Talk:Battle for Caen

Request: wikibreak from the talkpage for all editors...

So, as we are all aware, there has been extensive discussion here on what should be and what should not be in the article. All of which appears to have distracted from article development. I propose that we all take a break from the talkpage for a short period, maybe until the end of the month, to allow concentration be applied to the article; then we can resume the debate?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I would personally be delighted to concentrate on article development. However that development would obviously have to be done in accordance with WP:NPOV. If that development would include correcting the current neutrality issues, as well as adding the significant views of all the reliable sources, then perfect. I presume that is what you have in mind? Wdford (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no" then.Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Why would you take that as a "no"? WP:AGF says you should assume EnigmaMcmxc is intending to develop the article in accordance with WP:NPOV. Just because you ignore WP:NPOV doesn't mean that all other editors are similarly inclined? Wdford (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Now chaps. Lets see were development takes us. The battle section needs completing, as already indicated by others. In addition, there are numerous areas that everyone has highlighted needs room for improvement. Lets see where development takes us, then we can discuss from a new position.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Tally ho!Keith-264 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

As has been highlighted a major deficiency in the article has been the treatment of German plans - I've added some information about their order of battle and plans for specific attacks. Suggestions on how to integrate this into the article? Aber~enwiki (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It would probably be most helpful to readers if you inserted each component as the German unit in question arrived at the battle-field. That would mean spreading the info through the various battle component sections. This would be particularly important for those many units that were not at the battlefield from the start, but which only arrived progressively. Wdford (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple. On reflection the key points on the German reaction that need to be included:

- Up to D+6 counterattack planned in British sector but the 3 Pz divisions available pulled into holding the line

- counterattack to be made against Carentan (need to check details), but 2 Pz used against Perch

- D+14 major counterattack planned with I and II SS Pz Corps when they arrive, but pre-empted by Epsom

These do not fit easily into the paragraphs about each Allied operation and need to be inserted as separate paragraphsAber~enwiki (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to make extensive edits and change the format of the article such as notes->citations, then we need to discuss it first.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

My edits thus far are mainly copy-edits to improve the coherence of the existing material. Note that this section is a background overview of Overlord, not a description of the Battle for Caen itself, and it needs to be concise but still coherent. Under the circumstances, combining the notes with the citations is more coherent and more readable. However it is a work in progress, and I am open to suggestions to make it even better (but not worse). Wdford (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Combining the notes with citations makes the article almost unreadable.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish. It makes no difference to the appearance of the article compared to having separate notes, and it links the notes directly with the citations so making the information more coherently accessible. This gives the reader all the info at their fingertips, without overloading the article text with detail. Separating the citations from the notes would give twice as many links, for no appreciable improvement in readability. Please stop edit-warring. Wdford (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I converted the citations to notes, as per your demands. As predicted, it makes absolutely no difference to the appearance of the article. Please edit constructively going forward - we have agreed to concentrate on building the article rather than bickering. Wdford (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You have spammed the article with NNPOV, COAT, OR, UNDUE and everything else and this is vandalism. You have commented here outside WP:CIVIL and demonstrated that attempts to reach consensus with you are futile. This is such a sad state of affairs.Keith-264 (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

well the idea was good but we seem to have gone about it the wrong way. If a edit is so large or unacceptable to another editor that they feel it necessary to revert wholesale, then please check you are not throwing put any babies with the bath water and see if you can retain any part of the edit that was useful. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I did, WD tried to return the narrative to the unacceptable version rejected by every other interested editor. This time he tried to do it by WP:UNDUE and once a tiny thread was removed, the rest unravelled. What a shame.Keith-264 (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It was not meant as a reproach against anyone in particular. So it didn't start out well, we can still press on with the improvements to non-contentious things. Eg infobox suggestion below. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The so-called "unacceptable version" merely included a single sentence, supported by half a dozen reliable sources, which show that the original Overlord plan was to include a British breakout in the east. This fact is well attested, but it is a threat to Keith-264's POV, so it ignited a serious reaction. Once again the excuse used was to accuse me of vandalism. This is a serious accusation, and it contravenes WP:ASPERSIONS as well as WP:NPOV and all the other policies which apparently do not apply to Keith-264. Once again I ask Keith-264 to substantiate all his accusations. Maybe this time he will actually produce evidence? Wdford (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

NU WP:CIVILKeith-264 (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The original Overlord plan outlined by COSSAC did indeed include a British breakout to the East, but Montgomery hadn't liked that part of the plan so he had changed it.

The German armoured reserve was stationed between Normandy and Pas de Calais and so when moved to counter the Allied invasion would meet Montgomery's forces first, hence expecting to be able to fight them and advance at the same time may well have been thought unreasonable considering the size and quality of the Panzer Divisions facing them.

Operational level of war

* Up to D+6 counter-offensive planned in British sector but the 3 Pz divisions available pulled into holding the line on 9 June

• Counter-offensive to be made against Carentan (need to check details), but 2 Pz used against Perch

• D+14 counter-offensive planned with I and II SS Pz Corps when they arrive, forestalled by Epsom (Perch II)

These do not fit easily into the paragraphs about each Allied operation and need to be inserted as separate paragraphs

Yes, yes, thrice yes. I'm still mulling it over but this approach links events to plans (with due reference to Ultra for making it viable) far better than the description of each battle, which I parachuted in ages ago for lack of anything better. Writing the Battle section more like this will make the campaign plan visible from the start and can show how operational and local plans made to reflect tactical realities were still part of the strategic concept. This is why the plan as laid down by Monty was in general terms and plans by lower levels of command were specific within the plan and included provision for failure (Smock, Wild Oats) as well as success. This will prevent the article being a remake of existing articles but it will make the campaign plan, operational and tactical plans explicit each time; this can only be based sources containing the information, which tend to be recent. It will make the history of the history section less important and more valuable at the same time by explaining why there's been so much argument over trivialities. Keith-264 (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Most of the information was pulled from Wilmot, as he has both good maps (including a key map on the I & II Pz Corps attack) and a detailed index. Most of the more recent books have less detail and I've found v little on German plans - perhaps a Rommel biography would have more?Aber~enwiki (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Ellis might have some and Brooke can keep us up to date with Monty records. Have you found the map websites any use? The narod one is brilliant but you need DiJvu for it.Keith-264 (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Article is about a name or combat?

The article currently begins with "The Battle for Caen is the name for the fighting between...". Most WP articles are about subjects, only a few are actually about a phrase, term, or name. For example, we shouldn't start Blitzkrieg with "Blitzkrieg is the name given to armoured warfare in WW2...", because the great majority of the article is about blitzkrieg warfare, not how it got named.

Here, this article it's even less about a name, because we're using "Battle for Caen" as if were a proper noun, but it's not really. As Keith-264 pointed out: "it isn't the name of a battle, it's a portmanteau term for the article and the battles therein." So it's a name WP has created for a subject, which means there is nothing to say about the naming (there's no source).

Since the article is about a series of combat/battles, the 1st sentence should say that, not something else. (And perhaps we should not capitalize "Battle"?) Perhaps "This article covers the fighting between..." or similar?

Comments? --A D Monroe III (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree but I'll need to check the RS to see if there is a term to use, rather than treat this one as a coining. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

D+90

What on earth is all this about? By D+90, Eisenhower's armies were holding positions they had not been predicted to take until D+365. Any suggestion that the Battle of Normandy went badly for the Allies is ridiculous. The battle was just fought in a smaller area than expected, due to (miscalculated) German strategy, and the payoff was much bigger and more sudden than expected. The rest is unimportant. The article goes on longer than the average roll of wallpaper, in bizarre detail, about the opinions of minor historians who just don't matter. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above. The German Generals, who should know, knew that they were badly beaten and said so. The article should focus on painting the broad strokes of an annihilating Nazi defeat, that was only delayed by Hitler's suicidal no retreat policy, and leave the minutia to separate articles where in can be described in detail.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Lineup mid-July

Second Army vs. Panzergruppe West
mid-July 1944

Second Army

XXX Corps	XII Corps	II Cdn Corps	I Corps	VIII Cps (res)
49th ID	15th ID	2nd Cdn ID	3rd ID	Gds Armd D
50th ID	43rd ID	3rd Cdn ID	6th Abn D	7th Armd D
59th ID	53rd ID	2nd Cdn Armd Bde	51st ID	11th Armd D
8th Armd Bde	4th Armd Bde	—	27th Armd Bde	—
33rd Armd Bde	31st Tk Bde	—	1st SAS Bde	—
34th Tk Bde	—	—	4th SAS bde	—
XLVII Pz Kp	II SS Pz Kp	I SS Pz Kp	LXXXVI Kp	All sectors
276 ID	271 ID	272 ID	711 ID (elts)	III Flak Kps
2 Pz D	10 SS Pz D	I SS Pz D	346th ID	7th, 8th 9th (part) Werfer Bds
326 ID (arriving)	277 ID	101 SS Tiger Bn	16 LW FD	654th Bn (Jagd- panther)
—	102 SS Tiger Bn	12 SS Pz D	21 Pz D	—
—	9 SS Pz D (reserve)	—	503 Tiger Bn	—

Keith-264 (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The Canadian Official History has a nice map of the German position 24/25 July to illustrate this. [1] Aber~enwiki (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)