Omaha Shermans

A comment by a veteran on a recent documentary mentioned that a contributing factor to the Shermans bound for Omaha beach sinking was their being 'launched' to far from the shore.

Was it established why this happened? Bad planning, circumstance or loss of nerve?

The loss of half of the DD tanks intended for Omaha beach was mostly due to bad planning by US V Corp. The British, who planned from the start to launch much closer to shore, remarked on the swim distance envisaged but these remarks were ignored. Sea conditions were slightly worse off Omaha than the other beaches, too, which didn't help.

Off the Commonwealth beaches, a number of LCT commanders declined to launch off-shore and took their armour right in to the beaches. This sort of flexibility wasn't shown to a sufficient extent off Omaha.

In the end, it was inept tactical planning and bad execution which caused the debacle at Omaha, not any one single

It was bad planning.

Both the US Navy and Army studied the capabilities of the DD Shermans and both recommended them being launched no more than 4000 yards from shore, preferably no more than 1000 yards.

DDs had been deployed and successfully landed 4000 yards from shore in training but some crews suffered from carbon monoxide poisoning from the exhaust. DD tanks also had difficulty navigating that far from shore since they had to rely on a single periscope.

The original Omaha plan called for the DD tanks to be launched 6000 yards from shore but this was changed to 5000 yards, still well beyond the tactical recommendations and training.

Adrian Lewis's 'Omaha Beach: A Flawed Victory' points out the discrepancy between the recommendations and the final plan but does not say why the recommendations were not followed. I assume the blame lies with the planning done by V Corps since the use of the DD tanks was set there.

The real cause of the heavy losses of DD tanks was not the launch point, it was the sea. Sea conditions were worse at Omaha than at the other invasion beaches. Waves were running up to six feet, easily big enough to swamp a swimming DD Sherman.

Andrew Warinner This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

According to this week's History Channel program on the DD Sherman losses at Omaha, the waves were also interacting with a current so that they ran at an angle to the beach. In order for the DD Shermans to reach the beach they had to steer into this current so that waves breaking along the sidewall of the DD Sherman making swamping almost inevitable.

They were launched something like 3 miles out AIUI. One of the interviewees on the documentary attributed to rank cowardice.

IBM

One account I have read claims that the DD tanks bound for Omaha beach were launched at the planned distance from shore, but that the landing craft had been carried far from the designated landing beaches by strong cross-currents. The tank crews, sighting on a church steeple as a landmark, had to run a diagonal course to the landing site, rather than coming in perpendicular to the shore as planned. This meant that the heavy seas hit the tanks 'beam-on' rather than at the stern, causing the canvas skirts to buckle at their most vulnerable point.

I found an interesting link discussing the fate of the DD Shermans at Omaha here:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/ marine_dday_underwater_02.shtml

Of the 26 Shermans found in the underwater survey, none were closer than 1000 yards from shore.

Andrew Warinner This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Bad doctrine was also at fault. The USMC had given up on amphibious tanks in the 1920s when they tested the Christie amphibious tank. Their doctrine called for carrying tanks in landing craft rather than developing amphibious tanks. This doctrine was what was used in the Pacific by both the USMC and US Army as well as the Australians and New Zealanders. In the ETO where the British had more influence on amphibious thinking, there was more of an emphasis on 'funnies' - tanks and other land vehicles developed into many different forms.

Accounts from veterens in S. Ambrose's book of D-Day indicate that in some instances when the LCT's dropped the ramps and the tanks rolled off they were gone within seconds. Does this mean the skirts were totally inadequate to withstand any rough weather or was it simply too deep? Are there any tanks still there?

The no.'s I seen on TV was 1 or 2 tanks out of 40 or 50 made it to shore at Omaha.

I'm not very knowledgable on this subject, but from what I've seen boils my blood quite a bit. I can't begin to imagine launching tanks 1000's of yards from shore. That is idiotic in my opinion. If they could put troops to the shore line I would think they could of landed the 40-50 tanks first after a good carpet bombing of the beach. At least the tanks would of had more than skin for armor. The tanks (at least a hour in advance ahead of the troops ) delivered at shoreline. They could spot for the navy ships gunnery also through radios possibly... then the troops could of landed.

Also can someone tell me if Omaha beach had planed for Airborne troops to of been dropped behind enemy lines a day or night before the invasion to sneak attack the bunkers from behind. I seen where the British were successful at Juno or Sword beach with that tactic. They lost maybe 135 out of 225 paratroopers,but caught the Germans off guard neutralizing the bunkers and nazi defenses.

Not if the sea is sufficiently calm and the tides weak. As Rich pointed out, of the 34 DD tanks launched 5000 yards from Sword beach, only 3 were swamped. Off Omaha, strong lateral tides and choppy seas created sea conditions which made a long launch distance highly dangerous.

The criticism to be made is of the lack of flexibility in the US plan which worked against the commanders of some Landing Craft Tanks (LCTs) using their discretion to launch either closer to the beach or to carry the tanks right into the beach, although of course half the DD tanks intended to be swum into Omaha beach *were* in fact beached directly.

The situation is not so easy.

In the first place, the beaches *were* heavily bombed and shelled, but throughout WW2 troops and emplacements survived bombardment to a surprising degree. Many emplacements were specially constructed to be invulnerable to naval gunfire and bombing. While the Commonwealth planners assumed that most beach defences would survive, the US planners assumed - wrongly - that most would be destroyed.

There is perhaps some excuse for this: while the high bluffs gave the defender an important terrain advantage, the manmade defences at Omaha were not spectacular, consisting mainly of field defensive positions with a few concrete pillboxes. There were no inland defensive positions at all, unlike the Commonwealth beaches which were backed by villages converted into fortresses and open fields with large purpose-designed bunker complexes.

On this basis, the US planners rejected the use of heavy tanks and specialist armoured engineering vehicles to clear mines and obstacles and help knock out bunkers. Self-propelled artillery and standard Sherman tanks were to lay down covering fire until dismounted engineers cleared the heavily mined beaches and anti-tank obstacles, whereupon the infantry and tanks would advance in the usual way. The overall plan was not that much different to any WW1 battle.

This tactical plan failed utterly at Omaha. The defences were not suppressed; the thinly-armoured tanks and SP artillery which reached the beach were quickly knocked out by gunfire or mines; the dismounted engineers under heavy fire were unable to clear the obstacles or mines; and it was left to the infantry to heroically crawl forward and painfully suppress the defences, helped by some naval gun support.

It was bad planning, not any exceptional terrain or defensive strength, which led to the massacre at Omaha beach.

Airborne troops were not used immediately behind the Commonwealth beaches, but further inland to capture key bridges and towns and thus secure the flank of the invasion sector. A drop immediately behind Omaha beach would have been straight into the centre of the German rear areas.