Heavy Bombers In Normandy

[Dac]

Allied Heavy Bombers were used in the close support role in the area around Caen and in support of the American Cobra offensive. Considering the "friendly fire" causalties, civilian deaths and the destruction to road nets, was the use of Heavy Bombers counter-productive in Normandy?

[sapper]

Removed

[Dac]

Originally posted by sapper@Aug 23 2005, 08:30 AM


After the successful assault on the City, we were taken back to Hermanville and Colleville, to clean up, replace lost gear and men, then to prepare our next assault over the Orne, on the Goodwood theatre of operations.

Sapper

Quoted post

Would Goodwood have been neccessary if you had been able to move through Caen?

[sapper]

removed

[Dac]

What was the terrain like around Caen? I've read there were ridges south of the city that gave the Germans a clear view of the British positions.

There was actually a tactical reason for bombing Caan with the heavies. It saved Monty and the gang and possibly the entire invasion. There was an SS Panzer division sent to repel the Allies back into the sea. Had they have caught the forces on the beach and in the assembly areas, they would have decimated them. Recon spotted this massive counterassault, and seeing this, Eisenhower ordered Caan to be leveled by the Eighth Air Force to stop it. Upon reaching Caan Panzers were forced to go around the city because of the debris the bombing created. This not only slowed them down considerably but also allowed the fighter bombers to take a great many of them out. Interviewing some of the SS soldiers they said they were quite discouraged because they had thought there tanks were good but that they could so easily be annihilated by tactical bombing. Without the bombing of Caan, the invasion with at least the British and Canadian forces would have failed. This may have cost the entire invasion since Monty stalemated the German armor long enough to allow the capture of Cherbourg and the pincer move by Patton.

There was also a heavy bombing of St Lo. It had a lot of friendly casualties (about 300 Americans killed in the raid). It takes a long time to get 1000 bombers over a single line. The problem is determining the lines. They are not marked easily so that the mark can be seen from the air. They used colored smoke to indicate the Allied lines. The wind blew the smoke and even though the American forces pulled back about a mile from the line, the wind still blew some of the smoke back to their front lines. It was a far more devastating attack on the Germans who were entrenched, the only problem is that the Allied Command could not endure “friendly losses” so heavy bombing was rarely used again. It was replaced by tactical bombing. But the question remains. If heavy bombing were used, you would still have friendly losses, but would those losses be less than if those same troops had “slugged” it out with the entrenched enemy? If heavy bombing like that saves men in the long run like the in the St Lo bombing, could you make that call?

[ham and jam]

Jeez Brian, its no wonder history gets distorted, I cant believe what ive just read

Andy

[sapper]

removed

[sapper]

removed

[mahross]

Dac - Sapper is quite right when he says they were a hinderous, and who are we to argue with those who were there. If you want more on the subject of the effectiveness of the use of Medium and Heavy bombers during the Normandy campaign, may I suggest you pick up a copy of Ian Gooderson's Air Power at the Battlefront (London: Frank Cass, 1998) or try his article in the Journal of Strategic Studies back in 1992. His research is based upon the reports of No. 2 Operational Research Section and it makes for some interesting reading.

Ross