|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Epsom article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Operation Epsom is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 30, 2009.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
Nomen est ...?
- Its named after the Epsom horserace, if it doesnt mention that in the article i would imagine its because my sources didnt say so or i missed it. Ill scoot through them again later.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware at this point in time codenames for operations like this were deliberately chosen to be neutral and not give away any clues on the purpose or type of the operation. So the answer to "why" is because it doesn't particularly mean anything. It is only more recently that some military operations have been named more for the perceived public relations benefit than for military purposes. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- More modern ones are all stolen from cheesy Steven Segal movies ... everyone knows that :p--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have checked and double checked the sources i have on this operation and their doesnt appear to be any. New information is welcome however.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you think that this,
"....the clash of two modern armies [is] one huge battle spread over space and time, in which the smaller battles fought by the army corps...[would] form the tactical encounters of traditional battles. These large numbers of battles that would take place far away from one another as the individual corps or groups of corps came into contact with the enemy would be welded together by the commander-in-chief into a 'complete battle'. The individual [smaller] battles would be given significance by the commander-in-chief's plan. Just as a commander of old gave units particular goals on the battlefields of days past, a modern commander-in-chief would give specific goals to his army corps. Each would play a part in the overall plan. 'The success of battle today depends more upon conceptual coherence than on territorial proximity. Thus, one battle might be fought in order to secure victory on another battlefield.'"
- I believe the opening sentance is possibly spot on; although i think you could make the same connection between the ancient battlefield and the modern depending on how you look at it. I couldnt really comment on the last part though.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
banal? this sentence dont fits for allied in normandy. i guess its more for complex and faster operation like barbarossa. the many little operations maybe secured victroy in cean but were not neccesary. he talks about offensive actions with many little actions at the same time with little place for failures... my opinion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed redundant citations from the infobox, put casualty data in a new section, ce'd several sections, moved citations from mid-sentence to improve flow and generally spring cleaned.Keith-264 (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)