# Talk:German invasion of Belgium (1940)

"The AéMI possessed 250 combat aircraft, of which 90 were fighter aircraft, 12 were bombers and 12 were reconnaissance aircraft. Only 50 were of reasonably modern standard.[42][43]  When including liaison and transport aircraft, a total strength of 377 is reached;[48]"
This math doesn't fit. Could someone with access to the sources please clarify ? (114 fighter,bombers and recons but 250 combat aircraft excluding transports ?) 217.235.13.103 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

These figures come from two different sources, so Frieser is not going to fit perfectly. All aircraft were seconded by the military. 250 is the original figure. The remaining military aircraft (130+ left) has been added to machines possessed by the naval component/civilian elements etc. Dapi89 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello,
I have included Luxembourg in the infobox since its invasion can certainly be seen as part of the Battle of Belgium. If anyone disagrees, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.Brigade Piron (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There's citations for the following but no such books are listed in the bibliography:

Foot 2005 (probably Dear & Foot, The Oxford Companion to World War II)
Harclerode
Tugwell
Cull 1999 -- Diannaa (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
They're not mine, but to my belief, they represent:
I agree that Foot is probably "The Oxford Companion to World War II"
"Harclerode" is Wings of War: Airborne Warfare 1918-1945
There are several possible Tugwells, so if you leave it, I'll try to replace it with another source
This is certainly Twelve Days in May [1]
This is the risk with using the old form of citations I suppose. Thank you very much for your work here! Brigade Piron (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

141 divisions? I don't think so! --41.150.168.21 (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts are irrelevant. Dapi89 (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
144 divisions vs 141 dividions? In poor tiny Belgium? It's epic battle, really. Stalingrad sucks. --KVK2005 (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not here to educate you. And in actual fact, if you understood the basics of this operation, you'd know that the vast majority of German divisions, certainly, actually passed through Belgium. And considering Belgium, Netherlands and France were involved in Fall Gelb, the 140+divisions the Germans fielded were being used for that purpose and so appear on the orbat. Dapi89 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't most of this information be transferred to the Battle of the Lys article, with the section here offering a link? 2602:306:C53C:C0E0:2954:44A6:3A12:4111 (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't make sense. There isn't that much of it, and it is required in this article. Dapi89 (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Why there was 1,9 millions french POW ? I mean, when exactly that happens ? 2A02:A03F:6599:5B00:A992:26E1:51BB:4F96 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC) 

Read it properly. It is a combination of the campaigns in the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Dapi89 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

This text leaves much room for improvement. It is largely an accumulation of quotations from good sources, which, however, sometimes duplicate each other, sometimes contradict each other and omit many things. There is no stringent systematic approach. The topic should first be sensibly structured and presented, then substantiated with sources. Inconsistencies arise in the way the topic is treated here.--Landkraft (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)