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 |
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)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
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)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
— 173.67.149.53 ( talk) 16:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
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. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidshooter ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Article reads:
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):
But I am not sure that I am interpreting the sentence correctly. -- Macrakis ( talk) 13:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
Not sure what the following section is trying to achieve:
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Any thoughts before I get the shears out? FactotEm ( talk) 21:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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
There is 50 000 troops in the battle Toh Yu Heng ( talk) 09:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I immediately removed your work as you had keyed in misinformation. Toh Yu Heng ( talk) 12:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
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 |
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)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
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)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
— 173.67.149.53 ( talk) 16:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
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. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidshooter ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Article reads:
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):
But I am not sure that I am interpreting the sentence correctly. -- Macrakis ( talk) 13:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
Not sure what the following section is trying to achieve:
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Any thoughts before I get the shears out? FactotEm ( talk) 21:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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
There is 50 000 troops in the battle Toh Yu Heng ( talk) 09:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I immediately removed your work as you had keyed in misinformation. Toh Yu Heng ( talk) 12:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)