The Man Whose Bizarre Tank Designs Made the D-Day Victory Possible (bbc.com) 122
dryriver writes: In 1942, Allied troops tried to invade a French port at Dieppe. The troop landing was a disaster -- within 10 hours, 60% of the 6,000 allied troops that landed were dead, and all 28 tanks that were supposed to support the troops had been picked off by mines and anti-tank weapons. The Allies realized that conventional tank designs were next to useless when landing on heavily fortified sandy beaches. A British army commander named Percy Hobart had the solution. Over two years, he designed completely new and unconventional tanks like the Churchill AVRE, Sherman Crab and and Churchill Fascine that were custom-made to storm a mined beach defended by an enemy army.
Commander Hobart had initially fallen out of favor, been retired early from the British army for his "unconventional thinking" and demoted, humiliatingly, to guarding his home village in Britain. When he managed to set up a meeting with Winston Churchill, Churchill reinstated Hobart, and Hobart went on to design some of the strangest looking beach lading tanks anyone had seen at that time. Hobart's tanks carried everything from flamethrowers intended to frighten German soldiers into surrendering to fascines (essentially a huge bundle of sticks) that could be dropped to allow other tanks to drive over deep ditches and trenches, to huge mortars firing shells the size of dustbins that were designed to blow holes into seawalls and concrete fortifications. The tank designs performed as Hobart had intended, and the D-Day victory would not have been possible without them. A man who had once demoted to Corporal and retired for rubbing the British army brass the wrong way went on to make D-Day winnable for the Allied forces.
Commander Hobart had initially fallen out of favor, been retired early from the British army for his "unconventional thinking" and demoted, humiliatingly, to guarding his home village in Britain. When he managed to set up a meeting with Winston Churchill, Churchill reinstated Hobart, and Hobart went on to design some of the strangest looking beach lading tanks anyone had seen at that time. Hobart's tanks carried everything from flamethrowers intended to frighten German soldiers into surrendering to fascines (essentially a huge bundle of sticks) that could be dropped to allow other tanks to drive over deep ditches and trenches, to huge mortars firing shells the size of dustbins that were designed to blow holes into seawalls and concrete fortifications. The tank designs performed as Hobart had intended, and the D-Day victory would not have been possible without them. A man who had once demoted to Corporal and retired for rubbing the British army brass the wrong way went on to make D-Day winnable for the Allied forces.
Not limited to Brits (Score:1)
Who needs tanks (Score:1)
when you have Chuck Norris?
Re:Who needs tanks (Score:5, Informative)
Who needed D-Days, when you had the Soviets actually beating the shit out of the Nazis for 3 and a half years?
Wow there's some revisionist shit right there.Up until June 21st 1941 the Soviets and Nazis were actually allies - google Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. After Hitler invaded in 1941 the German armed forces expanded into Russia over the following 2 years. It was only 6-8 months prior to D-Day in the winter of 1943-44 that the Soviets had finally brought the German invasion to a halt and pushed back.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Truth? Yeah, let's talk about truth. Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler did, and you want to call the soviets "good guys"?.
Re: (Score:2)
Get a grip: https://www.les-crises.fr/the-... [les-crises.fr]
The Soviets did all the fighting , the dying and the winning. If you look at the D-Day celebrations you'd think the Germans were allies in the fight against Russia. The Russian reaction seems to be very respectful: https://twitter.com/RussianEmb... [twitter.com]
But Russia and Germany certainly started by dividing Poland amongst them. One doesn't exclude the other.
Re: (Score:2)
And a short time before Poland and the Nazis were actually allies, google the German - Polish non aggression pact. Together they carved up Czechoslovakia. Yet for some unexplainable reason people never mention that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only partially true. Here [wikipedia.org] is the mentioned pact, which actually made Germany to accept Polish western border, which they kept disputing and there's nothing about Czechoslovakia's border, from the wiki article:
The German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact (German: Deutsch-polnischer Nichtangriffspakt; Polish: Polsko-niemiecki pakt o nieagresji) was an international treaty between Nazi Germany and the Second Polish Republic, signed on January 26, 1934. Both countries pledged to resolve their problems by bilateral negotiations and to forgo armed conflict for a period of ten years. It effectively normalized relations between Poland and Germany, which were previously strained by border disputes arising from the territorial settlement in the Treaty of Versailles. Germany effectively recognized Poland's borders and moved to end an economically damaging customs war between the two countries that had taken place over the previous decade.
The annexation of part of the Silesia region from Czechoslovakia is not comparable considering civilian treatment to German - Soviet division of Poland, where (the latter) hundreds of thousands of people were executed just for being officers, teachers or clergy.
Not excusing, but putting more insig
Re: (Score:2)
Well, by that logic the Soviets only took back what was theirs in the first place, before Poland invaded Belarus and Ukraine in 1919, and set the Polish borders back to the Curzon line, as they were supposed to be.
Re: (Score:2)
I never knew about this though : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne... [telegraph.co.uk]
negotiations by the Soviets , Brits and French to create an anti nazi front before the war. So even the Ribbentrop pact can't be understood without these caveats
Re: (Score:2)
So he was wrong, it was 3 years not 3 1/2 years. While he was full of shit it would be serious revisionism to pretend Russia didn't do a fuck of a lot of killing Nazis.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've never seen anyone argue they didn't (kill a lot of Germans). But the point as Jodl pointed out at Nuremberg was the effect on the East on the West and visa versa were reciprocal. Those 60 divisions in the West would have been extremely useful in the East, so even the threat of invasion had an impact on the war notwithstanding the actual losses the Germans suffered there. There's also the bombing campaign to consider, that used up about 1/3rd of Germany's ammunition production and around 30,000 88mm
two fronts two morons (Score:4, Interesting)
The Nazi were under severe pressure from the US and the UK. They were being challenged and driven from Africa, which limited their access to oil and mineral reserves. Allied forces were also driving up from Italy. Constant Allied air assaults over Germany were slowly eroding infrasctructure and limiting the military doctrine that served the German's so well, the use of air power followed by mechanized infantry to exploit weaknesses. Lastly, the looming assault from invasion of France further split Axis manpower and attention.
The net result was that the Germans could not focus their might on the Soviet Union alone. The Russians were facing a weakened, depleted force that could not expect an adequate level of reinforcement and materials. With no threat of D-day invasion, the Germans would be focus their power fully on Russia, and the outcome would have been very, very different.
It is fashionable in modern progressive schools to downplay the triumphs of the West and even find ways to belittle it's achievements. Russia did indeed play an important part in the war, but it is often overstated. The entrance of the United States into the War was far more impactful and the main reason we are not all speaking German today and you are allowed to enjoy wonderful gay pride parades in California. As the prescient Yamamoto said, "Don't wake the sleeping giant." What he understood was that the U.S. had manpower, technology, and manufacturing infrastructure unlike all others.
Think about it, the U.S. was able to check the might of Japan in Pacific. Government education probably does not emphasize how important this was to the war and how much of an amazing achievement this was. Several years before WWII, in the Russo-Japanese war, Russia suffered a complete and humiliating defeat to Japan. Japan had also conquered China. They were an incredibly powerful nation. If the United States had not entered the War, the Russia would be facing a two front war...against opponents that had been able to easily beat them. So, the Russian resistance was only possible by the U.S. keeping Russia's eastern front safe. BTW, Russia was completely reliant on war material coming in from the open east, or they would have been knocked out.
So, yes, Russia did play a roll. Yes, it did matter and yes, they did pressure the Germans. But please, please stop overstating their impact. And maybe, just maybe, take some time to be proud of what a generation for more significant than yours had achieved.
Re: (Score:1)
Clearly you missed my response to the grandparent.
But thanks for telling me shit that I already knew, while managing to assume and respond to an entire argument that I didn't make.
please stop overstating their impact
All I said is that they killed a lot of Nazis. I'm not sure how you managed to interpret that as an overstatement of their impact.
maybe, just maybe, take some time to be proud of what a generation for more significant than yours had achieved.
I did. I've acknowledged the US and the Russian contribution too, which you might like to consider. You're the one belittling the Russian contribution, not me.
Incidentally you're also entirely glossing
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Compare that to D-Day, which involved 200k combatants and about 20,000 casualties on both sides.
The war in the East cannot be overe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh for fucks sake, the Russians were begging for a second front for years.
The US had already fought the Nazis in North Africa, and again in Italy; they had nothing new to prove by exposing thousands of their soldiers to additional risks in France.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Propaganda (Score:5, Informative)
"flamethrowers intended to frighten German soldiers into surrendering"
Germans petitioned for the stop of brutal maiming weapons
The Germans made regular use of flamethrowers, including early in the war during their assault on French defenses in 1940. So their objections were hypocritical.
TFA has several inaccuracies:
60% of the Dieppe were not killed. The 60% figure includes dead, wounded, and captured. Total casualties, not KIA.
The claim that "D-Day victory would not have been possible" without Hobart's Funnies is nonsense. They were only used on the Commonwealth beachs: Gold, Sword, and Juno. They were NOT used on Omaha and Utah, where the Americans landed.
Eisenhower had stated to Churchill that the Normandy Landings would be a success if they held two of the five beaches after the 2nd wave. On June 6th, all five beaches were secured by the FIRST wave. D-Day was an overwhelming success and it wasn't even close. The Hobart Funnies may have helped, but they were not a critical factor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That dummy army was pretty pointless in the grand scheme of things. We know that the Germans performed barely any reconnaissance of the UK prior to Normandy. The majority of their intelligence came from Garbo and other double-cross agents along with all the fake radio traffic that the UK/US did to support the troop movements that they were passing through double-cross agents.
Re: Propaganda (Score:3)
I would argue the rhino tanks used to cut through the hedgerows were more significant contributors than the other modified tanks. Going through hedgerow country was like assaulting a fortified line every 50 yards and they were nigh impenetrable. being able to punch a hole in them with a tank saved a lot of time and a lot of lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
One of Hobart's devices went to all Allies, I would expect: the anti-mine flail.
Re: (Score:2)
I think flail tanks were used in the North African campaign earlier in the war. Of course they were based on Valentine or Matilda chassis not Shermans..
Re: (Score:2)
All correct. The plan for the beaches that did not hold was to go inland from those that were viable, and attack from behind or the flanks of those that failed using the supplies/men sent on the held beaches. It would have taken longer, but the only beach that was under any real threat of being repulsed was Omaha.
Re: (Score:2)
"There were 29 DD tanks at Omaha (most of which sank)"
So they didn't help much then. the sea was too rough for them
Re: (Score:2)
TFA sez "At Omaha, most of the DD tanks launched sank in the choppy waters."
Commonwealth brought the landing ships closer to the beach, and they survived much better. The US commanders stuck to the original plan, and launched theirs 2 miles out.
Re: (Score:2)
Further..."American forces, which had initially thought Hobarts creations were too bizarre for combat, ended up using them as much as the British.
The “Funnies” were farmed out in small groups wherever they were needed, a flexible approach which only added to their effectiveness
By the end of the war, the 79th Armoured Division – the unit which controlled the “Funnies” – “was the biggest armoured unit in Europe,” says Willey.
"
Re: Propaganda (Score:2)
The Germans used flamethrowers too, as did the Soviets. Great way to clear out bunkers on the attack, and the Russians even used them defensively in some of their massive prepared defenses. They would also lay thin electrified wires across field to electrocute attacking soldiers.
And of course, the Marines used them extensively in the Pacific theater against the Japanese
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, the Marines used them extensively in the Pacific theater against the Japanese
An extremely effective weapon used the the Marines against the Japanese was the Flame Tank [wikipedia.org]. These were M4 Shermans with the main gun replaced with a flamethrower, shooting a stream of burning jellied gasoline, propelled by compressed air.
Alas, flame weapons are no longer used by America. The last was deactivated in 1978.
Re: Propaganda (Score:2)
Yep. In the movie Sands of Iwo Jima they use combat footage as part of the movie, and one of the clips is of a flame tank in action. Almost beautiful in its destructiveness
Re: (Score:3)
It's probably obsolete, and you could whip them up in a week or two if they become needed.
It's exceptionally unlikely that we will ever be in the sorts of slogs of infantry against infantry again. It was a point solution that was effective in that precise situation, but not effective in most other situations. And going into a fight with a large quantity of flammable gels hanging on your back is not a task for which you would find a lot of eager volunteers.
Re: (Score:2)
Alas? Flamethrowers really aren't great weapons any more.
You have to get relatively close to use them. Their range is much lower than the rifles or tank shells people will be using to shoot at you with. They advertise your exact position quite nicely too.
There is the potential for setting yourself on fire, or starting a fire that gets out of control and becomes a conflagration. While they do inspire terror, they are not very high precision and in modern warfare there are often civilians in the area who must
Re: (Score:2)
All of which was true in WW2. And your point was?
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that these problems are minimized in urban warfare, where they were most effective. In urban terrain, you don't get many long fire lanes so range advantages don't mean much (US use in the Pacific was mostly in very close terrain with short lines of sight) and flamethrowers excel at burning out enemy troops holed up in buildings. They could be used there because urban fighting in WWII was incredibly brutal, with no regard for collateral damage. That kind of urban warfare does not (thankf
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if, God forbid, that happens, we'll probably start seeing flamethrowers in service again. But until then, there's not much call for them.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why they were so effective in urban warfare, where you could be fighting with someone you couldn't see from forty yards away.
This is why tanks are shit in urban environments. It's too easy for infantry to get close enough to hurt them.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say that one is hilarious. I have heard family stories about blindly burning up bunkers and then discovering the people inside were not exactly German soldiers.
Re: (Score:2)
"flamethrowers intended to frighten German soldiers into surrendering" You mean burn humans alive in waves like the firebombing of dresden right? Germans petitioned for the stop of brutal maiming weapons and this is what they got in return.
Because the blitz only happened to germany?
Flexible thinking (Score:5, Interesting)
To what extent do current military leaders allow flexible thinking? Are eccentric people allowed anywhere near the military? What about corporate environs? Would a truly flexible thinker like Edison or Tesla be hired at Google or Apple? Someone who may have dropped out of college like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and many other great thinkers? How about education? Are creative minds allowed to guide our children and young adults on to their future? Would Leo da Vinci be welcome anywhere in modern society? Are we relegated to mediocrity by the bureaucracy that surrounds us throughout our lives?
Re: (Score:3)
Are we relegated to mediocrity by the bureaucracy that surrounds us throughout our lives?"
"That will be Questions, then! Fill out this form, Form 42 stroke 11, and take it up to the Questions Department. Third floor."
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen that quote before, just wondering if Mark Twain had a time machine and came to see Donald Trump... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha!
Came across it on brainyquote I think. I followed the source, sure that it was going to be some essay or diatribe against politicians, but found it was in relation to some minor banker of some sort that raised his ire.
I find that it's a useful quote to keep in mind, as I have a few of my own blankets that need throwing off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Usually it's up to private companies to come up with innovative ideas and offer them to the military. Things changed during WW2 because the UK was somewhat desperate, and the government took effective control of a lot of industry and research.
The 50s and 60s saw a lot of rapid innovation due to the introduction of new technologies such as the jet engine, spacecraft and advanced radar systems. That tailed off as the cold war ramped down and spending was cut back.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. There is s
Re: (Score:1)
No. Instead we get Elon Musk and his ability to reinvent the tunnel... because it just works.
Churchill again (Score:4, Insightful)
Hobart is important here, but this story shows again how critical Churchill was. That one guy really was the lynchpin of the fight against Hitler. I recall the story about his being given a tour of the Bletchley code breaking facilities and then just issuing a one-sentence order "give them what they want". Genius.
It was Neville Chaimberlan that won the war (Score:5, Interesting)
Although much maligned, he managed to double, double, and double again the budget for the RAF before the war. He had many opponents
* Pacifists did not want to spend money on war.
* Labor wanted to spend the money on social programs.
* Conservatives wanted to balance the (depression) budgets.
* Fascists thought Hitler was OK.
* The Navy wanted to spend the money on ships.
* The Army wanted to spend the money on tanks.
Yet somehow, Chaimberlan won the critical battle. Without him, there would have been no RAF, no Battle of Britain, no Stalingrad, and no D-Day.
His appeasement policy was also the correct given the circumstances of the time. Chaimberlan needed to get the Commonwealth countries on side. And nobody could have predicted that France would just instantly collapse in the way that it did, which certainly surprised Hitler.
Churchill was competent. But by the time he became PM the course was set and he mainly had to focus on rhetoric. He also made a few blunders, like the SOE. And he certainly did not support the biggest blunder of all, the D-Day landings -- he wanted to attack through the Balkans and cut the Soviets off. Correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Because if Germany had defeated Britain the Soviets would have had no chance.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no "I" in Allies.
Re: (Score:1)
Both the Russian advance and D-Day were only possible because Germany was fighting on two fronts.
If Britain had fallen early, he could have kept a single front much longer. Imagine if he had taken all of Western Europe and could only be assaulted from the east or from the sea (or north Africa I suppose)? How much harder would be to open a western front? Would the US have to come in from the east with Moscow? That was a very uneasy alliance (see next several decades).
Re: (Score:2)
A little overstated perhaps. (Score:1)
"The tank designs performed as Hobart had intended, "
Mostly. All but two of the Duplex Drive floating tanks bound for Omaha we swamped due to wind and tide combining to cause swells that over-topped the canvas sides meant to keep them buoyant. That problem was especially severe at Omaha due to its location and its orientation to the English Channel, and the resulting lack of mechanized armor was significant in the delay getting off the beach that caused unusually high Allied casualties there.
"and the D-Da
Re: A little overstated perhaps. (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's one I hadn't heard of (Score:5, Interesting)
"And for high sea walls there was the Churchill Ark. The Ark had no turret, and was equipped with ramps on the front and back. It was driven up to a seawall or high obstacle, and other tanks would simply drive over it."
Surprised we haven't seen that used in a Bond movie.
Well, there's assorted ramps and car-carriers, but still.
Chilling effects are increasing (Score:2)
I worry that the increase in digital bureaucratic systems, such as the reputation system in China but also similar systems in the west, will create more pressure to be a certain 'optimum' type of person.
We already see the conforming effects on social media, as well as in research into chilling effects after the Snowden revelations.
https://www.commondreams.org/n... [commondreams.org]
Looking at my own military, I find very little understanding of what 'psychological security' is, and why it should be protected. The military and
Hobart's legacy (Score:4, Informative)
These days, engineering groups in the Army use successors to many of Hobart's vehicles. Bridgelayers, mine-clearing devices, demolition mortars, matting bobbins etc.
The funny part (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The word fascism comes from the Latin fasces for a bunch of sticks, which was the symbol of office of the tribune of the people and symbolised his authority to have people beaten as a punishment.
Re: (Score:1)
The tanks will work perfectly in the water.
Re: (Score:2)
Even modern tanks couldn't have climbed Chunuk Bair
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)