BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
What, no criticism of the British? I am shocked.
WW II Production, Personnel, etc,
samneanderthal
Active member
Indeed, Butefisch was full of hot of air.
But adding the 2 million synthetic and 1.46 natural in 1940 does not yield the 4 tons mentioned previously for that year in Germany.
But adding the 2 million synthetic and 1.46 natural in 1940 does not yield the 4 tons mentioned previously for that year in Germany.
Last edited:
samneanderthal
Active member
The Mulberry docks were extremely expensive (20 million pounds of 1944) and labor consuming, yet they accounted only for about 20% of the cargo. Most of the supplies for Normandy had to be unloaded at the beaches with LCTs, etc, in June, July and part of August until some ports were liberated and repared. This resulted in shortages of ammunition, etc, that slowed the advance in Cotentin, etc,
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Again you are talking out of your arse.
MULBERRY "B" actually did far more than the job for which it was intended, despite storms of intensity far beyond that for which it had been designed and despite the total loss of its deep water breakwater, is the success story of a military and naval operation unsurpassed in the history of warfare.
From the time it was put into operation, four days after D-Day until the 31st of October, 1944, 628,000 tons of supplies, 40,000 vehicles and 220,000 troops were put ashore in the sheltered area afforded by MULBERRY "B". Expressed in another way, 35% of the British stores, 17% of the British vehicles and 23% of the British personnel were landed inside the Mulberry.
From D plus 4 on it had been planned to handle 6,000 tons of stores a day at MULBERRY "B", actually, however, from the 20th of June to the 1st of September the port averaged 6,765 tons a day.
For the month of November the British plan to bring in three MT ships a day and the U.S. intend to land 11,500 tons of stores a day from Liberties. It is planned to close the port the 1st of December, 1944.
With a port that is apparently so successful the obvious question is, why discontinue it? For this there are several answers. The winterization of MULBERRY "B" would be extensive and call for heavy drains on valuable stocks of material and manpower. The railway net is fully occupied with U.S. cargo from Cherbourg and British movements of supplies along their L of C. The road net in and around the port would require extensive repairs. The port is now a considerable distance back on the L of C. With the other ports already available and the expected imminent opening of Antwerp, sufficient port and harbour space will soon be available.
The British Mulberry supported the Allied armies for 10 months. Two and a half million men, a half-million vehicles, and 4 million tons of supplies landed in Europe through the artificial harbour at Arromanches. Remains of the structure can be seen to this day near the Musée du Débarquement.
I will bet my life that shite for brains is criticising Mulberry because it was a British invention. If anyone else had invented it, it would have beeen the best thing since sliced bread
I want to buy samneanderthal a baseball cap with SWAT on the front, cross out the S and add a T.
Last edited: