100% Success Rate for Amphibious Invasions?

[Michael Dorosh]

Actualy, Loring-Villa's work benefits to the extreme from PRIMARY research. Any book written using a "politicized history" would not be worth reading!

Didn't mean to compare D-Day to Dieppe, and yes, of course Dieppe was a disaster. But it can in no way be characterized as an invasion, since the plan called for a withdrawal the same day. By definition, that is not a failed invasion.

Loring-Villa goes even deeper than that and talks about the "approval" for the raid (or lack thereof).

For a truly revisionist book, read Whitaker's TRAGEDY TO TRIUMPH where he tries to tell us that Dieppe was a necessary precursor to D-Day.

Rubbish! Dieppe merely reinforced the majority of "lessons" that others claim were "learned" there. In reality, the "lessons" were either self evident, or had been learned in previous operations.

[Rick614]

Gyrene

I think you are referring to Wake Island. It was defended by a small garrison of marines and civilian construction workers. I don't think there was near 20,000 in that landing force. They did get a surprise however.

There may have been 20,000 in the Midway invasion force but they turned back after losing four carriers.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

For a truly revisionist book, read Whitaker's TRAGEDY TO TRIUMPH where he tries to tell us that Dieppe was a necessary precursor to D-Day.

Rubbish! Dieppe merely reinforced the majority of "lessons" that others claim were "learned" there. In reality, the "lessons" were either self evident, or had been learned in previous operations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have toyed with the idea, though I can claim no support for it, that the Dieppe raid was staged to show the Americans how unrealsitic their eagerness to stage a cross-channel invasion was. Like I say, I haven't the slightest shred of documentary proof for the notion and it seems pretty far-fetched to think of Churchill et al sacrificing that many men just to win a debating point...

Michael

[ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[109 Gustav]

Does Kiska count? Granted, the Americans took over the island, which the Japanese had abandoned some time before, but it tied down 35,000 combat troops, plus supporting personnel, ships, and landing craft. All these resources could have been used much better than invading an unoccupied island.

[Gyrene]

Rick, you are correct, I had a brain fart there.

My numbers for the invasion force are probably wrong, I was referring to the entire force, not just landing troops.

Great link about Wake:

Battle of Wake Island

Gyrene

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

[QB]it seems pretty far-fetched to think of Churchill et al sacrificing that many men just to win a debating point...

[QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To prove it to the Americans is pretty far fetched; there was a real desire to prove it to the Russians, however, since if Russia signed a peace with Germany, it left the other Allies in the lurch. We can look at that as unlikely today, but at the time there was much mistrust of Stalin (and who can blame the Allies for that?)

Loring-Villa does talk about (in the revised edition) the possibility that British Intelligence leaked information of the raid to the Germans on purpose. Pretty chilling stuff, really.

[109 Gustav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

To prove it to the Americans is pretty far fetched; there was a real desire to prove it to the Russians, however, since if Russia signed a peace with Germany, it left the other Allies in the lurch. We can look at that as unlikely today, but at the time there was much mistrust of Stalin (and who can blame the Allies for that?)

Loring-Villa does talk about (in the revised edition) the possibility that British Intelligence leaked information of the raid to the Germans on purpose. Pretty chilling stuff, really.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent point. I can't imagine why they would leak info on the raid to the Germans, though. Wouldn't a success impress the Russians more than a defeat?

[Olle Petersson]

IMO some of those "successes" were phyrric victories.

They did manage to make a bridgehead, but at casualty ratings that couldn't be sustained for much longer.

An example: Would the invasion of Normandy been successful if all parts of the amphib landings had the same success as the Omaha beach landing?

My guess is not...

Cheers

Olle

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

IMO some of those "successes" were phyrric victories.

They did manage to make a bridgehead, but at casualty ratings that couldn't be sustained for much longer.

An example: Would the invasion of Normandy been successful if all parts of the amphib landings had the same success as the Omaha beach landing?

My guess is not...

Cheers

Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i dunno...i thought they were expecting many many more casualties...

[109 Gustav]

Even at Omaha, it only took one day to secure the beach and start moving inland. That's quite a success, and of course it would have been reinforced until the beachead could withstand any counterattacks.

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

For a truly revisionist book, read Whitaker's TRAGEDY TO TRIUMPH where he tries to tell us that Dieppe was a necessary precursor to D-Day.

Rubbish! Dieppe merely reinforced the majority of "lessons" that others claim were "learned" there. In reality, the "lessons" were either self evident, or had been learned in previous operations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree with the last statement - between the amphibious landings taking place in 1942 in the Pacific (on both sides), as well as lessons from WWI (Gallipoli, anyone?), Dieppe would not have served as a very useful "test" of invasion 'lessons'.

[PlankWithANailIn]

The D-Day landings were indeed predicted to have high casualty rates on all beaches, at least equivalent or higher than those actually sustained on Omaha. The initial landing forces were only a fraction of the total force waiting to land (That’s why they brought a portable harbour with them) and higher loses wouldn’t have made much difference, the allies were slow breaking out anyway.

I agree with the threads that say Dieppe was to show the Russians that an invasion was not possible. Churchill was not a nice man, before the war he wanted to have disabled people killed because they were polluting the fitness (i.e. bad genes ect...although they had not discovered them yet) of the population, and I think he wanted homeless people strung up too. That’s properly why they were Canadians (French Canadians I think) in those landing craft and not English men.

Wheres the bloody spell checker gone

Plank

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Loring-Villa does talk about (in the revised edition) the possibility that British Intelligence leaked information of the raid to the Germans on purpose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the risk of slipping over the edge into conspiracy-theory gah-gah land, I have to say that I've always been struck by how the extensive pre-raid bombardment and naval gunfire support was canceled. Does your source go into that, and does he provide any convincing explanation?

About the only book I have read that goes into the raid with any detail is _Green Beach_, and its scope is deliberately somewhat narrow, plus it's been a good number of years since I read it.

Michael

[Maastrictian]

PlankWithANailIn wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

(i.e. bad genes ect...although they had not discovered them yet)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completely off topic but... Mendel discovered genes in the 19th century. The molecular structure that comprised a gene was not known until Watson and Crick in the 1950s but people did know what a gene was. A word about eugenics -- if Churchhill was a proponent of this (I don't know) he was certainly not alone. Eugenics was very popular in the 30s in the US and Britain as well as in Nazi Germany. Some towns gave out prizes to "genetically superior" childern. Eugenics has, of course, been shown to be a load of c@rp.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Agree with the last statement - between the amphibious landings taking place in 1942 in the Pacific (on both sides), as well as lessons from WWI (Gallipoli, anyone?), Dieppe would not have served as a very useful "test" of invasion 'lessons'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I question whether very much would have been learned by the Allies from the Japanese invasions, and the only Allied invasion in the Pacific prior to Dieppe was Guadalcanal, and that only by a matter of days.

But in fact, the US Marines had a well-developed amphibious doctrine before the war even began, though it required and received refinement and the necessary ships and craft had yet to be built.

In terms of learning lessons preparatory to Overlord, I expect Torch, Husky, and Avalanche were more strictly instructive than any of the Pacific invasions to date.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PlankWithANailIn:

The D-Day landings were indeed predicted to have high casualty rates on all beaches, at least equivalent or higher than those actually sustained on Omaha. The initial landing forces were only a fraction of the total force waiting to land (That’s why they brought a portable harbour with them) and higher loses wouldn’t have made much difference, the allies were slow breaking out anyway.

I agree with the threads that say Dieppe was to show the Russians that an invasion was not possible. Churchill was not a nice man, before the war he wanted to have disabled people killed because they were polluting the fitness (i.e. bad genes ect...although they had not discovered them yet) of the population, and I think he wanted homeless people strung up too. That’s properly why they were Canadians (French Canadians I think) in those landing craft and not English men.

Wheres the bloody spell checker gone

Plank<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please don't pollute the board with this kind of garbage.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

At the risk of slipping over the edge into conspiracy-theory gah-gah land, I have to say that I've always been struck by how the extensive pre-raid bombardment and naval gunfire support was canceled. Does your source go into that, and does he provide any convincing explanation?

About the only book I have read that goes into the raid with any detail is _Green Beach_, and its scope is deliberately somewhat narrow, plus it's been a good number of years since I read it.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Green Beach is a neat little book, too, but yes, Nissenthal et al are a narrow focus.

Loring-Villa does talk about the bombardment, etc., and I don't recall it being too sinister. The Navy and the RAF simply felt that they were winning the war doing what they were doing, and didn't want to jeapordize themselves.

Don't forget Dieppe was the biggest air battle of the war - it was the only time the RAF could draw out large numbers of German fighters; by D-Day they were all gone. In that sense, Dieppe was an accomplishment.

[Guest Babra]

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been mentioned, but there was at least one amphibious failure.

The first Japanese attempt on Wake Island was a complete disaster. They had to withdraw and wait for reinforcements. The second attempt succeeded.

[Speedy]

Crete was mentioned earlier as a success, however iirc the amphibious part of that operation was met at sea by the RN and suffered a catastrophic defeat with very heavy casualties. The only invasion forces on Crete were paratroops and airlifted troops.

[Skipper]

> I may be wrong, but didn't the Russians

> attempt an amphib assault somewhere on the

> Black Sea, and get pushed back?

I guess you are talking about Malaya Zemlya. The landing was successful, but from there it did not go quite the intended way - soviet troops had to go on defensive and took quite a heavy beating. In the end of the day, however, they managed to hold on and stayed there for quite a long time, until relieved by advancing main forces.

Iirc, there was another amphib operation in that area, which could not hold on, but it was supposed to be a bait.

[Skipper]

Correction: Malaya Zemlya landing was supposed to be the "false" one. However, it suceeded, while simultaneous main landing failed.

This bridgehead was about 30 sq.km., there were some 10-15,000 troops fighting on it, and they were holding it against heavy german attacks for over 7 months.

[Skipper]

I was reading up on that story some more. 563rd Separate Tank Batallion took part in the failed landing in Yuzhnaya Ozereyka. By the time of landing they were fully equipped with M3 Stuart tanks. Beforehand they also had some Valentines.

[Ellros]

Thanks Skipper. Zemlya was the one I was thinking of. I just could not remember the outcome.

[Skipper]

Malaya Zemplya was not the one with tanks - Yuzhnaya Ozereyka was.

Further on the topic, there were multiple (ie, more than one) failed sea landings on russian front. Yuzhnaya Ozereyka already mentioned. Tuapse is another. There was at least one in Baltics, too.

Of course, there were also dozens of successful operations of that kind by both sides.

[Stalin's Organ]

Is Nova Zemlaya etc part of the Novorossisk offensive in 1943? IIRC a very large Sov force tried to outflank the German line there, but I don't know what the result was.