Talk:Operation Charnwood

message: Does anyone have detailed info on the British bridgeheads across the orne near Caen? I know they had three small bridges across the Orne by the time of Goodwood but when did they get them? DMorpheus 16:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: bridgeheads

message: The basic layout of the German defences was decided upon, not by Rommel,[42] but by General Heinrich Eberbach,[43] the commanding officer of Panzer Group West, with the details being worked upon by the two Corps commanders and the six divisional commanders.[43] German defensive positions were structured into four defensive lines of considerable depth—approximately 10 miles (16 km).[29] As part of the defense, villages were fortified and anti-tank guns sited along the southern and eastern edges of the open country Second Army was about to attack,[44] with significant defensive positions at Franqueville, Gruchy, Buron, Galmanche, Epron and Lebisey.[29]
This is all in referance to Goodwood and Caens open flank - i cannot vouch if the sources support the same details for the defences to the north of Caen as well as the city itself.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also out of intrest - how come when you have copied information over you have replaced the citations supporting those statements with different ones i.e. Jackson for Keegan or Taylor for Hastings etc - doesnt make sence.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  German prep 

message: Have removed various typos but feel free to revert the ones which are opinionated.[;-)Keith-264 (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo Frenzy

message: I found the following after footnote #46. ^ a b Roy, p. 46 but there is nothing by anyone named Roy in the References. Also not all of the References are listed on the Reference list--is there a reason for this?
Xatsmann (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch...I'm sure that Cam just made a mistake. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 15:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already copy and pasted this to the review page as i know it will be addressed quickly that way.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked all the other footnotes and they are all fine. I also checked the rest of the article out and it looked great to me. I am satisfied its ready to go to the next level. Congratulations on a well written and researched article. Xatsmann (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced footnotes

message: Just a note for myself, a mini operation was launched late June north of Caen by 3rd Inf called Mitten.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than expanding the background to include something about Mitten, is there anything else people think is missing from this article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Mitten et al 

message: And he is? He has been used a reference but there is no info in the ref section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Fould  

message: Would it be possible to avoid this word except as a distinction of rank? Can't we say 'big' or 'important'?Keith-264 (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Major

message: I'm reluctant to leave the last word to Hastings. 'With hindsight, this action came to be regarded as one of the most futile air attacks of the war.[38]' Perhaps but the bombing was aimed at two places: 'Fields North West of Caen'; the centre of the pattern was 200-300 yards east of the aiming point and 90% of the bombs fell in it. The second aiming point is given as 'Northern Caen' a suburban area; the 90% zone was not identifiable. ORS2's analysis concludes that 'The material effects produced by this bombing attack do not appear to be sufficient to account for the marked success of the operation it preceded. It is thought that the value of this form of attack is largely in the disorganisation and morale effects that it produces'. ORS2 Report No.5 Heavy Bombing in Operation Charnwood in 'Montgomery's Scientists: Operational Research in Northwest Europe' Ed, Terry Copp pp.71-77. While not a destructive bombardment of German military forces, the results conform to British experience from mid-1916 that the primary effect of bombardment is suppressive and that this is short-lived. If the bombing was futile then such attacks in future (Goodwood and Bluecoat) would have had similar effect. As it was the report made recommendations which increased the effects of bombardment by strategic bombers - instant fuzes, larger numbers of smaller bombs, more anti-personnel bombs and rapid follow up by ground forces to exploit the suppression of enemy defences. If the intent of the bombing of the two areas was to destroy German defences and produce a walkover, it failed. Some destruction of soft skinned transport occurred (10 of 40 trucks) but the 48 hr gap before the ground attack allowed damaged equipment to be salvaged. If it was suppressive then the wait negated this. For a debut it was poor but it is clear that the technique was considerably refined in later attacks. I think 'futile' is the wrong word.Keith-264 (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems you have adequate sources be bold ;)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive added the book for you however could you be a good chap and add in the publication date, and the original one if there is one i.e. 2005 and 1955 etc Also if its available the publisher and publishers locations in the relevent parts of the template. I'd get this off amazon but id be pushing my luck a little here in work lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Preliminary attack

message: *Can we say whose troops are in the infobox image (British or Canadian)?
*:Nope, the IWM website that holds the information on the photo doesnt hold that piece of particular info. Photo is too low res to zoom in and ID their divisional insignia either. Unless its in a book somewhere, and the author has ID them, i think we are out of luck.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: General

message: *"Learning of this, Allied commanders ordered Bernard Montgomery to draw up an offensive..." Can we be specific here, as it makes it sound like it wasn't Monty's show? I'm guessing Eisenhower or SHAEF?
*:Reworded more vaguely :) EyeSerenetalk 17:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: *"Elements of the 26th SS Panzergrenadier Regiment held the western flank, concentrating their defence in the area around Carpiquet airfield, armed with limited tanks and mortar batteries..." What does "limited tanks" mean?
*:I've rephrased to give what I hope was the intended meaning; please correct as necessary! EyeSerenetalk 17:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Planning and preparation (Germans)

message: *"By noon, the 3rd division had reached the north bank of the Orne, destroying the 16th Luftwaffe Field Division" I think we need to change the wording here, although the division did suffer heavy it was not destroyed and went onto play a further role in the campaign, by which i mean being bombed to crap (poor bastards) and most likely destroyed during the Goodwood battle. Annihilation seems a bit to much and decimation a bit to little, i cant think of a word for in between.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fighting in Caen

message: *A bit confused about the chronology of the various German changes in command - wasn't Schweppenburg replaced by Eberbach in early June? I assume that's included because until Charnwood etc, Eberbach thought it was going to be possible to win in Normandy? Addendum: rephrased a little; hope it's what was intended.
:Eberbach took command in early July, i believe we covered it before in the aftermath of Epsom. However i believe it was relevent to bring him and Rundstead back up so that the comment regarding the new COs realisation made more sense. The way it is worded now appears to reflect his correctly.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do beg your pardon - I'd got my dates confused. Hastings gives 1 July for Eberbach's 'promotion' and the following morning for von Kluge's. I'll fix the errors I've introduced :P EyeSerenetalk 19:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis

message: * D'Este's citing of the Zuckerman survey: is it the 3rd British or 3rd Canadian Inf Div being quoted?
*: He just says the 3rd Div - which i assume to be the British 3rd, as the Canadian 3rd usually always has the word "canadian" somwhere around it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombing of Caen 

message: How do we know these M4s are artillery forward observer tanks? It's not in the file description. Is there a recognition feature visible? DMorpheus (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; I can't see it in the source either. Caption change? EyeSerenetalk 14:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think so. They are certainly poorly placed if they really are FO tanks. IMO this FO label cannot be supported. I can't see the photo well enough to see whether the gun tubes are real or dummies; I can't see the formation signs to know what unit the tank is part of. But leaving the caption as just plain 'Sherman' works fine. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There Arty FO tanks because Simon Trew and Stephen Badsey say so - page 41, hence the citation to also support what unit the soldiers come from. Just because they are positioned in a street doesnt mean they are not FO tanks - two of the most famous photos from Villers-Bocage are of the FO tanks, both of which were in the centre of V-B.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you quote it please? I don't have the Trew book. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  Sorry Enigma, by source I meant the Imperial War Museum archive (), which gives no more detail than the commons page. EyeSerenetalk 16:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  OK, and the original source, the Imperial War Museum, makes no claim that these are FO tanks. I noticed their captioning is pretty thorough. DMorpheus (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thorough but the IWM also doesnt state they are the Scottish Borderers. ;) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Artillery FO tanks? 

message: Enigma, do you really want to start a sentence with 'however'?Keith-264 (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm one of those old farts who thinks that written English is a different language to spoken English so I value systematic grammar and punctuation; somtimes I manage it. I try to end sentences at the full stop so words like 'however' and 'additionally' are unnecessary after it. Keith-264 (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: I've linked the Canadian 9th Infantry Brigade to the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division temporarily to fix the redlink
Chaosdruid (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  redlink 

message: Is this accurate? If you bisect Caen the line wouldn't be contiguous with the river. Caen north of the river is about 2/3 of the city.Keith-264 (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. I've trimmed that bit - it just says "captured Caen up to the Orne and Odon Rivers" now. EyeSerenetalk 11:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern half

message: In the "Planning and preparation" section, we have: Further information: Operation Charnwood order of battle. But this is a redlink leading nowhere.... This needs to be taken care of immediately. If there is no such detailed page, remove the note altogether. werldwayd (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Redlink inappropriate

message: Did a modest spring-clean of the article, reshaped paragraphs, photos and maps and altered some headers.Keith-264 (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: * Template:Infobox military conflict
result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
According to this, See the 'Aftermath' section and not the details should be in the box. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That works, although I think the last two bullet points would need to be incorporated into the text. If you remember, the current state of affairs emerged after a long harrowing discussion on the fact the Allies won and some did not like that. So yes, nice and tidy linking to the aftermath is much better than what we have.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I've been tidying up some of my writing using it.Keith-264 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just made a change if everyone is happy with this style? Shire Lord 22:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox: result frenzy