Talk:Hill 262

message: I'm planning to combine the information present here into Operation Tractable, the primary page on the Anglo-Canadian-Polish efforts to close the Falaise Pocket. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we delete this page now that the information has been brought over to Tractable?CSHunt68 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A copyedit has been requested on this article, which I'm finally getting round to ;) However, before I start, has the merge/delete (discussed above) been decided? EyeSerenetalk 10:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the idea was abandoned considering that the article is in much better shape now and has a lot of material inexistent in the Operation Tractable article. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Thanks Eurocopter, I'll push on with the copyedit then ;) EyeSerenetalk 11:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: *The article states that two of the Polish battlegroups drove on Hill 262 while the other two went for Chambois. This is contradicted by Falaise pocket#Closing the gap, which has all four taking CHambois before two then went on to Hill 262.
**Currently I don't have to Hastings in order to check the statement, so if you have sources stating something else, feel free to modify the information. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: Hello folks, scuse me for intruding on an article I've previously had nothing to do with, but I just noticed your chat here and wondered if I might be able to help.  I've just started an interesting book () - hence my visiting here.  It looks like a good read, but there's a fair bit of detail so I can't yet work out exactly how the Poles captured the hill just by thumbing through the pages.  If it's any use though, it extensively refers to the two peaks of the hill as the Mace, apparently it assumed that name because the shape of the contour lines on allied maps resembled one.  Let me know if I can be of any use, cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you have access to this source I invite to add any information which you think that is currently omitted by the article. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do, as I progress through the book.  Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking forward to your contributions ;) EyeSerenetalk 12:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Ref 

message: Copp, p. 240
Mid afternoon 18 Aug the Poles had still not captured Chambois. “Maczek reported that the Loszutski battlegroup had gone astray and ended up at Les Champeaux, 10 kilometres north of Chambois. It was short of ammunition and fuel, and Maczek had sent one of his infantry battalions to assist it. The divisional recce regiment had reached the edge of Chambois but could not entre the town...”
p.241-242
Requests to pull the Poles back due to 2TAF hitting them and allow the latter free range  was turned down as Poles had reached 262 north and were cut off by the time Monty was consulted.
p.243
19 August midday Poles are reported to be advancing on Cahmbois, Coudehard and Mt-Ormel but not there yet.
Maczek, following the meeting the above was reported in, was determined to get his men onto their objectives ASAP. The division advancing in “three separate battlegroups” captured Coudehard at 15:39 and “after a battle with Panthers” occupied Pt 262 north. “A great number of prisoners’ were taken in the capture of Pt 137”.
10th Dragoons linked up with the recce rgt outside Chambois at 1930. Yanks reached the town around the same time and the Poles handed over their prisoners to the Yankies.
p.244
“There was good reason to congratulate the Poles, who had finally closed the pocket, but were there enough troops on the ground to keep it closed?”
:Thanks EnigmaMcmxc. If no-one minds, I'll have a go at putting all this together over the weekend. EyeSerenetalk 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No complaits here, ill have a shifty through my other sources later and post any additional information i find that is relevent.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck.  I'll try and finish the book and then wade in with lots of contradictions next week ;-).  Still can't see a mace I'm afraid Enigma....Ranger Steve (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copp, Fields of Fire 

message: I have consulted the British OH by Ellis and there is hardly any detailed information on the fight and likewise for Beevor.
Michael Reynolds book on the II SS Panzer Corps (book details available in the Operation Epsom article confirms that Pt 262 south was unoccupied by the Poles; a feature that he calls “important”.
During the fighting, sometime after 0900 on it appears the 20th in the Das Reich’s first attack for the hill a Panther apparently picked off 5 Polish Shermans – an incident Reynolds calls “well recorded”.
Early afternoon KG Weidinger had secured the important road fork 1km NE of Coudehard and claimed they had opened the pocket.
Reynolds states that no Allied infantry were deployed in a 5km stretch of the Dives, thus leaving the pocket open, between Magny and Moissy – an area were men could wade across although they were interdicted by indirect fire.
The KG stayed in this position until 1600 hours after which, ignoring orders to advance on Chambois, they withdrew out of the pocket believing no more troops would escape that way.
- P. 87
The Poles claim that as late as 1700 hours that infantry and tanks penetrated their premiter on the Ormel ridge and that it took until 1900 to expel them destroyer three MK IVs in the process.
- Pp. 87-88
Reynolds claims that reports that KG Deutschland was fired upon by the Poles to be incorrect as the Poles were 4 km away from this KG’s position but does believe they did not fabricate this report just misidentified who attacked them.
-p. 88--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reynold's Sons of the Reich 

message: Zgorzelski battle group secured the Pt 137 near Couehard around midday. The 24th Lancers then moved to secure Frenee. Around the same time the 1st Polish Armoured regiment, with the 9th infantry battalion and a company of AT guns advanced towards the main Chambois road at Pt 262 (north) and 252 – 5km NW of Chambois. Leading tanks arrived at 1600 hours and engaged mass Germans and destroyed 2 Panthers – 1 being towed behind the other. One infantry company occupied Coudehard Boisjos; the tanks, the rest of the infantry and the at guns occupied Pt 262
1030 hours the Koszutski battle group, in the les Champeaux area, had been resupplied and set off around midday and set off for Pt 262 N. They established themselves on the E and N sides of Pt 262N around 1700. Pt 262N and Coudehard Boisjos had become Polish strongholds but no one had occupied Pt 262 S.
Pt 262N is “often referred to as ‘Mont Ormel’ after the nearby hamlet”. The position offered “spectacular views over much of the Falaise Pocket”. Pt 262S however obscured observation to the SE
- A near enough direct quote from Reynolds, p. 273, Steel Inferno apart from when i have used quote marks then it is a word for word quote.
Terrain, woods and hedgerows made control of the W and SW with direct fire weapons difficult by day and impossible by night.
-pp. 273-274
The terrain to the W and SW is where most Gemans slipped though. The poles controlled 2 square KM but little else. However remained the major, “if not the major” impediment to the German retreat.
Division HQ was located 8km to the NW on Pt 259 and 10th Arm bde 3 km way to the W at Bourdon.
1900 the tanks of the 24 Lancers advanced to a blocking position 1500m NE of Chambois and linked up with the divisions recon unit – 10th mounted rifles and 2 M10 AT companies. Some of this force had moved to Pt 113 1 km n of Chambois.
1930 hours the 10th dragoons (motorised infantry) , moving from Pt 137, entered Chambois and then linked up with 2nd Bn US 359th Rgt.
- p. 274
The panther incident is further described; the panther on p. 239 1500m north of the poles picked the tanks off sometime after 1500 hours on the 20th
Reynold states the reports that all officers, on Ormel, were killed or wounded by the end of the day is without foundation.
1530 hours the 24th Lancers are moved into Chambois to reinforce the infantry due to serious German pressure
-p. 279
Early the next day the Recon regt tried to reinforce the force on the mace but were fired on by the defenders then withdrew after losing 2 Cromwells.
Last German attack hit the mace around 1100 hours and was repelled. 1330 hours the Canadian Grenadier Guards relived the position. The Guards had started there advance at 0800 and lost 4 tanks on the way but claimed 2 panthers, 1 MK Iv and 2 SP guns.
-p. 280--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reynold's Steel Inferno 

message: == Legacy ==
In 1965, on the battle's 20th anniversary, a monument to the Polish dead was erected on Hill 262. The Mémorial de Coudehard – Montormel museum was constructed on the same site in 1994, to mark the battle's 50th anniversary.
Stuck this here as the Montormel site has gone dead, so can't verify the refs :( EyeSerenetalk 09:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved section 

message: Nothing much to do with the article, but I reckon we've been looking at this wrong - the crucial word is "caveman", and something may have been lost in the translation. Imagine an improvised club made from a length of shinbone... click here. The "bulbous heads" are 262N and 262S, and the pass + Mont Ormel village is the 'handle'. EyeSerenetalk 08:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've seen the 
light
 mace! 

message: OK, I've been through with McGilvray, who goes into a lot of detail on this episode, and integrated his text with the existing text. Proofreading etc would be very welcome :) I'll leave it for a few days now, then come back to it fresh and undoubtedly make some further prose tweaks. However, I think (hope!) we're basically done. EyeSerenetalk 12:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a minor change to clarify the role of two Polish units when they are, i think, first mentioned; but on the whole very excellent read.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final copyedit notes 

message: more than one source put the polish casualties around 1.500  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you care to name the sources? If it is the online article, that was previously used, it is unreliable; other figures provide total losses for Tractable/Battle of Falaise etc, which move towards your figure. While at the moment, two reliable sources support the figure within the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come across only one source that mentions casualties exceeding 1,000. Most of the sources I've seen put it at what it is in the infobox. When it comes to casualties, it tends to be history by consensus. Cam (Chat) 22:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Although not used as a source for that bit in the article, Hastings' figures are also in line with the infobox too. EyeSerenetalk 07:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  polish casualties 

message: Here are some comments I've got about the article, coming in with what is hopefully a fresh set of eyes and not a lot of knowledge about this specific battle:
*'Units involved included the 2nd SS, 9th SS, 10th SS, 12th SS, and 116th Panzer Divisions.' - This seems to miss out on at least one divisional remnant, the 352nd.
**Good point. The note only dealt with armoured divs, so I've clarified it. I'll have to dig around to find the inf div info. EyeSerenetalk 11:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much for this Skinny! I'll go through your points later, but as an initial response I can only agree that the Pop culture section should be nuked (it was on my to-do list). Re the prose, after feedback from other FACs (mainly Battle of Villers-Bocage) I've been experimenting with spicing up prose a little. Compare the opening parts of the Background section here (failed FAC) and here (passed). Personally I prefer livelier prose, but I take your points. It's a difficult balance to strike :) EyeSerenetalk 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, lively is a good description. It's a minor thing really, it certainly doesn't seem like a POV, and I wouldn't oppose at an FAC due to it existing, for example. I think the only major thing really is that Montgomery/Bradley citation. Skinny87 (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we all know FAC is a bit of a lottery sometimes, depending on who reviews... It would be no great surprise if we get opposes next time around because the prose is too lively :) Thanks for your reminder about the cite - I added the text yesterday and left that there to remind myself to cite it, but then forgot. I'll do it tomorrow. EyeSerenetalk 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Excellent work, great maps i think they really highlight the situation especially the last two: how the "closure" of the pocket was so tentative (think that is the right word) and then how it had been squeesed tighter but obviously highlights the post war bickering about who could have done more to seal it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Enigma :) I've got some minor corrections/fixes to make so new versions will be up tonight. Is there any chance you could add the source for the images you provided to the maps on Commons? I took information from about five different sources including those, so I need to add some too. The last map illustrates the so-called "corridor of death" quite nicely (though I don't think we mention it in the article). I'd also like to expand on the closure controversy at some point, but I suppose the place to do that would be the main Falaise pocket article. Blumenson has a good discussion of the stop order controversy. EyeSerenetalk 09:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on all points! I will add the book details in a little on :)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The article mentions "Loszutski's battlegroup". This is likely a typo, I cannot find such a name anywhere in Google Books, and Google mostly shows wiki mirrors. As this article does not use Google Book pagelinks, I don't have time to quickly check the sources, but this needs to be fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn damn damn. You're right, it should be Koszutski... I'll have to correct the maps too :( Thanks for the catch though. EyeSerenetalk 11:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was checking the article for Polish project/taskforce. Everything else Poland-related seems fine :) Good article, thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  22:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loszutski 

message: Illustrative maps have inaccuracies.  Loszutski BG should read  Zgorzelski battle group consisting of 10th Dragoons (Mounted Rifles - 10 PSK) and 24th Lancers who were tasked to link up with the Americans in Chambois which they did around 18:00 on the 19th August.
Zgorselski group shown on hill 262N should read Stafanowicz battle group comprising 1st Armoured Regiment (Tank) and elements of the of 1st Polish Podhalian (Highland) Rifle Battalion. This battle group reached hill 262N first around 12:40 19th August.
Koszutskis Battle group consisting of 2nd Armoured Regiment (Tank) and 8th Infantry Battalion reached hill 262N around 17:50.
Finally Szydlowski battle group consisting of 9th Infantry Brigade and the rest of 1st Polish Podhalian Rifle Battalion arrived at 19:30.
Not forgetting to mention that each of the battle groups had elements of artillery, anti-tank and anti-aircraft brigades.
Ref Falaise Pocket Paul Latawski P142
There is no officer by the name of Loszutski in the Polish 1st Armoured Division.
Ref: Obsada personalna 1 Dywizji Pancernej na przełomie sierpnia i września 1944 r.
Seriously this article ought to be removed until the serious errors are corrected.
A typo error of Koszutski to Loszutski and in the wrong place and the omission of Stefanowicz from the maps is amateur in the extreme.'''
 
Also you will find very specific and definitive detail in book "Polska 1. Dywizja Pancerna w Normandii" by Kutzner & Tym written in Polish - details to squadron level where everyone was with times and map/hill references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeMarczak (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrative maps have inaccuracies 

message: When talking about hill 262 you begin to realise there are in fact references to three hills.
Hill 252 the first hill to be occupied by Stefanowski's 1st Armoured Regiment and the location of the Mont Ormel "Maczuga" monument and museum.
Squadrons 1&2 of the 1st Armoured Regiment occupied hill 252 and at 12:40 on the 19th August let rip on the German retreat along the Chambois to Vimoutiers road.
The 3rd Squadron 1st Armoured Regiment was in the region of hill 262N.
Hill 262N is between the monument and Boisjois Manor "Zamaczek".
The 2nd Armoured Regiment arrived some 5 hours later and located to the region close to Boisjois
Hill 262S just north of Frenee was a target but never occupied -  immovable wreckage of German tanks, trucks along the Chambois to Vimoutiers road, added to the smoke of burning war material which was so dense and impenetrable that visibility was reduced to nil making it impossible to get to the other side and hill 262S.
Be really be nice if someone could correct the regimental inaccuracies in the article and the maps.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeMarczak (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Hills  262N, 252 "Maczuga" and Hill 262S 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hill 262. 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://web.archive.org/web/20080912012732/http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf to http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Hill 262. 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://web.archive.org/web/20110723030810/http://www.archivesnormandie39-45.org/specificPhoto.php?ref=p011192 to http://www.archivesnormandie39-45.org/specificPhoto.php?ref=p011192
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724212215/http://www.memorial-montormel.org/?id=73 to http://www.memorial-montormel.org/?id=73
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724212145/http://www.memorial-montormel.org/?id=97 to http://www.memorial-montormel.org/?id=97
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724211833/http://www.memorial-montormel.org/?id=60 to http://www.memorial-montormel.org/?id=60
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is entitled Hill 262. While, for those seeking to locate this article's contents, it is likely not difficult to understand that this article is about the Battle of Hill 262. However, as most articles on the battles that occurred in a specific place are named Battle of SuchAndSuch, it would seem appropriate that this article be similarly named. So, it is my proposition that this article (since it is not about Hill 262 but rather the battle relevant to the heights so-named) be renamed Battle of Hill 262. In keeping with Wikipedia's general decorum with moves, I wanted to post this on the talk page and see if there were objections before I made the switch. Anticipate that the change will occur in two weeks time if no complaints are raised and I fully understand if after the fact there are those who find the move disagreeable and revert it back. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Announcing my final intentions to make good on my threat to move the page. Speak now (or within 24 hours of the UTC time of this post) or forever keep your peace (or suitably move the page back as you deem fit–it doesn't really matter). ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Object, due to rude behaviour of the proposer. The Banner talk 09:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry my attempt at a sense of levity wasn't picked up, . Attempting to bring some Bond villain-esque humor was my intention, considering the conversation of moving an article is generally a dry one. If your objection is also relevant to naming conventions regarding conflicts and battles, feel free to make the case. As of right now, this article seems to need moving and I'll hold it for another day if you want to bring up some other concerns. Otherwise, I still think the move ought to happen. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Retitling the article

message: Stephen E. Ambrose, Citizen Soldiers: The U. S. Army from the Normandy Beaches to the Bulge to the Surrender of Germany, page 105 has the following:
"Over the next couple of days, Waters wrote "the Germans attacked with all the fury they they could bring to bear, fueled by their desperation to escape." Others were trying to surrender, many of them successfully. Too many, in fact. Neither the Poles nor the Americans had facilities to deal with them. Waters established a POW pen in Chambois, but it was badly overcrowded. Still, one morning a Polish captain brought in some 200 additional POWs to turn over to the Americans.
Polish captain: "Here are your prisoners"
Waters: "I don't want them."
Polish captain: "But I must leave them with you.Those are my orders".
Waters: "I still don't want them. Get them out of here". (Waters orders were to accept them, but he had been told to expect 1500; in fact there were only couple of hundred.)
Polish captain: "But I must still leave them with you."
Waters: "Well, you were supposed to have 1500 prisoners. Where are they?"
Polish captain: "They are dead. We shoot them. These are all that are left".
Waters: "Then why don't you shoot these too?" A pause, then Waters corrected himself: "No, you can't do that."
Polish captain: "Oh, yes we can. They shot my countryman." He took Waters by the arm and escorted him away from the others. Then he said "Captain, we can't shoot them. We are out of ammunition."
--Chumchum7 (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish execution of German prisoners