Talk:Battle of Amiens (1918)

Suggested Reading

These sections aren't "bad" as they don't have a negative affect on anything and provide direction to books that provide much more detail than on offer in Wiki articles. Dwp13 17:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Passed GA

Well written article. It may need some more inline citations though. -- Underneath-it-All 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've added and ref'd a few things, but most importantly I just ordered this book from Amazon, which should provide tons of very nice references. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean? "The British Third army with no armored support had almost no effect on the line while the Fourth with less than a thousand tanks broke deep into German territory, for example" Oct. 10 2006 Brocky44

• It is an example for the immediately prior sentence, "Armored support helped the Allies tear a hole through trench lines, weakening once impregnable trench positions." In two similar positions the one with tanks was massively more successful. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I understand the benefit of having tanks. What I should have said is why is the Third Army mentioned. Only the Fourth Army was mentioned in the article. Unless your talking about the British III Corps which was the 18th and 58th. And why say less than a thousand tanks when it was 534 or 532 like already stated in the article? That is, if that sentence was still about Amiens.If the example given was for the remainder of the war then the Third Army had just as much effect on the line as the Fourth. They both broke deep into German held territory.On August 21 the British Third army had nearly 200 tanks with them on their advance toward Bapaume. The Americans had tanks with them although they didn’t get very far. But that’s another story. Brocky44 11 oct. 2006

I think there may be a few mistakes here. Some small others maybe more important. None to do with grammar. It’s a fair article if it is meant to be brief and if that is the case then it should probably left as is. There is a lot more info that could be included like the British plan for deception and secrecy, at least I find it very interesting. There was a lot more to it than orders to keep your mouth shut. Nothing is said of why or how the deception of the Canadians was made or that because they were considered an elite formation and used as Storm Troop the Germans were always tipped off of an impending attack when they were found in the lines. Nothing was said of the days of battle following August 8. Are they not just as relevant? Nothing is said about the end of the battle. “The third phase of the attack was to have been performed by infantry-carrying Mark V* tanks however the infantry were able to carry out this final step unaided.” I think that information is false and the line should be removed or it should be rewrittin more closely relating to what really happened to the 30 Mark V tanks and the infantry inside. More could be said of the armoured cars and their finding blueprints to the Hindenburg line that later came in really handy and of the adventure and heroics of one whippet tank crew. Maybe I’m going to far but there is at least a couple of things that should be elaborated on. And of that whole LATER FIGHTING part I am totally confused. Why is this part relavent to the battle of Amiens? It says the advance would continue? Is it trying to say the battle of Amiens was advancing by August 27? Brocky44 12 October 2006

John Monash

John Monash was knighted KCB on August 12 and not GCMG. Please refer Monash: The outsider who won the War by Perry 2004. Monash's own diary entry from the day "Am decorated with Star and Order of KCB." King's diary "I gave General Monash & General O'Keeff [sic] the KCB & knighted them." etc. GCMG awarded 1919 honours list in part for Amiens.Roonz123 05:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Entities

Why are Australia and Canada listed as separate combatant forces from Britain? They were colonial forces fighting under the Britain, even if it's just referring to Canada, they weren't recognize until AFTER the war. Sans Nom Reeves 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

They were under their own commanders, even if under the overall leadership of Britain. Since it was the actions of the Canadians and Australians that won the battle and the war, they should be listed separately. Joe Dick 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is simply incorrect to identify the historical combatants in a manner that misrepresents their historical and factual identity. Reeves is right in saying that Canada and Australia participated in this battle and whole war as entities of the British Empire, under British Command and the authority of the British government. Whilst the individual contributions within the war helped to forge their national identities, they were each still 'British' and were Corps of the British Army at that time. The Great Britain, her colonies and dominions of the Empire were not 'allies' but one combatant in which the officers and men from the Dominions were permitted a special place.pidd 13:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "...Corps of the British Army at that time. The Great Britain, her colonies and dominions of the Empire...", the Australian Army was not a Corps of the British Army, nor was the Royal Australian Navy a (I don't know the navy contemporary for "corps") of the Royal Navy. Also, by WW1, Australia was neither a colony nor a dominion of the British Empire. However, it comes to mind that New Zealand was still a dominion at that time, perhaps. But yes, Australians did consider themselves British.--203.10.224.60 02:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

pidd is right in saying that it’s incorrect to misrepresent the historical and factual identity of the combatants. Therefore since Australia and Canada were recognized at the time by name and actions by both friend and foe alike in the many battles that they fought and not simply immersed in a larger entity which was the British Army so should they be recognized as separate combatants today. The Canadians Corps were under authority of the Canadian government not British government. Canada evolved from being a Colony to being an Ally during WW1, was empowered to take executive and administrative action regarding the control of personnel and Currie took control of military operations in regard to having last say when it came to his troops and plans. Canadians were firm in keeping control of their troops as early as when building the Second Division as seen here in a letter from Sir Robert Borden "Apparently there is some movement by the British professional soldiers, or officials of the War Office and British Staff Officers to supersede Canadians in the higher commands of our troops. Any such attempt would be fraught with the most disastrous consequences to British interest and the interest of the whole Empire. You may tell Mr. Bonar Law, Lord Kitchener and Mr. Asquith for me that we will not permit anything of the kind." The reply was that Lord Kitchener "is doing all he possibly can to fill all Canadian appointments with Canadian officers".

In the book “Marching to Armageddon” Canadians and the Great War 1914-1919 by authors Desmond Morton and J.L. Granatstein there is mentioned a new status for Canada: “Henceforth she would be a junior but sovereign ally in the struggle, not a subservient colony.” On page 198 it says “For matters of military operations”, a War Office memo explained, “the Canadian forces in the field have been placed by the Canadian government under the Commander-in-chief, British Armies in France… Canada was now an ally, not a colony.”

Its interesting that there have been so many posts in the discussion pages of Wiki WW1 articles, as well as WW2, that say that the Dominions shouldn’t be mentioned by name but left unknown to the to the world to be anonymous in the British Empire. British Generals complained that dominion troops got too much credit for the progress all along the British front. I wonder if residue from that jealousy still exists today. During WW1 the people of the Dominions wanted to know what they were doing and today people of the Commonwealth, and I’m sure others, still want to know. Australian and Canadian contingents stood out and were seen as separate forces in the Empire but today some people at Wiki would rather their history should be repressed. Yet when US history is written it’s acceptable to even mention the individual Divisions by name like the American First, Second, Third and Marines at Belleau Wood or Chateau-Thierry. Why not just say the AEF? US units are even mentioned by name in Wiki articles in battles in which they were never present. Go figure. Brocky44 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not "jealous" to point out that the Canadian and Australian forces were part of the British Army during WW1. It is merely factually accurate. It is misleading to suggest otherwise because one of the major tactical aspects of the Amiens battle is that it was an all arms effort. The planes, tanks, guns and logistical support were not organically Australian or Canadian even though the infantry they were protecting were. It is of course perfectly correct to point out the proud contributions of particular nations but not to the detriment of historical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.83.42 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Since it was the actions of the Canadians and Australians that won the battle and the war, they should be listed separately. I think portrays a problem with certain attitudes of certain users in general; admittedly this comment is over a decade old, but remnants of this attitude remain in certain aspects of the article; unsourced claims about the excellence of the Canadian and Australian Corps for example. No doubt they have much to be proud of, but there is a certain 'they were better than the other corps' attitude here, which is both factually inaccurate and also rather unhelpful.

Chains of command

For all the GA status, this article appears to ignore conventional military chains of command and responsibility. Far too much of the detailed planning is attributed to Marshal Foch, the Allied supreme commander, who had little to do with matters apart from urging everybody to attack. Rawlinson (the British army commander involved) is relegated to the command of a Corps. I'll try and correct this and work in some of the planning which went into the operation. HLGallon 09:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I made several corrections myself throughout the article; remember that inline citations go directly after the punctuation with no space in between. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. As a side note, I'd recommend that more sources be added to further expand the article. The paragraphs that have no sources should have inline citations added as well. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 07:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

3 British Divisions?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't this originally double figure divisions? As in something like 13 divisions not 3. (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC))

Potential expansion to cover different forces in the battle

Agree that this is a good article providing a general background on the battle. However, despite the fact that more than 2000 aircraft took part in operations, there is scarce mention made of the role played by the RAF and French Air Service both in the lead up to, and during the battle. This includes low flying over German lines to mask the noise of assembling armour and attacks on German reinforcements following the initial allied successes.

I believe that the article would benefit from individual sections looking at the role played by armour and aircraft in this battle given the fact that both were relatively new innovations in warfare, and this battle highlights their relatively effective employment.TisoHal (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The British Empire wasn't a myth

WW1 articles have been hijacked by a POV. While the significant contribution of the different dominions should be acknowledged seperately, the way belligerents are presented makes Canada, Australia etc, look like independent countries, which is simply not the case. If wikipedia is supposed to be factual, it shouldn't portray them like this Voucherman (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Extract from http://www.lermuseum.org (Loyal Edmonton Regiment Military Museum) website:

"When Minister of Militia Sam Hughes arrived in London, Lord Horatio Herbert Kitchener, War Secretary of Britain, informed him that the Canadian regiments would be broken up and their officers and men dispersed among the British regiments. Kitchener justified this decision on the grounds that the Canadians lacked training and experience.

Hughes adamantly refused this proposal, even when Lord Kitchener gave him a direct order to comply. He took the position that the officers and men were in the pay of Canada, and the Canadian government should, therefore, control them while they were overseas. As a result of his obstinate refusal, the Canadian troops were kept together, and, once additional Canadian divisions arrived in France, they formed the nucleus of the Canadian Corps. Later, Canadian Deputy Chief Justice E.L. Newcombe prepared a memorandum that reinforced Hughes' position. He determined that, legally, the Canadian Expeditionary Force was composed of Canadian militia on active service overseas defending their country. For that reason, the Canadian government had the legal right to maintain control of Canadian troops serving overseas." Scartboy (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

[[1]] [[2]] Apparently the Canadian Supreme Court held that sovereignty begain in the 1920s.Keith-264 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the Infobox, there was no British participation. "British Empire" does not include the UK in normal understanding - Empire forces would be those of the Dominions and Colonies, not British forces. Cyclopaedic (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Allied OoB

The OoB article isn't clear, so here it goes, the command chain run from Foch>Field armies, Foch>Haig and Petain>Field armies or Foch>Haig>Field armies? The second one is more probable, but who knows. Also, the strength values there and here aren't matching. Bertdrunk (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Amiens (1918). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051223214916/http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/greatwar/g3/cs1/background.htm to http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/greatwar/g3/cs1/background.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External image link 404; Image description

One of the external image links directs to a 404 page.

One of the image descriptions seems to make fun of Will Longstaff's name.

I don't know how to fix/edit the image links and descriptions, so I hope someone else will see this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.90.89.28 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

G'day, thank you for pointing this out. I believe I have fixed the issue with the caption now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The end: 11 or 12 August?

The article about 11 August states the end of this Battle was on 11 August. However, this article says it was the 12th of August. One statement has to be wrong I think... Encycloon (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Battle sectionEastfarthingan (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This article needs expanding: the background and preliminaries has far more on that than it does on the battle section which is barely half the length. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

... awarded the DFC

... awarded the DFC. consider changing to: ... awarded the DFC. 98.243.51.84 (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I have added the link as suggested and expanded the abbreviation as it doesn't seem to have been previously mentioned in the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is USA listed as among the belligerents in the infobox?

Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing in this article, or the linked article listing forces deployed in the battle, to indicate that the USA was involved. If that is the case, the USA shouldn't be among the belligerents listed in the infobox. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I retract this question. There is a reference to the US 33rd Infantry Division participating. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Battle of Amiens (1918)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2006; last reassessed in 2007. It is no longer well-written, having many grammatical and stylistic errors mainly stemming from incomplete translations. Misuse of commas is the biggest problem. I'm inclined to copy-edit this, but don't really have the time to, and even then, have intervening Wikipedia projects in the pipeline. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

More importantly I note there are thirteen instances of missing citations and five page needed tags. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The missing and incomplete citations would seem to be dispositive for unlist. Ifly6 (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.