Lessons learned from Dieppe
- Thread starter Guerrilla Republik
- Start date
Never put an unqualified royal in charge of anything more complicated than a bake sale.
Never perform an amphibious assault on a fortified installation.
Make sure the tanks can move on the beach.
Make sure that artillery can be suppressed and machine guns with enfilading fire can be eliminated.(not learned by Omaha)
Establish proper C3 between landing forces, naval support, and tactical air.
Have tactical air, made possible by air supremacy.
Don't do anything just to please Stalin.
Et cetera.
Never perform an amphibious assault on a fortified installation.
Make sure the tanks can move on the beach.
Make sure that artillery can be suppressed and machine guns with enfilading fire can be eliminated.(not learned by Omaha)
Establish proper C3 between landing forces, naval support, and tactical air.
Have tactical air, made possible by air supremacy.
Don't do anything just to please Stalin.
Et cetera.
Fearless Leader
Donor
Perhaps most importantly: You can't capture a port without damaging it's facilities.
Or the more detailed: You can't capture a port quickly enough to prevent the defenders sabotaging the facilities to uselessness.
Cook
Banned
I assume we are talking purely about taking it directly from the sea as opposed to taking it from the landward side.
Well, evidently they failed to learn a lesson that was supposed to be learned in WWI. That lesson was to never let Canadians be led by the British since it would be in everyone's best interest to let the Canadians lead themselves.
Yet as this is an AH site - WI Dieppe was called off? Would D-Day still be the same i.e. the 'lessons' would have been known anyway, or would the Allies tried to take a Port? If so which one?
In the Torch landings the 'lessons' of Dieppe didn't seem to make a difference, Ports were still assaulted, so maybe the lessons came not from Dieppe but from Torch - if the French give us that much of a problem what would the Germans do.
Hence, is the 'lessons' of Dieppe, real or just a way of history trying to gloss over the fiasco?
So suppose the Canadians did a Commando style raid in France - say further south, but the main contribution in '42 was being added to the Torch landings e.g. further east.
More of a win-win AH!?
In the Torch landings the 'lessons' of Dieppe didn't seem to make a difference, Ports were still assaulted, so maybe the lessons came not from Dieppe but from Torch - if the French give us that much of a problem what would the Germans do.
Hence, is the 'lessons' of Dieppe, real or just a way of history trying to gloss over the fiasco?
So suppose the Canadians did a Commando style raid in France - say further south, but the main contribution in '42 was being added to the Torch landings e.g. further east.
More of a win-win AH!?
usertron2020
Donor
Don't let the fear of losing an obsolescent battleship (A Revenge class) color your strategic thinking
Don't imagine surprise can be attained at every level (tactical, operational, strategic)
Let 'em have it with everything in your inventory
BTW, Omaha and Utah were both screwups caused by incompetent US naval officers and US Army landing officers. They were never landed where they should have been. Eisenhower made one statement that even the most dedicated Eisenhower hater would find themselves in agreement. "(Rear-)Admiral Alan Kirk is the worst admiral I've ever met in my whole life!"
