Talk:First day on the Somme

message: This article is heavily slanted towards the British side.  There is very little mention of the German side or even the French side.
The above user beat me to that comment. It is indeed heavily one sided. Why only Victorian Cross winners? Why not Iron Cross winners aswell? -ColinMacDonald
I have put a header on this conversation, and I agree that information should be found about the German side of the battle and put up. It seems as if only the British even participated, simply fighting against nameless, faceless enemies who did nothing but sit there. If someone could find information from the German side and rewrite the whole article to provide information on both ends, it would vastly improve the article. I have no idea where to begin looking for such information, but if a Great War buff can see this and has such info, please, please please post this. 68.202.82.33 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Information

message: The infobox labels this battle as a decisive German victory, and I would like consensus approval to change this. Accepting that British casualties were very heavy as stated, so were German casualties; and the end result was the capture of trivial amounts of French territory by the attacking British. I would like to amend the box to read "An indecisive contest".--Anthony.bradbury 12:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of comment, I have now done so.--Anthony.bradbury 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victory 

message: The middle day of the middle year is a very well placed phrase in a well written section. Unfortunately 1916 was a leap year, so there was no middle day. Remove, if you like. It just struck me as funny. And I plead guilty to nitpicking. :-) Cheers Io (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I coundn't resist

message: Could someone explain, the reasons why in the battle of the Somme the german casualties are stated at 450,000-600,000 while allied ones as 620,000, and after the 1st day german casualties resulted in 10,000 vs 64,000 allied losses.
It is no sense, a 1 vs 6.4 ratio of losses for the Germans is a very good figure. For WW1 standards and for 2 armies well equipted and trained. However the article claims that the following battles were even more costly for the Allies.
How did the final ratio of the Battle ended in a nearly 1 vs 1.
There is something wrong here.....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.146.249 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The British system worked well for a small professional army used to battles like M'boto Gorge so was impractical for the mass warfare of the Great War. The French and Germans uses an approximation system suitable for million man armies but after the war, the Germans followed up the Verlustliste with the Sanitatsbericht so its figures are comparable in accuracy to the British ones; the French started doing this in 1916 (see the aftermath section of the Battle of Verdun). Keith-264 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation.... 

message: Breakthrough? Really? The objective map demonstrates that the attack had limited objectives. The debate between Haig and Rawlinson was about the size of the bite, reflecting differing priorities rather than a "dispute". Anyone who can read a relief map can see the wisdom of wanting the spur that Serre guarded so trying for it was inevitable. I wonder if the narrative could benefit from more sources? Keith-264 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plan 

message: Added more narrative detail to the lead and a note on casualties.Keith-264 (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Rearranged the page to integrate the Other Engagements list, ready for them being written.Keith-264 (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Have redone the page from "battle" downwards,the sections above to follow. It needs a really good copy edit though.Keith-264 (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Added more revised sections, ready for the Background and Prelude sections tomorrow.Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs some finishing touches and a copy edit and that's it.Keith-264 (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Finished the rewrite and expansion and put it in for a B class review, needs a copy edit.Keith-264 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion and rewrite 

message: I notice that I forgot to add this section, I'll do it as soon as I finish Albert.Keith-264 (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Finished the section but didn't have much from the German point of view.Keith-264 (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air operations 

message: Did the 9th Division (Containing the South African Brigade, with a Southern Rhodesian contingent) participate in the operations of 1 July?Keith-264 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, it appears I misinterpreted the source; it said that the Rhodesians involved, a platoon in the 2nd Battalion, King's Royal Rifle Corps, were involved in the "big push" built around the Somme, and that there were 90 of them on 30 June and only 10 alive and unwounded after the push on the morning of 1 July, but it doesn't say they were actually at the Somme itself that day (apparently they were elsewhere on the line). Rhodesians were at Delville Wood a couple weeks later, with the South African Brigade, incidentally. I'm sorry for this, I'll put it back. If you're interested in reading more about the Rhodesians in WW1 we have an article on it here. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all right, I do it all the time; they get a cameo in the OH and I assumed that you had referred to the SRs in the SA Brigade and that the 9th Division being in reserve on 1 July counted (I would treat the divisions in reserve as participants). I added a note next to the reference to the 9th Div to put it into the text so I'd leave the flag in the infobox. I had the UK flag at the bottom of the list because it was alphabetical.Keith-264 (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The KRRC were in the 1st Division which didn't participate on 1 July.Keith-264 (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay well that settles it then. Thanks, sorry about the misunderstanding —Cliftonian (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At least some bugger reads it.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  9th Division 

message: "Anglo-French success" is what the recent sources conclude, particularly the ones which take any notice of what the Germans thought about it. Keith-264 (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was also the best day for the French army since trench warfare began, the Sixth Army took the world record for the distance advanced in one day. Look at the sources.Keith-264 (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong, all I wanted to point out is that calling the day an "Anglo-French success" does not seem obvious (because it's somewhat contradictory that it's also called "Britain's worst day"). For example, one might add a footnote that explains why it's nevertheless considered a success. (As a Wikipedia editor, I have zero experience with military articles, but I did something similar at Lufthansa: There, the question when the company was founded is a matter of definition and therefore has not that one, easy answer everyone is happy with).--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the analysis section with the myths and legends of the Great War in mind which is why it's a list of historians' verdicts, mostly recent ones; the analysis section is one long footnote. There's no doubt that the attack north of the Albert-Bapaume road was a disaster but the success south of it has only been emphasised in English sources comparatively recently.Keith-264 (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Depends which "sources" (or published books as most of us call them) you read. I remember reading about the French limited success and XIII and XV Corps's partial, non-exploited success, as a schoolboy, many decades ago. None of that makes the day as a whole an Allied success, especially relative either to what Haig was aiming (or hoping) to achieve (breakthrough in the north, Gough pushing through to Bapaume and thence to Arras) or to what could have been achieved had it been better planned, and nor does the fact that Falkenhayn shuffled some reserves around. The horrendously bloody fighting of later July, the worst month for British casualties in the war, and in which the Germans were never quite as near to defeat as the British generals believed, but which were also costly for the Germans and at least led to Verdun being wound down, is perhaps a different story and worthy of a degree of rehabilitation, but calling 1 July an out-and-out Allied "success" is going too far, and the books (sorry, "sources") do not say any such thing. Glad to see some sense has been restored to this conclusion since I last looked at it.Paulturtle (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox conclusion: Really an Anglo-French "success"? 

message: The article currently reads that "for Newfoundland, the first day of battle changed the course of the island's history, ending any hope of independence." Could this be elaborated a bit more? How is the Somme battle connected to the independence of Newfoundland?--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That was added before the big expansion and revision a few months ago, so it will need someone with better sources than me to address I'm afraid.Keith-264 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  the source is here http://www.batteryradio.com/Pages/BHamel.html Keith-264 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect on Newfoundland 

message: * It is well known that British forces attacking had been told that the German wire had been cut by the artillery fire, but they found much of the German wire still intact. This should be put into the text, and say when and where this happened. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the wire was cut south of the Albert–Bapaume road where the British and French succeeded, there's lots of detail here and in the main articles about the wire north of the road.Keith-264 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wire not cut 

message: I have heard of documentaries that the British Army had a lot of soldiers who were under the legal age, and that a large number formed part of the 57,470 casualties on the first day of the Somme. It seems an interesting thing to point out, if anyone has a RS that discussed it.66.77.160.179 (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: They were combed out in 1915.Keith-264 (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underage soldiers 

message: *Buire: is this Buire-Courcelles, Buire-sur-l'Ancre, or neither?
*La Neiville: likewise, is this La Neuville-lès-Bray, La Neuville-Sire-Bernard, or neither?
*Foucaucourt: Foucaucourt-Hors-Nesle, Foucaucourt-en-Santerre, or neither?66.77.160.179 (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!66.77.160.179 (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations 

message: Keith,
you reinserted this term, and noted that it is sourced from the official history. Okay, but what is an "iron ration"? If the term is to remain, and cannot just be lumped under the term "ration", then I feel that it needs to be explained; as to the layman, it makes no sense.66.77.160.179 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: see here.Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "iron ration" 

message: *"Herbstschlacht": is undefined in the article, as well as the linked Second Battle of Champagne article. What does this mean? Cheers66.77.160.179 (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Autumn Battle Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation needed 

message: Thanks for your attention to the article. Can you point me towards a WP on when to use < br > and < br / > pls. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Help:Line-break handling.  is always best; a few others almost always work, but note the "As of April 2019" note there where  breaks some syntax highlighters. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, It's about time I learnt. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: This article takes place in France, SI units should be primary per Wiki Manual of Style and consistent throughout the article. Avi8tor (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: National exception. Keith-264 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  SI Primary 

message: "in German and French writing, the first day of the Battle of the Somme has been little more than a footnote to the mass losses of 1914–1915 and the Battle of Verdun." Need to find the source (Philpott?) Keith-264 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a bit hyperbolic anyway. Suspect that more accurate to say that German and French historiography is more focussed on the Battle of Verdun. And why would French writers concern themselves as much with the British on the Somme when they were largely not involved, nor the Germans for whom it wasn't as significant as 100 days. Certainly not something for the lede GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing passage and citation 

message: The endnote says "Companies were arranged in columns of platoons, creating four platoon waves 70 yd (64 m) apart." is that distances between each platoon front to back or separation between columns? I'm assuming here that what's described is each company forms a single column from its four platoons (we prob shouldn't assume reader knows a company is four platoons and that there aren't any companies with 8 platoons formed into two columns). We might also mention where the HQ platoon goes in the sequence (leading from the front?) This is where a picture could help GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactical Developments section - British 

message: The infobox or Battlebox wrongly says 7,000 French losses on 1 July 1916, however I have read the article content, and there is no mention of that number in the body. Only 1,590 losses. I'm fixing this.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look it up, it probably comes from Whitehead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong French casualties. 

message: Please note that the WP article comma says "Long coordinate clauses are nonetheless usually separated by commas". I don't think you should remove such a comma without a good reason. Chris the speller yack 16:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki is not a source especially on matters of grammar and syntax, especially when Americans and English English lit grads can meddle. If you feel tempted to punctuate a conjunction then the sentence needs re-writing. My authority is Eng lang O level 1978. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comma before a long coordinate clause 

message: Hi ! According to the content of this article, there are 4,000 german soilders captured by french and 2000 german soilders captured by english. 
I think Ralph Whitehead' s 6,300 german losses is incorrect. Waylon1104 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Keith-264 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, thanks for asking. In Volume II of his book he added an appendix describing his research into German casualty records (the ones that weren't sacrificed to waste paper drives in the Second World War or destroyed by the Potsdam bombing in 1945). On page 476 he wrote
He included a CD with the Verlustlisten he used. Keith-264 (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

text: I've altered the passage in the article and put the quote in. Where authorities differ it is customary to use a range of lowest to highest rather than try to arbitrate between them. I think that Whitehead's research is sound but that is of no consequence to the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  German casualties 

message: Hi .It's me again. According to the 10 pages of William Philpott's book. He said french had captured 6,000 POW in the first assault. Does the assault only include the first day? Waylon1104 (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  German POW 

message: In this articel stand: On the north bank the XIV Reserve Corps to the Ancre stand the Guard Corps (General Karl von Plettenberg) with three divisions held the ground north of the Ancre opposite Serre and Gommecourt.
This is wrong - german Guard Corps stand on the left flank of 2nd Army in opposite to french 10th Army in south of the somme between Andechy to Lassigny.
Opposite Serre and Gommecourt stand another corps with 111. Inf-Div and Parts of 2nd Gard-Reserve-Division--Kleombrotos (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check my maps Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  German 2nd Army