Talk:Operation Market Garden order of battle

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	World War II task force

Capitalization

Anyone else bugged by the lack of it on Order of Battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.5.20.44 (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not at all :p --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German OOB

Am just looking at a map supplied by Wilmot in The Struggle For Europe, Pg 512.

15th Army

He shows the 15th Army facing the First Canadian Army and therefore not in the axis of advance the allies took.

On top of that he shows the following divisions being under there control:

64
70
245
346
711
712

Two questions:

One: Did they actually take part in opposing Operation Market Garden? Two: If the map Wilmot has provided is correct why are there suposidly First Parachute Army units on there order of battle?

First Parachute Army

Wilmots map shows there being additional divisions assigned to this army: 7th
84th
85th
406th

Is there a reason they are not shown?

XII SS Corps

These guys dont even show up on the map, where were they based, did they take part in this operation?

And who was the 363rd Volkgrenadier Division assigned to?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12th Army Group

The only times this 12th AG is mentioned in the parent article is during the background sections, from what i read when i quickly scanned through they appear to have not played an active part in "Garden".
If this is the case i do not see why it should be on this article. Just in case ive made a terrible balls up, here is the removed information:

12th Army Group

Lieutenant General Omar N. Bradley
US First Army - Lieutenant General Courtney H. Hodges

XIX Corps - Major General Charles H. Corlett
2nd Armored Division - Major-General Ernest N. Harmon

7th Armored Division (from 27 September) - Major-General Lindsay McDonald Silvester

29th Infantry Division (from 27 September) - Major General Charles H. Gerhardt

30th Infantry Division - Major-General Leland S. Hobbs

113th Cavalry Group

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battalions

Apologies Enigmamcmxc, didn't realise there was a format for British units. I did believe though, that whilst the convention nowadays is for units to name themselves so (eg. 3 Para, short for 3rd Parachute Regiment), in WWII they were more proud of Battalion designations, and units were written to include their unit size (eg. 7th Btn K.O.S.B.). That wasn't why I did it though - my reason was to distinguish between British and American Regiments to the casual reader. With the US Airborne Regiments listed below the 1st Airborne, it may appear that they are similarly sized units, when in fact the American regiments are equivelant to Brigades. I'm happy to stick to an agreed format, but for clarity might it be an idea to at least explain/link to what sized unit the various groups were? Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a civillian i cant really comment on weather it is the regiment or the battalion units were most proud to be, although i was under the impression it was the former.

In the British Army there is only one parachute regiment. 1, 2, 3 and 4 Para are not regiments they are battalions of the Parachute Regiment. See The Parachute Regiment website

This was an issue which use to confuse me until i started to read more British sources and then there was a book which explained it all. To use another example, the Rifle Brigade (although called a brigade was regiment) fielded several battalions throughout the war and will be seen throughout books called 1st Rifle Brigade, 2nd Rifle Brigade, 8th Rifle Brigade etc

Would adding the extra depth to the article by showing the battalions in the American parachtue regiments help? Or a note near the top to quickly explain the differance between brigade and regiment in British and American terminology?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion here is caused by use of shorthand names like 1st Parachute Regiment etc.. Although the normal shorthand is 1 PARA, the proper name is 1st battalion The Parachute Regiment (sometimes shortened to 1st bn Parachute Regiment). This applies to all regiments. Putting shortened names (i.e. without battalion) into a document of reference like this is just lazy! Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 08:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but are you also stating practically every historian, book or televised, are also lazy for referring as such?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Well, most historical books don't go down to battalion level in their OOB listings. In the text it is quite acceptable to have shortened names because the context always makes it clear that it is a battalion rather than a regiment. This is an encyclopedia which is supposed to give clear unambiguous information. It's already clear above that the abbreviated format can cause confusion to the non-expert, so it seems to me that the formal OOB listing should have the full title of the unit and the text can employ the shortened version. So let's think about the casual reader rather than worrying about if we are "cool" with the rest of the m5edia. After all, the London Gazette (and you can't get more official than that!), which goes to all possible lengths to save paper through abbreviation always refers to Xth Bn. ABC Reg.. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 11:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Bomber600.jpg

The image File:Bomber600.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete OOB

Is there any reason that the OOB here is kept incomplete? Is there any reason it has not been taken to platoon level? Given the main article, and the actions of some platoons, it seems to me warranted to extend the OOB to that level --124.184.17.106 (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No order of battle -in any major source i have seen - goes down to the platoon level. In some instances yes they will break down to the Company level -and that is reflected on the wiki - but that is only really ever for smaller battles. This operation consisted of something like four armies how would overloading the reader with information that is not really relevant be beneficial? At then can the same level of detail be provided for the German side of things? Battalion upwards seems to be the easiest way of going about things and providing the right level of information.

As for the quip why is it being left incomplete, one should remind you that this is a volunteer project.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I often forget its by volunteers. But, volunteer does not mean low quality research, does it?

Some parts of the OB can certainly be done to platoon level, so why not do it in an operation where platoons did matter. Final Oosterbeek perimeter positions were held by platoons and troops from different units within the divisional OB of 1AB, which would be helpful for the reader I'm sure. --58.166.95.142 (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember you....you are the one who thinks the British Army was competent in use of armour during the Normandy breakout campaign. I will be getting back to that article eventually. You are the volunteer that likes to choose sources very carefully lol --58.166.95.142 (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]