![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
First my congratulations! An excellent article! And an awful lot of work to create it...
I see you've taken over the usual translation of Division Légère Mécanique with "Light Mechanised Division". This translation is very common. It is also quite wrong, violating both the meaning of the words and French language in general. "Light" here doesn't mean "lightly equipped", it's a synonym of "mobile". So any mechanised division is "light". But not every light division is mechanised. True, the French would allow for a reversed order, but normally, a Division Légère being a "Light Division" (the adjective behind the noun goes to the front), adding Mécanique, "Mechanised" must again (the same rule applies) be put in front of "Light", resulting in the translation "Mechanised Light Division". A "Light Mechanised Division" would normally translate as a Division Mécanique Légère. The same way DIC is correctly given by you as "Colonial Infantry Division", not as "Infantry Colonial Division". For the DLC the full name makes it much clearer: the Division is obviously not Légère de Cavalerie, but this Division Légère is de Cavalerie and thus a "Cavalry Light Division" (and not a division consisting of light cavalry — although in fact mounted troops were present :o). Of course many French sources, suffering from a lack of knowledge of both military jargon and indeed English, make the same mistakes...
It might seem a very minor point, but the incorrect translation has in the past deceived many into assuming that these divisions, being after all merely "light", were not true armoured divisions or somehow of low fighting value, whereas they were in fact by far the most powerful units the Allies could deploy.
-- MWAK 08:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
what country is the "Army of the ALps" from? it would seem to be French, but is under the dutch. Also it migh make sense to place all French forces together under one subheading, instead of having the dutch in the middle.
Noticed the common mistakes. 1er DIM, 1er DM. and Unit in the wrong places, and no units included.
1re Armée ; 1st Army. Corps de Cavalerie; Corps of Cavalry 2e Division Légère Mécanique; 2nd Division Light Mech. 3e Division Légère Mécanique; 3rd Division Light Mech.
3e Corps d'Armée; III(3rd) Corps 1re Division d'Infantry Motorised; 1st Division of Infantry Motorised. 2e Division d'infanterie Nord-Africaine; 2nd Division of Infantry North African. Group Soubeyran.
4e Corps d'Armée 1re Division Marocaine; 1st Division Moroccian. 15e Division d'Infanterie Motorisée; as before. Group Jacquelin Group Arlabosse.
5e Corps d'Armée 5e Division d'infanterie Nord-Africaine 12e Division d'Infantry Motorised 101e Division d'Infantry Fortress (sp). 101e Division of Infantry Fortress. Groupe de Bataillons de Chars 519, Groupe of Battalion of Tanks.
Divisional Units. 1re Division Cuirassée de Réserve (1re DCR) 32e Division d'Infantry Groupe de Bataillons de Chars 515 SF Escaut
So much wrong it's not funny.
John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.51.110 ( talk) 10:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe that you may have some incorrect data regarding the German military forces (I haven't checked the French forces). At any rate, only one Panzer group is shown to have existed for the German forces when in face there were at least a dozen present, dispersed among the three armies, and more than likely more than that number.
Could you please cite your resources for the German OOB? While doing some research on the May 1940 dispositions, I came across this orbit site that differs in many respects to the OOB provided here. If citations were provided, the readers could then evaluate which ones are correct.
Thanks, Dd84 18:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Should we keep all those wikilinks leading to generic units like for instance 8th Infantry Division? If not, should we replace them by correct national ones even if that results in red links (I don't have the material to write stub articles on French or Belgian units), or instead leave them linkless until an article about them is written. Personally I'd prefer red links to the generic links. (Note that even some of the generic links end up as red links).-- Caranorn 12:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Having just written Sikorski's Army (on Polish army in France, 1940), I have several comments and questions:
I hope you'll be able to help me.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there has been a confusion here. The ranks of German generals I think have been literally translated (so Generalmajor has been translated as Major General and Generalleutenant as Lieutenant General). However, a Generalmajor rank was actually equivalent to the allied brigadier, generalleutenant to major general, general der [infanterie, panzertruppen etc] to lieutenant general and generaloberst to (full) general. I think therefore that we should either leave ranks in the original German form or translate to the equivalent rank, as is normal in other Wikipedia articles. Any thoughts out there? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
To put forward the two things I noticed most quickly, one, Guderian's corps, the XIXth, is no where to be found. (it should, IIRC, be part of PzG Kleist )
Meanwhile, the XVI corps, under Hoepner, is mentioned twice under the same (6th) army (which is correct, but I believe there was only one XVI corps ;D ).
Next off, there's two mentions of the same division, in different places (the 2nd Infanterie (mot.)) It can't be in XV corps and XXXXI simultaneously. I'm also more than a little certain that Reinhardt's XXXXI corps had more than one unit in it, perhaps someone else can shed some light on this.
More errors: The Grossdeutchland regiment and 10th Pz were part of Guderian's corps, not von Weitersheim's. He used these two units for spoiling attacks to the south during the encirclement phase of the battle.
I would make the necessary changes, but I'm not familiar with the bullet points used to format the page. Anyone else have some ideas, or any other glaring faults with the OOB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.131.88 ( talk) 20:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I am surprised no one has commented on this. See under Allies[edit]. Belgium was neutral. It was not an allied to anyone and it's army was not controlled by the French First Army Group. Further the VII Belgian Army Corps did not serve with or come under the command of the French 1st Army.
76.113.90.106 (
talk)
07:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).</ref>Was this howler added just to see if anyone was awake? John. Belgium's neutrality see 'Total War' Calvocoressi & Wint,
p. 115 and it's army was ordered to surrender shortly after the country was invaded 'Total War' p. 123.