# D-Day - 6th June, 1944.



## plan_D (Jan 24, 2006)

Operation Neptune; The amphibious assault of Hitler's "Fortress Europe". 

Operation Overlord; The conquest of Normandy, and liberation of France. 

These two Operations, while many not know by name, are probably the most famous Operations in history known simply by the name "D-Day". I'm going to provide some interesting facts, and little pieces of history you may or may not have known about "D-Day". 

Operation Neptune;

The beaches, from left to right, Utah and Omaha (U.S), Gold (British), Juno (Canadian), Sword (British). Beach sections from left to right Peter, Queen, Roger, Sugar, Tare, Uncle, Victor, William (Utah); Able, Baker, Charlie, Dog, Easy, Fox, George (Omaha); How, Item, Jig, King (Gold); Love, Mike, Nan (Juno); Oboe, Peter, Queen, Roger (Sword). 

U.S "Western Task Force" was commanded by Rear Admiral Kirk, USN. Commonwealth "Eastern Task Force" was commanded by Rear Admiral Sir Philip Vian. 

Naval Combatant Vessels: 1,213.
Landing Ships And Craft: 4,126.
Ancillary Ships And Craft: 736.
Merchant Ships: 864. 

Total Vessels: 6,939. 

Percentages of vessels by nation: British/Canadian: 79%
U.S: 16.5 %
Other Allies: 4.5%

*133,000 Men Landed From the Sea*

_"I am very uneasy about the whole operation. At the best it will fall so very very far short of the expectations of the bulk of the people, namely those who know nothing of its difficulties. At the worst it may well be the most ghastly disaster of the whole war. I wish to God it were safely over."_ - Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, 5 June 1944. 







*Canadian Invasion Fleet*


This is just the start. But I would like to ask, how can anyone argue that the Germans would have succeeded in 1940 when we needed all that naval power to succeed in 1944?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2006)

plan_D said:


> This is just the start. But I would like to ask, how can anyone argue that the Germans would have succeeded in 1940 when we needed all that naval power to succeed in 1944?



Interesting point.


----------



## Soren (Jan 25, 2006)

> This is just the start. But I would like to ask, how can anyone argue that the Germans would have succeeded in 1940 when we needed all that naval power to succeed in 1944?



I don't quite understand, cause that can be interpreted in two ways. What exactly do you mean ?

In 1940 Germany was fast approaching its mightiest state of power during the war, while in 44 it was considerably weakened.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 25, 2006)

I think he means that how could the Germans of managed a cross channel invasion with the naval forces they had which were considerably less than what the Allies used on D-day in 1944. If the allies needed that much naval power to succeed then so would the Germans is the point.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 25, 2006)

Logistics, logistics, logistics.

Anyone can land the troops, but its keeping them supplied and in fighting form thats the toughest to plan for.


----------



## Soren (Jan 25, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> I think he means that how could the Germans of managed a cross channel invasion with the naval forces they had which were considerably less than what the Allies used on D-day in 1944. If the allies needed that much naval power to succeed then so would the Germans is the point.



If thats the case than I think thats abit of an over-generalization, as the armed forces of the British in 1940 and the Germans in 1944 can't be compared at all. Both in terms of individual unit effectiveness and tactics, things had changed dramaticly from 1940 to 1944.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 25, 2006)

Agreed but the point still stands that Germans would of needed more logistical support than they had to mount a successful invasion in 1940 in my opinion.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 25, 2006)

Do you honestly believe that Germany could have successfully invaded Great Britain when the Allies had complete superiority in numbers, air power and naval power but it still all hung on a thread? 6,939 vessels ... did Germany ever even have that much?


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 25, 2006)

Didnt we just have a big discussion about Operation Sealion? It was pointed out the germans didnt even have the sea transport to even invade in the first place let alone support it.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 25, 2006)

Yes we did. I didn't mean to start another discussion with the question, it was just a swooping question to raise awareness of the efforts involved in a seaborne invasion on that scale.


----------



## Udet (Jan 25, 2006)

Also it was pointed out the Germans never really intended to invade, then occupy England.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 25, 2006)

No, that was you trying to defend Germany and trying to downplay Britain's stunning defence, and the soldiers who fought for it's defence.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 25, 2006)

Anyway, I won't allow stupid comments ruin this thread. So, unless you have something reasonable to say ... start a new thread and I'll gladly give you a slanging match. 

*The Plan?*

In April of 1941 it was discussed that Britain's only chance of victory was to launch an offensive of the European continent. It was also recognised that to build up an effective war machine to conduct such a campaign would take time. The Battle of the Atlantic was a deciding factor in the defeat of Germany, winning that allowed the Allied forces a constant communication by sea. It was also recognised that the Allies needed complete air superiority over all communication routes, and the strategic areas of Europe. 

The Casablanca conference led to the formation of a planning organisation dedicated to the invasion of Europe, now called Operation Overlord. Liuetenant General F.E Morgan was appointed Chief of Staff to the Supreme Allied Commander (COSSAC), but no "Supreme Allied Commander" had yet been named. The Washington conference led to a desicion in forces that would be available, and the plan was ordered for August 1st 1943. 

Work did not start from scratch, as previous ideas and plans had already been looked up and mulled over. The COSSAC team also had the benefit of the terrible failure at Dieppe in 1942, when a Canadian division was mauled on the beaches. In the words of Lord Mountbatten _"...everything that could have gone wrong, did go wrong,"_. 

Brittany, Normandy, and Pas De Calais were the landing areas under consideration. Brittany was found to be too far from the European objectives and Britain. Pas De Calais was too obvious. Normandy wasn't perfect, but it was the best of the three. 

In December 1943, Dwight D. Eisenhower was named the Supreme Allied Commander, with Air Cheif Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder as his deputy. All three component commanders were British: General Sir Bernard Montgomery (Overall Ground Commander), Air Chief Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory (Overall Air Commander) and Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay (Overall Naval Commander). The plan was written up, it had three divisions assaulting the beaches of Normandy while one airborne division landed on each flank. 

General Montgomery found the blow of five divisions insufficient, and on January 1st 1944 wrote his impressions of the COSSAC plan;

_First Impression of Operation 'OVERLORD' made at the request of the Prime Minister by General MONTGOMERY.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The following must be clearly understood: 

(a) Today, 1 January, 1944, is the first time I have seen the Appreciation and proposed plan or considered the problem in any way. 

(b) I am not as yet in touch with Admiral RAMSAY and have been able to consult any Naval expert. 

(c) I have not been able to consult the Air C-in-C, or any experienced air officer. 

(d) Therefore these initial comments can have little value. There are merely my first impressions after a brief study of COS(43)416(0).

2. The initial landing is on too narrow a front and is confined to too small an area. 

By D + 12 a total of 16 Divisions have been landed on the same beaches as were used for the initial landings. This would lead to the most appalling confusion on the beaches, and the smooth development of the land battle would be made extremely difficult - if not impossible. 

Further Divisions come pouring in, all over the same beaches. By D + 24 a total of 24 Divisions have been landed, all over the same beaches; control of the beaches and so on would be very difficult; the confusion, instead of getting better, would get worse. 

My first impression is that the present plan is impracticable. 

3. From a purely Army point of view the following points are essential:

(a) The initial landings must be made on the widest possible front. 

(b) Corps must be able to develop their operations from their own beaches, and other Corps must NOT land through those beaches. 

(c) British and American areas of landing must be kept seperate. The provisions of (a) above must apply in each case. 

(d) After the initial landings, the operation must be developed in such a way that a good port is secured quickly for the British and for American forces. Each should have it's own port or group of ports. 

4. The type of plan required is on the following lines:

(a) One British Army to land on a front of two, or possibly three, Corps. One American Army similarly. 

(b) Follow-up Divisions to come in to the Corps already on shore. 

(c) The available assault craft to be used for the leading troops. Successive flights to follow rapidly in any type of unarmoured craft, and to be poured in. 

(d) The air battle must be won before the operation is launched. We must then aim at success in the land battle by the speed and violence of our operations. 

5. It is hardly possible to discuss the broad plan without Naval and Air discussion. But if such a thing were possible there would be many advantages in putting armies on shore in such a way that:

(a) The British effort was directed to securing the CAEN - CHERBOURG area, with CHERBOURG as the main British port initially. 

(b) The American effort was directed to securing the area ST.MALO -- ST NAZAIRE -- BREST, with the main American ports in the BREST peninsula. 

6. I am disturbed at the limitations of transport aircraft referred to in para 17 of the Digest. 

There are four Airborne Divisions, and four U.S Parachute Regts available. All of these will be needed for the initial effort. We must surely take steps to ensure that we can lift at one time at least the equivalent of four Airborne Divisions. 

MARRAKECH, (Sgd) B.L, MONTGOMERY
1st January, 1944. General._

As you can see, the area thought up by Montgomery was truly a wide front. Stretching from Caen to Brest, this would encompass almost the entire north coast of France and some of the west coast. He envisioned an assault too large for the Germans to concentrate on. 

A compromise was reached, the initial plan was too small but Montgomerys plan was too big. So, in exchange for four airborne divisions being landed only three would land (this being more than the initial four) and the landing area of Montgomery was halved but the original landing area was widened. It was now to be from Caen to the Cherbourg area. 

The Americans and British were kept seperate, and all Corps would have their own beaches. Montgomery was to command 21st Army Group, thus he was to be in charge of it all on the ground. U.S 1st Army would land on the left on two beaches, Utah and Omaha. These were to be assaulted by VII Corps and V Corps respectively. The British would land on the right with 2nd Army, under it would land XXX Corps on Gold beach and I Corps on Juno and Sword.

The problem of a port for each army still remained. This was solved by the Allies building a two ports in Britain and pulling them over to Normandy, these were called Mulberry and I shall mention them at a later date. 

I think I did pretty well there. But these maps suck ... I apologise.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 25, 2006)

Good post.


----------



## Soren (Jan 25, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Do you honestly believe that Germany could have successfully invaded Great Britain when the Allies had complete superiority in numbers, air power and naval power but it still all hung on a thread? 6,939 vessels ... did Germany ever even have that much?



I believe this question was directed at me, and to answer the question:

No, not with Hitler in complete command, as he pretty much sabotaged the German army's war-efforts throughout the entire war. But in 41 it would have been very possible had Hitler just prioritized it, but he didn't, he wanted Russia instead.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 25, 2006)

The RN and RAF were in a far better position to repel a German invasion of Briain that they were in 1940.

As we discussed in the other thread, there was no way the Germans could have pulled it off.


----------



## Soren (Jan 26, 2006)

> The RN and RAF were in a far better position to repel a German invasion of Briain that they were in 1940.



And the Germans would have been in a far better position to attack had Hitler just prioritized it, instead of his precious eastern campaign, as Operation Barbarossa could infact afford to wait for just a while.



> As we discussed in the other thread, there was no way the Germans could have pulled it off.



With no Operation Barbarossa, you can be sure they could've pulled it off. The eastern front did after-all take up about 80% of the entire German army, a force to be reckoned with.

Had Hitler not made the mistake of believing that he alone could take on the whole world at once, he could've achieved his goal in the end. (That is if he didn't die of his illness before that)


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 26, 2006)

Unless they had dedicated landing craft like the allies it wasn't going to succeed, by 1941 the British had recovered from the Battle of France and the resultant Battle of Britain and were ready to face a German invasion. They were more prepared than they were in 1940, so the invasion would of been harder.

Good post pD.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 26, 2006)

To sucessfully complete an invasion in 1941, Germany would of had to:


1. Defeat Fighter Command as a defensive force 

2. Defeat Bomber Command as an offensive force

3. Eliminate or minimise the Royal Navy Home Fleet as an effective force in the Channel for a period of at least 1 month

4. Create a dedicated naval landing and naval logistics arm

5. Sufficiently decoy British defenses away from the main landing area

6. Deny the British army the ability to acces the landing areas (eliminate rail and road ransport)

7. Breach, capture or destroy the fixed defensive fortifications

8. Sucessfully land at least 30,000 troops and their equipment in the first 24 hours of the invasion

9. Maintain control of the English channel for at least a 1 month period to land sufficient troops and supplies for the campaign


If you look at recent history, the USA and the UK have been the two dominant naval and aviation powers for the last 100 or so years. It took their combined strength and weight of experiance, with complete naval and aerial superiority, to breach a gap in the German defences on D-Day.

As German had neither in 1941, a sucessful invasion of England is unlikey in my opinion. Germany would of needed to treble her naval strength and double her aerial strength just as pre-requisites to ATTEMPT an invasion.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2006)

This has already been discussed, and it was found by reasonable people that an invasion was actually on the brink of impossible. Now, leave my thread alone ...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 26, 2006)

yeah, leave his thread alone!!!!!!!

 

Soren, when it comes to amphibious invasions, the size of your army is dictated by how many can be transported by sea and supplied and maintained in the field.

If Hitler had 30 divisions in France waiting to invade England, but only had enough sea transport to supply two divisions at a time, the size of his army will always be two divisions.


----------



## Udet (Jan 26, 2006)

I do not want to "ruin" your thread. Also I do not downplay anything.

It was yourself raising the question here, if the allies were required to make such a massive display of war materiel to make D-day happen, "how can there be people believing Germany could have invaded England in 1940"?

And that very typical style of yours of launching accusations and insults...might get you in serious trouble one day.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 26, 2006)

PlanD
This is just the start. But I would like to ask said:


> It really could not have succeeded with what both powers had available to fight with at the time. UK just had too many weapons to fight with at the time for Germany to be able to take care of them all.
> 
> 1) RAF Fighter command
> 2) Bomber Command
> ...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 26, 2006)

Udet, the other thread went into detail how in 1940, the germans were completly unprepared and equipped to launch a major invasion. Their planning was made up of unbelievable assumptions and always assumed best case scenarios.

Their capability of invasion was next to nil in the best of circumstances in 1940 and would have been even worse off in 1941.

As the USN/USMC proved in the Pacific, if youre going to take any beachhead without port facilities, you better have a multitude of specialised amphib ships and lot of them.

The Germans didnt have them and even if they did make a few, they would have been sunk in transit to the channel ports or blown to pieces at the dock.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 26, 2006)

Now that we have 61 years to look back and analyze the Normandy invasion, lets hear your thoughts on what the allies should have done differently.

To start with, the allies had far to few battleships and cruisers available for fire support. If I was Admiral, I would double the number of heavy gun ships. Also, I would have some shallow draft "monitors" built with some heavy 8" or 12" guns for direct fire support up close. The debacle at Omaha might have been far less severe if the German pillbox's could have been taken under direct close range fire.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 26, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Udet, the other thread went into detail how in 1940, the germans were completly unprepared and equipped to launch a major invasion. Their planning was made up of unbelievable assumptions and always assumed best case scenarios.
> 
> Their capability of invasion was next to nil in the best of circumstances in 1940 and would have been even worse off in 1941.
> 
> ...



Syscom don't forget as Udet pointed out " that German never intented to invade UK really" lol yeh right they never wanted to. Yes they did. They just could not do it.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 26, 2006)

Now that we have 61 years to look back and analyze the Normandy invasion, lets hear your thoughts on what the allies should have done differently.

To start with, the allies had far to few battleships and cruisers available for fire support. If I was Admiral, I would double the number of heavy gun ships. Also, I would have some shallow draft "monitors" built with some heavy 8" or 12" guns for direct fire support up close. The debacle at Omaha might have been far less severe if the German pillbox's could have been taken under direct close range fire.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 26, 2006)

Udet said:


> And that very typical style of yours of launching accusations and insults...might get you in serious trouble one day.



You really have no room to talk there, Udet.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 26, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Now that we have 61 years to look back and analyze the Normandy invasion, lets hear your thoughts on what the allies should have done differently.
> 
> To start with, the allies had far to few battleships and cruisers available for fire support. If I was Admiral, I would double the number of heavy gun ships. Also, I would have some shallow draft "monitors" built with some heavy 8" or 12" guns for direct fire support up close. The debacle at Omaha might have been far less severe if the German pillbox's could have been taken under direct close range fire.



The Allied fleet at Normandy had the largest array of naval support ever dedicated to an invasion. The USN history of Operation Neptune puts the immediate fire support as "The assault was to be supported by a bombardment force of 7 Battleships, 2 Monitors, 23 Cruisers, 2 Gunboats, 75 Fleet Destroyers, 16 Hunt class destroyers and special bombarding craft.", but notes later that many other ships were detached from their operations for fire support.

The heavy gun support was ordered off at Omaha 0830 for fear of hitting thier own troops. Support responisbilities then fell to the 5" guns on destroyers. With their shallow draft and good speed, they could prowl up and down the beachheads and use their guns to engage enemy batteries. Most USN destroyers on D-Day fired upwards of 500 5" shells. Some fired over 1000.


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 26, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > Now that we have 61 years to look back and analyze the Normandy invasion, lets hear your thoughts on what the allies should have done differently.
> ...



Yikes, can you imagine being dug in or sitting in a pill box on the beach and seeing them go up and down shooting like hell. Whether they could knock out your pill box or not it would of been terrifying to see if you were a German.


----------



## Udet (Jan 26, 2006)

syscom:

I do agree the possibilities for Germany to carry on with an invasion of Britain in 1940 were marginal to say the least.

The point is -and yes Mr. Hunter368, you can laugh as much as you desire-, there is evidence enough to suggest Germany did not really intend to invade much less occupy the British island.

I do not care if Hitler hired an architect to have his personal palace designed in London once Buckingham got flattened.

First off, what of Germany´s oficial peace offering? Please, tell me of the arguments you have to dismiss this first point off hand.

Hitler´s fundamental obssesion was the soviet union. He wanted to put as much pressure as possible on the British to perhaps force a peace agreement to then switch east as soon as possible.

Occupying England? Whatever the number of divisions necessary to achieve such task, Hitler feared seeing his military getting scattered across Europe. The most concetrated blow was to strike the soviets.

He carried on with what appeared as a feasible venture, an air campaign -Battle of Britain-, which proved of course futile.

It is clear the industrial might of the US, combined with that of the Brits produced the massive armada which stormed the Normandy beaches in 1944.

Conditions for each period were quite different however. The Allies required that kind of massive deployment for they were going to face a tough enemy, that although over stretched had very powerful units in the order of battle (Panzer Lehr, 21 Pz. Div, 12 SS.Pz.Div, 116 Pz. Div, the SS s.Pz.Abt., etc.).

Do not get me wrong mr syscom, this ain´t an issue where I´ll say I am knowledged, but if i recall correctly, even with the massive assault of june 1944, the allies always progressed embarrasingly behind the projected timeframes for advancing in the continent.

Germany, in 1940, in the nearly impossible event of an invasion of England would have faced an entirely different foe: an army which had lost the bulk of its equipment and material in the battle where they had just been battered.


Mr. Evangilder:

I have no room to talk there? So you are suggesting that just like Plan_D does virtually on a daily basis with many members, also I conduct my own rampages insulting people and launching groundless acussations?

Read very well what he said to me there; it was pretty much like "you downplay the fierce defensive effort of the British people". He does not know me to launch such acussation.

Please do not confuse disliking the ideas of someone (disagreeing) with being unnecessarily cyberaggressive and insulting.

Had any member posted the very same comment you just directed to me there, the exact phrase having Plan_D as the receiver, I am sure you can figure out the kind of vocabulary and "attitude" would come from him as response.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2006)

< Just for you, Udet. 

That simple rhetorical question at the end of the first post was meant to simply provide some light on the difficulties that Germany would have faced in 1940/1941. I thought it was obvious to the vast majority of people on here that the discussion of Sealion had already been over ... more than once. Not to arouse a discussion about some lame ass punk bitch little Austrian picking his arse while trying to decide on Britain or Russia ... 

I think the title of the thread clearly indicates that it's about Operation OVERLORD - but now, any onlooker doesn't know what the f*ck is going on because it seems no one knows how to use the "New Thread" button. 

So, feel free to rampage on in this thread ... I'll start a new one ... and maybe you'll all rampage about who's arse smells the best in that one.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 26, 2006)

Is that guy on the violin playing "ride of the valkeryie"?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2006)

I don't know ... he could be playin' "Sniff my noggin" for all I care. He's some little yellow dude with a violin ... you can't go wrong.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 26, 2006)

A nice link with info about the sluggish performance of the Luftwaffe over the invation front.

http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/6june44.htm


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 27, 2006)

Udet said:


> syscom:
> 
> I do agree the possibilities for Germany to carry on with an invasion of Britain in 1940 were marginal to say the least.
> 
> ...



Actually Udet, Germany WAS planning to invade England, no matter how you want to slant it. They just couldn't.

Surely, the Kriegsmarine didn't assemble 1300 barges and 300 transports in northen France because they didn't intend to invade England?

The Whermarcht didn't convert 250 tanks for amphibious assault just because they felt like it, did they?

The 6th Army obviously just began training their troops in seaborn landing techniques for no reason.

Hitler really didnt want to invade the UK when he issued Directive 16. After all, all that it says in the second sentence is "I have decided to begin to prepare for, and if necessary carry out, an invasion of England". He wanted to eliminate "Great Britain as a base from which the war against Germany can be fought, and if necessary the island will be occupied"


----------



## Maestro (Jan 27, 2006)

... And may be the Blitz on British cities, airfields, radar stations [...] was only for the fun of wasting ammos and losing aircrafts ?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 27, 2006)

Udet said:


> Mr. Evangilder:
> 
> I have no room to talk there? So you are suggesting that just like Plan_D does virtually on a daily basis with many members, also I conduct my own rampages insulting people and launching groundless acussations?
> 
> ...



I wasn't talking about plan_d, Udet. I was talking about YOU. You can try to deflect all you want, but you have numerous times been insulting and talked down to other members. So don't play holier than thou. If you took a statement that someone said as directed at you and insulting when it did not appear to be then I believe that one with the problem here is you.

The point is that you can't claim moral high ground if there is a dead body in your closet. Capiche?


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 27, 2006)

Jabberwocky said:


> Udet said:
> 
> 
> > syscom:
> ...



Jabber this was obviously an elaborate plan only to fool everyone. So was BoB just a plan to fool everyone. Germany never planned to invade Germany ever.

Udet please come on here, Germany 100% planned to invade them IF a negotiated peace could not be worked out. As any person would Hitler planned to win the war with UK with bluff, intimation and negotiated peace talks first. If that didn't happen (which it did not) then he would need to control the air space (he failed as we all know) over UK and send in his invasion fleet (which as was stated already was in ports along France and was not up to the task). Hitler had a plan A (win with talks) and plan B (win with war) and both failed. Be reasonable Hitler did plan to invade UK if talks failed, did he like the idea of invading them ? no Who would of, he knew it was going to costs him dearly even if he could of done it successfully. If you say they did not plan to invade UK give a list of examples for us why you believe this. Maybe like in a new thread would be better as this is off subect here.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 27, 2006)

A picture reveals a 1000 words...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

Udet said:


> Mr. Evangilder:
> 
> I have no room to talk there? So you are suggesting that just like Plan_D does virtually on a daily basis with many members, also I conduct my own rampages insulting people and launching groundless acussations?
> 
> ...



As even said you have no room to talk here. I can show many of your posts were you initiate the insulting. Here are your problems:

1. You talk to people like you are a king and they are a peasant. You talk down to them.

2. Whenever you disagree with someone, you dismiss them as wasting your time.

3. Whenever you do not like what someone says you tell them that there opinions are not worth anything (remember that one, you said that my opinions were not worth anything. What makes you think yours are then).

4. You sly sarcastic remarks are not funny. They do not make you cultured as you think you are. They piss people off.

5. You get backed into a corner and you start throwing insults.

I am sure everyone here will agree with me when I say these things. 

That is why people like pD talk the way they do to you. Because they are tired of you saying that they are completely wrong because they believe something else. You tell them that there thoughts are wrong because they are the allied story. Well what if you story is wrong. What if there German story is not the truth. 

Basically poeple like pD are tired of the way you talk to them and others and that is why they just straight out dismis eveyrthing you say and throw out insults. It is a taste of your own medicine.


----------



## Udet (Jan 28, 2006)

Mr. Der Alder:

That is not correct. 

Whenever I´ve talked down any members, I was simply responding in the same intensity to comments previously sent by them to me.

You can read again on the *"Best combination of maneuverability and speed"* thread, where many of you made a scandal when I said "I am wasting my time" to Sir KrazyKanuk in one of my postings.

If you read a mere 3 or 4 postings before mine, you will discover Sir KrazyKanuk told me exactly that. This is easy to verifiy. He first threw the tomato.

So, what I did was just to respond in same intensity to a comment first launched at me. And as I have said, no one told anything to KrazyKanuk for being likewise smart enough to feel he is wasting his time here.

Der Adler: point (5) of your comment is way out of the line. My attitude can be trainable, so I´d appreciate it very greatly if you could please post or PM me with any comments from me that fit within such category. Getting cornered and start launching insults as the only resource? I do not think so.


You have the right to like and defend Plan_D as much as you want; in a diametrically opposed scenario you have the right to dislike me or my views i do not care, but what you can not deny is the fact the individual is way worse than I am when it comes to launch insults at people here and has not received any sort of words to refrain himself from behaving in such a manner. (need more examples? you can read his rant on some argentinian members who were calmly dicussing the Argentinian-British war of the Falklands).

*Sorry guys*, this was my last comment regarding this issue. Do not want to divert the content of the thread no more. I was just exercising my right to defend myself.


Jabberwocky:

It is not necessary to be sarcastic. I have some 30 photos of the German "assembly" of barges, the motley fleet that would allegedly take the german invasion force across the channel.

Also I have the Hitler´s famous directive. 

You think I´ve not come across the evidence you are presenting to make a case?

It´d appear you just want to see the evidence that will make you feel more comfortable.

I will finish this by asking you something -also for you Mr. Hunter368-, are you going to say the following can not dispute your case?

*(i)* Germany´s official peace offering (made *twice*: a consistent foreign policy regarding the British empire, which by the way, Hitler admired). Did Hitler ever, EVER, thought of peace with the soviets?

Consistent even with the defeated France: other than assuring it would not fall in British hands, no claims were ever made to the French fleet or France´s african colonies. Did Hitler sent military units to occupy the french territories, say, in Alger or Morocco? I mean, someone as obssesed with conquering more and more, as he has been portrayed, would have sent soldiers, just for the glorious photo. He did not. Concentrated blow against the east. No scatering of my military.

*(ii)* Hitler´s obssesion with destroying the bolsheviks. 

Hitler´s war commenced aiming east. Poland. A barrier standing between Germany and the favorite foe: USSR.

Making the political and military aid operations with nations of eastern europe -and Finland- to gain allies and secure the flanks for the projected war against the soviets (I have several books focused solely on this particular issue, I can recommend you some if you wish).

*(iii)* As some of you have correctly suggested here, Germany was unfamiliar with seaborne operations. The allies apparently fit in the same category, for their first attempt at Dieppe got completely obliterated.

There is something to be clarified though, unfamiliar, or unexperienced with seaborne operations does not make you a fool. Not even Hitler can be called a fool in 1940.

You think the Germans did not know the Royal Navy existed? Do you think they did not know of the British seamenship?

The German military doctrine was one of armored spearheads in close cooperation of the Luftwaffe´s flying artillery. Do you think they did not rapidly discover it would be close to impossible to get their tanks across the channel with the things they had available?

Hunter368, yes, Hitler wanted peace, but hey, he was not a lamb right? 

Think of this, and I believe it is here where you miss the point:

I will try -and want- to make peace with you, please...but if you continue in the bully mode inspite of my efforts it will get to the point where I´ll say "to hell with you, really want to fight? good, I will be glad to please your needs you bloody sod..."

So, if Hitler had in fact been this blood thirsty sod, trying to expand his conquest just for the fun of it, and you have to believe this, he would have sent everything out to attempt the invasion of England in 1940.

Hitler was not a man that would save the blood of his military when it came to meet his expectations, especially when the enemy was the soviet one.

At Stalingrad, a time when issues peaked, he did not care, at all. It is very likely he knew that if his orders were to be carried out the 6th Army would be doomed: he decided to doom the army. Let it be. Period.

So for the alleged "Seelowe", had England really been a plan, he would have ordered Admiral Raeder to bring everything: battlecruisers "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau", all the heavy cruisers, the few light cruisers and whatever destroyers available, also the bulk of the U-boat force. I do not recall exactly what was "Bismarck" doing by this months -conducting sea trials if recall correctly- but perhaps also "Bismarck" takes part. 

Anf of course, about the entire Luftwaffe.
All the eggs in one basket? Never. 

That perhaps Hitler in fact may have desired to invade the island, sure!When finally realizing peace would not be possible in the west, and a war with several fronts was a definitive, a permanent reality, and never as a fundamental plan or goal.

Again, Hitler was no fool. Although he sought peace with the Empire, also he knew there could be a possibility for his foreign policy for the west to fail, and have England as an enemy.

Hitler´s alleged plan to invade England was more the product of a sudden undesired circumstance and not one of premeditation and profound desire.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 28, 2006)

Calmly discussing the Falklands? Did you even read what he said? Like, I don't know, demanding them back? And you really must not be using any grey matter, you do not want to divert the course of this thread? Look at the title of the thread, what has that got to do with Hitler's invasion of Britain?


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 28, 2006)

Udet said:


> Mr. Der Alder:
> 
> That is not correct.
> 
> ...



Udet plz see my response in WW2 General titled "Udet- Germany really did not intend to Invade UK ever." And let this thread get back on track. Thanks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

Udet said:


> Mr. Der Alder:
> 
> That is not correct.
> 
> ...



This is more than just that one thread, it involves ever since you have been there and someone says something that does not correspond with your beliefs about Hitler and how bad the Allies were.




Udet said:


> You have the right to like and defend Plan_D as much as you want; in a diametrically opposed scenario you have the right to dislike me or my views i do not care, but what you can not deny is the fact the individual is way worse than I am when it comes to launch insults at people here and has not received any sort of words to refrain himself from behaving in such a manner. (need more examples? you can read his rant on some argentinian members who were calmly dicussing the Argentinian-British war of the Falklands).



I tell plan_D and any member of this forum when I think they are wrong, adn that goes for you as well, deal with it!



Udet said:


> I was just exercising my right to defend myself.



Then stop thinking you are gods greatest gift to this forum and people will not have to attack you or actually more like defend themselves against you.



Udet said:


> Hunter368, yes, Hitler wanted peace, but hey, he was not a lamb right?



Yeah and Sadam Hussein did not really want to gas the Kurds. 



Udet said:


> I will try -and want- to make peace with you, please...but if you continue in the bully mode inspite of my efforts it will get to the point where I´ll say "to hell with you, really want to fight? good, I will be glad to please your needs you bloody sod..."



If what you are trying to say here is that Hitler was being Bullied by the allies, then really Udet you have twisted sense of History because it was Hitler who started WW2. It was Hitler that ordered the Holocaust. Hitler was the evil one and the Allies did the right thing by stopping him. Hitler was the Bully here.



Udet said:


> That perhaps Hitler in fact may have desired to invade the island, sure!When finally realizing peace would not be possible in the west, and a war with several fronts was a definitive, a permanent reality, and never as a fundamental plan or goal.



The only reason he would have attempted a Peace with England would have been so that he concentrate on Russia. Hitler was a mad man who had one thing on his mind, conquest. Sorry Udet but that is the case.



Udet said:


> Again, Hitler was no fool. Although he sought peace with the Empire, also he knew there could be a possibility for his foreign policy for the west to fail, and have England as an enemy.



No he was a fool to think that he could take on the world all at one time. He was a fool in the fact that he fired the first the shots.


Now as people have requested, the topic of this thread Udet is *D-DAY D-Day - 6th June, 1944* not *Operation SeeLoewe* or *Hitler The Peaceful Man who did not want War, it is all Allied Propaganda!*. 

*KEEP IT ON TOPIC!*


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2006)

Lets hear some more opinions where the allies should have/could have done things differently.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 29, 2006)

Yes, let's please keep this on topic.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2006)

I'm thinking about that question, syscom. And this thread will incorporate the Normandy campaign up to the capture of Paris. At the moment I'm bringing together information on the leaders and command structures.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jan 30, 2006)

I think the Allies were very ambitious in their plans- attempting to capture Caen on the first day and the paratroop drops were too scattered to take most of their objectives and the Allied planners must have know that looking at Husky and Avalanche. Gliders were the best means of putting airborne troops into the action IMO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2006)

Ill somewhat agree, however quite a bit of gliders I believe were taken down. The problem when you use gliders is the fact that if you take one out you kill everyone on board. If they jump there is a good chance of a lot of them making it down.

The advantage of the glider would be that if it did make it down, then there would be a cohesive fighting force on the ground as a whole.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 30, 2006)

I think the allies completely underestimated the navigational problems to accuratley drop their "sticks". Plus thegerman AA defenses were far tougher than planned.

I would have added far more pathfinders for navigation marking. 

I also would have planned to use some light attack bombers to go after the German AA defenses while the C47's were flying over.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 30, 2006)

Another thing that didn't help was that many of the C-47 pilots had not met heavy flak before and therefore tried to fly around it/away from it thus getting of course as well as going faster than planned, none of which helped drop accuracy.


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2006)

remember what the Wehrmacht did in the American sector ........... turned the water gates open to flood the fields which did not help US navigation in the least


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2006)

Yep, and it would have been bad for gliders.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 31, 2006)

Very true Eric, and the bocage would not of helped either for the Gliders, leaving them with short landing grounds.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2006)

That too.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 31, 2006)

Why couldnt the USN or RN deploy several "radio" buoys off the coast of Cotentain (spelling?) peninsula so the C47's could do radio cross fix's for a more accurate drop? 

They could do this using small subs, have them monitor the airwaves for the signal that the C47's were taking off, and then turn on the radio transmitters when the transports were over the channel.


----------



## Erich (Jan 31, 2006)

the biggest probelm was flooding of the fields and not necessarily from light 2cm Fla for the gliders, C-47's and the like. there wre no visible markintations for the pilots and crew nor the commanders to rely upon except for possibly recognized intersections/road cuts that were pre-marked on theri maps. /besides at least for the Us forces not quite the genre of vetreran W-ss or Heer units to face them. seems the 2nd Ss and 17th Ss Panzer-grn were the only two W-SS units to defy US massive ground forces when they had gotten in place. 17th Ss lost their Stug Abt and their Pz Jäger units during air attack by Jbos when cought out in open roads vehicle to vehicle something they had no clues about. Have to say the Pz. grendaier compnaies did put up a stout defence amidst the continual US artillery hammer that came down on them daily.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2006)

I remember reading that a group of C-47s were supposed to get a signal from the ground by an advance unit of paras. They were killed after landing and thus, could not provide the markers for the C-47s.


----------



## Erich (Jan 31, 2006)

Sadly there are too many accounts of US paras dropped well behind the stick and marker points well deep into enemy held territory and drowned in process or hung up in blown out trees like rats to the slaughter house


----------



## evangilder (Jan 31, 2006)

Yep, that's a hell of a way to go. Poor bastards didn't have a chance to even fight.


----------



## Maestro (Jan 31, 2006)

And don't forget the 82nd "C" Company (I think it was the "C" one) that was almost exterminated when they landed straight into the town of Sainte-Mère-Église.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 2, 2006)

I'll tell you one thing that should have been done, the cratering of the beaches! Which was ordered, but never happened. I know I am one to rant on and on about not cratering the ground where armour is going to be used, but a beach assault is completely different. Alright, tanks were used ... but infantry were the main players, and craters would have given them much better protection than flat sand!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 2, 2006)

Maybe in the American sectors, but I think beach cratering would of been a hinderance in the British and Canadian sectors.

Judicious and sensible use of specialised armour was what kept Commonwealth casualties low on D-Day. Hobarts Funnies (79th Armoured Division), in all their forms, more than proved their worth, providing fire support, cover and "go foward" at Juno, Gold and Sword. The psychological impact of sitting in a bunker and facing a 40 ton tank with a 290mm/40lb mortar on the front can't be underestimated either.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 2, 2006)

This was strictly applied to the U.S sectors. And heavy cratering wouldn't be required, only a few bombers would be needed to keep the casaulties low on all beaches.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Maestro said:


> And don't forget the 82nd "C" Company (I think it was the "C" one) that was almost exterminated when they landed straight into the town of Sainte-Mère-Église.



I went to Sainte-Mère-Église when I went to Normandy for the 50th Anniversary of D-Day. They even have a parachute in the Church Steeple still hangin in honor of one of the only survivors. He only survived because he landed in the steeple, and the Germans were puttingo out a fire and not paying attention to him.


----------



## trackend (Feb 4, 2006)

I thought I had a shot of St Mere Eglise Adler, not very good quality Im afraid.
I went to Normandy to get some pics for my dad of Arromanche and the Mulberrys as he has been unable to travel for many years now but he pointed out lots of the various places he made landings on.


----------



## Erich (Feb 4, 2006)

slightly off topic but then again it is on topic. Speaking of the two W-SS divisions it was due to French partisans that the 2nd and 17th SS took time to get up towards the beaches much too late, weaving around roads they were not familiar with being hen pecked enroute, and their supply lines were too long and way behind the recon and panzer elements making the rear eschelons susceptible to rifle fire and plowed and blown roads. this I feel is one of the undiscovered or should say overlloked points that made the US air drops and landings so successful and penetrable inward giving them a very firm hold until meeting finally some resistance in bocage country.....


----------



## plan_D (Feb 4, 2006)

The 17th SS were certainly not in any fit state, in my mind, to hold up the U.S forces around Carentan. I did not know the delayed reaction was due to French partisan activity though, that's an excellent piece of information Erich.


----------



## Erich (Feb 4, 2006)

Plan the Stug Abt of the 17th was almost annihalted by US jabo's as well as the 7.5cm Pak 40 pz-jäger abt. The flak Abt of 8.8cm's and lighter 37mm's was another story though and fought tooth and nail. Seems the Recon and Pz gren companies of the 17th SS had an overabundanace of panzerfausts to their credit which really helped out a most depleted Division.

Personally I think comparing US infantry and armor elements with the British the US came off comparitivly easy as they plunged through the Normandie/French countryside.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 4, 2006)

Certainly, when the 101st met the 17th outside Carentan there were few tanks available ... so, although 101st did well to hold on it was hardly the whole Grenadier complement. Of course, nothing against the 101st and, especially, E Company ...


----------

