Talk:Operation Totalize

I'll review it...

...if the article is not reviewed by someone when I get on tomorrow—it's 12:30 here, and I've got class at 8:00 in the morning...so yeah. Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 04:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

......and then I got swamped with homework. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 01:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You may wanna wait a few days, as i think the lack of inline citations within the article will hurt it some. If i have nothing to do tonight when am at home ill pull my copy of No Holding Back out and try get some citations in there.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got class until 3:40, so I won't get to it until 5-6 my time (CST). Remember, I can always place articles on hold! ;D Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 13:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Totalize/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I'm finally free...so I will have the review up as soon as I can. Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 20:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Nice article!

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   In the lead, there is a one-sentence paragraph.

   Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   see below

   C. No original research:

   see 2b

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Where is the German perspective in all of this? You have one section on them, but what happened to them after the battle (did all of the reform at the river)? Where did they come from before the battle?

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

There are many referencing problems with this...every sentence that is not common sense should be cited, which is most of this article. Can you add more sources so that every sentence has one? (It shouldn't be the hardest thing ever, just use the sources that you were using, and then use the <ref name=__> format....

I'm putting this on hold to give you a chance to deal with the problems...good luck, and have fun! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, Enigma & I are working on the citations, and I'll attempt to expand the German perspective as much as I can. Cam (Chat) 22:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are making excellent progress. however, I will be out of touch for the next two-ish days due to my trip home from college....so don't go bonkers if I don't reply. Good work so far, and cheers! =D ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Still need a few more refs...

• First two paragraphs of the Background section.

Got the first two (I think). Cam (Chat) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

These sentences as well: "Positional warfare ensued for the next six weeks. Several attempts by British and Canadian forces to capture Caen were unsuccessful until 9 July when all of the city, north of the Orne River, was captured during Operation Charnwood. Between 18 July-20 Operations Atlantic and Goodwood captured the remainder of the city. The former saw Canadian forces cross the Orne River and clear the remaining portions of the city while the latter launched three armoured divisions to outflank the city to the east and south.

The Germans still held the commanding terrain of the Verrieres Ridge, three miles south of the city. The repeated British and Canadian attacks launched around Caen (in part to distract the Germans from the western part of the front, where the First United States Army was preparing to break out of the Allied lodgement) had caused the Germans to defend the Verrieres ridge with some of their strongest and most determined formations, including three SS Panzer divisions of I SS Panzer Corps."

Almost! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 13:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• • The last sentence of that section ("Canadian II Corps, which was to launch Operation Totalize, was commanded by Lieutenant General Guy Simonds and consisted of the 2nd Canadian Division, 3rd Canadian Division, British 51st Division, 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division, 1st Polish Armoured Division, 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade and the British 33rd Armoured Brigade.")

Done. Cam (Chat) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• • *You may be able to steal these refs from the Normandy Invasion page, if they've got them there....*

No need. I've got all my books on the subject out by the desk, so it was relatively easy. Cam (Chat) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• First two sentences of the Offensive Plan section.

Done both. Cam (Chat) 00:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• The Assault section.

Done (I think). Cam (Chat) 05:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mostly. Still need refs for "During the evening of August 7 1944, the attacking forces formed up in six columns, each only four vehicles wide, of tanks, Kangaroo APCs, half tracks, self-propelled anti-tank guns and Mine flail tanks." "At 23:30, the armoured columns began their advance behind a rolling barrage."

"Initially, movement was slow; many APC drivers became disoriented by the amount of dust caused by the vehicles.[20] Several vehicles became stuck in bomb craters. Simonds had ordered several means for the columns to maintain their direction: some vehicles were fitted with radio direction-finders, the artillery fired target-marking shells, Bofors 40 mm guns fired bursts of tracer in the direction of advance. In spite of all these measures there was still confusion. Several vehicles collided, or were knocked out."

Then you are done. =D ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 13:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Last two sentences overall: "Simonds and Crerar designed a follow-up offensive, Operation Tractable, which took place on August 14-21 1944. On August 21, the Falaise Pocket was closed by joint Allied forces, effectively ending the Battle of Normandy with a decisive Allied Victory."

Done. Cam (Chat) 05:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ref #19 needs a page number.

Done. Cam (Chat) 05:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You get these, the GA passes. =D Almost there! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 18:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

External Links

• Random question: what is with the author of the last link...it's "?, Erik" ? ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 18:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

lol that was me, the citeweb templates need surnames and forenames however the website does not state his surname anywhere so i plonked a question mark in. In cases like this what do we do?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know...I think that you should just use the last name, and leave the "first= |" blank... ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 21:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What is with the word "lodgement" in the lead? I don't understand it. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, I that I de-linked all of the dates per WP:MOSNUM. If I missed one, though, don't forget to de-link it. ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

In the German countermoves section, is "laagered" spelled right? ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 18:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Some Canadian and British infantry divisions had been temporarily equipped with M7 Priest self-propelled guns for the D-Day landings. These had since been withdrawn and replaced by towed Ordnance QF 25 pounders. Simonds had the Priests converted into Kangaroo Armoured Personnel Carriers, which would allow infantry to follow the tanks closely on any terrain. Permission was first requested from the Americans, from whom the M7s had been borrowed, to convert them into APCs

1. I find this hard to believe to convert them to APC's would mean the removal of the gun, a task that must have taken most of a day per vehicle.
2. How many were converted ?
3. What did they do with the guns they removed. I presume they would have to have been refitted when they were returned to the Americans.
4. Who agreed on the American side to dismantle their own weapons during a war/campaign/attack

I can see the source but just find it very hard to believe Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The simple answer is yes they were converted, guns removed, additional armour plate attached and turned into the worlds first APCs: see the article on Kangaroos--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, why would it take over a day to remove a single gun, i dont have a referance infront of me to show how quickly the conversions took place but from my knowledge of other vechiles and seeing video footage of tanks being stripped down taking a day to remove a gun seems why to long on a job.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking out the howitzer wouldn't take a field workshop long. Gun tubes wore out fairly quickly anyway, and every AFV is designed to allow for very rapid replacement of the gun & mounting. I doubt any of them were ever reconverted back to self-propelled howitzers.

They were not, of course, the world's first APCs or even the first full-tracked APCs.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A good point i must conceede on - i got a bit ahead of myself, of course the first one iirc were variants of the British tanks used in WW1.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was considering the Barrel, recoil system, ammunition bins etc from 1st hand knowledge it took the best part of 6/7 hours to replace a chieftain tank gun half that for just the removal and I dont think they would have been working in the best of conditions. We have to trust the source but its just hard to believe. Then again thinking about the pictures of pre D Day Britain and the vehicle parks they might have had a few to spare Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

casualties

1256+ allied casualties?!? useless number, when this includes 600 KIA! canadian then the number is useless. empiric ratios of wounded/killed is 3:1 ? so 600 KIA makes 1800 WIA this would give 3000 casualties... . when u dont know numbers than u cant take the number of killed and put them in the casualties!!! section .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you can, and i did! Its not a useless number, its a partial answer to a question. I know its not perfect but at the moment it at least gives the reader some indication of how many men the Allied forces lost in the operation. It also allows for it to be built upon; i checked out Beevor, Copp, Ellis, Reid, Reynolds, Stacey, Wilmot and a few others that were long shots.

One would also note that these sources provide no British figure, with that not available at present either the total losses could be anything. One would also like to note that the general rule of thumb 3:1 ratio doesnt really apply to the Normandy battles when they are examined, and at any rate the ratio is 5:1 for attacking fortified positions.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

it gives the reader some indication ? u cant take only the KIA and put them in the infobox this is wrong. take the empiric ratio of kia to wia than u have 3.000 thats likly far more accurate. if u think its ok what u do than u can go to any article without numbers take a sentence out of text like "regiment one lost at least 20 KIA on this day" take this useless number and put it in the box with a "+". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

if 3:1 or 5:1 i dont know but the infobox now implies something wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing cited material like the Allied estimate, as produced by a reliable historian, of how many men the Germans lost is also implying something wrong; ala your vandalism of the article.

You can sit and bitch and moan all you like but at least there is a partial figure to be built upon for the Allied losses now; even if this is later removed and embedded into the article and not the infobox.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

ok a partial figure? when there are 600 dead canadians we all ( all not stupid people ) know that there more than 3000 casualties. But U think its better to write 1200+ in the box though its not possible ?!? . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

its simple i guess. u cant take only KIA from of the canadians and put them in the box with + . there are hundred of battles where we have only partial numbers... . u can estimate the number or write unknown.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

allied casualties

• user: "I would also support its removal, i perfer "unknown" for the overall reason that its a bit silly to "12" in there when its clear that many more men were involved than the one battalion and German overall casualties are - as the sources point out - unknown"

now we maybe rethink the allied casualites here. the number has no wounded of the canadian so more than 1000 are missing, the casualties should be changed in unknown or split up to show that only KIA canadian are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

CE

Sorted out the citation mess with sfns, rm dupe links.Keith-264 (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)