# Ortona



## SNoseworthy (3 Nov 2004)

Just wondering if someone has a number (with source) for the number of Canadian Casualties at Ortona (I can only seem to find totals for all of Dec 1943 online and my offline reference collection is on its way in from home still). I've been working on a site dedicated to the battle in commemoration of this year's Veteran's Week (official theme being the Italian Campaign) and I need some good numbers for the timeline section. Also, any information on German casualties would be a great help too.

Thanks


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Nov 2004)

Though he doesn't specify casualties from within Ortona itself, from "The D-Day Dodgers," by Dancocks (1991):


> "Canadians would long remember Ortona, too - both the veterans who survived it, and the grieving families of the many who did not. December had been a grim month. In the slow, painful progress from the Moro past Ortona, Canadian casualties totalled 695 dead and 1,738 wounded, in addition to 1,773 sick, for a staggering total of 4,206."


----------



## mbhabfan (3 Nov 2004)

I have breakfast with an 84 year old veteran who was there, it is truly amazing to listen to his stories.  Off topic but I love hearing them from him.


----------



## pbi (3 Nov 2004)

I have heard the Battle of Ortona referred to as "The Canadian Stalingrad". I have also read a comment that the close-quarter fighting was so intense that "_Ortona was blown down by hand_". Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Nov 2004)

Yes, I do have the casualty figures for the fighting in the city itself.

About 100 German dead were left behind in the city when they withdrew.  One source states that 200 Germans were killed in total.

Casualties for the Loyal Edmonton Regiment were 172 (over 60 of which were fatal). 

 The Seaforths had lost 42 killed and 78 wounded.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Nov 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> I have heard the Battle of Ortona referred to as "The Canadian Stalingrad". I have also read a comment that the close-quarter fighting was so intense that "_Ortona was blown down by hand_". Cheers.



There were some spectacular demolitions during the fighting - when the Germans blew up an entire platoon of Edmontons in a house (the Germans had access to the sewer system) leaving only Woody Boyd alive (and under the rubble for 3 days), the Canadians retaliated in kind the next night.

However, much of the demolition was caused either before the battle by German pioneers or during (but away from) the fighting. Allied artillery and air support were prohibited from firing into the city at large due to the large number of civilians present.   The Germans had no such compunctions; one of the main churches was cleaved in half by German demolitions in preparation for the upcoming fight.   Throughout the battle, the Germans brought buildings down to act as roadblocks and defensive positions.

Where the Canadian tanks were able to operate, they certainly engaged the Germans with direct fire HE - one trick was to fire AP at a wall, creating a hole large enough to send a second, HE, shell through so as to explode inside the building.


----------



## combat_medic (4 Nov 2004)

While I would never dare to diminish the diffiulty of the victory at Ortona, I think that comparing it to Stalingrad would be unfair. The battle of Stalingrad lasted more than 6 months, and caused more than half a million deaths with another hundred thousand or so taken prisoner. The rough equivalent to this, in my opinion, would be the entire Italian campaign, or the entire D-day invasion. The scale of Stalingrad is something that seems to get easily forgotten, particularly here in the west. Losing 650,000 men in one battle is unfathomable to us, and is about the same number of casualties that the Canadians, British and Americans lost combined throughout the entire duration of the war in both the European and Pacific theatres.


----------



## pbi (4 Nov 2004)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> While I would never dare to diminish the diffiulty of the victory at Ortona, I think that comparing it to Stalingrad would be unfair. The battle of Stalingrad lasted more than 6 months, and caused more than half a million deaths with another hundred thousand or so taken prisoner. The rough equivalent to this, in my opinion, would be the entire Italian campaign, or the entire D-day invasion. The scale of Stalingrad is something that seems to get easily forgotten, particularly here in the west. Losing 650,000 men in one battle is unfathomable to us, and is about the same number of casualties that the Canadians, British and Americans lost combined throughout the entire duration of the war in both the European and Pacific theatres.



Thanks for that. I'd say if you were in the fight at Ortona, you might find issues of scale quite academic. Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Nov 2004)

Scale was never the issue.  The press called it "Little Stalingrad" (the original poster is incorrect re: "Canada's Stalingrad" - from what I can tell, this was never used).

The issue was of symbolic significance - the Germans defended the city mainly because the Allied press gave it such importance.  IIRC First Division also wanted to bypass the city (the usual, sensible, option to assaulting a city).  The divisional commander was inexperienced, however, and has been criticized for his costly frontal assaults throughout the Moro campaign (of which Ortona was only the culmination).

It was the press who named the battle as Little Stalingrad, not the soldiers, nor historians.  Not the first time the press changed world events or made things rougher on the troops who did the bleeding.

Stalingrad was a catastrophe for Germany - it invited the first official period of mourning and the first real symbolic defeat.  Ortona was none of that, but it did mark the first divisional level battle that Canadians fought in WW II.   Sicily and everything to that point were smaller battalion and brigade actions; Ortona saw the full div employed in a continuous operation - if I am reading my Dancocks correctly.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Nov 2004)

For casualty figures for Dec 1943, see the appendix to CMHC Report number 129 here:

http://www.dnd.ca/hr/dhh/history_archives/engraph/cmhq_e.asp?cat=1
(scroll down to link for document)

Canadian Military Headquarters (CMHQ) Reports 1940-1948
*Report No. 129*
25 Nov 1944
*Canadian Operations in Italy Sep-Dec 1943. Preliminary Report.*


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Nov 2004)

Michael OLeary said:
			
		

> For casualty figures for Dec 1943, see the appendix to CMHC Report number 129 here:
> 
> http://www.dnd.ca/hr/dhh/history_archives/engraph/cmhq_e.asp?cat=1
> (scroll down to link for document)
> ...



Or read my post, above....

FWIW I believe my sources were the Seaforth history by Roy, Dancocks, Zuehlke (God help me), and the comic book by an Italian whose name I don't remember - which is an invaluable history as far as the Italian civilian side of the story goes.

I don't see any casualty breakdown for the city fighting in the official report linked to, though there is a table outlining casualties for all of December for all units in 1st Divisoin.


----------



## pbi (5 Nov 2004)

Thanks for squaring me away. I'd never heard of the battle of Stalingrad before. Sounds like it was pretty big, eh?  Cheers.


----------



## SNoseworthy (5 Nov 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Yes, I do have the casualty figures for the fighting in the city itself.
> 
> About 100 German dead were left behind in the city when they withdrew.  One source states that 200 Germans were killed in total.
> 
> ...



Thanks a bunch Michael.


----------



## dutchie (5 Nov 2004)

Not to nit pick, but Stalingrad lasted for about a year and a half, not 6 months....IIRC.

And, yeah, the reference to "Canada's Stalingrad" or "Little Stalingrad" was to the significance to the overall impact of the war, not casualty figures.

I have been to Ortona, and I must say, it is quite a sight. I have walked some of the terrain that the battle took place on like the cliffs, 'The Gully', 'Dead Horse Square', and the church that was blown up, and it was really incredible. It's as if the city and the surrounding area was designed for defence, which is about right as Italian Coastal towns were designed that way centuries ago. I was really in awe. Thankfully I had read my Regimental History book prior to going (Seaforth), as this gave me a lot of perspective and inside info not included in Zuehlke's book (surprise, surprise). You can still see evidence of the battle, and I even found some interesting painted on signage still visible on the walls. One was stating the Allied curfew, one was fascist (Ital) propaganda, and the other in/out route markings for allied vehicles. The town's people still remember us, and welcomed me, a Seaforth, warmly. If any Seaforth's (or Canadians for that matter) visit, I reccomend Mitchel & O'Brien's Pub in one of the 'Piazzas'. Lots of good Brit, German, Belgian, and Ital beer, and great appy's, not to mention a very pro-Canadian atmosphere.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Nov 2004)

6th Armee approached the outskirts of Stalingrad in September 1942; by October fighting was fierce in the city itself.  November was the large counterattack - Hubertus/Uranus?  The last remnants of the Armee surrendered in early February 1943.  I do believe that is six months.

Ortona had little impact on the war, that is the point - the "Little Stalingrad" monicker was pure media spin.  I guess in essence each side showed how hard it was willing to fight, even for something that may have been quite tactically and strategically useless.


----------



## dutchie (5 Nov 2004)

I stand corrected on Stalingrad...not sure why I thought that.....

re:significance of Ortona, my understanding behind 'Little Stalingrad' is that it was the tenacity of the street fighting, and the order from Hitler that it be defended to the 'last man' that gives it significance. 

Was Ortona of great military significance? No. As you correctly pointed out, from a purely tactical perpective, it should have been bypassed, but Allied Command wanted to take it by force.

In the end, it really doesn't matter.


----------



## SNoseworthy (8 Nov 2004)

I've finished the site - the synopsis of the battle deals with just that, not the traditional historical argumentative analysis that you'd find in books and term papers. I'm sure that somewhere I might have made a stupid mistake that I never caught when I did the editing, so if you see any please do tell me so I can correct them ASAP. 

Hope you find the site educational.

Cheers

http://www.cdnmilitary.ca/ortona_2004


----------



## BDTyre (9 Nov 2004)

My grandfather-in-law was a pioneer sargeant in the Seaforths through Ortona, but he never really talks about it.  He makes references to incidents in Italy, but never actually mentions Ortona or says whether a particular incident occured during the battle.

He did enjoy getting the book "Ortona" for his birthday though.


----------



## Freedom_Rider (10 Nov 2004)

Just thought I would add my 2 cents worth here about Ortona before its to late and this discussion closes.

This is from the cbc.ca archives web site: "The Battle of The Moro".

"The Germans had given the Allies the impression that Ortona was an objective that would be worth obtaining. In fact Hitler had ordered Field Marshal Kesseiring to fight a delaying action through Italy to wear down The Allies and Ortona was a diversion designed to waste their time.
Montgomery believed that in order to take the Bernhard Line, Ortona must be captured. To his mind it was the hinge pin of the Ortona-Gaeta line, which stretched from east to west, and to reach it Montgomery decided to send the troops through the narrow area between the Appenines and the Adriatic Sea.."

But search as much as I can I can not find any reference to Little Stalingrad anywhere.
That doesn't mean that there isn't one, just I can't find it.


----------

