectile has been established and published, so, I have to fall back on my basic understanding of physics. So don’t give me more challenges on baseballs and grenades because you have not only misquoted me, not only created a strawman argument but you have also lost the context of what the analogy was being discuss in, which is in fact the only issue of importance to me.

The thing is, this is just an example, not an isolated incident. There are many examples of your non-arguments ignoring not only facts, but experience as well. You say you are here for the historical discussion, although you don't like historians, and argue with the logic of a school child, failing to support your ideas, stating opinion as fact, dismissing counter argument and ignoring things when you are wrong. Is it any wonder that you rub some up the wrong way? Wouldn't you rather do that by proving them wrong rather than ignoring their arguments?
You are right, this is not an isolated incident. Several of you have continually misquoted me and created strawman arguments to distract from the diminishing logic of your contradicted opinion. The burden of proof is on you for making the ridiculous argument that a mortar launcher (which has no utility on a mined and heavily artillery guarded beach) would have somehow saved lives if the Americans have had them and how this impossible case would go beyond that to be so obvious that only the “gung-ho” attitude of the Americans would blind them to such an obvious benefit that they should carry such pieces of equipment in their inventory. This you haven’t addressed on one single statement. All you have been doing is creating tangential arguments to make it about something you think have a change of solving. Address that issue at hand and THEN AND ONLY THEN will we talk about baseballs and grenades.

 

I have read some well thought-out, researched and substantiated posts on this thread, particularly from Glider and Plant-Pilot. Most enlightening.

However, I just don't know why anybody bothers arguing with the self-righteous "georgebushtoothers"

Wouldn't it just be better to ignore him ?
Like you?

 

OK, I'll go against my advice and bite as well.

I expect there are also quite a few baseball players who can throw a projectile further than a 17" gun. In fact I'm surprised they didn't just have a team on the Isle of wight lobbing things at Jerry. That would certainly have made him keep his head down.

 

That’s exactly what I mean when I say you are getting petty and personal and it draws me down to that level, and makes me ashamed I got suckered into such childishness. This is why I don’t answer Max or Exxley in their personal attacks. This as I explained to Morse is yet another example of a tangential discussion and the meaning of when I say some folks are using “hyena” tactics here to win by attrition. It is not material to the argument and I will not get of on another topic just to distract me from the one you are losing.

The reason why our EP expert hasnt adressed any of my points is simpler than that: he cant. Hardly surprising from someone who doesnt even know his own country history.

 

Glider, that post was addressed to and in response to Morse, not you.

The battleships did a poor job of shelling because they didn't have spotters due to the weather and didn't bomb for two hours like Sword was. They bombed for 30 minutes and stopped when the landings began. The British didn't chance the weather and waited two hours. This gave sufficient time to bomb the shores. The destroyers moved in later after the casualties and STILL not armor had made it ashore because it could not possibly do so. We don’t agree the batteries were not good on Omaha, in fact quite the opposite had you have read that “reference” I posted. The destroyers had to constantly move in the shallows to avoid direct hits were almost hit several times, in fact one suffered crew casualties from a near miss. They also risked getting beached. I realize now why you think I post no references, it is that you ignore them when I do.

The deal is that it proves the Churchill Mortar shooters could not have prevented the losses, the very opposite of the position you have taken on this debate. But it will be a cold day in Hades before you acknowledge the obvious. In fact, I wonder with Omaha being an American beach if any of you know anything about it all. Seems to me you had spun Sword into an Omaha type of battle and spun Omaha into a Sword type of battle.

When you are that adamant to the point of ignoring accounts, references, and common sense, then there is nothing I can post to convince you otherwise. You simply refuse to be wrong.

Jimbo I did read your reference and believe that the Arkansas and the Destroyers did a sterling job. They came close because they realised that the Troops were in trouble, then approached the beaches as close as humanly possible to supply the troops with support. The first destroyer and the Arkansas disobayed their orders to go close, knowingly they put their ships at risk to give what support they could and only left after more direct orders were given. To take any ship close inshore in a Lee shore and a rising tide, then get close enough to use their 40mm and 20mm guns in support of the troops, take hits from an enemy and ignore the first orders to retire is a very, very, gutsy move on their part. That they were not there at the time of the invasion is true, but that wasn't their fault, it was the fault of the planners. However those ships by disobaying orders and showing considerable initiative did help break the deadlock and assist with the breakout. No one could have asked for more from the men on those ships.

Now to Common sense.
In essence my argument is that Churchill Tanks immune to enemy fire (apart from 2 88mm guns on a 6 mile beach) carrying their own engineers and capable of destroying any Bunker with a combination of Petards and Flame Tanks are better than foot engineers open to all enemy fire.
The tanks could have got to shore as they can wade up to 6 ft when waterproofed and wouldn't have needed to do this if the LCTs had got to the shore. Churchills had been equiped for this purpose since the Mk1.

While we are talking common sense: -
i) We are still waiting for your logic behind your ideas of putting the engineers in jeeps and Trucks.
ii) Can you explain the Logic behind you repeating your statement that Sword Beach was almost undefended if they sufferred over 1000 casualties

item (ii) is far more important than (i) and everyone would appreciate it if you bit the bullet and retracted that patently false accusation

 

I hold that just about everyone who posts here is a historian as defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

historian: a student or writer of history .....

 

Jimbo I did read your reference and believe that the Arkansas and the Destroyers did a sterling job. They came close because they realised that the Troops were in trouble, then approached the beaches as close as humanly possible to supply the troops with support. The first destroyer and the Arkansas disobayed their orders to go close, knowingly they put their ships at risk to give what support they could and only left after more direct orders were given. To take any ship close inshore in a Lee shore and a rising tide, then get close enough to use their 40mm and 20mm guns in support of the troops, take hits from an enemy and ignore the first orders to retire is a very, very, gutsy move on their part. That they were not there at the time of the invasion is true, but that wasn't their fault, it was the fault of the planners. However those ships by disobaying orders and showing considerable initiative did help break the deadlock and assist with the breakout. No one could have asked for more from the men on those ships.
The battleships only fired in the morning before we had any people in the area and they were firing blind. But we are in agreement that the destroyers saved the day. Until they could get close enough to see the embedded guns they had no chance of hitting them.

In the first wave, within 10 minutes of the dropping of the ramps, 100% of all officers and NCOs were dead or wounded. Bradley said that it was like a hurricane of fire. Every inch of the beach was covered by one of the 36 pillboxes and in addition several embedded emplacements in the cliff inaccessible from the ocean. Since the 2.5 million pounds of aerial bombs missed long the much needed craters to protect men were not there as well as the enemy defenses were in tact. On Omaha they had planted thousands of mines and barbed wire down to the water line. According to Bradley, six hours after the invasion began, they barely held 10 yards of the beach. Finally when high ranking officers made it to the shore they told the men that they had to make for the bluffs under the heavy fire because there “were only two kinds of men on that beach, those who are dead and those who are going to die, and ordered them to make for the seawall”. An hour later when it was communicated what the situation and how hopeless it was to get any type of equipment to shore, Bradley started contemplating aborting the assault. It was at that time when 12 Destroyers were “ordered” in to the shallows, at mines, the underwater obstacles, and enemy fire. Bradley said it was the only artillery that the US had been able to put on the beach. Now, as the destroyers began to hit positions, some also began to pick up casualties as the LCIs would bring them to the destroyers instead of taking them out to see to evacuate them. While picking up men off an LCI, one sailor on the destroyer counted 11 splashes around them indicating there were at least 11 heavy guns trained on that one destroyer alone firing simultaneously. The destroyers began pounding the visible positions and slowly reducing the fire. Then the first tanks finally made it to the shore 7-8 hours after the invasion had begun. The tanks immediately began firing at the guns that the destroyers couldn’t see. The destroyers started firing where the tanks were firing using them as a guide. The infantry risked running the minefields and went straight up the beach and attacked the fortresses. Game over.

Now we can talk about bringing engineers up to clear the thousands of mines on the beaches. Since the Germans, Poles, and Russians were gone (static forces and the crack infantry group), then the engineers could come up in Jeeps, halftracks, 6x6 trucks, whatever they chose to store their demining equipment in. With Petard or without Petard, you must stop the enemy artillery first, if the average Brit knows nothing about Omaha then Dieppe should serve as a perfectly suitable object example substitute because it was pretty bad as well. All engineers die when shot fatally, INCLUDING those that climb out of a Petard to try and begin demining in front of it so it could advance to hit the artillery that would have long sense blown it up idling on the beach. Now I know you really believe in the Churchill tanks. You give them esteem above what war history does. Churchill - I loved the leader, but was not real impressed by the tank. To me they were slower than molasses and unreliable. Omaha was unquestionably worse that Dieppe and the Churchill’s there took a “royal” pounding. But lest your adoration of the Churchill (maybe like my adoration of the P-47) get the best of you into thinking somehow it would have come through and saved the day, look at the comments of one of the Generals involved: Stanhope B. Mason, Huebner’s Chief of Staff (Big Red One) said “I am now firmly convinced that our supporting naval fire got us in; that without that gunfire, we positively could not have crossed the beaches”.

Now to Common sense.
In essence my argument is that Churchill Tanks immune to enemy fire (apart from 2 88mm guns on a 6 mile beach) carrying their own engineers and capable of destroying any Bunker with a combination of Petards and Flame Tanks are better than foot engineers open to all enemy fire.
The tanks could have got to shore as they can wade up to 6 ft when waterproofed and wouldn't have needed to do this if the LCTs had got to the shore. Churchills had been equiped for this purpose since the Mk1.
There were tanks that made it to the shore but they didn’t last long. All tanks are subject to anti-tank fire from above. All of them. The 75 mm AT rounds you think the Churchill was immune to were what you find on the Panzer IVs and Panthers. I don’t remember those tanks having any trouble with Churchills. Don’t remember any tank being immune to AP rounds in a 75 mm artillery round. Much less on the top or on the tracks. You can think what you wish Glider but me personally, I wouldn’t want a big slow (17 mph) 42 ton heavy explosive bomb inching forward toward a mine field that must be cleared on a beach were at least one point had 11 artillery guns firing simultaneous, much less everything else on the beach. Friend, you simply can’t get there from here.

While we are talking common sense: -
i) We are still waiting for your logic behind your ideas of putting the engineers in jeeps and Trucks.
ii) Can you explain the Logic behind you repeating your statement that Sword Beach was almost undefended if they sufferred over 1000 casualties

item (ii) is far more important than (i) and everyone would appreciate it if you bit the bullet and retracted that patently false accusation
As far as (i), engineers can move much faster in Jeeps and 6x6 trucks carrying their equipment (those things can go 50-60mph loaded!). For some reason, you think that a beach must be under fire for an engineer to work and that necessitates the deployment of a specific role funny (which can't do anything to protect the engineer who has to clear the mine in front of the Funny). That’s a fallacious argument. The US had the same types of equipment which they simply mounted on a normal Sherman tank to fit on the necessary attachments and therefore didn’t have one trick pony pieces of equipment some which had arguably no utility in WWII that couldn’t have been done by another piece of equipment. It might take an M-40 two shots to do what a Petard could do in one (but rarely would that be the case if ever), but the M-40 could get there take both shots from a distance before the Petard could get close enough to say a bunker possibly filled with men and anti-tank weapons and or 88s. I see no utility at all on Sword for it as the British engineers could have just as easily rode in “lorries” since the Funny need not get up close to a bunker with flame throwers on the backs of soldiers. The Shermans Crabs were flail tanks, the US mounted the Ronson systems on Shermans, they had bulldozer blades that fit the Shermans, Hedgehog blades on the front of Shermans, (did I miss any Funnies?) oh, yes, the Petard, but I think we have established that its utility was of dubious value certainly in the light of more functional and cheaper alternatives. The only “Funny” I have seen that would have been nice to have in the war (not on Omaha) was plant-pilot’s M3. Now those I liked. Of course I would have to compare their efficiency compared to the American’s use of pontoon bridges but they seem pretty slick from a design standpoint. I would think they would be faster to deploy but there would need to be more of them and they would be slow so you might have to wait on them canceling the quick deployment advantage. But it is undoubtedly a clever design. But, I digress.

(ii) The idea that Sword was a relatively easy beach compared to Omaha is well understood by everyone that knows something about them both, except for those that it seems to hurt their feelings to say otherwise. Getting on the beach was nothing at Sword. The Sword invasion was delayed two hours which gave their air force sufficient time for visibility along with their ship artillery which had two solid hours to pummel the German defenses. In addition, the British were fortunate to land at flood tide which eliminated the underwater defenses there. The British sent 40 DDs to the shore (no Petards) for the initial assault. 28 of them were lost due to rough seas (same problem as Omaha). But the 12 that got ashore started firing on the German gun positions and eventually took them out. In the mean time the British were landing 3 battalions of M7s which fired from the LCTs to help the DD Shermans on the shore. Still no Petards. For a weapon that you can scarcely live without, they didn’t seem to be in a hurry for them (possibly because they simply had no use for them on a beach assault?). I believe most of the casualties of the British were taken coming off the beach and going into the Norman towns. The only thing I know for sure is they didn’t happen at Caen, the D-Day objective.

 

I hold that just about everyone who posts here is a historian as defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

historian: a student or writer of history .....
Yes! Manna from heaven.

Thank you James! "That's what I am talking about". There ARE historians here. Some of you are smart. Some of you are well read. Just because some dude or dudete can communicate his/her ideas well in a book (an excellent writer) does not mean his ideas are any more substantive that yours or mine. In fact he could be an imbecile and still write well. I have always resented the snobbery of elitism.

At one time there were many books written on alchemy. You don't find them much anymore. I wonder where these "experts" went? The experts that devoted their lives to understand alchemy better than any of the jimbos of that day and age could have hoped to? Can you imagine the social events these people were invited to? Can you imagine them looking out the windows of their carriages at the poor ignorant rabble too stupid to understand their lofty concepts and ideas? (Someday we will say the same about macro-evolution).

Spot on James. Spot on!

 

Jimbo, So now your saying that the USN did a good job. You must have taken the time to read about it which is a good start. Now look up the role of the Arkansas and you will see the rest of the detail.
All the beaches had thousands of mines and defences of a similar type, that has been said a number of times but you keep implying that it was only at Omaha.

Obviously engineers can come out in Jeeps ect ONCE THE ENEMY HAVE BEEN DEFEATED. Isn't quite what we were talking about i.e. engineers in the assult phase is it. Keep to the same topic and stop shifting your ground as you wish.

The key to a successful assult is clearing the obstacles during the landing and when under fire. This gives your armour the ability to move and support your infantry, which significantly reduces your losses. It isn't rocket science.

The Americans didn't have the armour on the beaches, didn't have the special tanks to clear the obstacles and as ever, the PBI paid the price.

All engineers who climb out of the Churchill do not get shot if the churchill is between them and the enemy. They are of course exposed when they move out of cover but are fairly safe until then and they can choose their time. The tank is able to give covering fire even if its just an MG. American engineers were on their own and paid the price. Again this isn't rocket science.

The 75mm guns were not AT tank guns that I made clear and provided evidence for. If you can prove otherwise put up the evidence and I will accept it. Once again I ask you to stop changing the ground to suit your argument.
The US tanks were vulnerable to the 50mm AT guns and that is what caused their losses. These would not hurt a Churchill

Lessons of Dieppe. One lesson was that armour that cannot manoever is of little benefit, thats why we developed the funnies in the first place. Unfortunately the US did't learn the lesson and the troops paid the price.
I should point out again that the US Army did use the Petard after the war until the 1970's on M60 engineer tanks. I ask you again to explain why you think they were wrong.

You keep mentioning the 11 heavy Guns. On Juno we faced 11 Haevy Batteries plus medium batteries so don't expect me to be inpressed by 11 guns over a 6 mile beach.

I must go now but will complete this later

 

I hold that just about everyone who posts here is a historian as defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

historian: a student or writer of history .....

I am a student of Hinstory, have written papers in the past and participated in debates at the Imperial War Museum.

I also try to get evidence for my quotes

 

I hold that just about everyone who posts here is a historian as defined in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

historian: a student or writer of history .....

And how would you define someone that wrote that the EP was issued at the end of the Civil war ?
Or someone who doesnt usually never come with any historical fact to backup his claims ?

 

Another example of Jimbo's exelent manipulation of facts to achieve nothing other than loosing what little respect for his ideas anyone still has. I wouldn’t want a big slow (17 mph) 42 ton heavy explosive bomb inching forward toward a mine field that must be cleared on a beach were at least one point had 11 artillery guns firing simultaneous, much less everything else on the beach. Friend, you simply can’t get there from here.

So rather than being in an armoured Churchill which can withstand being hit by 50mm rounds and survive several 75mm round hits you'd rather crawl up the beach because the tank would be taken out by a mine anyway. Yet any other tanks on the beach would have been Sherman and they are very likely to be taken out by a single 50mm hit? From this I can tell that you've never been under fire or in a minefield as then you'd know that it's better to be in heavy armour or a hole in the ground. The disadvantage with a hole in the ground on an assault is that they don't move and you've got to. If tanks don't get all the way up the beach in tact, they still provide protective islands for the infantry and engineers.

...engineers can move much faster in Jeeps and 6x6 trucks carrying their equipment (those things can go 50-60mph loaded!). For some reason, you think that a beach must be under fire for an engineer to work and that necessitates the deployment of a specific role funny (which can't do anything to protect the engineer who has to clear the mine in front of the Funny). That’s a fallacious argument.

Here's where I loose your argument. Having just pointed out the disadvantages (in your view) of moving slowly over a beach in heavy armour because of the AT fire and the mine threat, you advocate zipping your engineers around the beach in trucks and jeeps because they go faster? Aren't trucks and jeeps also vunerable to mines? They are vunerable to 75mm, 50mm as well as machinegun and rifle fire. And where your statement that "you think that a beach must be under fire for an engineer to work" comes from I am clueless. The engineer has to work in the environment that is there at the time in able to get the job done. I know I'm a Sapper, but if you have any doubt, ask 'Sapper' himself.

I see no utility at all on Sword for it as the British engineers could have just as easily rode in “lorries” since the Funny need not get up close to a bunker with flame throwers on the backs of soldiers.

If this last statement wasn't so pathetic it would be funny. Whatever credibility and of your ideas ever had in my eyes just crumbled away. You are going to end up arguing with nobody, not because you are right and have 'won', but because no one respects what you have to say and ignores it. I won't insult you with what I actually think, but you are so deluded and devoid of logic that I'm not going to waste my time with you. Sapper was right, but he was right on this thread many pages ago.

 

What amazes me is the length of the postings..Lost in reading. Better the short punch line....Did your men on Omaha, coming under fierce fire...Freeze? No need to get hot under the collar about it...It happens.

There is no shame in it either, anyone that has experienced a direct shelling barrage will know only too well what I mean. I certainly know just how mind boggling the fear can be.
Sapper