 | Operation Dragoon - major error?| WW2 General Discuss Operation Dragoon - major error? in the World War II - General forums; The August '44 landings in Southern France achieved very little and certainly limited the Normandy landings' chances of success (ie ... |
|
05-15-2007, 08:58 PM
|
#1 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 173
Country: | Operation Dragoon - major error? The August '44 landings in Southern France achieved very little and certainly limited the Normandy landings' chances of success (ie 5 landings not 6 - meaning the vital stop line of the Orne River was held by only airborne forces, rather than armoured forces which would have landed in the 6th {most easterly} area and been astride the Orne and the Dives).
German reinforcements would have been delayed / stopped, Caen and the airfields secured much earlier etc etc - at least accord ing to the original plan! Plus the Ouisterham port would have been secured on D+1 / soon afterwards
The main impact on Overlord was on reduced availability of landing craft and the forces diverted
The forces that actually opposed the Dragoon landings were poor / easily overcome
The idea that German forces heading North would about turn to meeet the threat was frankly ludicrous!
It was a major source of disagreement amongst the UK & US allies.
My question - was it a stategic error? An exercise in Realpolitik , involve the French (notably exluded from Overlord) to ensure that post-war Europe conatined another European dissenting voice (ie limit UK influence)? or a correct, bold move that ultimately wasted reources as the enemy had unexpectedly scarpered / were poor quality. Operation Dragoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (accepting the limitations of Wiki) - gives a basic background
Your views? |
| |
05-15-2007, 09:01 PM
|
#2 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: South Jersey, United States
Posts: 6,252
Country: | I didn't know we had won the war at that time and were fighting for political gains.
__________________ 
"If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's English, thank a soldier!" |
| |
05-16-2007, 04:22 AM
|
#3 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 194
Country: | One of the main reasons for Dragoon (apart from the political) was the need for ports. The Allied Command was fully aware that there was going to be major problems gaining control of the ports in northern France, and needed a contingency plan.
However, the above interpretation makes two mistakes:
1) the diversion of resources. The reason that Dragoon was delayed until August (as opposed to the original plan that it should occur simultanously with DDay) was because major resources (troops, landing craft, aircraft and tanks) were all diverted to the northern landings, and NOT the other way around.
2) Even though the initial landings were relatively easy, the fighting became more intensive as the troops moved in. So, it did have an effect on the way that the Germans reacted because they were then placed in the position of having two fronts in France, and by ignoring the southern route, they may have opened up easier route for the Allies to move up to the German border.
There was also the fear that the Allies may be able to swing around and endanger Northern Italy, bypassing the defence lines in Italy that continued to cause such a problem, right through 1945. |
| |
05-16-2007, 04:29 AM
|
#4 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,479
Country: | My thought: It's too bad nobody remembers the soldiers that landed at Dragoon. The whole landing is forgotten.
__________________ 
"His motor's conked out!"
"What's the differance, they're all Nazis!"
"Luke, shut up!"
"Fear the hook!"
"Oh.....I wanna fly."
"You mean the kind that go under water and fly up the stairs?"
"What you doing? Oh Nooooo!" |
| |
05-16-2007, 07:50 AM
|
#5 | | Der Crewchief
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany
Posts: 29,455
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Njaco I didn't know we had won the war at that time and were fighting for political gains. | The war was not decided by Aug 1944.
__________________ US Army Blackhawk Crewchief 2000-2006 Classic ww2aircraft.net quotes: fly boy said: "isn't that the first jet bomber? becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles" "wait what ok who made the b-2 crash come on people that messed up its a b-2" "ah yes the mistel those things are so annoying is games and in real life" |
| |
05-16-2007, 08:18 AM
|
#6 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Phila, Pa
Posts: 2,368
Country: | Yeah, agree with Adler and Njaco on this one. It wasn't an error. Was not a major part of the war in Europe but it gave the Germans one more headache to worry about. They had less than the Allies did. The Allies were taking advantage of their mobility and equipment advantages.
In this situation, it's kind of like an investment. If it doesn't lose you money, then it is worth it. Might not make you a mint, but you make a few bucks and that is it. The big money was in Northern France. That was the big battle that had to be won.
Smaller invasion, important but not earth shattering if it was lost. But it was won. And a win is a win. |
| |
05-16-2007, 09:07 AM
|
#7 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: South Jersey, United States
Posts: 6,252
Country: | I was being sarcastic.
a good site about Dragoon is this: Home Page
__________________ 
"If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's English, thank a soldier!"
Last edited by Njaco : 05-16-2007 at 09:11 AM.
Reason: spilled my omlet on the keys!
|
| |
05-16-2007, 01:50 PM
|
#8 | | Banned
Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Land of hope and Glory
Posts: 297
Country: | So if you count this landing the Germans where fighting on 4 fronts-and Hitler hated the idiea of having more than one. If you can support multiple fronts and your enemy can't, then that is a really good thing, in my humble opinion. |
| |
05-16-2007, 04:53 PM
|
#9 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Phila, Pa
Posts: 2,368
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe2 So if you count this landing the Germans where fighting on 4 fronts-and Hitler hated the idiea of having more than one. If you can support multiple fronts and your enemy can't, then that is a really good thing, in my humble opinion. | Yeah, that's pretty much it. |
| |
05-16-2007, 05:55 PM
|
#10 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 173
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by amrit One of the main reasons for Dragoon (apart from the political) was the need for ports. The Allied Command was fully aware that there was going to be major problems gaining control of the ports in northern France, and needed a contingency plan.
However, the above interpretation makes two mistakes:
1) the diversion of resources. The reason that Dragoon was delayed until August (as opposed to the original plan that it should occur simultanously with DDay) was because major resources (troops, landing craft, aircraft and tanks) were all diverted to the northern landings, and NOT the other way around.
2) Even though the initial landings were relatively easy, the fighting became more intensive as the troops moved in. So, it did have an effect on the way that the Germans reacted because they were then placed in the position of having two fronts in France, and by ignoring the southern route, they may have opened up easier route for the Allies to move up to the German border.
There was also the fear that the Allies may be able to swing around and endanger Northern Italy, bypassing the defence lines in Italy that continued to cause such a problem, right through 1945. | Not so on the landing craft I'm afraid - the COSSAC plan initially was for a 6 beach landing but cut back to 5 as the landing craft were diverted for Dragoon. Naval assets (ships) were moved down but the landing craft couldn't be moved in time so were allocated to Dragoon at the expense of Overlord. This is an undisputed fact and was the source of major differences between the allied commanders.
Ports - initially cross-channel ports were the priority - after that atlantic ports were needed ie Brest which offered the shortest route from the US.
If you were looking for a major landing port for logistic support you'd hardly select an option that involved getting into the med and then having supplies at the wrong end of France |
| |
05-16-2007, 06:03 PM
|
#11 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 173
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Njaco I didn't know we had won the war at that time and were fighting for political gains. | I never said 'the war was won' at that time - just questioning the effort the US went to fund and equip an French force and land it on French soil - it seems (to me) a mainly political move with an eye on the post-war situation.
Seems an extraordinary effort to support a nation who actively collaborated and fought with and for the Nazis. |
| |
05-16-2007, 08:07 PM
|
#12 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: South Jersey, United States
Posts: 6,252
Country: | as Joe2 said; Quote: |
If you can support multiple fronts and your enemy can't, then that is a really good thing, in my humble opinion.
| nuff said.
__________________ 
"If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's English, thank a soldier!" |
| |
05-16-2007, 08:22 PM
|
#13 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 194
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by rogthedodge Not so on the landing craft I'm afraid - the COSSAC plan initially was for a 6 beach landing but cut back to 5 as the landing craft were diverted for Dragoon. Naval assets (ships) were moved down but the landing craft couldn't be moved in time so were allocated to Dragoon at the expense of Overlord. This is an undisputed fact and was the source of major differences between the allied commanders.
Ports - initially cross-channel ports were the priority - after that atlantic ports were needed ie Brest which offered the shortest route from the US.
If you were looking for a major landing port for logistic support you'd hardly select an option that involved getting into the med and then having supplies at the wrong end of France | Not true. Operation Anvil, as it was originally called was buried as an idea as early as March 1944, and finally in April (TWO months before DDay). See: http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/d...lPapersNo2.pdf
So the idea that resources were diverted is not true.
At the time of DDay, there were no plans to resurrect Anvil/Dragoon, and the idea was only brought up again AFTER Rome had been liberated, freeing up US troops and shipping in the Med AND whilst the Allies were bogged down in Normandy.
Thus, planning for started again on 24th June, and final approval did not occur until four days before the invasion itself!
See: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures...ce/sfrance.htm
And from: Operation Anvil/Dragoon Quote:
At Hitler's personal order, vital coastal enclaves were to be defended to the last man. However, at that critical juncture in the Southern France Campaign (Anvil), the German High Command began to reevaluate its entire position in the west. By August 16, with many of their divisions in danger of annihilation, the German leaders elected to order a general withdrawal from France. Blaskowitz was to leave strong garrisons at Toulon, Marseille, and several key Atlantic ports.
Stretching their supply lines thin, all Anvil commanders nevertheless agreed that keeping the initiative was paramount. Allied forces struggled northward on the heels of the retreating Germans to meet Eisenhower’s forces — the hammer striking the anvil — to finally drive the Germans out of France.
| |
| |
05-18-2007, 11:37 AM
|
#14 | | Banned
Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Land of hope and Glory
Posts: 297
Country: | the whole point of that landing was to tie down German troops, which could of attacked the Normandy landings.
that is the reason |
| |
05-18-2007, 01:05 PM
|
#15 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Edmonton,Alberta
Posts: 2,260
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe2 the whole point of that landing was to tie down German troops, which could of attacked the Normandy landings.
that is the reason | Or maybe protect Norway from russia
__________________ Hello me...meet the real me.
And my misfits way of life.
A dark black past is my
Most valued possession.
Hindsight is always 20-20,
But looking back its still a bit fuzzy.
Speak of mutually assured destruction?
Nice story...tell it to readers digest!!! |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:55 AM. |  | |