Omaha beach

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally posted by sapper@Dec 3 2004, 03:17 PM
Ah! There's the rub....That just proves what I have said...So many authors have tp write what their readers want to read.
Sapper

Quoted post

I'm sort of expected to be like that TV psychic in America, Miss Cleo, who gives out all the answers on 50-ents-a-minute phone lines.

[sapper]

Chuckles!
Sapper

[angie999]

Originally posted by Dpalme01@Dec 3 2004, 01:05 PM
[
I have to admit that I was always under the impression that the Americans got the harder beaches.

Quoted post

Just for the record, the casualties at Utah beach were the lowest of the five, so beaches plural is not so.

[Dpalme01]

Originally posted by angie999+Dec 13 2004, 08:28 PM-->

Just for the record, the casualties at Utah beach were the lowest of the five, so beaches plural is not so.

Quoted post

[/b]

right, of course.
But if the Americans had landed where they were supposed to land, they would have had much higher casualties wouldn't they? I believe it was the wind that carried them off. But yeah, i guess it should be singular.
Dp

[Dpalme01]

Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Dec 3 2004, 05:36 PM
Sapper, I know how you feel. Some guy in an armchair, sipping his bourbon, watching a documentary on TV, becomes an instant expert on what you lived through after watching 20 minutes of said documentary. Walter Lord said it best in his book on the Titanic, "After the sinking, the bronzed men of the sea were replaced by a pallid cast cast of journalists, investigators, and ultimately, historians."

Quoted post

Hey!
thats me
Ok not quite- I try hard not to be like that

[sapper]

What ever I write about, I would be upset if it was seen in any way as "Anti-American" That is never my intention.

When I recall the memory of the fallen, it is not just the British, but all our Allies...
I fought along side of the "Yanks" we got on very well together. That does not mean that I cannot comment on what I see as constructive critisism.

That brings me back to "Bloody Omaha" For no matter what or how the history of that operation is delved into, the fact appears to me that they went in without the proper preparation.

They had no Assault Engineers tasked to provide a way through the enemy defences, they had no special teams to open the beach to the road, and to remove anyone that stood in the way. In truth they landed with a "gung Ho" atitude, but came under heavy and concentrated fire and the whole damn thing fell completely apart.

Much later they forced the defences. but by then the slaughter had been catastrophic. If they had tackled the defences immediately they landed, then things may have been a lot different.

I have no wish to to fall out with any of my American friends, but I do feel that so many bright young American lives could have been saved. "Had they prepared properly"

Sword Beach with huge defences, and with several huge enemy strong points just inland capable of swamping the beach with a deluge of fire. All that was neutralised.

No Beach was as heavily defended as Sword, or anywhere near it. The legend that Sword was an easy landing was the direct result (in my opinion) of the sacrifice of the Assault Engineers that went in before anyone, except the DD tanks and prepared the way. They continued to try to remove the obstacles even after the tide came in, and many drowned while doing so.

I recall the bravery of those men with great honour, "Greater love hath no man"

PLease do not think this an attack on the "Yanks" far from it. It is what I see as an honest appraisal of what happened and why.

I am no military expert and I am sure that someone will try to prove me wrong.
We all make mistakes, those that make the least mistakes wins the war.

Sincerely Sapper

[angie999]

Originally posted by Dpalme01+Dec 15 2004, 08:25 AM-->

right, of course.
But if the Americans had landed where they were supposed to land, they would have had much higher casualties wouldn't they? I believe it was the wind that carried them off. But yeah, i guess it should be singular.
Dp

Quoted post

[/b]

First to Sapper, I agree very much with your last post.

I do think that the terrain at Omaha was exceptionally difficult and that the American plan was inadequate, for the reasons you state and some others.

Regarding Utah, yes they had some luck. Luck does play a part in war. Where they landed, in the sector guarded by strongpoint W5 (where the present day museum is located) was less well guarded than the correct location, guarded by the stronger W6, although the inland area behind W5 was guarded by additional strongpoints.

I am sure that casualties would have been higher further along the beach, but there is no reason to think it would have been another Omaha.

[Timtom]

Originally posted by Dpalme01@Dec 3 2004, 01:05 PM
I agree completely with the funnies part.X The Americans were almost as bad as the french- stuck in a rut and refusing to use any thing new.X They were lucky to have accepted the landing craft

Quoted post

Well, you might call it a rut, but the reason (-ing) behind the US rejection of the Funnies lies partly with the peculiar circumstances surrounding American mobilisation, partly with US doctrine.

The architects of the Army, personified by Lt. Gen. Leslie J. McNair, on the one hand wanted a lean and flexible army, on the other envisioned modern war as basically an infantry/artillery slugging match with armour and airpower in the supporting role. At the same time, the high priority afforded US service- and air force troops encouraged McNair to economise.

This lead to train of thought whereby the creation of specialised units were avoided if possible - McNair in fact proposed to disband both the airborne- and armoured divisions because their functions were thought to situation specific and thus wasteful of resources. Instead of the former he proposed light divisions (infantry with fewer motor vehicle and less artillery) which could be made glider-borne as needed. Instead of the latter a pick&mix concept of putting together armoured task forces of independent tank battalions, motorised infantry, and armoured cavalry as the need arose - in doctrinal terms, the armoured division was perceived as a weapon of exploitation only, and thus not needed very often.

As can be imagined, the concept of investing in units not only with a specific function in mind but a specific mission, didn't go down well with McNair et al. In fact the thinking behind the Funnies was about as far from the American philosophy as you can get. The American reasoning was something like this: Invest 800 men in a battalion of Funnies which will save us 400 casualties on D-Day but then be useless for the rest of the war = equals net loss of 400 men. That US units would later on several occasions request and recieve the services of Funnies, in particular the flail tanks, is another story.

Also, with reference to D-Day, it should be borne in mind that the Americans were throwing two reinforced divisions onto Omaha, supported by vast air- and sea-power, and with a good chance of tactical surprise. Expecting succes was thus not unreasonable, Funnies or no Funnies.

As it happened, V Corps suffered about 2,200 casualties on D-Day - 1,200 by the 1st Division, 700 by the 29th, the rest by corps troops, or about 0.25% of total US Army battle casualties during WWII. Omaha was bloody, but far from uniquely so, and by no means the worst comparative action fought by the US Army in WWII. In strategic terms, it was a slight cost compared to the benifits reaped.

[Kiwiwriter]

Originally posted by Dpalme01+Dec 15 2004, 04:39 AM-->

Hey!
thats me
Ok not quite- I try hard not to be like that

Quoted post

[/b]

It's all right, I'm part of that "pallid cast," myself. Speaking of alleged historians, You should read the memoirs of American Civil War generals. They showed more energy in denouncing each other for their own failures than in some of the battles they lost. One pair of Union Civil War generals of very high rank could not get along because one insulted the other when both were superintendents of the Quicksilver Silver Mine in California two decades before. So bronzed heros aren't always.

[sapper]

I do find some of the postings irksome, in that young people write sometimes with such conviction, with a refusal to listen to those who experienced those days of long ago.

Here I must repeat what I have hammered on about so many times before..The only reason that I write, talk. give lectures, is that my long lost mates and friends will be remembered,,,I have no personal axe to grind..Only that the truth be known..I have made this statement over and over, till I am blue in the face.

For truth has suffered greatly over the last 60 years. We have Authors writing the history of this, and the history of that, each one quoting from others writings.

Often garbled and totally untrue. To illustrate; one author wrote about D day, he had the Canadians landing on Sword. There was no mention at all of Third British infantry...They did not exist. The whole book was a jumble of rubbish really with not an iota of what really happened.

And so these writings are constantly quoted as genuine history..Much of that is twisted and bent out of all recognition by a torrent of Hollywood films and documentaries, many of them revealing the directors personal prejudices.

With all that in mind, I am quite saddened that the real men that gave so much have become "Nothing" Those that sacrificed so much for the cause of freedom are completely forgotten.
That Saddens me. Deeply saddens me,
Sapper