Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of La Haye-du-Puits

&laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Battle of La Haye-du-Puits
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

This is an article that Gog and I worked on some time back. It is unusual in that it is about the American Army in the Normandy campaign. While the Brits and Canadians have subjected Normandy to exhaustive study in the last few years, the Americans have not shown much interest, preferring to produce yet another book on the Battle of the Bulge. To say that the battle described in this article is not well known would be a major understatement, but I feel that it deserved one. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  18:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Support from Wtfiv

I thought I'd give a try to help out with this article. I'm coming as a reader who knows nothing about this aspect of the Normandy campaign, so much of what I'm bringing up is requests for clarification. So many of the comments are more organizational.


 * Lead
 * First paragraph reads more like the beginning of the second. Shouldn't first paragraph give a brief summary of the battle: its purpose and significance?
 * ✅ Reorganised the lead along these lines.
 * In the first paragraph (even if it is moved to later) what was the purpose of straightening the line? Should that be made clear to the casual reader?
 * ✅ Re-worded this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Infobox
 * Shouldn't casualties be given, both in the infobox and in a later section?
 * If I can find some. Both the German and American casualty figures I have include those from other actions occurring at the same time. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider changing This paved to It paved
 * ✅ Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Background
 * Shouldn't the background section be setting the stage for the battle? At the end of this section, a reader who is not already familiar with Normandy would not know why the battle was being fought or how this would involve Middleton's units.
 * ✅ Move section as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Opposing Forces
 * Background is high-level strategic, but opposing forces moves immediately to equipment and context. The article jumps from high-level strategic to squad-level tactics. It seems a smoother transition would be to set up in (Background) Why Middleton's Corps would need to move forward, then this section would move down to a strategic oveview within the scope of the battle, explaining the units that make up Middleton's Corps and then, the German forces opposed to them. The following comments will assume that Opposing Plans follows Background. Opposing forces could go just before Battle, giving context to the issues faced in the battle.
 * ✅ Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Opposing Plans-American
 * I suggest moving up Opposing Plans to follow Background. This would make the flow of description from larger strategic to fine-grained tactical more smooth.
 * Since the initiative is with the United States forces, they should be covered first.
 * The first paragraph of the United States in Opposing forces seems like it is well suited to being integrated as the last paragraph of Background. The second paragraph seems like it is the start of the battle, so would begin the next section following background.
 * ✅ Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ¶ 2. Mentions three division and then only discusses two. All three could get brief mention in the first paragraph as part of the VIII, placing their relative geographic position and objectives. final sentences of ¶ 3. with the mission of the 82nd could be part of the previous paragraph that outlines the mission of all three divisions in the corps. It would help the reader get an overall sense of how the three divisions were orchestrating the advance.
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If ¶ 2. Were restructured, ¶ 3. Could discuss the problematic nature of the 90th and the experience of the 82nd. It could also note that the 82nd was scheduled to be taken out of the line once it was pinched out.  Might want to mention why it was being moved out.
 * ✅ Added an explanation. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, this would make a good place for discussion of it being replaced by the 8th Inf. In ¶ 3. The discussion of the 8th Infantry Division was a bit confusing. On the first read, I was unsure how it moves the narrative forward. It was described as not yet deployed on the continent and it isn't playing an active role in the upcoming narrative of the battle. Reading later in the article, I find out that it does play an active role in the battle, though that's not clear here. If the 8th Infantry is going to be mentioned, maybe it could be mentioned mentioned later or reintegrated a bit more smoothly.
 * ✅ Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ¶ 3. The penultimate sentence starts Its mission, would that be the 82nd or the 8th? Context says 82nd, anaphor says 8. I think a rewrite explaining all four divisions would be good. (Maybe giving 8th's expected time of arrival?  And it might help readers if the order of the units described is the order of the units described in the battle.
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ¶ 3. 82nd is described as most experienced of the three divisions, but the description of the VIII corps as a three Corp division had not yet been introduced. It enters unexpectedly. Also its geographic position relative to the other two is unclear. (The map shows it has the middle position between them, it wasn't expected to take la-Haye-du-Puits, but just the hills due north.
 * ✅ I think it says this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Opposing Plans-German
 * As mentioned, German subheading might be better following United States. It seems to me to make for a smoother narrative as the Germans are responding to American initiative.
 * Consider integrating first sentence of the first paragraph integrated into background. It's a higher-level strategic point that not about the immediate front, but the British front. It is important information that lets the reader know that German options were already restricted by issues outside the immediate scope of the battle being described.
 * ✅ Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ¶ 2. begins with the discussion of the Seventh Army and then goes into detail about the terrain it held. I think the last two paragraphs would be a bit clearer for readers if it paralled the American description: (1) Seventh army was deployed in depth with counterattack reserves. (2) Description of LXXXIV Corps (3)Description of the terrain that it held.  It would make the introduction of the Mahlmann line and the 353rd more clear.
 * ✅ Moved as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ¶ 3. By accident or design, the position was held in great depth Doesn't the description of Haussner's echelon-in-depth deployment for the army suggest it was by design?
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ¶ 3. Suggest rewording last two sentences to make the reserve status of the 15th parachute Division and 2nd SS the topic of the sentence. (Making it clear they weren't initially part of LXXIV's command structure.)
 * ✅ Clarified. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile having a section summing of casualties on both sides, if at all possible would help clarify total losses. German losses are unclear. There is mention of 578 casualties, but it sounds like that was just one day's fighting. One of the key points in the lead is the cost to both sides, so it would help give a sense of the fighting. The strain of the casualties on the Germans is also given as part of the significance of the battle in the lead, so it would help to illustrate this point.
 * Battle 3-7 July
 * Consider starting starting from east to west: 79th first, as it is introduced first, 82nd second, 90th last. At the end of the section on the 90th,
 * it might be worth mentioning that the 82nds pinch out wasn't complete. The 90th was still three miles from the 79th. (This is in the next section but it seems worth noting that the objective wasn't obtained, as it sounds like it was one of the criteria for moving out the 82nd. It'd be a good summing up of what the 90th had (or hadn't) accomplished.
 * Somewhere in here it might be worth noting the 82nd was taken out of the line. In the narrative it, just disappears in the next section.  It might also make the introduction of the 8th Infantry more clear to a reader.
 * 8-14 July
 * Casualties
 * Aftermath
 * I may have missed it, but I'm not sure how the aftermath directly addresses the impact of this battle on the subsequent campaign. Is there anything that can be added.  What goals were met by the Germans?  What goals by the Americans?  That would inform the final bit of the lead.
 * Would it help to mention it was the XIX Corps that struck St. Lo, since the First Army is in the midst of this battle too? Did operations here have any impact on the attack on St. Lo?

, I was waiting for a ping on this one when you were done. Should I take a look again or should I wait?


 * Have a look again. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Wtfiv-second round of comments

Thanks for reorganizing the material. For me, the context of this battle is becoming more clear. I have a second round of comments as I feel I get dive a little deeper into the details.


 * Opposing Forces- German
 * First paragraph feels like background involving the higher-ups focused on larger strategic issues—Rommel and Rundstedt—, larger entities beyond the scope of the article—Army Group B— and operations outside of Middleton's operation—Epsom and Caen—seem more appropriate in the background section. The "American" section begins with the actual forces, it'd be good if this does too, and German strategic concerns can be moved to background. (Minor suggestion follows) the second paragraph already mentions depth, so maybe a bit of the first paragraph can be integrated into it to make it clear what defense in depth means.
 * ✅ Moved paragraph as suggested. Linked defence in depth. It explains it in the next clause. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 3–7 July: 82nd Airborne
 * This may not be an issue, but the earlier narrative was that the 82nd was to be pinched out. Once it obtained its objectives, did it remain static for the remainder of the campaign or was it withdrawn for refitting?  As the narrative is written, it is not mentioned again, so as a reader, I'd assume it remained in position until 14 July.  If that's not correct, a final sentence describing its fate would help readers.
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 3–7 July: 79th Infantry -¶4
 * The Germans were dealt with. How? Were the tanks destroyed or retreated? "Germans" sounds like there were more than three AFVs.
 * ✅ There were only three. The source says: "Because artillery and antitank weapons reacted effectively, the disruption to the attack proved only temporary". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * A task force consisting. Sentence is a bit long with two conjunctions. First blames slow progress on terrain, second artillery. Suggest deleting "and" and using new sentence. Consider final clause with following section on counterattack using "and", as both address German action. And is the "too" needed?
 * ✅ Deleted "too". Split sentence. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The last sentence has me a bit confused. I think it is meant as a summing up of the section, but it isn't clear. The paragraph focuses on the 314. It mentions the 315th that was discussed in ¶3.
 * I'd suggest something like shifting the mention of the 315th after the second sentence: Here's one suggestion: start the paragraph "On On the morning of 5 July, Wyche". Then add the bit about the 315th, as it would continue the narrative of the previous, then shift to the travails of the 314th, ending with the failure of the envelopment, which should be obvious to the reader from the repulse of the 314th.
 * ✅ Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 3–7 July: 90th Infantry
 * ¶6 Consider rearranging first sentence. One of the key points of the sentence includes that the mortar and artillery fire was hard to suppress. The following sentence appears to be referencing the artillery and mortar fire as well. The sniper fire feels like a tack on. Consider putting the sniper fire first or separating some other way.
 * ✅ Done. You had me confused because there was no reference to snipers. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ¶7 Paragraph is implying that Hausser brought up the 15th Parachute due to casualties. If it is in the sources, it'd be good to state this explicitly, as reserves can be deployed for other reasons.  This ambiguity may be resolved by moving the Hausser sentence after the point about troop losses.
 * ✅ For other reasons. Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 8–14 July: 8th Infantry Division
 * ¶1 This paragraph is still a bit unclear. I can get that the 8th was suppose to relieve the 90th, but it takes a bit of figuring this out. Sentence 1 describes how the 8th was intended to be deployed. Second two is a bit confusing, as it seems to be describing the present state of affairs. Or is it describing why the 8th was originally going to move to Foret de Mont Castre? Or is the 3 mile gap a disruptive aspect of the decision.  For the last two sentences: The first sentence states the 8th would disrupt the German attack, but doesn't make it clear it was intended to be deployed for a spoiling attack. (It's deployment could have disrupted the attack by filling a gap, for example.)
 * Reading further, I think this section could be strengthened by reorganizing. Current structure looks like this:
 * ¶1 Intended deployment of 8th, state of 90th, shift of plan for spoiling attack, failure of deployment
 * ¶2 Introducing 8th, discussing its greenness, the German counterattack
 * ¶3 Officers being killed or relieved.
 * Would it be possible to rearrange this? Here's one suggestion, but you may be able to do better:
 * ¶1 Keep the first sentence of intentions, and maybe the second sentence up to the clause link up with the 79th Infantry division. then introduce the division.
 * ¶2 Discuss the situation in one smooth flow: Problem of original plan due to 90th being behind schedule, german plans, 8th to be used for spoiling attack, plan failed, German attack failed, 8th not advanced
 * ¶3 Discuss the change of command structure. Beginning with MacMahon relieving two commanders for failure, Walker's death (how? seems important given he gets a service cross.) Ultimately, MacMahon's relief? (Explicitly why?)
 * ✅ Changed as suggested. Walker had a ship named after him, but no Wikipedia article.
 * Eisenhower "recognized that while McMahon was unsuited to a combat command he had his uses as a staff officer and used networking knowledge to place him with Lieutenant-General Mark Clark, commanding general of Fifth U.S. Army in Italy. Clark had been McMahon's roommate at West Point, and the two had been good friends ever since. Eisenhower initially contacted Devers, Clark's superior officer, playing down the reasons behind McMahon's relief."
 * "In my opinion this division was well trained by McMahon before going into action but due to certain rather unusual conditions and to inexperience throughout the division, a considerable confusion resulted which was at least partially traceable to him and which necessitated his relief. I think McMahon still has real usefulness either in command or in a staff position but I think it would be difficult for him to function successfully in this theatre at this time."


 * McMahon was accepted as Fifth Army's deputy chief of staff, G-1, Personnel. Eisenhower then explained McMahon's case to Marshall:
 * "McMahon has been relieved from the battle line by his corps commander, fully concurred in by Bradley, for failure to lead his division effectively. His division had been in action only four days but both corps and army commander felt that his test had been sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that he is not, repeat not, a good division commander in spite of acknowledged qualifications along other lines... I know he has many fine qualifications, and in my opinion it was tension and over anxiety that caused his poor performance as a division commander."


 * Source


 * Aftermath
 * The discussion of Eisenhower's key factors seems like a summing up. Do you think it would have more context after the discussion of the casualties in ¶2 and ¶3?
 * ✅ Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Would the sentence beginning On 11 July, the First Army began... in the article's pentultimate paragraph be appropriate as the start of a new paragraph as it now introduces Saint Lo offensive and broadens out to the entire First Army? Looks good...support. Wtfiv (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I should have been all along. A bug with the Firefox browser caused the paragraphs to run together. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, I did't comment on them as the goal is to just get through the review, but thanks for the expanded explanations. Those moments, like when McMahon gets relieved but nobody wants to say why, are fascinating side point though best left out of the article. The conjectures come easy, but more interesting is that the generals "took care of their own."  I appreciate them. Wtfiv (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

just letting you know, to be on the safe side. Wtfiv (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Image review - pass
 * File:L'Haye-du-Puits en haut à droite du cliché Havre de Saint-germain-sur-Ay.jpg - link is dead for me and the CC 3.0 doesn't work for how the image was originally published
 * The site says the image was taken from the US National Archives. Unfortunately, archivesnormnadie has gone dark and the Wayback machine has done its usually poor job of archiving. But you can tell it was taken by a US reconnaissance aircraft. I found another copy here Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Bocage country at Cotentin Peninsula.jpg source seems to be dead and probably should have the reference ID if possible instead of being undefined
 * The refid is p013493. Added an archive link. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Char léger en action Guerre des Haies 1944.jpg source link likewise doesn't work and agin the CC 3.0 doesn't work for the image's original publishing
 * Same story. Found another copy here and here.
 * File:Blessés américains périphérie de l'Haye-du-Puits Guerre des Haies.jpg same as above
 * Same as above. another copy. Added as an alternative. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You can see the US Army Signal Corps id in the image. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * File:GI américain sous le feu allemand Guerre des Haies.jpg same as above
 * Same as above.
 * File:American howitzers shell German forces.jpg - one source link is to a general home page, and the other is for the photographer (and doesn't work at least for me). Additionally, since the file is post-1929, a more specific PD tag will be needed than the one being used.
 * Added Flickr as an alternative. It is a PD image according to the National Archives I don't know why the Commons template is malfunctioning.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Saint Lo Breakthrough.jpg source link doesn't work
 * Added archive link. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hog Farm Talk 20:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I still don't think that the CC 3.0 tags are appropriate. The archivenormandie website may be distributing that under the CC 3.0 license, but we need something to indicate why that website is/was able to freely distribute the image, which would be a PD tag indicating the status of the actual work itself. Hog Farm Talk 18:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * All the images were taken from the US National Archives. Switched the CC 3.0 licences to the PD-USGov-Army one. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan
Hi, some comments: Generalleutnant That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Lieutenant General Omar Bradley's US First Army": consider rephrasing to "the US First Army commanded by Lieutenant General Omar Bradley" to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE? Also consider rephrasing in the body and for the Dempsey Second Army sentence?
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider adding a map?
 * There is already one there. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "the American troops of Major General Troy H. Middleton's VIII Corps": change to "the American troops of VIII Corps commanded by Major General Troy H. Middleton" to avoid SEAOFBLUE?
 * Link to Montgardon in the lead and body?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Remove the second link to Caen in the background section?
 * Removed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the American Mulberry?
 * Tweaked the wording. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The numbers for troop strengths and losses should be added to the infobox.
 * The problem here is that the figures for both sides include casualties not part of the battle. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider listing these non combat casualties separately, either on another line or somewhere else in the infobox? Matarisvan (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean they include casualties incurred in other actions on the American front and in the case of the Germans, in some actions against the British, because detachments fought all over Normandy. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do no sources give these numbers separately? Matarisvan (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider adding a caption for the army movements map?
 * Added a caption. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Link to Omaha and Utah Beaches?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "that it still held": "that they still held"?
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "considered it was unwise": "considered it to be unwise" or "considered it unwise"?
 * Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the Sainte-Suzanne we mention here the same as Sainte-Suzanne-sur-Vire? Both are in the Manche department, so I think they might be.
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarify in one or two words what Ultra is, per NOFORCELINK?
 * Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Link to Vire river in the caption?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "the Company I's": remove the prefix?
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)
 * Link to the Wikitionary for knoll? I must confess I did not know what it meant.
 * Really? Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the Lastelle we mention here the same as Le Plessis-Lastelle? Both are in the Manche department, so I think they might be.
 * Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Add Tank Destroyer as the website for ref #56?
 * Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Add 4point2 as the website for ref #64?
 * Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Add the location of publication for Bradley 1983, Hastings 2006, Keegan 2006, Van der Vat 2003 and Williams 2004?
 * Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Link to Lionel Frederic Ellis in the biblio?
 * Consider removing the link for Collins? If one publisher is linked, then to be consistent you will have to link to the other publishers too.
 * Removed. I don't think that linking publishers adds much value. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Happy to support for promotion to A Class. Matarisvan (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review
Hi, my comments:
 * All sources seem to be published by reliable publishers. Consider adding a comma between Austin and Texas in Colby 1991.
 * Generated random numbers for spot checks using.
 * #6 and #12: okay.
 * #16: I could find text supporting this sentence: "The Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, wanted Bradley to commence the operation as soon as possible in order to prevent the Germans from consolidating their position.", but not this one: "Not all the American forces were in position, with many still in the north or yet to arrive from the UK, so Bradley elected to commit them piecemeal rather than wait. The advance would begin on his western flank; since the forces there had further to advance than those around Saint-Lô, all might reach the objective at the same time". Then again, I skimmed through the text and did not read it fully. If you could provide the page numbers for the latter two sentences, that would be great.
 * "Not all of the U.S. troops were in the Cotentin... Since the middle of June, while the major portion of the American strength had been operating against Cherbourg" (p. 38) "The VIII Corps, which comprised the army right flank on the west coast of the Cotentin, was to advance through la Haye-du-Puits to Coutances, a longer distance than that down the corridors leading south from Carentan to Periers and St. Lô. By having VIII Corps begin its advance first, General Bradley expected all the army elements to reach the objective line at the same time... Although General Bradley thus exposed himself to criticism for piecemeal commitment, he had no other logical choice." (p. 40)
 * #24: consider replacing the word "respected"? The source says "Germans stated American artillery was extremely effective... more powerful and devastating than Soviet artillery"
 * Reworded. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * #29, #42, #45, #51, #58, #79: ok.
 * #77: I could be wrong here but page 7 doesn't have any of the information which supports our text, we can narrow down the page range to pages 8-9. I also could not find anything supporting these sentences: "The battalion commander then ordered Company K and the attached platoon from the 712th Tank Battalion to advance from the south edge of the Foret de Mont Castre into the open fields beyond. As they emerged into the open, two tanks were knocked out by a German self-propelled gun located in an orchard to the south, and the third tank became bogged down and immobilized. Company K was pinned down by machine gun fire, and both the company commander and the executive officer were wounded. Company K withdrew under cover of darkness." Could you provide the pages in the source where supporting text could be found?
 * "The CO directed the reserve company (K) to move forward from the rear in order that all around security could be provided. Heavy enemy mortar fire from the vicinity of the knoll to the right front (see Point Y, Map C) and occasional artillery fire had commenced to fall within the battalion area immediately after Company I had captured the rocky hill and after the command group had resisted the counterattack... At 1800 the Battalion Commander ordered the attack resumed. Company K, with the tank platoon attached, was ordered to pass through Company L on the right, and to debouch from the south edge of the forest into the open field toward Lastelle.... As Company K advanced into the open fields it was met by heavy enemy fire from dug-in positions located to their front and right flank. Tanks 1 and 2 were knocked out immediately by a self-propelled gun firing from an orchard several hundred yards to the south. (See Map C) Tank 3 moved out into the open field, bogged down in a marshy area and was immobilized. (See Map C) Notwithstanding the loss of the tanks, Company K moved forward and reached the hedgerows as indicated on Map C. Companies I and L, in the meantime, were still heavily engaged with the enemy on the battalion’s right and left flank in the forest. At 2000, Company K’s advance was halted. Heavy fire from the front and flanks was inflicting heavy casualties. The Company Commander attempted to return to the forest to acquaint the Battalion Commander of the situation, but was severely wounded. (33) The Executive Officer, finding the company position untenable, also endeavored to reach the command group in order to request permission to withdraw his unit. He also became a casualty... As darkness descended, Company K was forced to withdraw to the forest." (pp. 8-9)

That was the source review done, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I think a lot of people do not appreciate how difficult source reviews can be. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The source review is a pass then. You need only one more support now for promotion to A Class. Matarisvan (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D
It's always good to see an article on the very interesting Normandy campaign here. I'd like to offer the following comments:


 * It hasn't attracted much attention on Wikipedia. In the literature, the Brits and Canadians have been analysing the campaign in Normandy in minute detail, but not the Americans. It wasn't easy putting this article together. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The first line of the lead isn't very punchy - I'd suggest adding something before the current one or tweaking it.
 * ✅ Added a conventional lead sentence. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The sentence starting with 'Major General Matthew B. Ridgway's' is very long
 * ✅ Split sentence. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (It arrived in Normandy on 3 July, two days early.) - it's a bit clunky presenting this like that
 * ✅ Re-worded.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "To support the attack, Middleton had nine battalions of medium and heavy artillery, including two battalions of 240 mm howitzers," - did this include the divisional artillery units?
 * ✅ I believe so. Each infantry division had one medium battalion. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "The Shermans were outclassed by the heavier German tanks" - this is true, but historians usually note that they were at least as good as the Panzer Mark IVs and assault guns that made up most of the German armoured force
 * ✅ The source says: "In the matter of tanks the Americans possessed no such advantage. Their standard tank, the M4 Sherman, a 33-ton medium, was relatively obsolescent. Although a few Shermans equipped with a high-velocity 76-mm. gun in place of the usual short-barreled 75 were to become available during the Siegfried Line Campaign, most medium tanks still mounted the 75. They plainly were outgunned,not only by the enemy's heaviest tank, the 63-ton Mark VI (Tiger), but also by the 50-ton Mark V (Panther) The Tiger, the Panther, and the medium Mark IV all had thicker armor than the Sherman." And MacDonald was actually there. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "The 82nd Airborne Division was to have been pinched out of the line, but by 7 July the 79th and 90th Infantry Divisions were still 3 miles (4.8 km) apart. On 11 July the 82nd Airborne Division moved to the beaches to return to the United Kingdom" - what replaced the division in the line?
 * ✅ The 8th Infantry Division. Added.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "About 90 percent of the American casualties were infantrymen; those among officers were particularly severe" - this is a bit unclear: were casualty rates among officers particularly high, or were they particularly likely to suffer serious injuries?
 * ✅ Particularly high. Changed "severe" to "high" to clarify.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)