Battle of Normandy UK vs. US

Which army performed better, the American or the British/Canadian in the Battle of Normandy? (from D-Day to the fall of the Falaise Pocket)

 

Why don't you start by telling us what YOU think? You know, who died because they were rubbish and who the heroes were.

No.9

 

This is a real tough question. It is hard to decide because the armies had so little in common. What I mean by that is the circumstances of the conflict were always different. Different objectives, different opposition. How do you determine "better"? Do you use casualty ratios, or distance traveled over time? Does the one who captured the most objectives win? The one who met the invasion overall plan the closest?

The armies had different styles and personalities. In different circumstances one would shine and not another. The men of the armies were all men, sometimes they succeeded and sometimes they failed. Their stories were all a mixture of planning, training, courage and luck, lots of luck.

Each of the armies has it's fans and it's detractors, mostly along national lines. The multi-national forces all represented one effort. That one supreme effort was their goal and they succeeded in accomplishing that goal together. For me to pick one, seems an insult to the others.

 

IMHO bigiceman has put it well.

I've read many books about the campaign and honestly believe that both were as good/bad as each other. As with any partnership, there were different strengths and weaknesses, good decisions and bad. But united, they won - and that's what counts.

 

A very diplomatic answer indeed. I have the highest respect for both Armies and didn't mean to belittle either through the question. Espeically the courage of the fighting men themselves.

How about leadership then? What was a greater asset on the battlefield; British caution or American enthusiasm?

Is there any reason to believe that the Americans would have had better luck with Epsom and Goodwood, or could have managed a faster march to close the gap at Falaise?

 

Tricky question all the Allies had good and bad days along with all the rest of the details. The western Allies had a job to do and they did it. I have respect for all of them.

 

Here, Here.

 

Panther, I don't think anyone thought there was anything derrogatory about the question. It is really quite an interesting one to ponder, but so complicated to try to figure out.

In different situations there were people who would second-guess the battles and say that IF the (fill in the blank) had been the primary force this would have succeeded. The different armies did have different things that they were historically good at. I recently read The Devil's Birthday; The Bridges to Arnhem. One of the criticisms there was that the British forces had not been aggressive enough and that the American forces certainly would have acted differently. They did not say this would have assured succes, but that on a few occasions that things would have been different.

I think it really just comes down to our own personal preferrences. We each have things that we admire and look for in those that we learn about. When we see them embodied in commanders we feel this makes them better than those around them, all other things being the same. I can tell you who I liked, but I don't really know if they were better commanders than the others or how things would have been different.

 

Now now Number 9, I would have thought it was obvious...When they approach each other up the beach and the armies parted to the water line...the US champion walked slowly forwards a slight gaunt as he slowly walked through the sand, his cigar ash falling naturally to the floor, his M1 reaching his shoulder as he spots, ole Tommy Atkins standing there facing him..his round helmet slightly at a jaunt over his eyes..he too lifts his trusty Lee Enfield to his shoulders..and starts to walk slolwly forwards through the parted masses....Mein Gott Herr Shmidt, have you seen what is happening on the beaches....says the lowly German private in his bunker..The two allied champions approach each other slowly..the sun blazing down on them both..until 20 yards apart..Tommy realises one well aimed shot would just do it, and the Amerian searched for his pouch of 10 magazines which he too knew would just do it.. That is when it happened, GI Joe, took off his helmet, placing his Stetson firmly on his head..not to be outmatched and being on a beach, Tommy Atkins removed his helmet, the knotted handkerchief was perfect for this weather...The yank marched purposly forwards...suddenly he half tripped half bounded forwards but managed to keep his balance..and walk on...BANG....and the American fell to the sand...as behind him..little old Paddy Murphy of the Pioneer corps, so called because they being mostly Irish Navvies and sticking their lunch in their ear while they dig...brought down the yank with a 6 inch war departmenta 1944 issue spade, digging for the use of...Bloody Yank you stood on me pie..

Err sorry panther.

 

Ah the ol "Sports" analogy.
Winner, loser, player of the week, play of the game.
All that means nothing to those who were in it.
War is no sport, or video game.
It's interesting from a distance, or in hindsight to most (including me), but dam if I know why.
Being in it is terror & horror, and the last last thing the participants need is someone telling them (from a distance) what they gave was not enough.
All gave all, under orders.
As is said, "The only way to win a war, is not to fight it."
As was deciphered by others, this is a loaded question....any answer would create conflict... unnecessary, and ridiculous.
"There are no winners in war, just survivors."

 

Well said Skunkworks. Really it all comes down to that. If you survive you have beaten war. You personally. What country wins is usually made irrelivant in time, The success of war, the winning of war, is in the survival.

 

Hmm... I'm actually quite surprised no one has an answer. The Anglo-American rivalry interestes me, but I cannot find much written about it.

Anyway, there are many people who would disagree with the 'personal survival = beating war' theory. Think about fanatics, kamakazies or volunteers who are more than willing to die for a cause. To them, victory outweighs survival.

 

Panther

The Germans and Japanese had the fanatics. They lost. The CANADIANS (that ought to please the canadians on this site), british and americans did their jobs and won. The USSR had a mixture of both. I have yet to meet a russian who isn't a patriot, but on the other hand the political side of the USSR had little regard for life.

As for the Normandy campaign. I see it as a whole. I cannot make a distinction between the nationalities and beaches. Montys plan was straightforward and simple. Pinning the germans on one front, and drawing their reserves there. And punch through on the other side of the front. This time around Monty had a proper armd commander for his breakout (Patton instead of Lumsden)

The rivalry and muddy aftermath of the Normandy campaign is much a result of the mixed signals in the media vs what was really going on. Read 'grin and bear it'.

As a soldier I have nothing but respect for those men fighting to liberate europe.

 

I recently watched a show about the "Oka" and its pilots.
Their first mass attack against the Americans was done undeneath Betty bombers. Unfortunately with the Okas attached they were slow and clumsy, and the Betty burned easily any way.
American radar picked them up long before they were in their range.
Hellcats flying "cap" slaughtered the Bettys to a plane.
Pilots of the Hellcats (during de-briefing) said the bettys were (appeared to be) carring something underneath them.
This forced the Japanese to try to re-work the Okas to either lighten the warhead or increase the range so that fighter "caps" would be taken out of the picture. Making use of their speed (without the Bettys, I presume).
This took time, and the pilots had time to think about home & family & life in general.
They thought too long about the (cough-cough) "glory" of suicide and did not want to fly...one way (as most of their brothers did), and as that turned out, it was (into the ocean in flames) for nothing.
To have suicide units, I believe you need to find them "young", and give them "no time to think".
Only the "Naive" will believe the "hype", and not for long.

 

In addition;
There are three things that are very important to a Japanese, (according to an interview I watched with a surviving "kamikaze" pilot).

1 Their Heritage
2 Their education
3 A "Proud/honorable" death

There is a Japanese word which I don't know how to spell, but is pronounced...Ah-New-Gen-Nee.
It means to "die like a dog". To die uselessly.
This was his greatest fear, not to die, but to die for nothing!

Only 1 in 10 (if even) kamikaze pilots made it through. Towards the end with airfields under attack, shortage of parts & fuel, more numerous Allied planes with better equipment and better trained pilots... the number shrunk ever lower.

That means (at least) 9 of 10 died foolishly! This weighed heavily on his mind, and as all gossip, spread quickly amoung others.

So after their Saka drinking, fingernail clippings in a box (to bury), their 1,000 stitches, and any and all other rituals performed, there soon wasn't enough ceremony, to persuade more volunteers to smash their heads into the "Brick Wall" of Allied power.

Suicide is (for the suicider) a "Last" resort, and it takes a weak, gulible, fool to do it for little or no reason but Martyrdom.

 

Why not compare the fprces that opposed the two armies to see which had the toughest opposition...

Or look at the US Army's own rather damning conclusions on its performance in the ETO.

Or the British reputation in certain units for 'stickiness'.

At the end of the day, can you really have a 'best'? Sounds more like a discussion of cars than warfare.

Perhaps it may better termed 'which army possessed the greater combat efficiency?'

Which has to be the British Army...

 

Canada!

 

Baron, do you not think (as I suspect you do), that this question from a stranger here is just a-another flamer, possibly done for a bet, to see yet again ( ) how much aggro can be stirred up by the tired old chestnut of Monty v Patton? Everybody’s seen it, done it, and has the T-shirt.

I think great credit to the maturity of the members on this site that enough is known about real events to see good and not so good all round. In Normandy, no one stripped off to their blue longjohns and red underpants, no one wanted to be killed, and better everyone should have been home moaning about their job and how their team was going to do next weekend.

No.9

 

No 9,

With you 100% mate.

I guess Im just sick of 'whose the best' pointless topics in general... They always lead to, 'we were best cos of this' kind of arguements and are rather pointless adventures in terms of discussion. Its too vague a concept to quantify and rather belittles those who fought and those who want some form of serious historical study.

Just my £1 worth.

 

Well,

at least we know the Germans are not in the Top Two...