PMG Posted May 8, 2001 Share Posted May 8, 2001 ive begun to create a deippe raid senario. I tried to keep it as acurate as possible but lack detalied sorces. Everything is correct except the cities and forces. The forces include 1 canadian battalion 1 elite british company 1 polish concript platoon and 1 elite American platoon. Also i wasn't able to fit the 2 northern cities in the map and the date is wrong. If anyone has any sources they would like to recommend or suggestions please do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lempereur Posted May 8, 2001 Share Posted May 8, 2001 I have GREAT BATTLES OF WWII Vol 1 The Canadians in Europe. Published by The Canadian Wargamers Group. It has a lot of info on Dieppe for miniatures gaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 8, 2001 Share Posted May 8, 2001 Get the book DIEPPE THROUGH THE LENS OF THE GERMAN WAR PHOTOGRAPHER by After the Battle. It gives detailed aerial photos of the city. I would lose the AMerican platoon - they fought mostly with the British commandos on the flanks, and in ones and twos on the main beach. I am not sure why you would include two cities and only one battalion? On the maximum map size, you would only be able to get one of the landing beaches in - either the main city, or some of the flanking beaches. 1 square in CM = 20 metres. I knocked one scenario up as a quickie and it worked out well - the Churchills are damn slow, and when done to scale, that main beach is damn big! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMG Posted May 9, 2001 Author Share Posted May 9, 2001 Thank you. Maybe i should lose the Polish Conscript Platoon too then. By the way I squeezed 4 cities and they are tiny hamlets anyways, as they were historicaly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted May 9, 2001 Share Posted May 9, 2001 Given the scale of CM, PMG, you would have to think in terms of a piece of the action. Perhaps two or three scenarios on the same theme. One could be the raids by British Commandoes on the outlying batteries, another the troop landings, and so on. Sources: In addition to the ones mentioned which are VERY good, consider: Jubilee, Tragedy to Triumph, Whitaker Jubilee of Death, Oberon Both have some good and personal insights into the fighing. Military Blunders, the 1/2 hour video on the History channel has a great tape on Dieppe. Hope this helps you. It should make for a good scenario...WB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted May 9, 2001 Share Posted May 9, 2001 Oh, and one more, which is excellent! Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War, Vol.1, pages 360-386 WB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 10, 2001 Share Posted May 10, 2001 Whitaker's book is good if you ignore his obvious personal agenda. Dieppe did NOT teach the Allies much with regards how to invade Normandy. Pure fantasy even to suggest it - I believe we've discussed that in the general forum. Whitaker was, however, the only officer in his brigade to return from the main beach unwounded, so he does have good insights. For the political story of the raid (useless for scenario design, but hey...)get Brian Loring-Villa's MOUNTBATTEN AND THE DIEPPE RAID - it is a must read for anyone truly interested. Also THE SHAME AND THE GLORY is an outstanding work in the style of Cornelius Ryan and similar writers. The name of the author escapes me, but it is outstanding, and has some good descriptions of the terrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 10, 2001 Share Posted May 10, 2001 Incidentally, if you go to my website at http://members.home.net/canuckmain/ and go to the photo gallery section, there are some photos taken during the liberation in September 1944 that include a neat shot of Merritt's bridge - where he won the VC at Pourville. If you like, you can contact me off forum via email with specific questions and I can flip through my references if you need any further help. [ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 I am going to take you up on that shortly, Michael. I am yearning to do some more Canadian scenarios!...Wild Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder: I am going to take you up on that shortly, Michael. I am yearning to do some more Canadian scenarios!...Wild Bill<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Any time - I look forward to helping you however I can. I like the look of your new page, by the way - I haven't had a chance to say so in the CM forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 don't forget the churchill tanks that got about 5 feet up the beach before being slaughtered...Dieppe, what a ratf***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunnee: don't forget the churchill tanks that got about 5 feet up the beach before being slaughtered...Dieppe, what a ratf***.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Several made it as far as the esplanade, and had the engineers survived to blow the anti-tank obstacles, would have made it into the town itself. NOT ONE SINGLE TANK WAS PENETRATED BY ENEMY FIRE. All were abandoned, usually once they ran out of ammunition. I don't believe any crewmen were killed or injured while in their tanks, either. So use of the word "slaughter" seems out of place. Most tank crews that were captured had the chance to get out, but elected to stay behind and cover the infantry. The CO, Johnny Andrews, was killed early on in the battle - but he was exposed to MG fire and shrapnel at the time and not in the safety of a tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 Ok...guess I heard wrong, I had heard that the Churchills were the wrong tank for the mission and they never got past the beach, and if any did, it was to no effect. I also heard that they beached these tanks with no consideration to the tank obstacles in place, hence, the word "slaughter". Maybe I was wrong again? Lookout for a toe in the mail..I already used the cat's head. [ 05-13-2001: Message edited by: Dunnee ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 Hey Dunnee; I wouldn't say you are wrong - the tanks were fairly well ineffective. The problem was that the chert beach caused the tracks on many to break. They were able to provide good cover fire for the infantry, and did yeoman's work in this respect - but you are right in that they never got beyond the beach. Some did mill around on the esplanade, but since they couldn't get through the exits (all the engineers were killed or pinned down) they couldn't force a breakthrough off the beach. I don't think any other tank would have been suited for the role any better; in fact, the Churchill was proof against the 5cm anti-tank guns the Germans were using where other models of tank would not have been. Their intended role was to bust through the town and head off to Divisional headquarters beyond Dieppe - a role they probably were not great for due to their low speed. So there is some irony in the fact that they were so well suited to be semi mobile bunkers on the beach, where speed didn't matter but armour protection did. You may keep your toe! EDIT - incidentally, I had no idea about what the tanks "really" did until I read the DIEPPE THROUGH THE LENS book I mentioned earlier. There is a lot of myth surrounding Dieppe, and I was under similar impressions as you were. I was flabbergasted to hear that none of the tanks were actually penetrated by enemy fire - many histories ignore this fact, or assume that many of the tanks were knocked out when in reality they weren't. [ 05-13-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted May 14, 2001 Share Posted May 14, 2001 Ok good I can keep the toe, but I also heard/saw/read? that the Churchill was ill suited for this raid because of it's high pressure on the ground, which caused it to sink and lose traction on the sandy beach, but thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts