Norman Hedgerows

In Normandy the Hedgerows, in Italy the Mountains, in the Desert the open ranges. All terrain had a drastic impact on the fighting. The bocage is good infantry terrain offering plenty of concealment, but like tracer ammo; it works both ways.

The Bocage was difficult to orientate because you can only see a few hundred yards. The allied war machine was immence, but it lost a few advantages in the close combat situation in Normandy. The use of Artillery was difficult, especially for the Americans who fought in a denser area than the Canadians and British.

The Germans had the advantage of having preplanned points of artillery strikes. In other words the weapon was aimed and cocked before the battle was joined.

The disadvantages for the Germans was that their heavy AT guns and Panzers lost a lot of their superiority given the short ranges. The Spandau had a much smaller field of fire. The Germans deployed in small groups that could jump the Allies and stall them a good part of the day.

The Strategic picture of Normandy was clear from January '44. Monty decided that the critical area around Caen should be a 'magnet' to german armour allowing the Western Army (americans) to break out and encircle the Germans. The Brittany peninnsula and the area to the east was ideal for 'swanning' around the germans.

So on a Strategic level terrain was evaluated.

In my opinion the Bocage terrain has often become 'the dog ate my homework', for unsuccessful operations. There are plenty of examples of allied units performing very well in Normandy.

The campaign on the whole was an outstanding success. At D+90 the Allies were on the Seine and the Germans were crippled. The breakout from Normandy proved to be faster than many other operations during the war.

I find it rather irritating when revisionist call the battle a failure and point to the Artillery and Airforce as the real factor to victory. Maschinslacht is the phrase by bitter German veterans. In my view it was good tactics employed by the Allies. Asymetrical fighting at it's finest. Whenever tankfighing is discussed, Wittman and some stupid ratios like 6:1 Shermans to knock out a Tiger are mentioned. This has no roots in reality. The Allied tankers biggest foe was AT guns. Whenever an AT gun or a tank was spotted, the allied tank would find a hull-down position fire yellow smoke on target and shout 'Limejuice' on the radio. The cabrank system would send Jabos and that would be it.

 

The Bocage was deadly....

The casualty figures are appalling. The Battle of Normandy was fought between forces of substantially equal strength. It lasted 75 days. Allied casualties were more than 200,000. Of the 40,000 who died, two-thirds were American .


The Germans suffered twice as many casualties and nearly six times as many deaths. In the fall, 90 days of fighting brought 24,000 Allied losses. To cross the Moselle and take Metz, the Third Army took nearly 50,000 battle casualties.

http://www.post-gazette.com/books/reviews/19971207review5.asp

 

It is difficult to say but we can assume that the terrain was taken into consideration but they did not get a 100% accurate picture since the soldiers had to come up with ways to cut through the bocage. Perhaps they were looking at the bigger picture in assuring a successful landing. Normandy versus the pas de calais. How successful would the landing have been if it took place at the pas de calais? I would say they chose the lesser of the two evils.

 

Monty was "warned" of not losing more men and I suppose that is why he sent the tanks "almost alone" like in "Goodwood". Less men die but tank losses might get rather huge.

 

I am sure they had some decent intelligence before the invasion, but knowing the terrane and being able to evaluate it from a military perspective are two different things. And some things would have changed. From air surveys, a lot of the problems would have been hidden from view. Even with the most sophisticated infrared technolgy in use today, objects can still hide from the cameras.

 

Kai

Bocage beeing deadly. Sceptic. To explain the losses, look at the number of men pressed into such a cramped area. As for the high proportion of American casualties look at the tactics that were employed. The british have always been blamed for cautious tactics. This has been debated before.

Bimbo created the Goodwood plans with the fact that he had 300 Shermans on the Shores ready to replace write-offs.

 

Anyway, Jaeger

I do believe as well the tactics explain alot. As the US troops cut through the bocage the Germans naturally directed all their weapons at the "doorway" that opened and everything that came through it. Just one question: Who wants to go first? ( Then again was there an alternative?)

 

Many tactics were developed. Infiltrating with FOO's or just bombing a lane were both options. Getting enough rifles to bear on small german groups were usually a problem.

The allies did a lot of battle patrols with groups eqipped for the task. Extra MG's and SMG's. This did improve the advance. One could compare the single hedgerow with a city block that needed to be cleared. With that in mind the casualty ratings are low compared to the east front.

The short ranges negated the full impact of heavy german armour, but also negated the effect of allied armour. The panzerfaust, panzerschrek, Bazooka, PIAT delivered from deep cover made the Armour a less important factor in Souisse Normandie than the rest. The use of artillery was difficult by many reasons. Mapreading and the close proximity of the enemy. Many were shocked at the British infantry's willingness to have stonks close to their own positions.

This type of warfare was not what the Allies had been training at. The Swanning after the battle of Normandy was won, show the Allies operating in their favourite envirorment; Mobile warfare.

For the defending germans, they enjoyed the same advantages as the Chechnians (Spelling...) enjoyed against the Russian Federation. Three man teams comprising of a sniper, machinegunner and a man on a RPG. A small unit able to deliver a lot of pain on the attacker.

Hobart's Funnies were a popular addition to the Allies. The Crockodile tank was highly efficient in such terrain. The Crockodile did splendid service throughout NW Europe and was appreciated by the Infantry.

All in all the terrain favoured the methodical fashion that the British and Canadian used. In unruly terrain it is difficult for the higher up's to keep track of units, especially regarding use of Artillery.

'If the Germans shell we run, if we shell the Germans run, if the Americans shell everybody runs.'

Many countermeasures were employed to avoid blue on blue. The use of aircraft markers, and smoke for friendly units. Sometimes it didn't work. The worst clash I know of is over Caen, when a Spitfire shot down an American bomber that was bombing the Canadians.

[ 06. January 2007, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: Jaeger ]

 

Did the Allies know about the Bocage??

Of course. AlanBrooke, CIGS, had seen this area first hand in 1940 and had an Infantry bde holding the "neck" of the Cotentin Peninsula.

Re: relative losses.

Maybe the Brits spent Tanks and the Americans spent lives.