I always hear/read how the naval and air bombardment of Omaha was misdirected. When the troops landed, all the bunkers, barbed wire, obstacles, machine gun nests, etc etc.....were still intact. So where DID all those bombs fall.? After making their way inland later in the day...did the Americans kind of have a OMG moment where they saw a section of France that was pocked marked by the ordnance that was meant for the beach.? Thank You
No. The heavy bombers were unable to get a clear visual of their targets, IIRC because of ground haze and cloud cover. To prevent friendly fire casualties, the bombers were instructed to drop some 30 seconds late. This all but ensured that the bombs would miss their targets, but also ensured that the bombs would not fall amongst the allied landing craft. pg 23 at http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/destroyersatnormandy.htm
One of many air cover issues that enraged the Allied ground forces during the Normandy campaign. It had it's successes, but many catastrophic events.
the bombers didn't run parallel with the beach, did they?? if they did, they might have made some good runs??
I would have to look further for sources, but there were several issues with running parallel with the beach, such as overflying other beaches and crowding the air spaces there on the run-in and run-out. Plus there was the additional exposure to AAA fire, as air defenses were usually stronger at the coast than further inland (except near high value targets).
yes, instead of a quick perpendicular run past AAA, they would have more to deal with on the parallel run
The truly effective naval gunfire came from destroyers and smaller ships who went in danger close to support the troops on the beach.
IIRC, the bomb runs at Utah were conducted by medium bombers flying parallel to the beach. At Omaha though, the aerial bombardment was conducted by the higher flying heavy bombers, and the run was perpendicular to the beach, hence all the bombs falling inland, instead of further down the shoreline. I can't remember the reasoning for this without cracking a few books though.
I figure that the USAAF bomber force was not really trained for direct support, something that the Luftwaffe was designed for in contrast. Maybe the B-25s might have some experience, but not the heavies. Little to no experience and the same amount in training would lead to a lot of bombing of the wrong guys out there to say the least. For all the prior planning, there were a lot of things over looked. Bombing parallel with the beach would have been more advantageous to the landing forces, but a little bit more hairier to the bombers. I say bomb parallel to the beaches. The flak would not be more concentrated than over Berlin. Or the Pas de Calais.
good points here....especially the AAA idea...what was the AAA concentration compared to other areas??...plus the targets weren't facories/cities/etc....
Well a rough rule of thum is at max range the shells will be reaching an altitude of roughly half the range. Thus a battleship firing at 40,000 yards will have shells transiting the 50,000+ ft altitude band (60,000 ft being 20,000 yards). Most fire support wouldn't have been at that range so likely considerably lower but you can be considerably lower and still be a danger to aircraft. If you look on the navweapons sight you can work out a rough altitude from the decent angle for most guns at a variety of ranges. On another line, battleship fire can be and was quite effective for some targets, however if you needed a point target hit there was nothing like a DD sitting a few thousand yards off shore.
That assumes a triangular rather than parabolic trajectory fired at 45 degrees and no air friction. I don't think they get up quite that high but could be wrong. As a rule of thumb though it gets you reasonably close.
Here is a page to chew on. https://mathscinotes.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/16-in-battleship-gun-ballistic-coefficient/ Seven miles is nearly 37,000 feet.
This chart http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/1650-AA-RANGE-TABLE-TRAJECTORIES.html shows them reaching an elevation of 36,000 feet at 45 degrees. Higher angles are shown but the navweapons sight state that the max elevation of the 16" 50 cal guns was 45 degrees. Max range is at slightly greater so it's possible other guns could get a bit higher. This page confirms it http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/AMMUNITION/NAVORD-OP-769-CHAPTER-5-ELEVATING-GEAR-PAGE-1.html Looks like I was off a bit but those altidudes are enough to make most WWII pilots a bit nervous. Found a table with the elevation and other misc data that might be relevant: http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/1650-AA-RANGE-TABLE-PART-I.html
