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

[Graham Boak]

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.

[drgondog]

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

[Juha]

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

[Jon]

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.

[Franek Grabowski]

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

[drgondog]

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

[Laurent Rizzotti]

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.

[drgondog]

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

[Franek Grabowski]

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.

[malladyne]

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