Regarding American casualties in Normandy

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
User avatar
Imad
Member
Posts: 1412
Joined: 21 Nov 2004, 04:15
Location: Toronto

Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#1

Post by Imad » 03 Dec 2008, 19:55

Hello
A prominent military historian, Bevin Alexander, has stated that two thirds of American casualties in the fighting in Normandy in '44 were caused by German mortars, particularly in the bocage. Unfortunately he does not cite his sources. I am rather sceptical. Does anyone have independent confirmation or input regarding this? Thanks in advance.

User avatar
IvanSR
Member
Posts: 380
Joined: 22 Apr 2006, 02:54
Location: Europe

Re: Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#2

Post by IvanSR » 04 Dec 2008, 02:29

I've seen this in numerous CMH publications as well.


RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#3

Post by RichTO90 » 10 Dec 2008, 07:34

Imad wrote:Hello
A prominent military historian, Bevin Alexander, has stated that two thirds of American casualties in the fighting in Normandy in '44 were caused by German mortars, particularly in the bocage. Unfortunately he does not cite his sources. I am rather sceptical. Does anyone have independent confirmation or input regarding this? Thanks in advance.
First US Army Medical History doesn't bear that out. See Appendix 29, Wounds by Causitive Agent. For one thing, there was no classification for such a wound, it was "shell', "bomb", "blast", or "secondary missiles", plus burns, others, and gunshot wounds. For another, "shells" were a causitive agent in just 6,420 of 12,660 admissions in June. That assumption basically only works if you assume that all shell, bomb, blast, burn, secondary missile, and other wounds were all caused by mortar rounds and that thus all German artillery, bombs, grenades, mines, and tanks were totally ineffective... 8-)

User avatar
Imad
Member
Posts: 1412
Joined: 21 Nov 2004, 04:15
Location: Toronto

Re: Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#4

Post by Imad » 10 Dec 2008, 13:16

Thanks, Rich. I am always sceptical about claims not backed up by documentary evidence. Part of the confusion may have arisen from the prolific use of mortars by the Germans in the bocage fighting but the author could still have cited some primary sources to back up his statement.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

Re: Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#5

Post by Peter H » 10 Dec 2008, 13:40

The British experience in Normandy,courtesy of research by No 2 Operational Research Section,21st Army Group:
Major Michael Swann interviewed battalion medical officers from four different divisions and found that all agreed in placing the proportion of mortar casualties at above 70 per cent of total casualties..
Terry Copp First Canadian Army,February-March 1945,article in Time to Kill.

By mortars I think Copp/Swann means "mortars and Nebelwerfers...a German infantry division possessed as many as 57 81mm mortars and between 12 and 20 of the 120mm type.Panzer divisions were equipped with about half these numbers.In Normandy,the German Army had also provided a regiment composed of 54 six-barrel Nebelwerfers on the scale of one per division.Swann estimated that to being the problem under control divisions might need to obtain 60 and 80 hostile mortar locations a day".

Copp gives as his source:

"M.M Swann(ed),Operational Research in North-west Europe :the work of No 2 Operational Research Section and 21st Army Group,June 1944-July 1945,AORG 1945,217PP,PRO WO 291/1331.A copy may be found in NAC RG 24,vol 10,p 458".

Any factors that would make the American experience different?

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#6

Post by RichTO90 » 10 Dec 2008, 16:11

Peter H wrote:The British experience in Normandy,courtesy of research by No 2 Operational Research Section,21st Army Group:
Hi Peter,

That evidence is anecdotal - at best - and again runs into the problem of just how they managed to distinguish a wound caused by fragmentation and blast of a mortar shell from an artillery shell from a bomb and from a grenade during the intense casualty intakes of the campaign? It is possible and has been done, for example in Vietnam and in small sample studies done in the SWPA and Italy during World War II, but such a detailed forensic study was not done in NWE by either the Commonwealth or the American armies.
By mortars I think Copp/Swann means "mortars and Nebelwerfers...a German infantry division possessed as many as 57 81mm mortars and between 12 and 20 of the 120mm type. Panzer divisions were equipped with about half these numbers.
The vast majority of the mortars deployed by the Germans in the Normandy campaign were 8cm, followed by a large number of 5cm mortars in some of the "static" formations. The 12cm mortars were virtually unknown in Normandy, with just a few appearing in some Panzer divisions (I would have to look to find which ones).
In Normandy,the German Army had also provided a regiment composed of 54 six-barrel Nebelwerfers on the scale of one per division.Swann estimated that to being the problem under control divisions might need to obtain 60 and 80 hostile mortar locations a day".
Actually three brigades, each of two regiments, plus a separate regiment. They were equipped with a mix of 15cm and 21cm weapons. But describing them as "mortars" is more than a bit of a misnomer, since they have few of the attributes that make a mortar so deadly. Fundamentally they were an artillery rocket system.
Copp gives as his source:

"M.M Swann(ed),Operational Research in North-west Europe :the work of No 2 Operational Research Section and 21st Army Group,June 1944-July 1945,AORG 1945,217PP,PRO WO 291/1331.A copy may be found in NAC RG 24,vol 10,p 458".
Yep.
Any factors that would make the American experience different?
Nope. The actual evidence is that at least 30 percent of all casualties were caused by small arms fire and that the remainder were caused by all types of high explosive. Claiming more than that is based upon tenuous evidence at best.

Rich

User avatar
Imad
Member
Posts: 1412
Joined: 21 Nov 2004, 04:15
Location: Toronto

Re: Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#7

Post by Imad » 10 Dec 2008, 17:53

Gentlemen, is the breakdown for 7th Army casualties in Normandy similar? I suspect, given Allied preponderance in artillery and also the supporting fire of ships, that the proportion of German casualties caused by small arms fire would be even less. I may be wrong.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#8

Post by RichTO90 » 10 Dec 2008, 18:09

Imad wrote:Gentlemen, is the breakdown for 7th Army casualties in Normandy similar? I suspect, given Allied preponderance in artillery and also the supporting fire of ships, that the proportion of German casualties caused by small arms fire would be even less. I may be wrong.
There is no such breakdown from the German side.

Steve Wilcox
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:39
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#9

Post by Steve Wilcox » 10 Dec 2008, 19:10

I'm know it's old news to RichTO90 and others, and it's not Normandy specific, but here's the link for other interested persons:

The formatting of the table doesn't survive unfortunately, so clicking the actual link may be better than reading it here (it's near the bottom):
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs ... apter1.htm

TABLE 14.—Frequency distribution of casualty-producing agents in 217,070 living wounded, First and Third U.S. Armies, 1944-45

Causative agent Wounded Number Percent
Small arms 53,334 24.6
Artillery and mortar:
Shell fragments 130,718 60.2
Blast 6,880 3.2
Bombs 10,559 4.9
Burns 2,498 1.2
Other 13,081 5.9
Total
217,070 100.0


The rest of the U.S. Army' Medical Department's study on wound ballistics is here (many, many links):
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs ... efault.htm

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

Re: Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#10

Post by Peter H » 11 Dec 2008, 00:38

British casualty returns from WW1 indicate around 65% were caused by artillery as well.Not much change in the dangers between 1914 and 1944.German records indicate around 70% in WW1.

To note all these surveys are based on the wounded.Those who were killed in action don't appear here.MG fire might have proved more lethal but could be underrepresented in wounds survey.

One would need to consult Swann to determine how medical officers determined if a wound was either artillery or mortar related.In the case presented below it might be suggested that the wounded were queried on the source of their wound if possible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stor ... 0012.shtml

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#11

Post by RichTO90 » 11 Dec 2008, 07:12

Peter H wrote:One would need to consult Swann to determine how medical officers determined if a wound was either artillery or mortar related.
I suppose part of my problem is that I have the original No. 2 A.O.R.G. report by Johnson, Swann, Fairlie, et al, and I can't find evidence in it to support what Copp says Swann said? Page 217 of that document is the tail end of Report No. 32 "Report on the Armoured Pursuit after the Crossing of the Rhine" and has nothing to do with mortars or casualties? [edit] Although I now see that "217" isn't a page reference by Copp (very odd to find in a footnote BTW, that is a bibliographic entry), it is evidently a page count...which is also incorrect, the text actually consists of 255 pages plus introductory and end matter...[/edit]

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

Re: Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#12

Post by Peter H » 11 Dec 2008, 10:41

Thanks Rich.

The good Professor might be stretching the point but he does also mention correspondance with Swann in the mid-80s.

Interesting that Infantry Tactics of the Second World War,by Stephen Bull & Gordon Rottman,mentions a survey done on US soldiers in the ETO on what enemy weapons they feared most--"more than half nominated the dreaded 8.8cm gun",followed in order by divebombers,bombers,mortars and machine-guns.The authors ponder that the mention of divebombers,bombers is strange(due to the lack of significant Luftwaffe assets ) but reflect it could more be in response to the perils of friendly air attacks in error.

User avatar
Imad
Member
Posts: 1412
Joined: 21 Nov 2004, 04:15
Location: Toronto

Re: Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#13

Post by Imad » 11 Dec 2008, 13:23

My personal conversations with American vets of the ETO would tend to confirm Bull and Rotman's conclusions with the exception of the dive-bombers. That one is a puzzler and I dont think it refers to the "Allied Luftwaffe". The article seems to indicate enemy weapons.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#14

Post by RichTO90 » 12 Dec 2008, 06:25

Imad wrote:My personal conversations with American vets of the ETO would tend to confirm Bull and Rotman's conclusions with the exception of the dive-bombers. That one is a puzzler and I dont think it refers to the "Allied Luftwaffe". The article seems to indicate enemy weapons.
The notion that the Luftwaffe was completely absent - especially during the Normandy Campaign - is postwar poppycock. That the Luftwaffe wasn't effective - in a military sense - is something entirely different. And, as in any such survey, if the right persons are asked the right questions, then the results can appear somewhat skewed. In any case though it seems that anybody on the receiving end of an effective air attack remembered it as something highly significant.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Regarding American casualties in Normandy

#15

Post by JonS » 20 Dec 2008, 06:10

RichTO90 wrote:The notion that the Luftwaffe was completely absent - especially during the Normandy Campaign - is postwar poppycock.
As a first approximation, "completely absent" is a perfectly valid description of the GAF in Normandy. I strongly suspect that there were more attacks carried out on - and casualties caused to - Allied ground forces by Allied a/c than German a/c.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”