|
Why were US losses so much higher?
|
|
|
|
|
Because we stuck our noses in there.
|
|
|
|
|
Because their makeshift amphibious tanks[^] became submarines and the soldiers had only little support.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
You gave a single answer to a question with hundreds of answers needed, for the hundreds of reasons why. 
|
|
|
|
|
True, but the sum of those factors is: The infantrymen were exposed to machinegun fire without much cover or enough support and needed more time to get through the defenses and obstacles.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a good entry that explains a bit of it quite well:
Normandy landings - Wikipedia[^]
Omaha beach was probably a big part of the US losses.
Omaha Beach Omaha, the most heavily defended beach, was assigned to the 1st Infantry Division and 29th Infantry Division.[149] They faced the 352nd Infantry Division rather than the expected single regiment.[150] Strong currents forced many landing craft east of their intended position or caused them to be delayed.[151] For fear of hitting the landing craft, American bombers delayed releasing their loads and, as a result, most of the beach obstacles at Omaha remained undamaged when the men came ashore.[152] Many of the landing craft ran aground on sandbars and the men had to wade 50-100m in water up to their necks while under fire to get to the beach.[100] In spite of the rough seas, DD tanks of two companies of the 741st Tank Battalion were dropped 5,000 yards (4,600 m) from shore, and 27 of the 32 flooded and sank, with the loss of 33 crew.[153] Some tanks, disabled on the beach, continued to provide covering fire until their ammunition ran out or they were swamped by the rising tide.[154]
Casualties were around 2,000, as the men were subjected to fire from the cliffs above.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, but we freed Europe from German domination.. 
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Where would Europe be today without German domination [of the EU] notwithstanding their deep pockets?
(Yeah there's the frogs too but they would sooner sit on their hands than help their neighbours.)
Sin tack
the any key okay
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: but we freed Europe from German domination
Well, there's no but needed in reply to my post.
My post was just the details of what happened and why so many US losses.
Those men who sacrificed their lives are heroes who gave everything for our freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Those men who sacrificed their lives are heroes who gave everything for our freedom.
I agree 100%..
Sadly there's little acknowledgement of those sacrifices (and those of all the allied forces that took part) in Europe these days.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am guessing here...
We threw more bodies at the beach then Britain, or France?
Also, what part of D-Day are you talking about - the beach landing, the advancement once on the beach, or the 24 hour period of that day in general?
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: We threw more bodies at the beach then Britain, or France?
There were 73,000 Americans, 61,000 Brits and 22,000 Canadians involved.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
My grandfather's cousin, Charlie, was one of the Canadians, and unfortunately, one of those killed as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Why were US losses so much higher?
They showed up?
|
|
|
|
|
Another single answer among all the others would be Heinrich Severloh.
But all in all, there were many reasons working together.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus cites an excellent article. Mind you, the Allies had spent months spoofing the Germans. In fact, most of the serious combat forces were up in Calais where Adolf was convinced the invasion would target. Oops.
At that point, it comes down to where the Germans were, and it happened to be Omaha beach. Other American landings were lightly opposed.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not much mention of it here.. almost like it didn't happen. Weird how we seem to overlook so much of the positives from our history in the UK.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect there'll be much more coverage in 2019 for the 75th anniversary.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
You would hope so.. I lived in Russia for a couple of years (worked for a Russian software company) and it was surprising to see how much the commemorate May the 9th.
There's certainly a lot of pride in their efforts against the German army - unfortunately the public aren't really informed about Russian involvement from '39-'41 and the occupation of eastern Europe in the subsequent years.
Conversely, we just seem to dismiss it these days (perhaps in case it offends any of our 'friends' in the EU). One lesson I gleamed from my Russian experience is that if you don't treasure your history, eventually you end up losing it.
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it's for fear of offending anyone.
We have a sod of a lot of history and every day to be the anniversary of something. It's kind of natural that things in recent times get commemorated annually whereas things a long time ago get commemorated every 100 years. Events in-between tend to get the round-figures treatment.
I see nothing sinister in that.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: I don't think it's for fear of offending anyone.
You would not believe the amount of things that are being done totally wrong just for that reason (a.k.a. political correctness)
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
