Close Air Support

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Close Air Support

#1

Post by Delta Tank » 16 Dec 2014, 20:08

A question to all,

I am watching the American Heroes Channel (AHC) today and the subject/title of the show is D-Day to Victory. They interview a bunch of former soldiers, airman and sailors about their experiences and one former British soldier stated that their biggest problem was the RAF,
"they bombed and strafed us everyday"
or words to that effect. I do know that this did happen both US and RAF hit friendly units, but everyday?? There must be a study somewhere were the incidents of accidental air attacks has been compiled and studied.

It could not of been every day, so how bad was it?

Mike

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

Re: Close Air Support

#2

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 17 Dec 2014, 14:42

The Germans had a joke; 'When the RAF comes we hide, when the Luftwaffe comes the enemy hides, when the American aircraft come everyone hides.'

Have not heard of a single comprehensive study. There may have been one or more, but... Maybe if I open a couple books here my memory will be refreshed. I can say the RAF was a large step ahed of the USAAF in 1944. The RAF had forward air control teams with radios attached to selected brigades for the ground attacks. The USAAF did not provide a consistent similar organization in the ETO until July of 1944 when Quesada took command of the US tactical AF. When my fathers bomber squadron was stood down in January 1945 he volunteered to retrain as a air liasion officer & spent the remainder of the war with 1st Army. There was almost no CAS run through his section so he had very little to offer for this.

I'd last note that the longer ranged missions on targets beyond the CAS zone had their share of attacks on friendly units. ie: Malmedy Belgium was bombed by the USAAF who were looking for German occupied St Vith.


Mil-tech Bard
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50

Re: Close Air Support

#3

Post by Mil-tech Bard » 06 Feb 2015, 19:47

This sounds right.
The Germans had a joke; 'When the RAF comes we hide, when the Luftwaffe comes the enemy hides, when the American aircraft come everyone hides

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

Re: Close Air Support

#4

Post by flakbait » 13 Feb 2015, 18:29

For as long as men have waged war there have been "blue on blue" incidents. Even in this age of GPS, changing batteries and forgetting to reset will give your OWN GPS position which has led to at least 2 separate incidents where tired sleep deprived Special Forces CAS spotters called in airstrikes on their OWN positions with tragic results...Considering that roughly 1/7th of all soldiers of every NATO member country tested over the decades routinely had trouble using a map and CORRECTLY identifying their own current position upon it even with prominent landmarks in plain view in broad day light this can easily lead to less than `desirable` consequences. Add in the fact that 1 of every 9 average soldiers simply cannot be taught to read a map at ALL and this does not bode well...on the other hand against a potential opponent where maps were previously considered state secrets, often deliberately included mistakes of distances and omitted geological features such as rivers and swamps and were kept under lock and key perhaps our own problems aren`t `that` bad...

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Close Air Support

#5

Post by Sheldrake » 13 Feb 2015, 22:13

The level of friendly fire incidents was played down at the time and in the official histories. One consequence of Allied air superiority was that even a small probability of friendly fire resulted in a lot of casualties. Close air support in Normandy was a far from safe process. No one had GPS and the targets were often very close to friendly forces. The decision to employ the strategic bomber fleets to for tactical missions brought with it a high risk friendly fire. The 8th Air Force and Bomber Command were blunt instruments and dropped a pattern of explosives that could be superimposed on cities.

After the break out , in late July and August there seemed to be a lot more friendly fire incidents. Lots of columns of vehicles all moving East. Fluid front lines and fighter bombers keen to find targets all made for friendly fire incidents. 1 Canadian Army issued a reminder to their formations that some friendly fire was inevitable and to be consoled that it was worth it for the damage the air forces were inflicting on the Germans.

The second consequence was that that an AA Gunner opening fire on an uncertain target was disproportionately likely to hit a friend.

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

Re: Close Air Support

#6

Post by gambadier » 03 Apr 2015, 01:47

There's a summary on CAS control arrangements and their evolution in the Offensive Support section at http://nigelef.tripod.com/otherfp.htm

It seems possible that the arrangements developed and evolved in N Africa and Italy were perhaps not as well applied in NW Europe.

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

Re: Close Air Support

#7

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 06 Apr 2015, 20:44

Thanks for the refrence

Mil-tech Bard
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50

Re: Close Air Support

#8

Post by Mil-tech Bard » 07 Apr 2015, 16:33

Carl,

The following photographs are pages six and seven from the Operations Planning Division Information Bulletin (OPDIB) dated 29 Jan 1945 (from NARA in RG 496 E196).

See page six
Rover Joe - ODIB - 1.jpg
5th Army 'Rover Joe' CAS system in Italy (pg6)

and page 7
Rover Joe - ODIB - 2.jpg
5th Army 'Rover Joe' CAS system in Italy (pg7)

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

Re: Close Air Support

#9

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 07 Apr 2015, 19:20

Thanks. That is akin to what my father described from his two months with a air liaison unit in 1945. As with so many of those things I did not know it was a test question thirty years ahead and did not take notes. After his bomber squadron was stood down (555th) he was volunteered to retrain for the air/ground liaison role & spent February/March riding across Germany, probably with 1st Army. He left me with the impression there was very little direct air support due to weather & weak resistance.

There are some small differences between that & what I recall described supporting the 8th Army on Luzon.

Mil-tech Bard
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50

Re: Close Air Support

#10

Post by Mil-tech Bard » 07 Apr 2015, 23:07

Carl,

This is a wheel that gets re-invented a lot in the US Military...usually after about 2-years of combat.

Mil-tech Bard
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50

Re: Close Air Support

#11

Post by Mil-tech Bard » 08 Apr 2015, 20:00

The following document just popped up on the Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library --

Close Support bombing (with SCR-584 radar)
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/sing ... l8/id/4106

The document is dated August 18, 1945 and it is by one of Sec of War Stimpson's "Special Radar Advisors" R. L. McCreary.

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

Re: Close Air Support

#12

Post by RichTO90 » 08 Apr 2015, 20:23

Mil-tech Bard wrote:The following document just popped up on the Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library --

Close Support bombing (with SCR-584 radar)
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/sing ... l8/id/4106

The document is dated August 18, 1945 and it is by one of Sec of War Stimpson's "Special Radar Advisors" R. L. McCreary.
18 August 1944

It is good to know that CARL keeps posting new digitized materiel.

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

Re: Close Air Support

#13

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 09 Apr 2015, 00:37

Mil-tech Bard wrote:Carl,

This is a wheel that gets re-invented a lot in the US Military...usually after about 2-years of combat.
We reinvented it every year. i cant begain to guess how many hours, days, weeks, months spent along side the air officers practicing the combinations of air, artillery, and direct firepower on targets in the Mojave Desert or elsewhere. There is something about live fire training that the other exercises could not reproduce..

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Close Air Support

#14

Post by Urmel » 18 Apr 2015, 18:06

gambadier wrote:There's a summary on CAS control arrangements and their evolution in the Offensive Support section at http://nigelef.tripod.com/otherfp.htm

It seems possible that the arrangements developed and evolved in N Africa and Italy were perhaps not as well applied in NW Europe.
This maybe of interest:

http://rommelsriposte.com/2011/12/30/cl ... -crusader/
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Mil-tech Bard
Member
Posts: 678
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 16:50

Re: Close Air Support

#15

Post by Mil-tech Bard » 27 Apr 2015, 18:09

Speaking of Close Air Support and the Normandy campaign, see what just popped up on the Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library --

Air cooperation with troops in Normandy: 9th Air Force operations, 1-30 June, 1944, with special study of close support in the assault on Cherbourg.
http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/singleitem/ ... l8/id/4109

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”