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 of the Bon Repas–Évrecy road, a clear victory in a win-lose narrative but a typical German defeat in any cost-benefit analysis".