D-Day

[Vanilla Coke Kid]

America, as we all know, lost dozens of troops on D-Day, and it was only due to the Artillery on the warships that the concrete bunkers were destroyed. And where did most of those warships come from? Not America, that's where. Yet, the American's claim they single handedly made Omaha a successful landing.

God I hate Nationalism! :angry: :angry: :angry:

[h&s]

Yet, the American's claim they single handedly made Omaha a successful landing.


Excuse me! Omaha? That was only a small part of D-Day. Don't people learn about Gold, Sword, Juno, or the other beaches the allies landed on? I bet Americans think D-Day, and the liberation of Europe was all done by the US. That makes me sick, because people who think that ignore all of the many thousands of British, Canadian, Australian, and other Commonwealth troops who died in that campaign.

[Vanilla Coke Kid]

Exactly. Americans think that Britain and Canada played a tiny part in the landings.

[RageAgainstTheMachine]

Good point and the term World War has to mean something not just USA thinking that all the other countries just gave them a hand to win the only reason they went into war was because of the japanese bombings

[Vanilla Coke Kid]

Another thing that pisses me off about America in WWII is that they think that they won the war just because they nuked the Japs. Did they forget that Geermany and Russia were still fighting. But of course, unless America's involved it's trivial... :rolleyes:

[Invader Zim]

The entire D-Day operation was a waste of time an effort, the Germans were already beaten by D-Day.

[Vanilla Coke Kid]

They weren't really defeated on the Western front as such. Hell, before D-Day, a majority of the fighting was in Russia, Africa and the Pacific, nowhere near France.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Vanilla Coke [email protected] 11 2004, 05:08 PM
They weren't really defeated on the Western front as such. Hell, before D-Day, a majority of the fighting was in Russia, Africa and the Pacific, nowhere near France.
The German army was already defeated, totally, they had been defeated on the Eastern front, as such it was only a matter of time before they collapsed completely, the attack by the western allies only increased the speed of the then inevitable defeat.

[Wiesty]

the canadians and british did alot more

america landed on one beach, the canadians made it the farthest into normandy then america and britian.

and what do u mean by the artillery used on the bunkers?
are u talking on la point de hoc?

that was why we lost so many troops, it was because of those bunkers

and juno beach was much harder to land onm there were much larger cliffs, and a bunker on top of a hill like 3 times higher then la point du hoc

[Wiesty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 04:04 PM
The entire D-Day operation was a waste of time an effort, the Germans were already beaten by D-Day.
waste of time, if it wasnt for d-day we wouldnt of freed the french

[Maksym]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 06:54 PM
waste of time, if it wasnt for d-day we wouldnt of freed the french
The USSR would have freed the French.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 07:54 PM
waste of time, if it wasnt for d-day we wouldnt of freed the french
The Germans would have pulled out as the USSR approached Germany.

[RageAgainstTheMachine]

Germany was scared of the USSR look at its power hitler bairly got into stalingrad he couldnt have taken of the USSR

[Wiesty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 08:01 PM
Germany was scared of the USSR look at its power hitler bairly got into stalingrad he couldnt have taken of the USSR
bairly? it was a like a year long siege that resulted in like 2 million deaths
it has the record for the bloodiest war known to man kind

[RageAgainstTheMachine]

I dint know that but stalingrad kept most of the nazi forces out without it germany would have taken over USSR just like the RAF forces takeing out nazi bombers trying to destroy britain

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Actually the losses at D-Day were not that great.

"Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics)."

http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htmp

Those figures are nothing compared to the millions of casualties that fell on the East Front and Pacific. And the hugh efforts that were put there.

[DaCuBaN]

the canadians made it the farthest into normandy

Yes, everyone forgets how important the Canadians were on the western front landings - after all, they were the only member of the allies who had amphibious tanks - large numbers of Canadians quite literally rolled out of the water and straight through the bunker complexes :)

Canada, we owe you more than has ever been said.

The US contribution in WW2 to the European wars was moot - they concentrated their forces in the Pacific and Africa - their main contribution to the European battleground was eceonomic - without the US, many of the nations in Europe who did survive out would have been sieged - starved - into defeat.

Had they joined us earlier of course, rather than waiting until they were attacked, we'd have probably seen the war dying a lot sooner.

Still, spilled milk.

[Wiesty]

no need for the sarcasim

[DaCuBaN]

:lol:
I actually wasn't being sarcastic at all. We owe the canadians a lot. (assuming this was your reference). They were the only army with amphibious tanks, and they landed on many of the beach fronts side-by-side with British and US forces: If you glorify WW2 at all, the canadians deserve to be at the forefront with the rest of us imperialist pig-dogs. ;)

[MiniOswald]

Stalingrad- was the ultimate grudge match, I think that you can either choose this or the battle or the battle of moscow as the turning points in the war on the eastern front. Stalingrad was also the biggest trap in WW2, the encirclement of the 6th army, this was also the same point were many of hitlers generals began to question his sanity as he demanded the 6th army would survive. The 6th army starved to death.

D-day was tiny in comparison to what the russians faced, it never would have survived if rommels 2nd in command (rommel was away somewhere i forget where) hadn't of believed the landings to be a diversion and that the main attack was coming at Calais, (one of murphys combat laws 'the diversion you're ignoring will be the main attack')

Point is the forces the yanks and brits fought were'nt the strong experienced troops of the eastern front, they were volksturm because the germans hadnt seen invasion coming.

I insist that the war was won by the russians, at a heavy price indeed, definatly too heavy a price but they won nevertheless, after the battle of the kursk saliant, the largest armoured battle of all history, still is, the germans never effectivly stopped the russian advance and it couldnt.

D-day is overated crap, fairplay to the english with the fake army at dover was it? Another thing, i was informed y/day that is wasnt even the allies who liberated paris and that it was all french resistance. and another thing whats this whole heroic 101st airbourne thing? you idiots you dropped paratroopers in strong winds under heavy fire, they got scattered all over the place, at least the english used the glider techniques.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Rommel was at his wife's birthday and I consider the encirclements of millions of Soviet troops, just after Operation Barbarossa had started as the biggest trap of the war.

[RageAgainstTheMachine]

Would you think hitler could have taken over the world just like he planned?

[Kez]

DDAY was only put into action in fear of the mighht Soviet Army pummeling its way all the way up till Calais, Churchill would have been truly pissed off then.

[Grey Wolf]

To say that the American presence on D-Day was minimal in relation to other countries fighting along side them is wrong. Of course credit is due to the forces of the Canadians, French, Australians, Polish, Scandinavian and British soldiers who fought in the European Theatre of Operations. The use of the 101st and the 82nd Airborne was also a pivotal point of the entire invasion of Normandy. The role of the Airborne Divisions was to secure the road ways behind the beaches to ensure an 'open door' for the troops exiting the beachhead. While this was successful in many cases it was hampered by the German High Command's decision to flood the low lying areas behind the beaches, leading to many paratroopers drowning or being severly slowed by the water.

The amphibious tank mentioned earlier was not a solely Canadian invention. The tank of which you speak I assume is the Duplex Drive Sherman tank. The M-4 Sherman of course being the backbone of the American Armoured Divisions. The tanks themselves were American and not Canadian.

While it is a commonly held belief that the Russian army had the ability to triumph over the German Army without the interference of the Allies on the Western Front, the fact is the strongest units of the German Army were infact stationed in France and as the assault on Germany began on the Eastern Front, troops were beginning to be moved from France to the Eastern battle fronts to counter the Russian Army. The attacks on Normandy by the Allies exploited the movement of troops from West to East and through the use of intelligence temporarily confused the German High Command, allowing the Allies to gain a foothold in Europe.

Without the arrival of the Allies in Normandy on June 6, it is likely that the war would have lasted much longer and with the use of the atomic weapons in Japan in 1945 it is conceivable that such weapons may have been considered for use in Europe had the war not been ended as early as it was. The American role in the D-Day Campaign was vital to the success of the operation. Since the beginning of the war American had supplied a large number of naval vessels to support Britain in the Battle of the Atlantic and then large in the D-Day Campaign, remembering of course that the landing craft used during the invasion were an American invention.

The American role in the D-Day Campaign was vital to its success. Without the technology, troops and tactics developed by the Americans who had the ability to analysis the German army while not directly involved in combat, the war would have lasted much longer and possibly ended not with a whimper but a bang.

[Wiesty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:29 AM
D-day was tiny in comparison to what the russians faced, it never would have survived if rommels 2nd in command (rommel was away somewhere i forget where) hadn't of believed the landings to be a diversion and that the main attack was coming at Calais, (one of murphys combat laws 'the diversion you're ignoring will be the main attack')


rommel was was in france i believe, where he plotted hitlers assisnation,
then commited suicide in october

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 06:38 PM
DDAY was only put into action in fear of the mighht Soviet Army pummeling its way all the way up till Calais, Churchill would have been truly pissed off then.
I hate to say it, but for once we are in absolute agreement.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Sep 12 2004, 02:10 AM
Actually the losses at D-Day were not that great.

"Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics)."

http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htmp

Those figures are nothing compared to the millions of casualties that fell on the East Front and Pacific. And the hugh efforts that were put there.
Those casulaty figures are as they are is because of US incompetance, and failure to use adiquate armour support, like was used on the other heavily defended beaches.

[Hate Is Art]

10,000 casulties in one battles is horrible, a number here isn't a statistic, its a person.

[PRC-UTE]

Those casulaty figures are as they are is because of US incompetance, and failure to use adiquate armour support, like was used on the other heavily defended beaches.

it wasn't incompetence, really, it's just that the yanks happened to hit the most fortified stretch of the beach.


To say that the American presence on D-Day was minimal in relation to other countries fighting along side them is wrong. Of course credit is due to the forces of the Canadians, French, Australians, Polish, Scandinavian and British soldiers who fought in the European Theatre of Operations. The use of the 101st and the 82nd Airborne was also a pivotal point of the entire invasion of Normandy. The role of the Airborne Divisions was to secure the road ways behind the beaches to ensure an 'open door' for the troops exiting the beachhead. While this was successful in many cases it was hampered by the German High Command's decision to flood the low lying areas behind the beaches, leading to many paratroopers drowning or being severly slowed by the water.

The amphibious tank mentioned earlier was not a solely Canadian invention. The tank of which you speak I assume is the Duplex Drive Sherman tank. The M-4 Sherman of course being the backbone of the American Armoured Divisions. The tanks themselves were American and not Canadian.

While it is a commonly held belief that the Russian army had the ability to triumph over the German Army without the interference of the Allies on the Western Front, the fact is the strongest units of the German Army were infact stationed in France and as the assault on Germany began on the Eastern Front, troops were beginning to be moved from France to the Eastern battle fronts to counter the Russian Army. The attacks on Normandy by the Allies exploited the movement of troops from West to East and through the use of intelligence temporarily confused the German High Command, allowing the Allies to gain a foothold in Europe.

Without the arrival of the Allies in Normandy on June 6, it is likely that the war would have lasted much longer and with the use of the atomic weapons in Japan in 1945 it is conceivable that such weapons may have been considered for use in Europe had the war not been ended as early as it was. The American role in the D-Day Campaign was vital to the success of the operation. Since the beginning of the war American had supplied a large number of naval vessels to support Britain in the Battle of the Atlantic and then large in the D-Day Campaign, remembering of course that the landing craft used during the invasion were an American invention.

The American role in the D-Day Campaign was vital to its success. Without the technology, troops and tactics developed by the Americans who had the ability to analysis the German army while not directly involved in combat, the war would have lasted much longer and possibly ended not with a whimper but a bang.

well said.

The oft mentioned british "combat snobbery" in regards to american troops is a bit sad and nationalistic. Supposedly the americans weren't as good as other troops, but some interesting books, such as the penetrating work about the 101st airborne demolish those beliefs.

The british soldiers, while often being the bravest, most willing to attack, also suffered from terrible commanders who often squandered their lives. You can't chalk it all up to the yanks; for a while the brits were in charge of the overall campaign and blundered plenty.


Would you think hitler could have taken over the world just like he planned?

yes, and if not for his own military incompetence, Hitler might've sacked the British Isles, scary though the thought is. Thank god he was a damn fool when it came to anything outside of propaganda! :lol:

[Kez]

What i find disgusting is how the generals were sitting nice and comfy, while working class kids from the "allied" forces were getting butchered by fortified machine guns and so on.

the same thing it must be said which is going on in iraq

[Wiesty]

i wouldnt call d-day mearly a battle
id actually call it a campaign

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 05:24 PM
Would you think hitler could have taken over the world just like he planned?
He never did plan world domination, he planned domination of Eastern Europe. He pushed west because France declaired war on Germany.

[Xvall]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 11 2004, 12:03 PM

Yet, the American's claim they single handedly made Omaha a successful landing.


Excuse me! Omaha? That was only a small part of D-Day. Don't people learn about Gold, Sword, Juno, or the other beaches the allies landed on? I bet Americans think D-Day, and the liberation of Europe was all done by the US. That makes me sick, because people who think that ignore all of the many thousands of British, Canadian, Australian, and other Commonwealth troops who died in that campaign.
They fucking do. My freshman year teacher once had a picture of what was quite obviously a Soviet doctor examining an Auschwitz victim, and she told the entire class that the man was an American Doctor, and that the American troops liberated Auschwitz. I guess historical fact is un-american.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Did you correct her?

[Xvall]

I tried. She kinda ignored me and said that I wasn't fully aware of the subject. I suppose back in the day, United States doctors wore hats with red stars.

[bunk]

"i wouldnt call d-day mearly a battle
id actually call it a campaign"

It was a battle to start the normandy campaign. I think that D-Day put more pressure on the germans and perhaps made the war shorter. But the russians had taken much harder military challenges on and would have eventually won anyway.

[Zingu]

Alot of Americans here have also, if ever known, that alot of the warships were French warships that fired on their own land, now all they do is French bashing all day long, gets so sickening. Russia did all the dirty grimy work during the war, no doubt about that.

[PRC-UTE]

good posts everybody, very informative discussion, slainte.

[DaCuBaN]

The amphibious tank mentioned earlier was not a solely Canadian invention. The tank of which you speak I assume is the Duplex Drive Sherman tank. The M-4 Sherman of course being the backbone of the American Armoured Divisions. The tanks themselves were American and not Canadian.

Indeed - but it was not the sherman that was the first amphibious tank. The canadians were the first to bring an applicable Duplex Drive tank, and it was actually a version of the Vickers that was first put into service in this fashion: However I was poor in my choice of words. The Canadians barely built any tanks at all - they used designs and models built by US and UK engineers, and worked upon them.

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/can/Canada.htm


Without the arrival of the Allies in Normandy on June 6, it is likely that the war would have lasted much longer and with the use of the atomic weapons in Japan in 1945 it is conceivable that such weapons may have been considered for use in Europe had the war not been ended as early as it was.

Quite true; we'll never really know though :(


The American role in the D-Day Campaign was vital to the success of the operation. Since the beginning of the war American had supplied a large number of naval vessels to support Britain in the Battle of the Atlantic and then large in the D-Day Campaign, remembering of course that the landing craft used during the invasion were an American invention.

The 'operation' pertaining to the D-Day landings themselves, not the war. By the time the D-Day landings were happening the Soviet Union was halfway to Berlin. An exaggeration, I know - but you get the point. Without the 'Allies' this task would have been significantly more difficult, but again we will never really know if the SU could have 'gone it alone'.

As to the landing craft, this is a common misconception. Whilst indeed the 'landing craft' that was predominantly used in the D-Day attacks was of american design (the one that we are all so intimately familiar with, and was used up until (or perhaps beyond?) the Vietnam War) it was by no means the only one used: It was simply the one that was photographed in action.


In 1940 the British designed and manufactured the Landing Craft, Tank (LCT), initially to conduct amphibious raids. Eight different models of this vessel were produced, the Mk4 being the most commonly used. A total of 1,435 were mass-produced in the United States. The LCT Mk4 was capable of carrying and deploying six medium tanks. This vessel was used extensively at Normandy.


http://www.britannica.com/normandy/week2/landing01.html