User:EnigmaMcmxc/archive2

Notes for self
General Omar Bradley's memoirs supports 2nd Army drawing German armour onto itself while Americans circled around.(Forty, pp. 21-22) "...the British and Canadian armies were to decoy the enemy reserves and draw them to their front..." and "...while we trampled around the outside flank, the British were to sit in place and pin down the Germans. Yet strategically it fitted into a logical division of labours, for it was towards Caen that the enemy reserves would race one the alarm was sounded..."(Bradley A soldiers story, p. 241)

“His theatre strategy for Normandy envisaged a series of holding attacks on the British sector designed to draw the bulk of the Germans forces to that front, thus permitting the Americans to advance West. His approach also strove to keep the initiative, thus forcing the Germans merely to react to Allied moves". (Ashley Hart, p. 38)

C-Class
It is great to have someone else who shares my same belief (that we don't need the C-Class), but It seems as if the C-Class issue is about even at the moment. This should all turn out right (but it is always good when it turns out the way you want it :) At the end one side will be forced to bow to the consensus of the WikiProject while the other side shall watch over. (Hopefully it shall be us watching over :) Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver  The Olive Branch 16:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Perch
Excellent work, it's for sure ready for an A-class review. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that would be even better! Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Perch
Working on Falaise Pocket at the mo, but I'll take a look at Perch as soon as I'm done. EyeSerene talk 14:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Charnwood
I've got 'Montgomery's Scientists: Operational Research in Northwest Europe: Operational Research in Northwest Europe - The Work of No. 2 Operational Research Section with 21 Amy Group June 1944 to July 1945' which has a report on the Charnwood bombing if it's any use to you.Keith-264 (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC) 'Heavy Bombing in Charnwood, Goodwood, Bluecoat and Totalise' in chapter 1. Report 14 'Heavy Bombing in support of the army' says that there are three effects - morale which is short-lived but which is superior to artillery in that the bombing occurs very quickly; obstruction, which may hinder movement for a few days and destruction, which is small - the bombing area is a 1000 yard circle and the Germans practiced a high degree of dispersal. The conclusion is that the morale effect is the most valuable but that ground forces need to be ready to exploit it immediately which is not always possible.Keith-264 (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Next moves
Hi, in the near future I'm planning to elaborate and propose a set of guidelines for the project (as described on my candidacy for another coordinator term), as well as working on a series of forgotten Romanian battles of WWII Eastern Front (regarding which David M. Glantz recently came up with a brilliant book). My main objectives for the Normandy project are almost completed (Cobra FA, Falaise pocket FA and Hill 262 A). However, I will continue helping you in your current efforts as much as I can, and if time permits, might attempt to promote another lower-profile article similar to Hill 262 (probably one of the beaches). Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Be sure we will continue with the Normandy project, I've never seen such an efficient working group on wiki before! Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Heavy Panzer Battalion
Hi Its one of those subjects that could go either way, The Germans tended not to use st nd rd - 1st 2nd 3rd etc for numbering units. The correct translation would be Heavy SS Panzer Battalion 101 with the number at the end. I would be in favour of SS Heavy Panzer Battalion 101 which is more in keeping with the German name (if that makes sense). Even here German heavy tank battalion there is a mixture of names with Panzer and Tank used. I presume this question has risen in connection with the Falaise pocket article which used two different names 102nd and the link from Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101. I was just trying to keep the names the same as the articles on both battalions. I might just suggest on the talk pages that they are changed to SS Heavy Panzer Battalion 101,102,103 --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC) PS GOOD WORK on the Falaise Pocket

Harold Alexander
Hi. I've started a discussion to establish a consensus on formatting References for this article here. I would very much appreciate hearing your views. Regards. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 10:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodwood
I've had another read and was rather pleased to see that Greenline and Pomegranate make cameo appearances, it's nice to see 'minor' operations given their due. I think the essay is on the way to becoming a model like Epsom. I think the conclusions could still do with some work though. I'm not sure how but I think that the controversy about Goodwood's intentions needs to be laid to rest. I think some of it is caused by the word 'breakthrough'. In my mind it means what happened during Cobra (the beginning of the end of the Battle of Normandy) but other writers seem to see breakthrough in tactical or operational terms (eg, 'breaking through to Falaise') whch I think tends to add to confusion. As far as Goodwood is concerned it seems that Dempsey harboured greater hopes than Monty (despite him squelching any idea of advancing to Falaise) and central management never really forgave Monty for hoodwinking them but the limited aims that Monty imposed seem to me to be definitive. Keith-264 (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 (talk • contribs)
 * I have a few extra details to add to the prelim section but not to much - there isnt much out there, so it appears, on these two operations.
 * Am not to fussed about the rest of the article just yet - i have a wealth of information to balance out the viewpoints once i get down to the bottom including a rather stinging comment i have from a recent purchase.
 * Is there any additional details you have on these minor ops that could be added?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Only this http://59div.morssweb.com/?bnoyers Keith-264 (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Perch
Thanks for sorting out that picture - the reason I took it out was that it was breaking the paragraph formatting for that section, not because I thought it was unsuitable. I meant to find a home for it, but forgot :P EyeSerene talk 12:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Knew that would have been the case :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Greenline
Found this http://www.royaltankregiment.com/9_RTR/History%20of%2034%20Armd%20Bde.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hugh Dowding is Scottish
If someone is born in Scotland, their nationality is Scottish (whether you like it or not). He is also British as you pointed out. It is important to mention he is Scottish. This is the heart of why men like Dowding (Scot), Park (NZ) and Brand (SA)were discriminated against. They were not English. I have also now included both Scottish and British for Dowding. Wallie (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What discrimination, Wallie? Skinny87 (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically he is British. I was born in England but i am a British national likewise Dowding was born in Scotland but is still a British national.
 * Stating someone is British is not discriminating against them nor does it mean you are calling them English. Bring British isn’t a vague title like "European" or "Asian" it is the nationality of people born within the state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (which for your reference is made up of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (not to mention the overseas territories)!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The way British is being used here is to fool people that Dowding was English. The Battle of Britain is even depicted as a "British Victory" even though only one of the five commanders was actually English. Soon after the Battle of Britain, Leigh Mallory and Douglas Bader were credited with the victory, until they found that their "Big Wing" methods were a disaster in 1941. The true heroes were later found to be Dowding, Park and Brand, who were made out to be English. Not one of them were. This needs to be explained. I know you are English, but creating this myth of English/British superiority is too much to take. Wallie (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Woah! Wallie, there is some real chip on the shoulder POVness and bitterness here - I thought you loved everybody (ref your User page)?! The facts (in no particular order) are
 * 1) What discrimination? Dowding made Air Chief Marshal and GCB (the highest rank of knighthood bar KG). He was pretty establishment having been educated at Winchester and Woolwich (neither in Scotland.....!) However, he had a crabby character which didn't always make for harmonious relations with his peers and superiors (like Monty for instance). Park also made ACM and GCB. Not bad for people being "discriminated against" because they weren't English.
 * 2) The Battle of Britain was fought by Britain's Air Force, the RAF. So it was a British victory in the same way as the campaign in northwest Europe fought by Allied armies was an Allied victory even though we had an American in charge (although, obviously, the Americans think it was a US victory!)
 * 3) It's understandable that airforce leaders get less recognition in the popular mind than army leaders: in the air force relatively few individuals are involved in combat and "heroes" emerge naturally (to take the limelight) because there's an easy way to keep score (counting "kills"). In the army there are too many involved in combat for this to happen (Monty had over 1 million men under him at the peak size of 21st Army Group) so the leaders get the prominence.
 * 4) British describes someone who is a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (for clarity: Great Britain comprises England, Scotland and Wales). Some lazy Englishmen sometimes use "English" when they mean "British" (although this is getting rarer) but never does anyone here use "British" to mean "English". A greater problem comes when non-British use the term. When Americans refers to, say, "you doggone Brits" more often than not you can bet they don't have in their mind's eye someone wearing a kilt or with a leek in their shirt pocket but some toffy-nosed caricature pratt with a cut-glass accent. But that's hardly our fault. I don't know what nationality you are but you too seem to use British and English interchangeably. This is incorrect. There is a precise meaning for each of them and the words should be used with precision.
 * 5) Dowding was British because that's the passport he had. There are occasions when it is appropriate to describe a Briton as Scottish or Welsh or an Ulsterman in much the same way as one might refer to an American as a Texan or an Australian as a Tasmanian - it tells you something about them, but has no impact on their citizenship. I've no idea what passport Park had during the war but if he was like my mother, a kiwi of the same vintage, he would have had a British one. It wasn't until New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster 1931 in November 1947 which had the effect of giving New Zealand full external autonomy from Britain that these things became important and New Zealanders had to make a choice which passport to have.

Regards Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 17:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Falaise pocket
Hi Enigma, just seen your notice at Falaise pocket FAC. Unfortunately I'm extremely busy real life matters in this period and I will be unable to contribute significantly. So, if you have anything to add to the article, just do it, I'm confident that you'll do it properly. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re your post, I think a more thorough treatment of the casualty figures is a good idea. I've been looking at your post on the FP talk page where you give some sourced figures, and we could certainly incorporate them into the article on the lines you've suggested. I've got some time this afternoon, so I'll have a bash at that if you like (but please feel free to edit as you see fit!) EyeSerene talk 12:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've tried to give the broad consensus in the article and gone into more detail in a footnote. See what you think ;) EyeSerene talk 17:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great :) EyeSerene talk 20:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

AVM Richard Saul
I have made suggestion on AVM Saul on the Talk:Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain page - please can you let me know your views via the discussion page? --KizzyB (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan
Rsponse to your statement at the discussion. The ones killed before March 19, are consider part of OEF that's for sure, they are not on the official list of Iraq casualties, checked at the CNN list. If everybody agrees I will delete the list tonight and replace it with a table with numbers of deaths by province and country. No more names, no more violation of the memorial rule. Are we in agreement? Do you think the nomination will be withdrawn if I replace the article with just the one short table?BobaFett85 (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As I told Wallie just a moment ago, the names wouldn't be there anymore but we would report chronologicaly on the incidents of the deaths of the servicemen. That way the article wouldn't be anymore the third largest on Wikipedia. This way everybody would get at least half of what they want, TheFEARgod was the one who proposed it originaly besides giving his keep vote. Like I said, everybody would get what they want, we would report on the incidents of deaths of the soldiers (this was already done in Coalition casuaties in Afghanistan) but withouth the names, only numbers and there wouldn't be any violation of the Memorial rule. And to confirm the numbers so there would be no doubt about them being Original Reasearch we would make a table at the top that would be based on individual referenced numbers and we would sum up the total, this part is per Lawrencama. You agree?BobaFett85 (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reorganised a bit more the article so there are two sections, one for the DoD number and one for the icasualties number. But I still think that Nick's comment that icasualties is not reliable is unfounded since here on Wikipedia iCasualties.org has been accepted as notable, like it says The website is considered an "authoritative" record of MNF casualties in Iraq and has been cited by, among others, the BBC, Voice of America, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Like I said all of the major news outlets that we use as sources here on Wikipedia use icasualties as their own source. So in essence icasualties is the king of sources in this specific field.

As for the concern what the website's sources are, like it says here on Wikipedia itself The website compiles information on casualties incurred by the Multi-National Force (MNF) in Iraq and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan using news reports and press releases from the U.S. Department of Defense, CENTCOM, the MNF, and the British Ministry of Defence.BobaFett85 (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * However the website itself does not support that does it? The entire second paragraph on the wiki article has no supporting evidence.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Lawrence just added a link to an archived page of icasualties that explains their methodology. Here it is . They say they are using exclusivly only DoD, MNF, ISAF and British MoD sources. This can easily be confirmed with their list of Iraq war casualties, go to that page and you will see that every last one of the soldiers listed as killed in Iraq are linked to the indivudal press releases by the DoD itself. They themselves say they don't add a name until the DoD confirms it. Also, here are two reports, one of them by Reuters, that praise the work at icasualties.org and one report , by the Associated Press, which calls icasualties.org authoritative in this field. Also here is a link to a page of BBC news where it can be clearly seen in their RELATED INTERNET LINKS section that they link their readers, besides to the official NATO site, also to icasualties.org so their readers can read more about casualties inccured. And those are the only two links they put, NATO's and icasualties.org's.

As for the additional 26 US deaths. This article was created as to list all of the US soldiers killed in support of combat operations in Afghanistan and not just those killed within Afghanistan itself. There have been dozens of US deaths in Kuwait and those have been linked with the Iraq war. It has been clearly confirmed that 42 soldiers died in OEF - Horn of Africa, OEF - Trans-Sahara, OEF - Philipines and at the detention center in Cuba. Except for OEF - Afghanistan there is no other sub-operation of OEF, thus logic dictates the 26 killed in Arabian countries were killed in support of combat operations in Afghanistan. There is no other sub-operation of OEF they could have been supporting. Example, two of the three sailors who died in the Arabian sea were kiilled in late 2001 onboard the USS Kity Hawk, at the time the USS Kity Hawk was lanching air and missile attacks on Afghanistan.BobaFett85 (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your message over at the discussion page of the article regarding do they confirm them as OEF casualties. Yes, they always say when a press release is given by DoD that they identify eather a casualty supporting Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom and they say the servicemen died while supporting operation Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to discuss with you over at the discussion page of Coalition casualties in Afghanistan Talk:Coalition casualties in Afghanistan what to do with the list of specific incidents of deaths, an anonymous user is constantly reinserting the list which contains the names of US, British, Canadian and other soldiers killed in the war. I have been constantly removing the list but he keeps reinserting it. What do you think we should to. I have again removed most of the list, but this time not all of it. I removed the names of Canadian, British and Australian soldiers killed since they all already have their own articles about the casualtis they have sustained and those articles even list them by names and also removed the names of US soldiers because like we concluded at the discussion at that other article the list would be too long. I left the names and incidents of all Europian soldiers deaths in the war in the list so to not delete it totaly and changed the name of the section to List of Europian soldiers deaths since a user put in the template of the Afghan war links to articles on US, British, Canadian and other deaths, the other deaths link links to this exact list. So what do you think?BobaFett85 (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Article alert
I should say, alertS, as the following articles now have been the subject of controversial changes (some astute observers may notice a pattern emerging [LOL]): ‎
 * Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain
 * Battle of Britain
 * Battle of Dunkirk
 * List of Battle of Britain pilots
 * Billy Fiske
 * AVM Richard Saul
 * Paddy Finucane
 * Hugh Dowding, 1st Baron Dowding
 * Keith Park
 * Battle of Britain (film)
 * Edgar James "Cobber" Kain FWiW (and Category:Scottish air marshals|Category:Scottish air marshals?) Bzuk (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC).
 * ...and as an answer to your question: YUP (-forgive the Canadianism (LOL)) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

Wiki-portals
EnigmaMcmxc - I noticed your moving of the inter-wiki portals at Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis. I'm not 100% sure that what you did was wrong in any way, but, as I said in my edit summary, I did a week or so ago review a number of different articles to see what the common practice was for the placement of these links. I found that the "External links" section was pretty much consistently where they were placed. I've not, though, found any guideline that stipulates where they're to go; if you've anything concrete, it would be appreciated. Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Antoni Glowacki
There is no need to change an article to your personal preferences. After researching an completing a re-write, to have someone undo hours of work on a pretext of knowledge about the article's reference structure is completely unwarranted. See the talk page of the article if you actually intend to help develop the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC).
 * No personal perferences were involved and no edits were made to the main text of the article - the only changes made were ones to conform your reference section with the Manual of style. The actual wiki style articles have no been mentioned in each edit made so you now am not randomlyl vandalsing "your" article!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In removing the explanation, obviously you are aware that there was merely a difference in opinion as to bibliographic notation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, its because i cant be assed getting involved in an argument over something trivial - a trivial edit aimed at improving an article that you took extreme offense to. At any rate your past exp has no bearing on current wiki guides so is pretty much irrelevent.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting colloquialism, I will have to remember it! FWiW, no offense taken, the article is still in the works so I do expect that there is need for some wordsmithing yet. BTW, many of your revisions are in the current edition. Bzuk (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

102 Motorised Division Trento
Hi Baur ref added - something I meant to do but had just forgotten --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fields of Fire
Hello Enigma, I lost the page ref and retired to the bath to find it, page 86. Copp gives an endnote, 'Ritgen 85-6'. In the bibliography this is, Helmut Ritgen: 'The Western Front 1944' (1995). 'Memoirs of a Panzer Lehr Officer' is a subtitle on the Amazon page so I suppose he was there.Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Copp's book, 'Montgomery's Scientists, Operational Research in Northwest Europe' (2000), doesn't give a bomb tonnage for Charnwood but the ORS2 report says five tons per bomber*, 500 and 250lb bombs with .025 sec delay fuzes, 300 attacking the target in Caen and 160 the aiming point in the fields. Report No5, Copp, pp. 71-78. F of F, pp.134-135, has a few lines about Greenline.Keith-264 (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 460x5=2300 tons.
 * Nice one, i recently got the book so i will check that out when am next working on the Goodwood article - probably this weekend.

Eythenkew! I think that the only place we're going to find much more on offer about the 'minor' operations is in Unit histories and memoirs. I should have got my Copp copy sooner as the maps are really good and some of the incidental detail is highly revealing.Keith-264 (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC) We can hope. There's a book called 'Bloody Victory' out soon about the Somme which looks promising but Copp's remarks about Greenline suggest there is yet much to be revealed about Normandy. Do you feel a PhD coming on? :o)Keith-264 (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Some of Delaforce's books have contents lists on Amazon which mention some of the lesser-known operations eg Greenline so I may do some strategic browsing at Waterstone's next week.Keith-264 (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we could do a stub at the moment but we might fall foul of the original research rule if we go further. By collecting our gleanings we might encourage more people to contribute. I've just remembered a book called Caen: Anvil of Victory by Alexander McKee which may have more details so I'll have a look in it next week.Keith-264 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. It will help when there's something in the box on the right hand side of the pages of battles/operations in Normandy (where the list of battles goes). I've been thinking about Copp going on about Ike giving Monty that letter about going forward shoulder to shoulder (the second battle of the Odon having just been on) and wonder how much of it was motivated by a bit of back covering, what with the defeatists like Tedder et al at SHAEF?Keith-264 (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw this going for a quid so I've had a punt. 'D-Day and the Battle of Normandy: The Evolution and Maps of the Operations from 6th June to 21st August 1944' by Gerard Colonel LegoutKeith-264 (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Locations
Hey, Enigma, there's a bunch of the books in Operation Charnwood which you added that have hidden comments from ed concerning location. Since I don't have access to those books, could you add the locations of the ones he needs? Thanks, Cam (Chat) 22:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Op Perch
Back on the job - apologies for the half-term hiatus ;) EyeSerene talk 08:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Importance to NZ Project
I think the Battle of Britain is very important for NZ. I have downgraded it to mid, if that's OK. You must remember that New Zealand doesn't have as many high/top items for consideration - like Jordan or David Beckham. :) Wallie (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

PIAT
Hey, I wouldn't mind that cite for 50th Division if you've got it - the more the merrier! Skinny87 (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, you were recently active on the PIAT talkpage, and as such I'd wonder if you'd like to comment there: I'm proposing to replace the current article with the one in my sandbox once the lede has been written. Skinny87 (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Dresden
I did not mean to imply the the "British flyboys" were the only ones involved. As you mentioned, the Americans were certainly there also. I put a comment on the talkpage. The American involvement in it is not well covered, to my mind. Wallie (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

All Arms Team
I've been thinking (sorry). The old chestnut of poor cooperation on the battlefield by the Anglo-Canadians has cropped up again. Wasn't the integrated all-arms team supposed to be found in the infantry divisions and their armoured/tank brigades, AGRA's and aircraft of 83 and 84 Groups? Wasn't the divided armoured and infantry brigade structure of the armoured divisions a reflection of the different job for which they were intended? Instead of praising the British controlled armoured divisions for integrating their armoured regiments and infantry battalions during the battle of Normandy like Buckley does, shouldn't we acknowledge that German fighting power forced the Anglos to use their exploitation force (for which the separate infantry and armour structure was appropriate) to bolster the infantry divisions and armoured/tank brigades (which required them to change their structure towards that of the specialist tank/armoured brigades) and that this mirrored the Germans, who couldn't leave infantry divisions unsupported at the east end of the bridgehead? Just a thought.Keith-264 (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC) PS, have you an opinion on 'Corps Commander' by Brian Horrocks?Keith-264 (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Operation Perch
Was this gig just before or just after the Germans abandoned fluid defence because it failed and tried linear and defence in depth?Keith-264 (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Zetterling
The link you gave led to some interesting inormation. have you noticed that quotes of German tank losses in other sources seem exaggerated but when you look at numbers of operational vehicles in Zett's information (about PzLehr) rather tham write offs, the number of tanks operational does seem to bear out the heavy losses point of view - 97 PzIV down to 29 by 18th June, recovering to a max of 36 on 1st July; Panthers, 86 down to 23 in the 18th recovering to a max of 32 in 1st Jul. Perhaps this explains the change to a static defence after Perch until IISSPzK arrived? On the whole it looks like the British opposition gave PzLehr a bit of a monstering up to the 18th from which it never recovered.Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats the same impression i have, i have also read elsewhere that during this period the division lost over 5,000 men in the matter of what - a forenight to three weeks? Thats like a chunk chunk of the division and its armoured componant rubbed out before it even gets involved in the latter battles.
 * All of which makes me wonder why previous historians had such a hard coming to grips with the ass kicking our guys handed out?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at the rest and there seems to be a correlation between being early on the scene and getting taken to the cleaners. 9 & 10th SSPz Divs and parts of 1st and 2nd SS arrived late (presumeably after the change in tactics) and seem to have been depleted much more steadily than the divs that arrived before Epsom. The divs on the scene seem to have lost about 30%+ of their (operational) vehicles by 18th of June and fluctuated around the 18th June figure until Goodwood and Cobra.Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Market Garden
Sorry if this is in the wrong place, I don't know exactly where to send my reply. Actually, I don't question the facts of the event. You'll notice that my original argument is short on facts, and long on logic--logic that so far has only been answered by facts, not logic. AngusCA (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Klaatu Earthling
Since you've been working on all those essays about Normandy I thought you might be interested to know that I've recently read 'The Hell they called High Wood' about the fight for it between the 14th Jul and 15th Sept 1916. Apart from the differences in names (Lewis instead of Bren etc) it could have been a description of hill 112. The more I look at it the more 'modern' WWI looks and the more 'more of the same' WII seems. Keith-264 (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What failure? Hill 112 was a long series of battles because neither side could contemplate its loss - the same went for High Wood and the British won. I thnk that my point is that in WWII the glamour of air warfare, tanks and wireless were less important and less decisive than we sometimes think - the infantry-artillery slogging match still determined victory'Keith-264 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Over the last few years I've shuttled between about 1904 and 1945 trying to make my mind up about all the things we were taught as facts at school. The bad press that WWI gets compared to WWII seems more and more unwarranted. My comparison of High Wood and Operation Epsom was to stress the similarities - that manoeuvres finished in a fight for a place and that that seems to be how the grand manoeuvres allowed by mechanised armies ended - another attrition battle over a place the enemy couldn't afford to lose needing forces they couldn't afford to risk. What occurred over five miles in 1916 took place over 500 in 1944 but the methods of the actual fighting were hardly different.Keith-264 (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC) If you feel like a punt http://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-German-Eyes-British-Phoenix/dp/0753822024/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243787834&sr=1-8 is worth a look. It has the same failing as everything else - nowhere near enough analysis of the Germans on the Somme but what there is is rather revealing.Keith-264 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Operation Crusader
You should really check before reverting and calling legitimate edits "vandalism". That's what the Talk page is there for. If you have any issues with the edits other than that you don't like them or think they are wrong but can't be bothered to check, feel free to contact me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andreas1968 193.128.202.131 (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to have a look on the Crusader talk page as i dont believe you edit has been legit - you have removed cited material and added in unsourced numbers because you dont like the source used.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you really understood what I did. I removed the Clifford edit but left Playfair in place. You, or anyone, can cite Clifford as much as they want. It will never be a reliable source regarding Axis numbers because it was written during wartime. Playfair is a very reliable source. Just because Clifford wrote a book in 1943 does not make it a reliable source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources 79.74.113.219 (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasnt arguing that point, you pulled information out of the article that yes very well may be dodgy however you have replaced it with information that isnt supported.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to look at the link I provided on the talk page (here it is again: http://crusaderproject.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/so-how-many-men-were-lost-in-the-battle/) you would notice that the number is supported. Now, this is OR, therefore not eligible as a source, but what it does show is that Clifford is flat-out wrong. Which is hardly surprising. So the conclusion of this ought to be not to use Clifford, and maybe just stick to one number (Playfair seems the most appropriate, since he would have used German and Commonwealth records in writing the OH). 79.74.113.219 (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Market Garden
Enigma, I have no personal issue with you, but I don't like the accusation that I'm self promoting. I'm not out for a fight, so please don't think I'm looking for one. I have no desire to turn this into something personal. I've replied on the MG talkpage. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:XXX Corps 1944-1945 shoulder flash.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:XXX Corps 1944-1945 shoulder flash.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Perch
Apropos the German tank losses at V-B, do any of your sources try to quantify what the Germans couldn't do because they had to commit their Tigers etc to the gig at V-B to foil 7th Armd?Keith-264 (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wilmot notes that there was only 36 Tigers on the front at the time (although the 101st Heavy panzer battalion was not at full strength so was there really that many?) so the loss of 5-6 of them destroyed and prehaps numerous more damaged does seem to be a significant bloody nose for them nethermind the tanks lost by the 7th Armour. If 2nd Panzer wasnt arriving in the area it does seem the 7th Armour could have achieved what they set out to do if they had renewed the attack in the following days. But i dont think i have seen anything in my sources regarding what the Germans could not do due to their losses.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Goodwood
What source impresses you most about this gig? I'm tempted by Daglish but open to offers. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I particularly like Daglish’s, Dunphries and Trew’s works. I don’t believe that I have read any of them back to back yet and they all contain allot of information; it has been a while since ive actually read any of them, must be a few months now, but I remember being most impressed by Dunphries’.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Tidy
I notice that you've been adding finishing touches all over the place - a job well done, may I say. I haven't done much lately due to being on a government kickstart course - they monitor the computers which is rather unsporting but I may have more time soon. Regards. Keith-264 (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Geezah!
Thanks for sorting out my post on Gerhard W. The interweb connection went off so I saved it in 'Open Office' and then copied and pasted when I got it back with the result you saw. Keith-264 (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Villers-Bocage
Will do, though it might not be soon as I'm backlogged a little :P Looking forward to it though - I think this Normandy series is really shaping up into something special. EyeSerene talk 20:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Belgium
Thank you for the support re: article. I am hoping you will be helping shape the article? All the help you can give would be welcome. Dapi89 (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortuntally i have practically no sources covering this fighting, i stumpled across the article and the discussion and believe that the article is worthy enough not to be deleted. I will help in any other way possible though.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look, make the changes you think are right. Dapi89 (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking for more feedback if you have time. Dapi89 (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

V-B
Apart from Badsey's somewhat splenetic views in Buckley's book of essays I can't think of any references. I'll have to look them up. I was reminded of it by looking at Zet's statistics the other day. You can change it in the meantime if you like.Keith-264 (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Copp FoFKeith-264 (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)I put it on the V-B talk page it's P.76 I think.Keith-264 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Iraqi War
Hi thanks for the contribution to the article, however do you have source information to support your addition? If so can you add it in please. cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This was purely a "I found it on the world wide web" type of thing. I have no comment if you prefer to remove it.  Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We still may be able to use it, do you know where on the net you found it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will see if I can find it again. Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not yet found the original on-line reference (it was one of those encyclopedia of all the world's tanks), but the following link may be better: http://stonebooks.com/archives/060402.shtml .  It is review of Iraq 1941: The Battles for Basra, Habbaniya, Fallujah, and Baghdad. and includes excerpts.  One of the excerpts includes the following:
 * Kingcol, the small Habbaniya garrison, and the troops who had been airlifted into the base as reinforcements were promptly formed into a makeshift brigade to capture Fallujah and threaten Baghdad. Miniscule British forces, including a company of infantry airlanded in open desert to isolate the defenders, drove Rashid Ali's forces out of Fallujah (many apparently discarding uniforms and blending into the civilian population), and the city's vital bridge over the Euphrates fell into British hands. On 22 May the Iraqi 6th Infantry Brigade, supported by light tanks, launched a serious counterattack against the small British force remaining in Fallujah, but the attacks were eventually beaten off. Nevertheless, with only around 1500 Allied troops opposing almost 20,000 Iraqi troops in the Baghdad area, the situation remained precarious.
 * I suspect all Iraqi tanks were "light tanks," but I have stumbled upon several references of the Iraqis receiving about 14 L3 tanks from Italy. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to want a reference for EVERY line in the Anglo-Iraqi War article.Mkpumphrey (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To your last question, of course i do - thats how we create a completly sourced article that can be put forth at one point in the future for FAC it also helps proceed past the myth that surrounds the wiki that everything is made up.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, please do not leave snide remarks such as "Please READ the reference ... "mechanized" in 1941 Iraq is not what it means now" in the summary descriptions. How can one read the reference if one does not have access to it? Additionally how is the reader suppose to know that "mechanized" doesnt mean the same? Putting inverted commas around it nor the hidden link to motorised infantry gives the reader a clear idea. I would suggest adding a note to article after the first mention of "mechanized" infantry stating clearly that they were motorised infantry from whatever description Lyman gives.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning your ever changing the impression that much of wikipedia is made up (by requiring line-for-line references that are apparently never checked), good luck! By the way, I have looked around and, sad but true, quite a bit of what is found in Wikipedia is made up or -- at the very least -- a stretch.  The following article is a long-time favorite:  Italian guerrilla war in Ethiopia.
 * I have no doubt that i will not be able to do so by myself however it does goes a long way to do so. I wouldnt say footnotes are never checked, there like the ones in books you know where they are incase you ever need them. As for the article in mention, the stretch bit i would assume a good example is the point being made about Sten guns kept out of operation use because some dump was apparently blown up - as if the guns sole supply of ammo for Middle East Command was in the "ass end of no where" whereas the main dumps were in the Nile Delta?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning "snide remarks" and other courtesies, please feel free to question what the source says prior to making changes. However, changing referenced materials without benefit of the reference seems to the wrong side of rude to me.  In other words, I can be nice to nice people.Mkpumphrey (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You will note the talk page is full of stuff i have question so i can work it into the article. However something such as the difference between motorirsed and mechanzied troops seems more of a mistake rather than something to query on the talkpage. So not being rude and changing referenced material for the sake of it but fixing an apparent typo. I still think you should add a note to the article to state the case otherwise am sure other editors at some point the future would make the same "mistake".--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice rework on the Smart/Roberts transition. I am thinking that any additional material I have would be best added to the History sections of the Iraqi Army, Air Force, and Navy.  (Who knows?  Maybe even separate Habforce and Kingcol articles.)  Best Wishes and happy editing! Mkpumphrey (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you like the "guerilla war" article, you may enjoy this one too: Italian conquest of British Somaliland.  Mkpumphrey (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of the chapters dealing with Iraq from the Essex regiments regimental history, that i have been meaning to use as a source and add to the article. Anything from that i will be adding to the Combat Operations or the British counterattack section. TBH i dont see the need for the German section, i think that can be reworded into the Combat Ops section.
 * You may not need to create a seperate article, unless you have loads of info on them. Currently there is the Iraqforce article that contains some information on them. After much discussion aload of stuff, iirc, was pulled from the latter article to create the Persia and Iraq Command although that has nothing to do really with the Anglo-Iraqi war or Habforce etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sale
The Naval & Military Press are knocking out the Official History (WWII) at £13.95 a go until 2Aug.Keith-264 (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that, am thinking of picking up the BEF, Norway and Home front books to complete my collection of all things Western Front.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Badsey
Well I never, he replied! "I don't think that anyone has yet located the detailed orders for I SS Panzer Corps for this period, even assuming that orders would have been given in detail and in writing, which they seldom were. Hitler's general order for Army Group B to go onto the defensive pending reinforcements was not issued until 16 June, so we may assume that the order of 12 June to roll up the British from east to west still stood. Beyond that, Villers Bocage in particular seems to be a typical German aggressive improvisation. There has been a lot of speculation as to what would have happened if 7th Armoured Division had got onto Hill 112 or thereabouts, and even if 1st Airborne Division had been dropped behind Caen as a result. The general assessment is that it would not have made much difference to the broad shape of the battle." J Badsey, E-mail 22nd July.Keith-264 (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 'The Normandy Campaign 1944 sixty years on, edited by John Buckley. Chapter 4 'Culture, controversey, Caen and Cherbourg by Stephen Badsey, pp. 48-63.
 * P. 60-61,'On the afternoon of 9 June he [Rommel] ordered all his forces facing the Calvados coast from the Orne to the Vire briefly onto the defensive in favour of his belief that 'everything must be used to defend Cherbourg'....On 11 June Army Group B planned 'to replace the panzer units [opposite the British and Canadians] with infantry divisions and transfer its schwerpunkt to the Carentan-Montebourg area in order to avert the danger to Cherbourg'. Rommel was unable to do this because of the continued Anglo-Canadian threat to break out past Caen and because of Hitler's opposition. On 12th of June, in response to the fall of Carentan, Hitler ordered both absolutely no retreat and for the Allied beaches to be rolled up sequentially from the east starting with the Orne bridgehead....Even so, Hitler's orders on 12 June set the attritional agenda for the rest of a battle of Normandy that he had already lost.

Thanks for the gong. What is a 'barnstar' though? :o)Keith-264 (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Perch
'Mungo Melvin states that Dempsey and the Second Army displayed weakness in handling its subordinate formations; not giving their subordinates definite tasks, clear intentions and allowing the subordinate formations the liberty to arrange how they would be carried out...'
 * Does this mean Mungo is criticising top down management or allowing too much latitude to the men on the spot?Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that Mungo I'll have a look. :0). When do the dancing girls pin the medal on me?:0)Keith-264 (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Having got a little cash together I've ordered the OH for 1941-42 of the Desert War. That's due to you that is. My bank manager's awfully upset. :O)Keith-264 (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Truce?
Would you like a truce? I'm sorry to have snapped at you. I've done some laundry and taken a few walks now (but don't worry, I don't think you're a troll). You're obviously as keen to see articles get good as I am, so I'd appreciate a look and some opinions on Battle of Arnhem if you've got any. Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers Enigma. I'd been going to say you'd probably be waiting a while if you'd waited for the GA! Ranger Steve (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations...
...on today's vandalism magnet featured article ;) EyeSerene talk 07:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, its all in good fun though :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Impressive! I always enjoy it too when an article one's written (or been heavily involved with) comes up as the first result on a Google search :) EyeSerene talk 10:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Normandy breakout campaign
What are you saying, that these operations bore no relationship to each other? That they were astounding success?--Head West (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did i say anything like that? Your article is unbalanced and is stiring up a myth that has been clearly debunked over the past 60 years. Goodwood was not a breakout battle and that 2nd Armys mission was to secure the American flank and draw in the German panzers; even Bradley supports this latter view.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict (Charnwood)
Just ran into some of your edits (sorry!) re the background section. I think I've fixed it, but you might like to double-check ;) EyeSerene talk 12:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re Perch
Heh, it was almost like I could understand the text :) Incidentally, I'm working on a map for Charnwood - should be uploaded soon (either tonight or tomorrow). EyeSerene talk 16:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Re Charnwood FAC
Maybe, though I notice we may have another dispute about Monty's strategy to thrash out :( I've posted on the article talk-page. EyeSerene talk 07:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Monty's Scientists
PP.399-406, Report No. 17,'Analysis of German Tank Casualties in France 6 June to 31 August 1944'. Table VIII %age brewed up of total for each type of tank: Tiger 80%, Panther 63%, PzIV 80%. Sherman, 82%. Table IX: Average no of hits received for each brewed up tank; Pz VI-5.25, V-4.0, IV-1.5 (Sherman-1.97). Average no of penetrations received for brew up of a tank; VI-3.25, V-3.24, IV-1.5 (Sherman-1.89). Keith-264 (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Operation Charnwood
Awesome work! Keep it up!! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 10:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

British Army during World War II
Hi in this article did you add the cites from Latiner #140 and Bauer #137 ? Is so could you add the sources to the References section. Good to see you joining in. I am trying to get it ready for a Peer review so anything you think may need work drop me a line. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not happy with the Recruitment and strength section it was already there when I started working on the article and is mostly unchanged apart from some minor rewording. I keep looking at it to try and improve the section but keep passing. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Organisation now looks better with the Recruitment and strength combined. If you have accurate figs for casualties we should add them. The ones in the article are from 1945. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Casualties seems to depend on when they ended counting. Some are when Japan surrendered and some take in up to 1946/7 and some include POW's etc who died of wounds years later. I don't think we will find and exact figure. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Operation Cobra & 2nd Armored Division (France)
EnigmaMcmxc: As I wrote at French 2nd AD talk page in answer to your comment:  not only *a little odd* but *completely wrong*.  Operation COBRA ended on 31JUL44 & the French 2nd AD landed on 01AUG44. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmxc: In case you did not go to 2e DB talk page, I was agreeing with you, just did not make clear what was wrong, i.e. what you judged to be *a little odd* looked to me as not only *a little odd*, but *completely wrong*. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WW2 Casualties
Thank you for taking the time to point out the needed corrections @ WW2 Casualties. Here is a book you might want to add to your Library. Author is Ed, Jacobsen, H.A. Title is Decisive Battles of World War II: The German View. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I need to look at the Wikipedia pages on the Normandy battles, my dad was there with the US forces in 1944 starting 6/13/1944, he loved to tell war stories. I took an all day private tour of the battlefield back in 1999.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

german casualties during overlord
hi, the box no says 288,000 - 450,000. the first source gives only 200,000 casualties for normandy campaign if u read the quote. the second includes all POWs, so my question why not writing 200,000- 230,000 KIA ,WIA, MIA and 210,000 POW. and the allied casualties dont include the airforce losses. -- HROThomas (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Casualty (person): "In military usage, casualties usually refer to combatants who have been rendered combat-ineffective, or all persons lost to active military service, which comprises those killed in action, killed by disease, disabled by physical injuries, disabled by psychological trauma, captured, deserted, and missing, but does not include injuries which do not prevent a person from fighting."--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

i know this, doesnt madder its normal do divide KIA MIA WIA and pows , and iam sure u know this. sorry but the infobox looks so moronic. u have 288.000 -450.000. the 288.000 includes no captured but casualties from southern froce and retreat ( lol are u serious, please change it man ). the reader thinks now the scale of casualties is between 288.000 and 450.000 but its sure that there where more then 400.000 ( including pows ) because the lower estimate doesnt include pows. the qualtiy of english wiki is alarming. -- HROThomas (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do i look like the person who enters every single piece of information, is this the Overlord talk page? Am i the person who devised the idea that war time casualties include all losses including prisoners?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

u reverted my edits, i tried to make it more logical u reverted it -- HROThomas (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Coming from you those are a very strange choice of words...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

u are incompetent -- HROThomas (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So incompetent that i have managed to help promate several articles to FA status and am studying in uni? You obviously dont understand what the word means ... all you have done is bitch and moan about faults in articles and have done next to nothing to support the crap your talking about or edit he faults out (i.e. the faults you claim were in the Goodwood article i.e. you wanted to include people who did not die in the operation and wanted to go agaisnt well sourced records, including German ones, and say more German tanks were destroyed than was); you sir are someone who thinks hes a now-it-all but just sprouts crap :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Is HROThomas an ingenious prankster? I must say I've enjoyed the comments. :o)Keith-264 (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt go that far Keith! lol but i do agree most of his comments have been a right laugh to read over the past few days.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re ::
Excellent question! As far as I'm aware, it's a non-standard replacement for an emdash. I've only seen it used a very few times, in translations into English by non-native English speakers, so I've assumed it's a carryover from another language (though I have no idea which). That's just my take on it though... EyeSerene talk 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

RAF Middle East Command
Because it's clearly stated that Middle East Command is a British Army formation. User:489thCorsica made the mistake of thinking it was a triservice formation, which is was not. He added Air Force C-in-Cs information, which with the NB note tipped the scales on creating RAF Middle East Command, which I created. It's linked in the text, though obviously not very prominently if you missed it. Hope that explains things. Buckshot06(prof) 08:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Op Charnwood
Congrats on the FA, and apologies that my wikibreak coincided with the latter part of the candidacy. Nice work ;) EyeSerene talk 09:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ORS2
Report 17, 'Analysis of German Tank Casualties in France 6 June to 31 Augut 1944', (pp399-407).

The data concerns only tanks falling into Allied hands in the surveyed area. Recovered tanks are not included. All Panther and Tiger tanks were examined, no Pz III and only a small number of PzIV.

6 Jun - 7Aug; AP = 53(48%), Hollow Charge = 8(7%), HE Arty = 9(8%), Mines = 1(1%), Aircraft Rockets = 7(6%), Air cannon = 3(3%), Bombs = Nil, Destroyed by crew = 7(6%), Abandoned = 4(4%), Unknown = 18(17%).

8 - 31Aug; 24(11%), 1(0.4%), 4(2%), Nil, 7(3%), 1(0.4%), 2(1%), 108(48%), 63(28%), 13(6%). In this phase, recovery of tanks was small so the numbers are considered representative.

Report 4, 'Air Attacks on Enemy Tanks and Motor Transport in the Mortain Area, August 1944', (pp 173-180).

Pilot claims, 7-10th Aug (in 'Destroyed', 'Probably Destroyed' and 'Damaged'); AFV's 153/43/56 = 252 (US & RAF), MT 148/20/60 = 228 US & RAF).

Ground survey (AFV), (Rocket/Gun/Bomb) = 15/4/2= 21, (Abandoned/Destroyed by crew/ " by US Army/Unknown) = 9/4/29/15 = 78. ..............(MT), 2/10/0 = 12, 4/1/7/26 = 50.

Pilot claims were 400% in excess of survey. Note, an unknown number of indirect effects of air attack (such as inducing crews to demolish or abandon vehicles) were not claimed.

Apolly-lollogies for keeping you waiting.Keith-264 (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle for Caen
Your recent edits to Battle for Caen have broken some named in-line citations. Hohum (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Mrg
Thanks Enigma, sounding like a 'tattletale' doesn't come into it. That editor is indefblocked for disruptive socking (and appears to be promising to continue), so I really appreciate your note. I've blocked the two IPs and rolled back all the edits from those accounts I could easily get at. If you run across them again, please let me know ;) EyeSerene talk 08:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

GARDEN denied
As I pack my library, I came across Chris Bishop's The Military Atlas of World War II. It has three maps devoted to Operations Market-Garden: one showing the air lift routes, another, the airborne DZs, and a third showing the 1st Airborne landing zones.

Not a word about the objective of the operations, or that the small pink blob on the bottom of the second map labelled 2 British XXXX was in fact the primary agent of their success.

In regards to the airborne drop zones, Bishop starts the introduction to the map with " The 9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions had been sent to the Arnhem area to refit and reorganize.", but of course they were not. They were a good 10 miles outside of Arnhem, and if you know anything about military movement control, the officer in charge of the movement is concerned only with the orders, including final destination, not the post-event suggestion they were sent there because of the possible (as suggested in the article) targeting of Arnhem for Allied airborne operations by Wehrmacht intelligence.

Similarly, Kurt Student in 1949 wrote an article stating that "The 1st British Airborne Division had the misfortune to be opposed by the only large German panzer formation - the 9th SS Panzer Division - which was reorganising close to Arnhem.", in this managing to lie five times in one sentence since:
 * military operations are not based on considerations of 'fortune',
 * a panzer division in Wehrmacht was a unit and not a formation (i.e. II SS Panzer Corps is formed from non-organic units assigned to its HQ, a division has organic sub-units),
 * it was not large, lacking all its tanks (in repair), the rest being two (2) Jagdpanzer IVs,
 * it was not the 'only, unit in the area, the 10th SS Panzer was following on the tracks,
 * it was not at the time reorganizing close to Arnhem, but de-training from the journey to get to Apeldoorn because that area offered more places to hide a panzer corps!

The same source that is devoted to the German armour at Arnhem claims the SdKfz250s were a possible threat to the "lightly armed paratroopers" who were in fact armed with literally hundreds of AT weapons that were used not only to destroy half the vehicles in the 9th's reconnaissance battalion (SdKfz 250s and 251s), but later destroying and disabling StuGs, StuH42, Pz IIIs and IVs, Tiger Is and French B2s.

Beware of author's perspective and intentions when reading sources. The author's agenda is as important as the facts he/she presents to the reader--58.168.108.109 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, although i should note that i am studying history at university level and have been looking at the Second World War for quite a number of years; am well aware of the need to assess sources and the authors intentions.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle for Caen
As Hohum points out above, your recent edits to Battle for Caen have created quite a mess in the references section. I frankly don't have time to fix it, and the article would look much better fixed. Bsimmons666  (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have sorted this issue out just after you raised it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Official Histories
Yo've been a bad influence Enigma, they're a bit habit forming. I've got Mediterranean III and V, Normandy I, 1916 II and RAF 1916 vol 2 now. [;-).Keith-264 (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have the same sort of bad influence of people when i say am going the chippy too! :) I really like the Med series, i have only read two back to back and did start on the third but gave up at some point. Very good books to flick through for information although the VIE series does fall short at points i think its quite a good start. Overall well worth the money imo, its a pity they didnt use the annotated and sourced copy (for government use iirc) when they decided to launch the reprints.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

V-B
I altered the last word but I thought that you wrote the sentence. Are you looking for a reference?Keith-264 (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I wonder if it was Badsey? 'Normandy 60 yrs On'?Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Didn't I pass on some E-mails from him?Keith-264 (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(aside) Apologies for that! EyeSerene talk 18:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No probs! :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

See 'Badsey'above.Keith-264 (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

M-G
How does 'The Market Garden campaign : Allied Operational Command in northwest Europe, 1944' grab you? I downloaded it from Ethos http://ethos.bl.uk/Home.do  Definitely a site to see.Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ill check it out, does it cost anything to place an order?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Some things cost but not this one, it's instant download.Keith-264 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice one, ill check out the Market Garden stuff over the weekend. Ive just downloaded S A Hart's thesis on Monty and the 21st Group; looks like this is essentially the draft for Colossal Cracks.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the M-G thing sides against Bradley and Eisenhower so clearly. Eisenhower comes across as a generic manager!Keith-264 (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just poking around that site - just downloaded the market garden essay btw, looks like intresting reading - and i spotted a thesis entitled: "the Role of 56th (Independant) Infantry Brigade During the Normandy Campaign June-September 1944"; doesnt really look like a good start when he has misspelt Independent and not capatlised the opening word. lol bit bitchy i know!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Perch
I think it looks good. My view of it is that we need to tell it as it really was and keep an eye on the way that events were used then and since as polemic, without falling into the trap of POV, which isn't easy as many historians and writers have either copied earlier work uncritically or used V-B for more polemic. What strikes me now is that only a part of the 7th Armd Div was sent round the flank to precipitate a withdrawal and then got blamed for bouncing off a fresh (unexpected) force of Tiger tanks. The repulse of the German counter-attack and the absorption of these resources around V-B (a 47 tank Tiger battalion is reduced to 15 and it never rises beyond 20 operational tanks for the rest of the campaign) seems to get short shrift, as does the excellent inter-army cooperation between XXX Corps and V US Corps. The orders the Germans got from Rommel to stop counter-attacking, which Badsey mentions must have had some effect. That bloke who did the PhD also pointed out that the reinforcement of Normandy with the arrival of 21st Pz Div and another good infantry div made the early objectives of the invasion unrealistic - that what happened to the Germans at V-B occurred to the British at Caen. What I'd like to know is what Tedder was up to, snake in the grass that he was.Keith-264 (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC) From what I remember Badsey mentions Rommel ordering a temporary defensive on the ?12th which might have determined the 101SSPzA's use to plug the gap rather than reinforce PzLhr? I don't have my copy so I can't check.Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't had time to look at it properly yet, but just as a general observation, we should go with what the sources call it ;) EyeSerene talk 17:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I won't be able to look at my copy until Wednesday so I'll let you know.Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Bugger! I didn't manage to get it so anything else from me will have to wait I'm afraid.Keith-264 (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ill pull it from the article for now and put it forward for FAC; we can always add it back in at a later date.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems sensible. I noticed you've made the FAC nom, so I'll whip through the lead some time very soon (I think that was the only area outstanding, and it's pretty good anyway) EyeSerene talk 13:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice one. I thought i would try and get it out the way now because i have my final exam for my first year at uni mid month so i wont have allot of time on here over next few weeks and also while the subject is fresh in my head.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Farce
Sorry I was unable to contact you earlier after reverting your edit, but was called away. The funny thing about the "Mobile Farce" is that its funnier if you have eaten in Germany, and the reason I remembered this about the Mobile Force in North Africa. You see, in German, 'Farce' sounds close to Farsch, and during the Cold War there were a lot of references to 'mobile forces'. Now, farsch is used with Fischfleisch, which together is Minced Fish meat. So, I suspect that Perowne being a diplomat would have eaten in Berlin before, and what he really was saying is that the British tanks would have been made minced meat of, and fish meat at that, but the writer quoted in the article probably never lived in Germany, or eaten German food. It was a culinary in joke; few British Army officers I suspect were used to eating German cuisine at that time :)--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Hill 262 & Copp
For the section on the talkpage where you detailed the "Copp info", which book was that from? We have two listed in the refs, and I need to fix the refs to clarify :P EyeSerene talk 08:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks EyeSerene talk 13:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Wittman
While I wholeheartedly support your inclusion of the clearly-sourced and verified statement that Wittman was one of the top Panzer aces of WWII, in fairness I have to also caution you regarding WP:3RR. I've already issued a full warning to the IP user who keeps deleting the material. If he persists I will, as a (comparatively) neutral third party, request semi-protection for the page, which will keep non-registered users from editing it. Alan (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do understand the rules and will leave it yours, and others, capable hands.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:VB Sitrap.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:VB Sitrap.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Stifle (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:VBTiger.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:VBTiger.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:VB Sitrap.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:VB Sitrap.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hill 112
I've ordered a (relatively cheap) copy of JJ How's book. I'll let you know if there'sanything in it we don't know asap. I got my 'Normandy 60 Years on' but I don't think the comments by Badsey are enough to hang as much on as was originally in the article, just a bit about Rommel temporarily ordering a defensive.Keith-264 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

'Hill 112', J J How. A splendid book which is clearly the source for much writing on Operations Epsom and Jupiter since its publication. How manages a good balance between detail, generalisation and analysis, although some readers may resent the generally 'pro-Monty' narrative. I suspect that Kevin Baverstock will not like his somewhat disdainful comments about the Tyneside Scottish battalion about which he wrote so well in 'Breaking the Panzers' but then where would the British army be without a few sardonic remarks about other units?

How points out that for many British units, Epsom was their debut and was fought against many Eastern Front veterans, yet that it took elements of six SS and Panzer divisions to contain the offensive and eliminated the counter-offensive capacity they had left. Result! Oh and the maps are good too. Keith-264 (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Verrieres, Totalize, Hill 262
Verrieres in particular is being hit rather hard by this guy. If this persists much longer, I'll request semi-protection for Totalize & Verrieres. Cam (Chat) 22:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to also think that this guy might not be where we discussed in my email, given that it's nearly 1AM there. Hopefully you're asleep at the moment, unlike this guy. Cam (Chat) 23:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Although i paid a late visit to the site last night and saw what a mess was being caused it would have been around 3 there. I think your quite right.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Earthling, have you stopped spitting fire at your saboteur yet? I'm sure this'll cheer you up, 'Hill 112' has arrived, a little battered but highly welcome. Keith-264 (talk) 11:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

i respond —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.193.199.34 (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Totalize issue
"Forget about the ratios, they dont work in real life", empirical ratios are empirical because they are empirical. if the battle gots bigger the ratio will be close to the statistic, thats math. the KIA/WIA ratio is influenced by factors like overall sani system, style of warfare WEATHER and if the u hold the terrain ... . for example operation overlord 40k KIA 150K WIA = 1/3,75. overlord was in the summer and the most time the allied captured ground .... . example 2 battle of the bulge = winter + withdrawl = KIA/WIA = 1/1.8. operation totalize was a "standart" normandy battle. allied advance takes ground germans fail with counterattack so the 1/3 is "high likely". in the german wiki the article should be as simple as possible so grandmoms can understand. and i think when a grandmom sees 12xx + she thinks the real casualties are next to 1200, but they arent .... . i think a compromise would be let your 1200x in the box ( i think its wrong but cant do anything against it ) but name the likely ratio in the article so the reader can estimate if he wants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.162.3 (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering yesterday you were talking about how we, the editors who have taken time out of our private lifes to make these articles as accurate as possible, were going agaisnt all procedure; now you want to start adding figures, for lack of a better word, that we have pulled out of our asses so some "grandmom" can feel happy? Everything on the wiki should be referenced to a reliable published source. On top of which i feel like you are insulting the intellegience of the regular person. If a box states "at least xxxx" i think people are smart enough to realise that means at least and not the end of the subject.
 * So not only do you insult us editors you are insulting the intellegience of the general public. Your attitute is pathetic in my honest opinion.
 * If you are so commited to making the articles even more accurate, which is the goal of us editors, you would'nt be vandalising these articles, accusing of us of everything under the sun and more importantly you would be trying to be helpful. Instead of moaning and growning - go find a better source....--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox issue
goodwood and atlantic infobox name the same german divisions. physic rule: one thing cant be at 2 places at the same time. it would be better to use the phrase "elements of". its an overall problem i guess. german division were battered over the time ( 12 SS for example ) but infoboxes always show them as full divisions. allied divisions were full strenght german ( and july or autumn ) maybe 1/3. so 6 divisions against 6 divisions meant 3 times more soldiers on allied side. the "strenght" section should show the real situation ... . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.162.3 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your Mr Thomas arnt you?
 * If the historian Mr Simon Trew informs the reader three German armoured divisions took part in this battle then that supercedes your opinion. Do you have evidence to contary that clearly states these three divisions fought in the battle? I would suggest Mr Simon Trew believes the three divisions fought in the Goodwood battle at one point or another?
 * On top of which, a division - especially a mobile one - is flexable and can fight more than one battle at a time; it can move from one battle to the other. For example look at how the 7th Armoured Division was stretched around a ~15 mile advance, how the Panzerlehrdivision was able to oppose that advance and yet still fight other British formations miles away. A further example could be the 7th Armoured Division at Beda Fomm, the entie division was stretched out across the desert but still engaged in the battle.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

u missed the point. the strenght section is for comparision of the STRENGTHS. one method do compare is counting units! u did. but counting divisions which are not equal in strenght doenst inform the reader about the STRENGHT situation. and when divisions fight in two battles at the same time then its LOGIC that only elements of this divisions took part. 1 or 2 regiments in 1 and 1 in another. i hope u know that the 12 SS for example will NOT fight in goodwood and then move completly while fighing to another front. in my opinion its really simple. comparing number of divisions which are totally different in manpower brings NO information to the reader. the reader will think 3 against 3 means equal strength. if u say this is not so your are lying to protect your work.... . in german articles they start to delete the boxes because they are to simple and misleading the reader. editors are able with ease to imply something.... . only as an information for u.

AND the problem is that all these "accuranceproblems" are against german side. in verrieres ridge iam not allowed to count the british division which are named in the same article with sources ?!? why?

if u want to compare the strenghts the thousands of bombers and guns should be mentioned in the box, but iam sure there is a good reason to do it not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.162.3 (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Blah blah blah - evidence.....

i will edit goodwood soon, i wrote on the discussion page why and what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.152.98 (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Re V-B FAC
I think we could just renominate (tbh it may be simpler to unarchive the FAC, but I don't know if they'll do that). I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates, so I suppose we need to wait and see what the FA people say. EyeSerene talk 09:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been recommended we wait a week then renominate. Your call, mon ami ;) EyeSerene talk 07:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's process for the sake of process IMO, but there we go. It'll give me time to plug away at other stuff I've been putting off, so every cloud and all that... EyeSerene talk 07:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I normally use Inkscape - it's an open-source vector graphics editor, and reasonably straightforward as long as you're familiar with working with layers and paths etc. If you like though, I don't mind having a go at doing that map. I quite enjoy the change from text-editing :) EyeSerene talk 10:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No that's no problem at all. If you're after something like Photoshop, I think GIMP would be closer (also open-source). I use both, but GIMP doesn't do scalable vector graphics (svg) so it's more suitable for illustrations other than maps. I find it useful for cleaning up photos, creating web-page banners, wallpapers, that sort of thing. EyeSerene talk 10:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm not teaching much today so I should hopefully be able to make a start (if I can get my backlog of assessment marking out of the way :P) EyeSerene talk 08:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Style - parentheses
Please refer to WP:MOS. There is no objection, either on Wikipedia or in standard English usage, to complete sentences being placed in brackets to indicate a "by the way" piece of information, indirectly linked to the preceding sentence or sentences. I note also that in your post to me, of only two short sentences, you contrived to misspell "Ridiculous", "sentence" (four times), "incorporated", "brackets", "supposed", "separate", "discussed", "amended" and "summarised". Please note correct spellings. You also placed a greengrocers' apostrophe after "parentheses", and used the incorrect case for the personal pronoun "I". This does not exactly inspire me to accept your criticisms of my punctuation. HLGallon (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will lay off you, and the article for the moment; I have made my points. As a general rule however, I do not think MS Word should be relied upon as a crutch for proper spelling, grammar and punctuation. I come from a generation which could be caned at school for truly execrable English; and whatever may be said about the perverts who could mete out such punishment, it has left me with, I hope, a reasonable grasp of written English. HLGallon (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Operation Colossus
Could you please take up such matters on article talkpages before adding tags? They look untidy and are very negative. I'll look for a source now. Skinny87 (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:VB_Sitrap.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:VB_Sitrap.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ARMOURD DIAGRAM
I would suggest both --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

V-B map
Although I'm on Wikibreak (kinda), I've had a tinker with that map. My version is uploaded at File:Villers-Bocage ambush.svg. If it's ok, you'll need to fill in the source details ;) ATB, EyeSerene talk 22:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

north africacampaign
are u citing playfair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

his claims about everythin related to aircraft seem to be incorrect. number of aircraft, number of destroyed aircraft, in many articles. for example discussion page of tunisia campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

can u print the exact sentences, saying only 150 lost aircraft in tunisia please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

NA
Hi.

I've put some figures in. I'm not sure about French losses, I've replaced this with a "?" as it needs to be cited. Dapi89 (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

best fighting force incompetent British Army
i accept your capitulation, cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have struck through your title as that was never the intention of the topic, the idea was to give you some insight of where you could go and expand your limited knowledge.
 * However you prove a complete waste of time talking to...your quite deluded...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * DFTT ;) EyeSerene talk 09:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, as someone much wiser than me once said, "never wrestle with a pig—you get dirty and the pig enjoys it" :) EyeSerene talk 17:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooochie-coo Enigma, in between encounters with your stalkers, how have your exams gone?Keith-264 (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

British Army during the Second World War
Since you have moved this article can I hope you finish the job and change all the references to WWII in the text ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Myrtle :(
she was at Arnhem you know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.8.202 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Re V-B map
Apologies from me too, only just seen your latest. I've noticed you've added the key :) The FAC seems to be going slowly again - what is it with this article that isn't attracting reviewers? EyeSerene talk 10:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

PS Forgot to mention, thanks very much for your going above and beyond to source that stuff for Verrieres Ridge. I've put it into the article. This isn't the first time you've done this (there's Hill 262 and others), so...