# Talk:Operation Totalize

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Totalize/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi! I'm finally free...so I will have the review up as soon as I can. Cheers, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 20:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Nice article!
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance: 
In the lead, there is a one-sentence paragraph.
Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
see below
C. No original research: 
see 2b
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Where is the German perspective in all of this? You have one section on them, but what happened to them after the battle (did all of the reform at the river)? Where did they come from before the battle?
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

There are many referencing problems with this...every sentence that is not common sense should be cited, which is most of this article. Can you add more sources so that every sentence has one? (It shouldn't be the hardest thing ever, just use the sources that you were using, and then use the <ref name=__> format....
I'm putting this on hold to give you a chance to deal with the problems...good luck, and have fun! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, Enigma & I are working on the citations, and I'll attempt to expand the German perspective as much as I can. Cam (Chat) 22:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are making excellent progress. however, I will be out of touch for the next two-ish days due to my trip home from college....so don't go bonkers if I don't reply. Good work so far, and cheers! =D -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 03:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


### Still need a few more refs...
First two paragraphs of the Background section.
Got the first two (I think). Cam (Chat) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
These sentences as well: "Positional warfare ensued for the next six weeks. Several attempts by British and Canadian forces to capture Caen were unsuccessful until 9 July when all of the city, north of the Orne River, was captured during Operation Charnwood. Between 18 July-20 Operations Atlantic and Goodwood captured the remainder of the city. The former saw Canadian forces cross the Orne River and clear the remaining portions of the city while the latter launched three armoured divisions to outflank the city to the east and south.
The Germans still held the commanding terrain of the Verrieres Ridge, three miles south of the city. The repeated British and Canadian attacks launched around Caen (in part to distract the Germans from the western part of the front, where the First United States Army was preparing to break out of the Allied lodgement) had caused the Germans to defend the Verrieres ridge with some of their strongest and most determined formations, including three SS Panzer divisions of I SS Panzer Corps."
Almost! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 13:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The last sentence of that section ("Canadian II Corps, which was to launch Operation Totalize, was commanded by Lieutenant General Guy Simonds and consisted of the 2nd Canadian Division, 3rd Canadian Division, British 51st Division, 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division, 1st Polish Armoured Division, 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade and the British 33rd Armoured Brigade.")
Done. Cam (Chat) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
*You may be able to steal these refs from the Normandy Invasion page, if they've got them there....*
No need. I've got all my books on the subject out by the desk, so it was relatively easy. Cam (Chat) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
First two sentences of the Offensive Plan section.
Done both. Cam (Chat) 00:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The Assault section.
Done (I think). Cam (Chat) 05:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Mostly. Still need refs for "During the evening of August 7 1944, the attacking forces formed up in six columns, each only four vehicles wide, of tanks, Kangaroo APCs, half tracks, self-propelled anti-tank guns and Mine flail tanks." "At 23:30, the armoured columns began their advance behind a rolling barrage."
"Initially, movement was slow; many APC drivers became disoriented by the amount of dust caused by the vehicles.[20] Several vehicles became stuck in bomb craters. Simonds had ordered several means for the columns to maintain their direction: some vehicles were fitted with radio direction-finders, the artillery fired target-marking shells, Bofors 40 mm guns fired bursts of tracer in the direction of advance. In spite of all these measures there was still confusion. Several vehicles collided, or were knocked out."
Then you are done. =D -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 13:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Last two sentences overall: "Simonds and Crerar designed a follow-up offensive, Operation Tractable, which took place on August 14-21 1944. On August 21, the Falaise Pocket was closed by joint Allied forces, effectively ending the Battle of Normandy with a decisive Allied Victory."
Done. Cam (Chat) 05:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ref #19 needs a page number.
Done. Cam (Chat) 05:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You get these, the GA passes. =D Almost there! -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 18:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


### External Links
Random question: what is with the author of the last link...it's "?, Erik" ? -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 18:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
lol that was me, the citeweb templates need surnames and forenames however the website does not state his surname anywhere so i plonked a question mark in.  In cases like this what do we do?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't really know...I think that you should just use the last name, and leave the "first= |" blank... -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 21:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
What is with the word "lodgement" in the lead? I don't understand it. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Lastly, I that I de-linked all of the dates per WP:MOSNUM. If I missed one, though, don't forget to de-link it. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
In the German countermoves section, is "laagered" spelled right? -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 18:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1256+ allied casualties?!? useless number, when this includes 600 KIA! canadian then the number is useless. empiric ratios of wounded/killed is 3:1 ? so 600 KIA makes 1800 WIA  this would give 3000 casualties... . when u dont know numbers than u cant take the number of killed and put them in the casualties!!! section ....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 

I think you can, and i did! Its not a useless number, its a partial answer to a question. I know its not perfect but at the moment it at least gives the reader some indication of how many men the Allied forces lost in the operation. It also allows for it to be built upon; i checked out Beevor, Copp, Ellis, Reid, Reynolds, Stacey, Wilmot and a few others that were long shots.
One would also note that these sources provide no British figure, with that not available at present either the total losses could be anything. One would also like to note that the general rule of thumb 3:1 ratio doesnt really apply to the Normandy battles when they are examined, and at any rate the ratio is 5:1 for attacking fortified positions.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

it gives the reader some indication ? u cant take only the KIA and put them in the infobox this is wrong. take the empiric ratio of kia to wia than u have 3.000 thats likly far more accurate. if u think its ok what u do than u can go to any article without numbers take a sentence out of text like "regiment one lost at least 20 KIA on this day" take this useless number and put it in the box with a "+".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
if 3:1 or 5:1 i dont know but the infobox now implies something wrong...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Removing cited material like the Allied estimate, as produced by a reliable historian, of how many men the Germans lost is also implying something wrong; ala your vandalism of the article.
You can sit and bitch and moan all you like but at least there is a partial figure to be built upon for the Allied losses now; even if this is later removed and embedded into the article and not the infobox.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
ok a partial figure? when there are 600 dead canadians we all ( all not stupid people ) know that there more than 3000 casualties. But U think its better to write 1200+ in the box though its not possible ?!? .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 
its simple i guess. u cant take only KIA from of the canadians and put them in the box with + . there are hundred of battles where we have only partial numbers... . u can estimate the number or write unknown....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 

user: "I would also support its removal, i perfer "unknown" for the overall reason that its a bit silly to "12" in there when its clear that many more men were involved than the one battalion and German overall casualties are - as the sources point out - unknown"
now we maybe rethink the allied casualites here. the number has no wounded of the canadian so more than 1000 are missing, the casualties should be changed in unknown or split up to show that only KIA canadian are listed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 

Sorted out the citation mess with sfns, rm dupe links.Keith-264 (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed the references to Roy as it really is fanboi and is inconsistent with the level of detail in the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

"it really is fanboi and is inconsistent with the level of detail in the article."
What are you talking about? Did you even read the sources?
------------------------------------------------
From Christer Bergström, considered one of the world's foremost experts on the Second World War:
- The Ardennes, 1944-1945: Hitler's Winter Offensive.
"Rudolf Roy, who during the fighting in Normandy in the previous summer had knocked out twenty-six Allied tanks in five days (including 13 on 9 August alone)..."
"Rudolf Roy, the leading "Panzer ace" of the SS-Panzerjäger Abteilung 12 was killed..."
----------------------------------------------------
Literally the citation from:
- Számvéber, Norbert (2018). Waffen-SS Armour in Normandy: The Combat History of SS Panzer Regiment 12 and SS Panzerjager Abteilung 12, Normandy 1944, Based on their original War Diaries. Warwick: Helion. ISBN 978-1-912174-80-5.

Quote:
"Rudolf Roy: Born in Berlin August 15, 1920, and joined SS November 1938. With 1./Ersatz Bataillon “LSSAH” then Panzerjäger Kompanie and finally SS-Panzerjäger Abteilung 1 “LSSAH”. Promoted Unterscharführer January 30, 1943, and Oberscharführer July 1, 1944. To “Hitlerjugend” as heavy self-propelled anti-tank commander in 1./SS-Panzerjäger Abteilung 12. Received field commission as Untersturmführer d.R. November 9, 1944, and Zugführer 1./SS-Panzerjäger Abteilung 12. Iron Cross 2nd Class August 21, 1941, Iron Cross 1st Class September 16, 1943, Tank Assault Badge in Silver February 21, 1942, and Eastern Front Medal August 30, 1942. Killed in Hollerath on December 17, 1944.
As an Oberscharführer and vehicle commander with the 1./SS-Panzerjäger Abteilung 12, Rudolf Roy was proposed for the Knight’s Cross by Hauptsturmführer Günther Wöst. Hubert Meyer, Ia of the division and temporary divisional commander, seconded and then submitted the award on 2 September 1944. Their proposal text reads as follows:
In the early dawn of 9 August 1944, enemy armour penetrated the line of strongpoints that constituted the main line of resistance at Soignolles into the rear of Kampfgruppe “Waldmüller” and controlled all supply routes from Hill 111.
Oberscharführer Roy was ordered to attack and destroy the enemy armour with his Panzerjäger 39. With nimble-minded zeal, Roy attacked the armour and, within a short time, knocked out nine English tanks. In so doing he provided the prerequisites for the withdrawal that was ordered for that evening.
As the Kampfgruppe started the withdrawal, as ordered, at about 2130 hours, enemy armour thrust by surprise into the midst of the Kampfgruppe from the village of Soignolles. On his own initiative, Oberscharführer Roy attacked them in the flank. Only two of the 15 attacking enemy tanks were able to escape in flight.
Oberscharführer Roy knocked out 13 enemy tanks that day. Within five days he knocked out 26, raising his total to 36 English and Russian tanks destroyed.
(Signed) [Günther] Wöst
Hauptsturmführer and Abt.Kdr.
Because of his unusually courageous action and the large number of enemy tanks he has knocked out, I recommend Oberscharführer Roy for the award of the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross.
For the absent Division Commander
the First General Staff Officer
(signed) [Hubert] Meyer
Sturmbannführer"
-------------------------------
So, what exactly is "fanboi"? Are you throwing around buzz words and omitting details that explain why the Operation was halted (which is a level of detail btw). This detail was literally from German Commanders and other historians sources validate this. That's why they are referenced, you just removed the information but kept the sources?
-------------------------------
Furthermore:
"On 9 August, around 0530 hours, the 1.Kompanie – subordinated to the I./SS-Panzer-Grenadier-Regiment 25 – inspected the hills south of Renémesnil in order to be able to appoint firing positions.
When the SS-Panzergrenadiers also moved off towards their appointed positions, they were attacked by the Sherman tanks of the Polish 1st Armoured Division. Some attacking tanks were destroyed by the infantry with close-combat anti-tank weapons; soon the Jagdpanzers of the 1./SS-Panzerjäger Abteilung 12 joined the fight.
It was already developing when nine Cromwell tanks of the 10th Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment (10th Mounted Rifles, Polish 10 Pulk Strzelcow Konnych) got around the I./SS-Panzer-Grenadier-Regiment 25 on the Maizières–Estrées-la-Campagne highway, cutting the supply lines of the unit with this manoeuvre. The gunner of Oberscharführer Roy’s Jagdpanzer, Rottenführer Eckstein, destroyed all of these vehicles in a short time around Hill 111, thus allowing the re-supply of the Bataillon.
During the day heavy artillery, mortar and infantry fire on the German positions. The I./SS-Panzer-Grenadier-Regiment 25 scheduled its retreat at 2200 hours, though the 1./SS-Panzerjäger Abteilung 12 ahd already began to withdraw at 2130 hours in the face of constantly increasing Allied fire.
In the middle of the disengagement manoeuvre the Sherman tanks of the Polish 1st Armoured Regiment28 suddenly attacked the village of Soignolles. The Jagdpanzers of Hurdelbrink and Roy securing on the outskirts of the village took them in the flank and, apart from two, destroyed all of the enemy tanks. Rottenführer Fritz Eckstein, the gunner of Roy, again knocked out four tanks in this engagement.
After having smashed the Allied tank attacks, the SS Panzergrenadiers were able to continue their retreat because the enemy tanks did not advance further.
Soignolles was vacated around 2230 hours by the 1./SS-Panzerjäger Abteilung 12 who were acting as rearguard, and moved to Maizières during the night. That day the Kompanie knocked out 22 Polish Sherman and Cromwell tanks altogether. Of this number, Roy’s Jagdpanzer IVs destroyed 13, Hurdelbrink’s destroyed six tanks. The armourer of the 1.Kompanie, Unterscharführer Ortlep, knocked out two, and Untersturmführer Helmut Zeiner – a Zugführer from one of the platoons in the Kompanie – knocked out one tank." Knight De Roy (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes I did but where else in the article is such material? It's far too detailed for this article but you might get away with it in an article on him. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
"Oberscharführer Rudolf Roy, a Zugführer in the 12th SS Hitlerjugend under the command of Meyer, was ordered to attack and destroy the enemy tanks with his Panzerjäger 39. Roy moved up on the tanks and knocked out eight Allied tanks. By doing so he created the prerequisite for the withdrawal ordered that evening. In the middle of the withdrawal, Allied tanks launched a surprise attack on the Kampfgruppe in the village of Soignolles. In an independent decision Roy attacked the tanks in the flank. Of the fifteen attacking Allied tanks only two were able to escape."
This is the information that was added taken from Számvéber, Norbert (2018) and added to the wiki. So, i'm confused as you thinking this is "too detailed"???
The source containes the battle details, maps, images of Rudolf and his gunner, and the Knight's Cross citation from the German Commanders who detailed Roy's actions during this Operation. The photos and documents were provided by Mark C Yerger, American author of books about the Schutzstaffel (SS) and Waffen-SS of Nazi Germany. He had close contacts to SS veterans, through whom he was able to access private archives, and wrote biographies of commanders and award recipients of the SS and of SS units.
We also have Christer Bergström's source also verifying this information.
No, we do not make seperate articles on all soldier individually, he is already referenced in Rudolf Roy the listing from all the Knight's Cross recipients. Knight De Roy (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 I meant that the information was giving undue weight to an individual in the article. I think that your shorter edit looks much better. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Oops I meant this bit "German armoured counter-attacks led notably by SS-Oberscharführer Rudolf Roy." but didn't notice that it was in the lead and that you had restored the passage in the body. You really shouldn't have done that without consensus and need more than German sources for the claim that he stopped the offensive. What to the Canadian and British OH say? Keith-264 (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
That shorter edit was in Panzergruppe West previously. If in the lead that was giving undue weight to an individual based on German sources that can be corrected. But the information in the article is perfectly sourced and also follows the impartial accounting of the Operation. Knight De Roy (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
No, WP:Undue I'd agree for the shorter passage to be put in a note. Keith-264 (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I do not agree entirely with the changing of the points of justification now down to saying the weight of this information should be in a note form. I will at least have that appear in a note as it is direct information from respected historians and directly from the German Commanders regarding the halting of this Operation.
In the future, I'd hope we wouldn't start off by callously throwing out words like "fanboi" when infact the words were from expert historians who are well known worldwide and the German commanders who wrote directly from the time. Not only is that inappropriate, it's an implication that the sources were not read and used to discredit someone prematurely Knight De Roy (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 You aren't addressing the point that this is undue and complaining about fanboi is a bit precious. I have offered a reasonable compromise and you have spurned it. Keith-264 (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
1. You tried multiple justifications all of which did not stand and now you are claiming undue. If that was established from the beginning a whole different dialogue but your initial points failed.
2. Fanboi comment shows exactly you didn't read the sources so your attempt at a compromise from the beginning was inappropriate. You just ignored the sources and gave an opinionated buzz word.
3. I have said I don't agree with you continuously changing your points but will AT LEAST have it in a note. So the compromise was established, while not agreeing with your opinion. Knight De Roy (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I haven't changed any points only listed more of them to explain my opposition to the amount of detail you wanted to include; we've both got something but I don't have the page number for Számvéber. Please add it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough Keith thank you, will add later. Knight De Roy (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks babe Keith-264 (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

if someone wants to email some canadian government workers about using this picture of some canadian soldiers in operation totalize, that would be so cool. Newportandcorona (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)