Talk:Juno Beach

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge Order of Battle with Regiments

message: 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)
thread_title: Deaths

message: 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)
thread_title: Juno in 2006

message: 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)
thread_title: WP:MILHIST Assessment

message: 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)
thread_title:  new section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Allied or Canadian victory

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bad Need 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's been saved here. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 16:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Good work on the rewrite. One point though: I see you substituted the troop strengths with divisions. According to Template:Infobox_military_conflict  is supposed to be "numerical strength". You could use  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)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article missing specilaized armour. 

message: #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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The IP was correct, a reference and explanation has been added to the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  information incorrect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Morgan and Ike planned Overlord?  

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  inaccurate statement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Logical? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I didn't see it, Jim. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Image available at IWM 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Liberate Paris within 90 days ... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SP Guns 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Richter 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Naval and Air support at the beaches. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cites and refs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First Canadian army?