WI: More ships assigned to bombard Normandy on D-Day.

Ming777

Monthly Donor
During Operation Neptune, Five Battleships (all refitted WWI-era deadnoughts), a monitor, about 20 cruisers, and dozens of destroyers bombarded German defences on D-Day. It was claimed by some that several beaches, especially Omaha didn't have enough gunfire support, and it may have led to the significant casualties that day.

Would having additional Battleships, particularly those with larger guns (i.e, 16-inch guns), have made a difference?
 
The ships present at Normandy was pretty much every warship the wallies had that were not in the Pacific or on escort duty. It was not the lack of ships on Omaha, it was the aiming that was off. Many bombs and shells fell behind the defenses
 
Look at the fire plan - the battleships were there to bombard German artillery batteries; it was the destroyers (and specialised gunfire support landing craft) that were used against the infantry defences on the beach. Landing more tanks would also have helped.
 
Well if the Americans had used the Sherman DDs properly they'd have had more tanks.
 
Last edited:
The OP has a point there.

HMS Howe was sent to the Far East in 1944, arriving in India in August. Could it have not delayed that trip by a couple of months to help out in Normandy in June?

HMS Anson went into the docks for a refit in June 1944. Same possibility here?

HMS Duke of York seems to habe been busy covering convoys from Tirpitz, which pops up the question, if it would have been a good idea to rather use the ship in Normandy and provoke the Germans into using the Tirpitz, so that the Allies could sink her?

HMS King George V was in Liverpool for an overhaul in June 1944, came out of the docks after the landings had happened. Bad timing?
 
The OP has a point there.

HMS Howe was sent to the Far East in 1944, arriving in India in August. Could it have not delayed that trip by a couple of months to help out in Normandy in June?

HMS Anson went into the docks for a refit in June 1944. Same possibility here?

HMS Duke of York seems to habe been busy covering convoys from Tirpitz, which pops up the question, if it would have been a good idea to rather use the ship in Normandy and provoke the Germans into using the Tirpitz, so that the Allies could sink her?

HMS King George V was in Liverpool for an overhaul in June 1944, came out of the docks after the landings had happened. Bad timing?

Would there be an appreciable difference? I'm not sure that extra NGS would solve issues in any of the D-Day and immediately following operations.

As for using the invasion of Europe as bait for Tirpitz, that's a terrible idea, sorry. What happens if Tirpitz gets amongst the invasion convoy? Massacre. At any percentage chance of that, against any chance of sinking Tirpitz you should rather take DoY away from NGS and into defensive duties.
 

Ming777

Monthly Donor
According to some Generals and Admirals involved, they said that there was far less Naval Gunfire Support compared to that used by the Americans while storming places like Saipan and other Pacific Islands.
 
MUC said:
The OP has a point there.
HMS Howe was sent to the Far East in 1944, arriving in India in August. Could it have not delayed that trip by a couple of months to help out in Normandy in June?
HMS Anson went into the docks for a refit in June 1944. Same possibility here?
HMS Duke of York seems to habe been busy covering convoys from Tirpitz, which pops up the question, if it would have been a good idea to rather use the ship in Normandy and provoke the Germans into using the Tirpitz, so that the Allies could sink her?
HMS King George V was in Liverpool for an overhaul in June 1944, came out of the docks after the landings had happened. Bad timing?

The modern heavy units were not to enter the Channel, were they would be at risk (restricted waters, expected enemy air raids, s-boote and especially mines) for a small marginal gain.

Note that Malaya was reactivated for bombardment duty but not committed, and that Nelson was not committed until the 11 June.

Ming777 said:
According to some Generals and Admirals involved, they said that there was far less Naval Gunfire Support compared to that used by the Americans while storming places like Saipan and other Pacific Islands.
Isn't it just a function of the size of the target ? You can commit the whole allied navies at Normandy and still be behind the density of NGFS at Kwajalein or Iwo Jima.
 
According to some Generals and Admirals involved, they said that there was far less Naval Gunfire Support compared to that used by the Americans while storming places like Saipan and other Pacific Islands.

But would the additional ships provide any benefit? Would the armies get off the beaches quicker, or reach their objectives more easily? I'm not sure - I don't think the problems presented were solvable with NGS
 

marathag

Banned
More gunships coming close like the DDs eventually did at Omaha would have been beneficial.
BBs and CA and CLs were just too far our for accurate direct fire support.

A few years ago I posted some ideas on having smaller armored Monitors with 6 or 8" guns coming in like the DDs did to suppress MG nests and other smaller blockhouses
 

Driftless

Donor
More gunships coming close like the DDs eventually did at Omaha would have been beneficial.
BBs and CA and CLs were just too far our for accurate direct fire support.

A few years ago I posted some ideas on having smaller armored Monitors with 6 or 8" guns coming in like the DDs did to suppress MG nests and other smaller blockhouses

The naval version of Hobart's Funnies?

Something like the Humber class of WW1 Monitors used off Belgium and the destruction of the Konigsberg in the Rufiji delta


HMS Humber

hmshumbermpl665.jpg
 
The naval version of Hobart's Funnies?

Something like the Humber class of WW1 Monitors used off Belgium and the destruction of the Konigsberg in the Rufiji delta


HMS Humber


Something like these may well be useful. Though how well they might perform if they come under attack by an S Boat...
 
According to some Generals and Admirals involved, they said that there was far less Naval Gunfire Support compared to that used by the Americans while storming places like Saipan and other Pacific Islands.

while the Marines had almost an old battleship per battalion (and definitely one per regiment) at Saipan, the Allies at Normandy had about one per division. Definitely the gun line should have been beefed up at Omaha and Gold Beach. The ships could have been found for that and should have been. There were also cruisers to spare as well.
 
while the Marines had almost an old battleship per battalion (and definitely one per regiment) at Saipan, the Allies at Normandy had about one per division. Definitely the gun line should have been beefed up at Omaha and Gold Beach. The ships could have been found for that and should have been. There were also cruisers to spare as well.

On the one hand, a lot of that had to do with the density of the defense in the Marianas islands. Saipan isn't even 45 square miles. The Japanese had a garrison of 32,000 troops. Not only is there not a lot of room for maneuver, there's no room for the Japanese to retreat, either (not that they were generally inclined to retreat). Perhaps more importantly, Japan actually had a navy capable of interfering with the invasion of Saipan (at least until June 20), whereas Germany really did not - and a major motivation for FORAGER was, after all, to force the Combined Fleet to engage in a decisive battle in which it might be destroyed.

On the other hand, the massive resources dedicated to FORAGER (the Allied campaign to secure the main islands of the Marianas) at the very same time that OVERLORD (and DRAGOON, for that matter) - 128,000 troops, and the cream of the United States Navy - made a bit of a mockery of the principle of "Germany First." Yes, as it turned out, the United States had the capability to do both at the same time; but as it turned out, it had that capability because Allied deception efforts were so successful in misleading the Germans into thinking the invasion would come elsewhere. Had they deployed the bulk of the forces sitting in reserve in the Pas de Calais, every battleship and cruiser in Nimitz's vast inventory wouldn't have been too much. And while Allied intelligence of German deployments in Normandy was pretty good, they couldn't be completely certain of what was deployed there.

That said, delaying FORAGER until the autumn would have given the Japanese that much more time to fortify not only the Marianas more thoroughly, but plenty else besides in Japan's inner empire. Oil might be in short supply, but plenty of other things were not. Most of the defenses of Iwo Jima (and reinforcements) was put in place in the five months before the battle. Had the US moved on Iwo Jima immediately after securing the Marianas, rather than waiting until February, Iwo Jima would have been much easier and less costly to secure. One shudders to think what Saipan could have been like had Saito had another 4-6 months to fortify the island, even with submarines interdicting a lot of shipping from Japan.
 
A decimating event if Japan had extra time for the Marianas and later battles if hey had more time.

One thing that might have been better, though maybe not possible, if there had been better training AND coordination for close air support and bombing of the shore installations, things could have gone better for D-Day, especially Omaha.
 
More gunships coming close like the DDs eventually did at Omaha would have been beneficial.
BBs and CA and CLs were just too far our for accurate direct fire support.

A few years ago I posted some ideas on having smaller armored Monitors with 6 or 8" guns coming in like the DDs did to suppress MG nests and other smaller blockhouses

They had the Landing Craft Gun Large with 2 x 4.7in guns designed to do that...
 

jahenders

Banned
The ships present at Normandy was pretty much every warship the wallies had that were not in the Pacific or on escort duty. It was not the lack of ships on Omaha, it was the aiming that was off. Many bombs and shells fell behind the defenses

Correct. Both the bombers and naval fire support were (understandably) worried about hitting friendly forces, so they edged their targeting a bit inland (though the plan had notionally accounted for safe distance from landing forces). Therefore, they hit nothing or support positions of limited value.
 
From what I recall, the main problem at Omaha was faulty intel and bad targeting rather than raw lack of naval support. Still, more big guns couldn't have hurt. It has to be mentioned though that while the naval gun support on D-day may have been less than at some pacific beach landings, the tactical air support would have undoubtedly been far superior, with all the planes from the RAF and USAF based in southern England being available, whereas in those Pacific landings the troops would have had a lot less air support to work with. This may not have been as helpful for the first attack wave on the beach but it undoubtedly helped when the soldiers began to move off the beach and inland where the usefulness of naval gun support trails off drastically.
 
Correct. Both the bombers and naval fire support were (understandably) worried about hitting friendly forces, so they edged their targeting a bit inland (though the plan had notionally accounted for safe distance from landing forces). Therefore, they hit nothing or support positions of limited value.

Right. With the forces (on both sides) in place, the problem was using what assets were there with better proficiency, not in their quantity.

And even with those problems, the Allies secured four out of five beaches with little relative difficulty, and even Omaha was secure by day's end.
 
Top