Misplaced Pages

Operation Mitten et al

Just a note for myself, a mini operation was launched late June north of Caen by 3rd Inf called Mitten.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Other than expanding the background to include something about Mitten, is there anything else people think is missing from this article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Fould

And he is? He has been used a reference but there is no info in the ref section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Major

Would it be possible to avoid this word except as a distinction of rank? Can't we say 'big' or 'important'?Keith-264 (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary attack

I'm reluctant to leave the last word to Hastings. 'With hindsight, this action came to be regarded as one of the most futile air attacks of the war.' Perhaps but the bombing was aimed at two places: 'Fields North West of Caen'; the centre of the pattern was 200-300 yards east of the aiming point and 90% of the bombs fell in it. The second aiming point is given as 'Northern Caen' a suburban area; the 90% zone was not identifiable. ORS2's analysis concludes that 'The material effects produced by this bombing attack do not appear to be sufficient to account for the marked success of the operation it preceded. It is thought that the value of this form of attack is largely in the disorganisation and morale effects that it produces'. ORS2 Report No.5 Heavy Bombing in Operation Charnwood in 'Montgomery's Scientists: Operational Research in Northwest Europe' Ed, Terry Copp pp.71-77. While not a destructive bombardment of German military forces, the results conform to British experience from mid-1916 that the primary effect of bombardment is suppressive and that this is short-lived. If the bombing was futile then such attacks in future (Goodwood and Bluecoat) would have had similar effect. As it was the report made recommendations which increased the effects of bombardment by strategic bombers - instant fuzes, larger numbers of smaller bombs, more anti-personnel bombs and rapid follow up by ground forces to exploit the suppression of enemy defences. If the intent of the bombing of the two areas was to destroy German defences and produce a walkover, it failed. Some destruction of soft skinned transport occurred (10 of 40 trucks) but the 48 hr gap before the ground attack allowed damaged equipment to be salvaged. If it was suppressive then the wait negated this. For a debut it was poor but it is clear that the technique was considerably refined in later attacks. I think 'futile' is the wrong word.Keith-264 (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems you have adequate sources be bold ;)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold but haven't a clue how to put it in the bibliography! Montgomery's Scientists: Operational Research in Northwest Europe. The work of No.2 Operational Research Section with 21 Army Group June 1944 to July 1945. Terry Copp, editor.(2000) ISBN 0-9697955-9-9 LCMSDS. Keith-264 (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ive added the book for you however could you be a good chap and add in the publication date, and the original one if there is one i.e. 2005 and 1955 etc Also if its available the publisher and publishers locations in the relevent parts of the template. I'd get this off amazon but id be pushing my luck a little here in work lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies (LCMSDS) The report dates aren't given but Jun'44-Jul'45 must be the range.Keith-264 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit notes

Underway; as usual, notes, comments, questions etc to follow... EyeSerene 10:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

General

• Can we say whose troops are in the infobox image (British or Canadian)?

  Nope, the IWM website that holds the information on the photo doesnt hold that piece of particular info. Photo is too low res to zoom in and ID their divisional insignia either. Unless its in a book somewhere, and the author has ID them, i think we are out of luck.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  Changed to the generic "I Corps troops" EyeSerene 12:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Background

• "Learning of this, Allied commanders ordered Bernard Montgomery to draw up an offensive..." Can we be specific here, as it makes it sound like it wasn't Monty's show? I'm guessing Eisenhower or SHAEF?

  Reworded more vaguely :) EyeSerene 17:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Planning and preparation (Germans)

• "Elements of the 26th SS Panzergrenadier Regiment held the western flank, concentrating their defence in the area around Carpiquet airfield, armed with limited tanks and mortar batteries..." What does "limited tanks" mean?

  I've rephrased to give what I hope was the intended meaning; please correct as necessary! EyeSerene 17:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Fighting in Caen

• "By noon, the 3rd division had reached the north bank of the Orne, destroying the 16th Luftwaffe Field Division" I think we need to change the wording here, although the division did suffer heavy it was not destroyed and went onto play a further role in the campaign, by which i mean being bombed to crap (poor bastards) and most likely destroyed during the Goodwood battle. Annihilation seems a bit to much and decimation a bit to little, i cant think of a word for in between.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  Doesn't Zetterling say that it was disbanded and the remnants put into the 21st PzDiv? http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/gerob/gerob.html "During the British Goodwood operation the division suffered serious casualties. All commanders and staffs of infantry regiments and battalions were put out of action. Also 36 company commanders were casualties. This made it difficult to rebuild the division, and on 23 July Eberbach suggested that the division should be used to rebuild the 21. Pz.Div.19 Evidently the infantry was used to replenish 21. Pz.Div., while the rest of the division was used to form the 16. Inf.Div.20 The division was formally disbanded on 4 August.21"Keith-264 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  All of which further supports that the division wasnt destoryed, it just suffered extremly heavily.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, presumably except in encirclements, the heaviest losses fell on the front line troops leaving the infrastructure relatively intact.Keith-264 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  Zetterling gives 12SSPzDiv PzIV and Panther operational states as, 7Jul, 40 & 39; 9 Jul, 10 & 18; 10 Jul, 19 & 18; 16 Jul, 21 & 18 which suggests that the fighting in Charnwood put about 50% of the division's tanks out of action. Perhaps the other sources stress 'destroyed' to emphasis lack of losses despite the swift depletion of the number of operational tanks?Keith-264 (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  I used "virtually destroying" - hopefully that fits the bill. EyeSerene 12:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  Suits me.Keith-264 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  sounds good to me.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

• A bit confused about the chronology of the various German changes in command - wasn't Schweppenburg replaced by Eberbach in early June? I assume that's included because until Charnwood etc, Eberbach thought it was going to be possible to win in Normandy? Addendum: rephrased a little; hope it's what was intended.

Eberbach took command in early July, i believe we covered it before in the aftermath of Epsom. However i believe it was relevent to bring him and Rundstead back up so that the comment regarding the new COs realisation made more sense. The way it is worded now appears to reflect his correctly.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I do beg your pardon - I'd got my dates confused. Hastings gives 1 July for Eberbach's 'promotion' and the following morning for von Kluge's. I'll fix the errors I've introduced :P EyeSerene 19:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ref no. 120 (at time of writing), "Hastings, p. 207", needs fixing - I believe I'm working off a different edition of the book. The first mention of 'Eberbach' in the index should get whoever has it to the right page (or thereabouts); the quote should also hopefully make it easy to find the right page number. EyeSerene 19:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Caen

• D'Este's citing of the Zuckerman survey: is it the 3rd British or 3rd Canadian Inf Div being quoted?

  He just says the 3rd Div - which i assume to be the British 3rd, as the Canadian 3rd usually always has the word "canadian" somwhere around it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  Thought that might be the case :) EyeSerene 20:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is there anything on the effect on the French civilian population? There's a note in the infobox, so it probably ought to be expanded on in the article.

  Will add some info on it shortly--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  done plus added a few extra images.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Looking good ;) One (hopefully) final comment - are we saying 7-9 July or 8-9 July? At the moment the article and infobox contradict each other.

  Do you mean in regards to the battle honours? Thats the dates given in the book i guess the events of the day before were just not "worthy" of honours.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  I have updated the article and added refs in, most sources seem to confirm kick off was the 8th.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  Sorted then (I meant the infobox and the article's first sentence, but you obviously gathered that!) I've enjoyed working on this one - I think the detailed Analysis section is especially impressive. Great work, as usual ;) EyeSerene 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Attritional battles

• Since DMorpheus has objected to the use of the word "attritional" in reference to St Lo, could we perhaps use another term to avoid the need for the caveat in the next sentence (or move the addition to a footnote)? I realise that DMorpheus is convinced that there was no strategy of attrition, and I agree the sources differ on that point, but I think the addition is out-of-place and breaks the flow of the paragraph, distracting from its main point (that even the replacement commanders became convinced they were in a losing battle).

  I agree that the new addition distracts from the main message. I think DMorpheus can only agree that official histories are not infallible and new research can prove them wrong in places. Copp, with 40 years of new research on his side, and reassessing the campaign very well may have decided to reassess this battle as an attritional one without being "wrong". Considering what the point of the sentance is, i have reverted it back to the way it was and moved Blumenson's comment to a note.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  Hopefully that will mean this point has been sorted out, ill start the process for FAC and still what our peers have to say.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  Cool :) DMorpheus, I think the word 'attritional' in the context it's used in the article simply describes the effect of the battles, not their intent. You may be seeing more than was intended, so I hope you're satisfied with this compromise? From Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic perspective it's not that one version is 'right' and the other is 'wrong'. Our role as editors is to try to represent accurately and with appropriate weight the spectrum of opinion found in reliable sources. I think the attrition issue is horribly complicated by some self-serving accounts on both sides of the debate (not least from some of the commanders involved) and some partisan historiography over the years. EyeSerene 09:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Attrition has a bad name as a strategy but then a consequence of military operations is the damage done to the combatants and the relative effect it has on them. Attrition is an inherent consequence even if other effects are intended. Since the Great War, politicians (small 'p' as well as large 'P') have tried to put the blame for friendly losses on the enemy and if that can't be done on scapegoats. The Allied operations in Normandy (before Cobra got going) had a far greater attrition effect than changes in territory. Whether this was expected or not is difficult to decide beacuse few Allied commanders would have set themselves up for the blame for losses. Had they done so they would have been disowned as soon as it was expedient for SHAEF/the press/London & Washington to sell them out. In the wiki articles I notice that 80% of Caen was destroyed and 95% of St Lo which I find hard to reconcile with 'manoeuvre warfare'. Perhaps the Allied commanders wanted a quick result (who wouldn't?) but expected the attritional slog that occurred despite their hopes, the organisation of their forces and their appreciation of the Germans. I agree with Enigma that Morphy might have a point that the Normandy strategy was intended to be 'manoeuvre' but also think that an attrition campaign was forced on the Allies by Hitler. I think that this was a consequence of German weakness which Hitler knew about only too well.Keith-264 (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Keith, that is WP:OR. More later. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you ok with the footnote? I really believe it's best stylistically to avoid distracting from the point of the paragraph, so another alternative might be to replace "attritional" with something like "costly". This would remove the need for the Blumenson note and hopefully avoid the perception I suspect you're seeing, that the article is implying that attrition was the intended end and not just an description of the means. EyeSerene 12:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Morphy, I haven't had an original thought in my life (except about Anne Bancroft). My comments are a paraphrase of many of the historians you seem to have overlooked.Keith-264 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either my insertion or the footnote is the best way to go. There are at least two better options. One is to omit mention of St Lo at all from the sentence in question; it is completely unnecessary to the point being made. A second is to omit the word 'attritional' from the sentence, which, again, is unnecessary to the point of the sentence and invites controversy where it is not strictly necessary. It inserts a POV that is not needed here and is not a settled issue anyway.

It is not acceptable to relegate Blumenson to a footnote, which has the effect of making it appear to be a less weighty opinion. It's not. Blumenson's history has been highly praised as one of the best official histories (unlike, say, Ellis).

I have written before, and it is relevant now, that the strategy and conduct of the Normandy campaign is controversial and deserves a separate article solely devoted to that controversy. A model for the article would be something like the Soviet offensive plans controversy or Global warming controversy. But for that article to be fruitful, it owuld be best in all the *other* Normandy articles to refer to it and to avoid assuming closed those issues that are open.

As for St Lo: the objective of the First Army drive on St Lo was certainly not attritional. The objective was to escape the terrain of the pays bocage, which was confined, low-lying, wet....IOW it canalized attack forces and was excellent defensive terrain. Take a look at a map. St Lo is higher and has good road nets on both sides of the front. That means forces can be massed towards it and then exploit beyond it in any of several directions. It was the necessary jumping-off point for Cobra. Had the Germans given up St Lo freely without a fight the objective would have been accomplished; this is the test of whether the fight was attritional. The goal was to seize that key terrain, not to eliminate or weaken German units. The casualty count and destruction 'score' does nothing to add or subtract from this conclusion.

I would argue that Second Army was trying to avoid attritional battles also, but that's for another time and article. My concern right now is not to mischaracterize the battle of St Lo.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I do think you're reading too much into the use of a word. I agree that Attrition (capital "A") wasn't the aim at all - as you say, St Lo was secured to provide a jumping-off point for Cobra. However, attrition was an inevitable by-product of an assault against an enemy that was under orders not to withdraw. I wonder if we're working off the same definition here; I'm using "attrition" to mean "wearing down" (in this case, causing enough casualties and material losses so the enemy can no longer resist). You must surely acknowledge that attrition (of both sides) happened at St Lo; without it, the town wouldn't have fallen. If the US forces had been able to bypass St Lo, I'm sure they would, just as Second Army would undoubtedly have done at Caen. The reason St Lo belongs there is because it's mentioned earlier in the article, but I've inserted costly per the above, as that's the thrust of that paragraph, and removed the Blumenson point as no longer needed to correct an impression that's hopefully no longer given. EyeSerene 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Artillery FO tanks?

Good point; I can't see it in the source either. Caption change? EyeSerene 14:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think so. They are certainly poorly placed if they really are FO tanks. IMO this FO label cannot be supported. I can't see the photo well enough to see whether the gun tubes are real or dummies; I can't see the formation signs to know what unit the tank is part of. But leaving the caption as just plain 'Sherman' works fine. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There Arty FO tanks because Simon Trew and Stephen Badsey say so - page 41, hence the citation to also support what unit the soldiers come from. Just because they are positioned in a street doesnt mean they are not FO tanks - two of the most famous photos from Villers-Bocage are of the FO tanks, both of which were in the centre of V-B.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you quote it please? I don't have the Trew book. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Enigma, by source I meant the Imperial War Museum archive (), which gives no more detail than the commons page. EyeSerene 16:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

lol, ok here it is: "A 6-pounder anti-tank gun of 1st King's Own Scottish Borderers guards a street in central Caen, with two artillery observation tanks behind it. St-Pierre church is in the background." No biggie thou.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, and the original source, the Imperial War Museum, makes no claim that these are FO tanks. I noticed their captioning is pretty thorough. DMorpheus (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thorough but the IWM also doesnt state they are the Scottish Borderers. ;) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

Enigma, do you really want to start a sentence with 'however'?Keith-264 (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well do be honest am not to sure lol User:Ottava Rima raised the point here; i did object to a number of changes he suggested and have not implimented them although the minor changes to grammar i have mostly followed. What would you suggest?

I'm one of those old farts who thinks that written English is a different language to spoken English so I value systematic grammar and punctuation; somtimes I manage it. I try to end sentences at the full stop so words like 'however' and 'additionally' are unnecessary after it. Keith-264 (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

sentence in the lead (problem solved)

At the bottom i wrote that for me the issue is "solved".

"With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success. "

infobox: allied : 3,817 casualties ~80 tanks german: Over 2,000 casualties 18 –32 tanks

is the sentence in the lead planned this way? Blablaaa (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

... the problem being ...EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

is the sentence in the lead planned this way? Blablaaa (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the problem being?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

seems to be a bit contradicting doesnt it? If inflicting casualties is a reason for a tactical victory than it is a german. I guess on a tactical scale it doesnt madder if the german had less troops ( thus higher rate of casualties ). is this a editor opinion or referenced? Blablaaa (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

u dont have battle of verries ridge on your watchlist? Blablaaa (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

See the sources and read the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

dont find the same statement with a source. is this your statement/opinion ?Blablaaa (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the article, then go read the sources...EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

i dont find a source claiming that the casualties inflicted on the german made a tactical victory. So i assume its your personal opinion which found its way into the lead section. U want to rewrite or can i ? Blablaaa (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you are obviously ignoring the sourced material in the article; the sourced material that states the Allied attack made a tactical gain, how the German tank force in the area lost 30-50% of their machines and how the Luftwaffe division suffered heavy losses. Its all there in the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

where is the quote that it was a tacticl victory cause of the german losses. where? "heavy losses" is pretty relative , isnt it? allied suffered more losses so we need a exact source saying it was a tactical victory because of german losses. Iam frankly and claim that u createt this correlation without suffienct source, correct? Blablaaa (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

the statement should be : "despite higher losses, charnwood was....." Blablaaa (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again ... READ THE ARTICLE, LOOK AT THE SOURCES, provide evidence to support your opinions and your claims

"61 tanks" tank strength and "18 –32 tanks" tank losses or 29.5% - 52%

"By noon the British 3rd Infantry Division had reached the Orne's north bank, virtually destroying the 16th Luftwaffe Field Division in the process."

"Carlo D'Este states that unquestionably Charnwood did improve Second Army's position... ." I.e. the tactical situation

Inserting the higher losses, bares no relevnce on the discussion - a 3% loss rate among I Corps troops; one could speculate on the tank loss percentage but its probably rather low considering the number of tanks per brigade. On top of which D'ESte specifically notes the 75% loss rate to the Luftwaffe units not to mention the above mentioned German tank losses.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

so , u created the statement, because your historians dont claim this. caught.... Blablaaa (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

tactical means inflicting losses, and sustaning much higher losses inst a tactical victory in general. Like i assumed u have no historian claiming what u have written in the lead. While allied had much hgiher losses u made " With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success" . Blablaaa (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OMG! You need to take the blinkers off! You are ignoring the fact the sourced information states the German forces suffered heavy losses, you are ignoring the fact their tank force took heavy losses and the fact the historians state the Allied position was tactically improved by this battle.

On top of which Carlo D'Este is an internationally recognised historian and author of one of the most popular works on the campaign; go argue you with him if you disagree about the losses the Luftwaffe unit suffered or his opinion that the battle achieved tactical improvements.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

give the exact quote that a historian claims the inflicted losses made a tactical victory. iam waiting. Blablaaa (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

stop explaining me your opinion give the quoteBlablaaa (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources are there, you read the goddamn books for a change... you have exhausted the last remaining ounces of good faith i had for you; i havent explained my opinion i am showing you the facts, the facts that are sourced to historical works, which are all clearly in the article.

As always all you have done is brought your bais opinion to a topic to cause a fight. If you have nothing constructive to say, why are you here?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

so u have no source saying the inflicted casualties made the tactical victory? So u created this statement to support your opinion , correct? The tactical victory was due to ground taken rather than casualties ( obvious while looking the numbers) . U simply wrote a statement and now u cant give the quote of an hsitorian which supports this. Iam concerned about your editing stlye u create wrong and dumb statements and than u claim its sourced but it isnt ( sorry for the "dumb" but your opinion is indeed dumb, thats why no historian supports) . On military article we should stick as close as possible to reliable secondary literatur. Enigma please stop adding you POV to articles. Blablaaa (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Enigma do u understand orginal research ? its not up to u to draw conclusion and put them in the lead ( espcially when your conclusions are wrong ) Blablaaa (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary : the sentence in the lead ( createt by enigma ) implys the casualties inflicted were a major factor to call the battle a "tactical victory" . with my grasp of military i know that this is highly unlikly because allied suffered much more casualties. So i assumed that this is incorrect and the opinion of the editor, then i asked for the source claiming this . After dodging around and posting useless comment , engima showed clearly that no of his multiple books is claiming this. Instead of admiting that he wrote is POV in the lead hes now making useless accusations . No historian claimed this so out of the lead or change it. And please stop adding POV in the articles.Blablaaa (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I also want to highlight that quoting D'est who give loss percentage and implying that D'est shares enigmas opinion is not only wrong its kinda attempt do deceive . Ive re-read the analysis section and no historian is claiming anything near enogmas statement. Blablaaa (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have requested moderation because you refuse to engage in a rational discussion or take on board a very simple premise; the information in the lede reflects the sourced information in the article that is footnoted to the relevent books and pages within (i.e. the comment you are suggest D'Este has never said and am making up). Your comments highlight a personal vendetta, regardless of the fact that several of us editored the article/and that the article has been peer reviewed and was found acceptable and without POV isuses. I will not engage in furter conversation until requested moderation has had chance to look into the issue.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. If the lead summaries the rest than u could easly give me quote of an historian claiming this, everything else is OR. Admit it and change it Blablaaa (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Also: what u have done is pretty bad. U search for moderation but u try to affect the "moderator". What does this tell about your intention ? u dont search for moderation u search for another editor who had problems with me. U engaged in so much nonsense discussion with me but now u search for "moderation". U see that u cant provide source for your claims and now u canvass. Next time when u search moderation than dont affect the admin with words like : "Simpley he is claiming that once again we, the various editors of the article, have made everything up". U are also trying to imply that i try to moan about all the article. I asked u after a source for a statement. Your subliminal text on nicks talk page shows that u dont search for moderation. U try to escape the situation which was created by u. Give a quote of an historian claiming this military nonsense. Blablaaa (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

After seeing nicks opinion. I try to make the issue clear as possible. The statement in the lead is a complex statement implying the inflicted casualties were a major contributing factor the tactical victory. This is indeed not correct an no historians claims this. When a historian claims germans had "heavy" casualties and claims it was a tactical victory then this is NOT a correlation until the historian claims some. Everything else is simply OR and indeed military nonsense. So please give me the exact quote of any historian supporting enigmas personal opinion Blablaaa (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it your point that it was not a tactical victory for the Allies ? just so I'm sure how would your describe it.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No thats not my claim. I dont claim that something sourced is wrong. I claim that german casualties were a major factor for calling it a tactical victory, is wrong. I want a source which claims this. Tactical victory in general arent achieved with suffering higher casualties as the enemy so here this wasnt the reason for the victory. The statement in the lead is incorrect and unsourced OR. Blablaaa (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Iam totally correct here i will rewrite the statement if nobody does this. The "coward" ( kindly meaning ) enigma is now simply sitting on his chair and is lucky that nick did the same mistake. Instead of providing the exact quote which supports this claim he starts doging with " iam out of the dicussion hes annoying". His tactic is cheap and very clear. He cant support his statement he tries the cheat to imply that D'este supports him because he claim german losses and allied victory. But he never claims the correlation. If something inst directly verifiable then its simple OR. The stupid statement that charnwood was a tactical victory because the inflicted casualties is a dumb and unskilled assumption. I doubt historinas will claim this and what do we see? enigma cant provide any sentence of any historian directly claiming this. Enigma did obviously bias. I guess i also will search for sanctions against him Blablaaa (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

when i change the statemtn to something what is exactly sourced by historians he reverted its and says vandalism. this is the behavious of somebody who thinks he owns the article. He dont brings the quote to support the statement but, calls my change " vandalism" pathetic work of a fanboy. Blablaaa (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I will change the article if enigma revertes again and justify it here. The correlation between german casualties and the tactical outcome of the battle was questioned by me. I asked for a exact quote of any historian exactly claiming this correlation. No one brought one. But enigma brought cheat trys by claiming the quote of "heavy casualties" + the quote of the "improved situation of the allied" made D'este directly claiming this correlation, this is totally wrong and unlogic and also OR. Beside various violation of wiki rules of enigma, i ask why i should wait for him to admit his failure? i changed the lead to something what is exactly sourced in the analysis. Where is the problem ? Nowhere.... Blablaaa (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Moderation has been requested on this issue therefore it would be sound to wait until it has arrived instead of inserting POV into the article and making false allgations in the edit summeries. You stated that your change is sourced in the analysis, so was the current version that was peer reviewed and accepted.

You have spent a year demanding quotes from texts you dont own to backup the articles we have worked on hence i am fed up of providing you with the information; why should i jump to your tune everytime you see something you dont agree with? In this case escpeically since everything stated in the lede is sourced in the article and footnoted; you wont even look at the book yourself before breaking the AGF guideline.

As noted further above, i am attempting to refrain from this discussion further until a third party or MILHIST admin have had the chance to look into the matter.

If are going to keep on making contuined allagations of my apparent various violations of wiki guidelines i suggest you go down the relevent path and start the process of having me looked into.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Enigma u become hilarious. U claim i make wrong allgations in the edit summary, while u said i vandalise while i inserted what the analysis section states? U are only distracrting everything u do is simply and poor Ad hominem. You can simply bring the quote supporting your statement . enigma bring the quote and everything is fine and stop your cheap Ad hominem campaign. Blablaaa (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Instead of bringing the quote which supports such conclusion u say it was peer reviewed and must be ok. Instead of making the simple edit and printing the orginal quote u try to imply that everything what passed a peer rewiev must be perfect. Your tactics are obvious . If your statement is verfiable than u would simply print the text. No need for your prolonged statements about me and blablablabla. Bring the quote or admit your OR Blablaaa (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

See previous reply.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

yes u quoted nothing from D'este . U quoted german casualties ( which are far lower than allied) and u quoted D'este claiming the situation of allied improved. Where is the quote for your statement ? U have none. by the way do u own this book ? u dont ? Your recent revert breached the 3rr but i will not report u and also i will not revert u again. U have not supported your statement with anything. Iam considering to buy the book of D'est and going to ani board with a detailed account of your subtile bias. greetings Blablaaa (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

See my previous reply and in addition go to ani board; i suggest you do if you are going to contuine to "threaten me" with action.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Again u dodge . u gave no quotes u simply gave text passages and showed that the statement is your conclusion. Iam aware of the fact that u will never find any quote supporting this wrong statement. Iam aware of the fact that u did a failure and u are not willing to admit. Maybe u simply change the statement a bit and kill the correlation and everything is fine. I will not even talk again about. Make the lead correct and the issue is resolved. No need to invest endless time, for both. MAybe u want to considere making the change. Then the issue is resolved i guess. Blablaaa (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The simple matter of the fact is that the article states the two formations suffered heavy losses and this is sourced and presented within the article; it has been pointed out to you. In addition the fact that various historians have noted the operation impoved the local tactical situation is in the article and sourced.

The lede summerises these sourced positions; if you do not want to recognise these facts fine - wait for the third party/moderation etc etc to arrive.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Exact enigma , german losses are sourced and the tactical victory. But you draw the conclusion . German losses werent the major factor for the tactical victory. u did simply OR. u can not give any quote of any historian supporting the correlation. And the lead doesnt summerise the section it makes another statement which is totally different of the analysis. Blablaaa (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I also love how u explain that the article states "the two formations suffered heavy losses" and meanwhile u miss the fact that the absolut losses were far lower. cherry picking... Blablaaa (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So i finally ask u one simple question please answer with yes or know. Do u have any source which supports the conclusion that german losses ( despite being far lower than allied ) were a major factor for the tactical outcome. Du u have one yes or no ? if u not answer i think its a "no" Blablaaa (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To any thrid party guy. The claim that the inflicted damage on german troops was a reason for a tactical victory is very obscure because in general inflicting less casualties is seen as tactical defeat. THe statement in the lead is directly claiming the oposite so we need a historian claiming this uncommon correlation. Everything what enigma has done is claiming german "heavy" casualties and the fact that some historians consider the battle as victory for allied. His conclusion is simple WP:OR. For any reviewer dont be confused about what is the issue. The issue is not the outcome and not the damaged it is the statement that the inflicdted damage was the reason for the tactical victory rather than the captured ground this statement is not sourced anywhere and it is enigmas part to prove his claim. Blablaaa (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to go back and read it again it states: With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success you seem to be missing the capture of Caen and it does not say victory but success. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jim for pointing that out. I would like to note that i made very little input on this article's lede thus it would appear good faith has gone out the windown and this discussion has disolved into editor on editor attacks.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement implys directly that the german casualties were a factor which made the battle tactical victory/sucess, i want a souce for this. I not even see what jim wants to tell us. I think he didnt understood the issue Blablaaa (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Here jim for u " Victory (from Latin victoria) is a term, originally in applied to warfare, given to success achieved in personal combat" . Iam wondering why so many people editing military article lack the knowledge about this topic. One major argument of jim is "and it does not say victory but success". The meaning is absolutly the same -.- . I question the value of the opinion of an editor making such statement. Blablaaa (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

While iam correct , i lost my interesst in this minor failure. For me the discussion ended now with status quo. Blablaaa (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Having come across this via the discussion on WT:MILHIST, and looked at some of the other talk pages referenced, I'm with everyone else, the description is fine, and adequately supported by the reference. The summary given on MILHIST was very partial. It would have been best simply to provide a pointer here, and ask for input, without trying to steer things one way or the other. To me it appears that your English just isn't good enough to comprehend the quote fully. David Underdown (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with David on this. I came to the discussion from the WT:MILHIST page, and was surprised, first, that the summary provided by Blablaaa actually did not reflect the discussion as it stands here. Blablaaa provided a misleading summary, possibly in an attempt to shape the outcome, but I'm willing to consider that he/she didn't understand the source sufficiently and assume good faith.

I considered the lead to be sufficient description; the citation and sourcing to be at least sufficient, if not more than sufficient. The people editing military articles certainly understand what a victory is. Most of us also understand that many battles/conflicts have no victor, in the clearest sense, and furthermore, that most "victories" are double-edged swords.

Blablaaa, I hope you're sitting down, because you haven't got a leg to stand on. Please you take the advice of the folks who suggested you drop this. auntieruth (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, there seem to be several publications that describe the battle as a victory; you can take your pick if you need additional citations. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong the statement claims a correlation between the tactical outcome and german casualties. No historian claimed this. the statement claimed a reason for the outcome were the casualties , no historian claimed this. THis is OR , u dont see it or u dont understand its. Thats all its not sourced. 'The two facts are sourced but not the correlation . Blablaaa (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone explaining to me that charnwood is described as victory by multiple sourced undisputable showed he missed the point. And n parcey my summarize is exactly this situation Blablaaa (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

here my text from the board :"When i have a text about a battle, and the source talks about casualties of one participant ( in my case , they are actually far lower than the casualties of the other participant ) and says he believes that battle was a improvement for the other participant due to various reasons ( captured ground for example ). Can i take the historian/text to claim the historian claims the inflicted casualties were a major reason to call the battle a "tactical victory"."

where is the f****** different between the two versions ? D'est gives german Casualties and says it was a improvment due to caputred ground for example and the lead claims the casualties were a major reason to call the battle a tactical victory. lol its exactly the same. Blablaaa (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

i love how people explain that it is well sourced. But please anyone give me the quote of the article which supports the statement that german casualties were one reason for the outcome. Give me the quote instead of sying there is one. Give me the quote, give it to me please, end this discussion with giving me the quote. Blablaaa (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

parceyboy" several publications] that describe the battle as a victory; you can take your pick if you need additional citations" completly missed the point...

Auntieruth55" The people editing military articles certainly understand what a victory is" -||- Blablaaa (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

i will rewrite the statement. The correlation is not sourced. If somebody will revert me then give the quote which supports the claim. Blablaaa (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

redlink

I've linked the Canadian 9th Infantry Brigade to the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division temporarily to fix the redlink

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Northern half

Is this accurate? If you bisect Caen the line wouldn't be contiguous with the river. Caen north of the river is about 2/3 of the city.Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I've trimmed that bit - it just says "captured Caen up to the Orne and Odon Rivers" now. EyeSerene 11:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Charnwood outcome

Looking the box i see tactical victory with 2 citiations. The citiation point to beevor and d'est. Looking into the analyse section i see both are quoted with some statement. Beevor is quoted with saying "Operation Charnwood a partial success, because although much of Caen was taken, the British and Canadians ultimately failed to secure enough ground to expand the Allied build-up" , this i nowhere enough to use beevor for "tactical victory" . Nor does he say victory and he doenst say tactical anywhere. He also calls it partial. So i want now the quote of beevor where he says "tactical allied victory" or something equivalent. If beevor doenst say something like this i will take this an go somewhere ( not MILHIST ) and push for sanctions for the editor this is a blatant misinterpretation or even source faking. Regarding the multiple questionable edits i think its time to search for admin opinion about this. If a historian calls something a partial sucess and a ultimately failure and this becomes a citiation of tactical victory at wiki then good night. Now D'est. He is also a source for tactical allied victory. Now what is he saying : "Carlo D'Este states that unquestionably Charnwood did improve Second Army's position but with the high ground to the south of the city in German hands, Caen itself was useles" ..." . Here too i want the quote of D'est claiming this is a tactical victory. This what is quoted of him is far away from being tactical victory. For all the guys not understanding the difference. Until a historian doenst exactly say tactical victory nobody can take him and source tactical victory. Tactical victory is a special condition which needs special citiation. Regarding beevor if there is no additional quote of him, this is a blatant violation of wiki rules and i will push for sanctions against this editor. Morphing "partial sucess" to "tactical allied victory" is a boldness Blablaaa (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I suggest you go to the ANI board as this is now the second time you have attempted to threaten/blackmail me, on top of the fact all you have done all day is stalk/harass me. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the Tactical Victory conditions you have laid down, i would also pull me on the use of "Tactical Victory" in the Operation Goodwood article; its not specifically mentioned in any of the sources consulted. I would also look upon the MILHIST discussion on the Goodwood article as well. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

( edit conflict ) so you are the editor who used " partial allied sucess " for citing a allied tactical victory? If there is any further information present them now before i go to aniboards. If you present a quote later you would have wasted time of many people. Is there any quote? yes or no ? did you take "partial allied sucess" to cite "tactical victory" ? yes or no ? Blablaaa (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

i dont considere goodwood as a real german tactical victory. so i would not wonder if nobody said this. Blablaaa (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been suggested that to you to drop the stick alas you want to carry on and I refuse to co-operate with blackmail and threats looming in the air. I have had enough of your lack of AGF and your attitute of demanding information or reep the whirlwind.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

i droped the stick 2 times already, regarding the wrong charnwood lead and regarding the biased infoboxes. But now i saw this and this time i will not talk to one of your friends. I take your silence regarding the quote as = i have no further quote. So you took "partial sucess" + " ultimately failed" and made "allied tactical victory" out of this. If this is not a blatant violation of citing sources then i dont know. I accused you more than one time of being bias towards allied but i could^nt undisputable prove because i dont own your books. But this time you showed which was written in the books and how you finally interpreted it and biased it. Maybe its interessting for you i orded 2 books which are also in your shelve which cover battle of cean. Iam very interested in seeing if reynolds give some casualties figures or outcomes which u might "overlooked". Regarding your AGF bla , i always asked you politly to explain the questioned edits. Maybe you should look your talk page and other talk pages to see that i always i asked you for further informations. You always started your ad hominem campaign. Blablaaa (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Using your last two "requests" as an example on this talkpage, following wesasl words, "So i assume its your personal opinion which found its way into the lead section" or your above first post; if that is asking politely, you have a somewhat skewed idea of what it is.

Call it ad hominem if you want, but i refuse to co-operate with you under your threats, so i suggest if you are going to keep using it as blackmail/threat you seek the ANI board out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

i ask for clarification because i plan to go to aniboard. If beevor said something else which justifies this citiation then everything is fine. So it is nessecary that you say if there is a quote because if i go to aniboards ( i will do if there is no quote ) and you then bring a quote, which is solving the issue, then you wasted time of many editors. So its now the time to say if there is a quote. Regarding the fact that if you faked the source it would be unclever of you to conceal other quotes, i think there is no other quote. Blablaaa (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I will not co-operate with you while you contuine to threaten admin action or present veil attempts at blackmail. I will present anything requested to a third party, so take that as my final response to you on this matter in section of the talkpage.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

ok i understand you are not willing to solve an issue regardless how easy it would be to solve this problem. ThanksBlablaaa (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

i also explained already that if you present this information later at ani board you simple deliberately wasted the time of editors and concealed this with your " i dont want to cooperate bla" Blablaaa (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Trew, p. 41