This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sword Beach article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The only significant German counter-attacks of the entire landing came from 1600 into this area,..."
SHould this be 16:00 ? Rich Farmbrough 00:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
no, military time is written 1600 Mdk0642 02:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The caption of the lower picture appears to have been vandalized twice. The Wikimedia caption is "Ouistreham August 2005". jiHymas@himivest.com 69.158.150.123 03:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
98 combat ready, 6 in short term repair, 8 in long term repair - 6 June
60 combat ready tanks - 9 June
1ts June: Pz Rgt 22 - 2,350 men pz.gen rgt 125 - 2390 men Pz.gen Rgt 192 - 2392 men recon bat - 1141 men AT bn 200 - 546 men StuG 200 - 911 men art rgt 155 - 1771 men flak bn 205 - 726 men sappers - 885 men other elements - 3100 men total - 16297
Zetterling, 21st Panzer Division
27th Armoured Brigade, managed to get 33 out of 40 DD tanks ashore on Sword beach. In total, the 79th Armoured Division’s losses included 12 out of 50 Crabs and 22 out of 120 AVRE equipments.30
Buckley, p. 18
The capture of Caen, while "ambitious", has been described by historian L. F. Ellis as the most important D-Day objective assigned to Lieutenant-General Crocker's I Corps. [nb 1] Historian Chester Wilmot states "The objectives given to Crocker's seaborne divisions were decidedly ambitious, since his troops were to land last, on the most exposed beaches, with the farthest to go, against what was potentially the greatest opposition." [2]
References
I came across this article today, and it looks good and ready for a GAN soon. I've made a few adjustments and additions, hopefully some of these will be welcomed, but before a GA review takes place there is one outstanding problem in my eyes. "By the end of the 6 June, the 21st Panzer Division had lost 50 tanks to British anti-tank guns." This statement needs a ref, and then it'd be ready to go. Hopefully someone will have more luck than I did in my search for it. Feel free to reply here or on my talkpage. Kyteto ( talk) 20:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Did a quick ce, noticed inconsistent time format so made them all 5:00 a.m. etc, feel free to revert to 24-hr clock if desired. Does the infobox really need citations and footnotes? If there's that much detail available I'd put it in the text and use the box as a summary. That said, I think the article is coming along rather well. Keith-264 ( talk) 20:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Easy enough to find a good map of the landing area that highlights Sword. This one highlights Utah. Lame/lazy. -- BenTremblay ( talk) 04:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
In the sections "Strength" and "Casualties" of the infobox, shouldn't the tildes be leading rather than following since they represent approximation?
Perhaps a bit nitpicking but given the infobox inclusion for naval support at Omaha (and now Utah): the Free French cruiser Montcalm also supported Omaha (and may have been the first allied ship to open fire on Omaha), Canadian Minesweepers were (I believe) the first to come close inshore at Omaha, and Norwegian and Polish ships gave naval support in the British and Canadian sectors. These are just a few of the inconsistencies with the infobox inclusions/exclusions for the Normandy Invasion Beach articles. I am noting this here instead of editing because I realize the sensitivity of many folk to these issues. Why are these support issues recognized in some beach articles and not others? Juan Riley ( talk) 23:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
"After delays, due to both logistical difficulties and poor weather (my emphasis], the D-Day of Overlord was moved to 6 June 1944."
This sentence, which appears in the 'Background' section,seems to me to be a bit iffy
If I've understood it correctly, it seems to be implying that logistical hold-ups were resolved after one day, which sounds rather hopeful.
I've heard many comments on a 24 hour delay over the weather (see above), but never any about stores!
Is it right and if so, might it need a cite?
RASAM (
talk)
07:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Is a better photograph not available? I mention this because in the existing one, the subject of the picture (the soldiers), is partially obscured by what looks like a sign and I don't think that having a picture like that as an opening where one cannot see all of it is very good.
RASAM ( talk) 09:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
sword beach
194.19.79.206 (
talk)
09:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}}
template (see the
help page).