No. Given the strength and depth of the fortifications at Omaha, and the relatively light bomb load that medium bombers could have placed on target (especially given the lack of experienced ground-attack pilots the Allies had at this point), low level bombing could only have partially mitigated the advantage held by the Germans at Omaha Beach.
The majority of the defensive hardpoints at Omaha were hardened and reinforced concrete, which could survive all but a direct hit from a 16" shell. Most medium bombers in the Allies inventory at the time could only carry a few hundred pounds of bombs, typically HE, and this could not penetrate such construction as the low level attacks on the sub pens at St. Nazaire revealed.
Put another way, only if the medium bombers 1) had heavy bunker-buster bombs; 2) dropped substantial amounts of them; 3) had capable low-level/dive bomber pilots at the helm; and 4) the German's AAA capability around Omaha was addressed could such bombers have had a prayer in preventing the carnage at Omaha.
2006-10-17 08:37:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by PosseComitatus 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I do not need to add to the comments of tjhand or PosseComitatus, but I feel compelled to address the comments of eldoradoreefgold, which are almost completely wrong.
While it is true that Rommel was a brilliant mobile commander, when it came to defending the Atlantic Wall he believed that the battle would be won or lost on the beaches. That is why he spent so much time and energy, after being given oversight of those defenses, strengthening the static defenses, e.g., laying millions of mines, studding the beaches with all sorts of obstacles, etc. He was convinced that if the Allies gained a beachhead there would be no stopping them. He knew that, because of the huge Allied air superiority, holding mobile forces in reserve and then trying to move them to engage in the fluid battles with which he was more familiar would be disastrous.
It was von Rundstedt who wanted to keep the mobile forces behind the lines, moving them up to counter any Allied breakthroughs. Hitler, in typical fashion, played the two commanders off against each other, encouraging Rommel to build up the static defenses while supporting von Rundstedt's desire to keep the mobile forces in reserve, but under his (Hitler's) personal control.
As events played out, Rommel was right, the Allies achieved a lodgement, and the surviving German mobile forces were virtually destroyed in the Falaise pocket.
2006-10-17 18:04:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by Jeffrey S 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
No, Omaha beach was a mess from start to finish and bombing would probably have been inaccurate.
2006-10-17 18:49:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by brainstorm 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
possibly but that was not practical; there would ahave been to many air losses from the AAA fire and 88's that were entrenched. that is why the beaches were softened up by naval bombardment. hope this helps
2006-10-17 08:33:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by tjhand5094 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
A MORE INTENSIVE BEHIND THE LINES AIR DROP OF COMMANDOS AND SAPPERS WOULD HAVE HELPED IMMEASURABLLY!!THE RESERVES OF THE GERMAN ARMOR WERE WISELY WITHHELD IN THE REAR IN THE FRENCH COUTRYSIDE BY ROMMEL WHO DID NOT ,OF COURCE ,BELIEVE IN "STATIC DEFENSES" ;BUT WAS FORCED BY HITLER AND THE HIGH COMMAND TO OVERCOMMIT TO THE BEACHES WHICH INSPITE OF HIS OWN PREDILECTIONS ,HE DID HIS BEST TO UPHOLD AND INVEST WITH STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE AND DEFNSIVE CAPABILITY IN DEPTH!!WITH THE RESOURCES AT HAND AND WITH THE FINAL RESULT ALMOST A "FIAT ACCOMPLI" IT MATTERS ONLY TO THOSE THAT LOST LOVED ONES...THE FINAL COST!!!IT WAS A FANTASTIC ACCOMPLISHMENT NONE THE LESS AND SPEAK WELL OF THE STANDARD COURAGE AND NATIVE RESOURCEFULNESS OF OUR FIGHTING FORCES!!LAND SEA AND AIR!!!
2006-10-17 09:48:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by eldoradoreefgold 4
·
0⤊
0⤋