That was an interesting one to work on.Tom from Cornwall wrote: ↑06 Jan 2021 04:17Well, I think you could look in here:
The author of that sentence was Chris.P.56-57
Italian campaign army-level data ‘implies a 30% casualty effectiveness difference in favour of the UK [compared to US], and is opposite to the patterns shown with the division level data.’
The study then discusses six possible reasons that it was thought might cause such a result.
Authors of the study - Chris Lawrence and Richard Anderson.
Given that I don't think there is any data that showed that conducting operations "in a casualty efficient way" actually resulted in efficient casualties that would be speculation of the highest order.I did note that the postulated possible causes for the improved British ‘score’ at Army level didn’t include the possibility that 8th Army HQ, being more experienced than 5th Army HQ, ensured that its operations were conducted in a casualty efficient way.
Perhaps because Trevor recognized that armies, corps, and divisions are not monolithic entities, performing the same way day in and day out? Anyway, I suspect that part of the problem is that the original division engagements were flawed, overstating British casualties, and sometimes understating or overstating the strengths of each side. I've never been certain how the errors got introduced, but I suspect it had to do with at least partly relying on Fifth Army sources, as well as misunderstanding some details of the German and British organizations.And of course, the study doesn’t pass up the chance to state that:
‘Trevor Dupuy’s studies indicated that [46 and 56 British Divisions] performed particularly poorly’.
Which is odd, because in one of Dupuy’s books he praises the “north country” troops of 46 Division for their doughty defence of their bridgehead at Salerno, perhaps not realising that one of its Brigades was made up of Hampshire regiment battalions and that during the crisis of the battle it had under its command one of the brigades from 56 Division.
The other potential issue, as you identified, is that all these operations by British units were with X Corps under Fifth Army command. While there is no evidence that those operations were micro-managed by Fifth Army, it doesn't exclude the possibility that X Corps and McCreery might have had something to do with it as well.