Reason bombers missed at Omaha Beach

Does anybody know what the most accepted theory, as to why German
defences were not destroyed by bombing, on Omaha Beach. The bombing
seemed to work much better at the other invasion beaches.

 

The one and only reason I have seen in the dozen plus books & magazine articals:

Dawn had occured just a few minutes earlier so there was the morning haze at ground level, there was also a overcast at a higher altitiude directly over the coast. The navigators and lead bombardiers identified correctly their several navigation checkpoints, and the IP or initial point. In the final seconds of approach the bombardiers could not identify clearly the beach or aimpoints thru the clouds/haze. So they released by 'time' from the IP. Since this is not as accurate as releasing by the bombsight the lead bombardiers were concerned about releasing early and hitting the lead waves of landing craft. So they delayed release a few seconds. At a bombing speed a second or two translates into several hundred meters. The route was perpendicular to the beach, so five hundred meters means the bombs fall inland on cow pastures & grain fields.

At Utah beach the route ran paralle to the beach. The bombardiers had a similar problem identifying the beach & aimpoints. But, the bombs only fell further along on the beach. Thus delayed releases simply hit near Germans soldiers further along the flight path. Utah Beach was attacked by medium bombers which were used to attacking from a lower altitude so there was a bit less dispersion in the bomb strikes.

How it happened on the other beachs I dont know.

 

It seems to me that the successful use of heavy bombers in close air support almost always involved bombing at the immediate front of friendly troops, or the bombers would overshoot the enemy line. I am reading a comparison of Operation Cobra and Queen by Wigley and I am thrilled to see if later allied offensives modified their approach in using the heavies.

 

I read somewhere, one of the pilots disputes this, even after viewing the pics of no craters on the beach! Anyway, I believe it was all about the weather!

 

I agree with Bigfun.

Perhaps the majority of bombs didnt hit the beach, but woe be unto the pilots/bombardiers who might have hit landing troops! While the heavy air support was really not effective, thank God the US Navy (at great risk) brought their big guns to bear on German beach defensive sites or Omaha beach could have been a lot worse!

Getting the heavies to support D-Day was a one time thing since the 8th AF had the mission of "strategic" bombing over France & Germany versus close air support.

 

On a History Channel interview, several crew members of the bombers,
claim, they hit the target. Maybe it was the weather or a different beach,
or something.

 

I remember seeing a program on the History Channel some time back. Bombers were briefed to drop 30 secs after crossing surf line. If true, it was a huge mistake. If bombers were flying at 180 mph they would cover 1.5 miles in 30 seconds -- plus bombs would continue moving forward while falling. If at 10,000 feet, bombs would take about 25 secs to hit ground. The 30 second delay in releasing, plus 25 secs to fall would put bombs nearly 3 miles inland. (I have estimated both bomber speed and altitude, of course.)

Show discussed fact that soldiers were briefed to make use of craters on the beach for cover -- and also that there were no craters on the beach because of the above scenario. Did anyone else see this show?

 

There was never any intent to crater the beaches using the heavy bombers. If fact, the heavies were loaded with 100 lb. demolition and fragmentation bombs to avoid cratering, which would occur with the more normal 500 lb and 1000 lb demolition bombs. The fear was that cratering would provide better defensive positions for the enemy, and impede mechanized movements by the Allies. The bombs were fused for instantaneous detonation to avoid unnecessary cratering.

The use of heavies in attacking beach defenses was not favored by the air commanders, who recognized that the use of heavies in close proximity to ground forces was dangerous, but they were overruled. As the weather forced bombing by H2X on 6 June, the pathfinders were ordered - with Eisenhower's approval - to delay the release by 30 seconds to avoid 'friendly fire' incidents.

 

-- plus bombs would continue moving forward while falling.

That element is factored in; anytime planes drop bombs from altitude the bombsight, radar, or other aiming mechanism accounts for the continued forward motion. In the case of Omaha, had conditions been perfect, bomb release would be over water (possibly overhead of the leading landing craft) but the bombs would land on the beach. The delay in the drop was what caused them to hit further inland.

As noted the bomber commanders were skeptical of the idea, but there was a strong feeling that Overlord was "the big one" and we should use every possible weapon.

 

After being at Omaha, La Chaos, and other beaches recently, I realized that sitting at home reading a book or having watched a program how easy it is to have misunderstood the location of the German guns. They were often quite a long way back and the way they were entrenched in the ground and the depth of the concrete protecting them, made them difficult targets.

Here a few photos from La Chaos (Atlantic Wall gun emplacements at Colleville-sur-Mer on the east end of Omaha Beach)

 

The History channel program also mentioned that Omaha had been upgraded between the time of the initial survey and the actual landing.
Calculations as to what defences should be hit may have been out of date.

 

A few bombers were carrying heavy bombs. Cant recall off the top exactly how many, perhaps less than 5%. Those were intended for specific targets, fortifications that were suspected to be too tough for the lightweights. The bombers were not suposed to indiscriminatly saturate the general beach area. The squadrons and groups had specific targets, usually the fortifications and entrenchments guarding the draws or gullys where the roads passed through the bluffs, & the artillery emplacements just a bit further back.

Gen Dolittle was flying over Normandy that morning. Post battle he wrote that he observed the bombers release over Omaha Beach & he instantly suspected they had dropped too late. He then described dropping down below the overcast & seeing the smoke/dust from the bombs saturating the fields inland and nothing hitting the planned targets on or near the beach.

 

Quoted from: www.cpmac.com
Omaha beach was called the ’bloody beach ’ after the invasion. This was because of the heavy losses. 3000 on D day as opposed to 200 on Utah beach. There were several reasons why the beach turned into a blood bath, most of them were avoidable. One factor that wasn’t avoidable was the presence of an extra division of well trained German troops. Intelligence sources hadn’t pointed this out
The defences were supposed to be bombed just before the landing but the bombing was way off course. The bombing of the British beaches had been slightly more effective because the bombers were bombing by sight. On Omaha beach they bombed by instruments. At that time instrument bombing was very inaccurate and the pilots were worried about bombing the landing craft as H hour approached. To avoid this they were ordered to bomb further and further inland as H hour got nearer.
In this way the first bombs fell just behind the German defences and the last fell 5 miles inland. Omaha beach was the only beach that had naturally marshy ground just behind it then steeply sloping cliff. From anywhere on the cliff nearly all the beach can be seen. This was a perfect beach to defend.

 

Since my visit to Omaha Beach and after showing my respect for those who fell there.
I felt much interest in knowing the reasons why they failed bombing Omaha and other beaches were fully effective.
Displaying the topography, it's very easy to target from the sea and from the air. It is a very long and easy to bomb area, with its long sandy tide and valleys that surround the beach.
I do not understand the explanations given.
I started looking on the internet and saw a revealing video.
It is a French historian. It is logical and full of common sense.
There is a compelling reason to not bomb that area.
Throughout Omaha Beach were rocket launchers V1 and new V2. The American intelligence knew it and needed to recover intact those rockets to study and benefit studies of the atomic bomb and future rockets.
There is a large area in the form of "U", almost all of the beach that was not bombed and elsewhere in Omaha, yes they were bombed.
It is a very valid theory.
The sacrifice of more than 5,000 lives, according to recent studies, to benefit the development of the atomic bomb.

I think it's an atrocity, but it makes sense.
I ask for moderation in your answers.
I understand that you could not like the theory, but, again catches my attention, other beaches that were actually bombed and indeed the greatest of all, no... nothing.
Do you really notice a mistake in calculation? Weather conditions? Other beaches completed bombed and this just does not ...

 

Do you have a link to the video?

Because, AFAIK, the V-2 sites were all on the Cherbourg Peninsula(Brecourt, Couville, and Brix) That's not any where near Omaha...
There were reports a possible V-1 launch site at Neuilly-la-Foret...But, that was some 15 miles behind Omaha Beach.

All in all, I believe that your french filmmaker is full of something brown and stinky, but would like to see the video to confirm my suspicions.

 

Dear Ace,
It's also my surprise.
Too easy to say that it's true.
I agree with you that it's too much, to believe on it, but it looks serious.

To see the video. YouTube:El DIA D - Cuando el mundo se tambalea (spanish version). https://youtu.be/ZvbjRFPkdBo
I can't find the English version, I'm very sorry.
In French, original version: Youtube: QUAND LE MONDE BASCULE. Du debarquement au 8 mai 1945. https://youtu.be/pkIUeTVR4H8

Kindest regards,

 

V1 and V2 rockets would be of no value whatsoever in developing the atomic bomb.

 

The reasons the heavy bombing efforts at OMAHA, GOLD, JUNO, and SWORD were ineffective is very well understand, has been very well understood since about mid-morning of 6 June 1944, and is not a mystery at all. Fundamentally, the topography was not "very easy to target...from the air. In fact, on 6 June 1944 it was impossible for the bombers to target it visually from the air. You see, there were 9/10ths to 10/10ths cloud covers over the area from about 5,000 feet to 11,000 feet. Given the heavy bombers attacked between 17,000 and 23,000 feet the result was they could not see the targets at all.

Now understand, it was possible for the skies to have been absolutely clear, but it was not something the D-Day planners could expect. So they planned to bomb by radar using H2X-equipped Pathfinder aircraft as guide ships for the bombers. However, H2X was not extremely accurate, so the risk of short-bombing, which could have dropped the bombs into the invasion fleet, had to be considered and planned for as well. The result was a time delay built into the plan in the event of cloud cover requiring radar bombing.

Is he a historian or a TV presenter? If he is a TV presenter then he may have an excuse for making such ridiculous things. If he is an actual historian then he has no excuse at all. His argument may appear to you to be logical, but it is also utter and complete nonsense. There were zero V1 or V2 launch sites in "OMAHA Beach", or at any of the other beach areas. The only V2 sites in France were the gigantic assembly/launch static positions built at Watten, Wizernes, and Sottevast. The last was in the middle of the Cotentin and was the only one close to any of the invasion beaches...UTAH. All three sites were heavily bombed as part of CROSSBOW after they were identified. There were many more V1 sites in France, with 40 under construction in Manche, i.e., also the Cotentin, by D-Day, but none were ever operational, mostly because they were being steadily bombed as well.

So no, it is not "logical", "valid", "sensible", or anything other than silliness designed to be controversial and revisionist.

I am happy to be moderate with you, since you innocently reported what a very persuasive fraud told you. So it is not your fault if you were unaware of the reality. You were smart and asked before you fully believed it. All very good, but please don't continue to believe such nonsense.

Yes, real historians have noticed what the mistaken calculations were and what the weather really was as well as the actual results at the "other beaches". Only UTAH was successfully bombed, but the method used was very different and the results gained were mostly due to good luck.

Cheers!

 

Dear Rich T090 and Kodiak Beer, thank you for the explanations given and your kind understanding.
It's true that many TV presenters only look for controversial.
I don't know if the man from the Documental is a valid historian or it's only a TV presenter looking for the controversial side.
I invite you to see the documental.
To see the video. YouTube:El DIA D - Cuando el mundo se tambalea (spanish version). https://youtu.be/ZvbjRFPkdBo
In French, original version: Youtube: QUAND LE MONDE BASCULE. Du debarquement au 8 mai 1945. https://youtu.be/pkIUeTVR4H8
I can't find the English version, I'm very sorry.

What about the English and Canadian sectors? All of them were succesfully bomb from the sea.
It looks like Omaha was a BIG disaster.
So long beach, and it was not bombed before the infantry arrvial. What a disaster.
Why the bombs from the sea were also no effective?

When I left Omaha area I felt really sad.
What a slaughter battle.

Rich T090, I really pareciate the explanations given.
Thank you and have a great weekend.