I read in Stephen E Ambrose's book on D-Day that both Rommel and Eisenhower knew that Omaha Beach was a perfect beach to defend. Narrow beach at high tide, swamp area, then bluffs which had many foxholes and defensive positions dug perfectly into them. Ambrose states that 'No tactician could have devised a better defensive position.' He goes on to say that if they did not invade at Omaha then 'the gap between Utah and the British beaches would be too great'. What does this actually mean though? I find it to be a vague response. There were already gaps between each of the invasion beaches. Why exactly was this stretch so critical, and why were so many lives risked?
All of the beaches had fairly small gaps in between them, but the Omaha landings would serve to link the American landings further north at Utah, with the Anglo-Canadian landings at Juno and Gold, and thus to the other British landing at Sword. If they had NOT landed at Omaha, the gap between Gold, Sword and Juno Beach, and Utah would have been too great. Rather than linking the beaches in the following days and presenting an extended, united front, the Allies could have been met and bottled up in their beaches, at separate locations. The possibility of the Germans delaying or preventing the American and Anglo-Canadians forces from linking up would have been great, and the losses and the length of the campaign would have GREATLY increased.