Talk:Operation Goodwood/Archive 2

Addition?
I have an older military study that states the following: "Since the end of the Second World War the breakout and the battles that it involved have become more, rather than less, the subject of controversy. Whether the 'Goodwood concept' of defence against armour by infantry strongpoints is a valid tactic for BAOR is still a subject of dispute within the British Army." I have the reference if desired. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

note for self
BF109s strafed around ridge during 19/20? - see Trew 89

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 July 2010‎ (UTC)

pov citation needed
Probably the biggest post-Goodwood claim of success was that the attack reinforced the German view that the British and Canadian forces on the Allied eastern flank were the most dangerous enemy. This resulted in the Axis committing their reserves to the eastern half of the battle, so the United States forces only faced one and a half Panzer divisions compared with the six and a half now facing the British and Canadian armies. Once Operation Cobra breached the thin German defensive 'crust' in the west, few German mechanized units were available to counterattack.[179] The American official campaign historian wrote post war that had Goodwood succeeded in creating a breakthrough, "...COBRA would probably have been unnecessary."[180]

It seems to me that the quoted text is POV and needs multiple citations. I would be especially interested in seeing the proof of of 1 1/2 Panza divisions.Jacob805 17:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for your feedback. Two questions for you:
 * Why is the text POV?
 * Which parts do you think need more citations?
 * Your request for "proof" seems to be a misunderstanding of the way Wikipedia works. What we do is reproduce what's written in reliable sources, not seek to prove anything one way or another. EyeSerene talk 20:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you actually read the articles you are nitpicking, you will find the Operation Cobra article deals with the situation of more German tanks and divisions facing the British rather than the Americans. To further note, the Goodwood article is far from finished and yes does need tidying up and more cititions.
 * "Only two Panzer divisions with 190 tanks now faced Bradley's First Army.[5][6] Seven Panzer divisions with 750 tanks were positioned in the Caen area,[6] far away from where Operation Cobra would be launched,[5] as were all the heavy Tiger tank battalions and all three Nebelwerfer brigades in Normandy.[70]"
 * 5 -Hastings, p. 236, 6 - Jackson, p. 113, 70 -Wilmot, p.389
 * From Jackson, p. 113:
 * 15 July, 2 1/2 Panzer divisions face the Americans with 240 tanks whereas 5 1/2 face the British with 580 tanks.
 * 20 July, 2 panzer Divisions face the Americans with 190 tanks where as 7 face the British with 720.
 * 25 July, 2 German panzer divisions face the Americans with 190 tanks whereas 7 face the British with 750.
 * Considering one of those panzer divisions was the Panzer Lehr, seems quite approbirate to call it half a division, however does anyone own Williams, Andrew (2004). D-Day to Berlin, so that it can be contrasted with the information provided by Jackson and Hastings?


 * Here you go:


 * The containment mission that had been assigned Monty was not calculated to burnish British pride in the accomplishment of their troops. For in the minds of most people, success in battle is measured in the rate and length of advance. They found it difficult to realize that the more successful Monty was in stirring up German resistance, the less likely he was to advance. By the end of June, Rommel had concentrated seven panzer divisions against Monty’s British Sector. One was all the enemy could spare for the US front. Omar Bradley.


 * From: Operation Epsom - Normandy, June 1944 by Tim Saunders - Battleground Europe series - Leo Cooper - 2003 ISBN 0-85052-954-9


 * BTW, these seven panzer divisions were mostly Waffen SS ones, including the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, the 9th SS Panzer Division Hohenstaufen, the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich, the 10th SS Panzer Division Frundsberg, the 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, etc. The non-SS panzer division was the Panzer Lehr, made up from instructors from the tank training schools. In other words, these divisions were the best that Germany had.


 * IWM images for GOODWOOD here:
 * ... and for the earlier EPSOM here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Newish analysis.
http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/1753/1/C.J.Forrester_PhD_History_Montgomery_and_his_Legions.pdf

“Montgomery and his Legions:” A Study of Operational Development, Innovation and Command in 21st Army Group, North-West Europe, 1944-45, C.J. Forrester.Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Good Quote from Omar Bradley
Here is a good quote from Omar Bradley (via GOodwood talk page)

It sums up the operations rather well

"The containment mission that had been assigned Monty was not calculated to burnish British pride in the accomplishment of their troops. For in the minds of most people, success in battle is measured in the rate and length of advance. They found it difficult to realize that the more successful Monty was in stirring up German resistance, the less likely he was to advance. By the end of June, Rommel had concentrated seven panzer divisions against Monty’s British Sector. One was all the enemy could spare for the US front."

Omar Bradley

From: Operation Epsom - Normandy, June 1944 by Tim Saunders - Battleground Europe series - Leo Cooper - 2003 ISBN 0-85052-954-9

It could be used in the introduction (Fdsdh1 (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC))

CE
Gave the page a spring clean and moved citations to the end of sentences to improve the flow, combined some notes which were contiguous, rearranged a few duplicated categories, altered a few assertive terms to descriptive ones and blammed a few typos. The narrative after 18 July ends rather abruptly and deserves expansion; the conservative mega-citation policy during the writing seems unnecessary given the stability of the page.


 * IWM collections search for 'Operation Goodwood' images here:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Luck
The story of Luck and his leetle friend is an anecdote and really doesn't deserve the space it takes up. Can we just cut the note to something like "[name] [name] and [name] are sceptical of the story and [name] and [name] find it plausible"?Keith-264 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose that works, with the meat and potatoes being transferred to his article. In regards to the "von", I have seen various (non-wiki) style guides that state "von" is a key part of the surname and numerous sources that include it when referring to someone by their surname. A random sample of articles see the use of von and the lack of von when referring to Germans by their surnames. Do we have a style guide on the issue?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I saw it in a book footnote about Falkenhayn and copied it for brevity.Keith-264 (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tidied a few typos etc. Keith-264 (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Drive by comment: In the more recent historiography, I see about 90% preference for no "von"s, such as: Manstein, Bock, Mellenthin. In the more dated books (1960s for example), von is almost universal. My personal preference is to drop von in favor of just the capitalized part of the name. It's simpler, and avoids the awkward "Von Manstein at the start of the sentence". K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The impression I got was that not von is the German usage unless the first name was used as well.Keith-264 (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct, with the first name "von" is used: "Hans von Luck"; or with ranks: "Oberst von Luck". But once that's out of the way, I just use "Luck". K.e.coffman (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Add, randomly came across this edit from Diannaa, stating that the convention on WP is not to use "von". Since she's a member of the guild of copyeditors, this seems like a good reason to follow the no-"von" convention. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point.Keith-264 (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Hello Enigma.

I'm sure there is a resolution to the issue you bring up. But I'm not interesting in discussing it in the face of two reverts after requests to follow Wikipedia's policy to discuss first.

I, on the other hand, am not interested in engaging in an edit war. So please restore the version of the article that existed before you first boldly reverted. Then, bring up your issue here. The details of this Wikipedia policy are here. I look forward to then discussing your removal of properly sourced material. But first things first. If you decide not to restore it, I'll ask an administrator to intervene. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. You are inserting incorrect information into the article. I will not support the article being wrong while discussing why it is wrong on the talk page. You are wanting to make a controversial change to the article, without concensus, so you should discuss it on the talkpage rather than keep making said change.
 * You have clearly shown you have no intrest in discussing the situation from the get go, per my reverts: "Canadian forces did not take part in this operation. Operation Spring followed Goodwood, and was a seperate", and "Revert: Operation Spring followed Goodwood, Goodwood and Spring are two different ops. Three British armoured divisions, an infantry division and an airborne division took part in Goodwood. The Canadians launched Atantic ... read the article". You did not heed this advise, you did not decide to discuss the situation, you carried on reverting, and then used a source that highlights the Canadian operation was not Goodwood, but rather Atlantic.
 * As stated in each revert, as stated in Stacey's work, the Canadians launched Operation Atlantic. They did not take part in Operation Goodwood per se. The source you used support that the Canadian operation was seperate, while being launced on the same day and on the same flank. Your initial source, all about Operation Spring did not support Canadian participation in the Goodwood offensive and its only mention of previous attacks was referring to Operation Atlantic.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At just a quick glance of sources: Stacey, the official Canadian historian of the campaign, John Buckley, Terry Copp, and the historian of 8 Corps all note that both the Anglo-Canadian forces took part in 2nd Army offensive on 18 July but that Goodwood was the armoured thrust while the Canadian supporting operation to clear the rest of Caen and strike south, was codenamed Atlantic.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I see what happened. First, I did not add the material about Canadian participation. It was an IP user. I only saw your revert for it. I should have looked back in the edit log further. I had thought that it was you making the initial change. My apologies.
 * Given that, perhaps we can have a more reasonable discussion here.
 * I have two issues with your revert of my attempt to improve the article though.
 * First, what is your issue with the 1947 source that I added? You didn't address that—although the source was fairly clear about this matter—but you must have taken issue with something about it. What was it?
 * Second, I have quite a few references for Operation Goodwood, ranging from 1947 to current day. After perusing them for a bit yesterday, I saw that many indicate the Canadians participated in the Operation, although they describe the participation in different ways. For example, the history you mention above states that "The Canadian portion of the operation was known by the code name 'Atlantic'." That shows the Canadians participated in Goodwood. The fact that they called their participation by another codename is not unheard of. The United States's Global War on Terror comprises a large number of named operations from the strategic to the operational to the tactical level. A tactical operation, "Operation XXX", in Iraq in 2005, for example, could still easily be considered part of a larger operation. So, the fact that the Canadians named their portion of Goodwood by a different codename does not negate the fact that they participated in Goodwood as per these sources. Anyway, I attempted to clarify this when I changed the sentence in the lede to the following to better reflect the 1960 source: "The Canadian II Corps's portion of the operation was codenamed Operation Atlantic." I thought that was a more accurate statement and reflected the source well. What issue do you have with this?
 * Finally, why the concern with including Canada as a participant in the operation? I have no emotional attachment to the idea either way, but I have (as noted) a large number of sources that describe the Canadian participation in ways varying from listing them in the Goodwood order of battle, to noting their unit actions in a Goodwood narrative with British units without caveat or reference to "Atlantic", to including them in the operation through a sub-operation, etc. Since this is a Wikipedia article, why wouldn't we just capture all of this in the article for others to see and consider without passing judgment as editors ourselves? Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is quite true that a number of sources lump everything under the one term. The orders of the offensive launched by Second Army, as reproduced in the British Official History and the history of 8 Corps (and possibly other sources), do not provide a name to the entire offensive. The orders, as reproduced, detail the operations to be launched by British 1, 8, 12, and 30 Corps as well as 2 Canadian Corps without giving any of them names.
 * This article covers all of the operations launched by Second Army, albeit in brief-including the Canadian attack-although the focus is on the attack launched by 8 Corps. This attack, the armoured thrust, is the one solely referred to as Operation Goodwood by a tremendous amount of sources. The sources, while noting the Canadians attack in support/on the flank/at the same time/their part of the operation etc, all describe Operation Atlantic. Operation Atlantic, like Greenwood and Pomegrante, has its own article.
 * I do not have an emotional attachment to the article, but when there is enough sources out there that show the difference between Operation Goodwood and Operation Atlantic - that they were launched side by side, that they complemented each other, and were both part of an effort launched over a period of several days by the entire Second Army - there appears to be little justification in adding confusion to the article by stating there was Canadian participation in the armoured thrust of 8 Corps.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your opinion in your last paragraph above is noted. However, you've noted that there are sources that lump the Canadian participation into Goodwood, besides the ones that do not. The "little justification in adding confusion..." is your personal preference. I.e., it is a point of view. But it is not our job as editors to choose a side and omit sources that state differently. Differing opinions can exist in the same article at Wikipedia because it is simply a collection of sources, not an essay. As editors, we would simply discuss and apply WP:Weight. If you have an objection to a careful wording of the Canadian participation in Goodwood—reflecting reliable and verifiable sources—that falls within Wikipedia's policies, please bring that up now.
 * And you have not responded to my first question above. What issue did you have with the 1947 source that I added and you removed?
 * Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering i have not read it, i cannot verify what it states. However if it does indeed state that the Canadians conducted Operation Goodwood, or played a role in it, then my issue with it –like other sources- is that it generalises the activities of what happened on 18-20 July.
 * I am quite aware of different sources can be used in articles, and that the different points of view can be represented however that is not what this discussion is about. It is not a matter of opinion on who launched Goodwood, and what the Canadian role was. It is documented fact that the Canadians launched Operation Atlantic to secure the remains of Caen and push south while 8 Corps launched an attack east of Caen. The former being called Atlantic and the latter being called Goodwood.
 * Canadian participation is recorded throughout the article. The planning of their operations is alluded to. Their attacks are detailed. The planned thrust line of their operations is included on the map. You can call it my personal preference, not wanting to include erroneous information in the article, but on the other hand I could call it your own personal preference to reshape the article by providing undue weight to something that takes the focus off Goodwood-the 8 Corps attack- to a broader discussion of the operations launched by Second Army on 18 July. I would suggest that such a move is amounting to a fringe theory and playing semantics.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
 * I've looked at the edit history of the article trying to find a diff that crystallizes the dispute, but it looks a little messy, and the closest I could find was this latest revert (which seems to be disputing whether Canada participated in a British military operation). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Viewpoint by EnigmaMcmxc:
 * British Second Army launched a number of operations over the course of a week. The armoured attack launched by VIII Corps, as supported by numerous sources, was codenamed Operation Goodwood. The Canadians launched an operation at the same time as VIII Corps, this attack was codenamed Operation Atlantic.
 * This article should retain the status quo: focusing on VIII Corps attack, while acknowledging the efforts of British I, XII, XXX Corps and II Canadian Corps. Additional weight should not be applied to the Canadian operation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Viewpoint by Airborne84:
 * I propose that Canada be listed as a participant in Operation Goodwood through Operation Atlantic. This could comprise two aspects: (1) careful clarification within the text of the article such as this edit that was reverted, and (2) some kind of note to the order of battle box in the lede noting that Canada's participation in Operation Goodwood was through Operation Atlantic (whether Canada is listed in the box itself or not). This idea is supported in various sources, such as the Canadian historian, Stacy's, work which states that, "The Canadian portion of the operation [Goodwood] was known by the code name 'Atlantic'," as well as other sources such as Terry Crop and Simon Trew above who note that the Canadian operation was part of Goodwood.
 * Enigma objects to any reference to the Canadian forces "participating" in Operation Goodwood, even if caveated with the statement that the participation was done through its named operation, Atlantic. Because multiple sources state that the Canadians participated in Goodwood through Operation Atlantic, I propose that be stated to some degree as noted above.
 * And thanks for taking the time to provide a third opinion. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Am sorry but that is entirely inaccurate. The statement that I “object to any reference” is completely erroneous. Considering up until this point I have been the one who has provided most of this article, I can highlight in the lede, the Planning and preparation, and the main attack sections (granted I never got around to completing the rest of the article) where the Canadian role is discussed, and put into context as discussed by the sources. My position is that, per the sources, both articles should stick to their respective Corps attacks, while both highlighting how they were interrelated (and related to the earlier attacks).
 * In regards to sources please note that Buckley, Daglish (in both his work on Goodwood, and Bluecoat), Fortin, Fraser, Gill, Hart, Holmes, the historian of the 7th Armoured Division, Jackson, Melvin, H.Meyer, Reid, Reynolds (in both his work on I and II SS Panzer Corps), Weinberg, and Wilmot all describe Operation Goodwood was the armoured assault launched by VIII Corps. D’Este lables Atlantic a supporting attack, and while Trew states it was a subsidiary operation (likewise Reynolds calls Operation Greenline a subsidiary operation, yet no one is arguing that the dates of Goodwood should be stretched back a few days) he labels the whole ordeal the "combined Operation Goodwood/Operation Atlantic offensive".
 * While I do not, personally, rate John Gilbert’s work highly, he provides the context to what Stacey and others are talking about: “On July 18, after a brief pause in hostilities, SHAEF commanders considered the time ripe to order the first breakout from Caen. The main attack of the operation, called Goodwood, was tasked to the British forces to the west … while the Canadians prepared to breakout across the Orne, in the operation code-named Atlantic.”(p. 147)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Question: would it be inaccurate to say that the attacks were coordinated, as in this edit? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that is pretty much an accurate description of what happened.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if Airborne84 agrees, something like that could be used as a compromise. I think coordinated implies that the Canadians were participants better than the "...Canadian II Corps on the western flank, who were launching their own attack..." wordage from this diff. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. It's a reasonable way to couch it. I restored the test edit since Enigma appears to be ok with it. Pipe in if there's an issue with the text as it stands. If not, I'm ok to close this out.
 * Adjwilley, thanks for taking the time to chip in with your input.
 * Enigma, since I haven't said it yet, thanks for your hard work on this article to date.
 * Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Spring clean
Tidied up a few flaws, operations aren't italicked and unit titles without a national label should be wikilinked with the nationality outside the link. Pared a few long-winded clauses, put commanders in brackets after the introduction of the formation and blammed a few dupe wilikinks. Got ambitious and revamped the Background and Prelude sections but happy to discuss if anyone had a better idea. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

recent edits
Why swap nowrap for & n b s p ; when they do the same thing? Keith-264 (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorted out the misguided attempt to impose harvnb citations by changing all citations to sfn and tracking down missing references. Don't know the Zuehlke source though, if anyone does pls add it or let me know. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Goodwood. 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/20080912012732/http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf to http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217205831/http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy to http://home.swipnet.se/normandy/gerob/gerob.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) 03:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)