Talk:Normandy landings

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2015

there is an error in the text first paragraph first line Cool2700 (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't see it. You will have to be more specific. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

suggested changes to intro.

Normandy landing was invasion of northwestern Europe. By Wikipedia's own definition Italy is included in western Europe, and it was already being liberated by June 6. Also it led to liberation of France and the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.128.230 (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Also requirements were for phase of the moon (due to need for late-rising moon to allow paratroops to fall in darkness then have moonlight for their operations on the ground) and timing of the tides (a low tide at daybreak to allow landing craft landing at dawn to avoid mines located in the inter-tidal zone) - time of the day not important except as regards the other two. If June 6 missed, then a week later if miss those then a month later. Two weeks later is not good at all, as I understand it.

Planning for the operation began in 1942, after the disastrous landing by Canadian soldiers at Dieppe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.128.230 (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Western Europe: Italy is considered part of Southern Europe by most definitions. Moons and tide: Waiting two weeks would mean the tide conditions would be favourable at dawn, but the desired full moon would not be present. The time of day was indeed considered critically important. This is covered in the body of the article, but is too much detail for the lead. 1942 vs 1943: While the decision was made in 1942 to launch an cross-channel invasion, planning per se did not begin until 1943. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for response - the problem is that when one clicks on "western Europe" in intro para., one goes to "Western front" entry, not to "western Europe" entry, thus I thought that Italy, included in "western front" was included in western Europe. time of day is not a quality of June 6 (a 24-hour period). Except as regards the time of the tide and the moon-rising, time was not critically important, and should not be included as a separate item from those two.

You are incorrect when you say the time of day was not considered as critically important. Churchill discusses this point in volume 5 (Closing the Ring) on page 591-592. They wished to cross the channel under cover of darkness (many of the German radar stations were destroyed and the remainder were disrupted through the use of metal chaff, so the fleet was hidden in the darkness), preferably by the light of the full moon as a navigation aid to both the ships and the aircraft. To aid the accuracy of the offshore bombardment and the landing of the LCVPs, they wished to have a limited amount of daylight before the run-up to the beach but not so much as to ruin the element of surprise. June 5, 6, and 7 had the desired combination of tide at the correct time of day and desired phase of the moon. Poor weather would mean delaying for "at least a fortnight - indeed, a whole month if we waited for the moon." -- Diannaa (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Southern France and Italy were not part of the Normandy Landings. Those places were the target of other amphibious landings. See Operation Dragoon, which was carried out two months later. Binksternet (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

IP is right. The Western Europe link in the intro goes to Western Front (World War II), which specifically mentions Italy. I think the other article needs to be changed, not this one, but I can't think of any sources off-hand to justify that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So Italy is included in "Western Front", which does not jibe with the definition of "Western Europe". I've changed the wording in the lede to "began the liberation of German-occupied northwestern Europe from Nazi control, and contributed to the Allied victory on the Western Front." -- Diannaa (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

june 6th instead of 6 june 108.170.144.81 (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No, Normandy landings were from the UK, therefore British English. No good reason for Semi-protected edit request. David J Johnson (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: See the top of this page that says that this article is written in British English. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Surely it's "beachhead" and not "bridgehead" in this context?

I almost went WP:BOLD on this one, it seems so cut and dry, but knowing the reputation of attention to detail on the part of editors working in the area of military history (perhaps the most well-populated and well-organized topic area on all the project), I thought I'd broach it here first. Would not "beachheads" be the more technically accurate term in the clause "and all five bridgeheads were not connected until 12 June", found in the last paragraph of the lead? Snow ^{let's rap} 07:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember my formal doctrine on this one, but I think either could potentially be correct, depending on the stage of the operation. It's cited to Horn, whom I haven't read, but it would be worth checking back to that source to see how he uses it. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Bridgehead: Oxford says "a strong position secured by an army inside enemy territory"; Webster says "1. a fortified position established by an attacking army on the enemy's side of a bridge, river, defile, etc. 2. Bachhead, sense 2"

Beachhead: Oxford Says: "a defended position on a beach taken from enemy forces"; Webster says "1. a position established by invading troops on an enemy shore 2. a position gained as a secure starting point for any action; foothold". See also beachhead and bridgehead. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed those articles just to make sure I was remembering the distinction correctly, and they seem consistent with my qualm with the present wording (as indeed do the dictionary definitions you've provided). "Bridgehead" has two distinct meanings: 1) The original definition of a fortified position established at the far end of a bridge as a force advances across it in order to cross a spanable body of water or gully, and 2) a more idiosyncratic usage which evolved from it, of a strong forward position established along a vector of movement during an invasion. Likewise, "beachhead" also has two meanings: 1) the original usage of a secured position on a beach, by an invasion force as it immediately departs from transiting after crossing a body of non-spanable water via vessel, and 2) the more metaphorical usage of a position that has been secured to facilitate a point of invasion, particularly when that position is limited is size and/or is a bit of a "toenail" hold--relative to the scale of the invasion, the defenses beyond the beachhead, and the degree of the obstacles that need to be overcome in transiting the entire invasion force. Considering all of those factors, it seems to me (especially in the context of the sentence in question) that "beacheads" would be the more appropriate term here. Would either of you like to raise an objection before I change the wording? Snow ^{let's rap} 03:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Denmark

Shouldn't a note be added explaining that the Danes present were in fact volunteers? The prewar government remained in Copenhagen under occupation until 1943 (before its resignation) and declared the country neutral. 2602:306:C53C:C0E0:2954:44A6:3A12:4111 (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The nationals of the 'other' occupied nations such as the Belgians, Poles, Czechs, Free French, Dutch, Norwegians, Danes etc., were from countries that had formerly (and formally) surrendered to Germany and so these person's countries were not technically at war with Nazi Germany. These persons were therefore acting against the wishes of their own (German puppet) governments back home. That is why they had to be come part of established British forces otherwise they would not have been recognised by the Germans as what are today known as 'legal combatants' and would therefore possibly not come under the protection if-captured of the relevant Geneva Convention. That also BTW is why Jews from occupied countries captured by Germany while serving in the British Army and RAF were sent to normal POW camps, and not to other less pleasant places.

If they hadn't been part of the (recognised by Germany) British forces, and acting under their overall command, the Germans could have legitimately shot them when captured - the Geneva Convention only protected combatants of countries that are at war. They could also have been tried and possibly shot by their own countries' 'puppet' governments for committing high treason - formal documents of surrender almost always include clauses against the surrendering countries citizens taking up arms against the victor.

German casualties inconsistency (can't edit due to the article being semi-protected)

I can't edit due to the article being semi-protected. In the opening sections it says "German casualties on D-Day were around 1,000 men." where in the table it says "4,000–9,000 casualties" and backed by a source. Please fix. Rifsek (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Y Fixed. Good catch, thank you for posting. — Diannaa (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)