Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat
The British and Canadian beaches all had a longer bombardment from naval units on D-day, (IIRC 1.5 hours against 45 minutes) and did use a greater variety of specialised armour, but I've no doubt the outcome would have been the same, a successful landing. Casualties may have been a little lower, but that's the only difference I can see.
|
For a current detailed description of Omaha Beach read Balkowskis book 'Omaha Beach' . I'd also recomend Ellsbergs book 'The Far Shore'.
There were several reasons the British naval attack lasted longer. One was a preference for naval gunfire. Bradley thought air attack more effective and placed greater reliance on the heavy bomber attack made just before the first wave landed. His corps commanders disagreed (both had served in the Pacific) but Bradley overruled them. As we have often read the heavy bomber attack failed on Omaha Beach.
A second factor were the tides. At O beach the low tide median coincided with the edge of the German obstacles, and with the best approach for the landing craft. The British beaches were fronted by wide shoals of mud sand & silted rock. The tide had to rise enough for the landing craft to float over the shoals. The German obstacle belt started well above this shoal or mud flat. Landing the Brits at the lowest water would have caused them to wade across 800 or more meters of muck, tidal pools, and loose rocks. Then they would have reached the first obstacles. It varied from one beach to another but the water was deep enough to carry the small craft across the shoal 60 to 90 minutes after H hour, or the O & U beach landings. The Brits took advantage of this for some extra naval gunfire on the beaches.
Exactly how the Brits & the US would have handled the different circumstance I cant say. The only clue I have is in Bradleys attitude towards naval fire support.