WWII Question

[Maximilian]

Is there a reason the navy didn't lob shells at the beaches on D-Day to wreck all the bunkers/MG's and then land troops once it was clear? To phrase it another way why did they just land everyone without clearing it first? Would've been safer methinks.

 

[Scotteq]

Because Real Men eat beans, move upwind, and Fart.

 

[Firebot]

Who said they didn't lob shells? It makes no sense to do an attack solely with sea artillery who are litterally sitting ducks from planes and submarines, and for one, those land batteries and cannons can shoot back. Oh, and ship artillery from far away isn't exactly going to be that accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_artillery

Nazi Germany fortified its conquered territories with the Atlantic Wall, they built[clarification needed] a string of reinforced concrete pillboxes along the beaches, or sometimes slightly inland, to house machine guns, antitank guns, artillery ranging in size up to the large 38 cm naval guns. The intent was to destroy the Allied landing craft before they could unload. During the Normandy Landings in 1944, shore bombardment was given a high importance, using ships from battleships to destroyers and landing craft. For example, the Canadians at Juno beach had fire support many times greater than they had had for the Dieppe Raid in 1942.
The old battleships HMS Ramillies and Warspite and the monitor HMS Roberts were used to suppress shore batteries east of the Orne; cruisers targeted shore batteries at Ver-sur-Mer and Moulineaux; eleven destroyers for local fire support. In addition, there were modified landing-craft: eight "Landing Craft Gun", each with two 4.7-inch guns; four "Landing Craft Support" with automatic cannon; eight Landing Craft Tank (Rocket), each with a single salvo of 1,100 5-inch rockets; eight Landing Craft Assault (Hedgerow), each with twenty-four bombs intended to detonate beach mines prematurely. Twenty-four Landing Craft Tank carried Priest self-propelled howitzers which also fired while they were on the run-in to the beach. Similar arrangements existed at other beaches.

Bombardment


The view from HMS Kelvin showing the wide variety of vessels deployed
Warships provided supporting fire for the land forces. During Neptune, it was given a high importance, using ships from battleships to destroyers and landing craft. For example, the Canadians at Juno beach had fire support many times greater than they had had for the Dieppe Raid in 1942. The old battleships HMS Ramillies and Warspite and the monitor HMS Roberts were used to suppress shore batteries east of the Orne; cruisers targeted shore batteries at Ver-sur-Mer and Moulineaux; eleven destroyers for local fire support. In addition, there were modified landing-craft: eight "Landing Craft Gun", each with two 4.7-inch guns; four "Landing Craft Support" with automatic cannon; eight Landing Craft Tank (Rocket), each with a single salvo of 1,100 5-inch rockets; eight Landing Craft Assault (Hedgerow), each with twenty-four bombs intended to detonate beach mines prematurely. Twenty-four Landing Craft Tank carried Priest self-propelled howitzers which also fired while they were on the run-in to the beach. Similar arrangements existed at other beaches.
Fire support went beyond the suppression of shore defences overlooking landing beaches and was also used to break up enemy concentrations as the troops moved inland. This was particularly noted in German reports: von Rundstedt reported that:
... The enemy had deployed very strong Naval forces off the shores of the bridgehead. These can be used as quickly mobile, constantly available artillery, at points where they are necessary as defence against our attacks or as support for enemy attacks. During the day their fire is skilfully directed by . . . plane observers, and by advanced ground fire spotters. Because of the high rapid-fire capacity of Naval guns they play an important part in the battle within their range. The movement of tanks by day, in open country, within the range of these naval guns is hardly possible.[32]

 

[techs]

It takes a nearly direct hit to put a bunker out of commission. Many were indeed destroyed but the element of surprise was so vital in keeping the Germans from moving in reinforcements that the pre invasion bombardment was very limited.

In the Pacific the US conducted massive days long bombardments of Japanese held islands. Yet when they stopped to let the troops land they found plenty of Japanese bunkers still intact.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Yeah, on normandy I think they only shelled for 30 minutes or so to maintain surprise. After several minutes, many targets were obscured by smoke and thus became more difficult to bring in effective fire.

 

[rudeguy]

Is there a reason the navy didn't lob shells at the beaches on D-Day to wreck all the bunkers/MG's and then land troops once it was clear? To phrase it another way why did they just land everyone without clearing it first? Would've been safer methinks.

D Day was (one of?) the largest Naval bombardment ever. The real problem was the pilots overshooting the German defenses.

 

[TheSlamma]

Look at pictures of pointe du hoc, place looks like the moon and it missed almost every bunker.

Also keep in mind the job of the Airborne was to get in and take out the 88's that would have been able to hit any ships getting too close.

BTW was in Normandy last year, was by far my fav part of France, lots of very good tour guides there that know their stuff. I HIGHLY recommend going out and seeing everything from Bayeux to St Mere Eglise (Watch the longest day before going) to the landings and the really well maintained cemeteries.

 

[iamwiz82]

The bunkers were also incredibly thick. A shell is going to not do as much damage as you would think.

 

[BUTCH1]

The bunkers were also incredibly thick. A shell is going to not do as much damage as you would think.

This, the Germans had years and plenty of slave labor to construct these defenses, reinforced concrete was everywhere for this very reason, they understood any invasion would be preceded by a bombardment. Once the real invasion sites were known it took critical time to get approval from the high command to put reserve forces where they needed to be, a huge blunder by the Germans.

 

[lupi]

you mean why didn't the destroyers beach themselves to try and get a more accurate firing solution?

 

[Markbnj]

As a general rule artillery can't clear an area fortified with bunkers. The U.S. shelled the crap out of pretty much every beach we assaulted during the entire war, and it never did much besides keep the enemy's head down while the landing craft came in.

 

[Gintaras]

US in WWII?

Most of what US did in WWII - helped USSR with arms in first days of WWII - fighter jets...etc...
Most americans don't even know or are even able to imagine, what russians and other nationals of that time of USSR went thru...to WIN A WAR...
My mom lived thru all that HELL...

When someone says something about US participation or "winning" WWII, I don't know - to laugh or to cry....

 

[Albatross]

I`m waiting for the anarchist guy to clarify the issues.

 

[rudeguy]

US in WWII?

Most of what US did in WWII - helped USSR with arms in first days of WWII - fighter jets...etc...
Most americans don't even know or are even able to imagine, what russians and other nationals of that time of USSR went thru...to WIN A WAR...
My mom lived thru all that HELL...

When someone says something about US participation or "winning" WWII, I don't know - to laugh or to cry....

Russia had a much different way of looking at things.

The US used its manufacturing ability to the fullest.
Russia used its population.

While the US enlisted its population to manufacture the needed supplies, Russia sent out its population without needed supplies. The US took less casualties because we relied more on technology and manufacturing. Russia just sent in troops in as many numbers as possible (not all were even armed) in hopes of winning a battle.

Our Red friends fought very bravely. Perhaps more bravely than they needed to.

 

[IronWing]

There was an excellent HBO program a few years ago with interviews of D-Day participants. The US and British had planned to churn up the beach with mass rocket salvos, creating craters for the landing troops to hide in as they stormed the beach. The British pulled it off in their sectors. For the most part, the US launched its rockets too far from shore and did little good, leaving the landing Americans fully exposed to German machine gun fire.

 

[Gintaras]

Being out of the range:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRfBEVrAmjQ

Russia had a much different way of looking at things.

The US used its manufacturing ability to the fullest.
Russia used its population.

While the US enlisted its population to manufacture the needed supplies, Russia sent out its population without needed supplies. The US took less casualties because we relied more on technology and manufacturing. Russia just sent in troops in as many numbers as possible (not all were even armed) in hopes of winning a battle.

Our Red friends fought very bravely. Perhaps more bravely than they needed to.

 

[Arkaign]

Russia had a much different way of looking at things.

The US used its manufacturing ability to the fullest.
Russia used its population.

While the US enlisted its population to manufacture the needed supplies, Russia sent out its population without needed supplies. The US took less casualties because we relied more on technology and manufacturing. Russia just sent in troops in as many numbers as possible (not all were even armed) in hopes of winning a battle.

Our Red friends fought very bravely. Perhaps more bravely than they needed to.

I think that largely had to do with our superior economy and the world's finest production facilities, but even more foremost : we weren't attached on a land mass facing down the most advanced army on earth. The Soviets were ill prepared at the beginning of the war, and didn't have an ocean to help them. They did have huge distances to cover and brutal winters to help out though.

 

[Arkaign]

US in WWII?

Most of what US did in WWII - helped USSR with arms in first days of WWII - fighter jets...etc...
Most americans don't even know or are even able to imagine, what russians and other nationals of that time of USSR went thru...to WIN A WAR...
My mom lived thru all that HELL...

When someone says something about US participation or "winning" WWII, I don't know - to laugh or to cry....

I have put many thousands of hours into studying WW2, my library on the subject has over 1100 books now. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. US participation in the war was an intractable component of success for the Allies. Take away the absolutely staggering levels of support alone that we produced before officially beginning operations in the war, and things would have turned out much differently.

This shouldn't be taken the wrong way, as grandstanding, or of belittling anyone else. Some certainly do have some kind of overinflated idea that the US 'won' it alone. The truth of the matter is that it took the efforts of countless people from many dozens of nations, of all ages, to struggle mightily through excruciating tragedy and the loss of ~70 million lives to achieve victory. It's all a big balancing act, you can't take out any of the pillars that supported victory and expect the results to be the same.

With no lend-lease, with no US advances on Japan, with no US enabled Western Front on the Axis, with no Patton in North Africa, etc, there is no Allied victory in WW2. At the same time, if the UK gave up and surrendered during the BoB, there is no Allied victory in WW2. If the Soviets collapsed in '41, there is no allied victory. Etc. Everything played its part. It's ignorant to look at it in emotional terms and deny the truth of the matter.

 

[Gibsons]

There was some debate amongst leadership about how long to bombard. The concern was how long can you bombard and still maintain surprise. In hindsight they could have gone quite longer (by starting earlier) and maintained surprise. But they had no way of knowing Rommel wasn't there and what an interfering moron Hitler was.

 

[Imp]

you mean why didn't the destroyers beach themselves to try and get a more accurate firing solution?

I think one got close to beaching in a sector of Omaha to provide support after no progress.

Why not en masse? Probably because they needed to use those beaches to bring shit in and a giant ship that may or may not be towable back into water might block things.

 

[Maximilian]

Oh yeah coastal batteries that fight back... yeahs they're a pretty good reason not to sit there and shell away, forgot about those, lucky im not a general or anything

Wouldn't have thought surprise was that big a deal as the luftwaffle were trashed attacking britain and the kriegsmarine werent that big (or were they?) so the allied ships could just bomb whatever land reinforcements the germans brought to normandy but from whats been said i think im massively overestimating the accuracy of battleship guns.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Is there a reason the navy didn't lob shells at the beaches on D-Day to wreck all the bunkers/MG's and then land troops once it was clear? To phrase it another way why did they just land everyone without clearing it first? Would've been safer methinks.

They did bombard the shores IIRC and also tried bombing positions above the shores, but weather was terrible with very low cloud cover and it wasn't effective.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

US in WWII?

Most of what US did in WWII - helped USSR with arms in first days of WWII - fighter jets...etc...
Most americans don't even know or are even able to imagine, what russians and other nationals of that time of USSR went thru...to WIN A WAR...
My mom lived thru all that HELL...

When someone says something about US participation or "winning" WWII, I don't know - to laugh or to cry....

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when someone says the US did nothing to help with WW2 but supply fighter jets....

I'm sure the USSR would have done with with the entirety of the German forces pushing east into Russia and the Japanese hitting them from the west instead of fighting in Africa, Italy, the South Pacific, and Normandy. I'd put my money on most of the world speaking German these days if we hadn't entered the war.

The Germans would have owned Eurasia and Africa, and had time to prepare for an invasion of the Americas after some time securing their territories.

 

[Gibsons]

Oh yeah coastal batteries that fight back... yeahs they're a pretty good reason not to sit there and shell away, forgot about those, lucky im not a general or anything

Wouldn't have thought surprise was that big a deal as the luftwaffle were trashed attacking britain and the kriegsmarine werent that big (or were they?) so the allied ships could just bomb whatever land reinforcements the germans brought to normandy but from whats been said i think im massively overestimating the accuracy of battleship guns.

Naval gunfire can have some big advantages over shore batteries. They can bring a lot of guns to the fight, very quickly with surprise. There were quite a few really big guns at Dday too. Plus, a ship is a moving target. The flipside is the shore batteries can be massively fortified, they can't be sunk. They're effectively a very small target. In any case, afaik the battleships and cruisers at Dday didn't suffer much (or at all?) from German counterfire. The germans were firing mostly at the beach anyway.

The Luftwaffe was basically not there at Dday. There were a few sorties, but the allies had complete air superiority and the LW couldn't have changed that.

The KM was also basically not there - all they really had was some small torpedo type boats and subs. The channel is a poor place for subs and the torpedo boats would have had very short and exciting missions.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when someone says the US did nothing to help with WW2 but supply fighter jets....

The ownage is strong in this one.