Dieppe Raid, worst lost of Allied Battles?

[Kiwikid]

The Westkappelle landings which my father was part of (operation Cindarella) in 1944 were said to be the bloodiest battle for the Allies in Europe. Ironically it was mostly Canadians again who were landed at Walcheren island.

 

[pbfoot]

The Westkappelle landings which my father was part of (operation Cindarella) in 1944 were said to be the bloodiest battle for the Allies in Europe. Ironically it was mostly Canadians again who were landed at Walcheren island.

Probably the worst terrain in the ETO to attack dug in troops , fighting on those dykes

 

[Ramirezzz]

Dieppe as the worst battle in the west? It was a relatively small scale and limited recce operation although with a catastrophic outcome
I would say Sedan fall of France in general

 

[k9kiwi]

It was a testing ground.

For equipment, strategy and manpower necessary to arrive, establish a beach head, and prove the ability to hold it.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The idea of landing slow moving infantry type tanks (Churchills) onto a steep shingle beach with a rampart sea wall is ludicrous in the extreme as a viable concept.

The same (referring to earlier posts) as Omaha beach not making use of the "funny" tanks because they were a British invention. The only ones they used were launched too far out and the majority swamped before the shore line.

Dieppe had shown the need for armour on the beach head in an ETO operation was imperative, and without it the toll would be high.

It also showed the need for improved Infantry Landing Craft to allow more troops to de-bus faster and swamp the incoming fire.

As well as improved co-ordinated communications between shore-sea and shore-air.

So many lessons, such little time.

 

[orion549]

Actually, the reason the tanks at Omaha all sank was because the current was stonger in that location, and as the tank drivers turned to compensate they turned the wider canvas wall to the waves and they collapsed. It kind of was related to the fact they launched early (which I think they were told not to launch, but didn't get the transmission) because if they hadn't, they wouldn't have been swept so far to the east that they had the tanks in the wrong position.

 

[CharlesBronson]

British newsreel of the battle:

British Pathe - COMBINED OPERATIONS

 

[RabidAlien]

In the book "A Man Called Intrepid", the Dieppe Raid was set to cover another raid a little further down the beach: a German radar installation. The Allies needed to know how good the German radar was at the time, to help determine bombing raids and such. With Dieppe going on, any damage to the installation (to disguise stolen parts) could be attributed to raid damage. If Dieppe hadn't happened at the same time, the Germans would know the Allies were interested in their radars. Not saying that this in any way makes Dieppe less of a bloodbath, but knowing that the radar issue probably saved countless Allied flyers/crews gives it more of a morbidly noble flavor.

 

[michaelmaltby]

There's plenty of blame to go around on Dieppe - including the Canadian Government.

MM
Toronto

 

[Bernhart]

Canadians also suffered heavy losses on juno beach up to 50% of the first wave were casualties

 

[Freebird]

It was a testing ground.

For equipment, strategy and manpower necessary to arrive, establish a beach head, and prove the ability to hold it.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Dieppe had shown the need for armour on the beach head in an ETO operation was imperative, and without it the toll would be high.

It also showed the need for improved Infantry Landing Craft to allow more troops to de-bus faster and swamp the incoming fire.

As well as improved co-ordinated communications between shore-sea and shore-air.

So many lessons, such little time.

This kind of testing was not needed, the could use similar British beaches to test it.

 

[davebender]

Dunkirk gets my vote. British propaganda says the BEF was saved at Dunkirk. In actuality the 3 BEF army corps were destroyed as combat units.
2,472 out of 2,794 total artillery pieces lost. (I assume this number includes AT and AA guns)
63.879 out of 66,618 total motor vehicles lost.

 

[CharlesBronson]

Allied footage of the operation jubille.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28hKTmzHyqE

 

[buffnut453]

Dunkirk gets my vote. British propaganda says the BEF was saved at Dunkirk. In actuality the 3 BEF army corps were destroyed as combat units.
2,472 out of 2,794 total artillery pieces lost. (I assume this number includes AT and AA guns)
63.879 out of 66,618 total motor vehicles lost.

Huh??? Sorry, Dave, but I don't get it. The British Army did indeed lose a large amount of heavy equipment (it's bloody hard to evacuate heavy equipment) but the keypoint is more than 300,000 troops (of which roughly one-third were French) were successfully evacuated. Think about it - almost one third of a million men in just a few weeks. It was nothing short of miraculous! And, no, you don't win wars by retreating...but it remains one of the pivotal events of WWII. It was a stunning achievement. I guess I'm just a glutton for propaganda!

 

[Freebird]

Huh??? Sorry, Dave, but I don't get it. The British Army did indeed lose a large amount of heavy equipment (it's bloody hard to evacuate heavy equipment) but the keypoint is more than 300,000 troops (of which roughly one-third were French) were successfully evacuated. Think about it - almost one third of a million men in just a few weeks. It was nothing short of miraculous! And, no, you don't win wars by retreating...but it remains one of the pivotal events of WWII. It was a stunning achievement. I guess I'm just a glutton for propaganda!

Not Dunkirk, but "Fall Gelb" is a strong candidate for worst Allied loss, with the Allied forces outnumbering the Germans. there is no way that a well equipped defender should have been routed like that

.

 

[Njaco]

Huh??? Sorry, Dave, but I don't get it. The British Army did indeed lose a large amount of heavy equipment (it's bloody hard to evacuate heavy equipment) but the keypoint is more than 300,000 troops (of which roughly one-third were French) were successfully evacuated. Think about it - almost one third of a million men in just a few weeks. It was nothing short of miraculous! And, no, you don't win wars by retreating...but it remains one of the pivotal events of WWII. It was a stunning achievement. I guess I'm just a glutton for propaganda!

Very good book on the subject is "Dunkirk" by Walter Lord (he of "Night to Remember" fame) and he does his usual throrough minute by minute account of the action.

 

[parsifal]

This kind of testing was not needed, the could use similar British beaches to test it.

Short answer, no, it had to be proven that direct assault of a German held port was not feasible. Also, that specialised armoured support was a great advantage to assaulting defencded positions. They also needed to probe the dfences to test reaction timers and the effectiveness of the fire support plan.

Its easy with the benefit of perfect hindsight to say "oh this could have been worked out on the4 sand table"....it cant.

Dieppe was a necessary evil needed to work out a number of critical issues in the cross channel plans. Far from a defeat, it was a victory, of sorts, because it enabled changes to be made in the plans for the normaqndy crossings.

The last great amphibious landings undertaken by the British against a heavily defended target had been Gallipoli, and this had been a disaster.....the attacks in the Solomons were the only other major amphibious operation up to that time, and this had not been against a well defended beachhead, or a defended port. It had to be determined what was possible, and waht was needed, and the Canadians courageously showed waht needed to be discovered. I think the battle was an exemplary example of the Canadian dogged determination and courage under fire. And more to the point, it saved many more lives than it lost, through the knowledge gained that day and in the subsequent analysis.

 

[buffnut453]

Great post Parsifal. I undertook several "staff rides" to the Dieppe beaches when I was an instructor several years ago. We would travel on the ferry to Dieppe so we could see the entire beach frontage almost as it appeared to the invading British forces in 1942. We'd visit all the beaches, including Lovatt's successful attack on Green Beach, with presentations on what happened there. We also looked at the parachute landing grounds and wrapped up our tour by visiting and laying a wreath at a military cemetary. It was always a very moving experience for me. It is a tragedy that so many brave lads died to prove the impossibility of assaulting a heavily-defended port. However, many lessons were learned relating to intelligence, deception and the operational art of beach landings.

 

[JoeB]

Not Dunkirk, but "Fall Gelb" is a strong candidate for worst Allied loss, with the Allied forces outnumbering the Germans. there is no way that a well equipped defender should have been routed like that

.

I agree, if speaking of Western Allies the Battles of Neth/Belg/France aka Fall Gelb, dwarfed Dieppe as a disaster. Dunkirk itself wasn't an Allied defeat but a salvaging of more than could be expected, once the overall campaign of which it was part had deteriorated to that point. The expected outcome once the British (and part of French) force was hemmed into the Dunkirk bridgebead was loss of almost all their heavy equipment (as happened) *plus* virtually all their men as POW's (which was avoided).

If you include the Soviets, then their defeats as a whole in both 1941 and srping '42 campaign surpassed the Battle of France in losses of men and equipment, but OTOH the Germans did not achieve their operational objectives in either of those campaigns (and were seriously mauled themselves, especially in the fall phase of '42 campaign), whereas they did in their offensive into Benelux/France (though failed to achieve their ultimate strategic objective of knocking all their major opponents out of the war, again in part because the British retained at least most of their army personnel at Dunkirk).

The 1940 campaign was one of the greatest victory/defeats for the respective sides in military history, and could easily have resulted in a situation where Germany's worst outcome was stalemate with Britain while dominating Western Europe indefinitely, with a very realistic chance of forcing Britain into an accomodation eventually. Only Hitler's later collossal mistake of attacking the Soviets makes the 1940 campaign in France less of a landmark in history than it might have been.

Joe

 

[michaelmaltby]

We have a good idea what the Allies learned from Dieppe:

- can't attack an urban port
- beware of rocky beaches
- tanks can be problematic
- don't let officers go ashore with "plans"
- don't handcuff enemy prisoners
- surprise is hard to achieve
- etc. etc

My question is: what did the Germans learn from Dieppe?

My guess is: not much. They had to feel pretty smug about their defense. And THAT in itself may have spelled problems later on - in June '44.

Thoughts on this ....?

MM

 

[BombTaxi]

Personally, I consider Dieppe a necessary rehearsal for D-Day. Without the lessons learned through combat at Dieppe, D-Day would have been much bloodier and may even have failed. We tend to forget that even including the horrendous losses on Omaha beach, the overall Allied loss on D-Day was relatively light when the operation is considered as a daylight assault against fixed defences over a broad front. Without Dieppe, and also the landing ops carried out by the US in the Pacific up to that date, the tally could have been far heavier. And while the 'Funnies' were not an unqualified success, Dieppe and D-Day were important developmental steps for vehicle types that are still in use today.

Worst Allied loss of the war is probably Fall Gelb, or Barbarossa on the Eastern front. Dieppe, in terms of casualties, and strategic impact, is really a very minor setback in the wider picture. A tragedy for sure, but not a point where the outcome of the war hung in the balance.