I'm new to the site. I have just starting looking into the topic of which national army was the most effective in the Battle of Normandy 1944 for my dissertation. I am struggling to work out how best to compare the different national armies against each other. I have found a number of books already. I would really appreciate it if anybody could point me in the direction of how best to compare them and sources such as primary sources, photographs, maps etc. Thanks
Interesting topic but... 1. What level of study is it for? 2. Are you studying War Studies at Wolverhampton (a hunch!) 3. Word limit/deadline 4. What is your access to locations like Regimental Museums/National Archives 5. What is the uni library's collection of WW2 related books like? Four of those have a heavy bearing on my advice...
Normandy for the Allies was a real combined ops battle - needing Naval supremacy to keep the armies supplied and air supremacy demoralized and in some places shattered the Germans as you say a difficult thing to measure given the naval and air dimensions. Also the delays caused to German reinforcement by resistance and SF activity also influenced the outcomes.
You would have to bring back Monty and Bradley to find the answer. I concur with Jedburgh 22...too many other factors such as naval and air support.
Interesting topic but... 1. What level of study is it for? 2. Are you studying War Studies at Wolverhampton (a hunch!) 3. Word limit/deadline 4. What is your access to locations like Regimental Museums/National Archives 5. What is the uni library's collection of WW2 related books like? Four of those have a heavy bearing on my advice... 1. Undergraduate Degree (Level 6) 2. I am studying History at Wolverhampton 3. 12000 words/End of April 4. I am not sure, I haven't looked into them yet 5. I currently have 12 books out of the library which have been recommended to me by my tutor. The likes of Fields of Fire, Steel Inferno and Clash of Arms are good. I also have general Normandy books which also give me some help. There are more books on Normandy which I have yet to look at but all of the ones specific to the subject of combat effectiveness in there I have. Thanks
1. Undergraduate Degree (Level 6) 2. I am studying History at Wolverhampton 3. 12000 words/End of April 4. I am not sure, I haven't looked into them yet 5. I currently have 12 books out of the library which have been recommended to me by my tutor. The likes of Fields of Fire, Steel Inferno and Clash of Arms are good. I also have general Normandy books which also give me some help. There are more books on Normandy which I have yet to look at but all of the ones specific to the subject of combat effectiveness in there I have. Thanks I would recommend the chapters on Normandy in 'Crusade in Europe'. Eisenhower was a great writer and was involved in (and commanded ) all phases of planning and execution. One thing you won't find in there is anything comparing the effectiveness of any of the allied armies to one another though. Dave
1. Undergraduate Degree (Level 6) 2. I am studying History at Wolverhampton 3. 12000 words/End of April 4. I am not sure, I haven't looked into them yet 5. I currently have 12 books out of the library which have been recommended to me by my tutor. The likes of Fields of Fire, Steel Inferno and Clash of Arms are good. I also have general Normandy books which also give me some help. There are more books on Normandy which I have yet to look at but all of the ones specific to the subject of combat effectiveness in there I have. Ok basically here is my advice: 1. Your word limit, I wanted to do mine on a Divisional analysis from 44-45. 10-12k is nothing. Its nothing at all. You'd be assessing each Army: British/Canadian, American, German, with really 3,000 words each - after considering your introduction and your conclusion. Simply put, thats nothing. You need to tie it down, British vs US, or US vs Germans. A study covering all forces will be at best muddled, and at worst poorly researched and contradictory. Its to do with the volume of research needed to cover the subject matter comprehensively. 2. Wolves - you'll struggle to get decent War Diary sources etc. Simple as, too broad a topic will compound problems. Terry Copp (who wrote Fields of Fire) tends to be very good, but his source checking below Divisional level can be very iffy - which leads to flawed conclusions. Thats a nitty-gritty criticism as well. Be very, very wary of any book by Michael Reynolds (ala Steel Inferno), he massively massages casualty figures, war crimes et al... to the degree where his omissions are more interesting than what he includes. I recommend you get stuck in with some of the following: Popular Revisionist Texts Decision in Normandy, Carlo d'Este Overlord, Max Hastings D-Day, Antony Beevor Give the above substantial amounts of salt, look at their effect upon popular conceptions of the campaign and really really consider them with a Collingwood-esque thought process (they should have covered Collingwood or Foucault's Archaeology of Knowledge writings). One of those times where historical/political theory becomes very useful. Swipey's Recommended Happy Texts Any of my online ramblings or lectures... Normandy 1944, Robin Neuillands - read this after reading the above, its an excellent 'fight back' to the revisionist narrative. Taming the Panzers - Kevin Baverstock - really intimate account of infantry combat during Operation Epsom, excellent maps, just excellent throughout. Equipment of the WWII Tommy + Weapons of the WWII Tommy, Gordon - new books covering British equipment. Great resource, well illustrated and nigh on exhaustive, easily accessible information. Ian Daglish's 'Over the Battlefield' series Death by Design, Peter Beale - covering British Tank development, simply damning. Military Training in the British Army, Timothy Harrison-Place - great study of training Colossal Cracks, Stephen Hart - must read for studying the British Army to understand theory and practice. Raising Churchill's Army, French - to be read in conjunction with the last three. *** So now you may catch your breath... Tie it down to a far smaller area. Possibly engage with above wall of reading. Think. Muse. Enjoy. If in doubt, ask for help.
I'm new to the site. I have just starting looking into the topic of which national army was the most effective in the Battle of Normandy 1944 for my dissertation. I am struggling to work out how best to compare the different national armies against each other. I have found a number of books already. I would really appreciate it if anybody could point me in the direction of how best to compare them and sources such as primary sources, photographs, maps etc. Thanks I tend to agree with Swiper. Tackling the length and breadth of that subject in 12,000 words is a tall order. The result could be a mile wide and an inch deep. Establishing the parameters for the term 'most effective', I would also agree, is a critical first step.
alwolvo you might get way with the shortest dissertation in history just by stating ' who Won ?' save reams of paper cheers
Surely, there were only two sides to the battle, the Allies and the German armies. Can't compare the Allies as different armies as they were all under one command.
Look at Max Hastings' 'Overlord', and 'Decision in Normandy' by Carlo D' Este, that'll get you off to a great start.
One of the best acounts of the Battle of Normandy is contained in Chester Wilmot's "The Struggle for Europe" Another reference I would use is "Victory in Normandy" by David Belchem who as a Major General was Monty's head of Operations and Planning Staff during the campaign.More than 40 maps and diagrams together with photographs from British,US,French and German sources record the history of the triumph of forward planning which saw the Allies over the Seine by D day +75 exactly according to Montgomery's plan. Then there is an excellent "handout" by Philippe Jutras (one time Conservateur-Curator of the Airbourne Museum,Sainte Mere Eglise, entitled "Operation Overlord" (in english).Only 15 pages of A4 but this document gives a excellent insight to the happenings on the five beaches,Pegasus Bridge,Merville Battery and the Point du Hoc.
Some further titles worth consideration: 'Six Armies in Normandy' by John Keegan 'D-Day: Piercing the Atlantic Wall' by Robert Kershaw who I think is a very underated Historian. 'The Germans in Normandy' by Ian Hargreaves. I didn't agree with all his conclusions but stll an interesting read all the same. Good luck with your research and paper. JB
Whatever you decide to set as perameters and in-line with Mr Canning's observation, remember Copp's assessment when asked the question of the 'ineffectiveness' of the 21st AG in Normandy. They smashed 2 German Armies in 76 days.
The Allied armies in Normandy accounted for 43 Divisions,3500 pieces of artillery and 1500 tanks...not to the same magnitude as the Red Army mincemeat machine but hauling 2 million men,450000 vehicles of all types and 2 million tons of stores over a huge tank ditch was a formidable task in itself.
Thanks a lot thats a massive help. I'll definitely look into those texts. Not sure whether to define effective as casualties inflicted or ground gained or a mix of both. I was thinking of doing most casualties inflicted in ratio to the size of the army. Would you advise me to focus on comparing just two armies rather than all of them, and if so which two?
I'd suggest the British and Germans. But that is also because I've got a lecture on it coming up fairly shortly! You really need to read up on each Army's command style and doctrine... as you'll notice that Monty didn't give a stiffy about holding land. All about force cohesion old chap. And killing those unpleasant German fellows.