The 101st's role in Operation Overlord was almost over. On June 29 the division was withdrawn from Carentan and moved north for occupation duty near Cherbourg. The troops were due some relief. Since D-Day the division had suffered more than forty-six hundred casualties, over one-third of its strength.

For the Allied high command, however, the work of the airborne divisions, on which such care had been lavished, was a source of relief and satisfaction. Despite heavy casualties — and those in the 82nd were even higher than those in the 101st — the airborne component had made a major contribution to the success of Overlord. Bradley, who had told Eisenhower that he could not order landings at Utah Beach without the airborne operation, was elated. As for Eisenhower, asked many years later what had been his most satisfying moment in the war, he replied that it was when he heard that his two airborne divisions had reached Normandy.

Taylor, in assessing the campaign in his official report, considered both tangibles and intangibles. The most visible benefit had been the 101st's contribution to the almost bloodless landing at Utah Beach. Less quantifiable was the confusion that the parachute landings had sown in the mind of the enemy.An airborne landing at night, Taylor wrote, has a devastating effect on the enemy. It upsets his command organization and prevents the movement of his reserves and artillery. Although the attacker's plans may go awry in the fog of war, the disruptive effect of the attack on the enemy more than compensates.

At the same time, Taylor was not inclined toward complacency. He called attention to the heavy losses in equipment delivered by parachute, estimating these to be about 60 percent. The general had harsh words for the Troop Carrier Command, noting that the scattered drop of his division had undone much of the careful training the men had undergone.

Taylor drew a number of conclusions from the Normandy operation. First, an airborne division should not be expected to function as a unit for at least twenty-four hours after landing. In this initial period, any results must come from the aggressive action of small groups. Second, airborne units require prompt support from heavier forces. In Taylor's judgment, the pre-D-Day assumption that an airborne division could maintain itself independently for two or three days should be revised downward. Third, the element of surprise inherent in an airborne operation should be exploited to the fullest. For that reason, and to mitigate the absence of heavy weapons, it may be more economical of lives to land directly on the enemy than to come down at a distance and close with him.

Taylor's final conclusion was rooted in personal experience.There is an im-mediate requirement, he wrote, for a quick release harness. He had not forgotten his ten uncomfortable minutes in that Norman pasture.

The campaign in Normandy was only the first for the Screaming Eagles, who would serve in Holland during the Arnhem campaign and whose legendary defense of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge would blunt Hitler's last offensive. The 101st would become the first entire division to be awarded the Distinguished Unit Citation, now called the Presidential Unit Citation.

Decades later, British historian John Keegan reflected on the contribution of the American airborne to the success of D-Day: Like pioneers in an unknown land, ignorant of its language and landmarks, uncertain of what danger the next thicket or stream-bottom might hold, confident only in themselves and their mastery of the weapons in their hands, the best and bravest of them had stifled their fears, marched forth and planted the roots of settlement in the soil that was there for the taking.

In an impromptu speech at Cherbourg as the 101st prepared to return to Britain, Taylor put the matter more bluntly: You hit the ground running toward the enemy. You have proved the German soldier is no superman. You have beaten him on his own ground and you can beat him on any ground. And so they would.

---

This article was written by John M. Taylor and originally published in the Summer 2004 edition of MHQ. For more great articles, subscribe to MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History today!

Pages: 1 2 3 4