What if Montgomery was wrong about Market Garden?

[Colin Haggett]

Plenty of Royal Engineers and similar types. The British had too few combat troops as it was for the 15th and 21st army groups.

One of the manning issues involves the various directorates in this case Armour and Engineers, some of which continue till this day. In the British system Armour has precedence over Engineers. The argument goes "It is a tank - regardless of its fittings or use therefore it is manned by the Armoured Corps". The countervailing argument is "Regardless of its origins it is an engineering vehicle it is employed using the principles of employing engineers in battle therefore it is to be manned and operated by Engineers". It was hard enough getting Armoured Corps to agree to sappers manning the Petard equipped Churchills let alone additional vehicles such as Crocodiles or allowing infantry men to crew the Kangaroo APCs.

 

[Dave Shoup]

One of the manning issues involves the various directorates in this case Armour and Engineers, some of which continue till this day. In the British system Armour has precedence over Engineers. The argument goes "It is a tank - regardless of its fittings or use therefore it is manned by the Armoured Corps". The countervailing argument is "Regardless of its origins it is an engineering vehicle it is employed using the principles of employing engineers in battle therefore it is to be manned and operated by Engineers". It was hard enough getting Armoured Corps to agree to sappers manning the Petard equipped Churchills let alone additional vehicles such as Crocodiles or allowing infantry men to crew the Kangaroo APCs.

Understood; my point is simply that given the realities of the British Army's manpower pool in 1943-45, using trained RAC personnel in these roles was a waste of scarce manpower - akin to using trained RM infantry to provide landing craft crews.

 

[Aber]

Understood; my point is simply that given the realities of the British Army's manpower pool in 1943-45, using trained RAC personnel in these roles was a waste of scarce manpower - akin to using trained RM infantry to provide landing craft crews.

I'd agree with you if the 79th Armoured Division included those with combat experience in tanks, but they were simply trained personnel - in some cases re-roled from infantry in 1941. It's also arguable that by late 1944 the British Army had too many tanks.

By 1944 Britain certainly had an infantry manpower crisis, and the Army did a lot by transferring from units that were no longer critical - RAF regiment, Light Anti-Aircraft etc - and IIRC even sent women abroad in HAA units. To find more manpower you're going to have look far wider than shuffling Army personnel around. This means looking at reducing the size of the navies and airforces, and increased conscription and recruitment in other countries, and reducing "home service only" restrictions.

 

[yulzari]

I'd agree with you if the 79th Armoured Division included those with combat experience in tanks, but they were simply trained personnel - in some cases re-roled from infantry in 1941. It's also arguable that by late 1944 the British Army had too many tanks.

By 1944 Britain certainly had an infantry manpower crisis, and the Army did a lot by transferring from units that were no longer critical - RAF regiment, Light Anti-Aircraft etc - and IIRC even sent women abroad in HAA units. To find more manpower you're going to have look far wider than shuffling Army personnel around. This means looking at reducing the size of the navies and airforces, and increased conscription and recruitment in other countries, and reducing "home service only" restrictions.

They were already reroling excess aircrew in training and the Royal Navy was a bit busy in the Atlantic and Pacific but the biggest available fit for training pool was the 'Bevan Boys' sent into the mines as conscripts which is the subject of another recent thread.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I would think that operating specialist vehicles with combat experienced or at least crews trained under combat conditions would be

kind of necessary.

Nicolaus Strauser certainly arranged a swim meet. I believe the expressions "adequate for D-day", and "successful" is British hyperbole.

BTW, the idea (^^^) has always struck me as insane.

As an aside, the Buffalo (LVT4) was not British.

Hyperbole? Meaning: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally (was that what you meant to say?).

The DD Tank working on all the other beaches but Omaha does not make claims of it being 'adequate' and 'Successful' in any way hyperbole

Not sure which of the 'Funnies' you found insane? All were developed from obvious requirements from previous battles and other than the CDL tanks (which as a concept had been proven but not as I understand it fully understood by the rest of the army so never really used) were all found to be useful.

And lastly the Sherman wasn't British either! ??

 

[McPherson]

Hyperbole? Meaning: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally (was that what you meant to say?).

The DD Tank working on all the other beaches but Omaha does not make claims of it being 'adequate' and 'Successful' in any way hyperbole.

The definition means "exaggeration." The claims "that the tanks were successful", as the museum curator plainly intended in his expression and use of hyperbole, was somewhat hyperbolic in its hyperbolism. He did not think much of the concept either.

Not sure which of the 'Funnies' you found insane? All were developed from obvious requirements from previous battles and other than the CDL tanks (which as a concept had been proven but not as I understand it fully understood by the rest of the army so never really used) were all found to be useful.

The DD Shermans were the insane concept. Note the lack of a bilge pump for the D-day tanks and the fact that the British actually tested a Valentine with such a canvas skirt. They fired a machine gun at the DD Valentine (1942) under simulated landing conditions and it sank.

And lastly the Sherman wasn't British either! ??

The DD (Sherman) concept was entirely British in notion based on their 1942 work with the Valentine.



The Americans came up with this;



Very lightly armored but it got ashore and it worked; as the Scheldt operations demonstrated against the Germans and as numerous 1944 Pacific assaults showed.

Two different solutions. The Americans rejected the DD tank (postwar) after the debacle at Omaha.

Source cite.

Combat use:
The main use of DD tanks occurred on D-Day. They were also used in Operation Dragoon, the Allied invasion of southern France, on 15 August 1944; Operation Plunder, the British crossing of the Rhine on 23 March 1945 and in several operations on the Italian Front in 1945. DD Tanks were sent to India, the 25th Dragoons were trained in their use, but planned operations against the Japanese in Malaya never occurred.

D-Day:
The DD Sherman was used to equip eight tank battalions of American, British, and Canadian forces for the D-Day landings.

They were carried in Tank Landing Craft, also known as Landing Craft, Tank (LCT). These could normally carry nine Shermans, but could fit fewer of the bulkier DDs. British and Canadian LCTs carried five tanks, the Americans carried four as their LCTs were shorter at about 37 m.
The DDs would typically be launched around 3 km from the shore, swim to the beaches and overpower the German defences. The tank's record was a mixture of success and failure, although they are mainly remembered for their disastrous performance on Omaha Beach.

Sword Beach

• On the British Sword Beach, at the eastern end of the invasion area, the DD tanks worked well, as the sea was reasonably calm. The DD tanks from 'A' and 'B' Squadrons of 13th/18th Royal Hussars were launched 4 km from shore. Five could not be launched as the leading tank on its LCT tore its screen - they were later landed directly on shore - one tank sank after being struck by an LCT.

"Ideal conditions". McP.

Gold Beach

• On Gold Beach, the sea was rougher. The tanks of the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry were launched late, about 640 m from the shore. Eight tanks were lost on the way in and by the time the remainder landed, Sherman Crab (mine flail) tanks had already destroyed the German artillery and machine-gun positions that would have been their objective. Sea conditions meant the tanks of ‘B’ and ‘C’ Squadrons, from the 4th/7th Royal Dragoon Guards were landed in the shallows. They then drove onto the beach with their screens up so they would not get swamped in the breakers. German anti-tank guns caused heavy losses in some sectors of the beach but the assault was successful.

The Crabs were landed directly from LCTs onto the beach, flailed for mines and shot up the German defenses before the Sherman DD's of the Sherwood Rangers, which took significant losses, even though launched from less than 600 meters offshore managed to swim ashore. Op result is 100% mission intent failure. The other sectors of the beach, the other DD Shermans were thoroughly shot up. Results I would consider "mixed".

Juno Beach

• On the Canadian Juno Beach, The Fort Garry Horse and the 1st Hussars were equipped with DDs, but only those of the 1st Hussars could be launched. They were assigned to the 7th Canadian Brigade, at the western end of the beach. Some of the tanks were launched at 3,658 m and some at 700 m; twenty-one out of twenty-nine tanks reached the beach.^1 The 8th Canadian Brigade, at the eastern end of the beach, was forced to land without DD tanks because of rougher seas. They suffered heavy initial casualties, but were still able to make good progress.

Based on the results, with 40% of the DD Shermans not launched due to rough seas and 62% of those launched reaching shore, the mission intent was not achieved. Mission success marginal.

Utah Beach

• On Utah Beach, the DDs were operated by the 70th Tank Battalion. Armoured support was reduced by four DDs when their LCT was lost when she's hit a mine. The remaining tanks were launched 15 minutes late 914 m from the beach. Twenty-seven out of twenty eight reached the beach but confusion caused by the massive smoke screen meant they landed around 1,829 m from their aiming point and saw little German opposition.

An accident produced another ideal outcome.

Omaha Beach

• At Omaha Beach almost all of the tanks launched offshore were lost, their absence contributing to the high casualty rate and sluggish advance from that beach. The first wave at Omaha included 112 tanks: 56 from each of the 741st and 743rd Tank Battalions. Each of these battalions had 32 DD and 24 other Shermans (including many Sherman bulldozers for clearing obstacles). Starting at about 0540, the 741st Tank Battalion put 29 DDs into the sea, but 27 of these sank, the remaining two made the long swim to the beach. Some of the crews of the sinking tanks managed to radio back and warn following units not to launch so far out. The remaining vehicles of the 741st Tank Battalion and all tanks of the 743rd Tank Battalion, (except for the four aboard one LCT that was hit by artillery fire just off the beach), were landed directly on the beach, starting at about 0640. DD Tanks were designed to operate in waves up to 0.3 m high; however, on D-Day the waves were up to 1.8 m high. These were much worse conditions than the tanks had been tested in and hence they were swamped. Also, the tanks of 741st Tank Battalion were launched too far out: about 4.8 km offshore. These factors also exacerbated the inherent difficulty of steering a 35 ton "vessel" with a low freeboard. The crews were equipped with DSEA emergency breathing apparatus capable of lasting 5 minutes, the tanks were also equipped with inflatable rafts. Some sources claim that these life-saving measures were ineffective; this was contradicted by the testimony of survivors. Most of the crews were rescued, mainly by the landing craft carrying the 16th Regimental Combat Team, although five crewmen are known to have died during the sinkings. Until very recently it was believed that most of the DD Shermans of the 741st Tank Battalion were sunk almost immediately. Some stayed afloat for a matter of minutes; according to the crews one tank swam for 15 minutes, another: "We weren’t in the ocean [sic] 10 minutes when we had a problem". Tanks at the other four beaches suffered no such problems.
  • "The landing craft carrying them were drifting away from the target beach - forcing the tanks to set a course which put them side-on to high waves, thus increasing the amount of water splashing over and crumpling their canvas skirts. Two tanks – skippered by men with enough peacetime sailing experience to know not to turn their sides to the waves - actually made it to the beach. It had been widely believed the other tanks sunk almost immediately on leaving the landing craft, but our work showed some had struggled to within 1,000 metres of dry land."

Training. Bloody awful training. Even rotten concepts and poorly thought through engineering solutions can be overcome by proper training, but we have no idea how the DD Shermans would have done at Omaha since the 95% loss of mission rate during the approach makes it impossible to see examples of DD tanks in action in any quantity in that setting.

Cumulative.

In the entire D-day operation, 290 DD tanks were used. Out of those, 120 were launched at sea, for which at least 42 sank. Approximately 140 DD tanks were launched in very shallow water or directly on the shore. The American DD tanks suffered 38% loss due to sinking, versus the British and Canadian which lost 31% due to sinking. The difference was that the American losses were all concentrated in one battalion.

Note that despite the shambles of Omaha Beach, and including the successes of Gold and Utah, that the op-research shows guaranteed loss of 1/3 of the swimmers. That is a mission fail rate that is "successful" and mostly worked?

How about ANVIL/Dragoon?

Operation Dragoon
The Operation Dragoon landings took place on 15 August 1944 between Toulon and Cannes in southern France. A total of 36 DD tanks were used by three American tank battalions – the 191st, the 753rd and the 756th. The 756th had eight tanks that were launched 2,286 m from the beaches; one was swamped by the bow-wave of a landing craft and one sank after striking an underwater obstacle.

The twelve tanks of the 191st battalion were all landed on or close to the beach. Five of the C Company tanks of the 191st were immobilized by mines. The 753rd battalion had 16 tanks, of which eight were launched at sea and successfully reached the shore, eight were landed directly on the beach later in the day.

Not too bad. At least the tanks got ashore to fight and many were lost to the usual anti-tank methods. Those that swam in suffered 12% losses. Again not too bad.

How about the Scheldt and the Rhine?

Northwest Europe
The Staffordshire Yeomanry were converted to DD tanks after D-Day and trained initially at Burton Upon Stather, near Scunthorpe, before moving with them to Belgium. From early September they were based at Elewyt at Lac d'Hofstade. On 26 October 1944, they undertook a 11 km swim across the Western Scheldt to attack South Beveland, during the Battle of the Scheldt. The DD Tanks' longest operational water crossing took place without casualties, but they had great difficulty in landing - 14 became bogged down in mud and only four were available for action. Operation Plunder, the Rhine crossing, began on the night of 23 March 1945. As well as the Staffordshire Yeomanry, DD tanks equipped the American 736th and 738th Tank Battalions and the British 44th Royal Tank Regiment.

Scheldt, the Alligators (Buffaloes) worked and the DD tanks mission failed. We will hear about the Alligators again.

Some tanks were lost in the river, but the crossings were considered a success. The tanks were launched from points upstream from their objectives, to take account of the Rhine's strong current. Mats laid at the objective points (carried across beforehand by Buffalos) allowed the DDs to climb the steep, muddy banks of the river.

Hmm. The Alligators (Buffaloes) got up the banks and the engineers were able to lay causeways for the DD tanks to climb. That is ridiculous.

Italian campaign
By February 1945, the 7th Queen's Own Hussars in Italy had been trained and equipped with DD tanks, both Shermans and Valentines. DD Shermans were successfully used in the crossing of the Po River on 24 April. On 28 April, those tanks still able to swim were used in an assault across the River Adige. During this operation, Valentine DDs were used to transport fuel (their only known use on active service). The tanks continued to be used in combat in the advance towards Venice. There were no further swimming operations, but it was found that the folded flotation screen offered a large seating area, making the tanks useful troop transports.

No numbers on the Po River and Adige River crossings, so we cannot quantify the mission. The lorry function as a claimed mission success for type in theater is of note as it is both sublime and ridiculous to use an expensive and highly specialized vehicle as a "truck". Could other choices have been made? Most certainly. At that stage of the war, Alligators would have been available.

What I see here is a lot of "mixed results" and mission fails. YMMV, but I think the case for the DD tank as a "success" is not proven. It was rejected postwar, while the Alligator's successors have been used.

Even at that, note the placid wave conditions. In rough seas, I would expect ACVs to move the equipment ship to shore.

 

[TonyA]

The DD tank may not be insane, but it sure as hell is goofy looking.
79th Armored is less like infantry manning the landing craft, and more like glider pilots getting some infantry training for after the crate makes a successful landing...there are going to be bullets whizzing around, no need to be shy about things...
Really can't say that I know the Brit army that well, but the in US, an "engineering combat (unit)" has both an engineering and a combat function. There are, indeed, construction oriented formations, but the destruction oriented ones are expected to do so while being directly confronted by an understandably agitated, and armed, enemy.

 

[Aber]

Not sure which of the 'Funnies' you found insane? All were developed from obvious requirements from previous battles and other than the CDL tanks (which as a concept had been proven but not as I understand it fully understood by the rest of the army so never really used) were all found to be useful.

Obviously this one:

 

[Dave Shoup]

I'd agree with you if the 79th Armoured Division included those with combat experience in tanks, but they were simply trained personnel - in some cases re-roled from infantry in 1941. It's also arguable that by late 1944 the British Army had too many tanks. By 1944 Britain certainly had an infantry manpower crisis, and the Army did a lot by transferring from units that were no longer critical - RAF regiment, Light Anti-Aircraft etc - and IIRC even sent women abroad in HAA units. To find more manpower you're going to have look far wider than shuffling Army personnel around. This means looking at reducing the size of the navies and airforces, and increased conscription and recruitment in other countries, and reducing "home service only" restrictions.

The British Army had plenty of tanks, but given that an armoured division (the 1st) and the separate 27th Brigade, were deployed into Europe but then broken up for replacements in 1944, while four others - 23rd, 25th, 33rd, and 34th - were downgraded, converted, or reduced in strength by one-third - for the same reason, they obviously did not have enough tankers.

For OVERLORD, the 79th's subordinate brigade headquarters included the the 1st (Army) Tank Brigade, the 30th Armoured Brigade, and the 1st Assault Brigade RE. The 1st Tank Brigade was a regular headquarters that predated 1939, and the brigade commander was TR Price; the 30th had been formed in 1940, and the brigade commander was NW Duncan. The 1st Assault Brigade was created as such in 1943 and was actually designated the 1st Armoured Engineer Brigade in 1945; commander was GL Watkinson. The divisional commander was PCS Hobart.

The armoured battalions involved were the 11th, 42nd, and 49th RTR, the 22nd Dragoons, Westminster Dragoons (CLY), 1st Lothians, and 141 RAC, which are pretty much a cross-section of the RAC as it stood by 1943-44.

The 79th, as it existed in 1943-44, was a waste of trained manpower.

 

[McPherson]

Calliope as insane.

Obviously this one:

View attachment 493842

In the limited roles and times used, it was actually a success. How did "Tulip" do? Apparently also a success.

 

[Glyndwr01]

Hyperbole? Meaning: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally (was that what you meant to say?).

The DD Tank working on all the other beaches but Omaha does not make claims of it being 'adequate' and 'Successful' in any way hyperbole

Not sure which of the 'Funnies' you found insane? All were developed from obvious requirements from previous battles and other than the CDL tanks (which as a concept had been proven but not as I understand it fully understood by the rest of the army so never really used) were all found to be useful.

And lastly the Sherman wasn't British either! ??

Americans came up with diddly squat for dealing with the beach landings!

 

[McPherson]

Americans came up with diddly squat for dealing with the beach landings!

Might want to rethink that. What worked at Tarawa would work at Normandy. Remember; the Americans were thinking about this problem (Orange) long before the British ever did.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The DD tank may not be insane, but it sure as hell is goofy looking.
79th Armored is less like infantry manning the landing craft, and more like glider pilots getting some infantry training for after the crate makes a successful landing...there are going to be bullets whizzing around, no need to be shy about things...
Really can't say that I know the Brit army that well, but the in US, an "engineering combat (unit)" has both an engineering and a combat function. There are, indeed, construction oriented formations, but the destruction oriented ones are expected to do so while being directly confronted by an understandably agitated, and armed, enemy.

As noted, use "amtanks" which were available prior to June 1944 and were used in the Marianas campaign and thereafter.

 

[Glyndwr01]

Might want to rethink that. What worked at Tarawa would work at Normandy. Remember; the Americans were thinking about this problem (Orange) long before the British ever did.

They were not at Normandy though were they?
Britain was thinking about the problem whilst America was twiddling it's thumbs, it took a kick up the arse in 1941 to get them moving!
British landing craft were armoured with some overhead cover, better thought out!

 

[Zincwarrior]

They were not at Normandy though were they?
Britain was thinking about the problem whilst America was twiddling it's thumbs, it took a kick up the arse in 1941 to get them moving!
British landing craft were armoured with some overhead cover, better thought out!

This appears to be trolling. The Higgins boat (bottom of those three) were the landing craft used on Normandy.
The US also developed these:

Here's a few on a certain beach in France:

 

[McPherson]

They were not at Normandy though were they?
Britain was thinking about the problem whilst America was twiddling it's thumbs, it took a kick up the arse in 1941 to get them moving!
British landing craft were armoured with some overhead cover, better thought out!

Not going to debate what is an obvious no-win emotion-laden topic, except to note that the British did not do the actual groundwork. The Americans did. Just the history. YMMV. Mine won't because it is in black and white.

 

[McPherson]

This appears to be trolling. The Higgins boat (bottom of those three) were the landing craft used on Normandy.
The US also developed these:

Here's a few on a certain beach in France:

The US LST was actually developed from a prior British design prototype or conception. I believe it was the HMS Boxer launched in December 1942? Prior to that, there were some small Venezuelan shallow draft oil tankers modified as vehicle ship to shore ferries (Maracaibos). It is true that C and R/ Bu-ships (John C. Niedermair ) designed the Allied LSTs. He modified the British suggested design to be able to beach on a sand shelf. But the idea was British as a result of their Dunkirk experience when they could not move heavy equipment off the beach or recover same. Fair is fair after all.

 

[Aber]

while four others - 23rd, 25th, 33rd, and 34th - were downgraded, converted, or reduced in strength by one-third - for the same reason, they obviously did not have enough tankers.

Really?

One was reroled as infantry for Greece in 1944; one was converted to LVTs for the Rhine crossings; it doesn't look like simply a shortage of tankers.

 

[DougM]

How about blaming Monty? The plan had unrealistic timetables based on the roads available.
The recon was limited and poor and the whole plan was overly optimistic and had basically NO margin for error nor any fallback for when things went wrong. And let’s face it pretty much no military plan went as intended so why would this one be different.
So in actuality Montgomery DID get it wrong thus I realy don’t get the title

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Not going to debate what is an obvious no-win emotion-laden topic, except to note that the British did not do the actual groundwork. The Americans did. Just the history. YMMV. Mine won't because it is in black and white.

Both the British & the Russians used armoured landing craft (for want of a better description) in WW1 - and the British actually used some in the amphibious landing at Suvla Bay in August 1915.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205316076
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_craft

Does that count as groundwork? Even if they did forget about it for another 25 years (as per bloody usual )

Higgins Boats & DUKW were what the US brought to the party in Normandy; the Brits supplied DD tanks & the Funnies. Both played important roles. Neither nation had a monopoly on innovation or execution.