Iranian plan B

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

D-Day is a very biased example since only two or three US Divisions in that invasion had even seen combat (the 82nd, and 1st are the ones I know of, maybe some of the Ranger Divisions did too, I'm not sure).

The few other US divisions that had seen combat at the time were still fighting in Italy and stayed there for most of the war or were diverted to the southern France invasion, Operation Dragoon (which was meant to be conducted in concert with Overlord but could not due to lack of ships).

The only Ranger involvement during D-Day was at Point du Hoc the 2nd Ranger Battalion they as a unit had never seen action before.The most sizable formation of Rangers you will ever see is a regiment.It is very likely that some members of the 2nd Rangers where transferred from the 1st Ranger Battalion they had seen action in North Africa.

Of course the general rule in warfare is that you do not put all of your most elite,experienced and hardened units into the battle at the start unless you absolutely need them for a specific action.

[Skybird]

To clear at least this one detail, I am basing on memory I have about TV docus about D-Day and the occasional read here and there, nothing systematic since I am not overly interested in WWII. But if over the years I repeatedly read and see historians claim on TV, internet and in writing that on D-Day the more unexperienced units were sent first (that must not include whole divisons, but can be the most unexperienced companies in a battalion or other most unexperienced battalion in a brigade/division), and when I had little reason to doubt that since militarily it makes sense (militarily, lets leave peacetime morals out of this since war is not peace, then this leaves an echo, a mark in my memory. And so I say that some historians say that unexperienced units got sent first.

Do I have book titles, names, publication dates and publishers? No. It's the kind of media input that you get when you randomly watch and read media that I refer to, TV as well as reading. I claim however that it was not just one or two sources, but several interview partners, historians and/or authors and film makers. If I had made notes about them at the time I stumbled over them, I today would give you maybe seven or eight names, I do not know for sure, but I think that numbers matches quite well.

Do not ignore that probably a majoirty of GIs landing on that day were greenies who had not seen combat before, which made the veterans's experience probably an even more precious resource you wanted to save as a High Commander, so to have them survive at least the initial combat phase where the highest blood toll was to be expected. A dead greenhorn is a smaller loss than a dead experienced veteran, and the highest losses were suffered by green units and in the first couple of days of combat deployement. Many US units spend time in England after having been brought there, and had their earlier losses from before D-Day replaced and filled up there.

Militarily, it makes sense. I do not say it is nice. But militarily, it makes sense. Back then, wars still were fought differently than today. It still was more like Napoleonic squares than modern specialised fire teams with few soldiers in them who all have very specialised roles to fill.

To clear at least this one detail, I am basing on memory I have about TV docus about D-Day and the occasional read here and there, nothing systematic since I am not overly interested in WWII. But if over the years I repeatedly read and see historians claim on TV, internet and in writing that on D-Day the more unexperienced units were sent first (that must not include whole divisons, but can be the most unexperienced companies in a battalion or other most unexperienced battalion in a brigade/division), and when I had little reason to doubt that since militarily it makes sense (militarily, lets leave peacetime morals out of this since war is not peace, then this leaves an echo, a mark in my memory. And so I say that some historians say that unexperienced units got sent first.

Nothing to do with morals, its just that evidence doesn't support your claim.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

The only Ranger involvement during D-Day was at Point du Hoc the 2nd Ranger Battalion they as a unit had never seen action before.The most sizable formation of Rangers you will ever see is a regiment.It is very likely that some members of the 2nd Rangers where transferred from the 1st Ranger Battalion they had seen action in North Africa.

5th Rangers were there as well, they landed at Omaha beach Dog Green sector instead of at Pointe Du Hoc as reinforcements for the 2nd as was planned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_Assault_Group

(I called the Ranger units Divisions by mistake, My bad.)

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

5th Rangers were there as well, they landed at Omaha beach Dog Green sector instead of at Pointe Du Hoc as reinforcements for the 2nd as was planned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_Assault_Group

(I called the Ranger units Divisions by mistake, My bad.)

I had to pick on you a little for the division thing my father was a Ranger in Vietnam.


You are right about the 5th Rangers at D-Day I forgot about them.I recon that when Spielberg wrote "Saving Private Ryan" he picked that unit because they where really at Omaha Beach and where an elite unit about the only believable part in that entire movie.

Point Du Hoc was impressive but I would rate the POW Recuse/raid on Cabanatuan in the Philippines as their most impressive action of WWII only a handful of Ranger KIA in exchange for a great deal of IJA dead and a lot of freed POWs that surely would have been executed.Of course the Alamo Scouts also where involved in that operation.