And just to make sure you remember, it wasn't the Americans fault for planning mistakes on Omaha. The landings were planned by brass from each of the ETO allied countries.
Oh and PoisonedAl, don't forget that the other American Beach, Utah, went off more smoothly than any other landing. Only 197 casualties at Utah beach. About 2000 on Omaha. Together they equal about the same as both British beaches put together. About about 1000 each on Gold and Sword. I'm unsure about Juno, so I don't know how Canadian casualties compare.
Which is why they made omaha the best defended beach of them all. Casualties would've been just as bad or worse if the Brits or Canadians had landed there. So shut the f*ck up, crazy. By the way, the Brits weren't sent because they had already suffered too many casualties trying to defend Europe before we came to their aid. Just accept that the war was one by every allied country and it might not have been without every one.
Britain would've been invaded if it weren't for assistance the US gave. Russia would've lost millions more soldiers if we hadn't opened up a Western front. And in regards to the heavy casualties on Omaha beach, the entire allied force knew it was the lest suited for landing but was also the most necessary. If no one took Omaha, there would be a giant gap in between the two halfs of the beach invasion and it would give the germans enough time to launch an effective counter attack. The germans knew this too.
Hamsterbobo's recent comments: