Omaha Bombardment. Part IIIa: After Action Summaries

Introduction

Part III of this series analyzed the effectiveness of the pre-H-Hour bombardment at the Omaha Assault area, and generally summarized key details as they applied to the topic. Space precluded including a more complete accounting of the activities of the ships of the bombardment group. While that was necessary, it also omitted many smaller details which complete the picture of a bombardment that was indifferently prosecuted.

In the following paragraphs I have summarized the the various reports submitted by the ships of the bombardment group, highlighting the relevant portions as they pertain to the pre-H-Hour bombardment. If you have the time and interest in the bombardment, I recommend these paragraphs for your review.

As I mentioned, these paragraph, as with this entire Bombardment Series, focus only on the pre-H-Hour bombardment and it effectiveness in neutralizing the beach defenses. There is much more to the story of the ships of the bombardment group on D-Day and the following weeks. But that has been more than adequately covered by historians, whereas the initial bombardment had been virtually ignored.

Western Fire Support Group‍ ‍

USS Texas, BB34‍

USS Texas, March 1943

Sources: 

-          Commanding Officer, USS Texas, Action Report for Period 3-17 June, 1944, Operation Neptune, dtd 28 June 1944

-          Commanding Officer, USS Texas, Chronological Narrative of Operations of U.S.S Texas for Period 3 June 1944 to 17 June 1944, inclusive, Operation Neptune, dtd 23 June 1944

-          USS Texas, War Diary, June 1944

Position:  Bearing about 030° from Pointe du Hoc, range about 13,000 yards.

The Texas was first tasked to neutralize the guns at Pointe du Hoc (WN75) with “up to 250 rounds” of 14-inch gunfire and ended up actually firing 255 rounds. 

Unfortunately, though the Texas wasn’t aware of it, the guns had been removed, and those 255 rounds did little more than “bounce the rubble,” as Steven Zaloga so aptly phrased it in The Devils Garden.  In reality, that massive shelling should also have stunned the garrison to the point the Rangers would have had an easy job.  But synchronization had fallen apart.  The Ranger boats were mistakenly led towards Pointe et Raz de la Percée, and by the time they had cleared up the confusion and reached their landing beach, they had lost a third of their LC(A)s and 40 minutes.  Any neutralization effects were largely overcome by the time the Rangers stepped off their craft and grabbed the ropes.

Despite the desperate fight the Rangers encountered as they scaled the cliffs, Texas’ action report claimed:

“Any personnel in the area must certainly have been killed.”[1]‍ ‍

It was a very unfortunate comment, but a perfect example of gunners being overly impressed by the big explosions they cause.  And once again we see clear evidence of a total lack of control over the bombardment force.  Some of the destroyers in the area were aware of the mix-up and the delay, and helped suppress German positions as the delayed Ranger flotilla passed too close inshore as they sought Point du Hoc.  Yet these were individual actions of initiative, and no one on the Texas had the situational awareness to restart neutralization fires on Pointe du Hoc itself as the Rangers belatedly approached their beach.  As a result the defenders would have 45 minutes to pull themselves together before the Rangers landed.

In his after action report, Hall tried to put the best face on the episode, stating:

“It later developed that four of the guns had been moved and emplaced in a hedge lane about a mile south.  This new position was bombarded and knocked out by Texas using airspot during the morning of D-Day.”[2]‍ ‍

Unfortunately, the only fire mission he could have been referring to (at 1033 hours) was too far south for the Pointe du Hoc’s relocated guns, but may have produced the very useful effect of silencing one of the 352d Division’s 155mm field artillery batteries (the Texas’ spotting aircraft did report it as a mobile field battery).

We’ll leave off the action at Pointe du Hoc and move to the Texas’ other missions.  At H-04, the Texas was to shift fires from the Pointe and place 12 rounds of 14-inch on two adjacent targets, T88 and T89, about a kilometer west of the point. That had also been Satterlee’s target for the previous half hour, and I’ll defer further comment on that objective until I get to that ship.

Texas’ final Pre-H-Hour mission was target T72 (WN73), which it was supposed to hit with 250 rounds from its 5-inch battery, from 0550 to 0623 hours.  It reported it fired for the full period, but expended only 190 rounds (91 HC and 99 Common).  This began a trend in which all ships firing at this key position failed to fire the full planned bombardment. At 13,500 yards to target T72, this was at the higher end of the 5-inch gun’s range, and it’s accuracy may have been less than desired, especially firing from casemate mounts with spotting from the foretop (rather than air spot).  In addition, at that range the projectiles would have lost about 60% of their velocity.  The secondary battery ceased fire at the planned time (0623 hours) rather than synchronized with the leading wave, probably because at that range it was impossible to observe the position of the leading waves.

Figure 1. Bombardment Group ship positions during the pre-H-Hour bombardment. [Yellow pins: position located by range and bearing from a specified point. Green Pins: positions generally located by range from a specified point, but no bearing. Red pins: no firm data on position.]

‍ ‍

HMS Glasgow, C21‍

HMS Glasgow

Source:  Commanding Officer, HMSGlasgow (C21), Operation Neptune – Chronological Narrative Report, dtd 22 June 1944. 

Position:  Laid own dan buoy in bombardment position: 49° 27’ 02” N, 00° 52’ 00” W.

Glasgow, along with the Arkansas, was slated to bombard the defenses of the D-3 exit.  Glasgow was tasked with neutralizing targets T59 and T61, which were up on the bluffs on the east side of the draw (WN67).  These defenses were generally west-facing to cover the draw, which meant Glasgow, firing from the western fire support lane, would have a good angle relative to the orientation of the key gun positions within its targets.

Unfortunately, Glasgow seems to have been infected with the same miserly attitude toward expending ammunition as had so many other ships.  It was allotted 400 rounds but fired only 219.  It started its bombardment at 0554 hours, but did not report when it ceased fire, so we can’t tell how well it synchronized its cease fire with the approach of the first waves.  It did state that at 0630 hours, it shifted fire to a ‘strongpoint’, giving a coordinate that placed it in the center of Vierville sur Mer. That engagement was not part of the bombardment plan, but might have been as a result of something the airspot observed.  

Glasgow’s report stated it opened fire on its assigned pre-H-Hour target (singular), when it was actually assigned two targets.  Fortunately, its Summary of Engagements (Enclosure 2 to its report) shows it did fire at two targets during this mission, and included grids coordinates correctly which matched coordinates for both T59 and T61.  So although only 55% of its planned projectiles, it seems to have hit both of its targets, though we have no indication how evenly the projectiles were distributed between the two.

‍ ‍

USS Satterlee, DD626

Sources:

USS Satterlee, September 1943

-          Commanding Officer, USS Satterlee, Report of Action, 6 June 1944, dtd 21 June 1944

-          USS Satterlee, War Diary, June 1944

Position:  About 3,000 yards bearing 185°T to Pointe du Hoc at a range of 3,000 yards. 

Satterlee was tasked to fire 300 rounds at targets T88 and T89 (also known as WN76).  In the previous post I pointed out that this was a curious target set as intelligence had only indicated there was a squad-sized element there, and it was difficult to see how it was significant enough to interfere with the landings or merit 300 rounds of scarce ammunition.   In fact, the position’s main ‘weapon’ was a 150cm searchlight, which posed no threat at all for a daylight assault.[3]  The position was also defended by two machine guns, but at a range of 1000 meters from Pointe du Hoc, they could not seriously interfere with the landing there.  In short, there was no reason to waste the firepower of an entire destroyer on this position, and certainly not during the critical pre-H-Hour bombardment.

Nevertheless, the Satterlee faithfully fired on the position from 0548 to 0645 hours (the mission was intended to extend past H-Hour by 15 minutes).  This mission was interrupted by the need to shoot a defensive counterbattery mission between 0618 and 0627 hours against light guns in the vicinity of the point.  Presumably these were to the east of the Pointe as the only ‘guns’ nearby to the west were wooden dummies, mounted in a fake battery position designed to draw fire away from the position on the point. 

Satterlee did not report  how many of the allotted 300 rounds it expended, but as it was one of only two fire support ships to fully expend its allotted 70% of rounds on D-Day, it’s not a stretch to assume it fired all 300.  One incident needs to be mentioned, although it did not take place during the pre-H-Hour bombardment. Satterlee recognized the need to suppress the Pointe du Hoc defenses as the delayed Ranger assault went in, and took the initiative to shell the area.  She was prompted to this action after observing enemy troops assembling on the cliff to repel the assault—presumably the same enemy troops the Texas thought “must certainly have been killed.”  Satterlee closed to within 1500 yards of the Pointe and fired with both its 5-inch guns and “heavy machine guns” (40mm and/or 20mm auto cannons?).

But this brings up another problem.  Aboard Satterlee was the deputy squadron commander for Destroyer Squadron 18, and since the squadron commander had been detailed off to set up the offshore screen, his deputy was in temporary command of the destroyers.  While Satterlee correctly took the initiative to shell Pointe du Hoc as the Ranger’s belatedly arrived, it took no steps to coordinate support for the Rangers with other destroyers.  Most of the ships had responded to one degree or another (suppressing German positions firing on the Ranger convoy as passed too close to the shore) but it was not coordinated and there was no effort to contact Texas to see if the 14-inch guns could fire a few more salvos.  At that phase of the morning (0630-0715 hours) DESRON18 was more of a collection of independently operating ships than a coordinated tactical squadron.

‍ ‍

HMS Talybont, L18

HMS Talybont

Source:  Commanding Officer, HMS Talybont, Report on Assault Bombardment, HMS Talybont, dtd 24 June 1944.

Position:  Bearing 038° from Pointe du Hoc at a range of 2.7 miles.

At 0550, Talybont opened fire on targets T82 and T83, from a range of 4,000 yards.  The targets covered an unnamed intermediate German position on the cliffs north of Hameau Lefevre.  It was defended only by small arms and was 1 ½-2 kilometers from Pointe Du Hoc.  At 0615, Talybont shifted fire to its second set of targets, T77 and T76.  This covered a radar installation jointly operated by the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine, and was designated WN74a (some sources refer to it as WN75).  The site had been heavily bombed in the predawn hours by the RAF, and by the time the pre-landing naval bombardment commenced, the presence of the fleet had mooted the usefulness of the radars, if they survived to that point.  Defended by small arms and a single mortar, it posed no immediate threat to the landings.

The 400 rounds the Talybont expended on these four targets accomplished absolutely nothing as far as the two objectives of the pre-Hour bombardment were concerned.  Talybont’s first concrete contribution to the invasion came after H-Hour when it helped suppress German small arms positions on the cliffs that had engaged the Ranger craft which had come too close to shore after becoming lost.

Talybont did not record its ammunition expenditure for this phase, although I suspect it was far below the specified amount, for no other reason that the ship had to re-engage all four of its targets after H-Hour to suppress further fire. 

‍ ‍

USS Thompson, DD627

USS Thompson, May 1943

Sources:  Commanding Officer, USS Thompson, Chronological Narrative of Operations, Report Of, dtd 26 June 1944.

Position:  Bearing 180°T to Pointe et Raz de la Percée at a range of 2,200 yards.

From 0550 until 0715 hours, Thompson was ordered to fire 450 rounds at targets T74 and T75, which were the south and north portions of WN74 at Pointe et Raz de la Percée.  The high number of rounds allotted reflected the fact that these targets were to be shelled for an hour and twenty minutes.  But once again, only one of those two targets addressed a pre-H-Hour bombardment task.  T74 included two 80mm field cannons (identified as 75mm in some sources) enfilading the Charlie and Dog beach sectors and did require neutralization.  But T75 consisted of the site’s general defensive positions that should have been fired on at least an hour later, when the Rangers of Company C, 2nd Battalion might have been in position to assault the defenses.

At 0550 hours, Thompson elected to fire first at T74 (the gun positions) expending 107 rounds (55 common and 52 AA) and declared the position “apparently destroyed” at 0620 hours.  It then shifted fire to T75, firing just 56 rounds (26 common and 30 AA) over the next 50 minutes.  In total, it expended just 163 rounds (36%) of the allotted 450 against these two.  By ceasing fire on the two guns 10 minutes before H-Hour, Thompson gave the crews time to recover, man their guns and open fire on the leading wave, or shortly thereafter.  Thompson’s continued firing at T75 had resulted in a cloud of obscuring dust, which forced a cease fire between 0646 and 0700 hours.  It isn’t known how long the two 80mm guns had been back in action (perhaps hidden by the dust from target T75)  but at 0716 hours Thompson observed a field gun firing on the beachhead, and gave coordinates that matched T74—the target the ship had already declared “destroyed.”  Thompson re-engaged T74, firing another 106 rounds over the next 40 minutes (60 common, 46 AA).   It was a false economy to conserve the 267 rounds left unfired, just to have to fire them afterwards to silence the position that should have been neutralized before it had a chance to shell the troops ashore. 

‍ ‍

USS McCook, DD496‍

Sources:

USS McCook, 1943

-          Commanding Officer, USS McCook, Shore Bombardment off the Coast of Normandy – Report of, dtd 13 July 1994

-          USS McCook, War Diary, Month of June 1944‍

Position:  3200 yards off of beach at Vierville sur Mer (no bearing stated).

This ship was allotted 300 rounds to shell target T71 from 0550 to 0625 hours.  The coordinates for T71 would place the mean point of impact almost exactly on the newly built casemate that housed the 88m gun in WN72, with part of the pattern of impacts spilling over into the edges of WN73 and WN 71.  McCook’s action report indicated it was assigned three targets, though none of the three orders governing the bombardment reflect this.[4]  The captain decided shell the first two targets (unidentified) and reported they had been neutralized in 10 minutes, but it isn’t clear how he judged the defender’s status.  

He shifted fire to his third target at 0600 hours and at this point the reports become unclear and contradictory.  According to the war diary, 0603 hours the ship took two near misses from a shore battery (105mm or 155mm) followed by another one minute later.  Apparently, McCook ceased fire with its 5-inch battery about this time to maneuver to avoid the shelling, though it does not mention maneuvering at this point.  At 0606 hours both sources recap its ammunition expenditure to that point (220 rounds in rapid continuous fire, seemingly indicating it had ceased fire.  This cease fire seems to be confirmed as neither report goes on to mention the 5-inch battery ceasing fire later.  At 0615 hours McCook tried to engage an unidentified target with its automatic weapons (40mm and 20mm?) but ceased their fire one minute later due to excessive range. 

Although McCook did fire 220 rounds in ‘rapid continuous fire’ as neutralization required (and as so few of the other ships managed to do) there are serious questions about its bombardment.  What were the two additional targets it fired on during the pre-H-Hour bombardment and did they contribute to the beach neutralization mission?  Did the rounds fired at the other two targets spare the 88mm gun’s casemate much needed pounding?  And when exactly did it cease firing with its 5-inch battery?  Was it at 0606 hours?  Or 0616 hours?  In either case it would have been premature as far as synchronization was concerned, but 0606 would have had much worse consequences. 

After ceasing fire with its automatic weapons at 0616 hours (and possibly with its 5-inch battery as well?), McCook shifted fire to an unidentified target of opportunity on which it expended 100 more rounds by 0642 hours.  McCook reported the first troops (as distinct from tanks) hit the beach in that sector late, at 0638 hours, meaning the defenders had 22 to 32 minutes to recover from the effects of the shelling depending on when the ship ceased fire.  (However, the leading wave of tanks was landed at 0630 hours, so the breakdown in synchronization was a combination of McCook’s premature cease fire and the landing craft arriving late.) 

In addition to failing to fire at least 80 of its allotted 300 rounds at T71 (that number may actually be far higher depending on where its other two ‘assigned’ targets actually were), it markedly failed to pace its final high rate of firing to the progress of the leaning landing craft.

To recap the bombardment here at the defenses of the D-1 exit, recall the Texas fired only 200 of its allotted 250 5-inch rounds, and the Thompson fired only 220.  Where there should have been 550 rounds impacting, there were only 420, and that assumes all of Thompson’s extra ‘assigned targets’ were anywhere near T71.  This situation would be compounded when two of the LCG(L)s slated to fire there failed to arrive, and the third fired only about half its rounds.  Instead of 910 rounds, only 486 rounds were fired.

‍ ‍

USS Carmick, DD493‍

USS Carmick, December 1942

Source:  Commanding Officer USS Carmick, Action Report, Forwarding of, dtd 1 July 1944

Position:  Bearing 19°T from Pointe et Raz de la Percée, range 3,500 yards

The Carmick was assigned three targets, T66, T67 and T68 (WN70, at Hamel-au-Pretet) and 250 rounds for the job, to be fired in the familiar 0550-0625 timeframe.  All three targets lay within an area of 300 by 200 yards and could be covered with minimal shifting of aimpoints A destroyer’s standard bombardment pattern was 200 by 200 yards).  Its action report stated it began firing on time at targets T67 and T68.  While firing, it was fired on by a gun in that area, which Carmick, with the aid of another destroyer,[5] silenced, at least temporarily.  When it was time to shift to the third target, dust was so thick it could not be seen, so it continued firing at T67 and T68 until end of ammunition and mission time.

Carmick probably made the most concrete contribution of all the fire support ships covered so far by knocking out the 80mm field gun sited in WN70.  That gun was in a field emplacement (its concrete casemate was still under construction) and facing generally west along the beach to cover the D-1 exit.  This was one of the few cases during the bombardment when the ship and the field gun were generally facing one another, giving the ship a favorable gun-target line, and resulted in that gun being put out of action (at least temporarily).  As the gun was not in a concrete casement, this is not a perfect example of the previous discussion of needing to engaging a hardened from the correct angle, but it serves to illustrate the advantage of proper ship positioning, even against field works. 

‍ ‍

Eastern Fire Support Group

USS Arkansas, BB33

USS Arkansas, April 1944

Sources:

-          Commanding Officer, USS Arkansas (BB33),  Report of Operations, June 3-18 June 1944, dtd 26 June 1944. 

-          USS Arkansas, War Diary for June 1944, dtd 21 July 1944.

Position:  About 3 miles off Port-en-Bessin, grid coordinates:  738943.

There were high hopes for the twelve big guns of the Arkansas.  They would fire on targets T60, T63 and T65 with 350 rounds of 12-inch projectiles.  These targets included all three resistances nests defending the D-3 exit (WN66, -67 and -68), with excellent angles against the large guns in WN68.  The chances of quickly opening the exit were pinned on those big guns . . . as long as the large shells didn’t crater the roadway too badly.

Having been briefly distracted by the necessary counterbattery fire against Port-en-Bessin, Arkansas’ main battery opened fire on its assigned targets at 0552 hours.  It ceased fire at 0623 hours, noting that the airspot had observed smoke and fires (but did not state that this smoke prevented firing).  After 30 minutes of firing its main battery, Arkansas’ expenditure of 12-inch ammunition was just 70 rounds (56 HC and 14 AP).  That was roughly only 18% of the expected support the ground troops had been counting on.  It isn’t at all clear why this happened.  The ship was anchored, had good firing data and was in a stable position.  And there were orders from both Admiral Ramsay and Rear Admiral Bryant to keep firing using the best data on hand in case of obstructed view.  Nor does it seem firing was interrupted or halted due to smoke.  That would seem to point to problems with fire control or the proficiency of the gun crews, but there was no mention of problems with either of those.  Regardless, 70 rounds would account for only five salvos—not counting rounds needed for ranging—which would take just five minutes of firing at a slow rate and just two-three minutes at a high rate of fire.

Something is missing here; the Arkansas seems to have been hardly used its main battery.  The only explanation I can think of is the ship kept the majority of its turrets free and aimed at Port-en-Bessin just in case those batteries came back to life.  

Another question is:  which target the ship fired on?  It was assigned three, and with two gun directors for the guns of its main battery, could theoretically have engaged two targets at a time.  But its reports fail to mention which target(s) it actually engaged, merely stating it opened fire on prearranged targets.  The ship fired such a small percentage of its allotted rounds that it is fair to ask, did Arkansas fire all 70 rounds at one target? Or attempt to spread the projectiles across all three targets (only about 30 projectiles per target)? Either way, it is almost certain the bombardment at the D-3 exit was ineffective.

All in all, it was a sorry showing at the D-3 draw.  Not only did Arkansas fire a mere 70 rounds of 12-inch projectiles out of a planned 385, but as we saw earlier in this piece, Glasgow fired only 219 6-inch projectiles of a planned 400 at the same exit.  The failure these two big ships to fire those 496 shells must sure have contributed to the defenses of the D-3 Draw being the last to fall on D-Day.

The Arkansas’ secondary (5-inch) battery was due to fire at the E-3 draw during the pre-H-Hour bombardment, but the ship instead left it engaging in counterbattery fire against Port-en-Bessin, so its 5-inch guns contributed nothing to the beach neutralization mission.  The Arkansas’ contribution to the pre-H-Hour bombardment was largely wasted.  Even when it engaged its tertiary battery’s 3-inch guns (which were not specifically addressed in the bombardment plan), it chose to direct them at Ste. Honorine (vicinity of WN59) instead of any of the beach defenses. 

‍ ‍

HMS Tanatside, L69‍

HMS Tanatside

Source:  Commanding Officer, HMS Tanatside, Operation “Neptune” – Report on Bombardment – A.M. 6th June, 1944 (D_Day), dtd 26 June 1944. 

Position: At 0545 Hours, bearing 355° from Port-en-Bessin, range 4.1 miles, and a range of 10,000 yards to the targets.  Ship continued to close on targets until approximately 0621 hours when its range to target was 6,000 yards.

Tanatside was perhaps the only ship on the eastern side of Omaha that did not join the free-for-all against the Port-en-Bessin batteries before the bombardment period commenced.  I suspect this was because the ship had not yet reached its intended firing position as its report shows it was more than twice as far offshore as the other destroyers when the bombardment began, and it continued closing another 4000 yards while firing. 

Its orders were to fire on targets T54 and T128, which were about 100 yards apart on the west side of the E-1 exit (WN65).  It was allotted 400 rounds for the mission (with 200 more allotted for a post-H-Hour shoot at Port-en-Bessin).  It had a somewhat favorable angle on the WN65 positions.  It opened fire at 0545 hours, and although  the target was obscured at 0521 hours, it (correctly) continued blind firing until 0629 hours when it reported the DD tanks had been enveloped by the smoke.  As with so many of the other fire support ships that day, it was rather parsimonious in expending rounds on its beach bombardment task, firing just 238 rounds of the 400 allotted (60%).  It then fired 480 rounds at Port-en-Bessin during its post-H-Hour mission.  It seems the priority placed the beach bombardment came in a poor second place to preemptive counterbattery missions.  

‍ ‍

FS Georges Leygues‍

FS Georges Leygues

Source:  Pending.

Position:  Pending.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the action report for the Leygues.  According to the plan, it was to place 250 6-inch projectiles on target T53 (WN64, near the crest of the bluffs).  Given the results of most of the other fire support ships, the Leygues probably shorted its firing schedule, too, but we can’t say that for certain.

It does seem safe to say, however, that the E-1 draw defenses did not receive a substantial percentage of its planned neutralizing fire. 

‍ ‍

FS Montcalm

FS Montcalm

Source:  Pending.

Position:  Pending.

As with Leygues, we don’t have an action report for Montcalm.  It was scheduled to fire on seven targets in the vicinity of Port-en-Bessin for 70 minutes, from 0550 to 0700 hours, and had 300 rounds for the job.  Given the enthusiasm the rest of the fire support ships had for counterbattery fire, I think it’s safe to say Montcalm likely expended all 300 rounds, if not more. 

‍ ‍

USS Emmons, DD457

Sources:

USS Emmons, November 1943

       -    Commanding Officer, USS Emmons, Report and Narrative of Operations of USS Emmons (DD457) during Operation Neptune from 5 June 1944 to 17 June 1944, dtd 22 June 1944. 

-    USS Emmons, War Diary, June 1944. 

Position:  Bearing 240° from targets (target coordinates 66808950 & 687088943) at a range of about 5,500 yards, placing ship about 2,000 yards off the nearest shore.

Emmons was one of five bombardment ships assigned to pummel the defenses of the E-3 draw.[6]  Earlier we covered the disappointing actions of the secondary battery of the Arkansas, which  failed to place any rounds on target T43 in WN61.  After briefly joining the dogpile on Port-en-Bessin, Emmons moved west towards its fire station, experiencing some difficulty finding a spot that did not foul the guns of Arkansas, Leygues and Montcalm.  If finally took position (as stated above) to shell its targets, T47 and T50, which were to receive 300 rounds.  Those targets encompassed WN62.  The Emmons position made it virtually impossible to engage the two west-firing casemated 75mm guns which enfiladed Easy Red.  The range and bearing the Emmons’ report listed are not compatible with the 2,000 yards it claimed it was offshore, so its exact position isn’t certain.  But its general location was very good to take on the 50mm cannon and 75mm PAK 40 antitank gun, both of which faced eastward and covered the anti-tank ditch that blocked the E-3 exit.  The 50 mm cannon was in an open-pit emplacement, and the PAK 40 was in a log bunker, both of which should have been highly vulnerable to the Emmons 5-inch shells.

As with so many other bombardment ships, Emmons did not fire its full allotment of shells, but fell short only a modest 42 shells.  It fired exactly twice as many of the less capable Common projectiles as it did AA projectiles, which may partially account for its failure to do any damage to the two vulnerable emplacements.  During the last part of the bombardment, the targets were clouded with dust, and the ship tried to maintain a firing solution while trying to keep position against the current, using an SG radar fix on the Port-en-Bessin breakwater; it had not dropped a dan buoy.  Despite the obscuration, the ship continued to fire blindly, ceasing fire at 0625 hours, about the time it claimed the first boat wave landed. 

‍ ‍

USS Baldwin, DD624

USS Baldwin, March 1944

Source:  Commanding Officer, USS Baldwin (DD624), Action Report for June 6-8, 1944, dtd 16 June 1944.

Position:  At 0556 hours, on a bearing of 227° to target T43 (coordinates 69308940), range not stated.  Between 0619-0637 hours, it closed to 1,830 yards from the beach.

There is some confusion regarding the Baldwin’s location relative to the Emmons.  Figure 1 shows where each ship reported its own location, but Baldwin’s report placed Emmons to the west of it.  In either case, Baldwin had poor angles on most of the emplacements within its assigned targets, T43, T47 and T50.  T43 was in WN61 (with the 88mm gun) while T47 and T50 were the same targets in WN62 that Emmons also targeted.  As was fairly standard, it was allotted 300 rounds for the period 0550 to 0625 hours.

Baldwin initially opened fire on T43 (WN61), which the Arkansas was also supposed to hit with 250 rounds (but did not).  It ceased fire after expending 56 rounds.  It then shifted fire to T47 (WN62), and though the target was partially obscured, enemy guns returned fire “sporadically.”  Baldwin fired just 24 rounds before it ceased fire on T47.  Next in line was T50 (Also in WN62) which came in for only 16 rounds.  At this point T43 became active again, and Baldwin directed 12 rounds at it, supposedly ‘silencing’ the position. From 0619 to 0638 hours, Baldwin closed the beach ahead of the boat wave, as far in as 1830 yards off the beach, firing an additional 42 rounds before breaking away.

In total, Baldwin fired only 150 of its allotted 300 rounds during the pre-H-Hour bombardment.  Despite that failure, it did two things well:  it closed the beach to closely support the leading boat waves, something few other destroyers did during this phase; and it synchronized its firing with the actual progress of that boat wave rather than ceasing fire according to the schedule.  Still, it failed to fire fully half its prescribed ammunition. 

‍ ‍

USS Harding, DD625

USS Harding, October 1943

Sources:

-          Commanding Officer, USS Harding (DD625), Action Report, USS Harding, Operation Neptune covering period from sortie from Weymouth, England 5 June to 0800 9 June (Departure this ship from bombardment area for Plymouth , England for repairs, ammunition and fuel replacement), dtd 20 June 1944. 

-          Commanding Officer, USS Harding, Brief Chronological Narrative Report of Operations – Operation Neptune – From time of departure for assault to and including 17 June in accordance with NCXTF 181220B of June, dtd 21 June.

Position:  No bearing given, but gave a range of about 3,000 yards from target T41 (coordinates 69558930).  [Harding’s report also placed Emmons west of Baldwin, reinforcing the possibility that one of them gave an incorrect position.]

Harding was tasked with a single target, T41, which was on the beach in the eastern end of WN61, and therefore could cover both the D-3 and F-1 exits.  As with other ships of the eastern group, Harding took part in the response to the shelling by the enemy batteries near Port-en-Bessin, while experiencing several near misses. 

Harding opened fire at 0547 hours on three pillboxes in the vicinity of T41, which it soon claimed it had destroyed.  It then continued to fire on “the area around the pillboxes including the draw to Colleville.”  Either Harding has mistaken the F-1 draw for the D-3 draw, or it had begun to fire 4-500 yards west of its target.  At any rate, it had fired 100 rounds in 18 minutes.  There is some difference between the ship’s two reports as the why it ceased fire, but it did so at about 0605 hours, either because all the positions were destroyed, or because smoke covered the area.  It then shifted fire to target T33, which was Melbreak’s primary target.  After 20 rounds fired in 5 minutes, Harding declared this target destroyed as well.  At 0610 hours it shifted fire to a fortified house in a draw west of Port-en-Bessin, which it declared destroyed after 40 rounds and five minutes.  At 0615 hours, having closed to about 1,700 yards from the beach, it shifted fire to a field gun it had spotted on the beach, and fired six salvos (24 rounds) to cover the area.  Harding claimed it scattered the crew and forced the gun to withdraw, but doubted it was destroyed.  Needless to say, no gun covering the beach was in a position that permitted it to withdraw. 

“At about this time a series of underwater explosions occurred along the beach and somewhat to the northward of our position, extending out into the water for almost 1000 yards.  This appeared to have been shore controlled mines.  Several minutes later the rocket craft opened up.”  That initial set of explosions were either ranging shots from the nearest LCT(R) or the German’s defensive rockets firing from near St. Laurent, as there were no command detonated sea mine fields.  

Harding then shifted fire to a gun emplacement on the breakwater at Port-en-Bessin, though its two reports differ as to the time this happened (0625 vs 0652 hours).  It believed it destroyed the position after firing 30 rounds.  The ship ceased fire at 0656 hours, when it said the troops landed.  The leading waves of the 3rd Battalion, 16th Regimental Combat Team did land about a half hour late, and far to the east, which would be consistent with Harding’s observations.

In its report, Harding figured as a hard-hitting, fast- and accurate-shooting, and quick-reacting ship, rapidly laying waste to a good section of the enemy defenses.  Yet the resistance encountered when the troops landed indicates the ship’s damage claims were overstated, to say the least.  Harding was clearly operating in a manner inconsistent with its orders.  Its mission was to drench one single target with 300 rounds to neutralize it, synchronized with the landing of the leading wave.  Instead, it engaged in a series of small scale sniping escapades with doubtful effects, all but one of which had nothing to do with its objective of neutralizing beach defenses.  It fired only 100 of its allotted rounds at its assigned target area and ceased fire there at least 25 minutes before H-Hour.  Harding totally failed in its beach neutralization mission.

‍ ‍

USS Doyle, DD494

USS Doyle, January 1943

Source:  Commanding Officer, USS Doyle (DD494), Action Report for Period 6-8 June, 1944, Allied Invasion of the French Coast, undated. 

Position:  Not Stated.

As with  several others, Doyle began the day by piling on the Port-en-Bessin batteries, briefly engaging one between 0545 and 0550 hours.   Unlike the other ships, Doyle fired on a battery west of Port-en-Bessin.  It then shifted its fire to its assigned target, T40 (WN60) at 0550 hours and ”fired intermittently with half salvos until 0625.”  Its gun line was fouled twice by other destroyers and had the typical problem with dust and smoke.  The Doyle’s narrative report did not specify how many rounds it fired for this mission, but it included an overlay that showed its fire missions and rounds expended for each mission.  It listed 167 rounds fired for T40—out of an allotted 300 rounds—between 0550 and 0625 hours.

Obviously, a bombardment of half salvos (two rounds) fired intermittently has no resemblance to a neutralizing barrage fried rapidly and continuously, timed to coincide with the landing of the first wave. 

Interestingly, Doyle fired 562 AA projectiles and only 156 Common projectiles through D+1, indicating the assumed shortage of AA projectiles my not have been a fleet-wide issue.   

‍ ‍

HMS Melbreak, L73

HMS Melbreak

Source:  Commanding Officer, HMS Melbreak (L73), [No title or subject], dtd 15 June 1944.

Position:  Not stated.

Unfortunately, Melbreak’s report was extremely brief and contained absolutely no details on its bombardment mission.  It was scheduled to shell target T33 (WN59 near Sainte-Honorine-des-Pertes) and was allotted 300 rounds for the task.   This was one of the targets that served neither the counterbattery mission nor beach neutralization mission.  As with the other Hunt class escort destroyers, it did not provide a detailed report of actual expenditure of ammunition.  It merely stated it left the area that evening with only 30% of its ammunition remaining.  The large majority of this would have been fired at one of Melbreak’s eight post-H-Hour assigned targets in and around Port-en-Bessin, which it was to shell from H+80 to H+240.   

‍ ‍

USS Augusta, CA31

USS Augusta, August 1945

Source:  USS Augusta (CL31),  War Diary for the Month of June 1944, dtd 5 July 1944. 

Position:  Bearing 228°T to Pointe du Hoc at 8 miles range.

Although not included in any of the bombardment plans, the Augusta’s War Diary did include mention of firing one mission during the pre-H-Hour bombardment, and one more after H-Hour. The ship anchored in Fire Support Area 3 at 0617 hours and fired on an unspecified target between 0618 and 0623 hours.  It expended just 21 rounds. 

By 0805 hours, the ship had withdrawn and anchored in the Transport Area.

‍ ‍
‍ ‍

FOOTNOTES:
‍ ‍

[1]TexasAction report, pg. 7

[2] CTF 124 AAR, pg 102.

[3] Chazette, Alain, et al, Atlantikwall, Omaha Beach,  Editions Histoire et Fortifications, Vertou, Fance, 2014, pg 91.

[4] Hall’s CTF-124 order, Bryant’s CTG-124.9 order, or CAPT Sander’s COMDESRON 18 order No. 7-44.

[5]Carmick’s log stated they thought it was Thompson assisting them, but it more likely the McCook when it was firing on its target of opportunity.

[6]Arkansas, Emmons, Baldwin Harding and Doyle.  Harding’s target, T41, was on the east side of WN61.  Doyle’s target was WN60, and while that directly overlooked the F1 draw, its 75mm guns also dominated the D-3 exit.

‍ ‍

Omaha Bombardment. Part III: The Execution

‍ ‍

“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week.” LTG G. S Patton

‍The problem at Omaha was that a middling bombardment plan was executed in a halfhearted manner.  It was not a combination for success.  Before proving that assertion, I think it is important to provide context.  Remember that later on 6 June, most of the bombardment ships heroically came to the aid of the troops struggling to secure the beachhead.  The close-in fire of these ships broke the deadlock on the beach.  These were good ships manned by good men, trying their best under difficult circumstances.  And their efforts helped ensure victory at Omaha.  But . . .‍ ‍

. . . part of the reason those troops were in such dire straits was that those same ships failed to adequately perform their pre-H-Hour bombardment missions.  Somewhere along the line, they failed to grasp the essentials of the bombardment phase of their D-Day missions.  Whether this was a lack of training, lack of leadership, a poor plan or lack of focus on the key details of their mission remains to be seen.  Regardless, their failure, combined with an inadequate plan, contributed to the agony of Omaha Beach

‍ ‍

The Bombardment Group – Unwarranted Restraint

‍The heart of the bombardment plan was the Bombardment Group (CTG-124.9) consisting of vessels ranging from battleships down to escort destroyers.  They would not provide the bulk of the planned projectiles, but they had the guns with the best rates of fire and the best accuracy.  If anyone was going to get the job done it would be these ships.  For that reason, we’ll review their performance first. A detailed summary of each bombardment ship’s fire missions will be posted as an addendum to this installment, but for now it will suffice to recap the results.

‍All told, the bombardment planned for sixteen of these ships to fire 5,697 projectiles—ranging from 14-inch down to 4-inch in diameter—between 0550 and 0630 hours (H-Hour).  (Figure 1)  Unfortunately, the ammunition expenditure figures are not available for four of the ships (the two Free French light cruisers and two of the Royal Navy Hunt class escort destroyers).[1]  Together those four were supposed to have fired 1250 shells, but we have no data on what they did fire.  The ships for which we do have complete data, were supposed to have fired 4447 rounds but only actually fired 2812 (63% average expenditure).  ‍ ‍

But that data includes all missions, not just the beach neutralization mission.  If we analyze solely for beach neutralization, then we find there were 3910 rounds scheduled, but since we lack data for one of the ships, we can only account for 1969 rounds fired, with 250 from  Leygues unaccounted for.  The best case is that Leygues fired all 250 of its allotted rounds (250+1969= 2219) which would mean the beach neutralization ships fired only 57% of their allotted ammunition.  Since the average expenditure rate of the beach neutralization ships for which we do have data is about 50%, the most likely case is that Leygues fired a similar percentage, which would bring the average ammunition expenditure to 54%.  ‍ ‍

Figure 1. This table depicts the ammunition allocations and expenditures for the ships of the Bombardment Group for the H-40 to H-Hour bombardment. The right two columns include data for only those ships with beach neutralization fire missions.

That is significant.  Forty-three to 46% of the projectiles slated for beach neutralization remained in the magazines at H-Hour (with 46% being the most likely figure).  The beach neutralization mission was a failure on this basis alone.  And that number may be even higher. McCook was assigned a single target at the D-1 exit, but reported firing on three separate targets without giving locations on the two extras; they may or may not have involved beach neutralization targets, which would subtract the rounds fired on them from the above calculations. Worse, the lowest expenditure rate by caliber was for the most powerful guns:  18% for the 12-inch guns of the Arkansas.[2]‍ ‍

As bad as these general statistics are, their significance can only be appreciated by considering how this played out at key invasion objectives.   At first glance, the planned shelling of the defenses at the D-3 draw seemed to have every chance of success.  Those defenses were supposed to be pummeled by 385 12-inch shells from the Arkansas, and 400 6-inch shells from the Glasgow.  Firing from opposite fire support areas, the complementary gun-target lines could threaten the embrasures of gun emplacements on both sides of the draw.  And while the 12-inch guns were not valued as highly for beach neutralization due to their rate of fire, this would have been an excellent opportunity to see how effective large caliber projectiles could be.  But these ships made only a token effort.  Arkansas fired only 70 rounds and Glasgow fired only 219; a 37% expenditure rate and a shortfall of 496 shells.  Perhaps it is no coincidence that by nightfall, enemy resistance in the D-3 exit still prevented its opening.  ‍ ‍

It was a similar story farther east on the beach.  Five ships were supposed to fire on the three resistance nests defending the E-3/F1 exits (WNs -60, -61 and -62).  Arkansas was supposed to deliver 250 rounds from its secondary battery there, but had diverted that fire against a position in the vicinity of Port-en-Bessin.  Four destroyers (Emmons, Baldwin, Harding and Doyle) were supposed to add 1200 more rounds to the targets for a total of 1450 5-inch projectiles.  All told, they actually fired only 675 rounds—again, just 45% of the volume planned).  In addition to defending those two draws, the resistance nests contained one 88mm anti-tank gun, four 75mm field artillery guns and one 50mm gun sited to enfilade the eastern half of the landing beaches.  Three of those guns were in positions without overhead cover and should have been vulnerable to naval gunfire, had it been properly applied (suitable gun-target lines and fuze/projectile combinations).  But not one of these ships was in a position such that its trajectories could threaten the embrasures of those guns, and no time fuze was employed to neutralize the open-top positions.[3]  These errors, combined with the failure to fire the full schedule of projectiles, must have contributed to the subsequent bloodshed on Fox Green and the late opening of the E-3 exit.‍ ‍

By way of comparison, the only ship firing on the beach defenses that is known to have actually expended its full allotment of bombardment shells was the Carmick, which sent all 250 of its allotted rounds into WN70.  At the risk of making too fine a point of the matter, this position was adjacent to the site of the penetration of the bluffs by the 116th RCT and 5th Rangers, and it is tempting to conclude the full bombardment here made a significant contribution to the success in that area.  ‍ ‍

All in all, the beach neutralization task had little chance of success with such a half-hearted expenditure of ammunition.‍

‍ ‍

Positioning

‍The ships of the Bombardment Group filtered into the Omaha Transport Area as the convoys they escorted arrived.  Designated ships moved part way down the swept lanes to support the minesweepers with counterbattery fire, if required, while the remainder held back a while longer.  As the clock ticked toward 0550 hours (H-40) they moved forward towards their fire support positions. 

‍Despite instructions to anchor, the Texas decided to use her engines to maintain position, fearing that as the tide reversed, the ship would swing about its anchor and complicate firing solutions.  The Glasgow followed suit. ‍ ‍

In the eastern fire support area, the Arkansas anchored at 0430 hours, presumably followed by the Montcalm and Georges Leygues  (I haven’t been able to locate action reports for those ships).  As the destroyers for that group were moving to their assigned firing positions, the German coastal artillery finally opened up at 0530 hours  Fortunately these were the lighter caliber guns positioned in and around Port-en-Bessin (estimated to be 75mm).  Arkansas initially replied with its 5-inch and 3-inch batteries against what it identified as target T129,[4] one half mile east of Port-en-Bessin at 0538 hours, and then with turrets I and II of her main battery at 0543 hours.  Emmons, being just 2500-3000 yards from the enemy battery at the time, also returned fire.  As the port area was Montcalm’s designated set of bombardment targets, she quickly joined the action.  Not to be outdone Baldwin and Harding joined the party, and probably Melbreak as well (her report contains few details, but she was the farthest ship east of the group and closest to the port).  Doyle chipped in as well, although it targeted a battery one half mile west of Port-en-Bessin.  It isn’t clear whether Leygues joined this effort (due to the absence of its report).‍ ‍

While the response was gratifyingly aggressive, the question is, was it wise?  Did all those ships need to waste that much ammunition against one, possibly two light batteries?  There seems to have been no coordination to this response, merely reaction, raising the question of what command and control was being exercised over these ships during the early stages of the invasion.  The answer is that there apparently was none.‍ ‍

Within minutes the enemy batteries were silenced, at least temporarily, and everyone turned back to their primary pre-H-Hour targets, with only a few minutes delay in a couple of cases.‍ ‍

This incident did have one regrettable result, however.  As noted above, when the Arkansas ceased fire with her 12-inch and 3-inch batteries at 0550 hours, its 5-inch battery continued this mission against target T129 until 0623 hours.  This meant it did not fire the 250 rounds scheduled for target T43—which included the 88mm gun position in WN61.  Forcing the E-3 draw would be just that much more difficult.‍ ‍

Figure 2. Bombardment Group ship positions during the pre-H-Hour bombardment. [Yellow pins: position located by range and bearing from a specified point. Green Pins: positions generally located by range from a specified point, but no bearing. Red pins: no firm data on position.]

Figure 2 shows the initial positions of the bombardment ships as well as can be determined.  The ships of the eastern group provided little data on their positions, and as mentioned above, reports for two of those ships have not been located.  In addition, some of the reports included contradictory data, with the Baldwin’s and Emmons’ positions swapped in one report.[5]  This image does reinforce a point made in the previous installment:  the location of the bombardment ships resulted in gun-target lines such that at least half the enemy casemates could not be effectively shelled, if the emplacements could even be seen from those positions.  None of the eastern group of bombardment ships had a favorable line on any of the guns with enfilading fire west along the beach.  It was much the same with the western group and the east-facing emplacements at that end of the beach.‍ ‍

The bombardment plan had given conflicting instructions on whether to anchor or not.  In the main body of the CTF-124 order they had been given authority to “Anchor at discretion.”[6]   In Annex E (Gunfire Support), however, the destroyers were directed to maintain maneuvering.[7]  Both options had advantages and disadvantages, and the tradeoff basically came down to better firing data from a fixed position (especially as the targets became obscured) versus mobility to get into better firing positions (or evade enemy gunfire).  A couple of ships opted for a middle course.  Upon arriving at their assigned fire support positions, they dropped a dan buoy to mark the location.  This provided a fixed point of reference as they tried to keep position with their engines, while maintaining ability to maneuver as necessary.  Reports indicate only the Arkansas anchored during the bombardment phase, but as noted earlier it is likely Montcalm and G. Legyues did as well.  For those ships which did not drop a dan buoy, they soon found that their Dead Reckoning Tracker was useless in trying to deal with the effects of tide and wind, making firing calculations that much more difficult.‍ ‍

Figure 1 does disclose an apparent failure.  Annex E directed:‍ ‍

“Destroyers proceed down boat lanes and into inshore sectors of fire support areas maneuvering so as to maintain as heavy  a volume of fire on beach targets as possible and adjusting speed so as to approach close to assault beaches as first waves beach.”[8]

Yet we can see from Figure 1, only two of the eleven destroyers continued to close on the beach during the pre-H-Hour bombardment period, and even then, one of them, the Tanatside, continued inshore primarily because it was well short of its assigned firing position when the bombardment began.  Although we don’t have position fixes for the Harding, Doyle and Melbreak, their reports did not mention maneuvering during this phase.  Obviously, this failure to close into the shore would limit the destroyers’ ability to pick out emplacements, or observe the first wave so as to time their cease fires.  On the other hand, by that stage the targets had mostly been covered in dust and smoke, and it was almost impossible to blindly maintain accurate firing solutions while maneuvering.  That would indicate the better solution might have been to anchor—close in—to maintain better blind-firing solutions as dust rose.  This error may have been due to the ships’ inexperience with actual shore bombardment.[9]‍ ‍

But did the guidance from the CTF-124 order to close the beach with the leading wave even make sense?  Using the eastern fire support group as an example, this group of destroyers was spread out in a line to the east of the boat lanes—some very far to the east. So how could they adjust “speed so as to approach close to the assault beaches as the first waves beach?”  If the ships had followed this instruction, four destroyers would all have converged on the area of the E-3/F-1 draws, and their movement primarily would have been laterally from the east, not directly inshore.  While the general idea of closing the beach to maximize effects was fine, without proper positioning and a bit of deconfliction—which were lacking—it would have led to chaos.  It sounded nicely aggressive and warlike, but it was impractical, if not counter-productive. ‍

‍ ‍

A Proper Mental Attitude

‍It appears the conduct of fire for the bombardment was largely impaired by the decisions of the captains, and their decisions were, in turn, influenced by a couple of external consideration.

‍First was a distinct definitional misunderstanding regarding the term “neutralize.”  When providing counterbattery fire, the enemy position is neutralized when it stops returning fire.  But when firing against beach defenses, such as troop shelters and casemates that haven’t yet opened fire, you can’t use the same criterion (lack of response from the defenses) as an indication when to cease fire.  Since there would be no visible indication the beach defenders are neutralized, the bombarding ship must continue to lay down a heavy volume of fire up to the last moment.  That was an absolutely fundamental requirement, and was spelled out in the order (see the quote above).  And yet, that distinction seems to have been lost on the captains of some of the ships.

‍Alongside that matter were two closely related problems.  People firing heavy weapons tend to vastly overestimate their destructive power when they see the large, impressive detonations they cause.  This is especially the case among the inexperienced—and virtually all the gunfire support ships involved were extremely inexperienced in shore bombardment.  Troops in concrete bunkers, and even those in foxholes and trenches, are never as easily destroyed as offshore observers imagine.  This applies not just to naval gunners, but army gunners and bomber pilots as well. Even more importantly, this applied to the fighter pilots circling above who were new to the job of spotting for the naval gunfire.  Inexperienced observers simply assume (wrongly) that great big scary explosions near a target ‘must have’ destroyed it.  One of the greatest lies of industrial-age warfare is, “believe me, the barrage will be so incredible you’ll be able to just walk on in.”  That has rarely turned out to be true, and Omaha would be no exception.‍ ‍

That attitude was then inadvertently stoked by RADM Hall’s (Commander of Force “O”/CTF-124) continued adherence to the concept of destruction over neutralization (and to a degree RADM Kirk’s as well, Commander of the Western Naval Task Force).  In both his base order and Annex E, Hall directed his large bombardment ships to lay down “counterbattery, destructive or neutralizing fire.”  Destructive fire was never the objective, as Ramsay had repeatedly emphasized.  Yet when Hall used that mesmerizing word ‘destruction’, it further primed his captains to think along the wrong lines, and apply the wrong fire techniques.‍ ‍

We have to look no further than the Harding for a perfect example of this.  Harding was ordered to neutralize one single target: T41, which (along with T43 noted above) covered the WN61 position defending the east side of the E-3 exit, and was home of a 50mm gun (in an open-pit emplacement) and the 88mm antitank gun enfilading that half of the beach.  And Harding had 300 rounds to do it.  Initially Harding was distracted by the fire coming from the Port-en-Bessin area and lobbed 40 rounds in that direction starting at 0537 hours.  Shifting fire to its assigned target T41 at 0547 hours, the ship ceased fire at 0605, under the belief the position had been “apparently destroyed.”  It had fired only 100 rounds.  The ship started looking for other targets, first seizing on target T33 (Melbrake’s assigned target).  Harding tossed 20 rounds at it and again claimed the target complex was also destroyed.  At 0610, Harding decided to shell a “fortified house in a draw west of Port-en-Bessin; target destroyed, 40 rounds expended.”  At 0615 hours it shifted fire to what it described as an enemy field piece (no location reported) and sent 24 rounds in its direction.  It claimed the crew was scattered and the gun was withdrawn, but “probably not destroyed.”  At 0625 hours, as its high volume of fire on T41 should have been reaching its climax, Harding instead was focused back on Port-en-Bassin to engage a gun on the breakwater—a target Montcalm was tasked to suppress (the port’s defenses were Montcalm’s only task). 

To summarize the Harding’s bombardment contributions, it fired just one third of its allotted ammunition at its assigned target, at which time it improbably decided the gun positions, shelters and entrenchments had been ‘destroyed.’  They were not destroyed.  Whatever neutralizing effects those 100 rounds might have had, were wasted because the Harding had ceased fire on its assigned target fully 25 minutes before H-Hour, giving the defenders plenty of time to shake it off. Whatever the strengths of the Harding’s captain, he brought the wrong mental attitude to the task and lost focus on what his primary bombardment mission involved.‍ ‍

Nor was the Harding the only example of this.  On the western flank, the Thompson was ordered to place 450 rounds on two targets in WN74.  That was the highest allotment for any of the bombardment ships, as Thompson’s fire mission was supposed to last longer, from 0550 to 0715 hours.  Recall from the previous installment, one of these two targets contained a pair of 80mm guns sited to enfilade the western half of the beach.  The other target consisted of the general defensive works within the rest of the strongpoint, which did not immediately threaten the landing.  At 0550 hours, Thompson opened fire for 30 minutes on the target that included the two gun emplacements. It then judged the target “apparently destroyed” and ceased fire, having expended 107 rounds.  With 10 minutes left before H-Hour, Thompson shifted fire to the other target.  This was a major error. Thompson was not forced to cease fire because the leading waves fouled its gun line; the target was west of the boat lanes and there was no interference. Nor was it forced to cease fire because of time limits; it was cleared to shoot until 0715 hours. Thompson was simply overly impressed by its own fireworks and decided it must have destroyed the target. With 10 minutes left before H-Hour, the gun crews had time to shake off the effects of the bombardment and re-man the guns. It isn’t certain when the guns went into action, but it wouldn’t be last heard from them.

After ceasing fire on the gun positions, Thompson shifted fire to the second target. It was a desultory effort, consisting of just 56 rounds fired over the next 40 minutes (with 30 minutes of it after H-Hour), but Thompson declared that target destroyed, too.  In total, the ship had fired just 163 rounds of its allotted 450 during its bombardment window.  That proved to be a false economy as the ship then noticed a gun firing on the beach. The coordinates Thompson reported for this ‘new’ gun were the same coordinates as the two 80mm guns it claimed had been destroyed at 0620 hours (though it didn’t make that point in its report). There’s no way of telling how long it (or both) had been firing before it caught Thompson’s attention.  Thompson spent the next 40 minutes again trying to silence the gun(s), during which time the gun(s) continued to shell the troops on the beach.  It took another 106 rounds before the ship again announced the position destroyed, rounds that would have been far more productive had they been expended before H-Hour to silence those guns before the landings began. 

It the 10 minutes between Thompson’s cease fire and H-Hour—when Thompson was supposed to be firing its most intense period of bombardment on the gun positions—the ship instead shifted fire to the target that did not threaten the waves as they beached. We don’t know when those guns were put into action, but the volume of flanking fire on the Dog Green beach sector would indicate the guns had not been neutralized by the Thompson’s aborted bombardment and were probably up and firing at or shortly after H-Hour. This would not have happened if Thompson had been focused on continuing its neutralization mission; instead it opted for a destruction mission, with no visible criterion to make such a judgement. And, once again, it’s worth noting that these guns were in earth field works (not concrete emplacements) and should have been vulnerable to Thompson’s 5-inch guns. But the ship had a poor angle of fire on them and had skimped on ammunition.   ‍‍ ‍

The failure of the Bombardment Group was the culmination of several factors, and was not simply due to too little time or too few guns as Hall claimed.  Most of these have been discussed before, but to recap, these are the most important factors:‍ ‍

-          Diversion of ships from either defensive (counterbattery) or offensive (beach defense neutralization) tasks, assigning them instead to targets that did not immediately threaten the landing.‍ ‍

-          Too heavily weighting the defensive tasks.  This primarily applies to wasting Texas’ main battery on Pointe-du-Hoc when a destroyer could have handled the mission. As a result, the heaviest guns in the force made no contribution to neutralizing the beach defenses.  This could also apply to Montcalm; dedicating 6-inch (152mm) guns to neutralize 75mm guns was perhaps excessive and wasteful.‍ ‍

-          Inadequate positioning of ships relative to the orientation of the defensive fortifications within the assigned targets.‍ ‍

-          Failure to use the most effective shell types.  For every one AA shell used, more than 6 common shells were fired, despite the former having better terminal effects.  This proportion was in keeping with Hall’s order, and may have reflected limited stockage levels on hand in the UK.  It also may have reflected the desire to retain AA shells for expected Luftwaffe attacks.  Whatever the cause, it still hampered the bombardment.‍ ‍

-          Passive command.  Once the pre-H-hour bombardment began, it proceeded automatically, without active command involvement.  While this would have been fine had the bombardment proceeded as planned, that is not what happened.  Even though the Destroyer Squadron 18 commander (and his flagship Frankfort) had been diverted to organizing the offshore screen and was not present inshore to control the destroyer force (a questionable decision), his deputy commander (captain of Satterlee) was present on the firing line.  While Satterlee made several excellent decisions on D-Day, it made no attempt to stop the bombardment from veering off the tracks.‍ ‍

-          There was a marked difference in attitude in prosecuting defensive as opposed to offensive tasks.  As soon as a coastal artillery battery opened fire from the vicinity of Port-en-Bessin, every ship in the eastern fire support group aggressively responded.  On the other hand, while prosecuting the beach neutralization task, only one ship fired its entire scheduled ammunition, with the rest firing only about a half.  ‍ ‍

-          Synchronization with the leading wave.  The intent was to increase the volume of fire to a maximum just before the leading wave beached.  While bombardment times were specified in the order, the actual cease fire was supposed to be guided by the progress of the first wave.  Only one ship, Baldwin, mentioned doing this.  The others either ceased firing at the prescribed time, or prematurely switched to other targets.  (The Satterlee deserves mention for taking the initiative to shell Pointe-du-Hoc in conjunction with the Rangers’ delayed landing.  But as that was not its assigned target and occurred after the bombardment period, it doesn’t strictly fit in this discussion, however commendable). ‍ ‍

As you can see, there were many factors in play.  Some were the result of tradeoffs (such as the matter of anchoring versus maneuvering).  Some were flaws in the planning and some were the result of decisions in the midst of gunfire.  And there were factors that no one could affect (such as the six idle 5-inch guns—the equivalent of another one and a half destroyers—on the unengaged side of the battleships).  They all combined to steadily erode the scale and effects of the bombardment.‍ ‍

Yet emerging from this are two overriding facts:  1) too few of the guns available were appropriately targeted on the beach defenses; and 2) only a bit more than half the projectiles that should have been fired, were.  ‍ ‍

So far we have discussed only the standard naval gunfire ships.  It’s now time to turn our attention to the various craft used to complement the fire of their larger brothers.‍

‍ ‍

The Self-Propelled Artillery

‍Given the lack of information about these howitzers on D-Day, there is little to be said.  As you’ll recall from the previous installment, each of the 36 M7 self-propelled howitzers was allotted 100 rounds to fire as its LCT followed the leading waves toward the beach.  That should have totaled a healthy 3,600 rounds hitting the defenses in the 25 minutes prior to H-Hour.  It would have been a considerable addition to the bombardment, amounting to two thirds of what the naval gunfire ships were supposed to shoot (keeping in mind the differences in caliber).  Of course, this potential was offset by the their limited accuracy aboard the bobbing LCTs.

‍There is scant information on the 58th Armored Field Artillery (AFA) Battalion’s action on D-Day.  The unit history mentions the battalion training to fire from LCTs, but completely omits mention of doing so on D-Day.[10]  Similarly, Hot Steel, The Story of the 58th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, also omits this.[11]  However, Fran Baker, the editor of Hot Steel, does have records indicating the battalion fired 774 rounds from their LCTs on 6 June.[12]

‍The 62ND AFA Bn opened fire as planned beginning at 0600 hours at 8,000 yards range.  A total of 349 rounds were fired from the LCTs. 

“On the initial run-in for firing several LCT’s proceeded well within 3,000 yards of the beach while still firing.  All the LCT’s were subject to small arms and cannon fire at this time but no damage to craft or wounds to personnel were suffered.” [13]‍ ‍

The battalion commander (LTC Donal Bennett) had almost nothing to say about firing from the LCTs in his report, merely noting “Battalion fired on beach defenses prior to H-hour.”[14]‍ ‍

Based on 18 howitzers in each battalion, the 58th would have fired roughly 43 rounds per howitzer while afloat, and the 62nd fewer than 20.  These numbers are well below the 100 rounds allocated per howitzer by the CTF-124 order.[15]‍ ‍

There is no clear indication whether these battalions conducted their shoots by direct lay, or if they used the clock method (as discussed in the previous installment).  But we can possibly make an educated guess.  If firing in direct lay, the rear howitzers would have their sight-lines blocked by the howitzers ahead of them in the LCTs, which would prevent them from aiming and therefore firing.  If that were the case, then only the ten howitzers at the front of the LCTs could have fired for each battalion, bringing the rounds-per-gun up to a somewhat more reasonable 77 rounds for the 58th and 35 for the 62nd.‍ ‍

The hard reality, however was that these battalions delivered significantly less ordnance than planned.  Instead of 3600 high explosive projectiles, they delivered only 1123, or  just 31% of the expected firepower.  So, the Army was no better at delivering ‘drenching fire’ than was the Navy.

‍ ‍

The Rockets‍ ‍

Hopes were not necessarily high for the LCT(R) group since CAPT Sabin, heading the Gunfire Support Group, had rated their preparedness as poor due to the late arrival of their craft and their lack of training. Determining their actual performance on D-Day is difficult, as the reports are vague and contradictory.‍ ‍

One the Navy side, optimism was the tone.  LCDR Carr was the commander of the LCT(R) flotilla, and his report was positive.  ‍ ‍

-          His craft used radar with a position prediction indicator (PPI) screen to judge range to the shore.  All but one craft used ranging shots to confirm the radar.  These ranging shots were not as useful as hoped, as the shallow waters nearing the beach caused the rockets to detonate as if they were striking dry land (misleading the observer­—looking from thousands of yards off shore—to believe he was in range).  ‍ ‍

-          Complicating this, the Officers in Charge (OiCs) of the craft stated they could not actually see their targets due to the dust and smoke.‍ ‍

-          Despite the above, the OiCs believed they “fired on target in all instances.”‍ ‍

-          As reported by the OiCs, the time of firing for the craft ranged from H-7 to H+2, which conflicted with the much earlier time recorded in some Army reports.‍ ‍

-          The OiCs also reported the first wave’s estimated range to the shore varied from 200 to 2000 yards, (which indicates synchronization failed badly in the longer cases).‍ ‍

The claim that they believed they “fired on target in all instances” is plainly incompatible with the details concerning misleading ranging shots, inability to see their targets and their first experience with using radar for fire control.    ‍ ‍

Despite his skepticism, Sabin struck a mixed, but mostly positive tone in his report:‍ ‍

“Rocket craft took up their positions, some late. The fire, however, was generally accurate and, it is believed effective.”[16]

‍Later in the same report he warmed up to them even more:‍ ‍

“Rocket fire was excellent in general.  Rockets from two of the craft appeared to be short.  Many rockets exploded shortly after launching.  Conversation with a few Army personnel who landed early indicated they considered the rocket fire their best cover.”

‍ It isn’t apparent how he could judge the fire to be “excellent in general” as the targets were obscured.  Still, his final comment was equally upbeat:‍ ‍

“Rocket craft are the most useful and important of the close gunfire support craft.  Properly trained and used, they can be of great assistance. It is recommended that additional high speed, shallow draft, short range rocket craft be developed.”‍ ‍

As complimentary as that last quote sounded, his caveat of ‘properly trained and used’ reveals he was talking about the hypothetical value of the craft, not the effectiveness as witnessed on D-Day.  In fact, the last sentence recommended a type of rocket craft completely different from the ones he employed.  Skepticism here is also warranted by the fact that the LCT(R)s were sent back to the UK the very next day (D+1).  The CTF-122 plan directed they be returned when they exhausted their ammunition, but each craft had an entire second set of rockets, and were supposed to have reloaded and been ready to fire again by H+210, at targets designated by CAPT Sabin (per the CTF-124 plan). But Sabin did not employ them later on D-Day, or in the following days to assist the push along the coast west from Vierville towards Grandcamp-Maisy.  Instead, they were sent away.‍ ‍That is probably the clearest judgement on their effectiveness.

After the war, Sabin took a different tone.  While claiming the rocket barrages provided a morale boost to the invading troops, he also noted that:  ‍ ‍

‘‘ . . . due to excessive dispersion, however, the rockets inflicted very little damage on the enemy.’’ [17]‍ ‍

He also mentioned in passing that “approximately six thousand rockets left their pads” during the assault; he didn’t point out that was three thousand fewer than were supposed to have launched.   Two pages later he revealed that after H-Hour he still had two fully loaded LCT(R)s at hand, indicating two of the rocket craft had not arrived in time to launch; he did not explain why the remaining 1000 rockets did not fire.‍ ‍

The Army perspective of the rockets’ effectiveness was more in line with Sabin’s later, non-official writings. The 16th RCT reported the rocket craft fired too early, corroborating evidence of the synchronization failure, especially since most of this wave landed late.[18]  It didn’t mention where the rockets struck, but noted their targets were fully in action when the troops landed.  The Army’s Omaha Beachhead stated:‍ ‍

“The rockets, according to most reports from the assault troops, made a heartening display but failed to hit defensive positions-an opinion which cannot be accepted as final and which runs counter to naval reports.”[19]‍ ‍

But even some Navy reports called the rocket accuracy into question.  The LCTs from the group landing DD tanks in the 116th RCT sector mentioned the rockets, but two of those reports thought they were witnessing a series mines detonating in the water and on the beach, or mortar or artillery fire, indicating the barrages landed too short.  A third LCT recognized the explosions for rockets, and reported they landed all around the craft as it beached 75 yards from the waterline – another poorly synchronized and short barrage.[20]‍ ‍

Fragmentary reports from German defenders were just as uncertain, although their comments were recorded decades later and may not be entirely accurate.  Each of their positions should have been hit by a rocket barrage.  Henrik Naub was a machine gunner in WN71 and made no mention of rockets being employed.[21]  Hein Severloh (in WN62) graphically described the horror of the barrage of gunfire and rockets, but noted:‍ ‍

“Nevertheless, the shells of this barrage mostly hit the base too high and caused little damage.”[22]‍ ‍

Similarly, Gustav Winter, who manned the ‘concrete panzer’ in WN68, described a terrible bombardment by large caliber shells, no doubt the abbreviated shelling by the Arkansas and Glasgow.   He did not, however, mention a rocket barrage.[23]‍ ‍

Essentially, we have no idea how accurate the rocket barrages were or how effective the impacts.  Despite the optimism of Navy observers who were looking at a smoke-clouded shore, the sparse reports from American and German troops alike seem to indicate that their effectiveness was minimal.‍ ‍

But in some respects, this distracts from another key point, and that is the difficulty of synchronizing these barrages with the landing of the leading wave.  For one thing, the term ‘leading wave’, which the LCT(R)s were supposed to key on, referred to the tanks that landed from LCT(A)s and (HE)s, and they should have touched down at H-Hour.  In theory the first infantry (Wave 2) should have landed one minute later.  But the Navy’s boat waves were not up to the task of keeping such a tight schedule.  Sabin, who was close inshore observing his various gunfire support craft, candidly stated “there was a general mix-up of all craft.”[24]  Boat divisions lost formation, craft were swept to wrong beach sectors or steered toward misidentified landmarks, and many in the leading waves landed late.  To be truly effective, the LCT(R)s needed to synchronize their firing closely with the first wave of tanks and the first wave of infantry.  And this was simply impossible as the small assault craft were incapable of performing their role to the required degree of precision.‍ ‍

There were many reasons for this, including the sea conditions, the excessively long distance between the Transport Area and the beach, and the generally inexperienced crews of the small craft (more on that in a later series).  The simple fact is that the effectiveness of the rocket craft depended on precise clockwork functioning of several parts, none of which—to include the LCT(R)s—were up to the job on 6 June.  Rocket craft had proven effective in the Pacific, but Hall’s command hadn’t yet gotten the bugs worked out.‍ ‍

I tend to consider these LCT(R)s to have had little physical effect on the defenses.  Their noise and concussions may have contributed something to the general neutralizing effect, though even that is questionable due to the synchronization problem.  Nevertheless, Hall spoke well of the concept in his report, without, however, actually commenting on their effectiveness on D-Day.‍

‍ ‍

The LCG(L)s‍ ‍

Not a lot was expected of the LCG(L)s.   Converted from LCT hulls, they were not particularly good gunnery platforms and had no fire control systems other than direct sights.  By naval gunnery standards, their two 4.7-inch guns were just a bit smaller than the 5-inch guns of the destroyers.  But these flat-bottomed craft could get close inshore where it should be easier to locate and target specific features.  In short, they might come in very handy—with a bit of luck.  The LCG(L)s were tied to the LCT(A)/(HE)s of the first wave, being tasked to escort these craft from the Line of Deployment to the beach, providing neutralizing fire on specific targets on the way in.‍ ‍

According to the plan, three LCG(L)s would fire on four targets in WN72 and WN73 (the D-1 exit).  One LCG(L) would fire on WN65 (E-1 exit) and the final LCG(L) would strike WN61 (at the E-3/F-1 exits).  As a result, both of the casemates that had 88mm guns would be targeted by an LCG(L).  Each craft had an allotment of 120 rounds (except one with 150) and was to fire from H-20 until times ranging from H-4 to H-Hour.  Like the destroyers, however, they were ordered to continue firing until the lead wave of LCT(A)/(HE)s landed or fouled their gun line, in case the LCTs were either early or late.‍ ‍

Unfortunately, they too performed poorly.  It started with two of the LCG(L)s slated for the D-1 draw (#426 and #449)  mistakenly ending up at Utah beach.  Sabin’s report claimed #426 arrived back at Omaha in time to fire on schedule, but #426’s action report contradicts that, stating it arrived at Omaha at 0745, after proceeding at emergency speed, but having to stop and rescue survivors in the water.  The #449 craft remained off Utah. ‍ ‍

As a result, the bombardment of the defenses at the D-1 draw would be reduced by 240 rounds (66%).  The #424 craft did arrive on station, on time and opened fire at 6000 yards, and closed the beach to an unspecified distance.  It ceased fire at 0640 hours, having fired only 66 rounds.  Thus, instead of being hit by 360 rounds of 4.7-inch fire, the D-1 defenses received barely more than one sixth of that number.  (This area had already been shorted 140 5-inch rounds from McCook’s and Texas’ abbreviated bombardments.)‍ ‍

The #811 craft opened fire on its target ( a group of pillboxes in WN65) at 0610 hours at a range of 4000 yards and closed the beach on the flank of the LCT(A/(HE)s until reaching 1000-500 yards.  The OiC was apparently confused as to his mission, believing it was a point target instead of the complex of guns and machine guns.  As a result, after observing two hits and one probable hit on his target, he ceased fire.  He only fired 47 of his allotted 120 rounds.‍ ‍

The final LCG(L) was the #687 craft, which had target T43 (WN61) in its sights, and had 150 rounds to fire (30 more than the rest of the LCG(L)s).  It opened fire at 0609 hours at a range of 4,000 yards and closed to 1,000 yards.  In his report, the OiC stated his mission was neutralization, and apparently, he had the correct interpretation of that word as he fired for the full duration of his timeframe, and expended 110 rounds, despite the obscuring dust.  His report, however, illustrated the weakness in the design of the LCG(L)s in this phase.  The #2 gun was directly behind the #1 gun and, being at the same level could not fire over it.  So, when the craft was headed directly toward the target as it escorted the LCT(A)/(HE)s to the beach, it could only fire one gun.  He attempted to solve this problem by sailing on a zig-zag course which would permit the #2 gun to bear for part of the time.  This was complicated by the need to avoid fouling the gun lines of the Harding and the Baldwin which were firing at the same target.  Again, planning needs to consider these details.‍ ‍

But generally speaking, the LCG(L)s were a disappointment, expending only 223 of an allotted 630 rounds.  Under-firing seemed to have been the common affliction among the bombarding vessels, be they ships or craft or howitzers.‍ ‍

Both CAPT Imlay (Deputy Commander of Assault Group O-1) and CAPT Sabin (Commander of the Gunfire Support Group) doubted the value of the LCG(L)s in the landings, focusing on their lack of fire control systems and a decision not to link those craft with spotters ashore, which precluded them from being directed on known targets.[25]

‍ ‍

The Control Vessels

‍There were six patrol craft that acted as control craft offshore at Omaha.  The vessels were PC-461 Class, 173 foot submarine chasers.  Although doctrinally sub chasers, they were classified as patrol craft and numbered as such (e.g., PC-552).  (Not be confused with a smaller class (110 ft) of submarine chasers used as secondary control craft on D-Day.)  ‍ ‍

As primary control craft, four of the six PCs had the job of locating their beach sectors and positioning themselves at the Line of Departure to guide the boat waves to the correct beaches.  The remaining two craft were reserve control vessels, and they would start at the Line of Departure, and accompany the lead waves to 2000 yards offshore and take position there.  ‍ ‍

As these six ships mounted 3-inch guns, they were incorporated into the bombardment plan and each craft was given a target to fire on and allotted 50 rounds (AP) for the job.   ‍ ‍

On D-Day, one PC (PC-552) did not fire as it was too busy trying to rescue soldiers whose DD tanks had sunk.  It isn’t known whether PC-567 fired, as the only report from that ship was from the embarked Dispatching Officer, and he made no mention of firing, probably because he was busy with other duties.  I assume the ship did fire; there was nothing to distract it from that task as was the case with PC-552.  We know from a crewman’s personal account that PC-553 did fire, and while he mentioned hitting their pillbox seven times, he did not mention how many rounds were expended.  PCs -568, -618 and -1225 did fire, with the first two closing to 2000 yards and the latter remaining 4000 yards offshore.  They fired 51, 19 and 50 rounds respectively. ‍ Two craft ceased fire 12 minutes early due to smoke-obscured targets, and the third kept up the fire until H+10.

It’s impossible to establish how much effect the PCs had on German defenses.  After the pre-H-Hour bombardment, these ships reported some excellent pinpoint shooting and destruction of quite a number of enemy positions (without slighting the honor of the sailors involved, it isn’t clear how much of those claims were the result of accurate observation or ‘enthusiastic estimation’)  Nevertheless, as far as the pre-H-Hour bombardment is concerned, there is no way to judge their effect.‍

‍ ‍

The Elephant in the Screen‍ ‍

Hidden in plain sight in Kirk’s operation plan was Task Group 122.5, the Reserve Fire Support Group, consisting of one light cruiser, 17 destroyers and the heavy cruiser Augusta.  That’s a very large reserve and a whole lot of firepower standing idle, especially when you’ve been complaining you don’t have enough bombarding ships.‍ ‍

The truth is they weren’t exactly idle and these ships were filling necessary roles.  First, they were mostly deployed in the WNTF flank screen facing Cherbourg.  The E-Boat raid on RADM Moon’s Exercise Tiger convoy had made Kirk understandably nervous about what surprises might come from Cherbourg and the Brittany ports.  And if Kirk was nervous, Moon was doubly so. ‍ ‍

And second, they were standing by to replace bombarding ships that had used up their ammunition allowance.  Naval gunfire was going to be very important in the coming days, and they could not simply exhaust all the ships’ magazines in the first few hours.  As no one wanted a ship to completely ‘run dry’ on ammunition, the plan stated if a ship fired 70% of its magazines, it would be pulled out of line and placed in the screen until it could be sent with a return convoy to the UK for replenishment.  Once it was pulled out of the bombardment force, a ship from the Reserve Gunfire Group would stand in and replace it.  Only one ship at Omaha fired off 70% on D-Day, the Satterlee.‍ ‍

Still, seventeen destroyers and two cruisers seem a bit excessive as a reserve.  It’s difficult to believe one, or two, or even three couldn’t have been added to Hall’s bombardment force.  From this perspective, 80+ years later, it is impossible to judge all of the considerations Kirk had to weigh, and it wouldn’t be wise to flatly say he erred in this allocation of ships.  But it is reasonable to wonder if some adjustment shouldn’t have been made.‍ ‍

On the other hand, two factors do argue against the allocation of an additional ship or two from the Reserve Fire Support Group.  First, Hall clearly did not get nearly the volume of fire expected from the ships he did have, and there would be no guarantee any reinforcement would have been handled any more effectively.  And second, Hall’s failure to deconflict positioning and gun-target lines in the fire support areas was such that adding one or two more ships may have actually been counterproductive.‍ ‍

There was one small, surprise gift from the Reserve Fire Support Group.  In the early hours of 6 June, the heavy cruiser USS Augusta with its nine 8-inch guns and eight 5-inch guns sailed into the Transport Area off Omaha.  Although Augusta was Kirk’s WNTF command ship (with his Army counterpart, LTG Bradley aboard), it was also dual-hatted as part of the Reserve Fire Support Group.  In my previous installment I questioned why it hadn’t been given a bombardment task in any of the plans.  It turns out that at some point late in planning, the subject must have come up and it was included.  ‍ ‍

Augusta arrived at the western swept lane hours earlier, but didn’t proceed into Fire Support Area 3 until 0550 hours.  At 0617, it dropped anchor and a minute later opened fire.  Its action report did not identify the target, and the ship only expended twenty-one 8-inch rounds over a five-minute period, ceasing fire at 0613 hours.  It opened fire again at 0635 hours (again at an unidentified target), expending 30 rounds before ceasing fire eight minutes later.  Having taken a symbolic lick at the enemy, the ship then repositioned back into the Transport Area, anchoring next to Hall’s command ship (the USS Ancon).  It hadn’t been much, and it probably didn’t help much, but it couldn’t have hurt.  It was a bit disappointing, though.

‍ ‍

Questions and Answers‍ ‍

There are four major questions this series has attempted to answer.‍ ‍

The first is why Admiral Ramsay and General Montgomery did not adopt an invasion model more akin to that used in the Central Pacific.  I believe the first installment answered that question thoroughly.  I’ll merely leave the final word to Unteroffizer (Corporal) Henrik Naube, of the German 352nd Infantry Division, manning a machine gun in WN71:‍ ‍

“I am also puzzled as to why the Americans did not damage our positions more fully before the landing. I imagine that there is a balance for an attacker to keep, between a lengthy bombardment which does a lot of damage but also signals that an attack is coming soon, and on the other hand a last-minute preparatory bombardment which forces the defenders to take cover but without letting them prepare for the attack. Nevertheless, considering their capability, I am surprised that their aircraft did not attack us more fully overnight on the evening of the 5th June or at first light on the 6th, when the bombs from their heavy bombers fell wide. I think that would have disrupted our defences and still prevented us from reacting in time by bringing up reserves and so on.”[26]‍ ‍

Henrik’s second sentence shows a better understanding of the difficult tradeoffs involved in selecting the bombardment length than did a number of senior officers in the Allied command.  As for his second sentence, well, that provides an excellent segue to the next installment, which will examine the planned air bombardment.‍ ‍

The second question was whether the bombardment plan was reasonably sound, which was addressed in the second installment of this series.  That analysis identified several flaws in the multiple layers of bombardment planning, most of which concerned conflicting instructions and unclear guidance.  The major flaw appeared to be the failure to make the most of the assets on hand, such as the Frankfort not being used, the targeting of Texas at Pointe du Hoc and the diversion of ships to non-critical targets during the brief bombardment window. The result was a significant diversion of firepower from the critical beach neutralization task.  The best illustration of this lopsided allocation of firepower unwittingly comes from Hall’s own report on the operation.  He proudly bragged that the defensive counterbattery mission was so effective that only a single shot was fired at the fleet and it missed.[27]  That was a factually incorrect statement, but the general sentiment is on point: the German coastal artillery had virtually no impact on the invasion.  That fact stands as a clear indictment of how Hall apportioned guns-to-tasks.  The fact that he succeeded so completely at the counterbattery task—while failing so badly at the beach neutralization task—is clear evidence he put far too many of his critical and limited assets into the former task and badly shorted the latter.‍ ‍

It’s almost as if he never believed the beach neutralization task was achievable, and as a result did not tackle the job as seriously as he did the counterbattery task.  If so, his doubts created a self-fulfilling prophecy, with too few guns committed, too few rounds fired and too few captains vigorously prosecuting their beach neutralization task.‍ ‍

And that neatly leads to our third question: was the bombardment plan executed effectively?  No. It was not.  With almost half of the Bombardment Group’s planned projectiles left unfired at H-Hour, there is no question execution was a failure.  The self-propelled howitzers firing from LCTs fired an even lower percentage of their shells, and with much less accuracy.  And no one can make even an educated guess what effect the rockets had.  Finally, the LCG(L)s and control craft suffered from many of the same problems, with the added point that there were so few of them.  ‍ ‍

The failure of the bombardment at Omaha was not so much due to the lack of bombarding ships or time (though a bit more of each would have been very nice to have) as it was due to poor allocation of ships to tasks, and extremely poor execution.‍ ‍

Had intelligence spotted movement of the artillery of the German 352nd Infantry Division into position behind the beach, that would have presented Hall and his gunfire planners an entirely different set of challenges.  His bombardment group would have been clearly inadequate to shell the numerous battery positions scattered inland in addition to their other tasks.  Presumably this would have resulted in some of the Reserve Fire Support Group’s ships shifted to Omaha.  And while this was the reality they ended up facing on D-Day it is outside the scope of this analysis:  how well was the bombardment, as planned, executed?‍ ‍

And that leaves us the fourth and final question.  Could the bombardment have succeeded had it been better planned and executed?  That’s difficult to say, if for no other reason than how to measure success?  Where on the sliding scale of ‘attritted defenses’ is the success line?‍ ‍

We do know that even in its anemic form on D-Day, the bombardment did have some significant effects.  All three of the German defenders I cited earlier testified that a soldier in their separate groups broke down in fear.  Eyes bled from the concussions.  Hearing was lost.  Concrete walls ‘rippled and cracked.’  Two of them described nearby concrete positions destroyed.  The end of one position was blown open, exposing defenders to the beach. Gustav Winter, manning the concrete panzer, said his turret was penetrated by a Sherman tank shell that killed his loader.  Yet when examined after D-Day, it was found intact, indicating he abandoned the fight.  Similarly, Henrik Naub in WN71 reported that the Volksdeutsch[28] troops in the neighboring bunker killed their German NCO rather than continue the fight.  So even this truncated bombardment had effects, both physical and moral.  It wasn’t enough in that truncated form, but it hinted at what more could have been accomplished had it been fully prosecuted.  ‍ ‍

Had the bombardment been almost doubled—that is, had all the allotted ammunition been fired—and had the ships better synchronized their cease firing with the landing of the first waves, there is little doubt it would have been far more effective.  Had the LCT(R)s been better trained, more accurate and better synchronized, the effectiveness would have been even greater.  And had the self-propelled artillery fired its full allotment, how much more effective might it have been, despite their accuracy problems?  ‍ ‍

But how much more effective and would it have been ‘enough?’  That’s impossible to quantify, and everyone will draw their own conclusion.  As for me, I won’t commit the typical error of predicting it would have been a ‘walkover.’  In an era of dumb bombs and unguided projectiles, there were strict limits to what a bombardment could achieve.  But I do think it is obvious that the losses among the American invaders would have been considerably less had the bombardment been better planned and more violently executed.  Maybe, just maybe, it would have been successful enough that we would not feel obliged to think the adjective ‘bloody’ must precede Omaha.‍

‍ ‍

Spin and Scapegoat‍ ‍

Hall never did admit that his view of the tactical environment was faulty, and he never let slip the slightest hint how poorly his pre-H-Hour bombardment misfired.  In his after action report he repeatedly hammered home his belief that he hadn’t enough time or ships for the bombardment, and he similarly criticized Ramsay’s decision that neutralization was all that could be achieved.  Hall repeatedly stated that slow, aimed fire for destruction of beach defenses over a prolonged time should have been used.  This despite the fact that such a delay likely would have resulted in a defeat of the invasion.  Hall suffered from the blindered perspective of a man focused on the first 100 yards, and was incapable of seeing any larger ramifications.  He was so fixed in his opinion that he didn’t see the flaw in his own assertion.  He blamed the ineffectiveness of his pre-landing bombardment on inability to spot the enemy positions. ‍So how would a longer and more deliberate (aimed fire) bombardment succeed when he nothing to aim at?

In fact, Hall was left in an untenable position.  On the one hand, he blamed the ineffectiveness of his bombardment on the lack of ships, time and the inability to spot the emplacements.  On the other hand he had to portray his command’s efforts as effective and successful.  He attempted to rationalize this internal contradiction with this carefully crafted disclaimer:‍ ‍

“Naval gunfire support was effective against the targets on which it was directed.  Unfortunately the pre-landing bombardment was not accompanied by air bombardment as was planned, consequently many enemy position were left untouched.”[29]‍ ‍

This was wildly at variance with the facts.  As worded, it clearly implied that the naval and air bombardments were focused on different targets. Hence the failure of the air bombardment left many targets untouched.  Absolutely false.  As figure 3 graphically demonstrates, every air target duplicated naval bombardment targets.  Not a single target was assigned to the bombers alone.  If any target had been left untouched, then Hall’s force had to have failed to engage it as well.  But they didn’t fail to engage those targets.  What they failed to do was to engage them fully, skillfully and in proper synchronization with the first wave.  ‍ ‍

Figure 3. This combined targeting chart shows that all 13 air bombardment aimpoints coincided with naval bombardment targets. Therefore none of the defenses should have been left untouched, as RADM Hall stated, due to the delay in releasing bombs. Every position still should have been neutralized by what Hall characterized as effective naval bombardment.

Hall was also absolutely incorrect when he stated his “gunfire support was effective against the targets on which it was directed.”   That was an inexcusable exaggeration.  It possibly could have been at least more effective, had his captains vigorously prosecuted their bombardment missions.  But they didn’t.‍ ‍

This failure has generally been papered over by the subsequent critical role played by the destroyers later in the morning when they stepped up and provided excellent support to the troops pinned on the beach.  That (deservedly) heroic story, when coupled with the constant references to the ‘bomber failure’ scapegoat, has kept historians from digging more deeply for over eight decades.

‍But now we know better.

‍ ‍

Coming Next

‍- Shortly following publication of this post, I’ll publish an addendum summarizing the experiences of each of the ship’s in the pre-H-Hour bombardment, for those who would like to look into the details more closely.

-‍ In the next two to three weeks I’ll post an installment analyzing the planned air bombardment for Omaha, focusing on the practical limits of using strategic bombers on tactical targets, and what the likely outcome might have been had the weather not interfered.

F‍OOTNOTES ‍

[1] Action reports for the Hunt class escort destroyers are available, but have scant detail and do not mention ammunition expenditure.  I still have feelers out to find D-Day reports for the Free French cruisers.

[2] The 14-inch guns of the Texas were larger, but were not involved in the beach neutralization mission.

[3] CTF-122 operation order prohibited use of the still-secret radar proximity fuze, but mechanical time fuzes were allowed.  The hope may have been that the high trajectory rockets would eliminate these open positions, but given the poor training of those ships, it was an unrealistic dream.

[4] This would appear to actually have been T128 based on the description ‘one half mile east of Port-en-Bessin.’  T129 was about 3 miles east of Port-en-Bessin.

[5] For instance, the Doyle’s position is shown based on its reported bearing and distance from its target.  However, it also reported its estimated distance to the beach, which would place it significantly closer to the nearest shoreline.

[6] Commander Assault Force Omaha (CTF124), Operation Order No. BB-44, pg. 11.   NARA, RG 313, Entry Number P111, Box 81.CTF 124 OpOrd, pg. 11

[7] Ibid. Annex E (Gunfire Support Plan), pg 4.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Commander Assault Force “O”, Action Report – Assault on Vierville-Colleville Sector, Coast of Normandy, dtd 27 July 1944, pg 101.  When commenting on joint exercises in the Slapton Sands area, Hall stated, “In the case of the U.S. destroyers, this was definitely limited by the low ammunition allowance possible.”

[10] History of the 58th Armored Field Battalion, on file at the Ike Skelton Combined Arms Research Library’s Digital Library (call no. UA30.2 (58th) .H5 RARE).

[11] Baker, Fran, ed. Hot Steel, The Story of the 58th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, Delphi Books, 2014.

[12] Correspondence with the author, 26 February, 2026

[13]After action report, 62nd Armored Field Artillery Battalion, 19 Nov thru 31 Aug 43, June, Sept, Dec, 1944, Jan 1945. See the Unit Journal entry for 6 June 1944, pg. 60 of the .pdf.  On file at the Ike Skelton Combined Arms Research Library’s Digital Library.

[14] Ibid.  See Narrative of the Battalion Commander, dtd 4 July 1944, pg. 51 of the .pdf

[15] Opcit. CTF124 Operation Order No. BB-44, Annex E (Gunfire Support Plan), Appendix 2, pg. 17.

[16] Commander, Gunfire Support Group (CTG124.8), Action Report – Operation Neptune, 3 July 1944, pg. 18.  NARA, RG 38, Nara Catalog Id: 4697018

[17] Stillwell, P., ed, Assault on Normandy,First Person Accounts From the Sea Services. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, 1994, pg. 59.

[18] See, for example, the After Action Report of the 3rd Battalion, 16th Regimental Combat team for the 30-minute late landing of their craft, and the 16th Regimental Combat Team’s S-3 Combat for the early (“off schedule”) firing of the rockets.

[19] Armed Forces in Action Series, Omaha Beachhead (6 June – 13 June 1944), Battery Press, Nashville, 1984. pg. 41.

[20] LCT587, LCT589 & LCT590

[21] Henrik Naube, Eckhertz, Holger. D DAY Through German Eyes - The Hidden Story of June 6th 1944: Book One (p. 45). DTZ History Publications. Kindle Edition.  (Omaha Beach, The Resistance Nest Machine gunner

[22] Severloh, Hein. WN 62 - Memories of Omaha Beach: Normandy, June 6, 1944 (German Edition) (p. 74). Kindle Edition.

[23] Gustav Winter, Eckhertz, Holger. D DAY Through German Eyes - More hidden stories from June 6th 1944: Book Two (D DAY - Through German Eyes 2) (p. 5). DTZ History Publications. Kindle Edition.

[24] Sabin’s (CTG124.8) action report, pg. 16.

[25] For Imlay’s comments, see Deputy Commander Task Group 124.3, Report on Operation Neptune, 1 July 1944, pg 10, and for Sabin’s, see pg. 37 of his report (footnoted earlier in this article)

[26] Eckhertz, Holger. D DAY Through German Eyes - The Hidden Story of June 6th 1944: Book One. DTZ History Publications. Kindle Edition. p. 67.

[27] Commander Assault Force “O’ (Commander Eleventh Amphibious Force), Action Report - Assault on Vierville-Collevile Sector, Coast of Normandy, dtd 27 July 1944, pg 7.   In fact, several ships reported near misses at ranges that precluded the beach defenses as their sources.  One of his destroyers, Baldwin, was actually hit by two shells from a shore battery of 75mm or 88mm.

[28] These were foreign nationals categorized as ethic Germans, but not citizens of Germany.  The were a lower racial category and often included Poles who had no allegiance to Germany, but had been conscripted.

[29] See Hall’s 1st endorsement (dtd 25 Sept 1944, pp 18-19) to Deputy Commander Assault Force O-2’s Action Reo0rt – Operation Neptune, dtd 4 July 1944.  NARA, RG 38, NARA Catalog Id: 4697018

‍ ‍

Omaha Bombardment. Part II: The Plan

Overview

With the basic form of Operation Neptune establish in the Initial Joint Plan and the Joint Fire Plan, and further amplified in Admiral Bertram Ramsay’s series of ‘ON’ orders, it was the turn of the subordinate commanders to begin formulating their own orders.  The second tier of orders consisted of those published by the commanders of the Western and Eastern Naval Task Forces, led by Read Admiral Kirk, US Navy, and Rear Admiral Vian, Royal Navy.  Kirk’s Western Naval Task Force (CTF-122), controlling Assault Force Utah and Assault Force Omaha, issued its operation order on 21 April 1944.[1]  It was now time for RADM Hall, commanding the Assault Force Omaha (CTF-124) to get down to the stubby pencil work.

Hall’s planning had gotten off to a poor start, at least according to Ramsay, who had visited Hall in March to observe his Exercise Fox.  Ramsay found the TF-122 staff badly organized and the task force itself not yet formed into task groups, even though they were at the stage of holding exercise rehearsals.  Hall blamed the problem on a lack of staff officers.  Whether Hall’s organization was as bad as Ramsay believed, the matter was not helped by the creation of Moon’s parallel staff for the Utah landings.  Now both naval assets and experienced staff planners were split between the two commands.  And until Hall formed his force into subordinate task groups—who would assume the burden of more detailed planning—his staff would be overworked if not overwhelmed.  This contributed to many of the planning errors which I have highlighted in this series of articles.

Hall published his own order on 20 May,[2] a month after Kirk’s and two weeks after the final rehearsal exercise (Fabius), leaving his subordinate task groups and task elements just a few days to sequentially develop and publish their own orders.[3]

Organizing the Battlespace

Figure 1. Taken from the Fire Support Annex of the CTF-124 Operation Orde, this figure depicts the organization of the offshore waters at the Omaha Assault Area.

Hall’s order included charts which established routes, areas for specific activities and graphical control measures.  In addition to establishing the Transport Area, it also established areas for his fire support ships. (Figure 1) The battleships and cruisers would arrive early off Omaha as they initially had the mission to support the minesweepers with counterbattery fire should German coastal defense sites try to interfere with the vital sweeping task.  These big bombardment ships would anchor in the first areas cleared of mines (the so-called Swept Lanes).  The two designated fire support areas for destroyers included Fire Support Area 3 (encompassing the Kansas and Oregon sectors) and Fire Support Area 4 (encompassing the far eastern area of the Ohio sector).  The bulk of the Ohio sector consisted of the boat lanes for the beaching craft.  The boat lanes were separate from the fire support areas, but some of the bombardment ships could operate in those lanes as required.

Destroyers were not to anchor but were to maneuver to maintain position against the current or to gain to better firing positions.  Once the zones outside the fire support areas were swept of mines, the destroyers could use them for maneuvering.  The area inshore of the 10 fathom line was believed clear of mines and was available for maneuvering.  This requirement to “remain underway maneuvering so as to avoid mutual interference with lines of fire” was necessary but would have an adverse effect on gunnery.  Destroyers were also instructed to “close the range as much as possible when delivering neutralizing and destructive fire.”[4]

Although not shown in Figure 1, the land area was divided into two sectors for the purpose of assigning counter-battery responsibilities.  The boundary coincided with the boundary between the two assault regiments.  The battleships, cruisers and destroyers operating in Fire Support Area 3 were responsible for Sector I (in the west), and those of Fire Support Area 4 were responsible for Sector II.

Organizing the Force

The various ships and craft of the bombarding force were assigned to different task groups at different stages of the operation.  For example, the destroyers successively were part of the escort group during the Channel crossing, then part of the bombardment task group and then to the area screen.  Within the context of the bombardment mission, the fire support groups were organized as follows:

-          FS Group 1:  USS Texas and HMS Glasgow

-          FS Group 2:  USS Arkansas, FS Montcalm and FS Georges Leygeus

-          FS Group 3:  Twelve destroyers/escort destroyers

-          FS Group 4:  Consisting of four sub-groups:  a) Five Landing Craft, Gun (Large) (LCG(L)); b) Nine Landing Craft, Tank (Rocket) (LCT(R)); c) Sixteen Landing Craft, Tank (A) or (HE); and d) Seven Landing Craft (Flak) (LCT(F)).  (The LCF did not figure into the bombardment plan and will not be discussed further).

-          FS Group 5: Ten LCTs with 36 M7 Self-propelled artillery guns embarked.

-          FS Group 6: Twenty-four Landing Craft, Support (Small) (LCS(S)).

Although not included in the CTF 122 task organization, there was another valuable gunfire asset present at Omaha.  Kirk’s command ship, the heavy cruiser USS Augusta (CA-31), would be anchored in the swept lane of Fire Support Area 3.  The nine 8-inch guns of her primary battery and eight 5-inch guns of her secondary battery made her the third most powerful warship at Omaha on D-Day, and were potentially a powerful addition to a bombardment force that was so short on ships that it was forced to rely on self-propelled artillery firing from bobbing LCTs.  But would it be incorporated into the bombardment plan?

Targets and Targeting

Considerable effort had been expended to obtain as much information on enemy dispositions as possible.  Most of the intelligence came from aerial photography and reports from the French resistance.  Although intelligence had missed the movement of the German 352nd Division into the area, it had nevertheless complied a fairly comprehensive index of German positions on and behind the beaches.  The Vth Corps and TF-124 staffs developed a target list of almost 140 locations.  Many of these were important terrain features (e.g., beach exits, road junctions, etc.) but the majority were occupied enemy positions.

One hundred and forty targets were obviously beyond the capability of Hall’s bombardment force, but that wasn’t a problem.  Many of those did not need to be struck during the 40 minutes of preparatory fires, and many others were so close together that they could be suppressed by a single fire mission.  And many more were simply included in the list as they seemed likely to be engaged as combat ashore progressed.

For the purposes of the pre-H-Hour bombardment, the important targets fell into two categories.  The first were enemy coastal artillery positions that could threaten Hall’s ships and craft.  Hall was particularly sensitive—excessively so in some opinions—about the danger from two such batteries: Pointe du Hoc to the west and Longues-sur-Mer to the east.[5]  Although Pointe du Hoc was supposed to be assaulted by the Rangers at H-Hour, and Longues was about 5,700 yards outside of Hall’s sector to the east, both positions housed 155mm guns with estimated ranges of 26,000 yards.  The range fans of these two batteries worried Hall to the extent that he chose an extremely long distance offshore for the Transport Area: 23,000 yards.  (Figure 2) Ramsay had tried to convince Hall to bring it in closer; the British Transport Areas were much closer, despite facing similar or more numerous enemy batteries.  Hall refused.  It was a mistake.  The excessively long ride to the beach contributed to the loss of LCVPs and LC(A)s, and seriously reduced the physical state of the assaulting troops.

Figure 2. This map shows the major coastal artillery batteries and their range fans. The Omaha Transport Area lay just inside where the range fans for the Pointe du Hoc (the red circle) and Longues-sur-Mer (the blue circle) batteries intersected.

Countering coastal artillery batteries (a defensive task) was doctrinally the job of battleships and heavy cruisers, with light cruisers (6-inch/152mm guns) acceptable in a pinch.  Hall had two battleships that could handily suppress a 155mm battery, and potentially the heavy cruiser Augusta (8-inch/203mm guns) as well.  As the Longues battery was in the Gold Assault Area (to be targeted by HMS Ajax, a 6-inch cruiser from that force), Hall was left with just one serious threat, and two heavy ships (and possibly a third: the Augusta) to deal with it.  So, Hall was in excellent shape.  But the battery at Pointe du Hoc was not the only coastal artillery battery.  Port-en-Bessin, at the boundary between Omaha and Gold Assault areas, contained a cluster of smaller caliber guns as well as a few smaller German gun boats, similar to the LCG(L), all mounting 4.7-inch guns or smaller.  These would need to be dealt with. 

The principle offensive task during the pre-Hour bombardment was preparatory fires, defined as:

“. . . intensive fire delivered on the landing beaches and adjacent areas during the approach to the beach of the landing craft of the leading wave.”[6]

The preferred ships for this task were the destroyers due to their high rate of fire with decent-sized projectiles.  Light cruisers were also good in this role.  The heavy cruisers and battleships were less desirable; despite their far heavier shells, their slower rates of fire made them less effective in the drenching fire role, and made them more suitable for deep support missions.

And of course, the heavy bombers would play a role in both the defensive and offensive tasks - more on that in a later installment.

One of the perennial issues in amphibious operations was the competing priorities of the naval and land commanders.  Target selection naturally was an interest to both the Navy (who was concerned primarily with the defensive task of neutralizing enemy coastal artillery) and the Army (who was primarily interested in the offensive task of neutralizing enemy beach defenses).  This was a matter that vexed Ramsay several times during the planning phase. 

“The Army appear to think it is their right to dictate the targets for air & naval guns whereas up to the time the Army are established ashore by the Navy, I maintain that the employment of air and naval guns is mainly a matter for the Naval C in C.”[7]

There appears to be no indication Hall and Major General Gerow (the Vth Corps commander) had any serious disagreement in this regard, but it remains to be seen how Hall’s allocation of fires between the defensive and offensive tasks might have affected the success of the landings. 

Intelligence Failure

It’s important to note what was not included in the target list: the German field artillery batteries.  Indirect fire (gun/howitzer artillery, rockets and mortars) are the principal casualty inflicting weapons in modern warfare.  Small arms fire, wire obstacles and minefields primarily serve the defender by slowing or halting the attackers in a kill zone where they make lucrative targets for indirect fire.  As a result, neutralizing the enemy field artillery units generally has a very high priority.  And yet there was only one ‘possible’ field artillery position included in the target list­—and it was not scheduled for bombardment. 

This omission was a gross error.  It was not, however, an error in judgement among the planners.  It was a failure of intelligence.  Allied intelligence had completely missed the forward repositioning of the German 352nd Infantry Division into the coastal defenses.  And as troops of the 352nd thickened the bunkers and trenches at Omaha, their artillery moved forward as well; in fact, it had moved forward before the infantry units had.  Where there had been just one four-gun 105mm battery supporting the beach defenses, seven batteries could range the beach on D-Day.  Four of these were 105mm batteries and the remainder were 150mm batteries (the latter were just as dangerous as the guns of Pointe du Hoc).[8]

The presence of troops and field artillery batteries of the 352nd Infantry Division were not the only intelligence failures.  Rommel had spurred a frantic rush to increase defensive works, and Allied intelligence was simply unable to keep up with the rapid developments.  Take for example the two most deadly direct-fire weapons the Germans had on Omaha Beach:  the two 88mm anti-tank guns.  The 88mm gun emplaced in WN61 (E-3 Exit) had only been completed in late April, while the one in WN62 had been completed only in late May.[9]  Had their presence been known, or even suspected, Hall’s targeting priorities may have been much different.

As the plans were finalized, the two most deadly categories of German weapons were not even addressed by the bombardment planners: the field artillery batteries and the 88mm anti-tank guns.

Target Assignments

Part of the art of targeting lies in the selection of the targets that needed to be struck, and the assignment of the right bombardment guns and projectiles for the job. 

Navy armor-piercing shells had a delay fuze and were effective in penetrating concrete structures; but they had relatively less high explosives filler than Army projectiles of similar caliber.  The Navy ‘common’ shell had lower penetration, a somewhat higher proportion of high explosives and an instantaneous fuze.  The Army landing manual rated them as “not well suited for general use in support of a landing,” though the AP rounds would be useful against concrete bunkers and casemates, if a direct hit could be scored.  The Army rated the Navy’s HC shells (High Capacity, i.e., thinner-walled projectiles with more high explosives) and AA shells (anti-aircraft shells, sometimes referred to as ‘AA common’) more highly and said they should make up the bulk of the supporting fires.[10]  (The AA shells had roughly 3 times the explosive filler as the common shells.)  The bombardment plan explicitly specified shell types only for the battleships.  However, the plan did include the following guidance:

“Destroyers will use a high ratio of common type projectiles in pre-landing bombardments.”[11]

It isn’t clear why Hall’s plan favored a less capable projectile for the destroyers during the critical bombardment phase, but it may be one reason the bombardment was not as effective as hoped.  The fuze/shell combinations that were actually fired on D-Day will be covered in a later installment.

Now, let’s see how the bombardment plan combined these assets and against which targets. 

14-inch and 6-inch Guns

With an abundance of battleships and cruisers—at least in regard to the number of coastal artillery batteries—Hall had some flexibility in assigning these ships to targets beyond their doctrinal defensive role.  Figure 3 illustrates target allocation for the primary batteries of each of the two battleships and three cruisers.  He assigned two ships to defensive missions: the Texas’ 14-inch guns targeted the battery at Pointe du Hoc with up to 250 rounds (65% AP/ 35% HC) and very briefly the adjacent St. Peirre du Mont infantry position (12 rounds, HC), while the Montcalm’s 6-inch guns targeted the smaller enemy guns at Port-en-Bessin with 300 rounds.  These two ships easily overmatched their targeted batteries in caliber, number of guns and rate of fire.  There was one disconnect with the Texas, however.  Because the CTF plan specified the ratio of HC to AP rounds, the subordinate fire support unit commanders were not authorized to change that ratio. RADM Bryant was the commander of the Bombardment Group (CTG 124,9), and he flew his flag from the Texas.  Bryant’s order specified that HC shells should be used in counter battery fire, not AP.[12] This was likely in recognition of the fact that the guns of Pointe du Hoc were believed to be in open gun pits. Not all the smaller guns at Port-en-Bessin, however, were in open emplacements.

Figure 3. Targets assigned to the main batteries of the battleships and light cruisers.

That left Hall with the Arkansas and two cruisers he could devote to neutralizing beach defenses.  The defenses at Exit D-3 received the bulk of their attention, with WN68 being the focus of two of the Arkansas’ fire missions, and WN66 receiving a third (385 rounds for all three of its missions; 70% HC/30% AP).  Although Ramsay specified the objective was merely neutralization, Hall’s order specified destructive effects for these Arkansas fire missions. They were the only targets at Omaha for which destructive results specified. When destructive effects are desired, F.T.P-167 advised HC shells should be used with delayed fuzes, a point whose significance will become apparent later.

WN66 also received the full attention of the Glasgow’s main battery (400 rounds).  

The Georges Leygues’s main battery was assigned WN64 (250 rounds)

4-inch and 5-inch Guns

One destroyer, the Frankfort, would play no role in the pre-H-hour bombardment.  Although it was the flagship for Destroyer Squadron 18 (DESRON18) and had the squadron commander aboard (who therefore commanded the 12 ships of the Destroyer Fire Support Group), it was initially tasked with organizing the offshore screen,[13] so was not physically in the fire support areas until after H-hour.  The absence of the squadron commander could pose problems for the bombardment, and it is a point to keep in mind when we examine the execution of the plan. The two destroyer division commanders, however, remained in the fire support areas and should have provided continuity of command.

The secondary 5-inch batteries of the two battleships were employed against WN71 (Texas, 250 rounds) and WN61 (Arkansas, 250 rounds).  (Figure 4)  Although each battleship had six of these guns, they were in casemate mounts, so only the three guns from the engaged side of each ship could fire these missions.  With a rate of fire of 8-9 rounds a minute, a battery of three such guns should have been capable of firing the allotted 250 rounds during the bombardment.

Figure 4. Targets assigned to the destroyers and the secondary batteries of the battleships.

Six of the US destroyers were assigned targets defending the Dog through Fox beach sectors.  Each of these targets was one of the German resistance nests along the beach (except for WN69, 66 and 64).  These destroyers were each tasked with from one to three targets and allocated 250-350 rounds.

Interestingly, no 5-inch fire was allocated against the defenses at the D-3 Draw.  Only the 12-inch guns of the Arkansas and the 6-inch guns of the Glasgow were turned on these positions. This might provide an interesting test case as to whether the larger 12- and 6-inch guns were more effective in the neutralization/destruction role than the lighter 5-inch guns.

One thing summary discloses is that Hall’s bombardment plan had inserted targets that did not directly address counterbattery or beach neutralization tasks. (Figure 5) One destroyer, the Satterlee, was assigned two adjacent targets (in WN76) a kilometer west of Pointe du Hoc.  This was a curious choice for a command that was short on bombardment ships, especially as 300 rounds were allocated to its neutralization.  The targets were not in a position to threaten the landing at Pointe du Hoc.  The target list did not identify any enemy force at that position, and the intelligence overlay indicated it was only occupied by a squad.[14]  From a point, more than 80 years removed, it would seem this target would have been better addressed after H-Hour, and Satterlee would have been better employed elsewhere during the bombardment period.

Figure 5. This chart shows how the guns of the Bombardment Group were allocated missions for the pre-H-Hour preparatory fires phase. Forty-one of the 132 guns were not allocated to either of the two primary tasks during that phase.

Similarly, the destroyer Thompson was assigned two targets, which were separated by more than 400 yards (meaning one fire mission could not cover both targets), in the vicinity of Pointe et Raz de la Percée (WN74, 450 rounds).  This area was the assault objective for the two companies of the 2nd Ranger Battalion that were to land on the Charlie beach sector, but they would not be in position to assault the strongpoint from the landward side for at least an hour, as they would have to scale the cliffs of Charlie beach sector and then maneuver to WN74.  Thus, Thompson’s fire would cease on one of the targets (the defensive works) far too early to be of any use in supporting the Ranger assault.  The second target within that strongpoint, however, included two 80mm guns (75mm in some sources) facing east toward the Dog beach sectors and was a legitimate target for the bombardment period.

Although Hall complained about the lack of bombardment ships, his plan took three destroyers largely out of the fight.  One (Frankfort) was diverted to the screen, one (Satterlee) and a half (Thompson) were diverted to targets not critical to either defensive or offensive tasks; only half the firepower of a single ship of the three (Thompson) was committed to a defensive task. 

Among the British Hunt class ships, we again see the diversion of guns from both the defensive and offensive tasks, with Talybont firing four missions (about 400 rounds) against two German positions between Pointe et Raz de la Percée and Pointe du Hoc.  Neither of these positions threatened the amphibious shipping nor contributed to neutralizing the beach defenses.  While they did contain German troops, these could have been targeted after H-hour, thus freeing up the Talybont for beach defense neutralization.

Similarly, Melbreak, off the east end of the beaches, was assigned a single fire mission against WN59, three kilometers east of the E-3 exit.  It had no weapons to threaten the amphibious shipping, nor did it cover any of the landing beach sectors.  The firing period for this mission was from H-40 to H+60, with 300 rounds allotted.

Only Tanatside seems to have contributed to either the defensive or offensive tasks, being assigned two fire mission against WN65, on the west side of the E-1 exit (400 rounds).

Although the figures varied between ships, generally they were allotted roughly 25%of their magazine capacity for the bombardment phase. This was in line with guidance from F.T.P-167, which also reserved another 25% for targets of opportunity after H-Hour. The CTF-124 plan directed the 5-inch ammunition allowance for destroyers to be:

• 1250 rounds AA common (7.11 - 8.4 lbs. explosive filler)

• 250 rounds common (2.58 lbs. explosive filler)

• 45 rounds White Phosphorus (smoke)

• 100 rounds illuminating

• 200 round AA special (Variable time fuze)

LCTs / M7 Self-Propelled Artillery

The 36 self-propelled howitzers of the 58th and 62nd Armored Field Artillery Battalions were embarked in 10 LCTs.  They were assigned targets at opposite flanks of the beach, with 100 rounds allocated per gun, for a total of 3,600 rounds to be fired in a 25-minute period between H-30 and H-5.  In theory, this represented a significant addition to the bombardment. (Figure 6)

Figure 6. Targets assigned to the LCT(R)s, LCG(L)s, self-propelled artillery and PatrolCraft.

The guns were due to start firing at about 8,000 yards (at H-30) and continue firing as the LCTs slowly cruised toward the shore, ceasing fire at about 3,700 yards (expected to be at H-5).  The guns faced two major challenges to accuracy.  First, the motion of the LCTs in even moderate seas would play havoc with the trajectories.  Second, as the range decreased, that variable had to be continually factored into the gun data.  There were two methods of doing this.  The first was simply sighting the target in the direct fire mode and adjusting the gun’s elevation for each round.  It’s doubtful the sights on the self-propelled howitzers were adequate to identify the assigned targets at those ranges except in the most general geographic sense, and this method depended on the skill of 36 individual gunners.  These factors did not promise good results.

The second method was the clock method, which was based on the assumption that the LCTs would close the beach at a predictable pace, and the gunnery data could then be pre-calculated and changed on a time schedule while firing.  This was the method taught at the Assault Training Course and seemed the more precise, or rather less inaccurate, method. 

There is little in the records that documents the training, planning or firing while afloat by these two battalions.  As to how they performed the gunnery tasks on D-Day, there is only a single off-hand comment that they shot in the direct fire mode.

The technique of using self-propelled artillery firing from LCTs did not appear promising.  During Exercise Trousers (12 April), Ramsay observed 90% of the shells fell into the sea.[15]  A week later, however, at the next exercise (Exercise Smash III, 18 April) he noted they fired “good, the best I have seen . . .”[16]  As promising as that improvement might be—and he did not indicate how effective that relative improvement was—those were British exercises and did not reflect whatever proficiency the American units at Omaha had achieved.

LCT(R)s

The nine LCT(R)s were part of CAPT L. S. Sabin, Jr.’s Gunfire Support.  These LCTs originally had been given to the British through Lend Lease.  For Neptune, they were to be modified to carry about 1000 rockets each and ‘reverse Lend Leased’ back to the US.  The craft were delivered late and were in very poor material condition.  Although they had begun forming crews for these craft by the end of 1943, the late delivery of the craft posed major training hurdles.  As of 5 May, only two of the LCT(R)s destined for Omaha were on hand, with the remaining seven arriving on the 6th, 17th and the final craft during the last week of the month.  The late delivery of the LCT(R)s meant all nine crews had to rotate on the two available craft during training, resulting in minimal depth of experience for the raw crews.  By the time the last seven craft began to arrive, the British Assault Gunnery School had closed and the LCT(R) flotilla had to conduct makeshift training on their own.  Only one craft had participated in Exercise Tiger (it did not fire) and another in Exercise Fabius.  None of the crews were experienced in basic seamanship, ship handling or use of the rockets.  Two crews:

“ . . . joined the assault forces without ever having handled their craft except in the passage from Base Two and without ever firing rockets except at the Assault Gunnery School.”[17]

Sabin rated his LCT(R)s’ readiness as: 

“Generally poor except for two or three early deliveries which reached a satisfactory state of training.”[18]

The rocket craft were assigned beach neutralization targets along the landing sectors, mostly targeting strongpoints flanking the four draws.  (One craft was assigned the 75mm guns of WN74 at Pointe et Raz de la Percée).  Nine thousand rockets should smother the beach defenses in the five minutes before the first wave landed.  The intent was for these craft to take position about 2,700 yards behind the first wave, and fire their rockets when the first wave LCT(A)/(HE)s were 300 yards offshore, but the erratic nature of these rockets caused this to be increased to 500 yards.  The rocket craft had radar to determine the range and were to fire ranging shots to confirm the distance before firing their full salvos. 

LCG(L)s

The LCG(L)s were converted LCT(3) hulls, and they also suffered from late delivery and a rushed training program.  Nevertheless, Sabin rated their readiness on the eve of the invasion as fair.

Mounting two 4.7-inch guns, they were to take position to the flanks of the first wave (the LCT(A)/(HE)s) and fire on specified targets from H-20 until just before H-Hour (the specific time varied by craft).  All of their targets were offensive, consisting of immediate beach defenses, and there were about 150 rounds of ammunition allotted for each LCG(L).  Note that the 4.7-inch guns were a larger caliber than those mounted in the Hunt class destroyers, though the latter were better gunfire craft with better gun control systems.

LCS(S)s

One other category of fire support craft was at hand.  These were the Landing Craft, Support (Small) (i.e., LCS(S)) of Fire Support Group 6.  Their firepower was so small that Hall’s plan did not bother to assign them targets.  Nevertheless, there were 24 of them, each mounting machine guns and launchers for 24 rockets (with 24 reloads).  Their mission was to guide in initial waves and provide last minute suppressive fire starting 1,000 yards from the beach.

Although not included in any of the fire support groups, there were six patrol craft that would serve as the primary control craft for the various beach sectors. As each of these patrol craft mounted a 3-inch gun, they were assigned specific targets and were each allotted 50 rounds to fire between H-25 to H-5. 

Key Guidance

In addition to these provisions, Hall’s plan included many details to regulate the bombardment.

One of these details conflicted with Ramsay’s ON 8, and would prove to impact execution on D-Day.  Under ‘Close Support Fire—Drenching of Beach Defenses’,[19] Ramsay directed:

“A high rate of fire is to be maintained during this period, even though continuous spotting is likely to be impractical.”[20]

Hall’s order, however, stated:

“Ships are not to employ rapid fire for more than one minute without correcting for range and deflection.”[21]

Hall’s guidance appears to mirror that which Ramsay had issued for counterbattery fire (the section preceding the Close Fire Support section), but the CTF-124 order stated it in a context that applied to fire support missions in general.  Under Ramsay’s instructions, a destroyer whose preplanned bombardment target was shrouded in dust should continue firing.  Under Hall’s instructions, the destroyer would have to cease firing as they could not spot and correct their fire.  This situation was hopefully clarified by the CTG-124.9 (RADM Bryant’s Bombardment Force) order that stated:

“(12) Due to dust, haze and general confusion, air spot for scheduled firing may not be available.  In such case carry out fire on scheduled targets using best data available.”[22]

In reality, it was an open question as to which instructions a ship’s captain would follow.  It was an opportunity for confusion, and Chaos seldom lets such opportunities pass.

Another note in Hall’s order raised another question:

“Fire missions assigned Destroyers and LCG(L)s and scheduled above to close between H-5 and H-2 shall be continued until LCT(A) – LCT(HE) wave fouls the range.”[23]

As a result, positioning of the destroyers would be key to whether they might be forced to cease fire before H-5 or were able to continue as long as the leading wave might be delayed. Unfortunately, Hall’s order did not specify the destroyers’ positions other than assigning them patrol areas—in which they were to remain maneuvering underway—so at this point it isn’t clear if there was adequate effort to deconflict gun-target lines and wave approach bearings.  That level of detail was also not addressed in RADM Bryant’s order for the Bombardment Group or in CAPT Harry Sander’s order for the Destroyer Fire Support Group.[24]

More than Just Lobbing Shells‍

Unnoticed in the plan was small bit of confusion that would have significant impact on D-Day. The US destroyers had no experience with shore bombardment in an actual invasion, and their training in the UK had been limited by insufficient ammunition allocations. The Arkansas had yet to fire any of its guns in anger in WWII, so was completely new to the intricacies of beach neutralization. Even the Texas had had only a brief experience with bombardment, and that was in 1942 during Operation Torch. The confusion centered around their understanding of the concept of neutralization, which in a number of cases would lead to premature suspension of bombardment. As a result, the conduct of fire by several of these ships turned out to be not at all what was expected, either in terms of the number of rounds fired or in synchronization with the landing of troops. Somewhere along the line, the bombardment force hadn’t fully understood the nature of their task. A more complete explanation of this disconnect will have to wait for the next installment.

The Problem with the Pointe

The six 155mm coastal artillery guns at Pointe du Hoc seemed to have had a hypnotizing effect on the planners at all levels, but especially within Hall’s staff.  This battery was easily overmatched in caliber, number of guns and rate of fire by the Texas (ten 14-inch/356mm guns) and the Arkansas (twelve 12-inch/305mm guns) and was even overmatched in terms of number of guns and rate of fire by each of the three cruisers (nine or twelve 152mm guns per cruiser).  More importantly, the Pointe du Hoc battery was a German Army unit, which meant its director and fire control systems were not at all sufficiently refined for engaging moving naval targets.  Most telling of all, the battery position consisted of open gun pits (excepting for the two initial casemate positions that had been damaged).  They could be easily neutralized, even by a destroyer, using time-fuze (air burst) projectiles.

Doctrinally, battleships and cruisers were the best platforms to neutralize coastal artillery batteries, but this would seem to have been one of the obvious cases to ignore the manual.  The nature of the Pointe du Hoc battery simply was not as serious a threat as was feared.

The battery position did still need to be neutralized, if for no other reason than to assist the Ranger assault, but this would have been better served by a destroyer such as the Satterlee, which according to the plan would be wasting its pre-H-Hour shelling on a non-critical target to the west.  This would have freed up the main battery of the Texas for employment against defenses at one of the two primary exits.

The Naval Bombardment Plan – A Lack of Focus?

Our initial focus was on Hall’s allocation of bombardment ships between offensive and defensive targets.  But this examination reveals he had introduced a third mission set.  During an assault, a basic tenet of fire support is that as troops close on the objective, the fires are then shifted to the flanks and rear of the objective to seal it off from reinforcements, pin enemy formations in place, etc.  This shifting of fires would fall into the Navy’s Close and Deep Support categories.  Several of the target assignments discussed above clearly fall into those support categories, but were incorporated into the short pre-landing preparatory fires.  There’s nothing particularly wrong in doing that, assuming you have ample support assets to adequately do the beach neutralization tasks, and have enough excess guns for any support tasks.  Hall, however, made it abundantly clear he felt he did not have adequate bombardment ships.  Thus, every gun Hall diverted to these support tasks further hamstrung the beach neutralization effort, which he felt was already critically under-supported. 

The Satterlee, Talybont and Melbreak (and half of the Thomspon’s firepower) were all assigned to targets which neither threatened the amphibious shipping nor played a role in the immediate suppression of the landing sectors.  There were probably reasons to shell those targets, but nothing so time-sensitive or imperative that they needed to divert scarce guns from beach neutralization in the equally scarce time allotted for that task.  Indeed, the targets for those three ships could, and probably should have been shelled after H-Hour.  In much the same vein, only one of Thompson’s two targets (the set of 75mm guns at Pointe et Raz de la Percée) demanded attention prior to H-Hour.  The second target could wait until later.

Having brought up the topic of “lifting and shifting” fires after H-Hour, it must be noted that Hall’s plan virtually ignored this mission set after H-Hour—at least as far as the ground combat was concerned.  Virtually all of the pre-planned fires starting after H-Hour were directed against defensive targets (enemy positions that threatened amphibious shipping).  Montcalm and Tanatside would continue shelling Port-en-Bessin.  Melbreak would continue shelling its ‘isolation target’ past H-Hour and through to H+80, at which time it would further pile on Port-en-Bessin.  Satterlee, Talybont and Thompson would continue firing on their pre-H-Hour targets for times ranging from 15 to 45 minutes after H-hour.

Only four ships had new preplanned targets assigned after H-Hour.  The Arkansas would shoot 50 rounds of harassing fire at the city of Treviers, 8 kilometers south of Vierville (identified merely as ‘troops in town).  Destroyers Carmick, Emmons and Doyle were allotted a combined total of 150 rounds to shell six grid coordinates (not further identified) located at the heads of the D-3, E-1 and E-3 draws.  These were scheduled to last just 20 minutes, with an average of only 25 rounds per target.   

In summary, Hall’s plan wasted the firepower of three and a half of his destroyers on targets which neither threatened the amphibious shipping, nor contributed to neutralizing the beach defenses, to which must be added the diversion of the Frankfort to the screen.  These four and a half ships would have been an important addition to the firepower of the seven and a half destroyers that were committed to neutralizing the beach defenses.  It must be noted that the 1st Division order for the invasion seems to have been fully in agreement with this diversion of firepower.

And finally, the cruiser Augusta.  As Kirk’s flagship (with Bradley aboard), the Augusta did not fall within Hall’s task organization.  In fact, in addition to its role as the CTF-122 command ship, it was also part of the Reserve Gunfire Support Group (CTG-122.5 - more on this unit at a later date!). As it was the sole heavy cruiser present and already had a gunfire role, the omission of its 8-inch guns from the bombardment plan raises serious questions.   If Hall—and Kirk—really felt so strongly about the shortage of bombardment ships, it is odd they could not find a way to to incorporate the Augusta into the bombardment plan.

So, it would seem that the plan’s allocation of ship to mission roles was faulty, and failed to weight the allocation sufficiently to beach neutralization.  But what about allocation of fires to key targets within those mission roles?  This is a difficult question as neither the naval plan nor 1st Division plan gave any relative priority to eliminating any resistances nests or opening any exits.  All were treated as the same priority and the assumption seemed to be that the beach defenses would be knocked out in stride; most of the order focused on achieving objectives well beyond the beach. 

There were two paved roads off the beach, through the D-1 and D-3 exits, and you might assume they would be given higher priority, but they were not.  In fact, the 1st Division’s Traffic Circulation Map indicated traffic leaving the beach would go through the D-3, E-1 and E-3 exits, with return traffic to the beach down the F-1 exit.  The paved road at the E-1 exit was not part of the traffic circulation off the beach to the vehicle transit areas.[25]  Although there is no evidence of a direct linkage between this traffic circulation scheme and Hall’s fire support plan, the relatively light fires devoted to WN71, 72 and 74 may have been influenced by it not being a one of the beach exit routes. The plan assigned only two 5-inch fire missions against these three targets (McCook and Texas’ 5-inch battery for a total of 550 rounds).  Three LCG(L)s, one rocket barrage one third of a battalion of self-propelled guns and two patrol craft were also to be concentrated on these positions, but all those assets had severe accuracy problems.  The only fires whose accuracy could be relied on were the 5-inch guns.  It was not an impressive concentration of firepower considering how dangerous those defenses turned out to be.

As for the D-3 exit, recall that the Arkansas was assigned a destruction mission against WN66 and WN68. The plan called for 70% of the 385 rounds to be HC, and the destruction role called for delayed fuze. This would virtually guarantee heavy cratering of the paved road through the D-3 draw, negating much of its early value.

The defenses at the E-3 exit, guarding the unpaved secondary road, also included three positions: WN60, 61 and 63.  The firepower concentrated here was substantially greater, although the three positions were dispersed over roughly twice as wide an area as at the D-1 exit.  Nevertheless, four destroyers and the secondary battery of the Arkansas targeted those defenses with 1,450 5-inch projectiles.  Three LCT(R) rocket barrages were also dedicated to this area as were all the self-propelled howitzers of the 62nd Armored Field Artillery Battalion.  Even in terms of planned air strikes, the E-3 draw was more heavily target with five strikes as compared to three at the D-1 Exit.  Only the LCG(L) support was lower at the E-3 exit.

It isn’t clear whether the CTF-124 planners were aware of the presence of the 88mm guns at the D-1 and E-3 exits.  As noted earlier, the gun position in WN61 was completed in late April, and the one in WN72 was completed in late May.  The fact that the bombardment plan did not target those positions with anything greater than 5-inch guns tends to indicate they were not aware of those threats.  The 1st Division’s plan indicates they were aware of the new casemate in WN61 (with no indication of the size of the gun) but appeared totally unaware of the new casemate in WN72.[26]  Being apparently unaware of the latter 88mm gun position, the planners seemed to have had no particular reason to target the E-1 draw’s defenses more heavily.  

We can form some conclusions from CTF-124 targeting.  It appears it failed to effectively use its bombardment ships, with a significant portion of the firepower diverted to secondary targets or diverted to non-gunfire missions.  The bulk of Hall’s firepower (in terms of sheer volume of projectiles) rested on the self-propelled artillery and the LTC(R)s; the former being highly unreliable and the latter seriously under-trained.  Aware of the deficiencies of both of those assets, one would think the CTF-124 plan would have more fully exploited the battleships, cruisers and destroyers in the beach neutralization role.  In addition, several planning factors would contribute to lessening the effectiveness of the bombardment, such as the instruction to use a high ratio of common rounds, and instructions requiring a halt to rapid fire after one minute to verify spotting.  And there was more . . .

Target Geometry and Gun-Target Lines

Figure 7. An example of a German gun casemate with the embrasure protected by a ‘wing’ of blast wall.

In his report on the invasion, Hall remarked on the difficulty of spotting the enemy’s gun positions because they were sited to enfilade the beach and were protected on the seaward side by concrete and earth walls which not only protected the bunkers but shielded the gun muzzles and embrasures from view.[27]  This should not have been a surprise as the weekly ‘Martian’ intelligence reports (dating prior to 20 May when Hall’s order was issued) included detailed drawings of the typical gun bunkers used by the Germans.  These plainly showed the protective blast wall that shielded the gun and embrasure against observation and fire from directly offshore.

If the planners did examine those drawings, the targeting implications seemed to have been lost on them.  While these gun bunkers were proof against fire from directly offshore as well as naval fire coming obliquely from offshore to the rear, there was still one direction in which they were vulnerable.  A ship close inshore in the direction of the embrasure could land shells near or behind the protective blast wall, and perhaps even in or near the embrasure.  Although the chances of destroying the gun were still slim, gunfire delivered on such a gun-target line had a much greater chance of neutralizing (stunning/demoralizing) the crew.

The bombardment plan overlooked this point.  Taking the destroyers as an example, those bombarding the beach defenses were split into two groups (located to the eastern and western flanks of the beach) and were assigned targets on their corresponding halves of the beach.  As a result, their gun-target lines would usually send shells at the enfilading positions from the worst possible angle.  The Emmons and Baldwin, both directed to fire on WN62, would fire on their target from positions to the east of it, meaning their gun-target lines could not possibly place rounds that might threaten the embrasures or crews of the two concrete emplacements for the 75mm guns. 

Figure 8. An overhead view of WN62. The blue lines show the orientation of the protective blast walls that shielded the embrasures. The blast walls were about 15-20 yards long. The orange arrows show the principal directions of fire for the 75mm guns. The red and yellow lines represent the gun-target lines for destroyers Baldwin and Emmons, respectively. Based on their positions offshore, these destroyers had little chance to neutralize these bunkers or other west-facing emplacements.

Similarly, the Baldwin was directed to fire at WN61, as was the 5-inch battery of the Arkansas.  Again, both ships were located somewhat to the east of the target, meaning it was impossible to see even partly around the blast walls or threaten the embrasures.  This was particularly unfortunate as the west-facing 88mm anti-tank gun was in that position.   

It must be pointed out, however, that the Emmons and Baldwin weren’t in totally useless positions, as their gun-target lines had somewhat more favorable angles on the eastward facing positions in WN62.  But this merely emphasizes the point that such positions should be bombarded by ships with complementary gun-target lines so that embrasures could be threatened by at least one of the ships no matter which direction the bunker faced.  Neither Hall’s nor Bryant’s order addressed this.

In a few cases, a ship had a decent gun-target line.  HMS Tanatside was one of those.  Directed to fire on WN65, its gun-target line had a favorable (but not ideal) angle on the eastward facing bunker in that position.  Its gun-target line would have been much more favorable had it come a couple thousand yards closer inshore.

Figure 9. Actual and alternate positions and gun-target lines for HMS Tanaside. The yellow line for the Tanatside shows the distance the ship closed while firing and the red line points to its target at WN65. The blue line from WN65 indicates the direction of the blast wall protecting the east-facing bunker. Had the Tanatside been able to start firing from closer inshore, it could have obtained a much better firing line on the bunker. The proposed alternate position shown for the Tanatside was still 4,000 yards offshore (3,500 yards closer inshore than its actual position).

And this would turn out to be an issue during the bombardment.  While the destroyers heroically came in so close to shore later in the day that they risked grounding, during the pre-H-Hour bombardment the plan had positioned them so far offshore that it limited gun-target lines to unfavorable angles on the targets. The plan did direct them to close inshore as much as possible; in the next installment we’ll see how well that played out.

It would seem very little thought had gone into the positioning of the various bombardment ships relative to the location and configuration of their targets, or relative to the position of other bombardment ships.  The reports of ships having to check fire as a sister ship drifted into the gun-target line would also indicate this.[28] The plan’s organization of the water off the beach (Figure 1) was taken almost directly from the generic example diagram in F.T.P-167. But German defenses at Omaha were not generic, and a more sophisticated set of fire support lanes should have been developed to effectively carry out the bombardment mission. Any attempt to address this problem would have had to create something along the lines of a third fire support area in the middle of the boat lanes.  From there two or three destroyers could get better angles on the on the embrasures which ships in the flanking fire support areas could not possibly threaten.  While such a solution would introduce additional problems—which should not be underestimated—it was the only way to spot and strike at these hidden gun positions.

A Question of Scale vs Psychology

So far we have considered the bombardment plan only from a quantitative perspective, as if it were some sort of mathematical equation: X number of projectiles delivered to an area Y yards square will neutralize the position.  But combat is a human endeavor, and such a mathematical approach ignores the human factor.  A bombardment that will break and route one defender may have little effect on another defended with higher morale or better discipline.  And in that truism may lie much of the blame for the failure of the Omaha bombardment.

Figure 10. This figure depicts the combined targeting from all naval bombardment ships and craft (except the LCS(S)s). While it appears comprehensive, many details would combine to substantially reduce the potential effects of the bombardment plan.

The bombardment was designed with the expectation that the defenses were manned by a limited number of low quality troops from the 716th Infantry Division, a ‘static’ formation incapable of offensive operations.  Despite the impressive strengthening of the physical defenses under Rommel’s prodding, the men manning the defenses were the same old men, young boys and convalescents.  Worse (though better for the invaders), a substantial number of the division’s troops were conscripted Poles whose loyalty to the Reich was almost nonexistent.

Most of the defenders’ hardened positions (gun casemates, troops shelters, ammunition shelters, etc.) were built to standards that made them basically proof against 5-inch shells, which was part of the reason the objective was neutralization, not destruction.  Neutralizing effects—stunning and demoralizing the defenders—are largely dependent on morale.  And the morale of the static 716th Infantry Division’s troops wasn’t expected to be very high.  With the strongpoints thinly manned, with almost no artillery support and almost no reserves at hand, the defenders’ sense of isolation would have been much greater.  The defenders’ morale, already weak, would have been especially vulnerable to the psychological effects of the bombardment. 

But all that changed when Rommel ordered the 352nd Infantry Division to move forward to bolster the defenses.  Steven Zaloga’s detailed analysis indicates the Omaha defenses had been tripled by the addition of two rifle companies of the 916th Infantry Regiment (part of 352nd Division) as well as detachments from that regiment’s heavy weapons company, infantry gun company and anti-tank company.  In addition, two engineer companies had moved in just behind the line of beach defenses.[29]  The reinforcements from the higher-quality 352nd Infantry Division served to stiffen the original defenders, and the presence of reinforcements from the 352nd located to the rear would have further raised the defenders’ morale.

Perhaps the greatest boost to the resolve of the defenders was the four 105mm and three 150mm batteries of artillery, where before the defenders had just one.    

All in all, the defenders on 6 June were far less likely to suffer the demoralization effects than the original garrison the plan was based on.  The neutralizing/demoralizing effects of bombardment are to a major degree dependent on the morale and quality of the troops being attacked.  And the bombardment at Omaha found itself attacking far stronger defenses than had been anticipated, in both physical and morale respects.  This key factor of psychological vulnerability/resilience is typically omitted from analyses of the Omaha bombardment.  And that is a critical failure, for the psychological state of the defenders was perhaps even more important than the depth of concrete or weight of projectiles. 

The intelligence failure was a matter beyond Hall’s and his planners’ hands.  What they absolutely could affect, however, were the details of the bombardment plan.  Did they employ their bombardments assets in the best way possible, or even reasonably well?  This analysis calls that into doubt.  Given that Hall had complained long and loudly that he had been given woefully inadequate bombardment assets, some of his decisions are open to question.  Was the Frankfort’s diversion to the offshore screen during the bombardment period wise?  Was the failure to incorporate the Augusta into the bombardment plan wise?  Why was the Texas assigned the Pointe du Hoc mission?  Why were so many destroyers/escort destroyers assigned targets that addressed neither the defensive nor offensive tasks of the bombardment?  Why did the fire support areas provide such unfavorable gun-target lines?  Why were less suitable projectiles selected?  Given these questions, it may be that the failure of the bombardment was not so much a matter of too few bombardment ships or too little time for the bombardment, as it was poor use of the assets at hand.

In the Next Installment . . .

I had planned to include a discussion of the air bombardment plan in this installment, but it quickly became clear the discussion of both the naval and air plans would take up far too much space for one installment.  So, the matter of employing strategic heavy bombers in tactical support of an amphibious landing will have to wait a week or two.  At that time, we’ll examine whether the B-24s were capable of delivering even a fraction of the ordnance that Hall and Gerow were counting on (assuming weather permitted visual bombing) or whether the entire plan was a fantasy.

Footnotes

[1] Western Naval Task Force, Allied Naval Expeditionary Force (CTF-122), Operation Plan No. 2-44.  Short Title: “ONWEST TWO.”

[2] Eleventh Amphibious Force (Task Force 122), Operation Order No. BB-44.

[3] Most of his subordinate task groups issued their orders between 27 and 31 May.

[4] TF-124, Operation Order No. BB-44, Annex E, pg. 2 and pg. 8.

[5] The coastal artillery batteries at Maisy and Grandchamps were at the far western end of the Omaha Assault Area, but these guns were oriented towards the Utah area and could not bear on the Hall’s Transport Area.

[6] US Navy F.T.P. 167, Landing Operations Doctrine, 1938, pg. 114.  The corresponding Army manual, Field Manual 31-5, Landing Operations on Hostile Shores, 1941, pg. 103, contains similar language.

[7] Ramsay’s Diary, 15 March, pg. 44

[8] In the event, one of the 105mm batteries was reserved for defending Port-en-Bessen and did not fire on Omaha’s landing beaches.

[9] Zaloga, Steven. The Devil's Garden: Rommel's Desperate Defense of Omaha Beach on D-Day Rowman & Littlefield Publishers (Kindle Edition). pg. 234.

[10] War Department Basic Field Manual, Landing Operation on Hostile Shores (FM 31-5), Washington, D.C., 1941, Chptr 6, pg. 106.  Much the same guidance was contained in the U.S. Navy’s F.T.P.-167, Landing Operations Doctrine, Washington, D.C., 1938, pg. 133.

[11] TF-124, Operation Order No. BB-44, Annex E, pg. 8.

[12] CTG 124.9 Operation Order No. B1/44, dtd 31 May 1944, pg. 4.

[13] In the wake of the disastrous E Boat attack during Exercise Tiger, the American naval leaders were highly concerned about a similar attack coming from Cherbourg during the landings.

[14] The position included at least one 37mm antiaircraft gun and would become a thorn in the side of the Ranger’s position later, but that does not change the fact that those 300 rounds of 5-inch fire would have been better employed elsewhere. 

[15] Ramsay Diary, 12 Apr, pg. 55

[16] Ramsay Diary, 18 Apr, pg. 57

[17] Commander, Gunfire Support Craft (CTF-124.8), Action Report – Operation Neptune, dtd. 3 July 1944, pg. 6.

[18] Ibid, pg. 7.

[19] There is a bit of doctrinal language problem here, as the US Navy did not consider ‘close support’ to be preparatory fire, rather a phase following the landing of the troops.  Regardless, Ramsay’s meaning is clear.

[20] ON 8 paragraph 37,

[21] Hall’s order, Annex E, pg. 7, para 3.x.(5)

[22] CTG 124.9 (Bombardment Group) Operation Order No. B1/44, dtd 31 May 1944, pg. 5, para (12)

[23] Hall’s order, Appendix 3 to Annex E, pg 17, note at end of para 1.

[24] DESRON18 (Destroyer Fire Support Group/TG 124.9.3) Operation Order No. 7-44, dtd 2 June 1944.

[25] Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division, Field Order No. 35, dtd 16 April 1944, Annex 4 (Administrative Orders, Appendix 1 (traffic Circulation Map.

[26] Ibid.  Annex 10 (Tank Employment Plan) identified only two “Special Targets” and directed one platoon of tanks to knock out each of the positions.   One of the special targets was the casemate in WN60 (but did not identify the caliber of gun within).  The other Special Target was WN74 (Pointe et Raz de la Percée). The new casemate in WN72, which would house the 88mm gun, was completely omitted.  Subsequent changes to that order did not update the intelligence or targeting.  

[27] Commander Task Force 124, Action Report – Assault on Vierville-Colleville Sector, Coast of Normandy, dtd 27 July 1944, pp. 96-7 and 103.

[28] To be more closely discussed in a following installment.

[29] Zaloga, pg. 131.

Omaha Bombardment. Part I: Setting the Stage

American Battleship USS Texas (BB-35) off Norfolk, Virginia in March 1944. The Texas was one of two WWI-era battleships assigned to Assault Force O at Omaha. She mounted ten 14-inch guns in five double turrets, and six 5-inch guns in casemate mounts. (NARA 80-G-63542)

The Failed Bombardment

One of the most infamous failures during the Omaha landings was the bombardment plan, a failure that saw infantry land in the teeth of strong defenses which had not been neutralized.  There has been no shortage of critics or shortage of criticisms of this plan.  There were not enough bombardment ships.  There was too little time for bombardment.  The bombardment relied too heavily on air power.  The bombardment counted too heavily on makeshift fire support assets.  And the list goes on. 

And honestly, there is more than a grain of truth to each of those accusations.  But what these critics—who, for the most part argued from their own single, narrow perspective—failed to consider were the constraints under which Neptune operated.  Were there too few bombardment ships?  Perhaps, but Eisenhower used all that he could wrangle from the Combined Chiefs of Staff.  Was the bombardment window too short?  Perhaps, but it was all the time that could be spared.  Was there too much reliance on airstrikes and on ‘gimmick’ fire support craft?  Perhaps, but these were necessary stopgaps to compensate for the paucity of bombardment ships.  The fact is that the Neptune planners did not accept those limitations because they mistakenly thought they were the best solutions.  No, they were accepted as the best options available in the face of limited resources, and within a unique and disadvantageous operational environment.

The stark fact is that the final bombardment concept was the product of numerous constraints and unavoidable tradeoffs with which the Neptune planners had to contend.  Many painful compromises had to be made between equally important, yet conflicting considerations.  As this series will illustrate, the bombardment would fall short at Omaha on 6 June due to several underappreciated factors which combined to produce a flawed plan and prevented effective execution of that plan.

HMS Glasgow (C21), a British Town class light cruiser assigned to Assault Force O at Omaha. She mounted twelve 6-inch guns in four triple mounts.

The Concept of the Assault

As the SHEAF command structure coalesced in the last months of 1943 and the beginning of 1944, the various new commanders began to reassess the plans left to them by LTG Frederick Morgan, who, as the Chief of Staff, Supreme Allied Commander (COSSAC) had conducted the invasion planning before General Dwight Eisenhower had been selected as the Supreme Allied Commander.  Both General Eisenhower and General Bernard Montgomery (the 21st Army Group Commander-designate) had opportunities to briefly review these plans while still assigned to the Mediterranean theater, and had independently come to the conclusion that the invasion needed to be stronger and launched across a broader front.[1]  After taking command of 21st Army Group (initially the land component of SHEAF) Montgomery formally proposed an expansion of the invasion in January, resulting adoption of the five-division plan and extension of the invasion front to include a landing on the Cotentin Peninsula (at Utah Beach, on the west side of the Vire estuary).[2]

Meanwhile doubts had been growing about the fundamental nature of the assault.  The operational environment of the Mediterranean had influenced the evolution of amphibious doctrine over the course of several landings in that theater, resulting in a technique that Admiral Bertram Ramsay (the Allied Naval Commander-in-Chief for Operation Neptune) would term the Silent Assault.  To oversimplify, this technique called for the invasion fleet to silently approach the objective area and land infantry assault waves well before dawn with little or no preparatory bombardment.  By dawn, the initial infantry waves would secure a limited beachhead against light opposition, and larger craft carrying heavier weapons would land behind them as quickly as possible.  It was a system that functioned well in areas of minimal defenses, manned by enemies not inclined to fight to the death, and in areas either isolated from reinforcements or that were difficult to reinforce.  The technique stood at virtually the polar opposite extreme of the technique generally used in the Central Pacific campaigns.  The objectives in the Central Pacific[3] were normally completely isolated, heavily defended and fanatically manned, which combined to demand extremely heavy preparatory fires, often lasting days.

GEN Morgan’s Outline Overlord Plan did not address whether the landings should be in daylight or at night,[4] but most of the key Neptune leaders had previously participated in landings in North Africa or the Mediterranean, and so brought with them to Neptune the expectation that a similar silent assault technique would be employed in Normandy. 

But the Normandy coast was neither North Africa nor the Mediterranean.   In some key respects, it was the worst case operational environment.  The beaches were much more heavily fortified and heavily manned.  That fact would normally call for serious preparatory fires before landing troops, which in turn would argue for a daylight attack.  But this consideration collided with another operational characteristic.[5] 

The extensively developed European road, rail and water networks enabled the enemy’s local reserves to be quickly committed, and similarly facilitated rapid deployment of his operational and strategic reserves from greater distances.  Thus, every minute of delay between discovery of the invasion fleet and the first troops hitting the beach gave the enemy time to reinforce.  As Samuel Elliott Morrison acknowledged in his History of United States Naval Operation in World War Two,

“They had to have tactical surprise, which a long pre-landing bombing or bombardment would have lost . . . Even a complete pulverizing of the Atlantic Wall at Omaha would have availed us nothing, if the German command had been given 24 hours' notice to move up reserves for counterattack."[6] 

This consideration called for the absolutely shortest time possible between discovery of the fleet offshore and the first troops setting foot on the beach.    

The Montcalm, one of two French La Galissonnière class light cruisers assigned to Assault Force O at Omaha. She mounted nine 6-inch guns in three triple turrets. (NARA 19-N-48998)

Perhaps the first to realize the significance of the different conditions was Ramsay.  At least he gave the impression he was.  In his diary he recorded that on 10 February 1944, he met with Montgomery to discuss the nature of the proposed landing operations.[7]  He said he convinced Montgomery the silent assault technique was wrong for Neptune, although he did not specify exactly what he proposed in its stead.  Although Montgomery had only recently arrived to assume his role, he had already pushed through his demand to expand the size of the invasion, underscoring his familiarity with the planning.  And in that process, was undoubtedly influenced by one of his subordinate commanders.

Two months earlier, on 14 December 1943, Lieutenant General John T. Crocker (Commanding General, British I Corps) had conducted an analysis of the situation which had come to much the same conclusion as Ramsay’s.  Quoting from Harrison’s Cross Channel Attack:

“The first essential, he [Crocker] said, was the development of ‘overwhelming fire support from all sources, air, naval and support craft ... to cover the final stages of the approach and to enable us to close the beaches.  This requires daylight.’  Mediterranean experience, in his view, had shown that the effectiveness of naval fire depended on observation and that it had been much greater than was previously supposed.  At least forty-five minutes of daylight, he estimated, would be necessary for full use of fire support, and he concluded that H Hour should be within one hour of first light.”[8]

That thinking was generally accepted and was incorporated into the Neptune Initial Joint Plan (issued 9 days before Ramsay’s diary entry):

“H Hour

“It is defined as the time at which the first wave of landing craft should hit the beach; which will be

“a. About l 1/2 hours after nautical twilight, and

“b. About 3 hours before high water.”[9] 

This shows that at an early point the matter had been closely studied, that there was a recognition that the Mediterranean style assault was not applicable, and that a daylight assault shortly after dawn was called for.  Over the following months, many debates would rage over the exact details, and the specific timing of H-Hour would be batted back and forth almost endlessly.  One result was a later change to the above Initial Joint Plan paragraphs which added: “so as to allow a minimum period of thirty minutes daylight for observed bombardment before H Hour.”  Nevertheless, the basic nature of the assault had been decided by 1 February.   And both the senior naval commander (Ramsay) and senior ground commander (Montgomery) were in accord.  As Ramsay stated in his report on Operation Neptune:

“7.  The one fundamental question on which there had to be early agreements was whether to assault during darkness so as to obtain the greatest measure of surprise on the beaches, or whether to assault after daylight and to rely on the greatly increased accuracy of air and naval bombardment under these conditions.  The decision which was made, to make a daylight landing, was in accord with experience in the PACIFIC against strong defenses, when the assaulting force possessed decisive naval and air superiority, and I am convinced this is the correct answer under these conditions.”[10]

So, daylight was essential to bring accurate preparatory fires to bear, yet the time to employ that fire support had to be severely curtailed in order to minimize the enemy’s opportunity to reinforce.  Striking a blance between the two imperatives would not be easy.

Nevertheless, the azimuth had been set by the leaders, and the planners set about their tasks.  Yet even as the Neptune planners came to grips with devising a new assault technique suited to the Normandy conditions, they had to contend with the longstanding shortage of naval assets.  There had been few enough ships and craft to support the original three-division assault.  Now, the expansion of the invasion to a five-division assault merely made matters much, much worse.  The original intent was that the invasion would be primarily supported by British naval forces, but this expansion demanded greater commitments from the US Navy.  And the US Navy was not receptive to any diversion of ships that would distract from its Pacific Campaign (not to mention its many other critical missions).  We’ve previously discussed the resulting shortage in shipping and landing craft, so it is no surprise that bombardment ships were in short supply as well.

As Ramsay and Montgomery were grappling with these issues a new factor had come into play. German General Erwin Rommel assumed command of Army Group B on 15 January 1944 and immediately began to strengthen the defenses.  The first indications of his impact were just being noticed by Allied intelligence in January and February, and their full implications would not be appreciated for several weeks.  The scope and speed of Rommel’s activity would be an unwelcome surprise.  The Neptune planners were struggling to cope with the challenges of the enemy defenses as they understood them in January and Februrary1944, even as the enemy was rapidly increasing the physical defenses and reinforcing those defenses with additional units.  Rommel was moving the goalposts on the invaders, and the fact is that the Neptune commanders and their staffs would be involved in a game of catch-up for the next few months.  A belated response to the multiplying obstacle fields saw the creation of the obstacle clearance plan and formation of units to execute it.  And that plan would have to be executed in the initial act of the invasion as well.

American destroyer USS Satterlee (DD-625). The Satterlee was one of nine Gleaves class fleet destroyers assigned to Assault Force O at Omaha. The Gleaves class destroyers mounted either four or five 5-inch guns in single mounts. The Satterlee is picture here in Belfast Lough three weeks before D-Day. In the background are two more Gleaves class destroyers; all three ships were part of Destroyer Squadron 18 (DESRON18). (NARA 80-G-367828)

The First 120 Minutes

A full discussion of the many factors that influenced the selection of H-Hour at Omaha is beyond the scope of this installment, but I will touch on some of the more important aspects as they related to the bombardment plan.  Essentially, the Omaha Assault Force planners (Admiral Hall’s CTF 124, working in conjunction with the Army V Corps) had to carefully orchestrate a complex sequence of actions within a roughly two hour period.  Two factors would help define the beginning of the assault window.  The first was light; specifically, the earliest time naval bombardment ships would have enough light to conduct observed fire.  Sunrise on 6 June would be at 0558 hours, and they might be able to take advantage of the last few minutes of morning civil twilight as well, especially if spotting aircraft were available.  The second factor was the tide; the Navy needed a rising tide to enable them to retract after unloading their landing craft, and low tide would be at 0530 hours.  The end of the critical window would also be dictated by the tide, and that would be when it was so far up the beach that the obstacle clearance teams would have to cease work.  That would be approximately 0800 hours.  Ideally, the obstacle clearance teams needed to land as early as possible to have the most time to do their job, but the first wave of infantry had to go in before the obstacle teams, and the earlier they went in, the more open sand they would have to cross under fire.  Potentially this could be as much as 350 yards, which would be suicidal.  So, the first wave could not go in too early.  As a result of all these factors (and many more) a critical window of roughly two hours was established for the start of the landings: 0558 hours (sunrise) to 0800 hours (the tide amid the obstacles). And in the middle of everything that had to take place in those two hours, the planners needed to squeeze in 45 minutes for air and naval bombardment, a figure that carried forward from Crocker’s analysis.  As you can see, the final landing schedule entailed a series of cruel tradeoffs between equally vital but usually incompatible considerations.   

To no one’s complete satisfaction, H-Hour was set at 0630 hours.  However, it is important to keep this in context.  Each and every H-Hour decision is a matter of compromising between the needs of different elements of the attack force.  The more complex the operation is—and Neptune was about as complex as they come—the more tradeoffs are necessary.  Having said that, it was clear it would be a rough two hours at Omaha.

The bottom line, as far as the bombardment mission was concerned came down, to 32 minutes between sunrise (0558 hours) and H-Hour (0630 hours).  Hall’s planners moved the start of that window forward to 0550 hours, counting on the growing visibility at the end of civil twilight, and that was as close to Crocker’s 45 minutes as could be managed. 

[As difficult as the conditions were for 6 June, it should be noted that H-Hour on the original invasion date, 5 June, was 20 minutes earlier, at 0610 hours.  That would have meant most of the bombardment would have been conducted during insufficient light, likely resulting in less damage to the defenses and far higher casualties among the assault troops.]

The British escort destroyer HMS Tallybont, one of three Hunt Class (Type III) escort destroyers assigned to Assault Force O. These Hunt class escort destroyers mounted four 4-inch guns in two twin turrets.

Too Few Guns

Ideally, if you have less time to fire your preparatory bombardment (and Hall had not been happy with the 45 minutes he did have), you want to increase the number of guns firing in order to deliver the required metal on target.  But, as noted above, Neptune as a whole was being conducted on something of a naval shoestring, and this held true for bombarding assets as well.  Bombarding types of ships (destroyers, cruisers and battleships) were at a premium, especially with the US Navy, which was husbanding its fleets for Pacific campaigns.  The British were no less reluctant to take capital ships from the Home Fleet, which was standing guard in case of a sortie by the remaining German capital ships.[11]  To address this shortfall, in late December 1943, RADM Kirk (commanding the Western Naval Task Force - TF 122) sent Washington a list of requirements for bombardment ships; no action was taken.  After the expansion of the assault to the five-division plan the following month, the deficit widened and pressure mounted for a greater US Navy contribution.  The matter came to a head on 13 February at a dinner being held in conjunction with a conference to iron out landing craft allocations.  RADM Cooke (chief planner for the US Navy’s Commander in Chief, ADM King) was present when Hall exploded in frustration over the lack of bombardment ships.  Cooke reprimanded Hall for the outburst, but he also saw to it that three old US battleships and a squadron of nine US destroyers were provided.[12] 

Initially, bombardment ships for Omaha, as allocated in Ramsay’s naval orders for Operation Neptune (ON 8, issued 14 April 1944, dealt with bombardment) amounted to:  one heavy cruiser, five light cruisers and an unspecified portion of 22 destroyers and escort destroyers.  (See Figure 1).  It wasn’t much.  By comparison, the US pre-war amphibious doctrine called for a bombardment force of three battleships, four light cruisers and 8-16 destroyers for an assault the size of the Omaha landings.[13]  As measured by this doctrinal template, Omaha was under-supported when it came to naval bombardment.

A week later, RADM Kirk’s Western Naval Task Force (CTF 122) operation order was issued, and it reflected Cooke’s reinforcements, which were split between Omaha and Utah Assault Areas.[14]  For Omaha, two battleships had been substituted for one heavy and two light cruisers (the third battleship Cooke had secured went to Utah Beach).  The loss of three cruisers (nine 8-inch guns, sixteen 5.25-inch guns and eight 5-inch guns) for the gain of two old battleships (ten 14-inch guns, twelve 12-inch guns and twelve 5 inch guns) apparently suited Hall, an old battleship admiral.  He gained heavier guns in his primary batteries and increased his secondary batteries by 50%.  The punch these old WWI-era battleships offered was very welcome.

Figure 1. A comparison of the original bombardment ships allocated to the Omaha Assault Force under ON 8 and the final allocation as shown in the CTF 122 operation Plan.

What was perhaps less welcome in this new ship allocation was the assignment of the Royal Navy Hunt class escort destroyers.  The US fleet destroyers were of the Gleaves class, which mounted either four or five 5-inch guns.  The Hunt class escort destroyers mounted four 4-inch guns.[15]  The 4-inch gun was not a bad weapon, and in fact, at 102mm was comparable in caliber to the 105mm howitzer that was the standard US divisional artillery weapon.  But besides the smaller gun, the Hunts carried fewer rounds per gun than the Gleaves (250 vs 400).[16] 

Figure 2 details the gunpower these ships mounted for naval bombardment.

Figure 2. A summary of the type and number of bombardment guns available on the battleships, cruisers and destroyers allocated to the Omaha Assault Force.

One hundred and fifteen guns sound like an impressive number, but was it an adequate number to get the job done?  As we’ll see, that answer depended on how you define the job, and which part of the doctrinal template you chose to apply. 

Two other points factor into that question, as well.  First, not all of these guns would be available for softening up the beach.  A significant percentage of them would be dedicated to counter-battery fire against enemy coastal artillery batteries, such as those on Pointe du Hoc and at Port en Bessin.  Second, six of the 5” guns, mounted in the battleships‘ secondary batteries, would be on the unengaged sides of the ships, and not be able to bear on a target.  So, the total of 5” guns, as shown in Figure 2, would be reduced by 12% to 44 guns.

Hall’s Force O (Omaha) was fortunate in one small respect.  All of his US ships had arrived in the UK by 28 April, in sufficient time to prepare for D-Day, unlike at least one division destined for Utah that barely arrived in time.  Information is scarce about participation of the US destroyers and battleships in Exercise Fabius I, the final D-Day exercise.  It is known that USS Thompson did participate, and that tends to indicate the rest of Destroyer Squadron 18 (DESRON18), the formation these destroyers belonged to) did as well.  After that exercise, DESRON18 held about a week of additional gunnery exercises.  This training was no doubt valuable.  Although all the DESRON18 destroyers had been in commission for over a year, they had primarily been tasked with convoy support missions.  D-Day would be their first combat experience in shore bombardment.  Although unbloodied and new to the shore bombardment role, there was no reason to doubt their ability.

The situation with the battleships is not entirely clear.  In his Action Report on Operation Neptune, RADM Bryant (commanding Battleship Division 5, and within TF-124 framework he commanded CTF 124.9, which was the Bombardment Group) discussed bombardment training after arriving in the UK, but nothing in the area of the Fabius Exercise, likely due to the limited live fire ranges at the rehearsal area.  The Texas had already seen combat during WWII, starting with Operation Torch.  The Arkansas, which had spent the bulk of the war either as a training ship or on escort duty, had yet to fire a gun in anger in this war.  

Supplementary Efforts

Clearly, more gunfire support was needed.  To complement and reinforce the usual bombardment battleships, cruisers and destroyers, a number of other craft would provide supporting fires.  Some of these were ad hoc solutions, some were systems new to the theater and not well understood, and some were such wild ideas that RADM Hall would dismiss them as gimmicks. 

The first group in this category were the Duplex Drive (DD) tanks.  Although part of the Gunfire Support Group (as distinct for the Bombardments Group consisting of the ‘real’ bombarding battleships, cruisers and destroyers), they would play no role in the preparatory bombardment; their role was to support the leading assault waves after landing.  For that reason, and since I have discussed them thoroughly in an earlier blog series, I will skip over them here.

The second element consisted of thirty-two Sherman tanks (and 16 tank dozers) that would ride in on 16 LCTs to beach at H-hour.  At the front of these LCTs (either LCT(A)s or LCT(HE)s) wooden platforms had been installed which raised the two front Shermans high enough to fire over the ramps.  During the run into the beach, these tanks would provide “drenching fire” that hopefully would suppress the defenders as the first two waves landed (the first infantry wave and the gap clearance teams).  As such, their role in the bombardment plan was marginal, and I’ll only lightly touch on them in the rest of this series.

The next group consisted of the Landing Craft, Tanks (Rocket) (LCT(R)s), which were LCTs fitted out with approximately a thousand 5-inch rockets.  Following at a distance behind the first wave, these craft would loose their rockets so that they would impact when the first wave was 300 yards offshore.  The desired impact area was supposed to be 200 yards deep and 400-700 yards wide (for an impressive theoretical density of one rocket for every 80 to 140 square yards).  There were nine of these craft for Omaha.

There would also be five Landing Craft, Gun (Large) (LCG(L)), each equipped with two 4.7” guns (120mm). These craft were to operate close inshore and were assigned to engage specific targets on the beach during the last 10 minutes before H-Hour.

The next fire support category is perhaps a measure of how desperate they were to scrape up additional fire support.  The 58th and 62nd Armored Artillery Battalions were equipped with M7 Priest self-propelled artillery vehicles, each mounting a 105mm howitzer.  The 36 howitzers of these battalions would be mounted in 10 LCTs, and fire from those craft over the heads of the first waves.  The LCTs were not stable gunnery platforms, and they would have to maintain about a 4-6 knot speed to minimize rolling and plunging.  Gunnery under those conditions would be challenging to say the least, with changes in range requiring constantly updated firing data.  Still . . . thirty-six 105mm howitzers were the theoretical equivalent firepower of nine additional Hunt class escort destroyers, and that was potentially a significant addition for a task force that considered itself starved for gunnery ships.  At least it would be if there was some way to ensure their rounds landed somewhere close to the intended targets.  In reality, they were expected to provide nothing more than what one would charitably describe as general area suppressive fire, if one wasn’t too particular about which area would actually be hit.

Also used were class 461 patrol craft (174 feet long, 280 tons and a crew of 65) which served as the primary control craft for various beach sectors.  There were 6 of these, each mounting a single 3-inch gun, and each was assigned a specific target.[17] 

One other category of craft would provide suppressive fire, though these were so small they were not even assigned targets in the bombardment plan.  These were 21 Landing Craft, Support (Small), or (LCS(S)).  Equipped with machine guns and 48 rockets, they would accompany the leading waves to beach and provide the last second suppressive fire for their accompanying landing craft.

It would appear everything that could be reasonably done to supplement the bombardment mission (and some that may not have been quite so reasonable) had been thrown into the mix.  Hall, the old battleship sailor, quite naturally bemoaned having to employ such a ragtag force, but given his shortage of ‘real’ bombarding ships he had no choice.

B-24 heavy bombers, such as this one, were incorporated into the bombardment plan for Omaha Beach.

Air Bombardment

Various air operations were mounted in support of Operation Neptune involving all manner of aircraft. For the purpose of this discussion, we’ll focus on the heavy bombers, whose primary mission had been strategic bombing, but had been incorporated into the tactical bombardment of the assault areas on D-Day. These bombers had two roles.  During the hours of darkness, early on D-Day, night bombers would attack the German coastal artillery batteries flanking the beach, in the vicinity of Pointe du Hoc to the west and Port en Bessin to the east.  The second role, commencing shortly after sunrise, was to strike the beach defenses.  Approximately 329 B-24 bombers of the Eighth Air Forces’ 2nd Bombardment Division would strike the beach defenses in the Omaha Assault Area at the same time as the naval bombardment. [18]  As impressive as that number is, the amount of their bombs that could reasonably be expected to actually hit the beach defenses—even had the weather been perfect—was far less than is generally realized.  In the next installment we’ll examine this point in more detail.  For now, suffice it to say that even had the air bombardment gone as planned, its actual potential effect on the beach defenses has been greatly overstated.

The Purpose of Bombardment – Destruction or Neutralization?

Even as Ramsay, Hall and the other naval leaders were trying to obtain additional bombardment assets, they were embroiled in another debate involving the basic question of what exactly was the purpose of the bombardment.  To be more precise, what effect was the bombardment expected to achieve?  The general statement of ‘pave the way for the assaulting troops’ meant nothing in a tactical sense.

The two camps in this debate were those who believed the bombardment must achieve destruction of the enemy defenses (or at least a substantial portion of them), and those who felt that goal was not possible, and believed neutralization of the enemy defenses was all that was practical. To quote the US Navy’s Landing Operations Doctrine (F.T.P. 167):

1. Neutralization.--Neutralization fire is area fire delivered for the purpose of causing severe losses, hampering or interrupting movement or action and, in general, to destroy the combat efficiency of enemy personnel. In the usual case, neutralization is only temporary and the target becomes active soon after fire ceases. Neutralization is accomplished by short bursts of fire of great density to secure the advantage and effect of shock and surprise. Most targets engaged by naval gunfire will be of the type for which neutralization is appropriate.

2. Destruction--The term is applied to fire delivered for the express purpose of destruction and when it is reasonable to expect that relatively complete destruction can be attained. Destruction should be attempted only under favorable conditions of target designation and observation.[19]

A good example of the proponents for the destruction school of thought was MG Charles Corlett.  Corlett had served in the Pacific, commanding first the Kiska Task Force, and then the 77th Division during the assault on Kwajalein.  He was then brought to the European Theater and given command of the XIXth Corps, which was scheduled to land on Omaha Beach shortly after D-Day.  After the mistakes at Tarawa, much greater emphasis was given to preparatory bombardment for the Kwajalein landings, and Corlett believed the lessons he’d learned in that operation were ignored in the run-up to the Normandy landings.  But those lessons were largely not applicable.  At Kwajalein, Corlett had been able to secure a number of small islets close to the main objective and landed forty-eight 105mm howitzers and twelve 155 howitzers—his entire division artillery—on one of them. All while four battleships, two cruisers and 4 destroyers bombarded Kwajalein throughout the day of D-1.  Harassing fires were maintained through the night by both the Army and the Navy (battleships Idaho, New Mexico, cruiser San Francisco and their destroyer screen).  A large scale bombardment incorporating all arms was conducted the next day in support of the main landings on Kwajalein itself.

There are few, if any, relevant lessons here for the Normandy landings.  Corlett didn’t have to worry about the possibility of Japanese reinforcing divisions—to include perhaps a panzer division or two—rolling up while he took a day for preliminary operations.  He didn’t have to worry about nearby E-Boat or U-Boat bases or Japanese air formations stationed within range.  He was able to outflank the Japanese seaward defenses by landing from the less defended lagoon side.  And Kwajalein was only 2.5 miles long and 800 yards wide, flat, lacking beach obstacles and mostly lacking vegetation.  And it still took him longer to secure the island than it would take to secure the equivalent beach area at Omaha.

The comparison really falls apart when one considers the preparation.  The Kwajalein naval bombardment totaled something less than 7,000 rounds during D-Day, most of which were fired during the beach preparatory bombardment.  The Omaha Beach bombardment was scheduled to deliver 6,297 rounds for the preparatory bombardment alone.  So, despite having more and heavier naval gunfire for Kwajalein, the planned Omaha bombardment was effectively equivalent, if not perhaps even greater.  The real difference was not so much the naval bombardment, but the support provided from Corlett’s own Army guns.  The 60 howitzers that were landed the previous day consisted of the entire 77th Division Artillery.  And those 60 guns—whose accuracy had the advantage of solid ground, not rolling ships—fired 29,000 rounds during Kwajalein’s D-Day.[20]  At Omaha there was no convenient island to preposition Army firepower, and even if there had been, there was no time to emplace it or fire a prolonged barrage.  The Pacific model simply did not fit.

Corlett was an excellent general, and did a fine job commanding the XIXth Corps, so much so that he was later transferred back to the Pacific to command another corps for the planned invasion of Japan.  But in pressing for a Pacific-style bombardment, he’d brought the wrong experience to the Normandy operational environment.  He was bitter at the way he perceived his advice was ignored within SHAEF, but his advice was wrong.

Despite the inapplicability of the Kwajalein model, RADM Hall nevertheless embraced it to support his position:

“Using Kwajelein [sic] as a basis for a rough comparison, and disregarding other considerations, the landing of four times the number of troops against three time the defensive strength would call for an amount of naval gunfire support at Omaha many time greater than that employed at Kwajelein.  Yet the weight of metal delivered at Omaha defenses was one-third that used at Kwajelein . . . Though the amount of naval gunfire to be delivered in a given situation cannot be arrived at mathematically, and though naval gunfire alone will not necessarily insure a successful landing . . . the foregoing rough comparative figures will serve to substantiate the conclusion that Omaha Beaches during the pre-landing phase, not enough naval gunfire was provided.”[21]

Probably the best proponent of the neutralization school of thought was Ramsay himself.  He was influenced in this matter by a report titled "Fire Support of Sea-Borne Landings Against a Heavily Defended Coast” (the so-called Graham Report).[22]  Although Graham was a Royal Air Force officer and his report focused primarily on the air contribution, it provided two insights that would largely govern the naval bombardment plan as well. 

“a. Casemated batteries probably could not be destroyed by bombardment, but could be sufficiently neutralized to render them acceptably ineffective until the army could capture them. The report also calculated in detail the weight of fire required to do this.
“b. Beach defenses could best be neutralized by "beach drenching," which would force the defender underground and numb his mind and nerves. Aimed fire in the dust and smoke of battle would be less likely to accomplish this.” [23]

In other words, direct hits on individual bunkers, weapons positions and concrete troop shelters were highly unlikely with any reasonably sized naval bombarding force, so the emphasis should be on the more achievable goal of neutralization.  (Graham’s final sentence in that quote would prove prophetic.)

This thinking was translated into Ramsay’s ANCEX orders. 

“2.  The object of the naval bombardment is to assist in ensuring the safe and timely arrival of our forces by the engagement of hostile coast defenses, and to support the assault and subsequent operations ashore.

“This will involve the following tasks:

“(a)  Neutralization of coast defence and inland batteries capable of bringing fire to bear on the assault beaches or sea approaches until each battery is captured or destroyed,

“(b)  Neutralization or destruction of beach defenses during the final approach and assault.”[24]

While the wording of this order included the term ‘destruction’, any such results would be incidental, and they were not to be counted on.

This focus was rooted in a firm grasp of reality.  Not only was there not time available for a more comprehensive bombardment, but a significant portion of the available firepower could not be dedicated to shelling the beach defenses.  As paragraph (a) of the above quote specified, the bombarding ships also had the defensive mission to neutralize any coastal artillery positions that might threaten the landing.  And that requirement would demand a large portion of the cruisers’ and battleships’ firepower.  At Omaha, for instance, the Texas fired not a single 14-inch projectile on the principal beach landing sectors during the preparatory bombardment; every single one of the 262 14-inch rounds allotted for its preparatory bombardment was targeted on or near the coastal artillery battery at Pointe du Hoc.  Similarly, the entire firepower of one of the three cruisers was dedicated to neutralizing German guns in the vicinity of Port en Bessins.[25]     

In fact, battleships were allocated specifically on the basis of the number of key coastal artillery batteries that threatened an assault area, and Omaha had just two: Pointe du Hoc, and Longues-sur-Mer - and the latter was within the Gold Assault Area and was to be targeted by a capital ship belonging to the Gold Assault Force.  So, this interpretation of the doctrinal template did not indicate Omaha was under-supported in battleships or cruisers

Ramsay’s objective of neutralization focused on what he thought was possible, and in this he was supported by the very same FTP-167 that Hall had selectively cited.   That publication specified that a four- or five-gunned 5-inch destroyer could neutralize a 200 yard by 200 yard area with 80 rounds of rapid fire.  Further, it could neutralize six such targets an hour.  As the bombardment period was scheduled for 40 minutes, each destroyer should have been able to neutralize four targets.  But no destroyer at Omaha was assigned four targets.  One destroyer was assigned to just a single target, most were assigned just two targets, and only one was assigned three targets.  The destroyers should have had ample time and ammunition to neutralize their assigned targets.  A similar analysis for the cruisers produces the same results.  Glasgow, for instance, was assigned two targets within 200 yards of each other (its area of coverage for a twelve-gun broadside was 300 yards by 300 yards), and the ship was allotted more than three times the doctrinal number of rounds necessary to neutralize those targets.  So, a persuasive argument can be made that there was not in fact a shortage of bombardment ships at Omaha.  The fact that none of these targets was actually neutralized by the D-Day preparatory bombardment suggests we need to examine whether there were shortfalls in how the bombardment was executed, as opposed to faulting the number of ships available.

In the next installment, I will examine the actual bombardment plan, illustrate how it was organized and show how the targets selected for the various supporting ships would combine to (hopefully) create a fully integrated neutralization of the defenses at key locations across the length of Omaha Beach.  In the third installment I will examine how well that plan was executed, and how it fell short.

Concluding Thoughts

One of the continuing themes of this Omaha Beach Series has been that Neptune was under-resourced, and that chronic lack of resources affected how the operation was executed and how well it succeeded.  In the matter of the bombardment mission, this theme is not as applicable as I initially thought.  Yes, one reading of the amphibious doctrinal template definitely called for more bombardment ships and greater time for the bombardment.  But the one true limiting criterion was the time allocated for the bombardment, and that was dictated by hard realities.  The debate of neutralization vs destruction was fruitless, as destruction simply could not be achieved within a timeframe suited to the operational environment. 

Further, even if RADM Hall had been allotted more bombardment ships, there is a real question as to whether he could have employed them profitably in the crowded fire support areas.  As we’ll see in a later installment, some of the ships he did have were not used to their full extent due to other bombardment ships masking their gun-target lines. 

Any commander with any common sense instinctively wants more combat power, especially fire support, but few ever get what they want.  Or even need.  The mark of a good commander is how well he employs the fire support he does have.  And that’s the question we will pursue in the following installments: was the bombardment plan for Omaha as efficient as it reasonably could have been, and did its execution on 6 June live up to its objectives.

Finally, I want to stress once again that simplistic analyses continue to grossly misrepresent how the plan developed.  An example is this quote from a 1998 US Naval Institute article:   

“It is more accurate to state that the Allied leaders and planners of the Normandy invasion did not display the level of professionalism expected this late in the war. For the Normandy invasion, the Allied commanders ignored tested doctrine and thus ignored the cumulative body of knowledge in amphibious operations gained through hard-fought battles in North Africa, Sicily, and Tarawa. Montgomery and Bradley used an unproved means to deliver the vast majority of the combat power needed to overcome the defense. They failed to trouble-shoot their primary plan—air power—and to fully a back-up plan [sic]—naval gunfire, and so, the Allied plan failed at the most heavily defended beach.“[26]

That passage is particularly objectionable as it placed the entire blame for the naval bombardment on two Army officers, completely ignoring the fact that naval bombardment was, obviously, a naval responsibility, and the bombardment plan was written by naval staffs and approved by naval commanders.  Indeed, the landings were commanded by naval officers, with Army commanders in subordinate positions. Given this, it’s hard to believe the author chose to completely ignore the role of Ramsay in the Neptune planning, or the US Navy’s role in allocating bombardment ships.  This is not to deny army involvement, for of course it was a joint operation, and ground commanders presented considerations that had to be factored into the many painful trade-off decisions.  But to place all the blame on Montgomery and Bradley is patently absurd.

So too was that the comment that Bradley and Montgomery “ignored the cumulative body of knowledge” gained in the course of Mediterranean operations.  They didn’t use many of the Mediterranean (or Pacific) techniques simply because: 1) they didn’t have the naval combat power necessary; or 2) the operational characteristics of the Normandy coast made those techniques either irrelevant or extremely dangerous to the chances of success.

The author is marginally more on point when he says they failed to trouble-shoot their primary plan and have some sort of backup plan in case the air support failed.  Ideally, that’s a very good point, and all good plans should have such contingencies.  But it is one thing to hurl that doctrinal accusation, and quite another to imagine what possible contingency plan was feasible.  Could they magically draw on three or four more battleships when, at H-15, the bombers hadn’t arrived?  Did they have the option to delay the Omaha landings – and only the Omaha landings - until better weather showed up?  No.  Of course not.  Such criticism is meaningless if there is no better alternative.

The weather for Neptune was a gamble.  A famous one.  A dangerous one.  And while it had tragic consequences for the landings at Omaha Beach and the airdrops of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, it also ensured priceless surprise across all the assault areas, from the tactical level through the strategic level.  The weather that foiled the air support at Omaha also permitted the vast invasion fleet, sailing from dozens of ports, to miraculously arrive off the beaches undetected.  And that surprise worked in the favor of the Omaha landings.

Rare is the commander who has the luxury of ample assets for an operation.  At Omaha, no more ships were to be had.  No more time was available.  And the weather was beyond anyone’s control.  ADM Hall had what he had to work with.  It’s as simple as that.  The question before us in the next installment is, how well did Hall use the assets he was provided?

[1] Pogue, Forest, United States Army in World War II, The European Theater of Operations: The Supreme Command (CMH Publication 5-6), Center of Military History, United States Army, Washington, D.C., 1989, pg. 108.

[2] An additional invasion area was also added in the Eastern Naval Task Force sector.

[3] As opposed to GEN MacArthur’s Southwest Pacific theater, where the geography generally enabled the selection of generally lightly held or undefended beaches.

[4] Harrison, Gordon, Cross Channel Attack, Center of Military History, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C. 1993, pg. 73.

[5] This is not to overlook several important advantages the theater offered, such as being within fighter range of the UK, the relatively short distances between staging bases in the UK and the invasion beach, and many others.

[6] Samuel Eliot Morison, History of United States Naval Operation in World War Two, Vol XI, The Invasion of France and Germany 1944-1945, Little, Brown, and Co., Boston, 1957. P. 152-3.

[7] Love, Robert and Major, John, editors, The Year of D-Day; The 1944 Diary of Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay, The University of Hull Press, 1994, pg. 24.

[8] Harrison, pg. 189.

[9] Neptune, Initial Joint Plan, (NJC 1004), dtd 1 Feb 1944, see Section V, Assault Phase.

[10] Ramsay, Bertram, Report by the Allied Naval Commander-in-Chief Expeditionary Force on Operation Neptune, pg. 6 (covering letter).

[11] Morison, pp 55-56.

[12] Godson, Susan, Viking of Assault; Admiral John Lesslie Hall, Jr., and Amphibious Warfare,1982, University Press of America, pg. 124.

[13] Department of the Navy, F.T.P. 167, Landing Operations Doctrine, 1938, US Government Printing Office, pg. 122.

[14] CTF-122 Operation Plan No. 2-44, dtd 21 April 1944, Task Organization.

[15] As the primary mission of these escort destroyers was to protect convoys from submarines, their main battery did not require larger guns.  In a similar vein, many of the US destroyer escorts were armed with 3-inch guns.

[16] CTF-122 Operation Plan No. 2-44, dtd 21 April 1944, Appendix 1 to Annex D.  See also ANCX Naval Operation Orders for Operation Neptune, ON 8, Appendix III.

[17] The 3-inch gun is small by naval standards, but with a bore of 76mm, it compared favorably with the 75mm guns mounted on the Sherman tanks.  The 3-inch guns that made up the tertiary batteries of the battleships also would provide good service on D-Day. Although not incorporated into the bombardment plan.

[18] Hennessy, Juliette, US Air Force Historical Study No. 70; Tactical Operations of the Eighth Air Force, 6 June 1944 – 8 May 1945, USAF Historical Division, Air University, 1952, pg. 25. There are conflicting reports on this number, and the matter will be examined further in the next installment.

[19] Landing Operations Doctrine, United States Navy F.T.P. 167, 1938, Ch V.

[20] Crowl, P and Love, E, United States Army in World War II, The War in the Pacific: Seizure of the Gilberts and Marshalls (CMH Publication 5-6), Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., 1955.  Chapter XIV, pg. 231.

[21] COMINCH P-006, Amphibious Operations, Invasion of Northern France, Western Task Force, June 1944, pg. 2-27

 [22] See Ramsay’s Report by the Allied Naval Commander in Chief, Expeditionary Force on Operation ‘Neptune’, dtd October 1944.  Vol I, Annex 5, pg. 64

[23] United States Naval Administration in World War II. United States Naval Forces, Europe. Volume V, Operation NEPTUNE - The Invasion of Normandy, 1948, pg. 489

[24] Allied Naval Commander in Chief, “Expeditionary Force, Operation Neptune, Naval Operations Orders,” dtd 10 April 1944, pg. 124.

[25] And that was just what the plan anticipated.  In the event even more firepower was required for Port en Bessin.

[26] Lewis, Adrian, The Navy Falls Short at Normandy, US Naval Institute History, Dec 1998, Vol 12, Number 6.

The Duplex Drive Tanks of Omaha Beach, Part (f) Conclusions and Final Thoughts

The saga of the Omaha Duplex Drive tanks is in many ways symbolic of Operation Neptune itself.  The need for these tanks was a direct result of the alliance’s strategic dilemma: despite nominally giving the invasion high priority, it was unable or unwilling to commit sufficient naval assets to the task.  One of the results of this mismatch between strategic lines of effort and force priorities was the critical shortage of bombardment ships for Neptune.  The eventual solution was to seize on an experimental concept, throw it in on the first wave of the assault, and hope for the best.

On the one hand we see in this the genius of innovation, flexibility and industrial brute force, all key components of the eventual Allied victory.  The fact that the industrial base could convert 200 Sherman tanks into duplex drive variants and ship them to the United Kingdom in a matter of just a couple months was an astounding feat (not to overlook the conversions being produced in the UK).  But that kind of improvisation often contains the seeds of failure, usually in the form of inadequate engineering or inadequate production quality.  And so it was here.  The design of the duplex drive kit was so immature that the first thing they had to do when they reached the United Kingdom was apply fixes to the struts to keep them from collapsing.  Given the brutal nature of the English Channel, that ‘fix’ would fall short.

An Extract from Commander, 3rd Armored Group memo to MG Huebner, Commander, 1st Infantry Division, addressing DD tank training. This paragraph highlights the deficiencies of the newly arrived duplex drive Sherman conversions.

And that illustrates the leitmotif which wove through the Neptune planning.  It was in many ways characterized by a large scale effort to improvise solutions to problems which sprung, as often as not, from poor strategic planning and the enemy’s refusal to passively await a beating.  In virtually every category, the planners were scrambling to find the means to achieve the ends.  Bombardment ships, landing ships, landing craft, escorts, minesweepers, transport aircraft for airdrops - all were critical shortages.  Sometimes units or materiel were found to fill the gap, but these were usually ad hoc, untested or ill-trained.  And too often the invasion had to make do despite the shortages.

It is important, however, to keep this in context.  War-by-alliance is a difficult endeavor, especially one being fought across the entire globe in numerous theaters, each with its own unique demands, and all clamoring for a share of vast, yet limited resources.  The point of the preceding paragraphs is to highlight the limitations which hampered the planning and execution of D-Day.  It is not intended to lodge a blanket indictment of LTG Morgan’s COSSAC or GEN Eisenhower’s SHAEF.  Nor is it intended to criticize the wisdom of the Combined Chiefs of Staff or the political leadership of the allied nations.  Certainly, individual decisions by each and every one of those bodies can be questioned, and sometimes, as they say, ‘mistakes were made.’

But that isn’t the point.  All war is characterized by friction, inadequate resources, tradeoffs and sub-optimal solutions (the least bad options).  Operation Neptune was no different.  And despite the challenges and near chaos, it did succeed.  Not as cleanly or easily as planned (or hoped), but assaults on defended shores seldom are.

The question here, however, is how effective were the commanders, their staffs and the executing units in coping with the limitations to make it all work.  In some cases it was a matter of doing a familiar mission, but with green, perhaps ill-trained, units.  In other cases, it was making the best of the least bad alternative.  Which brings us back to the DD tanks.  A new ‘gimmick’, inadequately designed and tested, hurriedly produced, not well suited for the waters in which it was to operate - yet necessary, if not vital, for want of a better solution.  They were indeed the least bad solution.  But that didn’t make them the wrong solution.

So, it is now time to recap the preceding five installments with an eye on how well each echelon addressed, helped or hindered the effort to land 64 swimming Sherman tanks on Omaha Beach at 10 minutes before H-Hour.

What I hope I have provided in this series is the most comprehensive body of research on the DD tank effort to date, as well as a detailed analysis of that information.   To repeat a caution from an earlier installment, the saga of the DD tanks is so thoroughly replete with conflicting reports and questionable firsthand accounts that any conclusion depends entirely on which imperfect source you reject, and which you decide to accept.  Others will no doubt weigh the sources differently and come to different conclusions.  What follows represents my evaluation after more than a year’s study of the topic.

Two of three DD tanks landed directly on Easy Red Beach Sector by Ensign Henry Sullivan’s LCT-600. Photo by Robert Capa.

The 6,000 Yard Line.

One of the more curious aspects of the DD tanks saga was the disregard paid to the advice of the two men who had become experts in their use.  After conducting an intense six-week training course for DD tanks and LCTs, Lt.(jg) Dean Rockwell and MAJ William Duncan were as much of experts on the matter as anyone else in Western Naval Task Force.  Duncan ran the school to train the DD tankers and Rockwell’s LCTs supported the training.  At the end of that training program, both men submitted reports. Rockwell noted that DD tanks “can be launched 3-4,000 yards from shore and reach a specified beach.” [1]  Duncan noted that the tanks had been launched from as far out as 6,000 yards, but also noted that in launches of more than 4,000 yards out, six cases of non-fatal carbon monoxide poisoning occurred.[2] He therefore recommended they “not be launched more than 4,000 yards from the beach.”

Having received recommendations from their own designated experts, the powers that be ignored that advice and decided the appropriate launching distance would be 50% to 100% farther than recommended.  They would launch at 6,000 yards.

In deciding this, they not only disregarded the advice of their own ‘experts’, they acted counter to their own best judgements.  After the failures of D-Day, key naval figures were quick to claim they had always thought the DD tanks were a hairbrained idea.  RADM Hall is perhaps the most notable among this crowd.  Yet despite those supposed misgivings, they directed the launching of the ‘unseaworthy’ DD tanks at distances far greater than recommended.  Their supposedly strong misgivings were so far at variance with what they directed in their orders that one must doubt whether those misgivings were authentic, or were merely post-debacle attempts to distance themselves from the consequences of their own orders.

The unfortunate fact is that there is no indication as to who was the original father of this decision.  The highest level order citing that distance was RADM Kirk’s order for the Western Naval Task Force, however similar guidance was in effect at every beach, whether American, British or Canadian (at the British and Canadian beaches, the launch line was even farther out – 7,000 yards).[3]  This would seem to indicate the policy came from Admiral Ramsey or even General Montgomery.  Yet there is no record of any such order coming from either man. 

There may have been grounds for this 6,000 yard decision.  The fear of enemy coastal artillery may have imposed this caution; after all, launching required the LCTs to remain almost stationary, making for an easier target at closer ranges.[4]  This possibility is underscored by the fact that at the British and Canadian beaches, instructions were not only to launch the DD tanks at 7,000 yards, but be prepared to launch them from even farther out if under fire from shore batteries. 

Nevertheless, the 6,000 yard line stands at the apex of the DD tank fault pyramid, not necessarily because of the degree of the ensuing damage it may have caused, but because it so perfectly illustrates the lack of common sense brought to bear on this matter.

A Cascading Series of Errors

At Omaha, the confusion started with RADM Hall and subsequently infected all lower echelons.  It began with Hall’s initial decision for apportioning responsibility.  COL Severne MacLaughlin (Commander, 3rd Armored Group, the parent headquarters for both the 741st and 743rd Tank Battalions) reported Hall’s initial plan was for MG Gerow to make the decision if the weather was bad.[5]  (Gerow, the V Corps Commander, would be with Hall aboard his command ship the USS Ancon, 23,000 yards offshore in the Transport Area.)  In other words, Hall tried to remove himself completely from the matter. 

Recognizing this was entirely unsatisfactory, MG Bradley (commanding the First U.S. Army) sent his letter to RADM Kirk, insisting on two points:  1) that the decision be made by the Assault Force Commander, with advice from the Landing Force Commander; and 2) that the decision should not be delegated to individual craft level.  Although RADM Kirk changed his order (CTF 122) to allow breaking radio silence prior to H-Hour to facilitate such a decision, Hall rejected the idea in his own order.  As far as can be determined, no answer on the record was provided in response to Bradley’s letter, and there is scanty and conflicting documentation on Hall’s decision on the matter before 6 June 1944. 

In the wake of the confusion of responsibility on D-Day, Hall belatedly penned an apologia in his 22 September endorsement of Rockwell’s report.  In it he attempted to show that he had provided clear guidance on the launch-or-land decision.

“2.  The question as to who should decide whether to launch DD tanks was discussed at length by the Assault Force Commander with the Commanding General, Fifth Corps, U.S. Army and the Commanding General, First Infantry Division, U.S. Army.  For the following reasons it was agreed that the decision should be left to the Senior Army Officer and the Senior Naval Officer of each of the two LCT units carrying DD Tanks:

“(a)  They had more experience than any other officers in the Assault Force in swimming off DD Tanks from LCTs.

“(b)  The decision should be made by someone actually on the spot where the launching was to take place and embarked on an LCT rather than on a large vessel.  A decision under such conditions should be sounder than one made on a large vessel miles away where the sea conditions might have been much different.

“(c)  If a decision were to be made elsewhere and action had to await an order, confusion and delay might result in the absence of such an order, and it was anticipated that communications might be disrupted by the enemy action so that it would be impossible to transmits orders by radio.

“NOTE:  The two unit commanders were to inform each other by radio of the decision reached.”[6]

It is impossible to miss the unintended irony in the concluding note, given the fear of enemy jamming in the preceding paragraph. 

In military vernacular, ‘discussed at length’ is usually a euphemism for ‘there were strong and irreconcilable disagreements.’  Similarly, in that context, the phrase ‘it was agreed’ generally means the commander made a decision over objections of key subordinates, who ultimately had to go along with the boss’ decision.  Despite the false patina of unanimity, that paragraph indicates opinions were sharply divided.

The reasons Hall laid out for his decision did have the virtue of having some merit and might have been convincing were it not for his original stance.  In that original stance, he would have had Gerow making the decision under the identical ‘limiting’ circumstances (23,000 yards offshore aboard a large and stable ship), and Hall was just fine with that.  But after Bradley’s letter of protest, the decision was kicked back to Hall, and suddenly the conditions that Hall thought were fine for Gerow’s decision-making, were now completely unacceptable if Hall himself had to make the decision.  This cast the rationale listed in Hall’s apologia in their true light: they were not put forward as sound tactical considerations, they were merely convenient pretexts that would enable Hall to again avoid responsibility in the matter.  In Hall’s revised analysis, such a decision could only be made by a man ‘on the spot’ in the boat lanes with expertise in the matter of DD tank launchings, which, not so coincidentally, ruled himself out.

From this, I believe Hall’s primary motivation clearly was to avoid any personal responsibility for the decision to launch the ‘gimmicks’ in which he had no faith.  And this ‘hands off and eyes shut’ attitude was the fountainhead for the confusion of responsibilities that permeated planning and execution.  In a cruel twist of fate, Hall’s doubts became self-fulfilling prophesies, because he shunned his responsibilities. 

But even if Hall’s assertion that the decision should be made by the man on the spot has merit, that would not justify delegating the decision as far down as eventually happened.  At the British beaches, the decision was delegated only down to their equivalent of the Deputy Assault Group Commanders.  Recall that Hall’s two Deputy Assault Group Commanders were naval captains (equivalent to Army colonels), both of whom would meet the DD/LCTs at Point K and escort them to the 6,000 yard line for deployment.  In other words, they, too, would have been ‘on the spot’ if a decision needed to be made. That would have been the far better solution.

In addition, any validity to his rationale faded to nothing in light of two subsequent events.  First was the landing at Utah Beach, where RADM Moon made the launch decision with MG Collins’ advice, and where the Deputy Assault Group commander was on the spot in the boat lanes to issue orders to adjust when the DD/LCTs arrived late.  Second, the assumption that very junior officers with six weeks training on DD tanks were the best men to make the decision proved patently unwise.  This was an especially risky option as their decision would determine the fate of a critical slice of combat power, upon which so much of the first waves’ success depended. 

Hall’s judgement was seriously faulty.

But the question remains, was this truly the guidance Hall issued before the operation?  It certainly was never reduced to writing in his own order, nor was it reflected in any of the Army orders.  Was this merely Hall revising history to avoid accountability?  MacLaughlin once again comes to our aid.  His after action report stated Hall and Gerow came to an agreement that:

“ . . . the senior naval commander in each flotilla carrying DD tanks make the decision as to whether the DDs would be launched, or the LCTs beached and the tanks unloaded on the shore.  The senior DD tank unit commander was to advise the flotilla commander in this matter.”[7] 

While generally in line with Hall’s version, there was a significant difference.  Where Hall described a joint decision, with the Army responsibility emphasized by being mentioned first, MacLaughlin’s version clearly indicated it was a Navy decision, with Army input (paralleling, in part, Bradley’s position).  Thus, from this initial decision, the Navy and Army were not on the same page regarding this key responsibility.  Such is usually the case when contentious matters are decided without being documented or translated into orders.

And apparently, not all the actors within the Navy were on the same page, either, and this failure was also a result of Hall’s faulty planning.  Neither Hall’s original operation plan (dtd 23 May 1944) or its subsequent change (30 May 1944) mentioned such a decision would be a joint Army-Navy responsibility.  His original order merely instructed two of his Assault Group commanders that the DD tanks might have to be landed, and left unstated who would decide.  In the absence of guidance from above, the orders of the two assault groups were naturally disjointed.  The Assault Group O-1 order did mention the decision would be a joint Navy-Army responsibility, but only mentioned it in a footnote to an annex detailing the employment of Landing Craf, Support (Small).  The order for Assault Group O-2 didn’t address the topic at all.  Further, by the time Hall’s order and the two assault group orders were issued, the DD/LCT teams had been broken up, with the LCTs and their embarked DD tanks already sailed for Portland, and the tankers already shipped off separately to the final marshalling areas.  If either the Assault Group Commanders or their deputies had any additional role in clarifying or coordinating the matter (most critically with the sequestered tankers) it was not recorded.

The final act in this confusion occurred just a day or two prior to the initial sortie, when the tankers rejoined the LCTs in Portland Harbor.  This was when Rockwell decided that instead of the decision being made separately within “each of the two LCT units carrying DD Tanks,” he would insist on one Army officer making the decision for both LCT units.  Although he didn’t mention what role, if any, he would have in this proposed change, it was clear he was attempting to override both Hall’s agreement with the Gerow and the Assault Group O-1 order.  Whatever Rockwell hoped to achieve, his actual result was to introduce more confusion.  Barry, leading the DD/LCTs of Assault Group O-1, understood that the decision reached at that meeting placed the decision authority solely in the hand of the Army.  Both his Army counterpart (CPT Thornton) and his own OiCs operated on D-Day consistent with that belief.  For that matter, Rockwell’s oral history indicated he and Cpt Elder did as well.[8]  All of this ran completely opposite to the version Rockwell penned after the landing.

Rockwell also had a hand in the cascading embarkation errors.  While he was not solely responsible for the disconnect between the embarkation scheme and subsequent sailing instructions in Assault Group O-1, it’s clear he conducted embarkation with inadequate information.  This was compounded by failing to anticipate how the changed sailing instructions would impact the placement of Barry within the formation he commanded.  This then led to the last-minute switch between the OiCs of two LCTs, which in turn led to Barry and Thornton being physically separated (during a period of radio silence), and indirectly led to the new OiC in Thornton’s craft getting lost in the boat lanes. . . . which in turn, forced Thornton to make a decision while separated from three quarters of his command.  Every error compounded the effects of the previous error and all conspired against sound decision-making in the DD/LCTs of Assault Group O-1.

Rockwell was more directly responsible for the error which saw Companies B and C of Assault Group O-2 being loaded on the wrong LCT sections.  While this did not seem to affect the outcome within his own division on D-Day, it was another distraction that had to be managed as he was dealing with other problems just before the sortie. 

Barry and Thornton do not escape responsibility, though it is abundantly clear their share of the blame is far, far less than Hall, Rockwell and history have heaped on them.  Objectively, Thornton made the wrong decision.  Were there mitigating considerations?  Yes.  Reports of the state of sea and wind varied widely among observers, and to make an Army officer responsible for a decision based on his judgement of sea state is simple folly.  Yet he was stuck with that decision, and he made the wrong one.  It appears to have been an honest mistake, but mistake it was.  The bottom line, however, was that his error was just the last one of an unbroken series of errors that started with Assault Force Commander, and which could only result in disaster of one sort or another.

Barry’s responsibility is far more difficult to assess.  He was largely a victim of Rockwell’s poor decisions regarding chain of command, formations and placement of Barry within that formation.  As a result of Rockwell’s belated recognition of his own error, Barry set off on 5 June in an unfamiliar craft, with an unfamiliar crew, in charge of a formation three quarters of which were not from his normal flotilla, group or section.  Worse, Barry’s understanding of the outcome of Rockwell’s agreement on who would make the decision to land would place him in the precise position – with no role in the decision – for which Hall would later excoriate him.

One other category of responsibility must be noted.  This involves the two Deputy Assault Group Commanders (CAPT Imlay and CAPT Wright).  Theirs are errors of omission, not commission.  While they both noted how bad the sea conditions were, neither took the initiative to intervene.  It’s hard to put all the blame on a junior officer’s decision, when older, wiser heads with more braid on their visors stood by and failed to act.  The blame here is somewhat worse for CAPT Wright, who, instead of leading the DD/LCTs to the 6,000 yard line, had CAPT Sabin take that role while he went back to the Transport Area to tend to his LSTs.

Also falling into this category are various Army officers.  MacLaughlin was involved from the outset in the contentious matter of who would make the decision, and while he clearly knew how important it was, he failed to monitor the developing plans and ad hoc decisions – at least there is no record of him objecting as the process continually went awry.  He can be partially excused as he apparently was aboard the USS Ancon and not present when Rockwell held his pre-sortie meeting with the Army battalion commanders.  Assessing the role of the two tank battalion commanders is difficult without knowing how much of the internal Navy confusion they were aware of, whether they were aware of Bradley’s position or whether they knew of Hall’s agreement with Gerow.  The tank battalions’ own orders had been issued before those of the two naval Assault Groups—which, in any case these units may not have received—so could not incorporate any of the (sparse) guidance the naval orders included.  Beyond that, without a reliable, independent source for what took place in Rockwell’s pre-sortie meeting, there is no way to know whether their role in that meeting was constructive or added to the confusion.  The only judgement that can be rendered here is a very general observation that they did not impart a strong enough sense of caution on their company commanders.  Even this limited observation really only applies to LTC Skaggs of the 741st Tanks Battalion and is tempered by the fact that Skaggs’ version of events has never been put on the record (despite his offer to provide it to Cornelius Ryan). 

And of course, the Army chain of command—from the 16th Regimental Combat Team through the 1st Infantry Division to the Vth Corps—can be similarly faulted for not paying enough attention to this critical matter.  As early as December 1943, Gerow voiced his doubts at a conference on Overlord:

“I don’t know whether it has been demonstrated or not: what will happen to those DD tanks with a three- or four knot current? . . .  I question our capability of getting them in with that current and navigation.”[9]

Having such doubts so early in the process, one can fault Gerow (and probably others) for failing to watch more closely the evolving plans for employing the DD tanks.  These were errors of omission, but did fall directly within a commander’s explicit responsibility for supervision.

The most unconscionable part of this tragedy took place in the days, weeks and even months after 6 June, when individuals were seeking to avoid blame.  Rockwell’s actions come in for the most severe criticism, if for no other reason than short-stopping the reports of the LCT OiCs.  He misrepresented the comments of the OiCs to the benefit of his version of events.  Worse, he wrote his own action report before he even received two of the OiC reports, one notably being Barry’s.  That meant Rockwell condemned Barry without even considering his account.  And the fact that Barry’s account directly contradicted Rockwell on the most vital point casts Rockwell in an even worse light, from which one might logically infer he did that intentionally to keep the potentially embarrassing facts of the matter buried.

Rockwell’s hypocrisy was further emphasized with his decades-later admission that within his own division, they had indeed launched “one or two” DD tanks that promptly sank.  This revealed that Rockwell’s judgement was also so poor that he allowed launching in ‘clearly unsuitable’ weather conditions – the same sin for which he condemned his scapegoat, Barry.  Again, it is another vital point he seems to have concealed when the hunt for someone to blame was under full swing.

Hall’s endorsement of Rockwell’s report (quoted in part above) was equally as self-serving, and, if not blatantly false in parts, was at the very least ill-informed.  Any agreement he may have reached with the V Corps Commander had long since been rendered outdated by sloppy orders or the unsanctioned changes Rockwell instigated just before sortieing.  Had Hall been kept in the dark on this?  Clearly not, as Rockwell’s report plainly stated the decision had been left to the senior Army officer of each group.  Which indicates Hall was trying to spin the facts.  

Hall’s endorsement omitted the point that Elder had launched ‘one or two’ tanks without consulting Rockwell (as Rockwell noted in his oral history), which would have revealed that Hall’s joint decision policy had been disobeyed.  This is likely because Rockwell concealed that matter from Hall (and from history for 40 years), just as he had withheld Barry’s report.  But if Hall had been kept in the dark on this point, it demonstrates the fact that Hall’s inquiry into the matter had been woefully inadequate. So, was Hall uninformed of this?  Or did he know and simply chose to omit it?  This is crucial, as up to that point, the Rockwell/Elder team had functioned exactly as the Barry/Thornton team had, the only difference being Rockwell/Elder took action to stop the mistake before it became total. This distinction was lost on Hall, and as a result his endorsement drew a comparative picture that was false and prejudicial to Barry and Thornton. 

And finally, Hall’s bland assertion that the Army and Navy leaders were supposed to consult by radio is undermined by his order that did not grant them authority to break radio silence.  Rockwell’s oral history made it clear that when Elder and he broke radio silence, it was in violation of orders.  (Although the tank radio nets were authorized to be opened at 0500 hours Rockwell’s report and oral history both indicate he was not aware of that, and there is no indication Hall was, either.) Again, Hall’s endorsement painted a picture that was not an accurate reflection of the operational conditions Hall himself had set.

A close examination of Hall’s endorsement raises more red flags.  It was written three and a half months after D-Day and fully two months after Leide’s endorsement to the same Rockwell report.  A quick survey of 43 endorsements which Hall provided to the reports of subordinate units or ships, shows 37 had been issued by 15 August, with the vast majority signed within a month of receipt.  The last endorsement signed was on 22 September, and not coincidentally that was the endorsement to the very questionable Rockwell report.  Clearly, he had been sitting on that contentious matter for as long as possible (which should also have given him time for a thorough investigation into the matter – something he did not do).  By that date, the 741st Tank Battalion was no longer attached to the 1st Division, having been attached to a second and then a third division, and many of the key Army figures in both battalions were killed or evacuated from theater due to wounds.  Not that it mattered much, because Hall did not provide distribution of his endorsement or Rockwell’s report to the 741st Tank Battalion (busy racing through France at the time), effectively blindsiding the tankers.  Of the four Army units he did include in distribution: Bradley no longer commanded the First US Army, Gerow no longer commanded V Corps (having been recall to testify before the Army’s board investigating Pearl Harbor), the 1st Division hadn’t seen the 741st in more than 3 months, and the 743rd Tank Battalion was also under a new commander.   Further, in the distribution block to his endorsement, Hall excluded the basic letter (Rockwell’s report) from delivery to the 743rd Tank Battalion.  Between this act and completely omitting distribution to the 741st Tank Battalion, Hall ensured no one on the Army side who was present at Rockwell’s pre-sortie meeting or aboard the LCTs on D-Day could read and dispute Rockwell’s questionable version of events.  He was just as sneaky on the Navy side; he did not forward any of these documents to LCT Flotilla 19 – the unit Barry belonged to (though he did provide a copy to Rockwell’s and Leide’s Flotilla 12).

Hall’s handling the of the affair’s aftermath is perhaps the classic ‘indictment-by-endorsement’ bureaucratic maneuver, wherein a potentially embarrassing investigation is forestalled by a carefully spun story that closes out an affair by shifting the blame to someone not in a position to defend himself.  Nothing else captures the essence of the DD tank saga as does this sorry concluding action.

But that isn’t the end of Hall’s role in the matter.  In a further paragraph of his endorsement to Rockwell’s report he betrayed an utter lack of understanding for the ground combat side of such assaults.

“(b) That under normal circumstances, artillery, tanks and other armored vehicles, which have to be transported in large landing craft, should not be landed in an assault until the beach has been cleared of enemy resistance and the vehicles and craft carrying them will not be exposed to direct aimed artillery fire during the landing.

“(c) That if circumstances make it necessary to employ tanks, artillery or other armored vehicles in the first wave or other early waves of the assault, they have a far better chance of reaching the shore in safety if they are transported by landing craft instead of swimming in under their own power.”

“Under normal circumstances . . . “ is a bizarrely inappropriate phrase to lead a recommendation about an assault so spectacularly un-normal as Omaha Beach.  If followed, Hall’s recommendation was tantamount to throwing unsupported infantry ashore reminiscent of the WWI mass attacks, and it disregarded everything learned about the essential need for combined arms operations, even at the earliest stages of an assault.  In his formal report on the landings, he expanded on this point, suggesting that naval gunfire was all that the assaulting troops would need for support.  Spoken like the old Battleship sailor he was.  Yet this completely disregarded the massive failures of bombardment in his own landing – largely due to communications breakdowns between ships and troops ashore.  And while the destroyers proved invaluable on D-Day, nevertheless there were numerous enemy guns sited in such a manner that they were impervious to naval gunfire and were only knocked out by tanks ashore.  Finally, the lack of adequate bombardment ships and lack of adequate time for such a bombardment in the European Theater precluded giving Hall’s recommendation any serious consideration.

As for the second paragraph, the obvious counterpoint is that one of the two principle reasons the DD tank concept was adopted in the first place was because amphibious commanders, such as Hall, did not want to risk LCTs in the first wave.  The whole fiasco could have been avoided had he simply ordered tanks be landed in the first place.  But he did not do that.  His comments here—lightly cloaking criticism of the Army DD tank concept—are actually the observations of a man who was not self-aware enough to realize he was part of the very problem that generated use of the DDs in the first place.   

Other Beaches - Other Results

Utah Beach

Earlier in this installment I touched on Utah Beach.  Let’s look more closely at the actions there: how did Rear Admiral Moon handle the same situation over on his beach? 

Recall that Moon had no previous amphibious experience, and worse, he had much less time to organize his command and plan for the landings due to the late addition of Utah Beach.  It’s no surprise that his force did not come off well in Exercise Tiger (the final Utah Beach rehearsal exercise).  And yet, his handling of the DD tank matter on D-Day was far superior to the far more experienced RADM Hall.

Moon decided to keep the question of launching DD tanks in his own hands.  He did not delegate it.  While this may not have been the best echelon for that decision, it was at least a clear assignment of responsibility, something lacking in Hall’s command.  Second, he would seek the advice of his Army counterpart, MG Lawton Collins (the VII Corps commander, riding in Moon’s command ship), ensuring unanimity of command.  These two provisions alone eliminated the wide array of problems that arose in Hall’s command.

The result was a much different mentality on D-Day, with executing units knowing where to look for a firm decision.  This began at the bottom, with USCG Cutter 17 flagging down the commander of CTG 125.5 (Commander E. W. Wilson) at 0309 hours to ask whether the DD tanks were to be launched or landed.  Wilson then proceeded in his flagship (LCH-10) to the USS Bayfield (the Utah command ship) and put the question to Moon.  Moon consulted with Collins at 0333 hours and the two decided to go ahead with the launching.  It was a clear decision made in a timely fashion and quickly passed to all the necessary parties.

DD Tanks on the Beach at Utah.

Life, however, is not that simple.  The DD/LCTs were not yet on hand to launch the tanks.  The convoys carrying the Utah landing force encountered the same problems in crossing the English Channel as did the Omaha convoys.  In this case, the DD/LCTs were running late.  Fortunately, Wilson was on top of matters and anticipating problems.  At 0347 hours, he queried the Bayfield, “If LCTs do not arrive for first wave, do you want to hold LCVPs?”  At 0353 hours he was told, “Do not wait for LCTs with DD tanks.”  He passed that word on at 0400, adding he would send the DD/LCTs when they arrived.  At 0426 hours the DD/LCTs arrived and were sent in.[10]  In an effort to catch up with the assault waves, the DD/LCTs passed the 6,000 yard line, closing to 3,000 yards where they launched their tanks. The DDs crawled ashore roughly 10 minutes after the first wave (i.e, 20 minutes late). [11]

The relative lack of beach defense at Utah might give the mistaken impression that all went well with the landing.  It did not.  But at least when it came to the DD/LCTs, the command responsibilities, planning and leadership resulted in sound execution, even in light of the late arrival of the convoy.

The Eastern Naval Task Force

The operation orders for the British and Canadian assault forces called for the DD tanks to be launched at an even greater distance—7,000 yards—with at least one order warning that in the case of enemy fire, they might have to launch beyond even that.  Fortunately, most of their DD tanks were taken into the shore, and those that were launched did so at either 5,000 yards (comparable to the distance at Omaha) or at about 1,500 yards.  In all cases, the decision was made by a naval officer with the rank of either captain or commander (equivalent to Army colonels or lieutenant colonels), which was a significant difference from the practice in Hall’s assault force.  In almost every case, the decision was made after consulting with the Army counterpart.

The employment of DD tanks on the British and Canadian beaches was summarized by Rear Admiral Phillip Vian, the Naval Commander of the Eastern Task Force (under whom the Assault Forces S, J and G operated).

“Launching of D.D. Tanks

“27.  The weather conditions were on the border line for swimming D.D. Tanks; in all the assaults the D.D. Tanks arrived late, and after the first landing craft had touched down.

“28.  In SWORD Area it was decided to launch the D.D. Tanks but to bring them in to 5,000 yards before launching, in view of the weather and lack of enemy opposition.  Thirty-four of the 40 tanks embarked were successfully launched and 31 reached the beach.  The leading tanks touched down about 12 minutes late and after the L.C.T. (AVRE).  At least one tank was run down and sunk by an L.C.T. (AVRE) and it is credible that not more were hit by these L.C.T. which had to pass through them.  Twenty-three tanks in this area survived the beach battle and did good work in destroying strong points which, being sited to enfilade the beaches, presented no vulnerable aperture or embrasure to seaward.

“29.  On the JUNO front it was decided not to launch the D.D. Tanks but to beach their L.C.T. with the L.C.T. (AVRE).  This was successfully accomplished in Assault Group J.2, but in Assault Group J.1 the D.S.O.A.G. in charge of the L.C.T., when about 1,500 yards from the beach, decided to launch the D.D. Tanks.  This resulted in some confusion in the groups following, but all L.C.T. except one launched their tanks, which arrived about 15 minutes late and 6 minutes after the assaulting infantry.

“30.  In GOLD area D.D. Tanks were not launched and L.C.T. were beached just after the L.C.T. (AVRE).”  [12]

Interestingly, he described the conditions as “on the borderline for launching D.D. Tanks”, which to some degree parallels the mixed observation of the conditions in the Omaha Assault Area.  The far happier results of the 34 DD tanks launched at Sword Beach, which were launched at a distance nearly the same as at Omaha, indicates the sea conditions there were actually more moderate than at Omaha.

Of course, few sources agree as to the actual losses among DD tanks, and some disagree even whether units were launched or landed.  For instance, at Gold Beach, where RADM Vian reported all DD tanks were landed on the beach, one source stated 32 DD tanks of the Nottinghamshire (Sherwood Rangers) Yeomanry were launched inside of 700 yards, and only 24 made it in.  Similarly, yet another report stated that of the 38 DD tanks of Group J.1 that launched close inshore at Juno Beach, 19 foundered.  Most of these discrepancies can be accounted for due to the fact that a substantial number of DD tanks were drowned out in the surf after touching down.  In some cases, there was water inside the canvas screen that the pumps could not handle, and when the tank’s front pitched up with the gradient of the beach, the water flooded to the rear and into the engine compartment.  In other cases, incoming waves broke over the back of the deflated canvas skirts and flooded the engine compartments.  These cases cannot be counted among those that foundered while swimming, and regardless, in most of these cases, the crews continued to fight their disabled tanks until the tide reached inside the turrets.

A DD tank mired in soft ground at Gold Beach.

To my mind, the example of the British and Canadian beaches—as well as Utah Beach—provided the cautionary lesson that proper employment of an operationally fragile system in a questionably suitable environment requires the judgement of seasoned and mature officers of appropriate rank and of the appropriate armed service.  The failure to recognize this truism was a major factor in fathering the debacle of the 741st Tank Battalion.

Parting Comments 

And with that we conclude this deep—very deep—dive into the circumstances surrounding the employment of Duplex Drive tanks at Omaha Beach.  The subject turned out to be vastly more complex than I anticipated, requiring no fewer than six long installments to do it justice.  Even at that length, I saw fit to omit discussion on some points, such as the possible effect stronger-than-anticipated currents might have had on collapsing the screens as the swimming tanks tried to steer ‘upstream’ to counteract their drift to the east.  I also omitted discussion of the actions of the surviving tanks once they made it ashore – a subject covered many times by many authors, and not within the focus of my series.

Incomplete as this series may be in those respects, I’m confident this has been the most thorough treatment of the subject, revealing several layers which have not been told elsewhere.

When I first set out to review the impact of the planning process and the orders for Omaha Beach, I intended not to make this a witch hunt or an attack on individuals.  I wanted to focus on systems and processes, doctrine and planning.  Unfortunately, the sheer scope of errors, bad decisions, sloppy plans and shabby cover-ups called for more sharply focused conclusions where some individuals were concerned.  I regret having to do it, but not having done it.  

In future posts, I will continue to explore how strategic priorities, resource constraints, command decisions and the planning system affected the conduct of operations at Omaha Beach.  I hope you’ll join me.

[1] As most of the documents referenced in this installment have been thoroughly discussed and cited in previous installments, I will omit duplicating them here, and will only include citations for newly introduced documents.

[2] In the original design a canvas curtain had walled off the area above the engine compartment.  This was replaced by a chimney-like exhaust stack which may have addressed the carbon monoxide poisoning threat, but that isn’t clear in Duncan’s report.

[3] For Juno Beach see ONEAST/J.2, Appendix C, para 2(c), pg  689; for Sword Beach, see ONEAST/S.7b para 12, pg 994; for Gold Beach, see ONEAST/G.FOUR, Part II, para 8, pg 1346; for.  All three orders are contained in Allied Naval Commander-in-Chief, Expeditionary Force’s complied Operation Neptune Naval Operations Orders which can be found at NARA RG 38 or online here.  Page numbers cited here refer to those of the online file. 

[4] At one British beach, instructions were to actually anchor during launching.

[5] Commander, 3rd Armored Group, Report After Action Against Enemy, June 1944, pp 2-3.  NARA, RG 407, Box13647, Entry 427.

[6] Commander, Assault Force “O” 22 September 1944 second endorsement to Com.Grp 35, LCT (6) Flot letter of 14 July 1944.  NARA, RG 38 or online here.

[7] MacLaughlin, op cit.

[8] In that oral history, the revelation that one or two tanks were launched as planned without Rockwell giving instruction – they had not yet broken radio silence – indicates he had no role in the decision-making.

[9] Balkoski, Joseph. Omaha Beach: D-Day, June 6, 1944 (p. 98). Stackpole Books. Kindle Edition.

[10] CTG 125.5 (Commander, Red Assault Group), Action Report, Operation Order N0. 3-44 of Assault Force “U”, Western Naval Task Force, Allied Naval Expeditionary Force, dtd 12 July 1944, encl 1, pg 1.  NARA RG 38, or online here.

[11] CTF 122 (Commander, Western Naval Task Force), Operation Neptune – Report of Naval Commander, Western Task Force (WNTF), pg 163 (online page reference).  NARA: RG 38, or online here.

See also:  CTF 125 (Commander, Force “U’), Report of Operation Neptune, dtd 26 June 1944, pg 654 (as contained Report of the Allied Naval Commander-in-Chief Expeditionary Force on Operation Neptune, dtd 16 Oct 1944).  NARA 38, or online here.

[12] Operation Neptune – Report of Naval Commander Eastern Task Force, dtd 21 August 1944.  Vian’s report is in Volume II of the Report of the Allied Naval Commander-in-Chief Expeditionary Force on Operation Neptune, dtd 16 Oct 1944.  Vian’s report begins at pg. 178.  The reports of his subordinate force commanders are also contained in that same document as follows: Force S Commander, pg 241; Force G Commander, pg. 330; and Force J Commander, pg. 439.  This document can be found at NARA, RG 38, or online here.