Talk:German invasion of Belgium (1940)

Belgian forces
"The AéMI possessed 250 combat aircraft, of which 90 were fighter aircraft, 12 were bombers and 12 were reconnaissance aircraft. Only 50 were of reasonably modern standard.[42][43] When including liaison and transport aircraft, a total strength of 377 is reached;[48]" This math doesn't fit. Could someone with access to the sources please clarify ? (114 fighter,bombers and recons but 250 combat aircraft excluding transports ?) 217.235.13.103 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These figures come from two different sources, so Frieser is not going to fit perfectly. All aircraft were seconded by the military. 250 is the original figure. The remaining military aircraft (130+ left) has been added to machines possessed by the naval component/civilian elements etc. Dapi89 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Luxembourg
Hello, I have included Luxembourg in the infobox since its invasion can certainly be seen as part of the Battle of Belgium. If anyone disagrees, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.Brigade Piron (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation problems
There's citations for the following but no such books are listed in the bibliography:
 * Foot 2005 (probably Dear & Foot, The Oxford Companion to World War II)
 * Harclerode
 * Tugwell
 * Cull 1999 -- Diannaa (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They're not mine, but to my belief, they represent:


 * I agree that Foot is probably "The Oxford Companion to World War II"
 * "Harclerode" is Wings of War: Airborne Warfare 1918-1945
 * There are several possible Tugwells, so if you leave it, I'll try to replace it with another source
 * This is certainly Twelve Days in May
 * This is the risk with using the old form of citations I suppose. Thank you very much for your work here! Brigade Piron (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

German strength (for Belgium)
141 divisions? I don't think so! --41.150.168.21 (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts are irrelevant. Dapi89 (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 144 divisions vs 141 dividions? In poor tiny Belgium? It's epic battle, really. Stalingrad sucks. --KVK2005 (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to educate you. And in actual fact, if you understood the basics of this operation, you'd know that the vast majority of German divisions, certainly, actually passed through Belgium. And considering Belgium, Netherlands and France were involved in Fall Gelb, the 140+divisions the Germans fielded were being used for that purpose and so appear on the orbat. Dapi89 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Last Defensive Battles
Shouldn't most of this information be transferred to the Battle of the Lys article, with the section here offering a link? 2602:306:C53C:C0E0:2954:44A6:3A12:4111 (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't make sense. There isn't that much of it, and it is required in this article. Dapi89 (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Prisoners
Why there was 1,9 millions french POW ? I mean, when exactly that happens ? 2A02:A03F:6599:5B00:A992:26E1:51BB:4F96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Read it properly. It is a combination of the campaigns in the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Dapi89 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

lack of quality
This text leaves much room for improvement. It is largely an accumulation of quotations from good sources, which, however, sometimes duplicate each other, sometimes contradict each other and omit many things. There is no stringent systematic approach. The topic should first be sensibly structured and presented, then substantiated with sources. Inconsistencies arise in the way the topic is treated here.--Landkraft (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to alternate. Andrewa (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Belgium → Invasion of Belgium (1940) – Both Google NGRAMS and Google Scholar indicate that "invasion" is by far the most common name for the 1940 German invasion of Belgium. The second most common name is "Belgian campaign". (t · c)  buidhe  15:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Should be German invasion of Belgium (1940); German invasion of Belgium should be moved to German invasion of Belgium (1914). Srnec (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this alternate suggestion, which for the record is still considerably more common than "Battle of Belgium". (t · c)  buidhe  15:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Srnec's suggestion. For the record, we also have German invasion of Luxembourg. Another option would be 18 Days' Campaign but I realise that this has little currency in English. I must admit I dislike "Invasion of Foo" and "Occupation of Foo" titles which, to my mind, sit poorly with WP:PRECISE. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)