This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Tractable 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 |
![]() | Operation Tractable is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 22, 2010. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I know the canucks and poles fought during this op but was there any British units involved?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 07:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Tractable/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:
1 Well written WEAK FAIL
1.1 Prose
This would benefit from a light copyedit, although it's mostly fine. I don't mind going over this if it will be helpful.
1.2 Manual of Style
No major issues here; I made a few tweaks as I read through, and things seem up to GA standard. However:
2 Factual accuracy WEAK FAIL
Only a couple of things here:
3 Coverage PASS
Good, broad coverage of the battle. No issues here.
4 Neutrality PASS
No evidence of POV.
5 Stability PASS
No concerns here.
6 Images PASS
Looks good - nice selection, well presented and captioned, with appropriate licenses.
As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although if constructive work is underway, the hold period may be extended). I will regularly check back here to mark off those issues that have been satisfactorily resolved and to address any questions and comments you may have.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or believe the article is ready for a re-review. All the best, EyeSerene talk 20:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing all of the issues raised above. I now have no hesitation in passing this article - well done! For development in the future, you could expand the article's coverage slightly by explaining how the Germans managed to get themselves trapped (ie Hitler's insistence on a totally unrealistic counter-attack westwards when they should have been retreating eastwards, and his refusal to allow a withdrawal until it was too late). I hesitate to mention it, but a map or two will also help, as will further copyediting, if this is heading FA-wards eventually ;)
Another fascinating article; enjoyed reviewing this! All the best, EyeSerene talk 08:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Cam. Thought I'd do this instead of editing the article, as I don't want to copyedit away and change the article in some disastrous way :) So I'll make some comments below in the next day or two. Great article, by the way!
That's about it Cam. I hope those comments help you. Skinny87 ( talk) 23:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there's a totally separate article on Hill 262, I think it should be referenced prominently in a See Also section. Of course, since it's been pretty much incorporated in this article, perhaps it's time to delete it. I'd suggest one or the other. CSHunt68 ( talk) 04:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a large disagreement between Reynolds and McGilvray, and Jarymowycz over the casualties suffered by the Poles on Hill 262. I've tried to address this so at least this article and the Hill 262 article are internally consistent, but it might be something worth looking into in more detail once the article is off the front page. I suspect that Jarymowycz may have been giving a casualty figure for the entire operation, not just Hill 262, but don't have that book so can't check myself. EyeSerene talk 09:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to raise the point of the classification of the level of victory, the fact that that a large number of german personel was able to escape the Falise pocket has been a point lemented by american commanders of the campaign, this is even stated in our own wikipedia article on the Falise pocket. This then raises the question about the operation's level of success, and consistancy overall on interrelated wikipedia articles. That the allies won the battle is of course a foregone conclution, but my understanding of a decisive victory, is that one side has achived all its stated goals and exceeded them. The whole operational concept for the allies bares the hallmarks of a double envelopment, and the entrapment of the german forces. That the closing of the gap on hill 262 took longer due to the lack of adequate force level, gives us a clue that the victory could have been greater, which begs the question if it was a decisive victory, due to the fact that at this stage in the war germany still had a good industrial capacity and so could rearm these men with new weapons. In this instance, like at Dunkirk and "The Battle for Britan", men were more important then material.
I don't have any numbers on how many germans escaped and what composition these numbers are, but I think that this should be looked into and maybe discussed and then we can maybe make this article better and more informative for the reader, which I hope we all can agree on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0331marine ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
And yes keep in mind that the German were outnumbered 30 to 1. The 3rd US army also take part in this operation. Seriously an estimate of German casualities is around 40,000 in Falaise not 50,000 to 200,000. The German army didn't have that much manpower. Most of the german division are understrange such as the 12thSSPanzerDivision who is on 60% of it strenght and have less than 40 panzer. The German army are small during an operation and the guy forgot to include the British army in as well, also the 21stPanzer Division. Pat 22nd September 2010
Im new at this, so forgive me if I'm not doing this correctly. My comment is as follows:
In the Offensive Strategy section for Operation Tractable, it states that the operation would begin by a bombardment by medium bombers. However, in the immediately following Initial Drive section, it states that Lancaster and Halifax bombers performed this bombardment. Since these bombers were heavy bombers, not medium bombers, these statements should be reconciled.
199.173.225.25 ( talk) 17:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Allan Smith
---
A sentence in the Introduction is confusing to me. It states "Although the Falaise Gap was narrowed to a distance of several hundred metres/yards, attacks and counter-attacks by two battle groups of the 1st Polish Armoured Division and the II SS Panzer Corps on Hill 262 (Mont Ormel) prevented the quick closing of the gap and thousands of German troops escaped on foot."
From the way it reads, it sounds like the Polish fought to prevent the "quick closing" of the "Gap." The 1st Polish Armored was on the Allies' side. Why would it be helping the Germans keep an escape route open? Thomas R. Fasulo ( talk) 00:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Would the background section be improved by a bit more detail on Patton's forces rapid advance on the south side of the German lines, and more about Hitler's stubborn refusal to allow his field commanders requests to withdraw from an exposed position, instead urging his exhausted divisions, short of fuel, to advance westward to the Channel coast to cut off the Americans?-- Charles ( talk) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I want to comment that there seems to be no direct mention of Operation Tractable in Operation Overlord. There is mention of the Falaise pocket but the role of Canadian and Polish troops is not really mentioned. This might be the result of an overall U.S.-centric focus to the Operation Overlord article. In any event, it should be corrected.
I modified the lead sentence to read "Operation Tractable was the final offensive conducted by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops as part of the Battle of Normandy."
However, on reflection, I realize that this sentence may not capture the correct meaning.
As written, "Operation Tractable was the final offensive conducted by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops as part of the Battle of Normandy." leaves open the door to the possibility that other offensives might have been conducted by troops of other countries after this one but still as part of the Battle of Normandy. The sentence, as written, only states that this was " the final offensive conducted by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops " in this battle. I had deliberately left the ambiguity in the sentence because I wasn't sure of the facts. I think we mean to say that "Operation Tractable was the final offensive of the Battle of Normandy". Is this correct?
Here are two other possibilities for that sentence...
"Operation Tractable was the final offensive of the Battle of Normandy; it was undertaken by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops" or
"Operation Tractable was undertaken by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops and became the final offensive of the Battle of Normandy"
Any thoughts on which meaning we should be trying to present to the reader?
-- Richard S ( talk) 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice that in the 'background' section the defeat of Luttich is put down to air attack rather than the US army which I think is contradicted by ORS2's analysis. The references to Totalise also seem to have been written without regard to 'No Holding Back' by B A Reid. I can put something in as an addition if desired? Keith-264 ( talk) 11:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Polish forces were supported by the guns of the Canadian 58th Battery, 4th Medium Regiment (part of No. 2 Army Group Royal Canadian Artillery) and Forward Artillery observer Captain Pierre Sévigny. The Canadians had attached a Francophone artillery unit to the 1st Polish Armoured Division as many Polish officers spoke French. Sévigny was later awarded the Virtuti Militari, Poland's highest military decoration, for his involvement in this battle. [1]
Hi, as this is a feautured article i have rolled back a series of edits that make changes to some sentances linked to sourced material and removed the above unsourced addition (i have copyedited some). Can we provide a source before reinserting it? Regards EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 14:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually my first knowledge of Captain (later Colonel) Sevigny came from a television documentary. As he was French Canadian there are probably fewer available sources (I have also included a link from the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery specifically the 6e Régiment d'artillerie de campagne, ARC. My understanding of the situation was the Poles did not have divisional artillery that would normally be associated with a unit of their size, so the 4th Medium Regiment, 58 battery (a Francophone unit from the area of Quebec City) was assigned to assist them. A Francophone unit was specifically selected as most of the Polish officers spoke French and communication would be considerably easier. One of the reasons the documentary stuck in my mind was that Captain (later Colonel) Pierre Sévigny spoke of the 1st Polish Armoured Division's Officer's Mess and the atmosphere given the men had lost their families and their country. I think at this point it is a choice between the information being available or not, and given the translation's link is from the BBC, it would seem to be fairly reputable. I have not read Colonel Sevigny's book or the translated work, but it seems important that Captain Sévigny's contribution is recognized - after all the Poles thought it was important enough to give him their highest military decoration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Miope ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Granted, but in this case it is a translation of a book. What would really be helpful is a translation of this book, written by Captain Sévigny: http://www.amazon.ca/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/2921140071/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_1/186-3784219-0215950?ie=UTF8&index=1 ( El Miope ( talk) 16:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC))
Also the translator lists the book's author and title, so it comes down to whether an important individual contribution to the battle will be recognized or not. Don't forget the link for the artillery contribution is from a Canadian government website (Department of National Defense, or DND as we call it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Miope ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't a primary source more valuable than a secondary source, since all secondary sources are really based on primary sources? Especially when one gets into the actual details of battles, one becomes more, not less dependent, on primary sources. The Canada Gazette was started in 1841. What award are you speaking of, the Virtuti Militari? I doubt his publisher would include it "accidentally." ( El Miope ( talk) 17:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC))
Hi all. First off, great work on a solid article all, thanks! My one question: near the end of the article, it states that the Polish forces suffered ~50 casualties from the American preparatory bombing on 8/14, but the article states that the bombing was carried out by Lancaster and Halifax bombers. As far as I know, US air Corp didn't fly Lancasters or Halifaxes. Is one statement or the other off? Thanks. Taterbill ( talk) 22:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Operation Tractable. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 08:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
"The goal of this operation was to capture the strategically important French town of Falaise ..." does not explain why it was important. Was it some geographic feature of or near the town that mattered, or simply the encirclement of German forces? The article should make this clear. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Tractable 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 |
![]() | Operation Tractable is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 22, 2010. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I know the canucks and poles fought during this op but was there any British units involved?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 07:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Tractable/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:
1 Well written WEAK FAIL
1.1 Prose
This would benefit from a light copyedit, although it's mostly fine. I don't mind going over this if it will be helpful.
1.2 Manual of Style
No major issues here; I made a few tweaks as I read through, and things seem up to GA standard. However:
2 Factual accuracy WEAK FAIL
Only a couple of things here:
3 Coverage PASS
Good, broad coverage of the battle. No issues here.
4 Neutrality PASS
No evidence of POV.
5 Stability PASS
No concerns here.
6 Images PASS
Looks good - nice selection, well presented and captioned, with appropriate licenses.
As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although if constructive work is underway, the hold period may be extended). I will regularly check back here to mark off those issues that have been satisfactorily resolved and to address any questions and comments you may have.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or believe the article is ready for a re-review. All the best, EyeSerene talk 20:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing all of the issues raised above. I now have no hesitation in passing this article - well done! For development in the future, you could expand the article's coverage slightly by explaining how the Germans managed to get themselves trapped (ie Hitler's insistence on a totally unrealistic counter-attack westwards when they should have been retreating eastwards, and his refusal to allow a withdrawal until it was too late). I hesitate to mention it, but a map or two will also help, as will further copyediting, if this is heading FA-wards eventually ;)
Another fascinating article; enjoyed reviewing this! All the best, EyeSerene talk 08:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey Cam. Thought I'd do this instead of editing the article, as I don't want to copyedit away and change the article in some disastrous way :) So I'll make some comments below in the next day or two. Great article, by the way!
That's about it Cam. I hope those comments help you. Skinny87 ( talk) 23:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there's a totally separate article on Hill 262, I think it should be referenced prominently in a See Also section. Of course, since it's been pretty much incorporated in this article, perhaps it's time to delete it. I'd suggest one or the other. CSHunt68 ( talk) 04:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a large disagreement between Reynolds and McGilvray, and Jarymowycz over the casualties suffered by the Poles on Hill 262. I've tried to address this so at least this article and the Hill 262 article are internally consistent, but it might be something worth looking into in more detail once the article is off the front page. I suspect that Jarymowycz may have been giving a casualty figure for the entire operation, not just Hill 262, but don't have that book so can't check myself. EyeSerene talk 09:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to raise the point of the classification of the level of victory, the fact that that a large number of german personel was able to escape the Falise pocket has been a point lemented by american commanders of the campaign, this is even stated in our own wikipedia article on the Falise pocket. This then raises the question about the operation's level of success, and consistancy overall on interrelated wikipedia articles. That the allies won the battle is of course a foregone conclution, but my understanding of a decisive victory, is that one side has achived all its stated goals and exceeded them. The whole operational concept for the allies bares the hallmarks of a double envelopment, and the entrapment of the german forces. That the closing of the gap on hill 262 took longer due to the lack of adequate force level, gives us a clue that the victory could have been greater, which begs the question if it was a decisive victory, due to the fact that at this stage in the war germany still had a good industrial capacity and so could rearm these men with new weapons. In this instance, like at Dunkirk and "The Battle for Britan", men were more important then material.
I don't have any numbers on how many germans escaped and what composition these numbers are, but I think that this should be looked into and maybe discussed and then we can maybe make this article better and more informative for the reader, which I hope we all can agree on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0331marine ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
And yes keep in mind that the German were outnumbered 30 to 1. The 3rd US army also take part in this operation. Seriously an estimate of German casualities is around 40,000 in Falaise not 50,000 to 200,000. The German army didn't have that much manpower. Most of the german division are understrange such as the 12thSSPanzerDivision who is on 60% of it strenght and have less than 40 panzer. The German army are small during an operation and the guy forgot to include the British army in as well, also the 21stPanzer Division. Pat 22nd September 2010
Im new at this, so forgive me if I'm not doing this correctly. My comment is as follows:
In the Offensive Strategy section for Operation Tractable, it states that the operation would begin by a bombardment by medium bombers. However, in the immediately following Initial Drive section, it states that Lancaster and Halifax bombers performed this bombardment. Since these bombers were heavy bombers, not medium bombers, these statements should be reconciled.
199.173.225.25 ( talk) 17:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Allan Smith
---
A sentence in the Introduction is confusing to me. It states "Although the Falaise Gap was narrowed to a distance of several hundred metres/yards, attacks and counter-attacks by two battle groups of the 1st Polish Armoured Division and the II SS Panzer Corps on Hill 262 (Mont Ormel) prevented the quick closing of the gap and thousands of German troops escaped on foot."
From the way it reads, it sounds like the Polish fought to prevent the "quick closing" of the "Gap." The 1st Polish Armored was on the Allies' side. Why would it be helping the Germans keep an escape route open? Thomas R. Fasulo ( talk) 00:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Would the background section be improved by a bit more detail on Patton's forces rapid advance on the south side of the German lines, and more about Hitler's stubborn refusal to allow his field commanders requests to withdraw from an exposed position, instead urging his exhausted divisions, short of fuel, to advance westward to the Channel coast to cut off the Americans?-- Charles ( talk) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I want to comment that there seems to be no direct mention of Operation Tractable in Operation Overlord. There is mention of the Falaise pocket but the role of Canadian and Polish troops is not really mentioned. This might be the result of an overall U.S.-centric focus to the Operation Overlord article. In any event, it should be corrected.
I modified the lead sentence to read "Operation Tractable was the final offensive conducted by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops as part of the Battle of Normandy."
However, on reflection, I realize that this sentence may not capture the correct meaning.
As written, "Operation Tractable was the final offensive conducted by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops as part of the Battle of Normandy." leaves open the door to the possibility that other offensives might have been conducted by troops of other countries after this one but still as part of the Battle of Normandy. The sentence, as written, only states that this was " the final offensive conducted by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops " in this battle. I had deliberately left the ambiguity in the sentence because I wasn't sure of the facts. I think we mean to say that "Operation Tractable was the final offensive of the Battle of Normandy". Is this correct?
Here are two other possibilities for that sentence...
"Operation Tractable was the final offensive of the Battle of Normandy; it was undertaken by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops" or
"Operation Tractable was undertaken by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops and became the final offensive of the Battle of Normandy"
Any thoughts on which meaning we should be trying to present to the reader?
-- Richard S ( talk) 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice that in the 'background' section the defeat of Luttich is put down to air attack rather than the US army which I think is contradicted by ORS2's analysis. The references to Totalise also seem to have been written without regard to 'No Holding Back' by B A Reid. I can put something in as an addition if desired? Keith-264 ( talk) 11:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Polish forces were supported by the guns of the Canadian 58th Battery, 4th Medium Regiment (part of No. 2 Army Group Royal Canadian Artillery) and Forward Artillery observer Captain Pierre Sévigny. The Canadians had attached a Francophone artillery unit to the 1st Polish Armoured Division as many Polish officers spoke French. Sévigny was later awarded the Virtuti Militari, Poland's highest military decoration, for his involvement in this battle. [1]
Hi, as this is a feautured article i have rolled back a series of edits that make changes to some sentances linked to sourced material and removed the above unsourced addition (i have copyedited some). Can we provide a source before reinserting it? Regards EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 14:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually my first knowledge of Captain (later Colonel) Sevigny came from a television documentary. As he was French Canadian there are probably fewer available sources (I have also included a link from the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery specifically the 6e Régiment d'artillerie de campagne, ARC. My understanding of the situation was the Poles did not have divisional artillery that would normally be associated with a unit of their size, so the 4th Medium Regiment, 58 battery (a Francophone unit from the area of Quebec City) was assigned to assist them. A Francophone unit was specifically selected as most of the Polish officers spoke French and communication would be considerably easier. One of the reasons the documentary stuck in my mind was that Captain (later Colonel) Pierre Sévigny spoke of the 1st Polish Armoured Division's Officer's Mess and the atmosphere given the men had lost their families and their country. I think at this point it is a choice between the information being available or not, and given the translation's link is from the BBC, it would seem to be fairly reputable. I have not read Colonel Sevigny's book or the translated work, but it seems important that Captain Sévigny's contribution is recognized - after all the Poles thought it was important enough to give him their highest military decoration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Miope ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Granted, but in this case it is a translation of a book. What would really be helpful is a translation of this book, written by Captain Sévigny: http://www.amazon.ca/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/2921140071/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_1/186-3784219-0215950?ie=UTF8&index=1 ( El Miope ( talk) 16:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC))
Also the translator lists the book's author and title, so it comes down to whether an important individual contribution to the battle will be recognized or not. Don't forget the link for the artillery contribution is from a Canadian government website (Department of National Defense, or DND as we call it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Miope ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Isn't a primary source more valuable than a secondary source, since all secondary sources are really based on primary sources? Especially when one gets into the actual details of battles, one becomes more, not less dependent, on primary sources. The Canada Gazette was started in 1841. What award are you speaking of, the Virtuti Militari? I doubt his publisher would include it "accidentally." ( El Miope ( talk) 17:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC))
Hi all. First off, great work on a solid article all, thanks! My one question: near the end of the article, it states that the Polish forces suffered ~50 casualties from the American preparatory bombing on 8/14, but the article states that the bombing was carried out by Lancaster and Halifax bombers. As far as I know, US air Corp didn't fly Lancasters or Halifaxes. Is one statement or the other off? Thanks. Taterbill ( talk) 22:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Operation Tractable. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 08:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
"The goal of this operation was to capture the strategically important French town of Falaise ..." does not explain why it was important. Was it some geographic feature of or near the town that mattered, or simply the encirclement of German forces? The article should make this clear. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)