# Talk:Juno Beach

Just wondering if D-day can really be called a turning point? Prior to D-day the germans being contiuously pushed back by the russians and d-day only sped up the end of the war.

It was a turning point in that it put Nazi Germany's hold over Europe into a vice (Russia on one side, Allies on the other). It didn't just "speed up the end of the war," but provided the USSR military relief in forcing the Germans to fight on two separate fronts. It is really doubtful the Russians could have taken over Europe themselves.
I would argue against that.  The Soviet juggernaut by the time the Allies landed was seemingly quite capable of defeating the remaining of the German forces at that time (the Germans still had the vast bulk of their manpower remain on the Eastern Front after the Allies landed).  It can be argued that the Allies didn't so much land to aid the Soviets, but to prevent them from conquering all of Europe. Oberiko 13:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone cleverly put it as WWI so I changed it to WWII. pointy  11:26, 6 February 2006
Could someone maybe include some information on the polish forces attached to the canadian Juno invasion force? --24.57.134.42 03:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What Polish force landed at Juno on D-Day??? Erik
Don't think they landed on D-Day, but the Polish 1st Armoured Division was part of the Canadian First Army. heqs 14:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Found a source that says the 1st Polish Armoured Division didn't land until August 1st, well after D-day.  See Veterans Affairs Canada page at [1]  Burtonpe 13:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that it says strength: 15,000 and then somewhere else it says 14,000 landed. how does that work?
1000 died. 99.233.96.172 (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of duplication between the OOB and the Regiments
sub sections on this page. With a little work, and some spit and polish, it would really improve the artical.
Motorfix 16:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The article seems not to indicate that a substantial number of British troops were involved in the Juno Beach operations; I think they should be included - I also think their numbers warrant inclusion in the combatants section of the battlebox. I'll try and dig up sources, but this entire page needs to be footnoted - at present there are none.Michael Dorosh 15:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. This article is a joke, their were actualy more British military personal then Candian. But this article makes it seem like Canadian were the only military force their.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.14.149 (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC) 
I'm not too sure where you got your information from but its wrong. The british weren't involved in Juno. Go to a library, watch a documentary -- even googling it brings up many sources saying it was stictly a Canadian beachhead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.138.72 (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC) 

I think you should follow your own advice - then you will find out about British commandos, British naval personnel, British followup forces and it was all conducted under British I Corps control. No disprect to the Canadians - but there was British forces there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.87.120 (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Your correct on the British Commando troop landing on Juno, I was unware of there effort - my mistake.
However in reality 48 commando consisted of just under 400 men meaning the ratio of Canadian to British landing forces was still around 50:1, Therefore It is looked upon as almost exclusively a Canadian landing.. If you can find any sources saying other wise please, post them. I'll do the same showing it was a Canadian beachhead
http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/ww2_home/ww2_d_day/ww2_juno_beach/index.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/ff7_junobeach.shtml
As for other sources there are several books on the subject, i'd also suggest watching the series 'the world at war (episode 17, morning)' which highlights that Juno was indeed a Canadian beachhead, also there is a Museum just a couple of miles from the beach crediting the Canadians on the invasion. (see Junobeach.org)
As for Naval support, the Royal Navy provided support for all 5 beaches. Being British myself I've no interest in trying to discredit our efforts in the landings - but our involvement in Juno beach simply wasn't that large - or atleast not in the context of D-day. 

To butt in here, i dont think anyone is suggesting that this was anything other than the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division's beachhead - or that it wasnt "their" beach. However we also know that some British troops, the commandos, did indeed land here and surely they should be credited as well? Currently, going off the articles infobox, the UK flag is placed under the Canadian one following the manuel of style which states that countries should be listed in respect to the numbers of troops they committed thus it seems ok; whats the problem?
This same question could be raised in regards to Operation Tonga, the Canadians are credited there in a reversal of this situation because of a Canadain battalion taking part. Likewise with Sword Beach and the French.
Finally, 51st (Highland) Infantry Division was the followup force for I Corps assault divisions - did it land any of its forces on Juno?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah your right, the British should be credited in the article. The statement I really disagree on is further up this page, saying that there was more British than Canadian troops - which is absolutely miles from the truth. The 51st highland infantry, from what I can gather landed near Ouistreham (Sword beach)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.138.72 (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 
Elements of the 51st (Highland) Infantry Division did land on June beach. See link

this time I was a Corporal No 1 in 12 Platoon `C' company attached to 5/7 GORDON HIGHLANDERS 153 BRIGADE. We landed at 5pm 6 June on Juno Beach (3rd Canadian Division Area).

See the Canadian Official History: link p. 140:

In the case of the 51st, only the G.O.C. and small reconnaissance parties were intended to
land on the 6th. Actually, the G.O.C. did not get ashore until the following day, but three
infantry battalions did land over Mike Red Beach in the evening and assembled in the
Banville area.109

--81.105.174.9 (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Technically all Canadian troops still had British citzenship so the majority of troops on Juno Beach were actually Canadian and British anyway. Canadians didn't stop being British subjects until after WW II in 1947.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

if someone is able to find correct statistics on the topic of death and casualties it would be much appreciated.  the article currently reports 50% death rate of forces yet the side bar reports 1079 casualties out of 15000 soldiers which is clearly not 50%.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.59.3 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 

Added in some pics I took in Sept 2006 at Juno Beach; found the same bunker as shown in two of the images on this page, which was extremely well preserved especially considering it's on the coast and totally unsheltered.  In response to the Polish string above, our tour guide stated that Polish units did come ashore on or soon after D-Day, and that they even had encounters against conscript Poles fighting for the Germans.  Clearly this isn't a great source, I'll see if I can find anyting concrete to confirm this.  Burtonpe 21:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm awarding this B-class on account of the sheer volume of information. But I think that in order to improve this article beyond B-class, some serious reorganization needs to take place. The gallery should go at the bottom, I think, and the list-style sections should be somehow condensed or converted into a nicer format. As is, they take up too much of the page in terms of vertical scroll. LordAmeth 07:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It is my firm belief that another section needs to be added to this page.  The point needs to be made that, although only one squadron actually reached their objective [a group of hussars that reached the Caen Railway line] the Canadians managed to get closer to their objectives than anyone else on day one.
Climie.ca 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Cam
That was just the 1st Hussars like you said

I'm changing the result back so it reads "Canadian victory". I'm not trying to disrespect any British contribution, but, in the same way that Sword Beach reads British victory despite French contributions, Juno Beach has and will always be known as the Canadian's beach, and as a result I think it should be under a Canadian victory, as are the British and American beaches for their respective countries. --PlasmaTwa2 07:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sword's article is a mess. It doesn't give any information about what exact French formations took part in the battle for Sword and how. For Juno, the Canadians were placed under the command of British I Corp. In other words, Sword's article is messed up because it doesn't give any information about what the French did at the beach so it shouldn't be cited as precedent.70.232.161.236 (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)ShaneMarsh

This article really needs a few good maps, especially one showing the inland geography in some detail and how it ties into the attempt to capture this or that objective in the weeks going forward. The troops landed had missions... beyond getting ashore and staying alive... what were they? // FrankB 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a self-made lo-resolution one from my own collection, hopefully it is a start.Michael DoroshTalk 15:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is just a notification to everyone concerned that I am in the process of preparing a massive rewrite of the Juno Beach article in preparation for an eventual FA run. I will also let everyone know that I have saved the Order of Battle information in my sandbox, and that I will labour to create a corresponding article at as soon a date as is possible. It will, however, be cut from my final draft, as it heavily disrupts the flow of the article. For those wondering what this rewrite will look like, it will be conceptually similar to Omaha Beach and Operation Perch (both Featured Articles). I will give 24-hour notice when my draft is finished, as well as the link to it (although I suppose that anyone who really wants to see it before then can find it easily enough). Best regards, Cam (Chat)(Prof) 16:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Good luck! My only concern with the OOB info is that it not be lost, as so often happens when someone "trims" an article. Ng.j (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been saved here. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 16:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I have now completed my rewrite of Juno Beach, which is located here. I will begin transferring the rewrite to the article in approximately 45 minutes (after I return the many overdue library books I took out for the project). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Good work on the rewrite. One point though: I see you substituted the troop strengths with divisions. According to Template:Infobox_military_conflict |strength= is supposed to be "numerical strength". You could use |units= I suppose. Given the disparity in size of divisions in Northwest Europe I prefer to see number of troops. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 12:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Juno Beach/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: found and fixed three.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Quotes such as "superb armoured divisions" need in-text attribution as well as cites. Who said this?
Granatstein in Bloody Victory on page 19. It's already cited in the "German Preparations" section. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
So you need to say that Granatstein said that, the cite alone is insufficient.
Despite this, most of the German divisions along the French coast in late-1943 were either newer recruits or rebuilding veterans of the Eastern Front;  "new" recruits, I think.
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
to minimize the distance for which they were exposed on the beaches "during" rather than "for"
It was formed with soldiers "largely below the age of eighteen and with men over thirty-five", comprising a total of 7,771 combat troops. "from" rather than "with"
It's a direct quote. Can't change it. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Oops of course it is.
Field exercises in Scotland commenced in August and September 1943, and succeeded in establishing unique techniques and equipment for use by armoured and artillery regiments in storming the beach. What were these "unique" techniques?
Mostly fitting them to LCTs and having them fire while still on the boats. I've added stuff. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Through winter 1943 units worked in close cohesion to develop more advanced assault tactics among the Juno Beach regiments. "Through the winter of 1943"
Fixed by someone else (thank-you!)
had begun intense training for the invasion with the 3rd CID in February 1944, what is the "3rd CID"?
3rd Canadian Infantry Division. I'm a little bit inconsistent with what I call the division; I'll add a note. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
with a full-scale simulation of the invasion carried out on 4 May with Exercise Fabius !"with Exercise Fabius" should perhaps be "in Exercise Fabius"
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"30 minutes before H Hour and continue for 15 minutes; heavy bombing would then begin on the flanks of the divisional attack, lasting until H Hour" again direct attribution needed.
It's also already cited. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
S before there should be intext attribution, so that a reader can figure out who said it.
All told the attack continued until 05:15, with 5,268 tons of bombs dropped by 1,136 sorties; this marked the largest attack by Bomber Command in terms of tonnage up to this point in the war. suggest drop "All told"
Done. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
This would mean a lower tide, necessitating that the LCIs "would be obliged to touch down in the middle of the obstructions [beach obstacles] designed to destroy them". replace "necessitating that" with "meaning that"
Fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Unlike for the Winnipegs, the DD Tanks had arrived at the Regina Rifles' beaches before the infantry, and in greater numbers than in Mike Sector. very clumsy phrasing
I've fixed this somewhat. Let me know if it's better. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
... and soon "had cleared a succession of the assigned blocks in the village" Needs attribution as well as a cite. Who said this?
also already cited. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Needs in text attribution as well as a cite
The reports coming in from the battalions already on Juno were mixed; the North Shore was "proceeding according to plan", while the Chaudieres were "making progress slowly".again, attribution needed.
ditto. Cite note 88. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
ditto, in text atribution please
...while the eastern Companies of the North Shore Regiment were fighting for St.-Aubin Should this be hyphenated? Likewise "St.-Croix" Should be either Sainte-Croix or St. Croix.  And these place names need to be wikilinked to the correct target (there are 25 possible articles for Sainte-Croix) on their first mention.  Likewise for Saint-Aubin. Also quite a few of the units are not wikilinked, yet I am sure that there are suitable targets.
Rather a lot of abbreviations are used and this becomes confusing at times as one has to refer back to figure out what is being referred to. Whilst introduced abbreviations are fine, sometimes the full name or term needs to be re-introduced.
I've gotten rid of a few of them. I'm still honestly debating whether to change over the shortened versions of the regiment names. I end up referring to them as "The Winnipegs" or "The QOR" or "The Reginas" quite a lot. Do you want me to change those over as well? Cam (Chat)(Prof) 18:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Consistency, readability and understanding for the non expert reader are what matters. LCA, DD, CID are used extensively and could do with better explanation throughout.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
I assume good faith for all sources which are off-line, all appear reliable, article is well referenced, no obvious OR. I note that no use has been made of [Beevor, Anthony (28 May 2009). D-Day: The Battle for Normandy. Viking. ISBN 978-0141048130.] which provides a very good overview with newly available sources. (just a comment)
I'll see if I can find it either of the Calgary universities in the coming weeks. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 18:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Juno Beach order of battle: can you provide a short paragraph summary here, perhaps detail numbers of troops on both sides, major units, etc.
Better yet, I've moved it to be at the very top of the "planning and preparations" section, since that's basically a highly-detailed order of battle with additional information about defences and assault training. Hope that works. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 18:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 
Licensed and captioned OK
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I will get to work on these issues likely tomorrow; I'm going to be spending most of today in aircraft and airports, but I'll get to work as quickly as I can. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 14:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I will keep this on hold until 5 May and decide whether to pass or fail. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this is sufficiently improved to pass muster, so I shall be listing. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Units of measure

It refers to 'feet' and 'miles' without conversions. Conversions would help make the article widely accessible.
Some of the units of measure need a space between the numeric value and the unit name.
Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Good points. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The revised version of this page is quite good, however it relies too heavily on “Juno Beach” by Mark Zuehlke for much of its content.  This book is an excellent history of the Canadian units on Juno beach, but in common with other Canadian histories, it minimizes coverage of important British units that assaulted Juno with the Canadians.
The lack of any mention of the specialized armour that was critically important to the success of the assault landing on all three of the “British” beaches is a major oversight of this page.  About 40 Churchill AVRE tanks (2 squadrons) were present on Juno beach along with 19 Sherman CRABS of the 22nd Dragoons.  On some sections of the beach, these were the first tanks ashore, providing critical support to the assaulting companies.
Camal697 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Juno beach was not the codename for the invasion area: 'juno' on its own was. It is a small but vital fact that the article has got wrong. The beaches were teh areas the troops stormed ashore i.e. Green beach, Nan sector
Elements of the the 51st Highland Division landed on the beach in the afternoon: appears all mention of the division has been removed from the article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.139.44.26 (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
You appear to have that completely backwards. Gold, Juno, Sword, Omaha and Utah are the beaches; they had sectors within the beaches, according to official maps. (Hohum @) 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Afraid not. As you have noted the official maps would call the area Juno: Juno was only the codename for a certain stetch of coastline not a specific beach. That stretch of coastline, codenamed Juno (Utah, Omaha, Gold, and Sword likewise) incoportated several sectors and each sector incorporated several beaches. Out of these various beaches, actual landing areas were assigned. In the specific example given Green Beach, within Nan Sector, along the coastline codenamed Juno was a landing beach for Canadian units. Most decent sources i have read make this distinction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.139.44.26 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The IP was correct, a reference and explanation has been added to the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Morgan's original COSSAC invasion plan was greatly expanded upon (with an invasion date of June 5 not 6th, it occured on the 6th due to weather) by Monty when was brought back to the UK ... hence Morgan and SHAEF did not plan Overlord ... ?

Eisenhower didn't plan Overlord. He merely approved the plan(s). The operation was planned by Morgan and his COSSAC staff. Upon the plan being presented to Montgomery he stated three divisions (the original planned number) was insufficient to give a good chance of success and demanded the invasion force be expanded to five divisions. So that required five beaches. Eisenhower then approved the revised plan.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"A second line of four infantry companies and one panzer company was stationed 1 mile (1.6 km) inland. Rommel also deployed the 21st Panzer Division southeast of Caen to act as a counterattack against landings in that sector. Two battalions of Polish and Russian conscripts were also stationed on the flanks of Juno adjacent to Sword and Gold Beaches."
Since the 716th did not have a panzer element (bar its Panzerjagers) is it correct to assume that Saunders is referring to elements of the 21st Panzer that was moved closer to the beach? If so, this needs to be clarifed as the above implies that the 716th had a panzer element.

"The counterattack did not succeed in driving the British off of the beaches, as units of the British 6th Airborne Division—which had landed the previous night near the Orne river—were able to outflank the 21st and force it to withdraw.[148]"
It may be sourced by Keegan but the above is inaccurate on several levels:

Elements of 21st Panzer made it to the beaches on the flanks of the British (see any general history of the campaign)
3rd Infantry fought off 21st Panzer counterattacks, one could argue actually halted the 21st Panzer attack in its tracks (any book on Sword)
6th Airborne did not outfank the division: they landed to protect the flank of 3rd Infantry and did not move to attack 21st Panzer. The main weight of the 21st attack was towards 3rd Infantry. 6th Airborne did indeed fight off counterattacks all day long and distracted the division(D-Day the first 72 hours (iirc) is a good source on this), and due its capture and destuction of several bridges forced further delays on their main attack.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
One regiment from 21st Panzer attacked each side of the Orne river. 125th Panzergrenadier Regiment in the east and 192nd Panzergrenadier Regiment in the west.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems it is at least worth a mention that follow forces started landing on the beach during D-Day, it was referenced with reliable sources. One would suggest that the Aftermath section could also do with some info on what the beach was used for post-D-Day.

An exellent article but I have a quibble. "... while several coastal batteries were not hit, those that were (such as the battery at Houlgate) were hit accurately." Is this logical? How could you hit something inaccurately? How about changing 'were hit accurately' to 'were destroyed'?Keith-264 (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Courseulles-sur-Mer in the Juno sector is the next village over from Arromanches in Gold, and since No. 41 (Royal Marine) Commando landed so far west on Sword, I don't think it's a stretch to combine the second and third sentences, and I have (feel free to revert): "The sector spanned from Saint-Aubin-sur-Mer, just east of the British Gold sector, to Courseulles-sur-Mer, just west of the British Sword sector." We don't need to repeat "France" and "Normandy". - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
One change to the above: my milhist sources say "Saint-Aubin" rather than "Saint-Aubin-sur-Mer" (and the same for Courseulles).  Although Brits may get the analogy to British cities immediately (Newcastle upon Tyne can be shortened to Newcastle as soon as it's clear from context), American cities don't generally undergo the same transformation.  The French Wikipedia acknowledges that Saint-Aubin, for example, can refer to the city we're talking about.  If our readers need explanation, I'd rather explain the point in the article about the city, rather than in our article about Juno Beach, and stick with the name more commonly used in our sources, Saint-Aubin. - Dank (push to talk) 00:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
fr:Courseulles-sur-Mer (in the French Wikipedia) illustrates the point ... it's "Courseulles" in the second sentence.  FWIW, the article notes that the "Mer" was added to the name of the town in 1957. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
fr:Bernières-sur-Mer is tougher ... there are 3 towns in Calvados named Bernières, I don't know when the "Mer" was added, and Fields of Fire for instance lists the town both ways.  I'll add the "Mer" back and keep searching. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Grr, there are 2 other towns in Calvados named Saint-Aubin.  I'll keep checking what the sources say. - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Good stuff Dank but is St Aubin a city?Keith-264 (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

population of about 2000 apparently - quarter the size of the British seaside town of Cromer, and a third the size of the suburban "village" where I live. Though measuring methods may differ.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay I've got a bunch of sources here now, and all of them are usually using the shorter forms.  I added a note with 3 cites.  (It's a good excuse to get Ambrose and Ryan into the bibliography, too.)  On "Saint-Aubin" as opposed to St.-Aubin, St. Aubin or St Aubin: that's the official spelling, and if we stick with that, it's only 2 characters longer, and we avoid arguments over which of the shortened forms is best. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, WP:UNDUE and WP:N won't allow us to tell the personal stories of 100 servicemen in this article or in subarticles ... OTOH, the article feels dry to me, like a general's-eye view of the conflict, compared with the sources, which are rich in details that give a more immediate and more real picture.  FAC tends to become unmanageable when an article gets too long, so I don't want to put a lot more in this article, but I'm looking for opportunities for sub-articles that flesh things out a bit ... perhaps biographical articles. - Dank (push to talk)
One of the stories that needs to get told, either in this article or some other, is that up through at least 1991, and still today, a little bit, the leading historians had the performance of Normandy troops in general and the Canadian troops at Juno in particular spectacularly wrong (saying only 15% fired their weapons for instance), and were taking a very don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts attitude. It took Copp, Ambrose and others to set the record straight.  How military history can go so wrong is one thing military historians study (we've got a "historiography" tag at Milhist for this kind of thing). I'll be happy to collaborate on an article if anyone's interested. - Dank (push to talk) 11:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
There's a world of difference between a historian and a writer. The sources have always been there but it's not always the case that publishers want to risk the truth when they can print the legend.Keith-264 (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

"Falaise, which could then be used as a pivot for a swing right to advance on Argentan, the Touques River and then towards the Seine River": those are a left pivot after heading south to Falaise; did the sources say they pivoted right? - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Correct left pivot, when writing it up i must have noted the talk about the right wing of the army and mixed it up a bit. Good catch.
I'm lost here.  What does "Company, 736th Grenadier Regiment" mean in the infobox?  If all of the 716th Division troops were in the 736th Regiment, why do we say "On Juno the 716th deployed four infantry companies: 7 Kompanie held what was to become "Mike Sector", 6/736 was stationed in Courseulles, 5/736 at Bernières, while the fifth and ninth Grenadier companies held "Nan Sector" and Saint-Aubin.", which seems to say that 7 Kompanie wasn't in the 736th?  And was 5 Kompanie at Bernières, or Nan, or Saint-Aubin, or all three? - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
7 Kompanie was at Vers Sur Mer on Gold beach according to Kershaw D-Day p.431
From left to right he has: 6/736 Couselles, 5/736 Bernieres, 9/736 St Aubin
second line 1/441 Ost, 2/441 Ost, II/736 (Second Battalion Headquarters)
Depth position 7/726, 2/736, 8/736, 12/736
Hope this helps. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jim.  Do you think that's a typo, or was the 7th actually in a 726th Regiment? - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
No the page is a diagram of the three Anglo-Canadian beaches. The locations of the 12 companies of the 736 are all displayed. There's a 7th in both regiments the 7/736 on the sea front at Vers Sur Mer and the 7/726 in the third line about 5KM from Courseulles behind the 1/441 Ost. Does that make sense? Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
That clears it up thanks, so I'll change that "716th" (Division) to "736th Grenadier Regiment" since they're all in that regiment.  I'm still doubtful that 5 Kompanie was in Bernières and Saint-Aubin at the same time. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, fixed now, the 5th wasn't in Saint-Aubin per that source. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Zuehlke (2004), p. 157 seems to say that there were 16 landing craft carrying self-propelled guns, not 24, unless I'm reading it wrong, and I've made the change.  I opted for slightly less detail, too; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, another editor changed it to 24 per a different source; no problem. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Zuehlke is good but has a couple of silly errors like this.  You need to cross check him. Camal697 (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Almost finished with copyediting now.  Several of the sentences had information different than the sources, and that's always going to be a problem with articles on Normandy, because sources often differ on the facts, because the interviewees differed on the facts ... they were often drugged (seasickness pills, mostly) and seasick (the pills didn't help a lot) and charging straight into hell, and they didn't have a lot of time to look around and admire the view.  So it may not be our fault, but I really think we need to check this against the sources before we take it to FAC.  I'll get started on the ones I have here at home. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Barris: Refs 33 and 36 don't support the material (at least, not on that page), ref 74 is close paraphrasing, and ref 98 misquotes the passage. - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Buckingham: Ref 12 is close paraphrasing.
Zuehlke: I removed "(2004)" from each since there's only one Zuehlke ref.  Refs 8 and 46 don't really support the cited passage, I believe I fixed ref 29 in my first run-through ... I'll stop there.  I covered the 2 books that I have here, and I added Ambrose and Ryan myself.  Zuehlke is online ... can someone finish up for at least the online sources? - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Camal, you just made an edit with the edit summary, " RCN minesweepers did not operate as part of Naval Force J, or operate off of Juno beach. Zuehlke givis the impression that they did." You changed the information, but left it cited to Zuehlke ... I'm confused, does Zuehlke back up the new information, or not? - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
No he doesn't.  I used another source, but now my thinking is any referances to Canadian minesweepers should probably be removed from the article, as they dont really relate to Juno beach specifically.  All Canadian minesweepers were part of the "Western Naval Task Force" (The 2 US Beaches) They certainly had nothing to do with Juno Beach.  Zuehlke isnt very clear about this.Camal697 (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Quick note ... I'm going through today's IP edits, most of which were quite good ... but the anon editor is more fond of links than A-class and FAC reviewers are.  I don't generally cover linking issues, and I'll leave them alone. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi I can see the article has some good images included, however there is one at the Imperial War Museum collection that could be used. Its description is The British 2nd Army: Infantrymen of 'B' Company, North Shore Regiment, 8th Canadian Brigade, taking cover by tank obstacles while advancing on German strongpoint WN27 during the fierce street fighting in St Aubin-sur-Mer. Search on brigade if you need it or let me know and I can download.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see it, Jim. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Downloaded it for you, it's [PD-BritishGov] so no problems if it's not used Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What exactly does the source (Grant, p. 18) state on this? As far as i was aware there was no actual objective for +90 days, only lines drawn on the map where the planners expected the troops to be due to supply issues. As we can see below by D-Day +90 Paris is not liberated due to those supply/plan concerns, so what does the source actually say?
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=D-day+phase+lines&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=673&tbm=isch&tbnid=kYB1R5D72u-v0M:&imgrefurl=http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/Canada/CA/Victory/Victory-4.html&docid=V6yb9ntQM6yFpM&imgurl=http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/Canada/CA/Victory/sk/Victory-4.jpg&w=800&h=498&ei=9FiqTtn0I8PV8QPXotyuCw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=155&sig=116495099431225601070&page=1&tbnh=114&tbnw=183&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=77&ty=42
"This great turning movement would bring the Allied line forward to the Seine on a 140-mile front. General Montgomery afterwards commented on the "academic" nature of forecasts in an operation of this magnitude. Nevertheless, the Allied planners had some hope, if not expectation, that their troops would reach the Seine and the Loire 90 days after the initial assault.43 This tentative forecast was closely connected with the administrative aspects of the planning."(Stacey, p. 83)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: D-Day landings / Early bombardment section
"Additional firepower was provided by eight landing craft fitted with over 1,000 high-explosive rockets and 24 LCTs, each carrying four M7 Priest self-propelled guns.[52]"
Were the SP guns actually Sextons, not Priests? Seems logical that the would be and this is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexton_(artillery):
"Later Sextons took part in the invasion of France and subsequent Battle of Normandy and the campaign in north-western Europe. During the D-day landings a number of Sextons were ordered to fire from their landing craft as they approached the beaches although the fire did not prove to be very accurate.[1]"
bron6669  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bron6669 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC) 

The four Canadian Artillery regiments used on Juno, the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 19th Field Artillery Regiments, RCA were all re-equipped with M7 Priests before D-Day.  Its very well documented in the official Canadian histories.  These are the same priests that were "defrocked" and converted to Kangaroos for operation Totalize in August.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_(armoured_personnel_carrier)  Although the Sexton was used by the Artillery Regiments of the British armoured divisions in Normandy, none of them were present during the initial assault on D-Day.  That portion of the cited reference from the Sexton article is incorrect, at least for JUNO.  See also p. 157, "Juno Beach" by Mark Zuehlke, (2004) and http://lmharchive.ca/canadian-divisions-of-the-normandy-campaign/3rd-canadian-infantry-division/
Camal697 03:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camal697 (talk • contribs)  

There are two Richters in the German Army: Friedrich wilhelm Richter (Waffen SS) and Wilhelm Richter , General. This one in the arrticle is wrong--Grafite (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice catch. I removed the link to the Waffen-SS guy. I was unable to find an article on the leader of the 716th Division, so have left a red link.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit nitpicking but given the infobox inclusion for naval support at Omaha (and now Utah): the Free French cruiser Montcalm also supported Omaha (and may have been the first allied ship to open fire on Omaha), Canadian Minesweepers were (I believe) the first to come close inshore at Omaha, and Norwegian and Polish ships gave naval support in the British and Canadian sectors. These are just a few of the inconsistencies with the infobox inclusions/exclusions for the Normandy Invasion Beach articles. I am noting this here instead of editing because I realize the sensitivity of many folk to these issues. Why are these support issues recognized in some beach articles and not others? Juan Riley  (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Cleaned up the good faith effort to harmonise citations and refs that left red all over everything by using sfns and efns. Keith-264 (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The article states that Juno was the responsibility of the first Canadian army.  I think that the units participating in the landing were part of the second british army.  The first Canadian army was activated in normandy in July.  I suspect that the commanders of the first Canadian army were aware of plan and events but I don't believe that they were in command.  Perhaps someone with more knowledge can confirm this. Fouris17 (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the revert to the edits I made, because the things I edited are in the main not supported by the references they used. We can discuss Churchill and Jelly here if you like, but do not blanket revert edits because you disagree with one change. Ranger Steve Talk 14:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

And in discussion of Jelly, please watch this. [[3]]. Worth noting that Caddick-Adam's source was the page about Jelly on the Juno Beach Centre that they've now deleted because they accept it's not true. Ranger Steve Talk 15:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
And if you really want a cite to include in a piece of deleted text (not sure how), try Sword Beach, Fisher, p.26. Ranger Steve Talk 16:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Please provide sources. I disagree with all of your changes. The onus on the person making the changes is to provide sources per WP:ONUS. You're opinion and a YouTube video linked in the comments is not enough to warrant wholesale changes. I have also slapped you with a warning, since you did not follow WP:BRD. Llammakey (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
For a start, you're disagreeing with changes that weren't sourced to begin with. Find me the source in the article, and any source that says First Canadian Army were at Juno. Then have a look at the single source for Jelly. Caddick-Adams doesn't even source it in his book. As for slapping vandalism warning, quite frankly how dare you. Ranger Steve Talk 12:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
No, that is not how this works. You provide the sources. You provide the source that says they were not, or the Canadian forces were not part of the First Canadian Army. Great about the Caddick-Adams thing. You bring the source that says it is a myth. You elminated this text By the time all operations on the Anglo-Canadian front were ordered to halt at 21:00, the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada had reached its D-Day objective and the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division had succeeded in pushing farther inland than any other landing force on D-Day. and he 9th Brigade was positioned a mere 3 mi (4.8 km) from Caen, the farthest inland of any Allied units on D-Day. On the eastern edge of the Canadian sector the 8th Brigade had taken up positions in Anguerny and Columby, having begun in the late afternoon to dig in. The 3rd Canadian Infantry Division had succeeded in advancing farther than any other divisional element in the Allied Expeditionary Force, but due to heavy fighting in Lagrune and Saint-Aubin had failed to link up with the British 3rd Division from Sword. which was cited. You brought no sources to dispute that text, just eliminated it. I don't care how long an editor has been on the site, follow the procedures, or bad behaviour will be logged. I'm done messing about with a bunch of editors who seem to think that they are above the rules.  Llammakey (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I've never claimed to be above the rules, but I'm likewise done with editors who seem to think only they are the arbiters of edits. And no, I will not go looking for a reference that says the 3rd Canadian Division was not part of First Canadian Army, because you're asking me to prove a negative. That's not how this works. There was no source for the claim in the first place, all I did was correct it. It's not a contentious change, it's in the main D-Day article and even the commander of 2nd British Army is listed in the infobox. And don't blanket rollback edits unless they're clearly vandalism, which my edits quite obviously were not. Instead maybe think about improving articles. Ranger Steve Talk 14:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

As you can see, I've added the sources to disclaim the incorrect sources you so desperately needed. In time, no doubt someone will just delete the incorrect stuff because we don't need to include stuff like that. And no, I didn't eliminate that text you've pasted above. I edited it. I did not wholesale delete it. Get a grip. Ranger Steve Talk 14:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and Wikipedia is not a source. Yes you do. It is not a negative to say that the Canadians are part of the British 2nd Army with a source? What are you on about? That is not what this diff shows. Shows a whole sentence eliminated, along with a cite. I see no cite that backs up this 2 KSLI were further inland than 9 Brigade, and only one battalion was this close to Caen. Other units advanced further on D-Day. from your edit summary. It is considered vandalism, as you abandoned the BRD cycle and only provided sources after someone objected to your behaviour. I'm likewise done with editors who seem to think only they are the arbiters of edits This is the behavior I mentioned. You did not follow how Wikipedia works and have now thrown a tantrum, by insinuating that I need to "get a grip". Please follow the rules and no one will have to be an "arbiter of edits". Llammakey (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
You're just switching arguments to suit yourself. You said the onus is on me to provide a source to say 3rd Div were or were not a part of First Canadian Army. As they weren't part of the Army, that's proving a negative. And it's irrelevant anyway when there was no source in the first place. Noted that you now agree that I didn't delete a whole passage of text and did, in fact, edit it, along with an explanation. Your complete inability to assume any good faith is noted, as is your poor attempt to accuse me of being a vandal on the milhist talk page. I haven't thrown a tantrum, but you clearly have. Do better.Ranger Steve Talk 14:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Look, I am literally talking to a brick wall here. So this will the last thing I say. The onus is on you was to prove your claims the KSLI stuff, the British 2nd Army, those are claims that need to be cited. All I did was revert your uncited additions. Edit summaries are not acceptable places to argue wholesale deletion of cited information. Just FYI, they were part of the First Canadian Army, just detached for Juno operations. Hence, why the explanation needs to be cited. Llammakey (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, funnily enough, you are now doing exactly what you should have done in the first place. You threw a fit, got challenged, and now have to actually do what is required of you. I never contested the content of your edits, just how you went about them. Thank you for the positive changes to the page. I will always support getting the correct information out there. Llammakey (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Nope, you rolled back several completely uncontroversial edits because you didn't like one, called it vandalism, slapped completely unnecessary warnings on my talk page and ran crying to the milhist talk page. All I did in the first place was delete or correct uncited information or information that did not reflect the sources. The only person who threw a fit here is you.
Ands no, 3rd Canadian Division were part of 2nd British Army. First Canadian Army had no responsibility for the landings on Juno, so to claim they did in the lede is just wrong isn't it? Claiming I need to get a source to make such a simple correction to an unsourced and incorrect claim in the lede shows how you operate. Do better. Ranger Steve Talk 11:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)