Robbie Merrill

A-class review stuff

I've done (yesterday and today) a light copyedit. I've left a couple of hidden comments in the text. I noticed the dates are mostly linked, though the climate at FAC is now for de-linking. The basic date formatting (under the links) is US (ie Month/day) and you may wish to change this to Commonwealth format (Day/Month) as this is a British operation. Do revert anything you don't agree with! Anyhow, good luck, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

== Scottish Divisons losses ==

The Germans attackers were hit hard by British aircraft, artillery and anti-tank fire, but by the end of the day the 15th Scottish Division had taken more than 2,300 casualties holding its position

I would correct this right away however there is a citation with it, from what i have seen within Clark's and Jackson's books the division took casualties in this area over the entire operation not in a single day.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul Hausser

Clark p. 73 states that before II SS Panzer Corp actually got into the fight Hausser was appointed commander of 7th Army and Wilhelm Bittrich took command and thus lead them into battle. With that information i dont think Hausser should be in the info box.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, quite strange, Williams p. 123 says: So relentless was the bombardment that the commander of II SS Panzer Corps, General Paul Hausser, was forced to postpone his attack until the afternoon [30 June]. Moreover, he cites Hausser's war journal, in which Hausser says himself:The murderous fire from naval guns in the Channel and the terrible British artillery destroyed the bulk of our attacking force in its assembly area. I think that Hausser was officialy replaced by Bittrich on 28 June, but he remained the de-facto commander of the II Corps until the end of the operation. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That would make some sence. Clark states he became CO and Bittrich took command but he doesnt state he actually left but does mention all Corps activity from that point being blah blah Bittrich. Am confused now lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be pretty sure that Hausser commanded the II Corps during the rest of the operation. One more strange thing, in the Wilhelm Bittrich article it is said that he commanded the II corps between 7 October 1944 and 8 May 1945. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to call some reinforcements in lol --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we leave Williams123 there until we find some proper counter-sources. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Right oh, it will also need to be reflected in the Order Of Battle, which i have constructed off Clarks work who states Mr B. I suggest we leave both the main article and OOB until we sort this out lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dalglish* p.103 "The immediate replacement of Dollman...confirmed in mid-afternoon of 28 June."

& note p.118 "The 7th army CoS...urged Hausser to complete preparations for the attack before moving on.

To whatever extent Hausser heeded this advice there is evidence of breakdowns of staffwork...."

• Dalglish. I, 'Operation Epsom'. It seems reliable as a narrative, perhaps better than his Goodwood effort. from the quotes it can be seen that he doesn't squeeze ambiguous information too hard. Keith-264 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

From the evidence we have then - he was in command for the first day or two and the other guy for the rest of the operation?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Background section: the second and sixth sentences do not have any citation, while the third and the fourth have at least two. Would it be possible to arrange them a bit? A nice FA would have about one citation per sentence. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

PS, I will be out until sunday evening and would not be able to contribute. Good luck with the ACR and improvement of the article! Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Have fun! Ill do a bit of rearranging and will cover everything. It was a quick CE and copy n paste from another article while am here in the office.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

---

"The British forces suffered heavy infantry casualties and were forced to withdraw to the north bank of the Odon."

Withdraw? From point 112 and eventually from Gavrus but the bridgehead over the Odon was maintained. See the attached map!Keith-264 (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Am going to do a little work on the background and planning section today but that will be addressed sometime soon. To be honest i had not noticed it there.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I can help with references from Daglish and Clark on detail but they and D'Este seem bogged down over intentions and results.Keith-264 (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have Clarks book and i can agree with what you have just said lol. Am done for now. As for the actual operation itself Jackson provides some decent detail so i will be throwing that in when i get the chance.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Would you mind adding some refs to the new 3rd paragraph of the Main attack section? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you mean this para?

"At 1250 hours one squadron from the 11th Armoured Division's reconnaissance regiment, deployed north of Cheux, was ordered to advance towards the Odon, prior to an attempt to rush the bridges by the division's armoured brigade. Owing to minefields near the village, debris within and German infantry still holding out within the village attacking the tanks it was not until 1400 hours when the regiment was finally able to advance south of the village. By 1430 hours the squadron arrived on a ridge, south of Cheux, were it was counterattacked by German armour. More tanks from the 11th Armoured Division arrived but determined German resistance halted any further progress. The 15th (Scottish) Infantry Division's thirds infantry brigade, the 227th (Highland) Infantry Brigade, was committed to the battle during the afternoon to further the advance but became bogged down fighting in support of the rest of the division and only two companies from the 1st Battalion Gordon Highlanders made any real progress; entering the northern outskirts of Colleville by 2100 hours, but soon found themselves cut off due to German counterattacks. After heavy and confused fighting one company was able to brake out and rejoin the battalion."

• • If so, its all from the one source credited at the end. But i will be going through my other sources to see if there is anything worthwild adding to that para to further support it.
  • If in regards to the article below that para, i will be working my way through that adding citations and information soon--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've just added two citation needed tags in the Planning section, because you mention two codenames without a reference. Codenames are quite sensible and should be properly cited (Williams says nothing about them). --Eurocopter (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • well the entire section was covered by a citation but well ive added duplciate citations in to replace the fact tags.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• It would be nice if you could add some citations to footnotes 8,9 and 10, considering the new footnote system. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Will try and sort that out tonight :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

German orbat

Williams (120) states that units from six armoured divisions were in line for the attack. Perhaps consulting the other sources and see if there is anything to be changed in the infobox? --Eurocopter (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Based off what i have so far read in Clarks book the info box as it is, appears to be spot on or as close to. 9th, 10th and 12th SS were in the line. Kampfgruppes of the 1st and 2nd SS arrived but not the full divisions. Kampfgruppes of the 2nd and 21st Panzer also helped out and there was elements of the Panzer Lehr too. See OOB for more info.

Although the map on page 336 of Wilmots book shows 9SS as a full division in the attack and battlegroups from the 1st, 2nd, 10th SS, 2nd Pnz and 21st Pnz. The map appears a tad confusing and shows Panzer-Lehr and 12th SS not taking part - well one could interpret it that way.

Jackson, p. 19 (from 1945 bear in mind) shows 1st, 9th and 10th SS attacking supported by elements of the 21st Pnz. 2nd and 12th SS are shown holding the line where the attack as hit so implying they were invovled and no mention of the Pnz Lehr.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just checked, Williams' six divisions are the 1st, 9th, 10th, 12th SS, 21st Panzer and the Panzer Lehr (units of the Lehr division contributed to the initial defensives, alongside with the 12th and 21st). The 2nd SS is not mentioned at all in the Normandy theatre, while the 2nd Panzer is mentioned in the Caumont-Villers Bocage area. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The information provided by Clark is the following:

1st SS , Kampfgruppe Frey - elements of 2 Panzergrenadier regts and attached to 12thSS - no tanks of there own

2nd Panzer - one kampfgruppe based around a tank battalion. - MK V Panthers?

2nd SS - Kampfgruppe Weidinger - no tanks of there own

9th SS - the whole division - MK IV and MK V Panthers

10th SS - the whole division - MK IV and Stugs (unknown variant however)

12th SS - the whole Division - MK IV and MK V Panthers

21st Panzer - A Kampfgruppe based around a panzer battalion - tanks and Stugs, unknown variants - although i know that the 21st were equipped with MK IV i dont have a citation to back this up.

Panzer-Lehr - elements - MK IV and MK V Panthers?

I will double check all sources to make sure i havent cocked up and muddled 2nd SS and 2nd Pnz - although i dont think i have.

Does Williams provide additional information regarding the actual strength of the Panzer-Lehr involved in Epsom and likewise for the 21st Pnz?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just google booked 12ss div history by H.Meyer p. 409. 2nd SS Kampfgruppe arrived during the offensive and was attached to the Pnz-Lehr. However it doesnt let you look at the following pages so i dont know what they got up to following that. The article for the Kampfgruppe shows it attacking th 49th Div - so part of Martlet or Epsom, both? I have reflected the OOB to show the 2nd SS being attached to Panzer-Lehr for now.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

All Williams says is that the 12th, 21th and lehr divisions initially held the ground during the British attack. I suggest we leave in the infobox something like 3 divisions + various units from other divisions. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes and citations

I am a little concerned about how the information in the citations has been split up from the page numbers. The way it was the author and page was shown with additional information, which to note i have never seen anyone raise as a problem with other article where i have done the same. Now they are both seperate which some could interpt as the "footnotes" being unsupported dubious informarion. Any advice on how to deal with this?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, simply add in brackets at the end of the footnote the citation which supports it. See Battle of Berlin. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok will do :)

Is it necessery to have a citation and then a footnote if it is from the same book and page i.e. citation reading Bob, p. 1 and the footnote reading: blah blah (Bob, p.1). Could the former just be deleted?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really, but that would be no problem, as it doesn't really matter. So, you should do whatever you want. :) --Eurocopter (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the info--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have another question regarding these now. I have used this split feature in another article I have been working on (Operation Brevity) however there are two footnotes, which contain the exact same information. Is there a way of merging two footnotes together like you do with citations ala "ref name=”example”"etc ?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Done it for you. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Bud!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

temp storage

just pasting this info and citations here for the time being:

During the second day of the battle, the 9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions of the II SS Panzer Corps (recently arrived from the Eastern Front), as well as the 1st SS Division Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler were diverted from the planned offensive at Caumont to the counter-attack the salient gained by the British. The vast majority of the tanks used by these units were Panzer IVs, although the fewer Panthers and Tigers were much more efficient.

---

image which was used:

An ammunition carrier of the 11th Armoured Division explodes after it was hit by a mortar round during Operation Epsom on 26 June 1944

"appropiate image for an infobox"

Am sorry but how is the current image more appropriate for the info box. It does not convey over anything to do with the operation, is one sided (i.e only shows Allied forces, and being blown up at that). The previous image which was added - a map, showed the British advance and the German counterattacks. Not only does it lend to the info box an actual map of the battlefield but it also shows what each side did. I cannot see how that is not more appropraite.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a image is far more suitable in an infobox rather than a map (it is more interesting, as it gives a nice view of how the battlefield actually looked like; meanwhile maps represent plans and are often quite hard to read for inexperienced readers, that's why I think "Planning" section is a good place for that map). Considering the fact that Epsom is a British offensive operation, I don't think it is one sided if we put an image with Brit armored carriers receiving fire from German artillery :). If I didn't convince you, check out other similar current FAs: Operation Varsity, Battle of Moscow, etc. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

However one photo (while a photo represents a thousand words) cannot give an overall view of the battlefield unless we are talking about Waterloo or something, which took place there enough on one field. Within this period of this battle there is bocage, cornfields, Hill 112, two rivers and the Odon Valley - the photo only shows a few British vechiles under fire and cannot (as i see it) help the layman understand the terrain or have a quick peek into the actual battle.

The Map in use, while not showing the German initial plans of attack or the British plans of attack (bar the two planned I Corps attacks) illustrate the area this operation was fought over, the gains made by the British during this operation and the counterattacks launched by the Germans.

The info box gives the bare basics of the article in question - who is fighting who, the strength of each side, the casualties and the result. One would suggest how a photo showing one specific incident helps expand this information. When reading actual texts the most helpful source to me is a map which is presented at the earliest possible moment as it, on the whole, illustrates everything.

Its because of these reasons, as i see it, that the map illustrates the operation better and why i tend to disagree with other articles showing anything other - i.e. while the varisty operation was an airborne one, that photo tells the layman nothing in support of the info box and likewise with the Moscow one.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You're perfectly right in what you are saying the infobox gives the bare basics of the article in question, so in my opinion that map is far to complicated for an infobox. Look, the infobox image is the very first thing you are looking at when you open an article (even before reading that Epsom is a British offensive on Germans). In this case, a reader finds a map showing movements of unknown military units to unknown locations (as units and locations are presented far later in the article, so that map posted in the infobox is not useful at all for him) - to understand it someone needs to know what's actually happening in this op. This is the main reason I suggest that image should be posted somewhere after orbat and planning, while the image with the exploding APC remains the most appropiate available one we have in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not going to insist on this matter, so I'd be happy if you'd consider my explanation above and next strong suggestion. Considering available maps and images, I think the best and most logic possible layout-friendly arrangement would be placing APC image in the infobox, new map somewhere at the end of the planning section and the coloured map in the operation section. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Conceeded, excellent points.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for understanding. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

Per request, I've now made a start. I'll post comments, questions etc below, and add to the list as I go along. EyeSerene^talk 10:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

General

• Can you leave the spelling of the Panzer lehr division as either: Panzer-Lehr-Division or Panzer Lehr Division as this is the way it is spelt in English sources as opposed to no spaces as seen in German sources. A tiny thing i know but it would easier for the layman to read imo and match up with sources.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed (I actually prefer it this way!) EyeSerene^talk 14:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Question regarding division titles. Should the full title be used at all times or is it ok to mix and match? I.e. 15th (Scottish) Infantry Division or 15th Division and likewise 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend or 12th SS/12th SS Panzer/Hitlerjugend etc?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's something I've tried to edit from a point of view of readability for the average English-speaking reader (hence, for example, my use of 'Hitler Youth' rather than 'Hitlerjugend'). I generally try to give the division title in full on the first mention, then a shortened version thereafter unless the meaning would be unclear (for example, if the division hasn't been mentioned for a few paragraphs, when I'd revert to the full name again). In my experience this makes the text less unwieldy, but I have no strong opinions either way. If you feel that we should be using the full official title each time, we can do that. EyeSerene^talk 09:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I've made a slight change to the main text regarding this. I have edited the first mention of the 12th SS to display "12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend ("Hitler Youth")". But otherwise i take your points on board and will edit with them in mind :). The only thing i dont agree with is abbreviating Panzer to pnz/pz and have changed these back.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • No problem. I hadn't realised I'd abbreviated some names (I plead force of habit) so thanks for catching that ;) EyeSerene^talk 16:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

• I'll leave this until last, as it may need to reflect changes in the article.
  • Agreed, this was the last thing i was going to do as it now needs a bit of a rewrite not just a CE.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I've now re-written this; feel free to re-re-write as needed ;)

Background

• I've added a little content re D-Day and Caen; I'll source this later when I have access to my bookshelves ;)
  • Sourced
• Changed a few date formats to UK (day-month-year)
• "...posting approximately seventy 88 mm guns in hedgerows and woods" I think we need to be more specific here; would it be accurate to say "posting approximately seventy 88 mm guns in hedgerows and woods covering the approaches to Caen."?

I just checked my source, the southern approaches to Caen would do. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Planning

• "In the third phase of the operation, Impetigo, the division would move forward to relieve all Scottish infantry north of the Odon." Which division is this referring to?

Wessex Infantry. Will correct this point in a mo.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Main attack

• Nothing much here, bar the usual tweaks (where/were; there/their!!)

Results etc

• I think this section might benefit from a more in-depth analysis, but otherwise no issues.

Me too, trouble is, the analysis requires sources or it will wade into npov. Sadly, analysis means more than a description of events, which I fear means making a fundamental decision about intention. Was EPSOM a 'bite-and-hold' operation which was couched as a relatively ambitious attempt to capture ground for reasons of expediency (which would have been gratefully accepted by Dempsey and Monty) or was it recast as such when it became obvious that the Germans weren't going to fold? I know what I think but the sources I've seen (D'Este, Dalglish, Clark, Saunders, Wilmot, Buckley, McKee and Hart) seem to either reduce their conclusion to a pro- or anti-Monty opinion from which all else flows or duck the issue. Does anyone know of any other sources which can throw light on it? Keith-264 (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The only other source I've got is Max Hastings' Overlord, where he goes into an 11-page analysis of Epsom, Montgomery, Rommel, and all related matters. He treats it fairly neutrally, his main criticism of Monty being on the lines of "...it was not the doings of Second Army, but Montgomery's version of them, that became more and more difficult for his peers and critics to swallow." (p172) His basic conclusion is that Monty's plans were sound, but given the training and experience of the troops employed, the woeful inability of some of Monty's sub-commanders, the general lack of 'drive' and initiative shown by the British infantry (which was echoed in German combat reports of the time), and the apparent need to re-learn lessons of combined-arms operation that had been forgotten since North Africa, he argues that the execution of those plans was beyond the troops' ability... especially in the face of an enemy of the quality of the German Army, that was not yet sufficiently attrited to be broken. EyeSerene^talk 16:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about Hastings. He had some of his conclusions from his dad, always a dubious source. I find his analysis unconvincing these days because he uses sources like Hargest and German reports (like the one by Panzer Lehr and some from Italy) which have some accuracy as descriptions of British fighting methods but wrong in their conclusions (like 'the Tommy fights well under cover of his artillery but doesn't like hand-to-hand fighting or grabbing fleeting opportunities). These methods are rational ones for an army built around firepower, which does not have a Siegfried complex, has to be highly sensitive to casualties and which can't coerce its men by killing large numbers of them to make examples as did the German army. Buckley et al point out that if the British were so bad then why were their results better than the Germans? German armoured attacks foundered even more comprehensively than Allied ones for the same reasons - in the Normandy terrain infantry were separated from the tanks which succumbed to mines, hand held AT, AT guns, AFV's, naval and air bombardment. If you let firepower do the talking it is illogical to expect infantry fight their way forward with small arms since this guarantees high losses and means that they lack ammunition to repel counter-attacks, which were a German speciality and had been since 1916. Combined-arms operations; I think that this has been overstated. Despite French and Place's strictures on the British army's 'lack of doctrine' particularly combined arms, some writers are now suggesting that the lack of 'doctrine' ('theory for slow learners') was a liberating phenomenon which allowed the army to respond quickly to the unexpected need to fight for much longer in the terrain of Normandy, something which was a sign of the German army's weakness not its strength. Many of Monty's 'peers and critics' were good bureaucratic infighters but how many of them were squaddies?? For all of Monty's abrasiveness he took Tedder et al to the cleaners when he wanted to - all the more galling for them I suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have all the books in the reference section (bar Williams) and will be drawing on all of them to form some conclusion on the operation - literally quoting stright from the books and putting that into some sort of narative.

"Was EPSOM a 'bite-and-hold' operation which was couched as a relatively ambitious attempt to capture ground for reasons of expediency (which would have been gratefully accepted by Dempsey and Monty) or was it recast as such when it became obvious that the Germans weren't going to fold?"

Well first things first - Clark, echoing Ellis, tells us that it was initially planned as a pincer attack which was then redesigned due to circumstances into an attempt to circle round Caen with one Corps. VIII Corps believed it was an attempt to envelope Caen by the capture of the high ground south of the city. Throwing a slight spanner in the works is the claim by Williams that the attack was to preempt the II SS Corps attack. Wilmot sits somewhat in the middle - he repeats the basic plan of eveloping Caen but states the attack was to bring the SS Corps to battle. So the question should be was the operation an attempt to cut Caen off or bring the enemy to battle before they could launch there counterattack - or both? What does D'Este and Hastings say on this?

What are the books by Buckley, Dalglish, Hart and McKee?

"I know what I think but the sources I've seen...seem to either reduce their conclusion to a pro- or anti-Monty opinion from which all else flows or duck the issue."

I know D'Este is uber critical of the Anglo-Canadians in Normandy (and imo wrong in so many sections of his book and completely bais) and Hastings from what i have read, on forums etc, would make one wonder how on earth the Allies manage to defeat the invinable German uber soldiers.

However balanced in with other source material we should be able to cut out the pro/anti-Monty opinion, stick to the operation and form a neutral conclusion on what happened.

So what are the main points D'Este and Hasting raise, do we have any quotes of there main points?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

D'Este p.237-8 describes the delay due to the weather and the arrival of 1SPzDiv and the looming arrival of IISSPzK. In footnote 2 p.238 he quotes Crerars war diary that Monty called the storm 'a tragedy', 'exactly what the enemy needed as it has given him time to collect reserves'(cab106/1064). On p.242 he describes VIII corps' repulse of the German counter-attack of the night of 28 Jun as a rout. P.245 'While it is true that 'The enemy had suffered a sharp defeat,' this defeat was purely in terms of men and material.'Keith-264 (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Foothold over the Odon?

Why does the article still describe the British withdrawing to the north bank of the Odon?? Some of the tanks near Hill 112 withdrew and Gavrus was abandoned. The area of Baron was retained. Keith-264 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Because i havent got there yet, ive removed numerous errors in the article but in the end this is the wiki - not a one man show - so change if you have a ref to back it up.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to infer criticism in a question enigma.Keith-264 (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

'...a shallow bridgehead over the Odon and give up the firm hold they had on Hill 112.' (Hill 112, Saunders T. p.34 2001)Keith-264 (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Added this to the article ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Colleville

There are three articles i have so far found on the wiki regarding this name:

• Colleville - has the same name but is near Le Harve
• Colleville-sur-mer - a small village near "Omaha beach"
• Colleville-Montgomery - a part of Ouistreham aka "Sword beach"

The Colleville in question appears to be part of Tourville-sur-Odon. It's a small village a few hundred metres north of the latter and has no article of its own - that i have yet found.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Result

Tactically indecisive?? Do we have sources for this? As I really believe it was a clear German tactical victory (that's how you call it when an offensive force is hold on and then thrown backwards). --Eurocopter (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the initial result stated the operation was indecisive and considering the strategic result according to many of the sources am so far reading (and will later cite within the article when i get to the final section) claim this op as a strategic victory - drawing in German reservces, halting there planned offensive etc and staying on the initative - i assume that who ever stated indecisive was talking about the tactical side of things.

So far without actually having reached the last day in mulpitle sources to gain a more wider impression of what historians want to call this battle on a tactical level - indecisive may be a good descriptive word. What one can so far say is that yes the Germans managed to eventually hold the attack but they didnt "throw it back".--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with this is the definition of success - is anything short of a 'breakthrough' a failure? If you're into the 'blitzkrieg legend' then a breakthrough and a sweeping advance is the least that will do. If you favour the view that industrial war is inevitably ermattungskrieg then 'breakthroughs' flatter to deceive. What was the strategic result of Barbarossa? Disaster. What was the result of the slower grind to Berlin? Victory. A substantial advance is surely dependent on an inferior opponent. Has anyone tried to calculate the fighting power of the French army of 1940 with that of the Westheer of 1944 relative to its opponent? I think that EPSOM showed the Germans that they were heading for disaster in Normandy. The cost to them of stopping Epsom was crippling. Epsom was Prokhorovka in reverse. It was only Hitler's refusal to take Schweppenburg, Rommel and Rundstedt's advice ("make peace you fools!") that stopped the German army leaving Normandy after Epsom and that was due to the weakness of the Westheer not its strength. (I think a bloke called Badsey has written in these terms but I don't have a reference with me.) What we can do is describe the tactical, operational and strategic effects of the operation as it pertains to Monty and Dempsey's intentions and the realism of those intentions as they pertain to the German army (and the bureaucrats at SHAEF). According to Lloyd Clark and D'Este, Monty definitely intended Epsom to reach Bretteville and lever the Germans out of Caen. This might be considered an operational goal. If so it was not attained. Tactically the Germans lost men and equipment they couldn't afford and strategically the battle consumed the offensive power of II SS Pz corps. Not bad for a failure Keith-264 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't really think that the defensive operations conducted by Germans can be considered failure. I mean when you manage to defend yourself and drive the attackers backwards, it's not a failure. However, we can stay with indecisive, due to German cassualties which were not necessarily high, but rather irreplaceable, and that counted a lot to the course of the war. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

images

The article imo needs some extra decent images to support the article. I was thinking of adding pics of each of the tanks in use but the ones of the commons dont really suit the needs of this article i.e. Finnish StuGs, knocked out Tigers, modern photos or Panthers and Cromwells etc.

So any idea what should be used to support the article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)