Is there a way to make Dieppe successful in 1942?

Khanzeer

Banned
As it says in the title
apologize if already discussed, feel free to close this thread and redirect me if it has been
 
Well, if David O'Keefe's assertion that the operation was cover for an Enigma "pinch" operation turns out to be true, then it technically did succeed OTL...
 
Well, if David O'Keefe's assertion that the operation was cover for an Enigma "pinch" operation turns out to be true, then it technically did succeed OTL...

Another is a look at he actual equipment of a radar transmitter was wanted. But even with that the operation could have been far better executed & planned.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Can the scope of operation jubilee be changed to larger operation with sole goal of destroying German coastal defences on a larger scale?
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Does anyone have details on the goebbels, Hess , Hindenburg batteries?
What kind of coastal guns were these
?
Was it possible to just destroy them with shore bombardment or neccessary to risk canadian troops ?
 
Can the scope of operation jubilee be changed to larger operation ...

Re: Op RUTTER, a much more complete and balanced plan from which Op JUBILEE devolved from.

... larger operation with sole goal of destroying German coastal defences on a larger scale?

Does anyone have details on the goebbels, Hess , Hindenburg batteries?
What kind of coastal guns were these
?
Was it possible to just destroy them with shore bombardment or neccessary to risk canadian troops ?

Not really. To refer to field artillery practice; 'Destruction' missions are time consuming which exposes the firing unit to greater risk of counter fires, use larger than usual amounts of ammunition, and in general considered inferior to a temporary 'Neutralization' of momentary 'Suppression' of a target. The batteries in question were designed to withstand suppressive fires and resist neutralization levels of incoming fire. The sot of bombardments that could actually destroy these positions would require days to reach a 50% destroyed rate. As we were taught in artillery school Destruction missions are very seldom worth the effort.

Better to train to the level of coordination thats needed to Neutralize or Suppress the batteries for the time needed by the assault force to do its thing.
 
As it says in the title
apologize if already discussed, feel free to close this thread and redirect me if it has been

Hello Khanzeer,

In short; yes but it would need some concepts normal for 1943/44 (far better intelligence and planning, better air-ground co-operation, some Hobart's 'Funnies' including armoured engineers, heavy naval fire support, armoured infantry carriers - 'Kangaroos', gliders (were around in mid 1942), etc, etc) to have been available earlier. Not impossible. The main planner, a Col Churchill-Mann, was a planner of his time, 2 up, bags of smoke, charge down the middle, carry on regardless (former/current Infantryman will get this!) type of soldier. So, despite seeing what Canadian soldiers did to defend the south coast of England 1940/41, he/they did not think the Germans would be so diligent.

Having conducted several Battlefield Tours to Dieppe I would always ask participants how would you have done it? The best we could come up with for just the ground landings and battles (so ignoring for the moment the possibility of better fire support and co-ordination by the navy and air force etc) and with some fairly minor PODs was as follows:

Glider/Para troops to take out the flanking gun batteries historically attacked by No 3 and 4 Commando. Withdrawing off the beaches (Yellow/Orange beaches) to the north by the Navy.

Glider/Para troops to take out the gun positions to the east of Dieppe above the village of Puys and secure the eastern cliffs above Dieppe; so avoiding the slaughter on Blue beach at Puys. Withdraw via Blue beach having attacked it from the rear.

Main landings at Pourville (Green Beach) including Covenanter Bridge layers (a small number in service at the time) to enable the Churchill tanks to get over the seawall (which was not that high). Tanks supported by infantry to then secure the western cliffs above Dieppe. Further tanks supported by infantry/engineers in turretless Churchill tanks (Churchill Kangaroos!) to then move by the coast road to assault Dieppe from the rear. Could be false/diversionary landings on the main beaches of Dieppe (White/Red beaches) to distract the garrison. Once Dieppe town secure (or not!) from the rear withdrawal could be via the main beach or back via Green beach at Pourville. Clearly far more to it than that but that is it in outline. By the way 'Merrits Bridge' at Pourville, on the way to Dieppe, was capable of taking the weight of a Churchill Tank but the planners had no way of confirming this so went for the frontal attack on Dieppe.

I am sure some will have other ideas, and far more detail, but that was our plan in outline. And I do not have the time right now to elaborate. Ready to answer any doubts on the master plan! Vikingtank.
 
Last edited:
Top