The Duplex Drive Tanks of Omaha Beach (d) The Debacle Off Easy Red and Fox Green

An M4A1 Sherman DD tank that sank in 90 feet of water off Omaha Beach on D-Day. It is on display at the Musee des Epaves Sous-Marines du Debarquement, Port-en-Bessin-Huppain, France [Copyright Normandybunkers.com- image used with permission.]

Author’s Note

The usual role of the historian is to peer through the smoke and confusion of battlefield and assemble a direct and simple narrative that even the casual reader can understand and enjoy.  But what if the essence of the matter is confusion?  What if the attempt to simplify, instead fundamentally changes or nullifies the reality?  That is the challenge with the next two installments of this series.  The various orders and plans were contradictory and inadequately coordinated.  The official reports of the action were penned in the aftermath of the debacle, when many of those involved were seeking to avoid blame or point the finger at others.  These accounts were often self-serving, usually contradictory, generally limited in details and scope and always to be viewed skeptically.  Instead of truth, we must wade through a morass of claims and counterclaims, few of which can be factually validated.  In such a case, simplification can only result in distortion shaped by one’s own biases.  I have, therefore, found it necessary to lay out all the information as we know it and examine each point in detail. It may confuse more than clarify, but the very essence of this matter is confusion, and careless clarification can only mislead.  Yes, this is the historian’s equivalent of making sausages, complete with ugly details.  It isn’t pretty, but it is necessary to portray the reality.  So, dear reader, don your butcher’s apron and face shield, it’s going to be messy.

Sortie and Sortie Again

It was early in the morning of 4 June 1944 when the great assemblage of shipping in Weymouth began to weigh anchor and set course for Normandy.  With every preparation made and all equipment and vehicles in the best possible order, the armada headed through the gap in the minefield at the entrance of the bay.  Convoys had been formed from these vessels, with departures staggered based on their speed and the order in which they were scheduled to arrive off the coast of France.  As the convoys passed beyond the narrow entrance channel, the vessels shook themselves out into formation, often jostling their way through other craft intent on the same business.  This was the bulk of the naval force for the Omaha Assault Area, and it would be joined by smaller convoys from other ports.  Four other armadas, each of similar size and composition were sailing from yet more ports, destined to the other four assault beaches.  

The long-awaited invasion was underway, inspiring both relief that the endless waiting and training was at last finished, and dread at what was to be encountered in the next few hours.  Regardless of human emotions, the coiled spring that was the Allied invasion force was being released.

But not for long. 

The 16 Landing Craft, Tanks (LCTs) carrying 64 Duplex Drive (DD) tanks sortied between a few hours before dawn, initially proceeding in a single-column formation through the narrow harbor entrance.  With a blackout in effect, radio silence imposed, and a pitch black night, confusion and collisions abounded.  Once clear, the 16 craft—at this stage under the direct command of Lieutenant (junior grade) (Lt(j.g.)) Dean Rockwell­—would form into four columns, each of four LCTs.  Two columns were slated for the eastern half of Omaha Beach (part of Assault Group O-1), and the other two columns for the western half (in Assault Group O-2).  A full 24 hours were allotted for the trip to the Transport Area off Omaha Beach, and even that was cutting it close given the slow speed and poor seakeeping abilities of the heavily-loaded LCTs.  Contrary to the recommendations of Rockwell and Major (MAJ) William Duncan (the executive officer of the 743rd Tank Battalion and commandant of the DD tank school) that no other cargo be loaded on the DD/LCTs, several jeeps and trailers had been added to each one, increasing the weight and dangerously crowding the DD tanks with their delicate canvas skirts.[1]     

At 0640 hours, just about three hours into the voyage, the column received a message stating “Post Mike One.”[2]  It was the code ordering a 24 hour delay, made necessary by an unfavorable weather forecast.  With some difficulty (not all the elements received the message) the armada was turned around and proceeded back to Weymouth Bay, which again became a mass of confusion as a similar scene of jostling craft again took place, this time as berthing spots were reclaimed.  The 16 DD/LCTs managed to find mooring points in Portland Harbor, nestled inside a breakwater in Weymouth Bay.

The confusion was about to be greatly compounded.  A convoy destined for Utah Beach was unable to make it back to its original port farther west along the British coast, and it, too, tried to straggle into Weymouth Bay, finding anchorages where it could.  Many of these craft had to anchor just outside the entrance to Weymouth Bay, and others of this convoy were still milling about the entrance to the bay when the invasion was relaunched in the early hours of 5 June. 

Despite the chaos, Rockwell managed to find a bright side; the delay permitted urgent repairs.  Three of his 16 craft were already mechanical casualties.  Two had their landing gear (the ramps and ramp extensions) damaged by collisions and one needed a new engine.[3]  Navy maintenance teams and the LCT crews managed to make repairs in time for the next sortie.

Although Rockwell never mentioned this incident in his official report, or even his later oral history, it apparently was during this aborted sortie that he finally realized the flaw in how he’d organized the LCTs in the O-1 Assault Group.   Lt.(j.g.) Barry, in charge of the DD LCTs of Assault Group O-1, had been slotted third in line of the second column, where he was in no position to lead his LCTs.  In a last-minute change, Rockwell ordered the Officers in Charge (OICs) of LCT-549 and LCT-537 to trade craft, thereby correctly placing Barry in the lead craft of his first column. 

This was very much a last-minute change.  Barry noted he took over LCT-549 on 5 June, and as it turned out, the DD/LCTs sortied for the second time between 0230 and 0300 hours on that same date.[4]  At most he had two hours to adjust to his new craft and crew, not to mention his new position in formation.  The positioning mix-up was due to a new approach formation specified in the Assault Group O-1 order, which was issued on 29 May, at least four days after the DD tanks had been embarked.  Apparently, Rockwell did not foresee the ramifications of that change and only realized the error during the aborted 4 June sortie.  It was not the kind of start to inspire confidence.   One can only imagine the confusion in the minds of Barry and his old and new crews (and the rest of his division for that matter) to see the command structure shuffled at this point.  Though not in itself a fatal move, it was the latest in a series of mistakes which plagued the DD/LCT operation.

When the second sortie got underway, the confusion was far greater, as this time the vessels of the refugee Utah Beach convoy added to the jam.  The Omaha and Utah convoys became thoroughly intermixed.  As Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) William Leide (commanding the 55 LCTs of Assault Group O-2) reported:

“As a result, the craft of the two forces became badly mixed up.  It took the better part of four hours to separate the craft of Forces “O” and “U”, and, as a result, the LCT convoy was never in its originally intended formation.  The weather did the rest.”[5]

In addition to the interference from the Utah convoys, the faster elements of the Omaha convoys passed through the slower formations in the narrow channels that had been cleared by minesweepers, or crowded them out of the channels.   Due to the short time between the start of the sortie and H-Hour, the minesweeping units were able to clear only relatively narrow passages, a strict constraint that was recognized early in planning, and now had to be endured.

Weather, as Leide noted, did indeed “do the rest.” With winds of 15 knots coming from the northwest and strong, changing currents, the LCTs had trouble keeping formation.  Never designed for especially good deep-water sailing, the LCTs were further hampered by their heavy loads.  Decks were often awash and the tank crews were either confined to their vehicles or sought shelter in the limited crew spaces of the bucking LCTs.  The tankers would not arrive off Omaha Beach in exactly peak condition and the LCT crews—especially their OICs—had little or no sleep in the preceding three days.

It is no wonder that Leide would report:[6]

“During the hours of darkness, the convoy became more scattered so that by dawn, instead of being eight miles in length and four across, it was twenty odd miles long and completely lacking column formation.”

Despite this grim state of affairs, Leide struck a positive note.

“However, the situation was far from hopeless.  The early waves were in position and the balance had sufficient time to arrive at the rendezvous area soon enough to proceed to the line of departure on schedule.”

Leide might be accused of taking a sunnier view of events than was strictly the case, but the fact is the Omaha Assault Force did arrive mostly in time and in condition to fight despite a host of obstacles.  If the conduct of the crossing was chaotic, it nevertheless seemed to work out . . . in most cases. 

The reports from the DD/LCT officers placed their arrival in the Transport Area—23,000 yards off Omaha Beach­—between 0300 and 0415 hours.  (This is an indication of how inconsistent time recordings could be for the same event, a factor that plagues reconstructing timelines.)  First light on 6 June was at 0516 hours which meant the LCTs had to grope their way through the massed shipping that was concentrating there.  The convoy of battleships and cruisers had overtaken the LCT convoy, so these ships were already in the fire support channels when the DD/LCTs arrived. 

Rockwell reported at 0345 hours his 16 LCTs arrived at Point K, at the entrance to the western fire support channel.[7]  The fire support channels were a priority for minesweepers and were cleared by the time the DD/LCTs arrived.  It was at Point K that Rockwell’s immediate control over half the LCTs ended.  There Rockwell’s eight LCTs of O-2 would link up with the control craft that would lead them down the western fire support channel.  Barry’s division would also link up with his control craft at Point K, but then follow it east to Point KL, before proceeding down the channel marked BA-BG.

At least that’s what was supposed to happen. 

Weather on Not

Before following Barry’s division, we need to review the launch-or-land decision framework.  In some analyses of this debacle, it has been presented as if there was a planned, mandatory consultation to decide between two options.  That view conveniently leads to a conclusion which blames certain parties.  It is not, however, correct.

There are operations in which a deliberate weather decision is planned and is an integral part of the execution checklist.  We need look no further than SHEAF’s series of weather decision conferences in the days leading up to 6 June.  That process resulted in the delay of the first sortie, and later in the decision to launch the second sortie.

But not a single order mandated a formal weather decision for the DD tanks of Omaha Beach.  RADM Hall’s operation order BB-44 directed the DD tanks be launched at 6000 yards as the default option.[8]  It did envision the possibility of unsuitable seas, in which case the tanks were to be landed on the beach, but that order didn’t address who would make that decision, much less set a decision point.  The next lower level of planning was not much better.  The order for CTG 124.3 (Assault Group O-1)[9] also directed the tanks be launched at 6000 yards as the default action.  The possibility of conditions being too bad to launch was mentioned only once, in an annex dealing with an entirely different class of ships than LCTs, and the sentence stating such a decision would be made jointly by the senior Army and Navy officers was relegated to a footnote.  As the default action was to ‘launch as planned’, any conference between the Army and Navy would be by exception, if either of those men voiced a concern.  No weather decision was scheduled, and absent an objection that would cause those officers to confer, the operation would proceed as planned with the tanks being launched.  The problems with this reasonably sound policy were: first, it only covered half the DD/LCTs—those pf Assault Group O-1; and second, it was subverted.

In a meeting prior to the sortie, Rockwell pressed the tank battalion commanders to agree that the launch-or-land decision be made solely by the senior Army officer, who would make the decision for all the DD tanks.  Neither tank battalion commander confirmed either this meeting or the outcome.  Rockwell claimed the tankers agreed to take responsibility for the decision, but they insisted the senior tank officer in each group make the decision for only his half of the beach (CPT Thornton for O-1 and CPT Elder for O-2).  As we’ll see, the events in the O-1 sector unfolded consistently with this new policy.  By making this a unilateral Army decision, it eliminated any need for the Army officer to consult with his Navy counterpart.  At most, he would only need to talk to his counterpart to inform him if the decision was to land.  Thus, the meeting resulted in nullifying an important provision of the Assault Group O-1 order, and there is no indication that this subterfuge was reported up the Navy chain of command.  This wasn’t so much a problem in Assault Group O-2 (covering the western half of the beach and the eight DD/LCTs Rockwell would lead in) as its order provided no guidance at all on how an inclement weather decision would be made.[10]

This is an important point.  In neither assault group did final agreement require a joint decision or conference; the operation either proceeded and launched as planned or the senior Army captain could, by exception, decide to be carried to the beach.  The senior Navy officer of each group could raise any concerns he might have, but the Army officer was not required even to consult with him.  In the absence of intervention, the tanks would be launched as planned.  Understanding this, the actions of Rockwell and Elder, and Barry and Thornton will take on new significance.

While attempting to put a spin on the DD debacle in his report, RADM Hall would claim that Rockwell and Elder followed the correct procedure by consulting before making a decision, and faulted CPT Thorton for making the decision to land without consulting Barry.[11]  This is simply not a valid criticism.  Not a single plan, order or set of instructions specified a consultation.  At best, such a consultation would only occur ‘by exception’, if one of the leaders felt the conditions were not acceptable. 

Hall’s stinging judgement was based on a lack of awareness of the provisions in his own orders and of those of his subordinates.

Barry and Thornton

When the DD/LCTs entered the Transport Area off Omaha Beach, they were still attempting to maintain their formation of four columns, each of four LCTs.  As they reached Point K, Rockwell’s two columns on the right of the formation dropped out to meet their guide craft.  Barry’s formation would continue to Point KL, which would be the entrance to their fire support channel.  Barry, temporarily in LCT-549, led the left of his two columns, with the tanks of CPT Young, Company C, aboard.  Young was in the third LCT of the column.  The right column was led by Ensign (Ens) Callister in LCT-599.  Embarked in his four craft were the DD tanks of CPT Thornton’s Company B.  Thornton, the senior Army captain, was aboard LCT-535 (which was Barry’s original craft) and it was in the third LCT of that column.  Thus, the two key decision-makers were separated and not in contact due to the radio silence imperative.  At Point K, Callister was supposed to slow his column down and fall in behind Barry’s, making a single column of eight LCTs, further increasing the gap between the two leaders.

At Point K, Barry was also supposed to meet both LCC 20, a guide craft, and CAPT Imlay (the Deputy Assault Group Command for O-1).  Imlay was not there, but LCC 20 was, and it took the lead for Barry.  And this is where things began to go wrong.  According to Barry:

 “The columns became confused as I endeavored to follow the L.C.C. which at first cut through columns using too much speed and too tight turns to follow.” 

At the same time, another problem was developing.  In the dark and confusion of the Transport Area, Callister didn’t realize they had reached Point K and failed to fall in behind Barry’s column for some time before he realized his error. 

Mistakes usually breed problems, and what happened next just made things worse.  In the confused state of the formation, LCT-537 mistakenly broke away from its proper place (#7 in Barry’s division) and followed Rockwell’s division down the wrong channel.  LCT-603, to the rear of LCT-537, dutifully followed its leader astray.[12]  As you may recall, LCT-537 was originally Barry’s craft, and he had been pulled out of it just a bit more than 24 hours earlier, to be replaced by Ens Robert McKee, formerly of LCT-549.  It has to be more than a coincidence that the fateful break in column took place with the craft that had the last-minute substitution of OIC.  Last-minute changes have a way of causing unintended consequences, consequences which often seem out of proportion to the size of the change.  And the change of OICs was a perfect example of this. 

As bad as two lost LCTs might be, the real problem was that CPT Thornton was aboard LCT-537, so when it went astray, it took CPT Thornton far out of position if a decision on landing became necessary.  Disaster was not yet inevitable, but the conditions favoring it were becoming daunting.

LCC-20 and Barry’s remaining six LCTs continued on roughly 6000 yards to Point KL.  There they met 12 Landing Craft, Support (Small) (LCS(S)).  Eight of the LCS(S)s would lead the DD tanks as they swam into shore and would provide last-minute suppressive fire with guns and rockets.  Also at Point KL were the LCT(A)s carrying in the wading tanks and tank dozers scheduled to land in Wave 2 (H-Hour), and they, too, would follow LCC-20. 

As the column turned down channel BA-BG, Ens Metcalf (LCT-601, #4 in column) reported they went to General Quarters, and the other craft likely did as well.  Tie-down chains were removed from the tanks, the screens were inflated and then wetted down with the ship’s bilge pumps.  From Point KL, the column still had roughly 14,000 yards to travel before deploying on the 6,000 yard line.

[A note of clarification.  The actual Line of Departure for this beach was roughly 4,000 yards offshore.  The DD/LCTs, however, would deploy on line about 6,000 yards offshore.  Many of the reports from the Officer in Charge of the DD/LCTs incorrectly referred to the 6,000 yard line as the Line of Departure.]

CAPT Imlay, the Deputy Assault Group Commander (aboard his command ship, LCI(L)-87) had been having a difficult time finding the column.  He reported arriving at Point K, the rendezvous location, at 0230 hours, but, being early, could not find any of his craft there.  When the LCT convoy did arrive, Imlay still could not find either the DD/LCTs or LCT(A)s assigned to his group; they apparently sailed past him in the dark.  Assuming they had entered the Transport Area from a different direction, he proceeded to Point KL in hopes of finding them there.  They weren’t at Point KL, either.  No doubt fighting down a sense of panic that the critical first two waves were lost, he headed down the BA-BG channel in the hopes they were ahead of him.  Fortunately, they were.  He found them a bit more than 6000 yards offshore (shortly before they were due to turn left out of the channel).[13]  Ensign Starky in LCT-602 (#2 in column) observed LCI(L)-87 approach Barry’s craft at 0430 hours, presumably to pass final instructions.

This operations overlay was included in RADM Hall’s order for CTF 124. It shows the organization of the sea off of Omaha Beach. I’ve added colored graphics to illustrate the separate movement of Rockwell’s division (blue) and Barry’s division (green) as well as the path of Barry’s two ‘lost’ LCTs (dashed green) that carried CPT Thornton. I also add notes to show the Line of Departure and the approximate location of the 6,000 yard line.

And thus, another opportunity to avert disaster was lost.  As a naval captain, Imlay had ample seagoing experience to judge the sea conditions.  As Deputy Assault Group Commander, he had the authority and obligation to intervene if the conditions for launching were unsuitable; it was his job to control the movements and operations of the craft in his boat lanes.  Further, he was within a couple hundred yards of the DD tank launch line, so he had firsthand knowledge of the wind and sea conditions.  In virtually all respects, he was the right man, in the right position to intervene (assuming he judged the conditions were unacceptable).  But the various orders had cut him out of the decision-making process, and he apparently lacked the awareness or initiative to realize his intervention was called for.  Or . . . he saw the conditions as acceptable.  Regardless, he apparently said nothing.  Neither Barry’s nor Imlay’s report noted that the launch-or-land question was raised during their brief communications.  In fact, neither of their reports mention this meeting at all, much less any exchange of messages.

Out of Sector

At this point we’ll pause to catch up with the two lost DD/LCTs, which had followed Rockwell’s column down the western fire support channel.  McKee eventually realized his error, though reports differ on circumstances and time of that realization.  This is where timing becomes relevant, which is unfortunate as the various timepieces do not appear to have been well synchronized.  

- 0505 hours, in Group O-2.  Rockwell stated he and CPT Elder conferred and decided not to launch the tanks, the sea being too rough.

- 0505 hours (also), in Group O-1.  Ensign Sullivan (OIC of LCT-600, #6 in Barry’s column) reported that Army 2LT O’Shaughnessy received orders via the tank radios to launch the tanks “as previously planned.”  This means CPT Thornton, far out of position over in the Group O-2 area, had conferred with CPT Young.  

- Navy Lt Bucklew, leader of the LCS(S) group in O-2, reported that “just prior to the arrival at the 6,000 yard line”, word was passed not to launch the tanks.  He then reported he passed that word to the two lost LCTs of Group O-1 and directed them to rejoin their proper formation.[14] 

- 0515 hours, in Group O-2.  Rockwell reported reaching the 6,000 yard line.[15]

If these times can be relied on – which is not guaranteed – it would seem to indicate that the launch-or-land decision was made almost simultaneously in both assault groups.

But how do we explain Bucklew’s claims?  Was he truthful when he said he told the two lost LCTs to inform the “other group of decision not to launch DD tanks”?  Neither Ensign McKee (in LCT-537 with CPT Thornton) nor Lt(j.g.) Scrivner (in LCT-603) reported any contact with Bucklew or his LCS(S).  Was Bucklew’s claim one of those ‘I tried to warn them’ stories that always pop up after a debacle, often being either exaggerations of actual comments, or simple fabrications?  That is possible.  Or did the wayward LCT OICs leave out of their reports the embarrassing fact that they hadn’t realized their mistake until it was pointed out by another command?  That, too, is possible.  Scrivner completely omitted being lost in his report and McKee claimed he had set course back to his own area (apparently having realized his error himself) at about 0435 hours after reaching the 6000 yard line in the O-2 area.  But McKee’s time for this was 40 minutes earlier than Rockwell—whom McKee was following—reported he reached that point.

It is necessary to raise another possibility, however unlikely.  The time Rockwell reported that the ‘do not launch’ decision was made for O-2 (0505 hours) is the same time Sullivan reported they received the ‘do launch’ order for O-1.  Given the variations among chronometers, could it be that these events were actually sequential and related events?  In other words, could it be possible that Bucklew conveyed the Rockwell/Elder ‘do not launch’ instructions as he claimed, and that Mckee or Scrivner misheard it as ‘do launch’?  Bucklew didn’t mention whether the message was passed by signal flags, signal lamp or loud hailer, but in any case, between the early dawn light and gusty winds, it would be easy to miss a rapid flag gesture, a brief flash of the signal lamp’s shutters, or a spoken syllable, thereby changing the intent of the message entirely.  While admitting this possibility, it remains nothing more than that.  Neither McKee nor Scrivner mentioned receiving a message from Bucklew, in which case they had nothing to misinterpret.

Finally, we must question the intent of this mystery message.  Bucklew’s report was generally clear and exact, however that one sentence on the ‘do not launch’ decision is open to interpretation.  Was Bucklew merely passing the information that Group O-2 had elected not to launch?  Or was he passing on an order from Rockwell that Group O-1 also should not launch.  Either interpretation is plausible.  Although Rockwell was not supposed to have any role in that decision for O-1 (both per the CTG 124.3 operations order and the agreement he brokered in the undocumented meeting), his attitude towards all of ‘his’ LCTs would make that ‘interference’ entirely plausible.  But, since Rockwell made no mention of passing that word to Barry’s division—as he surely would have if it happened— we must write off Bucklew’s message as informational, not directive (assuming he delivered such a message at all).

Back in Channel BA-BG

At some point while proceeding down channel BA-BG, CPT Young (in Barry’s column) was in contact with CPT Thornton (out of sector with Rockwell’s division).  We don’t have a firsthand record of their conversation, but we have a sketchy secondhand account.  Ralph Woodward, then a private first class (PFC), was the assistant driver/bow machine gunner of CPT Young’s tank (which was embarked in MacKnight’s LCT-598).  On 17 July 1987, he was interviewed by CAPT Robert Rowe (USN, Ret).  As with most interviews conducted four decades after the event, Woodward was vague on many points and incorrect on others.  And, of course, as a PFC, his perspective on large matters was limited and sometimes a bit distorted.  But he was able to talk about the decision to launch. 

According to Woodward, the waves were 5-6 feet high, and choppy, not smooth.  He believed CPT Young knew the tanks could not make it in those conditions, so he called back to get permission to be taken to the beach.  Woodward, from his limited perspective, thought Young called all the way back to England, but he must have actually contacted CPT Thornton.  The interview was a bit disjointed, but he gave this version of the decision:

“Our Captain couldn’t get permission to take us in.  He called back and couldn’t get permission.   They said no way, it will screw up the whole launching, screw up the whole invasion fleet.  Said you’d have to launch and get turned around and get the hell out of the LCTs.”[16]

So, Woodward seems to verify that Young and Thornton talked.  It was clearly impossible for Young to reach England with his tank radio, and the battalion had no one in a position of authority there to make that decision.  Thornton was the only logical man to be on the other end of that conversation.  As for the rationale for not landing on the beach, it’s difficult to know whether Woodward provided a reliable account.  I will say, however, that it does tend to support a point which will be discussed later in this installment.

As a result of this discussion between Young and Thornton, we know that 2LT O’Shaughnessy (aboard Sullivan’s LCT-600) received the call over his radio that they would launch as planned.  This was recorded as 0505 hours and presumably came over Thornton’s company radio net.  It’s safe to assume Young passed the word to his platoon leaders over his own company net.  Sullivan was the only other LCT OIC who mentioned getting that word from his Army counterpart.  Two OICs (Barry and Metcalf) stated they received no word from their embarked tankers, while the remainer of the OICs did not address the point.  Whether the tankers mistakenly assumed the message was also being passed by the ships’ radio, or the tankers were too tightly focused on the pre-launch tasks and the ordeal ahead, this seems to have been another break in coordination.

At approximately 6,000 yards from the beach, LCC-20 turned left on a course parallel to the beach, and Barry’s truncated division executed a column left behind it.  This took place at 0512 hours, per Ens Metcalf (LCT-601, #4 in column), with Ens Sullivan (LCT-600, #6 in column) reporting the same at 0510 hours (typical of the varying time reports). 

AT 0522 hours, Ens Callister (LCT-599, #5 in column) reported his crew secured from General Quarters and went to Beaching Stations.

The next maneuver is rather confused, as the various OICs gave different versions.  In some reports, the LCTs reached positions off their correct beaches, turned right towards the beach and launched their tanks.  In other version, they reached their correct positions and were ordered to turn right and proceed toward the beach for another 1000 yards where they were to launch their tanks.  Regardless, there was general agreement that the LCTs were at 5,000-5,500 yards when launched.

Barry later reported to Rockwell:

“It was obvious even before launching that the sea at that distance was too choppy for the tanks.”

And yet, never once did Barry attempt to contact Young (the senior Army officer present in Thorton’s absence) to raise his concerns.  Why not?  His explanation was:

“The senior army [sic] officer was the person to decide on launching or not.  That was established at the briefing.”

So, even though the operation order for Assault Group O-1 stated it was to be a joint decision, Barry’s report indicates his interpretation of the agreement from the undocumented meeting, was to make the decision unilaterally the  Army’s.  Was this comment by Barry simply a ploy to excuse his inaction leading up to the launching?  Probably not, as his comment closely parallels Rocklwell’s own description of the agreed upon procedure.

At this point, the LCS(S)s took position, one inshore of each LCT, ready to lead the DD tanks as they swam to the beach.  What happened next sealed the fate of two companies of DD tanks.  LCC-20, which had led the column into position, now turned about and sailed back down the column.  As Ens Starkey (LCT-602, #2 in column) reported it:

“The LCT 602 stopped also and the LCC approached quite close.  With a loud hailer it said, ‘You are 5,500 yards from the beach.  It’s up to you DDs now.’”

Since LCC-20 had just come from the direction of Barry’s craft, the message would appear as an order from Barry, an appropriate way to pass the message as radio silence was still in effect.  To Ens MacKnight (LCT-598, #3 in column, with Captain Young aboard) it was even less ambiguous:

“A control vessel (LCC) came down the column, and instructed us, with the loud hailer, to launch our tanks at 5,500 yards.”

Ensign Metcalf (LCT-601 (#4 in column) reported much the same:

“5. 0529 [hours], LCC 20 came alongside giving order through loud hailer – ‘Proceed to 5,500 yards and launch DD’s.’  I do not know who originated the order or if the lieutenant in charge of tanks was in radio contact with his company commander at the time.”

Barry made no mention of LCC-20 turning about, passing by him or any possible communications between the two, but it is almost impossible to believe that LCC-20 would pass that order to three of the four LCTs in the section but not pass it to the first craft in the section, especially since that one craft carried the column leader.

LCC-20 only passed this message to the LCTs of the first section because its station was off Fox Green beach, the destination for that section’s DD tanks.  Ensign Callister’s section was off Easy Red beach and orders called for a separation of several hundred yards between the two sections.  Callister judged his position 500 yards to the west of the lead section at this time, an estimate matching Metcalf’s from the other side of the gap.  As a result, neither Callister nor Sullivan (LCT-600, #6 in column) reported contact with an LCC before launching; instead, they simply arrived at their position and began to launch.

If there were any doubts among the OICs of the first section, LCC-20’s instructions, apparently coming from Barry, would have erased those doubts.  The Army had decided to launch as planned, and the Navy (Barry) had apparently given the implementing order; with Army and Navy leaders seemingly of one mind, the launch was a go.  As a result, all six of the LCTs launched “as planned”, even Barry, who belatedly followed the actions of his subordinates.

But what of the two lost LCTs?

After realizing his mistake, Ens McKee (LCT-535) set a heading that would take him diagonally across the Dog Green, Dog White, Dog Red and Easy Green boat lanes, eventually reaching his proper area off the western half of Easy Red.  He would be far too late to make it into position by 0535 hours, the scheduled DD tank launch time.  Instead, he decided to continue inshore until he caught up with the swimming DD tanks, and then launch his tanks abreast of them, hoping his tanks would reach shore at about the same time as the others

McKee reported that at 0600 hours he had closed to 2,500 feet from the shore and directly in front of the intended landing spot for the tanks (presumably he meant ‘yards’, as no other report, by him or any of the other OICs used feet).  There were four or five DD tanks swimming “abreast of us and to our port”.  CPT Thornton indicated he wanted to be launched at that point, and so they were.  

Unfortunately, Lt(j.g.) Scrivner in LCT-603, gave a very different version.  He completely omitted the detour with Rockwell’s group and instead reported he launched his tanks on schedule at 0535 hours.  Such are the challenges with official reports.  He reported launching 1000 yards shoreward of the line of departure.  Assuming he was referring to the actual Line of Departure, that would place him 3,000 yards offshore, and close to McKee’s estimate of 2,500 (presumed) yards. 

I will not touch on the fates of these tanks individually, rather limit myself to a few general comments.  The nature of the launchings varied significantly.  Some LCTs saw their DD tanks sink immediately.  Others saw their DD tanks launch successfully, and, when last seen were proceeding to the beach without problem.  And still others reported a combination of the two.  As it played out, all but two that had been launched would sink before reaching the beach.

The only exception to this involved Ens Sullivan in LCT-600 (#6 and the last in the truncated column).  He reported:

“4.  At 0535 the first tank was successfully launched and started off for the correct beach, Easy Red on Omaha Beach approximately 4,000 yards away.  It proceeded through the water for about 100 yards and then sank from sight . . . 

“5.  As the first tank went off the lurch of it leaving the ship, or a lurch by the second tank as it started up, caused the latter to jump back tearing its canvas frame and those of the third and fourth tanks.  The exact cause of the lurch was difficult to determine, but it made the tanks unfit for any type of launching.”

Sullivan would take the three remaining tanks all the way to the beach.  He did not attempt to take credit for this decision—though clearly it was his—merely reporting modestly “It was decided . . .”  At 0615 hours, with an LCT(A) carrying wading tanks and tank dozers to either flank of it, his LCT was 3,000 yards offshore.  Then, at 0632 hours, his ramp dropped as the LCT grounded and the three DD tanks drove off.

They played a critical role in the success of the landings.  They arrived on Easy Red adjacent to where the two wading tanks and the tank dozer of Gap Assault Team 10 (GAT 10) landed, resulting in the most concentrated grouping of tanks on the 16th Regiment’s assault sector.  The engineers of GAT 10 had also landed there.  Aided by the support of the tanks and relatively light German defenses in the area, GAT 10 cleared a double gap and then a single gap, creating the best passage through the obstacles that morning.  All three of these DD tanks can be seen within 100 yards of each other on Easy Red in D-Day images taken at about 0830 hours that morning (two in Robert Capa’s photos and one in a film clip by U.S. Coast Guard Chief Photographer’s Mate David C. Ruley).

A photo of Easy Red Beach Sector showing two of the three DD Tanks from Ens Sullivan’s LCT-600, which were landed directly on the beach. The third tank is out of frame to the left. This Photo was taken by Life photographer Robert Capa at about 0830 hours.

The Decision To Launch

Was Thornton’s decision to ‘launch as planned’ reasonable?  Note that I did not say “correct.”  Empirically it was clearly wrong, with 27 of the 29 tanks that were launched subsequently sinking.  There can be no other answer to the question of “correct.”  But was it reasonable?

History is replete with reasonable decisions that turn out to be incorrect and even disastrous, as well as unreasonable decisions that somehow succeeded.  Wise commanders come to grief as often as fools seem to blunder on to victory.  So, what of Thorton’s decision?  Was it reasonable or irresponsibly rash?

Although Thornton was far out of position in the O-2 sector when he decided to launch as planned, he was well down the fire support channel, almost to the 6,000 yard line, at which the LCTs in both sectors were to turn left and deploy.  Recall 2LT O’Shaughnessy received the call conveying Thornton’s decision at 0505 hours, while Rockwell, who Thornton was following, hit the 6000 yard line at 0515 hours, just ten minutes later.  So, Thornton had as good observation as anyone else of the state of the sea and wind that far inshore.  And he decided to launch.  For the moment I will refrain from discussing Rockwell’s opinion on the weather at this point, and defer that discussion to the next installment, simply because his written report has been called into question by his own later oral history.

So, if Thorton from his position thought the weather was worth the risk, what did the others in O-1 think?  As you may recall from the previous installment, Rockwell claimed in his official report that:

“. . . the action reports of all officers-in-charge of “DD” LCTs in Force ‘O-1’ submitted to this command state that they were amazed when the order came to launch.  They were all ready to go to the beach and unload there.”[17]

Let’s fact-check this assertion.  These comments are taken directly from the very OIC reports Rockwell cited (and which he retained in his personal files for five decades).

1.       LCT-549, OIC Lt(j.g.) Barry:  “It was obvious even before launching that the sea at that distance was too choppy for the tanks.”

2.      LCT-602, OIC Ens Starkey: “The sea, which had been frothy and uncomfortably rough a few hours before had calmed to long swells.  There were no whitecaps and steering (at this time) was not difficult.”  [Note that Force 4 should produce “Small waves 1-4 ft. becoming longer, numerous whitecaps.”  In the absence of whitecaps, and with the wind no longer causing steering problems, Starkey seems to have described the conditions at or below the Force 3 upper limit for DD tanks.][18]

3.      LCT-598, OIC Ens MacKnight: “The sea I will say at this point was pretty rough, but the signal was given to drop the ramp.  At 0535 all the tanks were launched and were floating on the water, apparently underway on their own power.”

4.      LCT-601, OIC Ens Metcalf: “Sea appeared to be at least no. 4 with a strong breeze.  The tank corps men, however, appeared confident of their being able to make the beach.”

5.      LCT-599, OIC Ens Callister:  Sea conditions were not such that they merited mention in his report.

6.      LCT-600, OIC Ens Sullivan:  “We [Sullivan and Army 2LT O’Shaughnessy] both felt it was a little too rough to launch.  However, after working on the tank [which was having throttle trouble], he decided to try the launching.”

7.      LCT-537, OIC Ens McKee:  “The tanks were launched without difficulty in water which seemed to be considerably calmer than that encountered half an hour earlier.”

8.      LCT-603, OCI Lt(j.g.) Scrivner:  Sea conditions were not such that they merited mention in his report.

To recap, of the eight OICs, not a single one evidenced the amazement Rockwell cited.  He was obviously trying to sensationalize his report.  Four OICs (Barry, MacKnight, Metcalf and Sullivan) noted the sea was too rough, with descriptions ranging from obviously too choppy to ‘a little rough’.  On the other side of the ledger, two OICs (Starkey and McKee) noted the sea had calmed and mentioned no concern for launching.  Finally, the last two OICs (Callister and Scrivner) didn’t think the conditions were worth mentioning.

So only half of the OICs voiced concerns over the sea.  Rockwell’s credibility is best measured by the manner in which he misrepresented this 50-50 split when he reported to his superiors.  He was clearly lying to make Barry’s and Thornton’s actions seem more egregious, and to make his own decision look more astute by comparison.  The fact that he shortstopped these OIC reports and prevented senior officers (to include RADM Hall) from seeing them compromises his credibility, almost fatally so.

The net result of the reports of the OICs—naval officers, though of limited experience—is that their opinions were sharply divided over the suitability of the sea conditions.  Nor were they alone. The observations of other ships and craft in the vicinity were just as divided.  Most action reports did not attempt to quantify weather conditions, but the following chart shows the data that was reported.       

 As we saw with the DD/LCT officers, there was similar disagreement among the more experienced officers other vessels.  Of the three vessels operating closest to the beach, two (destroyers Frankford and Baldwin) reported acceptable conditions, and the third (PC-552) reported mixed conditions.  Only the reports from far out in the Transport Area, or west of Pointe et Raz de la Percee, indicate clearly unacceptable conditions.  With this in mind, we should not rush to condemn Thorton’s judgement of the conditions.  Those conditions, while far from ideal, were not so obviously unacceptable as popular history maintains.  If these naval officers could not render consistent reports of the conditions, I would hesitate to condemn an Army officer for his judgement of that same weather.  Thorton’s decision was well within the range of naval opinions, especially those from inshore vessels.

Little has been recorded of the opinions of the tankers on the weather, but what was reported reflected the same mixed views.  Metcalf (LCT-601, #4 in column), who had reported the sea to be “at least no. 4”, noted “The tank corps men, however, appeared confident of their being able to make the beach.”  Despite thinking the sea “a little too rough”, and despite manning a tank with a questionable throttle, 2LT O’Shaughnessy (in Sullivan’s LCT-601, #6 in column) thought it worth trying the launch.  And over in Barry’s LCT-549, Sergeant Sertell was commanding a tank with a skirt that had been holed when caught on the spare barrel cover for a 20mm gun.  Although advised the LCT could land him “at a later time”, and having watched the first three tanks sink right after launching, Sertell decided to launch anyway, hoping the bilge pump would keep him afloat.  His sank, too. 

It might be easy to write off these tanker’s dedication to launch as a misplaced gung-ho enthusiasm that overrode common sense.  But again, when considering that even some experienced naval officers thought the conditions were acceptable, I’d be reluctant to smear the judgements of the tankers who trusted their lives to those judgements.

On a tangential point, the OICs noted that ‘only’ roughly a third of the 29 DD tanks sank within view of their LCTs, and 20, when last seen, were proceeding to the beach without problem.  This is our first indication that the cause of the sinkings may be more complex than just the state of the wind and seas.   There are several factors possibly at play, but they are beyond the scope of this installment.  We will consider them in a subsequent installment.

Having made the case that CPT Thorton’s decision was reasonable (if not correct) it is time to present some other perspectives.  The 741st Tank Battalion’s 19 July After Action Report, signed by the battalion adjutant (who was not with the DDs that day), stated:

“At approximately H-60 on D-Day [0530 hours] the LCT bearing the DD tanks of companies B and C were in position of[f] Omaha Beach at a distance of approximately 6,000 yards from the beach.  Company B was commanded by Capt. JAMES G. THORNTON, JR.  Company C was commanded by Capt. CHARLES R. YOUNG.  Capt. Thornton was able to contact Capt. Young by radio and the two commanders discussed the advisability of launching the DD tanks, the sea being extremely rough, much rougher than the tanks had ever operated in during their preparatory training.  Both commanders agreed that the advantage to be gained by launching of the tanks justified the risk of launching the tanks in heavy sea[s].   Accordingly, orders were issued for the launching of the tanks at approximately H-50.”[19] 

That’s a fairly damning paragraph, clearly indicating Thornton and Young knew the seas were too rough, but launched anyway.  Now that report contained other information that was incorrect, and which could call its validity into doubt.  For instance, it stated Scrivener’s LCT had a damaged ramp, and that’s why the three DD tanks were landed.[20]  But I wouldn’t simply dismiss the report on those grounds.  In fact, it raises a critical question:  If Thornton and Young knew the seas were as bad as indicated, why would rational men decide to launch?  Two explanations come to mind: 1) they were not aware they had the option to land directly on the beach, at least not in an early wave; or 2) they had extremely poor judgement.  While the latter is not out of the question, it seem too simplistic.

The CTF 124 (RADM Hall) operation order No. BB-44 (20 May 1944) did clearly state that in the case of adverse sea state, the DD tanks should be landed with the first wave (at H-Hour).  But this naval order was of such scope—covering the entire Omaha Assault Force—that the Army’s 741st Tank Battalion would never have seen a copy of it.  Confirming this, that battalion issued its own operation order the very next day, 21 May 1944, and its total silence on the matter indicates they were clearly unaware of Hall’s backup instructions.

The naval order most relevant to the 741st Tank Battalion would be the operation order for CTG 124.3 (Assault Group O-1, covering the LCTs that were carrying Thornton’s and Young’s DD tanks).  But it wasn’t issued until eight days after the tank battalion’s order was issued.  Worse, Thornton and Young almost certainly would never have seen it.  After the tankers loaded their vehicles onto the LCTs at Torcross, the LCTs sailed to Portland Harbor on 25 May as part of the concentration of shipping.  The tankers, however, did not accompany the LCTs.  They were trucked to the D-14 assembly area, where they were locked down.  The CTG 124.3 operation order finally was issued on 29 May, just six days before the original sortie date.  The 741st Tank Battalion was not on the distribution list for that order, although the 16th Regimental Combat Team was.  It’s possible that one of the copies for the 16th RCT was delivered to the tankers in the assembly area, but we have no idea it was, or when it might have reached them.  Even if it did reach them in time, it’s almost certain the tankers would have remained in the dark.  Where Hall’s order clearly addressed the backup plan in the main body of the order (under the specified tasks for the two assault groups), the CTG 124.3 plan did not.  In all but one instance where the DD/LCTs were mentioned in that order (in the Approach Schedules, for instance), it directed they launch at the 6,000 yard line, with no alternative specified.  It was only in paragraph 5 of Annex F, dealing with employment of the LCS(S)s, did the order mention that there was an option to land the DD tanks with “the first wave” in case the seas were too rough.  That paragraph, in an annex dealing with an entirely different class of craft than the LCTs the tankers would be aboard, was exactly the kind of obscure and hidden point Army readers would almost certainly miss.  Although the possibility of cancelling the launchings went back at least to 30 April, when Rockwell and Duncan submitted their training reports, that single comment in the LCS(S) annex was the only mention that the tanks would beach with the first wave if they had to be landed, and there was virtually no chance of the tankers finding it.   

The next opportunity the 741st Tank Battalion had to coordinate with the Navy would be after the tankers boarded the LCTs on 3 June, just hours before the planned sortie time of 0300 hours on 4 June.  During this period we know that CPT Young was taken ashore for a meeting (from Woodward’s oral history), which presumably was the one attended by the battalion commanders and in which Rockwell disputed the decision process.  In the heat of that discussion, was the fallback landing schedule even mentioned?  Was it mentioned, but lost as background noise during the argument?  Or did Rockwell and his OICs, in possession of that order for several days, incorrectly assume the Army was already aware of that alternative, and failed to mention it?  And while LCDR Leide forcefully stated he warned the OICs to take the tanks directly to the beach if conditions were bad, he did not mention when they were to land, nor did he mention passing that time on to the Army (and given that the OICs of O-1 universally ignored it, did he even actually issue those orders?).[21]

If we assume Thorton and Young had even the minimal degree of judgement, a point admittedly not established, then the only reason compelling enough to risk their force in bad seas was if they thought the alternative was worse:  landing at a time too late to be of any use to the assault waves.  At this point, recall PFC Woodward’s interview.  The version he related of Young’s radio call indicated Thornton thought that landing the tanks would throw off the entire landing schedule, not just delay the tanks hitting the beach by a mere 10 minutes.  So, Woodward’s account tends to support the hypothesis that Thornton was not aware the landing option would place them shore as early as H-Hour.

It must be noted that LCT Skaggs himself had signed an earlier report that cast the circumstances in yet another light.  In a 1 July memorandum titled: Comments and Criticisms of Operation “NEPTUNE”, he stated:

“1.a.(3) Naval small craft approached too close to DD craft that had been launched.  In one case an LCM hit a DD tank ripping the canvas, sinking the tank.  Other naval small craft kept weaving in and out of the DD formations adding their wakes to the heavy seas, which caused the DD tanks to ship more water than they would have normally.”[22]

That comment shifted the blame, or at least a good portion of it, squarely onto the Navy, and it has been almost universally omitted from popular histories.  It might well be dismissed as a ploy to deflect blame from his command, but it also had the benefit of truth behind it.  The small craft he referred to were indeed scurrying about and they later contributed in that manner to the swamping of DUKWs (Army 2 ½ ton amphibious trucks) on D-Day.  Many of those small Navy craft had not been made available for the invasion until very late; so late that they missed all the rehearsals.  Nor had they worked with the DD/LCTs or the top secret DD tanks until the day of the landings, and so were completely unaware of the fragile nature of the DD tanks.  Notably, the CTG 124.3 order did caution, “DUKWS and Rhino Ferries must be by-passed at reduced speed,” but failed to mention the DD tanks in that warning or elsewhere.  So, Skaggs’ 1 July memo is relevant for four reasons: 1) it provided a very plausible cause for the loss of some of the tanks, 2) it shifted at least part of the blame to the Navy; 3) it made no mention of poor judgement by Thornton or Young; and 4) it was signed by Skaggs himself rather than a staff officer.

Unfortunately, neither Thornton nor Young would survive the war, so their voices would never be heard, and in the absence of their side of the story, they would be condemned in absentia.  LTC Skaggs, in replying to a generic questionnaire by author Cornelius Ryan, replied that he had much to say about the events of that day and was eager to be interviewed, but there is no record of that ever taking place.

So, Thornton’s judgement remains very much an open question, and should not be condemned out of hand, as has popular opinion.  The state of the sea depends very much on whose report you choose to believe and certainly was not a clear-cut matter.  An error by Rockwell had physically separated Thornton from Barry, a situation exacerbated when the substitute OIC Rockwell placed in Thornton’s LCT went astray on D-Day.  Rockwell’s insistence that the launch-or-land decision be strictly an Army responsibility, and his insistence on maintaining radio silence among the LCTs placed Thorton in an extremely difficult position.  And finally, there is no indication anyone in the 741st Tank Battalion knew the backup plan called for an H-Hour landing.  

Ultimately, Thorton can only be judged based on which of the conflicting reports one chooses to believe and how they are to be interpreted.  Those choices are necessarily highly subjective and will skew the conclusions accordingly, one way or the other.  That does not make for conclusions one can put much faith in.  I’ll leave it to the reader to form your own opinion, but offer one caution: the scope of confusion surrounding this question is so comprehensive that I wouldn’t become too entrenched in your conclusions.   

And what of Barry’s role?

Another salvaged DD tank. This one is an M4A4 Sherman DD tank that was recovered from the ocean after 27 years. It belonged to the 6th Canadian Armoured Regiment (First Hussars) and sank off Juno Beach. It is on display in the town of Courseulles-sur-Mer France [Copyright Normandybunkers.com- image used with permission.]

Barry in the Crosshairs

The degree to which Barry can be judged culpable – if at all – depends entirely on what happened during the undocumented meeting Rockwell had with the Army leaders.  Since we have no reliable information on that, any judgement ultimately comes down to, once again, who you believe.

As noted earlier, the operation order for Assault Group O-1 stated (in a footnote) that a decision to land due to unfavorable conditions would be a joint decision between the senior Army and Navy officers.  That would be Barry and Thornton.

During the undocumented meeting that took place on 3 June, shortly before the aborted initial sortie, Rockwell pressed for a single Army officer to make the decision for DD elements in both O-1 and O-2.  In a previous installment, I pointed out that Rockwell’s version of the meeting made no mention whether the Navy would have a role in that decision or who the Navy representative would be.  Since Rockwell did not address that point at all, I concluded that he was attempting to shift the entire decision onto Army shoulders, excusing the Navy of any role or responsibility.  That was the precise position Rockwell and Duncan had advocated in their 30 April letters. 

But that position was directly counter to LGT Bradley’s position on the matter, and it also subverted the provisions in the Assault Group O-1 order.

To repeat an earlier quote, in Barry’s report to Rockwell on 22 July 1944 he stated:

“4.  The senior army officer was the person to decide on launching or not.  That was decided at the meeting.”

If accurate, that statement meant Barry had been cut out of the decision process, and it was Rockwell himself who had initiated the change that cut him out.  That clearly shifted responsibility back to Rockwell for disrupting the command relationships in O-1.  As I have taken pains to point out earlier, Rockwell submitted his report, which cast Barry in a very poor light, before he even received Barry’s report.  Worse, Rockwell never submitted Barry’s report (or those of the other OICs) through channels to higher command levels. 

By either intent or oversight, Rockwell’s actions meant that RADM Hall remained unaware of Barry’s assertion that he had been cut out of the decision process by the very man who was both casting Barry as a villain and coloring himself as the hero of the day:  Rockwell.  Unaware of Rockwell’s disruption of the command relationships in the O-1 DD/LCT elements, Hall‘s endorsement scolded Barry:[23]

“Apparently Captain Thornton, U.S. Army, made the decision unilaterally to launch the DD tanks of Assault Group O-1 without consulting Lt(jg) Barry, USNR, the Senior Naval Officer on the LCT and the latter tacitly acquiesced in the decision by his failure to take action to change the order directing the launching.”

Hall’s belief that Thornton and Barry were in the same LCT inadvertently revealed how much he had been kept in the dark by Rockwell and Leide; he wasn’t aware how badly they would have been separated even if things had gone well, much less how much worse they were separated when the two LCTs got lost.  Beyond that, Hall believed Barry could unilaterally override Thornton, a point both the Assault Group O-1 order specifically ruled out, as well as Rockwell’s insistence that the Army had final word.  Hall was as out of touch with his subordinate’s orders as he was with the backroom agreements and juggling of command positions within the convoy, both of which were Rockwell’s handiwork.   

Barry’s chief complaint in his report was not who made the decision, rather it was that his LCTs began launching the tanks without his orders.  This is a bit more complicated.  Nowhere in the various records is there any indication that there had been worked out any communications procedures between the Navy crews or the embarked Army tankers to cope with the radio silence orders.  Hall’s endorsement to Rockwell’s report blithely claimed that:

“NOTE:  The two unit commanders were to inform each other by radio of the decisions made.”

The fact of the matter is that nowhere is there any indication there was an exception to the radio silence directive for the DD elements; it isn’t present in any plan, order or separate instructions within Hall’s command.  RADM Kirk’s order (for the Western Naval Task Force) did make a provision for it, but Hall did not implement that provision in his Task Force 124 planning.  Even Rockwell would contradict Hall on the point, noting that he was not authorized to break radio silence when he contacted CPT Elder.[24] 

So, is it a valid criticism to fault Barry and Thornton for not devising a workable alternative means of communications?  Perhaps, but any alternative, such as signal flags or lamps had limitations when several craft in the column interposed between the sender and receiver, and they would have been completely ineffective with Thornton in the wrong fire support lane.

In light of the strict radio silence imposed by Hall and his subordinate commanders, Barry and his crews were relying on simplistic ‘follow me and do as I do’ procedures.  If Barry used signal flags or lights to control his formation at any point on D-Day, it was not mentioned by any of the OICs.  He certainly didn’t signal Callister that they had reached Point K.  And the only time Barry mentioned using a “visual signal” was a belated attempt to contact CPT Young after launching had begun.  It was wasted effort, and Barry should have known it.  Young had better things to do than look for visual signals from an LCT 400 yards away; he was in the process of launching and his attention was properly focused on that delicate task.  And even if the Navy crew in Young’s LCT copied the visual signal, relaying that message to a busy Young, isolated in his canvas bathtub, would have been fruitless.

We do not know whether Thornton and Young made an on-the-spot decision to break radio silence to confer on launching, or whether they had planned to do so in advance.  I suspect it was only the fact that Thornton was separated from the column that compelled him to use the radio, but who knows? 

The apparent failure to work out any procedure for communication between the Army and Navy elements was a mistake.  The entire operation seemed to be conducted on the premise that everything would proceed automatically.  Everything up to arrival at the launching sites was conducted on the basis of ‘follow me and do as I do.’  At the launching sites, the lead seems to have automatically switched to the Army commanders.  Both MacKnight (with Young on board) and McKee (with Thornton on board) dropped their ramps when the Army captains told them to, with no regard to a signal from Barry.  Interestingly, even Callister (LCT-599, #5 in column) and Sullivan (LCT-600, #6 in column) started launching automatically, though Thorton was still far distant, and LCC-20 had not passed the word to launch among the second section as it had with the first section. 

None of the reports from the OICs indicate they were expecting any order from Barry to execute the launch procedures.  They either launched on the Army captain’s command, launched automatically, launched in response to LCC-20’s message, or, in one case (Scrivner, LCT-603, #8 in column) launched “when ships on her port began launching as had been arranged.”  The latter is a classic example of ‘follow me and do as I do’.

The totality of evidence indicates no one expected to receive a command of execution from Barry for the launchings.  The various evolutions proceeded automatically up until the point when the Army captains gave the order to launch.

In this light, Barry’s protest, that he had heard nothing from the Army before the launchings began, rings hollow.  Should he have been notified?  Perhaps, but if so he and Thornton should have worked out some mutual communication protocol, which did not seem to have happened.  And it is important to note that Barry’s division executed the launchings in good order without his active involvement at this stage.  That almost never happens in combat unless planned.  So, Barry’s main concern, that he was surprised when the launchings took place, appears to be a result of poor coordination of interservice communications, for which both Barry and Thorton should carry the blame.  And yet, the communications problem traces back primarily to RADM Hall’s failure to delegate authority to break radio silence on DD tank matters, as RADM Kirk’s order had authorized.  This failure was mirrored by Rockwell’s insistence on radio silence for the DD/LCTs, which, ironically, he promptly disregarded for his own operation.

There is one other point to ponder with Barry.   Was he remiss in not objecting because of the weather?  Consider the conflicting orders he had received.

- Per the Assault Group O-1 order, a decision not to launch was supposed to be a joint decision between him and Thornton.  In accordance with those instructions, if he objected on the basis of weather, he should have raised the matter at some point well before the 0535 hours launch time was reached.

- According to Barry’s understanding of Rockwell’s agreement with the Army, he had no role in the decision, and any intervention would have been intrusion on the Army’s authority.

- And finally, Leide’s report went on at some length explaining how he had instructed the OICs that in case of bad weather, they were charged with taking the tanks to beach, regardless of Army input.

The sad fact is that Barry was in a position such that no matter what he did, he would have disobeyed the orders of one, if not two authorities.  There is no better example of the utter confusion in planning and leadership than this. 

Looking beyond those orders, we should consider the practical aspect.  Barry and Thornton (and Young) had been training together for most of the past two and a half months.  In that time Barry should have developed a close enough working relationship to feel free to raise his voice if he thought something was not right.  And in his own report, he clearly thought the weather was too bad to launch.  Morally, he should have contacted Thornton (or Young since Thornton was aboard one of the lost LCTs) and voiced his concerns.  It may very well have resulted in a better decision.  If Barry is to be faulted, it is for this: for not taking the initiative to voice his concerns, whether he had the authority or not.  He certainly could have at least attempted to make contact, and in that case should have made the attempt long before he witnessed tanks rolling off his LCTs.  Of course, this opinion is then caught up in the circular problem of communications.  Let us not forget that if Barry is to be faulted for this failure to speak up, so too must CAPT Imlay, who was near the 6,000 yard line when the decision was made.  He escaped censure; the junior officer did not.  It is this selective censure by RADM Hall and others that calls their judgements into question more than Barry’s.

Ultimately, Barry’s and Thornton’s actions were merely the final steps in a debacle that had many fathers and had been gestating for months.  True, their actions were the last opportunity to avoid the subsequent debacle, but to solely focus blame on them while ignoring the culpability of so many above them is an injustice.

Most importantly, this analysis illustrates the folly of leaving such a decision to a very junior Army officer or an even more junior Navy officer.  The decision should have been left to someone far more senior; whether that was CAPT Imlay or RADM Hall is a discussion best left to another time.  For now, it is only necessary to recall the wisdom of LTG Bradley who objected in writing to what he saw developing in RADM Hall’s command.

Acknowledgements.

While researching this Omaha Beach Series, I have come in contact with several excellent researchers, and as good researchers do, we shared our finds. In the case of this DD Tank series, I owe a tremendous debt to Patrick Ungashick whom I stumbled upon while we were both delving into the subject. Patrick had managed to dig up a trove of Lt. Dean Rockwell’s personal papers which Rockwell had provided to Steven Ambrose. Any serious study of the DD tanks question must include these Rockwell papers, and I would have been lost without them. My sincere gratitude to him. Patrick has a book coming out this June which uses WWII case studies as a teaching vehicle for management decision making. One of those case studies focuses on, of course, the DD tanks at Omaha Beach. Patrick and I take somewhat different approaches to our analyses, and our conclusions are somewhat different, but I wholeheartedly recommend his upcoming book: A Day for Leadership; Business Insights for Today’s Executives and Teams from the D-Day Battle, or one of his other fine books. Thanks, Patrick!

[1] Rockwell, Dean, Lt(j.g.).  DD LCT Unit Commander  letter to  Commander, ELEVENTH Amphibious Force.  Subj:  Results of Training, Tests and Tactical Operations of DD Tanks at Slapton Sands, Devon, England, during the period 15 March – 30 April 1944, dated 30 April 1944, para 8(b).  RG407, Entry 427d, NARA. 

Duncan, William, MAJ.  School Commandant, Letter to Commander ELEVENTH Amphibious Force, Subj:  DD LCT Operations, Evaluation and Results of, dtd 30 April 1944, para 3(e). RG407, Entry 427d, NARA.

[2] Leide, William, LCDR.  Commander, LCT-6 Flotillas 12 and 26 letter to Commander in Chief, United Sates Fleet, Subj: Action Report, LCT “O-2”, dated 29 June 1944.

[3] Transcript of Rockwell’s oral history he recorded for Steven Ambrose, pg.5.  On file with the National WWII Museum.

[4] LCT-589 – 0230 hours; LCT-535 – 0300 hours.  The reports of the DD/LCT OICs, to include Barry’s, which are cited throughout  this installment, are held by the U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlilse Barracks, PA.  See the Robert Rowe Papers, Series 2, Box 11.

[5] Leide, Action Report, LCT “O-2”, dated 29 June 1944.

[6] Leide, Action Report, LCT “O-2”, dated 29 June 1944.

[7] Rockwell, Dean, Lt(j.g.).  Commander, Group 35 letter to Commander in Chief, United States Fleet, subj:  Launching “DD” Tanks on D-Day, NEPTUNE Operation, dtd 14 July 1944.   Note: as with many documents on file from that operation, the word NEPTUNRE has been redacted and replaced with a handwritten (N, France).

[8] CTF 124/Eleventh Amphibious Force operation order No. BB-44, dtd 20 May 1944.  NARA: RG 38, Box 197.

[9] CTG 124.3/COMTRANS Div 1 Order No. 3-44, dtd 29 May 1944.  NARA: RG 38, Box 318

[10] CTG 124.4/COMTRANSDIV 3 order No. 4-44, dtd 27 May 1944.  NARA: RG 38, Box 318

[11] RAMD Hall’s Second Endorsement, dtd 22 September 1944, to Rockwell’s memo, subj: Launching  “DD” Tanks On D-Day, Operation NEPTUNE, dtd 14 June 1944.

[12] Barry blamed this break in column on the erratic maneuvers of LCC-20.

[13] Imlay, Miles, CAPT.  Deputy Commander Task Group 124.3 letter to Commander Task Force 124, subj:  Report on Operation NEPTUNE, dtd 1 July 1944.  NARA, RG 38.

[14] Bucklew’s comments as the LCS commander, though not attributed to him by name, are included in Commander Task Group 124.3 letter to Commander Task Force 124, subj: Report and Comments and Lessons Learned in Operation NEPTUNE, dtd 20 May 1944.  See Section IX, page 7 and following.  NARA, RG 38.

[15] Rockwell, Launching “DD” Tanks on D-Day, NEPTUNE Operation, dtd 14 July 1944.

[16] Woodward, Ralph.  Oral interview conducted by CAPT Robert Rowe (USN, Ret) on 17 July 1987.  U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlilse Barracks, PA; Robert Rowe Papers, Series 2, Box 8.

[17] Rockwell. Launching “DD” Tanks on D-Day, NEPTUNE Operation, dtd 14 July 1944.

[18] Regretting his judgement that day, Starkey concluded his report with: “Needless to say, I am not proud of the fact nor will I ever stop regretting that I did not take the tanks all the way to the beach.”

[19] Commander, 741st Tank Battalion letter to The Adjutant General, Washington, D.C., subj: Action Against Enemy/After Action Report, dtd 19 July 1944.  Ike Skelton Combined Arms Research Library digital collections, Fort Leavenworth, KS. https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p4013coll8/id/3512/  See pg. 100 of the .pdf file.

[20] This was also author Cornelius Ryan’s explanation in his book The Longest Day.  Even that excellent author and historian had been unable to obtain the reports of the OICs which Rockwell had kept from the public record during and after the war.

[21] This assertion was contained in Leide’s 20 July 1944 first endorsement to Rockwell’s Launching “DD” Tanks on D-Day, NEPTUNE Operation, dtd 14 July 1944.

[22] Commander, 741st Tank Battalion, memo, subj: Comments and Criticisms of Operation “NEPTUNE, dtd, 1 July 1944.  Online at the Colonel Robert R. McCormick Research Center’ Digital Archives, First Division Museum at Cantigny.  Record Group 301-INF(16)-3.01: Lessons Learned

[23] RAMD Hall’s Second Endorsement, dtd 22 September 1944, to Rockwell’s memo, subj: Launching  “DD” Tanks On D-Day, Operation NEPTUNE, dtd 14 June 1944.

[24] Page 35 of his oral history cited earlier.