Talk:Battle of Villers-Bocage/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

British withdrawal

I had altered some of the wording about Ellis since there were inferences about his intent which were improper, there was also a dreadful irruption of American cliche which has been extirpated since quality American slang died in 1979 and has not been resuscitated.

Yet again an episode in a battle of attrition is being judged with a facile 'win-lose' narrative from writers using secondary and tertiary sources. The Germans clearly forestalled the advance to V-B and were then invited to attack consolidated positions benefitting from the lavish firepower that the Allies brought to Normandy because it was the foundation of their fighting methods. Haven't Hastings and his ilk considered that persisting with the attack would have turned the tables so it would Have been British troops and tanks being cut to pieces? Note also that the Germans went formally onto the defensive after V-B. Doesn't this suggest that they couldn't withstand Allied firepower?Keith-264 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

what do u mean with firepower? Blablaaa (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Only poor mens' armies rely on intrepid infantry fighting their way forward with limited armour, artillery and air support. Keith-264 (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

and? whats the point? Blablaaa (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the gig at V-B was by no means the decisive event in the post invasion period for the British army or the Allied cause. It was the comprehensive defeat of the German riposte to the invasion which led them to go over to the defensive after the drubbing they got when they tried to exploit the minor defensive success east of V-B. Facile writers like Hastings have tried to exaggerate the extent of the defeat there because they are of the 'declinist' school; even D'Este can't swallow that much.Keith-264 (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

yes they recognized that the allied had more artillery and airsupport they ever have seen. who disputes this? german offensiv acitons were countered with enormous artillery and airsupport , so they saw they can win against british only when they fast let no time for artillery, according to OKW reports. they knew for a fact that when u attack to fast for counterartillery then british infantry will surrender fast. ( German intels, not neccessary my opinion) Blablaaa (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

German wording

Should we replace infantry with Infanterie? Additionally should we then replace 352nd Infantry Division with 352. Infanterie-Division to fully "germanize" it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

first no second yesBlablaaa (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have made myself more clear in regards to the first point; i meant to suggest should we reword 352nd Infantry Division to 352nd Infanterie Division. Thinking about it i asked the same question twice.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

i thought for example " ...german infanterie attacked... " Blablaaa (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the recent discussions we had about PzLehr, I'm not convinced it's necessary or WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME compliant. I don't think it's something worth fighting about though :) EyeSerene^talk 10:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I implmented it last night but after doing it i feel like it just doesnt look right. Its only a 5 minute change though if it is felt it should be changed back.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits

21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Marie claims that by this point in the fighting in Normandy, the British should have learnt that an armoured advance in the bocage, unsupported by infantry, should not have been attempted.21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Didn't the 7th Armd adapt their structure before V-B?Keith-264 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope I've only changed the prose and not the meaning with my edit. Hopefully Enigma can clarify its accuracy (and whether I've done it justice!). Ranger Steve (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You haven't slipped mad commas in front of and behind 'and' have you? ;O)?Keith-264 (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably : ( Feel free to copy edit my copy edit ; ) !! Ranger Steve (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Keith they did, i have rechecked my source and Marie is only talking about the morning for the British. I have edited the sentance in light of this.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Read through the article last night - I think it looks fantastic. The only nitpick I have is that the use of German unit names doesn't sit too comfortably with me. They look a little odd for a start, but more seriously they aren't consistent (especially when quoted historians refer to them in English) and don't seem consistent with policy. Given that we had a long chat about the correct name for Panzer Lehr, (but actually use its English name in the article!) and all the other units are English named articles it doesn't see logical to put the German name in this article... if you see what I mean. But on the other hand, we happily use German ranks. I think this needs wider discussion, but my personal choice at the moment would be to use English spelling for units (and German for ranks given that those articles are title using German). Other than that, I think it's all good. Ranger Steve (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve cheers for the CE and the kind words. Like you i dont like the use of Infantrie or the use of the German style for divisions i.e. 21.Panzer rather than 21st Panzer. I tried it out and dont like it, as do you or Eye so am gonner edit it back to "English" but keeping the loan words such as Panzer, Panzergrenadier and Fallschirmjager.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Enigma you cad, you've slipped commas in front of 'and'. I may have to challenge you to a duel.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I humbly sumbit and beg your forgiveness Sir!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

See that you do or it'll be conkers at dawn and I'll have you know that mine is a 69er. ;;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

strenghtes again

Iam not sure that their is a value for the reader with "birgade group" and 2 "battle groups" . He cant compare. The reader gets no information i guess. Is it not possible to write something like, "battalion sized". Something which can be compared? Blablaaa (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if we can realistically do that. German Kampfgruppen (is that correct for the plural?) varied enormously, consisting as they did of whatever forces were to hand, and although we can identify which units made up the British brigade group, without being specific about the German strengths I don't know how useful that would be. EyeSerene^talk 14:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

yes Kampfgruppen. I thought one of u has a book which gives the units alocated in the gruppen. I guess a specific number of companies. But if there is no number of companies than u are correct: its not usefull. Maybe enigma knows more. Blablaaa (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. The best I can come up with is "elements of 2 Pz and PzLehr" - not very helpful really :) EyeSerene^talk 18:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We know what elements of the 101st took part; 1st, 2nd and 4th companies. Panzerlehr we know what battalion the tanks mostly came from but little overall knowledge on their actual contribution. Marie has a few bits and bobs on arty. 2nd Panzer is a complete puzzle, deffo no tanks but unknown total number of troops or battalions; although marie does note 2 panzergrenadier battalions.

The basic overall jist of it is, it appears we just dont know what did or did not get deployed agaisnt VB.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Missed anything?

Right, i think we have all POV in here. We have ce it to high heaven but ive already asked for a final once over as well. Does anyone think we have missed anything?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Mad commas?Keith-264 (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Enigma's note I'll take another look shortly, mad commas and all (though please Keith feel free to chip in as I know I can overuse commas too!) EyeSerene^talk 09:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The final home stretch!!! There should be a campaign medal for this! lol :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In keeping with the above discussion re German unit names, I've speculatively changed SS Heavy Panzer Battalion 101 to 101st SS Heavy Panzer Battalion in the text (lead only for now). Is this worth doing for the rest or should it be changed back? EyeSerene^talk 07:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Am not to fussed, ive became use to referring to German regiments via their method of naming them but at the same time just dont like the way they do it for divisions lol Whatever suits the article best...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done this in a single operation, so it'll be easy to undo if there are objections. EyeSerene^talk 13:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Why change the original German designation-Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 101 (sSS Pz.Abt. 101) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkenny (talk • contribs) 21:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME: "A name originally in a language other than English should be adapted by translating common terms (such as designations of size and type) and transliterating the remainder of the name." EyeSerene^talk 11:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So why keep 'Panzer' in the title? Surely you should then be writing '101st SS Heavy Tank Battalion'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkenny (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I think probably because Panzer is a well-used and understood word in English, whereas Schwere and Abteilung aren't. We commonly refer to German armoured divisions as Panzer divisions rather than tank divisions. To be honest the 101 Heavy Pz Btn article title probably should be changed as well, but it's not a huge deal. EyeSerene^talk 08:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

One question: "John Buckley [...] is of the opinion that the British had only themselves to blame for their failure at Villers-Bocage and gives little credence to a popular view that superior German armour decided the outcome." This is the only time we've mentioned this particular canard - can we expand on it? I know Hastings goes into the tank quality debate in some detail, but I can't remember if he explicitly mentions it wrt V-B (I'll check tonight) EyeSerene^talk 12:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Buckley does say there was an armoured problem - especially with the Cromwell - but that this battle did not show them; he notes that the roots for the failure "are broader and deeper" but does not then elaborate in the same paragraph. He does lay into Bucknall quite a bit and notes that Erskine reckoned that had adequate support been given more could have been achived.

On the next page he notes the "crucial factors in the defeat undoubteldtl resided at the command level". He elaborates:

1. that Erskine/Hinde's handling of the division was poor - they were swanning about/or at least viewed it that way rather than expecting heavy fighting. He notes the penetration was weak (as highlighted via the other sources and the hussars being in contact with the Germans/attacks on the flanks). Bucknal underminded the whole show.
2. failure to linking the force structure to the situation; desert rats were prepared for mobile ops. co-operation between the arms was flawed. Then he goes back to the issue of divisional/brigade/corps leadership.

"The division;s approach to operations had been exposed as flawed, and as the commanders and troops attempted to adap, reputations began to crumble."

Buckley notes that German tank-infantry co-operation was crap(p.26) then in a note comments "the manner in which the German tank blundered through the British-occupied town with little infantry support demonstrates this point".(p.223)

Buckley has a go at the 7th armd and the Division and Corps management, then damns the Germans for the same faults. He also points out that the advance to V-B was being threatened in more places than just V-B. The 'battle of the box' doesn't look uncoordinated, far from it, it looks like a set-piece where the Germans exposed themselves to Allied firepower and got trounced (i.e. when the Germans tried to do to the British what the British had tried to do to them they got the same result. This imples that generic factors rather than individual failings were at work. Isn't this one of Buckley's points, that when the Germans attacked they got took to the cleaners even worse than the Allies?). Perch looks to me to foreshadow Epsom rather than a division past its best. For what it's worth, it seems to me that the mobile battle being fought since the 6th June had ended before Perch because the Germans couldn't take the casualties.Keith-264 (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Zetterling

Web address amended in bibliography.Keith-264 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Viscount Cranley captured?

Was Viscount Cranley among the members of 4CLY captured at Point 213? His obit in The Times states he was captured in 1944, but does not give a precise date or location. This article states that Hinde ordered him to Point 213, but isn't explicit as to whether he was among those who surrendered. David Underdown (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi David, am pretty sure that he was captured during this engagement. Will check my sources when i get a moment and edited as required.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

He was captured whilst trying to escape on the railway running just South of Point 213 into Villers Bocage. "A" Sqn 4CLY had parked their Cromwells in a small paddock S of the RN between the RN and the Ancien Route de Caen - which is a farm track today. The railway on it`s way into VB also ran just below the place Wittman`s troop had lagered overnight - and the area was under German control.

"A" Sqn had been severely counter-attacked and their tanks could not be deployed. They were captured there by the Germans - photos in Daniel Taylor`s book. Cranley led a number of personnel down to the railway hoping to make their way along back into the town. These included Philip Strode, an old friend of mine who served in "A" Sqn 4CLY.

(User CABSUSA 24 March 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CABSUSA (talk • contribs) 20:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Villers Bocage - the over-simplified view

The battle at Villers Bocage on 13 June 1944 is usually reviewed as a "stand-alone" action taking place within the space of a single day.

Since you have wrote so much, the only reasonable way i can see to reply to you is to intend my responses within your own. First thank you for your time and comments. Wiki articles are always looking for new input to expand them. However i do not understand how you are considering this article the simplified view and looking at the battle as stand alone when we have provided as much information as we could that refers to the events of Operation Perch and provided information on the fighting of 14 June.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an over-simplification; events at Villers Bocage cannot be fully understood without:

a) an appreciation of the tactical situation affecting a much wider area than the town itself and immediate environs, over events from 12 to 17 June, and including the fighting taking place at Tilly s Seulles, and in particular Lingevres on 14 June, only about 5 miles away from VB and to the West of Tilly.

To that end we have included a background section and an aftermath section. Where do you see the article failing to provide an appreication for what happened before or after?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

b) an understanding of the ground in and about Villers Bocage.

Quite agree. However other than the photos in the public domain and maps created based off information provided via secondary sources, i dont believe we have any visual representation that is freely available to highlight the terrain. Marie's book provides excellent photos of the model of the town and surrounding area as seen in the V-B town hall however can we copy and use them?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The fighting at Tilly and associated actions around St Pierre, from 10 to 19 June were part of the same tactical scenario as Villers Bocage, particularly from the viewpoint of Pz Lehr who were engaged not just by 7 Amd div but also 50 Inf div and 8 Amd Bde. These actions continued until the beginning of July, culminating in the battle for Rauray (just south of Fontenay) which marked the failure of the German armoured thrust to the sea (and also of the Bitish "Operation Epsom". (The battle for Rauray was regarded by the Army Commander, General Dempsey, as the most crucial in the early part of the Normandy campaign. By comparison Villers Bocage was a bit of a side-show).

While i would agree that the fighting at the Rauray Spur probably should receive its own article, it is covered, albeit in small detail, in the Operation Epsom article. I do not understand how its relevence here, or in the Operation Perch article, would expand our understanding of what happened on 13 June? While V-B could be considered a bit of a side show, and one historian named in the article called it a massively overwritten event, it is because it is an overwritten event and widely known that it has an article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Divisional and Corps commanders on the British side at Villers Bocage ignore the geography of the area bounded by Bayeux, Caumont, and Aunay. Readers will find reference to a large scale map helpful although there is no substitute for looking at the ground situation at first hand.

Do you have any sources were historians argue this point? If so please feel free to add their comments into the article, of course providing suitble inline references and book details at the end of the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

In tactical terms the Villers Bocage affair cannot be separated from fighting at Ameye and Lingevres on 14 June; Daniel Taylor`s work gives an excellent description of the former, from which it is clear that the 14 June was something of a disaster for the Germans - their losses in both men and materiel were severe and much greater than the for the British ON THAT day.

Likewise, do you have a historian who argues such a point? My understanding was the failure of the 50th to achieve a clear success was one of the reasons why the withdrawal on 14 June was issued, however that holds little relevence what happened on 13 June as far as i can see?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The other disaster on 14 June occured at Lingevres (about three miles W of Tilly and 6 miles North-West of Villers Bocage ) where a counter attack by Pz V`s of Pz Lehr was heavily defeated with a loss of six Pz V including three attributed to one Sherman Firefly of 4/7 Dragoon Guards in 8 Amd Bde.

Generally the Pz V (Panther) was a more dangerous opponent than the Tiger with a superior long 75mm gun and much better reliability. (A number of senior German commanders believed the Pz VI (Tiger) was over-rated in view of serious difficulties with it`s deployment, mechanical weaknesses, high consumption, and excessive weight. It`s main advantage over Pz V was much better side armour - which on Pz V was no better than the Sherman).

Unfortunately points that have nothing to do with what happened at Villers-Bocage on 13 June. The fighting of 14 June, including the five Panthers attributed to Harris are looked at on the Operation Perch article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Pz Lehr had a history of rash deployment of their armour.

If this viewpoint is supported by a reliable secondary source, then i dont see why it shouldnt be included.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Although "cracked up" as the experts ("Lehr" means "Training") they had comparatively little combat experience, and appear to have been something of a disappointment to the Germans.

Likewise to the above comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Germans had one great advantage during the above fighting, since they controlled the Route Nationale running through Villers Bocage from Caen, the East/West road running South of Fontenay, and the road running North from Villers Bocage through Tilly to Bayeux. This enabled them to redeploy quckly on interior lines - hence the speedy counter-attack by Pz Lehr when warned by Wittman.

7 Amd Div were on a very extended Line Of Communication - and it really is necessary to travel along their route in order to appreciate the problems faced by Erskine, Bucknall, and Hinde.

Bland assumptions by Reynolds, Hastings et al that the uncommitted infantry of 7 Amd should have been deployed at Villers Bocage to counter German counter attacks completely ignore how they were to get there past the rest of the Division blocking the single narrow road available, which looped around the area controlled by the Germans and was constantly in danger of counter-attacks cutting off 7 Amd Div.`s spearhead.

While i agree with you that Reynolds and Hastings are wrong, they do provide a balanced view. Their removal would paint, if IMO a more accurate assessment, would result in the article not being as encyclopedic as it could be. The article has to represent all viewpoints. While it appears we both share the opinion that 7th Armour and XXX Corps employed what they could, and the above historians are missing the point, others would disagree.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

8 Hussars, 7 Amd Divs Recce Battalion had to face a lot of problems trying to protect this LOC. (Note the excellent 11 Hussars were a Corps, not Divisional recce asset, as some seem to believe - they were "doing their thing" nearer to Caumont).

Another feature which many historians ignore is the topography at Villers Bocage. Standing on top of Hill 213, the whole of the town is spread out before you. The country around Amaye lies in view to the West, and around Aunay to the South It is an artillery officer`s dream.

Without holding the whole town, thus making British counter-attacks possible, Villers Bocage would have become a death trap. It was a bad place for the Germans too, for the same reason, and they lost six of their precious Pz VI and an uncertain number of Pz IV (with many more the next day).

Hinde wanted to stay on in the Amaye "Box" but in my opinion Bucknall was exactly right - both that 22 Amd Bd should withdraw from Villers Bocage before it became a cauldron (and with which Hinde agreed) - and that, subsequently the Brigade should withdraw from the "Box" (with which Hinde did not agree to begin with).

There is no way that I can see of 7 Amd Div being properly supplied over the LOC they had at this point (15 June) - rather they were in danger of being cut off; one must remember that the fighting time-span of an armoured or artillery battalion under these conditions is unlikely to exceed 36/48 hours without replenishment.

Remember that the British only had three Armoured Divisions in Normandy - most of the armour was in Independent Armoured Brigades - and the Gusrdas Armoured and 11 Armoured Divisions had not yet arrived. To risk losing 22 Amd Bd. let alone 7 Armoured Div, was unthinkable

Likewise, information that could be added to his article or more importatly the Perch article. However do you have a source to support it?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking overall, Daniel Taylor gives a good picture and is supported in most cases by Henri Marie who covers much of the same ground. My own view is that none of the earlier historians give a true picture with the exception of Chester Wilmot whose accounts although written in the early 1950`s are rarely improved on. An Australian reporter for the BBC, he was trusted by both Eisenhower and Montgomery, and benefited from access to the papers of both commanders long before other historians.

Operation Perch should probably not have been mounted - it was originally planned to consist of an air drop South of the Odon with left and right hooks to encircle Caen.

I would disagree with you here. From what i have read the operation XXX Corps was suppose to launch was some sort of armoured thrust to the highground soon after securing the beachead and Bayeaux. What developed was a pincer assault and at some point a planned airdrop, the attach by 1st Airborne (or the whole show) being described as Wild Oats. However it seems somewhat unclear over the various sources what was what and when it was developed. It is something i intend to look into one day when i have enough time to look in the archives.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The left hook failed, and the air drop never happened, leaving the rash right hook up in the air, with nowhere very obvious to go; this was not unusual for the British Army, whose staff work was not in the same class as the Germans; where the latter were accomplished ball-room dancers, the latter were still working out the steps.

"Perch" was too little, and too late; it was supposed to happen the week before, but Pz Lehr arrived before Tilly sur Seulles on 9 June, and the direct drive to Villers Bocage was stalled; for nearly another two weeks there was vicious fighting at Tilly, which forced Montgomery to try something else.

This fighting continued until early July when the Battle for Rauray finally ended the German Panzer`s drive to the sea; it also ended "Operation Epsom" which was a tactical failure although a strategic victory. In strategy terms, Montgomery had achieved his objective of drawing the German armour (now 80% of the total commited in Normandy) into a static attritional fight.

I would agree on the latter point but would respectfully suggest that the first point is an over simplification. However what is the relevence of Rauray to V-B?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Army Commander General Dempsey regarded Rauray as the most crucial battle of the early part of the Normandy Campaign.

Against this, Villers Bocage begins to look a bit of a sideshow.

During this period, the very poor co-ordination between British infantry and armour was a subject of despair for many armoured commanders, and this remained so for weeks to come. They got it right in the end, but it was learning on the job, and quite expensive in terms of human lives. The same applied to e.g, Guards Armoured Division, and Air Support; only 11 Armoured appear to have done some what better; significantly, their commander was the only one the Germans really respected.

The Schneider verdict on Wittman is probably correct - his recklessness proved his undoing. On 8 August 1944 he when was taken out together with his five Pz VI during Operation Totalise. The most likely contributor to this was Trooper Joe Ekins, gunner of a Sherman Firefly of "A" Sqn Northamptonshire Yeomanry, and who accounted for three of the five Tigers knocked out that morning.

Wittman more or less made them sitting ducks.

The only detail I would disagree with over Daniel Taylor`s work is the conclusion he reached that Wittman`s Tiger at Villers Bocage was disabled near the juncion with the road to Villy Bocage (and Tilly/Bayeux), rather than in the town centre.

There were three Tigers knocked out in the town centre. (Plus two more in the Southern outskirts) Only one was facing East. the others were both facing West, and belonged to Mobius` 1st Company.

Shown in Henri Marie`s book is a photo of the Tiger facing East - we know Wittman had turned round - and we also know that only one Tiger from 2 Company entered the town centre. It is impossible to identify with absolute certainty that this was from 2 Company, because the insignia on the right/front of the tank had been destroyed. However, the place where the insignia WOULD have been for a 1 Company Tiger (on the left/front) was undamaged, and no insignia is present in that photo. It would have been there if the tank had come from 1 Company.

Which Tiger it was is a subject of curiousity for the tank buffs; we know it wasn`t Wittman`s regular tank (if indeed he had one) because that had broken down the day before. We also know that the one he then commandeered broke down when he tried to move off the next morning, on the 13 June. So he commandeered another. But which one it was we don`t know, because most of his tanks were scattered around Western France in non-operational condition, and which crew had swapped into which tank has never been recorded.

A complex subject that the secondary sources do not go into, as far as i am aware.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said above. the Tiger was over-rated in terms of it`s actual combat value; but it had huge propaganda and morale value; every tank crew knocked out by a Pz IV (which had a very similar profile from a distance) believed it was a Tiger. And, the 75mm long gun on the Pz IV completely outclassed the short 75mm on the Sherman.

Andrew Sanders

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CABSUSA (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC) 

New debate

The comments above by EnigmaMcmxc only serve to illustrate how complex the story of the battle at Villers-Bocage really is. Sorry, Enigma - but the huge torrent of points you make above is utterly impossible to make sense of to anyone but yourself and presumably, the person you were responding to.

Lots of good work has gone into creating this article and also the debate on this page. However, the article is far from perfect and huge chunks of vital information and facts are still being overlooked or omitted, causing the article to become confused and unhelpful. This article needs revision, greater research and more supporting material to be included - all of which are available. The main article appears to have been created from very few sources - no matter how good they were - and therein lies the problem.

'Villers-Bocage' is one of the most fascinating and revealing 'set-piece' stories of the Normandy campaign and really deserves to include more of the freely-available facts to be included. 'Villers-Bocage' is also an elephant trap of a topic for any historian because to tell the story fully, one has to put some eminent noses out of joint.

If this topic is still open for modifying, then I'm up for working on it with you guys to make it much better than it currently is. No single historical account has yet "got it right". Perhaps, we at Wikipedia could be the first? Anybody still interested? --Loop Withers (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki policy states that articles are never really finished. Revisions are always welcomed. I have read extensively on this battle and believe your position to be a false assessment that vital information and facts are missing, and believe the current article provides more than adequate look at the battle. However, per above articles are never really finished regardless of status. So, with that said, what is it you believe is missing from the article?

I also do not agree that the article was wrote from a limtied number of sources. Just under 40 (I would argue a bibliography to rival any published book on such a small battle, outside of primary sources) were consulted to provide the current version that provides background information, info on the battle, and some form of an analysis that conforms to wiki standards. Although granted for the actual events of the day, three sources were the ones primarily - but not exclusively - consulted. They do happen to be the most modern works – as well as being highly rated - on the subject that have gone a long way to provide an accurate assessment of what happened that day and have gone a long way towards “getting it right”. But if, as you say, the historians have not managed that, then neither can we since we can only reproduce what they have to say. We cannot provide our own judgement or conduct a critical reading of primary sources and then provide our interpretation.

As you may have noted by the above discussion, even if you call it "utterly impossible to make sense [of]" (Mr Saunders points are not indented, my replies are as noted in my first reply to him), a debate is only really helpful if secondary sources can be consulted and added to the article. Something, sadly, Mr Sanders never came back to discuss.

I look forward to your reply.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not seek to belittle the article nor its clearly robust existing content. The article follows the conventional line that has been published in Britain for over fifty years, mostly copied out from Hastings and Forty and regimental histories. The article is lacking in references from more modern analyses that provide far more context and understanding and meaning to the events of that day. British historical accounts of V-B. were cloaked in Cold-War secrecy regarding the capabilities (or lack) of Allied tanks and strategy. Now, by 2012, we can include the documented evidence of German and Allied tank and gun performance that would have been censored or forbidden when Hastings and Forty were published. We can also refer to the DOCUMENTED level of mental and physical exhaustion suffered by many of the involved combatants, though amazingly, this is never even mentioned. We can provide far more context and meaning because far more context and meaning is being published. The documented weaknesses or failings of Montgomery and his staff can now be spoken of whereas before that would have resulted in bitter accusations of treachery. If, as you say, you have also used 'the most modern works' then we must have slightly different book collections on the topic. The article does not need to be re-written, it needs to be expanded. All that is there is fine but all that is missing does it a disservice. That is my point.

Ageing historians may nod their head at the article. Any school-age students will simply remain baffled and learn almost nothing to reward them for their visit to the page. The cursory analysis is bafflingly perfunctory and stiffly avoids obvious truths. Wikipedia's current stance on referencing rewards the repetition of well-cited 'facts' while often serving to stifle common-sense expanded analysis (with references) that would encourage debate and analytic thought. Truth serves little use without accuracy and context. If what you say is true then the story of Villers-Bocage can neither be improved upon nor merit any cause to be in Wikipedia in the first place. Just another French town which had a short tank battle and then got blown to bits by the RAF. A list of facts without analysis. What I say is that Villers-Bocage is a fascinating story of epic failures, catastrophic errors, startling opportunities and chilling strategies. None of which gets conveyed in the piece, even though all of it can be cited and explains why the story is so important to know. --Loop Withers (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"The article is lacking in references from more modern analyses that provide far more context and understanding and meaning to the events of that day."

- The two most modern and detailed looks at the battle have been consulted and largely consulted. Forty's work is also a modern work and a decent look at the battle. What other modern works are out there other than Forty, Marie, and Taylor?

"British historical accounts of V-B. were cloaked in Cold-War secrecy regarding the capabilities (or lack) of Allied tanks and strategy.

- Irrelevent to the discussion and pretty much your own opinion. Just under 40 sources have been consulted, and over half of them were released after the Cold War. This includes the most up to date anyalsis of the British armour and armoured divisions.

"Now, by 2012, we can include the documented evidence of German and Allied tank and gun performance that would have been censored or forbidden when Hastings and Forty were published."

- Forty published his work as part of the 2004 Battle Zone Normandy series. What information was Hastings "forbidden" to publish? Most records, even in the 1980s, were unlocked and open. At any rate, out of 228 different inline references only 7 come from Max Hastings book.

"We can provide far more context and meaning because far more context and meaning is being published."

- Per the modern sources consulted.

"We can also refer to the DOCUMENTED level of mental and physical exhaustion suffered by many of the involved combatants, though amazingly, this is never even mentioned."

- Name a published secondary source that indicates any mental, or physical exhaustion issues that effected the men on both sides during this particular day of battle. Some quotes would go a long way to supporting your position.

"The documented weaknesses or failings of Montgomery and his staff can now be spoken of whereas before that would have resulted in bitter accusations of treachery."

- I do believe this betrays your ignorance of this battle, Monty had nothing to do with what happened in V-B. Dempsey ordered his men forward though a gap to capture terrain and put the Panzer Lehr in a bad position. Afterwhich it was a divisional and corps level issue. The issue of the handling of the battle from Dempsey on down is in the article, and is discussed in most sources on the battle.

"If, as you say, you have also used 'the most modern works' then we must have slightly different book collections on the topic."

- Agreed. As far as i am aware the best three modern books on the subject have been consulted. What is this large collection of modern works on the battle, that have not been conslted? Perhaps next time around, you could use a source to back up your numerous comments?

"Any school-age students will simply remain baffled and learn almost nothing to reward them for their visit to the page"

- Unfounded, and completly unsupported opinion.

"The cursory analysis is bafflingly perfunctory and stiffly avoids obvious truths."

- such as?

"...epic failures, catastrophic errors, startling opportunities"

- covered, covered, and covered.

"... and chilling strategies."

- An apparent lack of understanding what "strategy" means.

"... even though all of it can be cited and explains why the story is so important to know."

- such as???

To repeat myself, "... a debate is only really helpful if secondary sources can be consulted and added to the article." How about you back up your opinions?

CE

Moved citations to page ends to smooth the flow and resized pics as they looked too big for the page. Did various spring cleaning moves like combining adjacent Notes and tidied a few items in the bibliography. Do we still need citations in the infobox? The main text contains them now.Keith-264 (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice job. As for the question about the infobox, I don't know. I have not seen anything on the template page or its talkpage that states if one should or should not (akin to the lede not needing to be sourced due to the material being a summary of material already in the article).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I whipped 'em out of Epsom and no-one's complained....;O)Keith-264 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Tidied references, some of the links are a bit dead though.Keith-264 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the previous outcome section where the quotes were integrated into paras. Atm, the new section looks a little messy imo.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I prefer it to quotes more than two lines long but if you'd rather revert them I won't moan (honest, I'm an ex-social worker). Finished tidying the prose and accidentally putting the pictures along the right margin, rather than having a slalom down the page, shortened a few headers and removed the citations from the infobox as they're in the main text. Do we really need all of the citations, now that it's been stable for so long?Keith-264 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox question

Under casualties and strength there is "23–27 tanks^a" with the "a" in blue like a link. For me the "a" does nothing. Is it supposed to? Is it a left over link to a removed footnote? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It was a leftover from the previous system, removed during the recent spring clean. It once linked to a small section under the infobox, which read "More detailed information is available in the Casualties section". I have removed the now redundant footnotes from the infobox. Thanks for the catch.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Regrettably I must claim the honour of that oversight. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

1st US Division

I ran out of edit room but in short it was the effect of the 1st US and the 50th divisions which created the gap for the 7th Armoured to advance through to V-B. It's in a note because while not directly relevant, it adds continuity to the earlier narrative where the 1st US division is mentioned. I think it's a bit harsh to delete a note, it's details like this that they were made for. Please leave it in.Keith-264 (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Montgomery - division "suddenly appeared"

... In 1979, following the revelation of Ultra, it was revealed that intercepted German communications revealed the 2nd Panzer Division to be 35 miles (56 km) from the front line on 12 June. Ralph Bennett has called Montgomery's claim, that the division "suddenly appeared", as being disingenuous" - the existence of ULTRA when Montgomery wrote his memoirs was still highly secret, and was not even admitted publicly until 1973-4 under the Thirty-year rule. He could not therefore have been expected to give away his foreknowledge, and thus reveal the existence of ULTRA, in writings published before this date.

AFAIK only Montgomery and Eisenhower among the Allied ground commanders were aware of the existence (and reliability) of ULTRA, the others were not informed. IIRC, Montgomery was briefed on ULTRA upon taking command of the 8th Army prior to El Alamein, Eisenhower upon becoming head of SHAEF, although he may have been informed earlier, perhaps before Operation Torch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.121 (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)