Talk:Battle of Hamel

message: I'll get back to this. The US troops involved were used against the wishes of Pershing and senior British commanders. The troops had been stationed with the Australians for training/experience purposes, and at the time they were placed the Australians were told not to deploy them in any actions. Monash and his lower commanders, mindful that the troops and their local commanders were extremely keen to participate 'wrote them in', and fielded (deflected and dogded) some pointed criticism from above. In the end my understanding is that they were used against Pershings clearly stated wishes.  The US casualties seem a little high, Bean will have the numbers. The unit the US troops belonged to will be in Bean's history as well (he was very careful to document these things). My recollection is that the were New York based, but it's five or six years since I last read Bean. My understanding is that this wasn't the first occasion that US troops were in action in France, but it was among the first few occasions.Tban 03:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were from Illinois. Kscheffler 07:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I can't say that as it stands that this article is all that reliable.  There's also some problems here with grammar and the general writing style.  
One sentence that I feel should be removed is: "While it was a small-scale battle, it was the first where the Allies went on the offensive against the Germans after the years trench warfare, and showed how the deadlock could be broken."  The allies went on the offensive numerous times thoughout the war, so why the author would think that this was "the first" is beyond me. Kscheffler 07:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It is inaccurate to say that this was the first offensive.  It is not stretching things too far to suggest that the battle of Hamel marked the first truly successful offensive, however, and it is also accurate to suggest that the doctrines used here were to have far-reaching impacts. Johno 15:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs Work

message: Caption on the photo reads "American and Australian troops dug in together during the Battle of Hamel ... "  
I do not se any US uniforms or equipment .
The different units would be very mixed together if a trench occupied by 7 men had some Australian & some US soldiers together .
Can anyone enlighten further ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.231.38 (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption is apparently taken verbatim from the Australian War Memorial record for this particular photo. This is only speculation on my behalf, but I don't think it would be so unusual for U.S. troops who had only just arrived on the Western Front to be "embedded" with veteran British/Commonwealth troops. Maybe someone can indicate whether small units of U.S. troops were assigned to veteran Allied units to acclimatise to the conditions of the front? Lawrencema (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, some US units were attached to larger Australian units as part of their preparation for the Western Front. Bear in mind that the photo is obviously staged, so may not represent the way US and Australian troops were integrated in this battle. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct caption?

message: Hello everyone, I noticed that the sections "Pear Trench", "The Woods" and "Hamel" (which are presumably supposed to describe the course of the battle itself following the initial attack) contain NO information AT ALL (just section headings with NO text).  It's almost as if one moment the Allies left their trenches behind the rolling barrage, and the very next moment the Germans dropped their rifles and surrendered, which is NOT what really happened.  Could someone please put more info into these 3 sections?  (I would've loved to do this, but my own knowledge of WW1 history is extremely scanty.)  Thanks in advance! 98.234.126.251 (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, I have made an attempt at completing this request. Unfortunately, I didn't quite complete the article before the 95th anniversary of the battle. Anyway, are there any suggestions for further improvements? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing sections 

message: The hyperlink below the photograph (Australian and American troops dug in together during the Battle of Hamel) misleadingly points to Hamel Nord close to the border with Belgium: approximate coordinates 50° 16′ 51″ North - 3° 04′ 29″East.  I think that the actual location of the battle was much more to the centre of France(just to the northwest of Villers-Brettonneux, as the article itself correctly notes) at approximate coordinates 49° 53′ 56″ North - 2° 34′ 14″ East.  The correct designation of the battle site would appear to be Le Hamel.  Glenveagh (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, good catch. I've updated the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Le Hamel 

message: "Located south of the River Somme, about 1.9 miles (3 km) north-east of Villers-Bretonneux ... "From the map, Le Hamel is about 3 miles (5 km) NE of V-B. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Google maps it's about about 5.7 km from the centre of V-B to the Australian Corps Memorial Park at Le Hamel. DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography