Best books about the Battle for Normandy ?

[wokelly]

I definitely agree, and have read his book Grenadiers with the salt shaker by my side throughout (if you know what I mean...). But in this case, he's simply noting that the Canadians of II Corps, and in particular the Canadian 4th Armored Division, were waaaaaaay too tentative in their offensive operations on the north side of the Falaise Pocket in August. If they had been more aggressive on the battlefield, Meyer asserts that the Canadians could have completely destroyed what was left of 12.SS-Panzer-Division, which was at that time little more than a batallion with its 25th and 26th Panzergrenadier Regiments basically bled white. The Allies had overwhelming numerical superiority, complete control of the air, and all the momentum they needed.

So instead of blaming somebody else for their ultimate defeat (at least in this case), Meyer was only expressing surprise that his division was only badly mauled and not totally ground into the mud. In fact, he praises the advance Batallion of Canadian 4th Armored for their "outstanding performance".

Meyers book is kinda flawed in a number of regards. For example he tends to exclude the efforts of the 85th Infantry Division in blunting Totalize. The fresh 85th was also largely bled white during Totalize and Tractable, but it doesn't get its proper due from Meyer who portrays his Grenadiers as being the only force blunting the entire attack despite the 85th probably fielding more men.

In regards to books, one of my personal favorites is John Buckleys "British Armour in the Normandy Campaign 1944"

The popular perception of the performance of British armour in the Normandy campaign of 1944 is one of failure and frustration. Despite overwhelming superiority in numbers, Montgomery's repeated efforts to employ his armour in an offensive manner ended in disappointing stalemate. Indeed, just a week after the D-Day landings, the Germans claimed to have halted an entire British armoured division with one Tiger tank. Most famously of all, in July, despite a heavy preparatory bombardment, three British armoured divisions were repulsed by much weaker German forces to the east of Caen, suffering the loss of over 400 tanks in the process. Explanation of these and other humiliating failures has centred predominantly on the shortcomings of the tanks employed by British formations. Essentially, an orthodoxy has emerged that the roots of failure lay in the comparative weakness of Allied equipment and to a lesser extent in training and doctrine. This new study challenges this view by analysing the reality and level of the supposed failure and the causes behind it. By studying the role of the armoured brigades as well as the divisions, a more complete and balanced analysis is offered in which it is clear that while some technologically based difficulties were encountered, British armoured forces achieved a good deal when employed appropriately. Such difficulties as did occur resulted from British operational techniques, methods of command and leadership and the operating environment in which armour was employed. In addition, the tactics and doctrine employed by both British and German armoured forces resulted in heavy casualties when on the offensive. Ultimately, the experience of thecrews and the effects of fighting on their morale is studied to provide a complete picture of the campaign.

Below is a link to read a some of the book.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=OaKMl8QFSA8C&dq=British+Armour+in+the+Normandy+Campaign+1944&pg=PP1&ots=7YigclfRFr&sig=yRwaP8Zgr5xBHUPi1shWhyj_1eQ&prev=http://www.google.ca/search%3Fhl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26q%3DBritish%2BArmour%2Bin%2Bthe%2BNormandy%2BCampaign%2B1944%26btnG%3DSearch%26meta%3D&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title

Anyways instead of writing a long review I am simply going to copy one from Amazon someone made which is very well written:

----------------------

John Buckley's British Armour in the Normandy Campaign is a first rate tour de force work of military history that challenges conventional accepted wisdom that the British (and Canadian) armored forces in western France were ineffective and contributed little to the over campaign from D-Day to the Breakout. What makes Buckley's truly spectacular is the fact that he not only challenges this wisdom but uses thorough and detailed research to leave the reader with a clear picture that British armor was in fact effective and made a significant contribution within the doctrine and contexts they were employed.

British Armour in the Normandy Campaign is separated into nine logically distinct chapters:

1) Introduction - in this first chapter Buckley sets the stage of the book by introducing the aforementioned conventional wisdom and posing his thesis that this is an incorrect interpretation of the facts as told by the bigger picture. Brief discussions of several engagements are used as particular examples of how the believed ineffectiveness of British armor requires more detailed analysis. This is a very insightful chapter that sets the tone of the exceptional research and unbiased approach Buckley takes throughout the book.

2) Fighting the Campaign - In this chapter Buckley gives a lucid description of major engagements the British (and Commonwealth) armored forces took part in from June to Aug of 1944. There is also considerable discussion of the organization of the various armored forces employed and their Orders of Battle. Because Buckley's combat prose is presented from the standpoint of facts not the human component this chapter (and later battle discussions) is fairly dry reading. Yet, little is wasted on fluff and in many ways this is refreshing.

3) Operational Technique - Here Buckley presents a clear picture of the British operational doctrine and command structure. In the previous chapter combat was discussed, and in this chapter we get a sense of what British commanders were thinking and how they were trained doctrinally to think. In the following chapter these two pieces are put together.

4) Fighting the Battle - In this chapter Buckley discusses the engagements introduced in the second chapter within the context of doctrine and command (discussed in the previous chapter). In doing so Buckley paints a fuller and more critical picture of the British armor and their actions in Normandy.

5) The Tank Gap - Any discussion of armored actions are incomplete without a critical analysis of opponent capabilities. Again conventional wisdom is that the British (and Allies in general) were significantly out gunned, out armored, and tactically deficient when compared to the Germans. While the German armor had many features superior to those of the Allies this commonly held view is naïve. Buckley clears the air on this topic very well and thoroughly. As should be pointed out in ALL discussions of armored clashes in northwestern Europe in the first couple of months following the invasion, a phenomenon Buckley terms "Tiger-phobia" is probably most responsible for the prevailing wisdom of Allied armor inferiority. In particular, most accounts of armored battles in Normandy point to the overwhelming power of Tiger and Panther tanks when in fact the tank most often encountered by Allied armor was the similarly shaped (but much smaller) Panzer Mark IV. The fear of Tigers and Panthers created a mystique related to German armor that has survived 60 plus years! Certainly these latter two AFVs (armored fighting vehicles) were fearsome machines but they suffered from many shortcomings. Moreover, there were simply too few of them deployed. In addition to clearing the air on this important topic, Buckley does a fair and balanced job describing the strengths and weaknesses of Allied armor. Additionally he makes a clear case that a less than ideal and relatively weak AFV does not therefore make a machine unable to win battles if employed within proper doctrinal boundaries. This chapter is quite amazing!

6) Design and Planning - This chapter continues the discussion of the previous chapter but explores the issue of armor, less from a technical standpoint (e.g. who's gun was bigger, who's armor less protective, etc.) and more from a logistics and strategic one. This is essential information for the reader as it places the study within a doctrinal context and the mindset of the command staff. Without knowing how the British came to the decisions they did about armor design, employment and improvement one can not fully appreciate the bigger picture - the British armor was effective and significant to the Allied offensive.

7) Production and Supply - This chapter is a logical extension of the previous chapter and explains much about why particular AFVs (e.g., the M4 Sherman) was employed en masse when potentially superior machines (e.g., A27M Cromwell) were part of the Allied repertoire. This chapter, like the previous one, is essential to gain a fair picture of the British armor in Normandy.

8) Morale and Motivation - This chapter addresses the human factor that makes or breaks any military unit: the solider, or in this case tankers and AFV fighting troops (including armored infantry). Once again Buckley questions a conventional wisdom: namely that British armored troops in Normandy exhibited poor morale and little will to fight. While there are certainly cases of poor morale and a fair number of AWOL and desertions cases the picture is not as simple as the tail of numbers. Again Buckley provides the larger pool of facts necessary to draw fair conclusions.

9) Conclusion - In the final chapter Buckley provides a concise summary of the questions at hand and the answers presented. Very nice ending to a fabulous book.

In the final analysis Buckley's British Armour in the Normandy Campaign is a wonderful read. Few historical works present a clear thesis that is followed through on in such a thorough fashion with fairness and virtual lack of bias. This book represents a guide for how this type of historical work should be approached. 5 HUGE stars!!!

--------------------

I recommend this book to anyone here, as it is very good, though provoking and well researched. But for God sakes look for the soft cover verson. The Hard Cover is over $100.00 while the soft cover, which is actually somewhat hard to find online to buy, is only $20-$30.

Here is a link for the soft cover book http://www.amazon.com/British-Normandy-Campaign-Military-History/dp/0415407737

[Black Jack Pershing III]

<SNIP>

* Beevor "D-Day: The Battle for Normandy" (~2008?) Haven't read it, but sounds fairly poor.

<SNIP>

I did not think much of Beevor's book. He did not seem to have much new information or insight, and his "angle" seemed to be to show that both sides committed a bunch of atrocities (not just the better-known ones involving the 12th SS and the Canadians), and that the French civilians suffered a lot.

Regarding the atrocities, he seemed to be taking a lot of second- and third-hand accounts at face value. It reminded me of Band of Brothers and the stories that grew up in about the Lieutenant executing a bunch of prisoners.

Regarding civliian suffering, my first thought was, "Duh." That was my second thought as well.

I did think the last parts of the book (about the breakout into Britanny, Mortain and Falaise) were probably the most interesting, but that may be because they tend to be glossed over in other books.

[JonS]

Any good historical fiction Normandy books?

Anything by Ambrose or Kurkowski is supposed to be rather good in that department.

[Hetzer21]

Anything by Ambrose is supposed to be rather good in that department.

Quoted For Truth.

[DrD]

One of my all-time favorites is "Anatomy of a Battle" by Kenneth Macksey.

this review sums it up nicely:

Kenneth Macksey knows what he writing about, which is a small British unit battle in Normany during the days of the bocage fighting. He gives a coherent look at the tactics of both the Brits and the Germans and takes us down to the squad level to look at how the soldier reacts. This is where it happened and he gives a good taste of what it must have been like.

[Blackcat]

Wokelly,

Thanks for telling us about that book. I have ordered my paperback edition from Amazon UK (£23.70).

The hardcover price is outrageous it might be $100 but Amazon Uk are offering it at £95!

[akd]

Wokelly,

Thanks for telling us about that book. I have ordered my paperback edition from Amazon UK (£23.70).

The hardcover price is outrageous it might be $100 but Amazon Uk are offering it at £95!

FYI, I believe this is the same book published under a different title and can be had fairly cheap in hardcover (at least on Amazon.com):

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Normandy-1944-Death-Combat/dp/1902304470/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1307496288&sr=1-2-spell

[JonS]

I got a soft cover of British Armour in Normandy from The Book Depository. It's very good, but it's far from being a campaign narrative.

[Magpie_Oz]

I got a soft cover of British Armour in Normandy from The Book Depository. It's very good, but it's far from being a campaign narrative.

Yeh, I am reading that one atm in eBook form.

[Bastables]

Meyers book is kinda flawed in a number of regards. For example he tends to exclude the efforts of the 85th Infantry Division in blunting Totalize. The fresh 85th was also largely bled white during Totalize and Tractable, but it doesn't get its proper due from Meyer who portrays his Grenadiers as being the only force blunting the entire attack despite the 85th probably fielding more men.

In regards to books, one of my personal favorites is John Buckleys "British Armour in the Normandy Campaign 1944"

Below is a link to read a some of the book.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=OaKMl8QFSA8C&dq=British+Armour+in+the+Normandy+Campaign+1944&pg=PP1&ots=7YigclfRFr&sig=yRwaP8Zgr5xBHUPi1shWhyj_1eQ&prev=http://www.google.ca/search%3Fhl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26q%3DBritish%2BArmour%2Bin%2Bthe%2BNormandy%2BCampaign%2B1944%26btnG%3DSearch%26meta%3D&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title

Anyways instead of writing a long review I am simply going to copy one from Amazon someone made which is very well written:

----------------------

5) As should be pointed out in ALL discussions of armored clashes in northwestern Europe in the first couple of months following the invasion, a phenomenon Buckley terms "Tiger-phobia" is probably most responsible for the prevailing wisdom of Allied armor inferiority. In particular, most accounts of armored battles in Normandy point to the overwhelming power of Tiger and Panther tanks when in fact the tank most often encountered by Allied armor was the similarly shaped (but much smaller) Panzer Mark IV. The fear of Tigers and Panthers created a mystique related to German armor that has survived 60 plus years! Certainly these latter two AFVs (armored fighting vehicles) were fearsome machines but they suffered from many shortcomings. Moreover, there were simply too few of them deployed. In addition to clearing the air on this important topic, Buckley does a fair and balanced job describing the strengths and weaknesses of Allied armor. Additionally he makes a clear case that a less than ideal and relatively weak AFV does not therefore make a machine unable to win battles if employed within proper doctrinal boundaries. This chapter is quite amazing!

Wait as of June 10 on the invasion front 758 PIV were on strength, and 655 Panther and 102 Tiger I. (1996 Jentz pg 177). 39 % of the German tanks were Panther's, about 49% of the German Tank strength being Panther's and Tigers would indicate there is something wrong with the statement "Simply too few of them."

Their are issues with reliability he alludes to is suspect as well; as Operational rates of PIV and Panthers is quite similar by 1944. Both veh had a weak point of poor quality metals in the final drives (blockade was having an effect on the metals germany industry had access to ) compounded heavier than designed weights, the original PIV was not 8 and 5 cm of armour with a long 7,5cm gun for instance.

[daft]

Yeh, I am reading that one atm in eBook form.

Saw that it was available for $38 on Kindle store which is tempting.

[Magpie_Oz]

Saw that it was available for $38 on Kindle store which is tempting.

It's a good read, has some informed comment on the supposed " British Disasters of Caen "

[wokelly]

Wait as of June 10 on the invasion front 758 PIV were on strength, and 655 Panther and 102 Tiger I. (1996 Jentz pg 177). 39 % of the German tanks were Panther's, about 49% of the German Tank strength being Panther's and Tigers would indicate there is something wrong with the statement "Simply too few of them."

Their are issues with reliability he alludes to is suspect as well; as Operational rates of PIV and Panthers is quite similar by 1944. Both veh had a weak point of poor quality metals in the final drives (blockade was having an effect on the metals germany industry had access to ) compounded heavier than designed weights, the original PIV was not 8 and 5 cm of armour with a long 7,5cm gun for instance.

Buckley cites Zitterling on tank numbers, which are for the campaign as a whole rather than during individual periods. Zitterling puts Mark IV numbers at around 900 Mark IVs, plus throw in 600 StuG's and 300 other AFV (Jadgpanthers, Marauders etc) not cited by Jentz. Totals come out to around 2400 tanks, of which 750 are Tigers/Panthers, thus 30% campaign wide.

Buckley's book is reliant on a lot of secondary sources, and thus their errors become his errors. Buckley like most historians are weak in the technical department, that is where I noticed most of his errors (well he relies on others but he has little self knowledge to double check). The best aspect IMO is him bringing together several important recent works on British doctrine and training into one book (ie Collosal Cracks, British Military Training 1940-1944, Raising Churchills Army etc) and using primary source research to fill in any missing pieces specifically on British Armour doctrine. Most of the book is about doctrine, leaders, tactics, tank development etc and he does that stuff quite well. I won't lose sleep over the fact he doesn't specify churchill variants in his engagement charts and so on in the tank gap chapter, the jist of the chapter is correct (most german tanks not superior to allied design, many more factors than just tank design determined outcome of battles etc) and his stuff everywhere else is excellent.

[Bastables]

Buckley cites Zitterling on tank numbers. Zitterling puts Mark IV numbers at around 900 Mark IVs, plus throw in 600 StuG's.

900 MIV quoted by Zetterling I'm presuming also include Flak Panzers, Jadgpanzer IV Hummel maybe even StuG IV ect

Jentz's figures are for the actul PIV tanks in the Panzer Abt and does not include things built on PIV chassis. That might explain the discrepancy and the incorrect conclusion drawn by Buckley.

[gunnergoz]

One well-known popular non-fiction book on the subject that I was recently perusing commented as how "the Panther and Tiger had 88's." I set it down after seeing that in print, not once, but twice in the same work. Now I wish to he// I could remember which one it was...I have so many lying around here.

[Michael Emrys]

One well-known popular non-fiction book on the subject that I was recently perusing commented as how "the Panther and Tiger had 88's." I set it down after seeing that in print, not once, but twice in the same work. Now I wish to he// I could remember which one it was...I have so many lying around here.

It was probably Citizen Soldiers by you-know-who. At least I came across the same gaff there and it was one of the things that made me put it down and read no farther.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

No Micheal, I haven't cracked open one of his in ages. I'll run across which one it was again sooner or later and post it here if anyone cares.

[Michael Emrys]

Yes, please do. Sounds like one I want to avoid. Odd that two different authors would commit the same blunder. I wonder who was copying whom.

Michael

[nathangun]

Bloody Battle of Tilly

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bloody-Battle-Tilly-Normandy-Campaigns/dp/075093056X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307600241&sr=1-2

Haven't read it in a long while and I can't seem to find my copy of it.

Try Ospery publishing, found here: http://www.ospreypublishing.com

They do some good books, I have a great one called "The Atlantic Wall". It gives details pictures various fortifications.

Find it here: http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/The-Atlantic-Wall-%281%29-_9781846031298

[Sybma]

Anybody been reading the Normandy campaign 1944, also John Buckley?

[JonS]

Anybody been reading the Normandy campaign 1944, also John Buckley?

Yes, also very good, although it is a collection of essays by various authors rather than all Buckley's work. He's the editor, so it's 'his' book, but he only wrote the chapter on - ta da - British armour in Normandy.

[Bastables]

Ah crap I just brought the D-Day book by Beevor, not much good eh.

[Dietrich]

(With reservations) "Six Armies in Normandy" by John Keegan

Without having read the whole thread, I was about to bring up this book, but now I'll "reserve" recommendation thereof. Just shows how much of a grog I'm not, I guess. Oh well; at least I've never owned or even read anything by Ambrose.

I'm not questioning your assessment, Barkhorn, just asking for further insight: Can you cite a specific example or two of Keegan "playing fast and loose with the source material"? Would you reckon such to be cause for mistrusting (in whole or in part) Keegan's other books?

[JonS]

Ah crap I just brought the D-Day book by Beevor, not much good eh.

Beevor strikes me as a primarily populist, rather than a historian. The pair of reviews by Simon Trew at Amazon.co.uk is pretty thorough and balanced.

[Pak_43]

I went to a lecture Beevor gave in Chipping Norton to promote the book. As you say it's primarily aimed at a popular market. The history is pretty solid (imho) but it doesn't offer any insights I hadn't seen earlier. He's pretty damning on Monty and said at the lecture in the Q&A he was expecting to get pounded in the US for some of his views, needless to say this went down very well with the blue rinse and ex-colonel's who inhabit Chipping Norton.

On the other hand I went to a lecture by John Buckley at the school where my girlfriend works and he was absolutely brilliant, lots of very interesting stuff was said.