Which Invasion was Bloodier...

[peleliuexplorer]

Dieppe or Omaha Beach? Omaha greatly overshadows Dieppe but, from what I've read, casualties seemed to be the same on both beaches. I think Dieppe was a suicide mission, while Omaha opened the gate to the conquest of Europe....

-Eric

[Woolgar]

I would say Dieppe as of the 6000 Allies landed there were 3000 casualties whereas at Omaha 43000 Allies landed with 3000 csualties also

Nick

[Jean-Loup]

Omaha overshadows Dieppe because it was a success, Dieppe was not.

JL

[bjack]

But not any less important to us Canadians. Many lives were lost, but much information was gathered that no doubt saved lives on june 6th.

Omaha overshadows Dieppe because it was a success, Dieppe was not.

JL

[Jean-Loup]

Yes, I am actualy canadian myself, but the fact remains that the mission at Dieppe is considered by most, including the veterans who lived it, as a faillure. A faillure that taught some good lessons.
Even if the opertion had been a huge success, it would remain a simple raid, nothing to do with the symbolic value of Omaha.

JL

[Simon O.]

while Omaha opened the gate to the conquest of Europe....

No it didn't. Of the 5 beaches Omaha stands out as a failure in comparison to Gold, Sword, Juno and Utah.

[bjack]

Such an initial failure that they considered abandoning it all together. Jean loup what city you from?

No it didn't. Of the 5 beaches Omaha stands out as a failure in comparison to Gold, Sword, Juno and Utah.

[peleliuexplorer]

Omaha overshadows Dieppe because it was a success, Dieppe was not.

JL

Yes, good point.

-Eric

[peleliuexplorer]

I compare Dieppe with the US invasion of Tarawa. Although the USMC wrestled the island from the Japanese, the casualties were 1,000 killed and 2,000 wounded on one square mile of an atoll! It was a hard learning lesson for the US and testing ground for amphibious assaults.

-Eric

[Theodor]

Omaha overshadows Dieppe because it was a success, Dieppe was not.

JL

Depends on which end of the MG42 one stood

These are tricky questions, depends on too many things. Number of casualties, goals achieved, importance for the whole war scenario. Maybe the number in totals is not significant at all, more demonstrative is the number of casualties per 1000. And of course here come the goals, many victims in a successful operations may be in fact better than a little fewer in a failure.

[Woolgar]

But not any less important to us Canadians. Many lives were lost, but much information was gathered that no doubt saved lives on june 6th.

This is how Mountbatten justified the raid:



“I have no doubt that the Battle of Normandy was won on the beaches of Dieppe. For every man who died in Dieppe at least ten more must have been spared in Normandy in 1944."[

[Mike C]

As a Canadian I have to say that the bland excuse of "lessons learned" is utter BS and frankly a bit of a whitewash. I mean - look at the terrain! Who in their right mind would consider landing here. What was the lesson learned: Don't land on a beach that will not support tanks and which is surrounded by cliffs with machine-guns on them?

To illustrate - the Royal Regiment of Canada lost 89% of its personnel; the Essex and Kent Scottish lost 90%. A total of 60 Germans were in the sector where the Royal Regiment landed - and never felt any requirement to call for reinforcements.

About 1 in 5 of the 5000 Canadians on the raid were killed in action Every one of the nine Commanding Officers was killed, wounded or captured; the same is true of the two Brigade commanders (one badly wounded; one captured).

Simply put - it was a stupid plan that flew in the face of basic military principles. Period. And heads should have rolled....

Mike

[bjack]

I totally agree with you, it was a hair-brain idea to start with, not to mention sticking with a plan that was well known to everyone for weeks to come without changing a thing, and the initial warning to german patrol boats.. they never stood a chance. I often have thought that "dieppe saved men on dday" excuse was BS too, but it holds water and i do think that lesson were learned beyond taking a defended port town flanked by cliffs. Tarawa is a good example, same with anzio. lessons learned at the cost of young lives. still happens today.

As a Canadian I have to say that the bland excuse of "lessons learned" is utter BS and frankly a bit of a whitewash. I mean - look at the terrain! Who in their right mind would consider landing here. What was the lesson learned: Don't land on a beach that will not support tanks and which is surrounded by cliffs with machine-guns on them?

To illustrate - the Royal Regiment of Canada lost 89% of its personnel; the Essex and Kent Scottish lost 90%. A total of 60 Germans were in the sector where the Royal Regiment landed - and never felt any requirement to call for reinforcements.

About 1 in 5 of the 5000 Canadians on the raid were killed in action Every one of the nine Commanding Officers was killed, wounded or captured; the same is true of the two Brigade commanders (one badly wounded; one captured).

Simply put - it was a stupid plan that flew in the face of basic military principles. Period. And heads should have rolled....

Mike

[Gesundheit]

This is how Mountbatten justified the raid:



“I have no doubt that the Battle of Normandy was won on the beaches of Dieppe. For every man who died in Dieppe at least ten more must have been spared in Normandy in 1944."[

A considered opinion, to be sure ,,, But did he go on to elaborate the reasoning behind such a remark ?
Without it, I'm afraid that this statement rings rather hollow.

[VtwinVince]

Mountbatten was an at times reckless commander, as evidenced by his destroyer command early in the war, and later at Dieppe. The fact that he wasn't held accountable was due to his links to the royal family.