Talk:Operation Epsom/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

first battle of the Odon?

Then where's the second? CapnZapp (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In the campaign box, under the title Second Odon; it was a series of operations launched to support Operation Goodwood. Those battles and Epsom were not really related and thus there isnt much on them in this article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I have never the less made a mention of it in the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dollman

In the infobox, there's a referenced "Killed in action" icon. However, in the notes, the various speculations over his cause of death do not seem to indicate KIA. Puzzled. --Dweller (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That has only been added today or yesterday and i agree it does not appear to be warrented. It will be removed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirsten Dunst

Is this vandalism? In the Planning section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomen est ...?

Any word on why it was named Operation Epsom? I see Epsom is a town south of London. Sca (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Its named after the Epsom horserace, if it doesnt mention that in the article i would imagine its because my sources didnt say so or i missed it. Ill scoot through them again later.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Wilmot mentions something about the 'race-meeting' operations (Epsom, Charnwood, Goodwood). EyeSerenetalk 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Windsor and Aintree had cameos too.Keith-264 (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware at this point in time codenames for operations like this were deliberately chosen to be neutral and not give away any clues on the purpose or type of the operation. So the answer to "why" is because it doesn't particularly mean anything. It is only more recently that some military operations have been named more for the perceived public relations benefit than for military purposes. --86.148.73.87 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
More modern ones are all stolen from cheesy Steven Segal movies ... everyone knows that :p--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
True (well, US ones at least). Epsom went one better though with sub-operations Gout, Goitre, Impetigo and Hangover... planners with a sense of humour indeed. EyeSerenetalk 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

casualties

is there an estimation about allied tank losses ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HROThomas (talk • contribs) 18:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have checked and double checked the sources i have on this operation and their doesnt appear to be any. New information is welcome however.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Do you think that this,

"....the clash of two modern armies [is] one huge battle spread over space and time, in which the smaller battles fought by the army corps...[would] form the tactical encounters of traditional battles. These large numbers of battles that would take place far away from one another as the individual corps or groups of corps came into contact with the enemy would be welded together by the commander-in-chief into a 'complete battle'. The individual [smaller] battles would be given significance by the commander-in-chief's plan. Just as a commander of old gave units particular goals on the battlefields of days past, a modern commander-in-chief would give specific goals to his army corps. Each would play a part in the overall plan. 'The success of battle today depends more upon conceptual coherence than on territorial proximity. Thus, one battle might be fought in order to secure victory on another battlefield.'"

is a reasonable description of the course of the Normandy campaign and of Epsom's place in it?Keith-264 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the opening sentance is possibly spot on; although i think you could make the same connection between the ancient battlefield and the modern depending on how you look at it. I couldnt really comment on the last part though.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

banal? this sentence dont fits for allied in normandy. i guess its more for complex and faster operation like barbarossa. the many little operations maybe secured victroy in cean but were not neccesary. he talks about offensive actions with many little actions at the same time with little place for failures... my opinion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.149.211 (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

CE

Removed redundant citations from the infobox, put casualty data in a new section, ce'd several sections, moved citations from mid-sentence to improve flow and generally spring cleaned.Keith-264 (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Tank casualties

My edits get deleted. Is there something wrong with my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsomequickedits (talk • contribs) 18:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This was messaged to me: "Re your recent edits on Epsom etc, pls refer to the talk pages before editing again, you're adding information from one source among many and it needs to be incorporated in the text, not used to contradict material already there."

I added those tank numbers because i noticed that none were in the article so i don't see how this contradicts existing material?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsomequickedits (talk • contribs) 18:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I used the wrong term, the point I was trying to make is that with such comprehensive articles, a new source needs to be incorporated a bit more carefully. I could see that you'd tried to take Enigma's request into account but if you check, you'll see that the material in the infobox isn't cited; that's because it is in the main body of the article and the infobox refers to it. Your data needs adding to the casualties section and possibly the analysis section first. I'll leave a message for Enigma too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Napier, S. (2015). Armoured Campaign in Normandy June–August 1944. Stroud: The History Press. ISBN 978-0-75096-270-4.

Is this the book you're using?Keith-264 (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes i added the book into the list at the bottom of the article. I have the kindle edition which has no page numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsomequickedits (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Bugger! That will be difficult. It looks like a reliable source but we definitely need the page numbers to use it. I had a look on Amazon but there's no look inside. PS have you seen Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


It is possible to read some pages of the book on google.books. Sadly they have no page numbers either. I was consulting the amazon help pages and it looks like it isn't uncommon for kindle book to have no page numbers. I could provide the relevant "position" numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsomequickedits (talk • contribs) 20:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Justsomequickedits (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you write the information here? If so, I'll ask on the Milhist talk page for someone who has the book to add the page numbers and we can put the material into the article with citations and then add it back to the infobox. PS have you seen Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~ ? You need to add four ~ after your comment. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This discussion has been had before and never reached a conclusion. Some people seem to think that location numbers from a Kindle book aren't reliable. Personally I think that is rubbish as the location number will remain the same regardless of reader, font size etc and location numbers are as reliable as a paper version. As long as you specify it's a Kindle edition of a book and add the location number using the |at= or |location= parameters I don't see an issue. Nthep (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't have one so I've never encountered this before, I was wondering about asking if there was a WP about it.Keith-264 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"In their first battles, the British armoured units suffered significant casualties. Using informations from the war diaries of the units involved and the daily 21st Army Group summaries, the total tank lost can be determined" A table follows "In the attempted breakthrough, exactly 150 tanks had been knocked out or required repairs needing more than 24 hours"

When the author says knocked out or needing repairs more than 24 hours he means casualties of the Z and Y category which means no light casualties ( Category X ) which could be repaired at the regimental workshops. I can't copy paste out of the kindle app and have to type it manually which isn't feasible for every citiation. For the German forces his numbers seem to match what is already in the article so i didn't copy this paragraph. German casualties in Napirs book generally are the net loss of operational tanks and thus don't differentiate between damaged or destroyed tanks. 21:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justsomequickedits (talk • contribs)

That seems ok but I'd like to see something of his sources, because this is a perennial point of conflict between sources. I'll see if there's a library copy available. If you can add the numbers and definitions of the type of tank "casualty" here rather than the labourious reproduction of a chart with any dates, that would help, PS please add four ~ after your edit. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You can check the section of his book via google.books. Is it allowed to post links here? (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

In the table he gives the following numbers: Sherman: 64 Sherman Vc: 10 Churchill: 35 Stuart: 27 Cromwell: 14 Justsomequickedits (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Found it, where do I look for the Loc ?Keith-264 (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

For the Epsom numbers just search for "in their first battles". The first hit is the page i just copied. Justsomequickedits (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Found that but I don't speak German so I don't know what the location is called.Keith-264 (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The location is displayed when you read a book via kindle. Unless you have the kindle app and buy the book you can't see the location, i'am afraid. The location for the British tank losses is 4315. Location in the German Kindle app is called Position. The entire system feels ridiculous to me anyways. Why not just page numbers.... Justsomequickedits (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be simpler. I'll have to stop until tomorrow, I'm a bit knackered but thanks for taking the time and trouble.Keith-264 (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
How now?Keith-264 (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the name of the section the information is part of, or if a section title is not available, what is the chapter? Part of the sfn template allows for this, and doing so has not came up as an issue in GA or A Class reviews. For example, see my use of Forty on the 80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom) article. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It's like [1] this for now. Keith-264 (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The informations from Napiers book are currently not correctly presented: "150 tanks damaged or knocked out" is not what Napier says in his book. The 150 are heavily damaged or knocked out tanks, the figure excludes lightly damaged tanks. Given the general distribution of X casualties of other battles its likely that the total number of damaged + knocked out is 200-250 but the number is unknown so it should just be added that light casualties are excluded. For the Germans the figures are correct since those include every type of casualty. Justsomequickedits (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the source on Google Books, Napier does not speculate on "lightly damaged" tanks. What has been entered into the article accurately reflects the information Napier presents. Notating that a "lightly damaged" criteria is missing (not specifically stated by Napier, nor defined as to be meaningful) is misusing the source to attempt to artificially inflate the statistics and render them unhelpful considering such criteria is not defined.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
What do we need to change?Keith-264 (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
As the source can be viewed on Google Books, I would argue nothing has to be changed; the article reflects what Napier states accurately.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Good oh. Keith-264 (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The book stats that those 150 were either heavily damaged tanks or tanks knocked out/destroyed. The author goes to great lenghts to explain the difference between X Y and Z casualties in earlier chapters. Quoting the author as saying 150 damaged or knocked out would be incorrect the author himself says "exaclty 150 tanks had been knocked out or required repairs needing more than 24 hours". Besides that, the current version is also factual incorrect since the meaning is unequivocally destroyed and tanks so heavily damaged they were struck off from the unit inventory. The number for "lightly damaged" tanks is unknown. While in itself this doesn't seem like an issue it is problematic that the German numbers use a different methodology. The article doesn't reflect that. You guys seem to be senior editors here and i think its up to you to decide i just wanted to lay out the facts and my opinion on the matter. Maybe iam just overly anal. "150 heavily damaged or destroyed tanks" would certainly be more factual correct. The information box maybe can't refeclt such details but the article can i assume. Justsomequickedits (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


edit: Quote user EnigmaMcmxc " Notating that a "lightly damaged" criteria is missing (not specifically stated by Napier, nor defined as to be meaningful". Thats incorrect he specifially excludes "lightly damaged". Justsomequickedits (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the footnote that goes with the details in the Casualties section? Keith-264 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
You have to infer (from what Napier wrote) that he decided to exclude "lightly damaged" tanks. I would argue - based off reading the few pages related to the discussion - it was not brought up because it was irrelevant or pretty much meaningless. The different methods of counting casualties is not just a part of the realm of tanks, the same issue crops up with how infantry casualties are counted (in particular what the Germans and British though infantry casualties were in the First World War etc.). Napier does not specify the number of "lightly damaged" British tanks, therefore we should not add a note to state he avoided talking about the issue but there probably was some.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Napier, 2015, loc. 4315

Citation frenzy

Might I suggest that recent the good faith attempt to sort out the citations created a mess and that replacing the motley of citation styles with sfn refs would be the most efficient way of sorting it out. NB it might help if you set up a page like User:Keith-264/common.js and install importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); harv errors show up in red (the citations section is covered in red).Keith-264 (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Epsom. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Baron 1 July

Bit surprised to see this claim under 1 July: 'The Germans took the village of Baron-sur-Odon quickly but a counter-attack by the 31st Tank Brigade retook it by noon.' That may be what the source (Clark 2004) says, but it's completely false, and a Featured Article shouldn't include random gibberish like that. It would certainly be news to the men of 5th Battalion The Wiltshire Regiment, who were holding Baron at the time. Major Ellis, in Victory in the West Vol.I (HMSO 1962), p.285, says, '...at 3.30 a.m. on July the 1st, after a heavy mortar bombardment, a strong infantry attack began on the Gavrus sector of the Odon bridgehead. [This was a couple of miles south-west of Baron, in the 15th Scottish area.] It was met by the defensive fire of the infantry and of twelve regiments of artillery and was dispersed before it reached the British positions. Later it was twice renewed, spreading to the Baron sector, but each time was stopped by heavy defensive fire.' Captain JS MacMath, in The Fifth Battalion The Wiltshire Regiment in North-West Europe (I don't have the page number, as I'm relying on my handwritten notes taken from the copy in the IWM library), says that on the morning of the 1st A Company, dug in on a hedgeline in front of Baron, facing out over the wheatfields towards Hill 112, reported enemy 'creeping through the corn'. These were panzergrenadiers of 10th SS. The divisional artillery, the battalion 3-inch mortars and the heavy 4.2-inch mortars of the supporting 8th Middlesex (The Diehards), along with the Brens of A and B Companies and the Diehards' Vickers guns, all opened up. According to a late friend of mine who served with B Company it was quite impressive seeing the fields blasted up into the sky. It was presumably even more impressive to the Germans on the receiving end. It didn't last long, mainly because the artillery was short of ammunition, but all was quiet afterwards. A Company marshalled a fighting patrol which went out into the fields and found a number of dead SS. At no point did the enemy get into Baron. Nor were the Churchills of 31st Tank Brigade involved. Robert Woollcombe, serving with 6 KOSB in 15th Scottish over towards Gavrus, says in his famous memoir Lion Rampant (1955; pbk B&W Publishing, Edinburgh, 1994, ISBN 1 873631 40 5, p.82), 'Gradually the fight ebbed, and in the evening the "Fusiliers" [6th Royal Scots Fusiliers] carried out a sweep with tanks, and the crippled enemy withdrew.' The 'tanks' may well have been the Churchills of the 31st, who were allocated to the Jocks. Neither the Jocks, nor the Wiltshires at Baron, gave any ground to the enemy. H Essame, in The 43rd Wessex Division At War (Barlow Clowes, London, 1951), p.32, notes that:- 'On the 2nd July the Divisional artillery broke up four counter-attacks on the front of 129 Brigade.' (At that time 5 Wilts held the right of the 129 Brigade position, 4th Somerset Light Infantry the middle, 4 Wilts the left. Hubert 'Peter' Essame, of course, commanded the division's 214 Brigade.) On the night of 2 July, 5 Wilts began aggressive patrolling into the lines of 10th SS, sabotaging mortar sights and so on while the enemy slept, and the SS became fairly passive after that. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting; If you want to incorporate these sources into the article go ahead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Clark, p. 101: "Units of 10th SS Panzer Division, therefore, struck at 0430 hours from the south-west against the bridgehead held by 159th Brigade. Baron-sur-Odon was taken, but 31st Tank Brigade was rushed forward to counterattack and the village was recaptured at around noon." Doesn't seem like "random gibberish", it looks like an article summarizing a simple a simple point made by a professional historian. If I was to wager anything, I would say he sourced that from the 15th's Div history:
Martin's official divisional history, History of the 15th Scottish Division 1939-1945, states "Before dawn the enemy put in a heavy attack from the south-west against the right of the 159th Infantry Brigade, whom they pushed out of Baron. At first light, therefore, the Divisional Commander sent off the 31st Tank Brigade across the Odon to the 159th Brigade's aid. By mid-day the 159th Brigade was able to report that it had retaken Baron." (Martin, p. 54).
Jackson's official corps history, based on their war dairy, 8 Corps: Normandy to the Baltic, p. 58 does not discuss Baron in particular, and largely discussed the Rauray Spur, he does state: "By 0330 hours enemy mortaring had reached a high pitched of intensity and covered by this, an attack was launched against the right of 159 Brigade. By 0400 hours it had spread also to the centre front, although not to that of the neighbouring 129 Brigade, which was, however, subjected to heavy shelling. This thrust pressed hard, but in the face of overwhelming artillery fire could never get properly started, and at no time penetrated the forward positions to come to grips with the defenders. By 0500 hours this enemy effort had petered out and the sector became quiet once again. … [later determined to be an attack by 10th-SS] ...between 300-400 German dead..."
Ellis, p. 285: "During the night much activity behind the German front and the sounds of tracked vehicles on the move were reported by patrols and at 3.30 a.m. on July the 1st, after a heavy mortar bombardment, a strong infantry attack began on the Gavrus sector of the Odon bridgehead. It was met by the defensive fire of the infantry and of twelve regiments of artillery and was dispersed before it reached the British positions. Later it was twice renewed, spreading to the Baron sector, but each time was stopped by heavy defensive fire." He then moves on to the fighting on the Rauray spur. The map opposing page 286 shows thrust lines for the 10th SS attacking towards Gavrus (as described by Ellis) and a flanking move NE towards Baron (not from hill 112, and not described by Ellis). It wouldn't be the first time that Ellis has omitted or avoided discussing things.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
As all other sources I own either gloss over Epsom or discuss the Rauray Spur in detail, I had a quick look at Google Books to see if any other sources discuss the fighting, none do that I found or could access. We either have two separate events being discussed, or confusion in sources over what took place. It would seem, per wiki guidelines, the easiest thing to do would acknowledge heavy fighting took place near Baron, and highlight that sources differ on the specifics (i.e. Clark and Martin state Baron changed hands, and MacMath stating they didn't).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes Keith-264 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Pending a page number, something a kin to the followingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The II SS Panzer Corps regrouped and resumed its counter-offensive on 1 July, ignorant of the fact that the British had ended their operation; with overcast weather interfering with Allied air support, Bittrich believed he could prevent the 11th Armoured Division continuing its advance across the Orne.(Jackson, p. 57; Clark, p. 101) At 03:30, the 10th SS Panzer Division, supported by heavy mortar and artillery fire, attacked towards Gavrus but the advance of the SS was stopped by overwhelming British artillery fire.(Reynolds, p. 30; Ellis, p. 285). Several more attempts to advance were halted and the fighting spread towards Baron. Sources conflict over the events at Baron; H. H. Marrtin, the official historian of the 15th (Scottish) Infantry Division and the contemporary historian Lloyd Clark wrote that Baron was briefly captured, before the 31st Tank Brigade counter-attacked and ejected the Germans by noon.(Clark, p. 101; Martin, p. 54). In the VIII Corps official history (Jackson pp.) and a battalion history of the Wiltshire Regiment specify that Baron was not captured, that the attacks were repulsed without needing a counter-attack.(Jackson, p. 58; MacMath, p. ??) Massed artillery-fire shelling defeated more attacks by the 10th SS Panzer Division from Hill 112 and British patrols later found 300 to 400 dead Panzergrenadiers on the northern slope of the hill.(Jackson, p. 58; I don't believe the Reynold's ref is necessary here, he is quoting Jackson).

I'm on night shifts so I don't have time to look through my sources but I;'ll try to get it done by Tuesday afternoon. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Jackson

@User-duck: why the verification needed for Jackson 8 Corps? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Keith-264:
  • This is what WorldCat returns for ISBN:
    • No results match your search for 'isbn:9781905696253'.
      Having trouble? Help us improve our search and let us know what you're trying to find.
      Or, save this search for future reference.
  • WorldCat return nothing useful for: "8 Corps: Normandy to the Baltic"
  • The WorldCat search for "Normandy to the Baltic" returns:
    • Normandy to the Baltic.
      Author: Field Marshall Montgomery, Sir Bernard Law viscount Montgomery of Alamein
      Publisher: [Germany] : [British Army of the Rhine], [1946]
  • The WorldCat search for "au:Jackson, G. S.;" returns:
    • Operations of Eighth Corps : account of operations from Normandy to the River Rhine <--Title does not match
      Author: G S Jackson; Military Library Research Service (Firm)
      Publisher: [Buxton] : MLRS, 2006.
      ...
      OCLC Number: 262718300
      Notes: Facsim. of ed. published: [London : St. Clements Press, 1948]. <--Orig. pub year does not match
      Description: 105 pages, 13 unnumbered pages of plates : illustrations, maps ; 26 cm <--There is an SFN reference to p. 114
  • The two books do not meet my criteria for a "match" to the source cite.

I know WorldCat is far from perfect and now realize the last one might be the source. (I had not done the 4th search.) I also know contributors make mistakes. I originally thought Montgomery's book was the source so I figured the contributor could verify and update the cite. User-duck (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, my copy has a sticker on the back with a bar code, 9781905696253 and 1905696256 (978-1-905696-25-3/1-905696-25-6 on the Wayback hyphenator). It's a MLRS 2006 facsimile repr. with the title "8 Corps: Normandy to the Baltic Lt Col G S Jackson and Staff, 8 Corps" on the front cover. Inside, opp front cover it has
  • OPERATIONS OF EIGHTH CORPS
    Account of Operations from Normandy to the River Rhine
    By
    Lieutenant Colonel G. S. Jackson
    over the page it has a passage which relates that the original was in two volumes which have been amalgamated. Hope this helps. Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I've added (Originally published in two volumes as "Operations of Eighth Corps, Account of Operations from Normandy to the River Rhine" and "The River Rhine to the Baltic Sea: A narrative account of the pursuit and final defeat of the German Armed Forces.....March – May 1945" by Lieutenant Colonel G. S. Jackson) will this be enough? [edited × 2] Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Keith-264 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Keith-264 (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Epsom/Archive_2&oldid=1221506357"