Talk:Invasion of Normandy/Archive 2

US Airborne

It's clear from the map that some of the US Airborne troops landed by glider; does anyone know if it was elements of both divisions, or just elements of one (and which one) so we can add it to the main text (which just says 'parachute' now). DJ Clayworth 12:57, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

FWICR, the British troops who took Pegasus et al. landed wholly by glider.

James F. (talk) 14:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From what I've learned, both the US 82. and 101. made extensive use of gliders, mostly for landing heavy equipment (jeeps, guns, etc.). The british used gliders to overtake the bridges at Orne and the Caen canal, as well as providing heavy equipent for the main force-landings at June 6. Pathfinders and the maine force for both sectors, though, was deployed by parachute. Stalwart 06:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Both US Airborne Divisions also included glider-borne Infantry, such as the 325th in the 82nd. DMorpheus 18:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The glider force for the 82nd ABD was the 325th Glider Infantry Regiment.

The 325th did not arrive in Normandy until 1944-06-07, and only small elements arrived by Glider – the remainder arrived by sea.

The glider force for the 101st ABD was the 327th Glider Infantry Regiment.

The 327th arrived by Glider on June 6th, but had to wait for the landing zone to be stabilized before they could land. They then supported the 506th PIR to Carentan.

As a result of the problems using gliders at Normandy, the concept fell into disrepute, and the Infantry had to wait for helicopters to become practical before the idea of Vertical Envelopment (Airmobility) became practical.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

D-Day

The phrase "D-Day" is much better known than "the invasion of Normandy," and some people who are young (like me) and/or who don't know much about history (me again) may not be positive that they are related, or that they are not exactly the same thing. I thought I knew, and I was right, but for awhile I thought I was wrong, because the phrase "D-Day" doesn't come up until the third paragraph. I'd like to put it in the first sentence, saying it was fought in 1944 starting on D-Day which was June 6th, but I couldn't quite get it to work. Could someone else try?

The terms "D-Day" and "Normandy Invasion" are not strictly synonymous. The term "D-Day" can refer to any major operation, at least in the US military. It just means the first day or any major operation, just as "H-Hour" refers to the start time on that day. Sometimes a different term is used, such as "A-Day" but usually it is D-Day. So there are many D-Days.

Having said that, it is also true that in common (nonmilitary) usage, a lot of people think of "D-Day" as being THAT D-Day, kind of like "Jeep" has gradually come to mean any four-wheel drive vehicle, no matter who makes it. I have read that in French-language publications it is called "Jour-J" which is pretty much an exact transliteration. But strictly speaking it is not correct.DMorpheus 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If they go to D-Day they will find the explanation and a link to this article. DJ Clayworth 18:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

D-Day is an artificial construct. The system is still in use today. The start of the Desert Storm Air War was termed "A-Day", while the start of the Ground War was termed "G-Day". I know, I was there. The use of this system is left up to the Supreme Commander of a war. In World War Two, there was a series devised for each theater, and the letters identified the start of the series of campaigns in that theater. Therefore, there was a D-Day for each theater, and they were the fourth campaign of that theater. Torch was A-Day, the American entry to Tunisia was B-Day. Sicily was C-Day, and Normandy was D-Day. The calendar was given a code centralized on the letter day. The days that led up to the letter day were given minus numbers, so the day before D-Day was D-1 Day, while the day following D-Day was D+1 Day. The calendar would continue until the end of the campaign. The clock was given the same treatment, with the starting time of a campaign identified as H-Hour and M-Minutes. Again, the clock prior to the start would be identified with minus numbers, while the clock thereafter would be identified with plus numbers.

There are people who believe that the use of D-Day has been prohibited due to the popularity of its use for the Normandy Campaign, but that is not true. What haa happened is the fact that there hasn't been a war of the same complexity as World War II where many letters would be necessary. The re-use of "A" and "G" for the following wars started with Korea, and no one has seen the need for a change since then, but the series system remains in force. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 06:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that since most people associate 'D-Day' with the Invasion of Normandy, D-Day should link to this article, with a note at the top talking about the military term D-Day. While I certaintly see the logic behind having D-Day point to its current location, I think it's an annoying obstacle for most people. Cheapy 03:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. June 6- 1944 D Day is better known as "Invasion", while the "Battle of Normandy" started later at Avranches with "Operation Cobra" and then the Breakthrough to the Seine. I've lost two of my iuncles there, around Le Mans and Argentan. I've paid a visit to them not long ago.Takima 18:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the Battle of Normandy started on 6 June 1944, and ended either with the start of Operation Cobra, or the crossing of the Seine, depending on your part of view. Either way, all the fighting in June and July is included in the battle proper, including D-Day itself. This is all discussed in the article.Michael Dorosh 18:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Start and End Dates Of This Campaign

I checked, and while the Start Date of the Normandy Campaign was indeed June 6, 1944, the end date for the Normandy Campaign was July 24, 1944. What happened was the Northern France Campaign started the next day, and continued until September 14, 1944. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The US and British may date this differently. OVERLORD was always about reaching the Seine by D+90 (a goal they met in advance of schedule). Some US historians may consider the campaign over after COBRA kicked off - I've changed the infobox after a minor edit war between 25 Jul and 24 Aug - if there is really a dispute, I'd say put both dates in there with an explanation, as I've done. If there is no dispute (and I think the Aug date is correct in any event - northern France is the Channel Ports, not Normandy, but we didn't reach the Seine til August) then we can change it back. The Falaise Gap was not closed til after August. Please don't edit with an Ameri-centric viewpoint, lots of British and Canadian and Polish blood was spilled after 25 July 1944 - in fact, probably most of it, as Operation SPRING was launched the same day as COBRA as a diversion, and TOTALIZE in the first week of August, still very firmly in Normandy. It was the Seine that ended the campaign, and that was what the Normandy planners envisioned. I hope this is clear. Source: see Stacey's THE CANADIAN ARMY, or Hastings OVERLORD.Michael Dorosh 01:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am curious where this July 24 end date comes from - Corneliusseon, can you please provide a reference? Operation Cobra didn't even kick off till July 25th. DMorpheus 15:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no mystery. Cobra was NOT part of the Normandy Campaign, but rather part of the Northern France Campaign, which commenced on the 25th. What happened, is Normandy was declared over at Midnight (24-25), with Northern France commencing at the same Midnight (24-25). Therefore, Normandy lead right into Northern France.

Read the official report at: Official Report on the Normandy Campaign; US Army Center for Military History SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good enough for me - the correct date for the US is 24 July at midnight. For the British/Canadians, the campaign in Normandy continued to 25 Aug or so, so the two separate dates seem warranted.Michael Dorosh 16:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid we are confusing two issues. The actual close of the campaign, which is determined on the battlefield, may differ a bit from the dates the military bureaucracy decides to put on the campaign. I am not knocking the bureaucrats - they need to do things like this. I am just not sure it makes sense to say that US units were no longer fighting the Normandy campaign the night before Cobra opened; meanwhile their British and Canadian comrades a few miles east continued to fight the Normandy campaign for another month. I wonder if there is a way to write this into the article without utter confusion. DMorpheus 17:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To add to DMorpheus' comments, while US bureaucrats declared Normandy over on 24/5 July, Canadian and British bureaucrats gave a completely different definition to the term Battle of Normandy with the Battle Honour committees, who were paid to do the job of defining battle names, etc. They decided it would encompass the fighting up to the end of August, since it did take place in Normandy proper. This might need to be mentioned too - ie who came up with the names and why. In the CW case, it as the Battle Honour committees who decided how to grant honours to regiments that fought there.Michael Dorosh 17:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an arguement that's been had before. Various people interpret this article to be on one of (basically) three things: Operation Overlord, the (American) Normandy Campaign, or Operation Neptune. After basically agreeing that we will not use any specific nationalities terms to define combat (especially in regions where there are three or more significant military powers involved) to avoid becoming centric to one nation, we dropped the possibilty of Normandy Campaign (which was used ONLY by the U.S., not the British or the Germans). Neptune has its own article, so we decided to go with the capture of Paris (which is prevelenant among some writers) as the end date for Overlord which this article covers. Oberiko 18:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing you have forgotten is the reason for the disparity between the two dates. Montgomery was late achieving his OVERLORD goals, and Eisenhower - who had total control over the whole campaign - gave him additional time to achieve his goals, and it took that long for him to achieve them. Once he finished, he moved on to Northern France SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a viewpoint I have never seen in print before. Montgomery was the overall ground force commander for the entire campaign (if you stick to the US Army dates of 6/6 through 7/24), therefore, if you blame him for any of the failures/delays, you've got to give him credit for the successes such as 'Cobra' which, after all, happened under his command.

But I think this analysis is flawed. The 21st Army Group was not fighting two separate campaigns in June/July/August, nor did the 12th and 21st Army Groups fight separate campaigns. So it is nonsense to suggest Eisenhower 'gave' Montgomery extra time to finish 'his' part of the campaign. It was one very large integrated set of operations. Indeed the one time the integration failed - the closure of the falaise gap - has resulted in 60 years of second guessing by guys like us ;). I.e., it's the exception that proves the point.

Again I think we are confusing the bureaucratically-set dates (which may have been set long after the end of the campaign) for the actual realities on the ground. The dates on which someone is eligible for a campaign ribbon may not correspond exactly with what was actually going on at the time. Given Oberiko's comment above that this was settled by consensus long ago, may I suggest we adopt his solution?

DMorpheus 20:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The only goal Montgomery didn't meet was Caen on D-Day - the overall goal was the Seine by D+90, and he met that with time to spare, so the belief that Monty was somehow "late" doesn't hold water. Nor was he given "additional time" (whatever that means).Michael Dorosh 20:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but I'd like to add the following sources as justification for the Aug 25 end date:

• D-Day: Operation Overlord: From the Landing at Normandy to the Liberation of Paris. New York: Smithmark, 1993.

• Operation Overlord: D-Day to Paris

• Keegan, John. Six Armies in Normandy: From D-Day to the Liberation of Paris, June 6th-August 25th,1944. New York: Viking Press, 1982.

• D-Day: Operation Overlord From the Landing at Normandy to the Liberation of Paris. Tony Hall (Editor)

• Normandy Campaign: From D-Day to the Liberation of Paris. Victor Brooks (We can both agree that this is not the proper use of Normandy Campaign, but still)

• D-Day: 'Operation Overlord' from Its Planning to the Liberation of Paris. Paperback / 208 Pages / Salamander Books Ltd / October 1999 / 1840650958

Oberiko 21:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Trimming recommendation

To trim the article size down a bit, I suggest move all the text from "The landings" heading and put it into Operation Neptune. We could then have a relatively brief summary of Neptune in its place. Oberiko 21:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Info box: Combatants

The info box has the combatants as the allied powers vs Germany. Surely Germany should be changed to Axis powers? It would seem that a large proportion of the troops defending the area were not german.

No. They were all soldiers in the German army, regardless of nationality. Many were Russian - Russia was not an Axis power after June 22, 1941...Michael Dorosh 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

We may be losing the forest for the trees here. Although there were non-Germans present in German units, the proportion of the total was tiny. BTW the USSR was never an Axis power, before or after June 22, 1941. ;) DMorpheus 18:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct; in some bizarre fashion one might consider them an Axis ally though, given their partition of Poland. :) Hey, Guy Sajer was in Grossdeutschland in Russia, so should the Eastern Front infobox list "Alsatians" under combatants?Michael Dorosh 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's make a deal: You list the USSR as an Axis ally because of Poland, and I'll list the UK as an axis ally because of Czechoslovakia...and maybe for the campaign against the Italian partisans in 1944-45 too ;) All kidding aside, the Axis was a formal treaty relationship to which the USSR was never a party. Even those who consider the Molotov-Ribbentrop nonagression pact an "alliance" (and that's obviously open to debate) can't claim the USSR was part of the Axis. DMorpheus 19:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was kidding, dude, but now that you mention it - I never said the USSR was part of the Axis if you look at my comments. I said they weren't part of the Axis after 22 Jun 1941. They obviously weren't part of the Axis before 1941 either but I did want to point out the rather interesting position Russia was in relative to Germany after 22 Jun 41 (hmm, what happened on that day...). However, having signed a non-aggression pact and actively negotiated to carve up Poland, I think one could say USSR "in some bizarre fashion" (once again, read my exact words) might be considered an Axis ally. Being an ally of the Axis vis a vis Poland does not mean membership per se in the very specific treaty organization known as the Axis...something the USSR never did as you point out.Michael Dorosh 19:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Poland

Should Poland be added as a Ccombatant in the Allied side? I know for certain a number of ships commissioned into the Polish navy served in this campaign (Indeed ORP Dragon was written off after a Neger attack and expended as part of the Mulberry breakwaters). Emoscopes ^Talk 21:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment of the Normandy battle

Small changes. Corrected some factual errors. Minor editing for clarity. Removed statement that first use of 4-engined bombers in a tactical role was in Normandy. Actually the 4-engined B-17 was used in a variety of tactical roles in the Pacific. See the US Army link here-> http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/GuadC/GC-03.htm Also ULTRA decrypts were helpful before the invasion as well, not simply afterwards. Interdiction is defined but analysis should mention how critical it was in preventing movement of the Panzers, key to Germany's defense. Allied deception plans were also important, causing the Germans to focus on the Calais area and withhold troops from Normandy as a result in the early phases. All this is well documented in any standard Normandy history. If Assessment section continues to expand, sub-headings may need to be restored to properly classify areas of analysis and make reading easier. Enriquecardova 21:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Good catch on the tactical bombers; maybe a mention that it was the first use "in Europe"; they were certainly considered essential to Caen and Cobra - and did as much harm as good, killing Lesley McNair and wounding the GOC of 3rd Canadian Division. Not sure if that is all relevant to Normandy though.Michael Dorosh 22:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention - is use of the word "shield" really accurate to describe the 2nd British Army and 1st Canadian Army role in the latter phases of the battle? Michael Dorosh 22:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair points. Perhaps you could say first large scale use of 4-engined bombers in the European theatre or something like that without totally removing the statement. "Shield" may be problematic. It was used in a bio of Montgomery and in the Book on Caen "Anvil of victory", but of course that was the concept of those authors. Your term "the British faced most of the armor" is more generic. I don't mind either way. Also you added good balance on the American side to note the difficulties of breakout due to the bocage, balancing the battle so it does not appear a mainly British or mainly American show. Both sides played their part- the British drawing the armor, the Yanks exploiting that to make the big breakout. Of course both sides were looking to breakout, but in doing so, the "left block- right hook" pattern was how it mainly played out. And your edits removing some flowery phrases were reasonable. The headings could be left out for now, unless the section really expands. The whole thing is looking better already.

Enriquecardova 22:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath and strategic appraisal

The following sentence appeared at the end of both the Factors affecting subsequent Allied operations. and Assessment of the battle subsections:

Victory in Normandy was followed by a pursuit to the French border in short order, and Germany was forced once again to reinforce the Western Front with manpower and resources from the Russian and Italian fronts.

I removed it from the first section and also removed the heading Factors affecting subsequent Allied operations. itself as it seemed quite superfluous.

The section Normandy and the Eastern front could be clarified somewhat. The first paragraph claims: "By this time the Soviet forces had the capacity to crush Germany in Europe on their own, and therefore a western invasion was not strictly required to defeat the German Reich." In the last paragraph, we have "it is also conceivable that absence of a Western invasion would have enabled Hitler to deploy even more German forces to the east, and it is also conceivable that the Soviet advance could have been stopped and even rolled back in places." While both statements are probably true, we should try to reconcile them somewhat so it reads better. Also, there is some terminology used that seems clunky in this section, ie. "Hitlerian dabbling". The average reader of this article may not have any idea what that means. heqs 12:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the best approach is not to get into this kind of speculation. We are in no position to judge what would have happened; better historians than us have shrunk away from the task. As an encyclopedia our job is to report what happened, not what might have happened. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not speculation they were in full retreat, and there was no realistic way that the axis could win or even draw. (Deng 03:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC))

I removed a section on "Normandy and the Italian Front", talking about how attacking France diverted forces from the Italian front. I removed it because the effect of this on the war was negeligible. Fighting on the Italian front was never going to win the war no matter how many units were diverted from it - as evidence by where the Italian front had reached by the time the war ended. I don't doubt that troops were diverted, but in an article of finite length we can't talk about everything. DJ Clayworth 15:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If the Germans did move any units out of Italy to deal with Normandy (I don't know if they did, but I'll look it up) that would be ironic since one of the stated objectives of the Italian campaign was to pin German forces down precisely so they could *not* fight in northwestern Europe. Two German divisions (3rd and 15th PGD) moved out of Italy in response to Dragoon. DMorpheus 16:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Alexander actually achieved the first massive victory of the war, despite having many of his best divisions withrawn for the landings in Normandy and Provence. So I wouldn't say that front had a negligible effect. Otherwise I agree, as far as I recall there were no unscheduled withdrawals from Italy to reinforce France at that point. I think the only such movements occurred after the provence landings to secure the Alps.--Caranorn 22:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

cemetery

is there anywhere to honor the 200 thousand dead german HUMAN SOLDIERS?

There are several large and small cemeteries in Normandy, including at least one German one. DMorpheus 12:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Germans were invited to the 2004 60th aniversery, where Chancelor Schroeder spoke. Soldiers are soldiers, and they all went through the same hell, whatever their uniform. Wallie 20:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reminscence

I removed this:

The morning of June 5, a native French girl was swimming on the shores of Normandy. She left her swimsuit out to dry, and forgot to retrieve it. She returned to retrieve it on the morning of D-Day. She saw the wounded American soldiers and went to offer medical assistance. The seasick incoming troops literally thought they were hallucinating. Little did the girl know that one of the wounded troops she cared for would eventually become her husband.

While undeniably cute, it reads like a personal reminiscence, and would probably be better in a 'people's history' website. I've moved it here so it isn't lost entirely. DJ Clayworth 14:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Known Beforehand?

Last year, I read the book "Ultra Secret" by Frederick Winterbotham. I seem to recall a passage in it concerning the Normandy Invasion saying that a German officer intercepted a document that said the beaches of Normandy would be invaded, and he sent it to his higher-ups. However, they didn't act upon it. Has anyone else heard about this? As I read the article here, I didn't see any mention of this. Has this been confirmed? For what it's worth, Winterbotham was involved with Ultra (as the guy who spread the intelligence around). His article here states that "Ultra Secret" has a few inaccuracies in it, and I do not know if this is one of them.

It's probably not worth mentioning. What we have to remember with regard to intelligence like this is that German High Command was getting huge amounts of information about where the invasion was going to take place. Thanks to the Allied deception operations most of it was pointing to an invasion in the Pas de Calais; in fact quite a lot was pointing to the idea that Normandy would be invaded as a diversion and followed with a Pas de Calais invasion. We look at stories like this and think "Oh my God, if the Germans had paid attention to this document the whole war could be changed", but in fact a single document would be just one more piece of evidence for them to put into the mix. DJ Clayworth 20:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Numbers involved

While the USA, Britain, France and Canada were definitely the major players, it should be remembered that other countries contributed large forces too, including naval and fighter support. Wallie 20:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The other participants are listed in the second paragraph of the article. DJ Clayworth 22:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Strangeness in the German order of battle

The order of battle given for the German defenders is detailed, but does not seem to include the 352nd division which is explicitly mentioned as being among the defenders a paragraph or so further down and also in the Omaha Beach section. Does anyone know where the discrepancy lies? DJ Clayworth 22:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Think I fixed this. More input welcome. DJ Clayworth 18:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Should the Panzer Lehr Division, 116th SS Panzer Division, 2nd SS Panzer Division, and 346th Infantry Division be considered as candidates for inclusion under the heading "Mobile Reserves"? Also, the command structure of the Allies and the Germans has been ommitted. Is this presented elsewhere? Some writers have suggested that differences in the command structure affected the outcome. Rufjbn 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Commanders

Ike was overall commander, and Monty was the operational commander. Shouldn't it also be noted that the landings were split into army grouop A under General Bradley and army group B under General Dempsey? Also perhaps a mention of Garbo, with regards to Operation Fortitude?(Halbared 06:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

Montgomery was the land forces commander, not the operational commander, But apart from that please feel free to add extra detail. Feel free to add to Operation Fortitude too. DJ Clayworth 17:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Eisenhower was the overall commander, Monty was the operational commander, the invasion was split into two groups. 'A' under Bradley, and 'B' under Dempsey. That is to clarify, the structure went, Eisenhower, Monty and then the two generals, I did not mean Monty had the place of Ramsey.(Halbared 18:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'operational' commander here, but Monty was commander of the land forces. The sea and air force commnders are given in the infobox. DJ Clayworth 14:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Churchill

I removed a sentence about Churchill and Gallipolli, not because it was not true, but because it gave entirely the wrong impression - namely that Churchill was in favour of an immediate invasion and the US couselled against it. In fact, according to my reading, the reverse was true. In the runup to Operation Torch the US were in favour of immediately invading Europe and the British planners were more cautious. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge from John Steele (Paratrooper)?

This article is already quite long. I would urge that the John Steele (Paratrooper) stay where it is, with a link in this article from the ==See also== section.

There is really no content on the John Steel page that is not a repeat of the Battle of Normandy events. At the very least it needs to be marked as a stub and cleaned up quite a bit. Manufracture 18:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added content to the John Steele page and edited it significantly. I think it is fine as it is and warrants its own page. It has no business being on the Battle of Normandy page - the battle involved half a million soldiers, Steele was not notable at all for anything he did in that context. I've removed the merge tags - check out the article now and see if you don't agree.Michael Dorosh 18:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree Michael. It's one incident, and the level of detail currently on John Steele would be totally inappropriate at Battle of Normandy. DJ Clayworth 16:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Participating forces (quantified)

Of the three million participants in the invasion, how many of each nation were there? I suppose mostly from the UK and the US. Canada has a relatively small population and is overseas. The article suggests their army was of similar strength as the UK and US, but that sounds unlikely. Also, most armies were anglophone, but not all. I gather the others were used for special tasks, to avoid communication problems. Is that right? DirkvdM 06:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly right in thinking that the majority were from the US and UK. Canada had a substantial number, including 20,000 or so in the initial invasion and many more later. There were a lot of French forces (unsurprisingly) and equally unsurprisingly they were not anglophone. Numbers from other countries get smaller. I'd have to look up the figures for Australia, New Zealand and India. As a rule those countries fought pretty much everywhere Britain did, but I think there were mroe of them in the Mediterranean and fewer in Northern Europe. DJ Clayworth 14:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any ANZAC forces in NW Europe. NZ troops fought in North Africa and Italy, Australia only contributed troops to North Africa AFAICT and withdrew their forces before the invasion of Sicily. I removed a reference to Australia in this article a few weeks back and no one commented at the time. Indian participation in the NW Europe/Normandy campaigns seems also to have been limited if even non-existent, but this is off the top of my head. As for Canadian participation - I think total pop. was 8 million at the time, with roughly 1 million people in uniform, and D-Day participation of 15,000 Army plus undetermined RCAF and RCN. I don't see a need for a per capita examination.Michael Dorosh 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Something about overall numbers now in the article. I think the only substantial non-British or U.S. forces were the Canadians, the Free French, and the Polish. Looking at [[1]], on the 6th June there was one Canadian division out of eight and a brigade; on the 20th July there were 2/8 and 1 brigade out of 6; on the 20th August 3/12 (which also included a Polish division) and 1/3 brigades. Now, this is not definitive as I won't have spotted everything (especially as Canadian and British regiments can have very similar names), and there were Canadian units in 'British' formations (such as an airborne battalion). Most of the non-Commonwealth or U.S. forces had been in Britain for nearly four years, so the language difficulties might have been less than might be imagined. MAG1 13:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Change to "only regiment to achieve objective"

I can assure you that as a member of the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, and having spoken to its veterans of the Normandy Landing, that though the unit suffered the heaviest casualties of all Canadian regiments that day, the QOR of C succeeded in securing its D-Day objective 7 miles inland of the beach.

It's a ridiculous statement anyway - there was more than one unit that achieved its D-Day objective. DMorpheus 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the airlanded and commando units achieved their objectives. I think the original author was trying to say that this was the only place where the front line got as far as it was intended to. (Although we have to be careful here - sometimes units are given objectives that they can only reach if things go without a hitch, because generals don't want units stopping at midday just because they've been very lucky). DJ Clayworth 13:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We'd need a reference to the QOR securing their objectives - Charlie Martin mentions it on page 16 of "Battle Diary". But he also says they had no idea how the other units of the 3rd Division did, so the "only" claim isn't proven. Didn't the Pointe du Hoc assault also achieve its objective, despite the fact the guns that were supposed to be there, weren't? Michael Dorosh 13:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, that was the first unit to come to mind. The British Airborne units that took Merville Battery and pegasus bridge also come to mind...as do the US Airborne units that took the Utah beach exits, those who took Ste Mere Eglise...I know less about the seaborne units but it's pointless to go on. DMorpheus 15:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

>>It's a ridiculous statement ... DMorpheus 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)<<

"Of all the land forces engaged on June 6, one unit only had reached its set objective ... This was ... the 6th Canadian Armoured Regiment, spearheading 3 Canadian Infantry Division ... " pp 68-69, McKee, Alexander. 1964. Caen. Anvil of Victory. Dorset Press. New York. ISBN 0-7607-2252-8. Rufjbn 01:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

edit to unit names and numbers...

I just made an attempt to standardise unit ID's within the article. I removed any reference of nationality when this was obvious (for example, British sector, so no need to list British in front of every British unit, on the otehr hand list Canadian and french units under it's command...) but added it whenever necessary. I also tried to use the same name for a unit every time I found it in the text (for example, German 91st Air Landing division, not once Air Landing and another time Luftlande). I did not change Panzer to Armoured as the German term seems to be standard and well understood. Doing these changes I also added some data as available (like the division into two army sectors at the landings, and British coprs ID's. This reminds me I forgot to add that the no. 41, 46, 47 and 48 (RM° Commandos all belonged to 4th Special Service brigade (I also corrected the 1 SAS brigade mistake which was supposed to be 1 SS brigade which I also altered to 1 Special Service brigade to avoid confusion). Anyhow, a long list of edits and I'm sure I missed a few. I was also unable to add an army sector division between the beaches (or corps sectors within the structure (the U.S. Airborne divisions for instance belonged to VII Corps), maybe someone with more wiki experience can do that.

Lastly, I removed the following paragraph which I was placed in the wrong place (it came right after Utah beach) and seems to be redundant;

Operation Overlord was the code name used for the Allied attack on German-occupied Northern France in the summer of 1944. The organization responsible for planning this task was SHAEF, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force, and the officer in command of Overlord was General (promoted to General of the Army on December 20, 1944) Dwight D. Eisenhower. Command of ground forces was given to General Bernard Montgomery, while naval forces would be commanded by Admiral Bertram Ramsay. Air forces were under the control of Air Chief Marshal Trafford Leigh-Mallary, and supply and logistics the task of Lt. General John Lee.

--Caranorn 12:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

can someone look to see if this article is back to as it was.....its been vandalised, and i'm not expert on this subject. Iäve reverted it but it looks less than it was last time i read this article thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.12.86 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 14 November 2006

If you go to the "Page history" page, and click on the 'current' link beside any version, you can see the net effect of the changes made since then. Checking on the changes made in the last few days which have stuck, I don't see any obvious vandalism.

—wwoods 02:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummm.... about that. can someone fix the "fun day" thingy on it, i can not figure out how to do it. thanks....

I think the thing about PENIS at the bottom of the page should be considered vandalisim.

User:PsychoMantis 12:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirection Mistake.

1944 Normandy invasion redirects to here.... on the disamubigution page at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_%28disambiguation%29 --64.121.1.55 07:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Canada

The current flag in the infobox was used from 1957 to 1965, as stated in its description. Should we replace it with the Union Flag? --Brand спойт 13:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

duplicate wikilinks

I just deleted a lot of duplicate wikilinks. In some cases these might have been justified, in most they were superfluous. It might be a good idea to adopt a norm. Maybe one wikilink at the first mention of a term in the article, then possibly a second in a section dealing with that topic in particular (for example: the various beaches once at first listing, then once in their own section). Definitelly not identical wikilinks within a single paragraph as in some recent edits.

If someone feels my edits were unjustified, revert en block. Though I'd definitelly recommend dropping some of those wikilinks at least.--Caranorn 13:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this because duplicate wikilinks are distracting? Rufjbn 16:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I first thought this was a firm policy, but I just reread the relevant material Manual of Style (links) and see it's not as strict as I thought. And yes, it's pretty distracting (I also tend to hover the mouse over the link to see where it actually leads, could be a new interesting article etc.) and I believe takes up some resources (just editing out those links I noticed a slight reduction in file size), but that's an area I'm not really familiar with. I will probably go over my edit once more and put some of the wikilinks back in (to a maximum of one per term per section which seems reasonable to me).--Caranorn 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

German defenses

"It was guarded by four divisions, of which only one (352nd) was of high quality" .... this might be stretching the point a little. While it may be true that the 352nd was the only "300 series" German infantry division in the area (when seaborne forces first landed) and the remaining infantry divisions were the frost-bitten, Ukrainian, amputees of the "700 series" divisions - 709th, 711th, 716th, etc., the article seems to contradict itself when it mentions German paratroopers and a Panzer Division in the area. Also, on D + 4, the 346th Infantry Division attacked the left flank of the invasion area. The 346th must have been close enough for government work. Rufjbn 04:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

other pictures

Just looking at the pictures shows that there are way too less pictures of german troops and its defense systems comparing it to the amount of pictures showing assaulting Allied soldiers. I think the choice of pictures should be balanced, showing both sides, not just stressing the Allied side.