“A major contribution to our understanding of the assault on Omaha Beach.” — Journal of Military History
“
Omaha Beach: A Flawed Victory offers a new approach to the D-Day landings and will have a great appeal to armchair generals and those who believe in a 'lessons learned' approach to military history. Serious students of the campaign in north-west Europe will value the new questions asked by Lewis.” — War in History
“Why the US troop landing at Omaha Beach turned into the Normandy invasion’s toughest and bloodiest battle is the subject of this thought-provoking analysis. . . . Lewis carefully examines all of the unexpected challenges and bad decisions of the landing, as well as the flexibility demonstrated in initiatives taken to overcome them.” —
CHOICE
“The fullest study of the planning for the cross-channel invasion we have. . . . No future student of Omaha Beach . . . will be able to ignore this book.” —
Naval History
“A dual Main Selection of the History Book Club, this clearly written, carefully argued and well-researched account offers a still-valid lesson in the importance of communication up and down the chain of command, and on bravery.” —
Publishers Weekly
“[Lewis] has built a very strong case by using primary evidence, such as army archives and memoirs of the commanders involved. Historical specialists and scholars will be interested in the book.” —
Library Journal
“Since Omaha Beach occupies a place in American consciousness comparable to Gettysburg’s, seasoned military-history readers may be intrigued by the meticulousness of the assault plan and how it went awry, with thousands of casualties and near-defeat at the water’s edge. . . . A revisionist analysis to complement more popular treatments, such as Stephen Ambrose’s
D-Day.” — Booklist
“Lewis brings qualifications as both a soldier and a scholar to this analysis of the D-Day assault on Omaha Beach. The invasion’s planners, Lewis argues, sought to combine tactical surprise and overwhelming fire superiority. The result was a high-risk compromise that collapsed at the water’s edge in the Omaha sector, and might have done so on the other beaches as well. That the men on the spot were able to improvise victory at high cost does not justify overlooking the shortcomings of the doctrines and the orders that sent them in — shortcomings demonstrated carefully and systematically in this major contribution to our understanding of the 1944 invasion of Europe.” — Dennis Showalter, author of
Tannenberg: Clash of Empires
Book Description
A soldier-scholar assesses the Normandy invasion
About the Author
Adrian R. Lewis is associate professor of history at the University of North Texas in Denton and a retired major in the U.S. Army.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Walking along Omaha Beach on the coast of Normandy in France, one is struck by four distinct impressions that come in rapid, logical succession. The first impression is one of awe. The magnitude of the 1st Infantry Division's assault in World War II almost defies description. The terrain, the configuration of the ground, greatly increased the difficulty of the task. The length and width of the beach, the dominance of the bluff that overlooks the beach, the concave shape of the shoreline, which permitted the delivery of direct fire from three directions, the concrete remains of the German defense with its numerous fighting positions along the bluff, the cliffs that flank the coast from which artillery observers could deliver indirect fire to any location on the beach, all combine to create the perception of an impenetrable natural and man-made defense. And this initial impression is incomplete since the numerous arrays of obstacles and minefields are now gone.
One can stand on the bluff that overlooks Omaha Beach and visualize thousands of American soldiers and sailors exiting what appear to be tiny landing craft, trying to cross these open stretches of beach in daylight under enemy fire. A basic understanding of the capabilities of modern, rapid-fire weapons suggests the immensity of the task. Of the defense at Omaha Beach, American naval historian Samuel Eliot Morison wrote: "Altogether, the Germans had provided the best imitation of hell for an invading force that American troops had encountered anywhere. Even the Japanese defense of Iwo Jima, Tarawa and Peleliu are not to be compared with these."[1]
The second response is emotional. It is a feeling of admiration for the men who fought at Omaha Beach. This is hallowed ground. It would take a poet or a master storyteller, not a historian or a soldier, to describe the spirit of these men. Perhaps the comment of a Union colonel who watched Confederate general George Pickett's division advance on Cemetery Ridge during the third day of the Gettysburg campaign is appropriate. He said: "It was the most beautiful thing I ever saw."[2] These words were spoken not to glorify war but to recognize the spirit of the men who advanced. Above Omaha Beach is an American cemetery. There, one feels deep respect for the men who advanced and died at Omaha Beach.
The third thought that comes to mind is, Why here? And why this way? A direct infantry assault against a deliberate defense years in the making, in daylight, following a paltry thirty-minute bombardment appears to be a very costly way to take Omaha Beach. The attack had neither the advantage of darkness nor overwhelming firepower. To explain why the American assault on Omaha Beach received such meager fire support, Morison wrote:[T]he Allies were invading a continent where the enemy had immense capabilities for reinforcement and counterattack, not a small island cut off by sea power from sources of supply. They had to have tactical surprise, which a long pre-landing bombing or bombardment would have lost. . . . Even a complete pulverizing of the Atlantic Wall at Omaha would have availed us nothing, if the German command had been given 24 hours' notice to move up reserves for counterattack. We had to accept the risk of heavy casualties on the beaches to prevent far heavier ones on the plateau and among the hedgerows.[3]
One might ask, If tactical surprise was so important, why didn't the landing take place at night, under the cover of darkness? This would have limited the effects of enemy fire and facilitated achieving tactical surprise. To explain why the landing took place during the early-morning hours of daylight, historian Gordon Harrison, in the official history of the U.S. Army in World War II, wrote: "The assault was considered as a frontal attack which was unlikely even to have the advantage of tactical surprise. . . . The task of smashing through enemy beach defenses was to be facilitated as far as possible by naval fire support and air bombardment."[4]
Read the complete introduction.
Wow! eBook
