jacobs_ladder2 Posted January 2, 2005 Share Posted January 2, 2005 (Sorry, this is a bit off topic in this forum.) Just a question for any Normandy buffs out there. This is an excerpt from the Omaha Beachhead book printed by the War Department way back in the 40s and 50s. Excellent source for information by the way. "The Army-Navy Special Engineer Task Force had one of the most important and difficult missions of the landing. Their chances of clearing gaps through the obstacles in the half-hour allotted were lessened by accidents on the approach to the beach. Delays in loading from LCT's to LCM's and in finding their way to the beaches resulted in half of the 16 assault teams reaching shore 10 minutes or more late." This is the force that interests me. Here is my problem though. "The infantry companies in the first wave came in by boat sections, six to a company, with a headquarters section due in the next wave (0700). Each LCVP carried an average of 31 men and an officer. The 116th assault craft were loaded so that the first to land would be a section leader and 5 riflemen armed with M-1's and carrying 96 rounds of ammunition. Following was a wire-cutting team of 4 men, armed with rifles; 2 carried large "search-nose" cutters, and 2 a smaller type. Behind these in the craft, loaded so as to land in proper order were: 2 BAR teams of 2 men each, carrying 900 rounds per gun; 2 bazooka teams, totaling 4 men, the assistants armed with carbines; a mortar team of 4 men, with a 60-mm mortar and 15 to 20 rounds; a flame-thrower crew of 2 men; and, finally, 5 demolition men with pole and pack charges of TNT." So, did the engineers of the 121st Engineer Combat Battalion and the infantry of the 116th come in in the same boats or were they separate? My problem is that I cannot account for a large part of the engineers supposed to have participated in the initial assault wave. Any ideas? Cheers Paul 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Sounds to me, just on the basis of what you've posted, that the divisional engineering assets were interspersed with the infantry in the initial wave. The Special Engineering Task Force came from somewhere else. This is an interesting subject, and I wish I knew more about it. I have read that the defensive fire on Omaha was so intense that the engineers who weren't killed or wounded outright in the first minutes of landing were pinned down and unable to complete their tasks on schedule. This created later bottlenecks in unloading. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Bolt Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 From the movie the Longest Day, Robert Mitchum, a general, asks "Where are the engineers?" Eddie Albert replies "They're all around you, they just don't have any equipment." Actually, from your post, it seems the 5 men of the demolition team ARE the engineers, which would mean they were dispursed amoung the boats. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacobs_ladder2 Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 Hmmm, well that leads me to ask another question. If there were six boats to a company (as the author states) with an average of 32 men per boat then isn't the 116th drastically understrength? According to my math, you divide the infantry from the engineers and you get roughly 1/3 engineers and 2/3 infantry (which sounds about right to me, tactically). Let's say about 60 engineers and 120 infantry per company allotment of six boats. In the case of the engineers this number sounds accurate but an infantry company has quite a few more men. Could all of the missing men be accounted for by the "headquarters section due to arrive later" mentioned in the passage? Cheers Paul 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roach Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 The individual rifle companies were split up into boat teams for the purpose of the landings as opposed to their normal platoon formations, with each of the men within the boat teams having their own designated tasks, such as wire cutting, demo teams, etc. The engineers came in on their own craft, not mixed in with the infantry rifleman boat teams. The timetable of who should have been landing where, when and in what can be found here: http://www.6juin1944.com/assaut/omaha/olanding.html Hope this is of some help. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 The 31 man boat teams described above were all infantrymen. The 16th and 116th Infantry reorganised for the invasion for two reasons: 1) the boats wouldn't take the existing org 2) they needed more and specialist firepower up front early. The regular infantry companys were organised into boat sections thus: The heavy weapons companys (D, H, M) were organised into boat sections thus: Pics from 29 Let's Go Higgins Boat (LCVP, Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel): From here. Notes: 1) This is for the Higgins Boats (LCVP). The Royal Navys LCAs (of which there were many at OMAHA) were basically the same, except they carried the men in 4 columns of 8. Generally the RN LCAs were preferred because they were armoured and had bench seats, where as the Higgins had neither. The downside was that the LCA had a smaller bow-ramp, only two-men wide. LC(A) (Landing Craft, Assault) From here. 2) the numbers in the above pics don't quite tally as they only show 30, not 31. The 'missing' man seems to be a medic, who may not have been on every boat, and squeezed into those that they were. The NCDUs (Naval Combat Demolition Units) of which there were 21 in the first wave, and the Army Gap Assault Teams (16 + 8 reserve in the first wave, half each from 146th Engr Combat Bn and 299th ECB) arrived on separate boats. The NCDUs and the GATs formed combined teams of 9 sailors and 5 soldiers in the NCDU, and 25 EMs, 2 medics and 1 offr in the GAT, for a total of 42 in each team. Each dems man in the team carried ... lots of explosives. The teams landed onto the beach off LCMs. More on the engineers here. From the site linked to by Roach above - a personal account by an engineer in 121st ECB LC(M) (Landing Craft, Mechanized): From here. By the by, I cannot recommend Joe Balkoskis two books on Omaha enough - Beyond the Beachhead and Omaha Beach. Both are extremely well written, and give excellent nuts-and-bolts descriptions of the mechanics of warfare, interspersed with very good maps and pertinent quotes. Regards JonS [ January 05, 2005, 03:32 AM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 What was the source for those pics, Jon, out of curiousity? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 http://www.29thdivision.com/research/Support_Boat_Team.jpg Right click on the pic and click properties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacobs_ladder2 Posted January 4, 2005 Author Share Posted January 4, 2005 Well, that solves that one nicely. Thanks a lot for the info JonS & Roach. I came across a paragraph or two in my research that described the engineers being prevented from doing their jobs by the passing infantry (implying they were already there), but I wanted to be sure. Cheers Paul 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Originally posted by junk2drive: http://www.29thdivision.com/research/Support_Boat_Team.jpg Right click on the pic and click properties. Oh hush! I am at work dammit....Actually was wondering if the source site listed a book, or if the images are original to the site. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 "Oh hush! I am at work dammit...." Aren't we all, lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 nope 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacobs_ladder2 Posted January 5, 2005 Author Share Posted January 5, 2005 JonS, I have Balkoski's book on the way (the miracle of ebay). By the way, I have been trying to account for the 166 men normally accredited to a 1944 heavy weapons company and have come up short every time. Everyone seems to agree on the weapons loadout (6 81mm mortars and 8 MGs), but what was everyone else doing? Counting officers, spotters and other assorted personnel I can't even come close to 166. Any ideas? Cheers Paul p.s. No more pesky questions for at least 24 hours. I promise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Originally posted by jacobs_ladder2: JonS, I have Balkoski's book on the way (the miracle of ebay). By the way, I have been trying to account for the 166 men normally accredited to a 1944 heavy weapons company and have come up short every time. Everyone seems to agree on the weapons loadout (6 81mm mortars and 8 MGs), but what was everyone else doing? Counting officers, spotters and other assorted personnel I can't even come close to 166. Any ideas? Cheers Paul p.s. No more pesky questions for at least 24 hours. I promise. Not sure how the Americans organized their companies, but presume that they were like the Germans and Commonwealth - who would have included a company first sergeant (senior NCO), a supply sergeant (Quartermaster Sergeant, as we called them), drivers, storesmen, and signallers/runners. Perhaps you are counting these already as "assorted personnel" though so just ignore... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 This should cover it: From the very excellent 100th Infantry Division website. BTW, does anyone know what happened to either Military TsO&E or Gary Kennedys 'stormpages' TOE site? Both seem to have fallen over within the last month, which is a real shame. Jon [ January 05, 2005, 03:34 AM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacobs_ladder2 Posted January 5, 2005 Author Share Posted January 5, 2005 Yes, that'll do nicely. Thanks a bunch. I see now where I went wrong. I neglected to factor a bugler into my calculations. I shall have to learn from this lesson and include a set of bagpipes when I get to the Scottish regiments later on. Cheers Paul 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Also this one from here, which shows basically the same stuff, but with more info on the vehicles. Note that this one is dated some 6 moths earlier than the 100th Inf Div one above. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 I notice the MG sections are listed as having the M1917A1 water cooled MGs. I wonder if by D-Day those had been swapped out (at least in the initial landing waves) for the M1919 air cooled. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacobs_ladder2 Posted January 5, 2005 Author Share Posted January 5, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: I notice the MG sections are listed as having the M1917A1 water cooled MGs. I wonder if by D-Day those had been swapped out (at least in the initial landing waves) for the M1919 air cooled. Michael Just out of curiousity, how much better were the air cooled MGs? Cheers Paul 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 They were quite a bit lighter, especially if you were lugging around the water for the older gun too. On the other hand, you could fire off more rounds with the water cooled job and not have to change the barrel. It's just that on D-Day, I would expect mobility to trump firepower. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Originally posted by jacobs_ladder2: Yes, that'll do nicely. Thanks a bunch. I see now where I went wrong. I neglected to factor a bugler into my calculations. I shall have to learn from this lesson and include a set of bagpipes when I get to the Scottish regiments later on. Cheers Paul Pipers and Drummers served generally as part of the 20 man stretcher bearer detachment in Highland regiments, though some units had an unofficial allocation of one piper per infantry company. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: I notice the MG sections are listed as having the M1917A1 water cooled MGs. I wonder if by D-Day those had been swapped out (at least in the initial landing waves) for the M1919 air cooled. Michael Jeez Emrys, learn to read willya! The chart with the M1917A1 is clearly dated 15 July 1944, so unless you're talking about some other D-Day the answer would be "Huh? WTF is Emrys on about this time?" Dolt. OTOH, the British and Canadian Assault Divs (3, 3 Can, 50) replaced - among other things - their artillery equipments for D-Day to enhance mobility. Specifically, M7 Priests replaced towed 25-pr, and 6-pr A-Tk replaced 17-pr A-Tk. The kit so changed was changed back to standard over the next few months. Same thing with the DD Sherman squadrons - they swapped their swimmers for regular Shermans over time (not just as a replacement for losses). So, it's not inconcievable that the US assault divs also changed some of their eqpt, on a temporary basis, for more maneauverable kit. But Emrys is still a dolt. Never forget that. JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: I notice the MG sections are listed as having the M1917A1 water cooled MGs. I wonder if by D-Day those had been swapped out (at least in the initial landing waves) for the M1919 air cooled. Michael Jeez Emrys, learn to read willya! The chart with the M1917A1 is clearly dated 15 July 1944, so unless you're talking about some other D-Day the answer would be "Huh? WTF is Emrys on about this time?" Dolt.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted January 8, 2005 Share Posted January 8, 2005 I'm impressed with the number of SMOKE grenades in the assault team's boat. Especially for the grenadiers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.