What went wrong on D-Day? Why so many killed on the beaches? Where was the air cover? ****************************************************** 06-02-04, 09:18 PM KaelSaxen how surprised would you be if you'd already heard the airplanes? ****************************************************** 06-02-04, 11:47 PM newnickname Eisenhower, Master of Airpower
[i]'...Rommel's first counterattack, planned for June 7, simply never happened. Panzer Lehr straggled to Caen on June 8. Air attacks debilitated command post communications. Panzer Group West headquarters delayed the counteroffensive to June 9. The attack of June 9 met an almost simultaneous offensive by British forces. In the midst of the fighting, Allied aircraft found Panzer Group West headquarters and decimated it. Rommel himself had left the headquarters only an hour before the bombing.
On June 10, Rommel concluded that Allied air superiority had been the No. 1 reason for his enemy's success and his own failure. Rommel reported: "The enemy has complete command of the air over the battle up to about 100 kilometers behind the front and cuts off by day ... almost all traffic on roads, or byroads, or in open country." Air superiority almost entirely prevented movement of German forces by day. His one chance to push the Allies back into the sea was gone.
Eisenhower's masterful planning succeeded, and his faith in airpower was vindicated. It did not decide every one of the countless individual engagements of infantry and tanks that made the Normandy campaign an Allied victory, but it was air attack that isolated the Germans in Normandy and blocked Rommel's plan for a rapid counterattack. As late as June 18, just five German armored divisions had arrived in Normandy.'[/i[
I think, possibly, that the aircraft of the time didn't have just the right combination of firepower and accuracy (i.e. the heavy bombers had the former but not the latter, and with the fighters it was the other way about) to provide the precise battlefield support against fortifications on the beaches that might have helped. They seem to have been better employed disrupting supply lines and potential reinforcements.
Just guessing, though. ****************************************************** 06-04-04, 07:51 AM Koz What went wrong on D-Day? Many things went wrong, but many things went right too. The Atlantic wall was breeched and Allied Forces drove the Nazis off the beaches. It was the beginning of the end of Nazi occupation of a good portion of Europe.
Airpower was used on June 6, 1944. 20,000 men were dropped by parachute or landed in gliders behind enemy lines to disrupt communications and seize key points. The invasion was supported by 11,000 planes, which attacked the Nazis from the air. The Airborne Landings Problems at Omaha Beach were obvious. The B17 bombers had overshot the Nazi defenses by 5 kilometers, and most of the naval bombardment fell short, so the Nazi defenses (dug into the cliffs) were still very strong. (The bombers were very effective at the other beaches)
Within ten minutes of landing every officer and sergeant of the 116th Regiment was dead or wounded, and the Americans sustained 3,000 casualties in first few hours. By 10 am, only about 300 men had managed to struggle ashore safely, and by nightfall the Americans still only had ‘a toehold’ on the beach.
By the end of D-Day, 132,715 men were ashore, and this rose quickly over the next few days – by June 12th, 2 million men were in Normandy.
Many men died that day, but their deaths were not in vain. The liberation of Europe was begun. ****************************************************** 06-04-04, 02:17 PM Elexina Sadly, not much went wrong. The soldiers had no idea what they were in for, but I don't think the commanders underestimated what they were up against. ****************************************************** 06-04-04, 06:54 PM teeceeum It disturbs me deeply to think that some people would see the D-Day invasion as a failure in any respect. The whole of Europe and Northern Africa was at stake. That there were some miscalculations because not every detail was known of the enemy's positions or response should not in any way diminish the brilliance of the concept and execution of the Allies' plan. To do so is to tremendously dishonor those who paid the price with either terrible wounds or their lives. To imply that those in charge were guilty of malfeasance in any way is totally abhorent to me. There are always surprises, risks and unknowns in war, just as there are in our everday lives. ****************************************************** 06-08-04, 04:57 PM Jack Mc Donald Sorry Teeceeum, it would never be my intention to dis-respect all those that died on d-day, just a general question as to the awful waste of life, on both sides. Yes, the end result was freedom, 'and hindsight is bliss', surely, there was a better way, but yet again, Hitler did'nt want a better way, only his way. I've watch all the d-day programmes on telly, and listened to all the stories, some horrific, some told with a hint of mirth, but all very true. Our eternal credit to all those that died, and those that lived, for our freedom today. ****************************************************** 06-08-04, 08:27 PM teeceeum Jack, my little rant wasn't directed at you or really at anyone else here. In this post-Vietnam anti-war era it just bothers me that so many want to denigrate military action of any kind throughout all of history. Hitler was a madman. He would not surrender under any circumstances. And when negotiation was tried very early on, Hitler's response was to simply grab a few more countries. I just can't imagine that anyone could possibly see that there was any alternative to the action taken. That it was a horrible experience is true. That not everything was known about enemy emplacements is also true. But it's just as true that courage and ingenuity resulted in attaining almost all of the objectives of the day. And although casualties were indeed high, many had predicted far worse results.
As I understand it, the biggest problem at Omaha was the inability to get artillery/tanks ashore as planned. And I believe that the British and American warships improvised to take up the slack pretty successfully. ****************************************************** 06-08-04, 09:47 PM methos Many were lost and it's sad that they were, but to hint at some perspective relative to expectations, FDR's response to the first day's death toll was "Thank God!" ****************************************************** 06-09-04, 01:33 AM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by methos: Many were lost and it's sad that they were, but to hint at some perspective relative to expectations, FDR's response to the first day's death toll was "Thank God!"
This was not inappropriate. He had no way of knowing for certain, until the reports came in, whether attempts made to decieve the Germans about the intended target of the invasion had been successful (they had, the German High Command expected a landing near Calais, even after the Normandy landings began). He did know, however, that ever since the Battle of Kursk, the Red Army outnumbered the German Army, and there was nothing to stop them moving west until they reached the ocean. The cold war was already beginning, and the Communists were popular in France, Italy and elsewhere.
Alan Moore ****************************************************** 06-09-04, 08:53 AM Kwll There were many, many things that went wrong with the invasion from dispersed Airborne assaults to units hitting the wrong beaches to incorrect sequencing of support and all things in between. As in "EVERY" military operation the plan is perfect until it actually starts. Murphy's Law is aways prevailing. However, on D-Day the full intent of the mission was met. That intent was to establish a beachhead on the shores of France so that follow on forces could exploit the success of the beachhead. This was done with small units and elements that were pieced together to form units that knew what the intent was. Bottomline is that they got it done.
One of the things I fail to understand is why people so often question "what went wrong and what could have been done to save more lives". It seems that no one ever takes into account that the enemy is a thinking, competent and tough adversary that has every intent to win just as much as your side does. I find arguuments of this type to be disrespectful for the capabilites of one's enemies as if they did not have the wherewithal to even make a stand let alone inflict casualties or forbid that they may even win. There were many opportunities for the Allies to lose this war, thankfully they prevailed. Even in Alan's comment that the Russians outnumbered the Germans after Kursk is somewhat of a hindsight. The Russians outnumbered the Germans during the entire war, the Germans had a 14 to 1 kill ratio as well and advanced deep into Russia before being turned. We know now that the Russians couldn't be stopped, but we certainly didn't know that then. Especially since we now consider Kursk the turning point for the Eastern Front battle. At the time it was just another major engagement. Just my thoughts on how hindsight is 20-20. ****************************************************** 06-09-04, 09:47 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by Kwll: - snip -
The Russians outnumbered the Germans during the entire war
- snip -
Perhaps I wasn't clear. In fact, the German _Army_ outnumbered the Red _Army_ from the time of their invasion until the battle of Kursk. Germany could take advantage both of the productive capacity of occupied Europe, and of a greater level of industrialization to put a much larger fraction of its population into the army than the USSR could. By the middle of 1943, however, Germany was running out of people suitable for military service, while the USSR still had resources to draw on.
Alan Moore ****************************************************** 06-10-04, 08:40 AM Kwll Alan, I really don't want to get into dredging up numbers because I find it laborious and not related to my point anyway. The point was that the Russian tactic was to use "mass" during their battles while the Germans used "maneuver" primarily in theirs. The Germans had kill ratio of 14 to 1 through much of the war due to superior tactics and leadership at the tactical and operational levels. Therefore, the outcome of the war following Kursk was still uncertain. Although Churchill certainly could have surmised that the Russians would continue to win, it was far from a certainty as to when and where they would reach a culminating point. Just trying to point out that many of us take history for granted and that while those times are actually occurring things are not so clear as they seem in retrospect. Good points though.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
