Talk:Exercise Tiger

message: I changed the into which said "through a series of blunders...lost their lives.". Reading the article it seems that the exercise was actually attacked by the enemy instead. DJ Clayworth 14:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not so. that the german eboats could get close enough to attack was of course the result of a monumental cockup and actually i believe that most soldiers died as a result of other blunders eg drowning due to wearing heavy packs on the backs and a float on their front, which meant they flipped onto their backs with their heads under the water. Mujinga 19:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: having read the book The Forgotten Dead, i have added some more info Mujinga 22:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blunders

message: Is it certain the Tank on the memorial is a Sherman DD? It looks to me like a regular Sherman. If you look at the picture on the Sherman DD article, you'll see the tank has toothed wheels at the front and back of the tracks. The front one is connected to the engine and drives the tracks, the rear one takes power from the tracks and turns the propellors. Regular Shermans, of course, didn't have this. They just had a non-toothed wheel at the back. That's what the tank in the picture looks like. Catsmeat 16:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tank

message: The incident is also mentioned in "Hell has no heroes" by Wayne Robinson, Paperback Library, 1966 (original title "Barbara", 1962)
It gives 11 DD tanks being sunk, and 23 crewmen casualties drowned.--Mrg3105 07:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention in literature

message: This article is a good start - but fails to mention the command of Admiral Don P. Moon, who later took his own life (presumably) as a result of the casualties taken during Exercise (or Operation) Tiger.  The fact that he doesn't have his own article is also something I will attempt to fix soon.  
If someone with better knowledge about the event than myself could do a little touch up to include this information, that'd be much appriciated.  Otherwise, I'll make my own best attempts.
Letoofdune 21:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admiral Moon 

message: There appears to be a problem in this article with the casualty figures. Most sources referenced by the article cite a figure of 749 killed or missing as a result of the attack on Exercise Tiger. One source using this figure puts the eventual toll of the exercise overall (ie including blue-on-blue casualties etc) at 946 in total.
193.130.130.105 (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still issues with casualty figures not matching. Can anyone please help clarify which figures are correct? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Author Richard Bass in the 2012 documentary film claims there may be as many as 1405 killed. Even 70 years after the event he encountered much resistance with military sources to determine correct figures. This documentary by Matt Richards was shown on the German TV channel ZDF Info on June 6 2014. Ontologix (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty figures 

message: The map looks a little odd to me - it appears to show England surrounded by blue sea.  What's happened to Wales and Scotland?  Wouldn't a map of the southern part of the complete island of Great Britain be better? TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: According to the lead, "Exercise Tiger" was the name of two completely separate exercises. Shouldn't these, then, be separate articles? I suggest that the the '1942' information be put into a new article "Exercise Tiger (1942)" and that we also use of the existing Operation Tiger (disambiguation) for a 'seealso' tag at the top of both articles. Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is 1942 Exercise Tiger notable enough for its own article, though?  I can see having the section here, or I could see having it in a "List of Allied Training Exercises in WWII" article, but seems a bit thin to stand on its own as it stands.  69.204.255.197 (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1942 exercise can always be a stub article. In Wikipedia, when two different items share a common name, the convention is to keep them separate and use cross links ("hatlinks" such as for..., see also..., main article... etc.), resisting the temptation to push them into a single article. I don't mind how we separate them, but they ought, basically, to be separate (and cross referenced) not conflated together.   Ideas? Thoughts? Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles? 

message: Two things. The lead lists a casualty figure of 749 dead as a consequence of the attack at sea, but the article then goes on to give a figure 638 dead, specifically during the attack. The two figures could theoretically be reconciled; the wording of the article does not rule out the possibility that the missing 111 died in the aftermath of the attack, in the water, or that they died during the course of the exercise in incidents unrelated to the attack, and it is also possible that the true figure is not known. Perhaps the article could be rewritten to state that "several sources list a total casualty figure of 749, (source) (source) (source) although figures as low as N and as high as N have also been given. (source) (source) The official report lists a figure of N. (source)".
Secondly, the article goes on to cover a friendly fire incident. "When the remaining LSTs landed on Slapton Beach, the blunders continued and a further 308 men died from friendly fire." I don't have access to the given source, so I can't check this, but the article gives the impression that the wet, cold, injured survivors of the channel attack were then dumped on the beach and forced to run into an artillery barrage, which seems instinctively wrong. I assume that the unscatched portions of the LST flotilla were ordered to continue with the exercise - perhaps they were entirely unaware of the disaster that had taken place behind them - with tragic results, but this needs to be more clear.
In conclusion, is the death toll 749, 749+308=1057, or 638+308=946, or simply not known for sure? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the death toll is still inconsistent across the article. Can anyone please help? Regards, DPdH (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death toll / friendly fire 

message: This is confusing; the Friendly fire section says at the outset the incident occurred after the engagement in Lyme Bay (“When [they] landed, … the blunders continued”) while the note at the end says it was the day before. Which is it? There’s a reference of sorts for the “day before” statement (and, having seen the programme that makes more sense) while there’s nothing for the “blunders continued” statement.</br> 
Also, the Revealed programme was vague about the number of casualties for the bombardment; it mentioned a letter by someone who was there who referred to “about 200 bodies” but the official documents had no numbers at all. Can we have a source for the 308 figure? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-arranged the article to reflect the sources we have on the sequence of events. It still needs work on the casualties, particularly for the friendly fire incident. If there is no source for the 308 figure forthcoming, I propose to delete it and re-write that bit. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious tag/friendly fire section 

message: We have
"The first practice assault took place on the morning of 27 April but was marred by an incident in which 308 men died from friendly fire."
and
"The first practice assaults took place on the morning of 27 April. These proceeded successfully, ..."
I assume it is the second of these that is wrong, but I lack expertise and sources to be sure. Anyone care to change whichever section is wrong? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded the start of the battle of Lyme Bay section. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to resolve an apparent contradiction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Exercise Tiger. 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/20160531051958/http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/environment/historic_environment/slapton-line/sl-monument_rededication.htm?textsize=1 to http://www.devon.gov.uk/index/environment/historic_environment/slapton-line/sl-monument_rededication.htm?textsize=1
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) 04:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article uses the now outdated term 'E-boat' to refer to the schnellboote of the German Navy, which given the context is fine. This is about the American experience and no doubt all involved would refer to the shadowy torpedo boats as "E-boats". In fact, almost none of the servicemen involved would even know what an S-boot actually looked like, never even seeing one clearly before, during or after the attack.
But, while the use of 'E-boat' in this context is completely acceptable, the use of "German E-boat" seems to me to be somewhat redundant. The 'E' in 'E-boat' already stood for 'Enemy' - and the Germans did not ever refer to their own craft as E-boats - so, why the need for such a tag? We can simply put 'E-boat' and be done with it. Or we can put 'German S-boot' or 'German torpedo-boat/MTB' instead (obviously, the term 'MTB' has been used in the same paragraph to refer to the RN's vessels, so perhaps avoid using it - or maybe not?). But 'German E-boat' seems very awkward. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:D8C3:8F66:3B45:1F4D (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-boats