Talk:Operation Michael

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject France (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Untitled[edit]

I believe its incorrect to name this article as "First battle of the Somme" as irregardless of the (1918) next to it, the title would suggest an article on the Somme offensive of 1916.

Not to mention that the article's text refers to the "Second battle of the Somme". I think there is a mistake here. --Chancemichaels 01:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels
I agree: First Battle of the Somme (1918) is not a good title. Operation Michael or Battle of St. Quentin (1918) would be much better. --Rumping 13:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


I note that Battle of the Somme (disambiguation) explains the situation vis a vis official nomenclature. First Battle of the Somme of 1918 would be a suitable title. GraemeLeggett 14:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


Very bad summary of Operation Michael, the first offensive of the 1918 Spring Offensive.[edit]

This is a very bad summary of Operation Michael and also has a misleading name in reguards to the 1916 Battle of the Somme.

I am currently writing a coursework paper on Operation Michael, "Why did Operation Michael fail after it's initial success?". I would be glad to post it and/or contribute to the article once my essay as been graded and cleared in August 07. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GBobly (talkcontribs) 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Map[edit]

I notice that the map doesn't show Operation Mars against 3rd army which is mentioned in the text. I fear that this may give a misleading impression of the efectiveness of the German attacks. Are there other maps we could add which show it?Keith-264 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

POV tag[edit]

I believe that article as it currently stands warrants this tag. It relies exclusively on British sources. (When I first began copyediting, the weird formatting of some of the text led me to suspect copy and pasting, possibly in violation of copyright, although I could not trace the original source(s).) In addition, it could do with some tidying. Much of the text refers to small-scale actions, the location and relevance of which is unclear unless combined with large-scale maps. HLGallon (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Further to my last: I have reviewed some of the on-line sources cited within the text. Much of the text has indeed been copypasted, from the various pages under the Commonwealth War Graves Commission section dealing with the offensives of 1918. I'm not too sure of the copyright status of this site's text, but I think some rewriting is required to avoid accusations of cribbing. HLGallon (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

At least the outcome is sourced and written from the German point of view. I can't speak for the rest of it. Dapi89 (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As I read this article for the first time, I must agree with the complaint that it is written almost entirely from the British viewpoint. There is little mention of German units' actions during the operation, but more importantly, the narrative fails to show how an operation that had been intended by the Germans to surround the British forces and remove them permanently from the war, degenerated into a mere advance, a grab for territory. There's little information about the Germans' thinking as they watched their plan go astray. This was the Germans' most important operation in the West since 1914; they staked everything -- their remaining resources, the victory or defeat of Germany -- on the success of this operation; nevertheless, they watched it fail and allowed it to do so. Why? Cwkmail (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

I think that the recent changes look pretty good but I fear that some of the details suggest that the German methods (Hutier-Bruchmuller) were new. I suggest that they were incremental changes that had appeared in all of the western front armies in 1917 and that the 'German excellence' view ought to be tempered by reference to this. Keith-264 (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Apropos, why wouldn't three years' practice in attacking German defences make the British familiar with German defensive methods? Having confounded the German defence-in-depth at Ypres in 1917 despite the pony weather whouldn't they be expect to be thoroughly conversant with these methods?Keith-264 (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Austrian troops in the order of battle[edit]

Well, I know that the Austrians sent a limited number of troops and artillery batteries for the Spring Offensive, yet I have yet to find any proper "Order of Battle" for either of the German armies involved, or find any proper references to Austrian units involved in the battle.

AFAIK the Austro-Hungarian artillery was highly regarded by the Germans and the number of batteries involved in the Spring Offensive was not insignificant. So, does anyone have access to a proper OOB for the Spring Offensive, namely the German 17th, 18th and 19th armies?

Thank you in advance. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.10.194.163 (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I placed the original tag. There has been a large amount of non-POV material added, mainly by mass copy-and-pasting from the article Spring Offensive, but a vast amount of cruft remains. There are too many quotes with little context, and the 1/1 Herts war diary is useless without a very large-scale map to illustrate its entries. I'm still not 100% happy about its copyright. HLGallon (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

CE[edit]

Added some of the missing footnotes and references, tidied some prose and added categories as per wiki.Keith-264 (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Done as much loose-ending as I can until I fetch some other sources. I'm not sure about the Beds battalion narrative either.Keith-264 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The average strength of a German Division in 1918 stood at 12,300 men, 3,000 horses, 48 artillery pieces, 120 mortars, 78 heavy machine guns, 144 light machine guns, and 6–12 trucks.[1][page needed] moved this as can't find a reference, added something from Kitchen to compensate.Keith-264 (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusion in text[edit]

Too many missing words and self-contradictions in sentences. Example "A British infantry division was now nine battalions strong, reduced from four battalions" Reduced to nine from four? This is obviously not what was meant. But, what was meant? There are many such instances. Article needs to be cleaned up and contradictions corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.17.158.195 (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I edited a sentence in "Day 2", so as to say that the commander of the 16th Manchesters wasn't annihilated, but that his unit was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.209.102 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Terry Thorgaard (talk)

Added some more citations from the OH and tidied prose in a few places.Keith-264 (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)