Caen casualties question

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

Caen casualties question

Post by Attrition » 31 May 2017 19:55

Does anyone know of a published source that quantifies Allied and German casualties in the fighting around Caen in 1944.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 1881
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Caen casualties question

Post by Sheldrake » 31 May 2017 21:41

err how do you want to define the geographic and temporal limited of "around Caen?" Broadly Panzer Gruppe West faced Second Army until early August, when the 1st Canadian Army was formed. Those figures should be accessible.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

Re: Caen casualties question

Post by Attrition » 01 Jun 2017 08:25

My sources are nebulous, the HG B weekly reports combine PGW and the 7th Army casualties. It's for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Caen this, where there is a dispute about nearly everything.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5137
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Caen casualties question

Post by Michael Kenny » 01 Jun 2017 10:56

Attrition wrote:My sources are nebulous, the HG B weekly reports combine PGW and the 7th Army casualties. It's for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Caen this, where there is a dispute about nearly everything.
Wiki editing wars are never worth the effort. The 'winner' is always the one who is prepared to spend more time 'correcting' the others mistakes. Frankly it you come up against someone who is obsessed and the Wiki editor leans his way you are wasting your time. That said I had a quick look and this caught my eye in the 'Talk' section:
otu09610.jpg
This is by Wdford who is obviously an Anglophobe and hates Monty with a passion. He woefully misinformed on the very basics. It is not his only serious error but just one of the first you see and easy to refute. Clearly he has not got a clue.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

Re: Caen casualties question

Post by Attrition » 01 Jun 2017 17:07

I remember in The Wire that Proposition Joe once lamented the difficulty in civilising Marlo Stanfield. I know the feeling. I'm pleased that a third opinion had recommended describing the "controversy" because he's been trying to adjudicate it. Fortunately two editors have taken an interest so he can't claim that it's personal now.

Mind you, a camarilla of neoliberal propagandists who haunt the RT page managed to get me barred for 36 hours for not being a zionist and challenging the crap that they write for being based on propaganda rags like The Times and The Grauniad. Pah!

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5137
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Caen casualties question

Post by Michael Kenny » 01 Jun 2017 19:05

Spotted this in the section 'Controversy surrounding the objectives of the battle'

The D-Day objectives for the British 1st Infantry Division, which landed on Sword Beach, included "The capture of the city of Caen by means of rapid advance and the establishment of a bridgehead south of the city."[134][according to whom?]

Not quite. The full order makes a number of points :

. 3 British Division

a) The task of 3 British Division is to capture CAEN and secure a bridgehead over the R ORNE at that place.

b ) The enemy may develop his counter-attack--

i) Through CAEN
ii) Across R ORNE at RANVILLE - BENOUVILLE having established himself in the area East of R ORNE from which he can dominate the beaches West of OUISTREHAM and the Northern approaches to CAEN.
iii) West of Caen, between R MUE and the CAEN Canal
iv) Any combination of the above

In cases (ii) and (iii) using CAEN as a pivot, if he suceeds in forestalling us there.

c) To counter these enemy measure 3 British Division should, before dark on D-Day, have captured or effectively masked CAEN and be disposed in depth with brigade localities firmly established.

i) North-West of BENOUVILLE, in support of 6 Airborne Division operating East of R ORNE (having relieved the airborne troops West of the canal and taken over the defence of the BENOUVILLE-RANVILLE crossings.
ii) North-West of CAEN, tied up with the LEFT forward brigade locality of 3 Canadian Division.

Should the enemy forestall us at CAEN and the defences prove to be strongly organised thus causing us to fail to capture it on D-Day, further direct frontal assaults which may prove costly will not be undertaken without reference to I Corps. In such an event 3 British Division will contain the enemy in CAEN and retain the bulk of its forces disposed for mobile operations inside the covering position. CAEN will be subjected to heavy air bombardment to limit its usefulness and to make its retention a costly business."
(I Corps Operations Order No. 1, WO 171/258)


viewtopic.php?p=1430862#p1430862

Monty allowed for a failure to capture CAEN on day 1. Claims his whole 'masterplan' revolved around capture on June 6 and every subsequent action was an attempted cover-up this 'failure' is bunk.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

Re: Caen casualties question

Post by Attrition » 02 Jun 2017 01:08

Quite agree, one of the editors wants to take the article back to the 1970s.

Apols Michael, I forgot to thank you for taking the trouble.

Aber
Member
Posts: 727
Joined: 05 Jan 2010 21:43

Re: Caen casualties question

Post by Aber » 03 Jun 2017 17:03

Michael Kenny wrote:
This is by Wdford who is obviously an Anglophobe and hates Monty with a passion. He woefully misinformed on the very basics. It is not his only serious error but just one of the first you see and easy to refute. Clearly he has not got a clue.
The best bit is that on the Montgomery talk page, he appeals for help from others who are knowledgable on the subject. :D

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5137
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Caen casualties question

Post by Michael Kenny » 03 Jun 2017 18:01

Wiki is never a good source of accurate information. Wiki puts printed sources at the top of the information tree and a good 75% of all authors on any subject are the 'read 10 books and write no 11 ' type.
This for example from the Monty page:
otu12917.jpg
Urban is the footnoted source and appears to dominate the footnotes. Quite why a BBC man is suddenly the expert on GOODWOOD confuses me. Urban is not on my 'to read' list and never will be so I can not check him out other than to say this is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind.


Note for the casual reader-von Rosen and von Luck have been conflated.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

Re: Caen casualties question

Post by Attrition » 03 Jun 2017 18:47

One of the editors appears to be a nutter. I wouldn't trust a hack like Urban to sit on a toilet the right way round. Look at his replies to the furnishing of a primary and a secondary source about the orders for the 3rd Division.

It isn't the printed sources but the reluctance of three editors to involve the admins because they are as despicable as generic managers are everywhere.

As for the difference between commercially published hackwork and scholarship....

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 05 Jun 2003 16:22
Location: USA

Re: Caen casualties question

Post by Kingfish » 03 Jun 2017 20:11

Michael Kenny wrote:Wiki is never a good source of accurate information. Wiki puts printed sources at the top of the information tree and a good 75% of all authors on any subject are the 'read 10 books and write no 11 ' type.
This for example from the Monty page:
otu12917.jpg

Urban is the footnoted source and appears to dominate the footnotes. Quite why a BBC man is suddenly the expert on GOODWOOD confuses me. Urban is not on my 'to read' list and never will be so I can not check him out other than to say this is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind.


Note for the casual reader-von Rosen and von Luck have been conflated.
It appears Borguebus ridge has been conflated with Cagny as well
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: 29 Oct 2008 22:53
Location: England

Re: Caen casualties question

Post by Attrition » 03 Jun 2017 20:42

The trouble with published information and the reliance on summaries of reliable sources is that this is the only way to avoid copyright infringement and to stop people sounding off (er, ahem!) like in a blog. That it means the wrong information can be included is the price the founders agreed to pay. The rules are what you'd expect if you've encountered generic managers, overlapping, contradictory and unenforceable except by the arbitrary authority of a boss class. Not that I'm bitter mind....

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”