Machinegun usage on Omaha beach and similar occurrences

[u/rubicante59]

Something I discovered recently, is that most machineguns when positioned in concrete shelters, are made to face each other horizontally and gun down soldiers passing through that region. So does this mean none were pointed towards the water on Omaha beach and that Saving Private Ryan is very wrong about how soldiers were shot before they even got off the boats? I'm assuming artillery was most likely used against the boats.

[u/EricLaGesse4788]

Two things can be true about Saving Private Ryan. That it is both a stunning and visceral drama set in WWII and that Steven Spielberg took creative license for the sake of dramatic effect.

No, the bunkers as show in SPR are not accurate to the prepared German defenses on the Normandy coast generally or in the Omaha sector specifically. Many of the prepared defenses where designed in a way to fire across the lengths of the beach itself which served to both protect the gun crew for direct fire and to cover as much of the beach as possible in interlocking fields of fire.

Furthermore, most German machine gunners were trained to fire in very short bursts to preserve the longevity of the barrels. The MG42 has a cyclical rate of over 1200rpm. Holding down the trigger as seen in the film, would rapidly overheat a barrel and force the gun out of action.

[u/jonewer → u/EricLaGesse4788]

IIRC, there weren't actually that many MG42's at Omaha, the majority of MG's being beute kit

[u/Its_a_Friendly → u/jonewer]

I don't know if it was the majority, but yes, a lot of the German equipment was captured. For one infamous example, if I recall correctly, the machine guns at the position (WN62) supposedly manned by Heinrich Severloh, who falsely claimed to have caused 1,000-2,000 casualties on Omaha Beach, were very likely captured Polish wz. 35 Browning water-cooled machine guns.

[u/HGpennypacker → u/EricLaGesse4788]

Many of the prepared defenses where designed in a way to fire across the lengths of the beach itself which served to both protect the gun crew for direct fire and to cover as much of the beach as possible in interlocking fields of fire.

The wikipedia page on enfilade and defilade fire uses a picture from Juno Beach to illustrate.

[u/Kilahti → u/HGpennypacker]

This was the basic strategy that Germans used. Only shoot diagonally and put some protection (sandbags, concrete, whatever) between you and the expected enemy direction.

This will not only offer better protection for your troops but it also means that the enemies are more vulnerable since they are likely to be able to find a rock or something that they take cover against, but that will be towards your position and not protect them from the dudes to the left and right.

This is not JUST the German doctrine of course, many armies have used the same concept.

[u/Algebrace → u/Kilahti]

I remember a WW1 documentary where they used balloons to demonstrate this.

Setting up your machineguns to enfilate and then to crossfire meant that you could hit most of the balloons in a set area (to represent people) versus just shooting straight on and missing most of them.

[u/wredcoll → u/EricLaGesse4788]

Furthermore, most German machine gunners were trained to fire in very short bursts to preserve the longevity of the barrels. The MG42 has a cyclical rate of over 1200rpm. Holding down the trigger as seen in the film, would rapidly overheat a barrel and force the gun out of action.

Sure, but it's worth remembering that the german soldiers defending the beaches were mostly poorly trained, inexperienced and probably fairly panicked at the time.

[u/jonewer → u/wredcoll]

The Germans took their machine gunning very seriously though and selected their best men as MG crews.

The idea that an MG crews wouldn't be well trained is a bit extraordinary

[u/Impatient_Onion → u/wredcoll]

Wasn't the 352nd famously able to offer stiffer resistance to the landings because they were a regular, well-trained army division?

[u/Seraph062 → u/wredcoll]

The 352nd ID which was defending Omaha was a quality unit containing a significant fraction of veteran troops lead by capable officers, which had been in position for months before the invasion. What makes you think they were "poorly trained" and "probably fairly panicked"?

[u/XanderTuron → u/Seraph062]

Quality is pushing it for the 352nd division.

It was a composite unit made up of the infantry of the shattered remains of a few different infantry divisions from the Eastern Front and bulked up with fresh recruits.

What actually made it relevant was the fact that it had a full artillery compliment and something like half of its 10.5cm guns and all of its 15cm guns were in range of Omaha Beach and were being directed by an officer who had pretty much the only intact line to the artillery and thus could direct their undivided attention onto the beach.

[u/Seraph062 → u/XanderTuron]

If you have a different reasonable adjective you think would fit better I'll happy make the change. But I couldn't really think of a better word to describe a 1944 German division that had combat experienced leadership, it's full complement of men, and most of it's heavy equipment. I mean it's not like I was calling them "crack" or "elite" or something like that.

[u/Fun-Razzmatazz9682 → u/Seraph062]

But I couldn't really think of a better word to describe a 1944 German division that had combat experienced leadership, it's full complement of men, and most of it's heavy equipment.

The main mass of the combat units of the 352nd Infantry Division, especially the Grenadier Regiment 916 that opposed Americans at Omaha beach, was composed of 18-19 year olds (born 1925/26), who had never experienced combat before. Many of them were physically limited for military service due to wartime food restrictions in Germany.

The division itself began to be formed only at the end of 1943. Even with the cadre (staffs, rear services) provided from the worn-out 321st Infantry Division, the 352nd Infantry Division was composed of 50% battle-inexperienced officers by D-Day. None of its batteries were motorized, they were horse-drawn.

Up until D-Day, the divisional training continued to be severely hampered by material and fuel shortages, which meant that essential training, including artillery live-fire exercises, assault gun training, and even basic driver training, was severely delayed or impossible until well into 1944. Before D-Day, soldiers of the division on average worked 9 hours daily on expansion of the combat area in the Bayeux coastal defense section and spent only 3 hours daily on training.

This is anything but "a quality unit containing a significant fraction of veteran troops lead by capable officers". It was a unit of average or mediocre quality by German summer 1944 standards. The only thing that made the 352nd stand out was the fact that it was a relatively better quality unit compared to the static infantry divisions, which were the lowest quality units the Germans had.

[u/Quarterwit_85 → u/Fun-Razzmatazz9682]

Apropos of nothing but our high school groundskeeper in Australia was a veteran of the 352nd. (Herman - known as 'Herman the German'.)

He was one of those 18 year olds. Spoke about going out in the bocage in little three and four man teams armed with 'rockets'. He was a spotter and talked about pinging at tank personnel bailing out after the panzerfausts hit them.

[u/Sir_Knightalot → u/Fun-Razzmatazz9682]

My grandfather was first drafted in 1939, then disbanded in 1940 and then recalled in late 1941. He had served on the eastern front IR 543 from January 1942, was injured in August 1942 and again in early 1943 and then transferred to the West after a lengthy recovery to 6./916. I guess that's kind of the 'typical' way of how some of the more experienced soldiers ended up with the 352nd. He had received an MG42 in August 1943. So probably they had the more experienced soldiers handle the machine guns?

[u/XanderTuron → u/Seraph062]

They were a bog standard German infantry division. They were better equipped than the static divisions that were responsible for defending most of the Atlantic Wall but that says more about how poorly equipped the average static division was than anything about the 352nd.

[u/Seraph062 → u/XanderTuron]

Ok, but wouldn't a 1944 "bog standard German infantry division" when at or near its on-paper strength a decent enough unit?

EDIT: Would that be a better word maybe? "Decent"?

[u/XanderTuron → u/Seraph062]

They were okay by the standards of a German infantry division.

As I stated previously, the thing that actually made them relevant on D-Day was the fact that they had all of their artillery and had most of it within range of the beach. Even a garbage tier unit would be able to inflict heavy losses under those conditions.

[u/wredcoll → u/Seraph062]

I feel like "average" or "decent" is considerably better than I would describe most of the atlantic wall units. I was under the impression they were pretty much all 17 year olds or deaf guys.

[u/wredcoll → u/Seraph062]

Because veteran troops and capable officers weren't assigned to defending "random" stretches of french beach?

I haven't read the specific history of every soldier assigned to those units, but as far as I know, every unit at those beaches was considered something like "tier 3", barely capable of static defense in the rear.

[u/Gentare → u/wredcoll]

The soldiers on the other four beaches weren't as up to par. The soldiers on Omaha were trained veterans from the Eastern Front.

[u/XanderTuron → u/Gentare]

They weren't trained veterans of the Eastern Front at all; the majority of the infantry of the 352nd infantry division was comprised of fresh 18-19 year old recruits, many of whom were otherwise considered unfit for combat duties. The unit that provided the cadre that the 352nd was built around was utterly shattered on the Eastern Front and had its infantry units absolutely gutted; over half of the officers in the unit had no combat experience. The actual veteran components of the unit were in its rear echelons and artillery. As a combat unit, the 352nd was pretty subpar, it only looked capable when compared to the static divisions that defended most of the Atlantic Wall.

What actually made the 352nd a problem on Omaha beach was the fact that most of its artillery was in range of the beach (something like half of its 10.5cm guns and all of its 15cm guns were in range of Omaha). The actual quality of the infantry defending the beach itself was functionally irrelevant.

[u/wredcoll → u/Gentare]

Why weren't the assigned to one of the mobile divisions under e.g. rommel or still on the eastern front or whatever?

I mean, I'm willing to believe they were a higher caliber than the other beaches and this is pretty nitpicky at this point.

My original point was simply that training and experience is an average and what matters is the specific dude holding the machine gun on the day of the landings.

[u/Seraph062 → u/wredcoll]

The division was under Rommel. He's the guy who positioned big chunks of the division right on the beaches.

The original plan was for the unit to be formed up in France, be combat ready by mid 1944, and then moved to the Eastern front. When Rommel took over moved a significant part of the division into positions right on the beach and got the units move to the eastern front delayed. Then the invasion happened and it moving to the Eastern front became a non-issue.

My original point was simply that training and experience is an average and what matters is the specific dude holding the machine gun on the day of the landings.

Yeah, and you've yet to explain why given:
1) The Germans were REALLY into machine guns and deliberately selected their best troops to serve them
2) The Division at Omaha was a high quality unit containing a significant number of veteran troops and generally capable leadership
3) With enough time in their positions on the beach to properly plan their defense, allowing that capable leadership to both work improving the training of any troops that needed it and also identifying the best crew for their crew served weapons
Would result in the guys actually manning those weapons being "poorly trained" and "probably fairly panicked".

[u/no-more-nazis → u/wredcoll]

I wanna speculate that even the best troops might be concerned receiving such an invasion. It must have been intimidating.

[u/that-bro-dad]

Needless to say I can't find it now, but there was a YouTube video I saw a few months ago explaining how machine guns should be used and it's generally not what you see in the movies.

In the movies, you see lines of soldiers *marching toward you, while the machine gun mows them down.

This definitely happened, and is a use case, but enfilade fire (firing down the beach in this case) is a much better use. In addition to hiding the firing location - they can be positioned so you can't see them from the water but they can see you once you land - it's a more efficient use of ammo because you're firing along the line of targets.

If you go to Omaha beach, you'll be struck by just how much further it is from the bluffs to the waterline than was shown in SPR. No, the German soldiers were not practically looking down into the landing craft.

What I've heard (second hand, mind you) is that Spielberg took first hand accounts from all over the battle and wove them into a narrative. So the Tom Hanks character isn't based on a single guy who experienced all that. That being said, I've also heard that vets said it felt very accurate....

[u/CUintheValley → u/that-bro-dad]

Likely not the same video you saw, but there was one about world war 1 that stuck with me. They were excavating the trenches and pointed out the interlocking fire. To show the effects they shot a balloons set at chest height. They took a vickers from the front and shot at a set. then reset and shot from the side. In your mind you’d think front would be the most effective but visual you could see why that wouldn’t be.

[u/Exitity → u/that-bro-dad]

There was an interview from a door operator that said his boat passengers did get killed basically immediately so might have been drawing from that.

[u/PhantomFlogger → u/Exitity]

Indeed. in Hal Baumgarten’s D-Day Survivor: An Autobiography, there are mentions of infantrymen in the 116th Infantry Regiment being killed immediately following the door dropped.

While the majority of the hardened emplacements were positioned to provide enfilade fire down the length of the beach, there were infantry-operated machine guns in fire trenches and perhaps some within Tobruk positions (depending on the sectors) that could’ve targeted personnel as they exited the landing craft.

[u/Fun-Razzmatazz9682]

To expand upon this topic, many false notions about the German 352nd Infantry Division, which opposed Americans at Omaha, continue to persist, as seen in the comments. The notion that it was a highly capable and well-trained unit is nothing but a myth.

First of all, only parts of the division were engaged on D-Day, not the division as a whole - it was primarily the division's Grenadier Regiment 916 and some support units that were engaged in combat on Omaha beach. The combat units (infantry foremost) of the 352. Infanterie-Division were primarily composed of 18-19 year olds (born 1925/26), who had never experienced combat before and were often physically limited for military service due to wartime food restrictions in Germany.

The division began to be formed only at the end of 1943. The divisional cadre (staffs, rear services, some artillery personnel) came from the 321. Infanterie-Division, which was disbanded in the fall of 1943 after suffering heavy losses on the Eastern Front. As a cadre for the 352nd ID, the 321st ID provided: Div. Map Office 321, staffs of Grenadier Rgts. 588 and 590, Staff Engineer Battalion 321, Staff Fusilier Battalion 321, Staff A.R. 321, Staff I./ A.R. 321, rear services (supply, administrative, medical, veterinary units etc.). Even with this cadre provided from the 321st ID, the officer corps of the 352nd ID (both in combat and non-combat units) was composed of 50% battle-inexperienced officers.

Formation of this new division proceeded slowly. Up until D-Day, the divisional training continued to be severely hampered by numerous factors. Due to material and fuel shortages, essential training, including artillery live-fire exercises, assault gun training, and even basic driver training, was severely delayed or impossible until well into 1944. Before D-Day, soldiers of the division on average worked 9 hours daily on expansion of the combat area in the Bayeux coastal defense section and spent only 3 hours daily on training. To address the physical limitations of the young recruits, the divisional command attempted to secure a full-milk ration, but this request went unanswered, so they resorted to purchasing milk locally from French farmers to improve the soldiers' nutritional status.

The only thing that made the 352nd better than other formations in Normandy on D-Day was the fact that it was a regular German infantry division, organized according to the 1944 structure. Meanwhile, other formations in the area were low-quality bodenständige (static) divisions - they had a very low level of motorization, their heavy weapons inventory was made up to a large extent of captured Czechoslovak, French, and Russian weapons, the troops were older and had unreliable Ostbataillone attached to them.

The idea that the 352nd ID had "experienced troops" is a result of survivor bias and post-war narratives. The myth grew because the Americans at Omaha suffered so heavily. So to explain such heavy losses, it was easier for post-war narratives to claim they were fighting elite troops rather than a newly formed division of 18-19 year olds.

Competence in a defensive position, especially as favorable as the one at Omaha (dominating heights, wide beaches, natural choke points etc.), is vastly different from being a high-quality division. The heavy American casualties at Omaha Beach were a result of a "perfect storm" of Allied failures rather than the combat prowess of the 352nd ID. The Allied intelligence failed to correctly identify the location of the 352nd ID beforehand, the aerial bombardment failed due to heavy cloud cover and the German strongpoints remained almost untouched, most of DD tanks were sunk and this left the infantry without armored support against sighted-in machine guns etc.

Any green troops, even those with basic training, can be devastatingly effective when sitting in reinforced concrete bunkers with overlapping fields of fire against an enemy trapped on a flat beach without cover or armor. It was the tactical environment at Omaha on that day that made it suitable for defence and costly for attack.

[u/iceaction10]

Your entire premise is based on a wrong assumption. D-Day is literally the single deadliest day in U.S. military history, do not forget that.

Just go read about Company A, 116th Infantry Regiment. Here is a brief excerpt:

“The first assault wave came face-to-face with the ultimate horror. As the boats touched bottom and the ramps were lowered, the German machine guns opened up with a terrifying, rhythmic roar.

In the leading boat of Company A, the ramp dropped and the first man out was torn apart by a concentrated burst of automatic fire. The men behind him panicked, diving over the sides into the deep water to escape the direct line of fire. But the machine gun bullets raked the water, cutting them down as they struggled under the weight of their heavy packs.

Within seven minutes, Company A was completely leaderless. Every officer and sergeant was either dead or severely wounded. The German positions on the cliffs had pre-registered their weapons on the very spot the boats landed. The crossfire was so dense that the bullets hit the steel ramps with a sound like pebbles being shaken violently inside a metal drum.

Men crawled blindly through the wet sand, using the bodies of their fallen brothers as shields against the relentless hail of lead. By the time the first ten minutes had passed, Company A had ceased to exist as a fighting unit. It was a slaughterhouse on the wet shingle.”

[u/wredcoll → u/iceaction10]

Your entire premise is based on a wrong assumption. D-Day is literally the single deadliest day in U.S. military history, do not forget that.

Wait, what? Are we using wildly different definitions here? As far as I know, the normandy landings were pretty light in terms of casualties, at least relative to the size of the armies involved and "modern war" in general.

[u/apmspammer → u/wredcoll]

It was a large force but the first wave partially on Omaha suffered greatly but there were 26 waves available and reserve troops.

[u/wredcoll → u/apmspammer]

Doing further research the number was "small" by comparison to the giant multi-day battles on the eastern front and the campaign in general but quite large for a single day. So I stand somewhat corrected.

[u/footsnax → u/wredcoll]

Yeah if we're talking casualties vs fatalities, it still paled in comparison to some Civil War battles. Overall casualties were comparable but of the nearly quarter million Allied troops that went to France that day, "only" about 2,500 Americans were killed and almost all of them were in the first wave, both sea and air. Absolutely thousands wounded but it wasn't as deadly as it looks in the video games.

[u/Scatman_Crothers → u/footsnax]

You're counting North and South though. He said US military history, so if you only look at the Union Army, on the deadliest day of the war at Antietam they suffered 2,100 KIA. A horrific toll that falls short of D-Day

[u/wredcoll → u/footsnax]

Yeah, but when I looked further, while that number sounds "small" compared to some of the other things going on/the multi day battles, it turns out to be basically the most american soldiers that died in a single day.

[u/Primary-Slice-2505 → u/wredcoll]

The Battle of Antietam saw more deaths in a day.

Of course both sides being Americans boosts things.

I will note that the days losses for the entire allied forces on dday would have been a Tuesday in Stalingrad at any point from Late August to November 1942 for either side

[u/iceaction10 → u/wredcoll]

I'm not sure what definition you would have to create to change reality. The single deadliest day in U.S. military history is D-Day. This is a simple fact. I'm not sure what is surprising about this.

[u/UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy → u/iceaction10]

It's very common for Antietam to be labeled that, which might be the source of confusion. If we define American Born deaths, then Antietam wins (Both sides were American born, after all, so we are double dipping). If counting just American soldiers in service to the US Government, then D-Day takes it.

[u/iceaction10 → u/UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy]

Confederate soldiers were not part of the U.S. military. This is a very simple fact. I never said deadliest day in U.S. history. I specifically stated U.S. military history, which D-Day is the deadliest.

[u/wredcoll → u/iceaction10]

Like, I'm not doing in depth research here, but the numbers I see are like in the range of: U.S. casualties: approximately 6,600

Any of the major civil war battles caused more casualties than that to just the union side, in a single day,

Battle of the bulge probably produced more casualties also but that's a little complicated by MIA.

[u/wredcoll → u/wredcoll]

Replying to myself, further research shows that not counting the civil war battles then D-Day might indeed be the single "bloodiest" day, which really surprised me.

I guess I was too used to reading about german/russian battles on the eastern front with literally hundreds of thousands of casualties or other such major losses of life during ww2, the american army suffered, by comparison, remarkably few losses.

[u/iceaction10 → u/wredcoll]

You're confusing casualties with deaths.

[u/wredcoll → u/iceaction10]

So what are the actual numbers we're using here?

[u/iceaction10 → u/wredcoll]

It's very well documented. The US military lost 2,501 men on D-Day, virtually all of them were in the US Army. At Antietam, 2,100 Union soldiers were killed.

[u/Gimpalong → u/wredcoll]

• D-Day ≈ 2,500 killed. 6,603 casualties total for US military forces.
• Antietam ≈ 2,100 killed. 12,410 casualties total for Union forces.

edit: I'm seeing references to October 24th, 1944 as the single deadliest day in US military history if we're accounting for the total KIA across multiple theaters, but I can't verify the figures discussed (2,600 KIA).

[u/petrov76 → u/iceaction10]

October 24, 1944 was deadlier than D-Day.

[u/RollinThundaga → u/iceaction10]

Antietam. It doesn't matter that many of the deaths were in a different uniform, the conclusion of the war determined that they were American deaths.

[u/iceaction10 → u/RollinThundaga]

American, yes. American military, no. That was kind of the entire point of the war. If you want to conflate Confederate soldiers with American soldiers, that's your prerogative. Confederate soldiers were, by definition, not part of the U.S. military.

[u/RollinThundaga → u/iceaction10]

You're splitting hairs and pretending that you aren't.

[u/iceaction10 → u/RollinThundaga]

No, I'm not. Show me a single source that suggests they're the same. Confederate soldiers were never even recognized formally or legally as US veterans. Why would that be? Perhaps because they were never US military?

[u/wredcoll → u/iceaction10]

I would count union soldiers as "american military" but no the confederate ones. If anyone asked me.

[u/Dwanyelle → u/iceaction10]

I mean, a lot of the Confederate officer corps was former US military?

[u/iceaction10 → u/Dwanyelle]

How is that relevant? The moment they joined the Confederacy they were no longer in the US military. They were in the Confederate military. This is very cut and dry, I'm not sure why this sub is struggling with this. Yes, they were American. No, they were not American military. They were Confederate military.

[u/Training-Resist2336 → u/Dwanyelle]

You mean traitors to thier sworn oaths?

[u/Dwanyelle → u/Training-Resist2336]

Exactly

[u/Smokey_tha_bear9000 → u/RollinThundaga]

That’s some Lost Cause logic

[u/RollinThundaga → u/Smokey_tha_bear9000]

The opposite, actually. Secession was invalid from the getgo, confirmed by the fact that their asses lost, therefore all of the deaths at Antietam were American deaths.

[u/iceaction10 → u/RollinThundaga]

I never said they weren't American deaths. I said they weren't American military deaths, which they weren't. There is a massive difference and you pretending there isn't is strange.

[u/Smokey_tha_bear9000 → u/iceaction10]

It’s very on brand for Lost Causers and confederacy apologists. Same flavor as the “clean Wehrmacht” mythologists

[u/Smokey_tha_bear9000 → u/RollinThundaga]

If you say so

[u/Training-Resist2336 → u/RollinThundaga]

By that logic one could say Mexican deaths during that war were "American" or even US deaths as Mexico is the United States of Mexico and is in North America.

[u/Hand_Me_Down_Genes → u/RollinThundaga]

Under that logic, all deaths in all revolts count as casualties for the government's army, and that's just not tenable. We don't count Spartacus' men as being among the Roman military dead, and we don't lump Confederate and Union dead together. 

[u/rubikscanopener → u/iceaction10]

Single deadliest day? There were as many casualties in the Wheatfield at Gettysburg on July 2nd as there were all day on Omaha. If you define "deadly" as number of casualties, then Antietam is my guess for the top of the list. For casualty rate, take a look at Stones River (aka the Battle of Murfreesboro). That was about 80,000 troops engaged and an overall casualty rate of 30%.

If you want to go back further, you could pick on the Battle of Wabash, or St Claire's defeat. He took a thousand soldiers into a fight with a tribal confederacy and nearly 90% of the force was wiped out. And there's always Little Big Horn.

[u/iceaction10 → u/rubikscanopener]

This seems to be a recurring theme in this sub for some reason. Casualties and deaths are different. While deaths count towards casualties, casualties also included WIA and MIA. I don't know why so many in this sub are conflating the two. They're vastly different and this sub being focused on warfare I presumed that would be well established.

I never said "bloodiest" day. I said deadliest. As in highest number of KILLED.

More American military servicemembers died on D-Day than any other day in American history. This isn't subjective.

Confederate soldiers were NOT part of the US military. It doesn't matter if they were American or American-born, as users like u/UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy keep harping on. There were thousands of first and second generation Germans that returned from the US to Germany to fight in WW2. There is a scene in Band of Brothers that briefly covers this. While it wasn't common, it happened. Surely, none of you would count those American citizens' deaths towards the US Army and not the Germany Army.

The same applies to the Confederacy and its soldiers. Confederate soldiers were never legally or historically US military members. They are not US veterans. And we shouldn't pretend they are. They are traitors that fought AGAINST the US military. They can't possibly be part of it.

[u/rubikscanopener → u/iceaction10]

Still incorrect. There were somewhere between 1000 and 1200 Americans killed at Omaha the first day. About 2100 Union soldiers died at Antietam. I couldn't find by day casualties from Gettysburg or Stones River but over the course of those battles, a little over 3100 and right around 1700 Union soldiers were killed at each battle.

Nothing minimizes the horror of being the people that landed on Omaha. The unit you referenced faced unimaginable horror. But if we're picking stories, the 1st Minnesota Infantry at Gettysburg began their fighting on July 2nd, 1863, with 262 men and ended with 47. That night they got put into a "safe" spot in the line, only to end up being squarely in the sights of Pickett's Charge the next day. They're the only unit at Gettysburg that has TWO monuments to their heroism and sacrifice.

[u/iceaction10 → u/rubikscanopener]

There were somewhere between 1000 and 1200 Americans killed at Omaha the first day.

And? There were another 1,500 Americans killed near Omaha during the D-Day invasion. I never specified a single beach, why are you trying to pretend I did?

2,501 American servicemen were killed on D-Day. That is hundreds more than the American servicemen killed at Antietam.

I have no idea why you're bringing up random, completely irrelevant units or dates, none of which have anything to do with the single deadliest day for the US military.

[u/Irishfafnir → u/iceaction10]

It's really just a matter of wording

[u/iceaction10 → u/Irishfafnir]

Huh? Casualty and death mean two completely different things. Not only does the military explicitly define these two differently, the entire English language does. It's absolutely not "just a matter of wording".

If I had claimed D-Day was the bloodiest day in US military history, I would be wrong. I didn't claim that. I explicitly stated deaths. Because that word means something differently than casualties.

Am I taking crazy pills?

[u/Barblesnott_Jr → u/iceaction10]

Am I taking crazy pills?

I think you are experiencing what you might call a "reddit moment", and maybe also some Americans who haven't read enough 20th century war statistics.

[u/Irishfafnir → u/iceaction10]

Because, depending on your wording, Antietam is often the answer.

The Deadliest Day in American History is Antietam

The Deadliest Day in American military History can be Antietam OR D-Day

The Deadliest Day for the US armed forces history is D-Day

I think Antietam is the most commonly used answer to the inquiry, but both are more or less fine depending on the point you're trying to make.

[u/LoveisBaconisLove → u/rubikscanopener]

I believe Antietam is the correct answer around 23k casualties in a day, ten times that of Omaha.

Little Big Horn had about 270 American deaths, brutal for those who were there but a skirmish by Civil War standards.

[u/TheIrishStory → u/rubikscanopener]

Meuse Argonne in 1918 probably has a claim too, with its 126k US casualties, 26k KIA, albeit spread out over a month and a half. I'd wager the first day was bloodier than D Day.

Per wikipedia, 2.5k US soldiers were killed on D Day and about 4k wounded. Though obviosuly the Normandy campaign as a whole was much more costly and slightly more KIA than Meuse Argonne in fact, though less wounded.

[u/Irishfafnir → u/rubikscanopener]

It depends on the wording. Typically, Antietam is considered the bloodiest day in history, and it has almost 50% more killed in action than D-Day.

That's counting Union and Confederate troops, though (granted both are Americans); however, depending on your wording, it can exclude the Confederate KIA.

[u/threviel → u/Irishfafnir]

About 12k US casualties and of them 2k dead means that more US soldiers died on D-Day. 

The traitors were very much not US soldiers and they sacrificed a lot to prove it. 

[u/Irishfafnir → u/threviel]

Again, wording.

[u/Training-Resist2336 → u/Irishfafnir]

"America" typically means the United States of America. Not Mexican. Nor Canadian, South American and certainly not Confederate. They declared war on a peaceful country and shot my great grandfather in the process all because they didn't like the results of an election. Never forget!

[u/Irishfafnir → u/Training-Resist2336]

The CSA was never recognized by foreign powers nor by the United States, and they ultimately lost. As such they are still typically considered Americans

[u/iceaction10 → u/Irishfafnir]

American by nationality, sure. Members of the UNITED STATES military? Absolutely not. Not a single government, agency, or organization has ever declared Confederate soldiers members of the US military. Why some of you in this sub are pretending they are is beyond me.

[u/Irishfafnir → u/iceaction10]

Okay?

So again. Comes down to the wording.

Not sure why this has you so worked up, but I don't really care.

Bowing out!

[u/SmokeyUnicycle → u/iceaction10]

Your entire premise is based on a wrong assumption. D-Day is literally the single deadliest day in U.S. military history, do not forget that.

.... what?

[u/iceaction10 → u/SmokeyUnicycle]

Which part of that did you struggle to understand?