Tweet
Originally posted by PLATO
View Post
Thanks for this. I had never read much on this subject. Indeed this was a demonstrated error:
"But during the American landings – code-named Utah and Omaha beaches – the DDs fared far worse. Willey says the US commanders stayed rigidly to the original plan, launching their tanks from at least two miles away. At Omaha, most of the DD tanks launched sank in the choppy waters."
Was this Bradley's decision alone? It appears that it was a consensus U.S. command blunder from that quote
"Although Patton might have spun a line across the narrow neck, I doubted his ability to hold it. Nineteen German divisions were now stampeding to escape the trap. Meanwhile, with four divisions George was already blocking three principal escape routes through Alencon, Sees and Argentan. Had he stretched that line to include Falaise, he would have extended his roadblock a distance of 40 miles (64 km). The enemy could not only have broken through, but he might have trampled Patton's position in the onrush. I much preferred a solid shoulder at Argentan to the possibility of a broken neck at Falaise."
— Omar Bradley
"Since troops were scheduled to land at Utah and Omaha starting at 06:30 (an hour earlier than the British beaches), these areas received only about 40 minutes of naval bombardment before the assault troops began to land on the shore"
This doesn't appear to have been a tactical decision that Bradley made on the spot but more of a strategic decision made before the landings. Minesweepers had just finished clearing the area and that appears by plan as well. If this is a strategic decision then not sure how we can assign blame to Bradley. He may have participated in the strategic decision, but it would not have been him alone (and we don't know what his input would have been at that decision making point either).
I also have a bit of an axe to grand with the stupid resistance to using the funnies purely because he thought the intervening months would be inadequate to train crews to use Cromwells. Such a lame excuse suggests probably harbored ludditism and technoscepticism which I detest in any general or leader. He loses extra points in my book for that.
)
Comment