On D-Day, why didn't allied warships bombard the beachhead

>>1396408
because then you couldnt go on the beach?

The plan was to bombard the beaches with HE to outright kill the defenders.

This worked for some beaches, but the bombardment on Omaha was ineffective due to Navy weenies being unwilling to get close enough to the shore.

>>1396462
I know they tried outright annihilating the bunkers, but when that failed why not just drop an assload of Willie Pete and smoke them out? Wouldn't that save a ton of lives?

>>1396471
There was a strict timetable due to the fact that you can only land troops on a beach during certain tides.

By the time they realized they'd failed, it was now or never for the infantry landings.

>>1396408

You often hear smokescreens being discussed when it comes to invasions in WW2, the notions were usually scrapped though:

The reasons often have to do with a strategic calculation that the reduced visibility all around will hurt the attackers more than the defenders. If you want to direct more conventional shore bombardment, or aerial bombardment, making it hard to see hampers them. Just hitting the beaches often involves relatively fine maneuvering, and again, making it hard to see anything makes that task more difficult.

In general, limiting visibility hurts attackers more than defenders, if they have roughly equivalent tech.

>>1396494
>>1396497

That makes sense. I guess I'm just trying to use the basic infantry tactics WSL1 teaches and scaling them up to an impractical level