Talk:Hans von Luck

Comment

I removed the reference in the North Africa section to PzIV H tanks. I am pretty sure this mark of Panzer IV never served in the desert - according to the 'Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two' (Auth: P Chamberlain and H Doyle) ISBN 1-85409-214-6, the Panzer IV H only entered production in April 1943. The whole N Africa campaign ended in May 1943 - so it would seem highly unlikely that enough Panzer IV H's could be built for a combat formation, the crews trained and shipped across to N Africa in the time available. At best there would be about 6 weeks to do this? Most reference books regarding WW2 German tanks/WW2 history only give credit to Panzer IV F2 models, being the most upto date version of this vehicle to serve in North Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.2.215 (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

See also

• Siegfried Knappe

I removed the See also because I can see no connection between the two gentlemen other than they are both German, they served in WWII, and they both wrote memoirs. Can anyone tell me what the connection is?--imars 05:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• "balanced" memoirs

"[his memoirs, titled Panzer Commander are] acknowledged as one of the most balanced Second World War German military memoirs in existence."

What is the evidence to support this statement?

all one needs to do is read the preface to his memoirs to see how it is balanced. Also, it was heavily researched so that everything possible can be factually authenticated, including minute details such as place names of tiny ~50 person villages in Russia. It was also peer reviewed, Stephen Ambrose wrote the introduction to the book. relatively unique for a memoir, it is referenced and has an extensive bibliography. I highly recommend that you pick up a copy, I also recommend you sign your comments.

Here are some words of praise for Panzer Commander:

"The memoirs of Colonel von Luck are... as crisp and clear, as incisive as a cavalry leader's commands ought to be.... An original and sincere account of a good man's war." --The Times Literary Supplement (London)

"Free from cant as it is from braggadocio and false modesty... Recommended." --Library Journal

--Jadger 19:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You should identify your sources when making a vague claim that a work is "acknowledged" as something. Acknowledged by who? I suggest you reference the soruces pointed out above in the main article.

And, by the way, I have read it.

again, please sign your comments by placing ~~~~ at end of edit. I just cited all those above, they have "acknowledged" it. I will cite it when i get a chance, too busy right now, perhaps you could, move that from here to the article, thanks

--Jadger 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not see what the preface to his own book, which he writes himself, can be used as evidence of his being balanced. That's proving the Bible with the Bible. At any rate, for all the details he includes, he is still fallible. The first thing that struck me was the first mention of Rommel in the second chapter, where von Luck describes him as "tall". Clearly a trick of the memory, as Rommel was very short. --Tsuka (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Date of Death

When did he died? 15 January or 1 August 1997? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.31.221 (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Month of date needs to be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjoan1 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxons are naive and incompetent

Why else would they make such a fuss about this unknown guy who does not even have an article in the German wikipedia? Just because he happened to write a largely fictional autobiography in english language that no one takes serious in Germany? Dumb and dumber, Tommy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.246.254.132 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, but that has nothing to do with why Hans von Luck might have a page on English Wikipedia. It is true, of all the German soldiers and officers that served in World War II, we know more about those that wrote autobiographies than those that did not. A fairly self-explanatory point hardly worth mentioning, but in the case of von Luck he would be known in the English speaking world even if he had not. Hans von Luck had the good fortune to both survive the war and survive a lengthy internment in a Soviet gulag. Years later, he was sought out by the military academys of various NATO nations to comment on the German defense against Operation Goodwood, the wiki page of which singles him out by name. It was not von Luck who looked to speak out about the war experience of the German army in Northern France or anywhere else for that matter, but it was he who was sought out repeatedly by the military schools to participate in teaching activities on these battles. They did so to gain a perspective from the German side of the battle. The fact that he was fluent in multiple languages added to his versatility as a speaker. From these talks he met some of his former adversaries and became friends with them, most notably Major John Howard. Through Howard he became acquainted with English military authors, who needed him as a source. From these associations he was encouraged to write an autobiography about his experiences, which he finally did in the 1980s, some forty years after the events. If you read it you will gain his insights into the struggle, from Poland and France, to the cold of Russia, to the heat of the North African desert, back to northern France and finally in the closing months of the war to Germany itself. You will hear of his anxiety to protect his girlfriend, not only from the Allied bombing campaign, but from the German authorities who sought to arrest people who happened to be Jewish. It is a look into a world which no longer exists.

No, von Luck was a man who could hardly avoid being mentioned on English Wikipedia. Whether or not a page on him exists on the Deutsch Wikipedia is neither here nor there. The German version of wiki does not dictate to the English version what is relevant and what is not, even when the subject had been a German officer. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Just about everything written in Panzer Commander can be verified. And although Luck fought on the side of largely evil, you have to respect his fairness in battle and the awards he received. 2406:2D40:41F1:2900:E538:821:485C:67D5 (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources

This article is largely sourced to Luck's memoirs, which is a WP:Primary source, so should be used with caution. Luck's work has been described as belonging to the myth-making, "exculpatory memoirs" genre as practiced post-war by former Wehrmacht generals; see Google preview of The Myth of the Eastern Front" by Smelser & Davies.

Many of the passages are not referenced at all.

I propose major surgery to remove dubious or self-serving content. For example, this passage:

• On 10 May 1940 the 7th Panzer Division, a part of 15th Panzer Corps under General Hermann Hoth, advanced into Belgium to proceed to the Meuse river near Dinant as part of the invasion of France. At the Meuse 7th Panzer was held up, due to the bridge having been destroyed and determined sniper and artillery fire from the French defenders. The Germans lacked smoke grenades, so Rommel, having assumed personal command of the crossing, ordered a few nearby houses to be torched to conceal the attack, and summoned Ju87 Stukas to dive-bomb the French defences. The German Panzer Grenadiers crossed the rivers in rubber boats, with Rommel leading the second wave across the river. The aerial bombardment, while not seeming to do much damage, psychologically battered the French defenders so much that most of them abandoned their posts and ran. The Division, still spearheaded by Luck's recce force, dashed further inland, always spurred on by Rommel, and far in front of any friendly forces.

would become:

• On 10 May 1940 the 7th Panzer Division, a part of 15th Panzer Corps under General Hermann Hoth, advanced into Belgium and proceeded to the Meuse river near Dinant as part of the invasion of France.

Or, this passage:

• By the end of October massive snowfalls and plummeting temperatures forced the advance to halt. During November only very few advances were made, although the 7th Panzer Division managed to secure a bridgehead south of Kalinin and not far from the outskirts of Moscow, with a detachment of Luck's command penetrating into the city itself. On 3 December Luck had to cover the retreat of the division from a bridgehead to an area east of Klin. The withdrawal could only be conducted on two roads, with very high piles of snow alongside them, meaning that no maneuvering could take place. The Soviet air force put the retreating columns under constant attack, and it suffered heavy losses. There was little antiaircraft artillery available, and the Luftwaffe had already retreated to air bases further west. Luck's rearguard, however, had a substantial number of light antiaircraft guns, and managed to extract itself without heavy losses. The withdrawal did not end until the German units were forced to a position 100 km from Moscow. On 2 January 1942 Luck was awarded a new honor that Hitler had created, the German Cross in Gold. Since November Rommel had requested the transfer of Luck to Africa to take over command of one of his recon battalions. 7th Panzer's General Funk finally allowed the order to go through once the crisis of the Russian counterattack had passed. Luck left the Russian front in late January, 1942.

Becomes:

• During November few advances were made. Starting 3 December Luck's unit covered the retreat of the division from a bridgehead to an area east of Klin. The withdrawal did not end until the German units were forced to a position 100 km from Moscow. On 2 January 1942 Luck was awarded the German Cross in Gold. Luck was transferred to Africa in late January of 1942.

Similarly, from:

• On 20 November Luck returned to Rommel's HQ, where a depressed Rommel told him the battle of Africa was lost, and that all that was left to do was to evacuate as many officers, specialist and veterans as possible. Rommel also told Luck that the war was lost, and all that was left was to make a peace treaty with the allies, which would entail the removal of Hitler. Rommel claimed that only an alliance between the Western countries against Russia could save Western Civilization, and Winston Churchill was the man to lead it. On 6 December the Germans retreated to Tunisia. The severe fuel shortage curtailed operations, but on 17 December Luck and his reinforced detachment managed to flank an advancing British Armor Division, and destroy 20 tanks using the 88mm guns. On 31 December Luck was ordered further west, to secure the area south of Tripoli.

We get:

• According to Luck's post-war memoirs, he returned to Rommel's HQ, where a "depressed Rommel" told him the battle of Africa was lost, and that all that was left to do was to evacuate as many troops as possible. On 6 December the Germans retreated to Tunisia. On 31 December Luck was ordered further west, to secure the area south of Tripoli.

References

This looks drastic, but it creates a clean slate for any interested editors to rebuild the article using reliable sources. Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The other approach would be to change the phrasing for a more encyclopedic voice, and look for other supporting sources. That would be more work, but it would be better than denuding the article. The narrative recounted in the first paragraph you cited here are all factually true. 7th Panzer was part of Hoth's XV Army Corp, it did travel through the Ardennes, it was held up at the Meuse and so forth. This can all be verified by other sources. That would be my preference. Otherwise people looking to this article to find information on the subject will not find anything. I think that is to be avoided. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I will avoid cutting out the content that is potentially verifiable, such as troop movements in the first section that I cited, and will try to make the language more encyclopedic. I'll also focus on dubious or non-NPOV statements, such as "meaning that no maneuvering could take place"; "detachment penetrated Moscow"; "so psychologically battered the French defenders so much that most of them abandoned their posts and ran"; "always dashing forward"; "Rommel had requested the transfer of Luck" etc . I will add tags as a pointer to interested editors to improve the article. Another way to improve the article is to cite that it comes from Luck's memoirs, which I will do where applicable (as in the example #3 above).

I won't be able to get to this until the weekend, so if you'd like to make any improvements until then, please feel free. Or if you need a few days to pull together sources, I'd be happy to wait. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am all for a neutral voiced article, but wholesale elimination of text, text that is factually correct, would not be helpful. The Smelser and Davies book should not be the guiding principle for how the article is to be edited. Are we to understand that German officers wrote memoirs that were not strictly objective? That is understood by anyone reading them. Does Morison present a strictly objective recounting of history in his History of United States Naval Operations in World War II? Potter in his biographies on Nimitz, Halsey or Burke? Playfair in his contributions to the Official History of the Second World War? Playfair routinely refers to the Axis forces as "the enemy", brushes over Allied infighting and mistakes, and seems to revel in German and Italian losses, and yet it is still a useful reference and we use it extensively.

Hans von Luck was a junior officer in the German military, and the only reason we are aware of him is because after the war he became friends with John Howard, an officer in the British 6th Airbourne Division that von Luck's 21st Panzer opposed in Normandy. Through him he came to know Stephen Ambrose who used him for source material and encouraged him to write his own story of the war. People coming to this page are interested in finding out what they can about him. Turning the article into a stub would not be helpful to them.

I am happy to do some of the work of sourcing, but would you not consider looking to source the article yourself? That might be helpful. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

On further review this article definitely needs work. It appears to be a description of the actions of the units Luck was in and a recounting of events mentioned in Luck's memoir. The narrative style is not what one would hope. Needs sourcing as you say, a significant reduction and a more serious tone. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad we were able to reach a preliminary consensus. I will look at the article this weekend -- please feel free to reopen the discussion you find my edits to be problematic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that you've taken a pass at the article. I'll do the same in the next couple of days -- feel free to adjust if you see anything problematic in my edits. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced/poorly sourced material

Regarding the recent revert:

• 3rd Panzer Group captured Vilnius in Lithuania before advancing on Minsk. Following the capture of Minsk the armored group continued east towards Vitebsk. -- this info is about Luck's Panzer Group, not about Luck. That was also unsourced.K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Luck was a participant, thus it tells us where he was and what the sequence was. To be more precise, he was at the northern flank of Army Group Center, and his unit attacked out of what was East Prussia into and through land recently taken by the Soviets. This is pertinent to time and place, and of interest to people interested in military history. Source provided. Note: Luck's memoir agreed perfectly with the secondary source. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• ...the division's reconnaissance battalion commander was killed in action... -- unsourced and not notable.K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Certainly this is notable. He went from commander of the recon battalion (a field promotion to replace CO KIA), over to the headquarters staff, then back to command of the recon battalion. This is the second time this happened to Luck, the first time being in France. What a person interested in military history would gain from reading this is information relating to the nature of the reconnaissance work Luck's unit was doing. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Once the crisis of the Soviet counterattack had passed... -- is this Luck's interpretation of why he was transferred? If yes, should be presented as such, or omitted. But not as a statement of fact. Also "counterattack" is inaccurate; that was a counteroffensive.K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation provided.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Luck states he was later wounded in the hand as his reconnaissance battalion crossed the La Bassée canal near the city of Arras. -- minor wound is not notable; that was also unsourced although it appears to come from Luck's memoirs.K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You could have sourced this one. Sourcing takes time and is work. It is not solely up to me to source the article. If you are unwilling to read about the subject and help source the page it would be well for you to refrain from editing it.Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

From WP:Primary:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

From WP:MILMOS#SOURCES

Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research.

(emphasis with italics mine)Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. (emphasis mine)

As of right now, this article does not meet the criteria "to a lesser extent on primary sources" above. With current 24 citations to Luck's memoirs (more than all other sources combined), perhaps his military career is not notable to a large extent? I believe he's best know for his association with Rommel and for the books he wrote after the war. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hans von Luck is best known for the Battle of Goodwood, where his battlegroup essentially successfully stopped three British armoured divisions from breaking through the German positions and into northern France. After his time imprisoned in a Soviet work camp he returned to Germany and attempted to resume a normal life. Because of his role at Goodwood he was sought out and repeatedly asked to speak at various military lectures, and for the British Staff college at their yearly June tour of Normandy. To borrow Wellington’s phrase, he presented a much valued view from “the other side of the hill”. All this information should be known by someone who is familiar with Luck. In fact, I have already mentioned this above, and it is in the text of the article we are speaking of. People reading this article are interested in military history, and want to know more about the people they are studying. We should provide them with the information that is available. That is what I have been doing.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gunbirddriver: Per WP:BRD, could you outline your objections to the removal of the material outlined above? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the removals were unnecessary and unhelpful. The material removed cast light on who Hans von Luck was and what the details of his career were. Claiming that the sources used here are not adequate and the content they support should therefor be deleted from the article is not supported by wikipedia policy. When you first proposed doing a major revision on 4 February 2016 I said I was willing to help and asked you to also help by improving the sources and citations used in the article. Since then I have added nine reliable sources to the references, using them in creating multiple supporting citations to buttress the text. A month has gone by now and as far as I am aware you have yet to add a single source or made a single citation. In fact, you are asking me questions on Luck's career which indicate you are still completely unfamiliar with who he is. I fail to understand your interest in editing this article when you have made no effort to learn anything about the subject. Can you explain to me why you continue to wish to remove material from the page and apparently decline to take any action to attempt to learn about the subject and support the material herein? It is curious behavior and in my view is not helpful to improving wikipedia. Look at the discussion below. EnigmaMcmxc and Nug both clearly have an interest in the subject and have read on it. It makes sense to me that they would have an interest in the page. I am sorry to say I do not see the same from you. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Cagny

In regards to the incident at Cagny (not mentioned above, but in the article), I believe we should allow von Luck is say (considering how often it has been repeated). However, that should be complimented by a refutation by historians. For example, John Buckley pretty much states he made the whole event up: see here, p. 105. I have also read that Ian Daglish pretty much arrives at the same conclusion; I would have to dig my copy of his work out to check, however.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In the paragraph following Buckley's refutation of von Luck's account, Buckley describes how a large number of British tanks were destroyed suddenly as they advanced, so obviously something was hitting them. Stephen Napier in Armoured Campaign in Normandy June-August 1944 supports von Luck's account, after analysing time lines and other German artillery in the area at the time[1]. --Nug (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well of course they were being hit, but most research I have thus far have seen has stated there was no Luftwaffe guns in Cagny. There was AT guns and the 21st Pnz Div's roaming SP-ATG battery that had been hitting the 11th Arm for six!

I am unable to see the page you linked to, unfortunately. Hopefully tonight I will be able to dig my copy of Daglish out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ian Daglish states the following: "On studying photographs of Cagny taken shortly after the supposed relocation of the battery, the author was surprised to find no obvious sign of its initial or final positions, nor any tracks indicating the movement of htese heavy guns and their associated equipment." Daglish poses the question of what happened to this battery when the Grenadier and Coldstream Guards passed Cagny. He also notes that there is "surprisingly little" evidence to even state the battery existed at all! He notes that all evidence of there existence traces back to von Luck, and that Becker and Pickert (the chap in charge or the Luftwaffe's guns in the area) make no mention of the battery in their memoirs or testimonies of the battle. Interestingly, Daglish sources the 12th SS's history and notes it claims this supposed battery only destroyed German tanks (two Tigers to be precise).(Daglish, Over the Battleground, Appendix IX)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Napier discusses these doubts as follows, quoting from Armoured Campaign in Normandy June-August 1944, pages 248-251:

"Some doubt has been expressed post-war as to the existence of the battery of 88mm flak guns in Gagny. Doubt has crept in as a result of von Luck's larger-than-life character and a tendency to enjoy telling the story of his part in the battle on post-war lecture tours. Other historians have not been able to find any photographic evidence of flak gun emplacements and so claim they did not exist."

"An 88mm Flak 36 gun deployed in anti-aircraft position takes a six-man crew 3.5 minutes to convert to the travelling position and two bogies and only 2.5 minutes to ready it for a ground fire role whilst still on its bogies in the travelling position. Therefore the 88mm flak battery would need only about 15 minutes to relocate a short distance. it is most likely that is was these 88mms that caused so many losses to the 2nd Fife and Forfar about 9300 hours. The only other possible unit is Becker's 4th Batterie in Le Mesnil Fremental. However, if this company did not move before 0930 hours, it would have been cut off when the leading tanks of the 29th Brigade crossed the railway. The 4th Batterie was able to relocate successfully to just south of Four where it was in fact for the rest of the day and so must have moved well before 0930 hours."

"As part of the III Flak Korps, German heavy anti-aircraft guns were located in the outlying villages of Caen as protection against the high-flying medium and heavy Allied bombers that had been bombing Caen. Photographic evidence of the Luftwaffe batteries in the area exists. Given the general hostility of the German army towards the Luftwaffe because of its continued absence from the Normandy battlefield, it is unlikely that the German army would credit the Luftwaffe for anything unnecessarily. The timeline from von Luck's confrontation with the Luftwaffe battery commander just after 0900 hours fits with the subsequent losses of the 2nd Fife and Forfar C Squadron at 0930 hours as it took this time to relocate the 88mm guns to new position to enfilade the advancing British tanks. The loss of the two Tigers moving southwards after engaging the Shermans from the 2nd Grenadier Guards by clean penetrations of the Tiger's frontal armour suggests the actions of an inexperienced Luftwaffe crew faced with large, unidentified tanks coming straight for them."

"With the later German decision to abandon Cagny, the 88mm flak guns were destroyed on von Luck's orders so only wreckage could be found after the battle. The Guards Division King's Infantry occupied Cagny late in the afternoon and found three 88mm anti-tank guns. An alternative explanation has been put forward that the self-propelled guns of Becker's 5th Batterie may have stopped to defend Cagny during their withdrawal from Le Prieure to Frenouvill. At 500m the 75mm Pak 40 was capable of penetrating 120mm of armour, so at 650m it could have just penetrated the Tiger's frontal armour of 100mm. However, these penetrations would not have been as clean as those from 88mm armour-piercing shells. Von Luck correctly attributed credit where it was due and his only sin is the assumption of a mantle previously worn by Rommel who stopped the British tank attack at Arras in 1940 by ordering the 88mm flak guns to engage the ground targets of the British tank forces. Usually located well behind the frontlines, 88mm anti-aircraft crews did not expect to become embroiled in fighting as per III Flak Korps policy, and their direct involvement occasionally took some persuasion."

--Nug (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

To poke light, who are the King's Infantry? ;)

I note that Napier makes the claim that the 88mm flak guns were destroyed, and (presumably) the 1st Grenadier Guards later found 88mm anti-tank guns. Big difference, although we are not to quabble over what the sources say. Do you know what footnote 47 states the source is for this?

At any rate, I'll be back later with some thoughts on the subject.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Napier mentions on page 255:

"The 2nd Grenadier Guards were ordered to occupy Cagny and this was duly achieved in an hour at about 1800 hours with the tanks accompanying the King's Company of infantry from the 1st Battalion of Grenadier Guards"

so presumably these are the "King's Infantry" he is referring to. Well the 88mm Flak gun were acknowledged as having a dual anti-tank capability. Footnote 47 cites Ian Dalgish's book Goodwood, page 260. --Nug (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your input. Daglish notes that the heavy flak gun regiment was further south, and poses the question why was this detachment so far forward? He states some accounts suggest it was to protect Caen, or factories, from Allied low flying aircraft, yet he retorts this was not the job of 88mm flak guns. He also notes, in the main text, that a regiment of 88mm anti-tank guns were deployed to the Cagny area during the battle (and suffered heavy losses); so the comment that the infantry of the Guards Division captured destroyed 88mm guns does not immediately support von Luck.

Clearly, the solution is simple: follow WP guidelines. I would suggest something to the effect of improving what is already in the article: context of the operation; von Luck's account of what (he thinks) happened; and the historian's differing opinion (the exact wording, I would happy to discuss here before implementing or I could write something up - over the next few days - and add it to the article then you could amend? Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that approach sounds okay to me, you can write something up and add to the article and any amendments can be made if at all necessary. --Nug (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for not being able to make the edit suggested above. I would like to discuss the latest edit and invoking WP: Alleged. Despite von Luck's story being repeated in secondary sources; it is still just his word. Alleged may be too strong, but removing any descriptive reverts to the position that what he is saying is completely factual. I think, we should use some descriptive and source his story directly from his memoir.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Did I just waste my time typing out excerpts from Napier's book? I did so out of courtesy because you said "I am unable to see the page you linked to". Seems to me you are giving Daglish undue weight in light of Napier's analysis of the evidence and conclusion that Daglish's arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. --Nug (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, sorry for the late response. No, you did not waste your time typing out excerpts from Napier. I see your position in the same light: giving Napier undue weight, because he supports von Luck and does not address any of the questions Daglish raises i.e. where is the evidence the guns or von Luck was even there ... an anon officers recollection of a German officer, German friendly fire, ignoring the 88mm AT guns etc.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I finally added in the content, we both added, to the Goodwood article. To further note, I do not believe Napier actually makes a solid case. Since the two pages quoted are now available for preview on Google Books, I have read them; he relies an awful lot on circumstantial evidence. Destroyed 88s, located in Cagny, must have been the flak guns without specifying if they were flak or AT guns and ignores the arrival of the AT guns. This is a big assumption, so we are still left to wonder what the guardsmen actually found; not to mention where in Cagny they found them. The aerial photos of AA guns in outlying villages is suppose to support von Luck, but Napier does not specify if there is actually a photo of the guns in Cagny! The whole argument surrounding Becker relies on a big "if" (having not read much about the battle in a long time, I am not willing to state my opinion on this). Not to mention, the inference that some random officer in a uniform was Luck (there was no one else dressed up that day?). None of this pokes holes in the questions Daglish (and many amateur historians who have looked at the photos) asked years before (i.e. where is the evidence). There is nothing concrete there. However, everyone's point of view is now in the article for the readers to decide.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

PS: Is Napier aware that the Germans used 88s (and other AT guns) to devastating effect during Operation Battleaxe, and later battles such as Second Alamien? Granted that these were other battles fought under the command of Rommel but it is not like the only time a German anti tank gun screen stopped British tanks was at Aras and around Cagny.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no particular reason to doubt von Luck's account. French grain crops in 1944 grew head-high, much taller than modern crops, and British tankers who served in Goodwood noted that you could see the torpedo-like wakes of German anti-tank rounds coming at you through the grain as the British armour passed Cagny. RAF air reconnaissance photos later showed the die-straight tracks left by these anti-tank rounds in the standing crops. So there certainly were German anti-tank guns firing from Cagny. The village was soon captured by the British, of course, and the only extant British photo of an intact German anti-tank gun in situ shows a PaK 43, the towed German army anti-tank version of the 88. (The PaK 43 was adapted as the KwK 43 for fitment to King Tiger -- also known as Tiger B -- tanks and Jagdpanther tank destroyers.) The Flak 36/37 used by Luftwaffe anti-aircraft units was a different, earlier form of the gun, which Rommel pressed into anti-tank service in North Africa because of its high muzzle velocity and which was adapted as the KwK 36 for the Tiger I tank (also known as Tiger E). There may be no certain proof that there was a Luftwaffe battery of Flak 36/37s in Cagny, but there's no proof that there wasn't either. https://rafoverlord.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-guns-of-cagny.html Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A British Army documentary on Operation Goodwood with von Luck himself participating, here; [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.84 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The fighting had prevented the French farmers from harvesting the wheat, so it may have been unusually tall having been allowed to grow for a longer time than would normally have been the case.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that editors of this page may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk)

Article cleanup

I cleaned up the article a bit more by reducing uncited and / or non notable material cited to the subject's memoirs. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)