Talk:Operation Overlord/Archive 1

Redirect
The Battle of Normandy article discusses all of this in much greater depth. There is no need to leave a permanent stub here just to explain the operation name, as it's given in the first sentence of the Normandy article. (Indeed, this is the canonical example given here of redirecting operational names to geographic ones. Kirill Lokshin 18:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Normandy Campaign is much closer to the military actions to the correspond to Overlord than Battle of Normandy. I fixed it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that there is discussion about possible renaming this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems a shame that the Battle of Normandy article seems to have become a disambiguation page. Have I missed something? The Battle of Normandy is the term used in Normandy by the French to describe what happened there. Overlord is the name of the plan, but what actually happened was, inevitably, different. When SHAEF planned it there were no Germans around to object!

Martinsmac (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Framework
Since we've made the move, we should try to integrate the pages into a cohesive whole a bit more. Would anyone object to the following framework for Overlord?


 * Background
 * Events leading up to Overlord
 * Allied preparations
 * German preparations
 * Forces involved (main: An Order of Battle page)
 * Course of the campaign
 * Invasion and establishment (main: Invasion of Normandy)
 * Breakout
 * Aftermath
 * Analysis

Oberiko (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that between "Invasion and Establishment" and "Breakout" there needs to be a sub-heading that references the Battle for Caen and the intense fighting in the Bocage. The article as it currently stands says nothing about Villers Bocage, the fighting around Carpiquet, Operation EPSON, Hill 112, Operation GOODWOOD, or indeed any of the activities of the British and Canadian armies. Martinsmac (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence
This is from the section 'The Normandy Campaign in context'

"As the Allies were closing in on Paris and sealing the Falaise Gap, an invasion in southern France."

It's a sentence fragment. I can't tell from the context how to correct it. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out :) Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Albany, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Elmira
The Battle of Normandy box in the left side that has links for all FIVE different US airborn operations as well as a link for the overall American Airborn element. As the American Airborn article has links for all five individual operations, The battle of normandy box does not need to be crammed with all 5 operations. It just spamms things up. Im am removing them as a result since they are all available in the American Airborn section.

76.67.43.96 (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation Overlord and other issues
Guys, nice try, but all these words mean specific things in a pure military history context, and you can't be mixing them up in the intro lead. Operation OVERLORD is not a battle. Operation OVERLORD is not a campaign. Operation OVERLORD was the strategic plan for the invasion of northwest Europe. Period. It resulted in a campaign. And a lot of battles were fought within that campaign. But you have to keep all that straight. It's no wonder everyone is confused!139.48.25.61 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC) And incidentally, did OVERLORD not refer to all the events in Northwest Europe, not just the invasion of Northwest Europe? Didn't it really go until VE-Day? Does anyone have what Wikipedia likes to call a "source" for this?139.48.25.61 (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay - the Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War phrases it like this: "The tremendous military enterprise known as Operation "Overlord"-the liberation of North-West Europe from German domination-was launched on the night of 5-6 June 1944." As I suspected, if I am reading this correctly - all of the NW Europe campaign was OVERLORD, not just Normandy. This entire article is faulty.139.48.25.61 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold on, here is from the US Army's site:


 * OUTLINE OF OPERATION OVERLORD 


 * PART I: OUTLINE OF OPERATION OVERLORD 
 * TAB I: OUTLINE OF TACTICAL PROBLEM 

1. OBJECT—The ultimate mission of the Commanding General, ETOUSA, is the total defeat of Germany. The object of Operation OVERLORD is to mount and carry out an operation with forces and equipment established in the United Kingdom and with target date as designated, to secure a lodgement area on the Continent from which further offensive operations can be developed. This will be part of a concerted assault upon German occupied Europe from the United Kingdom, the Mediterranean and Russia. 139.48.25.61 (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * According to other sources, the entire NW European campaign was not Operation Overlord.

D-DAy Museum What were Operation Overlord, Operation Neptune and the Battle of Normandy? When did they take place?

The armed forces use codenames to refer to the planning and execution of specific military operations. Operation Overlord was the codename for the Allied invasion of north-west Europe. The assault phase of Operation Overlord was known as Operation Neptune. This operation involved landing the troops on the beaches, and all other associated supporting operations required to establish a beachhead in France. Operation Neptune began on D-Day (6 June 1944) and ended on 30 June 1944. By this time, the Allies had established a firm foothold in Normandy. Operation Overlord also began on D-Day, and continued until Allied forces crossed the River Seine on 19 August 1944. The Battle of Normandy is the name given to the fighting in Normandy between D-Day and the end of August 1944. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite. I got it from a copy of the original source document, though - try online at http://www.army.mil/cmh/documents/WWII/g4-OL/g4-ol.htm for the actual outline plan. :-) 139.48.25.61 (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to note there are a bunch of other sources which support this position that Overlord was the invasion of France, sequent ops were not (I did have a source which gave a very specfic meaning of the operation etc but i cant find it):

Victory in the West, Major Ellis pp. 10-11

“At the nexy full meeting (Trident), held in Washington in May 1943, the shape of the large scale assault in 1944 was given further definition. Its aim would be to secure a lodgement on the continent from which further offensive operations could be carried out….General Morgan was to submit an outline plan for the operation now renamed “Overlord”….”

The Struggle for Europe, Chester Wilmot p.118

“In the meantime the detailed planning and preparation for the invasion of France (soon to be renamed Operation Overlord)….”

Caen 1944, Ken Ford p.7

“….the forthcoming landings in France on the final shape of the invasion plan. Operation Overlord, as the invasion was called, proposed that two Allied armies be landed on the coast of Normandy ….. to establish a lodgement from which future operations inland would develop.”

F.M Alan Brookes war diary p. 480

…Overlord (codename for cross Channel operations).”

Why the allies won, Richard Overy p. 173

“…accepted the principle of a cross-channel invasion, Operation Overlord, based on Morgans final plan”

p. 179 “Although the primary object of Overlord was to move a large army to fight in France…”

Colossal Cracks, Stephen Hart p.1

“This study examines the manner in which the 21st AG the Northwest Europe campaign….This army group …. Landed on the Normandy coast on D-Day in Operation Overlord and successfully advanced into the heart of Germany”

p.110

“Once the allies had secured the Overlord lodgement area, the Germans stood little chance of preventing the eventual allied liberation of Nazi-occupied Europe….”--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Point Du Hoc
Was Point Du Hoc one of the code-named landings? I'm not disputing that there was a landing there, just whether it needs to be included in the list of beaches.88.105.2.120 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)TheDixieFlatline As far as i understand it, Point Du Hoc is the name of the actual position assualted and not a codename.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

River Seine
Incidentally, the original OVERLORD plan indicates that the final phase line of the plan would be the River Seine, and that OVERLORD would be considered complete only when the Germans had been pushed across. The Canadian official histories (Vol. II of the official history as well as the historical summary from 1948 and the book on "Canada's Battle in Normandy" released by the Historical Section) all indicate that the 21st Army Group had not secured the line of the Seine until 1 September. Why, then, does this article give the date of 25 August? Yes, Paris is nice, but it has nothing to do with the official OVERLORD plan, does it? Shouldn't the article reflect what the plan actually said and how it was actually carried out?139.48.25.61 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What was planned and what was carried out are two different things. The origianl plan off the top of my head called for a wide double encirclement of the enemy isntead opportunity arose and the Falaise gap happened instead - it was planned it just the way it turned out and the campaign was effectivly over. Last time i glanced the article i believe it reflected both these points.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Words mean things. The article lead states that "fighting in Normandy" ended on August 25th with the liberation of Paris. That would be a rude shock to the families of those Canadians, Brits and Poles who were killed on Norman soil between August 25 and September 1 while the Germans were still retreating across the Seine. The last German crossed the Seine on 30 August according to Stacey, Vol. II of the official Canadian history, page 295. At the least, this needs to be reworded. There was still major fighting in Elbeuf, for example, between 25 and 30 August, by the 3rd and 4th Canadian Divisions, and the 2nd Canadian Division was fighting and getting shelled in the Foret de la Londe until the end of the month as well.139.48.25.61 (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and changed this to 30 August, with the cite. The book is available online in pdf form if anyone wants to read for themselves, incidentally. There can be no doubt there was still fighting on Norman soil right up until August 30th, when the last German crossed the River.139.48.25.61 (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

COBRA
I felt the need to reword the comment that the Americans somehow "finished the Normandy campaign early" - as if the British and Canadians and Poles were falling behind and the Americans studied hard and breezed through, as if it was a math exam or something. The intent of Montgomery - I've provided a cite in the article to a policy directive he drafted in June 1944 - was to draw German armour around Caen - which is in Normandy - to allow the Americans to maneuver in the west. The only reason the Americans "finished early" in Normandy is because they were then fighting in Brittany, due to their freedom of movement. They were still fighting, though, they just happened by accident of geography to no longer be in the particular province of Normandy anymore. Thus, for them, the Normandy campaign was over - though in the overall sense, the Battle of Normandy, as the Anglo-Canadians called it, was still going on until 1 September, until such time as they could fight their way out of Normandy. To say that the Americans finished early in Normandy gives the impression they had somehow stopped fighting, which of course was not the case. They just weren't doing it in Normandy anymore139.48.25.61 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As a Brit i believe that Monty plan was to drew in the German armour around the Second Army which it achieved adimarly. However it would seem there are many historians out there, am sad to say this but it would seem mainly American ones, who deny this is the case and provide evidence to support such a position. Major Ellis the British official historian, while wrong in some with figures does appear to give a good account of plans/ideas etc, notes in the Operation Goodwood chapter of Victory in the West that Second Army was suppose to be fighting and holding a line to the south of Caen. However he also supports the position of Monty wanting to drew in the armoured reserve. Seems the plan went tits up in regards to where they wanted to execte it but overall largly stayed the same.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What does any of that have to do with what I was talking about? This is a discussion place for the article itself, not the Battle of Normandy...139.48.25.61 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The point being you are going to lead to an edit war with other editors if you present the case that Monty masterplan went according to plan etc There is a controversy surrounding this point.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. We are discussing when the fighting in Normandy ended. The fighting in Normandy ended for the US in July, because their forces exited Normandy and entered Brittany (though they came back into Normandy for the Falaise Gap battles, something their historians overlook, lumping it in with the "breakout" phase). The British and Canadians were still on Norman soil as late as August 30/31. What does this have to do with Montgomery's intentions?139.48.25.61 (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope I am not stating the obvious, but....this issue with the dates the campaign 'ended' are purely artifacts of the need for military bureaucracies and historians to define start and end dates of campaigns and have a pretty loose connection with reality - nor would any of the better historians argue otherwise. So I don't see much point in arguing when US or British forces ended the Normandy campaign. Someone in each force needed to decide who was entitled to which campaign ribbons and historians needed to organize their work somehow. I don't think anyone imagines that US forces suddenly shut down the Normandy campaign on July 25 1944. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional German Casualties
Ive added to the casualties box a statement about the additional 100,000 German troops who were trapped in various port towns as garrisons, and thus unable to take part in future German Operations as they were trapped behind allied lines and besieged. While not direct casualties of the battle, the victory in Normandy prevented them from being used in the future by the Germans.

Will give sources soon, just need to remember which book I got that info from.Wokelly (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just removed your addition. As the Germans deliberetly didn't attempt to withdraw these garrisons, their isolation shouldn't be attributed only to the rapid Allied advance following the breakout from Normandy. Moreover, many historians regard the prolonged defence of the Atlantic Ports as being a strategic advantage for Germany, as this contributed to the supply crisis in late 1944 which greatly limited the Allied advance, so it's not correct at all to say that Germany wasn't able to use the troops. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename suggestion
There is a suggestion that operation should be renamed with more easily remembered and identifiable names for the current reader, so I would like to suggest that this article be renamed Battle of Normandy (1944). Alternatively maybe Invasion of Normandy in 1944? That is also used in a few books--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 04:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Has there been any other Battle of Normandy in recorded history - if not then whats the point in doing so? If yes, i would prefer the first one.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mrg seems to have posted this as a response to articles on the Eastern Front being renamed to names he didn't agree with. I don't think that it warrants any further response. Nick-D (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

German losses
I'm reverting back the German losses to the previous amount. Most sources put Total German killed and wounded at 200,000 with around 50,000 dead. Personally I refuse to believe the German dead are really only 25,000 dead or so because there are 80,000 Germans buried in the six major cemeteries in Normandy.

1)Huisnes-sur-Mer, near Pontorson, 11 956 burials

2)La Cambe, between Bayeux and lsigny, 21 160 burials

3)Saint-Desir-de-Lisieux, near Lisieux, 3 735 burials

4)Marigny - La Chapelle-en-Juger, near Saint-Lo, 11 169 burials

5)Orglandes, near Valognes, 10 152 burials

6)Champigny-St-Andre-de-I'Eure, 19 794 burials

These dead bodies didnt come from nowhere, and while some of them could be attributed to perhaps the preinvasion strikes on targets in the area, I doubt they come out to the additional 55,000 men not included in Zitterlegs figures that are burried in Normandy. Obviously this is kinda technically original research and cant be posted which is why its not, but it easily casts doubts on the 23,019 dead and 62, 240 wounded currently listed and gives more credit to the 200,000 killed and wounded figure that was present before the current change.

Regardless, personal view aside, I have seen few sources that put German losses at anything less then 200,000 killed and wounded and an additional 200,000 captured.

Wokelly (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The numbers come from reliable sources. You cant tally up buried at cemeteries and use it as sources, that goes against No original research. The casualties is from D-Day to around August 25. The numbers one of the most detailed and reliable source out there, so there no need to change it just cause you "personally refuse to believe the German dead is 23,000". That goes against WP:NPOV. --Nirvana77 (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I am totally following No original research. If I wasn't I would have placed 80,000 dead down then the 50,000 stated. The 200,000 total killed and wounded is what is written in a huge number of books about Normandy. What exactly makes these figures more accurate then the dozen or so books I can list that will place killed and wounded at 200,000? Frankly the reason I listed the German Normandy cemeteries is because they quickly call into question the accuracy of your sources figures. Dead bodies don't just appear from nowhere, especially not an additional 55,000 of them. No major battles in the BoF were fought there, no major military hospital was located there. Where did the bodies come from if not Normandy and the pre-invasion operations that took place. Those dead bodies in those cemeteries goes much farther to supporting the 200,000 dead and wounded that is listed in many books I have read about Normandy then the number your sources has produced.


 * What exactly makes your book more credible then the books that claim higher casualty numbers?


 * Wokelly (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you are not following No original research. You cant use the buried at cemeteries as a source. Many sailors and airmen from other operations are buried in France, 30,000 German soldiers were killed in the Battle of France in 1940, many thousands were killed during the years 1941-1943 aswell, from bombings, fighting the resistance, non combat related deaths and many more, many thousands were killed after August 25. These are all points that you neglect. The book is more credible since it is much more detailed then your sources. It's fairly recent aswell, and has actually researched the numbers on both sides rather then guessing and assuming on inflated and dated numbers. I wasent even the one who added the numbers, but i have read the book and a own a copy myself and i rechecked the numbers when they were added in the article, and they all check out.--Nirvana77 (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You really are not reading what I am saying. If you looked at the citations of the previous casualties you would see the following sources:

-"A War to be Won" Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett

-"Tug of War: The Canadian Vicotry that opened Antwerp" by Denis Whitaker and Shelagh Whitaker

-"The Second World War" John Keegan

-http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm Frequently Asked Questions for D-Day and the Battle of Normandy

and some more books I have dug up that also state 200,000 killed and wounded, 200,000 captured:

-"Official history of the Canadian Army in the Second World War" by C.P. Stacey

-"The Valour and the horror" by Merrily Weisbord and Merilyn Simonds Mohr.

-"Decision in Normandy" by Carlo D'Este

-"No Price Too High" by Terry Copp

See these are EIGHT sources that disagree with Zitterlings numbers, and who all put down similar numbers of German losses.

None of those have to do with my personal views on how many Germans have died, nor have they impacted the numbers of dead and wounded that were listed before here. Now it doesn't matter how much more credible you think your mans sources are, the weight of work on Normandy place German killed and wounded at 200,000, with a bit of variation of course but generally around there. Wikipedia is not a place for revisionist history to be placed. The fact is 200,000 killed and wounded is what I have generally seen published in the works I have read about Normandy, and indeed is what I have read in the sources I have posted for you.

Now if you can find other books that back up your mans claims about the losses he lists, then you can post your figures. However simply put I have 8 different sources claiming similar numbers which are greater then zitterlings stated losses. There are more works that will claim high numbers then his. But frankly put you have one sources against the 8 listed, seven of which are books, several of which by very well known historians.

Now I am not gonna change things back at the moment, frankly because I don't want to get into that kind of pissing match where we undo each other twice a day. But I will dig up more sources, and I will change the figures back, as well as put notes of the pages int he book and what they state. Then if you want to change it back, you will have to find several sources that give similar figures to Zitterling, otherwise his one source against eight others is not a reasonable reason to delete what 8 sources say because you have read the book and like it.

Wokelly (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been asked by User:Nirvana77 to comment on this. From reviewing the above discussion, I tend to agree that figure being used by User:Nirvana77 is not supported by other reliable sources and looks much too low, especially when compared to the Allied casualties - given the extent of the German defeat, and especially the disaster at Falaise, there's no way that fewer German than Allied soldiers were killed. It's worth noting that Carlo D'Este wrote that the estimate of 200,000 Germans killed and wounded in General Eisenhower's report on the campaign which D'Este uses as his source for German losses is "an approximation in-asmuch as exact count was impossible to obtain" (Decision in Normandy, pg 518). Nick Dowling (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your response Nick Dowling. It's an reliable source that have actually checked the numbers of soldiers killed in the Operation on both sides rather then guessing and assuming on numbers that often times are inflated and dated. It should be noted that aircrew losses are excluded from the numbers, if they were included the Allied death numbers would rise to 53,672 killed, and German aircrew deaths is unknown. Im not sure if Falaise is included in the numbers, i will have to check this again soon. But even if they were excluded, which i dont think, it would still bring up German deaths to only around 33,000 killed, 4,000 fewer then Allied deaths. If you were to take a wild guess on German aircrew deaths, it could be around 8,000 - 10,000 killed, considering they lost half as many planes as the Allies did. That would take it up to 41,000 - 43,000 killed, and this is only pure speculation. So i defiantly dont believe German dead and wounded exceeded Allied dead and wounded. --Nirvana77 (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So whats the verdict then? Frankly put I have more sources willing to put the number at the 200,000 killed and wounded, 200,000 captured range. My personal views aside, Zitterlings figures, regardless of how credible they are stated to be, is not in line with the majority of Normandy historiography. If Zitterlings numbers were to became accepted wisdom then it might be okay, but if he is currently the lone voice calling out a different number in a sea of voices calling out a higher number does that mean his figures should be accepted over the others.

Personally I am not going to change things right now because I want to dig up as many sources as possible that support the 400,000 total casualties that is stated in almost every book I have read and I dislike getting into edit fights with people where we both undo each other several times a day... well the prospect is unpleasant.

Wokelly (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should be noted that i happened to buy "Source X" today and it claimed "XYZ" casualty figures - that should not automatically be allowed to completly replace all figures within the info box, especially when they have citations to back it up.
 * I think the correct course of action here should be something akin to Operation Epsom;
 * 288,875 (the current source information) - 400,000 casualties (old source information)
 * Precise details regarding the number of killed, wounded and missing (i.e. actual missing and POWs should go in a footnote).
 * With that said, i do not like the current casualty information one bit due to the fact the information claims that it also contains casualty information from outside of the Overlord area - i.e. regardless of the note, the info box is not giving the reader realiable information regarding the casualties suffered by the German Army in *Normandy*.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually came in contact with one of the authors today using his contact information on his web page. According to him, the losses stated in the book included all ground forces casualties, including Luftwaffe ground personal, but does not include German aircrew or marine losses. The numbers are from 1 June - 31 August and is for entire France. Their source is an detailed report from the Wehrmacht Verlustwesen. The 50,000 casualties at Falaise is included in the the 198,616 missing number.--Nirvana77 (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait you mean all the 50,000 casualties are listed as missing. Most sources put 10,000 dead at Falaise for the Germans, would that not be included in the total deaths? Wokelly (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made the improvement i suggested earlier on in the discussion. Just because 1 source rules out a higher figure should not mean that it is deleted from the article. However the current information backing up the 400,000 figure is a bit flimsy - 2 sources but no page numbers and a website. If this figure is to be kept it needs to be better supported. I will have allot in a few sources later when i get home if i have some spare time.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this Tamelander? a bit of a dubious source? I was reading though the information provided within the footnotes before and it state the following regarding the German casualties:

"These numbres also includes losses in southern France as well as the following retreat, and appr. 79,000 of the total losses of 288,875 men should be atttibuted to the battles in southern France against the american Seventh Army under command of general Patch."
 * Surely a piece of information like that makes his figures rather suspect and somewhat invalid for this article?


 * On a side note, in a footnote supporting the Allied losses the following was stated:

"Calculations of the forces and losses in Normandy gives the fact that the german soldier in Normandy killed in average 0,317 allied soldiers, while the allied soldier killed in average 0,0438 german soldiers."

Prehaps i have misread this, but if this was presented there to support casaulty information are we saying that he has researched the figures or has caculated them and plunked the figure from where the sun does not shine?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be dubious? Cause you don't agree with the source? What makes it "suspect", really? I can understand your concern if you mean that the numbers cover southern France aswell and not just Normandy. Also, you removed the source to the number of destroyed allied planes and tanks which i had footnoted before your editing in the article also. I dont understand why editing in the Allied section of the info box was needed, no one had a problem with it, and it certainly looked better before. The German side looks good, i think all sides can be satisfied with it.--Nirvana77 (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well yes i dont fully agree with the source, his figures seem far too low and include losses outside of the Overlord area. However you had removed information which had stated a higher casualty figure - that should also be represented, even if the sources for it were lacking a bit. Now at least the German casualty figure represents a wider range of historians and views.
 * As for the Allied side:


 * 1 - it as a mistake on my behalf to remove those 2 footnotes, i must have gotten a bit carried away when editing and didnt mean to remove them.
 * 2 - the info box was cluttered and from my experiance other info boxes display a total and leave it to the article or a footnote to go into detail, which is what i have done.
 * 3 - Ellis appears to be the first to cite those figures, as far as i can tell, might as well show him as the evidence to "spice things up a bit".
 * 4 - stating the "British" losses when it was an Anglo-Canadian Army group is a bit of an error, hence the change to the latter in the footnote - other units served under that Army-Group not the British flag etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, i do agree with you on most of the changes you made. I do also think there should be an additional source on the German side to get a better perspective and that the higher numbers should be represented. I did not remove any higher numbers considering i was no the one to add the Tamelander/Zetterling source to begin with, but i did revert when someone removed the sourced numbers considering that i have read the book and reread it recently and knew the numbers. After reading what you wrote on the changes in the allied section, i would agree with you there aswell. --Nirvana77 (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Appoglies for saying you removed it then :)
 * Aye another source would be useful for the German casualties as i believe the two i have used one of them referances the other work in places so the casualties could be a copy and paste job from one source to the other - so not really establishing the higher casualty level; although its a hell of allot better that some website and two books with no page numbers hehe :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick look in the book written by Beevor ("D-Day: The Battle for Normandy") tells that he too supports the figures of 240,000 killed or wounded with another 200,000 captured. But I have no further information about the sources of his figures, which is of importance (Tamelander on the other hand gives slighty more detailed information about the sources of his figures). Three authors supporting the same figures does not make them more likely to be correct they all use the same sources. EriFr (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to correct myself. Beevor refers to these casualties only as losses of the German Army in the West during a certain period. It is not clear if these figures cover losses in the whole of France (including southern France), or only losses in Normandy (until the liberation of Paris and the end of August). I believe that there is a possibility that the fighures of 240,000 killed and wounded and 200,000 captured also includes losses that stem from the fightings against the invasion of Southern France and in particular the U.S Seventh Army under General Patch. EriFr (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A little late in the day but thanks for the additional information.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a simple question. The (appr.) 200,000 men captured by the Allies between the beginning of June and the end of August 1944, are they for Operation Overlord only or for the whole of France? When I read Tamelander again, he suggest that they are for the whole "French campaign", southern France included. I start to believe that there might be confusion of figures somewhere. /Erik EriFr (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Bottom of the article - MOS
I have noticed that there is a massive list of games, films, books etc based on this event - if my understanding is correct, should'nt be do away with this entire section?

Also where is the referance section to support the citations and footnotes?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Innaccurate Lead
"Once the beachheads were secured, a three-week military buildup occurred on the beaches before Operation Cobra, the operation to break out from the Normandy beachhead began."

The lead gives one the impression that the Allies sat on there rear-ends twidlling there thumbs; the Americans fought hard to cut off Cherbourg, capture the city and then break out (initiially unsucessful) before they launched Cobra, meanwhile the Second Army was fighting a series of bloody battles around Caen wearing down the German armoured forces and paving the way for Cobra. I think this lead should be rewrote to reflect more of the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.174.9 (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this statement should be corrected, but for slightly different reasons. The period after the actual landings and the commencement of Cobra should be around 8 weeks. Additionally this implies that the operations in Normandy were planned to lead to an operation called Cobra. The whole issue around the strategy for the battle of Normandy is clouded by disagreement, but what is known is that Cobra as a named plan was developed after the battle had started (see D'Este, for instance). Unless this is made clear the reader may not understand what a long hard slog the allies had in Normandy.

I would propose something along the lines of...

"Once the beachheads were secured a prolonged period of inconclusive fighting across Normandy followed. Allied hopes of a rapid breakout were dashed as successive attacks diminished German strength (and stopped plans to force the Allies back onto the beaches) but did not break their defensive line.   The breakout finally began with the launch of Operation Cobra."

Martinsmac (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Breaking the Battle down into phases
I was hoping to get a general idea of peoples view on this quickly. Title is a little misleading didnt know how to explain it. Anyways I was wondering if this box:

Should be shortened to include the large articles. Here is what I mean:

Or something like that. Essentially I would like to have the box cleaned up. Since we have overall articles that talk about the airborn drops, the naval landings, the Battle of Caen, I was thinking there is no point in having the individual battles listed when the overall articles give links to each individual one. Its just kind of a mess. Ad

Admittingly someone would have to create similar articles about the US sector and the breakout phase in general. But its just an idea. Does anyone else favor cleaning up the bar or leaving it as it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.79.201 (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically you are suggesting we implement something like what can be seen on the Western Desert Campaign article: one Navbox for the overall campaign and a second nav box, which contains only the links for the battles in that campaign. While the articles within that campaign dont have the two nav boxes they have only one to navigate through the various battles which made up that campaign etc as seen in Operation Compass.


 * So the British airborne landings, American airborne landings, D-Day Landings etc articles would have the above navbox you are suggesting. While the battle articles, such as Operation Epsom, would have a nav box showing the events take took place in that battle i.e.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I am again interested in working on the boxes as they are a cluster fark of overlapping links at the moment. My main problem is there has not been an article worth a damn written about the US operations on the western side of the bridgehead. We have the battle of caen article to cover Perch to Goodwood, and the Falaise Pocket article covers Totalize and Tractable and the destruction of the German forces in the pocket by both 21st AG units and the Americans. Bluecoat is left out, but its a severely underdeveloped article however. Still we have no such "battle of caen" type article to cover US operations from D-day to Cobra, so its making it difficult to know what to do with the US battles, as there will be no mega article that possesses links to the individual battle articles written. Wokelly (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Largest?

 * See also Talk:Invasion of Normandy and Talk:Allied invasion of Sicily

I read an bbc article today claiming D-Day was not the "largest seaborne invasion in history" that neglects to cite what was. I came here looking for the answer, only to find a weasel-word "one of the largest" in the opening, backed up by citation 13. Citation #13 claims that Okinawa was the largest amphibious assault. However, the article the citation links to makes no such claim - this is a problem and needs to be cleared up.

That citation actually now redirects to a revised version of the page. The original is viewable at http://web.archive.org/web/20061109045405/http://www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3035101.html but only makes that claim in the subtitle, and doesn't substantiate it anywhere. It appears to be a misunderstanding from the claim that Okinawa was the "largest land command" ever under the US Navy. Every other source I can find about Okinawa calls it only the largest amphibious operation of the Pacific theater.


 * See Talk:Invasion of Normandy for a discussion on Normandy and Okinawa. --PBS (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC article in question is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8079965.stm, which calls Sicily the largest "maritime" invasion, distinctly separate from "seaborne invasion" - any guess as to what the bbc author is referring to? I'm not even aware of a distinction between maritime and seaborne (other than that 'sea' necessitates salt water, but as the 'maritime' invasion of Sicily is of course over salt water that doesn't seem to be the difference). For that matter, I'm not sure of a particular difference between any of "maritime assault" "seaborne invasion" and "amphibious landing" or their other permutations. Tofof (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Allied invasion of Sicily where I have uses a detailed source which states that Sicily was not the largest. --PBS (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Normandy Invasion was the largest seaborne invasion ever by far. Something like 5,000 ships were involved, and that doesn't mean landing craft but proper sea-going ships. Most of the shipping used in the invasion of Sicily was brought back to the UK for D-Day, and that was one of the reasons that the Normandy invasion didn't take place until it did, the shipping was being used in the Mediterranean.


 * The next biggest seaborne invasion wasn't even half the size of the Normandy one. It was vast. The UK entered the war with the world's largest merchant navy, with ~12,000 merchant ships at the start, losing around 4,000 during the war, but it still provided most of the 5,000, with IIRC, the US providing around 100 ships for the invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.22 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Allied airmen
Im a bit confused, the article says that 16,714 Allied airmen were killed, is this included in the total of 36,000 dead or is it counted separately?70.177.186.81 (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They are separately. For further information, see Zettering or Beevor .EriFr (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

D-Day
Does anyone actually know what D-Day stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.82.227 (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Its military jargon, it means the day the operation will be launched and H-Hour the hour of its launch.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * D is short for Day.
 * H is short for Hour.
 * Your plan is based around a generic day, with events that are plus or minus. The specific day gets set later. The actual date of D-Day got moved, remember, but the plan is the same.
 * Varlaam (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also a common (mis?)conception that it stands for "Deliverance", as in "Day of Deliverance" Anthiety (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

german casualties
the first number is 288.000, the source for it "Tamelander states the German Army lost 288,875 men in France, this figure breaks down to 23,019 dead, 67,240 wounded, and 198,616 missing. However according to Tamelander, these figures also include losses from the fighting in Southern France as well as from following the retreat. He suggests roughly 79,000 men should be deducted from this total to give an accurate figure for the Normandy campaign" , i tried to exclude the casualties not happend in normandie, but somebody reverted it because he thinks the overlord infobox should include the casualties of operation dragoon and so on. shulman says 240.000 KIA MIA WIA and 210.000 POWS. so there are between 208.000 - 240.000 KIA WIA MIA and about 200.000 POWS. why not writing it this way? -- HROThomas (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You should really read what the info box states: 209,875[nb 3] – 450,000 casualties[nb 4]. This was changed several days ago after the problem was raised so most of your little rant above is rather redundant.
 * As it has already been raised to you, the word "casualties" means the number of men lost, due to various reasons from the fighting force. This includes includes killed, wounded, missing and caputred; it would be overcluttering the infobox and using terms laymen not be familiar with to show it in the way you have suggested. At the same time missing means men whos outcome has not been identified and can include being captured. You would be possibly doubleing the figures to show the caputred seperate from a figure already including missing.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

is it so hard for u to understand that tamelanders figures include casualties from dragoon and later events, is this so hard to understand? so the number is waste not more! complete normal for battles is to seperate big numbers of POWs. see all other articles... -- HROThomas (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First off i never added the figure into the article in the first place. Secondly lets look at what the note next to the figure states:

"Tamelander states the German Army lost 288,875 men in France, this figure breaks down to 23,019 dead, 67,240 wounded, and 198,616 missing. However according to Tamelander, these figures also include losses from the fighting in Southern France as well as from following the retreat. He suggests roughly 79,000 men should be deducted from this total to give an accurate figure for the Normandy campaign"
 * And what does the infobox state? Yes his figure minus what he suggests should be subtracted. Someone added it to the article because they obviously saw some wealth to what he had to say; why remove it just yet when it provides a contrasting figure to other sources?
 * As for your see all other articles comment, you know as well as i do that all the other articles do not conform to that. Its mix and match. Again, as the casualty article states - using a dictonary definition - a casualty of war includes prisoners. The infobox is for quick referencing, a single figure showing how many men were lost from x side does this while it can be elaborated on within the article. I dont see what the major problem is.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

now its 209.000 thats ok. but incorrect anyway because its excludes pows -- HROThomas (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * admiting that you started your little rant before actually looking at the article, the changes have been in place for over 24 hours.
 * I suggest you also look at the discussion above on this and how it all came about.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

it was me who changed it. and i was reverted so i thought that it was all reverted. on july 27, u enigma changed it to 288,000 casualties with misinterpreting the source of tamelander. 209.000-450.000 looks bad anyway, because its clear that there were more casualties than 200.000. -- HROThomas (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have really had enough of you, stop throwing accusations around. You made an edit that appeared to be unsupported by the information already in the article and yes i reverted as possible vandalism. How could i misinterpret information i didnt add in the first place? Once you had identified why you had made what appeared to be a random change to established figures - something you have done in the past - i reverted my own edit and cleared up the information in the article, including the note that was already there. This was all done well over 24 hours before you started this new rant.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

i edited the infobox long time ago, because the infobox was wrong because it included casualties of other operations. after this U REVERTED THIS because u were not able to read the figures propably. thats all. the figure of 209.000 is bad anyway because it doesnt include POWs so the reader will think maybe the casualities were as low as 209.000 but thats wrong no historian will support this. i tried to fix this issue too but u REVERTED it. HROThomas -- 188.192.130.122 (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have anything new to say other than reiterating the same message that has been covered and explained? I suggest you re-read the above replies before replying again and then read the section about how the Tamelander figures came to be in the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Air power myth
The overwhelming majority of the German tanks destroyed were put out of action by the Allied airforce, while very few of the Allied tank losses were inflicted by the Luftwaffe.[64]

While the above comment is sourced am pretty sure this a myth, i believe there are reports and even secondary sources that establish the aircraft did not as most presume destroyed the majority of German tanks. Iirc most were lost to anti tank guns. Ill try and find some sources for this but i think this is something we should try and address ASAP so any help would be much appreciated.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The effect of the air forces has been much exaggerated. The stranglehold on German supplies and the general reduction in effectiveness of German operations because of Allied air supremacy and the general increase in Allied operations for the same cause did most to assist the ground forces. Attacks on ground targets were piffling in effect as can be seen in the anaysis by ORS2 which will be added later.Keith-264 (talk) 17:20,18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a bit surprised that Zetterling said anything like that. In his English work on Normandy he goes through great lengths to stress the ineffectiveness of allied air power on German tanks. I am going to remove that remark on most German tanks being lost to allied air power, Zetterling clearly did not state such a thing in his english work 174.88.5.119 (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Allied preparations
I noticed the Allied preparations section starts with a quote from Hitler, and the first sentence refers to his winning "the most famous victory in history". Do you not think the adulation is a bit out of place? Xyl 54 (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish
"The Canadians would team up with Spanish units to attack Sword Beach." This sentence appears in the 'Allied invasion plan' section. Surely there were no Spanish forces involved in 'Overlord'. And besides, I always thought that at best Spain was neutral; (at worst she was often on the verge of siding with the Axis) RASAM (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Complete and utter vandalism, no Spannish units supported the Canadian landings. As far as am aware their only active participation in the war - in any sort of semi-offical manner - was the Blue Legion (or whatever its name is). I have removed reference to it and tweaked said paragraph.--86.17.0.3 (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. We didn't have any support from Spain.
 * The Spanish volunteers were in the División Azul in the USSR.
 * Varlaam (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The Operation Overlord page states "The Americans who landed on Omaha beach faced the veteran German 352nd Infantry Division, one of the best trained on the beaches." But the Omaham Beach page states that "Opposing the landings was the German 352nd Infantry Division, the majority of whom were teenagers, though they were supplemented by veterans who had fought on the Eastern Front. The 352nd had never had any battalion or regimental training." Both of these statements cannot be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.84 (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Engvar
Can someone go through the article and re-establish its version of English spelling? There is currently a mix of US and UK. What was it originally? Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

inappropriate or incorrect editorial content
The following paragraph (currently the second paragraph in the article) is inappropriate/incorrect and contains numerous spelling errors:

The operation nearly failed thanks to the total incompetence and utter stupidity of the United States Armed Forces. Where the British, French and Morocon forces met their targets well in time in three other beaches that where more difficult to take and very much larger, the USA again showed to the world that when military operations really become difficult and multinational, their Armed Forces have the efficiency of an astmatic ant dragging an overloaded shopping bag.
 * It was most likely vandalism. I have removed it. Thanks.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Broken citations
this edit at 11:31, 24 August 2010, broke some of the citations. For example it removed the long citation for Beevor but did not add it to the general references list. -- PBS (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been through the citations and fixed as many as I can. There are still details missing such as pages and publishers etc, that need to be fixed. -- PBS (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Europe First
The articles currently says:

As the political leaders had already decided at the Arcadia Conference (ending 14 January 1942) with the Europe First policy who exactly has put forward this criticism of Overlord? -- PBS (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

However, the Normandy landings were the largest seaborne invasion in history
The section "The Normandy campaign in context" contains the following: "However, the Normandy landings were the largest seaborne invasion in history, and they did hasten the end of the war in Europe, drawing large forces away from the Eastern Front that might otherwise have slowed the Soviet advance."

We had a debate some time ago about this issue see Talk:Operation Overlord/Archive 1 and Talk:Invasion of Normandy/Archive_4. Which is why presumably there is a citation in the lead of this article: The heading seems to have been added as a SYN because the heading on the article page is "Battle Of Okinawa: Summary, Fact, Pictures and Casualties" and the text in the first paragraph says "The battle of Okinawa, also known as Operation Iceberg, took place in April-June 1945. It was the largest amphibious landing in the Pacific theater of World War II." (my emphasis). -- PBS (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Was D-Day really the largest seaborne invasion ever?'- yes it was. It wasn't just slightly bigger than Okinawa, it was hugely bigger. Britain went into WW II with the largest merchant fleet in the world by far, something like (very rough figures) 12,000 sea-going ships, losing around 4,000 due to enemy action, etc., and by the time Overlord was carried out, almost the entire invasion fleet, consisting of around 4,000 ships, was British, with less than 200 ships being of other nationalities. The British don't count landing craft as 'ships' so the 4,000 figure is of proper ocean-going ships, the other smaller auxiliary (uncounted) vessels making the actual number even bigger. For comparison, in 1939 the entire number of ships owned by every other country in the world put together amounted to around 3,000 ships, a quarter of the size of the British merchant tonnage. The 'vast' size of the British merchant fleet then and previously is why Lloyd's Register and Lloyd's of London became so rich. Britain has a long maritime tradition, which means that they call a ship 'a ship' and a boat 'a boat' and never confuse the two. One is for carrying people and goods over great oceans and over long distances. The other is for 'messing about in'.


 * BTW, the US built roughly 2,700 Liberty Ships during the war, equivalent to roughly a quarter of the 8,000-ship size of the British Merchant Navy upon war's end in 1945. At a rough guess the entire US merchant fleet in 1945 consisted of around 4,000 sea-going ships - half the number of merchant ships the British had access to in 1944 and THAT's after having a similar number to the entire US merchant fleet of 1945 sunk.


 * So the Invasion of Normandy was carried out in the back yard of the country which had what was probably still in 1944 the world's biggest navy, with access to what was until as late as the nineteen fifties, the world's largest merchant fleet - in 1944 larger than all the rest of the world's merchant fleets combined. Of course it was the largest ever seaborne invasion. Did anyone seriously expect it not to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Naval and air contributions
I'd like to see more in this article about the naval part of Operation Overlord (transporting the troops, protecting the transports and fire support) - I'm afraid I can't help much as my focus is pretty tight on Captain class frigates (which iirc acted to provide an anti-submarine screen for the transports and headquarters ships). Similarly I'd also like to see more about how the various allied air-forces contributed to protecting the transports and in the fire support role. --Thefrood (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Battle of Normandy"???
I'm in my 50's, grew up in the US, and am a lecturer in international relations and modern history. And not once have I ever heard Operation Overlord called "the Battle of Normandy." On this side of the Atlantic, it's called "the Normandy Invasion." Maybe we should get rid of the former in this article? It's just not used here, but I'm not sure about usage in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.30.89 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't claim to be an expert but my understanding of usage is that "Invasion of Normandy" covers the landing and establishment of a stable bridgehead (see the article Invasion of Normandy) whereas "Battle of Normandy" equates to "Operation Overlord" ie the final capture of Normandy and the arrival at the Seine and Paris. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 17:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A 12,000-plane airborne assault
Surely "A 12,000-plane airborne assault" should read "A 12,000-paratroop assault" ? Tabletop (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, there were far more Airborne troopers than that. Over 20,000 men just in the two US Divisions. However, the sentence is poorly worded and an edit is in order to make it clearer.DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Belligerants
Belgium, Greece and Luxembourg are currently listed as belligerents on the Allied side. It is normal in infoboxes to acknowledge only significant contributions. I would observe:
 * The Belgian Brigade Piron were involved from 8 August to end of Overlord (25 August) but at the time consisted of three motorized companies, an armoured car squadron, an engineer company and a few guns i.e. really only a battalion group. Hardly significant in the context of the 2,000,000 odd troops that came ashore before the end of August
 * The Netherlands Princes Irene Brigade was involved from 6 August but once again its composition of three motorized companies, a recce company and six artillery pieces hardly justifies the brigade name, more a battalion.
 * I can't find any reference to Greek involvement, maybe there were some ships but as far as I can see Greek navy activity in WWII was concentrated in the Med.
 * Luxembourg. There were no Luxembourg formations or even units involved as far as I can see. There were some Luxembourg nationals fighting as gunners in the Brigade Piron (above) manning a troop of 4 field guns. There were also some Luxembourg nationals in the 177 strong 1er BFM Commando (part of the Free French Kiefer Brigade). 5,259 Luxemburgers (out of the total pre-War population of 293,000) died in the hostilities of WWII. Of these 2,848 died fighting in the German army.

It seems to me that none of the above justify inclusion in the infobox for Operation Overlord, although that is not to say they should not appear in some of the later more focused articles where their relative contribution would have been more significant. I propose to remove them in due course, subject to any discussion the above may prompt. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 12:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg as Captain Prince Jean of Luxembourg served in the Irish Guards in Normandy. Dabbler (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This has been debated before. It's not the nationalities that took part that qualify for inclusion in the infobox but nations and their national contingents (army, navy, airforce). There were, for instance, many Irish nationals fighting in the British army but Ireland does not appear in the infobox.Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 19:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with all nations being listed in the infobox, regardless of contribution. But with that said, if we want to streamline the infobox some by removing the minor contributions, i would suggest that somewhere within the main text we should list all nations that played a part and what they did (i.e. the Aussie pilots, the Belgian land forces etc ... and hell even the odd few Lux soldiers spread around other units).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:53, 10 November 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) 21:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

African-Americans in the assault!
I read some years ago, that the US-American commanders planned to send African-American soldiers in the first wave of the amphibious assaults (Omaha and Utah). They were not completely sure, if the prior bombardments really killed all/most of the German beach defenders. So they planned to send African-Americans in the first wave as cannon fodder to check if any defenders were still alive after the bombardments. However, in case the African-American troops would face no resistance, they realized that photos showing victorious/cheering African-American soldiers would lead to protests and uproars in the USA (racial segregation etc.). Therefore they abandoned this plan. Does anyone know more about this issue? I know it sounds unbelievable, but with all the racial segregation and racism against blacks back then, who knows if it is true or not.200.216.222.178 (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 92nd Infantry Division (United States) might give you some context to this.
 * Broadly, what you describe here is nonsense and I suspect that you've been fed a line by someone with a political agenda, one way or another. In short, US army forces were segregated and had an embargo on black troops in front-line combat (and it's black that's the issue, not the broader non-white). This wasn't reversed until the winter of '44, when there were serious shortages of troops (and everything else too). The embargo hadn't always been enforced in detail before this (the Italian Campaign in particular), but AFAIK it was still at the root of strategic planning.
 * There was also a US view regarding Operation Neptune that the beach assault would be easy, as the US were already the experts in amphibious landings from the Pacific. The British OTOH had been worried by the difficulties of the Italian landings and were seriously worried. Some views also say that the US Army hadn't paid quite enough attention to the USMC and their Pacific experience. As a result, the British over-prepared for Neptune (79th and the Funnies as just one example) and had an unexpectedly easy time of it, whilst the US took it lightly beforehand and suffered more on the beaches. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Air power and morale?
Does the article give enough emphasis to the superiority of the Allies in the air? After the initial airborne assaults, didn’t this allow them not only to protect Allied forces and supplies but also to attack German defences and lines of communication? And what about the varying motivations of the different Allied combatants compared with those of the Germans? Though there is a heading “Allied logistics, intelligence, morale and air power”, it does not seem to say much about the last two subjects.

Hors-la-loi 10:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

Caen, Breakout. Operation Goodwood. etc
Honest to God, this article is really poor. Sparse and poor. For example, Operation Goodwood did NOT result in the capture of the high ground south of Caen (Bourguebus Ridge). It did result in the loss of hundreds of British tanks and over 5500 men. In fact it failed so abjectly that Monty himself was nearly sacked over it. You know, we all lost a lot of people there and in other places. Try and remember that when you are writing, or adding to, an article on such a subject. I'm not changing anything in the article. It's the responsibility of whoever wrote the article to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.52.230 (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Operation Goodwood can only be deemed a true failure if Monty had not intended the attack as a massive demonstration. Eisenhower was aware of Monty's plan to draw of German armour in order to facilitate the forthcoming American offensive at St. Lo. Eisenhower did not like Monty's plan and wanted the British forces to make a full blooded effort. Monty resisted this and was obliged to reign in Dempsey's enthusiasm for the battle somewhat. The attack towards Bourgebus was a bluff, and Monty even had to deceive his own air force in order to get them to take part. The British forces were halted by the Germans, but Monty had achieved his aim - keeping the Germans focused on Caen. 28 August 2013.


 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The implication of the title heading is that Goodwood was a breakout, to which I have to say no it wasn't. The orders don't state it was, and most historians don't state it was either. Other than that, what Nick said.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That operation (Goodwood) can only be deemed a true failure if Monty had not intended the attack as a massive demonstration. Eisenhower was aware of Monty's plan to draw of German armour in order to facilitate the forthcoming American offensive at St. Lo. Eisenhower did not like Monty's plan and wanted the British forces to make a full blooded effort. Monty resisted this and was obliged to reign in Dempsey's enthusiasm for the battle somewhat. The attack towards Bourgebus was a bluff, and Monty even had to deceive his own air force in order to get them to take part. The British forces were halted by the Germans, but Monty had achieved his aim - keeping the Germans focused on Caen. 28 August 2013.

Coordination with the French Resistance
I think the section Normandy landings would be better placed in the Operation Overlord article rather than its present location. I will move the material in the next day or two if no one comments or objects. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Cancel that; I changed my mind. A closer reading shows the activities discussed in the section were for the most part on D-Day itself. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

End of Operation Overlord
Was there an official end to the operation? The end is only mentioned in the lead, where it is uncited. Cyclopaedic (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Various historians date the end of the operationb differently. Montgomery considered the end to be when the Seine was reached. This sentence somehow got removed, so I have re-added it. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

von Kluge's suicide
Article only mentiones field marshal Hans von Kluge's suicide, not his reason for doing so. But he was about to be revealed as deeply involved in the conspiracies against Hitler. There are a number of sources of this. For instance Hans Helmut Kirst's "20th July". Kirst was a novel wrighter, but "20th of July" is entirely build on later found evidences. Only dialogs are not safe as source. "20th of July" doesn't mention the suecide, but well von Kluge's involvement in the general conspiracy against Hitler. When reading the article, one may easy get the impression that von Kluge committed suicide due to the invasion. This ought to be improved, I think. Boeing720 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We can't use a work of fiction as a source for Wikipedia. The source used for this section (Wilmot) quotes from Kluge's letter to Hitler dated 18 August, written shortly after Model arrived as his replacement. "When you receive these lines, I shall be no more... I am dispatching myself where thousands of my comrades have already gone." He goes on to explain why the attack failed and urges Hitler to put a stop to the war. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about reliable sources for the actual facts but currently the article about Kluge says he called Hitler a pig and committed suicide when Hitler called him back to Germany after the assassination in which a family member of his had participated had failed while from this article one gets a very different impression as Boeing720 rightly wrote. --Galant Khan (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I found it mentioned in Evans, so I have added a few words and sourced it to that. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * To Galant Kahn. No he was deeply involved in the Wehrmacht conpirators, just didn't know who to trust. If that was due to cowardness or in order to not reveal the plot he knew was planned in Berlin, is uncertain. He had no knowledge of how, where, arrest or kill Hitler, etc - but he was among one of the "inner circles". He is acknowleged by Hans Hellmut Kirst among the rebels, who just didn't add him to the list for no reason. And "20th of July is no real novel". Von Kluge (and Rommel) could open the front in France if Hitler was arrested and put to trial, like Rommel suggested. (but they didn't trust each other) Von Kluge had releaved Gerd von Rundstedt as supreme commander in France, after the invasion. He also was also a friend of Henning von Trescow (spelling ?), and became aware of his air-bomb attempt, that failed.
 * From German Wikipedia, same article (translated by mashine) "Now the voices were too loud again, the Hitler transpired the suspicion of the Gestapo, who spoke of an entanglement of Wise in the assassination attempt of July 20, 1944. In addition, they assumed that was possibly therefore not accessible from Kluge, because he was about to prepare a surrender of his units. Spokesman against Hitler was in this context, especially Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the Chief of the Security Police and the SD. For all these reasons, Hitler decided on 16 August to relieve von Kluge his post and use Model insted. This directive came into force the following day."
 * He may very well been forced to committ suicide just as Rommell. And his suicide note either false or dictated by those who gave him the poisin. I do not say he managed to achieve anything, but he was aware aswell as involved of any possible political coup. It surelly had nothing to do with Operation Overlord anyway. Some American sources are "mumbo -jumbos" by the way, written as popular litterature just to make some money. Who is this Evans, by the way ? But Hans-Hellmuth Kirst is more a reliable source in this matter. He didn't study Operation Overlord but the conspiracy and conspiratirs. Boeing720 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Richard J. Evans is a British academic and historian, Regius Professor of History at the University of Cambridge, President of Wolfson College, and Provost-elect of Gresham College. -- Diannaa (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Title
Operation Overlord is the propaganda name chosen by one of the conflict parties, thus inherently not neutral. I thus change the title to Battle of Normandy. Galant Khan (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The title is correct and you don't have consensus to change the title.
 * A title that is not neutral cannot be "correct". I however see that Battle of Normandy is currently a list of articles that can be referred to by that name. I doubt that we need an article for each of these and ask you to consider merging them in a way that avoids propaganda names, which should be possible as indicated by the fact that this article already has Battle of Normandy in bold as alternative title in the intro. --Galant Khan (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Common name policy is what applies here and this comparison makes it clear which is more common.
 * I find that policy unclear as it says neutral names should be chosen although very common names could sometimes be ok. Military propaganda names should be avoided, and I asked on the talk page of the policy to clarify this. As for this case here, your tool indicates Invasion of Normandy is the most common. Now you may claim that the operation consisted of more than the initial invasion. As even this article has it unclear when the operation ended and the last paragraph before "close of the operation" is invasion I really don't see why invasion and this one should not be merged, especially given that there is also a separate article for the landing. --Galant Khan (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Operation Overlord" is a code name, not a propaganda name. I think Invasion of Normandy could redirect here, but I am not in favour of a merge, as the content at Invasion of Normandy is largely unsourced, and this article was re-written and sourced this spring and everything was recently checked for promotion to GA status. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Military code names are chosen with propaganda in mind, they make one's own military appear heroic (Overlord/Barbarossa) and are often euphemist (cf. "Operation Iraqi Freedom"). If the other article has weaknesses, why not overwrite it with this one, keep the name and explain what Overlord refers to? Galant Khan (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't overwrite articles, as the legally required attribution history is lost. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Operation Overlord' is indeed a WP:COMMONNAME for this campaign (and was an operational name used by the military, rather than a propaganda exercise such as 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. I personally prefer 'Normandy Campaign' or similar as it's clearer, but am not sure how the weight of sources stack up, which of course is what we need to be guided by. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Such arguments (by the OP) go beyond the scope of this article. What would one propose the Perch, Charnwood, Epsom, Goodwood, Cobra, Lüttich etc articles be called if going down that line of argument (not that I am saying we should not discuss the possibility of renaming the article to something along the lines of the Battle of Normandy etc (although that debate, iirc, opens up a new line of argument of when did the battle end: it ended at different times for the Americans and Brits)).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles that describe smaller operations that are not known as historic events but just as military operations should keep the name of the operations. The historic event of the invasion or battle of Normandy is best known as such. Especially outside of the US or Britain I doubt many people who speak English would even be able to say what Operation Overlord might be. Galant Khan (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the English language Wikipedia, and we need to be guided by what common English language names for things are. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Form my reading of WP:COMMONNAME there is not a NPOV issue. NPOV generally comes from descriptive article titles. Even then CommonName says - "Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids ... the prevalence of the name, ...(and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." I think it needs to be shown that the title is actually NPOV. As it stands, common usage would override (misplaced) concerns that the title might be bombastic, or propanganda (and in this case, it would be very old propanganda).GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  19:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it's propaganda, you do know what overlord means, right? Could even allude to the Nazi propaganda of "Herrenrasse" (master race): you may think you are the lords but we are the overlords... Clearly it's chosen by one party and not a neutral description for the event, and Invasion of Normandy is not only clearer but also more common. Galant Khan (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC) PS: Please also note the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_47 where a user wrote: "Any such military or intelligence operational codename could have a valid article here, but it would need to be limited to that operation as an operation, not the title of the page about the conflict as a whole, which has two sides (at least), and we have WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and WP:NPOV to keep in mind." and another one: "The Wikipedia military history buffs disprove of operational names as a general rule because they are often meaningless (for example the British Army uses a random word generator to throw up two words and combine them for an operational name) -- so unless a reader knows what specific codename was the reader can not search for the operation -- or biased towards the side that came up with the operational name, therefore for military operations descriptive names are often more appropriate (see WP:MILMOS)."
 * Googling the subject, one was not able to find much on why the name was chosen. However, several books and articles note that Operation Roundhammer became Overlord. Others note that Overlord was developed out of the Roundhammer and Skyscraper plans. This position is partially supported by the wiki article on Operation Dragoon, which notes it was previously called Anvil to complement the invasion plan of Northern France that was called Sledgehammer. Finally, one internet article suggests that both invasion plan names were changed to avoid the Germans becoming aware of what Allied strategy was: thus Anvil became Dragoon, and Roundhammer/Skyscraper/Seldgehammer became Overlord.
 * So, again, while I think there should be a discussion on weather the article should be renamed as the Battle of Normandy (or some variant, but as noted that would caused problems since said battle ended earlier for the Americans than it did the Brits), the current line of argument appears weak.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The current line of argument is it's not neutral, not clear, and it is not the most common. You write there were other propaganda names considered before and conclude the current line of argument is weak? I don't understand your reasoning. Difference in timing considered to be the ending can be discussed under any title. Galant Khan (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So far you are the only one who has spoken in favour of changing the name of the article, whereas everyone else who has expressed an opinion is against making a change. So it looks like the consensus is against you at this time. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I showed above, the general naming convention is against using military operation names, especially for historic events known under different names, and two users have explained this at the naming convention discussion site. Of course I won't take any action unless consensus is reached here but after the new arguments were shown from that discussion just stating that consensus is against it while no one has commented on the statements from the naming convention discussion seems odd to me. Galant Khan (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How are Roundhammer/Sledgehammer and Anvil "propaganda names"? If anything, from the quick search earlier, they were random names - per policy - that it was believed gave away Allied strategy (Hammer and Anvil) and were thus changed.
 * I argue that your line of argument is weak because 1) You have provided zero evidence that the article name is actually a propaganda term 2) My understanding is, and this may be flawed, but the Americans consider their Normandy campaign to have ended shortly after Operation Cobra (having entered the Pays de la Loire and Brittany) than the Anglo-Canadians do. For example, the American Green Book covering the invasion do not use the "Battle of Normandy" or "Normandy Campaign" and Breakout and Pursuit uses it very rarely. It also begs the question of what do the Germans call the battle? 3) Policy is in place that states "It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article ... for all but the most well-known operations ...". My emphasis. While I think a discussion on if the article title needs to be changed is worth having, you have provided zero evidence - thus far - to show what the most common name is for what this article covers.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that User:Berean Hunter above provided a link to Google Books Ngram Viewer demonstrating that the term "Operation Overlord" is in far more common use in book sources than is "Battle of Normandy". Per WP:Common name I think we should leave the article where it is. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. I also note that the previous suggestion that the Invasion of Normandy is more popular is erroneous because you run into ambiguity with other Invasions of Normandy being mentioned in the corpus of texts.
 * As I wrote above, of course it's propaganda, you do know what overlord means, right? Could even allude to the Nazi propaganda of "Herrenrasse" (master race): you may think you are the lords but we are the overlords... Same for sledgehammer, or do you think they would have chosen "tiny tool that doesn't make any damage"? And why do you simply ignore what both experts wrote at the naming convention discussion? Galant Khan (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Could". Do we have to run around in circles? Do you actually have evidence to support your argument that "Overlord" was chosen as a propaganda term to allude to Nazi ideology? Have you actually considered the holes in your argument (random codewords, British opposition to an operation they named, democratic west wanting to liberate Western Europe wouldn't exactly attach such a totalitarian meaning to a name as you have suggested)?
 * As for the point about "experts", just because someone agreed with you in another discussion does not make them an expert. Unless your definition of "expert" is - with no disrespect intended to the wikuser who you quoted - anyone who holds a BA, can make an argument, and is a wikipedian ... otherwise several experts have already heavily disagreed with your argument.
 * Finally, on the subject of ignoring, did you purposely ignore 1) policy in place that operation names are fine if they are well known (although you conceded that smaller operations are fine to keep their names) 2) as highlighted several times to you, Overlord is the WP:Common Name.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, it was not just "someone" at "some other discussion", it was two guys on the naming convention discussion page who have thought about the general rules for such cases and could point to the general agreements and where they are written down and wrote codenames should generally be avoided. They also argued with the fact that they are often meaningless as you seem to prefer in this case. I insist that this is naive. Galant Khan (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So ... no evidence then?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In matters of discussion like this, all editors are equal (of themselves); it is consensus that determines an outcome. The opinion of two editors in one location does not outweigh that of four somewhere else (accepting that both sets are working from policy and guideline). The 'true' test of the consensus for this case would be through a Requested Move. (The process is given at WP:RM/CM) As well as bringing a formal structure to the issue it will (almost certainly) bring more opinions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is this a different article than D-day?
The articles seem to be about the same thing. I don't know how to suggest a page merge but I think there should be only 1 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.123.252.2 (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article about D-Day only covers the one day and goes into a lot more detail about events on that day. This article goes into more detail about the planning of the invasion and covers the time period until the Germans were driven across the Seine, at the end of August. While there's some overlap between the two articles, I don't agree that a merger is a good idea. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent statistics
"After the war U.S. battle casualties in Normandy and northern France were placed at 123,000, of whom 29,370 died (excluding air force losses)."

I have removed the above, recently added to the article, until the inconsistency with the article can be addressed. Currently, the US stats are from a modern post-war secondary source. The above needs to be clarified before being reinserted on the following points: A) What is being referred to by "after the war", considering the sources used are post-war sources. B) What time period do these stats cover? What exactly is meant by "northern France" as the American armies engaged in the Brittany Campaign and the advance across France, both of which are outside the scope of this article. C) More information is needed to cite the information considering the article is now at GA status

The British Official History supports the stats in the article, and not the above. It states for the period of 6 June - 30 August: The American Official History does not have such information, as far as i was able to make out, but states for the period of 6 June - 11 September total Allied losses (excluding those who came ashore as part of Dragoon) were "almost 40,000 killed, 164,000, wounded, and 20,000 missing". That of course put its odds with the recent addition, as the number of dead are inconsistent with the "Dept of the Army" report.
 * 21st Army Group (for these purposes, only the First Canadian and British Second): 16,138 killed, 58,594 wounded, 9,093 missing for a total of 83,825.
 * 12th Army Group (US 1st and 3rd): 20,838 killed, 94,881 wounded, and 10,128 missing for a total of 125,847.

The most recent, as far as i am aware, book on the subject is Anthony Beevor's D-Day, he also cites the same figures as the article, including air crew losses.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for interrupting, but I have another question about the statistics. In which figure are the losses of the Free French Forces included? I think Tamelander & Zetterling explain this in their book, but I do not have access to it at the moment. EriFr (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting point. Likewise, i do not have access to Tamelander & Zetterling. The British OH does not break it down like that and rather refers to the 21st AG and the American armies. With French commandos fighting with British Second Army and the French 2nd Armoured Division under the Americans, are they split between the overall figures?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The statistics are not inconsistent, the lower death tolls cited in the article are from preliminary reports which by necessity listed only killed in action while the post-war reports also include those who died of wounds and those who were originally listed as missing and later declared dead.CJK (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The suggestion being, that historians from the 50s to present are using the wrong figures?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody said they were using the wrong figures, but they are preliminary figures that list only killed in action, not the actual death toll. This is clear from an official history which cites 36,000 Allied deaths from a SHAEF G-3 War Room Summary dated 5 September 1944. All armies at the time listed their battle casualties in a killed/wounded/missing format, without accounting for how many of the wounded and missing later died. The final figures released by the U.S. Army in 1953 would obviously be more complete. Perhaps the historians cited don't have any post-war data from other countries, which is why they use the preliminary data.

CJK (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I object to the wording ""After the war U.S. battle casualties in Normandy and northern France were placed at 123,000, of whom 29,370 died (excluding air force losses)", because it only includes American losses. Why are the other countries excluded? According to the source provided, total American, British, and Candadian casualty figures for Normandy and northern France to 1 September were 206,703, including 36,486 killed. I am unclear why my change was reversed, or how I can be said to have misrepresented the source. Also, the report was published in 1954, not 1953. Also, the report says 124,394 American casualties with 20,668 American dead (not 123,000 and 29,370). Where did these numbers come from? They don't seem to be here. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Beevor 2009, page 522 says 83,045 British, Canadian, and Poles casualties and 125,847 American casualties (208,892 total) during the "three summer months"; he states 16,714 air force killed or missing. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The figures that you cite all come from preliminary reports from 1944 listing only killed in action. The book that you are citing was written in 1954 but makes clear that the figures are from a SHAEF G-3 War Room Summary dated 5 September 1944, not the comprehensive 1953 post-war assessment.

The other countries are excluded because we have no post-war calculations from them.

CJK (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. I am removing the addition. It has been challenged and removed two different editors, so per WP:BRD you need to obtain consensus before re-adding it. Because it gives data for only one nation, your addition makes it appear that the Americans are somehow more important than the other nations that participated in the campaign. It also is confusing to the reader, because you placed different data in the info box. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Huh? I don't have slightest conception how you reason your addition makes it appear that the Americans are somehow more important. Even if it did I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy that supports withholding facts under those circumstances. If there was a similar post-war British assessment I would have included it as well.

CJK (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears you keep referring to the US Green Books, the American Official History of the campaign. The British Official History is quoted further up in this discussion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The 1953 post war assessment has nothing to do with the official histories.CJK (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So where is the post-war report?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Statistic table
^Allied units: 1,414: 290 killed, 1,023 wounded, and 101 missing. British: 12,328 killed, 44,297 wounded, and 6,640 missing. Canadian: 3,061 killed, 11,041 wounded, and 1,957 missing.

John English's The Canadian Army and the Normandy Campaign places total Canadian losses at 18,444, with 5,021 dead. (p. 300)

That appears to be the basic range. There are plenty of other sources, but they all seem to be quoting the same stats. No hits on Google Books for 29,370 American dead or 123,000 overall. I also think that it is very interesting that D'Este quotes from Ellis, who he pretty much has it in for. I leave it for others to suggest how to proceed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And once again, those are all preliminary figures including KIA only. The 1953 post-war assessment went back and determined that 29,370 were killed, died of wounds, or were never heard of again. Many of those are incidentally very close to 123,000.CJK (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, we have to abide by the wiki guidelines for RS. So, again, where is the 1953 post-war assessment? I did quite a bit of searching last night (Google Books, JSTOR, fourms) and could not find anything (other than casualties very close to the ones you quoted, but they were for Italy). The figures quoted also include the number of American wounded, not just those killed.
 * I can understand why Pogue would not have used such a report, due to the publication date, but what is the excuse of more modern historians who are quoting the G-3 report (or apparently something similar due to the differing numbers) instead?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The report is available here see page 92. You have to add both Normandy (which they date from 6 June to 24 July) and Northern France (which they date from 25 July to 14 September). But don't include the air force losses which are also listed.

CJK (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding the data like you suggested, I get (excluding Air Force losses) 123,109 American casualties, 29,370 of which were killed, for the period from 6 June to 14 September. The other report here says 124,394 American casualties, 20,668 of which were killed, for the period from 6 June to the end of August (not only different data, but a different time period). I think the best way to handle this is by adding an explanatory note to the info box data, so I've gone ahead and done that. Feedback welcome -- Diannaa (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not to be a broken record, but the 20,688 is purely the killed in action reported at the time, while 29,370 is total killed, died of wounds, and missing later declared dead as calculated after the war. In addition, if you have no problem inserting it in the infobox I don't see the problem mentioning it in the section about casualties.

CJK (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do understand your point totally. The data is from 1953 calculations; these are calculations that were done after the war, because the war ended in 1945. The numbers are different from the previous data, not only because they re-did the calculations, but also because they apply to a different time period. I think the explanatory note is totally adequate, and don't think we should add it to the body of the article, since the data is for only one country. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The 1953 figures are different not only because of that but because they include the categories of died of wounds and missing declared dead. I am not understanding your point of withholding information if we only have data for one country.

CJK (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am most certainly not withholding the information, as I have already added it to the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that most articles do not include air losses, but since we have the stats should we not include the overall losses not just the ground forces?
 * Additionally, the only source that appears to give a primary document is D'Este. I am not a fan of his or his work, but due to the fact other secondary sources do not appear to source their claims, should we not go for his re British losses? Nevermind the argument, that the British OH differs with the American OH.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Following up on this, i would propose that the infobox to be changed to display Allies casualties as: 225,606 - 226,386, thus matching the way the German casualties are displayed (an overall figure). In addition i would propose the following change for the Allies section in the main article:

From D-Day to 21 August, the Allies landed 2,052,299 men in northern France. The cost of the Normandy campaign was high for both sides. Between 6 June and the end of August, the American armies suffered 124,394 casualties, of which 20,668 were killed. Casualties within the First Canadian and Second British Army are placed at 83,045: 15,995 killed, 57,996 wounded, and 9,054 missing. Of these, Canadian losses amounted to 18,444, with 5,021 killed in action. The Allied air forces, having flown 480,317 sorties in support of the invasion, lost 4,101 aircraft and 16,714 airmen (8,536 members of the USAAF, and 8,178 flying under the command of the RAF). Allied tank losses have been estimated at around 4,000, with losses split evenly between the American and British/Canadian armies. Historians slightly differ on overall casualties during the campaign, with the lowest losses totaling 225,606 and the highest at 226,386.


 * Comments?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is good work EnigmaMcmxc, I have no objection to you going ahead with these amendments. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on, EnigmaMcmxc. I made one tweek to the Harvard citation linking, otherwise a great addition to the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am Swedish speaking and I have access to the book written by Tamelander & Zetterling. I can verify the numbers later today. EriFr (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is very much appreciated!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for the delay, but now I have the book in front of me. This is what Tamelander & Zetterling say about the Allied casualties:


 * "Under perioden från 6 juni fram till 21 augusti hade de allierade landsatt 2 025 299 man i norra Frankrike. Av dessa tjänstgjorde 1 222 659 under amerikansk flagg (inklusive fria franska förband) och 829 640 under brittisk (inklusive de kanandensiska, polska och de fåtaliga holländska-belgiska förbanden). I samband med striderna stupade 20 838 amerikanska soldader, 94 881 sårades och 10 128 rapporterades saknade. Motsvarande siffror för britterna blev 16 138 stupade, 58 594 sårade och 9 093 saknade. Totalt sett förlorade amerikanerna 125 847 man och britterna 83 825 - drygt 10 procent av insatt styrka.


 * Till ovanstående beräkning måste man lägga de allierade luftflottornas förluster. Det allierade flyget gjorde 480 317 uppstigningar med direkt aknytning till striderna i Normandie. Inte mindre än 4 101 plan gick förlorade och 16 714 piloter och andra besättningsmän dödades, sårades eller tillfångatogs (Tyskland förlorade 2 127 flygplan under perioden från juni till och med augusti; detta antal gäller endast 3:e Luftlottans operationer). Den allierade manskapsförlusten stiger därmed till 226 386 man.


 * För att gå over till de allierade stridsvagnsförlusterna måste vi tyvärr medge att ingen exakt siffra finns att tillgå. Vi blir därför tvungna att göra en uppskattning, och kommer att basera denna på de exakta uppgifter som finns för amerikanska medeltunga stridsvagnar. Totalt förstördes 899 sådana, men de utgjorde knappt en fjärdedel av alla allierade stridsvagnar (om bland dessa även inräknas amerikanska "tank destroyers"). Striderna på den brittiska sektorn var intensivare ifråga om stridsvagnsinsatster, och britterna mötte dessutom merparten av de tyska pansardivisionerna. En rimlig uppskattning hamnar på strax over 4 000 förstörda allierade stridsvagnar, varav knappt 2 000 gick förlorade hos de amerikanska förbanden."


 * I have quoted the book word for word in Swedish, and the above information can be found on page 341-342. In English, this summarizes as following:


 * - The Allies landed 2 025 299 men in northern France during the period between 6 June and 21 August. Of these men, 1 222 659 served under American flag (including Free French forces) and 829 640 served under British flag (including the Canadian, Polish and Dutch-Belgian forces).
 * - US casualties: 20 838 killed, 94 881 wounded and 10 128 missing, for a total of 125 847 men.
 * - British casualties: 16 137 killed, 58 594 wounded and 9 093 missing, for a total of 83 825 men.
 * - To this should be added the Allied air force casualties. The Allied Air forces made 480 317 sorties in direct connection to the battles in Normandy and no less than 4 101 air planes were lost and 16 714 pilots and other crew members killed, wounded or captured.
 * - Total Allied casualties: 226 386 men.
 * - Allied tank losses: an estimation of 4 000 tanks lost, of which nearly 2 000 belonged to American forces.


 * Please tell me if you are interested in knowing what Tamelander & Zetterling say about German losses or if you need more information about the book.


 * (Btw. Can anyone tell me how I do to "ping" certain users in order to notify them?)


 * Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Diannaa (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Operation Overlord Allied Order
Operation Overlord was an important campaign in the Second World War in which the Western Allies landing in Normandy and defeated the German Army in France in the summer of 1944. However the allied order is wrong, it should be the United Kingdom that is listed first. The reason for this is because the United Kingdom was the nation most responsible for the Allied victory in Normandy. Operation Overlord was planned mainly by the British, the British provided the vast majority of the warships and landing craft, also the British committed more aircraft. But the most important part of the campaign was the ground fighting it was the British who did more to break the German Army in Normandy. Here it was the job of the British 2nd Army to tie down the bulk of the German forces as well as the reinforcements and allow the Americans to breakout. Had it not been for the British and Canadians drawing in the vast majority of German forces especially armor the breakout would have failed. Throughout the campaign on average the Americans faced around 110 to 190 German tanks, while the British and Canadians faced around 640 to 700 tanks including all of the Tiger tanks. Also the vast majority of the SS divisions which are regarded as the best divisions of the war were fighting against the British and Canadians. The British Commonwealth soldiers faced more German troops, better trained, and better equipped soldiers then the Americans did, and not only did they tie them down but wore them down until they could hardly be called combat worthy. Therefore I feel that more credit should go the British Commonwealth forces that defeated the best the Germans had to offer in France. For the German forces the tank formations they assembled around Caen in the British Army's sector was the largest concentration of German tanks since the Battle of Kursk, also German casualty rates for the divisions in Normandy were double that of the average division on the Eastern front and most of these casualties were in the British and Canadian sector of the front. The Americans did surpass the British and Canadian troop strength sometime in July 1944 however they did not engage the majority of the German forces which I think are more important than having more troops. I do not wish to belittle the American contribution; I recognize that it is very important. But even if the Americans did have more troops and took more casualties it does not mean that they did more than the British and Canadians as the Americans went up against far fewer German soldiers, after all the Eastern front is the most important front because it tied down and destroyed the majority of the German forces in the Second World War. If those principles apply on the Eastern Front then why do they not apply in the Normandy Campaign where it was the British and Canadians who tied down and destroyed the majority of the German forces there? These are the reasons on why I think the British did more than the Americans to win in Normandy. I do not wish to offend anyone; I just wish to bring up the subject of who did more. Have a good day.-Colonialmarine9

Here are some Sources I used. http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/05/opinion/opinion-d-day-myth-reality/index.html http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Normandy+60+years+on%3a+myths+and+legends.-a0131499558 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189604/The-untold-brutality-D-Day-Antony-Beevor-carnage-suffered-beaches-Normandy.html Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy by Max Hastings Battle of Caen (Wikipedia Article)


 * British Commonwealth forces made up the majority of Allied forces involved in D-Day, but the US force soon became much larger. The command arrangements reflected this. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When studying the issue last night, I noticed that our D-Day article Normandy landings lists British first, while this one lists US first. On D-Day, the majority of the forces were indeed from Britain, Canada, and other Commonwealth countries. -- — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

90 day battle
As can be seen from my recent edit, I have removed mention of it. First, I would like to apologize as on a second review I do see mention of it on that particular page.

However, the contentious part of my edit summary stands. While sources, such as Weinberg, do state so; I have read enough over the years that have stated otherwise. For example, after describing the general outline of what Overlord intended to achieve, the Canadian official history states "This great turning movement would bring the Allied line forward to the Seine on a 140-mile front. General Montgomery afterwards commented on the "academic" nature of forecasts in an operation of this magnitude. Nevertheless, the Allied planners had some hope, if not expectation, that their troops would reach the Seine and the Loire 90 days after the initial assault.43 This tentative forecast was closely connected with the administrative aspects of the planning." (Stacey, p. 84)

I was unable to locate any mention in the American official history Cross Channel Attack. The volume Logistical Support of the Armies, Volume I: May 1941-September 1944 echoes what Stacey states, all mention of D-Day+90 is in regards to logistical planning of who is going to have access to what port etc.

As i find additional sources, I will post. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is a pre-D-day source: OUTLINE OF OPERATION OVERLORD [Note: This manuscript was prepared by the Historical Section of the G-4 of the Communications Zone, European Theater of Operations (COMZ, ETOUSA) as volume seven of its multi-volume manuscript organizational history. It was subsequently deposited at the Office of the Chief of Military History (OCMH; now US Army Center of Military History) for reference use by historians preparing the official history of the Army in World War II. It is typical of the kinds of detailed studies routinely acquired (as in this case) or carried out by the deployed historians during World War II. The original is on file in the Historical Manuscripts Collection (HMC) under file number 8-3.4 AA v.7

And here is the money quote: "Situation on D+90: By D+90, occupation of the lodgment area is complete. U.S. and British Forces are on the Seine River, First and Third Armies are abreast, and First Army Group has been established as has a Communications line. Our forces are prepared for further offensive operations."

I do not yet know the date of preparation but clearly it was prior to the invasion. Available on the US Army Center for Military History site:  http://www.history.army.mil/index.html

DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. That link also includes an image I have been routing for: http://www.history.army.mil/documents/wwii/g4-ol/g4-OL-4.jpg I have seen this brought up on several occasions as the logistical and administration outline for Overlord, and the basis for the claim of the battle being envisioned for just 90 days.
 * Further digging has Ellis claim "...for it was never expected to reach the Seine in less than about three months" (Ellis, p. 78); this about the only comment I could so far find in regards to a timetable.
 * Further digging has the US logistic green book state, this "was to complete the mission announced in the OVERLORD plan-the establishment of the lodgment. This was expected to require three months (to D plus 90)." For possible further development of the article, it adds "The plan made an additional assumption which was to prove historically significant so far as logistic operations were concerned: a pause would probably be necessary upon the completion of the operation to permit the development of the administrative base in preparation for an advance beyond the Seine." (Ruppenthal, p. 189)
 * Likewise, further digging in cross-channel assault finds: "The Allied forces together would push to the Seine, securing the final lodgment area by about D plus 90 and completing the initial phase of Operation OVERLORD. The final stages of the operation were conceived and stated in these broad terms. The outlined scheme of maneuver and the timetables were not designed as tactical plans; they were frames of refrence for future planning, set forth primarily so that he men of the beginning should have some idea of the shape of the end, so that their thinking might be large and heir preparation adequate." Emphases added .(Harrison, p. 188).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Not relevant to this discussion but - that map includes "FUSAG" - the First United States Army Group, (what in fact became the 12th Army Group) and while it includes US 3rd and 1st Armies, it also seems to include British XXX Corps. Interesting. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

'Campaign closes'
I'm not very keen on para 1 of the 'Campaign closes' section. All that stuff about Eisenhower assuming command, the Ardennes offensive and Hitler committing suicide in his bunker is fine, but I'm not so sure it is needed in this article or even relevant to it. Maybe it can be used elsewhere. I've had a look at this article without the offending paragraph - it's fine, the lack of para 1 is hardly noticeable.

I did not want to permanently remove it without some sort of consensus. What do other editors think?

RASAM (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't think it's so much that the paragraph isn't useful, more that it jars a bit with the rest of the section, which an assessment of the Overlord operation -- and I say that having been responsible for passing the article at GAN, when its form was essentially the same as now. Perhaps the first paragraph could be moved to a final subsection under the previous section, and then the resultant Campaign Close section could be re-retitled Assessment or some such. What do you (and others) think of that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think moving the paragraph is a better option than removal. Most of our readers are high school students encountering the topic for the first time, and these background details are useful to help place Overlord in sequence with other related events. Re-titling the "Campaign close" section as "Assessment" or "Analysis" would then be a sensible amendment. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd keep it, although I wouldn't want it any larger. It does give the overall context and timescale.
 * Remember that the majority of our readers here are schoolkids, this is some of the first WWII history they encounter, and they just don't yet know how long the rest of it took. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox order
As there has been a bit of an edit-war going on, shall we discuss it? Per Template:Infobox military conflict, "combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 ... Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article."

The argument against the status quo has thus far been along the lines of the British engaged far more of the Germans than the Americans did, and the Germans were far more concerned with the British. We could debate strategy all day long, but working from the definition we have:


 * military contribution: The US provided more manpower than the British, they even supplied most of the tanks in use by the British forces.
 * political clout: The 1941-1944 period saw the British object to a cross-channel invasion due to a variety of reasons. The Americans were the ones who pressed for Overlord, over the British Balkan strategy.
 * recognized chain of command: Monty and 21st Army Group may have had overall command of the ground forces, but they were under the command of SHAEF and Ike (who likewise was in overall command of the naval and air forces).

Opposing views? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have some data on how many participants there were from each country? I can't seem to find those stats in the books I have here at home. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the article, on July 25, 812,000 American troops and 640,000 British and Canadians were part of the campaign. Americans suffered 125,000 causalities compared to 83,000 British and Canadian. FWIW, I also agree with Enigma's point about putting the US first. Calidum T&#124;C 03:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that, i must have been tired as I couldn't see it. I agree with "US first" for this article. -- — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to thank everyone for the discussion and I am going to restate my points The main reason that is stated for the US doing more is that they had more soldiers and took more casualties. For the casualties please read about the American replacement system and it’s putting of green young men in the front line of battle. As for having more soldiers I thought a campaign would be dictated by doing damage to the enemy whether it’s tactical or strategic. Having more Americans does not change the fact that the Germans placed far fewer of their soldiers in the American sector. The British and Canadians had a much tougher time against the best the Germans had to offer in France, I think that doing more to damage the enemy is more important than having more soldiers. For me the British where more important to the victory in Normandy because even though they had less troops they did far more damage to the Germans (which is how you win a campaign) while the Americans who had more troops did less to the overall defeat of the Germans in Normandy. So which is more important to winning a campaign having more soldiers then your ally or doing more damage to your enemy?-Colonialmarine9
 * military contribution: Yes the US provided most of the British tanks but the British supplied many of the landing craft used to get Americans on shore. Yes the Americans had more men but isn't it more important to engage and defeat the enemy, not simply have more men. I have already said that the Germans placed the bulk of their forces in front of the British and Canadians not the Americans, is this really outweighed because the Americans had more troops?
 * political clout: Yes the British opposed Normandy form 1941-1944 because they knew how dangerous an amphibious assault was (Gallipoli, Salerno, Anzio), they wanted to wait until the German forces were extremely weak. Had they listened to the Americans and invaded in 1942 or 1943 it would have most likely have been a disaster, I agree that Overlord is much better than the British Balkan Strategy in 1944 but postponing the Invasion until 1944 and conducting the North African and Italian campaigns to draw away German forces was great alternative then invading in 1942 or 1943. Also although the Americans pushed for D-day to happen it was mainly the British who planned the operation (Frederick E. Morgan) and it was the British and Canadians who took on the bulk of German forces in France especially armor and SS troops.
 * recognized chain of command: Yes the supreme commander was Ike but the Ground Forces Commander (Monty), Air Forces Commander (Trafford Leigh Mallory), and Naval Forces Commander (Bertram Ramsay) were all British. During the Normandy campaign Ike did not dictate the Campaign, it was only on September 1st when Operation Overlord officially ended that he became Ground Forces Commander. Ike was a good guy but the Supreme Commander position was not the position that dictated the course of battle.
 * The Allied strategy was one of teamwork; pinning down the Germans in the east to allow an encircling battle to fought. Not to mention, the western terrain (centered in bocage) was easier to defend than the largely open farmland to the east; German dispositions should take this into effect as well.
 * The British roles at the head of the various forces is another example of the political situation. A British commander was (during the war) never going to be at the top because the Americans took leadership of the alliance due to the men they could field bolstered by their political and industrial strength to the other powers.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100% it was teamwork, the British Commonwealth couldn't have done it without the Americans and the Americans couldn't have done it without the British Commonwealth. Ike was the perfect man for the job of Supreme Commander as he got along with everyone and kept the allied team together. I understand it was a political situation but the facts are that although Ike was American his position was not to dictate the course of battle that was the job of his subordinates on the ground, air, and sea which were all British. My argument is that the British and Canadian role in tying up and wearing down the bulk of the German forces (thus allowing the American breakout) is more important than the Americans having more soldiers than their ally or having a supreme commander of their nationality.-Colonialmarine9
 * Alternately, it could be said that the British became bogged down around Caen due to a series of bungled battles and the poor performance of some units, and the Americans played the more significant role in winning the campaign - and there are any number of works which support such an interpretation of events. It seems more sensible to stick to an ordering based on the size of the forces and the casualties they incurred. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is true, and has been one of the major controversies surrounding the campaign for about as long as it has been studied (and one could probably argue, while it was underway).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "'All through the fierce fighting which took place in Normandy, there was never any intention of breaking out on the eastern flank towards the Seine; reference to all the orders and instructions which I issued makes that abundantly clear. This false conception existed only at Supreme Headquarters, and none of the senior officers responsible for the conduct of the actual fighting in Normandy, Bradley included, had any doubt about the true plan. The misconception led to much controversy and those at Supreme Headquarters who were not very fond of me took advantage of it to create trouble as the campaign developed.' - Montgomery (my italics)"


 * Montgomery's plan was to tie-down most of the German armour - 7 1/2 Panzer Divisions - and destroy it while preventing it and its reserves being re-deployed against Bradley in the west. This Montgomery successfully did. The most Bradley ever had to face was 2 divisions, and that was after many of the panzer units had already suffered a mauling by the British.


 * Before D-Day Hitler had ordered all the Panzer reserves to be deployed half-way between the suspected two invasion areas, Pas-de-Calais and Normandy - Montgomery knew this due to Ultra and photo-reconnaissance. This meant that all the panzer reserves had to pass through Caen first to get to Bradley in the west. Montgomery stopped them around Caen. That's why the fighting there was so prolonged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.106 (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The German panzer reserves had to pass through Caen as the Allied Tactical Air Forces were - as-per Montgomery's plan - repeatedly bombing and rocketing all the road and rail networks in the area and only allowing the Germans to repair the ones leading to Caen.


 * BTW, of the several thousand ships used in the invasion only around 100 were supplied by the US. The rest were supplied by the British. The latter also supplied the two Mulberry harbours and the PLUTO pipeline which later transported most of the fuel to the invasion forces. They also supplied almost all of the Intelligence and much of the photo-reconnaissance, as well as supplied the COPP parties, and the X-craft that guided-in the invasion fleet on the morning of D-Day. The British also did most of the planning - all the original plans for the operation are held in TNA at Kew or at the Naval Museum in Portsmouth. The ones in the US are copies. The first ship of the invasion fleet to open fire on D-Day was FYI, HMS Belfast.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.55 (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I nearly forgot. The British didn't refer to anything smaller than an A/S Trawler as a "ship", so the British figures for the number of 'ships' involved would not include ancillary vessels such as landing craft, MTB's, etc., as they were not 'ships'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.25 (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Quotation requested for troop evacuation at Dunkirk
A quotation was requested for the data on troops evacuated from Dunkirk. The source for this is. The source is a table, so it's not appropriate to add it to the citation so I am reproducing it here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Tanks destroyed by aircraft
On 29 July, RAF 121 Wing launched 99 sorties with rocket firing Typhoons scoring only two tanks destroyed.(Copp, Montgomery's Scientists, pp. 167-171) On 7 August, and the following days in the Mortain area, over 700 sorties were flown by Anglo-American planes (a mixture of bombs and rockets split between the American and British aircraft) only seven tanks were confirmed to have been destroyed by rockets and a further two by bombs.(pp. 173-175) Of the 90 tanks found abandoned or destroyed within the Falaise Pocket, only four were confirmed to have been destroyed by rockets and a further two by bombs.(p. 183) Moving ahead to the Ardennes, the air force claimed 324 tanks destroyed. Out of 101 German armor vehicles examined, only four tanks were suspected of being destroyed by air attack.(p. 207)

I think the following diff needs a little more evidence considering it is claiming around 10 per cent of the tanks destroyed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you seem to be just taking a small set of actions and assuming that the source must be wrong based on them. Unless those account for literally every single tank kill at Normandy, this is not really logical. You also seem to be ignoring how incredibly heavy the bombardment was at Normandy, when compared to the Ardennes. On the other hand, the source I cited (which is also cited on the rest of the page as an RS) gives an overall total for the number of tanks killed by aircraft. I would actually assert that stronger evidence than that would be needed (it seems you're relying on extrapolation and supposition) to just throw away information given in one of this page's main sources. Unless you have a more reliable source that explicitly contradicts it?--Nihlus1 (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would really like to know where they get there figure from, what is there source? The air force, granted made extreme numbers of sorties but they also made claims that were not supported in the ground. The examples given, from the operational research, were from several areas were the heaviest concentration of direct support had came from the air force in attacking German tanks. The operational research, at least what is printed, highlighted just how over the top the claims were and just how few tanks were being taken out.
 * Additional sources talk about the issue: here, here, here etc (there are lots more, that is just a quick sample).
 * The simple point being, we should use caution despite the claim being made in a RSEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence mentioning 100 tank kills is in the context of pointing out that AFV kills were over claimed. It is also below what aircraft claim to have destroyed in a single day. Therefore "AFV kills were over claimed" isn't really sufficient ground to throw away information given by one of this page's main RSs. I again ask if you have any evidence proving it wrong (that is, a statement from a reliable historian or the militaries themselves saying that substantially less than 100 were destroyed), because three picked handful of engagements in a three month operation involving some of the heaviest bombardment of the war really isn't it.--Nihlus1 (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree. It is well known that there was gross over-claiming of AFV kills by aircraft. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been doing some additional reading on the subject, and it seems that the 100 figure is quite common and people do not really have qualrms with it. As noted, yes the Allied bombing was quite heavy and it would seem that most of the figure could be attributed to Operation Goodwood, then the various isolated incidents (such as the ones examined in the German counterattack and retreat) just pile up in the end.
 * With so much information out there on the over-estimates etc, I was just wanting to ensure this figure was accurate so to avoid possibly perputating a myth. I withdraw my (in good faith) objection.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Tanks may well be 'knocked out' and abandoned by their crews only to be recovered for repair or for use of as spare parts later, so figures given for aircraft attacks may come down some time after the battle, when Allied intelligence teams have access to the battlefield and come across vehicles abandoned by their owners as not worth repairing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.229 (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)