Would D-Day still have been a success had Omaha Beach been abandoned?

[davidpt40]

See the attached map:
https://i2.wp.com/www.military-history.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Plan-of-operations-on-d-day.jpg

With so many successful beaches attacked and breached, would it have mattered much if Omaha Beach had been abandoned?  Ike contemplated it when the beach had filled up with destroyed vehicles and dead troops.  In fact, would it have not been better to actually flank Omaha beach with the troops from Utah beach who received very light casualties?  We really don't hear much about the other beach attacks because Omaha was a near disaster and only barely managed to gain a foothold later in the day.

For some reason, U.S bombers would not bomb the beaches parallel.  They insisted on attacking perpendicular.  This caused all the bombs to fall far inland of the targets.  The 8th repeated this debacle in Operation Cobra (the breakout of Normandy), but this time the bombs fell short.  800 Americans were killed (not counting wounded), along with a General.  If you count the wounded, this might actually be more casualties than occurred at Omaha Beach (2000 killed, wounded, and missing).

[Oldman731]

The worry was that the Germans would have been able to isolate both bridgeheads - Utah and the British/Canadian - and destroy them separately.  The 12th SS Panzer tried to separate the Canadians from the British on June 7, so the Germans might be expected to try the same thing with the bigger opportunity of No Omaha.  The Allies made every effort, post 6/6, to link the bridgeheads together.  And in hindsight, having Omaha available, after the June 19-21 storm destroyed the Mulberries, was crucial to supplying all of the forces.

No one can know, of course.  Naval gunfire saved the American beachheads in the Sicily, Salerno and Anzio landings, and it might have done the same in Normandy.  But it would have been ugly.

- oldman

[zack1234]

If the landings had failed it would have been Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in that order.

So the Kruats got of lightly.

[Meatwad]

All of Britan would be wearing lederhosen, eating schnitzel, and driving Trabants or Messerschmitt KR200's

[perdue3]

All of Britan would be wearing lederhosen, eating schnitzel, and driving Trabants or Messerschmitt KR200's

I disagree. Dragoon was successful and Italy was basically won. It was a matter of time. If Omaha was unsuccessful, a counter landing would have been in order farther to the north or south. Not to mention the Soviets were really pushing at this time as well.

[snugar109]

The worry was that the Germans would have been able to isolate both bridgeheads - Utah and the British/Canadian - and destroy them separately.

 

[Mister Fork]

If the landings had failed it would have been Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in that order.

So the Krauts got off lightly.

Yup. I don't think most people think about that - it probably would be Cologne and Berlin in a one-two punch or whatever city they thought Hitler would of been staying.  Though I suspect given Hitler's fanatical movement and devotion to fascism, it might have taken a half-dozen bombings before they capitulated.

[davidpt40]

The uranium bomb turned out to be a dead end.  It wasn't until plutonium was tested that atomic bombs became viable.  This was in 1945.  That being said. I fully feel that the Soviets would have made it all the way to the coast of France.  They were an unstoppable juggernaut.

Were their enough paratroopers for another drop behind Omaha Beach if it had failed?  A flanking maneuver would have been in order if Omaha Beach couldn't be captured from a head-on attack. 

[Vraciu]

If the landings had failed it would have been Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in that order.

So the Kruats got of lightly.

This.

[perdue3]

This.

I know you can't possibly 100% agree with that statement, can you?

[guncrasher]

Yup the USA had and endless supply of nuclear material. They only used two bombs because that's all they had. The use of another was just a threat.


semp

[davidpt40]

Yup the USA had and endless supply of nuclear material. They only used two bombs because that's all they had. The use of another was just a threat.


semp

The U.S spent the majority of the war refining enough uranium for just one bomb.  It was only a fluke that they discovered that plutonium was a viable option.  For the invasion of Japan, a total of 8 smaller tactical bombs were hoped to be produced.  Only a quarter of that amount would have likely came to fruition.

[Arlo]

Besides, the U.S. had no desire to irradiate any part of Europe. There was still money to be made there post-war. Japanese innovation of technology and global marketing wasn't envisioned yet.

[Volron]

Besides, the U.S. had no desire to irradiate any part of Europe. There was still money to be made there post-war. Japanese innovation of technology and global marketing wasn't envisioned yet.

They did have a "clean slate" to work from after the war, seeing as we pretty much bombed all the things.

[zack1234]

Carpet bombing of factories had little effect on heavy plant.

Infrastructure and the transportation of materials and products was disrupted.

Both in Germany and Japan the Allies found vast amounts of war materials.

And oil production was reduced by bombing which was a major headache for the Bosch.

For you men who wear dresses, to destroy a Industrial press or a lathe you need to drop a bomb directly on top it. (Blowing roofs of factories only make it drafty)

Various books written about economics of said conflict.

Basically the Krauts and Japs infrastructure was rebuilt and the industrial output used for peace time products.

And it was nothing to do with technological and industrial prowess, the Allies knew that these two countries needed to be kept busy or they would start acting like savages again.

Italy was not given as much Marshall Aid because they were bone idle and were too busy drinking wine and producing Sofia Loren types.