Talk:Operation Tractable

British forces in this operation?

I know the canucks and poles fought during this op but was there any British units involved?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it was almost entirely Canadian & Polish forces. I will, however, check my sources again to be sure. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 18:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Tractable/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA on hold

I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:

1 Well written WEAK FAIL

1.1 Prose

This would benefit from a light copyedit, although it's mostly fine. I don't mind going over this if it will be helpful.

I've done a bit of copyediting over the last day or so, although it wouldn't hurt for you to go over to be sure. Cam (Chat) 18:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

1.2 Manual of Style

No major issues here; I made a few tweaks as I read through, and things seem up to GA standard. However:

• The links to external websites in the citations should be formatted (use of {{citeweb}} template is recommended, though not required) to include access dates.

Done. Cam (Chat) 06:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is no need to include the Juno Beach Centre in the References section - just use a formatted link (per above) in the cite.

Done. Cam (Chat) 06:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• The article is over-wikilinked in places. Generally only the first occurrence of a word should be linked, and then only if it adds to the article somehow. I noticed, for example, that 'Falaise Gap' is linked multiple times, as are many of the units (eg 'Polish 1st Armoured Division' etc). I should perhaps add that I don't see a problem with linking words from both the lead and the first occurrence in the article body - it can help the reader by saving lots of scrolling ;)

I think I've got most of the overlinking fixed. I'll recheck tomorrow. Cam (Chat) 06:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's also no real need for the External link to montormel.org, as it's used as a source and linked from there.

Removed. Cam (Chat) 06:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

2 Factual accuracy WEAK FAIL

Only a couple of things here:

• There is an apparent inconsistency throughout the article in the figures given for German losses. I'm not sure what to suggest, as you know the sources better than I, but things like the end of August 21 saying "The Falaise Gap had been closed, and over 100,000 men were trapped in the Pocket.", then the next section stating "Conservative estimates for the number of German soldiers captured in the Falaise Pocket approach 50,000." somehow need reconciling.

Ah, guess I should have been a bit more explicit there. 100,000 were trapped in the pocket, but a large number managed to escape. Keep in mind, also, that figures for the number of captured Germans show incredible variety (as outlined in the "Casualties" subsection.) I'll reformat that to be a bit more explicit. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Granatstein is given as a reference book in References, but hasn't been cited anywhere in the Footnotes section. Was it used at all?

Ah, didn't catch that before. No, Granatstein wasn't used for the refs (I had intended to, then didn't). I'll remove that. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

3 Coverage PASS

Good, broad coverage of the battle. No issues here.

4 Neutrality PASS

No evidence of POV.

5 Stability PASS

No concerns here.

6 Images PASS

Looks good - nice selection, well presented and captioned, with appropriate licenses.

As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although if constructive work is underway, the hold period may be extended). I will regularly check back here to mark off those issues that have been satisfactorily resolved and to address any questions and comments you may have.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or believe the article is ready for a re-review. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 20:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GA pass

Thank you for addressing all of the issues raised above. I now have no hesitation in passing this article - well done! For development in the future, you could expand the article's coverage slightly by explaining how the Germans managed to get themselves trapped (ie Hitler's insistence on a totally unrealistic counter-attack westwards when they should have been retreating eastwards, and his refusal to allow a withdrawal until it was too late). I hesitate to mention it, but a map or two will also help, as will further copyediting, if this is heading FA-wards eventually ;)

Another fascinating article; enjoyed reviewing this! All the best, EyeSerene^talk 08:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for free-licensed maps for a while, I haven't been able to find any. If I find one, I'll upload it immediately. I've also put in a request at the Logistics dept. for copyediting. Cam (Chat) 21:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that this article was less than 800 bytes a month & a half ago, this is excellent news that the GA has passed. Cam (Chat) 02:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Prose Comments

Hey Cam. Thought I'd do this instead of editing the article, as I don't want to copyedit away and change the article in some disastrous way :) So I'll make some comments below in the next day or two. Great article, by the way!

• innovative tactics by Stanisław Maczek's Polish 1st Armoured Division in the drive for Chambois - 'during the drive sounds a bit better, I think.  Done
• You can wikilink to the Falaise Pocket article. It's not in brilliant shape, but there's a few maps and pictures and details.
• Through two days of nearly continuous fighting - 'During' instead of 'Through', perhaps?  Done
• On August 21, 1944, elements of the First Canadian Army relieved the few survivors of the battle - Whose survivors? That doesn't make sense really - makes it sound like three soldiers and a Bren Carrier survived, a tad dramatic perhaps. But maybe that's just me.  Done
• through Allied decoding at ULTRA - Might need a rewrite, sounds a little forced to me  Done
• massive fighter-bomber assaults on German armour - 'against' German armour instead?  Done
• Despite initial gains on Verrières Ridge and near Cintheaux, the offensive stalled on August 9 - wikilink August 9, and the August 10 following it  Done
• Operation Tractable was planned with the lessons learned from Operation Totalise in mind - maybe go into a little detail as to what those lessons were?  Done
• Their advance would be protected by a large smokescreen - Whose advance? All Canadian forces, or just the latter forces?
• all three formations would punch towards Trun - Replace 'punch' with something else - 'advance' perhaps?  Done
• Simonds' main opposition was the 12th SS Panzer Division and forces from two infantry divisions. In total, German forces within the Falaise Pocket approached 350,000 men.[8] - That seems a little confusing - perhaps reverse it with detail on the total number of men the three divisions had. Done
• However, limited access to the crossing points - What crossing points? fixed ( Done)
• By mid-morning, 2,000 survivors of the German 2nd Falschirmjäger Korps had managed to create several holes in the Canadian forces - reads wrongly, should be something like 'create several holes in the Canadian lines' or something like that.  Done
• Irritated by the presence of these still-dangerous units - 'Still dangerous' doesn't quite seem right
• to allow for German forces to evacuate a large convoy of red cross vehicles - Capitalize and wikilink Red Cross?  Done
• Ammunition at frighteningly-low levels - needs to be rewritten, something like 'at extremely low levels'  Done

That's about it Cam. I hope those comments help you. Skinny87 (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hill 262 - separate article

Since there's a totally separate article on Hill 262, I think it should be referenced prominently in a See Also section. Of course, since it's been pretty much incorporated in this article, perhaps it's time to delete it. I'd suggest one or the other.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course, then I come up with a better solution - reference Hill 262 as the "main article" in that section of this one. On the other hand, the best solution would be to make sure that all that info is captured in here, then probably delete Hill 262 as a stand-alone article. It looks like that's pretty much already been done, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes in here. Thoughts?CSHunt68 (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Indifferent. Cam ^(Chat) 05:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Casualties discrepancies

There seems to be a large disagreement between Reynolds and McGilvray, and Jarymowycz over the casualties suffered by the Poles on Hill 262. I've tried to address this so at least this article and the Hill 262 article are internally consistent, but it might be something worth looking into in more detail once the article is off the front page. I suspect that Jarymowycz may have been giving a casualty figure for the entire operation, not just Hill 262, but don't have that book so can't check myself. EyeSerene^talk 09:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Major victory, not decisive.

I would like to raise the point of the classification of the level of victory, the fact that that a large number of german personel was able to escape the Falise pocket has been a point lemented by american commanders of the campaign, this is even stated in our own wikipedia article on the Falise pocket. This then raises the question about the operation's level of success, and consistancy overall on interrelated wikipedia articles. That the allies won the battle is of course a foregone conclution, but my understanding of a decisive victory, is that one side has achived all its stated goals and exceeded them. The whole operational concept for the allies bares the hallmarks of a double envelopment, and the entrapment of the german forces. That the closing of the gap on hill 262 took longer due to the lack of adequate force level, gives us a clue that the victory could have been greater, which begs the question if it was a decisive victory, due to the fact that at this stage in the war germany still had a good industrial capacity and so could rearm these men with new weapons. In this instance, like at Dunkirk and "The Battle for Britan", men were more important then material.

I don't have any numbers on how many germans escaped and what composition these numbers are, but I think that this should be looked into and maybe discussed and then we can maybe make this article better and more informative for the reader, which I hope we all can agree on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0331marine (talk • contribs) 14:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Strictly, "decisive victory" should only be used for battles that decide the outcome of (or mark a turning point in) a campaign or conflict, hence the term and its use in this article (Tractable and the closure of the Falaise Gap decided the outcome of the Normandy Campaign). I agree that "decisive victory" is also used to describe battles where one side was completely overwhelmed by the other, even if in the long run the battle didn't actually decide anything (though I think even under that definition Tractable was still decisive). For example, the Battle of Midway was decisive in that it marked the turning point of the Pacific War, but the Attack on Pearl Harbor might also be described as decisive under the second use of the term. It's a recurring subject of debate at WP:MILHIST :) EyeSerene^talk 15:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And yes keep in mind that the German were outnumbered 30 to 1. The 3rd US army also take part in this operation. Seriously an estimate of German casualities is around 40,000 in Falaise not 50,000 to 200,000. The German army didn't have that much manpower. Most of the german division are understrange such as the 12thSSPanzerDivision who is on 60% of it strenght and have less than 40 panzer. The German army are small during an operation and the guy forgot to include the British army in as well, also the 21stPanzer Division. Pat 22nd September 2010

"Factual" Discrepancy

Im new at this, so forgive me if I'm not doing this correctly. My comment is as follows:

In the Offensive Strategy section for Operation Tractable, it states that the operation would begin by a bombardment by medium bombers. However, in the immediately following Initial Drive section, it states that Lancaster and Halifax bombers performed this bombardment. Since these bombers were heavy bombers, not medium bombers, these statements should be reconciled.

199.173.225.25 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Allan Smith

Thanks, I've tweaked the text to remove the "medium" reference (the previous sentence mentions heavy bombers, so probably no need to repeat that). EyeSerene^talk 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Background

Would the background section be improved by a bit more detail on Patton's forces rapid advance on the south side of the German lines, and more about Hitler's stubborn refusal to allow his field commanders requests to withdraw from an exposed position, instead urging his exhausted divisions, short of fuel, to advance westward to the Channel coast to cut off the Americans?--Charles (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly :) Those are addressed in the Falaise pocket article, but if you feel a brief summary would be beneficial here by all means go ahead. Sources would be needed obviously (Falaise pocket, also an FA, would probably be a good starting point for those too). EyeSerene^talk 20:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence

First of all, I want to comment that there seems to be no direct mention of Operation Tractable in Operation Overlord. There is mention of the Falaise pocket but the role of Canadian and Polish troops is not really mentioned. This might be the result of an overall U.S.-centric focus to the Operation Overlord article. In any event, it should be corrected.

I modified the lead sentence to read "Operation Tractable was the final offensive conducted by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops as part of the Battle of Normandy."

However, on reflection, I realize that this sentence may not capture the correct meaning.

As written, "Operation Tractable was the final offensive conducted by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops as part of the Battle of Normandy." leaves open the door to the possibility that other offensives might have been conducted by troops of other countries after this one but still as part of the Battle of Normandy. The sentence, as written, only states that this was " the final offensive conducted by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops " in this battle. I had deliberately left the ambiguity in the sentence because I wasn't sure of the facts. I think we mean to say that "Operation Tractable was the final offensive of the Battle of Normandy". Is this correct?

Here are two other possibilities for that sentence...

"Operation Tractable was the final offensive of the Battle of Normandy; it was undertaken by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops" or

"Operation Tractable was undertaken by Canadian Army and Polish Army troops and became the final offensive of the Battle of Normandy"

Any thoughts on which meaning we should be trying to present to the reader?

--Richard S (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Initially i think it would be simpliar to note that the operation was undertaken by First Canadian Army - which it was. The fact said field army contained Canadian and Polish troops can latter be established further in without imo cluttering up the lede.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice that in the 'background' section the defeat of Luttich is put down to air attack rather than the US army which I think is contradicted by ORS2's analysis. The references to Totalise also seem to have been written without regard to 'No Holding Back' by B A Reid. I can put something in as an addition if desired?Keith-264 (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see the old "Allied air power won the battle" canard is still alive and well :) Please do make any edits you see fit. EyeSerene^talk 12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent addition

Polish forces were supported by the guns of the Canadian 58th Battery, 4th Medium Regiment (part of No. 2 Army Group Royal Canadian Artillery) and Forward Artillery observer Captain Pierre Sévigny. The Canadians had attached a Francophone artillery unit to the 1st Polish Armoured Division as many Polish officers spoke French. Sévigny was later awarded the Virtuti Militari, Poland's highest military decoration, for his involvement in this battle.[1]

Hi, as this is a feautured article i have rolled back a series of edits that make changes to some sentances linked to sourced material and removed the above unsourced addition (i have copyedited some). Can we provide a source before reinserting it? RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, i appreicate that you added the following as a source: [2] however am unsure if this would qualify as a reliable source in regards FA standards. The source states at the top of the page that it is the uploaders own translation of a book that has been available. Can anyone else advise?

Actually my first knowledge of Captain (later Colonel) Sevigny came from a television documentary. As he was French Canadian there are probably fewer available sources (I have also included a link from the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery specifically the 6e Régiment d'artillerie de campagne, ARC. My understanding of the situation was the Poles did not have divisional artillery that would normally be associated with a unit of their size, so the 4th Medium Regiment, 58 battery (a Francophone unit from the area of Quebec City) was assigned to assist them. A Francophone unit was specifically selected as most of the Polish officers spoke French and communication would be considerably easier. One of the reasons the documentary stuck in my mind was that Captain (later Colonel) Pierre Sévigny spoke of the 1st Polish Armoured Division's Officer's Mess and the atmosphere given the men had lost their families and their country. I think at this point it is a choice between the information being available or not, and given the translation's link is from the BBC, it would seem to be fairly reputable. I have not read Colonel Sevigny's book or the translated work, but it seems important that Captain Sévigny's contribution is recognized - after all the Poles thought it was important enough to give him their highest military decoration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Miope (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The BBC web site peoples war [3], is an archive of memories and can not be considered a reliable source. Most of the entries are of personal experiences 50 years or more after the event.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Granted, but in this case it is a translation of a book. What would really be helpful is a translation of this book, written by Captain Sévigny: http://www.amazon.ca/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/2921140071/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_1/186-3784219-0215950?ie=UTF8&index=1 (El Miope (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC))

Also the translator lists the book's author and title, so it comes down to whether an important individual contribution to the battle will be recognized or not. Don't forget the link for the artillery contribution is from a Canadian government website (Department of National Defense, or DND as we call it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Miope (talk • contribs) 16:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Even the book as it written by Sévigny is a primary not a secondary source. Is there no equivalent to the London Gazette in Canada that gives details of the award?Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a primary source more valuable than a secondary source, since all secondary sources are really based on primary sources? Especially when one gets into the actual details of battles, one becomes more, not less dependent, on primary sources. The Canada Gazette was started in 1841. What award are you speaking of, the Virtuti Militari? I doubt his publisher would include it "accidentally." (El Miope (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC))

No see Wikipedia:Verifiability articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For the award check the Canada Gazette the award should be published. There were also over 5,000 awards for the war, do you know what level of award this is? Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Canadian Gazette shows his promoions but no record of major awards after his name. Does not return any hits for Virtuti Militari.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt the awards are accurate, this obituary would seem to confirm they were awarded if not why [4] Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please dont get me wrong i likewise dont doubt he was awarded them, just noting one source does not appear to mention them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Polish friendly fire inconsistency

Hi all. First off, great work on a solid article all, thanks! My one question: near the end of the article, it states that the Polish forces suffered ~50 casualties from the American preparatory bombing on 8/14, but the article states that the bombing was carried out by Lancaster and Halifax bombers. As far as I know, US air Corp didn't fly Lancasters or Halifaxes. Is one statement or the other off? Thanks. Taterbill (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)