Beach landings (OK, Bloody Omaha, then)

[John1966]

If I chuck my opening barrage onto the beach to make some craters, am I being gamey?

On one hand, I believe that was part of the intention IRL. On the other, I don't think the designer intended it.

Trivial, I know. But one does think about these things.

[theFightingSeabee]

Sounds like tactics to me.

[Jaws]

Thats what Armored support vehicle didnt like at beaches... Craters with water. Choices

[JonS]

On one hand, I believe that was part of the intention IRL.

The heavy bombers were supposed to do that well before any US forces landed. They had thick cloud cover, so delayed their bomb release by 30(?) seconds to ensure they didn't cause a blue-on-blue. As a result they hit nothing and contributed nothing.

Using naval gunfire, in the midst of friendly forces landing, to create shell holes is certainly one option, but not one I think any sane or competent commander would have countenanced before about 10am that morning ... by which time there wasn't much need for it.

[c3k]

(JonS' mentioning of the delayed bomb release: using heavy bombers to "crack" open the German line was used by both the US and the UK. The famous incident of the short bombs killing LTG McNair (the guy in charge of creating the US force structure), who'd finagled a deal to get to ETO, is pretty well known. Ooops.

I wonder what would've been the effect if those D-Day bombers had dropped short. All in all, tossing the bombs into the hinterland may've been the best thing they could've done.)

[RockinHarry]

Craters and other map defilades is the best infantry cover in the game and the AI oftenly prefers it before FHs and trenches. Don´t miss using it.

[CanuckGamer]

I just returned from France and I visited Omaha and Gold Beaches. Unfortunately, it was a tour so I wasn't able to get to Juno Beach. Being a Canadian I would have loved to checke it out. What surprised me about Omaha was how steep it is from the beach to where the American Cemetary is. At Gold there are still sections of the mulberry right on the beach itself and a little further out in the channel.

I didn't know there was a scenario on Omaha Beach. Where can I download it? Thanks.

[sburke]

here ya go

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1372

[John1966]

The heavy bombers were supposed to do that well before any US forces landed. They had thick cloud cover, so delayed their bomb release by 30(?) seconds to ensure they didn't cause a blue-on-blue. As a result they hit nothing and contributed nothing.

Using naval gunfire, in the midst of friendly forces landing, to create shell holes is certainly one option, but not one I think any sane or competent commander would have countenanced before about 10am that morning ... by which time there wasn't much need for it.

Gamey, then. They were promised shell holes but didn't get them so it would be inaccurate for me to use the prep arty to create some.

Mind you, any made in the water (assuming the engine makes shell holes under the water) wouldn't be quite the hazard they might be to infantry as pixeltruppen don't appear to need to breath (unlike their RL equivalents).

[Bradley Dick]

Craters and other map defilades is the best infantry cover in the game and the AI oftenly prefers it before FHs and trenches. Don´t miss using it.

That's a fact. I had a naval barrage crater become the fiercest point of contention for the entire map during a custom scenario a friend and I were playing. There was a rifle squad and a machine gun team in there which made life Hell for anyone nearby.

[permanent666]

as said by jons the bombers failed to crater the beach. the naval bombardement of omaha was aimed at the costal fortifications.

in terms of gameplay: it is up to you where you drop your opening barrage but i do not think that craters on the beach will make much difference because the main killers are not mgs but german artillery and mortars

[herr_oberst]

Gamey, then. They were promised shell holes but didn't get them so it would be inaccurate for me to use the prep arty to create some.

Are you trying to replay 'their/the historic' battle, or create an outcome of your own? Not gamey at all IMHO, just applying tactics to the situation...

Was it gamey to have a destroyer cruise offshore and pelt gun embrasures directly? Someone thought it was a good idea, and it contributed mightily to the effort IIRC.

[Streety]

Well, am I right in thinking that you can't play with British and American forces in the same CMBN game? (I've yet to buy it). But if so then you can't fully play Omaha because those first waves of US troops all landed via British armoured landing craft (and crewed by Royal Navy) and not smaller the US higgins boats as shown in Saving Private Ryan.

As to the D-Day bombing - the Brits wanted a surprise landing, and the Americans wanted full saturation bombing before going in. The American idea was that, in addition to hitting some of the defenders, the bomb craters would help give some cover as well as break up some of the beach wire and mines whereas the Brits felt that bombing would probably not be accurate enough and of course alert the defenders. The end result was a typically useless compromise of a limited bombing! Yes, the default for if target was not directly sighted was a short (30 second) drop delay because the planners felt it was better to go to far than too short because if they went long they might at least miss their own forces and maybe interrupt German communications and reinforcements. And indeed, the bombing mostly missed the beach but did knock out some of the defender's communications. However, for the US beaches for which he was in charge, Omar Bradley did get blamed for poor co-ordination of the bombardment with the assault.

At Omaha, after the initial assault got bogged down, Bradley was on the brink off calling off further landings at that beach, especially when the US DD-tanks were launched too far out for the rough conditions and most sank (by comparison, the Brits launched theirs much closer in and the majority landed ok and were a big help in securing their beach-heads). But with the Omaha situation in the balance, a brave US warship supported by some British escorts went in dangerously close to running aground in order to bombard the German bunkers there at close range, supported by RAF ground-attack hurricanes (and probably US planes as well), under an RAF fighter screen. And it was these near point-blank bombarding destructions of bunkers that saved the day. Well, you didn't think it was a just couple of GI's with a mirror and a bit of bubblegum and ingenuity like the film showed did you?

[sburke]

There are no landing craft in the game, so you can game the Omaha and Utah landings from the point of troops already being disembarked. To do Sword, Gold and Juno you'd obviously need the CW module, but Hobart's funnies aren't included. Personally the beach landings hold little appeal to game, but there are more than a few who do seem to like it.

[c3k]

Streety,

Have you tried the demo(s)? They're free.

If you've got even a smidgen of an interest in this subject that your knowledge hints at, you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't at least kick the tires.

Ken

[YankeeDog]

But with the Omaha situation in the balance, a brave US warship supported by some British escorts went in dangerously close to running aground in order to bombard the German bunkers there at close range,

It was principally 2 U.S. destroyers -- the USS Frankford and the USS McCook, that closed to less than 1km of the shoreline, and bombarded German shore emplacements on the bluffs with direct fire. I have never heard of any RN ships accompanying them, though. There were, of course, RN ships in the naval screen off of Omaha, but I've never read anything to suggest that any of the RN ships came close in to the beach as the 2 U.S. destroyers did. Do you have info on this?

...supported by RAF ground-attack hurricanes (and probably US planes as well), under an RAF fighter screen.

I have never heard of either USAAF or RAF warplanes hitting the German defenses on the bluffs overlooking Omaha once the first wave was ashore. To be sure, further inland, FBs were wreaking havoc on German communications and movements. But if you have information on fighters attacking the defenses immediately overlooking the beach once troops were ashore, I'd love to see it.

Well, you didn't think it was a just couple of GI's with a mirror and a bit of bubblegum and ingenuity like the film showed did you?

With a mirror and bubblegum, perhaps not. However, ingenuity and courage by the private rifleman most certainly played a critical role in turning the Omaha landing around. In several critical locations, it was small ad hoc units of G.I.s, often completely without the leadership of senior officers, that managed to first get over the seawall and onto the bluffs completely without Naval or tank gunfire support. See, for example, the actions of C Company, 2nd Ranger Battalion at Dog Green, and C/116th at Dog White -- both these elements had made it to the top of the bluffs by 0730, a full half hour before the Frankford and McCook's fire came into play.

[Streety]

Ah, yes, I've 40 years interest in military history. I've also a PhD in archaeology which involved a military element, but not for this period. My great uncle was at Sword Beach, which got me into this period (he died 3 months ago). Anyway, I'm planning on CMBN soon but still heavily into CMAK at the mo. As to my inquisitors:-

You have to remember almost all sources for Omaha are American and they don't dwell on Allied support, if they mention it at all - and this process of ignoring or belittling the British part in the war seems to be a ubiquitous thread in US histories (even highly respected ones like Atkinson and Ambrose etc, and sadly even among many US veterans) - which has long angered British historians as much as Hollywood pissed off British audiences on the subject of WW2. And British histories for D-Day seem to overlook Brits at Omaha too, concentrating on British beaches - only since Saving Private Ryan has there been a small trickle of a few British "hang on a minute, what about our involvement?" testimonies.

Here's a BBC news item of some Royal Navy landing crew veterans moaning about being overlooked:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8080708.stm

Here's a personal testimony of an RAF base support unit (to help direct RAF night fighters) that actually landed on Omaha. They first tried to land along with elements of the RAF regiment at 1130 on D-Day, but came under too much German machine gun fire and held off until 1700:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/67/a1947567.shtml

So note that coming under too much fire at 1130, your GI's had not secured many bluff points at 0730!

Yes, I've read those accounts of many US troops (some say 600!) knocking out strong points and heading inland by 1100. But this is probably exaggerated through the fog of memory because Bradley spent all morning pondering an abort as the troops were still pinned down on the beach (see Adrian Lewis' Omaha Beach, a Flawed Victory, University of North Carolina Press). And as far as I've always been aware, it wasn't until the later close-in naval bombardment took out those strong points over the beach that Bradley decided not to abort. And that was not until after 1225, when the American navy saw US troops start to advance up the slopes, and realised the bombardment had taken effect, see later down:

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_omaha_beach.html

The beach-head wasn't secured until overnight on the 6th/7th.

And here's a link to a Royal Navy sailor's testimony of the British at Omaha. Note that he refers to many British sailors being killed at Omaha:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/68/a1929468.shtml

And here's a link to another personal testimony of the presence of the Royal Marines (as well as Royal Navy) at Omaha:

http://www.franktoogood.com/the-true-tory/

The issue of the important difference between launch distances of the DD-tanks is from various bits of personal research for a book idea shelved long ago - but if I can recall a published mention I'll bring it to you. And again, you won't find any US sources admitting to it - they only seem to deride the tanks. However, some of it is discussed here, about mid-way down:

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_omaha_beach.html

As to the British Navy involvement on D-Day, you have to remember that the sea was full of thousands of ships and Operation Neptune was lead by the Brits. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the British fleet was the largest contingent there at the time (roughly 58%), with the US being the next biggest (30%), and 8 of the 16 warships at Utah and Omaha were British, in addition to numerous troop ships and landing craft (including all the initial landing craft at Omaha).

As to air cover, although the sector was primarily American, the RAF fighter screen was all over the coast, and though I can't now find reference for the hurricanes (probably a long lost personal testimony not available on line), it doesn't surprise me that they may have been called in because there were RAF units on the ground at Omaha beach, and the hurricanes used that day were tank/bunker buster variants. But sorry, but I don't tend to bother posting very much, so if I ever re-find the Hurricane or any further quotes for this subject, this thread will have long unravelled from my memory.

[YankeeDog]

[standard British "Don't forget about us!" preamble]

Yep. Hollywood is the McDonald's of WWII history -- feels good while you're consuming it, but very little actual content. And most American "Pop History" treatments of the war are only marginally better.

As to my inquisitors:-

Considering your "inquisitors" at the moment are at the moment limited to me, myself and I, why are you using the plural? Forgive my American naivete, but is this one of those weird times that you Brits use the plural pronoun in reference to royalty? While I appreciate the complement, I can assure you that alas, I have no connection to Queen Lizzie or any of her relations.

[charmingly polite yet strident reminder of British contributions at Omaha]

No doubt. There were some truly heroic actions by British Coxswains and landing boat crews at Omaha, as well as some other British units that played a critical role. The British boat crews not only played a critical role in getting Americans onto the beach, but also later displayed considerable bravery loading wounded onto their boats to get them off the beach and back onto the ships. There are a fair number of Americans that owe their lives to those crews. Too bad more Americans aren't aware of them.

Here's a personal testimony of an RAF base support unit (to help direct RAF night fighters) that actually landed on Omaha. They first tried to land along with elements of the RAF regiment at 1130 on D-Day, but came under too much German machine gun fire and held off until 1700:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/67/a1947567.shtml

So note that coming under too much fire at 1130, your GI's had not secured many bluff points at 0730!

That's great, but my queries were regarding the initial effort to overcome the German defenses on the bluffs overlooking the Beach at Omaha. Excepting a couple of isolated and largely neutered holdouts, all defenses on the bluffs overlooking Omaha were neutralized and/or bypassed by 1700 hours. So while this unit may have played a role in the following fight to expand the beachhead at Omaha, it could not have played a role in the effort to get over the bluffs.

And I certainly do not dispute that the direct Naval gunfire from close-in destroyers played a critical role in neutralizing some of the beach defenses at Omaha. But it would be equally wrong to assert that the soldiers on the beach simply sat under the seawall until the Navy eliminated all the strongpoints, at which point the soldiers walked up the bluffs against minimal opposition. Some strongpoints were indeed eliminated direct naval gunfire, most notably by the Frankford and the McCook. Others were eliminated by bangalore torpedoes and direct infantry assault. Others of the strongpoints kept firing until they were bypassed and/or ran out of ammunition, at which point the Germans in these strongpoints withdrew or surrendered. To ignore any one of these elements is to miss the full story of how the bluff defenses were overcome at Omaha. Omaha was a hard egg to crack, but an egg nevertheless -- the defenses were concentrated on the bluffs, and once this shell was cracked, the Germans had nothing in the area which could push the lodgement back into the sea.

Yes, I've read those accounts of many US troops (some say 600!) knocking out strong points and heading inland by 1100.

0600 would indeed be remarkable considering that the first wave of U.S. infantry wasn't scheduled to land on Omaha until 0630, and by all accounts more or less achieved this deadline (though many landed in the wrong place). I certainly haven't heard of any forces landing substantially early at Omaha.

...And as far as I've always been aware, it wasn't until the later close-in naval bombardment took out those strong points over the beach that Bradley decided not to abort. And that was not until after 1225, when the American navy saw US troops start to advance up the slopes, and realised the bombardment had taken effect

Absolutely. But bear in mind that one of the major problems at Omaha was the near total breakdown in communications between the units ashore, and the senior command units still afloat. Bradley didn't know for sure that units had achieved the bluffs until about 1225, but in fact in quite a number of places units achieved the bluffs hours prior to this time. Bradley just didn't know it.

The beach-head wasn't secured until overnight on the 6th/7th.

Not sure what you mean by this. By sunset, the hold on Omaha was the most tenuous of any of the landing beaches, and the shoreline itself was still under random artillery fire. But reinforcements were being landed and the units already inland were digging in. Very little attempt was made to expand the beachhead overnight, offensive operations being continued on the morning of the 7th.

And here's a link to a Royal Navy sailor's testimony of the British at Omaha. Note that he refers to many British sailors being killed at Omaha... [etc.]

Again, I don't dispute this and I'm not sure why you feel the need to make the point, again. I certainly do not question the role of British landing boat crews at Omaha.

The issue of the important difference between launch distances of the DD-tanks is from various bits of personal research for a book idea shelved long ago - but if I can recall a published mention I'll bring it to you. And again, you won't find any US sources admitting to it - they only seem to deride the tanks. However, some of it is discussed here, about mid-way down:

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_omaha_beach.html

The fate of the DD tanks at Omaha is quite an interesting topic. On the one hand, releasing the first wave of DDs far offshore as originally planned was clearly a mistake as almost all of these tanks sank before even getting close to the beach. At the same time, as the casualties to your beloved RN and Royal Marine Landing Boat crews attest, fire on the approaching landing boats approaching Omaha in the first couple of hours was particularly vicious, and it's debatable whether the large, slow landing craft carrying the tanks could have made it close enough in to get the tanks ashore during this time. It's a question which we'll never definitively know the answer to. Many of the DD tanks scheduled to follow after the first wave of DD tanks were in fact carried all the way to shore by the landing craft -- See, for example, the 743rd Tank Battalion, which was carried all the way to shore in landing craft rather than swimming in their DD Shermans is as planned. Also worth noting that the 743rd sustained substantial casualties during landing, so this tactic was not without its dangers, either.

As to the British Navy involvement on D-Day, you have to remember that the sea was full of thousands of ships and Operation Neptune was lead by the Brits. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the British fleet was the largest contingent there at the time (roughly 58%), with the US being the next biggest (30%), and 8 of the 16 warships at Utah and Omaha were British, in addition to numerous troop ships and landing craft (including all the initial landing craft at Omaha).

Certainly there were substantially more RN warships covering the beaches than USN warships. The bulk of the USN was in the Pacific, busy with the Marianas campaign. This is incontrovertible fact; the naval deployment records of Operation Neptune are well known and easily accessed. And a number of RN cruisers and destroyers were indeed off of Omaha, assigned to support the landings there.

But by all accounts I have read, the larger ships did not fire on the bluffs directly overlooking the landing beaches for fear of hitting the soldiers on the beach, and instead limited their fire to defenses on the flanks of the beach and further inland. This fire support probably helped suppress some of the fire directed at the landing forces, but it did nothing to neutralize the strongpoints directly overlooking the landing beaches, which were the real problem from about 0630 - 1100. As far as I know, only the USS Frankford and the USS McCook took the initiative and closed the distance to less than 1km from the shore. This allowed them to spot shore defenses on the bluffs on their own and take these strongpoints under direct fire (bear in mind that there was almost no shore-to-ship communication at this point, so units ashore could not spot for the naval gunfire). In my opinion, these ships certainly played a critical role in turning around the situation at Omaha. If you have information that other ships (of any nationality) also "went surfing", coming in close to shore to fire directly on the beach defenses at Omaha, I'd love to know of it.

As to air cover, although the sector was primarily American, the RAF fighter screen was all over the coast, and though I can't now find reference for the hurricanes (probably a long lost personal testimony not available on line), it doesn't surprise me that they may have been called in because there were RAF units on the ground at Omaha beach, and the hurricanes used that day were tank/bunker buster variants. But sorry, but I don't tend to bother posting very much, so if I ever re-find the Hurricane or any further quotes for this subject, this thread will have long unravelled from my memory.

RAF was assigned to cover the coast because the USAAF fighters like the Mustang and Thunderbolt had much better range than the RAF Hurricanes and Spitfires -- So the RAF took the channel and the coast, USAAF fighter patrols did CAP further inland. But I have never heard of any Allied planes directly attacking the beach defenses at Omaha once troops had started landing. If you do have any information evidencing direct air support by planes of any nationality playing a role in the overcoming of the defenses on the bluffs directly overlooking Omaha (as opposed to further inland) I'd love to know of it.

Cheers,

YD

[sburke]

0600 would indeed be remarkable considering that the first wave of U.S. infantry wasn't scheduled to land on Omaha until 0630, and by all accounts more or less achieved this deadline (though many landed in the wrong place). I certainly haven't heard of any forces landing substantially early at Omaha.

I think he meant 600 men, not 0600 hours.

[YankeeDog]

I think he meant 600 men, not 0600 hours.

Ah. Well, in that case, it's not unlikely that 600 or more men had made it over the bluffs by 1100 -- that's only about 4 Companies' worth, which is not a lot considering the number of men that had been landed on Omaha by 1100. Limited penetrations had been made in a number of places by this point.

However, in many cases, the units that had made these initial penetrations were largely spent. They had taken heavy casualties, had lost cohesion, were exhausted and lacked heavy weapons; they were not in a position to further expand their gains, or to neutralize more of the strongpoints. Which is one of the reasons which why the fight secure the beachhead was still in doubt for a few more hours.

[JonS]

FWIW:

RAF Bomber Command hit targets from one end of the invasion area to the other at about midnight. Primary targets were radar and coastal batteries. In both the UK and US zones.

 

The USAAF hit the defences at all five beaches just before H-Hour, plus a few coastal batteries. Heavys from 8th AF attacked the eastern four, while mediums from 9th AF hit UTAH.

 

The naval vessels for D-Day were from the navies of ... seven nations? (UK, US, Cda, Pol, Nor, Fra, and Dutch). USN ships were, not unnaturally, concentrated off the two US beaches. Similarly, RCN ships were off JUNO. RN ships were off all five beaches, but predominant only off GOLD and SWORD. The Free French Navy provided more firepower at OMAHA than the RN.

 

All five beaches had 'drenching fire' immediately before H-Hour provided by LCTs fitted with racks and racks and racks of rocket launchers to become LCT(R)s. Each beach had something like a dozen of them, but they were largely useless.

 

Some specialist spotters and underwater dems guys went in at all five beaches well before the official H-Hour. That must have been lonely.

 

At least one RN DE (HMS Talybont) closed in on OMAHA, although strictly it was off Pont du Hoc, firing in support of the Rangers there.

 

CMBN scenarios can feature any mix of nationalities fighting any mix of nationalities.

Edited March 15, 2016 by JonS
LST != LST

[pappagoat]

Excellent scenario battle.

 

Yes us Brits are under represented, but so is Utah Beach and the 82nd in the face of Omaha and the Band of Brothers 101st... and Italy in the face of D-Day.. During a major anniversary of D-Day I was in the US and while watching US news coverage (the newscaster claimed D-Day was the first allied landing in Europe) someone asked me if "did the British help out at all in D-Day?" ... I had to leave the room fuming.

 

Anyway, point in case... someone should do a Gold or Sword Beach, or all, Gold, Juno, Sword, Dieppe!

Edited March 14, 2016 by pappagoat

[Pak40]

 

Gamey, then. They were promised shell holes but didn't get them so it would be inaccurate for me to use the prep arty to create some.

 

Mind you, any made in the water (assuming the engine makes shell holes under the water) wouldn't be quite the hazard they might be to infantry as pixeltruppen don't appear to need to breath (unlike their RL equivalents).

Not at all. You're trading killing the enemy for saving your own men's lives. A valid strategy. Obviously it wasn't done in this way for fear of killing our own troops on the beaches. But, if you treat it as a "beach prep" barrage planned well before your troops were to hit the beach, then it serves the purpose that the air corps was trying to achieve.

It's certainly a great "What if" scenario to try. 

Edited March 14, 2016 by Pak40

[Michael Emrys]

All five beaches had 'drenching fire' immediately before H-Hour provided by LSTs fitted with racks and racks and racks of rocket launchers.

Are you sure they were LSTs, Jon? I've always read that they were LCT(R)s. While I suppose that it would have certainly been possible to modify LSTs to carry and fire rockets, so far I have found no mention that they were done so. Later in the war, the USN operated some LSM(R)s successfully, but that was only in the Pacific. In any event, as you say, the rocket firings during D-Day, while providing an impressive fireworks display, otherwise made a negligible contribution to the overall success of the landings.

Michael

[JonS]

Sorry, yes; LCT(R).