10.01.2017 Views

ARTICLES

caj-vol-16-2-comnplete-e

caj-vol-16-2-comnplete-e

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>ARTICLES</strong><br />

“NO WAITING FOR GEORGE”:<br />

The Question of Support for the Black Watch<br />

assault on Verrières Ridge in Operation<br />

SPRING, Normandy, 25 July 1944<br />

David R. O’Keefe, MA, PhD<br />

The Canadian attack on Verrières Ridge during the morning<br />

of 25 July 1944 ranks as the second-costliest single-day<br />

engagement for the Canadian Army in the Second World War,<br />

exceeded only by the disaster at Dieppe. In less than 24 hours,<br />

a force of two infantry and two armoured divisions under the<br />

command of Lt-Gen Guy Simonds’s 2nd Canadian Corps<br />

suffered more than 1,500 casualties in Operation SPRING,<br />

leaving a legacy of recrimination and controversy. 1 Among the<br />

casualties, the loss of 300 of the 320 riflemen of the Black<br />

Watch remains a source of unending debate. One of many<br />

contentious issues is the question of tank and artillery support<br />

for the assault by the Black Watch on their objective in phase<br />

II, the village of Fontenay-le-Marmion. 2 Sixty-five years later,<br />

embittered survivors still state categorically that neither tank<br />

nor artillery support materialized during their mid-morning<br />

assault, and that the lack of support led directly to the failure<br />

of the four-hour attack, in which they suffered 94% casualties.<br />

Not surprisingly, veterans from both the 5th Field Artillery<br />

Regiment and the First Hussars refute these claims to varying<br />

degrees, and no historical account or military study has<br />

remedied the finger-pointing or provided much-needed<br />

understanding of the events of 25 July. For the most part, this<br />

is due to the failure to examine the situation faced by the<br />

Black Watch and their supporting arms within the overall<br />

context of Operation SPRING. This examination not only<br />

silences the lingering tempest in a teapot; it also transcends<br />

the inquiry to provide insight into the questions of leadership,<br />

decision-making, command and control, tank/infantry<br />

cooperation and the Clausewitzian “friction” and “fog of war”<br />

in this brutal chapter of Canadian military history. 3<br />

Designed by Simonds under the auspices of General Miles<br />

Dempsey’s Second British Army, SPRING reflected the<br />

Canadian Corps commander’s gunner training and his highly<br />

centralized command style. The plan was both complicated<br />

and complex, relying on strict timings and even stricter<br />

control for success. 4 Simonds’s plan, originally conceived on<br />

the morning of 20 July, envisioned a four-phase operation to<br />

© MR. DAVID R. O’KEEFE, ‘“NO WAITING FOR GEORGE”: THE QUESTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE BLACK WATCH ASSAULT<br />

ON VERRIÈRES RIDGE IN OPERATION SPRING, NORMANDY, 25 JULY 1944’, CANADIAN ARMY JOURNAL VOL. 16.2<br />

11

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!