It might, but that is what I am asking really – I’m asking why the British crew casualties as a percentage over a short period of intense battle are a lot lower. The US Division’s figures, taken over 10 months represent a baseline for the kinds of casualty figures that an armoured division suffers over the campaign; intuitively one might expect it to be the other way around. I checked 6 Armd’s war diary and the human casualty figures seem to be of the same type (i.e. they aren’t a record of permanently dead or disabled, but battle casualties off the field for more than 24 hours). It may be an accounting issue with tank losses of course, although I haven’t seen anything to suggest what that would be.