You have to compare a British unit’s loses with an equivalent American unit’s losses over a similar time period. Anything else is a pointless argument.
“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.”
Why? I’m not looking for a fight, I’m intrigued at your thinking.
Unit A could be heavily engaged over a couple of days, but suffer relatively few losses.
Unit B might be heavily attrited over the course of nearly a year.
You can’t extrapolate B’s losses from A’s, or vice versa. Can you?
Take the other two examples given. I’m not understanding the averages, cos I is fick:
Arracourt lasted over 11 days in September 1944 and Lorraine/Saar (I assume this means the Lorraine campaign, of which Arracourt was arguably a part) from the beginning of September to mid-December 1944. Total Third Army casualties for the latter were over 55,000 men K/W/MiA. You have to take into account the assaults on Metz, the Saar and the Siegfried Line/Westwall against dug in and determined German forces.
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."