Talk:Second Battle of the Odon

Timeline
Nice one Enigma, this helps fill out the Normandy timeline.Keith-264 (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC) There's this one as well, Operation Express:http://www.worldoptions.com.au/fourpipers/rapid/expressrf2.pdf
 * I knew there was another operation missing but i couldnt think of its name - nice one.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

'The Brigade, The Fifth Canadian Infantry Brigade in WWII' by Terry Copp has, p.60, 'When "Goodwood" was planned, it was assumed that XII British Corps, to the west of the river Orne, would have succeeded in clearing Hill 112 and the high ground overlooking Fleury and St Andre. Operation "Greenline" began on the night of July 15-16, but it proved impossible to capture the initial objective, Evrecy, and the attack stalled. The village of Maltot in the shadow of Hill 112 remained in enemy hands as did Etavaux....'Keith-264 (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Big question
This battle was a "strategic victory" because the 2nd Pz and Hohenstaufen were hold on the frontline. Ok i understand so far. But what if not? Operation Goodwood was a german tactical victory anyway. Regardless if the both divisions were in the frontline or in Reserve. Though goodwood was also a strategic victory for same reason ( like many others ). Goodwood: i can unterstand the strategic importance but here not. Where is the difference if they were in the reserve for troops in goodwood area, the germans won, they werent needed. Acclaimer: I dont claim the source is wrong or something like this. Blablaaa (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The battle is described as an Allied strategic victory in the article because (presumably) that's what the reference says. End of story. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * not end of story when other books dont mention it Blablaaa (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * there are many books in the reference section. and many are used as citiations so i ask for others. I ask because in this particulary case its sounds odd for me. so i gave an explanation why it sounds odd. What do the other references say? and what do they say about tacticallevelBlablaaa (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would quit while you are ahead; you have just said you are not calling the source in your first post but have basically done in your second.
 * II SS Panzer Corps was pinned down in the wrong area and unable to intervene, as were elements of the 12th SS. Claiming that the tactical outcome of Goodwood was a victory for the Germans misses the point. What these troops may or may not have been able to do because of this battle is not up for a forum discussion; it is what the source states.
 * You will also note the article is nowhere near finished.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a relable source which reaches a different conclusion, include it. What we currently have is cited. Asking for additional sources will fall on deaf ears because they are currently unneccesary. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict )Dont feel attacked by me. I pointed out that in the goodwood area this troops were not needed ( tactical german victory anyway ), correct? so i wondered. What do the other sources say about this? and about tactical level ? Blablaaa (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I should note that this article was essentially "slapped together" to fill in a key missing area, from pieces of other articles and to be used to remove the excess info building up in the Goodwood article. It is not in a finished state (i had planned on finishing Goodwood last year but see how that turned out - still half done); when i get back around to this article the other sources (mostly to do with areas outside of the main scope of this article one notes) will be re consulted.
 * Checking that Daglish confirmed the the strategic benefits of the operation also highlted the fact that he stated the tactical battle was essentially inconclusive - added just prior to your asking.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Goodwood was a success! It was brought off at tolerable cost in infantry (2nd army's scarcest arm) and cleared the way for further attacks which were no longer hampered by lack of depth, river bottlenecks and overlooked ground. Tactical victory, operational success and a contribution to "....the clash of two modern armies [is] one huge battle spread over space and time, in which the smaller battles fought by the army corps...[would] form the tactical encounters of traditional battles. These large numbers of battles that would take place far away from one another as the individual corps or groups of corps came into contact with the enemy would be welded together by the commander-in-chief into a 'complete battle'. The individual [smaller] battles would be given significance by the commander-in-chief's plan. Just as a commander of old gave units particular goals on the battlefields of days past, a modern commander-in-chief would give specific goals to his army corps. Each would play a part in the overall plan. 'The success of battle today depends more upon conceptual coherence than on territorial proximity. Thus, one battle might be fought in order to secure victory on another battlefield." (Alfie Schlieffen).Keith-264 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Map
http://militarymaps.org.ua/maps/atl_dday/map47.djvu Keith-264 (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

CE
Tidied the page, citations and references, added some categories for structure.Keith-264 (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)




 * Keith-264 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

park
Keith-264 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Keith-264 (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Narrative
I've been piecing together a narrative from divers sources so a CE would help tie things together.Keith-264 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Keith-264 (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Added some more gleanings, a little bit more to add to Express from the 5th Canadian Brigade.Keith-264 (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Gleanings Reply
2. Own Tps (a) 12 Corps is to advance to secure a firm bas on the gen line of the rd BOUGY 9161 – EVERY 9359 – MAIZET 9457. On D+1 59 Div is to attack and secure the line ENTREGY 8464 – LES HOULLES 8563 – LANDELLE 8662 – NOYERS 8862 – MISSY 8961. 43 Div is to dominate Pt 112 9561 by fire. Any action to be taken by 53 Div on the RIGHT flank will be notified later. Additional Tps under comd: 158 (W) Inf Bde 34 Tk Bde 25 Fd Regt RA 55 Fd Regt RA 248 SP Bty (62 Tk Regt RA) 344 S/L Bty RA One Sqn CROCODILES One Sqn AVsRE Six CONGERS (if available)

INTENTION 3. 15 (S) Inf Div will capture the line of rd BOUGY – EVERCY – MAIZET and form a firm base thereon for future ops by 12 Corps.

5. The op will be carried out in the Phases as under. Night attacks will be assisted by movement in light.

PHASE I – Codeword “CLYDE” 227 (H) Inf Bde Gp will capture objective “CLYDE” in daylight evening D Day.

PHASE IIA – Codeword “FORTH” 44 (L) Inf Bde Gp and 227 (H) Inf Bde Gp, at a time to be decided mutually between the Comds concerned, and known as “Hz Hr”, will leave objective “FORTH” and capture objective “MELROSE” during darkness D/D+1.

PHASE III (a) Codeword “DUNBAR” At first light D+1, 44 (L) Inf Bde Gp will clear the valley of the R ODON incl GAVRUS 9161 and BOUGY 9161 as far as objective “DUNBAR”.

(B) Codeword “KNIFE” At first light D+1, 227 (H) Inf Bde Gp will clear the EVERCY area. If possible, 227 (H) Inf Bde Gp will occupy the area FERME DE MONDEVILLE 9358 during daylight D+1.

PHASE IV (a) Codeword “STIRLING” 158 (W) Inf Bde Gp will pass through 227 (H) Inf Bde Gp and secure objective “STIRLING”.

(B) Codeword “BERWICK” 44 (L) Inf Bde Gp will capture objective “BERWICK”. 46 (H) Inf Bde Gp will be prepared to pass through 44 (L) Inf Bde Gp and capture this objective should 44 (L) Inf Bde Gp not be in a position to do so.



144th Regiment RAC, Battle for Noyers-Bocage 16th July 1944

Operation Express
The article follows Tim Saunders' Hill 112, which gives a slightly mixed-up account of Operation Express, the battle of Maltot on 22-23 July 1944. The seven enemy Tiger tanks of 1.Kompanie, Schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 102 (the HQ tank and three each from Nos. 2 & 3 Platoons) in fact intervened twice. On the evening of 22 July, during the Wiltshires' attack, the Tigers tried to drive into the village, the crews not really knowing what was up. They were met by Captain 'Abe' Lincoln, commander B Company 5 Wilts, who stood in the road, flagged them down and had a conversation with the commander of the lead tank, Tiger 231, SS-Oberscharfuhrer Rodinger. Rodinger was Viennese and was surprised that the British officer spoke to him in Viennese dialect, but Capt Lincoln had spent time in Vienna before the war. Lincoln told Rodinger that the village was now under British control and invited the SS tankers to surrender. Rodinger said that on the contrary, now the Tigers had appeared, the British should surrender, but Lincoln wasn't impressed. The conversation continued for perhaps twenty minutes until a British medium artillery shoot came in. Then Captain Lincoln dived for a ditch and the Tigers retreated. (Saunders p.169, but Saunders mistakenly claims the tanks were Stugs; Patrick Delaforce, The Fighting Wessex Wyverns: From Normandy To Bremerhaven with the 43rd (Wessex) Division, Sutton 1994, p.106, and Eric Lefevre, Panzers in Normandy Then And Now, After the Battle 1983, 2nd ed 1990, p.187, though Lefevre misdates this anecdote to the night of July 15-16; and Captain J.S. MacMath, The Fifth Battalion The Wiltshire Regiment in North-West Europe June 1944 - May 1945, privately printed, n.d. [1945] -- Capt MacMath was the battalion signals officer, and I'm afraid my notes taken in the IWM library 20 years ago don't record the page numbers for every reference.)

After the Tigers withdrew, frightened off by a very polite British officer and a few 5.5s, they moved up on to Hill 112 overlooking Maltot at last light and began 'sniping' the Wiltshires' positions with their 88s. Annoyingly, they hit A Coy's tea urn before a single soldier had filled his mug. Then it got dark and they went away. Capt Lincoln, reconnoitring forward with Pte Buckle, was taken prisoner by the enemy, but a B Coy fighting patrol captured the captors and freed Lincoln and Buckle.

The Tigers came back on to Hill 112 at dawn on 23 July and started sniping again. With the usual German knack for spotting HQs, they killed the 5 Wilts C Coy commander Maj W.B.A. Hankey and the D Coy commander Capt S.C. Maskell-Dicker. (I should perhaps add that a late friend of mine served in B Coy and knew C Coy's Maj Hankey quite well.) When the Churchills of 7 RTR -- not, as the article says, 9 RTR -- returned from their overnight leaguer, that is when six of them were immediately knocked out by the Tigers on the hill. Lefevre p.187 notes that, of those six Churchills, three were claimed by SS-Untersturmfuhrer Schroif in Tiger 241, two by Rodinger in 231 and one by SS-Unterscharfuhrer Munster in 212.

It was at this point -- and not, as the article says, on the evening before -- that Typhoons were called in, and it probably wasn't anything to do with an RAF Forward Air Controller. There doesn't seem to have been an FAC allocated to such a small show. It was more likely a call from the 5 Wilts CO, Lt-Col J.H.C. Pearson, to brigade and hence up to division. (5 Wilts had done this before, when they got Typhoons to drop 1,000-pounders on enemy machine-gun posts that were bothering them at Baron.) Capt MacMath's battalion history says that the Typhoons killed three of the seven Tigers. Presumably this means that the Wiltshires saw those Tigers stop moving, for good, which may or may not be right, but at any rate the Tigers withdrew and left the Wiltshires alone after that. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I claim the dubious honour of paraphrasing Saunders. If you can cite the detail you've added here it can go into the article, although it isn't written to the level of detail of your findings. You may have noticed that my sources are perforce, somewhat Anglocentric. Keith-264 (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

British tank regiment involved in Express
Iam pretty sure the 9th RTR did not partake in Operation Express the unit diary makes no mention of it i think it was the 7th RTR the other Churchill regiment of the 31 Tank Brigade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsomequickedits (talk • contribs) 17:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The source was ambiguous so I've changed it. Keith-264 (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A & B Squadron of the 7th RTR provided the tank support during Operation Express according to Tim Saunders book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsomequickedits (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahem!Keith-264 (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

CE
Changed the Zetterling citations to the 2nd ed of his book as part of a minor spring clean. Keith-264 (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2021 edit
Preserving here by proving this link; my rationale was: "unclear why all of these things were rendered in German". For example: instead of 102nd SS Heavy Panzer Battalion, the article had 102nd schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC) You can add an English translation if you want. Keith-264 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)