Talk:Operation Charnwood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Operation Charnwood is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 8, 2013.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 1, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
April 22, 2009 WikiProject A-class review Approved
August 18, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST 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. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.


Does anyone have detailed info on the British bridgeheads across the orne near Caen? I know they had three small bridges across the Orne by the time of Goodwood but when did they get them? DMorpheus 16:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Template:Quality Rating=Start

1st Canadian Army and Caen being a D-Day objective[edit]

Considering the 1st Canadian Army became active during the latter portion of the campaign and Canadian units landing on D-Day were part of the 2nd British Army i am removing mention of Caen being a 1st Canadian Army D-Day objetive

German prep[edit]

The basic layout of the German defences was decided upon, not by Rommel,[42] but by General Heinrich Eberbach,[43] the commanding officer of Panzer Group West, with the details being worked upon by the two Corps commanders and the six divisional commanders.[43] German defensive positions were structured into four defensive lines of considerable depth—approximately 10 miles (16 km).[29] As part of the defense, villages were fortified and anti-tank guns sited along the southern and eastern edges of the open country Second Army was about to attack,[44] with significant defensive positions at Franqueville, Gruchy, Buron, Galmanche, Epron and Lebisey.[29]

This is all in referance to Goodwood and Caens open flank - i cannot vouch if the sources support the same details for the defences to the north of Caen as well as the city itself.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also out of intrest - how come when you have copied information over you have replaced the citations supporting those statements with different ones i.e. Jackson for Keegan or Taylor for Hastings etc - doesnt make sence.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Typo Frenzy[edit]

Have removed various typos but feel free to revert the ones which are opinionated.[;-)Keith-264 (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


With the strategic value of Caen lessening in the eyes of Army Group B's command, Rundstedt directed on 1 July 1944 that Caen should be gradually abandoned by German defenders, with the intent of shifting the bulk of the German Panzer Divisions to the American front

I think it should be noted in the article that the city itself had loss value but the Caen aera had not as Daglish notes if the city should fall the terrain around the city was to be held as the Germans saw it as the hinge in their Normandy defences.

To the west, the 43rd (Wessex) Infantry Division, with supporting armour, renewed the fighting to capture Hill 112 in a new operation codenamed Operation Jupiter.[45]

Shouldnt this be in the aftermath section and not the planning? The operation followed Charnwood on the 10th and nothing in the planning section links the two operations together as one.

Should Jupiter even have its own section at the bottom of the article?

Unreferenced footnotes[edit]

I found the following after footnote #46. ^ a b Roy, p. 46 but there is nothing by anyone named Roy in the References. Also not all of the References are listed on the Reference list--is there a reason for this? Xatsmann (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch...I'm sure that Cam just made a mistake. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I have already copy and pasted this to the review page as i know it will be addressed quickly that way.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I checked all the other footnotes and they are all fine. I also checked the rest of the article out and it looked great to me. I am satisfied its ready to go to the next level. Congratulations on a well written and researched article. Xatsmann (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Operation Mitten et al[edit]

Just a note for myself, a mini operation was launched late June north of Caen by 3rd Inf called Mitten.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Other than expanding the background to include something about Mitten, is there anything else people think is missing from this article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Fould[edit]

And he is? He has been used a reference but there is no info in the ref section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


Would it be possible to avoid this word except as a distinction of rank? Can't we say 'big' or 'important'?Keith-264 (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary attack[edit]

I'm reluctant to leave the last word to Hastings. 'With hindsight, this action came to be regarded as one of the most futile air attacks of the war.[38]' Perhaps but the bombing was aimed at two places: 'Fields North West of Caen'; the centre of the pattern was 200-300 yards east of the aiming point and 90% of the bombs fell in it. The second aiming point is given as 'Northern Caen' a suburban area; the 90% zone was not identifiable. ORS2's analysis concludes that 'The material effects produced by this bombing attack do not appear to be sufficient to account for the marked success of the operation it preceded. It is thought that the value of this form of attack is largely in the disorganisation and morale effects that it produces'. ORS2 Report No.5 Heavy Bombing in Operation Charnwood in 'Montgomery's Scientists: Operational Research in Northwest Europe' Ed, Terry Copp pp.71-77. While not a destructive bombardment of German military forces, the results conform to British experience from mid-1916 that the primary effect of bombardment is suppressive and that this is short-lived. If the bombing was futile then such attacks in future (Goodwood and Bluecoat) would have had similar effect. As it was the report made recommendations which increased the effects of bombardment by strategic bombers - instant fuzes, larger numbers of smaller bombs, more anti-personnel bombs and rapid follow up by ground forces to exploit the suppression of enemy defences. If the intent of the bombing of the two areas was to destroy German defences and produce a walkover, it failed. Some destruction of soft skinned transport occurred (10 of 40 trucks) but the 48 hr gap before the ground attack allowed damaged equipment to be salvaged. If it was suppressive then the wait negated this. For a debut it was poor but it is clear that the technique was considerably refined in later attacks. I think 'futile' is the wrong word.Keith-264 (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems you have adequate sources be bold ;)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold but haven't a clue how to put it in the bibliography! Montgomery's Scientists: Operational Research in Northwest Europe. The work of No.2 Operational Research Section with 21 Army Group June 1944 to July 1945. Terry Copp, editor.(2000) ISBN 0-9697955-9-9 LCMSDS. Keith-264 (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ive added the book for you however could you be a good chap and add in the publication date, and the original one if there is one i.e. 2005 and 1955 etc Also if its available the publisher and publishers locations in the relevent parts of the template. I'd get this off amazon but id be pushing my luck a little here in work lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies (LCMSDS) The report dates aren't given but Jun'44-Jul'45 must be the range.Keith-264 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit notes[edit]

Underway; as usual, notes, comments, questions etc to follow... EyeSerenetalk 10:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


  • Can we say whose troops are in the infobox image (British or Canadian)?
    Nope, the IWM website that holds the information on the photo doesnt hold that piece of particular info. Photo is too low res to zoom in and ID their divisional insignia either. Unless its in a book somewhere, and the author has ID them, i think we are out of luck.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    Changed to the generic "I Corps troops" EyeSerenetalk 12:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


  • "Learning of this, Allied commanders ordered Bernard Montgomery to draw up an offensive..." Can we be specific here, as it makes it sound like it wasn't Monty's show? I'm guessing Eisenhower or SHAEF?
    Reworded more vaguely :) EyeSerenetalk 17:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Planning and preparation (Germans)[edit]

  • "Elements of the 26th SS Panzergrenadier Regiment held the western flank, concentrating their defence in the area around Carpiquet airfield, armed with limited tanks and mortar batteries..." What does "limited tanks" mean?
    I've rephrased to give what I hope was the intended meaning; please correct as necessary! EyeSerenetalk 17:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Fighting in Caen[edit]

  • "By noon, the 3rd division had reached the north bank of the Orne, destroying the 16th Luftwaffe Field Division" I think we need to change the wording here, although the division did suffer heavy it was not destroyed and went onto play a further role in the campaign, by which i mean being bombed to crap (poor bastards) and most likely destroyed during the Goodwood battle. Annihilation seems a bit to much and decimation a bit to little, i cant think of a word for in between.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    Doesn't Zetterling say that it was disbanded and the remnants put into the 21st PzDiv? "During the British Goodwood operation the division suffered serious casualties. All commanders and staffs of infantry regiments and battalions were put out of action. Also 36 company commanders were casualties. This made it difficult to rebuild the division, and on 23 July Eberbach suggested that the division should be used to rebuild the 21. Pz.Div.19 Evidently the infantry was used to replenish 21. Pz.Div., while the rest of the division was used to form the 16. Inf.Div.20 The division was formally disbanded on 4 August.21"Keith-264 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    All of which further supports that the division wasnt destoryed, it just suffered extremly heavily.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, presumably except in encirclements, the heaviest losses fell on the front line troops leaving the infrastructure relatively intact.Keith-264 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
    Zetterling gives 12SSPzDiv PzIV and Panther operational states as, 7Jul, 40 & 39; 9 Jul, 10 & 18; 10 Jul, 19 & 18; 16 Jul, 21 & 18 which suggests that the fighting in Charnwood put about 50% of the division's tanks out of action. Perhaps the other sources stress 'destroyed' to emphasis lack of losses despite the swift depletion of the number of operational tanks?Keith-264 (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
    I used "virtually destroying" - hopefully that fits the bill. EyeSerenetalk 12:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    Suits me.Keith-264 (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    sounds good to me.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


  • A bit confused about the chronology of the various German changes in command - wasn't Schweppenburg replaced by Eberbach in early June? I assume that's included because until Charnwood etc, Eberbach thought it was going to be possible to win in Normandy? Addendum: rephrased a little; hope it's what was intended.
Eberbach took command in early July, i believe we covered it before in the aftermath of Epsom. However i believe it was relevent to bring him and Rundstead back up so that the comment regarding the new COs realisation made more sense. The way it is worded now appears to reflect his correctly.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I do beg your pardon - I'd got my dates confused. Hastings gives 1 July for Eberbach's 'promotion' and the following morning for von Kluge's. I'll fix the errors I've introduced :P EyeSerenetalk 19:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ref no. 120 (at time of writing), "Hastings, p. 207", needs fixing - I believe I'm working off a different edition of the book. The first mention of 'Eberbach' in the index should get whoever has it to the right page (or thereabouts); the quote should also hopefully make it easy to find the right page number. EyeSerenetalk 19:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bombing of Caen[edit]

  • D'Este's citing of the Zuckerman survey: is it the 3rd British or 3rd Canadian Inf Div being quoted?
    He just says the 3rd Div - which i assume to be the British 3rd, as the Canadian 3rd usually always has the word "canadian" somwhere around it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    Thought that might be the case :) EyeSerenetalk 20:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there anything on the effect on the French civilian population? There's a note in the infobox, so it probably ought to be expanded on in the article.
    Will add some info on it shortly--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    done plus added a few extra images.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Looking good ;) One (hopefully) final comment - are we saying 7-9 July or 8-9 July? At the moment the article and infobox contradict each other.
    Do you mean in regards to the battle honours? Thats the dates given in the book i guess the events of the day before were just not "worthy" of honours.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    I have updated the article and added refs in, most sources seem to confirm kick off was the 8th.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    Sorted then (I meant the infobox and the article's first sentence, but you obviously gathered that!) I've enjoyed working on this one - I think the detailed Analysis section is especially impressive. Great work, as usual ;) EyeSerenetalk 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Attritional battles[edit]

  • Since DMorpheus has objected to the use of the word "attritional" in reference to St Lo, could we perhaps use another term to avoid the need for the caveat in the next sentence (or move the addition to a footnote)? I realise that DMorpheus is convinced that there was no strategy of attrition, and I agree the sources differ on that point, but I think the addition is out-of-place and breaks the flow of the paragraph, distracting from its main point (that even the replacement commanders became convinced they were in a losing battle).
    I agree that the new addition distracts from the main message. I think DMorpheus can only agree that official histories are not infallible and new research can prove them wrong in places. Copp, with 40 years of new research on his side, and reassessing the campaign very well may have decided to reassess this battle as an attritional one without being "wrong". Considering what the point of the sentance is, i have reverted it back to the way it was and moved Blumenson's comment to a note.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    Hopefully that will mean this point has been sorted out, ill start the process for FAC and still what our peers have to say.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    Cool :) DMorpheus, I think the word 'attritional' in the context it's used in the article simply describes the effect of the battles, not their intent. You may be seeing more than was intended, so I hope you're satisfied with this compromise? From Wikipedia's encyclopedic perspective it's not that one version is 'right' and the other is 'wrong'. Our role as editors is to try to represent accurately and with appropriate weight the spectrum of opinion found in reliable sources. I think the attrition issue is horribly complicated by some self-serving accounts on both sides of the debate (not least from some of the commanders involved) and some partisan historiography over the years. EyeSerenetalk 09:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Attrition has a bad name as a strategy but then a consequence of military operations is the damage done to the combatants and the relative effect it has on them. Attrition is an inherent consequence even if other effects are intended. Since the Great War, politicians (small 'p' as well as large 'P') have tried to put the blame for friendly losses on the enemy and if that can't be done on scapegoats. The Allied operations in Normandy (before Cobra got going) had a far greater attrition effect than changes in territory. Whether this was expected or not is difficult to decide beacuse few Allied commanders would have set themselves up for the blame for losses. Had they done so they would have been disowned as soon as it was expedient for SHAEF/the press/London & Washington to sell them out. In the wiki articles I notice that 80% of Caen was destroyed and 95% of St Lo which I find hard to reconcile with 'manoeuvre warfare'. Perhaps the Allied commanders wanted a quick result (who wouldn't?) but expected the attritional slog that occurred despite their hopes, the organisation of their forces and their appreciation of the Germans. I agree with Enigma that Morphy might have a point that the Normandy strategy was intended to be 'manoeuvre' but also think that an attrition campaign was forced on the Allies by Hitler. I think that this was a consequence of German weakness which Hitler knew about only too well.Keith-264 (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Keith, that is WP:OR. More later. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you ok with the footnote? I really believe it's best stylistically to avoid distracting from the point of the paragraph, so another alternative might be to replace "attritional" with something like "costly". This would remove the need for the Blumenson note and hopefully avoid the perception I suspect you're seeing, that the article is implying that attrition was the intended end and not just an description of the means. EyeSerenetalk 12:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Morphy, I haven't had an original thought in my life (except about Anne Bancroft). My comments are a paraphrase of many of the historians you seem to have overlooked.Keith-264 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either my insertion or the footnote is the best way to go. There are at least two better options. One is to omit mention of St Lo at all from the sentence in question; it is completely unnecessary to the point being made. A second is to omit the word 'attritional' from the sentence, which, again, is unnecessary to the point of the sentence and invites controversy where it is not strictly necessary. It inserts a POV that is not needed here and is not a settled issue anyway.
It is not acceptable to relegate Blumenson to a footnote, which has the effect of making it appear to be a less weighty opinion. It's not. Blumenson's history has been highly praised as one of the best official histories (unlike, say, Ellis).
I have written before, and it is relevant now, that the strategy and conduct of the Normandy campaign is controversial and deserves a separate article solely devoted to that controversy. A model for the article would be something like the Soviet offensive plans controversy or Global warming controversy. But for that article to be fruitful, it owuld be best in all the *other* Normandy articles to refer to it and to avoid assuming closed those issues that are open.
As for St Lo: the objective of the First Army drive on St Lo was certainly not attritional. The objective was to escape the terrain of the pays bocage, which was confined, low-lying, wet....IOW it canalized attack forces and was excellent defensive terrain. Take a look at a map. St Lo is higher and has good road nets on both sides of the front. That means forces can be massed towards it and then exploit beyond it in any of several directions. It was the necessary jumping-off point for Cobra. Had the Germans given up St Lo freely without a fight the objective would have been accomplished; this is the test of whether the fight was attritional. The goal was to seize that key terrain, not to eliminate or weaken German units. The casualty count and destruction 'score' does nothing to add or subtract from this conclusion.
I would argue that Second Army was trying to avoid attritional battles also, but that's for another time and article. My concern right now is not to mischaracterize the battle of St Lo.
Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I do think you're reading too much into the use of a word. I agree that Attrition (capital "A") wasn't the aim at all - as you say, St Lo was secured to provide a jumping-off point for Cobra. However, attrition was an inevitable by-product of an assault against an enemy that was under orders not to withdraw. I wonder if we're working off the same definition here; I'm using "attrition" to mean "wearing down" (in this case, causing enough casualties and material losses so the enemy can no longer resist). You must surely acknowledge that attrition (of both sides) happened at St Lo; without it, the town wouldn't have fallen. If the US forces had been able to bypass St Lo, I'm sure they would, just as Second Army would undoubtedly have done at Caen. The reason St Lo belongs there is because it's mentioned earlier in the article, but I've inserted costly per the above, as that's the thrust of that paragraph, and removed the Blumenson point as no longer needed to correct an impression that's hopefully no longer given. EyeSerenetalk 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The bombing of Caen was expressly intended to reduce any likelihood of an 'attritional battle', as it was designed to soften up the German defenders beforehand and minimise Allied losses, however one didn't go into a battle against the German Army of the period without knowing that there was going to be some heavy and bloody fighting whatever happened, the Wehrmacht, and Waffen-SS in particular, being relied upon to fight extremely well. In other words, the Allied - or at least the British - commanders knew that there was going to be an attritional element of any battle involving these forces, whatever happened.
Montgomery had by this stage of the war, with the resources of RAF Bomber Command to call upon, implemented the practice of using RAF 'heavies' to bomb the relevant enemy areas in order to minimise losses of his ground troops, Brian Horrocks doing this (albeit unwillingly) at Kleve, and it also being used to great devastation at Wesel, although these were both within Germany itself. Caen was bombed so heavily simply because it was so important and pivotal at the time, otherwise the RAF usually avoided 'plastering' towns and cities within occupied countries for obvious reasons.

Artillery FO tanks?[edit]

How do we know these M4s are artillery forward observer tanks? It's not in the file description. Is there a recognition feature visible? DMorpheus (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A 6-pounder anti-tank gun of the 1st King's Own Scottish Borderers, along with two Sherman artillery observation tanks, near St-Pierre Church.[1]
Good point; I can't see it in the source either. Caption change? EyeSerenetalk 14:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think so. They are certainly poorly placed if they really are FO tanks. IMO this FO label cannot be supported. I can't see the photo well enough to see whether the gun tubes are real or dummies; I can't see the formation signs to know what unit the tank is part of. But leaving the caption as just plain 'Sherman' works fine. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
There Arty FO tanks because Simon Trew and Stephen Badsey say so - page 41, hence the citation to also support what unit the soldiers come from. Just because they are positioned in a street doesnt mean they are not FO tanks - two of the most famous photos from Villers-Bocage are of the FO tanks, both of which were in the centre of V-B.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you quote it please? I don't have the Trew book. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Enigma, by source I meant the Imperial War Museum archive ([1]), which gives no more detail than the commons page. EyeSerenetalk 16:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

lol, ok here it is: "A 6-pounder anti-tank gun of 1st King's Own Scottish Borderers guards a street in central Caen, with two artillery observation tanks behind it. St-Pierre church is in the background." No biggie thou.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, and the original source, the Imperial War Museum, makes no claim that these are FO tanks. I noticed their captioning is pretty thorough. DMorpheus (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thorough but the IWM also doesnt state they are the Scottish Borderers. ;) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

Enigma, do you really want to start a sentence with 'however'?Keith-264 (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well do be honest am not to sure lol User:Ottava Rima raised the point here; i did object to a number of changes he suggested and have not implimented them although the minor changes to grammar i have mostly followed. What would you suggest?

I'm one of those old farts who thinks that written English is a different language to spoken English so I value systematic grammar and punctuation; somtimes I manage it. I try to end sentences at the full stop so words like 'however' and 'additionally' are unnecessary after it. Keith-264 (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

sentence in the lead (problem solved)[edit]

At the bottom i wrote that for me the issue is "solved".

"With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success. "

infobox: allied : 3,817 casualties ~80 tanks german: Over 2,000 casualties 18 –32 tanks

is the sentence in the lead planned this way? Blablaaa (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

... the problem being ...EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

is the sentence in the lead planned this way? Blablaaa (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Once again, the problem being?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
seems to be a bit contradicting doesnt it? If inflicting casualties is a reason for a tactical victory than it is a german. I guess on a tactical scale it doesnt madder if the german had less troops ( thus higher rate of casualties ). is this a editor opinion or referenced? Blablaaa (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
u dont have battle of verries ridge on your watchlist? Blablaaa (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
See the sources and read the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
dont find the same statement with a source. is this your statement/opinion ?Blablaaa (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Read the article, then go read the sources...EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

i dont find a source claiming that the casualties inflicted on the german made a tactical victory. So i assume its your personal opinion which found its way into the lead section. U want to rewrite or can i ? Blablaaa (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you are obviously ignoring the sourced material in the article; the sourced material that states the Allied attack made a tactical gain, how the German tank force in the area lost 30-50% of their machines and how the Luftwaffe division suffered heavy losses. Its all there in the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
where is the quote that it was a tacticl victory cause of the german losses. where? "heavy losses" is pretty relative , isnt it? allied suffered more losses so we need a exact source saying it was a tactical victory because of german losses. Iam frankly and claim that u createt this correlation without suffienct source, correct? Blablaaa (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

the statement should be : "despite higher losses, charnwood was....." Blablaaa (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again ... READ THE ARTICLE, LOOK AT THE SOURCES, provide evidence to support your opinions and your claims
"61 tanks[nb 1]" tank strength and "18 [nb 3]–32 tanks[nb 4]" tank losses or 29.5% - 52%
"By noon the British 3rd Infantry Division had reached the Orne's north bank, virtually destroying the 16th Luftwaffe Field Division in the process.[nb 9]"
"Carlo D'Este states that unquestionably Charnwood did improve Second Army's position... .[5]" I.e. the tactical situation
Inserting the higher losses, bares no relevnce on the discussion - a 3% loss rate among I Corps troops; one could speculate on the tank loss percentage but its probably rather low considering the number of tanks per brigade. On top of which D'ESte specifically notes the 75% loss rate to the Luftwaffe units not to mention the above mentioned German tank losses.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

so , u created the statement, because your historians dont claim this. caught.... Blablaaa (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

tactical means inflicting losses, and sustaning much higher losses inst a tactical victory in general. Like i assumed u have no historian claiming what u have written in the lead. While allied had much hgiher losses u made " With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success" . Blablaaa (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
OMG! You need to take the blinkers off! You are ignoring the fact the sourced information states the German forces suffered heavy losses, you are ignoring the fact their tank force took heavy losses and the fact the historians state the Allied position was tactically improved by this battle.
On top of which Carlo D'Este is an internationally recognised historian and author of one of the most popular works on the campaign; go argue you with him if you disagree about the losses the Luftwaffe unit suffered or his opinion that the battle achieved tactical improvements.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

give the exact quote that a historian claims the inflicted losses made a tactical victory. iam waiting. Blablaaa (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

stop explaining me your opinion give the quoteBlablaaa (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources are there, you read the goddamn books for a change... you have exhausted the last remaining ounces of good faith i had for you; i havent explained my opinion i am showing you the facts, the facts that are sourced to historical works, which are all clearly in the article.
As always all you have done is brought your bais opinion to a topic to cause a fight. If you have nothing constructive to say, why are you here?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

so u have no source saying the inflicted casualties made the tactical victory? So u created this statement to support your opinion , correct? The tactical victory was due to ground taken rather than casualties ( obvious while looking the numbers) . U simply wrote a statement and now u cant give the quote of an hsitorian which supports this. Iam concerned about your editing stlye u create wrong and dumb statements and than u claim its sourced but it isnt ( sorry for the "dumb" but your opinion is indeed dumb, thats why no historian supports) . On military article we should stick as close as possible to reliable secondary literatur. Enigma please stop adding you POV to articles. Blablaaa (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Enigma do u understand orginal research ? its not up to u to draw conclusion and put them in the lead ( espcially when your conclusions are wrong ) Blablaaa (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary : the sentence in the lead ( createt by enigma ) implys the casualties inflicted were a major factor to call the battle a "tactical victory" . with my grasp of military i know that this is highly unlikly because allied suffered much more casualties. So i assumed that this is incorrect and the opinion of the editor, then i asked for the source claiming this . After dodging around and posting useless comment , engima showed clearly that no of his multiple books is claiming this. Instead of admiting that he wrote is POV in the lead hes now making useless accusations . No historian claimed this so out of the lead or change it. And please stop adding POV in the articles.Blablaaa (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I also want to highlight that quoting D'est who give loss percentage and implying that D'est shares enigmas opinion is not only wrong its kinda attempt do deceive . Ive re-read the analysis section and no historian is claiming anything near enogmas statement. Blablaaa (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I have requested moderation because you refuse to engage in a rational discussion or take on board a very simple premise; the information in the lede reflects the sourced information in the article that is footnoted to the relevent books and pages within (i.e. the comment you are suggest D'Este has never said and am making up). Your comments highlight a personal vendetta, regardless of the fact that several of us editored the article/and that the article has been peer reviewed and was found acceptable and without POV isuses. I will not engage in furter conversation until requested moderation has had chance to look into the issue.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. If the lead summaries the rest than u could easly give me quote of an historian claiming this, everything else is OR. Admit it and change it Blablaaa (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Also: what u have done is pretty bad. U search for moderation but u try to affect the "moderator". What does this tell about your intention ? u dont search for moderation u search for another editor who had problems with me. U engaged in so much nonsense discussion with me but now u search for "moderation". U see that u cant provide source for your claims and now u canvass. Next time when u search moderation than dont affect the admin with words like : "Simpley he is claiming that once again we, the various editors of the article, have made everything up". U are also trying to imply that i try to moan about all the article. I asked u after a source for a statement. Your subliminal text on nicks talk page shows that u dont search for moderation. U try to escape the situation which was created by u. Give a quote of an historian claiming this military nonsense. Blablaaa (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

After seeing nicks opinion. I try to make the issue clear as possible. The statement in the lead is a complex statement implying the inflicted casualties were a major contributing factor the tactical victory. This is indeed not correct an no historians claims this. When a historian claims germans had "heavy" casualties and claims it was a tactical victory then this is NOT a correlation until the historian claims some. Everything else is simply OR and indeed military nonsense. So please give me the exact quote of any historian supporting enigmas personal opinion Blablaaa (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it your point that it was not a tactical victory for the Allies ? just so I'm sure how would your describe it.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
No thats not my claim. I dont claim that something sourced is wrong. I claim that german casualties were a major factor for calling it a tactical victory, is wrong. I want a source which claims this. Tactical victory in general arent achieved with suffering higher casualties as the enemy so here this wasnt the reason for the victory. The statement in the lead is incorrect and unsourced OR. Blablaaa (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Iam totally correct here i will rewrite the statement if nobody does this. The "coward" ( kindly meaning ) enigma is now simply sitting on his chair and is lucky that nick did the same mistake. Instead of providing the exact quote which supports this claim he starts doging with " iam out of the dicussion hes annoying". His tactic is cheap and very clear. He cant support his statement he tries the cheat to imply that D'este supports him because he claim german losses and allied victory. But he never claims the correlation. If something inst directly verifiable then its simple OR. The stupid statement that charnwood was a tactical victory because the inflicted casualties is a dumb and unskilled assumption. I doubt historinas will claim this and what do we see? enigma cant provide any sentence of any historian directly claiming this. Enigma did obviously bias. I guess i also will search for sanctions against him Blablaaa (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
when i change the statemtn to something what is exactly sourced by historians he reverted its and says vandalism. this is the behavious of somebody who thinks he owns the article. He dont brings the quote to support the statement but, calls my change " vandalism" pathetic work of a fanboy. Blablaaa (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I will change the article if enigma revertes again and justify it here. The correlation between german casualties and the tactical outcome of the battle was questioned by me. I asked for a exact quote of any historian exactly claiming this correlation. No one brought one. But enigma brought cheat trys by claiming the quote of "heavy casualties" + the quote of the "improved situation of the allied" made D'este directly claiming this correlation, this is totally wrong and unlogic and also OR. Beside various violation of wiki rules of enigma, i ask why i should wait for him to admit his failure? i changed the lead to something what is exactly sourced in the analysis. Where is the problem ? Nowhere.... Blablaaa (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Moderation has been requested on this issue therefore it would be sound to wait until it has arrived instead of inserting POV into the article and making false allgations in the edit summeries. You stated that your change is sourced in the analysis, so was the current version that was peer reviewed and accepted.
You have spent a year demanding quotes from texts you dont own to backup the articles we have worked on hence i am fed up of providing you with the information; why should i jump to your tune everytime you see something you dont agree with? In this case escpeically since everything stated in the lede is sourced in the article and footnoted; you wont even look at the book yourself before breaking the AGF guideline.
As noted further above, i am attempting to refrain from this discussion further until a third party or MILHIST admin have had the chance to look into the matter.
If are going to keep on making contuined allagations of my apparent various violations of wiki guidelines i suggest you go down the relevent path and start the process of having me looked into.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Enigma u become hilarious. U claim i make wrong allgations in the edit summary, while u said i vandalise while i inserted what the analysis section states? U are only distracrting everything u do is simply and poor Ad hominem. You can simply bring the quote supporting your statement . enigma bring the quote and everything is fine and stop your cheap Ad hominem campaign. Blablaaa (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Instead of bringing the quote which supports such conclusion u say it was peer reviewed and must be ok. Instead of making the simple edit and printing the orginal quote u try to imply that everything what passed a peer rewiev must be perfect. Your tactics are obvious . If your statement is verfiable than u would simply print the text. No need for your prolonged statements about me and blablablabla. Bring the quote or admit your OR Blablaaa (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

See previous reply.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

yes u quoted nothing from D'este . U quoted german casualties ( which are far lower than allied) and u quoted D'este claiming the situation of allied improved. Where is the quote for your statement ? U have none. by the way do u own this book ? u dont ? Your recent revert breached the 3rr but i will not report u and also i will not revert u again. U have not supported your statement with anything. Iam considering to buy the book of D'est and going to ani board with a detailed account of your subtile bias. greetings Blablaaa (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

See my previous reply and in addition go to ani board; i suggest you do if you are going to contuine to "threaten me" with action.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Again u dodge . u gave no quotes u simply gave text passages and showed that the statement is your conclusion. Iam aware of the fact that u will never find any quote supporting this wrong statement. Iam aware of the fact that u did a failure and u are not willing to admit. Maybe u simply change the statement a bit and kill the correlation and everything is fine. I will not even talk again about. Make the lead correct and the issue is resolved. No need to invest endless time, for both. MAybe u want to considere making the change. Then the issue is resolved i guess. Blablaaa (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The simple matter of the fact is that the article states the two formations suffered heavy losses and this is sourced and presented within the article; it has been pointed out to you. In addition the fact that various historians have noted the operation impoved the local tactical situation is in the article and sourced.
The lede summerises these sourced positions; if you do not want to recognise these facts fine - wait for the third party/moderation etc etc to arrive.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Exact enigma , german losses are sourced and the tactical victory. But you draw the conclusion . German losses werent the major factor for the tactical victory. u did simply OR. u can not give any quote of any historian supporting the correlation. And the lead doesnt summerise the section it makes another statement which is totally different of the analysis. Blablaaa (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I also love how u explain that the article states "the two formations suffered heavy losses" and meanwhile u miss the fact that the absolut losses were far lower. cherry picking... Blablaaa (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So i finally ask u one simple question please answer with yes or know. Do u have any source which supports the conclusion that german losses ( despite being far lower than allied ) were a major factor for the tactical outcome. Du u have one yes or no ? if u not answer i think its a "no" Blablaaa (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To any thrid party guy. The claim that the inflicted damage on german troops was a reason for a tactical victory is very obscure because in general inflicting less casualties is seen as tactical defeat. THe statement in the lead is directly claiming the oposite so we need a historian claiming this uncommon correlation. Everything what enigma has done is claiming german "heavy" casualties and the fact that some historians consider the battle as victory for allied. His conclusion is simple WP:OR. For any reviewer dont be confused about what is the issue. The issue is not the outcome and not the damaged it is the statement that the inflicdted damage was the reason for the tactical victory rather than the captured ground this statement is not sourced anywhere and it is enigmas part to prove his claim. Blablaaa (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to go back and read it again it states: With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success you seem to be missing the capture of Caen and it does not say victory but success. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Jim for pointing that out. I would like to note that i made very little input on this article's lede thus it would appear good faith has gone out the windown and this discussion has disolved into editor on editor attacks.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The statement implys directly that the german casualties were a factor which made the battle tactical victory/sucess, i want a souce for this. I not even see what jim wants to tell us. I think he didnt understood the issue Blablaaa (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Here jim for u " Victory (from Latin victoria) is a term, originally in applied to warfare, given to success achieved in personal combat" . Iam wondering why so many people editing military article lack the knowledge about this topic. One major argument of jim is "and it does not say victory but success". The meaning is absolutly the same -.- . I question the value of the opinion of an editor making such statement. Blablaaa (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

While iam correct , i lost my interesst in this minor failure. For me the discussion ended now with status quo. Blablaaa (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Having come across this via the discussion on WT:MILHIST, and looked at some of the other talk pages referenced, I'm with everyone else, the description is fine, and adequately supported by the reference. The summary given on MILHIST was very partial. It would have been best simply to provide a pointer here, and ask for input, without trying to steer things one way or the other. To me it appears that your English just isn't good enough to comprehend the quote fully. David Underdown (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with David on this. I came to the discussion from the WT:MILHIST page, and was surprised, first, that the summary provided by Blablaaa actually did not reflect the discussion as it stands here. Blablaaa provided a misleading summary, possibly in an attempt to shape the outcome, but I'm willing to consider that he/she didn't understand the source sufficiently and assume good faith.
I considered the lead to be sufficient description; the citation and sourcing to be at least sufficient, if not more than sufficient. The people editing military articles certainly understand what a victory is. Most of us also understand that many battles/conflicts have no victor, in the clearest sense, and furthermore, that most "victories" are double-edged swords.
Blablaaa, I hope you're sitting down, because you haven't got a leg to stand on. Please you take the advice of the folks who suggested you drop this. auntieruth (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, there seem to be several publications that describe the battle as a victory; you can take your pick if you need additional citations. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong the statement claims a correlation between the tactical outcome and german casualties. No historian claimed this. the statement claimed a reason for the outcome were the casualties , no historian claimed this. THis is OR , u dont see it or u dont understand its. Thats all its not sourced. 'The two facts are sourced but not the correlation . Blablaaa (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Everyone explaining to me that charnwood is described as victory by multiple sourced undisputable showed he missed the point. And n parcey my summarize is exactly this situation Blablaaa (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

here my text from the board :"When i have a text about a battle, and the source talks about casualties of one participant ( in my case , they are actually far lower than the casualties of the other participant ) and says he believes that battle was a improvement for the other participant due to various reasons ( captured ground for example ). Can i take the historian/text to claim the historian claims the inflicted casualties were a major reason to call the battle a "tactical victory"."

where is the f****** different between the two versions ? D'est gives german Casualties and says it was a improvment due to caputred ground for example and the lead claims the casualties were a major reason to call the battle a tactical victory. lol its exactly the same. Blablaaa (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

i love how people explain that it is well sourced. But please anyone give me the quote of the article which supports the statement that german casualties were one reason for the outcome. Give me the quote instead of sying there is one. Give me the quote, give it to me please, end this discussion with giving me the quote. Blablaaa (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

parceyboy" several publications] that describe the battle as a victory; you can take your pick if you need additional citations" completly missed the point...
Auntieruth55" The people editing military articles certainly understand what a victory is" -||- Blablaaa (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
i will rewrite the statement. The correlation is not sourced. If somebody will revert me then give the quote which supports the claim. Blablaaa (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


I've linked the Canadian 9th Infantry Brigade to the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division temporarily to fix the redlink

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Northern half[edit]

Is this accurate? If you bisect Caen the line wouldn't be contiguous with the river. Caen north of the river is about 2/3 of the city.Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I've trimmed that bit - it just says "captured Caen up to the Orne and Odon Rivers" now. EyeSerenetalk 11:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Charnwood outcome[edit]

Looking the box i see tactical victory with 2 citiations. The citiation point to beevor and d'est. Looking into the analyse section i see both are quoted with some statement. Beevor is quoted with saying "Operation Charnwood a partial success, because although much of Caen was taken, the British and Canadians ultimately failed to secure enough ground to expand the Allied build-up" , this i nowhere enough to use beevor for "tactical victory" . Nor does he say victory and he doenst say tactical anywhere. He also calls it partial. So i want now the quote of beevor where he says "tactical allied victory" or something equivalent. If beevor doenst say something like this i will take this an go somewhere ( not MILHIST ) and push for sanctions for the editor this is a blatant misinterpretation or even source faking. Regarding the multiple questionable edits i think its time to search for admin opinion about this. If a historian calls something a partial sucess and a ultimately failure and this becomes a citiation of tactical victory at wiki then good night. Now D'est. He is also a source for tactical allied victory. Now what is he saying : "Carlo D'Este states that unquestionably Charnwood did improve Second Army's position but with the high ground to the south of the city in German hands, Caen itself was useles" ..." . Here too i want the quote of D'est claiming this is a tactical victory. This what is quoted of him is far away from being tactical victory. For all the guys not understanding the difference. Until a historian doenst exactly say tactical victory nobody can take him and source tactical victory. Tactical victory is a special condition which needs special citiation. Regarding beevor if there is no additional quote of him, this is a blatant violation of wiki rules and i will push for sanctions against this editor. Morphing "partial sucess" to "tactical allied victory" is a boldness Blablaaa (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I suggest you go to the ANI board as this is now the second time you have attempted to threaten/blackmail me, on top of the fact all you have done all day is stalk/harass me. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the Tactical Victory conditions you have laid down, i would also pull me on the use of "Tactical Victory" in the Operation Goodwood article; its not specifically mentioned in any of the sources consulted. I would also look upon the MILHIST discussion on the Goodwood article as well. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict ) so you are the editor who used " partial allied sucess " for citing a allied tactical victory? If there is any further information present them now before i go to aniboards. If you present a quote later you would have wasted time of many people. Is there any quote? yes or no ? did you take "partial allied sucess" to cite "tactical victory" ? yes or no ? Blablaaa (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
i dont considere goodwood as a real german tactical victory. so i would not wonder if nobody said this. Blablaaa (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It has been suggested that to you to drop the stick alas you want to carry on and I refuse to co-operate with blackmail and threats looming in the air. I have had enough of your lack of AGF and your attitute of demanding information or reep the whirlwind.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
i droped the stick 2 times already, regarding the wrong charnwood lead and regarding the biased infoboxes. But now i saw this and this time i will not talk to one of your friends. I take your silence regarding the quote as = i have no further quote. So you took "partial sucess" + " ultimately failed" and made "allied tactical victory" out of this. If this is not a blatant violation of citing sources then i dont know. I accused you more than one time of being bias towards allied but i could^nt undisputable prove because i dont own your books. But this time you showed which was written in the books and how you finally interpreted it and biased it. Maybe its interessting for you i orded 2 books which are also in your shelve which cover battle of cean. Iam very interested in seeing if reynolds give some casualties figures or outcomes which u might "overlooked". Regarding your AGF bla , i always asked you politly to explain the questioned edits. Maybe you should look your talk page and other talk pages to see that i always i asked you for further informations. You always started your ad hominem campaign. Blablaaa (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Using your last two "requests" as an example on this talkpage, following wesasl words, "So i assume its your personal opinion which found its way into the lead section" or your above first post; if that is asking politely, you have a somewhat skewed idea of what it is.
Call it ad hominem if you want, but i refuse to co-operate with you under your threats, so i suggest if you are going to keep using it as blackmail/threat you seek the ANI board out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

i ask for clarification because i plan to go to aniboard. If beevor said something else which justifies this citiation then everything is fine. So it is nessecary that you say if there is a quote because if i go to aniboards ( i will do if there is no quote ) and you then bring a quote, which is solving the issue, then you wasted time of many editors. So its now the time to say if there is a quote. Regarding the fact that if you faked the source it would be unclever of you to conceal other quotes, i think there is no other quote. Blablaaa (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I will not co-operate with you while you contuine to threaten admin action or present veil attempts at blackmail. I will present anything requested to a third party, so take that as my final response to you on this matter in section of the talkpage.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
ok i understand you are not willing to solve an issue regardless how easy it would be to solve this problem. ThanksBlablaaa (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
i also explained already that if you present this information later at ani board you simple deliberately wasted the time of editors and concealed this with your " i dont want to cooperate bla" Blablaaa (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Last attempt[edit]

The Allies took 2/3 of the City of Caen. They pushed the Germans back across the river. They destroyed almost all of the Luftwaffe field division. They forced the defensive perimeter back to the Bourguebus ridge. They established a jumping off point for that assault. They allowed Bradley enough confidence to start a break out and push through the German line from St Lo to Avranches.
And what of the Germans ? They retreated to the southern 1/3 of Caen and the Bourguebus ridge, they lost 75% the Luftwaffe 12th, 40-50% of their tanks.
Blumeson writes
"With one regiment of the 16th destroyed and quickly overrun...Eberbach committed without result the powerful 21st Panzer Division"..."The attack of the 21st "did not have much point," according to Rommel, "because of the strong enemy artillery fire...held until burned out by flame-throwing British tanks, the division eventually was forced to give way"..."The 12th SS Panzer Division lost twenty medium tanks, several 88-mm. pieces, all its antitank guns, and a high percentage of its troops...All together, Rommel estimated losses as the equivalent of four battalions of men."
(Conf, Rommel and Eberbach, 2100, 8 Jul, and Telecon, Rommel and Gause, 1115, 9 Jul, Pz Gp West KTB; Telecons, Rommel to Kluge, 0655, 9 Jul, Speidel to Blumentritt, 0950, 9 Jul, Eberbach to Tempelhoff, 0910, 11 Jul, AGp B KTB; Eberbach to Rommel, 10 Jul, Pz Gp W KTB, Anlage 104; Map dated 10 Jul, OKW WFSt Op (H), Lage West, Stand 9 V11.44; OB WEST KTB, 9 Jul.)
The Allied Supreme Commander writes:
"Then, as our strength grew, we needed space in which to maneuver and so dispose our forces that the best use could be made of our material assets and a decisive blow be delivered at the enemy. To this end we had to secure Caen and establish bridgeheads across the Orne and Odon Rivers, to eliminate the possibility of the enemy's driving a wedge between the Allied sectors east and west of the Vire River, and to extend our hold upon the southern part of the Cotentin Peninsula."
"From the beginning of the campaign in Normandy, I agreed with Field Marshal Montgomery and general Bradley that our basic policy should be so to maneuver and attack as to pin down and destroy substantial portions of the enemy in our immediate front in order later to have full freedom of action. The alternative would have been merely a pushing-back, with consequent necessity for slowly battling our way toward the ultimate geographical objectives. By the third week in July, our forces were in position to launch the all-out attack, which, in accordance with this strategic idea, was to break through and destroy the enemy divisions then with difficulty attempting to contain us in our lodgement area."
Now this is vital Blaa - First the Allies had to secure Caen to prevent the Germans driving a wedge between the British and Americans - do not forget that the Odon goes down to Viller-Bocage and then turns south to Aunay-sur-Odon and the Orne south to Theury-Harcourt. This means that all the roads to Guilberville, St Lo and Vire from Caen would be prevented to the Germans by taking the Northern 2/3 of Caen. Now the Germans would have to go to the south through Falais and Conde-sur-Noireau to reach Vire, severly slowing down supply routes and making it easier for the attack planes to strike their columns. One of the strategic goals was to destroy as many of the enemy as possible and to prevent them from retreating. The second was to allow the breakout. Both these strategic objectives were met at Caen in Charnwood. The breakout by Bradley went ahead because he felt confident enough by the 12 July to declare the next stage a go and plan for the 16-17 at Odon, the 18th to cross the Ome at Caen and Bradley on the 19th from the Périers-St. Lô road west of St Lo.
Col. Charles H. Taylor (Historical Division, War Department Special Staff) and 2d Lt. David Garth (2d Information and Historical Service Detachment) wrote about the XIX Corps' Problem
"To critics who were ignorant of General Eisenhower's plans and the immense problems of supply and build-up, it appeared that the Allied attack had lost momentum and that Allied forces were becoming involved in the type of static warfare which they had sought to avoid. Such critics were hardly reassured by the progress of First Army's offensive after it opened on 3 July. The fact that this offensive had limited objectives, and was a preliminary for a definitive breakthrough effort, would only be shown by future developments."..."Lt. Gen. Omar N. Bradley would have terrain essential to an offensive such as the Allied high command was already planning. The ground west of St-Lô could be used for jump-off on attack into country where tanks could operate and tactical maneuver would be favored. But the terrain near St-Lô on the east was also suitable for mounting an attack, and this fact would both help First Army and embarrass the German command. If XIX Corps could get astride the Vire at St-Lô, thus threatening a drive either southeast toward Vire or southwest toward Coutances, this would increase the enemy's problem in disposing limited forces to guard against a breakthrough. The importance of the St-Lô area to the Germans is shown by the desperate defense they offered in June and were to repeat in July."
So the co-ordinated attack was designed to hold the LXXXVI and I SSPz at Caen and prevent them going to the aid of the LXXXIV and XLVII Pz. (Army Group East) which meant that the VII, VIII and XIX could assault the LXXXIV and II Prcht through to St Lo.
- He [Eisenhower] questioned whether General Montgomery, in his professed zeal to attract enemy forces to his front and away from the American sector, was making sufficient effort to expand the British part of the beachhead. "We must use all possible energy in a determined effort," General Eisenhower wrote Montgomery, "to prevent a stalemate" and to insure against "fighting a major defensive battle with the slight depth we now have" on the Continent."
"I am, myself, quite happy about the situation," General Montgomery replied. He had maintained Allied initiative, prevented reverses, and set into motion "a very definite plan." Three needs determined Montgomery's operations--the Breton ports, space for maneuver, and destruction of German forces. "Of one thing you can be quite sure," General Montgomery promised; "there will be no stalemate."
Here Montgomery is being told to slow down, stop drawing forces and consolidate the British beachhead as a tactic to allow the build up of troops to prevent a stalemate.
And lastly is the conclusion by the Allied Supreme Commander who says:-
"The struggle which took place during this period of the establishment of the lodgement area, following the success of our initial assault, took the form of a hard slugging match on the British sector of the front, with the city of Caen as its focal point. Here the enemy concentrated the bulk of his strength, while the men of the U.S. First Army fought their way up the Cherbourg Peninsula to capture the port itself, subsequently regrouping and consolidating their position to the south in preparation for what was to prove the decisive breakthrough at the end of July.
By his anxiety to prevent the capture of Caen and the eastward extension of our beachhead, the enemy to some extent contributed to the accomplishment of our initial plan insofar as the capture of Cherbourg was concerned, and from D-plus-6 or D-plus-7 the battle developed in general as foreseen. This enemy anxiety in the east was manifested from D-plus-1 onward, following the failure of our attempt to seize the city of Caen in our first rush inland. It was vital for the enemy to deny us the Seine Basin: partly as it afforded the last natural barrier defending the V-1 and V-2 sites; partly because he needed the river ferries to bring over supplies and reinforcements to his divisions in Normandy; partly because he feared a thrust on Paris which would cut off all his forces to the west; partly because he foresaw a threat to Le Havre, which was an invaluable base for his naval craft operating against the approaches to the assault area; but perhaps most of all because he wished to avoid the possibility of a link-up between those Allied forces already ashore and those which he expected to land in the Pas-de-Calais.
For these reasons, therefore, he committed all his available armor and a considerable part of his infantry to the battle in the Caen sector, thus rendering easier the task of the Allied troops in the west but denying us access to the good tank and airfield country toward Falaise. His secondary aims, which crystallized as our strategy became clear to him, were to maintain a wedge threatening to divide the United States forces in the Cotentin from those in Calvados, to prevent the cutting of the Cherbourg Peninsula, and to block the way to Cherbourg itself. He fully appreciated the importance to us of securing this port--but his shortage of infantry and preoccupation with the Caen sector impaired his ability to defend it"
There is your conclusion, by the Allied Supreme Commander Blaaa - I am sure that now you can see that you are indeed wrong, it was a tactical success - it aided the forces in the west, allowed the capture of the North East ports and reduced and prevented enemy forces from regrouping.
PS please do not start to write in the middle of all that - write after this signature. Do not rant, do not swear, do not call anyone a noob and try to remain calm and civil Chaosdruid (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
whats your point chaosdruid? if you have sources to cite a tactical allied victory then do it. Nobody stops you. Until the source says it was a tactical victory, everything is fine.... Blablaaa (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
sorry again i didnt fully read because i wondered what you want but i read your last sentence. And now i ask myself if you understood wiki policies, can you give me the diif where i said charnwood should never be called a tactical allied victory ? i said no with these sources. please read wiki guidelinse reagarding citing sources. And btw the big part of your copy paste action is simple OR. if the capture of northern cean was tactical victory has an historian to decide and not youBlablaaa (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
you can do me a favor and give me the exact quote of the text above which is for citing "tactical victory". I dont see why i should read it. So please give the short quote and everything is fine :-) Blablaaa (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The bit at the start "The Allied Supreme Commander writes:" is where he is describing their strategy for the operation and the tactic s they will use to get those objectives. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
So which quote would you take for the citiation ? Blablaaa (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that just one will do it - the problem here is that no-one will use the exact term "and so it was a tactical victory" or "and so it was not a tactical victory" lol
The correct way of looking at it is that the SAC (supreme allied commander), Montgomery and others all lay down their tactics and their strategic goals. They also say whether or not those goals were met. The German tactics were to fight to defend the city of caen and it outlying districts. I think we have to clarify whether a bigger tactical or strategic victory was won.
In the SAC quotes he is talking of a strategic victory accross the whole of Normandy won by the Caen battles.
In the Blumeson quotes he first talks about tactical by losses then in the second by changing the tactics from simple attrition to a more cautious approach given by Eisenhower although this is contradicted when CHarnwood is put into play - if Eisenhower wished for a consolidation then assaulting Caen was reverting to attrition and that is at the exact same time as the XIX army attacks the LXXXIV in the west. His strategy was "decisive blow" to escape the beachheads and his tactic was to get the Americans into a flanking maneuver and to attack Caen at the same time.
The Taylor/Garth analysis was that the strategy was the same as SAC - to escape the beachead and drive into the rest of France by getting the XIX to force through from St Lo across the Vire river and threaten a breakout and so force the Germans to spread their defenses.
Would you agree so far ? Chaosdruid (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I dont wanna do OR. Add what the sources say.... Blablaaa (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the OR ? That is what the sources are saying. It is a synopsis, not OR.

"His head had an open wound and was sore - causing him pain so immense he was not driving properly. As he was unable to concentrate and the woman ran out into the road he could not swerve or stop in time and hit her, although a glancing blow, and pulled over to see her lying there" can be reduced to "He was unable to concentrate and knocked down a woman" - It is not OR it is synopsis. Chaosdruid (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For me this sounds OR especially the part where you quote primary data. The books i read normally use words like victory and tactical/strategical , so it easy to cite them. I guess the same can be done for charnwood.Blablaaa (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
But , go ahed. what quote or quotes do you want to take for citing "tactical allied victory"Blablaaa (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it is important that you understand exactly what you are saying and what is being said by me and the sources. I am not saying anything at all. TYou say "sounds like OR" and "quote Primary data" - exactly what do you mean by primary data ? Chaosdruid (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ähm for example when you quote primary data...Blablaaa (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't be obtuse - and its not funny either - where is the primary data ? Chaosdruid (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
conclusion by the Allied Supreme Commander who says:- Blablaaa (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
OK - you meant primary source...The report to the Joint Chiefs of Staff was not itself written by him and was written by military historians with some parts perhaps written by him - preface for example. Most of the material is taken from and backed up by, primary sources such as the daily diarie and records of each unit and the report clearly analyses , synthesises and interprets events and as such should be counted as secondary. If it was taken from his diaries I would agree, but this is from the "Report by the Supreme Commander to the Combined Chiefs of Staff on the operations in Europe of the Allied Expeditionary Force" and should not be taken as a primary source per se.
The battleplan was originally COSSAC but the Caen pivot was drawn up by Montgomery. Also Montgomery commandeed the assault until the end of the battle of Normandy and so it could be said that Eisenhower is at least one step removed from that, until he took command after SHAEF was moved to France, and so would be primary from then on only and primary source in the planning stages. The problem is that if anyone was in the army and fought, or was posted to France or any of the other mainland European countries, after D-Day they would also be primary sources. The wiki guidelines are pretty clear on Primary sourcing so I cannot see where your problem may lie. There is no problem with quoting him as is. That is neither OR nor SYN and is not a primary source of the events.
It may be that we need clarification as to whether the report is Primary or Secondary, but in reality it is not a big list of facts and figures although parts like "I was ordered" seem to be.
Ok - I am at work and so have to go off for a while to do some other things and will get back to this once I have some free time.

chaosdruid do you understand what primary sources are and what orignal research is ? Blablaaa (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

and chaosdruid finally PLEASE please stop lieying claiming everywhere that i got rude because you presented me "facts" you presented useless information when we talked about phrasing a statement. Like i said you seem to be not able to understand the point. Multiple times you clearly showed that. PLEASE Please stop going everywhere and tell people i was rude to you or something else. And btw i never claimed charnwood should be called a tactical victory per source xyz, i said use sources for citing which clearly support the outcome. And you respond with spamming orignal data and statements by historians which talk about toally different thinks. I doubt that you fully understand the issue. Your annoying lying speaking of untrue things, that i claimed this, becomes now a bit harrasing please stop this. You went now to multiple talk pages and ani boards to spread your accusations against me always with claiming nonsense pointless and wrong things which were never said by me. I would really appreciate if you cease this and move on to something else. Thanks you Blablaaa (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

i updated the version and made it more polite. The content is the same... Blablaaa (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I note how the outcome has now been changed to ignore the countless other sources that indicate the outcome was more than a limited success. I wholey concur with the 3rd party editors and there statment that the use of Beevor was pushing it hence its previous removal a few hours back. However the recent change ignores D'Este (a point that the discussion did not reach a complete settlement on - he does not call it a limited success and his reference has now been removed), it also ignores the countless other sources provided, but yet to be used that disagree with a limited success, and has completely ignored the above discussions attempt to move forward replacing with an attempt to push a single author's pov.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
enigma putt into the box what outcome you considere correct with an appropriate source for it. Its not about who is ignored or not. There were 2 citiations and 3rd party found they are not suitable for citing tactical victory. They suggested to put partial success into the box with the cite of beevor, so its exactly what beevor said. If you have other sources which claim "allied whatever" then put it in the box and cite it properly. If there are countless sources agreeing about the outcome then use them and everybody is satisfied. But you choose to use beevor which is actually not claiming this outcome, like 2 neutral persons said. So next time you should include sources which support this directly instead of doing kinda OR. But like i said you said there are countless sources. So feel free to use them. if you cite properly i have no problem. My problem was that beevor said partial success and meanwhile he was used for tactical victory . Best regardsBlablaaa (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
here the 3rd Party opinionBased on the sources in use, I would say "partial success" is appropriate. This is how Beevor describes it, and the D'Este quote (I don't have access to the complete text) appears to give a similarly mixed position. ( this added by me ) So i did what they suggested.Blablaaa (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The very first post by the third party editors also included the following "pending sources that say otherwise". We have a shed load of sources that call it more than a partial success. Then of course they add in the fact that other sources do support tactical victory, but in the minority of the ones at that time discussed "Copp's view could be reflected too and is more in-line with a tactical victory perspective"; a position Meyer also talks of.
No one has yet got back in touch in regards to the query raised that D'Este, per their post, does not state it was a limited success and finally the change ignores Chaosdruid comments on that talk page and this one. Thus, with all that said and done, hence the removal of the source that did not support the outcome per 3rd party disucssion and leaving in the tactical outcome awaiting further information from Chaosdruid's enquirys along with possible need to include Copps and Meyers statements.
Finally the 3rd party editors noted that it was not OR on mybehalf so stop throwing unwarranted accusations around.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
enigma: We have a shed load of sources that call it more than a partial success then feel free to add one or 2 of them to cite the outcome. But please stick to the source. enigma Finally the 3rd party editors noted that it was not OR on mybehalf so stop throwing unwarranted accusations around yes? formerip: "That appears to me to be the very definition of WP:SYN." but like said many times by me, stick to the sources and add the outcome which is support by the historians Blablaaa (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have told you to be civil and still you persist in your accusations of lying, which now include me lol. You are behaving in a manner which is unbecoming of the MilHist project and Wikipedia. Learn how to indent your responses and start acting in a manner more becoming.
I suspect that you have exhausted all possible forum shopping and if consensus and fact go against you this time you will have to drop the matter and accept the outcome.
Do not think that just because nothing happens for a few hours, or even 24 hours, that gives you the right to assume that no-one is doing anything and so you can just edit aay to your heart content.
  1. I am waiting to hear discussions on a matter
  2. I am still researching - particularly the original orders as these are crucial to the outcome
  3. It will take time to collate all the information
  4. I have other things to do besides attend to one person and his ramblings
Chaosdruid (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I asked you about 5 times for a quote out of a secondary source which you intend to use for citing the outcome. Which did you choose? Blablaaa (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC) chaosdruid: I am still researching - particularly the original orders as these are crucial to the outcome sorry but thats the very defintion of OR. I suggest you to read this article WP:ORBlablaaa (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

chaosdruidDo not think that just because nothing happens for a few hours, or even 24 hours, that gives you the right to assume that no-one is doing anything and so you can just edit aay to your heart content. actually i did exactly what the neutral editors and the board suggested to do. Blablaaa (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The more you say the more it is revealed that you are, in fact, unaware of what the term OR means. I suggest you go and read it yourself and then get a dictionary and find out what research is. Chaosdruid (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
^^ you want to talk about the orders because YOU think its important to determine the outcome thats exactly OR and SYN. There is no need for talking about orders it is as simply at quoting a historians what HE thinks about the outcome. Its totally irrelevant what you or me think about the outcome Blablaaa (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
And now you claim to know what I am thinking ?? Your rants get more and more bizarre blaa - let me give you an example of why I certainly do not need to do that: Look at the post from Leggett above ^ he says quite clearly that the document says "victory" Chaosdruid (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
here your words again : I am still researching - particularly the original orders as these are crucial to the outcome , you are researching because they are cruicial for the outcome. Its totally irrelevant if you do research regarding the orders. you need historians to cite the outcome. What you plan to do is the exact meaning of SYN and OR ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
No it isn't. If i say something that reaches a conclusion from two secondary or primary sources that is not quoted from others; then that would be syn. If I claim something which is not supported by primary, secondary or tertiary evidence that would be OR - I think you need to get it right before you continue these baseless pointless accusations. I have not edited the article, nor have I put in any references so, as yet, you cannot accuse me of anything. Your behaviour is an example of classic "Not assuming good faith"
The important point is what were the objectives of the operation - the operational objectives. You have made it your personal mission to take the original sentence away from the lead of the article as wwell as "tactical" from the infobox. I have made it my personal goal to find out as much as I can about the planning as it intrigued me that there did not seem to be any real definition of the primary objectives. The fact that there seems to be a battle between Eisenhower and Montgomery also intrigued me. Eisenhower states that the battle for Caen was pivotal in giving the Germans the belief the main attack would come through there and yet he tells Monty to calm down and consolidate. A week later Monty is attacking Caen full on. Anyone with a bit of brains should also be intrigued as to why these events were taking place.
The article also states that the operation failed to stop the flow of Germans to the American parts of the front - Eisenhower states the opposite in the report. He says that the battle for Caen was pivotal, "To this end we had to secure Caen and establish bridgeheads across the Orne and Odon Rivers, to eliminate the possibility of the enemy's driving a wedge between the Allied sectors east and west of the Vire River, and to extend our hold upon the southern part of the Cotentin Peninsula.", and especially in stopping the defences at Cherbourg from being increased. He then goes on to say "For these reasons, therefore, he committed all his available armor and a considerable part of his infantry to the battle in the Caen sector, thus rendering easier the task of the Allied troops in the west". The article discussed the objectives and it stated "they were unclear". Also there is the matter of "obvious". If the historians state that certain objectives were achieved and the operational goals were achieved then no-one in their right minds would claim that the operation was not a success.
You started with the desire to change it from tactical success. Now you have changed it from Allied success to partial success. You have changed the goalposts and it seems to me that was not the original idea. The idea was to accurately portray the outcome in the infobox and to make sure the article correctly reflects the events based on sources.
Maybe you have other ideas on that ? If not then stop arguing and just try and help improve the article Chaosdruid (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Chaosdruid, everything what we need is one or two or three historians which we can quote for the outcome. Its totally irrelevant what the objectives were because the books are already written . you have to quote books. You try to do OR you want to explain what historian means and why his words can be interpreted the way you want. Also finde that you claim its my mission to delete the tactical. Ignoring the fact that i said now 8 times use sources for the outcome. Read what i wrote and you will find that i said beevor does not support "tactical victory" . Thats all. Enigma disputed, i went to search for neutral editors, both supported me.... Blablaaa (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

...and casually ignore the third and fouth neutral editors who note that the operation was more than a partial success...EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
he said directly that we should use "parital success" ^^ and you didnt follow their suggestion and now you try to turn their words around ^^ but go ahead iam collecting Blablaaa (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
New edits at the bottom of the page please.Keith-264 (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion[edit]

Since we have had a lot of discussion about which exact box to fit the outcome in, perhaps we could describe the outcome briefly and leave the rest to the reader (having read as much of the article as they desire).

Eg for Charnwood, you could summarise as something along the lines of "Caen taken by Allies" with qualifiers "as far as river" or "most of". Any mileage in the idea?GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is roughly what Ive been trying to tell Blaaa - If we add sourced quotes and other snippets into the body of the text etc the reader can make their minds up.
Also Blaa says he does not care about the outcome and so I think going wiht "Allied victory" would not be a problem either as that was the outcome. We were also discussing other aspects and were thinking of leaving all discussions on the matter for a few more days until the RfC is over.
I could do with some time as have Robotics project getting behind on my checks on the 3,000 or so articles left and Norfolk articles to catch up on after the intensity of the RfC as well as Ukrainian stuff and an RfC of my own on a Cyprus issue...then there's RL lol - it always gets in the way :¬)
Chaosdruid (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Original orders and further research.[edit]

So far all I can find regarding the orders is a reference that they are in the "Official Account"

The only other source is this:

"Planning for the attack on Caen was well advanced before Operation "WINDSOR" went in. General Crocker, commanding the 1st British Corps, held his first conference about the operation on 2 July, and the Corps order for the operation ("CHARNWOOD") was issued on 5 July.19 It defined the intention as to clear Caen as far south as a line from the point where the Caen-Bayeux railway crossed the Orne along that river to its intersection with the Canal de Caen and thence along the Canal de Caen itself. Bridgeheads were to be secured across the Orne in the city area."

As the river runs through the middle of Caen that gives us a start point about 49°10'11.37"N 0°22'2.58"W, running along the river to the canal and towards Blainville-sur-Orne, Without finding a copy of the plan or orders I am afraid that is all I have to go on.

Can anyone find refs in their books which directly quote from these ? (Or a transcript/pic would be best.)

As for the previously researched quotes; I am assuming that the quotes from Eisenhower, Blumeson and Taylor/Garth would be better suited to inclusion in Battle for Caen and Invasion of Normandy as they refer to the whole operation as well as the fact that Caen and the battles there were pivotal (as per Montgomery's plan) in holding the Germans there by making it look like that was where the main attack was coming. That does not preclude using them in some form in here as it should perhaps be mentioned that holding the Germans at Caen and trying to use attrition as a tactic certainly explains the losses.

I did find some interesting photos in my searches but none from Caen as yet.

I will carry on with the research - The National Archive is a bit problematic as it turns out that a lot of the Charwood and Goodwood material is in separate libraries, such as the Churchill Library and the Lancs Regiment but I will try and find some more when I have time later today.

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, i have just checked out the semi-official? 3rd Infantry Division's campaign history 'Assault Division'; that contains snippets of the orders given for D-Day alas no information on the outline of the orders for Charnwood. Norman Scarfe seems more occupied with the previous operations and Mitten before describing Charnwood in a paragraph and contrasting it with a similar medeval battle.
I have a further source that may deal with the issue in more detail: "Notes on Operations of 21 Army Group", an electronical copy of the original published just after the war by 21st Army Group staff, again that has some specific details on orders etc however the e-copy is in work and i cant seem to find the copy on my home PC. I will try and remember to email it back home tomorrow and provide any additional information it presents.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
To note, other than that i have exhausted all other sources and they can be found in the article or those not used mentioned elsewhere ala the NPOV talkpage.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have consulted Notes on Operations of 21 Army Group, it does not have the detailed information on Charnwoods orders as it did for Overlord although it does state in the opening that “these notes were compiled in answer to a specific questionnaire, and were not intended to provide a comprehensive record of the campaign” and this appears to be the norm for the various operations launched in Normandy; I have yet to explore the notes (a 60 odd page book to be more precise) further than the Normandy campaign in my own reading). Regardless this is what it has to say on the matter, the below is a word for word quote albeit omitting the dodgy use of block capitals and weird formatting.

“Section 2 The battles leading up to Falaise and the break-out

A. General Plan of the Battle

… In the plan for July, therefore, Second Army was to continue to contain the main enemy force between Villers Bocage and Caen …


Tasks were accordingly allotted to armies as follows:-

(a) Second Brit Army (i) To hold the main enemy forces in the area between Villers Bocage and Caen. (ii) To develop operations for the capture of Caen as soon as possible (iii) To be certain of repulsing the expected counter attack with its own resources to enable the operations of First US Army in the west to proceed undisturbed. To this end Second Army was to hold 7 Armd Div in Army reserve.

… [ then discusses US Army objectives, German build-up, American operations etc ]

Meanwhile, on 7 July, after an attack by 450 heavy bombers of Bomber Command, 1 Corps attacked north of Caen with right 3 Cdn Div, centre 59 Div and left 3 Brit Div. Caen and Carpiquet T 96 were captured on 9 July.”EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliabe historians[edit]

wenn two say about 80 and one says at least 80 then it is at least 80. this are wiki guide lines : When reliable sources differ, both/all/a representative range should be included. But i guess i have to drop the issue because two editors dont like Blablaaa (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That would not be representing the range of opinion to ingnore two authors and go with the one that presents the opinion most suited to you. Ellis states around 80 tanks, Buckley states some 80 tanks, and Reynolds states at least 80; three differing opinions on the actual losses. I believe the best compromise is the one we have already put in place.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
some 80 means 80+, doesnt it?Blablaaa (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok - blaaa - your statement "a representative range should be included" : If one says around 80, another at least 80 and a third "some 80" the only representative range that could be used is what ? "around 80" or "at least 80"
1 Around 80 - this would normally cover "from 75 to 85"
2 some 80 or so - this could mean 77 - 83, but probably 80 -85
3 at least 80 - this means 80-85 maybe 90 at a push
The only one which accurately conveys the figures quoted is "around 80" and is represented by the ~ ("approx" symbol). At least 80 would discout 75-85 and would be against the 75-80 ranges of the first and second refs
I would have to say that this is the best representative of the numbers quoted so far. If more accurate quotes are found then so be it, at present there are only these. Perhaps some sources could be found from the official history of the regiments involved ? Chaosdruid (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought some means 80 plus some. I used this word this way until now Blablaaa (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
You would be mostly correct to use it that way but it could also mean that even if someone said 75-80 the author believed the figures were higher - if not then he swould probably have used 80 or more rather than 80 or so. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Buckley's precise wording is "...with some 80 Allied tanks being written off.", so not exactly "some 80 or so".
Chaosdruid; agreed (expect on the some bit, ideally, the best place to find the figures outside of primary sources. Alas i do not have access to them.
Checking some other sources (Ken Ford) also notes 80 tanks destroyed or damaged, Beevor doesnt give any figures. Fortin who presents info on each of the British armoured formations does not give figures for tanks knocked out or damaged from either of the two British armoured brigades.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
i thought some means 80+Blablaaa (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
No - the American expression "80 plus some" is not the same as the English "some 80". If I was unsure as exactly how many I could say "some 80 (or so)" meaning very close to 80 (77-83ish), "some 80 or more" meaning around 80 or perhaps slightly more, or "80 or more" which is around 80-85.
It can be confusing as the American and English are very similar however the "80 plus some" in American English would be "80 or more" in English English
It is not going to be really possible to separate all these terms and it would be OR to start implying exact figures into those statements. I really think that the "~ 80" was the best fit for the current sources. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the plentiful number of tanks available to the Allies I think it is better to measure losses by the number of crews incapacitated. Has any writer tried this?Keith-264 (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Outcome revisted[edit]

Per various debates here are the sources that i have access to, and the additional information other users have provided here and in other discussions (bar the stuff above by Druid – awaiting further feedback), in regards to the outcome of the operation (in no particular order and also not looking at the strategic implications as that is covered in the article, there was none):

  1. Beevor, p. 273 : calls it a partial success but confirms that the operation seized northern Caen per orders
  2. Copp, p. 105: notes that Meyer had ordered a staged withdrawal. 106 “Caen, or what was left of it, was finally in Allied hands.” Also mentions how the Germans had been “terribly weakened” by the attritional battles.
  3. Buckley, p. 31 “German losses during the fighting were not slight, and the repeated Anglo-Canadian assaults were slowly whittling away the higher-quality German units”... “armour and anti-tank gun losses were considerable...”. “...the Germans, despite having been forced to surrender part of Caen, were dug-in strength on the south side of the river ...”
  4. Buckley (editor), Copp, p. 17: “...Charnwood forced a withdrawal from Caen.”
  5. Hart, p. 63 “... Charnwood, the 8 July British attack that captured the northern half of Caen.” He then continues about how Monty did not smash the Anglo-Canadian forces against the dug in German defences south of the city.
  6. How, p. 128 “...Caen north of the Orne River were in British and Canadian hands...”
  7. Reynolds (Steel Inferno), p. 154 "Allied hops of reaching the Orne bridges ... were dashed when they came under fire and ran into mines ..." pp.154/5 "...Meyer knew that his tired division was being overwhelmed and he begged for permission to withdraw ... Fritz Kraemer said the magic words: "If you are thrown back to the southern banks of the Orne whioe fighting a superior enemy, it could never be considered to be a withdrawal contray to orders" This was enough for Meyer and he gave the necessary orders." p. 155: "When one considers the casualties suffered ... even Hitler could never have accuse them of giving up prematurely". “Meyer wrote later that if the Allies had contuined their attacks during the night [8/9 July] his division [12thSS] would almost certainly have been destroyed.” pp.155/6 "...the withdrawal during the night ... was a nightmare". p. 156 "The Ardenne Abbey, which had seen so much fighting, was finally abandoned..."
  8. Reynolds (Sons of the Reich), p. 36 “The British and Canadian attack was, not unsurprisingly, successful in that it secured what was left of the city north of the Orne...”
  9. Meyer, Kurt, p. 267 “Three allied divisions had taken the northern part of Caen.”
  10. Clark, p. 103: “Operation Charnwood succeeded in taking the city...”
  11. Trew, p. 44 “...Caen had been liberated up to the line of the Orne and the Odon. The bridges were destroyed, damaged or blocked with masonary...”p.47-48 "The German loss of Caen also convinved the French that the Allies could no longer be driven into the sea, and that liberation was becoming fact. Next day, Field Marshal Romme told Oberst-leutnant (Lt-Col) Caesar von Hofacker ... that the front in Nomandy could only hold for another three weeks ..."
  12. Holmes, p. 42 “With Caen at last secured ...” then stuff on Jupiter.
  13. Shulman, p.156 “Successive attacks by the British at Caen on 8 July ...” 157 “This was followed by a stormy interview between Hitler and Rommel on 9 July, following the fall of Caen, in which the Field Marshal again demanded permission to withdraw and in which Hitler again refused it.”
  14. D’Este, p. 318 “...a symbolic victory.” “More important than the capture of Caen was the fall of Carpiquet airfield and the terrain leading to the banks of the Odon around bretteville-sur-Odon.” Info on the heavy losses the Germans received. P.319 “...Montgomery unquestionably improved his position by Charnwood...”
  15. Wilmott, p. 351 “...Canadians .... reached the river, only to find that every bridge had been blown and that the far bank was strongly held. The city of Caen was in British hands ...”
  16. Scarfe, p. 70 “Caen lay in our hands”
  17. Jackson, p. 61 “...Caen had been taken by I Corps ....”
  18. Ellis, p. 316 mentions the same info on heavy German manpower and equipment losses and that the city was captured
  19. Hubert Meyer: “However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses."
  20. "In two days of savage fighting I (British) Corps incurred 3500 casualties. In the process of securing Caen, however, I (British) Corps mauled the 16th German Air Force Field Division. Thus, the victory at Caen had been a hard-won affair that owed much to the resolution of the ordinary Allied soldier."[]
  21. From Der Weg 21.Panzer-Division (The history ofthe 21st Panzer Division) by Werner Kortenhaus, a surviving German veteran. At 16:30 hrs, the division commander of 21 Panzer division Generalleutnant Feuchtinger got the following information:
    "The enemy has been successful after heavy bombardment and occupied the northern part of Caen. The situation is still unclear. Familiarise yourself with the situation and go to the position of the 16 GAF, which is in Caen. Release the commander of the 16 GAF and take command yourself. All parts of the 16 GAF are under your command. Regarding the situation you have to lead a couterattack with 21 Panzer Division and get in charge of the stuation."
    Generalleutnant Feuchtinger reached the command post at 18:00 hrs. It became immediately obvious that the enemy was already in Caen and that all the infantry of the 16 GAF, who were meant to defend the city and prevent the enemy to get a further hold, were not there. The 16 GAF had suffered losses of 75% and all battallion and most ot the company commanders were dead or wounded. Demoralised parts of the division had already retreated over the Orne[2]
  22. Night of 8/9 July 1944 from "The 12th SS: the history of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division, Vol2 by Hubert Meyer"
    Soon after midnight the Divisional commander visited. He recalled:
    "I found the survivors of I./25 in a bunker at the edge of town. These totally worn out soldiers had fallen into a deep sleep...The soldiers of 12. SS-Panzer Division were at the end of their physical endurance....TOday, mud-covered steel helmets threw their shadows on sunken faces whose eyes had beheld the beyond all-too-often."
    The Division issued orders to leave the assembly areas at dawn, and to take up the new positions at the southern bank of the Orne...The enemy (Allied forces) had reached the majority of his attack objectives on the wings, although some centres of resistance held out...In thecentral sector, at the 59th InfantryDivision, Malon, Couvre-Chef,la Folie, Bitot, parts of Galmanche and Ardenne had not been captured, but abandoned by German decision. However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses." [3]
  23. Lloyd Clark and Stephen Hart, "mauled the 16th German Air Force Field Division. Thus, the victory at Caen had been a hard-won affair that owed much to the resolution of the ordinary...."
  24. Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, Volume 85, Issues 341-344, Page 200: "It was the very opposite of manoeuvre warfare, but it worked - at both the tactical and operational levels. The 1st Corps captured Caen as far south os the River Orne within two days ..."
  25. Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm: the evolution of operational warfare, p. 107: Not until Operation Charnwood on July 8 did Montgomery succeed in taking the northern half of Caen
  26. Copp, A nation at war, 1939-1945: essays from Legion magazine, p. 94 "Operation "Charnwood" ended when the German order to withdraw across the Orne River was issued ... The British and Canadian troops had won an important operational victory."
  27. D-Day 1944 (4): Gold & Juno Beaches, Volume 4 By Ken Ford, Kevin Lyles, p. 88 "It was a hollow victory, for althought Caen was taken, the roads to the south were still blocked by massed German armour."
  28. Stacey, p. 160 "The fifth phase, for the Canadians, would consist of the completion of Phase IV; while the British divisions were to secure the required bridgeheads across the Orne, launching these thrusts at their own discretion as opportunity arose." p.162 "About 3:00 a.m. on 9 July, it appears, the final evacuation of Caen as far as the Orne was ordered" "In these circumstances, 9 July witnessed the British occupation of Caen" "One of the bridges was found intact, but blocked by rubble and covered by enemy fire from the far bank.44 The bridgeheads which the Corps order had required the British divisions to establish were not obtained." pp.162-63 same info on heavy German losses. Of intresting note on page 165, on 10 July Monty "asked for a bridgehead opposite Caen but only if it could be gained "without undue losses"."

The vast majority of the sources present that he operation was much more than a "limited success", some you could argue support tactical success and some talk of an operation success. Pending further information from Druid, what was is now the best course of action; a simple outcome change or per Graeame suggestion a sentance or two in the box?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Germans tried to stand their ground, got biffed and retreated, if that isn't an Allied victory, what is? If the Germans couldn't stop more attacks like this they were doomed.Keith-264 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot of sources treat the Normandy campaign as several win/lose battles (which were breakout attempts) which eventually succeeded rather than a deliberate battle of attrition which gutted the German army before the Allies chased the remnants back to Germany, Terry Copp doesn't though see Fields of Fire.18:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

To note many of the sources talk about the state of the bridges: them being destroyed or blocked and the entire southern bank containing I SS Panzer Corps. To expand on Hart's quote above, he further notes that "..after the captured of Caen, Monthomery did not continually smash Second (British) Army against the strong German defenses to the south of the town..."

To add to the above the only source I think you don't have, Hastings (p. 263-271): The British "won through to the northern bank of the Orne ... but could go no further"; "Too much blood had been shed and too many weeks elapsed for possession of the ruins to offer any more to most thoughtful British commanders that a ghastly echo of other ruins, other empty victories, almost 30 years before" ; "...there was not even the compensation of having 'written down' significant German forces". He then gives five pages of anecdotes about how intense the fighting was for Hill 112, how good the Germans were (the "indestructible" 12th SS Panzer, no mention of the destroyed Luftwaffe division) and how British soldiers had to be prevented from fleeing at gunpoint, before spending three pages going into the "crisis of confidence" Montgomery then endured. I'm not sure there's much of any use there - it's an interesting revisionist perspective but I'm not sure he's talking about the same battle as everyone else :) EyeSerenetalk 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

'Roger Cirillo The MARKET GARDEN Campaign: Allied Operational Command in Northwest Europe, 1944'. Get a load of this (it's free on Ethos). Hitler Hastings is a very ropey source, his comments offer nothing on the effect of Charnwood in increasing the threat in the east, making Goodwood more feasible, grinding up the infantry formations the Germans were trying to use as substitutes for their armoured divisions so that they could be concentrated for an offensive blah, blah....Keith-264 (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't argue with that. Hastings doesn't mention Charnwood's intentions at all so it's impossible to make any realistic assessment from his text of why he calls it an "empty victory" (the impression he gives is that the battle was a futile and bloody scrap for a pile of rubble). I'd be interested to know how he justifies saying "...there was not even the compensation of having 'written down' significant German forces". Still, the fact that despite his bias we have used Hastings in places addresses the notion that the article cherrypicks from pro-allied sources...
On the infobox result, perhaps something similar to the format used on Vietnam War would be appropriate? I agree that "Partial Allied success" isn't ideal (mainly because it relies on a single source and is so uninformative), so a short list of outcomes might be better. EyeSerenetalk 08:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Per the sources and the above suggestion, would the following seem suitible enough:
Those points are well supported and certainly seem to be the major outcomes as seen by the sources. If we're happy with the result we could perhaps consider something similar for other articles? For me the problem with infoboxes has always been the lack of space that leaves pretty much whatever is written open to criticism; hopefully this approach will alleviate that somewhat :) EyeSerenetalk 16:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think something along the lines of "Allied-Franco political/social (both, one or the other?) victory", as a fourth point, with a note to Trew's comments in regards to they "now believed" that the invasion and liberation was for real. thoughts?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I fear that we're getting caught up in the obsolete 'win-lose' criterion. Charnwood was a typical limited objective operation to further the plan without causing unsupportable losses among the Allied infantry. The Germans made a fight of it but weren't able to hold the ground which they had done in earlier fighting (Carpiquet airfield for eg). It was a successful operation which paved the way for others like Jupiter, Spring, Atlantic and Goodwood and fixed the most powerful German formations againast an operational threat in the east when the strategic threat was in the west.Keith-264 (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with E that the bulletpoints are probably the best bet on showing the results on the operation. However what would you suggest showing to highlight the full picture?

Speaking of Cirillo, here are some intresting tibbets from his work that add further light to Charnwood:

"... [Charnwood] was designed more to seal the battlefield than to propel the ground attack forward.

...Charnwood, in fact, was based on Leigh Mallory's ideas from mid-June, and also recognised that the city was cut by both a river and a canal. It was designed to gain the foothold to permit the town to be cleared, not to make a rapid move through it which was, in all probability impossible." Cirillo, p. 99

"...Ike's propagandist, ignored the constant small-unit fighting that comprised limited objective attacks. Battles to absorb or fix reserves or to gain adequate "start lines" for major offensives were continuous in Second Army's sector." p. 100

Of intresting note is that he refers to BOTH Marlet and Dauntless ... a tad strange considering the only mention of Dauntless i have seen prior to this is in the OH describing Martlet :SEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Cirillo doesn't mince his words does he?:O) When you look at the second bombing area (north edge of Caen) it can hardly be seen as a direct attack on the German defences since they were further north. Interdiction is the only logical reason. Apparently the timng was due to weather not ineptitude.Keith-264 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Redlink inappropriate[edit]

In the "Planning and preparation" section, we have: Further information: Operation Charnwood order of battle. But this is a redlink leading nowhere.... This needs to be taken care of immediately. If there is no such detailed page, remove the note altogether. werldwayd (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed from article[edit]

I have removed the below sentence from the article as it is not sourced by the two sources in the paragraph it was pulled from. Looking back through the edit history, the sentence was sourced from the following website, which does not provide it sources:"Operation Charnwood - 59th (Staffordshire) Divisional History". Robert Morss. Retrieved 2009-03-18.  I have quickly scanned Ellis and Copp and they provide no support - from a quick check of the pages mentioned in the paragraph, and I have also looked at the 12th SS History by Meyer. If anyone can provide a RS for the below, then feel free to reinsert it into the article with the source info.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"The 176th Infantry Brigade of the 59th Division had particularly heavy casualties in la Bijude, with one infantry company losing all of its senior officers when German flak batteries prevented armoured support from reaching the village."


Did a modest spring-clean of the article, reshaped paragraphs, photos and maps and altered some headers.Keith-264 (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox: result frenzy[edit]

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

According to this, See the 'Aftermath' section and not the details should be in the box. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That works, although I think the last two bullet points would need to be incorporated into the text. If you remember, the current state of affairs emerged after a long harrowing discussion on the fact the Allies won and some did not like that. So yes, nice and tidy linking to the aftermath is much better than what we have.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've been tidying up some of my writing using it.Keith-264 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Just made a change if everyone is happy with this style? Shire Lord 22:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Relative strengths[edit]

Relative strength of German forces facing US and British forces in Normandy
German strength opposite First Army German strength opposite Second Army
Date Panzer
Tanks Infantry
Tanks Infantry
15th June none 70 63 4 520 43
20th June 1 210 77 4 430 43
25th June 1 190 87 5 530 49
30th June 1/2 140 63 7 1/2 725 64
5th July 1/2 215 63 7 1/2 690 64
10th July 2 190 72 6 610 65
15th July 2 190 78 6 630 68
20th July 3 190 82 5 560 71
25th July 2 190 85 6 645 92


  1. ^ Trew, p. 41
  2. ^ Montgomery 1958, p. 259.