Discussion:
Interesting Quora - If D Day had failed.
(too old to reply)
a425couple
2019-06-08 23:50:41 UTC
Permalink
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?

(I said "Interesting", I do not necessarily agree.)

Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.

The Red Army would have assumed defensive positions and waited for
Hitler to make a peace offer.

Stalin’s wasn’t planning on taking on the remaining Axis all by himself.
He knew he didn't have the manpower to conquer and occupy all of Germany
on his own, so he wasn’t even going to try.

Had the Allies been forced to use nuclear weapons, the effects would
have been minimal. Western Cities couldn’t be compared to Japanese
cities (who used much more wood) and Germany’s air raid shelters were
very good.

Add to this that nuclear explosions don't cause firestorms and don’t
disrupt underground infrastructure when airbursted, and nuclear weapons
would have been considerably less effective than a major conventional raid.

Before the massive bombing raids on Germany took place, the Allies
estimated 200 nuclear weapons would be needed to bring Germany
economically to its knees. This was before the Germans moved their
factories underground.

Without successful Normandy Landings, the war would most likely have
ended in a negotiated truce.

Historically speaking, the Allies were at the end of their rope by 1945
while the Germans had run out of rope. The Soviets were conscripting
16-year-old boys. In Northwest Europe alone, the British had 45,000
deserters since the Normandy Landings, the Americans 200,000.

A negotiated peace in which Germany returns to its pre-war borders with
some minor adjustments is the most realistic scenario. At this point,
Austria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, and the Low Countries would have been
bargaining chips at the negotiating table.

20.5k views · View Upvoters · View Sharers
Stepan Serdyuk
Stepan Serdyuk
‘Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been
ZZyXX
2019-06-09 00:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
(I said "Interesting", I do not necessarily agree.)
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
The Red Army would have assumed defensive positions and waited for
Hitler to make a peace offer.
Stalin’s wasn’t planning on taking on the remaining Axis all by himself.
He knew he didn't have the manpower to conquer and occupy all of Germany
on his own, so he wasn’t even going to try.
Had the Allies been forced to use nuclear weapons, the effects would
have been minimal. Western Cities couldn’t be compared to Japanese
cities (who used much more wood) and Germany’s air raid shelters were
very good.
Add to this that nuclear explosions don't cause firestorms and don’t
disrupt underground infrastructure when airbursted, and nuclear weapons
would have been considerably less effective than a major conventional raid.
you really don't have to bomb the cities; destroy all the dams, destroy
the coal mines, destroy the ports and what's left but to watch them
starve to death
Post by a425couple
Before the massive bombing raids on Germany took place, the Allies
estimated 200 nuclear weapons would be needed to bring Germany
economically to its knees. This was before the Germans moved their
factories underground.
Without successful Normandy Landings, the war would most likely have
ended in a negotiated truce.
Historically speaking, the Allies were at the end of their rope by 1945
while the Germans had run out of rope. The Soviets were conscripting
16-year-old boys. In Northwest Europe alone, the British had 45,000
deserters since the Normandy Landings, the Americans 200,000.
A negotiated peace in which Germany returns to its pre-war borders with
some minor adjustments is the most realistic scenario. At this point,
Austria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, and the Low Countries would have been
bargaining chips at the negotiating table.
20.5k views · View Upvoters · View Sharers
Stepan Serdyuk
Stepan Serdyuk
‘Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been
SolomonW
2019-06-09 08:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives
What Stalin private archives are these?
Post by a425couple
that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
The Allies would still be driving up through Italy and they would have
tried again soon enough.
Jim Wilkins
2019-06-09 10:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by a425couple
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin¢s private archives
What Stalin private archives are these?
Post by a425couple
that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
The Allies would still be driving up through Italy and they would have
tried again soon enough.
They did anyway.
https://history.army.mil/brochures/sfrance/sfrance.htm

Audie Murphy described fighting northward into Germany, including the
fierce battle of the Colmar Pocket.
https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Back-Audie-Murphy/dp/0805070869
Scott Kozel
2019-06-09 12:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?

As brutal as Omaha Beach was for the American infantry, the German infantry
knew that they were toast.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-09 16:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Since it almost failed, I'd say the possibility of failure was pretty
good.
Post by Scott Kozel
As brutal as Omaha Beach was for the American infantry, the German infantry
knew that they were toast.
When did you hold this poll?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Scott Kozel
2019-06-09 17:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Since it almost failed, I'd say the possibility of failure was pretty
good.
Where did it almost fail? Did they not have thousands more troops
ready to go ashore if needed? Which beach other than Omaha had even
a hint of possible failure?
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-10 04:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Since it almost failed, I'd say the possibility of failure was pretty
good.
Where did it almost fail? Did they not have thousands more troops
ready to go ashore if needed? Which beach other than Omaha had even
a hint of possible failure?
Simple fact. General Eisenhower had a speech prepared to take the
blame if D-Day failed. If there was no possibility of failure, why
would he do that?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Andrew Swallow
2019-06-09 18:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
{snip}

Ways of not succeeding.

Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.

Launch could have been delayed by a day and the bad weather could have
sunk the Mulberries preventing the arrival of re-enforcements.
Scott Kozel
2019-06-10 03:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Ways of not succeeding.
Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.
In that case the USN and RN could have brought more destroyers into
point blank range to deal with them.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Launch could have been delayed by a day and the bad weather could have
sunk the Mulberries preventing the arrival of re-enforcements.
I would hope that they scheduled the invasion when there would
be at least a week of no big storms.

No satellite weather back then but they did have plenty of aerial
reconnaissance.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-10 04:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Ways of not succeeding.
Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.
In that case the USN and RN could have brought more destroyers into
point blank range to deal with them.
What an idiotic notion!
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Launch could have been delayed by a day and the bad weather could have
sunk the Mulberries preventing the arrival of re-enforcements.
I would hope that they scheduled the invasion when there would
be at least a week of no big storms.
You're wrong. They WANTED bad weather as cover so they didn't get
their asses shot off.
Post by Scott Kozel
No satellite weather back then but they did have plenty of aerial
reconnaissance.
Which tells you very little about the weather.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Scott Kozel
2019-06-10 07:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Ways of not succeeding.
Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.
In that case the USN and RN could have brought more destroyers into
point blank range to deal with them.
What an idiotic notion!
"Some destroyers slid within a few hundred yards of their assigned beaches
to support the army, and though communication problems frequently arose, the
overall effect was largely beneficial. The chief of staff of the First Infantry
Division later stated that the ‘‘Big Red One’’ would not have been able to move
off Omaha Beach without effective naval gunfire."

https://www.historyonthenet.com/naval-artillery
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Launch could have been delayed by a day and the bad weather could have
sunk the Mulberries preventing the arrival of re-enforcements.
I would hope that they scheduled the invasion when there would
be at least a week of no big storms.
You're wrong. They WANTED bad weather as cover so they didn't get
their asses shot off.
Depends on how "bad" the weather. If it was bad enough to sink the
Mulberries then that would be a big problem.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-10 09:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Ways of not succeeding.
Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.
In that case the USN and RN could have brought more destroyers into
point blank range to deal with them.
What an idiotic notion!
"Some destroyers slid within a few hundred yards of their assigned beaches
to support the army, and though communication problems frequently arose, the
overall effect was largely beneficial. The chief of staff of the First Infantry
Division later stated that the ‘‘Big Red One’’ would not have been able to move
off Omaha Beach without effective naval gunfire."
https://www.historyonthenet.com/naval-artillery
Note that shore bombardment (what they're talking about) is not the
same thing as the idiocy of trying to kill tanks with Naval artillery.
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Launch could have been delayed by a day and the bad weather could have
sunk the Mulberries preventing the arrival of re-enforcements.
I would hope that they scheduled the invasion when there would
be at least a week of no big storms.
You're wrong. They WANTED bad weather as cover so they didn't get
their asses shot off.
Depends on how "bad" the weather. If it was bad enough to sink the
Mulberries then that would be a big problem.
Well, no shit, Captain Obvious.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Scott Kozel
2019-06-10 11:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Ways of not succeeding.
Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.
In that case the USN and RN could have brought more destroyers into
point blank range to deal with them.
What an idiotic notion!
"Some destroyers slid within a few hundred yards of their assigned beaches
to support the army, and though communication problems frequently arose, the
overall effect was largely beneficial. The chief of staff of the First Infantry
Division later stated that the 荘Big Red One鋳 would not have been able to move
off Omaha Beach without effective naval gunfire."
https://www.historyonthenet.com/naval-artillery
Note that shore bombardment (what they're talking about) is not the
same thing as the idiocy of trying to kill tanks with Naval artillery.
Well, the "the lightly armed infantry" would be the condition of it
landing and establishing a beachhead. The German tanks would be in the
immediate shore area where they could be hit with low trajectory naval
artillery.

By the time the troops established a beachhead and started moving inland,
there would be time to establish their own artillery and tank corps
onshore.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-10 21:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Ways of not succeeding.
Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.
In that case the USN and RN could have brought more destroyers into
point blank range to deal with them.
What an idiotic notion!
"Some destroyers slid within a few hundred yards of their assigned beaches
to support the army, and though communication problems frequently arose, the
overall effect was largely beneficial. The chief of staff of the First Infantry
Division later stated that the ?Big Red One? would not have been able to move
off Omaha Beach without effective naval gunfire."
https://www.historyonthenet.com/naval-artillery
Note that shore bombardment (what they're talking about) is not the
same thing as the idiocy of trying to kill tanks with Naval artillery.
Well, the "the lightly armed infantry" would be the condition of it
landing and establishing a beachhead. The German tanks would be in the
immediate shore area where they could be hit with low trajectory naval
artillery.
You really don't know jack shit about the naval artillery of the day,
do you? The quote you gave isn't talking about tanks, you nitwit.
It's talking about things like pillboxes and machine gun emplacements
as well as concentrations of enemy troops. Nobody with a clue would
ever propose the idea that you could hunt tanks with a naval gun. You
might want to look at just how close things like tanks and weapons
built to the purpose had to be in order to successfully hit another
tank.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Scott Kozel
2019-06-10 21:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Ways of not succeeding.
Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.
In that case the USN and RN could have brought more destroyers into
point blank range to deal with them.
What an idiotic notion!
"Some destroyers slid within a few hundred yards of their assigned beaches
to support the army, and though communication problems frequently arose, the
overall effect was largely beneficial. The chief of staff of the First Infantry
Division later stated that the ?Big Red One? would not have been able to move
off Omaha Beach without effective naval gunfire."
https://www.historyonthenet.com/naval-artillery
Note that shore bombardment (what they're talking about) is not the
same thing as the idiocy of trying to kill tanks with Naval artillery.
Well, the "the lightly armed infantry" would be the condition of it
landing and establishing a beachhead. The German tanks would be in the
immediate shore area where they could be hit with low trajectory naval
artillery.
You really don't know jack shit about the naval artillery of the day,
do you? The quote you gave isn't talking about tanks, you nitwit.
It's talking about things like pillboxes and machine gun emplacements
as well as concentrations of enemy troops. Nobody with a clue would
ever propose the idea that you could hunt tanks with a naval gun. You
might want to look at just how close things like tanks and weapons
built to the purpose had to be in order to successfully hit another
tank.
Just what kind of jackass are you anyway?

I am here to have a discussion about D-Day and analyze certain aspects
of it and if needed make adjustments to what I believe when other
posters provide differing information.

In any event --

Tiger Tanks at Salerno, Italy, in World War II
German tanks duel U.S. warships at Salerno in direct fire.
88mm supersonic gun fails to match Navy ships' rate of fire
https://www.daileyint.com/seawar/seawar8.htm
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-11 04:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Ways of not succeeding.
Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.
In that case the USN and RN could have brought more destroyers into
point blank range to deal with them.
What an idiotic notion!
"Some destroyers slid within a few hundred yards of their assigned beaches
to support the army, and though communication problems frequently arose, the
overall effect was largely beneficial. The chief of staff of the First Infantry
Division later stated that the ?Big Red One? would not have been able to move
off Omaha Beach without effective naval gunfire."
https://www.historyonthenet.com/naval-artillery
Note that shore bombardment (what they're talking about) is not the
same thing as the idiocy of trying to kill tanks with Naval artillery.
Well, the "the lightly armed infantry" would be the condition of it
landing and establishing a beachhead. The German tanks would be in the
immediate shore area where they could be hit with low trajectory naval
artillery.
You really don't know jack shit about the naval artillery of the day,
do you? The quote you gave isn't talking about tanks, you nitwit.
It's talking about things like pillboxes and machine gun emplacements
as well as concentrations of enemy troops. Nobody with a clue would
ever propose the idea that you could hunt tanks with a naval gun. You
might want to look at just how close things like tanks and weapons
built to the purpose had to be in order to successfully hit another
tank.
Just what kind of jackass are you anyway?
I'm the kind of jackass who actually knows what he's talking about,
which no doubt annoys you no end.
Post by Scott Kozel
I am here to have a discussion about D-Day and analyze certain aspects
of it and if needed make adjustments to what I believe when other
posters provide differing information.
Except when they DO provide 'different information', you just call
them a jackass, ignore the facts, and move on with holding your same
silly beliefs.
Post by Scott Kozel
In any event --
Tiger Tanks at Salerno, Italy, in World War II
German tanks duel U.S. warships at Salerno in direct fire.
88mm supersonic gun fails to match Navy ships' rate of fire
https://www.daileyint.com/seawar/seawar8.htm
Did you read your own cite? They emptied their magazines and damaged
maybe a dozen tanks. This is why it's generally a silly idea.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Scott Kozel
2019-06-11 10:48:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Ways of not succeeding.
Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.
In that case the USN and RN could have brought more destroyers into
point blank range to deal with them.
What an idiotic notion!
"Some destroyers slid within a few hundred yards of their assigned beaches
to support the army, and though communication problems frequently arose, the
overall effect was largely beneficial. The chief of staff of the First Infantry
Division later stated that the ?Big Red One? would not have been able to move
off Omaha Beach without effective naval gunfire."
https://www.historyonthenet.com/naval-artillery
Note that shore bombardment (what they're talking about) is not the
same thing as the idiocy of trying to kill tanks with Naval artillery.
Well, the "the lightly armed infantry" would be the condition of it
landing and establishing a beachhead. The German tanks would be in the
immediate shore area where they could be hit with low trajectory naval
artillery.
You really don't know jack shit about the naval artillery of the day,
do you? The quote you gave isn't talking about tanks, you nitwit.
It's talking about things like pillboxes and machine gun emplacements
as well as concentrations of enemy troops. Nobody with a clue would
ever propose the idea that you could hunt tanks with a naval gun. You
might want to look at just how close things like tanks and weapons
built to the purpose had to be in order to successfully hit another
tank.
Just what kind of jackass are you anyway?
I'm the kind of jackass who actually knows what he's talking about,
which no doubt annoys you no end.
Post by Scott Kozel
I am here to have a discussion about D-Day and analyze certain aspects
of it and if needed make adjustments to what I believe when other
posters provide differing information.
Except when they DO provide 'different information', you just call
them a jackass, ignore the facts, and move on with holding your same
silly beliefs.
I called you a jackass because of your gratuitous abusive comments
when I merely expressed an opinion.

You have a history of this with many posters.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
In any event --
Tiger Tanks at Salerno, Italy, in World War II
German tanks duel U.S. warships at Salerno in direct fire.
88mm supersonic gun fails to match Navy ships' rate of fire
https://www.daileyint.com/seawar/seawar8.htm
Did you read your own cite? They emptied their magazines and damaged
maybe a dozen tanks. This is why it's generally a silly idea.
Emergency situation -- invasion underway. Rommel sends his tank corps.
Do the Allies not use every weapon they have available? Hit what they
could, disrupt what they can, slow down whatever possible.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-11 14:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Ways of not succeeding.
Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.
In that case the USN and RN could have brought more destroyers into
point blank range to deal with them.
What an idiotic notion!
"Some destroyers slid within a few hundred yards of their assigned beaches
to support the army, and though communication problems frequently arose, the
overall effect was largely beneficial. The chief of staff of the First Infantry
Division later stated that the ?Big Red One? would not have been able to move
off Omaha Beach without effective naval gunfire."
https://www.historyonthenet.com/naval-artillery
Note that shore bombardment (what they're talking about) is not the
same thing as the idiocy of trying to kill tanks with Naval artillery.
Well, the "the lightly armed infantry" would be the condition of it
landing and establishing a beachhead. The German tanks would be in the
immediate shore area where they could be hit with low trajectory naval
artillery.
You really don't know jack shit about the naval artillery of the day,
do you? The quote you gave isn't talking about tanks, you nitwit.
It's talking about things like pillboxes and machine gun emplacements
as well as concentrations of enemy troops. Nobody with a clue would
ever propose the idea that you could hunt tanks with a naval gun. You
might want to look at just how close things like tanks and weapons
built to the purpose had to be in order to successfully hit another
tank.
Just what kind of jackass are you anyway?
I'm the kind of jackass who actually knows what he's talking about,
which no doubt annoys you no end.
Post by Scott Kozel
I am here to have a discussion about D-Day and analyze certain aspects
of it and if needed make adjustments to what I believe when other
posters provide differing information.
Except when they DO provide 'different information', you just call
them a jackass, ignore the facts, and move on with holding your same
silly beliefs.
I called you a jackass because of your gratuitous abusive comments
when I merely expressed an opinion.
So it's 'justified' when you do it? There was nothing 'abusive' about
my comments. They merely accurately described your assertion.
Post by Scott Kozel
You have a history of this with many posters.
Only the obstinately stupid ones.
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
In any event --
Tiger Tanks at Salerno, Italy, in World War II
German tanks duel U.S. warships at Salerno in direct fire.
88mm supersonic gun fails to match Navy ships' rate of fire
https://www.daileyint.com/seawar/seawar8.htm
Did you read your own cite? They emptied their magazines and damaged
maybe a dozen tanks. This is why it's generally a silly idea.
Emergency situation -- invasion underway. Rommel sends his tank corps.
Do the Allies not use every weapon they have available? Hit what they
could, disrupt what they can, slow down whatever possible.
But if, as you insist, there was "no possibility of failure", just
what is the "emergency"? Do the math. How many tanks in a Panzer
Corps? How many spare destroyers do you have sitting around doing
nothing? How many of them can you jam inshore to try to plink tanks?
Divide the number of tanks in a Panzer Corps by 12 (best case) to see
how many destroyers you need to jam in to within a hundred yards or so
of the beach. What are you going to do, lash them side by side? Not
to mention that the tanks don't have to come down onto the beach to
totally screw up your landing...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Scott Kozel
2019-06-12 01:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Did you smoke a reefer today?
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Emergency situation -- invasion underway. Rommel sends his tank corps.
Do the Allies not use every weapon they have available? Hit what they
could, disrupt what they can, slow down whatever possible.
But if, as you insist, there was "no possibility of failure", just
what is the "emergency"? Do the math. How many tanks in a Panzer
Corps? How many spare destroyers do you have sitting around doing
nothing? How many of them can you jam inshore to try to plink tanks?
Divide the number of tanks in a Panzer Corps by 12 (best case) to see
how many destroyers you need to jam in to within a hundred yards or so
of the beach. What are you going to do, lash them side by side? Not
to mention that the tanks don't have to come down onto the beach to
totally screw up your landing...
A hundred yards or so of the beach? Without running aground?

It would be more like 1/2 mile or more. Then there are cruisers
and battleships as well. At Iwo Jima, several battleships were
brought to within a mile to fire at batteries in Mount Suribachi,
and after the landings were mostly complete.

WWII battleships, cruisers and destroyers weren't designed for
firing at land targets but they were used with some effectiveness
for shore bombardment with HE shells, thruout the war. This even
though the 'land' has a way of firing back at warships.

Whatever the difficulties of firing at tanks, if German tanks became
an issue at Normandy, I would think that the USN and RN would have
improvised and figured out what they could do without endangering
Allied troops ashore.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-12 09:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Did you smoke a reefer today?
Have you still not pulled your head out of your ass today?
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Emergency situation -- invasion underway. Rommel sends his tank corps.
Do the Allies not use every weapon they have available? Hit what they
could, disrupt what they can, slow down whatever possible.
But if, as you insist, there was "no possibility of failure", just
what is the "emergency"? Do the math. How many tanks in a Panzer
Corps? How many spare destroyers do you have sitting around doing
nothing? How many of them can you jam inshore to try to plink tanks?
Divide the number of tanks in a Panzer Corps by 12 (best case) to see
how many destroyers you need to jam in to within a hundred yards or so
of the beach. What are you going to do, lash them side by side? Not
to mention that the tanks don't have to come down onto the beach to
totally screw up your landing...
A hundred yards or so of the beach? Without running aground?
You're talking about direct fire with a destroyer gun, so yeah, you're
going to have to be that close in to plink tanks. Did you not even
read your own cite?
Post by Scott Kozel
It would be more like 1/2 mile or more. Then there are cruisers
and battleships as well. At Iwo Jima, several battleships were
brought to within a mile to fire at batteries in Mount Suribachi,
and after the landings were mostly complete.
So not tanks, then, and again you might want to look at how many
rounds it takes to get a hit.
Post by Scott Kozel
WWII battleships, cruisers and destroyers weren't designed for
firing at land targets but they were used with some effectiveness
for shore bombardment with HE shells, thruout the war. This even
though the 'land' has a way of firing back at warships.
Another one who needs to go look up the difference between NGFS and
'tank plinking'.
Post by Scott Kozel
Whatever the difficulties of firing at tanks, if German tanks became
an issue at Normandy, I would think that the USN and RN would have
improvised and figured out what they could do without endangering
Allied troops ashore.
Oh, I see. The allies can't lose because ... MAGIC.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Scott Kozel
2019-06-12 12:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Did you smoke a reefer today?
Have you still not pulled your head out of your ass today?
Hash? Pot? Pills?
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Emergency situation -- invasion underway. Rommel sends his tank corps.
Do the Allies not use every weapon they have available? Hit what they
could, disrupt what they can, slow down whatever possible.
But if, as you insist, there was "no possibility of failure", just
what is the "emergency"? Do the math. How many tanks in a Panzer
Corps? How many spare destroyers do you have sitting around doing
nothing? How many of them can you jam inshore to try to plink tanks?
Divide the number of tanks in a Panzer Corps by 12 (best case) to see
how many destroyers you need to jam in to within a hundred yards or so
of the beach. What are you going to do, lash them side by side? Not
to mention that the tanks don't have to come down onto the beach to
totally screw up your landing...
A hundred yards or so of the beach? Without running aground?
You're talking about direct fire with a destroyer gun, so yeah, you're
going to have to be that close in to plink tanks. Did you not even
read your own cite?
Post by Scott Kozel
It would be more like 1/2 mile or more. Then there are cruisers
and battleships as well. At Iwo Jima, several battleships were
brought to within a mile to fire at batteries in Mount Suribachi,
and after the landings were mostly complete.
So not tanks, then, and again you might want to look at how many
rounds it takes to get a hit.
So what is your suggestion if 100 or 200 German tanks are moving en masse
toward one of the beaches while the Allied troops are still on the beaches?

You don't have to hit all of them or even a large percentage to disrupt
their movement, slow down their movement, disrupt their aim. Anything to
provide more time for more troops to land, start landing artillery.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-12 14:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Did you smoke a reefer today?
Have you still not pulled your head out of your ass today?
Hash? Pot? Pills?
Ass? Ass? Ass?
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Emergency situation -- invasion underway. Rommel sends his tank corps.
Do the Allies not use every weapon they have available? Hit what they
could, disrupt what they can, slow down whatever possible.
But if, as you insist, there was "no possibility of failure", just
what is the "emergency"? Do the math. How many tanks in a Panzer
Corps? How many spare destroyers do you have sitting around doing
nothing? How many of them can you jam inshore to try to plink tanks?
Divide the number of tanks in a Panzer Corps by 12 (best case) to see
how many destroyers you need to jam in to within a hundred yards or so
of the beach. What are you going to do, lash them side by side? Not
to mention that the tanks don't have to come down onto the beach to
totally screw up your landing...
A hundred yards or so of the beach? Without running aground?
You're talking about direct fire with a destroyer gun, so yeah, you're
going to have to be that close in to plink tanks. Did you not even
read your own cite?
Post by Scott Kozel
It would be more like 1/2 mile or more. Then there are cruisers
and battleships as well. At Iwo Jima, several battleships were
brought to within a mile to fire at batteries in Mount Suribachi,
and after the landings were mostly complete.
So not tanks, then, and again you might want to look at how many
rounds it takes to get a hit.
So what is your suggestion if 100 or 200 German tanks are moving en masse
toward one of the beaches while the Allied troops are still on the beaches?
*I* suggest you get them the fuck off the beach before you have
another Dunkirk on your hands.
Post by Scott Kozel
You don't have to hit all of them or even a large percentage to disrupt
their movement, slow down their movement, disrupt their aim. Anything to
provide more time for more troops to land, start landing artillery.
So you're a fan of Dunkirk and Gallipoli....

So far, you know nothing about amphibious landings, ship gunnery, or
tanks. Care to add more?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Scott Kozel
2019-06-12 19:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
It would be more like 1/2 mile or more. Then there are cruisers
and battleships as well. At Iwo Jima, several battleships were
brought to within a mile to fire at batteries in Mount Suribachi,
and after the landings were mostly complete.
So not tanks, then, and again you might want to look at how many
rounds it takes to get a hit.
So what is your suggestion if 100 or 200 German tanks are moving en masse
toward one of the beaches while the Allied troops are still on the beaches?
*I* suggest you get them the fuck off the beach before you have
another Dunkirk on your hands.
Well, Overlord was completed long ago .... but since we are analyzing
"what if" scenarios ....

General McCall, here is your tactical situation.

The German tank corps are now close enough to Omaha Beach that it would be
difficult or impossible to move the troops inland before the tank threat is
addressed and at least seriously reduced.

What do you do if
1) Weather and ceilings are such that there is very little that Allied
aircraft can do about the tanks.
2) No restrictions to aircraft operations.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-12 23:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
It would be more like 1/2 mile or more. Then there are cruisers
and battleships as well. At Iwo Jima, several battleships were
brought to within a mile to fire at batteries in Mount Suribachi,
and after the landings were mostly complete.
So not tanks, then, and again you might want to look at how many
rounds it takes to get a hit.
So what is your suggestion if 100 or 200 German tanks are moving en masse
toward one of the beaches while the Allied troops are still on the beaches?
*I* suggest you get them the fuck off the beach before you have
another Dunkirk on your hands.
Well, Overlord was completed long ago .... but since we are analyzing
"what if" scenarios ....
General McCall, here is your tactical situation.
I don't take tactical advice from idiots.
Post by Scott Kozel
The German tank corps are now close enough to Omaha Beach that it would be
difficult or impossible to move the troops inland before the tank threat is
addressed and at least seriously reduced.
What do you do if
1) Weather and ceilings are such that there is very little that Allied
aircraft can do about the tanks.
2) No restrictions to aircraft operations.
Either way, you pull as much in the way of men and equipment as you
can off the beach before the enemy armor arrives. The landing has
failed. Save what you can. You're not going to stop Rommel's panzer
corps and you're certainly not going to advance inland against them.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Jonathan
2019-06-12 23:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
It would be more like 1/2 mile or more. Then there are cruisers
and battleships as well. At Iwo Jima, several battleships were
brought to within a mile to fire at batteries in Mount Suribachi,
and after the landings were mostly complete.
So not tanks, then, and again you might want to look at how many
rounds it takes to get a hit.
So what is your suggestion if 100 or 200 German tanks are moving en masse
toward one of the beaches while the Allied troops are still on the beaches?
*I* suggest you get them the fuck off the beach before you have
another Dunkirk on your hands.
Well, Overlord was completed long ago .... but since we are analyzing
"what if" scenarios ....
General McCall, here is your tactical situation.
I don't take tactical advice from idiots.
Post by Scott Kozel
The German tank corps are now close enough to Omaha Beach that it would be
difficult or impossible to move the troops inland before the tank threat is
addressed and at least seriously reduced.
What do you do if
1) Weather and ceilings are such that there is very little that Allied
aircraft can do about the tanks.
2) No restrictions to aircraft operations.
Either way, you pull as much in the way of men and equipment as you
can off the beach before the enemy armor arrives. The landing has
failed. Save what you can. You're not going to stop Rommel's panzer
corps and you're certainly not going to advance inland against them.
Oh Christ Fred we had complete control of the air and
there were some 13,000 allied aircraft participating
in D-Day. Those tanks wouldn't last more than two
days of clear weather.


"Shortly after D-Day, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower toured the
landing beaches with his son, newly commissioned 2d Lt.
John Eisenhower. Looking at the concentrated mass of
troops and vehicles vulnerable to attack in a confined
space, the young officer noted that such a situation
violated doctrine. The Allies were wide open to
bombing attack. The elder Eisenhower replied,
‘‘If I didn’t have air supremacy I wouldn’t be here.’’


"One example of tactical airpower’s effectiveness was
Panzer Lehr’s eighty-mile dash to the coast.
The commanding officer described the trek as
‘‘a fighter-bomber race course,’’ and though the
division lost only five tanks, it wrote off or
abandoned eighty-four other armored vehicles
and 130 trucks or transport vehicles"


"The U.S. Army Air Forces flew 8,722 sorties on 6 June,
losing seventy one aircraft to all causes. Ninth Air Force
medium bombers performed splendidly at Utah Beach,
where B-26s and A-20s destroyed most of the German
heavy guns and mortars. However, those attacks were
made at low level with visual bombing, which
enhanced their effectiveness."

https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-airpower
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1


s
Scott Kozel
2019-06-13 00:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
It would be more like 1/2 mile or more. Then there are cruisers
and battleships as well. At Iwo Jima, several battleships were
brought to within a mile to fire at batteries in Mount Suribachi,
and after the landings were mostly complete.
So not tanks, then, and again you might want to look at how many
rounds it takes to get a hit.
So what is your suggestion if 100 or 200 German tanks are moving en masse
toward one of the beaches while the Allied troops are still on the beaches?
*I* suggest you get them the fuck off the beach before you have
another Dunkirk on your hands.
Well, Overlord was completed long ago .... but since we are analyzing
"what if" scenarios ....
General McCall, here is your tactical situation.
I don't take tactical advice from idiots.
Not "advice" but asking for ideas.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
The German tank corps are now close enough to Omaha Beach that it would be
difficult or impossible to move the troops inland before the tank threat is
addressed and at least seriously reduced.
What do you do if
1) Weather and ceilings are such that there is very little that Allied
aircraft can do about the tanks.
2) No restrictions to aircraft operations.
Either way, you pull as much in the way of men and equipment as you
can off the beach before the enemy armor arrives. The landing has
failed. Save what you can. You're not going to stop Rommel's panzer
corps and you're certainly not going to advance inland against them.
Oh Christ Fred we had complete control of the air and
there were some 13,000 allied aircraft participating
in D-Day. Those tanks wouldn't last more than two
days of clear weather.
He would probably think I was an "idiot" if I postulated naval
commanders computing solutions for targeting what they could with
low-angle fire, and for those not visible from the sea, seeing
what would compute for high-angle fire with regard to distance
and accuracy.

There were very few enemy tanks on Okinawa, but USN warships were
used for such high-angle fire deep inland utilizing land spotters
and air spotters to help direct the fire.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-13 06:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Jonathan
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
It would be more like 1/2 mile or more. Then there are cruisers
and battleships as well. At Iwo Jima, several battleships were
brought to within a mile to fire at batteries in Mount Suribachi,
and after the landings were mostly complete.
So not tanks, then, and again you might want to look at how many
rounds it takes to get a hit.
So what is your suggestion if 100 or 200 German tanks are moving en masse
toward one of the beaches while the Allied troops are still on the beaches?
*I* suggest you get them the fuck off the beach before you have
another Dunkirk on your hands.
Well, Overlord was completed long ago .... but since we are analyzing
"what if" scenarios ....
General McCall, here is your tactical situation.
I don't take tactical advice from idiots.
Not "advice" but asking for ideas.
Which you steadfastly refuse to take.
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Jonathan
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
The German tank corps are now close enough to Omaha Beach that it would be
difficult or impossible to move the troops inland before the tank threat is
addressed and at least seriously reduced.
What do you do if
1) Weather and ceilings are such that there is very little that Allied
aircraft can do about the tanks.
2) No restrictions to aircraft operations.
Either way, you pull as much in the way of men and equipment as you
can off the beach before the enemy armor arrives. The landing has
failed. Save what you can. You're not going to stop Rommel's panzer
corps and you're certainly not going to advance inland against them.
Oh Christ Fred we had complete control of the air and
there were some 13,000 allied aircraft participating
in D-Day. Those tanks wouldn't last more than two
days of clear weather.
He would probably think I was an "idiot" if I postulated naval
commanders computing solutions for targeting what they could with
low-angle fire, and for those not visible from the sea, seeing
what would compute for high-angle fire with regard to distance
and accuracy.
I think that word 'possible' is what's screwing you up. EFFECTIVE
TANK PLINKING IS NOT POSSIBLE.
Post by Scott Kozel
There were very few enemy tanks on Okinawa, but USN warships were
used for such high-angle fire deep inland utilizing land spotters
and air spotters to help direct the fire.
But not to try to 'plink' tanks.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Scott Kozel
2019-06-13 10:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Jonathan
Oh Christ Fred we had complete control of the air and
there were some 13,000 allied aircraft participating
in D-Day. Those tanks wouldn't last more than two
days of clear weather.
He would probably think I was an "idiot" if I postulated naval
commanders computing solutions for targeting what they could with
low-angle fire, and for those not visible from the sea, seeing
what would compute for high-angle fire with regard to distance
and accuracy.
I think that word 'possible' is what's screwing you up. EFFECTIVE
TANK PLINKING IS NOT POSSIBLE.
Post by Scott Kozel
There were very few enemy tanks on Okinawa, but USN warships were
used for such high-angle fire deep inland utilizing land spotters
and air spotters to help direct the fire.
But not to try to 'plink' tanks.
"Tank plinking is a term that was given by pilots during the Gulf War to the
practice of using precision-guided munitions to destroy artillery, armored
personnel carriers, tanks, and other targets. As the war progressed, the term
began to encompass all forms of destroying a target with an excessively capable
weapon. This term was discouraged by the military."

The also used good old-fashioned iron bomb carpet bombing from bomber aircraft,
and destroyed plenty of artillery, armored personnel carriers, tanks, and other
targets.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-13 15:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Jonathan
Oh Christ Fred we had complete control of the air and
there were some 13,000 allied aircraft participating
in D-Day. Those tanks wouldn't last more than two
days of clear weather.
He would probably think I was an "idiot" if I postulated naval
commanders computing solutions for targeting what they could with
low-angle fire, and for those not visible from the sea, seeing
what would compute for high-angle fire with regard to distance
and accuracy.
I think that word 'possible' is what's screwing you up. EFFECTIVE
TANK PLINKING IS NOT POSSIBLE.
Post by Scott Kozel
There were very few enemy tanks on Okinawa, but USN warships were
used for such high-angle fire deep inland utilizing land spotters
and air spotters to help direct the fire.
But not to try to 'plink' tanks.
"Tank plinking is a term that was given by pilots during the Gulf War to the
practice of using precision-guided munitions to destroy artillery, armored
personnel carriers, tanks, and other targets. As the war progressed, the term
began to encompass all forms of destroying a target with an excessively capable
weapon. This term was discouraged by the military."
If you're going to put something in quotes, give the source.
Post by Scott Kozel
The also used good old-fashioned iron bomb carpet bombing from bomber aircraft,
and destroyed plenty of artillery, armored personnel carriers, tanks, and other
targets.
Believe what you want, you ignorant sod. In addition to looking up
the effectiveness of unguided munitions and naval guns againist heavy
armor, I suggest you look up the word 'plink'.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Scott Kozel
2019-06-13 19:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
There were very few enemy tanks on Okinawa, but USN warships were
used for such high-angle fire deep inland utilizing land spotters
and air spotters to help direct the fire.
But not to try to 'plink' tanks.
"Tank plinking is a term that was given by pilots during the Gulf War to the
practice of using precision-guided munitions to destroy artillery, armored
personnel carriers, tanks, and other targets. As the war progressed, the term
began to encompass all forms of destroying a target with an excessively capable
weapon. This term was discouraged by the military."
If you're going to put something in quotes, give the source.
Post by Scott Kozel
The also used good old-fashioned iron bomb carpet bombing from bomber aircraft,
and destroyed plenty of artillery, armored personnel carriers, tanks, and other
targets.
Believe what you want, you ignorant sod. In addition to looking up
the effectiveness of unguided munitions and naval guns againist heavy
armor, I suggest you look up the word 'plink'.
Like when a guy take his "hardware" out into the woods to have some fun?
But that wasn't the definition you were looking for . . .

So how do you engage the German tank corps that are heading toward your
thousands of troops on Omaha Beach and there is no place yet for them to
move inland and they have little or no artillery on the beach yet?

The world wonders.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-13 22:42:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
There were very few enemy tanks on Okinawa, but USN warships were
used for such high-angle fire deep inland utilizing land spotters
and air spotters to help direct the fire.
But not to try to 'plink' tanks.
"Tank plinking is a term that was given by pilots during the Gulf War to the
practice of using precision-guided munitions to destroy artillery, armored
personnel carriers, tanks, and other targets. As the war progressed, the term
began to encompass all forms of destroying a target with an excessively capable
weapon. This term was discouraged by the military."
If you're going to put something in quotes, give the source.
Post by Scott Kozel
The also used good old-fashioned iron bomb carpet bombing from bomber aircraft,
and destroyed plenty of artillery, armored personnel carriers, tanks, and other
targets.
Believe what you want, you ignorant sod. In addition to looking up
the effectiveness of unguided munitions and naval guns againist heavy
armor, I suggest you look up the word 'plink'.
Like when a guy take his "hardware" out into the woods to have some fun?
But that wasn't the definition you were looking for . . .
So how do you engage the German tank corps that are heading toward your
thousands of troops on Omaha Beach and there is no place yet for them to
move inland and they have little or no artillery on the beach yet?
The world wonders.
Well, the world should pull its head out of its ass and pay attention
to the answer that I've already given at least twice. You DON'T.
Instead, you expend maximum effort to get as many of your people and
as much of your equipment as you can off the beach and back onto ships
so you don't lose it. Using air power to try to slow them down might
help with that, but you're not going to slow them down much and you're
certainly not going to stop them. Naval gunfire will be even less
effective than the airplanes. Your ideas just make sure that you get
the maximum number of your own troops chewed up.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
ZZyXX
2019-06-14 00:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
There were very few enemy tanks on Okinawa, but USN warships were
used for such high-angle fire deep inland utilizing land spotters
and air spotters to help direct the fire.
But not to try to 'plink' tanks.
"Tank plinking is a term that was given by pilots during the Gulf War to the
practice of using precision-guided munitions to destroy artillery, armored
personnel carriers, tanks, and other targets. As the war progressed, the term
began to encompass all forms of destroying a target with an excessively capable
weapon. This term was discouraged by the military."
If you're going to put something in quotes, give the source.
Post by Scott Kozel
The also used good old-fashioned iron bomb carpet bombing from bomber aircraft,
and destroyed plenty of artillery, armored personnel carriers, tanks, and other
targets.
Believe what you want, you ignorant sod. In addition to looking up
the effectiveness of unguided munitions and naval guns againist heavy
armor, I suggest you look up the word 'plink'.
Like when a guy take his "hardware" out into the woods to have some fun?
But that wasn't the definition you were looking for . . .
So how do you engage the German tank corps that are heading toward your
thousands of troops on Omaha Beach and there is no place yet for them to
move inland and they have little or no artillery on the beach yet?
The world wonders.
Well, the world should pull its head out of its ass and pay attention
to the answer that I've already given at least twice. You DON'T.
Instead, you expend maximum effort to get as many of your people and
as much of your equipment as you can off the beach and back onto ships
so you don't lose it. Using air power to try to slow them down might
help with that, but you're not going to slow them down much and you're
certainly not going to stop them. Naval gunfire will be even less
effective than the airplanes. Your ideas just make sure that you get
the maximum number of your own troops chewed up.
so you clear the beaches, the German tank corps rolls up to the beach
and since they are hard for naval assets to kill the German tanks are
presented with nice big targets?
David E. Powell
2019-06-14 03:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZZyXX
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
There were very few enemy tanks on Okinawa, but USN warships were
used for such high-angle fire deep inland utilizing land spotters
and air spotters to help direct the fire.
But not to try to 'plink' tanks.
"Tank plinking is a term that was given by pilots during the Gulf War to the
practice of using precision-guided munitions to destroy artillery, armored
personnel carriers, tanks, and other targets. As the war progressed, the term
began to encompass all forms of destroying a target with an excessively capable
weapon. This term was discouraged by the military."
If you're going to put something in quotes, give the source.
Post by Scott Kozel
The also used good old-fashioned iron bomb carpet bombing from bomber aircraft,
and destroyed plenty of artillery, armored personnel carriers, tanks, and other
targets.
Believe what you want, you ignorant sod. In addition to looking up
the effectiveness of unguided munitions and naval guns againist heavy
armor, I suggest you look up the word 'plink'.
Like when a guy take his "hardware" out into the woods to have some fun?
But that wasn't the definition you were looking for . . .
So how do you engage the German tank corps that are heading toward your
thousands of troops on Omaha Beach and there is no place yet for them to
move inland and they have little or no artillery on the beach yet?
The world wonders.
Well, the world should pull its head out of its ass and pay attention
to the answer that I've already given at least twice. You DON'T.
Instead, you expend maximum effort to get as many of your people and
as much of your equipment as you can off the beach and back onto ships
so you don't lose it. Using air power to try to slow them down might
help with that, but you're not going to slow them down much and you're
certainly not going to stop them. Naval gunfire will be even less
effective than the airplanes. Your ideas just make sure that you get
the maximum number of your own troops chewed up.
so you clear the beaches, the German tank corps rolls up to the beach
and since they are hard for naval assets to kill the German tanks are
presented with nice big targets?
I used to do simulator battles like this in World War II Online:

https://www.wwiionline.com/

<https://www.wwiionline.com/>

When Tanks and AT guns took on Destroyers, the Destroyers usually won. Of course, doing that meant the ground forces basically driving up to the water's edge, or close enough to it that one could take an unobstructed shot. Concealment from brush didn't seem to help much once the Destroyers figured out where the Tanks and Antitank Guns were.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-14 06:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZZyXX
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
There were very few enemy tanks on Okinawa, but USN warships were
used for such high-angle fire deep inland utilizing land spotters
and air spotters to help direct the fire.
But not to try to 'plink' tanks.
"Tank plinking is a term that was given by pilots during the Gulf War to the
practice of using precision-guided munitions to destroy artillery, armored
personnel carriers, tanks, and other targets. As the war progressed, the term
began to encompass all forms of destroying a target with an excessively capable
weapon. This term was discouraged by the military."
If you're going to put something in quotes, give the source.
Post by Scott Kozel
The also used good old-fashioned iron bomb carpet bombing from bomber aircraft,
and destroyed plenty of artillery, armored personnel carriers, tanks, and other
targets.
Believe what you want, you ignorant sod. In addition to looking up
the effectiveness of unguided munitions and naval guns againist heavy
armor, I suggest you look up the word 'plink'.
Like when a guy take his "hardware" out into the woods to have some fun?
But that wasn't the definition you were looking for . . .
So how do you engage the German tank corps that are heading toward your
thousands of troops on Omaha Beach and there is no place yet for them to
move inland and they have little or no artillery on the beach yet?
The world wonders.
Well, the world should pull its head out of its ass and pay attention
to the answer that I've already given at least twice. You DON'T.
Instead, you expend maximum effort to get as many of your people and
as much of your equipment as you can off the beach and back onto ships
so you don't lose it. Using air power to try to slow them down might
help with that, but you're not going to slow them down much and you're
certainly not going to stop them. Naval gunfire will be even less
effective than the airplanes. Your ideas just make sure that you get
the maximum number of your own troops chewed up.
so you clear the beaches, the German tank corps rolls up to the beach
and since they are hard for naval assets to kill the German tanks are
presented with nice big targets?
"Nice big targets" like WHAT? Once you get people back aboard you
don't just hang around out there...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
ZZyXX
2019-06-14 20:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by ZZyXX
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
There were very few enemy tanks on Okinawa, but USN warships were
used for such high-angle fire deep inland utilizing land spotters
and air spotters to help direct the fire.
But not to try to 'plink' tanks.
"Tank plinking is a term that was given by pilots during the Gulf War to the
practice of using precision-guided munitions to destroy artillery, armored
personnel carriers, tanks, and other targets. As the war progressed, the term
began to encompass all forms of destroying a target with an excessively capable
weapon. This term was discouraged by the military."
If you're going to put something in quotes, give the source.
Post by Scott Kozel
The also used good old-fashioned iron bomb carpet bombing from bomber aircraft,
and destroyed plenty of artillery, armored personnel carriers, tanks, and other
targets.
Believe what you want, you ignorant sod. In addition to looking up
the effectiveness of unguided munitions and naval guns againist heavy
armor, I suggest you look up the word 'plink'.
Like when a guy take his "hardware" out into the woods to have some fun?
But that wasn't the definition you were looking for . . .
So how do you engage the German tank corps that are heading toward your
thousands of troops on Omaha Beach and there is no place yet for them to
move inland and they have little or no artillery on the beach yet?
The world wonders.
Well, the world should pull its head out of its ass and pay attention
to the answer that I've already given at least twice. You DON'T.
Instead, you expend maximum effort to get as many of your people and
as much of your equipment as you can off the beach and back onto ships
so you don't lose it. Using air power to try to slow them down might
help with that, but you're not going to slow them down much and you're
certainly not going to stop them. Naval gunfire will be even less
effective than the airplanes. Your ideas just make sure that you get
the maximum number of your own troops chewed up.
so you clear the beaches, the German tank corps rolls up to the beach
and since they are hard for naval assets to kill the German tanks are
presented with nice big targets?
"Nice big targets" like WHAT? Once you get people back aboard you
don't just hang around out there...
so the Germans wouldn't fire on the ships while they were being loaded?
Scott Kozel
2019-06-15 03:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZZyXX
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by ZZyXX
Post by Fred J. McCall
Well, the world should pull its head out of its ass and pay attention
to the answer that I've already given at least twice. You DON'T.
Instead, you expend maximum effort to get as many of your people and
as much of your equipment as you can off the beach and back onto ships
so you don't lose it. Using air power to try to slow them down might
help with that, but you're not going to slow them down much and you're
certainly not going to stop them. Naval gunfire will be even less
effective than the airplanes. Your ideas just make sure that you get
the maximum number of your own troops chewed up.
so you clear the beaches, the German tank corps rolls up to the beach
and since they are hard for naval assets to kill the German tanks are
presented with nice big targets?
"Nice big targets" like WHAT? Once you get people back aboard you
don't just hang around out there...
so the Germans wouldn't fire on the ships while they were being loaded?
Anyone want to make an estimate of how long it would take to transport
thousands of U.S. troops from the beach back to the ships, and how many
U.S. troops would be killed during this process?
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-15 07:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by ZZyXX
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by ZZyXX
Post by Fred J. McCall
Well, the world should pull its head out of its ass and pay attention
to the answer that I've already given at least twice. You DON'T.
Instead, you expend maximum effort to get as many of your people and
as much of your equipment as you can off the beach and back onto ships
so you don't lose it. Using air power to try to slow them down might
help with that, but you're not going to slow them down much and you're
certainly not going to stop them. Naval gunfire will be even less
effective than the airplanes. Your ideas just make sure that you get
the maximum number of your own troops chewed up.
so you clear the beaches, the German tank corps rolls up to the beach
and since they are hard for naval assets to kill the German tanks are
presented with nice big targets?
"Nice big targets" like WHAT? Once you get people back aboard you
don't just hang around out there...
so the Germans wouldn't fire on the ships while they were being loaded?
Anyone want to make an estimate of how long it would take to transport
thousands of U.S. troops from the beach back to the ships, ...
Not significantly longer than it took to get them ashore, particularly
given that you only have to bring back the live ones.
Post by Scott Kozel
... and how many
U.S. troops would be killed during this process?
A lot fewer than would be killed if you just kept shoveling fresh meat
into the meat grinder after the landings have failed.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Scott Kozel
2019-06-15 12:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Anyone want to make an estimate of how long it would take to transport
thousands of U.S. troops from the beach back to the ships, ...
Not significantly longer than it took to get them ashore, particularly
given that you only have to bring back the live ones.
Post by Scott Kozel
... and how many
U.S. troops would be killed during this process?
A lot fewer than would be killed if you just kept shoveling fresh meat
into the meat grinder after the landings have failed.
We also have to consider that there will be a lot fewer landing craft
still operational at that point.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-15 14:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Anyone want to make an estimate of how long it would take to transport
thousands of U.S. troops from the beach back to the ships, ...
Not significantly longer than it took to get them ashore, particularly
given that you only have to bring back the live ones.
Post by Scott Kozel
... and how many
U.S. troops would be killed during this process?
A lot fewer than would be killed if you just kept shoveling fresh meat
into the meat grinder after the landings have failed.
We also have to consider that there will be a lot fewer landing craft
still operational at that point.
Really? Why is that? If you're losing entire landing craft, you're
also mostly losing their contents. Add in losses once folks try to
get ashore and the ratio of landing craft to stuff you need to move
off the beach only ever improves.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-15 07:51:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZZyXX
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by ZZyXX
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
There were very few enemy tanks on Okinawa, but USN warships were
used for such high-angle fire deep inland utilizing land spotters
and air spotters to help direct the fire.
But not to try to 'plink' tanks.
"Tank plinking is a term that was given by pilots during the Gulf War to the
practice of using precision-guided munitions to destroy artillery, armored
personnel carriers, tanks, and other targets. As the war progressed, the term
began to encompass all forms of destroying a target with an excessively capable
weapon. This term was discouraged by the military."
If you're going to put something in quotes, give the source.
Post by Scott Kozel
The also used good old-fashioned iron bomb carpet bombing from bomber aircraft,
and destroyed plenty of artillery, armored personnel carriers, tanks, and other
targets.
Believe what you want, you ignorant sod. In addition to looking up
the effectiveness of unguided munitions and naval guns againist heavy
armor, I suggest you look up the word 'plink'.
Like when a guy take his "hardware" out into the woods to have some fun?
But that wasn't the definition you were looking for . . .
So how do you engage the German tank corps that are heading toward your
thousands of troops on Omaha Beach and there is no place yet for them to
move inland and they have little or no artillery on the beach yet?
The world wonders.
Well, the world should pull its head out of its ass and pay attention
to the answer that I've already given at least twice. You DON'T.
Instead, you expend maximum effort to get as many of your people and
as much of your equipment as you can off the beach and back onto ships
so you don't lose it. Using air power to try to slow them down might
help with that, but you're not going to slow them down much and you're
certainly not going to stop them. Naval gunfire will be even less
effective than the airplanes. Your ideas just make sure that you get
the maximum number of your own troops chewed up.
so you clear the beaches, the German tank corps rolls up to the beach
and since they are hard for naval assets to kill the German tanks are
presented with nice big targets?
"Nice big targets" like WHAT? Once you get people back aboard you
don't just hang around out there...
so the Germans wouldn't fire on the ships while they were being loaded?
1) The idea is to be gone before they get there.

2) Your typical tank gun isn't significantly more effective against a
ship than the typical ship gun is against a tank.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
ZZyXX
2019-06-15 19:20:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by ZZyXX
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by ZZyXX
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
There were very few enemy tanks on Okinawa, but USN warships were
used for such high-angle fire deep inland utilizing land spotters
and air spotters to help direct the fire.
But not to try to 'plink' tanks.
"Tank plinking is a term that was given by pilots during the Gulf War to the
practice of using precision-guided munitions to destroy artillery, armored
personnel carriers, tanks, and other targets. As the war progressed, the term
began to encompass all forms of destroying a target with an excessively capable
weapon. This term was discouraged by the military."
If you're going to put something in quotes, give the source.
Post by Scott Kozel
The also used good old-fashioned iron bomb carpet bombing from bomber aircraft,
and destroyed plenty of artillery, armored personnel carriers, tanks, and other
targets.
Believe what you want, you ignorant sod. In addition to looking up
the effectiveness of unguided munitions and naval guns againist heavy
armor, I suggest you look up the word 'plink'.
Like when a guy take his "hardware" out into the woods to have some fun?
But that wasn't the definition you were looking for . . .
So how do you engage the German tank corps that are heading toward your
thousands of troops on Omaha Beach and there is no place yet for them to
move inland and they have little or no artillery on the beach yet?
The world wonders.
Well, the world should pull its head out of its ass and pay attention
to the answer that I've already given at least twice. You DON'T.
Instead, you expend maximum effort to get as many of your people and
as much of your equipment as you can off the beach and back onto ships
so you don't lose it. Using air power to try to slow them down might
help with that, but you're not going to slow them down much and you're
certainly not going to stop them. Naval gunfire will be even less
effective than the airplanes. Your ideas just make sure that you get
the maximum number of your own troops chewed up.
so you clear the beaches, the German tank corps rolls up to the beach
and since they are hard for naval assets to kill the German tanks are
presented with nice big targets?
"Nice big targets" like WHAT? Once you get people back aboard you
don't just hang around out there...
so the Germans wouldn't fire on the ships while they were being loaded?
1) The idea is to be gone before they get there.
which is why the Germans roll up on the beach as quickly they can
Post by Fred J. McCall
2) Your typical tank gun isn't significantly more effective against a
ship than the typical ship gun is against a tank.
How effective does a typical tank gun have to be. Exactly how long would
the ship accept being hit by tank rounds

Jonathan
2019-06-13 22:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Jonathan
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
It would be more like 1/2 mile or more. Then there are cruisers
and battleships as well. At Iwo Jima, several battleships were
brought to within a mile to fire at batteries in Mount Suribachi,
and after the landings were mostly complete.
So not tanks, then, and again you might want to look at how many
rounds it takes to get a hit.
So what is your suggestion if 100 or 200 German tanks are moving en masse
toward one of the beaches while the Allied troops are still on the beaches?
*I* suggest you get them the fuck off the beach before you have
another Dunkirk on your hands.
Well, Overlord was completed long ago .... but since we are analyzing
"what if" scenarios ....
General McCall, here is your tactical situation.
I don't take tactical advice from idiots.
Not "advice" but asking for ideas.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
The German tank corps are now close enough to Omaha Beach that it would be
difficult or impossible to move the troops inland before the tank threat is
addressed and at least seriously reduced.
What do you do if
1) Weather and ceilings are such that there is very little that Allied
aircraft can do about the tanks.
2) No restrictions to aircraft operations.
Either way, you pull as much in the way of men and equipment as you
can off the beach before the enemy armor arrives. The landing has
failed. Save what you can. You're not going to stop Rommel's panzer
corps and you're certainly not going to advance inland against them.
Oh Christ Fred we had complete control of the air and
there were some 13,000 allied aircraft participating
in D-Day. Those tanks wouldn't last more than two
days of clear weather.
He would probably think I was an "idiot" if I postulated naval
commanders computing solutions for targeting what they could with
low-angle fire, and for those not visible from the sea, seeing
what would compute for high-angle fire with regard to distance
and accuracy.
At D-day the problem with both the naval and air bombardment
before and during the landings was that they were afraid
of cratering the beaches, so both the naval and air forces
ended up overshooting the German defenses and did little
to no damage.

But any German forces approaching within fifty miles of the beach
would be quickly spotted and wiped out long before they
made it to the landing zones.
Post by Scott Kozel
There were very few enemy tanks on Okinawa, but USN warships were
used for such high-angle fire deep inland utilizing land spotters
and air spotters to help direct the fire.
Spotters make all the difference.
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1


s
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-13 22:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Jonathan
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
It would be more like 1/2 mile or more. Then there are cruisers
and battleships as well. At Iwo Jima, several battleships were
brought to within a mile to fire at batteries in Mount Suribachi,
and after the landings were mostly complete.
So not tanks, then, and again you might want to look at how many
rounds it takes to get a hit.
So what is your suggestion if 100 or 200 German tanks are moving en masse
toward one of the beaches while the Allied troops are still on the beaches?
*I* suggest you get them the fuck off the beach before you have
another Dunkirk on your hands.
Well, Overlord was completed long ago .... but since we are analyzing
"what if" scenarios ....
General McCall, here is your tactical situation.
I don't take tactical advice from idiots.
Not "advice" but asking for ideas.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
The German tank corps are now close enough to Omaha Beach that it would be
difficult or impossible to move the troops inland before the tank threat is
addressed and at least seriously reduced.
What do you do if
1) Weather and ceilings are such that there is very little that Allied
aircraft can do about the tanks.
2) No restrictions to aircraft operations.
Either way, you pull as much in the way of men and equipment as you
can off the beach before the enemy armor arrives. The landing has
failed. Save what you can. You're not going to stop Rommel's panzer
corps and you're certainly not going to advance inland against them.
Oh Christ Fred we had complete control of the air and
there were some 13,000 allied aircraft participating
in D-Day. Those tanks wouldn't last more than two
days of clear weather.
He would probably think I was an "idiot" if I postulated naval
commanders computing solutions for targeting what they could with
low-angle fire, and for those not visible from the sea, seeing
what would compute for high-angle fire with regard to distance
and accuracy.
At D-day the problem with both the naval and air bombardment
before and during the landings was that they were afraid
of cratering the beaches, so both the naval and air forces
ended up overshooting the German defenses and did little
to no damage.
Horse manure.
Post by Jonathan
But any German forces approaching within fifty miles of the beach
would be quickly spotted and wiped out long before they
made it to the landing zones.
And yet that didn't happen. FIVE TANKS OUT OF HUNDREDS...
Post by Jonathan
Post by Scott Kozel
There were very few enemy tanks on Okinawa, but USN warships were
used for such high-angle fire deep inland utilizing land spotters
and air spotters to help direct the fire.
Spotters make all the difference.
Not against tanks they don't.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-13 06:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
It would be more like 1/2 mile or more. Then there are cruisers
and battleships as well. At Iwo Jima, several battleships were
brought to within a mile to fire at batteries in Mount Suribachi,
and after the landings were mostly complete.
So not tanks, then, and again you might want to look at how many
rounds it takes to get a hit.
So what is your suggestion if 100 or 200 German tanks are moving en masse
toward one of the beaches while the Allied troops are still on the beaches?
*I* suggest you get them the fuck off the beach before you have
another Dunkirk on your hands.
Well, Overlord was completed long ago .... but since we are analyzing
"what if" scenarios ....
General McCall, here is your tactical situation.
I don't take tactical advice from idiots.
Post by Scott Kozel
The German tank corps are now close enough to Omaha Beach that it would be
difficult or impossible to move the troops inland before the tank threat is
addressed and at least seriously reduced.
What do you do if
1) Weather and ceilings are such that there is very little that Allied
aircraft can do about the tanks.
2) No restrictions to aircraft operations.
Either way, you pull as much in the way of men and equipment as you
can off the beach before the enemy armor arrives. The landing has
failed. Save what you can. You're not going to stop Rommel's panzer
corps and you're certainly not going to advance inland against them.
Oh Christ Fred we had complete control of the air ...
Oh Christ, Jonathan, you can't win a war from the air.
... and
there were some 13,000 allied aircraft participating
in D-Day. Those tanks wouldn't last more than two
days of clear weather.
Utter bullshit. Panzer Lehr, for example, lost only five tanks during
a dash toward the sea while under maximum Allied air attack. Now they
lost a bunch of other lesser vehicles, but what you people keep
overlooking is that TANKS ARE HARD TO KILL WITH AIRPLANES. Take that
in. A panzer division (several hundred tanks) lost FIVE to maximum
air interdiction.
"Shortly after D-Day, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower toured the
landing beaches with his son, newly commissioned 2d Lt.
John Eisenhower. Looking at the concentrated mass of
troops and vehicles vulnerable to attack in a confined
space, the young officer noted that such a situation
violated doctrine. The Allies were wide open to
bombing attack. The elder Eisenhower replied,
‘‘If I didn’t have air supremacy I wouldn’t be here.’’
Quite true, but read that again. He's talking about air superiority
preventing the Luftwaffe from chopping up forces massed on the
beachhead, not air superiority engaging in ground offensives.
"One example of tactical airpower’s effectiveness was
Panzer Lehr’s eighty-mile dash to the coast.
The commanding officer described the trek as
‘‘a fighter-bomber race course,’’ and though the
division lost only five tanks, it wrote off or
abandoned eighty-four other armored vehicles
and 130 trucks or transport vehicles"
This is more an example of tactical airpower's INeffectiveness against
hard skinned targets like tanks. A panzer division with hundreds of
tanks lost FIVE.
"The U.S. Army Air Forces flew 8,722 sorties on 6 June,
losing seventy one aircraft to all causes. Ninth Air Force
medium bombers performed splendidly at Utah Beach,
where B-26s and A-20s destroyed most of the German
heavy guns and mortars. However, those attacks were
made at low level with visual bombing, which
enhanced their effectiveness."
https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-airpower
Heavy guns and mortars are not tanks. Thanks are HARD FOR AIRPLANES
TO KILL.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Scott Kozel
2019-06-13 21:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh Christ Fred we had complete control of the air ...
Oh Christ, Jonathan, you can't win a war from the air.
We did with Japan, many have argued that even without the atom bomb
it would have been a matter of time before Japan capitulated.

Their fragile railroad system would have been toast if the proposed
bombing campaign had destroyed its major bridges, and they would
have been in deep trouble as far as moving any significant tonnage
of freight. Their highway system was primitive so trucking could not
have done the job.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-13 22:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Oh Christ Fred we had complete control of the air ...
Oh Christ, Jonathan, you can't win a war from the air.
We did with Japan, many have argued that even without the atom bomb
it would have been a matter of time before Japan capitulated.
Actually we didn't and you're conflating tactical air superiority with
nuclear strikes.
Post by Scott Kozel
Their fragile railroad system would have been toast if the proposed
bombing campaign had destroyed its major bridges, and they would
have been in deep trouble as far as moving any significant tonnage
of freight. Their highway system was primitive so trucking could not
have done the job.
And yet we bombed the shit out of Japan and there wasn't even
consideration of surrender until we started nuking cities.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Scott Kozel
2019-06-14 01:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
We did with Japan, many have argued that even without the atom bomb
it would have been a matter of time before Japan capitulated.
Actually we didn't and you're conflating tactical air superiority with
nuclear strikes.
Post by Scott Kozel
Their fragile railroad system would have been toast if the proposed
bombing campaign had destroyed its major bridges, and they would
have been in deep trouble as far as moving any significant tonnage
of freight. Their highway system was primitive so trucking could not
have done the job.
And yet we bombed the shit out of Japan and there wasn't even
consideration of surrender until we started nuking cities.
Waterborne commerce wasn't really dead until mid-1945, via the sinking
of ships, and the railroad ferries weren't destroyed until then.

The railroad system on land hadn't been much touched at that point.
The plan was to destroy the major bridges. That would effectively
have stopped any significant freight shipments, and within a few
months there would have been widespread starvation. It also would
have taken a long time to reestablish the railroad system after the
surrender, and that is why the U.S. was reluctant to do that.

The atom bombs in August brought things to a conclusion with far
less future loss of life than any of the alternatives.
Gernot Hassenpflug
2019-06-14 02:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
We did with Japan, many have argued that even without the atom bomb
it would have been a matter of time before Japan capitulated.
Actually we didn't and you're conflating tactical air superiority with
nuclear strikes.
Post by Scott Kozel
Their fragile railroad system would have been toast if the proposed
bombing campaign had destroyed its major bridges, and they would
have been in deep trouble as far as moving any significant tonnage
of freight. Their highway system was primitive so trucking could not
have done the job.
And yet we bombed the shit out of Japan and there wasn't even
consideration of surrender until we started nuking cities.
Waterborne commerce wasn't really dead until mid-1945, via the sinking
of ships, and the railroad ferries weren't destroyed until then.
The railroad system on land hadn't been much touched at that point.
The plan was to destroy the major bridges. That would effectively
have stopped any significant freight shipments, and within a few
months there would have been widespread starvation. It also would
have taken a long time to reestablish the railroad system after the
surrender, and that is why the U.S. was reluctant to do that.
The atom bombs in August brought things to a conclusion with far
less future loss of life than any of the alternatives.
Sounds rosy and all that, but the reality, then as now, is that the
leaders felt they had indoctrinated the populace sufficiently that a no
surrender stance was possible.
--
NNTP on Emacs 25.2 from Windows 7
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-14 07:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
We did with Japan, many have argued that even without the atom bomb
it would have been a matter of time before Japan capitulated.
Actually we didn't and you're conflating tactical air superiority with
nuclear strikes.
Post by Scott Kozel
Their fragile railroad system would have been toast if the proposed
bombing campaign had destroyed its major bridges, and they would
have been in deep trouble as far as moving any significant tonnage
of freight. Their highway system was primitive so trucking could not
have done the job.
And yet we bombed the shit out of Japan and there wasn't even
consideration of surrender until we started nuking cities.
Waterborne commerce wasn't really dead until mid-1945, via the sinking
of ships, and the railroad ferries weren't destroyed until then.
The railroad system on land hadn't been much touched at that point.
The plan was to destroy the major bridges. That would effectively
have stopped any significant freight shipments, and within a few
months there would have been widespread starvation. It also would
have taken a long time to reestablish the railroad system after the
surrender, and that is why the U.S. was reluctant to do that.
Yeah, because those tactics worked so well against Vietnam with a
force much more able to effectively execute them.
Post by Scott Kozel
The atom bombs in August brought things to a conclusion with far
less future loss of life than any of the alternatives.
Thanks, Captain Obvious.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Scott Kozel
2019-06-15 02:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Waterborne commerce wasn't really dead until mid-1945, via the sinking
of ships, and the railroad ferries weren't destroyed until then.
The railroad system on land hadn't been much touched at that point.
The plan was to destroy the major bridges. That would effectively
have stopped any significant freight shipments, and within a few
months there would have been widespread starvation. It also would
have taken a long time to reestablish the railroad system after the
surrender, and that is why the U.S. was reluctant to do that.
Yeah, because those tactics worked so well against Vietnam with a
force much more able to effectively execute them.
North Vietnam had the Soviet Bloc supplying them, which made defeat much
more difficult. The U.S. foolishly refused to close Haiphong harbor, which
was a major pipeline for supplying North Vietnam. A stupidly fought war.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
The atom bombs in August brought things to a conclusion with far
less future loss of life than any of the alternatives.
Thanks, Captain Obvious.
Obvious to us, but the anti-A-bomb chestnuts are still being
relentlessly promoted by some posters in WW II forums.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-15 07:55:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Waterborne commerce wasn't really dead until mid-1945, via the sinking
of ships, and the railroad ferries weren't destroyed until then.
The railroad system on land hadn't been much touched at that point.
The plan was to destroy the major bridges. That would effectively
have stopped any significant freight shipments, and within a few
months there would have been widespread starvation. It also would
have taken a long time to reestablish the railroad system after the
surrender, and that is why the U.S. was reluctant to do that.
Yeah, because those tactics worked so well against Vietnam with a
force much more able to effectively execute them.
North Vietnam had the Soviet Bloc supplying them, which made defeat much
more difficult. The U.S. foolishly refused to close Haiphong harbor, which
was a major pipeline for supplying North Vietnam. A stupidly fought war.
Perhaps, but it is still the case that the tactics you propose would
be so effective against Japan didn't work for shit against North
Vietnam.
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
The atom bombs in August brought things to a conclusion with far
less future loss of life than any of the alternatives.
Thanks, Captain Obvious.
Obvious to us, but the anti-A-bomb chestnuts are still being
relentlessly promoted by some posters in WW II forums.
Perhaps you should wait for one of those folks to appear before you
start bringing it up? It might actually have some relevance that way.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Scott Kozel
2019-06-15 12:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Waterborne commerce wasn't really dead until mid-1945, via the sinking
of ships, and the railroad ferries weren't destroyed until then.
The railroad system on land hadn't been much touched at that point.
The plan was to destroy the major bridges. That would effectively
have stopped any significant freight shipments, and within a few
months there would have been widespread starvation. It also would
have taken a long time to reestablish the railroad system after the
surrender, and that is why the U.S. was reluctant to do that.
Yeah, because those tactics worked so well against Vietnam with a
force much more able to effectively execute them.
North Vietnam had the Soviet Bloc supplying them, which made defeat much
more difficult. The U.S. foolishly refused to close Haiphong harbor, which
was a major pipeline for supplying North Vietnam. A stupidly fought war.
Perhaps, but it is still the case that the tactics you propose would
be so effective against Japan didn't work for shit against North
Vietnam.
We didn't leave a major port open in Japan and allow it to receive
millions of tons of cargo and war materiel from a superpower that was
our adversary.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-15 14:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Waterborne commerce wasn't really dead until mid-1945, via the sinking
of ships, and the railroad ferries weren't destroyed until then.
The railroad system on land hadn't been much touched at that point.
The plan was to destroy the major bridges. That would effectively
have stopped any significant freight shipments, and within a few
months there would have been widespread starvation. It also would
have taken a long time to reestablish the railroad system after the
surrender, and that is why the U.S. was reluctant to do that.
Yeah, because those tactics worked so well against Vietnam with a
force much more able to effectively execute them.
North Vietnam had the Soviet Bloc supplying them, which made defeat much
more difficult. The U.S. foolishly refused to close Haiphong harbor, which
was a major pipeline for supplying North Vietnam. A stupidly fought war.
Perhaps, but it is still the case that the tactics you propose would
be so effective against Japan didn't work for shit against North
Vietnam.
We didn't leave a major port open in Japan and allow it to receive
millions of tons of cargo and war materiel from a superpower that was
our adversary.
Which would be irrelevant if crippling roads and railways was a
workable strategy. It didn't work against North Vietnam and it
wouldn't have worked against Japan. Japan WAS a world power, you
see...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Scott Kozel
2019-06-15 15:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Waterborne commerce wasn't really dead until mid-1945, via the sinking
of ships, and the railroad ferries weren't destroyed until then.
The railroad system on land hadn't been much touched at that point.
The plan was to destroy the major bridges. That would effectively
have stopped any significant freight shipments, and within a few
months there would have been widespread starvation. It also would
have taken a long time to reestablish the railroad system after the
surrender, and that is why the U.S. was reluctant to do that.
Yeah, because those tactics worked so well against Vietnam with a
force much more able to effectively execute them.
North Vietnam had the Soviet Bloc supplying them, which made defeat much
more difficult. The U.S. foolishly refused to close Haiphong harbor, which
was a major pipeline for supplying North Vietnam. A stupidly fought war.
Perhaps, but it is still the case that the tactics you propose would
be so effective against Japan didn't work for shit against North
Vietnam.
We didn't leave a major port open in Japan and allow it to receive
millions of tons of cargo and war materiel from a superpower that was
our adversary.
Which would be irrelevant if crippling roads and railways was a
workable strategy. It didn't work against North Vietnam and it
wouldn't have worked against Japan. Japan WAS a world power, you see...
WAS a world power ...

By mid-1945 when the railroad campaign was planned, Japan had a large
standing army on the home islands, but little else. No functional navy,
no functional merchant marine, no functional air force other than a few
thousand fighters to be used for kamikaze missions.

But as I originally said, it would take several months to begin the
widespread starvation and famine. Meanwhile over 200,000 people a
month were dying in that theater due to direct and indirect effects
of the war, many of them in China.

The A-bombs forced the issue in August.
Jonathan
2019-06-13 22:44:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
It would be more like 1/2 mile or more. Then there are cruisers
and battleships as well. At Iwo Jima, several battleships were
brought to within a mile to fire at batteries in Mount Suribachi,
and after the landings were mostly complete.
So not tanks, then, and again you might want to look at how many
rounds it takes to get a hit.
So what is your suggestion if 100 or 200 German tanks are moving en masse
toward one of the beaches while the Allied troops are still on the beaches?
*I* suggest you get them the fuck off the beach before you have
another Dunkirk on your hands.
Well, Overlord was completed long ago .... but since we are analyzing
"what if" scenarios ....
General McCall, here is your tactical situation.
I don't take tactical advice from idiots.
Post by Scott Kozel
The German tank corps are now close enough to Omaha Beach that it would be
difficult or impossible to move the troops inland before the tank threat is
addressed and at least seriously reduced.
What do you do if
1) Weather and ceilings are such that there is very little that Allied
aircraft can do about the tanks.
2) No restrictions to aircraft operations.
Either way, you pull as much in the way of men and equipment as you
can off the beach before the enemy armor arrives. The landing has
failed. Save what you can. You're not going to stop Rommel's panzer
corps and you're certainly not going to advance inland against them.
Oh Christ Fred we had complete control of the air ...
Oh Christ, Jonathan, you can't win a war from the air.
Air power can turn the ground assault into a mopping up
exercise as it was in France or in Iraq.
Post by Fred J. McCall
... and
there were some 13,000 allied aircraft participating
in D-Day. Those tanks wouldn't last more than two
days of clear weather.
Utter bullshit. Panzer Lehr, for example, lost only five tanks during
a dash toward the sea while under maximum Allied air attack. Now they
lost a bunch of other lesser vehicles,
...armored vehicles.



but what you people keep
Post by Fred J. McCall
overlooking is that TANKS ARE HARD TO KILL WITH AIRPLANES. Take that
in. A panzer division (several hundred tanks) lost FIVE to maximum
air interdiction.
And that division never made it to the landing zone
it ended up defending Caen. A division of tanks
with little fuel, ammo or spare parts isn't going
to change any outcome, and certainly not going
to be able to launch offensive operations, just
for defending positions as it did in Caen.
Hardly a game changer.


"Many examples of the experiences and losses suffered
by German formations moving up to the front are well known.
Panzer Lehr, for instance, on 7 June alone lost 84 half-tracks,
prime movers and self propelled guns, 40 fuel bowsers,
90 soft-skinned vehicles and five tanks as it made its
way from LeMans to Caen."

"Like all German armoured units engaged in Normandy,
Panzer Lehr suffered heavy losses in its transport
from Allied air attacks.[note 2][30] By the end of
June, the division's armoured component was severely
depleted.

By the end of June, the Panzer Lehr Division had
suffered 2,972 casualties and reported the loss
of 51 tanks and assault guns, 82 halftracks and
294 other vehicles.[note 3][2]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_Lehr_Division
Post by Fred J. McCall
"Shortly after D-Day, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower toured the
landing beaches with his son, newly commissioned 2d Lt.
John Eisenhower. Looking at the concentrated mass of
troops and vehicles vulnerable to attack in a confined
space, the young officer noted that such a situation
violated doctrine. The Allies were wide open to
bombing attack. The elder Eisenhower replied,
‘‘If I didn’t have air supremacy I wouldn’t be here.’’
Quite true, but read that again. He's talking about air superiority
preventing the Luftwaffe from chopping up forces massed on the
beachhead, not air superiority engaging in ground offensives.
"One example of tactical airpower’s effectiveness was
Panzer Lehr’s eighty-mile dash to the coast.
The commanding officer described the trek as
‘‘a fighter-bomber race course,’’ and though the
division lost only five tanks, it wrote off or
abandoned eighty-four other armored vehicles
and 130 trucks or transport vehicles"
This is more an example of tactical airpower's INeffectiveness against
hard skinned targets like tanks. A panzer division with hundreds of
tanks lost FIVE.
"The U.S. Army Air Forces flew 8,722 sorties on 6 June,
losing seventy one aircraft to all causes. Ninth Air Force
medium bombers performed splendidly at Utah Beach,
where B-26s and A-20s destroyed most of the German
heavy guns and mortars. However, those attacks were
made at low level with visual bombing, which
enhanced their effectiveness."
https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-airpower
Heavy guns and mortars are not tanks. Thanks are HARD FOR AIRPLANES
TO KILL.
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1


s
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-14 06:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
It would be more like 1/2 mile or more. Then there are cruisers
and battleships as well. At Iwo Jima, several battleships were
brought to within a mile to fire at batteries in Mount Suribachi,
and after the landings were mostly complete.
So not tanks, then, and again you might want to look at how many
rounds it takes to get a hit.
So what is your suggestion if 100 or 200 German tanks are moving en masse
toward one of the beaches while the Allied troops are still on the beaches?
*I* suggest you get them the fuck off the beach before you have
another Dunkirk on your hands.
Well, Overlord was completed long ago .... but since we are analyzing
"what if" scenarios ....
General McCall, here is your tactical situation.
I don't take tactical advice from idiots.
Post by Scott Kozel
The German tank corps are now close enough to Omaha Beach that it would be
difficult or impossible to move the troops inland before the tank threat is
addressed and at least seriously reduced.
What do you do if
1) Weather and ceilings are such that there is very little that Allied
aircraft can do about the tanks.
2) No restrictions to aircraft operations.
Either way, you pull as much in the way of men and equipment as you
can off the beach before the enemy armor arrives. The landing has
failed. Save what you can. You're not going to stop Rommel's panzer
corps and you're certainly not going to advance inland against them.
Oh Christ Fred we had complete control of the air ...
Oh Christ, Jonathan, you can't win a war from the air.
Air power can turn the ground assault into a mopping up
exercise as it was in France or in Iraq.
Except it wasn't.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Fred J. McCall
... and
there were some 13,000 allied aircraft participating
in D-Day. Those tanks wouldn't last more than two
days of clear weather.
Utter bullshit. Panzer Lehr, for example, lost only five tanks during
a dash toward the sea while under maximum Allied air attack. Now they
lost a bunch of other lesser vehicles,
...armored vehicles.
There is a hell of a difference between lightly armored vehicles and
tanks. Most 'armored vehicles' provide protection against MMGs and
shell splinters.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Fred J. McCall
but what you people keep
overlooking is that TANKS ARE HARD TO KILL WITH AIRPLANES. Take that
in. A panzer division (several hundred tanks) lost FIVE to maximum
air interdiction.
And that division never made it to the landing zone
it ended up defending Caen. A division of tanks
with little fuel, ammo or spare parts isn't going
to change any outcome, and certainly not going
to be able to launch offensive operations, just
for defending positions as it did in Caen.
Hardly a game changer.
Oh, bullshit. Maybe nobody told you but they don't drive those tanks
around empty.
Post by Jonathan
"Many examples of the experiences and losses suffered
by German formations moving up to the front are well known.
Panzer Lehr, for instance, on 7 June alone lost 84 half-tracks,
prime movers and self propelled guns, 40 fuel bowsers,
90 soft-skinned vehicles and five tanks as it made its
way from LeMans to Caen."
Read it again. FIVE TANKS.
Post by Jonathan
"Like all German armoured units engaged in Normandy,
Panzer Lehr suffered heavy losses in its transport
from Allied air attacks.[note 2][30] By the end of
June, the division's armoured component was severely
depleted.
Only if you include thin skinned stuff like halftracks as "armored
component". And you're being a bit disingenuous in not mentioning
that most of the losses were inflicted by British armored forces.
Post by Jonathan
By the end of June, the Panzer Lehr Division had
suffered 2,972 casualties and reported the loss
of 51 tanks and assault guns, 82 halftracks and
294 other vehicles.[note 3][2]
And those losses were largely inflicted by the British 7th Armored
Division, not by airplanes. You 'cleverly' left that out. Honesty
just really isn't in you, is it?
Post by Jonathan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_Lehr_Division
Post by Fred J. McCall
"Shortly after D-Day, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower toured the
landing beaches with his son, newly commissioned 2d Lt.
John Eisenhower. Looking at the concentrated mass of
troops and vehicles vulnerable to attack in a confined
space, the young officer noted that such a situation
violated doctrine. The Allies were wide open to
bombing attack. The elder Eisenhower replied,
‘‘If I didn’t have air supremacy I wouldn’t be here.’’
Quite true, but read that again. He's talking about air superiority
preventing the Luftwaffe from chopping up forces massed on the
beachhead, not air superiority engaging in ground offensives.
"One example of tactical airpower’s effectiveness was
Panzer Lehr’s eighty-mile dash to the coast.
The commanding officer described the trek as
‘‘a fighter-bomber race course,’’ and though the
division lost only five tanks, it wrote off or
abandoned eighty-four other armored vehicles
and 130 trucks or transport vehicles"
This is more an example of tactical airpower's INeffectiveness against
hard skinned targets like tanks. A panzer division with hundreds of
tanks lost FIVE.
"The U.S. Army Air Forces flew 8,722 sorties on 6 June,
losing seventy one aircraft to all causes. Ninth Air Force
medium bombers performed splendidly at Utah Beach,
where B-26s and A-20s destroyed most of the German
heavy guns and mortars. However, those attacks were
made at low level with visual bombing, which
enhanced their effectiveness."
https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-airpower
Heavy guns and mortars are not tanks. Thanks are HARD FOR AIRPLANES
TO KILL.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Andrew Swallow
2019-06-11 04:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Ways of not succeeding.
Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.
In that case the USN and RN could have brought more destroyers into
point blank range to deal with them.
What an idiotic notion!
"Some destroyers slid within a few hundred yards of their assigned beaches
to support the army, and though communication problems frequently arose, the
overall effect was largely beneficial. The chief of staff of the First Infantry
Division later stated that the ?Big Red One? would not have been able to move
off Omaha Beach without effective naval gunfire."
https://www.historyonthenet.com/naval-artillery
Note that shore bombardment (what they're talking about) is not the
same thing as the idiocy of trying to kill tanks with Naval artillery.
Well, the "the lightly armed infantry" would be the condition of it
landing and establishing a beachhead. The German tanks would be in the
immediate shore area where they could be hit with low trajectory naval
artillery.
You really don't know jack shit about the naval artillery of the day,
do you? The quote you gave isn't talking about tanks, you nitwit.
It's talking about things like pillboxes and machine gun emplacements
as well as concentrations of enemy troops. Nobody with a clue would
ever propose the idea that you could hunt tanks with a naval gun. You
might want to look at just how close things like tanks and weapons
built to the purpose had to be in order to successfully hit another
tank.
In a war you use the weapons you have.

Also to a tank a war ship is a large tank.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-11 04:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
Ways of not succeeding.
Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.
In that case the USN and RN could have brought more destroyers into
point blank range to deal with them.
What an idiotic notion!
"Some destroyers slid within a few hundred yards of their assigned beaches
to support the army, and though communication problems frequently arose, the
overall effect was largely beneficial. The chief of staff of the First Infantry
Division later stated that the ?Big Red One? would not have been able to move
off Omaha Beach without effective naval gunfire."
https://www.historyonthenet.com/naval-artillery
Note that shore bombardment (what they're talking about) is not the
same thing as the idiocy of trying to kill tanks with Naval artillery.
Well, the "the lightly armed infantry" would be the condition of it
landing and establishing a beachhead. The German tanks would be in the
immediate shore area where they could be hit with low trajectory naval
artillery.
You really don't know jack shit about the naval artillery of the day,
do you? The quote you gave isn't talking about tanks, you nitwit.
It's talking about things like pillboxes and machine gun emplacements
as well as concentrations of enemy troops. Nobody with a clue would
ever propose the idea that you could hunt tanks with a naval gun. You
might want to look at just how close things like tanks and weapons
built to the purpose had to be in order to successfully hit another
tank.
In a war you use the weapons you have.
But you only use them in ineffective roles when you have no effective
roles for them.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Also to a tank a war ship is a large tank.
Perhaps, but to a warship a tank is NOT a "small warship".
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Andrew Swallow
2019-06-10 15:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Note that shore bombardment (what they're talking about) is not the
same thing as the idiocy of trying to kill tanks with Naval artillery.
Tanks, artillery and bunkers are the bit of the shore that shoots back.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-10 21:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Note that shore bombardment (what they're talking about) is not the
same thing as the idiocy of trying to kill tanks with Naval artillery.
Tanks, artillery and bunkers are the bit of the shore that shoots back.
That's nice, but you still cannot hunt tanks with naval artillery.
It's a massively ignorant idea.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Andrew Swallow
2019-06-11 04:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Note that shore bombardment (what they're talking about) is not the
same thing as the idiocy of trying to kill tanks with Naval artillery.
Tanks, artillery and bunkers are the bit of the shore that shoots back.
That's nice, but you still cannot hunt tanks with naval artillery.
It's a massively ignorant idea.
Then it is time to improve ship's targetting system.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-11 13:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Note that shore bombardment (what they're talking about) is not the
same thing as the idiocy of trying to kill tanks with Naval artillery.
Tanks, artillery and bunkers are the bit of the shore that shoots back.
That's nice, but you still cannot hunt tanks with naval artillery.
It's a massively ignorant idea.
Then it is time to improve ship's targetting system.
Since 'tank plinking on the beach' isn't even a tertiary mission for
ships, why would you spend the money?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Andrew Swallow
2019-06-11 15:09:14 UTC
Permalink
{snip}
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Then it is time to improve ship's targetting system.
Since 'tank plinking on the beach' isn't even a tertiary mission for
ships, why would you spend the money?
It was in 1944. Giving artillery support to marines landing on a beach
could well be a ship's mission.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-11 17:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
{snip}
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Then it is time to improve ship's targetting system.
Since 'tank plinking on the beach' isn't even a tertiary mission for
ships, why would you spend the money?
It was in 1944.
No, it wasn't.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Giving artillery support to marines landing on a beach
could well be a ship's mission.
Go learn the difference between NGFS and 'tank plinking'.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Swallow
2019-06-12 00:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
{snip}
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Then it is time to improve ship's targetting system.
Since 'tank plinking on the beach' isn't even a tertiary mission for
ships, why would you spend the money?
It was in 1944.
No, it wasn't.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Giving artillery support to marines landing on a beach
could well be a ship's mission.
Go learn the difference between NGFS and 'tank plinking'.
If the marines are being ambushed by tanks then the tanks have to be
destroyed.
Scott Kozel
2019-06-12 01:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Giving artillery support to marines landing on a beach
could well be a ship's mission.
Go learn the difference between NGFS and 'tank plinking'.
If the marines are being ambushed by tanks then the tanks have to be
destroyed.
He probably thinks that the WWII aircraft couldn't hit tanks either.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-12 09:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Giving artillery support to marines landing on a beach
could well be a ship's mission.
Go learn the difference between NGFS and 'tank plinking'.
If the marines are being ambushed by tanks then the tanks have to be
destroyed.
He probably thinks that the WWII aircraft couldn't hit tanks either.
Oh, I see. You're stupid so you think I am too. It was certainly
difficult for aircraft to attack individual tanks (hence aircraft like
the Stuka and the Sturmovic), it was a LOT easier than doing it with
naval artillery.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-12 09:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
{snip}
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Then it is time to improve ship's targetting system.
Since 'tank plinking on the beach' isn't even a tertiary mission for
ships, why would you spend the money?
It was in 1944.
No, it wasn't.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Giving artillery support to marines landing on a beach
could well be a ship's mission.
Go learn the difference between NGFS and 'tank plinking'.
If the marines are being ambushed by tanks then the tanks have to be
destroyed.
First, it's hard to 'ambush' someone with a tank, what with tanks
being so loud and all. Second, that's why we give the Marines
anti-tank weapons. There used to be a saying in the Corps, "Hunting
tanks is fun and easy."

If the Marines are in close contact with tanks, trying to plink tanks
with naval guns is a good way to kill a lot of Marines.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Swallow
2019-06-12 11:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
{snip}
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Then it is time to improve ship's targetting system.
Since 'tank plinking on the beach' isn't even a tertiary mission for
ships, why would you spend the money?
It was in 1944.
No, it wasn't.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Giving artillery support to marines landing on a beach
could well be a ship's mission.
Go learn the difference between NGFS and 'tank plinking'.
If the marines are being ambushed by tanks then the tanks have to be
destroyed.
First, it's hard to 'ambush' someone with a tank, what with tanks
being so loud and all. Second, that's why we give the Marines
anti-tank weapons. There used to be a saying in the Corps, "Hunting
tanks is fun and easy."
Not when you are still on the beach.
Post by Fred J. McCall
If the Marines are in close contact with tanks, trying to plink tanks
with naval guns is a good way to kill a lot of Marines.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-12 14:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
{snip}
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Then it is time to improve ship's targetting system.
Since 'tank plinking on the beach' isn't even a tertiary mission for
ships, why would you spend the money?
It was in 1944.
No, it wasn't.
Post by Andrew Swallow
Giving artillery support to marines landing on a beach
could well be a ship's mission.
Go learn the difference between NGFS and 'tank plinking'.
If the marines are being ambushed by tanks then the tanks have to be
destroyed.
First, it's hard to 'ambush' someone with a tank, what with tanks
being so loud and all. Second, that's why we give the Marines
anti-tank weapons. There used to be a saying in the Corps, "Hunting
tanks is fun and easy."
Not when you are still on the beach.
So your plan is to shell your own contained beachhead to try to get
the enemy tanks? Yeah, that's smart...
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
If the Marines are in close contact with tanks, trying to plink tanks
with naval guns is a good way to kill a lot of Marines.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Andrew Swallow
2019-06-12 19:19:14 UTC
Permalink
On 12/06/2019 15:00, Fred J. McCall wrote:
{snip}
Post by Fred J. McCall
So your plan is to shell your own contained beachhead to try to get
the enemy tanks? Yeah, that's smart...
It does sound like First World War trench warfare tactics.

If the Army can buy artillery shells that are laser guided by infantry
men the same lasers can guide naval shells. The ship may be 2 miles out
to sea.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-12 23:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
{snip}
Post by Fred J. McCall
So your plan is to shell your own contained beachhead to try to get
the enemy tanks? Yeah, that's smart...
It does sound like First World War trench warfare tactics.
If the Army can buy artillery shells that are laser guided by infantry
men the same lasers can guide naval shells. The ship may be 2 miles out
to sea.
That's certainly being worked currently, but it's a bit late for
D-Day. And they're still not really intended for 'plinking tanks'.
You might want to look at the CEP of the typical laser guided round.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
Andrew Swallow
2019-06-12 23:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
{snip}
Post by Fred J. McCall
So your plan is to shell your own contained beachhead to try to get
the enemy tanks? Yeah, that's smart...
It does sound like First World War trench warfare tactics.
If the Army can buy artillery shells that are laser guided by infantry
men the same lasers can guide naval shells. The ship may be 2 miles out
to sea.
That's certainly being worked currently, but it's a bit late for
D-Day. And they're still not really intended for 'plinking tanks'.
You might want to look at the CEP of the typical laser guided round.
There will be other landings under fire. We will have to get the CEP
down over the next couple of decades.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-13 06:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
{snip}
Post by Fred J. McCall
So your plan is to shell your own contained beachhead to try to get
the enemy tanks? Yeah, that's smart...
It does sound like First World War trench warfare tactics.
If the Army can buy artillery shells that are laser guided by infantry
men the same lasers can guide naval shells. The ship may be 2 miles out
to sea.
That's certainly being worked currently, but it's a bit late for
D-Day. And they're still not really intended for 'plinking tanks'.
You might want to look at the CEP of the typical laser guided round.
There will be other landings under fire. We will have to get the CEP
down over the next couple of decades.
It won't help, as by that time tanks will all have their own active
defensive systems to shoot down threats.

Tank plinking will still be a stupid idea.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Andrew Swallow
2019-06-13 19:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
{snip}
Post by Fred J. McCall
So your plan is to shell your own contained beachhead to try to get
the enemy tanks? Yeah, that's smart...
It does sound like First World War trench warfare tactics.
If the Army can buy artillery shells that are laser guided by infantry
men the same lasers can guide naval shells. The ship may be 2 miles out
to sea.
That's certainly being worked currently, but it's a bit late for
D-Day. And they're still not really intended for 'plinking tanks'.
You might want to look at the CEP of the typical laser guided round.
There will be other landings under fire. We will have to get the CEP
down over the next couple of decades.
It won't help, as by that time tanks will all have their own active
defensive systems to shoot down threats.
Tank plinking will still be a stupid idea.
Even tank armour has problems surviving 5 inch shells.
Scott Kozel
2019-06-13 19:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
That's certainly being worked currently, but it's a bit late for
D-Day. And they're still not really intended for 'plinking tanks'.
You might want to look at the CEP of the typical laser guided round.
There will be other landings under fire. We will have to get the CEP
down over the next couple of decades.
It won't help, as by that time tanks will all have their own active
defensive systems to shoot down threats.
Tank plinking will still be a stupid idea.
Even tank armour has problems surviving 5 inch shells.
Let alone 6 inch and 8 inch shells.
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-13 22:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Kozel
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
That's certainly being worked currently, but it's a bit late for
D-Day. And they're still not really intended for 'plinking tanks'.
You might want to look at the CEP of the typical laser guided round.
There will be other landings under fire. We will have to get the CEP
down over the next couple of decades.
It won't help, as by that time tanks will all have their own active
defensive systems to shoot down threats.
Tank plinking will still be a stupid idea.
Even tank armour has problems surviving 5 inch shells.
Let alone 6 inch and 8 inch shells.
But first you have to get a direct hit. Now look up the accuracies of
naval guns. This is why tanks are hard for aircraft and naval guns to
kill. Softer skinned vehicles may take hell because near misses will
disable them, but heavy tanks can pretty much shrug off near misses
from HE shells. Look at the numbers on the two examples you gave. A
destroyer emptied its magazines and at best disable a dozen tanks in a
target rich environment. A maximum effort tactical air campaign
against a panzer division moving to contact took out 0.3% of the
tanks.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-13 22:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Andrew Swallow
{snip}
Post by Fred J. McCall
So your plan is to shell your own contained beachhead to try to get
the enemy tanks? Yeah, that's smart...
It does sound like First World War trench warfare tactics.
If the Army can buy artillery shells that are laser guided by infantry
men the same lasers can guide naval shells. The ship may be 2 miles out
to sea.
That's certainly being worked currently, but it's a bit late for
D-Day. And they're still not really intended for 'plinking tanks'.
You might want to look at the CEP of the typical laser guided round.
There will be other landings under fire. We will have to get the CEP
down over the next couple of decades.
It won't help, as by that time tanks will all have their own active
defensive systems to shoot down threats.
Tank plinking will still be a stupid idea.
Even tank armour has problems surviving 5 inch shells.
Only on direct hits, which are relatively rare regardless of what you
do. Laser designation and guidance improves the odds greatly, but
that imposes significant constraints on the engagement envelope of the
weapon. In addition to requiring someone with a designator to
illuminate the target, the round has to be underneath cloud cover for
a sufficient time in order to acquire the target and then must have
sufficient energy to be able to maneuver onto the target. All this
leads to greatly decreased range. Copperhead, the Army's first
attempt at a system like this, had a significantly shorter range than
other 155mm rounds.

The requirement for a direct hit is why the idea of destroyers trying
to plink tanks during D-Day is a silly idea. It takes a lot of rounds
poured onto a tank-sized target to get that direct hit.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
r***@gmail.com
2019-06-12 09:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
{snip}
Ways of not succeeding.
Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.
Launch could have been delayed by a day and the bad weather could have
sunk the Mulberries preventing the arrival of re-enforcements.
You need to read your history. D-Day *was* delayed by a day by bad weather. Original plan was June 5th.

Robin
Andrew Swallow
2019-06-12 11:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by Scott Kozel
With wave after wave after wave of troops coming ashore, what possibility
would there have been of it not succeeding?
{snip}
Ways of not succeeding.
Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That
would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.
Launch could have been delayed by a day and the bad weather could have
sunk the Mulberries preventing the arrival of re-enforcements.
You need to read your history. D-Day *was* delayed by a day by bad weather. Original plan was June 5th.
Robin
I know, which is why D-Day could have been delayed for 2 days.
Jeff
2019-06-12 13:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
I know, which is why D-Day could have been delayed for 2 days.
It is very unlikely that it could have been delayed by 2 days.

If it had not gone ahead on the 6th it probably would have been delayed
by a month at least due to the tides. A lot of the troops were already
embarked for the 5th and stayed on the ships, a delay past the 6th would
have meant disembarkation and a total regrouping.

Jeff
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-12 14:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff
Post by Andrew Swallow
I know, which is why D-Day could have been delayed for 2 days.
It is very unlikely that it could have been delayed by 2 days.
If it had not gone ahead on the 6th it probably would have been delayed
by a month at least due to the tides. A lot of the troops were already
embarked for the 5th and stayed on the ships, a delay past the 6th would
have meant disembarkation and a total regrouping.
And if you delay it that long, the Germans probably figure out that
we're NOT landing at Callais and you REALLY get a bloody mess when you
go ashore.
--
"Taught me how to shoot to kill.
A specialist with a deadly skill.
A skill I needed to have to be a survivor.
It's over now, or so they say.
But sometimes it don't work out that way.
And you're never the same when you've been under fire."
-- Huey Lewis and the News "Walking On A Thin Line"
Jeff
2019-06-13 09:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff
Post by Andrew Swallow
I know, which is why D-Day could have been delayed for 2 days.
It is very unlikely that it could have been delayed by 2 days.
If it had not gone ahead on the 6th it probably would have been delayed
by a month at least due to the tides. A lot of the troops were already
embarked for the 5th and stayed on the ships, a delay past the 6th would
have meant disembarkation and a total regrouping.
And if you delay it that long, the Germans probably figure out that
we're NOT landing at Callais and you REALLY get a bloody mess when you
go ashore.
I doubt that, they weren't entirely convinced even after the troops were
on the beaches.

Jeff
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-13 15:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff
Post by Andrew Swallow
I know, which is why D-Day could have been delayed for 2 days.
It is very unlikely that it could have been delayed by 2 days.
If it had not gone ahead on the 6th it probably would have been delayed
by a month at least due to the tides. A lot of the troops were already
embarked for the 5th and stayed on the ships, a delay past the 6th would
have meant disembarkation and a total regrouping.
And if you delay it that long, the Germans probably figure out that
we're NOT landing at Callais and you REALLY get a bloody mess when you
go ashore.
I doubt that, they weren't entirely convinced even after the troops were
on the beaches.
Doubt all you like. A big part of the reason they "weren't entirely
convinced" is because of a very complex Allied plan to convince them
that the 'real' landing would be at Callais under Patton. This kept
them viewing the Normandy landings as a 'demonstration' diversion to
pull German forces away from the 'real' landing.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Jeff
2019-06-15 09:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff
Post by Fred J. McCall
And if you delay it that long, the Germans probably figure out that
we're NOT landing at Callais and you REALLY get a bloody mess when you
go ashore.
I doubt that, they weren't entirely convinced even after the troops were
on the beaches.
Doubt all you like. A big part of the reason they "weren't entirely
convinced" is because of a very complex Allied plan to convince them
that the 'real' landing would be at Callais under Patton. This kept
them viewing the Normandy landings as a 'demonstration' diversion to
pull German forces away from the 'real' landing.
Indeed, so why would a delay alter that view, the very successful
subterfuge would just continue? It was so firmly planted in their minds
that even the real landings were considered a diversion.

Jeff
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-15 14:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jeff
Post by Fred J. McCall
And if you delay it that long, the Germans probably figure out that
we're NOT landing at Callais and you REALLY get a bloody mess when you
go ashore.
I doubt that, they weren't entirely convinced even after the troops were
on the beaches.
Doubt all you like. A big part of the reason they "weren't entirely
convinced" is because of a very complex Allied plan to convince them
that the 'real' landing would be at Callais under Patton. This kept
them viewing the Normandy landings as a 'demonstration' diversion to
pull German forces away from the 'real' landing.
Indeed, so why would a delay alter that view, the very successful
subterfuge would just continue? It was so firmly planted in their minds
that even the real landings were considered a diversion.
Because a delay gives them more time to discover where we've tried to
hoodwink them, of course. We just barely kept them fooled as it is.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Byker
2019-06-09 15:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful
Had D-Day failed, the Russkies would have "liberated" the rest of Europe and
extended the Iron Curtain all the way to the English Channel...
Jim Wilkins
2019-06-09 16:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't
as successful
Had D-Day failed, the Russkies would have "liberated" the rest of
Europe and extended the Iron Curtain all the way to the English
Channel...
The negative Soviet experiences with Austria, Yugoslavia and Greece
suggest that they might have pulled out after plundering everything
that could be moved..

https://www.eurozine.com/the-soviet-occupation-of-austria-1945-1955/
"The Austrian Communists were unable to increase their political
support at the elections of 1949 and 1953. By then, Moscow must have
come close to the end of its illusion of a peaceful transition to
Socialism in Austria with the KPÖ as its vanguard."

"The question as to why the Soviets finally decided to abandon their
military presence in eastern Austria in the spring of 1955 and to
agree to a negotiated withdrawal has preoccupied historians ever
since."
Gernot Hassenpflug
2019-06-10 02:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Byker
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't
as successful
Had D-Day failed, the Russkies would have "liberated" the rest of
Europe and extended the Iron Curtain all the way to the English
Channel...
The negative Soviet experiences with Austria, Yugoslavia and Greece
suggest that they might have pulled out after plundering everything
that could be moved..
https://www.eurozine.com/the-soviet-occupation-of-austria-1945-1955/
"The Austrian Communists were unable to increase their political
support at the elections of 1949 and 1953. By then, Moscow must have
come close to the end of its illusion of a peaceful transition to
Socialism in Austria with the KPÖ as its vanguard."
"The question as to why the Soviets finally decided to abandon their
military presence in eastern Austria in the spring of 1955 and to
agree to a negotiated withdrawal has preoccupied historians ever
since."
My mom was there at the time, growing up under the Russian occupation
with its very charming open-door policy. I for one am very happy the
Soviets withdrew, and having such a relationship to the history it makes
me very curious too as to the hows and whys of this withdrawal. I get
the idea there where behind-the-scenes tit-for-tat negotiations with the
US perhaps...
--
NNTP on Emacs 25.2 from Windows 7
Gernot Hassenpflug
2019-06-10 02:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
(I said "Interesting", I do not necessarily agree.)
Yes, it is indeed interesting, and obviously most of us will have
different opinions, some shaped by our own reading, or by imagination
:-)
Post by a425couple
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
The Red Army would have assumed defensive positions and waited for
Hitler to make a peace offer.
That is interesting, but I would like to see the proof of this from
these "private archives"---I think Stalin's strangehold on the
Motherland depended on his leveraging the war, else he might have faced
an internal coup.
Post by a425couple
Stalin’s wasn’t planning on taking on the remaining Axis all by
himself. He knew he didn't have the manpower to conquer and occupy all
of Germany on his own, so he wasn’t even going to try.
I don't see how such a caring man as Stalin was going to come to such a
conclusion! Never let a crisis go to waste.
Post by a425couple
Had the Allies been forced to use nuclear weapons, the effects would
have been minimal. Western Cities couldn’t be compared to Japanese
cities (who used much more wood) and Germany’s air raid shelters were
very good.
Add to this that nuclear explosions don't cause firestorms and don’t
disrupt underground infrastructure when airbursted, and nuclear
weapons would have been considerably less effective than a major
conventional raid.
Before the massive bombing raids on Germany took place, the Allies
estimated 200 nuclear weapons would be needed to bring Germany
economically to its knees. This was before the Germans moved their
factories underground.
Without successful Normandy Landings, the war would most likely have
ended in a negotiated truce.
Wow. How the author comes to this conclusion... Probably he means the
remaining members of a starving population (through the blockade,
destruction of any infrastructure and agricultural assets the Allies
could reach from the air) will be crawling to the negotiation table
since nobody in their right minds will want to head into a radioactive
and deserted country for no reason.

What is even more likely is that there will be an internal coup in
Germany at some point, even more likely if the Soviets do indeed stop,
since the point of the war for many would be removed (the Bolsheviks
being the enemy, etc.)
Post by a425couple
Historically speaking, the Allies were at the end of their rope by
1945 while the Germans had run out of rope. The Soviets were
conscripting 16-year-old boys. In Northwest Europe alone, the British
had 45,000 deserters since the Normandy Landings, the Americans
200,000.
Wow. The arsenal of democracy was not going to get to the end of any
rope soon, that hasn't even happened by now in 2019, despite the budget
defecit.
Post by a425couple
A negotiated peace in which Germany returns to its pre-war borders
with some minor adjustments is the most realistic scenario. At this
point, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, and the Low Countries would
have been bargaining chips at the negotiating table.
It might a realistic scenario regardless of the outcome, as the present
shows. I think everyone agreed that in the long term countries are best
delineated on shared cultural lines.
--
NNTP on Emacs 25.2 from Windows 7
Dean Markley
2019-06-10 11:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
(I said "Interesting", I do not necessarily agree.)
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
The Red Army would have assumed defensive positions and waited for
Hitler to make a peace offer.
Stalin’s wasn’t planning on taking on the remaining Axis all by himself.
He knew he didn't have the manpower to conquer and occupy all of Germany
on his own, so he wasn’t even going to try.
Had the Allies been forced to use nuclear weapons, the effects would
have been minimal. Western Cities couldn’t be compared to Japanese
cities (who used much more wood) and Germany’s air raid shelters were
very good.
Add to this that nuclear explosions don't cause firestorms and don’t
disrupt underground infrastructure when airbursted, and nuclear weapons
would have been considerably less effective than a major conventional raid.
Before the massive bombing raids on Germany took place, the Allies
estimated 200 nuclear weapons would be needed to bring Germany
economically to its knees. This was before the Germans moved their
factories underground.
Without successful Normandy Landings, the war would most likely have
ended in a negotiated truce.
Historically speaking, the Allies were at the end of their rope by 1945
while the Germans had run out of rope. The Soviets were conscripting
16-year-old boys. In Northwest Europe alone, the British had 45,000
deserters since the Normandy Landings, the Americans 200,000.
A negotiated peace in which Germany returns to its pre-war borders with
some minor adjustments is the most realistic scenario. At this point,
Austria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, and the Low Countries would have been
bargaining chips at the negotiating table.
20.5k views · View Upvoters · View Sharers
Stepan Serdyuk
Stepan Serdyuk
‘Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been
The main thing I'd note is that the question and answer came from Quora. Quora, like here, has a lot of folks who think they are experts when in reality, they are slightly acquainted with the topics.

Dean
David E. Powell
2019-06-12 19:44:34 UTC
Permalink
One might see another landing by 1945 or earlier. I wonder, if the invasion of Southern France would have gone off anyway. That could have landed the Allies in another spot, and reinforcements could be brought in from the Mediterranean through there. The invasion of Southern France happened very soon after the D-Day landings at Normandy, so it might even happen on the same timetable that it did in our timeline. That still puts the Allied armies in France, and Normandy might draw away a lot of German attention in either case.

Even assuming that the Germans can hold off the Western Invasion forces and the Red Army longer than in our timeline, Berlin probably takes a nuclear hit in August of 1945. Assuming that Dresden and Hamburg type raids were not bad enough.

The USAAF firebombed Tokyo and other cities in Japan, too, before dropping Atomic Bombs.

If a B-29 can't make the trip, a B-36 might get used a bit early. By 1946 at the latest. Even "Luft 46" aircraft would have a tough time catching a B-36 coming in at high altitude, and it might even be mistaken for a reconnaissance flight, as the Enola Gay was.

I still believe that the Invasion of Southern France happens, which gets the Allies into France that way. Then Hitler goes really nuts because he thought Normandy was a diversion at first, as I recall.
Jonathan
2019-06-12 23:19:36 UTC
Permalink
One might see another landing by 1945 or earlier. I wonder, if the invasion of Southern France would have gone off anyway. That could have landed the Allies in another spot, and reinforcements could be brought in from the Mediterranean through there. The invasion of Southern France happened very soon after the D-Day landings at Normandy, so it might even happen on the same timetable that it did in our timeline. That still puts the Allied armies in France, and Normandy might draw away a lot of German > attention in either case.
A D-Day failure would only delay the inevitable.

The UK was in danger of sinking from all of our men
and material we'd shipped there. Plus once the war
against Japan ended we could transfer all those forces
and our huge Pacific navy to the European theater.

The real danger would have been if Germany had
won the Battle of Britain and occupied the UK.

That would cause a significant delay, prevented
allied mass bombing against Germany and allowed
Hitler to concentrate much more of his forces
against Russia.
Even assuming that the Germans can hold off the Western Invasion forces and the Red Army longer than in our timeline, Berlin probably takes a nuclear hit in August of 1945. Assuming that Dresden and Hamburg type raids were not bad enough.
The USAAF firebombed Tokyo and other cities in Japan, too, before dropping Atomic Bombs.
If a B-29 can't make the trip, a B-36 might get used a bit early. By 1946 at the latest. Even "Luft 46" aircraft would have a tough time catching a B-36 coming in at high altitude, and it might even be mistaken for a reconnaissance flight, as the Enola Gay was.
I still believe that the Invasion of Southern France happens, which gets the Allies into France that way. Then Hitler goes really nuts because he thought Normandy was a diversion at first, as I recall.
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1


s
Fred J. McCall
2019-06-13 06:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
One might see another landing by 1945 or earlier. I wonder, if the invasion of Southern France would have gone off anyway. That could have landed the Allies in another spot, and reinforcements could be brought in from the Mediterranean through there. The invasion of Southern France happened very soon after the D-Day landings at Normandy, so it might even happen on the same timetable that it did in our timeline. That still puts the Allied armies in France, and Normandy might draw away a lot of German > attention in either case.
A D-Day failure would only delay the inevitable.
True, but the delay might be considerable, depending on just how much
we lost in the way of men and material during the failure.
Post by Jonathan
The UK was in danger of sinking from all of our men
and material we'd shipped there. Plus once the war
against Japan ended we could transfer all those forces
and our huge Pacific navy to the European theater.
A big part of the success of D-Day was that we had the Germans
convinced that the main landing would be at Callais under the command
of General Patton (there's a long story behind how we did that), so
they felt that the Normandy landings were a diversion and held
significant forces back to deal with the Callais landing that was
never going to happen. If D-Day had failed, the second attempt would
have been much more difficult. And US Navy ships weren't going to be
particularly helpful in the ETO given the size of the British fleet
available. That's why we divided our effort the way we did (Army in
charge of the European Theater and Navy in charge of the Pacific
Theater).
Post by Jonathan
The real danger would have been if Germany had
won the Battle of Britain and occupied the UK.
The odds of that succeeding were way lower than D-Day. There was a
small window early on after Dunkirk when that might have been
possible, but the Germans squandered the opportunity by making the
Battle of Britain instead of stepping immediately into an invasion.
Post by Jonathan
That would cause a significant delay, prevented
allied mass bombing against Germany and allowed
Hitler to concentrate much more of his forces
against Russia.
Hitler couldn't concentrate too much more of his forces against
Russia. I think something like 90% of German forces were already
allocated to the Russian Front. And instead of mass bombing we'd have
started dropping nukes on German cities.
--
"Oooo, scary! Y'know, there are a lot scarier things
in the world than you ... and I'm one of them."

-- Buffy the vampire
Jonathan
2019-06-13 22:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jonathan
One might see another landing by 1945 or earlier. I wonder, if the invasion of Southern France would have gone off anyway. That could have landed the Allies in another spot, and reinforcements could be brought in from the Mediterranean through there. The invasion of Southern France happened very soon after the D-Day landings at Normandy, so it might even happen on the same timetable that it did in our timeline. That still puts the Allied armies in France, and Normandy might draw away a lot of German > attention in either case.
A D-Day failure would only delay the inevitable.
True, but the delay might be considerable, depending on just how much
we lost in the way of men and material during the failure.
Post by Jonathan
The UK was in danger of sinking from all of our men
and material we'd shipped there. Plus once the war
against Japan ended we could transfer all those forces
and our huge Pacific navy to the European theater.
A big part of the success of D-Day was that we had the Germans
convinced that the main landing would be at Callais under the command
of General Patton (there's a long story behind how we did that), so
they felt that the Normandy landings were a diversion and held
significant forces back to deal with the Callais landing that was
never going to happen. If D-Day had failed, the second attempt would
have been much more difficult. And US Navy ships weren't going to be
particularly helpful in the ETO given the size of the British fleet
available. That's why we divided our effort the way we did (Army in
charge of the European Theater and Navy in charge of the Pacific
Theater).
Post by Jonathan
The real danger would have been if Germany had
won the Battle of Britain and occupied the UK.
The odds of that succeeding were way lower than D-Day. There was a
small window early on after Dunkirk when that might have been
possible, but the Germans squandered the opportunity by making the
Battle of Britain instead of stepping immediately into an invasion.
Some luck for the British played a role.

At the start of the Battle of Britain
the Germans concentrated on airfields
and such and that was very effective.

But then a group of Heinkels got lost
at night over Britain and decided to
ditch their bombs and return home.

But they didn't realize they ditched
their bombs over London, which at the
time the German air force was forbidden
to bomb.

In retaliation the British managed to
pull of a night bombing raid on Berlin
and Hitler was so infuriated he ordered
the bombing to be concentrated on London
instead of the airfields.

That was the turning point in the battle
as it allowed the British air force to
regroup and generate unsustainable
German losses.
Post by Fred J. McCall
Post by Jonathan
That would cause a significant delay, prevented
allied mass bombing against Germany and allowed
Hitler to concentrate much more of his forces
against Russia.
Hitler couldn't concentrate too much more of his forces against
Russia. I think something like 90% of German forces were already
allocated to the Russian Front. And instead of mass bombing we'd have
started dropping nukes on German cities.
--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1


s
Keith Willshaw
2019-06-14 00:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Some luck for the British played a role.
At the start of the Battle of Britain
the Germans concentrated on airfields
and such and that was very effective.
But then a group of Heinkels got lost
at night over Britain and decided to
ditch their bombs and return home.
But they didn't realize they ditched
their bombs over London, which at the
time the German air force was forbidden
to bomb.
In retaliation the British managed to
pull of a night bombing raid on Berlin
and Hitler was so infuriated he ordered
the bombing to be concentrated on London
instead of the airfields.
That was the turning point in the battle
as it allowed the British air force to
regroup and generate unsustainable
German losses.
That I am afraid is one of those urban legends that just will not go
away. The decision to stop bombing airfields was taken at a Luftwaffe
staff meeting in the Hague. The sad reality is that Luftwaffe
intelligence was appalling and they really believed that they had
destroyed the bulk of RAF fighter command, When Stephen Bungay wrote his
book on the subject as a statistician he went back to to the
contemporary loss records and availability data from the Luftwaffe and RAF.

The reality was that at the beginning of September the RAF was stronger
than it had been at the start of the battle as it was able to replace
its losses in aircraft and aircrew while the Luftwaffe was well down on
front line strength as its replacement rate did NOT keep up with its
losses. Worse the high command believed its own propaganda and seemed to
really believe its own propaganda and the the RAF was down to its last
few aircraft. The results of this error became clear over London as many
more fighters appeared than were supposed to exist.

To make things worse for the Germans the second rank fighters in RAF
service such as the Blenheim 1F and Defiant had been replaced by
Spitfires and Hurricanes all of which were now equipped with the new
constant speed propellers which graatly improved performance while the
obsolete RAF tactics had been replaced,
Keith Willshaw
2019-06-13 23:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
(I said "Interesting", I do not necessarily agree.)
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
The Red Army would have assumed defensive positions and waited for
Hitler to make a peace offer.
With respect this seems implausible to say the least.

The Soviets had taken on the main weight of the German Army since
Operation Barbarossa and had stopped them dead at Stalingrad and Kursk
In June 1944 they inflicted in many ways an even greater defeat than
Normandy when they launched Operation Bagration which destroyed Army
Group Centre. In doing so they inflicted losses in terms of men and
materiel that Germany and its allies could not make good. There is
simply no way the Soviets would stop at the Vistula, they were out for
revenge. This was personal in a way no British or American citizen can
imagine. Additionally of course it was obvious to everyone that no peace
deal with Nazi Germany could ever be trusted. They would have paused on
the Vistula but the preparations for the 1945 offensive would have
continued.

Nor would the Anglo American war effort have simply halted. The invasion
of the South of France would have gone ahead as would hostilities in
Italy and the Balkans. The air war against the German oil industry and
Ruhr would have continued. The real risk was not that Nazi Germany would
have survived it was that the USSR would end uo controlling all of
mainland western Europe.

In reality the only D-Day Sector where there was a serious risk of
failure was Omaha beach and I know from old soldiers of the British Army
that late on 6th June contingency plans for a drive on Omaha from Gold
by British and Canadian forces were being reviewed. Similarly I am sure
that US forces from Utah would have have to pot their plans for
expanding into the Cotentin peninsula on hold while Omaha was stabilised.
a425couple
2019-06-15 16:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Willshaw
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
(I said "Interesting", I do not necessarily agree.)
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
The Red Army would have assumed defensive positions and waited for
Hitler to make a peace offer.
With respect this seems implausible to say the least.
The Soviets had taken on the main weight of the German Army since
Operation Barbarossa and had stopped them dead at Stalingrad and Kursk
In June 1944 they inflicted in many ways an even greater defeat than
Normandy when they launched Operation Bagration which destroyed Army
Group Centre. In doing so they inflicted losses in terms of men and
materiel that Germany and its allies could not make good. There is
simply no way the Soviets would stop at the Vistula, they were out for
revenge. This was personal in a way no British or American citizen can
imagine. Additionally of course it was obvious to everyone that no peace
deal with Nazi Germany could ever be trusted. They would have paused on
the Vistula but the preparations for the 1945 offensive would have
continued.
Nor would the Anglo American war effort have simply halted. The invasion
of the South of France would have gone ahead as would hostilities in
Italy and the Balkans. The air war against the German oil industry and
Ruhr would have continued. The real risk was not that Nazi Germany would
have survived it was that the USSR would end uo controlling all of
mainland western Europe.
I'm agreeing with Keith on the above two paragraphs.
Yes, Stalin was now "out for revenge".
dott.Piergiorgio
2019-06-15 13:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by a425couple
How do you think World War II would have turned out if D-Day wasn't as
successful and the USA had to use nuclear weapons on Germany, as they
were originally intended, and not on Japan?
(I said "Interesting", I do not necessarily agree.)
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty, Senior Controller
Answered Thu
Well, we know from Stalin’s private archives that if the Normandy
Landings had been a failure, the Soviets would have halted at the
Vistula River.
This author, as too many others, forgot that there was already an active
western front, in where in the very day of Normandy landing reap a major
success (the Liberation of Rome)

and with stalin on strategic defensive, the only active front will be
the hellish territory of central Italy. add to the mix the Italian
penchant towards bloody settling of divergences and go figure the hell
for the G.I. and the schutzen.

obviously, one can't use nuclear weapons on Italian territory without,
on one side, being royally backstabbed, and on the other, internal
front, side, getting the ires of every academia.

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...