![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This article used to be much more interesting. Photos. Links to famous people who were near the beach on D-Day. Dramatizations. Now it is boring. I'm gonna put it all back with a big regression edit. Anybody who made the wholesale deletions can come out of the closet here, or just go quietly away. Beanbatch 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a nonsensical statement. How should this read? — Trilobite (Talk) 15:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2400 killed
I believe whoever added that figure may have made the quite common mistake of confusing casualties and killed. It seems to be quite a common error for people to read a casualty list and assume all were killed. There may have been 2400 casualties on Omaha Beach but I'm not sure. I've heard of possibly 3000.
Or they may have confused the total dead on "DDay" which was around 2500.
I agree this figure does not make sense. For it to be the same as the official D-Day museum figure for total dead on D-Day seems too much of a coincidence. It also does not agree with the Battle of Normandy article, and general statements about the casualty rate on Omaha available elsewhere. -- Magicmike 03:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there any point to this? Under the lists of movies and games it's just floating there. Is it supposed to be a link?
I moved the following from Battle of Normandy but I don't have time to merge it in.
However, there was another reason why Omaha beach became known as 'Bloody Omaha'. There were things which had to be done before the US infantry division arrived. Firstly, the US Air Force had to bomb German defences and Omaha beach. They bombed the defences so that the infantry would meet less opposition and they bombed the beach to create craters so that if the infantry needed to take cover, they could. The bombers missed by about 1 km. Also, the infantry expected tank reinforcements. The 741st tank division was, of course, a tank division not a naval one so they did not have much sailing experience. Therefore, their commanding officers just told them to aim for the steeple on the Cathedral at Coleville. Because of this, the 6 foot waves hit the sides of the ships not the front or back and had more surface area to hit. Therefore the ships sank 30-35 metres under the sea. If they had turned the ships around, because the Normandy coastline is diagonal, they would still have landed and the waves would have hit the front and back of the ships and the ships would have been safe. It would have made all the difference to the 741st tank division and the infantry they were meant to support. As a result, the battle was hectic, and the Americans had an extremely hard time capturing the beach head. The US troops had no tank reinforcements, no craters to take cover in and he German defences were strong and intact.
Only 2 out of 27 troops who were supposed to land at Omaha actually did. 1 in 10 men were shot as they streamed up the beach.
DJ Clayworth 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this, it was listed in the dramatisations section. Perhaps somebody confused D-Day/Normandy as a whole for Omaha beach. The only connection with the beaches I can recall was the Brécourt Manor Assault in episode two, but that was to silence guns aimed at Utah beach.-- Mongreilf 08:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Weren't there previous amphibious assaults in WWII, besides Sicily and Africa, made in the Pacific?
69.71.179.213 03:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Tom W.
Unless I'm missing something, this video game mentioned has nothing to do with Omaha Beach or WWII.-- Broux 12:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is a small scene and level in Conker's Bad Fur Day depicting forces landing to take a beach slightly reminiscent of of Omaha and the trenches dug above it.
I don't think Hein Severloh killed nearly 3,000 people. If that were true then nearly 90% of all American deaths on Omaha Beach would have been caused by him if there were 3,336 deaths as the stats say. The article that is referenced says he "may have accounted for about 3,000 American casualties, almost three-quarters of all the US losses at Omaha." from that I have to believe that the article has its numbers wrong. Has anyone else seen anything about this person with any stronger estimates.
No, the German Wikipedia has an article on Heinrich Severloh and they mention nothing about the number of casualties he inflicted. It just states he manned an MG-42, inflicted heavy casualties at Omaha, and was nicknamed "The Beast of Omaha." And the periodical cited is hardly official. Mojodaddy 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This Hein Severloh stuff is OBVIOUS bullshit, its just unsubtantiated nonsense from a single source -- HIM. Wikipedia spreads nonsense all over the internet... STOP. 71.217.214.160
I deleted the hein serverloh stuff. It is patently false, based entirely on the testimony of the man involved. It doesn't even merit "disputed" status. - MarcusAurelius
The grammar usage throughout the "Bloody Omaha" and "Breakthrough" sections is noticeably poor. Mojodaddy 21:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope this is a worthy effort. Aiming for a more encyclopedic entry, though it probably makes for dry reading and difficult comprehension. Any suggestions for making it easier to read/understand? Maybe splitting the whole into more pages? I will try and improve it in due course. Unless there is a big outcry against this version I plan on giving the same treatment to the breakthrough stage of the battle. -- FactotEm 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Rather than anonymously deleting the content, one should actually put a reason behind doing so. Even better: find a source to back yourself up, instead blathering about what is clearly your own original research. Clearly, Severloh is notable for what he did; the low estimate in the article I found is in the hundreds - that is, 10% of the casualties. He didn't make this up out of the blue - American soldiers called someone the "Beast of Omaha Beach", and someone tracked the guy down and co-wrote his memoirs. Between the casualties (numbers may vary) and the nickname, he is notable, and this section should not be summarily deleted. zafiroblue05 | Talk 17:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop vandalising this article with your original research on Severloh; there is nothing credible on the internet, and you have no academic evidence whatsoever to support your amateur attempts to write history, on a subject that you know nothing about. Those of us who know about this subject don't have the time or energy to waste arguing with you -- just go away, and get a life. 71.217.214.160
The Washington Post article does not support your outrageous claims, nor is it a reliable historical source, so stop trying to conduct original research and let us know when you find something from a real historian. 71.217.214.160
The source article is outrageous. Potential facts are not "true until proven otherwise". They are "false until proven true". This is so obviously a fake story, I weep for all your "research". The most important fact here is that SEVERLOH IS THE ONLY HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET to make this claim. Not a single person witnessed the act in question. Given that there were thousands of people there, it's very fair to assume this is false. - MarcusAurelius
NO PROFESSIONAL ACADEMIC HISTORIAN HAS EVER SUPPORTED SEVERLOH'S ABSURD CLAIMS!!!!!!!!!!!! PLZ, WIKIPEDIANS, STOP CLOGGING THE INTERNET WITH HALFASSED WRITING ABOUT STUFF THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE GUESS OF CIRILLO, A GUY WHO ISN'T OFFICIALLY A HISTORIAN, IS HARDLY EVIDENCE!!!!!! THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE THAT SEVERLOH EVEN FIRED A SINGLE BULLET, ASIDE FROM HIS UNVERIFIABLE CLAIM TO HAVE SHOT TWELVE THOUSAND OF THEM, WITH UNBELIEVABLE ACCURACY. MY NEPHEW SUPPOSEDLY SHOT FIVE THOUSAND VC DURING THE VIETNAM WAR, WHY DONT YOU PUT THAT IN AN ARTICLE TOO? ALL I GOTTA DO IS CONVINCE SOME LAME C-STUDENT JERKOFF JOURNALISM MAJOR THAT ITS TRUE, AND YOU'LL TURN IT INTO GOSPEL TRUTH -- IS THAT YOUR IDEA OF RESEARCH? 71.217.214.160 00:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
ugh - professional academics are soooooooooo sick of wikipedia clogging the internet with crappy articles -- god, only wikipedia would consider linking an article on omaha beach to Conker's Bad Fur Day. u people are so pathetic, no historian backs severloh's claims, all u have is some halfass amateur publicity seeking nobody wannabe writers, and you write that "historians" accept this nonsense -- jesus, no, no they don't, and we are so sick of correcting you people.
I’m quite reluctant to do this because passions seem high, but I’m new and don’t yet know any better so here goes. I have to say I do think there’s a problem with the sources here, indeed with the inclusion of this subject with the current references.
The two references cited are news providers. They verify only that Severloh is making the claims that he is. They do absolutely nothing to verify the historical accuracy of his claims.
The Washington Post reference given in support of the statement that "Severloh killed or wounded at least hundreds of American soldiers, according to historians" does not support that statement. Not only is the use of the plural unjustified, Cirillo’s actual words as quoted in the source are (my emphasis added) "My guess is yes, he helped kill or wound hundreds, but how many hundreds would be hard to say". Thus…
Surely this is a reference that tends to refute the point it was deployed to support?
As for The Scotsman reference given in support of the higher claims of Severloh himself? Reading this article actually produces three different figures; "at least 1000", "most likely more than 2000" (both from Severloh) and "may have accounted for 3000" (from the, according to the Washington Post, "amateur historian" who was the ghost writer for Severloh’s book in 2000). Doesn’t this vagueness, from the only source cited so far that supports the claim, and in the absence of any corroborating evidence, introduce a significant element of doubt about the suitability of this subject for inclusion? -- FactotEm 07:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Gillyweed's insistence on how such a minor trivial nonsense news article is "notable" is indicative of how ridiculous wikipedia is; the editors know nothing about larger serious issues, so they instead clog the internet full of trivia about mundane, outrageous, and unsubstantiated curiosities. Its hardly the sign of a good writer to give an entire paragraph to Severloh, and no paragraphs to anyone else who participated in the battle -- weren't they notable as well?
I'm disappointed that MichaelLinnear has chosen to delete the one sentence relating to Severloh, when I thought we had reached a reasonable compromise. The sentence said that his claims were controversial and linked to the main article. Is this not a statement of fact? However, I am not going to replace the sentence as I am not here to antagonize anyone. May I invite the critics of Severloh to fill in the criticism section of the Heinrich Severloh article please. Currently it looks as there is no evidence against his claims. Clearly you think his claims are ridiculous - thus could you explain so in an encyclopaedic manner in the Severloh article. Thanks Gillyweed 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
On the basis that the map of Omaha beach originally added to this article had a GDFL-compatible license I've produced some manipulated copies to better illustrate the beach cross section and sectors where these come up in the article. Hope that's OK. -- FactotEm 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Some members of the Military History WikiProject have very kindly given some of their time to a peer review of this article. Their comments can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Omaha_Beach. I've made a start on incorporating their suggestions and I'll continue as I can in the limited time I have available for a while now. -- FactotEm 10:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The article describes Omaha as a "tragedy" (3rd paragraph, 1st sentence). On what basis? Heavy losses? The beach was taken. The "tragedy" statement begs for some follow-up analysis comparing losses, effectiveness, and strategic value, but no such analysis is offered in the current article. -- Unabsorbed 18:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is appropriate to add qualifiers to the 'result' statement in infoboxes, and I will assume good faith for now for the recent attempts to do so. On the basis that technically the victory at Omaha Beach was neither "Phyrric" or "Costly" I have reverted the latest edit to do this. The justification for this is that allied planners expected considerably more casualties during the landings than actually occurred. The total casualty figures (killed and wounded) for all beach landings is between 5,000 (according to the Wikipedia articles) and 10,000 (source: D-Day Museum - http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm#casualities). The planners estimated before the invasion that "a successful landing would cost 10,000 dead and perhaps 30,000 wounded, but were steeling themselves for much heavier casualties." (source: BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/dday_beachhead_01.shtml). Compared to the anticipated casualty figure of 40,000 therefore I'm not sure that trying to qualify the situation at Omaha Beach in this manner is accurate. If there is a reliable source that does actually qualify the victory in this manner by all means add it in, but I ask that it is done so in the main article rather than the infobox. Thanks. -- FactotEm 10:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't say where the invasion force came from, which I believe to be Trebah, near Falmouth in Cornwall. Vernon White . . . Talk 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
On 10 September 2007, User:TomStar81 deleted the Gallery section from this article. Will he or she please expain why. Anoneditor 01:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. The problem I saw with eliminating the Gallery section was that the article then contains nothing that shows the current condition of Omaha Beach. What would be wrong with creating another sub-category called "Omaha Beach Today" or something like that, for the display of photos showing it currently. Any thoughts?
One thing that dismays me is how people will eliminate entire article sections without explanation, discussion or warning. This somehow doesn't seem right to me. Anoneditor 23:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why is there no mention of what is surely a very crucial fact,namely that the American Naval commanders refused to obey a British instruction to unload American troops only six miles from the Normandy coast and instead unloaded their troops twelve miles off the coast making the troops endure many hours in the heavy seas and suffering serious sea sickness before they landed? 80.98.113.13 ( talk) 20:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The BBC has just broadcast a documentary [4] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
I've undone this edit, which added another map to the end of day section. My reasons are...
-- FactotEm ( talk) 08:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thanks!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wow, calm down. What is your problem? There is also a rule that an article often remains in the language it started in. If a Brit had started the article, why would they use American English? Novalia ( talk) 10:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
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 is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This article used to be much more interesting. Photos. Links to famous people who were near the beach on D-Day. Dramatizations. Now it is boring. I'm gonna put it all back with a big regression edit. Anybody who made the wholesale deletions can come out of the closet here, or just go quietly away. Beanbatch 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a nonsensical statement. How should this read? — Trilobite (Talk) 15:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2400 killed
I believe whoever added that figure may have made the quite common mistake of confusing casualties and killed. It seems to be quite a common error for people to read a casualty list and assume all were killed. There may have been 2400 casualties on Omaha Beach but I'm not sure. I've heard of possibly 3000.
Or they may have confused the total dead on "DDay" which was around 2500.
I agree this figure does not make sense. For it to be the same as the official D-Day museum figure for total dead on D-Day seems too much of a coincidence. It also does not agree with the Battle of Normandy article, and general statements about the casualty rate on Omaha available elsewhere. -- Magicmike 03:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there any point to this? Under the lists of movies and games it's just floating there. Is it supposed to be a link?
I moved the following from Battle of Normandy but I don't have time to merge it in.
However, there was another reason why Omaha beach became known as 'Bloody Omaha'. There were things which had to be done before the US infantry division arrived. Firstly, the US Air Force had to bomb German defences and Omaha beach. They bombed the defences so that the infantry would meet less opposition and they bombed the beach to create craters so that if the infantry needed to take cover, they could. The bombers missed by about 1 km. Also, the infantry expected tank reinforcements. The 741st tank division was, of course, a tank division not a naval one so they did not have much sailing experience. Therefore, their commanding officers just told them to aim for the steeple on the Cathedral at Coleville. Because of this, the 6 foot waves hit the sides of the ships not the front or back and had more surface area to hit. Therefore the ships sank 30-35 metres under the sea. If they had turned the ships around, because the Normandy coastline is diagonal, they would still have landed and the waves would have hit the front and back of the ships and the ships would have been safe. It would have made all the difference to the 741st tank division and the infantry they were meant to support. As a result, the battle was hectic, and the Americans had an extremely hard time capturing the beach head. The US troops had no tank reinforcements, no craters to take cover in and he German defences were strong and intact.
Only 2 out of 27 troops who were supposed to land at Omaha actually did. 1 in 10 men were shot as they streamed up the beach.
DJ Clayworth 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this, it was listed in the dramatisations section. Perhaps somebody confused D-Day/Normandy as a whole for Omaha beach. The only connection with the beaches I can recall was the Brécourt Manor Assault in episode two, but that was to silence guns aimed at Utah beach.-- Mongreilf 08:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Weren't there previous amphibious assaults in WWII, besides Sicily and Africa, made in the Pacific?
69.71.179.213 03:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Tom W.
Unless I'm missing something, this video game mentioned has nothing to do with Omaha Beach or WWII.-- Broux 12:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is a small scene and level in Conker's Bad Fur Day depicting forces landing to take a beach slightly reminiscent of of Omaha and the trenches dug above it.
I don't think Hein Severloh killed nearly 3,000 people. If that were true then nearly 90% of all American deaths on Omaha Beach would have been caused by him if there were 3,336 deaths as the stats say. The article that is referenced says he "may have accounted for about 3,000 American casualties, almost three-quarters of all the US losses at Omaha." from that I have to believe that the article has its numbers wrong. Has anyone else seen anything about this person with any stronger estimates.
No, the German Wikipedia has an article on Heinrich Severloh and they mention nothing about the number of casualties he inflicted. It just states he manned an MG-42, inflicted heavy casualties at Omaha, and was nicknamed "The Beast of Omaha." And the periodical cited is hardly official. Mojodaddy 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This Hein Severloh stuff is OBVIOUS bullshit, its just unsubtantiated nonsense from a single source -- HIM. Wikipedia spreads nonsense all over the internet... STOP. 71.217.214.160
I deleted the hein serverloh stuff. It is patently false, based entirely on the testimony of the man involved. It doesn't even merit "disputed" status. - MarcusAurelius
The grammar usage throughout the "Bloody Omaha" and "Breakthrough" sections is noticeably poor. Mojodaddy 21:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I hope this is a worthy effort. Aiming for a more encyclopedic entry, though it probably makes for dry reading and difficult comprehension. Any suggestions for making it easier to read/understand? Maybe splitting the whole into more pages? I will try and improve it in due course. Unless there is a big outcry against this version I plan on giving the same treatment to the breakthrough stage of the battle. -- FactotEm 20:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Rather than anonymously deleting the content, one should actually put a reason behind doing so. Even better: find a source to back yourself up, instead blathering about what is clearly your own original research. Clearly, Severloh is notable for what he did; the low estimate in the article I found is in the hundreds - that is, 10% of the casualties. He didn't make this up out of the blue - American soldiers called someone the "Beast of Omaha Beach", and someone tracked the guy down and co-wrote his memoirs. Between the casualties (numbers may vary) and the nickname, he is notable, and this section should not be summarily deleted. zafiroblue05 | Talk 17:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop vandalising this article with your original research on Severloh; there is nothing credible on the internet, and you have no academic evidence whatsoever to support your amateur attempts to write history, on a subject that you know nothing about. Those of us who know about this subject don't have the time or energy to waste arguing with you -- just go away, and get a life. 71.217.214.160
The Washington Post article does not support your outrageous claims, nor is it a reliable historical source, so stop trying to conduct original research and let us know when you find something from a real historian. 71.217.214.160
The source article is outrageous. Potential facts are not "true until proven otherwise". They are "false until proven true". This is so obviously a fake story, I weep for all your "research". The most important fact here is that SEVERLOH IS THE ONLY HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET to make this claim. Not a single person witnessed the act in question. Given that there were thousands of people there, it's very fair to assume this is false. - MarcusAurelius
NO PROFESSIONAL ACADEMIC HISTORIAN HAS EVER SUPPORTED SEVERLOH'S ABSURD CLAIMS!!!!!!!!!!!! PLZ, WIKIPEDIANS, STOP CLOGGING THE INTERNET WITH HALFASSED WRITING ABOUT STUFF THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE GUESS OF CIRILLO, A GUY WHO ISN'T OFFICIALLY A HISTORIAN, IS HARDLY EVIDENCE!!!!!! THERE ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE THAT SEVERLOH EVEN FIRED A SINGLE BULLET, ASIDE FROM HIS UNVERIFIABLE CLAIM TO HAVE SHOT TWELVE THOUSAND OF THEM, WITH UNBELIEVABLE ACCURACY. MY NEPHEW SUPPOSEDLY SHOT FIVE THOUSAND VC DURING THE VIETNAM WAR, WHY DONT YOU PUT THAT IN AN ARTICLE TOO? ALL I GOTTA DO IS CONVINCE SOME LAME C-STUDENT JERKOFF JOURNALISM MAJOR THAT ITS TRUE, AND YOU'LL TURN IT INTO GOSPEL TRUTH -- IS THAT YOUR IDEA OF RESEARCH? 71.217.214.160 00:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
ugh - professional academics are soooooooooo sick of wikipedia clogging the internet with crappy articles -- god, only wikipedia would consider linking an article on omaha beach to Conker's Bad Fur Day. u people are so pathetic, no historian backs severloh's claims, all u have is some halfass amateur publicity seeking nobody wannabe writers, and you write that "historians" accept this nonsense -- jesus, no, no they don't, and we are so sick of correcting you people.
I’m quite reluctant to do this because passions seem high, but I’m new and don’t yet know any better so here goes. I have to say I do think there’s a problem with the sources here, indeed with the inclusion of this subject with the current references.
The two references cited are news providers. They verify only that Severloh is making the claims that he is. They do absolutely nothing to verify the historical accuracy of his claims.
The Washington Post reference given in support of the statement that "Severloh killed or wounded at least hundreds of American soldiers, according to historians" does not support that statement. Not only is the use of the plural unjustified, Cirillo’s actual words as quoted in the source are (my emphasis added) "My guess is yes, he helped kill or wound hundreds, but how many hundreds would be hard to say". Thus…
Surely this is a reference that tends to refute the point it was deployed to support?
As for The Scotsman reference given in support of the higher claims of Severloh himself? Reading this article actually produces three different figures; "at least 1000", "most likely more than 2000" (both from Severloh) and "may have accounted for 3000" (from the, according to the Washington Post, "amateur historian" who was the ghost writer for Severloh’s book in 2000). Doesn’t this vagueness, from the only source cited so far that supports the claim, and in the absence of any corroborating evidence, introduce a significant element of doubt about the suitability of this subject for inclusion? -- FactotEm 07:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Gillyweed's insistence on how such a minor trivial nonsense news article is "notable" is indicative of how ridiculous wikipedia is; the editors know nothing about larger serious issues, so they instead clog the internet full of trivia about mundane, outrageous, and unsubstantiated curiosities. Its hardly the sign of a good writer to give an entire paragraph to Severloh, and no paragraphs to anyone else who participated in the battle -- weren't they notable as well?
I'm disappointed that MichaelLinnear has chosen to delete the one sentence relating to Severloh, when I thought we had reached a reasonable compromise. The sentence said that his claims were controversial and linked to the main article. Is this not a statement of fact? However, I am not going to replace the sentence as I am not here to antagonize anyone. May I invite the critics of Severloh to fill in the criticism section of the Heinrich Severloh article please. Currently it looks as there is no evidence against his claims. Clearly you think his claims are ridiculous - thus could you explain so in an encyclopaedic manner in the Severloh article. Thanks Gillyweed 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
On the basis that the map of Omaha beach originally added to this article had a GDFL-compatible license I've produced some manipulated copies to better illustrate the beach cross section and sectors where these come up in the article. Hope that's OK. -- FactotEm 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Some members of the Military History WikiProject have very kindly given some of their time to a peer review of this article. Their comments can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Omaha_Beach. I've made a start on incorporating their suggestions and I'll continue as I can in the limited time I have available for a while now. -- FactotEm 10:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The article describes Omaha as a "tragedy" (3rd paragraph, 1st sentence). On what basis? Heavy losses? The beach was taken. The "tragedy" statement begs for some follow-up analysis comparing losses, effectiveness, and strategic value, but no such analysis is offered in the current article. -- Unabsorbed 18:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is appropriate to add qualifiers to the 'result' statement in infoboxes, and I will assume good faith for now for the recent attempts to do so. On the basis that technically the victory at Omaha Beach was neither "Phyrric" or "Costly" I have reverted the latest edit to do this. The justification for this is that allied planners expected considerably more casualties during the landings than actually occurred. The total casualty figures (killed and wounded) for all beach landings is between 5,000 (according to the Wikipedia articles) and 10,000 (source: D-Day Museum - http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm#casualities). The planners estimated before the invasion that "a successful landing would cost 10,000 dead and perhaps 30,000 wounded, but were steeling themselves for much heavier casualties." (source: BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/dday_beachhead_01.shtml). Compared to the anticipated casualty figure of 40,000 therefore I'm not sure that trying to qualify the situation at Omaha Beach in this manner is accurate. If there is a reliable source that does actually qualify the victory in this manner by all means add it in, but I ask that it is done so in the main article rather than the infobox. Thanks. -- FactotEm 10:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't say where the invasion force came from, which I believe to be Trebah, near Falmouth in Cornwall. Vernon White . . . Talk 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
On 10 September 2007, User:TomStar81 deleted the Gallery section from this article. Will he or she please expain why. Anoneditor 01:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. The problem I saw with eliminating the Gallery section was that the article then contains nothing that shows the current condition of Omaha Beach. What would be wrong with creating another sub-category called "Omaha Beach Today" or something like that, for the display of photos showing it currently. Any thoughts?
One thing that dismays me is how people will eliminate entire article sections without explanation, discussion or warning. This somehow doesn't seem right to me. Anoneditor 23:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why is there no mention of what is surely a very crucial fact,namely that the American Naval commanders refused to obey a British instruction to unload American troops only six miles from the Normandy coast and instead unloaded their troops twelve miles off the coast making the troops endure many hours in the heavy seas and suffering serious sea sickness before they landed? 80.98.113.13 ( talk) 20:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The BBC has just broadcast a documentary [4] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
I've undone this edit, which added another map to the end of day section. My reasons are...
-- FactotEm ( talk) 08:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thanks!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wow, calm down. What is your problem? There is also a rule that an article often remains in the language it started in. If a Brit had started the article, why would they use American English? Novalia ( talk) 10:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
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