D-Day Quick Question

[Katsumoto]

I was wondering, why wasn't any smoke deployed on the beaches before the landing craft came? It seems very stupid to me that men would be allowed to storm out of a boat into MGs, mortars, other assorted arty without any smoke cover? I thought it'd be standard procedure to deploy smoke in such exposed situations.

[Azog 150]

I am not entirely sure, but I think the main reason is the winds would cause the smoke to blow elsewhere (Further in land) meaning it would be pretty useless at covering them on the beaches. It would also make things even more confusing then they already were for the people on the beaches (Many ended up where they weren't supposed to be even without smoke).

[Nazgûl Killer]

I was wondering, why wasn't any smoke deployed on the beaches before the landing craft came? It seems very stupid to me that men would be allowed to storm out of a boat into MGs, mortars, other assorted arty without any smoke cover? I thought it'd be standard procedure to deploy smoke in such exposed situations.

Well, there's a problem with blowing smoke on the beaches, and the problem being that your soldiers would have no idea what to do and the Germans can just kill them far more easily.

Do you actually think than an MG-42 needs to aim? I mean, all he needs to do is keep squeezing the trigger at the general area of the US soldiers, which means the entire beach... It would do far more harm than good, as the mortars the Germans fire don't really need to aim either.

In any other battle, I'd agree, but they landed on a beach, meaning they were clogged up until they could find a breach, and throwing smoke at them would diminish those chances and kill all your troops.

[Spartacus the Irish]

Ran against US doctrine, because it would inhibit the ability to bring fire support to bear. British amphibious doctrine entailed the use of night and smoke, and attacking any enemy at the weakest point, an unexpected point; US doctrine ran completely contrary to this, because US doctrine was rooted in optimism. British doctrine took on the viewpoint that a plan could fail, and so efforts should be taken to minimise casualties for this eventuality.

The one thing you do not want on a beach during an amphibious landing is confusion, and that is precisely what smoke causes. Also, think about the psychology of the troops. If there is smoke, there would be a temptation to stay behind it, in perceived safety. Without smoke, it urges troops to advance, and the Allies needed as many men to be pushing through the beaches as possible, to mitigate the confusion, traffic and general bedlam state that the beaches would be in if troops stopped advancing. I'm not saying smoke was intentionally ignored in order to make troops advance into MG fire, but it's effect would probably have been outweighed by the damage it caused to the Allies' carefully planned beach arrival system, causing traffic jams of equipment, vehicles and men.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Theres a couple of good reasons...

1. Infantry was not supposed to stay on the beach long since the defenses were supposed to be weakened, so they shouldn't have needed any cover for when they were running inland.
2. Landing boats couldn't tell if they were at the right place when they make their second and third trips, etc.
3. Infantry wouldn't be able to spot landmarks while they were on the beach to tell if they landed at the right place.
4. Tanks were used, and if smoke was deployed it would have negated the advanted given by the tanks since they would not be able to spot their targets (only 2 landed on Omaha, but the tanks helped tremendously on the other beaches)
5. Airplanes would have a harder time spotting their course with smoke being on the beach
6. The smoke would go in whichever direction the wind happened to be blowing, and since it was a stormy weekend the wind was very strong. If the wind had been going out to sea the boats would have had a disaster.
7. Battleshipes could not give close fire support, this really only happened on Omaha to because of the necessity, but nonetheless.
8. Smoke causes confusion, what units were still together would have been split up more.

There's more, but I think you get my drift.

[Azog 150]

Do you actually think than an MG-42 needs to aim? I mean, all he needs to do is keep squeezing the trigger at the general area of the US soldiers, which means the entire beach... It would do far more harm than good, as the mortars the Germans fire don't really need to aim either.

Did this method change when they were aiming at British and Canadian soldiers? (I know it didn't really. Just pointed out your forgot more then half of the Allied forces involved on D-Day)

[Frederich Barbarossa]

I was wondering, why wasn't any smoke deployed on the beaches before the landing craft came? It seems very stupid to me that men would be allowed to storm out of a boat into MGs, mortars, other assorted arty without any smoke cover? I thought it'd be standard procedure to deploy smoke in such exposed situations.

This is why:


Smoke would cause the US soldiers to say `WTF is going on?´ they´d be running around trying to find the Germans while, the Germans would easily pick them of with artillery, airplanes, or MG´s. Also as they said wind is a big factor, but I think smoke would bring soldiers into dissarray, and plus the boats can´t have a visual on the beaches maybe to launch artillery?

[Poach]

One must remember, Katsumoto, that the entire landing was not as depicted in Saving Private Ryan. Of the 5 beaches, there were only really two that were prepared killing zones with the whole high cliffs, big concrete watch towers and hell on earth look about them. 2 of the beach landings actually took very light casualties, taking the beaches relatively unopposed or opposed by negligible numbers or quality of German soldiers. Further to this, the worst beach (Omaha) suffered from bad intelligence: the relatively poor Division that had been manning that section of the wall had just been replaced by an elite, highly trained force and this had gone unnoticed by Allied intelligence.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

One must remember, Katsumoto, that the entire landing was not as depicted in Saving Private Ryan. Of the 5 beaches, there were only really two that were prepared killing zones with the whole high cliffs, big concrete watch towers and hell on earth look about them. 2 of the beach landings actually took very light casualties, taking the beaches relatively unopposed or opposed by negligible numbers or quality of German soldiers. Further to this, the worst beach (Omaha) suffered from bad intelligence: the relatively poor Division that had been manning that section of the wall had just been replaced by an elite, highly trained force and this had gone unnoticed by Allied intelligence.

Yes Omaha was one of them, having those high cliffs, and pillboxes, but the others were normal beaches and not really defended. Just check, which beach had the most casualties. Omaha

[Poach]

Yes Omaha was one of them, having those high cliffs, and pillboxes, but the others were normal beaches and not really defended. Just check, which beach had the most casualties. Omaha

One must remember, Katsumoto, that the entire landing was not as depicted in Saving Private Ryan. Of the 5 beaches, there were only really two that were prepared killing zones with the whole high cliffs, big concrete watch towers and hell on earth look about them. 2 of the beach landings actually took very light casualties, taking the beaches relatively unopposed or opposed by negligible numbers or quality of German soldiers. Further to this, the worst beach (Omaha) suffered from bad intelligence: the relatively poor Division that had been manning that section of the wall had just been replaced by an elite, highly trained force and this had gone unnoticed by Allied intelligence.

Where did I specify which two beaches matched that description? Note that I also already stated Omaha was the worst beach.

[Spartacus the Irish]

Yes Omaha was one of them, having those high cliffs, and pillboxes, but the others were normal beaches and not really defended. Just check, which beach had the most casualties. Omaha

Omaha was obviously the most well-defended and most geographically able to defend, but it was also the fault of US amphibious doctrine. Unlike the British, their doctrine has not allowance for planning for problems or indeed failure. Thus US doctrine assumes that the opening bombardment will work as planned and neutralise, or at least suppress, the enemy defences. The British, having a history (in both the Second and First World Wars) of suffering reverses against the Germans, planned for this - thus the deployment of Hobart's 'Funnies', and the extraneous British fire-plans carpeting every inch of possible German defenses, amongst other measures.

And I do take issue with your rather off-handed statement that the other beaches were 'not really defended'. I can't comment on Utah beach because I haven't visited/studied it, but the Sword beach at least was overlooked by stone French holiday houses which had been basically turned into fortified strongpoints, a strong stone sea wall, supporting artillery fire from several casemate, and of course, had 21st Panzer Division as a Corps reserve around Caen. People always take issue with 352nd Infantry Division being moved onto Omaha beach, causing casualties - but this Division had been the Corp reserve in the American sector; the move onto Omaha beach denuded the German forces of any effective reserve in the American sector. The Us forces suffered more on the beaches because of this, but they were never in any danger of being thrown back into the sea - a very real danger threatening the British and Canadians.

[Poach]

And I do take issue with your rather off-handed statement that the other beaches were 'not really defended'.

Two of the beaches were taken with low casualties. Sword beach had nothing like the shoreline defences that Omaha, Juno or Gold had, most of Sword's defences were inland, and it was only after the British advanced off the beach did they face any serious resistance, and much of that resistance was from the advancing German reserve units assigned to counter-attack the British forces. The attacking forces landing on Utah were dragged off course by strong currents and landed on a beach that was also very lightly defended.

The other three were, however, well defended.

[Spartacus the Irish]

Two of the beaches were taken with low casualties. Sword beach had nothing like the shoreline defences that Omaha, Juno or Gold had, most of Sword's defences were inland, and it was only after the British advanced off the beach did they face any serious resistance, and much of that resistance was from the advancing German reserve units assigned to counter-attack the British forces. The attacking forces landing on Utah were dragged off course by strong currents and landed on a beach that was also very lightly defended.

The other three were, however, well defended.

You assume well-defended means pillboxes and barbed-wire, which is a rather narrow view of defence. The British benches were primarily defended by mobile counterattacking forces, because the terrain was more open than the ancien bocage terrain surrounding the hinterland of the American beaches. A trenchline on a bluff, or a defensive ouvrage (works) is a more immediate threat than armoured troops several miles inland, but the static defences, which predominated upon Omaha beach, could not throw the Americans back into the sea, which is the only realistic way of defeating an amphibious invasion. Very few amphibious invasions are defeated on the beaches, they are defeated by counterattacking forces denying them space and peace to build-up supplies and troops. The beaches other than Omaha (as I say, I can only comment on the Britisha nd Canadian beaches, I haven't studied Utah to any great degree) were defended primarily by armoured reserve forces; and these were far more dangerous to the operation than the beach defences upon Omaha - and by that I mean no disrespect to the thousands of US riflemen who had to fight for their lives under the bluffs of Omaha.

[Poach]

Very true Spartacus, I know Rommel had long abandoned the idea of defeating a landing literally at the beaches and instead focused more in defence in depth, as you mentioned, using forces positioned beyond the beaches to intercept allied advances. I understood Frederich's comment to mean that the beaches themselves were lightly defended (as was the case with the two I mentioned) rather than a complete lack of defensive measures for an allied landing in the area.

[Tiberius Tosi]

While Omaha was slightly more defencible than the other beaches, the most important reason that it was so hard to take was the bombing. A lot of the bombings before the invasion had just flat out missed, and while they had taken out what defenses had been made on the other beaches, at Omaha the bombs killed more cows in the countryside than it did Germans on the defenses.

Rommel still believed in defeating the Allies on the beach, but was forced to give up his position with the compromise Hilter came up with of giving Rommel three tank divisions which he placed on the beach, centralizing some tank units near the middle of France (completely useless), and spreading the rest out all over France and the Netherlands, and never giving command to one single man in the operation so cooperation between the commanders of these tank divisions was strained to say the least. This was worse than either putting them all near the beach or all behind lines prepared for a counterattack, as the tanks divisions were then spread out and ineffective and not under one single command.

Normandy was lightly defended mostly because the Germans couldn't get as many supplies as they needed to because of Allied bombing of the railroads in Northwestern France. Rommel was trying extensively to fortify the coastal positions in France (as he felt the defenses in and around Calais and other major ports were substantial enough), because he theorized that the Allies could attack on the beaches and then swing around and capture the ports (as they did).

Spartacus- Bradley almost called for a retreat from Omaha because it was in such a danger of falling. If any one of the beaches would have fallen in would most definitely have been Omaha. While the German tank divisions were located closer to Canadian and British landing beaches on the north, these forces had tanks and had advanced several miles inland on the first day. Omaha, on the other hand, had only 2 tanks and took three days just to get off the beach.

[Spartacus the Irish]

Spartacus- Bradley almost called for a retreat from Omaha because it was in such a danger of falling. If any one of the beaches would have fallen in would most definitely have been Omaha. While the German tank divisions were located closer to Canadian and British landing beaches on the north, these forces had tanks and had advanced several miles inland on the first day. Omaha, on the other hand, had only 2 tanks and took three days just to get off the beach.

That was the fault of US doctrine, not solely down to Omaha being a defensive beach. They released DD tanks far too far out (British LCTs were unloading onto the beaches directly, and the 3rd Division's artillery was M7 Priest equipped, these vehicles were firing in support whilst embarked in landing craft!). The British only landed four companies of infantry in the first two waves, whilst the Americans flooded the first few waves with riflemen (which merely ended up giving the German defences a large amount of targets); the British stiffening their inital waves with engineer tanks, commandoes, sappers and frogmen.

I just resent many people imagining that Sword, or indeed all Anglo-Canadian beaches, were a cakewalk. They were not as initially geographical friendly to the defending Germans, but they were still fortified, entrenched and supported with forified artillery and armoured reserves - the British beaches reaped the rewards of a well-prepared and well-executed operation, Utah benefitted from a slice of luck in terms of the scattered airborne troops confusing the frak out of the Germans and landing on the wrong beach, and the troops at Omaha suffered more than they should have because of the US's inexperience of European amphibious landings (the Japanese rarely defended the beaches, preferring to let US Marines come inland before plastering the beach with artillery and mortars whilst engaging from field fortifications and entrenchments.

[Tiberius Tosi]

That was the fault of US doctrine, not solely down to Omaha being a defensive beach. They released DD tanks far too far out (British LCTs were unloading onto the beaches directly, and the 3rd Division's artillery was M7 Priest equipped, these vehicles were firing in support whilst embarked in landing craft!). The British only landed four companies of infantry in the first two waves, whilst the Americans flooded the first few waves with riflemen (which merely ended up giving the German defences a large amount of targets); the British stiffening their inital waves with engineer tanks, commandoes, sappers and frogmen.

Don't worry I'm not trying to say that Gold, Sword, or Juno were cakewalks, not by a mile.

The Americans at Omaha couldn't land their tanks close for two reasons: the first being the obstacles were too many, the second and most important being that they were under too intense of fire (also the flotation devices that should have worked didn't). At Utah the Americans landed plenty of tanks and these quickly cleared the remaining obstacles that were left.

Tiberius: it was Rundstedt who wanted the tanks formed up in massive formations in order to mass counter-attack, Rommel wanted them in small groups in heavily fortified positions at or near the coast to be effective against an Allied landing. Hitler ordered a compromise and thus the majority of the Panzer Divisions were put between the coast and Paris, though there were large-ish units of Panzers situated close to the Normandy coast, if they'd moved fast they could have joined the line while the Allies were still on the beaches. As many of you probably know though, the Germans thought the invasion would be in the Calais region by this time, and most of the senior staff were on leave when the invasion hit due to believing the invasion to be delayed due to weather.

Come to think of it, a lot of luck was on the Allied side on D-Day!

I know, this is what greatly hurt the Germans, they had tanks spread out all over the place instead of sticking to one plan or the other. The command structure was way out of whack, and having Hitler as the central organizer was always a bad idea lol.

And yeah luck was definitely on the Allied, side, Rommel went back to Germany to give his wife a pair of slippers for her birthday that weekend lol.

[Poach]

Tiberius: it was Rundstedt who wanted the tanks formed up in massive formations in order to mass counter-attack, Rommel wanted them in small groups in heavily fortified positions at or near the coast to be effective against an Allied landing. Hitler ordered a compromise and thus the majority of the Panzer Divisions were put between the coast and Paris, though there were large-ish units of Panzers situated close to the Normandy coast, if they'd moved fast they could have joined the line while the Allies were still on the beaches. As many of you probably know though, the Germans thought the invasion would be in the Calais region by this time, and most of the senior staff were on leave when the invasion hit due to believing the invasion to be delayed due to weather.

Come to think of it, a lot of luck was on the Allied side on D-Day!

[Poach]

Now Spartacus, I am British, the last thing I'm going to do is marginalise my own countrymen to glorify the US assault on Omaha. But the fact does remain, the attack on Sword beach wasn't a hard fought battle, British casualties in taking the beach were light. The advance inland was where the British met their resistance, facing heavy counter attacks from Panzer units (I believe the only section to face such counter-attacks right off the bat?) and spirited resistance in urban areas such as Caen.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

British Airborne Landings- KIA 800 German- KIA 400
American Airborne Landings- KIA 5,000 German- KIA 21,000 (whole campaign not against Airborne Alone)
Sword Beach (British)- KIA 650 German- KIA 50 tanks
Juno Beach (Canadian)- KIA 340 German- KIA Unknown
Gold Beach (British)- KIA 400 German- KIA Unknown
Omaha Beach (USA)- KIA 4,5000 German- 1,200
Utah Beach (USA)- KIA 200 German- Unknown


I wanted to say that the US contributed a lot to D-DAY, and this is the price they paid for it. So no Anti US People please