It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

D Day, most overrated day in history?

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
There was a huge amount of planning and coordination in the D-Day invasion. It could have easily been a failure.

In the last few weeks we lost a family member who was a B-17 pilot. What a task that was. Many people in large and small roles brought the war to an end. I can't see down playing any of these loses.




posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Ok, so this is a question
Was D Day overrated
The Russians were tearing up the Nazis in the east and had been in conflict since 1941, pushing them back towards Germany in mid 43, Hitlers didn't help, didn't regroup his armies and they were left to die or surrender in the east

1944 was nearing the end of the war when DDay was launched, Germany had wasted so many of their best soldiers on the eastern front, those soldiers in the West could at least surrender and live. Russians were not known for taking prisoners
Many Germans chose to surrender than fight, they could see the war was over

I guess what bothers me is that if the Russian front wasn't so detrimental to Germany, d day would have never happened. The allies waited till Russia had a good deal of control before invading
Sure there were some casualties, but not as many as in other theatres.

Considering many think the Nazis were overhyped, obviously that would mean DDay was a picnic, and it was for many . If it didn't happen, Russia would have wiped out Germany on its own, probably?

and just to clarify, this is a question with assumptions, not a statement


Asks someone who wasn't there, risking their lives to defeat the Nazis.



posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Like many other posters have stated, if not for the Invasion of France, D-day, Operation Overlord, then the Russians would have been stopped prior to them reaching Berlin. If not for that Invasion the German army had to reason to keep 55 Infantry Divisions and 11 Tank Divisions in the west, some of which were considered some of the finest of the German Army commanded by some of the best Field Marshall's the Germans had.

D-Day was as pivotal to a German Defeat in the west as was the Battle of Stalingrad in the East, and all in all was important to a absolute German defeat, if not for the Invasion what was stopping Hitler and Stalin sueing for peace to end the bloodshed, Russian would have retaken all the land they lost during operation Barbarossa and would have stopped their advance far before reaching German borders.



posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes but 3daysgone does make a very good point as well, it was not unimportant to the guy's on the ground or those that were in Britain and Western Europe and without it more of Europe would have fallen under the iron curtain as the area of soviet control came to be called, it is just a terrible shame that those forces though ideologically opposed whom had fought Hitlers war machine ended the war at such opposition with one another that it nearly led to another war and ended up with both sides standing guard over the carcass of there old enemy having divided it between them.


Even if the Allies had invaded France earlier than '44 Russia still would have retained control over all of Eastern Europe. That was already decided between FDR and Stalin with Churchill resigned to sitting on the sidelines when it came to decision making. The Old order of England was over and the US/Soviet sphere of influence already had it's foundations laid.

Even in '44 D-Day was a close run thing. Had Von Rundstedt thrown in his armor and reserves early (not being allowed to by Hitler) it may well have been Dunkirk Ver. 2.0. Had Germany simply built more of the superb weapons already on hand such as the PzV Panther tank, FW 190 fighter and ME 262 jet fighter (and not used them as bombers) instead of pouring more resources in to the V1, V2, Rocket fighters, Tiger tanks etc, the outcome of the war might have been different.



posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
OP, if you think hitting a beach like the US did on D Day was a picnic, I suggest you get down to a military recruiter ASAP so you can experience combat first hand...armchair warrior that you appear to be...
edit on 9-7-2017 by Lab4Us because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

How many died keeping the Soviets in the fight? Virtually entire convoys wiped out by U-boat wolfpacks on the way to Murmansk and other northern Soviet ports.

All due respect? I'm actually seeing very little respect.



posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

The Studebaker truck. The Soviets used it for so many things, it's amazing. IMHO, it's right up there with the T34 and JS1 and 2 in importance to winning on the eastern front.



posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Actually, I had forgotten about the Studebaker truck until today when I was browsing this. Versatile without a doubt.



posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Specimen


D Day was considered a lucky opportune time due to a immense fog was covering that portion of France, which is why they decided to rush the beaches.


you just don't have a clue do you, the invasion was not just "a lucky opportune time", it was planned for a year before it took place and the fog / weather was not a help it was a hindrance. the success of the invasion depended on the phase of the moon and the tides and waiting would have pushed back opening a second front even further.

Stalin started pushing for the allies to open a second front in 41 after the germans invaded the USSR. in May of 42 Roosevelt and stalin announced that there was a urgent need to open a second front. it was churchill who convinced Roosevelt to wait saying that the allies didn't have enough manpower, equipment, to mount a invasion even with the U.S. help.

so instead of opening up a second front it was decided to continue in the mediterranean / north africa, then on to sicily in july of 1943, and then italy. by that time the ussr had stopped the germen advances and had won a victory at Stalingrad.

it was decided in may of that year before all of this happened that a second front would be open with in a year at the Trident Conference in Washington. then at the Tehran Conference in November 1943, both Roosevelt and churchill promised stalin that a second front would be open with in a year.

during the planning of the invasion there were many fake operation to throw off the germans due to spies and the suprise u boat attack that killed close to 800 U.S. service men during training exercises in britain.

here is a wiki cause it's fast, and you can use to it educate yourself with.


The invasion planners determined a set of conditions involving the phase of the moon, the tides, and the time of day that would be satisfactory on only a few days in each month. A full moon was desirable, as it would provide illumination for aircraft pilots and have the highest tides. The Allies wanted to schedule the landings for shortly before dawn, midway between low and high tide, with the tide coming in. This would improve the visibility of obstacles on the beach, while minimising the amount of time the men would be exposed in the open.[42] Eisenhower had tentatively selected 5 June as the date for the assault. However, on 4 June, conditions were unsuitable for a landing: high winds and heavy seas made it impossible to launch landing craft, and low clouds would prevent aircraft from finding their targets.
Normandy landings


if you don't like the wiki there are thousands and thousands of articles and papers that will tell you the same thing.

and as i said it was critical that a second front be opened to divide german resources, with out that second front the USSR would have been toast.



posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: fredrodgers1960

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Ok, so this is a question
Was D Day overrated
The Russians were tearing up the Nazis in the east and had been in conflict since 1941, pushing them back towards Germany in mid 43, Hitlers didn't help, didn't regroup his armies and they were left to die or surrender in the east

1944 was nearing the end of the war when DDay was launched, Germany had wasted so many of their best soldiers on the eastern front, those soldiers in the West could at least surrender and live. Russians were not known for taking prisoners
Many Germans chose to surrender than fight, they could see the war was over

I guess what bothers me is that if the Russian front wasn't so detrimental to Germany, d day would have never happened. The allies waited till Russia had a good deal of control before invading
Sure there were some casualties, but not as many as in other theatres.

Considering many think the Nazis were overhyped, obviously that would mean DDay was a picnic, and it was for many . If it didn't happen, Russia would have wiped out Germany on its own, probably?

and just to clarify, this is a question with assumptions, not a statement


Asks someone who wasn't there, risking their lives to defeat the Nazis.


No
I would prefer to ask the Russian soldiers who defeated the Nazis in Russia and chased them to Belarus in June 44
Because they broke the Nazis back
No one is denying that Normandy was a violent nasty battle that helped end the war sooner, just if it was pivotal in ending the war.

I should ask the Japanese who were not there, any other of the many countries who were not there
In fact, I would love to ask Normandy veterans what they thought of Stalingrad, Kursk, any of the Eastern Front
Ask Nazis why they wanted to fight on the western front instead of the Russian front

I am inclined to think the nasty Nazis were already beaten before Normandy, can you suggest otherwise


edit on 9-7-2017 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I would agree with everything said, other than the Ruskies being toast
They had the capacity to destroy Germany with only the threat of a second front from the West.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us
OP, if you think hitting a beach like the US did on D Day


US AND UK!


For # sake D-day was not a US operation or even a US lead operation.

UK had equal imput and had equal number or men and equipment deployed.


Even canada took one beach.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 05:31 AM
link   
Yes, yes, we are all the best now, aren't we.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
Yes, yes, we are all the best now, aren't we.


If your American I would not get into the Argument of who was the best on D day seeing as the USA was the only country that day that screwed up a beach landing.
If it was not for the fact every other beach landing that day went completely to plan then Omaha beach would probably have ended up a withdrawal.

4700 Americans got killed or wounded because the bombers screwed there targets up and General Omar Bradly screwed the landing up.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok



your ego defense mechanism is so cute.


Having to watch those Astronauts land on the moon must've really chaffed yo ass.

edit on 10-7-2017 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: crazyewok



your ego defense mechanism is so cute.


Having to watch those Astronauts land on the moon must've really chaffed yo ass.


You don't have any facts or even knowledge of history so now you resort to attacking the poster on subject to resulted to the OP.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Hahaha, ohhh get those fish and chips off your shoulder, mate.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: crazyewok



your ego defense mechanism is so cute.


Having to watch those Astronauts land on the moon must've really chaffed yo ass.


You don't have any facts or even knowledge of history so now you resort to attacking the poster on subject to resulted to the OP.



The Nazis were overrated anyway, Normandy proved nothing. Dunkirk, that the Pohms were nearly quite useless



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Dunkirk?

How was 200,000 Brits meant to stand there ground against 2 million Germans once the French collapsed?

The British Expeditionary force in 1940 was not meant to fight the war single handed but add support to the French while the rest of the British army mobilised.

Last stands and fighting to the death might be noble and such but would have accomplished nothing in France in 1940.


edit on 10-7-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Lab4Us
OP, if you think hitting a beach like the US did on D Day


US AND UK!


For # sake D-day was not a US operation or even a US lead operation.

UK had equal imput and had equal number or men and equipment deployed.


Even canada took one beach.


Point taken, though I see nowhere in my post where I stated or implied the operations were US led or US only? Unlike many here on ATS, I don’t jump to conclusions on countries I don’t live in or whose rules I don’t live with...



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join