Really? I would have thought it would of made more sense to redirect them to Utah beach as the other American landing point. Any particular reason you can remember why they considered diverting to a British beach?
Yes. Heirich Severloh and his MG42. Coined "the Beast of Omaha Beach" was reputed to have personally caused 1,500 casualties alone, or half the total. His only help was the men who brought him ammunition.Really? I would have thought it would of made more sense to redirect them to Utah beach as the other American landing point. Any particular reason you can remember why they considered diverting to a British beach?
He must have been firing from the extreme left or right flank. I can't see him being given the chance to surrender...Yes. Heirich Severloh and his MG42. Coined "the Beast of Omaha Beach" was reputed to have personally caused 1,500 casualties alone, or half the total. His only help was the men who brought him ammunition.
He must have been firing from the extreme left or right flank. I can't see him being given the chance to surrender...![]()
Beast of Omaha Beach? I think that's a rather unfair name, from what I can see he was simply a soldier doing his duty.
Yes. Heirich Severloh and his MG42. Coined "the Beast of Omaha Beach" was reputed to have personally caused 1,500 casualties alone, or half the total. His only help was the men who brought him ammunition.
The danger of Omaha being repulsed has always been greatly overblown. The first wave was approaching the beach at around 05:30, by 09:30 (FOUR hours later) the 16th RCT had three full battalions up on the bluffs and sweeping inland. Effective resistance was over by 14:00, and by sunset service forces were landing on the beach. The beach was not even reinforced by the floating reserve.
What has made the landing seem so close to failure was the ease of the other beaches, which were very poorly opposed (Utah was damned near an Adminstrative Landing), even for the ETO. Still, Omaha was far from the most difficult amphibious landing by American troops in the war.
At Omaha the total casualty rate (KIA/WIA) was right around 7% or 3,000 out of 43,000 engaged that first day. The Marines took nearly 10% (3,300 out of total 35,000) taking Tarawa, with losses for the 2nd Marines close to 30%. Losses in the landing phase at Saipan were over 10% and the opening hours on Peleliu made Omaha look like they were lightly opposed.
Even in Europe, Omaha isn't the most difficult amphibious assault during the war in Europe, IMO that dubious honor goes to the Soviet crossings of the Dneiper in 1943 (where the Soviet awarded more "Hero" medals than during any other series of actions during the Great Patriotic War).
Omaha stands out because it happened on D-Day, it was/is a symbol of the sacrifices made by the Anglo/American forces in invading "Fortress Europe. It helps to get lots of coverage from popular historians and authors.
I suppose that's a matter of perspective, considering that he was fighting for the bad guys, and someone unfortunate enough to be on the recieving end of all that fire (or had a relative who was and didn't survive the experience) probably isn't going to have a very favorable opinion of that fellow.
The 1,500 casualties is a gross exaggeration. If true, one man with one machine gun would have been responsible for 50% of the casualties - the very definition of impossible and at some sections of the beach the german resistance was rather weak.
To answer the OP´s question: A failure at Omaha would have resulted in a slighty later linkup of the British and American beachheads.
1 German machine gun crew was responsible for over 1000 casualties at the Somme on the first day (well documented) so it is certainly possible to do this if the crew is in the right location and has enough ammo... that crew in ww1 fired over 11,000 rounds that day