Air Fronts: Theaters of Operation - European Theater of Operation: Sunday Punch in Normandy - Operations 2-17 June 44

Wings at War Series, No. 2 ; Sunday Punch in Normandy. THE TACTICAL USE OF HEAVY BOMBARDMENT IN THE NORMANDY INVASION: An Interim Report; Published by Headquarters, Army Air Forces Washington, D. C., Office of Assistant Chief of Air Staff, Intelligence, From Reports Prepared by Eighth Air Force. CONFIDENTIAL. US GPO 1945. (declassified)

Operations 2-17 June 1944

*  *  *

Delivering The Punch

SUCH careful planning as has been related in some detail in this narrative merited gratifying results. In the following section the operations of the Eighth Air Force from 2 June through 17 June are examined.

D-day was the day for which so many thousands of ground-force troops had been eagerly waiting. This was their day to take over, which they did in magnificent fashion, adding new luster to proud regimental and divisional names. How the Eighth Air Force teamed with them is shown in the succeeding pages.

*  *  *

THIS discussion is divided into two sections, one dealing with bombers and the other with fighters. The bomber assignment, separated into three time periods, was carried out as follows:

D minus 4 to D minus 1 (2–5 June)

Within this period the job of the Eighth Air Force was to continue attacks against transportation and airfield targets in northern France, and to institute a series of blows against coastal defenses, a majority situated along the Pas de Calais coast. A final effort to contain German fighters within the Reich as late as possible by conducting a deep penetration against strategic targets had been planned for this period, but adverse weather interfered.

This phase of the program was performed according to plan. A total of 3,386 bombers participated in the eight missions flown and 9,387.45 tons were dropped for the loss of 14 bombers.

Substantial damage was inflicted upon airfield and rail transport targets. Few of the coastal defenses were seriously affected in proportion to the effort put forth, but this had been anticipated, the more so since Pathfinder technique was necessary in most instances. Since deception as to the actual landing area was the primary purpose of the attacks against this latter type of target, the operations may he regarded as successful, for, as far as can be ascertained, the landings along the Normandy coast had the advantage of complete tactical surprise.

OFFICIAL PHOTO USAAF
Lt. Gen. James H. Doolittle, Commanding General, Eighth Air Force

D-day (6 June)

The first mission was concerned primarily with neutralization of coastal defenses and demoralization of German front-line troops immediately prior to the landings. The other three missions were directed at the severance of communication lines between the beach-head defenders and reserve elements, with targets consisting largely of road choke-points in Caen and several smaller Normandy towns.

The first, third, and fourth missions were accomplished substantially as planned, employing overcast technique exclusively in the first and third and for several targets in the final mission. The second mission was not generally prepared for bombing through the overcast, and clouds over the targets prevented attacks except in the case of one formation which bombed a secondary target on the indications of the only Pathfinder aircraft participating. A total of 2,698 bombers participated in the day's operations and 3,596 tons were dropped for the loss of three bombers.

Assessment of damage caused during this day's operations was rendered difficult by the fact that a majority of the targets attacked were cloud-obscured and strike photographs were therefore unrevealing. In many instances follow-up operations were executed before reconnaissance cover was obtained. The beachheads were subjected to fire from naval guns, rockets, and mortars, and were bombed by aircraft of other commands, with the result that a definitive evaluation of damage was not possible. Information from surveys conducted by air force representatives, interviews with ground personnel, and prisoner-of-war interrogations may be summarized in the following manner:

1. The immediate beach areas showed only limited evidence of bomb damage, as was to be expected in view of the extra precautionary measures taken to avoid short bombfalls when through-the-overcast bombing technique was used. These precautions included the arbitrary time delays on bomb releases. Areas behind the beachhead, ranging from 300/400 yards to 3 miles, revealed extensive evidence of concentrated bombing patterns.

2. The principal contribution made by this bombing effort was the demoralization of enemy troops and the disruption of signal and transport communications, which hindered the deployment of immediate reserves.

In regard to the limited number of targets where damage was assessable from strike or reconnaissance photographs, results varied with cloud conditions encountered.

The noteworthy feature of D-day cooperation by heavy bombers was the fact that the beaches were bombed by airplanes flying above a solid overcast of clouds. While a carpet of bombs placed in front of the advancing troops was deemed highly desirable, the danger to our own soldiers from bombs dropped without visibility of the ground demanded most careful consideration.

Had it been necessary to make the decision several months earlier, it is likely that such a project would have been abandoned. By the use of through-the-overcast technique, Eighth Air Force bombers had been known to miss targets by wide margins. However, in preparation for D-day, against the possibility that weather would prevent visual bombing, especially selected navigators and bombardiers had been diligently trained in H2X technique, and repeated tests had been conducted against shore-line targets. These tests showed that accuracy was possible, and that the greatest menace to the safety of friendly troops was the danger of inadvertent and premature bomb releases. This risk was carefully weighed by the ground commanders against the advantage of a bomb carpet to clear their assault path. Confronted with photographic evidence of the accuracy of bombing tests, they elected to take the risk. This decision was a resounding vote of confidence in H2X equipment and in Eighth Air Force crews.

Briefing was precise, pointed, and personal. All watches must be exactly synchronized; careful attention must be given to all mechanical details; the bombing must be far enough in front of the ground forces to minimize any chance of hitting them, yet near enough to give the bomb carpet its maximum effectiveness. "Here are your friends and brothers," the airmen were told. "You won't see them, but they're there, depending on you. Don't hit them, but get your bombs on that shore line!"

If the decision to bomb ahead of our troops through overcast was breath-taking in its boldness, the results were epochal. A short distance offshore lay the LST's and other craft carrying the invading force. Confident of cooperation from planes they could not see, the men of the assault wave started ashore at the precise instant established beforehand. Exactly on schedule the first wave of bombers came over, laying its bombs on the shore line and proceeding inland. The entire force of bombers had to clear the attack point within 5 minutes or run the risk of dropping bombs on friendly forces. Absolutely according to plan the heavy bombers performed their mission, laying their carpet of bombs before the attacking Allies. So effective was their bombing, and with such a minimum of damage to friendly forces was the operation carried out, that many lives were saved. Ground commanders were lavish with their praise. Another mile-stone of modern warfare had been passed.

D plus 1 to D plus 11 (7–17 June)

Attacks aimed at the interdiction of enemy road and rail transport, with special emphasis laid on bridges over the Loire and the rivers of Brest peninsula; the denial to the German Air Force of the use of airfields and landing grounds within effective range of the beach-head; and the destruction of supply sites in northern France-these were the principal tasks allotted to the Eighth Air Force during the 11 days immediately following D-day. Toward the end of this period, a resumption of strategic bombing was contemplated, but unfavorable operating conditions over Germany resulted in prolonging tactical operations, although two missions against oil refineries in Germany were possible, at Emmerich on 14 June and Misburg on 15 June.

Scheduled assignments were carried out by the great majority of units involved in the operations during this period, although through-the-overcast bombing technique was frequently necessary. Participating in the 13 missions executed were 9,801 bombers; bombs dropped totaled 20,365.6 tons; losses were 41 aircraft.

Considerable success was achieved toward restriction of enemy movements by attacks on road and rail junctions, marshalling yards, choke-points and bridges. Notable was the destruction or severe damage caused to at least 16 road and rail bridges across the Loire River and rivers on the Brest peninsula. Operational airfields and landing strips in northern France were also successfully bombed, and many were rendered completely unserviceable by the destruction of permanent installations and the postholing of runways and landing grounds. Due principally to the necessity for employment of overcast technique, little damage was accomplished in the operations against the supply sites.

BEACH SCENE. This vertical view shows the beehive activity of the Normandy invasion in full swing. Note the pock marks left by the Eighth Air Force bomb carpet laid down by the heavy bombers. D-day bombing, through 10/10 cloud, was perfectly synchronized with the beach assault.

Fighters

Air cooperation

The first consideration in planning daily fighter operations during the period 2 to 17 June was adequate escort of all heavy-bomber missions of the Eighth Air Force. (On D-day the escorted forces included various other Allied air units.) The interdiction commitment, bombing and strafing of tactical targets on the perimeter of the battle region, could he undertaken only after the requirements for cover of bombers had been fulfilled. In fact, the limited enemy air reaction for the period as a whole made it possible to detail squadrons from supporting groups to execute attacks against ground installations even before the completion of their primary task, thus supplementing the bombing and strafing operations of groups which had not been needed for support.

In the majority of instances the bomber targets were closely located and the penetration involved was so shallow that ample escort was provided by assigning groups to patrols in areas in which the objectives were located or through which the bombers passed en route to and from them. On a few occasions the location of objectives made it necessary to assign all available groups to close escort, and in other instances a combination of area-type patrol and close escort was employed.

Claims against enemy aircraft resulting from aerial combat were 148 destroyed, 6 probably destroyed, and 58 damaged. Thirty friendly fighters are known to have been lost in engagements with the enemy.

Interdiction

The VIII Fighter Command's work during the period 6 to 17 June, that of preventing or delaying enemy movements with bombing and strafing attacks on lines of communication, was highly effective. These operations were carried out in areas on the perimeter of the assault zone, fighter operations over the battle area proper being the responsibility of the Ninth Air Force and 2d TAF.

Because little enemy air opposition was expected on 6 and 7 June, it was possible for fighter-bombers to operate on these days in small units of one and two squadrons. This plan enabled the harassing attacks to be more continuously maintained and allowed the Command to operate over a wider area than would have been possible had full groups been employed. As the enemy increased his fighter strength in France, this plan had to be abandoned because small units would have been subject to possible heavy losses. In this connection, full groups were employed on fighter-bomber missions on and after 8 June with either one squadron in each group as top cover for two fighter-bomber squadrons or one group covering one or two other groups executing such attacks.

From 6 to 17 June, a total of 335 fighter-bomber attacks, in all instances by units of 8 aircraft or more, were made against tactical targets, 147 against railway marshalling yards, sidings, junctions, and tracks, 87 against bridges, 38 against mobile rail transportation, 26 against road transportation, and 37 against various other targets. During this period 1,339.3 tons of bombs were dropped.

The over-all results achieved by bombing and strafing operations are not reflected by a mere examination of claims for the period, which are by no means complete. In many instances there was not sufficient time between sorties for detailed interrogation, while in others the participating groups described results in general terms, i. e., excellent, good, etc., without submitting specific claims. The following claims against rail and road transportation are believed to represent the minimum results obtained against such targets:

These claims afford a graphic indication of the scale of the fighter effort toward isolation of the beachhead area, but a further and very significant contribution was made by the ever-present threat of attack against rail and road transport which seriously impeded enemy movements by day.

Shipping patrol

From 5 to 10 June the four P–38 groups of the Command were committed to the execution of shipping patrols under the direction of the Combined Control Center. On 11 June, three groups and, from 12 to 15 June, two groups were used for this purpose. During these 11 days a total of 2,887 sorties were flown. None of the fighters was lost, but five sustained Category "E" (salvage) damage. Throughout the entire period, no enemy aircraft was encountered over the shipping corridor by groups of the VIII Fighter Command.

During the period 2 to 17 June, 15,773 fighters of the VIII Fighter Command were dispatched on operational missions and 15,086 sorties were flown for the loss of 155 aircraft. Of these losses, 48 were attributed to antiaircraft fire, 30 to enemy aircraft, and 25 to accident. Causes of the losses in 52 instances are unknown. Total claims against enemy aircraft were 201 destroyed, 6 probably destroyed, and 82 damaged, of which number 148 destroyed, 6 probably destroyed, and 58 damaged resulted from aerial combat and 53 destroyed and 24 damaged from attacks on enemy airfields.