Talk:Normandy landings

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

Hi I am George P III, and I want to edit this article as I am an expert in my field. Also, just to let you know I've been studying this specific subject for about 5 years so it would be great if I can edit and give some extra but important information. Besides being an expert, I am a scientist and archiologist with 30 years of experience in science and 28 years in archiology. So if you want any additional information on the Normandy landings and what the Germans did to defend the French land they forcefully took over. AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

^OK AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

ok AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

OK AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jamedeus (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Size of force

"The Normandy landings were the largest seaborne invasion in history" Beevor 2009 p74. Only that is not what the reference states on p74. It states the largest sea force assembled in history, then lists the number of ships. Earlier on p72 Beevor states that it was the largest amphibious assault attempted - whether that attempt relates to WW2 or in history is not clarified. The two relevant pages need to be correctly cited, else we have the current POV. Additionally, other secondary sources should be used to support such a key statement in the article. Also, a comparison should be drawn with the invasion of Sicily, which had a similar number of troops in the initial assault (according to WP Sicily had 4,000 more troops) with more tanks, artillery etc during the landing. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

What Beevor says is "Many wondered what the Germans would think when they caught sight of this armada, which was by far the largest fleet that had ever put to sea." My opinion is that it supports the included content. Here's a second source: CNN says "largest sea invasion". — Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa. The issue is not the number of ships in the naval flotilla supporting the landing. The issue is that this was an amphibious invasion i.e. the focus is on what landed from the sea and onto the beach. We need to confirm that it was the largest in history, else we should be saying that it had the largest naval support in history - we need to be accurate. I have little faith in an opinion piece hosted on CNN - regardless of who it is - because it has not been peer reviewed and therefore not open to challenge by the writer's peers. Surely there are reliable secondary sources (history books) that support this statement? I note that the article is GA-rated and refers to many historical works already. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to do comparisons with other amphibious landings, you need to look at more than the first day - otherwise it all looks misleadingly tiny compared with Soviet operations at the same time. Counting ships does not mean a lot either - many of the vessels that crossed the English Channel were very small. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

According to Beevor, the size of the invasion fleet was the largest in history. Do we need to amend it to say that instead? Something like "The invasion fleet was the largest in history." But this might not be necessary, as we also have sourced content elsewhere in the article that says "The official British history gives an estimated figure of 156,115 men landed on D-Day." Was this not the largest one-day troop landing in history? Do you know of one that was bigger? — Diannaa (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"The millionth Allied solider crossed the beach on 4 July." Ruppenthal Logistical Support of the Armies Volume 1, page 457.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Negative tone re Allied first day achievements

Whilst factually correct, the tone of this is overly negative. A reader could well think this had been a disaster or a German victory; it was not!

“The Allies failed to achieve any of their major goals beyond the establishment of the beachheads on the first day. Carentan, Saint-Lô, and Bayeux remained in German hands, and Caen, a major objective, was not captured until 21 July. Only two of the beaches (Juno and Gold) were linked on the first day, and all five beachheads were not connected until 12 June; however, the operation gained a foothold that the Allies gradually expanded over the coming months.”

It reads as though D Day was a failure. It was a resounding success! The allies established a beachhead which the Germans never reversed - never even looked like reversing - and so the Germans lost the war; this was the main aim. It is not to be an aside following ‘however’!

Caen was not captured until 21 July because the Germans didn’t do the sensible thing and withdraw to a more-easily defended position. Hitler’s military training was as a corporal on the Western Front - never yield an inch of land; he lost endless men and materiél through failure to withdraw. As a result of a month’s intense fighting near the coast the German army in France was effectively defeated in Normandy and the liberation of Paris and then arriving at the Rhine followed quickly after.

The objective was the liberation of France, which was achieved spectacularly quickly - e.g. the supply lines became over-extended as the Germans collapsed too quickly. The reason for this collapse was that they defended every inch of Normandy and were defeated there.

In terms of choosing objectives, simple psychology requires the setting of objectives that are unachievable. That way productivity is higher than if achievable objectives are set. Failure to achieve impossible targets does not amount to failure.

The Allies do not deserve this negativity; D-Day was an overwhelming victory. Elements of this article read as though they were written by Goebbels! D-Day was not essentially a success for the Germans. Quincefish (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

What about: “The Allies succeeded in establishing beachheads on the first day that the Germans were unable to reverse; the Germans failed in their aim to throw the Allies back into the sea. Other goals beyond the establishment of the beachheads proved to be unachievable on the first day. Carentan, Saint-Lô, and Bayeux remained in German hands, and Caen, a major objective, was not captured until 21 July. Two of the beaches (Juno and Gold) were linked on the first day, all five beachheads were not connected until 12 June; however, the operation gained an irreversible foothold that the Allies gradually expanded over the coming months.” Quincefish (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the "Aftermath" section of the article, you can see that the Allies failed to attain any of their major objectives and suffered ten times more casualties than the Germans (10,000 vs 1,000). It was certainly not a failure, and we don't say that it is. But it reflects what the sources have to say about the first day of the invasion.

The lead is a summary of the article, and must not contain content not present in the article. The article for example does not state a German aim as being to throw the Allies back into the sea; and it does not say that the foothold the Allies attained was irreversible. So we can't include those additions.

To sum up, my opinion is that the content you suggest changing gives a realistic assessment of D-Day and does not need to be beefed up the make things look more positive. — Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thanks for the feedback, I have followed your suggestions with lots of nicely referenced additional material in 'Aftermath'.

The 1,000 German casualties is clearly wrong; within this article both in the summary and in the "casualties and losses" part of the summary table the generally accepted range of 4,000-9,000 is used. I have ordered a copy of the book referenced, Ford and Zaloga to check. In any event, it was not a football match, it would still have been a success for the Allies if the Germans had not had a single casualty and the Allies had lost 30,000 men but still achieved the same objective of establishing a bridgehead.

Whilst not everything went according to plan, it laid the foundations for the defeat of the Germans. Quincefish (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa for your help on this, all your comments duly noted with gratitude.

Re Cherbourg and the Mulberry harbours, I'm not sure why is Cherbourg even in an article on D-Day as it was not an objective for D-Day - and particularly it makes no sense to have it as a negative result for the Allies. It would of course have been an ideal place to have occupied on D-Day, as a landing ground, but there was no hope for that. If it is to remain in the article then it is quite valid to say that the existence of the Mulberry harbours meant that Cherbourg was not an essential part of the plans. The Allies expected the port to have been destroyed by the time they got there. Quincefish (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The port facilites at Cherbourg were still intact on D-Day. Without port facilities at Cherbourg, the Allied troops would have to backtrack northward up the Cotentin Peninsula in order to capture it and seal it off. The distance from Omaha Beach to Cherbourg is 82 km, and the terrain was swampy and had been intentionally flooded by the Germans and would be difficult to cross. Hence the importance of having access to the port at Cherbourg. Therefore a landing on the peninsula was added to the plans. Cherbourg was not captured until 25 June, by which time the Germans had intentionally destroyed the port facilities. — Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you but I do not understand you, sorry. If I may break down your note:

1. "The port facilites at Cherbourg were still intact on D-Day." - yes indeed, the port was in German hands and the Germans were using the port.

2. "Without port facilities at Cherbourg, the Allied troops would have to backtrack northward up the Cotentin Peninsula in order to capture it and seal it off." - I do not understand what you mean by this. They Allies never expected to have port facilities at Cherbourg for their landings which is why they landed on the beaches they chose. And indeed they did advance northward up the Cotentin Peninsula in order to capture it, I am confused by your use of the conditional 'would have to' as the plan was exactly that.

3. "The distance from Omaha Beach to Cherbourg is 82 km, and the terrain was swampy and had been intentionally flooded by the Germans and would be difficult to cross." - Agreed.

4. "Hence the importance of having access to the port at Cherbourg." - This is a non sequitur. There is no 'hence 4' from '3'.

5. "Therefore a landing on the peninsula was added to the plans." - What plans? Cherbourg was never a target for D-Day. There was no planned landing on the Cotentin peninsular (other than at Omaha Beach) The Allies took it on D-Day plus 12, admittedly later than they wanted to, and admittedly in a worse condition than they wanted to.

But it is, as you note, 82 km (I haven't checked the actual distance) from Omaha Beach. There was not a chance of the US Army's getting up there on D-Day! It really doesn't belong in an article on D-Day at all. Indeed the article says "The Americans, assigned to land at Utah Beach and Omaha Beach, were to attempt to capture Carentan and Saint-Lô the first day, then cut off the Cotentin Peninsula and eventually capture the port facilities at Cherbourg."

I do not think the date on which Cherbourg was captured has anything to do with this page, its presence suggests that it was a failure of the D-Day landings. I think we should delete it; do you agree? Quincefish (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my reply was not as well researched as it should have been, as I was in hurry to get a reply out before I had to leave for work. Yes they did intend to capture the Cotentin Peninsula by coming up from the south, but a little ways into the planning process for D-Day they realized that the German ability to re-supply from the intact port at Cherbourg was a Bad Thing, so they added another landing site (Utah Beach) to the four already planned. But yeah, I think the material in the Aftermath section about Cherbourg can come out, as Cherbourg and its port was not a first-day objective. — Diannaa (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Dubious: German losses on D-Day

In the 'Aftermath' section the article refers to 1,000 German casualties which is clearly wrong; within this article both in the summary and in the "casualties and losses" part of the summary table the generally accepted range of 4,000-9,000 is used. I have ordered a copy of the book referenced, Ford and Zaloga, to check. Quincefish (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that the book will say that there were 1,000 men killed and that total casualties were 4,000–9,000 (includes killed, wounded, missing, and captured). I have changed the body to match the infobox. I also had to remove some of your recent addition, because it is too closely paraphrased/copied from the source. — Diannaa (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Ford/Zaloga page 335 says "1,000 men" so I am changing the citation back to the one that was there when the article passed GA. Somebody changed it at some point — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 15:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the Ford/Zaloga reference!

The Portsmouth Museum site linked - the citation you have reverted to - doesn't exist any longer (or, at least, I cannot make the link work). They seem to have become https://theddaystory.com/discover/what-is-d-day/

The problem is that the Germans were in such disarray as a result of the surprise attack that their normally very accurate records do not exist. Most sources on the internet I suspect are using this Wikipedia article as their source anyway.

These people suggest 6,000 German deaths https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/d-day-casualties-by-country/ against 4,400 Allied. And these suggest 10,000 German casualties https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/d-day/figures Quincefish (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The Portsmouth Museum link works if you use the archived link, here. The Wayback Machine was down for a while today and the archive url would not jhave worked during that outage. So I thinkl we are okay to leave it as-is until/unless a more definitive source is found. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 18:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

American-centric photos

We must accept that D-Day was an operation where all Allied Nations contributed, including but not limited to, Canada, Britain and France. These nations are excluded in favour of American-centric photos which excludes them. I would like this to change, so all of the nations who fought for freedom against evil fascism are represented here 2604:3D08:1A71:5200:C6E:9D16:D915:9D18 (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

? There's images that show British, Canadian, and French resistance, as well as Amercian troops. So I disagree that any of the major participants were excluded. — Diannaa (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)