The bocage was pretty much effective yeah, but it did extend through most of the british and canadian sectors. Only around Caen did the region open up, but then that area proved a highly effective area for defense as well. The german defensive forces could look from above ground miles onto the british and canadian areas, watching any advance from afar. In this area, for example, just 4 hidden panzer IVs in a bocage at high ground could stop, and did stop, several british attacks in late june.
The casualties are limited to the normandy campaign, so losses in the pacific or in italy arent taken into account (if that is what you mean by other fronts, other than, say cherbourg or saint lo fronts).
And yeah it does sounds like lindybeige, but giving that the narrative is so one sided perhaps it takes such wild use of data and wild conclusions to then settle in the middle, heh.
Perhaps one variable that should be taken into account is the british combined use of independent tank brigades with churchill tanks, and specially churchill AVREs and crocodiles, with their infantry divisions. Giving the record of the crocodiles specially, in routing and forcing the surrender of german infantry units, this lightened the burden of the british infantry and made the british army, even if just slightly, more effective than the american, all other things being equal (effective in terms of fewer losses taken, with higher casualtes given to the enemy). IIRC from D+5 the british were already effectively combining their armoured brigades and infantry divisions in their advances and operations. And the british had almost as many tanks into their independent brigades in total, in normandy, as the number of tanks in the actual armoured divisions.
Another point is that per division the british had way more artillery pieces than the american divisions. IIRC around 80 to 50. This difference in firepower per division is quite notable. AND the british per division had 50 anti tank guns in 1944, with most of them being 17 pounder. In contrast i believe (though i might be mistaken on this), the americans still relied on their version of the 6 pounder, which did not even have the improved ammunitions the british had developed at the time already (not only APDS but other types as well). Though, the americans fielded several tank destroyer regiments that would do the role of the anti tank guns. This might explain the bigger tank losses the americans had.
Maybe Americans just had more responsibilities and had more divisions on more fronts to take casualties? I dunno, this seems impossible to answer given your data and feels like the kind of thing Lindybeige would use to prove the supremacy of the English.
The casualties are limited to the normandy campaign, so losses in the pacific or in italy arent taken into account (if that is what you mean by other fronts, other than, say cherbourg or saint lo fronts).
And yeah it does sounds like lindybeige, but giving that the narrative is so one sided perhaps it takes such wild use of data and wild conclusions to then settle in the middle, heh.
Perhaps one variable that should be taken into account is the british combined use of independent tank brigades with churchill tanks, and specially churchill AVREs and crocodiles, with their infantry divisions. Giving the record of the crocodiles specially, in routing and forcing the surrender of german infantry units, this lightened the burden of the british infantry and made the british army, even if just slightly, more effective than the american, all other things being equal (effective in terms of fewer losses taken, with higher casualtes given to the enemy). IIRC from D+5 the british were already effectively combining their armoured brigades and infantry divisions in their advances and operations. And the british had almost as many tanks into their independent brigades in total, in normandy, as the number of tanks in the actual armoured divisions.
Another point is that per division the british had way more artillery pieces than the american divisions. IIRC around 80 to 50. This difference in firepower per division is quite notable. AND the british per division had 50 anti tank guns in 1944, with most of them being 17 pounder. In contrast i believe (though i might be mistaken on this), the americans still relied on their version of the 6 pounder, which did not even have the improved ammunitions the british had developed at the time already (not only APDS but other types as well). Though, the americans fielded several tank destroyer regiments that would do the role of the anti tank guns. This might explain the bigger tank losses the americans had.