"Historian Anthony Beevor on the successes and...." Topic

… failures of D-Day (Interview).

"Q: In your book you explain that the Allied casualties on D-Day itself were significantly lower than anticipated. Why do you think this was?

A: It was partly because they took the Germans by surprise and also because the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine were less effective than they had thought. The RAF and the USAF did an extraordinary job in keeping the Luftwaffe on the ground, with deep patrols right into France.

As for Kriegsmarine, it only managed a few attacks by E-boats [torpedo boats]. The Allies had been expecting massive losses of minesweepers because if they had been ambushed by German destroyers they would have been intensely vulnerable. Yet not a single minesweeper was sunk.

The casualties for drowning were not in fact that high and most of the casualties on landing came from landing craft which were turned over or tanks being swamped by the waves. Even on Omaha beach, despite the great American myth, casualties were lower than expected and on the Gold, Juno and Sword beaches the Allies got away very lightly…"
Full interview here
link

Amicalement
Armand

"Even on Omaha beach, despite the great American myth, casualties were lower than expected"

Myth? I know the fighting was d** tough, but I know of no myth that assumes casualties on Omaha were higher than expected.

Methinks Mr. Beevor is harpooning myths that don't exist.

No, he's right.

Sadly if something does not live up to the Saving Private Ryan mythology of D-day a lot of people will just not believe it.

I do not agree with Anthony's assessment. 3,000 dead and wounded out of 43,000 soldiers on Omaha Beach are a very large number of soldiers. The first waves of troops took huge loses. The American forces were pinned down on the beach without an exit off of the beach in the early battle. Many thought that Omaha was a lost cause, and the invasion would fail there. It was a small miracle that the US troops opened an exit off the beach, and that the Omaha landing was a qualified success.

Casualties were expected to be about 100,000 – so 20,000 per beach

100,000 seems very high, I thought only 156,000 troops were landed on D-day, what time period does this estimate relate to, I have heard estimates were in the 10,000 region. Anyone got any evidence on expected losses.

Mind you losses were much lighter than expected, naval attacks were expected to a greater extent and the battleships used were to be treated as expendable in order to make sure the landings were successful.

Anyway my admiration goes out to everyone involved in the operation.

peterx…..

I don't believe that Anthony Beevor is saying that 3000 casualties is a small number. He is saying that it was a smaller than expected number when D-Day was being planned.

If there is some form of historical record of what level of casualties the planners were forecasting, it will presumably confirm his statement. He is the guy who has done the research……

In any case, I'm sure we all agree that the landings were clearly an amazing success!

I've found a few references to the Allies expecting to take casualties of 10,000 dead and 30,000 wounded (e.g. here: link ) but I can't find the original source for it.

Agree with our friend Cerdic.

Amicalement
Armand