anthony beevor claims that the losses at normandy were worse per division than they would have been in the same amount of time on the eastern front. terrible as im sure the normandy campaign was, given the scale of the slaughter on the eastern front compared to the west, i find this quite hard to believe. any thoughts?
Check, among others, page 92 here: HyperWar: Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle Deaths in WW II [Battle Casualties]
It was a big nasty & violent battle. It was fought mostly with assualts supported by massed artillery, lots of air strikes (on the Allied side), mostly in terrain that did not accomadate sweeping manuvers. How many infantry, artillery, pioneer, antitank, antiaircraft, and tank battalions were crammed into the battle at its height in July? I dont know about the British, but the US Army was shooting out a average of 3,000 tons of artillery ammunition per day in early July. It may have ben three times that in the last week. Depending on which book I pull off my shelf the German losses in the Normandy battle, from 6th June to late August was well over 425,000. The combined US British armies lost between 325,000 & 350,00 KiA, WIA, MIA. That includes naval personnel lost in the intial beach assualts & in harbor operations ashore, and air crew lost in missions directly supporting the battle. Nearly 800,000 lost by both sides in less than ten weeks. Not quite Verdun but a contender.
I haven't done the math, but you can check this site for comparative numbers for the German military losses. 1944