Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

I'd like opinions on the impact of the Allied fighter bombers in the battle for France, D-day on, in 1944.

Thank you

Re: Opinions please
 

I'll take a position on this subject... the combination of RAF, 8th AF and 9 AF fighter bombers in the Normandy campaign were crucial in several categories.
1. They denied rail and road traffic mobility to both resupply forward positions and/or enable orderly retreat as the German army was pushed back..
2. They put heavy pressure on entrenched forward positions, destroying troops, tanks and armored vehicles. Many Panzer IV's were destroyed for example.
3. They denied any hope of Luftwaffe tactical air from becoming even a presence, much less effective. For example the Luftwaffe sent 15 Ju 87's to the beach on June 6 and the 355th FG wiped out the group completely
4. They were a bitter psychological reminder to the troops on the ground that they would not enjoy such air support and that they were left strictly to the inventory (ammo/food/armor) that they started with on June 6.
5. They put so much pressure on France based Luftwaffe airfields that they became ineffective against the strategic air campaign directed toward German targets.

I'm sure other will have a better opinion, but hopefully is a start.

Regards,
Bill Marshall

Re: Opinions please
 

I have read one account of German tank crew POWS in British hands being moved back from the front actually soiling their trousers when a flight of RAF Typhoons flew over. The Brits said they were terrified beyond belief, just at the sound as they flew past.

Drgonag is correct with all his points, in particular the RAF Typhoon was greatly feared by the Panzer crews, but all the RAF and USAF fighter bombers or just fighters on patrol reduced massivley the movement of troops and supplies towards the front.

It was not uncommon for a single soldier to attract the attention of a straffing attack and again i remember reading a Spitfire pilots account of diving on a single German soldier on a bike in Northern France, as the pilot opened fire the German in a futile but natural act raised his arm to ward of the 20mm canon shells, the pilot said that is the one act he wishes he never did and obviously still haunted him when he wrote the story down.

I feel that without the allied Fighter Bomber D Day would have failed, certainly without the Allied Fighter bomber D Day would not have happened.

Re: Opinions please
 

Actually, assesment was done at the end of Normandy Campaign and it was found that damage inflicted was not very impressive. This is also conclusion of Zetterling's book covering the German side. Nonetheless psychological as well as reconnaissance role cannot be underestimated.

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Hi Franek.
Yes you are correct regards the losses to armour these were actually very small against the claims of the Allied pilots.
However the knowledge that at any time you could come under direct attack from the air, aiming at you, rather than just bombing the area from a great height had a massive effect of the German forces.

The "Battle of the Bulge" was only started when cloud cover was low enough to hamper the allied fighter bombers. For a major attack such as this to hinge on the weather for this reason, shows exactly to what extent the German high command feared the Typhoons and Thunderbolts.

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

I have had the opportunity to discuss the effect of free-ranging fighters behind German lines with more than a few knowledgable gentlemen on the other side.

Without going to the trouble of extracting General Galland's exact quotes which are in my book, paraphrased they go like this:
1. The effect of particularly the Mustang from March 1944 in dropping to the deck on the way home, strafing airfields, trains, barges and road traffic was devastating to the Luftwaffe - often preventing orderly take off and assembly to meet daylight bomber attacks and often wreaking havoc on tired pilots attempting to land often damaged a/c. Galland was very strong on this factor preventing him from getting large concentrations of fighters often enough in a localized space where he would have significant superiority and be able to do great damage.

2. The shooting up of trains and road and barge traffic had a more sinister effect to Germany's successful de-centralizing industry, particularly aircraft. The achilles heel was bringing sub assemblies by surface traffic which often came under attack somewhat offset the difficulties the Heavy bombers had in dealing with much de-centralization by not being able to destroy several large concentrations. In addition many repairable and repaired fighters returning from maintenance facilities via flatbed trucks were once again damaged or destroyed in such attacks

The above comments were made specifically to my question "How did the very large tactical "Footprint" of the Mustang cause difficulties to the Luftwaffe after Doolittle encouraged 8th AF Fighter Command to go on the offensive".

Remember, these attacks were ranging from Munich to Berlin months before the invasion.

Independent on whether the low level strafing attacks did as much damage as claimed, the order of magnitude of 5,000 German a/c destroyed on the ground matched the number destroyed in the air by the Mustang - and we haven't even touched on the terrible damage inflicted by the Typhoons and Thunderbolts in close proximity to the front lines in the true Fighter Bomber role.

The Falaise Pocket certainly illustrated the terrible effect of such low level attacks by the 'Jabo's'.... and the psychological effects of having to plan logistics and movement of critical supplies only at night reduced much of the German Army's effectiveness at the point of attack.

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Jon
I suppose in Ardennes Germans simply feared of being detected and it was the main reason to atack in poor weather to achieve maximum surprise.
Bill
Personally, I am very sceptical to any Galland's quotes. That is one thing. Another is, that no doubt Mustang won the airwar for Allies due to its superior range (may we call it range in terms of 1940s?) .
We also should be very cautious in regard of what was claimed and what was actually achieved. I am afraid that this was never a subject of serious research, although perhaps there is something in various USAF studies.
Finally, Normandy. A friendly fighter pilot who flew several dive bombing sorties, noted that Mustang accelerated too fast to be effective bomber. Other aircraft were not much better, so we may say that in general bombs were not effective. Rockets were badly inaccurate against ground targets, so only guns remain. Indeed it was most accurate weapon but no aircraft in Normandy had effective guns for ground attack.
On the other hand it must be said that in general aircraft of WWII period were not effective against small, moving military targets, at least in modern terms.
Certainly it was not that hopeless on the other side, as the weapon has been developed. So we should neither overestimate or understimate it.
Best wishes

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

As Franek has already said the psychological impact on the German forces was immense, this throughout history has been a weapon just as much as any arrow sword or bomb.
Also knowing that your only defense against this type of attack was down to light AA ( fantastic as it was ) with no squadron of FW190's about to turn up and save the day must also have added to the psychological impact.

Am i correct in saying that 8 60 pound rockets from a Typhoon was the same as a broadside from a light cruiser ?

If so imagine this multiplied to a Squadron size.......directed at you !

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Franek - why would you discount Galland's opinions? He certainly had the responsibility for Luftwaffe Fighter Arm mission and results until relieved and certainly had the overall perspective of the relative strengths and weaknesses of Luftwaffe vs 8th, 9th, 12th and 15th AF on the Western front?

Whose opinion would you value more highly with respect to these questions?

Regards,

Bill

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Gentlemen

The air activity over Normandy was due to the hard lession learn during the Dieppe raid, where Lw more or less won the battle

Best from Norway
Olve Dybvig

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

The suggestion that the fighter bombers had comparatively little effect is an argument based to the usefulness or not of the unguided rocket against main battle tanks, and then mainly due to the conclusions of one single report that investigated the battlefield some weeks after the fighting. Only very few tanks wrecks could be found that could undoubtedly be credited to the rocket.

However, the main effect was not just against armour but the much more numerous softskins, and not just in absolute kills but in terms of disruption. Before the invasion there was dispute between Rommel, whose experience of Allied airpower had convinced him of its effectiveness, and the more traditional generals who wished to keep the reserve away from the frontline. Rommel argued that Allied airpower would prevent the movement of the reserves in time to affect the landing. He was proven right.

The Mustang was not a major player in Allied "jabo" missions, the key aircraft being the Typhoon and the P-47, with the Spitfire a little way behind. At this stage the Mustang was largely limited to air-to-air operations.

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Graham - the Mustang was not a major player in Jabo actions if you limit that definition to tac air support of ground forces... recognizing the the 354thFG flew Mustangs in the 9th AF for all of its' missions save three months of P-47's.

I included 8th AF Fighter Sweeps as a major component of disruption to Luftwaffe operations - behind German lines - because it in fact contributed to aerial superiority which in turn was decisive in the Normandy Campaign.

My father's Wing, the 355th FG actaually flew quite a few direct 'jabo' type missions with bombs (both HE and frags) during June and July and August before returning exclusively to primary role of Bomber Escort and Fighter Sweeps deep behind German lines. He can testify to the fact that although he was an ace, he was never touched by the Luftwaffe but had the hell shot out of 4 Mustangs by flak while shooting up airfields, marshalling yards, barges and trains... an activity shared by ALL 8th AF Mustangs.

I offered the opinion that the combination of close air tactical efforts by Typhoons and Thunderbolts and Fighter Sweeps by Mustangs was an overwhelming advantage leading to decisive victory by troops on the ground.. nothing more

Regards,

Bill Marshall

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Hello Jon
a light cruiser was usually armed with 8 – 15 5.9” – 6.1” guns, which fired 100 – 125lb shells, so it’s broadside was clearly heavier than that of 8 60lb rockets of one Typhoon. That said there were some small light cruisers with only six 5.9” or 6” guns and because the rocket’s warhead was probably more thin walled than a naval shell, probably bigger percentage of its weight was made by the explosive charge. Downside of this was less and lighter splinters. So I would say that the claim is an exaggeration, but not very bad case if one thinks the special cases like RN’s Arethusa class small light cruisers or Royal Netherlands Navy’s Tromp.
Ps. Rate of fire for 6" gun was usually 6-8rpm.


HTH
Juha

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Hi Juha
Thanks for the details on the comparative power of the 8 60 pound rockets against the broadside of a light cruiser.....obvioulsy i was incorrect but i still would not wanted to have been on the recieving end of either.

One point we need to remember with the lack of German armour destroyed by air launched rockets is that the German High Commmand always if possible transported tanks by rail, obviously it was faster than them driving and would not require them to have a track change every 100 , 300 miles or what ever it was. As the many camera gun footage films show, trians were "easy" and popular targets for the Fighter Bomber , so this by itself i am sure reduced the number of tanks arriving or at the very least delayed them arriving allowing the American and British/Canadian forces to get the vital foothold in france....and win the war.

Also during a docummentary shown a few years back here in England they showed part of a propoganda film of US soldiers fighting through the hedgerows in Northern France, one American soldier doing a voice over as Fighter Bombers were shown attacking dug in German positions, said something along these lines..."The last thing i remember before i got hit was watching some RAF Typhoons blasting some German trenches and thinking, i sure am glad they are on our side "
This i think sums up 100% the effect the Fighter Bomber had on winning the war.

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Bill
I do not trust Galland simply because in my opinion he started to have some periods of his career blancoed. Various events, like visit on Sicily, development of Me 262, his relations with Goering are shown in completely different perspective by another sources.
I have no answer on actual impact of Allied straffing, but certainly I would not limit my knowledge to Galland or pilots' claims.
Graham
ORBs of Polish 2 TAF Mustang Squadrons show without doubt that they flew Ramrods (ie. dive bombings) on daily or almost daily basis during the Normandy Campaign. Due to superior range they flew a little bit farther than Spits or Tiffies. I suppose this was common to all 2 TAF Mustangs, though I cannot say for Americans.
In regard of Rommel's conflict with other commanders, Zetterling, based on German documents, suggests that Allied AFs did not cause any substantial losses or delays to the German army but Allied air superiority was a good excuse for incompetent German commanders. It is also his suggestion, that the command was right and if followed Rommel's sugestions, the army would have been destroyed by intense naval and aerial bombings on D-Day.
Olve
I do not think Luftwaffe achieved any goals at Dieppe, and I would hardly call this a Luftwaffe victory.
Cheers

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Franek - interesting that the Polish pilots would use 'Ramrod' differently from Americans.. The USAAF Fighter Command basically had three terms to describe the type mission they flew -
1. Ramrod - a mission escorting bombers along a planned path and duration.. the mission could evolve into a Sweep or Fighter Sweep after breaking escort duties and shoot up targets on the deck on the way home. Brits used Rodeo did they not?

2. Sweep - as in above but also a planned activity w/o engaging in bomber escort duty.. The variations included Fighter Bomber Sweep which the 8th AF Fighter Command flew frequently between June and August and carried bombs instead of wing tanks... or simply fly a planned route after dropping tanks and strafe. Variations here were 'Chatanooga' for specifically going after trains and 'Jackpot' for going after airfields.
Believe British term = Rhubarb

3. Area Patrol - the Fighter mission was to 'patrol a specific area, either high altitude along the bomber track but not really moving with the bomber stream (rare) or a low level mission covering a specific area to look for airfields, trains, troops, etc.

It was the latter two missions that were contributions to overall force projection by the 8th AF behind (but not very far) the actual Battle Line - which was the domain of TAC air.

I know the American derivative for Ramrod spun from Cattle drives in the American West in which the cowboys were 'escorting' the cows along the trail.. what was the Polish reference?

Regards,

Bill

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Ramrod was a RAF term and means a bombing raid intended to destroy the target (while a Circus was a bombing raid whose main objective was to drew German fighters into battle with the escort).
Ramrod may apply to any raid, from 8th Air Force heavy bombers escorted by Mustangs (USAAF case above) to fighter-bombers targetting bridges, stations and dumps (Polish case above).

As said before, the main effect of Allied fighter-bombers was not against tanks, but against soft-skinned vehicles. Psychological impact and severing supply lines, or at least slowing them a lot, certainly did more damage than direct rocket hit.

The impact of Typhoons and other Jabos can be measured to what happens when they targetted Allied units in error, or what suffered civilians in bombed/strafed areas. Both suffered heavy losses, and were not the main targets...

Another impact of the tactical superiority of Allied airforces was the Allied ability to have artillery spotters in the air with low losses. Artillery remained the main weapon in all WWII ground campains. Even in Falaise pocket, guns did more damage than AC.

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Laurent - what is your source for the 'derivative' of Ramrod as an English versus American slang word? I'm curious as the USAAF terminology in every microfilm history I have researched (40,000+ pages and 50 reels of microfilm) have Ramrod as singularly related to Fighter Group 'slang' for Bomber Escort - whether by Spitfire (4th/31st), Thunderbolt, Lightning or Mustang.

Circus as "large bomber escort mission" seems unique to 4th FG perhaps implying that Circus was an RAF derivative. Ditto for Rhubarb as slang for low level fighter sweep. I found zero references to either Circus or Rhubarb in the non 4th FG histories.

All the other Group histories I have read in the 8th AF used only Ramrod, Fighter Sweep and Area/Withdrawal/Penetration Support or Patrol as the prime descriptors of every mission

So how did the RAF derivative for Ramrod disconnect from Fighter Escort of a bomber mission to solely a bomber mission (presumably with no escort?).. and why/when did RAF extract such quaint American slang for a Texas Cattle Drive and apply it to their own bomber 'terminology'?

Please don't take this as confrontational as I really am curious

Regards,

Bill

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Bill
I cannot say anything about origin of those names. For me they were ever since. It is also a little bit lenghty subject. Nonetheless, to keep it short, such code names appeared in 1941, so no US link is possible.
Circus (ex-Sphere) was an operation, where main objective was to destroy enemy aircraft. Several Squadrons involved usually including bomber and fighter ones. Fighter Squadrons flew Sweeps, Forward & Rear Supports, High Covers, Escort Covers, Close Covers, Diversions, etc.
Ramrod was an operation where the objective was to hit a ground target, so it could have looked like Circus but also like an Armed Recce.
Roadstead was an attack against naval targets.
Rodeo (ex-Sweep) was a fighter sweep not linked to any other objectives.
Rhubarb (ex-Mosquito) was a straffing of targets of opportunity by small formations in a bad weather.
Low Free Ramrod was the same as above but with fighter escort.
Etc., etc.

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

It is fatuous to dismiss the claim that the Typhoon's rockets were significantly less effective than the broadside of a cruiser ( a comparison frequently made ). This is because although the full salvo of rockets may not have entirely equalled the cruiser's broadside in terms of numbers of projectiles or weight of same, there is so little difference between the two as to be of no account whatsoever. Moreover, the cost of a WW2 Typhoon was significantly less that £10 k. whereas a cruiser would have cost very much more than that. I won't even begin to factor in issues like the running costs of both, since the rocket equipped aircraft be it Typhoon or Thunderbolt, Lightning or Mustang could roam at will over a battlefield and it is that very mobility that makes rocket equipped planes the superlative tank killers/pillbox smashers/bridge busters that they were.
Afetr all, what was it that killed the german tank ace Michael Wittman, a superlative killer of Allied tanks ?...........yeah, youv'e got it.......a Hawker Typhoon.
Also, somewhere else in this thread a claim is made that the Allied fighters were insufficiently gunned for the Normandy campaign !!!! Is not a snootfull of m.g.'s and cannon in the nose of a lightning not enough guns for you ? let alone the 4 20.MM quick firing cannon of the Tempest and Typhoon and Spitfire variants !!!
Malladyne

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

In "Panzers in Normandy then and now" and in a lengthy "After the Battle" article it was stated pretty categorically that Wittmann was popped by some Sherman Fireflies (Shermans regunned with the 17pdr. anti-tank gun).

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Hello
Malladyne, have you any firsthand knowledge on explosives? Nearest equivalent to 6” naval shell on which I have experience is SC50, 110lb HE bomb, and nearest equivalent to 60lb rocket warhead is 22lb AT mine, 21lb TNT and 1lb glass fibre casing. The effects of explosion of those to nearby trees were different, believe me.
That rocket firing a/c is more economical, that’s entire true, but I think that Marines, Royal or not, still value high naval gunfire support.

On Wittmann, if IIRC there was only one Firefly which knocked out Wittmann’s and the other 2 Tigers. There were also a couple ordinary Shermans which also fired on those Tigers to distract them. The Firefly was in a position from where it could get flank shots to those Tigers.

Juha

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

In terms of HE delivered, they were quite close. The 60 lb warhead of a 3 inch RP contained 14 lb of HE, which was more-or-less the same as a 6 inch HE shell. So a full load of eight RPs delivered much the same quantity of HE as one broadside from a typical 1930s RN 8-gun cruiser (of course, many RN 6 inch gun cruisers had 12 guns, and USN ones up to 15...).

However, it isn't as simple as that, of course. The much heavier naval shells would have produced a much greater quantity of high-velocity steel fragments when they detonated - but the downside is that they often didn't detonate until they had buried themselves in the ground, as naval shells were generally fuzed to detonate after they had penetrated a ship.

More generally, naval gunfire support is instantly available regardless of day, night or bad weather, and can keep up a relentless pounding - but only within gun range, and they rely on others to spot their targets for them. Each (planes and gunfire) has its place and can deliver effects which the other can't.

RPs weren't superlative tank killers because they were too inaccurate. The average miss distance in 1944 was about 60 yards, with the hit probability of a single RP against a tank being around 5% in ideal training conditions and more like 0.5% (official British estimate) in combat. That meant they had to fire 200 RPs for every tank kill.

They were more than adequate against soft-skinned or lightly-armoured targets, as has been said, but were incapable of damaging tanks, except occasionally by chance. Large-calibre high-velocity cannon were needed for that, and neither the RAF nor the USAAF had planes in Europe equipped with these.

To sum up, the fighter-bombers were very effective in disrupting German operations due their ability to knock out the supply trains (on rail and road) on which the Panzer Divisions depended, and they also scared the daylights out of tank crews (especially inexperienced ones) but they didn't kill many tanks.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

There are a number of operational research reports available which attempt to avaluate the actual effects of jabo attacks. One report in particular evaluates the damage inflicted in the battles around Mortain and Falaise. Another similar study was performed after the battle of the Ardennes. All reports showed similar results, namely:
1) Strafing, rocket, and bomb attacks were very effective against unarmored and lightly armored transport.
2) Bomb and rocket attacks were notably ineffective against heavy AFVs. (Note: Tony Williams website has excellent information regarding 40's era anti-tank aircraft weapons)

The vulnerability of motor and horse-drawn transport had several consequences:
1) Movement was restricted during the day
2) Time and effort had to be expended hiding and camoflaging vehicles
3) Traffic that had to move during daylight would see losses, especially ammunition and fuel transport that were particularly vulnerable
4) Destroyed vehicles caused traffic pile-ups, which made the remaining vehicles that much more vulnerable to air and artillery attack

In addition to the effectiveness against soft-skinned transport, jabos were also effective against command and control centers and bridges.

My references for the above information: "To Win the Winter Sky" by Danny S Parker, Ian Gooderson's 'Air Power at the Battlefront'.

To say that jabos were ineffective to the overall war effort because they cannot destroy tanks is a ridiculous statement. Was the M-1 rifle a useless weapon because it could not destroy tanks? If you can damage or delay the train that carries the tank, then the tank gets to the battle too late. If there is no gas or ammo for the tank, it is a useless pile of metal.

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Hello Tony.
I’m not too sure on that the 6” shells usually buried themselves deep before exploding. The main purpose of British naval 6” HE shell was that of shore bombardment, CPBC was the shell normally used in naval engagements. It would surprise me if the RN was incapable to design fuse-shell combination for shore bombardment which allowed the shell burst before it buried itself too deep because all armies I’m aware of succeeded doing that.

Regards
Juha

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

You may well be right, Juha, but even with a superquick fuze the much higher terminal velocity of a shell seems likely to ensure that it would be at least partially buried by the time the fragments started to fly.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Discuss with the man.
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/norm.../airpower.html

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Franek, I have seen this little article floating around is message boards. It uses a lot of selective sourcing and questionable logic. It more of a high school level history paper than a serious source, why do you think it is relevant to this discussion? Can you point to a real published work with original research that makes the point that air power in general and jabos in particular were useless in WWII? Give me break.

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Franek - I have to agree with Josh on this presentation.

I like that he presented facts and tables but think that he was very selective and questioned too many assumptions regarding validity of either high ranking officers who stated that airpaower was devastating or failed to get a body of field/company grade officers to support his own conclusions?

Nor was his research and facts exhaustive enough to look to inventory available of fuel, food ammo to move to Normandy versus what actually reached the forward lines.

This IS a topic that needs more serious work but doubt that the status of German records would yield real metrics.. even the armor and vehicle figures in your referenced report are unclear as to 'beginning inventory-at front and say, as far away as Paris before the invasion, how many were shipped, and how many were damaged and destroyed - that one could believe and research oneself?

Having said that I would begin there and dig into his references (at least he has some) to see if there is a complete picture available just for the beginning inventory available at Normandy and all the regional combat units available for movement... and be very suprised if they existed... and only then could one truly make 'estimates' as to cause of loss for each category for all circumstances.

I've got combat film from my father of six trains that completely blew up during the Normandy Campaign (I doubt that he hit anything with bombs other than frags) from strafing and wonder how that factors in a conclusion of the effect of fighters on the supply chain to the front?

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

If you want to see the effectiveness of Allied bombers and fighter-bombers and fighters on German forces, take a look at the thread on friendly fire and you will see the effect of those same a/c on Allied forces. It is my contention that while the Allied attacks against the Germans were not as effective as initially believed, it doesn't really matter because they were good enough to win the war, and after all, that's what it's all about.

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

The problem is, I think, that people seem to get confused between efffectiveness in general, and effectiveness in tank-busting. The fighter-bombers were poor at the latter, but very good indeed at the former - which mattered far more.

Having said that, it would have been nice to have an Allied equivalent of the Hs 129 roaming the NW battlefields...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Well, the article is by Niklaas Zetterling who wrote a book covering Normandy, and that was published by Fedrowitz. Nonetheless I do not think that text becomes any better or reliable when printed on paper.
In regard of opinions presented by Zetterling, you should discuss this with him, not me.
Nonetheless, I cannot find any substantial flaws with his reasoning, though, perhaps a number of Panthers destroyed should be compared to tanks directly destroyed by Allies only. This would result with a little bit more than 6% of inflicted losses, the same in regard of other damage inflicted. The question is if the effort put into air support was justified by actual losses inflicted. I think it should be viewed in a perspective of development of ground support tactics and equipment - neither success nor failure but very promising.
One thing I would like to note, is that we have several views and opinions presented by German army officers, German crew, Allied TAF airmen, Allied airmen of other branches, Allied army men, etc., all of them trying to prove their points. This tends to confuse rather than clear the general view of an otherwise unresearched subject. The latter proves once again my thesis, that the history of WWII is to be written.

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Hello Drgondog
the effect of the attacks against railway connections were less than it seemed after first look. IIRC according to Murrey’s Luftwaffe Strategy of Defeat, or something like that, and the memories of the RAF’s chief scientific adviser, IIRC his nickname was Sully, anyway a baboon specialist from South Africa, who by the way was one of the main architects of the “Transport Plan”, the effect of the attacks to traffic volume was dramatic but German Army could by drastically curtaining French civil traffic and non-essential military traffic usually satisfy the imminent needs of the front line troops. Of course the attacks caused delays and hindered the build up of stocks.

Regards
Juha

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

I agree with your opinion that this is an interesting subject with a lot of conflicting statements that need to be sorted out. Some very good work has been done already on the subject, for example the book by Gooderson. There are a lot of good sources to work from, but I don't think this article is a good source.

The Zetterling article takes selective sampling from OR reports without any context, and selective sampling from loss records again without context, and then discounts the testimony of any and all German commanders that disagree with the thesis. He then goes on to state that this was the result of a grand conspiracy to blame the LW for all of their defeats. This kind of accusation is inappropriate considering the slim evidence presented.

I think this is yet another example of why you can't believe everything your read on the internet. We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Well, frankly, I do not see a point with it being not signed if it was (and is) originally published on Zetterling's website.
Zetterling is a researcher who got some reputation and I would not dismiss his claims easily. Please note that he puts testimonies of German officers in doubt based on nothing other but documents of their respective units.
I cannot comment on ground forces but a very similar situation is with aviation over Normandy. You may read in any German account that they were grossly outnumbered. Indeed it is true in total numbers but in actual combat it was not so, and even the opposite. Based on my research of some days of the Campaign in June 1944, I would say the problem was in quality of German crew, based on wrong training and poor cadres' managment.
You know, it was everything Hitler's fault.

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

This thread looks to have gone a tad of the mark, the initial question was as to the effectiveness of Allied Fighter Bombers during and just after D Day.
Simply, it was massive...forget numbers of tanks destroyed / damaged or trains shot full of holes, if some poor bloody infantry were stuck in a hole due to a German mortar, MG or dug in Anti Tank Gun they had a squadron of Typhoons or P47's that on request would take it out. The Germans did not have this option in 1944.

Were they effective ? For Allied moral a definate yes.

Not that effective against the Germans ? Pity we can't ask the thousands killed by Allied Fighter Bombers for their opinion....but i think i know what they would say !

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

oh my dear,
how often i have read those or similar words especially from native english speaking people.
maybe its part of the english language culture.:)

" ask the victims" if someone doubts the effectiveness from something.

just the causer changes most of the time.

Note: no offense here, jon, just an observation ;)

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

I disagree with comments that jabo attacks in Normandy were purely psychological. Here is one personal account that describes actual damage from jabo attacks. Interview with Panzer commander Fritz Langanke who led breakout from Normandy:
http://historynet.com/wwii/blnormandy/index.html
QUOTE
Then our route was taken care of -- after the first attacks, the road was blocked for good. The planes could then, quite calmly, pick target after target. Since there was no defense, it must have been a picnic for those guys in the air. For us on the ground it was terrible. To make it even worse, artillery started shelling us. Here we were with quite a bit of combat capacity and no chance to use it, just being smashed. Our division lost about two-thirds of its weapons and equipment in the pocket. When all was over in the afternoon, I guess the same number of vehicles as were destroyed could still have moved.
UNQUOTE

Here is a summary of air action in Normandy. It has some pretty fair conclusions about the actual effectiveness of air action. One quote from this summary may be relevant to the current discussion, since it seems "fashionable" for some researchers to discount the effects of air action as psychological only:
Summary of air action in Normandy by W.F. Craven and J.L. Cate:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/III/AAF-III-7.html
QUOTE
Since the war it has become the fashion to give the infantryman more of the credit he so richly deserves and at times to deprecate the air arm, perhaps in revulsion against earlier extravagant claims. But by whatever standards the Normandy landings be judged, the simple fact remains: their success with moderate losses was possible only because of the absolute air domination won by the AAF and RAF in the months before D-day.
UNQUOTE

Re: Opinions please (impact Allied fighter bombers on D-day)
 

Jon
Nobody questions psychological part of warfare, nonetheless the thread is about general efficiency. Simply said, we may ask those thousands but where they are? Proofs are needed and not opinions.
Two nice stories.
In one of old issues of the Aeroplane or Fly Past I have found a letter by a Kittyhawk pilot. He mentioned a meeting with an army soldier, who had plenty of negative remarks of air support. Asked if he is so certain of that, he nodded and added that he was accidentally straffed by red nosed Kitties and they were not able to hit anything. (I write from a memory)
Another is of a friendly man, concentration camp inmate, who described how they put their striped uniforms on top of their lorries to avoid Allied straffers. It worked.
Also, he mentioned of how Thunderbolts chased their German guards when on a march.

Josh, really I do not know, what your point is.