Since hudson is close I guess you are looking for Skanderbeg? The name stuck with me since I found it a bit odd at the time when I first came across it. Skanderbeg turned on the turks and AFAIK is regarded as a defender of christianity, so why did the SS name a division with mainly moslem recruits after him??? Does anyone have a clue as to why this was done?
3rd Cumulative WW2 History Quiz
- Thread starter Volum
- Start date
- Status
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
After some digging around I understand it had more than one name during it's career, but it began life as "Ostmanische SS-Division" and ended it as "Osttürkischer Waffen-Verband der SS".
As to what's wrong, I understand it's the Arabic equivalent of "god with us", the German Army Motto. That would be typical Nazi attitude to racial minorities for you since Arabic isn't spoken in the region the formation recruited from.
As to what's wrong, I understand it's the Arabic equivalent of "god with us", the German Army Motto. That would be typical Nazi attitude to racial minorities for you since Arabic isn't spoken in the region the formation recruited from.
nonconformist
Miserable
I think I'll add my 2 euro-centimes.privatehudson said:
The thing that's "wrong" might be that the "Gott Mit Uns" belt buckle was only used by Wehrmacht (i.e regular ground troops). The SS had a different one that read "Loyalty is my Honour".
Therefore, what's wrong is that it's an SS division, using an army motto?
jeriko one
Exalted Fleetlord
privatehudson got both questions right. It was "Osttürkischer Waffen-Verband der SS". 
Germans thought that it was the Arabic equivalent of `Gott mit Uns` but Eastern and middle-asiatic Turks do not speak Arabic. So the correct motto would be `Allah biz bilen` or `Allah bizimle` or `Allah bizimle birlikte` or `Allah yanimizda`. The last three are more modern Turkish.
@Wotan: In my opinion High Command chose the names of the divisions carefully. IMHO, they chose the names which has a patriotic meaning. Although Skandarbeg or `Iskender Bey` was christian he fought for his countrys independence.
So next question is yours privatehudson.
nonconformist said:
Germans thought that it was the Arabic equivalent of `Gott mit Uns` but Eastern and middle-asiatic Turks do not speak Arabic. So the correct motto would be `Allah biz bilen` or `Allah bizimle` or `Allah bizimle birlikte` or `Allah yanimizda`. The last three are more modern Turkish.
@Wotan: In my opinion High Command chose the names of the divisions carefully. IMHO, they chose the names which has a patriotic meaning. Although Skandarbeg or `Iskender Bey` was christian he fought for his countrys independence.
So next question is yours privatehudson.
IronMan2055
Korra 2011
ecxactly how many allied casualties accured during d-day
Hornblower
Cry Havoc!
Tough question. Considering the depth of planning that went into putting so many men on or over the beaches that day there is no official figure. It is just guesses.
All up I think the allies had about 3000 KIA and 10000 casualties. Since the Yanks made up about 60-65% of total force I would guess that the US figures were something in the order of 6000 casualties. Not only that but one US beach in particular (Omaha?) had by far the worst casualty figure of all landing beaches.
All up I think the allies had about 3000 KIA and 10000 casualties. Since the Yanks made up about 60-65% of total force I would guess that the US figures were something in the order of 6000 casualties. Not only that but one US beach in particular (Omaha?) had by far the worst casualty figure of all landing beaches.
nonconformist
Miserable
3000 dead? Omaha alone I think had over 3000 casualties (but then again, the other beaches met minimal resistance)Hornblower said:
IronMan2055
Korra 2011
horn blower is very close
IronMan2055
Korra 2011
and there is an exact number
Hornblower
Cry Havoc!
cidknee said:
A casualty is a man wounded, dead, or missing in combat.
Some confusion arises from D-day due to the scattering of so many troops during the landings. If they didn't arrive in their landing area then some commands reported them as missing and hence onto the casualty list. They could have been alive and well on another beach or in the case of the DD tank crews that sunk and were picked up by ships. The paras that dropped somewhere else entirely and were absorbed into other units also caused confusion. Until those men reported to their commands they stayed MIA. Since record keeping wasn't the absolute priority during the attack some MIA's that reported in never got officially off the estimated numbers list until weeks later. Some numbers were never fixed up. In general though most historians accept the official number..... whatever that official number is ... I'm sure IronMan is thinking of that number. 6600?
yeah ive never seen an exact number for the casualties because of the messed up drop zones, on beaches it was easier but in the drops so many lil units were formed its not funny, i know ppl who told me we were sitting around and an officer came by, grabbed 20 of us and off we went. Some were from different battalions, etc...
IronMan2055
Korra 2011
horn blower i already said you were close and now you make a very off guess. i'll clarify for everone horn blowers guess of 10000 was very close
IronMan2055
Korra 2011
i just realized i made a mistake i accidentaly put americans instead of allies i corrected it and it is still near 10000
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
The figure I've always seen is 6603 for the Americans. Sources differ on the details but this is almost always the final figure and differing sources usually err on the lower side of this and are not precise.
Sources:
http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm
"The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured."
http://www.ddaymuseum.org/education/education_numbers.html
"How many casualties (deaths, wounded and prisoners) were there on D-Day?
6,603 "
Canadian losses were either 946 or 961 depending on who you listen to.
British losses are harder to gauge, for example the first site above gives an estimate of 2700 but proceeds to list around 3,300 when it goes into detail - 1000 each for the beaches, 1200 airborne and 100 glider pilots.
Given that:
1) The British losses are an estimate
2) The Canadian losses could be one of two figures
3) Neither the British nor Canadian figures include airforce or navy personnel to my knowledge
4) The nature of the fighting leaves little method of determining if some losses were on or after D-Day.
It could be rather difficult to arrive at a definite figure. It could vary on the above alone from between 10,249 and 10,864 and would still be at best an estimate.
Sources:
http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm
"The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured."
http://www.ddaymuseum.org/education/education_numbers.html
"How many casualties (deaths, wounded and prisoners) were there on D-Day?
6,603 "
Canadian losses were either 946 or 961 depending on who you listen to.
British losses are harder to gauge, for example the first site above gives an estimate of 2700 but proceeds to list around 3,300 when it goes into detail - 1000 each for the beaches, 1200 airborne and 100 glider pilots.
Given that:
1) The British losses are an estimate
2) The Canadian losses could be one of two figures
3) Neither the British nor Canadian figures include airforce or navy personnel to my knowledge
4) The nature of the fighting leaves little method of determining if some losses were on or after D-Day.
It could be rather difficult to arrive at a definite figure. It could vary on the above alone from between 10,249 and 10,864 and would still be at best an estimate.
IronMan2055
Korra 2011
it's in that span private hudson
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Given that it could be anything between them I suggest you post the answer, I'm sure we don't wish to go through every number between the two variables until one of us hits the bullseye.
What source are you using for this figure anyway? I've never seen any official British source for the casualties on D-Day which would make the accuracy of any such total figure questionable even without the issue of how they can accurately determine when casualties occurred.
What source are you using for this figure anyway? I've never seen any official British source for the casualties on D-Day which would make the accuracy of any such total figure questionable even without the issue of how they can accurately determine when casualties occurred.
- Status
