This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle for Caen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8Auto-archiving period: 20 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So, as we are all aware, there has been extensive discussion here on what should be and what should not be in the article. All of which appears to have distracted from article development. I propose that we all take a break from the talkpage for a short period, maybe until the end of the month, to allow concentration be applied to the article; then we can resume the debate? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
As has been highlighted a major deficiency in the article has been the treatment of German plans - I've added some information about their order of battle and plans for specific attacks. Suggestions on how to integrate this into the article? Aber~enwiki ( talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not quite that simple. On reflection the key points on the German reaction that need to be included:
- Up to D+6 counterattack planned in British sector but the 3 Pz divisions available pulled into holding the line
- counterattack to be made against Carentan (need to check details), but 2 Pz used against Perch
- D+14 major counterattack planned with I and II SS Pz Corps when they arrive, but pre-empted by Epsom
These do not fit easily into the paragraphs about each Allied operation and need to be inserted as separate paragraphs Aber~enwiki ( talk) 06:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
well the idea was good but we seem to have gone about it the wrong way. If a edit is so large or unacceptable to another editor that they feel it necessary to revert wholesale, then please check you are not throwing put any babies with the bath water and see if you can retain any part of the edit that was useful. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 05:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Am I right in saying that the casualty list given on the right side of the page is grossly understated? Particularly for the Germans, if the "battle for Caen" is taken to include the Falaise Gap.
References
Below is a quote from Bradley, presumably from his memoirs, unfortunately I don't have a page number:
"While Collins was hoisting his VII Corps flag over Cherbourg, Montgomery was spending his reputation in a bitter siege against the old university city of Caen. For three weeks he had rammed his troops against those panzer divisions he had deliberately drawn towards that city as part of our Allied strategy of diversion in the Normandy Campaign. Although Caen contained an important road junction that Montgomery would eventually need, for the moment the capture of that city was only incidental to his mission. For Monty’s primary task was to attract German troops to the British front that we might more easily secure Cherbourg and get into position for the breakout.
In this diversionary mission Monty was more than successful, for the harder he hammered towards Caen, the more German troops he drew into that sector. Too many correspondents, however, had overrated the importance of Caen itself, and when Monty failed to take it, they blamed him for the delay. But had we attempted to exonerate Montgomery by explaining how successfully he had hoodwinked the German by diverting him toward Caen from the Cotentin, we would have also given our strategy away. We desperately wanted the German to believe this attack on Caen was the main Allied effort.
But while this diversion of Monty’s was brilliantly achieved, he nevertheless left himself open to criticism by overemphasising the importance of his thrust toward Caen. Had he limited himself simply to the containment without making Caen a symbol of it, he would have been credited with success instead of being charged, as he was, with failure at Caen. For Monty’s success should have been measured in the panzer divisions the enemy rushed against him whilst Collins sped on toward Cherbourg. Instead, the Allied newspaper readers clammered for a place name called Caen which Monty had once promised but failed to win for them.
The containment mission that had been assigned Monty in the OVERLORD plan was not calculated to burnish British pride in the accomplishments of their troops. For in the minds of most people, success in battle is measured in the rate and length of advance. They found it difficult to realise that the more successful Monty was in stirring up German resistance, the less likely he was to advance. For another four weeks it fell to the British to pin down superior enemy forces in that sector while we manoeuvred into position for the US breakout. With the Allied world crying for blitzkrieg the first week after we landed, the British endured their passive role with patience and forbearing." - Omar Bradley
Bradley's memoirs were published in 1951, Montgomery's in 1958.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.142 ( talk) 08:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
For some time the section headed "Buckley, 2014" has included the text, "since the 1990s the methods used by Montgomery had been re-evaluated, with his obnoxious personality being given less prominence." A Google Books check of Buckley's Monty's Men: The British Army and the Liberation of Europe (2014) shows that he does not use the word "obnoxious" anywhere at all, let alone in relation to Montgomery's personality. I am therefore again removing the contentious word until such time as someone can demonstrate that Buckley actually uses it in the same context. Nick Cooper ( talk) 18:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Editor put as reasoning for edit “79th did not act as a division, has to be a better way to reflect this in the infobox than showing a notional 4 combat armoured divs“…well neither did some of the “Panzer Divisions” on the German side. 2nd SS sent KG Weidinger only (against EPSOM) and spent the rest of the campaign on the American front. Regardless, does the clarification “specialist armoured division” work? 72.26.17.219 ( talk) 11:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The Aftermath/Histories section seems as long as the coverage of the battle itself; should be summarised further or spun off? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The page needs casualties added to the battle box. 2001:8003:3A18:E00:182A:BD:D4A1:A0E0 ( talk) 04:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle for Caen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8Auto-archiving period: 20 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So, as we are all aware, there has been extensive discussion here on what should be and what should not be in the article. All of which appears to have distracted from article development. I propose that we all take a break from the talkpage for a short period, maybe until the end of the month, to allow concentration be applied to the article; then we can resume the debate? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
As has been highlighted a major deficiency in the article has been the treatment of German plans - I've added some information about their order of battle and plans for specific attacks. Suggestions on how to integrate this into the article? Aber~enwiki ( talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not quite that simple. On reflection the key points on the German reaction that need to be included:
- Up to D+6 counterattack planned in British sector but the 3 Pz divisions available pulled into holding the line
- counterattack to be made against Carentan (need to check details), but 2 Pz used against Perch
- D+14 major counterattack planned with I and II SS Pz Corps when they arrive, but pre-empted by Epsom
These do not fit easily into the paragraphs about each Allied operation and need to be inserted as separate paragraphs Aber~enwiki ( talk) 06:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
well the idea was good but we seem to have gone about it the wrong way. If a edit is so large or unacceptable to another editor that they feel it necessary to revert wholesale, then please check you are not throwing put any babies with the bath water and see if you can retain any part of the edit that was useful. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 05:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Am I right in saying that the casualty list given on the right side of the page is grossly understated? Particularly for the Germans, if the "battle for Caen" is taken to include the Falaise Gap.
References
Below is a quote from Bradley, presumably from his memoirs, unfortunately I don't have a page number:
"While Collins was hoisting his VII Corps flag over Cherbourg, Montgomery was spending his reputation in a bitter siege against the old university city of Caen. For three weeks he had rammed his troops against those panzer divisions he had deliberately drawn towards that city as part of our Allied strategy of diversion in the Normandy Campaign. Although Caen contained an important road junction that Montgomery would eventually need, for the moment the capture of that city was only incidental to his mission. For Monty’s primary task was to attract German troops to the British front that we might more easily secure Cherbourg and get into position for the breakout.
In this diversionary mission Monty was more than successful, for the harder he hammered towards Caen, the more German troops he drew into that sector. Too many correspondents, however, had overrated the importance of Caen itself, and when Monty failed to take it, they blamed him for the delay. But had we attempted to exonerate Montgomery by explaining how successfully he had hoodwinked the German by diverting him toward Caen from the Cotentin, we would have also given our strategy away. We desperately wanted the German to believe this attack on Caen was the main Allied effort.
But while this diversion of Monty’s was brilliantly achieved, he nevertheless left himself open to criticism by overemphasising the importance of his thrust toward Caen. Had he limited himself simply to the containment without making Caen a symbol of it, he would have been credited with success instead of being charged, as he was, with failure at Caen. For Monty’s success should have been measured in the panzer divisions the enemy rushed against him whilst Collins sped on toward Cherbourg. Instead, the Allied newspaper readers clammered for a place name called Caen which Monty had once promised but failed to win for them.
The containment mission that had been assigned Monty in the OVERLORD plan was not calculated to burnish British pride in the accomplishments of their troops. For in the minds of most people, success in battle is measured in the rate and length of advance. They found it difficult to realise that the more successful Monty was in stirring up German resistance, the less likely he was to advance. For another four weeks it fell to the British to pin down superior enemy forces in that sector while we manoeuvred into position for the US breakout. With the Allied world crying for blitzkrieg the first week after we landed, the British endured their passive role with patience and forbearing." - Omar Bradley
Bradley's memoirs were published in 1951, Montgomery's in 1958.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.142 ( talk) 08:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
For some time the section headed "Buckley, 2014" has included the text, "since the 1990s the methods used by Montgomery had been re-evaluated, with his obnoxious personality being given less prominence." A Google Books check of Buckley's Monty's Men: The British Army and the Liberation of Europe (2014) shows that he does not use the word "obnoxious" anywhere at all, let alone in relation to Montgomery's personality. I am therefore again removing the contentious word until such time as someone can demonstrate that Buckley actually uses it in the same context. Nick Cooper ( talk) 18:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Editor put as reasoning for edit “79th did not act as a division, has to be a better way to reflect this in the infobox than showing a notional 4 combat armoured divs“…well neither did some of the “Panzer Divisions” on the German side. 2nd SS sent KG Weidinger only (against EPSOM) and spent the rest of the campaign on the American front. Regardless, does the clarification “specialist armoured division” work? 72.26.17.219 ( talk) 11:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The Aftermath/Histories section seems as long as the coverage of the battle itself; should be summarised further or spun off? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 12:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The page needs casualties added to the battle box. 2001:8003:3A18:E00:182A:BD:D4A1:A0E0 ( talk) 04:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)