Would bloody Omaha have been so bloody if it were a British beach?

[pattle]

This is a question that has no answer. The support that America gave to it's own landings could not have been surpassed, the same as when we had been supporting our allies. The full support of the U.S.A. has never been called into question, therefore, the idea of less casualties, has nothing to do with it. It comes down to how many good young men were killed by German machineguns and mines.

This question was mainly about organisation, not support. It doesn't sound to me as though the level of casualties experienced at Omaha were expected, I say this simply by the fact that there reached a point during the Omaha landing were withdrawal was considered and I don't think the D Day planners would have gambled so heavily on such a narrow margin, I believe the planners needed to be quietly confident that the landings would succeed. I realise that overall D Day casualties were lower than expected but I think that at Omaha their must have been some regret amongst the planners that they hadn't taken more precautions against failure. I think the lack of precautions may have been down to over confidence, complacency and taking to many things for granted.

 

[Juha]

... It comes down to how many good young men were killed by German machineguns and mines.

Its very difficult to kill combat engineers inside a heavily armoured AVRE with machineguns and besides AVRE could shoot bac. Even when dismounted the combat engineers could use the AVRE as a shield. And they were immune against anti-personel mines while inside an AVRE. But Bradley decided that US combat engineers didn't need AVREs so they went in without them.

 

[starling]

Hi guys,I understand that the naval gunfire may have kept the U.S.Jabos away,for fear of hitting their own aircraft,but were there any P47's etc,in the air at that time.? If so ,did they have any effect on the Omaha.? Thanks,Starling.

 

[pattle]

I am not aware of fighter bombers being used at Omaha at the time of the landings, perhaps they were not considered as effective weapons against the beach fortifications. I have seen pictures of Thunderbolts carrying napalm tanks but know little of their use, I understand that the napalm used by the Americans during WW2 was not as potent as that used later in Vietnam and again I do not know whether it would have been an effective weapon against the German bunkers or even if the Thunderbolt pilots would have been able to spot the well camouflaged German bunkers and drop their napalm on them without incinerating their own troops. I think the job of the fighters bombers on D Day was more largely around shooting up anything that moved behind the beaches.

 

[GrauGeist]

You guys are aware that there was heavy overcast on the morning of the landings?

Not many aircraft were over the beachhead...

 

[pattle]

I think it was the fire from a squadron of mostly American destroyers that silenced the German guns and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat at Omaha. I believe the destroyers risked becoming grounded by coming close enough inshore to hit the German guns and that some of these destroyers were unfortunately sunk.

 

[redcoat]

This is a question that has no answer. The support that America gave to it's own landings could not have been surpassed, the same as when we had been supporting our allies. The full support of the U.S.A. has never been called into question, therefore, the idea of less casualties, has nothing to do with it. It comes down to how many good young men were killed by German machineguns and mines.

For some reason the landings on the US sectors were at 6.30am an hour before the British and Canadian sectors, and because of this the bombardment from the supporting warships only lasted for fifty minutes before the first landing craft reached the US beaches, compared with two hours for the British and Canadian.

 

[meatloaf109]

I, personally, dislike "What if " questions.
So, if given that the same exact things happened, except that there were U.K. troops,...
Nope, the same result.

 

[pattle]

I, personally, dislike "What if " questions.
So, if given that the same exact things happened, except that there were U.K. troops,...
Nope, the same result.[/QUOTE
The question of the thread isn't about which country the troops were from it is only really about would things have gone smoother at Omaha if it had been planned better. I think there were a number of serious oversights made in the planning at Omaha and keeping in mind that Omaha was always going to be a massive challenge I think more consideration should have been given to some of the methods employed at the other beaches. It also seems to me as though to this very day we still don't know the whole story of why things went wrong.

 

[razor1uk]

It was inevitable that some part of the D-Day plan would almost fail and fall outside of the generalised plans preperations.
The fact that due to the common ships captains decided to keep to timetable and carry on, was what both saved the day lost some of their charges/men/equipment due to possible stress, eagerness, following rules to their own interpretation, incorrect navigational/locational plottings perhaps being awe-struck with the sheer massiveness of the scenario finally unfolding around them.

While some unfortunately still only perhaps remember the training beeches coastal distances currents, different enough to the targets environmentals to cause some difficulties and confusion let alone what standing orders there were upon radio silencing and how orders requests travelling up and down command chain were initially planned and actually utilised.

Things could have been much worse or slightly better, true the US Army brass had a bit of an axe to grind vs. all the other allied services, and in particular against the USN/USMC for its tough yet successful work in the Pacific. Some of the brass it would appear nowadays, did refuse some aids and knowledge thinking it was offered belittlingly or immaturely or to seemingly weaken the efforts effect of the Armies D-Day involvement.

I'd like to think that ourselves, the Canadians or other Commonwealthers could have done better, and we may have, but who's to say that if so, what other thing could have happened to befall them at some point further on during the landing or after it during the push out to secure the beech-head inland - more surviving and working tanks and equipment could have been spotted by the enemy and given von Runsfeld a greater 'real pressure' to call up armour than was.

 

[mikewint]

The British had their Omaha beachhead along with the Aussies only it was called Gallipoli. And I don't but "the necessities of war" cr*p. Things would change real quick if the planners had to be the first off the transports.

 

[razor1uk]

Oh Gallipoli, that was a fiasco from what an Aussies told me, some of the troops/invasion ships were American owned and crewed, and had similar navigational problems and started landing in the wrong locations, with typical inter- national/forces difficulties with communications and many different chains of command; differences of personality, styles and military ethos's not withstanding.
Mind due, that Aussy friend also said that Khe Shan was predominantly an Aussy Battle, 'cos they did most of the hard fighting to protect the reeling US forces there...

 

[dobbie]

Name me a textbook invasion against a fortified location anywhere in WWII which followed the plan. The landing on the Normandy coast was done in bad weather, Omaha in particular was more heavily fortified than the others and the terrain wasn't very good for a beach invasion. About the only thing the invaders had in their favor was the courage of a few destroyer captains who had the nerve to risk their ships in duels with the shore batteries, and the astonishing bravery of the lower ranking officers and NCO's who took charge.

The only way Omaha would have been less bloody is if the troops had followed the 4th ID into the wrong beaches at Utah. The poor fellas at Omaha went in with the deck stacked heavily against them. The casualties were going to be heavy due to the layout of the beach until the draws were taken and the invaders could get behind the beach fortifications.

 

[stona]

Gallipoli was not predominantly an Australian, New Zealand, British, French or Indian battle. As the list suggests it was an allied invasion attempt.

About 12,000 ANZAC troops lost there lives which is bad enough. It compares with the 10,000 French or 34,000 British fatalities.

Total ANZAC casualties were slightly more than one quarter of those suffered by the British (120,000) and about 6,000 more than the 27,000 French casualties. Of course the different total populations (man power pools) made these losses more keenly felt in the antipodes.

This is simply to give a little perspective, nothing will ever detract from the qualities exhibited by the soldiers thrust into such an ill conceived and badly planned campaign.

This was WW1, a period not known for brilliantly fought mobile campaigns off beaches.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Glider]

Re Omaha I have believed that there were two main problems with the US plannning one was the decision not to use the Hobart Funnies and the other was the DD Tanks. They were launched too far out and only a small fraction made it to the beach. As a result the PBI as ever, paid the price.
That said those decisions might have paid off, no one at the time knew and that should always be remembered.