(jimbotosome @ Feb 14 2006, 08:55 PM) [post=45923]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. [/b] None on any of the beaches. I do not know if any were tasked to do so, although I think not, but the 10/10 cloud cover that morning made conditions unsuitable. And no panzer divisions were actually heading towards the beaches that morning. Pz Lehr and 12 SS Pz had not received orders to move and were not ordered to Omaha anyway and 21 Pz was in the process of forming up around Caen, but did not attack Sword until later in the day.
To my knowledge no Tactical Fighters were tasked with Beach Attacks that Day. The job was left to the Heavies and the Medium Bombers early on.
(plant-pilot @ Feb 15 2006, 12:01 PM) [post=45960](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'. [/b] Agree. See his latest answer on this thread. No further mention of uncontested beaches. </div><div class='quotemain'> 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. [/b] The point is, he doesnt really seem to know anything about the topic at hand, hence why he cant come with anything that looks like a reasonable source. </div><div class='quotemain'> 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. [/b] He doesnt really know what is a fact, doesnt seem to really want to know.
Jimbo, you are sounding more than a bit ridiculous. The intensity of fire on Sword came from many more directions than at Omaha. Could it be that you are unable to admit that Americans sometimes get Shocked, and frozen by the fire coming their way...If that is so, they are different from the rest of us. I will admit to mind numbing fear. where the mere getting out of your foxhole into the face of a shower of mortars is to say the least "Mind Boggling" To suggest that there was no fire for the Sword Lads to face, is just about as stupid a statement as it is possible to say. Nowhere on the USA beaches did you have to face the intensity of fire that was laid down on Sword. Have you been watching too many Hollywood films? BE serious Jimbo! or otherwise the postings lose all interest and common sense. Sapper
Okay gentlemen, time to call a halt to the name call etc. I realise how frustrating it is but there is no need to resort to a slanging match. I have had to remove onbe offensive comment already and will continue to do as and when neccessary. </div><div class='quotemain'>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] Remember that insurgents in Iraq using RPGs managed to destroy a M1 Abrams tank. Now that cost a great deal of money. </div><div class='quotemain'>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.[/b] . The special Army-Navy demolition engineers who had the job of blowing paths through the beach obstacles were not only widely scattered, they were brought in crucial minutes behind schedule. These frustrated men set to work wherever they found themselves. But they fought a losing battle. In the few minutes they had before the following waves of troops bore down on the beaches, the engineers cleared only five -and a half paths instead of the sixteen planned. Working with desperate haste, the demolition parties were impeded at every turn—infantrymen waded in among them, soldiers took shelter behind the obstacles they were about to blow, and landing craft, buffeted by the swells, came in almost on top of them. Sergeant Barton A. Davis of the 299th Engineer Combat battalion saw an assault boat bearing down on him. It was filled with 1st Division men and was coming straight in through the obstacles. There was a tremendous explosion and the boat disintegrated. It seemed to Davis that every one in it was thrown into the air all at once. Bodies and parts of bodies landed all round the flaming wreckage. "I saw black dots of men trying to swim through the gasoline that had spread on the water and as we wondered what to do a headless torso flew a good fifty feet through the air and landed with a sickening thud near us." Davis did not see how anyone could have lived through the explosion, but two men did. They were pulled out of the water, badly burned but Ryan, Cornelius, The longest Day, NEL, London, 1969
(jimbotosome @ Feb 14 2006, 05:46 PM) [post=45910] Whoops. Thanks. I mean the M8/M9s which attached to the end of a M1 Carbine. [/b] The M1 carbine could be fitted with the M8 grenade launcher which used the M6 grenade launching cartridge. The launcher clamped on the end of the barrel and was held in place by a wing nut. The US Rifle, cal .30 M1 (Garand) could be fitted with the M7 (subsequently the M7A1) grenade launcher which was attached to the bayonet lug by a hinged clamp, and had a stud that fitted into the gas cylinder valve screw to hold it open and vent the excess gas when firing the special M3 grenade cartridge.
(jimbotosome @ Feb 15 2006, 02:28 PM) [post=45966]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'> Pilot, may I ask why do you have a school bus for your avatar? I am just curious. [/b] Well if you have to ask, and with risking going off thread. The avatar is not so much of a 'bus' but a stylized M3 Amphibious bridging and ferrying equipment. If it doesn't look exactly like one I have to apologize, but it was all my own work and I'm no artist. It is a strange truck that drives into the water and links together to provide a ferry or bridge capabler of carrying the largest of main battle tanks. I suppose, as it is a specialized piece of military engineering equipment, very expensive and of little use in many situations, it could be classed as a modern day 'funny'. The the americans however had nothing comparable to provide the speed or crossing capability of the M3 in 2003 and they were glad that we were in theater. Now you can tell me what a waste of money and resources they are, and how there are better ways to cross large water obstacles, and we will all be amazed at your military knowledge and your valued opinion.
(angie999 @ Feb 15 2006, 08:46 AM) [post=45968](jimbotosome @ Feb 14 2006, 08:55 PM) [post=45923]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. [/b] None on any of the beaches. I do not know if any were tasked to do so, although I think not, but the 10/10 cloud cover that morning made conditions unsuitable. And no panzer divisions were actually heading towards the beaches that morning. Pz Lehr and 12 SS Pz had not received orders to move and were not ordered to Omaha anyway and 21 Pz was in the process of forming up around Caen, but did not attack Sword until later in the day. [/b] Well, you are sort of splitting hairs here with those statements. Here is the take on Military History Online for what it's worth: For Germany, the result of the first day of fighting had been disappointing, but was not viewed as disastrous. Partly as a result of Hitler's hesitancy, and also as a consequence of virtually complete Allied air supremacy over the approaches to the battle area, 21st and 12th SS Panzer Divisions, forming the immediate mobile reserve, had not intervened effectively on June 6th. Indeed losses from enemy air attack were so substantial that it is unlikely that their earlier release would have made any significant difference. [/i ] And in case that is not a “suitable” reference I will post from Max Hastings (yes that’s right, I know it is grossly irreverent to post his name rather than just his initials, but I am a consummate rebel!) . . . questing fighter bombers fell on them ceaselessly. The convoys of the Das Reich were compelled to abandon daylight movement after Saumur and Tours and crawl northwards through the blackout .... [During a change of command] an Allied fighter bomber section smashed into the column, firing rockets and cannon. Within minutes . . . sixteen trucks and half-tracks were in flames .... Again and again, as they inched forward through the closely set Norman countryside, the tankmen were compelled to leap from their vehicles and seek cover beneath the hulls as fighter bombers attacked. Their only respite came at night. There seems to be a significant level of ignorance of what kept the Panzers away from the beaches and from Caen. Like I have been saying (and have been developing a strong case for in some books I am reading now) there are two WWIIs, one that people have “read” about that has a lot of “scary” enemy tanks slugging it out in a battle of wills, and the other the actual one that few know anything about that involved a scenario where the real fear had more to do with what was flying out in front of the tanks, rather than enemy tanks themselves. Like I have stated; more to come on that later, “God willing and the creek don’t rise”. I want to build up sufficient illustration. Just think, you’ll be one of the first forums to discuss the actual WWII soon! You will be famous and then some of you can take the material and produce some books and be considered a “recognized, sanctified, certified, and exalted” Historian. Your names will be up there with the Liddell-Harts, D’Estes, Max Hastings, etc as you begin to replace their literature with actual WWII facts! (boy, I wish I could see the looks on some of you folk’s faces right now!) As you can see in the opinion above the belief is that the delay was irrelevant because of the fighter/bombers. This tells me that even before they moved, the patrols were taking place with the thinking that they would move immediately. In fact had they have moved immediately, it might have been worse as I would think the concentration of fighters would have been heavier in the first hours of the invasion. BTW: 21st Panzer didn’t escape the wrath of tactical air. The way I look at it, there were two groups dissatisfied by the delays, the German Panzer divisions and the Allied TAC pilots who had come to destroy armor and men and were short changed by Hitler’s confusion. For instance we know that Panzer Lehr was 12-12-80-50. This means, their attack was delayed for 12 hours, and even with them only 12 miles away, and it took 80 hours for them to get there with 50% strength thanks to our heroes in the IX TAC. You were right about the cloud cover. Omaha beach was bombed but because of the cloud cover they bombed to far inland and missed the target area. It would have made all the difference and Omaha would have been like Sword would have both been pretty easy to take with far fewer losses. But, such are the fortunes of war. There was a reason they couldn’t get to Caen. A combination of bombing bridges, the center of Caen and the mauling of armor from the fighter/bomber attacks while they detoured around the ruins, kept them busy long enough for the Brits to get off the beach and reduced their strength. This is why Caen would have been such an easy kill if they had decided to take it on D-Day. (plant-pilot @ Feb 15 2006, 11:58 AM) [post=45985](jimbotosome @ Feb 15 2006, 02:28 PM) [post=45966]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'> Pilot, may I ask why do you have a school bus for your avatar? I am just curious. [/b] Well if you have to ask, and with risking going off thread. The avatar is not so much of a 'bus' but a stylized M3 Amphibious bridging and ferrying equipment. If it doesn't look exactly like one I have to apologize, but it was all my own work and I'm no artist. It is a strange truck that drives into the water and links together to provide a ferry or bridge capabler of carrying the largest of main battle tanks. I suppose, as it is a specialized piece of military engineering equipment, very expensive and of little use in many situations, it could be classed as a modern day 'funny'. The the americans however had nothing comparable to provide the speed or crossing capability of the M3 in 2003 and they were glad that we were in theater. Now you can tell me what a waste of money and resources they are, and how there are better ways to cross large water obstacles, and we will all be amazed at your military knowledge and your valued opinion. [/b]No that's a cool vehicle pilot. Maybe they should have used them in Market Garden.
(sapper @ Feb 15 2006, 09:18 AM) [post=45975]Jimbo, you are sounding more than a bit ridiculous. The intensity of fire on Sword came from many more directions than at Omaha. Could it be that you are unable to admit that Americans sometimes get Shocked, and frozen by the fire coming their way...If that is so, they are different from the rest of us. I will admit to mind numbing fear. where the mere getting out of your foxhole into the face of a shower of mortars is to say the least "Mind Boggling" To suggest that there was no fire for the Sword Lads to face, is just about as stupid a statement as it is possible to say. Nowhere on the USA beaches did you have to face the intensity of fire that was laid down on Sword. Have you been watching too many Hollywood films? BE serious Jimbo! or otherwise the postings lose all interest and common sense. Sapper [/b] No, not movies. You don't see many of those on Sword beach. I do see the photos and the lack of beach causalties in those photos and read the quotes by people who were there that indicate it was a breeze like the one that said the ran up on some Germans sipping coffee. Go look at the pictures of the Sword beach invasion sapper, most of the soldiers disembarking are standing strait up and not even running. Then look at the landings at Omaha and the tide and beaches strewn with casualties. I don't think you would mistake the pictures on Sword from having been pictures of Omaha. I also doubt any German soldiers in the Omaha area were that unaware that a massive invasion had been taking place. Pictures don't lie sapper. By the way, why do you always create these silly strawman arguments to try to twist things I have said and even some I haven't and try to paint my meanings and motives? Also, why do you attack the American soldiers if it is me you have such disdain for? I would much rather you call me names than denegrate them.
(jimbotosome @ Feb 15 2006, 06:18 PM) [post=45987](angie999 @ Feb 15 2006, 08:46 AM) [post=45968](jimbotosome @ Feb 14 2006, 08:55 PM) [post=45923]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. [/b] None on any of the beaches. I do not know if any were tasked to do so, although I think not, but the 10/10 cloud cover that morning made conditions unsuitable. And no panzer divisions were actually heading towards the beaches that morning. Pz Lehr and 12 SS Pz had not received orders to move and were not ordered to Omaha anyway and 21 Pz was in the process of forming up around Caen, but did not attack Sword until later in the day. [/b] Well, you are sort of splitting hairs here with those statements. Here is the take on Military History Online for what it's worth: For Germany, the result of the first day of fighting had been disappointing, but was not viewed as disastrous. Partly as a result of Hitler's hesitancy, and also as a consequence of virtually complete Allied air supremacy over the approaches to the battle area, 21st and 12th SS Panzer Divisions, forming the immediate mobile reserve, had not intervened effectively on June 6th. Indeed losses from enemy air attack were so substantial that it is unlikely that their earlier release would have made any significant difference. ] [/b] Of course we dont have anything that looks like a figure to know what exactly were the losses suffered from those same air attacks. </div><div class='quotemain'> And in case that is not a “suitable” reference I will post from Max Hastings (yes that’s right, I know it is grossly irreverent to post his name rather than just his initials, but I am a consummate rebel!) . . . questing fighter bombers fell on them ceaselessly. The convoys of the Das Reich were compelled to abandon daylight movement after Saumur and Tours and crawl northwards through the blackout .... [During a change of command] an Allied fighter bomber section smashed into the column, firing rockets and cannon. Within minutes . . . sixteen trucks and half-tracks were in flames .... Again and again, as they inched forward through the closely set Norman countryside, the tankmen were compelled to leap from their vehicles and seek cover beneath the hulls as fighter bombers attacked. Their only respite came at night. [/b] We've already seen that quote from Hastings, and will anyone be surprised that somehow Good Ole Max seems a good historian enough to be quoted by our EP expert ? The only thing is that Hastings is talking about the Das Reich, not the 21st Pz-Div. </div><div class='quotemain'> There seems to be a significant level of ignorance of what kept the Panzers away from the beaches and from Caen. Like I have been saying (and have been developing a strong case for in some books I am reading now) there are two WWIIs, one that people have “read” about that has a lot of “scary” enemy tanks slugging it out in a battle of wills, and the other the actual one that few know anything about that involved a scenario where the real fear had more to do with what was flying out in front of the tanks, rather than enemy tanks themselves. Like I have stated; more to come on that later, “God willing and the creek don’t rise”. I want to build up sufficient illustration. Just think, you’ll be one of the first forums to discuss the actual WWII soon! You will be famous and then some of you can take the material and produce some books and be considered a “recognized, sanctified, certified, and exalted” Historian. Your names will be up there with the Liddell-Harts, D’Estes, Max Hastings, etc as you begin to replace their literature with actual WWII facts! (boy, I wish I could see the looks on some of you folk’s faces right now!) [/b]
Its late so I will take items one at a time, this posting concentrates on the Funnies and how they could have helped reduce the losses at Omaha. The Beach defences at Omaha consitsed of 14 strongpoints. They varied in size but its what they contained thats interesting. Obviously mortars, Gredade launchers and machine guns were well spread about. When it comes to Anti Tank equipment it gets interesting. The Strongpoints consisted of 2 x 88 AT guns, 7 x 50 AT Guns, 5-7 x 75 HE Guns and 1 Pz4 turret embedded into the ground. The 88 will of course be able to destroy any tank. The 50mm could and did destroy Shermans on the beaches whereas the 75 would only be effective against open topped vehicles such as M7's. The AVRE tended to use the Churchill VII as a base and these would be almost impossible to destroy with the 50mm. In particular from the front where its armour is 140 -150 mm depending on which part you want to take. Which means that there are only two guns which can destroy them. This alone is one reason why the Funnies would be of assistance. The Churchill also has a significant design advantage for use in these situations. It has side doors and 2 engineers were carried inside and were able to leave the veichle to plant demolition charges using the bulk of the tank for protection. Much has been made of the short range of the Petard which is a fair question but you need to remember we are talking about a Beach landing The landing beaches at Omaha are 6 miles wide and the Beach at Low tide is about 400 yards wide, at high tide considerably less. The Petard has a range of 1o0 yards so it will have to go around 300 yards to be in range of a bunker. Considering its protection I do not find this a major problem. The other Funny would be the Crocadile tank which kept the 75mm and carried the flamethrower. What I find interesting is your contention that a Sherman could do the job and the M7 would have the advantage of range. Shermans were far more vulnerable to the AT guns then the Churchill and would suffer heavier losses. The M7 were wide open to machine gun attack and even the 75mm HE guns could knock them out. They may not penertrate but blast, concussion, splinters ets will do the job. They would not have lasted long. M7's were landed on D Day, but not as far as I am aware with the assult waves which is a different kettle of fish (happy to be proved wrong on that point) The fact that the M7 can outrange a petard by thousands of yards is totally irrelevant on a beach 400 yards wide. A 75mm or even a 105 could not destroy a heavy Bunker, the Petard could. There can be no doubt that the Crocadile with the 75mm and flamethrower plus the armour is better than either the Sherman or the M7. We tried to use the two in tandem. The Petard to beak up the bunker and the flamethrower to destroy what was left. You must admit, its a fearsome combination. As requested you asked for sources This give a mention of the combination of Petard and Crocadile http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/dday_beachhead_06.shtml This gives details of the beach defences http://www.omaha-beach.org/The%20Beach/TheBeach.html As for the armour on a Churchill you can look that up anywhere. The US Army produced a report on the landings (all of them) and in this report it doesn't mention the possible use of Funnies but it does contain a statement that the Engineers reported that in future landings, obsticles cannot be cleared by hand unless the defences have been suppressed. It also mentions that armour support is vital if only to attract the fire away from the engineers, I wil give you the details of the paper tomorrow. I now ask you to reply in kind. You have stated a number of times that in your view, common sense overides anything that a historian says. For that reason I have not gone down that route. I await your reply and evidence with interest
I can hardly read this thread because all the quoted stuff doesn't seem to be working. But I'm glad.....I've never read so much rubbish in my life.
Is it just me or does that bridge vehicle look like a caravan? I know I'm about to waltz through a minefield by posting here again, but I always did like playing with things that go bang... I'd just like to try and clear up the air bombing debate by using my very rusty memory, so I COULD BE WRONG! Please don't take this as gospel. I believe i have stated this before, but there was such a thing known as the 'bomb line'. Useful little critter, in that it ran parallel with the front line, approx. 10 miles inside enemy territory. NO bombing or strafing was allowed in this area for fear of hitting your own side. I know this happened at D-Day when an air strike was called on the German artillery holding back the Allies (Can't remember if Brit or Yank). A small mistake was made when judging the windspeed, and so the American bombs fell on the Allies, and not the Germans. Please try and imagine the massacre. Misjudging the windspeeds was normal, they didn't have satellites like we do, and so the bomb line was enforced. I have read this in a number of memoirs of bomber command vets. After D-Day long range fighters escorted the bombers deep inland (whilst using Gee) and as a reward for staying high with the bombers, they were allowed to dive and strafe anything that moved after the bombs had fallen. As one bomber pilot described it "Even the butterflies were fair game for the next ten minutes".(Possibly 'Luck And A Lancaster') Now please take this and compare it to Normandy beaches, with 10/10 cloud, inaccurate bombsights, weather and the myriad other little niggles that can send 10 tons of HE whistling off in the wrong direction. Would you want to put your trust in the bombers, or the Funnies? Give me a tank with an identity crisis any day of the week.
I can hardly read this thread because all the quoted stuff doesn't seem to be working. But I'm glad.....I've never read so much rubbish in my life. Thants is an amazing claim. However, could you be more specific about which quoted works does not work for you.
I can hardly read this thread because all the quoted stuff doesn't seem to be working ...... The same situation exists for me for all postings prior to the Site upgrade. James
I can hardly read this thread because all the quoted stuff doesn't seem to be working. But I'm glad.....I've never read so much rubbish in my life. Poor old Max. Have a bit of patience. If the reading offends you, do some writing.
No woories Max I mucked up alot of posts and threads...Quadruple posts...all kinds of fun stuff....Hey can you delete your own posts and how?
Utah beach could've been as bad but since they landed outside the original sector and found 1 causeway instead of 2 and the Germans defending against the 29th and 1st Infantry were alot better equiped and had seen service on the eastern front.
Well, Glider, you failed to address your assertion against the issue. The issue we have been debating (though some jumped in having no idea what it was or somehow forgot in their zeal-to-zing) was that you need to prove that the bodies and armor that piled up due to the lack of un-piled up armor would have been reduced/indemnified/minimized if the US had had a Petard Funny. But you must keep in mind the US could not get armor on the beach. So the “funny” must operate underwater on its side being jammed between the Dragons teeth with mines on them that only Omaha had, or having tumbled off LCTs or hit by artillery. Now with this Petard 1000+ yards from the enemy and probably on it side or upside down, it has to get its 80 yard range mortar to go that 1000 yards like the M7s could their 105s. You see, when the armor was on the beach undestroyed the battle was pretty much over. Omaha was 6 miles wide and the fiercest fought beach battle in D-Day. So by your own predicate, your Funny operating in the English channel would have had to fire the Petard and hope it rolled a very, very long way before exploding. In the mean time it CANNOT fire a mortar that would make a crater and hinder the progress of tanks. The issue is that you and others seem to mistake Sword for Omaha. Now before you add another block of praise for the Funny, why not fess up and talk about the fact that the British landed 3 battalions of M7s on the beach some were even firing from the LCTs as they approached because of their long range and hard hitting 105s. And conspicuous by its absence is you and Sapper’s confession that the British 3rd Army landed 3 battalions of M7s (whoops!). Maybe it wasn’t the Petard “saving the day” on Sword. Perhaps they would have preferred long range firing of the M7s and multitude of tanks they landed first. Then the mighty Petard, on the beach after the M7s had clear out the hills happened to be nothing but a glorified TOOL CARRIER and simply wouldn’t have saved any lives at all. Ok, now that we see the “rest of the story” then let me take a look at your claim that a Petard was so much more destructive than Tanks and M7s. You can hide behind any tank. You would rather hide behind one that is firing. A direct hit with an 88 would kill either one, Churchill or Sherman. A light hit to the track would stop either of them too as well as make the Petard a big piece a scrap iron unable to move or fire. Second of all you can’t clear the mine out in front of the Petard because it offers no cover (remember they were firing on the beach at Omaha). If you get behind it then the Petard blows up when it hits the mine (because of the heavy 290mm ordinance) and takes out your entire engineering company (not a pretty picture). So the Petard is a better bunker buster than a time in the rare case it can actually get within 80 yards of a bunker. I don’t doubt the impact of the 290mm mortar was a heck of a bang and that it would destroy almost as good as a 500 pound bomb. The argument that it would have offered something a Sherman or an M7 wouldn’t even though the British didn’t believe that and had both on their beach is specious. Your argument that this has something to do with specialized tanks and those tanks “had” to be Churchills instead of Shermans is unfounded speculation. The Americans had flail tanks and flame tanks just like their British counterparts. Just look at the battles in the Pacific. But if they could get close enough (which they did) they also had them on the backs of soldiers. They had equipment engineering vehicles too. They could haul much more equipment in a halftrack or a 6x6 than you can in a Petard. So it begs to question, if the Petard could not have added a single bit of value to the Omaha beach landing that a Sherman or M7 could, why would they want it? Why would they want to load down their motor pool with parts for a handful of pieces of equipment that they would never need (since the US actually used it’s tactical air force in ground support). The typical delivery time for bombs on a target (tank or bunker or artillery) assuming there are no patrols in the area and that you don’t call in an emergency strike, is one hour. It would take that long to find the “funny” and get it to just about anywhere and then for them to “bring the Petard up” and take a chance that one of the infantry in the bunker has a panzerfist (panzerfaust) and panzerscream (panzershrek) is just so improbable that you might never find a place to use it in the entire war. Now as to your issue about the untopped M7. Look friend, if you get hit with a 75mm on the top of an armor vehicle, you have a dead crew either way. The problem with shooting at an M7 that is not a problem if you are shooting at a Petard is that you might miss and then you give away your position to the target. No problem with the Petard, just keep firing at it until everyone around it dies from the secondary explosions. But, you on the hill are a stationary target. The M7 is extremely accurate at line of site stationary targets (not using the howitzer mode). He won’t miss. If Allied soldiers are afraid of an immobile 88mm, then the Germans better be terrified of a mobile 105mm with a 6 mile range. Machine gun fire is not a problem because of distance to target and the front shield it gives you. The crew can crouch down up front. Go read up on the M7. I think you have forgotten about their form factor. In addition it has gunner position with a large cupola and a “Ma Duce”. The thing about the 88s is that the M7 can outrange them. The 88 lost its penetration capability after 1/2 mile vs the M7’s range of 6 miles. That’s quite a disparity. You can forget the frontal armor on the Petard, at Omaha they would be coming down on the top of your tank. Not even a King Tiger can deal with that. Continued...
...Continued here As far as carrying engineers, why? They are much faster in a jeep or truck or on foot or hiding behind a truck. You are NOT going to demine using a Petard, it would suck at demining it is for blowing bunkers it can roll right up next to. You care not going to demine while the enemy is still firing. The doors on the side of the tank are useless. If you get out of the tank to demine you have to move ahead of it. You would be killed, otherwise you get killed in it. Your arguments make no sense in a real Omaha beach combat zone. I keep having to remind you guys this was not Sword beach. It was not defended by Poles and Ukrainians. The enemy was shooting soldiers at the waters edge and beyond. There was not a two hour naval bombardment before its start. The US had soldiers with flamethrowers that cleared out the bunkers. It is senseless to try and blow them were some could escape when you could burn them all alive from a single soldier. But the bunkers were not the problem. The guns were. Any gun a Petard can hit, could hit it. You said that the M7s would not have lasted long. If so, why did the British 3rd land three battalions of them? BTW: parts of Omaha were 3000 yards deep and all the guns were trained on the beaches. I didn’t ask you for a reference to a funny. I asked you to back up your claim that a Funny would have saved lives in a situation were we couldn’t get armor on the beach. This you avoided like the plague. My common sense was backed up by history. You didn’t know it at the time operating under the delusion that Funnies came on the beach at Sword and Gold and chased the Germans away. There was little opposition (especially at Gold) and the British delay gave them a two hour naval bombardment that obliterated the German defenses before they hit the beaches. Not only would Funnies not help on Omaha, but they weren’t’ critical on Sword either. I await your proof that a funny that couldn’t be landed could have helped. That’s an untenable position to take but one you chose to by your “common sense” and abundance of faith in an overrated piece of armor. Factors influencing Omaha’s losses: -Most contested beach in the invasion. -Landing craft launched 11.5 miles from the beach. -Crack German 352nd Division just happened to be training at Omaha. -Better than two regiments face at Omaha most of them first line. -Concrete gun emplacements buried in the bluffs so to enfilade almost the entire length of the beach. -Thousands of mines sown in the dunes, sea wall and exit roads. -Navy warships would not come in below 12 miles out for fear of French Artillery (that one can go on the Sea Lion thread where I was told ships were immune to shore artillery in the channel). -Cloud cover caused the heavies to miss the German defenses with 2.5 million pounds of bombs which were dropped inland on the French citizens and a few cattle. -Inexperience with the DDs caused some to sink. -Three well placed concrete and steel underwater obstacles (Dragon’s teeth) in the water with mines on them. -Paratroopers scattered too far away. -Green troops spearheading the beach (Bradley claimed that was his fault). -Americans attacked on time. -Weather caused swells also sinking DDs. -Heavy winds blew the LCTs off course. -LCTs were destroyed off the beaches by underwater obstacles tearing holes in them. -Very little recon or communications from the soldiers on the beach (as one could imagine). Recon was by LCT driving back. -Weather kept spotter planes from directing Navy big gun fire. -Monty’s failure as ground commander in OVERLORD. (well, he was seeking the fame, let him take the blame). Not one of these factors could a Petard have helped. Not one. Many specially trained engineers were killed removing underwater mines, but miraculously got a channel cleared. The Funnies would have never have escaped the massive mines on Omaha. Period. You can throw all the irrelevant references in you wish to make it look like you have substance and content, but in the end you didn’t make a single point about how a Petard could have saved the day in Omaha. Glider, maybe it’s you have read too many historians and not used enough common sense. “If the glove does not fit, you must acquit” (little bit of Johnny Cochran humor).
