</div><div class='quotemain'> 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/ [/b] Gott, may I use Mr. McAllister's link? It illustrates exactly what I have been saying all along. It is a death box. <span style="color:red"> "LT. C.F. RICHARDSON, of 'B' Company, had many reinforcements in his platoon and found it very hot as machine gun fire swept the woods and field." The Highlanders were giving as much gun support as they could but were having carriers knocked out by shelling. Lt. George Fawcett had his men help to relieve 'C' Company, and close by two Cameron Carriers that enemy fire had blasted. An English Major, asked who was in charge and Major Forbes (who was leading 'B' Company) said he was the one responsible. The English Major asked what was slowing them, and Major Forbes replied that it was because of all their casualties. The English Major declared "Bring Up a Petard!...So up came a Churchill tank with its high explosive charge to blow walls and buildings." The next instant, there was a grand blast. When the dust had settled the grain was flowing in the breeze and there was absolutely no sign of the tank. A German 88 had hit the Petard squarely and the explosion wiped out the tank totally. From then on a classic saying was 'bring up a Petard!' </span> As you can see the phrase "bring up a Petard" became a byword mocking the stupidity of such a weapon. Now, if there were 88's hammering down on Sword beach like they were at Omaha, at the time the British rolled up a Petard, then wouldn't "those" 88's penetrate it and the explosion "wiped out the tank totally"? Is this not what I have been saying? But logical deduction should tell you this. 1) Petard has no defense to take out an 88 without pulling up within 80 yards of its barrel which gives them time to take quite a few shots at it. 2) An 88 is an extremely accurate gun. 3) An 88 has no trouble going through Allied armor in WWII (yes, even Churchill’s) 4) The loud bang heard is not the 88 round going off but rather the mortars in side going off. A loud bang is a sign you better not be around it like you would have been on Omaha. Is this not exactly what I said when you said "you haven't quoted a historian, you can't be smart enough to know that an 88 could easily take out a tank of any sort"? That's not debate you are seeking, it is a "historian quote" p***ing contest. That's what is vacuous to me. Must we all be unable to make deductions that those that made deductions before us didn’t make? And, I didn’t say that Sword was uncontested, I said Petards might work on uncontested beaches. Sword was uncontested in an armor sense of the word. I also said that the British may have been able to use one and that “stranger things have happened”. Even if sapper saw them on Sword beach and if perchance there were an 88 present there (which I doubt) and if the funny managed to not explode and kill everybody around it, then I would say they are luckier than “dog crap” that day. Now since you want quotes and believe nothing can be deduced with them then here is one that tells you how light the defenses were on Sword: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_Beach Yes, I know that is a wikipedia reference, yes it was intentional but even more important it is an apropos link to make a statement about the insistence of quoting other men, few of whom can quote each other for fear of total contradiction. I can think of no better link to make a statement against the arbitrary exaltation of men that publish history material.
(Gotthard Heinrici @ Feb 14 2006, 11:54 AM) [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 looking out for us Morse. I didn't take it offensive. Gott is usually very polite and I actually like debating him. He doesn't tend to get personal. I give people a lot of lattitude because I do tend to be blunt myself. I can certainly raise some hackles from time to time when I state my opinion matter-of-factly. I don't mean anything by it. As far as needing quotes, of course you know what I think of historian elitism. Since I am often posting my opinion because of a composite of things read it is hard for me to pin down complex conclusions on a single reference. This is I why I post long dissertations at time to explain how I came about the opinion. But, it would be too exausting to give a link or exact quote for everything I say. The issue of uncontested Sword is relative. I don't doubt there were MGs and mortars on the beach, but there was little opposition to tanks themselves. And when the tanks arrived, there would be even fewer. The heavy bombardment of Sword from air and navy pretty much flattened out all the heavy stuff or forced a withdrawal of it off the beach. The 88s would be the number one problem on a beach assault.
(morse1001 @ Feb 14 2006, 11:10 AM) [post=45889]Here is a picture with details of the standard british grenade of ww2, you can clearly see the shape was is not really aerodynamic [/b] Did you forget the url? (morse1001 @ Feb 14 2006, 11:10 AM) [post=45889]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. [/b] Whoops. Thanks. I mean the M8/M9s which attached to the end of a M1 Carbine. (morse1001 @ Feb 14 2006, 11:10 AM) [post=45889]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. [/b] Yes, but that was because of the LCTs got off course were hit by 20mm. But then again, a Petard could not have helped them. It would not have a range on those cliffs. What they would need is a real tank. That was the issue of this thread. (morse1001 @ Feb 14 2006, 11:10 AM) [post=45889]I know it is outwith the subject matter of this forum but America did employ "Funnies" in both korea and Vietnamese wars. [/b] Not many 88s in those areas. (morse1001 @ Feb 14 2006, 11:10 AM) [post=45889]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. [/b] You are right, the DDs were a last minute add on in a relative sense. I read where Napalm was standardized in spring of 1944. Why did they not use it at Normandy? Seems like a great way to clear out those bunkers. I know they used it to clear out bunkers that were broken up. It was very good in killing the people inside because of how rapidly it depleted oxygen in the bunker.
(morse1001 @ Feb 14 2006, 01:56 PM) [post=45917]just for you View attachment 1530 [/b] That's about the size and shape of an American baseball. (morse1001 @ Feb 14 2006, 01:56 PM) [post=45917]I take your point about a petard not being useful in the intial stages, they were designed for spcific purposes. [/b] I am not talking about flail tanks. The Americans had those converted out of Shermans. I am talking specifically about the Petard and its 290mm which was the one claimed to be able to save the day at Normandy. The Sherman Flails had a gun barrel and could attack 88s on the beach. But there again I must reiterate, if you can't get a Sherman on the beach, you can't get a Sherman Flail tank or a Funny on the beach. There problem was not that they couldn't demine, it was that they couldn't stop the Germans from shooting the heavy stuff at them. The thing that finally dealt with the heavy stuff was when the commander of the destroyers decided to risk their ships in the shallow water to move into range of the shores and then pounded them into submission. Nothing armor could have helped on a beach contested like that. That was my whole point. The lives lost at Omaha were NOT due to not having Funnies. That's what started this whole discussion. (morse1001 @ Feb 14 2006, 01:56 PM) [post=45917]I doubt if napalm would have been much use in such confined spaces, there was always the risk of an aircraft missing the target and bombing friendly forces. remember what happened to the 7th cav at Id Drang with a napalm attack [/b] Morse, these were delivered by P-47s. If they could hit a tank with bombs, they could hit the bunker with bombs. Look at the photos the bunkers of Omaha beach from the LCS, it is a lot further from the shore than you think. I don't think they would have any trouble hitting the mark. I wasn't talking about using heavies. Napalm was a fighter/bomber load. Once, you either kill them or smoke them out of the bunkers then you could strafe them to death. The P-47 was probably the best strafer of the war because of its 8 guns gives you such a good spread. I don't know how many fighter bombers were attacking the beach as I know a lot of IX TAC was attacking the Panzer divisions heading toward the beaches. Seems like a good solution and should have been used in Anzio/Monte Cassino as I have pointed out before. What about smoke? Why not flood the beaches with smoke and keep them covered? wasn't this possible?
Petards weren't used????????? ”The AVRE could also mount a dozer blade, assault bridge, crane, or fascines and rolled track for crossing broken ground. The Petard proved especially useful in opening exits through the sea wall bounding Juno Beach on 6 June 1944.” Royal Canadian Engineers ”October ’44 - The other major German Atlantic Wall positions in the Pas de Calais were the colossal gun positions at Cap Gris Nez. These consisted of three main batteries, including one, Battery Todt, hose four 380 mm (15-inch) guns had intermittently shelled Dover since 1940. The Canadians followed he same successful plan of attack as used at Boulogne and Calais: massive aerial bombardment and supporting artillery fire. The 3rd Division’s 9 Brigade made the assault at dawn on September 29. Flail and bunker- busting “Petard” tanks provided support.” Canadian Role in Liberating the Channel Ports ”How well I remember a tank which could carry what was known as a petard. It could run right up to a concrete wall, place a huge charge and back off, watching a tremendous hole being blown in the German defences.” War Amps of Canada ”The message about the sniper was relayed to the higher command somewhere and we were told to get back behind the house because some action was imminent. Within a few minutes, the church tower was hit by three or four high explosive shells from one of the Petard tanks, and the whole upper part of it came crashing down on to the church roof and the road.” Cpl. Duncan, Can 3rd Div] ”It was soon the Churchill’s turn and that too powered up the beach with the throttle wide open driven by an 81-year-old WW2 Churchill tank driver and took its place beside the Valentine. This Churchill was equipped with a ‘Petard’; an enormous mortar that fired a dustbin size shell of high explosives. On King Green sector on D Day a similar formidable vehicle parked itself besides the blockhouse which made the German crew decide it was time to be somewhere else.” Veterans - 4th/7th Royal Dragoon Guards ” When the seawall was bridged (in a few cases drifted sand provided an exit and in a few other cases there was no seawall to bridge) the Crabs [Flails] (those that had not bogged) crossed and again flailed to the next position (quite a few becoming bogged or being mined), Then more AVRE with fascines were to fill in tank ditches, craters and so on, enabling them to finally engage beach defenses with their Petards. Also, throughout, when not flailing the Crabs were to provide gunfire support with their 75mm. Of course few gaps were made like this. Most were improvisational in nature as casualties and unexpected obstacles caused problems. Throughout though, the most distinguishable difference between operations on the British beaches and those on OMAHA (UTAH is essentially moot) was the number of armored vehicles (AVRE and CRABs) on the British beaches that were not put out of action by enemy fire, compared to the number that were lost on OMAHA. And it is on GOLD, opposite Le Hamel, where the British assault most resembles OMAHA, and not so coincidentally, it is also at GOLD where the heaviest losses in the CRABs, AVRE and LCOCU and Royal Engineer clearance teams appears to have occurred. In other words, it remains the scale of opposition that was critical, not the mechanization of the assault units. One of course could also point to OMAHA’s two landings, that of the 116th Infantry and the 16th Infantry. The first was more heavily supported by armor (that is where the bulk of the DD were directly landed) than the second (that is where 29 of the 32 DD were lost) and yet it is also where the heavier casualties were incurred.” WO 205/1170 report - Chief Engineer, 21 Army Group, RE ”After a number of tanks were knocked out of action, 75-millimeter tank fire from the Westminster Dragoons and 290-millimeter petard mortar fire from the Royal Engineers finally reduced each of the German guns, and left GOLD Beach clear of the deadliest direct fire.” U.S. Army Command and General Staff College And; ”Although the Americans used little “specialized armor,” these custom tanks were used very effectively to breach obstacles and spear the assault from the beach in the British and Canadian zones on Gold, Juno, and Sword Beaches. “These vehicles had been offered to the Americans by the British, but apart from the DD tanks they were turned down as unnecessary.” Specialized armor led the assault on Gold Beach. On the right flank, preliminary bombardment was ineffective, but a flail tank managed to cross the sand to breach a minefield. On the left flank the flail tanks performed well and were followed by “Carpet Layers … laying neat tracks along the cleared strips.” The DD Tanks were launched directly on the shore due to the sea state. Within an hour, four paths across obstacles and minefields were cleared and an infantry brigade had passed safely to their objectives. Strongpoints were “neutralized by Petard tanks.” They faced heavy defenses and were pinned down until they outflanked the defenses and brought in Petard tanks for short-range engagement. By the afternoon, they maintained control of the area (7:132-133).” US Joint Forces Staff College But, even if they had accepted ”Funnies” for Omaha, their plans were so aweful they would never have landed them anyway. The US Joint Forces Staff College again: ”Omaha Beach, D-Day Assault Zones and Phased Objectives (21:88) Events at Omaha Beach were a different story. The landing craft and amphibious tanks embarked way too far out resulting in enormous losses before they made the beach. The Infantry launched 12 miles out and of 32 amphibious tanks ordered to launch into rough sea 6,000 yards out, 27 “were swamped and sank with their crews,” three didn’t launch due to a jammed ramp, and two miraculously made the shore (7:132). The infantry became seasick as water swept over their landing craft. They frantically bailed water with their helmets to stay afloat. Equally disastrous was an attempt to ferry supporting artillery ashore loaded into DUKWs, two-and-a-half ton amphibious trucks. These fair-weather vehicles rapidly sank in the mountainous seas, and three battalions of field artillery together with their 105 mm howitzers were dumped into the sea. Under a protective umbrella of air attacks and naval gunfire the remnants of the invading force closed with the beach, but as they were still half a mile from land all the covering fire stopped. And with scarcely a pause the German defensive fires broke on them as a storm of shells, mortar bombs and bullets began to zero in on the approaching boats. Unknown to the planners, the area had recently been reinforced by the addition of the German 352nd Infantry Division. The aerial attacks had largely been ineffective, and the naval guns were hampered by the configuration of the ground, which made observation difficult. As the exhausted, cold, wet and disorganized troops spilled from their landing craft into the water – for none of the craft reached the beach – they were greeted by a storm of accurate fire, and it was a handful of dazed and dispirited men who finally reached the beach and were able to take shelter in the sand dunes (7:132). It took about a half-hour for after the initial landings to get 1,000 men ashore. After their “nightmare voyage,” instead of fighting Germans, they were fighting to stay alive. This was complicated by the fact that strong currents scattered forces away from their designated landing areas. There was much confusion as many had specific tasks (such as destroying certain obstacles, attacking strongpoints, and securing objectives) and were nowhere near their destination. However, succeeding waves of men and equipment kept coming. The beach was soon “choked with burning vehicles, wrecked landing craft and wounded and dead men.” No exit had yet been acquired, as available ground became saturated (7:132). Eventually, officers collected men, engineers collected equipment, and obstacles and minefields were breached. Only 100 of 24,500 tons of supplies safely made it ashore, momentum was gained as supplies were salvaged from wreckage on the beach. Progress was slow but by the afternoon forces were moving off the beach. After German defenses were overrun, there were no enemy reserves. With Omaha behind them, “it could only get better.” In stark contrast to the disastrous employment of specialized armor at Omaha which was almost totally lost in rough seas, the specialized armor played a critical role in the British and Canadian sectors at Gold, Juno, and Sword Beaches. Most of their armor was landed on the shore to avoid the rough seas (7:132).” No.9
(jimbotosome @ Feb 14 2006, 10:55 PM) [post=45923]That's about the size and shape of an American baseball. [/b] A professional baseball player can throw a baseball 100 yards? I'm not arguing the fact. What I will argue is that the same man could throw a grenade 100 yards. The grenade, in this case a Mills Bomb or No. 36 Grenade may be small, compact and easy to throw, but it weighs 1 pound 11 1/4 oz. The ball that your professional player can throw 100 yards weighs a mear 5 oz. Can you not see the flaw your claim that a soldier could throw a grenade 100 yards? And as has already been pointed out to you, that is before you take into account that the grenade thrower isn't going to stand up and give it a full throw but a throw or lob from behind what ever cover is available. As you have already pointed out on several occasions, you forward what is only your 'opinion'. You say you look down on historians although they don't try to fob off their opinions as fact but their research as theories. There are also people here who have military experience, which although you may say that it is of a more modern military than we are talking about there are also veterans like 'Sapper' who have experience of the fighting at the time. And yet you are still so sure that they are all wrong and that your opinion is correct. If you were a genius I would of course expect that you were alone in your opinions and that everyone else is wrong. I take however that you are not a genius and the fact that you alone hold your opinions is more likely to be because they are flawed, if not completly wrong. As 'Sapper' said, "There is really little purpose in continuing against a mind set that is so entrenched" and it is his opinion I respect as far superior to yours. Not only because I am a Sapper myself, but because he has earned my respect by taking part in the conflict that your opinion says was nothing.
Once again I see poor Jumbo Jim taking on everyone 3 things I'll say :- 1. Anyone who lists Wikipedia as a source is VERY desparate. 2. Top of my head the casualties incurred at Sword were around 1000. Undefended? 3. Whether or not Funnies would have been effective at Omaha is a waste of time discussing. The Americans thought they knew better than to take British advice on landing tanks, so sunk them. 4. The Mills No.36 grenade is NOTHING like a baseball AT ALL in weight or shape. I could go on but I'm SO bored with you.
(jimbotosome @ Feb 14 2006, 02:14 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? 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. [/b] Once again your full of bluster and next to no detail. Omaha wasn't the most heavily defended beach and sufferred a huge proportion of the casualties. The contention is that if you had used the Funnies the losses would have been significantly less. Your contention is that they would have been no help at all. You say that an 88 could open up a Churchill, yes of course it could. But a landing beach isn't a shooting range. Also you say there were lots of 88's on Omaha, I think you will find that is wrong. Most of the Beach defensis on Omaha were MG's and those that had guns tended to be Russian 76mm rebored to take German ammunition, still very dangerous I will admit. It doesn't alter the fact that you are claiming that Shermans would be better than a Churchill which I find rather interesting with its thinner armour, petrol engine and thinner tracks making it more likey to bog down in the soft sand. I was trying to give you the oppertuity to quote the sources for your statements which you have singually failed to do. All I am asking you to do is to support your statements with sources from recognised experts. A number of people have quoted a vairety of sources to disagree with you some of which were US Army reports. I was wanting to see what you had to back it up. BTW you never did address my last set of questions apart from trying to tell everyone that because a trained athlete can throw a football a hundred yards, ordinary soldiers can throw a hand grenade 100 yards. You will have to do better than that to get anyone to agree with you.
</div><div class='quotemain'>That's about the size and shape of an American baseball.[/b] However, the mills bomb suffered in aerodynamic terms with form drag, which would reduce the possible throwing distance. Even using the cup dischargers would have been very difficult, given that the firer would have been under fire on a exposed beach. this was taken from a British Army manual showing the correct firing position, the M1 had a similar system. View attachment 1532 </div><div class='quotemain'>I am not talking about flail tanks. The Americans had those converted out of Shermans. [/b] there was also the crocodile with the flame thrower, this along with frail and the petard had roles which were specific to an established beach head not the intial assult. </div><div class='quotemain'> Nothing armor could have helped on a beach contested like that. That was my whole point. [/b] The task of the DDs was to lay down suppressing fire to allow the landing of more armour and the engineers. in addition, the official task of the DDs according to the plan was, </div><div class='quotemain'>At H-5 minutes Companies B and C (DD tanks) of the 743d Tank Battalion would make the first touchdown on Dog White and Dog Green. These tanks, fitted to navigate on water or land, were to be launched from 6,000 yards out, swim ashore, and take up firing positions at the water's edge to cover the first phase of the assault. Their fire was to be placed on the main enemy fortifications, particularly those west of Exit D-l which could bring flanking fire on Dog Beach. Moving up through the obstacles as the tide rose, the tanks would support the main assault and then clear the beach through Exit D-3.[/b] http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/100-...htm#Pre-Assault "Morse, these were delivered by P-47s. If they could hit a tank with bombs, they could hit the bunker with bombs." </div><div class='quotemain'>Pre-Assault Bombardment Plans The assault landings on Omaha Beach were to be preceded by intensive air and naval bombardment in the half-hour before touchdown, designed to neutralize all known gun positions and to demoralize enemy troops in the beach defenses. For the period just previous to D Day air attacks were planned against coastal batteries in the NEPTUNE area, but only as part of a widespread program which put its heaviest attacks on the French coast north of the Seine. The Pointe du Hoe position, one of the priority targets in this pre-D-Day bombing had been hit on 15 April, 22 May, and 4; June. The RAF was to conclude the effort against coastal batteries with a concentrated attack between midnight and dawn of D Day; the coastal batteries from the mouth of the Seine to Cherbourg were the target of 1,333 heavy bombers dropping 5,316 tons of bombs. [/b] http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/100-...htm#Pre-Assault As can be seen, allied planning had made no provision for the use of tac air in the intial stages of the assult. </div><div class='quotemain'>I wasn't talking about using heavies. Napalm was a fighter/bomber load. [/b] I have to rely here on my persanal experice of seeing both bombs and naplam being dropped. even using aircraft such as a harrier, naplam was still considered to be an area weapon, since unlike bombs, they have no known flight characteristics. You drop them then get away as fast as possible. the german defences were on the cliff edge, it would only take a slight error and naplam tanks could land on friendly forces.
(Max (UK) @ Feb 14 2006, 07:09 PM) [post=45938]Once again I see poor Jumbo Jim taking on everyone 3 things I'll say :- 1. Anyone who lists Wikipedia as a source is VERY desparate. 2. Top of my head the casualties incurred at Sword were around 1000. Undefended? 3. Whether or not Funnies would have been effective at Omaha is a waste of time discussing. The Americans thought they knew better than to take British advice on landing tanks, so sunk them. 4. The Mills No.36 grenade is NOTHING like a baseball AT ALL in weight or shape. [/b] This might help you. There are “three” kinds of people in the world, 1) Those who can count, and 2) Those who can’t. (I couldn't resist!) The wikipedia reference was a mock. Anytime someone starts crowing about references by “men” I post a wiki reference to demonstrate to them exactly what it means to follow men “published men” who think of themselves as experts. It’s a little high-brow trick of mine meant to draw a pedantic response from anyone that has the mentality of a child. I think we have a winner. 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. Yes the British told us how to do everything. Even how to “delay” because of bad weather. This is why most the photos of the LCTs on Sword show men taking a stroll off the LCSs like they are out for a walk in the park. You don’t see dead soldiers scattered in the surf. Despite the fact they refused to come off the beaches for fear of 21st Panzer (a paper tiger at the time), they still only lost 1000 men in the whole battle. That's one in 29, not bad odds. They were bragging how they were “so fast” that Germans in a field were “overtaken” drinking their coffee. I am sure the boys at Omaha would have been glad to work a trade, any day of the week and three times on Sunday. Since the British had no trouble at all getting armor on the beach, maybe a Petard would be a good weapon. Still like to see how you clear mine fields with a 280mm mortar. But, if they were indeed so fast, and knew so much about landings, why didn’t they walk up the relatively uncontested road to Caen which had no armor and a small amount of light infantry and take the town? After all, Monty did promise to take it on D-Day (give or take two months). Patton won his $75 betting that Monty could even take it by D-Day+30. So I am not sure D-Day is a good time to boast about superior British strategy and planning. You don't even realize the first wave was with 16 LCTs followed by 10 LCTs meaning 32 M4s followed by 36 M7 priests, exactly what I said. Who needs a mortar to fire an 80 yard round when they would be off the beach by 3000 yards? A “Funny” would be in the way. I am sure the Americans would have liked piling up “funnies” along with their own armor. As Jack Nickelson said, “sell crazy somewhere else, we are all stocked up here”.
(Glider @ Feb 14 2006, 07:30 PM) [post=45939]Once again your full of bluster and next to no detail. [/b] Oh, yes it is bluster to claim Americans had teams of engineers on the beach to clear it. How could I have omitted critical references on such a controversial issue? And what if do I get if by chance I should dig up, through the annuls of military obscurity, a reference in which some radical American general, in some underutilized division, and under the radar of his superiors, had the audacity to request that an engineer be put in his division to use for beach clearing on Normandy beach? (Glider @ Feb 14 2006, 07:30 PM) [post=45939]Omaha wasn't the most heavily defended beach and sufferred a huge proportion of the casualties. [/b] And your reference is...surely you would have given one considering the accusation of "blustering" above. You wouldn't dare have posted otherwise now would you Glider? (I am so disappointed). (Glider @ Feb 14 2006, 07:30 PM) [post=45939]The contention is that if you had used the Funnies the losses would have been significantly less. Your contention is that they would have been no help at all. [/b] Yes, that's my contention. A Funny at the bottom of the channel is just as useless as a Sherman at the bottom. When the Shermans and Priests finally got on the beach, the game was over. The M7 Priest has a 105mm M2A1 howitzer that has an effective range of over two miles. (Glider @ Feb 14 2006, 07:30 PM) [post=45939]You say that an 88 could open up a Churchill, yes of course it could. But a landing beach isn't a shooting range. Also you say there were lots of 88's on Omaha, I think you will find that is wrong. Most of the Beach defensis on Omaha were MG's and those that had guns tended to be Russian 76mm rebored to take German ammunition, still very dangerous I will admit. It doesn't alter the fact that you are claiming that Shermans would be better than a Churchill which I find rather interesting with its thinner armour, petrol engine and thinner tracks making it more likey to bog down in the soft sand. [/b] The guns on Omaha would have been outclassed by the 105s on the M7's. There is not a MG of any caliber which would be brave enough to shoot while this thing fires a 105 in its direction. It would clear the enemy out in a hurry enough to get men up to the line. From there they take out the pill boxes and then engineers (that I don't have a reference for but still insist the American's had them) would walk up with a mine detector in one hand and a sandwich in the other and clear out the beach. Your big 290 Petard with its massive 80mm range would not have benefited the Omaha beach scenario. Do you really think that the Germans are just going to sit there and let that lumbering b*****d slog its way up (somehow avoiding the anti-tank mines) and somehow loft a heavy 290mm mortar up 60 yards? Where you do you folks get these ideas from? As far as the bog down factor, what does the type of fuel it uses have to do with it bogging down? But regardless of how you explain that, they both ran off of “Petrol”. But you failed to mention the fact the Churchill is 6 tons heavier not including the ammo of the 290mm mortars and the fact that the Sherman is longer and has longer tracks. Weight distribution has to do with area not width. But nevertheless, bogging down was not the problem. Sinking was the problem and I think the differences in the hydrodynamics of the tank shapes affecting the speed it sunk to the bottom are pretty much negligible wouldn’t you? (Glider @ Feb 14 2006, 07:30 PM) [post=45939]I was trying to give you the oppertuity to quote the sources for your statements which you have singually failed to do. All I am asking you to do is to support your statements with sources from recognised experts. [/b] Ok, from now on, every quote or opinion you offer I expect a precise reference to your statement. And if it is a composite of different things you learned or (god forbid) common sense, it is verboten and you shall not offer such as you will be in violation of your capricious protocol you seem to shackle me with. As far as your “recognized” experts, we must set up a database that contains the names of these exalted ones so we don’t reference “dubious” sources. And of course these “recognized” experts must never disagree with other “recognized” experts or else they shall all be found “unrecognized” for integrity reasons. I am guessing that is going to be a very small data set. (Glider @ Feb 14 2006, 07:30 PM) [post=45939]A number of people have quoted a vairety of sources to disagree with you some of which were US Army reports. I was wanting to see what you had to back it up. [/b] What specific issue do you question and I will tell you were you got it. If someone says an 80 ton tank can fly if it wishes, I don't care if he quoted ever historian and military web site, my common sense overrules it for me. (Glider @ Feb 14 2006, 07:30 PM) [post=45939]BTW you never did address my last set of questions apart from trying to tell everyone that because a trained athlete can throw a football a hundred yards, ordinary soldiers can throw a hand grenade 100 yards. You will have to do better than that to get anyone to agree with you. [/b] I said a footbal can be thrown 80 yards (the range of the Petard). Did you intentionally misquote me? John Elway did it in a QB competition. Michael Vick (Atl) and Boller (U of California) claim they can both throw a football 80 yards. In fact Boller was witnessed to throw one from his knees through the uprights 50 yards away. I said that pro baseball players routinely throw a baseball over 100 yards. And I said the size of a baseball approximates the size of a grenade so tossing it over the 80 yards should be very doable. Remember, a steel ball and a cork ball fall at the same speed, given no wind. It is irrespective of weight. Now, you blasted me hard for not giving you references and shamed me into giving you the trite references I remember quoting. Now, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You give me references to how a Churchill Petard could have helped saved lives on Omaha beach. Show me a specific reference to a US general or officer who lamented not having that useless thing blocking his artillery. Don't let the be "just another" bluster of yours Glider, I am waiting...
(jimbotosome @ Feb 15 2006, 04:55 AM) [post=45945]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>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. [/b] Well, this just goes to show what sort of inaccuracies your 'opinions' are based on. Though slightly heavier weight would work to its advantage because of its small drag/weight ratio. This is so spectacularly wrong it actually makes you look stupid. The baseball weighs about 5 oz and you say that the Mills Bomb is 'Slightly heavier'. Well, it weighs 27.25 oz. That's over 5 times the weight of the baseball! Slightly? You then give us your opinion that the weight "would work to its advantage because of its small drag/weight ratio". Well all I can suggest is that you work in the aero industry and show a lot of them 'silly' scientists where they are going wrong. They should be building planes smaller and heavier to improve performance! Nobody could throw the grenade as far as the baseball, but you will probably tell us that if you practice with bowling balls the grenade will be easy. If these are the sort of ideas that you base the opinions that you are trying to say are right over everyone else, then I'm not surprized that everyone is of a different opinion to you. More to the point, when they are, they manage to actually provide some form of evidence that makes sense and you don't. You seem to say that the british idea of using funnies didn't work and then point out that they lost one man in 29 rather than the slaughter the americans suffered. Have you sat down and actually thought there could have been a connection? Sword wasn't unopposed by any means. Maybe the tactics were better? The funnies helped? Or maybe you think the 'one man and a dog' you seem to think were defending the beach were very good and ruined the morning stroll up the beach for 1 in 29? It would take too long to point out all the faults in your ideas, which has been done repeatedly, but you wouldn't listen anyway. I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion...... even if it's wrong.
Here is a crapload of money down the drain. That's not too "funny" to me. Look like he could have used an engineer going ahead of him and clearing out the anti-tank mines. View attachment 1534
(jimbotosome @ Feb 14 2006, 06:32 PM) [post=45908](Gotthard Heinrici @ Feb 14 2006, 11:54 AM) [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] As far as needing quotes, of course you know what I think of historian elitism. Since I am often posting my opinion because of a composite of things read it is hard for me to pin down complex conclusions on a single reference. This is I why I post long dissertations at time to explain how I came about the opinion. But, it would be too exausting to give a link or exact quote for everything I say. The issue of uncontested Sword is relative. I don't doubt there were MGs and mortars on the beach, but there was little opposition to tanks themselves. And when the tanks arrived, there would be even fewer. The heavy bombardment of Sword from air and navy pretty much flattened out all the heavy stuff or forced a withdrawal of it off the beach. The 88s would be the number one problem on a beach assault. [/b] Lol and all we have from that composite of things our EP expert has read about Normandy that allows him to conclude that the British landing beaches were uncontested is a a Wikipedia link stating that Sword was lightly defended (which is quite different crom uncontested, though he might have some problem with English as well). And guess why our EP expert didnt even bother to post the Wikipedia link about Gold ? Prolly because it doesnt exactly fit his shallow claim: Wikipedia on Gold
(jimbotosome @ Feb 15 2006, 06:25 AM) [post=45949]Here is a crapload of money down the drain. That's not too "funny" to me. Look like he could have used an engineer going ahead of him and clearing out the anti-tank mines. [/b] Again you prove that you actually know nothing about armed conflict which does show that your 'opinion' counts for very little. An assault, whether on a beach, across a river or on any other objective is a messy business. That is why a 3 to 1 attacker to defender ratio is the accepted minimum in the assault.... even now in conventional war fighting. More is better obviously. The reason for that? You are going to loose men, tanks and specialist vehicles. To aim is to have enough to actually get the job done dispite the losses. The enemy are in prepared positions, with positioned weapons and reserves near by. So what does your picture of a knocked out flail tank prove? Certainly not that you are right. The 'expensive' flail tanks and all the funnies were additional to the orbat and if anything sacrificed on the beach assault. The only other alternative would be to put a tank on the beach with the same result, except that it would be one of the tanks that was needed after the beach that would have been lost. No, all you repeatedly succeed to prove is your lack of knowledge, your inability to have your opinion changed and the low value of that inflexible opinion.
(Exxley @ Feb 15 2006, 09:34 AM) [post=45951]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>Lol and all we have from that composite of things our EP expert has read about Normandy that allows him to conclude that the British landing beaches were uncontested is a a Wikipedia link stating that Sword was lightly defended (which is quite different crom uncontested, though he might have some problem with English as well). And guess why our EP expert didnt even bother to post the Wikipedia link about Gold ? Prolly because it doesnt exactly fit his shallow claim: Wikipedia on Gold [/b] Why let anyone else see anything that contradicts the 'truth' that is Jimo's opinion. Add to that the fact that he only replies to the arguments that he thinks he can counter and convieniently forgets to mention the many times his opinion is proved to be far from 'water tight'. Maybe he dislikes historians because to be taken seriously they have to research their subject and back their arguments with fact. Something he seems very unwilling to do. I don't care what nationality, race colour or creed people are on here, but if you are talking complete rubbish I feel you should be told so. People come to this forum to find out facts, figures and to forward their opinions. Opinion should be forwarded as such and not pushed as fact..... especially when it is repeatedly proved to be far from it.
One question stands out like sore thumb. If there were American Engineers on Omaha, why in hell did they not do their job? Sapper
(sapper @ Feb 15 2006, 06:34 AM) [post=45963]One question stands out like sore thumb. If there were American Engineers on Omaha, why in hell did they not do their job? Sapper [/b] Well, you see sapper, on Omaha, the Germans were actually shooting at them so they had to wait for armor to come and stop the artillery, then they did their job perfectly well, just like their British counterparts. Pilot, may I ask why do you have a school bus for your avatar? I am just curious. Also, are Exxley and Max one in the same people? Something about their posts seem to harmonize with each other. They are not that DengXaiuPing (or whatever his name was) guy that was posting his adoration for Russia a while back are they?
