Talk:Battle of Cambrai (1917)

message: I am sure that the Canadians were there as well, perhaps someone with more wikiskill should add that into the nations present section of the box thing on the right side Xtopher 09:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CAMBRAI, 1917 is a battle honour awarded to Canadian units, along with CAMBRAI, 1918 which was awarded to Canadian units which participated in the 2nd battle during the Hundred Days Offensive. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

message: After posting the above response, It got me thinking that this page should perhaps be renamed to something like the "First Battle of Cambrai", "Battle of Cambrai (1917)" or have a disambiguation page created listing both (all?) the battles of Cambrai.  Thought? Mike McGregor (Can) 04:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rename or disambiguate?

message: The article has it "the squadrons under von Richthofen". Are we talking about Jasta 1, or a larger agglomeration commanded by von Richthofen for the duration (a kind of kampfgruppe)?  Trekphiler 20:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The RAF OH IV, p. 245 has the Richthofen Circus (Jagdstaffeln 4, 6, 10 and 11) brought down from Flanders by 23rd Nov17.Keith-264 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Jasta'' 1?

message: I added that, relying on Dyer, War.  Trekphiler 22:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty rate

message: This article needs to make some reference to the artillery plan, as well the tank, infantry and air power. Will see what I can do when I get some free time 137.73.126.175 16:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still needs help. "It opened with a carefully prepared and predicted but unregistered fire barrage"? OK, after years of reading in military matters, I have a vague notion what's meant, but a tyro might have no clue. Clarify? And, "either trench cleaners or trench 'stop'."? Say what? More clarity is needed.  Trekphiler 22:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Artillery Plan

message: If you look at the George S. Patton article, in it says that American tanks were present at the battle, including Patton himself. Is this true and if so why is the U.S. not listed as one of the combatants in the battle box?--Aj4444 (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is an ongoing discussion at the talk page for Patton and there are several sources which have him at the battle either as an observer or participant. Hengistmate has not established his points in the current content dispute there. The passage is there.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Patton

message: "...and a British withdrawal east of the St Quentin canal." Should this read 'west'?Keith-264 (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps 'from the east'?Keith-264 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think the first suggestion is right. This page needs a revamp methinks. Dapi89 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: West or east?

message: I note that there is no source given for the assertion that the "....cavalry passed through, late..." and no indication of what "late" means.
In the tank museum there is/was a plaque commemorating Cambrai which is much less friendly towards the cavalry, suggesting that "late" meant more than two hours late and few of the cavalry units ordered to attack bothered to arrive.
The British cavalry earned a reputation at Cambai which was unspeakable (and their reputation before then was bad), and it would seem a pity to cover this battle without either putting the matter to rest or facing up to the issue. Or perhaps, simply admitting that there was a considerable feeling on the matter.
Drg40 (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cavalry presence seems totally ignored in this article yet at least one British Cavalry regiment, the 4th Royal Irish Dragoon Guards, had "Cambrai 1917" among its battle honours.  One notable action of theirs was to break through a narrow gap in the line, disrupt a German ammunition column and some cavalry, and return to their lines with some prisoners of war.Cloptonson (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is unfinished so it's not surprising. Keith-264 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cavalry 

message: I made some amendments which follow the comments in the Official History (Ch XVII pp. 278-305) but I don't know how to interpolate the citations into the text. Generally the success of the tanks is acknowledged but the importance of the artillery-infantry improvements emphasised along with the difficulties brought about by the early quick success.Keith-264 (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That it the crux of things as far as I can see. The massive logistics made available in 1918 was designed to keep the tempo of advance going so this would not happen again - there was a logistical learning curve is never really talked about. Mechanization of logistics and some 2,000 heavy locos fed the armies going forward. More importantly, they brought up artillery far quicker to allow for continued operations. Once the enemy op forces were deployed to contain a breakthrough, the infantry was dug in with the protection of the artillery and the rail networks removed entire Corps' level forces to another flank and began the process all over again. It kept the enemy operational reserves slightly off balance. Munching away at the flanks compelled an enemy Corps to stand or fight and risk destruction or withdraw. It was a fire-power and manoeuvre method which was developed from Cambrai and other battles. Dapi89 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The OH mentions that there were only two roads in to the Cambrai area and that reserve divisions couldn't get closer than 20 miles because of all the artillery and tanks at the front. It brought Goodwood to mind. I think it's worth pointing out as well that it was the first occasion when the German 'peace dividend' from the defunct Eastern front made itself felt in France. The OH also talks of a need for vehicles to carry troops and artillery across the battlefield at the same speed as the tanks. Far from being the debut of a new system, Cambrai was a stage in the evolution of the army of 1914 (on both sides).Keith-264 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, more or less. Cambrai was the last lesson of the learning curve. No new system was developed from scratch at Cambrai thats for sure. One thing though, the speed of the tanks seems to have been too slow rather than too fast at times. Does the OH (a while since I read it) mention this at all. Dapi89 (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

text: It points out that the MkIVs weren't that good but also that where there were long declines the tanks could have gone on but for the infantry stopping. It also seemed to be foreshadowing the Whippet, MkV and V* tanks of 1918. Oddly enough when it mentioned the 'new Hutier' infantry tactics it didn't make a comparison with SS143 on outflanking resistance and leaving it to mopping up parties.Keith-264 (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Cambrai did not start at 8 pm. I changed it to the correct time of 6.20 am, but someone has changed it back. I should be interested to hear the grounds for that. Please provide them.
At 8 pm in Northern France in November, it would have been dark for over 2 hours. Cambrai was not a night attack. Night attacks were exceedingly rare. I feel sure that someone, somewhere might have mentioned the fact. The attack started around dawn. 
Sources:
Cambrai 1917 Bryn Hammond. 6.20 am Mr. Hammond's doctoral thesis was on the theory and practice of co-operation between British tanks and other arms on the Western Front. He is an Honorary Research Fellow in the Centre for First World War Studies at the University of Birmingham, and a member of the British Commission for Military History and the Western Front and Gallipoli Associations. He is also Joint Convenor of the Imperial War Museum’s History Group.
The Devil's Chariots John Glanfield, 1999, p221. 6.10 am
A New Excalibur A.J. Smithers, 1986, p140. 6 am
Tanks 1914-1918 Sir Albert Gerald Stern, K.B.E., C.M.G. Signed (May 1920) First Edition of his memoirs. 6.10 am
Achtung Panzer Heinz Guderian, first published 1937. 6 am
The Fighting Tanks Since 1916 Jones, Rarey, Icks, 1933, p20. 6 am
I can find some more if you wish.
Hengistmate (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The OH gives "It was still dark at 6.10 a.m. when the prevailing stillness was broken by the tanks.... Ten minutes later the broad array, followed by the eager infantry, crossed the British front line....", p. 50, ch IV OH1917III.Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start time of battle. 

message: "The battle is erroneously noted for being the first use of tanks in a combined arms operation. Small combined arms attacks had been used at the Battle of the Somme with mixed results."
By November 20th 1917 British tanks had beeen used in varying numbers on at least 12 separate actions, in France, Belgium and (twice) Palestine.
It is also important not to consider only British tanks. Before Cambrai, French tanks took part in 3 actions. The first, at Berry-au-Bac (April 1917), involved 132 Schneider tanks and some supporting Saint-Chamonds.
Hengistmate (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imprecise References to Tank Deployments Before Cambrai. 

message: Mention has been made of units of the AEF being caught up in the fighting at Cambrai.
This description is from The United States Army in the World War 1917-1919, by the Organisation of the American Expeditionary Forces:
"The American troops involved played a minor and impromptu part in the battle. For three months before the operation, three American engineer regiments had been constructing railroads in the vicinity of Cambrai. On November 30, when the German counteroffensive began on the southern face of the Cambrai salient, the 11th Engineer Regiment came under fire in the villages of Fins and Gouzeaucourt. The American groups in Fins joined the British 20th Division and served with it to the end of the operation. The 12th Railway Engineer Regiment delivered ammunition to British artillery. The 14th Railway Engineer Regiment operated light railways in the area of the British VI Corps and delivered ammunition to front line units."
I think it important to point this out.
Hengistmate (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution of U.S. Troops at Cambrai. 

message: "The concentration of British effort to hold the ridge was impressive but allowed the German advance elsewhere greater opportunity. Only counter-attacks by the Guards Division, the arrival of British tanks and the fall of night allowed the line to be held."
When the Germans do this, it's described as schwerpunktbildung and judged to be a sign of competence. It strikes me that the German effort here resembles the British attack at Langemarck 16-18 August previous which isn't usually decribed as a success.Keith-264 (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Counter-stroke 

message: What reference is meant by "Sheffield & Bourne 2005"? It is missing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.46.51 (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Remedied.Keith-264 (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference? 

message: As discussed previously (see above) we cannot seriously consider the USA a belligerent at Cambrai. The information about the first casualties etc is worth a footnote, but it would be a considerable stretch of the normal understanding of the word to use it in this context. Hengistmate (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Suits me.Keith-264 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Put the passage in a note and moved it to the narrative covering 30 Nov. OK?Keith-264 (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  i would suggest putting the USA in the belligerents but with a note mentioning that they only participated on 30 november, like in the Warsaw Uprising article. any thoughts? Capt Jim (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Could do I suppose, we don't ignore Neil Armstrong because there was only one Yank taking a giant leap....;O) Keith-264 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

text: There were some US troops involved and the German counter-stroke (not counter-attack) was obviously part of the same thing considering that it wouldn't have happened but for the British offensive. The article is far from complete, which is why it looks unbalanced.Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S.A. As Belligerent At Cambrai. 

message: Did a little tidying up before having a dash at completing the citations.Keith-264 (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy edited and cited everything but one item.Keith-264 (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: The (linked) article on Georg von der Marwitz states, "In November 1917 he defended against the British in the Battle of Cambrai, which saw the first use of tanks en masse." This article contends, "The battle is often erroneously noted for being the first mass use of tanks in a combined arms operation. However, the French had deployed large numbers of tanks in April (130+), May (48) and October (92) 1917 and the British more than 200 in Flanders in June and July." These statements appear to disagree, which is undesirable per guidelines. However, this article also indicates "476 tanks" (378 combat tanks). So if these raw counts reflect a methodology that is comparable between these discrete engagements, then perhaps a linguistically "intermediate" position would be preferable - that is, that "first" and "erroneously" can be reconciled by something like, "In November 1917 he defended against the British in the Battle of Cambrai, which saw the most extensive use of tanks to date, with more than twice the previous number, as well as new combined arms tactics." and "The battle is often noted for being the first mass use of tanks in a combined arms operation. Although the French had deployed large numbers of tanks in April (130+), May (48) and October (92) 1917 and the British more than 200 in Flanders in June and July, tank numbers on the opening day of the battle were the largest to date, with a total 476 tanks, of which 324 to 378 (cite the different sources for these discrepant numbers) were combat tanks." In fact, though, the real issue may not be the number. What I remember as received dogma was NOT that this was the first use of massed tanks, but the contention that it was "the first large-scale, effective combined arms operation use of tanks in warfare". Although the key word is "effective", it goes along with the other elements, combined arms operations and artillery non-registration in particular.  This article, apparently based on Hammond, very strongly words itself by declaring that the tanks were NOT effective, and YET quotes Crown Prince Rupprecht: "Wherever the ground offers suitable going for tanks, surprise attacks like this may be expected. That being the case, there can be no more mention, therefore, of quiet fronts." There is an additional internal inconsistency of message / tone, in comparing: "Despite the initial success of the Mark IV tanks at Cambrai, German artillery and infantry defences exposed the frailties of their armour and the vehicles became mostly ineffective after the first day." with "The effectiveness of the tank in combat was limited in the extreme."  FeatherPluma (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What do the sources say and which are the most notable? The 378 and 476 are in the OH and the success was mainly on the first day, which is to say that tanks had a similar effect to the mines at Messines or the gas at Ypres. The OH is accurate on detail and context; Hammond is the most recent source (quite good too, it's a PhD) and some of the divisional histories (51st) are full of information. Shldon gives an overdue look at the German side. The page has the usual Wiki failing of mild obsolescence, particularly evident in British Great War writing, most of which is derivative hack-work. I've tinkered with it but am busy with other things. I'm glad you've taken an interest, mad commas and all. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

text: That's why it's start class.Keith-264 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

text: The recent writing stresses the general increase in British offensive capacity for combined-arms warfare rather than using tanks as a deus ex machina and also notes that it came just after 3rd Ypres, which used to be written off as a calvary for the British. Second Battle of Artois see here for a similar  discussion of infantry tactics being generic and the theory being formed as fast as the trenches, rather than by uberGerman warriors biffing the moujiks. Krause, J. (2013). Early Trench Tactics in the French Army : the Second Battle of Artois, May–June 1915. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing. .  Sound off by all means but note that the energy isn't going into the article where it belongs. What are your interests by the way?Keith-264 (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

text: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1349874/ http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=2&uin=uk.bl.ethos.321769 and Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917 night pique your interest between football and darts. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I think you'd be better off rewriting the article.Keith-264 (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent with other / linked Wikipedia content 

message: :Put pic here for the moment as I've found that the MOS deprecates sandwiched text.Keith-264 (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic 

message: I revised the article on the Battle of Cambrai to show quotations because it's not obvious that it's a quote.
Keith-264 undid this saying block quotes don't require quote marks. Wiki has an article on block quotations which show how a block quote is set apart from the article - they give an example of a quote in a shaded box. They give an accompanying explanation, viz "In typesetting, block quotations can be distinguished from the surrounding text by variation in typeface (often italic vs. roman), type size, or by indentation. Often combinations of these methods are used, but are not necessary. Block quotations are also visually distinguished from preceding and following main text blocks by a white line or half-line space.[3]" (Ibid.)
What do other people think? In 'edit mode' of course it says 'block quotes' but the average reader won't see this.
Montalban (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blockqoutes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Cambrai (1917). 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/20060204115938/http://www.1914-1918.net:80/sacredground/cambrai/Bat21phototour.htm to http://www.1914-1918.net/sacredground/cambrai/Bat21phototour.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060320095048/http://www.1914-1918.org/MAPS/maps/cambrai.jpg to http://www.1914-1918.org/MAPS/maps/cambrai.jpg
*Added  tag to http://sites.google.com/site/landships/cambrainarratives
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some of the citations lack page numbers; I have linked Hammond's PhD which is the origin of his book, it might be useful for page numbers if editors don't have the book. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hammond 

message: To follow the guidelines of the Template for military conflicts; the posible results of a military operation could be: 1) X Victory(Y Victory, contrary case) and 2) Inconclusive, not Indecisive. We should stick to the terms used at the Template guidelines. To have a uniform structure in WW1 articles I recommend we use that word instead of Indecisive. Also it is also noted that:  In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. In that case we should first give a brief resume of the immediate outcome then follow a link to the aftermath section. A casual reader will go straight to the aftermath instead of reading the article as a whole. And we should avoid that. It's far better to pursue the reader to read all the article for academic and divulgational purposes.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have altered it to See the Aftermath section, the terms were discussed a couple of years go here  you might want to make suggestions on that talk page. I wouldn't infer the behaviour of hypothetical readers or judge it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result and Template for military conflicts