Apparently he makes a few statements that may be surprising/controversial, such as stating that casualty rates amongst soldiers during Overlord were even higher that on the Eastern Front, that French civilians died by the thousands during the pre-landing bombing raids (which are qualified as akin to war crimes) and further operations, summary executions of German POWs, and the like. Americans might enjoy that Monty is shown in a particulary bad light.
Here's the Torygraph review, free of any possible liberal peacenik contamination. :bowler:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/5401452/Beevors-D-Day.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/5401452/Beevors-D-Day.html)
Maybe when I can get it used for 5 bucks. One thing I have, is a ton of Normandy books.
QuoteAmericans might enjoy that Monty is shown in a particulary bad light.
Monty is still outside Caen.
Quote from: The Larch on June 08, 2009, 06:31:39 AM
Apparently he makes a few statements that may be surprising/controversial, such as stating that casualty rates amongst soldiers during Overlord were even higher that on the Eastern Front...
Actually, that claim is not for Overlord, but for the follow-up fighting in the bocage, and I doubt this holds true for the contemporary fighting in Russia, because operation Bagration inflicted almost 50% casualties on Army Group Center.
I think I will get this book. Beevor is readable, credible, and only a trifle over-enthusiastic for "scoops."
I just realized I have no books about WW2. I do have half a dozen Napoleonics books and over a dozen WW1 books, though, plus a number of books about other periods. :unsure:
Quote from: grumbler on June 08, 2009, 07:17:16 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 08, 2009, 06:31:39 AM
Apparently he makes a few statements that may be surprising/controversial, such as stating that casualty rates amongst soldiers during Overlord were even higher that on the Eastern Front...
Actually, that claim is not for Overlord, but for the follow-up fighting in the bocage, and I doubt this holds true for the contemporary fighting in Russia, because operation Bagration inflicted almost 50% casualties on Army Group Center.
I think I will get this book. Beevor is readable, credible, and only a trifle over-enthusiastic for "scoops."
I don't know, the Germans were losing alot of people in Normandy.
Quote from: grumbler on June 08, 2009, 07:17:16 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 08, 2009, 06:31:39 AM
Apparently he makes a few statements that may be surprising/controversial, such as stating that casualty rates amongst soldiers during Overlord were even higher that on the Eastern Front...
Actually, that claim is not for Overlord, but for the follow-up fighting in the bocage, and I doubt this holds true for the contemporary fighting in Russia, because operation Bagration inflicted almost 50% casualties on Army Group Center.
I think I will get this book. Beevor is readable, credible, and only a trifle over-enthusiastic for "scoops."
Op Overlord included the follow-up fighting in the bocage. :smarty:
But yes, I agree with you about Beevor. In fact I have a copy sitting right next to me but I have to send it away for review. :weep:
I've already gotten it in the mail. :bowler:
Quote from: Warspite on June 08, 2009, 08:00:55 AM
Op Overlord included the follow-up fighting in the bocage. :smarty:
Correct. I had confused the terminal date of Neptune with the terminal date for Overlord, but Overlord continued to D+90.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 08, 2009, 07:59:45 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 08, 2009, 07:17:16 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 08, 2009, 06:31:39 AM
Apparently he makes a few statements that may be surprising/controversial, such as stating that casualty rates amongst soldiers during Overlord were even higher that on the Eastern Front...
Actually, that claim is not for Overlord, but for the follow-up fighting in the bocage, and I doubt this holds true for the contemporary fighting in Russia, because operation Bagration inflicted almost 50% casualties on Army Group Center.
I think I will get this book. Beevor is readable, credible, and only a trifle over-enthusiastic for "scoops."
I don't know, the Germans were losing alot of people in Normandy.
over a half million killed, wounded, prisoner in Bagration; about half that in Overlord.
unless, we are talking kill efficiency ratios or something, which is so Vietnam.
Quote from: grumbler on June 08, 2009, 07:17:16 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 08, 2009, 06:31:39 AM
Apparently he makes a few statements that may be surprising/controversial, such as stating that casualty rates amongst soldiers during Overlord were even higher that on the Eastern Front...
Actually, that claim is not for Overlord, but for the follow-up fighting in the bocage, and I doubt this holds true for the contemporary fighting in Russia, because operation Bagration inflicted almost 50% casualties on Army Group Center.
I get the impression from the reviews that he's comparing a relatively short period of intense combat in Normandy with the entire East Front campaign.
Apparently he says smoething like this (extracted from a newspaper article in Spanish)
'German losses at Normandy reached 2,300 men per division each month, the Allies 2.000. In the East the Germans lost 1.000, and the Russians about 1.500'.
Sadly, the periodist didn't include the time scope for that Eastern statistic, but I think it's evident that German losses during 'Bagration' were way higher than 1,000 men per division and month. Probably Beevor just wanted to refute the myth that combat in the West was in any sense 'easier' or less bloody.
If the average Allied division lost 6,000 men during the 90 days from June 6th to September 6th, its infantry probably was almost bled white. Of course, if the average German division lost 7,000 men during the same period, there was pretty much no division left by September!
I'll get it if it's in paperback.
Any historian that puts Monty properly in his place as a colossal assfuckstick earns my money.
At a bit of a tangent, I want to get Dad a book on the Berlin Airlift for fathers' day. Is this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Berlin-Airlift-Bob-Clarke/dp/0752440926/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244545246&sr=8-1
any good or can anyone recommend anything else?
It's on my Wish List. :bowler:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2009, 05:25:42 AM
I'll get it if it's in paperback.
Any historian that puts Monty properly in his place as a colossal assfuckstick earns my money.
Your opinion is duly noted and ignored.
Quote from: Alatriste on June 09, 2009, 12:55:44 AM
If the average Allied division lost 6,000 men during the 90 days from June 6th to September 6th, its infantry probably was almost bled white. Of course, if the average German division lost 7,000 men during the same period, there was pretty much no division left by September!
Everything I've read of the time frame in question suggests that that is exactly the case - among combat infantryman, the replacement rate was near or greater than 100% for the divisions in active combat.
And yeah, the German divisions involved were largely destroyed in the fighting in many cases.
The German Army in Normandy was a very weird mix of crap units, excellent units, some average units, and some fanatical, well equipped, but raw troops. I am sure casualty rates were high, but how high likely varied wildly.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 07:46:06 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on June 09, 2009, 12:55:44 AM
If the average Allied division lost 6,000 men during the 90 days from June 6th to September 6th, its infantry probably was almost bled white. Of course, if the average German division lost 7,000 men during the same period, there was pretty much no division left by September!
Everything I've read of the time frame in question suggests that that is exactly the case - among combat infantryman, the replacement rate was near or greater than 100% for the divisions in active combat.
And yeah, the German divisions involved were largely destroyed in the fighting in many cases.
The German Army in Normandy was a very weird mix of crap units, excellent units, some average units, and some fanatical, well equipped, but raw troops. I am sure casualty rates were high, but how high likely varied wildly.
I can agree with this.
From what I've read, the casualty rates for British divisions were appallingly high. The terrain of Normandy does not really suit itself to manoeuvre warfare and really does favour the defender.
I read an interesting statistic that despite being much slower than Shermans and Cromwells, the rate of advance of UK & Canuck infantry accompanied by Churchills was actually faster, simply because the heavier Churchill was more able to withstand what the defenders could throw at it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2009, 05:25:42 AM
I'll get it if it's in paperback.
Any historian that puts Monty properly in his place as a colossal assfuckstick earns my money.
You do realize that the reason he took so long to take Caen was that he took a timeout to rescue some kittens that the Germans had put up a tree, right?
Quote from: Warspite on June 09, 2009, 07:54:19 AM
I can agree with this.
From what I've read, the casualty rates for British divisions were appallingly high. The terrain of Normandy does not really suit itself to manoeuvre warfare and really does favour the defender.
I read an interesting statistic that despite being much slower than Shermans and Cromwells, the rate of advance of UK & Canuck infantry accompanied by Churchills was actually faster, simply because the heavier Churchill was more able to withstand what the defenders could throw at it.
[/quote]
The German divisions didn't come out much better. They took very heavy losses. The loss ratio of Allied and German units did favor the germans but not enough to make it that much worth while. I'm not sure if it was so much good defensive terrain as it was close fighting terrain. In close quarters battles casualties are high on both sides.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 07:46:06 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on June 09, 2009, 12:55:44 AM
If the average Allied division lost 6,000 men during the 90 days from June 6th to September 6th, its infantry probably was almost bled white. Of course, if the average German division lost 7,000 men during the same period, there was pretty much no division left by September!
Everything I've read of the time frame in question suggests that that is exactly the case - among combat infantryman, the replacement rate was near or greater than 100% for the divisions in active combat.
And yeah, the German divisions involved were largely destroyed in the fighting in many cases.
The German Army in Normandy was a very weird mix of crap units, excellent units, some average units, and some fanatical, well equipped, but raw troops. I am sure casualty rates were high, but how high likely varied wildly.
if I'm not mistaken causalities among American divisions ran to 150% in some cases, a few even 200%. So there was a very high turnover.
While many of those were wounded and could be returned to the fighting the Army that invaded Germany wasn't really the same one that invaded France.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 09, 2009, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 07:46:06 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on June 09, 2009, 12:55:44 AM
If the average Allied division lost 6,000 men during the 90 days from June 6th to September 6th, its infantry probably was almost bled white. Of course, if the average German division lost 7,000 men during the same period, there was pretty much no division left by September!
Everything I've read of the time frame in question suggests that that is exactly the case - among combat infantryman, the replacement rate was near or greater than 100% for the divisions in active combat.
And yeah, the German divisions involved were largely destroyed in the fighting in many cases.
The German Army in Normandy was a very weird mix of crap units, excellent units, some average units, and some fanatical, well equipped, but raw troops. I am sure casualty rates were high, but how high likely varied wildly.
if I'm not mistaken causalities among American divisions ran to 150% in some cases, a few even 200%. So there was a very high turnover.
While many of those were wounded and could be returned to the fighting the Army that invaded Germany wasn't really the same one that invaded France.
well yes, but the turnover is a bit misleading as green/rookie/new guys had a higher chance of becoming casualties then vets. just the odds. so some of those divisions, with 150-200% statistical casualty rates, would still have cores that had been in Overlord.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 09, 2009, 10:48:23 AM
well yes, but the turnover is a bit misleading as green/rookie/new guys had a higher chance of becoming casualties then vets. just the odds. so some of those divisions, with 150-200% statistical casualty rates, would still have cores that had been in Overlord.
While it is true that the casualty rate for new recruits was much higher, it doesn't really follow that the casualty rates for the experienced guys was low - just lower.
You still saw very few people who landed in Normandy make it to the end of the war without being wounded at some point - I would guess the odds were extremely low, among combat infantryman.
Just look at something like Band of Brothers - what percentage of those men made it from D-Day to V-Day without being out of action for some period of time with a wound? 10%? 20%?
yes, the combat casualties of vets was relatively lower. yes, they were still high.
most of those lucky vets probably got promoted quickly, as in BoB.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 10:51:30 AM
Just look at something like Band of Brothers - what percentage of those men made it from D-Day to V-Day without being out of action for some period of time with a wound? 10%? 20%?
The only one I can remember is the guy who showed up for the Raid into Germany episode.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2009, 11:55:26 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 10:51:30 AM
Just look at something like Band of Brothers - what percentage of those men made it from D-Day to V-Day without being out of action for some period of time with a wound? 10%? 20%?
The only one I can remember is the guy who showed up for the Raid into Germany episode.
Winters (I think he was wounded), Spiers, Nixon
hmm, Malarkey...
Quote[Donald Malareky) became a member of "Easy" Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division. He went to England in 1943 to participate in the largest amphibious invasion in history: D-Day. In the darkness of the morning of D-Day, Malarkey parachuted into France with his unit. Later that day, he received the Bronze Star for his heroism in a pitched battle to knock out four German 105 mm artillery battery, an action now called the Brécourt Manor Assault.
He fought for twenty-three days in Normandy, nearly eighty in Holland, thirty-nine in the Battle of Bastogne in Belgium, and nearly thirty more in and around Haugenau, France, and the Ruhr Pocket in Germany. He was promoted to sergeant before Operation Market Garden. Never seriously wounded, Malarkey served more time on the front lines than any other member of Easy Company.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 09, 2009, 10:39:28 AM
While many of those were wounded and could be returned to the fighting the Army that invaded Germany wasn't really the same one that invaded France.
It didn't help that the American army dumped all of its worst manpower into the infantry.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2009, 05:25:42 AM
Any historian that puts Monty properly in his place as a colossal assfuckstick earns my money.
[Max Hastings]
But Monty, unlike the Americans, could read a battlefield. That makes him better.
[/Max Hastings]
Quote from: Kleves on June 09, 2009, 03:35:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2009, 05:25:42 AM
Any historian that puts Monty properly in his place as a colossal assfuckstick earns my money.
[Max Hastings]
But Monty, unlike the Americans, could read a battlefield. That makes him better.
[/Max Hastings]
:bleeding:
Ah, fuck it. Pre-ordered along with the Tex Avery Droopy DVD set.
Shifty Powers wasn't wounded & made his way from D-day to V-day as a Private.
Popeye Wynn was wounded on D-Day, made it back in time to fight in Market-Garden.
Quote from: Kleves on June 09, 2009, 03:35:12 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2009, 05:25:42 AM
Any historian that puts Monty properly in his place as a colossal assfuckstick earns my money.
[Max Hastings]
But Monty, unlike the Americans, could read a battlefield. That makes him better.
[/Max Hastings]
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:Hastings :mad: :mad: :mad:
I knew Monty was no good the moment he breathed on the mirror in Patton. Sure I was young when I saw that, but I knew...
Quote from: PDH on June 09, 2009, 06:06:17 PM
I knew Monty was no good the moment he breathed on the mirror in Patton. Sure I was young when I saw that, but I knew...
Plus that high pitched voice. Monty was a total queer. At least Patton read Rommel's book.
Quote from: Warspite on June 09, 2009, 07:54:19 AMsimply because the heavier Churchill was more able to withstand what the defenders could throw at it.
Michael Wittman proved otherwise in one afternoon.
Quote from: Warspite on June 09, 2009, 07:43:19 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2009, 05:25:42 AM
I'll get it if it's in paperback.
Any historian that puts Monty properly in his place as a colossal assfuckstick earns my money.
Your opinion is duly noted and ignored.
I don't fault you for your unfortunate provincialism. If someone said something nasty and true about Patton, I'd be upset, too.
I bet you suck Lord Roberts cock, too.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 09, 2009, 06:07:57 PM
Quote from: PDH on June 09, 2009, 06:06:17 PM
I knew Monty was no good the moment he breathed on the mirror in Patton. Sure I was young when I saw that, but I knew...
Plus that high pitched voice. Monty was a total queer. At least Patton read Rommel's book.
Read it and kicked ass. Patton would take down Monty in two straight falls and claim the belt - Monty knew this and never accepted the cage match.
Besides, you definitely had to be a grade A assfuckstick for even Eisenhower to hate you.
Oh, wait...
Bah - any true student of history knows that General Crerar was the one genius of Operation Overlord. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 06:26:43 PM
Bah - any true student of history knows that General Crerar was the one genius of Operation Overlord. :rolleyes:
Only thing Canadians are good for is greasing the HJ division's tank treads.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 09, 2009, 06:38:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 06:26:43 PM
Bah - any true student of history knows that General Crerar was the one genius of Operation Overlord. :rolleyes:
Only thing Canadians are good for is greasing the HJ division's tank treads.
And liberating Holland. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 06:43:07 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 09, 2009, 06:38:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 06:26:43 PM
Bah - any true student of history knows that General Crerar was the one genius of Operation Overlord. :rolleyes:
Only thing Canadians are good for is greasing the HJ division's tank treads.
And liberating Holland. :rolleyes:
You want a goddamned cookie for that?
Fucking Canadians killed this thread. :mad:
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 09, 2009, 06:58:02 PM
Fucking Canadians killed this thread. :mad:
Just like we killed Nazis. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 06:59:17 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 09, 2009, 06:58:02 PM
Fucking Canadians killed this thread. :mad:
Just like we killed Nazis. :cool:
I watched
The Devil's Brigade, and William Holden and Sheriff Lobo carried your asses. :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 06:26:43 PM
Bah - any true student of history knows that General Crerar was the one genius of Operation Overlord. :rolleyes:
:cheers:
Without Canucks, Kaiser Germany would reign over Europe.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2009, 06:14:46 PM
Besides, you definitely had to be a grade A assfuckstick for even Eisenhower to hate you.
Oh, wait...
Eisenhower hated everyone and everything, except for his mistress.
Quote from: Neil on June 09, 2009, 08:02:39 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2009, 05:25:42 AM
I'll get it if it's in paperback.
Any historian that puts Monty properly in his place as a colossal assfuckstick earns my money.
You do realize that the reason he took so long to take Caen was that he took a timeout to rescue some kittens that the Germans had put up a tree, right?
Absolute slander, everyone knows that
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos.vaxlan.net%2Fd%2F27405-2%2FBlitzkrieg%2BKittens.jpg&hash=f779e323b40c80de7c564dbf656da0bd57fa6414)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2009, 06:08:44 PM
Quote from: Warspite on June 09, 2009, 07:54:19 AMsimply because the heavier Churchill was more able to withstand what the defenders could throw at it.
Michael Wittman proved otherwise in one afternoon.
Yes I very much enjoyed his post-war memoirs
Quote from: Warspite on June 10, 2009, 04:01:13 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 09, 2009, 06:08:44 PM
Quote from: Warspite on June 09, 2009, 07:54:19 AMsimply because the heavier Churchill was more able to withstand what the defenders could throw at it.
Michael Wittman proved otherwise in one afternoon.
Yes I very much enjoyed his post-war memoirs
Substantially shorter than the roll call of Red Devil KIAs, I'll grant you that.