Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

D-day landing plan - early draft

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • D-day landing plan - early draft

    Early draft of landing plan by Montgomery:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...plan-revealed/

    Not sure what 'gutted tanks' are - were Kangeroos considered for the infantry?
    Attached Files

  • #2
    Originally posted by Aber View Post
    Early draft of landing plan by Montgomery:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...plan-revealed/

    Not sure what 'gutted tanks' are - were Kangeroos considered for the infantry?
    I always thought that the Kangaroo idea was attributed to Guy Simonds and that this was after the landings as a result of the problems during Goodwood. This may be myth. As for the gutted tanks. I vaguely recall reading that the Centaurs IV with 95mm howitzer for fire support were meant tot remain static on the lcT. Perhaps there was the thought to gut them to save weight. As manoeuvring an engineless vehicle seems problematic I would believe that retaining the (Liberty) engine was a small price to pay. If I remember this correctly the Royal Marine Centaurs were not intended to follow the troops in support on land. As it proved pretty useless to give accurate fire support from the LcT with the Centaurs they were put ashore to give fire support and we see that some went in with the infantry to go inland.
    The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by dutched View Post
      . As for the gutted tanks. I vaguely recall reading that the Centaurs IV with 95mm howitzer for fire support were meant tot remain static on the lcT. Perhaps there was the thought to gut them to save weight. As manoeuvring an engineless vehicle seems problematic I would believe that retaining the (Liberty) engine was a small price to pay. If I remember this correctly the Royal Marine Centaurs were not intended to follow the troops in support on land. As it proved pretty useless to give accurate fire support from the LcT with the Centaurs they were put ashore to give fire support and we see that some went in with the infantry to go inland.
      That is correct. As originally envisioned the Centaur tanks of the Royal Marine Support Group were engineless. Discussed in this thread here:
      http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208...taur+confusion

      The original idea was to give some firepower that was dedicated to support Royal Marine Commandos. 4 engineless Centaurs were chained down on raised platforms on each of several landingcraft to act as miniature battleships, hence the degree markings on the turrets. They were supposed to come back to England once the commandos were out of range inland. About 3 weeks prior to D Day someone had the bright idea of refitting the engines so they could go ashore and continue the job further inland. This was done and at least one of the ARMY drivers drafted in to drive them is still with us. It was too late to arrange spares or backup however so they just kept going until they broke down and were then abandoned.
      So I would guess they would be the 'gutted' tanks referred to.

      Also referenced here in David Fletcher's Osprey on the Cromwell tank p 23 with some more details:
      Osprey Cromwell Book excerpt - Fletcher
      Last edited by CarpeDiem; 06 Jun 16, 13:37.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dutched View Post
        As for the gutted tanks. I vaguely recall reading that the Centaurs IV with 95mm howitzer for fire support were meant tot remain static on the lcT. Perhaps there was the thought to gut them to save weight. As manoeuvring an engineless vehicle seems problematic I would believe that retaining the (Liberty) engine was a small price to pay. If I remember this correctly the Royal Marine Centaurs were not intended to follow the troops in support on land. As it proved pretty useless to give accurate fire support from the LcT with the Centaurs they were put ashore to give fire support and we see that some went in with the infantry to go inland.
        According to Fletcher, the intention was to ship the Centaurs on the decks of LCTs for fire support without drivers and with the engines removed to give additional space for ammunition. Allegedly, it was Montgomery who suggested that they leave the engines in and supply the tanks with drivers. The reasoning being that having once sailed the tanks to France, why not use them on shore as well? The story seems to line up with the comments in the file posted by Aber.

        I've not seen any references suggesting that firing from the LCTs was useless as fire support. Both Centaurs and M7 105mm SP howitzers were used in this role during the landing and possibly also 75mm Shermans on the US beaches. Richard Anderson notes that the British forces had a lot more SP-artillery (including the Centaurs) assigned than the US forces and that this shortfall may have been a factor in the debacle at Omaha Beach. Due to a shortage of landing craft, towed howitzers were carried to the shore on DUKWs to the US beaches. That turned out to be a bad idea, as many of the guns fell into the sea or foundered with the DUKWs.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by cbo View Post
          According to Fletcher, the intention was to ship the Centaurs on the decks of LCTs for fire support without drivers and with the engines removed to give additional space for ammunition. Allegedly, it was Montgomery who suggested that they leave the engines in and supply the tanks with drivers. The reasoning being that having once sailed the tanks to France, why not use them on shore as well? The story seems to line up with the comments in the file posted by Aber.

          I've not seen any references suggesting that firing from the LCTs was useless as fire support. Both Centaurs and M7 105mm SP howitzers were used in this role during the landing and possibly also 75mm Shermans on the US beaches. Richard Anderson notes that the British forces had a lot more SP-artillery (including the Centaurs) assigned than the US forces and that this shortfall may have been a factor in the debacle at Omaha Beach. Due to a shortage of landing craft, towed howitzers were carried to the shore on DUKWs to the US beaches. That turned out to be a bad idea, as many of the guns fell into the sea or foundered with the DUKWs.
          I did not say useless as you make it sound, but it would boil down to that. What I said 'proved pretty useless to give accurate fire support' . So the thus supported infantry reported. Just imagine how accurate the supporting fire would be from an LCT rocking and rolling in the swell. As as a comparison I would point out: The saturation fire from the LCT(R)s as impressive as it looks on the film reels, turned out less than effective on analysis. This was because of the problems with station keeping and the action of the sea, similar problems could have affected the accuracy of of fire from the Centaurs. Your reference to the US 105 firing from the decks of the LCTs on what beach is not in my view a gauge. This is as target and type of supporting fire are indicated. I would have to guess, but smoke was mentioned so it could have been Omaha firing smoke and trying to suppress German activity on the bluffs.
          Last edited by dutched; 07 Jun 16, 06:12.
          The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.

          Comment


          • #6
            When did he write that, February was it?



            Comment


            • #7
              Elsewhere it has been identified as for the 11 Feb meeting with the Army commanders.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by dutched View Post
                I did not say useless as you make it sound, but it would boil down to that. What I said 'proved pretty useless to give accurate fire support' . So the thus supported infantry reported. Just imagine how accurate the supporting fire would be from an LCT rocking and rolling in the swell. As as a comparison I would point out: The saturation fire from the LCT(R)s as impressive as it looks on the film reels, turned out less than effective on analysis. This was because of the problems with station keeping and the action of the sea, similar problems could have affected the accuracy of of fire from the Centaurs. Your reference to the US 105 firing from the decks of the LCTs on what beach is not in my view a gauge. This is as target and type of supporting fire are indicated. I would have to guess, but smoke was mentioned so it could have been Omaha firing smoke and trying to suppress German activity on the bluffs.
                Going down in scale of firepower, there were a number of LCAs fitted with mortars and rockets as added supporting fire and manned by Marines. Talk about bobbing up and down like this!! lcm1
                'By Horse by Tram'.


                I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by lcm1 View Post
                  Going down in scale of firepower, there were a number of LCAs fitted with mortars and rockets as added supporting fire and manned by Marines. Talk about bobbing up and down like this!! lcm1


                  Hi there Lcm1,

                  There is at least one who immediately grasps the idea of what I am trying to bring across.
                  The repetition of affirmations leads to belief. Once that belief becomes a deep conviction, you better wake up and look at the facts.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by cbo View Post
                    ....

                    I've not seen any references suggesting that firing from the LCTs was useless as fire support.
                    You may put me down as a reference. As a former career artillery man I can say fires from field artillery on the decks of landing craft would be inaccurate to the point of uselessness. Not even good suppresive fires. The volume possible would not be "drenching" the weight of ammo from the relatively light cannon negligable. Even against soldiers standing in the open the utility would be questionable. Against concrete fortifications that were intended to resist 15 & 20 cm guns the 8.5 & 10.5 caliber ammunition was ineffective due to weight, inaccuracy and general volume. To accomplish anything a direct hit on a embrasure would have to occur.



                    Both Centaurs and M7 105mm SP howitzers were used in this role during the landing and possibly also 75mm Shermans on the US beaches. Richard Anderson notes that the British forces had a lot more SP-artillery (including the Centaurs) assigned than the US forces and that this shortfall may have been a factor in the debacle at Omaha Beach. Due to a shortage of landing craft, towed howitzers were carried to the shore on DUKWs to the US beaches. That turned out to be a bad idea, as many of the guns fell into the sea or foundered with the DUKWs.[/QUOTE]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by cbo View Post
                      According to Fletcher, the intention was to ship the Centaurs on the decks of LCTs for fire support without drivers and with the engines removed to give additional space for ammunition. Allegedly, it was Montgomery who suggested that they leave the engines in and supply the tanks with drivers. The reasoning being that having once sailed the tanks to France, why not use them on shore as well? The story seems to line up with the comments in the file posted by Aber.

                      I've not seen any references suggesting that firing from the LCTs was useless as fire support. Both Centaurs and M7 105mm SP howitzers were used in this role during the landing and possibly also 75mm Shermans on the US beaches. Richard Anderson notes that the British forces had a lot more SP-artillery (including the Centaurs) assigned than the US forces and that this shortfall may have been a factor in the debacle at Omaha Beach. Due to a shortage of landing craft, towed howitzers were carried to the shore on DUKWs to the US beaches. That turned out to be a bad idea, as many of the guns fell into the sea or foundered with the DUKWs.
                      And here is the meat of the sandwich

                      You forgot '25.pdr Sexton's', 'Coventry Clock' and 'Canadian and British run-in shoots'.

                      http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...5&postcount=63

                      And the follow-on post

                      http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...6&postcount=64

                      http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/1617...rlord-assault/


                      http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...7&postcount=12

                      http://ww2lct.org/history/stories/flot_18_at_omaha.htm

                      Here is the link when a similar topic had been raised. and a very fine thread it was too

                      http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...d.php?t=111900


                      Paul
                      Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 07 Jun 16, 16:05.
                      ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                      All human ills he can subdue,
                      Or with a bauble or medal
                      Can win mans heart for you;
                      And many a blessing know to stew
                      To make a megloamaniac bright;
                      Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                      The Pixie is a little shite.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lcm1 View Post
                        Going down in scale of firepower, there were a number of LCAs fitted with mortars and rockets as added supporting fire and manned by Marines. Talk about bobbing up and down like this!! lcm1
                        That's the "Abolish - LCAs with hedgerows" at the bottom of the document. One time Montgomery didn't get his way.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Aber View Post
                          That's the "Abolish - LCAs with hedgerows" at the bottom of the document. One time Montgomery didn't get his way.
                          I had an old school mate in one of those flotillas, i don't know how they fared but I never ever saw him again, not even in 'Civvy Street' after the war was over, They lay just off the beaches doing their job so they could have drawn quite a bit 0f return fire. so suspect the worst lcm1
                          Last edited by lcm1; 09 Jun 16, 08:54.
                          'By Horse by Tram'.


                          I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                          " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by dutched View Post
                            I always thought that the Kangaroo idea was attributed to Guy Simonds and that this was after the landings as a result of the problems during Goodwood. This may be myth. As for the gutted tanks. I vaguely recall reading that the Centaurs IV with 95mm howitzer for fire support were meant tot remain static on the lcT. Perhaps there was the thought to gut them to save weight. As manoeuvring an engineless vehicle seems problematic I would believe that retaining the (Liberty) engine was a small price to pay. If I remember this correctly the Royal Marine Centaurs were not intended to follow the troops in support on land. As it proved pretty useless to give accurate fire support from the LcT with the Centaurs they were put ashore to give fire support and we see that some went in with the infantry to go inland.
                            The sea on that morning was more than a little bit choppy and the 'flat bottomed b*****ds' were bouncing somewhat. lcm1
                            'By Horse by Tram'.


                            I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                            " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X