# Talk:Operation Tonga

You know, I cannot prove a negative, but....
I never heard of an operation called Coup de Main. The term is French for "slap" (more or less) and is the military term for a high-risk, high-payoff commando-style operation. 
Can anyone provide  cite for "Operation Coup de Main?"

I think Operation Coup-de-Main never exist. Regards, John N. 12:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've corrected factual errors about the Coupe de Main operation. Operation name itself was wrong, plus glider and platoon numbers.
coup de main Rufjbn 06:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't "coup de main" simply the name given by the planners to distinguish (from other parts of Operation Tonga, such as the attack on the Merville Battery) the attack on the bridges by the glider-borne troops of D Company 2nd Ox & Bucks?  Rufjbn 23:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. -- John N. 09:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know who added them but i dont see any reason why the following books should be in the referance section since they dont cover the subject and especially since they havent been used once in the footnotes.
Storage:

Blair, Clay (1985). Ridgway’s Paratroopers - The American Airborne In World War II. The Dial Press. ISBN 1-55750-299-4.
Flanagan, E.M. Jr (2002). Airborne - A Combat History Of American Airborne Forces. The Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 0-89141-688-9.
Hastings, Max (2004). Armageddon - The Battle For Germany 1944-45. Macmillan. ISBN 0-33049-062-1.
Huston, James A. (1998). Out Of The Blue - U.S Army Airborne Operations In World War II. Purdue University Press. ISBN 1-55753-148-X.
Jewell, Brian (1985). ”Over The Rhine” – The Last Days Of War In Europe. Spellmount Ltd. ISBN 0-87052-128-4.
Rawson, Andrew (2006). Rhine Crossing: Operation VARSITY - 30th and 79th US Divisions and 17th US Airborne Division. Pen & Sword Military. ISBN 1-84415-232-4.
Saunders, Tim (2006). Operation Plunder: The British & Canadian Rhine Crossing. Leo Cooper Ltd. ISBN 1-84415-221-9. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |origdate= (help)
Ah, that'd be me. I always do that prior to writing the article and then clean them up, but thanks for doing it now. I added them weeks ago when I thought I would have time to do the article, but got sidetracked. However, this is now my next project - hence reorganizing the structure of the page. Perhaps we could work on it together, as we did Operation Varsity? Skinny87 (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough i do that myself :)
When i get some spare time (other then when am in work like now lol) ill try and put some citations in the article from Ellis, Wilmot and Ambrose (not really his work however).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
God, I don't even know where to begin with this article. I might just start re-writing it, section by section like I did with all the other articles I've edited. Skinny87 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there anything i can help with?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, any and all help is appreciated. I'm trying to find casualty figures for both sides, and if you could look through Ellis to see if they're mentioned that would be ace. Skinny87 (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
will do :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, after those few quick fixes, everything looks good.  Thanks for being so responsive (again, I apologize for taking a while to get to this).  Regards, Cam (Chat) 22:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to make a note, I'm removing the Canadian flag from the infobox for the moment. I'm more than open to discussion, but my reasoning is thus: the Canadian airborne battalion was not an independent formation, but integrated into 6th Airborne Division, which to me doesn't seem to warrant a Canadian flag. Skinny87 (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting little article 92nd (Loyals) Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, Royal Artillery AA unit that helped defend Pegasus Bridge --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The length of time the 6th Airborne Division spent deployed as regular infantry after D-Day, and the consequent casualties, had implications for its further deployability during much of 1944, and there has been historical interest in whether this part in the plan was intentional. General Gale, writing his memoirs after the war as a serving officer, avoids mentioning how long he was actually told to expect to hold the eastern flank. Major John Howard has noted that he believed Gale had told him to expect a much earlier recovery,  and indeed the standing orders of the 21st Army Group were very clear, and support Howard’s interpretation.  These arguments suggest that it was the difficulties involved in taking the town of Caen - originally part of the COSSAC airborne assault plan for the first day of the division - that led to the 6th Airborne remaining in place so long. General Montgomery was however inclined to present the 6th Division's prolongued presence on the eastern flank as intentional; indeed, the general was well known for his preference for utilising airborne forces as elite regular infantry at several points in the 1944-5 campaigns.

Information on the planning and support of this operation is woefully lacking. Trainng and rehearsals? How many aircraft? How many gliders? Orders of battle for British and German units? Casualties? Losses of aircraft and gliders?--Buckboard 15:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC
The Royal Engineers at Pegasus Bridge were from 9 Independant Parachute Squadron, Royal Engineers. As this unit played a key role in the defence of the bridge and this particular battle is one of the most important parts of the Squadron's history they should be named directly in the articleTomrowley1234 (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC).

Coupe de Main needs to be rewritten, because it reads like a story.
Many of Buckboard's comments seem to have been taken into consideration in recent revisions. The article might be improved further by a more balanced description of the activities of the various units that were involved. The article represents an adequate account from the point of view of British forces but actions of forces of other nations also should be considered. Actions that were militarily important could emphasized further. 
Typically, authors emphasize colorful but minor aspects of the operation (e.g., the capture of "Pegasus Bridge", the destruction of artillery at Merville, and the destruction of bridges on the River Dives). Militarily, the most important goal of the operation was the defense of the bridgehead against counterattacks, especially counterattacks by infantry supported by tanks (e.g., by 21 Panzer Division). The defense of the bridgehead involved the most intense fighting and caused the majority of casualties (German, eastern European, Canadian, British, etc.). 
With the benefit of hindsight, the common contention that the parachute battalions of 6 Airborne were "scattered and dropped incorrectly" seems misleading except perhaps in a narrow sense. Before 6 June 1944, no other parachute assault of this size had been attempted. Similarly, night-time drops of more than a few paratroopers were rare. Thus, no large-scale, night-time drop had been attempted previously. Thus, information from similar operations could not be considered during the planning of the operation. Some senior planners had predicted the destruction of Allied parachute battalions on 6 June, given that Panzer divisions were known to be nearby. Furthermore, the drop was made under cloudy, stormy, wet, windy conditions on an area well-defended by anti-aircraft guns. Parachute battalions were very unlikely to reach 50% of their total strength by daybreak but this was achieved in 6 Airborne. The scattering of American paratroopers was far greater which also suggests that the British drop was remarkable for its accuracy, given prevailing conditions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufjbn2 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 

Well, as the primary editor of this article, I'd firstly like to say - welcome to wikipedia! I've moved this section to the bottom of the talkpage where it's meant to be. I do agree that the article needs more information about the German side of the operation; it's something I've had in the back of my mind for a while. Unfortunately, I don't know of many sources for their side of the battle, but I will look for them; can you suggest any? As for the fighting for the bridgehead, I recently expanded it as I felt it needed more detail. But I don't think it needs more expansion here, and should instead go into more detail on the page for 6th Airborne Division, as this article is about Tonga and not the fight for the bridgehead (which, to think about it, looking at my sources, could probably be a seperate article, or at the very least a large portion of 6th Airborne's article). As to the 'scattered and dropped incorrectly' I can only go by what the WP: Reliable Sources say, which is reflected in the article; I will of course go through them again and check them against the article to see if anything can be changed, but as I remember it they do seem to have a consensus that the drops by 6th Airborne were very scattered, although of course nowhere near that experienced by their American counterparts. I hope that this answers at least some of your questions, and would welcome further dialogue. Skinny87 (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Skinny. Thanks for the welcome. I agree that most (all?) authors conclude that the British parachute drop was inaccurate and scattered. I also agree that accounts of Operation Tonga typically focus on bridges and batteries. Some preliminary information on the German units faced by 6th Airborne in Normandy might be unearthed by searching on: Edgar Feuchtinger, Hans von Luck, Erich Diestel, and Wilhelm Richter. One description of the attack by 21 Panzer on 12th Parachute Battalion positions early on 06 June can be found in von Luck's book. I'll try to cobble something together regarding the German units that were in the area on D-Day.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufjbn2 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, no problem. If you put your findings in a section here on the talkpage, we can find out the best place to put it all, how to merge it in with the existing text. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I'd like to do a little merging and editing myself. After all, that is the point of this exercise isn't it?
For further inforamtion; the next stage of the fighting in the bridgehead is covered, to some extent, in the Operation Perch article, which is sourced and referenced.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey, cheers for that, hadn't actually realised there was stuff about 6th Airborne in there. I might add some bits about the 7-10 June attacks against the bridgehead into this article, but the existence of Perch confirms my thoughts that the details of the bridgehead need to be in 6th Airborne's own article. I might expand the 7-14 June period, but before the late-August breakout offensive the division was largely static, and there's only so much you can write about a static defence :) Still, I will add more details about Ranville and the like in the next few days, and try and find more German sources. Skinny87 (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(od) Right. I've fished out Buckingham's D-Day: The First 24 Hours and purchased a copy of D'Este's Decision in Normandy which will hopefully allow me to fill out details during the landings, as well as stuff about the bridgehead battles; although I won't do a huge expansion of the latter, as I still think that deserves to go in the Operation Perch article, and 6th Airborne Division's own article in more detail. Skinny87 (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I hadn't realized how long ago I wrote this - one of my first major article back in mid-2008. I might rewrite the whole battle and aftermath section in a sandbox and then present it here for analysis. How does that sound to everyone? Skinny87 (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Right, I've added it to one of my sandboxes, which can be found here, but I have to warn everyone, it might take a while; it's a complex operation at times, and I've also got other projects going on at the same time, as well as that pesky real life that interferes from time to time! Skinny87 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Under the British Preparation heading, should the sentence-plus-fragment ("The division was allotted three specific tasks to achieve as a part of Operation Tonga. Apart from protecting the eastern flank of the Allied seaborne landings and taking control of the areas of strategic importance to the east of Caen.") be connected as a sentence (comma after "Tonga", de-capitalise "Apart")? Perhaps "apart from" should be replaced with "towards" as the 3 specific tasks seem to be aimed at the objectives of protecting the flank and controlling strategic areas. I've just finished reading Ambrose, Stephen (2003), Pegasus Bridge. I was reading this article to get some extra information. "Pij" (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, admittedly I'm not a grammar expert :) but I tried that out in the preview and it looked a tad odd, especially with the 'towards' added in. I mean, I think it's okay as it is, but as I said I'm no expert. I hope you found the article informatuve, although as I've stated above I will be rewriting some of it and expanding the 'Ground role' section. Skinny87 (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear god, I'm an idiot! Pijuvwy, thank-you very much for catching that; I can't believe I missed that, especially in the preview box. Apologies. Skinny87 (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The section that deals with German units should be revised substantially: much of the information is incorrect. On D-Day, the 711th Infantry Division (not the 709th Infantry Division) was in the vicinity of the Orne River on D-Day. On D-Day, 352nd Infantry Division was engaged by American 1st Infantry Division at Omaha beach and had no contact with 6th Airborne near Caen. No mention is made of 346th Infantry Division (stationed near Le Havre on D-Day). It arrived at the River Dives on about D+2. Between 10th and 12th, the 346th was the most important German unit engaged by 6th Airborne. No mention is made of 21st Panzer Division. It was the German unit that the British paratroopers were most concerned about. They knew that it had been moved to the vicinity of Caen within the previous month. Consequently, it was the first armoured division to counter-attack 6th Airborne. Battlegroup von Luck of 21 Panzer was the most important German unit engaged by 6th Airborne on D-Day. 6th Airborne had little contact with 12th SS Panzer Division because the 12th engaged Canadian west of the Orne (not east).  --Rufjbn2 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Based on Allied intelligence assessments, General Gale anticipated (on 01 June 1944) that German infantry would be capable of counter-attacking at company strength within 30 minutes after the landing of paratroopers. German infantry supported by tanks might be capable of counter-attacking within an hour. As of 03 November, 2009, this information could be found online in a document containing a top secret intelligence assessment (dated 01 June 1944) of expected reactions of German troops to British airborne operation in Normandy. See Airborne Forces Archive at www.paradata.org.uk. --Rufjbn2 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A good site but it would be difficult to include as we need reliable secondary sources --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
If you get a secondary source, will you then need a tertiary? Are statements never included in a Wikipedia article without the support of reliable secondary sources? Are there reliable secondary sources that confirm that 709th or 352nd Infantry Divisions were important in Operation Tonga?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufjbn2 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Why would you need a secondary source to support information contained in a photographic image of an original document? Exactly what would be confirmed? That the image is not counterfeit? That the original document is not counterfeit?  Are all statements in this Wikipedia article supported by reliable secondary sources?  --Rufjbn2 (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
To answer this question - yes, they are indeed, or it wouldn't have passed it's Good Article nomination; I've written a number of articles, and always make sure that they're sourced to reliable sources every time. I think my only problem here was that I used Otway during the German preparation section when I shouldn't, as he is perhaps a bit too dated for that. But that will be rectified shortly. Skinny87 (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I would ask that this statement ("A good site but it would be difficult to include as we need reliable secondary sources --Jim Sweeney") be retained so that other potential contributors can be made aware of possible guidelines for contributions to this article.

Information regarding other Allied units involved in Operation Tonga (e.g., Lord Lovat's 1st SS Bde) should be added. --Rufjbn2 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

All articles should rely on reliable secondary sources see Wikipedia:Reliable sources --Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The statement that "airborne troops of the 6th Airborne Division would be opposed by the Wehrmacht formations stationed in the area around Caen and the River Orne, which by June 1944 consisted of the 709th and 716th Infantry Divisions" (see the first paragraph of the section "German Preparation") is not supported by the source (i.e., Harclerode, 2005; p 320). Harclerode (2005; p 320) describes the position of "enemy forces" (not simply Wehrmacht formations) in January 1944 (not June) in the area in which Allied landings (not airborne landings) would take place. Rufjbn2 (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I should point out that what you've got above is mistaken! Harclerode, p. 320 isn't used at all to source German dispositions; most of the German preparation section is sourced to Otway and Buckingham. Harclerode, p. 320 is used to (accurately) describe the assault on the village of Le (La?) Plein. And WP:Reliable Sources, which are usually secondary and (hopefully) academic in nature, are preferable to primary sources such as Paradata, because they are more reliable and less biased! Skinny87 (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
What other enemy forces were there ?  Wehrmacht is the name for the unified armed forces of Germany from 1935 to 1945 and I think Allied landings also covers the airborne landings. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is partly my fault for using Otway, who is out of date really for Wehrmacht dispositions. Of course, although we can't use Paradata information, the first paragraph of that German preparation section does need to be updated; now then, whilst writing about Operation Dragoon's airborne landings, I was fortunate enough to be told about the official German military history of the period, published a few years ago and available on Google Books. I think this would be the best secondary Reliable Source to use, don't you? As such, I'll quickly put together an expanded (and accurate!) paragraph about the German forces in the area. I'll pop it below here when I'm done; shouldn't be long! Skinny87 (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well Boog et al in the official history have been spectacularly unhelpful, but fear not! I shall therefore simply therefore move onto other reliable sources, like Harclerode, Buckingham and a few other books I have around here! I'll try and have a new paragraph up as soon as possible! Skinny87 (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
"German Preparation"
"The airborne troops of the 6th Airborne Division would be opposed by the Wehrmacht formations stationed in the area around Caen and the River Orne, which by June 1944 consisted of the 709th and 716th Infantry Divisions, both of which were static formations whose manpower consisted of medically-downgraded troops and conscripts recruited from the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe.[20]
-from Wikipedia, Operation Tonga; retrieved 2009/11/04
According to the article, the source for this information (i.e., [20]) is the following paragraph from Harclerode (2005, page 305):
"By the beginning of 1944, enemy forces in the area where the [seaborne] landings would take place comprised five divisions and a number of independent units whose total strength equated to that of a further division. Two of the divisions, the 709th and 716th, based respectively in the areas of Bayeux and Caen, were static formations whose manpower was largely composed of medically down-graded formations or conscripts from Russia or Eastern Europe. Two more, the 77th and 352 Infantry Divisions, were deployed to the rear of the 716th and 709th, while the fifth formation, the 243rd Infantry Division was deployed on the west coast of the Contentin Peninsula". 
- Harclerode 2005 p 305.
Leaving aside problems with plagiarism, it is clear that the passage in the Wikipedia article is not supported by the source to which it refers. However, all of this is a red herring, of course. The point is that the German divisions that were encountered in Normandy by 6th Airborne in June 1944 included 711th Infantry Division (not 709th), 716th Infantry Division, 346th Infantry Division (not 352nd), and 21 Panzer Division (not 12th SS Panzer Division). These facts are not stated simply and clearly in the article in its current form or in the proposed revision. Information that is not pertinent to Operation Tonga (such as the identity of the German divisions on the Contentin peninsula or the OOB of German forces in Normandy) should be omitted. Rufjbn2 (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, I don't know what to say. I've taken that information from Buckingham (2003) who is one of the latest historians to analyse the D-Day landings, and he gives a detailed analysis of the German formations in the area. Also, please don't accuse other editors (ie. me) of plagarism (please see WP:AGF). If you have your own sources, then please write and show your own preferred version of the German preparation section. At the moment, the one proposed below is based on uptodate, reliable sources, and another editor has found no problems with it. I do see what you mean by having the Cotentin Peninsula units but I'm of the opinion that putting in all of the units in the area would be more helpful in showing the reader the entire situation; individual German units and their actions can then be shown throughout the rest of the article. Skinny87 (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'll have limited internet access for the next few days, so if I don't respond for a while, I won't be ignoring anyone. I've asked for some wider opinions for this situation from WP:MILHIST on the wikiproject's talkpage, as at the moment there's just the three of us. Skinny87 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Consider a source reliable if it reports that the most important German divisions involved in Operation Tonga were 21st Panzer Div, 716th Infantry Div, and 711th Infantry Div. Be even more sure of its reliability if it mentions that the 346 Infantry Division joined the fight on about June 8. A source is unreliable or misconstrued if it describes intense fighting in Normandy between 6th Airborne and 709th Infantry Division, 352nd Infantry Division, or 12th SS Panzer Division. As the primary editor of this article (which has passed a Good Article nomination) you will no doubt have no trouble tracking down one or two of the many available reliable sources (see for example Zetterling, Nevenkin, von Luck, Harrison, Meyer, Blumentritt, Hargreaves, Kershaw, Isby, Speidel, Guderian, Mitcham, Wilt, Ruge, etc.). If you still can't find reliable sources that accurately describe the disposition of German troops in the vicinity of 6th Airborne's drop zones, you might consider leaving it to someone who can. Or not. You'll be glad to know that I will be moving on to an article that might benefit from my help. Good luck. Rufjbn2 (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, thanks for that. I'll start on a rewrite/revamp as soon as I am able; will need to round up a few more books from libraries and bookshops before I start that, however. But many thanks for raising these points. Skinny87 (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If we have a order of battle we need to include all troops in the area available the Cotentin Peninsula is in Normandy --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Commenting in response to request for outside opinion: The proposed revision below looks good to me. The only alteration I'd make would be to start the section with the British intelligence estimate of what they expected to face on landing, before going into detail about the German forces actually stationed in the area. I think the section title is possibly misleading, because it implies the Germans were expecting 6th Airborne; maybe "German precautions" or something similar might be more accurate? In this context (of the general German precautions taken against an expected - but unspecific - Allied invasion) I see no problem with mentioning the forces immediately available to Rommel and von Rundsdtedt in Normandy, including those in the Cotentin. Regarding which units 6th Airborne actually encountered, as Skinny says the proper place for mentioning those is further on when the article examines what happened. Rufjbn2, if you have information that contradicts the sources currently used in the article, you need to present it with the sources you are using so we can evaluate its weight. Generally we assign the most weight to recent reputable scholarship, and decreasing weight to older/less academic sources (ie peer-reviewed academic journals and books are near the top of the list, and websites near the bottom). I hope this helps. EyeSerenetalk 10:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


### German preparation
The coastline of Northern France was defended by two German Armies. The first was the German Fifteenth Army, commanded by Colonel General Hans von Salmuth and responsible for all of the coastline that stretched from the east of Cabourg in Normandy to the River Scheldt in Holland. Fifteenth Army was formed of some eighteen divisions, fifteen Army infantry divisions and three Luftwaffe Field divisions; eleven of these were positioned around the Pas de Calais area, which the German High Command believed to be the most likely area that the Allies would invade. Defending the rest of the coastline in Northern France was Colonel General Friedrich Dollmann's German Seventh Army. To defend this stretch of coastline, which encompassed all the territory from the west of Cabourg to the River Loire, Dollmann possessed only 13 divisions. Five of these, along with a mobile infantry brigade and three independent regiments, formed 84 Korps under the command of General Erich Marcks, who had his headquarters in St Lo; 84 Korps was responsible for defending all of the coastline between Cabourg and the Cotentin Peninsula. (Buckingham, p. 44)
The Korps had three divisions stationed throughout the Cotentin Peninsula. The 243rd Static Infantry Division defended the western portion of the Peninsula, and the 709th Static Infantry Division the eastern side as far south as the River Douve, including the city of Cherbourg. Both divisions were static defence, or Bodenstandige, formations which were comprised of overage conscripts, physically unfit soldiers, and recovering casualties from other sectors. As a result, they were only two-thirds the size of a normal infantry division and did not possess a reconnaissance battalion or a great deal of artillery. The third division in the area was Seventh Army's reserve formation, 91st Luftlande Division, which had arrived in the middle of May and was based around the town of Carentan. Between Arromanches and the River Vire was the 352nd Infantry Division, formed in November 1943 from an experienced cadre of personnel from a division that had served on the Eastern Front and been dissolved due to high casualties. Although many of its soldiers had poor physical fitness and it was short of equipment, the division had been classified as an 'attack division' and was at te highest possible state of combat readiness by February 1944. In the middle of March it was ordered to the coast; seven of its battalions manned coastal defences, with the other three stationed in Bayeux as a reserve.(Buckingham, pp. 44-45)
Three Panzer Divisions were stationed in the area and acted as reserves. The 21st Panzer Division, commanded by Lieutenant General Edgar Feuchtinger, was Army Group B's reserve division and was stationed in Caen. Outfitted with a number of relatively obsolete German and captured French vehicles. By June, however, these had been supplemented with 90 Panzer Mk IV's. The other two Panzer Divisions were attached to the OKW reserve and came under the command of Panzer Group West. The first was the 12th SS Panzer Division 'Hitlerjugend', based around Falaise by June and comprised of 20,000 troops and nearly 500 tanks and armoured vehicles. Lastly, there was the Panzer Lehr Division, stationed approximately 100 miles from the coast around Chartres and Le Mans. Commanded by Lieutenant General Fritz Bayerlain, it fielded more than 800 vehicles, including 200 tanks, and was the only completely armoured and mechanized formation in the Wehrmacht.(Buckingham, pp. 46-47)
The British airborne troops would also face a large number of static defensive positions and obstacles which had been erected under the orders of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel.(Buckingham, p. 37) Rommel had been appointed Inspector General of Coastal Defences and commander of Army Group B in November 1943 by order of Adolf Hitler. On his arrival he had assessed the existing defences in the region and had immediately begun the process of improving them, particularly those situated inland as he believed no more than thirty percent of the German defences were adequate.(Buckingham, p. 37) These anti-airborne measures consisted of planting a large number of mines to create minefields as well as the erection of wire-braced poles up to two metres in height, a great many of which were laced with mines or other booby-traps aimed at destroying gliders and killing or wounding airborne troops.(Harclerode, p. 308) Rommel noted in his diary during an inspection of one area that a division had placed over 300,000 stakes in the ground to deter airborne landings, and a corps had erected over 900,000.(Devlin, p. 369) The Merville artillery battery, the destruction of which was one of the main objectives of the 6th Airborne Division, was a particularly heavily fortified position. From the beach it was protected by two strong points, which included approximately thirty bunkers as well as an observation post, and the battery itself consisted of a bunker containing the battery's command post, two blockhouses, a light flak emplacement and four casemates able to contain artillery pieces up to dimensions of 150 mm.(Buckingham, p. 41) The entire battery covered an area roughly four hundred metres in diameter and was surrounded by an inner perimeter of barbed wire, a minefield, and an outer perimeter of barbed wire as well as an anti-tank ditch.(Buckingham, p. 41)

This is what I propose should replace the current 'German preparation' section. It is almost completely cited to Buckingham, who has written a detailed and, as far as I know, one of the most current sources of information about the initial Normandy landings. It is, I believe, comprehensive and far better than what I wrote about 18 months ago with the use of Otway. What do people think? Skinny87 (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Added some links but look good --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It may be worth mentioning that 5th Panzer Army (Germany) was being held in reserve. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Was that the formation that the other two German Panzer Divisions came under? I don't have any mention of it in Buckingham, Hastings or Harclerode. Do you have a cite handy? Skinny87 (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a good breakdown of the mobile divisions here [[1]] page 11 5th Panzer Army (Germany) was at the tome called Panzer Group West. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, added something into the section above; didn't need to cite it, as PGW is mentioned by him. Does that sound okay now? Skinny87 (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes look good --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I dont have the time right now to take a detailed look through everything, but i have a quick question on the opening para. Do we need that much info on the 15th Army? Couldnt it be something to the effect of (in shorthand) France defended by two armiesm the 7th and 15th. 15th defended from a-b, 7th covered c-d. The go into talking about the 7th as you do.
Also i believe the Germans used Roman numerals not arabic ones for their Corps, could this be changed? 84 -> LXXXIV Corps.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm with EnigmaMcmcx, all that info on the troops deployed in the Cotentin Peninsula isn't relevant to this particular article and the Germans do use Roman numbers for their corps designations. Trim the defenses section down to those that were close to the Orne. The best single source for German OB data is [2] unless you have the book version by Zetterling. It's RS and it gives detailed strength, composition data as well as locations. I also think that the article is very one-sided as there aren't any details of how the Germans reacted or how the British landing messed with their plans; your reading has naturally been very airborne-centric. The memoirs of Hans von Luck, commander of 125 PzGren. Reg't, IIRC are readily available and Fire Brigades, by Nevenkin, has good OB data for the panzer divisions as well as accounts of their battles. And there's a history of the 21st Panzer in French and German available, IIRC, that probably has more detailed accounts. The Germans in Normandy, by Richard Hargreaves, might have some useful first-hand accounts. David Isby has republished reports from German commanders in Normandy, perhaps one of them covers the Orne River sector. And a really good general history of the whole campaign, like D'Este's, might have more references to German sources that you might profitably consult. Heck, Buxton in Big Gun Monitor, might even have some information on naval gunfire support for the paras! This sort of stuff is why I haven't tackled a major battle article, you have to master the literature for both sides and in multiple languages!
Thank you all for your advice; I think it's clear this needs something of a large-scale rewrite with new sources. The problem with it was it was the first major article I wrote when I started on wikipedia, and I didn't have the sources I do now, or know that I could get more people involved. I've started a rewrite in a sandbox linked somewhere up above, but this will probably be more than a one-person job. I'm currently two-thirds of the way through writing the Operation Dragoon airborne landings, but I'll make this my next priority after that. If anyone wants to make a start here, either on the article page or on this talkpage, then please go ahead. I'm without most of my books, but I do have Harclerode with me, and I can obviously access web resources. So if I get time, I'll try and put together another German preparation section below, unless someone beats me to it of course. Hopefully a lot of the text that's in the article can be saved, just with a German viewpoint added and more details included. Skinny87 (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your proposed rewrite looks good Skinny; don't get yourself bulldozed by people merely citing websites. However I'm with Enigma and the others; use Roman numerals and you do not need that amount of info on 15th Army. Come directly to me if you encounter difficult further issues. Buckshot06(prof) 03:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the rewrite looks fine.  Thin out the Fifteenth Army stuff, but don't remove it altogether as it has a nice breakdown from the top command to the units on the front line.  Also, if you do use roman numerals, I'd put 84 in brackets for the benefit of those who can't follow them as easily (LXXXIV is a lot more complicated than most two figure designations).  Personally I'd go for German forces, rather than precautions, but that's just an opinion. Otherwise it looks fine.  I sometimes think people forget that this is a voluntary website where people do what they can with the sources available to them, and not an ego contest for historians. If you left it to someone else to do, this page might very well still be a stub. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi all
Some info for the article:
It would appear that Operation Deadstick was the name for the coup de main assualt as thus:
"Brigadier Poett informed Howard that his company had been selected to seize the Orne bridges on 2 May 1944, and stressed that they were to be seized intact al all costs, even though they were rigged for demolition: the primary rask of the sappers from 249 Field Comapny RE was to neutralise the demoolition charges. Howard's briefing also included full details of the upcoming invasion, making him the only BIGOT-cleared officer in the Benouville operation, which was code-named DEADSTICK. He was thu forbidded to remove his written orders, notes, or any intelligence material ... . A 12-ft scale model of the bridges and surrounding area was constructed to the smallest detail ..." etc
-Buckingham, D-Day The first 72 hours, pp. 73-74 (the final line of the above coming from page 74 to be precise.)
Intresting earlier on in his work Buckingham notes that Tonga was the codename only for the first airborne lift into Normandy, not the overall missions etc:
"Other units attached to 3rd Parachute Brigade for Operation TONGA, as the first British lift into Normandy was codenamed,22 included the 3rd Parachute Squadron RE ..."
Ibid, p. 71
Footnote 22 reads: 
"Shannon and Wright, One Night in June, p. 18" (Ibid, p. 296)
Going off the bibliography that would be: Shannon, Kevin and Stephen Wright, One Night in June (Shrewsbury: Airlife Publishing 1994)
Hope this helps.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

To note, especially, pp.122-123 confirmed that the Ox and Buck force assigned to capture the bridges across the Orne river and canal were deffo codenamedDEADSTICK. RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not working
http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf
Document now appears to be here.
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/docs/Victory_e.pdf
I tried to edit the page myself but I couldn't get it to save.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threebs (talk • contribs) 15:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 

Nice catch. I have updated the link and reference.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Per edits to the article:
"Although the three gliders carrying the coup-de-main force targeting the Caen Canal bridge were supposed to land at 00:20 at LZ X, the lead glider was actually released slightly earlier, at 00:07, and landed at 00:15, using a specially designed parachute which deployed from the rear of the glider (fitted to compensate for heavily laden troopers) to slow its speed and ensure it was not destroyed by the impact. However, the glider still impacted at considerable speed against an earth bank near to the bridge, the resulting impact throwing both pilot and co-pilot through the windscreen and knocking them unconscious and stunning the passengers. The second glider landed precisely sixty seconds later, swerving to avoid hitting the first and breaking in two as a result. The third glider landed successfully at 00:18, but skidded into a pond, causing several injuries and a single fatality amongst the occupants. The airborne troops emerged from the gliders and formed up, the noise of the gliders landing having been ignored by the sentry on patrol, who believed the sound to be that of a bomber crashing. One platoon opened fire on the sentry and threw grenades into a concrete bunker believed to hold the triggering equipment for the bridge demolition charges, a second platoon began to assault a number of trenches and gun-pits on the eastern bank of the canal, and a third began moving towards the bridge. One sentry fired a flare-gun, whilst a second was killed when he opened fire at the airborne troops and a third retreated.
After a brief fire-fight with an NCO who appeared on the scene and who retreated unhurt after expending all his ammunition, the airborne troops were able to secure the bridge, which they discovered was not rigged with explosives as had been believed. The bridge was secured by 00:24. The second coup-de-main force suffered more difficulties than the first in their attempt to capture the Orne River Bridge. Whilst two gliders landed intact at 00:20 at LZ Y, the third glider was released off-target when the aircraft towing the glider mistook the River Dives for the Orne, and the glider landed eight miles (13 km) east of its intended target. However, the occupants captured the bridge and then headed for the Orne River. At the Orne River bridge, a machine-gun nest was suppressed with mortar fire but no other defenders were found, and the two platoons captured the bridge before radioing Major Howard and informing him of their success. Both bridges had been secured within fifteen minutes by the coup-de-main forces at the cost of only a small number of casualties. The forces held the bridges until the arrival of reinforcements from 7th Parachute Battalion, but in the meantime had to repel several spontaneous attempts by the Germans to re-take the bridges; at 01:30 two German tanks attempted to drive onto the bridge, but were repelled with the loss of one tank to a PIAT anti-tank weapon."

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Tonga. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.army.mod.uk/para/history/normandy.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080713214902/http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/gerob/gerob.html to http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/gerob/gerob.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) 20:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)