Some Qualitative Observations of Air Power at Dieppe…

One of things I looked at in the course of my research was the contemporary qualitative view of the effectiveness of Air Power over Dieppe. This was easily classified into fours areas; political, command, operational and German views of the raid.

At an operational level a useful source was the Canadian Military Headquarters Historical Reports compiled by C P Stacey during the course of the war. Many of these were based upon oral accounts given by either surviving or released soldiers in the period 1942-1945. Therefore, they do not suffer from many of the issues related to oral testimony. Though Stacey’s motive must be born in mind as he was quite happy to confront Mountbatten over what he perceived as the problems of the raid. One of the more interesting things to come out of the accounts below was the issue of identification. Indeed by the D-Day it was common to see aircraft with the so-called ‘D-Day stripes’, however, these were certainly used during Operation STARKEY in 1943 and I have seen some reference to their use at Dieppe. Indeed I have seen a picture of a Free French Spitfire with bands applied over the cowling, however, I can’t find a standing order for this.

Anyway here is what I wrote on this source…

While at a political and command level it can be argued that RAF’s operations over Dieppe were viewed as a success, it is useful to see how those on the beach and on the supporting ships viewed it. Given that the RAF’s primary mission was air cover, their opinion helps to frame whether or not that support was successful from their perspective. The CMHQ reports compiled by C P Stacey form a useful basis for such an analysis.[1] In terms of air power, the views are mixed, varying from negative opinions on the issue of supporting bombardment to positive views on the overall impact of air power. For example, Captain G A Browne of the Royal Canadian Artillery, who served as a Forward Observation Officer (FOO) with the RRC, commented on the cancelling of the aerial bombardment to preserve the element of surprise that;

Further, is surprise easier to obtain, than the preparatory heavy air bombardment which in our case would quite probably have succeeded where surprise, or rather the hope of surprise, failed?[2]

This rather negative view can be contrasted with that of Lieutenant J E R Wood of the Royal Canadian Engineers, who was captured on RED/WHITE beach, commented after the war that

Some of our people later claimed they never saw the Air Force. Of course they didn’t. They were too busy up top keeping the Luftwaffe off us. I can truthfully say we were not machine gunned on that beach except by our own people after we’d folded up. That means the R.A.F. did its stuff.[3]

Two accounts highlight one of the key problems found during JUBILEE; the identification of friendly aircraft and friendly fire due to issues of command and control. Both Captain James Runcie of the QOCHC and Private Maier of the Essex Scottish both discuss the issue of friendly fire on Canadian positions on RED/WHITE beach.[4] However, neither account is critical of the RAF; for example, Maier noted that a late-arriving Landing Craft Tank caused the incident he witnessed, in his opinion.[5] All the force commanders in their reports highlighted the issue of recognition with Roberts noting that ‘A much higher standard of air recognition is required.’[6] This was reiterated by Hughes-Hallett in the ‘Lessons Learnt’ report.[7] The problem of control was noted in an army report in December, which praised the directing of close support aircraft, but noted that the delay imposed by the system then in place needed work.[8]


[1] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 89 – The Operation at DIEPPE, 19 Aug 42: Personal Stories of Participants, 31 December 1942; CMHQ Report No. 90 – The Operation at DIEPPE, 19 Aug 42: Further Personal Stories of Participants, 18 February 1943; CMHQ Report No. 142 – Operation “JUBILEE”: The Raid on Dieppe, 19 Aug 42, Further New Information, 18 July 1945.

[2] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 89, p. A-9.

[3] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 142, para. 15.

[4] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 89, p. H-6; CMHQ Report No. 90, p. D-3.

[5] DHH, CMHQ Report No. 90, p. D-3.

[6] TNA, DEFE 2/551, The Dieppe Report (Combined Report,  October 1942), p. 143.

[7] TNA, ADM 239/350, Lessons Learnt, p. 1.

[8] TNA, WO 106/4195A, File 24 – Lessons to be Learned from the Dieppe Raid.

Advertisements

One response to “Some Qualitative Observations of Air Power at Dieppe…

  1. Pingback: Some Qualitative Observations of Air Power at Dieppe… | The Second World War Military Operations Research Group·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s