Talk:Normandy landings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Navies at Normandy

First, apologies for seeming to be an over-sensitive Brit.

Second, in no way do I wish to minimise the courage and suffering of US forces in Europe. The actions at Omaha beach, St Lo, Bastogne, Eindhoven & Nijmegen, and elsewhere were outstandingly brave and determined. Particularly so on foreign ground.

Phew.

BUT (here goes), there is sensitivity in Europe, and not just in France, about the Second World War in Europe being given an all-American gloss (usually by Hollywood - John Wayne did it all?). So, although US troops and aircraft were desparately needed to bolster the failing British manpower reserves, at Normandy it was actually the Royal Navy (British, not English, please note) that took the lead in providing naval support. To list the relatively few US ships (I'm sure there were more than these) that were involved without a similar reference to other nations, apart from the "English" navy, rubs some of us up the wrong way. It also overlooks contributions from the Free French and Norwegian navies, and probably others.

I won't delete the list of US ships - that would be disrespectful, I may add to it. And I do know that the US Navy's focus was in the Pacific.

I hope that I've not caused offence, but I do feel lots better for that rant. Folks at 137 23:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This point is well-taken, but the role of the US Navy in Overlord was not quite as insignificant as implied here (the gunfire support to Utah and Omaha Beaches were by USN ships). And John Wayne, except for portraying a real-life soldier in The Longest Day, never appeared in any war movie involving the war in Europe, so that's a straw dog. That said, the roles of the RN and other navies needs to be documented accurately because they did provide the lion's share of escort and support--Buckboard 05:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

Tanaside/ Tantaside

Was USS TANASIDE not in fact HMS TANASIDE a hunter class escort destroyer launched from Yarrow dockyards in April 1942. She was deployed for antisubmarine and antiaircraft duties

The name Tanaside was taken from a USN report; it may have been a typo. Checking. BTW, queries should be on talk page not main article. Folks at 137 15:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Found this site [1]. Ship appears to be HMS Tanatside, although Tanaside/ Tantaside spellings are also extant. The operational detail seems to confirm the info. Folks at 137 21:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Kriegsmarine fuel shortages

Re: recent query about this assertion. Try [2], third footnote (already quoted as a reference). There may be other sources. Folks at 137 22:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture of bombardment

At the National Archives there's a picture of the map representing the naval bombardments. It's British government, so almost certainly in the public domain. Oberiko 01:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge

This needs to be merged into Battle of Normandy, since that article has changed from being about the entire campaign (Operation Overlord) to only being about the invasion phase (Operation Neptune). DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that there is discussion about possible renaming this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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) 00:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Normandy landings

Should this page be moved to Normandy landings or is the term Normandy Landings well enough known to be a proper noun? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was debating that myself. It seems to usually appear as "landings", but "Landings" is far from uncommon. I'd err on the side of caution and go with the capitals, since it seems to be an accepted full name of the event. Oberiko (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Politics

The article is pretty interesting. From an encyclopedic point of view though, it is too much concerned with the military details. The political and other causes behind the landings should also be covered. Why were the landings decided at this point? Why not a year or two earlier ? Why infantry landings without armour? and other such questons. Can anyone help? 90.11.102.208 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Posting parts of the German article

It will sound wierd because I used an online translation thing, but here it goes:

Operation Neptune
from Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia
To changes to: Navigation, search
The title of this article is ambiguous. Other meanings are performed under operation Neptune (concept purification).

The operation Neptune was a part under the deck name Operation Overlord carried out landing of the allies in Normandy in the second world war. Neptune was, on this occasion, the storm attack on the German connections in Normandy and the establishment of a bridgehead. The operation Neptune began with the first bigger practise manoeuvres in January, 1944 and culminated in the landing of the allies in Normandy on the 6th June, 1944, the D-Day. The end of the operation can be dated on 30th June, 1944. The higher operation Overlord ended only 19th August when the allied armed forces had crossed the river his in France. The operation Neptune was the known land operation most extensive up to now of the world history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yojimbo501 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Among the rest, beside the mission purpose to gain a foothold in Normandy occupied by the German the operation Neptune should also serve to protect the landing crafts against opposing attacks from the air and from lake. In addition, should be made sure by the operation that no opposing ship got to know in the canal from the forthcoming invasion. Besides the landing should be supported actively by the bombardment of the Atlantic embankment in the area of the landing zones with heavy ship artillery. After the successful landing the care of the bridgeheads with supplies was organized under this name.

The operation was split in many other small operations to confuse the German defense. For same reason many phantom federations which have never really existed "were also 'put up". The table gives an overview about the explained partial operations (without practise operations) with overview about the operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yojimbo501 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was a taste of it. Let me know if there is any specific part you want to hear. By the way the quality of German featured articles may be lower than ours (no offense to Germans). Yojimbo501 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Now we will compare the German begining section to ours:

The Normandy Landings, also known as Operation Neptune, was the assault and amphibious operations of the Allied invasion of Normandy, France; part of Operation Overlord. D-Day for the operation, postponed 24 hours, became June 6, 1944. The opening assault was conducted in two phases, an air assault landing of American and British (including a Canadian airborne battalion) airborne divisions shortly after midnight, and an amphibious landing of Allied infantry and armoured divisions on the coast of France commencing at 06:30 British Double Summer Time. It required the transport of soldiers and material from England and Wales by troop carrier air planes and ships, the assault landings, air support, naval interdiction of the English Channel and naval fire-support. There were also subsidiary operations to distract the Kriegsmarine and prevent its interference in the landing areas.

Over 1,000,000 personnel were involved, including 195,700 Allied naval and merchant navy personnel. Neptune took place on the Cotentin Peninsula, the east bank of the Orne River, and the Baie de la Seine, offshore and along the Normandy coast where five invasion beaches were assaulted: Gold, Juno, Omaha, Sword and Utah.

I find ours more specific but some german parts were of interest:

"The operation Neptune began with the first bigger practise manouvres in January, 1944 and culminated in the landing of the allies in Normandy on the 6th June, 1944, the D-Day. The end of the operation can be dated on 30th June, 1944. The higher operation Overlord ended only 19th August when the allied armed forces had crossed the river his in France."

That was a taste of it again. Let me know if there is any specific part you want to hear. By the way the quality of German featured articles may be lower than ours (no offense to Germans). Yojimbo501 (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Start?

Why is this start class? And why can something with such less information, citations and links like Fires on the Plain be start class while this stays at start class even with a lot more information? It seems most articles fall under start and it makes that class sort of confusing. Yojimbo501 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the quality scale. This article is not suitably referenced and it is not free of grammatical errors, and is not in tune with the Manual of Style. JonCatalan (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tanks

The reason the Americans and British didn't have armor on the ground? The tanks were supposed to "float" to shore in inflatable rubber tank rafts. This failed miserably, with 32 out of 35 sherman tanks sinking at omaha. Worth including? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.52.15 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So long as its balanced by the notes of the other beaches where the DD tanks did land successfully and the follow up tank units (mine clearers, Centaurs and AVREs were landed into the shallows to wade ashore, or on the beach to clear the defenders. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No,no,no. The DD Shermans largely didn't make it at Omaha, but in other places tanks DID make it to the beaches in day 1. See Hobart's Funnies and plenty of other places. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

At Omaha, 5 of the 32 DD tanks did make it to shore on the 16th RCT front, though only 2 of these survived the swim in. The other 3 succeeded in landing because they were landed directly onto the beach. 14 of the 16 non-DD tanks were landed directly onto the beach, but 3 were knocked out fairly quickly. On the 116th RCT front, they cancelled the launch of DD tanks, and landed all three tank companies (2 DD, 1 conventional) directly onto the beach. One of these companies took heavy casualties during the landing, the other two fared better. The failure to clear the exits off the beach meant that the tanks were confined to the beach and, exposed to defensive fire, took further casualties. The point is, even at Omaha, there was armour on the ground. According to the commander of the 2nd battalion 116th RCT the tanks "…saved the day. They shot the hell out of the Germans, and got the hell shot out of them." --FactotEm (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Article coverage

The article notes that this only covers the initial weeks of the campaign - ending in mid june. The aritcle nicley links to the article covering the invasion itself but there doesnt appear to be any link to the rest of the campaign - July-August.

What article covers this?

This article is intended to cover Day 1 of the battle. Invasion of Normandy covers the first few weeks (up to about the end of July, corresponding approximately to Operation Neptune) and Operation Overlord covers the larger scale, up to about the end of of August. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Order of Battle

I'd like to propose some changes to these entries, particularly the Allied entries.

Currently Britannica is used as a source for numbers, unfortunately those numbers are clearly rounded which is not currently reflected in the article. The numbers also when verifiable (the 6th Airborne for instance is not verifiable as no such entry exist on the page linked) seem to in some cases cover an entire beach, in others a specific division in yet other a specific nationality. As such they do not match up and are incomplete. Not to mention that numbers like these have no place in an order of battle as they tell very little about a unit's combat capacity. Therefore I'd propose to remove all these numbers together with the Britannica source (which is not recommended for use anyhow). I'd also like to note that previously these orders of battles properly separated forces by sectors (corps and beach) which is no longer the case. By the way, a map for this data and nicely illustrating this information could be created relatively easily, though it's likely equivalents already exist from free sources (I believe the British Official Histories are not free). Note also that I can source each and every unit entry in the Order of Battle sections from reliable sources. So the Britannica links are not necessary in that respect.--Caranorn (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Strength

Can someone clarify what "about 4 outnumbered" means? Also, what's with the supplementary info "extremely well dug-in" and "massive air attack"? This is highly unorthodox; I've never seen that kind of unnecessary unencyclopaedic language on any other wiki page...normally, they just tell you the numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahm2307 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

detailed edit summary

1. I slightly changed the order of combatants to reflect contingent sizes, it was ridiculous to have the UK and the US at the end of the list when they fielded most of the actual forces. As I don't have actual numbers in front of me I only did some rough sorting. While all these nations (and some others tooo) fielded troops, many were quite small, it might be useful to have individual references/footnotes too giving a rough idea of the contingents, though that might better fit into the casualties list.
2. I removed the info in the strength list entirely as Ahm2307's comment above is reasonable. It's also ridiculous to pretend the four (not 4) divisions were well dug in, one could even wonder which divisions you are talking about as only three were in the landing sectors (91st, 716th and 352nd, the 711th was very close to a drop zone as were elements of the 21st Panzer which also intervened during the day, of all these only the 716th was somewhat dug in (the beach defenses are another issue, but many did not depend from the divisions). Likewise the mention of air and naval support could use some actual numbers.
3. Commanders, lets try to keep this consistent. I removed all but the military commanders of army level and higher (corps might be reasonable too, but then both sides). Obviously also sorted by rank/command (Ike at SHAEF, Monty with the 21st Army Group, Bradley with an Army). Even now the list is far from complete (air and naval commanders for the allies, army commander(s) (711 iirc was in another Army sector but was involved in fighting as of June 7 at the latest) for the Germans etc.).

I think that was all I changed.--Caranorn (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot casualties, these were obviously incorrect, at least for the period covered in this article (which hasn't been too clear anyhow since the article split).--Caranorn (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Seine Crossing date is wrong

I just changed the date - unfortunately it was in a direct quote. I chopped the date off the end, I hope I can do it without using ellipses. The Canadian Official history gives the German retreat over the Seine as 30 August - the day the last German withdrew. The website quoted in this article gives a date of crossing the Seine by the Allies of August 16 or so - way too early! Even if the first troops started crossing over then, there were three Canadian divisions fighting on the near side of the river between August 25 and August 30. I've cited p.295 of the Canadian Army Official History, which is available online as a downloadable and free .pdf for anyone wanting to verify.139.48.25.61 (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because the last German retreated over the Seine on 30th August doesn't meant that the Allies didn't cross it on 19th August. I've restored the quote.DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

The current casualty figures are unreferenced. My copy of Keegan's The Second World War gives 4649 US casualties on D-Day. Without a reference we have no way of knowing if the six-and-a-half thousand we quote is for some larger period, or if it includes naval and air figures (unlikely to be two thousand) or if it's from some source more reliable than Keegan. Any comments? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit uncertain, but I recall a TV documentary "Bloody Omaha" ("Timewatch" series, BBC2), presented by Richard Hammond . One of the conclusions was that US casualties on D-Day had been significantly under-estimated. Numbers were mentioned but I can't reliably recall them. I quick search on the BBC website turned up nothing, however, a websearch shows links, try this [3] Folks at 137 (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The YouTube link states that the casualties were under-estimated at the time, but does not go into detail. The Omaha Beach article gives a figure of 3,000, sourced from the official history (p.109). Harrison's Cross Channel Attack (p.330) gives a figure for V Corps of 2,000, but the footnote states that this figure is "frankly a guess". The D-Day casualty report for the 29th Division gives a figure of 928 casualties, but states that this is unverifiable. HQ 16th Infantry Regiment reported 970 casualties, but this covers the period 6-8 June. Confusingly, this is the same figure provided by the 16th Infantry Regiment S-3 for D-Day alone. It's worth noting that the 16th RCT was the assault wave of the 1st Division, and while its casualties represent the majority of that division's casualties on D-Day, that is not the whole story. My personal take on this is that we will never know the true casualty figure for Omaha on D-Day, so take your pick. My pick for the Omaha Beach article was that the official history gives 3,000, the two divisional assault regiments report 1,000 each, and it therefore seems reasonable that, with the fighting that followed the assault, 3,000 is as accurate a figure as we'll ever get. These figures are all based on reports at the time, which have then been reproduced in all the histories that I have read. I think that the idea that these figures under-estimate the true figure is a relatively recent piece of research, and the only source I have heard of for this is the BBC program (which I have not seen). It seems to me, therefore, that the weight of evidence still suggests a figure of 3,000. --FactotEm (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Equipment

I think this article could use a short section on the specialist equipment used in the landings, particularly the DD tanks. I would suggest excluding Mulberry and PLUTO though - they can be described at Invasion of Normandy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Weather?

moved from Talk:D-Day (military term)

I'm doing a report on D-Day and I need to find out what the weather was like. Does anyone know? --Confusedscholar 18:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the weather was cloudy but I'm not entirly sure.

Thank you. I've been trying to look for this info on weather sites but so far no luck.--Confusedscholar 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

from my readings I know that it was stormy and they were going to put of the attack intill the meteoraligist said a hole in the cloud cover was coming up and decided to attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.78.46 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The weather problem was actually somewhat ironic. The Allied weather forcasters decieded that the time when the best weather would be would be between June 5th and June 7th. However the weather was very bad, and cloudy. There was a lot of storms and I belive it was raining also. --Robin63 19:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the weather was very bad but nat as bad as june 5th. eisnhower decided to go ahead anawy because he felt it was now of never. that is one of the reasons field marshel rommel left normandy for his wifes birthday —Preceding unsigned comment added by BonesBrigade (talk • contribs)

they were going to put of the attack but they predicted a hole in the storm. they were wrong though and there was cloud cover at several thousand feet. this is why the para attacks were not as succesfull as they should of been —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.83.78.46 (talk • contribs)

---

Almost two years after the above discussion, this article is still unclear about the weather. Sure enough, it now has a dedicated section Weather, but that only talks about forecasts. How did the weather actually turn out? Did it cause any problems to the operations? — Sebastian 20:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistant about tides

The article is inconsistent about the state of the tide: "a spring tide were required.......to provide the deepest possible water to help safe navigation over defensive obstacles placed by the Germans in the surf on the seaward approaches to the beaches." but also says "Believing that any forthcoming landings would be timed for high tide (this caused the landings to be timed for low tide)" 89.242.121.253 (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Scope

Neptune was not just the naval side. Neptune was the "assault operation" of Overlord, all-inclusive, and involved the naval forces, the invading divisions, and the airborne drops.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckboard (talk • contribs) 05:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Dutch ships

I've added the Dutch cruiser Sumatra to the cruiser list, and the gunboat Soemba to the other ships list. This makes the Dutch (naval) presence complete.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ML Kurze (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian involvement

The Royal Norwegian Navy took part in the naval operations on D-Day with eleven ships, one of which being HNoMS Svenner which was sunk.[4] 132 Norwegian Wing also took part, and had a Lancaster bomber shot down.[5] So, I'm adding Norway to the list of nations involved. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 13:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, this BBC article says that 37 Norwegians died on D-Day, more than the 19 Free French.[6] -- Nidator ^{T / C} 10:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

xx

Some strange coding on this page. Please reconfigure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. McJagger (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed this text:

2. Neptun was the German counterattack by German ground forces against Soviet units near the Black Sea at Myschanko-Berg on 6 April 1943. Part of the Battle of Stalingrad.

First of all, the Battle of Stalingrad was over by April 1943. Second, there was a Soviet operation "Neptune," which I plan to add to this page in a moment, which suggests the above text might have been a mistake (but not a mis-correction; it was originally added just like that, modulo misspelling "Stalingrad"). Third, as far as I can tell, there is no "Myschanko-Berg."

However, I think I've found the original source: [7]

Neptun    D    06.04.43    Gegenoffensive am Schwarzen Meer beim Myschanko-Berg
Neptun    D    1944        Anti-Partisanen-Aktionen auf der Sporaden-Inseln vor (später Koralle genannt)

Someone who knows German want to translate? --Quuxplusone 16:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I may (or may not have made the OP on Neptun, but my records show ...

NEPTUN “NEPTUNE” (GER 43) Counterattack by German ground forces against Soviet units near the Black Sea at Myschanko-Berg on 6 April, 1943.

Perhaps I messed it up in retyping it in this format. Perhaps someone else mis-corrected it. In any case, here is the real deal. Paul, in Saudi 17:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Numbers

Approximate Troop levels on June 6, 1944

73,000 Americans 60,000 British 20,000 Canadians

None of this is listed and I feel this is important to know. Why is this not included in the stats box on the right side of the page? --70.101.198.74 (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

BELIGERENTS

History records the USA being involved in WWII independently not until the latter part of 1942. The majority of forces involved in the Normandy landings were under British control and were not USoA.

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.31 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Normandy landings refer to the landings as a part of operation d-day in 1944 when the US was very involved in the war. If you want to say that the majority of the troops were British, please provide a WP:RS when you include the text. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(Also, sorry about the rollback. I should have given an edit summary. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

You should read an history book son.

The majority of those involved in the Normandy Landings were 'British Subjects'.

?@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.31 (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for being blunt, but - what's your point? The article isn't biased towards the American point of view, and highlights the contributions of both sides almost equally. Skinny87 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

from what i understand is that during the normandy landings there wasnt 156,00 allied troops there were approximatley 200,00 --: B (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}The list of belligerents should be amended to include Harry Crerar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Crerar), who was the commanding officer of the 1st Canadian Army - one of the 5 armies that waded ashore on D-Day (on one of the 5 beaches of the Normandy invasion - Juno Beach).

No. The Canadian formations which waded ashore on D-Day were part of British 2nd Army. Canadian First Army was not activated in Normandy until 23 July 1944.Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 19:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Celestra (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish involvement

Polish involvement was comparable to norwegian (Norway - 2 destroyers, 1 air wing, Poland - 1 cruiser, 2 destroyers, 2 air wings) so I think it is justified to add Poland to the list of allies.Rudi Maxer (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead para too long?

It does seem to go on a a bit, and the "big block of text" effect is a little off-putting. Perhaps it could be split into a two- or three-para lead? 81.159.57.7 (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Countries taking part

I've removed some countries from the list of those taking part because according to the references cited they took part in the larger battle (up to the end of August) but not in the initial landings. Of course I may be mistaken here; please feel free to add back any countries for which we have references supporting their participation on day 1. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more of an issue of counting air and naval formations as well as minimal contingents within other nations' forces (for instances 7 Luxembourgers in no. 10 Commando, with US forces and in a recon plane (an absurd example, just to illustrate how absurd some others are)). I think we could verify the air and naval contingents, as most internationals were in the British sector it's probably included in Victory in the West. Though one could aks the question, do we want to include the naval and air element of the invasion phase?--Caranorn (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There was Greek Ships taking part in the escorting of units to to Normandy, and also Norwegian ships. Ive read about a few now. My Grand father who was on a British destroyer there had a Norwegian ship in his escort group.

As for land units there was Dutch and Belgium units fighting with the British. I'm not sure if they landed on D-Day or later they took part in the fighting to the east of the British beaches. There may have been other nations involved to but that's the only ones that come to mind at the moment. I have a feeling on one of my visits there i found flags of all the nations involved flying. I have an odd feeling there was Czech commandos there to possibly. I feel that Norway and Greece should be added to the nations involved. Anyone got any other information about other nations? Wonx2150 (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If we can find references for these they could be included (except the Luxembourgers - sorry that's just too few). DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Discrate - Add Australia in there, it's really insulting to not mention australia when, australia took part in normandy landings under the commonwealth forces. There were 20,0000 Aussies at the landing. Royal Australian Navy . Perhaps 2,500 RAN personnel were involved. Several ships of the Royal Navy, including destroyers, minesweepers, and torpedo boats had Australian skippers, and there were other Australian officers and enlisted men serving in three British cruisers and three destroyers. Australian Army. About 25 Australian Army officers served as observers with British units that took part in the landings. invasion. Royal Australian Air Force. By mid-1944 there were the ten RAAF squadrons based in Britain, totaling about 14,000 men, including some 1,500 serving in the 282 RAF and Commonwealth squadrons that took part in the invasion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.144.44 (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Need to make a distinction between Australia and Australians. The infobox shows the countries taking part ie which had formations taking part that were part of countries' national defence forces (In this case there is an argument to include Australia because of the involvement of RAN ships and RAAF squadrons). If however there had been only Australian individuals involved because they joined the Royal Navy then this would not justify the nation's inclusion any more than say including Sweden if the French Foreign Legion (=France) had been involved and a number of Swedes had been members of the legion (OK a slightly extreme example but do you get the point?). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to be an australian citizen to be in the australian military and back this war was before there was major immigration to australia, so everyone in the military would have been born here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.144.44 (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Er don't see the relevance of that. We are talking about the participation of Australia vs participation of Australians. Only the former justifies inclusion in the infobox but not the latter i.e. Australians (or other nationalities) fighting in the British military. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting points about the many Aussies involved. Perhaps the solution is to change the terms of the infobox to 'nationalities' rather than 'countries' taking part? That way, we could include 'Australians' (if by that time there were 'Australian citizens' as opposed to 'Citizens of the British Empire). It's worth comparing the Australian issue with the Polish issue. I see the Polish flag is there - but Polish contribution is nowhere mentioned in the article. I know that the excellent RAF Polish squadrons were involved in D-Day, but I don't think this is true of the autonomous Polish Army under British high command (which had similar status to Canadian Army under British high command). So really, according to WP conventions, the Polish flag shouldn't be on the D-Day page either. Sadly WP: Battle of Britain has established that the massive, vital and instrumental Polish contribution shouldn't legitimise a factbox flag for 'Poland' taking part. This has deeply upset many Poles and even plenty of RAF enthusiasts. But WP ruled this because the Polish squadrons were RAF squadrons manned by Poles, in contrast to the autonomous Polish Army which is recognized as a combatant in WP:Battle of Monte Cassino and WP:Battle of the Falaise Gap etc. As I say, out of respect to our fallen heroes, perhaps a solution is to change the terms of the infobox to 'nationalities' rather than 'countries' taking part? That way we could include Aussies and Poles without any shadow of a doubt. That would legitimize a Polish flag on the WP:Battle of Britain page too. Personally, I care more about what nationality the fighting servicemen tended to think they were, rather than what desk-bound bureaucrats said they were for whatever reason.Chumchum7 (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Main image

Would anybody object if it were changed to File:1944 NormandyLST.jpg or one of the other images on this page? The current image is quite dark, and it's difficult to really see much, not a very vibrant image.

Current image

Proposed image

YeshuaDavid • Talk • 15:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I accept the image quality is not the best, but the text of this article was originally focused on the naval element of the plan, hence the image of the fleet rather than foreward end of a landing craft. I've put it back in at another point in the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Flag (Canada)

That was not Canada's flag in 1944... someone should fix this. Nicholas.tan (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

D-Day was not even put "on this day"

Why was this not mentioned at all on the main page? Wouldn't this be a historic event? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazman34340 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

vichy France?

they were mentioned in the infobox but there is no other information in the article about them. D-Day was in German occupied northern France so I doubt there would be vichy forces fighting in that area. (Fdsdh1 (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC))

Absurd to add Vichy France. Vichy had no army since 1942 (when Germany invaded Southern France = the army of armistice was disbanded). The only remaining "troops" were the French Milice which was tasked with chasing resistants and jews. They barely saw fightings in the Liberation of Paris, but never in Normandy. I take the responsibility for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.173.96.87 (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

SOVIET not RUSSIAN

The references to 'Russian' troops in the article should be replaced with 'Soviet'. Otherwise, the references to 'British' troops should be replaced with 'English' to make the article consistent in the egregiousness of its errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.5.144 (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that Russia was called Soviet Union in the 1940's. But I disagree with changing British to English. British is the correct term and just saying English could, to someone with no knowledge of the subject, potentialy confuse them. English could mean anyone who happened to speak English or The English(To similar yet diffrent things, wait no ah not spmilar, I mean uh, you know what I mean!=). Sign My Guestbook!·Sumsum2010·Talk 03:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree about changing the name "Russian" to "Soviet". Russia - the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR) - was only one (albeit the dominant one) of the 15 Soviet Republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). BlueRobe (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It should remain British -- as in Great Britain, which is made up of England, Scotland and Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.131.43 (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Seaborne landings

Why would you not list the landing beaches in order from west to east? The sectors were named in alphabetic order across the beaches, and given that the maps actually show the sector names, it only makes sense to list the sectors on the beaches in this article. The landings also happened, chronologically, with the U.S. landings first, then the British/Canadian due to the tides, so there is a certain logic in listing them in that order also. In any event, isn't it rude for someone - administrator or not - to just revert something without stating why? I'd especially expect more manners than that from an administrator.139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The beachheads are, from West to East, Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, Sword. Evidently, they are not named in alphabetical order across the beaches. BlueRobe (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing Info

This article needs to include the aftermath and political effects of D-Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.74.217 (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. 97.120.105.174 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious statement

"The official record stated that 'within 10 minutes of the ramps being lowered, [the leading] company had become inert, leaderless and almost incapable of action. Every officer and sergeant had been killed or wounded [...] It had become a struggle for survival and rescue'."

That seems a dubious and POV statement to me. Does anyone know of a link to this "official record" or other source that verifies it? Spartan198 (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

352nd German Infantry Division

Changed content to reflect information on the composition of the 352md infantry division at Omaha Beech as per the Wiki article there. Previous had no citation. One is now provided, relating to the composition of the division, and reorganization of the sector to double its strength, which the Allies were unaware of until just before the invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.173.52 (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong info.

It says that "the weather was worse over Northern France then over the channel. The Germans knew that there would be no invasion for several days." This is wrong. The Germans had no idea that there would be an invasion. The Germans believed that no invasion would succeed on the Atlantic wall. Why would they be worried about some invasion the believed couldn't happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusty777 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I only happened to see this, I can say most reliable sources support the outlook that the Germans indeed expected an invasion that summer and had been misled to believe it would happen at Calais. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the Germans were still anticipating that anything could happen which is why Rommel fortified the beachheads with mines and barbed wire fencing and of course the German bunkers were manned and deadly. And the invasion began with Allied bombing along the shore to soften, or remove enemy forces, stationed along the beachhead. And farther inland, the hedgerows were loaded with German troops, etc. They were prepared, but Hitler wouldn't give the order to move the panzer divisions into position.Malke2010 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

moon and tide

Only a few days in each month were suitable for launching the operation, because both a full moon and a spring tide were required: ...

This language implies that there could be a full moon without a spring tide, which as far as I know ain't so. —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A full moon during the night hours was required. Moonrise after dawn would be no use to plane crews or navigators. HLGallon (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is a full moon, then the moon rises at 6:00PM and sets at 6:00AM. Furthermore, if there is a full moon, then there is a spring tide. There is also a spring tide at new moon, but that was unusable . Therefore, there was one "window" per month consisting of a very few days around the full moon. If the planners had insisted on a full moon that rose at midnight, (or at any time other 6:00AM) then the invasion could never happen. Therefore we need to change the statement. -Arch dude (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is a full moon, then the moon rises at 6:00PM and sets at 6:00AM. Nonsense! A full moon is the complete disc of the moon illuminated by the sun, no matter what time it rises and sets. A full moon which rises at 6:00 pm over Britain will rise at midnight on the eastern American seaboard and so on. It's the same full moon. "A full moon during the night hours was required" is a perfectly valid statement. It also produced a low spring tide around dawn, also required by the D-Day plan. HLGallon (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

False tanks and artillery

I read in Duh! by Bob Fenster that the success of D-Day was in part due to the spreading of false intelligence regarding the landing taking place on a different beach. The Allies then set up cardboard and plywood tanks and artillery on said beach so German planes flying over would see the "landing" being orchestrated. After some fact-checking, could this be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.72.87 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Only if you can find reliable sources to support the claim. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Operation Quicksilver. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Except for the fact that by that time German air reconnaissance was all but non-existent; see the last paragraph of Operation Quicksilver which agrees with what Thaddeus Holt says in The Deceivers (I just finished the "Quicksilver" chapter an hour or so ago). According to Holt the radio misdirection was largely wasted, but of course they didn't know it at the time. "Special means", specifically the double agents GARBO, BRUTUS and TATE (a bit) and the notational (false) networks of spies under them almost entirely carried the message. Hga (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I and several others have been doing a considerable amount of work on the article on Joan Pujol Garcia, otherwise known as GARBO. In the section on Operation Fortitude we have references for his part, and the more than 500 radio messages that were sent between January 1944 and D-Day. It is a measure of how well GARBO (known as ARABEL to the Germans) was awarded the Iron Cross, 2nd Class (and an MBE by King George VI). The false radio traffic created within England proved unnecessary because the Germans were relying so thoroughly on GARBO's fake network of 27 spies. His reports may have been the main thing that convinced Hitler that Normandy was a diversion, that the "real" invasion was still to come at Calais. As awful and difficult was the Normandy landing was, how much worse would the carnage have been with Rommel's tanks? K8 fan (talk) 06:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What was Norway's involvement

I could not find what Norway's involvement was anywhere in this article, but it is still listed as one of the allied forces? could someone clarify this? Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.25.109 (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I gather, Norway's primary contribution to the Normandy Landings was as part of a deception designed to fool Hitler into believing the Allied invasion of Europe would come through Norway. See D-Day: June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II by Stephen Edward Ambrose.

Frankly, the suggestion that the Allies would invade Europe through Norway is so ridiculous that I don't know how anyone could possibly have believed it. (Didn't anyone notice the stretch of water between Norway and Germany?) BlueRobe (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitler believed it throughout the war, and it's not so unreasonable if you think about it. As for the Norwegian contribution - the Norwegian Navy had about 10 warships in the flotilla, one of which was the only ship to be sunk on D-Day (HNoMS Svenner (G03)). Certainly notable enough to deserve the Norwegian flag to be displayed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about the Norwegian naval vessels. Thank you. That said, the "invasion plan for Norway" was utterly absurd, (especially when I "think about it"). An invasion of Norway would have gotten the Allies no closer to conquering Germany. Indeed, the Allies invading Norway in 1944 would be stupidity akin to Germany's Operation Sealion being a plan to conquer Britain by invading Ireland. The water barrier created by the Baltic Sea would make conquering Norway a complete waste of time. BlueRobe (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The deception worked in June 1944, there were 370,000 Germans stationed in Norway. Which if they had been in France would have made any landings at harder proposition. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, but Bluerobe I think you're underestimating the strategic potential of Scandinavia. Occupied by the Axis it meant the North Sea and Arctic route to Murmansk were contested (which limited how and where the RN Home Fleet could be deployed) and the Luftwaffe had a northern base for raiding the UK. If it had been occupied by the allies the Baltic would be contested, the RAF would have had a northern base for raiding Germany, and the Royal Navy would be able to concentrate its forces more effectively. It was also an important source of iron ore iirc. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a forum, but you'll have a go anyway?

No one is denying that an invasion of Norway would have had some strategic value. But, with the aim of conquering Germany, the strategic value of invading Norway pales next to the value of invading mainland Europe, (which is why Norway was left virtually untouched, aside from a few raids, for the duration of the war). If anything, the allocation of resources to an invasion of Norway would have prolonged the war. BlueRobe (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What did Australia ever do on Dday?

They didn't even have their own beach, were there some aussie troops placed on with the british troops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.233.37 (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand are both listed as belligerents in the main article. However, I am not aware of any Australian or New Zealand (or ANZAC) units participating in the Normandy Landings.

I have checked the index of my favourite authority on the Normandy landings, D-Day: June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II by Stephen Edward Ambrose (author of the book Band of Brothers that was subsequently made into a television mini-series). The index makes no reference to "New Zealand", "Australia" or "ANZAC". That said, while that book is a truly remarkable and concise read, its index is pretty weak.

Similarly, the wiki articles Military History of New Zealand and Military History of Australia makes no reference to Australian or New Zealand units participating in the Normandy Landings.

However, there were numerous New Zealanders and Australians involved in the air war against Germany at the time of the Normandy Landings. For instance, Military History of Australia notes that:

The RAAF's role in the strategic air offensive in Europe formed Australia's main contribution to the defeat of Germany. Approximately 13,000 Australian airmen served in dozens of British and five Australian squadrons in RAF Bomber Command between 1940 and the end of the war.

Thus, Australian airmen (etc.) were almost inevitably involved in the strategic bombing related to the Normandy Landings. BlueRobe (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the combatants section is supposed to list the nations not nationals involved. In this context the key question as asked is "What did Australia do on D-day" not "What did Australians do on D-day". So if Australian units were involved (eg squadrons of the RAAF, battalions of the Australian army or ships of the RAN) then OK. However, if it was just individual Australians (or indeed any other national) who had joined the RAF, RN or British Army then this would count as a British involvement because they were British units controlled by the British government. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Kirrage, I agree. Indeed, if we were to count mere nationals, instead of the units representing nations, then the list of nations fighting alongside Germany on D-Day would include Poland, the United States and even Korea. And that would be absurd. (There's an amusing story in the Ambrose text about 4 Korean soldiers who came to be fighting as members of a German unit at Normandy). I'll provide a better citation when I have time. BlueRobe (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as New Zealanders are concerned, 485 NZ Squadron, flying Spitfires, claim to have shot down the first enemy bombers over the landing zones. However, notwithstanding that it was a New Zealand only squadron, it was still part of the RAF. There were other NZ crewed RAF squadrons, and more New Zealanders in the RAF squadrons generally (some 6,000 or so, with a very high proportion being aircrew), but I must agree that there was no official separate NZ military contingent. Same goes for the navy....there were some 4,700 New Zealanders serving in the Royal Navy come D-Day, and a fair proportion would inevitably have been involved....but again, no specific NZ naval formation or units. They were all off serving in the Mediterranean or the Pacific. Personally I would not list New Zealand as a nation participating in D-Day, regardless that quite a lot of individuals certainly did so. I guess the problem is sorting the definition you want to use? Regards Ivan McIntosh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.66.145 (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, your example of 485 NZ Squadron greys the boundaries. Indeed, the Wikipaedia page on No. 485 Squadron RNZAF says it was a squadron of the Royal New Zealand Air Force during World War Two, and notes that,

"Opportunities for air to air combat came on D-Day and on the week following, when 485 Sqn. shot down a total of nine enemy aircraft with no losses; these were to be the last enemy aircraft shot down in combat."

485 Squadron RNZAF was formed, along with other New Zealand, Australian and Canadian units under Article XV of the Empire Air Training Scheme, but, remained under the operational command of the Royal Air Force. Personally, I think this is sufficient evidence that New Zealand units did participate in the Normandy Landings. An examination of Australian units formed under this scheme may reveal similar contributions.

Thank you for the heads-up, Ivan McIntosh. BlueRobe (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that the following squadrons of the Royal Australian Air Force participated in the Normandy Landings: No. 453 Squadron RAAF (see photo of aircraft from No. 453 Squadron RAAF with white "invasion stripes painted on the aircraft"), No. 460 Squadron RAAF ("During the spring and summer of 1944, the squadron flew many missions in support of the D-Day landings"), No. 461 Squadron RAAF ("the Squadron continued to fly anti-submarine patrols over the Atlantic, including patrols in support of the Allied landing in Normandy"), and No. 464 Squadron RAAF ("From June 1944 the Squadron attacked transport and communications targets to support the Allied invasion of Europe.")

I hope this helps to resolve the original question. BlueRobe (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

We Should Have a In Popular Culture Section

I believe we should. So that we can mention the many different tv shows, movies, and video games depicting d-day.--163.150.137.101 (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There are so many references in popular culture the section would overwhelm this article. I suggest you start a separate article per WP:IPC. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Start a separate article.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of personnel

The operation was the largest amphibious invasion of all time, with over 160,000 troops landing on 6 June 1944. 195,700 Allied naval and merchant navy personnel in over 5,000 ships were involved.

Could a knowledgeable editor fix the above sentence so it's clear that the 195,700 personnel included the 160,000 troops? (I assume that's the case. Possibly I am incorrect.) Currently it's not clear. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the 195,000 figure does not include the 160,000 troops. Some simple mathematics: (195,700 - 160,000) / 5000 ships = an average of 7.8 crewmen for each ship. That is implausible. There were six battleships serving as part of Operation Neptune in support of the Normandy Landings, and each other those ships will have had a complement of 1500+ men. 122.57.127.90 (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

D Day.

D. Day means Deception Day because the Germans were deceived into thinking that the main invasion force was landing somewhere else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.232.12.213 (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

==No actually, that is completely false. D-Day. H-Hour and even M-Minute are radio callsignals, in use since 1917. They are used firstly for clarity on the radio, secondly as a convenient short form to indicate the time of an attack, allowing shuch radio-friendly short-forms as D+3 (3 days after D-Day) or H+5 (5 hours after H-Hour on D-Day). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 4:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

D Day =4

Where can one find info on Omaha Beach landings after D Day, like D Day+4??```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.120.213 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Juno Beach

I belief that along with the Canadian forces several other countries such as The Netherlands and Belgium invaded that beach. Of course I'm talking about the forces that escaped before they were conquered. They assisted with ships and also some troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.170.154.13 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Map "D-day assault routes into Normandy"

The subject map is adjacent to the text "The order of battle for the landings was approximately as follows . . ." and goes on to describe Normandy beachheads accessed by sea from the UK. The map provided is of airborne routes into Normandy, not seaborne routes. This error also occurs in the article "Operation Overlord" and apparently in all the articles discussing the individual beachheads.

Seaborne routes originated from Weymouth, Plymouth, and Southampton.

PhuDoi1 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Weather

This sentence, under Weather, does not make sense: "In the event, prevailing overcast skies limited Allied air support, and no serious damage was done to the beach defences on Omaha and Juno." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.199.126 (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Which part doesn't make sense to you? The source states: "...overcast skies limited air support and at Juno, as well as Omaha, no serious damage was done to the beach defences." There seems to be a little bit of close paraphrasing (especially at the end of the sentence) which could be a problem, but the sentence in the article does make sense. Doc talk 17:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Navies-in-exile

I thought it odd that we list Poland, Norway and the Netherlands as belligerents, considering these countries were occupied by Germany at the time. I did a Google search and the only real mention I could find was in this naval history website. It talks about navies-in-exile. I am not convinced that we should list these countries, because their contribution was much less than that of the free French... but if we do list them, it should be in a similar way. Two articles that we could link to are Free Norwegian Forces (instead of Norway) and Polish government-in-exile (instead of Poland). I can't see an equivalent article to use for the Netherlands (or for Greece, which we don't mention but is mentioned in the naval history website).

Yaris678 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, there's a different. The de jure governments of the Netherlands, Norway and Poland (and others) were in exile in London. The Vichy government of France was in France. The Free French were not the de jure government, although that is what they became after they liberated the country. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What does de jure mean in this context? I am pretty sure that Germany didn't recognise those governments in exile. The United Kingdom may have recognised them, but that is pretty irrelevant since their entire territory was occupied by Germany.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well principally rcognised by their people, but also by the international community. I don't think the Poles, Dutch, Norwegians, Greeks (etc) recognised the occupiers and any puppet government as legitimate. France was slightly different (at least initially though not so much in 1944) and the Vichy Regime had legitimacy within France. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. So it’s not a question of law (de jure) it’s more a question of who do people want to be their government. Well that's all very nice, but the fact remains that these governments-in-exile weren't actually governing their countries... they were in exile. Indicating that the landings were supported by the governments-in-exile is fine, but if they weren't governing their countries then saying that their countries were belligerents is misleading.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it is a question of law. They were the legal (de jure) government of their countries, but not the de facto government (since their countries were occupied). I don't think we are asserting that they were actually governing their countries - they weren't - but they were the legitimate national authority and it is, therefore, appropriate to list them as such. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be going round in circles. A third opinion has been requested. 07:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I think that nationalism is part of the problem. Obviously, if (say) Norway were some homogenous entity, it couldn't simultaneously be a Nazi satrapy and an invader of Normandy. The actual situation differs because countries are not homogenous entities - a territory may have been conquered by the Nazis, and some people in that territory cooperated, and some people fought back locally, other people left and worked in organised opposition from outside Norway... so, I think the best way forward is to de-emphasise countries/states, and to emphasise actors instead. Norway as a whole wasn't a belligerent; but a particular group of Norwegians was. (Obviously you could apply the same reasoning to other countries; I'm just using Norway as an example). Consider a hypothetical civil war - would you say that one country was a belligerent on both sides? bobrayner (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)—bobrayner (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

Does this mean that instead of saying Norway, you think it should say Free Norwegian Forces? Or perhaps Free Norwegians if space in the infobox is a limiting factor.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Does it mean we should change all infoboxes in all historical articles to say "(armed forces) of (country)" as opposed to "(country)"? So, for example, this article would say that it was the "US Armed forces" rather than the "United States" because the US as a whole wasn't belligerent... I don't think this is viable. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The United States as a whole was belligerent, Norway was not. That's kinda the point. It's difficult for a country to act in a unified way when it is occupied by a foreign power. For example, in the US, even a pacifist would be paying taxes that are paying for the war. Most Norwegians would not have the option to pay taxes to the government in exile. Yaris678 (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really. A farmer in the US would be doing as much for the war effort as a fisherman in Norway (i.e. nothing unless you count taxes, in which case the Norwegian armed forces would have been at least partly funded by Norwegian tax payers). In any case I think this third opinion has only highlighted that the consequences of making the changes you want would affect a very wide range of articles. I would suggest you raise this at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree; my suggestion was made to remedy the specific problem here and any suggestion that it must be universally applied to other belligerents in other infoboxes across wikipedia would be an absurd strawman. If you have any more practical opposition to the 3O, please say so, and we can discuss that. Of course, if my third opinion is not the opinion you want, you might ask for further input from another project. bobrayner (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a strawman at all. Infoboxes are supposed to be consistent and careful attention has to be paid to the wording so as not to mislead, which is all too easy with short summaries. If we start substituting formal national entities with generic terms for specific groups of people (note the lack of referencing in the "Free Norwegian Forces" article) then the infobox will be misleading. Since the consistency and style of military history infoboxes is frequently discussed at the above project I would suggest that the editor wishing to make the change raises it there to gain a consensus - that would be the appropriate source for third opinions. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My primary goal is to avoid misleading people. In what way is Norway less misleading than Free Norwegian Forces?

Consistent formatting between different articles motivates all kinds of work on infoboxes by certain wikipedians, but I don't think that should come at the expense of misleading readers of this article. This is, first and foremost, an encyclopædia, rather than project to line things up neatly in categories regardless of real-world consistency or accuracy. If anybody in a wikiproject has decided that All Belligerents Are Countries, they have my sympathies, but their worldview is no longer consistent with what sources say, and to pretend otherwise is a great disservice to the encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In what way is "Norway" less misleading than "Free Norwegian Forces"? Let's turn that on it's head. The term "Free Norwegian Forces" is misleading because it suggests that the Norwegian contribution to this operation was carried out by something other than the Norwegian government's armed forces. It suggests that the majority of the Norwegian people recognised the Quisling Regime (only 3% did) and not King Haakon VII's government in London. It suggests that the Storting was not financially independent of the Allies and the casual reader might assume that it had not made any contribution to the war effort (e.g. supplying 40% of the UK's oil imports in 1942 via its large merchant marine - the fourth largest in the world). Usage of such a term also implies a ragtag band of ill-equipped mercenaries and not an organised military with 58 ships, several fighter squadrons and independent commando companies. If we were going to take a legalistic view we would use the term used in a contemporary treaty: "the forces of the Kingdom of Norway alled with the United Kingdom". However, this is a bit of a mouthful and can be accurately shortened to "Norway" in this context, making it consistent with the armed forces of the other allied nations, many of whom were under the operational control of another. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I should also add - at the risk of sounding nationalistic - that it seems insulting to those who fought for their nation that we should label them as representing something less than their home country. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that someone open up an RFC regarding this discussion, to get further input of other non-related editors? It is suggested in 3O, that if the third opinion does not lead to a resolution to the issue at hand, that active editors could seek other sources of comment, RFC being one of them.

If the usage of Free Norwegian Forces is used, where there elements under the Quisling regime that fought on the axis side during Operation Neptune? If not, I don't see why Free Norwegian Forces need to be specified, and Norway, with the underlying wikilink to the government in exile, be used. However, if there were, then both need to be specified as such, IMHO, similar to that done in the article Philippines Campaign (1944–45). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

So does this mean we should change articles on eastern front battles to specify "free Soviet forces"? A small proportion of Soviet citizens fought on the Nazi side. In this case a small number (and I mean a small number) of Norwegians fought for the Nazis, motivated mainly to fight against the Soviets, but I don't think this is justification for changing the nomenclature. The same is true of nearly all countries - there were even fascists from the UK on the Nazi side. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The governments in exhile need to be recognized. They are, as noted above, the de jure governments, the legitimate governments, & should be treated as such. The "free Soviet forces" aren't, since there was not any Sov government in exhile; the legitmate government hadn't fallen & there was no "Russian Vichy". (The number of UK fascists serving was so small, it doesn't even deserve comment in this connection. AFAIK, there wasn't even a Government minister among them.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

British English template

I've had a look through the history of this article and it does appear that it was started in British English and should probably remain in it. Of course it is clearly an American (inter alia) topic too, and I have no great axe to grind here, but the rules would appear to suggest that BrE is more appropriate, and it would be nice to get rid of the silly inconsistencies and slow-motion edit wars over defense/defence etc. Based on my research I am therefore templating it as BrE and hope others agree that this is an OK move in the circumstances. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I am having a senior moment. I tried adding {{Use British English}} to a couple of places on this page and it seems to have no effect. Are you meant to put it on the article itself?? I'm unwilling to experiment too much in case I wreck something. Sheesh. :( DBaK (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. The template is {{BrE}}, Regards.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Casualties: Deaths

Are there any sources for the numbers of allied & (Axis) personnel who DIED on D-Day? I find the term "casualty" to be very misleading. Dead soldiers can't fight. Wounded ones can.

For example, a paratrooper named Donald Burget (author of "Currahee") was severly wounded by shrapnel, but spent more than a day in combat near Carentan before being sent to Britain for treatment & later retruning in time for the Rhine crossing in 1945. Basically, he counts as a casualty (getting a Purple Heart & all) but survived &continued fighting, whereas a "casualty" who is killed cannot.

Do you see why the distinction is important? This article needs more work!67.241.80.116 (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

_________________________________

Also, is there any lists of the amount of artillery used in the Normandy section of the Atlantic Wall?

Title of this article

Hello ! Surely, as this article refers to a specific historic event as opposed to "landings" in the general sense of the word, the "L" should rightly be in upper case. Thanks for your comments. degourdon (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello again, this is a suggested amendment of the introduction to this article,which is intended only to condense and to reduce repetition; any comments would be welcome.

The Normandy Landings, code named Operation Neptune, were the landing operations of the Allied invasion of Normandy, during Operation Overlord, in World War II, and commenced at 6:30 AM British Double Summer Time (GMT+2) on Tuesday 6th. June 1944. D-Day was the term used in planning the actual landing date, which was dependent on last minute approval. Two phases were involved: an airborne assault by 24,000 British, American, Canadian and Free French troops shortly after midnight, and an amphibious landing of Allied infantry and armoured divisions on the coast of France. There were also decoy operations under the code names Glimmer and Taxable to distract German forces from the real target areas.[4] Planned by a team under Lieutenant-General Frederick Morgan, this was the largest amphibious invasion in history and was executed by land, sea and air elements under direct British command with over 160,000[5] troops getting ashore on D-Day itself. 195,700[6] Allied naval and merchant navy personnel in over 5,000[5] ships sailing from Southern England were involved in the landings, air support, naval interdiction of the English Channel and fire-support. The beaches chosen covered a 50-mile (80 km) stretch of the Normandy coast divided into five sectors: Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword. degourdon (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

Casualties are given as 10,000 with http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm#casualities as source. The same source states that 10,000 is likly to be too low and that "recent painstaking research by the US National D-Day Memorial Foundation has achieved a more accurate - and much higher - figure for the Allied personnel who were killed on D-Day." It states that the number of killed is at least 4414, opposing to the current 2500. That would led to at least 12,000 overall casualties (excluding additional wounded/missing). StoneProphet (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

canadian flag

can we pls switch the flag to the proper "maple leaf" to help alleviate confusion?(Undeadplatypus (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

I imagine that the flag that is currently there is there because that was the Canadian flag at the time of the invasion: the Maple Leaf flag wasn't the official flag until 1965. That flag[8] was the flag until 1957. Doc talk 18:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

German strength

There seems to be some flip flop editing as to whether the German strength was 10,000 or 380,000 (neither with citation)! I guess the smaller number is supposed to approximate to the German numbers actually engaged in fighting on the 5 beaches (and against the two airborn landings) and the latter the German troop strength under OB West. Since this article is about the first day (i.e D-Day itself) then the former is more appropriate. However, 10,000 sounds too low (particularly when set against the 9,000 casualty figure! What is needed is some digging and cited facts. Does anyone have their hand on such a thing (before I spend time doing my own digging)? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk- contribs} 00:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I will second this, as the German strength was well above 10,000 on the first day. I would like to know how any educated person can quote 10,000. 352 infantry had a depleted strength of 7,800 on June 6, 1944 so there were only 2200 German troops covering the rest of Normandy. I cite a credible source in a few days, German divisions that took part on the 1st day: ` This list of military units corresponds to the German Army Group B in Normandy between June 6 and 7, 1944.

84th Corps

243rd Infantry Division 352nd Infantry Division 709th Infantry Division 716th Infantry Division

21st Armored Division

22nd Armored Regiment 125th Infantry Regiment 155th Infantry Regiment 192nd Infantry Regiment 21st Armored Reconnaissance Detachment 200th Tanks Hunter Detachment 220th Armored Engineer Detachment

I get a more complete number soon, Jacob805

Other sources

A recently deleted article, Success of D-Day, contained the following possibly relevant sources:

• Barbier, Mary Kathryn. D-Day Deception: Operation Fortitude and the Normandy Invasion. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2007. (14, 17, 21).
• Biernacik, Stan Z. "The D-Day Invasion of Normandy.” Polish American Journal.
• Burns, R.W. “Deception, Technology and the D-day invasion.” Engineering Science and Education Journal. (1995).
• "D-Day: Operation Overlord.” The History Channel.
• DeVault, Steve. "D-Day and Operation Fortitude.” Suite 101. 13 June 2007.
• Hughes, Thomas Alexander. "Normandy." Air & Space Power Journal 17.4 (2003): 16-29.
• Laurenceau, Marc. "Preparations of the Normandy landing Operation Fortitude.” The Battle of Normandy.
• "Operation "Fortitude” Normandy Memorial.
• Pike, John. "Fourteenth Army.” GlobalSecurity.org.
• Trueman, Chris. "Background to Operation Overlord.” History Learning Site.

Hopefully these will be of some use! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Naval screen

Currently reads "The screening operation destroyed few German ships, but the objective was achieved. There were no U-boat attacks against Allied shipping and few attempts by surface ships" - On 11 June 1944 the Captain class frigate HMS Halsted was torpedoed by an E-boat in mid channel off Normandy which blew off her bow section, she was written off as Constructive Total Loss (with the loss of 27 hands).
ref:

• Collingwood, Donald. The Captain Class Frigates in the Second World War Leo Cooper, (1998). ISBN 085052 615 9, p131

I'm not sure if an E-boat qualifies as a ship, perhaps E-boats could be worked into the paragraph somehow?

...and on 15 June 1944 U-764 torpedoed HMS Blackwood (while the ship was on a A/S patrol in the western approaches to the English Channel), and she sank the following day.
refs:

• Collingwood, Donald. The Captain Class Frigates in the Second World War Leo Cooper, (1998). ISBN 085052 615 9, p67
• Blackwood Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships

--Thefrood (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Also see the comment about HNoMS Svenner (G03) in the "What was Norway's involvement" section above. --Thefrood (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll see that at the head of this article it says "...This article is about the first day of the Invasion of Normandy (D-Day). The subsequent operations are covered in Invasion of Normandy..." So events on 11 June and 15 June are not strictly relevant here but might find a place in Invasion of Normandy. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(1)HNoMS Svenner (G03) was sunk on the first day, (2) rename the article as it is misnamed if referring to only the first day (imho). --Thefrood (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Currently reads "There were no U-boat attacks against Allied shipping and few attempts by surface ships." Not having a citation to verify that something didn't happen is unnecessary. Requiring an author prove a negative seems a bit pedantic. PINSKO (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say an e-boat was a ship, what else could it be? A tank? Birdshot9 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Belligerents

In the list of billegerents on the allied side, countries such as Norway, Poland and Netherlands are listed. As these countries were occupied at the time, can they really be considered to have been on the allied side? I realize that there were some free forces from these countries contributing to the allied effort, but I think this should be made clearer - as in the French case, which refers to "Free France". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.72.155 (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Potentially confusing semantics between "Weather" section re: tidal conditions and other references (cf. German Order of Battle::Atlantic Wall)

The Weather section indicates that the naval advance required the deepest possible water to avoid seaward obstacles, but other references (correctly) indicate the low-tide at assault. I think that the intent of the Weather section was to indicate the high tide in the channel during the advance, and the low tide at Normandy during the assault phase, but curious if anyone else feels this warrants re-wording? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jknight6 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Request to change the positions of the US and the UK in the infobox

Right now the United Kingdom is the first on the Allied belligerents list. The rationale behind this is that UK supposedly had more assault troops involved in the landings than the United States. However, I cannot find any figures that support this claim without combining Canadian and British troops. I tried changing this, but my edits were reverted and I am not looking to start an edit war. I wanted to know what you folks think. Thanks. 67.181.110.75 (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Leave as is for reasons already stated. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, David. So how many British assault troops participated in the Normandy landings? And what are the numbers for the Americans? 67.181.110.75 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What reasons already stated? There does not appear to be any on this talk page and your edit summary directed the IP to this talk page. Reasons do need to be stated here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this but if you're going to start counting heads, remember that this article is specific to the Normandy Landings. This was a combined operation and so naval personnel and possibly air and merchant seamen should be included in the tally not just assault troops. On D-Day the official numbers landed on the beaches were 57,500 on Utah and Omaha (US), 21,400 on Juno (Mainly Canadian but with 2 British commando units) and 53,815 Gold and Sword (Brits). The British official history adds that 15,500 US airborne troops landed and 7,900 British. It also states that naval personnel employed in warships, landing craft and barges plus a relatively small number of shore and other miscellaneous parties amounted to 52,889 US and 112,824 British plus 4,988 "Other Allied" seamen. It only gives an estimate for total Allied Merchant seamen involved at 25,000 Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 00:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies to Berean and un-named contributor, but I did not pick-up your comments until today. Something obiviously went wrong with the alerts. I can, however, do no better than Kirrages comments above, the reasons "already stated" were virtually the same as Kirrages. I really see no reasons for a change in the positions of the UK and US flags. With best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually the British had what's called an empire back then - British Empire - and so many Canadians (and Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Fijians, Kenyans, Rhodesians, Indians, West Indians, Malays, Singaporeans, Burmese, etc.,) would have regarded themselves as 'British' - see British subject - and most actually had what would nowadays be called British citizenship. Either way, the 'British' outnumbered everyone else. And it (the invasion) was carried out almost entirely using their ships. At the time Britain had more ships under its flag than all the rest of the world's shipping fleets combined. So the 'British' were rather more important to the invasion, and to the war in general, than some of you might like to think, or may have been led to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Deception Plans

I've just been reverted by Yaris678 with no explanation. I had reworded the text to reflect the fact that the Pas de Calais deception was more than just radio deception but a coordinated scheme that was Operation Fortitude South. In order not to clog the article up I removed the reference to radio deception but added a link to the Fortitude article where the detail can be found. I intend to change it back unless a satisfactory argument against is forthcoming below. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 22:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I've just seen this now. It must've been a fat finger by me. I have no issue with your edit. Yaris678 (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. On reflection my comment above sounds rather pompous: I tend to overreact to edits without edit summaries. I should try to assume it's a cock-up not a conspiracy! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 08:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No probs. Yaris678 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyedits

I've just spent the last few hours copy-editing this article; changing such things as 'defence' to 'defense'. I then came to this page and saw the 'British English' banner! Maybe I should have come to this page first, but I was trying to be consistent because, for example, the first 'defence' I came across was written in British English but the second one... Oh well, you live and learn.

Anyway, to business:
1. At the moment Erwin Rommel is dropped into the text with no introduction or explanation of why he was there (the article or indeed, France), - it was a similar story with von Runstedt, (although I did remember to put some information about him) i.e. [rank and appointment]. I think Rommel needs the same treatment.
2. In the 'Atlantic Wall' section, I've changed 'Belgium' to 'Norway' to agree with the accompanying map.
3. In para 5 of the 'Naval Screen', it states: 'There were no U-boat or E-boat attacks against Allied shipping on D-Day.'
But under 'Naval losses', we have: 'The only naval contact during D-Day occurred when four German torpedo boats reached the Eastern Task Force late in the afternoon and launched eighteen torpedoes, sinking the Norwegian destroyer HNoMS Svenner off Sword beach...'
I see that this contradiction already crops up above; there is some discussion over dates, but surely something should be resolved.
4. I've de-linked 'Lord Tweedsmuir' as according to the article on this gentleman, he died in 1940. So, who is the Lord Tweedsmuir who is mentioned in the 'The Crossword Panic of 1944' ?

~~

I did not sign myself properly last time round

RASAM (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

'Material' or 'materiel'

In the article overview, it is stated that "[t]he invasion required the transport of soldiers and material from the United Kingdom...". When I saw the use of 'material', which I thought should be spelt 'materiel', I immediately moved to make the change but saw that a previous editor had a left note instructing "DO NOT CHANGE spelling — material is correct".

Let me begin by citing some Oxford Dictionary (British English) definitions:

material: [mass noun] the matter from which a thing is or can be made

materiel: [mass noun] military materials and equipment

Now I would certainly not disagree that the use of 'material' here is, strictly speaking, correct, but I cannot help think that 'material' would be more appropriate in this context.

I would be very grateful if someone (preferrably the editor who left the above comment) could explain to me the preference for using 'material'. I should probably know how to track down the editor in question and address him/her directly, but am at this stage a novice editor myself (any advice on how to do this would be appreciated).

Regards

Reperireza (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Materiel FFS! It's perfectly correct, not language specific, and the more precise word. "Material" belongs at simple:Normandy landings — unless that editor would rather dumb us down even further and call it "stuff". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Decisive victory

Can we please agree on whether or not this victory was decisive? I have seen some utterly ludicrous edit wars over this term on other articles and would hate to see it here. I don't know if "decisive" is a term for which we (perhaps in the relevant project?) use a formal definition; or if we can refer to reliable sources which see it as such (or not); or if it is just seat-of-the-pants stuff based on, in effect, our opinions? It would be better, to be honest, if it were not the last of these three, and anything would be better than some bl**dy silly voting process; but I know what I think it is, for all that that's worth - and it might be worth trying to get to some sort of consensus here rather than just have it churning on and off the page as it is now. At least carrying out the discussion here would be healthier for the article than multiple reverts, which is already starting to look a bit silly ... cheers DBaK (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with your note that there is no need for a edit war on this article. The Normandy Landings were the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany and victory for the Allies, so it may be termed "decisive". I am happy to keep an open mind on the subject. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Lord Tweedsmuir

I have deduced that the Lord Tweedsmuir who investigated the Crossword panic of 1944 was not the one to which Lord Tweedsmuir redirects, i.e., the John Buchan who died in 1940. It must have been John Buchan, 2nd Baron Tweedsmuir who held the title in 1944. It would be a help if someone could alter that redirect to go to the Tweedsmuir (disambiguation) page, because to date there have been four Lord Tweedsmuirs. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The weather reports that gave the Green light to go?

Maybe you could clear something up. I recall reading that there was a network of weather stations( buoys and ships) scattered across the Atlantic that were used to give the green light for the D-day amphibious landings.

However, all I have been able to find is this - The decision to go ahead with the D-day landings being decided on, in part, by a weather report supplied by Blacksod Bay weather station, in County Mayo Ireland.

p.180. Duggan, John P. Herr Hempel at the German Legation in Dublin 1937–1945 (Irish Academic Press) 2003 ISBN 0-7165-2746-4

& http://www.met.ie/about/weatherobservingstations/belmullet.asp

So does anyone know if any other ships or stations played a part? Or am I remembering things incorrectly? Boundarylayer (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

POV bias

reads like a British novel, to the extent of telling the reader how many more British ships there were American... it is certainly revisionism at best. But what is really disturbing is, the they way it is written. jacob80522:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.13.10.59 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2013‎

• Yes I agree, I took the liberty of inserting the fact that the US Navy was engaged in a far larger naval fight with Japan. An important factor contributing to the lack of American ships in the Normandy fleet, I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned. (Central Data Bank (talk)) — Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 21 April 2013‎

"Utah Beach" language

   I doubt that i need to comment beyond my minutes-old ed-summ which reads

Clean up punctuation salad: the ungrammatical use of semic is just confusing, and parens already serve to mark paren sent as commenting on what precedes it

re my rewriting a supposed sentence with that had had this bizarre syntax and punc'n:

<independent clause>; (<independent clause>.).

But further, the "was" would most smoothly with least astonishment be read as implicitly saying he was (already) famous for it at the timeframe of the first clause, i. e. at the time of the landings and/or discovery of the error; actually, it's unlikely he was immediately "famous" outside his immediate subordinates, and in fact he surely became progressively more famous for it in the day or two after the utterance; hence my shift to "became".
   Nonetheless, closer attention to the latter clause is still warranted. One states, as a rule, facts (or what one is purporting to be facts), while saying establishes the fact of utterance, without commitment (by our writer) as to the veracity or other status(es) of the content uttered. I don't mean to suggest uncertainty about truth, but one goes further and declares something that becomes true by virtue of the utterance in question.
   To be more explicit, i expect Rosie was regarded by the immediate audience as having issued an order and simultaneously made a very short inspirational speech: the substance of the order was

don't do anything on the assumption that we're going to move back to our assigned place, (and then just proceed as if we had been delivered late), tho of course we'll all pay attention to what our options are re planned events whose effect will be different from expected bcz we were expected to be elsewhere.

and the substance of the speech was

plans are never cast in concrete bcz you're never sure what the enemy will do, so the need to improvise is something we've been anticipating all along; let's get to work.

   Thus IMO something stronger than my "said" ("declared", "pronounced", "announced"?) may be called for; IMO the tone it's given in sources is relevant.
--Jerzy•t 03:05 & 03:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Was Operation Overlord delayed by two weeks? According to the Stephen Ambrose book, "Band of Brothers" (which was the basis for the cable miniseries), Operation Overlord was to have originally taken place two weeks earlier but was delayed due to bad weather. This conflicts with the statement in the entry stating that the weather in May was "fine". In addition, the 1962 movie "The Longest Day", A US military leader states that, "this operation has already been delayed once". Perhaps some clarification is needed here? 76.105.145.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rape allegations - inadequate sources

The allegations of rape against US servicemen has been placed in the "See also" section, but its reference is a review of a book by Mary Louise Roberts in a German newspaper "Der Spiegel". A second review of the same book in the "Daily Mail's" webpage cannot be accessed. These two citations are from tertiary sources. This sort of "sound bite" reference is frowned upon under Wikipedia:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources, if the secondary source (Professor Roberts's book) is available. I note for example, that the specific allegation in "Der Spiegel's" review refers to GIs who were being repatriated through Le Havre in the summer of 1945, after VE Day, not part of the Normandy campaign at all. If the claim is to be substantiated, the secondary source ought to be cited, with page numbers. HLGallon (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the "Daily Mail's" webpage cannot be accessed? Your personal network condition is no relation to wikipedia. And according to HLGallon's logic, only allowed allegation of rapes are on the day and before rapists eyes. It's nonsense, who could allege before the rapists eyes.--Syngmung (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The link does work [9] - sources (Der Spiegel, for example) are fine. However, your link, is a failed proposal → [10]--77.181.236.141 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, if a book is to be used as a source, it is both more accurate and good manners to obtain a copy, read it and cite it, rather than its publicity blurb in a newspaper. Citing potentially sensationalist reviews has resulted in badly skewed POV slants in articles such as the Bengal famine of 1943. HLGallon (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Der Spiegel is a WP:RS, that is used hundreds, if not thousands of times, in almost as many WP articles. It is not a "newspaper", and its content is not "publicity blurb". --77.181.236.141 (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I must confess to being unhappy at this inclusion. It does not seem to refer to the Normandy landings, but during the campaign itself - if true? The original editor seems to have an obsession with "rape" in wartime. I would prefer much better sources before these allegations are left in the article. David J Johnson (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The see also links and sources don't mention the "Normandy landings" so the inclusion in the "See also" section doesn't seem relevant to the article topic. They may be relevant to a broader article. I have boldly removed them once, but have been reverted - I can't make sense of the edit comment used. "Undid revision 558021548 by Hohum (talk) The article take up women in Normandy". (Hohum ^@) 11:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's choplogic word play. The Normandy landing forces occupied Normandy and raped women, before they returned home or marched to smash other area Nazi forces. The incidents are the very related this article.--Syngmung (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hohum. Syngmung appears to be making a point that rape was common during the campaign in France. The point should therefore be made in a higher level article: Invasion of Normandy or more likely, Operation Overlord. Normandy Landings focuses on the action during one day, the rapes cover a longer period. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Stephen and Hohum. The landings basically only refer to one day. The one source is a newly promoted book, the Daily Mail feature is only a review of same. I would prefer more reliable sources and I'm concerned that the promoting "editor" seems to be obsessed with rape and cannot supply a readable summary of their edits. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This does seem WP:undue for this particular article and would be better suited to a more general article on the invasion as a whole. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I dont think inadequate sources, but Dennis Brown commnet is good answer.--Syngmung (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

We are fast reaching a point, Syngmung, where no one cares what you think. You clearly have not read WP:OR, in particularly the section WP:SYNTH in enough detail. If you continue posting this original research on all of these articles, then you are almost certainly going to get either blocked or topic-banned very soon. Please acknowledge the fact that you cannot in good conscience attribute a claim to a particular author if you have not read that author's book and can only cite book reviews. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• ANI. A topic ban has been proposed for Syngmung. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting information about the tides on the day of the invasion

In the section entitled "Weather" it states: "...a day near the full moon was needed both for illumination during the hours of darkness and to take advantage of the spring tides, the former to illuminate navigational landmarks for the crews of aircraft, gliders and landing craft, the latter to provide the deepest possible water to help in navigating over defensive obstacles placed by the German forces in the surf on the seaward approaches to the beaches." This would seem to conflict with information in the section entitled "Atlantic Wall" which states: "The attacks were timed for low tide because it minimized the effectiveness of landing obstacles that were likely to have resulted in drowned troops; many landing craft would have been holed and sunk during the final approach." One section indicates the invasion was planned for high tide, the other indicates it was planned for low tide. Is this a true discrepancy? CookDing (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Pro British implications

Most of the bias has been removed, but there are still some rather pointed statements that read like it was a competition between British and US forces. I'll have a think and try and come up with some alternative wording over the next day or two. For the sake of clarity, I'm British myself but I'm not really interested in flag waving. The various allies had their strengths and weaknesses, but this article isn't the place to have a contest. I'll also reword anything that seems to be pro-american (or for that matter, pro-canadian, pro-norwegian, pro-italian, ad-nausium!) bias if I find it. If anyone's got anything to suggest, obviously feel free to comment. OneCatch (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Decisive allied victory - The greatest bias in almost every article, when its rare to see Decisive Axis victory but Axis had more decisive victories, but writing decisive is no longer neutral --Obitauri (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

has anyone read this

Naval activity

Large landing craft convoy crosses the English Channel on 6 June 1944

Operation Neptune, as the naval part of the D-Day invasion was known, was a primarily Royal Navy affair, both in planning and execution. This is widely considered ‘a never surpassed masterpiece of planning’.[29] In overall command was Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay RN, who as Flag Officer Dover had controlled the evacuation of over 300,000 soldiers from Dunkirk four years earlier. He had also been responsible for the naval planning of the invasion of North Africa in 1942 and one of the two fleets carrying troops for the invasion of Sicily the following year.

The invasion fleet was drawn from eight 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. Out of the 2,468 major landing vessels in the two task forces deployed on 6 June 1944 only 346 were American. Of the 23 cruisers covering the landings, 17 were British. Of the 16 warships covering the American Western beaches (Utah and Omaha) 50% were British and Allied ships. There were 195,700 naval personnel involved; 112,824 (58%) of them were British; 52,889 (30%) were from the US and 4,988 from Allied countries.[15]

The Allied Naval Expeditionary Force was divided into two Naval Task Forces: Western (Rear-Admiral Alan G Kirk USN) and Eastern (Rear-Admiral Sir Philip Vian RN – another veteran of the Italian landings).

The warships provided cover for the transports against any enemy surface warships, submarines or aerial attack, and supported the landings with shore bombardment. These ships included the Allied Task Force "O". A small part of the naval operation was Operation Gambit, when British midget submarines supplied navigation beacons to guide landing craf
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.13.10.59 (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

to follow with the above who made the ships should be pointed out also being that for LST's and LCVP's most were made in the USA. the LST wiki page states that 92.5% were american made and 100% of the LCVP's, 20,000, were made in the USA 97.115.170.98 (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

yes 'only' did sound a bit condescending, but apart from that it was ok, but someone needs to go and find an alternative to 'of the'. (213.167.69.4 (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Coordination with the French Resistance

I think the section Normandy landings#Coordination with the French Resistance would be better placed in the Operation Overlord article rather than its present location. I will move the material in the next day or two if no one comments or objects. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Cancel that; I changed my mind. A closer reading shows the activities discussed in the section were for the most part on D-Day itself. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move?

It seems as if there is a move intended for this article, from its current title Normandy landings to the new title D-Day. This seems quite a big step and I wondered if consensus for it existed? I'm going to drop the editor concerned a TB note and hope we can discuss it here please. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello DBAK, I agree totally with your comments above. My personal view is that the article should remain as Normandy landings and should remain as such, unless a majority of editors, who have contributed to the article, request the change. The title, as it presently appears, is far more descriptive than the operational name. With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Changing name to D-Day will potentially add confusion. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 00:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I am the editor who performed the edit referred in this topic. Yes, my edit was intended to start the rename process to D-Day. No, I didn't seek consensus before trying to rename. Yes, the wiki tools prevented me from moving the article. That's why I rolled back my edit. Based on the replies above, do I think a move should still be considered? Yes. I'll detail my reasons below. --Oshah (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

PS. Yes. The three month delay in replying is because I am no longer an active contributor to Wikipedia anymore -- Oshah (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed rename of article

I propose this article be renamed from its current title, Normandy Landings to the new primary title D-Day. The new title is already a redirect, so this is about making D-Day the primary name for this article. --Oshah (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for

• Backed by Reliable sources (the most important reason for). Most sources (78%, going by my WP:OR count of the Bibliography/External Links) use D-Day when they refer to the first day of invasions. Wikipedia is very much the odd source out by choosing to call it something else. --Oshah (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Recognisable. Higher score on the WP:Google Test. 5.47 million results for D-Day vs 558,000 for Normandy landings. --Oshah (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Natural. Less work for the disambiguation paragraph. The term D-Day, makes it clear that this article is meant to be about one day. --Oshah (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd still recommend keeping the current dablinks, because it does a good job reducing edit wars & vandalism -- Oshah (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that due to the lock? -- Oshah (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Precise. The term "Normandy landings" is still ambiguous. Does it mean the first day? Or could it be about the use of the Mulberry Harbours beyond D-Day, or even the use of Cherbourg after its capture (all examples of landings at Normandy). --Oshah (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Concise. The current name is a cop-out compromise, The Derry/Londonderry solution to Overlord and D-Day's naming dispute. --Oshah (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Should stop certain edit wars occurring (like here, here and here) --Oshah (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• It's keeping in line with the original intent of this article when it was fleshed out in 2007. --Oshah (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The current name dates back to 2008, not 2007. -- Oshah (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Reasons Against

• Consistency (the most important reason against). The existing name is more consistent with other articles on the topic. --Oshah (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• The article's name has been stable now for 5 years without controversy. --Oshah (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

However, I think this is the first move proposal, since we made D-Day link to this article (rather than what is now [D-Day (military term)]). -- Oshah (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• It's been 4 months since the author first attempted the move. How can anyone have a productive discussion with someone that takes 4 months to reply? --Oshah (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no response to the reasons above.--Oshah (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is a large change, technically.

It may be a large change, technically. However, most of the disambiguating work of was done in 2009, when D-Day was routed to this article. --Oshah (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's a small change. The best way of moving this is to follow the instructions in WP:EDRED -- Oshah (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

What about preserving the talk history? -- Oshah (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We already lost most of the talk history and edit history during the 2007-2009 article reorganisations. -- Oshah (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a shame if technical challenges prevented Wikipedia from doing what's right. -- Oshah (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is a large change, er, untechnically.

Dubious. D-Day and Normandy landings already redirect to this article. This move is all about deciding which should be the primary name. --Oshah (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Descriptive names are more intuitive than operational names.

The operational name for D-Day was Operation Neptune. But anyway, the most recognisable name for the first day of the operation would be D-Day.

• The new name could add confusion.

See above. I argue that Normandy landings is more ambiguous, not precise enough, leaves a lot of work for the dablink. That is, it doesn't score particularly well on the Naming criteria.

• The proposer is attempting to resurrect a discussion he lost 7 years ago. What makes him think he'll win this time?

I lost the debate 7 years ago on the basis that it would orphan/delete the existing D-Day (military term) page. However, that issue has now been solved.

• The proposer attempted to perform a controversial rename without first seeking WP:Consensus.

WP:Do not use edit history to escalate the conflict

Summary

The new name is more recognisable, natural, concise, precise and is supported by WP:RS. The old name is more consistent and stable, but it is more ambiguous and due to the lack of reliable sources, is possibly WP:OR.

Based on these arguments, I'll leave it to someone else to go through the move process. However, when deciding on your reply, I urge you not to decide based on the technical challenges nor the bad reputation (or even the good reputation) of myself, nor even on the WP:NC guidelines. You should base it on what, you think the article should be called, in 10 years time. -- Oshah (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer --Oshah (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose (no change from January). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Views given before. David J Johnson (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Mistake in the Article

Hello there, I don't have an account for Wikipedia therefore I cannot edit or correct the minor mistake that has been made. In the Weather section of this article, there is a sentence that is written in the following way :

"Had Eisenhower postponed the invasion, the the next available date with the correct combination of tides (but without the desirable full moon) was two weeks later, from 18 to 20 June. But during this period they would have encountered a major storm which lasted four days, between 19 and 22 June, that would have made the initial landings impossible to undertake."

If you read the sentence slowly and carefully, you will notice that the word "the" is repeated in the first part of the sentence unnecessarily.

I would appreciate if you took the time to just fix that tiny error which creates a minor flaw in a very professional article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.169.29 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks for spotting this error. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

How many Germans

Here is where I got the figure of 50,350 + Germans:

• 91st Infantry regiment: 7,500 men. Source: Ford and Zaloga page 120.
• 243rd Static Infantry Division: 11,530 men. Source: Ford and Zaloga page 119.
• 709th Static Infantry Division: 12,320 men. Source: Ford and Zaloga page 118.
• 352nd Infantry Division: at least 12,000 men. Source: Ford and Zaloga page 60 and 63.
• 716th Static Infantry Division: 7,000 men. Source: Ford and Zaloga page 60.

That adds up to 50,350 men, plus the men of the 21st Panzers. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of the French Republic

The Free French Forces participated in the Normandy landings, immediatly establihed the Provisional Government of the French Republic led by Charles de Gaulle.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 11:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Lead Y Background Y Operations Y Deception plans Y - For clarity, I recommend stating that Taxable and Glimmer were intended to simulate a naval force off the Pas de Calais.Y Weather Y German order of battle Y - a number of issues There are discrepancies with Niehorster's ORBAT (Niehorster is a reliable specialist source on ORBATs, see http://orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/011_germany/44-oob/44-06-01_neptune/b/corps_84.htm), at first glance, I don't see the 914th Arty Regt with 352nd Infantry Division, Niehorster has the 352nd Arty Regt (the divisional arty regt, which is what you would expect). Also, the 91st Luftlande Infantry Division was a direct command formation of 7th Army, not under command of LXXXIVth Corps on 6 June.Y The Germans were actually organised into Coastal Defence Zones, based on divisional groupings, which didn't correspond to the Allied beaches, which isn't very surprising. I think organising them in line with the Allied beaches gives the false impression that the German elements "lined up" with specific beaches, when they didn't. For example, the 1057th Grenadier Regt was deployed on the western side of the Cotentin Peninsula, and was more than 40km from Utah.Y It is not clear which citations relate to which parts of the ORBAT, eg some have a citation for sentence covering the division, but only one of the subordinate regiments has a citation.Y I recommend the ORBAT detail be spun off into a list article, but in the interim, tables would be helpful. At one point in the text, it states there was a strategic reserve, and at another that there was not. Clearly OKW did have a strategic reserve (1st SS Panzer Corps and the Panzer Lehr Division), 7th Army definitely had one (21st Panzer), Army Group B may or may not have had one, but I think it needs to be made more explicit who had what reserves, and the article certainly shouldn't contradict itself unless the sources are properly contrasted.Y Atlantic Wall Y - Not sure that this section is the place for it, but in the list of subordinate formations of Army Group B, XXXXVIIth Panzer Corps has been omitted. It included the 7th Army reserve, (21st Panzer Division), plus 2nd Panzer Division and 116th Panzer Division.Y Armoured reserves Y - suggest this list the divisions held as armoured reserves, as it is unclear which divisions each commander held control of (Hitler, Geyr and Rommel) Allied order of battle Y - a couple of queries You should point out somewhere that the whole landing force (including the US 1st Army) was under the operational control of 21st Army Group (Montgomery)Y The landing on Omaha was V Corps, not VII CorpsY Are you sure about the subordination of 6th Airborne to I Corps? I understood it was commanded directly by 21st Army GroupY Only some of the 79th was allocated in support of I Corps, eg the 1st Tank Brigade didn't land with themY Coordination with the French Resistance ? - use of the term État-major des Forces Françaises de l'Intérieur seems strange, probably needs a translation.Y Naval activity Y - this section contains information about air operations, which is counter-intuitive, suggest the air operations information be pulled out and placed in its own section, also suggest using bombing rather than bombardment, the latter generally is used to refer to naval bombardment The landings Y suggest you explain where Point du Hoc isY "In spite of the rough seas, two companies of the 741st Tank Battalion dropped their DD tanks" - doesn't make sense. the 741st didn't drop its own tanks, it was dropped (by the navy)Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	the lead section needs to be expanded to summarise the whole article IAW WP:LEAD. At present it makes no mention of casualties, the different experiences on the five beaches, etc.Y throughout, comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures, per MOS:NUMERAL Y
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	File:Royal Marine Commandos attached to 3rd Division move inland from Sword Beach on the Normandy coast, 6 June 1944. B5071.jpg - the caption should read "Royal Marine Commandos" not "Royal Marines Commandos"Y
	7. Overall assessment.	Listed, great job!

• Order of Battle: I have rearranged the material regarding the defenses on the Cotentin Peninsula using the map on p. 22 of Goldstein et al. If it will still be too confusing, perhaps I should remove the units that were not directly involved on D-Day itself. What's your opinion? I have removed the other units stationed further west on the Cotentin. Regarding the 914th Arty Regt, that was a typo, Ford & Zaloga states 352nd Artillery Regiment (p.63). I have added more citations as to where the data came from for all the units. Regarding who controlled which armoured reserve divisions (Hitler, Rommel, Geyr), none of the books I have available locally contain that information, but I will keep looking. I am willing to put the data in a table if you think that's necessary but looking over other orders of battle (Kursk, Juno Beach, and El Alamein are the ones I looked at) none of them seem to be in tables, so I am having trouble visualising how this would work out. Regarding the German divisional areas, I have reorganised the content; please see if this is better.Y
• Regarding who had control of what reserves, it's not covered in the sources I have here, and it's kinda a moot point anyway, as Hitler would have final approval regardless.Y
• Subordinate formations of Army Group B: I can't see where these were involved in D-Day itself, except for 21st Panzers. Added -- Diannaa (talk)

• Under operational control of 21st Army Group (Montgomery): This is mentioned right below the header "Allied order of battle".Y my mistake
• 6th Airborne Division: Ford & Zaloga shows them as part of British 1 Corps (p 200) and I can find nothing in the other source books that contradict this.Y
• Lead has been expanded; I will look it over again later and see what else needs doing. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think the lead is okay now; please see if you agreee. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, listed. Well done! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you so much for a great review and for helping with this important project. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Crossword puzzles

This is a minor bit of trivia that doesn't belong in the article. It should be removed in my opinion.98.218.180.142 (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it adds a human side to the story. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I like it... but it does seem a little out of place. Mostly because it's about the pre-cursor to D-Day but is placed at the end of the article; perhaps it should be reduced and moved into the background section. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I prefer it at the end, because it's not as important. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's just vastly undue weight - as a minor matter, before the date, it's unexpected to see it in such detail. Of comparative size to Analysis. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's convert it to a see-also, since we now have a wee article on this topic. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please add this to the article and infobox?

"Some 20,000 French civilians were killed in the two-and-a-half months from D-Day, 3,000 of them during the actual landings."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8084210.stm

Thanks. 24.215.188.243 (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: This article focuses only on D-Day, the first day of the invasion. Information about the first several months of the campaign is in Operation Overlord, and civilian casualties are already mentioned there. Operation Overlord#Civilians and French heritage buildings -- Diannaa (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Composition of allied order of battle

Composition of the Allied order of battle on D-Day
	Total	USA	UK	Others
Warships	1,092	200	892	~
Landing crafts	4,066	805	3,261	~
Aircraft	12,000	4,000	8,000	~
Troops	156,115	73,000	61,715	21,400

For balance and precision, could we have a summary of the actual composition of allied forces on D-DAY (which can certainly be improved further). Can someone paste this box at the beginning of the "Allied order of battle" paragraph? Source for the following box is CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/05/opinion/opinion-d-day-myth-reality/ , and for troops the source is this article itself. Thanks! 神风 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Composition of the Allied order of battle on D-Day
	Total	USA	UK	Other allies
Warships	1,092 (Holland est.)	200	892	~
	810 (Wilmot est.)	46	753(UK+ Canada)	11
Landing crafts	4,067(Holland est.)	805	3,261	~
	6,047 (Wilmot est.)	2,288	3,759	~
Aircrafts	12,000(Holland est.)	4,000	8,000	~
Troops	156,115	73,000	61,715	21,400

While the article was written by a historian (James Holland), the information differs from Wilmot, who says on pp. 177–178, chart p. 180, that there were 6,047 landing craft available, of which 2,288 were provided by the US Navy. Wilmot says that 696 warships were provided by the Canadian Navy and the Royal Navy, 46 by the Americans, and 11 from other countries. He doesn't say anything about the aircraft. This differs from the info presently in the article, so I am going to change to Wilmot's numbers, rather than the ones from CNN. Data has been added to the section "Naval activity" rather than the suggested chart. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I added Wilmot in the chart. Isn't it a bit odd that there is so much discrepancy? And isn't Wilmot a bit old as a source (1911-1954)? 神风 (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The numbers from Holland agree with the source that was used before, so I have put his information into the prose. I don't want to use the table because it doesn't contain information for other allied nations, who also supplied aircraft and ships. There's also a problem trying to fit the table into the layout without squishing the prose or having to remove an image. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Casualties number

What does "at least ~12 000 casualties" mean? At least an approximate number that could be lower? Also, the source attached does not strictly say that additional dead identified were not already part of the original casualties estimate, so simply adding them does not seem well motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6D8:10:A014:A800:73F2:14A7:A77A (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Up until recently, casualties were estimated at 10,000, of which 2,500 were deaths. However, recent research conducted by the US National D-Day Memorial Foundation has so far located records of 4,413 deaths. increasing the traditional estimate to 12,000. Research is still ongoing, so the numbers may go up slightly as additional records are located. Whitmarsh 2009, p. 87. Suddenly I understand what you mean; these people may have already been in the tally of wounded. I have lowered the number -- Diannaa (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Operations

Under "Operations", the second paragraph is inaccurate and misleading:

"...The Americans, assigned to land at Utah Beach and Omaha Beach, were to attempt to capture Bayeux and Caen the first day, then cut off the Cotentin Peninsula and eventually capture the port facilities at Cherbourg. The British at Sword Beach and Gold Beach and Canadians at Juno Beach would protect the American flank and attempt to establish airfields near Caen...."

If the US Army had been set the objective of Caen, it would have meant marching across the front of all three British and Canadian divisions.

Utah (4th Inf Div) were assigned to relieve the 101st Airborne holding the causeways, and link with the 82nd Airborne at St. Mere Eglise, all achieved, with the VII Corps goal of securing Cherbourg port and Cotentin at the soonest possible opportunity. Omaha (1st Inf Div) were asked to strike on a line towards St. Lo. Gold beach (50th Northumbrian) were set the first day goal of Bayeux, elements of the Sherwood Rangers reaching the fringes the first evening, meeting Panzer Lehr the next day. At Sword, the 3rd Inf Div was given the ambitious target of reaching Caen nine miles inland; landing only two battalions in the first wave, the east flank protected by the Orne river, the Caen canal and the 6th Airborne Div, they advanced as far as a German high-ground strongpoint overlooking the road to Caen and, lacking sufficient heavy equipment, stalled. The 3rd Canadian Division, from Juno, was expected to establish and maintain continuity with the British divs, 50th on their right, 3rd on their left, as the 50th and the 1st Inf Divs, also.

Anybody want to correct or add anything there?Notthere53 (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you've misread what that paragraph says; because it says the British and Canadians at Gold, Juno, and Sword were to take Caen while protecting the American flank. Sorry, it should say St. Lô. I will fix it. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't think you've read what I've written. Or not checked it. Bayeux was not, NOT, a US objective. If you don't have any critique of what I've written, it supplies a lot more information about the first day operations and deserves insertion. Why not?67.220.2.181 (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Just to add, to this day the French still celebrate on the 5-6th June the first French city liberation by the invading forces. That would be the Canadian 3rd Division, taking over in this sector from the 50th Northumbrian.67.220.2.181 (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have now removed Bayeux, somehow I missed removing it when you first posted. Most of the other content you suggest already appears in the article (worded differently, of course), and you have not provided any sources. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Danish volunteers

This article does not mention the 800 Danish soldiers that volunteered for D-Day? I have sources from Billed-Bladet about the veterans that reminisced on the D-Day reminding's on the 6 June 2014, a couple of days ago. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Stuff like this is surprisingly difficult to source! I found similar material here and will add Denmark to the info box. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Good job, Diannaa. It was that article from The Copenhagen Post I was trying to find. Make sure to add that Denmark supplied boats besides manpower. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Flagicon Error

In the Belligerents section of the infobox, the Nazi Germany flagicon is used, but the following word is "Germany", (this correctly links to the Nazi Germany page), shouldn't the actual infobox contain the phrase "Nazi Germany"? I know its obvious, but for example "Free France" is used instead of France. Thanks Greggydude (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better to modify it in the other direction, using actual country names (Germany was never actually officially called "Nazi Germany"). That would be consistent with other articles on this topic. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)