4 ms·

Some still haven't seen this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord#/media/File:NormandySupply_edit.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operat

Some still haven't seen this picture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord#/media/File:NormandySupply_edit.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord#/media/File... I don't think we can really comprehend how big an operation that was. A movie like "Saving Private Ryan" was incredibly good (especially the scene on the beach front) but didn't come anywhere close to show anything resembling that picture.

the_af 2y ago
Impressive photo. I imagine many more are even less familiar with the massive operations from the Eastern Front, simultaneously more important and lesser known in the West (at least in pop culture; historians of course know them). E.g. Operation Bagration.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  Overlord overshadows other operations because it was unique in its nature, scale and difficulties. Eastern Front also had its iconic moments like Battle of Stalingrad or Siege of Leningrad...
  - the_af 2y ago
    > Overlord overshadows other operations because it was unique in its nature, scale and difficulties Without diminishing Overlord (a landing of this magnitude was unparalleled), I think Bagration is just as impressive, devastatingly effective at annihilating the German army (most of Army Group Center gone, poof), and must have been a logistical and secrecy nightmare to employ maskirovka at such a large scale. It was larger scale than Overlord, too. Not many in pop culture know about the Siege of Leningrad. Stalingrad is better known in pop culture, but regrettably most of it at the level of terribly bad and misleading movies such as "Enemy at the Gates". > Eastern Front also had its iconic moments [...] That's a bit of an understatement... The Eastern Front is where most of the fighting in WWII happened. It's where the European theater of war was truly won or lost.
    - JackFr 2y ago
      https://www.amazon.com/900-Days-Siege-Leningrad/dp/0306812983 https://www.amazon.com/900-Days-Siege-Leningrad/dp/030681298... The 900 Days is an eye-opening and compelling book about the siege of Leningrad. Highly recommended.
      - B1FF_PSUVM 2y ago
        One of the big churches in St. Petersburg features huge columns - in some the pockmarks from strafing have been preserved. And the pictures at the Hermitage are labelled "Great Patriotic War 1941-45"
    - The_Colonel 2y ago
      > I think Bagration is just as impressive Well, I disagree. Landings are generally considered to be very difficult and risky operations to execute, and Overlord is by far the largest scale landing in history. It was a one-off, all-in operation. It had to be close to perfect or it would fail badly. You can't just call off the landing in the middle of it or reduce its objectives if it doesn't go well. Meanwhile, operation Bagration is just standard maneuver warfare, only particularly large and this time quite successful in achieving its objectives. Soviets had plenty of previous (some failed) attempts to improve their strategy and tactics. Maskirovka / deception campaign is standard for any such large operation. If things don't go as planned, you can scale down the objectives, or call it a diversion (Operation Mars). Operation Bagration might be more impactful on the course of the war, but in my mind it's not close to be as impressive as Overlord. > That's a bit of an understatement... The Eastern Front is where most of the fighting in WWII happened. It's where the European theater of war was truly won or lost. "Most iconic" is not the same thing as "most impactful". Maneuver warfare is just generally not as iconic as pitched, close quarters battles.
      - the_af 2y ago
        You don't need to convince me Overlord was very impressive, because I fully agree. It seems we possibly agree Bagration was more impactful, but our disagreement is whether it was as impressive. I'll argue that it was: the scale was humongous, and in war, this means more chance of fuckups or logistical nightmares. Scale in troops & territory is a huge source of trouble (just ask Hitler...). Military deception was practiced by all sides, but the Soviets took maskirovka to an art form. Not only were there feinted strategic offensives (with the potential to become real as plan B), but huge troop formations moved one way during daytime and retraced their steps during the night. Radio discipline exercised atypically for the Red Army. The Germans later claimed not to be fully taken in, but really... that's what they would claim. Reality shows otherwise and their army was shattered. As for whether it's as iconic... well, "iconic" is an ill-defined term anyway. "Most iconic" in the Western world is just because, like I argued, the Eastern Front is way less known and depicted in movies. It's almost the definition of "lesser known", of which there are many reasons (Cold War thinking being a big reason initially). Overlord is more iconic in the West because it has been brought to the forefront in multiple accounts, movies and games. Imagine if there were American movies about Bagration like there are for Normandy, "Saving Conscript Petrov". There are a million interesting and amazing stories you could tell set during this massive operation, just like Private Ryan or Band of Brothers. Stalingrad in contrast is indeed iconic -- possibly as iconic as Overlord, because everyone knows about Stalingrad too -- but regrettably not too many good movies have been made about it. I've mentioned "Enemy at the Gates" (sigh!) but there's also that terrible Russian movie called... "Stalingrad"? Yuck. About the only one that's decent is ironically the German "Stalingrad" movie, but that one mostly shows the German perspective.
bloopernova 2y ago
Even more incredible, the USA landed on Saipan soon after the Allies landed in Normandy. The landing ships for operation FORAGER had to travel 1,000 miles across open ocean. Recommended reading: The Fleet at Flood Tide by James Hornfischer, and Twilight of the Gods by Ian Toll.
- simonh 2y ago
  Found this image of the landing craft: https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/07/09/saipan-landing-i/#google_vignette https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/07/09/saipan-landing-i/#g...
  - bloopernova 2y ago
    That's a really good article, I hadn't seen those details before. Thank you! Second part: https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/07/09/saipan-landing-ii/ https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/07/09/saipan-landing-ii/
Someone 2y ago
> I don't think we can really comprehend how big an operation that was. I think that very impressive photo doesn’t even show it. FTA: “A 1,200-plane airborne assault preceded an amphibious assault involving more than 5,000 vessels” ⇒ I estimate that that photo only shows about 2% of the vessels involved. Getting (also FTA) “Nearly 160,000 troops crossed the English Channel on 6 June” onto a coast without using any ports and where you are getting shot at takes a lot of effort.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  The photo also doesn't really do justice to how much stuff was going on at one time since it just makes it look like supplies are being delivered to a beach. You've got an an incredibly dense (in terms of participants per area or volume) naval battle, infantry engagements, air superiority operations, close air support and logistics operation all at the same time in roughly same place and even if you pick one aspect to focus on you'll find that the scale and tempo of operations in any one area exceeds what's "normal" even for a pitched battle.
- themadturk 2y ago
  Don't forget those thousands of ships and aircraft started across the channel the night before, only to be turned back by bad weather and having to reset and do it again the next night!
Narishma 2y ago
Are those floating things airships? What were they used for?
- themadturk 2y ago
  They're barrage balloons, unmanned airships intended to make low-level strafing runs hazardous and to break up the view of the ground for higher-level bombers. They were frequently used over London during the Blitz as well.

the_af 2y ago

Impressive photo. I imagine many more are even less familiar with the massive operations from the Eastern Front, simultaneously more important and lesser known in the West (at least in pop culture; historians of course know them). E.g. Operation Bagration.

The_Colonel 2y ago
Overlord overshadows other operations because it was unique in its nature, scale and difficulties. Eastern Front also had its iconic moments like Battle of Stalingrad or Siege of Leningrad...
- the_af 2y ago
  > Overlord overshadows other operations because it was unique in its nature, scale and difficulties Without diminishing Overlord (a landing of this magnitude was unparalleled), I think Bagration is just as impressive, devastatingly effective at annihilating the German army (most of Army Group Center gone, poof), and must have been a logistical and secrecy nightmare to employ maskirovka at such a large scale. It was larger scale than Overlord, too. Not many in pop culture know about the Siege of Leningrad. Stalingrad is better known in pop culture, but regrettably most of it at the level of terribly bad and misleading movies such as "Enemy at the Gates". > Eastern Front also had its iconic moments [...] That's a bit of an understatement... The Eastern Front is where most of the fighting in WWII happened. It's where the European theater of war was truly won or lost.
  - JackFr 2y ago
    https://www.amazon.com/900-Days-Siege-Leningrad/dp/0306812983 https://www.amazon.com/900-Days-Siege-Leningrad/dp/030681298... The 900 Days is an eye-opening and compelling book about the siege of Leningrad. Highly recommended.
    - B1FF_PSUVM 2y ago
      One of the big churches in St. Petersburg features huge columns - in some the pockmarks from strafing have been preserved. And the pictures at the Hermitage are labelled "Great Patriotic War 1941-45"
  - The_Colonel 2y ago
    > I think Bagration is just as impressive Well, I disagree. Landings are generally considered to be very difficult and risky operations to execute, and Overlord is by far the largest scale landing in history. It was a one-off, all-in operation. It had to be close to perfect or it would fail badly. You can't just call off the landing in the middle of it or reduce its objectives if it doesn't go well. Meanwhile, operation Bagration is just standard maneuver warfare, only particularly large and this time quite successful in achieving its objectives. Soviets had plenty of previous (some failed) attempts to improve their strategy and tactics. Maskirovka / deception campaign is standard for any such large operation. If things don't go as planned, you can scale down the objectives, or call it a diversion (Operation Mars). Operation Bagration might be more impactful on the course of the war, but in my mind it's not close to be as impressive as Overlord. > That's a bit of an understatement... The Eastern Front is where most of the fighting in WWII happened. It's where the European theater of war was truly won or lost. "Most iconic" is not the same thing as "most impactful". Maneuver warfare is just generally not as iconic as pitched, close quarters battles.
    - the_af 2y ago
      You don't need to convince me Overlord was very impressive, because I fully agree. It seems we possibly agree Bagration was more impactful, but our disagreement is whether it was as impressive. I'll argue that it was: the scale was humongous, and in war, this means more chance of fuckups or logistical nightmares. Scale in troops & territory is a huge source of trouble (just ask Hitler...). Military deception was practiced by all sides, but the Soviets took maskirovka to an art form. Not only were there feinted strategic offensives (with the potential to become real as plan B), but huge troop formations moved one way during daytime and retraced their steps during the night. Radio discipline exercised atypically for the Red Army. The Germans later claimed not to be fully taken in, but really... that's what they would claim. Reality shows otherwise and their army was shattered. As for whether it's as iconic... well, "iconic" is an ill-defined term anyway. "Most iconic" in the Western world is just because, like I argued, the Eastern Front is way less known and depicted in movies. It's almost the definition of "lesser known", of which there are many reasons (Cold War thinking being a big reason initially). Overlord is more iconic in the West because it has been brought to the forefront in multiple accounts, movies and games. Imagine if there were American movies about Bagration like there are for Normandy, "Saving Conscript Petrov". There are a million interesting and amazing stories you could tell set during this massive operation, just like Private Ryan or Band of Brothers. Stalingrad in contrast is indeed iconic -- possibly as iconic as Overlord, because everyone knows about Stalingrad too -- but regrettably not too many good movies have been made about it. I've mentioned "Enemy at the Gates" (sigh!) but there's also that terrible Russian movie called... "Stalingrad"? Yuck. About the only one that's decent is ironically the German "Stalingrad" movie, but that one mostly shows the German perspective.

bloopernova 2y ago

Even more incredible, the USA landed on Saipan soon after the Allies landed in Normandy. The landing ships for operation FORAGER had to travel 1,000 miles across open ocean. Recommended reading: The Fleet at Flood Tide by James Hornfischer, and Twilight of the Gods by Ian Toll.

simonh 2y ago
Found this image of the landing craft: https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/07/09/saipan-landing-i/#google_vignette https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/07/09/saipan-landing-i/#g...
- bloopernova 2y ago
  That's a really good article, I hadn't seen those details before. Thank you! Second part: https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/07/09/saipan-landing-ii/ https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/07/09/saipan-landing-ii/

Someone 2y ago

> I don't think we can really comprehend how big an operation that was. I think that very impressive photo doesn’t even show it. FTA: “A 1,200-plane airborne assault preceded an amphibious assault involving more than 5,000 vessels” ⇒ I estimate that that photo only shows about 2% of the vessels involved. Getting (also FTA) “Nearly 160,000 troops crossed the English Channel on 6 June” onto a coast without using any ports and where you are getting shot at takes a lot of effort.

potato3732842 2y ago
The photo also doesn't really do justice to how much stuff was going on at one time since it just makes it look like supplies are being delivered to a beach. You've got an an incredibly dense (in terms of participants per area or volume) naval battle, infantry engagements, air superiority operations, close air support and logistics operation all at the same time in roughly same place and even if you pick one aspect to focus on you'll find that the scale and tempo of operations in any one area exceeds what's "normal" even for a pitched battle.
themadturk 2y ago
Don't forget those thousands of ships and aircraft started across the channel the night before, only to be turned back by bad weather and having to reset and do it again the next night!

Narishma 2y ago

Are those floating things airships? What were they used for?

themadturk 2y ago
They're barrage balloons, unmanned airships intended to make low-level strafing runs hazardous and to break up the view of the ground for higher-level bombers. They were frequently used over London during the Blitz as well.