Goodwood
- The_Enigma
- Member
- Posts: 2270
- Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
- Location: Cheshire, England
Re: Goodwood
Still reading through Touts book on Goodwood and he mentions the lead tanks of the 11th Armour Division once they got to the third railway line were about to leave the range of the guns on the otherside of the Orne. Now i have seen the same thing wrote down a number of times in other places.
From what i have read elsewhere the range of the field and medium guns was something like 7-9 miles (depending on the gun) and on top of that each Armoured Division was suppose to have SPART assests. So if my understanding is correct - the ridge 11th Arm was heading for should have been within range of the field and medium guns and the AGRA guns as well - not to mention the divisions own SPART (although to be fair, it would seem the Guards goal would be out of each of them all bar there own supporting guns).
So another myth of the operation or is there some truth to it?
From what i have read elsewhere the range of the field and medium guns was something like 7-9 miles (depending on the gun) and on top of that each Armoured Division was suppose to have SPART assests. So if my understanding is correct - the ridge 11th Arm was heading for should have been within range of the field and medium guns and the AGRA guns as well - not to mention the divisions own SPART (although to be fair, it would seem the Guards goal would be out of each of them all bar there own supporting guns).
So another myth of the operation or is there some truth to it?
Re: Goodwood
Quite true. Only the SP regiments assigned to the three armoured brigades crossed the Orne, and that of 22 Armoured Brigade, like the brigade, was mostly hung up in crossing whem the first day ended. The regiments of 51 Highland Division were in position east of the Orne, but like the division were mostly occupied in the flank task of taking Troarn. Otherwise it was the field and medium regiments west of the Orne, in the few good firing positions there. Most were pretty far north and west and a 25-pdr only had an effective range of 13,400 on super, otherwise effective range was 11,825.The_Enigma wrote:So another myth of the operation or is there some truth to it?
- The_Enigma
- Member
- Posts: 2270
- Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
- Location: Cheshire, England
Re: Goodwood
A range of just under 7 miles to a max of about 7.5 - the medium guns i have read had a slightly better range on them. So basically any gun position on the outskirts of modern day Caen or in the fields near the orne north of Caen could hit the ridge.
How far back where they?
But then the 11 Arm would have or should have had there SPART regt up with them to provide arty support. Do we know if these guns were used to engage any targets to support the 8th Rifle Brigade and the armoured regts?
How far back where they?
But then the 11 Arm would have or should have had there SPART regt up with them to provide arty support. Do we know if these guns were used to engage any targets to support the 8th Rifle Brigade and the armoured regts?
Re: Goodwood
A good portion of the Orne bridgehead was under German observation from positions near the Colombelles factory area. It was this reason that prevented the British from gapping the minefields covering the exit routes until almost the start of the attack. I suspect this played a part in where the British field guns were deployed.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2512
- Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Goodwood
To all,
After reading a good bit on Goodwood and reading the comments here, there were just too many obstacles in the way of a successful attack. The narrow bridgehead which restricted deployment of the armored divisions and their supporting artillery, the numerous (two?) railroad embankments which blocked the axis of advance, the observation of the battle area by the Germans, etc. Just seems almost in the "too hard box"!
Mike
After reading a good bit on Goodwood and reading the comments here, there were just too many obstacles in the way of a successful attack. The narrow bridgehead which restricted deployment of the armored divisions and their supporting artillery, the numerous (two?) railroad embankments which blocked the axis of advance, the observation of the battle area by the Germans, etc. Just seems almost in the "too hard box"!
Mike
- The_Enigma
- Member
- Posts: 2270
- Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
- Location: Cheshire, England
Re: Goodwood
I think what the major problem was the massive f-up on behalf of the intel boys - who had not picked up how indepth the defences actually where. Everything else they, it appears, were able to overcome (well obviously not everything otherwise people wouldnt view it as a massive f-up ).
- The_Enigma
- Member
- Posts: 2270
- Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
- Location: Cheshire, England
Re: Goodwood
Ive just finished reading Touts book up to the point it moves on from Goodwood to Cobra.
Unless you are looking for some personaly accounts of the battle, i wouldnt recommend this title and it does not live up to the name of "Cobra and Goodwood reassessed" which to me means a little something more then Bob said x, a bit of a ramble here, Fred so Y, more rambling etc
Am only expecting more of the same and glancing through the remaining 80 pages (all on Cobra) there doesnt appear to be any form of solid conclusions etc The book is not what i expected to be perfectly honset.
Just to add in some other things ive noted while reading through the book:
Every gun is still a flak 88, one would think 60 years down the line he would have learnt by now that no they wernt
He implys that basically every tank hit brewed, although the stats dont back this up
He clearly states that the Sherman I and V were much more flammable then the III, although to my knowledge this is just a myth isnt it?
He comes out with the good old, our tanks were so crap it took 5 of ours to waste 1 of theres tale
Am pretty sure he called von Luck and in one place the Fallschirmjagers - Waffen SS
I dont know if i misread this but he claims that "looney" hinde, the 22nd Arm bde CO was sacked for the "catastrophe" during Goodwood, although i was under the impression that he was sacked along with others mainly as scapegoats and the main source of this was Villers-Bocage
Calls Wittmann the top tank ace of the war and on the last page or so of the Goodwood chapters has a bit of a moan and groan about how more tanks were knocked out during Goodwood then the British Army has in total today - saying Wilson, Thacther and Blair have done a much better job then Hitler ever could
If anyone knows the relevence of that last statement, please let me know
Unless you are looking for some personaly accounts of the battle, i wouldnt recommend this title and it does not live up to the name of "Cobra and Goodwood reassessed" which to me means a little something more then Bob said x, a bit of a ramble here, Fred so Y, more rambling etc
Am only expecting more of the same and glancing through the remaining 80 pages (all on Cobra) there doesnt appear to be any form of solid conclusions etc The book is not what i expected to be perfectly honset.
Just to add in some other things ive noted while reading through the book:
Every gun is still a flak 88, one would think 60 years down the line he would have learnt by now that no they wernt
He implys that basically every tank hit brewed, although the stats dont back this up
He clearly states that the Sherman I and V were much more flammable then the III, although to my knowledge this is just a myth isnt it?
He comes out with the good old, our tanks were so crap it took 5 of ours to waste 1 of theres tale
Am pretty sure he called von Luck and in one place the Fallschirmjagers - Waffen SS
I dont know if i misread this but he claims that "looney" hinde, the 22nd Arm bde CO was sacked for the "catastrophe" during Goodwood, although i was under the impression that he was sacked along with others mainly as scapegoats and the main source of this was Villers-Bocage
Calls Wittmann the top tank ace of the war and on the last page or so of the Goodwood chapters has a bit of a moan and groan about how more tanks were knocked out during Goodwood then the British Army has in total today - saying Wilson, Thacther and Blair have done a much better job then Hitler ever could
If anyone knows the relevence of that last statement, please let me know
Re: Goodwood
As it happens, there were rather a lot of 88s linebacking the German position east of the Orne during GOODWOOD.The_Enigma wrote:Every gun is still a flak 88, one would think 60 years down the line he would have learnt by now that no they wernt
IIRC, Hinde was under a cloud following PERCH but not actually removed till some time post-GOODWOOD, which was 5-6 weeks after PERCH.I dont know if i misread this but he claims that "looney" hinde, the 22nd Arm bde CO was sacked for the "catastrophe" during Goodwood, although i was under the impression that he was sacked along with others mainly as scapegoats and the main source of this was Villers-Bocage
Sour grapes?... has a bit of a moan and groan about how more tanks were knocked out during Goodwood then the British Army has in total today - saying Wilson, Thatcher and Blair have done a much better job than Hitler ever could.
If anyone knows the relevence of that last statement, please let me know
- The_Enigma
- Member
- Posts: 2270
- Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
- Location: Cheshire, England
Re: Goodwood
I know that there was quite a number of 88s on this occasion as the backstop but comeon he is just retelling war time myth of every friggen gun encounted being an 88JonS wrote:As it happens, there were rather a lot of 88s linebacking the German position east of the Orne during GOODWOOD.The_Enigma wrote:Every gun is still a flak 88, one would think 60 years down the line he would have learnt by now that no they wernt
IIRC, Hinde was under a cloud following PERCH but not actually removed till some time post-GOODWOOD, which was 5-6 weeks after PERCH.I dont know if i misread this but he claims that "looney" hinde, the 22nd Arm bde CO was sacked for the "catastrophe" during Goodwood, although i was under the impression that he was sacked along with others mainly as scapegoats and the main source of this was Villers-Bocage
Sour grapes?... has a bit of a moan and groan about how more tanks were knocked out during Goodwood then the British Army has in total today - saying Wilson, Thatcher and Blair have done a much better job than Hitler ever could.
If anyone knows the relevence of that last statement, please let me know
As for Perch, i do realise that it was a few weeks before hand however several authors state the purge of the division was due not only to poor preformances but at least for Hinde, Erskine and XXX Corps CO Bucknall - Villers-Bocage being the main reason.
Re: Goodwood
Good thread.
in the opening post the assumption is the 2nd Army "had the power" if properly led to effect a breakthrough.
No. Allied armour was not robust enough to create or exploit a breakthrough, unless the German armour and 88's could be attrited to almost zero.
Cobra met these conditions well.However 2nd Army still did not have the level of combat power required to break the eastern German defences.
There may be a lot of pre- conditioned overexpectation built into our understanding of Goodwood's prospects.
in the opening post the assumption is the 2nd Army "had the power" if properly led to effect a breakthrough.
No. Allied armour was not robust enough to create or exploit a breakthrough, unless the German armour and 88's could be attrited to almost zero.
Cobra met these conditions well.However 2nd Army still did not have the level of combat power required to break the eastern German defences.
There may be a lot of pre- conditioned overexpectation built into our understanding of Goodwood's prospects.
Re: Goodwood
Sure. My point was that - on this occasion - the 'myth' is more right (or less wrong if you prefer) than is usually the case. There were a lot of 88s there, and they did cause a lot of destruction. Not all of the guns were 88s to be sure, especially once the Pz Divs started bringing their Panthers forward in the afternoon. But a lot of them were.The_Enigma wrote:I know that there was quite a number of 88s on this occasion as the backstop but comeon he is just retelling war time myth of every friggen gun encounted being an 88
-
- Member
- Posts: 3211
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
- Location: UK
Re: Goodwood
Gents,
Good question on whether 11 Armd Div used it's SP assets during 18 Jul to any extent. Am going to PRO in next couple of weeks and will have a look at War Diary for the Arty regt concerned. If someone can tell me which one it was!! Ayrshire Yeomanry rings a bell, but have just moved and so all books are in boxes in garage!
Interestingly I have a copy of the Lecture that Pip Roberts gave to Officers of the 11 Armd Div in December 1943 which makes great play of the strength of the Sherman 75mm in taking out anti-tank guns with HE without having to resort to using infantry. Bit of an over-simplification of what he says but that is the gist of it. When we (or at least some people) criticise British armour tactics in Normandy they should at least recognize how quickly it was realized that those tactics had to change.
Regards
Tom
Good question on whether 11 Armd Div used it's SP assets during 18 Jul to any extent. Am going to PRO in next couple of weeks and will have a look at War Diary for the Arty regt concerned. If someone can tell me which one it was!! Ayrshire Yeomanry rings a bell, but have just moved and so all books are in boxes in garage!
Interestingly I have a copy of the Lecture that Pip Roberts gave to Officers of the 11 Armd Div in December 1943 which makes great play of the strength of the Sherman 75mm in taking out anti-tank guns with HE without having to resort to using infantry. Bit of an over-simplification of what he says but that is the gist of it. When we (or at least some people) criticise British armour tactics in Normandy they should at least recognize how quickly it was realized that those tactics had to change.
Regards
Tom
Re: Goodwood
For 11th Armd Div: 13 HAC RHA was the SP Regt, 151 (Ayrshire Yeomanry) Fd Regt was the towed regt.
For 7th Armd Div: 5 RHA was the SP regt, 3 RHA was the towed regt.
For Gds Armd Div: 153 Fd Rgt was the SP regt, 55 (Wessex) Fd Regt was the towed regt.
For 7th Armd Div: 5 RHA was the SP regt, 3 RHA was the towed regt.
For Gds Armd Div: 153 Fd Rgt was the SP regt, 55 (Wessex) Fd Regt was the towed regt.
-
- Member
- Posts: 3211
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
- Location: UK
Re: Goodwood
JonS,
Thanks for the information. If I find anything interesting I will post it here in a couple of weeks.
Tom
Thanks for the information. If I find anything interesting I will post it here in a couple of weeks.
Tom
- The_Enigma
- Member
- Posts: 2270
- Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
- Location: Cheshire, England
Re: Goodwood
Hey all, not really Goodwood related but may help my understanding of the operation.
I recently bought 8 Corps: Normandy to the Baltic as suggested earlier in the topic and am currently reading the chapter on Operation Epsom.
Page 28 states that the Corps was to "break out of the exisiting bridgehead" and calls Epsom a "...break-out operation...".
The overall goals are shown to be crossing the Odon, seizure of the Evercy area, cross the Orne and to plonk itself on the highground northeast of Bretteville sur-Laize.
I.e. attack and capture Bourguebus Ridge!!
It states the objective being to dominate the exits from Caen and be able to exploit towards Falaise if possible.
This raises some points:
A - Stating this was a breakout operation, to break out of the current bridgehead and capture XYZ - is this being used in the same context people precieve Goodwood as in getting into the rear of the German army and winning the campaign etc etc
B - I havnet finished reading the rest of the chapter and this is really my first proper look at Epsom, but if the objectives and wording seem pretty identical why is there no big hoo har over this one? Because it only employed one armoured division instead of 3?
I recently bought 8 Corps: Normandy to the Baltic as suggested earlier in the topic and am currently reading the chapter on Operation Epsom.
Page 28 states that the Corps was to "break out of the exisiting bridgehead" and calls Epsom a "...break-out operation...".
The overall goals are shown to be crossing the Odon, seizure of the Evercy area, cross the Orne and to plonk itself on the highground northeast of Bretteville sur-Laize.
I.e. attack and capture Bourguebus Ridge!!
It states the objective being to dominate the exits from Caen and be able to exploit towards Falaise if possible.
This raises some points:
A - Stating this was a breakout operation, to break out of the current bridgehead and capture XYZ - is this being used in the same context people precieve Goodwood as in getting into the rear of the German army and winning the campaign etc etc
B - I havnet finished reading the rest of the chapter and this is really my first proper look at Epsom, but if the objectives and wording seem pretty identical why is there no big hoo har over this one? Because it only employed one armoured division instead of 3?