Talk:American airborne landings in Normandy

3 photos are from Operation Market Garden not Normandy
Hello, I am a cargo glider historian and below is a combination of several conversations with other glider historians:

Image C47a-43-15292wgliders shows invasion stripes on the aircraft as half stripes, not full stripes. Normandy used full stripes. Market used half stripes, bottom only.

Image 315tccg-c47-2 C-47 shows a white and a black stripe below the bar and darkened area above the star, upper part of fuselage indicating the stripes have been over painted. This group also is being readied for Market and the photo is NOT in preparation for Normandy.

Image 101st_Airborne_on_D-day-1 should be 101st_Airborne_on_Holland_D+1: http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i48/29.pdf There is no sign on the leading edge of the visible glider wing or C-47 wing of the stripes... Market's half stripes are not visible on the leading edge. Normandy's full stripes were visible on the leading edge. A living (2007) relative and custodian of Gen. Anthony McAuliffe papers has been trying to correct the fallacies surrounding this photograph for quite some time. This photo was taken September 18, 1944. Also McAuliff jumped into Normandy but rode into Holland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_McAuliffe Pictured he is wearing an inflatable for glider flight and not a 'chute for airdrop. Normandy's D+1 sorties departed in the early AM darkness; noone was smiling at that point in the operation. Pictured emotion didn't strike me as preparatory for the uncertain Normandy assault on Fortress Europe: moral was higher by Holland, especially after the successes of the first day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden

Please correct these photograph's captions; this last one also appears on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-47_Skytrain and gives an incorrect impression on its date, again which was September 18, 1944.

Very Respectfully, Keith H Thoms (including emails from Charles L Day) --14:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Lg glidr (talk)


 * I deleted all 3 since the arguments above make sense for the most part. Items referring to Market have little point appearing in an article on Normandy since the two are opposites in tactical direction. (Plus I am embarrassed that I took them at face value and did not critically examine them before I used them.) As for the picture at the C-47 article, that's somebody else's burden.--Buckboard 06:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Safekeeping I

 * This book may be found on-line.
 * This book may be found on-line.


 * This is only a wait and see comment. The implication that these sources need replacement in favor of newer or commercially-produced sources is interesting. Not that I have any dispute with all those shown (particularly Flanagan) but the suggestion that, say Blair, is more source-worthy than Dr. Warren is seriously mistaken. I am more open-minded about the "re-write".--Reedmalloy (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I only put those here because the whole article is kind of a mess - I'm by no means replacing them. I intend to re-use Warren as soon as I can find a copy, as well as the two CMH texts. But airborne warfare articles are generally in one hell of a mess when I begin work on them (Varsity and Tonga still give me nightmares!) and this is generally easier than just adding in my sources and then being unsure what refers to what.


 * But that reminds me - I need to remove Blair as I seem to have misplaced that, and add Balkoski (Utah Beach: The Amphibious Landing and Airborne Operations on D-Day). I'm also extremely wary of using Flanagan as I'm becoming increasingly mistrustful of his books for their blatant errors. I intend to only cite him for non-controversial points, and certainly not for the Troop-Carrier controversies. However, whilst airborne warfare is a field strewn with awful, popularist books, I believe that the sources listed, and those intend to add from the University of Warwick library where I'm doing an MA in History, will be more than reliable - particularly Buckingham, Devlin and especially Huston (one of those rare academic works on airborne warfare).


 * As to the re-write itself, well, I hope that I can reassure any doubts you might have by pointing you to the articles I have already written on wiki on airborne warfare. Operation Varsity is a Featured Article, 11th Airborne Division is A-Class shortly to be submitted for FAC, and 13th Airborne Division 17th Airborne Division, Operation Tonga and Battle of Fort Eben-Emael are all Good Articles. The re-write will take time as I am studying full-time and have the 11th ABN going for FAC, but I hope to make a real start in the next few days. I'm more than willing to answer any questions you might have, and cooperate fully with you if you would like to help out. Skinny87 (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it appears I won't be able to use Warren as purchasing a copy is out of my financial means. But I'm sure that between the two of us we can get this to at least GA standard with the rest of the sources available! Skinny87 (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, wait, scrap that last comment. I didn't realize it was online. I have to admit, I wish I'd known it was before for my other articles. Well, that solves that problem (and I'll see about integrating it into the other articles when I get a chance). Skinny87 (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I perhaps came on a little strong re the sources. I enjoy reading Flanagan, but admittedly it's been very piecemeal and I haven't scrutinized it for accuracy. I have [as you can tell :)] some real problems with Blair, who was a fine submarine chronicler but imho leaves much to be desired as a military historian in other fields. I am not a devotee of Ambrose either. As for the re-write, as I said, I'm open minded about that. My field is not ground forces combat, incl. airborne, and your other efforts in the area look pretty good to me. I undertook this when the extant article was nothing more than a regurgitation of "material" garnered from video games and TV shows (my teeth admittedly grated reading about "Operation Albany" etc. when no such terminology existed). Therefore I guess I am responsible for that "kind of a mess", which let's just say is in the eye of the beholder. I concentrated on a who-what-where-when-why as basic points of the operation as a whole, and my concentration on the combat manuever aspects after the landings was less than my summarization of planning and training, which in my view had much more impact on the execution of the operation than on any of the later mass airborne assaults. I'll be more than happy to make suggestions, but I doubt that I could add much to the discussion of the airborne units. I would ask that the sections dealing with plans, numerous revisions, and the reasons behind the revisions including training limitations, not be unduly watered down for the reasons stated above. In terms of organization, training and combat experience, IX TCC was a finished weapon by the time Market and Varsity were executed, but early on, the difficulties of assembling and training it, and the errors made in the process under the pressure of the D-Day deadline, led to the obstacles hindering the divisions in accomplishing their missions. Good luck and thanx for contacting me. --Reedmalloy (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think (arrogance ++) that you're leaving the article in good hands, but I'm by no means infallible and appreciate any help you can give; I also apologize if you thought I was criticizing you above in terms of the state of the article - I certainly didn't mean to. And please, don't worry about the planning et al sections - I have no intention of watering them down too much or altering their content - I often find writing those sections to be more interesting than the combat itself! Skinny87 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ground combat involving U.S. airborne forces
I would delete this section from the article.
 * 1) It has its own article.
 * 2) It has little to do with American airborne LANDINGS in Normandy.

Just a suggestion. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bit more are you sure you want it to proceed with the GA assessment at the moment it fails a B Class assessment with large parts unreferenced. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * :a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * :a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * :a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * :Fair representation without bias:
 * :: n
 * 1) It is stable.
 * :No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * :Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * :Pass/Fail:
 * :Pass/Fail:

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American airborne landings in Normandy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529210447/http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/index.html to http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529210447/http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/index.html to http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929131005/http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/maps/Nor_5_6_44.jpg to http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/maps/Nor_5_6_44.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529210447/http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/index.html to http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American airborne landings in Normandy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626193802/http://www.warchronicle.com/correcting_the_record/NEPTUNE_airborne.htm to http://warchronicle.com/correcting_the_record/NEPTUNE_airborne.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626193802/http://www.warchronicle.com/correcting_the_record/NEPTUNE_airborne.htm to http://warchronicle.com/correcting_the_record/NEPTUNE_airborne.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Still "missing" after nearly 80 years
According to the article "4,490 missing" was their status ever updated? All they all presumed dead? There was a lot of confusion on D-Day especially with paratroopers many got scattered around and separated from their units. Lenbrazil (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Info Summary Casualties and Losses
The info box numbers are confusing and misleading. The box shows 27,000 personnel in the (airlifted) under strength. Then it shows the casualties as 12,003 killed. This implies that over half of them were killed which is not true. If someone is not reading that carefully they might not understand that the 12k losses were over the Normandy campaign rather than in the battle. I think that section of the box should be omitted unless there is a sourced number for the precise number of airborne losses in Operation Overlord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocky8u (talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)