Talk:Operation Varsity

Largest in history

Operation Varsity was not the largest airborne operation in history. The largest airborne operaion was operation MARKET GARDEN. It took place in the fall of 1944. It involved three divisions: The US 82nd and 101st Airbone divisions, and the British 1st Airborne Division, reinforced by Poles. (Band of Brothers, Stephen E. Ambrose) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackroyfan (talk • contribs) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Varsity was the largest single airborne operation. Market Garden was three geographically distinct drop zones; for a similar reason, the jump into Normandy isn't the single largest, because the forces were also split apart geographically. Hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Article

I intend to make this article a Good Article, but it will require a lot of work. If whoever edited this article previously could tell me where they found the quote from the US Military Academy which stated that Varsity was the ideal airborne operation, I would be very greatful. Skinny87 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Added in {{Fact}} tags to make it easier for me to see where I need to add citations and begin rewriting the article. Skinny87 (talk) 10:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

This is a list of improvements the article needs. Editors are welcome to add or detract from them!

1. Order of Battle - Is it required? It looks messy right now and I'm unsure how to add to it or clear it up
2. Battle Section - Needs expanding quite a bit. Can't do much until I get to my books back home
3. Casualties - Need citations in the Infobox
4. Pictures - No pictures as of yet, not sure where to find any.

Skinny87 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

From Major Ellis, British Official Campaign history

Pg 291

Places 6th Airborne losses by nightfall at around 1,400 men dead wounded or captured out of the 7,220 who were landed. Ellis notes that these losses were lighter then expected.

He also states "-but a quarter if the glider pilots were casualties" unsure if he means out of the total of 1,400 men or not.

The Division claimed around 1,500 POWs.

17th Airborne, Ellis same page states they landed 9,650 men, incurred about 1,300 casualties and took around 2000 POWs.

Ellis also claims 21 transporters out of the 114 involved (think he means 17th airborne only) shot down and 59 damaged. 16 bombers from the 8th Airforce flying supplies also brought down.

Page 292

states that on the 24th 56 aircraft was lost in total.

Page 294

17th Airborne suffered from the 24th-29th March 1,346 casualties--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Enigma - Does Ellis state how many casualties 6th Airborne took between the 24th and the 29th, so I can add that to the Post-Battle section? Skinny87 (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just checked the OH again, Ellis doesnt mention anything else on casualties sorry--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Glider Pilots

I have just read somewhere on the net , that a lot of the Glider Pilots were R.A.F. pilots on secondment to make up for the casualties to the Regiments during Market Garden , this may account for the high casualty rate as they I presume would not have been Infantry trained . I am having problems relocating the article but I am sure the search was "Glider Pilot Regiment" JS1 (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Ellis backs this up, ill double check again tonight to see if i can confirm.

Peer Review Request

I noticed the peer review request on the Military History main-project page. Since I've got quite a bit of feedback (most of it good), so I'm going to use the talk page of the article instead. I've skimmed through the article and fixed a few minor niggles (adding a "br" command in the infobox for casualty statistics, etc). Anyways:

• I'm not entirely satisfied by the Citation Density in certain sections, particularly "Background" and "Aftermath".  Done
• I think you need to expand the "Battle" section. You've done a great job of explaining the background and Aftermath (almost too good on the aftermath, which I'm getting to), but very little when explaining the actual battle.  Done
• I've reformatted the last ref on the "Bibliography" section with WP:CITET templates. I'd also suggest finding the ISBN #s for all of the books sourced. If you need assistance with this, feel free to message me on My Talk Page.  Done Skinny87 (talk)
• I think the lead warrants some expansion.  Done
• This article would benefit from the addition of some images, maps, etc. It's generally difficult to read massive blocks of text without losing track and becoming somewhat bogged down by it. In addition, you've got a lot of quotes within the article's text. I'd suggest taking these out of the main sections, and putting them in a quotebox. I've pasted the template for a Quotebox at the bottom of this section.  Done (Quotes, not Images/Maps as of yet) Skinny87 (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• I think that the aftermath needs to be split up. In all honesty, that section is huge. I've been editing wikipedia for over a year, and I have yet to see an "aftermath" section that was that big with a continuous text. Although it may benefit from images (see above), I think that the aftermath would benefit from being split into several subsections to allow for more flow.  Done (I think) Skinny87 (talk)
• Last (for now), I think that the order of battle should be incorporated into the text itself. However, if you're unable to find the OOB for German forces, I'd just scrap it altogether.  Done

You've done a very good job on this article in the last three days. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)  Done (Allied OoB scrapped and edited into text, German OoB all but done) Skinny87 (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC) If you have further questions, or would like assistance with any of the suggestions above, feel free to contact me.

Feel free to use this template. Just copy your quote into this section

And add your source here.

I've been helping Skinny87 here and there with this article, and we are trying to find some good images that can go in the text. We've only found a few thus far, but they have uncertain copyright status, so they're a no-go at this point. I have emailed the Fort Bragg historian, who may be able to provide us with some PD photos or maps. We'll have to wait and see on that aspect though. I've got some good books, but unfortunately, all the photos they have are of the amphibious crossing of the Rhine, none of the airborne forces. Parsecboy (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks everyone, this is so great! I can use all of this information and criticism to improve the article, and thank-you for the prompt responses! Skinny87 (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There are three citations labeled "Ibid", which books did these come from? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be the book directly above them. Also, does Ellis mention any 6th Airborne casualties between the 24th and 29th like he does for the 17th Airborne? Skinny87 (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought so, was just checking just in case. I dont recall Ellis stating the losses past the first day for the 6th Airborne like he did for the 17th. I will check once am home though, am at work bored lol--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in the same position really - can't get a hold of any of my books until Thursday. Skinny87 (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference 13 needs to stay as 'Ellis' otherwise it looks like it came from Harclerode, when it didn't. Ibid is only used when a book has been used and a citation from the same book is used after it but before a completely new book. Skinny87 (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew this would happen. When you edit, move, add, merge or simplfy new citations the order gets shifted around.
Is "Ibid, p. 564" from Harclerode? Do you know where the other two are the same?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is why the use of these terms (ibid, op cit and so on) is deprecated - see WP:FN. David Underdown (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Order of Battle

Allied OoB

Units

• US XVIII Airborne Corps
  • British 6th Airborne Division
    • 6 Parachute Battalions, 5 British, 1 Canadian
    • Air Landing Brigade
  • US 17th Airborne Division
    • 6 parachute battalions

Aircraft

• C-47 Skytrain ("Dakota"): 540
• C-46 Commando: 72
• Gliders: 1,300
  • Airspeed Horsa :392
  • General Aircraft Hamilcar: 14
  • Waco/Hadrian

Just saving this here for future reference. I've scrapped it altogether in the article and I'll start adding in the actual numbers and units into the 'Battle' section. Skinny87 (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions about some of the text

The best German formation the Allied airborne troops would face was the First Parachute Army, although even this elite division had been weakened from the losses it had sustained in earlier fighting, particularly when it had engaged Allied forces in the Reichswald Forest in February.

-From the last paragraph from the Background section. Highlighted section being the problem.

I havent edited it out just yet as am unsure ... first, the army was presumably made up of several divisions and second which division is the elite part referring too (as i seriously doubt the entire army was)?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My fault, I meant 'formation' and I've changed it now. Skinny87 (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt worry too much about it :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

---

were transported in 836 C-47 Dakota transports, 72 C-46 Commando transports, and more than 900 Waco CG-4A gliders. The 6th Airborne Division consisted of some 8,000 personnel transported by 42 Douglas C-54 and 752 Douglas C-47 transport aircraft,

I have removed the link from "Douglas C-47" in the article as it linked to the same article as the "C-47 Dakota" did. However my question is, are these the same aircraft or are they different models/versions of the basic C-47?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

They're the exact same aircraft. Douglas is just the manufacturer, while Dakota is what the Brits called them. They were Skytrains in American service, but most people know them by the British name. Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

lol thanks ... am no good when it comes to planes! Should both terms be used within the article then, i.e. 6th airborne using C-47 Dakotas and the 17th airborne with C-47 Skytrains? Or just pick one and stick with it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We should probably just stick with Dakota, as using both might confuse the average reader, and most probably wouldn't recognize Skytrain. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

B-Class & Thanks

I would like to take a moment to say thank-you to all the editors who helped me bring this article up to B-Class status. It is very much appreciated. Here's hoping we can get it to GA status! Skinny87 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I have nominated the article for Good Article Status, as I believe it has a fair chance of becoming a GA Article. As a note to whoever reviews this article, please note that no pictures or images can be added until the Imperial War Museum fixes the technical problems it is having with its online collection system. The only images of Operation Varsity that can be ratified/verified are on this site, but the website is currently unavailable, having been allowed to expire by the IWM. Skinny87 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Images aren't a requirement for GA. If any of the editors/reviewers give you heck about this, let me know. We've been encountering this problem for some time (editors who think images are a requirement). Now, if you were to go for FA, then you would require images, maps, & diagrams. However, GA doesn't need that. Just a note. Good luck with the nomination! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I know its not a requirment but i think a map of the drop zones/battle area would be an excellent addition, is there not one laying around anywhere?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of maps, I've just come across this one, which I just uploaded: Image:Operation Varsity map.JPG. It's not the best map, but it does show the general area, and it's public domain, so that's always a plus. If and when we find better ones, it can always be replaced. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone could add that image to the article, I'd be very greatful. I'm working on adding/uploading some images at the moment Skinny87 (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found several suitable images, by searching 'Operation Varsity' on this site IWM, but I have no experience uploading the images or with copyright. I believe the images there can be used, referring to the boilerplate/copyright info on the image located [[1]], but I have no idea how to upload them. If someone else could, I would be extremely greatful. Skinny87 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

GA-On Hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I am going to have to put this article on hold. It is well written, but the references need to be put into the correct format, and there are very few images to illustrate it, save a few maps. I'd suggest getting possibly pictures of the battlefield, and any other pictures you may find. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 13:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the reference format? The approach used in this article is fairly standard, with brief details given in the notes, and then full information given in the references section (using the standard cite templates).

What exactly is the correct format, the way they have been done is the same why they are dozens of articles. Am somewhat confused.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Use the CiteWeb format, and cite all of it. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 13:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Am sorry but am really confused, the referances are all using the cite book which seems approbirate, where and what is the exact problem? :S--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the reviewer is referring to the unformatted internet sources, ref 2, 5 and 20. Please see Template:Cite web for examples of how to use the correct format. Also, note to the reviewer: images are not required for Good Articles, but this article does include two, both of which are in the public domain. As it stands now, both images are correctly tagged and the captions are suitable, so it does not fail criteria 6. María (habla conmigo) 14:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Geez, what part of GA's DON'T REQUIRE IMAGES do they NOT UNDERSTAND????? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to clean the references up but I must've done something wrong. Perhaps someone else could cite them in the proper way? Skinny87 (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed your previous try so you can use it as an example; the <ref name=""> tag just got in the way. It should be:
<ref>{{citeweb template}}</ref> or <ref name="whatever">{{citeweb template}}</ref>. María (habla conmigo) 16:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh, thanks! I'll get onto that in a little while. Skinny87 (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, they're all done. That should be the last thing in the way of achieving GA status. Skinny87 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Passing GA-ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 20:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not bad going guys, it was only what 15 days tops from Skinny stating this was his intention and for it to be realised :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw cheers María for showing how to do those cite templates when citing sources, will come in handy for a few other articles am working on.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A few points

I hadn't read the article since its expansion, so I have a couple of comments.

"The operation is notable for being the last Allied airborne operation of the conflict"

This needs serious qualification (well, serious to me). Allied as in joint-nationality operation or Allied as in United Nations? Conflict as in World War II or conflict as in European Theatre of Operations? There was a parachute assault on Rangoon on 1 May, 1945.

How would 'last major/large-scale Allied airborne operation of the conflict?' sound? Skinny87 (talk)

Edited to read 'large-scale' Skinny87 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the need for a "Post-War Criticisms" section, however the first part of the section is not very persuasive.

"…one historian, Barry Gregory, wrote frankly that ‘Operation “Varsity” was not entirely necessary...’ Thus it can be said…" First off, one historian is hardly a consensus, and someone might want to add whichever book Gregory wrote that in to the References, where it is notably absent. I thought that such structures as "Thus it can be said", or "It is arguable that" were frowned upon in Wikipedia anyway.

Can you point me to where such a policy says that? If it does I'll remove and rewrite those references. I'll add in Gregory's book immediately, as I can't believe I missed that! As to Gregory being a consensus, I didn't think it had been written that way, but let me take a look. Skinny87 (talk)

The earlier reference to "some historians who have analysed the campaign" surely needs to be expanded. I'm sure this'll go down badly, but can a better source be found than Max Hastings? The quote in the box reads just like a piece from an editorial he might have written as a newspaper editor - an over-dramatic blurb.

Perhaps a tad overdramatic, but I don't see what's wrong with Hastings, even if he is a tad populist. I did try and balance the criticism with a positive quote box. Skinny87 (talk)

The part about aircraft and the criticism of the C-46. There were of course many problems with that aircraft - however it was most definitely NOT a new aircraft in 1945. New in theatre perhaps, but this ought to be qualified.

I'll qualify it immediately, good catch! Skinny87 (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are my beefs with this article as it stands. I'm sure they are refutable, but I see that this article is headed for FA one day so I'd like to see it as accurate as possible. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk|library)

Righto, I think I've addressed all your points. I've removed Hastings as the positive quotebox I thought was there isn't (blame me not ooking at the article for a few weeks!), I qualified the first and last points, and got rid of the bits about 'Thus it can bed said' and so forth - looks shorter but much better now. I'll try and add in Gregory's book as soon as possible - I have it, but I'm not at home where the books is at the moment! I hope that's everything, but any more comments would be more than appreciated, thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

And in fact I've managed to find Gregory and added it in to the References Section! Skinny87 (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick response! The part about wording - to me at any rate it read like the editor of the article was making the argument rather than the historians, hence my comment. Thanks for addressing everything else, it all sounds fine. Cheers, --Harlsbottom (talk|library)

Safekeeping

'Operation Varsity was a folly for which more than a thousand men paid for with their lives...'

British Historian Max Hastings, Armageddon - The Battle For Germany 1944-45

"Forward on Wings of Flame to final victory"

The British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote these words in the autograph book of Field-Marshal Montgomery after witnessing Operation Varsity

References

"Largest in history"?

The last line of the intro formerly said this:

The operation was the last large-scale Allied airborne operation of World War II, and was the largest in history.[5]

I removed "and was the largest in history"; Operation Market Garden says it was. Tempshill (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well, as Parsecboy pointed out, it was the single largest single-drop operation. I believe that the fact should be acknowledged, especially as the intro on the front page implies that Varsity was the largest in history, which would get users confused with Operation Market Garden. Sandy of the CSARs (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically Varsity was, as the drops during Market Garden should be regarded as three single-division drops made seperately, whilst Varsity deployed two divisions in the same geographical area. Skinny87 (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how you define it, and in the articles, Market Garden is defined as the biggest, while Varsity is defined as the biggest single-drop. This makes the main page and the articles be inconsistent. That's my worry Awickert (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Put {{editprotected}}, along with the reason for your request, on the talk page of WP:Today's featured article/March 24, 2009. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've never commented on a front page article, so I wasn't sure where to do it. Awickert (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, given the lack of attention Varsity had until recently, there isn't a great deal of literature making this dinstinction. But can I help at all with any queries? Skinny87 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, my #1 concern was just the consistency: that the main page said Varsity was the biggest, while the Market Garden main page says that it was the biggest, and the Varisty article qualifies it's being the biggest by "single-drop". I didn't see your comment in time, so I already made a note on the talk page of the front page article; perhaps you could leave a comment there? Sorry about the run-around. Awickert (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) Hey, no problem! The Market Garden page is a mess and needs an overhaul, but...ugh, it just gets bogged down in petty bickering. I dropped the ball on the intro, however, I didn't even notice it. Once I get back to my sources next week, I'll try and clarify everything. Skinny87 (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bickering? Ugh, no fun. In any case, this article is great, and thanks for your work on it. Awickert (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Speculation

From the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Aircraft shortages section:

Fortunately the airborne troops that remained were sufficient to overwhelm the defenders, but the presence of the US 13th Airborne Division might well have been crucial if there had been a greater number of defenders present.

Is this true? Probably... but is that sort of speculation appropriate for any encyclopedic article? I'm not a heavy reader of military history articles, so I honestly don't know. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it to be true, but I'm afraid I have to run off to work in a short while. I'll take a more detailed look tonight when I get home and get back to you! Skinny87 (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Blaxthos. I have taken out the non-neutral word "fortunately" and have removed the conjecture which appeared to be unsupported, the speculation that another division would have been critical if the defending forces had been stronger. If we bring such theorizing into the article, we ought to name the theorist(s) who provide us with the idea. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize; when the section was divided into paragraphs, that sentence was cut off from the citation referencing it, which is Devlin. I'm away from my sources at the moment, but I can provide a specific source and possibly rewrite the section by tuesday or so, if that would work for everyone? Skinny87 (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming Devlin as the theorist would work very well. Congratulations for surviving your day 'on the line'! Time for a wee dram, now, eh? Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) Five months later and I remembered this, and added Devlin. Skinny87 (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

casualties

I believe it to be quite inappropriate for an "encyclopedic" article to "only" state the allied casualties. Since people died on both sides, it should be granted to honor the casualties on all sides. [blueskiesrob]

Inappropriate or not if there is no information regarding how many Germans were killed or wounded during this operation in a reliable secondary source what do you expect us to do?

I would suggest that you look around in some very excellent secondary sources and you will soon see that spot on casualty information for both sides can be very hard to come by for quite a few battles so it has nothing to do with an ""encyclopedic" article".

Do you have a source that provides how many Germans were killed or wounded during this operation? Then please add the information otherwise do not insinuate that we have done so out of malice.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid none of my sources listed German casualties, but if the anonymous editor has any, I'd more than welcome their inclusion. Skinny87 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

No mention of the Canadian Victoria Cross? 139.48.25.60 (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Was anyone awarded the commendation during this operation? Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not - I just made it up. ;) 139.48.25.60 (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Frederick George Topham was. I see we already mention 3 Medals of Honor awarded to US troops. I don't know if any other Commonwealth troops received the VC though. David Underdown (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Create a see also section and place a link to him there then?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a mention at an appropriate place in the body text, jsut as the Medals of Honor are mentioned. Having reviewed List of Second World War Victoria Cross recipients, it would appear this was the only VC for the operation. David Underdown (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That looks good to me. But, I do think that it might be useful to collect that information at the end of the article as well. It seems to me that some readers might want to have a quick list of the medals awarded during the battle. Parsecboy (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We could convert Operation Varsity#Battle honours to "Battle honours and decorations". We probably also ought to check out if there were any US unit citations Presidential Unit Citation (United States) suggests there weren't any at that level. David Underdown (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(Od) That's a good idea, David. I apologize for missing out the VC; I wasn't aware any had been won! But this was my first ever article written, so hopefully you'll forgive the errors of an inexperienced (at the time) editor :) Skinny87 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As a point of order, VCs are never "won", they are awarded or bestowed and those who receive them are "recipients" not "winners". Carnival prizes might be won, but the VC is always earned. ;-) Good to see "Toppy" get his due, however. The article flows nicely even with the inclusion of the medal recipients. There is a valid case to be made, by the way, for not including them - a battle is about so much more than the handful of men singled out for valour awards, and one might make the case that the majority were all brave just for being there - but the article reads fine as written in my opinion. Well done.139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actaully even the MOD does talk about VC winners. David Underdown (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actaully (sic) the MOD are not historians.139.48.25.60 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And? They certainly have a pretty good claim to be able to decide "correct" usage of language as relating to British military matters. David Underdown (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wesel

The entry on Wesel says 97 percent of the (small, 1,000-year-old) town was destroyed when it was attacked "with impact and air-burst weapons" on February 16, 17 and 19, and that it was virtually deserted by the time it was occupied by British troops in May 1945 — in other words, a few days before the German capitulation. I suggest that these facts be mentioned in the Operation Varsity article.

Sca (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't remember anything about that in my sources. But if I find anything when I can get back to them, I'll certainly add it in. Skinny87 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Canadian participation

Just to make a note, I'm removing the Canadian flag from the infobox for the moment. I'm more than open to discussion, but my reasoning is thus: the Canadian airborne battalion was not an independent formation, but integrated into 6th Airborne Division, which to me doesn't seem to warrant a Canadian flag. Skinny87 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Where to draw the line? platoon, company, battalion, regiment, division, corps... ? Honest question. I think in this case a battalion is just enough to be a notable component and worthy of inclusion Hohum (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well at Battle of Britain we take the line that all the Commonwealth (and Polish) squadrons were under RAF operational control, and list combatants on the Allied side simply as British. David Underdown (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As suggested on Skinny's talk page i think the BOB is the wrong comparison to make. It quite clear at that point it was a British only force; no other soverign states took part although other nationalities fought in the battle under the British flag.

The more approbriate comparison, imo, is that of the dominion forces under Western Desert Force/XIII Corps and later 8th Army's command.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, or indeed you could also invite comparisons to the units from many countries that were part of the First Canadian Army. I also think the Canadian contribution is notable for the Victoria Cross won by Frederick Topham. McMuff (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be a clear consensus here, so I'll pop the flag back in the infobox - although I don't think it should be called an American-British-Canadian airborne operation as one ip editor keeps trying to introduce. Skinny87 (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that calling it an American-British-Canadian airborne op does seem a bit too much and as you have noted it is not supported by historians. Call it an American-British (ot whatever) and showing the Canadian flag in the infobox seems fine to me.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How about calling it a plain 'Allied' victory? McMuff (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's already called an allied victory, we were discussing the list of belligerents. Hohum (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Largest drop discussion

Operation Varsity is not the largest single-day invasion of all time. In fact, the first initial stage of Market Garden involved nearly 20,000 more Paratroopers than Operation Varsity. And also, the Allied Airborne invasion of Normandy was much larger than the airborne invasion that took place on March 24, 1945. You are falsely stating history, correct your errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvettecrazy262 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering you have stated you are removing incorrect information from the article, the following statement you added seems a tad wrong:

"The largest airborne operation of all time is Operation Market Garden which initially involved over 34,600 Paratroopers. And as such, is also the largest single-day airborne operation in history."

The Market Garden drops were made over a number of days because the men could not be lifted in one drop and iirc they opted not to make mulitple drops on the same day etc For example the Poles dropped towards the end of the operation. So with that said and done do you have a source that claims 34,600 Allied paratroopers were dropped in one day during Market-Garden?

Additonally one would like to know if the 24,000 Allied paratroopers for D-Day includes the glider element brought in later in the day hence would not be a one drop-operation ala Varisty.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Glider troops are still considered airborne infantry. On the first day of Market Garden 34,600 Paratroopers landed in Holland of the American 82nd and 101st Airborne, and the British 1st Airborne comprised of Canadian, Free French, and Free Polish regiments. And even if you do take in account by comparing the number of Airborne Parachutist troops. Market Garden initially involved over 20,000 Parachute troops alone, and 14,000 glider troops. But that shouldn't matter if their "Parachutist" or "Glider" infantry. Their all one in the same, they're all Airborne.

Polish forces did not drop on day one of Operation Market garden however (and what Canadians and Free French?); the allied drop was made over a period of several days so am finding it a little hard to understand how the entire force made the single one-day drop as you claim.

The issue of glider infantry was in regards to 6 June when they made a seperate drop compared to the paras, on the whole. Do you have any sources for your statements?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted back again; Corvettecrazy262, let's finish the discussion here before we go on to edit the article. Awickert (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) Right, now, as the editor who got this to FA and, more importantly, put the claim into the article, I'd like to initially apologize that it isn't cited; I think it was moved about a bit during the FAC and never got a citation added to it. Now, as I've come to understand it, it's rather down to semantics - Normandy had a large number of airborne troops in three divisions, but scattered throughout the area; Market Garden involved a similar number of troops but over several days nstead of one; and Varsity involved two divisions dropping in a single area, only a few hundred metres apart, unlike the previous two operations. It would also seem that, at some point - I'm not sure where or when - the lede was altered; it used to read, I'm sure, that it was the last large-scale airborne operation before the end of the war. I'll immediately look for sources stating Varsity was the largest, or some variation (perhaps most airborne troops in one area over one day etc) but if they can't be found, would an acceptable alternative for all concerned be something like 'Operation Varsity...was the last large-scale [or perhaps 'divisional-sized'] airborne operation during World War II'. Skinny87 (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here we are then. It would seem the lede is indeed slightly misleading. Whatever the 'largest airborne operation' was during WWII can be debated endlessly, but I've found enough evidence in Reliable Sources that Varsity was the largest single drop (or 'life') by airborne forces during the war. I'll list my sources below:

• Devlin, Gerard M., Paratrooper! The Saga of Parachute and Glider Combat Troops during World War II, p. 615. "Thus, the Varsity D Day drop was to be the largest single drop made by either side during the war; larger even than the one made in Holland on D Day of Operation Market-Garden."
• Huston. James A., Out of the Blue: U.S. Army Airborne Operations in World War II, p. 213. "Most striking [about Varsity] was that the entire airborne force would be flown in one lift."
• Smith, Claude., History of the Glider Pilot Regiment, p. 126. "The plan [Varsity] called for the largest single airborne lift ever made..."
• Rawson, Andrew., The Rhine Crossing: 9th US Army & 17th US Airborne, p. 6. "Operation Varsity, 21 Army Group's crossing of the Rhine, rivalled Operation Overlord in size..."; p 17. "The intention was to drop XVIII Airborne Corps to the north of Wesel, enlarging the bridgehead to a depth of six miles at a single stroke."; p. 18
• Saunders, Hilary St. George., The Red Beret: The Story of the Parachute Regiment at War, 1940-1945, p. 299. "The plan for Operation 'Varsity' was based on experience gained at Arnhem and elsewhere, and therefore differed in a marked degree from previous operations of the same type. First, and perhaps most important, the decision was taken to transport all the airborne troops, both those who would land by parachute and those carried in gliders, in a single lift."
• Harclerode, Peter., Wings of War, p. 551. "Unlike at Arnhem, from which several bitter lessons had been learned, the entire airborne forces would be flown in one lift and dropped or landed during daylight on its objectives[...]Varsity would begin at 10.00 a.m. on 24 March with both airborne formations being dropped and landed simultaneously."
• Otway, Lieutenant-Colonel Terence., Airborne Forces, p. 299. "The whole Corps [XVIII Airborne Corps] was to be flown in one lift."
• Flint, Keith., Airborne Armour, p. 150. "The whole Corps would be flown in one lift, and the tactics of dropping and landing the troops at a distance from their objectives was not to be repeated."
• Tugwell, Maurice., "Airborne To Battle", p. 272. "Concentration was to be in time as well as space with the entire assault echelon delivered in one lift as quickly as practical considerations allowed."

I think I have enough evidence above to alter the lede to read some variation of 'Operation Varsity [stuff about American-British, last days of the war etc] was the largest single drop [or lift] made by airborne forces during World War II' although I'd like input on how best to put it. I apologize again for the statement not having sources, and can only state the mitigating factor that this was the first article I ever worked on, nearly two years ago! Skinny87 (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

How about Charles Whiting, Bounce the Rhine, p113: "By eight o clock the two streams, British and American, had rendezvoused just south of Brussels to become the largest singe-day airborne operation of the war", or Hastings, Armageddon, p427: "This was the most ambitous glider operation of the war". Ranger Steve (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Ambrose, Band of Brothers, p244: "Operation Varsity, the largest airborne operation of all time". Ranger Steve (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, the Whiting is an excellent quote, and so is Ambrose. I considered that Hastings one, but 'ambitious glider operation' is a bit ambiguous in this context. Thanks for the quotes, though; hopefully this can be settled quite soon, the lede rewritten and cited, and everyone's happy. Skinny87 (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh I quite agree 'bout the glider bit, was hoping to allay corvettecrazy's concerns about glider and parachute troops above. Incidentally Corvettecrazy, 1st Airborne did not have any Free French or Canadian formations within its division, except some "Canloan" (Canadian officers on loan) and some French officers attached (for operations in France that didn't materialise). The Polish 1st Independent Parachute Brigade was attached, but a separate formation. I don't know the exact figures for Market Garden, but Air Transport could only rustle up enough planes and gliders to transport 16,500 men at a time. So, the delivery of the 3 divisions was staggered over 3 days (although in reality it took 5 days) Ranger Steve (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a referenced sentence concerning this to the Battle section. CorvetteCrazy, please realise that we are not deliberately disagreeing with you for the sake of it, but I think I speak for a lot of the editors here when I say we know what we are talking about. Market Garden was the largest Airborne Operation ever, dropping 3 divisions and one brigade over the course of 7 (off the top of my head, might have been 6 - the Polish Brigade took some time to finish its drop) days, predominately in 3 drops. The RAF and USAAF simply did not have the resources to drop the entire 3 divisions in one hit, forcing them to drop the men in multiple lifts. As I've said above, the most they could carry was 16,500 men in one go. Operation Varsity dropped 2 divisions in one lift, thus making it the largest single lift and drop of the war and in history. The sentence in the lede reflects this and is now sourced in the main article, a standard practice on Wikipedia. If you have any sources that dispute this please share them so that we can discuss them. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that Steve, greast work. I think the lede sentence needs a little editing, though, as Note 2 is uncited; I think rewriting it to reflect that it was the single largest lift would be a good idea, with a different, and cited, Note 2. I'll try and think of something in a little while, unless someone beats me to it. Skinny87 (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but as all my books have just been rehoused I was temporarily loath to tackle that bit! I can find plenty of refs describing the scale of MG for a new Note 2 when I get time. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations from four historians quoted above have been added to the note in the lede. I'd welcome any commentary on it, ie whether it needs tweaking at all. I'm probably too close to it by now. Skinny87 (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but I thought it might look better if the four historians were formatted as regular refs, so I tried that. Then I thought it might look better if the other notes were similarly formatted, so I did them too. Then I thought "well I'm only doing this because it seems to be the way I usually see it in other articles, but that doesn't make it correct!" If this is a personal choice thing rather than a MoS, then feel free to revert, I won't be offended! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Steve. I tried to get them like that the first time, but couldn't. Glad you managed to, it looks good. Skinny87 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The original plan for Market Garden called for the air drops ("lifts") on Day 1 to continue into the following night and operate continuously throughout the following days and nights until the entire troop contingent had been landed, but Brereton's transport crews could not fly at night, so the drops were instead re-scheduled to take place over successive days only.

RAF Dakotas were fitted with Rebecca/Eureka and so could have dropped troops or supplies with reasonable accuracy at night or in poor visibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.241.93 (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The original timescale for Market Garden was for the whole operation to be completed within 48 hours. That's why the Parachute Regiment only had orders to hold the Arnhem bridge for two days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Schnappenberg

Although crossing the area several times and beeing led by a detailed map I didn´t find the location "Schnappenberg" in this area. There exists some locations of this name in Germany (e.g. in Bavaria), but far away from that zone. If you call it town (not village), it must be an error may be in writing, may be Ringenberg or Schermbeck was ment. --Rosa Lux (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not know any location called "Schnappenberg" in this area. Hamminkeln was no town in that time, only a village. Here is a map of the operation and the area:

Operation Varsity landing places etc.

Perhaps someone will integrate it into the article.--Tfjt (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

High casualty rates

This is merely a suggestion, since I came through here just in passing. For a featured article, this section is both contentious in tone and unbalanced in content. The tactics of glider operations are complex, with many pros and cons. All the negative conclusions reached here are unbalanced by the factors that elected their use in the first place, such as, concentration of force was needed, and to achieve concentration required control and close formations, which required daylight as well as good weather. Another example is that a lack of any large-scale glider training exercise prior to Varsity that would have identified problems in airspeed and length of glider serials that could have been adjusted to make the landing both quicker and more efficient. The call for paratroops on the LZ's ahead of the gliders was not uniquely Otway's--the Varsity glider pilots themselves requested it after the operation, as well as more and better exits and some armor if gliders were to make assault landings. Even so their verdict on varsity was that its planning and execution was the best of the war and had solved most problems identified by previous operations. imo such counterpoints are necessary if neutral point of view is to be maintained.--Reedmalloy (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly it has been a while since I got Varsity up to FA, and there are some sources available now that I didn't have them. If you have concerns about a particular section then please feel free to edit the article to try and make it more balanced. My on-wiki time is rather limited at the moment for article-writing, I'm afraid, so please feel free to edit away if you have the sources. Skinny87 (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, thanx, if it can be done succinctly. btw, the above lecture on glider tactics was most definitely not directed at you.--Reedmalloy (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Film

• Heinz Bosch, Wilhelm Haas: Der Krieg am Niederrhein, Kreis Kleve, 1976: Teil 3: Der Sprung über den Rhein (YouTube, 42:12 min) --Tfjt (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of main conclusions reached here are unbalanced

So, according to the headline text, “the operation was a success”? This is despite the official history of the British Airborne Divisions stating that: ”of the 416 gliders that landed, only 88 remained undamaged by enemy fire, and that between 20–30 percent of the glider pilots were casualties”.

Give such accounts, could the words such as “success” (along with other overly-positive statements) be changed to reflect the relatively limited gains and dreadful blood-letting that was Operation Varsity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.177.160 (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The gliders were regarded as disposable, although ideally many would be recovered for further use if possible. British pilots of the Glider Pilot Regiment were trained ground troops and casualties to these personnel were to be expected during the normal course of ground operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.241.93 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Operation Varsity. 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/20060803032605/http://www.army.mod.uk/para/history/rhine.htm to http://www.army.mod.uk/para/history/rhine.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201185145/http://www.armyhistory.org/ahf2.aspx?pgID=877&id=139&exCompID=56 to http://www.armyhistory.org/ahf2.aspx?pgID=877&id=139&exCompID=56
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624044120/http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090602-016.pdf to http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090602-016.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624044120/http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090602-016.pdf to http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090602-016.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Operation Varsity. 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/20110707074515/http://www.able506.com/440th/tcarticle_operationvarsity.shtml to http://www.able506.com/440th/tcarticle_operationvarsity.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070727160735/http://www.armyhistory.org/armyhistorical.aspx?pgID=868&id=139&exCompID=32 to http://www.armyhistory.org/armyhistorical.aspx?pgID=868&id=139&exCompID=32

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Varsity. 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/20090104032806/http://www.uk-us.org/kencooper.htm to http://www.uk-us.org/kencooper.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)