Carl Schwamberger wrote:If I recall correctly Balikowski wrote in his book on Omaha Beach that he looked at the records of both the 1st & 29th Div. He observed that MR for the 6th reflected full or overstrength companies & he found nothing dated to the 7th. Those dated to the 8th had a count for men "present" but had little for the status of the number not present. As the week progressed the entries for wounded or killed in the company MR & the consolidated battalion & regimental reports became more coherent. I'll see if I can locate his complete remarks on this.
There is a serious problem with Balikowski's statement that the MRs ""dated to the 8th had a count for men "present" but had little for the status of the number not present.""
MRs are exception reports. They list individually by name the officers and men absent from the company, and give the reasons for those absences. Once the exceptions are noted, the report goes on to provide the total number of officers and men authorized for the unit, plus those attached, minus the numbers mentioned in the exception report. If Balikowski found MRs that did not list individually, by name the officers and men absent from the company, along with the reasons for those absences, he should have kept looking. What is described as more coherence as the week progressed is in reality the updates and corrections to the earlier MRs that had been submitted. In other words, this soldier was also absent as of a certain date, and here are the reasons why. Depending on the combat situation MRs might take as long as two or three weeks to account for everyone, and that is why they have to be examined in depth in order to obtain meaningful numbers of casualites, etc. Based on your description, Balikowski misinterpreted this updating and correction of the MRs as reflecting more coherence. Thus, the casualties were there, but he had to look at them line by line and date by date to understand what is actually going on. Perhaps he explains this at some point.
Cannonade