Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
D-day and Omaha
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Terry-Mcdermot (U10838851) on Wednesday, 16th January 2008
I think that i am safe in saying that the landings on Omaha beach could have gone seriously wrong and that the Germans could have possibly sent teh americans back into the sea. My question is this, how would this have affected the overall conclusions of D-day, presumably it would have only put things back a coupkle of days?
-
Message 2
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 16th January 2008
It wouldnt. Even if the Americans stay pinned down on Omaha the other beaches can flank the German positions. The American casualties will be higher theres no doubt about that but the end result is the same.
-
Message 3
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Wednesday, 16th January 2008
And if the American's had in fact been forced to evacuate Omaha, it would have reinforced HItler's conviction that it was all a feint and further entrenched him in delaying a full response. That delay, more than anything else, sealed the allied success in Normandy.
-
Message 4
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 16th January 2008
Kurt - Excellent point!
-
Message 5
Posted by tony_19680 (U5835599) on Wednesday, 16th January 2008
I have to disagree. The majority of supplies coming into the USA sector came through the US Mulberry harbor site at Omaha. Even after this was destroyed in a storm in Jul a vast amount of stores came across the Omaha beaches.
Without Omaha the allies could not have held Utah beaches and then gone on to take the Cherbourg peninsula.
I agree the British and Canadians could have out flanked the Germans but as history showed they had their hands full holding off the German counter Armor and counter offenses.
5 beaches where chosen to allow for a greater build up of forces. It was the logistic achievement of bringing more men and materials into action than the Germans (and of course the heroism of the fighting troops) that eventually lead to the victory in Normandy.
I'm pretty sure there was no plan b for what happen if Overlord didn't go to plan but the delay would have been measured in years not days. -
Message 6
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Wednesday, 16th January 2008
What was wrong with the other beaches ?
The other 4 could between them have deployed enough troops to take Omaha from the back as it were.
The British weren't so stuck that they couldn't have used some of the troops building up. Similarly the Americans on Utah -
Message 7
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 16th January 2008
If the Americans had been forced to retreat from Omaha beach then it would have left a very wide gap between the small Utah beach bridgehead and the bridgehead at Gold beach.
I do not know if this would have spelt disaster for the invasion, but it would have presented a massive problem.
There are several river lines between the Utah sector and the British sector that would have been difficult to have assault quickly. And the German defences would have been able to reorganise without the American pressure from the Omaha sector.
Omaha was crucial to the overlord plan and if it had failed the whole operation would have been greatly effected, but probably not fatally. -
Message 8
Posted by tony_19680 (U5835599) on Wednesday, 16th January 2008
Omaha was a wide flat sandy beach with good exits off the beach. Plan was for mulberry to be deployed there and stores to be sent shore.
So here my view
The USA pulls off Omaha to deploy at Utah but there's insufficient space on the beach to deploy the extra divisions. Imagine all the LC and LCT getting in each others way.
Most history tells us it was chaos (ok exaggeration) very congested on the beaches so there wasn't time or space for extra troop’s transports. The invasion was won as much by time tables and logistics as by fighting and destruction of the enemy. The British sector was just as congested so on day days 1-5 there is 20% less troops being deployed by the allies. Even if they could have move the Omaha divisions the beach heads may not have been large enough to take them.
And what are the German doing through all this. the British were contained at Caen. My bet is the Germans would have concentrated on driving the wedge between Utah and juno and in time held the allies as they did at Anzio (Italy).
Would the Allies have propped for another beach. Another beach close to Cherbourg I believe is out as it is to closely defended and near the Cherbourg garrison. Any further away and you are splitting your forces and moving outside of safe Allied air cover.
I keep harping on about supplies but it’s a fact that USA delivered more tonnage of supplies over the Omaha beach than by a mile than the British did through their mulberry (the one thing the Mulberry did give was consistency - was open in relatively bad weather).
Utah is over looked by Omaha -
Message 9
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Wednesday, 16th January 2008
I am assuming that if Omaha had been evacuated it would have been in the first or second day--so the mulberry could have been used elsewhere I assume as it would not have been assembled yet.
I think the key to the survival of the entire beachhead is in the first week. Rommel, not Hitler was right about that. They had to beat us on the beach or they wouldn't be able to evict us. As the other beachheads were all holding their on and digging in, and as the Germans were confused and in something of a fog the first few days, I don't think that they could have exploited a collapse at Omaha to turn it into a general victory for them. They were sending enough men and material into the combat zone, and due to the allied air, were unable to move them very effectively when they tried.
During the critical period the airborne were creating major confusion.
I think it would have scared the dickens out the Eisenhower et al, but given what we know now about what was going on with the German command, it would have worked out for the allies. -
Message 10
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
Just a thought. Utah landings went in in the wrong place. Would it have been possible to re-assault the correct one relatively quickly? Would a larger beach area at Utah have been capable of taking the supplies intended for Omaha as well?
-
Message 11
Posted by MB (U177470) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
I quoted in another thread some extracts from a book on the Mulberry harbours that disputed claims that more was landed over the beaches. The claims seem to originate from a French documentary programme.
The book questions how beaches that were only available at some states of the tide could compete with a harbour that was in operation 24 hours a day and could unload and turnaround a vessel in 23 minutes (I think that is the figure but away from home so can't check the book).
MB -
Message 12
Posted by tony_19680 (U5835599) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
The Tonnage of stores landed directly on the beaches exceeded the mulberry harbors on the days it was possible to land stores directly onto the beaches. If the weather was poor the % would drop.
The fact that the Americans could deliver such larges amounts of onto the beaches was created by necessity. Their Harbor was destroyed in a storm.
Luckily given the shape of Omaha beach and using American ingenuity they found they could unload the liberty ships by deliberately beaching the ships and floating them off at high tide. This wasn't the most efficient use of ships and a number where severely damaged but this was War and the US had almost unlimited resources. Liberty ships where being created at a rate of 1 every 3 days.
I guess there's no reason why the mulberry couldn't be positioned else where but my issue is the USA landed at 2 beaches for a reason it was to get enough men ashore in as short a space of time to swamp the opposition.
Evacuating Omaha would have made the resources sent to that Bridgehead available for use against Utah. That would be bound to have had an impact. Additionally the German defenders would have been buoyed up by the fact they would know that they could hold the line.
Could the USA landed on the correct Utah beach the answer is yes but they where luck they didn't as the fortifications at the correct Utah spot where more formidable than at Omaha and it possible could have suffered the same fate. Esp. give that the Germans (in Normandy) would have been alerted for further landings. Even a successful landing here may not have helped much as the Allies need to peg out space into which they would pop men and materials to defeat the Germans. A second landing at Utah could have provided them with depth. -
Message 13
Posted by tony_19680 (U5835599) on Thursday, 17th January 2008
During the critical period the airborne were creating major confusion
This is true but the Airborne forces where them selves dis-organsied and in no fit state to hold off concerted counter attacks by mixed German forces (no matter what Saving Private Rayan depicts). The forces comming from Omaha and Utah rescued the US airborne divisions (which were expected of them.
Again dealing with 4 not 5 landings would only have suited the Germans
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.