D Day landings question
Discussion
As we are commemorating the D Day landings this week, can any one answer this for me? Why didn't our forces have large numbers of aircraft carriers sat offshore just out of the range of German batteries to provide close in air support. Surely this would have given a much quicker turn around of aircraft than flying from England. In all the footage of amphibious landings I've seen of the Pacific campaign you can usually see carrier aircraft in the background strafing and bombing, no doubt being co-ordinated by Naval air controllers liaising with the Marines/Infantry. Any thoughts?
wolfracesonic said:
As we are commemorating the D Day landings this week, can any one answer this for me? Why didn't our forces have large numbers of aircraft carriers sat offshore just out of the range of German batteries to provide close in air support. Surely this would have given a much quicker turn around of aircraft than flying from England. In all the footage of amphibious landings I've seen of the Pacific campaign you can usually see carrier aircraft in the background strafing and bombing, no doubt being co-ordinated by Naval air controllers liaising with the Marines/Infantry. Any thoughts?
I think as the UK was so close and there was no shortage of aircraft there was no need for carriers Its because the Normandy landings didn't really happen. Its a conspiracy, man......
As above. Even 617 squadron flew an unusual, but useful mission that day which helped confuse the enemy. Ans for theblast few years the RAF had a policy of "leaning into Europe" (I think it was called) where they would do nuisance raids against enemy airbases, forcing them further inland
As above. Even 617 squadron flew an unusual, but useful mission that day which helped confuse the enemy. Ans for theblast few years the RAF had a policy of "leaning into Europe" (I think it was called) where they would do nuisance raids against enemy airbases, forcing them further inland
The sky was thick with Allied aircraft on D-Day on all sorts of missions. Only a very few could have operated from carriers - Normandy is so close you could have continuous air cover from England without the risk of a stray Luftwaffe bomber getting through and planting one on the deck. And quite probably all the carriers were needed elsewhere, giving some air cover to theatres of war that couldn't be given air cover from England.
There is also the rather large issue of "surprise" Massing a fleet of large carriers just off the French coast with enough time to get the operations ready is really rather a big clue that something is going to go down imminently. Pretty much the whole D-day operation relied to a large degree on the Germans not knowing when and where we were going to land!
Secondly, there is the issue of accuracy, and friendly fire. Back in 1944 we didn't have the pinpoint accuracy of weapons delivery we have now. And pretty much all of the major targets (gun batteries, command posts etc) were HEAVILY fortified after 4 years of being built up by the occupying forces. As such, you needed a direct hit to put them out of action. Simply spreading a massive amount of munitions onto the tops of the cliffs and land behind would have more likely had little effect, and if done during the actual landing event, probably killed more of our troops by friendly fire than the Enemy!
Of course, in reality, we did extensively shell(using Naval assets) and bomb the coastal fortifications before the operations began, although this was to some degree necessarily ad-hoc in its nature to avoid pinpointing the landing beaches.
Secondly, there is the issue of accuracy, and friendly fire. Back in 1944 we didn't have the pinpoint accuracy of weapons delivery we have now. And pretty much all of the major targets (gun batteries, command posts etc) were HEAVILY fortified after 4 years of being built up by the occupying forces. As such, you needed a direct hit to put them out of action. Simply spreading a massive amount of munitions onto the tops of the cliffs and land behind would have more likely had little effect, and if done during the actual landing event, probably killed more of our troops by friendly fire than the Enemy!
Of course, in reality, we did extensively shell(using Naval assets) and bomb the coastal fortifications before the operations began, although this was to some degree necessarily ad-hoc in its nature to avoid pinpointing the landing beaches.
My thoughts would be;
a) too big and too valuable to have as a sitting target, moored off the beaches.
b) the UK is very close and enabled them to use the 'Taxi rank' principle - air superiority wasn't an issue
c) landing strips would be in place within 2-3 days (all being well)
d) need for the carriers on escort duty to ensure the flow of men and materials from / to US, Russia, Far East etc...
a) too big and too valuable to have as a sitting target, moored off the beaches.
b) the UK is very close and enabled them to use the 'Taxi rank' principle - air superiority wasn't an issue
c) landing strips would be in place within 2-3 days (all being well)
d) need for the carriers on escort duty to ensure the flow of men and materials from / to US, Russia, Far East etc...
Eric Mc said:
I seem to recall that in one incident, the navy fired 10,000 shells at a church steeple before they managed to knock it down. They targeted the steeple because the Germans were using it as an observation platform.
100 shells possibly. I doubt they even had 10k in the magazines! ;-)jmorgan said:
^^^^^
Seem to remember Raymond Baxter explaining how he was over D Day landing beaches in a Spitfire spotting for the Navy and watching 15" shells sail over him.
If I remember the interview correctly.
I can well believe that. I read a book on the landings many years back and one account described the shells sounding like an express train as they went overhead. I used to drink with a D Day Veteran at the time and I mentioned this to him and his comment was 'fSeem to remember Raymond Baxter explaining how he was over D Day landing beaches in a Spitfire spotting for the Navy and watching 15" shells sail over him.
If I remember the interview correctly.
king hell did they!!' He went on to tell me how as the guns were firing almost horzontally the shock wave from the shells would push the landing craft down into the sea and the vacuum after it passed would lift the craft up by a noticable amount.
All of the above is true, also close air support as we know it now didn't exist in 1944. A version of it came in in time for the Falaise operation later in the Normandy campaign. But it was very much a work in progress during world war 2. I think it only really came in to its own in Vietnam.
jonnyb said:
All of the above is true, also close air support as we know it now didn't exist in 1944. A version of it came in in time for the Falaise operation later in the Normandy campaign. But it was very much a work in progress during world war 2. I think it only really came in to its own in Vietnam.
The Germans had close air support from the very beginning of the war (and before, in fact) - Stukas - that was a big part of the blitzkrieg tacticjonnyb said:
All of the above is true, also close air support as we know it now didn't exist in 1944. A version of it came in in time for the Falaise operation later in the Normandy campaign. But it was very much a work in progress during world war 2. I think it only really came in to its own in Vietnam.
Not quite true.The Germans used the equivalent of ground based Forward Air Controllers almost from the start of the war. They had learned such tactics in the Spanish Civil War.
The RAF started using FACs in the North African campaign with the FAC in a Scout Car calling in ground attack Hurricanes and P-40s.
By the time of the D-Day landing and the campaign in Northern France, the RAF had quite a well developed FAC system.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff