British 50th (Northumbrian) Division in Normandy

Discussion in 'Higher Formations' started by MLW, Aug 27, 2008.

  1. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Combover -
    what exactly is it you don't get in your posting #38 ?
    Can I help ?
    Cheers
     
  2. idler

    idler GeneralList

    The original source is the Defence Technical Information Centre. This link off this page should work. 'Right click - save as' doesn't work, let it open in the browser then save it.
     
  3. Combover

    Combover Guest

    Sorry, should have specified, it was the thesis that I couldn't download but have it now. Thanks.
     
  4. Steve Mac

    Steve Mac Very Senior Member

    Hello Tom,

    Message #40. Many thanks for the recommendation; its always good to have a starting place!

    Kind regards,

    Steve.
     
  5. idler

    idler GeneralList

    On the same theme, I have for some time tried to find written material covering the 9th US Army fighting under 'Monty' in 21st Army Group and how they found the experience; and not just the Generals, who may have had an axe to grind. I started looking for material from General Simpson (US), but got nowhere. Anyone out there able to to point me in the right direction? MLW, Slipdigit - anything States Side? I'd be much obliged!

    This question might be worthy of its own thread.

    Conquer: The Story of the Ninth Army certainly mentions the Anglo-American cooperation in a positive light, but there's nothing 'personal' in there. Hamilton's Monty: The Field Marshal 1944-1976 hasn't come up with anything particularly juicy so far.

    Monty had negatively reported 9 US Army's messy November offensive back up the British chain of command. When the Bulge started, everyone at the Army level and below seems to have got on with it without much of a problem. It's interesting to note that Hamilton mentions RAF tactical support - arranged by Monty - was hushed up by SHAEF, yet Conquer has the decency to mention it. It all sounds plausibly positive.

    I take it that there's no biography of Simpson? 'Lightning Joe' Collins was pulled in by Monty to form a corps from some of 9 US Army's troops. His biography, if there is one, might be worth a look?

    Somebody recommended a corps-level Bulge book the other day, will try to find the link. Couldn't find the post but tracked down the book: Corps Commanders of the Bulge. I need some sleep to work out who might have been under Monty.

    What the blokes on the ground thought about it depends a lot on what they knew about it. Word must have got round, though. Perhaps look for veteran associations of 9 US Army's formations and units? 29 US Div, as an example to hand, don't mention being under 'British' command during the Bulge period (not that they were directly involved) in their informal history 29 Let's Go!
     
  6. Dad doesn't have a computer so we have a rather long winded way of reading threads involving cut paste and print of stuff he may find of interest or have input on. Until he receives his service records and I copy the Signals War diary at Kew everything is from us chatting and taking down his thoughts.

    "I was just a driver so I dont know much - we never got told much anyhow - but I was with 50 Div from the begining to the end. So here's my two-penn'eth.
    Like the other veterans say- you had to be there- all these blokes who want to know what it was about should ask the dead lads we left.
    There was always a pride in being part of 50Div. We had a gentle banter with 51 Highland Div all through the War. They were the Highway Decorators, and refered to us as the Town Titivators. Individual units also had great pride in who they were. But the 50 Div that fought in France 1n 1940, in the Middle East in 41/42 Sicily in 43 and finally in Normandy up into Holland in 44 was changing all the time with replacements and a gradual wearing down of the old lot.
    Bear in mind we were not infantry- of the three Signals companies that left Darlington Drill hall in 1939, we were told after the War, 111 were either casualties of some sort or transfered. This may have been the same across the whole Div.. I dont know.
    With CRA Section on the Island in September 44 only three of us out of twelve or some odd men were original 50 Div.
    So in Normandy we were 50 Div by reputation? One Hampshire Lt I took down to the beach on D-Day morning with shell-shock was only a young lad on his first action.

    There was some grumbling when it was heard we were to be used as an assult division again. There were AWOL's prior to the invasion but more than this there was lots of sick calls, for anything,I recall!
    We heard said that the Div was cautious or hesitant after the landings. Well maybe the old hands knew what to expect by now. Look what happened with untried troops on Omaha.
    You have a different outlook on life at 24 than at 19.
    That Bocage was a real B... There were pockets of Germans everywhere - wore the men down. I never saw anyone give less than they could though.
    Monty told us get me a foothold and then your finished- right on both counts.

    Personally I had become resigned to what will be will be- It seemed like all I had ever known was this life. I had three home leaves during my enlistment (two 7day one 10 day) plus 48hrs after Dunkirk. That included my only Christmas (39/40) in seven years. We never saw a barracks, commandeered billets, were under canvas or under a wagon. We were straffed, shelled, mortored, sniped - and I was only a driver.
    It must have been the same for the rest of the old lot.
    When I get this thesis I will have a good read"
     
    Drew5233 likes this.
  7. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Steve Mac- CORRECTION

    I am guilty of revising the revisionists - the US 9th mentioned as assisting the 78th Division at Randozza in Sicily is in fact the US 9th DIVISION - Commanded by Maj.Gen Manton Eddy - whereas the US 9th ARMY commanded by Lt. Gen. Simpson was never in Sicily and only in Bradley's group of Armies which was split at the Bulge and was left on the North side and thus came under Monty's 21st Army group.
    So many apologies for mis-leading you on that...
    Cheers
     
  8. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Mel -
    your father has it about right as did Monty when he said that he was breaking up the 50th Div " as they have suffered enough " - they were not the same as they were in France - nor Gazala -Alum Halfa - El Alamein - Mareth - Primasole - Catania.....
    D Day's 50th Town Titivators Division had very few of the originals.....but they still did very well and well led !
    Cheers - best regards to your Dad
     
  9. Steve Mac

    Steve Mac Very Senior Member

    Tom, Message #47: An easy mistake to make; I hadn't noticed the switch to 'Division' in your note and meekly followed it... Subsequently got a good reference to information on the US 9th ARMY from Idler. Cheers, Steve.

    Idler, Message #45: Many thanks for the reference on the US 9th ARMY. Much appreciated. I think it would be a good idea to have a separate thread on this as it would get our US cousins involved and they will ceratinly be needed to unlock information on this subject. I haven't set up a thread to date, but will give it a go. Any advice on how to do this i.e. top tips, gratefully received. Many thanks, Steve.
     
  10. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    What I would like to know is this...Why is it that we have these postings running our men down? Why does Monty come under such criticism? Just remember this. During the latter battles in Normandy there were seven and a half Panzer's divs up against the British and a mere half a Panzer div to take on the whole US army..That lads is the truth.., That in itself speaks volumes.

    Then we come to the tactics.. I constantly hear so much heavy criticism of the British for slow progress while we took on the Panzer's to help the Americans out.

    NEVER EVER criticize what is happening until you see the complete picture. Then say what you like. The battle of Normandy with Monty's tactics culminated in the complete victory in Normandy when he encircled the German armies inside the hot pocket of Falaise...Where he then proceeded to slaughter them by open sights arty by infantry and from the air where they were sitting ducks..

    So in the end Everything that Monty planned came to complete fruition. Whole armies were trapped in the pocket. For the doubters the battle of Normandy was over ten days to a fortnight earlier than planned.

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating Is it not?
    I witnessed this slaughter at first hand The sights inside that cauldron? Horrific Total destruction of men and materials mile afetr mile of utter and complete destruction the stench of death was overpowering. Pilots complained about having to overfly the area. Mile after miles of dead Enemy, in places piles, where they had been caught trying to cross over the bodies of their mates...

    So what about the criticism of the units now. WHO WAS RIGHT Monty or the Whitehall armchair Generals?
    Normandy taken ten days to a Fortnight ahead of schedule.That prompts the question, what more do you want?
     
  11. Steve Mac

    Steve Mac Very Senior Member

    a well camel, Message #46:

    Many thanks to you and your Dad for his contribution. Very vivid.

    Your dad says "all these blokes who want to know what it was about should ask the dead lads we left."

    I would like to be able to do comply with your dad's statement as it would mean they were still alive. Unfortunately, one of my great granddad's who was in 50 Div was killed at the Battle of the Lys on 12 April 1918 (WWI) and my Dad's oldest brother, who I am named after (in part), who was in 50 Div was killed near Bulscamp on 31 May 1940.

    One of my uncles who fought in NW Europe was shot in the head - a serious wound, lived and eventually became a school Head Master, but didn't talk about his experiences. Another uncle was a Sergeant Major in the Para's and was dropped into Egypt during the Suez Crisis and he wouldn't talk about his experiences, except I know some of what happened preyed heavily on his mind in his later years. My youngest brother did two of the first three 6 month tours in the Bosnian War, where his best mate died, he doesn't talk about it; apart from to say it was very grim. I have a cousin who is a Lt Colonel in the Royal Marines and he doesn't talk about it...

    Seems to be a theme; those that can't talk and those that won't talk... and it is understandable in both cases.

    Your dad and all of those that fought in WWII, regardless of whether they volunteered or were conscripted, were a great generation and most people that visit these pages I would guess are merely trying to find out something about a relative KIA, understand more about what their relative did during the war and pay homage to those that fought i.e. keeping their memory alive. Because I am named after my deceased uncle I have always felt a responsibility to try and understand his (and all of our servicemen's (and women's) sacrifices.

    Many thanks again to your Dad. Could you please ask him if he worked with the 72nd Field Regiment, RA, 50 Div, in France and Belgium in 1940 and what he remembers; if that is not too distressing for him?

    Kind regards,

    Steve.
     
  12. jainso31

    jainso31 jainso31

    Since D Day 50th Div.suffered total casualties of 488 officers and 6932 Ors.when in Nov.44 Montgomery announced it was to be taken out of battle and sent back to the UK as a Training Div.all except 9/DLI.
    Montgomery said "One somehow never imagines that 50th Division can do otherwise than well and in this short campaignit has lived uo to it's best traditions"
    In the corridors of power Churchill fought to save 50th Division-but the truth was, it
    WAS FOUGHT OUT.

    jainso31
     
  13. Steve Mac
    Many thanks.

    Dad doesn't look or act his age. He has a positive outlook on life - always has.
    So as a youngster it was always distressing when I saw him cry. He only did it once a year, watching the T V on a Sunday in November. Not for long, but long enough for me to ask why. He would just fob me off, and that would be that until next year.

    When I started to learn about the War I asked all the wrong questions. (I,m from the era of "Japs and Commandos" in the playground.

    He was always patient about all my gung-ho questions saying it wasn't quite like that. He had lots of stories about the other side of the war, the silly things they got up to. They were really just the same as the kids of today. At eighteen I thought I would live forever!

    I think he forgot most of the bad stuff on purpose to protect himself.It is only recently when we are talking that it is coming back. He travelled through Falaise also. The run back to Dunkirk changed his outlook he said. He said the first dead man you see you stop and stare, pretty soon you become immune to it. That may sound callous but I would think it would drive you mad if you didn't.

    He still has a large gap when he cannot remember anything after going into Bayeux on D+1. Hopefully the Signals diary may help.

    Joining the site was prompted by a trip back to Normandy for his 90th birthday this year and a Dutch couple with two small children.
    He was wearing his beret and they asked if he had fought. They then shook his hand and said "Thank-you for our freedom, thankyou for our children's freedom"

    The rest of our party, including my son and myself were in tears then.
    It was then that he started to open up more.
    He had always dismissed it all as nothing special - just something he got on with.
    The Americans in our party said he should write it all down because it is prescious and should be told to others.
    I will pass on the question about 72nd.

    Thanks again for the post. We should be proud of all these guys.
     
  14. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot 1940 Obsessive

    Thanks - Your father sounds a rather unassuming and quite humble - a remarkable man. I can relate in a small way to a lot of what he says from my own experiences.

    Get those diaries post Dunkirk ASAP ;)

    I have 50 Div Signals diary for 1940 France. I know you've seen some of it but if you want a copy of the original let me know.

    50th Division Signals

    Regards
    Andy
     
  15. Steve Mac

    Steve Mac Very Senior Member

    Sapper, Message #50:

    The main reason the US 1st Army (Bradley) were able to breakout in Normandy was because Monty had drawn in, fixed and destroyed the vast majority of the German Armour at and around Caen, leaving Bradley a clearer path than would otherwise have been the case. US 3rd Army (Patton) was then brought into play and pivoted around the west of US 1st Army (Hodges) - (Bradley was now in charge of the US 12th Army Group). Patton charged through Brittany and being the audacious charachter he was, rolled up lots of French acreage.

    The Germans counter-attacked on Hitlers orders, heading for the Brittany coast at Brest and tried to cut Patton's 3rd Army off from the rest of the allied ground forces. Patton, with RAF and USAAF assistance stopped the Germans at Mortain.

    However, it is my understanding that it was Bradley that realised that the Germans had now stuck their necks out too far and a plan was hatched to trap them between Patton's XV Corps at Argentan and the British/Canadians at Falaise; in what became known as the Falaise Pocket. I have no doubt that Monty would have been heavily involved in putting the plan together and it may have been predominanly 'his' plan, but I don't believe it was his idea.

    The almost complete destruction of a German Army you described then took place.

    Monty does get heavily criticised on the other side of the pond for not having taken Caen when he had planned, but a battle/war rarely goes to plan after the first bullet is fired. The destruction of the German Armour at Caen was one of the significant events leading to the rapid advance of the allies through France and Belgium that followed. I'm with you on this; Monty deserves great credit for that.

    Monty was a fantastic general and his achievements should be acclaimed, rather than his personality and the very few strategy failures be used to run down his achievements.

    Monthy himself respected Bradley a great deal, but I have not read much about his thoughts on Patton. Apart from in Sicily, I don't think their wars overlapped that much.

    Eisenhower's great gift was keeping the allies on theme. I recall a story I read (but not where), which although not verbatim went something like this. On the theme of cooperating with the British, one senior US soldier asked Ike what he should say to a Brit if he didn't agree with him/didn't like him. Ike responded that he could call him a Son Of a Bitch, but not a Limey Son Of a Bitch. Anyone who did the latter would be on the first boat home. Quality!

    Herein lies my conclusion, we were allies who worked together towards the defeat of common enemy. Difficulties aside, I think we did a damned good job together. I do not believe it is right for people, most revisionists, of either the US or the UK to run down each others nation's or general's achievements.

    Cheers,

    Steve.
     
  16. Steve Mac

    Steve Mac Very Senior Member

    a well camel, Message 53:

    Great story and there are lots of us out here that are very proud of your dad and all like him!

    I look forward to that post on the 72nd Field Artillery, RA.

    Many thanks,

    Steve.
     
  17. kiwigeordie

    kiwigeordie Senior Member

    What a very absorbing thread!
    My belief for what it's worth is, that it is a futile exercise to make comparisons between the fighting capabilities of the Allied nations or their leaders.

    Most high ranking field officers such as Monty or Patton had big egos and would not have reached their ranks without them. Professional soldiers of their rank probably get one opportunity in their careers to 'prove' their worth and this can result in the kind of self-promotion of which I feel both Monty and Patton (for example, you can toss in MacArthur as well) were equally guilty. This in turn can result in attempts to score points of each other and/or deflect blame for failed efforts. It also leaves too many hostages to fortune if things do not go to plan as they so often do in war.
    As the old saying goes, "If you want to give God a laugh, tell Him your plans."

    Much of the criticism of Monty in the Normandy Campaign was over his 'failure' to achieve the Phase Line positions which had been projected before the actual invasion. These Phase Lines were, as I understand them, simply projections to assist the supply planners to have the right gear in the right place at the right time. They were not intended to be taken as real-estate targets set in concrete.
    Another criticism was his 'failure' to achieve the 'long envelopment' at Falaise (instead going for the 'short envelopment') which his critics said allowed a large number of German troops to escape east.

    Having said that, there is much to praise about his actions, particularly his well documented instructions to his own Generals to continue to engage the German armour around Caen to take the pressure off Bradley and facilitate the breakout into the Cotentin peninsular.

    Sitting here now, blessed with 20/20 hindsight, it is easy to pick holes in the actions of the Allied leaders (both British & US). The fact is, the Allied union worked and we are writing on this forum in English and not German (or, more probably given my location, Japanese).
    Pete
     
  18. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    This is an old thread, but as I wrote about 50th Division during the Normandy campaign I thought I would make some comments. I will make more than one post.

    I know that some veterans here are sensitive to slagging, so I should say at the top that the following is based not only on secondary works, war diaries, and official histories, but also on the testimony of other veterans.

    Firstly, I don't think the thesis is bad at all. Williams misses some things, yes--all authors do, including me--but he comes to more or less the same conclusions that I did. The 50th had some serious problems but it coped with them successfully, adapted quickly to the tactical situation in Normandy, and did better there than the other veteran 8th Army divisions.

    Williams says a good deal about the 50th's pre-Normandy history, and that is quite right. No two divisions are exactly the same, and the 50th had a very peculiar history. It had seen more action and suffered more casualties than any other infantry division in the British army, before it even landed in Normandy. Some people here have wondered what the proportion of original 50th Div men was by 1943-44. It was not high. One bn alone (5th East Yorks) came back to Britain with (I think) less than 100 of the men who had left for the Med in 1941. Even the 231st Bde, which had only joined in Sicily from the Malta garrison, had experienced a tremendous amount of turnover. The 50th lost about 10000 men in the summer of 1942 (Gazala--Matruh--Ruin Ridge), and it had to be thoroughly and hastily rebuilt in order to play a part at Second Alamein. As a result of all this, much of the 50th's original Northumbrian feeling was lost.

    The 151st Bde played a big and succesful part in SUPERCHARGE, but Second Alamein showed that the new/old divisional structure needed work. The flaws in the rebuilt division's staff and command were evident at Mareth. The main fault there lay with Monty and Leese, who stuck the 50th with an impossible mission and a bad plan, but Nichols (GOC) made some errors too. He and Beak (151st Bde) were made the scapegoats, but Mareth virtually ruined Montgomery's reputation with the 50th's O.R.'s, especially in the DLI battalions.

    Sicily was a tough campaign for the 50th. Training beforehand was flawed (not enough mountain warfare work), and the attached 4th Armd Bde had little experience working with infantry. The 50th took Primosole Bridge after a determined but costly fight. The follow-up attack on Catania Airfield by 69th and 168th Bdes was a complete failure. After a static period, the 50th had a rough time in the pursuit to Taormina, often being held up by German rearguards. Kirkman, the GOC, had never led a large body of infantry before, but he was an intelligent man and he was not satisfied with the performance of his battalions, or his brigadiers either. Many of the tactical problems that appeared later in Normandy were already evident in Sicily, and Sicily saw the emergence of the first serious morale and discipline problems in the 50th.

    That was to be expected. By late '43, the 50th had lost nearly 19,000 men, the great majority in the infantry battalions. Bear in mind that the strength of the divisional infantry was about 8000 or so, and you get some idea of the extent of attrition the division had suffered since 1940. From the summer of 1942 on, the 50th also experienced rapid and frequent changes of command and organisation. Some of these changes were inevitable, but cumulatively they weakened the 50th's cohesion and efficiency.

    That was the 50th Division's background when it came back to Britain at the turn of '43-44, and it explains much of the 50th's story in Normandy. The next post will cover training for D-Day and (I hope) the experience of battle on the day and in the Bocage after.
     
  19. US-987th

    US-987th Junior Member

    So does any one here have some information on the US 987th B-BTRY FAB supporting the 50th Division on July 6th 1944?
     
  20. Wills

    Wills Very Senior Member

Share This Page