A Question about Omaha Beach

[Jonnyb]

Like alot of people around here I've read alot about the D-Day landings, especially over the last ten years. I've read every publication I could get my hand on, researched weapons, details of individual battles, and been fascinated by eye witness accounts. Like everything with history, it's the eye witnesses that give us the clearest picture of the events themselves.
Reading 'D-Day through German Eyes', which along with 'Normandie Front' gives incredible accounts of what actually happened between 6 am and the afternoon of 6th June 1944, I have a question which has been on my mind for a while, and am hoping the knowledgeable people around here, on a site I have been following for years but only just joined, could help me with.

The accounts from several German soldiers in the Widerstandsnests, particulary those from Omaha beach, describe inflicting a casualty rate far higher than the official figures, even higher than the refined ~3,600 total casualty figure which was suggested by modern research into the US national archives. The most famous of these was Hein Severloh, who (in)famously claimed he'd seen 2000 men die in his iron sights. Another who makes such a claim are Henrik Naube at the Vierville draw, which puts him at WN73-72. He describes 88mm Paks firing directly into a number of landing craft upon their approach to the beach, which would have been impossible given that the '75s at WN73 and 72 and the famous 88mm at WN72 enfiladed the beach, which would have made this shot unattainable. Anthony Beevor in his book states that 'most of the artillery at Omaha Beach consisted of Czech 100mm guns'. So my first question is- could the morning reports submitted by individual US divisions from D-Day have been wrong, or changed by command to cover up horrendous losses?

Second question is, which is linked to the first- was there far more weaponry at the beach, particulary at D1 draw, than previously recorded? The way that the beach's weaponry varies so widely according to the source you're reading is confusing but interesting. The way that Naval artillery permanently changed the geographic landscape of this battlefield means that such gunpits could surely have existed, been destroyed in counter fire and never have registered on an after battle record. Seveloh at WN62 claims in his own book that he escaped the battlefield with his MG42 on him, dumping it in a bush on the way back to Colleville, and I've seen his position missed off older books of the WN62 position, perhaps for this reason. So, in a nutshell, more weaponry and a massive casualty cover up, or are these eyewitness participants just not telling us the truth?

[pete]

.

I would dare say that it was possible to inflict a high casualty rate in that ground condition while the Germans could use that ground in that way....WHILE they could....NOT for long though...

You could speak with Jean-Loup, not just for his knowledge but for his way to look at fact vs statistics...then you can look in the right places in the right ways. Remember reports at top level are populated with data that comes "up" from unit commanders, some being honest, some not. The key would be at the coalition of the lowest level reports, the companies level- and Bn Regt, and that will take time to assemble and compare. There should already be lots of real data on this on the internet. As anywhere there were factors in the reporting, as it always is, the public reaction and ops security was considered. Consider South Africa in the Battle of Cuanavale in the 80s...

I can read the news now for example as i have spent half my life in war zones, and i can see what the news wants me to see and as i know background info from some places first hand i can see right through "who and why" level 1, 2 and sometimes 3...these days its even more complex!


P

[Jean-Loup]

Eyewitnesses systematicaly exagerate numbers of casualties, as do period reports estimating enemy losses. I dont mean the numbers are always exagerated on purpose, but when people see pools of blood and mangled bodies, they dont view the situation objectively and overestimate numbers of killed.
When reading veteran accounts, this needs to be kept in mind. Neither Severloh or any of the other germans went to check who was dead, wounded or simply taking cover in front of their guns. Their recollections are simply what their memory recorded in a horrendous life or death situation.
I doubt that there could be any sort of meaningfull cover up about Omaha beach. Unit histories, cemetery registers and individual personnel deceased files are all easily accessible to the public. With all the historians who have been pouring over this material, there is no chance that anything major could remain hidden.
As for the details of exact weapons used, keep in mind it was a battle situation, seen from a certain distance, in a very confused environment. Was that an 88 that was fired straigh into a landing craft? Or did it hit at an angle? Or was it a mortar shell? Or perhaps a 75mm? A forensic investigation on site may answer that question; an eyewitness who barely escaped with his life cannot.
When policemen interwiew witnesses, they know it is perfectly normal for there to be a certain number of inconsistencies and contradictions. Their absence would be suspicious.

JL

[jacquesf]

"Consider South Africa in the Battle of Cuanavale in the 80s..."

Pete care to elaborate? J

[bigschuss]

Eyewitnesses systematicaly exagerate numbers of casualties, as do period reports estimating enemy losses. I dont mean the numbers are always exagerated on purpose, but when people see pools of blood and mangled bodies, they dont view the situation objectively and overestimate numbers of killed.
When reading veteran accounts, this needs to be kept in mind. Neither Severloh or any of the other germans went to check who was dead, wounded or simply taking cover in front of their guns. Their recollections are simply what their memory recorded in a horrendous life or death situation.
I doubt that there could be any sort of meaningfull cover up about Omaha beach. Unit histories, cemetery registers and individual personnel deceased files are all easily accessible to the public. With all the historians who have been pouring over this material, there is no chance that anything major could remain hidden.
As for the details of exact weapons used, keep in mind it was a battle situation, seen from a certain distance, in a very confused environment. Was that an 88 that was fired straigh into a landing craft? Or did it hit at an angle? Or was it a mortar shell? Or perhaps a 75mm? A forensic investigation on site may answer that question; an eyewitness who barely escaped with his life cannot.
When policemen interwiew witnesses, they know it is perfectly normal for there to be a certain number of inconsistencies and contradictions. Their absence would be suspicious.

JL

I was going to respond with something similar....Jean-Loup did it better than I could have. Veterans' memories are sometimes notoriously foggy. Time and the trauma of the experiences have a way of clouding memories.

[Jean-Loup]

Its not just veteran's memories, but any human's. When the terrorist truck attack occured in Nice last year, soon enaugh there were rumors that there was a cover up about the real number of dead because the first responders and medical personnel had seen way more bodies than the "official" number of dead, etc, etc. That is absolutely typical in that sort of situation, and the same sort of rumor had gone around after a few people had died in flooding in southern France just a few years earlier.
Some people still believe this although in these days of facebook there is no way you could cover up one single dead person in this sort of situation without some major disinformation work, nor would there be any reason to want to cover up the real number.

When I wrote my book about Op Dragoon, I compared real German numbers of casualties as listed by the Volksbund to claims made by French and Allied witnesses, reports and medal citations. Needless to say it was exceptional for the number of German killed to be correctly recorded. Instead they were almost always overestimated, sometimes quite wildly.

[pete]

"Consider South Africa in the Battle of Cuanavale in the 80s..."

Pete care to elaborate? J

The way i understand that it was a touchy situation....the PR bit.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cuito_Cuanavale


The campaign which followed culminated in the largest battle on African soil since World War II,[12] and according to some accounts, the second largest clash of African armed forces in history. FAPLA had poor discipline yet was well-equipped, and Cuban air power proved to be a decisive advantage over the SADF. Nevertheless, the advancing FAPLA forces were frequently encircled and destroyed in running clashes with the much nimbler South African armoured cars.[13][14] The FAPLA offensive was halted with heavy casualties, and abandoned shortly thereafter.[15][15][16] As the SADF had a political imperative to avoid casualties wherever possible, and had orders to avoid the town unless it fell into their hands without a fight, it therefore made no attempt to follow up on its advantage and to capture the town.[17][18][19] Both sides claimed victory.[20][21]
Today, the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale is credited by some with ushering in the first round of trilateral negotiations, mediated by the United States, which secured the withdrawal of Cuban and South African troops from Angola and Namibia by 1991.[22]

[pete]

I was going to respond with something similar....Jean-Loup did it better than I could have. Veterans' memories are sometimes notoriously foggy. Time and the trauma of the experiences have a way of clouding memories.

Thats true when you deal with trauma like someone getting blown up, or other life death situations on operations...its weird looking back its even hazy, you're just so busy commanding and organizing to see some details at some levels and alot is going on in your mind just doing the job.

P

[jacquesf]

The way i understand that it was a touchy situation....the PR bit.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cuito_Cuanavale


The campaign which followed culminated in the largest battle on African soil since World War II,[12] and according to some accounts, the second largest clash of African armed forces in history. FAPLA had poor discipline yet was well-equipped, and Cuban air power proved to be a decisive advantage over the SADF. Nevertheless, the advancing FAPLA forces were frequently encircled and destroyed in running clashes with the much nimbler South African armoured cars.[13][14] The FAPLA offensive was halted with heavy casualties, and abandoned shortly thereafter.[15][15][16] As the SADF had a political imperative to avoid casualties wherever possible, and had orders to avoid the town unless it fell into their hands without a fight, it therefore made no attempt to follow up on its advantage and to capture the town.[17][18][19] Both sides claimed victory.[20][21]
Today, the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale is credited by some with ushering in the first round of trilateral negotiations, mediated by the United States, which secured the withdrawal of Cuban and South African troops from Angola and Namibia by 1991.[22]

Pete, Having been involved in the battle, I would say it was a comprehensive victory for the SA forces, but I get your point about the propaganda efforts by the other side in the post war years, does not change the facts however.

"The results of the campaign up to April 1988 were 4,785 killed on the Cuban/Faplan side, with 94 tanks and hundreds of combat vehicles destroyed, against 31 South Africans killed in action, 3 tanks destroyed (SADF tanks entered the war after the Lomba River campaign) and 11 SADF armoured cars and troop carriers lost. A total of 9 Migs were destroyed and only 1 SAAF Mirage shot down."

[pete]

.

Exactly what i am referring to...half my friends are SA vets. Most people have no clue about any of these battles!



P

[o.r.k.]

Cuito Canavale was special as it had more the elements of conventional warfare than the many bushwar skirmishes character (f.e. real tank battles- and the SADF armor wasn´t designed for that). The SADF certainly was the best army in Africa, I know some vets and stories as well. It seems the generations of Boers surviving wild beasts, Zulu attacks, the Britons and the harsh environment for centuries are born soldiers. Interestingly quite a few soldiers with German ancestry (some `old aristocratic names´ included) served in the SADF, fighting the Soviet and East German advisors and their communist African allies.

But to the topic- I believe in battle with adrenaline and the fog of war, especially when an enemy is in the firing line, casualties are perceived much higher. A few dozen dead men are already a gruesome sight on the battlefield, so a hundred can look like many more. Luckily I never had to be in a war when serving, as I believe such pictures haunt you long after.

[pete]

.

Well, even sometimes small events can be intensified, theres always a lot more blood then you thought, etc...time definitely slows down and you are aware of everything on a totoally different level. Maybe that accounts for people reporting...

I cant help myself, I am gonna go play the Koevoet song now on mandolin, backed up by Jy praat nog steeds my taall and send it to my pals in iraq on video....

I've got quite a few friends who are clearing the battle area of the very well laid mines and their patterns...

P