sort of draw" and that judging the effects of Operation Epsom is hampered by disagreement about Montgomery's intent. In written orders Montgomery required an advance across the Orne River and the capture of high ground south of Caen, which was prevented by the defenders. Clark wrote that there were implicit objectives with strategic implications, more important than the capture of ground. In 1971, Stephen Ambrose wrote of Epsom veering off-course from the plan and D'Este that Epsom was "an operation of immense intentions which were not attained", calling it a "dismal failure". In 2004, Simon Trew and Stephen Badsey wrote of the British failure that it "... took most of six Panzer Divisions to stop Epsom short of its final objectives...." and Michael Reynolds in 2002 wrote that without the commitment of the six divisions, it was highly likely that the British offensive would have achieved its goals. Ian Daglish in 2007 wrote that while the original concept of Epsom had failed, the offensive was a strategic success. By withdrawing the 11th Armoured Division across the Odon and then into reserve, the Second Army had re-created the threat of an offensive near Caen. By the end of June, all German armoured forces in Normandy were concentrated on the Second Army front. Milton Shulman had written in 1947 that with the defeat of its second armoured counter-attack in June, the German command had thrown away its most effective troops and Reynolds wrote that while the operation was costly for the British, it caused grievous losses to the Germans. In the VIII Corps history published in 1945, G. S. Jackson wrote that Epsom failed in its overt goal but that "when seen as part of Montgomery's series of rapid and consecutive blows against the German Army in Normandy, the importance of Epsom becomes more apparent and there is little doubt that it did play a significant part in the Allies' eventual success in the region". D'Este wrote that the losses inflicted on the German army were "purely in terms of men and material". Terry Copp, in 2003, wrote that too much emphasis had been given to a win-lose criterion, whereas a cost-benefit approach provided more insight. Describing the standard German practice of counter-attacking when driven from a position, Copp wrote that the Germans courted losses that could not be readily replaced, "One such counter-attack on 22 July resulted in 10SS regaining control