Hey /r/AskHistory, after the release of the new Call of Duty, a lot of common elements are portrayed that I've seen in other forms of media. The most striking is the way the LCVP's took insane amounts of fire from the pillboxes while landing. I know it was a close call and we were fooling the Germans into thinking the real attack would be on Calais, but it seemed bad nonetheless. Obviously movies like Saving Private Ryan and games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty need some sensationalism but was it really that bad? The pure carnage always depicted when troops are exiting the LCVPs make it seem like someone should have gotten reprimanded for making our soldiers basically cannon fodder, any thoughts?
The initial landing in Normandy was split between 5 different beaches and allies: Utah and Omaha for the US, Gold and Sword for the UK and Juno for Canada.
Omaha is the beach most commonly presented in fiction (Saving Private Ryan or, to relate to your question, in Cod 2), which is likely because it was the most troublesome and therefore brutal landing site. Every other landing went comparatively smoothly, but for Omaha the allied high Command had to consider ceasing the attack.
The reason for this was that there happened to be a Defense drill involving an entire division at Omaha, which of course meant that the German Forces were able to react immediately to the Invasion. So the allied forces had to commit to a frontal assault against a prepared and combat ready defender, who held a significant positional advantage. Entire waves of landing infantry were slaughtered, which means that in reality, the battle at Omaha was more graphic and brutal than anything you have seen in fiction.
Hi! We had a panel AMA on the new Call of Duty just last week - while you wait for an answer here, you might find some interesting stuff in that thread.
Follow up, if that's ok: How does the opposition encountered during the D-Day landings compare to other opposed landings during WW2?