Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amtracs at Normandy

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

  • Amtracs at Normandy

    I realized a few days ago when I was flipping my Osprey book on Amtracs that I had never seen any images or video of Amtracs in any African or European invasions. Does anyone know if they were used outside of the PTO and if not, why?

    I been going through my library and online sources and I can't seem to find an answer.

    Doh, nevermind, just found the answer.
    Last edited by ZekeJones; 23 Oct 09,, 06:30. Reason: Found the answer as soon as I posted this.

  • #2
    Reefs

    No coral reefs to climb in the ETO?

    At OMAHA I'd have appreciated being able to move under some armor up to the sea wall but I don't really know the amount of armor (able to withstand 7.9mm?). Certainly wouldn't have made a diff there with 20mm or larger.

    Beach obstacles like Rommel's Asperagus? Dunno there either...?
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

    Comment


    • #3
      Number. We needed thousands of Higgins boats for Normandy. Higgins boats were much cheaper, and the terrain of Western Theater landings did not have nearly as much requirement for the hardy Amtracs. As can be seen in Italy, the light DUKW was fine. Also, beach landings in the PTO were more of a messy business, due to the terrain.

      And well, the Marines used the Amtracs. Few marines saw action in the ETO. The Army that fought in the Pacific just used Marine Amtracs or sometimes Higgins boats.

      Well, at Omaha, we did try to bring armor to the seawall. The DD Shermans either sunk in the rough seas, or were easily dispatched by the Germans. If we were to mass Amtracs, it would be costly and ineffective, as the Germans actually had the heavy equipment that the Japanese lacked. The Amtracs would be easily destroyed. Also, assuming the Amtracs accompanied their infantry inland, we would have to make a lot, lot more of them, because the Higgins boats often turned back.
      Eugene.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by SOAR21 View Post
        And well, the Marines used the Amtracs. Few marines saw action in the ETO. The Army that fought in the Pacific just used Marine Amtracs or sometimes Higgins boats.
        The Army had a bigger amphib force than the USMC and did more landings, one of the bits of WWII trivia.

        Well, at Omaha, we did try to bring armor to the seawall. The DD Shermans either sunk in the rough seas, or were easily dispatched by the Germans. If we were to mass Amtracs, it would be costly and ineffective, as the Germans actually had the heavy equipment that the Japanese lacked. The Amtracs would be easily destroyed. Also, assuming the Amtracs accompanied their infantry inland, we would have to make a lot, lot more of them, because the Higgins boats often turned back.
        care to site even one DD Sherman on any beach being easily dispatched by the Germans? The American tanks swamped, and the British ones overran the Germans and collapsed any chance of the defenses holding against the invasion forces forces.

        Comment


        • #5
          From what I've been able to find, there seems to have been small numbers of Amtracs used in the North African theater, but I can't find any exact numbers or reports of how well they performed.
          There a single site that had a book review about the Normandy landings where it was stated that there were 300 Amtracs shipped to England to use, but were not because the planners didn't think they would be useful.
          I also found mention of them being used after the initial invasion, but not on the day of the invasion itself.
          Personally I would have thought they would have had some use in getting troops ashore safely. Not in an armored role, but maybe better at reaching the beach and avoiding having to drop the troops off further off shore.

          Comment


          • #6
            I second Zraver. After some digging, it appers that General Corlett, the only army general in Europe with Pacific experience, urged the use of amtracks and the mounting of tanks on landing ships in firing positions instead of DD Sherman, which were in his opinion to vulnerable to choppy waters. Both proposals were rejected out of hand by the rest of ETO generals. They saw the Japanese as "bush league" opponents.

            Corlett believed that by using amtracks, the army would not be refined to land on sand beaches where the Germans expected them.
            All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
            -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Triple C View Post
              Corlett believed that by using amtracks, the army would not be refined to land on sand beaches where the Germans expected them.
              Not sure when in 1944 they became operational, but the LVT (A)-4 with a 75mm howitzer would have been much better on the beeches than the Sherman for the simple reason it probably would not have swamped. The fire support versions were also proof against MG fire as long as the rounds didn't go sailing into the open topped turret.

              A few LVT battalions could have gotten the initial assault wave in faster and safer. That being said, the assault waves took remarkably light losses anyway.

              Comment


              • #8
                Info on this subject is difficult to find, but it does appear that there were a small number of Amtracs used in Normandy, but they weren't used in combat as they were the unarmoured versions, they were instead used in the cargo role.
                However, armoured Amtracs were used by the British and US forces in attacks on flooded areas and during the Rhine crossing, later on in the European Campaign.

                ps; My guess is that the armoured LVT(A) 1 was developed just too late for it to be deployed on D-Day
                Last edited by redco; 25 Oct 09,, 00:27.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Then that was what Corlett was talking about for sure. But he is not proposing to use an additional equipment, he is arguing that amphibious tracked vehicles would allow them planers to move Omaha to a less exposed site. The actual beach that they conducted Omaha was a shooting gallery. I don't know if that is a realistic assessment though--anyone been the Omaha environs or studied Normandy?
                  All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                  -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The link below may answer some questions here:

                    Amtracs at Normandy - MLU FORUM

                    I have a book at home on the Battle of the Scheldt Estuary which has a photo on the cover of amtracs, so they were definately in use by then. Judging by photos & comments on the forum I linked to a few were at Normandy too.
                    sigpic

                    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Triple C Reply

                      "I don't know if that is a realistic assessment though--anyone been the Omaha environs or studied Normandy?"

                      It was a shooting gallery. Worse, because it was a concave bowl, fire was directed down the length of the beach. This publication from the Center For Military History includes some interesting maps in its appendix that I encourage those interested to review-

                      Omaha Beach Head 6 June-13 June, 1944-CMH
                      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Corlett's proposal was to use massive numbers of amtracs so that they could hit somewhere other than Omaha beach. My question is whether the reefs to the east of Omaha would have been big enough to support the landing of the assault force and reinforcements, or the clusters of cliffs present an obstacle formidable enoug to vitiate a landing by amtrac.
                        Last edited by Triple C; 26 Oct 09,, 03:04.
                        All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                        -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          AMTRACs could have been useful at Normandy, but I would say they would have been less useful on OMAHA as they would have been on UTAH and the British beaches.

                          The reasoning? Any vehicle coming out of the water at OMAHA was stuck there uintil they got the assault infantry and engineers got the exits open. There was no way to move forward. Could the LVT 4s have helped...probably but the DD Shermans would have worked fine if the naval commanders had moved in closer as they were supposed to before launching.

                          Another issue was availability...there were not enough LVTs around in early 1944 to get them to England for the assault troops to train with. Shipping space was at a premium as it was...see the shortage in artillery ammunition. And don't forget that the LVTs were being used at teh same time in the drive across the Central Pacific... and commanders there complained of shortages.

                          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.


                          https://www.benning.army.mil/monogra...sell%20CPT.pdf

                          If you can access it here is an interesting monograph written for the Infantry Officers Advanced Course at FT Benning about the organization and use of AMTRACs in the Pacific. I remember using this great treasure trove at FT Benning in the mid1980s to write my own papers.
                          Last edited by Albany Rifles; 26 Oct 09,, 15:24.
                          “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                          Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                            Could the LVT 4s have helped...probably but the DD Shermans would have worked fine if the naval commanders had moved in closer as they were supposed to before launching.
                            Yup, the Shermans would have worked fine, but they were launched too far out. Which would not have been a problem with the LVT 4's.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                              The reasoning? Any vehicle coming out of the water at OMAHA was stuck there uintil they got the assault infantry and engineers got the exits open. There was no way to move forward. Could the LVT 4s have helped...probably but the DD Shermans would have worked fine if the naval commanders had moved in closer as they were supposed to before launching.
                              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.

                              Finally the biggest failure at Normandy which the commanders did not take from the Pacific experiences was the length of the pre assault naval gunfire prep. .
                              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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X