Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sending the Old Battleships in Close at Omaha and Juno

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by the ace View Post
    IIRC, the DD tanks failed at Omaha because they were swamped after being launched too far out, in seas too rough for them.

    I can't remember what happened at Utah, but the British and Canadian troops at Gold, Juno, and Sword were full of praise for the tanks that rolled out of the surf and provided close fire support exactly where it was needed.

    When deployed properly, the DD tanks more than proved their worth.
    Some of them were useful in crossing the Rhine.
    Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
    Hyperwar, Whats New
    World War II Resources
    The best place in the world to "work".

    Comment


    • #62
      For the Rhine crossings the Allies brought in smaller landing craft in numbers.



      This was a smart move on their part as it turned a river crossing into an amphibious assault.

      Comment


      • #63
        The section of river is way out of it's banks, so Amtraks and the like would have been very handy.
        Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
        Hyperwar, Whats New
        World War II Resources
        The best place in the world to "work".

        Comment


        • #64
          The key words ...

          ... here are "when properly deployed". Troops supported by praiseworthy tanks could care less if they came by LCT or simply arrived on their own at 8 km/hr. The best way of ensuring that tanks actually arrived to support assaulting infantry, was by delivering them directly onto the beach, by LCT. Consider the following summaries from David Fletcher's, "Swimming Shermans, Sherman DD amphibious tank of World War II":

          Utah

          "the DD tanks were carried in to within 1,000 yards (914m) of the beach; 28 tanks from the two DD companies launched and 27 swam ashore to a very mild reception."

          Omaha

          "DDs of the 741st Battalion launched at about 5,000 yards (4,572m). Twenty-nine tanks launched and were soon swept off course by the wind and tide. Struggling to regain their position, one after another they were swamped and plunged to the bottom until just two made it to the beach, joined later by three more that never launched." i.e. they were carried in by LCT.

          Gold

          "B and C Squadrons of the Nottinghamshire Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry launched at 700 yards (646m), but even so the two squadrons lost eight tanks between them. They were late in landing and in the interim Sherman Crab flail tanks of the Westminster Dragoons" ... LCT delivered... "had been doing their work for them, taking out gun positions and machine-gun nests. Immediately to their east the 4th/7th Dragoon Guards encountered similar conditions, so its senior naval officer decided to run them all the way in. The water was deep enough to justify raising the screens, but in essence the DD tanks of B and C Squadrons simply drove ashore through the breakers."

          Juno

          "A Squadron tanks of 1st Hussars (6th Armoured Regiment) were carried to within 1,500 yards (1,371m) of the shore where ten launched, of which seven actually made it while the remainder landed dry. B Squadron, on the other hand, launched at about 4,000 yards (3,657m), deployed at 2,000 yards (1,828m) and put 14 out of 19 tanks ashore. The Fort Garry Horse (10th Armoured Regiment) launched its A and B Squadrons much closer in, and although some claim to have used their propellers the majority simply had what they describe as a wet wade before deflating on the shoreline."

          Sword

          "Of the 13th/18th Hussars ... A and B Squadrons were in DD tanks and of their combined total of 40 tanks, 34 took the plunge and 31 made it ashore." The problem here though was that they were late, and were run over by LCT's carrying tanks to the beach, the survivors arrived at about the same time as the LCTs.




          Dieppe? Of 10 LCTs that assaulted the beach, 5 were lost, 5 returned to the UK. Of 30 tanks carried to the beach, 2 drowned, 1 remained on board, 27 tanks were landed, a further 28 Churchills remained aboard their LCTs as a floating reserve, not deployed. Take note, although there was a 50% loss rate in LCT's, if the assaulting troops had attacked ala Overlord, there would've been covering fire support for the run in, and some of those LCT's i.e. those left on the beach, would've been repaired and returned to service.

          By comparison to delivery by LCT, I don't think all that much of DD tanks in assault from the sea, and so-called lessons learned from Dieppe.





          Originally posted by the ace View Post
          IIRC, the DD tanks failed at Omaha because they were swamped after being launched too far out, in seas too rough for them.

          I can't remember what happened at Utah, but the British and Canadian troops at Gold, Juno, and Sword were full of praise for the tanks that rolled out of the surf and provided close fire support exactly where it was needed.

          When deployed properly, the DD tanks more than proved their worth.
          Last edited by Marmat; 24 Sep 14, 17:28.
          "I am Groot"
          - Groot

          Comment

          Latest Topics

          Collapse

          Working...
          X