Talk:Operation Cobra/Archive 1

Role of July 20th Plot vs. Hitler

The allies were pinned in Normandy. Then, Hitler was injured, if lightly, in an assassination attempt. Then, the allies broke out of Normandy w/in a few days. The timing indicates a connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.68.244 (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually - it doesnt. :) The Allies wearing down the German Army, trouncing all over them, mistakes made previous to the assissination attempt by Hitler and some luck all contributed to what happend - not Hitler nearly being killed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Good job

I really like this article. Lots of detail. My only complaint is that it could use some images, like photos or especially diagrams like troop movement diagrams. Keep up the good work. Deco 22:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the Deutsch page which achieved FA status, I pulled some maps from there, i'm sure we could use a lot more Pluke 22:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Hedgerows

Perhaps some mention of the particular problems that the invasion forces faced overcoming the hedged, rural terrain is deserved. The Wermacht's preparation in combination with the nature of the rural roads and thick vegetation slowed the Allied advance.

Welsh soldiers in photo

No offense intended, but why do we have a photo of British soldiers in an all-US operation? DMorpheus 14:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Operation Goodwood was a British operation and appears related to Operation Cobra. I'm sure that there are some copyright free photos available of US troops involved in Cobra. Perhaps air strike photos, etc. --TGC55 14:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Goodwood and command structure

I've clarifed Goodwood's objectives and effects: everything I have read indicates that it was not a breakthrough attempt. Also, the article as it stood seemed to try to build a false opposition between American and Commonwealth forces. Montgomery was Bradley's commander, and they worked harmoniously on Cobra; their falling out was later. MAG1 17:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Many things I have read,including references we have discussed on other pages, paint a very different picture. Also, Bradley and Montgomery first came into conflict in Sicily, not after Normandy. Both were good enough soldiers not to let it break into open conflict until much later. I think the recent edits did harm to the article, and are very misleading. DMorpheus 15:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The objectives of Goodwood are inherently controversial (see the page), so perhaps this page should be neutral on them. As to the command structure, everything I have read says that Bradley (and Patton) and Montgomery behaved well to each other in Normandy: there were good communications, good support, and everyone was polite. (Something I have read went beyond this to say Montgomery was a coalition general who sacrificed the interests of his own army's troops for the greater good, though I am not saying this should go in.) If there is a verifiable source that says ssomething different, then that should go in; though I havn't found one. Relations between Montgomery and Eisenhower's staff were a different matter. MAG1 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

St Lo

how many casualties were there in taking this town? this to me is important as it is the centre of the fighting for the U.S and a primary objective for the break out

Incomplete sentence

This apparently incomplete sentence in the second section may need the attention of its original author: "A critical success factor for the Allies, once a landing had been successful, then building up their highly mechanized forces in the battle area faster than the Germans." Robert K S 05:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Canadian units?

Currently, Canada is listed as a participant. Can someone help me out here by naming a Canadian unit that participated in Cobra? I don't know of one. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Asking once more for a citation before we remove Canada as a participant in this operation. Thanks very much, DMorpheus (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

British OH places the First Canadian Army to the east of Caen and none of the Canadian divisions within the American sector. Likewise with Second Army, they may have been on the American First Army flank but they did they did not take part in Cobra. Someone may have added them to the list due to the Bluecoat and Totalise attacks - while the first was in support of Cobra they were not part of the operation as already noted.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

French units?

France is listed as a participant. The infobox shows a battle 'end date' of 7/31. The 2eme DB landed on Aug 1 and entered the line a few days later. Either the end date we have for Cobra is wrong or the 2eme DB was not a participant in this operation. I am unaware of any other major French unit in combat in France at the time. DMorpheus (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Asking one more time for a citation on French units participating in this operation. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The following are not French divisions are they? The list is from a situation map just prior to Cobra as seen in the British OH, p. 378:

VIII Corps: 8th, 79th, 83rd and 90th infantry divisions. 4th Armoured Division. VII Corps: 1st, 4th, 9th and 30th infantry divisions. 2nd and 3rd Armoured Divisions. XIX Corps: 29th and 35th infantry divisions (there does appear to be another one buts its incomprehensible due to the location on the page). V Corps: 2nd and 5th infantry divisions

The only French units that i am aware would have been in country at this time would be part of the commandos that landed within the Anglo-Canadian sector and like in the section above did not take part in Cobra, hope this is of some help?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Strength/Casualties/Background

I have just overhauled and added references to this article. Unfortunately I don't have enough sources to completely cover details regarding casualties/losses, strength (in men and materiel) and background. Any help would be welcome and i'm conscious that there might be other sectors incompletely covered. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I intend to revert. These changes are not necessarily improvements and deserve more discussion. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Not improvements, the previous version of the article was completely unsourced. Again, I know that there could be omissions in this version and i'm willing to cover them by discussing with other editors, which have more available proper sources. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, let us work on improving the sources. You might even want to tag it. But a wholesale rewrite full of problems (both gramatical and substantive) is hardly the best way to approach this. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is far more easy to copyedit, rather than leaving the article completely unreferenced as it was. The facts in this versions are covered by my sources, while the previous version was not necessarily covered. So, please stop reverting my 3 day-long work and let's start copy-editing and filling-in omissions. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The current version is not a good basis for work. The gramamtical errors and POV are horrible. The previous version was far better; yes, it needs to be sourced, but that is a far smaller challenge than working with the article as it is now. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The gramatical errors, which I don't really think are so many can be corrected after a thorough copyedit, while the eventual POV can be removed by adding references which describe the German side better. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The grammatical errors are huge, but they are not even the biggest problem. How about the rampant POV? The inaccuracies? Again, we are far better off taking the old version and sourcing it. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Which innacuracies, where's the POV? Name the problems so we could get them fixed. I'm not removing my referenced work just because you decided it is innacurate and POV. If you think that this is innacurate or POV, please come with proper sources that support your statements. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to whole heartly support Eurocopter here, this same issued delayed sutable progress being made to the Villers-Bocage article and recently you have done simlar to an editor in the Market-Garden article - the grammar not being up to your standard so it was reverted, citations included.

For the moment, not having that much experiance when it comes to the American side of things in Normandy bar a general outline, one has only looked at the Goodwood and Background sections that seem generally ok.

So please highlight the issues.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the introductory paragraphs and translated them into English (change back if preferred). I think Morphy-babes has a point about first things first but then again a substantial part of the narrative looks accurate enough to be worth copy-editing. Perhaps Euro and Enigma can interpolate their detailed amendments as and when and the typos and POV can be repaired in parallel?Keith-264 (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Background

So far the background section now seems overly Anglo-Canadian centric but the previous version seemed to have nothing to do with what happened before Cobra.

Looking at it, i think we need a revised version something as follows:

---

Para detailing the actions of the American forces from landing until capture of Cherbourg.

[Following the mention of the fight for that port, this:]

Operation Overlord had called for the British Second Army to secure the historic Normandy town of Caen and a frontline from Caumont-l'Éventé to the south-east of Caen in order to secure airfields and protect the left flank of the United States First Army while it captured Cherbourg. Caen represented the main objective of the Anglo-Canadian forces. The Second Army launched several operations [link to battle of Caen in here somewhere] to capture the city, following the failure to do so on 6 June, which had the effect of holding and attracting German armour to the Caen area and away from the American sector.

Para on what the yanks got up to between the fight for Cherbourg and the launch of Cobra

Throughout the Battle of Normandy bad weather conditions had significantly delayed the Allied forces and the build-up of supplies and men. Most of the convoys of landing craft and ships already at sea were driven back to ports in Britain; [when is this in regards to, the great storm in June?] towed barges and other loads (including 2.5 miles (4.0 km) of floating roadways for the Mulberry harbours) were lost; [more information on the loss of the American mulberry] and no less than 800 craft were left stranded on the Normandy beaches until the next spring tides in July. [this para probably need a reword and possibly a reposition within the backgroud section]

---

Information regarding Goodwood (and the fall of Caen i.e. Atlantic) imo should remain out of the background section and be delt with exclusivly within its own section - possibly as a subsection of the prelim attacks?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but i'm afraid that this will shorten the section even more. Yes, it was the great storm in June there. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have to worry too much about the section being too short.

The American beach landings, advance southwards, Caretan, the cut across the pensuila and the attack and capture of Cherbour in one para - i would image would be somewhat beefy. Maybe split this para in 2 and fit the info regarding the storm between them?

Then the British para followed by some info on later operations including the failed brakeout around, i believe it was, Saint Lo. Plus anything else what happened - it might be short but would bring us nicely to the planning section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, should be ok then, considering that the Americans were not so active on the front as the British until Cobra, given that they were rather gathering forces for this main offensive. I would like to focus now on strength and casualties, as very little is mentioned in the current variant of the article regarding these. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Unclear

"While the Allies were attempting to build-up a strong bridgehead in Normandy, in order to properly supply advancing American and British troops, the historic town of Caen represented the main objective of the British forces assaulting Sword Beach on D-Day."

What does this mean?

a) Not all the allied troops in Normandy were US or British.

b) Caen was a D-Day objective, but not because of any supply considerations; the port of Cherbourg was the highest priority for the US 1st Army due to the perceived need to open a port. Caen and its surrounding terrain were essential to create space for force buildup (that is a different issue from supply), to deny the Germans good defensive terrain, and to secure airfields for allied tactical air forces. Nothing to do with supply. The history of the various British offensives around Caen demonstrate how good that terrain was for defense.

c) Surely the fact that Caen was a D-Day objective has little to do with the opening of this sentence which seems to (properly) set the stage in the post-landing phase?

I suggest the sentence be stricken since it makes no sense. This is a good example of recent content that is both poorly written and inaccurate. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarified now. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is still misleading at best and inaccurate at worst. DMorpheus (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion. Please provide reliable sources which support your statements. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lawton Collins

Looking at this guys wiki page, it appears that he was not promoted to a Lt-General until April 1945. Is it the case then that during Cobra he was at the rank of MAjor-General?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was Major-General, my mistake here. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed, dont worry about it :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Some examples of why the page is tagged for CE

Five minutes' work shows numerous flaws: "Despite of heavy Allied bombardment of Caen and positions to the south, an attempt by the Second Army to outflank the city via Villers Bocage failed on 10-12 June, while a second attempt, designated Operation Epsom was also checked.[3] Few days later the British Second Army launched a new offensive, codenamed Operation Charnwood, which managed to capture the northern part of the city in a frontal assault.[6]

Map showing operations close to Caen.Between 18–20 July Operations Atlantic and Goodwood captured the remainder of the city.[7] These British operations, had the effect of holding and attracting German armour at the eastern end of the lodgement area,[3] while the original overall objective was to secure a frontline from Caumont-l'Éventé to the south-east of Caen in order to secure airfields and protect the left flank of the United States First Army while it captured Cherbourg."

More to follow. DMorpheus (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC) "Operation's Cobra town for town layout, according to Montgomery's official biographer, was to capture Saint-Lô and then Coutances, then thrust southwards from Caumont towards Vire and Mortain and from St. Lô towards Villedieu and Avranches, while continuously exert pressure towards La Haye-du-Puits and Volognes, and afterwards capture Cherbourg." More will follow DMorpheus (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"...the American 2nd Armoured... " No such unit. It is the 2nd Armored Division. Even if this article uses British spelling, proper names of US units should use US spelling. This was correct until a few days ago. DMorpheus (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"The advance of these carefully-trained units had been dramatically rapid and at 3:00 a.m. in the next morning, they reached the first objective of Cobra.." ??? "On 28 July the full weight of VII and VIII Corps were quickly advancing as the German defensive was collapsing. However, Middleton's 4th Armored Division managed to capture Coutances despite stiffening resistance met east of the town.[40] The offensive entered a new and bloodier phase, as the American advancing columns through unfamiliar country were attacked by German elements of 2nd SS Panzer, 17th SS Panzergrenadiers and 353rd Infantry Division seeking to break free and escape entrapment.[41] An exhausted and demoralised Bayerlein reported that the Panzer Lehr Division was "finally anihilated" " DMorpheus (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Afterwards Operation Cobra, the German army in Normandy had been reduced to such a poor condition that only few SS fanatics still entertained hopes of avoidind defeat, "

I think it would be pointless and rude for me to continue so I am just going to add the tag back now. DMorpheus (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncited POV

Some examples of uncited POV. "Meindl's paratroopers together with the German 352nd Infantry Division, which worried Allied planners so much, were now in ruins and the stage for the main offensive was set." DMorpheus (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Which allied planners were "worried" about these specific units?

• The American planners, the statement was cited. However, doubled reference there so it should be visible now. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Despite the fact that they had been previously warned regarding an impending American attack, the Germans were unable to form a succession of meticulously-prepared defensive positions such as those met by the Allies at Bourgebus Ridge within Operation Goodwood, this being a tribute to the British and Canadian efforts upon the eastern flank, which draw the 9th SS Division away from Cobra.[38]"

DMorpheus

• This statement is cited. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be cited in small part, but it is unnecessarily POV-ish and is a stretch. There are several possible explanations for why the Germans were unable to form deliberate defense positions; the most obvious being that VII Corps was moving far too fast for them to react. Goodwood was also a factor but hardly the only one, and that's what this sentence says. Also, what evidence is there that the 9th W-SS Div would have been deployed to US VII Corps' front if not for Goodwood? DMorpheus (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not cited in small part, it is cited entirely. Would you like me to add the ref after each comma in the sentence? Do you have reliable sources which support your statement regarding VII Corps? The 9th SS was deployed in front of Operation Spring, launched by the Canadians on the 25th, as mentioned in the article now. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Morphy: In regards to 9th SS and Goodwood. Prior to Goodwood it had been moved into Panzer Group reserve but to due to perlim attacks for Goodwood it was dragged back into the frontline to the west of Caen and away from Goodwood, one would like to draw your attention to the Prelim attack section of the Goodwood article for more details.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"On the night of 29 July, elements of US 2nd Armoured Division found themselves fighting for their lives against a column from 2nd SS Panzer and 17th SS Division who crossed through their lines in the darkness near Saint-Denis-le-Gast.[41] Other US elements of the same unit were attacked near Cambry and fought for six hours. However, commanders of the First Army knew that they were currently dominating the battlefield and such German assaults are just minor desperate attempts, rather than a genuine threat to the American front."

Needs CE and POV check. DMorpheus (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Checked, the reference covers the entire sentence. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources if you have other POV claims, otherwise there is no more consensus for the tag. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate

"Bradley had specifically requested previously that the aircraft approach the target area by flying parallel to the front in order to minimize the risk of friendly fire, but most of the airmen did not respect his request and the bombers approached perpendicular to the front line."

A more accurate accounting of the aviation incident was in the older version of the article. DMorpheus (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Expanded details a bit according to sources. Older description was unsourced, therefore it doesn't mean it was accurate. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Further to the west, as von Kluge's exhausted men recoiled east, VIII Corps launched Operation Bluecoat on 30 July" No, they didn't. Bluecoat was a British operation. US VIII Corps was a US unit ;) DMorpheus (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This one is possiby a miss-commuication within the article, British VIII Corps did launch Bluecoat--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Corrected here, my mistake. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On looking at this paticular piece of information:

Further to the west, as von Kluge's exhausted men recoiled east, the British VIII Corps launched Operation Bluecoat on 30 July, and was advancing southwards along the coast, managing to secure Avranches - the gateway to Brittany and southern Normandy.[42]

It seems the info is a little muddled. While Second Army's VIII Corps did launch Bluecoat - that would have been to the east of the Americans not the west. The operation was not conducted in the American sector thus could not have advanced along the coast and secured Avranches.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Further corrected, cheers. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"At the time US Third Army was officially borned, its commander, General Patton declared in an encouraging way:[47]

So let us do real fighting, boring in and gouging, biting. Let's take a chance now that we have the ball. Let's forget those fine firm bases in the dreaery shell raked spaces, Let's shoot the works and win!" Did he really say that? Because it sounds like a poor translation. I will gladly withdraw my comment if someone can cite this. DMorpheus (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I copied the text exactly as in the book (Williams, p. 186), would you like me to scan and email you the page? --Eurocopter (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

These words appear in a poem Patton wrote. I do not know when he wrote the poem. DMorpheus (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The German 352nd Infantry Division was a regular German infantry division, with a *stronger* organization than most 1944 German infantry divisions on June 6 1944. Calling it a "coastal" division is inaccurate. The Wehrmacht included some "static divisions" and the 7th Army contained several of those. The 352nd was not one of them. I edited this. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not innacurate. As supported by Keegan, the 352nd was the best German infantry division deployed on the Normandy coast (not inland), part of the coastal defenses. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Cherbourg

The article currently says Cherbourg was an objective of Operation Cobra. I've added an additional, sourced statement that in fact Cherbourg was taken by U.S. VII Corps on June 27th, about a month before Cobra was launched. The priority given to Cherbourg was the reason for the failure of the First Army to exploit the Caumont gap and the cancellation of the first drive on St. Lo.

I don't own the sources cited (or any others) that claim Cherbourg was still in German hands on July 25, so those editors who added this statement may want to check their sources. If the sources make this claim, I would say they are badly mistaken. If they do not, perhaps the source has been misinterpreted. In that case we should update the article. DMorpheus (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The latest edit attempting to correct what I think is an error includes the assumption that Bradley had a plan for Cobra as early as June 13. Got a source for that? DMorpheus (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bradley himself claims he did not develop this plan until July. Surely he is the most authoritative source on this. Collins made important contributions also which are no longer in the article. I'll be putting them back. DMorpheus (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bluecoat

The article still references Avranches as a location in which the British VIII Corps was operating. Avranches was in the U.S. VIII Corps sector according to every map and campaign history I have. I suspect this is detritus left over from the older edit mixup. I added a dubious tag. DMorpheus (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It is still dubious. Please check a map. It is probably 40 Km or more from Avranches to the British sector, maybe more since I am eyeballing a large-scale map. DMorpheus (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bluecoat was launched from around Caumont to Vire, at its most western point (see Jackson, p. 117 map of Op Bluecoat), which as you said is quite some distance - more like 60k though.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, so, as I've been writing, Avranches does not make sense in this sentence. Why not omit it since it is both inaccurate and unnecessary to the meaning of the sentence in which it appears? DMorpheus (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Patton's Corps

"Two of Patton's three Corps rapidly passed through Avranches, and swept..." At the time Avranches was taken, the only Corps headquarters controlled by Patton was the VIII. He didn't have three Corps to go thru Avranches. DMorpheus (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Operation Spring

When the main contributors to this article get around to it - Operation Spring needs to be mentioned as it was launched in support of Cobra.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And vice/versa? DMorpheus (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope - unless of course you mean Cobra should be mentioned in the Spring article, which i believe it is.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Kindly do not remove the POV tag till we have a consensus on this page. We aren't even close. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOVD policies, do not add this tag unless you have consensus. Currently, there is no consensus on the talk page to justify the addition of the tag. Citing: "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." If you continue disconsidering this policies and further adding the tag, you'll probably get reported. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. There is no consensus for removing the tag. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, according to policies there is no consensus to add the tag! --Eurocopter (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it normally works. 74.76.110.162 (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced info

• Approximately 140,000 rounds of artillery ammunition of all calibers was allocated to the operation.
• Over 1,300 M4 medium tanks, 690 M5A1 light tanks, and 280 M10 tank destroyers were available in these units.

These two sentences are unsourced and moved from the article. However, it would be nice if someone could reference them so we could add them back. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The artillery ammo statement has been re-added and sourced. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The tank numbers have be reinserted and sourced. DMorpheus (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

German units

The article now says that First Army faced one and a half German Panzer divisions. That includes:

1. Panzer Lehr

2. 2nd Waffen-SS Division 'Das Reich'

3. 17th Waffen-SS Panzergrenadier Division 'Gotz von Belichingen'.

Isn't that more like two and a half at least, considering Panzergrenadier divisions had one tank battalion, compared to two in a Panzer Div ?

DMorpheus (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well depending on how much of those two panzer divisions were deployed agaisnt the Americans i think the most accurate state would be to state would be: "2 Panzer and 1 Panzergrenadier divisions"--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ellis VinW sitmap between pp 378-379 gives 2ndSSPzDiv north of Periers, 17SSPzGrDiv east of the river Taute (east of 2nd SSPz) and PzLehr west of St Lo. Clearly all were depleted so they wouldn't be at establishment so they may have had the equivalent strength of 1 1/2 Pz divs. I can't see signs for these divs on the British front so I presume that they weren't detachments.Keith-264 (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In 8 Corps book they provide comparative tank strengths etc for several periods, one of which is Cobra i believe - ill try and post them later.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations

In looking at some new sources I've noticed disturbingly similar (in some cases identical) phrasing without attribution. I haven't yet tagged the article for copyright violation, but if anyone is using Collins "Atlas of the Second World War" as a reference, please attribute your quotes or do a re-write. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Likewise with Hastings; some of the language in this article is awfully close. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about this sentence

Bradley wrote that by July 10 the Allies faced the possibility of a World War One-type stalemate in the campaign. [13]

It has been tagged on the end of the paragraph dealing with the British operations but doesnt seem to hold any relevance. What does this have to do with the background information? Why did the allies face such a possability? Is there a counterposition? Did it happen?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A month in and Bradley starts bleating? Hardly likely is it? It looks like an attempt to say that serious doubts were cropping up about the invasion (almost as if Churchill's worries before the invasion had been taken up by the Americans after the first landings; hardly likely is it?) Anyway WWI wasn't a stalemate (though there was a dynamic equilibrium for a time).

If Bradley really did write that I bet it was post-war and his publishers wanted it in so as to inject some drama into the narrative.Keith-264 (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It is very widely known that the allied command feared WW1-style positional operations once the lodgment was made. Please assume good faith. I could dig up many more quotes like this if you like.

The point is fundamental to the whole Normandy campaign. On the eve of Goodwood and Cobra the 21st Army Group was roughly on the D+5 phase line - far behind schedule, and not making much progess. The allies feared this very real possibility because neither 1st nor 2nd Army was having much success breaching the German front and bringing superior allied mobility into play. A positional fight was not in the allies' interest. The pre-invasion fear was that the Germans would be able to reinforce faster than the allies, since they could use the very dense northern European rail network while the allies would be confined to a few small ports. If that buildup race was lost, the Allies would never be able to mount a drive into Germany.

As an aside, it is not an answer to respond that the allies were attriting German units. They were, but that was not the fight they wanted to have or could afford to have.

As it turned out, allied air interdiction efforts were very effective, isolating the battlefield quite effectively. Deception efforts also far exceeded expectations - much of the German 15th Army remained stupidly in place during the Normandy campaign. Even without a large port in allied hands the buildup was exceeding the Germans' ability to reinforce. Nevertheless this buildup was constrained by the failure to take more ground into which the incoming units and supplies could be deployed.

The fundamental objective of allied operations - the attack towards Villers-Bocage (with Caen as the real objective of course), the direct attacks on Caen, the seizure of Cherbourg, Goodwood, and finally Cobra - was to avoid positional fighting and transition to mobile campaigning. The US and British armies were the most highly motorized armies in the world, with the US in particular being exceptionally mobile. The point was to use those allied strengths, not get involved in a long infantry-and-artillery dogfight.

It is also important because it contributed to the sometimes poor relationships between 21st AG and SHAEF. If anything, this sentence should be expanded into a full paragraph.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why i said it appeared to hold no relevenace because none of this was brought into play - i agree it needs to be exapnded into a full paragraph to fully explain what the sentance is getting at. Of course that explains that was the feared possability of some commanders - did others hold a counter position and did such a feared stalemate happen? I think if the sentance was expanded that these other questions should be touched on as well to give a rounded and balanced position.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't infer bad faith I implied that if the remark was made by Bradley it was post hoc. Your later remarks explain your point of view well and sadly I disagree with most of it. There is no doubt that the Allied armies were equipped for mass firepower warfare and that their methods exploited it to the full. The British and Canadian armies couldn't exist without the substitution of manpower by firepower. The US armies in Europe could afford to lose more men at first but even they had to resort to infantry conservation by the end of the year in France and Italy. Mobility is useless unless the enemy opposition to it has been overcome and it is firepower which enables manoeuvre not the other way round. Attrition is not mutual slaughter it is the depletion of the enemy force which has to be overcome because it can't be avoided. The preponderance of firepower enabled this for a cost which the Allies could bear and the Germans couldn't. By fighting the Germans and destroying their units in Normandy on the far side of a near supply desert The Allies ensured that they didn't have to fight them further inland where supply would get easier for the Germans as it got harder for the Allies, advantage in mobility or no. The delays in the build-up which had greatest effect on Allied operations were those at the start of the battle when there was plenty of room. This slowed the Allied side of the encounter battle. The battle of attrition that followed was inevitable because of German weakness not Allied failings. The fate of the Allied mobile columns after the crossing of the Seine demonstrate that it was German positional defences that allowed them to benefit from the supply shortage that struck the Allies when they reached eastern France and the Dutch-Belgian border. You don't really use words like 'attriting' ('inflict losses') and 'transition' ('change') except for satirical purposes do you? [;-)Keith-264 (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith; please discuss edits, not editors. The point that should be made, and which was already there a few weeks ago before it was deleted, is that the allied strategy going into Normandy was *not* to fight a positional, attritional battle. Yet that is exactly what they ended up doing, right up until Cobra. DMorpheus (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I said I did assume your good faith. You are wrong and won't let go of it. Cobra was an atrittional battle a la east end. It was the first one of its type at the west end because it had taken that long to fight through the bocage and reach terrain similar to that at the east end. The German defence collapsed because they had been depleted so much in the earlier fighting. The main difference between intent and the actuality of the Normandy battles was that they took place closer to the beach than expected. This was because Hitler overruled his Generals after Epsom. D'Este is quite bogus on these points.Keith-264 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Fortunately it doesn't matter if you think I am wrong. Sources are what matters. DMorpheus (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree (!) D'Este is one among many. His analysis is something we've gone into before on the Epsom page. Keith-264 (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC) PS Where are your sources?Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Playing with tags

User:DMorpheus, I appreciate your enthusiasm of playing around with dubious/fact tags, but adding them vainly in the middle of sourced sentences is becoming quite annoying and unconstructive. For example: Bradley had specifically requested previously that the bombers attack the target area east–west, out of the sun and parallel to the front - in this sourced sentence, you've added a fact tag after "out of the sun". You know, east is the direction the Sun is rising in the morning (the time the bombardment took place), so it becomes quite clear why Bradley made this specific request - or maybe you'd like me to reference the fact that the Sun is rising from east every morning? (in this case, you'll have to wake up a bit early in the morning and use a compass to convince yourself). I noticed that you are continuosly assuming bad faith and opposing the improvement of this article, but would you really mind restraining such silly useless actions for the talk page? Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually that line ("..out of the sun...") was lifted almost verbatim from Hastings, not from Bradley.

I haven't ever seen the sun rise from due east. Maybe in the tropics. Not in northern France. The direction of the sun was not why Bradley wanted the bombers to come in from that direction. He was trying to avoid friendly fire incidents. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, take a compass, go in Normandy and see from which direction the sun is rising in the morning. Yes, Bradley wanted to avoid friendly fire, that's why besides other things, he advised to attack out of the sun, so the pilots did not have the blinding sun in their front. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a unique theory considering bombardiers generally look downward and pilots must be able to fly in any direction. If you are correct, in the history of daylight WW2 air attacks we should find a disproportionate number that came precisely from the sun's direction. I look forward to reading your evidence.

The reason Bradley was adamant about the approach direction of the aircraft was to avoid friendly fire. The reasons the airmen did not want to do it that way were twofold: one, they would have much greater exposure to German flak if they flew parallel to the front as Bradley asked; two, the shock effect of the bombing would be lessened if the bombers had to lay their bombs into a long, narrow target (flying parallel to the front line), which would take longer than if they could drop them in a shorter time frame into a wider, short target (flying perpendicular to the front line). In fact the fighter-bombers did go in parallel, but the bombers didn't.

This whole controversy is quite well documented and, while Hastings makes the claim about the sun's direction, Bradley didn't. Yet the article is attributing this to Bradley. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Airpower

You might like a look at this http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/ for some interesting information on the effect of the heavy bombers at the start of Cobra.Keith-264 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Stalemate?

The issue of whether the Normandy campaign was stalemated is contentious....Two sources have been given for similar but not identical statements. That's why they're both there and both necessary. An author's assessment (Zaloga) is different from a commander on the spot's fear (Bradley). Because these are such different sources and are separated by many years they should both be there. In any case, kindly do not remove cited material. DMorpheus (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we also going to add in material which counters this position to balance the article out?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we go through all this on the Epsom page? Aren't there lots of references to the local German commanders all wanting to withdraw from Normandy after the monstering of IISSPzK? Clearly there was no stalemate, clearly some Allied commanders (Tedder) tried to manoeuvre to take advantage of the political opportunities if one did occur and they then got left looking like monkeys when Cobra provoked a collapse of the German defence which had been tottering. Consider also that Goodwood and Bluecoat were part of a close series of operations with Cobra and that their effect needs to be considered as a whole as well as discrete operations.Keith-264 (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, from what i have read from numerous histories, i take it that quite a number of writers and historians were expecting some sort of "bliztkreig" - the armoured forces routing the Germans from the field of combat etc Of course such a notion would be completly absurb - look at the Eastern Front, Italy and the Western Desert - hard fighting through entrecnhed German positions before any armoured exploit could happen. Due to this not happening i think this is why there are historians who call the Normandy campaign for everything it wasnt and dont accept what it was - as well as comments such as these from commanders in the field stating the front had become a stalemate; think Stalingrad, Kursk, El Alamein - a hard slog, the look that it might be somesort of stalemate then holy hell!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this is another case of propaganda at the time and since, where the reality of firepower warfare was downplayed to the public, all the more in countries where there was a democratic system of sorts. It seems to me that The British army's operational technique from Alamein on was to exploit the growing preponderance of equipment the western Allies had to best effect. One method was to induce the Germans to impale themselves on Allied defences, something that had become a 'basic stroke' ever since Falkenhayn tried it at Verdun. I think that to an extent this complemented German defensive practice, where they sought to use their limited and diminishing resources in the circumstances where they could also have best effect - when Allied defences were at their weakest, which was when he defenders had had least time to consolidate, so being least able to generate the mass firepower that they (particularly the Anglo-Canadians) relied on to limit casualties. Perhaps there is an analogy with the German attempts to resist the British at Ypres in 1917 - whatever wheeze they came up with to counter British attacks only altered the size of defeat the British inflicted. Perhaps this is the reason for the Germans in Normandy taking so long to come to terms with the futility of counter-attacks. Note also that this method is the opposite of the 'soldiers-should-fight-their-way-forward-with-their-own-weapons, using-infiltration-and-opportunism-to-unbalance-the-enemy' so beloved of Tedder and post-war critics of western military practice. It also puts the willingness of Monty to cut his losses by tactical withdrawal in proper context. Avoiding infantry slogging matches except where he had a big advantage made perfect sense. hence the withdrawal from Villers-Bocage and Hill 112. The Allies did produce a 'blitzkrieg' advance but only after they had depleted the Germans' ability to pull off the sort of operational counter-stroke that they had so often inflicted in Russia and Africa. No doubt the western Allies overestimated the Westheer's fighting power and especially its mobility in 1944 but the altermantive, after so many disappointments earlier in the war was inconceivable.Keith-264 (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Several good sources including the US Army official history mention the stalemate issue so I'll be readdressing it at some point soon. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cobra plan / Hastings

I have reviewed Hastings, the secondary source for the claim that Cobra had objectives laid out as early as mid-June. I believe it may be a mis-reading of the source to write that a plan for Cobra existed that early. That is why the dubious tag is there - I believe the text goes beyond what the source says. It's open to interpretation and I have not seen the primary source. I don't believe Hastings intends this claim. Bradley, the originator of the plan, makes no such claim in either of his autobiographies. He must certainly be the primary source for this. DMorpheus (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here's our problem I think, as Bradley indeed didn't have a plan for Cobra so early. According to Hastings and Williams, Monty had planned Cobra long before Bradley, citing from Williams p. 126:"After the war Monty's part in shaping what would become Operation Cobra was forgotten or ignored in the scramble for credit. It became an entirely American plan - the author held to be General Bradley alone." Further citing from Hastings p. 249:"Montgomery's official biographer has recently argued that it was the C-in-C of 21st Army Group who produced the essential framework for Cobra, in a declaration of future intentions dated 13 June". Your remark that Bradley was the originator of Cobra is wrong, as Monty had one well before him, that's why Bradley doesn't mention anything earlier than 10 July in his autobiographies. Therefore, I will double source that sentence and remove the dubious tag. Regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep reading Hastings, he himself casts doubt on the same page that Monty had any real role in planning Cobra. I do think it is fair to argue that Montgomery made an important contribution to the concept (before the plan existed) in urging Bradley to attack on a narrow front. That's all.

I would add that the overwhelming majority of sources (all but Williams it appears) credit Bradley with Cobra. many credit Collins with important contributions. Stating that Montgomery had a plan for Cobra is giving undue weight to a tiny minority view. DMorpheus (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A minority view perhaps, but not tiny minority. Chester Wilmot wrote, in Struggle for Europe, p.389, "Bradley's plan for COBRA revealed how much he had profited from his recent experience. In his offensive of early July, he had attacked along the entire front from St. Lo to the sea and, since this dispersal of his strength was accentuated by the nature of the country, he had been unable to gain a clear success anywhere. For COBRA however, he accepted Montgomery's suggestion that he should concentrate a powerful striking force on a 6,000 yard front, five miles west of St. Lo." Wilmot, as an Australian, should be regarded as a neutral in any British versus American arguments. He certainly spares nobodys' blushes in Struggle for Europe, but does grudgingly give credit where credit is due. HLGallon (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wilmont is widely regarded as pro-British and his work is very dated - but no matter. Cobra was Bradley's plan, with contributions from Collins, and numerous sources will back this. The paragraph should be rewritten to indicate that Bradley planned with with this advice from Montgomery so as to asign weight properly. DMorpheus (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Dated just like D'Estes? ;)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to expand upon my point; i think you should realise DMorpheus that even works, which are as old as Wilmots still hold value - as does D'Este.

To basically quote Ashley Hart, as we did in the Epsom article:

The post-war publication of memoirs by the leading Allied generals led to rifts along partisan lines during the 1950s and 1960s, with American historians generally critical of Montgomery and the actions of the Anglo-Canadian forces, while "pro-Montgomery" historians set out to reject these criticisms. Also published during this period were the national official campaign histories, which although thoroughly-researched, for the most part avoided detailed critical analysis of the 1944–45 north-west European campaign's most controversial issues. During the 1980s, historical literature underwent a revisionist phase concentrating on the deficiencies of the Allied performance, and from the late 1990s to the present, historians of the campaign have entered a post revisionist stage with two schools of thought: those attempting to expand on the revisionist work by providing a more detailed campaign analysis and those who have attempted to demonstrate that the techniques employed by the Anglo-Canadian forces were appropriate to conditions in Normandy.

So to simply dimiss Wilmot or D'Este is foolish as both hold a great deal of information wheather it is on the details of what happened or on conclusions of what could have happened. In the same light the usualy bias memoirs provide great insight but cannot be used as gospel - see Grenadiers for example.

At the same time these works, while providing insight, are usually dated by more modern research; i.e. i would'nt hold D'Estes's version of events at Villers-Bocage as gospel when the works of Dan Taylor and George Forty provide much greater information and contridict him on many points. However one could state that some of his critasisms are still valid - i believe some of his points are further supported, again by modern works, such as Michael Reynolds.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If I might barge in here :), might I suggest something along the lines of '...the author of Cobra is contested amongst historians...' and then a note summarizing the Bradley v Monty debate? That seems the best solution, then everyone wins. Skinny87 (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that may seem helpful, but is akin to saying that the shape of the earth is contested among scientists...and then summarizing the arguments for spherical and flat earth theories. It's an undue weight issue, which is one aspect of POV.

Most works give Bradley sole credit; the better ones describe Collins' role in making some important suggestions for alterations (which is pretty standard in US Army practice anyway). Montgomery's sole contribution, and it was important, was to suggest a narrow-front attack instead of trying to breach the line everywhere simultaneously. Patton, incidently, made the same comment in July. This paragraph needs re-doing. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re content and copyedit

Per request, I'm looking at starting a copyedit of this article shortly. However, it seems from reading the above (and experiencing no small degree of deja vu!) that there are some content issues that might need to be decided first. I'm wondering if we should think about adding a "Historical analysis" section to the article, cf Epsom, detailing the different historical views of the campaign (eg the 'breakout' vs. 'walk-out' argument is notable, and should probably get a mention). Thoughts? EyeSerene^talk 14:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Completly agree, it would also allow the reader to see the main differance of opinion presented by historians and help them come to their own conclusions of who is right and wrong etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also agree, but i'm not sure if my sources would cover such a new section. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I have Wilmot and Hastings to hand, and I'm sure I've got others if I dig around, but much of it would probably be passing mentions in more general books (stuff like Keegan). I believe Keith has a copy of the Hart Colossal Cracks... book, and one I was looking at recently, James Jay Carafano's After D-Day: Operation Cobra and the Normandy Breakout, looks quite interesting. EyeSerene^talk 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I also have a copy of Colossal Cracks, as well as the British Official Campaign history (which gives an account of the Cobra brakeout iirc) - think thats it. Ill take a look through them over the week end and see how they sum up Cobra.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Keith does have a Colossal Crack, what of it?[;-)Keith-264 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had a brief look at 'Colossal'. Cobra is listed in the index at pp. 38, 64, 82, 88, 91,93, 109, 134 & 167. Generally it's mentioned in respect of concentrated echeloned attacks; forcing the Germans to exert themselves to shift reserves hither and thither and to deny them opportunities to concentrate against Cobra, which used the same narrow-front firepower-laden method as had been used further east since D-Day. [Perhaps it helps if people decide explicitly whether they think that Cobra was like a jack-in-the-box which succeeded where other efforts failed or the culmination of Monty's theatre strategy as part of the string of limited liability offensives before. It may also help to decide if the westenders were in a position to try such a wheeze before they'd ground through the bocage. Some authorities say 'Goodwood-Cobra' but I go for 'Goodwood-Cobra-Bluecoat' so you know where I stand.]Keith-264 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Does Copp have anything to say about Cobra? EyeSerene^talk 13:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't got it with me at the mo.Keith-264 (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit - more to come

Underway; comments etc below as usual. EyeSerene^talk 15:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• The article appears to be in that peculiar dialect known as AmE. Although I'll try to be careful, it's perfectly possible that in the excitement of the moment I may occasionally slip up and spell things properly. Please feel free to jump in to remove 'u's, add 'l's, and exchange 's's for 'z's where required ;)

Lead

• Will leave until last Done

Background

• I'm not sure of the relevance of mentioning the US difficulties at Omaha beach, so I took that part out.

• "...strongest defences in Normandy" needs a cite (my fault, I've split the sentence - I assume it's covered by Bercuson?)

• "Although "ambitious", its early capture was considered the most important objective assigned to Lieutenant-General Crockers's British I Corps" Considered by who?

By Major Ellis

""The quick capture of that key city [Caen] and the neighbourhood of Carpiquet was the most ambitious, the most difficult and the most important task of Lieutenant-General J.T. Crocker's I Corps".[23] Wilmot states "The objectives given to Crocker's seaborne divisions were decidedly ambitious, since his troops were to land last, on the most exposed beaches, with the farthest to go, against what was potentially the greatest opposition."[24] "

[23]Ellis, p. 171 & [24]Wilmot, p. 272

Although am still concerned that the intro is a little Anglo-Canadian centric.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re Anglo-Canadian centric (split from above section)

I agree. I'm in the process of trimming the Caen stuff, but I think we need more about what the Americans were doing in their sector; it jumps from D-Day - Cherbourg at the moment. I may add some stuff from Wilmot while I'm going along if that's ok, though a more recent source would probably be better ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry cant help on the yank stuff really, my main field lays in the Anglo-Canadian end of Normandy and my sources library reflects that.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, mine too unfortunately. Wilmot it is then (for now at least!). I've tried to organise the section into a rough order - up to the part about Bradley worrying about trench-warfare, I think it should be ok. I'll try to expand the rest of the section and integrate the remaining paragraphs tomorrow. EyeSerene^talk 19:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Moved this here for now - not sure about including this amount of detail as it detracts from the flow:

Most of the convoys of landing craft and ships already at sea were driven back to ports in Britain; towed barges and other loads (including 2.5 miles (4.0 km) of floating roadways for the Mulberry harbours) were lost; and roughly 800 craft were stranded on the Normandy beaches until the July tides, while 500 were destroyed.

• Do we have a date for Bradley's cancellation of operations towards St Lo?
• I think a general map of Normandy would be very useful in this section, ideally showing the British and American sectors (perhaps more relevant than the Caen offensives map?)
• Operation Perch - "Operation Perch (7–10 June)"; i do believe this end date is rather inaccurate. The fighting at Villers-Bocage took place on 13 June, which was a very much a part of this operation - unlike other operations (Epsom, Goodwood etc) an end date is hard to come by as the operation doesnt get too much press and the infantry kept slogging forwards until the middle of the month; although one admits one is unsure if the latter fighting was part of Perch or not.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. Wilmot (Struggle for Europe, p 308ish) doesn't really give a start or end date, but the organisation of the section entitled "Operation Perch" covers 12th-14th June as does the map. I haven't got anything else to hand to back that up though (Hastings doesn't mention Perch by name that I could find). EyeSerene^talk 19:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Major Ellis gives the reader all the information on the planned XXX Corps attack, with support from I Corps but doesn’t name it as Perch. Forty and Taylor however, state that this operation described is Perch.

"Nevertheless, Operation Perch, as the initial XXX Corps assault was code-named" (Forty, p. 14) "The XXX Corps plane, Operation Perch, was that having landed on Gold Beach, 50th... would capture Bayeux....Tilly-sur-Seulles......7th Armoured Division would then pass through, take Villers-Bocage, and press on to Evrecy..."(forty, p. 36) "Operation Perch, as conceived before the invasion..." (Taylor, p. 9) "So ended Operation Perch and the daring right hook action to break out of the beachhead area." - the night of 14 June (forty, p. 87)

Buckley supports that Perch was planned prior to the invasion, ala the above, but states in a heading title and on a map as it being 10 June till 14 June. The map also shows it being the right hook, which is what Wilmot shows it as being,

I believe the consensus shows that the operation was planned prior to D-Day and the consensus also agrees the operation ended on the 14th. An actual start date doesn’t seem to be set in concrete, unfortunately XXX Corps books on the campaign in Europe –to be honest – are not of the same quality as the VIII Corps one by Jackson am quoting everywhere and are essentially next to useless on deciding this matter.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can definitely say the end date should be around the 14th after Villers-Bocage, and the start date anywhere from the 7th to the 12th (though personally I think 12th is a bit late). Some commentators I've read (I can't recall who, though I think Forty was amongst them) definitely regard Perch as essentially the exploitation of the landings on the 6th - ie D+1 - so perhaps we wouldn't be too far off if we just put something vague, like "the week following D-Day"? EyeSerene^talk 21:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Badsey has an essay in 'The Normandy campaign sixty years on' Called 'Culture, controversy, Caen and Cherbourg: the first week of the battle' which might help.Keith-264 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

At £70ish, that's a bit rich for my wallet! Looks good though - might be interesting for anyone who has access to a decent reference/lending library? EyeSerene^talk 11:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Planning

• "Essentially an unsupported armored offensive"; i think this may be a little too strong. From what i have currently read so far the 11th Armoured Division's armour brigade, on the first day, did have its support self propelled arty and its infantry unit so technically wasnt unsupported. The RAF fighter-bombers was also supporting the operation. Although i havent really read up on what happened on the following days to further support or disprove my position.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point; I'll rephrase it. It was unsupported in as much as Monty used what the British could afford to lose, which by that stage of the war was armour rather than infantry. Of course armoured divisions had an infantry element though, and I agree I made it sound as if he used tanks and nothing else. Mea culpa ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Added some info on Atlantic - I've cited it based on the parent article, but will contact Cam (I assume it's his work!) as the reference needs more information. I assume it's a journal article or something.
• "In contrast to the usual American preference for broad front offensives,[43] Cobra was to be a concentrated attack on a 7,000-yard (6,400 m) front, preceded by a massive air bombardment.[43]"

I have read that this was due to Monty poking his nose in, dose citation 43 support this? If so i think it should be added into the text.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not in my Hastings (though it's pages 294/5 in my edition). However, I'm glad you made me look at the source, as I'll need to revisit the article text around that section - it's rather too close to Hasting's prose... EyeSerene^talk 20:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle

• "Cobra finally got underway on 25 July at 09:38, when around 600 Allied fighter-bombers attacked strongpoints and enemy artillery situated on a 275 meters-wide strip of ground." This needs more explanation - where was the strip of ground and why does this deserve particular mention? (ie was it a dominating ridgeline etc?)

• The section used metres, but as yards were used earlier in the article I've converted the measurements to the nearest 10 yards. This has introduced rounding errors (albeit within what I believe are appropriate levels of accuracy), so I'll redo them if necessary.

• "Despite clear paths of advance through the floods and swamps, both divisions initially disappointed First Army by failing to gain significant ground..." IIRC, the flooding etc had been deliberately caused by the Germans - I think some detail on this would be useful.

OK, no issues in the rest (that I spotted anyway), so I think I'm done. Thanks for the opportunity to work on another well-researched, fascinating article, and if you need anything more, you know where to find me ;) EyeSerene^talk 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating, well-sourced, and full of POV and accuracy problems. DMorpheus (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And what happened to the two way street? Seems a certain group have done all the work here and all you are providing is the snide comments, not the co-operation you stated you "love to work with".--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

More personal attacks. Look back further in the history - I did a lot of work on this article long before....not that it matters. No one owns this. DMorpheus (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not a personnel attack it is fact. We have discussed this time and again for the last what? year and half, 2 years? You throw in snide comments after other people have put allot of recent effort into articles. So you comment that this is an article of accuract and POV problems is no where near the realms of a personnal attack on the editors because of course they must be thick or something to have gotten to such a substandard state in the first place...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The strip of ground attacked by the fighter-bombers was the friendly side of the (intended) rectangular area to be bombed. It was thought that the fighters, attacking at very low level, would be more accurate and thus less of a friendly-fire risk than the heavy bombers. DMorpheus (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Divisional commanders: yes or no?

Today, John Wood's name was taken out of the article with the following reason given in the edit summary: "we don't mention divisional commanders throughout the article". That's OK with me, so I suggest we also take out the twice-mentioned commander of the Panzerlehr division, Bayerlein. After all, his division hardly existed after the first minutes of the operation. Let's be consistent. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Bayerlein and Panzerlehrdivision were much more notable and famous during the war rather than Wood and the 4th Armored division respectively (we mention only the notable German commanders, indifferently of their command). I don't know if the addition of ~11 Allied divisional commanders would be constructive, but i'm not opposing (also please consider that many of those commanders don't have an article on wiki). --Eurocopter (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion, I guess, but here are my points:

1. In Operation Cobra and the ensuing breakout, the 4th AD played a prominent part. Panzerlehr, after mid-morning July 25th 1944, consisted of a few thousand casualties and some smoking craters where their defensive positions had been at dawn. It doesn't matter what else the division or their commander did at other points in the war - this is the Operation Cobra article. Neither the panzerlehr division nor its commander played any major role in the operation except as targets.

2. The justification offered for taking out Wood was that "no divisional commanders" were mentioned in the article. Not "some divisional commanders". So, again, I don't disagree with Wood's removal if the stated justification is in fact followed. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe Panzer lehr actions weren't so notable for the course of Cobra, but the fact that one of the most elite units within the German Army was almost completely destroyed during this operation is certainly notable for this article. However, feel free to remove Bayerlein's name if you want. Or should we leave it there considering that we mention quite few German commanders throughout the article (actually only Meindl, Guderian and von Kluge)? --Eurocopter (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So we're throwing the stated justification out the window - OK with me. How about we use common sense instead and mention those divisional commanders that make sense, such as those from Panzerlehr, 4th AD, 2nd AD, 1st and 30th ID, etc as it makes sense to do so as the article is modified? Guderian was a mere division chief of staff and should be out. Meindl was a Corps commander and should stay in. DMorpheus (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to add in divisional commanders where it makes sense - certainly with the assault and exploitation divisions. I don't think they need to be in the info box though. DMorpheus (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. DMorpheus (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

This article has a lot of content about the overall strategy of the Normandy campaign and about other, related operations such as Goodwood.

I suggest we trim all that back a bit (while expanding actual Cobra content). Some of it is necessary to understand Cobra, of course, but the main way this could be handled is to make a brief mention and then reference the existing articles on other operations.

Another suggestion: Since prominent historians disgaree about what the allied strategy in fact was, a new article on the post-D-Day Normandy strategy would be a productive way to state all aspects of the controversy without making the individual operations articles themselves contentious. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mostly agree with your suggestion. I believe we could expand Cobra content without trimming-out content about Goodwood or Normandy campaign. Neither content regarding these two is excesively long for this article, and I think the article in its current form just reads well with them. We should consider expanding Cobra content especially regarding German units strength and state. Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Goodwood section could be trimmed, maybe loose some of the details - tank losses etc but keep the information regarding how it was suppose to be launched at the same time and the achievement of the operation pulling in the wieght of the German armour.

I do agree that a new article should be created presenting the main views taken regarding the post invasion strategy but this article doesnt really stray into that area too much - it mostly talks about the original plans and ideas then shows the progression of the Cobra plan. I dont feel too much could be trimmed from this area.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that a historiographical article would be a good idea since much of the disagreement by wiki contributors about the articles on the Battle of Normandy/Normandy Campaign seems to me to rest on the difference between 'writer' (popular) and a 'historian' (academic) as well as the usual effect of the passage of time. When people offer their views it's easy to infer when they did most of their reading. As for Cobra I think it is important not to see it as part of a separate war but as a stage in the continuum of the campaign.Keith-264 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So, anyone want to volunteer for this project? There are a few statements of strategy presented in this article as settled points when they are in fact questions. I wonder if the best way to handle them is to take them out of this article, which will promote stability here, and put them into the proposed strategy article. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

German Strength

The info box states that 3 parachute divisions took part in the battle. Personally i can only think of 1 parachute division that fought in this battle - the 5th. Does the source state who the other 2 were?

Likewise what are the 5 panzer divisions, i can personnaly only think of the 2nd SS, Panzerlehr, 116th and possibly the 2nd Panzer (heer). Does the source state what the 5th was?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, however I don't know who posted that there were 3 para divs (anyway, wasn't me :) ). Regarding panzer divs, I accidentally counted the 17th panzer grenadier as the 5th, so you're right, there are four in total. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Planning

I am just getting started on editing the planning section and I'll take it in small steps so we can discuss each issue if needed. Here's the thing: basic good writing style suggests that the main point should come first, with any minority, alternative or supplementary views coming second. That's why this section should lead with Bradley's plan and planning process (which I will add) not with the far less supported idea that Montgomery planned the operation. This is mostly, to me, a simple issue of writing style, but it is also a POV issue. The clear weight of sources on the campaign (all of them, as far as I can see) credit Bradley, while recognizing important contributions from Collins. The only source giving Montgomery credit is his biography, which is not a campaign history. As I mentioned above, Hastings doesn't support the Montgomery-as-planner point of view either and I believe citing his work in support of this point is overreaching. Incidentally, this is also why I am citing four sources on Bradley; this is not an issue that should be in doubt. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also a pretty good argument for taking things in chronological order - which would obviously put Monty's claim first. David Underdown (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, but the Montgomery claim is such a fringe view that the chronological argument really doesn't hold nearly the same weight. Frankly the evidence that Montgomery played any role at all in the planning is darned thin. I haven't found a single campaign history that says he did. I have a bunch that says he didn't. This isn't an anti-Monty rant BTW; I hold him in high-if-balanced esteem. But the campaign histories say this was Bradley's plan with additions from Collins that improved the exploitation potential. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two fundemental flaw here:

1) "According to Montgomery's official biographer, the foundation of Operation Cobra was laid on 13 June" - which is then not supported by a cite to his biographer.

2) I agree that chronological order is the most approbriate way of dealing with things.

Montgomery's plan at that time called for Bradley's First Army to take Saint-Lô and Coutances and then make two southward thrusts; one from Caumont towards Vire and Mortain, and the other from Saint-Lô towards Villedieu and Avranches. Although pressure was to be kept up along the Cotentin Peninsula towards La Haye-du-Puits and Valognes, the capture of Cherbourg was not an immediate priority.[31] However, with Cherbourg's seizure by Collins' VII Corps on 27 June Montgomery's initial timetable was soon outdated[22] and the thrust from Caumont was never adopted.

What that appears to be is a suggestion - possibly even an order - for a strike to be made, one which is then shown to have never been adopted.

It is then clarifed that Bradley planned Cobra, showing that a possibly simlar operation had been attmpted but didnt get off the ground before hand does not take away from Bradley.

To use a simlar situation: Operation Dreadnought was a plan Montys staff came up with to strike out of the Orne bridgehead - Epsom, iirc, also made plans along the same lines; Operation Goodwood was mostly planned by Dempsey's staff however mentioning the previous operations in no way suggests Dempsey didnt plan the operation but someelse did.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Morphy, why would Monty 'plan' a gig in Normandy? He was the army group commander. If Bradley or Dempsey or Crerar planned something it would be on Monty's instructions or a freelance idea which [they] could then offer to [Monty] for approval. Monty gets the credit for the success and tries to dodge the blame for a failure like any other bureaucrat. You feel me?Keith-264 (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith-264, no, sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you re-state it?

Enigma, your conclusions seem to be your own, plus some argument by analogy, rather than what's in the very clear published record. The historical record contains no reference to Montgomery directing or ordering Bradley to do anything that can be related to Cobra with the exception I'll note below; it is pretty clear Bradley cooked up the idea and did much of the planning, literally by himself. This view is consistent with other sources showing that, one, Montgomery was sensitive to nationalities and gave Bradley a 'longer leash' than Dempsey, a fellow Briton; two, Bradley was described as 'his own G-3' meaning he tended to plan his own operations and later, once he'd figured out the general concept, he'd bring in his staff to formalize it and flesh it out; three, Bradley had his aide MAJ Hansen set up a separate planning tent specifically for the purpose of working out the Cobra concept.

The Overlord/Neptune planning has nothing resembling the Cobra concept. Therefore, someone other than COSSAC and SHAEF planners developed the plan.

SHAEF (not 21 AG) developed a LUCKY STRIKE concept that in some ways resembled Cobra. I don't know yet the extent to which Montgomery or Bradley was aware of the LUCKY STRIKE concept. I will find out though. It is worth noting that most of the campaign histories do not mention LUCKY STRIKE at all.

Montgomery's contribution was as follows: After seizing Cherbourg on 6/27, Bradley attacked with all of his Corps early in July and failed to achieve a breakthrough anywhere. Montgomery tactfully suggested to him that he concentrate his strength for a single strike on a narrower front rather than trying to attack everywhere. It is a long distance from suggesting that Bradley apply a known principle of war (which Bradley should not have needed reminding of) to saying Montgomery planned the battle.

As a perhaps comical aside, Patton's diary for the time contains the same advice Montgomery gave, but Patton didn't pass this on to anyone.

Chronological order makes perfect sense if indeed two events are related. Here, they're not, which makes chronological order nonsense. This is a classical logical fallacy of post hoc ergo prompter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this")(forgive my crappy spelling, I do NOT know latin)(or english at times, it seems).

Here's the bottom line: there is no consensus in the record that Montgomery planned or even suggested this operation; numerous campaign histories consistently name Bradley as the originator of the plan without generally mentioning Montgomery. This does not take away anything from Montgomery that is rightfully his.

I sourced this four ways because I anticipated we'd get into this and here we are. ;)

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes my conclusions were my own, but based off the evidence within the article.

The first problem i raised was that the comment attributed to his biographer is not actaully sourced and i feel that the "foundation of Operation Cobra was laid on 13 June" doesnt litterally mean Monty planned it.

To confirm i am not arguing that Monty planned Operation Cobra and I agree that all evidence shows that Brad cooked up the idea.

However the chronlogical order does appear to make sence. An operation was planned in this area in June by Monty (as noted by his biographer) but was then scrapped. A second, independant of the previous operation, was planned by Bradley and launched in July (as noted by all the evidence).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts. I agree that an unsourced comment on a claim as large as this is a problem. This is especially true when Hastings does not, in fact, support the point either. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Still, and to repeat, chronological order makes sense when related or causally-linked events are involved. Here, they aren't.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced? I'm pretty sure it's sourced... --Eurocopter (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well being part of the campaign you could argue they are related. I have included information on the cancelled Operation Dreadnought in the Epsom and Goodwood articles due them being planned in roughly the same area etc

PS, whoever owns the work by his official biographer or Hastings and Williams - can someone confirm what Hasting states on p. 249 and what Williams states on p. 126. This will quickly clear up the matter.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed a helpful suggestion. If they do not support the Montgomery-as-planner idea, the paragraph crediting Montgomery should be taken out since it will be sourceless. If they do, we are exactly where we are now and my point still stands. If they have some other meaning, well, we'll take it from there.

DMorpheus (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hastings, p. 249 : Montgomery's official biographer has recently argued that it was the C-in-C of 21st Army Group who produced the essential framework for COBRA, in a declaration of future intentions dated 13 June. - cites Hamilton, Nigel; Montgomery:The Making of a General, p. 650.
• Williams, p. 126 : On the 30th June - the day the German counter-attack at Epsom was sent off - Monty summoned Bradley and Dempsey to TAC HQ to discuss future operations. ... Monty had drawn up a directive for the meeting. In it he promised to proceed 'relentlessly with our plans' to hold the maximum number of enemy divisions in our eastern flank between Caen and Villerrs-Bocage and to swing the American western or right flank southwards and eastwards in a wide sweep so as to threaten the line of withdrawal of such enemy divisions to the south of Paris. A strong force in the Le Mans-Alencon area would, Monty noted, threaten to trap German forces west of the Seine. As Monty's biographer Nigel Hamilton points out, this was in essence the plan Bradley would carry out a little more than three weeks later. After the war, Monty's part in shaping what would become Operation Cobra was forgotten or ignored in the scramble for credit. It became an entirely American plan - the author held to be Bradley alone. But the outline of a plan for break-out was drawn by Monty - anothe plank in the broad policy he had first formulated before D-Day. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Applogies i stated unsources as i did not see Hamiltons name.

If his biographer stated such and the above seem to agree i think there is enough evidence to include it in the article and in the chronological order it was originally in.

To make a reply about an earlier point regarding Bradley should have known to concetrate on a narrow front:

"To American commanders, concentration meant "the simultaneous effort of all possible forces" (letter from CIGS to BLM, 28 July 1944)...[Monty] condemned the American's conduct of their November 1944 offensivce towards Cologne beacyse it acked sufficent concentration, attacked on too wide an assault frontage, deployed inadqeuate artillery support, and held back too few reserves (a bunch of letters to the CIGS).....Furthermore, in Cobra, the most succesful American attack in Normandy, "the despair of the Bocage deadlock" drove Bradley to adopt a plan "uncharacteristic of the American army" in its "concentration of power on a narrow front". (Weigley, pp. 137-38, D;Este pp. 242-43)

-Ashley Hart, p. 82

Keep on reading Hastings...further along he does not really support the 'Montgomery-as-planner' idea.

At best we have Williams as against all the other campaign historians.

Therefore the planning section should unambiguously lead with Bradley as the planner. To do otherwise is to lend undue weight to a minority and frankly fringe view.

We might also think about what it means to 'plan'. DMorpheus (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hastings is neutral, he keeps citing Hamilton and describing the plan. For sure, we have Williams and Nigel Hamilton supporting Monty's involvement in the planning of the break-out. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Morphy see my earlier comment and amendments to aid your understanding. Do you have any comments about the point I made about Monty being Bradley's boss? Are you really implying that Bradley fought a separate campaign in Normandy like Kurtz in Operation Archangel?? Feel me?Keith-264 (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps to appease all while still sticking to the facts, the plan Monty came up should be mentioned in the background section? Something like: an initial assault in the X area, to be conducted by First army, was considered on X June by Monty however ...... the plan was not implement because ...... . This would then be followed by the planning section?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it would not be in accordance with our refs, which state that Monty had his role in planning the break-out (cited above). --Eurocopter (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith-264, honestly, no, I have no idea what your point is. If you're being sarcastic and attacking, ("pedantry") please stop and confine yourself to discussing edits, not editors. If I have it wrong and you are completely serious, please, I understand very well what the chain of command was. What of it? Montgomery was Bradley's boss; Ike was Monty's boss, and so forth....does this mean that it was really Marshall's plan? Is that your point? If not, honestly I do not understand your point at all. Nowhere have I implied any 'separate' campaign on Bradley's part. I am simply trying to show that virtually every campaign history credits Bradley with this plan, and perhaps one credits Montgomery. This is the very definition of a minority point of view.

No campaign history depicts Montgomery closely supervising 1st Army operations or contributing to their planning. Whether some overall strategy was being followed at all in Normandy is a bone of contention (which is why I've suggested a separate article on this topic) but, even if we agreed it was, again, that doesn't answer the question we're discussing.

Enigma: Again this could be a helpful suggestion if handled correctly and without exceeding the sources. But I have to ask: what plan? If Montgomery produced a plan it should be in a record somewhere.

DMorpheus (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Williams + Hastings + Nigel Hamilton (official biographer) = perhaps one? Would you please stop being silly? --Eurocopter (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact is brought up by Hamilton and appears to have been expanded upon by Williams. What else does Hasting say?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hastings exposes Hamilton statements and Montgomery's plan according to the biography (the town for town layout - the one mentioned in the article), but he himself keeps being neutral, without expressing his own opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So the sources, as provided above, appear not to show that Monty planned an operation however had came up with an idea for an operation. One to conducted by First Army striking south indeapth. Would this be the correct observation?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, the plan existed and Hastings describes it (according to Hamilton). Citing: Montgomery's official biographer has recently argued that it was the C-in-C of 21st Army Group who produced the essential framework for COBRA, in a declaration of future intentions dated 13 June. After discussing immediate objectives for that period, he continued: to capture St. LO and then Coutances; to thrust southwards from CAumont towards Vire and Mortain, and from St LO towards Villedieu and Avranches; all the time exert pressure towards La haye du puits and Volognes, and to capture Cherbourg. This was, declares Montgomery's biographer, the town for town layout for the American Operation Cobra. --Eurocopter (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So it would be correct to present:

1. In June a basic conceptual design was laid down by Monty and at that time was not undertaken due to various reasons
2. During the July meeting Bradley present his ideas for Operation Cobra, parts being identical to the concept idea laid down the previous month.
3. Monty gives input such as the operation should be conducted on a narrow front, a suggestion contary to previous American operations and one that is taken on board

What appears to not be established is how much of the previous concept Bradley took on board and how much differed. What we do know is that the vast majority of the evidence points to the operation being his own regardless of previous planning or ideas - again the comparison with Operation Dreadnought.

Thus from this i believe that it would be more correct to show the chronological order using the above three referances to show a simlar plan had been laid down the month before and then the rest of the evidence to show the plan Bradley laid down.

The argument that "Chronological order makes perfect sense if indeed two events are related. Here, they're not" i do not feel is a positive argument. For example in the Op Epsom article Dreadnought is mentioned in the background information and the planning section opens with the German plans of attack before discussing the Allied ones. The two opposing plans being only linked by geogrpahical area and that some argue that Epsom was launched because of them. In the Goodwood article, where Dreadnought holds more relevence it is mentioned within the planning section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you being disingenuous Morphy? 'Pedantry' was a description of my comments. I inferred that you were implying. As for Bradley's role, it was that of Monty's subordinate. Vagueness on this point seems to me to reflect the lack of empirical research which still bedevills the historiography of the Normandy gig. Referring to authorities who have written on the subject seems to be adding to our problems - perhaps we could add a comment that much remains to be written on the 1944-45 campaign which dispenses with nationalist yah-booing and concentrates on history rather than polemic. I wouldn't call Hastings a historian for example, I'd say he was a writer like Neillands and Ambrose. Is it impossible to find out how Monty did his job? Did he 'make' any plans in Normandy or did he issue directives to his army and corps commanders and listen to then when they offered suggestions and showed him examples of their own thinking? S A Hart makes a good case that Dempsey was far from a cipher and if this is true the long leash he had on Bradley may reflect his style rather than Bradley's nationality (don't forget that Britain had run coalition wars for 250 years so there was a certain amount of experience in dealing with semi-independent participants).Keith-264 (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith-264, nope, I am never disingenuous. Stating that Bradley was Montgomery's subordinate doesn't help us sort this out. It is a rather remarkable observation to say that adding more sources creates a problem. On the contrary, adding good sources will help solve the problem.

A point I suspect we agree on is that much controversy remains regarding the conduct of operations in Normandy, and an excellent article could be written combining all these points of view and allowing readers to draw what conclusions they may.

I also agree Hastings is in the league of Ambrose (well, actually, nowhere near as bad as Ambrose) rather than true research historians such as D'Este or Blumenson.

Finally I agree Dempsey was a very capable commander. But Monty certainly was not a hands-off commander most of the time. He repeatedly emphasized the need for a 'firm grip' on things and he was generally correct to do so.

Enigma, I don't believe it was the July 10 meeting at which Montgomery told Bradley to concentrate his forces more. By July 10 Bradley was presenting the Cobra plan to Montgomery. There were lots of proposals thrown out there about how to do operations in Normandy and a lot of them were never followed. DMorpheus (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough the date may be off for the Monty-Brad convo regarding concetration but otherwise do you agree with the above 3 points as a timeline?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Morphy I think you put that rather well. It's the uneven quality of the sources that forces POV into the debate. On the whole I agree that Hastings is one of the better 'writers'. For all his work with primary sources and scholarly apparatus I tend to put d'Este in the same place because I think he forced conclusions on the evidence. An interesting point for me is the Cobra offensive's form. Could the westenders have made an attack like this before reaching the St Lo-Periers area if had they wanted to?Keith-264 (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For me, D'Este should be treated carefully as he clearly had an axe to grind, and I agree he often forced conclusions on the evidence (to the extent that he sometimes ignored evidence where it didn't fit his theories). Hastings was clearly influenced by D'Este's writing but he seems more moderate to me; I wouldn't go so far as to call him an apologist, but he appears to accept many of D'Este's arguments and then attempts to find excuses. I'm less familiar with some of the other sources involved - to be honest, I still tend to turn to Wilmot as a baseline source (although his political analysis of the British/US/Soviet intentions for the Balkans is very much a product of the time!)

Regarding the article, I think a chronological approach is the only way to treat this. Anything else introduces an emphasis that is immediately noticable to the reader and comes over as trying to put a particular slant on things, as well as making the article needlessly confusing. I don't want to give up on the article from a copyediting point of view, but some of the recent additions have unfortunately not improved it. Would anyone mind if I tried writing a new first paragraph for the planning section, here on the talk page, which we can then all fiddle with without disrupting the article itself? EyeSerene^talk 12:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No objections here.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronology seems like the place to start. The 'masterplan' that Monty presented in april '44 and changes to it after D-Day may offer some insight - the 'strategy-operations-tactics' heuristic can help with descriptions of changes caused by events but the sources are where the problems lie.Keith-264 (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think talking overall strategy is that important in this article. As suggested before, and a few other times iirc over the months, a seperate article should be constructed that can present the differing views and then linked to prehaps by a further information link.

I feel we may be moving slightly closer to some agreement so thank you all for the productive discussion.

In no way is D'Este in the minor leagues with Hastings or (apologies to Max) Ambrose as a mere 'writer' of popular history. D'Este was a career Army officer and then a serious historian. His professional background is far better than, say, Wilmot, who was also a journalist. Of course he has an ax to grind. Every author does. If asked to rank the sources I'd put Blumenson at the top (alone) very far above the others, with Weigley and D'Este next. Zaloga next; he is a professional military analyst, and a writer of popular history but a darned good one who works with primary sources as much as possible. He's also an outstanding myth-killer. Bradley is sort of off on his own; as a first-person account his is a primary source, but of course he has a whole rack of axes to grind. Where is Montgomery's memoir in this list? Does he claim any authorship over Cobra? He wasn't shy about tooting his own horn; surely he himself would have something to say about this. Next Hastings, who is a journalist but a pretty good one; not a true historian. Ambrose fortunately does not and should not appear on our list ;) Ellis is suspect for many reasons. Williams and Hamilton I know only by reputation.

If we step back from ranking or rating the sources for a second, and merely accept what they say, then the weight of evidence points strongly to Bradley as the sole planner.

I do NOT agree with the timeline above, which is loaded with speculation and has an error I've already pointed out. Here's the thing: can anyone produce a single source unambiguously giving Montgomery any planning credit? There are at least four saying it was Bradley's plan, and several say it was *solely* his plan, denying even much participation by his own staff. By this I mean there are several sources saying Bradley worked literally alone in a planning tent for quite some time before sharing the plan with anyone. Bradley himself is one of these sources.

Again for the reasons I've already stated, chronology does NOT make sense here. Causal relationship needs to be documented, not merely assumed. Assumptions and post-hoc justifications about the Normandy strategy need to be discarded and the real intentions documented. There is disagreement among historians about what the master plan was and the extent to which it was followed. Again, I think the bunch of us would make a very, very good team in creating a separate article on that very subject.

I was not joking when I said that we should think about that word 'planning'. There is a world of difference between a commander giving a series of vague suggestions and a commander actually formulating a specific plan that will work. For example, why do historians tend to give Manstein the credit for the May 1940 attack plan in France? There were others involved, and the concept was nothing new.

Obviously I have no objection to trying out some new language here. The article as it currently stands needs a lot of work. But I think the current language is better than what we had at the beginning of the week.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith-264, sorry, I failed to address your question: An interesting point for me is the Cobra offensive's form. Could the westenders have made an attack like this before reaching the St Lo-Periers area if had they wanted to?Keith-264 The short answer is no. If you consult a good terrain map of the First Army AO (area of operations) you will see that it has several characteristics making offensive action extremely difficult; conversely, defense of the region by a much smaller force is easy. Three interrelated factors create this poor terrain:

1.Very low-lying swampy land which, in June/July 1944 was often flooded

2.Very small terrain compartmentalization in the bocage country (which covered most of 1st Army's front)

3. Very poor road network.

Incidentally, the British and Germans fought along some of the exact same lines of attack and defense in 1940 here, for the very same reasons. Terrain channelizes attacks in very predictable ways. Any trained soldier could predict where the attacks would have to be made.

The reason VIII, VII and XIX Corps kept slogging through frontal attacks during July, taking thousands of casualties for apparently small gains, was to gain the St Lo area, which was higher, drier, and had good lateral road nets on both sides of the intended line of departure. One of the reasons Cobra worked at all was that once VII Corps punched through the German tactical zone, a road net was available to take mech units where they wanted to go and supply them as they did it.

A slightly longer answer is 'maybe', and this is one of the places where the Normandy 'strategy' comes into play. First Army's main mission once ashore was to take Cherbourg. Strategically of course this was the correct mission. But it caused other opportunities to be lost. On June 10-12 US V Corps opened up the Caumont gap. Exploitation forces were available (US 2nd Armored Div was ashore, if not fully available, and Brit 7th Armoured Div was also on hand close by). But because fear of German counterattack was so high and because the 1st Army was so focused on Cherbourg (on the Army's right) neither 1st Army nor 21 AG took the opportunity to push armor through the gap, support it and keep going. Instead we got Villers-Bocage when a weaker force was sent into the gap two days later, not pushed forward to Caen, and allowed to fall back instead of at least holding a salient. It was a terrible lost opportunity.

This higher, drier ground in front of V Corps was obviously still available weeks later and it is possible an offensive could have been mounted there sooner. I don't know if it was ever considered and I haven't looked at the road net. DMorpheus (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Morpheus i think you are overthinking this. Cut all the other crap out as its not relevent i.e. Villers-Bocage and rating historians/writers (for example you say Ellis is highly dubious - i say the same about D'Este).

You have again asked for sources to prove Monty planned Cobra.

You will note this evidence has been posted and discussed:

Hastings, p. 249 : Montgomery's official biographer has recently argued that it was the C-in-C of 21st Army Group who produced the essential framework

Williams, p. 126 : On the 30th June - the day the German counter-attack at Epsom was sent off - Monty summoned Bradley and Dempsey to TAC HQ to discuss future operations. ... Monty had drawn up a directive for the meeting. In it he promised to proceed 'relentlessly with our plans' to hold the maximum number of enemy divisions in our eastern flank between Caen and Villerrs-Bocage and to swing the American western or right flank southwards and eastwards in a wide sweep so as to threaten the line of withdrawal of such enemy divisions to the south of Paris. A strong force in the Le Mans-Alencon area would, Monty noted, threaten to trap German forces west of the Seine. As Monty's biographer Nigel Hamilton points out, this was in essence the plan Bradley would carry out a little more than three weeks later. After the war, Monty's part in shaping what would become Operation Cobra was forgotten or ignored in the scramble for credit. It became an entirely American plan - the author held to be Bradley alone. But the outline of a plan for break-out was drawn by Monty - anothe plank in the broad policy he had first formulated before D-Day

Now if you agree or not is not the issue. This in the end is a weak primary source using a mixture of various strength secondary sources and no primary ones. Three authors have said the same thing that Monty laid down initial thinking on the plan in June. Later, as the majorirty of sources state, Bradley drew up the plan.

End of discussion bang it in the article!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right about one thing: whether we agree on what the sources say or not doesn't matter. But your conclusion that Montgomery planned Cobra is simply and hugely incorrect, and is not supported by any campaign history - only by a single biographer who was then repeated by a second writer. Hastings is being overstretched here. If Monty's fawning biographer Hamilton points it out, what did Montgomery himself say? How about Thompson, who also wrote a Montgomery Bio? What about Eisenhower? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Relationships between cause and effect need analysis which brings us back to POV. Chronology is a list of events by date. The historians and 'writers' give weight to different events for various reasons so we are back to the commentary on the ebb and flow of historiographical trends which took so much time in the writing of the Epsom page but which also in my view made it a model essay. Consider for example the relationship between Goodwood and Cobra as described by various historians - combined operation delayed or separate offensives? If so where does Bluecoat fit in - another coincidence or deliberate flank guard (like Goodwood was to Atlantic - or not)? Who controlled all this - Monty? Eisenhower? The fact can't be gainsaid that putting emphasis on the meaning of the word 'planning' to allocate the credit for Cobra seems to me to be a bit elitist as well as a red herring. It was the US squaddies wot done it after all. Wouldn't it be part of an army commander's job to make plans? Were there any alternatives to the Cobra gig to consider or did it suggest itself? Does the terrain around St Lo commend itself to a 'Colossal Crack' where the bocage doesn't? Do any of the writers bother to do a Terry Copp and go and have a look? Does anyone know of any monographs about the course of events on 1st Army's front which give the sort of detail that the writing of the last ten years on 2nd and 1st(Can) armies? Keith-264 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Blumenson, Blumenson, Blumenson.....yes, of course there are works about US 1st Army; Blumenson is by far the best. If you know what the bocage country is then you know that it does not lend itself to attack; it is readymade defensive terrain. DMorpheus (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Morpheus your missing that they are not my conclusions. Williams also supports Montys biographers so there is 3 sources providing this point of view.

I have constructed an argument above that prehaps what they are talking about is 2 different operations planned in the same area which the source information sort of does suggest however you have failed to discuss this point.

You keep asking why they are not in campaign histories - possibly the same reason why you hardly find mentioned of Operation Dreadnought, because it never took place. It could also be down to as the quote states the initial work by Monty was buried.

While it would be good to search through Montys own memoirs to find such a referance would you then be content if it was there? Regardless the position is supported by three works it should be in the article in chronological order followed by the weight of support showing how Bradley plucked an operation out of no where.

In chronological order and wrote correctly it will give the reader the chance to decide wheather they had an impact on each other or not. Remember yours and my own POV do not belong in the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I do believe there's a misapprehension that we are concluding that "Monty planned Cobra". All that's being stated is what can be verified - that Monty's biographer claims that he had something of that nature in mind three weeks before Bradley produced the operational plan that was Cobra. In presenting this chronologically, we are not implying cause-and-effect, and I think if you're reading this into the article you're perhaps looking too hard ;) We can't know if there was or wasn't, and in any case we can only go with what the sources say. Many excellent sources state that Cobra was Bradley's baby; as has been pointed out, the two claims are not incompatible, and while we shouldn't give undue weight to the Hamilton/Hastings/Williams etc claims, neither can we pretend they didn't write what they did - even if we neither like it nor agree. The claim is perhaps a minority view, but not an insignificant one. If reputable historians in reliable sources claimed that Mussolini suggested the Ardennes Offensive to Hitler, we'd need to include it appropriately in the relevant article despite its apparent nonsensical nature, because we're constrained to doing nothing more than distilling what the sources say. I'll have a go at putting something together in a new section below. EyeSerene^talk 17:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's my point Morphy, the influence on Cobra which seems to be being overlooked is the delay the Germans imposed on Westender operations. The 'failed' wide front offensive before Cobra presumeably cause the attrition-cum-holding operation in the east to be prolonged. Clearly the struggle to get through the bcage was anticipated but the time needed was not (alhough it was really bearing in mind that the German military leaders wanted out of Normandy after Epsom). Keith-264 (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody stated that Cobra was Monty's plan. What are Hamilton/Hastings/Williams saying is that Bradley conceived his plan starting from Monty's idea/preliminary plans. Of course Cobra is Bradley's operation, but as Williams/Hastings say, we should not forget Monty's part in it. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, again we are getting somewhere. Let's take up one of the older suggestions from a day or two ago: In the background section, describe the situation prior to Cobra. This ought to include basic tactical and strategic issues as well as Allied thinking such as the pre-invasion concepts. There's room there for COSSAC, SHAEF, Montgomery and other ideas preliminary to Cobra. But none of these were plans.

Then we open the 'Planning' section with Bradley's plan.

This way those who want a chronological order are presumably satisfied and those that want it clear that Bradley was the planner are also satisfied. Most important, it is sourced and accurate.

Ok ? DMorpheus (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Keith I think you are making a lot of assumptions but this page is already enormous so I won't get into it here. DMorpheus (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Working copy of first paragraph

Following the conclusion of Operation Charnwood and the cancellation of First Army's offensive towards Saint-Lô, on 10 July Montgomery met with his army commanders, Bradley and Dempsey, to discuss 21st Army Group's next move. During the meeting Bradley expressed concerns over the slow progress on the western flank, and proposed a breakout attempt, codenamed Operation Cobra, to be developed for launch by the First Army on 18 July. Montgomery approved, and the directive that emerged from the meeting made it clear that the overall strategy over the coming days would be to draw enemy attention away from First Army to the British and Canadian sector; Dempsey was instructed to "go on hitting: drawing the German strength, especially the armour, onto yourself - so as to ease the way for Brad[ley]". To accomplish this, Operation Goodwood was planned, and Eisenhower ensured that both operations would have the support of the Allied air forces with their strategic bombers.

According to Nigel Hamilton, Montgomery's official biographer, the "essential framework" of Operation Cobra was laid as early as 13 June. Montgomery's plan at that time called for Bradley's First Army to take Saint-Lô and Coutances and then make two southward thrusts; one from Caumont towards Vire and Mortain, and the other from Saint-Lô towards Villedieu and Avranches. Although pressure was to be kept up along the Cotentin Peninsula towards La Haye-du-Puits and Valognes, the capture of Cherbourg was not an immediate priority. However, with Cherbourg's seizure by Collins' VII Corps on 27 June Montgomery's initial timetable was soon outdated, and the thrust from Caumont was never adopted. The majority of historians and commentators, including the official US Army history, give Bradley sole credit for Cobra's operational plan, but recently Andrew Williams has argued that in the post-war "scramble for credit", Montgomery's role in shaping the offensive was "ignored or forgotten".

I'm not sure about the word 'admitted'. Everyone knew by 10th Jul that the Germans had chosen to fight it out in Normandy and geographical progress was slow as a result. Events in the west weren't a failure, merely slower than anticipated because German behaviour was motivated by acute military weakness - the disengagement-and-fight-inland idea was a non-starter because of lack of everything and the lack of fuel to move what little the Germans had. How about 'described' instead?Keith-264 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, you jumped in too quickly (I had yet to do much more than copy the stuff across!). I've made some tweaks now though - starting with the facts of the meeting on the 10th that everyone seems happy with, then going into the "handbags at dawn" stuff. I hope I've assigned appropriate weight, and haven't introduced any OR. Please alter as you see fit ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[;-)Keith-264 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hangbags at dawn lol havent heard that in ages! If it hasnt already been discussed later on in the planning section of the article i think mention of Monty's influence ala striking on a narrow front should also be brought up.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could get the Batley Townswomen's Guild to re-enact Operation Cobra for us :D The mention of a narrow-front attack is a few paragraphs down, but no mention of where the idea came from... ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

'Operation Bluecoat' by Ian Daglish p21. 'On 10 July, Montgomery held a conference at which General Bradley . . . freely admitted his concerns at lack of progress and referred to the COBRA plan which was about to be prepared. Montgomery was supportive, assuring the Americans that he would continue to hold the panzer divisions on the British front.' Is this any help? (handbag set to 'stun')Keith-264 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that where Monty told Bradley he was "eating the guts out" of the German defence by way of encouraging him? I'm sure I read that quoted in Wilmot(?), but it might have been in reference to the St-Lo attacks that secured Cobra's jumping-off point :P Anyhow, I've reworded slightly. DMorpheous, is this helping at all? Your input is very welcome! EyeSerene^talk 13:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, I got a copy of 'Bluecoat' last week and thought it was a comment that might help, particularly 'about to be prepared' I infer from it that Bradley's efforts were part of the strategy and that he was doing the detail like Dempsey did for 2nd army. I find Bluecoat interesting as it did so much to assist Cobra which did so much to assist Totalise and Tractable. It makes all that nationalist poncing about since the war look what it is. Keith-264 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see that it could be regarded in any other way. Montgomery had been saying all along as a general intention "pin them with the left; draw them down; then strike with the right", and it was up to Bradley and Dempsey as the army commanders to make it happen. Delegation is why there's a chain of command ;) I fully agree that none of the operations on either flank can be taken in isolation.

What your note does imply is that although the broad concept of Cobra was proposed by Bradley on the 10th, he hadn't yet worked out the details, so I've tweaked the wording to reflect that. EyeSerene^talk 15:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it tended to support Morphy's insistence on Bradley 'planning' it but not as something he pulled out of a hat.Keith-264 (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)