The Somme and Normandy compared

[salesie]

It seems to me, Gents, that the widely held notion that senior British commanders had some kind of "psychological-hangover" from their experiences in WW1 as junior officers, and that this "hangover" effected their judgement, which in turn meant less casualties, is something of a fallacy (when it comes to the way the British fought in Europe in WW2) i.e.

Firstly, when British WW2 generals had to fight attritional battles they fought them ("psychological-hangover" or not). And, secondly, the British army of WW2 never took-on the main enemy on the main front (in the way it was forced to do in WW1). The Eastern Front was the main front in the European theatre in WW2, and it was here, unlike in WW1, where the wearing-down phase (Haig's phase 3) of the main enemy took place. While the Allies were advancing across France, Belgium and Holland the Red Army was wearing-down the German Army beyond recall (leaving aside the other strategic realities for the sake of this particular point). The Red Army paid the inevitable attritional price that total-war demands for victory.

Consequently, I would argue that the British generals of WW2 fought their war as it unfolded, which unfolded in a completely different way to WW1. But without the Red Army the second time around, any British "psychological-hangover" from WW1 would have been quickly replaced by overwhelming feelings of deja vu (in an attritional sense).

Cheers-salesie.

[phil andrade]

Freyberg comes to mind as I read salesie's post.

He made an infamous decision to bomb the monastery at Monte Casino, and when asked to explain why, he, allegedly, said "Passchendaele".

The New Zealand Division was slaughtered in a single day on October 12th 1917, taking just under three thousand casualties, of whom nearly one thousand were killed or died from wounds. The worst day in New Zealand's history. The attritional fighting at Monte Casino, over a period of several weeks, did not cost the Kiwis as many lives as that single day at Passchendaele. The only episode in a single day in WWII to rival this was the massacre of the Canadian Division at Dieppe...although I must admit that the sinking of that ship (Lancastria?) in the evacuation from Le Havre (?) in 1940 cost many more lives : I'm thinking in terms of army v army combat here.

I'm sure that Richard Holmes was right when he said the "the elephant in the room" as far as British countenancing of Operation Overlord was concerned was the memory of 1914-1918.

Freyberg's rationale for the bombing of The Abbey was to lead to a prolongation of the attritional fighting at Monte Casino, because the rubble and craters enhanced the advantage of the defenders. Instead of avoiding a repeat of Passhendaele, he created another one !

Phil (PJA)

[Robert Dunlop]

I do suspect that revisionism can tip the balance too far, and that this has quite possibly been the case with The Great War, and specifically in the context of this thread, of The Somme. Corrigan makes much of how trench conditions have been exaggerated... - there are simply too many truly hideous tales... for us not to give them credence.

Corrigan's style is to generate debate and questioning. In this case, he has obviously succeeded . The 'lions led by donkeys' myth is still very widespread. Corrigan attacks it, seeking to unfreeze attitudes. The danger, as Phil has mentioned, is that people can react negatively if the arguments are examined in depth and found to be wanting. I don't think this is a significant problem, FWIIW, but I like the fact that he has generated this debate. At the end of the day we are confronting the fact that Normandy was no cake-walk, no paragon of military virtue. Perhaps he over-egged the comparative numbers but the sentiment is valid. War is war. There is no fundamental difference between Normandy and the Somme.

As to tipping the balance too far, I'm not too sure. Taking the issue of trench conditions, there is no doubting the awful problems in active battlefields. But if you take a look at the Western Front overall, then the extent of such fighting is put into perspective. See the map here, which shows the Somme and Verdun battles. So yes there were places where conditions were awful but we mustn't think that the whole Western Front was like that. For the average soldier, his time in such conditions was relatively short. I am not saying that things were rosey. But soldiers rarely write about the normality of trench life, which occupied so much of their time. Unless you read accounts that are diarised, then soldiers tend to focus on the terrible moments. This is not surprising. Conversely, diaries are often very boring by comparison. Dates are often left out or conflated together to make up for the relative lack of information.

We need to keep tipping the balance, backwards and forwards. This is still so much to learn, so many new as well as old sources of information to digest and put into perspective. It is why the GWF is so interesting. Thanks for commenting and raising these issues.

Robert

[bill24chev]

I have just been looking again at this thread again PJA in post 1 points out a flaw in the statistics i.e. Corrigan uses different casalty criterior for Normandy and the Somme. I beleive there are other flaws.

For example a WW1 Infantry Division at the time of the Somme had 12 battalions in Normandy it was only 9. Therefore transposing Corrigan's figures we have a casualty rate per Bn. of 7.4 (89/12) for the Somme and 11.1 (100/9) for Normandy.PJA's figure of 116 for the Somme is 9.75. Which would still make Normandy the worst battle. This assumes that all casualties where in the infantry. However, apart from the flaw thatin I have assumed only infantry casualties a further flaw is that we are still not comparing like with like. The WW2 Bn had a strenght of about 800 men compared to 1000 for WW1 (pre Feb. 1918)at full strength. A WW2 Bn had to include a larger support element of Mortars, Anti-Tank Guns and Signals that meant smaller rifle companies.

What I am saying, and I suspect there is an element of this in Corrigans stats. is that to compare stats from one war with another does not provide a fair comparison because each conflict and even phases of a conflict are fundementally different. For example 42nd Division's battles in Gallipoli can not be compared with their war in F&F or 2nd Divs experience in WW1 with their battle to relieve Kohima in WW2, all where horrendous but because of time and distance totaly different

The make up of formations at different times or between different armies can also produce a bias in compparisons. For example at Mons probably 3 Corps of German First Army where engaged with the the BEF's II Corps a ratio of 3:1. However the German Divison had two brigades in 1914 and with two Divs per corps that would be 8 brigades against the 6 brigades of II corps which makes the stand at Mons seem less impressive. Further more if I said 16 German regiments against 24 British took part in the battle of Mons I would not be lying.(I know that Cavalry,19 Brigade and some 1st Corps units may have playef minor roles but to simplify me point I have left them out)

[phil andrade]

Much to my embarrasment, I see that my own arithmetic is flawed !

For the Somme figure that Corrigan states at 89, and I revised to 116, read a total of 120. I just fouled up my sums, And that is not all.

That Somme figure of 127,751 does not include significant numbers who died in base hospitals away from Picardy. I also suspect that Corrigan's 22,000 Normandy figure includes a number of aircrew, because thousands of them died in the prelude to Overlord, and in its aftermath. I honestly believe that if the formula used by Corrigan is properly applied, the Somme would exceed Normandy in its weekly divisional deaths by a margin of about twenty five per cent. And that still allows us to contemplate how nasty the Normandy fighting must have been, especially bearing in mind the points that bill24chev makes about the smaller size of the divisions, and the reduced proportion of men in the actual rifle companies. Robert is right, to a degree, when he tells us that there is no fundamental difference between the Somme and Normandy.

Leaving these discrepancies aside, I think the crucial point is that, using the criterion of CWGC registers, it's apparent that Corrigan understates the Somme fatalites by a factor of virtually thirty five per cent. That is too great a deficiency to pass unchallenged, especially in a treatise that sets out to convince us that the slaughter of the Great War has been sensationalised. Corrigan has done a superb job in putting the mortality of 1914-1918 into a sober perspective, and that is much needed. It is also imperative that we should not be allowed to imagine that the fighting in Normandy, or the Reichswald, in 1944-45, spared the infantry from frighful and lethal combat. We must, moreover, be aware that there were in the German army of WWII contingents of fanatics who imbued the fighting with a uniquely murderous character.

Many of us have been weaned on a diet of folklore that insists that the Great War was uniquely terrible. Corrigan, Terraine, Sheffield and others will counter this by reminding us of the much greater loss of life suffered by the Soviet armies that fought from 1941-45, and will supplement this by emphasising that the intensity of warfare in NW Europe 1944-45 is too often overlooked.

Furthermore, the warfare of earlier eras produced battlefield carnage, which, in proportionate terms, rivalled or even exceeded the Somme...some of Frederick the Great's battles, and certainly some of Napoleon's, could be cited.

This is all about reputation, notoriety, perception and historiography. With the centennial looming, we need to be as sober as possible when we commemorate the Somme and other episodes of 1914-18. There is a danger that we might be induced to understate the bloodiness of the Somme : the credence given to Corrigan's analysis is an uncomfortable demonstration.

Phil (PJA)

[squirrel]

This has been an excellent debate with some superb contributions and thank you to all the participants.

Wars are a damned awful business and this thread helps to explain that comparisons of casualties can in some way show that each has its times of dreadfulness but that these are only a part of the overall picture.

PJA - FWIW the Lancastria was sunk at St Nazaire with huge loss of life. The survivors that made it back to UK were told not to talk about it and the remnants of one particular unit were shortly afterwards sent to a remote area in Scotland to receive drafts, re-equip and retrain.

[salesie]

The make up of formations at different times or between different armies can also produce a bias in compparisons. For example at Mons probably 3 Corps of German First Army where engaged with the the BEF's II Corps a ratio of 3:1. However the German Divison had two brigades in 1914 and with two Divs per corps that would be 8 brigades against the 6 brigades of II corps which makes the stand at Mons seem less impressive. Further more if I said 16 German regiments against 24 British took part in the battle of Mons I would not be lying.(I know that Cavalry,19 Brigade and some 1st Corps units may have playef minor roles but to simplify me point I have left them out)

If 3 German Corps were engaged at Mons, and with 2 Divs per Corps and 2 Brigades per Div, then the total number of German Brigades would be twelve (3x2x2) not eight, wouldn't it? Also, with 3 Battalions per German Regt then the total number of German Battalions would be 48 (16x3) against the 24 British Battalions, wouldn't it? Both would give a figure of 2:1.

Not sure about the exact make-up of German units (perhaps Jack can assist?) - but by your own figures, bill24chev, your arithmetic seems not to add-up correctly.

Cheers-salesie.

[bill24chev]

If 3 German Corps were engaged at Mons, and with 2 Divs per Corps and 2 Brigades per Div, then the total number of German Brigades would be twelve (3x2x2) not eight, wouldn't it? Also, with 3 Battalions per German Regt then the total number of German Battalions would be 48 (16x3) against the 24 British Battalions, wouldn't it? Both would give a figure of 2:1.

Not sure about the exact make-up of German units (perhaps Jack can assist?) - but by your own figures, bill24chev, your arithmetic seems not to add-up correctly.

Cheers-salesie.

Thans for the correction. must remember to proof read my posts before upload. My basic arithmetic as somtimes been suspect, I nearly caused my maths lecturer at uni a nervous breakdown when I started answering a complex partial fraction qestion by assuming 2+2=2. The rest of my answer was/would have been right so he had to recalculate the answer incorporating my error.

Comparison by Bns would be 72 (12 Bdes of 2 Regts. of 3 Bns) to 24 Bns. My point was that by using misleading wording a historian,journalist or commentator can give a misleading impression I beleive its what in modern politics is now called spin. A fair description of the regt. and Bn. ratios would be "the oposing forces consisted of 24 German regiments of 3 Bns. agaist single Bns. from 24 British Regiments". To correct my previos post the oposing forces would, on regiments represented be 24/24 an apparent balance of forces.

[phil andrade]

Gordon Corrigan's Mud, Blood and Poppycock is the source of the figures that I am contesting.

I have just re visited it, and let me say that, despite my quibble, I rate it as one of the best books about the Great War that I've encountered in the last decade. His skill as a writer is matched by his style as a speaker - he is first rate : entertaining, compelling and informative. He's forgoten more about the Great War than I'll ever know, so my statistical fixations must seem nerdish and maybe even ceorlish.

Forgive me if I cite a passage from this book and subject it to another of my remonstrations.... from pages 299-300 :

There were 160,000 French deaths at Verdun, and the total for the year of 1916 came to 270,000 dead French soldiers. The British Empire lost 115,389 dead in 1916 : 109,411 on the Western Front, 3,871 in Mesopotamia, 579 in East Africa, 471 in Palestine, 180 in Gallipoli and twenty in minor theatres elsewhere. The British had come through 1916 much less scathed than their principal ally or main enemy.

This is wrong. For one thing, the French figure for Verdun included the missing who were taken prisoner. But, more significantly, the British figures he cites for deaths include only those posted as confirmed killed in action, and do not include those who died from wounds, or those who were reported as missing but eventually had to be counted as dead. The difference is huge. On the Western Front alone, in addition to the confirmed killed, there were 36,879 who died from wounds, and approaching 30,000 more who were initially posted as missing but were subsequently counted as killed : the aggregate of battle fatalites was 172,449 ( there were 5,841 non battle deaths in addition) : the figure Corrigan cites must be icreased by nearly sixty per cent. This is a glaring deficiency, and it is also apparent - although to a lesser degree - in the tabulation he presents us for the comparison of the Somme with Normandy.

The figure supplied from the registers of the CWGC for the Battle of the Somme alone (127,751) attests the scale of this understatement.

Speaking in a more emotive manner, I challenge anyone to stand among the the columns of the memorial at Thiepval, reflect on the comments made by Corrigan and Sheffield, and accept them. The Somme was, for the British, a battle of transcendental bloodiness, obviously surpassing anything in modern British military annals, and, even if we try and re-evaluate its casualty toll by a sober analysis of death rates in Normandy in 1944, the fatal nature of the Somme fighting retains - deservedly - its uniquely terrible reputation.

Phil (PJA)

[salesie]

Thans for the correction. must remember to proof read my posts before upload. My basic arithmetic as somtimes been suspect, I nearly caused my maths lecturer at uni a nervous breakdown when I started answering a complex partial fraction qestion by assuming 2+2=2. The rest of my answer was/would have been right so he had to recalculate the answer incorporating my error.

Comparison by Bns would be 72 (12 Bdes of 2 Regts. of 3 Bns) to 24 Bns. My point was that by using misleading wording a historian,journalist or commentator can give a misleading impression I beleive its what in modern politics is now called spin. A fair description of the regt. and Bn. ratios would be "the oposing forces consisted of 24 German regiments of 3 Bns. agaist single Bns. from 24 British Regiments". To correct my previos post the oposing forces would, on regiments represented be 24/24 an apparent balance of forces.

I wouldn't know a partial fraction from an impartial one, bill24chev, but thanks for your almost perfect example of "spin".

Cheers-salesie.

[bill24chev]

to salesie

dont worry about partial fractions I have not come across one since I left uni. and would have to think really hard on how to solve one now.

to PJA

I agree that Corrigan writes a good read, is similar titled WW2 book is good, But I have not checked his figures, with a good description of the last 100 days of WW1. I also agree that the scale of sacrifice on the Somme is sobering and has left a deep scare in the national psyche. The Somme and also 3rd Ypres created the feelings of hopelessness and waste that probably led to the "donkeys" theory. I believe the attempt to talk down WW1 in comparison to the last 11 months of WW2 is a symptom of the need to debunk the "donkeys" and useless sacrifice ideas.

[phil andrade]

I believe the attempt to talk down WW1 in comparison to the last 11 months of WW2 is a symptom of the need to debunk the "donkeys" and useless sacrifice ideas.

Yes, absolutely !

This is a pity, because the argument espoused by Corrigan, Sheffield, Terraine and others - that the Great War must not be caricatured as a futile excercise of "donkeyism" - is compelling enough on its own merit, and has been compromised by presenting flawed statistics.

Phil (PJA)

[charlesmessenger]

There were 160,000 French deaths at Verdun, and the total for the year of 1916 came to 270,000 dead French soldiers. The British Empire lost 115,389 dead in 1916 : 109,411 on the Western Front, 3,871 in Mesopotamia, 579 in East Africa, 471 in Palestine, 180 in Gallipoli and twenty in minor theatres elsewhere. The British had come through 1916 much less scathed than their principal ally or main enemy.

[charlesmessenger]

Phil

Using Statistics of of the Military Effort ... I have just added up the monthly British (including Empire) fatalities (killed, died of wounds, died of disease) on the Western Front in 1916 and have come to a grand total of 152,131. I am therefore not clear as to where Gordon gets his figure from.

Charles M

[phil andrade]

Charles,

The Statistics of the Military Effort tabulate 109,411 killed in action., 36,879 died of wounds and 5,841 died from other causes

...hence the total of 152,131 deaths,The same source also lists 40,228 missing, in addition to those 152,131 confirmed deaths : only 7,787 of those missing were confirmed prisoners, so the implication for total fatalities was getting close to two hundred thousand.

Gordon's figure of 109,411 is also from the Military Effort, but alludes only to those confirmed killed in action, with no allowance for died of wounds, or other causes, or for the missing.

His estimate of 95,000 killed in the Somme battle is, I daresay, formulated on the number of wounded that were admitted to the ambulances of the Fourth, Fifth (Reserve) and Third Armies between July 1st and November 30th 1916 : the Australian Official Medical History cited a figure of 316,073, and estimates 1 killed for every 3.3 wounded, yielding a figure of 95-96 thousand killed, This, however, does not include the died of wounds, who might be assessed at eight per cent of the wounded admitted to hospital : it all stacks up to 120,000+ ...... that CWGC figure of 127,751 is our best guide. The official adjusted return of 415,690 killed, wounded and missing ( including prisoners) is also in harmony with the number of 316,000 evacuated wounded. A figure of 95,675 is often cited for British killed and missing on the Somme, but this does not include the died of wounds, who probably numbered in the order of 25,000.

I hope that I have made a convincing remonstration, and that pals will think twice if they read that Normandy was more lethal for the front line British infantryman than the Somme.

Phil (PJA)

[PhilB]

Strategically and tactically the Normandy campaign may have been closer to Gallipoli than the Somme. The Allies were, after all, essentially attempting to break out of a beachhead against expertly prepared defences (overseen at leisure by Rommel), with the supply restrictions of a new landing site and with the everpresent danger of being swept into the sea. Quite a different scenario to that faced by the BEF on the Somme. Might these considerations have influenced the conduct of the campaign?

[phil andrade]

And here's another example of this distortion, using the same criterion of down playing the Great War - or exaggerating the losses in WWII - in order to make a point.

Rodric Braithwaite's book Moscow 1941 A City and Its People at War made a huge impact on me, so let me qualify any censure with whole hearted recommendation of a good read.

On the inner cover flap we are told:

...the Battle of Moscow.....More than 900,000 Soviet soldiers died, dwarfing British losses in the First World War...

In the opening paragraph of the first chapter, Braithwaite writes

The battle of Moscow swirled over a territory the size of France, and lasted for six months, from September 1941 to April 1942. The Soviet Union lost more people in this one battle - 926,000 soldiers killed, to say nothing of the wounded - than the British lost in the whole of the First World War.

Now this is an error, and a big one. The Soviet figure of 926,244 is for killed and missing : the figure for wounded is 879,879 ( and that might include evacuated sick). The huge figure for killed and missing is preponderantly based on prisoners : perhaps more than two thirds. The number of Soviet soldiers killed in the battles for Moscow was most definitely not in excess of the number of British soldiers who died in the Great War : indeed, it was probably more like one third of the total of British Great War dead. So much for "dwarfing" British losses from 1914-1918.

I am acutely aware that the fate of Soviet prisoners of war was fatal in millions of cases, and so I must acknowledge that. But as an indicator of intensity of combat, we have another example here which tells us that, far from sensationalising the slaughter of the Great War, it is the tendency to exaggerate that of the Second World War that must be held in check.

Phil (PJA)

[bill24chev]

PJA - FWIW the Lancastria was sunk at St Nazaire with huge loss of life. The survivors that made it back to UK were told not to talk about it and the remnants of one particular unit were shortly afterwards sent to a remote area in Scotland to receive drafts, re-equip and retrain.

The Lancastria and the tragedy in the Baltic in the last days of WW2 are perhaps the greatest loss of life in single incidents caused by conventional weapon systems (bomb/torpedo). They definately suffered a greater loss of life than their WW1 equivelants HMS Queen Mary for combatants and Lusitania for civilian casualties.

My late fater was about to board the Lancastria as the fatal air raid started . The lighter he was on was ordered away and the rest as they say is history.

[SiegeGunner]

The Lancastria and the tragedy in the Baltic in the last days of WW2 are perhaps the greatest loss of life in single incidents caused by conventional weapon systems (bomb/torpedo).

I presume you are referring to the Wilhelm Gustloff, Bill.

[phil andrade]

Wasn't a Turkish troop ship - the Gul Djemal, an old converted White Star liner - sunk in early May 1915 in the Sea of Mamara by the E14 submarine with several thousand Turkish soldiers being drowned ?

Phil (PJA)

[bill24chev]

I presume you are referring to the Wilhelm Gustloff, Bill.

yes thats the one

[bill24chev]

Lt. Cmdr Boyle the CO of E14 was awarded a VC for his cruise in the sea of Marma in April/May 1915. According to Julian Thompson in IWM book of the War at Sea 1914-18 he says E14 sank a Gunboat and damaged a transport. No mention of heavy Turkish casualties.

[Chris_Baker]

... the argument espoused by Corrigan, Sheffield, Terraine and others ...

I do not believe it is appropriate to just lump John Terraine into the list. He heads the list, and as far as I can see others of the modern revisionist ilk are really only embellishing the hard and core truths that he propounded.

[david lee]

I do not believe it is appropriate to just lump John Terraine into the list. He heads the list, and as far as I can see others of the modern revisionist ilk are really only embellishing the hard and core truths that he propounded.

100% correct Chris---as I mentioned in my first post in this thread.

Further, let us not forget that truly terrible casualty lists are not the preserve of the 'modern ' world.

In 480 BC at the sea battle of SALAMIS conservative estimates (very conservative) put the Persian dead alone at 40,000, drowned, speared or clinging forlornly to the wreckage of their 200 Triremes lost in one days bloody work.

At GRANICUS (334 BC) Alexander destroyed outright the Persian army (precise figures not known, but very considerable---at least 20,000) and went on to kill between 15,000 and 18,000 Greek mercenaries who had been fighting for the Persians----essentially after the battle was won. A total of 35, to 38,000 battlefield dead, NOT counting Macedonian and allies----in one day!

The next year at ISSUS the fatalaties reached an order of magnitude never seen before in a Greek or Macedonian army---20,000 Greek mercenaries butchered (literally) and anywhere between 50,000 and 100,000 Persian----That amounts to more than 300 men butchered ever minute for eight hours------truly sobering figures I think---and that 50,000 is a guaranteed low!

At CANNAE (216BC) Appian, Plutarch, Polybius and Livy all confirm, some 50,000 Romans and allies were butchered (that awful word again) in, again, a single afternoon---about 200 men sliced and decapitated every minute---one of very few ancient battles where a complte army was destroyed in open battle.

I offer these analogies (amongst loads more) only to remind us that dead men are an automatic, if unpleasant, concommitant of war.

Dave.

[phil andrade]

How are we to preceive the Great War, then ?

Just "par for the course" ?

There is, in the commentary of some, a determination to put that perception across. This is how the case is presented.......

After all, what do you expect, bearing in mind the precedents set in earlier eras ?

There was nothing exceptional, let alone unique, in the mortality rates of the Great War : the greater scale of the populations was bound to result in more deaths. We must not attribute to the Somme any special notoriety, bearing in mind that more Russian soldiers were killed in a single battle in WWII than all the Britons who died in the Great War, and that the fighting in Normandy in 1944 was, on a per capita/time basis, more deadly than the Somme for frontline British soldiers.

I hope I have exposed the last two statements as fallacious. That'll be enough to be getting on with....we need to avoid distortions like that, lest we fail to do justice to the ordeal of 1914-18.

Phil (PJA)