Talk:Sword Beach

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European / German / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force Normandy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Normandy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Normandy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NormandyWikipedia:WikiProject NormandyTemplate:WikiProject NormandyNormandy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Zetterling, Niklas (1999). "The Normandy Campaign 1944".

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Feel free to do so then. Hamish59 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the article could be improved, i would like to know what is the lame/lazy map that highlights Utah? There is a photo of Sword, and a map of the entire invasion area that highlights all five beaches.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I assume that British naval support at Omaha & Utah was for the RN crews in the landing craft as they hit the beaches? Shire Lord (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That and I believe components of the naval bombardment. The point was that similar support from e.g., Canadian, Free French, Norwegian, etc..., have been ignored somewhat on the American beaches...but perhaps entirely also on the British ones. Juan Riley (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS See comments in the Gold beach article and the links given by User:Diannaa. Juan Riley (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

IIRC the invasion was ready to go on the 5th but a cold front intervened and so D-day was postponed a day. The various air contingents had already painted the invasion stripes on their aircraft on the 4th, and they were expressly forbidden to do so until the evening before D-day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@RASAM:: Way to late, but you can blame James Mapham for that one. He is the photographer, and the original piece can be found here at the IWM.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sword beach 194.19.79.206 (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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).