Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Normandy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Citations & Viller-Bocage[edit]

If citations are needed for operations covering the Anglo-Canadians during normandy, i have the official history by Ellis so give me a shout and ill see what he has to say on the matter for you.

One of the battles which falls under this project - Villers-bocage, has been the source of allot of edits as well as disputes. So although it is currently rated as a B, there is allot of work to do on it. Allot of detail has to be pruned, details worked on, structure etc

Immediate Objectives[edit]

Ok. In order to coordinate our efforts better, we should probably prioritize a few articles over the other ones. Here's a few thoughts.

  • Enigma, you & I need to get citations into Operation Goodwood. although it's a massive article, it has almost no citations. if we can get those in there, it should be B-Class.
  • Skinny87, your specialty lies in the airborne operations. Would it be possible for you to get references for Operation Tonga, since it seems to be suffering a fate similar to Goodwood.

Comments everybody....Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I stated i have Ellis' official history covering Normandy, i also have Wilmots book and atm i also have a copy of Carlo's too (libary loan). All of which should be enough information to cover the general aspects of the operation as well provide casualty information - ill fact tag everything else. I will also play around with the info box and reorganise the bottom of the article. Depending what mood i am by the time i get home i may do this tonight if there is nothing else to do.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit to add: bloody hell i just realised what a big task this is going to be haha! i had a few spare hours and nothing to do and ive only managed to find citations (as well as update information in the info box) for Goodwood.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we're gonna end up re-writing several of these articles entirely. <smashes head on desk>. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm half-way through 11th Airborne Division, but I'll see what I can do. Might take a little while before I can get around to it though. It is second on my priorities after the 11th Airborne, however.Skinny87 (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, as for resources, I've got D'Este's, Bercuson's, Van-Der-Vat's, & I have had access to Copp's in the past (Field of Fire; the Canadians in Normandy). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Any of your sources give a figure for teh German losses during Goodwood? Mine all seem to agree on tanks lost and give a number for captured, but actual killed or wounded just doesnt seem to be here.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I couldn't find one off the top of my head, but I shall keep looking. I'm gonna start working on Operation Luttich after I've brought The Moro River Campaign up to B or GA-Class. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm working on Hill 262

Should that not be merged with Tractable?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

that's a good point....I'll think about that. Cam (Chat) 21:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Should this article come under the teams mission?[edit]

The Battle of Normandy leaders

I just found it now, while looking through the Military history of Normandy cateogry.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Normandy articles, question on infoboxes[edit]

This is a question regarding the "partof=" section of the infobox.

Currently there doesnt appear to be a standard, as see from the selction below they tend to not follow a trend.

  • Brecouty Manor: Part of Operation Overlord
  • Verrières Ridge: Part of Operations Atlantic and Spring during the Battle of Normandy in World War II
  • Luttich: Part of the Battle of Normandy
  • Tractable: Part of Operation Overlord during the Battle of Normandy
  • Paris: Part of Operation Overlord

Should be standardise what they say?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary hearing on the matter of disruptive edits[edit]

I'm looking into allegations emanating from this group of disruptive editing from at least on account and a handful if isp addressees. At the moment the only action taken here has been semi-protection of one article, but I would like to hear from this group about the extent of the problem, the articles effected, and a rough time line for the events so I can get a better idea of overall problem. This should enable milhist to adopt a position on the matter and respond more quickly to the problem in the future. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources list[edit]

Now we've become 'official', might it be worth compiling a list of sources on the project page (sort of who's got what & what they cover)? EyeSerenetalk 10:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, will do.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick (impressive list too). I'm not sure I can add much to that! Hopefully it'll be a useful resource as we can see where we're lacking and where to go for more info. EyeSerenetalk 11:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
What can i say ... i was bored! :D Reached all my deadlines for this week so had some spare time.
Ive left a few items off such as Ambrose, I have the books but don’t touch them now more – his work is surrounded in too much controversy for my liking!
Good to see the e-book of Stacey’s work hasn’t been lost “for all time” cheers for the new link, ill like to take a look through there.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I found that while looking for an alternative now the Canadian one has gone dead. I guess at some point we'll need to go through and replace those links. EyeSerenetalk 19:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Operation Samwest[edit]

Shouldn't we add that in? It deserves an article as much as Tonga and the American one. And on the main project page, it lists the dates from the 6th to the 30th. Should someone fix that, or are we doing the Battle of Paris? TY,

Buggie111 (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think if the sources exist to write a decent (ie minimum WP:GA-standard) article on it, let's add it in. That's only my opinion though :) EyeSerenetalk 14:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be best to merge it with Dingson, as they're essentially two parts of the same operation. Thompson and Otway probably has enough to write something on it. I'll try and get to it eventually. Skinny87 (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a whole related series - Operation Dingson, Operation Lost, Operation Cooney and Operation Samwest. Would merging them into a single overarching article be a viable alternative? EyeSerenetalk 15:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Prehaps calling them all SAS airborne ops ... or something to that effect; this article List of SAS operations shows further operations the regiment undertook in support of Overlord and the advance through France. Lot of unsourced material however.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There were quite a few, and I would support merging them into something like Special Air Service Operations in North-West Europe 1944-45 or somesuch. Skinny87 (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we should go with adding List of SAS operations or Special Air Service Operations in support of Operation Overlord. I might create soon, but I only have online refs. Buggie111 (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Would just Special operations in support of Operation Overlord fit the bill. or is that too vague? The reason I ask is that from those stubs not all soldiers involved were SAS; many were Free French paratroopers and Maquis etc. EyeSerenetalk 22:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Just seen this there are also Operation Houndsworth, Operation Loyton and Operation Bulbasket which I have recently expanded and would come under the Special operations in support of Operation Overlord or another title. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sword Beach - German losses request for help[edit]

From Ken Ford's Sword beach i have just under 190 German prisoners being taken on D-Day from three locations however i reckon the 716th had around 2,000 men in the area not to mention the elements of the 21st Panzer that counterattacked.

Anyone got any info on the German losses, i think ive exhuasted my sources.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try,but don't expect much. Buggie111 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Assume you've already tried Wilmot? Nothing in any of mine. EyeSerenetalk 17:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Merville Gun Battery[edit]

Another one for you; i have two sources one states the guns at Merville were 150mm (Wilmott) and the other other states 75mm (Copp). Anyone got anything definite?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A few of my airborne sources say 150mm, but I'll check in more detail tonight. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Early days, but the impression I'm getting is that intelligence suggested 150mm, but reality provided 100mm or less. Skinny may be able to help more. Ranger Steve (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Driving lesson in ten minutes, but give me a bell on my ralkpage and I'll look it over. Skinny87 (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Buckingham (2004) states on page 41 that the battery had casemates able to hold artillery upto 150mm in calibre, but when Otway and his men breached the casemates, the discovered Czech-made WWI-era 100mm howitzers. That's on page 145. This seems to agree with other sources I've got, including Harclerode (2005) on page 319, which states they were 100mm calibre 'light howitzers'. Skinny87 (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Cheers for that Skinny, shall throw in Buck, p. 41 and Harclerode, p. 319 into the Sword Beach article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


We seem to have some inconsistencies in the end date for this project's coverage - from our article list on the project page we imply a cut-off of 21 August 1944 (the end of the Falaise battle), the last combat (sort of) of the campaign was the liberation of Paris (not in our list) on 25 August, and the Overlord article itself gives the termination of the campaign as the crossing of the Seine on 30 August. What should we go for? EyeSerenetalk 10:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I'd say the last, but only because I think that crossing the Seine was the ultimate objective of Overlord, but I'll check my sources (when I get home and assuming I don't pass out... oh wait, friends birthday. Urgh.). --Ranger Steve (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Fiddling around (shortcut & ubx)[edit]

A couple of things relating to housekeeping:

  • I've set up a shortcut for this special project: WP:OPNORMANDY. Not very inspired, I know, so if anyone's got anything better...
  • I also thought a userbox might be nice for those of us that use them. First thoughts below:
Canadian troops on their way to Juno Beach.jpg This user is part of Operation Normandy, a special project of the Military history WikiProject.

Edit link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/User WPMILHIST Normandy special project

I've stuck with the standard milhist ubx colours etc, but any ideas for improvements (especially a better image) would be most welcome :) EyeSerenetalk 11:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I like it! :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Tis very nice, but it is a wee bit small on the image front - lots of ground and sky, only a small tank and all that. I'll holler if i see something that might look better. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree - I've changed the image. Better? EyeSerenetalk 19:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Visiting Normandy[edit]

It looks like that I may spend some time this summer in Normandy France. Please let me know if and what pictures you may be needing for the articles. I don't mind going out of may way to take a picture or two. Please detail exactly what and where (Address if possible) you may want to have photographed. Good luck. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Allied secret bicycle unit[edit]

Hi I have just been going through the Imperial War Museums picture collection and there are 10's of pictures of British and Canadians during the Normandy landings coming off landing craft carrying pedal bikes. Now I must admit to having read numerous books on the Second World War and the only mention of Bicycle troops I can remember are the Japanese in Malaya. Obviously the British and Canadians took them to Normandy what happened to them ? Were they just issued to infantry battalions by chance or was there a cunning plan.

This is also on talk Normandy landings apologies if its also on your watchlist, but just remembered this group.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting find Jim :) I've definitely read something about this in one of my books. Off the top of my head, they were issued to some infantry units (I don't believe they were 'special' units in any way, just standard infantry) who trained with them in England, carted them across the Channel, parked them up in the beachhead, and never saw them again. I think because of the weight of packs and equipment they weren't very practical (or safe!) on anything but the smoothest, flattest terrain. I'll see if I can track down the reference. EyeSerenetalk 16:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I must admit the title of this section made me laugh! I have deffo read about infantry coming ashore with bikes to use to get inland faster however if they used them or not is a different story; i dont think i have seen mention of them going beyond the beaches.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It is kind of "Dad's Army", isn't it? EyeSerenetalk 17:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I can just see the poor old Tommy with Lee Enfield in one hand and a Raleigh in the other. When 21 Panzer comes over the hill.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I've read this too. I do recall a quote from a soldier who stated they abandoned them shortly after landing, and later the French civilian's were seen riding them. No sources off the top of my head, but I'm sure I can find some. British para's also used fold up bicycles (and motorbikes), mainly in a despatch role. You might find the Bicycle infantry article enlightening (I had to delete the section that implied Operation Biting used them a while ago!) Ranger Steve (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like we've read the same book Steve :) The mind boggles, given the difficulties tanks had with the bocage, what overloaded troops on bikes in swampy/overgrown/hilly/sandy/ploughed-up country were supposed to achieve. 'Kitchen sink' disease on the part of the planners perhaps? EyeSerenetalk 17:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
We do have some pictures in commons Canadians and 4th Special Service Brigade HQ at Juno, with cycles and what looks like a welbike. Amazing wondering who came up with the idea, and what the troops thought. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Landings at St Aubin-sur-Mer.jpg
'Nan White' Beach, JUNO Area at Bernieres-sur-Mer.jpg

I think the logic was there, but they should have equipped them properly. More seriously, I'm planning to cycle Market Garden this year and Normandy next. I might be wrong but I think there was some training footage shown in the film Overlord. I might have seen it somewhere else though. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks expensive Steve...
It's hard to understand why they'd want to transport a welbike in a landing craft - surely there'd be room for a proper motorbike? Nice photos though. EyeSerenetalk 17:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
If you mean the ride, I save money by cycling : ) If you mean the bike, well it is also a touch futuristic... Almost certainly cheaper to get a dozen of these than a hummer nowadays though! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I have just looked through the IWM collection again and one Royal Marine unit appears to be using the bike like a pack horse with rucksacks hanging off. Like the Viet Cong did, which probably makes more sense than as a means of transport. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Steve if your cycling the route does this mean you will get agonisingly close to completing and crossing the Rhine, but will have to return next year? ;pEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Y'know, I did consider that, but then I thought maybe I'd spend more than a week planning the whole venture! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Found a source with several references to British use of bicycles, one in a bit of detail. I note that this was last discussed 4 years ago. Anyone still interested, or has the issue gone away? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Being a keen cyclist and having done three anniversary trips to Normandy by bicycle, I'm still very interested in the subject (and in my work world too, where it occasionally pops up). So I wouldn't mind knowing the reference Gog - although I'm uncertain where we'd put any info on it in the Normandy articles! Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 07:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Oops. Missed this. S E Ambrose (I'm afraid) D-Day. He mentions several instances but quotes at length from members of a Commando unit which landed over Sword and seem to have got their bikes quite some way inland - under some trying circumstances. Eg crawling along a ditch under fire whilst dragging their bikes. (The main person quoted as an 'assault cyclist' was a German Jew who fled to Britain before the war and enrolled in the Commandos - under a false name.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Operation Titanic[edit]

Hi all I have just created Operation Titanic and I think it might be included in this project ? If it is there are three other related operations mentioned Operation Glimmer, Operation Taxable and Operation Airborne Cigar --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it (and the others) probably ought to be. As far as I'm aware we weren't intending to limit the scope of this special project to ground operations, though others may have a different understanding. Thoughts? EyeSerenetalk 07:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
This one will also I presume belong Operation Postage Able --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, I don't see why not. With these new articles coming on board, I think the time might be right to think about our strategy. To rehash the project page, ideally we're aiming to get a featured topic by 6 June 2014, which means a minimum GA:FA ratio of 1:1 and no articles below GA. Identifying which articles we think might realistically make FA and which to select for GA might be a helpful exercise at this point and give us some targets to work towards. What does everyone think? EyeSerenetalk 12:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter Ohmsen[edit]

I just returned from my summer Holidays in Normandy. I visited the Crisbecq Battery near Saint-Marcouf on 18 July. Here I ran across the story of Walter Ohmsen, probably the first Knight's Cross recipient on the invasion front. I am not very knowledegable about the history of the invasion. Could someone here please have a look at the article and verify my findings? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Operation Charnwood[edit]

Hi all, You may not be aware that there has been a massive hoo-har over this article in the past few months however in an attempt to establish solid concensus on the outcome of the operation, information has been presented on the talkpage: Talk:Operation Charnwood#Outcome revisted. If you have any sources that discuss the outcome, would you care to add them to the list so we can establish concensus? Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

US casualties on Utah beach[edit]

What constitutes a casualty on Utah beach? I am puzzled by the infobox stating "only" 200 US casualties. The battle over the Crisbecq battery alone caused 300 casualties on both sides. The Corry was sunk with 24 US sailors killed in action. According to what I read the German batteries inflicted heavy losses near WN 5. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing." [1] I haven't checked any dead tree sources yet, but the bulk of the US casualties were at Omaha Beach and amongst their airborne troops. EyeSerenetalk 16:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Update: Max Hastings and Stephen Badsey also support 197 casualties for the landing. However, Joseph Balkoski breaks down the casualties for the entire operation (landing on Utah plus exploitation inland into the Cotentin) on 6 June as follows: 4th Inf Div: 311 killed, wounded or missing; 90th Inf Div: 2; VII Corps/1st Army units: 278; US Navy/Coastguard/Royal Navy: 235; Airborne (82nd & 101st): 2499; 9th Air Force: 185; TOTAL: 4,560 (pp 310 & 311, Utah Beach: The Amphibious Landing and Airborne Operations on D-Day, June 6, 1944). The difficulties seem to have come after the landing as the troops moved inland. Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 16:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Low casualties weren't as uncommon as you'd think. With the exception of Bloody Omaha the casualty rates were generally much lower than predicted. Juno, for example, predicted casualties exceeding 2000 dead, while in reality less than 400 were killed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Juno Beach[edit]

My rewrite is sitting at 22000b, and I haven't even got to the actual landings yet. This should be fun. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 23:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've bought more disk space, just in case :). Buggie111 (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Operation Deadstick[edit]

Hi first I must apologise as I had forgotten all about this project, but Operation Deadstick falls within it. It is subject to a peer review now and another editor has listed it at GA. Anyone else who would like to give it a look is very welcome. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Last minute trip to Normandy[edit]

It's quite last minute (and may not happen), but I might be cycling from Cherbourg to Caen next weekend (Sat 4th-Mon 6th June). Does anyone want any special pictures while I'm there and, as it's the anniversary, does anyone know of any must see events? Ranger Steve Talk 09:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm planning a trip to Normandy later this year (probably late October) and would be interested to see your final itinerary if you do make this trip :) Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Phew, made it. 144 miles from Cherbourg to Caen, with night stops in Carentan and Arromanches. My advice would be, don't cycle it if you want to visit many museums - I spent most of my time cycling. Still, absolutely worthwhile trip, I got passed just about every 5 minutes by jeeps packed with Frenchman dressed as WWII paras, infantry and (bizarrely) the Afrika Korps! Lots of planes, tanks and camps to see en route. Ranger Steve Talk 10:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I was going to stay well away from bikes ;) How did the guys dressed as German soldiers go with the locals? - it seems (to this Australian) rather uncool to dress as Nazi soldiers of any kind, at any time, especially in countries which were occupied by the Germans. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been to Normandy since the 90s, so it was a bit of a change for me. There are a lot more museums, monuments and trails to get absorbed in, but if you tried to do them all, you'd probably have a breakdown. Although I didn't go in them, the shops, opinions of people outside and views into the interior I got suggest to me that Dead Man's Corner museum is well worth a view, along with Arromanches museum and of course, the Pegasus Bridge museum. One thing I did enjoy on day 1 was cycling through some of the old villages on the Cotentin peninsular and just stumbling across elaborate memorials to quite minor events, complete with detailed information boards. It felt a bit more untouched in some of those places, before I got to St Marie Eglise.
You might find this website useful, in particular the city guides which tell you where all of the monument/museums etc... are in each city. This section from the French site was also a godsend for working out where all the events were, although I'm sure I found it in English, I can't for the life of me work out how I did now!
I only saw the Afrika Korps driving past me. Aside from that there were remarkably few German uniforms... or any other nationality other than American for that matter. If you can, I do think it's worth visiting at the anniversary time though. Some of it was... well, a bit distasteful I thought (it was overkill on the war memorabilia), but at the same time it can be quite entertaining to have a convoy of troops go roaring past - especially when you're in an old town with nothing else on the road. When are you thinking of going? Ranger Steve Talk 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that - getting away from the main 'sights' does seem like a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Tour of Normandy[edit]

I know that this isn't the place for this, but can anyone recommend a good professional tour of Normandy? I'm going to be there in late October. I'll be taking lots of photos which I'll add to Wikicommons :) Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been on a number of individual tours but never a comprehensive "package"-type tour of the entire region. From my experience I'd say Caen and Arromanches are probably the two best "must visit" locations for a non-US tourist, and Mont Ormel (the Falaise Pocket) is supposed to be worth seeing though I've never been there. I've heard good things about (formerly from a friend who's used them, if that's any help. EyeSerenetalk 16:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't recommend any based on experience I'm afraid, but one that springs to mind is, who (as I understand it) stem from the Holt's tour books. That said I don't 100% rate the books (good, but not that good), and the website still lists the late Richard Holmes as one of their guides... I'm afraid I hail from the 'do it yourself' school - I figure if I know enough about a subject, I can gain sufficient enjoyment from seeing the things I know about by myself, without paying through the nose to have a guide tell me it all again! Arromanches for Mulberry, Caen for the Peace museum, Pegasus Bridge (and surrounding area) for the history. St Marie Eglise was good (and lots in the surrounding area), Carentan on the other hand, had very little in it. There also appears to be a lot in Courselles (although I was short of time by then). Pointe du Hoc is impressive (and free). Normandy's pretty easy to get around - I could send you more details about my trip if it'll help? Ranger Steve Talk 20:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I normally favour DIY type touring as well, but I'm a bit scarred about driving on the wrong side of the road! Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry with the number of British expats around there, no one will take any notice. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
As some feedback, I did the half day tour of the beaches which is run by the memorial at Caen, and would strongly recommend it. I would have liked to have gone on a longer and more detailed tour, but almost none of them run from October onwards. I suspect I'll be back in Normandy in the future though. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Animation for Brécourt Manor[edit]

Welcome Fallschirmjäger ... could I get some help with an animation (after I finish up some work on Juno Beach)? I've seen several descriptions of the Brécourt Manor Assault, including in Band of Brothers (book and movie), and I'm still not able to place everyone at every step ... which is apparently important, the details of the assault are still taught in military courses all over the world. I think an animation showing each guy's path during the assault would be a big help ... does anyone have a good collection of maps of the assault? - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've managed to find a few maps which would be useful as a starting point. One is Winters map here, I tried looking for a better version in the Band of Brothers book but unfortunately there is no map in there. Another looks more promising, particularly for showing everyone's position but its small and not shown in full. Regards, Fallschirmjäger  23:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Writing style[edit]

Just a heads up: I'm researching some of the Normandy articles, and when I think of myself as a collaborator rather than a copyeditor, I don't just write my own stuff, I also tend to fiddle with other people's stuff to make it ... well, maybe "punchier" and tighter, to fit my own style of writing. For instance, "Juno, commonly known as Juno Beach, was the code name for ..." is fine, but I prefer "Juno or Juno Beach was ...". (The code name bit is explained just below the lead, and I try to find workarounds for "the thing was a thing ...".) So, on OPNORMANDY articles, feel free to tell me if our styles clash, and I'll go work on some other OPNORMANDY article. - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a compulsive tweaker too but no-one here has shouted at me yet for messing with their text, so I'm sure you'll be fine :) Re copyediting, before activity dropped off somewhat I was conducting a kind of experiment in seeing how "spicy" a level of prose I could get through FAC: compare this (FAC May 2010) to this (FAC August 2009). I'm not sure if we were just lucky with reviewers on the former but I rather like the less formal, livelier style. EyeSerenetalk 16:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The first isn't just livelier, it's easier to read and conveys more useable information per minute to most of our readers. Kudos. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone still out there?[edit]

Following a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2011#General question (special projects) are there any active editors still interested in this project? If so how are we going to move forward. Can I suggest an easy goal, at the moment there are 43 articles listed, six of them C Class and 14 Start Class. How about a first target of getting all articles to a minimum of B Class, by 1 December 2011. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm here ... still catching up on copyediting at the moment, but this stuff is my bedtime reading, and I'm looking forward to working on a few articles. - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Related to the above, I'm posting a brief note here to alert anyone watching this page of the discussion I've started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Special projects, regarding the special projects in general. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I've just added myself as a participant in this project, though I'm going to be on holiday for all of October (including probably a few days in Normandy). Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm jealous! - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Welcome aboard :) EyeSerenetalk 12:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I"ve still got this page watchlisted. Buggie111 (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


At the moment, I'm working on adding citations to articles from Stephen Ambrose's D-Day. Our article on Ambrose contains a lot of criticisms, and I'm looking for feedback. The best I can tell, there was a struggle up through the 90s among WWII historians for predominance, and Ambrose is one of the ones who "won" ... and some aren't happy about that. It's true that he (along with his extensive team at the Eisenhower Center) often stretched himself outside his field (and when he did, he made mistakes), and it's true that somehow his team got the curious notion somewhere that it's not such a bad thing if you forget the quote marks in a cited footnote, leading to claims of plagiarism ... but AFAICT, he's ... let's say "widely" ... considered an authority on D-Day. Correct me if I'm wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd couch it more in terms of him being a prolific D-Day scholar or otherwise recognizing that he was one of many who wrote about D-Day. Ambrose's plagiarism is fairly well documented as I recall, especially in his later works, and it's important to be aware of that.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
(E/C) Personally, I think his books are littered with terrible prose, basic errors and occasional hyperbole. However, in the sense that he wrote several books on the subject, I think its fair to say that he was something of an expert on the subject. An authority yes, but I would hesitate to call him the leading authority. I'd suggest that any extraordinary claims you ref to him should be supported by another source just to be safe, but basic uncontroversial stuff should be fine. Ranger Steve Talk 13:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Definitely a prolific writer, but one whose studies should be used to lead into further research rather than used as a major source per se. Claims of plagiarism should be supported, in every instance, with definite proof - if he copied information from other sources, then there should be evidence from works that pre-date his, not mentioned in his own bibliography. Otherwise it's just an empty claim. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 13:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much, that all synchs up with what I've read so far. Generally, we can check him ... and we can check him on the oral history stuff too, in the sense that lots of people were involved (it's the largest first-person oral history project ever that covered one battle ... it was 1380 personal histories around 10 years ago, probably more now). - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Setting the scene for the Bugle[edit]

Any ideas for a feature on Normandy for the Bugle? - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start us off with a passage from Ambrose, D-Day, p. 25: "But ... for all the plans and preparations, for all the brilliance of the deception scheme, for all the inspired leadership, in the end success or failure in Operation Overlord came down to a relatively small number of junior officers, noncoms, and privates or seamen in the American, British, and Canadian armies, navies, air forces, and coast guards. If the paratroopers and glider-borne troops cowered behind hedgerows or hid out in barns rather than actively seek[ing] out the enemy; if the coxswains did not drive their landing craft ashore but instead, out of fear of enemy fire, dropped the ramps in too-deep water; if the men at the beaches dug in behind the seawall; if the noncoms and junior officers failed to lead their men up and over the seawall to move inland in the face of enemy fire—why, then, the most thoroughly planned offensive in military history, an offensive supported by incredible amounts of naval firepower, bombs, and rockets, would fail. ¶ It all came down to a bunch of eighteen-to-twenty-eight-year-olds." - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, that is an amazing passage that helps to shine the light on the youthful face of the military. And much more positively that the average age of a dead soldier in Vietnam (19 I believe). But yeah, something focusing on that would be a good idea.He's Gone Mental 08:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
That'certainly a powerful quote, and a good way to start an article. If the aim of the article is to drum up interest in editing articles on this topic the article could provide an overview of what the main articles are and how they're structured (including the somewhat confusing structure of articles on the D-Day landings and the subsequent campaign) and outline the kind of sources which have proved to be most useful for writing on this topic. An interesting feature of the literature on this campaign is that while huge numbers of books and good-quality websites have been written on it, it's often not actually necessary to read huge numbers of works on a topic due to the availability of excellent, recent and detailed higher level books on the campaign which generally provide good coverage of the article-worthy topics. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
What books do you recommend, Nick? - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll reply to that sometime next week when I'm back in the same hemisphere as my books ;) Nick-D (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Exercise Tiger[edit]

Should not Exercise Tiger be on the list of core articles? --Thefrood (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


I just found this project, which appears to be tangentially related to a current ongoing project of my own (which is to improve our coverage of military deception). Anyway, I notice you list Op. Fortitude under the core articles - but that is actually a sub-operation of the main deception plan, Operation Bodyguard. Just thought y'all might be interested (and if you're really interested here is my personal project page: User:ErrantX/Sandbox/Deception) --Errant (chat!) 21:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That should fit, given that it was directly tied into Normandy. Don't have anything on hand now, but remember reading something somewhere about a corpse washing up in spain with a briefcase on a Calais invasion. Tearing apart house NOW. Buggie111 (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Operation Mincemeat? At least that's the famous one; it's not tied to Normandy - rather to the 1943 invasion of Sicily, although the people who thought it up were the ones who did a lot of work on the Bodyguard deception. --Errant (chat!) 00:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Operation Normandy in the Signpost[edit]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Military History's Operation Normandy for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Today's featured article for 6 June 2014[edit]

It would be nice to mark the 70th anniversary of D-Day by showcasing one of the FAs on the Normandy Campaign. According to WP:TFAR, the 6 June slot is currently vacant. The articles which haven't already appeared on the main page are:

As such, the two options seem to be Operation Perch and Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy, neither of which is perfect. I'd suggest going with Operation Perch, as the Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy article (by its nature) is focused on one of the smaller national efforts in this battle and running it on the anniversary would look a bit odd. The downside of Operation Perch is that it's about a failed Allied attack, and running it on the anniversary of one of the main Allied victories of the war would also be a bit strange looking. Thoughts? Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Perch. I think the realities and uncertainties of the first few days after D-Day are encapsulated well by Perch. Looking past the parochialism, having visited the graves of every Australian buried in Normandy (and not wanting to devalue the sacrifices made by the RAAF/RAF and RANVR), I really think the Australian contribution article would be very odd as a choice in the face of the sheer enormity of D-Day. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think Perch is the most appropriate of the possibilities, even though it's not ideal. I just reviewed and passed Operation Overlord as GA not too long ago, shame it didn't go through A/FA in time for this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2014, D-Day naval deceptions is scheduled for the 6 June :) Not to be biased (it's my FA); but I think it's nice to expose some of the less-well-known aspects of the landings. Especially as it was a successful operation. I'd love to have either Operation Fortitude or Operation Bodyguard ready, but they've been staring at me for over 18 months now and my pile of notes is about 3 feet high :( --Errant (chat!) 11:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
PS I think Perch is a good article to include - might it be better to fit in either on the 7th or 14th (the current 14th article seems non-topical so it could slot in there)? I've not idea how TFAR works nowadays, and if that would even be possible! --Errant (chat!) 11:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Worth getting a steer from Bencherlite, I reckon. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
@ErrantX: Excellent! I didn't realise that article was FA class: it's an excellent choice. @Bencherlite: What would be the best way of presenting these articles as TFA without leading to an over-supply of Normandy Campaign articles? Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Heh, I think I supported the D-Day deceptions article at FAC but figured it must've made the front page already. If not, I think it's the ideal choice for 6 June as it actually relates directly to that date (as well as being a fine effort in its own right, as all the choices are). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You rang, m'lords? How about D-Day deceptions for 6th June, and Perch for 14th? More generally, I know that there will be quite a few 70th anniversaries coming up for the closing year of WW2 and quite a few 100th anniversaries for WW1, so I would urge MilHist editors to put possible "dates for the diary" in at WP:TFARP (it helps a bit with forward planning). Even if you don't do this, do try out the new-look WP:TFAR system - no points calculations required, and hopefully an easier system generally. Let me know if you have problems with the system, as it's still in a trial phase. I'll post something like this on the main MilHist talk page as well. BencherliteTalk 11:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Bencherlite, you're wrong and bad and have far too many fish, snails and solar sails on the main page. And major battles and important people. And things relevant to humanity. And other species. Actually, no, I rather like it. I'll complain elsewhere :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. And TFAR looks very lovely and simple :D nice work @Bencherlite:. @Ian Rose: thanks for your help with the FAC :) --Errant (chat!) 18:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


A Lancaster bomber

Operations Taxable, Glimmer and Big Drum were tactical military deceptions conducted on 6 June 1944 in support of the Allied landings in Normandy. The operations formed the naval component of Operation Bodyguard, a wider series of tactical and strategic deceptions surrounding the invasion. By towing radar reflector balloons and producing significant amounts of radio traffic, small boats simulated invasion fleets approaching Cap d'Antifer, Pas-de-Calais and Normandy. Royal Air Force bombers, including Lancaster bombers (pictured) from No. 617 "Dam Busters" Squadron, created the illusion of a large fleet on coastal radar screens by dropping chaff in progressive patterns. Glimmer and Taxable played on the German belief that the main invasion force would land in the Calais region. Big Drum was positioned on the western flank of the real invasion force to try to confuse German forces about the scale of the landings. It is unclear whether the operations were successful, due to the complexity of their execution, poor weather, and lack of response from German forces. It is possible they contributed to the overall confusion of D-Day as part of the wider Bodyguard plan. (Full article...)

Recently featured: Thatgamecompany – Sultanate of Singora – Jefferson Davis

A Centaur IV tank of the Royal Marines Armoured Support Group

Operation Perch was a British offensive of the Second World War between 7 and 14 June 1944. The intention was to seize Caen, a major Allied objective in the early stages of the invasion of northwest Europe. The operation had been planned to start immediately after the beach landings, but when Caen was still in German hands three days into the Battle of Normandy, it changed to a pincer attack using XXX Corps and I Corps. XXX Corps faced strong German forces in a fierce battle for Tilly-sur-Seulles. I Corps's eastern thrust from the Orne bridgehead met determined resistance. With mounting casualties and no sign of success, the offensive was abandoned. To the west, American pressure had opened up a gap in the German lines. The 7th Armoured Division was ordered to advance through it, to try to force a German retreat. After two days of intense fighting, the division's position was untenable and it was withdrawn. Historians generally agree that while an early opportunity to capture Caen was squandered by British command failures, the Germans had had to use their most powerful armoured reserves in a defensive role, incurring heavy losses, rather than in counteroffensive operations. (Full article...)

Recently featured: Cutthroat trout – Zaian War – Tom Pryce

Feel free to tweak, but there is a maximum TFA length of 1,200 characters (including spaces) - the deceptions blurbs is 1,178 and the Perch blurb is 1,193, so you don't have much to play with... The blurb is meant to be an appetiser, not the full roast dinner... BencherliteTalk 23:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to put the Australian contribution article up on some random day in July (when the campaign is still in the news, but with coverage having moved onto less prominent aspects of it). I'll draft a blurb over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)