Talk:Operation Totalize/Archive 1

Archive 1

old comment

"Totalize", 7-8/8/1944.

Never was a battle so badly summarised.

The "Night March" deserves better. Also, it was not just a Canadian/Polish effort, the 51 Highland Division were supported by 33 Amd Bd. on the left wing, and did much to defeat the 12SS counter-attack.

They comprised 50% of the initial attack, and were competely successful. Bad tactics by the Polish commnders in their first battle enabled the Germans to stop the advance; temporarily (See Tractable)

rich tea man- it must also be notd that it is here where michael wittman met his end. at the hands of eother the british or canadian forces.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.14.240 (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2005

needs to be added

I'll add this in later, because I think it needs to be addressed.

• The reason that Operation Totalize required a follow-up operation was because of bad communication between Crerar and Simonds. In it's American equivalent, Operation Cobra, things went differently. When Bradley realized that his army had broken through, his Corps commanders were ordered to ignore original instructions, and advance as far as possible as fast as possible. When the Canadians attacked in Totalize, they managed to break through, but no such order was given. Had Crerar been a more experienced commander, he might have. I'll add that in later.

Cam 19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Falaise

Just to note, the city of Falaise was not the objective of Totalise, the high ground before the city was. The article does not currently reflect this.

I have been wondering if this should be added in earlier but never got around to it, practically the entire set of orders etc for the operation is published within No Holding Back - should we post large ammounts of this text or just referance to it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you cite it page for page, by all means. I don't personally possess that book (although it's on the "to buy" list), so you'd have to add that stuff in on your own. and yes, you are partially correct in that the high-ground before the city was. However, given the overwhelming advantages that Canadian Infantry possessed on the morning of August 8, they could have easily captured Falaise. It was the ultimate goal of all offensives in the area, so I will definitely add in that the high ground near Hill 195 was the objective of the offensive, with the hope that Falaise could be rapidly captured afterwards. Alas, it was not. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems on par :) Ill add in some citations n stuff some time :) I also highly recommend the book, real good read! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we've almost got this thing up to B-Class. I need to flesh out the "Aftermath" section and rewrite a few things in the "German Counterattacks" bit. Other than that, I think the lead needs a bit of expansion. Once we've got that down, we should be good. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC) (oh, and I added your name to the "maintainer" box, hope that's ok)

No prob at all :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

1st Canadian Army orders/plans etc

am a slow coach when it comes to adding these things, so here they are:

No Holding Back, Brian Reid

Page 71-78 Simond's Appreciation

1. Object - To break through the German positions astride the road Caen-Falaise
2. The Germans have formed prepared defensive position with its Forward Defended Locality on the general line May Sur Orne 0259 - Tilly La Campagne 0760 -La Hogue 0960 and a rearward partially prepared position on the general line Hautmesnil 0852 - St Sykvain 1354 The high ground point 122 in 0756 is the key to the first and the high ground about Hautmesnil 0852 the key to the second. Both are obvious objectives and ones for which the Germans will fight very hard.
3.The positions are manned by as good troops as the German Army possesses. The area is the pivot, which, from the German point of view must be held as long as they fight West of the River Orne. The position is presently manned by 1 SS Right and 9 SS Left. Available information indicates that each division has one infantry regiment forward, supported by all available tanks and SPs, whislt the other infantry regiment works on the rear position, and is available to form the nucleus of a defence in the event of a "break in" forward. The Germans apparently rely on being able to get tanks and SPs back, but ensure that some infantry will be available in the rearward positions from the onset, in the event of forward positions being over-run. Two "break in" operations are required to penetrate the German defence. 12 SS Div may be regarded as in close reserve opposite our front and counterattack against our East flank must be expected.
4. The ground is ideally suited to full exploitation by the enemy of the characteristics of his weapons. It is open, giving little cover to either infantry or tanks and the long range of his anti-tank guns and more tars, firing from carefully prepared positions, provides a very strong defence in depth. This defence will be most handicapped in bad visibility - smoke, fog or darkness, when the advantage of long range is minimized. The attack should therefore be made under such conditions.
5. During the last few days we have attacked, and done everything posible to indicate that we intend to contuine attacking, the positions opposite us. Tactical surprise in respect to objectives or directions of attack is therfore impossible. Tactical surprise is still possible in respect to time and method, but very heavy fighting must be expected.
6. If all available air support is used for the first "break in" there will be nothing for the second except diminished gun support, unless a long pause is made with resultant loss of speed. If on the other hand the first "brak in" is based upon limited air support (heavy night bombers), all available gun support and novelty of method, the heavy bombers and medium bombers will be available for the second "break in" at a time when gun support begins to decrease, and it should be able to maintain a high tmep to the operation.
7. In essence, the problem is how to get armour through the enemy gun screen to sufficient depth to disrupt the German anti-tank gun and mortar defence, in country highly suited to the tactics of the latter combination. It can be done by:-
(a)Overwhelming air support to destroy or neutralize enemy tanks, anti-tank guns and mortars.
(b)Infiltrating through the screen in bad visibility to a sufficient depth to disrupt the anti-tank gun and mortar defences.
It requires practically the whole day bomber lift to effect (a) and if two defence zones are to be penetrated, a pause with loss of speed and momentim must be accepted. It is considered that this may be avoided if the firs zone is penetrated by infiltration at night but this can only be attempted with careful preparations by troops who are to do the operation.
8. The plan is ubmitted on the assumption that the Right Wing of SEcond Army has secured, or imminently threatens to secure, a bridgehead East of the River ORNE, thus loosening the grip on the enemys northern pivot.

Page 79

The plan (in Reids own words based off the appreciation, Simonds's supporting docs of an outlined plan, a summary of what he would need to achieve it and marked maps):

Phase 1: Two infantry divisions, each supported by an armoured brigade would "break in" through the forward German defence line and capture the ground around Point 122 at the rear of the position to form a firm base for the second phase. The divisions would also mop up bypasssed German positions.
Phase 2: One armoured and a fresh infantry division would "break in" the second defence line. Simonds saw the initial attack mounted by the armoued division while the infantry division would follow along and widen the area of the penetration of the defensive position.
Phase 3: Having penetrated the German defences, the attackers would exploit towards Falaise. The Phase 2 armoured division (my note: the 4th Canadian Armoured Division) would capture the high ground west of Quesnay village that dominated the axis of advance while a fresh armoured division (my note: the Poles) would advance along the Caen-Falaise road past the heights sough of the river Laison and seize the high ground northeast of the city. The infantry divisions would follow on and occupy the ground vacated by the armoured divisions.

Pages 93

Monty's directive to the Canadian Army

Task of First Canadian Army
8) To launch a heavy attack from the Caen sector in the direction of Falaise.
9)Object of the operation:
(a) To break htrough the enemy positions to the south and south-east of Caen, and to gain such ground in the direction of Falaise as will cut off the enemy forces now facing Second Army and render their withdrawing eastwards difficult - if not impossible.
(b)Generally to destroy enemy equipment and personnel, as a perliminary to a possible wide exploitation of success.
10) The attack to be launched as early as possible and in any case not later than 8 August - dependent on good weather for air support. Every day counts, and speed is preparing and launching the attack is very neccessary.
Every endeavour will be made to launch the attack on 7 August if this is in any way possible.

Page 97-98

General Crerar echoed Monty when he wrote to his Corps commanders that the operation was to attack in the direction of Falaise to help make the German retreat more difficult if not impossible.

Page 97onwards

Intel picked up suggests the frontline has been weakened and the second line has been reinforced. Air plan reminds the same however the ground plan changes. Phase One remains the same however Phase two now sees all 3 Infantry Divisions advancing, with the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division being pushed all the way towards Pt 140 and the 4th Canadian Armoured Division being concentrated around Pt 195 and Pt 206 instead of being spread out towards Pt 140.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. This will come in handy. If I haven't worked this into the "offensive plan" by tomorrow (being the end of Saturday, April 19, 2008), feel free to do so yourself. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Right oh, will give it a shot.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Will try and quote from this in the article. (WP:CopyVio not an issue; a verbatim plan might be a state secret but cannot be copyrighted! HLGallon (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I regret that I have seen fit to put this tag at the front of the article. My reasons are: lack of coherent timeline; inconsistency in formations involved and their compositions; poor grammar, too much passive voice. Rather than rewrite it all myself (which I would do by reverting to the version as of November 7, 2007, I'll let someone else (Canadian?) have a go. HLGallon (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll do that ASAP (as soon as the A-Class on another article I'm working on is complete). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 18:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with HLGallion, unfortunately. I'm trying to clean up some of the grammar & stuff, but there is a major inconsistency in the "Background" section. The strength of the Cdn forces is listed as "2 Infantry Divisions and 2 Armoured Divisions", and this jives with neither the Campaign box (listing 3 Inf Divs, 2 Arm'd Divs and 2 Arm'd Brigades), nor with the Order of Battle (OoB) listed under 1st Canadian Army, which lists 3 Inf Divs, 3 Arm'd Divs (including the Polish), and 2 Arm'd Brigades. As well, neither the box nor the text include the British 51st Inf. Div.! Should the box and text be modified to read "4 Infantry Divs (3 Canuck + 1 Brit), 3 Armoured Divs (2 Canuck + 1 Polish), and 2 (Cdn) Armoured Brigades? I have no idea. If all of the formations of the 1st Cdn Army were not involved, it would be incorrect to state that this was the first operation where the 1st Cdn Army fought as a unit. Help us out here, Cam. Esseh (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute - just found the Brit 33rd Arm'd Brigade in the offensive - yet it is not mentioned in the Box, nor in the earlier text. This is added strength, and should be included. Esseh (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what I need is about a day & a half to go through & totally rework this article (fortunately, I'm about to hit exam-break, so I'll probably have one of those fairly soon) Thanks for pointing out the problems. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

On another note, the map has to go. First, standard battle maps show "friendly" forces in blue, not gawdawful pink, and enemy forces are always shown in red. Second, everything is listed as "British" assaults, even though this was (was it?) primarily a Cdn operation. Third, where the heck is the armour? The map makes it look like the infantry did everything alone! As a former "zipperhead", I take umbrage at being left out again! (and I'll say it in Polish and Cockney, too!) ;-) Esseh (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not the one who made the map, and I've been looking for a better one for quite some time. I'll see what I can do. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The map was a quick filler until a better one could be found - i wouldnt sweat it too much. On a ego boosting looking back at the good old days when we had an empire note - whats wrong with pink it use to cover a good chunk of the world :p --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been some good work, but in my opinion there are still some issues:

• • In the first paragraph, ...The battle is considered the inaugural operation of the 1st Canadian Army, which fought as a unified force for the first time. This is vague and confusing assertion. At the time Canadian I Corps (two divisions, one armoured brigade) was fighting in Italy, and would not join First Canadian Army until March 1945. It is correct to assert that this was the first major operation planned and carried out under First Canadian Army control, with Canadian II Corps in operational control.

I think whomever wrote it may have been referring to piece meal use of the First Armys divisions etc prior to Totalise when the entire field Army was used together for the first time? I don't see why you have brought I Corps up?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Second section (Background) By August 8, First Canadian Army consisted of two infantry divisions and two armoured divisions, and Totalise was considered the inaugural battle of the army. Incorrect, with a superfluous assertion at the end.
  • Same section. With additional support from the 2nd British Army, the entire 21st Army Group was prepared to assault Verrières Ridge in a drive for Falaise. British Second Army played no part in 'Totalise; the entire sentence is confusing and unnecessary verbiage.
  • Third section (The Offensive Plan) In the pre-dawn hours of August 8, two infantry divisions (Canadian 2nd and British 51st) were to advance across the left and right flanks (respectively) of German defences along the Caen-Falaise Road, each supported by an armoured brigade. The minor grammatical error (it is unclear whether the armoured brigades were supporting the attackers or the defenders) is easy to fix, but the sentence misses the entire point of Simonds's plan. The essence of his plan was to infiltrate through the German front line to seize objectives in depth around Cramesnil, at least three miles inside German-held territory, not outflank and by implication attack the Germans' forward outposts. The section also misses the whole point of the use of the Kangaroo APCs - mere novelty does not explain the rationale.
  • Same section, This would enable British and Canadian forces to trap the German armies attempting to withdraw from the Falaise Pocket. This is incorrect; the Falaise pocket didn't form until August 12, and could not have formed any basis for the Canadian planning.
  • Fifth section (German Countermoves) However, re-enforcements by a pair of Panzer battlegroups began an immediate counterattack against British and Canadian forces. Far too vague, and not particularly good grammar.
  • Minor points; I don't like long essays in the info. box, "Partial Allied success" will do well enough. I'm not too sure what has gone wrong with the mangled footnotes; I'll try and fix them. HLGallon (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Kangaroos

Just to make an observation here - the article calls the Kangaroos: "Kangaroo Armoured Personel Carriers", it then contuines to just refer to them as APC's.

I think it would be more correct to use there codename throughout the article instead of the abbreviation. Thats just my opinion, anyone elses?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The allied forces had several other types of much less capable "APCs" including universal carriers and halftracks. Sticking to the term "kangaroos" (note, no apostrophe) is probably better. DMorpheus (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By all means. So long as the origin and use of Kangaroos (also known as "unfrocked priests") as part of the plan for Totalise is explained, everything else is a matter of style (which I must admit, I rather neglected). HLGallon (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just one more observation, to say that the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division was not involved in the overall plan of the operation would be purely false. In fact, Keller was removed from his command of the division for his sub-par performance in Totalize. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

272nd

"The remnants of the 272nd (which had been decimated during Operation Goodwood" — not true, the 272nd was still a sizable fighting-force at the time of Operation Spring & the Battle of Verrières Ridge (it contributed three battlegroups to the German counterattacks on July 25 & 26). I'll rework that later. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation - I am still in the process of reading up on Operation Goodwood - however one would note that even though this division was able to play a part in the counterattack that doesnt mean it was not "decimated" in a pervious operation. The word basically means they took serious losses[*], doesnt mean it wasnt able to fight afterwards.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ahem, actually it means the opposite. The word decimate means, 'to reduce by a tenth'. Keith-264 (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Latin word from which 'to decimate' is derived literally means 'to reduce by a tenth', yes, but as a disciplinary measure for mutiny or rebellion. Not even the Germans, with their draconian military codes and flying courts-martial, went quite this far. The luckless 272nd Division was actually attacked by the 2nd and 3rd Canadian Divisions south of Caen as part of Operation Atlantic rather than Operation Goodwood. During this operation and subsequent fighting on the Verrieres Ridge, it would have lost 50% or more of its effectiveness before being relieved immediately before Totalise. I'll put this in the article once I have confirmed from sources. HLGallon (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the Roman usage of the word, as in the decimation of the legions in rare cases (club ~500 to death for munity) etc However the modern word means much more.

Oxford Dictionary: verb 1 kill or destroy a large proportion of. 2 drastically reduce the strength of. So to say X unit was "decimated" in an attack is correct usage if they did infact recieve heavy losses.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Operation TOTALIZE

Every single contemporary document refers to this in the North American spelling "Totalize". Why does this article redirect to the British spelling "Totalise", or for that matter, even mention "Totalise"? It was never spelled that way. This seems like conceit on the part of some Brit WP editor. The article should be found on WP under Operation Totalize, with a redirect from Operation Totalise, not the other way around. I wouldn't even mention the alternate spelling in the article - it was never called that. The Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War has one mention of Totalise (in the index, probably a typo), but 73 throughout the text for Totalize. Likewise, Google shows 2,000 hits for "Operation Totalise" (in quotations - and many of those hits are simply mirrors of Wikipedia) but 4,800 for "Operation Totalize". 139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Reids book on this operation also spells it with a 'Z'.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay - you seem like the most major recent contributor, so with your consensus, I'll go ahead and make the change for now. I've already changed the Normandy infobox, and left my notes on the talk page there. If there are concerns with this, they can be discussed here, naturally.139.48.25.61 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to bring the edit history of Operation Totalise over to Operation Totalize so that a single continuous history is available in one place? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is it a POV issue to state spelling it with a 's' is erroneous? If Canadian sources show one way, surely that should be it and other ways are simply mispelling it?

I am endlessly told by Wikipedia people who know better than me, Wikipedia should focus on current usage rather than (possibly arcane) contemporary usage. Whatever the original usage was, there are plenty of current British sources which use "Totalise" (including the BBC) so it is past being erroneous and has become current usage. It is therefore appropriate to frame the article (as it now is) in the (historically correct) "Totalize" context but use the more neutral wording regarding British sources which I have favoured. It would be interesting to see how it was spelled in the contemporary 21st Army Group daily orders and battle diaries....! Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

But surely this is a failed poilcy and constitues reinforcing error?

The Op was launched by the Canadian First Army, if they spell it one way in there own official history surely that is the correct way and others are simply misspelling it?

"British" sources also spell it this way:

1. Collosal Cracks by Ashley Hart
2. The D-Day experiance by Richard Holmes (a British War Museam book)
3. Road to Falaise by Hart (Battle zone Normandy series, the series editor being one Simon Trew from Sandhurst)
4. The Struggle For Europe by Wilmot (an Aussie i must admit)
5. M.O.D. PDF file on Normandy (searches for alt spellings on there website finds nothing)
6. The Encyclopedia of Codenames of World War II by Chant also lists it spelt with a 'z'
7. As for what do 21st AG say about this, Post war British Army of the Rhine battlefield papers (original year 1947)
8. British National Arhives

The BBC history section also calls Operation Brevity a failed operation to relieve Tobruk which employed the entire XIII Corps of 2 full divisions against up to 4 Axis divisions. However you will see a completly different picture in the article here. I have never fully trusted what there history section states and if i recall correctly published material outwieghs websites when it comes to FAC standards. And so on...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You're spending waaaay too much time worrying about this. Look at it this way:
Fact; It's called "Operation Totalize" (that's why the article was shifted and what it says at the top of the page)
Fact: Some current British Sources call it "Operation Totalise" and the article now mentions this (so that the unititiated reader understands it's the same thing when coming across "Operation Totalise" in one of these sources).
There is no need to spend a lot of time throwing sources around trying to "prove" anything. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 19:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Am asking what are these "some British sources"? I find this statement to be incorrect with the weight of evidence which shows British historians/published documents do not use this spelling. Hence why it should be noted not as an alternative but as being incorrect.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm obviously not expressing myself clearly enough. It's not a question of weight of evidence. "Totalize" is what it was called and most sources from wherever call it that. However, some sources refer to it as Totalise and it is worth mentioning the fact to avoid confusion. I'm reluctant to make a statement in a Wikipedia article that something is incorrect (even if it is), it just sounds chippy, defensive and un-encyclopaedic in style. Perhaps the way to deal with this is through a footnote. I'll give it a go and see what you think. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 00:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Very much happy now. :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it works out better with all the spelling information in the footnote; it is really - as you both say - tangential to the article, but still relevant as there are enough references in current source material to cause confusion and an explanation is required somewhere. Right in sentence one, however, it seems disjointed and distracting.139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Books

Removed a bunch of books which have not been cited within the article, here they are to save anyone having to type it all back in again incase they are used:

• Major Ellis, L.S. (2004). Victory in the West: The Battle of Normandy, Official Campaign History Volume II. History of the Second World War: United Kingdom Military. Naval & Military Press Ltd. ISBN 1-84574-058-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
• Hastings, Max (1999). Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy, 1944. Pan Books. ISBN 0-33039-012-0. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
• Holmes, Richard (2004). The D-Day Experience from the Invasion to the Liberation of Paris. Carlton Books Ltd. ISBN 1-84442-805-2. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |origdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Meyer, Kurt (2005). Grenadiers: The Story of Waffen SS General Kurt "Panzer" Meyer. Stackpole Books. ISBN 0-81173-197-9. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
• Whitaker, Brigadier General Denis (2004). Normandy: The Real Story (How Ordinary Allied Soldiers Defeated Hitler). Presidio Press. ISBN 0-34545-907-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |origdate= (help)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll review it...

...if the article is not reviewed by someone when I get on tomorrow—it's 12:30 here, and I've got class at 8:00 in the morning...so yeah. Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

......and then I got swamped with homework. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 01:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You may wanna wait a few days, as i think the lack of inline citations within the article will hurt it some. If i have nothing to do tonight when am at home ill pull my copy of No Holding Back out and try get some citations in there.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got class until 3:40, so I won't get to it until 5-6 my time (CST). Remember, I can always place articles on hold! ;D Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 13:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Some Canadian and British infantry divisions had been temporarily equipped with M7 Priest self-propelled guns for the D-Day landings. These had since been withdrawn and replaced by towed Ordnance QF 25 pounders. Simonds had the Priests converted into Kangaroo Armoured Personnel Carriers, which would allow infantry to follow the tanks closely on any terrain. Permission was first requested from the Americans, from whom the M7s had been borrowed, to convert them into APCs

1. I find this hard to believe to convert them to APC's would mean the removal of the gun, a task that must have taken most of a day per vehicle.
2. How many were converted ?
3. What did they do with the guns they removed. I presume they would have to have been refitted when they were returned to the Americans.
4. Who agreed on the American side to dismantle their own weapons during a war/campaign/attack

I can see the source but just find it very hard to believe Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The simple answer is yes they were converted, guns removed, additional armour plate attached and turned into the worlds first APCs: see the article on Kangaroos--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, why would it take over a day to remove a single gun, i dont have a referance infront of me to show how quickly the conversions took place but from my knowledge of other vechiles and seeing video footage of tanks being stripped down taking a day to remove a gun seems why to long on a job.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking out the howitzer wouldn't take a field workshop long. Gun tubes wore out fairly quickly anyway, and every AFV is designed to allow for very rapid replacement of the gun & mounting. I doubt any of them were ever reconverted back to self-propelled howitzers.

They were not, of course, the world's first APCs or even the first full-tracked APCs.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A good point i must conceede on - i got a bit ahead of myself, of course the first one iirc were variants of the British tanks used in WW1.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was considering the Barrel, recoil system, ammunition bins etc from 1st hand knowledge it took the best part of 6/7 hours to replace a chieftain tank gun half that for just the removal and I dont think they would have been working in the best of conditions. We have to trust the source but its just hard to believe. Then again thinking about the pictures of pre D Day Britain and the vehicle parks they might have had a few to spare Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)