Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Villers-Bocage/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Copyedit notes

Usual form; questions etc below. EyeSerenetalk 11:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Background

  • I've trimmed much of the Perch stuff from the start of this section - I think due to its complexity, it's difficult to summarise adequately and we've got the link to the main article anyway. However, please rv if you disagree ;)
    Looks alright so far.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Morning fighting

  • The note re the three Stuarts has a reference - After the Battle magazine - that doesn't seem to be properly listed in the refs section or anywhere else.
    Ill add that in a mo.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    Just noted that the magazine is already listed: "After the Battle Magazine (2006). Issue 132. After the Battle Magazine. After the Battle."; with no editorial name i have just used the magazine's name so it does display a little funky. So we have "authors surename", the year, title, series title and the publisher displayed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    Cool, that should be enough EyeSerenetalk 13:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Not really part of this section, but while I'm thinking of refs, is http://w1.183.telia.com a WP:RS?
    I would argue it is; it appears to be copyrighted by a reliable historian, Zetterling, who has had a number of books released plus all sources used on the website are mentioned.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    OK, np. I wondered if it was the Zetterling ;) EyeSerenetalk 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    I think it is.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What rank was Dyas?
    Am gonner have a busy weekend studying and writing an assingment but when i get a moment i will add it in.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    It's ok, I ran across it while looking up something else. EyeSerenetalk 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    Nice one.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Who was Charles Pearce? A rank or position would be helpful. Also, is this the same person as the Charles Pierce mentioned later in this section?
    Likewise, also i dont believe their was another guy out there with a similar name who was so high profile so i think ive made a typo. I will check the spelling too to find out which variant is correct.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    They seem to be the same Pearce, according to the newsletter, so I'll save you some time and fix it myself.
    Chers
  • I'm not convinced about the Sharpshooter newsletter as a source - wouldn't the recollections of the troopers qualify as primary source material? It may be ok, as long as we're careful about how we attribute.
    Yes i believe it would qualify as primary source material due to it being letters/comments etc sent into the regiments newsletter. I think this usage should fall within the guidelines; it has been published (the guidelines not a reliable source i.e. uni press or mainstream newspapers however i think this regmental newsletter should be covered by this too) and has on the whole been used mostly for descriptive purposes - i dont believe it has stepped outside the guidelines and to be used in an analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative manner etc (if i have understood the guidelines correctly).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    I believe that's right. Since we're using it to cite what the troopers recollect, I think it should be fine - just wanted to double-check with you ;) EyeSerenetalk 14:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

  • I have a feeling that the Propoganda section might sit better at the start of the Analysis section. Can I give this a try?

Analysis

  • Major point: the lead claims that recent historiography has looked at the change in German tactics as the reason for the offensive's failure. However, this isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. I'd have thought it belongs in this section, so until we get something in here about that, I'll comment it out in the lead.
    I have reviewed all changes made thus far and am very happy with what has occured, sorry i havent been around the last few days but life got in the way. I will consult my sources and with Keith on this issue.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    No problem :) Other than the lead and this issue, I'm about done anyway. I'll keep checking back. EyeSerenetalk 18:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

The effect that the German foiling of the British attempt to lever Panzerlehr out of Tilly by doing the V-B gig is decribed in the conclusion but I'm curious about a forestalling of any German opportunity to counter-attack at Tilly with the forces that ended up at V-B. Does anyone know of sources which discuss British defensive arrangements in the area?Keith-264 (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall reading anything specifically about that. I'm certain (given the offensively-minded nature of the German strategy at that time) that the redeployment of German forces caused by the thrust at Villers-Bocage forestalled something, but what I've no idea. I'll recheck my sources though. EyeSerenetalk 07:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering the strength of Panzerlehr and the reinforcements approaching I doubt they'd have been content to hold ground if there was an alternative. I like the revisions to the article, particularly the historiographical analysis of the Wittmann propaganda and its exploitation since by both sides. I found it reminiscent of the way the story of the Battle of Jutland was told by the Admiralty soon after it, compared to the use the Germans made of it. That said it shows how far gone the Germans were in the days after D-Day that they could only muster a propaganda victory.Keith-264 (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont recall seeing anything in my sources about this sort of thing however one should look to be aware of this battle as being part of the larger operation. On top of which to me it seems that the Germans did not hold the initative they were reacting to the advances made by the British and Americans; any notion of counterattack came when II SS PanzerCorps arrvied.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
...and then it remained a notion ;) There was 21st Panzer's post-D-Day attempt to split the British and Canadians, and 12th SS Panzer had a good go when they arrived, but thanks to the Allied pressure I can't recall any 'proper' German offensives that actually went off even remotely as planned between those local efforts and Mortain. The succession of German commanders in Normandy certainly seemed to arrive at a realistic assessment of their position rapidly enough, so who can say how much of the constant planning for counterattacks that never took place was just to appease Berlin? EyeSerenetalk 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about it more from the British pont of view - the importance to Monty of not allowing the Germans a sniff of an opportunity. I get the impression from the British deployment at Tilly that this was the 'schwehrpunkt' and that the move of part of 7th Armd Div round the flank was not intended to compromise the effort elsewhere, that it was more of an attempt to trigger a German retreat than to bulldoze them. Closing the gap made by the 1st Inf Div also guarded against the Germans going the other way. As it was the fighting around V-B consumed German resources and engaged German reinforcements. As we know (being groovy through hindsight) the encounter battle at V-B and the Brigade Box depleted one of the Germans' most powerful armoured formations (101HSSPzA) as well as distracting some of the 2nd PzDiv and parts of the PZL Div. I also wonder if we underestimate the weather as a factor - it pops up like a deus ex machina rather than being a permanent presence. All that said, with what we know now, could a Brigade Group have done any better?Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think when we look back on the information available on this battle we can see how the fighting was downplayed and the defeat of the 7th Armoured Division being overplayed. Only recently have we managed to gain new books detailing the battle in a more accurate light (although not perfect) but it seems there has yet to be a look at the battle within the bigger picture, i.e. 7th Armoured Division’s actual objective and how that figured in Perch, what the objective of the German reinforcements was, where the Germans planning a counterattack or was their attitude purely defensive, how much of an impact did this battle really have on both sides and the campaign?

To be honest I think the battle is overrated; we have, for example, accounts from Kurt Meyer detailing how he ambushed and destroyed numerous tanks soon after D-Day etc It appears these sort of things happened on a fairly regular basis so in the end what is really so important about this battle? A loss opportunity to capture Caen? I think this last premise is completely unfounded, the operations goal was to encircle the city and with I Corps advance halted could have a strung out XXX Corps really have achieved that objective when we consider it would be encircling three armoured divisions who were still combat effective?

I think so too. The quick capture of Caen still appeals to many writers as the way to advance in the east without a great attritional battle or as a demonstration of Anglo-Canadian feebleness. Perhaps there's also been a bit of jealousy of the 7th Armd Div as well. Considering that it was equipped with Cromwells I would have thought that it would not be seen as a battering-ram, rather a latter-day cavalry force to exploit a success rather than make one.Keith-264 (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is wandering off-topic, but it's an interesting question as to whether or not 7th Armoured (or any Allied armoured division for that matter) was actually equipped to a standard that would let it be used as a battering-ram. I know historians have plenty to say about the relative qualities of German vs Allied tanks, and maybe if something as well-armoured as a Tiger had been available to the Allies they could have pressed home that type of offensive, but I have to confess I'm sceptical. The Soviet heavies were undoubtedly effective, but didn't prevent huge losses (of a type the Brits particularly couldn't have sustained) when attacking on the Eastern front. EyeSerenetalk 17:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The organisation of westender armies does rather look like they were built to erode German fighting power with artillery while the tanks and infantry manoeuvred under its cover rather than by armoured duelling. The big German tanks look to me to be the 1944 version of the line of 88's that thwarted the Anglo-French attack at Arras in 1940. On the whole the fighting in Europe after 1941 looks more and more like 1916 with knobs on.Keith-264 (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

FA review

Moved the following here for now in an attempt to tighten up and trim the background section. EyeSerenetalk 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The pincer's eastern arm would consist of I Corps's 51st (Highland) Infantry Division and the 4th Armoured Brigade. These formations would strike out of the Orne bridgehead—the ground gained east of the Orne by the 6th Airborne Division during Operation Tonga—towards Cagny, 6 miles (9.7 km) to the southeast of Caen. XXX Corps would form the pincer's western arm; the 7th Armoured Division would swing east, crossing the Odon River to take Évrecy and the high ground, Hill 112, near the town. refname=Trew22, refname=Pg247 (Ellis, p. 247)

Agte info

Wittmann's 2nd Company consisted of three platoons. I. Zug (1st platoon) made up of Tigers 211 (Ostuf. Jürgen Wessel), 212 (Uscha. Balthasar Woll), 213 (Hscha. Hans Höflinger) and 214 (Uscha. Karl-Heinz Warmbrunn). II. Zug (2nd platoon) made up of Tigers 221 (Ustuf. Georg Hantusch), 222 (Uscha. Kurt Sowa)), 223 (Oscha. Jürgen Brandt) and 224 (Uscha. Ewald Mölly). III. Zug (3rd platoon) made up of Tigers 231 (St.O.Jk. Heinz Belbe), 232 (Uscha. Kurt Kleber) 233 (Oscha. Georg Lötsch) and 234 (Uscha. Herbert Stief),[68][10] although Lieutenant Wessel in Tiger 211 was sent off to establish contact with the Panzerlehrdivision, and Tiger 233 was suffering from track damage and 234 from mechanical failure.[17]

Two questions; all other sources point to most of the entire battalion being non-functional and Wittmann having 6 tanks with him at V-B- one of which was sent off to make contact with the panzerlehr; where does these other 6 tanks come from? Edit: to clarify Tigers 212, 213, 214, 224, 231, and 232. No other source places them at V-B; does Agte?

Additionally what do all the abbreivations mean?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No Agte does not contradict your sources. What triggered me to start expanding this section is the sentence "Wittmann's 2nd Company consisted of..." and that the article stated that two other Tigers were either unserviceable or not present. I felt that the section should state what his authorized strength was, listing all the Tigers and all unserviceable tanks. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to say cheers the other day for you addressing the questions raised and sorting out the rank issue.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ostuf= oberscharführer uscha unterscharfüher hascha = hauptscharführer all SS ranks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully quick C/E

I think I'm far enough away from this article to give it a quick c/e and suitably 'accessiblise' it. First question - where were the five battlegroups of 84 corps reserves originally from, and who destroyed them? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But the strong German doctrinal instint for such counter-attacks led to attempts on D plus 1 to repeat Battle Group Meyer's attack with the last remaining available LXXXIV Corps reserve, Mobile Brigade 30 (mobile on bicyles), which was liekwise effectively destroyed north of Bayeux. Counting this last attack, three battle groups of 352nd Infantry Division had been smashed by the British from Gold, and a further two by the Americans frm Omaha, producing the brief gaping hole in the German centre on 8 June that became the known as the Caumont Gap.

Buckley, p. 59

To note, Battle Group Meyer is described on p. 58 as part of LXXXIV Corps reserve; no mention of the parent unit. To me it looks like the text implys that BG Meyer and Mobile Brigade 30 are part of 352nd Div however they dont show up on their OOB: 352nd Infantry Division (Germany).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Enigma. I'm guessing there's a village called Caumont somewhere there? PS, where I adjust text, can I ask you and EyeSerene to check that refs match slightly adjusted statements? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
That would be Caumont-l'Éventé; it is a town south of Bayeux and west of Villers-Bocage. Ill double check the refs following your changes and adjust were needed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

german tank casualties

  • "Michael Reynolds records the loss of six Tigers and two Panzer IVs, that were found knocked out in the town following the battle." 8 tanks which were found. maybe only 8 destroyed????????????????
  • "Forty notes that up to six Tigers and three Panzer IVs were knocked out during the fighting" 9 tanks , similar to reynolds.
  • Bayerlein reports 6 tigers lost. consense with forty and reynolds

but the infobox says 8-15 , how can this happen? because we start bias modus now

  • delaforce says 15 tanks destroyed
  • taylor says the british !!!!!CLAIMED!!!!! 14 tanks destroyed.

its obvious for everybody with brain that delaforce high likly means the same claims.

  • Immediate claims are nearly always exagrated. the guys are nervous shooting on empty tanks counting them twice, everybody knows this. claims of the troops arent usefull when there are other numbers avaible. they counted 8 tanks . TANKS ARE HUGE MACHIENES THEY CANT MISS THEM

including the immediate claims of british soldiers in the infobox while better numbers are available is absolutly bias. u want a featured article with this shit? unbelievable....

from the article "He recorded a radio message on the evening of 13 June, describing his role in the morning's fighting and claiming that later counterattacks had destroyed an entire British armoured regiment and infantry battalion" , wittmann claims the destruction of a amoured regiment this must be writte in the infobox like the british claims. or not ENIGMA??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.148.111 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


Considering Delaforce does not make any mention of the words "claimed" or how his figures break down, or what his sources are everything is assumption on your behalf to conclude the figures are basis, made-up, or include over-claimed knocked out tanks.
If you read the full extract from Taylor's work he states these three regiments claimed x number of tanks knocked out, then concedes that these tanks were in fact hit but most immobilised - he is not suggesting that these are overclaimed figures; it is all in the casualty section. His figure shows a comprehensive look at how many tanks the British disabled. To also note his figure is less than Delaforce's.
As for Wittmann's claim; its actually disproved by facts on the ground and various sources consulted - there is no need to present the destruction of an entire armoured regiment (~60 tanks) or infantry battalion (7-1,000 men) as an answer when there are no relibable sources suggesting the same.
Wittmann never claimed this. In the interview which is printed in full in Agte, he stated that he believed to have destroyed 21 amoured vehicles (including tanks), the exact number he doesn't know and needs to be counted. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
In regards to your other concern over German losses; we have a full answer - the range of men lost from the Waffen-SS and KNOW that the Panzer-Lehr and 2.Panzer losses are unknown - again this explained in the casualty section so what is in the infobox is as accurate as possible.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, has terminological inexactitude reappeared? Plenty of tanks on both sides were 'knocked out' in the sense that they became U/S. some of these were also written off as 'destroyed'; many more are recorded as 'under repair', some were back in action next day and some weren't. It seems far more revealing to look at the number of tanks recorded as 'operational' and compare this to the number just before D-Day to see the fluctuation in the number of tanks available than to engage in sterile numbers games.Keith-264 (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agte on page 203 goes into great detail listing the losses on the German side. The heavy Panzer battalion lost 6 Tiger tanks and Panzer-Lehr lost 2 of the 10 it deployed. German personnel losses are named in person for the heavy Panzer battalion (differentiating between KIA and wounded). The human losses for Panzer-Lehr are not quantified. If the English sources indicate 15 tanks lost, can we at least add a footnote stating that German records constitute for 8 losses only? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is 'loss' defined?Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I would kindly remind you to check out the article; one source states 15 tanks, one sources breaks down the claims by each regiment to 14 and the 7th Armoured Division themselves post war only claimed 9. I have no problem with adding in an additional source and the inital line of the German tank casualty paragrah can easily be changed to also incorparate Agte - Reynolds claims only 8 tanks lost as well.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Nice job! I like the way the discrepancies are being represented now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Panzer Lehr officer name typo

A typo has just been noted, in the one paragraph a Major Wenck becomes Major Wenke; the latter was used twice and the former once. I have so far changed Wenck to Wenke but i do not have access to the source: The Desert Rats: 7th Armoured Division, 1940-1945 by Robin Nielands.

I will check this out sometime next week, unless someone else has access to this book; i have checked out google books and onere is no snippet view or preview. Google searches just turn up results for this page or foriegn versions etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wenke seems to be the prevailing version in what I could find (though I don't have that specific book either). EyeSerenetalk 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
According to the book by Ritgen, Helmut (2004). Westfront 1944. Stuttgart, Germany: Motorbuch Verlag. ISBN 3613024098. his correct rank and title is Major i.G. (im Generalstab—in the general staff) Berend? Werncke. The picture shown here is also published in the book MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I will not have access to Neillands' book until next week, possibly tomorrow, but i would suggest throwing in a ref from Ritgen's book and changing the name to the way he spells it; the logic being there both German, there both from the same division Ritgen is most likely going to have it correct.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems i just plain old cocked the name up; Neillands has it as Werncke too.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

FA

Sorry to see this didn't get promoted guys. I'm unsure of what to suggest, as personally I think it's a solid article. It's hard to balance 'inaccessibility' vs too much detail, but I think this article's got it right. Given that you've managed to dig up a great deal of information, it would be a shame to lose it. I started Copy editing the article, but I think EyeSerene does a far better job so I've stopped now (don't worry, EyeSerene, you didn't edit conflict!), plus the more people who do quick c/e's, the greater the risk of the article's prose suffering. All I can really suggest is a peer review (seeing as the last one was almost 2 years ago) or maybe an A Class review to get the article up a step.

Only other thing I can think of (and I imagine I'll get some light hearted flak for this as I originally suggested it), is that the casualties section is now very detailed. I only really imagined combining the 4 notes into one section originally and while Enigma's done some brilliant research, the section is now quite complex and perhaps not in the same 'flow' as the rest of the article. Got the flak jacket on...

Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your last-minute help was greatly appreciated, Steve, thank you very much. I think you're right that prose can sometimes suffer from dip-in copyediting but that's no fault of anyone's, more an effect of the time factor involved when everyone dives in to help try to beat a deadline. Personally I'd much rather have the help than not... we just ran out of time was all :)
Now the pressure's off, I'm intending to go over the article again in a week or two so I'm coming to it fresh. The PR idea is a good one I think; I suggested something similar to Enigma yesterday. However, if you've got any comments or want to fix bits of the prose you see as unclear, please do! There's no rush, and Tony's comment about us being too close has some justification. Don't worry about the overall prose flow - I can polish that later if necessary. Thanks again! EyeSerenetalk 08:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I consider the article quite good. However before I approve this article I would want to add more information pertaining to the German point of view. I find the background on 1st and 2nd company of the heavy Panzer battalion 101 slightly insufficiently covered. Especially since the section on analysis criticizes Wittmann for his actions. While I don't want to challenge this criticism I do feel it appropriate to elaborate a bit more on the situation he was forced into. The area he was in was under constant naval artillery fire, his tanks needed an overhaul, etc. He was not expecting to face the enemy at that point in time and the alley he had positioned his tanks in was chosen for concealment and to do maintenance on them. The article lists one tank as having a mechanical problem, which is true but not to the extend indicated in the article, the engine was prone to overheating, also not mentioned so far is that Villers Bocage was actually occupied by a German first aid/field hospital unit prior to the attack. I then checked the story about Major Werncke whose name was misspelled. All said I want to further investigate and expand the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe at least one source i have looked at said that the Sani boys had already taken off before the Brits showed up. Other sources including the tankers and Robin Neilands talk of combat troops occupying the town when they turned up i.e. them coming under machine gun and fire fire from second floor buildings. Another source mentions a sniper being killed when the shell fired at the B Squadron firefly missed and hit the building behind it.

There are multiple sources saying there was or there was not a handful of men in the town; we can add a note however...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

analyse

nice text about the flaws of the tank commander who destroyed many tanks and equipment

erickson says this: ...."extremly good tactical handling "..."absolut masterpiece of individual tank fighting" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.144.3 (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

German forces stationed in V-B prior to the battle

Since this has been brought up;

Off the top of my head Neillands' and the tankers themselves, via the newsletters, make mention of the German troops and possibly some snipers being within the town when they arrvied. Am a little reluctant to use the latter for this due to it being a primary source and i will report back what exactly Neillands does state when i check out his book again - hopefully tomorrow.

The other sources:

  1. History of the 7th Armoured Division (the divisional history) does not make any note of contact with German forces prior to the ambush bar those encountered by the Hussars.
  2. Wilmot states only 2 Germans - who fled in a hitlermobile - and French civvies were encountered when the British entered the town.
  3. D'Este notes only the ambush being the first contact
  4. Delaforce states the ambush was the first contact and uses two first hand accounts that make no mention of Germans in the town
  5. Fortin also gives the same account - the ambush being the first contact
  6. Beevor states the only forces met during the advance and capture of the town was the 8-wheeled scout car; afterwhich the only German forces encountered was the Tiger ambush.
  7. Forty notes that according to Germans sources two medical companies and the Panzer Lehr's ambulance platoon had established a dressing station and hospital within the town but thats the only mention of them. Other than that he mentions the armoured car that got away and the ambush as the only other German contacts.
  8. Taylor, as far as i can see, does not make any mention of medical personal or any German troops within the town prior to the ambush.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just checked out Neillands' work and there is no mention of German medical troops or other German forces in the town prior to the ambush; my memory appears to be a tad faulty.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review

I am here at the request of EyeSerene to have a read through and review of the article to see if I can pick up on anything before the article has another stab at FAC. Overall, I find this an excellent article and fascinating read. I do have some suggestions, however, which are as follows:

  • Lead
    • "during the night of 14–15 June" - per MoS a night period date should be presented with a slash rather than an endash. eg. "14/15 June".
    • The wikilink to Normandy Landings should be moved up to the mention in the first paragraph. This would also remove the need for the information in the brackets.
    • In general, the lead is written and structured very well. However, it is a little long and if there are any minor details that are not so necessary for inclusion I would recommend it be cut down a little.
  • Background
    • "Armoured was now to exploit the Caumont Gap" - It is preferable that sentences do not begin with a numeral.
    • Addressed this one and changed armoured to armour; seems more gramatically correct as the latter.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Planning
  • Morning fighting
    • "called a conference on Point 213 and attended by all officers and senior NCOs of A Company." - I think this sentence requires tweaking. Is this meant to mean that the conference was attended by the personnel of A Company?
  • Late morning and the fighting on Point 213
    • "arrived and began to round up isolated British tankers and riflemen" - are the numbers of the captured British known?
      • Taylor p. 42 - no figure is given but does state that 30 riflemen, who had not made it to the point but were along the main road, did manage to escape during the day and following night. Taylor p. 56 - 30 men from the Sharpshooters, some badly wounded, and later joined by men from the rifle brigade, men from the RHA and other infantry.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • "30 members of the County of London Yeomanry" - same issue as above with starting sentences with numerals.
  • Casualties
    • The final sentence in the second paragraph is uncited.
    • Due to the related nature of the final two paragraphs in this section, and the relative shortness of the former, I would recommend they be combined.
  • Notes
    • There is inconsistency in the presentation of citations, with some including the author's surname, while others have the surname and the publication year. This should be made consistent.

I hope these are of some use. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

      • The only time it has been used is when it been authors of the same name and multiple sources used; i.e. Buckley and Hastings. Regardless of this, we should edit all other refs and add the year in?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Abraham, B.S., your review is very helpful and greatly appreciated! Re the names/dates, Enigma is right - it's used to resolve potential confusion between refs to more than one work by the same author (but not needed where there's no confusion). We'll get to work on your other points :) EyeSerenetalk 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
A little overdue but i have just worked through these; thanks for the review.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
You are most welcome. :) Regarding the citations, I presumed this was the case. However, it is always best to be consistent and this may be picked on. I tend to use Template:Harvnb for book cites, which gives the presentation of the author's surname, publication year and page(s), but also acts as somewhat of a link when clicked and takes one to the appropiate source in the "References" section. This is just something to think about with future articles; I would by no means recommend you go through and implement the template for this article—it would take hours! Lol. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

analysis POV

schneider is only one historian... the biggest part of analysis is critics against wittman, the article not even mentions that historians like erickson called his action cool. i mentioned this before it was ignored .... . write in the articles that other historians dispute schneiders opinion. now its POV. by the way its very weird that the guy who destroys more enemy ressources in one action than any allied tank commander in his career is so blamed for his action in the analyse. its like blaming a football player for missing the 7th goal after he shoot 6... . every military action can be critizised.... . very bias this part.... . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

the discription of the nook which is quoted for wittmanns failure : This is a controversial yet definitive work on the famous battle between 7th Armoured Division and the s.SS-Pz. Abt. 101"

even the discription says it a controversial book but the article takes this as the ONLY ONE source for the analyse of german actions, lol... i bet the author choose the worst opnion about wittman he could find, lol.... interessting is that this book is only used ONE time in this article , for wittmanns judgment. for the rest of the article the book was not good enough. POV at its best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me humour you; the largest part of the analysis section focuses the attention of critics on the British actions revolving around the battle not Wittmann. Since you have took the time to look up the book, and using its description to write it off, do you know who Henri Marie is? He was the definitive historian of the fighting at Villers-Bocage, he lived there and put allot of effort into recording what happened. Do you have evidence bar your opinion to dismiss the book as unqualified to use as a source? Also considering you looked it up, did you also decide to glance at the price and possibly consider that other than the book not being "good enough" for the rest of the article none of us own it, and the pieces of information provided have been donated via other editors?
Considering it would seem Schneider's opinion is not good enough for you - a new point considering prior to this your POV accusations have been aimed at the lack of German historians, here is one but its not good enough for you - he appears to be a well respected historian on the German panzer arm; his opinion clearly states that Wittmann's action may have been brave but it squandered an opportunity to take the British by surprise with overwhelming force. Do you have a source, page numbers etc that dismiss that Wittmann made errors on the day bar your opinion?
Erickson, would this be John Erickson? The only historian i could find on Amazon with that surname and he appears to have works mostly relating to the Eastern Front and none on Normandy nor Villers-Bocage; would you care to elaborate, provide page numbers etc instead of name dropping. Additional, war is not "cool" i seriously doubt any historian would claim such and if he did he is not a serious historian.
So as always, if you want to be taken seriously start providing information - book titles, authors, page numbers etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It would seem that it is infact the late Professor John Erickson you are on about (a British historian for anyone keeping track); but i still cant see what book these comments come from. What book of his are you talking about?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"He was the definitive historian of the fighting at Villers-Bocage, he lived there and put allot of effort into recording what happened" ,but u dont own the book? lol.... u are the biggest fan of the battle but u dont own the perfect book about this battle ^^ must be a very good book. and again its intersting that the judgment of wittmann is the only material which comes from this perfect book... i didnt say wittmann did no mistakes man READ WHAT I WROTE, no military action is perfect there are always improvements possible. i brought the example of the footballer shooting 6 goals but missing the 7th... . wittmann achieved more in one day that any allied tanker in the whole war but the analysis is critizising him completly.... ONLY one historian is cited. thats POV face it. u really have to learn reading what other people say.... about schneider: i cant find one book of him about panzer tactics or something else....


erickson said this in an interview about this battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.151.199 (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Until you grow up, learn to read what has been presented to you, stop provinding your own opinion and actually bring cited well supported information to the table - that has been requested from the get-go (months ago); there is no point contuining this line of conversation with you... --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
PS: It would appear that Schneider wrote a book on the very topic you were unable to find: Panzer Tactics.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

lol my opinion^^, when i tell u that erickson said this u call this my opinion ? u are the guy who has problems with reading what other people said. discussion ended because u dont want more than one opnion about wittmann ? its funny that nearly all british military actions were worse than this action but even when they lost huge number of ressources for nothing than u find good words in the analysis... look all your normandy articles . but wittmann gets complete negative assement. u are the king of POV .

by the way the entire article is your opinion u select the sources u review every edit of other people, u decide that wartime claims of allied soldiers come in the infobox which is totally uncommon on wiki, u decided that partial figures are only ok for allied casualties ( operation brevity opertation totalize ) and for german partial figures cant come to the box. u decide that unreliable historians are ok for the articles when they support your points of view, u only choose british historians or german when they support u . u are so funny to call a book perfect but only use the book one time , to critizise the guy who destroyed much british armor.... . if somebody would go to the articles of battle of cean and edit the analysis with other historians which say british totally failed and did bad u would revert it because u are the commander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


I never saw a article about a battle which involved more than one regiment and a battlion critizing or debatting over the decisions of an hauptsturmführer, hauptsturmfüher means he was a captain, this article invest such big text about critizing the actions of an CAPTAIN LOL.... . a captain who destroyed " 13–14 tanks, two anti-tank guns and 13–15 transport vehicles had been destroyed by the Heavy SS-Panzer Battalion 101, the vast majority being attributable to Wittmann" gets a complete negative judgment... . the article is a joke every serious historian will laugh if he reads your analyse section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my point :) Btw Wittmann was a Lt during this action ;) And if you have a problem with the Brevity article, take it up there.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"Most historians and commentators have been equally scathing about the British handling of the battle." equally?????? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

yes a leutnant lol even better , what a joke.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

the brevity articles has partial figures in the infobox , because the casualties of one unit are unknown while the others are known complete same situation like here with sSSpzAbt but here the casualties dont come to the box because u say so. if i wouuld go to the brevity article u would say "blabla this is my article i decide blabla" ...

and by the way your article says he was Oberleutnant...........


Please see: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles; All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.
That doesnt stop people from reverting vandalism however :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre FAC idea

IP editor, you might find Wikipedia a more enjoyable place to contribute if you make constructive comments and suggestions. Finding fault with an article, blaming it on an editor and rushing in with accusations of bias and skewed points of view is fairly offensive and unnecessary. If you think there is an issue with an article, then please share it but do so considerately and politely. Even if you had a valid point, you're likely to get peoples hackles up with the attitute above and then you won't get very far.

Anyway, as long winded as the posts above are, there might be a glimmer of a point. At the moment the Analysis section goes from the propaganda on each side to criticisms of Wittman in the next paragraph, and there isn't very much that's positive in there. The paragraph might open better with a summary of the praise that has been directed Wittmnan's way by historians, which will balance out the opinions of Schnieder. Something like (and this is just off the top of my head):

It was largely Wittman's actions that stopped the Allied attack in Villers-Bocage....So and so thinks Wittman was very good, Hastings descibed his attack as "one of the most devestating single-handed actions of the war".

I'm sure there must be more references in praise of his actions that could be added, but it doesn't need to be very long. I think it'll improve the section a wee bit. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've actually started to re-go through my sources today just to double check. At the moment however i only have access to my elctronic copy of Buckley's book; no kinds words to say other than it was audacious.
I think a few sentances already in the article can be moved around to be suit your suggestion Steve; do you have the full quote from Hastings at hand?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
As a start i have flipped around the first two paragraphs so that it runs on from the Germans propaganda - infulence on modern works - into the tactical critiasim of his actions. Additional comments can easily be fed in between i believe without breaking up the flow of the section although am not to sure with the section now opening on the British progranda; may need some work to iron out the creases lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that does anything to be honest... seems an odd way to open the analysis. I haven't reverted it though - I can't find the typo! I actually got the Hastings quote right (read it last night), it's on p132. Some others that might help:

  • Hart, Hart and Hughes (The German Soldier) describe it as "perhaps the most famous display of outstanding Waffen-SS combat performance...".
  • Lefevre (Panzers in Normandy) best line is that "There is no doubt that Wittman's largely single-handed initiative stopped a British armoured thrust which could have resulted in the encirclement of Panzer Lehr Division."
  • Another book I recently picked up when it was 80% off in Borders(!) called "In the Heat of Battle, A history of those who rose to the occasion and those who didn't" gives him his own section in the "A constant thread of Valour" chapter. Mainly descriptive rather than analytical, but does say "Together with his little group of Tigers, he had completely blunted Montgomery's attack". Now ordinarily I wouldn't bother using this, but I thought I'd mention it because it actually gets the facts of Wittman's actions that day correct!

Ranger Steve (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The more I read of V-B the more unimpressive it looks (as does most of the writing). A Brigade Group was never going to undo PzLehr. It was also never expected to have an effect in isolation. At best it would take a tactically advantageous position somewhere near V-B that would make the subsequent fighting harder for the Germans, tilting the balance of attrition further against them. The idea that it could have taken the Germans to the cleaners and captured Caen if only the 7th Armd Div had had the bottle is ridiculous. Consider also why Wittmann's detachment was able to spring the ambush - because the column had stopped to sniff out the situation beyond pt 213. Had they bashed on there would have been a real disaster because Wittmann and Co were already there. They were half deployed when the Tigers attacked which is why in the photos you see lots of half-tracks and Bren carriers but do you see any corpses? Wittmann and the other four or five Tigers undoubtedly brought off a tactical success but then got shot to pieces trying to exploit it. I really think it unwise to allow facile comments by writers using secondary and tertiary sources to dominate the article. Stopping the story with Wittmann's swan into the town rather than describing the course of events before the Brigade Group was withdrawn falls into the hands of the 'declinist' school. I think we need at least a paragraph on what was ging on in the rest of the division and 50th Infantry Div around Tilly. Anyway did the Br-Grp retreat all the way to its start point or only to a less exposed position?Keith-264 (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Am in the same school of thought as you are Keith; this is a rather unimpressive battle and i think it has too much attention attached to it. Imo for the enterprise to work it would have required an entirely different battleplan from XXX Corps and had the Brigade group went further would have most likely came unstuck; the ability of the Panzer Lehr to send in ad hoc battle groups, the entire 101st battalion and 2nd Panzer en route. Now yes the 7th Armour prob would have outnumbered them tank wise but would have been stretched out and with too few infantry to support. I dont think Caen was reachable via this hook.
As for the withdrawal, i believe it was a mile down the road.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Steve has made some useful suggestions and the critical commentary re Wittman probably does need some balance, though we'll need to be careful about how we present it. Becuase we've noted that historians like Hart, D'Este, Simpson etc have been criticised for apparently being influenced by the German propoganda accounts and 'bigging up' Wittman, any subsequent laudatory quotes need to be in this context (ie who's credible and who isn't) EyeSerenetalk 15:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree; I believe the Hart, Hart and Hughes (One Hart being Stephen and the other being the other Hart mentioned by Buckley?), along with the Hasting's comment provide the "positive commentry". Talk on the attack being the decsivie momment followed up by the Buckley dismissial, then the "most famous comment" followed on by the "devestating attack" comment with Schiender taking up the rear. That should show all levels and provide all sides of the comment. Some additional stuff may need to be moved around a bit as there a comment from Buckley regarding Wittmann's bravey and daring in launching such an attack.
I will be taking a further look through my other sources once i get home.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with you all. The German Soldier is indeed by Stephen Hart, Russell Hart (an American if that helps identify him) and Matthew Hughes. I'll add it in the bibliography- pages are 77 going onto 78. It's hard to know who's comments to use when they might themselves be drawing conclusions from duff gen, (that's the only reason I mentioned the other book above) but Enigma's layout above looks good. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

'Clash of Arms: How the Allies Won in Normandy' by R. Hart?Keith-264 (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Enigma, I meant the withdrawal after the 'B of the Brigade Box'. Did the BG go back all the way it came?.Keith-264 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, as far as i know back the way they came; that was on the evening of the 14th after they had gave the hun a damn good thrashing! pip pip old boy! :p --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


wittmanns bravery was outstanding his achievements were outstanding his military skill as tank commander was outstanding, his military desicions after the first battle were not perfect maybe bad his leadership was not perfect maybe bad... bring this in the analyse if u want to discuss the actions of a first leutnant. this is neutral... bring the positiv opinions about him to support his action and bring schneider to discuss his desicions after the first battle.... . the analysis now is totally crap...

@steve i brought my point weeks ago, nothing happened . i said that there are other historians with other opinions but nothing happened... this article is POV thats a fact... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.138.73 (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Further copyediting

I'm in the process of making another ce pass; comments etc below. EyeSerenetalk 13:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Clarified the Background section a bit (and tried to sex up the prose a little too...)
  • Footnoted and trimmed the details of Wittmann's platoon; I think it's too much information for the article body.
  • Possible inconsistency; a count of Wittmann's platoon gives 12 tanks, but Taylor (in the previous footnote) gives 14 per company.
  • Is it worth mentioning the notorious mechanical unreliability of the Tiger I in relation to the Heavy SS-Panzer Battalion 101's strength on 13 June? I'm not sure it's that relevant, but others may differ (I think Hastings mentions a quote from a British tanker saying that the best way to knock out a Tiger is to get it to move then wait for it to break down, but I can't remember what that was in relation to).
    Do them being mechanically crap i would presume :p The first one in Africa iirc seized up. I will look into the possible inconsistency later for you.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    Yes indeed. We have a paper strength of 45, and a combat strength of 17, for 13 June. I was curious to know if we can say how many of the 28 losses sustained between Beauvais and the front were actually due to air action and how many were down to simply trying to make the things move. Re the inconsistency, thanks (though I don't think it's anything worth spending too much time over!) EyeSerenetalk 15:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Too many 'howevers' which should be avoided, particularly (with 'meanwhile') as the first word of a sentence. Too many commas, which are unnecessary either side of words like 'and', 'but' or 'or'. The last sentence of the introduction is too dogmatic. Propaganda ever since the gig is reminiscent of the news about Jutland; an engagement which was tactically indecisive, operationally a British success and a strategic defeat for the Germans being distorted by a skilfull publicity stunt.

The advice about making Tigers move came from the 8th Army in Italy.Keith-264 (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I have a bit of a blind spot with commas sometimes; I'll go through again looking for them, but please feel free to take out any you think shouldn't be there. I haven't addressed the lead yet - that needs to be considerably trimmed I think... it's next on my list. And thanks for pinning down that Tiger quote :) EyeSerenetalk 13:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a pompous page for pompous people, we'll have no commas here. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we're allowed up to twelvety according to the list of Precious Things. EyeSerenetalk 16:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Re 7th Armd/22nd Bde gp, in the Background section we have the entire division disengaging and making for Livry. Is that correct, or should it be only those elements Hinde took with him? EyeSerenetalk 14:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Keith love the reference! Eyeball: I will check out the sources tonight, I know I keep saying that so lets say ill do it sometime this weekend :p; off the top of my head the division disengaged in parts and was full committed to the gap by the time the Brigade group reached V-B. Ill check Taylor, Forty and their own div history to get better specifics if I can for you.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

On p. 256 the OH has 7th Armd '....stationed between the 50th Division and the Americans at Caumont.' So the BG disengaged from the Germans around Tracy Bocage and held a line roughly from La Belle Epine south to Livry. The map facing p. 256 has all of the 7th moving from the area round Tilly. P.254 has the advance to V-B being strictly tactical to menace the PzLhr, NOT an attempt to capture Caen. It's not explicit but it looks like the BG fell back on the infantry brigade at Livry.Keith-264 (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both :) Re menacing PzLehr, do we have any sources that discuss this in more detail? I too am not massively happy with the characterisation of the battle as a failed attempt to capture Caen. EyeSerenetalk 16:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OH p. 254, "....turning to their left they would seize the Villers-Bocage ridge from the west. Their capture of this high ground behind Panzer Lehr Division might compel its withdrawal or surrender." As usual the story is bedevilled by ulterior motives. As I've looked into the B of N, V-B looks less and less like a battle for Caen and more like a tactical manoeuvre. Keith-264 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. The altered Perch might originally have been intended to sweep around Caen, but that went out of the window fairly quickly. V-B could never have taken the city with the force committed - it does seem to be nothing more than taking advantage of a fluid situation to jockey for position. All being well, it might have caused PzLehr to withdraw and freed up the front around Tilly-sur-Seulles, or might perhaps have provided nothing more than a jumping-off point for further operations intended to pinch out the Tilly-s-S - V-B bulge if PzLehr didn't withdraw. Within the limits of the sources, I've tried to clarify things a little in the Dempsey's intentions part of the background. EyeSerenetalk 18:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought 'tactics' were military doings up to division and 'operations' the doings of corps and armies? Wouldn't this make it a German tactical success and an indecisive operation?Keith-264 (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Re 7th Arm Div Question

The divisional history has this to say:

Miday 12 attack at standstill. “The Divisional Commander, therefore, was ordered to disengage and attempt to...” move on VB

8th Hussars who had been watching the right flank led the advance followed by 4CLY, A1RB and then the rest of the brigade group “131 Brigade with the 1st Royal Tanks, were to step up behind the armour as required, and to be ready to do this by the morning of the 13th, by which time their remaining battalion, the 1/6th Queen’s Royal Regiment, was due to arrive.” (p. 35)

So the impression the 7th Arm staff give is that the entire division was pulled off the line with the 22nd leading and 131 trailing behind watching the rear. Btw some juicy details on the brigade box/island action that could be shoved into the Perch article.

Club route states the entire division was pulled from the line(p. 25) as does the short history of 30 corps(p.12)

Forty doesn’t seem to state if its the entire division being pulled off the line but does talk about 22nd bde advance and that at 0615, on the 13th, the vanguard of 131 bde arrived at la Paumière (p.50 (google map or google earth cant find it however it is around 1km NW of Livry on forty’s map (pp.48-49)))

Taylor states that the division was ordered to disengage from the fighting (p. 10), 131 bde was still moving to the front when its orders were cancelled and it was ordered to flank the Panzer Lehr with the rest of the division (p.11)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Operational victory?

Going off the refs in the article:

Wilmot: “Thus the fruits of the initial success, which might have been turned into a striking victory, were handed back to the enemy. Erskine’s troops gad suffered no defeat after the first costly encountere with the single Tiger, and i fBucknall had reinforced and persisted with the attack by 7th Armoured, he would have provided a series threat to the rear of Caen and would have forced Panzer Lehr to abandon the Tilly Sailent in order to help close the gap which the Americans had created at Caumont. This great opportunity of disrupting the enemy line and expanding the Allied bridgehead was lost not so much in the woods and orchards around Villers-Bocage, as in the Corps Commander’s mind.”(pp.310-311)

Here Wilmot supports the tactical indesivness of the battle however how does one sum up the rest – what was achieved by the German defence and the British withdrawal?

D’Este:

He calls the withdrawal (of the entire division back to friendly lines) as “necessary”. He quotes Dempsey as saying that as a result of the failure to hold the town “no chance now of a snap operation with airborne troops either to seize Caen or to deepen the bridgehead. It is clear now that Caen can be taken only by a set-piece assault...”(apparently also in Wilmot, p. 40 this latter comment)

General Kraemer is mentioned, he believed the opportunity to roll up I SS Panzer Corps flank was squandered. “the enemy had let a favourable opportunity slip”.

D’este goes on that there was now no open flanks to turn – the brief moment of German weakness had been missed and it was “to prove one of the costliest Allied mistakes” (pp.197-198) I think he has gone a little over the top there but anyhoo

Reynolds:

The failure of the operation resulted in the British having to launch multiple costly assaults to remove the Germans from the Caen area (p. 107)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting stuff but much of it looks like armchair generalship (or corporalship anyway). Kraemer may have felt that an opportunity had been let slip but Bucknall may have felt that a trap may have been neatly avoided. Did he ever comment? How about Erskine and Hinde? D'Este seems more judicious but strictly within the tired old cliche of the British and Canadians being a bit rubbish. Did he think that the Germans weren't going to make a fight of it somewhere? What was the effect of the gig on German capacity to continue qua Allied capacity? Clearly if the 101SSPzAbt lost half of its operational Tiger establishment for the rest of the campaign and PzLehr gave up Tilly with about 2/3 of its PzIV's non-operational and 75% of its Panthers u/s, the pongos did rather better than legend would have it.Keith-264 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Am sure i have Bucknall's opinion of matters somewhere - give me sometime to hunt them down. I meant to do rather allot to night but havent got around to it lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Does reynolds really use 'miltiple' as well as an 's' on the end of 'assault'?Keith-264 (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Keith that was just me, his exact wording is:
"...the failure of Perch inevitably neccessitated a series of extremely costly operations to remove the Germans from the Caen sector."(p.107)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

“Positive commentary” specifically in regards to Wittmann’s conduct and action

In no particular order, other than the order i pulled them off the shelf:

A.Beevor: “Erskine’s failure to provide ... reconnaissance screen in front, rather than ... flank..., led to one of the most devastating ambushes in British military history” (p.190) and also called it a “devastating ambush due to the lack of reconnaissance was certainly a shock”(p.195)

D’Este: “One of the most amazing engagements in the history of armoured warfare was about to begin”(p.179) “within the space of five minutes a single Tiger had devastated Cranley’s force and left behind a trail of wrecked and burning vehicles, the shattered leading elements of the 22” arm bde(p.181) – a nice contrast to Buckley’s statement that the engagement has been overrated but one should also note that this conflicts with the info in the article that only a few tanks from A Sqn were actually destroyed by Wittmann or his colleagues; so not precisely devastated (also to note Allied losses include captured tanks that were not knocked out hmmm)

Hubert Meyer: calls the use of panzers for combat within urban environments “obviously inexpedient”. He contuines “Since German infantry was not available, it was correct for Wittmann and Mobious to penetrate into the town with their Tigers...” (one should contrast this against the various mentions of German infantry bring committed to the town during the battle, but apparently not in support of the second assault) “.. in particular, while the enemy was still under the devasting impression of seeing his vanguard totally destroyed in such a short time”(p.235)

Delaforce: if 11 hussars had been allowed to recon ahead it was possible they would have detected the Tigers and “lessened the actual disastrous action” (p.36)

Wilmott and Taylor dont appear to pay any special attention to the ambush other than detailing what happened.

Forty concludes this description of the ambush with “from 4cly point of view, however, things could have been much worse”(p.66) When returning to the ambush later in the guides section his subsection is called “Wittmann’s Rampage” (p. 135)

Reynolds states, to compare to Meyer’s statement: “Not surprisingly Wittman now found himself in trouble – he was without infantry support and, as with any tank ina built-up area, highly vulnerable to short range eapons”(p.104) Nothing on a quick skimming that appears to pay any further attention or single Wittman out for praise etc

To sum up, some hyperbole and most not actually specifically talking about Wittman but the overall action.

Regarding Beevor’s comments, while i would caution against the word for word quoting of the worst ambush in 300 years of history unless this is also stated by at least another source. Mainly due to the fact its a rather bold claim: during the Second World War i can think of numerous examples that might be considered better alternatives. During 2 Alamien, technically this one might not be considered an ambush, an entire brigade was shot to shit charging a gun line (long story). In Goodwood the 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry WERE ambushed and lost 12 tanks in less time that this battle lasted for – the sabre squadron was knocked out. I have also read of similar happening in Italy when tanks swanning around were ambushed by AT guns Etc etc

To finish off i found this extra piece: 7th arm div history other than mentioning the ambush and the battle sums up the overall action as “As a resykt, there followed the brilliant defensive battle of Villers Bocage which, although if obliged us to withdraw some seven miles, cost the enemy casualties disproportionate to this gain.” (p.36) Seems, regardless of further post war claims during the various historical writing periods, the staff saw the battle as indesive.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: will work on finding that stuff on Bucknall next!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Who tell a lie, Willmot calls the ambush "costly" see the above section for the direct quote.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Badsey seems miffed; "narratives that contuine oast D-Day generally rush through this first week to pick up again at 13 June, with the remarkable but massively over-written action by" Wittmann.(Buckly,The Normandy campaign 1944 p. 48)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

means ambush the afternoon battle? cant understand beevors words...
is there any doubt that wittmanns afternoon actions were unclever? write it was tactical stupid to advance through the city against a prepared enemy while no informations was available! split the analys in morning and afternoon action...

for the reader it would be better to split the analysis of wittmann in moring and afternoon fighting.. he will wonder why some think it was "awesome" and schneider not, he will wonder about beevors statement ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That could be a posssiblity however Wittmann NEVER took part in the afternoon fighting and Schneider's comments are directed at his actions during the morning.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Bucknall

Only got chance to check out the two books on XXX Corps and there is nothing in there providing his point of view. More later ... much later.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

D'Este: "Bucknal did not believe the 151st Infantry Brigade ..., then in corps reserve, could have been sent to Villers-Bocage in time to affect the fight there, or that the two brigades of the 49th Division culd prepare for battle in time"(p. 191)

A little further information from the same page focusing on the 49th guys is in the Perch article. Most info however deals with Bucknall being unwillinig to keep 7th Arm out there and about the battle of 14 June, may not be relevent but i can type up the quotes etc if requested.

Monty had this to say of Bucknall: "could not manage a Corps once the battle became mobile..."(Forty, p. 106) Imo a quite powerful statement considering David French states Bucknal was one of Monty's protege.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Point 213 Sabre Squadron

Taylor, pp. 41,42, and 51: 9 tanks left following ambush, 3 tanks knocked out before the surrender.

Sowa claimed two tanks (p.42) and the third it seems is implied to have been knocked out by the reinforcements heading towards the hill (p.51). The remaining tankers attempted to alight the surviving tanks (p. 56) but it is implied the Germans overran the area before any real damage was done.

Forty also supports that nine tanks were left following the ambush(p. 68) but does not detail what happened to the rest.

Reynolds states that the surving tanks and men on the hill surrendered, but gives no tank numbers.(p. 104)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To note, Taylor states B Squadron only lost one tank (p. 76) everything else lost appears to be during the ambush or the attacks/surrender of the point.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

British infantry problems in VB

Gordon, the chappy in charge of the 1/7thQueens, is reported as stating to Hinde that unless he was reinforced his men would be overwelmed because "i was rapidly losing control of my companies because so many tank hunting parties were dispersed in the nearby houses" Reynolds then states "a sitaution not helped by the paucity of the radios in an infantry battalio at that time"(p. 106)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

could the flank attack have worked?

"Moreover, the notion that a reduced armoured brigade, with only limited mobile infantry and artillery support, could chieve a decisive penetration int he face of hardening opposition was optimistic."(Buckley, p. 25)

"In addition, the level of support required to pursue the operation effectively was not forthcoming.(Buckley, pp.25-26)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

tank casualties

we all know that its high likly that there were only 8 destroyed tanks and not more. we all know that the 8-13 means only that enigma wants wrong wartimeclaims in the infobox. the british only counted 8 destroyed after the battle so only 8 destroyed i dont think the germans took the burning tanks back but ok. so the other 7 are wrong counts or temporaly disabeld tanks. the german took 7 nearly destroyed tanks out of the battle^^ ( yes moronic to believe this, i know.. ). or maybe the tanks were only damaged ( tiger tanks got damaged nearly every time they start their engine ) but when they were only damaged why they come to the box.

when i look the brevity article i see that enigma decided that the british damaged tanks dont come to the infobxo, this damaged tanks are fact . soooo allied damaged tanks dont come to the infobox but german !!!maybe!!! damaged come to the infobox...

can someone explain to me? iam sure its simple bias and not more but maybe their is another explantion

LOL its everywhere , operation crusader: many allied tanks were damaged or immobilized but only "278 were permantly lost" infobox says 278 allied tanks lost.... i guess enigma is the editor of crusader

Do not delete my text, answer my simple questions, answer why enigma uses different methods. tell me. deleting my text is so lol......


PS about trolling, i improved many articles of enigma after i showed he is faking sources... is that normal for trolls? i said the analysis section is shit, than other people come and said iam correct, is this trolling? explain me why we use different methods for germans and allies...


Should i even bother to reply? The answer really is no. But lets point out one thing here - you are cherrypicking to support you point of view. There are numerous articles you havent mentioned were immobilised/dammaged tanks have been included with those that were complete right offs. If you were not so bais and trolling you would have noticed this by now.
As for the mindless accusation, what articles have you improved you have done nothing for months but moan and complain and have NEVER EVER provided any sources to aid these articles. Your personal attacks are really pathetic and i have faked nothing.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
PS, you cant even get your facts stright when attacking articles like Brevity ... if you bothered to open your eyes and READ you would noticed that three German tanks were confirmed destroyed and that their damanged tanks - due to the lack of there being a published number - have not been countered either in the infobox.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Crusader, lets see how badly wrong you are AGAIN; do you want to know when the total number of tanks disabled during the operation have not been mentioned? Because Liddle-Hart didnt bother providing that figure ... why dont you go argue with his grave about him faking numbers and being bais ....--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
So where are you not trolling ... considering you havent done your homework and you are sprouting crap everyday without helping; hmmm wait thats the definitation of trolling. Ok leave your text where it is because it proves that you are doing nothing but making a fool of yourself.
If you really do want to help why not start providing some sources ... if thats not too difficult, but i rather expect your next reply will be something along the lines of the smae usual troll-equse posts - please prove me wrong...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to make a suggestion; Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade. Hohum (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to note that I removed an earlier set of posts from the IP. I believe their unrelenting screed of rants, insults, accusations of academic dishonesty, soapboxing, and multiple block evasions have gone well past the point of reasonable tolerance. The IP clearly has no intention of adhering to site policy, Wikipedia is not a battleground, and WP:AGF is not a suicide pact; can I suggest for our own sakes that we simply ignore further posts like the ones above? EyeSerenetalk 09:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
With pleasure!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

German infantry

eyeserne ignore me if u want but DO NOT delete my questions about primary sources

the battle happend on the 13 june WHY we have german casualties for 14 june?

why we have the casualties for the 13th on the allied side while for german the 14th...


i wish please the primary source for the up to 800 casualties, every good book has a primary source for such statement or cites a another book, u have 3 sources so please tell me the primary source to elimante my concerns....

iam not sure if this the definition of trolling.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.148.136 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to respond to reasonable questions without accompanying insults. Anything else will be removed.
To answer your questions, Wikipedia policy strongly discourages our using primary sources because doing so would require us as editors to interpret them. This we can't do (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), so we have to leave that to the writers and historians. When they've analysed the primary sources, we can report their analysis as secondary sources. Whether or not we agree with them is irrelevant - our mandate for article content is "Verifiability, not Truth" (see WP:V). Regarding the "up to 800" casualties, it's the only figure we have (even though it's as estimate, probably exaggerated, and doesn't cover both days of fighting). I have no problem taking it back out and leaving "unknown" in the infobox. EyeSerenetalk 10:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I hadnt noticed that had been inputed into the info box; the up to 800 figure, from what i have read, is exclusively for the action on the following day agaisnt the Brigade box. I would also support its removal, i perfer "unknown" for the overall reason that its a bit silly to "12" in there when its clear that many more men were involved than the one battalion and German overall casualties are - as the sources point out - unknown.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been reworking the lead, so I took that 800 back out EyeSerenetalk 15:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

i dont want to use primary sources for the article, i only want to read the primary sources to check the reliablity of the author. in this case theres no body count or something else no casualtiesreport of PzLehr. Many casualties were inflicted by artillery and bombing, so iam interessed who established the number of 800.... . so if somebody has enough time he can tell me, i saw 3 sources supporting this number one them will explain the number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

british tanks

the note says ... tanks "lost", does this mean these tanks were permantly lost? if yes, are there some figures about damaged and immobilized tanks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Try here http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/index.html Keith-264 (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

i search for figures for british troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

again , tanks lost or damaged? please tell me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.153.219 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The footnote says "lost" which is probably the best word, because the Germans were left in control of the battlefield afterwards (so even if the British tanks were only damaged, not destroyed, the British couldn't recover them... they were lost). EyeSerenetalk 11:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wittmanns action

i read the new section.

before i start "complaining" , i ask if somebody of u is really interessed in an open discussion to bring this article and particulary this section to a good quality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia definition of "good quality" is a well-written, neutral distillation of reliable secondary sources. What we're trying to do with that section is show the way historians have treated Wittmann's attack. We're not interested in spinning the text either 'for' or 'against' Wittmann, or in anything that's not reliably sourced (I know we keep banging on about that, but we must have sources; our personal opinions are irrelevant and discussing them is not really what talk-pages are for; see WP:TALK). What would be useful would be Wittmann's own explanation for his actions to counterbalance Schneider's criticisms, if we can disentangle them from the propaganda of the time. We have a little bit from Meyer, but if you have anything more it would be helpful if you could provide a direct quotation with the book details and page number (as Enigma has done above). EyeSerenetalk 08:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

the way the sources are presented shows the opinion of the editor. i will explain later what could be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

While we are always open to suggestions one should bare in mind that this is what the sources have told us and that sources from as many viewpoints as currently possible have been captured and intergrated into the anyalsis section. Wanting to present a different position would require new sources and new information.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Wittmann's own viewpoint as recorded on 13 June for a radio/propaganda broadcast:
"I had no time to assemble my company; instead i had to act quickly, as i had to assume that the enemy had alreadu spotted me and would destroy me where i stood. I set off with one tank and passed the order to the others not to rereat a single step but to hold their ground. Drove up to the column, surprised the English as much as they had me. I first knocked out two tanks from the right of the column, then one from ht eleft and attacked the armoured troop carrier battalion in the middle of the armoured regiment. I drove towards the rear half of the column on the same road, knocking out every tank that came towards me as i went. The enemy was thrown into total confusion. I then drove stright into the town of Villers, got to approximately the centre of town where i was hit by an anti-tank gun. My tank was disabled. Without further ado i fired at and destroyed everything around me that i could reach; i had lost radio contact and was unable to summon my company. My tanks were out of sight. I then decided to abandon my tank. We took all the weapons we could carry, but didnt destroy the tank as i believed that we could regain possession of it. Made my way to a division about 15 kilometres away. Had to dodge enemy tanks several times; could have taken them out but had no close range anti-tank weapons, so with a heavy heart had to leave them be. I reached the division and immediately reported to it and corps. Subsequent counter-attack destroyed the enemy. The bulk of the armoured regiment and a rifle battalion were destroyed."
(Taylor, p. 38. Wittmann, 13 June radio broadcast)
To quote further from Taylor:
"A story exists in a number of accounts of Wittmann and his former gunner, Balthasar Woll, talking when they first saw the British column. Woll is said to have observed 'They are acting as if they have won the war already' to which Wittmann responded 'Well we're going to prove them wrong'."
Taylor goes on to note that this is flawed' Wittmann never reported saying anything of the such and Woll was not in the area at the time.(Taylor, p. 18)
To quote from Meyer, the following introduces the citation produced to award Wittmann his oak leaves:
"At 08:00 hours, a security post reported to SS-Ober-sturm-fuhrer Wittmann that a strong column of enemy tanks was marching on the road Caen-Villers-Bocage.
Wittmann, who was in cover with his Tiger 200m south of the road, identified an English tank unit followed by an English armoured car battalion.
The situation demanded immediate action...."
(Meyer, p. 234)
I cant find any other primary sources, published in secondary sources, that describe the ambush from the German perspective; needless to say the two accounts do show some holes in their story.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


to schneider. what schneider does; is the analysing of an action from the perspective of a "coach". there is no perfection in warfare. schneiders comment are ok for in military scholl but not for a wikipedia article.

  • "a competent tank company commander does not accumulate so many serious mistakes"."

no? where were the more competent tank commanders? where? when an incompetent guy like wittmann has such impact what will a competent guy do ? iam the only one who thinks this sounds only lol? wittman destroyed more than 100 tanks ( he starts with short barrel stug ... ) who can he be not competent?

  • "Schneider notes that by having his Tigers position themselves in a sunken lane with a vehicle with engine trouble at the head of a stationary column, he was hampering the mobility of his unit and risked blocking the entire company."

lol? fine tuning?

  • "He calls Wittman's "carefree" advance into British-occupied positions "pure folly""

this is correct...

  • ""thoughtlessness of this kind was to cost [Wittmann] his life on August 9, 1944,"

no relevance...

  • "Hubert Meyer agrees to some extent with Schneider's criticisms, admitting that the 2nd Company's advance into the town, unsupported by infantry, was "obviously inexpedient"."

thats it!!! that was a real mistake advancing throug a city without infantry thats really stupid. he had luck that british were incompetent.

in my opinion hubert meyer did a good summarize, but schneider is "bullshit"

and before u decide to give schneider the most words u should rethink all your analysesection of british battles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Again you've ignored the request for sources, so your post is of no help. I happen to agree that some of Schneider's criticisms are unfair (particularly re Wittmann's disposition of his company; he was expecting a morning of maintenance, not a fight), but unless we have a source that says that there's really no point talking about it. This talk page is for developing the article according to Wikipedia policy, not for discussing opinions.
@ Enigma, thanks for that. Hastings gives the "They are acting as if they have won the war already" quote as factual, but I seemed to recall it was dubious so didn't use it - glad I wasn't mistaken :) To my mind the Badsey quote is the ideal summary. I still think the Schneider paragraph unbalances the section somewhat, but without sources to counter his criticisms I suppose we'll have to live with it. I may try moving the bit about Wittmann's death into a footnote to see if that helps. EyeSerenetalk 10:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Wittmann seems exceptional but weren't there several Allied tank commanders who put the boot in single handed? Perhaps their relative anonymity can shed some light on the purpose that Wittmannophilia served at the time and since?Keith-264 (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Keith completely agree with you and am a little taken back by the hypocrisy being shown by certain individuals. I agree that the death comment is not completely relevant to the discussion at hand, but we have also discussed other matters that are only remotely related to the battle (i.e. Epsom and the bombing of the town or its liberation – not related to the fighting) so personally I think it is worth keeping in albeit as you suggested E, in a footnote.
From other sources that have highlighted the Germans understanding of the importance of the gap, that they moved forces to plug the gap and sent elements of the 101st to mask the gap etc it does not seem that unfair that Schiender criticises the disposition of forces; they were not safely in the rear they had been basically placed on the frontline. Other forces also had to undergo daily maintenance however I have not see reference to them blocking their own position hindering their deployment.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

@eye, dont understand why we need a source to see that schneiders criticsm isnt good for this wiki articles, some of his comments are ok but the rest is bullshit for wiki. why we need another historian who says schneiders statement isnt proper for this article

@keith allied tank commanders ( dont know one special) maybe had great moments of onemanaction but wittman had it more than one time its the same with german pilots many allied pilots had big days but many german had dozens of big days , thats what creats this "hype" . fighting outnumbered helps creating myths... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was one of the top scoring German aces who states he only got to such numbers because he had many many more opportunies to reek destruction; nothing to do with fighting outnumbered etc but having more opporunties.
And you have used the key word there ... myths... why sustain them?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Sydney Valpy Radley-Walters, most "successfull" allied tabk commander with 18 "kills" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafayette_G._Pool

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitriy_Lavrinenko

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_V._Radley-Walters

Note though that Allied front line soldiers didn't have to bop till they dropped like Germans did. It was in average quality that they eventually outstripped the Germans.Keith-264 (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

they were hyped to myths. that dont means they were not outstanding. i love this discussion about aces. germans had only scored so high because this and that... . that they scored so high had multiple reasons one of them is that they were better than their enemies. when u survive more than 100 arieal battle than u are simply better... . many especialy british try to avoid the word "better" but thats it. i can list u so much guys with less sorties. one has 71 victories in 70 sorties...

  • "And you have used the key word there ... myths... why sustain them?"

wittmann is no myth he fought for years on many fronts and destroyed more tanks than most allied btl in their carrers . thy myth is that he was able to stop an allied brigade alone... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you look beyond stats and look at context? You highlight Col. Radley-Walters as the example of the most succesful Allied tank commander; iirc he only fought through the 11 month long NW Europe battle were we fielded more tanks than the Germans (i.e. more men to complete over targets), were most German tank losses iirc was not from tank on tank fighting etc (so tankers had to complete with tank hunters, jabos, and AT guns), not to mention just how we fielded our tanks (i.e. tactical use). How can you diss this man when he didnt have the same opportunities than the those who fought on the likes of those who fought on the Eastern Front where there was much more chance to blow shit up? Skill does come into it, noone has said otherwise, but from the words of the best they said opporunties play a much larger role in it.
By your apparent own logic, the tank commanders in Burma must have been truley incompendent because they sure as hell were not going to be racking up the tank kills ... oh yes the Japanese didnt use that many.--86.17.0.3 (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

i dont diss this soldier. i posted the allied tank commander because one asked... . look above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, if you have specific suggestions for improving the article, please make them and provide sources. From WP:TALK: "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material." Unfortunately I'm going to have to start removing irrelevant, off-topic and unsourced opinion again, because your posts are unconsructive and are preventing progress being made on the article. EyeSerenetalk 13:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "because your posts are unconsructive"

they arent. my posts try to improve the article, your mistake is that u think i have to bring in an historian who tells u that your writing style is "not good" and that u bring irrelevant statements... . there is no need to bring another statement which says schneider is wrong, because the relevance is the problem. is this so hard to understand?

"For the last time, if you have specific suggestions for improving the article, please make them and provide sources." i make suggestions without sources because iam not only complaining about the content, your sources are ok but u present them wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help to read WP:V. Note that it says Wikipedia works on "verifiability, not truth". That really does mean that if you think Schneider is wrong you need to provide a source that says "Schneider is wrong" (or perhaps refutes some of Schneider's criticisms like Meyer does). All we can try to do is tell all sides of the story; as editors we aren't allowed to say "this bit is true" or "this bit is not true". I realise this can seem strange when we know something but can't prove it with a source, but if you think about it I'm sure you'll eventually agree that it's the only way for Wikipedia to operate. If we let people write what they know (as opposed to what they can prove with a reliable source), Wikipedia would quickly descend into anarchy. I really think that unless you can adjust to the way Wikipedia works you'll be better off, for your own sakes, joining a web forum or something where you can discuss military history without the restrictions we have here. EyeSerenetalk 14:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


i try, not beeing impolite. READ WHAT I WROTE , i dont say schneider is "wrong" with his statements at all i say his statements are inapt for this wikiarticle. his statement is too special. he talks about complete irrelevant details . and the mass of this irrelevant details make wittmann looking like an idiot. what would happen to wiki when we go to every article argueing about such details, maybe we should go to all normandy articles and writing one million sentences about every little tactical mistake of the allied , iam sure there are enough books about. somebody must decide whats relevant and whats not, that makes a good article and not pushing every statement in it. take schneiders statement about wittmann beeing carefree and that maybe a better result had been achieved with more planed use of the rest of his panzers, but delete the rest. btw all positiv comments are discredited as propagande victims so u can create POV ... . maybe schneider wants to be cool with hypercrtism of wittmann. u should start to be neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


my suggestion for the text.

there are different opinions about the action of wittmanns, most highlight the courage of wittmann to engage the group alone... . due to propaganda some authors hyped the action. like.. "statement of hyperdestruction here" . there are also historian who critic some of wittmanns tactical decisions as !!!company commander!!!, for example no infatry support etc. others like huber say sponaneus actions so no time to wait blabla. but there is consense about wittmanns skill as tank commander which led to the destruction of... .


is there any opinion about my idea?

BoV

my suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 10:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from an uninvolved editor

I just have to say something positive here and want to congratulate the editors EyeSerene and EnigmaMcmxc on a very well written, and at least from my POV, unbiased an article. I think it very well captures its significance from an Allied as well as from a German perspective. I have only read myself two books on this battle, the first is from Patrick Agte and the second is from Helmut Ritgen (note:both in German). To my interpretation of the sources the article is very much inline with the sources. My only criticism is, but this pertains to a number of WW2 articles and is very minor, that German ranks, units, etc. are always translated and this not even consistently. Example: Oberstleutnant Kauffmann but Captain Helmut Ritgen. I would personally perfer that some German terms are retained.

Dear anon editors: I don't care if you feel differently, this article is well written! It would get my approval MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr Bee thanks for the comments; i will do a sweep through the article in relation to ranks. Do you think that we should revert from using Heavy Battalion 101 etc to the actual German title then?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

komisch das dich interessiert was ich denke Blablaaa (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Heavy Battalion unit names. I've made some contributions to these articles and never managed to come to a conclusion on naming. Should it be Schwere (Heer/SS) Panzer Abtielung, Heavy Panzer Battalion, Heavy Tank Battalion (Germany), German Heavy Tank Battalion, (and many other variants); should it start with 101st or 101, or end with the number? I know it should be the most common / recognisable to an English reader, but references in English use all of these names, sometimes inconsistently within themselves. Hohum 16:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much MisterBee and Hohum :) For ranks I tend to use the German with an English translation in brackets on the first occurrence; for units I go by whatever our article on them is named as. However, I think we're inconsistent across Wikipedia (which as Hohum points out mirrors the sources). Perhaps this is something worth developing a guideline for at milhist? EyeSerenetalk 09:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I would be intended to do the same regarding ranks however this is something that was brought up recently as being a bit redundant as people can click the links and see the description etc
I agree it something that probably needs to be discussed and guidelines set up - MILHIST needs a sit down i think.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought when I was typing that bit about the ranks that I had seen a comment somewhere about it being redundant :) No argument from me anyway, I'm happy to go with the herd. EyeSerenetalk 14:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Very good idea! Indeed a guideline would be most beneficial. My personal preference would be to list ranks, units, orders and honorary signs in the native language (in italics) and present the English translation in brackets after its first occurrence in the article. Why do I say this? I assume that the terms are most likely more consistently used in the original native language. This should be true especially so when we include sources from multiple languages. I wouldn't mind volunteering at the project level and help defining suitable mappings for the German language. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
A possible problem that highlights itself is the regional variations of English; it appears the odd Waffen-SS rank does not have a direct British comparison. Would be intresting to see what we can work out.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point. WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME suggests:

Names should generally follow the stylistic conventions used by the service or country of origin. For example, while US and British usage has spelled-out numerals for army-level formations and Roman numerals for corps, editors writing about different countries should follow those countries' normal usages; thus, "3. Panzer Armee" becomes "3rd Panzer Army", and "18-ya Armiya" becomes "18th Army".

There's also some guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/German military history task force#Naming conventions. However, I'm not sure that either fully addresses the unit name issue as we're discussing it and I can see nothing at all for ranks. I'll post something to the milhist talk page tomorrow (if I get the time), unless someone else wants to kick things off :) EyeSerenetalk 19:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we switch parachute/airborne to Fallschirmjager for the German airborne chaps?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Reynolds

No. 157 citation points to 1,100 tons of bombs dropped from Michael Reynold's 'Steel Inferno'. But it isn't in my copy. I know of no other edition. Dapi89 (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I havn't removed it yet. Dapi89 (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I need to fix that; its actually from Sons of the Reich.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks for point that out.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Air Units

Would it be appropriate to list air units for the opposing sides on the order of battle (if not, just that they assisted)? Dapi89 (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What airforces took part in the actual battle? It seems all RAF bombing took place after the battle and i have yet to see mention of Luftwaffe involvement.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I seem to remember an air battle that developed near by. I was going to dig for it but I'm testing the water first. Dapi89 (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
OK this is getting silly; two things
  1. If you are going to introduce material can you please cite it correctly i.e. the way it stands now it looks like no RAF losses being inflicted is being supported by refs that it is not.
  2. In regards to the 30th bombing raid; no other sources support the figure from that website. Jackson (8 Corps staff) states 250, Reynolds 256, the IMW where the photo comes from claims 266. Forty supports the 266 figure and states 2 aircraft were lost.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The air attack suffered zero casualties, it is in the source, but not at the end of the line where it should be.
With respect; for someone who wants everything to be done properly, I am confused that you think the RAF website is not reliable. Instead you chose tertiary sources (with regard to air forces)! I agree that I would rrather trust book sources most of the time, but that website is the MOD web page. Dapi89 (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Technically they are solid secondary sources for the most part and call the holders of the actual photo whatever you will. If they are dedicated to land or air fighting should not tarnish the fact that people have to conduct research to collect figures regardless of focus.
As you said i want things doing properly because i would like to see the article at FA status one day and plonking unsupported figures isn’t going to help; i.e. the unsupported 500 figure for the raid on the 30th, which at the time of my posting was not supported by any other source (the times on here seem to be screwy and it looks like i posted after you altered it however am pretty sure i posted before hand!), hence the concern of why one sourse was overriding multiple ones – not the reliability of the RAF website.
The war diary also supports the loss of two machines: “1 Halifax and 1 Lancaster lost.”--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

E, I was clearly referring to the other raid. '500' was almost correct re: the bombing in total against VB. And I did cite them quickly enough. As someone who cites everything he does, that irks me. The source does not day that two were lost in the initial raid, which was cited. I made no reference to losses in the second raid. It was also irritating to see the unit names removed. This was rather unecessary. Anyway, its settled. Dapi89 (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Meyer

More German casualty figures [1] (p. 237). Dapi89 (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting stuff on Wittmann there too - some of it is contradicted by other sources, but it's another example of both his courage at the time and the post-war puffery that might be useful in the article. EyeSerenetalk 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You might want to check out his opinions on the result. I think he is agreeing with operational victory. Personally I don't think it was tactically indecisive - I think it was was a comprehensive defeat at all levels. After all, the strategy was to break out as quickly as possible. Any who, thats just personal rambling. Dapi89 (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Mixing up strategic level decissions with the results of a tactical battle is a bad mistake; while the strategic level may ahve conflicting opinions about what the actual objective was (i.e. some believe it was to create a breakout on the British flank while other sources suggest it was to break out on the American flank) the objective of the operation (i.e. Perch) was not to create a breakout but to encircle Caen. Even in that the operation had bogged down on both flanks and this was a tactical battle that gave both sides a good thrashing.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the former is most likely. I don't see the BA heading west. Monty was disingenuous so the objective tends to be vague. Nevertheless, no proper plan was made for proper operational development and I think its failure did have strategic consequences. This battle had particular tactical failings which effected British offensive operations and delayed the strategic outcome although did not decide it Dapi89 (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The plan always envivsioned as a double enveloped either beyond or infront of the Seine (cant remember which one); i cant personally see that happening without the American breakout first.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm firmly convinced that Monty told his political masters (I'm including Eisenhower in that) whatever he thought would get them off his back, and the bare minimum at that. That did unfortunately mean that he contradicted himself depending on who he was talking to. Personally I find his conversations with those he regarded as peers more trustworthy, and these do seem to indicate he was trying to engineer a US breakout first. No breakout was going to happen until the German Army had been reduced to a level where they couldn't defend in depth though, so I think Perch (and V-B) were basically just jockeying for position. BTW, I've added the Caumont Gap map to the article :) EyeSerenetalk 18:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding work as always dude!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

D'Este gives a pretty account, perhaps going overboard. At what point to Monty indicate this? His initial plan was for a SE breakout. The VB op' was a part of it. I think Monty realised which way the wind was blowing and came up with the standard excuse, Brits pin 'em down, Yanks swing right. I don't buy it. It seems Monty aimed for a breakout before the Germans could concentrate, hence the massive deception plans. I don't think a wearing down operation ever entered Monty's head until the VB and following failures. Dapi89 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I haven't read the book thoroughly yet , but one that some of you might find interesting is Victory in Normandy, by Major-General David Belchem. He was head of Anglo American planning staff in the build up to Overlord, and later Monty's chief of Staff. As I said I haven't read it properly so I can't really say how good it is, but flicking through my eye is often drawn to the maps of Monty's plan. Belchem is adamant that Monty's masterplan was pretty much the situation that developed in Normandy, and that it was planned and agreed by all concerned. The plan also called for a major offensive around Caen to commit German defences in the east - Monty hoped to capture it but didn't expect to get much further. Monty did stress it was a framework to be exploited where possible, but in the event German forces were too strong around Caen. There's a good ten pages, plus a bit on the Phase line controversy that followed. Just my two pence.
On another note, sorry I haven't done much copyediting. I tend to find I need to leave an article a while so I can approach it fresh, and every-time I've tried so far I find myself skimming it, which isn't really useful. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Likewise, hence the all of the sudden re-reading of the article right this moment. I havent read through chunks of it in a while and i must say am really impressed with how it has came along.
Just to follow-up your comments based on a source constructed by a man in the know; let me reinforce it with a childish comment: ewwwwww D'Este!! :p --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Steve, very useful. D'Este comes across as a crusader even to the most ardent American critic. Dapi89 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
What Dapi said :) I haven't read that one - maybe I'll treat myself. It's a while since I bought anything on Normandy; my last purchases were Chris Bellamy's Absolute War (Eastern Front) and Richard Holmes's bio of Marlborough.
I think if Monty had broken out past Caen - if the Germans had collapsed - he would have happily taken the result as "played for and got". I don't think it's what he was expecting though. The Germans had to make a stand somewhere, and their forward defence left precious little room for building up the Allied forces, so I think the fighting was as much to gain space as to precipitate an early German collapse (which given the previous three years the Allied planners must have realised was unlikely). I take D'Este with a large pinch of salt. EyeSerenetalk 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As regards Monty's master plan ("ze Plan!") I tend to the view that his expectations were pretty acccurate. The term 'breakout' is a little unhelpful since to me it connotes what happened after Cobra while some writers see a big jump forward in Normandy such as the capture of Caen in the same way. I can't see how an 'eastern breakout' is tenable on my definition, given what Monty said at the planning meetings in England beforehand and the size and composition of the 2nd army. Tedder's carping about Monty not getting forward so he could build more airfields on the mainland seems to some people to amount to the 'breakout' that 'never' happened on the eastern flank but to me that's stretching the term too far.

this is what I think "....the clash of two modern armies [is] one huge battle spread over space and time, in which the smaller battles fought by the army corps...[would] form the tactical encounters of traditional battles. These large numbers of battles that would take place far away from one another as the individual corps or groups of corps came into contact with the enemy would be welded together by the commander-in-chief into a 'complete battle'. The individual [smaller] battles would be given significance by the commander-in-chief's plan. Just as a commander of old gave units particular goals on the battlefields of days past, a modern commander-in-chief would give specific goals to his army corps. Each would play a part in the overall plan. 'The success of battle today depends more upon conceptual coherence than on territorial proximity. Thus, one battle might be fought in order to secure victory on another battlefield." (German Strategy and the path to Verdun, Erich von Falkenhayn and the development of attrition, 1870-1916' by Robert Foley, P. 66. Most of it is a paraphrase by Foley with some quotation of Alfie Schlieffen taken from 'War Today' in another Foley effort 'Schlieffen's Military Writings (pp 198-201).) happened. Looked at like this Monty was far closer to the truth about it going to plan than some of his critics realise.Keith-264 (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
EyeSerene: I was lucky enough to attend a Holmes lecture on Marlborough last year. I seem to remember an interesting debate between Holmes and Gary Sheffield about who was Britain's greatest General, Marlborough or Wellington. I think it was a draw.
I think thats largely true, but under the circumstances, if we take your point about time and space, the operation at VB was to win ground. Didn't that fail? If you think D'Este is full of it, try Moiser's The myth of the Great War, talk about agenda driven bullshit!
Thanks for the input Keith, interesting. Dapi89 (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

17th SS Recon

However, these formations would not be in place until 15 June, so light reconnaissance forces were sent to cover the area

I have just rechecked Reynolds and his source (although he screwed the page number up i have tracked it down): Meyer, p. 230. The orders do not specify what recon units although i believe the implication is that there Panzer Lehr's, but on the next page the main body of the 17th SS are ordered to attack north to Caratan. Do we have any additional info on the 17th SS recon dudes that we could add into the article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there's something in the same source I used for the map. I'll have a look. EyeSerenetalk 18:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, re the 17th SS PzGnd Div, Harrison states:
P. 371: "Rommel considered that German weakness in the Carentan area was more dangerous than the hole on the right of LXXXIV Corps. II Parachute Corps was diverted to block the sector between Carentan and St. Lô, and this task was given priority over support of the 352d Division despite the desperate condition of the latter ... Most of the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division was sent southwest of Carentan ... The only immediate step to plug the Caumont gap on 10 June was the decision to leave Ostendorff's reconnaissance battalion [of 17th SS PzGnd] in the vicinity of Balleroy."
P. 373: "The Caumont gap was literally held by the reconnaissance battalion of the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division during 10 June. Plans were made that day to bring the XLVII Panzer Corps (General Funck) into the gap with the 2d Panzer Division (Generalleutnant Heinrich Freiherr von Luettwitz). The 2d Panzer Division had in fact begun its move from Amiens to the battle area during the night of 9-10 June. Advance units had reached Paris, but the movements under air attack during the day were slow and costly. On the evening of 10 June while wheeled elements were near Alençon the tanks had just begun to move from Amiens by train. With the example of the ineffective piecemeal commitment of the 12th SS, 21st, and Panzer Lehr Divisions, Funck wanted to delay commitment of the 2d Panzer until it had completed assembly with its tanks. This was expected by 13 June. In the meantime, on the strong urging of General Luettwitz, the reconnaissance battalion was committed at Caumont with the mission of holding the high ground there."
Describing the US V Corps's advance in support of the 12th June British hook:
P. 373: "The 1st Division estimated that, although the enemy was capable of offering only scattered opposition to the advance, there was a chance that weak elements of Panzer Lehr might penetrate the division left boundary and that the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division might attack the right flank of the advance."
Harrison is of the opinion that US commanders were unaware of just how badly the German defences had been dislocated post-D-Day and were expecting a strong counterattack any moment from the Caumont area (there's a large forest there which I didn't add to the map, though maybe I should!). He believes the presence of 17th SS PzGnd recon confirmed US suspicions of a German build-up, although thinks that any deception was unintentional on the German part. EyeSerenetalk 09:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps also worth noting that by 12th June when Harrison describes 1st Div's attack on Caumont in support of 7th Armd's flank, he claims Caumont was being held by two companies of 2nd SS Pz's recon btn. There's no mention of 17th SS PzGnd's recon btn; maybe they'd been pulled out to join the rest of the division near Carentan? EyeSerenetalk 12:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

50 Div

I think it might be worth mentioning something about 50th Div's supporting attack to the west of T-s-S; the attack's failure is quoted as one of the reasons why the order was given to withdraw from V-B. EyeSerenetalk 09:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Added something to background section, also re US V Corps attacks on 12 June. EyeSerenetalk 10:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like we can add all sorts to the Perch article with so much info coming to light here.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
50 DIV IN NORMANDY: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BRITISH 50th (NORTHUMBRIAN) DIVISION ON D-DAY AND IN THE BATTLE OF NORMANDY has much of interest on the fighting near Cristot.Keith-264 (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC) http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll2&CISOPTR=1315&CISOBOX=1&REC=1#metajump Keith-264 (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed; almost enough for a short article on the Caumont Gap, in fact. I've spotted a couple of inconsistencies and am juggling sources at the mo - Reynolds says the 3rd Parachute Div was also sent to cover the gap, but Harrison seems to think II Parachute Corps was diverted to Carentan and only gives 2nd Pz as heading for Caumont. I suppose it's possible 3rd Para was detached; I'll try to reconcile the differences with something suitable vague :). EyeSerenetalk 15:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Come on Keith ... it was written by a damn yank!! ;) only kidding, i had been looking for that a while ago and couldnt think what it was called; i wanted to scan through it. Question is, can we use it as a source?
E, do you think we should start an article on the Caumont Gap? Not like it was a specific battle or anything...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The lack of 'U's in that thesis disturbs me greatly!!!!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There are copious references so I don't see why not, despite the mysterious disappearance of the letter 'u' on American typewriters.Keith-264 (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Am scanning though, instead of working!, the stuff on Perch and VB; i found some intresting material:
For the invertible Normandy strategy article:

"The fact that he cabled Brooke on June 10 with the plan to fix the Germans in the east confirms that it was not a post-war reinterpretation to correct the perceived failures by the British 2nd Army and the Canadian 1st Army.51"(p.66)

Also he places Perch as being the double eveoplment launched on June 9th. There are so many varying ideas of what Perch is i just cant wait till i have the time to hit the archives and start digging!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a read of that later, thanks Keith. It looks interesting. I think more detail on 50 Div's supporting attack still needs to go in around the 14 June section; again Harrison has a bit, but I'd rather not rely overmuch on one source :)
Enigma, no, I don't think it's worth doing (at least for the moment). The delay between the 352nd's withdrawal and the US attacks on 12 June seem mainly to be because the Yanks were expecting a counterattack any moment from the Cerisy Forest so they were taking things slowly. There was hardly any actual fighting other than 1st US Div's attack on Caumont itself, and that was over fairly quickly. I think we'd have difficulty padding it out to article length tbh. EyeSerenetalk 15:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think i still have copies of the 50th div history laying around somewhere. Ill see what i have and see what i can put in; not to mention there is the campaign OH to take a nose through.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

schneiders comments

this section is still Rotze Blablaaa (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

combat rules are only for "normal" and novize soldiers.... Blablaaa (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You might wanna check your blood preasure in a few days time then =] --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

only that i understand : u order a book only to get new stuff against a german tanker because u are a fan of the british ? Blablaaa (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How can you say that when you have been saying the same thing about yourself on the Kursk article? :p
No i ordered a book that i have been after for years to expand my knowledge on a subject. Am only after truth ;) Wiki just benefits from my little obbession.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

what did i say on the kursk article? Blablaaa (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To do

Some notes for myself:

Yes, according to Agte p. 178 Möbius was SS-Hauptsturmführer in June 44MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Cheers Mr B, i will sort that out soon =]--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Villers-Bocage/Archive_2&oldid=1136554919"