Talk:Operation Archery

message: The names in this article can be confusing. The main names used are the ones used by the British military in planning and later reports. These are at best spelled wrongly. In addition there is a complicated relationship between the names in this area and their history. I will try to clarify here and if someone wants to try to incorporate it in the article they are welcome. 
* Vaagso: In Norwegian this will be Vågsøy. This is the large island which gives the municipality of Vågsøy its name. The municipality was at this time divided in two separate municipalities called Nord-Vågsøy (North-Vågsøy) and Sør-Vågsøy (South-Vågsøy).
*The town of South Vaagso: This must mean Måløy. The town center and administrative center of Sør-Vågsøy then and Vågsøy now. It is situated on the large island of Vågsøy, but it is not an island itself even though øy means island... See also Maaloy Island.
*Maaloy Island: This must be Moldøen a.k.a Lisje-Måløyna(Little Måløy). This is a small island between the island of Vågsøy and the mainland. The main land defences of the harbour and the town was situated here. Historicaly the town and tradecenter was situated on this island. This was gradualy moved over to the larger island of Vågsøy. The name Moldøen was moved as well, but later changed to Måløy in order to make the spelling more Norwegian (less danish influenced). Now the island has a ropefactory and fish storagehall. It only has two residential houses and is connected to Måløy by a road on filled out land.
*Hollevik: Holvik is a small center south of Måløy on the island of Vågsøy.
Inge 16:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwegian place names 

message: Raiding force blows up targets and escapes with modest casualties, 10 ships sunk, 200 Germans killed or captured = "German victory" Discuss. GraemeLeggett 19:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it to result=Allied objectives met. It was certainly not a German victory. The Germans were taken totally by surprize and by the end of the raid the allies had total controll of the area. The raid was not an invasion attemt, the allies left the area when all their objectives and more were met as planned. The Norwegians who decided to go with the allies back to Britain even had good time to pack as ceveral pictures show. The more longterm impact of the raid was that many maps showing German coastal defences on much of the European coastline were captured and later used during D-Day. In addition to much needed training in combined coastal attacs. It also convinced Hitler even more that the allies were planning to invade Norway. He therefore allocated huge resources both on manpower and materials towards strenghtening the defence of Norway. Resources much needed elsewere (some 400 000 soldiers stood idle in Norway in 1945). Inge 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result 

message: how come theres no mention of fighting jack chuchill leading the troops into battle play his bag pipes armed only with a longbow and claymore?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.104.87 (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighting Jack Churchill 

message: The wounded figure in the photo being led to the landing craft is visibly not the same person as that referenced in the photo linked here: . The former is clearly taller and more heavily built than the men helping him; has his right pant leg clearly rolled up above the knee; is hatless, heavily booted in what appear to be a form of camoflage gaiter, and clearly has been wounded in the leg, leaning heavily on his helpers while dragging his right leg awkwardly behind him; the wounded man in the latter is of average to slight build, the same height as his helpers, is wearing a knit cap, has shiny black leather boots, and is walking in a normal gait while relying on his assistants only for direction, not bearing his weight.
Further, the wounded soldier in the first image is wearing a field rucksack while the latter has what appears to be an ammuntion belt only across his chest. Last, the helpers are attired differently, those in the former image having their hoods up and a great clutter of items about their waists; both also have clear narrow leather strap going across their bodys from left to right. The helpers in the latter are hoodless, appear less encmbered about their waists, have no visible narrow leather straps; instead, the soldier to the wounded man's left (image right) is wearing a wide canvas webbing strap looped high on his back round his neck and upper left shoulder.  That same man is clearly carrying what appears to be a tripod (as for a light machine gun) slung over his left shoulder which the man in the corresponding position in the first image is without. The helper on the left in the second image is carrying what appears to be a rifle (with dangling strap) in his right hand; the helper in the corresponding position in the first image has his right hand swung round in front of him (out of sight) in a position incompatible with carrying a rifle, or whatever palpably large object is in hand in the second image.
Based on all these clear descrepancies it is obvious the wounded solider in the image in the Wikipedia article is not Captain O'Flaherty (who, it appears, is elsewise correctly identified in the linked image). Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure in photo 

message: as this raid persuaded Hitler divert 30,000 troops to garison Norway and Britain had minimal losses in the raid, shouldn't it be a decisive victory? The attention placed on Norway by Hitler, would have weakened Germany in other areas  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.34 (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisive Allied Victory? 

message: https://news.yahoo.com/no-christmas-truce-december-1941-122310502.html might warrant inclusion as a ref. 213.109.220.243 (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  simple but extended article