Mulberry A (Omaha Beach) is not destroyed

The Mulberry harbour at Omaha beach was supposed to be used to supply the US forces but was mostly destroyed by a storm soon after Overlord began. Bits of it were used to reinforce and repair the British Mulberry and it was abandoned. What difference would it have made if it had continued to operate? Would the Normandy campaign have concluded earlier?
 
The Mulberry harbour at Omaha beach was supposed to be used to supply the US forces but was mostly destroyed by a storm soon after Overlord began. Bits of it were used to reinforce and repair the British Mulberry and it was abandoned. What difference would it have made if it had continued to operate? Would the Normandy campaign have concluded earlier?

Probably not.

However if you remove the storm and delay in the Allied build-up, then it might make a difference. In particular an earlier Epsom might be more successful.
 
Cant find my copy of Ruppenthal 'Logistics in Overlord'. From memory the discharge across OMAHA Beach in July & August came close to the pre invasion estimates for the Mulberry A. Rear Adm Ellesberg. one of the top USN salvage officers published his account of restoring the badly damaged harbor. The main difference between the July-September harbor & the original planned was the salvaged dock materials were removed to Mulberry B and set up there. Both Mulberrys reduced the dependance on the outer floating breakwater & those pontoons were among the first items to be returned to the UK to salvage the steel. The Gooseberry & Phenix breakwaters were damaged, but still functional. That allowed the steady use of lighter discharge from the anchored cargo ships and ferries to shore. Altogether the open beach intake on Utah Beach and the sheltered Omaha Beach took in enough to sustain a average of 15-18 divisions with corps/army overhead in sustained offensive combat. Some where between 10,000 & 15,000 tons daily. In comparison the port of Cherbourg was restored in latter July to its nominal peace time average of 8,000 tons daily. Additional repair and improvements raised the daily intake to 20,000 tons in August, and a brief surge peak of 25,000 tons in September.

If I can find the books I'll post figures direct from them, including something for the B port.
 
Cant find my copy of Ruppenthal 'Logistics in Overlord'. From memory the discharge across OMAHA Beach in July & August came close to the pre invasion estimates for the Mulberry A. Rear Adm Ellesberg. one of the top USN salvage officers published his account of restoring the badly damaged harbor. The main difference between the July-September harbor & the original planned was the salvaged dock materials were removed to Mulberry B and set up there. Both Mulberrys reduced the dependance on the outer floating breakwater & those pontoons were among the first items to be returned to the UK to salvage the steel. The Gooseberry & Phenix breakwaters were damaged, but still functional. That allowed the steady use of lighter discharge from the anchored cargo ships and ferries to shore. Altogether the open beach intake on Utah Beach and the sheltered Omaha Beach took in enough to sustain a average of 15-18 divisions with corps/army overhead in sustained offensive combat. Some where between 10,000 & 15,000 tons daily. In comparison the port of Cherbourg was restored in latter July to its nominal peace time average of 8,000 tons daily. Additional repair and improvements raised the daily intake to 20,000 tons in August, and a brief surge peak of 25,000 tons in September.

If I can find the books I'll post figures direct from them, including something for the B port.

The real loss of supply was the days when the storm shut down near all discharge. For three days next to nothing was unloaded at either port & both had a period of reduced discharge during restoration. That put a week plus hole in 21 Army Group supply & hindered the formation of a reserve.
 
Beach discharges Ruppenthal.PNG
These are the figures from Ruppenthal. So if they got more off the beaches than from the portable port, and the portable port shut down during a storm, does that mean that the efforts of 50,000 people could have been better used for something else?

Average Daily Tonnage of Supplies Landed, Normandy 1944[25]

Beach/Port | D+30 | D+60
Mulberry |6,750 | 6,750
Omaha | 1,200 | 10,000
Isigny | 500 | 1,300
Grandcamp | 500 | 900
Utah | 8,000 | 6,000
total beaches | 9,200 | 16,000
 

Attachments

  • Port discharges Ruppenthal.PNG
    Port discharges Ruppenthal.PNG
    156 KB · Views: 97
Last edited:
View attachment 340695 These are the figures from Ruppenthal. So if they got more off the beaches than from the portable port, and the portable port shut down during a storm, does that mean that the efforts of 50,000 people could have been better used for something else?
I dont think so. None of this shows the discharge at Mulberry B. Not sure why Ruppenthal excludes that. Having those numbers would suggest the answer. Also the higher intake at Omaha reflects the existance of the breakwater, the beaching ramps, & the port operations unit. The portion of the 50,000 men operating at Omaha beach in the operations unit included communications equipment, cranes, tents for dry storage, tug boats, & all the other accoutrements of a port. It only lack the docks the Mulberry B had after the storm. The lower intake at UTAH beach reflects that it was set up for straight beach discharge, as on the beachheads elsewhere.

A good look at the improvement to Cherbourg shows the difference between a harbor & a beach. The capacity of the port was about doubled through adding docks, beaching ramps, a second rail spur & switch track, construction of dry storage ashore, rebuilding/expanding the telephone/radio capacity. But, the bottom line for both Mulberrys and Cherbourg is they had break waters which allow faster discharge from the ships.
 
Without the numbers for Mulberry B, & Juno Beach its difficult to estimate a difference. For illustrative purposes; if no storm means a additional 15% of material landed in June/July then it could result in the German army reaching its breaking point over a week earlier, & one or the other Allied army breaking out around 22 July vs early August.
 
A good look at the improvement to Cherbourg shows the difference between a harbor & a beach. The capacity of the port was about doubled through adding docks, beaching ramps, a second rail spur & switch track, construction of dry storage ashore, rebuilding/expanding the telephone/radio capacity. But, the bottom line for both Mulberrys and Cherbourg is they had break waters which allow faster discharge from the ships.

Isigny | 500 | 1,300
Grandcamp | 500 | 900

These were just small fishing ports and didn't have any cranes, was a similar effort made to upgrade them, too? Were they badly damaged by the Germans/the assault?
 
Isigny & Grandcamp were captured in June, before Cherbourg. They were tiny fishing ports. They were dredged and some other improvements made so they could accommodate a bit more. I'm guessing the small coaster cargo ships & maybe some LST used them. Their intake is usually included with either Cherbourg or Mulberry B.
 
Top