Revision as of 06:28, 7 November 2004 editGsl (talk | contribs)10,634 edits →Obscure paragraph← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:22, 8 November 2004 edit undoRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits {{featured}}Next edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{featured}} | ||
where did it start? | where did it start? |
Revision as of 18:22, 8 November 2004
Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles.
where did it start? which countries fought in this battle? how long did it last? how many casualties were there?
Obscure paragraph
The following paragraph is unnecessarily obscure:
- The tactics of tank warfare were understandably in their infancy but Rawlinson made the mistake of leaving gaps in their barrage through which the tanks could operate. As the tanks were directed against defensive strongpoints, the supporting infantry who got ahead of the tanks often faced fresh German garrisons. It was also possibly a tactical error for Rawlinson to distribute his tanks across the front rather than to concentrate them against a single point.
For example,
- "made the mistake" -- It may be a mistake to leave a gap in a barrage. But what is the alternative? How otherwise would you avoid hitting the tanks with your own artillery? This sentence is too vague and speculative. Please give some reason why it was a "mistake."
- "As the tanks were directed against defensive strongpoints . . ." How does being directed against defensive strongpoints affect whether or not the supporting infantry gets ahead of the slow, slow tanks? This sentence is illogical, in my opinion.
- "It was also possibly a tactical error . . ." Is there a "best practices" rule that it is better to 1) concentrate rather than 2) distribute? This sentence is too vague, in my opinion. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Firstly, I was trying to summarise Flers-Courcelette in the main article and would eventually go into detail in the Battle of Flers-Courcelette.
- "gap in the barrage" -- the barrage (should) fall ahead of the attack, not on the attacking infantry and tanks. Leaving the gaps meant that when the tanks failed to arrive, the infantry on these sectors encountered un-bombarded defences. The purpose of the gaps was to leave the ground undisturbed, giving the tanks good going.
- "directed against defensive strongpoints" -- coupled with the gaps in the barrage, the infantry were doubly-damned
- "tactical error" -- at the time there were no best practices. It's a comment on the development of Blitzkrieg tactics when tanks were concentrated in a "Schwerpunkt". "Possibly" may not be a good word but this wasn't really the point to discuss the evolution of tank tactics.
- I'll expand on it when I get around to writing the 15 September article. I'm happy to drop this paragraph until then. Geoff/Gsl 23:22, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
---
Great explanations. Great page! Contratulations. ---Rednblu | Talk 00:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I've dropped the paragraph, replaced with more battle detail. I'll revisit the question of tactics when I do the Flers-Courcelette article when I can do a proper explanation. Thanks for pointing out the problem. Geoff/Gsl 06:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)