How much of the fire going into the beachead was from aimed, direct fire weapons (i.e. rifles)? And how much of this was hitting medics? I suspect the answer is very little indeed.
Artillery, Mortars and Machine Guns all work on the principle of killing everything in a particular zone - so unless the US had set up a field hospital on the beach by this stage then their use was legitimate.
Fair comment.
FWIW, I was responding more to the statement about troops panicking rather than losing their weapons in an effort to survive in the water. I understood the panicking reference to mean that some troops landed well enough but simply panicked and dropped their weapons to aid their rush to the seawall.
Fair questions. We know is was a mix of MG42s and K98s and certainly there was a good deal of semi-aimed panic fire by the Germans on the bluffs…
But I’ll try to find the figures of medics hit in the first waves, I think it’s the majority of them. The general consensus was that the machine-guns were trained on the waterline to nail troops running from the landing craft. But that there were snipers that were raking the beach of anything moving.
You of all should know that soldiers are sensitive regarding their medics…
Artillery, Mortars and Machine Guns all work on the principle of killing everything in a particular zone - so unless the US had set up a field hospital on the beach by this stage then their use was legitimate.
No argument there.
Shooting at medics on purpose would be abhorrent. I never heard/read about incidents like this, not even on the eastern front…
Yeah, if I’m taking cover, I’m taking it WITH a weapon of some sort. I doubt anyone with any sense would drop their personal weapons thinking it would make them faster…
A lot of the Higgins crews panicked themselves. I recall seeing the interview testimony of one US soldier who made it through and helped take the bluffs ultimately. His D-Day experience began with his boat approaching shore, the next one over was hit by what probably was an 88mm round and disintegrated. The men on his boat were then showered with blood, limbs, internal organs, equipment, and personal effects of the destroyed boat…
At that point, with the volume of fire being taken, the Higgins crews were so unnerved that they were stopping incrementally farther and farther from the beach. There are anecdotes of officers and NCOs putting pistols to their heads and demanding that they drive in to the prescribed drop-off distances under threat of summary execution…
There’s plenty of incidents to recount in the Pacific Theater actually. US Navy Corpsmen (basically US Marine medics) stopped wearing a red cross I believe – because they drew so much fire…
Definitely. As long as I was capable of hanging onto it, my rifle would be in my hands.
I feel a little bit uncomfortable citing a movie as a source but I remember one scene in “Saving Private Ryan” where the G.I. got rid of his BAR because it “already drowned him”. I could imagine these situations weren’t uncommon.
But as i know at that time almost every official East germans was under controll.
Never heard the Paulus too worried about this, moreover as i know himself provided the Soviets with some of “information” about others former germans commanders.
Basically he spent the rest of his life trying to justify his actions regarding Stalingrad.
He probably felt the germans look at him as at traitor, besides he deeply endured their own guilt in failur of 6 army.
Back to topic…
I do understand Nick’s point.
I don’t know about Omacha in 1944 ( and not sure you guys can use the film Saving PR as a “realible” source), but in the East front there a lot of cases when germans mashinganners specially killed the wounded and medics , even unless they were a woman.
This is actualy wasn’t considered as a “serious” crime in the East ( regarding the what there was going on with civil population) .
In red army the mass of field medics were the womans, they died very offen. Armed with pistol, hardly they can pose a any threat for Germans troops. Their primary task was to withdrew the wounded out of battle zone.
[/QUOTE]
Hello Folks,
I’m new here and very much enjoy your informative views.
Regarding this post I’ve quoted I was very surprised to see that there were only 30 German defenders on the beach. If i have read that correctly and if true, then wouldn’t that lend credibility to the “killing machine’s” efficiency? Could he in fact have stuck it out for that long stretch of time and produced such incredible numbers of dead Allies?
Was he in a bunker? At about what range would he have been from his targets? Sorry for the elementary questions. I would love to see a diagram of the beach and approximately where the German defenders were dug in.
Thanks, JimB
I’ve walked Omaha beach and it is NOT small. There is no way on earth that a mere 30 defenders could have even held up a determined assault for any length of time, let alone almost stop it dead.
Edit: Reading the article carefully, and allowing for the usual journalistic stupidity, what it actually says is that there were 30 German soldiers in the same position as him. That is nothing like the same as 30 defenders on the beach.
Thanks, pdf27, for your comment. Like you I find something fishy with the journalism but the following quote from the article surely says that the beach was defended by 30 Germans:
“That’s an impossible figure, according to German and American historians, who say that although the numbers are far from exact, estimates are that about 2,500 Americans were killed or wounded by the 30 German soldiers on the beach”.
Are you guessing that it meant to say there were 30 Germans defenders in the same position as him, meaning something like the same bunker as him? Or in the same position as him to do the same damage? Do we know how many German defenders there actually were in that sector?
The article is indeed quite confusing, in Severloh’s sector of Omaha Beach, which was “Widerstandsnest 62” (resistance nest 62) only 30 soldiers were left after the naval shelling and the bombing raid. I include a graphic of the german positions on Omaha Beach and marked Severloh’s position in red.
I think that paragraph is down to journalistic stupidity. This is the first mention of “30 German soldiers” in the article.
The beachhead was defended by more than an entire DIVISION!
That is true. I’m like flamethrowerguy in that as much as I’d like not to, I’m using Flags of Our Fathers (a movie) as a source for that.
With regards to the question the original poster asked, I guess you could ask the same question about the pilots who were responsible for the napalming of Tokyo. At least Hein Severloh was killing enemy soldiers whereas Tokyo was a largely civillian target. Nonetheless, they were both military men doing what they were ordered to.
That’s the ‘Nuremberg Defence’ raised by accused German war criminals after the war. ‘We were only following orders.’ It didn’t work when the acts were clearly war crimes or crimes against humanity.
I wouldn’t bet on it working for the Allies on various bombing missions if the Axis had won the war and held their own trials.
It’s also discussed in Bradley’s very personal book, about his ex-corpsman father. He also goes in-depth regarding the “bastardization” of the Code of Bushido by the Japanese military as they realized that they could not match a Western Power in industrial capacity, and would thus compensate by calling on what some refer to as “the third force”: that is, the spiritual aspect of warfare over the corporeal and material aspects…
With regards to the question the original poster asked, I guess you could ask the same question about the pilots who were responsible for the napalming of Tokyo. At least Hein Severloh was killing enemy soldiers whereas Tokyo was a largely civillian target. Nonetheless, they were both military men doing what they were ordered to.
The question has been asked, and no one here ever passed judgment on Severloh. I merely interjected what I have read in more than one source. It was a perception (by the Americans), perhaps a mistaken one.
True or not, no one can really prove or otherwise hold Severloh accountable for what might have taken place.
Tokyo was and industrial and commerce hub. She was no more a civilian target than Shanghai, Berlin, London, Rotterdam, or Stalingrad…If we’re going to name bomber pilots as war criminals, then why not every artilleryman too? Many fired into civilian areas as well…
flamethowerguy:Easy Red&Fox Green are not so lucky…