amphibious or airborne ?

Polaris · 06-23-2001, 10:11 AM

if you had a choice between these two assaults on D-day which one would you choose ? either invading the beaches or jumping in behind the walled defences and preventing and blocking off german reinforcements before the waterborne invasion forces landed .

[This message has been edited by Polaris (edited June 23, 2001).]

Gen. Rommel · 06-23-2001, 10:34 AM

Both. Well, no. Because both were very dangerous...I'm going to have to say beach landings. A bit calmer. And remembere not all the beaches were like Omaha.

Recycled Spooge · 06-23-2001, 10:38 AM

Airborne because it's more fun to jump from a plane.

------------------

Jerry · 06-23-2001, 10:38 AM

I would have surfed in

. But seriously I would have chose to invade through a beach *Utah. Being a paratrooper was seriously much tougher than trying to storm up a beach. You first had to breakthrough enemy lines and then hold them down while you wait for the rest of the pack to come in. While you are waiting, reinforcement on the German side gets pretty heavy. So the paratroopers did more fighting than any other American Troops out in the Western Front. Sure the beach is very very death awaiting but its not as scary as landing between enemy lines *especially how I chose to invade Utah. But this is soley my opinion and I bet you have yours.

------------------
"Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!"
- General George S. Patton, Jr (addressing to his troops before Operation Overlord, June 5, 1944)

Polaris · 06-23-2001, 10:46 AM

didnt they not know what beaches were still heavily defended and which ones werent because of the bombings till they arrived and got close to the shores ?

Polaris · 06-24-2001, 01:11 AM

lol, once again sorry if it seemed like i wanted to convince you otherwise

Recycled Spooge · 06-24-2001, 02:35 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jerry:
Yes I know they didn't have damn clue about which Beach was safer but you asked me which one would I choose. You didn't ask me which one would I have chosen. Even if the case was put to that, I would still choose the beaches, because at that point in time they had no clue if any of the beaches were fortified as heavily has Omaha.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes they did! You lie! They flew tons of bombing raids into France so they saw what was going on on the beaches.

------------------

Jerry · 06-24-2001, 02:50 AM

First off, I didn't lie about jack shit. When they went on their bombing campaigns, it did not point on that there was a severe ammount of men and equipment at a certain area. They knew it was fortified but they never expected the ammount of casualty it added up to. And so we run back to the question, How would I have chosen to invade? I answered that I would invade through Utah storming the beach because it turned out to be much easier to get ahold of then Omaha. I notice there is a little trend going on in these forums. Someone will post a question with there own opinion or answer and then when someone seems to answer the question, the original poster wants to sway their answers torwards their own opinion. Don't ask a opinionated question and expect it to be somewhat of your likes. Respect people's opinions.

------------------
"Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!"
- General George S. Patton, Jr (addressing to his troops before Operation Overlord, June 5, 1944)

Recycled Spooge · 06-24-2001, 02:55 AM

I was just pointing out that the allies knew about the defences. Sorry to make you mad.

------------------

SoLiDUS · 06-24-2001, 02:58 AM

I'd love to know who was the genius responsible for actually giving the go for troops to land on a beach that they knew had :

1- Heavily fortified bunkers w/ machine guns
2- Machine gun nests doing the same as the bunkers.
3- Obstacles preventing their vehicles to land
4- Mines here and there
5- Periodical mortar strikes

It was a mistake from the start.. YOU DON'T SEND TROOPS IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY MEN YOU HAVE TO "SACRIFICE" IN THE NAME OF LIBERTY. lol

You simply airstrike the shit out of the beaches until suitable conditions arise..

I know it's all easier said than done, but in the end, alot less people would've died.

Of course, I could be wrong...

[This message has been edited by SoLiDUS (edited June 24, 2001).]

Recycled Spooge · 06-24-2001, 03:03 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SoLiDUS:
I'd love to know who was the genius responsible for actually giving the go for troops to land on a beach that they knew had :

1- Heavily fortified bunkers w/ machine guns
2- Machine gun nests doing the same as the bunkers.
3- Obstacles preventing their vehicles to land
4- Mines here and there
5- Periodical mortar strikes

It was a mistake from the start.. YOU DON'T SEND TROOPS IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY MEN YOU HAVE TO "SACRIFICE" IN THE NAME OF LIBERTY. lol

You simply airstrike the shit out of the beaches until suitable conditions arise..

I know it's all easier said than done, but in the end, alot less people would've died.

Of course, I could be wrong...

[This message has been edited by SoLiDUS (edited June 24, 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The beaches that were attacked, were indeed the least protected parts of the defences that had any type of strategic significance. They could have always invaded Norway, but that wouldn't help them take down Germany any faster.

------------------

SoLiDUS · 06-24-2001, 03:06 AM

I base my previous post on the fact that they did alot of air recon and knew something was going on in the beach area..

I think the beach assault was the biggest mistake ever made by anyone in power

I simply cannot understand the stupidity !

Why ? Why send someone in a place you know is heavily defended and prepared to crush you the moment you hit shore? It amazes me...

Someone please take me out of my misery here hehehehe

Explain to me (in a few short paragraphs) why the beach assault was a good thing (or a good idea for that matter) because I'm at a loss here..

Recycled Spooge · 06-24-2001, 03:07 AM

By the way, they bombed the beaches with tons of shells from destroyers and other ships that were going with the invasion, and bombing the defences with planes would just give out the location of the invasion. If I was bombing Normany for six months, where would you think I was going to invade?

------------------

SoLiDUS · 06-24-2001, 03:10 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Recycled Spooge:
By the way, they bombed the beaches with tons of shells from destroyers and other ships that were going with the invasion, and bombing the defences with planes would just give out the location of the invasion. If I was bombing Normany for six months, where would you think I was going to invade?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bah, think about it..
If you've successfully bombed the beach and storm it, I agree that they'll haste to your position to attack.. but at least you'll have all your men and artillery..

Also, sending men in that direction leaves other places very weak and unprotected.. unless they had an unlimited amount of men, it wouldn't be too good for them anyhow..

SoLiDUS · 06-24-2001, 03:12 AM

Returning to the main subject, I wouldnt've liked to be airborne.. they did have it very hard... scattered everywhere and without supplies :P