What was the method for US liaison high wing planes marking targets for allied fighter bombers like P-47? Is it true that some of the J3 Cubs and grasshoppers had 2 radios 1 ground radio and 1 air radio because apparently ground could not talk to air pilots, unless you had an actual air radio on the ground in a jeep. one to hear about enemy armor from ground then to relay it to the fighters with their air radio? Would the observation planes shoot a colored smoke rocket at the area after learning the location from ground units, then the p-47 pilots would see it and attack that area? Do I have this down right?
Forward air controlling during WW2 for US forces was pretty much a ground-based operation. The small observer type aircraft where involved in spotting of targets were doing so for artillery, not CAS. The use of rockets fired from observer aircraft did not come about until the Korean War and then only on a limited basis, most FAC was still ground based. Increased use of the technique came about during the Vietnam War.
so if you say ground units marked targets for allied aircraft to strafe/bomb what would be the method of marking it? colored smoke and motor?
British artillery used red marker shells. Yellow smoke was supposed to be the standard to identify friendly forces. Remarkably this was used by night and day. On 8th August 1944 the Op Totalize fireplan used marker shells to indicate the targets for close air support by the four engined bombers of Bomber command within 3,000 yards of friendly troops. The concept was tried out two nights before for a skeptical air force.
I recall my Uncle telling about flying a support mission for the ground forces where they were contacted at their base and requested to strafe an area out in front of the troops. It was more of a, "You'll see a large ridge East of a stream, Don't shoot there! That's where we are." I think smoke of some sort was used on the ground but it dispersed rapidly.
I did not say they marked them. CAS targeting was mostly done by radio with map references and visual cues “. . . your target is the copse on the west slope of hill 387 near the top. Grid coordinates are Able Charlie 892657 . . .” and then the liberal use colored panels on the ground to mark the location of friendly lines. It was simple and efficient. Indirect fire for artillery pretty much worked the same way. Call for a fire mission, describe the target so they pick the right ammo, get a spotting shot, make any adjustment, another spotting shot, and if on target, battery fire for effect. In many ways it was easier than CAS. The artillery guys knew where they were, had the corresponding maps and plotting boards and could figure out where the customer wanted the delivery without even having eyes on the target. Aircraft attached to artillery units could spot targets where a ground customer might not have visual . . . worked the same way, coordinates, spot shots, fire for effect, only the fire mission and adjustments originate from someone boring holes in the sky a safe distance away instead of peeking over the crest of a hill. Targets do not have to marked to be hit if you know what you’re doing. Of course if the customer calling for fire or an air strike uses the wrong coordinates he could have at best, a clear miss or, at worse, a major problem rapidly arriving in his immediate vicinity. You may wish read up on the subject. May I suggest: A basic start for the USAAF FM 31-35 Aviation in Support of Ground Forces 1942 http://cdm16040.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll9/id/932 then – TALO Notes (TALO = Tactical Air Liaison Officer) http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll8/id/4133 The Tactical Air Force in the European Theater of Operations http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/eto/eto-054.pdf and don’t forget Marine Aviation in the Philippines https://archive.org/details/MarineAviationInThePhilippines Comparison studies: Comparative look at air-ground support doctrine and practice in World War II: with an appendix on current Soviet close air support doctrine http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/358/rec/1 Case Studies in the Development of Close Air Support https://archive.org/details/CaseStudiesInTheDevelopmentOfCloseAirSupport And there are various CGSC theses: Development of organic light aviation in the Army Ground Forces in World War II http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll2/id/498/rec/4 Trial by fire: forging American close air support doctrine, World War I through September 1944 http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll2/id/200/rec/6 Marine close air support in World War II http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll2/id/640/rec/100 Historical look at close air support http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll2/id/66/rec/111 History of the airborne forward air controller in Vietnam http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll2/id/246/rec/149 These will do for a start. Some careful phrasing of searches even in a basic as Google will undoubtedly generate more. You can get pretty specific, it is all in how you word it. If you visit the Combined Arms Research Library (see: http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/) or a collection of Army Air Forces Historical Studies (see: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAFHS/) there is plenty to keep you occupied with reading.
.... and could be ignored ro misunderstood by the airmen. The full story of friendly fire in Normandy has yet to be told