Hello all.

I am extremely interested in people's opinions about the British 2nd Army in Normandy.

You think I'm weird asking about this, but after seeing the slating that the 2nd Army receives in certain books (notably some of Stephen Ambrose's I must admit), I am merely wondering whether the views he writes about, reflects the general views held by others.

I have studied the Battle of Normandy in great depth and am gathering research for a book of my own (a pipe dream perhaps) and am curious as to how others overseas (who know about the Battle of Normandy) view the British contribution in Normandy, whether they view the British Army as a gang of tea-drinking cowards which seems to be suggested in some publications and a view that I myself find absolutely appalling.

I am doing this just for personal interest I may add, and would like to hear from any nationality - but particularly from an American perspective.

Thanks

In my judgment, the British 2nd Army was not the worst army the British fielded in World War I, but it was the most worn-out.

Some of its divisions, 50th Northumbrian, 51st Highland, and 7th Armoured, had seen all the action, and were tired of it. The 7th Armoured performed poorly at Villers-Bocage, and many of its top officers were sacked. Then the replacements got sacked.

Some of the other British divisions had other troubles. The 3rd Infantry had not fought since Dunkirk, and the 43rd and 49th Divisions had not fought at all. The commander of the 6th Duke of Wellington Rifles wrote a scathing assessment of the battalion, pointing out its high casualty rate had left a unit jumpy, nervous, and unabel to fucntion. He recommended the battalion be broken up, knowing that such a statement would damage his career.

But the big problem the British 2nd Army had was a simple one. There were no replacements for its losses. By the time the 2nd Army reached the German border, Dempsey had to start breaking up divisions to provide replacements for other outfits. Britain had no manpower left. Had D-Day failed, the British had warned the Americans that any commitment to a second invasion of Europe would be at corps level at most.

This was a major factor in the 2nd Army's operations in France -- a fear of taking casualties, as Britain could not really afford any more, after six years of war, and with constant V-1 and V-2 bombing, which was taking more lives in London than the fighting in France.

This having been said, it is also worth noting that 2nd Army faced some tough opposition around Caen. The Germans moved 21st Panzer Division, 12th SS Panzer Division, Panzer Lehr, and the 1st SS Panzer Corps against the British, which led to vicious battles at Epsom, Goodwood, and Charnwood.

This is not to say that the Americans had an easy or easier time of it. Far from it. THe Americans faced the Panzer Lehr Division, the German paratroopers, and the 17th SS Panzer Grenadiers, as well as the fortifications of Cherbourg, without the specialized engineer units of the British. But the Americans had more replacements and reserves than the British, and could withstand more casualties.

Even so, I also get annoyed by comments by historians that the 2nd Army consisted of cowards or weaklings. It had poor leaders -- Bucknall was sacked as boss of 30th Corps and replaced by the man Monty wanted in the first place, Brian Horrocks. But Horrocks also made fatal mistakes at Antwerp, failing to keep the 11th Armoured Division moving to cut off the Walcheren peninsula. He erred again in Market-Garden, when a bout with the flu kept him from keeping an iron hand on the advance at Nijmegen. Admittedly, he was sending an entire corps up one road, and realized later that was also a mistake.

But the 2nd Army deserves better.

I like what Cornelius Ryan writes about them - he said that in fairness they were so tired they slept where they stood. Must have been hell.

R.W.Thompson said of 2nd Army on D-Day, "They had done well, and Dempsey could ask for no more. They were perhaps the last 'real' Army Britain would ever have."

David, admirable scope and detail. I can only add that there is a popular American impression that the British Army in Normandy was insufficiently aggressive, based not on cowardice at any level, but upon a horror of taking casualties and on Monty. I'm not saying that that is accurate, but I think that I'm reporting a widespread belief.

I remain a bit mystified about the horrible results of so many of the armored actions around Caen. Was it simply a mismatch of equipment? Or could the tactics have been better? More air-ground coordination?

My impression is that the US and British soldiers generally liked and respected each other on a personal level, and that there was less national friction than one would expect on that level.

At the command level, though relations could be toxic.

The only other thing I would add to your mention of the obstacles in the US sector: the bocage, which was less of a problem in the British sector.

Appell8; The British too encountered the Bocage, mainly to the west of Caen, around Tilly Sur Seulles and Villers Bocage. They had the same problems as the Americans did, ground ideal for the defensive and not suited for good communications or tanks.

Caen was different, the ground was reasonably open (wheat fields, with occasional bocage type country), especially to the south, where Goodwood was launced. However open ground, although ideal for tanks, was also ideal for Anti-Tank guns. The German guns far outranged the guns on the Sherman and the Churchill, not forgetting that the 88mm could destroy any Allied tank with one well-aimed shot.

Likewise the British army had poor Tank-Infantry co-operation, Goodwood is a good example of this, the tanks rushing ahead while the infantry mopped up, thus leaving them vulnerable to anti-tank guns which the infantry could have silenced had they been able to keep up. I suppose its a result of the traditions of the British Army and the attitude that armoured regiments were essentially modern versions of Cavalry and so fought separately.

The of course, there is the slight problem of 8 SS panzer Divisons....

i am british and am very disappointed when the british army is put down and trivialised by the media and have written about this before. the british army is the best trained in the world and has very few of the disciplinary problems of our modern allies. maybe monty missed his chance in taking caen early and his place in history has been slighted by events after this like market garden but we had been fighting for 5 years. in BOB after the taking of the guns at brecourt manor, it mentions that an experienced soldier takes fewer risks than a green soldier. the men of easy realised this after a few weeks. imagine what it would be like after 5 years of fighting??? the americans had inexperience on their side.

Ive said a few times on here before (broken record) about the opposistion the British and Canadians were up against around Caen as you say Bobfish several SS divisions, Leibstandart Adolf Hitler SS Panzer, Das Reich SS panzer, SS Panzer Lehr, 12 SS Panzer, Hitler Youth, 21st SS Panzer, 9th SS Panzer, 10th SS Panzer,
17th SS Panzer, 116 SS Panzer, The Vienna SS Panzer, oh and not to mention we also had like the Americans German paras. Yes david we had 'Some' tough opposistion Im not saying the Americans had it easy, but this was the plan to take them away from the American sector to make a breakout easier, yes the Americans had 2 SS divs there but they were pretty depleted of armour which was in around caen.

I often wonder the folks who say these things about the british during the war have ever read any books written by BRITISH authors that contains recollections from men who were there fighting in places like Hill 112, Tilly, and so on. I doubt it very much.

I read recently that it was Dempsey who wanted to push on with Goodwood and it was he he belived that a massive air bombardment would make a breakthrough easy. He needed Monty on board to get this air power, but Monty was not keen after what happened to the start of El Alamein when armour was used without support. He got it in the kneck after the OP failed from Tedder thats for sure.

Like you say bobfish lack of tank and infantry cordination was the downfall, how easy it was for a handfull of germans to hold up the British armour with a few panzerfausts, bottleknecks, bridges, poor recon, 88's, the only forward Air Controller was killed (fancy sticking him in a leading tank , traffic jams.
I mean look what happened to the charge of the light brigade? into the caen valley of death drove the 11th armoured, Germans to the left of them...........


Hey but Bluecoat worked, finally showed that combined arms worked, and that ytou shouldnt ignore field doctorine.

Andy

According to Ambrose, Lipton had said that he had taken chances on D-Day, he would never have taken later in the war.

In his "D-Day" book, he quoted Pvt. Carl Weast of the U.S. Ranger Battalion as saying: "A veteran infantryman is a terrified infantryman."

This certainly backs up what you were saying.

Vee

I agree with a lot that has been said here, but the main fact is that the British couldnt afford casualties on the scale of the First World War. And Montgomery saved many of British lives, lives that Britain could not replace, she had reached the end of her manpower capabilities. The majority of German units were around Caen and many British Units (especially the Black Watch) were thrown into assaults on Caen and were mauled. The British advance was checked several times, for example the 21st panzer Division heldd up the 3rd Division just 8 kilometers from Caen. But yeah the 3rd Division was (for the most part) made up of many veterans, and they had seen combat in all its horror and were understandably nervous. Fighting against 8 Panzer Divisions including fanatical Hitler Youth was an enormous task to overcome.
I think people should study the battle by reading books other than Stephen Ambrose as in Citizen Soldiers and in the most part of D-Day he focuses mainly on the American perspective.

I second that, although I think anybody with the view of Britain not doing well In Normandy wouldnt bother reading any books by a British author.

But a couple on my bookshelf are, most of Patrick Delaforce books, he was there and knows hes stuff,

By tank into Normandy by Stuart Hills, good insight into a british tankie who served with the famous Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry, they saw more action than ANY other Amoured Batt during the whole war.

The day the Devils dropped in, by Neil barber, its a good book about the first few days of the 9th Battalion of the Paras and accounts the storming of the merville guns.



A fine night for tanks, by Ken Tout which is about British tanks during operation Totalize 1, and by the same author, The bloody battle for Tilly. Another author who took part in the battles he writes about. This is a good book for Canadians also because the authors unit the Northamptonshire yoemanry were attached to the Canadians during this Op and describes the tactics used by Simonds.

His best book though I think has to be 'Tank' 40 hours of battle August 1944
It certainly gives you a view of a Brit tanky during a Normandy battle
if I had to recommend a book by this author this would be the one.

I could go on but dont worry I wont

Andy

Actually Andy, please do...these are going straight on my list. I have far to few books from the British perspective and I'd love to read more. Hints and tips here please!

John

I have the Delaforce books and they are essential reading for anyone who is tracking the British 2nd Army across France and Belgium.

The Ken Tout book is "A Fine Night For Tanks." ALso recommended.

I will post these titles and their publishers in the next installment of my bibliography for the WW2 series on my web pages. I just sent up the first installment, which is biographies, overviews, and the Ballantine series.

Every book listed is one I have in my personal possession.

I have to admit that some of the books ive read are from the library, but when ive read them I write my own little bit about them on the pc for future reference cos I cant remember half the books ive read. My wife says what are you reading that book for again or havent you already had that from the library, I just say yea but you have to read it a few times to take it all in, well I do anyway

You should really give 'Tank' 40 hours of battle August 1944' by Tout a read David
(if you ever get time) I like it because its focoused on this one battle lots of detail and personal stuff, well I thought so.

John you may read me going on about this battle at Hill 112 alot, but thats because it was such a bloody battle for the British. Plus I visited the place and memorial a few years back. A good book or starter on this battle is Normandy, Hill 112 , The battle of the Odon, by Tim Saunders its from the battleground europe series ( which are all good books) put that at the top of your list, Ive read that about half a dozen times now.

One of my library list, Red Devils, The 6th airborne division, at Normandy by
Georges Bernage, but you have Mr Edwards great book soooo a maybe.

Just to show im not biased either I thought Beyond the Beachhead, The 29th infantry division in Normandy by Joseph Balkoski was a very good book, dont know if any of our American friends have read this one?

Another library book but a good one I wrote, as it tells you things from a german perspective, plus it tells of the fighting against the British and Canadians plus the Poles and Americans, and this book is ''Steel Inferno, 1st SS Panzer Corps in Normandy'' by Major General Michael Reynolds. You get an idea of how the men in the Waffen ss felt, I started reading it feeling that I hope they had a really horrible horrible time, but actually you start to look at them like just soldiers doing there jobs like our boys did. Although some of the battles with the canadians were nasty.

Another book in the great battleground list is 'Epsom', Normandy by Tim Saunders, a view from the Scots taking on 12th Hitlerjugend, also John if I remember right ly there are quite a few references to the Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders I think A book that i bought just after Brian started telling us his story was 'Sword Beach' also from the battleground series, its one im going to take with me to Normandy next year ( I hope) lots of men in there just like Brian,
and I think I only paid about £8.00 for it

A book that im waiting for my library to get is 'Decision in Normandy, the unwritten story of Montgomery and the allied campaign by Carlo D'Este.
Its supposed to be an unbiased book on Monty and his decisions during Normandy.
So ill let you know what its like, as I would like to read something that isnt anti or pro Monty for a change.

D-Day 1944:, Sword beach & the British airborne landings by Ken Ford
this is another library read because it is bloody expensive to buy, all I have written about it is good book, tells how the germans stopped us (British) from taking Caen. Good arnt I at book reviews

Well that list would keep you busy for a while, dont forget though they are just books I thought were good. And I accept no responsibility if you do not enjoy any of them

Andy

I agree, it's a cracking read.

Thanks for that Andy. Unfortunatly I can't really rely on the library for much more than Norwegian WW2 history (which is fair enough really), so they'll have to go on buy list.

I don't know whether the scholarship continues to stand up, but one of the first books I read on the British, Canadian, and Polish forces in Normandy was by Sir John Keegan, "Six Armies in Normandy." I read this a long, long time ago, but I still recall the account of the stand made by the Poles at an exposed hill in the neck of the Falaise Gap. Chambois?

Ive heard of the book Doug, I think they still sell it on amazon. Ive also read about the stand the Poles made in another book, I think the Polish 10th Armored Rifle Regiment and if memory serves me the American 90th Infantry Division met, the two officers from each side met and shook hands??? something like that anyway.

Andy

Excellent book.

I left my copy in the public john on Mt. Fuji in 1994 at about the 1700 meter mark, to my irritation, but got a replacement, the 50th anniversary of D-Day edition, that November.

It's not as much about the battle and campaign for Normandy as it is a description and analysis of the six (to his view) armies that fought in the campaign:

British
Polish
Canadian
French
American
German

The British are broken down into the English armor at Goodwood and the Scottish infantry at Epsom. The book contains a lot of lavish detail, and you get a real sense of what made these forces tick. The new intro for the book, tied to the 50th anniversary is sad and poignant, suggesting that the D-Day memories will eventually belong solely to the French, but I think that BoB and Saving Private Ryan, among other movies and events, have changed that.

However, I am still astounded when I chat with people on June 6, and they cannot tell me what is so important about the date. Particularly when I point out Rod Steiger's great line in "The Longest Day," which is: "You'll remember every bit of it. Because we are on the eve of a day that people will talk about long after we are dead and gone."

Jet: "I think people should study the battle by reading books other than Stephen Ambrose as in Citizen Soldiers and in the most part of D-Day he focuses mainly on the American perspective."

That's all well and good Jet, but some of us find such comments (calling the British "gutless" for one thing) offensive, regardless of who the book may be aimed at. I'm too young to have fought in the war, but as a Britisher I find slurs against my nations fighting men quite insulting as I respect all men who have fought in a battle. Especially from an author who enjoys such a following, as people will be left with the wrong impression

Also, on a more pedantic note, the 3rd Division wasn't comprised of veterans, sure the division had been through Dunkirk, but that was in name ownly and the division was not the same in 1944 as it was in 1940. Units would have been sent off to the desert as elsewhere I should imagine.

(I should state here that I have a habit of correcting people, so I should apologise. Sorry folks.)

On the subject of books, I agree that Hill 112 and Operation Epsom of the Battle ground series are both brilliant.
Decision in Normandy is quite good. But I don't think its unbiased. One of my favoruites in Overlord, by Max Hastings. Its not strong on detail, but I think its great for a general overview and feeling of it all.

Ah interesting, Bobfish that you have read Decision in Normandy, in what way would you say its not unbiased?, I was just going on a review I read thats why I thought about getting it. We have a 3rd division vet on these boards bobfish who has told us his story, Brian Guy is the name, worth a read if you have time.

Just one other thing, obviously most on these boards are big Ambrose fans, but I would have to say that Ive never once read a post saying the British were cowardly, ive only ever heard praise for our boys. Although Monty is a different subject on here with our American friends


Andy

Thank you, Andy. Bobfish, whom are you correcting?

BobFish I am also British, and I feel the same as you. I have read many stories by Ambrose ( i do think he was a very good writer and historian) who continuously tells the stories of British soldiers brewing tea in the middle of firefights, and in D-Day he wrote about how American troops put guns to the heads of British sailors on Omaha beach. The incident was later found out to be false. Incidents like this make my blood boil mate.

All I was saying is that people should read other books, not books just by Ambrose.

Thankfully the Americans on this forum are more intelligent. But on other forums you'll see it all the time - America won the war, British were cowards, British did nothing in WW2, Monty was useless, etc.

I'm constantly getting into arguments with people defending the British in WW2.

It sucks. Especially as we are the USA's biggest allies. So why do I spend so much time arguing about this nonsense on other forums? Maybe I shouldn't bother.

Funnily enough I was just reading lastnight about a British Coxwain at Omaha, on the BBCWW2 website. Ive heard before about the nonsense with the Coxwains at Omaha. Heres the link its a really very interesting read, maybe more so for the british members perhaps.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A1929468

Andy

That's one of the topics I had HUGE arguments about with some american people who either (a) didn't believe they were there or ( had read Ambrose and come to the conclusion they were cowards.

I tried telling them that Ambrose wrote nonsense about them. Even posted links to different online articles with testimonies from British and American vets who said it wasn't true - still got nothing but insults.

Makes you wonder how such a mistake could happen

Max, I don't know what circles you are traveling in but I have never heard anyone on this side of the pond opine the British were cowards or did nothing in WWII. Though Monty is the object of criticism, mostly among academics, I have never know him to considered useless.

Yep, well like I said it doesn't happen here thankfully because these forums have better people and there is some order here.

Yeah but as soon as Gino gets the alcohol service up and running, things may change.

NOOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Woops....I think I've annoyed people. Sorry dudes.

I do go off on one when talking about certain subjects I will admit, which is rather silly of me. I wasn't saying people on these boards have said such things, on the contrary everyone here seems to respect all soldiers which is great, I meant Stephen Ambrose in general. But of course, I respect the fact that others may like his books, and will admit that he's done a good job at bringing Military History to the public eye.

Decision in Normandy......some parts of it were okay, I admit that its general portrayal of the 2nd Army is quite a fair look at the subject. Its just that....well....the impression I get, is that an entire book is devoted to Montgomery, his strategy and the fighting qualities of the 2nd Army, yet it leaves out a large proportion of Normandy (in Robin Neillands book, The Battle of Normandy, he mentions that Carlo d'Este mentions in one line "Thats not to say that the Americans had their problems" or something like that). Which to me seems mildly biased.

Maybe its just me, so I'll have to read it again as soon as I can.

Anyways, if I say something thats factually wrong, then I welcome the opportunity to correct myself.



Oh, one more thing......what is The Red Devils in Normandy, by George Bernage like? I'm thinking of buying it, cos I've found it on Amazon. Does anyone here have it and could tell me what its like?

It's a marvellous book with stacks of info, great photos and extra goodies like pics of the equipment, uniform info, a list of all the fallen soldiers, maps and everything. In fact, it's one of my favourite books about the 6th Airborne.

My copy is signed by Major Jack Watson who is talked about and pictured on page 89. What a guy !

I've moved this topic to "Unit Histories".

And while youse guys are searching your British library, post some books about the British 8th Army or any of its units that covers the period in Italy.
While visiting London last month, I scrounged through 5 books stores and could not find anything except the Imperial War Museum publication "War in Italy; 1943-1945" by Lord Carver. It falls short of being a good reference book.

Help!
Steve

Piece of cake.

War in Italy: A Brutal Story by Richard Lamb

Alexander's Generals by Gregory Blaxland

The War North of Rome (Can't remember the author)

The Impossible Victory by Brian Harpur

Calculated Risk by Mark W. Clark

Im affraid I dont know many on that part of the war, apart from, Battleaxe division, From Africa to Italy with the 78th Division 1942-45 by Ken Ford.
Lots of first hand accounts from soldiers of the 78th.

On my list of ones to read are

Marine Commando, Sicily and Salerno, 1943, with 41 Royal Marines Commando Colonel J.F. Parsons (Foreword), Raymond Mitchell.
First hand accounts of the Sicily and Salerno landings in 1943 from the point of view of a Marine in 41 Royal Marines Commando.

Nothing Is Impossible, A Glider Pilot's Story of Sicily, Arnhem and the Rhine Crossing by Victor Miller.

Drop Zone Sicily, Allied Airborne Strike, July 1943
James M. Gavin (Foreword), William B. Breuer.

D'Este admits that he doesn't do enough on the American weaknesses in Normandy, but I don't think that's good enough.

However, he does point at the book Eisenhower's Lieutenants, by Russell Weigley, which goes into the numerous firings of American generals in Normandy. The 90th Infantry by itself went through several COs. McKelvie of the 8th was also fired, as was at least one armored division commander.

The Americans had different problems in Normandy from the British, as they did not face the bulk of the German armor. But they were problems all the same.

One problem: The Americans kept getting bombed by their own air force.

Max, I sure hope you see this post.

Next time anyone gives you any s#*t about the Brits in WWII, just remind them that in 1940, you stood alone against Germany and held off everything that they threw at you. Remind them that the British opposition during the Battle of Britain caused Goehring to look like an idiot to his Fuhrer and Hitler to give up and look for conquests eastward.

Everyone knows that if Hitler had taken Great Britain, it would have been a whole different situation.

Remind them of the countless battles the British navy fought against the Germans and Japanese (and a few against the Italians, if memory serves).

Remind them who first bombed Berlin.

Not to mention the actions in N. Africa, Singapore, China - hell, the entire PTO.

Bottom line, sir, those in the know have much respect for the British contributions to victory in WWII. Those who don't know, unless they're willing to learn, well I wouldn't waste too much energy there.

God save the Queen.

Paul

I think it is the opinion of many americans that the world went to War the day pearl harbbour was bombed. Ive had several people from america that tell me in seriousness that nothing much happened before America joined the war. I asked them about the battle of Britain and the such, and one person actually said to me it was a "minor, insignificant scuffle"

I laughed and walked away. In my opinion those "few" did much more than alot of people give them credit for. And its always good to make one of Hitlers inner circle look like an idiot =)

Kamz, those of us here know better. Cheers, Doug

Kiwi,

I would like to add two more books, of which I forgot the titles:

The Memoires of Field Marshall Harold Alexander and the warmemoires of General Lucian K. Truscott.

For more info about Anzio, check out the regimental histories of the Irish Guards, Welsh Guards, Grenadier Guards and Scots Guards (most of them written by Patrick Forbes and another author).

Frank

Michael Carver is still alive. He lives somewhere in England. For months I am trying to find his address, so that I can interview him about the advance of the 7th Armoured Division to the Seine.

Frank

See also the excellent book "Go To It" from Peter Harclerode, published in 1991.

Frank

Kamz,

Please refer to my post just above yours - hopefully it will impress upon you the feelings of some of us here in the States.

I agree with your post, both on the point of the significance of the Battle of Britain, and of the unfortunate lack of historical knowledge that is present in many of my fellow citizens here. Believe me, there are times when I just shake my head and walk away too.

We're workin' on it.

Paul

I believe he died a few years ago.

Truscott's book is called "Command Missions."

Unfortunately, there are all too many Americans whose knowledge of World War II consists of watching "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

Jerry Seinfeld did a hilarious sketch on Saturday Night Live on that very subject, of historical illiteracy.

What's needed is a decent re-make of "The Dam Busters," preferably without Ben Affleck and Johnny Damon fighting over the hand of a British nurse.

I would absolutely love a film about The Dambusters, done properly, just as much as I want a film or a series about Pegasus Bridge (the prospect of a 10 part series about Pegasus is absolutely moutwatering...).

Discovery had a great program on a few months ago about The Dambusters. They had 7 or 8 RAF recruits go through the same training the Dambuster boys went through and then put them through the complete mission in a simulator. It was a three part program and it was absolutely brilliant TV I thought.

I saw that dambusters programme John, I enjoyed it also, it showed how difficult a job those men had back then, as the modern Raf crew struggled to achieve any hits on the simulated Dams.

Andy

I saw that SNL skit, it was great and right on the mark ... "who thought of the name 'Europe' anyway?"...

If Affleck was in the movie they'd have him in coming off a mission in Burma, straight to bombing the monastery at Monte Cassino, hijacking a train to Berlin to plant a bomb at a munitions factory, and THEN join the crew for the raid on the dam...

Of course, they'll base the whole movie around the nurse

War in Italy: A Brutal Story by Richard Lamb
Got that. Some good info on the Italian view point.

Alexander's Generals by Gregory Blaxland
A good candidate.

The War North of Rome (Can't remember the author)
A new book published in US(?). I was looking for British books on the British Army. I didn't buy this book as it did not appear to have much info.

The Impossible Victory by Brian Harpur
Got that. Basically 3 interviews on the war in the Po Valley. Again---not much on British Army. (And where did he get that Title?)

Calculated Risk by Mark W. Clark
Got that. I'm sure this wasn't written by a Brit.
------- ---------- ---------- --------- ---------
Some British books that I have in my library include:

"The Italian Campaign"- by John Strawson. Published by Secker & Warburg, 1987. ISBN 0-436-49993-2. Well written and good discussion of the importance of the Italian Theater. Recommended.

"Tug of War: The Battle for Italy; 1943-45" Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., 1986
I'm embarrased to say I have not read it. But I don't see much detail on the organization and unit history of the British 8th Army.

"The Gothic Line" - by Douglas Orgill. W.W. Norton & Co. 1967.
Describes the attack on the Gothic Line in Sept 1944. Two chapters on the Americans.

"Naples '44" - by Norman Lewis, British Intelligence. Great personel account of a British officer who served in the British Field Security Service but was attached to the US 5th Army. Good description of the hardships behind the lines. Patheon Books, 1978. ISBN 0-394-50354-6.
But alas, nothing on the fighting forces of the British.

"Report by The Supreme Allied Commander Mediterranean to the Combined Cheifs of Staff on The Italian Campaign, 8 January 1944 to 10th May 1944" -
A long title for a short. 43-page, softbound booklet issued by General Maitland Wilson in 1946.

"The Canadians In Italy, 1943-1945" - Vol II - by Lt.-Col. G.W. Nicholson. This is the kind of book I'm looking for. Colored maps, indexed by unit, 800 pages. It is so detailed & exhaustive, that it is difficult to read through. But a great reference on any unit in the 1st Canadian Division.


I saw a reference once about a book on a Polish Corps and one on the New Zealand Corps. I'm still searching. The only unit history books I find on British units will cover their entire history from 1689 to 1989.

Steve