Lord Lovat - white sweater fact or fiction?
Stephen Hambridge
which was Lord Lovat. The figure is resplendent in white polar neck and
carrying his favourite hunting rifle (beautiful figure). I am sorry to say
other than wathing Peter Lawford play him in the film the Longest Day I knew
very little about the man. So I read everything I could get my hands on not
only including his own memoirs 'March Past', but also in the authobiography
'Invasion' by Piper Bill Millin (Lovats bagpiper on D-Day) and many other
commando autobiorgaphies (Mills Roberts, Durnford Slater etc...) and other
books on D-Day. Something has always bugged me - not once in all this famous
authobiograhies; where Lovat is mentioned, is he described as being attired
in a white sweater.(?)
In Echoes of Normandy - a para holding Pegasus bridge stated that Lovat
approached the bridge calmly, he wore his green beret and was dressed as a
normal British officer in khaki battledress, shirt and tie. Also. later in
Bill Millins book he states when Lovat was wounded 'blood could seen soaking
through his battledress'.
Are there no pictures of Lovat on or about D-Day?
I know that character played in the Longest Day may be simply artistic
interpretation (after all the piper in the film is actually Bill Millin and
he stated he wore a kilt during the landings, whereas in the film he wore
trousers) but Cornelius Ryan and Stephen Ambrose state in their works that
he wore a sweater with the words LOVAT stitched into the collar. This 'myth'
has found it's way into many other later books and web pages but no source
can be found to justify these claims. So what's the truth?
Recently I found a picture of Lovat in one of the commando books taken
immediately after he returned from the raid on Dieppe. In it he has on a
battledress jacket while underneath you can clearly make out a low necked
white sweater. Having said that, there is a pitcure of Lovats piper landing
at sword beach with the caption ' Commandos landing at sword beach, Lovat
can be seen to the right of the line of troops', but the character to the
right of the troops is clearly wearing battledress!
Lastly, yesterday, while watching UKHistory on SKY TV, I watched a
documentary called 'Gladiators of WW2'. In it there is a brief image of a
man walking along the road side in what appears to be a white sweater with
binoculars and a rifle. The image was too brief and too fuzzy to identify
the man. Is this Lovat in his white seater????
I suspect he wore the jumper under his battledress during the landings and
in the 7-8 days until he was injured he occasionally wore it openly ?? I
just don't now. Can anyone answer my question - does anyone know any
commandos, LCI pilots who were at Sword or Normandy during D-Day?
Steve Hambridge
Reading England
mave...@dial.pipex.com
--
David Wallace
> has found it's way into many other later books and web pages but no source
> can be found to justify these claims. So what's the truth?
Robin Neillands' "The Battle of Normandy 1944" (2002) deals with that in
passing in the first few pages. There is a transcription (pp 29-32) of a
long interview with Private John Butler of the 7th Battalion Parachute
Regiment who was at the bridge when Lovat arrived:
"...and round the corner came Lord Lovat with a piper at one side and
another soldier, I presume his bodyguard, on the other. He looked
neither to right or left but marched down to the bridge as if he was
strolling on his Highland estate. The only weapon he had in his hand was
his swagger cane and he was starting across the bridge like that when
the clang of a sniper's bullet made him realise that discretion was the
better part of valour and he and his party scampered across... The story
of Lovat and Howard shaking hands at the bridge on D-Day is pure
fiction. When Brigadier Lovat led his men down to the bridge he did not
stop to talk to anyone. Nor was he wearing a white roll-necked sweater
and carrying a hunting rifle, as shown in the Darryl Zanuck move "The
Longest Day". He was correctly dressed in battledress, with collar and
tie, and walked out of my sight in this manner. ... The bridge and its
approaches were under sniper and mortar fire and had there been any
lingering there would have been heavy casualties. Indeed, I never saw a
red beret on D-Day; we stuck to our steel helmets. Heavy sniping and
shelling commenced as the Commandos dashed across the bridge in batches,
covered by smoke from smoke grenades..."
Regards, Dave.
--
Pekka de Groot
Wallace) wrote:
>The only weapon he had in his hand was
>his swagger cane and he was starting across the bridge like that when
>the clang of a sniper's bullet made him realise that discretion was the
>better part of valour and he and his party scampered across...
[snip]
>The bridge and its
>approaches were under sniper and mortar fire and had there been any
>lingering there would have been heavy casualties.
[snip]
> Heavy sniping and
>shelling commenced as the Commandos dashed across the bridge in batches,
>covered by smoke from smoke grenades..."
This brings me to ask for other opinions in the matter that has been
puzzling me for a great while.
Do you think that there is a tendency in the literature of the Western
Front to overstate the number of snipers the troops encountered? I'm
not entirely sure what the perception is among the readers here, but
it seems to me that the number of snipers the Allies encounter in
mainland Europe is entirely disproportionate to the amount of trained
snipers with scoped rifles among the German troops.
It rather reminds me of the situation with the "88" and the "Tiger."
Was simple accurate rifle fire, single shots, interpreted by the
troops as "sniper fire" because it was more feared?
I think I have recognized the same tendency in the interviews of US
troops in action even today. The doctrine of firepower vs. accurate
single shots may lead to this kind of misinterpretation.
Cheers,
Pekka de G.
--
Don Phillipson
> Was simple accurate rifle fire, single shots, interpreted by the
> troops as "sniper fire" because it was more feared?
One consideration may be whether these single shots
hit targets or not. No one who witnesses the next
man being dropped by a bullet through the eye wants
to admit that it might have been an unaimed shot.
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
--
dp
>
> Do you think that there is a tendency in the literature of the Western
> Front to overstate the number of snipers the troops encountered? I'm
> not entirely sure what the perception is among the readers here, but
> it seems to me that the number of snipers the Allies encounter in
> mainland Europe is entirely disproportionate to the amount of trained
> snipers with scoped rifles among the German troops.
>
> It rather reminds me of the situation with the "88" and the "Tiger."
>
> Was simple accurate rifle fire, single shots, interpreted by the
> troops as "sniper fire" because it was more feared?
>
> I think I have recognized the same tendency in the interviews of US
> troops in action even today. The doctrine of firepower vs. accurate
> single shots may lead to this kind of misinterpretation.
How are aimed single shots at a specific target not to be considered sniper
fire? If someone takes an aimed shot in your direction and you're not in an
active offensive or defensive engagement, you've been sniped - regardless
of the equipment used by the shooter. Almost every combat infantry man has
been a sniper at some point.
--
dp
--
Michael Emrys
pekka....@welho.com.invalid wrote on 4/19/05 8:49 AM:
> Do you think that there is a tendency in the literature of the Western Front
> to overstate the number of snipers the troops encountered? I'm not entirely
> sure what the perception is among the readers here, but it seems to me that
> the number of snipers the Allies encounter in mainland Europe is entirely
> disproportionate to the amount of trained snipers with scoped rifles among
> the German troops.
>
> It rather reminds me of the situation with the "88" and the "Tiger."
>
> Was simple accurate rifle fire, single shots, interpreted by the troops as
> "sniper fire" because it was more feared?
Yes. The term 'sniper' gets overused by a huge margin, IMO. There were
however marksmen or sharpshooters armed with scoped rifles. I haven't been
able to ascertain what their numbers or distribution were as yet, but it may
have well been comparable to the US Army. In the US TO&E for 1944 it is
stated that one soldier per platoon of infantry was to be armed with a
scoped Springfield M1903 bolt action rifle. Presumably this was to be given
to the man considered the best shot in the platoon and was to be used
against high value targets such as visible officers and NCOs, tank and other
AFV crews, and crews of heavy weapons. However, from what I have read, the
Springfield was not a popular weapon with many of the men given it and it is
possible that the tactical situation usually faced by US soldiers did not
lend itself well to its use. So a lot of the marksmen traded in their
Springfields for Garands and fought alongside the other members of their
platoons.
Returning to the German army, another consideration is that an army in
retreat will often detail "stay behind" small units or individuals to lay
low and harass advancing enemies to slow them down and force them to deploy.
Then, if they have survived return fire, they pull back and repeat the
process. But this was usually done by ordinary infantry not given
specialized sniper training. It was these soldiers taking potshots that the
Allied accounts often referred to as "snipers".
Michael
--
Michael Emrys
norep...@hotmail.com wrote on 4/19/05 5:02 PM:
> If someone takes an aimed shot in your direction and you're not in an active
> offensive or defensive engagement, you've been sniped - regardless of the
> equipment used by the shooter. Almost every combat infantry man has been a
> sniper at some point.
That's using the broadest definition of the term. It conflates and confuses
the distinction between *snipers*, who usually have been given a high degree
of specialized training in observation, camouflage, and marksmansip, as well
as issued a variety of specialized equipment, and who are utilized in very
special roles; *sharpshooters* who are riflemen with higher than average
marksmen and may have been issued a special rifle, but in other ways are
ordinary soldiers; and *ordinary soldiers* who just happen to be taking
potshots.
Michael
--
Martin Rapier
news:d44675$is7$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
{snip}
> process. But this was usually done by ordinary infantry not given
> specialized sniper training. It was these soldiers taking potshots that
> the
> Allied accounts often referred to as "snipers".
Exactly, generally they were just soldiers conducting individual fire with
their rifles.
The more normal mode of rifle fire was fire by groups under the direction of
NCOs on a single target of the 'enemy infantry range 200m five rounds rapid'
type - fairly easy to distinguish from one bloke taking a few potshots!
German infantry assigned to the outpost line were expected to use their
rifles individually rather than controlled by the NCO, unsurprising as they
were scattered along a lengthy frontage.
Martin
--
Roman Werpachowski
> "Pekka de Groot" <pekka....@welho.com.invalid> posted April 19:
>
>> Was simple accurate rifle fire, single shots, interpreted by the
>> troops as "sniper fire" because it was more feared?
>
> One consideration may be whether these single shots
> hit targets or not. No one who witnesses the next
> man being dropped by a bullet through the eye wants
> to admit that it might have been an unaimed shot.
They why many accounts speak about people being hit by stray bullets?
--
Roman Werpachowski
/--------==============--------\
| http://www.cft.edu.pl/~roman |
\--------==============--------/
--
Cpmac
>
> This brings me to ask for other opinions in the matter that has been
> puzzling me for a great while.
>
> Do you think that there is a tendency in the literature of the Western
> Front to overstate the number of snipers the troops encountered? I'm
> not entirely sure what the perception is among the readers here, but
> it seems to me that the number of snipers the Allies encounter in
> mainland Europe is entirely disproportionate to the amount of trained
> snipers with scoped rifles among the German troops.
>
> It rather reminds me of the situation with the "88" and the "Tiger."
>
> Was simple accurate rifle fire, single shots, interpreted by the
> troops as "sniper fire" because it was more feared?
>
> I think I have recognized the same tendency in the interviews of US
> troops in action even today. The doctrine of firepower vs. accurate
> single shots may lead to this kind of misinterpretation.
I took some veterans of the 28th Div on a tour of the region from Percy
to Sourdeval (in Normandy) in 2003. They told me they lost several
commanding officers due to sniper fire, before the officers took to
wearing the same helmet as the men. The snipers could tell the
difference in the helmets and picked on the officers to leave the
soldiers with no leader and thus ineffective.
cpmac
http://www.cpmac.com
--
Pekka de Groot
wrote:
>I took some veterans of the 28th Div on a tour of the region from Percy
>to Sourdeval (in Normandy) in 2003. They told me they lost several
>commanding officers due to sniper fire, before the officers took to
>wearing the same helmet as the men. The snipers could tell the
>difference in the helmets and picked on the officers to leave the
>soldiers with no leader and thus ineffective.
I hate to second guess the judgement of the veterans as I was not
there but how do they know that the shooters were snipers?
If they mentioned how they knew that the culprit was a sniper, I'd be
interested in hearing their stories.
You don't need to be a trained sniper to make that kind of a
distinction in the field.
My point was that the number of war stories that mention that someone
was killed by a sniper abound but rarely does the story elaborate why
they concluded that the shooter was a sniper, besides that the man in
question was killed or wounded with a single shot. Naturally that
doesn't necessarily mean that the shooter was a trained sniper.
It was further my contention that in many cases the troops used the
term "sniper" as a generic term, like they used the terms "88" and
"Tiger" to refer to every German artillery piece or tank no matter
what their actual make.
Andrew Clark
> They told me they lost several commanding
> officers due to sniper fire, before the officers
> took to wearing the same helmet as the men.
Yes. One of the lessons very quickly learnt in Normandy was
for officers and NCOs to hide rank badges and carry the same
arms as the men, to avoid being picked out by snipers (not
necessarily snipers per se, but anyone taking aimed shots
from a distance).
--
Cpmac
>
> there but how do they know that the shooters were snipers?
>
> If they mentioned how they knew that the culprit was a sniper, I'd be
> interested in hearing their stories.
>
> You don't need to be a trained sniper to make that kind of a
> distinction in the field.
I didn't mention that the officers were sniped whilst the unit wasn't in
combat. During inspections or adressing the men in camp in the forest
just south of St Sever en Calvados.
cpmac
www.cpmac.com
--
Pekka de Groot
wrote:
>Pekka de Groot a écrit :
I fail to see how that would make a difference.
Ok, I guess you're making the assumption that in this case only a
trained sniper would remain in the area. That is a distinct
possibility but not the only one. I take it that the gentlemen didn't
catch the guy.