Talk:Battle for Caen/Archive 1

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.

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)

You're right. I've looked in the literature again, which says June as well. Thank you for the information and the waiting becouse I had to correct it on .de as well. -- John N. 16:38, 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)

I don't think you'll find many sources saying the Allied capture of Caen was a pyrrhic victory. The term strains credulity IMO. The 21st Army Group almost immediately went on to several very large-scale offensive actions (Totalise, Falaise pocket, the liberation of Antwerp and much of Belgium, Market-Garden,etc) without much pause. Not the actions of a post-pyrrhic victory army at all. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I see we STILL have an editor pushing the pyhrric victory thing into the article, now claiming that because the city was bombed and civilians died, it was pyhrric. This is nonsense, in my opinion; generally a phyrric victory is so called because a large proportion of attackers died, not because there was a lot of collateral physical damage. The Canadian Army official history certainly does not refer to Caen as a "pyhrric" victory. I don't think citing just one source should sway what seems to be consensus the other way.139.48.25.61 (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You will not see me pushing for the opposite, what you will note if you read the edit summary - with a citation stating the opposite to what an editor had typed it was more of a case of being forced to.

Now i have Fords book sitting on my shelf - a quick glance reveals that while the citation was poorly copied it is what Ford has stated.

While i do not agree with his opinion as you can see above, noone else has provided anything to counter this published opinion - thus you have just removed material which is backed up by a published source which could consitute your own opinion.

While i will most likely not tonight, i will be looking through: The Struggle For Europe, The Victory Campaign, Victory in the West, Defeat in the West, Why the Allies Won and a couple of other books to see what they have stated.

Until then, or at least someone else who has done the legwork, am sorry but am going to revert your edit. Am not pushing it but at the moment it is all we have that has published opinion supporting it. If you have a citation which states otherwise, revert me and throw it in.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:13, 20 August 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)

All am saying is change it when we have citations which provide a position to the opposite to what Fords states. Again am pretty sure once i check my other sources there will be plenty of evidence to be able to provide a result for the info box which has enough support behind it. Just to note, again, in my own opinion i dont agree with Ford.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok looking at some of my other sources:

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.

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I didnt have the time to look through all sources which cover this battle last night. One could argue that the quotes from 'Defeat in the West' and 'Why the Allies Won' would support that this was a 'Allied Strategic Victory', while the table within 'Colossal Cracks' would show that the victory could not be Pyrrhic as heavy casualties was expected and those actually suffered on the whole was less (will provide all figures later if needed).

There are some other titles i can look though but there would seem so far to be more evidence which outwieghs any support that this was a 'Pyrrhic Victory'.

So if anyone doesnt have a problem with it, shall we change it to 'Strategic Allied Victory' then?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

Now deleted Operation Spring.

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.

Now added new section. Cyclopaedic (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

which 4 heavy tank battalions???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 04:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Schneider: Tigers in Combat I, and II, it's only three battalions: Heer 501, SS 101 and 102 - using Tiger Is, except for the HQ and 1st cy of 503, which had Tiger IIs. The current citation by Wilmot seems to be from his 1952 book which could be outdated. (Hohum ^@) 13:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Source deffo shows 4 heavy tank battalions; but doesnt provide names. He seems to be showing two in II SS Panzer Corps area but i cant see any mention of names outside of the 3 above, which are the only ones off the top of my head that fought in Normandy.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just checked through various sources and cant see mention of a fourth; prehaps his map man has confused a differnt battalion or one of the battalions was spread over two locations. I think it is a case of he was simplely wrong on this one? Simple solution at this point would be to replace with the info from the Tigers in Combat source until someone can shed light on the matter - if that is even possible.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilbeck also says three in Sledgehammers. Possibly a heavy Panzerjager battalion got added? I'll check a few more sources too. (Hohum ^@) 16:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The map shows one battalion with the 21st Panzer - one would assume the 501st; another is in I SS Pnz Corps sector behind the 12th SS one would assume the 101st; the other two are in II SS Panzer Corps sector one directly south of Caensituated behind elements of the 9th SS and 2nd Pnz while the other is behind 10th SS. I would assume one is the 102nd - perhaps spread out?

Addtionally the map is dated 25 July. Currently checking my other sources i cant find anything to support it; i think something has gotten mixxed up at this point.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean 503rd not 501st? If so, your deployment marries up with Schneider and Wilbeck. (Hohum ^@) 17:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, i have the 501st on the brain! I was googling them before wondering why they were not popping up as having served in Normandy! >.<--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 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)

The 101st was an independant heavy tank battalion attached to I SS Heavy Panzer Corps ... actually...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:57, 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)

No it wasnt ... it was an independant armoured formation attached to the Corps! Just like how the 102 was attached to II SS Panzer Corps.

I would suggest checking out Michael Reynolds' rather good book on them, or to consult secondary sources that show the German order of battle during various ops in Normandy--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:11, 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)

Regarding a 'Battle for Falaise' article, either create it or take it to the WW2 task force page to discuss what to do.

As for dates, i agree with you however i will check a few sources out if i get a chance later on to see if most historians agree the battle for this city ended with Atlantic/Goodwood and the complete capture of it. You never know, some may consider follow up battles etc as still part of the same one.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have ammended the end date slightly with a quote from Simon Trew.

However to quote Trew in full:

"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."

Am not sure, have i made the right call here or should 24 July be the correct date the battle ended? As Spring is seen as part of the American brake out but he deffo confirms the switch between Caen and Falise as the 7th August.

Any input?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The following divisions took part in the various battles for Caen: 1st SS, 2nd SS, 2nd Panzer, 9th SS, 10th SS, 12th SS, 21st Panzer, and Panzer Lehr. 12th SS, 21st Panzer and Panzer Lehr were active from basically the first day, the other divisions filtered into the front during the course of the battle. Iirc a further panzer division did take part in the Overlord battle, the Greyhound?, but towards the end of the campaign and not part of the Caen fighting ... so 9 in total?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I've attempted to balance some of this up - i.e. providing a comparable order of battle for the German side to go along side the Anglo-Canadian one as well as naming as many of the Corps commanders along side the commander of higher level organisations and in some sort of order unlike it perviously was.

On top of that, i have removed a section were it said the "allied fallen are buried...." to "the fallen are buired..." and added in one of the German cemetrys, the largest iirc.

although this is only a start i agree it needs to be more impartial in places

--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)

I have seen people on forums state that this website is very dubious. Looking at it the website does not cite it sources for anything, half the site is dead.

If this article was to go for A or Featured Article Status this would hold it back i would believe (if people are dubious over a regiments war diary being available online on a website, think how they will react to this!)

Then there is the question of should it be here, do other articles on battles (i.e. Stalingrad, Dunkirk etc) hold information on warcrimes? If not, should stuff like this be moved to the relevent war crime articles?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The war crimes section needs to reflect both sides there is plenty of evidence of allied war crimes which could be added or the section removed to its own article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17

34, 20 March 2009 (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)

Is this the same Meyer who was sentenced to death for murdering prisoners in Normandy? Gee, why would anyone doubt the word of a Nazi prisoner murderer.Michael Dorosh^Talk 20:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I may have added the tag, i do remember looking at the website and thinking it was dubious; the website does not state the sources for any of its information making it an unreliable source anyway.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:39, 6 June 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)

Blammed duplicate wikilinks and tidied more of the page.Keith-264 (talk) 12:21, 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)

A 1944

Pathe News report entitled Battle of the Rivers here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2015 (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140217123422/http://www.normandie44lamemoire.com:80/versionanglaise/fichesvillesus/lemesnpatrus2.html to http://www.normandie44lamemoire.com/versionanglaise/fichesvillesus/lemesnpatrus2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060426224510/http://www.espritdecorps.ca:80/new_page_226.htm to http://www.espritdecorps.ca/new_page_226.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011021407/http://mars.wnec.edu/%7egrempel/tours/normandy/battle.html to http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/tours/normandy/battle.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051223120504/http://ornebridgehead.org:80/indepth.htm to http://www.ornebridgehead.org/indepth.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051121205539/http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca:80/general/sub.cfm?source=feature/normandy/memorials/ardenne to http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=feature/Normandy/memorials/ardenne

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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....

"The acquisition of territory on the eastern flank of the beachhead in the Caen sector was not really important. What was important there was to draw the maximum number of German divisions, and especially the armour, into that flank. The acquisition of territory was important on the western flank [the US sector]." ...."an accusation drawn at me, that I ought to have taken Caen in the programme on D-Day! And we didn't. I didn't mind about that because....The air force would get very het up because I didn't go further down towards Falaise and get the ground suitable for airfields. I didn't bother about that, it would have meant enormous casualties in doing it and it wasn't necessary."

"I could reply to that criticism that on the American front the line from which the breakout was finally launched was a line the St.Lo-Periers road, should have been captured in the initial plan by the American 1st Army on D-Day plus 5, that was the 11th June. But they didn't actually capture it until the 18th July. But I have never returned the charge with that accusation. ...until now"

"I have never understood why Ike said in his dispatches that, when the British failed to break out towards Paris on the eastern flank. The Americans were able [to break out], because of our flexibility, to take it on, on our western flank. I have always thought that was an unfair criticism of Dempsey and the 2nd British Army."

- Field Marshall Montgomery (1959)

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.

• 21st Panzer Division (117 Panzer IVs).
• Panzer Lehr Division ( 101 Panzer IVs, 89 Panthers).
• 2nd Panzer Division (89 Panzer IVs, 79 Panthers).
• 116th Panzer Division (73 Panzer IVs, 79 Panthers). (In reserve just behind the front.)
• 1st SS Panzer Division (98 Panzer IVs, 79 Panthers).
• 9th SS Panzer Division (40 Stugs, 46 Panzer IVs, 79 Panthers).
• 10th SS Panzer Division (38 Stugs, 39 Panzer IVs)
• 12th SS Panzer Division (98 Panzer IVs, 79 Panthers).
• 9th Panzer Division (78 Panzer IVs, 79 Panthers).
• Tiger Battalion SS101 (45 Tigers).
• Tiger Battalion SS102 (45 Tigers).
• Tiger Battalion 503 (45 Tigers).

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)

Thanks for the quick reply, I don't dispute your data but the tank units arrived at different times, suffered losses and gained repaired vehicles. Counting the number of tanks from start to finish isn't as informative as daily or weekly totals of operational vehicles (which is why I hoped you had Zetterling, he used to have his findings online but they disappeared). Still, mustn't grumble, at least you've taken an interest. ;o)) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The British did meet all those tanks listed above and destroyed them. The US army faced:

June: One battalion of 40 assault guns.

July: One panzer division, the 2nd SS in July.

August: A larger number of German tanks when the Germans counter-attacked in August at Mortain. The panzer divisions had been greatly reduced in strength after engaging Monty's forces around Caen and were nowhere near at the strength they were when they were fighting around Caen. 90.195.170.34 (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• ISBN 1-57806-206-3
  .
• Buckley, J., ed. (2007) [2006]. The Normandy Campaign 1944: Sixty Years On. Routledge.
  ISBN 0-415-44942-1
  .
• Buckley, J. (2013). Monty's Men: The British Army and the Liberation of Europe (2014 ed.). London: Yale University Press.
  ISBN 978-0-300-20534-3
  .
• OCLC 56329119
  .
• OCLC 44772546
  .
• OCLC 276814706
  .
• Fortin, L. (2004). British Tanks In Normandy. Paris: Histoire & Collections.
  ISBN 2-915239-33-9
  .
• Gill, R.; Groves, J. (2006) [1946]. Club Route in Europe: The History of 30 Corps from D-Day to May 1945. MLRS.
  ISBN 978-1-905696-24-6
  .
• Hart, S. A. (2007) [2000]. Colossal Cracks: Montgomery's 21st Army Group in Northwest Europe, 1944–45. Mechanicsburg: Stackpole Books.
  OCLC 70698935
  .
• OCLC 62785673
  .
• Jackson, G. S.; Staff, 8 Corps (2006) [1945]. 8 Corps: Normandy to the Baltic. Smalldale: MLRS Books.
  ISBN 978-1-905696-25-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link
  )
• Napier, S. (2015). Armoured Campaign in Normandy June–August 1944. Stroud: The History Press.
  ISBN 978-0-75096-270-4
  .
• Saunders, T. (2001). Hill 112: Battles of the Odon - 1944. Battleground Europe. Pen & Sword Books Reprint edition.
  ISBN 0-85052-737-6
  .
• Shulman, M. (2004) [1947]. Defeat in the West. Cassell.
  ISBN 0-304-36603-X
  .
• Stacey, Colonel C. P.; Bond, Major C. C. J. (1960). The Victory Campaign: The Operations in North-West Europe 1944–1945 (PDF). Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War. Vol. III. Ottawa: The Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery.
  OCLC 58964926
  . Retrieved 21 May 2014.
• Trew, S.; Badsey, S. (2004). Battle for Caen. Battle Zone Normandy. Stroud: Sutton.
  OCLC 56759608
  .
• Williams, A. (2004). D-Day to Berlin. London:
  OCLC 60416729
  .
• OCLC 39697844
  .

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)

The lede is supposed to be a concise and accurate summary of the article - your version is not a summary of the article, nor neutral, nor encyclopedic. If that material is really valid, then it should be included in the article, and referenced - where after it can be summarized into the lede. It still needs to be written in proper encyclopedic language, as well. We should avoid regurgitating every detail of the article into the lede.

The "research of the last four decades" is not going to change what Eisenhower wrote at the time, or what the Germans actually did at the time, etc. The pro-Monty camp has been actively whitewashing this material since the battle itself, so I don't see what "new" information could have been amazingly discovered since the 1970's. Wdford (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not my lead, I don't own the article, which is a compendium of the other articles which refer to operations around Caen. Your claims are OR as you would realise if you took a look at the articles linked in the hat notes. Your comments are a mixture of ignorance and a one-eyed view of a dead controversy. The Overlord strategy was laid down IN WRITING before the invasion. The Anglo-Canadians were always going to fight a holding action in the east and the US were to break out in the west. The only thing that was unexpected was that after the German counter-offensive was suspended on 9 June, the Germans didn't retreat into the hinterland and the holding action in the east took place north rather than south of Caen. Eisenhower wrote what he did, before and after 6 June as did many other participants and lots of historians have had their say since but not many of the facts change (apart from the Ultra revelations). Might I ask what sources you base your view on? According to

WP:BRD Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Cases_for_use you shouldn't have re-reverted, I suggest you cancel the revert. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have amended the lead to include more events around Caen, since the disputed lead implied that nothing happened while the US won the campaign. Please note that the article is Start class in the milhist scale, lacking B1 and B2. It is very much incomplete, which might explain its failings more realistically than claims that it is apologetic. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

My primary source here is “D-Day: The Battle for Normandy”, by Antony Beevor, 2014 Edition. I don’t think anybody could claim that source is “out of date”. Most sources agree with him as well. See eg “From the Normandy Beaches to the Baltic Sea: The Northwest Europe Campaign, 1944-1945” by Alan J. Levine, AD2000, pgs 59-60.

My cleaning up of the lede produced a concise summary of the material in the article – whereas the previous version was a lengthy waffle of British defensiveness written in un-encyclopedic language. I haven’t added anything, merely removed a lot of soap-boxing and improved the language. It is obviously open to further improvement. Your subsequent amendments to the lede are an improvement.

• Crap [apols for this I was in a bad mood]Keith-264 (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC), your comments are as OR as your edits.Keith-264 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I have not added any “controversy” into the lede whatsoever. However Beevor and others have made it very clear that Montgomery had intended from the outset to capture Caen on the first day, and failed to do so. Beevor goes further, to repeatedly criticise Montgomery for trying to pretend afterwards that he never intended to take Caen at the start of the campaign – basically calling him a liar. Montgomery’s conceit, ego and poor personality are legendary, and Beevor includes the Caen mess in this general pot as well. He refers to Montgomery’s "puerile pride". (pg 184)

• Beevor is a hack historian and your willingness to base your edits on one source is ahistorical and un-encyclopaedic. Your prose leaves much to be desired too.

Yes, it is common cause that the Anglo-Canadians were always intending to fight a holding action in the east and the US were to break out in the west – specifically toward the vital harbour of Cherbourg. However Montgomery’s original Overlord Plan called for the holding action to be fought at Caen AFTER Caen had been taken, not for two months BEFORE he managed to finally achieve that objective.

• None of this is controversial, only whether fighting the Germans north or south of Caen was significant. It wasn't but was made up to be by generals writing memoirs for the commercial market, when confidential information was still secret.

Caen was a critical objective because of the road network, the bridges and the flat-land that was needed for advanced airfields. For anybody to claim afterwards that Montgomery never intended to actually take Caen, is as pathetic as it is ridiculous.

• Monty never pretended that Caen wasn't a first day objective, just as he didn't pretend that Bayeux and Carentan weren't. Who didn't capture Carentan on the first day?Keith-264 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The Analysis section is still a collection of pro-Montgomery defensiveness. I will be adding more balance to that section going forward. Wdford (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to you looking on other sources because if you have any integrity you will report what you find, much to your chagrin.

Beevor is a tertiary source and his book was not well received, it does not represent the contemporary mainstream. Your amendments to mine were lacking clarity and in many places repeated what I wrote with inferior prose so I have reverted them. I suggest we copy the lead into talk and go through it line by line. Perhaps you might also look at Pogue [2] for a US view of the campaign and Monty's strategy pp 183–190 ? Keith-264 (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sir

WP:V

, tertiary sources are the best kind - so I don't quite see what the problem is here?

My amendments actually added clarity - your version still tends to fudge the extent of the British failures, and tries to unfairly dilute the comparative American success - although it much better than the verbiage that I found when I got here. If you have a particular objection to any particular sentence in my clear and well-worded prose, please say so specifically - mass reverts are not helpful.

You have yet to learn the value of the sentence.

It is interesting that you choose to cite Pogue. He is certainly a well-regarded historian, but he wrote in the 1950's, so he is hardly up-to-date with the latest research. Re Montgomery's "strategy", Pogue was writing based on letters which Monty wrote to Ike a month AFTER D-Day, when he was a month behind his promised schedule, and he was making excuses to his boss for his failures. Pogue specifically uses the line: "His plan, as interpreted by him, ...". Since then, other researchers have found a wealth of material proving that Monty was "rowing back", as they say in American politics, and that Monty's excuses are not to be accepted blindly as Pogue did in the 1950's.

I suggested Pogue because he's an American and online; denigrating him is OR and bad manners.

PS: When Pogue cites Bradley, Bradley was actually referring at that point to the "amended" plan, as noted also by Ike in my contribution earlier. The initial plan called for Caen to be in British hands by the time this "pinning down" took place - including airfields. Pogue goes on to note that "Montgomery had initially planned to take Caen and the airfields beyond in the first days of the assault", but that he changed his mind when he found the Germans were not going to just run away. Pogue is very gentle on Monty, citing a lot of "misunderstandings", but more recent historians have noted that much of the misunderstanding came from Monty's habit of making grandiose promises to the media, which he was then unable to deliver.

Wdford (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You really need to read more on the campaign, the writing of it and the ebb and flow of commercial fashion; if you do you will find your claims untenable.Keith-264 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Your attacks on Beevor, a living person, are bewildering. Can you provide a reliable source that says Beevor’s works are not reliable sources?

I am not basing only on Beevor – many modern histories are in agreement with him. I have actually read quite widely about D-Day. Thanks for your list though.

• Colossal Cracks explains a lot about British operational methods, later adopted by the US armies as they began to experience the same manpower shortages in late 1944

The "controversial" issue is that Monty bragged and promised, but then failed to deliver, and then pretended he had never intended to do the things he promised to do. This has been widely reported. Plans never work exactly in war, but while other generals admitted things had slipped, Monty was not quite so honest.

• He owned up several times in his memoirs. Notice also that Monty commanded the 21st Army Group, which included the US First Army. Ever wonder why he wasn't blamed for "slow progress" in the west?

Carentan, if you really want to bring this up, was captured six days late, largely because British pilots had scattered the parachute infantry all over France. Caen was captured 44 days late.

• British pilots? I thought it was US aircrew and that the scattering wasn't their fault. Notice also that night drops were always inaccurate - see Sicily and Italy. The point about Carentan was that none of the distant objectives for 6 June were captured.

I intend no offence to Pogue, I merely note that he accepted Montgomery’s dissembling at face value, whereas more recent historians have had access to better info and have thus been more skeptical.

• Pogue had the records and in that passage quotes contemporary documents.

I really don’t think that "commercial fashion" should dictate content in a Wikipedia article.

• Neither do I which is why I deprecate Beevor's book

Wdford (talk) 11:25, 20 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 1992Keith-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)

Your completely OR analysis of Beevor is noted, though it seems to be unsupported by reliable sources. Remember that Beevor is still alive.

• I haven't used my views of Beevor in articles.

The Analysis section currently quotes Shulman, Ellis and Overy. Shulman published in 1947; Ellis published in 1974; and Overy published in 1996 – still 20 years ago. Hardly state of the art?

• As I pointed out, much of the article is cut from other articles, hence the number of operations by the Anglo-Canadians is a count, not amended by their relevance to Caen.

One of the big “notable” issues of Caen was Monty’s “change of plan”, and the related emotion. To quote Powers in the Bernard Montgomery article – “The failure to take Caen immediately has been the source of an immense historiographical dispute with bitter nationalist overtones,” between a "British school" which accepts Montgomery's post-war claim that he never intended to take Caen at once, and an "American school" which argued that Montgomery's initial "master plan" was for the 21st Army Group to take Caen at once. While both sides make their cases, it is clear from actual historical documents that Ike – Monty’s boss – was given to expect that taking Caen was an immediate objective.

• If you want to follow this line, what about Carentan and Bayeux? The master plan was the strategy which was successful. What went wrong was the second part, based on an assumption that the Germans would retreat inland after the encounter battle near the beaches was defeated. It was German weakness that had them give up the counter-offensive on 9 June and dig in while waiting for reinforcements from the Pas de Calais and Poland, rather than retreating to fight a battle of manoeuvre further inland. This led to the Allies grinding away for nearly two months and then the third part of the strategy, the advance to the Seine taking days not weeks, ending the campaign in 76 rather than the anticipated 90.

I see that you include Carlo d'Este on your recommended reading list. Carlo d'Este quotes several high-ranking officials on the subject. Brigadier Bill Williams, Monty’s senior intelligence officer, is quoted as saying “Monty wanted Caen the first day. Expected to get it quickly”. Bedell Smith, Ike’s CoS, is quoted as saying “Monty now gives the erroneous picture.” Sir James Grigg, Secretary of State for War, is quoted as saying “of course Montgomery’s original idea was to break out of the bocage country around Caen into the open in the first few days after landing – it would be idle to deny that.” RN Captain J Hughes-Hallet, a British COSSAC planning officer, is quoted as saying that “Monty’s talk of his original intention to hinge on Caen is absolute balls… I don’t see why he doesn’t tell the truth.” Compared to these senior – and knowledgeable - people, the “British school” pales. D’Este finishes with the statement that “The official history followed the Montgomery dictum without dispute but in total contradiction of the facts.”

• I'm not an advocate, only a ninny would try to conceal other views of the campaign. look at D'Este's narrative of First Army operations.

The very comprehensive and well-referenced Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War, Volume III - THE VICTORY CAMPAIGN - The Operations in North-West Europe 1944-1945; states at page 93 that “The seizure and retention of Caen was described by the Second Army as "vital to the Army plan”.”

• Try Terry Copp for another Canadian view

As Ian Daglish states, in Operation Bluecoat: Breakout from Normandy, pg 329: - “As ever, Montgomery’s true motives are masked by the camouflage of his memoirs.”

• Read them, he's franker than most about his failures.

I’m not sure what purpose the Analysis section is intended to serve, other than perhaps an attempt to protect Montgomery’s reputation. Since modern works seem to accept that Ike was telling the truth and that Caen was an immediate objective, I suggest that we mention the existence of this “immense historiographical dispute”, together with the modern consensus, and leave it at that.

• Analysis sections are there to keep explanation separate from description so that yah boo! mud slinging is segregated from what happened (the Battle section). Since opinion varies, they usually have a chronological list of verdicts so the reader can decide for themselves. Sometimes editors have the time to put them in themes or schools of thought. The section is far from complete.

The aftermath section normally describes what came next, so I think this would be a good place to put a short summary of Operation Cobra etc – which is currently described in a single sentence at the end of the Goodwood section.

Wdford (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide

"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?"

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)

WP:BLP

says that “Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.” Probably all the more so when it is your personal opinion only, unsupported by reliable sources.

• It's a review of his work

Carentan was part of the Battle for Normandy, but not part of the Battle for Caen. It has its own article.

• hair splitting

Do we want mud-slinging and defensiveness from "analysts", or should we just stick with factual material from actual senior officers involved - ie those that were actually in the know?

• They include Monty, we describe what (mainly) the secondary sources contain. Most of my Norman books are in storage but I'll add Buckley 2013 when you've finished.Keith-264 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Wdford (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The Battle for Caen from June–August 1944 took place during the

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)

Lead as of 19:15 20 April, is it satisfactory? Keith-264 (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Third para

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)

Your comments traduce quite a few editors and your reasons for removing the material depend on the unfinished nature of the article. I'm trying to finish the last article in the 3rd Ypres series to I'm going to step back until I'm finished. Go ahead as you please for the moment but try to take account of the complexities of the question. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to simplify the lede, but the complexities will be retained in the body of the article. They can be further developed there if needed. Wdford (talk) 21:36, 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. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but I don't personally think that the article benefits from a detailed analysis of punditry, which we know was in any case split along national lines. I think we should limit this entire section to paraphrase Buckley from the Epsom article, as follows: "Looked on as an attempt to break through and force the Germans out of Caen at the beginning of the invasion, the Battle for Caen was a costly failure. However in terms of the broader Battle for Normandy, it was a costly victory, in that it made a significant contribution to the defense of the beachhead and the eventual breakout. The breakout lead directly to the Battle of the

Franco-German border for the Allied armies.” What do you think? Wdford (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's OR and your suggestion takes the narrative even further from Caen, even though I like the brevity of your suggested wording. The Epsom Analysis section isn't an analysis of punditry, it's a description of what the sources say, showing the various views that have emerged since 1944. It isn't for us to judge them. Another thing that the article lacks are the Background and Prelude sections quoted above to set the scene, narrate the plans and the relevance of the rest of the battle in Normandy. It also lacks any description of the German side and the effect that the defence of Caen had on them, which throws a lot of light on the views of Monty, Eisenhower, Tedder et al. Are you familiar with the manpower constraints on the Anglo-Canadians and the way this determined their tactics? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

it's not OR, its actually a decent summary of what the various commentators have said in the Epsom analysis section - which applies to the Caen battle as well, since Epsom was merely a sub-section of the Caen battle.

• It is, you even dismissed RS as pundits, which is my view of Beevor

Part of the problem in a topic as big as this, is the profusion of articles and the replication of material across them all. The Prelude/Background to Caen is in all the various other Normandy/D-Day articles, and I don't think we should rehash that here in detail. Just a summary with a lot of blue-links should be fine.

• This has been discussed before and the ruling is that a reader must have the material in the article. Ideally the article reads from top to bottom and if part of a series is should be readable horizontally along the same headers in the later articles.

Similarly, the detailed Analysis in the Epsom article probably applies to all the various Caen articles, and to many of the other D-Day articles as well. If the Caen article is the "overall" article, then should not the Epsom Analysis be copied in full into the Caen article? Should it then even remain in the Epsom article, seeing as how that article is a sub-set of the Caen battle?

• I think it does too, which is why I mentioned it but the relevance to Caen varies from battle to battle. This article emphasises Caen which means that there's a balance to be struck between the tactical, operational and strategic relevance of each operation to Caen and vice versa.

The Aftermath is supposed to briefly explain what happened next. Cobra happened next, followed by the Falaise epic. If we have an Aftermath, then surely this is what should be included?

• Depends on where you put Caen in the scheme of things. Spring was on the same day, the operational reasons for reaching and passing Caen still applied and it lost its tactical significance when the local fighting reached Falaise, Trun and Chambois. The capture of the west end of the Cotentin peninsula, defeat of Luttich (which needed the diversion of the German panzer divisions from south of Caen) and Bluecoat, which needed the transfer of VIII Corps after Goodwood all come into it up to a point. Since this is a thematic article I fear that there are as many reasons for inclusion as exclusion.

The manpower constraints were due to heavy British casualties in the war to date, and resulted in what the sources call "casualty conservation". This is perfectly understandable - everyone in Europe (other than Hitler and Stalin) knew how important it is to not expend your own men unnecessarily. It impacted on Australian thinking at Tobruk in 1942, and the New Zealand Division at Cassino in 1944. Canada similarly had a very small population, and Britain's supply of fresh troops was exhausted. It was thus up the USA and the USSR to get the job done. However Churchill and Monty characteristically lied about this to the US to save face, which lead to even more misunderstandings. It also lead to the US having far more divisions in the field than the British, and to Monty losing control as “Commander of all land forces” in early August, when the US 12 Army Group was activated.

• Actually no, most of the British army was at peace in Britain after Dunkirk; it's losses from June 1944 to May 1945 dwarfed those hitherto. It was the consequence of structural decisions made during rearmament in the 30s and the fiasco of 1940 which favoured a big navy and air force; the army came fourth in the queue for manpower and Bomber Command became the principal offensive weapon of the British state. Monty would risk big casualties but only if the potential gain seemed worth it, he had to end the war with an effective army to maintain British power in the world qua the US and USSR yet play a significant part ion the land campaign while he did it. It was the unexpected delay in Normandy after the defeat of the German counter-offensive by 9 June that created the dilemma by Goodwood, that the Second Army would soon have to disband units to maintain the remainder, particularly in the infantry, 15% of the army having 70% of the casualties. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wdford (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

All that said, at least your interest is rescuing the article from indifference. Good luck.Keith-264 (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I don’t know where you get this nonsense from. After the costly debacle of Dunkirk, there followed further debacles in Greece, Crete, a succession of routs in North Africa, eventually the costly victory at Alamein, then Sicily and the extended meat-grinder of Italy. In parallel there were huge debacles in Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaya, Burma, and the long desperate struggle to hold on to India, just to mention a few. Although as usual many of these troops were Commonwealth citizens rather than British, all of these campaigns bled the British Army dry. Singapore cost the British Army over 80,000 troops, and Malaya over 50,000. Burma cost about 86,000 British casualties (excluding sick). Normandy cost the British Army about 83,000. Puts Normandy in perspective a bit, yes?

I’m sure bad pre-war planning played its part too, but it’s a bit of a stretch to say the British Army was mostly “at peace” between 1940 and 1944.

I think you need to look up the word “pundit” in a dictionary.

Wdford (talk) 12:11, 21 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)

I hope you are not threatening an edit war? I don't accept mass reverts - if you can make it even better then please do so, but don't try to make it worse.

I originally wanted to keep this section simple and to the point, but you were the one who insisted that "a reader must have the material in the article". So here we go. This cannot be limited only to the pro-Monty "British School" – if we are going to do it at all, then we are going to do it properly. If you now feel the need to add a whole lot of the pro-Monty "British School" then go ahead, but then we will need to also add the "American school" as well - in full. That includes listing all the senior officers who called Monty a liar. Wdford (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You're setting yourself up for a lot of wasted effort if you carry on like this, because your views are those of the 1970s. As soon as someone adds the post 1970s sources all your effort will be wasted. Don't say I didn't let you know in advance. Keith-264 (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it could have been a lot worse. Did you find that the sources were more equivocal than you expected? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 10:27, 10 May 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)

Not sure, beachhead seems too limited after the first few days, perhaps that's why lodgement was used as well. Keith-264 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 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)

See also sections with see also and main article links, where material from the linked articles was copied into this article. See that article's history for attribution. Keith-264 (talk) 08:15, 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?

• Ford & Zaloga 2009 Done
• Weinberg 1995 Done
• Whitmarsh 2009 Done
• Wilmot 1997 Done
• Ambrose 1994 Done
• Gilbert 1989 Done
• Churchill 1951 Done
• Badsey 1990Keith-264 (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@‎Wdford, thanks for the references, it might help if you set up a page like User:Keith-264/common.js with importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); you will see red warnings for harv errors in the citations section which makes it much quicker to remedy them. Keith-264 (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Must you have a media section? It's trivia on stilts.Keith-264 (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Baxter Done
• Carafano Done Keith-264 (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

All citations now in sfn.Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

The media section is valuable, and small enough to not be a problem - we live in a visual-media world now. The External links are also small, but if there is a duplication then perhaps the offending external link can be deleted - if any. Wdford (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout not according to this lot Wikipedia:External links Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#.22See_also.22_section Keith-264 (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed Wdford (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oi, something like Operation Overlord is a huge issue, and breaking out the Battle for Caen an important part of it. I agree with whoever above thought of giving an overview of Overlord, narrowing down the strategy as it affected Battle for Caen. The big picture pieces need to get narrower until you get to the part you want to really discuss, then go for it. I've had to deal with strategies such as this in the recent articles on Battle of Leuthen and Battle of Hochkirch, etc. Big picture about the war, smaller pic about campaign, and then details about what I really want to write about.
• I really like how you guys are hashing out differences here, and not going to the drama boards. Good job. I think you're both doing a good job trying to explain to one another what you want to do and where you want to go. It is what I'd expect from two experienced editors. :) Keep up the good work. Let me know if you want another set of eyes on things. Cheers! auntieruth (talk) 21:36, 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 name of the battle (including alternate names).
• When did it happen?
• Where did it happen?
• Which war or campaign does it belong to?
• Who were the combatants?
• What was its outcome or significance?

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)

The Allied bombing took place DURING the battle, not afterward, and thus this section should be ahead of the Aftermath. Trying to bury it below all the apologetics is not correct as per WP:Policy. Wdford (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

You have no consensus for that edit but I fear that you are beyond reason so I will let you dig your own grave. Keith-264 (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)