Omaha beach

[jimbotosome]

(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.

[Exxley]

(jimbotosome @ Feb 14 2006, 03:14 PM) [post=45869]

You are asking me if I have sources that say no Funnies saved lives on Omaha Beach? After all, you do realize this is the entire argument don't you?

[/b]

I hope no one was really hoping for a source there

[Gotthard Heinrici]

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/

[J_McAllister]

Here is an account taken from a web site of the Canadian "North Shore Regiment" on the usefullness of a Petard against an '88.

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/regiment/chp8c.htm

[sapper]

My company had three platoons, and number three was commanded by the late Captain Edwards RE. He was invited by his CO to write notes as a record of what too place. many years later, after the war, he wrote a description of what took place, and because he had been ordered to make notes, all of them are "Live" records. He entitled the work "Bash on with 246 RE to Bremen"


I have described the losses on Sword, for as I stated earlier, Sword beach was the most heavily defended area anywhere on the invasion coast. Not only from the immediate area, but from the Enemy defences inland. All from the rising ground that rose up in front.

That incoming fire was greatly increased by fire coming in from Le Havre. Nowhere, was there the intenisty of fire as on Sword. That became so heavy, that all the ships anti aircraft balloons were taken down, as it appeared the big guns were "Zeroing in on them"

Indeed, it may not be well known, but Sword was abandoned as a landing beach because of the weight of artillery fire that swept the area.

I stated previously that we lost 29 out of 38 Assault craft. Source? Stan Hough Royal Navy. I have his record, or log. Oddly enough when the talk is about the dangers of the landing beaches, and our losses. That is conveniently forgotten.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

Sapper,

Thank you for the post. I hope this clears up this ridiculous assertion that the beaches were uncontested. I woudnt go to the trouble quoting sources though. Jimbo doesnt believe in them.

[sapper]

The 88s took a toll on anything that came within their range. Including our beloved "Coles Crane" that we used right up in the front line. Our faithfull old crane, having dodged many a solid shot. Eventually succumbed to a solid anti tank round from an 88, while lifting aircraft bombs sunk in the road upside down....BOOM! The old girl burst into flames, and was never the same again! The Petard was no more at risk than any other tank...but was twice as lethal.
Sapper

[morse1001]

</div><div class='quotemain'>I believe the British handgrenades are shaped almost identical to a baseball in size and shape[/b]

Here is a picture with details of the standard british grenade of ww2, you can clearly see the shape was is not really aerodynamic

[attachmentid=1528]

</div><div class='quotemain'>Besides, if you need to kill some men on top of a cliff, why not use the M79s? They launched 40mm grenades up to 380 yards and could be carried by any soldier.[/b]

the Blooper was not delivered to the American army until 1961, I do not think the rangers on Omaha beach would be prepared to wait that length of time before breaking out.

</div><div class='quotemain'>The US Rangers got up Pointe du Hoc which was 100 yards up. No funny could help them there. They got up those cliffs guarded by two hundred men and lost only 15 of their own. There are more ways to skin a cat than choking it to death with butter.
[/b]

nobody is disputing the heroism and ingenuity of the Rangers, however, you think about how long they had been on the beach, how many men had died in the mean time and more importantly, the planned assult on the beach and the importance that placed on having armour in posistion before landing the engineers and then troops.

had the DD Shermans been in place then there would have been covering fire in the intial stage, as there was no 88s at beach level then the DDs would have some protection as the angle of depression of the 88 was not all that good.

</div><div class='quotemain'>But it is unreasonable to expect the US to invest in that idea because of its improbabilty of ever finding an application that would justify its fuel usage and crew.
[/b]

I know it is outwith the subject matter of this forum but America did employ "Funnies" in both korea and Vietnamese wars.

</div><div class='quotemain'>No way that Omaha beach would have been any different if the tanks that were sinking when the LCTs were getting hung up in the underwater barricades would have been Funnies instead of Shermans or M7s.[/b]

Lets not forget that the DD sank because their commander ordered them to turn beam on to the waves and they werer swamped. He had no training in operating in anything other than inland waters.



[attachmentid=1528]

[Gotthard Heinrici]

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.

[morse1001]

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Feb 14 2006, 04:54 PM) [post=45893]Morse,

It was not my intention to go "Close to the Line" with that post and if that is the way it came across I apologise. If Jimbo feels that it was insulting I will happily edit it out and change it.
[/b]

Thanks for that