Dieppe

[steveo578]

Operation Jubilee August 19th 1942.

 

In an action which lasted almost exactly 14hours 3379 Canadian and 247 British became casulaties with over 2000+ becoming prisoners.

 

Units involved were Royal Rgt. of Canada (including an attachment of Commandos), Essex Scottish Rgt., Royal Hamilton Lt Inf., Fusilers Mont-Royal, South Saskatchenewan Rgt. Queens Own Cameron Highlanders, B & C squadrons of 14th CATB- the Calgary Rgt. Canadian Royal Engineers, Royal Canadian Artillery and other elements.

 

British No3 and 4 Commandos plus half a company of US Rangers acted as flank protection.

 

In addition losses were suffered by naval forces from the 34 vessels lost- from the Destroyer Berkley to lesser units and of course RAF air crews.

 

It is still debated what if anything of value was gained from the raid and is a very raw memory for Canadians.

[Tony B]

Whole bag of Ferret's in this one. Supposedley there was a lot of political gain from it, the US and Russia were shown the Britian still had an offensive capability. There was also the seed of Hobart's funnies planted. Though an amphibious attack using tanks was proposed in 1917.

[steveo578]

Tony B

Whole bag of Ferret's in this one.

 

No Tony Ferrets were post war, all the scout cars at Dieppe were Daimler Scout Cars:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[eddy8men]

steve

 

you must have read my mind as i was thinking of writing a little about dieppe and the churchill's role in it which until recently i had thought to be disasterous but only because i was under the impression that only a few got off the beach when what really happened was 30 churchills were sent to dieppe, 29 disembarked and 1 had mechanical problems and went back to england. of the 29, 2 drowned so that left 27 on the beach 15 of which got off the beach successfully, did their little bit and then most returned,this is why you see so many churchills on the beach when you look at pics of the dieppe raid it's because they returned there to be re-embarked but this never happened so they fought on until out of ammo and i doubt any tank would have faired better especially when you consider the shingle was between 1-4" in diameter which would break the tracks of most tanks. now in all fairness i must admit i have a slightly biased view of the churchill but if you read the following extract from Major Page, B squadron, Calgary regiment who commanded a mk4 on the dieppe raid you'll see that i'm not the only one.

"not a single tank was pierced by enemy fire, and not a single man was wounded inside a tank. Lt wallace's tank was struck on the turret by a shot that made the turret wall bulge on the inside. but did not penetrate. it was believed that this might have been a shot from an 88mmm gun. Not a single tank was set on fire. As a result of the performance of the churchill at dieppe, every individual in the unit without execption was 'absolutely sold on' this tank."

 

and that fella's is good enough for me.

 

When you think dieppe you think churchill but the real people to suffer were the infantry who were mowed down and stood little chance of success the only consolation for those who were sacrificed was a determination not to let it happen again which lead to the specialist tanks that were employed on d-day with great success, the americans turned down the offer of these tanks with the exception of the dd sherman and their landings very nearly failed as a result.

 

either way it was a sh**ty deal but that's war for you

[steveo578]

Tony B

Supposedley there was a lot of political gain from it, the US and Russia were shown the Britian still had an offensive capability.

 

To some extent it's my paraniod mentality but I wonder whether the acrimonious meeting of Stalin and Churchill only a few days before giving the go ahead for Jubilee may have forced Churchill and the CIGS hand into allowing what was already considered a dubious folly - I wonder if the sacrifice was not to prove a point! but perhaps I'm too cynical.

 

There was also the seed of Hobart's funnies planted.

The major result was the AVRE (armoured vehicle royal engineers) with its primary role of allowing engineers and charges to be carried across fire swept areas, it was proposed by a Canadian Royal Engineers Lieutenant J.H. Donovan, shortly after the raid. Most of the other "funnies" were already under development prior to Dieppe -some "specials" were actually went to Dieppe, there were 3 OKE flame throwers and 3 carpet layers (it being realised in training that expecting soldiers on foot to carry and un roll chespale mats for tanks was asking too much!).

 

Though an amphibious attack using tanks was proposed in 1917.

The "hush" operation which eventually became the scaled down Zeebruge raid in 1918- which tended to inspire the elan of troops slated for "Jubilee" -Britain always want to fight the previous war.

[steveo578]

Eddymen

of the 29, 2 drowned so that left 27 on the beach 15 of which got off the beach successfully, did their little bit and then most returned,this is why you see so many churchills on the beach when you look at pics of the dieppe raid it's because they returned there to be re-embarked but this never happened so they fought on until out of ammo

Hi eddy

 

You certainly gave a some thought before posting mate:-D, many of the tanks returned to the beach to try to extricate the infantry and engineers trapped in the free fire void, but it has to be remembered that the tanks were only on red and white beach supporting the Essex, Hamiltons and Mont Royals.

 

On green (Pourville) the Saskatchens and Camerons had no support, on Blue the Royals were again without tanks pinned down under the guns of the Bismarck & Rommel batteries at Neuville & Puys. Needless to say the commandos (yellow and orange beaches) were as usual without armoured support.

 

Alpha company of 14th CATB did not land, reducing the number of tanks available by about 20 tanks.

 

 

.....and i doubt any tank would have faired better especially when you consider the shingle was between 1-4" in diameter which would break the tracks of most tanks.

Actually only one tank Blondie T 68880 can with certanty be written off as a loss to the shingle -and only after it had stopped to release Hare -the Daimler Scout Car it was towing -stopping on sand or shingle is unwise as it allows the track to pack, of the other tanks that broke tracks all may have been due to other circumstances. The Germans had tried Panzer 3 (from X panzer) on the Dieppe beach earlier and had concluded the beach was impassable to tanks- so one-nil to the Churchill:D

 

now in all fairness i must admit i have a slightly biased view of the churchill but if you read the following extract from Major Page, B squadron, Calgary regiment who commanded a mk4 on the dieppe raid you'll see that i'm not the only one.

Maj. Page was unable to make an after battle report (as he was a POW) and his view of the Churchill is probably at least as biased as yours, in fact at least 2 tanks (Backer and Belicose) were damaged by penetrating gunfire and Backer was in effect knocked out. Having lost its track and unable to traverse its turret they expended the ammunition and evacuated the tank -an action leading to the death of its gunner, Backer was commanded by Lt Wallace. Lt. Wallace would have handed his tank over to his then dismounted C.O - Maj. Page had Wallace's tank not been destroyed, so the recollections were probably somewhat coloured by events.

 

 

This photo shows gunfire had broken the track and had penetrated both the hull and turret.

 

Belicose was very unlucky -one of the tanks that had gotten off the beach it returned to effect repairs, having taken so many hits on the glacis it had broken the steering handle mount, how they repaired it is uncertain but they did only to have a track break while attempting to return to the promenade via the Cassino, note the huge number of hits on the left track and horn -there is a single penetration in the upper left corner of the hull mg mounting plate oddly enough probably the thickest point of the Churchills hull.

 

Maj. Page's "mk4" was actually a Mk1- MkIV in this case refers to infantry tank MkIV not Churchill Mk4- it's that bloody insane civil servant at the tank board again.:nut: so not the same as your Mk4- there were no Churchill Mk4 landed at Dieppe only Mk1, 2 and 3s.

 

Incidently at least 1 Universal carrier was landed -from the Royal Regiment of Canada- so it managed to get onto the wrong beach.

 

the only consolation for those who were sacrificed was a determination not to let it happen again which lead to the specialist tanks that were employed on d-day with great success, the americans turned down the offer of these tanks with the exception of the dd sherman and their landings very nearly failed as a result.

 

Different story most support tanks including DDs were late arrivals on D.day -however the main lesson was don't try to take a port or built up area, -so at Normandy the most specialist piece of equipments was the Mulberry ports

 

Steve

Edited August 20, 2010 by steveo578
addition

[abn deuce]

From what I recall the Americans did turn down the offer of British "funnies" at first but realised the error to late and there were not enough Built to supply the American needs for D-day other than the DD's which had been tested and adopted well in advance of D-day .

[Tony B]

No Steve I don't think you are being cynical at all. Winston Churchill was quite happy to put other men in the way of harm. And British Civillian's. From a distance you can say it was 'a nessicity of war', but from the viewpoint of those that had to live with the consequences.

Churchill is not seen as a hero by all.

[steveo578]

abn deuce

from what I recall the Americans did turn down the offer of British "funnies" at first but realised the error to late and there were not enough Built to supply the American needs for D-day other than the DD's which had been tested and adopted well in advance of D-day .

The time line for the D.D. was it was demonstrated in the presence of Gen Eisenhower on 27-1-44 and a large batch of mostly M4A1s were converted in U.S.A and supplied within 6 weeks, many of these were very late production M4A1 75 like that exhibited at Slapton sands -some were re-manufactured early versions and several may have been M4 and M4hybrid. with their usual manufacturing know how there were enough US built D.D.s to re-equip some British units notably the 4/7th Dragoon Guards.

 

The US 70th Tank Batalion modified its DDs after problems encountered at the slapton training area and they were certainly photographed on D.Day with a narrow breather tube fitted . it would be interesting if anyone has further input with regard to these mods.

 

In fairness it is comparatively easy:nut: to convert a regular tank battalion to use DD tanks, although two U.S battalions converted were actually specialist batalions being trained for mine exploders and CDLs. It is another thing entirely to do this to an engineer unit added to which in 1944 the U.S. forces had several division of labour problems -there were both engineer assault batalions and naval combat demolition units.

 

Although there was a very efficient training area for U.S engineers in North Devon trying to introduce an American version of the AVRE at a late stage would be difficult. Accepting that the British had no spare Churchills AVREs -there was an alternative in that Canadian Rams were being discharged from service and earlier Rams had doors- as Rams were basically a Sherman it would have been possible to refurbish 50 or so as engineer portees.

 

The problem then begin to multiply, commanders entrenched attitudes have to change, tractor battalions equiped with DUKWs would have to be retrained or tanks crews "obtained" elsewhere, facility to use an amphibious landing training area would be necessary- not that they were not 100% employed. Changes would be necessary in the type of landing craft used and this is a problem, although most 1944 land craft tanks were superior to those used at Dieppe, they were still very vulnerable when close to shore of the 24 LCT used at Dieppe 10 were sunk or so badly damaged they had to be scrapped.

 

So Catch 22 - put infantry on the beach to secure it for a landing of LCT borne tanks, which are necessary to allow infantry to secure the beach.

 

Steve

[steveo578]

Tony B

No Steve I don't think you are being cynical at all

 

Thanks for that Tony, certainly in Western Canada many older people are unimpressed with Churchill and Montbatten regarding this incident, although they are often otherwise very anglophile. Added to which the composition of the forces involved in Jubilee changed in that the 48th RTR was replaced by the Calgary rgt. making the sacrifice even more Canadian. The 48th RTR was a London based TA rgt and dare I say it was rather well connected- though I am sure the members of the 48th were totally commited. It's much easier for the ruling class to swallow the expected loss of men whose relatives are thousands of miles away and to salute civilians who survive occupation or bombing without warning or expected assistance.

 

Steve

[steveo578]

Tony B

No Steve I don't think you are being cynical at all

 

Thanks for that Tony, certainly in Western Canada many older people are unimpressed with Churchill and Montbatten regarding this incident, although they are often otherwise very anglophile. Added to which the composition of the forces involved in Jubilee changed in that the 48th RTR was replaced by the Calgary rgt. making the sacrifice even more Canadian. The 48th RTR was a London based TA rgt and dare I say it was rather well connected- though I am sure the members of the 48th were totally commited. It's much easier for the ruling class to swallow the expected loss of men whose relatives are thousands of miles away and to salute civilians who survive occupation or bombing without warning or expected assistance.

 

Steve

[eddy8men]

thanks for putting me right on a few points steve, as you know i'm no historian i was simply quoting what i had read in the book "the churchill in canadian service" by mark tonner and yes i was wearing my rose tinted glasses but the more i read about the churchill the more i think it doesn't deserve it's bad reputation once the mk3 arrived on the scene, i was just defending the old girl and trying to put the record straight or what i would call straight anyway.

 

eddy

[steveo578]

Hi Eddy

 

Historians are like lawyers they have opinions doesn't always mean they're right. I'm pretty sure the damage shown on the close up of Backers turret was what caused the traverse to stop -not damage sustained when the tank was derilict. The thing that upset me about that incident is that Tpr C. L. Provis Backers gunner after surviving a close shave with the shell into the turret was killed by a rifle shot to the head because he was too stout to fit into the shell scrape the crew were hidding, additionally acording to Tpr Chapman Backers co driver, he was more concerned in keeping the other crew members safe. By ordering the evacuation and demolition of a none burning tank all the crew were put in harms way- 4inches of armour is better than a fire swept beach- but it's easy to second guess some-one elses decision:(.

 

It is significant that after Dieppe the Canadian Army Tank Brigade (11th Ontario, 12th Three Rivers and 14th Calgary) turned in their Churchills for Shermans before going active, due to apparent dissatisfaction with the Churchill after Dieppe- in part because of a severe lack of inteligence and analysis which wasn't surprising as only 2 Calgary men who landed returned to Britain and they were O/Rs so were probably ignored (Tpr P.W. Aide and L/cpl F. Howes).

 

The only Canadian formation using Churchills in action in Europe were the Canadian Royal Engineers using AVREs.

 

Personally if I had to be in any British Tank of WW2 for saftey(more hatches = better means of escape) and armour it would be the Churchill. Stuff the gun -just hope to get close enough to run the buggers down.

 

Steve

[berna2vm]

I do personally believe that Dieppe was a political rather than a tactical mission to appease Josef Stalin and many fine men lost their lives in what was a futile attempt to sugar the Soviet leader. I cannot honestly believe that anyone in the War department actually thought that this 'invasion' or experiment would have a successful conclusion????