Talk:Omaha Beach/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ohama Beach Now

Is there any evidence left of the beach from WW2? Like the towers that the Germans used on the Americans? It would also be nice if there was more photos of the beach rather than just WW2 photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.225.24 (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Omaha beach lesbraves-1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Omaha beach lesbraves-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

References for research

I just finished reading Omaha Beach: A Flawed Victory by Adrian Lewis. He goes into great detail the planning for D-Day and how planners (COSSAC and Overlord planners alike) triend to blend US amphibious doctrine (read USMC in Pacific) and Briths/American amphibious doctrine (read Operations Torch, Huskey, and Dragoon) into planning for Overlord. He criticizes the paucity of pre-landing bombardment (30 min); ineffective bombing by stratetic bombers not capable of knocking out tactical targets (bunkers, beach defenses, etc.); overloaded troops (nearly 100 lbs of gear; lack of beach artillery (mos DDs didn't make it); use of green troops (116 RCT and 4th ID at Utah) and the overall planning that eshewed tactical surprise (by not attacking at night) but didn't compensate with enough pre-landing bombing. The lessons were there to learn from USMC landings in the Pacific (where bombardment on Okinawa lasted several days) and that by creating a hyrbid invasion plan (American and British invasion doctrine) the end result was a langing that went terribly wrong and that was salvaged by the junior officers and NCOs who managed to get troops back into the fight and USN and RN destroyers that braved coastal fire to bring naval gunfire on German targets and effectively took them out. A good read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.71 (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The landings in Normandy cannot realistically be compared to the landings in the Pacific. Normandy has a first world road and rail network by which reinforcements might be quickly brought in by the defenders, in addition, the area's defences had been strongly reinforced in the years prior to 1944 and included numerous anti-aircraft guns as well as radar. It was also supported by large forces of German armour that were located between the two likely Allied invasion sites of the Pas-de-Calais and Normandy, forces which could comparatively quickly be moved to the areas in which any invasion took place, forces BTW which almost certainly dwarfed any used in the Pacific by the Japanese, both in numbers and in firepower.

Part of the invasion did take place at night, Operation Deadstick, the rest had to wait until daylight because of the difficulties co-ordinating numerous forces at night and in unreliable weather and because the invasion fleet of several thousand ships had to avoid being discovered by German photo-reconnaissance aircraft during the journey to Normandy which meant them sailing at night to arrive off the invasion beaches at first light. The approaches to the five invasion beaches were all mined (as were the beaches themselves) and had to be swept, this had to be done immediately before the landings or else the defenders would know where the invasion was taking place, and when. The defenders had numerous S boot and other craft nearby capable of intercepting any invasion fleet or interfering with the minesweeping as well as a number of Luftwaffe units stationed in Northern France equipped with modern fighters and medium bombers.

Operation Overlord was possibly the most complex and technically difficult operation in military history and anyone who thinks any other operation is comparable doesn't understand 'Overlord' at all. It wasn't just the invasion of one or two isolated islands, it was the invasion of an industrialised continent of-which the enemy had undisputed control over the entire western region. It was because of the enormity of the task facing the invaders that the Mulberry harbours and Operation PLUTO were devised.

BTW, unlike the Okinawans, the French locals in Normandy were friendly and would no doubt have suffered even more than they did if they had undergone 'a bombardment... lasted several days'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—173.67.149.53 (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to make the coordinates closer to the midpoint of the beach. If you had something else in mind, please post more specific details in a new section, including the {{geodata-check}} template. Deor (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Location of Omaha Beach

I believe the location is described incorrectly. It should be from west of Sainte-Honorine-des-Pertes to east of Vierville-sur-Mer on the right bank of the Douve River estuary.

The west and east are around the wrong way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidshooter (talk • contribs) 07:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Allied Bias

Why is this article written almost entirely from an Allied perspective? Most articles on a battle give a balanced narrative. This is written very much from the perspective of the invaders.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Don't you mean "liberators,"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE64:7500:A5F7:EC93:DCD2:7924 (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

1st target

On D-Day, the untested 29th Infantry Division, joined by the veteran 1st Infantry Division and nine companies of U.S. Army Rangers redirected from Pointe du Hoc, were to assault the western half of the beach. The battle-hardened 1st Infantry Division was given the eastern half.

Is the 1st Infantry Division assaulting both halves of Omaha Beach? Or does "eastern half" mean half of the western half of the beach, so the second quarter from the west?

Jmichael ll (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. 149.172.44.31 (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Shrapnel

The last sentence of the article uses the phrase "particles of shrapnel" to reference war sand. However, the article on shrapnel indicates that very little "shrapnel" was used in WWII, and none at Omaha Beach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

German Artillery Sector names on Omaha

I have recently learned that the Germans had sector names marked along the whole beach for artillery and mortars. I was reading a Stephen Ambrose book about D-Day where he describes Oberleutnant Bernhard Frerking commanding the artillery from WN62 and calling out "Target Dora! Target Frieda!" Does anyone know all of the target names and their specific locations marked along the beach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theakker3 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Contemporary context?

I came to this article to research the beach itself only to find it focuses soley on the D-day landings. After reading the article I am still unclear as to what the geograhical feature is called. The opening sentence of the lead section states: Omaha Beach was the code name for one of the five sectors of the Allied invasion...., if this is true then one can assume that as it is only a code name, the actual beach would have a real name. The next sentence, however, goes on to say: Omaha is located on the coast of Normandy....., thus making it unclear whether the actual beach is named Omaha or not.

The rest of the article also uses Omaha to refer to the beach itself such as in the last paragraph: Today at Omaha jagged remains of the harbor can be seen at low tide.

If the actual name of the beach is Omaha then we need to change the opening sentence as it is the definig context for the entire article.

If the beach has a different name then we need to incorporate that information into the article for clarifacation, thus allowing a researher like myself to find the correct article.Gehyra Australis (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The name 'Omaha Beach' is purely a code name, invented by the allied planners. That next sentence is just shorthand - I think all the Normandy landing zones; Sword, Gold, Juno, Utah, and Omaha, were and are referred to in this way. I see your point, but I'm not sure that the actual beaches have their own specific geographic names, and if they do, I couldn't find any reference to them. Come to think of it, do any beaches have specific names, or do they simply take the name of a prominent nearby landmark? I used to go on holiday to Newquay, where Fistral beach takes its name from the bay there, and Crantock beach from the nearest town. The only specific beach name I can think of is Chesil Beach. FactotEm (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Pre-invasion naval bombardment section

This sub-section is entirely out of place, coming as it does in the Breakthrough section. Personally I think it has no place in the article at all; it's post-event armchair general analysis, and not relevant to the actual events of the day, and this article was always about what happened that day. I intend to delete it unless someone can suggest a way in which the information can be incorporated more elegantly into the article. It certainly cannot stay in it's current location. FactotEm (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It could be worked into the 'plan of attach' and 'aftermath' sections, alongside discussions of the problems with the pre-invasion air bombardment. The adequacy of the pre-invasion air and naval bombardment is a key part of most analysis of what went wrong at Omaha Beach I've seen. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already relocated the whole section to the plan of attack section, but agree that the part dealing with the adequacy or otherwise is better placed in the aftermath section. FactotEm (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Naval Support at Omaha and Other Beaches.

Perhaps a bit nitpicking but given the British infobox inclusion for naval support at Omaha: the Free French cruiser Montcalm also supported Omaha (and may have been the first allied ship to open fire on Omaha), Canadian Minesweepers were (I believe) the first to come close inshore at Omaha, and Norwegian and Polish ships gave naval support in the British and Canadian sectors. These are just a few of the inconsistencies with the infobox inclusions/exclusions for the Normandy Invasion Beach articles. I am noting this here instead of editing because I realize the sensitivity of many folk to these issues. Juan Riley (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I've queried the criteria by which nations are included as belligerents in the infobox over at the Milhist wikiproject FactotEm (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Other Allied naval support

The lead currently states that naval support included contributions from "...the British, Canadian, Free French, and other Allied navies." (my emphasis). I am not disputing the three named - they are referenced in the article and reliably sourced. I do, however, question the 'other Allied' contributions. Until today this part of the statement was not referenced anywhere in the main article. User:Nick-D has added information to the effect that Australian personnel served aboard British ships, and that this constitutes contributions from other allied navies (I think that's a fair assessment, but I'm sure he'll correct me if I've got it wrong). I disagree that such postings constitute a distinct national contribution, and cannot be used to justify the 'other Allied' statement. Looking for comments on this. FactotEm (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is here - the Royal Australian Navy did contribute, albeit in a tiny way. The British ships would almost certainly have also had members of the Royal New Zealand Navy, South African Navy and probably some other bits of the Empire on board as well given how they were crewed. The Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy article provides a snapshot of the diversity of the British Empire's contribution to this campaign. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No-one else has weighed in, so pretty much a non-issue, I guess. But here's a question, does this Australian contribution now justify adding the Australian flag to the list of belligerents? FactotEm (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Been busy. I am the author of that line "...the British, Canadian, Free French, and other Allied navies." Moreover I inserted similar lines into all the Normandy beach articles. The point was to explicitly call out those nations which can easily be confirmed to have provided naval support to that particular beach. However, since, e.g., Polish or Norwegian ships were "explicitly involved" on other beaches it is difficult if not impossible to say naval support at Omaha was restricted to those explicitly named--especially if one includes mine sweeping. Thus the "and other Allied navies". I don't argue for the statement on whether, e.g., Australians served on RN ships. That would not be appropriate (see discussion on battle of Jutland). The point is the armada of minesweepers, troop transports, destroyers, cruisers, battelships, etc... involved on D-Day composed many nations: NOT just those called out explicitly in each specific beach article. Juan Riley (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, those other allied navies need to be referenced in the article. We cannot assume that Polish, Norwegian, etc ships operated at Omaha just because they operated at other beaches, or that other Commonwealth nations served on the British ships there because that's the way British ships tended to operate. This information needs to be explicitly stated in the sources. At one stage I tagged both the Canadian contribution and the "other allied navies" because neither of these were referenced to any source. I then found a reference for the Canadian contribution, added that to the article, and removed that tag. Nick-D seemed to be under the impression that the remaining tag, since removed, referred to the whole sentence, and then when I clarified this, added the Australian reference (personally I think the few Australian personnel serving on a British ship under American command is pushing it, but I've let that one go). BUT, at the moment the Australian contribution is the only other allied navy referenced, so the plural form "other allied navies" here is not supported. Nit-picky, I know, but nevertheless, verifiability is a core policy. FactotEm (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point--especially since I had meant to get back and document the Canadian mine sweeping operations and didn't and you did. (pssst thanks) And I do agree that an odd nation's sailor or two operating on another nations ship (e.g., as a liaison officer) does not qualify the former nation as a combatant. However, as I said above, to me the size and diversity of the D-Day 'armada' as well the intricacies of coordination makes it impossible not to at least give a nod in the lede to all the allied naval forces taking part. I won't put up a huge fight though. On the other hand, as I noted, you will see very similar language that I added to the ledes and infoboxes of all the beach articles. So for consistency don't argue for just Omaha. Juan Riley (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, any one of the following statements properly and verifiably acknowledge the diversity of the invasion fleet at Omaha, in compliance with policy and guideline concerning weight and emphasis...

• "...with ships also provided by the British, Canadian, and Free French navies"
• "...with contributions from other Allied navies"
• "...with contributions from British and other Allied navies"

I favour the last of these, on the basis that the British contribution was indeed "sizeable" (by my count, using the List of ships and craft of Task Force O as the source, the British provided some 22% of ships and assault craft, whilst the 9 Canadian minesweepers represent a little over 1% of the fleet, and the 2 Free French cruisers less than 1%). I am, however, not precious, and believe any of them to be accurate and fair.

To be clear, my concern here is to do with proper weight and emphasis, not with inclusion/exclusion.

I'll have a look at the other beach articles, but I don't have sources for these. If the main body of these articles do not reference other navies other than those explicitly listed, then I may tag "other Allied navies" with cite needed. Fair? FactotEm (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not trying to be argumentative. However, I would still err on the side of inclusiveness as in my original wording. As an example, I believe at Omaha the first ship to open fire on the French coast was the French cruiser. Thus should only the RN get explicitly mentioned (i.e., your third suggestion) someday someone will insert the Free French Navy--with arguably good reasons. Moreover not being an expert on the naval details of D-Day, I for one could not exclude any of the Allied navies with elements present off the Normandy coast that day--thus the "and other...." I do also think that all 5 beach articles be addressed consistently. Now I did not start all of this. Someone had added UK support in the infobox of only the Omaha beach article. Thanks to the user who had compiled the bombardment force lists articles I was able to add those nations who were explicitly mentioned to all 5 articles and etc.... So here we are. I fear that next someone will bring up air support and this will never end. Otherwise fair enough :) . Juan Riley (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

USS Emmons, actually, but the Georges Leygues was next, according to my source, and your point is valid. But the "...and other..." bit cannot stand. We can indeed exclude from the Omaha Beach article Allied navies with elements present off the Normandy coast that day if they do not appear in the sources as being present or in action at Omaha. The other beach articles seem to suffer from relying on the relevant Bombardment Force list for sources, but those sources need to be added to the article itself as well. Except Utah, which claims a Canadian contribution, but this is not supported by a reference in either the article or the Bombardment Force list, as far as I can see. And air support is on my to-do list :O FactotEm (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I will have to dig about a bit but to my memory Canadian minesweepers went in ahead of most if not all ships at Omaha AND Utah. Juan Riley (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

On Canadian minesweepers at Normandy see http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=cmh, e.g., page 3: "The one thing that remained in common was that they [31st Canadian Mine sweeping Flotilla] were all attached to the western Task Force so would be leading the way into the American beaches Utah and Omaha. " Juan Riley (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This page is not really the place to discuss Utah Beach, so I've responded on the talk page for that article. Any more thoughts on the lack of references for the statement "...and other Allied navies."? FactotEm (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I still prefer the "...and other Allied navies..." but (a) admittedly it is a vague and un-referencable addition (and sentiment?) and (b) I can't complain given your well written and informed additions to the naval effort. In short thanks again. Juan Riley (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence

Article reads:

Another issue was the equipping of contact-fuse bombs instead of time-delay fuses in a tradeoff between more craters, meaning more cover for advancing infantry, or no craters, meaning easy vehicle access to the beach.

This is unclear. It says that there is a tradeoff, but a) isn't clear about which kind of bomb was actually used and b) which kind of bomb creates which kind of crater. This may be obvious to the military reader, but not to the general reader. The sentence should be recast, perhaps something like this (if I've understood the intent correctly):

Contact-fuse bombs were used, so bomb craters were shallow, allowing easy vehicle access to the beach; if time-delay fuses had been used instead, bomb craters would have been deeper, providing more cover for advancing infantry.

But I am not sure that I am interpreting the sentence correctly. --Macrakis (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No idea what that sentence is trying to convey either, and it's unsourced. I would be inclined to just delete it. FactotEm (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

What are "obstacles"?

The article talks many times of obstacles being cleared, but never clarifies what sort of obstacles were encountered. Mine fields? Barbed wire? Caltrops? Anti-tank obstacles? There is a category on Category:Fortification (obstacles), but no article to refer to. This may all be obvious to the WWII expert, but is not obvious to the general reader. --Macrakis (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't the 2nd para of the Terrain and defenses section pretty much cover this? FactotEm (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. I had skipped directly to an inner section.... Never mind. --Macrakis (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hobart's Funnies

Not sure what the following section is trying to achieve:

"Additionally, with the exception of DD tanks, they did not have the benefit of "Hobart's Funnies" (a wide range of British-designed, specially adapted armored vehicles specifically designed to penetrate German fixed defenses) which had been offered to American commanders, and were accepted. The Americans requested all "Funnies" that were based on the Sherman M4 tank chassis, but the vehicles could not be produced in enough quantity to supply both the Commonwealth forces and American forces in time for D-Day. Even if enough could have been produced in time for D-Day there were not enough LCTs available to carry the DD and wading tanks and the "Funnies"."

The source basically states that the 'funnies' were offered to the Americans, they were interested in some but not others (for very legitimate reasons), but at the end of the day the Brits were not in any position to provide any, and anyway there is no evidence that the presence of specialised engineer vehicles would have reduced casualties at Omaha. It's all a bit of a non-event section and I don't understand how it is relevant to the story. Can anyone enlighten me? FactotEm (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

American forces were offered a share of the 79th Armoured Division's specialised vehicles and crews for the assault but they were turned down by Eisenhower or Bradley as they thought they would require special training, as a result only the DD tanks were accepted. The DD tanks were then launched too far out and many were swamped by the waves and sank.

The 79th Armoured went into battle as small units attached to the various other UK or US divisions that required them so there would have been no training necessary on the US' part if the offer to use them had been accepted as they would have been supplied with their British crews who were already trained in their vehicle's use.

The British and Canadians seemed to mange to find LCT space for the 79th's vehicles, as almost all of the vehicles carried guns and could be utilised as normal gun tanks after landing. There was very little point in 'saving space' on the LCTs if the vehicles they are carrying never get onto the beach, or later off it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Norman Cota's Status during Omaha Beach

It says here in the article that "This was where the 116th RCT regimental command group, including the 29th Division assistant commander Brigadier General Norman "Dutch" Cota, was able to land relatively unscathed" and yet in Norman Cota's own article it says the complete opposite in that "His LCVP landing craft came under heavy machine-gun fire as well as mortar and light artillery fire; three soldiers were killed immediately upon leading the disembarkation."

Which one is right? :( 112.198.76.189 (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of perspective and chosen emphasis whether the two accounts are 'completely opposite' or not. Three dead on disembarkation may, in the cold context of war history, be regarded as 'relatively' unscathed. Regionrat1234 (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Omaha Beach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928084416/http://www.warchronicle.com/16th_infantry/officialrecords_wwii/dday_s3.htm to http://www.warchronicle.com/16th_infantry/officialrecords_wwii/dday_s3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705050534/http://www.warchronicle.com/16th_infantry/officialrecords_wwii/ddaycasualties.htm to http://www.warchronicle.com/16th_infantry/officialrecords_wwii/ddaycasualties.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071203072712/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/1/2004_1_26.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/1/2004_1_26.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Image overload

There seems to be a bit of image overload going on in this article, in some cases leading to sandwiching of text. On closer inspection there's a fair bit of repetition in terms of what they illustrate. I believe the article would be improved with a bit of judicious pruning, as follows...

1a A German casemate at Omaha at Widerstandsnest 62
1b Widerstandsnest 65 defending the E-1 draw at Omaha Beach
Two 'where-are-they-now?' German bunker images. I don't think we need both. Prefer retaining the second because of the wider view, and in some way it illustrates the seaward protective wall FactotEm (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Prefer 1b Widerstandsnest 65 defending the E-1 draw at Omaha Beach, shows E-1 draw and steep bluff, relates to Assaulting the bluffs section. My photo to go with 4b. Zeete (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

2a H-Hour. A landing craft of the initial assault wave nears the smoke-shrouded coast following a heavy naval bombardment
2b An officer observes Omaha as his landing craft approaches the Normandy coast.
Two views from landing craft approaching the beach. Fine images though these two are, we already have a landing craft view as the main image, so I don't think we need two more that illustrate basically the same thing. FactotEm (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Main image says it all. Zeete (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

3a Aerial view of Omaha showing the draws, left to right; Vierville (D-1), Les Moulins (D-3), St. Laurent (E-1), Colleville (E-3) and "Number 5 Draw" (F-1)
3b Aerial view of Omaha, 6 June 1944, showing the landing of the 18th and 115th infantry regiments.
Two aerial views. I don't think we need both images. Prefer retaining the second because it illustrates the draws, and the failure to capture them had such a key impact on the day. FactotEm (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Prefer 3a Aerial view of Omaha showing the draws, left to right; Vierville (D-1), Les Moulins (D-3), St. Laurent (E-1), Colleville (E-3) and "Number 5 Draw" (F-1), perhaps slightly larger size. Zeete (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

4a American reinforcements landing on Omaha
4b 2nd Infantry Division troops and equipment going up the bluff via the E-1 draw on D+1, June 7. They are going past WN-65 that defended the route up the Ruquet Valley to Saint-Laurent-sur-Mer
4c Supplies and reinforcements being landed at Omaha in the days following the landings
Three images of reinforcements landing. I don't think we need all three; one will do. FactotEm (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Prefer 4b 2nd Infantry Division troops and equipment going up the bluff via the E-1 draw on D+1, June 7. They are going past WN-65 that defended the route up the Ruquet Valley to Saint-Laurent-sur-Mer, corresponds to 1b, 3a. My upload. Zeete (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

5a Official history map showing advances made by the 29th Infantry Division in the days immediately after D-Day,
5b Official history map showing advances made by the 1st Infantry Division in the days immediately after D-Day
Two maps showing advances after D-Day. These two images are relevant, but marginally so relative to the main theme, and not worth the cost of cluttering the article. FactotEm (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Is 5 Official history map showing extent of advances made by evening. sufficient? Zeete (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

6a Omaha landscape 67 years after landing. Harbor remains and "Les Braves" monument can be seen on the sand beach top edge
6b Panorama of Omaha as it exists in 2017
Two modern day photos of the beach. We don't need both; one will do. FactotEm (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Prefer 6a Omaha landscape 67 years after landing. Harbor remains and "Les Braves" monument can be seen on the sand beach top edge, but not full width. Zeete (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Any thoughts before I get the shears out? FactotEm (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

'Tis done. I've accommodated Zeete's comments above in the changes. In addition to the above, I also removed a map showing all 5 beaches of the Normandy Landings from the first section. It was useful, but that section was particularly crowded, and the information is available in the Normandy landings article. FactotEm (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Minor writing style point

In the lead, it says: "On D-Day, the untested 29th Infantry Division, along with nine companies of U.S. Army Rangers redirected from Pointe du Hoc, were to assault the western half of the beach." When I did the TFA blurb for this one, I moved some sentences around and went with "assaulted" instead of "were to assault". Just making the one change might work here, or it might work if this sentence were moved down, somewhere else in the lead. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem with "assaulted" here. You could also tweak that paragraph and tack it onto the end of the next one. That would merge two short paras into one 'standard' length, giving the article a 'standard' three para lead, and the narrative flow from defences to assaulting units would work fine, I think. Factotem (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a harder call here than it was in the TFA. I think I prefer "assaulted", and I just made that edit, but there's a good case to be made that the assaulting itself should be just a little farther down in the lead than it currently is. - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Just made that change. Is that what you were thinking of? Factotem (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Casualty figures

I've updated the "End of the day" section to reflect Citino's figure for casualties, and adjusted the range given in the infobox to represent all the info as given in the article. I don't think it's necessary to separate out the figure for deaths in the infobox, that level of detail is not necessary at that point in the article. It's also problematic, given that the only figure is provided by Citino. As the article states, sources vary, so it's a little WP:POV to assume that one source is more accurate than any other. Factotem (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Verify this statement please

"Omaha" refers to an 8 kilometers (5 mi) section of the coast of Normandy, France, facing the English Channel, from east of Sainte-Honorine-des-Pertes to west of Vierville-sur-Mer on the right bank of the Douve River estuary and with an estimated 150-foot (45 m) tall cliffs

The final bit of this, from the intro, feels like it was added on. It is not cited and appears no where else in the document that I can see. Bearing in mind that the cliffs at Point Du Hoc are ~30-40m in height, it seems improbable that the dunes, bluffs and escarpments at Omaha (referred to as 'cliffs') are 45m, at least except in isolated areas. It is referred to later that the escarpments are between 30-50m in height, but again this seems to contradict map evidence and the fact that PDH is the highest ground in the area. Perhaps it needs to be clarified that there was significant high ground, with troops funnelled into the draws? Can anyone clarify? Stingray Trainer (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed that final bit from the lead about cliffs. You're correct to challenge the use of that word; the source refers to them as slopes that were steep to varying degrees. The source does support the 30–50m height given in the main body, so I've left that alone. Factotem (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Number of German troops

There is 50 000 troops in the battle Toh Yu Heng (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

To Cutie Toh

I immediately removed your work as you had keyed in misinformation. Toh Yu Heng (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)