Caen??

JOC

Active member
The battle for Caen was a bloody victory for the Common Wealth. Churchill worried about the WW1 type stalemate as the Germans held off the British and the Canadians for nearly 2 months.

The allies lost > 50 thousand men, not including the airmen lost and thousands of AFV’s destroyed. Montgomery sent in the tanks row by row one after the other, which often made them sitting ducks for the Germans who had the high ground.

Using Tiger and Panther tanks and 88 guns the Germans could destroy the allied tanks at a greater distance than the allied could destroy a German tank or 88. In fact just about any German tank could outrange the allies except for the Sherman Firefly which was in short supply at the time.

Could this 2 month long allied stalemate have been avoided?
 
The battle for Caen was a bloody victory for the Common Wealth. Churchill worried about the WW1 type stalemate as the Germans held off the British and the Canadians for nearly 2 months.

The allies lost > 50 thousand men, not including the airmen lost and thousands of AFV’s destroyed. Montgomery sent in the tanks row by row one after the other, which often made them sitting ducks for the Germans who had the high ground.

Using Tiger and Panther tanks and 88 guns the Germans could destroy the allied tanks at a greater distance than the allied could destroy a German tank or 88. In fact just about any German tank could outrange the allies except for the Sherman Firefly which was in short supply at the time.

Could this 2 month long allied stalemate have been avoided?

It was such a terrible loss of human life and equipment, and as you say only the Sherman Firefly could get within range.

In 1962, British Official historian L. F. Ellis wrote that "Twenty-First Army Group's persistent pressure had compelled Rommel to make good a shortage of infantry by using his armour defensively. The strongest armoured divisions were clustered around that eastern flank until the American army had reached a position from which it was ready to break through the less heavily guarded western front." Overy wrote that von Kluge warned Hitler that the German left flank had collapsed following Operation Cobra and "The choice was between holding at Caen and abandoning western France, or dividing German forces between two battles, and risking collapse in both." Hitler compromised by ordering the German army to hold in front of Caen, while armoured forces were diverted to tackle the American attack. "The result was predictable. Strong British and Canadian thrusts both sides of Caen immobilised the German forces and intercepted those driving towards the American front." Ford called the battle for Caen a pyrrhic victory; the War Office had forecast that the 21st Army Group would have suffered 65,751 casualties by 7 August and actual casualties were 50,539 men.
 
The battle for Caen was a bloody victory for the Common Wealth. Churchill worried about the WW1 type stalemate as the Germans held off the British and the Canadians for nearly 2 months.

The allies lost > 50 thousand men, not including the airmen lost and thousands of AFV’s destroyed. Montgomery sent in the tanks row by row one after the other, which often made them sitting ducks for the Germans who had the high ground.

Using Tiger and Panther tanks and 88 guns the Germans could destroy the allied tanks at a greater distance than the allied could destroy a German tank or 88. In fact just about any German tank could outrange the allies except for the Sherman Firefly which was in short supply at the time.

Could this 2 month long allied stalemate have been avoided?

The offensives by the Commonwealth forces might have been redundant, if they had fixed the Germans around Caen instead of launching the attacks, the losses might have been lesser for the Allies. The terrain in Normandy was suited for defense and the Germans were able to fix the Allies for an extended period of time. During the planning phase of Overlord, the planners underestimated the terrain beyond the beaches.
 
The offensives by the Commonwealth forces might have been redundant, if they had fixed the Germans around Caen instead of launching the attacks, the losses might have been lesser for the Allies. The terrain in Normandy was suited for defense and the Germans were able to fix the Allies for an extended period of time. During the planning phase of Overlord, the planners underestimated the terrain beyond the beaches.

The allies underestimated both the terrain and the Germans ability to fight a defensive war (gained from the bitter war in the USSR for many of the divisions). During the entire Normandy campaign both sides lost well over 200 thousand men killed and wounded. The relatively small area around Caen was a cauldron of destruction.
 
The allies underestimated both the terrain and the Germans ability to fight a defensive war (gained from the bitter war in the USSR for many of the divisions). During the entire Normandy campaign both sides lost well over 200 thousand men killed and wounded. The relatively small area around Caen was a cauldron of destruction.

Yes, and the Germans were pretty good with a defensive war in 1944. They got a lot of practice.
 
I can understand the British attitude and willingness to breakout from the bridgehead in Normandy. They were pretty worried about a repeat of the previous war. The British and their Commonwealth allies had a shortage of well trained infantry and staying in the bridgehead had increased the causalities among the infantry.

The German counteroffensive at Mortain after the American breakthrough wasn't the best move by the Germans, they were loading more troops into the trap set by the allies.
 
An other Montgomery bashing .

Why shouldn't Montgomery take some of the heat?

I am somewhat conflicted in my opinion of the guy as my father and uncles served under him in North Africa and some of Italy and they thought highly of him so who am I to argue with them however he also claimed a lot of credit for El Alamein which really wasn't his plan and he completely ballsed up Caen, Market Garden then tried to pretend that it was all part of his "plan".

There is no doubt he was liked by his troops and that must count for a lot but at the same time he was a vain, egotistical, show boater who's inability to think of anyone but himself got a lot of men killed needlessly.
 
Why shouldn't Montgomery take some of the heat?

I am somewhat conflicted in my opinion of the guy as my father and uncles served under him in North Africa and some of Italy and they thought highly of him so who am I to argue with them however he also claimed a lot of credit for El Alamein which really wasn't his plan and he completely ballsed up Caen, Market Garden then tried to pretend that it was all part of his "plan".

There is no doubt he was liked by his troops and that must count for a lot but at the same time he was a vain, egotistical, show boater who's inability to think of anyone but himself got a lot of men killed needlessly.

Monty I couldn't have summed it better, well said.
 
Why shouldn't Montgomery take some of the heat?

I am somewhat conflicted in my opinion of the guy as my father and uncles served under him in North Africa and some of Italy and they thought highly of him so who am I to argue with them however he also claimed a lot of credit for El Alamein which really wasn't his plan and he completely ballsed up Caen, Market Garden then tried to pretend that it was all part of his "plan".

There is no doubt he was liked by his troops and that must count for a lot but at the same time he was a vain, egotistical, show boater who's inability to think of anyone but himself got a lot of men killed needlessly.


About Normandy : the whole story is as usual full of clichés : Montgomery did send his tanks : nothing special : that's why tanks are for . Besides, he was economical with the lives of his men (he knew he could receive only few replacements) . Tanks were lost : yes, but, there were only few Panthers and 88 mm guns on German side,and only few tanks were lost ,of which most could be repaired .Operation Goodwood was a success: the Germans could not afford their losses, Monty could afford his losses.

Other point : meanwhile : the Americans did not better than Montgomery . Something which is wisely not mentioned .

But the biggest objection to the story is that it fails to understans the allied strategy in Normandy : Montgomery would attack direction Caen to tie the majority of the German tanks and to make possible a US outbreak in the bocage (Cobra) ,Montgomery never had the ilusion that he could break out and march to Paris . And this strategy was approved by Eisenhower .Thus,it is more than unfair to claim that Montgomery failed in Normandy .

Till 31 august, US losses were 125000 men (21000 deaths), British,Canadian and Polish losses: 83000 (16000 deaths),at this price, the German army in Normandy was destroyed .


That Montgomery was vain and egotistical is a fact, but ,soldiers love such generals, and so was Patton, so was MacArthur . And there is no proof that
this resulted in the needless dead of his soldiers . We have already discussed
Arnhem and I stick to my point that this was a reasonable gamble (approved by Eisenhower) : if it failed ,thousands would die ,if it succeeded,millions would be saved .
 
About Normandy : the whole story is as usual full of clichés : Montgomery did send his tanks : nothing special : that's why tanks are for . Besides, he was economical with the lives of his men (he knew he could receive only few replacements) . Tanks were lost : yes, but, there were only few Panthers and 88 mm guns on German side,and only few tanks were lost ,of which most could be repaired .Operation Goodwood was a success: the Germans could not afford their losses, Monty could afford his losses.

Yeah unfortunately this is the post war "it was really my plan all along" Montgomery story yet the reality remains that Caen was supposed to be taken on D-Day.

Now I can understand a hold up along the way and maybe even a couple of days and I would sing Montgomery's praise but to held up for 3 months tells me that it was the German defense that stopped him not some grand scheme to bleed the Germans dry before marching off to Berlin.

Also the 50,000 casualties were not something the British or Commonwealth could afford.

Other point : meanwhile : the Americans did not better than Montgomery . Something which is wisely not mentioned .
All true but the Hedgerows of the Bocage provided the ideal defensive position for troops that knew how to defend.

But the biggest objection to the story is that it fails to understans the allied strategy in Normandy : Montgomery would attack direction Caen to tie the majority of the German tanks and to make possible a US outbreak in the bocage (Cobra) ,Montgomery never had the ilusion that he could break out and march to Paris . And this strategy was approved by Eisenhower .Thus,it is more than unfair to claim that Montgomery failed in Normandy .
Yet we have seen how well Montgomery worked with the Americans in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Market Garden and even the Battle of the Bulge where it was always a race to be the first however it is your contention that he was happy to sit on the beaches of France for 3 months taking casualties just so the Americans could break out and sweep off through Europe.

That Montgomery was vain and egotistical is a fact, but ,soldiers love such generals, and so was Patton, so was MacArthur . And there is no proof that
this resulted in the needless dead of his soldiers . We have already discussed
Arnhem and I stick to my point that this was a reasonable gamble (approved by Eisenhower) : if it failed ,thousands would die ,if it succeeded,millions would be saved .

Arhnem was a poorly thought out mistake that overlooked both intelligence reports and logistics that lead to the effective loss of the 1st Airborne Division.
Nothing useful was gained from it and it boosted German morale.
 
The allies planned to take Caen on D-Day. The area around Caen was open, compared to the bocage country in the west of Normandy and was valuable land for airfields, making it more suited for tank warfare. The battle didn’t go as planned and lasted for 2 months instead. As stated the British and Canadians under Montgomery took on the lion’s share of the German armor (8 panzer divisions) and reserves at Caen. Note: As a result the German forces facing the Americans further east were spread more thinly. Here the Germans depended highly on the terrain to slow – stop the Americans in a defensive war.

The tank battles were epic with the allies far outnumbering the Germans. The Battle for Caen actually consisted on many allied offensive struggles such as Epson, Jupiter, Goodwood, … and a few German counter attacks.
At the battle of Goodwood the allies fielded some 1,300 tanks which battled against 377 German tanks. By and far the largest tank battle ever for British army. Not all went as planned for the British, however, with the Germans preventing a complete breakthrough. However the British advanced a further seven miles to the east of the city

The allied leadership was greatly concerned with Montgomery’s behavior (falling in-line with allied command) and his results on the battlefield. For a while they were unsure if they would be able to keep up with his losses, particularly after the loss of the Mulberry. Yes he did well enough in N Africa and Sicily. But not in Normandy and would throw caution to the wind in operation Market Garden.
 
Back
Top