Dieppe deaths

[tigre]

Hello to all ; more...................................

The bloody test of Dieppe 1942.

Source: https://www.aboutww2militaria.com/fr/le ... _language= 1

Cheers. Raúl M .

[Michael Dorosh]

Apparently not only were machine guns iring from everywhere and couldn't be located to return fire, more devastatingly, there were 75mm howitzers in caves that fired with impunity on the flanks, too difficult to spot and locate.

So the Dieppe massacre had the "positive" effects of:

1. Making the Germans pull to the west a division from Stalingrad, probably causing the ultimate loss of 6th Army.

2. Showed the impossibility of invading via Calais.

3. Showed the importance of special landing tanks.

4. Showed that Mountbatten had exceeded has "Peter Principle", ensuring that he would not be in command of D-Day, sparing an even bigger disaster.

With hindsight, given the troops and equipment available, is there any alternative tactics or target that the Anglo-Canadians could have used to have made a 1942 Dieppe-style raid an actual success?

It's not often a thread gets bumped and one runs into a post so completely off base they feel compelled to comment a decade or so later.

The Dieppe raid demonstrated pretty much nothing to the Allies that they didn't already know, other than the difficulty in securing a port. Conventional wisdom at the time was that you had to land near one. They did it again in North Africa, Salerno and Anzio, though, so it would seem the "lesson" didn't stick. They also did it again at Walcheren Island, for what that is worth. For Normandy they decided to bring their own artificial harbours with them.

The list of reasons for failure at Stalingrad is so long, and "Dieppe" so far down that list, that I think you could safely cross it off altogether. I've honestly never seen any serious military observer link the two.

Montgomery was, in fact, in command on D-Day, and in fact the American generals all reported to him until 1 September 1944 when Eisenhower took over as ground forces commander. Up until then, it was Montgomery. Bradley and Patton both reported to him until the command arrangement changed.

More importantly to this thread though, now that David O'Keefe's book came out, I wonder if anyone in this thread might be predisposed to discuss the context of the raid somewhat differently given his suggestions about the Enigma code rotors and the "pinch raid" on the naval headquarters in Dieppe.

[Michael Dorosh]

But if it really was a conspiracy, that would explain why the poor Canucks were given faulty Stens the day before the raid, the grenade priming incident, the slaughter of the reserves etc!

Never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by incompetence. The Stens issued for RUTTER were just as "faulty", the trouble was, they went back to ordnance after RUTTER was cancelled. Secrecy was so heavy, due to mounting the same plan a month later, that the troops themselves weren't even briefed it was back on until they were on the ships and had set sail for France. AIUI the re-issue of Stens was extremely hasty and rather low down the priority list.

[Rob Stuart]

Apparently not only were machine guns iring from everywhere and couldn't be located to return fire, more devastatingly, there were 75mm howitzers in caves that fired with impunity on the flanks, too difficult to spot and locate.

So the Dieppe massacre had the "positive" effects of:

1. Making the Germans pull to the west a division from Stalingrad, probably causing the ultimate loss of 6th Army.

2. Showed the impossibility of invading via Calais.

3. Showed the importance of special landing tanks.

4. Showed that Mountbatten had exceeded has "Peter Principle", ensuring that he would not be in command of D-Day, sparing an even bigger disaster.

With hindsight, given the troops and equipment available, is there any alternative tactics or target that the Anglo-Canadians could have used to have made a 1942 Dieppe-style raid an actual success?

Montgomery was, in fact, in command on D-Day, and in fact the American generals all reported to him until 1 September 1944 when Eisenhower took over as ground forces commander. Up until then, it was Montgomery. Bradley and Patton both reported to him until the command arrangement changed.

May I ask why you're referring to Montgomery when Von Schadewald was speaking about Mountbatten?

[Michael Dorosh]

Apparently not only were machine guns iring from everywhere and couldn't be located to return fire, more devastatingly, there were 75mm howitzers in caves that fired with impunity on the flanks, too difficult to spot and locate.

So the Dieppe massacre had the "positive" effects of:

1. Making the Germans pull to the west a division from Stalingrad, probably causing the ultimate loss of 6th Army.

2. Showed the impossibility of invading via Calais.

3. Showed the importance of special landing tanks.

4. Showed that Mountbatten had exceeded has "Peter Principle", ensuring that he would not be in command of D-Day, sparing an even bigger disaster.

With hindsight, given the troops and equipment available, is there any alternative tactics or target that the Anglo-Canadians could have used to have made a 1942 Dieppe-style raid an actual success?

Montgomery was, in fact, in command on D-Day, and in fact the American generals all reported to him until 1 September 1944 when Eisenhower took over as ground forces commander. Up until then, it was Montgomery. Bradley and Patton both reported to him until the command arrangement changed.

May I ask why you're referring to Montgomery when Von Schadewald was speaking about Mountbatten?

Sure, ask away.

[Rob Stuart]

Why did you refer to Montgomery when Von Schadewald was speaking about Mountbatten?

[LineDoggie]

It's not often a thread gets bumped and one runs into a post so completely off base they feel compelled to comment a decade or so later.

Quite possibly the reason to necro a thread is the current LACK of any interesting threads on the site.

[Michael Dorosh]

Why did you refer to Montgomery when Von Schadewald was speaking about Mountbatten?

I'd have thought you'd have figured it out and, the answer being so obvious, wouldn't waste your time asking.

[Michael Dorosh]

It's not often a thread gets bumped and one runs into a post so completely off base they feel compelled to comment a decade or so later.

Quite possibly the reason to necro a thread is the current LACK of any interesting threads on the site.

So start one. I have a discussion forum of my own that's been running since 1998. I rarely visit it despite being the owner, I think most discussions have migrated to other platforms, particularly Facebook for those older people interested in the Second World War.

I'll confess, I seem to only come back to this place these days when a google search finds me info on a really arcane topic. Some of the older threads contain historical info that is honestly not available anywhere else online.