Any WWII or History Fans out there?

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally Posted by jbig31

Just curious if there are any other history buffs out there? I love reading/watching anything related to WWII. The Allied Invasion of Normandy really interests me-what/who was involved, vehicles and weapons used, military strategies put into place....etc. Bascially anything that has to do with history intrests me.

Thoughts anyone?

Normandy is WAY overrated. Half the "history" of the landing is exaggerated and/or misrepresentations.

If you military amphibious landings interest you, expand your search a little..Crazy stuff out there.

[jbig31]

Originally Posted by Teufel Hunden

Normandy is WAY overrated. Half the "history" of the landing is exaggerated and/or misrepresentations. If you military amphibious landings interest you, expand your search a little..Crazy stuff out there.

How is the invasion of Normandy overrated? The largest amphibious landing ever.....how is that exaggerated or misrepresented? Just curious.

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

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally Posted by jbig31

How is the invasion of Normandy overrated? The largest amphibious landing ever.....how is that exaggerated or misrepresented? Just curious.

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

Number of casualties if often reported as dead, and/or an ungodly number, or the largest ever. It is often reported and told as the most complicated and most heavily resisted landing ever. It is also reported as the most unlikely to be successful landing ever. Etc.

It was none of the above. It was a very underwhelming landing given the pre-landing hype (hype is a poor word, but given the effort, expected resistance and planning, it was easier than expected, and later reported, as compared to other landings).

As a large number of people involved, it was very much what it claims to be. As for everything else, it is exaggerated to say the least.

It is not to undermine the battle, it is just that the misinformation surrounding the event undermines other events...


For example,
Normandy: 5% casualty rate, 1% KIA (10,264)
Tarawa: 8.5% casualty rate, 5% KIA
Iwo Jima: 23.6% Casualty rate, 6.2% KIA
Guadalcanal: 11.8% Casualty rate, 2.6% KIA
Makin: 15.4% casualty rate, 11.7% KIA
Saipan: 18.7% casualty rate, 4.1% KIA
Peleliu: 34.4% casualty rate, 6.3% KIA
Okinawa: 15% Casualty rate, 2.3% KIA (12,513)
Inchon: 2.5% Casualty rate, .5% KIA

Like I said, there are a lot of cray landings out there.

[DC_Street]

Originally Posted by Teufel Hunden

Normandy is WAY overrated. Half the "history" of the landing is exaggerated and/or misrepresentations.

If you military amphibious landings interest you, expand your search a little..Crazy stuff out there.

according to members in my family that actually were there, they said Saving Private Ryan was exactly what it felt like to be there and reminded them of how gruesome it really was.

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally Posted by DC_Street

according to members in my family that actually were there, they said Saving Private Ryan was exactly what it felt like to be there and reminded them of how gruesome it really was.

I bet it was.

I have talked to people of several landings, from Tarawa, to Iwo, to Normandy, to Inchon and I would not claim that any of them were easy or laid back. I am sure the guys who were at all of them who were wounded or died are just as wounded or dead.

Normandy was no cake walk, that is not at all what I am claiming.

[Teufel Hunden]

Anyway, the half of Normandy that is not exaggerated or misrepresented is amazing. I am not denying that.

The whole operation was nuts in scope. That is for sure. And I am not in the dark of the consequences of it failing.