doing report on D-Day...EDIT!

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
EDIT

ok everyone, i am tired of being bashed for supposedly not respecting the men that died for us. i am being bashed for calling the whole event stupid, and i am being called a pussy for even typing this.

exactly what i meant by my initial post (it just may not have come out this way):

i think death like this is stupid, yes i have read enough of this now that i think i can say this Amused, in this type of situation. I know if i was a general i would not have done anything differentely, but i didnt know that until you guys told me exactly what happened and everything that went into the planning of this raid. NOW, it makes a LOT more sense, but i still just dont like thinking about how an amphibious assault like this and Iwo Jima as another example were on each individual soldier.

i keep getting PMs about being a pussy...WTF? i must be a pussy because i dont like the fact that out grandfathers and fathers died for us and i didnt like the fact of sending them to death by unloading them in the sea and making them plow through water, BUT now i understand why they had to! Amused said i was thinking like a nintendo game, and he was right. Now i see what he meant by the technology only going so far.

and dont even go there on why i havent learned in school. i sent you (you know who you are) a PM explaining my situation at school, and for the rest of you, its definitely not because i dont pay attention.

basically, i came here venting my frustration at this particular part of the war because i just couldnt imagine being one of the soldiers, but it had never been presented to me like that, so i didnt know what to say besides it was stupid. the plan, now that i read, was brilliant, the men were brave and died for us to be here, but i just didnt like the idea of death before you can even get off the boat.

end edit





normandy for example...i am reading out of a passage that says "officer ricksen stepped off of the transport boat and was hit in the throat from machine gun fire. within 20 seconds, his whole platoon was shot down before exiting the boat."


OMG! this almost makes me mad that things like this happened. i have to do a report where i put myself in a soldiers shoes...and to put myself in their shoes...can you imagine everyone in front of you being tossed into a meat grinder?

WTF was the strategy here? throw as many guys at them as possible until we overcome them? well, that surely is not the best way to approach it. i know we "blanket" bombed the beaches before dropping troops...


BUT, if all but 8 of a 197 man company is dead within 8 minutes, there is a severe problem. makes me sad to know that men had to endure such things for us to be here today living the life we do. i realize i have a lot to learn at my age, but this just pisses me off. it was tragic and wasteful of non-expendable human life. there was no need to go about attacking the beaches this way.

and how about this....

why were the transports not designed to make it all the way to shore? couldnt that have been done? if they would have let the men off on the sand, they would have had a LOT better chance of making it up the beach. i keep reading about how half of them died before they even touched ground...

this goes for the rest of the war too... Iwo Jima (sp?), battle of the bulge, etc... WTF? i am just in shock at what happened back then. i just feel like this was a TERRIBLE waste of human life.


anyone have anything to say?


btw, i know there have been worse times, this is just an example because i am learning about it...war in general makes me sad
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
That was what we had to do man...overpower manpower with manpower. Its a bloody, bloody war.
 

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
but i dont understand why we had to throw tons of troops and drop them off in the sea especially knowing that most of them would be ripped apart by machine gun fire


i realize i am no military general and i dont know crap, but this is just stupid and there had to have been a better, less costly way.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
they had the area pretty well fortified...I'm not military expert either, but they did do other things, like bombings, and sending in troops via parachute...but when it came down to it we needed access to land, and that was the way to get it.
 

pulse8

Lifer
May 3, 2000
20,860
1
81
i realize i am no military general and i dont know crap, but this is just stupid and there had to have been a better, less costly way.
You aren't a military general and neither am I, but I think that if there was a better way, it would've been done.
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Remember this is the 1940's, not the present day.. They lacked any other way to invade..
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,393
8,552
126
thats the only way it could be done... how else do you expect to take and hold ground unless you put men on it? sure it was bloody but it was no where near so bloody as say... verdun. that was a waste of a battle.

if you can think up a better method for amphibious assault using mid 40s tech

you do realize that amphibious assault was thought impossible until the marines went and did it, right?
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
good thing you're not doing a report on the civil war
 

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
guys there is no need to have a tone in your voice toward me or play know-it-all


no, i didnt know that el-fenix, but that isnt the point. war is stupid, we all know that, but airplanes were invented back then, right? we should have just bombed the F*ck out of it.

i dont know much about the war, and if there were battles that were a lot worse, then im sorry i didnt realize it.


i guess you are right...there might not have been any other way. but, why was it crucial that we had that piece of ground in the first place? i cant find a clean definition pertaining to that.


what i dont understand is why this war even happened. i thought in world war 1 germany had to submit to the wishes of other countries and get rid of its military force...
 

chiwawa626

Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
12,013
0
0
They were only there to divert the germans from paying full attention to our paratroopers...easy company owns!
 

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
good thing you're not doing a report on the civil war

yeah, i know it was a big waste of life also


war in general just makes me sad
 

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
Originally posted by: chiwawa626
They were only there to divert the germans from paying full attention to our paratroopers...easy company owns!

what do you mean?


and how about this....

why were the transports not designed to make it all the way to shore? couldnt that have been done? if they would have let the men off on the sand, they would have had a LOT better chance of making it up the beach. i keep reading about how half of them died before they even touched ground...
 

Zugzwang152

Lifer
Oct 30, 2001
12,134
1
0
what i dont understand is why this war even happened. i thought in world war 1 germany had to submit to the wishes of other countries and get rid of its military force...

at the end of WWI, the Allies signed a pact to create the League of Nations to enforce world peace. The US was the only Ally to not sign in. Needless to say, the League fell apart, allowing Hitler to rise and declare the Third Reich...the rest is history, and after WWII, The United Nations was formed. This time, America was definitely in, and we haven't suffered a major global conflict since. :)
 

datalink7

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
16,765
6
81
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
Originally posted by: chiwawa626
They were only there to divert the germans from paying full attention to our paratroopers...easy company owns!

what do you mean?


and how about this....

why were the transports not designed to make it all the way to shore? couldnt that have been done? if they would have let the men off on the sand, they would have had a LOT better chance of making it up the beach. i keep reading about how half of them died before they even touched ground...

That technology wasn't developed untill later in the war, and so was only used against the Japanese.
 

Iwentsouth

Senior member
Oct 19, 2001
355
0
0
We needed to have a staging ground to bring in supplies. The Allies chose Normandy.

That way they could ship in supplies and troops onto mainland Europe straight from England. The route would be protected by aircraft, warships ect. The convoys coming from America and trying to land in mainland Europe would have been chewed up by the Germans without the small step at Normandy.

The allies also wanted to capture strategic areas and thing like bridges before they was blown up by the Germans. This would allow the Allies tomove supplies faster and such.
 

dopcombo

Golden Member
Nov 14, 2000
1,394
0
0
Not counting the countless indian-beloved patriot wars. The vietnam, korean wars. The breakup of yugoslavia.
The gulf war. etc. Of course. :)

And that's just the really famous ones I can think of off hand.

 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: Zugzwang152
what i dont understand is why this war even happened. i thought in world war 1 germany had to submit to the wishes of other countries and get rid of its military force...

at the end of WWI, the Allies signed a pact to create the League of Nations to enforce world peace. The US was the only Ally to not sign in. Needless to say, the League fell apart, allowing Hitler to rise and declare the Third Reich...the rest is history, and after WWII, The United Nations was formed. This time, America was definitely in, and we haven't suffered a major global conflict since. :)

i wouldn't say that solely because america did not join, that WWII started... a lot of it was the european countries conducting a policy of appeasement and not squashing him when they should have.
 

Zugzwang152

Lifer
Oct 30, 2001
12,134
1
0
Originally posted by: dopcombo
Not counting the countless indian-beloved patriot wars. The vietnam, korean wars. The breakup of yugoslavia.
The gulf war. etc. Of course. :)

And that's just the really famous ones I can think of off hand.

i said GLOBAL conflict. Never again will we have groups of nations battling each other. Now we just have the US and UK beating down Iraq like a playground bully :D
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
guys there is no need to have a tone in your voice toward me or play know-it-all


no, i didnt know that el-fenix, but that isnt the point. war is stupid, we all know that, but airplanes were invented back then, right? we should have just bombed the F*ck out of it.

i dont know much about the war, and if there were battles that were a lot worse, then im sorry i didnt realize it.


i guess you are right...there might not have been any other way. but, why was it crucial that we had that piece of ground in the first place? i cant find a clean definition pertaining to that.


what i dont understand is why this war even happened. i thought in world war 1 germany had to submit to the wishes of other countries and get rid of its military force...

bombers would have been taken down by AA
 

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: Zugzwang152
what i dont understand is why this war even happened. i thought in world war 1 germany had to submit to the wishes of other countries and get rid of its military force...

at the end of WWI, the Allies signed a pact to create the League of Nations to enforce world peace. The US was the only Ally to not sign in. Needless to say, the League fell apart, allowing Hitler to rise and declare the Third Reich...the rest is history, and after WWII, The United Nations was formed. This time, America was definitely in, and we haven't suffered a major global conflict since. :)

i wouldn't say that solely because america did not join, that WWII started... a lot of it was the european countries conducting a policy of appeasement and not squashing him when they should have.

well why exactly did we not join? was it for a good reason or were we just being stubborn, basically...?
 

MrDudeMan

Lifer
Jan 15, 2001
15,069
94
91
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
guys there is no need to have a tone in your voice toward me or play know-it-all


no, i didnt know that el-fenix, but that isnt the point. war is stupid, we all know that, but airplanes were invented back then, right? we should have just bombed the F*ck out of it.

i dont know much about the war, and if there were battles that were a lot worse, then im sorry i didnt realize it.


i guess you are right...there might not have been any other way. but, why was it crucial that we had that piece of ground in the first place? i cant find a clean definition pertaining to that.


what i dont understand is why this war even happened. i thought in world war 1 germany had to submit to the wishes of other countries and get rid of its military force...

bombers would have been taken down by AA



i thought b-17's could fly high enough that they wouldnt be shot down...or is that totally wrong
 

Kanalua

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2001
4,860
2
81
in an age of precision laser guided missles, you'd think you'd be greatful that we never have to do any massive invasions like we HAD to do in Normandy. What would youm have the US do, launch an Atomic strike on France, Belgium, Poland, and Germany? I'm sure you'd like that. I bet you hate what we did in Japan with the A-bombs? War is war, it's ugly, people get shot in the throat. That whole platoon died so you can type your opinions on a stupid Internet forum. Be grateful.
 

Zugzwang152

Lifer
Oct 30, 2001
12,134
1
0
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: Zugzwang152
what i dont understand is why this war even happened. i thought in world war 1 germany had to submit to the wishes of other countries and get rid of its military force...

at the end of WWI, the Allies signed a pact to create the League of Nations to enforce world peace. The US was the only Ally to not sign in. Needless to say, the League fell apart, allowing Hitler to rise and declare the Third Reich...the rest is history, and after WWII, The United Nations was formed. This time, America was definitely in, and we haven't suffered a major global conflict since. :)

i wouldn't say that solely because america did not join, that WWII started... a lot of it was the european countries conducting a policy of appeasement and not squashing him when they should have.

well why exactly did we not join? was it for a good reason or were we just being stubborn, basically...?

america foreign policy and popular belief was that isolationism was the key to not spilling so much blood again. We didn't think better and actively engage in WWII until Pearl Harbor, although we supplied the Brits pretty much from the start.
 

Iwentsouth

Senior member
Oct 19, 2001
355
0
0
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
guys there is no need to have a tone in your voice toward me or play know-it-all


no, i didnt know that el-fenix, but that isnt the point. war is stupid, we all know that, but airplanes were invented back then, right? we should have just bombed the F*ck out of it.

i dont know much about the war, and if there were battles that were a lot worse, then im sorry i didnt realize it.


i guess you are right...there might not have been any other way. but, why was it crucial that we had that piece of ground in the first place? i cant find a clean definition pertaining to that.


what i dont understand is why this war even happened. i thought in world war 1 germany had to submit to the wishes of other countries and get rid of its military force...

bombers would have been taken down by AA



i thought b-17's could fly high enough that they wouldnt be shot down...or is that totally wrong

Totally wrong about 4000 B-17's were shot down during bombing over Germany.