Just curious as to what Commando units were in use at Dieppe. I know 2nd Commando was there but not sure what part they did. Also who performed the raid on the radar station.
I know that No.3, No.4 and No.40 Commando were the main Commando units. No.40 were a Royal Marine unit.
White / Red – the assault on the Dieppe beachfront itself, would be conducted by the 4th Infantry Brigade with the battalions from Essex Scottish (landing to the left on Red) and Royal Hamilton Light Infantry (landing to the right on White), as well as the 14th Canadian Tank Battalion (Calgary Regiment) and the Royal Marine A Commando. The main assault force would come ashore, overcome the beach defences and then attack and hold the town.
Blue – the beach immediately to the east of Dieppe near Puys would see the third battalion from 4th Infantry Brigade, the Royal Regiment of Canada land and then attack over the headland, linking up with the Essex Scottish in Dieppe, while a small party would neutralise a field battery just behind the town, codenamed ‘Rommel’.
Yellow I / II – to the east of Blue, No. 3 Commando would land on the two small beaches between Berneval and Belleville-sur-Mer and attack the Goebbels Battery with its three 170mm and four 105mm guns.
Green – immediately to the west of Dieppe near Pourville-sur-Mer, this beach would see the battalions from the 6th Infantry Brigade, the South Saskatchewan’s (lead) and the Cameron Highlanders of Canada (follow-up) come ashore. The brigade’s remaining battalion, from the Fusiliers Mont Royal would act as a floating reserve. The South Saskatchewan’s would assault the radar station, the strongpoint at Quatre Vents Farm and the western headland overlooking Dieppe. It would then link up with the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, with a small party seizing the high ground west of Pourville. The Cameron Highlanders would advance southwards towards the airfield at St Aubin, linking up with the second wave of tanks to land on Dieppe beach. Together, they would seize the airfield, attack the divisional HQ thought to be in the region of Arques-la-Bataille and neutralise the nearby artillery battery, codenamed ‘Hitler’.
Orange I and II – to the west of Green, No. 4 Commando would land on the two small beaches between Vasterival and Quiberville and attack the Hess Battery with its six 150mm guns.
From this site…
http://www.rickard.karoo.net/articles/battles_dieppe1.html#alliedplan
For an account of No 4 Commando’s roll in the Dieppe action, well worth getting hold of Will Fowler’s book, The Commandos At Dieppe.
HarperCollins isbn 0 00 711125 8 www.Collins.co.uk
Andy
Fifty US Army Rangers were also involved in the raid, as well as 15 Frenchmen (intelligence agents?)
http://www.junobeach.org/e/2/can-eve-mob-die-e.htm
Interesting site…
This image seems to sum it all up:
Corpses on the beach next to two Churchill tanks of the 14th Armoured Regiment (Calgary) stuck in pebbles. Behind them, thick smoke coming from LCT 5.
Department of National Defence / National Archives of Canada C-014160.
Chruchhill tank + gravel beach = bad
Do anybody knows wich was the exact subvariant of the Churchill that landed in dieppe and how was it armed…??
Hi,
Some details, I’ve got, in response to question, - as follows;
Churchill tank MK’s landed at Dieppe, as follows,…
Mk I’s with 2 pounder and co-ax BESA machine gun in turret, and a 3 inch howitzer in the nose, (front plate)
MK III’s with a 6 pounder and co-ax BESA machine gun in turret and nose.
3x Churchill Okes,.(basically a MKI with howitzer removed and replaced by Ronson flame throwing device)
Some ot these wre fitted with Bobbin Carpet carriers
Tanks were to land in waves, as follows;
1st wave, -with Infantry- 2 groups of 9 tanks
2nd wave 1 group of 12 tanks
3rd wave 1 group of up to 16 tanks
4th wave remainder of regt.
The 3 flame tanks all perished, 1 was drowned trying to land, 1 was hit on the beach and the flame tank ‘blew up’, ant the other had its tracks shot away.
The actual no’s of tanks involved has been stated in publications as between 35 and 40.
They were opperated by the 14th Canadian Army Tank Regt,
(The Calgary Regt)
Details above came from a Brilliant book,- The Churchill. by Bryan Perret.
Hope it is of some interest.
Andy
Very nice, thank you rascman, I would prefer a single 6 pounder in the turret shooting AP and HE ammo rather than the combined 40mm AP and 76mm HE.
Hmmmmmm,.17pdr, for me, I think,…oh, and some decent armour plating… :lol:
Andy
Thanks for sharing the info rascman 
Do you guys think any lessons were learnt from the raid and weather they helped on D-day?
Yes, I think important lessons were learnt, at some cost, admitidly, -
for a start, the powers that be,- and their planners, knew that to try landing on fortified beaches was going to be costly,- and there was no guarantee that the result wouldn’t be the same, ie slaughter.
Its interesting, acording to some sources, the americans were pushing for an earlier invasion date, - I guess, at that point, they’d not been involved in a beach landing against well equiped defenders,- as the canadians and british wern’t pre Dieppe.
Certainly, the Funnies, (79th armoured div) were formed with a beach invasion in mind, ( get tanks and infantry onto the beach at the same time so’s each can support the other)
The navy was involved, with bombading the defences,(unlike at Dieppe)
Landing craft, which at Dieppe, the smaller of which were made out of plywood, when hit ,disintigrated, with consiquent loss of life.
Indeed even the fact that Dieppe had bad weather, gave the planners reason to have to look at some sort of artificial platform, and Mulbery came into being.
Mountbatten, much later,-post war,-said that for every soldier that died at Dieppe,ten were saved on the Normandy landings.
Andy
I think that the Churchill armor was decent, the 17 pounder …? I read somewhere that this gun had troubles with his HE ammo supply, aniway the 17 pounder Churchill, the “Black Prince” arrived to late to see any combat.
True, the armour on the churchill, was pretty good, - for allied tanks, - that is,certainly, there are published accounts of the amount of punishment it could take, and still retire from action; which is more than can be said for the Sherman, which earned the unwelcome name of
‘Tommy Cooker’, due to the alarming speed it would brew up, when hit.
(petrol engined varient).- but also due to its thinner frontal armour.
Of the 17pdr, I’ve read accounts of when fired the flame blow-back would wrap its self around the turret, making a good target, but the projectile was extremely effective against the enemys armour.
Having had the privilidge of knowing an ex churchill ‘funnies’, driver,I can recall some of the comments made by him, on a visit to Bovington Tank Museum.
View from drivers position, only good for straight ahead, due to the set back driving compartment,
The way you could spin the tank in its own length, - neutral turn- , good on firm surfaces only; - he could still recall the ‘jankers’,duties he was put on, for trying it in soft going,…and tore a track off… :oops:
The fact that when it rained, you got wet, esp on early models, in so much as there were no bungs to open and release said water.
The fun that ould be had,- on exercies only, of course , behind the drivers position, could be seen the feet/lower limbs of the turret crew, whose boot laces at times could be found to have been tied together, when the shout, ‘BALE OUT’ went up…That one always made him chuckle…
I guess, on the whole, the CHURCHILL, in all its MK’s WAS the BEST british tank of WWII, untill the arrival of the Comet, in '45.
- And its legacy produced, THE CENTURION, arguably one of THE great tanks of the world.
Andy
One of the main attributes of the Churchill was its ability in mountainous areas, such as Italy, when then appearence of Churchills often surprised the Germans, who thought the terrain unsuitable for tanks.
Indeed, according to histoians, who ‘were in the know’, it had be decided, by the powers that be, to cease production, of the churchill in '43, when the A27 series (Cruiser), became available.
It was its impressive performance, whilst with 1st army, in Tunisia, that earned it a repreave
To give some idea of how good it was, as follows.
Churchill.
Fording Depth; 3ft 4in (unprepared)
Vertical Obstacle 2ft 6in
Trench Crossing 10ft
Sherman
Fording Depth 3ft
Vertical Obstacle 2ft
Trench Crossing 7ft 5in
This is not knocking the Sherman, indeed as an assault tank it performed very well.
The churchill was designed as an Infantry support tank; hence its heavier armour, - and slow overall speed.
Andy
The interesting part is that the soldier in the centre of the photo is a US Army Ranger, Lieutenant Joseph H. Randall.
Some have intimated lessons in communications at Dieppe were useful. Most lessons would have been “learned” had Dieppe never occurred. Amphibious operations date back centuries - Quebec 1760, some operations in the US Civil War. Opposed landings are obviously a little more modern, but even discounting Gallipoli, by 1944 the Allies had already gained experience at Wake Island, Guadalcanal, North Africa, Sicily (Gela, Pachino, Brolo), Salerno, Anzio…Dieppe was unnecessary and wasteful. Realizing full well one is looking with hindsight, I have to believe that the Allies would not have needed Dieppe to tell them to land in Normandy with maximum firepower preceding the invasion. It’s certainly open to debate - but I feel authors like the late, great Denis Whitaker tried too hard to justify the sacrifices at Dieppe (to say nothing of Mountbatten and his contentious “ten men were saved for every one lost at Dieppe” remark. (Bear in mind both those men participated at Dieppe as commanders). Just on pure math alone, that is saying that 9,000 soldiers would be killed on D-Day in Normandy if not for Dieppe. I think that that claim is a fantasy. Actual fatal casualties for the Canadians on D-Day were between 900 and 1,000 - in other words, about the exact same number as suffered at Dieppe. I have a hard time believing Dieppe experiences were directly responsible for preventing casualties on 10 times that scale. In my opinion, wishful thinking.
The best way to look at it would be - if Dieppe never happened, what would the Allies have done differently at Normandy? They conducted many, many rehearsals - see Operation Tiger for a good example - many of the kinks ironed out on the Dieppe beaches would have been ironed out in the two years of training between Aug 1942 and Jun 1944. IMO.