Tom from Cornwall wrote: ↑
24 Nov 2021 20:49
So that's Hastings sorted, but what about Russell A. Hart and his parroting of the same myth at second-hand? Does he get away scot free!
BIzarrely IRRC that Russell Hart is a relation (brother??) of Stephen Hart, the Sandhurst academic and author of Colossal Cracks, which is the revisionist view of the British way to win in NW Europe.
By and large there is aconsensus that the Germans were jolly good at the contact battle especially in unstructured encounter battles. But the Monty method was not to play to the same rules. Instead he fought strutured battles that made the best of the Allied forces he commanded.
It is true that the British formations engaged in Op Epsom were inexperienced. This was the baptism of fire for the 15th , 43rd or 53rd infantry divisions and the 11th and Guards Armoured Divisions. About the only eperienced formation was the 4th Armoured Brigade.
However, the overall effect of Op Esom was to engage the German armoured reserves. It may not have been the stated aim of the operation which was stated kin geographical terms. However, at an operational level, the allies were winning all the time that the Germans could not throw them into the sea. Until Epsom, the Germans had some great plans for using the three panzer Corps they had assembled in some offensive operation. Instead they were frittered away in a counter attack against the Scottish corridor. The action on 1st July at Rauray was a slaughter of German armour comparable to Snipe at El Alamein. Whatever the limitations and failings of the British infantry, Epsom was a disaster for German hopes of winning in Normandy.