Raid On Dieppe

[JeremyScott]

Just curious as to what Commando units were in use at Dieppe. I know 2nd Commando was there but not sure what part they did. Also who performed the raid on the radar station.

[SS Tiger]

I know that No.3, No.4 and No.40 Commando were the main Commando units. No.40 were a Royal Marine unit.

[Halger280HVMag]

# White / Red – the assault on the Dieppe beachfront itself, would be conducted by the 4th Infantry Brigade with the battalions from Essex Scottish (landing to the left on Red) and Royal Hamilton Light Infantry (landing to the right on White), as well as the 14th Canadian Tank Battalion (Calgary Regiment) and the Royal Marine A Commando. The main assault force would come ashore, overcome the beach defences and then attack and hold the town.
# Blue – the beach immediately to the east of Dieppe near Puys would see the third battalion from 4th Infantry Brigade, the Royal Regiment of Canada land and then attack over the headland, linking up with the Essex Scottish in Dieppe, while a small party would neutralise a field battery just behind the town, codenamed ‘Rommel’.
# Yellow I / II – to the east of Blue, No. 3 Commando would land on the two small beaches between Berneval and Belleville-sur-Mer and attack the Goebbels Battery with its three 170mm and four 105mm guns.
# Green – immediately to the west of Dieppe near Pourville-sur-Mer, this beach would see the battalions from the 6th Infantry Brigade, the South Saskatchewan’s (lead) and the Cameron Highlanders of Canada (follow-up) come ashore. The brigade’s remaining battalion, from the Fusiliers Mont Royal would act as a floating reserve. The South Saskatchewan's would assault the radar station, the strongpoint at Quatre Vents Farm and the western headland overlooking Dieppe. It would then link up with the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, with a small party seizing the high ground west of Pourville. The Cameron Highlanders would advance southwards towards the airfield at St Aubin, linking up with the second wave of tanks to land on Dieppe beach. Together, they would seize the airfield, attack the divisional HQ thought to be in the region of Arques-la-Bataille and neutralise the nearby artillery battery, codenamed ‘Hitler’.
# Orange I and II – to the west of Green, No. 4 Commando would land on the two small beaches between Vasterival and Quiberville and attack the Hess Battery with its six 150mm guns.

From this site.....
http://www.rickard.karoo.net/articles/battles_dieppe1.html#alliedplan

[Firefly]

Also here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Dieppe-Raid

And some more here:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=776

[rascman]

For an account of No 4 Commando's roll in the Dieppe action, well worth getting hold of Will Fowler's book, The Commandos At Dieppe.
HarperCollins isbn 0 00 711125 8 www.Collins.co.uk

Andy

[Nickdfresh]

Fifty US Army Rangers were also involved in the raid, as well as 15 Frenchmen (intelligence agents?)

http://www.junobeach.org/e/2/can-eve-mob-die-e.htm

Interesting site...

[Nickdfresh]

This image seems to sum it all up:

http://www.junobeach.org/e/2/img/C-014160lrg.jpg
Corpses on the beach next to two Churchill tanks of the 14th Armoured Regiment (Calgary) stuck in pebbles. Behind them, thick smoke coming from LCT 5.
Department of National Defence / National Archives of Canada C-014160.

[CDN3RD_Canadian]

Chruchhill tank + gravel beach = bad

[Panzerknacker]

Do anybody knows wich was the exact subvariant of the Churchill that landed in dieppe and how was it armed...??

[rascman]

Hi,
Some details, I've got, in response to question, - as follows;

Churchill tank MK's landed at Dieppe, as follows,........
Mk I's with 2 pounder and co-ax BESA machine gun in turret, and a 3 inch howitzer in the nose, (front plate)
MK III's with a 6 pounder and co-ax BESA machine gun in turret and nose.
3x Churchill Okes,.(basically a MKI with howitzer removed and replaced by Ronson flame throwing device)
Some ot these wre fitted with Bobbin Carpet carriers

Tanks were to land in waves, as follows;

1st wave, -with Infantry- 2 groups of 9 tanks
2nd wave 1 group of 12 tanks
3rd wave 1 group of up to 16 tanks
4th wave remainder of regt.

The 3 flame tanks all perished, 1 was drowned trying to land, 1 was hit on the beach and the flame tank 'blew up', ant the other had its tracks shot away.

The actual no's of tanks involved has been stated in publications as between 35 and 40.
They were opperated by the 14th Canadian Army Tank Regt,
(The Calgary Regt)


Details above came from a Brilliant book,- The Churchill. by Bryan Perret.


Hope it is of some interest.

Andy

[Panzerknacker]

Very nice, thank you rascman, I would prefer a single 6 pounder in the turret shooting AP and HE ammo rather than the combined 40mm AP and 76mm HE.

[rascman]

Hmmmmmm,.17pdr, for me, I think,........oh, and some decent armour plating............. :lol:

Andy

[SS Tiger]

Thanks for sharing the info rascman :wink:

Do you guys think any lessons were learnt from the raid and weather they helped on D-day?

[rascman]

Yes, I think important lessons were learnt, at some cost, admitidly, -
for a start, the powers that be,- and their planners, knew that to try landing on fortified beaches was going to be costly,- and there was no guarantee that the result wouldn't be the same, ie slaughter.
Its interesting, acording to some sources, the americans were pushing for an earlier invasion date, - I guess, at that point, they'd not been involved in a beach landing against well equiped defenders,- as the canadians and british wern't pre Dieppe.
Certainly, the Funnies, (79th armoured div) were formed with a beach invasion in mind, ( get tanks and infantry onto the beach at the same time so's each can support the other)

The navy was involved, with bombading the defences,(unlike at Dieppe)
Landing craft, which at Dieppe, the smaller of which were made out of plywood, when hit ,disintigrated, with consiquent loss of life.

Indeed even the fact that Dieppe had bad weather, gave the planners reason to have to look at some sort of artificial platform, and Mulbery came into being.

Mountbatten, much later,-post war,-said that for every soldier that died at Dieppe,ten were saved on the Normandy landings.

Andy

[Panzerknacker]

Hmmmmmm,.17pdr, for me, I think,........oh, and some decent armour plating............. :lol:

Andy

I think that the Churchill armor was decent, the 17 pounder ..? I read somewhere that this gun had troubles with his HE ammo supply, aniway the 17 pounder Churchill, the "Black Prince" arrived to late to see any combat.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/536/gbblackprince2rl.jpg

[rascman]

True, the armour on the churchill, was pretty good, - for allied tanks, - that is,certainly, there are published accounts of the amount of punishment it could take, and still retire from action; which is more than can be said for the Sherman, which earned the unwelcome name of
'Tommy Cooker', due to the alarming speed it would brew up, when hit.
(petrol engined varient).- but also due to its thinner frontal armour.

Of the 17pdr, I've read accounts of when fired the flame blow-back would wrap its self around the turret, making a good target, but the projectile was extremely effective against the enemys armour.

Having had the privilidge of knowing an ex churchill 'funnies', driver,I can recall some of the comments made by him, on a visit to Bovington Tank Museum.
View from drivers position, only good for straight ahead, due to the set back driving compartment,
The way you could spin the tank in its own length, - neutral turn- , good on firm surfaces only; - he could still recall the 'jankers',duties he was put on, for trying it in soft going,........and tore a track off....... :oops:
The fact that when it rained, you got wet, esp on early models, in so much as there were no bungs to open and release said water.

The fun that ould be had,- on exercies only, of course :wink: , behind the drivers position, could be seen the feet/lower limbs of the turret crew, whose boot laces at times could be found to have been tied together, when the shout, 'BALE OUT' went up............That one always made him chuckle........

I guess, on the whole, the CHURCHILL, in all its MK's WAS the BEST british tank of WWII, untill the arrival of the Comet, in '45.
- And its legacy produced, THE CENTURION, arguably one of THE great tanks of the world.

Andy

[Cheshire Yeomanry]

One of the main attributes of the Churchill was its ability in mountainous areas, such as Italy, when then appearence of Churchills often surprised the Germans, who thought the terrain unsuitable for tanks.

[rascman]

Indeed, according to histoians, who 'were in the know', it had be decided, by the powers that be, to cease production, of the churchill in '43, when the A27 series (Cruiser), became available.
It was its impressive performance, whilst with 1st army, in Tunisia, that earned it a repreave

To give some idea of how good it was, as follows.

Churchill.
Fording Depth; 3ft 4in (unprepared)
Vertical Obstacle 2ft 6in
Trench Crossing 10ft

Sherman
Fording Depth 3ft
Vertical Obstacle 2ft
Trench Crossing 7ft 5in


This is not knocking the Sherman, indeed as an assault tank it performed very well.
The churchill was designed as an Infantry support tank; hence its heavier armour, - and slow overall speed.

Andy

[Michael Dorosh]

This image seems to sum it all up:

http://www.junobeach.org/e/2/img/C-014160lrg.jpg
Corpses on the beach next to two Churchill tanks of the 14th Armoured Regiment (Calgary) stuck in pebbles. Behind them, thick smoke coming from LCT 5.
Department of National Defence / National Archives of Canada C-014160.

The interesting part is that the soldier in the centre of the photo is a US Army Ranger, Lieutenant Joseph H. Randall.

[Michael Dorosh]

Thanks for sharing the info rascman :wink:

Do you guys think any lessons were learnt from the raid and weather they helped on D-day?

Some have intimated lessons in communications at Dieppe were useful. Most lessons would have been "learned" had Dieppe never occurred. Amphibious operations date back centuries - Quebec 1760, some operations in the US Civil War. Opposed landings are obviously a little more modern, but even discounting Gallipoli, by 1944 the Allies had already gained experience at Wake Island, Guadalcanal, North Africa, Sicily (Gela, Pachino, Brolo), Salerno, Anzio...Dieppe was unnecessary and wasteful. Realizing full well one is looking with hindsight, I have to believe that the Allies would not have needed Dieppe to tell them to land in Normandy with maximum firepower preceding the invasion. It's certainly open to debate - but I feel authors like the late, great Denis Whitaker tried too hard to justify the sacrifices at Dieppe (to say nothing of Mountbatten and his contentious "ten men were saved for every one lost at Dieppe" remark. (Bear in mind both those men participated at Dieppe as commanders). Just on pure math alone, that is saying that 9,000 soldiers would be killed on D-Day in Normandy if not for Dieppe. I think that that claim is a fantasy. Actual fatal casualties for the Canadians on D-Day were between 900 and 1,000 - in other words, about the exact same number as suffered at Dieppe. I have a hard time believing Dieppe experiences were directly responsible for preventing casualties on 10 times that scale. In my opinion, wishful thinking.

The best way to look at it would be - if Dieppe never happened, what would the Allies have done differently at Normandy? They conducted many, many rehearsals - see Operation Tiger for a good example - many of the kinks ironed out on the Dieppe beaches would have been ironed out in the two years of training between Aug 1942 and Jun 1944. IMO.

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com

[Lancer44]

Michael, welcome to the forum!
I heard a bit about you and I'm very happy you're here!
I believe your knowledge will be a big asset for WWII in Color Forum.
Looking forward to read your posts!

Salute and kind regards,

Lancer44

[pdf27]

Some have intimated lessons in communications at Dieppe were useful. Most lessons would have been "learned" had Dieppe never occurred. Amphibious operations date back centuries - Quebec 1760, some operations in the US Civil War. Opposed landings are obviously a little more modern, but even discounting Gallipoli, by 1944 the Allies had already gained experience at Wake Island, Guadalcanal, North Africa, Sicily (Gela, Pachino, Brolo), Salerno, Anzio...
But the majority of those were also after Dieppe. Thus the allies would most likely have had an extremely costly beach landing somewhere before they realised what they were doing wrong - and Dieppe was at least a small raid rather than a full scale invasion.

[Michael Dorosh]

Thanks for the welcome - I've been watching the site for some time now.

But the majority of those were also after Dieppe. Thus the allies would most likely have had an extremely costly beach landing somewhere before they realised what they were doing wrong - and Dieppe was at least a small raid rather than a full scale invasion.

Is there any evidence that any lessons learned from Dieppe were applied in North Africa, Sicily, or Anzio?

[pdf27]

Is there any evidence that any lessons learned from Dieppe were applied in North Africa, Sicily, or Anzio?
Few if any of the lessons would be relevant. Dieppe was an opposed beach landing - as Overlord would have to be given the condition of the Atlantic wall and the logistical requirement to land in Northern France. None of the operations you've mentioned were opposed in the initial stages of the landings. For example, at Salerno in the first day of the landings the allies suffered 13 dead out of 36,000 soldiers landed.
The lessons applied to Overlord that could not have been learned anywhere other than Dieppe were IMHO:
1) The need for fire support to be always available on call to the ground troops, not just preplanned.
2) The need for truly massive fire support firepower (from sea and air).
3) The requirement to attack a defended beach in overwhelming force.
4) Assaulting troops need specialised armoured vehicles.
5) Capturing an intact port from the sea was not practical. Thus the mulberry harbours and huge numbers of landing craft.

[Michael Dorosh]

The lessons applied to Overlord that could not have been learned anywhere other than Dieppe were IMHO:
1) The need for fire support to be always available on call to the ground troops, not just preplanned.
2) The need for truly massive fire support firepower (from sea and air).
3) The requirement to attack a defended beach in overwhelming force.
4) Assaulting troops need specialised armoured vehicles.
.

Were these lessons not learned at Tarawa in 1943?

[Firefly]

Were these lessons not learned at Tarawa in 1943?

How much, if any communication was there between the Pacific TO and the ETO? I have no data on this.

[pdf27]

Were these lessons not learned at Tarawa in 1943?
Well, they partially already had been before Tarawa - note that the US landed armour with the first wave, and had very heavy fire support (for the time at least). The problem with relying on Tarawa to provide the lessons is simply time. The attack was at the end of November 1943, and Overlord went in at the start of June 1944. That gives you 6 months to absorb the lessons, replan largely from scratch, train the forces and build the equipment for the assault. Given the sheer scale of Overlord and the stakes involved, you're going to have to push it back into 1945. And that has chronic political and military implications.

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, they partially already had been before Tarawa - note that the US landed armour with the first wave, and had very heavy fire support (for the time at least). The problem with relying on Tarawa to provide the lessons is simply time. The attack was at the end of November 1943, and Overlord went in at the start of June 1944. That gives you 6 months to absorb the lessons, replan largely from scratch, train the forces and build the equipment for the assault. Given the sheer scale of Overlord and the stakes involved, you're going to have to push it back into 1945. And that has chronic political and military implications.

All true - but if the landings in Normandy were - as you suggest - completely different from the earlier landings in the ETO and MTO (Sicily, Salerno, Anzio) - why would we suspect the Allies would be foolish enough to try and land i Normandy without a heavy initial bombardment, immediate tank support, airborne landings, etc.? Did they not realize Normandy would be different. I think they did.

In fact, the initial plans for Dieppe did involve a heavy bombardment, the planners asked for both 4 engine bomber support and battleship support, and for airborne landings. They were deleted due to a variety of reasons - politics, the belief among air force and naval commanders that the Raid was a mere "sideshow", etc.

My feeling on this is that had Dieppe never occurred, all of those elements of the RUTTER plan that were deleted when the Raid became JUBILEE - heavy bombardment, paratroopers - would have naturally been in the plan for Normandy in any event. The reasons they were not included at Dieppe was not ignorance of the problems of opposed beach landings.

I do wonder if Wake Island - the only instance in history in which an opposed landing had been defeated - wasn't a larger lesson than Dieppe.

But - no offence intended - I don't "buy" the supposition that the Allies would have been foolish enough to land on a portion of the Atlantic Wall that they had good intelligence on without making the necessary preparations - Dieppe or no Dieppe. After all, many of those some preparations had been scheduled for Dieppe and scrubbed. Some may call that a "lesson", but that would require the belief that in 1942 they knew they needed heavy bombardment and paratroopers and somehow would have felt them unnecessary in 1944. I don't think that was the case.

[arhob1]

Please excuse my ignorance but:

1 - What was the objective of the Dieppe raid?
2 - What was the plan for recovering the raiders back to safety if/when the objective had been met?

TIA

[pdf27]

1) Something of a matter of arguament - see thread!
2) Back over the beaches the way they came - it was basically a Commando raid writ large.

[Mk VII]

Arguably it was to demonstrate to the Russians that we were doing something. Crerar, the Canadian corp commnder, lobbied hard for Canada's participation, ably supported by Mackenzie King, who wished to give Canada the appearance of a vigorous war effort without incurring the casualties of 1917. The argument that it taught valuable lessons was rather rationalising after the event. Admiral Baillie-Grohmann, who was replaced as the SNO Afloat by Capt. Hughes-Hallett after he protested the plan, commented that the post-operation summary, 'Lessons Learned From The Dieppe Raid', could have been better entitled 'Lessons Learned By Hughes-Hallett', and that virtually all of them could have been absorbed by reading the various Combined Operations pamphlets.

[Panzerknacker]

In order of achieve some real succes I think that it would need some 2 or 3 thousand more men at the landing.

[Panzerknacker]

Churchills In action ¡¡¡

An extract from "Churchill infantry tank" by Bryan Perret/ Ospreys.


http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5413/11et5.jpg



http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/87/22qe0.jpg

http://www.tropaselite.hpg.ig.com.br/34[1].jpg


Cheetah, one of the Churchills wich climbed the seawall and was engaged in fierce battle with the german gunners.

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/4210/ddmy0.jpg

.jpg"] ("http://www.tropaselite.hpg.ig.com.br/34[1)

[Panzerknacker]

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/osp_img/specialfeatures/tankcrewman.jpg


Sergeant, Calgary Regiment (14th Armoured Regiment), 1st Army Tank Brigade; Dieppe, 19 August 1942. The men of this Churchill tank regiment taking part in the disastrous Dieppe raid wore BD and WE 37 accoutrements. A number of tanks were disembarked, but their traction was hampered by the slippery shingle beach and they were all knocked out, mostly close to the waterline. Our figure is based on a tank crew sergeant seen there, desperately fighting with revolver in hand. His open blouse reveals a surprisingly modern touch – a sweatshirt with the regimental badge printed on; a German photo of a prisoner of the Fusiliers Mont-Royal shows that at least one other unit followed suit. The regimental badge is worn more conventionally pinned to his black armoured troops’ beret.

The white tank right sleeve badge of the British Royal Tank Regt is visible in some photos of the Calgaries – it is not worn here, but note the regimental left shoulder lanyard. Their non-regulation UK made shoulder title, with ‘CANADA/THE CALGARY REGIMENT’ in dark blue on lighter blue, seems to have been the only regimental title worn by units at Dieppe. At this date the 2nd Inf Div wore the white-on-khaki ‘CANADA’ title (of both straight and arc patterns), above their royal blue rectangular divisional patch with an added World War I scheme of ‘battle badges’. The 4th, 5th and 6th Inf Bdes were identified by the colours green, red and dark blue respectively. The senior battalions had a coloured disc above the blue patch (Royal Regiment of Canada/ Black Watch/ Fusiliers Mont-Royal); the intermediate battalions, a half-disc butted down against it (Royal Hamilton LI/ Régt de Maisonneuve (absent)/ Cameron Highlanders); and the junior battalions, a shallow triangle (Essex Scottish/ Calgary Highlanders/ South Saskatchewan Regt).
(© Osprey Publishing. Extract taken from Men-at-Arms: 359 Canadian Forces in World War II (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php?title=S3020&ser=MAA)

[Nickdfresh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Ranger_Battalion

The first Americans to see active combat in the European theater of World War II were forty-four enlisted men and five officers from the 1st Ranger Battalion. Dispersed among the Canadians and the British commandos, these men were the first American ground soldiers to see action against the Germans in the infamous Dieppe Raid. Three Rangers were killed and several captured. The first American soldier killed in Europe in WWII was part of the Dieppe Raid, Ranger Lieutenant E.V. Loustalot. During the mission, he took command after the British Captain leading the assault was killed. Loustalot scaled a steep cliff with his men, was wounded three times, but was eventually cut down by enemy crossfire in his attempts to reach the machine-gun nest at the top of the cliff.

The first efforts to stop the German infiltration of Europe were by the 1st Ranger Battalion. Attempting to prevent German occupation of seaports in North Africa, the 1st Ranger Battalion spearheaded an invasion at the Port of Arzew in Algeria. This was accomplished by executing a surprise night landing, silencing two gun batteries, and opening the way for the capture of Oran.


http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/images/0/0d/C014160.jpg
Wreckage on the main beaches. Body in centre of photograph (wearing canvas leggings and light coloured jacket) is US Army Ranger Lieutenant Joseph H. Randall, one of 50 Americans who participated in the Raid as ground troops. German photo, via PAC.

[Firefly]

Arguably it was to demonstrate to the Russians that we were doing something. Crerar, the Canadian corp commnder, lobbied hard for Canada's participation, ably supported by Mackenzie King, who wished to give Canada the appearance of a vigorous war effort without incurring the casualties of 1917. The argument that it taught valuable lessons was rather rationalising after the event. Admiral Baillie-Grohmann, who was replaced as the SNO Afloat by Capt. Hughes-Hallett after he protested the plan, commented that the post-operation summary, 'Lessons Learned From The Dieppe Raid', could have been better entitled 'Lessons Learned By Hughes-Hallett', and that virtually all of them could have been absorbed by reading the various Combined Operations pamphlets.

Now that is a good post, its a pity that this guy hasnt posted more as he has something positive to add.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Thats probably the most associated pic with the raid. Good one nick.

[Panzerknacker]

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/images/0/0d/C014160.jpg
Wreckage on the main beaches. Body in centre of photograph (wearing canvas leggings and light coloured jacket) is US Army Ranger Lieutenant Joseph H. Randall, one of 50 Americans who participated in the Raid as ground troops. German photo, via PAC.

Impressive picture...he seems to be mortally wounded not far away from his LCT.

[Mk VII]

the Germans were not impressed by the Churchills that fell into their hands, and their post-raid report commented [paraphrase] 'we have little to fear from this new British tank'. In retrospect the puny 2-pounders, and even the 6-pounder, were unlikely to make any dent in the anti-tank defences of the port. An AVRE with a petard mortar might have done, but they didn't exist then.

[Erik]

A few more images.

http://www.wwii.ca/photos/dieppe/dieppe_survivors.jpg

http://www.wwii.ca/photos/dieppe/dieppe_soldiers2.jpg

http://www.wwii.ca/photos/dieppe/dieppe_march.jpg

http://www.wwii.ca/photos/dieppe/dieppe_tank.jpg

[Mk VII]

note the mixture of serge jackets and denim trousers, confirmed by a report of a US observer in the National Archives. The crepe-soled were special to the commandos

[Panzerknacker]

A very good page with first hand stories of the fierce battle.

http://www.highlanders.freehosting.net/dieppe.htm

http://www.highlanders.freehosting.net/lct.jpg

[Librarian]

And here, honorable ladies and gentlemen, you have some German-made photos regarding this unrewarding Allied war effort. First one originates from famous "Signal" magazine, and it was presented with the following inscription:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/DieppeAugust211942-SignalSer.jpg

"Soundless eyewitnesses of a dreadful combat" - "Signal" U. Nr. 10/42, PK: N.N.


The second one is - unfortunately - only a simple, black and white picture that was taken by an unknown German soldier who was a factual participant of the fierce struggle. However, she dispassionately conjures the factual moments after the end of the fierce combat, presenting the perspective from the other side of the hill.


http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Dieppe-BW-August191942-Et.jpg

Translation of the presented inscription: "They have landed in German captivity - They fought in vain."

Picture taken from: "BERICHT VAN DE TWEEDE WERELD OORLOG", 1975. Amsterdam Boek B. V. – Amsterdam, pp. 393.

[Mk VII]

This photo was taken in the grounds of the municipal hospital in the Rue Pasteur. Here is the same perspective in 1992.
http://www.fototime.com/B50C45B580B4E1B/standard.jpg

[Mk VII]

This well-known shot was taken at the same spot. The photographer turned 90 degrees left.

http://www.fototime.com/A673B0FCC3AB8E1/standard.jpg

[Mk VII]

Same view in 1992. This caused a bit of head scratching until I realised that the line of sight in the 1942 photo has superimposed the roof of the building behind onto the flat-roofed building in the foreground. The entrance with the Gothic-arch windows was pulled down after the war, doubtless to enable vehicular access to the courtyard behind.

http://www.fototime.com/025A63D922D35F7/standard.jpg

[Panzerknacker]

Very good ones ¡

If you have more post it please.

[Digger]

G'day,

I've noticed very little mention of the air combat fought in conjunction with the Dieppe raid. Jubilee was to be Leigh Mallory's effort to bring the luftwaffe to battle and inflict heavy damage. For this task he assembled a force of 56 fighter/fighter bomber squadrons, five bomber squadrons and four tactical reconnaissance squadrons, flying some 2,600 sorties throughout the day.

The German defence was about 350 fighters and 175 bombers. For the first four hours JG26 fought a lone battle until joined by JG2 and then later by KG2 which lost fourteen bombers. Total Luftwaffe losses were 48 aircraft against 99 Allied losses(8 were American aircraft). British aerial success was initially overstated until the loss figures were assessed and gound survivor testament that Allied air support was limited in it's effect on the ground battle.

The air losses incurred over Dieppe were seen as a continuation of the blood letting being suffered by RAF Fighter Command on the Channel Front.

Regards to all,
Digger.

[SS Tiger]

It's a shame the Americans were not involved with armour. Maybe they would have learnt the same lessons we did about using armour to attack beaches. Do you think the British use of "Funnies" was down to this raid, and was the fact the Americans didn't participate with armour the cause for their disaster on Omaha beach?

[2nd of foot]

I think the lesson learn from this had a direct impact on the requirement for armour. Not just armour but the problems on getting armour ashore. This went from the type of ground that tanks could use to the obstacles they needed to overcome.

The raid also pointed out that armour was a must if the troops were to get off the beach. The need for direct SP for the infantry using guns larger than AT. We can see this in the AVRE and the Centaur 95mm.

You may be right in your assumption, how does this compare with the USMC in the pacific? They had similar problems.

[Panzerknacker]

G'day,

I've noticed very little mention of the air combat fought in conjunction with the Dieppe raid. Jubilee was to be Leigh Mallory's effort to bring the luftwaffe to battle and inflict heavy damage. For this task he assembled a force of 56 fighter/fighter bomber squadrons, five bomber squadrons and four tactical reconnaissance squadrons, flying some 2,600 sorties throughout the day.

The German defence was about 350 fighters and 175 bombers. For the first four hours JG26 fought a lone battle until joined by JG2 and then later by KG2 which lost fourteen bombers. Total Luftwaffe losses were 48 aircraft against 99 Allied losses(8 were American aircraft). British aerial success was initially overstated until the loss figures were assessed and gound survivor testament that Allied air support was limited in it's effect on the ground battle.

You had say it right, in my opinion the victory of the Luftwaffe despite his numerical inferiority was because the JGs in the west still concentrate a large number of very skilled pilots not to mention the superiority showed by the Fw-190A over the Spitfire Mk-V ,Hurricanes, Typhoon and the Spitfire Mk-IX ( the mark IX was superior in altitude but over the beachheads it made no effect)

The most proficiente german pilot of that day was Josef Wurheller wich despite being wounded in combat destroyed 6 fighters and a british twin engined bomber.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/images/wurmheller2.jpg

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/wurmheller.html

The Allied Air force displayed many models for fisrt time over Dieppe, like the North American Mustang, the B-17 and the Spit Mk-IX.

North American Mustang Mk.I AG528
No.400 Sqn RCAF
http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/quarter2/northamerican_p51/mustang-1_sp-b.jpg

[Digger]

G'day,

Much of the air fighting was at low and medium altitude which suited the Focke Wulfs. The British hadn't quite got their tactics right with the Typhoon at that stage.

The unfortunate side effect for the Jagdwaffe over Dieppe was their success. It was felt JG26 and JG2 had proven they could adequately defend the Channel Front, so no urgency was placed on reinforcing fighter strength in the west.

Regards to all
Digger.

[Panzerknacker]

Probably but only until 1944 the jagwaffe was not overwelmed

[Digger]

G'day,

It's now getting a bit off topic, but the decision not to massively reinforce
JG1, JG2 and JG26 for the day fighter defence of western Europe and the Reich was fatal for the Luftwaffe.

Is this line of thought worthy of a new thread?

Regards to all,
Digger.

[redcoat]

G'day,

It's now getting a bit off topic, but the decision not to massively reinforce
JG1, JG2 and JG26 for the day fighter defence of western Europe and the Reich was fatal for the Luftwaffe.

.
With what ??
Even at this time it would have been a case of weakening another front to reinforce the day fighters in the west

[Nickdfresh]

With what ??
Even at this time it would have been a case of weakening another front to reinforce the day fighters in the west

Good point. Was there even a significant daytime (or nighttime) threat to even justify that at this time?

I suppose the Luftwaffe high command should have seen America's involvement as an ever increasing threat, but could they have guessed at the day-time bombing campaign by this point? Could they have foreseen the around the clock bombing campaign of the RAF & USAAF?

[Digger]

G'day,

Okay guys this thread seems to be splitting and I want to answer your points, so I'll post a new thread later tonite. It will be called A Roof Over The Reich, a title for an essay written by Johannes Steinhoff.

Regards to all,
Digger.

[arhob1]

Librarian & Mk VII - thanks for the "then" and "now" pictures - I just love them!

[Panzerknacker]

The following is the account of a Canadian pilot who flew with a R.A.F. Spitfire squadron, and had escorted the B-17s to Abbeville. On the return flight, he flew over Dieppe at 10,000 feet:


"A quick glance showed that there was terrific activity on land, on the water, and in the air. I saw a FW 190 alone about 1,500 feet below me. I did a barrel roll to lose height, levelled out about 150 yards behind the Hun, opened fire and closed to a range of about 25 yards. Pieces of the FW 190 about a foot square flew off from around the cowling. Just as both the enemy aircraft and I ran into a cloud, he blew up with a brilliant flash of flame and black smoke.

My wind-shield and hood were smothered in oil, and there was a terrific clatter as pieces of the Hun struck my plane. I broke away, hardly able to see through the hood. Afterwards my Number 2 told me that one of the pieces he saw break off the enemy aircraft was about ten feet long.

I did not realize at that stage that the debris of the exploded aircraft had done such serious damage to my Spitfire that I would have to bale out a few moments later. But, just as I was turning for home, flying at about 1,000 feet, my engine started to cough and the aircraft shuddered violently.

Realizing that I should have to bail out, I started to climb, and had reached low cloud at about 2,000 feet when my engine stopped completely. I took off my helmet, undid my straps, and opened the hood. Then I crouched on the seat and shoved the stick forward, but in some way my parachute became caught, and I figured that I was only about 250 feet above the water when I got clear.

The aircraft plunged into the water as my parachute opened. Almost at once I had to press my parachute quick-release gear, for I had also hit the water. But I inflated my dinghy and climbed into it without difficulty. Two Spitfires circled over me, while a third went for a rescue boat which was not far away".

I was rescued within fifteen minutes, the captain of the rescue launch estimating my position as 17 miles off Dieppe".


http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppe.htm

[Panzerknacker]

In here you can found a video of the assault, is an "Die deustche Wochenschau" one, but veridic...also crude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXhNSL9jyP4


You need to be signed in there.

[RRC Case]

Here is a map of the Dieppe Raid. I had a great uncle who participated with Royal Canadian Regiment was captured, escaped and returned on d-day.

393

[Egorka]

I am reading "History of Warld War II" by Francis Miller, 1945. 970 pages volume with illustrations.

I found few interesting facts about the Dieppe attack in there.

1. "Minutely exact replicas of the coast and the town of Dieppe was constructed for the men and their officerss to study until they knew the terrain as well as if they had spent their lives there".

2. The airfield of Rouen and Abberville and their adjacent facilities were bombed: "From almost six miles in the air, bombers loosed their bombs with breath-taking accuracy on the German fighters ranked on the field." So they could bomb precisely when wished! It could be relevant to the mass bombing of the German cities. ;)

3. "the first official word of the landing was carried back to Britain by a pigeon released by an officer with the first man to land. Eat the reason was sound, for complete radio silence had to be remained in the first hours."

By the way, is the wikipedia article on Dieppe any good and objective?

[pdf27]

2. The airfield of Rouen and Abberville and their adjacent facilities were bombed: "From almost six miles in the air, bombers loosed their bombs with breath-taking accuracy on the German fighters ranked on the field." So they could bomb precisely when wished! It could be relevant to the mass bombing of the German cities.
That's about 36,000ft. Sounds like a fairly typical B-17 raid to me, with a bit of hyperbole about accuracy thrown in. If the target was correctly identified from the air (not common, particularly at long range - bombers were known frequently to hit the wrong country during WW2) then the B-17s could usually hit it, sort of.

[Gen. Sandworm]

(not common, particularly at long range - bombers were known frequently to hit the wrong country during WW2) then the B-17s could usually hit it, sort of.

Or even wrong continent. Watch an interested special on this. Now these guys were in a B-24. Anyhow read this if you never have

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_be_Good_%28aircraft%29

The plane crashed in 43 but wasnt discovered until 58 by British oil surveyors.
The program I watched stated they found one guy only 30 miles short of a town. After having walked over 120 miles I think. :shock:

Just goes to show that long distance navagation was almost as effective as throwing grass into the air. Sorry dont want to go to far off topic just thought this was interesting.

[pdf27]

Or even wrong continent. Watch an interested special on this. Now these guys were in a B-24. Anyhow read this if you never have
Wiki link is broken, but I think I know the case anyway. What happened is that they got lost and radioed in to a single direction finding station to get their bearing. If I understand correctly, with the technology of the time a DF station could only give a line through the station that the target was on. Fine if you get a cross-bearing from another source - the two lines will cross at a single point - but they only got a single bearing. Someone made the assumption that they were on one side of the station, when in fact they were very lost indeed already and were on the other side. Hence their flying the wrong way until their fuel ran out.

The program I watched stated they found one guy only 30 miles short of a town. After having walked over 120 miles I think
Can't be bothered to look the details up now (I've got the book which references it lying around, but would have to read quite a while to find the details), but there are recorded cases of SAS troopers in the Western Desert during WW2 walking 200+ miles and surviving. These are exceptional cases, but all the same...!