Omaha beach

[jimbotosome]

Glider, the destroyers you mentioned did indeed save the "afternoon". But they could have done that earlier in the day and saved a lot of lives. When they moved in and risked beaching, the battle was finished. They pretty much ruined the Germans day and helped get things going. The issue of the fear of the Navy and 12 miles comes from "A General's Life", Bradley's autobiography. Since he was on one of those ships, I have to take his word for it. If you need the page number (yet more distrust) I will give it to you by specific request.

The irrelevant references I was referring to are references were (for reasons I don't know) that a Petard could have saved the day when no armor was allowed on the beach do to the strenuous request from the Germans. If no armor was on the beach how can you possibly argue that a Petard was of greater value to the US than an M7 or Sherman. If armor can't get on the beach, armor can't get on the beach so please, no references on the tactical capabilities of the Petard if it can't be on the scene.

The rest you seem to have questioned everything I have stated. That’s overloading my resources and a tad insulting. I am not Geoff, you know, and have everything I have ever read or seen memorized to where I can post it immediately (he must have photographic memory).


I tried to spell out that to you, that you yourself wouldn't like every sentence you post questioned. I would be glad to answer my claims. If you distrust everything I say then that's not a discussion that's simply unfair and something you wouldn't want me doing to you. If you have specific points you want me to address, bring them up. If I am Bulls***ing you then it will come out in the fact that random challenges often CAN'T be met. Like I said, one by one please, and if I say the sky was blue that day, take it for granted unless it is material to the issue.

[plant-pilot]

Jimbo, did you ever conceed that you can't throw a grenade 100 yards? Or are you still in the the ' over 5 x the weight of a baseball doesn't make any difference' school of thought?

[jimbotosome]

Originally Posted by plant-pilot

Jimbo, did you ever conceed that you can't throw a grenade 100 yards? Or are you still in the the ' over 5 x the weight of a baseball doesn't make any difference' school of thought?

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.

[Exxley]

Originally Posted by jimbotosome

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.

So says the one who seems to have himself some trouble properly quoting other people's posts when it doesnt fit his own uneducated view.

[morse1001]

The issue of the fear of the Navy and 12 miles comes from "A General's Life", Bradley's autobiography. Since he was on one of those ships, I have to take his word for it.

Naval gunfire would commence at H-40 minutes and continue to H-3 minutes. The battleships TEXAS and ARKANSAS (mounting a total of ten 14inch, twelve 12-inch, and twelve 5-inch guns) would fire from 18,000 yards off shore. About 600 rounds of their heaviest shells would be aimed at the enemy coastal battery at Pointe du Hoe and at the enemy strongpoints defending Exit D-3. Three cruisers, with 6-inch or 152-mm guns, had as targets for 950 rounds the enemy defenses near Port-enBessin and the strong-points near D-3 and E-1 draws. Firing at 1,800 yards from swept lanes on the flanks of the landing-craft approach area, eight destroyers (4- and 5-inch guns) were to put 2.000 rounds on the beach strongpoints.
In addition to the ships, a large number of fire-support craft were to place area fire on the beach defenses, and point fire on certain other targets. Five LCG (L)'s with two 47-mm guns each, accompanying the leading assault wave, were scheduled to fire 630 rounds on selected strongpoints beginning at H-20 minutes. Sixteen LCT (A and HE)'s, carrying tanks to land in the first wave, were each fitted so that two M-4's could fire over the ramp, beginning from a range of 3,000 yards at about H-15 minutes; each gun had an allowance of 150 rounds. Ten LCT (5) s carried the 36105-mm howitzers (self-propelled) of the 58th and 62d Armored Field Artillery Battalions, due to land in the third hour of the assault. These howitzers were mounted to fire from the LCT's, opening at a range of 8,000 yards about H-30 and closing at a range of 3,700 yards by H-5 minutes. Their allowance was 100 rounds per gun. Finally, 9 LCT (R)'s stationed in positions 3,000 yards o shore were to fire 1,000 HE rockets each when the leading assault wave was 300 yards from the beach.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwi...tm#Pre-Assault

[morse1001]

If no armor was on the beach how can you possibly argue that a Petard was of greater value to the US than an M7 or Sherman.

At H Hour eight LCT's would land Company A of the 743d Battalion on Easy Green and Dog Red. This unit had a mission similar to that of the other tank companies. With Company A were landed eight tank dozers, towing trailers of explosive and scheduled for use by engineers in demolition work on obstacles. All three companies were attached to the battalion landing teams to insure closest coordination with the infantry assault.

The Initial Assault Wave

Ninety-six tanks, the Special Engineer Task Force, and eight companies of assault infantry (1,450 men), landing just before and after 0630, were to carry out the first assault missions (Map No. V).
On the right, the 743d Tank Battalion brought in all its tanks on LCT's. Company B, coming in directly in face of the Vierville draw, suffered from enemy artillery fire. The LCT carrying the company commander was sunk just of shore, and four other officers were killed or wounded, leaving one lieutenant in Company B. Eight of that company's 16 tanks landed and started to fire from the water's edge on enemy positions. The tanks of Companies C and A touched down to the east at well-spaced intervals and without initial losses. In the 16th RCT one, only 5 of the 32 DD tanks (741st Tank Battalion) made shore; of Company A's 16 standard tanks, 2 were lost far off shore by an explosion of undetermined cause, and 3 were hit and put out of action very shortly after beaching. The surviving third of the battalion landed between E-1 and E-3 draws and went into action at once against enemy emplacements
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/100-11/ch3.htm#initial

uiotyuioppokijij

[morse1001]

it seems that we are desending into yet another slanging match and it is becoming tiresome to keep issuing warnings.

lets keep to a discussion on the issues and not make comments on others integrity, intelligence or mental health.

Quick note jim, Many posters here go to great lengths to include sources when quotes facts and figures and it is understandable if they get a bit miffed, if you do not reply in kind

[morse1001]

Just a small point about the M& Priest, the cliffs on Omaha beach were something like between 85 and 100 ft tall. The upper elevation of the M7 was 35 degrees which meant that it could not raise its gun far enough to fire over the cliffs, even from the beaches.

[jimbotosome]

Originally Posted by morse1001

it seems that we are desending into yet another slanging match and it is becoming tiresome to keep issuing warnings.

lets keep to a discussion on the issues and not make comments on others integrity, intelligence or mental health.

Quick note jim, Many posters here go to great lengths to include sources when quotes facts and figures and it is understandable if they get a bit miffed, if you do not reply in kind

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.

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”.

In this case, the rest of this is just tangential points that people took us in persistently avoiding to give references to support the point that the US had the wrong Armor on the beach on Omaha which we know is false because they really had NO armor at Omaha when these men were dying. So, I don't buy that people are going to great lengths to back up their claims; in fact I believe people are going to great lengths to avoid having to address these fundamental challenges and are endeavoring to throw in so many spurious details in order to "muddy the water". For instance, in my claims, I said that an M7 or a Sherman can defend itself whereas a Petard could not and that the British believed that too and landed M7s first. Rather than covering the rationale of that statement I was told definitively that the British had no M7s at Sword, which is obviously not because they knew this (since it wasn't true) but because it would be an affront to their entire position of whether the Petard would be the lifesaver at Omaha since the British didn’t believe in them that much either. There was not a single reference to this “fact” proving I was wrong and I posted a reference and you saw, that once again, “no one” said, you got me there, they simply found yet another tangent to run off on causing even more calls for references when I make counterarguments. 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.

[jimbotosome]

Morse, that is 8 hours afterward and long after the destroyers came in and opened up. Before this, especially in the early waves, was when the heavy infantry and armor casualties and losses were taken. I think you are making my point, not refuting it. The only mass kill of engineers was in the water to blow the underwater barricades and open up a corridor for LCTs and LCIs. No AVRE, especially the Petard is going to help you out in the deep surf where dragons teeth and mines are on top of them.


When the destroyers came in and started firing on the guns they could see, (some were not visible as they had been built into the cliffs). Then AND ONLY THEN could they begin to get armor ashore because the guns were busy trying to hit the destroyers who were working over the shore guns pretty good. The destroyers were almost sunk themselves having near misses in very shallow water where they had to keep maneuvering.

When the armor finally got to the shore, the infantry made it to the high ground, the defenses were cleaned out very quickly by their flamethrowers so engineers could work the beaches at their leisure and a Petard would certainly not be necessary. The Petard, as best I can figure has NO utility on a beach landing, especially not Omaha Beach with the high cliffs and the guns cut into the side of that bluff.


Bradley is extremely clear in his statement that if he could have gotten the DDs on shore that most of these losses could be avoided. Do you need a page number and paragraph or does common sense rule the day here? If so I will be glad to “reference it”.

But lest I be accused of arguing what should be obvious, here is a reference to a synopsis of the role of the destroyers and the problems they were having at Omaha. It is by the US Naval Institute. Please read it because it tells the story of the guns at Omaha beach. The Petards could not have gotten to the cliffs through the heavy mine fields (thousands of mines) and if they had they couldn’t have gotten a round that high. A mortar round is capable of going much further than it can high (obviously, since we are dealing with gravity which I should not have to prove right?) and since its range is only 80 yards so this means they could have gotten more than probably 20 or 30 yards in the air at best. It would unquestionably useless. Not using them did not get the men at Omaha killed. That’s simply a glib argument. I have argued this from day 1.

http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/art...AllenJun-2.htm

Omaha and Sword are simply not the same battles. Sword was heavily bombed and pounded for two hours before the troops and equipment got there. If Sword was the most heavily defended beach of the invasion, it certainly was NOT by the time the troops came ashore and nothing like it. At Omaha, they were dealing with heavy guns embeded in the cliffs. They had a 2 hour pre-bombardment that took out everything heavy and why they were able to cruise in. Sure the Brits had to fight their way off the beach but they didn't have an extra crack infantry division training at those beach sites. Omaha did. It was in tact when the first waves hit the beaches. It wasn't that the Americans didn't want armor on the beaches. Its that they simply couldn't get armor to the beaches. This was not the same situation as the other four beaches fortunately. Minimizing it or blaming it on the incompetence of the US to recognize useful equipment, or because they were irresponsibly gung-ho has no substance to it whatsoever.