Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 56

Thread: How lives might have been saved on D-Day

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York, New York
    Posts
    251

    Default How lives might have been saved on D-Day

    i was watching saving Private Ryan the other day and i had a thought, why weren't smoke screens deployed on the D-Day landing beaches? I know they were used during other landings in the Pacific. Then not long after the though also occured to me that there may have actually been smoke deployed on the beach and i've never noticed so my real question is

    Why was smoke not deployed on the d-day beach-heads

    or

    Why was said smoke so ineffective

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default

    Probably because hitting a beach at dawn is hard enough without obscuring all navigational features with smoke. Smoke isn't bulletproof after all...
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overlord644 View Post
    i
    Why was smoke not deployed on the d-day beach-heads

    or

    Why was said smoke so ineffective
    It was used to protect the flanks of the invasion fleets.
    It couldn't be used on the beaches because;
    a) the smoke would cause mass confusion amongst the landing craft.
    b) It would obscure the beach obstacles exposed by the low tide
    c) it would prevent any close support from naval vessels.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Koninkrijk der Nederlanden
    Posts
    1,915

    Default

    The biggest lifesaver on D-Day would have been for the American commander to deploy the DD Sherman tanks correctly, rather than sinking them a few miles from the beaches.
    1884 electric cartridge. Look similar to anything?

  5. #5

    Default

    What I find surprising is how the Allies had so many casualties on D-Day despite having air superiority.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Koninkrijk der Nederlanden
    Posts
    1,915

    Default

    Why is it surprising? Almost none of the casualties were caused by enemy air power.

    Another way lives could have been saved: the rockets designed to crater the beach in the American sector should have been fired at the correct distance to actually hit the beach rather than attempting to crater the sea instead.
    1884 electric cartridge. Look similar to anything?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default

    But smoke(grenades - colored) WAS used on D-Day (I presume we're talking about Omaha Beach here) - to "illuminate" bunkers and other targets by some very courageous soldiers for the USN & RN destroyers that nearly beached themselves providing direct fire in a desperate but successful attempt to help save the landing.

    The problem with Omaha was it was simply the worst beach to land on geographically speaking. The seawalls effectively contained tactical movement within a kill-box so those that survived the murderous gauntlet of MG42, mortars, and cannon fire then had to face significant obstacles, both man made and natural before they could counterattack. Also, it (though somewhat disputed) is said that the aerial bombardment completely missed the beach for erring on the side of caution, the AAF dropped their bombs too far inland because the US landing forces were obscured by the elements (something smoke wouldn't have helped with much )

    The Naval bombardment wasn't much better as most vets of that battle (and I've personally spoken with one) reported no cover from bomb and shell craters being present...
    Last edited by Nickdfresh; 08-28-2007 at 01:58 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default

    I think it must also be said that a factor in the US casualties suffered on Omaha would be that their opposition, unlike most of the second-rate German Atlantic Wall garrisons, many of whom were combat-hardened veterans capable of sustaining themselves in combat beyond the initial overrunning of the beaches.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...antry_Division

    http://www.omaha-beach.org/US-Version/352/352US.html
    Last edited by Nickdfresh; 08-28-2007 at 02:21 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default

    For what it's worth I've walked Omaha beach and there is no comparison between it and the British beaches further East (I've not been to Utah beach). The beach is utterly dominated by some very high dunes immediately inland of it (less than 100m from the high tide mark), and there are really only one or two ways off the beach for anything but infantry. The current road in goes down what is virtually a canyon, and there are cliffs at either end of the beach which enfilade it. In comparison the British and Canadian beaches have no real headlands at either end, there is no high ground for some distance behind the beaches and no real obstacles to moving off the beach.
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York, New York
    Posts
    251

    Default

    yeah i even did some research after my initial post and someone raised a good point when they said that smole would get in the way if allied observation planes reporting to eisenhower on the battle, however this also raises the question on why there was not more close air support from allied fighters during the landings
    Last edited by overlord644; 08-29-2007 at 03:50 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default

    Have you ever seen an infantry action from a distance? It's horrendously confusing - it's bad enough when you're plugged into the platoon radio net, close up with eyes on. Providing "more" close air support is simply a command and control issue - and you're limited by the available number of forward air controllers, number of available radio frequencies, etc. Extra aircraft are the easy bit.
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default

    Smoke can be more of a hindrance than a help to ground troops, especially when combined with aerial bombing, as U.S. Major General Lesley McNair found out while observing Operation Cobra in France on 25 July 1944.

    Mc Nair was warned by USAAF commanders that bombing close to their own troops, as McNair wanted, would lead to the bombing zone spreading with each successive wave as smoke and dust obscured the intended target area, so that it was likely they'd bomb into their own lines sooner or later. Mc Nair didn't accept their advice and insisted on bombing close to his own lines.

    Maybe he realised that the USAAF commanders were right, a few seconds before he was killed by a USAAF bomb.

    I think his death gives the USAAF the distinction of killing the highest ranking US army officer to be killed in action in Europe.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overlord644 View Post
    yeah i even did some research after my initial post and someone raised a good point when they said that smole would get in the way if allied observation planes reporting to eisenhower on the battle, however this also raises the question on why there was not more close air support from allied fighters during the landings
    How would dazed and confused American soldiers call in, and direct, close air support on such a narrow stretch of land (beach) using 1940s technology without getting themselves blown to even more hell than they already were? They barely had any radio contact with the fleet and virtually all command and control had broken down on Omaha...

    In any case, they were able to get direct naval gunfire support via colored smoke, and that was far better than tactical air strikes circa 1944...

    They didn't have laser guided bombs, son.

    And the time delay of info flowing to Ike was very wide gap indeed...
    Last edited by Nickdfresh; 08-29-2007 at 08:32 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York, New York
    Posts
    251

    Default

    i do understand the problem with relaying radio transmissions to the naval fleet, but you'd think even a p-51 just circling the beach would be able to tell the difference from a struggling allied soldier and a machine gun nest, and also as mentioned before wouldn't colored smoke work well?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overlord644 View Post
    but you'd think even a p-51 just circling the beach would be able to tell the difference from a struggling allied soldier and a machine gun nest
    Not a ghost of a chance. It's hard enough on the ground at close range.
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •