Jump to content

Talk:Mulberry harbours

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

artificial

[edit]

Why is "artificial" italicized throughout the article? Is it a failed attempt at quotation?--68.173.16.200 20:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Fixed the only remaining instance of this. --BjKa (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

harbor

[edit]

Can someone with the know-how sort out the spelling of harbour so that it always 'harbour' in this article, and not 'harbor'. Basically I'm seeing inconsistancies and I don't know how to fix them 80.6.39.192 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look it seems to me that the only references to "harbor" appear in relation to Stanford's book: as Stanford is an American he has used the correct American spelling viz "harbor" Dormskirk 18:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Looks fixed to me at this time. --BjKa (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contractors

[edit]

The book by Guy Hartcup has a list of who built what & how many phoenix units and were along with the consultants and several of the firms listed are not involved (they may have taken over firms involved but that should be stated), as well as several firms not listed (credited). The materials summary list is interesting as well, with over 1/2 million cu yds of concrete, and 30,000 tons of rebar and 45,000 men being examples. (I have to see when i can get back to fix it, as a few others in the Q) - BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best thing would be for you to list the firms from the book, and then by a process of elimination we can work out where the rest fit in to the story. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the full list from Hartcup:

I don't know if this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some additional information on the list of contractors. John Godden (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further amendments to contractors - names as at the time of the construction of the Phoenix Caissons. List take from “Phoenix” by Cyril Raymond James Wood, M.I.C.E. published by the Institution of Civil Engineers, London. The list of contractors in this paper does not include Parker. John Godden (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pauling & Co - one of the main contractors constructed nine major Phoenix floating sections - six A1 and three A3 -in the Graving Dock at Southampton. In addition they built two large units in the Palmers Dry Dock at Swansea, as well as two smaller units at Barking in Essex. [1]. User: George Tabor gentauk2002@yahoo.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.32.150 (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Works of Pauling & Co pages 49-51

So what happened to Mulberry B

[edit]

I dont believe the article states when the harbour off Gold Beach was dismantled; its clearly not there now, it was there then - so what happened to it; a key piece of information i think that is missing.--81.105.174.9 (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation?

[edit]

Could there be a diagram or some type of explanation for how these things were set up and used?Landroo (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 3D animation of the Mulberry at Arromanches here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.221 (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say this is a pretty poor article by wikipaedia standards; maybe material has been edited out without sufficient regard to the effect on the rest of the article? An overview of the chosen design is desperately needed early in the article (i.e.. just after the description of the three rival designs). There is minimal explanation, then suddenly we are told that the 'Gooseberries' had been assembled, and that 'Bombardons' had been towed across with no attempt to tell the ignorant (for whom this article is written) what these things are. Gooseberry is clearly a code name for something but is Bombardon a well known term to engineers or another code name?If I knew more about it I'd attempt an edit but that must be left for one of the many more knowledgable contributors, but please don't assume that we already know pretty much the story and just need a bit more detail. Erwfaethlon (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potential pics

[edit]

Intact:

Wrecked:

Series of pics: http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/miracleharbor.htm

©Geni 23:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An aerial photo-mosaic of Mulberry B here: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.166 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who?

[edit]

Who designed these systems? I was actually looking for a link to Alan BECKET (I’m not sure how to spell his name) through this page, and am a bit surprised to see his name (like those of his colleagues on other parts of the project) appears nowhere… 174.25.129.229 (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON[reply]

It seems Ove Arup had something to do with it. --BjKa (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

[edit]

Would someone in the know kindly set up a redirect from "Mulberry_harbor" to "Mulberry_harbour".

Thanks!

209.12.103.254 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Somebody already did that in 2004. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Mulberry pontons to stop the Zeeland flooding of 1953

[edit]

The Dutch have used 3 pontons from this harbour in 1953 to stop big levee holes, thus making a begin with repairing the levees after the disastrous floods in 1953, that killed over 3000 people. ~~bas vossen~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basvossen (talk • contribs) 00:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a note about this at Phoenix breakwaters. --BjKa (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption

[edit]

The caption for "The Phoenix breakwaters (1).jpg" currently reads "A pair of Phoenixes at Arromanches". So what's the third structure then? --BjKa (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it may be a Spud Pier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beaches rather than land?

[edit]

'Offloading of cargo onto the beaches', is mentioned in the article, what is the source to say it was unloading to beaches rather than direct to hard land? SovalValtos (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post-War Analysis

[edit]

A section should be added to show why some American historians say that the vast resources used on the Mulberry were wasted.

Even Utah beach, which had no mulberry at all, was useful. By the end of June 6, 20,000 troops and 1,700 vehicles had landed on Utah beach (the shortest beach). In one day at Utah beach, the Americans landed three divisions. At Omaha and Utah, (just two out of five Normandy beaches) 6,614 tons of cargo was discharged in the first 3 days. A month after D-Day, Omaha and Utah were handling 9,200 tons, and after a further month, they were landing 16,000 tons per day. This increased until 56,200 tons of supplies, 20,000 vehicles, and 180,000 troops were discharged each day at those beaches. Despite the fuss made about the Mulberry harbours, they actually provided less than half the total (at least on good weather days) to begin with. [1] The Normandy Beaches supplied the following average daily tonnage of supplies:

Average Daily Tonnage of Supplies Landed, Normandy 1944[2]

Beach/Port D+30 D+60
Mulberry 6,750 6,750
Omaha 1,200 10,000
Isigny 500 1,300
Grandcamp 500 900
Utah 8,000 6,000
total beaches 9,200 16,000


By the end of June, over 289,827 tons of supplies had been offloaded onto the Normandy beaches. Up to September, U.S. forces were supported largely across the beaches, primarily without the use of the Mulberry.

References

Antill, Peter; BradfordCase, Jeffrey; Moore, David (2011), "Case 1.4, Operation Overlord: Supply Chain Innovation during World War II" in Case Studies in Defence Procurement and Logistics volume 1 Edited by David Moore. Cambridge, Cambridge Academic, p63 ISBN 1903499615

Ruppenthal,Roland, (1995) The United States Army in World War II, The European Theatre of Operations, Logistical Support of Armies, Volume 1, , Washington: US Army Centre of Military History, Tables 1 & 4 and pp 414-415

Osmanski, Lt Col F. A. (1947) Logistical planning of operation Overlord. paper written for the Command and General Staff College http://cdm16040.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p124201coll2/id/331 Table S

Godfrey, Major Frederick. “The Logistics of Invasion” Army Logitician November-December 2003 pp 44-49 http://www.alu.army.mil/alog/2003/novdec03/pdf/nov_dec_alog.pdf

Sitalkes (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitalkes (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Godfrey, Major Frederick (2003). "The Logistics of Invasion". Army Logistician (November-December 2003): 44.
  2. ^ "Logistical planning of operation Overlord". Retrieved 24 August 2017.
"A section should be added to show why some American historians say that the vast resources used on the Mulberry were wasted." - well the harbours would have landed considerably more if the Americans had assembled their harbour properly such that it had survived the storm that destroyed it, as the British one had survived it. And the only reason it was possible to land so much materiel on the beaches was due to the shelter supplied by the harbour 'Corncob' breakwaters themselves. You see, the 'American historians' are judging the Normandy invasion by comparing it to the US experience in the Pacific, where the weather is nice, and the seas calm, most of the time.
The British (unlike I suspect the American 'historians') know what the weather is like in the UK, and the sort of seas one is likely to encounter in the Channel at any time, and one suspects that they would not have gone to the considerable time and trouble to design and construct the Mulberries, and then to transport them to Normandy, all in great secrecy, if they had not been necessary. The severe storm that destroyed the American Mulberry A occurred in June - the middle of the European summer.
And unlike the Pacific islands, Normandy is in a country that had and still has a first-world road and rail network that allowed German reinforcements to be rapidly brought to bear against any Allied invading force. This was the reason for the Transportation plan. So landing troops and vehicles in large numbers quickly was much more important at Normandy than it might have been elsewhere. The Mulberries were an attempt to guarantee this and not to have to gamble on the (unlikely) chance of having continuous fine weather.
In addition, after the then so-recent cock-up at Anzio, I suspect that the British weren't too interested in the opinions of some American 'experts', 'historians' or not. You see, the Briitsh knew that 'Overlord' was a 'one chance' operation. If it failed, the Germans would never allow another attempt, except at the cost of greatly increased Allied casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.41 (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mulberry harbour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COPP involvement

[edit]

I've just made some edits to correct information about the COPP reconnaissance that was included here. But the whole paragraph (which I've now put in brackets, as really it's not relevant to the Mulberry harbours beyond the 712th Survey Flotilla acting as 'taxi') could potentially be cut? RLC1889 (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mulberry_harbours&oldid=1230593841"