Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

Discussions on books and other reference material on the WW1, Inter-War or WW2 as well as the authors. Hosted by Andy H.
User avatar
krichter33
Member
Posts: 843
Joined: 22 Mar 2003, 12:37
Location: U.S.A.

Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#1

Post by krichter33 » 06 Jan 2017, 08:49

I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions for a very detailed tactical, operational history of Normandy 1944. Most books I have seen on the subject tend to be more general. Also, is their any that covers both sides effectively? Thanks.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#2

Post by Sheldrake » 06 Jan 2017, 10:46

I was thinking about writing a "Normandy day by Day" book. There isn't any single book you can turn to that tells you what happened on each day. There are books about the Normandy campaign, usually written around one theme or the other - e.g Allied planning (carlo D'Este).

The result is that quite a lot of events are not put in context. Coverage of the 2nd army/ 21st Army Group focuses on Montgome5ry's big decisioons and ewhether they were right or wrong. E.g. events of the 18th Ju8ly are dominated by Op Goodwood - but how many people have heard of Operations Atlantic (2nd Canadian Corps) Op Greenline (12th Corps) and Op Pomegranate (30th Corps) that took place at the same time. Or that Op Spring (2nd Canadian Corps) took place the same day as Op Cobra.

The official histories US and British do have a tactical history, but they are partisan and do not necessarialy tell the whole truth..

There is a problem with this kind of tactical history.

#1 it would be very big. I have edited the history of one (big) regiment in Normandy down from 330k words to 250k.
#2how many people would buy a big reference work?


User avatar
krichter33
Member
Posts: 843
Joined: 22 Mar 2003, 12:37
Location: U.S.A.

Re: Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#3

Post by krichter33 » 07 Jan 2017, 03:05

Thanks for the reply!

User avatar
krichter33
Member
Posts: 843
Joined: 22 Mar 2003, 12:37
Location: U.S.A.

Re: Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#4

Post by krichter33 » 07 Jan 2017, 03:08

...well since no "Glantz" style book exists for Normandy, does anyone know of the best overall history of the campaign?

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#5

Post by Sheldrake » 07 Jan 2017, 11:19

krichter33 wrote:...well since no "Glantz" style book exists for Normandy, does anyone know of the best overall history of the campaign?
It depends on your point of view.

The British and US official histories are both detailed and factual and readily available. However they are national histories in a campaign where there were differences in the national perspectives of the main allies. Most histories reflect the standpoint and perspective of the historian. ;)

At times the historiography of the Normandy campaign reflects this,. The one volume histories have tended to focus on the development of strategy, the personalities of the commanders rather than the detailed narrative. This is more readable history. Anthony Beevoir, Rick Atkinson and Max Hastings all outsell Glantz

User avatar
krichter33
Member
Posts: 843
Joined: 22 Mar 2003, 12:37
Location: U.S.A.

Re: Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#6

Post by krichter33 » 08 Jan 2017, 03:04

...well do you know if the US or British histories also cover some aspects from the German side? Of course I expect them to be American or Anglo centric...but I prefer that, as long as it's not 100% from their side, over any "general" history.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#7

Post by Sheldrake » 08 Jan 2017, 10:55

krichter33 wrote:...well do you know if the US or British histories also cover some aspects from the German side? Of course I expect them to be American or Anglo centric...but I prefer that, as long as it's not 100% from their side, over any "general" history.


Hastings (Overlord) is sympathetic to the wehrmacht and Reynolds histories of 1st and 2nd SS Panzer Corps are detailed tactical expose's of the operations of these corps. I find some of the most interesting history from the Germans are in the collections of FMS interviews edited by Dave Isby and Panzers in Normandy based on Eberbach's papers.

The Canadian official historian Colonel Stacey wrote a series of reports on the campaign in Normandy based on German sources. Here is one on the German preparations
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/c ... 51-eng.pdf

and a second on the events 6 june -22 August
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/c ... 52-eng.pdf

Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#8

Post by Mori » 08 Jan 2017, 13:06

AFAIK, there still lacks a comprehensive & analytical study of the Germans in Normandy. There is nothing comparable to, say, "British Armor in the Normandy Campaign", by Buckley.

Therefore, most if not all what's available repeats the overall thesis of German generals as they wrote it just after being captured. Besides being self-serving, this approach is also limited by the expertise of said generals. For example, I don't know of any analysis on German logistics pointing how much they had amunition and manpower shortages and whether / when / where it actually mattered. I don't know of any study of the impact of Allied air interdiction on German reinforcements that goes beyond the (repeated) testimonies that it was dangerous to move by day. I don't know of anyone investigating how the Germans organized their defence of the bocage, whether there were systematic instructions / lessons learned to make the most of the terrain, how this was distributed, whether all entities implemented such ideas properly at the tactical level. Etc.

Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#9

Post by Mori » 08 Jan 2017, 13:13

Sheldrake wrote:I find some of the most interesting history from the Germans are in the collections of FMS interviews edited by Dave Isby and Panzers in Normandy based on Eberbach's papers.
A few words on post-war interviews and manuscripts of the captured Germans generals. Many FMS are available for free at sturmpanzer.com or if you ask around. Even more if you pay the fee to access fold3.com.

FMS contain a wealth of information and there is no way you can ignore this corpus when studying the German perspective. But FMS also have a few limits that few ever underline:

1) It is not clear what information the authors have access to when they write. Many FMS include a caveat that "it's all from memory" and this is plain wrong. More often than not, the generals have access to Allied sourced (maps, narratives, maybe war diaries). Not only does this explain how generals remember minor topographic details so well, but it also creates quite a confirmation biais - Germans just confirm what is written in Allied documents.

2) FMS authors routinely read what their colleagues wrote earlier. Many generals ask to see the manuscripts already written by others, "to refresh their memory". Again, this creates quite a confirmation biais. (The truly interesting thing in the FMS is when 2 authors contradict themselves - and that's pretty unusual).

3) But there is an even deeper confirmation biais: FMS are far from being the first testimony of the German generals. The usual intelligence practice was to interview them as soon as captured. Quite a few would cooperate. Typically, they would make high-level hypothesis on the overall war situation. Just saying so would make them believe in it (as social psychology shows). What they write thereafter therefore aims at demonstrating their initial hypothesis. Reading initial interrogations is illuminating and helps being critical on the post-war FMS. (For ex, see Bayerlein's interrogation mid-April 1945).

4) Any serious research should complement FMS with 2 extra sources - and that's just the first step:
- the taped records of conversations when generals were left "alone" in their special camp in the UK [base material of "Tapping Hitler's Generals", by Neitzel, but this book is not about understanding military matters]
- the CSDIC interviews, that is interrogation the British made. Many of the FMS authors are also interviewed this way. The good thing is CSDIC often include a description of the interviewee. This gives some perspective of reliability of what is said. FMS utterly lack this.
(Note that British and Canadian official histories rather use CSDIC whereas US official history only leverages FMS)

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#10

Post by OpanaPointer » 08 Jan 2017, 13:17

The US Army Green Books, plus the "add-on" volumes, are useful. http://www.history.army.mil/html/booksh ... /afia.html
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#11

Post by Richard Anderson » 08 Jan 2017, 19:53

Mori wrote:A few words on post-war interviews and manuscripts of the captured Germans generals. Many FMS are available for free at sturmpanzer.com or if you ask around. Even more if you pay the fee to access fold3.com.

FMS contain a wealth of information and there is no way you can ignore this corpus when studying the German perspective. But FMS also have a few limits that few ever underline:
While I completely agree with your comments regarding the FMS and its limitations, it should be realized they were not the only source of information on German forces in the writing of the Green Books. The authors also had access to the corpus of captured German records - housed, in their originals at the time many were writing, within feet of their work-space in the Pentagon, then afterwards easily accessible at the Cameron Station microfilming facility, and then on the microfilms. They are heavily referenced in the Green Books, which makes it possible for a reader to actually find the original documents. The original Chief of Military History historians also had the support of an extensive research staff, who prepared research monographs on different aspects from the available documentation. Those also are accessible, then at CMH and now at NARA II College Park. On top of that, the actual authors working files are also available there now, with draft manuscripts, annotations, and review commentary from pre-publication readers (highly important for the American Forces in Action series, where many of the actual American participants in actions described wrote the authors with comments and explanations of events).

And that is a major difference between the American and British official histories. The American are as nearly transparent as is possible for such a work. Footnotes are complete references to available documentation and the author's thought processes can be failry easily followed. However, the British official histories are less transparent, with footnotes that at best are few and far between - Chapter XI in Volume I of Victory in the West contains just six footnotes, one of which is to Montgomery's Normandy to the Baltic, and the others of which are merely explanatory. For example, Footnote 3 on page 237 states "2nd Panzer Division was in Army Group B reserve near Amiens, but the 1st SS, in OKW reserve and only movable with Hitler's permission, was in Belgium, and the 2nd SS, in Army Group G reserve, was near Toulouse". All very good and possibly all true, but no indication whatsoever of why the author thinks that was so or what documentation he has for it.

For an insiders view, read Martin Blumenson's "Can Official History by Honest" in Military Affairs from winter 1962-1963.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#12

Post by Mori » 08 Jan 2017, 22:40

@Richard,

If you know any way to read the draft manuscripts with annotations, baring travelling to NARA, I'd be extremely interested.

There is no doubt on the quality of the Green Books. They were written by very professional scholars and it is truly exceptionnal when any of what they described is faulty (in the sense: not based on a precise & well-understood source). We can trust Weinberg's advice: they are the best starting point to understand the military campaigns.

That said, I don't exactly see the "heavy references" you mention. And when it comes to the German side, such references are almost always FMS. I did not study all Green Books, but take MacDonald's Last Offensive, Clarke's Riveria to the Rhine, and Cole's The Ardennes. MacDonald routinely gives his (German) sources: they are FMS or a synthesis by Magna E. Bauer. Clarke does not share as many sources as MacDonald, but when he does, they are FMS. That's occasionally frustrating because Clarke could access Ultra intercepts - which makes his book one of the very best - but does not tell which one he precisely refers to. Cole's sources are almost only FMS, the only other notable German source being the OKW KTB and the records of the Malmedy trial.

Let me again repeat that the strength of scholarship in these Green Books does not make that problematic. But I wouldn't claim these works leverage more than FMS to describe the German side. Even if millions of pages of captured archives were at walking distance, they were not used for these books. A very simple reason could be that MacDonald, Cole or Clarke do not speak German. Strength of the Green books is first and before all on the Americans - as it is supposed to be.

About the British official history: Ellis considers himself a source, which is... a problem. But he is quite a serious historian too and what he writes is usually based on first class primary material. However, he tends to only select what serves the British army best... Problem is not that he does not give the sources of information, but the way he selects them.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#13

Post by Sheldrake » 08 Jan 2017, 23:16

Richard Anderson wrote:However, the British official histories are less transparent, with footnotes that at best are few and far between - Chapter XI in Volume I of Victory in the West contains just six footnotes, one of which is to Montgomery's Normandy to the Baltic, and the others of which are merely explanatory. For example, Footnote 3 on page 237 states "2nd Panzer Division was in Army Group B reserve near Amiens, but the 1st SS, in OKW reserve and only movable with Hitler's permission, was in Belgium, and the 2nd SS, in Army Group G reserve, was near Toulouse". All very good and possibly all true, but no indication whatsoever of why the author thinks that was so or what documentation he has for it.
There is a better British narrative available. The Official history was written from the classified Cabinet Historical Section papers to those who visit the National Archives or pay for someone else. These are based on an analysis of war diaries and cross referenced against sources. http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.u ... r/h/C94621 There are ten volumes on the Normandy campaign, 6 June - 29 August.

Here are some pages
CAB 44 248 Chapt  1 book 4 sect 1 overview .jpg
CAB 44 248 Chapt  1 book 4 sect 3 VIII Corps 26 jun .jpg
Op Charnwood map.JPG
cab 248 op goodwood p7.jpg
cab 248 op goodwood p8.jpg

Mori
Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 25 Oct 2014, 12:04
Location: Europe

Re: Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#14

Post by Mori » 08 Jan 2017, 23:26

Sheldrake wrote:
There is a better British narrative available. The Official history was written from the classified Cabinet Historical Section papers to those who visit the National Archives or pay for someone else. These are based on an analysis of war diaries and cross referenced against sources. http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.u ... r/h/C94621 There are ten volumes on the Normandy campaign, 6 June - 29 August.
That's quite a good tip. Thanks!

User avatar
krichter33
Member
Posts: 843
Joined: 22 Mar 2003, 12:37
Location: U.S.A.

Re: Tactical Operational history of Normandy?

#15

Post by krichter33 » 09 Jan 2017, 03:23

....so for the most detailed tactical operations, with good maps, and some information from the Germans, which should I read? British, Canadian, or American??? THanks!!!

Post Reply

Return to “Books & other Reference Material”