# How did the landing at Omaha Beach succeed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 1, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322 "2003-12-01T19:41:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/41 "2004-06-06T04:08:04Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Minor correction There were, indeed, B-25s in the ETO. While the majority of the Mitchells were assigned to the 15th Air Force in Africa and Italy (still ETO), the RAF had a few Mitchells flying out of Britain. > > (Now, the three captioned thumbnails on [this page](http://www.dday-overlord.com/Piarmadaeng.htm) are almost certainly in error. The odds that a B-25 was used to take pictures from what appears to be the inside of a formation of B-26s seems less than likely. (At least two of the thumbnails on this page labeled “B-25” display B-26s in the photos.) No the Med was not the ETO. It was an entirely separate command under Field Marshall Alexander who did not report to Ike. Yeah, you’re right about the[RAF and B-25’s.](http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b25_22.html) In the early days they were desparate and would take anything shoved at them ;). I should have said that there were no US B-25 equipped outfits. As to the captions in the cite, unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation round. I’ve even been guilty. But I doubt very much that there was a B-25 sent along to take pictures. Why when the B-26 groups on the mission had plenty of them to send along for photos if that was desired? The planes in the photos are probably from the 387th Bomb Group whose tail making was a broad yellow band or the 323rd Bomb Group with a white band. Pictures of both[tail markings](http://www.publicenquiry.co.uk/commands/bc9th.html) are here. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/42 "2004-06-06T06:10:25Z")
In point of fact, I suspect all of the B-26 pix are the 386th. At least the last thumbnail plane has the squadron identifier RG which was the 552nd of the 386th group. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/43 "2004-06-06T06:31:21Z")
> [@](#): > > No the Med was not the ETO. It was an entirely separate command under Field Marshall Alexander who did not report to Ike. I suppose it depends on which month and year one is using. When Ike supervised Operation TORCH, North Africa was part of the ETO. Later, the southern front was renamed North Africa Theatre of Operations (NATO) and, still later, Mediterranean Theatre of Operations (MTO), but when Ike was named Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force in December, 1943, all of Europe reverted to ETO, again. (It is certainly true that ETO was more frequently identified with the war in Northwest Europe, but it still depends on the dates one uses–and perhaps who is using the term: folks in France seem to use the term to mean only the Northern campaigns while folks in Italy include themselves in the term.) ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/44 "2004-06-06T07:38:21Z")
**dropzone** , that is a GREAT site you linked to! > [@patchbunny](#): > > Well, going from memory, the 7.62 NATO bullet will penetrate about 3 ft of ordinance gelatin, so I suspect it would continue through about 4-5 ft of water before stopping. The heavier bullets used in the MG34 and 42’s would penetrate a bit further. Keep in mind, though, you still need enough remaining penetration to enter the body. I suspect 5 ft is a safe limit as the bullets slow enough that your gear will function as body armor. > Patch Hmm. Ballistic gelatin is a good deal denser than ordinary water, so I question your comparison. It seems too “back of the envelope” to me. [Here](http://web4.integraonline.com/~bbroadside/General_Info.html) is a list that gives the muzzle energies and bullet weights of the rounds in use: Round----------------bullet weight (grams)----------------muzzle energy (in joules) German 7.92 mm----------------12.8--------------------------------4,673 U.S. .30-06 -----------------------11.7--------------------------------3,663 By comparison: 7.62 NATO------------------------11.7--------------------------------3,319 The German service round of WWII fired a heavier bullet at a higher muzzle velocity than either the U.S. service round of the time (the .30-06) or the 7.62 NATO round, giving the German round significantly higher muzzle energy. In fact, the German round had a higher muzzle energy than almost any other round of equivalent caliber in the table I drew these numbers from, even more than the .300 Winchester Magnum, a round routinely used to kill moose, elk, and grizzly bears. There are other factors that would make the German rounds deadly in the manner they’ve been depicted. One is using ball ammo, which doesn’t deform in flesh like softpoints do. Another is that heavier bullets retain more of their velocity at long range. But to sum it all up, it would take a hell of a lot more than five feet of water to make anyone safe. I’d say those depictions in _Saving Private Ryan_ of men being shot underwater and killed by bullets that have already skewered three men are spot on. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/45 "2004-06-06T10:12:18Z")
I wish to point out that the B-25 Mitchell was ubitiquitous. Nicknamed “The Sweetheart Of The Forces”, it was seen in _all_ theatres of the War, & used by _all_ branches of the US military, & as fars as I know, all Allied countries. It was used as a conventional bomber, and versions were used in photorecon, in close air support/ground attack varients (the Marine Corps liked these, with cause), in Naval Attack versions, as transports, as passenger aircraft for politicians & high ranking diplomats & officers, & as a testbed aircraft for experimental purposes. On one occasion, Colonel Jimmy Doolittle launched his unit of nominally land-based B-25s off the deck of a carrier to raid Japan. It was easy to fix, & easy to fly. It could also take a great deal of punishment, & keep flying. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/46 "2004-06-06T13:43:13Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] … but when Ike was named Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force in December, 1943, all of Europe reverted to ETO, again. /QUOTE] Without comment from Wikipedia, bolding added: \*"SHAEF was the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force, **the command headquarters of the commander of Allied forces in North West Europe** in 1944 and 1945. That post was held by General Dwight Eisenhower throughout its existence. SHAEF was created in December 1943 when Eisenhower was recalled from the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations to the United Kingdom. Its staff took the outline plan for Operation Overlord created by Lieutenant General Sir Frederick Morgan, COSSAC (Chief of Staff to the Supreme Commander Allied Forces) and moulded it into the final version which was executed on 6 June 1944. That process was shaped by Eisenhower and the land forces commander for the initial part of the invasion, General Sir Bernard Montgomery. SHAEF remained in the United Kingdom until sufficient forces were ashore to merit its transfer to France. At that point, Montgomery ceased to command all land forces, merely becoming one of three Army Group commanders under Eisenhower. SHAEF commanded the largest number of American formations ever committed to one operation, along with substantial French, British and Canadian forces. It had three Army Groups under its command, which controlled a total of eight field armies (five American, one French, one British, one Canadian), and also First Airborne Army, a composite formation consisting of parachute troops and the aircraft used to drop them. SHAEF also controlled substantial naval forces during Operation Neptune, the assault phase of Overlord, and two tactical air forces (Ninth Air Force and Second Tactical Air Force. The strategic bomber forces in the UK came under its command during Operation Neptune." ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/47 "2004-06-06T17:02:00Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > I wish to point out that the B-25 Mitchell was ubitiquitous. > > Nicknamed “The Sweetheart Of The Forces”, it was seen in _all_ theatres of the War, & used by _all_ branches of the US military, & as fars as I know, all Allied countries.,. It was not flown in combat by the US Army 8th Air Force based in England. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/48 "2004-06-06T19:40:17Z")
Quoth **dropzone** : > [@](#): > > Okay, now a question about Saving Private Ryan. In the movie bullets from those MG3s still could kill after passing through six or seven feet of water. Would they necessarily have been passing through six or seven feet of water? The only way I can see to make that happen would be for the bullet to hit the water at a grazing angle in front of a soldier, then presumably penetrating the water and hitting the soldier below the waterline. But a bullet hitting water at a grazing angle is likely to ricochet, and might well then hit the soldier above the waterline. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/49 "2004-06-06T20:04:19Z")
I haven’t read much about the Normandy landings; I’d like to know how much of a role was played by the French reistance forces. I heard that they cut telephone lines and blew up bridges, and also attacked some german command positions…how much did they do, and were their efforts critical to the success of the landings? ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/50 "2004-06-06T20:55:10Z")
> [@Boyo Jim](#): > > It was not flown in combat by the US Army 8th Air Force based in England. [AHEM! LINKY-LINK](http://8thmn.org/aircraft.htm) :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![detop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bcef8e/32.png) [@detop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/detop)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/51 "2004-06-06T21:32:28Z")
> [@633squadron](#): > > Lack of armor. > At Dieppe, the Canadians were defeated by tenacious counterattacks from the Germans, plus a lack of naval/air bombardment support and _no armor_ against German panzers. [nitpick] Armour was landed at Dieppe. [As indicated from this site](http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Text/dieppe.html), at least a regiment of armour (Calgary rgt, Churchill equiped) was landed. Unfortunately, > [@](#): > > Misfortune also attended the landing of the tanks of the Calgary Regiment. Timed to follow an air and naval bombardment, they were put ashore ten to fifteen minutes late, thus leaving the infantry without support during the first critical minutes of the attack. Then as the tanks came ashore, they met an inferno of fire and were brought to a halt stopped not only by enemy guns, but also immobilized by the shingle banks and seawall. Those that negotiated the seawall found their way blocked by concrete obstacles which sealed off the narrow streets. Nevertheless, the immobilized tanks continued to fight, supporting the infantry and contributing greatly to the withdrawal of many of them; the tank crews became prisoners or died in battle. . What Dieppe taught was the need for **specialized** armour (the “funnies”). ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/52 "2004-06-06T22:15:59Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > [AHEM! LINKY-LINK](http://8thmn.org/aircraft.htm) > :dubious: [Table 89 - Airplanes on Hand in European Theater of Operations, By Type and Principal Model: Jun 1942 to Aug 1945…Page 157](http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t089.pdf) The largest number of B-25s available was 34 in Nivember of 1942. I don’t believe the AAF had begun bombing the European mainland by then. I suppose it’s conceivable they may have flown a few antishipping or antisubmarine strikes, most likely they were training ot transiting through. By March 1943 the number was down to 1, and stayed there or at 0. Compare that to the B-26, which reached a peak of over 1,000 by November, 1944. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/53 "2004-06-06T23:03:06Z")
> [@Boyo Jim](#): > > [Table 89 - Airplanes on Hand in European Theater of Operations, By Type and Principal Model: Jun 1942 to Aug 1945…Page 157](http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t089.pdf) > > The largest number of B-25s available was 34 in Nivember of 1942. I don’t believe the AAF had begun bombing the European mainland by then. I suppose it’s conceivable they may have flown a few antishipping or antisubmarine strikes, most likely they were training ot transiting through. By March 1943 the number was down to 1, and stayed there or at 0. > > Compare that to the B-26, which reached a peak of over 1,000 by November, 1944. I make a point of never opening files of this type online. Please provide a security-safer alternative cite. No, I’m not trying to evade you, I’ve had a bad past experience… ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/54 "2004-06-06T23:35:08Z")
> [@Spiny Norman](#): > > Ridiculous nitpick, but: I’ve fired (and carried (and carried and carried and carried…)) the MG3 - simply a MG42 re-chambered for the NATO 7.62 mm round. The barrel can indeed be exchanged, but it takes nowhere near a minute - the gunner can change the barrel in 10-15 seconds without even moving from his firing position behind the gun. Apart from its weight and its ravenous ammo consumption, it’s an extremely user-friendly weapon. (Incidentally, field barrel changes often lead to impromptu rediscovery of the MG loader’s dictum #1: A hot barrel looks precisely like a cold barrel.) As another nitpick, while the MG3 is very similar in appearance to the MG42, it is less similar internally. I am not a small arms expert, but IIRC the barrel change mechanism was copied from the Bren, it’s gas-operated rather than recoil-operated, and has other major differences. I think breech locking mechanism was the most significant part carried over from the MG42. Note that the MG42 was not a particularly accurate weapon, and was less accurate than the MG34 it replaced. It was deliberately designed to have a certain amount of “slop” in its operation, in order to spread the fire over a greater area (usually a good thing for machine guns). This is supposed to have been in response to Russian “human wave” attacks, where greater area of effect would have been desireable over pinpoint accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322/55 "2004-06-06T23:54:18Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > I make a point of never opening files of this type online. > > Please provide a security-safer alternative cite. > No, I’m not trying to evade you, I’ve had a bad past experience… It’s a pdf file. I don’t quite understand how you can judge it unsafe before/without opening it. I also have no idea how to find a “safer” version. Would you expect to find 50 year old archival data on a secure web page? The only sercure pages I ever see are when I am required to enter personal information for some kind of registration/subscription. which is not required in this case… [Here is the home page. It is not pdf, but I can’t say it is any “safer”.](http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_list_of_tables.html) I can’t see how either of these would be any more or less safe than 99.9% of the other links posted in these forums. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-landing-at-omaha-beach-succeed/216322.md?page=2)