The Raid At Dieppe - Page 4




 
--
 
December 7th, 2011  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
At some point though surely you will realise that these posts are adding nothing to the forum and in many ways are detrimental to getting new people involved.

In many ways the old adage "if you have nothing useful to say, then say nothing" applies and this applies to all of us.

Now of course this does not mean posts should go unchallenged but there is a point where responses go too far and I think this thread has reached that point.
Monty, we've told him till we're blue in the face, yet he still comes out with all this absolute nonsense.

I would like nothing more then a serious and sensible discussion, yet all he does is attack without any form of proof, and that pisses me off
December 7th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
If you want to put out a fire you just stop fuelling it and if you want the topic to quieten down stop responding there is nothing to be gained by a 30 page thread when 29 pages are "no you are" posts.
December 7th, 2011  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
If you want to put out a fire you just stop fuelling it and if you want the topic to quieten down stop responding there is nothing to be gained by a 30 page thread when 29 pages are "no you are" posts.
I understand your dislike for Churchill, however, to me and many others he was the right man at the time and I will not sit idly by while he attacks men like him, Hugh Dowding and Keith Parks with absolute rubbish. Yes, Churchill and many others made mistakes, but they were not the idiots he makes him and them out to be.
--
December 7th, 2011  
LeEnfield
 
 
Here we have some one who never lived through the conflict of WW2 who now knows more than any one else alive and will not listen to any form of arguments put forwarded. I must admit i have stopped commenting on his posts as it is a waste of time.
December 7th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritinAfrica
I understand your dislike for Churchill, however, to me and many others he was the right man at the time and I will not sit idly by while he attacks men like him, Hugh Dowding and Keith Parks with absolute rubbish. Yes, Churchill and many others made mistakes, but they were not the idiots he makes him and them out to be.
That's all great but do we need 100 posts repeating our stance knowing full well the other guy isn't going to change his position or would one or two suffice?

The beauty of forums is that you can pretty much stop a discussion at any stage by simply not responding as it takes at least two to keep a thread going.
December 7th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Now I have seen many articles written about this raid where the Canadians suffered some very loses and although the raid did not achieve it's objectives, was it a total failure. From out of this failure came the successful D Day operation.
Now just what did they learn from this raid,
The need for secrecy, as many Officers had been going around London talking about this raid. So on D Day most people where not told until the day they went.
The need for harbours to unload the equipment hence the massive Mulberry Harbours.
The need to get huge amounts fuel ashore hence the undersea pipe line known as Pluto
There was a need for a whole range of of specialised tanks that became known as Hobart's funnies.
There was the DD type that swam ashore and this worked well when it was not asked to swim 12 miles to the shore like they did at Omaha beach.
There was the Flail Tank that would clear the mines and the barb wire.
There were tanks to destroy strong points by firing a huge mortar type round the size of dustbin a couple of hundred yards.
There were bridging tanks and other that carried cassions to fill in trenches or bridge flooded ditches.
There were flame thrower tanks which towed a large container of fuel behind them, the Germans would shoot the crews of these tanks if captured.
There was also the Sherman Firefly with a 17 pounder gun that could deal with a Tiger Tank.
The Americans refused all offers of this type of equipment except for the DD type of tank which they then total mis used by trying to get it to swim some 12 miles ashore in a heavy swell, I often wonder just how they would have got on if these had got ashore at Omaha beach.
So although the Canadian Raid was failure as such it did lead to a successfully D Day and saved thousands of lives
While I agree that the Dieppe Raid did provide valuable information for the D-Day planners I am not convinced that the price paid for that information by Canadian troops made it good value.

I am also not convinced that the information gathered was the difference between the success or failure of D-Day.
December 7th, 2011  
BritinAfrica
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
That's all great but do we need 100 posts repeating our stance knowing full well the other guy isn't going to change his position or would one or two suffice?

The beauty of forums is that you can pretty much stop a discussion at any stage by simply not responding as it takes at least two to keep a thread going.
I will not allow his toxic and unfounded comments to go unchallenged.
December 7th, 2011  
Alan P
 
I am quoting fom a book written by R.W Thompson. who wrote
Lt-General H. D. G. Crerar, addressed his officers just after D.Day and said "I think it is most important that, at this time,all of you should realize what a vital part the gallant and hazardous operation of the raid in force on Dieppe has played in the conception, planning and execution of the vast Overlord Operation".
December 7th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
The most important lesson that could have been learnt from Dieppe was that Mountbatten and Churchill were willing to waste a lot of men and equipment without air superiority, so they should not be involved at all in the planning of overlord and they weren't. Unfortunately, Churchill continued to mess things up in Africa, Italy, the Dodecanese, etc, and Mountbatten was promoted instead of court mashalled.

Roosevelt was so frustrated with Churchill's preformance in Greece, Burma, Africa, etc, that he tried to meet separately with Stalin and plan the war. strangely, Stalin refused to meet without Churchill present. Although Churchill and Roosevelt met without Stalin several times.
My Take on Churchill in Churchillian: Never had so much help been given by so many (US, USSR, Canada, Poland, Holland, Norway, Free France, SA, NZ, Australia, etc,) to a man with so many resources, in order to achieve so little for so long and with so many fabulous and absurd speeches. This was not the end of Britain, nor the beginning, but quite the opposite.
December 7th, 2011  
lljadw
 
About the nonsense on post 11 (by ...Sam,why am I not surprised) that WWII was won by airplanes,every single important battle
1)this would imply that the Red Air Force won the battle of Stalingrad
2)the following is from "tank tactics from Normandy to Lorraine)German tank losses by cause (44-45) a sample of 530 tanks
Gunfire(=artillery,TD,tanks) :43.2%
AIR ATTACK :7.5%
non enemy action (=mechanical failures) :43.8 %
3)the following is from 1jma.net/forum with as source Schneider:Tiger im Kampf I and II
losses of German Tigers in Normandy (june-august)
total:135,of which 17 by aircraft
4)the post of Sam would imply that the allied won the battle of the atlantic because of their aircraft,and that the role of the navy was insignifiant
5)while after a few days in june 1941,the LW had total air superiority (the Soviet air force was eliminated),at the end of the summer,the Germans were stopped,they were stopped again at the end of the autumn,and they were repelled in the winter
I could continue,but,why waste time ?