Talk:Invasion of Normandy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Invasion of Normandy article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3
Former featured article Invasion of Normandy is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 1, 2004.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
Archive Index


Contents

[edit] Question about caption of picture accompanying this section.

The caption on the pic of the US soldiers viewing the body draped over the gun barrel of the German SP gun identifies them as 2nd Armored Division troops. The US soldier nearest the camera is wearing the patch of the 3rd Armored Division. Is the caption correct or were they actually 3rd AD troops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipdigit (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to changed it foreverDEAD 18:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought i dont no alot about army patches so it could be right foreverDEAD 18:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That soldier is indeed wearing the insignia of the 3rd Armored Division and not the 2nd as given in the image caption (the original source also says 2nd). So I'd tend to agree and say the original caption is incorrect...--Caranorn 19:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag Order

I see we've alphabetized the flag order. I'm not sure about that. For one thing, Poland is in there. That makes it seem like they did something considerable to what the Big 3 of the battle did. Another thing is that I don't think it's THAT debatable on what the order should be. Does anybody really have a disagreement with U.S. (most men/casualties), UK (2nd most men/casualties), Canada (3rd)? I'm not going to argue for or against the inclusion of Poland, as that's not what I'm responding for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.208.61 (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Not having them in alphabetical order is showing perferance to one over the other.

For two examples, some Italian WW2 buffs get ticked off over Germany being given perferance over the Italian forces in North Africa in situations like this. For example, Ambrose book 'D-Day' was slated by British readers for focusing on the Americans for the majoirty of the book, likewise having the United States at the top of this article could be seen in a simlar light.

Therefore having them Alphabetised avoids any needless discussion or argument. It also, in my opinion looks more professional. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, alphabetical ordering is generally the best option. It avoids inherently subjective judgements on the participants. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new proposal to split this article now that it's demoted from FA.

It's already been suggested before, but I feel it's time to split out the D-day portion of this article into a sub article (as per WP:SUMMARY). I have gone through the previous debates in the archives and from what I've read, this was the following objections that prevented the article from being split:

  • An early objection from Raul654 that stated that the article does a good job of describing the battle and the campaign. Argument repeated by Sverdrup
  • A later (still early) reason by Sfahey who objected because then the article would risk losing its FA status. (the argument was raised that a featured article is quite difficult to rename)
  • A 2006 debate that raised concerns about what to call the article and sub article.
  • A 2007 debate that complained that the article had grown oversized hence violating the WP:SIZE guideline. (the response being that Battle of Normandy had encompass both the invasion and the campaign afterward)
  • 2 recent suggestions to split the article that didn't amount to anything (WP:BOLD problems?).

Looking back at the debates, it seems that the FA status of the article was the primary reason that no-one dared to split this article. Well, this article is no longer featured, so arguments 1 and 2 no longer apply.

Indeed, one of the reasons that this article was demoted from FA was due to length concerns. With regards to argument 3 and 4, I'd argue is that this is a fault in the name of this article.

Battle of Normandy is an ambiguous term that can mean anything from the landings on the beach itself, to the entire Western Campaign up to the end of Sep'44. Maybe it had to do with the fact that this article had that star thingy at the top, or maybe not, but this article had to cover the full details of both Operation Overlord (a long article in and of itself), and then summarise the entire Normandy campaign all the way to the Liberation of Paris. The fault being that this article is actually the Campaign of Normandy and Operation Overlord merged into one. Were this article split into Invasion of Normandy, Normandy Campaign and Normandy Breakout, we wouldn't have any of these WP:SIZE problems.

It is for these reasons, and to sort out the WP:SIZE issue which cost this article its FA status, that I propose we break apart this article in two. My suggestions are to fork out the D-Day items into Invasion of Normandy and the campaign items into Normandy Breakout, with this article serving as the link (possibly rename to Normandy Campaign). --Oshah 12:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support this split 100%. Ive always felt that this artical could go into some serious depth. With separate articals we could fully address all the things of the landings breakout and campaign fully in depth. ForeverDEAD 14:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I support this proposed split as well, though with the caveat that the landing at Normandy still needs to be briefly covered in the Normandy campaign article as the landing was an important part of the campaign. A benefit of the split would be that the resulting shorter articles would be less intimidating to edit. --Nick Dowling 00:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I also support splitting the article. At its current state, it's over 106kb, which far exceeds recommended 35kb article length. It's far from readable in a sitting. The point of an article is not for our own good, but to produce a succinct, usable explanation of the topic for the reader. I also agree with the reasons stated above by Esskater11 and Nick Dowling. Parsecboy 00:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree at all that the article should be split. It offers a general overview of the struggle, which was one unified battle, and many historians handle it this way. The article's approach is sound. Indeed this was exactly the point raised by Land Forces Commander Mongtomery prior to the battle, that it was one, unified battle, taking in not only the initial landings but the subsequent struggle to breakout of the beachhead. Montgomery had to fight against the more limited concepts of planners who were mostly concerned with getting on the beach.
Rather than split the article, I think extraneous or non-essential information should be removed from it. Why for example is there a "Tourism" section? Or a "Dramatization" section dealing with films etc on Normandy? All of these are not fully relevant. The article couldb e cut by 15-20% by removing this andother non-essential information. It could be moved to a new articles- something like "Normandy in popular culture" or "Normandy battlefield Tourism" which would take care of the tourism thing.
I say keep the article as is, and split out if you will the non-essential filler.
That's exactly what I'm proposing. This article will be renamed to the Normandy Campaign, operation overlord will be forked off to the Invasion of Normandy, we've already got Operation Neptune, and the breakout will be detailed in a new article, the Normandy breakout (or perhaps Operation Cobra, I'll sort out article naming later). That way, we can cover all parts of the war in detail, rather than having this article which has to cover the background, the planning, the invasion (including which beach was which), the statistics, the result, the breakout, the aftermath, and the impact all in one article, all in complete detail.
It was one unified battle. It should be treated as such, and numerous histories treat it as such. If more detail is needed, then new articles on (a) prepration, (b) the landings and (c) the breakout should be developed. THis article is a "one stop" place that gives the big picture for a reader.
Size guidelines are just that, guidelines. 35K or even 70K is very unrealistic for a big topic like Normandy.
True, but with this article, there is such a natural split between the different operations, that there won't be the usual problems with content forking that other articles have (pov forks, trivia sections, lists). --Oshah 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
As for being hard to read, that does not appear to be the case, and in any event can be fixed with more sub-sections and headings to improve readibility.
Are you kidding? This article is anything but readable in one sitting (The FA version was much, much better at covering the battle). The reasons for unreadability were already covered in the featured article review. The sections are way too long (and they're mostly uncited), there is far too much detail about the individual beaches in this one article (naming fault), even if we take away the lists, we're still left with 78k of poorly organised prose.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the TOC is a complete and utter mess of headings and subheadings (see the manual of style to see how TOCs should be organised), and this was one of the reasons why this article lost its FA status. And your proposed solution is to mess up the TOC even more. --Oshah 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The are several weakness of the article now that need addressing. One is lack of references. They are thin. Also the article appears to be a "listing" of items in places. The "Invasion Plan" section for example is mostly a list of participating units, and does a thin job of describing the overall plan or concept of the struggle. Why for example were initial plans recast to add two more divisions to the assault force? What about the commnd setup? What changes were wrought by Montgomery for example? WHat was the concept of battle? Why is the Codenames section as such relevant? Why is the Eastern Front issue taking up so much space- more than the Breakout section. The list can go on and on. There is a lot more that needs fixing in this article than mere size issues. LackeyOfImperialism 18:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point but still if we split the articals up we could go into more detail and other things as you stated without making this page superlong. ForeverDEAD 20:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the three part split idea but I dont think this article needs to be split. It is supposed to be a "big picture" summary like a lot of write-ups you see onthe web. It needs a lot of work and cleanup and does not need to go all the way to Paris. It should stop at the breakout which several books do. I would recommend a new project called NORMANDY CAMPAIGN which would accomodate the 3-part separation. If you started a new article you could use the material from this one as a skeleton to build on. Start fresh and eliminate all the extra material about tourism or films, and work in the missing info. COpy as much as needed form this article to get started. I think that is a better approach. LackeyOfImperialism 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, that's the idea. This article is going to be drastically cut down in size, to be a broad summary of the entire campaign, with daughter articles for the landings and the breakout-onwards. Just like World War II has the Pacific War sub-article. Parsecboy 21:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the reasons for the split - size- is no longer such a pressing issue because the article could be cut 20% by removing things like Tourism or Dramatization, and reducing the Eastern Front side issue to 10-12 lines.
I've thought about splitting away the Eastern Front and Tourism/Dramatization into their own separate articles (just as long as they don't get sent to immediate AFD). However, that change only buys you 15K. The prose you really want to get rid of is all the details of the beaches. --Oshah 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It is taking up more space than Breakout and is really marginal to the topic. As for working in the other information, I think that is better done in a totally NEW article, called NORMANDY CAMPAIGN using as much as needed from this article to start things. The article is supposed to be a "big picture" summary, meaning it will be light in some areas. This is where a NEW more in-depth CAMPAIGN article comes in.
The WWII example is a "big picture" article -an example of what I am talking about. It is one unified article- wth sub-topics. the new CAMPIGN suggestionis similar. I am willing to start the CAMPAIGN article by copying over all the material and using that as a starting point.LackeyOfImperialism 21:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The term Battle of Normandy is incorrect. The correct name of this article should be Campaign of Normandy (as it deals with the series of military operations with the goal of taking control of the area). Already, we are dealing with naming issues, as the main article name is neither the proper name of the event (Campaign of Normandy), nor is it the popular name of the event (D-Day, or Operation Overlord).
Regarding the remark about the majority of historians treating it as one unified battle, that's not what I'm seeing from my references. Martin Gilbert, Stephen Ambrose, Dear+Foot all treat the invasion separately from the campaign which followed (specifically, they devote separate chapters/sections in their ww2 histories). John Keegan is one of the main historians that treat the conflict in a unified manner. And he had to cover every single aspect of the war in his ww2 book (except for dday-paris, which was more about the campaign).
Regarding Montgomery's comments, I thought that his comments were focused on the entire western front campaign all the way to VE day.--Oshah 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree with removing the extra material- Move Tourism, Dramatizations etc to a "holding" article and slash the Eastern Front text. It is ridiculous that we have more on the Eastern Front than the Normandy Breakout. I also agree that the article is not a true look at the 70-76 day Normandy Campaign as such. Acutally, 75% of it is D-Day landings. So essentially this article is msotly D-day landings. I have no problem then splitting off the post D-day campaign into another article so that it receives adequate treatment provided that the second post DDAY phase is fully developed.
If the proposed 3-part split were made more clear, I am amenable. If 3 clear divisions can be developed in the proposed reorganization, I have no objections, and would not stand in the way. (1)Landings (2) Breakout, (3)Falaisie Gap/Seine advance.
THis is a big task. Another alternative is to use a simpler 2-part division, Dday Landings and then the subsequent Post DDAY campaign ending with the close of the Faliase (sic) Gap and arrival of Allied armies at the Seine. The official US Army write-up divides Operation Overlord campaign into these 2 Phases basically:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/wwii/g4-OL/g4-OL.htm
Either way could work. If it can be pulled off in a coherent fashion then I have no problems with the change. LackeyOfImperialism 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been arguing for a split for awhile now and am in agreement with LackeyOfImperialism. IMO, our articles should be as follows:
  • Operation Overlord: Overview (Invasion (6 June) - Liberation of Paris (25 Aug))
    • Operation Neptune: Invasion and establishment (6 June - mid-July)
    • Breakout at Normandy: Breakout up to the end of Overlord (mid-July - 25 Aug)
Battle of Normandy would then become a disambiguation page pointing to all of those three. Oberiko 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split preview

Okay, I've created two articles: User:Oshah/Campaign of Normandy, and User:Oshah/Invasion of Normandy. Unfortunately, not much additional prose has been added to the article, and the Assault article isn't much shorter than before (sorry, I'm more of a cite guy than a good writer). I'm aware much more work on these two articles are required. However, seeing how it's the first major effort to fork this article since the loss of FA, I'm going to put them live next week. --Oshah 21:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Most excellent. Great job! :) Jmlk17 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
That looks like a good start. My only suggestion at this point is to change the name of the first article to Normandy Campaign, but that's just my personal preference. Parsecboy 21:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that actually Parsec... Jmlk17 22:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I personaly think "campain of normandy" is a better title ForeverDEAD 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Either will work; I'm not too hung up about it. It's all just a matter of taste. Parsecboy 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Normandy Campaign would be consistent with other articles and is better English IMO. I think that it's also the common name for this event - I've never seen 'Campaign of Normandy' in print. --Nick Dowling 01:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've renamed it to User:Oshah/Normandy Campaign. I probably need to rename the Invasion of Normandy too. I feel that Operation Overlord is the better name for the article (well actually, I feel that D-Day is the best name, but this already conflicts with the present D-Day one). --Oshah 18:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with using Operation Overlord. Normandy Campaign is already the official American name for American actions (ie. does not include actions of British / Commonwealth forces) for the period from 6 June - 24 July l944. Oberiko 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE casualty box

What happened to the Germans ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.115.3 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

They're there. They're in the "casualty 2" box. Parsecboy 12:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somone done the maths, ever?!

It says in the strenght box that the allies had 155 000 men, out of 155 000 they lost a bit over 200 000. Have I misunderstood or is something severley wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Couldn't-care-less (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood, evidently. Initial Allied strength may have been 155,000, but during the campaign, losses are incurred and then replaced. Same on the German side and indeed in most campaigns. That's why you will hear of units sustaining casualty rates, over the course of a long campaign, far in excess of 100%. To take a simple example, a rifle platoon might start on monday morning with 30 men, take ten casualties, and get ten replacements on tuesday (if they are lucky). So on tuesday they are at full strength despite having taken 33% casualties. They might do that five or six times over the course of a few months in combat. DMorpheus 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Those casualty figures are those for the entire Normandy campaign, and not the landing. The British D-Day museum's website says that "Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead". As this article now covers only the landing, the casualty figures need to be adjusted accordingly. I've just done this using the Museum's figures. --Nick Dowling 23:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but it seems a bit odd only too state the initial numbers since that is not a consistencey, nor is it warned for. Ok, thanks Dowling. i've seen that number 10 000 many times before. Well, I guess that solves everything, great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Couldn't-care-less (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Combatants

I'm confused as to why the Combatants in the box are only listed as UK, US, Canade and Poland on the allied side. Even if it was decided on size, surely Free France, once the efforts of the Forces de l'Interieur are taken into account, qualifies. And I mean surely every one deserves to be there. I grew up in Normandy, and we always celebrated Belgium and Norway and Czechoslovakia and all the others who I've shamelessely forgotten here...Hrcolyer 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A significantly sized French force (ie. a French division) was not organised until well after the invasion of Normandy. The French 2nd Armored Division only got mobilised in August 1944. Therefore, their combat is meant to form part of the Normandy Campaign. --Oshah 22:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the same can be argued for Poland, seeing how they had even less involvement in the landings. --Oshah 23:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


If this article is about the invasion only, then i would argue that Norway, France and possible Australia should be represented in the combatants section.

Norwegian ships were offshore doing there part, French troops landed along side the Anglo-Canadians during the beach landings and iirc Australian planes were in action covering the entire action along side the men of the RAF, CRAF and USSAF --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the French 2eme DB was in combat around the first week of August, so obviously they were organized many, many months before that. DMorpheus (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, the French 2nd Armored was constituted in 1943, but they did not land in Normandy until 1 August 1944, well after the initial landings and towards the end of the campaign as a whole, so should not be included in this article, but rather at Normandy Campaign. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We now have a bit of an edit war going on, which will continue, I suspect, unless we agree here on what criteria to use when listing combatants. I invite everyone ot talk this over and come to some consensus. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Am not talking about the Second French Armoured Division. French ground troops landed along side British forces on D-Day. Am not in front of any books at the moment but i believe it was Sword beach or at least on the flank near or with Lovat.

In regards to the last edit which was to place Norway back on the list. They may not have been a "major" combatant but it is unfair to remove mention of there contribution, they had men fight and die on D-Day supporting the landings via warships and transporters.

In regards to the comments made in the edits, i added the Australians since they also played there part via air support. One would have also added New Zealand however one could not find any information to back up they had forces involved on D-Day.

As for Poland, to my knowledge the only forces i know of involved during Normandy was there armoured Division, did they play any role in the actual landings? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Poland contributed several cruisers and destroyers to the invasion fleet. Look at the list at Operation Neptune. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The French guys i was thinking of who landed were part of the 1st Special Service Brigade and were allowed to land first. There was at least two troops of them if i recall correctly.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Name

see also Talk: Normandy Campaign#Article overlap

If this article is now only about the invasion, it being called the Battle of Normandy seems to be somewhat wrong. Can the article now be renamed to avoid any confusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article should be moved to something like Allied invasion of Normandy. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we just call it d-day?
Wokelly (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to rename the title. The invasion is the battle to which the article is referring, not the entire Normandy Campaign. Also, D-Day is far too ambiguous a term to be used here. Every invasion in history has had a "d-day", as well as an "h-hour". The article is fine as it is. Parsecboy (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Battle of Normandy for me is just incorrect if we are soley talking about the invasion. Invasion of Normandy, Battle of the Normandy Beaches, D-Day(1944). Anything which shows that this is not about the entire campaign which one assumes when you see the title and am sure is bounc to cause confussion when you start reading through it to see it actually isnt.
For example i believe before Nick started editing the article, it featured troop numbers for the entire campaign etc

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's very clear. There's a disambig at the top, stating in clear words that this was not about the Normandy Campaign, and the first sentence in the introduction states that the article is about the Allied invasion of Normandy. I don't know what more we can do to make it more obvious, short of typing in extra large font "This article is only about the actual invasion of Normandy, not the subsequent campaign". Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of extra large font! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok i was only joking when i typed that but it seemed like a good idea so i did it hahah--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I was talking about BIG text. That's cool too though. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No matter how clear and big the text is, I think the naming is wrong. The understanding I've had is that the assault phase = Operation Neptune and the fighting from the landings in June to the Seine crossings in Sept was the Battle of Normandy = Operation Overlord. These US (including a US Army history), French and British sources support this understanding: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and books. Where did the "Normandy Campaign" title originate? Folks at 137 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully a new discussion which will quick up speed and support and an asnwer to this question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Operation_Overlord --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The thread's been moved to here. It's probably best if we centralize the discussion. Oberiko (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D-Day casualties?

Antony Shaw writes in his book "WW2: Day by Day" short notes about every event in WW2. When looking up the 6th of June 1944, "WW2: Day by Day" states that the total loss-count from both combatant sides, at the end of the day, were 2'500 men. Is this true? If so: should it be edited to this article?


213.113.164.145 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The current casualty figures in the article's infobox are referenced to the D-Day Museum at Portsmouth's website. A more reliable source would be welcome, but the current figures look fairly reasonable. 2,500 deaths for both sides seems a bit low given that the US and Canada suffered about 1,700 alone, but it could be right. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A recent {broadcast Jan 2008) history BBC programme stated that US casualties at Omaha alone were around 6,000 on the 6th June. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Didnt the "beast of normandy".. one single man, killed or wounded about 2000 allies? Personally, i also doubt, that only 150.000 troops fought against almost 400.000 enemies. It would bare any military sense to make an offense, an invasion with less then half as much soldiers as the enemy has got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.118.81 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was this a typo?

The article says on of the suspected leaks was an answers to a crossword puzzle: "Overload". Should it be "Overlord"? Saros136 (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that's a typo. Of course there's no source for the line. If I get some time (which I likely won't), I'll try to dig around and see if I can find a reference for it (2 birds with one stone, eh?) Parsecboy (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, check out this article: telegraph article from 2003
Seems it was more then just Overlord, every beach name and other codewords were in the crosswords and it appears that it stems down to soldiers who couldnt keep there trap shut around kids.

Good thing one thinks the German spy network had already been cracked in country lol --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The crosword answer was "Overlord." There were several other clues, such as "Utah" was the answer to "One of the Americans." However, investigating agents found a bewildered crossword writer who had no idea about the invasions, and it proved to be merely coincidence.Borg Sphere (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Was D-Day really the largest seaborne invasion ever?

That's what it says in the article, yet it states that some 156,000 troops crossed the channel during the invasion. But according to the Battle of Okinawa article, that operation involved a stupendous 1,300 ships and over half a million troops - and this was an operation carried out thousands of miles from home base, whereas the invasion of Normandy was carried out over a mere twenty miles of water.

So was Normandy really the largest sea invasion ever? The source given for the claim looks pretty dubious too. Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're comparing Apples with Oranges. The Battle of Okinawa article concerns a sustained campaign over 90 odd days. This article is about D-Day. For a comparable article see Normandy Campaign which gives a figure of 1.5 million for Allied troops. The Stupendous number of ships you quote is dwarfed by the D-Day fleet - as per this article - "The Invasion Fleet was drawn from 8 different navies, comprising 6,939 vessels: 1,213 warships, 4,126 transport vessels (landing ships and landing craft), and 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels." Also FYI The Normandy Coast is not 20 odd miles from England you are thinking of the Straits of Dover. Jooler (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I might be mistaken, but I assumed the 1,300 ships mentioned in the article refers to ships, not merely landing craft. So then you're looking at 1,213 ships for the Normandy invasion and 1,300 for Okinawa. But then, I think you have a point about apples with oranges, I think "largest seaborne invasion in history" here means largest amphibious landing of men in a single day in history. But it would be interesting, I think, to have some solid facts and figures to compare the two with. I can't help but think that logistically speaking, the invasion of Okinawa must have been a lot more challenging, but I could be wrong of course. Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my impression also; the Normandy figure of about 7k seems to include every water-borne vessel involved, from battleships down to life rafts. When comparing the combat vessels (carriers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc.) the Okinawa force definitely outweighs the Normandy force by a significant amount. When one considers that each ship has a corresponding, logistical footprint, it should be clearly obvious that the Okinawa force had a significantly larger logistical footprint. Also, the numbers of men involved in the inital invasions (around 155k for Normandy, and close to 190k combined Army and Marines), again you have a larger logistical requirement for those extra 35k soldiers, all of which requires more ships. A final thing to consider is that there probably wasn't nearly the tanker support requirement at Normandy as there was at Okinawa. Regardless of all of what I've said, it's all my own logic working, so until we find some hard facts, we haven't gotten any closer to a verifiable comparison. Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
"Well I might be mistaken, but I assumed the 1,300 ships mentioned in the article refers to ships, not merely landing craft." - The Okinawa article says ".. 40 carriers, 18 battleships, and 200 destroyers" so that's a figure of about 260 warships who knows what makes up the remaining 1000 ships but surely much of is is supply and ancillary support craft. The 6000 figure for Normandy is broken down on http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsNormandy.htm - of the ~7000 figure about 1500 are landing craft - about 670 warships are shown as directly involved in the assault on D-Day, but then you can add the warships of the Home Command and the Western Channel Approaches fleets, but again we are talking about a single day here, not a three month campaign. Is there a breakdown of the Okinawa fleet anywhere. Oh BTW if you want another reference to it being the largest fleeting in history - Google provides plenty of authoritative references - but I don't know why you think the BBC would be "pretty dubious" Jooler (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well you also have the Allied invasion of Sicily, which also claims to be the biggest. In terms of number of men landed in the initial assault, and beach frontage, it was bigger than Normandy. I'm not sure in terms of counting ships. But it is apples and oranges: you can look at ships, you can look at first day numbers, you can look at battle numbmers, whatever. The claim is perhaps not all that meanningful.Norm and Al (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to either call it "among the largest" or the largest in terms of.... Different metrics could have other landings being "the largest". Oberiko (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can get an agreement how to count "largest" then decide which was biggest. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
This web site says Okinawa was bigger than Normandy: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/okinawa/default.aspx
In fact, the effort in the spring offensive of 1945 was far greater than the previous spring offensive in Europe.
Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is another web site making the same claim, that Okinawa was the biggest: http://www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3035101.html Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Global Security says D-Day was the largest. The History Channel says D-Day. PBS says D-Day. Obviously some disagreement. We probably could say something about D-Day being the largest 1-day amphibious operation, which it clearly is by far. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Global Security says D-Day was the largest.

I don't see that. Please explain. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The History Channel says D-Day.

Doesn't appear as credible as the second reference for Okinawa.
Perhaps find references with details would be best.

We probably could say something about D-Day being the largest 1-day amphibious operation, which it clearly is by far.

What numbers are you using for that? From http://www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3035101.html:
the effort in the spring offensive of 1945 was far greater than the previous spring offensive in Europe. During the Normandy invasion, the Allies had employed 150,000 troops, 284 ships, and 570,000 tons of supplies, all of which required a very short supply line. On Okinawa, in Japan's back yard, maintaining the supply line seemed an incomprehensible feat. In the invasion of Okinawa, there were 183,000 troops, 327 ships, and 750,000 tons of supplies.[19]
Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
In the Global Security references search for "largest" and you'll find the bit I'm talking about. The HistoryChannel references isn't that reliable, I'll admit. The PBS one is good, and I'm sure there are many more.
Largest one-day operation. In the very first sentence of the reference you give above it says "When two United States Marine and two Army divisions landed abreast on Okinawa...". On D-Day more than nine divisions landed on day one. The sentence you quote appears to be referring to the overall operation, not any day of operation. Plus I can't find it in the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Found the sentence you mean in another article. It should also be pointed out that HistoryNet is "a webzine of community-submitted articles". There seem to be big discrepancies between the number of ships that author quotes for D-Day and the number other sources quote. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well if you want to play with numbers, the Mongol invasions of Japan had 170,000 troops and 4900 ships. More troops than the Normandy invasion, and far more ships than any WWII battle. Luckily the allies weren't wiped out by bad weather. --BizMgr (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
D-Day 6 June 1944 in aircraft carriers overlord may well have been smaller but then again England is much much bigger than any floating aircraft carrier. As for fuel one has to look at PLUTO as for tonnage arriving on the beaches does one include the weight of the Mulberry harbours?
AFAICT from above the Allies landed five divisions on the beach (50,000 Allied troops in 3,000 landing craft on first day of D-Day [6]) --and three more by air-- but only 3 divisions on Okinawa. [ this source] says "In the first six days of the invasion the Allies managed to land a third of a million men on French soil."[7] "In the first ten days after D-Day, half a million men crossed the"[8]
In the invasion of Okinawa several sources say 60,000 were ashore during the first day. So in number of men landed on the first day the Normandy landings which were heavily opposed unlike the initial landings on Okinawa included more men (less by sea more by sea but more by sea and air combined). There were more battle ships at Okinawa but far less strategic bombers, so although the ships fired 3,800 tons of shells at Okinawa during the first 24 hours.[9] "RAF Bomber Command drops 56,000 tons mainly at night in direct support of the invasion armies."[10] and on the night of D-DAY the RAF bomb coastal batteries at Fontenay, Houlgate, La Pernelle, Longues, Maisy, Merville, Mont Fleury, Pointe du Hoc, Ouisterham and St Martin de Varreville dropping over 5,000 tons of bombs while on D-Day the USAAF with more than 2,300 B-17and B-24 heavy bombers loosed 2,944 tons of bombs on coastal batteries and other shore defenses.
So by most measures the Normandy landings were larger than those on Okinawa both in the first few days and in numbers during the campaign. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Even more so than you might think, since our own article says that 130,000-150,000 men were landed on the first day. I don't think that there has ever been much dispute that Normandy was the largest single-day invasion. The argument was always about comparing the 1-day operation at Normandy with extended operations in the Pacific and what exactly constitutes an invasion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British vs. American spelling

Armor v armour - the majority of the times this word appears it is in British English rather than US - I have changed three occasions of the US spelling for consistency [Unit names have not been changed, of course]62.136.231.43 (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good... nice job. Jmlk17 08:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical context

What about some historical context on Normandy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.195.88 (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Such as? Jmlk17 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems due to split

Some problems have come up in this article as a result of the decision to make it about the invasion only. Some I can fix now, but some will need discussion. The first is that I don't think "Battle of Normandy" is now the best name for the article. I think "Invasion of Normandy" or something similar might be better. I don't think anyone refers to Day 1 as "The Battle of Normandy", especially as it is a term we sued to sue for the entire campaign. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There actually is a discussion on this very issue here. You might want to weigh in there. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
We have a proposal up at here, please weigh in with feedback. Oberiko (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moves to be made

Unless there are objections, we'll be using the following structure:

  • Operation Overlord: Overview of the everything (sans things like Dragoon) up until the liberation of Paris (June 6 - Aug 25)
    • Invasion of Normandy: Invasion and establishment (June 6 - mid-July (Goodwood / Cobra))
      • Normandy Landings: Sub-page focusing on the naval and amphibious portion. A.K.A. Operation Neptune
    • Breakout from Normandy: The breakout and chase up to the liberation of Paris (Mid-July - Aug 25)

Disambiguation pages

  • Battle of Normandy: Disambiguation linking to all of the above, plus other battles in Normandy (such as during the Hundred Years' War)
  • Normandy Campaign: Same as Battle of Normandy, but with additional note of it being an official campaign in the American European Theater of Operations
  • Operation Neptune: Disambiguation, takes over the current disambig page.

I'll likely move the pages in a few days. Please direct any feedback here, as I'm posting this notice on several pages. Oberiko (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Framework

Most of the background material should be covered in Operation Overlord, so we can keep it brief here and focus on the invasion itself.

  • Background
  • Forces involved
  • The invasion
  • Aftermath
  • Analysis

Oberiko (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Battle

Is the OoB for just the invasion (June 6 - mid-July) or for the entirety of Overlord (June 6 - Aug 25)? Oberiko (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as though both of these whole sections (Allied and German) refer only to June 6th. I don't have sources for subsequent deplyments, but I would assume more divisions were landed, and more German troops deplayed, in the succeeding days. My guess is that this section should be moved to Normandy Landings with something less detailed but more complete here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of any objections I intend to move the entirety of both 'Order of Battle' sections to the article Normandy landings, replacing them with a brief statements that the 6th June OOB can be found there and that other units participated in the later battle. If anyone has any information on units that took part in Neptune other than those it would be very welcome. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Casualties

I don't think the statistic we have for Canadian Casualties is accurate. If the Battle of Normandy doesn't include the after July 19 (being Operation Atlantic, Operation Spring & Operation Totalize) then I would find this figure to be accurate. However, if we are including the Atlantic & Spring campaigns, from July 18-27, then these numbers should be much higher, as the two accounted for close to 2,800 casualties together, whereas the infobox in this article only mentions approximately 1,300 casualties. Could someone please look into this? Cam (Chat) 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Since a reorganization a few months ago this article now only covers operations up to about the end of June 1944. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] After the landings

I really only just noticed how short this article is on description of the weeks after the landings. There is barely a paragraph before we move into the assessment of the battle. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

I was wondering why the casualties information in the infobox were changed sometime after September 2007. At the time said casualties were precisely referring to the campaign. Now the casualty notes seem to be referring to D-Day alone, which is outside the scope of this article. One reason for this change I could see is the change from this article in dealing with the entire campaign (to late August) and now only with the original phases up to the breakout. Though, I just browsed across the article and find during the split almost all material relevant to this period was removed in the incomplete (as apparently no post July 1944 article, or rather seeing the now missing material, no post June 1944 article was created. This really is a mess and I don't even talk about sourced material getting removed and replaced by lesser sources (if one source presents data covering two POV with adequate reasoning is deleted and then replaced by another only outlining one POV without thought or analysis (in short Zetterling out in the NC article and Keegan in who just repeats old numbers without analysis...). Guess I should really unwatch all these articles.--Caranorn (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)