Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Logistics Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Mulberry Harbours - successful or not?
Jack Tarr    6/10/2005 5:30:24 AM
All too often in conflict, the real success stories that made an operation a triumph are overshadowed by the "sexier" elements such as armour, or spec ops teams. One of these stories is the success of allied logistic support to the troops pouring into Normandy, made possible by the allies bringing their own harbours with them, the Mulberry Harbours. I'd like to hear other peoples thoughts on how much a part these harbours played to the success of Normandy, or, considering Mulberry 'A' was in operation less than 10 days and that DUKWS brought ashore more supplies than Mulberry 'B' on several occasions, were they a waste of precious resources? Please Note: This is not an excercise in Jingoism, so please try to stick to the question of whether the harbours were a success or not. Eagerly awaiting your thoughts! Jack
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
gf0012-aust    RE:Mulberry Harbours - successful or not?   6/10/2005 5:42:03 AM
maybe the first supplementary question is whether they were a success for the brits as they deployed them properly, and why they were less successful on the US side of deployment (at least thats my understanding) if failure was due to user resistance, then isn't that a mark of interim platform failure? unqualified comment though as my recall on D Day is appallingly shallow
 
Quote    Reply

Jack Tarr    RE:Mulberry Harbours - successful or not?   6/10/2005 6:05:59 AM
GF0012-Aus - "unqualified comment though as my recall on D Day is appallingly shallow" Hehe, so is mine, that's why I'd like to hear the thoughts of others more clued up! Yes, the US Mulberry 'A' lasted less than 10 days, due to shortcuts taken by their engineers (Not all anchors/pins used etc), but to be fair, they had theirs up and running quicker (to get supplies ashore in the critical very early stages of Normandy?), and they were in a more exposed position than Mulberry 'B'. It's a fair point though, and one which I knew would come up.(Hence my proviso regarding jingoism.....I wanted to nip that one in the bud!)
 
Quote    Reply

Jack Tarr    RE:Mulberry Harbours - successful or not?   6/13/2005 5:07:17 AM
From the lack of response (apart from good old GF), I see that Logistics queries really aren't very "sexy" to people. (Unless it's just my dodgy opening thread, or the subject matter?) Surely there's some WWII/Normandy boffin out there that give their views on whether Mulberry was successful or not?
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Mulberry Harbours - successful or not?   6/13/2005 1:23:02 PM
Jack Tarr You answered it yourself....they were able to get them into position quickly to augment ment LOTS by DUKW. And yes, the US one cut som ecorners, but I do not think it would have mattered in the face of the 19-20 June storm. As you may also recall, the US Navy was never a strong supporter, preferring instead to take their experience of moving supplies over the shore that they learned in the Pacific and to get a port captured earlier.
 
Quote    Reply

Shortty    RE:Mulberry Harbours - successful or not?   6/13/2005 10:30:10 PM
Jack Tarr, I for one think that the mulberries were the "sexiest" part of the Normandy invasion! I've been reading this forum for a few months now but this is my first post. Why are there only 132 posts for "Logistics" and 13875 for "Armor"???? To paraphrase many people smarter than me "any jack ass can tell you how many tanks he needs, where he needs them and when they need to be there but only the logisticians can make that happen". Enough preamble... From all my reading the Mulberries were about as successful as the allies thought they would be. To lose one after only 10 days is just the kind of luck you expect in war. The remnants of the destroyed mulberry were used to expand the other and both breakwaters greatly enhanced the productivity of the landing craft. What suprised them was a: how little supplies they could land through the minor ports on the normandy coast (including Cherbourg) and b: how much they could land over the beaches. All told they got more supplies to the troops than they expected to and without the mulberries they would not have. As for the Americans not buying into the mulberry idea I disagree. They didn't want the British "Funnies" but I've never come across anything to indicate they didn't like Churchill's artificial harbours. In June '44 they didn't have any real experience with large landings in the pacific - they were waiting for the D-Day shipping to become available for the "second front". (PS AlbanyRifles, I'm not taking a shot at you here. Of all the names I've seen on this forum yours stands out as particulaly knowledgeable and open minded. I've alway respected - but sometime disagreeded with - your opinion but welcome any friendly disagreements :-) So I think that, all things considered, the Allied effort wrt the mulberries was well worth it.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Mulberry Harbours - successful or not? - Shortty   6/13/2005 10:36:58 PM
"Why are there only 132 posts for "Logistics" and 13875 for "Armor"????" well, that's because its easier to be seduced by widgets and gadgets than what ultimately counts. ;)
 
Quote    Reply

Jack Tarr    RE:Mulberry Harbours - successful or not?   6/14/2005 5:52:16 AM
Thanks for your input guys, much appreciated. AlbanyR: I know I may have answered my own question, but, as I'm a little hazy on the Mulberries, I wondered if I was missing something that someone more 'au fait' on the subject could point out. I agree that the Americans get a bit too much stick for the shortcuts they took while assembling the Mulberries, as the storms (The worst in 100 years) would almost certainly have destroyed their Mulberry anyway, due to the more exposed position they were in, compared to the British Mulberry.It took a supreme effort, and several lives lost by the British 'crew' to save their fully installed, better sheltered Mulberry, so I don't think this reflects too badly on the Americans. Shortty I'm flattered that you should use this thread to come out into the open. Welcome to the madness! I think overall, I agree with you on the success of the Mulberry's. From what I understand, I believe they were there to 'foolproof' the logistical supply for the Normandy invasion. Yes, the use of other means of bringing logistics ashore may have surpassed what Mulberry was acheiving ON CERTAIN DAYS. Mulberry was there for the OTHER days, were sea conditions were too rough for heavily laden DUKWs etc. The push into Normandy had to succeed, so there had to be a dependable means of getting the required logistics ashore until a suitable port could be captured.(Worst storms in 100 years notwithstanding!) At least that the way I see it. Appreciate your input fellas.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Mulberry Harbours - successful or not?-Shortty   6/14/2005 1:45:29 PM
I guess I should have clarified that better. I did not mean to imply that there had been huge invasion by D Day timeframe in th ePAcific. What had happened was there had been sufficient invasions to test the techniques used. And the shipping was not sitting around waiting to be used. Even though we said Germany first, we in fact did fight Japan first, using our Navy. Also, the assessment on how to supply a force across the ocean was based on the Fleet Supply Train which had managed to supply the far flung Pacific and Southwest Pacific areas with much fewer developed transportation infrastructure than was expected to be ofund in Normandy. The USN & US Army had mastered the art of logisitcs over the shore by June 1944. The one lesson they failed to bring was the neccessity for preinvasion bombardment to Normandy. A one day bombardment would have made the invasion a lot easier (don't bring up Tarawa.....the US Navy learned its lessons and applied them with great effect in the Marshalls, Marianas and along New Guinea) and would not have given away the surprise enough to give the Germans to reposition forces. Once agian, that is the assessment of the USN post war.
 
Quote    Reply

Shortty    RE:Mulberry Harbours - successful or not?-Shortty   6/16/2005 12:25:32 AM
I agree that the USN & RN did have their techniques & equipment quite well established by June '44. What I don't think they had was enough practical experience with large scale, sustained logistics over the shore (to steal a modern phrase) to realise just how productive they could be. RN amphibious operations had been all assault and no logistics so no help there. US operations were much larger and included lots of supply but they differed from Normany. The forces they were supplying had less artillery and a lot fewer vehicles and thus needed much less supplies. The other thing was that the navy would unload its ships as fast as they could then retreat (my heart goes out to the poor shore parties standing in the middle of a mountain of crates watching their cargo ships sail into the sunset). There would be one great flurry of activity to get all the people and stuff needed for the operation ashore then they were left largely to their own devices. At Normandy logistic operations would continue over the beaches for months. Cargo ships arrived daily direct from the US and the UK and would have to mate up with landing craft they had never seen before (remember that the shipping in the pacific would be unloaded primarily by landing craft that they themselves has brought). Someone would have to know what all these ships contained and schedule their unloading and that is something that nobody had much experience with that could ruin your estimates. Estimating the productivity of landing craft and their crews after weeks of hard use was also new territory. Shore parties would also have been used much longer than anybody had before. People had to guess at these variables and guessed too conservatively. The Pacific had all been "sprints" and Normandy was a "marathon". We had good runners but we'd never timed them over marathon distances. WRT shore bombarment, I've often wondered about that myself. I agree that they did know the value so why didn't they use more. Maybe a day or two would have given the Germans too much time to reinforce but why not just use more ships? Surely more DDs CAs and BBs could have been made available to the single most important operation of the war!
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Mulberry Harbours - successful or not?-Shortty   6/16/2005 10:50:38 AM
Actually, the landings from the AKAs and APAs were assualt landings. The Navy had ample experience with large amounts of poor, reef strewn harbors to deal with throughout the Pacific. And the unloading was not willy nilly after Guadalcanl.....it was planned and executed per a logistics order. And that is not all in the Pacific. The US Navy had plenty of oportunity to learn from their operations throughout the Med....which they did. Anzio was all LOTS with a lot of arty ammo. So going back to the original question.....were the Mulberries a success? Yes. Did the US Navy think they were needed? No, that is why so many landing craft were dedicated to Overlord in the first place.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics