WI/PC: Luftwaffe bombers used against D-Day beaches at night

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Inspired by my earlier thread about V1 & 2's being used against the south coast D-Day ports.

What if Luftwaffe bombers did a concerted night bombing campaign the D-Day landing beaches?

I was thinking on the lines of the Blitz against UK cities, massed attacks with flares etc, not something that was half arsed.

How effective would this be?

Would the Luftwaffe have the air assets allow this campaign?

Regards filers.
 
yay more bombers to shot down while bombs hit everything from friendly German positions to Brittany and Southampton nothing changes night bombing was from what i heard notoriously ineffective the Wallies will probably transfer some P61 squadrons for air defense and let the situation develop from there
 

FBKampfer

Banned
The Luftwaffe didn't have the capacity to mount anything resembling the Blitz in 1944. They simply lacked the bombers, especially without stripping the Eastern Front.

Perhaps with Jabos, similar to Bodenplatte, but it would pretty much be suicide on part of the Luftwaffe. If I recall correctly, the Allies sortied around 7000 planes on D-Day, while the Germans would struggle to muster 1500 of all combat types.


Assuming they were willing to destroy themselves as a combat force (when in reality they held out until Bodenplatte as an organized and effective (relatively speaking) fighting force), and expend all of their fuel stockpiles, they could likely sustain perhaps two weeks of operations. The question would be whether their squadrons became combat ineffective due to losses and damage (and bear in mind that some units could have a ready rate as low as around 65% due to lack of spares anyway), or they ran out of fuel for sustained high-tempo operations first.


In the east they held out a bit longer due to superior aircraft and force concentration, but by spring of 1944, the Luftwaffe was on its last leg, and it was in the east where that leg was standing.


Realistically, the Luftwaffe needs at least a 1941 POD to maintain combat effectiveness into 1944. But basically they need to abandon bomber development save for a few select models. Only the Do 217 and Ju 188 should be developed, everything else needs to be scrapped.

Second, the Ju 87 needs to be scrapped in favor of something more survivable, be it an attack aircraft or just retooling the Junkers lines to 190 production and using Jabos. But those death traps are limited in effectiveness, and inefficient use of resources.

Third, except in the east, the Germans need to adopt a strategy of air denial. Unless a major operation is underway, the Luftwaffe needs to carefully preserve and husband its strength, so that it has that strength to use in moments of need.
 
They tried - but the Luftwaffe in France on D-Day was out numbered about 30:1 and those odds did not really improve significantly during the campaign

Also that Normandy coastline had the greatest concentration of AAA ever.
 

nbcman

Donor
throw in the V-I
How? The V1 launch sites that were constructed by June 1944 were aimed at targets in the UK. There were a limited amount of air launched V1s but those were fired over the North Sea and those attacks didn't start until September 1944. Even if they could be launched towards Normandy, their accuracy was terrible.

EDIT: The V1 launching sites don't swivel:

ardouval-v1_stellung_val_ygot-abschlussrampe.jpg
 
Last edited:
later versions had booster allowing for deploying the rocket from mobile launchers....but after Normandy was occupied. Until then new launchers could be erected to target the landing bridgehead. Failing that HE-111 could be assembled to bombard the bridgehead.
 
With a late 1943 PoD the forces expended in Op Steinbock Jan-May 1944, some 474 bombers, could have been husbanded and expended over Normandy 5 months later.

I don't know what Steinbock planes were amongst the 300 in the West on D Day, but given the Germans lost 329 of 524 aircraft no more than 195 could be duplicates. So the Germans could possibly have had 650 aircraft and possibly up to 850 on strength. With almost 500 bombers operating at ranges beyond what Fighter Command is used to and possibly under close ground control something might have been achieved compared to OTL Steinbock and Dday.
 
With a late 1943 PoD the forces expended in Op Steinbock Jan-May 1944, some 474 bombers, could have been husbanded and expended over Normandy 5 months later.

I don't know what Steinbock planes were amongst the 300 in the West on D Day, but given the Germans lost 329 of 524 aircraft no more than 195 could be duplicates. So the Germans could possibly have had 650 aircraft and possibly up to 850 on strength. With almost 500 bombers operating at ranges beyond what Fighter Command is used to and possibly under close ground control something might have been achieved compared to OTL Steinbock and Dday.

the logical "best case" scenario for LW would be the V-1 is working by Jan. '44 and replaces the manned bomber campaign, Operation Steinbock, against GB?

probably lose the same number of bombers over Anzio? but there it was close run thing for Allies and they might actually have to withdraw? (meaning that operation was Jan. '44 also)
 
With a late 1943 PoD the forces expended in Op Steinbock Jan-May 1944, some 474 bombers, could have been husbanded and expended over Normandy 5 months later.

I don't know what Steinbock planes were amongst the 300 in the West on D Day, but given the Germans lost 329 of 524 aircraft no more than 195 could be duplicates. So the Germans could possibly have had 650 aircraft and possibly up to 850 on strength. With almost 500 bombers operating at ranges beyond what Fighter Command is used to and possibly under close ground control something might have been achieved compared to OTL Steinbock and Dday.

850 bombers does not sound like a lot. At least in the context of June/July 1944.

...

Perhaps with Jabos, similar to Bodenplatte, but it would pretty much be suicide on part of the Luftwaffe. If I recall correctly, the Allies sortied around 7000 planes on D-Day, while the Germans would struggle to muster 1500 of all combat types.
...

Closer to 12,000 or 14,000 for the Allies, depending on how its counted and the source. 7,000 may be the number of fighter sorties. The Germans had a little over 1,600 aircraft in France. Belgium, and Holland. I'm unsure exactly how many were imeadiatly operational 6th June, but a little over 300 sorties were launched against the invasion, including single engine models. Less than 200 made it to the target area, with the balance divided between non combat losses, aborts, and combat losses. I've seen summaries of German records showing their air effort peaked in July at over 1,300 bomber & fighter sorties daily against the Allied lodgment. Most of the bomber sorties seem at night as day sorties ran losses up to high. I don't know what the Allied sortie rate settled down to in mid June, but with over 10,000 combat aircraft in the UK 2,000 to 3,000 fighter sorties over Normandy daily June/July is believable

the logical "best case" scenario for LW would be the V-1 is working by Jan. '44 and replaces the manned bomber campaign, Operation Steinbock, against GB?

probably lose the same number of bombers over Anzio? but there it was close run thing for Allies and they might actually have to withdraw? (meaning that operation was Jan. '44 also)

@ Sicilly, Salerno, and Anzio the Axis or German AF scored some spectacular tactical victories, but never sank enough cargo or warships to threaten the invasions. Operationally and strategically the Axis air forces lost all three air battles or campaigns. Attrition of their aircraft/aircrew out running replacements forced cutting back the the air attacks each time.
 
the logical "best case" scenario for LW would be the V-1 is working by Jan. '44 and replaces the manned bomber campaign, Operation Steinbock, against GB?

probably lose the same number of bombers over Anzio? but there it was close run thing for Allies and they might actually have to withdraw? (meaning that operation was Jan. '44 also)

@ Sicilly, Salerno, and Anzio the Axis or German AF scored some spectacular tactical victories, but never sank enough cargo or warships to threaten the invasions. Operationally and strategically the Axis air forces lost all three air battles or campaigns. Attrition of their aircraft/aircrew out running replacements forced cutting back the the air attacks each time.

point taken, but they were trying to run Operation Steinbock at the same time as Anzio and my scenario the V-1 attacks have supplanted the manned bomber missions over England?

rail guns were hell on Allies at Anzio beachhead and found only with their complete air superiority (and a little luck) was speculating on the marginal value of the additional bombers (including infamous HE-177 which AFAIK was not used there)
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
What if Luftwaffe bombers did a concerted night bombing campaign the D-Day landing beaches?

They'd get shot down by RAF and USAAF Beaufighters and Mosquitos with SCR-720s

If by some ASB the Luftwaffe in France had re-equipped with men and aircraft after STEINBOCK, that is.
 
The Allies actually don't need to do much.
The V-1s are famously inaccurate.
The German bombers of 1944 are famously inaccurate.
Add the need to target an area there isn't the infrastructure for (the V-1s were ridiculously inaccurate when fired from the fixed rail mounts heading towards London, you can imagine how sloppy the targeting would be with any other launching system; the radio beam targeting of the Germans, by 1944, was hopelessly outclassed by Allied ECMs).
The beachheads are small, thin targets.
Most stuff will fall in the sea... and on the French countryside beyond the frontline, i.e. some of it on the German ground troops.
On top of that, it's not a bad thing for the Allies that the Germans are throwing away avgas, and V-1s that could otherwise keep harassing a target of suitable size for their inaccuracy, London.

To give you a comparison, the first attack of the Steinbock operation was targeted at London, a big big target. Of 245 "incidents" reported by the British civil defense, 44 were in the Greater London area. The rest were all over Kent, Essex and Sussex. The Germans had a 10% loss rate, and according to their own reports 25 bombers were lost to enemy action, but a further 18 were lost in crash-landings and other landing accidents at their own bases. This should give you an idea of the level of training the German bomber crews could muster in 1944.
 
.... The Germans had a 10% loss rate, and according to their own reports 25 bombers were lost to enemy action, but a further 18 were lost in crash-landings and other landing accidents at their own bases. This should give you an idea of the level of training the German bomber crews could muster in 1944.

I've seen claims varying from 35% to 40%+ of all German AF losses in 1944 attributed to non combat reasons. Both mechanical failure & crew error. At the time US AAF & RAF noncombat losses were falling below 30%, below 25% in some cases. Either way a 10% loss rate can't be sustained over a month or two. The US AAF considered a long term loss rate of 5% barely acceptable, and pissed themselves over the losses of the October 1943 raids into Germany.
 
Top