Talk:Battle for Caen

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle for Caen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 20 days

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / Canadian / European / German / North America / Polish / World War II Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force Canadian military history task force European military history task force German military history task force North American military history task force Polish military history task force World War II task force Canada: Military Mid‑importance Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the joint Canadian military and military history task force Germany Mid‑importance Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Poland Low‑importance Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Mid‑importance United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Request: wikibreak from the talkpage for all editors...

So, as we are all aware, there has been extensive discussion here on what should be and what should not be in the article. All of which appears to have distracted from article development. I propose that we all take a break from the talkpage for a short period, maybe until the end of the month, to allow concentration be applied to the article; then we can resume the debate?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I would personally be delighted to concentrate on article development. However that development would obviously have to be done in accordance with WP:NPOV. If that development would include correcting the current neutrality issues, as well as adding the significant views of all the reliable sources, then perfect. I presume that is what you have in mind? Wdford (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no" then.Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Why would you take that as a "no"? WP:AGF says you should assume EnigmaMcmxc is intending to develop the article in accordance with WP:NPOV. Just because you ignore WP:NPOV doesn't mean that all other editors are similarly inclined? Wdford (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Now chaps. Lets see were development takes us. The battle section needs completing, as already indicated by others. In addition, there are numerous areas that everyone has highlighted needs room for improvement. Lets see where development takes us, then we can discuss from a new position.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Tally ho!Keith-264 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

As has been highlighted a major deficiency in the article has been the treatment of German plans - I've added some information about their order of battle and plans for specific attacks. Suggestions on how to integrate this into the article? Aber~enwiki (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It would probably be most helpful to readers if you inserted each component as the German unit in question arrived at the battle-field. That would mean spreading the info through the various battle component sections. This would be particularly important for those many units that were not at the battlefield from the start, but which only arrived progressively. Wdford (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple. On reflection the key points on the German reaction that need to be included:

- Up to D+6 counterattack planned in British sector but the 3 Pz divisions available pulled into holding the line

- counterattack to be made against Carentan (need to check details), but 2 Pz used against Perch

- D+14 major counterattack planned with I and II SS Pz Corps when they arrive, but pre-empted by Epsom

These do not fit easily into the paragraphs about each Allied operation and need to be inserted as separate paragraphsAber~enwiki (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to make extensive edits and change the format of the article such as notes->citations, then we need to discuss it first.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

My edits thus far are mainly copy-edits to improve the coherence of the existing material. Note that this section is a background overview of Overlord, not a description of the Battle for Caen itself, and it needs to be concise but still coherent. Under the circumstances, combining the notes with the citations is more coherent and more readable. However it is a work in progress, and I am open to suggestions to make it even better (but not worse). Wdford (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Combining the notes with citations makes the article almost unreadable.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish. It makes no difference to the appearance of the article compared to having separate notes, and it links the notes directly with the citations so making the information more coherently accessible. This gives the reader all the info at their fingertips, without overloading the article text with detail. Separating the citations from the notes would give twice as many links, for no appreciable improvement in readability. Please stop edit-warring. Wdford (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I converted the citations to notes, as per your demands. As predicted, it makes absolutely no difference to the appearance of the article. Please edit constructively going forward - we have agreed to concentrate on building the article rather than bickering. Wdford (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You have spammed the article with NNPOV, COAT, OR, UNDUE and everything else and this is vandalism. You have commented here outside WP:CIVIL and demonstrated that attempts to reach consensus with you are futile. This is such a sad state of affairs.Keith-264 (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

well the idea was good but we seem to have gone about it the wrong way. If a edit is so large or unacceptable to another editor that they feel it necessary to revert wholesale, then please check you are not throwing put any babies with the bath water and see if you can retain any part of the edit that was useful. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I did, WD tried to return the narrative to the unacceptable version rejected by every other interested editor. This time he tried to do it by WP:UNDUE and once a tiny thread was removed, the rest unravelled. What a shame.Keith-264 (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It was not meant as a reproach against anyone in particular. So it didn't start out well, we can still press on with the improvements to non-contentious things. Eg infobox suggestion below. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The so-called "unacceptable version" merely included a single sentence, supported by half a dozen reliable sources, which show that the original Overlord plan was to include a British breakout in the east. This fact is well attested, but it is a threat to Keith-264's POV, so it ignited a serious reaction. Once again the excuse used was to accuse me of vandalism. This is a serious accusation, and it contravenes WP:ASPERSIONS as well as WP:NPOV and all the other policies which apparently do not apply to Keith-264. Once again I ask Keith-264 to substantiate all his accusations. Maybe this time he will actually produce evidence? Wdford (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

NU WP:CIVILKeith-264 (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

" ... a single sentence, supported by half a dozen reliable sources, which show that the original Overlord plan was to include a British breakout in the east." - this is actually correct. The original COSSAC Overlord plan had included a British breakout in the east, however Montgomery had not liked that plan, so he had changed it, and he stated-so in his memoirs published in 1958. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

" ... the original COSSAC plan had been, in fact, to break out from the Caen-Falaise area, on our eastern flank. I had refused to accept this plan and had changed it." ^[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Am I right in saying that the casualty list given on the right side of the page is grossly understated? Particularly for the Germans, if the "battle for Caen" is taken to include the Falaise Gap.

References

1. The Memoirs of Field-Marshal The Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, K.G., Collins, 1958, p. 256.

Bradley Quote

Below is a quote from Bradley, presumably from his memoirs, unfortunately I don't have a page number:

"While Collins was hoisting his VII Corps flag over Cherbourg, Montgomery was spending his reputation in a bitter siege against the old university city of Caen. For three weeks he had rammed his troops against those panzer divisions he had deliberately drawn towards that city as part of our Allied strategy of diversion in the Normandy Campaign. Although Caen contained an important road junction that Montgomery would eventually need, for the moment the capture of that city was only incidental to his mission. For Monty’s primary task was to attract German troops to the British front that we might more easily secure Cherbourg and get into position for the breakout.

In this diversionary mission Monty was more than successful, for the harder he hammered towards Caen, the more German troops he drew into that sector. Too many correspondents, however, had overrated the importance of Caen itself, and when Monty failed to take it, they blamed him for the delay. But had we attempted to exonerate Montgomery by explaining how successfully he had hoodwinked the German by diverting him toward Caen from the Cotentin, we would have also given our strategy away. We desperately wanted the German to believe this attack on Caen was the main Allied effort.

But while this diversion of Monty’s was brilliantly achieved, he nevertheless left himself open to criticism by overemphasising the importance of his thrust toward Caen. Had he limited himself simply to the containment without making Caen a symbol of it, he would have been credited with success instead of being charged, as he was, with failure at Caen. For Monty’s success should have been measured in the panzer divisions the enemy rushed against him whilst Collins sped on toward Cherbourg. Instead, the Allied newspaper readers clammered for a place name called Caen which Monty had once promised but failed to win for them.

The containment mission that had been assigned Monty in the OVERLORD plan was not calculated to burnish British pride in the accomplishments of their troops. For in the minds of most people, success in battle is measured in the rate and length of advance. They found it difficult to realise that the more successful Monty was in stirring up German resistance, the less likely he was to advance. For another four weeks it fell to the British to pin down superior enemy forces in that sector while we manoeuvred into position for the US breakout. With the Allied world crying for blitzkrieg the first week after we landed, the British endured their passive role with patience and forbearing." - Omar Bradley

Bradley's memoirs were published in 1951, Montgomery's in 1958.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.142 (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Provenance of "obnoxious personality"

For some time the section headed "Buckley, 2014" has included the text, "since the 1990s the methods used by Montgomery had been re-evaluated, with his obnoxious personality being given less prominence." A Google Books check of Buckley's Monty's Men: The British Army and the Liberation of Europe (2014) shows that he does not use the word "obnoxious" anywhere at all, let alone in relation to Montgomery's personality. I am therefore again removing the contentious word until such time as someone can demonstrate that Buckley actually uses it in the same context. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I altered the gist of it "obnoxious", to a quotation which means the same thing, from pp. 13 and 17. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't mean "the same thing" at all. "Obnoxious" is significantly different, stronger, and more condemnatory than "disagreeable....peculiar and difficult." Nick Cooper (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Evidently that's in the eye of the beholder. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, he doesn't seem particularly 'obnoxious' here:

79th Armoured Division inclusion in infobox numbers

Editor put as reasoning for edit “79th did not act as a division, has to be a better way to reflect this in the infobox than showing a notional 4 combat armoured divs“…well neither did some of the “Panzer Divisions” on the German side. 2nd SS sent KG Weidinger only (against EPSOM) and spent the rest of the campaign on the American front. Regardless, does the clarification “specialist armoured division” work? 72.26.17.219 (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think that would work (or something similar); that way at a quick glance people don't get the impression that there was four actual combat formations. On the Epsom article, it does look like we tried to make your point, so the infobox shows: 3 SS panzer divisions, 5 ad-hoc battle groups (to keep to plain language rather than having to explain a kampfgruppe in the small space), and 1 SS heavy tank battalion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It had divisional nomenclature but never operated as one ergo is is not like a like armoured division and shouldn't be treated as one. Keith-264 (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath section - over the top

The Aftermath/Histories section seems as long as the coverage of the battle itself; should be summarised further or spun off? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I had a peek and realised that I wrote a lot of it. I thought that the trouble with the article was that it tried to combine a description of events and a study of controversy in the same place. To avoid another argument based on what I thought was an obsolete debate based on false premises I put a lot of decent studies that rose above polemic. I agree that the Aftermath is a bit much considering the length article, hack away ;O)....Keith-264 (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps 1) disengage it from Aftermath and put it separately as Post-war Analysis. 2) Put the points raised by the historians together - eg if Hastings is saying Wehrmacht held out because of their tactical brilliance but other historians say that it was just singleminded stubbornness and orders preventing them then that should appear in a single paragraph. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Casualties

The page needs casualties added to the battle box. 2001:8003:3A18:E00:182A:BD:D4A1:A0E0 (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)