Talk:Omaha Beach

Dramatizations

Now that this has reached FA status, I'll discuss any significant changes before I make them.

I'm not sure that the dramatization section has a place in this article. Specifically it does not appear to meet the MILHIST MoS guidelines on the inclusion of popular culture references. Unless there are any objections I intend to delete this section. --FactotEm 10:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of no opposition, the above referenced guideline and the Wikipedia guideline on trivia sections I've removed the section. --FactotEm 15:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

military style

The article has many good points. Nevertheless it is marked very much by a military style, concentrating on the purely military point of view ("untested" battalions, "weakened" by "heavy casualties". It would be more suitable for wikipedia if it had a less military style. We should say "hundreds were killed" not "heavy casualties were sustained" etc. Similarly, the references should include autobiographies of ordinary soldiers, not only the official sources. 86.207.169.207 10:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been said that the narrative can be a bit dry, is that what you mean about "military style"? Some care has to be exercised in the choice of words, specifically ensuring that what is narrated is supported by the source. Thus, to take your example, if the source talks about casualties (which includes killed, wounded and missing) we cannot assume that it can be accurately transposed to "killed", or indeed that the correct scale is hundreds ("heavy casualties" could mean tens or thousands, depending on context). Also, is there anything missing from the article that a specifically autobiographical source would add? --FactotEm 12:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why the "military style" of writing should be eliminated.This is a military subject, and it should be written in a style of writing that carries and sustains that. 69.18.107.231 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Capa's Image

The image of the assault taken by Robert Capa has been removed. I'm assuming that this was done because it was a copyrighted fair use image, but I understood that the fair use rationale justified its inclusion. What gives? --FactotEm 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy of response made on my talk page: "It is indeed a great picture, but it is an unfree image, and it does not add anything to the article that a free image could not do. Danny 13:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)" --FactotEm 13:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It shows the actual assault. Per Wikipedia:Non-free_content section 1 there is no free alternative that does that. --FactotEm 13:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

The BBC has just broadcast a documentary [1] where the historian for the US Army's 29th Infantry Division said that latest estimates for the casualties are between 4,500 and 5,000. Does anyone know how many people actually died there, or died of their wounds? -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read/heard/seen, it was about 2,000-2,500 killed, with about the same wounded. Not entirely sure myself though... Jmlk17 03:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

They said that they were the accepted figures until fairly recently. But now they've done more research and revised the figures upwards quite a lot. They also mentioned that allowances were made for up to 6,000 casualties on Omaha beach alone -- SteveCrook (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's sorta weird... I've been searching for a bit now, and can't find any good sites with any decent numerical information. Jmlk17 07:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember that casualties = killed, wounded and missing. The official figures covered the extended campaign, not D-Day itself, which is why the figure is so difficult to pin down. I don't have time to track through the sources (internet cafes are expensive), but one of the articles current sources does list the casualty figures published by the two Divisions involved for D-Day, and when I was expanding this article, the current figure given was the most reliably accurate I could find for the 6th of June. --FactotEm (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pyrrhic" victory

Reverted the latest attempt to qualify the outcome in the infobox as pyrrhic - see Talk:Omaha_Beach/Archive_1#"Phyrric" and "Costly" American Victory for comments on this. --FactotEm (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos

How did people get photos of the battle? Wouldn't they be shot and killed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.187.170 (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

They basically just had to get in there and shoot (photos, not guns). And unfortunately, some did may the ultimate price. Jmlk17 23:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The first photo in the article was taken by the crew of the landing craft, but Robert Capa, a civilian, famously went in with the early assault waves (the second wave I think). Unfortunately we can't include any of his photos in the article because they are copyrighted, but there are a few of his Omaha Beach images in the wikipedia article on him. The story goes that he risked his life only for an over-excited lab technician back in England to screw up the developing process, and only a handful of the pictures survived.--FactotEm (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to the first comment: Soldiers of an enemy force would not waste their ammo on a non-combatant, as it would be made obvious by their camera. So the photographers were more endangered by land mines, stray fire, and friendly fire than by intentional fire from german positions. 69.18.107.231 (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Heinrich Severloh

Should there be a mention of him? I feel that his actions warrant a shout-out of sorts 24.44.50.109 (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Bob the Boulder

There is a reliable source issue that tends to preclude mention of his alleged exploits in this article. The subject was thrashed out, almost literally, here. --FactotEm (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture addition

I've undone this edit, which added another map to the end of day section. My reasons are...

• The existing image adequately illustrates the situation at Omaha at the end of the day;
• The new image was general in scope, including all 5 D-Day beaches, rather than specific to Omaha;
• It's representation of the situation at Omaha, of a single contiguous lodgement, is at odds with the narrative and the existing map, which shows isolated footholds;
• The additional image ended up sandwiching text, which is a MoS no-no.

--FactotEm (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's surprising to see this historic image rejected this way. What this map depicts is the situation as it was known to headquarters at the close of the day on June 6, 1944. It is normal for this type of document to differ from later analysis because not all of the relevant intelligence information had been received and processed yet. This in itself is noteworthy in a way that cannot be compared to maps that are simply nonspecific or wrong, because what this represents is the information available to commanding officers at the time when they made decisions. There can be no better visual representation of that important perspective than a reproduction of the actual map used on that day. The success or shortcomings of a military operation often relate to the quality of intelligence. So I ask the editors of this page to consider that the article is considerably more informative with both types of image--historic and modern recreation--available for the reader to cross compare. Durova^Charge! 10:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And if this article was about the Allied intelligence relating to actions on D-Day, that would be a valid point. It is, however, an attempt to describe the actual progress at Omaha Beach, for which post-event analysis proves to be more accurate as a source. Having said that, I can see your point in including the map to illustrate the confusion generated on the day. It cannot however go into the End of the day section. That section is too small to accommodate both images, and the current map illustrates the narrative, whereas the new map contradicts it. Would you be happy to replace the preceding aerial view image with this new map, suitably captioned to convey the confused state of Allied intelligence? --FactotEm (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

US Army Assault Training Center

I didn't notice this mentioned in the article, and don't feel qualified to add it myself, but the US troops trained for this landing at Woolacombe in North Devon, England, as the beach there was considered a close match for the conditions to be encountered in Normandy. I have added a website reference on the Woolacombe page which editors of this page may find useful and interesting.

EdJogg (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been mentioned before, but I don't see how the information can be inserted into this article. This article is very specifically about events that unfolded at Omaha Beach on June 6th, and this kind of snippet, by itself, would look out of place. Wouldn't Operation_Overlord#Rehearsals_and_security be a better location for this kind of detail? --FactotEm (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Very probably, with a suitable link from the Woolacombe page too. (I'll add a temp. link now.) However, if the rehearsals in Woolacombe were specifically for the troops landing at Omaha Beach (as my limited research suggests) then a mention would be entirely appropriate here too. How to make it fit in is another matter...

The US ATC deserves an article in WP, and I guess will get one one day. The website I found is the online presence of a chap who has been researching the subject and published a book. The Woolacombe article previously only mentioned the connection due to the memorial on the cliff top -- there is frustratingly little detail provided by the memorial itself! The last time I googled (probably after last year's holiday there :o) ) didn't turn up anything meaningful online, and I found this 'in passing' this year.

A mention would fit well in Operation_Overlord#Rehearsals_and_security (there's probably potential for an article on this by itself) but we need a few more facts, I think. I will make a note on my ToDo list, but it is a very long list...

EdJogg (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

X shaped metal things?

Could anyone tell me what the x shaped metal things used on the beachs are called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.1.211 (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Czech hedgehogs, by any chance? EdJogg (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Quote boxes without actual quotes?

Is it just me or are the actual quotes missing from the two grey boxes? I mean the ones that were probably meant to give statements of "Captain Richard Merrill, 2nd Ranger Battalion" and "Unidentified lieutenant, Easy Red sector". Looking back through history they seem to have been missing for some while now. Betabug (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, they seem to be there now. EdJogg (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

St. Honorine des Pertes????

Anyone who looks in a map sees that this town is far east from Omaha Beach (while Vierville sur mer is really on it). Where did one see this localization for the beach?189.24.161.19 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

British/Commonwealth/Free Forces presence

Shouldn't the "belligerents" section also include the number of Royal Navy and other personnel in direct support of the beach? Not only did Royal Navy servicemen pilot vessels up to the beaches but some did land on the beaches for a number of reasons. Should these personnel be taken into consideration rather than this just being a pure US/German combat situation? The crew of LBV 172 certainly spent a good part of the day on the "Omaha Beach" let alone any other Royal Naval Servicemen and I doubt they were just "observing". Boothferry (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Dapi89 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The present 65th anniversary commemorations have included some interviews with British Royal Navy veterans who landed US troops on Omaha and are upset at what they see as being painted out of history. While Omaha was an overwhelmingly American operation, the resentment felt by the Royal Navy participants is understandable, and their role should be acknowledged in this article. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RN landing craft helped transport the first wave. There were also 150 British serviceman who were landed on the beach. Signelers as well as Foo's from both the RN and the army.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)]]

I don't see any American flags on the Juno, Gold, or Sword articles. Does that mean the Americans needed help from the British but nobody but nobody needed American help? The British claim they planned the entire operation from beginning to end without American input. Cobra? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.22.212 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There were no Amercan service men at any of the Commonwealth beaches. There were British (and other) nations servciemen at Omaha. No one is saying that the Americans need help, they are saying that those who served should be aknowleged based upon their sacrifice not their nationality.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem here. The article clearly states the presence of British navy personnel and ships, in the lead, and as a sourced statement at the end of the "Plan of Attack" section. Given the relative numbers, what more needs to be said? I would also sound a note of caution here - Stephen Ambrose repeats some fairly scurilous allegations concerning the behaviour of some of the British assault craft crews who brought A/116 in to the beach. These surfaced after the war, were published in his account of D-Day, and have been flatly denied by one of the few survivors who actually witnessed events as a member of A/116 (one of the few in that ill-fated company who survived). See http://warchronicle.com/correcting_the_record/ambrose_coxswains.htm. Why risk bogging an already lengthy article down with the inevitable arguments that may well ensue? FactotEm (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst a British commando detachment joined the US Rangers (so there was a British ground presence), keeping the flags simple, to identify the 'British, American and Canadian beaches', would be my preference. Chwyatt (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Naval Support

I have once again removed this statement:

…AT OMAHA BEACHES DURING THE PRE-LANDING PHASE, NOT ENOUGH NAVAL GUNFIRE WAS PROVIDED” by a factor of 10, resulting in an excessive number of American casualties.<ref> http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Normandy/Cominch/ Amphibious Operations Invasion of Northern France Western Task Force June 1944 Chapter 2-27. From Hyperwar, retrieved 2008-06-02</ref

While the reference indeed says what is in capital letters, the subsequent comment by a factor of 10, resulting in an excessive number of American casualties. is not stated in the reference and consists of OR. I think the discussion in this section indicates that there were issues with naval support and therefore sticking this statement in, without integrating into the text or explaining it does nothing for this article. It is an FA and we need to be particularly careful how we edit new material into it and not simply stick in new ad hoc references as they are found. Interestingly, just below this statement in the reference is a report from German authorities explaining how effective US/Anglo naval power was! Gillyweed (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

From: Operations Invasion of Northern France Western Task Force June 1944 Chapter 2-27

SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR THERE HAS BEEN A RECURRING NEED FOR A YARDSTICK TO MEASURE THE AMOUNT OF NAVAL GUNFIRE REQUIRED TO NEUTRALIZE THE OPPOSING BEACH DEFENSES IN A LANDING ASSAULT. AT TARAWA NOT ENOUGH NAVAL GUNFIRE WAS USED, KWAJALEIN ISLAND, WHERE CASUALTIES AMONG TROOPS OF THE INITIAL ASSAULT WAVES WERE IoW, WAS AN EXAMPLE OF AN EFFECTIVE QUANTITY OF NAVAL GUNFIRE AND ARTILLERY DELIVERED AGAINST DEFENSES ENCOUNTERED.

AT OMAHA BEACH APPROXIMATELY 98,000 TROOPS LANDED AGAINST WELL PREPARED DEFENSIVE POSITIONS AND MOVED IN DURING THE FIRST FIVE DAYS WITH THE SUPPORT OF 1,375 TONS OF AMMUNITION FIRED BY NAVAL GUNS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 14" TO 3".

AT KWAJALEIN ISLAND, APPROXIMATELY 22,000 TROOPS LANDED AGAINST CONSIDERABLY WEAKER BEACH DEFENSES SUPPORTED BY 3,964 TONS OF AMMUNITION FIRED BY NAVAL GUNS RANGING FROM 16" TO 5" PLUS SOME 1,449 TONS OF ARTILLERY FIRE.

THE RATIO BETWEEN OMAHA AND KWAJALEIN OF TROOPS LANDED WAS APPROXIMATELY 4 TO 1; OF DEFENSIVE STRENGTH OF POSITIONS ASSAULTED ROUGHLY 3 TO 1; AND OF NAVAL GUNFIRE SUPPORT 1 TO 3.

USING KWAJALEIN AS A BASIS FOR A ROUGH COMPARISON, AND DISREGARDING OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, THE LANDING OF FOUR TIMES THE NUMBER OF TROOPS AGAINST APPROXIMATELY THREE TIMES THE DEFENSIVE STRENGTH WOULD CALL FOR AN AMOUNT OF NAVAL GUNFIRE SUPPORT AT OMAHA MANY TIMES GREATER THAN THAT EMPLOYED AT KWAJALEIN. YET, THE WEIGHT OF METAL DELIVERED AT THE OMAHA DEFENSES WAS ONE THIRD THAT USED AT KWAJALEIN.

THOUGH THE AMOUNT OF NAVAL GUNFIRE TO BE DELIVERED IN A GIVEN SITUATION CANNOT BE ARRIVED AT MATHEMATICALLY, AND THOUGH NAVAL GUNFIRE ALONE WILL NOT NECESSARILY INSURE A SUCCESSFUL LANDING WITH MINIMUM CASUALTIES, THE FOREGOING ROUGH COMPARATIVE FIGURES WILL SERVE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CONCLUSION THAT AT OMAHA BEACHES DURING THE PRE-LANDING PHASE, NOT ENOUGH NAVAL GUNFIRE WAS PROVIDED.

Your statement: Interestingly, just below this statement in the reference is a report from German authorities explaining how effective US/Anglo naval power was!

Now tell that to the families of our soldiers who were cut down on the Omaha Beach because of insufficient naval firepower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs) 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you seem to have a personal view about this. Your last sentence seems to confirm your position. However, WP is not a place for personal arguments. The thing is, you can't simply synthesize statements viz: that firepower was too low ' by a factor of 10, resulting in an excessive number of American casualties. The source does not say this. The source says specifically that "the amount of naval gunfire to be delivered in a given situation cannot be arrived at mathematically" and yet that is what you have attempted to do. Please review WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:3R. Thanks. Gillyweed (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for revising your statement. I have moved it to better integrate into the text, other wise it does not fit with the narrative. I hope you think it is now sufficient. Gillyweed (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

DD tanks and other specialized armor

I have read in several books on the subject of WWII and Overlord that the main reason most of the DD tanks didn't make it to shore was that they were put to sea much farther out than intended (as well as the rough weather, of course; but it was just as rough on other beaches and they largely made it ashore there). Moreover Gen. Bradley's staff had refused (something to do with insufficient time to train crews, I recall) the British offer of other kinds of specialized armor such as flail tanks for clearing paths through the minefields and AVRE vehicles armed with Petard mortars to destroy obstacles, casements and pillboxes. These decisions would seem critical to the outcome on Omaha, yet neither are mentioned in this article even as suggestions or propositions that had been made but disproved by historical research. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.35.99 (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Largely because the article seeks to document what actually happened on the day, rather than provide any kind of in-depth post-event analysis of why things happened the way they did (which, I think, would over-extend an already lengthy article, not to mention fill a huge article all by itself). BTW - as I understand it, the DD tanks were launched further out to sea than at other beaches, and thus exposed to the rough weather for longer, with disastrous consequences, in order to keep out of range of the big guns at Point de la Percee. FactotEm (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm, this isn't a particularly long article really, and analysis about the failure of the DD tanks, and reasons for various other failings and problems do need to be examined. There's been some very good stuff recently done on this exact area of research; William Buckingham has something on Omaha, for example. Skinny87 (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Before I worked on this article, my understanding was that the lack of tanks cost the assault troops dear. I was actually quite surprised to learn that they "…saved the day. They shot the hell out of the Germans, and got the hell shot out of them.", and that a number of them survived the day, so to talk about "the failure of the DD tanks" doesn't seem accurate to me. To be sure, they suffered high casualties in the assault, but so did the engineers, yet the lack of success by the engineers in clearing the beach obstacles doesn't seem to get nearly as much post-event comment as the lack of tanks. In truth, as I see it, both suffered dearly, but both achieved enough to, in their respective ways, contribute in making what could have been a disaster for the Americans a success, albeit the most costly of all the beaches. I prefer to have the article simply state what happened on the day, and if there is to be any post event analysis, then spin that off into a separate article, which could cover the lack of other specialised tanks, the failure in intelligence, the alleged inadequacy of naval support, the failure of air bombardment, the alleged cowardice of British assault craft crews, and all the other, often parochial, armchair-generalling after the event that inevitably accompanies these things. FactotEm (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why there needs to be a seperate article - it could easily be covered here in a few paragraphs. Off the top of my head it would probably cover the failure to get the DD tanks to shore; the reasons behind the American forces lacking the specialized armour the British forces had; alleged cowirdice of British crews, although that will have to be very well sourced to show it probably didn't happen/wasn't widespread; and If I remember correctly, Buckingham has a good section on why there were such heavy casualties on the beaches - something to do with poor organization in terms of splitting up platoons and fireteams when they were training. Oh, and some comparison with the other beaches might be an idea. I'll dig out Buckingham as soon as I can - I'll be away for two/three days - and Adrian Goldworthy's book which deals specifically with Omaha (about 600 pages!). Skinny87 (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I look forward to seeing the results. FactotEm (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) If I haven't done anything in a few days, hit me up on my talkpage to remind me. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a documentary on UK TV a few years back that looked into survival rates among the DD Tanks in terms of actually making it to the beach. As I recall, the conclusion was that, along with the distance issue, the launch point for the Omaha tanks meant they were trying to swim diagonally to the swell rather than travel with it. This made them much more vulnerable to swamping. --Sf (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dramatizations (II)

I've removed references to dramatizations from the lead. This is why... 1. Before reaching FA status this article had an extensive and, IMHO, entirely irrelevant 'Dramatizations' section (it even included a reference to Conkers Bad Fur Day), which added nothing to the understanding of what happened at Omaha Beach. 2. Video games and Hollywood fiction do not, it seems to me, have any place in articles such as these. They do not appear in other works on the subject, why should they here? 3. They go against Wikipedia guidelines on Trivia (at least, the last time I looked at them). 4. Their placement in the lead is entirely against the purpose of the lead, which is to summarise the main body, not introduce information that is ignored in the main body (relevant or not). FactotEm (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've removed such sections from this article before. Unless they are very well cited and relevant, they have no place in articles. Skinny87 (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Belgian forces?

Last line above the contents:

"The Americans unaware of modern warfare were very lucky that the Belgian forces came to the rescue and the operation ended well."

What's that all about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.157.196 (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Howdy!

Hi again, all, esp Factotem, I think I'm gonna finish the job I started a couple years ago now... lol

Apparently I never commented on the talk pages? Anyways, I think I can tell where I left off, so I'll start copy editing again where I think it needs it. Seems like this worked out pretty well last time, let's see what happens now. :) Eaglizard (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: Holy Chao! Now I remember why I lost motivation on this article... it's S O D A M N L O N G! Ah well, it's all relevant, and there's something about the sad but somehow successful story of Omaha Beach that I love. :D Anyways, I did some more copyedits, starting at Omaha Beach#Second assault wave. As always, I strove to keep the meaning intact, while converting to a more active and (hopefully) readable style. I mean, this stuff is still gonna be dry, but it doesn't have to read like a committee report for the JCOS lol Eaglizard (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

British English

I as a grandson of a World War II American vetran would like to know why the fuck this article is written in BRITISH ENGLISH? This was primarily an American fought battle and as such should be written exclusively in American English.

Or is it that the damn British are re-writing our history for us now? Is that it? --Yoganate79 (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you asked so nicely. Because it took the considerable efforts of a Brit to do justice to such a tremendous feat of arms and bring it to the FA status it so thoroughly deserves, and whilst(!) that Brit made every effort to use 'armor' in preference to 'armour' and the like, he still got it wrong in some places. I see you have set about correcting this. Fill yer boots. FactotEm (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As an American who was in the US Army, and read a few history books, I would rate your "British" efforts as: Outstanding, keep up the good work, America can use the efforts of more like you! Frank (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I entered a reference to a site with world war two games and Omaha Beach and it was deleted

I am not committed to the reference being there, just that I played the game and it gave a pretty good feel of the battle, so I thought it might be a good reference for people to understand the battle. Just thought it would help as there are not a lot of games around on the subject. I did make some entries on a couple of battles, not to advertise as I don't have any dog in the hunt except the games were fun. I can take those out if it is felt warranted.

Sdguitarman (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)sdguitarman

This link is not relevant; links should provide valuable information beyond what is provided in the article. A link to a gaming site does not do this. You also have to pay for the game, and the game is limited to a certain type of computer. See wp:ELNO.-- BC  _{talk to me} 03:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

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.