Posted: 8/29/2002 11:27:02 PM EDT
| I was watching Saving Private Ryan with the dogs. During the raid on Omaha Beach why didn't we bomb the crap out of the German Battlements with a battleship. Did we not have any in the Atlantic? Any history buffs out there? |
|
There were 5 battleships assigned to the invasion. I think one for each of the five beaches. I believe they used 14" guns. The air bombardment began at 3:00 AM, followed by the navel bombardment at 5:00-5:30 AM, and the first troops landed maybe around 6:30 AM on Omaha and Utah beaches. Doesn't sound like enough time to me. [b]Omaha Beach Pre-Landing Bombardment[/b] Omaha Beach was to be bombarded by air and naval guns one half-hour before landings. As part of the entire program, so as not to give away the true locations of the landings, the entire coast had consistently been bombed. The USS Texas and Arkansas 14-inch and 12-inch guns were to fire from 18,000 yards off shore at pillboxes, casements, and the battery at Pointe du Hoc. 3 cruisers and 8 destroyers also would be able to approach nearer and support the landings. After the landings, the bombardment would move inland or be directed by naval shore fire control parties who accompanied the landings. [url]www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/omaha.asp[/url] [b]Utah[/b] The battleship USS Nevada's 14-inch guns were assigned to the bombardment of the German batteries on Utah beach, while the USS Texas was to fire at Pointe-du-Hoc where the Rangers were to land as part of the Omaha landing. On the western end of Omaha proper, the USS Arkansas pounded a battery at Les Moulins. Several cruisers and destroyers also jumped into the bombardment with pre-determined targets and as opportunity arose. At such close range, there was very little trajectory to the shots and many Americans who were coming in to land, could feel the vacuum of the shells passing overhead. Needless to say, the bombardment was a very welcome sight to those troops about to land. [url]www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/utah.asp[/url] |
|
Its 3:30am so i will keep this short. There was intense naval sheeling of the beach but many of the maps showing the emplacements were wrong. Second a battleships gun makes a big boom when it goes off, with Allied infantry so close, it would have been dangerous for the Allied troops. Last the fire even from the largest guns was largly ineffective against the well made German bunkers. I will post later today with more details. Hope this helps for now. |
|
Somewhere, sometime, (my memory fails me) I read that the Navy had allotted only so much ammunition for the job and that the allotment turned out to be less than was needed. The destroyers were close enough to see what was going on and close enough to communicate with the beach but didn’t have the firepower to take out the bunkers. There were lots of other problems. Communications between services comes to mind. Communication is kind of important for an operation like that. |
|
[b]The beach bombardment was for shit !![/b] The European generals learned NOTHING from the Pacific theater. One of the things often missed that caused us many casualties was no shell-craters on the beach. No shell craters to provide cover as our troops tried to move up off the beach. There might have been 5% of the prep needed. |
|
Another thing to consider is that the air power designated to pound the beaches in advance of the landings completely missed their targets and in some cases dropped their bomb loads miles inland. The naval bombardment occurred as planned, but was not nearly enough, especially in the absence of the expected air support (see above) to make the impact desired. Finally, it was believed that the defenses of Omaha would be manned by a second-rate unit. Unknown to the Allies, a crack outfit of infantry had been transferred to Omaha just recently, so the reception was hotter than had been anticipated. It used to be called "The Fog of War". We call it "Shit Happens". And still those boys swam ashore, crossed the beaches, climbed the cliffs, and kicked the living shit out of the Nazis. Were they bad-assed or what? |
|
OK I,m back with more info. It is correct that all of the high level bombing was too far inland to be efective. It did however mess up some of the German units held in echilon though. Some of the low level bombing was on target, but as usual it made little impact. The only unit that was even hurt was the 716nth Rgt, 352nd Infantry division. These were all eastern European "volunteers". The allied intelligence about an "elite" German unit being on Omaha beach is a good story for the History channel, but not entirely true. The 352nd Infantry Division (Flying Horse Division) was a veterin unit for the most part, but not elite. It was made up from survivors of the 321st division decimated at Kursk, the reminants of the 268th division, long term injuries from North Africa and surviors from Stalingrad 100th Jager division& 546th Grenadier Rgt. Over half of the division were new recruits from the 18nth wave of recruitment (born between 1925/26) The 352nd was undersupplied and undergunned. The beach obsticals were to help make up for this. The shore batteries had a few guns larger than the battle ships did, and the bunkers were 12 feet thick of reenforced concrete. In this the Germans took railroad tracks and locked the "I"s together for a depth of 8 feet on the top of the emplacement. They were impervious to any allied bomb at the time as history has shown. No ammount of bombardment would have dislodged the Germans from their positions. They were infact nowhere near as strong as the germans said they were, but they did what they needed to. Fortunatlty many of the bunkersdid not yet have the guns installed or things would have been much worse. |
|
Quoted: [b]The beach bombardment was for shit !![/b] The European generals learned NOTHING from the Pacific theater. One of the things often missed that caused us many casualties was no shell-craters on the beach. No shell craters to provide cover as our troops tried to move up off the beach. There might have been 5% of the prep needed. Yup...SubSwab has got is just about right. There were battleships, cruisers and destroyers at Normandy, but at first they weren't used that well. The bombardment from both air and sea was woefully inadequate. The 8th AF bombers missed their targets by miles and the sea bombardment was far too small to have any real effect. Our Atlantic Fleet guys weren't as well versed in naval gunfire support then as the guys in the Pacific...(It wasn't that they lacked the skill...rather they didn't realize just how much bombardment was going to be required.). The Army planners were just as much to blame, figuring that the need for a quick assault overweighed the need for a long bombardment. They were afraid the Germans would be able to mass more troops on the beach areas if the shooting started too far in advance of the infantry landings. Finally, that ships' gunnery suffered from a myriad of problems. The targets weren't easily seen from the relatively long ranges the battleships were shooting from, the weather was foul with overcast, reducing visibility, many of the NGFS spotters became KIA/WIAs and they lost their radios. The big casemated guns also required several direct hits of 14" guns and larger to take them out. After the infantry landing waves got into trouble on Omaha, some Navy destroyers moved in so close to provide NGFS that their hulls were scraping the sand bottoms. At this range of maybe a mile or so, the gunnery officers in the gun directors could plainly see the MG 42 nests, the trench lines, and the pillboxes that were killing so many GIs. A couple of these USN DDs took these targets under direct fire with devastating effect, wiping out many German hardpoints and aiding the opening up of the Omaha beachhead. |
|
The real naval heros were the little destroyers. Many of those ships came right up to the beach running at full speed shelling the bunkers to supress them. Its effect was inimal, but damn brave. The real effect of the battleships did not show until the next day when 2nd, 21st and eliments of 12th Panzer broke through the allied lines. 75mm tank cannons just can't match battleship guns, and they were forced to a quick retreat. Only through the naval gunfire were the allies able to hold Omaha beach as German counter attacks were quite severe. WN 62(widerstandnest) = strong point, WN62 at Colleville sur Mer was taken by the 1st infantry division, but was later taken back by the Germans the same day in a feirce counter attack, only naval gun fire drove the Germans back out. The 916nth Rgt of the 352nd infantry division was dead center of the beach that day and faught to a 98% loss rate. But they had for all intents an purposes won the battle. Only when the 915nth Rgt to their left gave ground, and the 716nth Rgt to their right fell back did they encounter any trouble. Infact, they had sent a company away to sure up other parts of the beach since things were so well in hand at the center of the beach. Only when these two regiments gave way, and the bunkers taken by hand did the battle begin to go to the American side. At that point the 916nth found itself defending its front and both flanks. They simply ran out of ammo and could not escape. A major contributing factor to this was that each regiment was stretched over to large a front for its strength. The naval bombardment made it impossible for the Germans to resupply the strong points, and only when the strongpoints fell, and then almost always due to running out of ammo, were the G.I.'s able to break through. So no, the direct naval gunfire had no effect on the beach its self, but did lead to the demise of the German units engaged. The 352nd was able to escape with around 75% losses, the 716nth was wiped out in the few days after the invasion. And its place was taken by the 12th Parachute division. The 352nd was again reforming in Arnhem when the Brits parachuted in during operation market garden. The reminants of the division faught equaly with the 2 SS divisions and distinguished itself again. Infact, it was the first unit to engage the British and bring them to a halt. BTW obershutze916 means PFC 916nth Grenadier Rgt, 352nd Infantry Division. It is the unit that I am in for WWII re-encatments. Hope this adds more to your question. |
|
For another example, look to July 1, 1916, in the Somme. The Brits pounded the German lines for days with over 1,000,000 artillery shells, prior to going over the top. A general was quoted as saying that the lads wouldn't even need their rifles, as they could simply walk through as all the Germans would be dead in the impact areas. After the bombardment stopped on the morning of July 1, they went over the top. On that first day alone, the British suffered 60,000 casualties of which 20,000 were dead. It seems that the Germans didn't want to be affected by the bombardment. When it ended, they came up from their tunnels with well well serviced Maxim '08s and 08/15s. |
|
Quoted: The real naval heros were the little destroyers. Many of those ships came right up to the beach running at full speed shelling the bunkers to supress them. Its effect was inimal, but damn brave. I believe you are mistaken. If not for the destroyers coming in close, the landings may very well have failed. Remember that 90+% of the tanks and other armor that were slated to land in the first waves were sunk before they got to the beach. The troops had no support of their own. Due to the smoke from all the shelling, the battleships couldn't fire onto the beaches for fear of hitting our own. It was the destroyers who, with sand being sucked into their intakes, practically beached themselves getting in close enough to blast pillboxes and bunkers off the beach. There were no radios, so whenever a naval spotter saw a muzzle flash, it got hammered. One story tells of how one tank that made it ashore was having difficulty taking out a pillbox due to the strength of the fortifications. The dstroyers saw where the tank was aiming and sent a salvo straight through the gunports. The tank commander popped open his hatch, turned toward the destroyer, and waved. He then buttoned up again and began acting as fire control for the destroyer. Wherever the tank fired, the destroyer fired a salvo. They worked their way across the beach destroying emplacement after emplacement. Another story I heard was that the destroyers were so close that their guns were firing practically horizontal, and that troops were hitting the beach whenever a salvo came in for fear of getting hit as the shells went by. Maybe a bit of an exageration, but maybe not too much. All I know is that every single American within 200 yards of the beach that day had balls made of some kind of heavy hard alloy that has yet to be replicated (well, except maybe for the NYFD on 9/11). I don't know how I would have faired that day, but I can only hope that I would have been half as brave. |
|
I don't understand how you can say that I am mistaken when I say the destroyers were heros for what they attempted. (ne acctually did beach itself I believe). Their fire was helpfull no doubt, but had little effect on the outcome of the battle except the saving of more American lives. No American breakthrough ever happened where a WN or bunker was still in place, and the destroyers could not destroy any large emplacement. The Germans lost because they were badly deployed, underequiped and eventually out fought. German reports state that due to these problems, and the determination of the American infantry was the reason for their loss. No menetion is even made of naval fire that day being a reason for the loss, and only brief mention of the air bombardment, mostly on the 716nth. The G.I.s did the hard work and paid for it in blood. Can't argue that the G.I.'s all had a brass pair that day. Slipknot, Read more than Ambrose, he is to narrow in his approach to telling any story. He tells his stories well, and mostly true, but there are better historians out there. |
|
My statement that I felt you were mistaken stemmed from your statement claiming that the effects of the destroyer's actions were minimal. I am of the opinion that the landings might well have failed had the destroyers not done what they did. It is certainly true that the battle was WON by the infantry clawing their way off the beach and kicking some serious ass, but they may not have been able to get off the beach at all if the emplacements engaged by the destroyers had remained in place. My statement was not meant as a slight against you, and CERTAINLY not against the brave men on the beaches that day. Not by a LONG shot. I believe that what we have here is a simple "disagreement" (perhaps too strong a word) on the effect of the destroyer support on the battle as a whole. Frankly, I think it would be an extremely interesting discussion to have over beers, but annoying as hell to have via internet. I can't type for shit... |
|
Safe zones for 500lb bombs are a few hundred yards. Battleships lob 1ton rounds, and they're bobbing in the water, so there wouldn't be a save zone on or near the beach. Destroyers did the job. My piss was their assult on the MG-42. I felt the sniper should have been setup before to take out at least 1 of the 3 germans, and to help during the assult. |
|
Quoted: [b]The beach bombardment was for shit !![/b] The European generals learned NOTHING from the Pacific theater. One of the things often missed that caused us many casualties was no shell-craters on the beach. No shell craters to provide cover as our troops tried to move up off the beach. There might have been 5% of the prep needed. No, craters on the beach were decidedly to be AVOIDED. Many Marines drowned at Tarawa falling into submerged shell craters. Even more Marines were killed when 16 of the 18 Shermans assigned to support the initial landings also drowned or became ditched in shell craters in the lagoon or at the waters edge, denying them the only really effective means of dealing with the Japanese bunkers. We planned to use DD Shermans at Normandy swimming ashore alongside the landing craft, they had to have a crater free beach. Thats why they were not carpet bombed by high level bombers well in advance. And there were still more than a few "shorts" into the surf waiting to drown vheicles and men. Had the DD Shermans made it to shore on Omaha, like they did on the other beaches, the situation would have been much improved. Whoever told Eisenhower that weather conditions would only be marginal apparently did not look up refrence material for DD Shermans and DUKWs. For both those vheicles the surf was worse than the maximum for safe operation. The DUKW's were carrying the 105mm howitzers of the direct support FA battalions-another valuable firepower asset that never made it to the beach that could of made a major impact. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: [b]The beach bombardment was for shit !![/b] The European generals learned NOTHING from the Pacific theater. One of the things often missed that caused us many casualties was no shell-craters on the beach. No shell craters to provide cover as our troops tried to move up off the beach. There might have been 5% of the prep needed. Yup...SubSwab has got is just about right. There were battleships, cruisers and destroyers at Normandy, but at first they weren't used that well. The bombardment from both air and sea was woefully inadequate. The 8th AF bombers missed their targets by miles and the sea bombardment was far too small to have any real effect. Our Atlantic Fleet guys weren't as well versed in naval gunfire support then as the guys in the Pacific...(It wasn't that they lacked the skill...rather they didn't realize just how much bombardment was going to be required.). The Army planners were just as much to blame, figuring that the need for a quick assault overweighed the need for a long bombardment. They were afraid the Germans would be able to mass more troops on the beach areas if the shooting started too far in advance of the infantry landings. Finally, that ships' gunnery suffered from a myriad of problems. The targets weren't easily seen from the relatively long ranges the battleships were shooting from, the weather was foul with overcast, reducing visibility, many of the NGFS spotters became KIA/WIAs and they lost their radios. The big casemated guns also required several direct hits of 14" guns and larger to take them out. After the infantry landing waves got into trouble on Omaha, some Navy destroyers moved in so close to provide NGFS that their hulls were scraping the sand bottoms. At this range of maybe a mile or so, the gunnery officers in the gun directors could plainly see the MG 42 nests, the trench lines, and the pillboxes that were killing so many GIs. A couple of these USN DDs took these targets under direct fire with devastating effect, wiping out many German hardpoints and aiding the opening up of the Omaha beachhead. There was also a fear of the Luftwaffe. At least by the Navy. The Luftwaffe had actually done a pretty fair amount of damage during the Sicily, Salerno, and Anzio landings. It led the navy to insist on doing too many things in the predawn darkness. Had everything been pushed back just an hour or two, so the battleships could have opened fire with spotter plane control in full daylight there would have been a immense difference. No one trusted the airmen to keep control of the air or keep German ground forces at bay as long as they did-because the air forces had promised this before for the Sicilian and Italian landings and then, in the eyes of the Navy and ground forces, failed to deliver. When there was proper air or ground control NGS was devistating. Atlantic fleet units already had several "saves" going back as far as North Africa stopping Panzer attacks with very accurate heavy fire-even at night. But in those cases there was always a man on the ground or in a circling aircraft with a radio adjusting the fall of shot and at Omaha there were no such men, for one reason or another. |
|
Ratters, While it's not directly related to your question, you may want to read First Wave at Omaha Beach by SLA Marshall. It can be found at: www.theatlantic.com/issues/60nov/omaha.html. The real story is even more poignant than Saving Private Ryan. If you're interested in military history the works of SLA Marshall are well worth reading. |
|
They could not do a very long bombardment because of operation security. They wanted to get troops ashore before Hitler could move his mobile armor divisions to Normandy. Unlike the Pacific where an island like Saipan could be isolated for a week and worked over first by naval artillery. Also all the German fortifications were well-built, on reverse hillsides or sited away from direct fire zoes to the ocean. GunLvr |
|
Quoted: They could not do a very long bombardment because of operation security. They wanted to get troops ashore before Hitler could move his mobile armor divisions to Normandy. Unlike the Pacific where an island like Saipan could be isolated for a week and worked over first by naval artillery. Also all the German fortifications were well-built, on reverse hillsides or sited away from direct fire zoes to the ocean. GunLvr Hmmmmm. That's a good point I'd never considered. Foolish of me, really. Thanks for pointing it out. |
|
Zaphod, no disagreement, just a misundrstanding of each others point. No biggie. I am going off some American history and extensive German history of the event and trying not be be biased towards the Germans. It is true that many of the smaller German positions were out of the range of deflection of the direct fire (not plunging fire) of the smaller ships, but it was a defence in depth. Many forward positions were taken out by the ships. It came down to a situation where the defenders were too well entrenched for even large caliber guns to have direct effect on them, only secondary effect. There was a small "Z" boat (pt boat) attack on the fleet off shore, but it was half hearted and had little effect. While I disagree that much difference would have been made by pushing the invasion back a few hours, it is a workable point that could be discussed at length. The weather was still very poor that day, and it would have given the planes, comming from England mostly, little time over target. A large tank landing would have lead to the slaughter of the armor, the Germans had more anti-tank guns there than you think. The Germans expected more of an armored attack then what happened and defennded accordingly. It hurt them in the infantry assault. They were hurt by the fact that many of the anit-tank guns were not of German design, and there fore could not fire both AP & HE as their guns could. |
|
" All I know is that every single American within 200 yards of the beach that day had balls made of some kind of heavy hard alloy that has yet to be replicated (well, except maybe for the NYFD on 9/11). I don't know how I would have faired that day, but I can only hope that I would have been half as brave. "[/quote from Zaphod ] I have to disagree , of course they had balls , incredibale ones no doubt , But to say that they have never been replicated except by the NYFD on 9/11 . PLEASE ... from the top of my head , How abot the Airborne INF at Bastogne , " NUTS " was the reply to surrender I believe . How about the Marines at the Ho Chin resivoir . And many more I'm sure . I say Thank God for all of them . |
|
No comparison. Bastone was a huge fight against all odds, but for the most part it was by- passed and only secondary units were fighting the entrenched Americans. Look at the graves of the German troops from the battle of the Bulge, the AVAERAGE age is 15. Not much against seasoned paratroopers. Edited to add :the Marines at Chosin was a bitter struggle and well deserving of mention. |
| The question can be better answered if you have ever stood on Omaha Beach, even now. I can assure you that even with no one shooting at you, trying to walk or run on that shingle (pebble) is like trying to walk through quicksand. Like my wife said, "How could anyone have done this?" It ain't Atlantic City beach. |
|
Quoted: A large tank landing would have lead to the slaughter of the armor, the Germans had more anti-tank guns there than you think. The Germans expected more of an armored attack then what happened and defennded accordingly. It hurt them in the infantry assault. They were hurt by the fact that many of the anit-tank guns were not of German design, and there fore could not fire both AP & HE as their guns could. Didn't know about that. I wonder if the form the invasion took (i.e. - more infantry than armor) was due to that or the cost/logistics of moving a heavy armored force. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: They could not do a very long bombardment because of operation security. They wanted to get troops ashore before Hitler could move his mobile armor divisions to Normandy. Unlike the Pacific where an island like Saipan could be isolated for a week and worked over first by naval artillery. Also all the German fortifications were well-built, on reverse hillsides or sited away from direct fire zoes to the ocean. GunLvr Hmmmmm. That's a good point I'd never considered. Foolish of me, really. Thanks for pointing it out. While theoretically correct - that Hitler could have moved reinforcements - it's not what happened. In reality a secondary (to the balls of the guys on the beach) contributor to the victory was Hitler's refusal to move a tank group to Normandy. The stubbornness of the dope cost them. He still believed the invasion would be Calais. |
|
Zaphod, not really sure why the Americans did not attack with more tanks. I do know that more left the ships than made it ashore. The DD tanks for example were a huge failure. Besides, I personally think the Allied planners knew they would be there for little more than infantry support, and the naval fire would do the rest. rjRoberts, NOT TRUE, Hitler had ordered that in the event of an invasion, the armored reserves in what ever area were to be imediatly sent in. The 21st Panzer division, 2nd Panzer Division, and elements of the 12th SS Panzer division were in Normandie only miles from the landing zones, but sat inactive for lack of orders. Rommel wanted the armor AT the beach, but Hitler over ruled him on that one. General Feuchtinger (SP?) had received the order from Hitler, but was to busy getting drunk at a party - in Paris I believe. He never took the news of the attack seriously, and therefore did nothing. In the first critical hours, no decisions were being made by the German high command. Rommel took it seriously, but had not been given the order by Feuchtinger and spent hours trying to get ahold of someone in the high command to let him release the armor. Remember, the next day when the armor did reach the beach it was pounded by naval guns & had to withdrawl quickly, so the outcome of the "keep the armor at the beach" - "Keep the armor in reserve" debate really could go either way and there is no way that we could positively say what would have happened. Hitler thought the attack would come at Calais, but Rommel knew better and acted accordingly. His hands were tied though as it was over a week before the entire 1st SS Panzer Army was able to make it to the Normadie front in any kind of numers, and only then with a 10% loss due to air strikes. |