Talk:Operation Jupiter (1944)

temp section
Hill 112 is the name of an area near Esquay-Notre-Dame, and approximately 15 km south-west of Caen, that was the scene of several major battles during the Battle of Normandy between the German Army and the British Army. It was named after its spot height of 112 metres on the pre-war IGN map.

The British forces included the men of the 15th Scottish Division, 11th Armoured Division, 43rd Wessex Division and 53rd Welsh Division. Principal among the units fighting on Hill 112 (in addition to those mentioned below) were the West Country infantry from Dorset, Wiltshire, Somerset and Cornwall, and the tanks of 7th and 9th Royal Tank Regiments, plus numerous other units. Approximately 63,000 men over a period of seven weeks fought on and around Hill 112.

outcome
no outcome in the infobox? Blablaaa (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very observant of you--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the battle of cean article calls it a failure. btw u ignored my question about your edit on battle of cean ?Blablaaa (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * u cant use ditto to repeat your old statement, ditto is for repeating the statement of annother people....... Blablaaa (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In which case - Ibid ;) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * so u have reynolds book and he says what i said but u dont want to include, thats why u deleted my question. are i correct ? Blablaaa (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pure unsupported speculation on your part; i deleted your question for other reasons.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, its speculation. But i guess its correct. I will buy his book in the future ( for other reasons ), then we will see. I was only wondering that u revert a unsoured number and replace it then with an unsourced statement. And when i ask u, u delete my question instead of simply answering. If u have a outcome for jupiter u maybe can add it to the article. Blablaaa (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe instead of adding pure speculation to talkpages and redundant comments you could do something constructive? Considering you have campaign for so long for correct figures to be placed in articles why do you think i removed unsourced figures? Additionally i havent nor will i ever jump to your tune so i will check things when am good and ready. The reason why i didnt initially respond was because you have wore out the good faith ;)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This statement after i simply asked u, why u choose this unsourced statement ? is it possible that u simply answer instead of starting unneeded discussion about my faith, over and over again ? Btw its ok if u ignored me, but dont ignore my question and then start such discussion. thank you... Blablaaa (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL @ the irony--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Iam sure u have reynolds book, can u maybe tell me what he says about casualties in the battle of cean ? Blablaaa (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An inkling of which one of the at least four books on Normandy he mentions it in? Any idea roughly where about?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does the Infobox call it a British victory when the text say: "The operation was a tactical failure for VIII Corps" The objective was to conquere the Hill 112 and at the end of Operation Jupiter these Hill was not in british ahands.80.153.239.3 (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Because there are four terms allowed for that criterion and the sources treat it as a victory because of the attrition it caused the Germans. Territorial objectives aren't always the main ones and RS judgements are sometime tactical, sometimes operational and sometimes strategic.Keith-264 (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict

"result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."

'British victory' may seem odd, but is sustainable. The real target of Operation Jupiter was not Hill 112 at all, but the German troops defending it. Jupiter pinned II SS-Panzer Korps in place, wrote down its combat strength heavily and prevented its being withdrawn into reserve to regroup for counter-offensive action. As Tim Saunders writes in Hill 112, cited in the notes, p.154: 'Hill 112 had not been held, nor had the Orne crossings been seized, but elements of no less than four SS panzer divisions [1st Leibstandarte & 12th Hitlerjugend of I SS-Panzer Korps plus 9th Hohenstaufen and 10th Frundsberg of II SS-Panzer Korps] had been engaged in battle and firmly fixed on the British front at a vital point in the campaign. In doing so II SS-Panzer Korps was so heavily written down that it never recovered to anything like the level of combat power that it was able to deploy at dawn on 10 July 1944. [Note: the apparent success of II SS-Panzer Korps at Arnhem in late September was in fact due to reinforcements of troops, armour and artillery rushed in from all over Germany, such that the bulk of the German army in the West had to be used to defeat that lone British airborne division.] In summary, Operation Jupiter may not have been a tactical success for Major-General Thomas, but it was a strategic success for Montgomery.' Major Ellis, in the official history Victory In The West, cited in the notes, p.318, observes: 'In all there were two thousand casualties in this two-day action and little ground had been gained; yet 10th SS Panzer Division, 102nd SS Heavy Tank Battalion and part of 1st SS Panzer Division had been held in the fight.' Major Ellis was apparently not aware that 12th SS was committed, or more importantly that 9th SS, withdrawn into reserve, had been forced back into battle and kept there, two of its panzergrenadier battalions being shot flat by a single company of 5th Wiltshire. Ellis goes on, 'Panzer Group West's war diary records that General Eberbach told the commander of II SS Panzer Korps on the 11th that Hill 112 "is the pivotal point of the whole position... in no circumstances may it be surrendered... The loss of Eterville might be borne, but not that of Hill 112." Yet they had lost half of it, for the 43rd Division had captured the northern slopes and were halfway across the almost level hill-top. Before them were the wide hedgeless cornfields in which much blood had already been spilt. Standing out on the skyline in the centre of this front is a lonely crucifix and near-by a memorial has been raised to the courage and sacrifice of the 43rd Division.' Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Explanation 102 SSPz bn
See pp.239-264 Caen, Anvil of Victory (1966edn) by Alexander McKee. p. 243, the battalion counter-attacked at Maltot destroying three Shermans then moved to St Martin to counterattack up Hill 112, which was stopped on the lower slopes by artillery fire and a smokescreen. At about 22.30 the Tigers had another go and met 5th DCLI (plus tanks) going the other way. In the early hours they tried again (p.249). Generally McKee sees the Tigers involved in Operation Jupiter as the backbone of the defence which held on as the German infantry was destroyed around them. Oddly he insists that the OH wrongly calls the unit 102 and writes it as 502nd heavy SS Pz Bn.Keith-264 (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The unit was re-numbered 502 in autumn 1944 when it re-equipped with the Tiger II (King Tiger). McKee failed to understand this. The article is slightly wrong to claim that the Tiger I 'outclassed' British tanks without qualification, since the British Sherman Firefly with the 17-pounder gun, one in four of every British Sherman unit, considerably outclassed the Tiger in firepower (see comparison table of anti-armour penetration, Allied and German guns, Ellis Vol.I p.549). The 'unknown' German commander not mentioned in the infobox, Sir Richard O'Connor's opposite number, was the very well known SS-Brigadefuhrer William Bittrich, commander II SS-Panzer Korps (9 and 10 SS-Panzer Divisions and 102 Heavy SS Tank Battalion), who is admirably played by Maximilian Schell in 'A Bridge Too Far'. Of course I SS-Panzer Korps (1 and 12 SS-Panzer Divisions), commanded by the equally well known Sepp Dietrich, Hitler's former chauffeur, also took part in the battle. 87.115.106.149 (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Hugo Barnacle 10 October 2011 You might find this interesting http://home.swipnet.se/normandy/gerob/ghqpz/102PzAbt.html 22:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

CE
I thought that I could while away the time adding citations and then offering the article for a B class review, then realised that the description of the operation is missing.... It'll take a while to repair that omission as I'm working through lots of loose ends elsewhere.Keith-264 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle
Added short narrative, more later.Keith-264 (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Still trying to make time, honest....Keith-264 (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Two more years and still not finished....


 * Tourmauville name of the Odon crossing, mentioned in Hill 112 Saunders 2001, pp 18-19. Still looking for a Fr version.Keith-264 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * here it is. Nic pics of it. It's worth creating a stub at some time. Irondome (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Baron-sur-Odon it's mentioned in this article.Keith-264 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
Which Reynolds? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Found it, thanks babe.Keith-264 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
Thanks for adding citations but the passages aren't contentious so I question the necesssity; if you want to put them back pls use the sfn format. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Operation Express
The cited source, Tim Saunders, is incorrect to say that the Tigers of 2 Kompanie Abteilung 102 attacked 5th Wiltshire and their supporting RTR Churchills and were seen off by RAF Typhoons on the evening of 22 July. As the battalion history, The Fifth Battalion The Wiltshire Regiment in North-West Europe June 1944-May 1945 by Capt JS McMath (Whitefriars Press, London, 1945 -- see https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1500014313 and https://www.amazon.co.uk/Battalion-Wiltshire-Regiment-North-West-Europe/dp/B009OAUNHW ) makes clear, this actually happened the following morning after the troops were dug in on the objective. (I can't give the page number because I didn't note it down when I was working on the book in the IWM library.) The Tigers peeped over the crestline of 112 and began sniping with their 88s, killing among others the B Company commander Major WBA Hankey and D Company commander Captain SC Maskell-Dicker. German sources say that this was about 08.30 on 23 July and that six Churchills of 7 RTR were knocked out (confirmed by British sources) -- and then the German sources go a bit quiet because the rocket-firing Typhoons arrived and made them push off, and the Germans of that era dislike admitting to reverses. It's likely that several Tigers, probably three, were destroyed, along with their crews. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note that this article is far from finished.Keith-264 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are the author of a source you need to beware of conflict of interest if you use it as a source. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

German fan boi article
Full of rarara Germans are the bestest comments and fan boi work. Did Max Hastings write this gibberish?

I love that a line about a Tiger battalion has a reference to 6lb shells bouncing off a Panther.

The bit about Tigers and Panthers being invincible to frontal fire from a 75 mm (6lb?) is gibberish. 6lb tanks had a SABOT shell which could take out both and even the standard AP could achieve a kill.

The Sherman troops which were the basis of tank regiments/divisions (Cromwells were in recon/HQ) had Firefly tanks with 17lbs which had more than the penetrating power of the Tiger/Panther shells. Firefly = 1 in 5 in a troop. And divisions has very generous amounts of 17lb stationary and self propelled guns.

Who the hell wrote about 150mm frontal armor? That’s more than British tanks had and a lot more than Panthers or Tigers had (flat plate frontal armor on a Tiger looks identical to and is functionally identical to a Cromwell, same thickness) Dustek (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not had much input on this article, but I did just have a quick look over it based off your comments.
 * The only mention I could find of shells bouncing off a Panther was this line: "A tank of the Royal Scots Greys hit a Panther four times at 800 yd (730 m) and the shells bounced off". Per the source, Buckley, this was referencing the dual purpose 75mm gun of a Sherman. Buckley is not a "German fan boi" historian, and is noted for being part of a new wave of historians who revisited the Normandy campaign after earlier historians trashed the British performance. I would highly recommend reading his well-researched book that is referenced. That particular paragraph, in his work, is sourced to How's Hill 112, which is one of the reliable narratives on that particular battle, and Delforce's Monty's Marauders, which, IIRC, is largely composed of first hand accounts. The 75mm gun is the 75mm gun M2–M6, and not the Ordnance QF 6-pounder.
 * As for the 150mm frontal armour, the article references this as the Churchill tank. The Mark VII, which was used in Normandy, did have 152mm of frontal armour: see this work here, by David Fletcher; the go-to guy about British tanks.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

German victory…is there even an argument against this?
Let’s see, resulted in…


 * heavy British casualties
 * complete failure to achieve even minimal gains/pushed off Hill 112

this isn’t Epsom or Goodwood where the good ole “it pinned German units down and inflicted heavy losses” argument can be used either. The lead is misleading, no source is used for the statement “wore down II SS Panzerkorps”, instead it’s implied the back up for this is the; ~4,100 casualties, except that’s over two weeks (including Epsom) when this article is about a two day operation. Meanwhile, Karen Farringtons book “Victory in Europe: The Allies' Defeat of the Axis Forces” notes 2,000 casualties for the Wessex division alone.— Will Tyson for real (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is as irrelevant as mine, try looking at the sources. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that this is a C class article which means that it is far from complete. Keith-264 (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As always, what do the sources actually state on the subject? Yes, Farrington mentions that 2,000 men were lost from the Wessex division, but she does not state this meant it was a German victory. On the same page as those casualties, she notes that the German defensive action required the utilization of the II SS Panzer Corps to accomplish. She goes on to state "the battle for the hill was unresolved. Nominal control changed hands several times before the fighting came to an end, with the wooded summit becoming a 'no man's land'." If anything, it seems like she is arguing it was a draw of some sort. She then quotes Albert Figg, who I am unfamiliar with but a quick google search seems to suggest he is an authority on this particular battle and she notes he fought in it (so there is a bias), who called it the "battle that started the end of the war" A bit hyperbolic, but he goes on to argue that the Germans failed in their objective as much as the British.
 * Baldwin and Townend, Gunners in Normandy, describe it as a bit of a draw: the Germans were denied the heights to observe the British positions and the vice versa the British could not observe the Germans. They also argue that the 9th and 10th SS were tied down and thus the strategic impact of the battle that was forced upon the Germans.
 * I checked the German official history that covers the Normandy campaign, although these does not appear to be any mention of the battle (which is not a big deal, it tries to cover the big picture rather than what was essentially a minor action).
 * Thats just two sources. What do others state? What is the consensus?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ellis, Victory in the West, Vol I, p. 318: "In all there were two thousand casualties in this two-day action and little ground had been gained; yet 10th SS Panzer Division, 102nd SS Heavy Tank Battalion and part of 1st SS Panzer Division had been held in the fight. Panzer Group West's war diary records ... that Hill 112 'is the pivotal point of the whole position ... in no circumstances may it be surrendered ... The loss of Eterville might be borne, but not that of Hill 112'. Yet they had lost half of it, for the 43rd Division had captured the northern slopes and were halfway across the almost level hill-top."
 * The US Green Books do not seem to cover this battle (bit of a duh moment)
 * Stacey, The Victory Campaign, p. 166: "... Hill 112 ... The Germans, who had attached the greatest importance to the hill, counter-attacked fiercely with many tanks and succeeded in preventing the British from gaining full possession of it and from capturing the village of Maltot to the east."
 * Copp, Fields of Fire, p. 106: repeats pretty much what Ellis wrote, but then concludes "By evening on 11 July, it was evident that both sides were exhausted, and Jupiter ended in stalemate. The German forces though terribly weakened by the attritional battles of the last eighteen days, still held the high ground west and south of Caen." On p. 258, Copp wrote that the various operations to take Caen had "revealed the strength and weaknesses of the operational and tactical doctrine" of the Anglo-Canandian forces and the operations - including Jupiter - succeeded in wearing down the enemy" although they were not prepared for the cost in lives and lacked adequate reinforcements.
 * Trew and Badsey, Battle for Caen, p. 47: "43rd Division had captured and consolidated most of Hill 112. This left Panzer Group West uncertain whether the next British 'colossal crack' would come from east or west of Caen."
 * Reynolds, Sons of the Reich, pp. 42–43: "As far as Major General Thomas ... [was] concerned, it was a bloody and costly failure. Their only compensation - and few would view it this way - was that their sacrifice had held the 9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions, as well as significant elements of 1st and 12th SS on the eastern flank, away from the planned American breakout ... for another few, but vital days.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tim Saunders, Nill 112: The Battle of the Odon, "The battle had also reduced the enemy's capabilities significantly ... Hill 112 had not been held, nor had the Orne crossings been seized but elements of no less than four SS panzer divisions had been engaged in battle and firmly fixed on the British front at a vital point in the campaign. In doing so II SS Panzer Corps was so heavily written down that it never recovered to anything like the level of combat power it was able to deploy at dawn on 10 July 1944. In summary, Operation Jupiter may not have been a tactical success for Major General Thomas but it was a strategic success for Montgomery."
 * Tim Saunders, Hill 112: They Key to Defeating Hitler in Normandy, "The operational aim of Jupiter had fallen short, but in terms of 'keeping the pot boiling' Montgomery's strategy of attracting, fixing and writing-down German armour on the eastern flank of the Allied lodgment as per his M505 directive had been fully delivered." He notes the 10th SS had "been brought back to battle" and the II SS Panzer Corps "prevented from being extracted into a reserve." He continues "Not only that, the corps suffered further severe losses of irreplaceable men and equipment. As German commanders had repeatedly warned Berlin, the panzer divisions 'were being burnt out'. The battle for Hiller 112 had not been in vain."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not bothering to edit this article, but you seem to be cherry picking certain things. Yes 43rd Division captured Hill 112s northern slope and the summit…and they were promptly thrown off of it. Not sure why German fears of a breakthrough here matter to the discussion when it didnt occur anyways. The attacks to seize Evercy failed, Maltot was a see-saw fight before the British lost it altogether (which is why Operation Express was launched to reseize it later), although that is creatively omitted from this article. Eterville and a nearby Chateau was in fact the only permanent land gain of this operation, though it changed hands several times first. “Costly failure” is already mentioned by one of your sources, and an actually contemporary one at that.
 * btw, in the article I see 10th SS being reduced from ~15,000 to less than 2,400 men. Buckley’s “Montys Men” is cited but I cant find anything in Buckley’s book that backs that up…meanwhile Reynolds book puts German losses in this area over a two week period, including Jupiter but other operations too, at ~4,000. Utterly silly and should be removed from the article. Anthony Tucker Jones notes that the British 43rd Division suffered 2,000 casualties during the first 36 hours of Jupiter, but also gives 7,000 casualties for the unit over the 10-22 July period. The only other major combat it saw during this period was Express, so its losses were likely much higher. This is before taking into consideration the other British unit losses. 76.164.84.194 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The above is just a list of sources that I had easy access and that present an overview/analysis of the operation's outcome to address the talkpage question and have not all been used in the article. So, sorry, what exactly is being cherrypicked? I would also note that Reynolds clearly states that the costly failure was Thomas' opinion after the fact and not an objective analysis, which by all means can be quoted in the article as it does provide his impression of what he and his men had just gone through. But, it is not the end of the discussion though - as can clearly be said by the different positions. Are you looking for a more nuanced discussion of the outcome in the article? The sources are there, and I am sure there is more out there, so collaborate and write it.
 * While obviously this cannot be used, since its OR, a dataset from a well-regarded source based off extensive primary source research (not sure if this is outdated and has been updated since I had access, nor can I remember if its based on what was recorded therefore actual losses are pushed out some; for example, Bob gets shot today, but his loss is not reported until tomorrow), provides the division's losses at around 7,400 for their entire period of operations in Normandy (so roughly aligns with Tucker-Jones, since the dataset goes back into June). This includes around 960 from their first loss to the start of Jupiter. Interestingly, it only records 515 for these two days although around 2,000 when you pretty much count the week (the day prior and the few days after Jupiter officially closed) and the heaviest losses are recorded the day after Jupiter. Got about 40 casualties for 22 July (Express).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that Terry Copp doesn't use football score criteria much, he points out that things are more complicated. Keith-264 (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Kangaroos
Citizen 2606's recent edit got me curious, I see that the source cited does indeed state: "The 4th Armoured Brigade, supported by the 214th Brigade mounted in Kangaroos, turretless troop-carrying tanks, would secure the Orne crossings and form a bridgehead beyond". I also note that your edit summary states this was an intention and then cancelled. Is there any more information available on this, as it is a pretty interesting side note about the operation that does not seem to be covered elsewhere in the literature on the battle (one would presume these may have been Honeys, like used in North Africa and Italy, as opposed to the Rams that Citizen 2606 referred to?).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't remember where I read it but I'll look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Greatly appreciated! pinging our new friend, in case he has not seen this discussion. To note, his latest edit is based off Stacey's Victory Campaign, p. 210 that details the innovation in Normandy and notes that they were basically the first of their kind. I have seen passing reference to Stuarts/Honeys and Churchills being used in a similar manner, with the former potentially (as I noted above) in NA and Italy ... although I am stumbling to find a source to such currently - so I am not sure if they turned up before the Priest-based Kangaroos (never mind if they were the ones being indicated in the above quote).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As much as I would like it to be true for personal reasons, I could not find any reference - other than the original cited - of Kangaroos employed for OP JUPITER. Two sources (S. Hart's Operation Totalize 1944 and the Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War Vol. III) note that Monty approved the creation of improvised APCs on 1 August and an ad-hoc workshop code-named 'Kangaroo' was created the same day. Between 3 and 6 August the workshop had converted 76 Priest SPGs, with training beginning on 5 August and employment two days later. The APCs were also referred as 'Unfrocked Priests' and 'Holy Rollers'. Later the Canadians converted "Ram" tanks into Kangaroos, which operated as a unit of Hobart's 79th British Armoured Division. Citizen 2606 (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They were involved in the VIII Corps plan for Goodwood but I haven't had a look yet. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've checked Townend and Baldwin, the cited passage is accurate, Tim Saunders uses almost the same words in Hill 112: Battles of the Odon 1944 p. 47. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I will have to check it out. Regards, Citizen 2606 (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Puzzling too, why they get mentioned without foreshadowing their debut on Operation Totalize. I suspect that the 214th Brigade either didn't engage or left them behind. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I remain suspicious about the use of the Kangaroo in July but will leave it to your good judgement. The date of their development is specifically noted as early August. Unless they cite their source, I suspect Townend and Baldwin may have used Saunders, who published his work earlier. Saunders does not cite his source for the claim, or talk about their development and does not reference the vehicles in his OOB - they were later assigned to the 31st Tank Brigade. He also includes a photo of a much later Ram Kangaroo, not a converted Priest. Still, he may have first-hand accounts, as he acknowledges, to which no one else has access. An interesting subject, nonetheless. Regards, Citizen 2606 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that too many sources refer to them in Totalize and none that I can see mention them being ready earlier, although I remember VIII Corps planning to use them in Goodwood then being overruled. I think now that we should be cautious and remove the passage unless a better source turns up. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)