Attack vs Defense casualty rate?

[weapon2010]

You would think the attacker would have more casualties in general ?

but not the case according to this:

 

[Halmbarte]

I suspect the major driver of the German losses on defense was that the Allies brought a seriously overwhelming amount of firepower that the Germans just had no hope of matching. 

For example the Allies used their heavy bombers tactically and had naval gunfire support near the coast. These are capabilities that didn't even exist for the Germans in Normandy. I would also expect an analysis of artillery gun fire in either number of guns or weight of shells fired would show a significant overmatch on the Allies side. 

H

[Centurian52]

Having a numerical advantage will tend to reduce your casualties. Like Halmbarte said the Allies had an overwhelming firepower advantage. That comes both from them having more artillery, but on top of that a large portion of the battle of Normady takes place within naval gun range of the coast. The Allies also have almost complete air superiority. By this point in the war Allied troops are all superbly well trained, while the quality of German units is becoming far more mixed. Basically I don't think WW2 was still really a peer vs peer war by 1944 anymore, but had shifted to a near-peer war to the advantage of the Allies.

So yes, all else being equal the attacker will take more casualties than the defender. But all else was not equal.

[Halmbarte]

I had forgot about the tactical air force fighters. Going from memory, by the time of D Day the Luftwaffe was a spent force, and fighters returning from strategic bomber support would attack targets of opportunity on their way back to England. 

H

[PEB14]

Don't forget that a VERY significant part of casualties came from prisoners, which are obviously much more numerous on the losing side (here, the defending one).

The case of the battle for Cherbourg is significant. According to the wiki page of the battle, the US forces lost 22 000 men in this battle, against 38 000 for the German. Of the German tally, 30 000 were captured. Which means that, if you remove the prisoners from the casualties, the US attackers suffered MUCH more losses than the German defenders (22k to 7 or 8k, that's 3 to 1), even though the battle was fought under total air superiority and at naval gun range for the most part.

By the way, however spectacular and technically well done, I find the video poorly convincing from this point of view (casualties seem to be spread out smoothly  over time with no major increase during major battles or after significant surrenders).

[Centurian52]

On 5/12/2024 at 2:03 AM, PEB14 said:

casualties seem to be spread out smoothly  over time with no major increase during major battles or after significant surrenders

That's a good observation. You would expect the casualty rate to jump up and down with major battles, lulls, and mass surrenders, rather than be completely smooth over time. Which means that either this video has greatly simplified things, or there is some reason why our expectations don't quite align with reality in this case. Either of those is possible, but I think the burden of proof rests on anyone who wants to assert the latter.

[PEB14]

15 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

Which means that either this video has greatly simplified things, or there is some reason why our expectations don't quite align with reality in this case. Either of those is possible, but I think the burden of proof rests on anyone who wants to assert the latter.

However ever fair this sounds, I don't subscribe!

In fact, I sincerely doubt that such reliable historical data exists on a DAILY basis.

German losses data don't, that's pretty sure.

On the Allied side, losses data are probably more reliable and the daily figures are probably available, but I don't think anybody tried to establish on a daily basis the number of men actually inside the beachhead (think of all the auxiliary units, some of with traveled back and forth throught the Channel).

Additionally, while on the Allied side the beachhead limits are physically well established, it is not the case for the German side. Which units are considered to be on the Normandy front and which are not? If only for this reason, it's very difficult to define the number of German troops actually on the Normandy front, especially on a daily basis...

It would be possible to estimate these numbers by counting only (land) combat troops, but this apparently is not the case in this vide: there were certainly NOT 2 millions Allied (land) combat troops, that is more than 130 divisions, in France by the end of August 1944 !!!!

So, I don't know what figures did the authors use to produce this spectacular video, but I'm 100% sure it's based on data taken at various periods and smoothed in between to produce daily numbers - which explain the lack of sudden increases corresponding to major battles (or of full divisions arrival at the front). And I'm not sure the figures used for the Alllied and the German are coherent.

 

 

[Bulletpoint]

Attackers will only lose more than the defenders if everything else is equal. Two armies of the exact same size, technology, doctrine, resources, motivation, leadership, etc... In that case yes, then the attackers will lose considerably more than the defender. But few wars are like that.

In case of WW2, Germany lost because they did not have the resources to fight the war they got themselves in. Many people love to obsess over which tank was the best, which MG was the best.. but in the end, wars are largely about resources, logistics, and production.