65th of Operation Jubilée (1 Viewer)

[debrito]

On August 19 it will be the 65th anniversary of the Dieppe Raid or operation Jubilee. It was a disaster more than 3 000 men, mostly Canadians perished. Also and more than 500 Royal navy ships were sunk.

The catastrophe at Dieppe may have later influenced Allied preparations for the invasion on Sicily and Normandy.

Last winter I had the chance to chat with Mr Jeff Noakes the Canadian War museum Curator and he told me that the Museum has no exhibition or celebration for this event.

It was a kind of preparation; let’s send this Canadians to experimental and see how it would be if a precocity invasion take place in north France at this time.

It was a disgrace decision.

CHEERS

 

[Rob]

Did they really lose 500 ships???.Wow thats incredible.I'm not sure the Canadians were deliberately sacraficed as some imagine happened in WW1.I'm sure there was an element of confidence in the Canadians skill and bravery to do the Job.It was of course a disaster but the Canadians and Brits did their best in a very bad situation.It was also a Baptism of fire for the Churchill tank,although at least lessons were learnt and it performed better on D-Day and beyond.

Rob

 

[debrito]

I still think that this operation was only a try to see how a major land has to be improving. The hard lessons learned at Dieppe in 1942 were put to good use later in the war. Due to experience at Dieppe the British developed a whole range of specialist armoured vehicles these vehicles were used to great effect in the British landing in Normandy in 1944.

It was a baptism but with a lot of inutile losses.

CHEERS

Visit

 

[Rob]

Yes you are absolutely right it was of course a practice for D-day,with some very hard lessons learnt.All i am saying is that i don't think anyone knew it would be a disaster and willfully threw away the lives of the brave men lost on that day.And the lives that were lost went towards making D-Day a bigger success than it may have been.

Rob

 

[aujj65]

Did they really lose 500 ships???.Wow thats incredible.I'm not sure the Canadians were deliberately sacraficed as some imagine happened in WW1.I'm sure there was an element of confidence in the Canadians skill and bravery to do the Job.It was of course a disaster but the Canadians and Brits did their best in a very bad situation.It was also a Baptism of fire for the Churchill tank,although at least lessons were learnt and it performed better on D-Day and beyond.

Rob

I think it should read the Royal Navy suffered 500 casualties, not ships sunk.

From the source I have been looking at, only 11 of the 60 tanks that were sent made it back.

Jeff

 

[Rob]

I think it should read the Royal Navy suffered 500 casualties, not ships sunk.

From the source I have been looking at, only 11 of the 60 tanks that were sent made it back.

Jeff

Didn't want to say but i thought that couldn't be!

 

[debrito]

I think it should read the Royal Navy suffered 500 casualties, not ships sunk.

From the source I have been looking at, only 11 of the 60 tanks that were sent made it back.

Jeff

You right, Royal Navy suffered 500 causalities, sorry.

Cheers

 

[Rob]

I think it should read the Royal Navy suffered 500 casualties, not ships sunk.

From the source I have been looking at, only 11 of the 60 tanks that were sent made it back.

Jeff

Hey Jeff,

Were they all Churchills or were there Shermans involved has well?.

Rob

 

[Harrytheheid]

Hey Jeff,

Were they all Churchills or were there Shermans involved has well?.

Rob

Rob,
I've never read of Shermans being involved in the Dieppe Raid. I think it was only Churchill Mk1's....always willing to be wrong though.
The Raid itself is yet another of those great imponderables. Were many more lives saved later on during D-Day due to the lessons learned. Who knows - but I'd like to think so.

 

[Rob]

Yes H you have to hope at least SOMETHING came out of that disaster.Now i think about it i've only ever seen pics of Churchills at Dieppe and no other tanks.

Rob

 

[debrito]

(YESTERDAY-August 19, 1942)

It happened 65 years ago, somewhere in north-west France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_raid

Cheers

 

[jazzeum]

In addition the wikipedia article, here's an article from the BBC.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

One lesson I would add to the above two articles is that it taught the allies not to attack a prepared port in Operation Overlord, but rather a less defended beach and then bring their own port facilities along with them.

I managed to "win" Dieppe in my old West Front computer game by attacking like the horns of a bull the two flanking cliffs and ignoring a frontal attack on the port completely, then sweeping in from behind to encircle the town.

Regardless I agree it shouldn't have ever happened. I can't imagine what they hoped to achieve? I think the concept of raiding was a hang-over from WW1... raids without sufficient force been going wrong all the way up to modern day Mogadishu. Hats off to the guys who died in all of them.

 

[hhenry]

Unfortunately, I missed this earlier discussion. I did my PhD on the Dieppe Raid and produced a book on the tanks participation, so I have some thoughts.

TANKS

The full regiment of 58 tanks was sent; only 29 disembarked, 2 "drowned" on exiting prematurely, 27 made shore, at least 15 crossed the sea-wall, 3 were immobilized on the promenade, the other 12 returned to the beach to cover the withdrawal and were immobilized (some intentionally), which is why everybody thinks the tanks never got off the beach.

Churchill Mk I, II, IIIs were used, as well as Daimler "Dingo" Scout Cars, Jeeps, bulldozers, and carriers - no Shermans or other vehicles.

LESSONS

Unfortunately, the supposed lessons learned were known before hand. Obviously some tactical lessons are learned in every operation but the ones claimed by Lord Mountbatten were already known before hand or at least should have been.

The idea of attacking a port frontally and the need for one in an invasion continued AFTER Dieppe - I have seen proposed raiding plans. It wasn't until after the North African, Sicilian, Italian landings that the idea of supply over open beaches began to take hold. Montgomery was instrumental here. I have seen pre-planning documents for the Normandy landings, Dieppe is not mentioned.

The Canadians were not cannon fodder - if the Canadian commanders had not pushed for Canadian participation, the raid likely would not have happened. Crerar, McNaughton, Mountbatten, Leigh-Mallory all deserve some blame. The two Canadians had been on the Western Front in the Great War, were trained artillery officers, so should have known better. Attacking Dieppe frontally was like an attack across no-mans land.

To cover his you know what, Mountbatten's PR machine immediately kicked in after the raid and started the lessons learned myths that carried into newspapersicked in, magazines, books, documentaries, and websites (BBC - I sent them a note about this but it was ignored of course).

I can give anyone some references if they want to read more on the lessons learned being deconstructed.