Talk:Operation Varsity

message: Operation Varsity was not the largest airborne operation in history. The largest airborne operaion was operation MARKET GARDEN. It took place in the fall of 1944. It involved three divisions: The US 82nd and 101st Airbone divisions, and the British 1st Airborne Division, reinforced by Poles. (Band of Brothers, Stephen E. Ambrose)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackroyfan (talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Varsity was the largest single airborne operation. Market Garden was three geographically distinct drop zones; for a similar reason, the jump into Normandy isn't the single largest, because the forces were also split apart geographically. Hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest in history 

message: I intend to make this article a Good Article, but it will require a lot of work. If whoever edited this article previously could tell me where they found the quote from the US Military Academy which stated that Varsity was the ideal airborne operation, I would be very greatful. Skinny87 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added in  tags to make it easier for me to see where I need to add citations and begin rewriting the article. Skinny87 (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article

message: This is a list of improvements the article needs. Editors are welcome to add or detract from them!
# Order of Battle - Is it required? It looks messy right now and I'm unsure how to add to it or clear it up
# Battle Section - Needs expanding quite a bit. Can't do much until I get to my books back home
# Casualties - Need citations in the Infobox
# Pictures - No pictures as of yet, not sure where to find any.
Skinny87 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements

message: I noticed the peer review request on the Military History main-project page.  Since I've got quite a bit of feedback (most of it good), so I'm going to use the talk page of the article instead.  I've skimmed through the article and fixed a few minor niggles (adding a "br" command in the infobox for casualty statistics, etc).  Anyways:
*I'm not entirely satisfied by the Citation Density in certain sections, particularly "Background" and "Aftermath". 
*I think you need to expand the "Battle" section.  You've done a great job of explaining the background and Aftermath (almost too good on the aftermath, which I'm getting to), but very little when explaining the actual battle. 
*I've reformatted the last ref on the "Bibliography" section with WP:CITET templates.  I'd also suggest finding the ISBN #s for all of the books sourced.  If you need assistance with this, feel free to message me on My Talk Page.  Skinny87 (talk)
*I think the lead warrants some expansion. 
*This article would benefit from the addition of some images, maps, etc.  It's generally difficult to read massive blocks of text without losing track and becoming somewhat bogged down by it.  In addition, you've got a lot of quotes within the article's text.  I'd suggest taking these out of the main sections, and putting them in a quotebox.  I've pasted the template for a Quotebox at the bottom of this section.  (Quotes, not Images/Maps as of yet) Skinny87 (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been helping Skinny87 here and there with this article, and we are trying to find some good images that can go in the text. We've only found a few thus far, but they have uncertain copyright status, so they're a no-go at this point. I have emailed the Fort Bragg historian, who may be able to provide us with some PD photos or maps. We'll have to wait and see on that aspect though. I've got some good books, but unfortunately, all the photos they have are of the amphibious crossing of the Rhine, none of the airborne forces. Parsecboy (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: That would be the book directly above them. Also, does Ellis mention any 6th Airborne casualties between the 24th and 29th like he does for the 17th Airborne? Skinny87 (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I'm in the same position really - can't get a hold of any of my books until Thursday. Skinny87 (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reference 13 needs to stay as 'Ellis' otherwise it looks like it came from Harclerode, when it didn't. Ibid is only used when a book has been used and a citation from the same book is used after it but before a completely new book. Skinny87 (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew this would happen. When you edit, move, add, merge or simplfy new citations the order gets shifted around.Is "Ibid, p. 564" from Harclerode? Do you know where the other two are the same?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why the use of these terms (ibid, op cit and so on) is deprecated - see WP:FN. David Underdown (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Request 

message: ===Allied OoB===
Units
*US XVIII Airborne Corps
**British 6th Airborne Division
***6 Parachute Battalions, 5 British, 1 Canadian
***Air Landing Brigade
**US 17th Airborne Division
***6 parachute battalions
Aircraft    
*C-47 Skytrain ("Dakota"): 540 
*C-46 Commando: 72
*Gliders: 1,300
**Airspeed Horsa :392 
**General Aircraft Hamilcar: 14
**Waco/Hadrian
Just saving this here for future reference. I've scrapped it altogether in the article and I'll start adding in the actual numbers and units into the 'Battle' section. Skinny87 (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Battle

message: Units
*US XVIII Airborne Corps
**British 6th Airborne Division
***6 Parachute Battalions, 5 British, 1 Canadian
***Air Landing Brigade
**US 17th Airborne Division
***6 parachute battalions
Aircraft    
*C-47 Skytrain ("Dakota"): 540 
*C-46 Commando: 72
*Gliders: 1,300
**Airspeed Horsa :392 
**General Aircraft Hamilcar: 14
**Waco/Hadrian
Just saving this here for future reference. I've scrapped it altogether in the article and I'll start adding in the actual numbers and units into the 'Battle' section. Skinny87 (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Allied OoB

message: The best German formation the Allied airborne troops would face was the First Parachute Army, although even this elite division had been weakened from the losses it had sustained in earlier fighting, particularly when it had engaged Allied forces in the Reichswald Forest in February.
-From the last paragraph from the Background section. Highlighted section being the problem.
I havent edited it out just yet as am unsure ... first, the army was presumably made up of several divisions and second which division is the elite part referring too (as i seriously doubt the entire army was)?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My fault, I meant 'formation' and I've changed it now. Skinny87 (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldnt worry too much about it :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: They're the exact same aircraft. Douglas is just the manufacturer, while Dakota is what the Brits called them. They were Skytrains in American service, but most people know them by the British name. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: lol thanks ... am no good when it comes to planes! Should both terms be used within the article then, i.e. 6th airborne using C-47 Dakotas and the 17th airborne with C-47 Skytrains? Or just pick one and stick with it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably just stick with Dakota, as using both might confuse the average reader, and most probably wouldn't recognize Skytrain. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about some of the text 

message: I would like to take a moment to say thank-you to all the editors who helped me bring this article up to B-Class status. It is very much appreciated. Here's hoping we can get it to GA status! Skinny87 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: B-Class & Thanks

message: I have nominated the article for Good Article Status, as I believe it has a fair chance of becoming a GA Article. As a note to whoever reviews this article, please note that no pictures or images can be added until the Imperial War Museum fixes the technical problems it is having with its online collection system. The only images of Operation Varsity that can be ratified/verified are on this site, but the website is currently unavailable, having been allowed to expire by the IWM. Skinny87 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Images aren't a requirement for GA.  If any of the editors/reviewers give you heck about this, let me know.  We've been encountering this problem for some time (editors who think images are a requirement).  Now, if you were to go for FA, then you would require images, maps, & diagrams.  However, GA doesn't need that.  Just a note. Good luck with the nomination! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know its not a requirment but i think a map of the drop zones/battle area would be an excellent addition, is there not one laying around anywhere?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of maps, I've just come across this one, which I just uploaded: :Image:Operation Varsity map.JPG. It's not the best map, but it does show the general area, and it's public domain, so that's always a plus. If and when we find better ones, it can always be replaced. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone could add that image to the article, I'd be very greatful. I'm working on adding/uploading some images at the moment Skinny87 (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found several suitable images, by searching 'Operation Varsity' on this site IWM, but I have no experience uploading the images or with copyright. I believe the images there can be used, referring to the boilerplate/copyright info on the image located [], but I have no idea how to upload them. If someone else could, I would be extremely greatful. Skinny87 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Nomination

message: The last line of the intro formerly said this:
:The operation was the last large-scale Allied airborne operation of World War II, and was the largest in history.[5]
I removed "and was the largest in history"; Operation Market Garden says it was.  Tempshill (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically Varsity was, as the drops during Market Garden should be regarded as three single-division drops made seperately, whilst Varsity deployed two divisions in the same geographical area. Skinny87 (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it depends on how you define it, and in the articles, Market Garden is defined as the biggest, while Varsity is defined as the biggest single-drop. This makes the main page and the articles be inconsistent. That's my worry Awickert (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Put , along with the reason for your request, on the talk page of WP:Today's featured article/March 24, 2009. Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! I've never commented on a front page article, so I wasn't sure where to do it. Awickert (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit, given the lack of attention Varsity had until recently, there isn't a great deal of literature making this dinstinction. But can I help at all with any queries? Skinny87 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my #1 concern was just the consistency: that the main page said Varsity was the biggest, while the Market Garden main page says that it was the biggest, and the Varisty article qualifies it's being the biggest by "single-drop". I didn't see your comment in time, so I already made a note on the talk page of the front page article; perhaps you could leave a comment there? Sorry about the run-around. Awickert (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Bickering? Ugh, no fun. In any case, this article is great, and thanks for your work on it. Awickert (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Largest in history"? 

message: From the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Aircraft shortages section:Fortunately the airborne troops that remained were sufficient to overwhelm the defenders, but the presence of the US 13th Airborne Division might well have been crucial if there had been a greater number of defenders present.Is this true?  Probably... but is that sort of speculation appropriate for any encyclopedic article?  I'm not a heavy reader of military history articles, so I honestly don't know.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it to be true, but I'm afraid I have to run off to work in a short while. I'll take a more detailed look tonight when I get home and get back to you! Skinny87 (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Blaxthos. I have taken out the non-neutral word "fortunately" and have removed the conjecture which appeared to be unsupported, the speculation that another division would have been critical if the defending forces had been stronger. If we bring such theorizing into the article, we ought to name the theorist(s) who provide us with the idea. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I apologize; when the section was divided into paragraphs, that sentence was cut off from the citation referencing it, which is Devlin. I'm away from my sources at the moment, but I can provide a specific source and possibly rewrite the section by tuesday or so, if that would work for everyone? Skinny87 (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming Devlin as the theorist would work very well. Congratulations for surviving your day 'on the line'! Time for a wee dram, now, eh? Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: I believe it to be quite inappropriate for an "encyclopedic" article to "only" state the allied casualties. Since people died on both sides, it should be granted to honor the casualties on all sides.
[blueskiesrob]
:Inappropriate or not if there is no information regarding how many Germans were killed or wounded during this operation in a reliable secondary source what do you expect us to do?
:I would suggest that you look around in some very excellent secondary sources and you will soon see that spot on casualty information for both sides can be very hard to come by for quite a few battles so it has nothing to do with an ""encyclopedic" article".
:Do you have a source that provides how many Germans were killed or wounded during this operation? Then please add the information otherwise do not insinuate that we have done so out of malice.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid none of my sources listed German casualties, but if the anonymous editor has any, I'd more than welcome their inclusion. Skinny87 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualties 

message: No mention of the Canadian Victoria Cross?
139.48.25.60 (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Was anyone awarded the commendation during this operation? Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not - I just made it up. ;) 139.48.25.60 (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It looks like Frederick George Topham was.  I see we already mention 3 Medals of Honor awarded to US troops. I don't know if any other Commonwealth troops received the VC though.  David Underdown (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Create a see also section and place a link to him there then?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a mention at an appropriate place in the body text, jsut as the Medals of Honor are mentioned.  Having reviewed List of Second World War Victoria Cross recipients, it would appear this was the only VC for the operation.  David Underdown (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good to me. But, I do think that it might be useful to collect that information at the end of the article as well. It seems to me that some readers might want to have a quick list of the medals awarded during the battle. Parsecboy (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We could convert Operation Varsity#Battle honours to "Battle honours and decorations".  We probably also ought to check out if there were any US unit citations Presidential Unit Citation (United States) suggests there weren't any at that level.  David Underdown (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: As a point of order, VCs are never "won", they are awarded or bestowed and those who receive them are "recipients" not "winners". Carnival prizes might be won, but the VC is always earned. ;-) Good to see "Toppy" get his due, however. The article flows nicely even with the inclusion of the medal recipients. There is a valid case to be made, by the way, for not including them - a battle is about so much more than the handful of men singled out for valour awards, and one might make the case that the majority were all brave just for being there - but the article reads fine as written in my opinion. Well done.139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actaully even the MOD does talk about VC winners.  David Underdown (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actaully (sic) the MOD are not historians.139.48.25.60 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And?  They certainly have a pretty good claim to be able to decide "correct" usage of language as relating to British military matters.  David Underdown (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victoria Cross 

message: The entry on Wesel says 97 percent of the (small, 1,000-year-old) town was destroyed when it was attacked "with impact and air-burst weapons" on February 16, 17 and 19, and that it was virtually deserted by the time it was occupied by British troops in May 1945 — in other words, a few days before the German capitulation. I suggest that these facts be mentioned in the Operation Varsity article.
Sca (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I don't remember anything about that in my sources. But if I find anything when I can get back to them, I'll certainly add it in. Skinny87 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wesel

message: Although crossing the area several times and beeing led by a detailed map I didn´t find the location "Schnappenberg" in this area. There exists some locations of this name in Germany (e.g. in Bavaria), but far away from that zone. If you call it town (not village), it must be an error may be in writing, may be Ringenberg or Schermbeck was ment. --Rosa Lux (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schnappenberg 

message: This is merely a suggestion, since I came through here just in passing. For a featured article, this section is both contentious in tone and unbalanced in content. The tactics of glider operations are complex, with many pros and cons. All the negative conclusions reached here are unbalanced by the factors that elected their use in the first place, such as, concentration of force was needed, and to achieve concentration required control and close formations, which required daylight as well as good weather. Another example is that a lack of any large-scale glider training exercise prior to Varsity that would have identified problems in airspeed and length of glider serials that could have been adjusted to make the landing both quicker and more efficient. The call for paratroops on the LZ's ahead of the gliders was not uniquely Otway's--the Varsity glider pilots themselves requested it after the operation, as well as more and better exits and some armor if gliders were to make assault landings. Even so their verdict on varsity was that its planning and execution was the best of the war and had solved most problems identified by previous operations. imo such counterpoints are necessary if neutral point of view is to be maintained.--Reedmalloy (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Admittedly it has been a while since I got Varsity up to FA, and there are some sources available now that I didn't have them. If you have concerns about a particular section then please feel free to edit the article to try and make it more balanced. My on-wiki time is rather limited at the moment for article-writing, I'm afraid, so please feel free to edit away if you have the sources. Skinny87 (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do, thanx, if it can be done succinctly. btw, the above lecture on glider tactics was most definitely not directed at you.--Reedmalloy (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  High casualty rates 

message: * Heinz Bosch, Wilhelm Haas: Der Krieg am Niederrhein, Kreis Kleve, 1976: Teil 3: Der Sprung über den Rhein (YouTube, 42:12 min) --Tfjt (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film 

message: So, according to the headline text, “the operation was a success”? This is despite the official history of the British Airborne Divisions stating that: ”of the 416 gliders that landed, only 88 remained undamaged by enemy fire, and that between 20–30 percent of the glider pilots were casualties”. 
 
Give such accounts, could the words such as “success” (along with other overly-positive statements) be changed to reflect the relatively limited gains and dreadful blood-letting that was Operation Varsity?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.177.160 (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The gliders were regarded as disposable, although ideally many would be recovered for further use if possible. British pilots of the Glider Pilot Regiment were trained ground troops and casualties to these personnel were to be expected during the normal course of ground operations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.241.93 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of main  conclusions reached here are unbalanced 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Operation Varsity. 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/20060803032605/http://www.army.mod.uk/para/history/rhine.htm to http://www.army.mod.uk/para/history/rhine.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201185145/http://www.armyhistory.org/ahf2.aspx?pgID=877&id=139&exCompID=56 to http://www.armyhistory.org/ahf2.aspx?pgID=877&id=139&exCompID=56
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624044120/http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090602-016.pdf to http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090602-016.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624044120/http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090602-016.pdf to http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090602-016.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) 14:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Varsity. 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/20110707074515/http://www.able506.com/440th/tcarticle_operationvarsity.shtml to http://www.able506.com/440th/tcarticle_operationvarsity.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070727160735/http://www.armyhistory.org/armyhistorical.aspx?pgID=868&id=139&exCompID=32 to http://www.armyhistory.org/armyhistorical.aspx?pgID=868&id=139&exCompID=32
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) 05:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Operation Varsity. 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/20090104032806/http://www.uk-us.org/kencooper.htm to http://www.uk-us.org/kencooper.htm
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) 01:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified