Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
Post Reply
User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#16

Post by LWD » 16 Feb 2015, 19:31

OpanaPointer wrote:There's a documented case of a USN destroyer shooting the spire off a church on D-Day because the forward observer thought it was being used to observe their movements. Took seven shots but they got it. (And, of course, in legend they did it with one shot.)
Well they did do it with one shot it just wasn't the first shot .... :)

DD's were quite effective in a number of landings even though they had smaller guns in part due to how close to shore they were willing to get. I seam to recall them being singled out in particular at Tarawa, Sicily, and D-day. I'm sure there were other cases those are just off the top of my head and my somewhat erratic memory.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3727
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#17

Post by Sheldrake » 16 Feb 2015, 21:33

A destroyer could deliver the equivalent fire power to a field artillery battalion. The problem was in getting the fire where it was needed and stopping it when it was in the wrong place. The British combined operations bombardment units and liaison parties helped sailors to talk to soldiers and vice versa. They did good work.

I am not sure what shore parties the US Navy or Army deployed at Omaha Beach. I do know one British FOB was deployed but landed at C H +6 hours.


Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 19:42

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#18

Post by Orwell1984 » 16 Feb 2015, 21:48

The Naval Department Library has made the complete text of Destroyers at Normandy Naval Gunfire Support at Omaha Beach
available online here:
http://156.112.98.23/library/online/des ... rmandy.htm

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#19

Post by Kingfish » 17 Feb 2015, 02:31

Sheldrake wrote:A destroyer could deliver the equivalent fire power to a field artillery battalion.
Do you mean firepower in terms of HE delivered per salvo?
Or ROF?

Which field arty battalion do you mean?
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#20

Post by OpanaPointer » 17 Feb 2015, 03:41

Orwell1984 wrote:The Naval Department Library has made the complete text of Destroyers at Normandy Naval Gunfire Support at Omaha Beach
available online here:
http://156.112.98.23/library/online/des ... rmandy.htm
You're welcome. 8-)
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

gambadier
Member
Posts: 221
Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 15:11
Location: AsiaPac

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#21

Post by gambadier » 17 Feb 2015, 09:45

The ship equivalence was a rough and ready UK rule of thumb. I've always thought it rather flattered naval capabilities. I also think it related to 25-pr units (24 guns) and ships with 4.5 in (8 guns?). They fact the artillery units probably carried a lot more ammo and could be replenished as they were firing is another aspect.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3727
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#22

Post by Sheldrake » 17 Feb 2015, 11:00

gambadier wrote:The ship equivalence was a rough and ready UK rule of thumb. I've always thought it rather flattered naval capabilities. I also think it related to 25-pr units (24 guns) and ships with 4.5 in (8 guns?). They fact the artillery units probably carried a lot more ammo and could be replenished as they were firing is another aspect.
I was taught that a single 4.5" gun on a Type 42 or Leander was equivalent to a battery of 105mm light guns because of its higher sustained rate of fire. The 1982 Falklands Campaign reminded everyone of this.

It was a rule of thumb. Here are notes based on COBUs (RAJ Apr 1946, Vol 73 No 2)

Naval gunfire has different characteristics to field artillery. Naval guns are high velocity guns with flat trajectories and have larger 100% zones, which means they are unsuitable for destruction shoots or small targets, or targets close to our own positions. The main ammunition for naval bombardment is HE direct Action (DA), but ships carry a proportion of HE with time or VT fuzes, and armour piercing (AP) for ship to ship engagements which the captain may be willing to use if the ship to ship threat is slight, or he can re-ammunition easily, in which case they can be used against well dug in targets or airburst shoots. The ships do not have smoke, but they do carry starshell for illumination.

Destroyer = fd regt. Range 17 to 20,000 yards. Four to eight 4-inch to 4.7-inch
Cruiser = Med Regt. Range 21 to 25,000 yards. Twelve 6-inch (Colony) to eight 8-inch (County)
Battleship = hy regt ++. Range 30,000 yards plus, 9 tons/minute. And secondary armament
Clock code method of adjustment, Line of fire method secondary
Shoots controlled by ship, by FOB if necessary
Call for fire to first round – five to ten minutes
Preferably at anchor, but can be done under weigh with slight loss of accuracy

I was taught that

flakbait
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 22 Oct 2013, 02:37

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#23

Post by flakbait » 17 Feb 2015, 18:37

And of course firing HE vs AP shells with slightly delayed fuses to give a maximum dirt/ earth moving burst against dug in / lightly protected troops and equipment in a known area was often just devastating to endure regardless of whether by naval or conventional barrels. Even undercover, the shock waves accompanying incoming shells were quite capable of bursting eardrums, completely disorientating and just flat out stunning the hardest battle tested combat veterans. The use of the older US battleships against parts of the Shuri line on Okinawa where American infantry assaults several times captured numbers of Imperial Japanese troops for interrogation whom were apparently just knocked all but completely senseless by closely landing salvos shells to the point they were all but helpless to further resist...

gambadier
Member
Posts: 221
Joined: 23 Aug 2007, 15:11
Location: AsiaPac

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#24

Post by gambadier » 18 Feb 2015, 10:47

I too was taught about the 4.5 - 105 equivalence, what I hadn't realised until I got a new boss in 1982 who had just commanded a regt in FI was that you cannot rely on the navy to be there. Never mind the issue of gun reliability and a single gun ship! Relying on NGF is all too likely to end in tears (or worse).

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3727
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#25

Post by Sheldrake » 18 Feb 2015, 11:34

gambadier wrote:I too was taught about the 4.5 - 105 equivalence, what I hadn't realised until I got a new boss in 1982 who had just commanded a regt in FI was that you cannot rely on the navy to be there. Never mind the issue of gun reliability and a single gun ship! Relying on NGF is all too likely to end in tears (or worse).
Who he? That is around my vintage.

You are right about reliability. Gunner ethos is to never miss H Hour. The ships captain has to put the ship first.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#26

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 19 Feb 2015, 01:49

Sheldrake wrote:...
I am not sure what shore parties the US Navy or Army deployed at Omaha Beach. I do know one British FOB was deployed but landed at C H +6 hours.
Probablly one team with each assault battalion, so six in the first wave, landing at 06:35 on Omaha Beach. Probably three teams on Utah Beach. That apears to have been the base for assignement across all of 21st AG that morning. Variations or extras may have existed. Unfortunatly every one of them assigned to Omaha Beach seems to have been hors combat within minutes. I've been unable to locate a description of any actually in action between 06:35 and 08:10. There are many descriptions of eyewitnesses finding the team members wounded or dead, their radios damaged, or the team simply missing. There are descriptions of the the ships firing planned or scheduled attacks on inland targets after the preparatory fires on the beach lifted, but none through 08:15 of firing on the beach defenses. The one single eyewitness account from a NGF spotting team member I found described how he was wounded when his team was gunned down while still wading through the water.

The earliest positive account of communications on the NGF spotting radio frequencey is of a First Sgt Presley of the 29th Division using a found NGF radio around 08:20. The order sending the destroyers inshore, from the NGF stations off shore came about that same time. there are some vague refrences to NGF radio comm picking up in the 1 Divisions sector at roughly the same time, after 08:15. The books indicate the communications, visual and radio, picked up after the destroyers closed in under 1,500 meters from the beach. Eyewitnesses and other accounts indicate effective NGF fires on the beach defenses were underway from around 08:30, tho some fires may have occured as early as 08:15. One US eyewitness remembered his group took casualties from a NGF shot at apporx 08:15, tho he probablly was not writing anything down that morning.

A long look at the bridge, radio, and gunnery logbooks of the relevant ships would settle much of this question, but the eyewitness accounts and legitimate secondary sources have produced a lot of evidence that the NGF spotting system for Omaha Beach failed at the start of the assault. Probably from combat losses.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3727
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#27

Post by Sheldrake » 19 Feb 2015, 03:06

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
Sheldrake wrote:...
I am not sure what shore parties the US Navy or Army deployed at Omaha Beach. I do know one British FOB was deployed but landed at C H +6 hours.
Probably one team with each assault battalion, so six in the first wave, landing at 06:35 on Omaha Beach. Probably three teams on Utah Beach. That apears to have been the base for assignement across all of 21st AG that morning. Variations or extras may have existed. Unfortunatly every one of them assigned to Omaha Beach seems to have been hors combat within minutes.
The British deployed forty FOsB teams across the their five assault sectors including six teams airlanded with 6AB Division. The FOB teams took quite heavy casualties on D Day and lack of comms or liaison at critical moments could be tactically important. Lack of comms to ships caused problems inland from Sword Beach on D Day. 1 Suffolks attempted to assault strong point "Hillman" without NGS. On 7th June the FosB with 9 Cdn Bde could not establish comms with HMS Belfast at the critical moment and Kurt Meyer's Panzer grenadiers advanced across open fields unimpeded by salvos of 6" guns.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#28

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 19 Feb 2015, 03:42

Sheldrake wrote:[

The British deployed forty FOsB teams across the their five assault sectors including six teams airlanded with 6AB Division.
Sounds about right for the number of divisions & seperate brigades in 2d Army for 6th June. Assume "British" here includes the Candians? I dont have any information about the NGF liasion or spotting teams in the following landing serials of 1st Army. The Airborne Divisions did have teams assigned, but again I dont know how many.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#29

Post by RichTO90 » 19 Feb 2015, 05:14

Carl Schwamberger wrote:Probablly one team with each assault battalion, so six in the first wave, landing at 06:35 on Omaha Beach. Probably three teams on Utah Beach.
Carl, the U.S. deployed Naval Shore Fire Control parties formed from the Joint Assault Signal Companies (JASCO). The JASCO were attached to the Engineer Special Brigades, on ONAHA the 293rd JASCO to 5th ESB supported the 116th Combat Team with seven NSFC parties and the 294th JASCO to the 6th ESB supporting the 16th Combat Team with nine NSFC parties. The remaining two parties of the 293rd JASCO were attached to the Provisional Ranger Group. On UTAH the 286th JASCO attached to the 1st ESB supported the 8th Combat Team with nine parties and the 82nd and 101st Abn with one party each. Each party normally was to consist of three observers (Army and Navy officers) and four enlisted men (Army and Navy) who were primarily radio operators.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: Naval Gun Support During Amphibious Landings.

#30

Post by Graeme Sydney » 22 Feb 2015, 00:23

Thanks for the replies guys, I have been following but without the time to reply.

A lot of interesting comments some of which I knew and some of which I surmised. But I don't think I've had a definitive answer as "how effective was US Naval Gun bombardment". I'm surmising that BB's were good at pulverising large areas with sustained bombardment and it was hit or miss with specific targets. Destroyers and cruisers were better for accuracy and response time.

My second question was "Did the US Navy make variation with trajectory and ammunition for Naval Gun bombardment" and I think the answer is basically 'no'. I'm fairly certain it is a 'no' for BB's but the others I'm not so certain.

I asked the question specifically about the Pacific but I'm also thinking of how it would apply to D day and even the Dardanelles in1915.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”