Talk:Battle of Sedan (1940)

Untitled

 * This is the decisive German victory in the 1940 French campaign. Why is somebody adding "rubber boats" to German losses? It looks, to anyone familiar with the Battle of France, like a juvenile effort at saving face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4404:1454:3400:1199:4B1D:B4AF:ED40 (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 81 out of 96. And if you read the article and understood the importance of those boats and their engineers, you wouldn't have made such a stupid remark. Dapi89 (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

British and French Escape: Dunkirk Port
Should the British be included in the nations that took part in the WP Military History nations? I understand that it was mainly the German's and the French who were in the battle, the British were there at Dunkirk. If anyone agree's then I'll add it. Adamdaley (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The British Army was absent from Sedan. It was only the RAF that took part, interdicting the bridges. But an air combatant is the same as a land participant so.......I guess you're right. Dapi89 (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

== Rankings of German General Officers ==

I understand not many people may not care about this, but I've noticed some discrepancies in the ranks of senior German commanders.

General Major = Brigadier General

General Lieutenant = Major General

General of... (Branch of Service, i.e. Infantry, Artillery, Paratroops) = Lieutenant General

General = General *More correctly translated as Senior General*

Generalfeldmarschall = General of the Army

I've also noticed that the corresponding ranks in the French Army were not included:

Général de brigade = Brigadier General

Général de division = Major General

Général de corps d'armée = Lieutenant General

Général d'armée = General

Maréchal de France = General of the Army

I would do this myself, but would like to leave it to public debate first. 130.132.173.189 (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately
It's funny to read "fortunately" when a danger to German success can be averted. Nice of you, guys, though I'm not sure the feeling of relief in "fortunately" is being shared by French readers. Nice to see how one automatically fans the side he's reporting about. --130.132.173.189 (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.252.140 (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and even though the "unfortunately", pertaining to the result of Dunkirk in the "Aftermath" section, has been tempered by "for the Germans," all this taking sides with one belligerent leaves a distinctly unsettling feeling in the reader that the author would have preferred to reverse the outcome of the war altogether. In any case, it smacks of bias and the article would be improved by removing these judgements.

Clarity, Kleist, detour
User:Dapi89 please could you explain to all why you consider clarity of writing not to be of benefit to this article? 130.132.173.189 (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There was clarity when I wrote it originally. It has been changed since, which escaped my notice. It has gone back to it's original wording. Dapi89 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Dapi89 you seem to be the editor who made the edit (that escaped your notice) which changed your original  . Please could you now clarify the text as it has not gone back to the original wording? What is intended? SovalValtos (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was already clarified seven years ago. Dapi89 (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, all this talk of "clarity" is absurd. The obvious addition of an "s" would have cleared this up to begin with. Dapi89 (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible mistake under section Allied bombing
In this sentence:

"By 01:00 on 14 May, a pontoon bridge had been erected over which Sd.Kfz. 222, Sd.Kfz. 232 and Sd.Kfz. 264 armoured cars began to dismount in the bridgeheads."

- ''Sd.Kfz. 264'' is mentioned. I can not find any reference to that here in Wikipedia, the only one I find on the web is that it was a prototype, produced in 1944, and in a few numbers. If that is correct, it should be deleted from the article. Ulflarsen (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)