Airpower at Omaha Beach

[phil5775]

What if the bombing of the German defenses there had been successful? Four possible scenarios could have taken place:

1. The B-24's could have flown in parallel to the beach, therefore reducing the risk of hitting any of the ground/amphibious forces.

2. A contingency plan could have been established where the aircraft flew under the cloud cover, giving the bombardiers a clearer view of the target.

3. Both 1 and 2

4. The task could have been assigned to the medium bombers of the 9th Air Force, who would have flown in lower (as they did at Utah Beach) in a true close-support role.

 

[oudi14]

Last nite I watched 'Saving Private Ryan' for the umpteenth time. That scene near the end when the P 51s come riding to the rescue, made me wish they could have been over Omaha when the first wave landed. they could have flown up and down the ridge, and strafed the 352nd half to death. By the time the GIs got halfway to the top, the mustangs would have used up their ammo, and there would be few to no casualties from friendly fire, Ah, to be able to change history!

 

[Kissinger]

Bombers couldn't have helped due to the shelters being bombproof. A real test would've been a good old Tallboy tearing them apart.

 

[Art]

A 16,000 pound bomb? Are you NUTS???

I mean, talk about friendly fire. . .

 

[mattep74]

Maybe having fighterbombers with rockets would make life simpler, or fighterbombers with napalm

 

[carlton_bach]

Bombers couldn't have helped due to the shelters being bombproof. A real test would've been a good old Tallboy tearing them apart.

Getting bombed and shot at from aircraft roaring overhead tends to distract people, though. Not to mention tearing up telephone lines and sundry other useful things like trenches and barbed wire. Plus, it's a morale booster for the attackers, as long as they don't take too many hits. I doubt it would account for a big shift in the way things went, but competent air support right there, right then may well have reduced Allied casualties.

 

[Commissar]

Forget Airpower, the damn USN should have gone in close from the start and blasted the defenses at near to point blank range before the LCIs made their approaches. Some applied six and eight inch shells would have done wonders in making Omaha less bloody.

 

[CalBear]

The Allies pounded the crap out of all the invasion sites during the early morning of the 6th with heavy bombers. The strikes at Omaha were less effective than hoped (the plan was to have craters on the beach for the infantry to hide in, as well as dust up the fortifications) since the decision was made to bomb parallel to the shoreline to minimize the risk to the fleet. Unfortunately the bombers at Omaha were late due to English weather, were afraid of hitting the landing forces in their Higgins Boats, and dropped too far inland.

Napalm was not quite ready for Prime Time during Overlord (it made its debut six weeks later during the break-out from the hedgerows near St. Lo. It really wasn't until early 1945 that the Americans really figured out what they had on tap when the CAS units started incinerating IJA bunkers with the stuff and it became a tactical weapon of choice.

The Allies didn't spend a lot of time doing pre-invasion bombardment with the gun line because it was thought to be counter-productive. The idea was to make the landings a surprise and keep the Germans believing it was a feint until it was too late to bottle up the landing forces. Sending in a half dozen BB to blow the pougies out of everything was contra-indicated.

Also, the reality is that the Allied Intel units screwed up at Omaha. They thought that the troops holding the heights were low quality "combat rejects" with low morale and less than a full TOE who would break and run. Instead it was a well trained up and fully equipped Heer Division (the 352nd) with all nine battalions close to full manning and with virtually every bit of equipment the TOE provided.

Lastly, while Omaha was bloody as all hell, the American troops were off the beach within three hours of landing. The losses inflicted on the 1st and 29th Divisions, while heavy at nearly 3,000 K/W/M for the two divisions combined in the first week, were also not even the worst suffered by two American amphibious divisions during the month of June 1944, that dubious distinction going to the USMC 2nd (2,514) and 4th (3,628) Divisions on Saipan. As you can see, just the 4th Marine division took more severe losses that BOTH divisions that captured Omaha.

This does not alter the remarkable courage shown by the men of the Big Red One and Fighting 29th in any way, but it is a rather interesting comparison nonetheless.

 

[Commissar]

I didn't say anything about BBs. CLs or CAs could certainly go forward of the LCIs by an hour or two and pound the fuck out of the beach defenses and smashed the pillboxes and machine gun nests with more sustained firepower than the bombers could deliver and cut down on losses significantly.

 

[BlairWitch749]

you just need the tanks to be in somewhat greater numbers and actually land ahead of the infantry so they can knock out the strong points and mortar positions

 

[Cymraeg]

You just need Bradley to stop being an idiot and allow more of Hobart's Funnies onto the beach. The more specialised armour on the beach the better.

 

[Derek Jackson]

I do not understand the military details but what if 'Omaha' beach had been ignored and extra forces put onto other beaches use in OTL or perhaps some other landing points

 

[Gridley]

I do not understand the military details but what if 'Omaha' beach had been ignored and extra forces put onto other beaches use in OTL or perhaps some other landing points

The Allies would have been inviting defeat in detail, as well as overcrowding the other beaches.

 

[Gridley]

BTW, you could reduce losses on Omaha greatly by sending the first wave ashore in LVTs, preceded by LVT(A)s for fire support. Hold the Shermans for the second wave, skipping the DD conversions - land them from LCMs and LCTs.

The LVT(A)s will do the job the ShermanDDs were supposed to do, and the LVT carriers will let the infantry off a few crucial yards inland.

 

[galveston bay]

BTW, you could reduce losses on Omaha greatly by sending the first wave ashore in LVTs, preceded by LVT(A)s for fire support. Hold the Shermans for the second wave, skipping the DD conversions - land them from LCMs and LCTs.

The LVT(A)s will do the job the ShermanDDs were supposed to do, and the LVT carriers will let the infantry off a few crucial yards inland.

the Funnies and the LVT are not a panacea... even with them, US Marine casualties when assaulting similarly (or even more heavily defended) beaches at Guam, Saipan, Pelelieu and Iwo Jima were very heavy, in some cases heavier than what was suffered on Omaha Beach. The British, who did use them, suffered light casualties in places, but casualties nearly as severe as the Americans at a couple of the smaller beaches.

Poor weather and inadequate training are the big culprit in the inadequate pre-invasion bombing of the coastal defenses. Not much can be done about the weather although if it were better weather the Germans would have been more alert...which might have caused heavier airborne casualties, and heavier casualties on the other beaches. Training however could have been better handled, and for this part of the blame was the instutional problems with the air forces, who never particularly liked direct support of the troops anyway and were resistant to this mission, preferring the missions of attacking German targets in Germany, or interdiction targets in France.

 

[phx1138]

you just need the tanks to be in somewhat greater numbers and actually land ahead of the infantry so they can knock out the strong points and mortar positions

Actually, I can't help wonder why they didn't use LVT(A)s instead of the ridiculous DD Sherman... Had the Hedgehog-equipped Matilda made its debut, yet? That would've been a pretty nice idea, adapted to an LVT.

 

[Gridley]

Actually, I can't help wonder why they didn't use LVT(A)s instead of the ridiculous DD Sherman...

Because someone didn't want the US Marines, or anything associated with them, in the Atlantic/ETO. (Sigh)

 

[phil5775]

Bombers couldn't have helped due to the shelters being bombproof. A real test would've been a good old Tallboy tearing them apart.

I never heard of the Tallboy, I had to look it up. However, Bradley never would have accepted it, as it most likely would have created a large crater(s) on the beach, which was unacceptable to him. He wanted smaller holes that wouldn't handicap the movement of tanks and other vehicles on the beach leading to the draws.

 

[CalBear]

The LVT wasn't a perfect answer to every issue, but it would have damned handy at Omaha, especially in the gun carrier variant.

Hard fact is that the defenses of the vaunted Atlantic Wall were not in the same league as what the Japanese had in place at Tarawa, Peleliu, Saipan, Tinian or on Iwo. The Overlord planners decided that the the conventional landing craft were all that was needed for the threat level in Normandy. They were right for everywhere but Omaha.

The LVT's would have come in handy during the drive inland too, although their impact on logistical requirements, especially fuel, might have canceled that mobility advantage out.

the Funnies and the LVT are not a panacea... even with them, US Marine casualties when assaulting similarly (or even more heavily defended) beaches at Guam, Saipan, Pelelieu and Iwo Jima were very heavy, in some cases heavier than what was suffered on Omaha Beach. The British, who did use them, suffered light casualties in places, but casualties nearly as severe as the Americans at a couple of the smaller beaches.

Poor weather and inadequate training are the big culprit in the inadequate pre-invasion bombing of the coastal defenses. Not much can be done about the weather although if it were better weather the Germans would have been more alert...which might have caused heavier airborne casualties, and heavier casualties on the other beaches. Training however could have been better handled, and for this part of the blame was the instutional problems with the air forces, who never particularly liked direct support of the troops anyway and were resistant to this mission, preferring the missions of attacking German targets in Germany, or interdiction targets in France.

 

[informationfan]

What if the bombing of the German defenses there had been successful? Four possible scenarios could have taken place:

1. The B-24's could have flown in parallel to the beach, therefore reducing the risk of hitting any of the ground/amphibious forces.

2. A contingency plan could have been established where the aircraft flew under the cloud cover, giving the bombardiers a clearer view of the target.

3. Both 1 and 2

4. The task could have been assigned to the medium bombers of the 9th Air Force, who would have flown in lower (as they did at Utah Beach) in a true close-support role.

As described, the allies did anything to make the landings easier...

sure, bombardment could improve things, but if they bombard to early the germans could realize the real landing and then your chance of getting a red communist europe is better and better

cause with the germans realiising that normandy was "the" landing make things really bad for the allies.

if the support ships start one or two days earlier (like on some japanese island bombardments) things go down even faster.
in this scenario you have not only omaha giving a warm welcome, but the other beaches too... and some fine german tank divisions near the beach... again, the chance of communist europe has improved