Napalm Available for Allies on D-Day?

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
MARABA
Banned
Posts: 91
Joined: 22 Feb 2005, 22:43
Location: WAGRAN

Napalm Available for Allies on D-Day?

#1

Post by MARABA » 14 Apr 2005, 09:39

I read that the Allied pre invasion bombardment ceased prematurely to
the invasion, or at least it did not have the effect as expected.

Question. As the concrete gun bunkers were designed to withstand
shelling, was napalm ever considered? I know it was used in the Pacific,
but have not found much info on its use in the ETO. Was it invented
before D-Day? Not enough available in time?

Gespenst
Member
Posts: 298
Joined: 22 May 2003, 00:38
Location: Finland

#2

Post by Gespenst » 14 Apr 2005, 14:52

This would be "what if"-department.
How do you fight Atlantic Wall bunkers with napalm unless you literally flood the area with the stuff?
Using incendiary ordnance usually makes sense only when your target is able to continue burning by itself.
Grass and bushes do not make much of a fire, so roasting or asphyxiating the soldiers protected by the bunker
would require enormous amount of napalm, most conviniently delivered on target by a tanker ship.


User avatar
Kristian S.
Member
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 11:20
Location: Germany

#3

Post by Kristian S. » 17 Apr 2005, 14:54

Good Day Gentlemen.
On Monday, July 17th 1944, US-Airforce was using Napalm for the first time in the European Theatre. This jelley-kind incendiary mixture out of NAphta and PALMoil filled in drop-tanks was used by some P-38-"Lightning"-Fighterbombers during the attacks on the fuel-storages at Coutances, westsouthwest of St. Lo. So Gespenst is right when he claims that the target should be an inflamable one, what a petrol-storage undoubtful is. The use of Napalm on D+41 indicates that this agent was not availiable to the allies before, otherwise it should have been used somewhat earlier. But I have no hint of the first use of Napalm in the Pacific-Theatre, this would be an interesting thing to know too.

(Source: Janusz Piekalkiewicz: Die Invasion-Frankreich 1944, p.180)

v. B.-A.

JamesL
Member
Posts: 1649
Joined: 28 Oct 2004, 01:03
Location: NJ USA

#4

Post by JamesL » 17 Apr 2005, 15:04

I think napalm is most effective when dispersed on troops in relatively open positions or in open top trenches. There were many open top trenches along Omaha Beach the last time I was there.

A USMC friend witnessed a napalm drop on attacking NVA troops. They were between the tree line and the Marines' barbed wire. Worked very well.


Edit: I seem to recall that we used napalm against the Taliban in caves/tunnels in Afghanistan. Therefore, my original statement stands but there have been modifications in US techniques.

User avatar
Michael Emrys
Member
Posts: 6002
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 19:44
Location: USA

#5

Post by Michael Emrys » 17 Apr 2005, 18:18

Flame throwers had been used in the First World War IIRC. They were certainly used from the beginning of WW II. In the case of manpack flame throwers, they had to be brought very close to their targets as they only had ranges of a dozen to a score of meters under ideal conditions. Therefore, they would not have been very useful in Normandy where most of the obstacles were not only at greater range, but upslope as well.

Vehicular mounted flamethrowers might have been more useful because they had greater range. But at least as far as Omaha Beach is concerned, they would have been firing uphill as well, and might not have been able to get it on the target. In any event, nobody thought to bring any flamethrowing tanks along.

jopaerya
Member
Posts: 19236
Joined: 21 Jun 2004, 14:21
Location: middelburg

#6

Post by jopaerya » 17 Apr 2005, 20:57

Hello All

I saw in the book Festung St. Malo from
Hans Sakkers that the Americans used napalm
on Ile de Cezembre ( St Malo) against bunkers
on the island .
The napalm was dropped bij 33 P 38 Lightnings
on 31-08-1944.

Jos

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#7

Post by JonS » 17 Apr 2005, 21:19

Grease_Spot wrote:Vehicular mounted flamethrowers might have been more useful because they had greater range. But at least as far as Omaha Beach is concerned, they would have been firing uphill as well, and might not have been able to get it on the target. In any event, nobody thought to bring any flamethrowing tanks along.
Yeah they did - half a dozen Crocodiles landed on GOLD.

User avatar
Michael Emrys
Member
Posts: 6002
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 19:44
Location: USA

#8

Post by Michael Emrys » 18 Apr 2005, 12:12

JonS wrote:
Grease_Spot wrote:Vehicular mounted flamethrowers might have been more useful because they had greater range. But at least as far as Omaha Beach is concerned, they would have been firing uphill as well, and might not have been able to get it on the target. In any event, nobody thought to bring any flamethrowing tanks along.
Yeah they did - half a dozen Crocodiles landed on GOLD.
Which did a fat lot of good for the poor grunts on OMAHA.

:wink:

User avatar
DetectorCollector
Member
Posts: 187
Joined: 16 Apr 2005, 16:36
Location: the Netherlands

#9

Post by DetectorCollector » 18 Apr 2005, 17:06

And if they had dropped napalm on the Atlantikwall the outdoor cannons and a large amount of machinegunpositions would have been destroyed wich would have helped those poor guys that had to land on the beaches a lot.

User avatar
Michael Emrys
Member
Posts: 6002
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 19:44
Location: USA

#10

Post by Michael Emrys » 18 Apr 2005, 17:43

DetectorCollector wrote:And if they had dropped napalm on the Atlantikwall the outdoor cannons and a large amount of machinegunpositions would have been destroyed wich would have helped those poor guys that had to land on the beaches a lot.
Sure, but according to what von Brockdorff-Ahlefeldt posted above, air delivered napalm may not have been available in the theater until a month later (I have no independent definite information). The other thing is that the low overcast, particularly in the early morning hours, hindered bombing. I seriously doubt that advocating napalm bombing makes it even as a what-if, unless you can change the weather and a few other things, all of which were out of the hands of the commanders on the spot.

However, the provision of flamethrowing tanks in the early landing forces is a possibility I would like to see discussed some time.

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

#11

Post by RichTO90 » 18 Apr 2005, 19:00

Grease_Spot wrote:However, the provision of flamethrowing tanks in the early landing forces is a possibility I would like to see discussed some time.
As indicated in previous posts napalm was not available in the ETO before July.

As far as flamethrower tanks go, they were in short supply and were not neccesarily a panacea in any case given their short range and vulnerable and unmaneuverable fuel trailers. British Churchill VII 'Crocodiles' were not available in large numbers, IIRC only 141st RAC was available, with just 54 in total operational by 6 June. And, to make their importance even more questionable, four of the six made available for the landing were knocked out or otherwise broken down by 10 June.

US-design flamethrower kits were delayed in production and like the US mineclearing tanks did not reach the ETO until later, arriving IIRC in August. Even bulldozer kits for attachment to Sherman tanks were in critically short supply, just 100 kits were delivered in April-May and hastily installed with barely enough time to give their crews any training whatsoever. Finally, the supply of LCT for the assault waves was also limited, restricting the number of heavily armored vehicles that could be committed in the assault.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#12

Post by JonS » 18 Apr 2005, 21:01

Grease_Spot wrote:
JonS wrote:
Grease_Spot wrote:Vehicular mounted flamethrowers might have been more useful because they had greater range. But at least as far as Omaha Beach is concerned, they would have been firing uphill as well, and might not have been able to get it on the target. In any event, nobody thought to bring any flamethrowing tanks along.
Yeah they did - half a dozen Crocodiles landed on GOLD.
Which did a fat lot of good for the poor grunts on OMAHA.

:wink:
Well, yes, but the way I read it Greases comment was in regards to all of the landings, with a special caveat that they may have been less use at OMAHA than elsewhere ;)

Even then, at OMAHA, I suspect they would have been of use. There were a fair number of defensive positions on the flats below the bluffs which flametanks could have engaged, and the bluffs themselves only became important when it was realised the infantry couldn't get up the draws. With flamers on the beach, the draws might have been a more viable plan.

As for napalm ... what was the assault frontage of all the invasion beaches? 10-12 miles? Thereabouts? And a depth of ... oooh ... say a mile. So, 12 square miles to be covered in napalm. Nope, that ain't gonna work. Air-delivered weapons of the time were so inaccurate anyway that 'pin-point' attacks would have been little more than a waste of time.

Don't get me wrong. Napalm would have helped - just like all the other things they actually did do helped. But it isn't a universal panacea - just like any of the other things they did do wasn't a universal panacea. Sometimes I wonder if folk have any idea what "combined arms" means, beyond an vague idea that it's something mysterious only done by guys with blond hair and sexy black uniforms.
Last edited by JonS on 18 Apr 2005, 21:06, edited 1 time in total.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#13

Post by JonS » 18 Apr 2005, 21:04

RichTO90 wrote:Finally, the supply of LCT for the assault waves was also limited, restricting the number of heavily armored vehicles that could be committed in the assault.
All the more so since a Croc would, I should guess, take up the space of two Shermans. And a flame-Sherman not much less.

User avatar
Valtoro
Member
Posts: 810
Joined: 16 Mar 2004, 19:45
Location: Norway

#14

Post by Valtoro » 20 Apr 2005, 22:48

The bombing with Napalm must have created extreme temperatures on that Island...
Look at that Gun emplacement!

Image

from http://www.carphaz.com/Album_Cezembre/

/Valtoro.

Stephan
Member
Posts: 739
Joined: 09 Feb 2003, 21:34
Location: Sweden

#15

Post by Stephan » 22 Apr 2005, 17:43

Grease_Spot wrote: Vehicular mounted flamethrowers might have been more useful because they had greater range. But at least as far as Omaha Beach is concerned, they would have been firing uphill as well, and might not have been able to get it on the target. In any event, nobody thought to bring any flamethrowing tanks along.
As I understand and remember, the british did appreciated and much used the new inventions with the kit-tanks - flamethrowers, bulldozers, mine-sweepers and so on.

But the americans decided not to use them except the amphibian variant...

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”