Talk:Battle of Hill 70

Hey, please look this over and add to it!Mike McGregor (Can) 00:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

German Loses
There's no mention at all of the casualties the Germans received during the battle. It seems like a pretty important bit of information to include. 66.36.138.127 (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-write
I have have spent some time doing a complete re-write of the article. The entire battle has now been incorporated, as well as a more even preservative from the German side. The goal is to move it to GA. If you have a moment to do some copy-editing that would be appreciated. --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * done Labattblueboy (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Is this same place as the Hill 70 at the Battle of Loos, September 1915, that Angus Falconer Douglas-Hamilton received his VC? Brendandh (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Battle of Hill 70 did go over some of the same terrain as the Battle of Loos, the scale was much smaller though. Without more information as to where the 6th Batallion Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders was located for Loos I could not tell you for certain.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

removed text
I removed the following text:

The fighting at Lens cost us, once again, the expenditure of considerable numbers of troops who had to be replaced. The whole previously worked-out plan for relieving the fought-out troops in Flanders had been wrecked. (Von Kuhl)

It does not have any context that would provide it with a direct purpose.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC) I added this to give context to the link from the Passchendaele page. I will restore it when I've added some context in the other direction. OK?Keith-264 (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I've put it back with context (at the beginning, where there is some material on means and ends) and notice that my comments reflect http://cefresearch.com/matrix/Nicholson/Transcription/Chapter9.pdf page 29.Keith-264 (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

15:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)A later attempt by the Canadian Corps to extend its position into the city of Lens itself failed.Keith-264 (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this true? OH1917II pp. 228-229 has 21 Aug 2 brigades of 4th & 2nd Divisions attacking and only the 2nd Div brigade withdrawing. Another effort on 15 Oct was cancelled for lack of troops.Keith-264 (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Artillery
Added snippet from Farndale pointing to the sophistication of the methods used.Keith-264 (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Added references, altered a few items for consistency and added a couple of categories.Keith-264 (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
Suggest it should read "British victory" for the usual reasons. Keith-264 (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. There were surely British units involved (tunnelling companies, gas companies, artillery (heavy)) but I don't see that change as appropriate. Same reason I undid the change a couple days back where it was changed to Canadian victory, there was a mix.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Britain and Canada weren't allies.Keith-264 (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you'd rather put Entente victory I'd be fine with that, but It's not OK with British victory.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Will we call Verdun an Entente victory too?Keith-264 (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it's not getting listed as British victory so you figure a alternative you can live with and let me know.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Without wanting to resurrect the sovereignty question, I gather that Canadians were British citizens with British passports in 1917. How about calling the military forces ivolved the BEF?Keith-264 (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite, but getting too into details of citizenship is not something for this area. Besides I don't see it as particularly relevant as a topic for resolution here. It's a wider discussion topic. I'd be more inclined to state Canadian Corps victory if we'd pick a formation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There were other BEF units involved.Keith-264 (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Far as I understood it, attached to the Canadian Corps.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

French newspaper article


Loos-en-Gohelle: pourquoi les Canadiens tiennent-ils à ce point au centenaire de la bataille de la Côte 70? In three years, August 15, 2017, the centenary of the Battle of the Hill 70 "For the Canadian government will celebrate this commemoration is very important. Last month, a delegation came in Loos-en-Gohelle prepare for the event. They came with two architects who were commissioned to create a new memorial in Loos-en-Gohelle. This memorial should be built next to the military cemetery. "The sketches of the project offer under a majestic obelisk erected in the center of a circular plaza. "The plans we were shown are superb. All the details are cared for, the natural environment is respected. It promises to be beautiful! "Looks forward Alfred Duparcq.Keith-264 (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Hill 70. 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/20110525085636/http://www.wlu.ca/lcmsds/cmh/back%20issues/CMH/volume%205/Issue%201/Bell%20-%20The%20107th%20Timber%20Wolf%20Battalion%20at%20Hill%2070.pdf to http://www.wlu.ca/lcmsds/cmh/back%20issues/CMH/volume%205/Issue%201/Bell%20-%20The%20107th%20Timber%20Wolf%20Battalion%20at%20Hill%2070.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
Added some material on the OOBs and analysis from Delaney and Durflinger. Where's the casualty section?Keith-264 (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a good addition to the content! There's never been a standalone section for casualties.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks v much, the index is quite detailed about casualties so I'll see what I can do.

PS used sfns as I don't know the other system. Keith-264 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Did a casualties section but haven't yet found a cite for 25,000+ German casualties.Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The 25K figure seemed like a weak estimate, the revised figure has a better citation backing. Any data on German awards associated with the battle? I don't much like the one sided nature of just mentioning VCs but I don't have any mnaterial on hand that could add content to the German side on this subject.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither do I my sources don't mention anything. Keith-264 (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Had a look in XIV Reserve Corps Vol III but nothing about Hill 70 I'm afraid. There's some good stuff in Wise RCAF OH I but I couldn't find a place to put it, hence the shuffling about and extra headers, all suggestive. Keith-264 (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Added material on air operations from Wise but had to juggle the headers and layout a bit more. I think it's all relevant but a bit lop-sided because of the absence of a German counterpart. I'll keep looking. Keith-264 (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

First Army operations
I think that some of the local operations are confused in some of the sources, going by OH 1917 II, which briefly describes a few more than in the article and puts the 46th (NM) Div feint with dummy tanks etc at 14 August. Perhaps the sections provisionally labelled local operations and deceptions could be merged? Keith-264 (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Local operations (taken from OH 1917 II)

To create a threat to Lens, Horne intended that XIII Corps on the southern flank would attack to reach better positions between the villages of Gavrelle and Oppy by advancing the front line for 200 to 500 yd on a 2300 yd front. The Canadian division on the left flank of the Canadian Corps and the British division on the right of I Corps were to attack on a front of 4800 yd either side of the Souchez river, a tributary of the Deûle, to eliminate a German salient from Avion to the west end of Lens and to occupy Hill 65 (Reservoir Hill). I Corps was to plan for an attack on Hill 70 with the 6th Division on the left (northern) flank. Horne expected that the operations would take place in early July but found that many of the best heavy guns were to be sent to Flanders and brought forward the date to 28 June. The plans were made less ambitious; the XIII Corps scheme was retained but the attack either side of the Souchez was reduced to the capture the German front line west of Avion and Hill 65; the Hill 70 plan was postponed.

28 June was a dull and humid day, in the afternoon storm clouds appeared in the south. The First Army artillery, assisted by Third Army guns en route to Flanders, began a bombardment along the 14 mi army front from Gavrelle to Hulluch. The simulation of a much bigger attack on Lens was enhanced by lightning, thunder and a downpour, which began at 7:10 p.m. when the infantry advance began. The adjacent brigades of the 31st and 5th divisions had been bombarded in their jumping-off trenches at 5:30 p.m. and suffered 200 casualties before the advance began. The survivors moved so fast that when a German counter-barrage fell on no man's land three minutes later, the British were on the far side and unharmed. The attackers suffered few casualties, took 200 prisoners and counted 280 dead German soldiers. Gavrelle Mill and a new line was consolidated, despite the rainstorm, from which the areas to the north-east and east around Neuvireuil and Fresnes could be observed, along with Greenland Hill to the south-west.

Further north, in the area of the 4th Canadian Division and the 46th (North Midland) Division, the German 56th Division had moved on 22 June into reserve to substitute for a division transferred to Flanders. The division holding the line had orders to retire from the salient to the Avion–Lens railway if pressed. The western slopes of Hill 65 had been occupied on 24 June and patrols pushed forward towards Avion Trench, which was taken early on 28 June. The divisions made ready to resume the advance when the army barrage began at 7:10 p.m. Most of Avion, Éleu-dit-Leauwette and the eastern slope of Hill 65 was captured, as the 3rd Canadian Division formed a defensive flank along the Arleux–Avion road, joining with the 4th Canadian Division in Avion. Rain and the flooding from the Souchez stopped patrols from probing the German main line of resistance in the north-eastern part of Avion and along a railway embankment about 600 further on. The attack on Hill 70 and other operations to continue the encirclement of Lens had to be postponed, because the depleted First Army artillery was unable to complete its wire-cutting and destructive bombardments.


 * Added this section but have an open mind about whether all the contents are needed. Still musing about the Deceptions section. "The 46th (North Midland) Division at Lens in 1917" (2011 ed) P. S. C. Campbell-Johnston has a lot of detail about the division's doings outside Lens. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Tim Cook
Stumbled on an essay by Tim Cook "Storm Troops: Combat Effectiveness and the Canadian Corps in 1917" in 1917: Tactics, Training and Technology (2007) which mentions 25,000 German casualties and seven divisions mauled (pp. 55–56), not sure if he still supports this in his later book. Keith-264 (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup Still the same in later publications.--Moxy (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite different to Foley; does Cook go into the details? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The number is supported by veterans.gc.ca
 * also supported by the Canadian encyclopedia.....that said....
 * heres an article about it by Tim ...
 * ..his new book about the topic...
 * Heres a review of his work
 * Here is other historians quoting him ....--Moxy (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it's the Delaney et al. book I've been using. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He does add some more details in .--Moxy (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Latest edits
Done most of the alterations made available by Delaney and Durflinger but still doubtful about the deceptions section. Will keep digging. Keith-264 (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Added a bit of detail. Keith-264 (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
"The operations were not a diversion but a means to keep the First Army front active for as long as possible, to mislead the Germans as to British intentions in Flanders." On reflection, this passage seems a little confused so I'll check the source. Keith-264 (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)