ALL military battles from Concord to Guadalcanal to Thermopylae to Omaha Beach to Fallujah COULD have been fought differently. Every battle is able to be dissected and studied AFTER the fact. The benefit of hindsight being 20/20 is advantageous for the NEXT battle but it does nothing to change the past. I’ve never doubted that Omaha could’ve been fought in a multitude of different ways. Some of those changes in battle doctrine would have potentially saved lives while other changes to the battle plans at Omaha would’ve resulted in far greater casualties. It’s no different than the “butterfly affect”….
Who truly knows how much of a difference various changes in their initial approach to Omaha would’ve affected the overall outcome of the combined landing forces and the outcome and casualty figures for the ENTIRE allied “invasion”?
Learning from our mistakes is how we grow and become better and I don’t think there’s a shorter learning curve than when one is staring death in the face.
The reality is that old farts with outdated egos have always been the biggest danger to the young men in America. Whether they are dipshit politicians that view the lives of our sons as cheap and send our boys to fight and die for the benefit of the elite “protecting” our “vital interests”, which is code for money, oil and tyrannical power….or they’re politically motivated generals who are more concerned with their future political careers and padding their egos than they are about the lives of our boys.
Saying that the number of deaths in the battle for XYZ were higher because the egos of the brass were involved is the same as saying that the sun rose this morning…..it’s not hardly worth mentioning because it’s a known and universal truth.
Lots of truth in that. Hindsight is always better than foresight. There were a lot of Marines killed in the Pacific, capturing islands that could have been bypassed. Every war ever fought is thought for discussion.
