This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Omaha Beach is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Normandy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Normandy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NormandyWikipedia:WikiProject NormandyTemplate:WikiProject NormandyNormandy articles
It's written in American English about an American operation. Why doesn't the whole article just use US units? If no one else does it I'm going to update the page for consistency.
ThePooprman (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article should certainly be more consistent in its use of units. However, because "en.wikipedia.org" (the English-language Wikipedia) is an international encyclopedia, with an international audience, the default use of units should be metric, but with a translation to US units in parentheses. Ross Finlayson (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it boils down to whether or not this article (about an operation conducted in Europe primarily (though not exclusively) by US forces) is "related to the United States". One could argue either way. But just be consistent... Ross Finlayson (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that consistency is the main consideration. However as mentioned at the masthead on this page the article is written in American English and therefore American units should be used with conversions to metric Lyndaship (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The article was originally written with US customary first, and I think there are sufficiently strong national ties to return it to that standard. Factotem (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The aftermath has had a significant impact on Europe though and this article is as much, maybe even more, about European history than about US history, even if this was primarily a US attack. Add to that, the obsolete units are meaningless to most Europeans, whereas US citizens should understand metric, since metric is official in the US as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a military article, and even the US military uses metric, there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to use US customary units (at least not solely or primarily). The metric units in the article can also be converted to US, for any American, Liberian or Burmese readers that may require it. - wolf23:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The maps on the right don't add much to one another. The same information could be presented just as clearly in a single picture; indeed I don't really see what the images add to the original map except maybe for a bit of not particularly sorely needed colour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
21 Base Defence Sector landed on D-day along with the Americans. It was a unit that was meant to co-ordinate air defence against expected counter-attacks by the Luftwaffe
After I saw an article about Omaha, I searched about "Rocket Launcher Site" but when I searched I found NASA's Rocket, So Please can anyone tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.125.4.178 (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article talk pages are for discussing article content. If you would like to suggest a change to the article, then do so in a "please change 'X' to 'Y'" format, and include reliable sourcing. That said, it appears you may be looking for an image, in which case I would suggest searching Wikimedia Commons or Google images. Otherwise, you can seek assistance from the Help Desk. - wolf08:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From a featured article perspective, it's a bit concerning that large swathes of the article are primarily sourced to a single 1945 US Army monograph. Given the vast amounts of academic literature on the D-Day landings, I don't think that WP:FACR #1c is met. A featured article review may be necessary here. Hog FarmTalk17:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hello D Day experts: I dug up this video out of the National Archives while researching John Ford's D-Day footage. You can see guys running up a beach at the 0:39 mark and lots of ship cannon smoke stuff toward the end.
Do you guys this think is Omaha or Utah or none of the above or impossible to to tell or other? Please advise. Thank you in advance. jengod (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article had no mention of the German Maisy battery (until I add to See also) - It was an assigned objective of the Rangers so why not mention it eg in the German defences inland section ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are three photographs of named ships in the article. All of them are US Navy vessels.
Looking at the information in List of ships and craft of Task Force O, of the larger ships carrying troops that were loaded into smaller landing craft (e.g. LSIs and APAs), by my count there are 9 British ships (a mix of merchant and navy crewed vessels) and 7 US ships. The same list article shows that all the minesweeping vessels were Royal Navy. On the other hand, I believe that most of the LSTs and LCTs were US crewed, but I do not have immediately to hand a definitive reference for that.
The bombardment group is more predominantly US Navy at 63% of the whole, with 26% Royal Navy and 11% Free French.
In the interests of balance, there probably should be a picture of one of the British ships. SS Empire Javelin may be a reasonable candidate, to represent the several merchant crewed vessels in the landings at Omaha beach – an extra "balance" consideration.
Not quite what I was suggesting, but this picture illustrates US troops on a British LCA. ThoughtIdRetiredTIR21:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]British LCA, carrying US troops (before D-Day) who probably landed on Omaha Beach (as the LCA belongs to SS Prince Baudouin)
An update on the picture of LCA1377: Whitmarsh, Andrew (2024). D-Day Landing Craft: How 4,126 ‘Ugly and Unorthodox’ Allied Craft made the Normandy Landings Possible. Cheltenham: The History Press. ISBN978-1-80399-445-1. lists LCA1377 in the order of battle for the D-Day landings, as part of Assault Group O4 (Task Group 124.6, USN). This LCA belongs to 507 Assault Flotilla, RN and operated from SS (should this be MV?) Baudouin. ThoughtIdRetiredTIR18:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure it should be HMS Prince Baudouin. This picture may be a candidate:HMS Prince Baudouin working on preparations for D-Day. US Rangers are being loaded into LCAs. Note the Royal Navy method of loading the landing craft before lowering, in contrast to the USN practice of bringing the empty landing craft alongside and the troops using scrambling nets to get into the boat.ThoughtIdRetiredTIR20:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
