Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amtracs at Normandy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by redco View Post
    Of the 29 Sherman DD tanks launched 27 were swamped before they reached the beach. However when it was realised what was happening the remaining 83 Sherman's in the first wave were directly landed on the beach.


    Of the 112 Sherman tanks split between the 741st and 743rd Tank Battalions destined for Omaha Beach, 58 made it ashore...2 by wading. And all 58 were stuck on the beach until the draws were opened. And the draws did not get opened until the infantry fought their way up the bluffs and took out the strongpoints from the rear. LVT -4s, with thinner armor, would not have lasted as long as the Shermans....of which 41 were left at the end of the day.
    The short period allowed for the pre-assault naval bombardment was a deliberate decision taken due to fears of major German reinforcements arriving at the beach head, which wasn't an issue when attacking isolated Japanese garrisons in the pacific isles
    Yes it was a deliberate decision...and a decision which the US Navy, US Army and US Air Force all agreed was a flawed and almost fatal decision.

    The Allies were looking for three things...as much daylight as possible, tactical surprise and overwhelming firepower. At best you could only gain 2 of those three objectives. The idea that air power could make up for the shortfall in the duration of the naval bombardment was flawed and a lesson already learned in the Pacific. Strategic suprise, while critical, had been achieved...an additional 2 hours of bombardment would have greatly aided the infantrymen and engineers who went in to Omaha. That is not just my conclusion but has been the conclusion of historians and fire planners for decades...to the point that we discussed it at length during the Infantry Officer Advanced Course at FT Benning, GA in 1985.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

    Comment


    • #17
      I believe at least a few Amtracks were used during the Rhine crossings, although most of it was raft work. I'm not sure where I heard this, can someone verify? Or, maybe, disprove?

      And another question to consider. Wasn't the Japanese method of defending beaches different than the Germans, though I'm not sure exactly in what way? Perhaps that was factored into the decision not to use Amtracks.
      Eugene.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
        Finally the biggest failure at Normandy which the commanders did not take from the Pacific experiences was the length of the preassault naval gunfire prep. There was a grossly incomplete NGFS plan for the beaches. It resulted in teh DDs getting in close and duking it out with bunkers.
        I always found that amazing, the dearth of heavy guns at Normandy.
        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
          I always found that amazing, the dearth of heavy guns at Normandy.
          err... for big guns

          18 x16"
          20 x 15"
          20x 14"
          10x 12"
          27x 8"
          14x 7.5"

          It looks like at least 1 BB and 1 CA per beach. That alone outguns the defenders. Plus 2 monitors, 17 light cruisers and numerous destroyers that could fire 3-6" guns, the landing craft converted to fire rockets and the massive amount of airpower.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by SOAR21 View Post
            I believe at least a few Amtracks were used during the Rhine crossings, although most of it was raft work. I'm not sure where I heard this, can someone verify? Or, maybe, disprove?

            And another question to consider. Wasn't the Japanese method of defending beaches different than the Germans, though I'm not sure exactly in what way? Perhaps that was factored into the decision not to use Amtracks.

            SOAR Refrence amtaks in Europe, Google is your friend!

            They were much used post D Day in Europe....more in the 21st Army Group zone of attack than in the 6th or 12th Army Groups but still used quite a bit.

            LVT + Scheldt - Google Search

            Actually, the doctrine was mas much the same. Stop an invasion on the beach. The Japanese tried doing it in the Central PAcific in the smaller islands using a defend at the water front. The Italians and Germans did much of the same. The difference was in the land masses of Europe the use of an armored counterattck force was just about universal. Sicily, Salerno, Anzio and Normandy all featured Italion and German armored counterattacks against the beaches. The Japanese used an armored counterattack a few times as well...most notably on Saipan and Guam.

            In almost all cases the attacks were disrupted and stopped by NGFS. At Normandy it was by airpower.
            “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
            Mark Twain

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by zraver View Post
              err... for big guns

              18 x16"
              20 x 15"
              20x 14"
              10x 12"
              27x 8"
              14x 7.5"

              It looks like at least 1 BB and 1 CA per beach. That alone outguns the defenders. Plus 2 monitors, 17 light cruisers and numerous destroyers that could fire 3-6" guns, the landing craft converted to fire rockets and the massive amount of airpower.
              There were plenty of big guns...the problem was in their program of fire...too little for too short a period of time. I believe the average length of shore bombardment was 45 minutes. Extend that to 2 or 3 hours and more could have been done.

              And once the troops got ashore the smoke from burning grass, explosions and spray made visual target acquisition too difficult for direct fire on the beaches. Most of the NGFS post H Hour by the larger ships was directed inland based on airborne FOs and preplanned fires. The DDs were able to get into bayonet range and provide direct fire against the pillboxes.
              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
              Mark Twain

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                There were plenty of big guns...the problem was in their program of fire...too little for too short a period of time. I believe the average length of shore bombardment was 45 minutes. Extend that to 2 or 3 hours and more could have been done.

                And once the troops got ashore the smoke from burning grass, explosions and spray made visual target acquisition too difficult for direct fire on the beaches. Most of the NGFS post H Hour by the larger ships was directed inland based on airborne FOs and preplanned fires. The DDs were able to get into bayonet range and provide direct fire against the pillboxes.
                How much time would 3 hours of super heavy fire have cost. One of the lessons of WWI is that too much heavy artillery means the enemy can move up reinforcements faster than you can. The allies spent a great deal of effort tryign to Isolate Normandy to slow the arrival of the armored counter attack. it would really suck to have gone through all that work and have be worthless because the tracks are stuck on the beach because of terrain damage.

                Assuming 1 shot a minute sustained that is 20,000 large caliber shells on the fairly narrow areas overlooking the actual landing areas. Gungrape is probably the person to ask about how big a crater each 8-12" gun would create. If a 14"+ shell is equal to a 2000lb bomb your talking 5m deep by about 30m across per shell.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by zraver View Post
                  It looks like at least 1 BB and 1 CA per beach. That alone outguns the defenders. Plus 2 monitors, 17 light cruisers and numerous destroyers that could fire 3-6" guns, the landing craft converted to fire rockets and the massive amount of airpower.
                  Compared to the Pacific, that's a dearth, IMHO.

                  And it's not even close to being enough to merely outgun the defenders when you're talking about an operation of that magnitude.

                  Either that or I'm just remembering books on the Ranger battalions and wondering why the German defenses hadn't been torn to pieces beforehand.
                  “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                    In almost all cases the attacks were disrupted and stopped by NGFS. At Normandy it was by airpower.
                    The 21st Panzer was the only German armoured division to attack any of the beach heads on D-Day, when it launched an attack on the British Sword beach head. The attack was defeated mostly by an anti-tank screen of Sherman Firefly's which destroyed 17 panzers within minutes of the attack starting

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      There were plenty of big guns...the problem was in their program of fire...too little for too short a period of time. I believe the average length of shore bombardment was 45 minutes. Extend that to 2 or 3 hours and more could have been done.
                      On the British and Canadian beaches the shore bombardment lasted for one and a half hours

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by redco View Post
                        The 21st Panzer was the only German armoured division to attack any of the beach heads on D-Day, when it launched an attack on the British Sword beach head. The attack was defeated mostly by an anti-tank screen of Sherman Firefly's which destroyed 17 panzers within minutes of the attack starting
                        Actually it was the Shropshire Light Infantry and an SP antitank regiment. However, attacks by air power disrupted the attack of the 21 PZ Division earleir in the day as it was attempting to disengage from fighting the 6th Airborne Division. Only 2 kampf gruppe (about 40 Mk IVs) were able to make it into the attack.

                        Airpower at the operational level is what disrupted German armor in the early stages of the campaign as opposed to NGFS.

                        As for the length of the bombardment...it was only 30 minutes at Omaha, which proved to be grossly insufficient.
                        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                        Mark Twain

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          How much time would 3 hours of super heavy fire have cost. One of the lessons of WWI is that too much heavy artillery means the enemy can move up reinforcements faster than you can. The allies spent a great deal of effort tryign to Isolate Normandy to slow the arrival of the armored counter attack. it would really suck to have gone through all that work and have be worthless because the tracks are stuck on the beach because of terrain damage.

                          Assuming 1 shot a minute sustained that is 20,000 large caliber shells on the fairly narrow areas overlooking the actual landing areas. Gungrape is probably the person to ask about how big a crater each 8-12" gun would create. If a 14"+ shell is equal to a 2000lb bomb your talking 5m deep by about 30m across per shell.
                          I am not suggesting that the do a day long bombardment. But 30 minutes didn't cut it. That is not my assessment that was the assessment of both the Army and Navy afterwards. As for the cratering effect...it would not have been all that bad. How bad would the cratering have been if the 8th Air Force bombers had actually dropped the bombs on target and hit the beaches? And the planners built craters into their plan so the infatry could have cover.

                          As for mobility...remember, each of the US beaches had an entire amphibous engineer group assigned to them for cleaning up the beaches.
                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X