# Talk:St Nazaire Raid

Hello everyone - what was a tar baby in this context? Regards, Notreallydavid 04:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"The British legitimately flew the Kriegsmarine ensign as a false flag "
That is a curious sentence.  In what sense was it legitimate?  There should probably be a citation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.82.163 (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 

A warship is allowed under international law to fly a false flag ('false colours') as a ruse de guerre, as long as the false flag is hauled down and the true national colours hoisted before opening fire. In this case the British would have flown the Kriegsmarine flag for as long as they could, before they then replaced it with the White Ensign when they knew their deception had finally been recognised and they decided to return fire.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.59.39 (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be worth mentioning that the reason Durrant got a VC was mostly due to the testimony of the German destroyer's Captain who admired the sheer bravery of the man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.251.252.7 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

In the second paragraph ("Despite teaming up with a regular soldier unit in the town, the commandos were either killed or captured.") what is this 'teaming up'? Were there regular British infantry at St. Nazaire? Or is this some kind of erroneous reference to the arrival of a German army unit?
HowardSelsam 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there a detailed source for the raid. Involving a minor dispute concernig David Irvings details on the raid. It appears that Irving said 6? laborers were on board when the ship exploded. Any source for this - I assume he probably knows better than anyone but I would like the source if one exists. Thanks.159.105.80.141 19:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed a reference to The Sinking Of The Lancastria; Jonathan Fenby; Simon and Schuster UK Ltd; ISBN 0-7434-8943-8, as this does not relate to the topic of the article.  Am I wrong? Vernon White . . . Talk  21:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The attack force passed the wreck of the Lancastria on their way in, but the wreck's top side is about 12m below the surface, so they wouldn't have seen it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.70.208 (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC) 

Hello. My english is so bad for that. I've two pictures to illustrate this article. If you want. Image:Forme Joubert - porte et usine de pompage.jpg et Image:Forme_Joubert_-_porte.jpg. Ludo29 (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

They look pretty good, is that the sea end of the Normandie dry dock? Modest Genius talk 00:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Here it lists the raiding British as 611 strong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Nazaire
but in the Operation Chariot article it only mentions 22 escaping back to England on the small wooden boats, 168 dead and 214 POWs.  so, one of those two has to be wrong.  From the BBC tv documentary I believe I heard the number that made it back was the remaining 229 or so not 22
(Stickman20089 (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

The english article stats that 400 Germans died during the raid, while the german version says only 42 died. Which figure is correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.190.163.156 (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC) 

42 died during the night's fighting. Rather more died in the delayed explosions. Modest Genius talk 00:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The article says that "of the 611 men who undertook the raid, 228 returned to Britain, 169 were killed and 215 became prisoners of war", but 228 plus 169 plus 215 equals 612. So at least one of these figures has to be incorrect. 212.59.34.21 (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The statement that 360 Germans died in the explosion alone is dubious too. This would be more than the death toll of the Beirut explosion, which was orders of magnitude larger. On the other hand, the nearest area in Beirut was mostly evacuated when the storage building blew up, not subject to a guided tour... Elias (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I have completed an article on Raymond Couraud, also know as Captain Lee, the SAS man who later was to lead Operation Gaff - the attempt to kill Erwin Rommel. The French sites I have referenced to state that Couraud was the only French national to take part in the St Nazaire Raid. Anyone have any good references in English on this? Thanks! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph refers to "royal commandos".  There is surely a word missing here such as navy or marine?

Composition of the raiding force, para 4: "under the command of Captain Hodgeson" and "under the command of Captain Burn"
German forces, para 2: "Harbour Commander Korvettenkapitäin Kellerman"
Small ships, para 1: "Lieutenants T Boyd and TDL Platt"
These are just five examples (I'm sure there are more), of entries that do not show the first name of the individuals concerned, (the last entry sounds like part of a cricket score-card !)  There are many that do, e.g. "Lieutenant Colonel Charles Newman, Sergeant Thomas Durrant". This format is far better. And it is still used to this day - Major Joe Bloggs, Corporal Donna Smith and so on.

I notice that the ML flotilla table is laid out in a rather strange way. I was going to change it to numerical order (I had already done the text) but did not when I saw that the 7th flotilla did not enter the story until near the end; perhaps that is why it is where it is.
What do others think?
RASAM (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Saint Nazaire is absolutely not in Normandie but Loire-Atlantique.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.21.174 (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC) 

That's correct, but I cannot find where in the article it claims to be in Normandy. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
See Normandie.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Listing a dock as a "casualty" seems a bit irregular...does it not? Moreover, the listed "German" casualties apparently seem to include some unknown number of civilians lost when the British ship exploded. I would at the very least take away that someone(s) has tried to make this seem a more worthwhile British adventure than it might or might not have been. Juan Riley (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It was "worthwhile" because with the destruction of the St Nazaire dock it then meant that the Tirpitz was then forced to return to Germany for dry-docking and re-fitting when needed, which meant that she then had to transit via either the English Channel or go the long way round via the GIUK gap and face the Home Fleet, both routes being heavily defended by Britain. The extent of these defences was such that once Tirpitz returned to her home waters she then only ever steamed as far as Norway and never ventured into the Atlantic - to attack British merchant shipping - again. So that made the operation fairly "worthwhile".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.184 (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on St Nazaire Raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070320215539/http://www.navynews.co.uk:80/articles/2001/0104/1001040401.asp to http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2001/0104/1001040401.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Quote from beginning of article : "... British amphibious attack on the heavily defended Normandie dry dock at St Nazaire.... "
Saint-Nazaire is located in the south of Brittany, not in Normandy.
Now, some might argue that Saint-Nazaire is in "Pays-de-la-Loire" administrative "région", even though historically, it used to belong to Brittany. But in no case can it be said that Saint-Nazaire is in Normandy, which is far to the North-East of Brittany. 
Alain-André CLOUET  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB05:892F:2100:6961:63F:38C1:5EB0 (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC) 

The dock in question is called "Normandie". GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
---because it was built to accommodate the famous French ocean liner of that name. Captain Pedant (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on St Nazaire Raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20120914075023/http://www.stnazairesociety.org/Pages/index.html to http://www.stnazairesociety.org/Pages/index.html
Added archive https://archive.is/20120914075023/http://www.stnazairesociety.org/Pages/index.html to http://www.stnazairesociety.org/Pages/index.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.stnazairesociety.org/Newsletter/memorial.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The figures given in the introduction do not add up:
Of the 611 men who undertook the raid, 228 returned to Britain, 169 were killed and 215 became prisoners of war.
The sum of the three figures given is 612. I don't know which figure should be changed, so I will not change anything.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HFS-er (talk • contribs) 19:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 
The figures in Aftermath say 622 men took part, and again break it into the same figures you mention here, so the difference is ten.  I suspect, but don't know, that the number of men taking part is 612 and that the other three figures are correct. Phiwum (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It's all really quite confusing. I have struggled to find sources which agreed with each other. The official report to the admiralty states that 621 men were involved, but only 218 returned, with 403 missing. (Note that 5 commandos did successfully evade capture and return to England through Gibraltar, which wasn't known by the commander writing the document at the time. This means that 5 of the presumed missing or captured eventually returned.)
The differences in numbers of men involved is probably due to the different times at which this number was measured. According to my research, one of the MLs suffered an engine failure and had to turn back. (Source 1) (Source 2) Sources counting the number of soldiers who departed from Falmouth to get to St Nazaire state that 621 men were involved. Sources counting the number of soldiers who actually made it to the combat zone state that 611 / 612 men were involved. Lukas Mill (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have read in various eye witness accounts of this raid that the British were responsible for numerous atrocities.  They murdered a large number of unarmed German officers, as well as French civilians.  Why is there no mention of this anywhere on this site?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.92.247 (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC) 

Perhaps because the editors aren't aware of your sources.  You could edit the article yourself or provide references for others to look at. Phiwum (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Probably due to the reason that there is no mention of this anywhere, period. You were either on some blog or RSS feed. There is no historical account of any such activity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I am currently listening to an audiobook: D-Day Through German Eyes. (file-4... might be chapter three, about twelve minutes in) The interviewee (a German soldier who experienced the D-Day invasion) mentions this event as one of the incidents about which he has "not changed his thinking about since the war." He used the word "atrocity" when naming it. Without arguing for a "both sides need equal hearing" argument, I would love to better understand how this was known, understand, and propagandized by Germany during the war. That would be a fascinating addition.
50.50.102.13 (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I just read that section of that book 2600:1700:898:10C0:C5A9:2690:F0D9:9A94 (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

The HMS Campbeltown is listed among the "losses" as any warship lost in a battle would be. But wasn't the HMS Campbeltown's role more like that of a weapon rather than the "classic" role of a destroyer (or any other kind of warship)?
A missile that was fired at the enemy in any battle wouldn't be named among the "losses" either, would it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.74.233 (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 

The book by Stuart Chant-Sempill, St. Nazaire Commando, published in 1985, is an eye-witness account of the raid by one of the commandos. It includes an appendix listing the names ranks and groupings of the hundreds of people taking part, both army and navy. Only about 60 pages describe the actual raid, and half the book is about the author's experiences as a prisoner of war. 92.24.183.87 (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Right now, the timeline reads like this according to the Outward journey section:
March 26, 14:00 - flotilla departs
March 26, 17:00 - news of German torpedo boats, two destroyers dispatched
March 26 (I assume, not stated otherwise), 21:00 - flotilla is 120 km from St Nazaire, two destroyers left behind
March 26 (I assume, not stated otherwise), 22:00 - submarine directs navigation
March 27, 23:30 - RAF squadrons start bombing runs
March 28, (I assume, not stated otherwise), 02:00 - convoy spotted by German U-boat)
March 28, early hours - events progress.

The way this reads, the convoy took some 27 hours to make the last 120 km of the journey, which seems absurdly slow. Either that, or at some point the article neglects to mention a date change. This probably ought to be clarified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:1A8A:E780:A5FA:5C6A:C41F:8CF (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC) 

The text added here looks like it's copied from somewhere.  If you are writing normal text in your own words, you wouldn't use ellipses, for example.  How much of this text was copied from that source?  If it's all copied, it's excessive even if marked as a quotation.  49.198.51.54 (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Avalon Hill made a solo board game out of this raid. Should it be mentioned in the article? Source: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1425/raid-st-nazaire
Linkato1 (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The date at which the St Nazaire Dry Dock is said to have been repaired (1948) contradicts with the date listed in HMS Campbeltown's wiki. (1947) The current evidence I have found is as such:
Jeremy Clarkson's documentary "The Greatest Raid of All" and C.N. Trueman's "History Learning Site" both claim that the dock was repaired in 1947. Alasdair McKenzie's blog site "Mech Traveller," on the other hand, claims that the dock was repaired in 1948. There might be other more trustworthy sources to back up the second claim.
My current evidence points towards the mistake being on this page, but I want to ensure that I am not neglecting any vital sources. Lukas Mill (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, that is my mistake. The dock was rebuilt in 1947, but according to the Commonwealth War Graves, the dock only entered service in 1948. Lukas Mill (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

So "40 senior German officers" were killed on the ship, huh? A "senior officer" is a General, at least an Oberst. I'll buy the first person a gift hamper who is able to name only TEN officers of those ranks killed in Nazaire.
So Generalleutnat Hilpert was "sacked by a furious Hitler", huh? Well, I don't know why the dictator should have blamed him for something that happened outside of his sphere of responsibility and 430 km from his HQ. What I DO know is that Hilpert was promoted to GdI and given his own Korps on the Eastern Front only weeks later. --Reibeisen (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
The Eastern Front was commonly used as a punishment posting. It was a much worse place to find yourself than France.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.70.208 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)