Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Messines

Specific comments welcome of course, but really looking for more general feedback at this point. Carom (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article is off to a good start. My comments are:

I like how the article is structured
The background section should cover the tactical situation in the area prior to the attack in greater detail - eg, why did the British choose to directly attack a German strong point?
The bit on the conversion of one of the mine craters to a "pool of peace" should go in the aftermath section
The opposing forces section should include the numbers of troops involved and their quality/combat readiness
The description of the battle is nice and clear, but could be longer. The structure is great and should support an expansion.
the phrase "only 16,000 total casualties" is awkward. While less than what the Germans suffered, these were still very heavy losses for a 216,000 strong force to suffer in half a day.
The aftermath section is good, but could be longer. Why did Haig think that this carefully planned operation which took over a year to prepare mean that the general offensive would suffer a similar casualty rate?
Have you considered using the Australian official history of the war as a reference? The full text of it is available online, and volume V has two chapters on the battle while the summary publication has a single chapter. The Australian official history is still considered a highly reliable source. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the comments. I will look into addressing your concerns, and I will also see what the Australian official history has to offer. Carom (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the chapters that Nick mentions, Bean also has a gripping account of the underground warfare in Appendix No. 1 (pp. 949-959)
Here's another good source: Messines and Third Ypres NB: On p. 115 there is a full breakdown of casualties, by branch

I'd like to see:

more on the elaborate preparations for Magnum Opus, especially the engineering, signals and artillery plans;
more on the opposing troops, listing the divisions involved on both sides;
a description of the infantry tactics, especially those of assaulting ferro-concrete pillboxes, and the controversial technique of "leapfrogging" at the operational level;
the artillery probably deserves at a least a paragraph of their own, describing the barrages and the CB effort;
a paragraph on the logistical support of the battle;
a paragraph on the weapons and technology used, including tanks, gas, machine guns, and trench mortars

Do you need any pictures?

10:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments also. I'll see what I can do to add detail to the sections you mention. As far as pictures are concerned, I have not got as far as looking for them, so I'm not sure what is freely available. Carom (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian War Memorial's online database at [1] might be useful. A simple search of 'Messines' returns over 500 photos and 60 artworks, all of which should be out of copyright. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]