![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This article is almost a history of the Normandy campaign. Maybe it could do with some trimming? DMorpheus 19:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I trimmed it down. There was lots of good content but much of it was about the broader campaign. Tried to fix some translation boo-boos also. It still needs an ending/conclusion. DMorpheus 20:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This was a significant battle for the Canadian Army in World War II, yet it's not mentioned as one of the combatants at the head of the article -- I can only presume that's because we don't know the exact names of the involved units. Can someone fill in the missing detail? I'm not qualified to. Rhombus 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The dates for the fighting around Tilly-sur-Seulles are wrong I'm afraid. The present article says that the town was fought over from July 8th - 19th. However, the dates are one month too late and should read June 8th - June 19th.
Tilly was secured on June 19th by the 2nd Battalion, The Essex Regiment.
(I would try and edit it myself, but this is the first time I've ever posted anything on Wikipedia, and barely know how to post this) BobFish 13:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Me again (sorry). I think it might be worthwhile to explain why Caen wasn't captured on D-Day itself - eg the beaches; Strongpoint Hillman; the 21st Panzer counter-attack; the need to defend the Airborne bridgehead; the other tasks of 3rd Division etc etc
Let me know what you think, and if you'd like me to write it or not. Cheers.
Also, might it be good to cut down the Allied "Strength" list? Reduce it to "British 2nd Army, Canadian 1st Army, RAF, USAAF, Royal Navy" or some such. The current list is a bit too selective and to include every Corps, Division and Regiment that fought at Caen would take up a large amount of space. I'd suggest the same for the German "Strength" aswell.
BobFish 12:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The official name of the country during WWII was Deutschland (Germany), or Deutsches Reich (German Reich), or in speeches Großdeutschland (Greater Germany) or Drittes Reich (Third Reich). Germany was governed from 1933-1945 by the Nazi party in dictatorial fashion; the Soviet Union was run by the Communist party from 1922-1991 in the same tyrannical way, yet that country is not labeled in Wikipedia as the Communist Soviet Union. The Swastika flag clearly identifies the Germany of 1933-1945.-- Gamahler 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand while one author has stated so, is his opinion backed up by other sources?
On the other hand does it really qualify as one? While the battle plan called for minimising casualties as much as possible – “Colossal Cracks” – GHQ expected that the invasion would cause them heavy casualties. They were expecting them, iirc they were much lower then anticipated. Therefore is it a Pyrrhic Victory or a Tactical one?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
But you're asking us to prove a negative - and I've provided an alternate cite. The Canadian Army official history, which is available online in pdf form.
Link is here:
http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/engraph/details_e.asp?BfBookLang=1&BfId=29&cat=7
In spite of their dreadful experience, the people of Caen greeted their liberators in a manner which our troops found very moving. And the Caennais were apparently particularly delighted to find their city freed in part by men from Canada. The historians of Caen during the siege thus describe the events of 9 July:
At 2:30 p.m., at last, the first Canadians reached the Place Fontette, advancing as skirmishers, hugging the walls, rifles and tommy guns at the ready.All Caen was in the streets to greet them. These are Canadians, of all the Allies the closest to us;many of them speak French. The joy is great and yet restrained. People—the sort of people who considered the battle of Normandy nothing but a military promenade—have reproached us for not having fallen on the necks of our liberators. Those people forget the Calvary that we had been undergoing since the 6th of June. No Canadian unit recorded any complaint of the warmth of the welcome; and the 1st Corps situation report for the day remarked, "Inhabitants enthusiastic at Allied entry,” The people of Caen had suffered; the liberators had suffered too. The final phase of the battle for the city had been as bloody as its predecessors. The losses of The Highland Light Infantry of Canada on 8 July have already been noticed (above, page 161); no other unit lost so heavily, but the three battalions of the 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade together had 547 battle casualties on 8 July and 69 more on the 9th. Total Canadian casualties for the theatre on the two days were 1194, of which 330 were fatal.51 This was heavier than the loss on D Day. Although the greater part of Caen had been liberated, the enemy was still in the southern quarters of the city, across the Orne. The only foothold the Allies possessed
beyond the river was that seized by the airborne troops on 6 June. The task of breaking out into the open country to the south-east, so long desired by the air forces for airfields, was still ahead.
No mention of "pyhrric victories", just the undramtic notation that casualties had been suffered. I think taking the word of hack writers is bad advice. But check the other sources you mention and let us know how many use the same flowery language. I don't even think there is a definition of "pyhrric victory" anywhere we could agree on in any event. 139.48.25.61 ( talk) 17:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Defeat in the West 162-163
talks about the German panzer divisions being drawn onto the Caen front just before the Cobra attack
p. 166
"[talks about panzer divisions being drawn onto Caen sector].. What better justification for the strategy adopbted by Alllied plannser to attract to the anvil of Caen the bulk of German armour and there methodically hammer it to bits!"
Why the allies won p.212
"The day after the fall of Avranches von Kluge warned Hitler's headquarters that the German left flank had collapsed, the front 'ripped open' by American armour. The choice was between holding at Caen and avandoning western France, or dividing German forces between two battles, and risking collaspe in both."
Colossal Cracks p.47
Table 3.2 shows that the predicted British losses June - August were actually less then the actual casualties. Hence a Pyrrhic Victory seems to be impossible.
The article doesn't seem to say clearly when the last parts of Caen were finally captured - pretty important given the title of the article. Can Operation Spring be deleted? The accounts of operations really need a concluding paragraph tat relates the battles back to the city.
Also, the section on the effects on the city is pretty thin. I seem to remember that a number of prominent buildings did survive, including the two Norman abbeys, but I don't recall how damaged they were.
which 4 heavy tank battalions???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
the 101st was attached to the LSSAH, when u count the LSSAH then u count the 101st automaticly. the unit was not independent. So no 4 heavies.
Blablaaa (
talk)
21:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
it was part of the LSSAH, and the LSSAh is already included in the box... Blablaaa ( talk) 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, shouldn't the dates be 6 June - 20/22 July? By that time, Caen itself had fallen. Anything after that should really come under "Battle for Falaise" or similar. I also don't think the reference to "Spring" is necessary for the same reason. Just IMHO Gunner357 ( talk) 20:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
"Montgomery responded [to Ike request] on 24 July with plans for attacks by Second Army and First Canadian Army to assist First US Army's break-out, culminating in a drive to Faliase. The start of this was Operation Spring, a strike southwards from Verrieres ridge......Cobra and Spring finally took place together on 25 July.....Army Group B remained uncertain which was the main Allied break-out attempt.
As Rommel had predicted on 9 July, Army Group B could not hold its line in Normandy and Operation Cobra (indirectly assisted by Operation Spring) began an American break-out .......On 7 August, II Canadian Corps mounted a second attack agaisnt Berrieres ridge in Operation Totalize....For the British and Canadians, the next battles in Normandy would not be for Caen, but for the road to Falaise."
Given the city was 5-6km behind Allied lines by 18 July, it is ridiculous to suggest the battle for Caen extended into August.....and is probably just playing into the hands of the unfortunately numerous people who like to imagine the Brits & Canadians were still stuck outside Caen until "rescued" by the US breakout. I can't think of any logical rationale for it....cannot imagine why anyone would have put August in the first place?? How can you be battling for Caen when you took it three weeks back?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.66.145 ( talk) 22:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not that much of military expert. I have read a book about the 12thSSPanzerDivision which focus a lot about the battle of Caen. It is clear that there is only three German panzer division in the battle not 8. The three division is the 12thSSPanzerDivision, Panzer-Lehr Division and the 21stPanzerDivision. From many source I have read I believe that there is only 5 German panzer division in overlord. Just like what I have said, I am not a history expert so dont judge me too hard :( (I make no edit because I am not a history expert) Pat 15/03/2011
Decent article, but atm, is way too focused on the allies. All of the photos are taken from an allied perspective, how about some taken by Germans? user:Pzg Ratzinger
-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The 'Allied-centric' nature of this article has a lot to do with obtaining verifiable records. Far more information has been uncovered or released from source and written up by 'Allied' researchers than their counterparts in Germany. Legal obstacles exist to publishing research in Germany relating to Nazism and this too has affected both research and publication of German source data. An overall reluctance by 'Allied' writers to stray far from their 'official' governmental versions of the campaign has also hampered clarity. The 'bias' has less to do with any malice or disrespect and more to do with writers having to undertake laborious, time-consuming and difficult research, often further hampered by custodians of source material who may choose to act as 'gatekeepers' - obstructing access and maintaining the current state of knowledge/ignorance for their own ends or those of their paymasters. As time passes though, the situation is improving.-- Loop Withers ( talk) 10:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The account of war crimes by either side is confusing - I have been unable to unravel it at this time. Ballista 04:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see section below relating to the topic of War Crimes.-- Loop Withers ( talk) 10:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
There is one line that doesnt seem appropriate. Right before the account of the account of the Canadian officer forcing the tired Germans to swim the river in which many of them drowned, the writer states the following:
"The Canadian company commander Major Jacques D. Dextraze said and to a certain extent confirmed the accusations by Meyer:"
Meyer stated that the orders said if taking prisoners was to slow down the advance then none should be taken. The example of the German POWs being forced to swim has nothing to do with the alleged orders Meyer found as there is no indictation they were slowing down the advance, only one officer was escorting them back and it seems it was the officer being sadistic rather then following the alleged orders. Either way the action and the alleged orders dont match, and it seems incorrect to assume that an example of one officer being sadistic confirms the entire Canadian Army was killing off prisioners to fullfull the alleged orders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wokelly ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity and accuracy of the main article, it would serve all parties to create a separate sub-article on War Crimes relating to this battle, as Jim suggests. Accurate research into the topic is hampered by the fact that official parties such as politicians and regiments on all sides are still in denial of battlefield war crimes for a variety of reasons.-- Loop Withers ( talk) 10:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The Dubious tag on this section; Meyer does make the claim in his book so that is not dubious - so I can only presume the editor who added the tag thinks that Meyer was not reporting the truth ? -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 17:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
This section is too long in proportion to the article and pretty rampant POV/OR. I am shortening the whole section. Cyclopaedic ( talk) 14:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
"According to the Canadian major Jacques D. Dextraze, 85 German prisoners were drowned in the river."
Removing this line, mainly because in its current form it gives the impression the 85 POWs were drowned in retaliation for German attrocities against allied troops, and frankly is not at all clear on what the heck it is talking about, doesnt specify what river or anything, nor is cited. Wokelly ( talk) 23:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned in the "Allied War Crimes" section above, it may be a way forward for a sub-article to be created to specifically deal with ALL aspects of War Crimes in this battle, to help clarify the understanding of that topic and also improve the understanding and flow of the main article. -- Loop Withers ( talk) 10:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why th word "meaningful" is used in this sentence? -- this is a battle, not a therapy group :"This slowed the attacks down and prevented meaningful cooperation." Mdk0642 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can. By separating the mechanised infantry from the tanks with whom they were supposed to be working alongside, two separate task groups were now made more vulnerable by their being apart. They were supposed ideally to work together. Thus, although the two separated groups could communicate with each other, distance and differing orders meant that they could offer little 'meaningful' support to each other (by joining forces). Apart, perhaps, from warning each other of enemy threats seen through binoculars or maybe wishing each other "good luck" over the radio. -- Loop Withers ( talk) 11:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Caen and the surrounding towns and villages were mostly destroyed; is perhaps a very short way of qualifying the effects on this town. For a start, no mention is made on the civilians during this battle. Hrcolyer 15:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that most researchers would agree that Hrcolyer identifies a serious shortcoming of the existing article. Maybe it would be helpful to seek advice and guidance on this matter from the City of Caen and move towards having this article extended to allow it to embrace a much wider awareness and understanding of many significant (and vital) facts, currently omitted from the Main Article? -- Loop Withers ( talk) 11:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Just wondering why the RAF bomb tonnages are in short tons - 2,000lb. The RAF and UK as a whole used the Imperial (long) ton, 2,240lb. Any UK WW II original bomb tonnages given will always be long tons unless someone has converted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 ( talk) 14:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Spring cleaned the page, repaired some broken links, tidied bibliography and reduced the Goodwood section to a summary and a link to the main page to avoid duplication. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
While i have sat and removed a large number of grammar and spelling mistakes from the article and added in numerous links to other wiki articles i have noticed there is hardly any footnotes to any referance material to back up what has been stated. Figuers and other information are presented as fact, and they probably are, however with nothing to support them how do we know?
Again, large ammounts of footnotes need to be added! -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Having read through the article, I have identified two major problems involving its structure and content. Firstly, as the "Operation Atlantic" section indicated, that battle was a "follow-up" of the Operation Goodwood, and the action described here also occured on 20 July, the final day of Goodwood. Therefore, why is the Atlantic section placed before the Goodwood one? Secondly, the article didn't give a clear picture of British and German units (and their commanders) involving the battle, as well as the exact point when the Allies totally mastered Caen. May anyone clarify these parts? Regards. Ti2008 ( talk) 12:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Battle for Caen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, Normandy went to plan, but not to timesecale. But, the battles envisaged before Paris emerged in Normandy, so at D-Day plus 90 they were ahead. The British beaches were selected to the East specifically because the British were more prepared for heavy German armour and had more experience in dealing with the Germans. It would be foolish to put the US forces in that position. Monty was in charge of it all, if he thought it was best to put US forces there he would. He was after a result from 'his' armies.
Goodwood's focus was not specifically tanks, as the Germans had five lines of defence with dug in 88mm's and heavy Tiger and fast Panther tanks for mobility. Goodwood was mostly 'not' bocage but open ground more suitable for tank battles, where the German long range 88mm's would be an advantage.
Montgomery was mentally ahead of all others. On a different plain. He specifically wanted to draw in German armour onto the British forces to grind them up to keeping them away from the US forces for them to break out. To do that he was confident his armour could match German. A 12 mile sector around Caen saw more concentrated German armour in all of WW2. Monty did not want to take territory, as the plan was for the US forces to do that. Monty specifically states this here in this link in an interview with Edward R Murrow. Transcript....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_TB9wHRRSw
It was clear Eisenhower did not have much of a clue what Monty was trying to do. The RAF chief Tedder, wanted Monty fired as he wanted open territory to the south towards Falaise to setup his air fields and said Monty was not pursuing territory aggressively enough. Monty would have none of it. Operation Goodwood was engaging the massed armoured German defences, with 5 lines on 88mm guns, drawing them in to grind them up moving slowly. Here is a 1970s objective British Army Sandhurst internal video analysing Operation Goodwood, with even German commanders who were there taking part. At the beginning it specifically states Monty told Generals O'Connor and Dempsey not to run south to Falaise, not to take territory. Look at 6 mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udW1UvSHXfY
Monty was not too concerned with Caen as it would consume too many resources to take. He was more concerned with grinding up German armour in the field. Although by the time of Goodwood only the Southern suburbs of Caen were in German hands.
Monty was in charge of all of Operation Overlord. He wanted the German armour away from US forces, to allow them to break out. It worked. That is what he wanted and planned. Monty never saw Caen as important but never criticised US forces..... until 1959 when they were at him about Caen, he criticised them for taking St.Lo a month late - with little German armour around for a month. The Germans did send some armour to St.Lo with the US forces making it worse for themselves to capture the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.0.153 ( talk) 14:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It was the most highly concentrated sector of German tanks in WW2. It was over 12 miles while Kursk was over 50 miles. 90% of the German armour in Normandy was engaging the British and Canadians.
Total: 1,515. 46% Tigers and Panthers.
The Tiger 1, King Tigers and Jagdpanthers (both of the latter made their WW2 debuts in Normandy) were only engaging the British/Canadians. Source: Panzers and the Battle for Normandy by Georges Bernage, pages 5, 6, 7 and 8 Panzers in Normandy Then and Now by Eric Lefevre. 94.5.0.153 ( talk) 13:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)Keith-264 ( talk) 09:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Recent edits reflect the views of historians of the 1970s as a look at the rest of the article will demonstrate. Captious remarks about apologetics ignores the research of the last four decades. Keith-264 ( talk) 19:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
ByCarl on 8 June 2009 Format: Hardcover|Verified Purchase From what I have read so far in Beevor's book, it is littered with too many historical inaccuracies for my liking and feels like a throw back to the revisionist works of the 1980s; it seems to ignore all of the brilliant works released over the last 10 or so years that have worked towards destroying the myth that Montgomery was over cautious, Miles Dempsey was simply a mouthpiece for Monty etc etc. In several sections Beevor seems to miss the point on why operations were carried out in such a manner or why they were closed down; for example criticising the choice not to continue the Epsom offensive but then neglects to mention the numerous counter-attacks against the British infantry over the coming days that were decisively defeated - the reason why the operation was halted, to go onto the defensive in light of the German intentions and to retain the initiative. In addition his description of other battles is also very suspect. There are much better works out there covering the entire campaign that other reviews have already listed and in addition there are numerous works that give much better accounts of the individual battles and operations. For the above example I would state that Lloyd Clark's Operation Epsom and Michael Reynold's Sons of the Reich give much better accounts of Epsom. From our very own Enigma 1992 Keith-264 ( talk) 12:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
See para 1 below. It occurs though that we might be doing this backwards, the lead is the last thing to write. Perhaps we could start with the Analysis section? Keith-264 ( talk) 12:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
"The article can be structured along these lines:
In finished articles (B class and above) there is an analysis section for historian and writers' views, a casualty section and a subsequent operations section. sometimes a commemoration section is added. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The Battle for Caen from June–August 1944 took place during the Second World War between Allied forces of the mainly Anglo-Canadian Second Army and German forces of [Panzergruppe West] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) during the Battle of Normandy. Caen in Normandy lay astride the Orne River and Caen Canal and was the junction for several roads and railways, which made it an important tactical objective for both sides. Caen and the area to the south was flatter and more open than the bocage country further to the west of Normandy and was valuable land for airfields.
The Allied plan was for the British 3rd Infantry Division to seize Caen on D-Day, 6 June 1944 but was one of several first-day objectives not captured. Caen was eventually captured by the Anglo-Canadians during mutually-costly battles from June to July, which forced the Germans to commit the majority of their panzer divisions in defence of the city. Caen north of the Orne fell during Operation Charnwood (8–9 July) and the suburbs south of the river were captured by the Canadians in Operation Atlantic (18–20 July).
After the capture of Cherbourg, the US First Army began to advance southwards and after several indecisive attacks, the US First Army launched Operation Cobra on 25 July, which coincided with the Canadian Operation Spring south of Caen. The delays were caused by the determined German defence in the ideal defensive terrain of the bocage, the slow arrival of reinforcements and supplies during periods of stormy weather. Success was finally achieved on 31 July. The US attack began a collapse of the German position in Normandy; the US breakthrough was followed by Operation Bluecoat and a German counter-offensive at Mortain, which was defeated by the US First Army. The First Canadian Army subsequently attacked south of Caen in Operation Totalise and Operation Tractable, which led to the capture of Falaise from 16 August.
The Battle for Caen from June–August 1944 took place during the Second World War between Allied forces of the mainly Anglo-Canadian Second Army and German forces of [Panzergruppe West] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) during the Battle of Normandy. Caen in Normandy lay astride the Orne River and Caen Canal and was the junction for several roads and railways, which made it an important tactical objective for both sides. Caen and the area to the south was flatter and more open than the bocage country in western Normandy, and was thus valuable land for airfields.
Is there anything you'd like to change here? I've already tinkered with it because the opening sentence is always a pain to compose. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 10:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This material was added progressively to the lede to give context to the non-neutral garbage I found when I came here. Once it was seemingly accepted that puffing the British contribution and deprecating the US contribution was not actually appropriate, the amount of extra context required could be reduced. The material in the lede on this element still exceeded the material in the body of the article, which is surely not correct. I therefore put the material in the Aftermath section as well, so that it is at least in the body of the article somewhere other than just the lede. We can always add to it, but since it is not actually part of the topic of this article, I would prefer not to - there are more than enough blue-links to help the reader along. However this "ancillary" information now directly replicates the information given in the body of the article, and in fact it consumes more space in the lede than is given to summarizing the actual battle for which this article exists. Since the lede is supposed to SUMMARISE the key points in the body of the article, that is what I am now attempting to do. For some reason you feel that it is important to retain all this detail in the lede - even though it is not even directly part of the topic. What gives? Wdford ( talk) 20:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@WDFord Operation_Epsom#Analysis If you look at this from the 3rd para, you'll see what I'm on about with Normandy conclusions since 1944. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 18:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
You're setting yourself up for a lot of wasted effort if you carry on like this. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The lede currently uses the term "bridgehead", in the second paragraph, in the sentence "The attacks were mutually-costly and, together with other Anglo-Canadian attacks in the east of the bridgehead." A Bridgehead and a Beachhead are not the same thing. It seems to me that the use of the word Bridgehead in this particular sentence should be replaced with Beachhead. Is this correct? Wdford ( talk) 15:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
It looks like some parts of the Analysis have been lifted from Bernard Montgomery which should be acknowledged here. Keith-264 ( talk) 22:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Some of the material in this article was originally imported from the Bernard Montgomery article. See that article's history for attribution. Wdford ( talk) 08:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Would the people who added material to the Analysis section mind adding the sources to the references section to go with the citations?
Might I suggest that if there must be a media section, the contents be coordinated with External links to avoid duplication? Keith-264 ( talk) 08:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Why don't we list the views of the RS in chronological order and leave the opinions about their accuracy and significance until later? Keith-264 ( talk) 11:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Battle
The opening paragraph (or lead section in a longer article) should concisely convey:
The article can be structured along these lines:
The background. Why did it take place? Which campaign did it belong to? What happened previously? What was the geography of the battlefield?The prelude. What forces were involved and who were the commanders? How did they arrive at the battleground? Was there a plan?
A description of the battle. What tactics were used? Which units moved where?
The aftermath. Who won, if anyone? What were the casualties? Was there a pursuit or followup? What happened next? How did the battle affect the course of the war?
Pls not the bolded sentence and don't move the bombing section from the Aftermath without achieving consensus. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This article is almost a history of the Normandy campaign. Maybe it could do with some trimming? DMorpheus 19:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I trimmed it down. There was lots of good content but much of it was about the broader campaign. Tried to fix some translation boo-boos also. It still needs an ending/conclusion. DMorpheus 20:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This was a significant battle for the Canadian Army in World War II, yet it's not mentioned as one of the combatants at the head of the article -- I can only presume that's because we don't know the exact names of the involved units. Can someone fill in the missing detail? I'm not qualified to. Rhombus 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The dates for the fighting around Tilly-sur-Seulles are wrong I'm afraid. The present article says that the town was fought over from July 8th - 19th. However, the dates are one month too late and should read June 8th - June 19th.
Tilly was secured on June 19th by the 2nd Battalion, The Essex Regiment.
(I would try and edit it myself, but this is the first time I've ever posted anything on Wikipedia, and barely know how to post this) BobFish 13:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Me again (sorry). I think it might be worthwhile to explain why Caen wasn't captured on D-Day itself - eg the beaches; Strongpoint Hillman; the 21st Panzer counter-attack; the need to defend the Airborne bridgehead; the other tasks of 3rd Division etc etc
Let me know what you think, and if you'd like me to write it or not. Cheers.
Also, might it be good to cut down the Allied "Strength" list? Reduce it to "British 2nd Army, Canadian 1st Army, RAF, USAAF, Royal Navy" or some such. The current list is a bit too selective and to include every Corps, Division and Regiment that fought at Caen would take up a large amount of space. I'd suggest the same for the German "Strength" aswell.
BobFish 12:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The official name of the country during WWII was Deutschland (Germany), or Deutsches Reich (German Reich), or in speeches Großdeutschland (Greater Germany) or Drittes Reich (Third Reich). Germany was governed from 1933-1945 by the Nazi party in dictatorial fashion; the Soviet Union was run by the Communist party from 1922-1991 in the same tyrannical way, yet that country is not labeled in Wikipedia as the Communist Soviet Union. The Swastika flag clearly identifies the Germany of 1933-1945.-- Gamahler 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand while one author has stated so, is his opinion backed up by other sources?
On the other hand does it really qualify as one? While the battle plan called for minimising casualties as much as possible – “Colossal Cracks” – GHQ expected that the invasion would cause them heavy casualties. They were expecting them, iirc they were much lower then anticipated. Therefore is it a Pyrrhic Victory or a Tactical one?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
But you're asking us to prove a negative - and I've provided an alternate cite. The Canadian Army official history, which is available online in pdf form.
Link is here:
http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/engraph/details_e.asp?BfBookLang=1&BfId=29&cat=7
In spite of their dreadful experience, the people of Caen greeted their liberators in a manner which our troops found very moving. And the Caennais were apparently particularly delighted to find their city freed in part by men from Canada. The historians of Caen during the siege thus describe the events of 9 July:
At 2:30 p.m., at last, the first Canadians reached the Place Fontette, advancing as skirmishers, hugging the walls, rifles and tommy guns at the ready.All Caen was in the streets to greet them. These are Canadians, of all the Allies the closest to us;many of them speak French. The joy is great and yet restrained. People—the sort of people who considered the battle of Normandy nothing but a military promenade—have reproached us for not having fallen on the necks of our liberators. Those people forget the Calvary that we had been undergoing since the 6th of June. No Canadian unit recorded any complaint of the warmth of the welcome; and the 1st Corps situation report for the day remarked, "Inhabitants enthusiastic at Allied entry,” The people of Caen had suffered; the liberators had suffered too. The final phase of the battle for the city had been as bloody as its predecessors. The losses of The Highland Light Infantry of Canada on 8 July have already been noticed (above, page 161); no other unit lost so heavily, but the three battalions of the 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade together had 547 battle casualties on 8 July and 69 more on the 9th. Total Canadian casualties for the theatre on the two days were 1194, of which 330 were fatal.51 This was heavier than the loss on D Day. Although the greater part of Caen had been liberated, the enemy was still in the southern quarters of the city, across the Orne. The only foothold the Allies possessed
beyond the river was that seized by the airborne troops on 6 June. The task of breaking out into the open country to the south-east, so long desired by the air forces for airfields, was still ahead.
No mention of "pyhrric victories", just the undramtic notation that casualties had been suffered. I think taking the word of hack writers is bad advice. But check the other sources you mention and let us know how many use the same flowery language. I don't even think there is a definition of "pyhrric victory" anywhere we could agree on in any event. 139.48.25.61 ( talk) 17:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Defeat in the West 162-163
talks about the German panzer divisions being drawn onto the Caen front just before the Cobra attack
p. 166
"[talks about panzer divisions being drawn onto Caen sector].. What better justification for the strategy adopbted by Alllied plannser to attract to the anvil of Caen the bulk of German armour and there methodically hammer it to bits!"
Why the allies won p.212
"The day after the fall of Avranches von Kluge warned Hitler's headquarters that the German left flank had collapsed, the front 'ripped open' by American armour. The choice was between holding at Caen and avandoning western France, or dividing German forces between two battles, and risking collaspe in both."
Colossal Cracks p.47
Table 3.2 shows that the predicted British losses June - August were actually less then the actual casualties. Hence a Pyrrhic Victory seems to be impossible.
The article doesn't seem to say clearly when the last parts of Caen were finally captured - pretty important given the title of the article. Can Operation Spring be deleted? The accounts of operations really need a concluding paragraph tat relates the battles back to the city.
Also, the section on the effects on the city is pretty thin. I seem to remember that a number of prominent buildings did survive, including the two Norman abbeys, but I don't recall how damaged they were.
which 4 heavy tank battalions???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
the 101st was attached to the LSSAH, when u count the LSSAH then u count the 101st automaticly. the unit was not independent. So no 4 heavies.
Blablaaa (
talk)
21:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
it was part of the LSSAH, and the LSSAh is already included in the box... Blablaaa ( talk) 22:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, shouldn't the dates be 6 June - 20/22 July? By that time, Caen itself had fallen. Anything after that should really come under "Battle for Falaise" or similar. I also don't think the reference to "Spring" is necessary for the same reason. Just IMHO Gunner357 ( talk) 20:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
"Montgomery responded [to Ike request] on 24 July with plans for attacks by Second Army and First Canadian Army to assist First US Army's break-out, culminating in a drive to Faliase. The start of this was Operation Spring, a strike southwards from Verrieres ridge......Cobra and Spring finally took place together on 25 July.....Army Group B remained uncertain which was the main Allied break-out attempt.
As Rommel had predicted on 9 July, Army Group B could not hold its line in Normandy and Operation Cobra (indirectly assisted by Operation Spring) began an American break-out .......On 7 August, II Canadian Corps mounted a second attack agaisnt Berrieres ridge in Operation Totalize....For the British and Canadians, the next battles in Normandy would not be for Caen, but for the road to Falaise."
Given the city was 5-6km behind Allied lines by 18 July, it is ridiculous to suggest the battle for Caen extended into August.....and is probably just playing into the hands of the unfortunately numerous people who like to imagine the Brits & Canadians were still stuck outside Caen until "rescued" by the US breakout. I can't think of any logical rationale for it....cannot imagine why anyone would have put August in the first place?? How can you be battling for Caen when you took it three weeks back?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.66.145 ( talk) 22:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not that much of military expert. I have read a book about the 12thSSPanzerDivision which focus a lot about the battle of Caen. It is clear that there is only three German panzer division in the battle not 8. The three division is the 12thSSPanzerDivision, Panzer-Lehr Division and the 21stPanzerDivision. From many source I have read I believe that there is only 5 German panzer division in overlord. Just like what I have said, I am not a history expert so dont judge me too hard :( (I make no edit because I am not a history expert) Pat 15/03/2011
Decent article, but atm, is way too focused on the allies. All of the photos are taken from an allied perspective, how about some taken by Germans? user:Pzg Ratzinger
-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The 'Allied-centric' nature of this article has a lot to do with obtaining verifiable records. Far more information has been uncovered or released from source and written up by 'Allied' researchers than their counterparts in Germany. Legal obstacles exist to publishing research in Germany relating to Nazism and this too has affected both research and publication of German source data. An overall reluctance by 'Allied' writers to stray far from their 'official' governmental versions of the campaign has also hampered clarity. The 'bias' has less to do with any malice or disrespect and more to do with writers having to undertake laborious, time-consuming and difficult research, often further hampered by custodians of source material who may choose to act as 'gatekeepers' - obstructing access and maintaining the current state of knowledge/ignorance for their own ends or those of their paymasters. As time passes though, the situation is improving.-- Loop Withers ( talk) 10:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The account of war crimes by either side is confusing - I have been unable to unravel it at this time. Ballista 04:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see section below relating to the topic of War Crimes.-- Loop Withers ( talk) 10:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
There is one line that doesnt seem appropriate. Right before the account of the account of the Canadian officer forcing the tired Germans to swim the river in which many of them drowned, the writer states the following:
"The Canadian company commander Major Jacques D. Dextraze said and to a certain extent confirmed the accusations by Meyer:"
Meyer stated that the orders said if taking prisoners was to slow down the advance then none should be taken. The example of the German POWs being forced to swim has nothing to do with the alleged orders Meyer found as there is no indictation they were slowing down the advance, only one officer was escorting them back and it seems it was the officer being sadistic rather then following the alleged orders. Either way the action and the alleged orders dont match, and it seems incorrect to assume that an example of one officer being sadistic confirms the entire Canadian Army was killing off prisioners to fullfull the alleged orders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wokelly ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity and accuracy of the main article, it would serve all parties to create a separate sub-article on War Crimes relating to this battle, as Jim suggests. Accurate research into the topic is hampered by the fact that official parties such as politicians and regiments on all sides are still in denial of battlefield war crimes for a variety of reasons.-- Loop Withers ( talk) 10:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The Dubious tag on this section; Meyer does make the claim in his book so that is not dubious - so I can only presume the editor who added the tag thinks that Meyer was not reporting the truth ? -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 17:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
This section is too long in proportion to the article and pretty rampant POV/OR. I am shortening the whole section. Cyclopaedic ( talk) 14:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
"According to the Canadian major Jacques D. Dextraze, 85 German prisoners were drowned in the river."
Removing this line, mainly because in its current form it gives the impression the 85 POWs were drowned in retaliation for German attrocities against allied troops, and frankly is not at all clear on what the heck it is talking about, doesnt specify what river or anything, nor is cited. Wokelly ( talk) 23:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned in the "Allied War Crimes" section above, it may be a way forward for a sub-article to be created to specifically deal with ALL aspects of War Crimes in this battle, to help clarify the understanding of that topic and also improve the understanding and flow of the main article. -- Loop Withers ( talk) 10:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why th word "meaningful" is used in this sentence? -- this is a battle, not a therapy group :"This slowed the attacks down and prevented meaningful cooperation." Mdk0642 02:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can. By separating the mechanised infantry from the tanks with whom they were supposed to be working alongside, two separate task groups were now made more vulnerable by their being apart. They were supposed ideally to work together. Thus, although the two separated groups could communicate with each other, distance and differing orders meant that they could offer little 'meaningful' support to each other (by joining forces). Apart, perhaps, from warning each other of enemy threats seen through binoculars or maybe wishing each other "good luck" over the radio. -- Loop Withers ( talk) 11:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Caen and the surrounding towns and villages were mostly destroyed; is perhaps a very short way of qualifying the effects on this town. For a start, no mention is made on the civilians during this battle. Hrcolyer 15:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that most researchers would agree that Hrcolyer identifies a serious shortcoming of the existing article. Maybe it would be helpful to seek advice and guidance on this matter from the City of Caen and move towards having this article extended to allow it to embrace a much wider awareness and understanding of many significant (and vital) facts, currently omitted from the Main Article? -- Loop Withers ( talk) 11:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Just wondering why the RAF bomb tonnages are in short tons - 2,000lb. The RAF and UK as a whole used the Imperial (long) ton, 2,240lb. Any UK WW II original bomb tonnages given will always be long tons unless someone has converted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 ( talk) 14:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Spring cleaned the page, repaired some broken links, tidied bibliography and reduced the Goodwood section to a summary and a link to the main page to avoid duplication. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
While i have sat and removed a large number of grammar and spelling mistakes from the article and added in numerous links to other wiki articles i have noticed there is hardly any footnotes to any referance material to back up what has been stated. Figuers and other information are presented as fact, and they probably are, however with nothing to support them how do we know?
Again, large ammounts of footnotes need to be added! -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Having read through the article, I have identified two major problems involving its structure and content. Firstly, as the "Operation Atlantic" section indicated, that battle was a "follow-up" of the Operation Goodwood, and the action described here also occured on 20 July, the final day of Goodwood. Therefore, why is the Atlantic section placed before the Goodwood one? Secondly, the article didn't give a clear picture of British and German units (and their commanders) involving the battle, as well as the exact point when the Allies totally mastered Caen. May anyone clarify these parts? Regards. Ti2008 ( talk) 12:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Battle for Caen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, Normandy went to plan, but not to timesecale. But, the battles envisaged before Paris emerged in Normandy, so at D-Day plus 90 they were ahead. The British beaches were selected to the East specifically because the British were more prepared for heavy German armour and had more experience in dealing with the Germans. It would be foolish to put the US forces in that position. Monty was in charge of it all, if he thought it was best to put US forces there he would. He was after a result from 'his' armies.
Goodwood's focus was not specifically tanks, as the Germans had five lines of defence with dug in 88mm's and heavy Tiger and fast Panther tanks for mobility. Goodwood was mostly 'not' bocage but open ground more suitable for tank battles, where the German long range 88mm's would be an advantage.
Montgomery was mentally ahead of all others. On a different plain. He specifically wanted to draw in German armour onto the British forces to grind them up to keeping them away from the US forces for them to break out. To do that he was confident his armour could match German. A 12 mile sector around Caen saw more concentrated German armour in all of WW2. Monty did not want to take territory, as the plan was for the US forces to do that. Monty specifically states this here in this link in an interview with Edward R Murrow. Transcript....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_TB9wHRRSw
It was clear Eisenhower did not have much of a clue what Monty was trying to do. The RAF chief Tedder, wanted Monty fired as he wanted open territory to the south towards Falaise to setup his air fields and said Monty was not pursuing territory aggressively enough. Monty would have none of it. Operation Goodwood was engaging the massed armoured German defences, with 5 lines on 88mm guns, drawing them in to grind them up moving slowly. Here is a 1970s objective British Army Sandhurst internal video analysing Operation Goodwood, with even German commanders who were there taking part. At the beginning it specifically states Monty told Generals O'Connor and Dempsey not to run south to Falaise, not to take territory. Look at 6 mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udW1UvSHXfY
Monty was not too concerned with Caen as it would consume too many resources to take. He was more concerned with grinding up German armour in the field. Although by the time of Goodwood only the Southern suburbs of Caen were in German hands.
Monty was in charge of all of Operation Overlord. He wanted the German armour away from US forces, to allow them to break out. It worked. That is what he wanted and planned. Monty never saw Caen as important but never criticised US forces..... until 1959 when they were at him about Caen, he criticised them for taking St.Lo a month late - with little German armour around for a month. The Germans did send some armour to St.Lo with the US forces making it worse for themselves to capture the place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.0.153 ( talk) 14:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It was the most highly concentrated sector of German tanks in WW2. It was over 12 miles while Kursk was over 50 miles. 90% of the German armour in Normandy was engaging the British and Canadians.
Total: 1,515. 46% Tigers and Panthers.
The Tiger 1, King Tigers and Jagdpanthers (both of the latter made their WW2 debuts in Normandy) were only engaging the British/Canadians. Source: Panzers and the Battle for Normandy by Georges Bernage, pages 5, 6, 7 and 8 Panzers in Normandy Then and Now by Eric Lefevre. 94.5.0.153 ( talk) 13:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)Keith-264 ( talk) 09:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Recent edits reflect the views of historians of the 1970s as a look at the rest of the article will demonstrate. Captious remarks about apologetics ignores the research of the last four decades. Keith-264 ( talk) 19:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
ByCarl on 8 June 2009 Format: Hardcover|Verified Purchase From what I have read so far in Beevor's book, it is littered with too many historical inaccuracies for my liking and feels like a throw back to the revisionist works of the 1980s; it seems to ignore all of the brilliant works released over the last 10 or so years that have worked towards destroying the myth that Montgomery was over cautious, Miles Dempsey was simply a mouthpiece for Monty etc etc. In several sections Beevor seems to miss the point on why operations were carried out in such a manner or why they were closed down; for example criticising the choice not to continue the Epsom offensive but then neglects to mention the numerous counter-attacks against the British infantry over the coming days that were decisively defeated - the reason why the operation was halted, to go onto the defensive in light of the German intentions and to retain the initiative. In addition his description of other battles is also very suspect. There are much better works out there covering the entire campaign that other reviews have already listed and in addition there are numerous works that give much better accounts of the individual battles and operations. For the above example I would state that Lloyd Clark's Operation Epsom and Michael Reynold's Sons of the Reich give much better accounts of Epsom. From our very own Enigma 1992 Keith-264 ( talk) 12:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
See para 1 below. It occurs though that we might be doing this backwards, the lead is the last thing to write. Perhaps we could start with the Analysis section? Keith-264 ( talk) 12:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
"The article can be structured along these lines:
In finished articles (B class and above) there is an analysis section for historian and writers' views, a casualty section and a subsequent operations section. sometimes a commemoration section is added. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The Battle for Caen from June–August 1944 took place during the Second World War between Allied forces of the mainly Anglo-Canadian Second Army and German forces of [Panzergruppe West] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) during the Battle of Normandy. Caen in Normandy lay astride the Orne River and Caen Canal and was the junction for several roads and railways, which made it an important tactical objective for both sides. Caen and the area to the south was flatter and more open than the bocage country further to the west of Normandy and was valuable land for airfields.
The Allied plan was for the British 3rd Infantry Division to seize Caen on D-Day, 6 June 1944 but was one of several first-day objectives not captured. Caen was eventually captured by the Anglo-Canadians during mutually-costly battles from June to July, which forced the Germans to commit the majority of their panzer divisions in defence of the city. Caen north of the Orne fell during Operation Charnwood (8–9 July) and the suburbs south of the river were captured by the Canadians in Operation Atlantic (18–20 July).
After the capture of Cherbourg, the US First Army began to advance southwards and after several indecisive attacks, the US First Army launched Operation Cobra on 25 July, which coincided with the Canadian Operation Spring south of Caen. The delays were caused by the determined German defence in the ideal defensive terrain of the bocage, the slow arrival of reinforcements and supplies during periods of stormy weather. Success was finally achieved on 31 July. The US attack began a collapse of the German position in Normandy; the US breakthrough was followed by Operation Bluecoat and a German counter-offensive at Mortain, which was defeated by the US First Army. The First Canadian Army subsequently attacked south of Caen in Operation Totalise and Operation Tractable, which led to the capture of Falaise from 16 August.
The Battle for Caen from June–August 1944 took place during the Second World War between Allied forces of the mainly Anglo-Canadian Second Army and German forces of [Panzergruppe West] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ( help) during the Battle of Normandy. Caen in Normandy lay astride the Orne River and Caen Canal and was the junction for several roads and railways, which made it an important tactical objective for both sides. Caen and the area to the south was flatter and more open than the bocage country in western Normandy, and was thus valuable land for airfields.
Is there anything you'd like to change here? I've already tinkered with it because the opening sentence is always a pain to compose. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 10:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This material was added progressively to the lede to give context to the non-neutral garbage I found when I came here. Once it was seemingly accepted that puffing the British contribution and deprecating the US contribution was not actually appropriate, the amount of extra context required could be reduced. The material in the lede on this element still exceeded the material in the body of the article, which is surely not correct. I therefore put the material in the Aftermath section as well, so that it is at least in the body of the article somewhere other than just the lede. We can always add to it, but since it is not actually part of the topic of this article, I would prefer not to - there are more than enough blue-links to help the reader along. However this "ancillary" information now directly replicates the information given in the body of the article, and in fact it consumes more space in the lede than is given to summarizing the actual battle for which this article exists. Since the lede is supposed to SUMMARISE the key points in the body of the article, that is what I am now attempting to do. For some reason you feel that it is important to retain all this detail in the lede - even though it is not even directly part of the topic. What gives? Wdford ( talk) 20:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@WDFord Operation_Epsom#Analysis If you look at this from the 3rd para, you'll see what I'm on about with Normandy conclusions since 1944. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 18:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
You're setting yourself up for a lot of wasted effort if you carry on like this. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The lede currently uses the term "bridgehead", in the second paragraph, in the sentence "The attacks were mutually-costly and, together with other Anglo-Canadian attacks in the east of the bridgehead." A Bridgehead and a Beachhead are not the same thing. It seems to me that the use of the word Bridgehead in this particular sentence should be replaced with Beachhead. Is this correct? Wdford ( talk) 15:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
It looks like some parts of the Analysis have been lifted from Bernard Montgomery which should be acknowledged here. Keith-264 ( talk) 22:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Some of the material in this article was originally imported from the Bernard Montgomery article. See that article's history for attribution. Wdford ( talk) 08:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Would the people who added material to the Analysis section mind adding the sources to the references section to go with the citations?
Might I suggest that if there must be a media section, the contents be coordinated with External links to avoid duplication? Keith-264 ( talk) 08:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Why don't we list the views of the RS in chronological order and leave the opinions about their accuracy and significance until later? Keith-264 ( talk) 11:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Battle
The opening paragraph (or lead section in a longer article) should concisely convey:
The article can be structured along these lines:
The background. Why did it take place? Which campaign did it belong to? What happened previously? What was the geography of the battlefield?The prelude. What forces were involved and who were the commanders? How did they arrive at the battleground? Was there a plan?
A description of the battle. What tactics were used? Which units moved where?
The aftermath. Who won, if anyone? What were the casualties? Was there a pursuit or followup? What happened next? How did the battle affect the course of the war?
Pls not the bolded sentence and don't move the bombing section from the Aftermath without achieving consensus. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)