Talk:Battle of Hannut

Untitled

I have justed started this article, more to follow shortly Dapi89 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC).

Nice job. I've put it in the campaign box. Red4tribe (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

2d DLM etc

I'm unfamiliar with the material including some of the abbreviations used in the article, so I imagine others may be too. It would be useful for DLM etc to be explained, e.g. where they are first used, as is done with "3rd Panzer Divion (3PD)". Also the use of 2d and 3d throughout (for 2nd/3rd?) should be explained or amended. --TraceyR (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I reorginized the infobox, and some of the other stuff may be a little unclear, I'll see what I can do. Red4tribe (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox outcomes

I know these articles can turn into contentious issues quite easily. At the same time I found myself kind of disagreeing with the infobox assessment and some of the paragraph headings. I've read of the fighting in a few places; the book I have to hand is Ernest May and I realize he's a 'revisionist' with an interest in illustrating aspects of the campaign which went well for the Allies, but his logic in pp. 400-404 of "Strange Victory" seems pretty solid.

That narrative is that Prioux's DLMs were an advanced screen for a position in their rear. Between when the engagement along the line Tirlemont-Hannut-Huy began, on the 13th, and the next day, a barrier of tank obstacles (the ones the Allies had been surprised to find unfinished) had been set up in the rear position at Perwes. Thus the withdrawal of the 2nd and 3rd DLM was something of a no brainer; and in fact by the time the fighting on the 14th - which saw a German breakthrough stanched and the French holding the field at the end of the day - they were already scheduled to move behind the French 1st Army line.

So assuming there's nothing wrong with this - and that the 2 days fighting, involving the DLMs, are what we're calling the battle of Hannut, this is the chronology:

13th: Fierce fighting with casualties favouring the French but the French retiring from the field of battle. This could be construed as a draw, or (by the "who controls the battlefield afterwards" standard) a German victory. 14th: The 2 DLMs, having moved to a fortified line, successfully defend it. A breakthrough occurs, but is halted. 15th: The 2 DLMs withdraw, belatedly, having exceeding their assignment to screen the 1st Army.

So: French tactical victory, as the info-box states? Arguably not on the 13th by the battlefield-possession standard. The lack of any big collapses or disruptions on either side speaks more to a draw, if one favourable to the French in terms of casualties and the assignments of the French and German units (screen/delay and advance, respectively.)

More problematic than the question of tactical victory - where the info-box is perhaps mislabeling French "success" as a battlefield "victory," something a bit different - is the question of it being a "Strategic and operational German Victory." This, to my mind, is nonsense. A strategic and operational German victory was certainly going on - but not at Hannut. To give the battle of Hannut, or its outcome, some of the "blame" for the operational failure going on you'd need to, what, suggest they might have been deployed southwards against the Meuse breakthroughs, when the French High Command wasn't even taking these seriously until the battle was mostly over anyway?

Certainly Hannut occurred against a "backdrop" of calamitous operational failure, but putting that in the infobox there only makes sense to me as an argument that Hannut played a big part in -causing- that calamitous failure. No sense pinning it on the one thing that actually went right for the Allies in the campaign. IMO, anyway.

Similarly, we have two paragraphs labeled "French defeat at Orp," and "French resistance crumbles," whose substance is essentially "French successfully counterattack at Orp" and "List of French casualties caused by the 5th and 3rd Panzer Regiments, and losses by the 6th," without a correpondingly thorough itemization of German losses, or an explanation of how these losses - 54 knockouts reported by the Germans - constituted 2 DLMs with 10 times that number "crumbling." The French withdrawal to the Perwes fortifications would justify it being narrowly termed a German victory for the day, obviously, but arguing that either the 13th or the 14th saw the Germans mauling or forcing the retreat of the French forces just doesn't fit. I've replaced "French Defeat at Orp" with "Fighting at Orp" and "French resistance crumbles" with "Afternoon battles."

The text of the fighting for the 14th also seems rather rah-rah for Hoeppner, considering that May cites a Herman Zimmermann as suggesting Prioux's delayed withdrawal may have prevented the situation from turning into serious problems for XVI Panzer Corps. The Germans quite respectably given the large numbers of awful tanks on their side, but they couldn't and didn't beat the DLMs from the field; that sort of thing has to be considered with reference to the orders of both sides.

Aside from a few (minor and neutral) changes to paragraph headings I've kept the opinionating here. Hopefully noone's rubbed the wrong way. Gunsburg is a good source, I just don't recall him making Hannut out to be a good situation for the Germans. 99.192.48.185 (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Gembloux Gap

Don't want to cause controversy, but - unless I'm missing something - I've always heard this battle referred to as "Battle of the Gembloux Gap". It's the same battle right? Not saying this article should be moved (and I know there's a redirect) or anything, but the other name, which does appear to be used relatively frequently [1] should probably be mentioned in the lede. Thoughts?radek (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's not Battle of Gembloux (1940)?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I'm sure it's not that one. "Biggest tank battle before Kursk" - probably happened sometime after 1578 (click that google books link I provided - in fact I don't see much about the 16th century engagement in the sources there). If anything it might be this one - but that looks like the same thing or almost the same thing and looks like a good candidate for a merge. radek (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Fixed the link.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, and that one looks like this one, or at least like a second part of this battle - I don't have access to the Journal that is cited there atm but the 212 google book hits suggest that both articles are about the same thing, perhaps with slightly different focus in terms of days.radek (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that "Gembloux Gap" redirects here also suggest that both articles are about the same thing.radek (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've put a merge suggestion at the other page.radek (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm totally oppossed to a merger, the Gembloux battle and Hannut are not the same thing. Whoever has made that redirect has made a mistake. Dapi89 (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

One more note; reading up on some stuff I can see where the "Battle of Gembloux Gap" was a ('n almost immediate) follow up engagement to the one found in this article. I do think many sources treat the two together but I can also see some rationale for two separate articles. So the merge suggestion over at Battle of Gembloux (1940) is just that - a suggestion. One that I'm not even 100% sure of.radek (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is rationale, given that they were too distinct battles that neither overlapped, nor took place in the same location. Dapi89 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then why does "Gembloux Gap" redirect here?radek (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It should not. Whoever has made that redirect has made a mistake. Dapi89 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't much experience with military articles but we'll see how this goes. I will make straightforward changes as I go - please revert any where I inadvertently change the meaning - and note queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Erm...refs go at the end of a sentence - why is there one right after the first three words?

• Battle of Hannut[7] was a World War II battle fought during the Battle of Belgium - three "Battles" in a row. Is this one a little battle? Is there another name for a little battle? Encounter?

• The Allied supreme commander General Maurice Gamelin committed his First Army Group, under General Gaston Billotte, and its strongest Army, the French 1st Army with the fully mechanised Corps de Cavalerie (Cavalry Corps), commanded by General René-Jacques-Adolphe Prioux, to advance into Belgium to support the large but more lightly equipped Belgian Army. - this is a really long sentence. Can it be broken up?

• Gamelin expected the German attack to break the Belgian defences at the Albert Canal line rapidly—the Belgians had in any case indicated they would after four days withdraw to the planned allied front in central Belgium, the "Dyle Line" between Antwerp and Namur—and sought to quickly establish an entrenched front line centred on Gembloux, just north of Namur, to check what Gamelin foresaw as the main enemy effort (Schwerpunkt) of the campaign: an attempt to break through the "Gembloux Gap" between the rivers Dyle and Meuse with a concentration of armoured forces. - ditto. Not too bad but I wouldn't know where to break it. There are two "Gamelin" s in it too.

• What's a manoeuvre battle?

I'd say, particularly from the context, "an intentional meeting engagement," the latter term not sounding quite right as an intended option? I think it's conventional enough military history terminology, but then when I read the question I second guessed myself. I'm not the author there.

I did make some minor changes as 99.192.48.185 because I didn't have a login, dunno how to "consolidate" them. Jason Townsend (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Point from me; Second World War, not World War II. The Americans weren't involved, so we use Commonwealth English. Ironholds (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

As the creator of the article and (I think) the possessor of the reference material, this page is not fit for GA yet. It is missing detail and it will be a while before it should be reviewed. Can I request that this GA review be stopped/suspended until I have had time to complete it? Dapi89 (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I can leave it for a bit. Just drop me line when you're done and we can continue :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dapi to be honest. I don't think that it should be an outright fail buy we do need a bit more time. After all, Dapi has made way more edits to this article than me and as a result, he should have the final say as to if I should nominate it or wait.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

THat's fine - I can leave this for a couple of weeks no problems - many linger at GA review stage for longer than that. Just ping me when ready. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This may take some time (a few months), so I think a complete delist is required. Dapi89 (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll not-promote it on comprehensiveness then. Ping me when you list it again. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fog of war

"Each DLM thus had an organic strength of 240 tanks and 44 Panhards, for a total of 176 SOMUA S35s" Does that mean the total per DLM was 176 S35s, or the total for all 3 DLMs? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased?

Both German and French pages on the same battle consider it balanced with roughly 600 tanks on each side (also the case here in the box but the aftermath says that the Germans were outnumbered two to one as if there was only one PzD and not two), and a French victory (100 French tanks v 165 German tanks) in tank destroyed. The French orders were to delay the German advance for two days, which was the case, so why call it a French defeat? --82.124.37.192 (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Result Suggestion

Template:Infobox military conflict

• result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Please bear this in mind before thinking of reverting the result in the infobox. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Given the complex aspect of this battle, I'm pretty sure than there is more room than ""X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". Is there really something against the rules of wikipedia, about being a tactical French victory and a strategical German victory? There are many other result infoboxes being even more detailed than that in other articles86.66.196.104 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Which parts of the result section haven't you read? Surely this

In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat".

says it all? The infobox Template:Infobox military conflict isn't the place for hair-splitting and logic-chopping (although it took me ages to read the template page before I realised). The provision for a link to the Aftermath section is there for results that need explaining rather than describing; that other articles are worse is no reason to ignore a requirement. You shouldn't revert while seeking consensus on the talk page either. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Might I suggest that

• At the Battle of Hannut, the 2nd and 3rd DLM of the Corps de Cavalerie with 239 Hotchkiss light tanks and 176 Somua S35s had faced the 3rd Panzer Division with 280 tanks and the 4th Panzer Division with 343 tanks. The German units had only 73 Panzer III and 52 Panzer IV, while the French also had 90 Panhard 178 armoured cars, carrying 25 mm SA 35 anti-tank guns, capable of penetrating any German panzer. The 37 mm gun carried by the Panzer III was ineffective against the French tanks and the 75 mm KwK 37 of the Panzer IV could only penetrate a Somua at close-range. By fighting on the defensive, the French tanks also had the advantage of hiding in villages and engaging from cover. A lack of operational radios was a tactical disadvantage and a report from Panzer Regiment 35 called the French "leaderless, aimless, poorly-led and tactically inferior. The French still managed to inflict a considerable number of tank casualties on the Germans at Hannut (and later at Gembloux), the 4th Panzer Division being reduced to 137 operational tanks on 16 May, with only four Panzer IV, a reduction of 45–50 percent. The 3rd Panzer Division lost 20–25 percent and despite the lightly damaged tanks being quickly repaired, the fighting power of the XVI Panzer Corps was substantially reduced.

The Battle of Hannut was a French tactical success, the Corps de Cavalerie stand allowing the rest of the First Army to dig on the Dyle line by the fifth day of operations (14 May); the German attack on the Dyle line could not be organised in any strength until the sixth day (15 May). At the Operational level of war, that the Battle of Hannut had been fought at all, was a big success for the German decoy operation in central Belgium, which made the French tactical victory irrelevant in the context of the campaign. The Corps de Cavalerie, with its organisation and equipment, would have been invaluable for a counter-attack against the German divisions over the Meuse at Sedan. When local French counter-attacks at Sedan failed on 14 May, Gamelin contemplated ordering the corps to counter-attack southwards but the XVI Panzer Corps and the Luftwaffe had inflicted such losses, that the corps was incapable of such a manoeuvre. With no forces available against the penetration at Sedan, the XVI Panzer Corps was no longer needed for the feint in Belgium and was transferred to Heeresgruppe A (Army Group A) on 18 May.

contains a prose version of the entry below

Tactical French victory
Strategic and operational German victory

and will do justice to it if Result is amended to See Aftermath section? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Does anyone object to the suggestion outlined above? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Albrecht, Template:Infobox military conflict (see above) determines the result criterion (if one is used). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox result

Copied from talk page

Hannut

As the original anonymous editor complained, it's incredibly aggravating behaviour to revert good-faith edits without even a hint of explanation. The Frieser citation, on verification, is legitimate; if you have a reason for suppressing it, then I'd like to hear it. Albrecht (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you read this Template:Infobox military conflict link?

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Imagine what it's like to go through this every five minutes, when it contains It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. The Aftermath section is the place for cited hair-splitting. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Largest Tank Battle?

Seems bloody unlikely. There were probably about 1400 tanks on both sides combined in this battle, compared to, according to this very website, over 8000 tanks at the Battle of Kursk. The line, at the very start of the article needs to be either removed, or lended some kind of context that would explain how a battle with less than 1/4th of the tanks of Kursk is "largest" There 2604:2D80:C404:E705:7998:5A3C:43D9:FC85 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The original sentence has been tampered with. Kursk is debatable as well. There are other battles that may have rivaled or surpassed Kursk. Plus, it was more of an artillery battle than a tank battle. Dapi89 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually I edited it. It couldn't have been bigger than a battle that happened after it could it. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

How was my remark illogical? Dapi89 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own numbers for tanks involved in combat disprove the original statement that this is the largest battle of tanks. There are SEVERAL battles who's numbers alone surpass the presence of a mere 1200 tanks on the field at Hannut. There's a smaller battle that is part of the larger engagement at Kursk, that nearly equals those for this entire battle. Less than 200 tanks were destroyed in this battle, and yet at Kursk, the losses in tanks IN COMBAT amount to several thousand. There was more tanks lost at the "Battle of Prokhorovka" which was a smaller part of the larger battle of Kursk... than there was at Hannut. This following line needs to be stricken from the wiki from the Hannut page, "It was also the largest clash of tanks in armoured warfare history at the time." 2604:2D80:C404:E705:89CA:1E1A:F2F:A0 (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The 'statement' was inserted without citation and changed the meaning of the sentence, so don't concern yourself with it. It was the largest battle at that time; that is the point. Dapi89 (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Good, then I can just edit it then. 173.23.126.252 (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. Glad it's fixed 173.23.126.252 (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The Battle of Hannut (not to be confused with the Battle of Gembloux Gap) was a Second World War battle fought during the Battle of Belgium which took place between 12 and 14 May 1940 at Hannut in Belgium; it was the largest tank battle in the campaign. It was also the largest clash of tanks in armoured warfare history at the time.

try

The Battle of Hannut (12–14 May 1940) was fought by the French and German armies, during the Battle of Belgium in the Second World War; more tanks were used than in any previous battle and it was the largest tank engagement in the campaign.

the not to be confused caveat should be in a hatnote not the text. The edit has battle five times and a sentence starts with It and omits who fought it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)