Now I'm sure there is probably an easy explanation for this but I'm just really curious. I do want to point out that I am not a military expert in the least so I understand my naivety is as obvious as a tail on the dog. But I can't help to wonder if they had the technology to drop bombs from airplanes why didn't they just do that?
shareThey did for weeks prior to D-Day. The problem was that when it came to bombing the actual blockhouses and trenches overlooking the beach, the RAF and USAAF decided that the final bombing runs would be perpendicular to the beaches rather than parallel, and bombing run errors are generally more longitudinal rather than lateral, so most of the bombs either fell short into the ocean or fell long and too far inland. (The rationale behind it was that bombing runs perpendicular to the beaches reduced the bombers' exposure to German antiaircraft fire.)
A similar thing happened at the Battle of Gettysburg since the Confederate artillery was the one branch that was never as good as that of the Union Army. Robert E. Lee unleashed what at the time was the greatest artillery barrage ever in world military history, on Cemetery Ridge prior to Pickett's Charge. Most of the shells overshot the Union defenses waiting behind the stone wall on Cemetery Ridge and landed in empty fields or woods to their rear. A further parallel occurred in that in both battles, the attacking infantry suffered horrendous casualties, with Pickett's Division of Longstreet's Corps suffering the worst casualties at Gettysburg and the 116th Regimental Combat Team, 29th Infantry Division suffering the worst casualties on Omaha Beach, Pickett's Division and the 116th RCT both being Virginia Militia/National Guard units. (I've always thought of the Virginia National Guard Infantry as "America's favorite cannon fodder".) The 29th Infantry Division was the main force at Omaha's Dog Green sector shown fighting alongside the Rangers.
The parallel ends in that Pickett's Charge was repulsed and many historians consider it to be the beginning of the end of the Confederate Army, while the assault on Omaha Beach, of course, succeeded despite the high casualties.
[deleted]
Dispute all you like. The bottom line is that the Confederate artillery prep for Pickett's charge was ineffective by any objective measure.
Until they invented thermal sights over a century later, smoke obscuration worked both ways. Are you going to blame lack of wind and heavy smoke for the Confederates' 50%+ casualties too?
You missed the point. I wasn't disputing the fact that the Confederate bombardment preceding Picket's charge was ineffective. Rather, I was taking exception to your comment that Union artillerists were better than those from the CSA. That simply just isn't so.
Also, my comment about smoke obscuring Confederate artillery aim was just about that particular artillery barrage. The smoke didn't hamper either the Union enfilading artillery fire from the Round Tops, or (coupled with small arms fire) from the Union lines on Cemetery Ridge.
TNSTAAFL
The Washington Artillery was five batteries out of how many armies?
shareNo, that is not true. There were five companies (Company Five fighting in the Western Theater). Also, they were not the only Confederate artillery unit in the CSA, just the best.
Why do you persist in trying to justify your ridiculous statement? The bottom line (since you seem to like such things) is that the CSA artillery as a whole were every bit as "good" as their counterparts. Within the limits of their equipment, supplies, and logistics, they did their jobs as well as their enemy could have. Any statement to the contrary is just plain, well, ignorant. Face it. The statement you made that I quoted was just plain wrong.
EDIT: I see my stalker is back, and has had my initial response to you deleted. Therefore, since I want to eliminate any confusion about exactly what I am talking about, the following quote of your post is what I dispute:
A similar thing happened at the Battle of Gettysburg since the Confederate artillery was the one branch that was never as good as that of the Union Army.
Unguided bombs, which were the only kind available in any numbers in 1944, is even less accurate than an artillery bombardment. Experience during the First World war assaulting fortified lines showed that all an extensive bombardment did was warn the enemy where the attack would be coming and they would then assemble reinforcements to strengthen defences and to counter attack. A short bombardment of a few hours was just about as effective as a longer one. Incidentally, one can either use artillery, including big naval guns or aircraft on the same targets because otherwise the aircraft get accidentally shot down. Artillery is also much more effective. Artillery can also be used much closer to friendly troops without risking more casualties from friendly fire than to the enemy.
The best way to use air power then, and the way it was mostly used in Normandy, was to attack targets behind the front, especially transportation facilities. This proved to be very effective.