ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Friday, 27th May 2011

  I have recently read Max Hastings book on Overlord and he claims in it both that the Mulberry harbours were not as effective as people gnerally think, the Americans managed to load at 90% of the rate after their harbour was destroyed as they had before. I had read that before but what Hastings also claims is that the storm was not that great and i have certainly not read that in any other account. Does anyone know about how large the Storm during June 1944 in the channel really was?
  
  Incidently Hastings corrrectly identifies that the PLUTO pipelines were not operational until after the the battle of Normandy had been won.
  
  Tim
  

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by sinbadnick (U14506866) on Friday, 27th May 2011

  
  Well your talking about a storm on "D" DAY and I'm asking what storm' well
  as a Navy man who was there on the day there was no storm, it was a bit rough
  as we matloe's used to say ' but no where near as rough as the previous day
  when we who sailed out of Greenock with a massive convoy had to wait out
  in the Irish sea all day for the weather to calm down a bit ' and sailed on in
  the early hours of "D" DAY.

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 27th May 2011

  surely it doesnt matter when pluto was operational
  
  how many ships did it save and the dock facilities man hours etc
  
  

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 27th May 2011

  But how many ships, man hours etc went into it? Cost and Benefit need to be examined.
  
  
  FWIW, my view, formed from my reading is that the Mulberry Harbours - particularly the Whale peirs - weren't that effective, but the Gooseberries (shelters made up of "Corncobs" or scuttled ships) greatly eased the problems of transhipment from ships to landing craft. As a side effect, the Germans wasted a lot of shells on the old battleship Courbet (the only warship that had to be towed into position IIRC) because she was still wearing her French ensign and they thought she was the HQ of the officer in charge of getting supplies ashore.

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 30th May 2011

  Sinbadnick
  
  I am refering to the 'storm' on June 19th that wrecked the American Mulberry and damaged the British one.
  
  regards
  
  Tim
  

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 30th May 2011

  stalti
  
  with regard to the PLUTO lines from Isle of Wight to Cherbourg code named BAMBI. The original plan was to lay the first line on D-Day + 18. The first successful lay was not in fact until 18th September and fuel did not flow until 2nd September by which time Operation Market Garden was taking place in the Netherlands. The lines only ran for 10 days until attemptes to increase the pressure to increase the flow-rate led to the failures of both the HAIS cable and HAMEL pipe. On 4th October BAMBI was abandonned. In 10 days pumpimg BAMBI had achieved only 1 days planned flow or 0.1% of the total fuel delived to the allies from D-Day to VE Day. One Chant tanker, of which there was a shortage would have delived far more at far less cost.
  
  To quote from the Official History 'PLUTO contributed nothing to the Allied supplies at the time that would have been most valuable - that is when no regular oil ports were available on the Continent'
  D.J.Payton-Smith 'Oil - A Study of War-time Policy and Administration' in 2 volumes p446
  
  There were the DUMBO lines from Dungeness to Boulogne that it could be argued had more effect but these came in to operation even later and the official history notes that 'DUMBO was more successful; but at a time when success was of less importance. It made no substancial contribution until the campaign in Western Europe was already more than half over.' p448
  
  regards
  
  Tim
  

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 30th May 2011

  Ur
  
  I was interested in your reference to the gooseberries, they do not normally get much of a mention.
  
  regards
  
  Tim
  

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by sinbadnick (U14506866) on Monday, 30th May 2011

  
  Hi Tim
  
  Sorry about my jumping the gun a little, but yes you were quite right
  it was a bit stormy on that day and I certainly would'nt have been in the
  those troops shoes if it had been like that on the day of the landfings
  especialy in those flat bottomed T.L.Cs although I thought at the time that
  it certainly was'nt ideal landing craft weather.

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 2nd October 2011

  Tim,
  A weather report from the USS Augusta off Omaha records waves topping at 12 feet and winds gusting to 32 knots,placing the storm between a Force 6 and Force 7.
  
  This link is the account of a British Enginner officer who witnessed both harbours, and is the first time I've seen the suggestion that a primary reason A failed because the Americans built a bigger harbour than they should have.
  

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 2nd October 2011

  
  The action report for the 25th Naval Construction Regiment upto 22nd June
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 5th November 2011

  Thanks for the links, very interesting

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by MB (U177470) on Saturday, 5th November 2011

  I would suggest reading "A Harbour Goes To War" to get a more detailed account that Hastings.
  
  The American Mulberry A was virtually destroyed in the storm and they transferred spared and effort into completing the British Mulberry B. The book says that the Americans built their harbour much quicker but did not take enough car in siting the various parts and surveying the seabed so it was partly their own fault.
  
  The story about them moving more supplies over the beach than the British Mulberry B is attributed to a French TV documentary. They quote an "unspecified American source" for the report.
  
  Brigadier Walter is quoted as saying
  
  "Having failed to plant Mulberry A successfully, and maintain it through and after the storm, this statement is perhaps not an unexpected response. However, it is nonsense!
  
  "The idea that you could discharge greater tonnages of stores, guns and tanks over a tidal beach with limited hours of useeach day, than could be discharged over a 24 hour day through Mulberry B, with all its port facilities, pierheads, and floating roadways, including our ability to discharge around a Landing Ship tank (LST) in 23 minutes bears witness to the fatuousness of this remark".
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 5th November 2011

  Thanks you the message and suggestion. My principal interest is in the PLUTO lines from Isle of Wight to Cherbourg which certainly were, as per the thread on that topic, an almost complete failure. If they had not been attempted it would have sailed the allies a huge amont of effort for virtually no return. My interest was mainly raised by the usggestions thta Mulberrys were a similar failure.
  

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by MB (U177470) on Saturday, 5th November 2011

  172 million gallons of petrol does not sound "a complete failure" or "no return". The pipeline stayed in use until after the war and was part of a bigger network across the UK and extended into Germany as the forces advanced.
  
  

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 5th November 2011

  hi tim
  VERY interesting post - all news to me
  
  the thing is its all hindsight - as it happened things worked out ok without the mulberries and pluto - imagine if it hadnt and they were the only way we could unload or get fuel over !!

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 7th November 2011

  MB
  
  
  the PLUTO lines from Isle of Wight to Cherbourg which were supposed to help during the battle of Normandy did not become operational until 22nd September which was well after the battle for Normandy ended. The first pipeline was scheduled to have been laid on June 24th and so you can see how far behind it was. the one HAIS cable and HAMEL pipe successfully laid ran for only 10 days before they failed and then the route from IoW to Cherbourg was abandonned and never used again. During the 10 days that it ran it only delivered 1 days scheduled supply in total and 0.1% of the total fuel delivered to the allies in NW Europe from D-Day to VE Day. Just one greyhound tanker on one trip would have delivered 5 times as much. The effort put into the IoW to Cherbourg lines was out of all preportian to the return and could, for example, been spent far more profitably on building more Chant tankers.
  
  A pipeline was laid from Cherbourg across France and eventually into Germany. However, that was supplied by tanker from Cherbourg and so cannot be considered part of PLUTO.
  
  There was a second series of PLUTO lines that were run from Dungeness to Boulogne but I was quite specifically excluding them from my comments as I deliberately referred to the waste of the IoW to Cherbourg lines.
  
  Even the lines from Dungeness were hardly a total success, they were late and did not manage to reach full capacity until after VE Day.
  
  To quote from the Official History. β€˜PLUTO contributed nothing to Allied supplies at the time that would have been most valuable – that is when no regular oil ports were available on the Continent and the Allies were relying on the unsatisfactory Port-en-Bessin.'
  
  On the Dungeness lines it states β€˜DUMBO was more successful; but at a time when success was of less importance. It made no substantial contribution until the campaign in Western Europe was already more than half over’.
  
  I do not know where you got you figure of 172 million gallons from but the IoW to Cherbourg lines code named BAMBI carried only 3,300 tons which, on quick calculation, is less than 1 million imperial gallons. To put that figure in context, one depot on the pipeline and storage system alone stored more than 50 million gallons.
  
  Anyway I am glad that this, to me, fascinating topic is generating some interest.
  
  I have given a number of talks on the history of the pipeline and storage system and the PLUTO lines (to history societies and engineering institues) and the audiences have in all cases been shocked at how the reality of PLUTO is so different from what they understood, especially those that have visited the museum on the Isle of wight.
  
  I am currently engaged in writing a history of the pipeline and storage system starting beore the war and am currently up to around 1970.
  
  regards
  
  Tim
  

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message16

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 15.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 7th November 2011

  Hi Stalti
  
  thanks for your comments. The allies were in fact from more relying on the Chant dual purpose tankers and the TOMBOLA pipelines run from tankers moored offshore to the shore line. Even TOMBOLA had problems as the lines tended to break and many Chants and other small tankers were damaged due to the weather and the coast line. Howver, as you say despite all these problems the allies did manage to get enough fuel ashore to win the battle of Normandy.
  
  regards
  
  Tim
  

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message17

• Message 18

  , in reply to message 17.

  Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 7th November 2011

  Tim :
  Sounds like a topic my local Scientific & Historical Society would be interested. Could you contact me privately on this - Caro knows my email address.
  
  Regards
  Gil/Ian/U-L

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message18

• Message 19

  , in reply to message 18.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 8th November 2011

  Will do
  
  Caro has been proof reading through the chapters for me.
  
  regards
  
  Tim
  

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message19

• Message 20

  , in reply to message 18.

  Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 11th December 2011

  Hi Ian
  
  I did email you using the address that Caro gave me but got no response. Did you get my email?
  
  regards
  
  Tim
  

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message20

• Message 21

  , in reply to message 20.

  Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 11th December 2011

  Tim - suspect you've been spam-trapped - I'll dig through the 3 - 4 thousand in there & see if I can unearth your email.

  Link to this forum: The Storm and the Mulberry harbours - Normandy 1944

  Report message21

Back to top