doing report on D-Day...EDIT!

[rudder]

In Normandy we are talking about a million people getting from England across the channel to mainland Europe. The Germans had a powerful, mobile tank force. Sure they could have dropped off all the troops off in Portugal or something. But getting that many people through the mountains would not have been an easy task. Then there is the supply chain to think about. Since the allies were planning a quick move through France and Germany, they needed supplies to keep up. With Normandy secured that was a quick route to bring in supplies.

In places like Iwo Jima how would you have proposed to get rid of the Japanese? You could sit there all day and shell the rocks, but the deeply dug in Japanese would just go deeper and emerge when the shelling was over. You could parachute people in, but they would all probably be dead before they hit the ground. The U.S. needed that real estate to prepare for an invasion of Japan.

 

[Queasy]

Dudeman,

As bad as the casualties were on Normandy, they could have been a whole lot worse. The Allies put together a dazzling display of subterfuge and trickery leading up to the landings. It was commonly believed by Hitler and his Generals that any actual invasion would take place at another site far to the north of Normandy. The Allies did everything they could to make Hitler continue to believe that. There was amazing work behind the scenes by British spies especially one that was a double-agent. At the time of the Normandy invasion, they had the Germans so fooled, that that Hitler did not believe that Normandy was the main invasion site. Rommel was ready to roll into Normandy with his tanks (which would have lead to even more casualties and a probable loss) but Hitler held him back for what he thought was the real attack at the other site far away from Normandy.

So yes, the loss of life at Normandy was horrific. However, the Allies did not just throw troops at the beach carelessly. There was a ton of planning and great spy work, subterfuge, and propoganda that totally had the Nazis off balance at the time of the attack. The failure that led to the great loss of Allied soldiers was the unexpected resiliency of the German bunkers on Normandy against strong bombardment from both sea and air.

This also led to some of the great heroics during WWII such as a destroyer commander running his boat as close to the beach as possible to fire his guns at German fortifications to save Allied soldiers. Truly some stunning stories from this time.

 

[FenrisUlf]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zugzwang152

oh my...watch the movie Enemy at the Gates...it'll give you the gist of things, albeit hollywood style. the soviets communist mentality just threw away sooo much human life...they're main advantage was huge numerical advantage on the battlefield, but after the war, especially defending against the german invasion, their losses were staggering. i think they accounted for something like 40% of total Allied casualities in WWII.

the part at the begining where they hand 5 bullets to every man and a rifle to every other man and instructions to the others to pick up the gun when the guy in front of you dies... plus being shot by the non-coms for withdrawing instead of advancing...


as for the end of the war, the germans threw everything at the US and UK forces, hitler wanted stalin in control of europe. at least, that was according to my eastern european under the soviet bloc professor. maybe hes just wrong.

I believe he is, although I can't claim to have been there, but evertyhing that I have been told is exactly the oppsite -- the Germans had (for centuries IIRC) a deep seated fear of a Russian takeover of Germany, they threw everything they had into the Battle of Berlin. The Battle was purely suicide, but they wanted to slow the Soviets down so more of post war Germany would be in the hands of the west. I believe that the battle of Berlin was the largest tank battle in history.

I was also told that the western allies stopped at the River Elba (I think, the specifics are a bit fuzzy, honestly) which was the agreed meeting point between the two forces (westerners and soviets). I understand that the western allies could have easily taken another large chunk of Germany (absolutely noone was facing us, but we stopped on the line we had agreed to). I believe that we sat there for a week waiting for the Russians to get to the meeting point.

Further, I believe that large numbers of German scientists and troops fled to allied lines to surrender to us because they feared what the Russians would do to them in revenge for the atrocities comitted on the eastern front. :disgust:

Now, I can't say that your history teacher was incorrect, as the parts of this that I got from mine could have been clouded too, but I am more suspicious of the accuracy of the statements of someone who was educated in the Soviet block -- where they not only had much propoganda for 40 years, but they called WWII the "Great Patriotic War"

You're right in general, but a few specifics needed clearing up. We had made the agreement with the Russians to meet at the Elba river. We wanted to keep that agreeement in order to stay friendly with the Soviets. Why? We wanted their help against Japan after Germanay was defeated. We didn't know if the Manhattan Project would work, so we hedged our bet. The Russians do call it the "Great Patriotic War", but most Russians fought for Russia, not Communism. And the largest tank battle in history was in 1943 in Kursk, Russia. It was the last time the Germans tried a large scale offensive against the Russians. They used the then new Mark V (Panther) tank as a spearhead. The losses on both sides were tremendous (Russians lost alot more), but eventually the Germans were pushed back by sheer numbers. A German tank commander once said about the Americans: "I can destroy 10 Shermans for every panzer I lose, but the Americans always seem to have an 11th...."
Back on topic - the losses on D-Day were actualy trivial in the overall war. Americans had it much harder than the Brits or Canadians. We didn't damage the beach defenses much before hand because we didn't want to tip our hand where we were going to attack. The real danger was not the beach defenses - it was the German 5th Panzer Corps and associated infantry units in northern France. A timely counterattack could have destroyed the invasion force before it gained a foothold. That's why misdirection was so necessary - get them looking the wrong way so they can't respond quickly enough to the real threat.

 

[TapTap]

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis
good thing you're not doing a report on the civil war

Classic
I did a term paper on Picketts charge back in the day, and found out first hand how "if there was a better way, they would have done it" thing works.

 

[TuxDave]

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...

I watched a documentary on the History channel and it commented on that. I don't remember what they were called but in any D-Day beach picture you can see those tripod of metal bars all over the beach to prevent vehicle landings. The Germans also had them partially submerged with a mine sitting on top so that in high tide, they would have mines that wouldn't drift away from the shore. Perhaps that's why they couldn't drive the transports all the way to the shore, not only because of the mines, but because the tripods blocked the way.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
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.

And that's exactly the reason we dropped the A-Bomb on Japan. If we had it earlier I have no doubts we would have used it against Germany. War was, and still is, a brutal thing. Sometimes you just have to line up with every guy you've got and go forward until you meet the enemy. When you get there it's time to slug it out to the last man standing.

 

[Stark]

My knowledge of the battle consists of watching Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Patton, and lots of games of bf1942.

D-Day was the largest sea to land assault in the history of humanity: 5,000 ships, 11,000 airplanes, 150,000 service men. Of this, 4,000 died. That's not too shabby in my book.

There were multiple countries and egos that all had to work together to make it work. The Allies used paratroopers to get beyond the beach, naval fire to try to soften the german fortifications, and then the beach assault. They used Patton as a decoy so that the Nazis wouldn't fortify the area more than they already had.

The Germans knew the invasion was coming and had plenty of time to prepare defenses. They called it "Fortress Europe" for good reason. We entered the war in 1942 and didn't set foot in mainland Europe until 1944. That's plenty of time to setup some brutal barriers. The landing craft couldn't always land on dry sand because the Germans put Balgian Gates all over the beach. (Belgian Gate: A large metal structure hidden by high tides and designed to rip the bottom out of larger landing craft.)

The guys who jumped out of the boat were some of the bravest infantry of all time... and infantry almost always suffers the highest casualty rate.

So don't think of this invation as stupid, think of it as one of the greatest victories the US has ever won.

 

[alexruiz]

Guys, I don't know if you could have access to an excellent book I read a while ago. It is, in fact, the diary of a German pilot (Heinz Knoke). It is called "I flew for the Fuhrer". I got an edition from the early 70's, and it seems that was an uncensored or unedited version.

There are several interesting factors there, and it can clear several doubts. I notice several wrong facts in this thread, and I don't know if the bias in the USA again the Soviets or just plain ignorance of the writers is the cause:

- True: The Soviets lost over 20 million people, most of them (85%) being civilians. In the book you can perceive the complete hate the Germans had for the communist Soviets. The war in the Eastern front was a total devastation by the Germans, killing everything (no prisoners). The soviets military causalties were also among the highest, but please REMEMBER that this was basically a XIX century country that just lived a revolution 20 years ago and was trying to modernize. As Nemesis77 pointed correctly, the Germans had no Mercy in the Eastern front, as opposed to what happened in France in 1940.
- True. The Eastern front had over 70% of Germany's resources. They were blitzing the red army in the beginning, but the winter turned the tables. Despite the fact of having antiquated armor, the Soviets really took off and improved some pieces of hardware. The T34 tank (regarded by many as the best in WW2) is an example of this. The soviet union had no food at the beginning of the conflict, let alone a capable army or good weapons.
- Wrong: The western front was more important for Hitler. He didn't care as much of that front as hated the soviets with a passion, and he wanted to destroy them.
- Wrong : The war was won by the western. This is a big lie, and I insist in bias. Without the war in the Eastern front, Germany could have invaded Englang with relative ease. Or he could have made an invasion virtually impossible. If you are fighting a front with 20% of your army and putting a good match, just image what 100% could do (Want to flame me, bring me numbers to prove it wrong )

Being honest and impartial, the bulk of the war was carried by the "hated" commies, and I still consider them as the true Victors of the war. For an undeveloped nation to beat the mightiest army of that time, that is an accomplsihment that costed over 20 million lives

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
it was tragic and wasteful of non-expendable human life. there was no need to go about attacking the beaches this way.

Thought I'd make a quick comment on this: In the military, if you are called upon to do so, you are expected to give your life in service of your country. Human life is expendable, if it is deemed necessary to accomplish a goal.

 

[BooneRebel]

Here's an opinion for you: Starting out a thread by calling something stupid is going to get an emotional response every time.

Was D-Day a tragedy? Yes. Was it stupid? To make this claim, I think you have to be able to prove that better options existed at the time and that the commanders chose to ignore them. Since you've already stated that you are very young and no nothing about the topic you're questioning, I think it's ignorant of you to say that it was STUPID.

I suggest you find a WWII veteran (look up the local VFW in the yellow pages) and state your opinion of his stupidity. Picking yourself up off of the ground will be the first step to your learning process.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Here's an opinion for you: Starting out a thread by calling something stupid is going to get an emotional response every time.

Yep. Really I'm sure they realized when attacking that a lot of people would be killed out right (see Saving Private Ryan). But what else could they really do? You can't paratroop in tanks and entire divisons, so you have to go by the sea. It was a bad situation for everybody.

alexruiz

You're right the Ruskies did have a major impact on the success of the allies.

 

[Legendary]

All I know about WW2 is that if we didn't bomb most of the bridges to Normandy, German Panzer Tank divisions (who were late because no one woke up Hitler) would have come and blown the living hell out of us. Good thing we got there.
Also, without the Russians there is very little chance D-Day and the Allied assault on the Western front would have been successful.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: So

as for the end of the war, the germans threw everything at the US and UK forces, hitler wanted stalin in control of europe. at least, that was according to my eastern european under the soviet bloc professor. maybe hes just wrong.

Now, I can't say that your history teacher was incorrect, as the parts of this that I got from mine could have been clouded too, but I am more suspicious of the accuracy of the statements of someone who was educated in the Soviet block -- where they not only had much propoganda for 40 years, but they called WWII the "Great Patriotic War"

ummm... no he was a government professor who taught a class on what eastern europe was like under the soviet bloc

 

[coolVariable]

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.

I would say that it was a major factor. The second most important after the fact that the English and the French forced a peace treaty on the Germans after WWI that had to backlash. Stupid bastards both. The US was against it but the majority of the population had already lost interest in Europe.

 

[acidvoodoo]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Here's an opinion for you: Starting out a thread by calling something stupid is going to get an emotional response every time.

Was D-Day a tragedy? Yes. Was it stupid? To make this claim, I think you have to be able to prove that better options existed at the time and that the commanders chose to ignore them. Since you've already stated that you are very young and no nothing about the topic you're questioning, I think it's ignorant of you to say that it was STUPID.

I suggest you find a WWII veteran (look up the local VFW in the yellow pages) and state your opinion of his stupidity. Picking yourself up off of the ground will be the first step to your learning process.

ohhhhhhhhhhhh, rite, yea, he should know everything about D-Day. Wait a minute? whats this? he doesn't!! which is why he's fscking asking for peoples opinions and knoledge of the subject.

Maybe he should edit the title? No point really, no matter what he does there is still gonna be d!ckheads bringing bad vibes to the board.

 

[Broohaha]

MrDudeMan, you need to read your texts more closely and analytically. Granted, many of the amphibious landing vehicles on Omaha Beach were decimated and many of the allied troops were killed before they were able to step off the boat (i.e. Saving Private Ryan) but that was because (and I'm shocked nobody else has mentioned this) because the allied bombing of Omaha Beach failed. At the other beaches, Gold, Omaha, Sword and Juno, the allied efforts were quite successful. The troops were able to disembark and take the beaches with ease because allied bombing had softened the German defenses. But everything went wrong at Omaha. As you can see below, only 2 of the 29 tanks meant to soften defenses landed. Also, the aerial bombing at Omaha fell several miles inland (because of fog, I believe). So, the tanks were unable to soften the defenses at sea and the bombers missed from the air. As a result, the troops that landed were ripe for the picking. THIS is why Dday might seem "stupid" to you. But, in fact, it was an enormous success on 4 of the 5 beaches.

This is from Brittanica Online:

When the seaborne units began to land about 6:30 AM on June 6, the British and Canadians on Gold, Juno, and Sword beaches overcame light opposition. So did the Americans at Utah.

However...

From the beginning everything went wrong at Omaha. Special "DD" tanks (amphibious Sherman tanks fitted with flotation screens) that were supposed to support the 116th Regiment sank in the choppy waters of the Channel. Only 2 of the 29 launched made it to the beach. With the exception of Company A, no unit of the 116th landed where it was planned. Strong winds and tidal currents carried the landing craft from right to left. The 16th Regiment on the east half of the beach fared little better, landing in a state of confusion with units badly intermingled.

 

[Siddhartha]

That is what happens in a ground war. Lives pay for every square foot of land taken. I think that most US citizens see war as in what happened in Desert Storm. The upcoming war with Iraq is going to be an urban ground war. There are going to be a lot of US soldiers coming home in body bags.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

dude you have a good post but you dont need to say i am short sighted...im 17 for crying out loud.

well im 17 too, but i know all this stuff. doesnt your school make its students take world history??? i know that in CA, every public school student takes world history in the 10th grade.

and even then, what about american history? you should have learned something in there too.

- pay attention in class or go to a school that actually teaches.

actually NM the above... you are writing this paper for a history class right????

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: 911paramedic
Why did we decide to take the beach? Because we HAD to.
Why did we have to? Only viable way to get troops and supplies into the area.
Why take it that way? It was the only way to do it back then.
Why not use special forces? Rangers were the only special forces (I believe) and they were new.
Why not use bombers? They were very slow moving targets among other things, no smart bombs, needed visual for targeting.
Did we pay a huge price? Yes.
Did we secure the beach and eventually win the war? Yes.
Does war include people dying? Yes.
Was it a horrible price to pay? Yes, but think of all the people we helped to save, not to mention the downfall of the Third Reich.

What I am trying to say is, we had to do it that way, there was no other viable option. War back then was face to face, no smart bombs and guided missles. If you look Desert Storm, the Iraqi soldiers died like that but you never saw it because we used smart bombs and heavy infantry. War is not a nice place to be, and people die.

If you ask me the people that stormed the beach and fought in WW2 were some of the bravest men around.

i have to agree the men who stormed the beach were bravest men around. When in highschool i did a paper on WWII and had the good luck to talk to a few men who fought in the war. 2 stomed the beaches.
i would love to see the orginal poster tell these men what they did was stupid. they may be old but they would still kick his a$$.


even at 17 i knew why they did it. I had/have great respect for those men.

sad that kids today think what they the kids back then had to do back then is stupid. sigh.

 

[acidvoodoo]

Originally posted by: waggy[/i



sad that kids today think what they the kids back then had to do back then is stupid. sigh.

i believe he was refering to the concept of the way they were ordered to just overwhelm the enemy to secure the beach. It was a waste if you think about, a soldier trains and trains for years, only to be killed instantly before reaching the beach, never to take a shot at the enemy.
It was neccisary though, the only way to be done, but still a waste of life.

I think you should all stop twisting his words.

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: acidvoodoo

Originally posted by: waggy



sad that kids today think what they the kids back then had to do back then is stupid. sigh.

i believe he was refering to the concept of the way they were ordered to just overwhelm the enemy to secure the beach. It was a waste if you think about, a soldier trains and trains for years, only to be killed instantly before reaching the beach, never to take a shot at the enemy.
It was neccisary though, the only way to be done, but still a waste of life.

I think you should all stop twisting his words.

Exactly. acidvoodoo is correct. Mrdudeman was referring to the plan itself, not anything to do with the people. It doesn't help people to want to learn about history if you're all going to be jerkoffs about it! :disgust:

One technical inaccuracy I noticed in the thread, minor, but I'll say it anyway. We were in mainland Europe before 1944. 1943, Italy.

alexruiz's post is complely accurate about the Russian part of it all, I believe.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: acidvoodoo

Originally posted by: waggy



sad that kids today think what they the kids back then had to do back then is stupid. sigh.

i believe he was refering to the concept of the way they were ordered to just overwhelm the enemy to secure the beach. It was a waste if you think about, a soldier trains and trains for years, only to be killed instantly before reaching the beach, never to take a shot at the enemy.
It was neccisary though, the only way to be done, but still a waste of life.

I think you should all stop twisting his words.

Exactly. acidvoodoo is correct. Mrdudeman was referring to the plan itself, not anything to do with the people. It doesn't help people to want to learn about history if you're all going to be jerkoffs about it! :disgust:

One technical inaccuracy I noticed in the thread, minor, but I'll say it anyway. We were in mainland Europe before 1944. 1943, Italy.

alexruiz's post is complely accurate about the Russian part of it all, I believe.

But the plan wasn't stupid. Dangerous and ambitious yes, but not stupid. As other members have already said there was great counter-intelligence hapening to convince the Germans the invasion would happen at Cali. There was bombardment of the beaches by ships and planes (all though some targets were more effected than others) and paratroopers were droped in behind enemy lines, but all of those efforts were serious hampered by bad weather and the, by todays standards, severely limited technology. Amphibious<sp?> troop carriers couldn't land on the beaches bescause of mines and obstacles the germans hand placed there.

It's not like Ike blindy sent waves and waves of troops into German machine guns. There was a very good plan, but like any plan it usually doesn't go as planned once you start the plan.

If you want to discuss stupid military plans WWI is full of them.

I think some of the posters didn't need to be so harsh, but when you call something "stupid" and you openly admit you know little/nothing about it yer kinda asking for it.


Lethal

 

[MrDudeMan]

lethal, thanks for at least telling me what you did in a civil manner unlike the rest of the monkeys bashing me.


you just misunderstood what i was calling stupid...i didnt mean the men or what they did for us, but just simply the death. go read my edit in the first post and maybe my point will make more sense.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
lethal, thanks for at least telling me what you did in a civil manner unlike the rest of the monkeys bashing me.


you just misunderstood what i was calling stupid...i didnt mean the men or what they did for us, but just simply the death. go read my edit in the first post and maybe my point will make more sense.

In future situations using "senseless" would be a better choice of words than "stupid." I know you were going for "senseless deaths" it just came out the wrong way.


Lethal

 

[Zugzwang152]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
lethal, thanks for at least telling me what you did in a civil manner unlike the rest of the monkeys bashing me.


you just misunderstood what i was calling stupid...i didnt mean the men or what they did for us, but just simply the death. go read my edit in the first post and maybe my point will make more sense.

In future situations using "senseless" would be a better choice of words than "stupid." I know you were going for "senseless deaths" it just came out the wrong way.


Lethal

exactly, last night when this thread started, all people were doing was concentrating on the word "stupid"