Talk:Operation Michael

Untitled

I believe its incorrect to name this article as "First battle of the Somme" as irregardless of the (1918) next to it, the title would suggest an article on the Somme offensive of 1916.

Not to mention that the article's text refers to the "Second battle of the Somme". I think there is a mistake here. --Chancemichaels 01:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

I agree: First Battle of the Somme (1918) is not a good title. Operation Michael or Battle of St. Quentin (1918) would be much better. --Rumping 13:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I note that Battle of the Somme (disambiguation) explains the situation vis a vis official nomenclature. First Battle of the Somme of 1918 would be a suitable title. GraemeLeggett 14:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Very bad summary of Operation Michael, the first offensive of the 1918 Spring Offensive.

This is a very bad summary of Operation Michael and also has a misleading name in reguards to the 1916 Battle of the Somme.

I am currently writing a coursework paper on Operation Michael, "Why did Operation Michael fail after it's initial success?". I would be glad to post it and/or contribute to the article once my essay as been graded and cleared in August 07. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GBobly (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Map

I notice that the map doesn't show Operation Mars against 3rd army which is mentioned in the text. I fear that this may give a misleading impression of the efectiveness of the German attacks. Are there other maps we could add which show it?Keith-264 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I believe that article as it currently stands warrants this tag. It relies exclusively on British //English? - the units involved box indicates Australia, Canada, New Zealand, but these do not appear in the text// sources. (When I first began copyediting, the weird formatting of some of the text led me to suspect copy and pasting, possibly in violation of copyright, although I could not trace the original source(s).) In addition, it could do with some tidying. Much of the text refers to small-scale actions, the location and relevance of which is unclear unless combined with large-scale maps. HLGallon (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Further to my last: I have reviewed some of the on-line sources cited within the text. Much of the text has indeed been copypasted, from the various pages under the Commonwealth War Graves Commission section dealing with the offensives of 1918. I'm not too sure of the copyright status of this site's text, but I think some rewriting is required to avoid accusations of cribbing. HLGallon (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

At least the outcome is sourced and written from the German point of view. I can't speak for the rest of it. Dapi89 (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As I read this article for the first time, I must agree with the complaint that it is written almost entirely from the British viewpoint. There is little mention of German units' actions during the operation, but more importantly, the narrative fails to show how an operation that had been intended by the Germans to surround the British forces and remove them permanently from the war, degenerated into a mere advance, a grab for territory. There's little information about the Germans' thinking as they watched their plan go astray. This was the Germans' most important operation in the West since 1914; they staked everything -- their remaining resources, the victory or defeat of Germany -- on the success of this operation; nevertheless, they watched it fail and allowed it to do so. Why? Cwkmail (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

I think that the recent changes look pretty good but I fear that some of the details suggest that the German methods (Hutier-Bruchmuller) were new. I suggest that they were incremental changes that had appeared in all of the western front armies in 1917 and that the 'German excellence' view ought to be tempered by reference to this. Keith-264 (talk) 09:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Apropos, why wouldn't three years' practice in attacking German defences make the British familiar with German defensive methods? Having confounded the German defence-in-depth at Ypres in 1917 despite the pony weather whouldn't they be expect to be thoroughly conversant with these methods?Keith-264 (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Austrian troops in the order of battle

Well, I know that the Austrians sent a limited number of troops and artillery batteries for the Spring Offensive, yet I have yet to find any proper "Order of Battle" for either of the German armies involved, or find any proper references to Austrian units involved in the battle.

AFAIK the Austro-Hungarian artillery was highly regarded by the Germans and the number of batteries involved in the Spring Offensive was not insignificant. So, does anyone have access to a proper OOB for the Spring Offensive, namely the German 17th, 18th and 19th armies?

Thank you in advance. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.10.194.163 (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I placed the original tag. There has been a large amount of non-POV material added, mainly by mass copy-and-pasting from the article Spring Offensive, but a vast amount of cruft remains. There are too many quotes with little context, and the 1/1 Herts war diary is useless without a very large-scale map to illustrate its entries. I'm still not 100% happy about its copyright. HLGallon (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree on the strange prominence given to 1/1 Herts. Not really sure why it's needed in such detail. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

CE

Added some of the missing footnotes and references, tidied some prose and added categories as per wiki.Keith-264 (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Done as much loose-ending as I can until I fetch some other sources. I'm not sure about the Beds battalion narrative either.Keith-264 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The average strength of a German Division in 1918 stood at 12,300 men, 3,000 horses, 48 artillery pieces, 120 mortars, 78 heavy machine guns, 144 light machine guns, and 6–12 trucks.{{sfn|Grey|1991|p=?}} moved this as can't find a reference, added something from Kitchen to compensate.Keith-264 (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusion in text

Too many missing words and self-contradictions in sentences. Example "A British infantry division was now nine battalions strong, reduced from four battalions" Reduced to nine from four? This is obviously not what was meant. But, what was meant? There are many such instances. Article needs to be cleaned up and contradictions corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.17.158.195 (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I edited a sentence in "Day 2", so as to say that the commander of the 16th Manchesters wasn't annihilated, but that his unit was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.209.102 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Terry Thorgaard (talk)

Added some more citations from the OH and tidied prose in a few places.Keith-264 (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Geocoords

I altered the coordinates to represent a wider area than St. Quentin by picking Chaulnes as the approximate centre of the Michael battlefield and only using the 50km criterion of degrees and minutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Coordinates_format_tables). It's an experiment so feel free to alter.Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Irondome, I think your edits have been pretty good but I think that the article needs a re-write so I'm not sure that piecemeal changes are worth your effort. Keith-264 (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC) @Irondome, thanks for the thanks; I remember now that all I did to the article was sort out the references and use the OH to cite paragraphs. It was when I decided that the 1918 fighting on the Western Front was so different to 1915–1917 that it was almost a different war and that it would take as much time to study it as the previous period, so it would have to wait. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Shortened the sfns using |display-authors=1 and tidied the references. Keith-264 (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Keith, thanks for that! My library on this period is pretty shite so I am having to read and re-read the article (and also the summer counteroffensives and the 100 days) so I can er edit the article(s) if that makes sense..Give us a shout if you can recommend any good stuff on google books. I'm a tight git and can't afford expensive tomes at the mo. Beer or books is a tricky one ;) Simon Irondome (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Beer! Keith-264 (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Plural titles

Please note that there has never been an Armies and there has never been a Generals; its generals Haig and Gough. Smith was promoted to major-general and became Major-General Smith. Thank you Keith-264 (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No-one is talking about "an Armies". The distinction is between a word ("army", "general", "king" or whatever) used as a common noun (uncapitalised) or as a title (capitalised). Whether it's singular or plural makes no difference. There were two armies; their titles were the 17th Army and the 2nd Army; or, in a more economical construction, they were the 17th and 2nd Armies. Your second sentence – "Smith was promoted to major-general and became Major-General Smith" – illustates the same distinction very well. But by your wider logic, one should write such an inconsistent and flawed sentence as, "At the strategy meeting, General Smith proposed an advance on the left flank, while generals Jones and Brown argued for the right." GrindtXX (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"...generals Jones and Brown argued for the right". I think you put this bit very well, except for the wayward full stop.Keith-264 (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

This issue seems to come up every now and then and we all have our opinions about it (so there is no point in me adding mine). Just wondering if anyone actually knows of any references which cover this, rather than each of us straining to try to remember grammar lessons from school. I suspect the Australian Style Guide might have something, also the Chicago Manual of Style but I don't have access to either. Anyone got access to these? Also is there anything for British English? What about Canadian English? Anotherclown (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

My copy of the Chicago Manual is the 14th edn (1993) (so not up to date: we're now up to the 16th). It contains the following:

7.16 [re titles of persons] "The title is also capitalized if it refers to more than one name:

Mayors Cermak and Walker

Doctors Joseph and Hershall"

7.43 [re place-names] "The University of Chicago Press now recommends that when a generic term is used in the plural either before or after more than one proper name, the name should be capitalized if, in the singular form and in the same position, it would be recognized as a part of each name. Formerly such plural terms were capitalized only when preceding the proper names.

Lakes Erie and Huron

Mounts Everest and Rainier

the Adirondack and Catskill Mountains

the Hudson and Mississippi Rivers

but

the rivers Hudson and Mississippi"

I also have a copy of the Oxford Style Manual (2003), but that doesn't appear to contain anything relevant. GrindtXX (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel bound by US usage, I write in English (of sorts). ;o)) Keith-264 (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Very common usage in British English: "Princes William and Harry". HLGallon (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Sadly true. Keith-264 (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I've certainly seen examples of both in Australian usage. Conceding of cse that we have not exhausted the search for a reference which covers the issue yet (although US usage seems to have been established per the above); however, given that it seems as though either way is used fairly commonly I wonder if MOS:RETAIN / some kind of "live and let live" policy might be the easiest way to handle this? Anotherclown (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I remember now that French, David (2002). Raising Churchill's Army doesn't capitalise plurals but given the shocking negligence of copy editing by commercial publishers, I'm not sure that printed usage is always a reliable guide. I agree L and LL is the pragmatic course. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Logistics and Strategy

Could I encourage the main contributors to write more about the above? Wonky strategic concepts and appalling logistics failings were at the centre of Michael's failure. Dapi89 (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

26 March addition

26 March looks sparse but there is plenty of activity to include. If any of the below adds some flavour, you're welcome to build it in.

Background - on the old Somme battlefields early on 26 March, a British patrol had spotted a collection of large, metallic vehicles which were assumed to be German armoured vehicle as no allied vehicles were reported as being in the area.

News spread among the transport columns which had been parked overnight and triggered a massed retirement without orders, as an Australian Battalion, freshly arrived from a quiet spot in the front further north, was trying to get to the front line.

Referenced section:

“The 13th Australian Battalion forcing a passage through the swarming, retiring masses, was warned by Staff Officers retreating in great haste that enemy armoured cars were not far behind. Such Officers occasionally received the impolite attention of the troops. A car containing nine red tabbed Officers speeding down the road in indecent haste received a volley of abuse from the ‘Diggers’ going in the opposite direction, although says the Australian Official History, “Doubtless they were merely hastening to establish a headquarters farther back”.

Convinced of the impending arrival of the armoured cars, the Australians used a commandeered lorry to block the road, the men taking cover in the ditches. They waited. Suddenly, there was the sound of engines and the ominous clank of metal on metal. Throats tightened and nervous fingers slipped off safety catches.

An alien column of strange vehicles appeared in the distance, and without pause slowly lumbered towards the barricade. The lead vehicle, a car, was bright red and the others were grey and strangely shaped. The Australians were puzzled but then so, obviously, were the drivers of the machines when they caught sight of the Australians huddled in the muddy ditches. The drivers spoke - in French. Suddenly the Australians comprehended; these were the men of the French Agricultural Corps, and their bizarre machines of war were ploughs they had rescued from the hated Boche. The disgusted Australians lowered their rifles and crawled from the ditches. For years afterwards the French ploughs were believed to have been the cause of what someone described as the ‘Great Pys to Pas point to point, when every carthorse in France tried to act like a Derby winner between those villages.”

Moore, W. (1970) “See how they ran”. Leo Cooper Ltd.

(The reference at the end of the last paragraph is given as Boraston, Sir Douglas Haig’s Command, Constable, 1922 although I have no visibility of that so cannot comment on which part the reference relates to?

In years gone by I was told by a local man (in the Somme area) that the Pys to Pas was part of an annual agricultural event in France but am unable to reference that and Google doesn't seem to recognise it? Bedford16 (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Also ...

26 March was the day [Walter Congreve, VC, KCB, MVO, DL, KStJ], misunderstood instructions and ordered his own VII Corp to retire to the western bank of the Ancre river. His Corps were at the southern flank of the Third Army who held the old 1916 Somme battlefield east of the Ancre river. In doing so, he exposed the northern flank of the already exhausted Fifth Army, which German forces took advantage of the next day. Orders and counter orders flowed all day which resulted in confusion and the advancing Germans took over VII Corp's area without meeting significant resistance.

Heavy fighting was seen across the Santerre plain, south of the Somme river. It was an open plain dotted with villages, most of which were a small cluster of houses with the odd inevitable steeple. Four very depleted divisions of XVIII Corps were tasked with holding the German army back until the French forces came in line alongside the remnants of the British Fifth Army further back who had been ordered to form a defensive line running between Rouvroy in the south (where the French army was expected to arrive) and Bray in the north (where it would link up with the Third Army's southern flank).

That day the villages on that plain became British redoubts and each of them saw intense fighting.

Around 100 men of the 61st Brigade were surrounded in Le Quesnoy all day but held fast, retiring at dusk with just 2 Officers and 9 men able to walk.

A garrison of 1st Royal Fusiliers held Chaulnes until slipping away mid afternoon but the 300 strong garrison of 9th East Surrey's were reduced to around 250 before the survivors were rushed and captured. Their Commanding Officer was Major Charles Alfred Clark, D.S.O., M.C. who sent a letter from his POW camp bed: "They then charged and mopped up the remainder. They were infuriated with us. I am afraid I presented a curious looking object at this time, my clothing had been riddled with shrapnel, my nose fractured and my face and clothing smothered in blood." I believe he had twelve or more wound stripes!

British heavy artillery fired on Raincourt not knowing it was still held by British troops, who fell back in disarray after heavy casualties from their own guns.

I have a note referencing to Shaw-Sparrow, W. (1921), The Fifth Army in March 1918. Bodley Head, as the source of quoted passage below, although I don't have the book anymore to verify the page. During the fighting for Framerville, the War Diary of 7th D.L.I. records that 2 Companies of the 7th Durham Light Infantry and troops from the 5th Northumberland Fusiliers counter attacked the village, and the book adds. "In this attack, it was reported later, battle crazed infantrymen had burst into the church tower at Framerville and hurled a German machine gun crew out of the windows". Framerville and Raincourt are now known as Framerville-Raincourt.

27 March additions

27 March also looks sparse, so you're welcome to use any of the below if it helps.

Albert was inhabited by drunk German soldiers and fresh, aggressive British units had started arriving in the area north of the Somme river to shore up the very thinly held British line. The exhausted and depleted Fifth Army south of the Somme was still in great danger as their line was still around six miles in front of the Third Army to their north, courtesy of VII Corp's mistaken retirement behind the Ancre river the previous day.

In clashes during the day, the area south of the Somme was in the hands of XVIII and XIX Corps. On the Santerre Plain desperate fighting raged as XVIII Corps' depleted divisions were in imminent danger of being surrounded and destroyed.

XIX Corps' 8th and 50th Divisions, who by now formed the bulk of the Fifth Army's fighting strength, gave hardly any ground at all but although the exhausted and depleted XVIII Corps made the attacking infantry pay dearly, entire garrisons were lost.

British 31st Division artillery caught two German Infantry Battalions in an open airfield and all but destroyed them.

Major von Johnston was commanding the German 3rd Grenadier Regiment and recognised the opportunity to cross the Somme behind the British Fifth Army units holding their village garrisons on the Santerre Plain, south of the Somme. The German 43rd Infantry regiment had thrown a bridge across the Somme and despite stiff resistance from the small British units that saw them, they pressed on with their attack, now supported by Johnston's grenadiers. He marched his men to the St. Quentin - Amiens road, recognising that he had a very real opportunity to surround and finish off the badly under strength British 16th, 39th and 66th Divisions who were holding garrison 'redoubts' to his east. The 16th and 39th Divisions saw the German movement to their rear and split their forces in half, moving the detachment into a wood to their west to stop the German attack, while the rest dealt with unrelenting German attacks from the east. Lamotte-Warfusee was initially captured by the grenadiers, then counter attacked and regained by British troops three times before the grenadiers finally held on once the British forces simply ran out of men to throw at the village.

The 1st and 9th Royal Irish Fusiliers were surrounded but fought on for four hours until surrendering.

The 30th Division, the strength of a small brigade by this stage, were forced from positions at Rouvroy and Bouchoir but the now out flanked 2nd Battalion Bedfordshire Regiment and 2nd Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers of the 90th Brigade held firm until counter attacks from the 12th Kings Liverpool Regiment (20th Division) restored the situation. Under orders, the 30th Division started to conduct a fighting withdrawal to a line around Arvillers at midday, the new line being stabilised around 4 p.m.

Crises' around Rosieres and Harbonnieres saw German troops almost break through and roll the British lines up but counter attacks from the 2nd Battalion Devonshire Regiment and 22nd Battalion Durham Light Infantry threw the 4th Battalion Prussian Guards back with heavy loss.

The very last of the British reserves available south of the Somme - comprised Signallers, Cooks, Tailors, Shoemakers and anyone else found straggling - had been rounded up by a General Riddell and marched with a battalion of Sherwood Foresters to shore up a dangerous gap in the line. They, along with scratch units from various regiments, arrived at Harbonnieres and launched a counter attack the German forces in the area were not expecting. Recapturing Framerville and Vauvillers, they restored the line and blunted the German advance enough to give reinforcements rushing in from other areas of the Western Front time to get into position.

Once the day's fighting slowed late afternoon, survivors started looking for ways back to their own lines:

Men from the 16th Irish Division who had been surrounded in their village garrisons around Proyart found themselves deep deep behind German lines. As dusk fell, they slipped through the loose cordon around their village, moved through Morcourt, bypassed Cerisy which was strongly held by German troops and managed to cross the Somme around Sailly Laurette before making their way back to their own lines.

The 39th Division survivors struck out south at 2 a.m. on 28 March and made their way through scattered German outposts, most of whom were asleep with exhaustion.

In XIX Corps' area, the 8th, 50th and 66th Divisional Commanders met at Cayuex and requested permissions to retire. Having passed their request up the chain of command, General Haig initially rejected the option as he was under strict orders from General Foch to not give ground. Haig soon changed his mind, roused Foch from his bed and after a 'testy' conversation , sent the order to retire at 3.30 a.m.

The 89th and 90th Brigades of the 30th Division had expected a French division to take over that day but the relief did not materialise. They remained in position despite their isolation and held their lines overnight, being near the southern end of the British line. French units arrived in the early hours, the divisional war diary remarking how they initially though it was an Outpost Line as they were so few troops manning it.

Fighting around Albert continued and Acting Lieutenant-Colonel John Stanhope Collings-Wells, VC, DSO, Commanding Officer of the 4th Battalion, Bedfordshire Regiment (190th Brigade, 63rd Royal Naval Division, Third Army) was killed, leading an attack north-west of Albert. He was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross for his leadership between 21 and 27 March 1918. His story is impressive and you are welcome to use any info from this page [1] (my site, so I can 'authorise' it).

At this stage, the British troops who had been fighting since 21 March were exhausted to the point of numbness. Falling asleep standing up was a recurring problem but Officers knew there was no point in enforcing the expected reprimands as long as the fighting men carried on. Bedford16 (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect referencing

The penultimate, indented paragraph of 25 March (starting "More orders were received ...") is referenced to Rowan 1919. I wrote it and am not that old. http://bedfordregiment.org.uk/7thbn/7thbtnmarch1918.html is the original article, which is reproduced verbatim on here. Happy for you to use it but please reference it correctly. Bedford16 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)