Most Important Aspect Of D-day

[sapper]

One of the things that would make a complete study of the invasion on the different beaches damn near impossible. Was the completely different approach to battle? The American way and the British way, have very little in common in practice.

Sword Beach has always been depicted by the American TV, Press, authors and Films, as an "Easy landing" It was far from that, but what was apparent, was the far more dedicated and disciplined training that the British used in their pre-invasion preparation.

The tasks allotted to The Third British Infantry Division were very comprehensive taking into consideration the depth of the enemy defences. Not only in the immediate beach area, but also progressively inland, culminating in the huge defensive post code named "Hillman" this occupied an area of about 450 metres by 650 metres, a defensive position of great strength. That had been preceded by other smaller post such as "Morris" This coupled with the enormous number of tasks that had to be completed in the day was to be won, from Pegasus Bridge, to clearing the ground of Rommel’s “asparagus” to enable the gliders to come in. To clearing the great depth of mined and booby trapped beach obstacles.

But first the order of battle, the order of landing, and the subsequent waves of back up forces.
Sapper

[angie999]

Originally posted by sapper@Nov 23 2004, 02:39 PM
Sword Beach.
The tasks set for these assault companies, was to land before the invasion force to clear the beaches of obstacles, to clear a mine free path from the beaches and to remove no matter who, or what, anyhting that stood in the way, by way of enemy defences.

Anything that posed a danger to the incoming forces, was to be removed. Gun points, Strong points “Anything” A monumental task when the depth of the beach defences was taken into consideration.

All of this was to take place before the arrival of the leading elements of the main invasion force.

Quoted post

This stands in sharp contrast to the US forces at Omaha Beach, where the first engineers arrived in the third wave at H+03 minutes and the second wave of engineers was at H+40 minutes. Therefore, no beach clearance was carried out prior to the first assault waves. In fact, had the first wave, the DD tanks, aarived as planned at H-05 minutes, they would have had to find a way through the uncleared mines and beach obstacles.

Were the British beach clearance operations begun before it got light, or in daylight? I would also be interested to know whether any RN personnel were involved, or whether the RE troops had any special training in clearing under water obstacles, as H hour on the British beaches was well past low water and would have been even more so if D-day had gone ahead as planned on 5 June, the tide being roughly an hour earlier.

[sapper]

I am always aware that what I write could be construed as Anti-American or come to that anti-anyone else! It all hinges on the different approach that the two Nations have when it comes to battle. It is with that in mind. that I hesitate to nwrite what I think (Or Know) about what happened, I have fought alongside the "Yanks" I like, and respect them, and what is more they treated the British with great respect.

First, let me say just this; had the Americans had the services of highly trained assault engineers."Sappers" then "Bloody Omaha" would never have happened.

For they got off the beach finally! But only after it had become a slaughter house of young Americans... where, with the proper assault teams, they would have got off that killing ground, and inland at the rate of knots!

Trouble is, National pride never wants to admit to mistakes, Bloody Omaha was more than a mistake.... it was a dreadful mind boggling mistake, and one that many young Americans paid for with their precious young lives.

Much of it, is gathered around the American "GUNG HO" attitude, rather than the more disciplined British approach.

War is a fought around mistakes, the side that makes the least mistakes wins!

But who could ever get an American to admit to making a gigantic cock up?
Brian

[angie999]

Originally posted by sapper@Nov 24 2004, 02:13 PM
But who could ever get an American to admit to making a gigantic cock up?
Brian

Quoted post

As it happens, Adrian R Lewis, Omaha Beach: A Flawed Victory, The University of North Carolina Press, 2001 (available from Amazon UK).

He is very critical of the American plan at Omaha, mainly because it was a hybrid plan which followed neither US Pacific practice nor previous British led practice in the Med. And he is critical of the way British methods were used in the Overlord planning.

In particular he is critical of the lack of firepower and too much reliance on the failed bombing by 8th AAF and is of the opinion that more of the operational planning should have devolved onto Gerow (V Corps commander) and Heubner (1st Infantry Div commander).

In fact, it is pretty fair to say that few come out of it well. But it is only concerned with Omaha and not what happened at the other beaches.

[Kiwiwriter]

The biggest failures on Omaha were Bradley's refusal to use specialized armor and the intelligence "loss" of the 352nd Infantry Division.

[sapper]

It is difficult to criticise the British preparations for the landings, for despite what ever is said, Gold beach went just as it was supposed to do, and Sword Beach with all the surrounding defensive positions that existed in that area, also went as planned.

It was never that Sword was an easy landing but it is a fact that the preparations were better. The Americans were offered the use of “Hobarts Funnies” but turned down the offer. That my friends, was a bum move!

But first, let me lay out the timing plan of action, who was in first, who followed up, Though the best laid plans of mice and men “oft gang agly” and so they did at the time, for some turned up out of the landing sequence.
But what follows is the planned series of timed landings.

The first wave, DD tanks from LCTs approx 6 miles out
At the same time LCTs carrying Assault Engineers to clear beach obstacles, mines, strongpoints. AVRE-(Armoured Vehicles Royal Engineers) Etc, that wave also had LCSs, amongst that wave, were foos and sp (ARTY) Small Royal Engineer assault craft launched from ships some miles out.

The Assault companies Infantry.
Then BN HQ.
Then the follow up
Res Companies.
Res battalions.
Naval Beach CDO
Anti tank guns-Crocodiles and Bren gun carriers.
Bn anti –tank guns and beach roadway equipment
LCTs engaged on “Run-in shoot”
That is just the basic plan it does not contain the Naval firing. Or rocket LCs or a great deal more that was going on.

Later that morning the Commandos landed, but with a specific task. The funniest thing was the remark from one of the Pioneer Corps workers on the beach when the Commandos landed was “Where have you been then?”

The best description a friend of mine used was “Organised Chaos” but under everything “the back bone” was the disciplined training, that ensured that although everything about was chaotic, they all carried on with the tasks they were trained to do. It is also fair to say that many men died to make the whole thing a success, Specially the RE Assault Companies.

It has been said that we outnumbered the enemy, not true, they outnumbered us in great numbers in the early stages.
Sapper

[sapper]

I do grow a little tired of Authors that write about battles that they knew absolutely nothing about. Most of them are quoted from other authors and in the end become a garbled shambles.
Sapper

[angie999]

Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Nov 24 2004, 04:35 PM
The biggest failures on Omaha were Bradley's refusal to use specialized armor and the intelligence "loss" of the 352nd Infantry Division.

Quoted post

They had the 352nd down as being near St Lo, where much of the division was. They had allowed for a possible counter-attack from them on the afternoon of D-day, but had not allowed for a regiment (=British brigade) being very close to the beach and able to respond in the morning.

Several things went wrong:

1. Only 5 DD Shermans landed, three of which were via their LCT, which had not been able to lower its ramp at the launch position. This rate of loss at sea did not happen at any other beach, so something went particularly wrong at Omaha.

2. Lack of accuracy from the 8th AAF, which bombed 3-5 miles inland and not on the beach positions (this really should have been forseen, as they were not trained or equipped for the level of accuracy required, given the cloud conditions). They were relying on this in place of prolongued bombardment.

3. The lack of specialist armour as stated, particularly flail tanks and AVREs.

4. Too short a bombardment - they landed an hour earler than the British and thus had only about 40 minutes of daylight.

5. Naval bombardment inadequate - there was close to an even split of naval support between Omaha and Utah, even though they were landing two RCTs abreast at Omaha compared to one at Utah. In my opinion, they could have sacrificed one or two of the three heavy crusers at Utah in favour of Omaha.

6. Inaccurate fire from rocket and gun equipped landing craft.

7, 8, 9....we could go on.

I do think that the topographical featues at Omaha were a special case and the plan fell far short.

I admit that I am an armchair historian as far as D-day is concerned, apart from the fact that I have visited all the invasion beaches, but as it all happened before I was born, it is either armchair history or silence. One of the few advantages us history types have is that we get to criticise others without proving that we could have done better.

Actually, I couldn't and I have the greatest admiration for everyone who took part, whatever their role. I originate from Hampshire and knew some of the men of the Hampshires who landed at Gold Beach. By chance I have briefly met veterans of the US 4th Infantry Div and 101st Airborne in France. I make no distiction and unresevedly admire them all. I also admire my late friend Reg, a tank gunner, who simply wished he had never been there and hated every minute of army life. It takes all sorts.