Posted on 05/25/2009 4:30:39 PM PDT by franksolich
Okay, now remember, this is a professional civilian writing this.
I've been to Normandy, and saw a lot of things, but as I was young and green, I really had no idea what I was seeing; just the vague notion that I was standing in the presence of something pleasing to God.
I have a whole lot of questions about D-Day, and guess I'll ask them one each day, until June 6.
The first one is the beaches on Normandy. There were five of them, Sword, Juno, Gold, Omaha, and Utah. The British and Canadians dealt with the first three, the Americans with the following two.
Omaha Beach is generally considered the roughest place to have been; it was a really close-run thing, and just as likely to fail as to succeed.
So my question.
Would it not have been more practical to land on the other four beaches, avoiding Omaha Beach altogether, and then squeezing that gap between the beaches, as if a pimple?
Would that have worked?
Or were military strategists unaware of all of the hazards and perils of Omaha?
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativecave.com ...
By the way, I post a link to here at my digs, so people there come over here to see what's being said; the more illumination and enlightenment, the better.
And again, I have to express my gratitude to those with the patience to answer kindergarten questions; because some of us need this stuff.
Good question, I look forward to reading the responses you get. My WWII history is just OK, but there are some real experts here on FR. We’ll all learn things as you get your answers, thanks for posting the question.
But the problem is, sir, that doesn’t answer the question, about whether or not landings on Normandy could have succeeded if Omaha Beach weren’t even in the picture, resources for there sent to the other four fronts instead, to ultimately “pinch” Omaha from below.
Bottom line. It worked, though at great expense of lives it worked.
Do you suppose the strategists were unaware of all the perils and hazards of the Omaha front?
I don't mean to say totally ignorant, but mistaken in minimizing those perils and hazards?
I might be wrong (and WILL be corrected if I am, LOL) but I believe one of the main importances of taking Omaha was that it was necessary to create a continuous land presence with the british troops to the east, and the other American troops to the west and link them all up, creating a solid Allied toehold on Europe. Otherwise it would have been easy for the Germans to divide the Allied troops and eliminate them piecemeal. Unfortunately, Omaha Beach was much heavier defended than was thought, and a lot of things went wrong to boot.
Gen. Bradley indeed did briefly consider pulling off of Omaha and transferring westward to Utah. The US forces were unaware of the presence of the German 352nd Infantry Division, which had artillery and Panzer components.
Here’s a map in nice detail that helps make things more clear about the scale and spacing:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/D-day_battle_order.jpg
What kept the US on Omaha was the brave actions of a couple of destroyer commanders, who pushed their destroyers very close to shore (much closer than orders allowed) and commenced to putting direct fire from their 5-inch guns onto the German bunkers and gun emplacements.
My recollection is that they did not expect the enemy strength they encountered on Omaha. I look forward to reading the comments on this thread.
Yes, there were enough German reserves that without continuous coverage, the Germans could have split the Allied lines and started flanking the weaker half of the invasion and pushed it back into the sea.
There were considerable German reserves further into France.
What saved us was our ability to command the skies and send in fighters to strafe and attack trains, truck convoys, troop columns at will. Not much is written about the number of fighter sorties launched in support of Normandy, but it was considerable effort on the part of the fighters and medium bombers to eliminate German reserves further inland.
In addition to the other reasons listed here, one of the biggest fears of the landing operation were that the long range guns of Point Du Hoc would offer devastating fire on the ships at sea and the other landing areas. The guns had been moved further in land and not in the shells that were along the shore line. The cliffs had to be scaled to neutralize the threat.
If the question is 'should the planners have left Omaha out' then the answer not relevant. What they planned for and what happened are two entirely different things. They missed landing areas, they didn't know they were facing experienced troops, they underestimated the length of open beach they would have to cross, and they especially did count on all the DD tanks sinking before making the beach.
Very little of Operation Over-Lord went as planned, however, that is exactly why it was such a success (i.e. paratroopers scattered all over the Cotentin Peninsula confused the Germans and prevented them from mounting defenses).
In fact, that is not a silly question. They were aware of risks and gambled on how the enemy would react. Don't get caught up second guessing or armchair quarterbacking, you weren't there at the time.
The plan and the beaches that were selected was the best bet for the invasion with the information the planners had at the time.
The reason why several beaches where hit instead of one because the last thing you want to do is bottle neck your force in one area. This would allow the enemy to slow down and slaughter your forces.
This is my simplistic take on the situation.
Giving up on Omaha Beach would have split the invasion force into two separate forces (usually not a good idea). Each unit in the invasion had specific tactical and strategic targets they were ordered to capture or destroy in the vicinity of their respective beaches. V Corps, 1st Infantry Division and 29th Infantry Division and later the 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions were sent to Omaha. Their mission was to establish a beachhead of about 5 miles inland at Omaha and to link up with the British units landing at Gold beach, and the VII Corps landing at Utah beach.
If Omaha was not held, units in reserve and units from the other beaches would have to been diverted from their mission objectives to link up the armies. You do not want a hole in your defenses that the enemy can pour troops into. A basic tactic in war is to flank your enemy, that is while you engage him head on, you also attack him on one of his sides. Having a enemy that can attack you in more than one direction causes all kinds of problems.
Also, if Omaha was not captured it would have at least delayed the invasion, and Hitler might of had the time to wake up and send in his reserves. Fortunately for us Hitler had taken a sleeping pill right before the invasion and given strict orders not to be woken. Time was important because many more troops would have died. In particular the airborne troops that were dropped behind enemy lines would need to be resupplied asap. Any delay might have been disastrous.
I could never understand the air strategery. Countless sorties left bases in England to lambaste the German positions in Normandy. They flew directly over, going west to east, dropped their ordnance then returned to base. To me, it would’ve made more sense to have flown parallel to the coast and continually hammered the Germans.
Often you can’t advance without the flanks being cleared. Artillery on or behind Omaha could fire left and right to Utah and Gold/Juno/Sword. Observers at Omaha could have adjusted artillery fire onto ships as the off loaded.
Folks inside bunkers are much less vulnerable to fire than folks outside of bunkers attempting to off load or advance.
There were many mistakes on D-Day. Taking Omaha was not one of them.
The other thing that helped at Omaha was the decision to abandon the plan to open the beach exits from the front. Rather, people went over the hill, then came around the back against the fortifications.
“Saving Private Ryan” gives a good flavor of that effort. “The Longest Day” doesn’t.
Aother thing overlooked which was a complete disaster and acknowledged as such was the operation 2 years prior to D-Day, the anniversary of which is today coincidentally, and that was the Dieppe operation. Dieppe was a complete and utter disaster but is referred to as the practice run for the D-day operation. Sorry, one of my courses in University was European History of WWII and I have walked the beaches of Normandy many a time. As others have mentioned to have split the formation and left Omaha would have led to another disaster like Dieppe.
Stephen Ambrose in "Citizen Soldiers" said that they, including a Polish destroyer, came in so close, their hulls were scraping bottom. Their fire was directed by some guy on the shore with a WWI signal lamp - the guys sent ashore to do this were all killed and their equipment destroyed. Point blank range with those guns saved many lives.
I read the B-26’s supporting Utah Beach flew parallel to the beach, and the B-24’s Supporting Omaha flew directly in.
How would the invasion have gone without the "Mulberry" harbor and breakwaters? That damned near happened except for an unsung American, Capt. Dayton Clark.
As the Mulberrys and Phoenix caissons were being built, they were shipped up coast to an isolated area and sunk, waiting to be re-floated just before the invasion and towed to the beaches. This guy kept telling anybody who would listen that the approach the British Army was taking wouldn't work - damned near got court-martialed because he kept at it when he was told to shut up.
Ellsberg, who was working on another project, was finally given the task to check it out. He was an old salvage expert and knew the ropes. Good God, Clark was right! The Brits had some Dutch tugs refitted with massive pumps to do the refloating. The only thing was, the pumps were sewage pumps taken from London and were meant to MOVE water along horizontally, not pump it UP from sunken hulls.
Long story short, Ellsberg backed Clark up and suggested the U.S. Navy take over. Churchill came down just days before the invasion, took a look, and yanked the army's Royal Engineers off the project and gave it to the Royal Navy (national pride), who saved the day. It was a near thing.
An interesting sidelight is that they also towed over the stripped down old WWI battleship "Centurion" with 80 guys on board. They brought her in, lined her up and scuttled her under heavy shore fire. The Germans were ecstatic as they thought they had sunk a battleship with a heavy loss of life as "less than 100 were seen abandoning ship".
There was also a grim epitaph for some of the crews of the tugs and "bombardons" (steel floating breakwaters) that were towed over. Many were attacked by E-boats. Ellsberg says they found one floating adrift, blood-spattered, without the tug and with no one aboard.
I doubt many people know what a near disaster that part of the invasion was.
One thing that has always interested me was walking past the Freya system as I stared at that infamous house that is shown in almost every movie about Normandy, but I still very much appreciate the fact that of all the people in the world that the French could have chosen to represent the Normans in the museum in Caen was none other than Charleston Heston. He was the one who they felt was the most perfect exmaple of someone with Norman characteristics! The actual museum for D-Day is not to be missed in any tour!
Maybe that would account for the fact that the landings at Utah were comparatively unopposed as compared to Omaha. Just sayin’.
From what I’ve read and from talking to a friend of mine who went in with the first wave at Utah beach, the current carried the landing force over a mile to the south of the intended landing area. As a result the landing occurred at a relatively unopposed portion of the beach. My friend said the worst part of Normandy for him was cutting down dead paratroopers from trees and such. He was wounded 3 times during his time in Europe.
It must really be interesting talking to your friend. He’s your connection with history. I can’t imagine too many more grisly tasks than cutting down your fellow warriors from the trees. A hand-salute to your friend.
The time it would have taken to do a scissor maneuver (pinch) would have give the German reserves inland, time to advance on the coast and would have exposed the troops on their flank while they took those beaches.
Our 101st Airborne Division was already scattered inland to capture critical bridges and roads, which helped split up the German defenses.
But the biggest help for our side was the German Command’s incompetent system, based on an Oligarchic chain of command. (Everything went through Hitler himself.) This was our greatest advantage and the miracle we had hoped and prayed for.
I just read a biography of Lucian Truscott Jr., who was along as an observer at Dieppe. It was indeed a disaster, and squandered many well trained men.
The most important thing in war is to learn as much as possible from the mistakes you make. The learning from mistakes at Dieppe was used to help assure successful landings in North Africa, where Truscott was Patton’s deputy.
Some of the Canadians who came back became the nucleus of the First Special Service Force assembled by LTC Fredricks (Later MG), which benefited greatly from the Candian’s experience. They took part in the amphibious retaking of Dutch Harbor, and had later operations in Italy. Many of the US soldiers left went to the 45th Division. Major General Fredricks went on to found US Special Forces as Commander of the Military Assistance Group to Greece.
Chuck did a great job in the movie “The Warlord”.
One interesting thing I discovered was trying to find accurate descriptions and books about the battle/massacre at Dieppe(although while I was there in ‘94 the local citizens were extremely rude).There are or were very few books out in 1994 about Dieppe although that may have changed by now. The cemetary itself is extremely impressive and the forces faced an impossible task, while the response to action to collect the troops from the British side was nothing short of miraculous!
He did indeed and I supplied you with a fascinating piece of trivia which very few people know about unless they hae actually toured the museum at Caen! Imagine using Charleston Heston as the model for a Norman because he most resembled the person with the perfect Norman features!
I visited the Museum in 1978 and 1979.
I was thrilled to actually see the Bayeax Tapestry...
I have a knife/poinard from William’s castle at Falaise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
