Lauren Child Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) I was just reading the wikipedia article on duplex drive. It sounds like it was actually quite successful on four of the five beaches, even though the waves were significantly higher than it was designed for. Almost every website I look at has different figures on it, but if wikipedia is correct, when deployed - Sword Beach - 1 DD tank lost on the way in Gold Beach - 8 DD tanks lost on the way in. Juno Beach - 8 of 29 DD tanks launched were lost on the way in. The remaining tanks were ferried to the shore by the LCTs Utah beach - 1 DD tank lost on the way in. I know that there were terrible losses on Omaha beach (29 DD tanks launched and only 2 made it) but they were launched far beyond their intended distance in extremely bad condition. Almost every time I see them described on television the DD tanks are described in terms of failure, based on the horrific number of losses at Omaha, but I can't help wondering if that's not fair on the designers and engineers that made the DD tank. The only numbers I can find for the total available is on Omaha where 64 DD tanks were available, with the remainder of those not launched landed directly onto the beach. Assuming similar numbers were deployed on the other beaches they don't seem to have done too badly, especially considering the bad conditions, over the shorter distances they were intended for. I also hadn't realised that the tanks were fitted with breathing apparatus in-case they sunk, and that most of the crews of the sunken tanks were rescued. This directly conflicts with one documentary I've just been watching that stated most of the drivers of the lost tanks were drowned. I know that websites and TV documentaries aren't the most reliable sources of information though, so I'm wondering whether I've understood this correctly. What do folks on here think? Has anyone got some more reliable information? Edited December 16, 2012 by Lauren Child Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattlesnakeBob Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 I would have to say the DD tanks on the whole were in an incredible success..don't forget the Americans were very skeptical of the DDs worth and were rather reluctant to deploy them at all ....subsequently of course they did indeed pay a very heavy price for not having enough Armour on that particular beach that morning.. It's without doubt that the disaster at Omaha was partly down to the DDs having been 'launched' from way too far off the beach but also that they were launched into a 'swell' that was far too high for their 'freeboard'...this matter had been clearly expressed to the US units and had indeed been rehearsed before D Day and should have been obvious to those ordering the tanks into the water..... ........There was also apparently a secondary problem in that the current (coming from the West) when approaching Omaha was a lot stronger than they were expecting and a lot of the landing craft and the DD tanks were being swept way off their intended landing areas.......whilst the barges could attempt to turn 'against' this current and endeavour to land where they were supposed to...... when the DDs tried to do the same, many were lost because the waves/swell was coming against them obliquely instead of from behind.......... Personally I believe Major Hobart was a genius .......alongside the DD don't forget he invented the Mine Flail tank and also the Fascine Bundle tank for crossing ditches ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzkpfw-e Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 A major issue with the DD launched towards Omaha, was they were launched in the wrong place, realised this & turned broadside to the swell, to try to head towards their correct landing spots. This was discovered when their positions & orientations on the seabed were plotted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattlesnakeBob Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 A lot of evidence points to them (despite denials by the US) being launched way beyond the desired distance from the beach....I recall reading many years ago that one of the salvage teams had found a number of tanks at something like a couple of miles or so off the beach .....and these were not as some have since suggested, as a result of their LCTs being sunk....they'd been 'launched' ...it may have been the company owned by the guy who ended up opening the museum with the salvaged sunken tanks in ??? I also recall reading that US Military Investigations which could possibly have lead to charges being brought against the launch crews/teams were considered but the whole idea was quietly dropped.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Child Posted December 16, 2012 Author Share Posted December 16, 2012 Personally, I'm not sure I could ever imagine myself in the sort of situation these folks were in, so I'd rather steer the thread away from the rights and wrongs of how they were deployed, and leave that for those that were there and had to make those decisions. The interesting thing for me is that (if this information is correct) when they were deployed as intended they appear to have exceeded expectations, operating well despite worse environmental conditions, with the safety systems put in place appearing to work for the majority of crews that needed to rely on them. That's not the failiure that they seem to be portrayed as. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Personally I believe Major Hobart was a genius .......alongside the DD don't forget he invented.... I think Mr Straussler would have something to say about that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Farrant Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 My recollection of a documentary some years ago was that the US DD tanks were dropped off by the ship too far out. Being that they lay low in the water navigation was difficult and they were using a church steeple as a marker point only to realise it was not the correct one and they were going side on to the tide. The waves then collapsed the screens as they were not designed for wave pressure from the side, if I recall correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degsy Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Correct Richard, when they realised their error they turned parallel to the beach and the waves coming from the side collapsed the superstructure. This was proved by the guy who owned the 'wrecks' museum at Port en Bessin consequently seriously upsetting all the 'experts' who had all gone with the story of all the Omaha tanks driving off the landing craft and following each other straight to the bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattlesnakeBob Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 This was proved by the guy who owned the 'wrecks' museum at Port en Bessin.... That's the fella... I couldn't think of where he was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattlesnakeBob Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 (edited) I think Mr Straussler would have something to say about that! and sorry to whoever Mr Straussler was Adrian...I certainly didn't intend to rob anyone of their due credit..:red: ... but if Hobart didn't actually 'come up' with all the ideas.. it was at least him that brought them all together and promoted their development and employment wasn't it??? PS: have just Wikied Mr Straussler ! .....a clever fella for sure ! Edited December 17, 2012 by RattlesnakeBob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Good documentry on yesterday and it was stating that some at Omaha were launched three miles out. I have no idea of the knots a DD would travel but it would have taken an age to get to the beach and a massive chance of the screens being hit by machine and shell fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienFTM Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Good documentry on yesterday and it was stating that some at Omaha were launched three miles out. I have no idea of the knots a DD would travel but it would have taken an age to get to the beach and a massive chance of the screens being hit by machine and shell fire. Herein lies the difference between the British and the American experience with DD Shermans. Some years ago when DRAC was raising money for the (now complete) new building at Bovington, as one who was giving to the fund, I was invited to Tankfest as DRAC's guest (in fact the then DRAC had been a young subaltern in my regiment when I was a Lance Corporal). Over drinks in the mess I found myself talking to an ex-13th/18th Hussar (which regiment had amalgamated with 15th/19th at Options for Change, so now we were members of the same Regimental Association) Sergeant who had commanded a 13/18H DD ashore. He told me to ignore what the history books said: his experience bore no relation. Late arriving at their launch position, the landing craft skippers took the decision to get closer to the beach before launching. As a consequence, 13/18H were ashore ahead of their scheduled arrival and were comfortable by the time the infantry arrived that they were to support. wrt numbers of tanks landed (elsewhere in the thread). 13/18H landed two squadrons of DDs floated ashore. All the Fireflies (barrel too long for DD conversion) were grouped into the third squadron and landed by landing craft later. Because the role of the DD component was infantry support, they'd be loaded with HE rather than armour-defeating rounds since the Panzers were held deep on Hitler's orders. The Firefly's 17-pdr gun having no HE capability, this was entirely in order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Barrell Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Because the role of the DD component was infantry support, they'd be loaded with HE rather than armour-defeating rounds since the Panzers were held deep on Hitler's orders. The Firefly's 17-pdr gun having no HE capability, this was entirely in order. I suspect the troop tanks had a 'normal' load of 60% HE, 30% AP and 10% smoke. They were indeed there for infantry support but would not have known for sure at the time that Hitler would not send the Panzers in. The 17 pr had an HE round and the tanks were issued with it but as the primary role was anti-tank, the loading would have been mainly APC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Child Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 I suspect the troop tanks had a 'normal' load of 60% HE, 30% AP and 10% smoke. They were indeed there for infantry support but would not have known for sure at the time that Hitler would not send the Panzers in. The 17 pr had an HE round and the tanks were issued with it but as the primary role was anti-tank, the loading would have been mainly APC. Would they have had AP for the bunkers and emplacements ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattlesnakeBob Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Well despite whatever various factions may say of the DD being a success or failure?... .... I'd lay a good size bet the anyone of those GIs that hit Omaha would have given their backteeth to have a couple of dozen DDs roll in there with them that day..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Child Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 Well despite whatever various factions may say of the DD being a success or failure?... .... I'd lay a good size bet the anyone of those GIs that hit Omaha would have given their backteeth to have a couple of dozen DDs roll in there with them that day..... I would have thought so. It must have been terrifying to get there, make it up onto the beach seeing so many get hit by the defending emplacements, and then realise that the supporting armour to take out those emplacements wasn't with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-boy Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 As a new boy I missed the postings yesterday, but felt it should be pointed out that the fascine tanks were updated from the usage in the first world war, so not really a Hobart invention. As pointed out though, it was him who brought it all together, so good for him. Steve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 True Steve. Mostly made by the Chinese Labour Corp. Though the idea of chucking bundles of twigs into ditches started back about 1000 years before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattlesnakeBob Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 True Steve. Mostly made by the Chinese Labour Corp. Though the idea of chucking bundles of twigs into ditches started back about 1000 years before. .........your right of course Tony:-D... .........but to say out loud something along the lines of "hey I got an idea!....lets strap a big bundle of sticks to the front of a tank and have it drop them in a hole and then drive over it !"....???? I can well imagine the eyebrows being raised and the mutterings from certain 'old school' elements of the General Staff back in 1943.........:cool2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Pearson Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I had missed this thread somehow! Callous though it may seem, DD use was a mathematical calculation of chances. The further out from the beach they are launched, the more dispersed a target they present but the further they have to float, the greater the chances of breakdown, flooding or swamping. The decision was that 5000 yards was about right so they would be launched over the horizon and appear to be small folding boats on the way in. Tests with Valentine DD's in the Moray |Firth in the winter of 1943/4 showed what the limits of seaworthiness were and it was decided that as the landing was a Naval operation, it was a Navy decision if the conditions were too bad to launch but of course the Navy did not have any DD experience. A pre D Day rehearsal at Studland Bay on 4 April 1944 was done in marginal wave conditions and six DD's were swamped and 6 crew drowned (NOT all drivers as sometimes thought) and this caused a rethink, at least in the British and Canadian Armies. They decided that the worse the conditions, the closer in they should be launched as the balance of probability changed between a whole landing craft of DD's being sunk by a single shot compared with the probability of swamping. Further the Army arranged for a high ranking Army officer to "advise" the Navy man about conditions. Off Omaha, the American Navy thought the conditions were suitable and launched from the nominal 5000 yards although it is alleged that some were launched even further out and almost all sank. Seeing what happened, later American launches were made closer inshore. On the British and Canadian beaches, the Army officer "advised" a much closer approach and so those and those at Utah were almost completely successful. When training and active service launches are considered, there were probably 40 - 50,000 launches of DD's in WW2, and about 60 to 80 were lost which is a pretty good average. Incidentally, facines on tanks were used in WW1 at the battle of Amiens to breach the Hindenburg line. Hobart did not actually invent anything himself, his forte was organisation, drive and training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy8men Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) thanks for the explanation john i was waiting for you to enlighten us. by way of adding something to the thread, here are the tank production figures for the uk in 1944/45 which shows both valentine and sherman dd numbers built in that year. please note that i pulled the spreadsheet from a thread on another forum so cannot verify it's accuracy but it seems right enough to my uneducated eyes Edited December 19, 2012 by eddy8men Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryH57 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 A bit of trivia - Percy Hobart was Monty's brother in law, and had been prematurely retired from the Army in 1940. Monty later assisted in him being recalled. Although he did not personally invent many of the ideas used by his 79th Armoured Division, he did ensure that ideas came from all ranks and that these had to be given proper consideration. No sensible idea was ignored. As with Monty his style was to consult his troops, discuss problems and keep them informed of what was required. In turn this made all ranks part of the team and paid off greatly in terms of the inventions that became the 'Funnies' used from D-Day onwards. Involving your men, leading from the front and being able to do the things they do, rather than just ordering them about has now become an accepted way of leading men in the British Army. Prior to Monty and WW2 it was rare to act in this way. Sadly it's a lesson in man management that most civilian bosses have yet to learn! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Pearson Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I think that David Fletcher at the Tank Museum actually met Hobart but my memory may be faulty and he might have been telling me about someone else's opinion but he said Hobart was the best person he ever met for rubbing people up the wrong way - brilliant but an absolute git! I have been doing a bit of research at the Public Records Office and anything from Hobart appears petulant, awkward and bloody minded and that shows through the official formal language that is used. Brilliant no doubt but I don' think many enjoyed having to deal with him. Bit more trivia: he was "retired" in 1940 and when he was later re-instated, he was a lance corporal in the Home Guard. I would not have fancied being his sergeant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryH57 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Perhaps it was Nigel Duncan who met him (again) at the Tank Museum as he served under Hobart and wrote about the 79th Armd Div for Profile Publications in 1972. Nigel Duncan has nothing but praise for Percy Hobart in his book and says he was utterley fearless with a great sense of urgency, and loved by his men but loathed by others, no doubt in high places. So I can imagine he was a bit bloody minded like Monty when people in the War Office got in his way. Still he got the job done and the DDs and other Funnies of the 79th made a great contribution to D-Day which sadly the Americans scoffed at when offered the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Child Posted December 20, 2012 Author Share Posted December 20, 2012 Was the DD a solely British production? The numbers that Eddy has posted show that 230 were available in June, which works out around 45 per beach. Given that the US had 64 at Omaha (according to the wikipedia numbers) they must have been deployed in different numbers to different beaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.