I was reading through the Action Report of the USS Shubrick (DD639) which reported the following interesting report... "About 1150, 12 June, one battery located between target 3 and 6A was observed to be having a duel with another battery located by target 88. Both batteries were clearly visible to this vessel, and information was requested from Commander Bombardment Group which were own forces. The tactical situation at this time was such that either battery could have been put out of action immediately by own fire. Commander Bombardment Group endeavored to find out this information with evidently no success as no reply was received by 1338, at which time this vessel was relieved on station." To help clarify, Targets 3 and 6A are the Crisbecq batteries, and Target 88 is part of WN 14A located at lambert 392057 which is seaside area along the Route de Crisbecq. Although Crisbecq was won on the morning of 12 June, was it in possession at 11:50 at the time of this duel? Does anyone have more details... Respectfully, John Szweda
Hi John, Early on the 12th of June, the 39th Infantry Regiment of the 9th Infantry Division spread out from its assembly area for their coastal missions near St Marcouf / Crisbecq. 2nd Battalion pushed patrols to Crisbecq and finding the Battery abandoned, occupied it at 0820. Dangueville was occupied in mid-afternoon. Two companies were then sent eastward toward the beach. 1st Battalion moved to St. Marcouf around noon and then sent 3 companies down the roads from St. Marcouf and Ravenoville to the beach. There the battalion reorganized and assaulted and captured the first pillbox north of Taret de Ravenoville, establishing contact with the 2d Battalion patrol below Fort St. Marcouf. So, it seems that at 11:50, the Crisbecq battery was already in possession of the Allies. I hope this helps?
Hi John and Yuri, One possibility might explain what was seen from offshore. Apparently, Oberleutnant Walter Ohmsen, the commander of 3/1261 HKAR (Heeres-Kusten-Artillerie-Regiment), manning the Saint Marcouf (Crisbecq) Battery, called down fire from the Azeville Battery onto his own position to break up an American attack. Not sure on the date though. Regards, Pat
Hi Yuri and Pat, I did a quick check and it seems that Oberleutnant Walter Ohmsen called the fire onto his own battery on June 8 to break up the attack. Also Yuri says The Americans were in possession of the battery by 11:50. So I wonder who was in possession of the other battery identified as Target 88 which is located at the area of lambert 392057 (seaside along the Route de Crisbecq). Any ideas? Maybe I made the mistake of thinking that the 2 batteries fired on each other, but the brief action report from the Shubrick does report it as 2 batteries having a duel. So it could likely be 39th infantry firing on and receiving fire from whom? Respectfully, John Szweda
Hi John, still trying to find out more about this. Maybe the view from the ship made it look as a duel? Also, there were Tank Destroyers helping out the 39th IR, and fired their guns onto several pillboxes and bunkers. In one of the bunkers, there was a booby trap, and a 9th Infantry Division man lost his foot when he wanted to place the gun into position as a mine went off. I can imagine that all of this going can give the impression of several shots? However, I will keep looking for more information about this!
Hi Guys, I found a very useful document titled "Operation Neptune - Naval Operations Orders" on Fold3. If you have an account with them, the mammoth report is found by drilling down via: World War II > WWII War Diaries > A > Allied Naval Commander-in-Chief Expeditionary Force The first page is located here and the last, page 3562, is here (viewable by login only). I mention it on this thread because on page 2800 I found a reference to your map reference 392057 - well, actually 392056 but it’s close enough to be the same location: The intelligence is dated the 14th April 1944, so unless Wn 14A was strengthened significantly afterwards, I doubt if the 'duel' between the two batteries could have been on an equal footing - that's not to say of course that it did not take place! I marked in on the map below (taken from the same report), my interpretation of the Widerstandsnest (Wn) locations shown on another map - page 7 of "Utah Beach - Sainte Mere Eglise - Sainte Marie du Mont" by Georges Bernage and Dominique Francois: The two maps are not exact in matching the locations precisely but they are close enough in my view as some of the smaller Widerstandsnests are very difficult to find today. However, if anyone spots an error in my labels, please post a correction. Regards, Pat
Hi Pat, AWESOME FIND ! I will have to compare the fold3 information with some of my other researched information on Naval targets, WN locations, batteries, and Lambert coordinances. I dont know how I missed these documents before on fold3, unless they were recently added... I know the war diaries section is a pretty recent addition so I may have just missed them. Very cool, I now have something to do tonight after work ! Respectfully, John Szweda
Hi John, I advise immediate cessation of all Saturday chores - tell whatever untruth you need to in order to get an hour's viewing ... commencing with page 2976: Two examples below: Azeville (page 3016) Crisbecq (page 3020): Note the six open gun pits at bottom left in the Crisbecq photograph. The PIs have marked all six with an exclamation mark (!) indicating that they believe them to be dummy positions. I had a look at the 1947 IGN cover and the six positions are still visible in among the aging craters: Regards, Pat