How good were US armored divisions in France really?

[stg 44]

Well sure, did you read the post I was replying to?

Yes that that post was right, 1.3 million Allied troops vs. >300k German ones.

Sorry, but no BS mate. That oft quoted figure for German strength is simply the total of the German combat formations sent to Normandy. The First US Army strength I quoted is the total strength of the combat formations of First US Army committed to Normandy.

How then is one combat strength different from another?

Got a source on that? AFAIK the total strength until mid-July was not more than 400k Germans. I may be wrong, I'd just like to see documentation.

Did you happen to notice the "This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." banner predominant displayed above that section? There is a reason for it. That entire section is BS mate.

The source for German strength listed in the strength section of the article was Zetterling's Normandy book.

[stg 44]

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=166768
Based on this most of the German troops were not committed to Normandy, they were security troops, locked down in the Pas-de-Calais region, or garrisoning the South of France against an invasion. So <400k men at Normandy in July is probably right, especially given their very low combat readiness in general.

[Richard Anderson]

Yes that that post was right, 1.3 million Allied troops vs. >300k German ones.

Really? Do you know what the "1.3 million Allied troops" figures includes.

Got a source on that? AFAIK the total strength until mid-July was not more than 400k Germans. I may be wrong, I'd just like to see documentation.

Why yes, I do. NARA RG 331, Allied Operational and Occupation HQ, World War II, SHAEF, General Staff G-1 Division, Administrative Section Decimal Files, Box 41, 704/5 First US Army Casualty Reports, Vol. I (15 June-19 July 1944).

BTW, you might have noticed I used the figure of c. 300,000 to 400,000 German combat troops, which is reasonably accurate.

The source for German strength listed in the strength section of the article was Zetterling's Normandy book.

Indeed. Unfortunately I believe Niklas was like you unaware at the time of what the "1.3 million Allied troops" figure actually included. He also used a badly calculated Allied tank strength.

If you would like a more exact comparison, as of 2400 hours 1 July 1944, First US Army comprised: total Combat Troops: 207,737 men, 1,170 Arty, 781 Medium Tk Operational, 459 Lt Tk Operational, 180 M10 TD, 180 3” TD. German forces opposing them as of 30 June were c. 100,000 men, 358 Arty (possibly 96 Heer Arty as well), 217 PaK, 296 Pz, StG, PzJg, PaK SP. I make that as about 2-to-1 personnel, 3-to-1 artillery, and 4-to-1 AFV.

[Richard Anderson]

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=166768
Based on this most of the German troops were not committed to Normandy, they were security troops, locked down in the Pas-de-Calais region, or garrisoning the South of France against an invasion. So <400k men at Normandy in July is probably right, especially given their very low combat readiness in general.

Gee, considering I wrote much of the response to Mr. G's fictions in that thread, you might imagine I know that.

[stg 44]

Why yes, I do. NARA RG 331, Allied Operational and Occupation HQ, World War II, SHAEF, General Staff G-1 Division, Administrative Section Decimal Files, Box 41, 704/5 First US Army Casualty Reports, Vol. I (15 June-19 July 1944).

BTW, you might have noticed I used the figure of c. 300,000 to 400,000 German combat troops, which is reasonably accurate.

How about you tell use the total German strength present at Normandy then? I don't have a copy of the document in question to browse.

Indeed. Unfortunately I believe Niklas was like you unaware at the time of what the "1.3 million Allied troops" figure actually included. He also used a badly calculated Allied tank strength.

If you would like a more exact comparison, as of 2400 hours 1 July 1944, First US Army comprised: total Combat Troops: 207,737 men, 1,170 Arty, 781 Medium Tk Operational, 459 Lt Tk Operational, 180 M10 TD, 180 3” TD. German forces opposing them as of 30 June were c. 100,000 men, 358 Arty (possibly 96 Heer Arty as well), 217 PaK, 296 Pz, StG, PzJg, PaK SP. I make that as about 2-to-1 personnel, 3-to-1 artillery, and 4-to-1 AFV.

The issue isn't Allied strength, its German strength at Normandy. The ~400k number for German strength is total strength, not combat strength alone. You quoted strength opposite the US 1st army, how about the British forces? Are those German numbers total strength or just combat strength? Is that post-battle analysis or just US estimates at the time? Is that from the NARA file above?

[stg 44]

Gee, considering I wrote much of the response to Mr. G's fictions in that thread, you might imagine I know that.

One would hope, but here you are claiming that the 400k Germans in Normandy was only the combat strength, which was not the case.

[Michael Kenny]

especially given their very low combat readiness in general.

What does 'low' mean?

Last time I checked there were more 'I' rated Panzer Divisions in Normandy than there were in the East in June 1944

[stg 44]

especially given their very low combat readiness in general.

What does 'low' mean?

Last time I checked there were more 'I' rated Panzer Divisions in Normandy than there were in the East in June 1944

How many was that in each theater? IIRC there were only 4-5 in Normandy by July.

[Michael Kenny]

How many was that in each theater? IIRC there were only 4-5 in Normandy by July.

The number is obviously bigger in the East. However I was trying to address the claim the 'Normandy' Germans were somehow inferior to the 'Eastern' Germans. There were more 'Combat Worth I' Panzer units in the west (7)than there were 'Combat Worth I' Panzer Units in the east (5). I checked all the ratings for June in 'Fire Brigades' by Kamen Nevenkin and though there were 2 or 3 eastern units with no rating given It shows the west was not a rest home for worn out eastern front units.

[Richard Anderson]

Why yes, I do. NARA RG 331, Allied Operational and Occupation HQ, World War II, SHAEF, General Staff G-1 Division, Administrative Section Decimal Files, Box 41, 704/5 First US Army Casualty Reports, Vol. I (15 June-19 July 1944).

BTW, you might have noticed I used the figure of c. 300,000 to 400,000 German combat troops, which is reasonably accurate.

How about you tell use the total German strength present at Normandy then? I don't have a copy of the document in question to browse.

Indeed. Unfortunately I believe Niklas was like you unaware at the time of what the "1.3 million Allied troops" figure actually included. He also used a badly calculated Allied tank strength.

If you would like a more exact comparison, as of 2400 hours 1 July 1944, First US Army comprised: total Combat Troops: 207,737 men, 1,170 Arty, 781 Medium Tk Operational, 459 Lt Tk Operational, 180 M10 TD, 180 3” TD. German forces opposing them as of 30 June were c. 100,000 men, 358 Arty (possibly 96 Heer Arty as well), 217 PaK, 296 Pz, StG, PzJg, PaK SP. I make that as about 2-to-1 personnel, 3-to-1 artillery, and 4-to-1 AFV.

The issue isn't Allied strength, its German strength at Normandy. The ~400k number for German strength is total strength, not combat strength alone. You quoted strength opposite the US 1st army, how about the British forces? Are those German numbers total strength or just combat strength? Is that post-battle analysis or just US estimates at the time? Is that from the NARA file above?

Sorry, but there is some confusion here. Why would I source German strength from a US Army document?

The German strength is combat strength and the same as the Americam. I suggest you revisit Zetterling. He simply totaled the strength of the Divisionen und Brigaden and the Fechtende Heerestruppen to calculate the total committed to Normandy.

[stg 44]

How many was that in each theater? IIRC there were only 4-5 in Normandy by July.

The number is obviously bigger in the East. However I was trying to address the claim the 'Normandy' Germans were somehow inferior to the 'Eastern' Germans. There were more 'Combat Worth I' Panzer units in the west (7)than there were 'Combat Worth I' Panzer Units in the east (5). I checked all the ratings for June in 'Fire Brigades' by Kamen Nevenkin and though there were 2 or 3 eastern units with no rating given It shows the west was not a rest home for worn out eastern front units.

I did not make that claim. I said that the Germans in Normandy were by and large not up to ration strength and were in large part as a whole combat ineffective. Zetterling makes that case very effectively, as does Ellis in "Brute Force". Also several Panzer divisions did not appear at Normandy, they were locked down in case of a Pas-de-Calais attack. None of the German Panzer divisions were at authorized strength in terms of AFVs and anyway that authorized strength was less than that of the US and British armored divisions. Look at Ellis' numbers only 4 committed Panzer divisions (as of July) were anywhere near authorized AFV strength and their serviceability rates were abysmal.

[stg 44]

Sorry, but there is some confusion here. Why would I source German strength from a US Army document?

Good question given that this entire disagreement is around how many combat troops were part of the quotes strength at Normandy.

The German strength is combat strength and the same as the Americam. I suggest you revisit Zetterling. He simply totaled the strength of the Divisionen und Brigaden and the Fechtende Heerestruppen to calculate the total committed to Normandy.

Right, which means that the ~400k total for the German strength in Normandy in July was not combat troops alone, rather their entire strength, which was comparable to the 1.3 million total strength of the Allies at Normandy in July.

[Michael Kenny]

quote]
I did not make that claim. I said that the Germans in Normandy were by and large not up to ration strength and were in large part as a whole combat ineffective.

I just gave you the Germans own evaluation of its Panzer Units which gave most of the western units a rating of 'I'
and you claim they were 'combat innefective?

No straw is left unclutched in the rush to explain away the German rout in Normandy!

[Michael Kenny]

Look at Ellis' numbers only 4 committed Panzer divisions (as of July) were anywhere near authorized AFV strength and their serviceability rates were abysmal.

Look at their numbers before they joined the fighting and then try and imagine what happened to dimish the numbers and make their tanks 'unservicable'.
For example what do you think made an initial 12th SS count of 98 Pz IV on June 6th shrink to 54 on June 27?
Forget they myths of tanks running out of petrol and think instead of AP shot.

[stg 44]

quote]
I did not make that claim. I said that the Germans in Normandy were by and large not up to ration strength and were in large part as a whole combat ineffective.

I just gave you the Germans own evaluation of its Panzer Units which gave most of the western units a rating of 'I'
and you claim they were 'combat innefective?

No straw is left unclutched in the rush to explain away the German rout in Normandy!

The German army was clutching at straws in 1944. Ellis and Zetterling really do not rate German combat capabilities highly in 1944 in the West; I'm just repeating their assessments.

Look at Ellis' numbers only 4 committed Panzer divisions (as of July) were anywhere near authorized AFV strength and their serviceability rates were abysmal.

Look at their numbers before they joined the fighting and then try and imagine what happened to dimish the numbers and make their tanks 'unservicable'.
Forget they myths of tanks running out of petrol and think instead of AP shot.

There were major maintenance issues as well due to the effectiveness of the USAAF and RAF strategic bombing of factories and transport infrastructure as well as fighter-bomber destruction of supply units. IIRC the Allies estimated they killed 500 German AFVs before the breakout in August and much of the rest from Cobra on. So the problems from June-August was to a large degree maintenance in addition to combat losses.