I'm reading an excellent book, The Bedford Boys, about the 29th Infantry division at Omaha beach. One thing the author, through commentary and from quotes from the men, speaks about at length was how loaded down the men assaulting the beach were. For the most part they had heavy combat boots, woolen uniforms, very heavily loaded "assault jackets", 60+ pound packs, life belts, gas masks, primary weapon, etc, etc. They must have been packing 80 pounds or more. One man, who spent time in a Ranger battalion that was trained by British Commandos, felt that the British would never have attacked so heavily laden. A British naval officer felt the Yanks were very good troops, but to overloaded to be true assault troops. Man men comment on wishing they hadn't been carrying so much equipment when trying to get up the beach. Other men immediately discarded everything except their rifle and ammo.
I know there were many reasons for the near disaster at Omaha but was overloading one factor? Is this a case of the Americans not learning from their British cousins? On a side note were the Marines going in as heavily laden? If not wouldn't somebody in the ETO have thought to get some hints from the experts in the PTO?
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Were the Yanks overloaded at Omaha?
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 12:24 PM UTC
hellbent11
Member Since: August 17, 2005
entire network: 725 Posts
KitMaker Network: 320 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 01:08 PM UTC
Quoted Text
On a side note were the Marines going in as heavily laden? If not wouldn't somebody in the ETO have thought to get some hints from the experts in the PTO?
From talking to Marine Corps Veteran's of various island campaigns they did not carry as much gear as the troops of the Normandy landings. They still thought that what they carried was too much and tried to discard as much as they could without taking hell from superiors.
In my understanding during the invasion of Tarawa with the Marines having to swim the distance from the reef with so much gear under disasterous results loads were then lightend for following invasions. One local Veteran of several island campaigns related to me that many Marines died of drowning by being pulled down by their invasion gear during Tarawa.
One explanation for the difference between the PTO and the ETO could be climate and the German's previous use of gas during WWI
HONEYCUT
Member Since: May 07, 2003
entire network: 4,002 Posts
KitMaker Network: 648 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 01:17 PM UTC
Gday Rodge
I have heard at least with the LCTs they disembarked the tanks too deep, as the navy pilots weren't too keen to get too close, so they lost many many Shermans that were Deepwaders, not Duplex drive...
Maybe the same was applicable for the LCVPs carrying the troops? Maybe it was not supposed to be as deep as it turned out...
I have heard at least with the LCTs they disembarked the tanks too deep, as the navy pilots weren't too keen to get too close, so they lost many many Shermans that were Deepwaders, not Duplex drive...
Maybe the same was applicable for the LCVPs carrying the troops? Maybe it was not supposed to be as deep as it turned out...
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 10:43 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Gday Rodge
I have heard at least with the LCTs they disembarked the tanks too deep, as the navy pilots weren't too keen to get too close, so they lost many many Shermans that were Deepwaders, not Duplex drive...
Maybe the same was applicable for the LCVPs carrying the troops? Maybe it was not supposed to be as deep as it turned out...
That is one factor, but not the whole story. The men seemed to be saying that even if they had been landed correctly there was still a considerable distance to for them to run from the waterline to the nearest cover. Men were speaking of having to run, in wet sodden uniforms and boots, carrying all the weight, 50 to 100 yards before they could find any shelter from the M.G. fire. Part of the reason was they had all been trained that there would be many shell holes in the sand they could get into. When the naval and aerial bombardment didn't hit the beach as it was supposed to so no shell craters.
After finishing this book I think I might want to look if there is any books out there concerning the British/Canadian landings and how they faired.
Gunfighter
Member Since: September 03, 2004
entire network: 743 Posts
KitMaker Network: 374 Posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 12:36 AM UTC
I just finished reading "Omaha Beach" by Joseph Balkoski and he never really covered overloading per se. I came away with a sense that they didn't have the cover that they expected from the bombing runs that were re-adjusted and the naval barrage that was too short. It also seemed that many of the landing craft really didn't get the troops close enough, either because the obstacles weren't blown or wrong landing points.
I would say that overloading factored in some, but the fact that the German defenses were still quite active and manned beyond expectations had more to do with it.
As for the book, here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/Omaha-Beach-D-Day-June-1944/dp/0811733769/sr=8-3/qid=1169147890/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/104-6867191-0717564?ie=UTF8&s=books
It's a great read and there's another book on Utah by the author as well, which is next in line for me.
- Frank
I would say that overloading factored in some, but the fact that the German defenses were still quite active and manned beyond expectations had more to do with it.
As for the book, here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/Omaha-Beach-D-Day-June-1944/dp/0811733769/sr=8-3/qid=1169147890/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/104-6867191-0717564?ie=UTF8&s=books
It's a great read and there's another book on Utah by the author as well, which is next in line for me.
- Frank
Airchalenged
Member Since: October 21, 2006
entire network: 188 Posts
KitMaker Network: 56 Posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 12:36 AM UTC
Just wanted to say that that is a great book but is sad at the end because many of the main members are killed within minutes of landing. As for the question I would say that it was to some extent. The of some of the equipment (radios, flamethrowers, ect) pulled a lot of men under instantly if they stepped off of a sand bar. I have always wondered why the men carried some much stuff ashore instead of waiting for it in later waves. As for the last question I would have thought so bc many of the same problems or similar ones occured on the two "Red" beaches (Dog and Easy?) on Tarawa with similar outcomes almost a year or more earlier.
Matt
Matt
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 12:57 AM UTC
If you look at the Omaha Beach area at low tide (which was the time of the initial landing), you have to gasp. It is a long way from the low tide mark to the shingle. I'd spit ball and say about two yards. Now, the beach area is irregular in that the 1st Infantry Division area has this 200 yard span and some areas where it is probably less than 100 feet from the boat ramp to the shingle area. The 29th Division area is just about the same. The load they carried (food, ammo, water, clothes, etc) is probably 70 pounds. They are not necessarily overloaded, but it is a heavy burden due to the anticipated lag between landing and the establishment of logistic facilities. The soft sand, miserable weather must have made it seem like a 100 mile dash. So, no I do not believe they were overloaded. The "hope" was that the pre invasion air and naval bombardment would create craters in the sand for them to organize and assault whatever was left of the German defenses. This did not happen and those guys literally walk into a wall of effective small arms and anti-tank fire. They only manage to get off the beach when quite by accident groups in both divisional areas avoid the original mission design of seizing one of the four exits and move straight up the bluffs allowing them to place fire on the Germans from behind. Several brave destroyer captains maneuver their ship so that their keels are almost touching the bottom in order to pour five inch fire on the pillboxes bottling them up at the exit points. By sheer luck and marvelous acts of bravery, they moved off that beach. Must have been a hell of a day.
DJ
DJ
Hohenstaufen
Member Since: December 13, 2004
entire network: 2,192 Posts
KitMaker Network: 386 Posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 02:55 AM UTC
If you look at photos taken on Gold, Juno & Sword beaches, you will see that the British infantrymen were as heavily laden if not more so. The Commandos in particular seem to carrying a lot of gear, fully laden Bergen packs etc. The main reason has already been explained, there was no sure way of knowing how long resupply would take, so the infantry had to hump everything they were likely to need. The British, in particular, would have been aware of the problems of weight, as this was reckoned to be a contributary factor to the disaster on the first day of the Somme in 1916. One factor that many people seem to forget is the weight of 1940's .303 or .30 ammunition, many men were carrying extra ammo in the cotton bandoliers. A laden weight total of 80 pounds seems a lot, but it was probably a compromise between what they were likely to need (food & ammunition) & what they could easily carry. Incidentally, 80 pounds would be considered light for a paratrooper! Some men jumping at Arnhem carried loads of up to 250 lb! I have worn "normal" jumping order for a modern British para. Consisting of parachute packs (main & reserve), Bergen, pouches & weapon, it weighs 125lb.
One of the criticsms levelled at American commanders since the Omaha events, was that of their refusal of the offer of specialised British armour, which proved so useful on the British & Canadian beaches. The reason was supposedly due to the fact that most was Churchill based, AVRE, Bobbins, bridgelayers etc, which would have created a spares problem.
One of the criticsms levelled at American commanders since the Omaha events, was that of their refusal of the offer of specialised British armour, which proved so useful on the British & Canadian beaches. The reason was supposedly due to the fact that most was Churchill based, AVRE, Bobbins, bridgelayers etc, which would have created a spares problem.
ShermiesRule
Member Since: December 11, 2003
entire network: 5,409 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 03:17 AM UTC
I just finished a book called 24 Hour of DDay. In it the author does cite the differences in combat philosophy between Brits and Yanks.
Brits like to be organized with different troops performing different tasks. Hobarts funnies for example. Flails clear a path, bridging tanks breaks the obstacles and DD tanks lead the way inland. Look at the Mulberries as an example. The Brits didn't put their supply efforts into full gear until it was secured in place. Of course this ended up being a good thing as it survived better when the storm hit the channel.
Yanks on the other hand, like to bring everything on shore as fast as possible. As soon as the Yanks got their Mulberry assembled, but never completely safe and secured, they unloaded everything they had on the beaches before the storms hit the channel. Yanks were building roads, supply dumps, medical facilities and even a beach bakery during the landings before they could declare the beaches secure.
Brits like to be organized with different troops performing different tasks. Hobarts funnies for example. Flails clear a path, bridging tanks breaks the obstacles and DD tanks lead the way inland. Look at the Mulberries as an example. The Brits didn't put their supply efforts into full gear until it was secured in place. Of course this ended up being a good thing as it survived better when the storm hit the channel.
Yanks on the other hand, like to bring everything on shore as fast as possible. As soon as the Yanks got their Mulberry assembled, but never completely safe and secured, they unloaded everything they had on the beaches before the storms hit the channel. Yanks were building roads, supply dumps, medical facilities and even a beach bakery during the landings before they could declare the beaches secure.
blaster76
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 03:47 AM UTC
I don't think the heavy packs the GI's carried at Omaha were a major factor in the high death rate. I am sure many of the drownings had something to do with it but so would the inablility to swim and early release by LCVP's factor in. As to running and cover. I think that has been adequately covered by previous posts. As an ex Us Army guy I will have to point out that we do carry too much gear. Shelter halves, sleeping bags, heavy coats and uniforms as well as rations , water, and ammunition. We carried all this in huge duffle bags we stored in the bustle racks. I don't think in the 3 years I spent in Germany I used the shelter half or 2 or three of the other pieces of extraneous gear they gave us. And this was non-combat living. I can't imagine things like mess kits and all the other bother being of any use there. We stored the C-rats (MRE"S ) in the cartons in the insideof the tank and such. Ate them right out of the can. Well, I'm drifting here.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 05:55 PM UTC
Steve-- the motto of "we are the best equipped Army in the world" comes at a price. Some pack mule has to carry all that junk. I think I only slept in a pup tent during ROTC summer camp. I wore coveralls in the field, used a tankers' roll for my sleeping bag and mat, threw the rations in the bustle rack and never wore the LBE harness. I bet half the TA-50 I drew never saw anything but the inside of the duffle bag.
But, I digress from the subject.
DJ
But, I digress from the subject.
DJ
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 10:18 PM UTC
Quoted Text
They are not necessarily overloaded, but it is a heavy burden due to the anticipated lag between landing and the establishment of logistic facilities.
This seems to me a bit of an contradiction. They were landing there to stay, not like the raid at Dieppe. I mean if they didn't get ashore, and established, the whole thing was a failure. If the beach wasn't taken, and quickly, those men were pretty much doomed anyway. It wasn't like the airborne who were expected to fight behind the lines for several days without support. It feels that if the invasion worked, and the men took their initial objectives, then there was plenty of time to get supplies ashore. If it didn't work, then all the supplies they carried were pretty much wasted anyway.
I kind of compare it to the "forlorn hopes" of Napoleonic times. There the assault troops would hit the breaches in the walls of a sieged city. They certainly wouldn't have gone in packing all that extra kit. Their rifle and ammo and that was about it.
md72
#439
Member Since: November 05, 2005
entire network: 4,950 Posts
KitMaker Network: 564 Posts
Posted: Friday, January 19, 2007 - 05:39 AM UTC
I'd accept the overloaded hypothesis. I seem to recall the the Airborne guys went in WAY overloaded,up to 80 lbs per man. Even if they were not assured of resupply for days, it seems extreme.
The missed guesses on the strength of the cross beach currents may have had as large an affect. I seem to recall that this led to the loss of most of the DD tanks as they got sideways to the waves and started taking on water. With out the tanks things had to be nearly impossible for the remaining infantry.
The missed guesses on the strength of the cross beach currents may have had as large an affect. I seem to recall that this led to the loss of most of the DD tanks as they got sideways to the waves and started taking on water. With out the tanks things had to be nearly impossible for the remaining infantry.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Sunday, January 21, 2007 - 05:15 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I'd accept the overloaded hypothesis. I seem to recall the the Airborne guys went in WAY overloaded,up to 80 lbs per man. Even if they were not assured of resupply for days, it seems extreme.
The missed guesses on the strength of the cross beach currents may have had as large an affect. I seem to recall that this led to the loss of most of the DD tanks as they got sideways to the waves and started taking on water. With out the tanks things had to be nearly impossible for the remaining infantry.
Thank God for the United States Navy. Those destroyers plus the actions of the men on the beach got them off Omaha and in land. A paratrooper is likely to carry in excess of 100 pounds of equipment. If you think they are over loaded you would be amazed to see what we carry on the tank.
DJ
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Monday, January 22, 2007 - 12:15 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Thank God for the United States Navy. Those destroyers plus the actions of the men on the beach got them off Omaha and in land.
I totally agree with you, but don't forget the RN also. After reading the book D-Day by Stephen Ambrose I came away with the impression that the two navies were really responsible for letting the soldiers down. He seemed to concentrate far more on the coxswains who didn't do enough to get their landing craft ashore far enough. Granted there were plenty of cases of that, just as there were plenty of cases of soldiers who didn't perform as expected their first time in action. Reading The Bedford Boys I came away thinking that for every case of a Navy man behaving badly, there were equally as many cases of them behaving greatly.
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, January 22, 2007 - 06:10 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextThank God for the United States Navy. Those destroyers plus the actions of the men on the beach got them off Omaha and in land.
I totally agree with you, but don't forget the RN also. After reading the book D-Day by Stephen Ambrose I came away with the impression that the two navies were really responsible for letting the soldiers down. He seemed to concentrate far more on the coxswains who didn't do enough to get their landing craft ashore far enough. Granted there were plenty of cases of that, just as there were plenty of cases of soldiers who didn't perform as expected their first time in action. Reading The Bedford Boys I came away thinking that for every case of a Navy man behaving badly, there were equally as many cases of them behaving greatly.
Rodger--there is always that foggy balance between perception and reality. While I am not an Ambrose fan, I can bet that some 17 year old piloting one of the landing craft was somewhat hesitant to do anything but drop those guys and head back out to sea. There are also so many acts of individual heroism that it amazes me. The fire support provided by the destroyers was impressive and combined with the land maneuver won the day. There is also the possibility that some of tanks and DDs made it ashore on Omaha and stayed active long enough to make a difference. Obviously some of them made it ashore as can be seen from any number of photos. So, the balance is that some were brave and some were not. Thus is life.
DJ
md72
#439
Member Since: November 05, 2005
entire network: 4,950 Posts
KitMaker Network: 564 Posts
Posted: Monday, January 29, 2007 - 05:22 AM UTC
Quoted Text
A paratrooper is likely to carry in excess of 100 pounds of equipment. If you think they are over loaded you would be amazed to see what we carry on the tank.
Being an out of shape middle ager trying to carry a 55 lb back pack, gave me a whole new appreciation for what these guys were doing. Still, 100 lbs on a 165 lb paratrooper seems beyond extreme, not counting the 'sudden' stop at the end of the fall.
I've been known to completely fill my Toyota 4Runner for a week long camping adventure with my wife. I can imagine the kind of damage I could do with a true all terrain vehicle :-)
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Monday, January 29, 2007 - 05:42 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextA paratrooper is likely to carry in excess of 100 pounds of equipment. If you think they are over loaded you would be amazed to see what we carry on the tank.
Being an out of shape middle ager trying to carry a 55 lb back pack, gave me a whole new appreciation for what these guys were doing. Still, 100 lbs on a 165 lb paratrooper seems beyond extreme, not counting the 'sudden' stop at the end of the fall.
I've been known to completely fill my Toyota 4Runner for a week long camping adventure with my wife. I can imagine the kind of damage I could do with a true all terrain vehicle :-)
There are several tried and true methods of moving your gear. One is to establish a patrol base and drop your excess, leave a guard and go on your mission. The other is that once on the ground you shed yourself of those items you thought you would need and no longer have a use for....I speak here of chemical protection gear, usually bedrolls (travel light, freeze at night choice), pup tents, spare clothing. The only thing you do not part with is food, water and ammo. A guy who is in shape despite his weight can and does lift a heavy burden. Look at the Marines as they disembark from a helicopter. There only link is to that ship. If you need it carry it.
DJ
jRatz
Member Since: March 06, 2004
entire network: 1,171 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 08:56 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextThey are not necessarily overloaded, but it is a heavy burden due to the anticipated lag between landing and the establishment of logistic facilities.
This seems to me a bit of an contradiction. They were landing there to stay, not like the raid at Dieppe. I mean if they didn't get ashore, and established, the whole thing was a failure. If the beach wasn't taken, and quickly, those men were pretty much doomed anyway. It wasn't like the airborne who were expected to fight behind the lines for several days without support. It feels that if the invasion worked, and the men took their initial objectives, then there was plenty of time to get supplies ashore. If it didn't work, then all the supplies they carried were pretty much wasted anyway.
I kind of compare it to the "forlorn hopes" of Napoleonic times. There the assault troops would hit the breaches in the walls of a sieged city. They certainly wouldn't have gone in packing all that extra kit. Their rifle and ammo and that was about it.
Rodger, nothing happens instantaneously. The "standard" is to carry 3-days on your back. Land Day 1, the loggies get ashore Day 2, you get more stuff Day 3, hopefully. It is a problem that we have not solved even today, where we have manufactured stuff that is so light & small compared to X-wars ago.
John
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 05:53 PM UTC
John-- to follow-up your point. The major developmental roblem with the Army Land warrior ensemble is weight. They constantly wage a war on reducing the weight the individual carries. It's tough to do and still supply the individual with what they need to survive and win. I would also add that the Normandy invasion put ashore five divisions of Soldiers. They fuel, arm and feed them. If you carry enough to get through the first few days then the logistics chain is functioning and the flow increases. Supply was the constant problem during the drive across Europe. They tried everything from the Red Ball express to the use of bombers to drop supplies. Don't forget they pretty well destroyed the infrastructure of Europe prior to the invasion.
DJ
DJ
Airchalenged
Member Since: October 21, 2006
entire network: 188 Posts
KitMaker Network: 56 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 06:34 AM UTC
Decided to get back in on this debate.... :-) I think out of nessecity for the time without resupply the paratroopers had to be a bit over loaded. But with the expected persision I dont see why some of the gliders could have carried some of the things in but I guess most of the stuff they carried were personal items .... ie weapons, food, ammo etc. (wow that was a long sentence) I know this contradicts what I said earlyier but the first wave was also sorta overloaded for the neccesity and due to the fact that they thought they were just going to stroll up the beach they probably didnt view it as being much of a problem. In hindsight they were overloaded for the final outcome of the defense against the assualt.
Matt
Matt
jRatz
Member Since: March 06, 2004
entire network: 1,171 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 07:12 AM UTC
DJ -
Land Warrior, as an example. Yes, we make great strides reducing weight, then figure we have to have more stuff. Yes it is a good thing we can reduce weight of "stuff" so we can carry more effective weaponry & communications, but the net is no change in weight ... Look at how much body armor we've added, knee/elbow pads, mounts of helmets for optics, etc, etc ... Yes, these are good things, but ...
D-Day & beyond. No secret here, but when we didn't break out according to plan, they started subbing combat power for logistics build up -- and rightfully so. Problem was that when the breakout came, the log-structure that should have been in place on the ground was not, and we spent most of the war patching that problem ... Not that the planned log-structure could have actually handled the Breakout & Pursuit, but it may not have been as bad ...
Interesting experiment in WW2 with 89th division. No transport, no drivers, etc. Just hand carts & unit was supposed to move own gear & be essentially 100% foot mobile. Problem was it took roughly one company out of four to keep pushing carts to keep resupply going and thus combat power was appropriately reduced. Experiment over, back to regular division, & off to war ...
John
Land Warrior, as an example. Yes, we make great strides reducing weight, then figure we have to have more stuff. Yes it is a good thing we can reduce weight of "stuff" so we can carry more effective weaponry & communications, but the net is no change in weight ... Look at how much body armor we've added, knee/elbow pads, mounts of helmets for optics, etc, etc ... Yes, these are good things, but ...
D-Day & beyond. No secret here, but when we didn't break out according to plan, they started subbing combat power for logistics build up -- and rightfully so. Problem was that when the breakout came, the log-structure that should have been in place on the ground was not, and we spent most of the war patching that problem ... Not that the planned log-structure could have actually handled the Breakout & Pursuit, but it may not have been as bad ...
Interesting experiment in WW2 with 89th division. No transport, no drivers, etc. Just hand carts & unit was supposed to move own gear & be essentially 100% foot mobile. Problem was it took roughly one company out of four to keep pushing carts to keep resupply going and thus combat power was appropriately reduced. Experiment over, back to regular division, & off to war ...
John
210cav
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 05:54 PM UTC
Quoted Text
DJ -
Land Warrior, as an example. Yes, we make great strides reducing weight, then figure we have to have more stuff. Yes it is a good thing we can reduce weight of "stuff" so we can carry more effective weaponry & communications, but the net is no change in weight ... Look at how much body armor we've added, knee/elbow pads, mounts of helmets for optics, etc, etc ... Yes, these are good things, but ...
D-Day & beyond. No secret here, but when we didn't break out according to plan, they started subbing combat power for logistics build up -- and rightfully so. Problem was that when the breakout came, the log-structure that should have been in place on the ground was not, and we spent most of the war patching that problem ... Not that the planned log-structure could have actually handled the Breakout & Pursuit, but it may not have been as bad ...
Interesting experiment in WW2 with 89th division. No transport, no drivers, etc. Just hand carts & unit was supposed to move own gear & be essentially 100% foot mobile. Problem was it took roughly one company out of four to keep pushing carts to keep resupply going and thus combat power was appropriately reduced. Experiment over, back to regular division, & off to war ...
John
John-- I follow your points and would add that the build-up in the beach head area initially was for defense (lots of bullets, limited fuel) then we break out in August (lots of fuel and bullets) at the same time we are feeding troops into Europe (more fuel and bullets). They did an amazing job with what they had, but certainly there was room for a better performance. The problem also lies in the American logistical leadership-- LTG John CH Lee. He was a bloated windbag who thought of his own comforts before anything else. The amount of fuel, for example, stolen during the drive across France is appalling even by the standards of the day. Lee and his entourage did little to stop it and there is much evidence that quite a few profited from it. So, logistics is always your critical link. The strength or weakness of it rest with the commander. And, I believe you will find that most of them wanted to shoot Lee, but he was a buddy of Eisenhower's and thet ended the debate.
DJ
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.