The Typhoon fighter/bomber was used extensively in this role and its wartime tagline was ‘The speed of a fighter, the punch of a cruiser’
There were lots of airborne rockets, they were unguided but used to destroy bunkers, railways, bridges and other infrastructure.
Some Mosquitos carried rockets, plenty of Beaufighters did, and IIRC some Hurricanes were rocketed up too.
The first Battle of Wake Island and the Battle of Milne Bay, though both were Japanese amphibious landings against the Allies.
It couldn’t be exploited soon enough, the landing force was too small. At best it could have moved on the Alban Hills. Churchill is best remembered in relation to Anzio for his comment that “I had hoped we were hurling a wildcat into the shore, but all we got was a stranded whale,” but this was him trying to wash his hands of the affair. The operation had been carried out at his insistence despite all of the problems that had been pointed out beforehand, notably a lack of amphibious lift in theatre. Comparisons to his involvement in Gallipoli are hard to avoid. The Germans were able to build up forces opposing the beachhead at Anzio faster than the Allies were able to reinforce it. When asked later about the supposed missed chance to take Rome, Maj. Gen. Penney, commander of British 1st Infantry Division commented “We could have had one night in Rome and 18 months in P.W. camps.”
Sort of - prior to Peleliu Japanese defensive fortifications were mostly located along the beach line where they would heavily resist the landing attempt. While it could make the landing costly, it never prevented a beachhead from being established. That night the Japanese would launch a counterattack en masse at the beachhead which while terrifying, would fail with a casualty ratio greatly in favor of the defending Americans. After that, all that was left was mopping up operations.
The Japanese eventually concluded that 1) it never succeeded in stopping the invasion and 2) it was wasteful in that they were trading the lives of their soldiers cheaply. The same tactics were expected to be employed by the Japanese at Peleliu, but instead the beachhead was lightly defended and there was no mass counterattack that night. The Japanese had heavily dug in and fortified an extensive defense in depth of the entire island, and didn’t abandon their positions to conduct wasteful counterattacks. Instead they forced the Americans to fight for every inch of ground, with the result that instead of lasting several days, it took two months to clear the island and casualty ratios were 1:1, albeit almost all Japanese casualties were KIA. It wasn’t actually the first time the Japanese had gone this route tactically, they had done it at Biak in May 1944. Okinawa was an even more extreme example of this style of defense, the was no opposition to the American landing in central Okinawa, and only light opposition clearing the north end of the island; the Japanese had concentrated all of their defenses in the south.
Amazing. I had no idea. Neither does Hollywood, or surely it would have become a staple image.
I thought everybody knew that WW2 fighter-bombers carried rockets. Heck, I built enough models of them as a youth to know. P-47s armed with rockets were everywhere after Normandy, and the Typhoon was known for its rockets.
Since the purpose of war is the thinning of the herd in the most expedient and covert manner, the truths may vary but the underlying principle remains the same. WWII, like a flood upon the Nations, it washed away the lives of some reported 250 million people in just 4 years, and when the waters receded, the World got the UN and the US got the 22nd amendment.
Well, just wait til you see the Butlerian Jihad, then!
[quote=“Dissonance, post:24, topic:665822”]
The first Battle of Wake Island and the Battle of Milne Bay, though both were Japanese amphibious landings against the Allies.
It couldn’t be exploited soon enough, the landing force was too small. At best it could have moved on the Alban Hills. Churchill is best remembered in relation to Anzio for his comment that “I had hoped we were hurling a wildcat into the shore, but all we got was a stranded whale,” but this was him trying to wash his hands of the affair. The operation had been carried out at his insistence despite all of the problems that had been pointed out beforehand, notably a lack of amphibious lift in theatre. Comparisons to his involvement in Gallipoli are hard to avoid.
[QUOTE]
Would the landing at Gallipoli have been successful if there had been better
naval gunfire support? IIRC, RN Secretary Churchill took quite a political beating for the failure to secure a beachhead at Gallipoli.
Yes, that was the party of the intent of the pre occasion shelling. Also, bombers were used for the same purpose during D-Day. Problem us that the accuracy of the binders and to an extent the naval guns left almost no craters on the beaches. Our troops had no where to hide. Sad .
Yes, that was the party of the intent of the pre occasion shelling. Also, bombers were used for the same purpose during D-Day. Problem us that the accuracy of the binders and to an extent the naval guns left almost no craters on the beaches. Our troops had no where to hide. Sad .
Never read it, is that the story about the Egyptian baker? Too bad so many are afraid to speak about the issue in an open and candid manner.
There was no difficulty in establishing beachheads at Gallipoli. The failure lay in exploiting out from those beachheads, which remained securely lodged for the entire campaign.
There are many reasons for that failure, and no doubt naval support could have been done better, but that by itself it wouldn’t have been enough to change the outcome, no. A more determined effort to push through the straits, preceded by better mine clearance, was probably the single naval action that could have done the most good. As it was a failure of nerve led to a recall of the ships just as the Turkish shore batteries were running out of ammunition.
The Germans showed they could pour concrete like it was water over Niagara falls. The British were unable to destroy the V2 rocket launch site (Wizewrnes Bunker) with direct bombing even with the 12,000 lb tallboys because it was so massively fortified. they did manage to bomb the ground around it and destabilize the dome structure.
I don’t think the big guns of a ship were capable of launching shells as large as those dropped from bombers. If you know the maximum destructive force deliverable from a ship then it’s just a function of engineering beyond that capability.
^
How many miles of beach head can a squadron of tall boy droppers cover? Can they cover the 90 miles of beach head in Normandy during D-day?
The primary reason for the failure (and this statement is going to make me persona non grata in the antipodes) was the rather poor quality of the troops. Brave? Yes. Enthusiastic? Certainly. Skillful and well led? Nah. I have read claims that a British Regular or Indian Division would have been able to take the positions in the early days and there is some merit in that. Of course, neither was available for what was at the time third on the list of priorities.
As it is, the Turks put up one hell of a resistance.
I do not think Naval gunfire could have changed much, even with WW2 levels of support and sophistication. They were narrow waters filled with mines and Torpedo boats which took a large toll on the supporting Naval Armada.
Cool little film.
Man, I leave for the weekend and everybody posts all the cites for my offhand remark.
The answer of course is “Rio”, by Duran Duran.
Good Lord, rockets on a biplane.