Talk:Normandy landings

Scope

Neptune was not just the naval side. Neptune was the "assault operation" of Overlord, all-inclusive, and involved the naval forces, the invading divisions, and the airborne drops.

xx

Some strange coding on this page. Please reconfigure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. McJagger (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed this text:

2. Neptun was the German counterattack by German ground forces against Soviet units near the Black Sea at Myschanko-Berg on 6 April 1943. Part of the Battle of Stalingrad.

First of all, the Battle of Stalingrad was over by April 1943. Second, there was a Soviet operation "Neptune," which I plan to add to this page in a moment, which suggests the above text might have been a mistake (but not a mis-correction; it was originally added just like that, modulo misspelling "Stalingrad"). Third, as far as I can tell, there is no "Myschanko-Berg."

However, I think I've found the original source: [1]

Neptun                 D       06.04.43    Gegenoffensive am Schwarzen Meer beim Myschanko-Berg
Neptun                 D       1944        Anti-Partisanen-Aktionen auf der Sporaden-Inseln vor (später Koralle genannt)

Someone who knows German want to translate? --Quuxplusone 16:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I may (or may not have made the OP on Neptun, but my records show ...

NEPTUN “NEPTUNE” (GER 43) Counterattack by German ground forces against Soviet units near the Black Sea at Myschanko-Berg on 6 April, 1943.

Perhaps I messed it up in retyping it in this format. Perhaps someone else mis-corrected it. In any case, here is the real deal. Paul, in Saudi 17:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Navies at Normandy

First, apologies for seeming to be an over-sensitive Brit.

Second, in no way do I wish to minimise the courage and suffering of US forces in Europe. The actions at Omaha beach, St Lo, Bastogne, Eindhoven & Nijmegen, and elsewhere were outstandingly brave and determined. Particularly so on foreign ground.

Phew.

BUT (here goes), there is sensitivity in Europe, and not just in France, about the Second World War in Europe being given an all-American gloss (usually by Hollywood - John Wayne did it all?). So, although US troops and aircraft were desparately needed to bolster the failing British manpower reserves, at Normandy it was actually the Royal Navy (British, not English, please note) that took the lead in providing naval support. To list the relatively few US ships (I'm sure there were more than these) that were involved without a similar reference to other nations, apart from the "English" navy, rubs some of us up the wrong way. It also overlooks contributions from the Free French and Norwegian navies, and probably others.

I won't delete the list of US ships - that would be disrespectful, I may add to it. And I do know that the US Navy's focus was in the Pacific.

I hope that I've not caused offence, but I do feel lots better for that rant. Folks at 137 23:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This point is well-taken, but the role of the US Navy in Overlord was not quite as insignificant as implied here (the gunfire support to Utah and Omaha Beaches were by USN ships). And John Wayne, except for portraying a real-life soldier in The Longest Day, never appeared in any war movie involving the war in Europe, so that's a straw dog. That said, the roles of the RN and other navies needs to be documented accurately because they did provide the lion's share of escort and support--Buckboard 05:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

Tanaside/ Tantaside

Was USS TANASIDE not in fact HMS TANASIDE a hunter class escort destroyer launched from Yarrow dockyards in April 1942. She was deployed for antisubmarine and antiaircraft duties

The name Tanaside was taken from a USN report; it may have been a typo. Checking. BTW, queries should be on talk page not main article. Folks at 137 15:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Found this site [2]. Ship appears to be HMS Tanatside, although Tanaside/ Tantaside spellings are also extant. The operational detail seems to confirm the info. Folks at 137 21:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Kriegsmarine fuel shortages

Re: recent query about this assertion. Try [3], third footnote (already quoted as a reference). There may be other sources. Folks at 137 22:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dutch ships

I've added the Dutch cruiser Sumatra to the cruiser list, and the gunboat Soemba to the other ships list. This makes the Dutch (naval) presence complete.

Picture of bombardment

At the National Archives there's a picture of the map representing the naval bombardments. It's British government, so almost certainly in the public domain. Oberiko 01:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge

This needs to be merged into Battle of Normandy, since that article has changed from being about the entire campaign (Operation Overlord) to only being about the invasion phase (Operation Neptune). DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that there is discussion about possible renaming this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Moves to be made

Unless there are objections, we'll be using the following structure:

• Operation Overlord: Overview of the everything (sans things like Dragoon) up until the liberation of Paris (June 6 - Aug 25)
  • Invasion of Normandy: Invasion and establishment (June 6 - mid-July (Goodwood / Cobra))
    • Normandy Landings: Sub-page focusing on the naval and amphibious portion. A.K.A. Operation Neptune
  • Breakout from Normandy: The breakout and chase up to the liberation of Paris (Mid-July - Aug 25)

Disambiguation pages

• Battle of Normandy: Disambiguation linking to all of the above, plus other battles in Normandy (such as during the Hundred Years' War)
• Normandy Campaign: Same as Battle of Normandy, but with additional note of it being an official campaign in the American European Theater of Operations
• Operation Neptune: Disambiguation, takes over the current disambig page.

I'll likely move the pages in a few days. Please direct any feedback here, as I'm posting this notice on several pages. Oberiko (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Normandy landings

Should this page be moved to Normandy landings or is the term Normandy Landings well enough known to be a proper noun? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was debating that myself. It seems to usually appear as "landings", but "Landings" is far from uncommon. I'd err on the side of caution and go with the capitals, since it seems to be an accepted full name of the event. Oberiko (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Politics

The article is pretty interesting. From an encyclopedic point of view though, it is too much concerned with the military details. The political and other causes behind the landings should also be covered. Why were the landings decided at this point? Why not a year or two earlier ? Why infantry landings without armour? and other such questons. Can anyone help? 90.11.102.208 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Posting parts of the German article

It will sound wierd because I used an online translation thing, but here it goes:

Operation Neptune from Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia To changes to: Navigation, search

The title of this article is ambiguous. Other meanings are performed under operation Neptune (concept purification). 

The operation Neptune was a part under the deck name Operation Overlord carried out landing of the allies in Normandy in the second world war. Neptune was, on this occasion, the storm attack on the German connections in Normandy and the establishment of a bridgehead. The operation Neptune began with the first bigger practise manoeuvres in January, 1944 and culminated in the landing of the allies in Normandy on the 6th June, 1944, the D-Day. The end of the operation can be dated on 30th June, 1944. The higher operation Overlord ended only 19th August when the allied armed forces had crossed the river his in France. The operation Neptune was the known land operation most extensive up to now of the world history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yojimbo501 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Among the rest, beside the mission purpose to gain a foothold in Normandy occupied by the German the operation Neptune should also serve to protect the landing crafts against opposing attacks from the air and from lake. In addition, should be made sure by the operation that no opposing ship got to know in the canal from the forthcoming invasion. Besides the landing should be supported actively by the bombardment of the Atlantic embankment in the area of the landing zones with heavy ship artillery. After the successful landing the care of the bridgeheads with supplies was organized under this name.

The operation was split in many other small operations to confuse the German defense. For same reason many phantom federations which have never really existed "were also 'put up". The table gives an overview about the explained partial operations (without practise operations) with overview about the operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yojimbo501 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was a taste of it. Let me know if there is any specific part you want to hear. By the way the quality of German featured articles may be lower than ours (no offense to Germans). Yojimbo501 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Now we will compare the German begining section to ours:

The Normandy Landings, also known as Operation Neptune, was the assault and amphibious operations of the Allied invasion of Normandy, France; part of Operation Overlord. D-Day for the operation, postponed 24 hours, became June 6, 1944. The opening assault was conducted in two phases, an air assault landing of American and British (including a Canadian airborne battalion) airborne divisions shortly after midnight, and an amphibious landing of Allied infantry and armoured divisions on the coast of France commencing at 06:30 British Double Summer Time. It required the transport of soldiers and material from England and Wales by troop carrier air planes and ships, the assault landings, air support, naval interdiction of the English Channel and naval fire-support. There were also subsidiary operations to distract the Kriegsmarine and prevent its interference in the landing areas.

Over 1,000,000 personnel were involved, including 195,700 Allied naval and merchant navy personnel. Neptune took place on the Cotentin Peninsula, the east bank of the Orne River, and the Baie de la Seine, offshore and along the Normandy coast where five invasion beaches were assaulted: Gold, Juno, Omaha, Sword and Utah.

I find ours more specific but some german parts were of interest:

"The operation Neptune began with the first bigger practise manouvres in January, 1944 and culminated in the landing of the allies in Normandy on the 6th June, 1944, the D-Day. The end of the operation can be dated on 30th June, 1944. The higher operation Overlord ended only 19th August when the allied armed forces had crossed the river his in France."

That was a taste of it again. Let me know if there is any specific part you want to hear. By the way the quality of German featured articles may be lower than ours (no offense to Germans). Yojimbo501 (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Start?

Why is this start class? And why can something with such less information, citations and links like Fires on the Plain be start class while this stays at start class even with a lot more information? It seems most articles fall under start and it makes that class sort of confusing. Yojimbo501 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the quality scale. This article is not suitably referenced and it is not free of grammatical errors, and is not in tune with the Manual of Style. JonCatalan (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tanks

The reason the Americans and British didn't have armor on the ground? The tanks were supposed to "float" to shore in inflatable rubber tank rafts. This failed miserably, with 32 out of 35 sherman tanks sinking at omaha. Worth including? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.52.15 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So long as its balanced by the notes of the other beaches where the DD tanks did land successfully and the follow up tank units (mine clearers, Centaurs and AVREs were landed into the shallows to wade ashore, or on the beach to clear the defenders. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No,no,no. The DD Shermans largely didn't make it at Omaha, but in other places tanks DID make it to the beaches in day 1. See Hobart's Funnies and plenty of other places. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

At Omaha, 5 of the 32 DD tanks did make it to shore on the 16th RCT front, though only 2 of these survived the swim in. The other 3 succeeded in landing because they were landed directly onto the beach. 14 of the 16 non-DD tanks were landed directly onto the beach, but 3 were knocked out fairly quickly. On the 116th RCT front, they cancelled the launch of DD tanks, and landed all three tank companies (2 DD, 1 conventional) directly onto the beach. One of these companies took heavy casualties during the landing, the other two fared better. The failure to clear the exits off the beach meant that the tanks were confined to the beach and, exposed to defensive fire, took further casualties. The point is, even at Omaha, there was armour on the ground. According to the commander of the 2nd battalion 116th RCT the tanks "…saved the day. They shot the hell out of the Germans, and got the hell shot out of them." --FactotEm (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Article coverage

The article notes that this only covers the initial weeks of the campaign - ending in mid june. The aritcle nicley links to the article covering the invasion itself but there doesnt appear to be any link to the rest of the campaign - July-August.

What article covers this?

This article is intended to cover Day 1 of the battle. Invasion of Normandy covers the first few weeks (up to about the end of July, corresponding approximately to Operation Neptune) and Operation Overlord covers the larger scale, up to about the end of of August. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Order of Battle

I'd like to propose some changes to these entries, particularly the Allied entries.

Currently Britannica is used as a source for numbers, unfortunately those numbers are clearly rounded which is not currently reflected in the article. The numbers also when verifiable (the 6th Airborne for instance is not verifiable as no such entry exist on the page linked) seem to in some cases cover an entire beach, in others a specific division in yet other a specific nationality. As such they do not match up and are incomplete. Not to mention that numbers like these have no place in an order of battle as they tell very little about a unit's combat capacity. Therefore I'd propose to remove all these numbers together with the Britannica source (which is not recommended for use anyhow). I'd also like to note that previously these orders of battles properly separated forces by sectors (corps and beach) which is no longer the case. By the way, a map for this data and nicely illustrating this information could be created relatively easily, though it's likely equivalents already exist from free sources (I believe the British Official Histories are not free). Note also that I can source each and every unit entry in the Order of Battle sections from reliable sources. So the Britannica links are not necessary in that respect.--Caranorn (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Strength

Can someone clarify what "about 4 outnumbered" means? Also, what's with the supplementary info "extremely well dug-in" and "massive air attack"? This is highly unorthodox; I've never seen that kind of unnecessary unencyclopaedic language on any other wiki page...normally, they just tell you the numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahm2307 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

detailed edit summary

1. I slightly changed the order of combatants to reflect contingent sizes, it was ridiculous to have the UK and the US at the end of the list when they fielded most of the actual forces. As I don't have actual numbers in front of me I only did some rough sorting. While all these nations (and some others tooo) fielded troops, many were quite small, it might be useful to have individual references/footnotes too giving a rough idea of the contingents, though that might better fit into the casualties list.
2. I removed the info in the strength list entirely as Ahm2307's comment above is reasonable. It's also ridiculous to pretend the four (not 4) divisions were well dug in, one could even wonder which divisions you are talking about as only three were in the landing sectors (91st, 716th and 352nd, the 711th was very close to a drop zone as were elements of the 21st Panzer which also intervened during the day, of all these only the 716th was somewhat dug in (the beach defenses are another issue, but many did not depend from the divisions). Likewise the mention of air and naval support could use some actual numbers.
3. Commanders, lets try to keep this consistent. I removed all but the military commanders of army level and higher (corps might be reasonable too, but then both sides). Obviously also sorted by rank/command (Ike at SHAEF, Monty with the 21st Army Group, Bradley with an Army). Even now the list is far from complete (air and naval commanders for the allies, army commander(s) (711 iirc was in another Army sector but was involved in fighting as of June 7 at the latest) for the Germans etc.).

I think that was all I changed.--Caranorn (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot casualties, these were obviously incorrect, at least for the period covered in this article (which hasn't been too clear anyhow since the article split).--Caranorn (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Seine Crossing date is wrong

I just changed the date - unfortunately it was in a direct quote. I chopped the date off the end, I hope I can do it without using ellipses. The Canadian Official history gives the German retreat over the Seine as 30 August - the day the last German withdrew. The website quoted in this article gives a date of crossing the Seine by the Allies of August 16 or so - way too early! Even if the first troops started crossing over then, there were three Canadian divisions fighting on the near side of the river between August 25 and August 30. I've cited p.295 of the Canadian Army Official History, which is available online as a downloadable and free .pdf for anyone wanting to verify.139.48.25.61 (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because the last German retreated over the Seine on 30th August doesn't meant that the Allies didn't cross it on 19th August. I've restored the quote.DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Countries taking part

I've removed some countries from the list of those taking part because according to the references cited they took part in the larger battle (up to the end of August) but not in the initial landings. Of course I may be mistaken here; please feel free to add back any countries for which we have references supporting their participation on day 1. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more of an issue of counting air and naval formations as well as minimal contingents within other nations' forces (for instances 7 Luxembourgers in no. 10 Commando, with US forces and in a recon plane (an absurd example, just to illustrate how absurd some others are)). I think we could verify the air and naval contingents, as most internationals were in the British sector it's probably included in Victory in the West. Though one could aks the question, do we want to include the naval and air element of the invasion phase?--Caranorn (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There was Greek Ships taking part in the escorting of units to to Normandy, and also Norwegian ships. Ive read about a few now. My Grand father who was on a British destroyer there had a Norwegian ship in his escort group.

As for land units there was Dutch and Belgium units fighting with the British. I'm not sure if they landed on D-Day or later they took part in the fighting to the east of the British beaches. There may have been other nations involved to but that's the only ones that come to mind at the moment. I have a feeling on one of my visits there i found flags of all the nations involved flying. I have an odd feeling there was Czech commandos there to possibly. I feel that Norway and Greece should be added to the nations involved. Anyone got any other information about other nations? Wonx2150 (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If we can find references for these they could be included (except the Luxembourgers - sorry that's just too few). DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Discrate - Add Australia in there, it's really insulting to not mention australia when, australia took part in normandy landings under the commonwealth forces. There were 20,0000 Aussies at the landing. Royal Australian Navy . Perhaps 2,500 RAN personnel were involved. Several ships of the Royal Navy, including destroyers, minesweepers, and torpedo boats had Australian skippers, and there were other Australian officers and enlisted men serving in three British cruisers and three destroyers. Australian Army. About 25 Australian Army officers served as observers with British units that took part in the landings. invasion. Royal Australian Air Force. By mid-1944 there were the ten RAAF squadrons based in Britain, totaling about 14,000 men, including some 1,500 serving in the 282 RAF and Commonwealth squadrons that took part in the invasion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.144.44 (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Need to make a distinction between Australia and Australians. The infobox shows the countries taking part ie which had formations taking part that were part of countries' national defence forces (In this case there is an argument to include Australia because of the involvement of RAN ships and RAAF squadrons). If however there had been only Australian individuals involved because they joined the Royal Navy then this would not justify the nation's inclusion any more than say including Sweden if the French Foreign Legion (=France) had been involved and a number of Swedes had been members of the legion (OK a slightly extreme example but do you get the point?). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to be an australian citizen to be in the australian military and back this war was before there was major immigration to australia, so everyone in the military would have been born here.

Casualties

The current casualty figures are unreferenced. My copy of Keegan's The Second World War gives 4649 US casualties on D-Day. Without a reference we have no way of knowing if the six-and-a-half thousand we quote is for some larger period, or if it includes naval and air figures (unlikely to be two thousand) or if it's from some source more reliable than Keegan. Any comments? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit uncertain, but I recall a TV documentary "Bloody Omaha" ("Timewatch" series, BBC2), presented by Richard Hammond . One of the conclusions was that US casualties on D-Day had been significantly under-estimated. Numbers were mentioned but I can't reliably recall them. I quick search on the BBC website turned up nothing, however, a websearch shows links, try this [4] Folks at 137 (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The YouTube link states that the casualties were under-estimated at the time, but does not go into detail. The Omaha Beach article gives a figure of 3,000, sourced from the official history (p.109). Harrison's Cross Channel Attack (p.330) gives a figure for V Corps of 2,000, but the footnote states that this figure is "frankly a guess". The D-Day casualty report for the 29th Division gives a figure of 928 casualties, but states that this is unverifiable. HQ 16th Infantry Regiment reported 970 casualties, but this covers the period 6-8 June. Confusingly, this is the same figure provided by the 16th Infantry Regiment S-3 for D-Day alone. It's worth noting that the 16th RCT was the assault wave of the 1st Division, and while its casualties represent the majority of that division's casualties on D-Day, that is not the whole story. My personal take on this is that we will never know the true casualty figure for Omaha on D-Day, so take your pick. My pick for the Omaha Beach article was that the official history gives 3,000, the two divisional assault regiments report 1,000 each, and it therefore seems reasonable that, with the fighting that followed the assault, 3,000 is as accurate a figure as we'll ever get. These figures are all based on reports at the time, which have then been reproduced in all the histories that I have read. I think that the idea that these figures under-estimate the true figure is a relatively recent piece of research, and the only source I have heard of for this is the BBC program (which I have not seen). It seems to me, therefore, that the weight of evidence still suggests a figure of 3,000. --FactotEm (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Equipment

I think this article could use a short section on the specialist equipment used in the landings, particularly the DD tanks. I would suggest excluding Mulberry and PLUTO though - they can be described at Invasion of Normandy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

BELIGERENTS

History records the USA being involved in WWII independently not until the latter part of 1942. The majority of forces involved in the Normandy landings were under British control and were not USoA.

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.31 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Normandy landings refer to the landings as a part of operation d-day in 1944 when the US was very involved in the war. If you want to say that the majority of the troops were British, please provide a WP:RS when you include the text. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(Also, sorry about the rollback. I should have given an edit summary. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

You should read an history book son.

The majority of those involved in the Normandy Landings were 'British Subjects'.

?@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.31 (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for being blunt, but - what's your point? The article isn't biased towards the American point of view, and highlights the contributions of both sides almost equally. Skinny87 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

from what i understand is that during the normandy landings there wasnt 156,00 allied troops there were approximatley 200,00 --: B (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}The list of belligerents should be amended to include Harry Crerar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Crerar), who was the commanding officer of the 1st Canadian Army - one of the 5 armies that waded ashore on D-Day (on one of the 5 beaches of the Normandy invasion - Juno Beach).

No. The Canadian formations which waded ashore on D-Day were part of British 2nd Army. Canadian First Army was not activated in Normandy until 23 July 1944.Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 19:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Celestra (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Weather?

moved from Talk:D-Day (military term)

I'm doing a report on D-Day and I need to find out what the weather was like. Does anyone know? --Confusedscholar 18:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the weather was cloudy but I'm not entirly sure.

Thank you. I've been trying to look for this info on weather sites but so far no luck.--Confusedscholar 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

from my readings I know that it was stormy and they were going to put of the attack intill the meteoraligist said a hole in the cloud cover was coming up and decided to attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.78.46 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The weather problem was actually somewhat ironic. The Allied weather forcasters decieded that the time when the best weather would be would be between June 5th and June 7th. However the weather was very bad, and cloudy. There was a lot of storms and I belive it was raining also. --Robin63 19:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the weather was very bad but nat as bad as june 5th. eisnhower decided to go ahead anawy because he felt it was now of never. that is one of the reasons field marshel rommel left normandy for his wifes birthday — Preceding unsigned comment added by BonesBrigade (talk • contribs)

they were going to put of the attack but they predicted a hole in the storm. they were wrong though and there was cloud cover at several thousand feet. this is why the para attacks were not as succesfull as they should of been — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.78.46 (talk • contribs)

---

Almost two years after the above discussion, this article is still unclear about the weather. Sure enough, it now has a dedicated section {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing, but that only talks about forecasts. How did the weather actually turn out? Did it cause any problems to the operations? — Sebastian 20:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistant about tides

The article is inconsistent about the state of the tide: "a spring tide were required.......to provide the deepest possible water to help safe navigation over defensive obstacles placed by the Germans in the surf on the seaward approaches to the beaches." but also says "Believing that any forthcoming landings would be timed for high tide (this caused the landings to be timed for low tide)" 89.242.121.253 (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Norwegian involvement

The Royal Norwegian Navy took part in the naval operations on D-Day with eleven ships, one of which being HNoMS Svenner which was sunk.[5] 132 Norwegian Wing also took part, and had a Lancaster bomber shot down.[6] So, I'm adding Norway to the list of nations involved. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 13:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, this BBC article says that 37 Norwegians died on D-Day, more than the 19 Free French.[7] -- Nidator ^{T / C} 10:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

Approximate Troop levels on June 6, 1944

73,000 Americans 60,000 British 20,000 Canadians

None of this is listed and I feel this is important to know. Why is this not included in the stats box on the right side of the page? --70.101.198.74 (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish involvement

Polish involvement was comparable to norwegian (Norway - 2 destroyers, 1 air wing, Poland - 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, 2 air wings) so I think it is justified to add Poland to the list of allies.Rudi Maxer (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Main image

Would anybody object if it were changed to File:1944 NormandyLST.jpg or one of the other images on this page? The current image is quite dark, and it's difficult to really see much, not a very vibrant image.

Current image

Proposed image

YeshuaDavid • Talk • 15:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I accept the image quality is not the best, but the text of this article was originally focused on the naval element of the plan, hence the image of the fleet rather than foreward end of a landing craft. I've put it back in at another point in the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead para too long?

It does seem to go on a a bit, and the "big block of text" effect is a little off-putting. Perhaps it could be split into a two- or three-para lead? 81.159.57.7 (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

D-Day was not even put "on this day"

Why was this not mentioned at all on the main page? Wouldn't this be a historic event? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazman34340 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Seaborne landings

Why would you not list the landing beaches in order from west to east? The sectors were named in alphabetic order across the beaches, and given that the maps actually show the sector names, it only makes sense to list the sectors on the beaches in this article. The landings also happened, chronologically, with the U.S. landings first, then the British/Canadian due to the tides, so there is a certain logic in listing them in that order also. In any event, isn't it rude for someone - administrator or not - to just revert something without stating why? I'd especially expect more manners than that from an administrator.139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)