Happy Thanksgiving!  

MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:    Password:

 
(1939-1945) WWII
Page 1 of 5 (Page:   1    2   3   4   5 )
Author
Message
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 2/9/2020 5:41:10 AM

Last summer was the 75th anniversary of D-Day, and the ensuing publications gave us food for thought.

Prominent among these was the book by James Holland, a writer and historian I admire, and I cite the title above.

Tempted to buy it, I read the cover flyer, and was dismayed and astonished when I read :

This was a brutal campaign. In terms of daily casualties, the numbers were worse than for any one battle during the First World War .

What, on earth, could account for a scholar of Holland’s calibre making a preposterous statement like that ?

Is he deluded, or in denial, or just damnably bad at arithmetic ? Or has there been a lamentable failure to research the provenance of such a claim, and a tendency to accept slogans ? Or, maybe, a typo or failure to qualify something ?

For the record, the Allied land forces suffered 210,000 casualties in the 77 days, by the official tabulations that I see cited in most accounts. If I’m right, that equates to 2,727 per day . I’m sure that German casualties were huge, and, awful to countenance, there was terrible loss of civilian lives, too.

So, yes...a brutal, intense and vicious campaign, all too often sanitised and extolled as a masterpiece of manoeuvre and technology. It was a horrible slog, a murderous and terrifying ordeal , especially for the men in the rifle companies .

No room for complacency on that score , then.....BUT....to aver that its daily casualty toll exceeded that of any single battle in the warfare of 1914-18 is so ludicrous as to deter me from buying the book.

A daily average of 35,000 French casualties in a four day period of the Battle of The Frontiers in August 1914 ; the 57,470 British casualties on the First Day of the Somme in July 1916, and a total daily Allied average of of 4,418 for the entire 141 days of that battle.....Good Lord, I don’t need to go on !

Forgive my fixation with these statistics , but when I see a howler like that adorning the work of an author that I hold in high regard, I hope that you will understand my reaction.

Regards, Phil

----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
Posts: 10611
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 2/9/2020 7:34:38 AM

Quote:
This was a brutal campaign. In terms of daily casualties, the numbers were worse than for any one battle during the First World War .


Hi Phil,

I read his statement a number of times and we may have to buy the book to understand his rationale.

The statement, if I am understanding it correctly, seems to be comparing any single battle of WW1 with the casualties taken throughout the whole Normandy campaign and perhaps to the day that the German forces were pushed out of France.

Without knowing his time frame or indeed, how he defines a battle in WW1 terms, it is difficult to know what he means. I mean, the Somme was not a one day battle even though that first day was horrific.

On the face of it, it does seem a rather preposterous statement. Maybe he is just playing with different time frames to get the favourable comparison that he wanted.

Has his claim put you off on buying the book, Phil?

Cheers,
----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 2/9/2020 8:50:48 AM

George,

The claim has deterred me from buying the book.

He’s not the only person to make it.

It started out with a military historian by the name of Gordon Corrigan, in a book titled “ Mud, Blood and Poppycock”. His intention was to debunk myths of WW1, by exposing the hyperbole about the casualties.
He also wanted us to reconsider the view that the generals of 1914-18 were blundering butchers, while those of 1939-45 were humane, slick and enlightened leaders who won battles without imposing carnage. And so he put a kind of “ spin” on the Normandy casualties of 1944, explaining that, although the absolute numbers of British casualties were far lower than they had been on the Somme in 1916, the rate of loss was slightly higher in the infantry in 1944, considering how the far smaller numbers of riflemen deployed skewed the proportion. He used figures compiled by different criteria : to elaborate on what I mean here, for the Somme he used the recorded figure for killed and missing, without any of the died from wounds....a very significant number thereby excluded ; for Normandy, he used the CWGC record of deaths from all causes.
Had he used the same CWGC data for the Somme, his argument would sink without trace. Truly, apples and oranges.

This was adopted and expounded by another historian , Peter Caddick-Adams, who aggregated loss of life in the Allied and German armies, combined with the civilian casualties, and remarked that the total, assessed on a daily average , exceeded that of the 1916 Somme fighting . I examined his figures and saw that he had understated the Somme casualties by thirty per cent, more or less !

Now, both these historians have impressed me mightily with their style and approach : the thing was ruined by statistical sleight of hand. All they needed to do was to dispel the view that Normandy was a soft option compared with the Somme. It was sometimes as deadly to carry a rifle into battle and close with the enemy in 1944 as it had been in 1916....that’s abundantly clear.

Now we have another inspirational and highly rated historian, James Holland, doing it again.

It does upset me : I get agitated.

Perhaps I’d better just get over it and take these things in my stride !

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
john hayward
Allenstown
NH USA
Posts: 766
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 2/9/2020 9:11:19 AM

Phil
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" Mark Twain

Despite the 100th anniversary of WWI the war has never captured the public as WWII has. Many seem to think it was a complete failure all the way around and killed millions for no good reason. After all we had to fight it again 30 years later. This time "The Greatest Generation" did it right.

Here in America WWI is just a bump in History. Our President didn't seem to gasp the importance of it when in Paris (but that's another issue) and despite the uproar over his behavior it was just a tempest in teapot. After all it was just WWI.

George made a similiar observation about the War of 1812 200th anniversary. Important to Canada...here in US not so much

Authors do want they can to sell books. Not many people know or care to find out if what they are saying esp. numbers are actually correct
----------------------------------
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 2/9/2020 10:55:43 AM

John,

Wasn’t it Benjamin Disraeli who pitched that saying about lies ?

There’s another one that I’ve heard Americans use..... “ Figures can’t lie, but lies can figure”.

What I’ve read about the Normandy Campaign leaves me wondering whether it speaks more of triumph than of opportunity squandered.

On balance, I reckon the triumph deserves to be extolled above all the defects.

I must reconsider my stance on James Holland’s book.....the reviews are favourable.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Brian Grafton
Victoria
BC Canada
Posts: 2998
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 2/9/2020 6:26:19 PM

Phil, keep in mind that – except in very specific instances – in most cases authors do not write anything but the text. They often have little control over photos, maps, diagrams; they are normally obliged to obey house rules in matters of grammar, footnote practices and the like. Remember John Barratt? I wrote reviews for three of his books, and included complaints about certain graphics in his Cromwell's Wars At Sea. John told me to save my breath: he got the illustrator his publisher assigned him.

James Holland may be just as horrified as you are by the blurbs, cover design and general presentation. But the division of labour typically suggests that the contents are his but the publication belongs to the house. It's not quite that simple of course, but you get my idea.

Here's something I have used (very sparsely) when dealing with issues I can't resolve any other way. I contact the author through his/her agent or through the publisher.

Typically, you have to go through an agent of some sort. And I've found authors can be remarkably responsive to a query. I once had a lovely, hand-signed letter from Sir John Keegan in response to a query about a photo in one of his volumes. He couldn't help me much beyond directing me to a photo agency, but he did imply that he had nothing to do with the images chosen to illustrate that particular volume.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 2/10/2020 9:07:25 AM

Thanks, Brian, you make a good point there , that I hadn’t considered.

Yes, I do remember John Barratt.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom
 UK
Posts: 196
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 3/27/2020 8:45:19 AM

Quote:
Last summer was the 75th anniversary of D-Day, and the ensuing publications gave us food for thought.

Prominent among these was the book by James Holland, a writer and historian I admire, and I cite the title above.

Tempted to buy it, I read the cover flyer, and was dismayed and astonished when I read :

This was a brutal campaign. In terms of daily casualties, the numbers were worse than for any one battle during the First World War .



Thats written by TONY RENNELL FOR THE DAILY MAIL in his review and is on the dust cover, so its not written by the author.



Quote:

What, on earth, could account for a scholar of Holland’s calibre making a preposterous statement like that ?


He did not.
Quote:

Is he deluded, or in denial, or just damnably bad at arithmetic ? Or has there been a lamentable failure to research the provenance of such a claim, and a tendency to accept slogans ? Or, maybe, a typo or failure to qualify something ?

For the record, the Allied land forces suffered 210,000 casualties in the 77 days, by the official tabulations that I see cited in most accounts. If I’m right, that equates to 2,727 per day . I’m sure that German casualties were huge, and, awful to countenance, there was terrible loss of civilian lives, too.

So, yes...a brutal, intense and vicious campaign, all too often sanitised and extolled as a masterpiece of manoeuvre and technology. It was a horrible slog, a murderous and terrifying ordeal , especially for the men in the rifle companies .

No room for complacency on that score , then.....BUT....to aver that its daily casualty toll exceeded that of any single battle in the warfare of 1914-18 is so ludicrous as to deter me from buying the book.

A daily average of 35,000 French casualties in a four day period of the Battle of The Frontiers in August 1914 ; the 57,470 British casualties on the First Day of the Somme in July 1916, and a total daily Allied average of of 4,418 for the entire 141 days of that battle.....Good Lord, I don’t need to go on !

Forgive my fixation with these statistics , but when I see a howler like that adorning the work of an author that I hold in high regard, I hope that you will understand my reaction.

Regards, Phil


TONY RENNELL
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-7064199/Coast-carnage-Astonishingly-casualty-rate-D-Day-higher-Somme.html
Over the 76 days of the battle, the daily casualty rate averaged out at 6,870, making it worse, he notes, than the Somme, Passchendaele and Ypres in World War I, which are usually cited as benchmarks for wanton slaughter.

The one making the howlers is you not Holland.

----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 3/27/2020 12:59:55 PM

Nick,

Have you checked the arithmetic ?

How can 6,870 per day exceed the daily average for the Somme ?

If I'm making howlers, then you're a Howler Monkey !

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom
 UK
Posts: 196
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 3/27/2020 3:17:50 PM

Quote:


Have you checked the arithmetic ?


Its clear you have not.

You have not read the book so have no idea what numbers he uses, and compares to other conflicts, ( confining yourself to pisstaking of Holland and getting your math wrong because you dont know what to count) perhaps if you get the right author, Holland and the numbers he uses in his book, you wont make the mistake of commenting on that which you dont know, and then explain why its wrong.

Hint Holland uses both Allied and German Military and civilian total losses, while you monkey around with Allied only.
----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 3/27/2020 3:30:07 PM

Somme : 141 days, 623,000 Allied casualties , 437,000 German; total = 1,060,000 , about 7,500 per day.

Now, Nick, please educate me.

Regards, Phil

----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom
 UK
Posts: 196
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 3/27/2020 3:32:21 PM

Quote:
Somme : 141 days, 623,000 Allied casualties , 437,000 German; total = 1,060,000 , about 7,500 per day.

Now, Nick, please educate me.

Regards, Phil



Try reading Hollands books, your numbers are not his numbers.

Btw, Somme lasted 140 days not 141.
----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 3/27/2020 6:07:17 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Somme : 141 days, 623,000 Allied casualties , 437,000 German; total = 1,060,000 , about 7,500 per day.

Now, Nick, please educate me.

Regards, Phil



Try reading Hollands books, your numbers are not his numbers.

Btw, Somme lasted 140 days not 141.



One hundred and forty days ? That would make the Somme daily average even higher.

July 1st to November 18th equates to 141 days.

You’re floundering here as badly as those Somme attacks floundered in the mud.

Please tell me what Holland’s numbers are.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom
 UK
Posts: 196
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 3/28/2020 8:09:34 AM

Quote:
For the record, the Allied land forces suffered 210,000 casualties in the 77 days, by the official tabulations that I see cited in most accounts. If I'm right, that equates to 2,727 per day . I'm sure that German casualties were huge, and, awful to countenance, there was terrible loss of civilian lives, too.


Your using things like https://d-dayrevisited.co.uk/d-day-history/d-day-landings/cost-of-battle/ and not using the German and civilian casualties, which you know is what Holland uses as you were told this in the Great war forum when you posted a review of Hollands dust cover!, https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/273487-same-old-error/ so your being not merely incompetent but dishonest, as you know that those numbers show your review on that forum and your snotty comments on this forum for Holland without reading his book, are mathematically wrong, and your constant misrepresentation of other authors because your unable to understand what they have explained

"Taking a wider view, during the Battle of Normandy over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing. This figure includes around 210,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 killed amongst the ground forces and a further 16,000 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. German losses of around 200,000 were killed or wounded; a further 200,000 were taken prisoner during the Campaign. Looking just at the fierce fighting which took place around the Falaise Pocket (or Falaise Gap) in August 1944, the German Army suffered losses in excess of 90,000 men, including those taken prisoner.

French civilian casualties are even more difficult to measure accurately. Most civilian casualties resulted from Allied bombing, especially in and around Caen. It is believed that between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed during the Normandy Campaign, although many more fled their homes to escape the main combat area. Those who were able to return found extensive destruction left in the wake of the allied advance to Paris."

So, total casualties are:425kIA/WIA/MIA both sides,+200k, plus Allied air 16k, German pows French civilians 15k is 656k/77 days is 8519

Or
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/06/fact-sheet-normandy-landings

Or in books like Antony Beevor:

"The ferocity of the fighting in north-west France can never be in doubt. And despite the sneers of Soviet propagandists, the battle for Normandy was certainly comparable to that of the eastern front. During the three summer months, the Wehrmacht suffered nearly 240,000 casualties and lost another 200,000 men to Allied captivity. The 21st Army Group of British, Canadians and Poles sustained 83,045 casualties and the Americans 125,847. In addition, the Allied air forces lost 16,714 men killed and missing."

Total casualties:440000+83045+125847+16714=665606/77 =8644

Gary Sheffield
"The important point that when the losses of individual units are examined, the Normandy to the Baltic campaign of 1944-45 (which was the closest approximation to the Western Front of the Great War) yielded casualty rates that equalled or exceeded those of 1914-18. This point is graphically reinforced by the little known fact that in excess of fifty per cent of British military deaths occurred in the last year and a half of the Second World War - the period in which the Army was being commanded not by Third Division generals such as Gort and Percival, but the premiership team of Montgomery, Alexander and Slim."

Quote:

British casualties on the First Day of the Somme in July 1916, and a total daily Allied average of of 4,418 for the entire 141 days of that battle

Somme : 141 days, 623,000 Allied casualties , 437,000 German; total = 1,060,000 , about 7,500 per day.
Now, Nick, please educate me.


Using your own figures you have shown the daily casualty rate of the Somme, 7500, to be below that of Normandy 8500. Note none of those included German civilian losses from air warfare for the period. which were 13,536 KIA a month from July to Jan 45.https://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/history/research/centres/warstateandsociety/projects/bombing/germany/

Quote:

Have you checked the arithmetic ?

How can 6,870 per day exceed the daily average for the Somme ?

If I'm making howlers, then you're a Howler Monkey !

Now, Nick, please educate me.



I checked your maths it does not support what you claim for it, Hollands otoh does.

As i already pointed out your howling mathematical incompetence which is the second problem, the first being your taling the piss out of Holland argument and supporting math, when you have A not read his book and have no idea at all what his argument is, and B, no idea of what numbers he uses. Just like several years past you had a math question on a well known Civil war statistical account for the army of Northern Virginia, so i gave you the authors email to inquire, only for him to point out to you you were mathematically incompetent and not to contact him again. This is another howler instance of you not realising your math does not support your claims

Quote:

One hundred and forty days ? That would make the Somme daily average even higher.
July 1st to November 18th equates to 141 days.

You're floundering here as badly as those Somme attacks floundered in the mud.

Please tell me what Holland's numbers are.


Difference of 1 day makes it 7500 and change so does not change your claim. Note Dustcover of Hollands book, has 77 and 76 days by reviewers while holland uses 76 in the text throughout.

Since you cannot even work out how many days make 140 its no wonder math has always been a problem for you.https://planetcalc.com/7741/

Micheal Clodfelter
"By way of comparison, the British in the 140 days of the 1916 Battle of the Somme" "it is certain that in the 140 days that the battle had lasted Britain's share was over 400,000"

Martin Middlebrook
"area as that captured by the British in the 140 days of the 1916 Somme battle."

UK Official history of the event was written by Captain Wilfred Miles, Miles's Somme volume covers two armies' engagements over a period of 140 days.

All readers know you are unaware of whats in Hollands book, disagree with it without knowing what it is, and provide maths that show your argument is incompetent, on top of that, you think its on me to provide you with the numbers from Hollands book, its not.



Quote:

And so he put a kind of “ spin” on the Normandy casualties of 1944, explaining that, although the absolute numbers of British casualties were far lower than they had been on the Somme in 1916, the rate of loss was slightly higher in the infantry in 1944, considering how the far smaller numbers of riflemen deployed skewed the proportion



Not spin, its just how maths works. He used the mathematical law of proportionality to explain how a large WW1 loss rate from a large Army strength in proportion to a lower ww2 loss rate rate from a far smaller Army strength showed that the ww2 experience had a higher proportional rate of casualty infliction. Had the UK ww2 Army been as large as its ww1 strength then in proportion it would have suffered greater losses.


Quote:
And here's another example of this distortion, using the same criterion of down playing the Great War - or exaggerating the losses in WWII - in order to make a point.

Rodric Braithwaite's book Moscow 1941 A City and Its People at War made a huge impact on me, so let me qualify any censure with whole hearted recommendation of a good read.

On the inner cover flap we are told:

...the Battle of Moscow.....More than 900,000 Soviet soldiers died, dwarfing British losses in the First World War...

In the opening paragraph of the first chapter, Braithwaite writes

The battle of Moscow swirled over a territory the size of France, and lasted for six months, from September 1941 to April 1942. The Soviet Union lost more people in this one battle - 926,000 soldiers killed, to say nothing of the wounded - than the British lost in the whole of the First World War.

Now this is an error, and a big one. The Soviet figure of 926,244 is for killed and missing : the figure for wounded is 879,879 ( and that might include evacuated sick). The huge figure for killed and missing is preponderantly based on prisoners : perhaps more than two thirds. The number of Soviet soldiers killed in the battles for Moscow was most definitely not in excess of the number of British soldiers who died in the Great War : indeed, it was probably more like one third of the total of British Great War dead. So much for "dwarfing" British losses from 1914-1918.

I am acutely aware that the fate of Soviet prisoners of war was fatal in millions of cases, and so I must acknowledge that. But as an indicator of intensity of combat, we have another example here which tells us that, far from sensationalising the slaughter of the Great War, it is the tendency to exaggerate that of the Second World War that must be held in check.


Braithwaite does not give his source for the number, but others using the same number for the same period have.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-War-Soviet-Military-Classics/dp/0330510045
Chris Bellamy, The absolute war, soviet union in ww2, Page 349/50 "All told, 926,244 irrecoverable losses and 1,806,123, including sick and wounded who recoverd," for September 1941 to April 1942".

From the SU source, we are given its definition:
"irrevocable losses"are the number of soldiers who were killed in military action, went MIA, became POWs and died or held till end of war, or died of non-combat causes, and its a couple of hundred thousand greater than the entire UK ww1 wartime loss of life.

Central Statistical Office, total British Army casualties were as follows:
British isles Total killed in action, plus died of wounds, disease or injury, plus missing presumed dead: 704,803

So we again have you not knowing what the numbers are or what they refer too.
----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 3/28/2020 8:52:48 AM

In seventeen years of my membership of MHO, I cannot remember seeing a more toxic post than the one above.

What it says about the character and conduct of the author is all too clear.

The ignorance is surpassed only by the arrogance.

As for the lack of civility, let others be the judge.

This is a place we need to enjoy, especially now.

Please don’t let MHO be wiped out by this behaviour.

Regards, Phil



----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/1/2020 4:47:03 AM

Anxious not to re-open wounds here, but really struggling with something, and I would appreciate the views of our membership. Is a battle that commences on 1st July and ends on 18th November of 140, or 141, days’ duration ?

This is not a complex question of maths, but something that requires simple , elementary skills of numeracy.

As a child I was taught about the days in calendar months....Thirty days hath September, April, June and November .... Do you remember that ditty ?

By that reckoning, the Battle of the Somme lasted for 141 days.

Now, if I’m wrong here, I will admit that I’m senile, or silly, or both, and crawl away.

Please cast a verdict.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
Posts: 560
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/1/2020 11:10:31 AM

It depends on if 18 November is included as the "last" day of the battle. Did they fight on 18 November as part of the battle? Then 141. Was 18 November the day operations ceased? Then 140.
----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/1/2020 11:27:50 AM

Yes, Rich, there was heavy fighting on 18 November .

The number of British and Canadian troops who died on the Somme that day exceeded the number who died in France on D-Day in 1944.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
Posts: 560
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/1/2020 1:38:45 PM

Quote:
Yes, Rich, there was heavy fighting on 18 November .

The number of British and Canadian troops who died on the Somme that day exceeded the number who died in France on D-Day in 1944.

Regards, Phil


Then I think the question of 140 or 141 is answered. Mind you, casualty numbers plus number of days doesn't really give you a measure of intensity. If two forces of 100 and 1000 men fought for one day and each suffered 10 casualties, then they both lost 10 casualties per day. However, the intensity for the first was ten times higher, based on percent per day casualties.

So if the data for "Normandy" was for say an average of 20 divisions and 600,000 men, but the "Somme" was for say 3 million men in 100 divisions, then if it was 5,000 men per day for "Normandy" and 10,000 men per day for the "Somme", then "Normandy" would still be more intense.

----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/1/2020 2:00:12 PM

Yes, Rich, point taken.

But even if we use the criterion you use, I think the divisional rate was higher on the Somme.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
Posts: 560
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/1/2020 3:40:51 PM

Quote:
Yes, Rich, point taken.

But even if we use the criterion you use, I think the divisional rate was higher on the Somme.

Regards, Phil


Um, I think you're missing the point, but this really isn't worth arguing about. Have fun storming the castle!

Cheers!
----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/2/2020 1:48:37 AM

NEVER JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER

If I’ve learnt anything from this thread, it’s the literal truth of that !

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom
 UK
Posts: 196
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/6/2020 8:38:30 AM

Quote:
Now, Nick, please educate me.

For the record, the Allied land forces suffered 210,000 casualties in the 77 days, by the official tabulations that I see cited in most accounts. If I’m right, that equates to 2,727 per day

Somme : 141 days, 623,000 Allied casualties

the 57,470 British casualties on the First Day of the Somme in July 1916, and a total daily Allied average of of 4,418 for the entire 141 days of that battle.

And so he put a kind of “ spin” on the Normandy casualties of 1944, explaining that, although the absolute numbers of British casualties were far lower than they had been on the Somme in 1916, the rate of loss was slightly higher in the infantry in 1944, considering how the far smaller numbers of riflemen deployed skewed the proportion.

But even if we use the criterion you use, I think the divisional rate was higher on the Somme.


Not content with incorrect claims for what is in Gordon Corrigan, Peter Caddick-Adams books and not knowing at all what is in Hollands book, you then post a conclusion that your own numbers show to be incorrect.

Normany 44 involved 39 Allied Divisions, loss per Div per day:210,000/77=2727, 2727/39 per day=69
Somme in 1916 involved 99 Allied divisions. Loss per Div per day:623,000/141=4418, 4418/ 99 per day=45

"All seven infantry divisions that fought in Normandy had lost three-quarters of their initial strength by the end of August."

Ian Carter, Imperial war museum.
----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/6/2020 10:25:05 AM


Corrigan. Mud, Blood and Poppycock, pages 298, gives this tabulation :

Somme : Number of weeks, twenty and one seventh ( 141 days, which exposes your lack of elementary numeracy) ; 53 British divisions engaged, total dead, 95,000. Dead per division per week = 95

Normandy: Number of weeks , eleven and four sevenths, 19 British divisions engaged, total dead , 22,000. Dead per division per week= 100

The source of his error is clear : the Somme figure of deaths is too low. It alludes to confirmed killed and missing presumed killed, and does not allow for died from wounds. The Normandy figure, from the CWGC, is for deaths from all causes.

Middlebrook, in his book The Somme Battlefields, analysed CWGC registers for British dead for the 1916 battle, and revealed a total of 127,751.

Using that figure would alter Corrigan's figure for divisional deaths per week from 95 to 120, if he had been comparing like with like by dint of CWGC data for the Somme.

Peter Caddick-Adams, Monty and Rommel, Parallel Lives, pages 364-65, aggregates all military ( both sides) and civilian casualties in the Normandy Campaign, and estimates 6,674 per day . He cites a figure for the Somme as 6,444/day for 142 days, which equates to a total of 915,048. The lowest official figures for the Somme are well in excess of one million, which leaves those figures cited by Caddick Adams exposed as very flawed.

One of the hardest hit British Divisions in Normandy was the 50th (Northumbrian) which suffered about five thousand casualties : 673 killed, 3072 wounded and 1,236 missing. The Bloody Battle for Tilly, Normandy 1944, by Ken Tout , page 205.

Compare that with divisional casualties for the British in the battle of the Somme :

30th : 17,374
18th : 13,323
21st : 13,044
5th : 12,667
17th : 12,613
56th : 12,333
34th : 12,036
25th : 11,239
12th : 11,089
33rd : 10,787
9th : 10,538
4th : 10,496
1st : 10,451
3rd : 10,377
7th : 10,237

They were just the ones suffering in excess of ten thousand. There were twenty five others that each took more casualties than the 50th ( Northumbrian) in Normandy.

Those figures are from Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson, The Somme, pages 300-301.

Even allowing for the Somme lasting nearly twice as long as the Normandy fighting, the rate of loss is significantly higher in 1916 than it was to be in 1944.

It would be interesting to compare the figures for the seven infantry divisions in Normandy that Ian Carter alludes to.

This will, I hope, convince you in respect of British and Dominion casualty rates in the two battles.

If not, then I seek enlightenment.

Conscious that I have not addressed US and German figures for the Normandy Campaign, and will readily admit to being wrong if a coherent ( and civil) response is forthcoming from you.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom
 UK
Posts: 196
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/6/2020 12:25:48 PM

Quote:
( 141 days, which exposes your lack of elementary numerical)


Firstly i pointed out that your maths stays the same at 7500 and change, per day irrespective of if you use 140 or 141 days. I just again pointed out your maths contradicts what your conclusion is based on your own numbers.
Quote:
The Normandy figure, from the CWGC, is for deaths from all causes.


Except its not, its from the war diary, 21AG Sitrep for 29 Aug 1944 containing battle casualty returns upto the day before. Middlebrook points out in the Somme region for ww2 1944 there are 5553 graves administered by the CWGC.

Quote:
Middlebrook, in his book The Somme Battlefields, analyzed CWGC registers for British dead for the 1916 battle, and revealed a total of 127,751


Middlebrook also uses 140 days for the duration of the Somme, and uses 142 days casualty returns, 1 7 1916 to 20 11 1916 to arrive and UK and Empire battle losses of 127,751, which is higher than just UK battle losses in Corrigan, who uses 140 days casualty returns. Neither is including non battle casualties.

As for civility, since joining the internet, your posting style is to libel authors when you dont understand the content of their works, misrepresent what is in their books, fail to understand the difference between battle and non battle casualties etc, and then post innumerate argument in support of your uniformed biased opinion, until that changes your probably going to get treated,(or simply ignored as i now intend to go with, there is only so much stupidity i care to put up with) in the same manner as you think is ok to treat others.
----------------------------------
George
Centre Hastings
ON Canada
Posts: 10611
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/6/2020 2:53:46 PM

d
----------------------------------
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
Posts: 560
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/6/2020 7:21:59 PM

Quote:

Corrigan. Mud, Blood and Poppycock, pages 298, gives this tabulation :

Somme : Number of weeks, twenty and one seventh ( 141 days, which exposes your lack of elementary numeracy) ; 53 British divisions engaged, total dead, 95,000. Dead per division per week = 95

Normandy: Number of weeks , eleven and four sevenths, 19 British divisions engaged, total dead , 22,000. Dead per division per week= 100


Guess I do have to interject after all. That, for Normandy at least, truly is poppycock. Where in the world did he come up with 1 September as the end of the "Battle of Normandy"? While I don't like the US Army splitting the battle into the "Beachhead" ending on 25 July and the "Breakout" to c. 22-24 August, it at least has the merit of having some reason behind it.

Quote:

One of the hardest hit British Divisions in Normandy was the 50th (Northumbrian) which suffered about five thousand casualties : 673 killed, 3072 wounded and 1,236 missing. The Bloody Battle for Tilly, Normandy 1944, by Ken Tout , page 205.


Not sure where Ken sourced his data. I show as of 9 August when 21 Army Group did their personnel reset, 701 dead, 3,361 wounded, and 1,418 missing, of whom 574 had returned to duty. Then for 10-31 August they reported 156 killed, 910 wounded, and 56 MIA.
----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/7/2020 1:33:03 AM

Thank you, Rich.


You generate more light than heat....a blessed transformation !

I mentioned that the 50th ( Northumbrian ) Division was “ One of the hardest hit British Divisions “ in Normandy. Would you please tell us what The hardest hit British division was in that battle, with a similar breakdown of the casualties ?

I think that I remember reading somewhere that another division suffered about eight thousand.

Am I right in thinking that 21st Army Group took around eighty thousand casualties overall in the battle, around one thousand or so per day ?

From what tables I’ve seen, it looks as if Anglo-Canadian casualties were roughly two thirds those of the US.

Regards, Phil

----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
Posts: 560
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/7/2020 12:33:43 PM

Quote:
Thank you, Rich.


You generate more light than heat....a blessed transformation !

I mentioned that the 50th ( Northumbrian ) Division was “ One of the hardest hit British Divisions “ in Normandy. Would you please tell us what The hardest hit British division was in that battle, with a similar breakdown of the casualties ?


What does that mean? In terms of divisions that landed 6 June and fought through to the 9 August personnel reset:

3 CID - 825 dead, 4,259 WIA, and 1,324 missing, not yet returned
3 BID - 725 dead, 4,795 WIA, and 837 missing, not yet returned

In terms of US divisions, the 90th ID, even though the main body did not land until 9-11 June, reported 1,653 KIA through 9 August, with 6,639 WIA, 690 MIA, and 220 known captured. Postwar analysis calculated losses 11 June-24 July alone were 1,337 KIA, 5,832 WIA, 454 MIA, and 234 captured for a total of 7,857.

A caveat on American "WIA" though. Through 30 June 1944, the War Department continued to utilize the Great War criteria of "wounded, sick, and gassed" rather than the more precise WIA. So it is likely that about one-third of the division's 2,310 "WIA" recorded for June were actual DNBI.

Quote:
I think that I remember reading somewhere that another division suffered about eight thousand.


Probably the 90th ID.

Quote:
Am I right in thinking that 21st Army Group took around eighty thousand casualties overall in the battle, around one thousand or so per day ?

From what tables I’ve seen, it looks as if Anglo-Canadian casualties were roughly two thirds those of the US.


21st Army Group recorded 83,825 casualties as of 0600 1 September 1944.
12th Army Group recorded 21,028 KIA, 95,537 WIA, 9,931 MIA, and 1,235 captured through 2400 31 August 1944, so a total of 118,793.
----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/7/2020 4:20:06 PM

Thanks, Rich.

Some of the acronyms bother me : DNBI ....non battle cases ? One third of US wounded were sick ?

The figure of 95,537 US WIA would therefore need to be reduced ; although those subsequent to the 1st July would have been proper wounded in action, as opposed to sick ?

I know that CWGC give nearly 5,000 Canadian army deaths in France 6 June to 21 August, and UK counterpart is over 16,000. These would be deaths from all causes, and would include accidents, illness etc as well as KIA /DOW.

About one in four of the battle casualties were fatal, it would appear.

Can’t reconcile the US figures : the categories cited add up to more than 125,000.

Trying to get a sense of how many Allied soldiers were killed or died of wounds, I would guess that more than fifty thousand perished from enemy fire, or, indeed, from friendly fire.

If more than twenty thousand Commonwealth troops were killed, is it a fair assumption that thirty thousand US soldiers were fatalities ? Those US MIAs - nearly ten thousand - might have been killed ?

A big difference between this battle and the 1916 Somme is the fact that the vast majority of the 1944 dead were recovered for burial, and most of them identified.

Fewer than half of the 1916 dead were given identified burial , and a large portion of the dead were never found , let alone identified.

Edit : Aware that I’ve failed to mention Polish and Free French forces here.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
Posts: 560
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/7/2020 5:11:36 PM

Quote:
Some of the acronyms bother me : DNBI ....non battle cases ?


Disease and Non-Battle Injuries, the rubric used later.

Quote:
One third of US wounded were sick ?


My rough rule-of thumb based on the breakdown in July.

Quote:
The figure of 95,537 US WIA would therefore need to be reduced ; although those subsequent to the 1st July would have been proper wounded in action, as opposed to sick ?


Yep.

Quote:
Can’t reconcile the US figures : the categories cited add up to more than 125,000.


My fault, I read from the wrong line. It should be 126,496 if they did their maths right.

Quote:
Trying to get a sense of how many Allied soldiers were killed or died of wounds, I would guess that more than fifty thousand perished from enemy fire, or, indeed, from friendly fire.

If more than twenty thousand Commonwealth troops were killed, is it a fair assumption that thirty thousand US soldiers were fatalities ? Those US MIAs - nearly ten thousand - might have been killed ?


Somewhere I have Died of Wounds data, I'll see if I can find it.

Quote:
A big difference between this battle and the 1916 Somme is the fact that the vast majority of the 1944 dead were recovered for burial, and most of them identified.

Fewer than half of the 1916 dead were given identified burial , and a large portion of the dead were never found , let alone identified.

Edit : Aware that I’ve failed to mention Polish and Free French forces here.


The Normandy American Cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer has 9,387 interments, 307 of them are unknowns, while 1,557 MIA are commemorated there. So the majority, but I'm not sure I would call it the vast majority...certainly not for the Germans.
----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/8/2020 1:36:10 AM

Rich,

That’s more than helpful : many thanks.

The DOW data would be appreciated.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom
 UK
Posts: 196
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/8/2020 5:15:28 AM

Quote:


Somewhere I have Died of Wounds data, I'll see if I can find it.


Try here:United States Army in World War II European Theater of Operations
The Supreme Command
Forrest C. Pogue
[Read More]

Military statistics of the Mil effort of the British Empire during the Great war, 1922 edition and RAMC data on casualty outcomes, for ww1 and ww2.

Monthly losses by Theatre pg 258.
July 1916: Kia 2146 officers, OR 30,409, died of wounds 440 and 7,906, died of disease18 and 419, total deaths,2604 and 38,734, missing and pows 606 and 15969 Pows held reported by Axis powers 2843.

WW1 66% of belly wounds were fatal, while WW2 is was only 33% in 39 and 25% by 45, chest wound mortality in WW1 was 54% compared to WW2 5.7%.

15% more casualties would have died without penicillin effects which also halved recovery of WIA and returned them to duty quicker, one Black Watch Bttn lost all its officers between d Day and VE day, except one, he had been wounded and returned to duty 9 times, his Bttn had lost 200% of its OR start strength.
----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/8/2020 5:19:47 AM

Some observations on the Normandy casualties...

Montgomery's Memoirs, page 258 :

by 22nd June, British, 2,006 killed, 8,776 wounded, total 10,782. American, 3,012 killed, 15,362 wounded, total 18,374.

By 19th July, British, 6,010 killed, 28,690 wounded, total 34,700. American, 10,641 killed, 51,387 wounded, total 62,028.

The first return yields a total of 5.1 US wounded for every one killed, the later one 4.8 to one. Evidence of the sick being included in the first report of wounded, and excluded after the start of July ?

Strange that Monty includes no missing. I wonder why.

Another of my books, Marching To The Sound Of Gunfire, by Patrick Delaforce, cites an inventory of British casualties after the first three weeks of fighting ,

..British and Canadian casualties were 25,000, of which 3,356 were KIA, 15,815 wounded and 5,527 missing ( mainly prisoners of war).

Monty's earlier citation of British casualties does seem remarkably low : fewer killed in seventeen days than in thirteen days at El Alamein. Things look very different by mid July.

The US figure for KIA for the entire campaign that you cite, Rich, is higher than that for the Battle of the Bulge, often cited as the biggest of all American battles in the war.

I even wonder if Normandy might exceed the Meuse Argonne in this respect, although the shorter time period of the 1918 battle ( 47 days) would surely impart a significantly higher daily rate.

There's an interesting US counterpart of British comparisons between Normandy 1944 and the Somme 1916 !

The British figures for 1916 offer clear stats for died of wounds : in rough terms, for the Somme, 25,000 DOW compared with 100,000 KIA. Many of the latter were initially posted as missing. Monty's exclusion of the missing from his figures is baffling. I suppose we have to treat what he says with circumspection.

Ultimately, the CWGC gives us the best evidence of how many British and Canadian soldiers were killed in Normandy. My guess is that the official British KIA figure would need to be increased by about fifty per cent in order to reconcile with the CWGC data.

Regards, Phil




----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom
 UK
Posts: 196
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/8/2020 5:55:46 AM

Quote:

Guess I do have to interject after all. That, for Normandy at least, truly is poppycock. Where in the world did he come up with 1 September as the end of the "Battle of Normandy"? While I don't like the US Army splitting the battle into the "Beachhead" ending on 25 July and the "Breakout" to c. 22-24 August, it at least has the merit of having some reason behind it.


His point was the human cost, from fighting wholey different kinds of warfighting, in going forward a few miles in 1916 to going from the beaches to Low countries, 1916 12 Bttn 1000 strong ID replaced by 9 Bttn 800 strong who fought in campaigns differently in 44. RAF had more KIA than did did 21 AG for some periods during the campaign, twice the tail in a ww2 formation and so on.

1st Sept is probably from Major Paul Odgers account of the 21 AG TAC HQ movements across Normandy (June to September 1944) and the low countries (September 1944 March 1945), its also when Monty lost operational control of US forces in Normandy.

You did know you just gave the same poppy cock answer to the same question?.

Quote:

21st Army Group recorded 83,825 casualties as of 0600 1 September 1944.
12th Army Group recorded 21,028 KIA, 95,537 WIA, 9,931 MIA, and 1,235 captured through 2400 31 August 1944, so a total of 118,793.

----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/8/2020 9:55:37 AM

Quote:



Monthly losses by Theatre pg 258.
July 1916: Kia 2146 officers, OR 30,409, died of wounds 440 and 7,906, died of disease18 and 419, total deaths,2604 and 38,734, missing and pows 606 and 15969 Pows held reported by Axis powers 2843.


Thank you for this.

These are for the Western Front.

Using CWGC for July 1916, France and Belgium, it's apparent that 56,432 British Empire Army deaths are commemorated. The figures you've provided give 41,338 confirmed deaths, and an additional 16,575 missing, of whom 2,843 were reported as POWs. If you deduct the POWs, we get a total of 55,070 : this is close enough to the CWGC total to encourage further investigation. I wonder if something similar might be done with the Normandy figures.

In the July 1916 sample, the initial return for KIA needs to be increased by nearly 75% in order to match the CWGC commemorations. So many died of wounds, and even more missing who were obviously dead.

Using Monty's figure of 6,010 killed in Normandy by 19th July, a look at the CWGC online shows that, between 6th June and 19th July 1944, 10,132 UK and 2,090 Canadian soldiers are commemorated in France, which suggests that the figure for killed cited by Monty has to be pretty well doubled. That is certainly something of a revelation.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
RichTO90
Bremerton
WA USA
Posts: 560
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/8/2020 1:11:48 PM

Quote:
His point was the human cost, from fighting wholey different kinds of warfighting, in going forward a few miles in 1916 to going from the beaches to Low countries, 1916 12 Bttn 1000 strong ID replaced by 9 Bttn 800 strong who fought in campaigns differently in 44. RAF had more KIA than did did 21 AG for some periods during the campaign, twice the tail in a ww2 formation and so on.


Yes, I understand that. I see my original point keeps getting missed in this comparison.

Quote:
You did know you just gave the same poppy cock answer to the same question?.


No. my answer was factual. I simply used the same poppycock date as given in the original post in my reality check.
----------------------------------
Phil Andrade
London
 UK
Posts: 4461
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/8/2020 5:47:22 PM

The most shocking feature of the Normandy casualties is how the preponderance of them were borne by such a small part of the army.

Stating the bleeding obvious here, I know....but it would be revealing to get some kind of grip on the actual figures.

Of the 83,000 casualties taken by 21st Army Group in the 88 days between 6 June and 1 September, how many were suffered by the rifle companies ? Not seeking precision, but hoping to get a sense of it.

Any idea about the proportion of the soldiers who were riflemen ?

To carry a rifle into battle and close with the enemy must have been every bit as dangerous in 1944 as it had been in 1916, but, thank goodness, a damned sight fewer men had to do it in Normandy.

I know that there was a high incidence of psychiatric casualties in the British and Canadian infantry in Normandy. That says a lot about the intensity.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom
 UK
Posts: 196
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/9/2020 4:10:42 AM

Quote:


Of the 83,000 casualties taken by 21st Army Group in the 88 days between 6 June and 1 September, how many were suffered by the rifle companies ? Not seeking precision, but hoping to get a sense of it.

Any idea about the proportion of the soldiers who were riflemen ?


[Read More]
----------------------------------
Nick Spencer
IOW,United kingdom
 UK
Posts: 196
Normandy ‘44 : D-Day and the Battle for France.
Posted on: 4/9/2020 4:18:58 AM

Quote:

Yes, I understand that.

Good.

Quote:

I see my original point keeps getting missed in this comparison.


You need to read posts more carefully then.

Your original point was" So if the data for "Normandy" was for say an average of 20 divisions and 600,000 men, but the "Somme" was for say 3 million men in 100 divisions, then if it was 5,000 men per day for "Normandy" and 10,000 men per day for the "Somme", then "Normandy" would still be more intense."

which works out to 2.5 to 1 ratio instead of the authors 1.5 ratio.

Phils different number values also came out to 1.5 ratio. You say he missed your point, which he did as his conclusion is not supported by the math and yours is.

So you made your overall point but are wrong in magnitude.


Quote:

No. my answer was factual. I simply used the same poppycock date as given in the original post in my reality check.


You say No, and then explain you mean yes, how interesting, you go on to claim asking a question is factually answering something. You simply used the same poppycock date as the author used, which is the same date that most authors use, when they also want to use the same fact, such as C Wilmot, J Ellis, and J kegan, Ruppenthal, Imperial War Museum, and Encyclopedia Britannica, CWWGC ,and even wikki because D day+90 was Montys plan for the battle and he achieved all its operational goals c10 days earlier, end of August and handed over command to the US for the next phase.

So the reality check was for you to perceive reality as most others do. You go on to provide 21st Army Group recorded 83,825 casualties as of 0600 1 September 1944, which is not a number that Mud blood and poppycock was measuring, and is also not the date he uses as the end point, your reality check then involves using different numbers, and when you work those through Somme comes out more intense than Normandy for Uk, Mud blood and poopy cock is measuring 81 days, ( 11 weeks and 4 days) and you are not, your using 1 September and he was not, which kinda means you back to saying both yes and no.

Normandy 83,825/88/20=47 per Div per day.
Somme 420000/141/53=56 per Div per day.
----------------------------------
Page 1 of 5 (Page:   1    2   3   4   5 )

© 2020 - MilitaryHistoryOnline.com LLC