Talk:Falaise pocket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	France Portal Falaise pocket is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Canadian military history task force

This was an anonymous contribution, obviously not by a native speaker. I've tried to edit as well as I could, also left some notes in comment marks to hopefully help someone who knows the topic (which I don't) see what still needs to be done. -- Jmabel 01:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I believe this is also the action more commonly known as the 'Falaise pocket'. A little more info is needed to integrate into the story of the second world war. DJ Clayworth 15:24, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Gulf War Highway of Death (1991)?? 2 The aftermath 3 categ 4 Allied victory?

[edit] Gulf War Highway of Death (1991)??

Anybody has got an idea why this link is included in See also section? --Edcolins 13:50, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it should be there. The historical parallel might be reasonable, but if so, someone should overtly make the case with appropriate citations, rather than just throw in a "see also." -- Jmabel 05:51, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm taking it out, it looks very odd. I'm not sure I see the point of the "See Also" section, surely that's what the categories are for? The comparison to Dunkirk looks a little strained as well. Forgot to sign this Leithp 11:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I'll just take out the "see also" section, as I don't see that it serves any purpose. Leithp 07:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Poles had lost 325 dead, with 1,002 wounded and 114 missing when they were reinforced by the 22nd Canadian Armoured Regiment in the early morning of August 21. The Germans lost around 2,000 dead, with 5,000 taken prisoner, and 359 vehicles destroyed. Those is alleate propaganda. Francesco

Also montgomery due to much heavier fighting than the americans was notably more cautious because of this.

[edit] The aftermath

I can't make heads or tails of the last phrase in this section

Although it must be noted Montgomery's approach had significantly more troops than those of Patton and Bradley.

Any clue what it's trying to say? It looks to be a defense of Monty's cautiousness but I don't know what, really, that defense is. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC) This only makes sense to me if considered to be a comment on the broader situation: the British and Canadians were still attacking through the enemy, whilst US soldiers were, by then, moving through more open ground. Not sure of the relevance of this and in any case, Monty was still overall field commander, with Dempsey and Bradley reporting to him at this stage, wasn't he?

[edit] categ

would it be appropriate to categorise this under world war ii or would that have been subsumed under operation overlord already? Chensiyuan 16:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allied victory?

Objective of the operation - to encircle and destroy German armies - was not fully reached. That's hardly definition of victory. Pavel Vozenilek 14:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)