Talk:Omaha Beach/Archive 1

Recent Quiet Deletions
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)

Hemingway

 * "People who landed at Omaha Beach on D-Day include: Ernest Hemingway (did not land)"

This is a nonsensical statement. How should this read? &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 15:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you are right, that should be reworded. Please feel free to do so. One of my sources was "He was present on D-Day, was in fact aboard an LCVP landing craft as it advanced on Omaha Beach. Having dropped off its troops, the LCVP then returned to its ship with Hemingway still sitting astern. But what Hemingway subsequently wrote not only implied that he had gone ashore with the troops, but that he had played a vital role in helping to locate the beach. The Hemingway legend being what it was by then, few questioned his assertions." olivier 21:47, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have incorporated this into the article. I didn't make the change at the time as it wasn't clear whether he did or he didn't. Thanks for clearing the matter up. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 00:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The heading was "at the beach". There is some dispute whether he actually left the landing craft or not.  "at the beach" is vague enough to cover Earnest, don't you think?  Beanbatch 21:39, 21 November 2005 (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)

"Chateau Thierry Monument" under Dramatizations
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?

Moved text
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)


 * The 741st Tank Battalion was not a "division" but a battalion--a unit of some 50 M-4 Sherman tanks. The bulk of its tanks were equipped to "swim" themselves to the beach without using landing craft--they were not "ships" but land vehicles. Omaha was a series of landing beaches, not one location. Most units landing at Omaha did not land on their assigned beach but did come ashore somewhere in the area referred to collectively as "Omaha Beach".--Buckboard 13:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Band of Brothers
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.

Conker's Bad Fur Day
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.

Hein Severloh
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)


 * As written it's acceptable if melodramatic. However, there were not 3336 deaths on Omaha--but total casualties. As pointed out elsewhere, the two are not the same, and the most common ratio of wounded to killed is 3:1. (Marine casualties at Tarawa in the Pacific were approx 3500, with 1000 killed, and casualties at Omaha were comparable.) Omaha is a big place (4 miles in length) and a single gunner's field of view would not have encompassed more than a single landing beach among the seven beaches. The likelihood of causing up to 75% of all casualties is grossly exagerrated, no matter what some "analysts" are quoted as saying.--Buckboard 13:17, 9 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

Grammar
The grammar usage throughout the "Bloody Omaha" and "Breakthrough" sections is noticeably poor. Mojodaddy 21:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Significant Edit of "Bloody Omaha" section
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)


 * Nearly there. Need to add section relating to conditions on the beach until the draws were opened, reinforcement landings, establishment of the bridgehead and some 'tidying up'. --FactotEm 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Severloh
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
 * Did you bother to even read my edit? The Washington Post is not (just) the "Internet." Nor is the Scotsman. My last edit (last two edits, really) changed the paragraph to clarify the discrepancy between what Severloh says and what historians think. I actually found a quote for that (the Post article), whereas you simply delete the whole thing summarily. No reasonable person would think that one paragraph is vandalism - if you have any specific objections to any word in the paragraph, detail them one by one. Removing the whole thing entirely is above all unhelpful. And why you persist in insulting people who ideally have the same purpose as you (namely, writing an encyclopedia) is beyond me. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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
 * You refuse to mention exactly what "outrageous claim" is not being supported. I assume it's not merely the man's presence on Omaha beach, but the number of people he killed, which, as given in the article is either a few hundred (per historian) or a few thousand (per Severloh). The latter is given in the Scotsman article ( Severloh: "It was definitely at least 1,000 men, most likely more than 2,000." ), and the former is given in the Post article ( "'My guess is yes, he helped kill or wound hundreds, but how many hundreds would be hard to say,' Roger Cirillo, a military historian at the Association of the U.S. Army in Arlington, wrote in an e-mail." ). Please back up your assertions by something more than rhetoric if you continue to vandalize the article by deleting sourced content. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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 have replaced the deleted material as it appears to be well referenced. I think the segment could be nuanced a little more and/or some commentary put in about the contentious nature of the claim (with references).  I'd like to constructively engage with  71.217.214.160 but s/he seems to be more intent of breaching WP:attack than having a reasonable and reasoned discussion. Gillyweed 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the replaced material as it does not appear to be well referenced. I'd like to constructively engage with Gillyweed but s/he seems to be more intent of breaching WP:attack than having a reasonable and reasoned discussion. 71.217.214.160 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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?
 * He can only guess.
 * He specifically states that Severloh “helped”, not that he was solely responsible (Severloh was one of 30 or so men, in a bunker complex with 3 machine guns deployed - []).
 * He actually states how hard it is to put a number on the casualties attributable to this one man.

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)


 * I think there are two issues here. 1) Is Severloh notable?  I think that his claims and the fact that many independent sources have picked them up makes him notable as per WP:notability. The fact that the references do not verify Serveloh's claims does not mean this bloke isn't notable.   2) Are his claims believable?  I don't know.  This is the issue that should be debated.  Removing the section is unacceptable because this 'fact' is out in cyberspace and thus is believed.  We therefore need to craft a section that discusses the credibility of the claims, thus presenting all sides of the debate.  Lets work on the section, not simply delete it. Gillyweed 07:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the kind of debate we could have but given we will never have proof of the events that took place, I think we need to clearly identify the claims made and the counter arguments and leave it at that.  Any views? Gillyweed 07:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you acknowledge that we will "never have proof of the events that took place", and you acknowledge this entire story is based entirely upon a single man's story, the only logical conclusion is that this can't be included. Any lone nut can make an outrageous claim. The fact that this one received media attention does not make it any more valid. There hasn't been a single other reported eye-witness of the event in question. And this kind of event would easily be the most extraordinary in the largest war in history. Therefor, it did not happen. This deserved no credence whatsoever. -- MarcusAurelius.

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?


 * With respect Gillyweed I’m afraid I don’t think this article needs a debate in the way that you suggest. Following my post this morning nothing new has yet come forward to persuade me to shift my position. I read the article you linked to. I cannot see any new evidence to support the claim. It seems to consist instead of a lot of unsubstantiated debate. The 16th RCT commentary linked there records nothing relevant, and I even babelfished the German language link. Still nothing new. If any reliable corroboration of the man’s claims can be found then please put it forward, but in the meantime would you consider this…?


 * Do you not think that this article, not to mention the subject it serves, would itself be better served by focussing on the real narrative of Omaha? I am no more impressed by the anon contributor’s aggression yesterday than you, but don’t you think he has a point? The story of Omaha is not Severloh. Not even remotely. The narrative of Omaha published by Stephen Ambrose (cited in the article – Professor of History, apparently not without a touch of scandal in his day but I suspect still a more reputable source than any so far produced) is 145 pages of text in 8 chapters. In all this work Mr Ambrose sees fit to mention Herr Severloh once: "'Landing craft on our left, off Vierville, making for the beach,' Cpl. Hein Severloh in Widerstandsnesten 62 called out." That’s it. The term "Beast of Omaha" never gets a mention, not by Mr Ambrose or in the copious amount of 1st person narrative from the Omaha veterans that he quotes. --FactotEm 21:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Factotem for having a reasonable debate and discussion. I will continue to ignore the rantings of the anonymous editors above (those who hide behind personal attack, abuse and fail to sign their posts do not receive any respect from me).  I understand your desire to ensure that the real story does not get hijacked by Severloh's claims.  The link I put in my last post was to indicate that there is no consensus on Severloh's claims and THUS we should not attempt to find the truth - and I contend that we will never find the truth about the claims.  What I do say is that whether we like it or not, Severloh and his 'exploits' are now 'notable'.  In fact I came to Omaha Beach because I read about Severloh at another site and wanted to check WP's view of his claims.  Therefore, I think it is important that WP has an article about Severloh.  Perhaps this article is not the right place for it - although we need a link from this page to the article.  The Severloh article than can then tease out some of the pros and cons of the argument.  What do you think? Gillyweed 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been bold and created a new article about Heinrich Severloh. The criticism section is light on.  Please add to it.  I'm not convinced I have integrated Severloh well into the 'casualties' section of this article.  Please feel free to amend it, but I don't think reference to Severloh should be deleted altogether as I think whether we like it or not, his claims are out there and they need to be acknowledged and debated (but in the Severloh article and not the Omaha beach article). Gillyweed 23:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While maybe Severloh is due his own article because of those few media mentions, but absolutely not in the main article. The fact that it is not mentioned in any reputable academics source is telling and that's what we should be using. The only book that actually mentions him, only has Severloh calling out a sighting, not singlehandedly taking out several battalions. --MichaelLinnear 00:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I still find it odd that this man is given any credence at all, but I understand your point now. Your solution will minimise any compromise to the main article and I think it is an equitable one. Obviously I think the new article would be most accurate if it basically pulled the claim to pieces, but there are more important things to do here and I’m not going to get involved in that. Thank you Gillyweed for your patient debate under duress. BTW, there are no official figures for casualties on D-Day for any of the beaches. The authorities only produced them for the Normandy campaign as a whole. Figures for D-Day are only ever estimates, which is why so many different ones are bandied around. --FactotEm 07:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * For the record, when I wrote my last comment I hadn’t seen the link left in the article. When I eventually did even that did not sit well, but you had been a shining example of restraint and reason and I had been distracted enough already by this issue. As I indicated, I’m afraid I do not regard the claim as relevant or notable. As such, I have no more intention of contributing to the new article than I would to the latest attention seeking flash in the pan Hollywood starlet or anything equally irrelevant to me. I do understand however, that others find it notable and my feeling is that it is up to them to give the subject the critical attention it needs. I hope that you can appreciate that in the meantime, to the extent that my meagre abilities allow, I need to continue with my attempts to do the main narrative justice. --FactotEm 10:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough! I think the work you are doing on the main article is excellent and I don't wish to distract you from this work.  Perhaps the anonymous editors who felt so impassioned about the issue might use their passion to improve the Serverloh article instead of abusing people and the work we do at WP.  Keep on editing FactotEm and I look forward to reading further of your work. Gillyweed 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Map image copies
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)

Peer Review
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 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)

Tragedy?
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)


 * Or just re-wording? I queried the use of "tragedy" with the author of that change (see here). I didn't take it any further but still think the previous wording was more appropriate. --FactotEm 15:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Phyrric" and "Costly" American Victory
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)
 * I don't believe any qualification is necessary. Info boxes do not require 'opinion' (and thus then referencing).  Statements of fact are required only.  Thus I agree completely with you Factotem, and I wll revert attempts at qualifying the stats too. Gillyweed 11:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Where from?
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)
 * The Trebah page has that photo as well... good source would help immensely. Jmlk  1  7  00:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Gallery deletion
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)
 * I would suggest you contact them directly on their talk page; might get answered quicker. Jmlk  1  7  02:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This was a result of the A-Class review that was completed recently. I have to say that I agree with the deletion. As far as I can tell images should appear in the body of the article and serve to illustrate the narrative. A gallery section tends to divorce the images from the prose. Having said that, your first picture of the Les Braves sculpture might work well as the last image in the article. Also, the 'assaulting the bluffs' section cries out for a bunker image but I have been singularly unsuccessful in finding a suitable and usable one from the period. One of the modern day images that used to be in the gallery might serve this purpose well. What do you think? --FactotEm 11:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am actually going to tend to agree with Factotem myself here. Jmlk  1  7  06:31, 26 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?
 * Fair point. The article ends with a paragraph on Omaha today. The problem with creating a sub-category for this is that there is not enough information there to warrant its own section. In both peer and A-Class reviews comments were made about short sections. I personally would also be concerned about too much information on Omaha today in an article that is specific to an historic event, especially as the article already pushes against size guidelines, but that would be a matter for concensus. I'm going to go ahead and insert the first second Les Braves image because I think it serves the article well as a terminator and because it also includes a sweeping view of the beach. Does this represent a reasonable compromise? One thing I would say is that from my reading so far gallery sections do seem to be frowned upon. --FactotEm 09:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree on the compromise, FactotEm. I would have thought that the photo of the monument to the battle would also go in, but, as you say, there may already be space limitations.  Thanks again for your interest in this.  One thing that really struck me when I was there is how the look of the beach today fails to provided any comprehension of the enormity of the invasion there. Anoneditor 16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Every now and then I just have to walk away when someone, often arbitrarily as far as I can tell, changes what are sometimes very carefully constructed sentences in articles I've worked on. It's taking some getting used to but that's Wikipedia for you I guess. --FactotEm 09:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

There is no reason why the "military style" of writing should be eliminated.This is a military subject, and it should be written in a style of writing that carries and sustains that. 69.18.107.231 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The military style is often used as camouflage to sound ultra-factual and discourage any questioning of assumptions. That is why military memoirs are so often deceptive. Valetude (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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


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


 * It shows the actual assault. Per Non-free_content section 1 there is no free alternative that does that. --FactotEm 13:42, 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)

Casualties
The BBC has just broadcast a documentary where the historian for the US Army's 29th Infantry Division said that latest estimates for the casualties are between 4,500 and 5,000. Does anyone know how many people actually died there, or died of their wounds? -- SteveCrook (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've read/heard/seen, it was about 2,000-2,500 killed, with about the same wounded. Not entirely sure myself though...  Jmlk  1  7  03:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They said that they were the accepted figures until fairly recently. But now they've done more research and revised the figures upwards quite a lot. They also mentioned that allowances were made for up to 6,000 casualties on Omaha beach alone -- SteveCrook (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's sorta weird... I've been searching for a bit now, and can't find any good sites with any decent numerical information. Jmlk  1  7  07:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember that casualties = killed, wounded and missing. The official figures covered the extended campaign, not D-Day itself, which is why the figure is so difficult to pin down. I don't have time to track through the sources (internet cafes are expensive), but one of the articles current sources does list the casualty figures published by the two Divisions involved for D-Day, and when I was expanding this article, the current figure given was the most reliably accurate I could find for the 6th of June. --FactotEm (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I, too, have seen many different numbers for the total casualty count. However, in this article, there are some inconsistencies. The table at the top-right of the article indicates 10,000 Allied, 4,200 Axis casualties. In the "End of Day" section, we see numbers listed totalling ~5,000 Allied, 1,200 Axis casualties. I don't really care which number we go with provided a) it's backed by the most recent/credible source, and b) it's consistent throughout the article. Thank you. Urstadt (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Photos
How did people get photos of the battle? Wouldn't they be shot and killed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.47.187.170 (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They basically just had to get in there and shoot (photos, not guns). And unfortunately, some did may the ultimate price.  Jmlk  1  7  23:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The first photo in the article was taken by the crew of the landing craft, but Robert Capa, a civilian, famously went in with the early assault waves (the second wave I think). Unfortunately we can't include any of his photos in the article because they are copyrighted, but there are a few of his Omaha Beach images in the wikipedia article on him. The story goes that he risked his life only for an over-excited lab technician back in England to screw up the developing process, and only a handful of the pictures survived.--FactotEm (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

Picture addition
I've undone this edit, which added another map to the end of day section. My reasons are... --FactotEm (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The existing image adequately illustrates the situation at Omaha at the end of the day;
 * The new image was general in scope, including all 5 D-Day beaches, rather than specific to Omaha;
 * It's representation of the situation at Omaha, of a single contiguous lodgement, is at odds with the narrative and the existing map, which shows isolated footholds;
 * The additional image ended up sandwiching text, which is a MoS no-no.
 * It's surprising to see this historic image rejected this way. What this map depicts is the situation as it was known to headquarters at the close of the day on June 6, 1944.  It is normal for this type of document to differ from later analysis because not all of the relevant intelligence information had been received and processed yet.  This in itself is noteworthy in a way that cannot be compared to maps that are simply nonspecific or wrong, because what this represents is the information available to commanding officers at the time when they made decisions.  There can be no better visual representation of that important perspective than a reproduction of the actual map used on that day.  The success or shortcomings of a military operation often relate to the quality of intelligence.  So I ask the editors of this page to consider that the article is considerably more informative with both types of image--historic and modern recreation--available for the reader to cross compare.  Durova Charge! 10:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And if this article was about the Allied intelligence relating to actions on D-Day, that would be a valid point. It is, however, an attempt to describe the actual progress at Omaha Beach, for which post-event analysis proves to be more accurate as a source. Having said that, I can see your point in including the map to illustrate the confusion generated on the day. It cannot however go into the End of the day section. That section is too small to accommodate both images, and the current map illustrates the narrative, whereas the new map contradicts it. Would you be happy to replace the preceding aerial view image with this new map, suitably captioned to convey the confused state of Allied intelligence? --FactotEm (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


 * A mention would fit well in Operation_Overlord (there's probably potential for an article on this by itself) but we need a few more facts, I think. I will make a note on my ToDo list, but it is a very long list...
 * EdJogg (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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


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

Thanks!

Quote boxes without actual quotes?
Is it just me or are the actual quotes missing from the two grey boxes? I mean the ones that were probably meant to give statements of "Captain Richard Merrill, 2nd Ranger Battalion" and "Unidentified lieutenant, Easy Red sector". Looking back through history they seem to have been missing for some while now. Betabug (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


 * Included in the US landing parties at Omaha was a British mobile Ground-controlled interception unit, GCIU 15082, which consisted of mostly RAF, with some RCAF, personnel and their vehicles - Similar RAF mobile GCI units were landed at all the beaches. They provided air defence radar for the landings, supplementing the Fighter Direction Tenders, HMS FDT 13, HMS FDT 216 and HMS FDT 217.


 * Coincidently, these (see image) are some of GCIU 15082 's very vehicles - behind the bogged-down Sherman - burnt out on the beach: [[Image:Normandy Invasion June 1944.jpg|thumb|right|Burnt out vehicles of RAF Radar Convoy 15082 and a bogged-down [[M4 Sherman]] equipped for deep wading, on Omaha on the afternoon of D-Day]]


 * GCIU 15082 's casualties on Omaha Beach were, six officers and 41 airmen killed out of a total of 120 personnel, and they lost all their 36 or-so vehicles, although some were later salvaged. Once replacement vehicles were landed they eventually became operational on D+4. On the same day two Spitfire squadrons arrived from England and started operating from a landing strip off Gold Beach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Naval Support
I have once again removed this statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I understand that you seem to have a personal view about this. Your last sentence seems to confirm your position. However, WP is not a place for personal arguments.  The thing is, you can't simply synthesize statements viz: that firepower was too low ' by a factor of 10, resulting in an excessive number of American casualties.''  The source does not say this.  The source says specifically that "the amount of naval gunfire to be delivered in a given situation cannot be arrived at mathematically" and yet that is what you have attempted to do.  Please review WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:3R.  Thanks. Gillyweed (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for revising your statement. I have moved it to better integrate into the text, other wise it does not fit with the narrative.  I hope you think it is now sufficient. Gillyweed (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

Dramatizations (II)
I've removed references to dramatizations from the lead. This is why... 1. Before reaching FA status this article had an extensive and, IMHO, entirely irrelevant 'Dramatizations' section (it even included a reference to Conkers Bad Fur Day), which added nothing to the understanding of what happened at Omaha Beach. 2. Video games and Hollywood fiction do not, it seems to me, have any place in articles such as these. They do not appear in other works on the subject, why should they here? 3. They go against Wikipedia guidelines on Trivia (at least, the last time I looked at them). 4. Their placement in the lead is entirely against the purpose of the lead, which is to summarise the main body, not introduce information that is ignored in the main body (relevant or not). FactotEm (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I've removed such sections from this article before. Unless they are very well cited and relevant, they have no place in articles. Skinny87 (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Belgian forces?
Last line above the contents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


 * Wikipedia rules are quite clear. If an article is written in standard English it should not be changed to American English, and vice versa. To quote from the Wikipedia Manual of Style: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary". There is no need for a racist anti-British outburst here.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ENGVAR when a subject is closely associated with the US, as this one is, it is appropriate to use US English in place of British. Sorry, but British English is not more "standard" than US English by any Wikipedia policy or guideline or manual of style.  It is just as if some British English speaker had started an article on Abraham Lincoln, or if a US English speaker began an article about London. It can  be changed to the more closely related variety of English. If it is about a topic with no close association to either country, it should remain in whatever version was first used. The article already used American spellings "defense" and "armor." I changed one use of "colour" to "color" for consistency per WP:ENGVAR.  Edison (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2014 (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 entered a reference to a site with world war two games and Omaha Beach and it was deleted
I am not committed to the reference being there, just that I played the game and it gave a pretty good feel of the battle, so I thought it might be a good reference for people to understand the battle. Just thought it would help as there are not a lot of games around on the subject. I did make some entries on a couple of battles, not to advertise as I don't have any dog in the hunt except the games were fun. I can take those out if it is felt warranted.

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


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