During the Normandy invasion, should the Americans have delayed their?

Question

landings from 0630 to 0730, in order to give the Navy an extra hour to pound the German defenses?

Answer 1

I'm presuming you're talking about the Omaha Beach landing in particular. The other beaches had clearer weather, and the warships and aircraft had an easier time seeing their targets. At Omaha, the morning mist stayed longer and the gunners on the ships and in the air overshot their targets, leaving most of the beach defenses relatively untouched.

Perhaps another hour would've burned off the morning mist, but due to the time tables planned months in advance, the decision was made to carryon as they did. In hindsight, the delay would've helped, but the 'fog of war' (no pun intended), was the reality.

Answer 2

No- Utah beach was reasonably easy but the problem with Omaha beach was the long distance between the low water mark and the cover of the cliffs which gave the defenders a wide field of fire.
The bunkers in the cliffs were well constructed and, because of the nature of the ground, unless they received a direct hit they could survive.
After the bombardment started the target was obstructed by smoke making accurate bombing difficult and the airplanes could not come in low because of the shells from the naval bombardment.
If the landing was delayed by an hour the germans would have had more time to bring forward reinforcements - surprise was the allies great advantage.
Part of the trouble for the disaster was that many landing craft were launched too far away from the beach and some of those carrying the armored vehicles and artillery sank before they could reach dry land.

Answer 3

It would mean that the scattered airborne troops behind enemy lines would run one hour lower on ammunition and the Germans another hour to better organise.

Remember, Rommel delayed the deployment of more troops to the area still thinking Normandy was just a deception. There were E-boats near the invasion fleet and would have expose the whole operation if detected.

The shelling and softening of the shore defences were ineffective anyway.

Answer 4

you're entering into the sphere of 'what if', yet a multitude of lives have been lost on the beaches. The Germans might have mined them extra desirable and needless to say they should have used their tanks to repell the enemy. Hitler replaced into the only one that ought to enable this and he replaced into in mattress with a dozing pill. Leaving that command in Berlin replaced right into a undesirable circulate. on the allied front: the full element with gliders and parachutes wasn't all too useful. It replaced right into a sparkling element lower back then, so as that they had to purpose is, yet in basic terms remember that no-one lands ten thousand paratroopers in hedgecovered fields at the instant - or in any fields, relatively. The sinking tanks have been pronounced. i think of plenty extra desirable communications might have been cool. think the adult men on the coastline might have directed the hearth from the warships, or might have talked directly to pilots interior the air. that would have given the grunts so plenty extra firepower. This, btw, remains an argument on the instant. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan the U. S. airforce does no longer enable 'land' military personell to direct its strikes; they should take a forward air controller with them.

Answer 5

They may have been able to do more damage although doubtful, the fixtures they were bombing were pretty well built and could sustain direct hits. It would have also given the Germans an extra hour to bring up troops to help throw the allies back. It was to much risk for the reward.

Answer 6

If they had they would have had to wait another month and the July weather was even worse. Besides, naval and aerial bombardment of that time is ineffective against the kind of fortifications the Germans built.

Answer 7

it's hard to second guess; sure it probally would have saved some lives but the men were ready and to delay it even by an hour could of disrupted landings

Answer 8

No. It would have put them in an even more precarious position when the storm struck.