D Day in 1943.

What do FOO Parties have to do with it?

However, if you want to include the attached 19th Field Regiment CRA, why not the 86th (East Anglian and Hertfordshire Yeomanry) and 147th (Essex Yeomanry) Field Regiments RA attached to 50 Division?

Nor was the 8th Infantry Brigade Group - the assault brigade on SWORD - supported by three field regiments. It was supported by two regiments, the 33rd and 76th, firing as part of the "beach drenching" during the running. They were on the 18 LCT of Group IV (SP Artillery) of Assault Group S3 on SWORD.

On two of the Commonwealth beaches, each assault brigade was supported on the run in by two field regiments. On Juno, 7th Canadian Infantry Brigade (Group J-1) was supported by the 12th and 13th Field Regiments CRA (Group J.313), while the 8th Canadian Infantry Brigade (Group J-2) was supported by the 14th and 19th Field regiments CRA (Group J.323). However, on GOLD it was 69th Infantry Brigade Group (Group G-2) supported by only 86th Field Regiment RA (Group VIII), while 231st Infantry Brigade Group (Group G-1) was supported by 90th and 147th Field Regiments RA (Group VII).

On GOLD, the two follow-on brigades and additional supporting field regiments landed from LST. On JUNO 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade landed from a combination of LST and LCI(L). On SWORD, the intermediate group landed from LCI(L) and LCT (reserve armour regiment and priority vehicles). The reserve brigade was similar.

 

Rich,
I don't know what you are using as sources - but I would check them.

Only 90th Field Regiment of 50th Division converted to Sextons before D Day, with the SP support on Gold provided by the two army SP artillery regiments 86 and 147 field. . 74 and 124 field remained with towed equipment. Some of their Op parties landed on D day attached to 86, 90 and 147 because there were not enough to provide direct support elements for the five brigades under 50th Division's command. I think you have corrected your earlier post which read that 74 and 124 fired on the run in shoot.

All three 3rd Infantry Diviison regiments fired in support of the assault on SWORD beach. 9th Irish battery 7th Field Regiment adjusted the fire of the DAG, as covered in the divisional arty OPO, war diary, RAJ and RA commemorative book. David Rowlands painted this for us in 1986.http://www.davidrowlands.co.uk/gallery/gal_detail.asp?varPaintCode=056

This is all nitpicky detail and away from the thread - about which we appear to be arguing similar points on the same side.

 

Thanks, I will. My sources were WO 205/903 Overlord Phase I: 3rd ID June 1944, WO 171/155: 21 AG RA, WO 171/263: 8 Corps RA, WO 171/414 3rd ID RA, and WO 171/517: 50 ID RA, among others. Sources for the landing scheme are all ADM 179, including /504 Report of Eastern Task Force S, /505 Report of Eastern Task Force G, /506 Report of Eastern Task Force J, /516 Report of Eastern Task Force, /1558 Force G Operations Order, /1559 Force J Operations order, and /1561 Force L Operations Order.

Yes, I know that...and didn't correct anything (you would see the little "Edited by" notation in the corner of my posting if I had).

Yes, I knew that too and should have remembered or gone back and referenced the "beach drenching" report. Of course I could have also remembered that it was six LCT IV per field regiment SP, which is why Group IV (SP Artillery) of Assault Group S3 had 18 of 'em, but we can't always be perfect I suppose.

But, But, But! It's nitpicky detail that makes the military history discussion world go round! And the original thread has been done to death.

 

This is just off-topic, but I was just reading an article and I thought it seemed wrong, and since this is a topic about the Invasion of France a year sooner and the defeat of Germany sooner...

I was reading an article about Turning East as Hitler's only choice. Within that article the author states that Britain backed by a powerful American Army couldn't beat Germany on their own. First of all, Germany is one country. The Allies had a more powerful and capable air force. England and America combined had just as much if not more manpower. The article said that Russia couldn't have defeated Germany without the help either. When did they become a super country incapable of losing?

 

What ever article you were reading is counter factual history. No one can prove what did not happen, however interesting it is to speculate.

The Germans did not see the situation the same way.

The original Anglo French strategy was an economic blockade of Germany, which reduced Germany to starvation in 1914-18. This strategy also worked, eventually, in WW2. Germany was isolated from world financial markets and food and other key resources from the new world. German conquest had brought them even more mouths to feed - one motive for the otherwise extraordinary decision to undertake the mass slaughter of Jews, Roma and others in the middle of a war.

The German march to the east might be described as a flight forwards. One aim of Op Barbarossa was to seize the fertile grain fields of the Ukraine to feed Germans at the expense of Russians.. Stalin had spent the first half of the 1930s establishing control over Ukrainian grain via collectivization - at the cost of, perhaps, ten million lives. .

Sooner or later conflict with the Soviet Union was inevitable and in 1941 Hitler - and most senior Germans thought that the USSR would be a push over. They had already achieved more that their fathers in the Kaiser/s war and conquered western Europe.

 

Do you think that if America fully mobilized and provided the forces in all services that they eventually along with the industrial capacity, that combined with Britain and its Empire still could not defeat Germany? I think they would have at the end of the day/\.

 

They had the potential IMO but it was hardly guaranteed. How committed the populations were would be a major factor. Avoiding a major disaster would also be an issue. A failed major invasion for instance might be enough to force some sort of settlement. The prospect of the ruins of Germanys cities becoming self luminescent however is a major factor in favor of the allies.

 

It's a balancing act. The US had severe manpower shortages during the war because of extensive medical and other deferments and because of the perceived need to keep industrial manpower at a premium. However, quite a bit of industry was devoted to lend-Lease, so in theory without Lend-Lease that manpower could have gone into the military...except that then those additional units need equipping, which puts more manpower back into industry...and so on.

The balancing act was the same for all countries and each "solved" it according to their own needs. Germany used slave labor and "volunteer" military auxiliaries, the Soviets ruthlessly cut civilian production to the bone, and the US elected to restrict the size of its ground forces. But change the circumstances and the dynamic changes too.

 

Exactly. And created 95 ground force divisions, while building 49,000 M4 Medium Tanks...of which a third or so we gave away as Lend-Lease. So if we wanted to double the number of our own divisions, doesn't that mean that we need to double the 32,000 odd M4 Medium Tanks we kept? Which means we still need the manpower in the factories to build 64,000 instead of 49,000 tanks.

See what I meant? It was a balancing act and the main give and take was manpower versus manufacturing output and unit output. Yes, the US could have done much more, by mobilizing as much as the Germans or Soviets, but if we had it likely would have crippled the postwar economy and thus the worldwide postwar reconstruction.

 

I thought we scaled back from the original 200 division plan mostly due to the number of people required to support divisions over seas. Not so much the factory workers but all the people involved in moving the stuff from the factory to the front and those required to support them.

 

Yep. And note, "The 90-division troop basis represented their attempt to provide a realistic meeting ground of three fundamentals of modern warfare-strategy, production, and manpower. It represented the relatively small, if compact, ground combat force that the country that was also serving as the "arsenal of democracy" found it could provide for a global coalition war without unduly straining the war economy and standard of living of the American people." Whatever you do, don't strain that American standard of living...notably, the US was the only country to see growth in the civilian sector GDP and standard of living during the war.

 

ten million men of military age were kept in the factories. Imagine if they were in need and cut that number in half, so 5 million would be added to the military. That's an Army Group, Air Corps, and Naval fleet in one.

 

I think the ill conceived and unprepared Dieppe raid answers this question. The Allies had to make sure D-day had a solid chance of success before they even considered attempting an invasion of Europe. The sheer number of men and materials needed for such a huge invasion was always going to take some time. Men had to be trained/outfitted and various cover stories/ clandestine operations/intelligence gathering etc....
And even then success was by no means assured. Stalin constantly argued that the allies were not doing enough and that a second front should be opened asap. But then again Stalins idea of opening any kind of offensive front was to simply throw thousands of men at the enemy until they were overwhelmed. This kind of meat grinder approach was simply too costly not to mention inhumane.

 

Indeed.

Alanbrooke noted his frustration with Marshal when he did get a straight answer to the question about where the Round up assault was supposed to go after landing.

But it is worth noting that Anzio worked out for the best in the end. A perfect sideshow.