[historical question] why did the USA not use smoke on DDAY?

Charging across a flat surface when they can accurately target you is probably worse.

they were supposed to have plenty of d-day tanks, craters from navy shells and decimated bunkers. considering these, high command probably thought allies would gain as much as germans from having clear vision.

but again, i am hypothesising.

imagine walking through random mg42, mortar, arty fire in a thick fog.

i would prefer to be blindly walking through smoke, atleast i dont need to see the misery im walking into

Its actually quite simple.

Smoke would have hindered the US landing forces on the principle that they would not have been able to see and land on the correct designated zones. For example look at Utah Beach....no smoke and they still landed in the wrong spot. Furthermore, German defenders were pre zeroed on their fire lanes, by this time the Germans were excellent at setting up fire lanes and coordinating combined arms after many battles in Italy/Russia. I can only speculate of course but it also can be concluded that it was thought there would be enough cover among Shell holes (Put on the beach etc by naval ships/ bombing runs), obstacles, as well as the contingent of DD tanks.

Does anybody actually have access to the planning of Operation Overlord and can give a SOURCED explanation of why smoke was not used?

Perhaps you are sitting on a introduction to amphibious assaults that would explain it? (Use a chair instead!) or maybe you have a source for the planning of this specific operation?

So aside from all of the speculation and conjecture in this thread (not to mention the stuff that seems plain fabricated.) I did some searching on the matter, and it turns out that smoke was planned for, but not really required on D-Day.

"Brigadier G. H. Pennycock, director of chemical warfare for the British 21 Army Group, coordinated Allied smoke screening plans for the initial phase of the invasion. Colonel Coughlan, FUSA chemical officer, was in turn responsible for the operational plans for American forces. One problem which had been troubling First Army, the difficulty of landing the heavy M1 generators on the Normandy beaches, was eliminated almost on the eve of the assault with the arrival of the M2 generator which had a dry weight of only 172 pounds. Smoke troops received the first M2 on 13 May, 7 more on 24 May, So on the 28th, and 27 between that date and 3 June.4"

"Final plans for the use of large area smoke screens during the cross-Channel attack provided for smoke over the ports of England from which the invasion would be mounted and smoke over OMAHA and UTAH beaches in Normandy. In both cases the screens would be used as a means of concealing activity from German aircraft."

"The 79th and Both Smoke Generator Companies, with their men and M1 smoke generators aboard thirty of His Majesty's trawlers, on 9 June arrived off OMAHA Beach, where they served as the offshore element of the 23d Battalion smoke installation. But they received no requests for smoke. The great storm of 18-21 June wrecked some of the trawlers and others returned to England for repair and refueling, never to return to OMAHA. Some offshore smoke troops did provide screens at Port en Bessin where both British and Americans were bringing ashore fuel oil and lubricants. Here, in coordination with the British, the smoke trawlers stood ready to provide screens at twilight and during nocturnal red alerts as long as this important facility seemed threatened."

"During the critical period while the Allies were fighting to secure a firm foothold in Normandy, the landing beaches were virtually free from bombing from the air, and the need for beachhead and port screening did not materialize."

TL;DR - No enemy planes, no need for smoke.

Source

monkey telling us how it is

thank you! Very interesting and thanks for the clear sourcing!

So aside from all of the speculation and conjecture in this thread (not to mention the stuff that seems plain fabricated.) I did some searching on the matter, and it turns out that smoke was planned for, but not really required on D-Day.

"Brigadier G. H. Pennycock, director of chemical warfare for the British 21 Army Group, coordinated Allied smoke screening plans for the initial phase of the invasion. Colonel Coughlan, FUSA chemical officer, was in turn responsible for the operational plans for American forces. One problem which had been troubling First Army, the difficulty of landing the heavy M1 generators on the Normandy beaches, was eliminated almost on the eve of the assault with the arrival of the M2 generator which had a dry weight of only 172 pounds. Smoke troops received the first M2 on 13 May, 7 more on 24 May, So on the 28th, and 27 between that date and 3 June.4"

"Final plans for the use of large area smoke screens during the cross-Channel attack provided for smoke over the ports of England from which the invasion would be mounted and smoke over OMAHA and UTAH beaches in Normandy. In both cases the screens would be used as a means of concealing activity from German aircraft."

"The 79th and Both Smoke Generator Companies, with their men and M1 smoke generators aboard thirty of His Majesty's trawlers, on 9 June arrived off OMAHA Beach, where they served as the offshore element of the 23d Battalion smoke installation. But they received no requests for smoke. The great storm of 18-21 June wrecked some of the trawlers and others returned to England for repair and refueling, never to return to OMAHA. Some offshore smoke troops did provide screens at Port en Bessin where both British and Americans were bringing ashore fuel oil and lubricants. Here, in coordination with the British, the smoke trawlers stood ready to provide screens at twilight and during nocturnal red alerts as long as this important facility seemed threatened."

"During the critical period while the Allies were fighting to secure a firm foothold in Normandy, the landing beaches were virtually free from bombing from the air, and the need for beachhead and port screening did not materialize."

TL;DR - No enemy planes, no need for smoke.

Source

awsum!

Whether fueled by ignorance or in preservation of face saving ego, I know not which, I make no apology that your misinformative 'smokescreen' just made me see methaphorical red as a field serving ex-Inf Plt Cmdr. A long time ago now prior to successfully pursuing 'loftier heights', but I've never forgotten the all arms training, nor the field experience.

Your original post as OP of the discussion clearly referred to the use of smoke relevant to first wave assault. Gauging from your most recent post, it has to be said that you are no closer to practical understanding although it appears you are intent upon fooling yourself to think you are. I don't mind that, but I do mind you attempting to carry along with you dupes who appear willing to gulp down your McBullshit as fast as you serve it up.

And I quote this piece of logic challenged ignorance so arrogant as to make me almost cringe in embarrassment for you were it not that you don't appear to have either the nous or life experience to realise it yourself when it is pointed out to you.

So aside from all of the speculation and conjecture in this thread (not to mention the stuff that seems plain fabricated.) I did some searching on the matter, and it turns out that smoke was planned for, but not really required on D-Day.

Clearly, if you actually read the piece you quoted, and then present it purporting to be why smoke was not deployed on the invasion beaches during the actual time of the initial first assault wave landings, then you are just as clueless as you were before you began "searching". Kids with no actual infantry field command experience or knowledge of combined arms field tactics. <sigh>

I've already told you why smoke is 'not a good idea' (that's subtle understatement for the comprehension and/or literacy challenged) under those circumstances, which had you ever planned an assault on any level, moved to an FUP and then experienced the mayhem which occurs from the moment you step off in the confusion of battle that never quite goes going according to plan (that's more understatement which will apparently need highlighting for comprehension as such to some), you might even gain an inkling of understanding.

There's a time to use cover from horizontal view to cover tactical movement for fire and movement advantage. Maintaining any chance of tactical coordination, command and control during the landing of an initial assault wave on an invasion beach isn't one of them.

Smoke. Several methods of delivery and types of obstruction from view smoke from grenade canister (not coloured dye marker for targeting) through artillery fired, through a large extensive smokescreen by smoke projecters which simply wasn't viable on the landing beaches for first wave too large for infantry to carry even were there any point to it -which there wasn't/isn't. Remember those Higgins boats/vehicular AT barriers/obstacles that had to be removed and obstacles preventing Higgins boats proceeding beyond a certain point and thus critical tide to be able to disembark attacking infantry in shallow water or beach?

Obstacles preventing or hindering tactical movement need to be seen to be destroyed by directed demo teams to offer supporting wading Shermans and chance of penetrating the defensive shoreline, and those Sherman commanders need to be able to see where those breaches are to drive to and through them. No supporting flamethrowing or HE firing tanks in support = much higher casualties assaulting hardpoints (i.e. bunkers) or removing light obstacles such as wire covered by defensive fire.

The article you specifically quote is a red herring referring to the potential necessity for smokescreening ordnance, logistical resupply and or elements of the fleet from air attack during the approach to the beaches and subsequently after the initial wave landings. That's slant or vertical obstruction from view which is completely different. As an ex-'birdie', remember the loftier heights pursued after Inf Plt Cmdr I mentioned in a preceding paragraph? Guess what it is carrier launched A-4s do precisely, where the A in A-4 is the acronym designator for an Attack type vs F for Fighter or B for or F/A for multi-role? So I have that practical 'inkling' of a trained and practical experience as a ex-'driver' of same clue here too. Cover from view from the air requires a much denser thicker heavier screen to higher level that can only be supplied by large specialised vehicular mounted or truck carried for deployment projectors, NOT something infantry can carry on their backs during the actual beach assaults by the initial and immediate subsequent wave/s even were it to serve any purpose.

As I stated in my previous post, why exactly is it do you think smoke wasn't used in the Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Peleliu or Saipan assault wave landings if it could have been useful in saving lives or advantaged achieving the immediate tactical objectives? America's inability to provide logistical support of smoke from those invasion fleets? Have you got any actual concept of what stood off Tarawa or Iwo prior to those landings and what those immense forces laid on the resolute brave defenders? Have you ever been on Tarawa, Iwo, Peleliu, Majuro, Kwajalein, battlegrounds of New Guinea or Guadalcanal and Ironbottom sound to walk and comprehend the terrain and conditions under which these battles were fought as I have? I haven't been to Iwo or Saipan yet, the former a pligrimage on my bucket list. I might be critical of aspects of US ops during WW II, but logistics isn't an area I would criticise -ever. The USA of WW II era was the unchallenged master of the logistics.

SO back to smoke. Quite apart from the reasons already presented and represented below, smoke will just add to panic and confusion of the men in such assault waves rendering them non-effective. You'd understand that if you had ever led men under such circumstances on the ground, even in training or at night in the confusion of an attempted night assault or defense against same. Note that major assaults generally step off in the just pre-dawn light? There's a reason for that.

So no smoke at Omaha. Oversight, or just more stupid US general staff planning? Or maybe, just maybe, the real reason isn't the one you just read in a book and still clearly yet have no comprehension of?

He's my advice to you. Put away your Wiki mouse and textbooks, qualify scholastically and physically, have the courage to apply to put yourself in harm's way outside the realm of a COH2 mouse, get selected -not exactly a difficult task in the US today with the world's largest 'defence' budget of 500 billion, X10 times larger than its nearest contender, do the training, graduate -the first hurdle, do some time in the infantry as a field officer in the Army or Marines ON THE GROUND, and you might just develop a clue of what tactical smoke is for, how it works and what it does, and when you should use it or call for it.

Also.

(Pre) Registered fire (arty and mortar). Find out what they are. (Funnelled) killing zones. Find out what they are. Beaten zone of an MMG/HMG. Find out what that is. HMGs sighted along fixed lines. Find out what that means. Intersecting HMG arcs of fire providing cross cover. Find out how that works. Find out what that all means in reference obstacles (to movement). Find out what obstacles are and why they are deliberately placed where they are by defenders (to funnel attackers into killing zones, covered by registered mortar and arty fire and swept by multiple HMGs firing along fixed lines. Think about how smoke will hamper the attackers rather more than the defenders given all of this. Find out what that means in terms of HMG sighting and killing stupid arsed Americans who think smoke is somehow going to protect them magically from bullets, shrapnel or HE blast.

Just like an ambush which is sets up a killing zone planned, prepared, deployed and executed to ensure no-one who enters it will escape (do the training I suggested and you will understand how Hollywood's version of events for idiot consumption is quite different from reality), the optimum chance of achieving the only objective if you walk into an ambush, successful survival, or attaining the objective in the case of an assault upon an invasion beach which is a similar situation to an ambush, is to move out of that killing ground as quickly as possible.

That generally means attacking straight at the ambush (SOPs) or assault objective to destroy the defenders, although not literally up the guts nthe second instance. Remaining in the killing ground just means everybody dies, not some die, even if that means most. You can't do that if you can't see where you are going, see the enemy positions to return aimed fire which is the only form of effective fire or direct offshore support arty on it/them. Equally it is important for the attackers to be able to see the obstacles to move around or cut (wire) or open a pathway through to get around them them. OK it's a movie, but remember Tom Hanks calling for Bangalores to do just that as it is illustrative?. Seeing where the dead ground or trajectory outside the beaten zone is to move into it is also helpful -which might save you from MG and small arms fire, though it's not great cover from arty or mortar fire in the particular, so its not a great loiter point for long.

i would prefer to be blindly walking through smoke, atleast i dont need to see the misery im walking into

No. You wouldn't.

Charging across a flat surface when they can accurately target you is probably worse.

No comprehension of the practical or physical realites of a major assault such as at Omaha beach.

Staying in the killing ground = you WILL die. Chances mightn't be favourable you won't if you move as rapidly as possible to a cover from fire position as fast as possible so you can return aimed fire, but at least you will have some chance. Staying in the killing ground = certain death.

That's the militarily tactical reality versus the schoolboy Hollywood version of your imagination I have quoted above.

Did the army train you to be boorish and rude or were you already like this?

ima soldir

i think you are the prototype of a soldier, full of aggression without reasons, mr field serving ex-Inf Plt Cmdr.

inb4 he was the fieldcook and never saw combat

wall o crap

k

Your text..Your text..

Did the army train you to be boorish and rude or were you already like this?

With nothing but ad hominem to fire, and so inaccurately aimed at that, I leave it to you to claim that prize. I could never hope to compete with your overwhelming superiority of either "boorish" or "rude".

The other two monkeys' mumblings are so puerile, they almost outdo your sterling effort.

It shouldn't come as any surprise really, as it just echoes what this game has descended to become that it attracts exactly this kind of pubesecent mentality who has to resort to personally directed abuse when they lose.

No wonder SEGA continues to serve up DLC novelty for Kinder who puzzle me how they manage to find their mouth with a spoon without assistance.

Your text..Your text..
With nothing but ad hominem to fire, and so inaccurately aimed at that, I leave it to you to claim that prize. I could never hope to compete with your overwhelming superiority of either "boorish" or "rude".

The other two monkeys' mumblings are so puerile, they almost outdo your sterling effort.

It shouldn't come as any surprise really, as it just echoes what this game has descended to become that it attracts exactly this kind of pubesecent mentality who has to resort to personally directed abuse when they lose.

No wonder SEGA continues to serve up DLC novelty for Kinder who puzzle me how they manage to find their mouth with a spoon without assistance.

you remind me of a special copy pasta, are you the origin poster of it?

"What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo."

its from 2010 maybe you remember

I'd just like to apologise to the forum for my fellow Australian, we aren't all this bad, I promise.

Werwolf - your attitude to book learning is exactly the attitude that holds many armies back and results in needless waste of life.

With nothing but ad hominem... *and so on*

Reading this from the sidelines and with what military training I have (no combat exp), I think that you are essentially probably very right with your assessment regarding the non-usage of smoke.

Having said that, your attitude is really starting to work against what you claim. It's difficult to take you seriously with that smug way you act.

I respect combat service and all, but I'm also beginning to doubt if you are for real. The people I know that are in the military are the more laid back the more "Special Ops" they are.

If it is true that you served, it's a shame the military did nothing to get that huge chip off your shoulder. Guess you need to earn some more ribbons and jump wings, huh?

Also, I think you're pulling off ad hominems left and right there as well.

Reading this from the sidelines and with what military training I have (no combat exp), I think that you are essentially probably very right with your assessment regarding the non-usage of smoke.

Having said that, your attitude is really starting to work against what you claim. It's difficult to take you seriously with that smug way you act.

I respect combat service and all, but I'm also beginning to doubt if you are for real. The people I know that are in the military are the more laid back the more "Special Ops" they are.

If it is true that you served, it's a shame the military did nothing to get that huge chip off your shoulder. Guess you need to earn some more ribbons and jump wings, huh?

Also, I think you're pulling off ad hominems left and right there as well.

Pretty well this.

Smoke is fine for a final assault, but if you want huge navy shells to pump in and see the result, or if you are relying on the Air Force to strafe, then you don't want smoke to obliterate everything. Besides which, wind aside, small smoke grenade canisters can hide you (though not protect you).

Can we now proceed peacefully, please, otherwise I have to call in the Mods.

Maybe they haven't teched up for nades or bought the DLC with smoke arty back then.

i loled hard

Werwolf - your attitude to book learning is exactly the attitude that holds many armies back and results in needless waste of life.

Thanks for you expertise 'General', but it's suggestive you've never been tactically deployed in your life given that gem of 'wisdom'

More than plenty of "book learning" done over the course of my life thanks all the same. One won't pass course unless you know the content of 'phams' committed to memory. But them you wouldn't know what mil phams are would you? There can be valuable information contained within but it isn't experience. Think 'know all about COH2' by having read its manual and perhaps you'll have an inkling of how I view clueless adolescent armchair experts sound to me and and why. Textbook information is there for technical information or guidence. Discrimination is required to comprehend that difference and application of it in the field to avoid just what you are referring to in your sentence.

My attitude to academia is because you certainly won't answers in either plaguised academia regurgitating the same old platitudinal stuff, nor in "the manual" aka SOPs.