Talk:Invasion of Normandy/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Question about caption of picture accompanying this section.

The caption on the pic of the US soldiers viewing the body draped over the gun barrel of the German SP gun identifies them as 2nd Armored Division troops. The US soldier nearest the camera is wearing the patch of the 3rd Armored Division. Is the caption correct or were they actually 3rd AD troops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipdigit (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to changed it foreverDEAD 18:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought i dont no alot about army patches so it could be right foreverDEAD 18:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That soldier is indeed wearing the insignia of the 3rd Armored Division and not the 2nd as given in the image caption (the original source also says 2nd). So I'd tend to agree and say the original caption is incorrect...--Caranorn 19:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag Order

I see we've alphabetized the flag order. I'm not sure about that. For one thing, Poland is in there. That makes it seem like they did something considerable to what the Big 3 of the battle did. Another thing is that I don't think it's THAT debatable on what the order should be. Does anybody really have a disagreement with U.S. (most men/casualties), UK (2nd most men/casualties), Canada (3rd)? I'm not going to argue for or against the inclusion of Poland, as that's not what I'm responding for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.208.61 (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Not having them in alphabetical order is showing perferance to one over the other.

For two examples, some Italian WW2 buffs get ticked off over Germany being given perferance over the Italian forces in North Africa in situations like this. For example, Ambrose book 'D-Day' was slated by British readers for focusing on the Americans for the majoirty of the book, likewise having the United States at the top of this article could be seen in a simlar light.

Therefore having them Alphabetised avoids any needless discussion or argument. It also, in my opinion looks more professional. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, alphabetical ordering is generally the best option. It avoids inherently subjective judgements on the participants. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A new proposal to split this article now that it's demoted from FA.

It's already been suggested before, but I feel it's time to split out the D-day portion of this article into a sub article (as per WP:SUMMARY). I have gone through the previous debates in the archives and from what I've read, this was the following objections that prevented the article from being split:

  • An early objection from Raul654 that stated that the article does a good job of describing the battle and the campaign. Argument repeated by Sverdrup
  • A later (still early) reason by Sfahey who objected because then the article would risk losing its FA status. (the argument was raised that a featured article is quite difficult to rename)
  • A 2006 debate that raised concerns about what to call the article and sub article.
  • A 2007 debate that complained that the article had grown oversized hence violating the WP:SIZE guideline. (the response being that Battle of Normandy had encompass both the invasion and the campaign afterward)
  • 2 recent suggestions to split the article that didn't amount to anything (WP:BOLD problems?).

Looking back at the debates, it seems that the FA status of the article was the primary reason that no-one dared to split this article. Well, this article is no longer featured, so arguments 1 and 2 no longer apply.

Indeed, one of the reasons that this article was demoted from FA was due to length concerns. With regards to argument 3 and 4, I'd argue is that this is a fault in the name of this article.

Battle of Normandy is an ambiguous term that can mean anything from the landings on the beach itself, to the entire Western Campaign up to the end of Sep'44. Maybe it had to do with the fact that this article had that star thingy at the top, or maybe not, but this article had to cover the full details of both Operation Overlord (a long article in and of itself), and then summarise the entire Normandy campaign all the way to the Liberation of Paris. The fault being that this article is actually the Campaign of Normandy and Operation Overlord merged into one. Were this article split into Invasion of Normandy, Normandy Campaign and Normandy Breakout, we wouldn't have any of these WP:SIZE problems.

It is for these reasons, and to sort out the WP:SIZE issue which cost this article its FA status, that I propose we break apart this article in two. My suggestions are to fork out the D-Day items into Invasion of Normandy and the campaign items into Normandy Breakout, with this article serving as the link (possibly rename to Normandy Campaign). --Oshah 12:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support this split 100%. Ive always felt that this artical could go into some serious depth. With separate articals we could fully address all the things of the landings breakout and campaign fully in depth. ForeverDEAD 14:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I support this proposed split as well, though with the caveat that the landing at Normandy still needs to be briefly covered in the Normandy campaign article as the landing was an important part of the campaign. A benefit of the split would be that the resulting shorter articles would be less intimidating to edit. --Nick Dowling 00:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I also support splitting the article. At its current state, it's over 106kb, which far exceeds recommended 35kb article length. It's far from readable in a sitting. The point of an article is not for our own good, but to produce a succinct, usable explanation of the topic for the reader. I also agree with the reasons stated above by Esskater11 and Nick Dowling. Parsecboy 00:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree at all that the article should be split. It offers a general overview of the struggle, which was one unified battle, and many historians handle it this way. The article's approach is sound. Indeed this was exactly the point raised by Land Forces Commander Mongtomery prior to the battle, that it was one, unified battle, taking in not only the initial landings but the subsequent struggle to breakout of the beachhead. Montgomery had to fight against the more limited concepts of planners who were mostly concerned with getting on the beach.
Rather than split the article, I think extraneous or non-essential information should be removed from it. Why for example is there a "Tourism" section? Or a "Dramatization" section dealing with films etc on Normandy? All of these are not fully relevant. The article couldb e cut by 15-20% by removing this andother non-essential information. It could be moved to a new articles- something like "Normandy in popular culture" or "Normandy battlefield Tourism" which would take care of the tourism thing.
I say keep the article as is, and split out if you will the non-essential filler.
That's exactly what I'm proposing. This article will be renamed to the Normandy Campaign, operation overlord will be forked off to the Invasion of Normandy, we've already got Operation Neptune, and the breakout will be detailed in a new article, the Normandy breakout (or perhaps Operation Cobra, I'll sort out article naming later). That way, we can cover all parts of the war in detail, rather than having this article which has to cover the background, the planning, the invasion (including which beach was which), the statistics, the result, the breakout, the aftermath, and the impact all in one article, all in complete detail.
It was one unified battle. It should be treated as such, and numerous histories treat it as such. If more detail is needed, then new articles on (a) prepration, (b) the landings and (c) the breakout should be developed. THis article is a "one stop" place that gives the big picture for a reader.
Size guidelines are just that, guidelines. 35K or even 70K is very unrealistic for a big topic like Normandy.
True, but with this article, there is such a natural split between the different operations, that there won't be the usual problems with content forking that other articles have (pov forks, trivia sections, lists). --Oshah 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
As for being hard to read, that does not appear to be the case, and in any event can be fixed with more sub-sections and headings to improve readibility.
Are you kidding? This article is anything but readable in one sitting (The FA version was much, much better at covering the battle). The reasons for unreadability were already covered in the featured article review. The sections are way too long (and they're mostly uncited), there is far too much detail about the individual beaches in this one article (naming fault), even if we take away the lists, we're still left with 78k of poorly organised prose.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the TOC is a complete and utter mess of headings and subheadings (see the manual of style to see how TOCs should be organised), and this was one of the reasons why this article lost its FA status. And your proposed solution is to mess up the TOC even more. --Oshah 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The are several weakness of the article now that need addressing. One is lack of references. They are thin. Also the article appears to be a "listing" of items in places. The "Invasion Plan" section for example is mostly a list of participating units, and does a thin job of describing the overall plan or concept of the struggle. Why for example were initial plans recast to add two more divisions to the assault force? What about the commnd setup? What changes were wrought by Montgomery for example? WHat was the concept of battle? Why is the Codenames section as such relevant? Why is the Eastern Front issue taking up so much space- more than the Breakout section. The list can go on and on. There is a lot more that needs fixing in this article than mere size issues. LackeyOfImperialism 18:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point but still if we split the articals up we could go into more detail and other things as you stated without making this page superlong. ForeverDEAD 20:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the three part split idea but I dont think this article needs to be split. It is supposed to be a "big picture" summary like a lot of write-ups you see onthe web. It needs a lot of work and cleanup and does not need to go all the way to Paris. It should stop at the breakout which several books do. I would recommend a new project called NORMANDY CAMPAIGN which would accomodate the 3-part separation. If you started a new article you could use the material from this one as a skeleton to build on. Start fresh and eliminate all the extra material about tourism or films, and work in the missing info. COpy as much as needed form this article to get started. I think that is a better approach. LackeyOfImperialism 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, that's the idea. This article is going to be drastically cut down in size, to be a broad summary of the entire campaign, with daughter articles for the landings and the breakout-onwards. Just like World War II has the Pacific War sub-article. Parsecboy 21:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the reasons for the split - size- is no longer such a pressing issue because the article could be cut 20% by removing things like Tourism or Dramatization, and reducing the Eastern Front side issue to 10-12 lines.
I've thought about splitting away the Eastern Front and Tourism/Dramatization into their own separate articles (just as long as they don't get sent to immediate AFD). However, that change only buys you 15K. The prose you really want to get rid of is all the details of the beaches. --Oshah 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It is taking up more space than Breakout and is really marginal to the topic. As for working in the other information, I think that is better done in a totally NEW article, called NORMANDY CAMPAIGN using as much as needed from this article to start things. The article is supposed to be a "big picture" summary, meaning it will be light in some areas. This is where a NEW more in-depth CAMPAIGN article comes in.
The WWII example is a "big picture" article -an example of what I am talking about. It is one unified article- wth sub-topics. the new CAMPIGN suggestionis similar. I am willing to start the CAMPAIGN article by copying over all the material and using that as a starting point.LackeyOfImperialism 21:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The term Battle of Normandy is incorrect. The correct name of this article should be Campaign of Normandy (as it deals with the series of military operations with the goal of taking control of the area). Already, we are dealing with naming issues, as the main article name is neither the proper name of the event (Campaign of Normandy), nor is it the popular name of the event (D-Day, or Operation Overlord).
Regarding the remark about the majority of historians treating it as one unified battle, that's not what I'm seeing from my references. Martin Gilbert, Stephen Ambrose, Dear+Foot all treat the invasion separately from the campaign which followed (specifically, they devote separate chapters/sections in their ww2 histories). John Keegan is one of the main historians that treat the conflict in a unified manner. And he had to cover every single aspect of the war in his ww2 book (except for dday-paris, which was more about the campaign).
Regarding Montgomery's comments, I thought that his comments were focused on the entire western front campaign all the way to VE day.--Oshah 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree with removing the extra material- Move Tourism, Dramatizations etc to a "holding" article and slash the Eastern Front text. It is ridiculous that we have more on the Eastern Front than the Normandy Breakout. I also agree that the article is not a true look at the 70-76 day Normandy Campaign as such. Acutally, 75% of it is D-Day landings. So essentially this article is msotly D-day landings. I have no problem then splitting off the post D-day campaign into another article so that it receives adequate treatment provided that the second post DDAY phase is fully developed.
If the proposed 3-part split were made more clear, I am amenable. If 3 clear divisions can be developed in the proposed reorganization, I have no objections, and would not stand in the way. (1)Landings (2) Breakout, (3)Falaisie Gap/Seine advance.
THis is a big task. Another alternative is to use a simpler 2-part division, Dday Landings and then the subsequent Post DDAY campaign ending with the close of the Faliase (sic) Gap and arrival of Allied armies at the Seine. The official US Army write-up divides Operation Overlord campaign into these 2 Phases basically:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/wwii/g4-OL/g4-OL.htm
Either way could work. If it can be pulled off in a coherent fashion then I have no problems with the change. LackeyOfImperialism 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been arguing for a split for awhile now and am in agreement with LackeyOfImperialism. IMO, our articles should be as follows:
Battle of Normandy would then become a disambiguation page pointing to all of those three. Oberiko 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Split preview

Okay, I've created two articles: User:Oshah/Campaign of Normandy, and User:Oshah/Invasion of Normandy. Unfortunately, not much additional prose has been added to the article, and the Assault article isn't much shorter than before (sorry, I'm more of a cite guy than a good writer). I'm aware much more work on these two articles are required. However, seeing how it's the first major effort to fork this article since the loss of FA, I'm going to put them live next week. --Oshah 21:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Most excellent. Great job! :) Jmlk17 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
That looks like a good start. My only suggestion at this point is to change the name of the first article to Normandy Campaign, but that's just my personal preference. Parsecboy 21:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that actually Parsec... Jmlk17 22:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I personaly think "campain of normandy" is a better title ForeverDEAD 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Either will work; I'm not too hung up about it. It's all just a matter of taste. Parsecboy 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Normandy Campaign would be consistent with other articles and is better English IMO. I think that it's also the common name for this event - I've never seen 'Campaign of Normandy' in print. --Nick Dowling 01:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've renamed it to User:Oshah/Normandy Campaign. I probably need to rename the Invasion of Normandy too. I feel that Operation Overlord is the better name for the article (well actually, I feel that D-Day is the best name, but this already conflicts with the present D-Day one). --Oshah 18:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with using Operation Overlord. Normandy Campaign is already the official American name for American actions (ie. does not include actions of British / Commonwealth forces) for the period from 6 June - 24 July l944. Oberiko 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

RE casualty box

What happened to the Germans ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.115.3 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

They're there. They're in the "casualty 2" box. Parsecboy 12:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Somone done the maths, ever?!

It says in the strenght box that the allies had 155 000 men, out of 155 000 they lost a bit over 200 000. Have I misunderstood or is something severley wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Couldn't-care-less (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood, evidently. Initial Allied strength may have been 155,000, but during the campaign, losses are incurred and then replaced. Same on the German side and indeed in most campaigns. That's why you will hear of units sustaining casualty rates, over the course of a long campaign, far in excess of 100%. To take a simple example, a rifle platoon might start on monday morning with 30 men, take ten casualties, and get ten replacements on tuesday (if they are lucky). So on tuesday they are at full strength despite having taken 33% casualties. They might do that five or six times over the course of a few months in combat. DMorpheus 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Those casualty figures are those for the entire Normandy campaign, and not the landing. The British D-Day museum's website says that "Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead". As this article now covers only the landing, the casualty figures need to be adjusted accordingly. I've just done this using the Museum's figures. --Nick Dowling 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but it seems a bit odd only too state the initial numbers since that is not a consistencey, nor is it warned for. Ok, thanks Dowling. i've seen that number 10 000 many times before. Well, I guess that solves everything, great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Couldn't-care-less (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Combatants

I'm confused as to why the Combatants in the box are only listed as UK, US, Canade and Poland on the allied side. Even if it was decided on size, surely Free France, once the efforts of the Forces de l'Interieur are taken into account, qualifies. And I mean surely every one deserves to be there. I grew up in Normandy, and we always celebrated Belgium and Norway and Czechoslovakia and all the others who I've shamelessely forgotten here...Hrcolyer 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A significantly sized French force (ie. a French division) was not organised until well after the invasion of Normandy. The French 2nd Armored Division only got mobilised in August 1944. Therefore, their combat is meant to form part of the Normandy Campaign. --Oshah 22:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the same can be argued for Poland, seeing how they had even less involvement in the landings. --Oshah 23:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


If this article is about the invasion only, then i would argue that Norway, France and possible Australia should be represented in the combatants section.

Norwegian ships were offshore doing there part, French troops landed along side the Anglo-Canadians during the beach landings and iirc Australian planes were in action covering the entire action along side the men of the RAF, CRAF and USSAF --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the French 2eme DB was in combat around the first week of August, so obviously they were organized many, many months before that. DMorpheus (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, the French 2nd Armored was constituted in 1943, but they did not land in Normandy until 1 August 1944, well after the initial landings and towards the end of the campaign as a whole, so should not be included in this article, but rather at Normandy Campaign. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We now have a bit of an edit war going on, which will continue, I suspect, unless we agree here on what criteria to use when listing combatants. I invite everyone ot talk this over and come to some consensus. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Am not talking about the Second French Armoured Division. French ground troops landed along side British forces on D-Day. Am not in front of any books at the moment but i believe it was Sword beach or at least on the flank near or with Lovat.

In regards to the last edit which was to place Norway back on the list. They may not have been a "major" combatant but it is unfair to remove mention of there contribution, they had men fight and die on D-Day supporting the landings via warships and transporters.

In regards to the comments made in the edits, i added the Australians since they also played there part via air support. One would have also added New Zealand however one could not find any information to back up they had forces involved on D-Day.

As for Poland, to my knowledge the only forces i know of involved during Normandy was there armoured Division, did they play any role in the actual landings? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Poland contributed several cruisers and destroyers to the invasion fleet. Look at the list at Operation Neptune. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The French guys i was thinking of who landed were part of the 1st Special Service Brigade and were allowed to land first. There was at least two troops of them if i recall correctly.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Name

see also Talk: Normandy Campaign#Article overlap

If this article is now only about the invasion, it being called the Battle of Normandy seems to be somewhat wrong. Can the article now be renamed to avoid any confusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article should be moved to something like Allied invasion of Normandy. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we just call it d-day?
Wokelly (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to rename the title. The invasion is the battle to which the article is referring, not the entire Normandy Campaign. Also, D-Day is far too ambiguous a term to be used here. Every invasion in history has had a "d-day", as well as an "h-hour". The article is fine as it is. Parsecboy (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Battle of Normandy for me is just incorrect if we are soley talking about the invasion. Invasion of Normandy, Battle of the Normandy Beaches, D-Day(1944). Anything which shows that this is not about the entire campaign which one assumes when you see the title and am sure is bounc to cause confussion when you start reading through it to see it actually isnt.
For example i believe before Nick started editing the article, it featured troop numbers for the entire campaign etc

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's very clear. There's a disambig at the top, stating in clear words that this was not about the Normandy Campaign, and the first sentence in the introduction states that the article is about the Allied invasion of Normandy. I don't know what more we can do to make it more obvious, short of typing in extra large font "This article is only about the actual invasion of Normandy, not the subsequent campaign". Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of extra large font! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok i was only joking when i typed that but it seemed like a good idea so i did it hahah--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I was talking about BIG text. That's cool too though. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No matter how clear and big the text is, I think the naming is wrong. The understanding I've had is that the assault phase = Operation Neptune and the fighting from the landings in June to the Seine crossings in Sept was the Battle of Normandy = Operation Overlord. These US (including a US Army history), French and British sources support this understanding: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and books. Where did the "Normandy Campaign" title originate? Folks at 137 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully a new discussion which will quick up speed and support and an asnwer to this question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Operation_Overlord --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The thread's been moved to here. It's probably best if we centralize the discussion. Oberiko (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

D-Day casualties?

Antony Shaw writes in his book "WW2: Day by Day" short notes about every event in WW2. When looking up the 6th of June 1944, "WW2: Day by Day" states that the total loss-count from both combatant sides, at the end of the day, were 2'500 men. Is this true? If so: should it be edited to this article?


213.113.164.145 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The current casualty figures in the article's infobox are referenced to the D-Day Museum at Portsmouth's website. A more reliable source would be welcome, but the current figures look fairly reasonable. 2,500 deaths for both sides seems a bit low given that the US and Canada suffered about 1,700 alone, but it could be right. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A recent {broadcast Jan 2008) history BBC programme stated that US casualties at Omaha alone were around 6,000 on the 6th June. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Didnt the "beast of normandy".. one single man, killed or wounded about 2000 allies? Personally, i also doubt, that only 150.000 troops fought against almost 400.000 enemies. It would bare any military sense to make an offense, an invasion with less then half as much soldiers as the enemy has got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.118.81 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Was this a typo?

The article says on of the suspected leaks was an answers to a crossword puzzle: "Overload". Should it be "Overlord"? Saros136 (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that's a typo. Of course there's no source for the line. If I get some time (which I likely won't), I'll try to dig around and see if I can find a reference for it (2 birds with one stone, eh?) Parsecboy (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, check out this article: telegraph article from 2003
Seems it was more then just Overlord, every beach name and other codewords were in the crosswords and it appears that it stems down to soldiers who couldnt keep there trap shut around kids.

Good thing one thinks the German spy network had already been cracked in country lol --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The crosword answer was "Overlord." There were several other clues, such as "Utah" was the answer to "One of the Americans." However, investigating agents found a bewildered crossword writer who had no idea about the invasions, and it proved to be merely coincidence.Borg Sphere (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

British vs. American spelling

Armor v armour - the majority of the times this word appears it is in British English rather than US - I have changed three occasions of the US spelling for consistency [Unit names have not been changed, of course]62.136.231.43 (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good... nice job. Jmlk17 08:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical context

What about some historical context on Normandy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.195.88 (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Such as? Jmlk17 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems due to split

Some problems have come up in this article as a result of the decision to make it about the invasion only. Some I can fix now, but some will need discussion. The first is that I don't think "Battle of Normandy" is now the best name for the article. I think "Invasion of Normandy" or something similar might be better. I don't think anyone refers to Day 1 as "The Battle of Normandy", especially as it is a term we sued to sue for the entire campaign. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There actually is a discussion on this very issue here. You might want to weigh in there. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
We have a proposal up at here, please weigh in with feedback. Oberiko (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Moves to be made

Unless there are objections, we'll be using the following structure:

  • Operation Overlord: Overview of the everything (sans things like Dragoon) up until the liberation of Paris (June 6 - Aug 25)
    • Invasion of Normandy: Invasion and establishment (June 6 - mid-July (Goodwood / Cobra))
      • Normandy Landings: Sub-page focusing on the naval and amphibious portion. A.K.A. Operation Neptune
    • Breakout from Normandy: The breakout and chase up to the liberation of Paris (Mid-July - Aug 25)

Disambiguation pages

  • Battle of Normandy: Disambiguation linking to all of the above, plus other battles in Normandy (such as during the Hundred Years' War)
  • Normandy Campaign: Same as Battle of Normandy, but with additional note of it being an official campaign in the American European Theater of Operations
  • Operation Neptune: Disambiguation, takes over the current disambig page.

I'll likely move the pages in a few days. Please direct any feedback here, as I'm posting this notice on several pages. Oberiko (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Framework

Most of the background material should be covered in Operation Overlord, so we can keep it brief here and focus on the invasion itself.

  • Background
  • Forces involved
  • The invasion
  • Aftermath
  • Analysis

Oberiko (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Order of Battle

Is the OoB for just the invasion (June 6 - mid-July) or for the entirety of Overlord (June 6 - Aug 25)? Oberiko (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as though both of these whole sections (Allied and German) refer only to June 6th. I don't have sources for subsequent deplyments, but I would assume more divisions were landed, and more German troops deplayed, in the succeeding days. My guess is that this section should be moved to Normandy Landings with something less detailed but more complete here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of any objections I intend to move the entirety of both 'Order of Battle' sections to the article Normandy landings, replacing them with a brief statements that the 6th June OOB can be found there and that other units participated in the later battle. If anyone has any information on units that took part in Neptune other than those it would be very welcome. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Casualties

I don't think the statistic we have for Canadian Casualties is accurate. If the Battle of Normandy doesn't include the after July 19 (being Operation Atlantic, Operation Spring & Operation Totalize) then I would find this figure to be accurate. However, if we are including the Atlantic & Spring campaigns, from July 18-27, then these numbers should be much higher, as the two accounted for close to 2,800 casualties together, whereas the infobox in this article only mentions approximately 1,300 casualties. Could someone please look into this? Cam (Chat) 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Since a reorganization a few months ago this article now only covers operations up to about the end of June 1944. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Which is ridiculous as there doesn't seem to be any way to access information on the rest of the Battle of Normandy - which according to the Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War didn't end until September 1.139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

After the landings

I really only just noticed how short this article is on description of the weeks after the landings. There is barely a paragraph before we move into the assessment of the battle. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

I was wondering why the casualties information in the infobox were changed sometime after September 2007. At the time said casualties were precisely referring to the campaign. Now the casualty notes seem to be referring to D-Day alone, which is outside the scope of this article. One reason for this change I could see is the change from this article in dealing with the entire campaign (to late August) and now only with the original phases up to the breakout. Though, I just browsed across the article and find during the split almost all material relevant to this period was removed in the incomplete (as apparently no post July 1944 article, or rather seeing the now missing material, no post June 1944 article was created. This really is a mess and I don't even talk about sourced material getting removed and replaced by lesser sources (if one source presents data covering two POV with adequate reasoning is deleted and then replaced by another only outlining one POV without thought or analysis (in short Zetterling out in the NC article and Keegan in who just repeats old numbers without analysis...). Guess I should really unwatch all these articles.--Caranorn (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a reorganization of the articles relating to the Normandy campaign about that time. As far as I know we don't have accurate casualty figures for the "Nepture" period, which is what the article now covers. If you can find them that would be great. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I will see whether I have some. Though I wonder, do we currently have an article covering the period between June and the breakout? I fear all of that might have been lost in the split (though I'm not sure there was all that much about that period in the original article). Note, it seems to me that the article covering Operation Neptune (and more really) is Normandy landings and according to the original definitions this one should have been the one to cover from the establishment of the bridgehead to the breakout at least. But I feel a bit disoriented by our current setup, which is I guess why my first post above was a bit confusing not to say confused.--Caranorn (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Films

I am curious why a reference to the movie 'The Longest Day' was removed. It was directly dealing with the article. It is older, to be sure, but easily as valid as 'Saving Private Ryan'. Both won Academy Awards (though in different categories) and dealt directly with the same conflicts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatoosh (talk • contribs) 06:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Whoops! Let me sign this ... Tatoosh (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD and the fact that trivia sections are frowned upon, I've deleted the whole section.Skinny87 (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Two points here:
Regarding The Longest Day, that movie is entirely about the first day of the invasion, and is therefore covered in Normandy landings. It actually says "do not add The Longest Day" in a comment about three lines up from where it was added. The section says "these are some dramatizations that cover the wider conflict", and if we include The Longest Day then we need to change the text of the section appropriately.
Skinny87, I think there is a difference between a trivia section and a dramatizations section. I myself am a great deleter of trivia, but I think that media portrayals of the invasion don't count. It's something a researcher could reasonably researching and expect to find information on (unlike a film star's favourite colour, which is what I normally mean by a trivia section). I've restored the section, but without prejudice to deleting it again if the consensus is against me. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
My only issue with the section is that it has 6 video games compared to two movies and three war games. Maybe limit it to two or three apiece? I suggest leaving it at just the Call of Duty and Medal of Honor series, as they seem to be the most prominent. And what about novels? I'm sure there are plenty of historical fiction works out there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
My problem with the section is that it's just a list of names and doesn't add anything. To be worthwhile it would have to be in paragraph form and have citations, discussing the dramatizations through academic sources. Otherwise it's just cruft. Skinny87 (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the point of the section what so ever, the article is about the Invasion of Normandy not what movies and games etc have been made based off it. If it is deemed approbatie to have what in effect is a trivia section why not start adding music too? Iron Maidens - The Longest Day? :p--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd therefore like to propose deleting the section, until such time as a proper section can be written with academic references and citations. I know I have History Today article around here somewhere on this very subject, but I can't find it, When I do, I can start writing a Dramatization section, but until then I'd vote to delete it. Skinny87 (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Observations

Ok scanning over the article i am under the opinion that the order of battle information can be rid of in both this article and the Normandy landings and placed in its own article called something like Operation Overlord order of Battle.

Secondly. The article gives allot of detailed information on the lead up to the invasion, then links over quite rightly to another article which deals with the actual invasion and then that’s it – the allies have established themselves. I think the article should briefly touch on the fighting i.e. the fighting for Cherbourg, Caen etc – briefly touch on it but link to the appropriate articles before going on about supply statistics etc.

Just a couple of initial thoughts after glancing it all over.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts too, though I hadn't considered moving the unit information (German, the Allies already have such an article) to a separate order of battle page. Let me know if you or someone else starts such as I can draw on Tessin, Zetterling and probably some other books.--Caranorn (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see an article for the allied OOB, although these is a link to "allied preperations" which goes to the Normandy Campaign disambiguation page. I will (depending on how much i have to do in work tomorrow lol) get a chance to move the details over into an OOB page.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The articles are: List of Allied forces in the Normandy Campaign and U.S. Divisions Active in the Normandy Campaign. These used to be linked into the article, I guess they are part of the material that got lost in the split. As far as I can tell no similar article on the German Order of Battle exists (or it's not at all categorised).--Caranorn (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well to be fair the last one should really be merged into the former. Neither of these two articles are however an Order of Battle for the invasion like the information provided in this article. If the information is at hand i would suggest starting a simlar German article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Where do we limit it geographically and where in time? If we do this for the invasion phase only (even if extended somewhat in time and space) I'd recommend a single article (order of battle) for both sides. I can certainly get the starting forces for Germany in Normandy (including Pays de Caux and Cottentin) up in detail and sourced up to regimental level (actually give the break down of divisional organisation). The same for British and US forces that landed during the first days. I'd use general Normandy histories to identify the units and then Tessin, Joseln and Stanton for detailed informations. Though I'd prefer it if you could write the outline and structure and I'd verify and source it from those books, if necessary expanding details. Almost forgot that material from Victory in the West would belong as well (I have partial photocopies in that case including all the tables and maps), the ETO might be of use too though I don't recall detailed information (I have no access to a hard copy either and the online version were not complete last I checked (over a year ago).--Caranorn (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Why seperate articles? From other order of battle articles they have everything on one page. I don't have any books by Tessin, Joseln and Stanton nor do i know what they have wrote - i do have Ellis's complete work for the ETO and Wilmot's book however.
Since i am likely to have time tomorrow afternoon, i can start the order of battle up - bit of general information at the top of what the article is about followed up by two sections - Allied and Axis, each with an OOB.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit: I think i have a practically complete order of battle for the allied forces on D-day down to the battalion level laying around somewhere - may just be a simple job of copy and pasting that and verfying it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that's in Ellis (iirc Victory in the West). Joslen is the official British Order of Battle, Tessin is the unofficial Order of Battle for Germany, Stanton is the unofficial Order of Battle for the US (I used the last names as it's easier than typing Verbände und Truppen der Deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS 1939-1945 every time), all of these for WWII and not just this campaign.--Caranorn (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Does Joslen have an order of battle for absolutly every battle and campaign during the war? 600 or something pages are all just OOBs?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No, he only has two battle Order of Battles in vol. 2 (I have a more recent copy as single volume), this is Alamein and now that I think of it Normandy (I just checked it, the Assault Phase only, I also checked Ellis and it's in there too though I didn't compare the data). Most of Joslen's work (just like Stanton for the US and Tessin for Germany) involves the organisation of the divisions (unfortunately Joslen did not list armies and corps separately, so they can only be extrapolated from other data) and brigades...
Note, I think we should agree on a name for the Order of Battle article, maybe Operation Neptune order of battle (which seems to reflect the convention used for other articles of this type), ah I see you already suggested Operation Overlord order of battle which would indeed be better (leaving the other (Neptune) open for a detailed analysis of the naval build up for instance and allowing this one (Overlord) to expand somewhat beyond the assault phase).--Caranorn (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth leaving some description of what units were involved, maybe at divisional level, in this article. I agree that anything more details should be in a separate article. You may be interested in the OOB at Normandy landings which is much more detailed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Too much work here to actually make a start of it today, although i do have 5 mins to respond. The OOB page i was thinking to replace both sections i.e.
  • Second Army
    • I Corps
      • X Division
and so on on there own page to replace both articles "orders of battle", both sections can then be changed into some sort of preperation/planning section instead. The Operation Neptune order of battle (probably a better name for the article then Overlord which is a bit too ambigious) could then be used or linked to in each of the beach articles freeing up space if it is taken up by OOBs.
This way, for these two articles at least, the reader can look at a direct OOB (Armies, Corps etc down to battalion if available along with commander etc) on a seperate page and the information regarding landing zones, german dispositions and reserves etc on the landings page.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Was D-Day really the largest seaborne invasion ever?

see also Talk:Operation Overlord#Largest?, Talk:Allied invasion of Sicily#largest amphibious assault?

That's what it says in the article, yet it states that some 156,000 troops crossed the channel during the invasion. But according to the Battle of Okinawa article, that operation involved a stupendous 1,300 ships and over half a million troops - and this was an operation carried out thousands of miles from home base, whereas the invasion of Normandy was carried out over a mere twenty miles of water.

So was Normandy really the largest sea invasion ever? The source given for the claim looks pretty dubious too. Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're comparing Apples with Oranges. The Battle of Okinawa article concerns a sustained campaign over 90 odd days. This article is about D-Day. For a comparable article see Normandy Campaign which gives a figure of 1.5 million for Allied troops. The Stupendous number of ships you quote is dwarfed by the D-Day fleet - as per this article - "The Invasion Fleet was drawn from 8 different navies, comprising 6,939 vessels: 1,213 warships, 4,126 transport vessels (landing ships and landing craft), and 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels." Also FYI The Normandy Coast is not 20 odd miles from England you are thinking of the Straits of Dover. Jooler (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I might be mistaken, but I assumed the 1,300 ships mentioned in the article refers to ships, not merely landing craft. So then you're looking at 1,213 ships for the Normandy invasion and 1,300 for Okinawa. But then, I think you have a point about apples with oranges, I think "largest seaborne invasion in history" here means largest amphibious landing of men in a single day in history. But it would be interesting, I think, to have some solid facts and figures to compare the two with. I can't help but think that logistically speaking, the invasion of Okinawa must have been a lot more challenging, but I could be wrong of course. Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my impression also; the Normandy figure of about 7k seems to include every water-borne vessel involved, from battleships down to life rafts. When comparing the combat vessels (carriers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc.) the Okinawa force definitely outweighs the Normandy force by a significant amount. When one considers that each ship has a corresponding, logistical footprint, it should be clearly obvious that the Okinawa force had a significantly larger logistical footprint. Also, the numbers of men involved in the inital invasions (around 155k for Normandy, and close to 190k combined Army and Marines), again you have a larger logistical requirement for those extra 35k soldiers, all of which requires more ships. A final thing to consider is that there probably wasn't nearly the tanker support requirement at Normandy as there was at Okinawa. Regardless of all of what I've said, it's all my own logic working, so until we find some hard facts, we haven't gotten any closer to a verifiable comparison. Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
"Well I might be mistaken, but I assumed the 1,300 ships mentioned in the article refers to ships, not merely landing craft." - The Okinawa article says ".. 40 carriers, 18 battleships, and 200 destroyers" so that's a figure of about 260 warships who knows what makes up the remaining 1000 ships but surely much of is is supply and ancillary support craft. The 6000 figure for Normandy is broken down on http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsNormandy.htm - of the ~7000 figure about 1500 are landing craft - about 670 warships are shown as directly involved in the assault on D-Day, but then you can add the warships of the Home Command and the Western Channel Approaches fleets, but again we are talking about a single day here, not a three month campaign. Is there a breakdown of the Okinawa fleet anywhere. Oh BTW if you want another reference to it being the largest fleeting in history - Google provides plenty of authoritative references - but I don't know why you think the BBC would be "pretty dubious" Jooler (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well you also have the Allied invasion of Sicily, which also claims to be the biggest. In terms of number of men landed in the initial assault, and beach frontage, it was bigger than Normandy. I'm not sure in terms of counting ships. But it is apples and oranges: you can look at ships, you can look at first day numbers, you can look at battle numbmers, whatever. The claim is perhaps not all that meanningful.Norm and Al (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to either call it "among the largest" or the largest in terms of.... Different metrics could have other landings being "the largest". Oberiko (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can get an agreement how to count "largest" then decide which was biggest. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This web site says Okinawa was bigger than Normandy: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/okinawa/default.aspx
In fact, the effort in the spring offensive of 1945 was far greater than the previous spring offensive in Europe.
Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is another web site making the same claim, that Okinawa was the biggest: http://www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3035101.html Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Global Security says D-Day was the largest. The History Channel says D-Day. PBS says D-Day. Obviously some disagreement. We probably could say something about D-Day being the largest 1-day amphibious operation, which it clearly is by far. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Global Security says D-Day was the largest.

I don't see that. Please explain. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The History Channel says D-Day.

Doesn't appear as credible as the second reference for Okinawa.
Perhaps find references with details would be best.

We probably could say something about D-Day being the largest 1-day amphibious operation, which it clearly is by far.

What numbers are you using for that? From http://www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3035101.html:
the effort in the spring offensive of 1945 was far greater than the previous spring offensive in Europe. During the Normandy invasion, the Allies had employed 150,000 troops, 284 ships, and 570,000 tons of supplies, all of which required a very short supply line. On Okinawa, in Japan's back yard, maintaining the supply line seemed an incomprehensible feat. In the invasion of Okinawa, there were 183,000 troops, 327 ships, and 750,000 tons of supplies.[19]
Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
In the Global Security references search for "largest" and you'll find the bit I'm talking about. The HistoryChannel references isn't that reliable, I'll admit. The PBS one is good, and I'm sure there are many more.
Largest one-day operation. In the very first sentence of the reference you give above it says "When two United States Marine and two Army divisions landed abreast on Okinawa...". On D-Day more than nine divisions landed on day one. The sentence you quote appears to be referring to the overall operation, not any day of operation. Plus I can't find it in the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Found the sentence you mean in another article. It should also be pointed out that HistoryNet is "a webzine of community-submitted articles". There seem to be big discrepancies between the number of ships that author quotes for D-Day and the number other sources quote. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well if you want to play with numbers, the Mongol invasions of Japan had 170,000 troops and 4900 ships. More troops than the Normandy invasion, and far more ships than any WWII battle. Luckily the allies weren't wiped out by bad weather. --BizMgr (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
D-Day 6 June 1944 in aircraft carriers overlord may well have been smaller but then again England is much much bigger than any floating aircraft carrier. As for fuel one has to look at PLUTO as for tonnage arriving on the beaches does one include the weight of the Mulberry harbours?
AFAICT from above the Allies landed five divisions on the beach (50,000 Allied troops in 3,000 landing craft on first day of D-Day [6]) --and three more by air-- but only 3 divisions on Okinawa. [ this source] says "In the first six days of the invasion the Allies managed to land a third of a million men on French soil."[7] "In the first ten days after D-Day, half a million men crossed the"[8]
In the invasion of Okinawa several sources say 60,000 were ashore during the first day. So in number of men landed on the first day the Normandy landings which were heavily opposed unlike the initial landings on Okinawa included more men (less by sea more by sea but more by sea and air combined). There were more battle ships at Okinawa but far less strategic bombers, so although the ships fired 3,800 tons of shells at Okinawa during the first 24 hours.[9] "RAF Bomber Command drops 56,000 tons mainly at night in direct support of the invasion armies."[10] and on the night of D-DAY the RAF bomb coastal batteries at Fontenay, Houlgate, La Pernelle, Longues, Maisy, Merville, Mont Fleury, Pointe du Hoc, Ouisterham and St Martin de Varreville dropping over 5,000 tons of bombs while on D-Day the USAAF with more than 2,300 B-17and B-24 heavy bombers loosed 2,944 tons of bombs on coastal batteries and other shore defenses.
So by most measures the Normandy landings were larger than those on Okinawa both in the first few days and in numbers during the campaign. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Even more so than you might think, since our own article says that 130,000-150,000 men were landed on the first day. I don't think that there has ever been much dispute that Normandy was the largest single-day invasion. The argument was always about comparing the 1-day operation at Normandy with extended operations in the Pacific and what exactly constitutes an invasion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

June 6, 1944: UK's last day as a superpower by Peter Caddick-Adams published on 3 June 2009 on the BBC website says:

Two hundred thousand seamen manned 6,939 ships, including 1,213 warships. One astonished German described the off-shore scene as "a city on the water". Putting troops ashore involved 4,126 landing vessels of all types, including 1,073 tank landing craft, as well as 864 merchant ships.
By the day's end, the Allies had deposited 132,715 troops and 20,000 vehicles directly on to the beaches, with another 23,490 parachutists and glider-borne troops dropped by the allied air forces. The aerial armada supported the landings with 11,590 aircraft, which flew 14,674 sorties.
In the previous nine weeks 197,000 sorties had been flown (at a cost of 1,251 aircraft and 12,000 aircrew) and 195,000 tons of bombs had been dropped on German military and communications targets.

It also has details on casualties and the nationalities of the European forces involved. --PBS (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to just count the number of divisions involved on the first day there was 6 assault divisions, elements of 2 followup divisions started to land on the Anglo-Canadian beaches, 2 independant infantry brigades, elements of the 79th Armoured Division plus other armoured units along with 3 airborne divisions landing over the course of the day. So while divisions in name dont really compare to solid numbers thats about 11+ divisions landing on the first day in Normandy compared to the 4 that landed on the first day at Okinawa.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Poor reorganization

The Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War defines the Battle of Normandy as covering the period 6 June to 1 September. It is clear that the US Army defines it differently than the British and Canadians. Why? Obviously, they were fighting in Normandy for less time! After COBRA the Americans had moved on to Brittany, but the Anglo-Canadians were still in Normandy for another month! What's worse is that the "invasion of Normandy" is not an academic term, but "Battle of Normandy' clearly is. The changes to the structure of the Battle of Normandy article are extremely poor and were obviously done without even glancing at the official histories of two of the three major participants on the Allied side. What's even worse than that is that there is no easy way to reference any information post July 25 in the Invasion of Normandy article without putzing around through infoboxes or having to know operational code words. What a mess.139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and see the comments above:"I will see whether I have some. Though I wonder, do we currently have an article covering the period between June and the breakout? I fear all of that might have been lost in the split (though I'm not sure there was all that much about that period in the original article)." If true, that only reinforces my opinion of the changes to this article as extremely ill-considered, poorly-thought out and wretchedly implemented.139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that all the navigation boxes employ Invasion of Normandy (which only goes up to mid July) instead of Operation Overlord which goes up to the fall of Paris. I see in section 14.1 above the original intention was to have Operation Overlord as a high level article feeding down to 1. Invasion of Normandy (up to 25 July) and 2. Breakout from Normandy (from 25 July to late Aug). However, this latter article does not seem to be in evidence. In the short term however, it is clear that links to Invasion of Normandy should be changed to Operation Overlord in a number of the navigation boxes to preserve continuity of timeline. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
So I've changed the battle links in West European Campaign (1944-1945) and Western Front (World War II) templates to Overlord and I've done the same in the heading of the Normandy Invasion template which I've renamed "Overlord - the Battle for Normandy" which I think makes more sense. I'll think about the Breakout article but this is not really my period. Maybe someone from the Milhist project will take it on.... Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The OVERLORD article is a joke, though, too. It starts out the intro talking about an "operation" and ends up talking about a "battle". They are different things (see the Talk page for Operation Overlord). I appreciate your attention to this, however - thanks for trying to help. Incidentally, I thought OVERLORD referred to the entire Northwest Europe campaign, and actually ended on VE-Day - not August 25th. Does anyone have a - you know - source for any of these dates?139.48.25.61 (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it's important that the umbrella articles need to form a continuous timeline although the "Main" articles that hang below them may not necessarily form one (because maybe not every period is import enough to justify a subsidiary "Main" article). So we have an article that covers 6 June to end August (Operation Overlord) which links conveniently to Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine the but there is the problem that 1. Its quality could be improved and 2. it may be incorrectly named. This needs attention from and discussion between those in the Wikipedia community who have some expertise on the matter. For what its worth, I see that Dear & Foot's Oxford Companion to World War II Normandy Campaign section covers the period 6 June to 1 September and says (p. 634 in my 2005 paperback edition):

Although Eisenhower's decision on 19 August to cross the Seine at once indicated the end of the OVERLORD operation, a symbolic event closed the Normandy Campaign on 1 September. On that day Eisenhower assumed command of the Allied ground forces, and Montgomery received promotion to field marshal.

It's never simple is it?! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be noted:

The OVERLORD article is a joke, though, too. It starts out the intro talking about an "operation" and ends up talking about a "battle".

While Operation Overlord was the invasion of France, the operation lead to many battles for control of Normandy. For the article to talk about the Operation in terms of planning and intention and then move onto actual fighting seems logical. See Operation Brevity for another example, the planning of what Operation Brevity was and the fighting which took place go hand in hand.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Still confusing network of articles

The articles covering the Normandy Landings/D-day are confusing for someone who is not a military expert. Let's start with the first sentence of this article: "The Normandy Landings [...], also known as [...] Operation Overlord". If that's a synonym, then the two articles should be merged. If not, then the distinction should be made clear. My impression is that "Normandy Landings" describes the actual event, while "Operation Overlord" describes the overall operation. But then again, we have Invasion of Normandy for the overall operation. It's just confusing.

In addition, the decision of Talk:D-Day_(military_term)#Requested move was not followed up properly. There are still far more articles linking to D-Day (which is now a redirect) than to the actual article. On top of that, we currently have two different redirects: D-Day and D-day, linking to two different articles. It would be much better if all the existing links were changed to the appropriate article. (That's not too much work, using WP:AWB, for instance.)

Seeing how "D day" was a general military term, and how there are also other uses of that term, it might make sense if "D-Day" or "D-day" were a disambiguation page, or if there existed a dedicated page D-Day (disambiguation). — Sebastian 20:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

questionable wording

" As soon as Normandy could be secured, the Western European campaign and the downfall of Nazi Germany could begin "

Russia had already set in motion the downfall of Nazi Germany, long before the allies had disembarked from their landing craft. Jimmysales7 (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Games

Just want to add that the computer game 'axis and allies' also contains a D-Day invasion, that is very cool. Andydandyman (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Normandy and Northern France Campaigns

Here are the links to concise versions of the events of the two campaigns that have been consolidated in this article.

Please use them to decide where to properly divide the article into the two articles that should exist.


CMH Pub 72-18: Normandy

CMH Pub 72-30: Northern France

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Links dont appear to work. I think we should probably place a bunch of links on the talk pages, of the approbriate articles, to the task force talk page and have one centerlised discussion there on what to do?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Section on Fortitude

It is stated in the article:

'In the months leading up to the invasion, the Allies conducted a deception operation, Operation Fortitude aimed at misleading the Germans regarding the date and place of the invasion'

I dont believe it was months before D-Day that Operation Fortitude was conducted, but years, would anybody like to add?

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarzan56 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Double Intense

"Casualty rates among all the armies were tremendous, and the Commonwealth forces had to create a new category—Double Intense—to be able to describe them."

I believe this statement comes from Max Hastings' 1984 book "Overlord". It's actually not true. There are planning documents from early 1944 that use double intense with regards to *planned* (or expected) casualties. For example, see here: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/doc/cmhq/cmhq138.pdf (5.5MB PDF. page number 13, actually page 15 of the pdf) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.171.254.97 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made a modification that I believe satisfies the truth without disrupting the purpose of the statement. Akjar13 (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Illogical Argument

This statement appears under the German Leadership heading: "This is an opinion heavily disputed by the fact that Stalin requested a prompt Western invasion several times during the Tehran Conference and accused Churchill of not supporting the operation." This statement does not contradict what its author believes it does; whether Stalin wanted a second front or not is irrelevant to what might have happened if there had not been one. In effect, the argument here is: 'Stalin wanted a second front, so if a second front hadn't happened, he would not have occupied more territory.' The one thing does not follow from the other logically. I recommend the statement be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.133.205 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking Good

Nice to see the USA as first in the order of precedence for units involved and commanders. Makes sense after all. I never, ever liked that "alphabetical order is the most fair" argument, especially considering most the people arguing that were UK contributers (what a surprise). I'm glad it was decided to set the order of precedence based on numbers, in which case it truly would be USA first, UK second. So kudos to the people who got this accomplished.

OH WAIT A MINUTE! I get it now! It's a concession made for 6 June, so you avoid a mass of American readers whom you are oh-so-certain would flood the edits and vandalize the page if it weren't the way it is right now. I'm going to assume that if I check back tomorrow at the earliest, next week at the latest, that it will be back to the UK first format. Jersey John (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Home front media coverage

This article could use a good description of how home-front media covered the invasion: preparations, use of technology, radio and wire reports, false alarms, and so on. A good description for the U.S. broadcast media can be found in Broadcasting for 1944-06-12. Notably, it says that SHAEF's "Invasion Communique No. 1" was written by the Radio Chief, Psychological Warfare branch of SHAEF, who was none other than CBS President (on leave) William S. Paley (p. 40). The article also notes a false alarm that was flashed over the newswires a few hours before the official announcement came, and discusses a televised panel program with analysts on WABD. 121a0012 (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

UK above United States

why should the US be first on the belligerents list? The UK provided the most ships and aircraft for the whole operation. Also the whole campaign was basically under British command. British and Canadian troops also did most of the fighting after the landings, which allowed a breakout to take place.PyrrhusEP (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The Battle of Normandy leaders

Looking through orphaned articles I came across The Battle of Normandy leaders. Should the contents of that page be entered in the infobox here and then deleted? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletation by Eh doesn't afraid of anyone

Eh doesn't afraid of anyone, SPA deletated sourced contents.[11] The contents should be writen, cos wikipedia should not drop one side view. Wikipedia should provide the neutral contents which readers can consider things by their own brain.--Syngmung (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Let us know when you start.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The title of this section is a personal attack. I do not adhere to the made-up political ideologies of deletation OR deletationism, and even if I did what would my political views have to do with this article's content?? </joking> Anyway, it doesn't matter if you have a "source". WP:V is not the only policy on Wikipedia. You are ignoring WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:SOAP. Please do not insert any more off-topic content to this or other articles. Your personal views on the American military, prostitution and the South Korean government are perfectly clear to everyone here, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the Allied invasion of Normandy. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • ANI. A topic ban has been proposed for Syngmung. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Coverage and Accuracy?

The purpose of this page is to give an overview of the invasion, so if anyone can think of anything that needs to be added or is able to check the validity of the references, then we will be able to change this to C-Class, and be one step closer to B-Class. I will continue copyediting to make sure that it stays to high grammatical standards and hopefully we will be able to get this to Featured status. Akjar13 (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been looking at this because it is flagged up on the WikiProject Military history main page. To my, very, untutored eye it looks to be around B-Class. It is certainly short of referencing, although most of that would be easily fixable. Would it be possible for someone to skim the article and suggest what (else) might be needed to move it up? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Museums

I deleted a link on the Dday museum of Porthmouth, [12], in the article. It had be reverted with the idea: Rv good faith edit; that doesn't mean that including it is bad; take to talk page. by User:Gaarmyvet.

Here is a simple fact: there is, in Normandy, there is 47 museums related to the invasion and the battle of Normandy [13] And this is just Normandy alone. I don't think a link to a museum is usefull here, I see a promotion rather than a useful link (since you're not going to have additional information followong this link, just the price of the entrance fee).

If we accept this museum, we should accept all the others, and that's a lot. Or create a article Museums related to World War II (I support the idea). And be ready for hundreds of them ! --Kormin (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

All of which is fine. The more information we provide, the better. If we can have pages on WP with railroad and bus schedules (and we do), we can certainly list museums pertaining to "The last great invasion." Maybe a major headline is appropriate with {{Main|List of Invasion of Normandy museums}}.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
List of military museums in France?. Not everything would have an article, but a list would still be encylopaedic — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraemeLeggett (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Invasion of Normandy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits

I put the various changes in the article on 241016:

1. When I was in the British army, a Major unit [my emphasis], was an infantry battalion, an artillery or an armoured regiment, etc; incidentially, minor unit was a company or squadron.
A division, corps or army is a formation, hence the edit. I believe the US army is similar.

When did it change?

2. The nearest I can find to the statement 'The Commonwealth was formed in such and such a year'... is in the 'Commonwealth of nations' article 'Dominions' section, paragraph 3, Which begins: " After World War II ended, the British Empire was gradually dismantled....".
I believe Winston Churchill used the term 'British Empire' throughout the war.
'...Commonwealth Realms' has the added disadvantage of sounding awful.

3. I deleted 'forces' because the word occurred twice in the 'Allied establishment in France' section, paragraph 2, (which is very bad writing); i.e. 'One [Mulberry harbour) was constructed at Arromanches by British forces, the other at Omaha Beach by American forces.'
I could not think of an alternative for one of them.

Regards RASAM (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. I think "unit" is more generic, especially when you think about things like unit boundaries and it's a useful term to apply when other words reach the point of being over used. I can't comment with any certainty about Commonwealth vs. Empire; perhaps someone else will. While no one owns an article, perhaps the editors who did most of the work can explain some of their choices.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


It's quite simple: a unit is as I stated in (1) above and in the edit summary of mine on 241016. Also, you've only got to look at any book on the subject.
For instance, Antony Beevor's "D-Day: The Battle for Normandy" (2009) has: 'Invented formations such as 2nd British Airborne Division...' on page 3, or when mentioning the US 1st Division: '... almost every American formation...' on page 7.
What's written there by an ex-British army officer and noted historian should be enough. There's nothing 'generic' about it.
Regards RASAM (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge

No, for obvious reasons. One is the process/plan, the other is the execution of the process. Completly different concepts. They canbe closly related, but they are fundamentally different. scope_creep (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Choice of Landing Site ?

The article could be much improved by explaining the choice of landing site for the allied invasion of Northern Europe.

Why Normandy ?

The distance from the main allied port of Portsmouth to the Normandy beaches is almost the same as the distance from the ports of Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth on the English East coast to The Haque in the Netherlands - the difference being that with an allied landing in The Haque there would be only about 160 km to Germany and less than 250 km to Germany's industrial center, the Ruhr area - with only two minor river crossings, so no Rhine crossing (as in Operation Market Garden) to worry about.

So why was Normandy chosen (over for example The Haque)?

There must be a source somewhere motivating a choice of this magnitude. Lklundin (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Normandy was chosen mainly due to the following:
  • the extent of German defences, and the ease with which the Allied forces could seal-off the invasion area and prevent German reinforcements from intervening in time to slow or stop the invasion.
  • the gradient and type of beach(es), and tides.
  • the prevailing weather conditions and sea states.
  • the terrain around the landing area allowing for the landing forces to be able to get off the beaches and into the surrounding countryside.
  • the availability of deep water harbour/ports in the vicinity of landing areas for use unloading supplies after the harbour's/port's capture and repair by Allied forces.
  • the distance from UK airfields so as to allow air cover by RAF Spitfires.

The other possible landing areas nearer the Strait of Dover is where the Germans had been expecting any invasion to occur since earlier in the war. This area was therefore the most heavily defended of all the possible landing areas. Normandy was sufficiently far away to be less well defended, as well as allowing for feignt operations to mislead the defenders that Normandy was only a diversion for main landings near Calais. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

They didn't chose the Netherlands because the land there is mostly reclaimed from the sea and is below sea level, so the German defenders only had to blow the dykes to flood the Allied invasion areas or turn the land into boggy ground too soft for tanks. That was one of the reasons Market Garden failed, because XXX Corps' tanks couldn't leave the raised single-lane roadway, the ground on either side being too soft for tanks, and so were forced to use the road. XXX Corps halted because the Germans only had to wait for the column to pass and then knock out the first, and last, tanks in the column and the rest of the tanks would have been unable to move, making them sitting ducks for the German anti-tank gunners.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invasion_of_Normandy/Archive_4&oldid=1136823155"