That's a very fair point but I think, as with Arnhem, the fear was that tactical air support when opposing forces were physically that close to each other would lead to severe losses among Allied troops.

In WWII, air attack could not achieve pin-point precision & then only if minimal flak was known to be present ( eg Dams, Amiens Raids, etc ). Closing on a relatively small target at 250-300 mph meant that some degree of saturation would be needed to be effective. Even later during the Normandy campaign when 2 TAF's 'cab-rank' tactic was perfected, Allied ground troops kept a respectful distance - usually at least a mile if possible ( eg at Falaise ).

Additionally, the Naval gunners' air recognition was notoriously unreliable throughout the war. Overflying, at low-level, the colossal firepower of the assorted naval vessels lying off the Normandy beaches would not have been a popular prospect for the RAF/USAAF.....

IMHO, the only completely effective, pin-point support available in WWII was from ground-based artillery acting with reliable Forward Observers; as eventually was the case for example at Arnhem.

( And a very warm welcome to the discussion forum, BTW ! [img]smile.gif[/img] )

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson