THE WORLD WAR TWO GROUP discussion

August theme read on any book or books covering amphibious landings of WW2 (European, Med. or Pacific Theatre).

It took me a while to decide which book to read for this theme month but I decided on this book:

Neptune: The Allied Invasion of Europe and the D-Day Landings by Craig L. Symonds

Which is more about the planning and logistics behind the D-Day landings than the actual fighting, something a bit different for me :)

What is everyone else bringing to the table?

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "It took me a while to decide which book to read for this theme month but I decided on this book:

[book:Neptune: Th..."

That's on my list at the local library.

I have often thought of the order that Eisenhower received for conducting D-Day. It was simple and reflects expert-to-expert level communication per Hersey and Blanchard's model. You don't tell them how to do it, you let them give you the result. So with all the thousands of hours and thousands of pages of planning: “You will enter the continent of Europe and, in conjunction with the other United Nations, undertake operations aimed at the heart of Germany and the destruction of her armed forces.”

Very good post Howard!

Thank you, Rick.

Two new video's uploaded covering amphibious landing subjects.

Good topic, Aussie Rick. I am looking at a couple of books on Guadalcanal and Torch as they were the first major amphibious operations.
However, I am currently reading about Gallipoli, listening to Fitzsimons's Gallipoli on way to and from work, and in middle of "Revealing Gallipoli" on Netflix.
My goal is to compare and contrast that operation from WWI with the new operations. And how they learned from it as it.Much like Hitler and Germans worried about the ghosts of Napoleon's Grande Armee in Russia, I am sure this major failure loomed over the British and American planners for Torch and Guadalcanal.
Don't believe me? Check out link below. Patton's own 1936 report on Gallipoli. Be prepared if you do read it--his bias against and racial stereotyping of the Turkish soldiers appears here and there, and on page 67 he lets go full bore with a juvenile racist joke and exaggerated comments.
http://www.pattonhq.com/pdffiles/gall...

PS. Strangely I first picked this up a few years ago on Amazon as Kindle book but it no longer appears on the site.

Gallipoli
By the way, this is book I am listening to on Gallipoli. I find I cannot read/tolerate his writing but the audible books are fantastic at picking up his conversational tone in this, Tobruk and Kokoda.

Rory wrote: "Good topic, Aussie Rick. I am looking at a couple of books on Guadalcanal and Torch as they were the first major amphibious operations.
."
by Richard B. Frank
I can contribute this one. Summertime adds a sense to Pacific war books.

Dimitri wrote: "Rory wrote: "Good topic, Aussie Rick. I am looking at a couple of books on Guadalcanal and Torch as they were the first major amphibious operations.
."
[bookcover:Guadalcanal: The Definitive Accou..."

Dimitri: I've seen positive comments on Frank's Guadalcanal book. I will be interested in your thoughts.

Rory wrote: "Good topic, Aussie Rick. I am looking at a couple of books on Guadalcanal and Torch as they were the first major amphibious operations.
However, I am currently reading about Gallipoli, listening t..."

Interesting thanks Rory. I have wondered what previous examples of landings may have been studied, including as you say Gallipoi and I wonder too the invasion of Madagascar, and perhaps the German invasion of Norway was studied in both troop landing and ship losses for Torch.

For D-Day they had more experience and examples to refer to by this stage, and I wonder if even small examples such as the US capture of the Aleutians were discussed. Of course the reverse at Dieppe in 1942 did influence thoughts and plans, and perhaps for last minute worries the unhappy clobbering of US troops at Slapton Sands in Devon, UK.

D-Day is often mentioned as the foremost invasion in scale but I do think Torch and the Island campaign should have great merit owing to the distances troops and supplies were transported and the ongoing need to supply and replace damaged kit, including ships and aircraft, and rotate troops and evacuate casualties.

Yes, and just yesterday I was reviewing information on line about Torch because of the political scheming and noted the tanks were landed by lifting them out of the holds with cranes and lowering them to floating platforms that were pushed to shore by tugs or lighters. I recall Churchill saying later on in the war in frustration that the whole war schedule began to revolve around the construction rate of LSTs. D-Day itself was moved back to await more LSTs.

I'm going to be reading The Far Shore by Edward Ellsberg

So far it seems to be written in a very personal style telling of Ellsbergs own involvement in the preparations for the D-Day landings. He had basically been retired due to poor cardiac health after being involved in many salvage operations for the Americans, but he wanted to be back in the action and managed to get himself assigned to the UK. His first assignment was to be locked ina room with a numbered book which contained all the detailed plans for the invasion.

To quote:
The army representatives had just reiterated flatly, unequivocably, and for the last time their position. Without at least one major port, say Cherbourg, in our hands and working all out to land heavy equipment in the first few days, it was silly even to discuss invasion any further.

The navy planners countered acrimoniously with the obvious retort - you bloody well know the enemy has all those ports; it's our job to solve this problem without a port. Period.

The embattled planners, stymied,could only glare ferociously at each other across the conference table, blood-pressures rising dangerously. At this juncture, when it seemed most likely that British officers and gentlemen were about to forget that they were either, Commodore John Hughes-Hallet, senior Royal Navy planner, rose, stood a moment rolling his pencil briskly between his palms, then with mock solemnity tossed in his solution for the impasse.
"Well, gentlemen, all I can say is this - if we can't capture a port, we must take one with us."

All hands - soldiers, sailors, airmen alike - roared heartily at this merry conceit - fancy that, a whole seaport afloat, being towed across the Channel. A good joke, Commodore, worthy of more wine! They had it. Tensions relaxed. With everyone still laughing the meeting broke up, with any solution to the port problem no nearer than before.

But by morning, the uproarious jest of the night before had begun to haunt both the jester himself and the most important of his hearers - Lieut. General Sir Frederick Morgan, Chief of the Planning Staff. That silly idea - floating a seaport across the Channel - was the only alternative. Silly then or not, might not that sole alternative,taken seriously somehow be made a reality? Morgan and Hughes-Hallet, looking hopefully at each other next morning, agreed that possibly it might. Hughes-Hallet was assigned to develop it. And so in June of 1943 was conceived what was to become Operation Mulberry.

Also recall an unsuccessful attack on Dakar in West Africa.

Some great contributions by members in this thread, all very interesting indeed!

Rory would you believe that I picked up a DVD of "Revealing Gallipoli" just the other day, I've never seen it before. I just finished watching it and found it quite good.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0867192/

Among the stack of reading I never got to for my last project, I have a technical volume, At the Water's Edge: Defending Against the Modern Amphibious Assault, Theodore Gatchel.

From the preface, "Conventional wisdom held -- correctly I think -- that the amphibious assault is the most difficult operation of war. At the same time, I wondered why the forces who defended against landings were almost universally unsuccessful."


I will try to squeeze it in this month.

I think the lack of general success vs amphib landings is based on massive preparations of the attacker. They must have established air superiority if not air supremacy, do extensive bombardment, and assure they can quickly mass a superior force at the point of battle, not to mention they choose the time of the attack. The Germans thought we would land at high tide on D-Day, and so focused their obstacle construction at that point, because they did not imagine the famous concern of the Allies for the lives of their soldiers would lead to having them cross long distances of wide open beach under fire. But the driving force was to avoid loss of landing craft, so we planned to land at low tide to both avoid obstacles and allow beached craft to get refloated by incoming tide. The bombers were supposed to bomb the beach to make holes for troops to shelter in if necessary, as well as hopefully damaging defenses, but as we all know, the bombers overshot due to bad weather and concern for friendly casualties.

I'm trying to decide between Green Beach and The Bedford Boys: One American Town's Ultimate D-Day Sacrifice. May have to flip a coin.

some of the most descriptive, concise accounts of what happens in an amphibious assault were in the citations for decorations.

The first book sounds quite interesting Mike, I know the second book is a good read so a hard choice, maybe a coin flip is a good idea :)

Some were near run events. Bradley was said to be considering pulling back off Omaha Beach. Anzio was a mess. The German amphib attempt on Crete was clobbered before it got close and there were some instances of massive casualties inflicted on Japanese forces attempting to reinforce island battles. Major planned landings were cancelled and troopships turned around due to naval battles of Coral Sea and Midway. Not sure if that counts as defeating the assault.

Howard wrote: "I think the lack of general success vs amphib landings is based on massive preparations of the attacker. ..."

I'm curious to read Mr. Gatchel's conclusions. Of course a first principle applies right away, and is amplified on the water. As I wrote, "It’s an age old military problem that a large front or line of positions is difficult to defend if the attacker has good mobility and can concentrate forces on one particular spot at will. Out in the ocean an attacker with a good navy has excellent mobility and can mass firepower and assault forces around any island they wish. The defender has to garrison all the islands. When one of them is attacked, the garrison has to hold out long enough for the defender’s navy to get there and meet the attackers."

Howard wrote: "Major planned landings were cancelled and troopships turned around due to naval battles of Coral Sea and Midway. Not sure if that counts as defeating the assault...."

That definitely counts! If we count the formula for victory in amphibious assault as including great maneuverability, that has to cover going in reverse as well.

A lot of things have to go right for a landing to come off well. It's saving grace may be the ability to pull back so cleanly, provided one is not too stubborn about it.

Then I guess Lepanto and some of the other ancient fleet battles can count.

Howard wrote: "Then I guess Lepanto and some of the other ancient fleet battles can count."

On a related note: exists there a good book that offers a comparative analysis of history's amphibious assaults, establishing principles by multiple exammples?

From: Slingshot Warbirds: World War II U.S. Navy Scout-Observation Airmen by William Neufeld

The U.S. Navy's scout/observation aircraft were very active during the Operation Torch landings in North Africa. With one modern battlewagon and seven heavy and light cruisers, many OS2U Kingfishers and SOC Seagulls were available for use. The aircraft flew ASW patrols all the way across the Atlantic, general reconnaissance searches, numerous naval gunfire spotting missions, and even bombing. The float planes weren't intended to operate as bombers. The aviation ordnancemen aboard the ships modified the standard 325 lb depth bombs used for ASW by replacing the hydrostatic fuses with impact fuses:

...the Texas was informed that enemy tanks were moving along on the Rabat Road...When the battleship began firing at 17,000 yards, one of her pilots observed a column of troops on the Rabat Road and came down to strafe...a second pilot dropped a depth charge armed with an instantaneous fuse on an enemy tank. The force of the explosion overturned two other tanks and ripped a gaping hole in the road.

Interesting use of a navy depth charge - think that's the first time I've heard of one being used that way, obviously quite effective though!

I have settled on Goodbye Darkness; a Memoir Of the Pacific War. by William Manchester. Have to finish one on the Knights Templar first though.

While the use of depth charges as bombs was an effective innovation, I can imagine an anti-aircraft round or even a bullet hitting the contact exploder while it was still on the aircraft. Those pilots were courageous. Reminds me of the gunners in the aft mounts onboard the escort carriers under fire from Jap battleships at Leyte Gulf. One of them called over the intercom: "Hang on just a little bit longer Boys! We're sucking 'em into 40mm!"

range

Jack wrote: "I have settled on Goodbye Darkness; a Memoir Of the Pacific War. by William Manchester. Have to finish one on the K..."

A very good choice Jack.

Totally agree with Geevee, an excellent choice Jack, I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Howard wrote: "While the use of depth charges as bombs was an effective innovation, I can imagine an anti-aircraft round or even a bullet hitting the contact exploder while it was still on the aircraft. Those pil..."

Great quote!

I've spent time on one of our navy patrol boats when I was in the army, part of an exchange between services and I recall being terribly seasick for at least the first 3-4 days. This account from the book Neptune surprised me how bad travelling in a slow convoy could be for soldiers:

" ... It was more than annoying; many suffered so horribly they prayed for death. And some found it. On virtually every crossing, men who could stand it no longer threw themselves over the side or shot themselves with their own rifles. This became common enough that when a soldier became badly ill, his carbine was taken away. At leas one man died of internal haemorrhaging from dry heaving for five days."

Pretty drastic eh! I have read accounts of some soldiers being so ill during the landings on D-Day that they were combat ineffective.

Was this something planners took into account for any amphibious landings, that a percentage of troops would be too sick to fight?

by Craig L. Symonds

Quote came from a book about Taffey3, but the quote is referenced on line if you google the last phrase. There is seasick story I did not read but heard, and even if it isn't true, I will share it. Lt on assault craft was concerned they were heading for the correct beach, so he shouts to the coxswain, "Are we heading for the red light or the green light?" A seasick Marine who was puking over the side, stopped and shouted, "Head for the red light, it might be a cathouse," then resumed puking.

LOL, Howard, nice one!

In the 82nd Airborne I made some jumps in the summertime when the planes got hot inside and the Air Force was paying for the flight so they were working in some nap-of-the-earth flying for training. So many guys were throwing up it was like you were ice skating to the door to jump. Accounts of D-day mention decks covered with puke. I can imagine. It was sure better when it was the Army's turn to pay for the flight: the zoomies flew us straight to the drop zone.

Did a lot of throwing up in a Chinook flying nap-of-the-earth, once one guys starts the smell causes a chain reaction!

Howard wrote: "Quote came from a book about Taffey3, but the quote is referenced on line if you google the last phrase. There is seasick story I did not read but heard, and even if it isn't true, I will share it...."

Great story, I'm sure its true :)

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I've spent time on one of our navy patrol boats when I was in the army, part of an exchange between services and I recall being terribly seasick for at least the first 3-4 days. This account from t..."

I remember a trip across the Atlantic from Rota, Spain to Charleston on a SPRUANCE-class destroyer through very heavy winter weather. The first couple days out were a roller coaster. The helmsman-in-training, under the boatswain's mate of the watch, was forced to remain at the helm despite being seasick. In such cases the bridge watch would tape a plastic bag to the wheel for use as necessary -- but they would always seek out one of the clear plastic bags, not one of the black standard government issue. It was disgusting to say the least.

Manray9 wrote: "but they would always seek out one of the clear plastic bags, not one of the black standard government issue. It was disgusting to say the least..."

Nice! No mercy!

Mike wrote: "Manray9 wrote: "but they would always seek out one of the clear plastic bags, not one of the black standard government issue. It was disgusting to say the least..."

Nice! No mercy!"

Don't expect mercy from sailors -- unless you're a kid or a dog.

You know what they say about sailors and animals Manray9 :)

Or is that just the Royal Navy and goats?

A friend of mine in the Army had a brother in the Navy. He said when his brother got orders to a destroyer the orders did not say sea duty. The orders said ARDUOUS sea duty.

I think anything smaller than a cruiser at sea should be considered bloody arduous!

From: Slingshot Warbirds: World War II U.S. Navy Scout-Observation Airmen

U.S. Navy SOC Seagull and Vought Kingfisher float planes provided admirable gunfire spotting support during the Operation Husky landing in Sicily. As the U.S. 1st ID was advancing from Gela, it was threatened by counter-attack from the German Hermann Göring Division. USN spotter aircraft directed naval gunfire from USS SAVANNAH (CL-42) and USS BOISE (CL-47) on the Germans. The two light cruisers fired 774 6-inch shells. According to Neufeld:

So furious was that gunfire that there were few times when there was any calm at all..."dazed survivors from the Hermann Göring Division who were taken prisoner wondered what terrible new anti-tank weapon the Americans had. They had never experienced anything like the rapid fire of fifteen 6-inch guns carried by those American light cruisers. They had no idea that what hit them came from the sea."

U.S. Navy spotter planes also directed fire in Sicily for the British armored monitor HMS ABERCROMBIE. She carried a single turret of two 15-inch guns, but with a draft of just eleven feet, she could close the shoreline to pound the enemy. ABERCROMBIE was one of the last two monitors to see service in the Royal Navy.

On a hot summer jump our motor officer snuck a ziplock bag of vegetable soup onto the plane and after a while made throwing up noise into the bag, then started to pour it back down his throat. About 10 guys immediately started puking. Yes, when it starts, the smell gets just about everybody else going.

Howard wrote: "A friend of mine in the Army had a brother in the Navy. He said when his brother got orders to a destroyer the orders did not say sea duty. The orders said ARDUOUS sea duty."

I've been at sea a few times when it was impossible to stay in your rack when off watch. One can't sleep while holding on.

That's not a nice thing to do, damn officers :)