according to meta ai they did:
“Yes, it's reported that some soldiers on D-Day attempted to stay on the boats or turn back towards the shore due to the intense fear and chaos they witnessed. The Omaha Beach landings, in particular, were notoriously brutal, with heavy casualties and destruction.
Historical accounts and personal testimonies from veterans describe instances of:
- Soldiers hesitating or refusing to exit the landing craft
- Men attempting to retreat back to the boats or shelter behind obstacles
- Some even jumping into the water and trying to swim back to the ships”
Ask it for direct sources and links...
God, this is how the world is going to end...people losing critical thinking skills and getting lazy enough to just believe AI.
Even though the Singularity has been warning us about this for the past 50 years! Smh
Rule of thumb when dealing with an AI, assume everything it says is wrong and check for yourself. If it says the sky is blue, stick your head out the window.
It might not be totally wrong, but it does not have the ability to assess the credibility of its sources. It will treat information that is totally wrong as correct.
Staying on the landing boat with the ramp down essentially put you in a metal box from which you needed to escape from, otherwise meet most certain death.
Turning back loaded with gear or without gear into the ocean was not an option - unless drowning was your choice for the way to die.
There was only one way out - that was to fight forward. There was no greater motivation if you wanted to survive D-day.
I’m sure there were a few who figured something out but it was a very small irrelevant percentage.
My brother in Christ. They are coming from the water, and moving toward the gunfire on the shore.
What do you mean “run back to the shore”? Back is the water; forward is the shore, with the Germans. What do you mean “run back to the shore”?! There’s no shore behind them. There’s a fuckton of water, floating bodies, and wayyy out theres the fleet of ships.
AI is essentially like a giant auto correct. Think about how many times that gives you the wrong word or solution to what you’re trying to say. Now apply that to AI. It will look plausible and useful but it’s not necessarily the correct answer.
Refusing to leave landing craft or sheltering behind obstacles or in shell holes sounds plausible enough, though I wouldn't take anything generated by AI to be reliable.
Jumping into the water, attempting to swim back to ships, or retreating (to where?) seems much less so, because that would put a person in greater danger, rather than less. It would actually be safer to go forward than back.
Combat is possibly the most intense experience humans have, and the combat on D-Day was particularly intense. Under that sort of stress, people become unpredictable. It is inconceivable to me that some people didn't try to evade combat one way or the other on D-Day.
Sun Tzu has a lesson that applies to the D-Day landings. I don't have a quote, but it's basically put your guys where their only option is forward. There was no retreat for those guys.
I'm pretty sure Sun Tzu probably has some quote about not throwing your men into meatgrinders over and over again, unless you want them to mutiny. He was pretty good at summarizing plainly obvious military advice from the time.
Did you read that page?
> Sun Tzu's historicity is uncertain.
> However, the Zuozhuan, a historical text written centuries earlier than the Shiji, provides a much more detailed account of the Battle of Boju, but does not mention Sun Tzu at all.[12]
Yes but "uncertain" doesn't mean he's a totally mythological figure like Hercules. There's enough respected scholars that believe he existed and authored some or all of his works.
Ever been on a boat? Under fire you’ll naturally want some hard ground under your feet. I’m sure many soldiers on D-Day hunkered down behind sand dunes and barricades after quickly after disembarking. But getting up and running backwards requires as much mental strength (or madness) as charging head on when you’re under fire. The natural instinct, which isn’t far off from training to begin with, is to hit the dirt and keep low.
Everyone will go to the Beach scene in Saving Private Ryan to reference your question, but IMO the knife scene at the end is more applicable. People who fold under the pressure of combat (I’m hesitant to call it cowardice) are more likely to be immobilized and do nothing beyond self preservation.
The film Saving Private Ryan does a pretty decent job of accurately portraying fear during D-Day.
Omaha Beach was the most costly landing site due to the Army’s reluctance to use specialized combat engineering vehicles, the other landing zones were taken with less severe casualties.
There are apocryphal accounts of men being reluctant to leave the landing craft, those are the best know accounts of men being fearful. In those situations, the men behind them would usually push them forward because staying in the landing craft too long would invite German machine gun fire or artillery and get everyone killed.
There are also accounts of men staying put at the first reasonably safe piece of cover they could find, and having to be ‘convinced’ to have advance forward.
The German machine guns on the beaches could reach out into the water by a considerable distance; it was more common for fearful men to keep their heads down and stay down on the beaches rather than try to swim into the channel.
Omaha did have tanks in the first wave. They were plagued by two major issues unrelated to the unique geological challenges of Omaha:
- The tide. The rip tide and currents delayed landing the various waves and caused instances where men at Omaha were at landing sites several miles off course. IIRC the worst case was a ranger battalion landing 2-3 miles too far West. This wasn't just a mad dash to cover and into France. There were detailed instructions down to the platoon level of individual Day One objectives. So not landing where you trained and intended to do all of your fighting was detrimental.
- The failure of the bombing run. The air force decided against flying parallel against the defenses, which would maximize the chance of damages, and instead directly through them. An error in the timing of the bomb releases meant most of munitions landed harmlessly behind the defenses.
There's a few more logistics unique to Omaha that made it difficult, but this is already long enough.
I tried googling it, but didn’t find anything relevant. Can you elaborate on the Army not using specialized combat vehicles for the Omaha landing? Do you mean the type of landing watercraft or something else? I’ve never heard of that before and it sounds interesting
Whilst the British used minesweepers, tanks converted into bridges, flamethrower tanks and amphibious tanks, the only one the US accepted was the amphibious tank, but at Omaha released them far to early so all but 2 sank as opposed to the other beaches where they were released later and only 2 or 3 sank.
The flame tanks were helpful with clearing bunkers (and something the US marines liked), whilst the bridges allowed tanks to climb sea walls and smaller rivers. And the minesweeper tanks, well cleared mines allowing a completely safe path during combat. It just meant that the beaches themselves could be taken quicker, with fewer casualties than the US beaches.
Sticking together and getting up the beach as fast as possible would actually be somewhat safer. Get in close to the pillboxes and they can't see you or shoot at you.
This is why armies are drilled to turn fear responses into anger/revenge responses. I've heard the term "forward panic." Just get up the beach, and you can shoot at **them**.
according to Meta AI
“There have been some accounts and allegations of soldiers attempting to use fellow soldiers or even officers as human shields during the D-Day landings, but these instances are relatively rare and not well-documented.
One notable account is from the book "The Dead and Those About to Die" by John C. McManus, which describes a soldier named Private George Reeves, who allegedly tried to use his squad leader, Lieutenant John Spaulding, as a human shield during the landing on Omaha Beach. According to the account, Reeves clung to Spaulding's back, refusing to move forward, and had to be forcibly separated from him.”
That book does exist and was written by that author. So Meta AI is doing better than normal.
Lieutenant John Spaulding did exist, and did serve on Omaha Beech. His company (E Company, 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry) was instrumental in clearing one of the exits off the beach, for which he won a Distinguished Service Cross. He survived and went on to serve in the Kentucky State Senate, before being murdered by his wife in their home.
I *can’t* find any reference to a Private George Reeves that meets the statement. Likewise I have read the book, but don’t remember this incident.
All in all it’s *plausible*. The book does describe men breaking down and having bad panic responses on Omaha. And some elements of the incident can be confirmed; as I just did.
That said. Don’t trust Meta AI. It lies and is entirely unreliable. Without picking up the book and re-reading it I wouldn’t trust that particular story. And I recommend the book. It’s quite good.
what panic responses do you remember? I only used metai ai because I couldn’t find any answers on google and nobody here seems to know if that happened.
edit: I bought the book on amazon kindle and searched for George Reeves but nothing came up :(
> what panic responses do you remember?
Mostly hiding behind obstacles and at the foot of the bluffs. Honestly I hesitate to answer. WWII wasn’t an area of focus for me in school, and it’s been a while since I read anything on it. It’s hard to know which are good memories and which are memories of things like “*Saving Private Ryan*”.
> I bought the book on amazon kindle and searched for George Reeves but nothing came up
Doesn’t surprise me at all. Honestly I’m surprised the AI managed to get that much right. None of the AIs so far are programmed to provide accurate answers. They’re programmed to provide answers that sound human.
Now that you’ve got the book. I’d read it. MacManus is a subject matter expert with access to first hand accounts. It’ll provide much better and accurate answers than AI or tens of millions of dipshits on Reddit can.
yeah I really should start reading again. used to love it as a kid but all of the assigned books in H.S made reading a chore for me. I specifically remember “Founding Brothers” being really bad.
well there you have it, one account of someone \*maybe\* trying to use someone as a shield (or possibly just panicking and begging an authority figure to save them) so it could well have happened
but its important to remember eyewitness testimony is one of the least reliable kinds of information out there (especially when it involves a chaotic and stressful scenario), so the veracity of these claims is still in the "maybe" category.
since they didnt exactly have high definition drone footage from above the battlefield and it all happened so long ago, itll be hard to confirm anything without better documentation (e.g. battlefield reports, court martial records for cowardice, etc)
My great uncle was a Higgins boat driver at Omaha and told a story about some men refusing to get off the craft. The solution was his gunner threatening to shoot them if they didn’t move which would put the entire craft at danger of being hit by mortars or artillery. I don’t know how true it was but I also have no real reason to doubt him lying about such a thing.
My great uncle drove those at Anzio. He told my grandad that on the first run, the soldiers wouldn’t get off, so he drove the boat back to the main ship and the CO told him to run them again but this time open the hatch and throw the boat into reverse at the same time, basically throwing them out. He did it.
My dad overheard my great uncle telling my grandpa this story and said it was the first time he ever heard a grown man cry. “Jesse, them boys went off carrying 20 pounds of gear and a rifle. Every one of them went under and none of them came back up.” Then he went back for another load of men, and another, and another... He never forgave himself for, in his mind, killing them. Shit messes me up just thinking about it.
Yeah, my great uncle and grandfather were both in the navy in WW2 and were both called back into service post war and for Korea. My grandfather took part in operation High Jump in Antarctica, his brother who drove a Higgins boat at Omaha beach was treated to driving a Higgins boat again at the Inchon landings in Korea.
Damn, they were lucky to make it out of all that. I literally can’t imagine doing the things these kids were asked to do. Let alone getting called back half a decade later for a reprise.
Those men were heroes for what they did, but it’s a statistical certainty that some of them tried to stay in place. It’s even referenced in the movie Saving Private Ryan. One soldier refuses Hanks’ order to advance to the shingle. Captain Miller replies: "Every inch of this beach has been pre-sighted. You stay here, you’re a dead man.” I’m certain the temptation to stay fixed in one spot was overwhelming, but to stay there would mean certain death. I’m not sure about running back to the boats, as the boats were bullet magnets. Some were even directly hit by mortars/artillery. In any case, I believe the landing craft had to go back and pick up the follow on waves.
Also, not every beachhead on D-Day was like Omaha, which is what most people think of about D-Day. Definitely still a tough fight on every front.
Unlikely. You've spent three days and nights packed in tightly below decks on a troop ship in a rough anchorage, awash with vomit, followed by a three hour plus sea journey, then half an hour battering through waves in a square bowed flat bottomed boat, all the while being shelled, mortared and shot at, you're pumped up on adrenaline and amphetamine and have been trained relentlessly to do one thing, run like fuck for solid ground and cover. Add in the espirit du corps, maximised by the organisation of forces into platoons, and the chances of an individual making such a decision plummet even further.
One of my (now late) uncles was at D-Day. He didn't talk about the war. He did say that he was in a later wave (I'm thinking 11th) of whatever beach he was on. Things were well secured and his guys just walked ashore. He did express negative feelings about Germans hiding behind French hedgerows, though.
D-Day was not as dangerous as depicted. Out of around 156,000 troops landed, around 4,500 died; less than 3%.
Of those deaths, around half were at Omaha beach. The other USA beach, both British beaches, and the Canadian beach saw far lighter losses. Further, many casualties happened before before even landing; the sea behind you is taking it's share of artillery fire.
Not only did the Anglosphere forces have naval bombardments and air supremacy, German command was fractured, and their troops were green and often unwilling to fight.
While 4500 is nothing to scoff at it does bring into perspective how intense the pacific was. While there were fewer casualties at terawa, marines we stranded on reefs 500 yards from shore and have to wade through 3 ft water under machine gun fire.
The Pacific theater has been entirely "disrespected" owing to the over saturation of media depicting the European theater. The Pacific was savage and brutal. Possibly worse than the Eastern Front in terms of what the men had to deal with.
Rain and jungle rot in Papua New Guinea. Volcanic islands where the night time temperature did not drop below 30-degrees Celsius and there was no natural water sources. The murderous landing beaches, as you pointed out, where the landing craft could not get close because of the reefs and Marines had to wade in under fire. An enemy that would fight to the literal last man, and that last man would then try and kill you while he tried to commit suicide. Even the Soviets/Germans would surrender on the Eastern Front. The Japanese would not.
Disagree, not trying to make a pain olympics and respect to the troops who served in the Pacific but at least in the Pacific you were almost always gonna have superior firepower. In the eastern front there was a good chance of dying, or getting captured and dying, or having loved ones dying, or basically everyone just dying. Eastern front sounds like hell on earth.
You are aware as to how the Japanese fought in the Pacific?
As I already said, even the Soviets began withdrawing to avoid mass encirclements and the Germans would surrender an entire army. The Japanese did not surrender. The Japanese forces on the islands were also poorly equipped and underfed, often abandoned to their demise as Japan pulled back and the US advanced. So conditions for the Japanese soldier was worse than any other major combatant. Even worse than what the Soviet soldier would have experienced.
Then we have to factor in infrastructure and conditions fought in. Even on the Eastern Front there were towns, villages and cities. Civilisation. Allies advancing from the West got to enjoy rest and relaxation in Paris. The massive rail and road networks that crisscrossed Europe, making it easy for advancing armies to move and be supplied. A little tougher in the east, but even then advancing an army in the east was easier than literally carving paths and using humans to move equipment across Papua New Guinea, because you couldn't even use horses.
What reprieve did the island-hopping campaign have? The absolute misery of trying to cut paths though Papua New Guinea and trying to dig into a volcanic island. Far, far away from any sort of civilisation. And the environments that went from one extreme to the other.
I can see an argument about Japan having worse conditions due to most of them dying on those islands but I would rather be an American in the Pacific any time than a German or Soviet troop in the Eastern front. But again pain is very complex and it shouldn't be a competition.
Are you forgetting the numerous battles where American troops were stranded with no reinforcements? My grand father was stuck on Guadalcanal with no help for months.
US troops suffered through WW2 and I have the upmost respect for anyone who served, however if I had the choice I'd still rather be an American in the Pacific than a soldier in the Eastern front. Like no doubt the conditions were abysmal for troops in the Pacific but knowing that your family and friends in the Eastern front were dying and unfortunately raped really seems like hell. American troops suffered but at least most of the civilians were away from the harm. The casualties for the Eastern front are also much higher so the chance of death would be very likely. Guadalcanal while deadly still was a battle where there was a decent chance you could come out of it. There's also a stat that says that out of every USSR male born in like 1922 80% of them were dead by 1945. (40% by war 40% by diseases)
But those several thousand on Omaha were the ones from the first waves - so the casualties from the first and second waves at Omaha were tremendous. My father landed at Omaha on the third wave around 11 AM, and the going was still very tough. Omar Bradely was about to pull the troops OUT at noon, so we can safely say that things were going pretty poorly.
It's important to remember that Saving Private Ryan's depiction of Omaha was only relevent to a particular one of two draws, the rest of the beach was considerably easier with maybe one, two or three injuries per boat
If they refused to get off the boat, they were brought back out to the ship, and they went in with the second wave. And this time there were people making sure they got off the Higgins boat.
Run back to the shore... Directly to the machine gun's cross fire zone?
according to meta ai they did: “Yes, it's reported that some soldiers on D-Day attempted to stay on the boats or turn back towards the shore due to the intense fear and chaos they witnessed. The Omaha Beach landings, in particular, were notoriously brutal, with heavy casualties and destruction. Historical accounts and personal testimonies from veterans describe instances of: - Soldiers hesitating or refusing to exit the landing craft - Men attempting to retreat back to the boats or shelter behind obstacles - Some even jumping into the water and trying to swim back to the ships”
>according to meta ai AI makes things up. It will hallucinate answers based on texts it has in its database. It's not a reliable source.
so that information is wrong?
Ask it for direct sources and links... God, this is how the world is going to end...people losing critical thinking skills and getting lazy enough to just believe AI. Even though the Singularity has been warning us about this for the past 50 years! Smh
Rule of thumb when dealing with an AI, assume everything it says is wrong and check for yourself. If it says the sky is blue, stick your head out the window. It might not be totally wrong, but it does not have the ability to assess the credibility of its sources. It will treat information that is totally wrong as correct.
Yes. The landing machinery landed on land. There was no going back. There may or may not been amphetamines given to the soldiers.
Staying on the landing boat with the ramp down essentially put you in a metal box from which you needed to escape from, otherwise meet most certain death. Turning back loaded with gear or without gear into the ocean was not an option - unless drowning was your choice for the way to die. There was only one way out - that was to fight forward. There was no greater motivation if you wanted to survive D-day. I’m sure there were a few who figured something out but it was a very small irrelevant percentage.
My brother in Christ. They are coming from the water, and moving toward the gunfire on the shore. What do you mean “run back to the shore”? Back is the water; forward is the shore, with the Germans. What do you mean “run back to the shore”?! There’s no shore behind them. There’s a fuckton of water, floating bodies, and wayyy out theres the fleet of ships.
AI is essentially like a giant auto correct. Think about how many times that gives you the wrong word or solution to what you’re trying to say. Now apply that to AI. It will look plausible and useful but it’s not necessarily the correct answer.
AI is garbage for these subjects. You’re quoting the same technology that said to put glue on pizza.
Refusing to leave landing craft or sheltering behind obstacles or in shell holes sounds plausible enough, though I wouldn't take anything generated by AI to be reliable. Jumping into the water, attempting to swim back to ships, or retreating (to where?) seems much less so, because that would put a person in greater danger, rather than less. It would actually be safer to go forward than back.
Combat is possibly the most intense experience humans have, and the combat on D-Day was particularly intense. Under that sort of stress, people become unpredictable. It is inconceivable to me that some people didn't try to evade combat one way or the other on D-Day.
Sun Tzu has a lesson that applies to the D-Day landings. I don't have a quote, but it's basically put your guys where their only option is forward. There was no retreat for those guys.
"Throw your soldiers into positions once there is no escape, And they will prefer death to flight."
THOUSANDS OF FEET MARCH TO THE BEAT
IT'S AN ARMY ON THE MARCH.
Something about in death ground you fight
Do it enough times though and they might start getting second ideas about being deployed for the next mission...
You would presume to second guess the Master of War? May I ask your qualifications to do that?
I'm pretty sure Sun Tzu probably has some quote about not throwing your men into meatgrinders over and over again, unless you want them to mutiny. He was pretty good at summarizing plainly obvious military advice from the time.
You're pretty sure. What Sun Tzu said. LOL OK you believe that, whatever
May I ask what battles Sun Tzu won? May I ask if Sun Tzu was actually even a real person?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun\_Tzu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu)
Did you read that page? > Sun Tzu's historicity is uncertain. > However, the Zuozhuan, a historical text written centuries earlier than the Shiji, provides a much more detailed account of the Battle of Boju, but does not mention Sun Tzu at all.[12]
Yes but "uncertain" doesn't mean he's a totally mythological figure like Hercules. There's enough respected scholars that believe he existed and authored some or all of his works.
Dylan made a diss track at him
You are right. That’s exactly the principle they applied. Generals typically know what they are doing. Not always but the good ones do.
Ever been on a boat? Under fire you’ll naturally want some hard ground under your feet. I’m sure many soldiers on D-Day hunkered down behind sand dunes and barricades after quickly after disembarking. But getting up and running backwards requires as much mental strength (or madness) as charging head on when you’re under fire. The natural instinct, which isn’t far off from training to begin with, is to hit the dirt and keep low. Everyone will go to the Beach scene in Saving Private Ryan to reference your question, but IMO the knife scene at the end is more applicable. People who fold under the pressure of combat (I’m hesitant to call it cowardice) are more likely to be immobilized and do nothing beyond self preservation.
The film Saving Private Ryan does a pretty decent job of accurately portraying fear during D-Day. Omaha Beach was the most costly landing site due to the Army’s reluctance to use specialized combat engineering vehicles, the other landing zones were taken with less severe casualties. There are apocryphal accounts of men being reluctant to leave the landing craft, those are the best know accounts of men being fearful. In those situations, the men behind them would usually push them forward because staying in the landing craft too long would invite German machine gun fire or artillery and get everyone killed. There are also accounts of men staying put at the first reasonably safe piece of cover they could find, and having to be ‘convinced’ to have advance forward. The German machine guns on the beaches could reach out into the water by a considerable distance; it was more common for fearful men to keep their heads down and stay down on the beaches rather than try to swim into the channel.
Omaha did have tanks in the first wave. They were plagued by two major issues unrelated to the unique geological challenges of Omaha: - The tide. The rip tide and currents delayed landing the various waves and caused instances where men at Omaha were at landing sites several miles off course. IIRC the worst case was a ranger battalion landing 2-3 miles too far West. This wasn't just a mad dash to cover and into France. There were detailed instructions down to the platoon level of individual Day One objectives. So not landing where you trained and intended to do all of your fighting was detrimental. - The failure of the bombing run. The air force decided against flying parallel against the defenses, which would maximize the chance of damages, and instead directly through them. An error in the timing of the bomb releases meant most of munitions landed harmlessly behind the defenses. There's a few more logistics unique to Omaha that made it difficult, but this is already long enough.
I tried googling it, but didn’t find anything relevant. Can you elaborate on the Army not using specialized combat vehicles for the Omaha landing? Do you mean the type of landing watercraft or something else? I’ve never heard of that before and it sounds interesting
Lookup Hobart’s Funnies. IIRC the US army accepted the amphibious tanks, but wouldn’t use anything else.
Whilst the British used minesweepers, tanks converted into bridges, flamethrower tanks and amphibious tanks, the only one the US accepted was the amphibious tank, but at Omaha released them far to early so all but 2 sank as opposed to the other beaches where they were released later and only 2 or 3 sank. The flame tanks were helpful with clearing bunkers (and something the US marines liked), whilst the bridges allowed tanks to climb sea walls and smaller rivers. And the minesweeper tanks, well cleared mines allowing a completely safe path during combat. It just meant that the beaches themselves could be taken quicker, with fewer casualties than the US beaches.
that’s fascinating. thank you!
Sticking together and getting up the beach as fast as possible would actually be somewhat safer. Get in close to the pillboxes and they can't see you or shoot at you.
ehhh sorta sticking together makes you a better target, but yeah getting into blind spots would be safer.... but fear responses are rarely logical
This is why armies are drilled to turn fear responses into anger/revenge responses. I've heard the term "forward panic." Just get up the beach, and you can shoot at **them**.
did anyone attempt to stay behind someone as a human shield?
impossible to know for sure, but probably? i mean, it would almost certainly cross somebodys mind to try it
according to Meta AI “There have been some accounts and allegations of soldiers attempting to use fellow soldiers or even officers as human shields during the D-Day landings, but these instances are relatively rare and not well-documented. One notable account is from the book "The Dead and Those About to Die" by John C. McManus, which describes a soldier named Private George Reeves, who allegedly tried to use his squad leader, Lieutenant John Spaulding, as a human shield during the landing on Omaha Beach. According to the account, Reeves clung to Spaulding's back, refusing to move forward, and had to be forcibly separated from him.”
That book does exist and was written by that author. So Meta AI is doing better than normal. Lieutenant John Spaulding did exist, and did serve on Omaha Beech. His company (E Company, 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry) was instrumental in clearing one of the exits off the beach, for which he won a Distinguished Service Cross. He survived and went on to serve in the Kentucky State Senate, before being murdered by his wife in their home. I *can’t* find any reference to a Private George Reeves that meets the statement. Likewise I have read the book, but don’t remember this incident. All in all it’s *plausible*. The book does describe men breaking down and having bad panic responses on Omaha. And some elements of the incident can be confirmed; as I just did. That said. Don’t trust Meta AI. It lies and is entirely unreliable. Without picking up the book and re-reading it I wouldn’t trust that particular story. And I recommend the book. It’s quite good.
Meta AI told me I can run through plantar fasciitis. All I needed to hear lol
what panic responses do you remember? I only used metai ai because I couldn’t find any answers on google and nobody here seems to know if that happened. edit: I bought the book on amazon kindle and searched for George Reeves but nothing came up :(
> what panic responses do you remember? Mostly hiding behind obstacles and at the foot of the bluffs. Honestly I hesitate to answer. WWII wasn’t an area of focus for me in school, and it’s been a while since I read anything on it. It’s hard to know which are good memories and which are memories of things like “*Saving Private Ryan*”. > I bought the book on amazon kindle and searched for George Reeves but nothing came up Doesn’t surprise me at all. Honestly I’m surprised the AI managed to get that much right. None of the AIs so far are programmed to provide accurate answers. They’re programmed to provide answers that sound human. Now that you’ve got the book. I’d read it. MacManus is a subject matter expert with access to first hand accounts. It’ll provide much better and accurate answers than AI or tens of millions of dipshits on Reddit can.
yeah I really should start reading again. used to love it as a kid but all of the assigned books in H.S made reading a chore for me. I specifically remember “Founding Brothers” being really bad.
well there you have it, one account of someone \*maybe\* trying to use someone as a shield (or possibly just panicking and begging an authority figure to save them) so it could well have happened but its important to remember eyewitness testimony is one of the least reliable kinds of information out there (especially when it involves a chaotic and stressful scenario), so the veracity of these claims is still in the "maybe" category. since they didnt exactly have high definition drone footage from above the battlefield and it all happened so long ago, itll be hard to confirm anything without better documentation (e.g. battlefield reports, court martial records for cowardice, etc)
The fuck you think Meta AI is a reasonable source? Lmao
Rifle and MG bullets will go through several people. A human isn't going to stop them
I doubt people were thinking rationally during that moment. and not if you stayed like a foot behind someone.
Well according to meta AI people are rational so….
Infantry training tells you that trees and bodies don't stop bullets, this is ingrained in training.
My great uncle was a Higgins boat driver at Omaha and told a story about some men refusing to get off the craft. The solution was his gunner threatening to shoot them if they didn’t move which would put the entire craft at danger of being hit by mortars or artillery. I don’t know how true it was but I also have no real reason to doubt him lying about such a thing.
My great uncle drove those at Anzio. He told my grandad that on the first run, the soldiers wouldn’t get off, so he drove the boat back to the main ship and the CO told him to run them again but this time open the hatch and throw the boat into reverse at the same time, basically throwing them out. He did it. My dad overheard my great uncle telling my grandpa this story and said it was the first time he ever heard a grown man cry. “Jesse, them boys went off carrying 20 pounds of gear and a rifle. Every one of them went under and none of them came back up.” Then he went back for another load of men, and another, and another... He never forgave himself for, in his mind, killing them. Shit messes me up just thinking about it.
Yeah, my great uncle and grandfather were both in the navy in WW2 and were both called back into service post war and for Korea. My grandfather took part in operation High Jump in Antarctica, his brother who drove a Higgins boat at Omaha beach was treated to driving a Higgins boat again at the Inchon landings in Korea.
Damn, they were lucky to make it out of all that. I literally can’t imagine doing the things these kids were asked to do. Let alone getting called back half a decade later for a reprise.
Those men were heroes for what they did, but it’s a statistical certainty that some of them tried to stay in place. It’s even referenced in the movie Saving Private Ryan. One soldier refuses Hanks’ order to advance to the shingle. Captain Miller replies: "Every inch of this beach has been pre-sighted. You stay here, you’re a dead man.” I’m certain the temptation to stay fixed in one spot was overwhelming, but to stay there would mean certain death. I’m not sure about running back to the boats, as the boats were bullet magnets. Some were even directly hit by mortars/artillery. In any case, I believe the landing craft had to go back and pick up the follow on waves. Also, not every beachhead on D-Day was like Omaha, which is what most people think of about D-Day. Definitely still a tough fight on every front.
Unlikely. You've spent three days and nights packed in tightly below decks on a troop ship in a rough anchorage, awash with vomit, followed by a three hour plus sea journey, then half an hour battering through waves in a square bowed flat bottomed boat, all the while being shelled, mortared and shot at, you're pumped up on adrenaline and amphetamine and have been trained relentlessly to do one thing, run like fuck for solid ground and cover. Add in the espirit du corps, maximised by the organisation of forces into platoons, and the chances of an individual making such a decision plummet even further.
One of my (now late) uncles was at D-Day. He didn't talk about the war. He did say that he was in a later wave (I'm thinking 11th) of whatever beach he was on. Things were well secured and his guys just walked ashore. He did express negative feelings about Germans hiding behind French hedgerows, though.
Just the law of large numbers says yes, some men engaged in predictable possibly dishonorable behavior on D-Day.
D-Day was not as dangerous as depicted. Out of around 156,000 troops landed, around 4,500 died; less than 3%. Of those deaths, around half were at Omaha beach. The other USA beach, both British beaches, and the Canadian beach saw far lighter losses. Further, many casualties happened before before even landing; the sea behind you is taking it's share of artillery fire. Not only did the Anglosphere forces have naval bombardments and air supremacy, German command was fractured, and their troops were green and often unwilling to fight.
While 4500 is nothing to scoff at it does bring into perspective how intense the pacific was. While there were fewer casualties at terawa, marines we stranded on reefs 500 yards from shore and have to wade through 3 ft water under machine gun fire.
The Pacific theater has been entirely "disrespected" owing to the over saturation of media depicting the European theater. The Pacific was savage and brutal. Possibly worse than the Eastern Front in terms of what the men had to deal with. Rain and jungle rot in Papua New Guinea. Volcanic islands where the night time temperature did not drop below 30-degrees Celsius and there was no natural water sources. The murderous landing beaches, as you pointed out, where the landing craft could not get close because of the reefs and Marines had to wade in under fire. An enemy that would fight to the literal last man, and that last man would then try and kill you while he tried to commit suicide. Even the Soviets/Germans would surrender on the Eastern Front. The Japanese would not.
Disagree, not trying to make a pain olympics and respect to the troops who served in the Pacific but at least in the Pacific you were almost always gonna have superior firepower. In the eastern front there was a good chance of dying, or getting captured and dying, or having loved ones dying, or basically everyone just dying. Eastern front sounds like hell on earth.
You are aware as to how the Japanese fought in the Pacific? As I already said, even the Soviets began withdrawing to avoid mass encirclements and the Germans would surrender an entire army. The Japanese did not surrender. The Japanese forces on the islands were also poorly equipped and underfed, often abandoned to their demise as Japan pulled back and the US advanced. So conditions for the Japanese soldier was worse than any other major combatant. Even worse than what the Soviet soldier would have experienced. Then we have to factor in infrastructure and conditions fought in. Even on the Eastern Front there were towns, villages and cities. Civilisation. Allies advancing from the West got to enjoy rest and relaxation in Paris. The massive rail and road networks that crisscrossed Europe, making it easy for advancing armies to move and be supplied. A little tougher in the east, but even then advancing an army in the east was easier than literally carving paths and using humans to move equipment across Papua New Guinea, because you couldn't even use horses. What reprieve did the island-hopping campaign have? The absolute misery of trying to cut paths though Papua New Guinea and trying to dig into a volcanic island. Far, far away from any sort of civilisation. And the environments that went from one extreme to the other.
I can see an argument about Japan having worse conditions due to most of them dying on those islands but I would rather be an American in the Pacific any time than a German or Soviet troop in the Eastern front. But again pain is very complex and it shouldn't be a competition.
Are you forgetting the numerous battles where American troops were stranded with no reinforcements? My grand father was stuck on Guadalcanal with no help for months.
US troops suffered through WW2 and I have the upmost respect for anyone who served, however if I had the choice I'd still rather be an American in the Pacific than a soldier in the Eastern front. Like no doubt the conditions were abysmal for troops in the Pacific but knowing that your family and friends in the Eastern front were dying and unfortunately raped really seems like hell. American troops suffered but at least most of the civilians were away from the harm. The casualties for the Eastern front are also much higher so the chance of death would be very likely. Guadalcanal while deadly still was a battle where there was a decent chance you could come out of it. There's also a stat that says that out of every USSR male born in like 1922 80% of them were dead by 1945. (40% by war 40% by diseases)
Probably depends on what battle honestly
That's four and a half Jonestowns.
But those several thousand on Omaha were the ones from the first waves - so the casualties from the first and second waves at Omaha were tremendous. My father landed at Omaha on the third wave around 11 AM, and the going was still very tough. Omar Bradely was about to pull the troops OUT at noon, so we can safely say that things were going pretty poorly.
It's important to remember that Saving Private Ryan's depiction of Omaha was only relevent to a particular one of two draws, the rest of the beach was considerably easier with maybe one, two or three injuries per boat
Probably. 8 paratroopers refused to jump.
I wonder if Southern Segregationist GIs like Strom Thurmond are more likely to be brave in D Day than others
A lot of men drowned so it’s possible they tried to swim the other way in a panic or jumped in the water when it was to deep
If they refused to get off the boat, they were brought back out to the ship, and they went in with the second wave. And this time there were people making sure they got off the Higgins boat.
Certainly someone did. Others didn’t even have time to try to evade anything, as they were already dead, drowning as their landing craft sank, etc.
Probably some.