Talk:Hill 262

Untitled

I'm planning to combine the information present here into Operation Tractable, the primary page on the Anglo-Canadian-Polish efforts to close the Falaise Pocket. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we delete this page now that the information has been brought over to Tractable?CSHunt68 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

A copyedit has been requested on this article, which I'm finally getting round to ;) However, before I start, has the merge/delete (discussed above) been decided? EyeSerene^talk 10:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the idea was abandoned considering that the article is in much better shape now and has a lot of material inexistent in the Operation Tractable article. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks Eurocopter, I'll push on with the copyedit then ;) EyeSerene^talk 11:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes

• The article states that two of the Polish battlegroups drove on Hill 262 while the other two went for Chambois. This is contradicted by Falaise pocket#Closing the gap, which has all four taking CHambois before two then went on to Hill 262.
  • Currently I don't have to Hastings in order to check the statement, so if you have sources stating something else, feel free to modify the information. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Hastings isn't very specific. He seems to imply that the Hill was taken at the same time as Chambois, but his text can be read both ways. I'll have a look at Wilmot when I get the chance. The Falaise pocket article cites D'Este p. 456 - do you have this one? EyeSerene^talk 08:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • This article by D'Este (although he refers to the hill as 278), seems to imply that the capture of Mont Ormel and Chambois were simultaneous, and the Poles ended up on Hill 262 by accident. EyeSerene^talk 08:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I don't have access to any D'Este source. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I've had a go at rewording it more vaguely, so either course of events could apply. Hopefully that will be acceptable until/if definitive information turns up. EyeSerene^talk 11:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• There are a few citations from books that aren't listed in the refs section (some of them my fault!). I'll try to fill them in using info from other FA articles, but a second pair of eyes might be useful ;)
  • Done. -Eurocopter (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Mont Ormel" - this appears in the text with no explanation. Is it a town, or an alternative name for Hill 262? Never mind :) EyeSerene^talk 11:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• For now I've removed the "Mace" bit, with explanation, because it's unsourced. Do we have a source for that? EyeSerene^talk 08:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • No, it might have been left there since an older version of the article. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • There was a bit of back and forth and some guy has just thrown in a bunch of sources in regards to the Mace; i have edited his edit accordingly so the lead has been changed to include the mace and the polish translation moved to the footnote.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thinking about the article's focus, apart from a bit in the lead about command posts (that's currently unsupported in the body so may have to go), it's solely about the battle. Given that the title is "Hill 262" rather than "Battle of Hill 262" (or something similar), ought we to mention the Polish war memorial and any other relevant info about it as a geographical/historical feature? Either that, or possibly we should think about a title change.
  • Perhaps a legacy section or something similar would do in this case. I won't really agree with a name change, since if this battle had not taken place, this hill would certainly not have any importance today and therefore we won't have an article on it. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That makes sense to me. EyeSerene^talk 16:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• This will only get brought up at FAC; should the internet sources used be listed accordingly within the reference section and a shortend version be used within the inline citations and notes part?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Question about this line: "the US First Army pressing in from the south and the British Second Army from the west, the Allied noose was closing around von Kluge's force; it fell to the Canadians to draw it tight" Surely, if i am not mistaken, it should be the US Third Army closing in from the South - it was Pattons guys who raced across France, Bradleys guys breeched the frontline.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Corrected EyeSerene^talk 07:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Ref

Hello folks, scuse me for intruding on an article I've previously had nothing to do with, but I just noticed your chat here and wondered if I might be able to help. I've just started an interesting book (Lucas, James (1978). The Killing Ground, The Battle of the Falaise Gap, August 1944. BT Batsford Ltd. ISBN 0-7134-0433-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |origdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)) - hence my visiting here. It looks like a good read, but there's a fair bit of detail so I can't yet work out exactly how the Poles captured the hill just by thumbing through the pages. If it's any use though, it extensively refers to the two peaks of the hill as the Mace, apparently it assumed that name because the shape of the contour lines on allied maps resembled one. Let me know if I can be of any use, cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you have access to this source I invite to add any information which you think that is currently omitted by the article. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do, as I progress through the book. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward to your contributions ;) EyeSerene^talk 12:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Mont 262

Are Mont Ormel and Hill 262 actually described as the same place in other sources? I only ask because Lucas and Barker do distinguish between the two. They also describe the Mace as the high ground between Mont-Ormel and Coudehard (rather than Mont-Ormel being a place on the hill). I imagine the two names are probably synonymous in literature nowadays but it might be worth clarifying a difference if there is one. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I confess I'm slightly confused here too - on maps I've seen in some sources, there's a place called "Montormel" nearby - I'm wondering if this has been corrupted by historians to Mont Ormel and taken to refer to the hill itself. In French, of course, Mont = Hill (ish) EyeSerene^talk 12:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the names have become interwoven. To me it looks like Mont Ormel is a small village (or commune as wiki describes it) overlooked by the hill. Being so geographically close it would lend its name to the hill, and of course its parish may cover it too. The village probably got at least part of its name from the hill (as you point out) anyway. I only mention it because the book I've got goes to some pains to separate the Mace from Mont Ormel (separate index entries, physical descriptions) and from flicking through it appears that some strategic movements were towards the village, others towards the hill. At one stage the Germans seem to regroup in Mont Ormel while the Polish are on the Mace, so it might be worth making a distinction. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If we can be more precise I'm sure Eurocopter won't mind :) Does your book have a physical description of the hill? Hastings (I think) describes it as a "wooded ridge", which would seem to fit the Google map of the area even today. The link also shows the village of Mont Ormel as distinct from the hill itself. Expanding the view, the ridge matches your description as being between Mont Ormel and Coudehard.

I think it would also help to address the apparent discrepancies in the sources. Perhaps we could add something to the lead like "Although some historians of the battle use Hill 262 and Mont Ormel interchangeably, others like Lucas and Barker are careful to distinguish between the geographical feature of Hill 262 and the nearby small village of Mont Ormel." (with supporting sources) EyeSerene^talk 15:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dallas (click me and see page 158) states that the Mace is the Mount Ormel Ridge, the northern height of the ridge being Hill 262. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have consulted Ellis, D'ESte, Fortin, Reynolds and Beevor without any luck however Terry Copp's Fields of Fire page 238 provides this description:

"...whild the balance of the division occupied the high ground Coudehard - Mount Ormel, where the ring contours enclosing Pt 262 north, Pt 252, and 262 south sugegested the shape of a mace ..."

I dont have my cam with me at the moment just my camphone, and it doesnt take a good map photo, but i dont see "the mace". Coudehard is a village near Pt 262 north. Mount Ormel village is slap bang between both high points, which it seems gives its name for the whole ridgeline as noted by Dallas.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Mace or not, that is a lot clearer now :) I've attempted to amend the article text so hopefully that's clearer too. EyeSerene^talk 16:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Stacey, p. 262 (the last source i have remotely on the subject) states the following: "The Poles were now disposed in three main groups: the 2nd Armoured Regiment group at Hill 240, a mile east of Ecorches; a second group on the dominant feature above Coudehard formed by Hills 252 and 262, called by the Poles, from its shape on the map, "Maczuga" (mace);"

Quick bit of plagirism:

"The fighting which then took place east of the Trun-Chambois road was concentrated chiefly around that piece of high ground which has passed into Polish military history. This ground is between Mount Ormel and Coudehard and connects one point 262 to the other point 262 south of the Mount and nearer Chambois. The shape of the contour lines has the appearence of a mace with the handle at the south and the head in the north... The ground around Chambois rises steeply from the 100m line and carries a secondary road from that village through Mount Ormel and then on towards Vimoutiers and the Seine River. Mount Ormel and the two points 262 lay across the German escape route....."

So... was the bit of Hill 262 actually occupied by the Poles just one of the peaks (ie the north - "that piece of high ground... this ground is between Mount Ormel and Coudehard")? Looking at the Geology map (on the right of the Geohack page) which shows the contours, I can't see a mace, but I guess a military map might have one. Quite how some Germans mannaged to get into Mount Ormel with Poles still on the hill I don't know either. I need to finish the book and stop skipping to the end pages to see who wins (it's the Germans right?). Ranger Steve (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Terry Copp has a map with contour lines but like yourself i cant see this mace. Stacey implies that it was 262 north and Copp (p. 242) states that the Poles occupied Coudehart and 262 north. D'Este supports this, p. 442, the Poles the northern end of the ridge around midday on the 19th.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, wonder how they got a mace from an indistinguishable shape though. Reading the latest changes I think the article covers it quite well now. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hastings implies that the Poles initially occupied various positions around the ridge, but by the end of the battle were clinging on to just the crest of Hill 262, which makes sense - the Germans could well have taken Mt Ormel village when they opened the corridor (I assume the road through the village would have been one of the few roads out of the area). EyeSerene^talk 20:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Guys sorry that I didn't comment recently here but I was extremely busy in the past few days with setting up a contest. Hopefully I'll find some time tommorow and pop in. Thanks a lot for your help! --Eurocopter (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Canadian official campaign history: extracts concerning this battle

I know there have been a few questions raised about various points regarding this battle, hopefully this will help – it is the information from the Canadian official campaign history concerning the Polish advance south and the defence of Hill 262. Any emphasis is mine.

"At 11:00 a.m. on 19 August Simonds again conferred with his four divisional commanders at the 4th Division's main headquarters east of Morteaux- Couliboeuf. He emphasized that the encirclement must be complete; no Germans were to escape. ... while the Poles would be responsible for the area from Moissy to Chambois and Hill 262, a commanding height north-east of Chambois,* which was reported to be in American hands."

"*Not to be confused with another Hill 262,. overlooking Coudehard from the north, where the Poles were locked in a death-struggle with the enemy."

- Stacey, pp. 259-260

"Farther to the east the much-tried Poles were engaged in bloody fighting. About 11 o'clock in the morning, according to information reaching General Simonds, they were concentrated mainly in three battle groups, each comprising an armoured regiment and an infantry battalion: one immediately east of Coudehard and two between that place and St.Lambert. A reconnaissance squadron was reported in an area perhaps a mile and a half north-east of Chambois. And south of Chambois, on the other side of a Gap now nearly non-existent, the battalions of the 359th U.S. Infantry Regiment (of the 90th Division) were fighting their way forward from the direction of Le Bourg St. Leonard."

- Stacey, p. 260

"Both the Poles and the Americans claim to have captured Chambois. According to the Polish account, their 10th Dragoons (10th Polish Motor Battalion) came down from the north, joined up with their reconnaissance elements (10th Polish Mounted Rifle Regiment) outside the town, and proceeded to take the place. The First Canadian Army situation report that night stated that these two units captured Chambois at 7:20 p.m. "and were joined by 90 US Inf Div forces"."

and

"The impression one receives is that of Poles and Americans arriving in Chambois from opposite directions at about the same moment, though the Americans may have been in greater strength. Whatever the precise circumstances, contact was made between the First Canadian and First United States Armies at Chambois that evening"

- Stacey, p. 261

"West of Chambois the same mass movement struck the 359th U.S. Infantry, whose 3rd Battalion were temporarily "pushed back a little from their positions". The Americans recorded that it seemed that the Germans were "not attacking but merely trying to escape". Whatever else the German rush accomplished, it prevented the Poles and Americans in Chambois and the Canadians in St. Lambert from establishing contact with each other ... Through this considerable numbers of Germans continued to escape, often only to collide with the Polish battle-groups to the north-east. The Poles were now disposed in three main groups: the 2nd Armoured Regiment group at Hill 240, a mile east of Ecorches; a second group on the dominant feature above Coudehard formed by Hills 252 and 262, called by the Poles, from its shape on the map, "Maczuga" (mace); and a third at and north of Chambois. Cut off from the rest of First Canadian Army; unable to evacuate their prisoners and their own wounded, and running short of ammunition, petrol and food; and, fighting desperately against Germans attacking both from inside and outside the pocket, the Poles had a hard and bitter day on the 20th."

- Stacey, p. 262

"General Simonds, we have seen, had given orders on the 20th that every effort was to be made to push through and restore communications with the isolated Poles."

- Stacey, p. 263

"The Polish group near Chambois was similarly relieved by a supply column escorted by The Highland Light Infantry of Canada ... The Polish Armoured Division, indeed, had had a terrible experience. Forming the spearhead of First Canadian Army's advance, the greater part of it had been entirely cut off by the rush of Germans fighting their way out of the Pocket, and neither food nor ammunition could reach it. On the morning of the 21st, although the weather was bad for flying, ammunition was dropped to the Poles from the air, directed at Point 122, immediately east of Chambois."

- Stacey, p. 264--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Enigma! Just run across this on Amazon - it can be searched (in a limited way) if you have an account. EyeSerene^talk 19:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, just re-read your above and the other info we've gathered. The following points stand out:

• From your first extract, are we now saying there were two Hill 262s, both in the Chambois/Coudehard area, one occupied by the Americans and the other by the Poles? I wonder if the author has got mixed up here?
• Jarymowycz seems to support four battlegroups, but other authors such as Copp and Stacey (above) support three.
• I'm still not sure if we've established a consensus view on the sequence of events for the capture of Chambois/seizure of Hill 262
• Quite a bit more detail can be added to the Battle section

There's obviously some way to go in developing the article, but I think we're finally at the stage where most of the raw information has been assembled. Nice detective work all :) EyeSerene^talk 11:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two Hill 262's or at least two points to Hill 262, 1 north west and 1 south west of the hamlet of Mont Ormel. I know it's not a good ref source, but I think this map I found while googling shows the points, and seems to concur with the sources above and the actual topology based on googlemaps. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha... We need to look at this. Who's gonna go first? Ranger Steve (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And some interesting maps here. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Those maps are good, and they show a 262 south and a 262 north which agrees with your 12:32 post. I believe the pieces are coming together... :) EyeSerene^talk 14:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the map that is on page 245 on Terry Copp's Fields of Fire: The Canadians in Normandy. They will be deleted once this is all sorted out because they are pretty large in size.

The entire map showing the efforts taken to close the gap. Note the areas marked 6, showing the Poles in posession of the entire ridge and Chambois. The map also contains contour lines.

A close up of the ridge, please note the two hill 262s and please feel free to point out the mace to me :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Copp, Fields of Fire

Copp, p. 240

Mid afternoon 18 Aug the Poles had still not captured Chambois. “Maczek reported that the Loszutski battlegroup had gone astray and ended up at Les Champeaux, 10 kilometres north of Chambois. It was short of ammunition and fuel, and Maczek had sent one of his infantry battalions to assist it. The divisional recce regiment had reached the edge of Chambois but could not entre the town...”

p.241-242

Requests to pull the Poles back due to 2TAF hitting them and allow the latter free range was turned down as Poles had reached 262 north and were cut off by the time Monty was consulted.

p.243

19 August midday Poles are reported to be advancing on Cahmbois, Coudehard and Mt-Ormel but not there yet.

Maczek, following the meeting the above was reported in, was determined to get his men onto their objectives ASAP. The division advancing in “three separate battlegroups” captured Coudehard at 15:39 and “after a battle with Panthers” occupied Pt 262 north. “A great number of prisoners’ were taken in the capture of Pt 137”.

10th Dragoons linked up with the recce rgt outside Chambois at 1930. Yanks reached the town around the same time and the Poles handed over their prisoners to the Yankies.

p.244

“There was good reason to congratulate the Poles, who had finally closed the pocket, but were there enough troops on the ground to keep it closed?”

Thanks EnigmaMcmxc. If no-one minds, I'll have a go at putting all this together over the weekend. EyeSerene^talk 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No complaits here, ill have a shifty through my other sources later and post any additional information i find that is relevent.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. I'll try and finish the book and then wade in with lots of contradictions next week ;-). Still can't see a mace I'm afraid Enigma....Ranger Steve (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reynold's Sons of the Reich

I have consulted the British OH by Ellis and there is hardly any detailed information on the fight and likewise for Beevor.

Michael Reynolds book on the II SS Panzer Corps (book details available in the Operation Epsom article confirms that Pt 262 south was unoccupied by the Poles; a feature that he calls “important”.

During the fighting, sometime after 0900 on it appears the 20th in the Das Reich’s first attack for the hill a Panther apparently picked off 5 Polish Shermans – an incident Reynolds calls “well recorded”.

Early afternoon KG Weidinger had secured the important road fork 1km NE of Coudehard and claimed they had opened the pocket.

Reynolds states that no Allied infantry were deployed in a 5km stretch of the Dives, thus leaving the pocket open, between Magny and Moissy – an area were men could wade across although they were interdicted by indirect fire.

The KG stayed in this position until 1600 hours after which, ignoring orders to advance on Chambois, they withdrew out of the pocket believing no more troops would escape that way.

- P. 87

The Poles claim that as late as 1700 hours that infantry and tanks penetrated their premiter on the Ormel ridge and that it took until 1900 to expel them destroyer three MK IVs in the process.

- Pp. 87-88

Reynolds claims that reports that KG Deutschland was fired upon by the Poles to be incorrect as the Poles were 4 km away from this KG’s position but does believe they did not fabricate this report just misidentified who attacked them.

-p. 88--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reynold's Steel Inferno

Zgorzelski battle group secured the Pt 137 near Couehard around midday. The 24th Lancers then moved to secure Frenee. Around the same time the 1st Polish Armoured regiment, with the 9th infantry battalion and a company of AT guns advanced towards the main Chambois road at Pt 262 (north) and 252 – 5km NW of Chambois. Leading tanks arrived at 1600 hours and engaged mass Germans and destroyed 2 Panthers – 1 being towed behind the other. One infantry company occupied Coudehard Boisjos; the tanks, the rest of the infantry and the at guns occupied Pt 262 1030 hours the Koszutski battle group, in the les Champeaux area, had been resupplied and set off around midday and set off for Pt 262 N. They established themselves on the E and N sides of Pt 262N around 1700. Pt 262N and Coudehard Boisjos had become Polish strongholds but no one had occupied Pt 262 S.

Pt 262N is “often referred to as ‘Mont Ormel’ after the nearby hamlet”. The position offered “spectacular views over much of the Falaise Pocket”. Pt 262S however obscured observation to the SE

- A near enough direct quote from Reynolds, p. 273, Steel Inferno apart from when i have used quote marks then it is a word for word quote.

Terrain, woods and hedgerows made control of the W and SW with direct fire weapons difficult by day and impossible by night.

-pp. 273-274

The terrain to the W and SW is where most Gemans slipped though. The poles controlled 2 square KM but little else. However remained the major, “if not the major” impediment to the German retreat.

Division HQ was located 8km to the NW on Pt 259 and 10th Arm bde 3 km way to the W at Bourdon. 1900 the tanks of the 24 Lancers advanced to a blocking position 1500m NE of Chambois and linked up with the divisions recon unit – 10th mounted rifles and 2 M10 AT companies. Some of this force had moved to Pt 113 1 km n of Chambois.

1930 hours the 10th dragoons (motorised infantry) , moving from Pt 137, entered Chambois and then linked up with 2nd Bn US 359th Rgt.

- p. 274

The panther incident is further described; the panther on p. 239 1500m north of the poles picked the tanks off sometime after 1500 hours on the 20th

Reynold states the reports that all officers, on Ormel, were killed or wounded by the end of the day is without foundation.

1530 hours the 24th Lancers are moved into Chambois to reinforce the infantry due to serious German pressure

-p. 279

Early the next day the Recon regt tried to reinforce the force on the mace but were fired on by the defenders then withdrew after losing 2 Cromwells.

Last German attack hit the mace around 1100 hours and was repelled. 1330 hours the Canadian Grenadier Guards relived the position. The Guards had started there advance at 0800 and lost 4 tanks on the way but claimed 2 panthers, 1 MK Iv and 2 SP guns.

-p. 280--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Reynolds claims only 1500 men were defending the Mace, claimed in both books, and on p.280 on this book he claims only 351 were lost in total defending the position - dead and wounded. Vastly different to what we have now.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Further copyedit notes

I'm in the process of integrating the above info into the article. EyeSerene^talk 11:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• There currently seems to be a problem with the montormel website - I've replaced this with other refs where I've run across them

• Enigma, do you have a ref for the 1500 men? I've added it the the last para of "Mont Ormel ridge"

"Fortunately for them [the Germans Reynolds mentions in the previous sentance moving towards escape routes] this large force of over eighty tanks, some twenty anti-tank guns and 1500 infantrymen remained on Maczuga..." Reyolds, Steel Inferno, p. 274

"Unknown to the Das Reich KGs, General Maczek's 1st Polish Armoured Division was barring their way. On Point 262 (North) ... there were over eighty tanks, some twenty anti-tank guns and 1,500 infantrymen, and at Coudehard Boisjos, 2km to the north of Coudeard, there was another infantry battalion with an anit-tank company." Reynolds, Sons of the Reich, p. 87

[Just after mentioning the order to advance on the hill on Saturday] "No reserves came through, and the 1,800 men on the top of Hill 262 were already short of food, water ......" Dallas, 1945: The War That Never Ended, p. 158 (i dont have the book on the google books online one and have scanned though but there is no casualty info)

• Any ideas about what we should do about the wide variation in casualty numbers you've highlighted?

"The Poles lost 351 men killed and wounded ... during the bitter fighter on Maczuga". Reynolds, Steel Inferno, p. 280

"Polish losses in the struggle to close the gap, calculated at 1,441 - including 466 killed in action - offer some indication of the intensity of the battle" Copp, Fields of Fire, p. 249 - quoting from Operational Report, 1st Polish Armoured Division, p. 15

To make a logical assumption i believe the variation is simpley Copp is stating the losses the division suffered during the entire operation i.e. at Chambois, at the Mace, during their advance etc whereas Reynolds as the particular for just the Mace.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! The Dillon figures for the German casualties seem rather high - McGivray puts them much lower. I think we should probably use McGilvray's estimate, as the Dillon figures are from 1946 and no doubt subject to some post-war... exaggeration :) EyeSerene^talk 09:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Actually, I've been through and removed the Dillon stuff for now. If we think it was useful, I have no objection to putting it back in. EyeSerene^talk 10:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved section

== Legacy == In 1965, on the battle's 20th anniversary, a monument to the Polish dead was erected on Hill 262. The Mémorial de Coudehard – Montormel museum was constructed on the same site in 1994, to mark the battle's 50th anniversary.

Stuck this here as the Montormel site has gone dead, so can't verify the refs :( EyeSerene^talk 09:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

References

I've seen the light mace!

Nothing much to do with the article, but I reckon we've been looking at this wrong - the crucial word is "caveman", and something may have been lost in the translation. Imagine an improvised club made from a length of shinbone... click here. The "bulbous heads" are 262N and 262S, and the pass + Mont Ormel village is the 'handle'. EyeSerene^talk 08:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Final copyedit notes

OK, I've been through with McGilvray, who goes into a lot of detail on this episode, and integrated his text with the existing text. Proofreading etc would be very welcome :) I'll leave it for a few days now, then come back to it fresh and undoubtedly make some further prose tweaks. However, I think (hope!) we're basically done. EyeSerene^talk 12:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made a minor change to clarify the role of two Polish units when they are, i think, first mentioned; but on the whole very excellent read.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

polish casualties

more than one source put the polish casualties around 1.500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to name the sources? If it is the online article, that was previously used, it is unreliable; other figures provide total losses for Tractable/Battle of Falaise etc, which move towards your figure. While at the moment, two reliable sources support the figure within the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've come across only one source that mentions casualties exceeding 1,000. Most of the sources I've seen put it at what it is in the infobox. When it comes to casualties, it tends to be history by consensus. Cam ^(Chat) 22:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Although not used as a source for that bit in the article, Hastings' figures are also in line with the infobox too. EyeSerene^talk 07:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Times

Finally finished that book, and then put it at the back of my bookshelf while I desperately looked for an easier read! Not really much I can add after everyone else's comprehensive expansion, but I have one query to make. Lucas and Barker claim that the Polish attack on the 19th started at 10:00hrs and their first salvo on the German column upon reaching the summit of the Mace was at 12:45hrs. At the moment the article says they set off in the afternoon. Noting the conversation above about the order in which objectives were seized, does anyone have anything different in their sources, or shall I edit this in? Ranger Steve (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

McGilvray (p. 46) states that the 1st Tank Regt and two companies of the Podhalian Inf Btn took 262N on 19th (no time specified). However, he goes on to say that the Podhalians captured about a company's worth of demoralised prisoners and 1st tank were able to pick their way unmolested to the summit up a single file track, where at 12:40 they shelled a number of columns passing between the peaks for about 30 mins. The nearest, of armoured cars, was destroyed; the others, of mixed tanks/88s/artillery/nebelwerfers, took damage and (p. 47) fired back but to little effect. 3rd Sqdn 1st Tank ran out of ammunition, smoke completely obscured the pass, and the bombardment finally stopped when Germans with white flags emerged from the smoke. EyeSerene^talk 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks EyeSerene. The book has just moved to another apartment at the mo (moving house), but I'll let you know what it says in a few days. From memory it roughly corroborates what your sources say (I seem to recall it also mentions a cloudburst obscuring the fighting), although I'll have to check the units. I just added the ones my source mentioned, do you think they are the same as the one your source describes (ie Podhalian = Polish Highland, 1st Tank = 1st Armoured)? Ranger Steve (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they're the same. McGilvray uses Podhalian/1st Tank consistently where other sources use Polish Highland/1st Armoured. EyeSerene^talk 08:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Finally sorted out my bookshelves. I've made a tentative edit to incorporate the time the Poles reach the summit (seems relevant to the article), but I'm a bit stuck on two things. I assume then that the Polish Highland Battalion would have been part of Zgorzelski's battlegroup, but I don't want to add them to the list as I don't have that as a ref. Secondly, the Polish Highland Brigade is mentioned in the following para... Who are they? Ranger Steve (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your additions - looks good :) As for the other:

• The Podhalian/Polish Highland are definitely the same unit; Podhale is a highland region of Poland. Polish sources seem to prefer "Polish (Podhalian Highland) Light Infantry".
• There was a Podhalian Rifle Brigade (also called the Polish Independent Highland Brigade), but this was raised in France in early 1940 for use in the Winter War in Finland; the brigade fought at Narvik, got caught up in the collapse of France, and those remnants that reached the UK were reformed as the Polish (Podhalian Highland) Light Infantry Battalion.
• In 1944 the 1st Polish Armoured Division's 3rd Polish Rifle Brigade (or 3rd Polish Infantry Brigade depending where one looks) consisted of the Batalion Strzelców Podhalańskich (Polish (Podhalian Highland) Light Infantry Battalion), the 8th Batalion Strzelców Brabanckich (8th Polish Light Infantry Battalion), and the 9th Batalion Strzelców Flandryjskich (9th Polish Light Infantry Battalion), plus HQ and machinegun companies.

So... "brigade" looks like an error to me, albeit an understandable one :) EyeSerene^talk 09:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Article name

As a quick, and possibly not very helpful, comment, should this article be named 'Battle of Hill 262' or similar? I followed the link thinking that the article would be about the geographic feature and was a bit surprised to find that it's about a fairly short, but intense, battle. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your probably right; however do we need to worry about sources specfically calling it such (probably not hard to come by but i dont recall anything atm)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Tricky one. You have a good point Nick, but like Enigma says, I'm not sure I've ever seen it referred to as a battle (probably because it was a small element of a much wider battle (interesting Falaise Gap isn't called a battle either!)). The Hill 262 designation is purely military as well, so in a sense that defines its... erm, nature(?). Ranger Steve (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, hitting the sources: D'Este doesnt specify anything, nor does it seem that Reynolds, Stacey, or Wilmot do either. They describe it more like an action. They are however describing a battle that took place on the hill, the article sources the various names for the area; would it be too muhc liberty to throw "battle of" infront of the current title? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As a comparison, the title of the Polish WP article is "Battle (Bitwa) o Mont Ormel". Just a thought! CZmarlin (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC).

Off topic somewhat, would we be able to pinch some of those photos to support this article towards FAC? I especially like the modern shot.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Re the rename, I've only ever seen the action referred to as Hill 262/Mont Ormel although from a clarity point of view Nick's suggestion makes sense. However, given the context in which we use the link in other articles/navboxes etc it's fairly clear it's a battle, and anyone searching specifically for the article would know something about it anyway and look for Hill 262 or Mont Ormel. I'm honestly not sure one way or the other.

Re the pictures, they are indeed superb but I'm not 100% convinced about the licensing information provided. They look very similar to those on the montormel.org website and the link on the commons pages are dead. If the license holder has relinquished copyright as claimed, shouldn't there be an accompanying OTRS reference? EyeSerene^talk 10:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If copyright was relinquished on the website where the photos were apparently first posted there doesn't necessarily need to have been an ORTS ticket, though this would have been a good idea. Without a ticket the photos aren't usable really as it can't be established that they're PD, if in fact they originally were. Someone who could visit that part of Normandy during a holiday could easily replicate them though ;) (Normandy is high on my to-do list next time I'm in Europe, but that won't be for a while). John Keegan doesn't call this battle anything in particular in his chapter on it in Six Armies in Normandy, though he does refer to a Battle of the Falaise Gap. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

More on the name: McGilvray, who goes into the most detail on this of all the sources I've seen, titles the chapter "Maczuga - Hill 262" and in the introduction to the chapter writes "the Germans ... trickled their way to Mount Ormel, soon to be known as Hill 262 and nicknamed the Maczuga...". EyeSerene^talk 11:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Here are some comments I've got about the article, coming in with what is hopefully a fresh set of eyes and not a lot of knowledge about this specific battle:

• 'Units involved included the 2nd SS, 9th SS, 10th SS, 12th SS, and 116th Panzer Divisions.' - This seems to miss out on at least one divisional remnant, the 352nd.
  • Good point. The note only dealt with armoured divs, so I've clarified it. I'll have to dig around to find the inf div info. EyeSerene^talk 11:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Done this now. EyeSerene^talk 12:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• 'Hill 262 was the location of a bloody engagement' - I don't know - is 'bloody engagement' a little too...not POV, but maybe too journalistic/sensational? Thoughts?
• 'held it until noon on 21 August, contributing greatly to the decisive Allied victory that followed' - I realize I'm stumbling into a big debate here, but was the Falaise Gap a 'decisive' victory? Maybe add a cite to that sentence in the lede?
• Little niggle, but 'The Poles were relieved by the Canadians shortly after noon' - since you haven't specified a Canadian unit/division specifically, change to 'Canadian forces' or the specific division/army?
  • Specified the unit. EyeSerene^talk 11:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• 'expended many of its remaining combat-effective formations in futile counterattacks.' - Does Williams call them 'futile counterattacks' specifically? 'Futile' might be true, but do we have a source for that?
  • Not sure if Williams uses that word, but I believe the linked article and the thrust of Williams' text supports it. I know at least one source uses "suicidal", so if you think a direct cite is necessary I could find something similar. EyeSerene^talk 11:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Mmmm, I'm not really sure. Might as well leave it to the FAC and see what other people think. Skinny87 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• 'Sensing the opportunity to inflict a decisive defeat, at Bradley's urging the Allied ground forces commander General Bernard Montgomery sanctioned General George Patton's United States Third Army to swing north towards the town of Falaise' - Got a citationneeded tag here - I assume it's over the Bradley/Montgomery riddle of who ordered the advance. Can this be resolved, possibly with a footnote listing the various views?
  • Cited EyeSerene^talk 11:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• 'Although the arms of the encirclement were now in contact, the Allies were not yet astride Seventh Army's escape route in any great strength and their positions came under frenzied assault.' - Again, is 'frenzied' the exact quote? It seems a little sensationalist.
• Minor point, but 'Point 137, near Coudehard, fell just after 15:30, yielding a large haul of prisoners.' Do we have a number for the prisoners?
  • We do not, its near enough a bob on quote from the book (fixed the page ref as well)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll take a look at McGilvray - he may have something (I have the feeling I read somewhere it was about a company's worth, but I'm probably mixing it up with another action). EyeSerene^talk 22:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    • McGilvray doesn't specify either - the company's worth referred to the prisoners taken by the Polish Highlanders in the initial assault on Hill 262N. EyeSerene^talk 08:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• 'At around 17:00 Lieutenant-Colonel Koszutski's battlegroup, consisting of the 2nd Armoured Regiment and the 8th Infantry Battalion, arrived at the mace' - Does the mace need to be capitalized as The Mace, or the Mace?
  • Reworded EyeSerene^talk 22:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• 'However, they managed to retain their grip on Point 262N, and with well-coordinated artillery fire continued to exact a deadly toll on German units traversing the corridor' - 'Deadly' again seems rather sensationalist; can't we just have 'heavy'?
• A good map of 262 and the surrounding areas (239, 262S and 262N) would be really helpful to the reader.
  • Absolutely agree - it's one of the things on my to-do list :) EyeSerene^talk 22:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Check out some of the sections up top they contain links to some maps; i can also take a few snaps from my sources iirc Copp has a good one of the area.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Perhaps I'm missing something, but after the initial attempt on 20 August to take 262S was rebuffed due to resistance and wreckage, why didn't the Poles try again?
  • I don't believe anything I've got actually mentions this idea again (though I'll double check). Obviously there were masses of German troops descending on the area from both inside and outside the pocket, so I'd guess the Poles didn't have the strength (or ammunition for that matter) to try again. I can't support that with a source though. EyeSerene^talk 22:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• 'This "suicidal" assault' - Since this seems to be a quite, a direct citation would be handy.
• Legacy section is tiny and perhaps best added to Aftermath section, and the sooner the Popular Culture section is burnt and salted the better. In fact, I'll do that now.

Good article, prose needs a little damping down in its ardour, and one major cite needed, but otherwise would seem well on its way to FAC. Skinny87 (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this Skinny! I'll go through your points later, but as an initial response I can only agree that the Pop culture section should be nuked (it was on my to-do list). Re the prose, after feedback from other FACs (mainly Battle of Villers-Bocage) I've been experimenting with spicing up prose a little. Compare the opening parts of the Background section here (failed FAC) and here (passed). Personally I prefer livelier prose, but I take your points. It's a difficult balance to strike :) EyeSerene^talk 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, lively is a good description. It's a minor thing really, it certainly doesn't seem like a POV, and I wouldn't oppose at an FAC due to it existing, for example. I think the only major thing really is that Montgomery/Bradley citation. Skinny87 (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well we all know FAC is a bit of a lottery sometimes, depending on who reviews... It would be no great surprise if we get opposes next time around because the prose is too lively :) Thanks for your reminder about the cite - I added the text yesterday and left that there to remind myself to cite it, but then forgot. I'll do it tomorrow. EyeSerene^talk 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: added four maps to the article - the image sizes and captions need some tweaking but I don't have the time to do that now... EyeSerene^talk 18:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work, great maps i think they really highlight the situation especially the last two: how the "closure" of the pocket was so tentative (think that is the right word) and then how it had been squeesed tighter but obviously highlights the post war bickering about who could have done more to seal it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Enigma :) I've got some minor corrections/fixes to make so new versions will be up tonight. Is there any chance you could add the source for the images you provided to the maps on Commons? I took information from about five different sources including those, so I need to add some too. The last map illustrates the so-called "corridor of death" quite nicely (though I don't think we mention it in the article). I'd also like to expand on the closure controversy at some point, but I suppose the place to do that would be the main Falaise pocket article. Blumenson has a good discussion of the stop order controversy. EyeSerene^talk 09:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all points! I will add the book details in a little on :)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Loszutski

The article mentions "Loszutski's battlegroup". This is likely a typo, I cannot find such a name anywhere in Google Books, and Google mostly shows wiki mirrors. As this article does not use Google Book pagelinks, I don't have time to quickly check the sources, but this needs to be fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Damn damn damn. You're right, it should be Koszutski... I'll have to correct the maps too :( Thanks for the catch though. EyeSerene^talk 11:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I was checking the article for Polish project/taskforce. Everything else Poland-related seems fine :) Good article, thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Three or Four battlegroups?

Just noting here (to myself and anyone else who's interested!) that further work is needed on resolving some inconsistencies re the battlegroups and who went where/did what. There seems to have been four battlegroups formed at some point, backing up Jarymowycz, though only three may have taken part in the action around Hill 262. Resolving this is a priority as soon as I can pull the sources together again :) EyeSerene^talk 10:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If no one has been able to provide the info, i should be able to but not until the latter part of next month when i can consult my sources. toodlesEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) It seems from at least one source there were four battlegroups:

• 1st Polish Armd Div (Maczek)

• Div HQ
• Div assets grouped with HQ (1st & 2nd Polish Motorised Arty Regts, 1st Polish Lt AA Regt, 1st Polish Eng Btn)
• 10th Polish Armd Cav Bde Gp (Majiewski)

• HQ
• Zgorelski's Battlegroup

• 10th Polish Dragoon Regt (Motor Btn) (Zgorelski commanding group)
• 24th Polish Lancer Regt (Kanski)

• 10th Polish Mtd Rifle Regt (Armd recce) (Maciejowski)

• 3rd Polish Rifle Bde Gp (Wieronski)

• HQ
• Stefanowicz's Battlegroup

• 1st Polish Arm Regt (Stefanowicz commanding group)
• Two coys of 1st Polish (Podhalian) Rifle Btn (Complak)

• Szydlowski's Battlegroup

• 9th Polish Rifle Btn (Szydlowski commanding group)
• 1st Polish (Podhalian) Rifle Btn (minus two coys) (Complak)

• Koszutski's Battlegroup

• 2nd Polish Armd Regt (Koszutski commanding group)
• 8th Polish Rifle Btn

It may be that Zgorelski's group made for Chambois while the others went for Hill 262 (or it may be that it wasn't involved at all). Tbh I'm confused. Part of the problem is that sources such as McGilvray don't refer to the battlegroups per se, but to "10PSK" etc. Others refer to the regiments as brigades (see #Times above), and still others use variations on the Polish unit name, the English equivalent, mixtures of the two, or just refer to the commanders. I've tried to be consistent in the article by sticking to the battlegroup nomenclature, but sometimes this is almost guesswork from the sources and it doesn't help that they seem to split up at various times. The article text also doesn't gel with the maps in places (Koszutski should be at the ridge, not in Chambois). Obviously further work is needed...

Great to see you around again btw! Best, EyeSerene^talk 09:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the above comes from [1], which is a wargaming site. The orbat seems well-researched and the author gives his sources but I'm not sure how WP:RS it is. EyeSerene^talk 09:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I will be honest, i forgot about this lol. Okay. Nice order of battle provided via that site although i agree, can we use it? The sources i have seem conflicted on the number of battlegroups in operations and were they are too! I will post a few messages around various members of the task force see if anyone has any more luck digging up info.

Copp

Copp, p. 238 "Maczek decicded to send the Koszutski battlegroup (2nd tank regiment, 8th Rifle regiment, and 1st Anti-Tank battery) to Chambois while the balance of the division occupied the high ground Coudehard - Mount Ormel ... "

Copp, p. 240 "...18 August ... Maczek reported that the Koszutski battlegroup had gone astray and ended up at Les Champeaux, 10 kilometres north of Chambois." ... Maczek had sent on of his infantry battalions to assist it. The divisional recce regiment had reached the edge of Chambois but could not enter the town ..."

Copp, p. 241 "... 10th Mounted Rifles were hunkered down a kilometre from Chambois, and the rest of the division was scatered well to the north."

After this, its the Polish Division did this, the Polish Division did that. Not much help was it :P

Reynolds (Steel Inferno)

p. 273 19th August "2030 hours the Koszultski Battlegroup in the les Champeax area had been resupplied and soon after midday ... set off for Point 262 (North). By 1700 hours it had established positions on the north and east sides of the feauture."

p. 274 "Since the Poles on Maczuga were physically cut off from their Divisional and Brigade commanders ..." Division was 8km away and brigade 3km to the west. "Lieutenant Colonel Szydlowski, took command" - looks like we should add him to the commander list?

ibid "By 1900 hours ... Polish 24th Lancers had advanced ... 1500m north-east of Chambois, where they linked up with 10th Mounted Rifles ... and two M-10 anti-tank companies ... had in the meantime reached the area of Point 113, 1km north of Chambois. The most dramatic move on the 19th , however, came at 1930 hours when the Polish 10th Dragoons (motorized infantry battalion), after moving south from Point 137, entered Chambois ..."

lol i hope am helping and not confusing matters further!

Buckley

P.15 : "Instead of keeping the armoured brigade regiments effectively separate from the battalions of the infantry brigade, as War Office doctrine and training dictated, the GOC of 11th Armoured Division balanced one tank regiment with an infantry battalion to provide improved co-ordination.15 In the close terrain of Normandy, mutual support was essential. The Guards Armoured Division followed suit, as did the Polish 1st Armoured Division.16" P.43 : "However, although the Germans were still offering resistance, their flanks were open and Simonds unleashed 4th Canadian and 1st Polish Armoured Divisions to the east and ultimately to close the Falaise Pocket at Trun and Chambois. Maczek’s Poles demonstrated considerable flexibility in this role, reorganising into four battlegroups akin to the model adopted by Roberts and Adair for Bluecoat."

Stacey

To confuse matters further:

p.262: "Through this considerable numbers of Germans continued to escape, often only to collide with the Polish battle-groups to the north-east. The Poles were now disposed in three main groups: the 2nd Armoured Regiment group at Hill 240, a mile east of Ecorches; a second group on the dominant feature above Coudehard formed by Hills 252 and 262, called by the Poles, from its

shape on the map, "Maczuga" (mace); and a third at and north of Chambois.182" The source being the "Operational Report, 1st Polish Armoured Division, 12-22 Aug 44."

Sources checked but have no info

D'Este, Ellis, Beevor (nothing that hasnt been covered above) sitto for Wilmot.

Illustrative maps have inaccuracies

Illustrative maps have inaccuracies. Loszutski BG should read Zgorzelski battle group consisting of 10th Dragoons (Mounted Rifles - 10 PSK) and 24th Lancers who were tasked to link up with the Americans in Chambois which they did around 18:00 on the 19th August. Zgorselski group shown on hill 262N should read Stafanowicz battle group comprising 1st Armoured Regiment (Tank) and elements of the of 1st Polish Podhalian (Highland) Rifle Battalion. This battle group reached hill 262N first around 12:40 19th August. Koszutskis Battle group consisting of 2nd Armoured Regiment (Tank) and 8th Infantry Battalion reached hill 262N around 17:50. Finally Szydlowski battle group consisting of 9th Infantry Brigade and the rest of 1st Polish Podhalian Rifle Battalion arrived at 19:30. Not forgetting to mention that each of the battle groups had elements of artillery, anti-tank and anti-aircraft brigades. Ref Falaise Pocket Paul Latawski P142 There is no officer by the name of Loszutski in the Polish 1st Armoured Division. Ref: Obsada personalna 1 Dywizji Pancernej na przełomie sierpnia i września 1944 r.

Seriously this article ought to be removed until the serious errors are corrected. A typo error of Koszutski to Loszutski and in the wrong place and the omission of Stefanowicz from the maps is amateur in the extreme.

Also you will find very specific and definitive detail in book "Polska 1. Dywizja Pancerna w Normandii" by Kutzner & Tym written in Polish - details to squadron level where everyone was with times and map/hill references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeMarczak (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Three Hills 262N, 252 "Maczuga" and Hill 262S

When talking about hill 262 you begin to realise there are in fact references to three hills. Hill 252 the first hill to be occupied by Stefanowski's 1st Armoured Regiment and the location of the Mont Ormel "Maczuga" monument and museum. Squadrons 1&2 of the 1st Armoured Regiment occupied hill 252 and at 12:40 on the 19th August let rip on the German retreat along the Chambois to Vimoutiers road. The 3rd Squadron 1st Armoured Regiment was in the region of hill 262N. Hill 262N is between the monument and Boisjois Manor "Zamaczek". The 2nd Armoured Regiment arrived some 5 hours later and located to the region close to Boisjois Hill 262S just north of Frenee was a target but never occupied - immovable wreckage of German tanks, trucks along the Chambois to Vimoutiers road, added to the smoke of burning war material which was so dense and impenetrable that visibility was reduced to nil making it impossible to get to the other side and hill 262S.

Be really be nice if someone could correct the regimental inaccuracies in the article and the maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeMarczak (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hill 262. 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/20080912012732/http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf to http://www.dnd.ca/dhh/collections/books/files/books/Victory_e.pdf

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) 23:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hill 262. 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/20110723030810/http://www.archivesnormandie39-45.org/specificPhoto.php?ref=p011192 to http://www.archivesnormandie39-45.org/specificPhoto.php?ref=p011192
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724212215/http://www.memorial-montormel.org/?id=73 to http://www.memorial-montormel.org/?id=73
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724212145/http://www.memorial-montormel.org/?id=97 to http://www.memorial-montormel.org/?id=97
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724211833/http://www.memorial-montormel.org/?id=60 to http://www.memorial-montormel.org/?id=60

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) 02:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Retitling the article

This article is entitled Hill 262. While, for those seeking to locate this article's contents, it is likely not difficult to understand that this article is about the Battle of Hill 262. However, as most articles on the battles that occurred in a specific place are named Battle of SuchAndSuch, it would seem appropriate that this article be similarly named. So, it is my proposition that this article (since it is not about Hill 262 but rather the battle relevant to the heights so-named) be renamed Battle of Hill 262. In keeping with Wikipedia's general decorum with moves, I wanted to post this on the talk page and see if there were objections before I made the switch. Anticipate that the change will occur in two weeks time if no complaints are raised and I fully understand if after the fact there are those who find the move disagreeable and revert it back. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Announcing my final intentions to make good on my threat to move the page. Speak now (or within 24 hours of the UTC time of this post) or forever keep your peace (or suitably move the page back as you deem fit–it doesn't really matter). ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Object, due to rude behaviour of the proposer. The Banner talk 09:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry my attempt at a sense of levity wasn't picked up, The Banner. Attempting to bring some Bond villain-esque humor was my intention, considering the conversation of moving an article is generally a dry one. If your objection is also relevant to naming conventions regarding conflicts and battles, feel free to make the case. As of right now, this article seems to need moving and I'll hold it for another day if you want to bring up some other concerns. Otherwise, I still think the move ought to happen. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Polish execution of German prisoners

Stephen E. Ambrose, Citizen Soldiers: The U. S. Army from the Normandy Beaches to the Bulge to the Surrender of Germany, page 105 has the following:

"Over the next couple of days, Waters wrote "the Germans attacked with all the fury they they could bring to bear, fueled by their desperation to escape." Others were trying to surrender, many of them successfully. Too many, in fact. Neither the Poles nor the Americans had facilities to deal with them. Waters established a POW pen in Chambois, but it was badly overcrowded. Still, one morning a Polish captain brought in some 200 additional POWs to turn over to the Americans.

Polish captain: "Here are your prisoners"

Waters: "I don't want them."

Polish captain: "But I must leave them with you.Those are my orders".

Waters: "I still don't want them. Get them out of here". (Waters orders were to accept them, but he had been told to expect 1500; in fact there were only couple of hundred.)

Polish captain: "But I must still leave them with you."

Waters: "Well, you were supposed to have 1500 prisoners. Where are they?"

Polish captain: "They are dead. We shoot them. These are all that are left".

Waters: "Then why don't you shoot these too?" A pause, then Waters corrected himself: "No, you can't do that."

Polish captain: "Oh, yes we can. They shot my countryman." He took Waters by the arm and escorted him away from the others. Then he said "Captain, we can't shoot them. We are out of ammunition."

--Chumchum7 (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)