No. Mulberry harbours were only really practical in the maritime environment of the Normandy Landings. The concrete pontoons were tricky to build, but could not easily be shipped over long distances - they were not very seaworthy, were difficult to tow, and could not survive storms. This meant that they could only really be used close to a place where they could be built - in other words, close to the UK. Amphibious assaults in the Mediterranean or in the Pacific were too distant from the Allied industrial centres for a Mulberry harbour to be truly useful. Mulberry harbours were also only useful given the circumstances of the Normandy Landings; there were no ports nearby that could easily be captured, and there was a need to sustain large forces ashore, and over long distances on land. In the Mediterranean, amphibious assaults were generally carried out near ports, while in the Pacific, smaller forces were used, and only had to be supported on small islands. The other big problem with the Mulberry harbours were that they were not necessarily better than supplying the forces over the beaches. The loss of Mulberry A at Omaha Beach following the storm of the 19th-22nd June 1944 did not cause a drop in the supplies being landed in the American sector. In fact, the Americans were generally able to land as much, if not more, across the beaches at Omaha and Utah as the British were at the Mulberry at Arromanches. This experience cast doubt on the utility of the Mulberry harbour, especially in American use.