Talk:Operation Perch

PERCH and Normandy strategy

The POV and unbalanced tags I added on 1-25-8 were added due to the unbalanced presentation of Normandy campaign strategy. This campaign is controversial even today, sixty years later, with historians and reviewers alike attacking each others' work. I suggest it is unbalanced to present one side of this without the other, or, similarly, presenting the strategy as a settled issue rather than a matter of some dispute.

This is germane to PERCH and other Normandy campaign articles because the way we present the context, objectives and outcome of these operations all depend on the strategy being pursued. I offer several quotes to show what I mean:

"Montgomery's use of the British Second Army in the attack on Caen is one aspect of the campaign which has been argued by participants and historians alike. Montgomery claimed his intention was, and continued to be, to attack in such a manner that the mass of the German armor would be attracted to Caen and fixed there, thus enabling Bradley's First Army to move forward more rapidly. Tedder and others on Eisenhower's staff felt that Montgomery planned a British breakout, and that when he was not successful he fell back on his assertion that his attacks had been merely diversions. This disagreement was particularly evident in relation to Operation GOODWOOD..." West Point Military History Series, The Second World War, Europe and the Mediterranian, p 318. ISBN 0-7570-0160-2

212.32.123.34 (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

From Andrew Sanders

Much of what has been written about Villers Bocage seems to be from people who have never been there, and in many cases have not really looked at the map.

7 Amd Division was deploying along a semi-circular series of country lanes. This inhibited their ability to deploy their full strength (such as was available - the vital recce element of 22 Amd Bd was incomplete according to Dan Taylor). It is all well to sit in an armchair and criticise the Corps and Divisional commanders for not bringing up more infantry - ask yourself how? There was already a problem with 22 Amd`s Inf let alone the rest of the division.

The German Divisions benefited from a) much superior roads - the RN 175 being wide and straight (as it is today) and a matter of minutes to deploy forces from the East - the road from VB to Tilly is only about 6 miles and allowed Px Lehr to mount a mid-morning c-attack. b) Interior lines - this must be an important consideration not only for attack but also re-supply if 7 Amd had tried to hold on to their salient with supply over such unsatisfactory comms.

Stand on 213 and look down on VB and it will be clear there were very good reasons for 22 Amd to withdraw - every move in the town can be seen and artillery brought down. To have tried to hold the town against elements of three Pz Divisions when you had problems even deploying one of your own would have courted a disaster.

Perch should be seen in the context of wider strategy - Rommel was desperate to dis-engage his Pz divisions to organise a powerful drive to the coast and cut the Allied operation in half. That would have been a disaster for the Allies. It was supposed to happen in the first week after the landing - i.e. 8 -17 June. That proved impossible due to the fierce attacks by the Canadians to the east and 50 Div/8 Amd Bd in the center (i.e. Tilly).

The German c-attack did eventually take place at the end of the month on the Rauray salient. I.E their own "left hook" - just before the Epsom battle - it was a significant failure. Of course, little is heard of the Rauray battle, but Dempsey is on record saying it was absolutelt crucial.

The point is that "Perch" and Villers Bocage may not have been a huge ground-winning success but were an important part of the Allied strategy of tying down the Pz Divisions in the east, to allow the Americans to develop a much bigger right hook of their own - which did later happen.

Bear in mind the 75% or more of the Heer`s and SS armour (around 600 tanks) were tied down on the German right flank. Strategically, this was exactly as planned, and a huge success.

If this reads like an apology for Monty et al, recall that he was his own worst enemy over PR - that his business was not to win the Battle for Normandy, but the Campaign for NW Europe, and that he had to do this with the armies he had - not the ones we later students might have liked him to have had. In the end, it worked.

But don`t let us kid ourselves either US or Brit soldiers were prepared to make the sort of sacrificial gestures German soldiers would make. Everyone knew by mid 1944 it was only a matter of time - on the winning side, you wanted to live and go home. On the losing side, you knew there was likely to be no home to go back to - so you might as well die fighting for your family.

AS

I'm a little doubtful about the 'Warriors for the working day' idea because having read a lot about Normandy recently there seem to be plenty of descriptions of Allied soldiers fighting hand-to-hand with the Germans, stalking Panthers with PIATs, occupying Hill 112 after everyone else had withdrawn . . . As for Perch, considering the amount of force used it looks more like its effect was intended to come about because of the manoeuvre rather than because of the amount of firepower the attacking units had. If the part of 7th Arm Div committed to the gig is to be criticised for the defeat at pt 213 shouldn't it also be praised for the fight in the town and the defence of the 'Brigade Box'? Don't some of the writers on this criticise the Allied armies for what they weren't rather than what they were?Keith-264 (talk) 08:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

---

"Nearly forty years later [writing in the 1980s-DM] the debate over Normandy continues unabated...the Montgomery master plan is as much of an enigma now as it was in 1944." p. 476 "As Dempsey's papers consistenty reveal, the object of the Second Army was to keep the initiative so as to prevent the British front from congealing around Caen; but congeal it did, forcing Montgomery into a head-on and costly confrontation in order for the Second Army to gain more favorable terrain and the space for 21st Army Group to maneuver. ." p. 478 "The Normandy controversies were brought into sharp focus during the post-war years when many of the principals published their versions and when the first of the official histories appeared. The great disparity between these accounts, no matter how well intentioned, served only to thoroughly blur and exacerbate these unresolved questions....The most controversial account to appear about Normandy was not written by Montgomery, but by the British government...Ellis [author of the British offical history-DM] had done his fellow historians...a disservice by sweeping controversy and unpleasantness under the rug..." "Decision In Normandy, Carlo D'Este, ISBN 0-7607-5512-4

When we write these Normandy articles while ignoring this debate, we are not only doing a poor job of encyclopedia-writing, we are perpetuating the disservice of "sweeping controversy...under a rug". I intend to add the unbalanced tag back in and will attempt to bring these articles into some balance on this point. Specifically with PERCH, the idea that it was anything other than a failure is POV-pushing.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

When you use such bias accounts no wonder there is disagreement!

Did Perch fail in conjuction with an attack from I Corps to encircle and take Caen, yes but no one here is stating it didnt however it wasnt a complete and utter failure as the troops on the ground did an excellent job and by the end of the Operation had pushed the Panzer Lehr out out of Tilly and had pushed the frontline deeper into France then it perviously was, they had also brought about casulties to the German forces which could not so easily replaced. Its not POV pushing to state the Operation made limited gains ... but it wasnt a clear defeat as you would state it was.

You stating that this operation was a clear stright defeat is POV pushing and not factoring in the rest of the fighting and the progress made.

As for the whole issue of what the Normandy strategy was ... well i like the way you completly ignored the post i made within the Villers-Bocage article showing you people who think to the controry. Since you love to bring up only people who disagree that the British held firm to let the Americans brake out why dont you bring up some of the people who do agree with this position for a change if you truley want to balance the issue.

We have not only Montgomery the guy in charge of the land forces during the campaign stating what his intention was, we have Bradley in his own memoirs stating exactly what the intention of the campaign was and that was an American brakeout, even Sandhurst states this is what the intention was.

After the harsh attack on the British Official History, have you ever read them? It not only quotes Bradley who agrees that the strategy was for the Americans to brake out it has quoted Ike stating Montys tactical handing on the situation was masterful, and goes on to talk about the increased pressure from the Anglo-Canadians never let the enemy withdraw and mass his armoured resources.

Historians such as Wilmot and more modern accounts such as Collosal Cracks clearly state from the evidence available that the strategy was to hold around the Caen area to let the Americans brake out.

Should we note that D'Este also states: "it was nevertheless a strategic failure at Caen and the consequences of this were far too grave for it to be dismissed as merely a 'local setback.' To achieve the protective shield Montgomery considered so vital, the capture of Caen and the surrounding key terrain was not merely desirable, as has been suggested by Montgomery himself, it was vital."

Then we have to ask the question of why the majority of German divisions were facing the Anglo-Canadian forces for most of the battle?

Should we also ask the question of if this was not the intention of the Operations why he rushed everything and launched Operation Bluecoat to attempt to halt German troop movement in the direction of Cobra ... if he wanted a Anglo-Canadian brakeout, letting the German reserve move over to the Americans would make perfect sence.

The final and probably most important one, since Monty conduct of the Anglo-American-Canadian Armies resulted in such a resounding victory which was not expected (as we should note that the initial intentions was to encircle the German forces much further eastward then it happened), all before Ike took over as land forces CIC, why would he have to lie about his conduct of the campaign? If the initial plan also called on encircling the German forces to the east, and the Anglo-Canadians on the left flank the Americans would have the furthest route to make progress which would also imply they would have to brake out first so not to let the German forces slip away via a massive opening if the former to brake out first.

Although i have yet to see you ask these questions or bring them up ... just blindly for the most part following what D'Este thinks without questioning anything the man has wrote for instance the illlogical through that the 49th division which was in the process of landing could have reinforced the 7th Armoured Division in Villers-Bocage - a move of nearly 20 miles as the crow flys.

I think a final remark should be made, D'Este states that Michael Wittmann was killed from a swarm of Sherman tanks does he not ... a little off the beaten track there too no? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think you understand how wikipedia works. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Really now, i think i have a slightly better idea then yourself. For the example of the only article i have seen which you have edited - the Villers-Bocage one. It was littered with myths, inaccuraies and had no footnotes what so ever to support anything which was stated.

When these faults were being corrected you set reverting stating important context had been removed, cited material had been removed when it clearly wasnt the case.

If i have no idea how the wiki works, i wouldnt have created this article with correctly referanced material to prove what i had wrote and to show the Operation was more then just a march on Villers-Bocage, i wouldnt have completly rewrote the Brevity article so it was closer to the truth and footnoted it, i wouldnt be doing my best to improve articles within the fields of my intrest etc

Everything i have done i have attempted to be impartial, however your attempts to be impartial is to use one source and state he is the font of all knowledge and delete anything which contridcts him and at the same time lunge your what appears to be wonderfully anti-British bias around. Am questions the authors credability! In the El Alamien article, one referanced states over 1000 axis guns destroyed, do you know why i didnt use that as concrete proof thats how many guns were lost ... because another source stated there wasnt even that many there.

If you want a discussion within an article to show the different points of view on the Normandy strategy, the authors, books, facts and questions above are key! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI the original COSSAC plan drawn up by Frederick Morgan and his staff before D-Day called for a breakout from the Caen-Falaise area on the eastern flank. Montgomery hadn't liked this plan so he had changed it.

Presumably the people who thought that earlier strategy still applied either hadn't bothered, or were unable - perhaps for security reasons - to read Montgomery's updated plan, or they were being disingenuous.

"All through the fierce fighting which took place in Normandy, there was never any intention of breaking out on the eastern flank towards the Seine; reference to all the orders and instructions which I issued makes that abundantly clear. This false conception existed only at Supreme Headquarters, and none of the senior officers responsible for the conduct of the actual fighting in Normandy, Bradley included, had any doubt about the true plan. The misconception led to much controversy and those at Supreme Headquarters who were not very fond of me took advantage of it to create trouble as the campaign developed." (my italics)

Montgomery was under no obligation to inform all-and-sundry what he was doing, and what his intentions were. Only the people who needed to know. That category did not necessarily include officers - however senior - who were in positions where they might be liable to be captured in the subsequent fighting and who might then be tortured by the Gestapo or SS. It also did not include sundry persons at SHAEF - again, however senior - who had no direct bearing on the conduct of the land battle for Normandy. And it most certainly did not include the Press.

The only reason for there being any 'controversy' about the Allied strategy in Normandy is because of people who literally didn't know what they were talking about - for the reasons I mentioned earlier - or because of those who listened-to and took notice of such people. The possible motives of such people you will have to work out for yourself.

Montgomery and Bradley were the relevant ground commanders who gave the orders and theirs are the only thoughts and intentions on how they were fighting the battle that matter. All the rest are conjecture written by people who were in no position to know. Unless of course they were mind readers.

FWIW, the only other people, outside of some of his own staff, who Montgomery would likely have told his true intentions in Normandy to were almost certainly; Churchill, (and possibly The King), Alanbrooke, Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley. THEY needed to know.

BTW, for the plan to work the Germans had to be made to think the Allies desperately wanted to break out from around Caen. The 'criticism' all helped convince the Germans of that. Otherwise they would have moved their panzer forces westwards towards Bradley.

Strategy, tactics, and psychology too. No wonder some people thought Montgomery 'conceited'. How he must have laughed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.100 (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Some suggestions

This article has an extensive bibliography section but readers do not what source says what. I recommend startiing with the most controversial items, some of which someone has already tagged for citation needed, and source those. There is also multiple empty sections and it's not clear why they are there. Benjiboi 22:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The empty sections need to be filled in, they are all key parts of the Operation. Up to now i just havnt had the time to make a start on them, although they will only be covered rather basicilly in some places while for instances the Lingevres section i can throw in quite a bit of info. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be good then to at least put a summary sentence in each of those sections or delete them until content is also added. Benjiboi 23:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok i have done so, i will add in more information and footnotes when i have more time. But as a start this should do. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Great! Keep plugging away, I've updated the expert needed tag to the military histroy project as well. Benjiboi 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Layout questions

Ive always felt that the list of books and external links should be above the foonotes as one tends to scroll down see the footnotes and make the assumption that is the end of the article.

Prehaps a change to the font size of the source and external link list so it appears smaller would justify it being above the footnotes? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

At the end of articles the various sections often get messed up and WP:MOS, although extensive, is usually to goto spot on this. "See also", "Notes" and "References" should be in that order with "External links" following. In brief, the thinking is that all articles are on the path to being Feature Article status so we should treat them that way within reason. See also section is for wikilinks in the "waiting" room to get a spot in the text. As soon as a wikilink is in the article it can be removed from the See also's. Ideally you would either have a Notes or References section rather than both. Generally articles will want to cite what source says what so moving toward that end is in your best interest rather than a list of sources. Incidentally I was using "Bibliography" which I just saw should be reserved for an actual authors works, I've reverted myself on those titles. The "external links", again, with feature article in mind, are not really in wikipedia's domain so we cannot vouch for content and should only use them to supplement the article because they hold content the article cannot. I generally try to convert links into references or otherwise remove them. If in doubt you can move them to talk page if they seem controversial. Benjiboi 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation errors

There are presently two citation errors, it looks liek it was just a formatting or source slip-up putting the page number where something else should go but it would good to correct these. Banjiboi 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Meant to correct them before but forgot, cheers for the headsup :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob, good work on the article! Banjiboi 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

removed information from info box

2nd army I Corps 51st Highlanders XXX Corps 7 div 49 div 50 div 4 bde 8 bde

firesupport

HMS Nelson (28)|HMS Nelson]]
HMS Orion (85)|HMS Orion HNMLS Flores 2nd Tactical Air Force RAF Bomber Command|Bomber Command

V Corps
- Artillery support

---

7th army I SS corps Panzer Lehr 101st III Flak XLVII Panzer corps 2nd panzer LXXXIV Korps 352nd 716th

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Copyedit notes

Usual format; comments, question etc below ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• From Planning: "This manoeuvre was codenamed Operation Wild Oats" - was this the entire pincer attack or just the airborne component? (I've assumed the latter, but please correct if necessary!)

  I will have to double check and get back to - most likely tomorrow as i have to finish off an assignment today :( - but am sure Wild Oats was just the planned airborne landing.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  Ok Perch and Wild Oats:

  Buckley describes Perch as being an armoured thrust by 7th Arm and 8th Arm Bde through Tilly onto Mount Pincon. Wild Oats is described as an "audacious plan" for a "dashing drive by armoured forces to the west of Caen" while a simlar attack was made by the Highlanders with armour support (4th Arm bde) with the 1st Airborne dropped between them. He then descriped Perch as being altered and the 7th Arm to swing around the Pnz Lehr into V-B and deep into the German flank.

  Taylor describes Perch as originally being an advance by 7th Arm and 8th Arm bde htrough Tilly, V-B and then onto Mount Pincon. He describes Wild Oats as the highland thrust, the 7th Arm heading towards Caen rather than Pincon and the 1st Airborne being dropped between them. He then describes the right hook by the 7th Arm as a revission of Perch as Dempsey must have known Wild Oats could not have worked.

  Fortin notes that after the 4th Arm bde landed it supported 50th div and first major operation was Epsom.

  Forty is somewhat confusing as he describes the Perch plan simlar to above but then notes how the latter phases were to break through the Panzer lehr divisions defences around certain villages; although the plan could not have accomdated these facts since the Pnz Lehr arrived in the area after the landings. He also implies that the airborne landing was Wild Oats: "This last manoeuvre [the 7th Arm advancing towards Evrecy] was to be supported by an airborne landing by 1st Airborne Division (code-named Wild Oats)".

  Trew breifly mentions Perch reinforcing Buckley and Taylor stating it was the XXX Corps plan to get get forces onto Hill 112 to threaten a breakout to the south eastwards to force the Germans to give up Caen (i think we should add this in)

  Ellis doesnt name the operation but states Monty decided to encircle Caen and describes the moves to be made by 7th Arm and the Highlanders then notes the proposed usage of the 1st Airborne and the rejection of the plan. While Ellis doesnt state he implies that they decided to carry on with the plan regardless of the airborne as the launch of the 51st attacks are then described minus any involvement of the 4th arm bde.

  Likewise Stacey describes an unnamed pincer attack and the inclusion of the airborne but again notes how the attack carried on regardless and then the 51st's attack was "piped down".--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Per this and you talk-page post I've had a go at rewriting the section. Hopefully it's accurate (couple of fact tags introduced!). EyeSerene^talk 19:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ill try and sort the fact tags out sometime this week; perhaps a note giving a brief account of what happened as i dont believe anyone takes the leap and calls the whole move Perch although i do sort of imply it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to be vague about exactly what Perch was, as the sources don't seem to define it all the same way. FWIW, Hastings mentions Monty being pretty miffed at Leigh-Mallory for putting the kybosh on his airdrop, but doesn't mention Perch by name. He gives three phases for the battle for Caen: the initial D-Day follow-up (what we're calling Perch), the pincer attack that led to Villers-Bocage (revised Perch), and then Epsom. I think Wilmot does mention Perch by name, though I'd have to check - IIRC he even gives quite a detailed map which may be worth getting into the article. EyeSerene^talk 11:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wilmot does call Perch by its name but only in regards to the revised thrust towards Villers iirc.

The others give a decent enough idea of what operation was meant to be but then they all get a tad vauge when it comes to the actual pincer attack. Oddly enough the XXX post war books dont even mention the operation and gloss over much of the early fighting they were engaged in - a stark contrast to the VIII Corps book.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• From Right hook, "...to cover the manoeuvre's objective." I'm not sure what this means.

• "At 20:00 the advance ran into resistance at Livry, which took two hours to overcome. Brigadier Hinde, the 22nd Armoured Brigade's commanding officer and in charge of the advance on Villers-Bocage, ordered a halt for the night in order to cover the manoeuvre's objective."

  Hinde ordered the halt of the advance to try and not give away the game and let the Germans know the 7th Armour was going to swing towards Villers-Bocage. At this point they were only advancing south.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, got it now. Thanks! EyeSerene^talk 12:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

On the quesion of Bucknall being tardy with the dispatch of part of 7th Armoured towards Villers-Bocage, doesn't this appear consistent with the policy of not compromising the capacity to defend the beachhead by not staking too much on offensive moves? Wasn't the real purpose of the advance to V-B to probe the German defence in the hope of triggering a withdrawal? Once it was realised that the Germans were going to fight it out the British made sure that the fight occurred on ground of their choosing? Consider the defensive precautions of Goodwood, when the prospect of a German counter-offensive was slim. Doesn't it stand to reason that such caution would have been even greater earlier in the battle?Keith-264 (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this one - he had a "firm base"; the 50th wasn’t going to budge (just as much as the Pnz Lehr wasn’t going to budge). But I do agree with his comments that rushing the 49th Infantry piecemeal into the battle, as some historians have demanded him to have done, would have been inappropriate. Additionally with their growing presence in XXX Corps rear surely they added to the “firm base” that could have freed up additional assets?

That doesn’t really leave much to play with, i think the 7th Arm should have gone in full strength hitting and swinging while the spare brigade of the 50th covered their lines of comms.

However if that was actually practical, i think is another question. I think the point not addressed by historians is whether or not the free units available could have actually be used, was it logistically feasible to reinforce the 7th Arm?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, if there were practical obstacles to a larger force going to V-B then the element of bluff in it may have been inevitable since brute force was impossible? One thing is certain - the German forces engaged against 7th armoured weren't available elsewhere.Keith-264 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Expanded the lead a bit - I think I'm done now. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 08:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks allot, lets see what the FAC reviewers have to say.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

  Yup ;) I've been through and checked the refs etc for the usual errors that get caught at FAC. There's only one I couldn't fix: Touffreville is coming up as a disambig link in the article, but I'm not sure which of the four possibilites we should link to to dis-disambig it. EyeSerene^talk 12:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

  Doesnt look like there is an article on this Touffreville so i have removed the link. From what ive seen in simlar situations is that the place is either a farm or has now become a suberb of some other town hence no article. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

  That would explain it. Thanks! EyeSerene^talk 13:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Operation Perch planning section notes

Perch had been planned prior to the invasion (Buckly, p. 23, Taylor, p. 9)

50th Div tasked to clear Gold and take Bayeux then clear the road to tilly (Forty, p. 36)

7th Armoured Division with 8th Armoured Brigade push through Tolly, VB and then capture Mt Pincon (Buckley, p. 23, Taylor, p. 9)

The objective of capturing this hill was to create the threat of a breakout by the British to the southeast of Caen (Trew, p. 22)

9 June Monty decided to take Caen by pincer attack (Stacey, p. 142) While Stacey says Monty decided to take Caen by Pincer Buckley and Taylor state Dempsey was planning the pincer attack called Wild Oats.(Buckley, 24. Taylor, p.9)

WildOats described as follows: 51st Highlanders plus 4th Arm bde to attack out of 6th Abe Div bridgehead to take Cagny. 7th Arm to swing east, instead of advancing on Pincon, and capture Evercy. 1st Abe Div to land in between both units to complete encirclement. (Buckley, Taylor, Forty and Ellis

Leigh-Mallory says no to the use of the 1st Airborne (Forty, Taylor, Buckley and Ellis)

The Highlanders attack regardless (Ellis) but minus the 4th Arm Bde (Fortin, who states there first major combat was during Epsom)

12 June Perch is altered, 7th Arm to initiate a hook around Pnz-Lehr and through the gap in the front line (Buckley, p. 23) The right hook was a revision of the Perch plan (Taylor, p. 10) Hubert Meyer ties the right hook in with the Highland attack by stating one of the reasons for the failure of Perch: “the collapse of the attack by the 51st (Highland) Division eastward of the Orne river”(Meyer, p. 237) Meyer says in writing what the others hint at; Wildoats was scrapped in name only and thrown under the title of Perch – the operation already underway.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, I'll have another go at the planning section. I think we're going to need to add some of this into later sections as well. EyeSerene^talk 20:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've tried to work in the above. I may have overdone the headings, but I thought it might help to make following the various changes and revisions to Perch easier? EyeSerene^talk 18:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Edited image caption

I removed text from the image caption:

"A 4.5 Inch Medium gun of the 50th Infantry Division's 64th Medium Regiment, Royal Artillery.[102]"

This had the following caption text continuing after the above:

The 155mm guns of the United States V Corps also supplied defensive fire during the Battle of the Brigade Box."

I removed it as I feel the purpose of an image caption is to explain what is in a picture image, not provide additional information about what is not in an image. regards.

References

image caption requires editting

Furthermore, the caption "A 4.5 Inch Medium gun of the 50th Infantry Division's 64th Medium Regiment, Royal Artillery.[102]" is incorrect. 64th Mdm Regt belonged to 5 AGRA, not 50th Infantry Division, although it may well have been supportting 50 Inf Div on that day. I cannot edit the page myself - is it locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.171.254.97 (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

50th Infantry Div

Was more like a corps when it went to France. It had four infantry brigades; 69th, 151st, 231st and 56th. It had five field regiments RA (three self-propelled) with 8th Armoured Brigade and 47 RM Commando under command. On 6th June the Division was nearly 38,000 strong (Clay p 236 [Clay, E.W.. The Path of the 50th.. Aldershot: Gale & Polden, 1950.]) in 50 DIV IN NORMANDY: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BRITISH 50th (NORTHUMBRIAN) DIVISION ON D-DAY AND IN THE BATTLE OF NORMANDY by ETHAN RAWLS WILLIAMS, LCDR, USN B.S., United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, 1997. Keith-264 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

casualties

is there a logic explanation why alle involved german divisions are mentioned, but only one british? why are the other british units not listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.142.82 (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Info to be added

Notes for self:

• info on VB battle from said article
• Caumont gap info; harrison ~ p.370 area http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-4/7-4_9.htm#366

Casualty section

I added the above section in last year[1] after being asked about it at the FAC iirc; the section notes we do not have details on the casualties suffered, its a compromise and quite a bit of info is just not available. Am inclind to pull it as i do not believe it helps the article. Any opinions, pull it or keep it?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Operation Wild Oats

Despite Leigh-Mallory's objections (far from the only one to do so at the conference at Stanmore on June 11), the airborne operation was laid on because of the insistence of the ground commanders. The USAAF 52nd Troop Carrier Wing at Eastcote received its field order on June 12 and the groups were in the process of briefing their C-47 crews on June 13 when the drop was postponed because of Villers Bocage. But until then the drop of the paras was scheduled for 0420 the next day and the airlanding forces an hour later. This is documented in the official USAF historical study on its airborne operations and might be useful in making an adjustment to the existing text, which imo is misleading.--Reedmalloy (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a while since we wrote this, but as I recall we could find very little information on the abortive airborne plan at the time. If you can supply more info/references your suggestion might make a nice addition to the article. I'm not sure how we can reconcile it with Buckley's (?) assertion that the plan was dropped though... not that contradictory sources are anything new :) EyeSerene^talk 21:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I found it here (bottom right of p. 79 and p. 80) quite a while back while researching the American airborne landings in Normandy article, but had no use for it at the time. It was just one of those "did you know?"-type revelations for me. Then I came across it again while re-writing Lewis H. Brereton this week, and when I looked for a wikilink, came across the aforementioned section in Operation Perch. "Misleading" was perhaps too strong a word, and yes, I fully understand contradictory sources! :D.--Reedmalloy (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting source Reedmalloy, got any more?Keith-264 (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, no. But I'm going to see what else is out there and will post back here if I locate anything to corroborate.--Reedmalloy (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

CE

Tidied the prose, reorganised several sections and moved citations to sentence ends for flow.Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Why is there in sup "a" in the infobox with a hyperlink to a reference? --37.24.8.166 (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A few years ago there was a lack of consensus so lots of sentences were cited individually and citations were added to the infobox. Since then the need to be this painstaking has diminished.Keith-264 (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Perch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912012732/http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf to http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

CE

Did a cheeky little ce, converted cumbersome notes to notelist format, found that someone had added middle name letters to British personnel, full stops to US and other stylistic infelicities, added EngVar B on grounds of national ties and to help editors with consistency in Br usage, tidied some prose.Keith-264 (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed

"While XXX Corps attacked Tilly-sur-Seulles, the landings of the 51st (Highland) Infantry Division and the 4th Armoured Brigade were delayed and their attack was postponed until 12 June.[18]"

As far as I am aware, the 51st started landing on Juno during the afternoon of the 6th. Now, I conceded I do not know if they were available for operations that day or the next, but it seems that the above sentence could do with some extra clarity.66.77.160.179 (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How's that?Keith-264 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You were right about brigade group, apols; I think the variation re Poland and Ukraine is determined by the 1939 eastern border of Poland vs the Curzon Line and/or the post-war border. Keith-264 (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. In addition, I think we have rectified the original issue of this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.77.160.179 (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I remember that the data from Zetterling came from a website with copies of tables in his book. The site is defunct so now we need someone with the book (it costs a bomb) to add the page numbers.

PS you need – not - for a page range 23–36 and it's 34, 37 if there are two or more pages but not a range; no need for "and". Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Perch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420033652/http://www.normandie44lamemoire.com/fichesvilles/tillysseulles.html to http://www.normandie44lamemoire.com/fichesvilles/tillysseulles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)