WW2 - D-Day - Real Footage in Colour

[DennisN]

Intense, dramatic, fantastic and at the same time terrible. A must see for history buffs, I'd say.

WW2 - D-Day. Invasion of Normandy [Real Footage in Colour]

 

[berkeman]

Oh my, very intense. We must learn from history, or...

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I love these coloring of historic photo and video. The video gives me shivers though. What an insane piece of history.

 

[DennisN]

I love these coloring of historic photo and video. The video gives me shivers though. What an insane piece of history.

Yeah, same here.

 

[AlexCaledin]

Why the US did not use the "Monitor" sort of warship to cover the landing?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why the US did not use the "Monitor" sort of warship to cover the landing?

A. The design was 80 years old.
B. They bottom out in 10 feet of water.

 

[AlexCaledin]

A. The design was 80 years old.
B. They bottom out in 10 feet of water.

Hmmm ... I have just read about some British monitors still serviceable in WW2, with the draft/draught of slightly more than two metres, while the destroyers draft was more than 5 metres - and still the destroyers did the job of final suppression of the German defence at Omaha beach, and some of those destroyers , being too easy targets, got destroyed by the 88mm German guns. So, how much better the monitors would have performed, coming much closer to the Germans and being almost hidden in the water and much heavier armoured.

 

[BWV]

Why the US did not use the "Monitor" sort of warship to cover the landing?

Battleships and destroyers are more effective. Destroyers were able to come close enough to shore to attack targets with direct fire

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2004/june/gallant-destroyers-d-day

 

[Drakkith]

So, how much better the monitors would have performed, coming much closer to the Germans and being almost hidden in the water and much heavier armoured.

Don't confuse the USS Monitor's extremely low profile as being typical of all monitors. Most were much larger. Here's a picture of the HMS Marshal Ney, a monitor-type warship commisioned in 1915:

That being said, 'modern' monitor-type vessels typically had very large guns for their size (15-inch warship guns you'd normally see only on a battleship mounted on a ship with a displacement of a cruiser or less) and would likely have made excellent shore bombardment platforms. Indeed, several were built during WW2 for this exact purpose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts-class_monitor

The HMS Roberts supported the landings for Operation Torch (Allied landing in North Africa), the invasion of Sicily, landings near Salerno, invasion of Normandy, and landing at Westkapelle. Her sister ship, the HMS Abercrombie, supported the Allied landings near Salerno.

That being said, they were just as vulnerable to counter-battery fire as any other ship was. The largest monitors (like the Roberts class) are much more heavily armored, but much slower than a destroyer, while the smaller monitors are just as unarmored as any destroyer and not nearly as speedy.

Here's a picture of the USS Wyoming, the last U.S. monitor-type warship:

And the HMS Abercrombie:

As you can see, these are a far cry from the original USS Monitor, bearing a design that is much more in common with contemporary warships of the time than of the Monitor.

 

[AlexCaledin]

WOW
Thanks for information!
Another question, after reading D-day memoirs, was, Why no smoking flares were dropped on the beach, to blind the gunners? The water was lowest, there was enough place between the defence line and water.

 

[BWV]

It was windy that day. It would not have been flares, but smoke artillery rounds. But even without the wind, it would have had little effect - the Germans had pre-registered their artillery and machine guns on the landing areas -this was basic defense tactics during the war. The lack of visibility also cuts both ways

 

[BWV]

Worth some perspective - Utah beach had little resistance, Omaha Beach suffered, according to the Wiki entry 2000-5000 casualties, Gold was around 1000, Sword was a few hundred and Juno 1200. These were relatively light (<10%) compared to the total number of troops involved and well within what the planners expected. The overall Normandy Campaign cost 120,000 Allied casualties. Compare this to the first day of the Somme in WW1 where the British suffered 57,470 casualties (19,240 dead) out of about 120,000 troops.

 

[Drakkith]

Compare this to the first day of the Somme in WW1 where the British suffered 57,470 casualties (19,240 dead) out of about 120,000 troops.

WW2 may have been larger with more overall casualties, but the sheer meat grinder that was the first world war just blows my mind. It is almost unbelievable that any military or political leaders thought that these kinds of casualties were 'acceptable'. And yet they kept happening, day after day, for 4 years.

 

[BWV]

WW2 may have been larger with more overall casualties, but the sheer meat grinder that was the first world war just blows my mind. It is almost unbelievable that any military or political leaders thought that these kinds of casualties were 'acceptable'. And yet they kept happening, day after day, for 4 years.

and similar carnage in WW2 in the East, Normandy and the Western front were a comparative sideshow. If not for the sacrifices of the USSR, the Western allies would have had to suffer Ww1 level casualties to defeat Hitler

 

[DaveC426913]

The War was in Color - Carbon Leaf

I see you've found
a box of my things:
Infantries, tanks, and smoldering airplane wings
These old pictures are cool. Tell me some stories
Was it like the old war movies?
Sit down, son. Let me fill you in

Where to begin? Let's start with the end
This black and white photo
don't capture the skin
From the flash of a gun
to a soldier who's done
Trust me, grandson
The war was in color...

 

[DennisN]

Why the US did not use the "Monitor" sort of warship to cover the landing?

Battleships and destroyers are more effective. Destroyers were able to come close enough to shore to attack targets with direct fire

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2004/june/gallant-destroyers-d-day

I know you asked about warships, but I'd like to add that if I remember correctly the Allies also used a couple of small one man submarines to scout out the landing zones before the invasion. That is, if my WW2 memory serves me correctly . I'll see if I can find some info about it on the net...

Edit: Operation Gambit; two midget submarines of the Royal Navy scouted out the Sword and Juno landing sites.

Article: How The Royal Navy's X-Class Midget Subs Helped Make D-Day Possible

 

[epenguin]

Don't confuse the USS Monitor's extremely low profile as being typical of all monitors. Most were much larger. Here's a picture of the HMS Marshal Ney, a monitor-type warship commisioned in 1915:
View attachment 254183

Hey, funny name I thought, for a Royal Navy ship, first hearing it now. Then I found there was also an HMS Marshal Soult. But they were laid down early in WW1 - very Entente Cordiale spirit.



After the war she was renamed three times, first Vivid, then Drake so that was alright, and finally Alaunia II. I had never heard this last name before, but some Cunard passenger liners were also given it, and apparently was the name of a Celtic deity, and originally of a river and town in Northumbria, perhaps we digress.