this post was submitted on
1,362 points (59% like it)
4,310 up votes 2,948 down votes

pics

subscribe2,179,585 readers

Looking for an image subreddit with minimal rules? Check out /r/images

A place to share interesting photographs and pictures. Feel free to post your own, but please read the rules first (see below), and note that we are not a catch-all for general images (of screenshots, comics, etc.)

Spoiler code

Please mark spoilers like this:
[text here](/spoiler)

Hover over to read.

Rules

  1. No screenshots, or pictures with added or superimposed text. This includes image macros, comics, info-graphics and most diagrams. Text (e.g. a URL) serving to credit the original author is exempt.

  2. No gore or porn. NSFW content must be tagged.

  3. No personal information. This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder. Stalking & harassment will not be tolerated.

  4. No solicitation of votes (including "cake day" posts), weight loss photos, posts with their sole purpose being to communicate with another redditor, or [FIXED] posts. Weight loss photos go in /r/loseit, DAE posts go in /r/DoesAnybodyElse. "Fixed" posts should be added as a comment to the original image.

  5. Submissions must link directly to a specific image file or to an image hosting website with minimal ads. We do not allow blog hosting of images ("blogspam"), but links to albums on image hosting websites are okay. URL shorteners are prohibited.

  • If your submission appears to be filtered but definitely meets the above rules, please send us a message with a link to the comments section of your post (not a direct link to the image). Don't delete it as that just makes the filter hate you!

  • If you come across any rule violations, please report the submission or message the mods and one of us will remove it!

Please also try to come up with original post titles. Submissions that use certain clichés/memes will be automatically tagged with a warning.

Links

If your post doesn't meet the above rules, consider submitting it on one of these other subreddits:

Comics  
/r/comics /r/webcomics
/r/vertical /r/f7u12
/r/ragenovels /r/AdviceAtheists
Image macros Screenshots/text
/r/lolcats /r/screenshots
/r/AdviceAnimals /r/desktops
/r/Demotivational /r/facepalm (Facebook)
/r/reactiongifs /r/DesktopDetective
Wallpaper Animals
/r/wallpaper /r/aww
/r/wallpapers /r/cats
The SFWPorn Network /r/TrollingAnimals
  /r/deadpets
  /r/birdpics
  /r/foxes
Photography Un-moderated pics
/r/photography /r/AnythingGoesPics
/r/photocritique /r/images
/r/HDR
/r/windowshots
/r/PictureChallenge
Misc New reddits
/r/misc /r/britpics
/r/gifs Imaginary Network
/r/dataisbeautiful /r/thennnow
/r/picrequests /r/SpecArt
  /r/LookWhoIMet
  /r/timelinecovers
  /r/MemesIRL
  /r/OldSchoolCool
  /r/photoshopbattles

Also check out http://irc.reddit.com

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow all 322

[–]adowner 158 points159 points ago

Seeing this picture always amazes me. Not for the war aspect of it, but for the engineering and manufacturing aspect of it. Consider that most of the ships and all the material in the picture didn't exist 4 years prior and the large landing ships weren't even conceived of.

So, in just a few years, those ships went from not even being a concept through design, engineering, manufacture and mass production... That's pretty incredible.

[–]polandpower 23 points24 points ago

It really is amazing. The amount of vehicles, ships, crafts, men and material used is unbelievable. Takes a tremendous effort to get all that running and organized. Wars are frigging expensive.

[–]nashx90 4 points5 points ago

Just imagine what kind of world we'd been living in if the green revolution had kicked off in 1938...

[–]beerme72 -2 points-1 points ago

We'd be speaking German, Japanese, and a mix of Russian right now...

[–]mrmeshshorts 0 points1 point ago

You could be trolling, but im not following your logic... Did I just bite?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

..and to keep it moving too. There ability to do this consistently in the first 5 days was essential to the success of those builidng hte beachead.

[–]polandpower 1 point2 points ago

I hope they got a massive discount on petrol. An operation like that is basically like buying stock in Shell shares.

[–]GiggityGiggidy 33 points34 points ago

Yeah, just like the F-35!! Oh wait...

[–]EdmundRice 14 points15 points ago

I think if we were in need of the thing like the allies were back in WW2 then things would've sped along significantly.

[–]beerme72 0 points1 point ago

I've always wondered what a modern Amphibious Assault Force would have gone then.
Or a modern Aircraft Carrier Battle Group.
Or a platoon of SEALs.....

[–]Matthew212 1 point2 points ago

A commoner designed these ships http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Higgins. Great story

[–]adowner 0 points1 point ago

Higgins was the man, I was actually thinking of the LSTs though... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_landing_ship

[–]MichaelTheArnold 4 points5 points ago

It's amazing what humanity can accomplish when we put our minds to killing each other.

[–]dmtforme2 10 points11 points ago

Eventually they constructed a massive, floating artificial harbour. Incredibly impressive for that time.

I believe there was a facility in the US that averaged a destroyer every 4 days, I'll have to check my notes. Americans may have not been the fiercest fighters but god damn do they know how to build shit.

[–]xaronax 31 points32 points ago

Americans may have not been the fiercest fighters but

The people present Exhibit C, the Battle of the Bulge.

[–]dmtforme2 9 points10 points ago

My comment probably came across a little rude, I didn't intend for that. American's fought hard and won many impressive battles against staggering odds, especially in the pacific and I have infinite respect for them all. I just meant that in general it was common for Germans to prefer fighting Americans versus other Allied nations.

[–]troglodyte 39 points40 points ago*

it was common for Germans to prefer fighting Americans versus other Allied nations.

While this is true, it's commonly noted by many historical accounts that this was an inaccurate perception derived from poor performance early in the war. A lot of the accounts I've read cite the adaptability of the American forces as nothing short of exceptional. In particular, the aftermath of Kasserine Pass saw sweeping reforms of organization, tactics, and strategy, in some cases in as short a time as a few weeks. Several of the histories I've read suggest that constant Axis underestimation of American forces, particularly blooded formations, was actually to the benefit of American forces. Even Rommel consistently underestimated the American forces (despite the rapid improvement they displayed in the Africa campaign).

The difference between blooded and unblooded formations is absolutely astonishing, as well. Veteren American formations were easily the match of any unit in the theater (particularly the 1st Infantry Division, the Airborne divisions, and the Ranger battalions, at least from my readings), but some of the untested units were undertrained and unprepared, in some cases receiving advice on combat from their Wehrmacht prisoners!

At the end of the day, though, the chance of survival and eventual return to the homeland was empirically higher when surrendering to the Western Allies than the Soviets, for a variety of reasons (for example, when the Sixth Army surrendered at Stalingrad, the Soviets had insufficient food, supplies, and medical attention available for their captives). That alone may have contributed to the preference for fighting Americans. Certainly, by the time of the Normandy landings, at a leadership level, fighting the Americans would have been nightmarish, given their utterly overwhelming air superiority, nullifying the armored columns that the Wehrmacht used to such advantage earlier in the war.

EDIT: It is worth noting that the American forces had, in many cases, inferior equipment. The MG42 was dramatically superior to the .30 caliber machine gun the Americans deployed. Americans were piloting Stuarts into war against Panzer Mark IVs in Africa and Shermans against Panthers and Tigers in Normandy (which sported the feared 88mm gun, possibly the best gun of the war), both of which were matchups in which the Americans were dramatically outgunned. Shermans also ran on gasoline and had poorly protected magazines, which made them notorious firetraps (the Germans called them "Tommycookers," and the British nicknamed it after a brand of lighter noted for consistent ignition). By the end of the war, the German forces were fielding the MP44 as well, meaning that the Allies were facing the first assault rifle down with semi-automatic and bolt-action rifles. In that regard the common perception was wholly correct; the American forces had an overwhelming preponderance of materiel, but for the most part it was technologically inferior to the German equivalent.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]usernameshortage 1 point2 points ago

Not to mention the fact that being lighter, less technologically advanced machines and weaponry often made them easier to mass-produce on the assembly lines. More bang for the buck, so to speak.

[–]RaindropBebop 1 point2 points ago

Great read, thanks for the insight.

Question(s). Was the BAR -- deployed at the end of WWI, IIRC -- not a valid 'counter', if you will, to the german MP44? What about the performance of the Thompson versus the MP40? Also, did these weapons even have that much of an impact? Weren't most German infantry-men equipped with the standard bolt-action KAR98, whereas most American infantry-men were equipped with the semi-automatic M1 Garand (or M1 Carbine for paratroopers)? I would think the fact that a semi-automatic rifle was the defacto rifle for every American soldier would be an enormous advantage.

[–]troglodyte 2 points3 points ago

My understanding was that the largest difference was doctrinal; the Wehrmacht deployed machine guns as the centerpiece of a squad (often carrying more MG ammo than rifle ammo), whereas the Allies tended to deploy them as support weapons. It kind of makes sense, since the rate of fire from the MG42 was twice(!) that of the comparable Allied machine guns, and lighter too.

I'm by no means a weapons expert, just a guy who likes to read about history, but my understand is that the BAR straddled the line between machine gun and assault rifle. As originally conceived it was an inaccurate weapon weapon to provide supporting fire from the hip in trench warfare, and I think it was chiefly used with a bipod in WWII as a slightly-more-mobile support machine gun. In any event, the MP44 wasn't seen in large numbers in the west, but made a pretty big impact in the east. Again, my understanding here is that the weapon was effective chiefly thanks to the combination of effective range and rate of fire, which the submachine guns of the time couldn't match.

As for a comparison of SMG technology, you'd have to ask a weapons historian. I know SMGs were popular with airborne troops of all stripes because of their compact size, but that's about the only knowledge I have of them. Most of the reading I've done has been purely because I'm interested in it, not thanks to a class or anything, so my knowledge is spotty. Personally I find armor design more interesting, so I gravitate towards it, leaving other areas of knowledge a bit thinner.

[–]richalex2010 0 points1 point ago

The role that the BAR was developed for is essentially what the M249 SAW fills now - a smaller, lighter machine gun that can be deployed at a lower level than a regular machine gun (i.e. every squad (8-13 men) would have a BAR, but the M1919 was integrated at the company level (80-255 men)). If anything, I'd expect that the StG 44 was developed as a direct result of the M1 Garand; the US forces had semi-automatic battle rifles, while the Germans were still largely using bolt-action carbines from an 1898 design (albeit a really good design, since the US copied an earlier version for the M1903 Springfield, and the action is even today renowned for use in precision rifles).

[–]panzerkampfwagen 0 points1 point ago

The BAR was either a light machine gun or automatic rifle depending on which model you had. This meant it shot a full sized rifle round, which meant recoil was a bitch compared to something like the Stg44 which fired an intermediate cartridge, and why the Stg44 was made in the first place, to be easier to cart around than something that fired a full sized rifle cartridge, while having the rate of fire, if needed, of submachine gun.

[–]Gonkulator 0 points1 point ago

The BAR took on the roll of squad support, something to lay down suppressing fire. The MP44 was limited production and not many units got them. It was an end of the war MG that saw limited use overall.

The M1 Carbine wasn't limited to just paratroopers, though they did have their own version with a folding stock. The standard issued rifle for the Germans was the KAR98, but then again every other country was still issued bolt action rifles during that time (Britain had the Lee Enfield, Soviet Union had the Mosin Nagant, so on and so forth). The US was the first country to issue a semi automatic rifle to all of their soldiers (Marine Corps. were the last to receive the Garand as a standard issue, they were still using the M1903 Springfields for quite some time).

[–]xaronax 8 points9 points ago

I'm somewhat underinformed of this preference, can you list some references or examples? (Not arguing, just wanting to learn). I'm sure I would prefer fighting Americans to those sneaky fuckin' Russians.

[–]troglodyte 2 points3 points ago

After some crushing early defeats in Africa, it was commonly believed that American soldiers were undertrained and poorly equipped. Certainly in some cases this was true, but given the remarkable retooling of the American army after the learning in Africa (in as little as a few weeks, whole doctrines had been scrapped), it ended up being a fairly inaccurate assessment that nonetheless persisted. The American forces that landed at Normandy were wholly unlike the forces that fought at Kasserine Pass, yet the common perception hadn't changed. Probably this was valuable to the Americans in the long run.

[–]beerme72 0 points1 point ago

An Army at Dawn is a GREAT read on the first part of the war. Rick somebody or other wrote it.

[–]dmtforme2 12 points13 points ago

I'll absolutely rip through my notes and find you some references, the ideology mostly came from German soldiers accounts. You hit the nail on the head with Russia, Russia in the later parts of the war had equipment just as good as the Germans. The T-34s were actually some of the only tanks that gave Panzers a run for their money. Germans feared the Russians the most because of their numbers, technological superiority/match, and god help you if you were taken prisoner. The Second generation of Russian fighters had not known defeat, but they had endured years of their families being raped and killed by the Germans. So they were pissed, well armed, large in numbers, and high on morale.

First hand accounts suggest they were also pretty terrified of Canadians. This was due in part to their role in WW1 as storm troopers who literally won the war and pushed Germany out of Belgium at the end. Canadians were always poorly equipped but fought really hard, when the Allies invaded France Hitler sent a dozen SS divisions (The best German soldiers) to try and stop them. The Canadians still crushed the SS, and this is in territory (hedge rows/farmland/tons of cover and bushes) that the Germans had been living in for months if not years.

[–]frigginhumid 5 points6 points ago

Canada rocked.

[–]Feb_29_Guy 5 points6 points ago

When it comes to war do not fuck with Canada.

We will politely tear you a new one.

[–]wonglik 9 points10 points ago

I guess it has something to do with tough climate. Finns also did some amazing job during winter war.

[–]sottaly 7 points8 points ago

Finns absolutely crushed the Soviets because yes they were good fighters, but also the Russian officers sent were incredibly inexperienced. Stalin had just finished a large military officer purge and the replacement officers were just awful.

[–]mrwickedhauser 1 point2 points ago

As a Canadian, I came here for this comment and was not disappointed.

[–]mrmeshshorts 1 point2 points ago

Ive heard the t-34 described as not only the best tank of the war, but the best tank of all time. Clearly, it wouldnt match against todays tanks, but they, the military channel i think, were measuring all aspects of the tank: Fire power, reliability, armor, fuel consumption, manuverability, things of this nature. Pretty kick ass for the Russians, they did some amazing things in that war. Engaging 80% of the German army during d day... beating the luftwaffe like they did, stalingrad and Moscow, not to forget the siege of leningrad. And I remember the stories about them driving tanks RIGHT OFF THE PRODUCTION line and directly into battle... Amazing. Russia might have actually saved the world in those years...

[–]beerme72 0 points1 point ago

The German tank was so sophisticated it had to have a Laboratory to rebuild it.
The Soviets made their stuff so simple an illiterate farm hand or goat herder could fix it.
That and the sloping armor on the front of the T-34 was like so amazingly simple....yet no one thought of it?
so odd.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points ago

Links? Citations?

First of all they hated fighting the Russians because of what would happen to them. The other allies were much more kind to POW's.

This was due in part to their role in WW1 as storm troopers who literally won the war and

WHAT? Now you're saying Canada won WWI? Do you know where the term devildog comes from?

This guy is just talking out his ass.

[–]DZ302 11 points12 points ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_Hundred_Days

Canada’s Hundred Days was a series of attacks made along the Western Front by the Canadian Corps during the Hundred Days Offensive of World War I. Reference to this period as Canada's Hundred Days is due to the substantial role the Canadian Corps of the British First Army played in causing the defeat and/or retreat of the German Army in a series of major battles from Amiens to Mons which along with other Allied offensives ultimately led to Germany's final defeat and surrender.

.

In terms of numbers, during those 96 days the Canadian Corps' four over-strength or 'heavy' divisions of roughly 100 000 men, engaged and defeated or put to flight elements of forty seven German divisions, which represented one quarter of the German forces fighting on the Western Front.

.

As the Canadians had often come to be used as a spearhead, or front line force employed where fighting was going to be most difficult, (See the Somme, Vimy & Passchendaele) Allied command had developed an understanding that the Germans had learned to suspect and prepare for an attack when they found the Canadians were moved in and massed on a new sector of the front lines. British Prime Minister David Lloyd George reflected this attitude when he wrote in his memoirs: “The Canadians played a part of such distinction that henceforward they were marked out as storm troops; for the remainder of the war they were brought along to head the assault in one great battle after another. Whenever the Germans found the Canadian Corps coming into the line they prepared for the worst.”
As such, when it was decided the Canadians with the Australians would spearhead the centre of the attack at Amiens the decision was taken that the movement of the Canadian Corps to Amiens would be kept as secret as possible. A deception operation was devised to conceal and misrepresent the Canadians position in the front. False radio traffic was created to indicate the Canadians were in Calais and a small unit was posted in the Ypres sector and made their presence there overtly recognizable. Meanwhile, the majority of the Canadian Corps was marched to Amiens in secret and was even kept out of the sight of fellow Allied units to maintain the secrecy of their movements.

Also relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Major

Also relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Julien_Memorial

Relevant today: Taliban commander calls Canadian troops bravest he's fought

Don't fuck with Canada

[–]xaronax 1 point2 points ago

Hey let's all be dicks about it rather than learning about other peoples views and knowledge!

*=====

The more you know!

[–]Totaled 1 point2 points ago

Oh where the term devildog comes from eh?

Devil Dog is a motivational nickname for a U.S. Marine. It is said to be based on the apocryphal use of "Teufelshunde" by German soldiers to describe Marines fighting in World War I, for which there is no evidence.[1][2]

[–]beerme72 0 points1 point ago

The Germans HATED the Russians.
And vice-versa.
So when the Germans entered Russia, they stole anything that couldn't be nailed down and raped the rest. The Germans considered the basic Russian to be an animal and not to be treated any better.
Thus it was that when the table were turned and the Russians invaded Germany at the end of the war...literally all hell broke loose.
Germans were fleeing WEST towards the Brits and French and Americans because they knew they wouldn't be raped or murdered or sent to a gulag somewhere.
Dan Carlin has a GREAT Podcast called 'Hardcore History' and has a wonderful four (I believe) part series on the 'Osterfront' (Eastern Front) and the brutality shown by both sides.
It's a truly fascinating part of history, when two TRULY evil men go to war with each other and use such brutal tactics (the Germans once complained that the Russians fought like Beasts when it took them two WEEKS to gain access of a Grain Elevator on the edge of Stalingrad....the Russians literally fought room to room and stair case to stair case to simply kill more Germans).
It's truly amazing.

[–]soyabstemio 0 points1 point ago

There's also the point that the Germans, if they lost, were reasonably assured of humane treatment if captured by the Yanks, against slavery and death if captured by the Russkis.

[–]khanfusion 3 points4 points ago

Well, yeah they preferred fighting Americans. The Americans weren't known for executing or torturing captives during that war, and didn't go out of their way to kill civilians.

[–]somecleverusername62 9 points10 points ago

i'm sorry, but the historical documentary inglorius basterds proves that the americans were brutally torturing and executing captured nazis.

[–]bafta 5 points6 points ago

The Mulberry harbours were designed and built by the British,the Americans at the time didn't even consider them necessary,when they were towed across the channel to be assembled,each pontoon was designed to have four anchors to secure them,again the Americans didn't bother to do that,so their harbour was lost in the first storm,so everything had to be unloaded on the British one,sorry.

[–]dmtforme2 3 points4 points ago

Sorry for what? I never said the Americans did it. I'm saying that an artificial harbour is impressive in that time period.

[–]adowner 0 points1 point ago

I think you might be thinking of the Liberty ships built in the Kaiser facilities on the west coast. If I recall correctly, there were 7 facilities, four in Richmond, CA and another up three near Portland that were competing to see who could build one the fastest and one of them did it in 4 1/2 days. Of course, They pre-positioned everything and had sub-assemblies pre-built, but still an impressive feat.

It was the Liberty ship that is one of the major things credited with saving England. It was because we were building them faster than the U-Boats could sink them...

[–]beerme72 0 points1 point ago

I read an account by a Merchant Captain that he'd taken over a Merchant Ship and was walking up to the bridge.
He slipped in something wet on the deck and it was paint.
It was SO new, and on it's way to get loaded for the fight that the paint hadn't even dried.
It seems amazing too me that they were needed THAT quickly. But then again, they were.

[–]ILike4ChanShh 3 points4 points ago

Thats what happens when we enter war and find "blueprint plans" in the open sitting on the engineer's table in the enemy bunker like a call of duty 4 objective. Instant technology.

[–]Kavusto 0 points1 point ago

Shows you what humanity can do when we do what we do best.... Killing each other

[–]yskoty 0 points1 point ago

I've always loved the scale of the picture. The tiny figures walking the sand in small groups of two and three in front of some of the large landing ships gives one a mental image of how titanic in scope the entire operation was.

[–]RaindropBebop 0 points1 point ago

The sheer scale of the D-Day operation is what always amazed me.

[–]medicrow 0 points1 point ago

Knock knock axis powers, Respect for Canadians and their efforts that day.

[–]GuitarFreak027 65 points66 points ago

This was mid-June, a week or so after D-Day.

[–]CodeOfKonami 68 points69 points ago

D+7 Day.

[–]violetjoker 7 points8 points ago

They needed some time to remove all the bodies.

[–]Big_Baby_Jesus 3 points4 points ago

A large majority of the D-Day casualties were on Omaha beach, where the naval artillery barrage didn't work well and things just generally went badly. This picture may well be of one of the other beachheads, such as Utah, where there was very little fighting.

[–]mikeman12312 5 points6 points ago

Actually, there was substantial combat action on all five beaches, although the rest obviously had an easier time of it. The Canadians faced as much resistance at Juno as the Americans did at Omaha, even, but were able to break through before suffering heavy casualties.

[–]Big_Baby_Jesus 2 points3 points ago

Juno was the only beach in the same category with Omaha. But my point stands that the mass slaughter that people think of (largely from Saving Private Ryan) was confined to Omaha beach. The Canadians fought fiercely and bravely against heavy guns, but there were two big differences. The Americans at Omaha fought against higher quality German troops, and the tank landing at Juno went smoothly while the tanks at Omaha were a debacle.

[–]Cathbar 2 points3 points ago

How did the mounties ride across the ocean?

[–]zlc 2 points3 points ago

Seahorses.

[–]Cathbar 0 points1 point ago

Well played.

[–]Khalku 4 points5 points ago

We just apologized profusely until they let us in!

[–]kcg5 0 points1 point ago

D-day, plus 6?

[–]that_guy82 23 points24 points ago

I remember seeing a photo years ago showing the staging area in Britain for the D-Day invasion. I tried searching for it, but couldn't find anything. Anyone else able to find it?

[–]Rukutsk 42 points43 points ago

What did they use the blimps for?

[–]Crepti 104 points105 points ago

They're called "barrage balloons". Their purpose was to prevent enemy aircraft from strafing the area, as they would run into the cables.

[–]bortak 31 points32 points ago

Well this makes me feel like a retard after thinking they were enemy mortars ಠ_ಠ

No surprise as to why I was confused about why there were not explosions on the ground though.

[–]phillashcroft 19 points20 points ago

Mortars would be much smaller, and the trajectory is wrong. Fuck mortars.

[–]DiscoDonkey 11 points12 points ago

These look more like giant bombs

[–]happywaffle 2 points3 points ago

Mortars that look like fish when they explode?

[–]Unlucky13 1 point2 points ago

You realize this was taken long after fighting on that beach was over, right?

[–]IamTheBrainOfMe 0 points1 point ago

Oh, I thought it was them leaving towards their goal (the fight) :s

[–]POWERGULL 1 point2 points ago

thanks!

[–]DrSpookymuffin 0 points1 point ago

When I was young, I used to have nightmares about barrage balloons. I feel like there was some kind of trigger to this in some cartoon I watched once, can anyone think what it might have been?

[–]supernatendo 0 points1 point ago

"Little Nemo: The Dream Master" video game had barrage balloons in it on the NES.

[–]DrSpookymuffin 1 point2 points ago

I was never allowed a console as a child, and to this day I have never owned one.

[–]wildcarde815 0 points1 point ago

Weren't blimps also used for sub hunting during fleet crossings?

[–]beerme72 0 points1 point ago

Yes. The United States Navy used them (tho their affect was modest)

[–]Rukutsk 0 points1 point ago

Awesome. Thanks!

[–]Hawkings_Footy_Boots 5 points6 points ago

These are Kirov Airships, you have obviously not played Red Alert 2. Jokes. Barage balloons that deter enemy aircrafy. What an incredible pic, thanks for posting.

[–]Lovetones 1 point2 points ago

I was listening to a show on Radio 4 this morning and they were saying that balloons were often used to survey the enemy in order to map out the land and the plan of attack/defence, and to identify target areas for artillery.

[–]NervousMcStabby 8 points9 points ago

Much more prominent in World War I. By World War II, anti-aircraft guns had made enough advancements to make offensive recon via balloons a really bad idea for the most part.

[–]Lovetones 0 points1 point ago

In that case, were the barrage balloons describer by Crepti unmanned? Or just not often in the direct line of fire?

[–]xaronax 9 points10 points ago

Unmanned. They're just there to hold the cables up. Keeps everyone from getting strafed.

[–]wenestvedt 0 points1 point ago

Funny way to phrase it, but factually correct!

[–]Seamus_OReilly 12 points13 points ago

Have you ever heard that nearly all of the allied footage taken from (I want to say) Omaha was loaded into a duffel bag for return to the invasion ships, and that someone slipped and dropped it into the channel? That's why we don't have very much footage of the actual invasion, and you see the same pictures and (mostly German) clips of the invasion.

I wonder if it would be possible to recover that duffel bag from the sea floor, and if the film would be in any way salvageable?

[–]Osiris32 14 points15 points ago

That, and one photographer, who's name escapes me, was so excited to get his pictures developed that he screwed up the process and destroyed most of the images.

In a way, it's almost fitting. Like a photograph simply couldn't depict what it would have been like to wade ashore under enemy fire.

Intense and undying admiration to the Allied forces who fought in that war, no matter their nationality. Respect, also, to the German soldiers who fought, not for Hitler and his fascist regime, but with honor to protect their families and country.

[–]relevant_mitch 7 points8 points ago

Robert Capa was the photographer, and his darkroom assistant destroyed most of the film as she/he was so eager to see the pictures as soon as possible.

[–]jennay_jean 3 points4 points ago

Robert Capa took this awesome picture of the actual invasion. I think the graininess adds to general aesthetic of the day.

Beach Invasion

[–]sintogsur 0 points1 point ago

[–]LivesOnARock 7 points8 points ago

I think 70 years of salt water would have ruined the film.

[–]Seamus_OReilly 1 point2 points ago

Does salt water ruin film?

[–]LivesOnARock 1 point2 points ago

Salt water is caustic, so I'd imagine if the film wasn't dissolved after 70 years, it would at least melt together in a way that would not make is possible to retrieve the images. In general, at least. I'm not an expert on various types of film.

[–]Seamus_OReilly 1 point2 points ago

You're probably right, but I'd really like it not to be so.

[–]LivesOnARock 0 points1 point ago

Stranger things have turned up.

[–]sigaven 2 points3 points ago

I wonder how such an invasion would be documented if it happened today? Would TV networks broadcast it live? Would witnesses record it on their smartphones? Interesting to think about...

[–]didshereallysaythat 0 points1 point ago

GoPro cameras.

[–]salgat 0 points1 point ago

I'm sure it'd be kept secret in a situation like that.

[–]Mindwolf 6 points7 points ago

Normandy Beach. About a week after D-Day, being used to resupply Allied troops.

[–]Velex27 3 points4 points ago

I sure as hell hope we're not dumb enough to do a ww3.

[–]koreaneverlose 6 points7 points ago

I am against war, and I try not to feed the Soldier Worship American attitude, but I seriously respect these men and boys who (many involuntarily) participated in this absolute shitstorm of a massacre.

The logic during that day seemed to be "keep throwing more bodies at them and eventually someone won't die."

Nevertheless, I have so much respect for WWII vets. War should never be a popular or excitable decision, but it is occasionally necessary. This is one of those times, and so many brave men and boys had to rise to that challenge to defeat an intolerant and inhumane monster who sported a toothbrush moustache.

[–]malewhitestudent 6 points7 points ago

Wow, very interesting picture. Never knew about "barrage balloons" prior to this.

[–]happywaffle 1 point2 points ago

They're seen briefly in Saving Private Ryan too.

[–]papa_bear_uk 0 points1 point ago

This is one thing I learned from history at school. Its a shame really as i wasted history class, as they teach WW2 for 2 years in our schools here...

I'm so interested in it now though, damn my uninterested youth mind. DAMN IT TO HELL!!!

[–]the_awesome_face 7 points8 points ago

Oh boy! Another repost-finding bot! We sure need more of these!

[–]eric1589 0 points1 point ago

Don't look at it as a complaint. See it as a useful tool for others who might want to see more comments and discussions of the same topics or posts, but gave up on using rddits search feature.

[–]brocotree 3 points4 points ago

While I agree, I think the person naming the bot, "OP_karma_whore" might have had a slight different intention.

[–]GeorgeRomero 1 point2 points ago

You're wasting valuable time arguing! Quick! Repost the top comments from those!

[–]avehicled 5 points6 points ago

this reminds me of my favorite bad luck brian

[–]Powerfury 7 points8 points ago

Man we use a lot of resources to kill each other

[–]RexBeckett 6 points7 points ago

Highly recommend a visit to the American Cemetery above Omaha Beach. The museum is smartly done, and refreshingly un-p.c. (the exhibits deliberately do not list the French among America's allies in WWII, for example).

And when you walk among all those thousands of crosses, you remember the astonishing thing about those young men: they didn't come to conquer, they came to liberate.

[–]SuperTimo 10 points11 points ago

And why not? I'm not French but you can't just write them off like that. Free french forces also landed on d-day and the french resistance helped by reporting the German positions and regiments prior to the landing.

This isn't being "un-P.C". It's just ignoring the work and sacrifice made by thousands of french citizens who were fighting to liberate their own country.

[–]thepalmtree 2 points3 points ago

It's not that they are being written off, but that cemetery is specifically designed to be for Americans. It was gifted by the French to America shortly after the war, making it technically American soil, similar to an embassy.

[–]panzerkampfwagen 0 points1 point ago

The French resistance is counted by historians as being probably the most useless resistance movement in WW2. The different resistance movements that made it up spent more time fighting each other than they did the Germans. They all had this stupid idea that they would get to determine who ran France after the Germans were kicked out and so spent most of their time killing each other to insure it was them!

[–]kcg5 1 point2 points ago

That resistance was paramount to the invasion, landings, airborne drops etc

[–]LivesOnARock 2 points3 points ago

P.C.?

[–]dmtforme2 2 points3 points ago

Politically correct, the French did very little in WW2. They got spanked pretty hard, kinda deserved it the way they were treating Germany after WW1.

[–]Diallingwand 8 points9 points ago

I don't understand how that doesn't make them an ally of America. Britain got spanked just as badly in the early stages of war he were just lucky enough to have the Channel.

[–]MantheDam 3 points4 points ago

Because aside from the Resistance and the Free French (under the command of De Gaulle, iirc), France really wasn't fighting with the Allies. The Vichy government was actively allied with Germany, and in the Mediterranean the Allies sank French ships and fought the Vichy French.

[–]LivesOnARock 4 points5 points ago

Political correctness is overrated, I'd hate to see it mess up history. Good on the curator for keeping it "real".

[–]dmtforme2 4 points5 points ago

Exactly, nothing is more important in history than context. We can't look at the sentiments and actions they caused from a modern perspective.

[–]xaronax 1 point2 points ago

Politically Correct. Or as we call it here in America, the bane of civilized discourse.

[–]AlphaQ69 1 point2 points ago

I went there two summers ago and walked across Omaha Beach. It's a shame, I took over 2000 photos from that month I was in Europe but I can't find my camera and my external hard drive accidentally wiped the photos.

The cemetery is jaw dropping. Omaha Beach is jaw dropping. It is a HUGE distance from where the allies landed to the cliffs where the Germans were positioned. I couldn't imagine being there. Having to run 800 meters to get to the cliff under heavy enemy fire.

Here are some of the few remaining pictures I have from that day

http://i.imgur.com/P8fX3.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/za5Ww.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/38zMR.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/1SBPn.jpg Notice how massive those holes are. Those are from the allies barrages from the destroyers. Standing in them is like standing inside an empty large community pool.

http://i.imgur.com/CxPbu.jpg

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Dude, forget it, above we were just told the Americans are known as giant pussies and that Canada singlehandedly won WWI.

[–]Maox 0 points1 point ago

Did it list the Soviet Union?

[–]aleigh80 2 points3 points ago

Maox, I see where you're going here but don't be a pain. The USSR wasn't on the beaches during D-Day. No one is taking anything away from their immense sacrifice. There's nothing wrong with specifically honoring American and British war dead.

[–]Maox 0 points1 point ago

Ok. Redacted.

[–]ffemt300 17 points18 points ago

This makes me proud to be an American.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points ago

Ha, downvoted for this comment. They don't even try to hide their bias.

[–]jdwilson 5 points6 points ago

What bias would that be? As an American, I respect all countries and individuals who contributed to the war. With that being said, I don't think you can mock people for being proud to be American because without America's military and economic might at the time, the world would look a hell of a lot different today.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

What bias would that be?

The anti-American bias on reddit. New here? Look above you. There is a guy claiming Canada won WWI singlehandedly and that Americans were considered pussies in WWII by the Germans. He is being upvoted with no citations or anyhting. Bias.

[–]jdwilson 0 points1 point ago

Oh, okay. I thought you were referring to the bias Americans have about the wars, according to other peoples like Europeans who like to believe they actually helped out significantly. Trust me, I'm very aware of the biases against the US for certain issues on this site.

[–]Evulrabbitz 3 points4 points ago

This makes me so proud to be a human

[–]ScramDammity 1 point2 points ago

(The nice version)

[–]iAmJimmyHoffa 2 points3 points ago

This particularly famous photo was taken several days after the landing occurred. Here, supplies are being offloaded, as are reinforcements, armored vehicles, and command headquarters. The barrage balloons overhead are for protecting the resupply zones.

[–]ScramDammity 1 point2 points ago

I am quite aware. Thanks for the heads up, however. Interesting side note: I think I found Jimmy Hoffa.

[–]SuperSheep3000 1 point2 points ago

Is it just me who imagines how many bodies that beach cost to take?

[–]clintmk96 1 point2 points ago

one of the best/worst days in american history

[–]ymahaguy3388 1 point2 points ago

Amazing. The entire beach landing thing just...oh man. So intense. Balls of steel hung between the legs of every man that carried out this operation. I get so anxious just thinking about the boat ride to the beach. They all knew exactly what they were in for and they did it. True fucking bravery in the face of a terrifying reality. Gets me every time.

[–]chrispdx 1 point2 points ago

I wonder how many Libertarians out there have eye twitches when they see a picture like this and the costs involved.

[–]alphawolf29 1 point2 points ago

While of course this is impressive, it pales in regards to some of the operations on the eastern front. ~History major

[–]panzerkampfwagen 1 point2 points ago

Always annoys me when Overlord is called the biggest invasion in history.

Oh, bigger than the German invasion of the Soviet Union which involved MILLIONS of invading soldiers?

[–]alphawolf29 1 point2 points ago

in the battle for Berlin, the Russians alone had over 41,000 pieces of artillery firing on Berlin. There isn't even 41,000 people in this picture.

[–]panzerkampfwagen 0 points1 point ago

Going by memory here, while there aren't exact figures, it's estimated between 130 000ish and 150 000ish soldiers landed on the 6th of June.

With the invasion of the Soviet Union (well at first it was the invasion of Eastern Poland) the Germans threw millions of men across the border.

Overlord was actually quite a small operation compared to others that happened during WW2. A lot of people forget to put 'seaborne' into the whole invasion thing when saying largest.

[–]WreckerCrew 0 points1 point ago

I was about to point that out. Largest SEABORNE invasion.

[–]brisleybear 1 point2 points ago

holy shit my grandpa has the exact same picture...he was on the first boat to officially land on the beach

[–]Mousi 4 points5 points ago

Not exactly D-day, and also has been posted several times. It's an awesome pic, but it's being posted every few months constantly.

Here is a slightly higher res version of the picture, although I'm not sure if it actually has any higher real resolution since the original source is probably a bit blurry anyway.

[–]happywaffle 0 points1 point ago

"Every few months" ≠ "constantly." Thanks for the higher-res though, but you're right, we're not gonna get any better than the quality of the original photograph.

[–]Maox 0 points1 point ago

This is an important part of history, not a cat with a humorous caption. You might as well complain about history books just being reposts.

[–]ish_mel 3 points4 points ago*

Awesome, My grandfather flew in B-17's, he was a tail gunner. Flew over on D-Day and was shot down after dropping the entire payload. Plane came down with one landing gear working, 2 engines down, and crashed into a field in France. Every man walked away, Im assuming looking like badass's with a plane exploding behind them. evidence Yes there is another plane in the pic, when they "landed" another plane was already there

[–]dmtforme2 6 points7 points ago

Very impressive he survived the war as a tail gunner, they had something like a 14% chance of survival. Pilots used to joke when they landed, "I need some fuel, more ammo, and a new tail gunner."

[–]ish_mel 2 points3 points ago

Yea he was actually shot once but the bullet went threw the flak jacket and just barley grazed him.The guys in the little bubble below were actually the worst off. My grand dad was the guy on the right he said they put him the back to keep the plane level. lol He said he was scared less not knowing what they were getting into.

[–]dmtforme2 0 points1 point ago

My great uncle flew supplies to the British in Burma, but their plane went down somewhere in 'The Hump' as so many did.

Your grandpa is a hell of a survivor, let him know hes a hero!

[–]panzerkampfwagen 1 point2 points ago

The expression 'Home and hosed' comes from WW2 and is about tail gunners. It was about landing your plane and needing someone to hose out the tail gun position.

[–]MrMagpie93 3 points4 points ago

Video games are very mis-informing

[–]Babyrape_McMethlab 5 points6 points ago

This isn't actually D-Day, but a little after or perhaps a good while after the invasion, as those big boats wouldn't have been able to get that close to shore while German's defenses where still mounted.

[–]salgat 0 points1 point ago

Watch Saving Private Ryan, it has what is considered the most accurate portrayal of the invasion.

[–]TheWarHam 1 point2 points ago

Reminds me of starcraft and the likes. Finally amassed the most retardedly large army, now drag+select and right-click the other side of the map

[–]EminGH 1 point2 points ago

Post this to /r/HistoryPorn

[–]calibrated 1 point2 points ago

Hear that? It's the sound of every modern military commander popping 16 boners.

[–]millertime8306 0 points1 point ago

Dirigible day? :P

[–]nimchip 0 points1 point ago

I've always wondered how in the hell they took those landing ships out back to sea.

[–]Stfyou 0 points1 point ago

Holy shit!

[–]TheDolphinMan 0 points1 point ago

Organized chaos...

[–]Galaxey 0 points1 point ago

You know the weird thing is that all the documentaries that show the D-day invasion always have the same footage of the same guy getting killed over and over and over again. I kinda feel sorry for him :(

[–]ROREO93 0 points1 point ago

I swear I can see a dinosaur in the thumbnail.

[–]bamojr 0 points1 point ago

Anyone interested in WW2 content might like to check out my grandfathers WW2 journal blog I am posting day by day:

http://heildumkopf.blogspot.com/

[–]ozetadev 0 points1 point ago

mmm... goldfish

[–]denver0913 0 points1 point ago

I visited Omaha Beach last year. It was the most eerie thing, seeing so many families enjoying their time on what was a major battlefield.

[–]xNateDawg 0 points1 point ago

Yes! I have a project to do about D-Day, so this picture fits in perfectly!

[–]MrMarshallmac 0 points1 point ago

is it weird that i actually have this same picture framed in my room...

[–]haljackey 0 points1 point ago

The biggest armada ever assembled.

[–]wob_wob_wob 0 points1 point ago

Going to this exact beach in a few weeks! Can't wait!

[–]monkeycrayons 0 points1 point ago

Message: Harden the fuck up.

[–]Warwickist 0 points1 point ago

From this angle, four of those ships look like they actually form an aquatic mega tank.

[–]chan865 0 points1 point ago

Now this sir is an epic pic!! Upvote to you!!

[–]iparga 0 points1 point ago

Never thought that there were dirigibles at D-Day. I knew they existed at the time but never pictured it..

[–]conservativetroll 0 points1 point ago

That's not D-day. After the landing at Normandy they allied forced had constructed peers and docks for ships to continually resupply the front lines with. At one point during the war effort a storm wiped out all of these temporary structures and the allied forces returned to doing beach landings. This is a photograph of that.

[–]deakterinbuuuuu3rg 0 points1 point ago

No. This is not the D-day, this is weeks after the D-day. Here is a Wikipedia page from that photo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Normandy_Supply

Landing ships putting cargo ashore on Omaha Beach, at low tide during the first days of the operation, mid-June, 1944.

Among identifiable ships present are LST-532 (in the center of the view); USS LST-262 (3rd LST from right); USS LST-310 (2nd LST from right); USS LST-533 (partially visible at far right); and USS LST-524. Note barrage balloons overhead and Army "half-track" convoy forming up on the beach. The LST-262 was one of 10 Coast Guard-manned LSTs that participated in the invasion of Normandy, France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NormandySupply_edit.jpg

original photo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/NormandySupply.jpg

[–]Mrdigitdale 0 points1 point ago

The paperwork involved with that kind of movement would be pants shittingley mind boggling

[–]panzerkampfwagen 0 points1 point ago

And yet it's still hard to find a lot of specifics about it.

How many soldiers landed on the 6th of June? It's actually not known, they only have estimates.

[–]Hayes4prez 0 points1 point ago

That opening scene of 'Saving Private Ryan' still haunts me. Imagine being 18 (or even 16 or 17) years old and storming off those boats?!

I don't know how those men / boys had the courage they had to storm those beaches. I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't know if I could.

[–]panzerkampfwagen 0 points1 point ago

The average age of an American soldier was in the mid to late 20s I believe. Movies and things like to make it seem like they were all young farm boys but it's not the truth.

[–]3raseraddict 0 points1 point ago

Sky whales!

[–]Syberz 0 points1 point ago

What are the odds, I actually own an original of this picture. It's a US Coast Guard official press photo.

[–]Khalku 0 points1 point ago

Looks like d-day +1-3, there's decidedly less bodies littering the beaches...

[–]FARGO_HOOKER 0 points1 point ago

US310 WAS THE BOAT MY GRANDFATHER DROVE!

[–]orsr 0 points1 point ago

So this is what war looks like...

[–]VolatileChemical 0 points1 point ago

Every time I see photos of D-Day I can't help wondering, "Who the hell was in such a safe vantage point and calm state of mind to be taking photos of D-Day?"

[–]WreckerCrew 0 points1 point ago

This would be after the beach head was established and the area was 'secured'. This is probably closer to D-Day +1.

[–]Kruse 0 points1 point ago

[–]dontcarebear 0 points1 point ago

I think we'll be indebted to those people for many decades to come.

[–]nextgeneric 0 points1 point ago

I would love to see this colorized.

[–]panzerkampfwagen 0 points1 point ago

Interestingly, well, I think so, the reason Omaha Beach was tougher than the other 4 beaches was because the Germans were conducting a war games in the area at the time to practice defending against a beach landing (which they thought would be at Pas De Calais) and those soldiers were billeted near Omaha Beach.

In actual fact though the landings on the 6th of June went easier than was actually planned.

[–]panzerkampfwagen 0 points1 point ago

I'm curious to understand why this deserved a down vote.

[–]tastypinetree 0 points1 point ago

Why are there fish flying in the sky?

[–]panzerkampfwagen 0 points1 point ago

So planes can crash into them.

[–]panzerkampfwagen 0 points1 point ago

Is some tool just going through and down voting everything?

[–]JustPeachy17 0 points1 point ago

What were the blimps used for? Do they carry anyone?