Buried American LVTs in East Anglia

Not for a hazard. Yellow with an X on the top, or marked out with yellow and black cardinal buoys.
Mid 60's, sure they were green..that was when the bouyage system was changing to International Uniform?
 
Pop Watched German POW's running over new issue GI bulova Watches with steamrollers and then the remains dumped off a pier in late 1945.

The Army would not ship them back to the US on Empty ship holds

and would not surplus them onto the european market

and giving them to returning GI's was out of the question as they were US Gov property

Meanwhile he said many of the POW's had 3 or 4 on their arms
The famous photo of the Russian soldier raising the hammer & sickle flag over the Reichstag had to be reshot several times. When the first photo was shot, the soldier's sleeve rolled back to show 7 looted watches on his arm.
 
The LVT had been earmarked for the landings on D Day, some 300 were available and their use for initial assault waves was championed by a US General from the Pacific front who'd learnt the hard way about assaulting defended beaches. He was overruled by US Army ETO generals who felt Higgins Boats that they were familiar with were good enough.

The British Army however became enthusiastic users of the things for river crossings, the assault on Walcheren and operations in Holland.

Not entirely honest

The ETO had the Sherman DD and these were thought to be a better answer to armoured support on the beaches.

Theres also the issue that the ETO needed far more Armour shipping to the front (or at least building up reserves in UK) than the Pacific once the battle was on shore - couple this to the Buffaloes** development time line, Production rates - Shipments to the Pacific and its not impossible that June 44 was just to early to get LTVs delivered crewed and trained for ops at Normandy. And that's ignoring the additional shipping requirements to get them ashore on the day


I would also question whether they were as feasible for the initial assault as they would be in the pacific

The Channel is a rather unpleasant bit of water - happen they would have struggled and been easier targets than the boats.
Look how many DD Shermans got into trouble.

One could also opine that having conducted a number of Landings prior to Normandy the ETO officers didn't simply dismiss the PTO Generals comments - but recognised that geography - sea conditions - the fact they were landing on a continent* not small Islands - made circumstances significantly different and so decide they weren't worth it

* LTV being of very limited use once the fighting's off the beaches - swapping them for tanks perhaps makes sense in Normandy
**The LTV1 being much less powerful and more vulnerable


Edit a quick google suggests that as there were no reefs - the LCVP could go straight in and were quicker and carried more men than the LTV and protection on the latter wasn't significantly more than on the boats.

As for driving up the Beach and depositing troops inland / at the wall the German AT defences were far superior to Japans - perhaps negating any potential speed advantage
 
Last edited:
Yes there is at least one wooden one, in a roundabout on the sea side of Shoreham airport, it looks lonely
Ugly, not quite Shoreham Airport - it stands on the roundabout marking the entrance to the Holmbush Farm retail park and where the Old Shoreham Road meets the Brighton Bypass. It was leftover (I believe) after the filming of Saving Private Ryan, although I don't know whether it is an original or a mock up.
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
Mid 60's, sure they were green..that was when the bouyage system was changing to International Uniform?
The IALA system came in around 1980. I did the RAC Regatta annually every year before and after, and having been appointed de facto Vasco (da Gama, The Navigator), I had to learn IALA plus Danish and West German systems.

There are (were) two discrete IALA systems because New World and Old disagreed fundamentally on whether Port and Starboard channel market buoys were port or starboard on the way in or on the way out of harbour. Systems A and B were created.
 
Not for a hazard. Yellow with an X on the top, or marked out with yellow and black cardinal buoys.
Without wishing to be pedantic, a yellow mark with an X on top is a Special Mark. It may, or may not mark a hazard. They simply mark a special area or feature; to identify what, you have to check the chart.

I can think of several that mark a channel within a channel. The Marie Rose site is marked with special marks, but it is not a hazard to navigation. The upper reaches of Portsmouth are full of Special Marks identifying foul ground; again, only a hazard if you wish to anchor.

I find it very hard to believe that Special Marks were ever green in UK waters. The IALA A System was build around British navigational conventions. Green has always marked the starboard limits of a channel when traveling upstream.
 

Truxx

LE
The famous photo of the Russian soldier raising the hammer & sickle flag over the Reichstag had to be reshot several times. When the first photo was shot, the soldier's sleeve rolled back to show 7 looted watches on his arm.
Was one of them in that shot not a woman?
 
Without wishing to be pedantic, a yellow mark with an X on top is a Special Mark. It may, or may not mark a hazard. They simply mark a special area or feature; to identify what, you have to check the chart.

I can think of several that mark a channel within a channel. The Marie Rose site is marked with special marks, but it is not a hazard to navigation. The upper reaches of Portsmouth are full of Special Marks identifying foul ground; again, only a hazard if you wish to anchor.

I find it very hard to believe that Special Marks were ever green in UK waters. The IALA A System was build around British navigational conventions. Green has always marked the starboard limits of a channel when traveling upstream.
You are absolutely correct rhat it is a special mark, but often used to mark a hazard - and I agree, I doubt any hazard would be marked with a green can.
 
You are absolutely correct rhat it is a special mark, but often used to mark a hazard - and I agree, I doubt any hazard would be marked with a green can.
I fear we are guilty of thread tack; discussing buoyage on a thread about buried LVTs is more than drift. But, on the other hand, there’s a war on.

As I said, I was being pedantic. But then sI was the assessor on my Yachtmaster Instructor’s assessment! My google research of 1960s buoyage has been pretty inconclusive, other than to identify that there were upwards of 30 different systems around the world when the IALA systems were introduced in 1980.

But pre-IALA, the Trinity House system was pretty much standard across countries that were formerly pink in the atlas. And red lights on port, green starboard were around long before the 60s.
 
I fear we are guilty of thread tack; discussing buoyage on a thread about buried LVTs is more than drift. But, on the other hand, there’s a war on.

As I said, I was being pedantic. But then sI was the assessor on my Yachtmaster Instructor’s assessment! My google research of 1960s buoyage has been pretty inconclusive, other than to identify that there were upwards of 30 different systems around the world when the IALA systems were introduced in 1980.

But pre-IALA, the Trinity House system was pretty much standard across countries that were formerly pink in the atlas. And red lights on port, green starboard were around long before the 60s.
I have a set of RN Navigation Training publications from the 1930s...but there's two people with symptoms where they are kept so I am staying well away.
 
Wot a kerkuffle over some green cans. It was well over half a century ago. Three of us had Baltic tickets, An ASM, Prince Mick, and I, so for several years I got to skipper various BKYC jobbies, changing crews weekly, me being a gash hand, compared with the other two. I well remember bobbing through some green cans. Someone said what are they, I said, dunno. Looked it up and the chart said "Munition Loesplatze" or some thing similar. So there you go.
 
Wot a kerkuffle over some green cans. It was well over half a century ago. Three of us had Baltic tickets, An ASM, Prince Mick, and I, so for several years I got to skipper various BKYC jobbies, changing crews weekly, me being a gash hand, compared with the other two. I well remember bobbing through some green cans. Someone said what are they, I said, dunno. Looked it up and the chart said "Munition Loesplatze" or some thing similar. So there you go.
It’s entirely possible that buoyage on the Baltic didn’t follow the same conventions as the UK (much of which became IALA.
 

Truxx

LE
I have been to the puddle that is left at Crowland. It has no need of navigational markers of any kind.

What is more interesting is the can-do approach of the regional head shed who was able, in a very short space of time, to find and sink 18 I think, otherwise serviceable bits of kit.( The first half dozen washed away.
 
Not entirely honest

The ETO had the Sherman DD and these were thought to be a better answer to armoured support on the beaches.

Theres also the issue that the ETO needed far more Armour shipping to the front (or at least building up reserves in UK) than the Pacific once the battle was on shore - couple this to the Buffaloes** development time line, Production rates - Shipments to the Pacific and its not impossible that June 44 was just to early to get LTVs delivered crewed and trained for ops at Normandy. And that's ignoring the additional shipping requirements to get them ashore on the day


I would also question whether they were as feasible for the initial assault as they would be in the pacific

The Channel is a rather unpleasant bit of water - happen they would have struggled and been easier targets than the boats.
Look how many DD Shermans got into trouble.

One could also opine that having conducted a number of Landings prior to Normandy the ETO officers didn't simply dismiss the PTO Generals comments - but recognised that geography - sea conditions - the fact they were landing on a continent* not small Islands - made circumstances significantly different and so decide they weren't worth it

* LTV being of very limited use once the fighting's off the beaches - swapping them for tanks perhaps makes sense in Normandy
**The LTV1 being much less powerful and more vulnerable


Edit a quick google suggests that as there were no reefs - the LCVP could go straight in and were quicker and carried more men than the LTV and protection on the latter wasn't significantly more than on the boats.

As for driving up the Beach and depositing troops inland / at the wall the German AT defences were far superior to Japans - perhaps negating any potential speed advantage
The septics did develop a close support variant for the PTO, complete with a turret. But as you say once off the beaches the LVTs, would’ve had the shit kicked out of them.
 
The septics did develop a close support variant for the PTO, complete with a turret. But as you say once off the beaches the LVTs, would’ve had the shit kicked out of them.
They did - its why I mentioned the DD Sherman , it may have been worse on the beach but after was far superior and crucially there was only one day on the beach.

I could perhaps have been clearer.
 

Mikal

ADC
Yes there is at least one wooden one, in a roundabout on the sea side of Shoreham airport, it looks lonely
That's from the film Band of Brothers. The Chairman of the Landing Craft Association lived in Shoreham and somehow managed to get a hold of one. It's in a very poor state of repair now.
 
Not entirely honest

The ETO had the Sherman DD and these were thought to be a better answer to armoured support on the beaches.

Theres also the issue that the ETO needed far more Armour shipping to the front (or at least building up reserves in UK) than the Pacific once the battle was on shore - couple this to the Buffaloes** development time line, Production rates - Shipments to the Pacific and its not impossible that June 44 was just to early to get LTVs delivered crewed and trained for ops at Normandy. And that's ignoring the additional shipping requirements to get them ashore on the day


I would also question whether they were as feasible for the initial assault as they would be in the pacific

The Channel is a rather unpleasant bit of water - happen they would have struggled and been easier targets than the boats.
Look how many DD Shermans got into trouble.

One could also opine that having conducted a number of Landings prior to Normandy the ETO officers didn't simply dismiss the PTO Generals comments - but recognised that geography - sea conditions - the fact they were landing on a continent* not small Islands - made circumstances significantly different and so decide they weren't worth it

* LTV being of very limited use once the fighting's off the beaches - swapping them for tanks perhaps makes sense in Normandy
**The LTV1 being much less powerful and more vulnerable


Edit a quick google suggests that as there were no reefs - the LCVP could go straight in and were quicker and carried more men than the LTV and protection on the latter wasn't significantly more than on the boats.

As for driving up the Beach and depositing troops inland / at the wall the German AT defences were far superior to Japans - perhaps negating any potential speed advantage

The Buffalo was certainly available for D Day, the Canadians had been training with them but went with LCAs and DD tanks in the end as the beach was flat with easy egress. They would go on to be enthusiastic users afterwards til wars end.

OMAHA had been a subject of some concern during the planning due to its dominating high bluffs and very limited egress. The 'Plan' was that the beach was supposed to be hit by heavy bombers on the morning to provide cover on the beach and destroy most of the defences on the headland - the mission missed and managed to put a lot of holes in fields well behind the beach and kill some French cows.

OMAHA was an omnishambles, and that was what the USMC liaison Officer had tried to get through to the Army, they had all their eggs in one basket and no plan B if it went wrong. Having to sail Destroyers in so close they started grounding to bring the defences under direct fire with light weapons demonstrates how little firepower had been landed on the day. If nothing else, the LVT's would have brought a lot off crew served weapons with some protection to the firefight*. Rifleman lying out in the open verses emplaced MG's on the bluffs is a losing game.

* FWIW, the Americans always preferred to go play on beaches in British LCA's if available, they were armoured and came with an MG to provide suppressive fire. Saving Private Ryan is historically inaccurate, on the day, the Rangers were landed by British manned LCA's.
 

Latest Threads

Top