This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Battle of the Somme is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 26, 2004.
Battle of the Somme is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
"315,000 in 10 1⁄2" (divisions) ? 31,500 men per division? Seems a bit dodgy. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
30,000 in a division, so ten of them is 300,000, then a half divison adds another 15,000. (10.5 X 30,000 = 315,000)77Mike77 (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of the battle as stated in the infobox is quite misleading considering the lack of consensus about it. Deeming most of the Entente objectives in the battle to have been achieved is surprising. It does neither reflect the content, nor the sources linked in the article. (Jules Agathias (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Good. Nice to see that piece of nonsense has been fixed.Paulturtle (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill: G'day, Duncan, hope you are well. Reference your here, potentially Simkins 2003 might be: Simkins, P.; Jukes, G.; Hickey, M. (2003). The First World War: The War to End All Wars. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN978-1-84176-738-3. Unfortunately, I don't know for sure, though. Can anyone else assist? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert: Thanks - I went further back through the article history, found it was added by an IP which had also edited Operation Alberich at the same time, and found the same sentence, referenced to the work you mention, there. Have now added it here. This is a common problem with harv/sfn references. DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Duncan, thanks for following it up. Hope you are having a safe and happy Christmas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems to be a point of contention recently, does anyone know where the higher German casualties come from? The 10 day loss reports and other data from the Reichsarchiv support the 420,000 number, I can only find suppositional accounts from British authors supporting 600,000. An exception is Alexander Watson's "Ring of Steel" which is a British book but goes through the 10 day reports for the relevant German armies and also arrives at around a ~420,000 figure. It seems odd to have official British and French losses represented in the infobox alongside more speculative losses for the German side, although the high German figure seems appropriate for the casualties section. If my understanding is correct the Edmonds view that all German losses have to be increased by 30%, if thats where this orignates, has been contested by both the German archives and by Churchill in his book. Thx Roddy the roadkill (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Long and short term consequences of the Battle of the Somme[edit]
What were the long and short term consequences of the Battle of the Somme? 131.242.7.31 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg)
