Talk:Operation Lüttich

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the last paragraph of the "Background" section, you say "could find barely a fraction of these numbers". What's "barely a fraction"? Do you have any specific numbers, or even a ballpark figure?

   I don't have the book where that ref was taken from, but I can check the rest of my sources to see whether I can find an approximation. Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The last half sentence of the first paragraph of the "Offensive strategy" section needs a ref.

   Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

   • The last sentence of the second paragraph of the "Allied Air-Strikes—the offensive stalls" section needs a ref.

   Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • The lead image PD template appears to be broken (it is redlinked). This should probably be fixed, so there aren't questions about the copyright. I noticed you're the uploader, so thought you'd probably be able to fix it fairly easily :)

• Fixed. I know for a fact that is a US Image, but I'm more familiar with Anglo-Canadian copyright templates (as I tend to use them a lot more) Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1. • The map image needs a caption. I realize there's one on the image itself, but it's fuzzy and hard to read unless you expand the image.

   Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, a nice article. There are just a few minor issues, so I am putting the article on hold to allow time for these to be dealt with. If you have any questions, you can ask them here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. The question in the prose section, about the Background section, isn't enough to keep the article from passing GA, but it would be something nice to include in the article, so that can go on your list of things to do in the future :) Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Air Power

I think that the article makes too much of Allied air attacks on German units involved in the operation. I suggest that there are grounds for scepticism, much of which can be found in the ORS2 reports contained in 'Montgomery's Scientists: Operational Research in Northwest Europe: Operational Research in Northwest Europe - The Work of No. 2 Operational Research Section with 21 Amy Group June 1944 to July 1945 by Terry Copp. Any thoughts?Keith-264 (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this article needs some serious revision. Lots of good references state that the actual number of tanks destroyed by air power was a very small number, and that Allied tactical air power's greatest effect was on the German support troops and non-armored vehicles and supply train. Will add brief comment to correct, finish fixing later. DarthRad (talk)

OK updated the article with a reference from the terrific book "Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45." DarthRad (talk)

The Operational Research Sections of 21st Army Group and 2nd TAF, per the ORS2 report, didn't find very many armoured vehicles knocked out by the US Army either. In regard to Panthers, they found 5 certainly destroyed by RPs (rocket projectiles -- they could not say whether these were RAF or US Ninth Air Force, though most RP strikes were RAF), none destroyed by cannon or machine guns, 1 destroyed by a bomb (again, could have been RAF or Ninth Air Force), 6 abandoned by crew (ORS2 believed abandonment was due to air attack), 4 destroyed by crew, 14 destroyed by US Army (artillery, bazookas or anti-tank rounds), 3 destroyed by unknown cause (too messed up to tell). That gives a total of 6 destroyed by air weapons, 6 abandoned presumably due to fear of air attack, 4 destroyed by crew, 14 by US Army ground weapons, 3 unknown. Since ORS2 attributed abandonment to air attack (German tank crews were only observed to bale out of undamaged vehicles for that reason), you've actually got 12 Panthers accounted for by air attack compared to 14 by ground weapons. Plus 4 'destroyed by crew' for whatever reason and 3 'unknown causes'. When you consider how much more time the US ground forces had to address the problem, with all the advantages of constant proximity, it's surprising that their tally was so little better than that of the air forces.

In regard to Panzer Mark IVs, there were 2 killed by RPs, 1 by bomb, 1 abandoned, 5 destroyed by US Army, 1 destroyed by unknown cause.

In regard to armoured troop carriers: 7 destroyed by RPs, 4 by aircraft cannon or machine guns, 1 abandoned, 3 destroyed by US Army.

In regard to armoured cars: 1 destroyed by RP, 5 by US Army.

In regard to armoured recovery vehicles: 1 destroyed by US Army.

I forget what happened with SP guns, but the researchers only found a couple of those anyway.

So, couple of things... the ORS survey was not exhaustive or definitive, it was just the random findings of a small (but undisclosed) number of officers who spent a week wandering around the Mortain area. They said that the number of wrecks attributable to air attack was about four times the number claimed by pilots. Fair enough. But, considering that most of the air attacks occurred on a single afternoon (that of 7 August), whereas ground forces had a whole week to work on the panzer columns with artillery, anti-tank guns and bazookas, the air forces appear to have done quite well.

The pdf of the original ORS report can be downloaded from a link given here.

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA951850

Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Alwyn Featherston, in Battle for Mortain, previously published as Saving the Breakout (Presidio Press, 1993, ISBN 0-89141-662-5), p.136-7, says: 'The Typhoons did inflict significant damage on the backed-up German armored columns that day. "The activities of the fighter-bombers are almost intolerable," Funck reported. "The air attacks are of an intensity hitherto unknown." General Luttwitz, the superb commander of the 2d Panzer Division, phoned headquarters to ask where the promised Luftwaffe fighter cover was. "We can do nothing against their fighter-bombers," he complained. "They descend in their hundreds firing rockets on concentrations of tanks and vehicles." A few GIs recognised the contribution of the air force. "If it hadn't been for the British air force that first day, well, Mortain would have been a different story," said Sgt James Waldrop of the 117th Infantry. "I can still see those planes, flying so low they were coming up with branches in their air scoops." Even Giles [Maj Warren Giles, intelligence officer, 117th Infantry], no fan of the air force, described the events of August 7 this way: "We had gotten [the Germans] stopped, but there's no way in hell we could have held them without the British air force. We won the battle... with a whole lot of help from those Typhoons." The exact distribution of credit for tank kills will never be known. A British Operations Research Group attached to the 21st Army Group reached the Mortain area shortly after the battle and examined seventy-eight armored fighting vehicles, four self-propelled guns, and fifty unarmored vehicles left behind by the Germans. More than half of these targets were destroyed by antitank weapons and artillery, although several of the kills were judged to be vehicles abandoned by their crews for fear of air attack, then later destroyed by the infantry.' Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

http://mudandblood.net/ < This flash game is fairly popular and takes place during Operation Luttich. 70.78.13.170 (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Who's the dead soldier in the picture with the wrecked tank?

Anyone know the name of the dead solider under the tank in the picture? Alialiac (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Why was it called Luttich?

Good to see a byword anent Luttich being the German for Liege in Belgium (historically called Luke in English) but why was “Operation Luttich” chosen? 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:2499:E57:D206:D58 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Von Kluge's writings

In the "German Attacks" section someone wrote "The German commanding officer, General Von Kluge, wrote after the war "The armoured operation was completely wrecked exclusively by the allied airforces, supported by a highly trained ground force operation".[citation needed]"

I would like to know how von Kluge wrote anything after the war since he killed himself in August 1944. Anyone? 2601:244:4601:1DE0:A5C1:45CF:2545:C1EA (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I have fixed this. It was apparently a bad secondary source; the actual comment (which was slightly different) was from Kluge's Chief of Staff, General Speidel, who survived the war. Pfdietz2 (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Somebody removed my edit

I added in why Hitler ordered the counter attack, my source is Anthony Bevers book "D-Day". Somebody removed it... 2A01:B340:81:44C9:8B1:CC44:ED42:CB1F (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)