Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by daveshoup2MD » 19 Jan 2022 22:42

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
19 Jan 2022 17:27
daveshoup2MD wrote:
17 Jan 2022 21:50
including the British 6th Airborne but not the US 82nd and 101st airborne divisions... from your source:

"The United States and Britain both landed approximately 54,000 troops. Canada landed 21,400 troops. ... The estimated number of allied deaths during the 24-hour period known as D-Day is roughly 4,414 (2,501 Americans and 1,913 Allies)."

Seems like honors were quite equal among the assault elements from all three armies, unless you were trying to suggest something else?
It is a strange map - maybe the 101 and 82 US Airborne Division boxes are just cropped out as their flight path wasn't on the map as shown? Seems strange though, as I didn't think that the 4th US Infantry Division occupied as much territory on 6 June 44 as is shown behind Utah. So does the red shading show territory occupied by airborne even if they aren't specifically named? I seem to recall that some of the link-ups with the US Airborne were delayed until the 7th?
daveshoup2MD wrote:
17 Jan 2022 21:50
Seems like honors were quite equal among the assault elements from all three armies,
And that is something I would agree with! None achieved all the objectives they had been set in the face of different challenges but all achieved their prime objective of getting ashore and securing a beachhead.

Regards

Tom
"Strange" is a fair characterization. Here's one that seems credible:

https://www.westpoint.edu/sites/default ... rope55.pdf

Expanded time frame, of course, but makes the point of who was where and when, roughly ...

Aber
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 05 Jan 2010 21:43

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by Aber » 20 Jan 2022 08:54

This may be more relevant:

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/Can ... ory-12.jpg

Image

gives scale and count of Panzer Divisions

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by daveshoup2MD » 24 Jan 2022 22:38

Aber wrote:
20 Jan 2022 08:54
This may be more relevant:

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/Can ... ory-12.jpg

Image

gives scale and count of Panzer Divisions
Maybe ... simply having the designation does not mean that useful AFVs were operational in division strength, however, certainly not in 1941-44 in the West. The German armor in the West after 1940 pretty much amounted to obsolete German and ex-French vehicle for most of 1941-43, for example.

Not true in 1944 when the invasion began, of course, but by July? It's an open question, unit by unit. Some of them were essentially infantry, in anything else but name...

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7437
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by Michael Kenny » 24 Jan 2022 23:02

daveshoup2MD wrote:
24 Jan 2022 22:38
, but by July? It's an open question, unit by unit. Some of them were essentially infantry, in anything else but name...
Not so. True the Panzer Division were very roughly handled but they were still Panzer Divisions with all that entails. EPSOM in particular was a very bad time for the panzers. 3 Units are not shown on the map. sSS Pz Abt 101, sSS PzAbt 102 and sPz Abt 503. A total of 130+plus Tigers which could be said to be a further Panzer Division.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3413
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by Sheldrake » 25 Jan 2022 00:55

daveshoup2MD wrote:
24 Jan 2022 22:38
Aber wrote:
20 Jan 2022 08:54
This may be more relevant:

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/Can ... ory-12.jpg

Image

gives scale and count of Panzer Divisions
Maybe ... simply having the designation does not mean that useful AFVs were operational in division strength, however, certainly not in 1941-44 in the West. The German armor in the West after 1940 pretty much amounted to obsolete German and ex-French vehicle for most of 1941-43, for example.

Not true in 1944 when the invasion began, of course, but by July? It's an open question, unit by unit. Some of them were essentially infantry, in anything else but name...
The figures for 25 July are is is slightly OT as this is a month after Op Epsom. However,

1. According to Zetterling, German casualties within panzer divisions were disproportionately suffered by the panzer Grenadiers. Note the map shows the remnants of 16 Luftwaffe co-located (actually under command) of 21st Panzer Division. 12 HJ SS had lost 6,164 casualties by 1 July

2. The two Panzer divisions in II SS Panzer corps suffered heavily in Epsom and the following month of attritional fighting SW of Caen. 9 SS lost 1,145 killed wounded and missing by 1st July and 1,891. by 18 July. 10 SS lost 571 men in 36 hours 30 june/1st July and had lost 2,289 men by 18 July. Most of these will have been from the Panzer Grenadier Regiments. Epson cost 9 SS 6 x Panthers, 16 x Pz IV, 10 x StuG.

3. On 25 July the Panzer Divisions shown in the map had the following AFVs Combat ready
1 SS Pz Div: 45 x Pz IV; 34 Pz V; 32 StuG III
2 Pz Div: estimated 85 Pz IV; 21 Pz V; 12 JgdPz IV
9 SS Pz Div: 21 Pz IV; 23 Pz V; 11 StuG III
10 SS Pz Div:14 Pz IV; 11 StuG III
12 SS Pz Div: estimated Max 60 pz IV 48 Pz V
21 Pz Div: 30 Pz IV; Unknown no SP guns
116 Pz Div: 24 Pz IV; 39 Pz V; 25 JagdPzIV & Stug III
This looks like around one third to half the establishments. Perhaps evidence for the effects of ten weeks of attrition war against the British and Canadians.

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by daveshoup2MD » 25 Jan 2022 03:54

Michael Kenny wrote:
24 Jan 2022 23:02
daveshoup2MD wrote:
24 Jan 2022 22:38
, but by July? It's an open question, unit by unit. Some of them were essentially infantry, in anything else but name...
Not so. True the Panzer Division were very roughly handled but they were still Panzer Divisions with all that entails. EPSOM in particular was a very bad time for the panzers. 3 Units are not shown on the map. sSS Pz Abt 101, sSS PzAbt 102 and sPz Abt 503. A total of 130+plus Tigers which could be said to be a further Panzer Division.
How many operational AFVs did 21st Panzer have left by 24-25 July, for example?

Doesn't sound like much...

https://www.historynet.com/die-another- ... rmandy.htm

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by daveshoup2MD » 25 Jan 2022 04:01

Sheldrake wrote:
25 Jan 2022 00:55
daveshoup2MD wrote:
24 Jan 2022 22:38
Aber wrote:
20 Jan 2022 08:54
This may be more relevant:

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/Can ... ory-12.jpg

Image

gives scale and count of Panzer Divisions
Maybe ... simply having the designation does not mean that useful AFVs were operational in division strength, however, certainly not in 1941-44 in the West. The German armor in the West after 1940 pretty much amounted to obsolete German and ex-French vehicle for most of 1941-43, for example.

Not true in 1944 when the invasion began, of course, but by July? It's an open question, unit by unit. Some of them were essentially infantry, in anything else but name...
The figures for 25 July are is is slightly OT as this is a month after Op Epsom. However,

1. According to Zetterling, German casualties within panzer divisions were disproportionately suffered by the panzer Grenadiers. Note the map shows the remnants of 16 Luftwaffe co-located (actually under command) of 21st Panzer Division. 12 HJ SS had lost 6,164 casualties by 1 July

2. The two Panzer divisions in II SS Panzer corps suffered heavily in Epsom and the following month of attritional fighting SW of Caen. 9 SS lost 1,145 killed wounded and missing by 1st July and 1,891. by 18 July. 10 SS lost 571 men in 36 hours 30 june/1st July and had lost 2,289 men by 18 July. Most of these will have been from the Panzer Grenadier Regiments. Epson cost 9 SS 6 x Panthers, 16 x Pz IV, 10 x StuG.

3. On 25 July the Panzer Divisions shown in the map had the following AFVs Combat ready
1 SS Pz Div: 45 x Pz IV; 34 Pz V; 32 StuG III
2 Pz Div: estimated 85 Pz IV; 21 Pz V; 12 JgdPz IV
9 SS Pz Div: 21 Pz IV; 23 Pz V; 11 StuG III
10 SS Pz Div:14 Pz IV; 11 StuG III
12 SS Pz Div: estimated Max 60 pz IV 48 Pz V
21 Pz Div: 30 Pz IV; Unknown no SP guns
116 Pz Div: 24 Pz IV; 39 Pz V; 25 JagdPzIV & Stug III
This looks like around one third to half the establishments. Perhaps evidence for the effects of ten weeks of attrition war against the British and Canadians.
Thanks. Using a very rough 50 AFVs = one battalion rule of thumb, that suggests 1st SS had two battalion equivalents of armor; 2nd Pz had two; 9th SS had one; 10th SS had less than half a battalion equivalent; 12th SS two; 21st Pz had half of a battalion of tanks; and 116th Pz maybe two...

Basically, each US or CW armored division had 3-5 battalion equivalents of medium tanks and SP TDs, and even an Allied infantry division with an attached tank and TD battalion had close to two battalion equivalents ... so, yeah, they may have been designated armored divisions, but they were closer to an Allied infantry division in strength, than an Allied armored division.

Obviously, the Allies had a much tougher position, given they were on the offensive, but still ...

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7437
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by Michael Kenny » 25 Jan 2022 06:52

It is beyond dispute that the Pz Divisions were concentrated around Caen.


June 14
German map 14 JUN 44 200 Pieux-Caen.jpg


The EPSOM situation map
normandy-epsom-6 ,,,.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Aber
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 05 Jan 2010 21:43

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by Aber » 25 Jan 2022 08:54

daveshoup2MD wrote:
25 Jan 2022 04:01
Obviously, the Allies had a much tougher position, given they were on the offensive, but still ...
It's not the total number, it's the density of AFV.

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by daveshoup2MD » 26 Jan 2022 06:05

Aber wrote:
25 Jan 2022 08:54
daveshoup2MD wrote:
25 Jan 2022 04:01
Obviously, the Allies had a much tougher position, given they were on the offensive, but still ...
It's not the total number, it's the density of AFV.
Yeah, but if the grand total of German tank battalions is the equivalent of 10 Allied, that doesn't means there are the equivalent of seven Allied armored divisions ... it means there are the equivalent of something closer to seven reinforced Allied infantry divisions in the line, which speaks to the point that a formation with the designation of "panzer division" doesn't make it so...

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by daveshoup2MD » 26 Jan 2022 06:06

Michael Kenny wrote:
25 Jan 2022 06:52
It is beyond dispute that the Pz Divisions were concentrated around Caen.


June 14
German map 14 JUN 44 200 Pieux-Caen.jpg



The EPSOM situation map

normandy-epsom-6 ,,,.jpg
And seven "panzer divisions" with the equivalent of 10 battalions of armor between them are what, exactly? In Allied terms, reinforced infantry, basically...

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 7437
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by Michael Kenny » 26 Jan 2022 10:08

daveshoup2MD wrote:
26 Jan 2022 06:06


And seven "panzer divisions" with the equivalent of 10 battalions of armor between them are what, exactly? In Allied terms, reinforced infantry, basically...

So you spend a month destroying the Panzer Divisions and then when the benefits of your efforts start to manifest you get told 'does not count mate, now its not a fair fight'.

NickA
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: 11 Mar 2020 17:01
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by NickA » 26 Jan 2022 17:50

daveshoup2MD wrote:
17 Jan 2022 21:50
Nick - interesting choice of a map; from: https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reel ... vate-ryan/ including the British 6th Airborne but not the US 82nd and 101st airborne divisions... from your source:
"The United States and Britain both landed approximately 54,000 troops. Canada landed 21,400 troops. ... The estimated number of allied deaths during the 24-hour period known as D-Day is roughly 4,414 (2,501 Americans and 1,913 Allies)."

I didn't realise that diagram was controversial or from a dubious source.This diagram from Shutterstock:
Image
daveshoup2MD wrote:
17 Jan 2022 21:50
Seems like honors were quite equal among the assault elements from all three armies, unless you were trying to suggest something else?
I can report that the "Poles lost more than 500 men" according to https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 41762.html and elsewhere I hear that a Polish Division landed, Polish aircraft flew air support, Polish ships supported the assault on the beaches. I believe at least some of their dead are recognised on the memorials.

But other actual casualties seem to be something of a mystery - how about the thousands of our French allies who gave their lives to free their country from the Nazi heel - did nobody bother to count their dead? I hear there is no mention of them at the memorials in Normandy.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3413
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by Sheldrake » 27 Jan 2022 01:12

NickA wrote:
26 Jan 2022 17:50
daveshoup2MD wrote:
17 Jan 2022 21:50
Nick - interesting choice of a map; from: https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reel ... vate-ryan/ including the British 6th Airborne but not the US 82nd and 101st airborne divisions... from your source:
"The United States and Britain both landed approximately 54,000 troops. Canada landed 21,400 troops. ... The estimated number of allied deaths during the 24-hour period known as D-Day is roughly 4,414 (2,501 Americans and 1,913 Allies)."

I didn't realise that diagram was controversial or from a dubious source.This diagram from Shutterstock:
Image
daveshoup2MD wrote:
17 Jan 2022 21:50
Seems like honors were quite equal among the assault elements from all three armies, unless you were trying to suggest something else?
I can report that the "Poles lost more than 500 men" according to https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 41762.html and elsewhere I hear that a Polish Division landed, Polish aircraft flew air support, Polish ships supported the assault on the beaches. I believe at least some of their dead are recognised on the memorials.

But other actual casualties seem to be something of a mystery - how about the thousands of our French allies who gave their lives to free their country from the Nazi heel - did nobody bother to count their dead? I hear there is no mention of them at the memorials in Normandy.
Not sure the point you are making here.

IRRC, there were Polish airmen and sailors on D Day. The Polish Division did not land until the end of July and oits first action was Op Totalize 8 August. It played an important part in the Falaise Gap battle - almost, but not quite overwhelmed on the Mace feature. There is a Polish Cemetery on the Falaise-Caen Road, which I think added military graves to an existing cemetery for Polish steel workers.

Only one French unit landed on D Day - No 10 Inter allied Commando, with Commandant Kiefer as featured in the climax to the Longest Day. There is a memorial on Sword Beach and a Rue Commandant Keifer. The French were there almost through an oversight. The British and US Governments were keen to avoid giving any role to the Free French to avoid giving De Gaulle political leverage. The Inter allied Commando was not obviously French and part of No 1 Special Service (Commando) Brigade who were not going to leave comrades out of the Big Show.

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Criticism of British Infantry during Op Epsom

Post by daveshoup2MD » 27 Jan 2022 02:16

Michael Kenny wrote:
26 Jan 2022 10:08
daveshoup2MD wrote:
26 Jan 2022 06:06


And seven "panzer divisions" with the equivalent of 10 battalions of armor between them are what, exactly? In Allied terms, reinforced infantry, basically...

So you spend a month destroying the Panzer Divisions and then when the benefits of your efforts start to manifest you get told 'does not count mate, now its not a fair fight'.
Seriously? The original post:
Maybe ... simply having the designation does not mean that useful AFVs were operational in division strength, however, certainly not in 1941-44 in the West. The German armor in the West after 1940 pretty much amounted to obsolete German and ex-French vehicle for most of 1941-43, for example.

Not true in 1944 when the invasion began, of course, but by July? It's an open question, unit by unit. Some of them were essentially infantry, in anything else but name...
Lighten up, Francis...

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”