Omaha Beach goes under

Typo

Banned
What if on D-Day the omaha assault is a failure? Obviously the 4 other beaches are still huge successes, but how does the immediate aftermath after landings go?
 
in OTL, Eisenhower was already considering closing Omaha and rerouting the addition troops to one of the British beaches, I forget which one though.
 
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?
 
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?

Utah wasn't as important as Sword or Gold.
 
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.
 
Well my first thought is that the Allies could pinch off the Germans at Omaha by attacking east and west respectively. However the artillery at Omaha could harass the landing at the other beaches (or the very least Utah.). It might slow things down leading to a stiffer German defense.
 
Bitte! Bitte! BITTE THIS!! Brrrrrrrrrrp!

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...:mad:
 

Deleted member 1487

From what I understand that was more hype and turned out to be a half-truth at best. Given the amount of bullets flying through the air there was simply no way to credit one man with half the casualties of Omaha. The only time I've heard about it was a news article, not in any scholarly books about the subject.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Hasn't there been research done in recent years that has advanced the idea that the rerouting of a US Ranger battalion from Utah to Omaha is the reason for Omaha not collapsing? It's not in the books by Hastings and Keegan et al that I've relied on for my knowledge about D-Day, it's recent scholarship that I saw repeated in a British TV documentary. The hardcore military history people here might know about it (is this episode in Beevor's recent book?)

I guess this is one possible PoD.

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.

I'm not surprised that American war reportage/popular historiography would demonise an enemy figure like this (whether he existed or not). The war was seriously traumatic for the regular US infantry divisions that went into combat during 1943/45. That phrase of the war has been compared to Vietnam by some writers--the average dogface suffered from terrible morale, moreso than the elite US troops we see in the Hanks/Spielberg productions.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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.
 
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.

Agreed Comrade Calbear... although Anzio deserves a close second... the whole damn beach head was 6 x 15 miles and entirely in range and observation of German artillery for endless weeks
 

Markus

Banned
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.
 
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
 

Deleted member 1487

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

Against unexperienced men weighted down with 60kg of gear, advancing in block formation at a trot by orders of the commanders.

Omaha was with highly trained men with plenty of cover advancing in dashes and dropping their gear asap. This was not the longest day with men running up the beaches en masse.
 
Top