This turned up on my Quora feed, which appears to resist linking. Its by someone called Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty who describes himself as a "Senior Controller at Nato". Dunno the truth of that but if you google his name he apparently comments quite frequently of military matters, past and present. A take on D Day I haven't heard before....

Could the US have landed on Omaha Beach on D Day with less casualties?

Of course.

If the Americans had followed British advice. The main problem was navigation. There were very few landmarks that could be used to determine ones position. So the British had scouted the coastline (some divers went ashore) and had constructed picket ships.These were small boats with a searchlight shining away from the coast. These searchlight were colored and had patterns in them that allowed
aircraft and ships to determine their position at night and at dawn.

Very simple, very effective. The Americans refused to use these. So the airborne troops missed most of their drop zones that night. At dawn, the US Navy shelled the wrong positions and the USAAF bombed the wrong positions. This means the German artillery in the dunes was still intact. On top of that, again ignoring all British advice, the Americans launched their amphibious tanks too soon and most sank.

But it gets worse. Omaha was defended by bunkers at both ends, but the middle was nearly undefended. Yet without those picket ships, US troops were landed smack in front of the intact bunkers at both edges. Those troops that were put ashore in the middle now faced the intact German artillery in the dunes. If you realize that in a modern war at least 75 % of casualties is caused by artillery fire, you realize in what a pickle these troops found themselves.

On to top it off, the supply craft landed in the wrong areas as well so the troops in the middle of Omaha were out of supplies rather quickly and under constant artillery fire. Forget all those stories about heavy machine gun fire and a high seawall....

[ A photograph here captioned "This is that famous seawall at Omaha, most photographs published in the US press were from Utah Beach".]

...Rather than admit the Americans screwed up, the American press started the myth of Omaha being the toughest nut to crack with heavy machine gun fire and an impenetrable seawall. The film the Longest Day (Hollywood) perpetuated that myth an Saving Private Ryan didn’t help either. In reality, Omaha was the least defended beach. You can still visit the fortification and the seawall today.

No once you realize what was really going on, you also understand why the tanks should have landed in the middle of Omaha Beach, here they could easily move into the dunes and clean up any remaining German resistance. That famous seawall should have worked in favour of the Americans.

Basically, it was arrogance that killed those young men, not the Germans.

I walked Omaha Beach even years back, now I wish I woulda spent more time. I'm not sure what his point is about the seawall, its a low affair as depicted in "Saving Private Ryan". What I wish I would have done is spend time on the sandy elevations above the beach (nowadays the military cemetery sits right up top and IIRC the side above the beach is fenced off). I dunno what fortifications remain there, I don't recall seeing a bunch above the beach, not like Point du Hoc for example.

Interesting

Can’t really say with any auburn it sounds plausible. America did not take the British Admiralty’s advice on escorting convoys and blackouts along the shoreline. They lost a lot of tonage because of their arrogance. Mistakes were made.

And all because the French had no balls in 1939

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.

Well, next time, the British can save their own arses.

I doubt it.

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.

Who might save ours? Look at the pull-out debacle in Afghanistan — the worst I’ve felt, and the most embarrassed I’ve been as an American. Vietnam fell to second place.

Interesting Birdwatcher.

Sounds like more lying to us as they have always done!

Could have
Would have
Should have

All perspectives looking back at what went down afterwards.


And the Brits had their Dieppe Fiasco too....

A Canadian buddy’s dad said the Canadians landed before the Americans. I have not looked into it much but it sure sounded like the Canadians faced a tough landing. Were the casualties different?
One of my great uncle survived Tarawa in the pacific, he threw his medals in the ocean in disgust, he did not have kind things to say about management.

We could have bombed the beaches and inland better, combined arms….

Monday morning quarterback, good example is if Patton followed Montgomery advise

Just a guess?

That might have had to do with getting the troops ashore at specific windows in time related to daylight and tides.

And before German arty, tanks, and troops had time to respond to the invasion. Much effort had gone toward convincing Germany that Normandy was NOT the site of the coming invasion.

The British already had, long before the US joined the war.

Perfect example of Monday morning Quarterback!!

I visited Omaha Beach in 1963. It was a grey, foggy day and the environment was little changed from D Day, if at all. I saw no easy path to anywhere and the whole assault scene looked pretty daunting to me.
Later that year I watched "The Longest Day." Omaha Beach and the movie were sobering experiences by themselves. Unforgettable in combination.

Brave men. God bless them.

Absolutely!

Speaking of Monday morning quarterbacking…..I’m “watching” episode 3 of the PBS Holocaust documentary. I haven’t watched the series because after episode 1 I became annoyed enough. I’m not a denier and I’ve walked through the bleakness of Dachau but I get disgusted by anyone that puts ANY blame on us for not doing enough! Ungrateful sons of bitches….🤬🤬🤬

Dieppe was a study in what NOT to do in an amphib landing. They lost their azz on that one but learned from it.

The Marines at Guadalcanal learned a lot, too.

My uncle got to the beach the hard way- - - -swimming through burning oil after his landing craft got hit by artillery fire. His back was scarred for the rest of his life, from his shoulders to his waist. Those burns probably saved his life, as most of the rest of his original unit were wiped out at the battle of the bulge, while he got assigned to a different outfit after spending a lot of time in a field hospital.

Canadian forces landed at Juno beach.
This link has a map and details-
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/normandy-invasion#SecrecyandPlanning

I agree about the Monday morning quarterbacking but if the press back then were like ours today, Eisenhower would have been raked over the coals for getting those guys killed when he ran for President as opposed to being a heroic figure....unless of course he had run as a democrat.

Of course, that's always the case with such an operation as grand as Omaha. So what?

Craters to seek cover in…. I’ve read or heard it said that most of the bombardment went to far inland to any good.

And if they had put up the lights, and the lights were discovered by a random patrol or even a soldier out for an evening walk….. the Germans might have realized what was coming and moved troops and armor around to defend Normandy, creating a much bigger disaster.

What if……is a game that goes both ways.

My hunting buddies father got lucky and got put on one of the decoy ships, I think he said around Norway to make it look like an allied invasion up that way.

What saves ALL of us at Normandy was Adolph Hitler. Even though von Rundstedt and Rommel had different ideas on how to repel an invasion(both KNEW it was Normandy and not at Pais de Calais), had he given them authority to move the 15th Panzer Army down in time, it would have been a LOT worse. And did I mention I grow weary of the ignorant "next time they can save their own asses" bullshit?

The main factor for the increased casualties at Omaha was the weather. It led to a cascade of other problems. If they had better weather, all sorts of things would have happened differently.

The bombing of the shore installations would have probably gone off. Low cloud cover caused the bombers to miss their mark significantly. This kept the beach fortifications intact and allowed the Krauts to put their MGs on the cliffs firing down.

If the surf was not as high, they would have been able to land the amphibious Shermans that were almost all drowned. If I remember, only one got onto the beach, and it did a bang-up job taking out German emplacements. Twenty of them making it to the beach would have been devastating.

There are a multitude of these what-ifs, and they all go back to the marginal weather. Ike knew this going in. It was a crap shoot.

Read:
The Far Shore (Annotated)
by Edward Ellsberg (Author)

Ellsberg was an informed eyewitness at Omaha.

At that point in history precision wasn't part of bombing. It is what we had to fight with. The greater truth is it was an operation pulled off on a grand scale with great coordination. Those men deserve our respect and admiration for what they did and the sacrifices they made.

I think the whole thing was a bad idea. I am sure we could have starved them easier . We also had no reason to invade some of the Japanese Islands. They were mostly out of food. Aint no one going to fight much with an empty stomach. Yes, this is hindsight, but what were those people thinking? Like many wars, it's a rich mans war and a poor mans fight.

Quick side storry.

Buddy of mine as a new private in Ranger Regiment was assigned "Bleacher Duty" for a jump demonstration during their annual Ranger Rendezvous.

An old man with a cane who could barely put one foot in front of the other approached the edge of the bleachers and paused. My buddy extended his hand and took the old fella by the elbow to help him up.

The old timer vigorously slapped his hand away and said "I climbed point du hawk M_TH_R F_CK_R, I can get up these bleachers!"

ABSOLUTELY.

The US learned a sad lesson about those tides the year before at Tarawa. They needed an extra high tide to get the landing boats over the reefs surrounding the islands. They miscalculated the tide and got a lot of men killed. The boats were bottoming out on the reefs and were sitting targets for Japanese gunners. My uncle piloted one of them. He got his boat in and unloaded. On the way back out for another load, a motar round landed in his boat. He spent the next year in a hospital.

I know nothing about the beaches and sandbars at Normandy but misreading the tides can be deadly.

And perhaps American staff planners had some reservations about British planning and tactics. Almost everyone can agree the British high command squandered lives shamelessly in WW1. Remember the old military saying, 'Generals are always fighting the last war', US planners may have had the criminal waste of manpower in France a mere 25 years before, in mind, and were shy of using British plans.

The Somme comes to mind.

dave

Tks.

IIRC the Brits were notably less aggressive than the Americans, taking a month or more to take Caen. This may have been repeated by some of their units (not the airborn troops) in Market Garden.

But, after five years of war they were actually running out of combat-age men by that point.

Bird, I take exception to only one word of your post, I would substitute your word "aggressive" and enter "effective'. I think the Brits were so disciplined that they would not adapt to a changing battlefield. Dogma, follow the plan at all costs, discipline, tradition above all else. The yanks would push, feint, feel out....find a weak spot and quickly take advantage. Classic Patton? But, I have been called many things, never a strategist.

In the article I posted the guy does skip over the prior amphibious landings by US Army troops.

Casablanca, Oran and Algiers (Operation Torch) 1942
Sicily 1943
Salerno 1943
Anzio 1944

Plus the Pacific Theater, so it weren’t like it was our first time at bat.

figfhting Frogs and Gunies is not the same as Germans.

I shall have to read Atkinson’s “The Guns at Last Light” again, the last part of his outstanding WWII trilogy. It might have been there I read of American incredulity when British troops in Normandy insisted on 4pm tea breaks.

That rang a bell with me, who grew up in 1960’s Working Class England. The often petty demands of the omnipresent trade unions absolutely crippled British industry, contributing in a major way to its decline. Sounded like a similar mindset at play in Normandy.

We might mention the Dieppe disaster- Operation Jubilee- 1942, at this point. It should have never went forward after original plan for naval and bomber support was removed. Waste of life to placate Stalin and get a few
Americans killed in the process. The Brits own that one.

I did read a report of another landing where some Brits were onboard American ships and were furious with what they considered cowardice of craft staying too far from shore. Still looking for that and will share if I find.

For instance, The Philippines. Nimitz argued hard for bypassing them. FDR was persuaded by you know who.

Sure, they could have... could you imagine what could have been had the military and congress not been so skeptical and afraid of air transportation when it came to troops. The U.S. blew its chance back in early '42 when Kaiser and Hughs wanted to build the Hercules... had they gotten fully behind the idea instead of restricting materials used and considering it as a crazy idea. Things would have been very different. It would have been completed well within the time frame of D-Day. With a capacity of 750 fully armed troops instead of the C-47's messily 28, and once we had air superiority it could have easily landed battalions behind enemy lines using Frances larger lakes and bays. Germany wasn't expecting invasion by air, even though they had made great use of large transports themselves. Throughout all of WW2 the U.S. was far superior in ability to manufacture in great numbers. But was drastically outclassed in technology and the willingness to follow-through with ideas that they stooped to using manpower in ways as it it was still the civil war.


Phil

interesting thought Greyghost. It is hard to fault them for not approving the air invasion. That is a lot of eggs in every basket and air crew\air plane losses were still horrendous, especailly in '42. Higher casualty rates than marines. Thinking that was in their heads and even with air superiority you would have to account for antiaircraft. I suppose it if were possible to land within range of naval bombardment and combine air forces with naval support ....might have been an interesting tactic. Being able to land plane after plane behind enemy lines though.......logistics and supply headache.

Gliders seemed a brilliant idea for D-day. Would not have wanted to be in one but I like the out of boxness of it.

At that time massive air invasion was really not feasible due to the casualty rate. Take a look at the the Me323 losses. The sent 27 fully loaded across to North Africa at one point in 1943, about 3,510 troops. They lost 17 with about 2,210 troops killed something like 60+ percent losses. That level is not sustainable.

I agree that the HK-1 could have made a major contribution to the war effort, but even with massively increased funding they could not possibly have manufactured enough working aircraft to enter combat by the end of the war, let alone by June of 1944. Even with the accelerated pace of the War Years, it took a lot of time to take an aircraft from concept, to development, to prototype, to flight test, and finally to manufacturing.

For example, the North American P-51 Mustang was produced in a phenomenally short time period for its day: the initial development contract was awarded in May, 1940, but by the time all the bugs had been worked out, manufacturing of the P-51B didn't start until the summer of 1943. The first battle-ready aircraft didn't start arriving in Europe until the winter of 1943-44. That's a 3.5-year timeline, from concept to flying the aircraft over Europe. And that was a relatively simple project, a single-engine fighter.

Multi-engine aircraft were and are a much, much more formidable problem for design and manufacture. Boeing began initial development of the B-29 design in 1938, was awarded a development contract in 1939, produced prototype for wind tunnel and other static testing in 1940, but did not produce the first flying prototype until September, 1942. By the time Boeing had worked all the worst of the bugs out of the Superfortress and it was able to fly its first combat mission, it was June, 1944. That was a 6-1/2 year development time. And the B-29 was not an 8-engined aircraft. The complexities involved in producing a reliable airworthy 8-engine seaplane would have exceeded those of the B-29 by a large margin.

The development contract for the HK-1/Spruce Goose/Hercules was awarded in 1942, and was funded as well as any other military aircraft development contract could expect to be. But even if they had had all the advantages North American had with the P-51, and had been able to somehow complete the development process in 3.5 years, HK-1's couldn't have possibly been pressed into war service until 1945 at the earliest. The R-4360 Wasp Major engine (the engine that was eventually used by Hughes in the test flights of Spruce Goose in 1947) was the only engine produced in WW2 that had the power to get the HK-1 airborne, and it wasn't developed until 1944 and production didn't become viable until after V-J Day.

It's amazing that Howard Hughes was able to fly the only prototype in 1947, only 5 years later. But even this wasn't a true service-ready aircraft, as it was only capable of flying a few hundred feet in ground effect, and it's probable that a fully functional HK-1 wouldn't have been available until 1948 or 1949.

#Pards

The problem was in getting materials. The B-29 wasn't designed until May 1940 and the first aircraft was completed in Aug 1941, the problems with its engines was due to its fitment to the B-29, it went through a lot of testing and changes due to its requirements mainly having to be pressurized and its high-altitude requirement. Besides the fact that it never was planned to be used in Europe. On the other hand, the Spruce Goose was constantly at a snail's pace because of all the restrictions place upon it and the withholding of aluminum and other materials. Causing Kaiser to become so frustrated that he withdrew from his own idea. It was still designed in just 16 months. But it also didn't have the requirement of having to fly at high altitude or require pressurization. The engines originally planned for it was the R-3300 which was designed in 1937. Two different engines. As to the ground effect, all aircraft take advantage of that to take off, less so for high winged aircraft but it helps with sea planes just as much as those on land, but not so much after it rises past some 20% of its wingspan. The aircraft also never was planned to take off in Long Beach harbor and fly out to sea when it became airborne. But the whole point of my statement was that had the plane been given the go ahead early and the rush through of other projects, and the material to build it of aluminum, with the R-3300 engines, it could have been finished in quantity by late '44. Instead of or in conjunction with the beach invasion. As to air superiority, we already had that.
As to feasibility, all you have to look at is the Boeing/Pan Am 314 Clippers which had an outstanding history from 1939 to well into the '50's with only 4 - 1,600 hp engines instead of 8 - 3,700 hp engines.


Phil

Phil, all due respect, but your reply is just shoulda-woulda-coulda and wishful thinking. The problem was NOT availability of materials The problem was finding an engine of sufficient power for the size of the aircraft. The HK-1 could not have flown before a sufficiently powerful engine was available.

I must reiterate that the engines Hughes eventually used (Pratt &Whitney Wasp Major) was not developed for production until 1944, and not available in any numbers until 1945. Advances in engine technology and supercharging during WW2 proceeded very quickly, yes. But seriously, there was no engine in the production that could have made the HK-1 fly in time for D-Day in 1944.

Again, the most critical component the HK-1 needed was an engine of sufficient power. Let's look at the 3 aircraft you mentioned (plus the workhorse DC-3) and it becomes readily apparent why:

Aircraft Empty Weight (lb) Gross Weight (fully loaded and fueled) Engine HP Total HP HP/Wt Ratio

Pan-Am Clipper (Boeing 314): 48,400 84,000 Wright Twin Cyclone (4) 1600 hp 6400 0.74
Boeing B-29 74,500 120,000 Wright Duplex Cyclone (4) 2200 8800 0.73
Hughes HK-1 250,000 400,000 P&W Wasp Major (8) 3000 hp 24,000 0.60
Douglas DC-3 16,800 25,200 P&W 1800 Twin Wasp (2) 1200 2400 0.95

Even running 8 Wasp Majors, the HK-1's horsepower to weight ratio was really low. Hughes said after the single flight of the aircraft that he would not fly it again until "further development" could be done. The only thing that could realistically help it was to put more power into it, and that would have required (probably) jet engines.

There is no way the Wright R-3350 could have powered the HK-1. Eight R-3350s would have made only 17,600 hp, for a horsepower to weight ratio of 0.44.

We might wonder if they had constructed it out of aluminum instead of wood, it might have been a bit lighter, but that's comparing apples to oranges... the construction techniques for wood vs metal are completely different. There is only one example I know of that has some relevance, and that is comparison between the DeHavilland Mosquito (wood) and the Argentine I.Ae.24 Calquin (aluminum). The Argentines basically duplicated the shape and size of the Mosquito in metal. The Calquin was about 18% lighter than the mosquito when empty, but when fully fueled and loaded was identical in weight. So even if they had made the HK-1 of aluminum, they would still have needed to wait for the Wasp Major to get it into the air.

Another "armchair general".

It’s war and mistakes will be made. The British weren’t infallible. Monty’s egg was laid on operation market garden.

Except that your math is wrong, guess you forgot your glasses. hp/lb... the R3300 series of engines had many ratings, but it also had cooling problems which was exasperated i the limited space of the B-29, the version 42WA which was originally to be used in the Hughes aircraft was rated for 3700 hp, and as much as 3,800 hp.


8 x 3,700 = 29,600 hp.

29,600 hp / 400,000 mw = 0.074 hp per pound,


slightly better than that of the B-29, which was 0.073.


Phil