header pic

The B12 (XII) Forum, home of the 'Front Porch, y'all' at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.

 (Read 215518 times)

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6045
  • Liked:
Re: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.
« Reply #5432 on: March 24, 2024, 05:45:24 PM »
I don't completely understand why naval gunfire in support of ground forces was so limited in effect (usually).  They had spotters and complete air control in this one.  Any 14 inch shell is far larger than most land artillery.  I know some Germans were in serious concrete bunkers, I've seen them up close.  But naval guns are designed to be able to hit moving ships, not stationary land targets.  (Granted, they don't hit ships very often either.)  Maybe the issue is that spotting aircraft can't make out much on the ground, or have to stay at too high an altitude.

The 21st Panzer had some initial success on D Day even when under heavy naval artillery fire.  My question is how any survived.

The Reception: The Germans on D-Day | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans (nationalww2museum.org)
I don't know if this clears up any of your puzzlement, but naval guns have an interesting difference from artillery. They typically fire on low-angle trajectories. Thus, they are pretty accurate in direction, but not so accurate in distance. And they are not firing from a stationary position like artillery does either. The ship is typically underway rather than anchored, and it is pitching and rolling to some degree.
Play Like a Champion Today

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6045
  • Liked:
Re: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.
« Reply #5433 on: March 24, 2024, 06:11:36 PM »
I don't know if the picture of USS Ward under construction is showing up or not.

I'll try it again.

Play Like a Champion Today

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71536
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.
« Reply #5434 on: March 24, 2024, 06:56:42 PM »
Plunging fire - Naval History Forums (kbismarck.org)

Some discussion about angle of fire of naval guns.  There were advantages in high angles of fire, 35° or more, the Iowa's guns could elevate to 45°.  And they were intended to hit ships also moving at sea, not statonary targets, as on land.  The relative motion of the ship could be managed by various computers and "automatic" delayed fire to adjust for ship rolling motions.

The USS Washington is said to have hit the IJN Kirishima at ~10,000 yards at night at least 9 times out of 79.  That's pretty good shooting against a pretty fast target.

So, gunnery COULD lay down very accurate fire on stationary and moving targets.  The fire control systems in WW II were pretty advanced.

I'm just surprised the Germans could get armor anywhere near the D Day invasion beaches without it's being spotted (???) and targetted effectively by naval gunnery.  Even a 5" shell fairly near a tank would likely take it out.

I was just on Okinawa where of course "we" blasted the heck out of the place and yet significant Japanese fortifications persisted.  One we visited was pretty far undeground (75 m), so that is explainable.


CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6045
  • Liked:
Re: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.
« Reply #5435 on: March 24, 2024, 07:10:25 PM »
That was an interesting piece from MHQ via the National WWII Museum.

The author surely is better-informed than I am, but I wonder if he isn't overstating the Allies' advantages on 6 Jun just a bit.

The German LXXXIV Corps was facing the spearhead (as the author states) of two Allied Armies. It's easy to slide past "spearhead" and think about how poor LXXXIV Corps is going to have to defeat two Allied Armies all by itself.

In reality, those two Allied armies consisted of four corps, three of them what we would consider understrength. US VII Corps (Utah Beach) had four divisions, two infantry and two airborne. The 90th Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne Division had never seen combat. US V Corps (Omaha Beach) had two infantry divisions, one of which, the 29th, had never seen combat. UK XXX Corps (Gold Beach) had one infantry division. It had seen action since May 1940. UK I Corps had responsibility for both Juno and Sword Beaches. At Juno Beach, there was had one division that had no combat experience. At Sword Beach, there was an infantry division that had seen combat beginning in May 1940 and an airborne division that was going into action for the first time.

A rule of thumb is that the attacker should have at least a 3:1 advantage in combat power to prevail. If you add up the numbers, that's about what the Allies had on 6 Jun. But the Allies used their combat power better. They used the English Channel like an interstate highway network. It let them move forces and ships to apply the fire and maneuver very effectively. Meanwhile, the Germans effed it up. They had critically poor command and control of their 10 panzer divisions, so those divisions accomplished almost nothing on D-Day.

The German army has never conducted an amphibious operation. Being a continental rather than maritime power, it has never had to do so. The Germans saw a cross-channel operation in terms of a river crossing. Compared with the Allied planning (and execution) for D-Day, the German planning for Operation Sea Lion (the planned invasion of southern England in 1940) looks comically poor. And that is a big part of the reason that the Germans weren't well-prepared to deal with the Allies on the Day of Days.

I'd also like to add that the Panzer Mk. IV was not greatly outclassed by the Sherman, the most common Allied tank on 6 Jun. Its major disadvantage was that the weigh of better armament and protection had hurt its mobility. But the Germans were on the defensive. Had they employed their tanks better, earlier, they could have had them in prepared fighting position with frontal cover facing Shermans having to expose themselves by maneuvering. As it was, the panzer units were well to the rear on 6 Jun and the lack of tactical mobility hurt their ability to move forward and contribute significantly to the defense.
Play Like a Champion Today

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6045
  • Liked:
Re: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.
« Reply #5436 on: March 24, 2024, 07:31:48 PM »
Plunging fire - Naval History Forums (kbismarck.org)

Some discussion about angle of fire of naval guns.  There were advantages in high angles of fire, 35° or more, the Iowa's guns could elevate to 45°.  And they were intended to hit ships also moving at sea, not statonary targets, as on land.  The relative motion of the ship could be managed by various computers and "automatic" delayed fire to adjust for ship rolling motions.

The USS Washington is said to have hit the IJN Kirishima at ~10,000 yards at night at least 9 times out of 79.  That's pretty good shooting against a pretty fast target.

So, gunnery COULD lay down very accurate fire on stationary and moving targets.  The fire control systems in WW II were pretty advanced.

I'm just surprised the Germans could get armor anywhere near the D Day invasion beaches without it's being spotted (???) and targetted effectively by naval gunnery.  Even a 5" shell fairly near a tank would likely take it out.

I was just on Okinawa where of course "we" blasted the heck out of the place and yet significant Japanese fortifications persisted.  One we visited was pretty far undeground (75 m), so that is explainable.
We didn't have Iowas at Normandy. We didn't have South Dakotas. We didn't have North Carolinas (re the point about Washington). We didn't have Colorados, or Tennessees, or New Mexicos, or Pennsylvanias. The newest battleship we had was Nevada (commissioned in 1916), then Texas (1914), then Arkansas (1912), with 12" guns. Their fire-control systems had been upgraded over the years, of course. But their main-gun turrets weren't upgraded, and they weren't firing at 45 degrees of elevation.
And, re spotters, I don't know how many spotter airplanes (if any) were in the air over Normandy. I don't think that they would have had a very good survival rate. It was a gloomy day and visibility wasn't good. And the battleships were firing at targets that were at a higher elevation than they were. I don't know what they would have seen to base adjustments on. I don't think that they had counter-battery radar.

Speaking of radar, USS Washington hit IJN Kirishima using radar to find her and adjust fire on her. I don't think radar would have done much good when ships were trying to hit inland targets. Many of those targets would have been in radar dead zones.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. But I'll paraphrase Clausewitz her: "In war, everything is simple. But even the simplest thing is very difficult."
« Last Edit: March 24, 2024, 07:36:50 PM by CWSooner »
Play Like a Champion Today

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71536
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.
« Reply #5437 on: March 24, 2024, 07:34:17 PM »
I've played D Day a number of times on various computer platforms, and on one board game.  It's interesting, but the Germans almost never can "win" in any sense.  I came close against a friend on a board game once by reinforcing the 352nd at Omaha and throwing the 1st and 29th back to the sea, but that meant the forces at the other beaches had almost no German defensive strength.  They allow various scenarios including the Rommel plan and having  the German commanders more awake.  It's still tough.  

On the other hand, as you note, amphibious assaults are very risky, a lot can go wrong, and will.  The German 352nd was understrength but included a lot of experienced infantry.  Below is from wiki.

Later analysis of naval support during the pre-landing phase concluded that the navy had provided inadequate bombardment, given the size and extent of the planned assault.[33] Kenneth P. Lord, a U.S. Army planner for the D-Day invasion, says that, upon hearing the naval gunfire support plan for Omaha, which limited support to one battleship, two cruisers and six destroyers, he and other planners were very upset, especially in light of the tremendous naval gunfire support given to landings in the Pacific.[34]

Historian Adrian R. Lewis postulates that American casualties would have been greatly reduced if a longer barrage had been implemented,[35] although the First Infantry Division Chief of Staff said that the Division would not have been able to move off the beach without effective naval gunfire.[36]


Those various German fortifications above Omaha were pretty sturdy looking, to me, reinforced concrete roofs about a meter in thickness.  I just wonder why 14" AP shells wouldn't either penetrate or basically make anyone inside ineffective.  And the Germans we seeing in movies running outside to man their posts could have been easily targetted, I would think.  I'm guessing I'm missing something.

The Point du Hoc area is cratered completely of course, I think some of that was from the air.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71536
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.
« Reply #5438 on: March 24, 2024, 07:38:28 PM »
Naval Guns at Normandy (navy.mil)

Our large ships would be forced to remain outside the shoals, much further than we wished them to be, but there was no help for it. They too would be confined to swept channels with consequent loss of their mobility when engaged by the heavily protected defense guns.
Our advance knowledge of the general characteristics and exact location of the batteries was of tremendous importance. For we could plan the arrangement of our ships so that the toughest batteries would be engaged by our most powerful ships.

The NEPTUNE Plan called for an approach to the Normandy coast during darkness. It seemed too optimistic to expect the enemy to be caught napping. Our spotting aircraft would not arrive until about daylight and we believed the Allied ships would be under heavy fire long before that.

To meet this contingency, we prepared a plan called "ZEBRA." Modern radar and navigational equipment had made it possible for the captains to know, within acceptable limits, the exact positions of their ships at any instant. This greatly simplified the gunnery problem and permitted us to shoot "blind" with considerable accuracy. When signal was made our bombardment group would open fire, each upon its own designated target. Unaware of which batteries were shooting, we would take all the important ones under simultaneous fire. There is something very disturbing to the receiver in the deafening violence of close bursting high power shells. At night its effect is enhanced. It would be our business to see to it that the enemy batteries were too occupied with us to turn their attention to the troop laden boats as they approached the shore. Whether we destroyed them or not we must prevent them from doing what Rommel expected them to do.

We had no illusions, however, that blind firing, day or night, no matterhow good, would destroy or permanently disable such well designed and protected batteries. No artillery, afloat or ashore, could do so without expert spotting. The spotter is the "eyes of the ship." He is in a place overlooking the target where he can report precisely where the shells are falling and their effect, This does by special radio to the ship.

Spotting is a highly specialized task for a man who must be cool and steady. He may be on the ground, near the target; afloat, where he had a close view; or in the air. Naval spotters, in sea battles or in the early phases of amphibious assault must, of course, be in aircraft.

Since the 1920s, air spotting and scouting had been an important factor in the U.S. Navy, Highly efficient seaplane units were a part of each larger ship. Far reaching were their effects on the growth of U.S. naval aviation and its acceptance by our Navy as a whole back in the 1920s and 30s.

But Normandy differed from previous amphibious objectives in the Pacific and Mediterranean in the strength of enemy anti-aircraft preparation. The Cotentin was studded with "flak towers" and all the defense positions were supplemented with AA guns. Slow seaplanes such as we normally used would not long survive over that country.
The Allies possessed no fast two-seater planes. The British offered perhaps the only solution by providing a spotting "pool" of fast fighters. In it were: four squadrons of R.N. Seafires (Naval Spitfires), five squadrons of RAF Spitfires and Mustangs (many of these would be withdrawn after noon of D-day), added to these were 17 USN pilots taken from our ships, who quickly learned to fly Spitfires. They were expert spotters. Most of the RAF pilots had no previous experience in spotting, a function which differed greatly from their normal tasks, The training they received was good, but very brief.


CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6045
  • Liked:
Re: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.
« Reply #5439 on: March 24, 2024, 07:42:32 PM »
I've played D Day a number of times on various computer platforms, and on one board game.  It's interesting, but the Germans almost never can "win" in any sense.  I came close against a friend on a board game once by reinforcing the 352nd at Omaha and throwing the 1st and 29th back to the sea, but that meant the forces at the other beaches had almost no German defensive strength.  They allow various scenarios including the Rommel plan and having  the German commanders more awake.  It's still tough. 

On the other hand, as you note, amphibious assaults are very risky, a lot can go wrong, and will.  The German 352nd was understrength but included a lot of experienced infantry.  Below is from wiki.

Later analysis of naval support during the pre-landing phase concluded that the navy had provided inadequate bombardment, given the size and extent of the planned assault.[33] Kenneth P. Lord, a U.S. Army planner for the D-Day invasion, says that, upon hearing the naval gunfire support plan for Omaha, which limited support to one battleship, two cruisers and six destroyers, he and other planners were very upset, especially in light of the tremendous naval gunfire support given to landings in the Pacific.[34]

Historian Adrian R. Lewis postulates that American casualties would have been greatly reduced if a longer barrage had been implemented,[35] although the First Infantry Division Chief of Staff said that the Division would not have been able to move off the beach without effective naval gunfire.[36]


Those various German fortifications above Omaha were pretty sturdy looking, to me, reinforced concrete roofs about a meter in thickness.  I just wonder why 14" AP shells wouldn't either penetrate or basically make anyone inside ineffective.  And the Germans we seeing in movies running outside to man their posts could have been easily targetted, I would think.  I'm guessing I'm missing something.

The Point du Hoc area is cratered completely of course, I think some of that was from the air.
Good stuff. Re the bolded, those much more extensive pre-invasion bombardments in the Pacific Theater often didn't work very well either.
I haven't studied the Normandy invasion much in a long time. But I think I remember that we didn't want to give away where the landings would be with a long preparatory bombardment. I know that we did not concentrate our aerial bombardment in the weeks before the invasion just on Normandy. I think it was something like 1:3. For every bomb dropped along the Normandy coast, three bombs needed to be dropped on targets outside of Normandy.
Play Like a Champion Today

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6045
  • Liked:
Re: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.
« Reply #5440 on: March 24, 2024, 08:00:25 PM »
Naval Guns at Normandy (navy.mil)

Our large ships would be forced to remain outside the shoals, much further than we wished them to be, but there was no help for it. They too would be confined to swept channels with consequent loss of their mobility when engaged by the heavily protected defense guns.
Our advance knowledge of the general characteristics and exact location of the batteries was of tremendous importance. For we could plan the arrangement of our ships so that the toughest batteries would be engaged by our most powerful ships.

The NEPTUNE Plan called for an approach to the Normandy coast during darkness. It seemed too optimistic to expect the enemy to be caught napping. Our spotting aircraft would not arrive until about daylight and we believed the Allied ships would be under heavy fire long before that.

To meet this contingency, we prepared a plan called "ZEBRA." Modern radar and navigational equipment had made it possible for the captains to know, within acceptable limits, the exact positions of their ships at any instant. This greatly simplified the gunnery problem and permitted us to shoot "blind" with considerable accuracy. When signal was made our bombardment group would open fire, each upon its own designated target. Unaware of which batteries were shooting, we would take all the important ones under simultaneous fire. There is something very disturbing to the receiver in the deafening violence of close bursting high power shells. At night its effect is enhanced. It would be our business to see to it that the enemy batteries were too occupied with us to turn their attention to the troop laden boats as they approached the shore. Whether we destroyed them or not we must prevent them from doing what Rommel expected them to do.

We had no illusions, however, that blind firing, day or night, no matterhow good, would destroy or permanently disable such well designed and protected batteries. No artillery, afloat or ashore, could do so without expert spotting. The spotter is the "eyes of the ship." He is in a place overlooking the target where he can report precisely where the shells are falling and their effect, This does by special radio to the ship.

Spotting is a highly specialized task for a man who must be cool and steady. He may be on the ground, near the target; afloat, where he had a close view; or in the air. Naval spotters, in sea battles or in the early phases of amphibious assault must, of course, be in aircraft.

Since the 1920s, air spotting and scouting had been an important factor in the U.S. Navy, Highly efficient seaplane units were a part of each larger ship. Far reaching were their effects on the growth of U.S. naval aviation and its acceptance by our Navy as a whole back in the 1920s and 30s.

But Normandy differed from previous amphibious objectives in the Pacific and Mediterranean in the strength of enemy anti-aircraft preparation. The Cotentin was studded with "flak towers" and all the defense positions were supplemented with AA guns. Slow seaplanes such as we normally used would not long survive over that country.
The Allies possessed no fast two-seater planes. The British offered perhaps the only solution by providing a spotting "pool" of fast fighters. In it were: four squadrons of R.N. Seafires (Naval Spitfires), five squadrons of RAF Spitfires and Mustangs (many of these would be withdrawn after noon of D-day), added to these were 17 USN pilots taken from our ships, who quickly learned to fly Spitfires. They were expert spotters. Most of the RAF pilots had no previous experience in spotting, a function which differed greatly from their normal tasks, The training they received was good, but very brief.
Yep. That's all good.
I'll add this personal PoV. In the pre-GPS, pre-laser-designation, pre-everybody-data-linked-to-everybody-else days, pilots or forward observers in Army helicopters could call for and adjust artillery fire. In fact, Army pilots in Piper Cubs (L-4s) did so in WWII. I've done it in dry-fire simulations, with four different radios and a copilot or observer in my OH-58, and I could have done it in live-fire situations. But it always depended on the ability to not get yourself shot down by AA or small-arms fire. Or enemy airplanes, for that matter. I'm sure that the same factors applied with Navy crews in OS2U Kingfishers.
Adjusting fire requires the observer/spotter/whatever you want to call him to report direction from his location to the target every time he calls in an adjustment. I don't know how one does that from a Spitfire or Mustang. I'm trying to imagine doing it from my P-51 flying low-level at 300 knots, looking out for AA or enemy aircraft, talking on the one and only radio to--whom?, observing the fall of shot, knowing what ship that shot came from, knowing when to look for that "splash" (somebody would have to call me on the radio 10 seconds or so in advance) and surely other things that don't come to mind right now.
Play Like a Champion Today

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71536
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.
« Reply #5441 on: March 25, 2024, 03:52:42 AM »
I now suspect the spotting of fall of shot was simply not really possible, or at least, not very good, for reasons cited.  And of course prolonged bombardments in the Pacific were also deficient, especially at Tarawa.  They probably hit known positions pretty well even with the curtailed bombardment.  I was musing about calling shot from my C152 back in the day, I probably could do it if I could tell which shell was from which ship, and if nobody shot at me (with some training), but not in a high performance fighter I suspect.  

We visited a Japanese Naval HQ on Okinawa, as I mentioned, last week.  It was intact, maybe we didn't know its location either.  It was not equipped with running water, only electricity.  And it was buried under rock of course.  I don't think an A bomb would have taken it out based on what we saw at Nagasaki.  A young girl survived there something like 600 m from GZ in cave.  She was the closest survivor, they think.

The remaining German fortifications at Omaha overlooking the beach are mostly (?) still there, some of them anyway.  For one thing, it would cost a lot to remove them.  Those guns feared to be at Pont du Hoc, I know they had been removed, but they were still not in place anywhere, right?  Those cliffs ..... not a height I would like to climb.

Rangers lead the way.


Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71536
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.
« Reply #5442 on: March 25, 2024, 04:07:12 AM »
All this takes me back to my grad school days when I and this other fellow would stay up all night playing board games about D Day or Battle of the Bulge.  I think the utility of those, and computer games of similar ilk, is to teach one about geography.  But then when I visited a place like Gettysburg, it's a lot different than I had expected, mostly distances seemed further, or closer, and I wondered about how the woods may have changed.

My buddy knew his military history pretty well, I didn't then.  He could easily cite, as you can, each division number at D Day and where they landed.  I've since read up on things of course, but while that is helpful I think, it's not sufficient.

I have subjected my wife to an overage of military "stuff" on our trips, she's pretty OK with it, though she does mention it at times and laughs.  We had one trip around France on back that I didn't realize how much I had done this until I wrote up a trip report.  She did say she enjoyed seeing the Maginot Line, as did I.  That one gets criticized a lot, but it did what was intended of course.

Chamberlain gets a lot of critique too of course, but it's not clear to me what else he could have done at Munich then.  The French were not going to war over the Czechs.

I've learned a lot of things in "history" that get labeled "horribly awful decisions" are actually more "constrained decisions influenced by prior history" and lack of accurate information.

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71536
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.
« Reply #5443 on: March 25, 2024, 07:30:47 AM »
I wonder how this compares with the ongoing debate about strategic bombing in WW 2, especially in Germany.  I've read various "studies" giving various results.  I know German war production peaked in December 1944, but they had to devote a lot of resources to trying to combat the bombing campaigns.

Lemay was frustrated with the results in Japan, or so I've read, which lead to the fire bombing efforts.  But I think the B29 was bombing from higher altitudes than B17s usually, and the jet stream was a new thing for them.  I guess had we redirected those resources to ground forces, maybe the result would have not been much if any better as we'd have logistics issues with more ground forces in Europe I suspect.

We had'em anyway.

Gigem

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
  • Liked:
Re: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.
« Reply #5444 on: March 25, 2024, 12:43:38 PM »
I always wondered, where was the German Navy during D-Day?  I know Britain and US had much superior Navy's overall, but it seems really odd to me that the Germans let us land uncontested from the sea.  They didn't even have patrols out, nor any kind of battleships to counter or anything like that?  And where was their Air Force on D-Day?  Did they try to attack our amphibious vehicles from the air?  

longhorn320

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Posts: 9327
  • Liked:
Re: The Porch, y'all. pull up a seat and kick back.
« Reply #5445 on: March 25, 2024, 02:25:51 PM »
I always wondered, where was the German Navy during D-Day?  I know Britain and US had much superior Navy's overall, but it seems really odd to me that the Germans let us land uncontested from the sea.  They didn't even have patrols out, nor any kind of battleships to counter or anything like that?  And where was their Air Force on D-Day?  Did they try to attack our amphibious vehicles from the air? 
Number 1 they did not expect the invasion to be at Normandy 

Number 2 by the time D Day happened Germanys navy had been reduced to basically only u boats and again an invasion at                 Normandy came as a complete surprise
They won't let me give blood anymore. The burnt orange color scares the hell out of the doctors.

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.