Thank you very much CWO Marc.
Why no flanking amphibious invasion in WWI?
-
@CWO:
Besides, didn’t most “Successful” amphibious operations in WW2 still have extremely high casualty ratios?
Certainly yes in the case of US amphibious landings on many of the Japanese-held islands in the Pacific. A prime example was Iwo Jima, where (as I recall) there was one US Marine casualty for every yard or so of terrain gained – and where most of the Japanese defenders died too. On the other hand, the Allied landings in Europe weren’t quite so lethal (for either side). On four of the five Overlord invasion beaches on D-Day, for example, the Allies managed to get ashore without too much trouble; there was sharp fighting in several places, but it tended to be brief. The exception was Omaha beach, which turned into a bloodbath for the GIs who had the misfortune of landing there.
And the Japanese defending Iwo Jima were from a second class division. Its been said by historians of the Pacific War that had the Japanese defended the island with a top notch division the situation on the Island would have been even more serious.
-
Dieppe had a really high casualty rate.
I understand the difficulties with the amphibious assault. The alternative is to charge through several lines of trenches though!
-
Dieppe was to see how Canadians fight. Obviously, they used less of them for the real thing.
-
@Imperious:
Dieppe was to see how Canadians fight. Obviously, they used less of them for the real thing.
There where 5,000 Canadians raiding the Dieppe harbor, of which about only 1,500 returned to England that day.
This was a raid designed by Churchill which was doomed to fail according to German accounts of the raid due to improper planning. Conclusions of the raid for the allies were:
-
Don’t attack a harbor which have stiffer defenses, generally speaking
-
Watch out for the nature of the ground on the beach, e.g., rocky beaches where tanks are brought to the stall
-
You need complete mastery of the air
-
You need heavier naval support
-
Obviously, the element of surprise is important as the Dieppe convoy was spotted by torpedo boats
As far as the Canadian contingent on D-Day, a force of 30,000 landed on Juno beach. I’ve read the Juno beach to be the second hardest beach after Omaha for the initial landing, and yet the Canadian army advanced inland further the forces on any other beach that day.
So as far as using “less of them for the real thing”, you have homework to do.
-
-
As I recall, it the Canadians were the only ones to accomplish all of their set objectives on D-Day.
-
As I recall, it the Canadians were the only ones to accomplish all of their set objectives on D-Day.
Not all, I think they were supposed to take Caen, but they got stopped by a Panzer division that got sent to the beachead.
-
They didn’t take Caen correct. Nobody got their objectives on D+1
There where 5,000 Canadians raiding the Dieppe harbor, of which about only 1,500 returned to England that day.
Hello joke.
Churchill always uses ‘colonial troops’ for invasions he has little confidence in.
-
@Imperious:
They didn’t take Caen correct. Nobody got their objectives on D+1
There where 5,000 Canadians raiding the Dieppe harbor, of which about only 1,500 returned to England that day.
Hello joke.
Churchill always uses ‘colonial troops’ for invasions he has little confidence in.
In other words, he used them all the time.
-
@Imperious:
They didn’t take Caen correct. Nobody got their objectives on D+1
There where 5,000 Canadians raiding the Dieppe harbor, of which about only 1,500 returned to England that day.
Hello joke.
Churchill always uses ‘colonial troops’ for invasions he has little confidence in.
In other words, he used them all the time.
No Colonials in Narvik though!
-
@Imperious:
Dieppe was to see how Canadians fight. Obviously, they used less of them for the real thing.
There is NEW EVIDANCE from recently declasified documents that the Dieppe raid was actualy a diversion for a very important Intelligance operation. Anyone else hear about this?
Interesting stuff….
-
@Imperious:
They didn’t take Caen correct. Nobody got their objectives on D+1
There where 5,000 Canadians raiding the Dieppe harbor, of which about only 1,500 returned to England that day.
Hello joke.
Churchill always uses ‘colonial troops’ for invasions he has little confidence in.
Well he sent the Americans in for D-day didn’t he?
As for D-day, despite meeting some of the heaviest resistance; The only unit to accomplish it’s set objectives on D-day was a Canadian unit, 7th brigade or 3rd division; And the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division succeeded in pushing farther inland than any other landing force on D-Day. Even the American “Airborne” Landings.
Mark Zuehlke notes that “the Canadians ended the day ahead of either the US or British divisions despite the facts that they landed last and that only the Americans at Omaha faced more difficulty winning a toehold on the sand”, suggesting that the calibre of the training the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division had received beforehand explains their success.
I find your comments pretty sub-par IL.
-
Well he sent the Americans in for D-day didn’t he?
Yea for the real invasion they mostly used American and British, fewer Canadians.
Fear of them going Zombie or something.
-
@Imperious:
Well he sent the Americans in for D-day didn’t he?
Yea for the real invasion they mostly used American and British, fewer Canadians.
Fear of them going Zombie or something.
Proportionally, the Americans were under-represented on D-Day, with less than half the force.
A couple months later, I’m fairly certain that the American made more than half of the force.
-
Proportionally
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.
-
@Imperious:
Proportionally
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.
That’s what I was saying, less than half. Just look at the final position of field armies in Europe and it will be clear that the American made a lot more than half of West Allies forces at the end. I think politics played a role and the US needed to make room for the glory day, basically.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Allied_army_positions_on_10_May_1945.png
-
Part Timers, just like in WW1.
They weren’t even needed to win.
-
I don’t even know why we’re having this conversation. IL dad was probably a draft dodger, and his grandpappy a conscientious objector.
-
No a zombie from Canada actually. Fought in World War Z with the rest of the Canadians.
-
@Imperious:
Proportionally
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.
That’s what I was saying, less than half. Just look at the final position of field armies in Europe and it will be clear that the American made a lot more than half of West Allies forces at the end. I think politics played a role and the US needed to make room for the glory day, basically.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Allied_army_positions_on_10_May_1945.png
Lets not forget ITALY. Many of the Commonwealth and Allied forces were engaged in the Italian Campaign. The US pulled forces from this theater to launch the Normandy invasion.
-
wow ,you guys jumped like 30 years or so, amazing… :lol:
Suggested Topics
