Would D-Day have been sucsesful without the Americans?

Last time I checked Americans were a Dieppe, so whats your point? Dieppe was actually made out to be a great sucesful American raid in the states. Yet for some reason people in my town didnt think so. (I wonder why?) How does it not make sense I was making the point that the British could invade France but the Germans would drive them back into the sea just like Dunkerque. Hoosier I never really said the invasion would be a success. I only stated that they could have made it off the Beaches and fight the Germans before being forced to evacuate.

 

I don't have the numbers on my desk (have to go digging through computer files) but there were'nt very many Americans there. It was mostly a Candian attack (Hey we found the problem! ) Will look that up when I get home after school today

 

Better check again then. Americans weren't at Dieppe, at least not in any significant numbers (a few support people perhaps?).

 

Gunter:

Some facts I gleaned from the Dieppe Raid, codenamed "Operation Jubilee."
6,000 troops participated in the raid.
Of that total, 4,965 were Canadians from the 2nd Division--including 50 Churchill tanks and crews--supplemented by 1,200 British commandos and Royal Marines, and 50 American commandos.
Approximately 250 boats were used in the landings, consisting of "duck-boats", destroyers, gun-boats, patrol craft and an assortment of landing craft. (Likely used to land tanks is my guess.)

The raid resulted in 1,380 total Allied troops KIA, including 913 Canadians.
1,600 troops wounded and 2,000 prisoners taken by the Germans. The RAF lost 107 aircraft. A VERY bad day for the RAF.
German losses were 345 KIA and 268 wounded.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, many important lessons were learned as a result of the raid, and successfully applied to the Normandy Invasion, so these lives were not lost in vain. I don't recall the raid ever being described as a victory though... regardless of the valuable lessons learned.

Major Operations like "Overlord"--the Normandy Invasion--would never be pushed forward without a "much better than even" chance of being successful.
The Germans knew we would be coming.
They did not know where the landings would occur.
The Russians were also pressing their Allies for a second-front.
US Marine amphibious landings in the Pacific no doubt also contributed greatly to the development of specialized equipment and tactics in such operations.
The transportable artificial harbors "Mulberry A and Mulberry B" were also considered absolutely vital to the success of the invasion based on the lessons gleaned from the Dieppe Raid.

A better question might be:
Would the Normandy landings have been successful without the Mulberry Harbors?

Tim

 

I fail to see the reasoning behind the political motives for the invasion that some of you guys are mentioning here.

On the one hand some of you are saying D-Day was kicked off when it was because the Soviets were clamouring for a second front to relieve the pressure. However, just weeks after Overord started the Russians began their own, famous 1944 Summer Offensive which unhinged the entire German eastern front and destroyed a complete German Army Group. They hardly seem exhausted, then, and hardly in need of a relief of pressure. In fact, preparations for this offensive must have given the Soviets the impression that they could conquer all of Europe on their own just as long as the Western Allies did not interfere.

On the other hand some of you mention the idea that the Western Allies hurried the start of Operation Overlord just to make sure there was something left to take from the Germans that the Russians hadn't conquered already. However, the starting date for Operation Overlord was in factcarefully planned and endlessly postponed because the preconditions required by British and American staffs to give the go-signal were very high. As you may know, Ready-Day for Operation Overlord was in early May 1944, which was indeed very shortly before the actual operation - which means that as soon as the conditions were met, they went ahead with it as planned. Said conditions involved most importantly the strength of German Navy and Air Forces and the ability of the Allied amphibious force to create a stable beachhead on the first day - all military, not political conditions.

 

Hoosier I know of the numbers my point was that they were there. It was played up as a victory in Canada and the US especcialy in Canada because civilian moral was saging.

I have some numbers myself evan the names of most of the Canadian regiments taking place. The Essex & Kent Scottish Regiment send 521 soldiers and 32 officers. 49 soldiers and 2 officers came back to returned to England.

 

What was your point then? 50 Americans at Dieppe is not a significant number. The Americans didn't plan the raid nor organize it they were merely along for the ride and depending on others(unfortunately as it turned out).

 

Absolutely. The Americans landed more supplies ove rht e beaches than the British did through their Mulberry. The US Mulberry was essentially destroyed by the great storm around June 20. LST's were way more important than the Mulberries.

The "lessons learned" at Dieppe line is greatly overplayed, springing mostly from the mind of Lord Mountbatten. Almost all the lessons were known before hand or were self evident and not worth 4,000 men.

Gunther, you've said before that the Americans try to claim Dieppe as an great American success, but I've never seen anything like that. Would you share your source with us.

 

It was in my grade 10 history textbook. I dont have acces to one at the moment.

 

Thanks, I'd be interested in you find something.

 

I didn't say it would have caused the Soviets to lose, I said the Germans may have been able to meet their territorial goals. I don't think the Stalin would have given up or been disoposed from power and the Soviets probably could have and would have continued the fight from there.
Fewer German occupation troops in the occupied west (more infantry for the front and rear area security), at least one more Panzer Korps, no distractions for the Luftwaffe, Italians free to get involved in the Black Sea, possible Turkish participation in the Axis, no lend lease. Maybe just enough to allow the Germans to reach the goals set for Barbarossa. Then again maybe not.

 

It depends what you mean by "without the Americans".

If you mean no American support at all absoloutly not.

If you mean that the Americans decide to send their forces to lets say Ygoslavia instead of Normandy and have more Britons and Canadians storm the beaches of Normandy while they free the Balkans then yes.

One thing I wonder though, is may it have been better to have sent the Free French Army to take Vienna as Churchill campaigned for then to have sent it to Southern France where American Forces had everything under controlled and had no need for any reinforcements.

 

Best theory I ever heard on Dieppe was that it was a demonstration to Stalin that we were incapable of opening up a second front at that time.

 

Actually that kind of makes sense too much sense if you ask me. The army can never make sense that is the astonishing wonder of it.

 

But anything is possible if you set your mind to it. I heard this once and long ago, there was an army of 300 and the other of 3000; and guess who won; the 300 man army. You may say thats not possible, but anything is possible.

Mic

 

Mic it depends on how the troops are used. A few guerilla units will do more damage to a large occupying force than the occyping force to the Guerillas. For example if the 300 are heavily fortified and the 3000 just rush them in daylight across a flat field they will be slaughtered.

 

It depends the period that the battle was fought, the participants, the lay of the land,moral of troops etc. When Ceasar invaded Britain a cohort was cut off,circled and attacked by 5000 to 6000 Britons. Roman cavalry finally rescued them but after quite a long time and by then the cohort succesfully repulsed the attacks with minimal casualties.

 

"Tu Mu: Whenone is to be used to atttack ten we should first compare the wisdom and the strategy of the opposing generals, the bravery and the cowardice of the troops, the question of weather, of the advantages offered by the ground, wether the troops are well fed or hungry, weary or rested."

I got it from the Art of War by Sun Tzu I beleive it is commentary? I am not quite sure but I think Roel can clear it up if I made a mistake. BTW Roel thanks for suggestingto read the book it is quete short but the translators introduction is half of the actually writing by Sun Tzu including that commentary.

 

No is the short answer as Britain/Canada simply didn't have the resources to do it alone.

But let's ask another question shall we - would there have been an Operation Overlord without Britain - most defintely not - and not for the foreseeable future either. I think there is a danger of underestimating the pivotal role that Britain played in WW2 - the world would be a very different place today if Britain had made peace in 1940.

 

Well it wouldnt have happened if Britian and France didint declare war on Germany when they invaded Poland. No im not putting the blame on Britain and France I am just pointing something out.