# D-DAY



## Joe2 (Oct 28, 2006)

Could D-Day have succeded without air support? Just wondering.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 28, 2006)

Probably so, as most of the Luftwaffe in France was destroyed and/or too few of numbers to make much difference...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

Yeap Les, it is not like the Luftwaffe showed up for D-Day anyhow.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 28, 2006)

I would say it would of succeeded as as both Les and Chris have said the Luftwaffe didn't turn up so the was hardly any opposition from the air anyway.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

If the Luftwaffe had shown up with some Stukas and some Fw-190s for cover they could have made it a bit messy but the allies had numerical superiority at that point and they would have gained control over the beaches pretty quick.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 28, 2006)

If the Luftwaffe had shown up over Normandy, they would have done minimal damage and would've been decimated due to the Allied numerical supremacy... 

Probably would have lost some to their own AA gunners as well...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2006)

unless he means in the build up to D-Day, in which case it's harder to call as aircraft did such a great job of knocking out defences and re-inforcements, but, ultimately it would have yeilded a similar, but much bloodier result.....................


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 28, 2006)

Agreed 100% Lanc..


----------



## redcoat (Oct 28, 2006)

Joe2 said:


> Could D-Day have succeded without air support? Just wondering.


why wouldn't it have air support ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

Agreed Les and Lanc. It would not have changed the outcome at all.


----------



## k9kiwi (Oct 28, 2006)

Given Hitlers dithering on the day and Rommels absence from HQ, the beachhead would have succeded.

just agreeing with what has been said for a logical reason.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 28, 2006)

Well, I'm going to disagree. The Luftwaffe sent up many aircraft from D-Day to D + 10 in an attempt to destroy the invasion. These included Bf 110, Ju 87, Ju 88, Bf 109 and Fw 190 plus other types. Luckily, the likes of US 8th and 9th Air Force and 2nd TAF escort fighters/fighter-bombers caught them on their way to the beaches. It was a turkey shoot most days when lumbering Ju 88 were caught unescorted by the 2nd TAF Mustang IIIs. 

The Allied ships and landing craft would have been at the mercy of the Luftwaffe and the number of casualties would have risen to tremendous heights. On top of that, the German panzer divisions which were hammered from the air by the Allied air forces could have moved in the day and arrived at the beach-head earlier. On top of that, places like Pont du Hoc would have not been hit - 2nd Ranger Battalion wouldn't have had a very nice time without air support, it had a hell of a terrible time with it! 

I will go into detail later...


----------



## Chief (Oct 28, 2006)

When you say air support...is that including the Paradrops?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 28, 2006)

I think the Airborne is still included. If not, the invasion would have been a total failure. 21st Panzer Division would have swept across the whole beach-head from the left flank...over the Caen de Canal...and all the way through 'til they reached Utah beach.


----------



## k9kiwi (Oct 29, 2006)

Oy Vey.

June 5 was scrubbed due to bad weather. The next available window after June 6 due to tides etc was too far away.

You would have had to go if the sea conditions were right, but the weather prevented flying. Otherwise Op-Sec would have been compromised.

Bad weather = ducks walking on both sides of the ditch.

Now we have a ground pounders war with 0 air support for either side, but a stinking HUGE artillery platform off shore.

Doable, but with major casualties above what was experienced, which was still under the high commands estimates.

Get the Paras loaded ASAP, send them in as infantry via boat with support weapons, now you have a formidable force for defence or offensive manouvering.

Prioritise AT off the beaches, chuck your pre load plan out the window and adapt to the situation within 24 hours with a shift of focus. Use heavy bombers who will hopefully be able to fly through the weather, to saturate targets inland with better visability, marshalling points, known barracks, stores, railways etc to isolate the area.

The whole of Europe can't be socked in the whole time.

Move, Adapt, Win. The breakfast of champions.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 29, 2006)

No air support on any either side? The Allies would have still been slaughtered, no halts for the Panzer divisions ...they could move by day...and the Allies would have had to deal with Tigers and Panthers above the beaches


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 29, 2006)

The key to victory for the allies was totally complete and overwhelming air support.

SHAEF knew that and if the allied fighters and bombers couldnt do their job, then the allies were not going to invade.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 29, 2006)

If there's no air support for the Allied forces it would have been hell on the beaches. On 6th June alone the fighters of 2nd TAF claimed three Fw 190 destroyed and one damaged, four Ju 88 destroyed and four damaged. On the same day 8th Air Force P-51s encountered Ju 87s from a training unit and claimed twelve destroyed plus one probable. To U.S fighters of 8th and 9th Air Forces the Luftwaffe lost fifteen Fw 190s and one Bf 109. 

The Luftwaffe was sending unescorted Ju 88 bombers to assault the invasion fleet, without Allied air support these would have made it. Instead, the ZG 1 Ju 88C-6s that attacked the beaches in mid-afternoon were turned away by Spitfires with four destroyed. This is only one instance, the Allies would have been obliterated.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 29, 2006)

Obliterated is a strong word... 

Ju-88C's would have been mincemeat for the close in-shore Destroyers' AAA... With the VERY inclose proximity of German defenders with the attacking Aliies, the Luftwaffe would of had to re-refine the term "Close Support"... 

The freindly fire casualties would have been too costly, and in all likelyhood, would have opened up a point of penetration for the Allies to expolit and secure a beachead...

I will definatly agree with u though, that the casualties would have unbelieveably severe on both sides had the Allies not secured air superiority over Normandy... Take into account though that the Luftwaffe was a shadow of itself due to the pre-emptive airfield strikes the 8th accomplished...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> The whole of Europe can't be socked in the whole time.



 You obviously dont live in Europe


----------



## HealzDevo (Oct 29, 2006)

Also I think that the US Bombers played a role. They were needed to destroy some areas in advance. Also having fighters and bombers meant that you had the Flak-88 and other mobile anti-air artillery focusing on the air rather than on infantry. You have to remember that very few of the Allied tanks came through from the water for various reasons. Therefore the Allied forces were relying on the bombardment of the navy as well as airforce help. As it was though, Omaha beach was a close-run thing with the Germans. The Germans had had the chance to dig in and build fortifications. The fighters if they weren't bombing were useful for suggesting targets through radio to the navy. I really do wonder about whether the airforce role in D-Day was played down. We rarely hear about the airforce doing any damage on that day. I would like to know what damage the airforce really did do in this major amphibious landing.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 30, 2006)

> Yeap Les, it is not like the Luftwaffe showed up for D-Day anyhow.



Well Allied air superiority is the reason why the Luftwaffe was fairly light.



> u-88C's would have been mincemeat for the close in-shore Destroyers' AAA.



Not according to an eyewitness of mine.



> It was a turkey shoot most days when lumbering Ju 88 were caught unescorted by the 2nd TAF Mustang IIIs.



They weren't lumbering either.

My dad's ship LCH-187 was straffed off Aromanches by a Ju-88 flying so low that it's props were lifting plumes of spray. The landing fleets stopped flying barrage ballons quite quickly when they found that the huge gun batteries at Le Havre were using them to target ships they were attached to.

My dad's ship later went close in to Le Havre to direct battleship fire onto the batteries at Le Havre. 

USAF bombers were used, but gained a bad reputation because they would not perform bombing runs from the direction that ground forces requested. This led to the obliteration of a French city and Allied troops around the city. They earned a bad reputation amongst the men who were there because they inflicted more casualties on Allied forces than they did on the Germans. 

East of Caen, was their target, a large Panzer battalion. This was unit obliterated but so was Caen where there were about 8,000 French civilian casualties. The Panzers were in woods well outside town. 

Ground forces requested an approach parallel with the coast. The bombers flew in over Caen instead.


----------



## Twitch (Oct 30, 2006)

Interesting that in the whole of WW2 air support/air superiority was critical from start to finish and the lessons learned have held true in every conflict since- own the sky over the battlefield. Was the 1st war where some battles were decided by air power.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Oct 30, 2006)

The allies could have managed to get a toehold, but without airsupport the difficulty in establishing a firm beached would have multiplied. Panzer divisions not being harresed by jabos means more tanks are going to attack allies soldiers, and with the heavy tigers and panther, it'd have been a lot harder.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2006)

First let's establish the volume of Allied air support:

6th June, 1944, AEAF flew 1,547 fighter sorties and maintained 36 fighters over the British and Canadian beaches, with 36 fighters over the U.S beaches at all times. A further 1,800 escort sorties were flown for bombers and troop carriers.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Oct 30, 2006)

wow thats a lot of sorties.


----------



## Kiwikid (Oct 31, 2006)

> First let's establish the volume of Allied air support:



Which makes it all the more impressive that the Luftwaffe did manage quite a few attacks and underlines the need for airsuperiority. 

What kept the bulk of the Panzers away, up at Calais, was the deception plans.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2006)

if there had been no air support from either side on D-day itself the result would probably been the same.
The only Panzer division to attack the beach-heads on D-day was the 21st Panzer Division, and it was easily driven off by a screen of Sherman Fireflys, and 17 pdr Anti-tank guns. In fact the 21st Panzer lost 70 of the 124 tanks it started with on D-Day, almost all to ground combat and artillery.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Oct 31, 2006)

Kiwikid said:


> Which makes it all the more impressive that the Luftwaffe did manage quite a few attacks and underlines the need for airsuperiority.
> 
> What kept the bulk of the Panzers away, up at Calais, was the deception plans.



Right, like Lt. Col Josef Priller and his wingman flew two FW190s down on Sword and got away without a scratch despite the fact every AA gun around opened up on them.


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 1, 2006)

AA Guns hardly hit aircraft anyway, especially British ones. The 'Barrage' effect was useless. You would need 10 000 guns to cover 100 square yards to hit a high-level bomber, apparantly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2006)

redcoat said:


> if there had been no air support from either side on D-day itself the result would probably been the same.
> The only Panzer division to attack the beach-heads on D-day was the 21st Panzer Division, and it was easily driven off by a screen of Sherman Fireflys, and 17 pdr Anti-tank guns. In fact the 21st Panzer lost 70 of the 124 tanks it started with on D-Day, almost all to ground combat and artillery.



They did not lose 70 tanks in one day.

The info that I have is from actual German records and from my copies of the actual OKW (Germany High Command) documents. I have the complete OKW documents in 8 Volumes broken down from the day the war started to the day the war ended. Here are the losses for the 21st Panzer Division.

June 6, 1944: 16 Tanks destroyed

Between June 6, 1944 and June 8, 1944: 54 Tanks Destroyed mostly by air attack. Of the 54 that were destroyed only 13 were destroyed by enemy tanks and artillary.

22 August 1944 the 21st Panzer Division was down to 12 tanks.

I think what you are getting confused is this on June 8, 1944 the 21st only had 70 operational tanks left. 70 were not destroyed in the 1st day or the second day.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 3, 2006)

I remember reading The Longest day by Cornelius Ryan that the 21st was stalled at sword by AT guns, and that most of the tanks were old Mark IV's.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 21, 2007)

Okay all very useful to know.


----------

