Misplaced Pages

War and popular culture queries

Two questions which sort of follow on from earlier discussions on computer games. 

• I assume that wargames as a research or training aid come under the remit of MILHIST but not wargames as a hobby. Is that correct?
• I think the consensus of the previous discussion was not to allow computer games because we were already suffering mission creep. I suggested we have a wider look at the popular culture field, being clearer on what we included and what we declassified as MILHIST as a contribution to the problem. I'm not sure there was an answer to that, so I'd like to raise it again. If there is no interest, then we can file it under NFA.Monstrelet (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Your first would seem to make sense to me, although what type of wargames are we talking about? Computer, tabletop, or both (not that it really matters I suppose).

Your second... that might be a good topic for the thinktank, as it could have implications for the project's existing scope. No objection to discussing it here though :) EyeSerene 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

On the firsrt point I have strong objections to wargames being here (excepting such things as Kreigspiel and other training aids). I do not see a doifferanced in this respect from Board wargames, computer games or playing with toy solders.

I see no reaso ot to0 discuse the inclusion of computer games, I just dojn't think we should include them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a case could be made that tabletop wargames are closer to military simulations than they are to computer games - many training aids in use now started out as hobbyist wargames. I don't think the same case can be made quite so readily for computer games, although even there the boundaries blur when looking at computer-based training simulations. Obviously we have to have a cut-off somewhere though. EyeSerene 13:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends, for example whilst say Anzio might be an excelent simulation of the italian campiegn of WW2. But what about (lets say) WWIII, both a bad game and a terrible simulation (even at the time). I agree that were something starts out as a training aid (or in the case of Phoenix Command a forensic simulation) there is justification for its inclusion is good. But if its just a commercial wargame then no I don't think there is a case.I have dbouts that if we allow the idea that a game is a form of millitary history then every one who has played they third Reich will feel that their version of reality is a valid as Liddle-harts. I just so not se any benifit but a lot of potential trouble. The 'Hey I played battlefield Vietnam, I'm a vet man' mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree; we're perhaps best treating wargames as out-of-scope with the occasional exception decided on its own merits. EyeSerene 16:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Wargaming and simulation is a standard element of both training and operational planning and should be covered, ISTR that red teaming already is. The individual games used in training aren't really all that significant, and the models used in strategic planning are sensitive so any discussion probably can't be sourced.

ALR (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree. Wargaming is a military method as well as a recreation - insofar as it's a military method, we should cover it. Individual games shouldn't be covered, regardless of their sales/authenticity/whatever (though there might be exceptions). The Land (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

General Question

When i have a text about a battle, and the source talks about casualties of one participant ( in my case , they are actually far lower than the casualties of the other participant ) and says he believes that battle was a improvement for the other participant due to various reasons ( captured ground for example ). Can i take the historian/text to claim the historian claims the inflicted casualties were a major reason to call the battle a "tactical victory". Blablaaa (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If the author does not specifically make that claim, then unequivocally no. You are not allowed to put words into the author's mouth, nor are you allowed to draw your own conclusions from what the author does say. Parsecboy (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa, please don't keep forum shopping until you get the answer you want. See the discussions at: Talk:Operation_Charnwood#sentence_in_the_lead_.28problem_solved.29, User_talk:EnigmaMcmxc#Operation_Charnwood, User_talk:EyeSerene#Charnwood, User_talk:Nick-D#Operation_Charnwood and User_talk:Blablaaa#Enlighten_me. EyeSerene 16:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Eyeseren i searched for somebody not involded, and he says exactly what i expected of an uninvolded editor. And please dont start to affect him like u tried already Blablaaa (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

U also should not list talkpages which were not opend by me. Nick talk page enigmas talkp for example were not even started by me :-D Blablaaa (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right, you haven't posted to Enigma's talkpage so I've struck that one - my apologies. You have joined in on Nick's though.

I hope Parsecboy doesn't mind me responding further, but he was replying to a hypothetical situation based on your post and in the circumstances you've described he's absolutely right. If I came across that situation I'd say the same too, as I'm sure would any experienced editor. However, you've not really given the full picture and enough editors have explained by now the problem with picking a single phrase out of a single sentence in a potted summary of an article and taking it out of context. My sincere advice is to drop the stick. EyeSerene 16:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If u mean with "full picture" that i did not tell here that other editors are already commited to their false arguments, yes correct. I guess my statement is very simply summarize of the main factors ( two unconnect claims of an historian become a connected claim due to OR of wiki editors). And we all know how correct iam. Give the quote for the claimed correlation. U have no quote for a correlation?---> u are doing OR. And in this case pretty wrong OR. Iam aware of the full situation. The situation is so clear: VERIFIABILITY. Blablaaa (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What are my possiblities if i introduce somebody in the situation and he sees who supports which opinion, ia lost. Do i post the question without irrelevanrt background-infos i get exactly what i said. Blablaaa (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is going to carry on; it’s not an opinion of a single historian, the intro was not wrote by me and it is based on the sourced information in the article; i do not believe anyone, who worked on the article, has manipulated the information to fabricate the lede. Furthermore i do not subscribe to this whole notion, that seems to be getting raised, of spin or attempting to influence the opinion of other editors into gaining consensus; i believe people can see the facts for themselves. As it may have already been gathered this stems from the talk page of the Operation Charnwood article.

A quick glance through the article and a few sources at home highlights around six historians (at the least, i don’t have the time or inclination to go through everything i own) noteing the heavy personnel, equipment and tank losses the two principle formations took during the battle. Once again this is noted in the article and sourced. Of importance is a quote from Simon Trew and Stephen Badsley, albeit not mentioned in the article; “... Hitlerjugend Division’s incomplete records... . ... Hitlerjugend also reported losing eleven Panthers and seen Panzer IVs. Losses for other German units are not known”.

Thus the basis of the OP’s argument is rather flawed due to the incomplete records for one side not to mention how we do not know what size this force actually was. Additionally several sources note how the elements of the Luftwaffe division, based in front of Caen, suffered 75% losses; this is noted in the article. The tank losses, sourced in the article, provide a range of 29-52% loss rate of what was deployed.

Finally at least two sources, again i have not the time or inclination to look further, note in a separate point that the tactical position was improved by the capture of the city yet strategically nothing had changed.

I welcome further opinion on the matter although i doubt i will be able to reply today or tomorrow on the matter due to above mentioned lack of time.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

U do the same again, u try to distract. The statement is not sourced and cant be sourced because no historian claims this correlation. U try to list german casualties which is not more than a try of distraction and a very cheap on. First off all german lost far less euqipment and personnel. The lead is not based on sourced material. The statment is OR if the assumption is sourced u could easly give me the quote. U can not so its not sourced. Stop distracting stop listing casualties stop trying to affect other people face the point. The correlation is OR of an wiki editor and nothing more. In my opinion are u violating wiki rules when u claim the statement is sourced because two parts of the statement are sourced but without context. Bring the quote and stop talking blablablablablabla . My intention here was to find somebody who was not involded and not distracted after i found one , 2 of u immediatly banged into and distracted and threw useless comments in. But after u both disabled my try to get a complet objectiv opinion my plan failed Blablaaa (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

At the moment i seriously doubt that u understood the point. Blablaaa (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We understand your point just fine, but I wonder if you understand WP:LEDE? The first section of an article is a summary of the following sections, and the sentence you're objecting to is fully supported in the text. Your argument about WP:OR would only apply if the lede made assertions that were unsupported in the rest of the article. However, if you read the "Analysis" section you'll find lots of detail about historians discussing the battle in terms of both the territorial gains made and the increasingly serious consequences to the Germans of the losses they were sustaining. Summarising related arguments in a single sentence in the lede to try to express the broad thrust of many paragraphs of detail is not original research, it's economical writing. EyeSerene 20:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What u write hgihlights that u dont understand the point. I doubt that u understand what tactical ( your sentence about german losses is simply unclever while it highlights the strategic situation and not the tactical. U dont understand tactical u are unskilled) means , really i think u dont know it, u try to give your opinion about somethin what u simply dont understand. Give me the quote of a historian claiming the german losses were one reason for the tactical victory. A sentence in the lead must be verifiable , because he summarizes the rest what must be verifiable. But the statement in the lead is a conclusion which is not printed anywhere. U claim the text is full of sources but give me one supporting the claim. U are simply wrong i call u bias and u are, your sentence on the tractable talk highlights perfectly. U are wrong eyeseren. That this is your final replay is logic u dont have arguement u dont have sources thats why u trashtalk without bringing a quote for a statement. Blablaaa (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to bring me one single quote of any historian that the german losses on charnwood were one major factor for the allied tactical victory BRING IT WP:Burden Blablaaa (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Remaining neutral for the moment (until I've fully understood this chat), could I please ask everyone to keep their comments civil and constructive (here and on related threads). This discussion bears all the hallmarks of descending into a bitter battle - totally unnecessarily in my opinion. Blablaaa, I appreciate that English isn't your first language (apologies if I'm wrong on that) but comments like "what u simply dont understand" and "U dont understand tactical u are unskilled" come across as fairly insulting, and you are in danger of destroying any credibility your argument might have. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not insulting it is important for the discussion. For example, somebody at charnwood page comes to the dicussion and says "blabla is wrong: the text doesnt say victory he claims sucess". Then i read this and think omg who is talkin to me. Victory in warfare is the definition of sucess its exactly the same , look here victory . Than eyeseren comes here and wants to give his "opinion" and shows clearly that he did not understand what tactical means. What shall i do , teach him ? I try to show all objectiv readers that he not even understand the basis of the issue. Maybe this sounds insulting but i dont see the value of people who dont have the knowledge about the topic they talk about..... Blablaaa (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To make myself clear it is essientially to understand the basics of the issue to give an opínion with value. Eyeseren for example clearly and undisputable showed he lacks the requiered knowledge. Blablaaa (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone didn't fully understand the terms they were using, then it is of course important to the discussion. It would be perfectly acceptable to question that editor's understanding or knowledge. What it isn't ok to do is accuse editor's of "trashtalk", deliberately miseleading or distracting the conversation or being biased, and making challenges in bold font, which merely makes it look aggressive. You might have a point in this thread, but stooping to such phrases doesn't help. For what its worth, I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this particular argument (I refer to your opinion of other editors and not the main issue at hand, which I am still digesting). EyeSerene in particular has written or contributed to most of these articles, is particularly well read and, as I understand it, has a far more thorough military background than most editors here. Just my opinion, but I will once again reinforce my belief that you are coming across as very insulting. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What i said about distraction is also very important enigma for example is deliberately distracting. He is fully aware of the fact that german losses were far lower but he is over and over repeating german % losses which were far higher simple because they had much less troops involded :D . Hes repeating to imply the opposite. Furthermore for the tactical outcome the % losses are pretty irrelevant compared to absolut numbers everyone knows this. Thats why i claimed i guess no historian supports the statement in the lead of charnwood, and i was totally correct when i see they are not bringing any quote who supports this uncommon statement. Distraction and lacking knowledge nothing else and a bit ad hominem beginning of every discussion to affect the "neutral" readersBlablaaa (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes maybe i look insulting. But understand my point i go to a talk page and write that something is obviously not correct, what follows? a overlong dicussion where nobody wants to admit that the annoying blablabla is correct. All question my faith but at the same time they show they talk about things they didnt fully understood. So maybe sometimes i sound pretty annoyed. But u are correct its up to me to change this. I apologize for that. Blablaaa (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just time for a quickie and two points:

1. It seems the discussion is being drown out in regards to a discussion on casualties. Two historians have been cited that state that the military position, the tactical position/situation was improved as a result of the battle. If we cannot suggest that this was some sort of tactical success, what was it?
2. A quick glance for articles that uses the term and that i have not worked on dig up contradictory statements to what one is over the, imo confusing, Tactical victory article. The victory article, while unsourced contricts it. During my brief search i found several articles: Battle of Wavre notes equal casualties among the attacking French and defending Prussian forces but gives the tactical victory to the French; one notes that the Prussians suffered heavier losses on the whole when compared to the French due to the size of forces deployed. The Battle of the Coral Sea article notes the tactical victory due to the losses inflicted on American warships but highlights how the Japanese suffered more personnel and aircraft losses. Higher British naval and manpower losses during the Battle of Jutland again provides a different tactical outcome. A further example i have noted, an article that i have worked on, is Operation Brevity which resulted in lopsided casualties but no historian putting a label on the outcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

U only reinforced my opinion that u not get the point. If charnwood was a tactical victory isnt the point i not even doubt that it was one . There are multiple factors which maybe make a tactical victory . Inflicting more casualties for example is maybe a reason to call a battle a tactical victory. But in this operation allied suffered heavier casualties so in this particular case the german casualties were not the reason for the tactical victory. Thats the point. I assumed this when i read the statement and that nobody brought a statement of a historian claiming that, showed clear that iam correct. That charnwood was a tactical victory and german had casualties are mabye 2 facts but that german casualties were a major reason for the outcome, is not said by any historian, so this is OR of wiki editors. Thats what i claimed and thats correct. Nobody brought a source to support the claim despite WP:Burden . The fact that there are 1 million battles in history and u searched 3 to show that a general rules does not always fit looks very strange for me and highlights that u not talk about the same like me Blablaaa (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

and battle of jutland is indeed a german tactical victory. somebody should change it on the english sideBlablaaa (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I am a little confused. The article says that the intent was to take Caen with a secondary objective of drawing forces away from the American front. Is this correct ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 23:51 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding coral sea, dont be confused, the sinking of the a fleet carier is a much bigger tactical value than the sinking of a normal destroyer. and the german article says Draw.... Blablaaa (talk) 23:55 29 June 2010 (UTC)

PLease do not edit your posts after people have replied nor insert between other posts. Your last post was not made before mine at 23:55 it was after my post of 23:51 (UTC) (which you managed to remove the time stamp from !!) I have corrected the order... Chaosdruid (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

didnt plan to do something like that dont know what happend, when i refreshed the page i saw your post Blablaaa (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that there are 1 million battles in history and u searched 3 to show that a general rules does not always fit looks very strange for me"; you will have noticed that i stated numerous times that i have limited time at the moment, it also highlights the multiple factors that appear that need to be taken into account.

Balblaa, have you not just shot your argument in the foot with the following remark: "There are multiple factors which maybe make a tactical victory." The lede and article state such.

Chaosdruid, thats the general idea: Second Army tactical/operational goal was to seize the north of the town and secure bridgeheads to the south and take advantage if opportunity presented itself. The general overhead strategic plan was to halt the shifting of German divisions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Now u already explained your mistake. Here look your words " it also highlights the multiple factors that appear that need to be taken into account " , correct the casualties are not the only reason for a tactical outcome thats why on charnwood casualties werent the reason for the outcome they were side effect, but a side effect in favor for germans. The lead implies they were the main reason beside northern cean. No historian claimed this corelation. your quote "Balblaa, have you not just shot your argument in the foot with the following remark:" , absolutly not i showed that your OR, -----german had casualties + allied tactical victory = german casualties made allied victory ---- is wrong. After rethinking the issue and with assuming that u are no complete amateur in warfare i think the problem is maybe the understanding of the sentence in the lead. Can u maybe read the sentence again. Maybe u read him only once and missed the implications Blablaaa (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

convenient break

It may be that some alteration is needed then as the article states nothing about only capturing the north of the town and the bridgeheads:

"...drew up an offensive with two goals: to capture Caen and to prevent a large scale redeployment of German forces from the Anglo-Canadian sector to the American front." and "...he sought control of Bourguébus and the commanding high ground to the south."

Bourguébus is around 5 miles south of the centre of Caen, and two miles outside its southern boundary. I do not think that you are correct in your last statemnt according to the article.

It seems to me that neither of these objectives were fulfilled so it would appear that the operation was not a success at all.

THe article states that the operation failed to draw german forces away from the american front and it also says that "mid-afternoon on 9 July, Operation Charnwood was over" with only the northern half of Caen being taken.

It may be possible to say that securing the northern half led the germans to withdraw more quickly but the eventual taking of Caen in August was surely down to operations Goodwood and Jupiter?

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are directed to enigma or to me? Blablaaa (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

They are directed to anyone interested in correcting the article to properly reflect events and outocmes. I think it is time for you both to co-operate on getting the article right instead of arguing over which sort of success it was (strategic v tactical)

In my opinion as the article stands there is too much contradiction and I would not call it a success of either kind.

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Its a general problem on normandy article, when it comes to the outcome. Fulfilling objectives was not a cretaria for allied. If some germans where there do defend it always was a strategic victory because they were "missing" somewhere else. The fact that outbreak was only a madder of time from the very beginning seems to be irrelevant. Even if battles achieved nothing and resulted in heavy casualties they were victories because german were there. Please take a look at Second Battle of the Odon, this battele was a strategic victory because german units were held on the line and could not participat in goodwood, while goodwood itself was a tactical victory of german and they didnt need these units. Funny, isnt it? take a look at the talk of this battle. And we are not arguing about the outcome.

I feel like I'm missing something. I read the lead, & the analysis, & they look to be in agreement, so the "no support" argument falls IMO. As to "more Allied casualties equals German victory", that's a non-starter; attacker casualties are always greater. That's the nature of the beast. As to "limited success", I'd agree with the historiographers quoted (& here, I must confess a strong bias against Monty in the interest of full disclosure): the objectives were not entirely achieved, but things were better at the end than the beginning, & that is a functional definition of "limited success" IMO. I also see (not having carefully read the entire page) no strong criticism of Monty for said failing; IMO some wouldn't be out of bounds. At bottom, however, I really don't get Blablaaa's complaint. This looks to me like a pretty good example of a tactical victory for an Allied army in Normandy: front not shattered, Germans not in rout, but situation better for Allies than before. (BTW, don't try & tell me I don't understand what "tactical" is.) TREKphiler 04:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No i tell u that the outcome is not the point. Cant believe how often i already explained it :-) please see charnwood talk. Off-topic: And regarding your statement "attacker casualties are always greater", this absolutly not correct. In ww2 the "rule" that an attacker suffers generally more casualties is far away from truth. Not even talking about the fact that an allied offensive in normandy was always supported with enormous firepower which inflicted so much casualties. In battles with good schwerpunkt its high likly that the defender suffers more casualties because he is commited to counterattacks if not he losses much troops which are taken POV. A good example is german attack at kursk, according to nearly all sources, the germans attacked the biggest and most fortified "fortress" ever .... . In ww1 this rule was a bit more accurate. Second quote of u "BTW, don't try & tell me I don't understand what "tactical" is." sorry but the fact that u think charnwood was a perfect example for a tactical victory because the strategic situation of allied improved, indicates this. Blablaaa (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Chaosdruid; re the plan for Charnwood see "The objective ... to clear Caen ... up to the Orne river, and if possible to secure bridgeheads in southern Caen." and "it was hoped that I Corps could exploit the situation ... towards the Verrières and Bourguébus ridges," and finally "...two goals: to capture Caen and to prevent a large scale redeployment of German forces from the Anglo-Canadian sector to the American front."

Blablaaa re Charnwood outcome, it is stated in the article that the capture of portions of the city had no effect the strategic situation.

Re Goodwood, considering your arguments here - plus the fact that the article has received much less attention and is an "unfinished state" - the outcome probably needs to be looked at more carefully rather than what appears to be accepting it on face fact due to the positive German result. The note states: "Hart states that Goodwood "...despite being immediate tactical failure". Dempsey is quoted stating the battle was not tactically very good ...".". If accusations are to be thrown around it probably should be for this part; because the sources dont call it a German tactical victory they talk of the failure on the side of the British tactical handling of the battle.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

I think you are taking things a little too personally bla - we are discussing things and you are constantly replying as if we are talking about what you said - we are not. We have moved past the discussions you were having.

@Trekphiler - I can see now how that would be measured as a tactical success - although the original operational objectives were not met they still got half the city and got rid of half the german defences. There was also some success in recapturing a major French city as the populated side rather than the industrial was in the north half. Also I guess that would have caused logistical problems for the germans as they would have had to divert their heavier equipment quite far south to Vassy/Vire, or risk using the smaller roads, quite a detour - Thats not as contradictory as I thought then :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

@Enigma - I was trying to suggest changing the lead slighty from "operation was intended to capture the German-occupied city of Caen" to "operation was intended to capture the northern part of the German-occupied city of Caen.

That was what I was talking about when I said it didn't quite match sry :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "capture Caen" wasn't over-reaching too much, as there were contingencies for following up into southern Caen depending on how the assault developed, but I take your point. I've tweaked the lead - it now says "The operation was intended to capture as much as was feasible of the German-occupied city of Caen...". Is this a reasonable compromise? EyeSerene 09:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of a mouthful lol but yup :¬) Sorry but it's an FA - I'm not normally that picky...Chaosdruid (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked again :P EyeSerene 10:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence: "With northern Caen's capture and the heavy casualties inflicted on the two German divisions defending the immediate sector, Operation Charnwood was a tactical success." Maybe my english is the problem but for me this means the casualties were a major reason to call the battle a tac victory. But this is wrong and unsoured . That german suffered casualties is sourced that charnwood was a sucess is sourced but not the correlation . Charnwood was no tactical sucess regarding the inflicted damaged because they suffered more. Lord can somebody fix this OR finally or give me a simply quote for this claim. Iam getting mad seein people dont understant this incorrectnes Blablaaa (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You are choosing to ignore the "northern Caen's capture" part of the sentence.

It seems to me that there are around 6 or more editors who, after checking the refs and quotes, agree that "it was a tactical success" is correct.

Consensus is therefore that the facts and the information in the article are correct.

Capturing half the city (and the network of road junctions it contained), forcing the Germans over the river, removing half of the German defenders and establishing a base for the next assault which took the rest of Caen, Bourguébus and the commanding high ground was indeed a tactical success.

It may be that your understanding of English is not the problem as the article clearly states "northern Caen's capture" first and the "heavy casualties" second which would mean that the casualties were indeed not the main reason for the tactical success.

Chaosdruid (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I ignore the capture of northern cean because i dispute the second part of the statement and not the first. No they were not the reason they were maybe not even a minor reason maybe they were even a contra point. because no historian claimed this. Thats why its must out of the statement because the correlation between the outcome and german casualties is not support by historians!!!! The statement is simple orignal research because no historian claimed the german casualties as beeing crucial for the tactical outcome, and its not up to me to explain this its up to other editors to giving sufficient sources WP:BURDEN. DO u see anyone giving a quote of an historian claiming this correlation?? No!! german casualties are sourced and the outcome but no conclusiion. Iam getting mad ..... Here out of the OR article " It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." this is pretty perfect description of what happend on charnwood. Two sourced facts become a new synthesis not support by any historianBlablaaa (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

1

"In two days of savage fighting I (British) Corps incurred 3500 casualties. In the process of securing Caen, however, I (British) Corps mauled the 16th German Air Force Field Division. Thus, the victory at Caen had been a hard-won affair that owed much to the resolution of the ordinary Allied soldier."

2

From Der Weg 21.Panzer-Division (The history ofthe 21st Panzer Division) by Werner Kortenhaus, a surviving German veteran.

At 16:30 hrs, the division commander of 21 Panzer division Generalleutnant Feuchtinger got the following information:

"The enemy has been successful after heavy bombardment and occupied the northern part of Caen. The situation is still unclear. Familiarise yourself with the situation and go to the position of the 16 GAF, which is in Caen. Release the commander of the 16 GAF and take command yourself. All parts of the 16 GAF are under your command. Regarding the situation you have to lead a couterattack with 21 Panzer Division and get in charge of the stuation."

Generalleutnant Feuchtinger reached the command post at 18:00 hrs. It became immediately obvious that the enemy was already in Caen and that all the infantry of the 16 GAF, who were meant to defend the city and prevent the enemy to get a further hold, were not there. The 16 GAF had suffered losses of 75% and all battallion and most ot the company commanders were dead or wounded. Demoralised parts of the division had already retreated over the Orne.

3

Night of 8/9 July 1944 from "The 12th SS: the history of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division, Vol2 by Hubert Meyer"

Soon after midnight the Divisional commander visited. He recalled:

"I found the survivors of I./25 in a bunker at the edge of town. These totally worn out soldiers had fallen into a deep sleep...The soldiers of 12. SS-Panzer Division were at the end of their physical endurance....TOday, mud-covered steel helmets threw their shadows on sunken faces whose eyes had beheld the beyond all-too-often."

The Division issued orders to leave the assembly areas at dawn, and to take up the new positions at the southern bank of the Orne...The enemy (Allied forces) had reached the majority of his attack objectives on the wings, although some centres of resistance held out...In thecentral sector, at the 59th InfantryDivision, Malon, Couvre-Chef,la Folie, Bitot, parts of Galmanche and Ardenne had not been captured, but abandoned by German decision. However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses."

I trust this will suffice for you

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nr 1 allied suffered higher casualties!!!!! No quote regarding tactical victory and casualtie correlation

Again noobish comment. Here from charnwood article "With support from the 10th Canadian Armoured Regiment, by noon Buron had been taken, although the 9th Brigade's assault companies suffered 60% casualties in doing so" , WOW 60% !!!! of a fully equipend brigade WOW. omg u didnt get it, hu ?

FOR FUCK SAKE WHO QUESTIONED THE OUTCOME ????????? U QUOTE STORIES OF SOLDIERS TO SUPPORT THE POINT ??? ARE U SERIOUS ?????? THEN QUOTE ALLIED SOLDIERS WHO SUFFERED MORE CASUALTIES IN EVERY ASPECT ???? ARE U SERIOUS ????? THATS NOT THE FUCKING POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blablaaa (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

getting mad iam out. Blablaaa (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you strike those comments now, you might just be able to spare yourself a block. Calm down please. I was on the verge of posting something to help, but am rethinking it now. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to help, the is right or wrong. Nobody brings the quote all claim it is sources but when i ask for the explicit quote nobody respondes and then claims he dont respondes because some other reasons. Nobody brings the quote, guys going around and making jokes about "blabla" instead of investing this time in bringing the quote and clearing the issue. What the word for this? Blablaaa (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Again noobish comment. Here from charnwood article "With support from the 10th Canadian Armoured Regiment, by noon Buron had been taken, although the 9th Brigade's assault companies suffered 60% casualties in doing so" , WOW 60% !!!! of a fully equipend brigade WOW. omg u didnt get it, hu ? "

The sentance doesnt state the brigade suffered 60% casualties; it is not comparable to an entire Brigade being made combat ineffective per the quotes regarding the Luftwaffe boys. The sentance specfically states the assault companies suffered these losses. Depending how the battalions attacked it could make the losses, while high, overall sustainable i.e. units attacking with one company up, two in reserve or whatever etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

enigma i dont care who suffered how much % because its totally irrelevant. i simply copied to show how useless this % are when we have overall numbers. i hoped my WOW and !!!! made it clear. and off topic: suffering 60% casualties against a dazed company is kinda tactical desaster, but thats not the point. Blablaaa (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

final try

is somebody willing to explain in 1 sentence what he thinks my problem is. Rethinking the whole problem iam not ready to accept that the people here are not able to understand the in my opinion very obvious mistake. So it is now high likly that my words are not wisly chooses. So please can someone explain to me what he thinks what i mean. if he understood what i mean i will quit the discussion and "accept" that their is no support for my opinion, while iam 95% sure that iam correct. So show your good faith now Blablaaa (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You think that linking the assertion that there were heavy German losses with the assertion that it was a tactical victory is wp:synth? Ranger Steve (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

hm No i guess: i think that "the assertion that there were heavy German losses" and the "assertion that it was a tactical victory" are 2 source parts but the conclusion that the first was a reason for the second is wp:synth, does this sound different for u ?

i did some research because the 75% seem dubios for and found that , the 16 LWFD had 500 infantrymen in 8 companies and reported the loss of 375 men mainly POW, so they reported 75% loss, sounds a bit different now doenst it? "the whole division was steamrolled and lost 75% of their men" is one way to describe , and the neutral military way is saying 375 men which is the value of 2 companies and not more. Somebody so honest to say that this sounds complety different. It all comes down to the presentation of the facts... Blablaaa (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

this is not correct the statement regarding the 375 is about a battle before, the 16 LWFD reported 800 men lost at charnwood Blablaaa (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

additional infos: many battalions of the 16 LWFD were already transferred to other divisions to bolster their infantry strenght. Blablaaa (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

i followed the link of ranger steve and i think this is exactly what i mean, two correct facts are put in one sentence to imply a correlation. Blablaaa (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an apology - your comments were extremely baseless and in very bad taste. I spent three hours trying to help you and I deserve better than the language you chose to use. If this is the way you treat people that are trying to help then do not complain when they turn round and chew your nuts off.

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

i apologize Blablaaa (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I will think about accepting it as you havent even deleted or struck out the insults yet...

Did you understand that in the post (where I have labelled them 1, 2 and 3) the only thing that I have written which is by me is "I trust this will suffice for you" ? Everything from the 1 to the "I trust..." is taken directly from the sources. It is what they said and is a direct quote.

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

they dont deal with the issue. Blablaaa (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe it is a language problem then. I will try (once more) to simplify it for you.

1 - "mauled the 16th German Air Force Field Division. Thus, the victory at Caen had been a hard-won affair that owed much to the resolution of the ordinary...." - This means that the mauling led to a victory (Thus means due to what I said in the previous sentence/s)

2 - "The enemy has been successful and occupied the northern part of Caen...the 16 GAF, were not there... had suffered 75% losses" - he is saying that the occupation of the north part was sucessful because the GAF suffered 75% losses and left

3 - "However, there was no doubt that these positions could not have been held any longer, because of the completely open right flank and also because of the heavy German losses." - he is saying that the Germans could not hold the positions because of the heavy losses.

I do not understand why you cannot accept that - it is not OR or SYNTH - it is merely the opinions of sources which can be quoted to support the statement "it was a success due to XXXX and the high German losses"

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese-Indian War

A discussion thread has been started at Talk:1961_Indian_Annexation_of_Goa#Title regarding the title of the article (i.e., whether to use "Invasion of Goa" or "Annexation of Goa" in the title). If you are interested in the topic, please discuss the issue there.XavierGreen (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Operation Postmaster now open

The peer review for Operation Postmaster is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Siege of Godesberg (1583) now open

The featured article candidacy for Siege of Godesberg (1583) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 08:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Masnieres British Cemetery, Marcoing

Hello Military History team! Can you help me? I was doing some tidy/update work on the Thomas Neely VC article, and noticed that he was buried at Masnieres British Cementry, Marcoing. I can't find an article with that title, do we have one? A small cemetery, it was also the place where the ashes of Henry Tandey were scattered. More details here on the CWGC website Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have one for that yet. I've looked over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history/Military memorials and cemeteries task force and can't seem to find it. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We do now: Masnieres British Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery. Just a stub though - needs work :) EyeSerene 11:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Suitably expanded. Hehe. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You All! Best Regards, - Trident13 (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Very impressive stuff; all done without an hour of the call!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Doh! I just created one myself. Masnieres British Cemetery, Marcoing. I was having cache issues and didn't see the above threads. I have removed the content from mine and redirect to the other one. Well, that's half an hour of my life I'll never get back (not to mention the grief I got from my wife for being on the computer). Oh well. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that :( I've merged elements of your content into mine, so your time wasn't wasted. EyeSerene 12:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally my fault. Anyway, thanks. Take care. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Cross of Honour

I just came across the Category:Recipients of the Cross of Honor. Now I am wondering if there is any use for such a category. Essentially the Cross of Honor is the equivalent to the British War Medal, having been issued to anyone who fought on the German side in WWI. Frankly, I do not see a point in categorizing all German (and Austrian) WWI veterans who were considered worthy of wearing this medal (i.e. not Jewish nor Socialists/Communists). --Dodo19 (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)