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.
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.
