Miscellaneous desk
< July 21	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 22

Omaha Beach 6 June 1944

High US casualties are attributed to the sinking in rough seas of most of the amphibious swimming tanks intended to support infantry. But the Omaha beach had been effectively barricaded with anti-tank obstacles of which the invasion planners were aware. What were the tanks intended to achieve, had they arrived as planned? DreadRed (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tank traps do not appear (as far as I can see) to have had a large part in the tanks problems. Our DD Tank page says of the landings on Omaha specifically:"DD Tanks were designed to operate in waves up to 1 foot (0.3 m) high; however, on D-Day the waves were up to 6 ft (1.8 m) high." and "the tanks of 741st Tank Battalion were launched too far out, about 3 mi (4.8 km) offshore". (which seems to be contradicted by statements below that the plan was to launch 6,000 yards [5,500 m/3.4 mi] out.) On Omaha some of the the tanks were apparently carried all the way to the beach. See here at the part marked Page 39, " In the 116th RCT zone, the officers in charge of the tank-loaded LCT's had decided not to risk the conditions of sea, and the 32 DD's of the 743d Tank Battalion were carried in to the beach."

Omaha Beach: "the 741st Tank Battalion put 29 DDs into the sea, but 27 of these sank, the remaining two made the long swim to the beach."
Gold Beach: "Eight tanks were lost on the way in"
Juno Beach: "twenty-one out of twenty-nine tanks reached the beach"
Utah Beach: "Twenty-seven out of twenty eight reached the beach"

All of these losses seem to have been to the tanks failing to float as designed, not due to anti tank obstacles. I am not very up on the history of the tanks on D-Day and stand to be corrected! I am only going off what WP and it's sources state.

As for what the tanks were "intended to achieve", " launched from 6,000 yards out, swim ashore, and take up firing positions at the water's edge to cover the first phase of the assault. Their fire was to be placed on the main enemy fortifications, particularly those west of Exit D-l which could bring flanking fire on Dog Beach. Moving up through the obstacles as the tide rose, the tanks would support the main assault and then clear the beach through Exit D-3'" sourced from here in Omaha Beachhead , Assault Plan, Plan of Assault Landings, p30 (last paragraph ) --220 of ^Borg 06:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Moving up through the obstacles as the tide rose.." conjures an image of 30 tonne Sherman tanks with their canvas buoyancy skirts still intact swimming over obstacles like these. The source appears to be a US Army historian writing after one of their costliest actions (3000 prepared troops killed in minutes by fewer than half as many defenders, mostly German teenagers) needed to be explained. The invasion planners had recent experience of probing German coast defence in the Dieppe Raid where all 29 tanks that landed were blocked and abandoned; their crews all killed or captured. So after their swimming stunt (that failed), what were the DD Shermans ever going to achieve at Omaha? DreadRed (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "Moving up through the obstacles as the tide rose.." just means that the tanks would move slowly up the beach, destroying obstacles in their path as they went. Anti-tank obstacles are not supposed to be impenetrable; they are just intended to slow tanks down so that their mobility is impeded and they become easier targets for anti-tank weapons and other tanks. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that on that very picture, taken 6 June, there is a Sherman on the landward side of the defences, and it certainly wasn't lifted over by a crane. So passing the obstacles was certainly possible! As G61 notes above, the tank traps are also not an impenetrable barrier; they're meant to slow down and congest vehicles to make them easy targets. The planners would have been aware of this, and chose to land the tanks anyway; a tank on the beach, even if effectively pinned down, was probably felt better than no support at all.

As for what the Shermans were "ever going to achieve", the answer is exactly as described - close support artillery for getting troops past fixed defences, firing from positions near the edge of the beach. They certainly failed to get there, but that doesn't mean their intended role would also have failed. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not antitank traps but mined coastal defences against boat landing at hight tide. Hence, the D day landings were timed for low tide, so that the vessels taking in the spear force did not come to grief on them. Antitank defences are different from these. Read the history books. The OP may be getting confused with land tanks and LST's. Two different beasts.--Aspro (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit/Edit Source buttons

Can someone please explain to me how to use the Edit/Edit source features? When did this start? Herzlicheboy (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit invokes the visual editor. WP:VE. Edit source invokes the normal editing method with Wikitext. The visual editor was in beta for awhile and was recently rolled out for all users. RudolfRed (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the reviews and comments on the new feature so far? Does anyone have any links? Thanks for your help, btw. Herzlicheboy (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a link in my reply. From there you can see the feedback that's been provided. RudolfRed (talk) 06:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here: Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback too. A lot of editors seem to be rather unhappy with Visual Editor. --220 of ^Borg 06:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any way to opt out of it? I already know Wikimarkup from other wikis. Also, funny how the rationale stated at WP:VE is that wikimarkup is somehow "unacceptable in 2013" (I'm paraphrasing). That is just more evidence of the "dumbing down" of society. Herzlicheboy (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your preferences, under gadgets you can turn off the visual editor. Or just always use "edit source" if that's the interface you prefer. RudolfRed (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy and flights

Can a pregnant woman get on a plane and travel? (my story stuffs) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 16:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the Mayo Clinic: "Generally, commercial air travel during pregnancy is considered safe for women who have healthy pregnancies." They go on to mention that one should check with their doctor anyway. Mingmingla (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mingmingla, thanks for your answer. Have another question: you are safe even if you are a 8 month pregnant woman (Again: I am not pregnan, for those who think that :)) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 17:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most airlines allow pregnant women to travel through their eighth month. Traveling during the ninth month is usually allowed if there is permission from your health care provider. - American Pregnancy Association DreadRed (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if they travel during the 9th month, they really should reserve an extra seat, just in case. :-) StuRat (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

lol! Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much DreadRed Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for medical advice, question should be directed to a your doctor, not the Wikipedia reference desk. There are a whole lot of complexity in this issue, many different factors to consider for each individual. --Soman (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I pointed out somewhere up there that is a hypothetical question about a story I am writting ↑And even if I were pregnant and wanted to travel I couldn't... Miss Bono^[zootalk] 19:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we can't circumvent medical/legal aid questions by posing them as hypothetical, there are real risks involved in people making medical decisions based on what is said in an anonymous forum like this. --Soman (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. It's not our job to sleuth out people's hidden motives. -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had she said, can this girl I know who's 8 weeks pregnant fly safely? you'd have your request fro advice--but I am glad someone is watching. μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't read this as a request for medical advice. I saw it as a question about airline rules. And anyway, pregnancy isn't a medical condition. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that's why one doesn't see a doctor when pregnant. μηδείς (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the breadth of the term "condition". Pregnancy was once referred to as "her delicate condition". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is a medical condition. What I think HiLo means is that it is not an illness, and he'd be right there. It may be accompanied by certain illnesses, but pregnancy itself is not an illness. But to repeat my opening sentence, it most certainly is a medical condition. (Spoken by someone who spent a number of years writing fund rules and policies, and definitions, for a major Australian private health insurance company.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search for born in on airplane aeroplane in flight, I found Mom Cleared to Fly Gives Birth on Airplane! | The Stir.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, obviously, the answer to the OP's initial question is "Yes". In fact, the anecdote you linked to could be a good plot line for the OP's story. Throw in some creepy critters on the plane, and some random wacked-out passengers and crew, and you've got a good plot line for an "Airplane" type movie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and don't call me Shirley. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility of a passenger going into labour in-flight cannot be ruled out and is therefore an event Flight attendants must be prepared to handle. A good attendant notices a female passenger in advanced pregnancy and inobtrusively enquires whether she is comfortable, e.g. would like an extra pillow, speaks english, and knows how long the flight will last. The pilot has the immediate authority to rule whether the passenger may fly and will consider a notice from an attendant that a passenger is likely to cause inconvenience. We can speculate on the legal consequences neither of a late-pregnant woman being refused flight, nor of compensation an unsuspecting passenger might claim for life's drama unfolding on the window seat next to him. DreadRed (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys! and girls, if there is some girl involved... :) Anyways! Thank you all... this stuff of the ref desk is fun... I have a lot of ideas... it is helping me with my writer's block period :o Miss Bono^[zootalk] 12:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, though. In late pregnancy airlines may refuse to carry you (I'm seeing "past 36 weeks" on some websites) and you may be refused travel insurance. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's mean with poor pregnant girls. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's capitalism for you! Itsmejudith (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... luckily she has rich friends and boyfriend who has private planes. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 13:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd treat this as a reference request for the rules and suggestions of airlines and airports, because we can't answer the medical part. If you would like to know the medical part, you'd have to ask your doctor.

Sadly, the reference request doesn't have a single answer because it would depend on which airline and country and airport you use. Once you know that, however, the airline will likely be able to help you if you ask them. For example, Air France has information for pregnant women intending to travel. They recommend you to “seek your doctor´s opinion before your trip”, “avoid travel in the final month of pregnancy, as well as during the first 7 days after delivery”, along with some other suggestions. Budapest Airport tells on their homepage when pregnant women are allowed to travel. As the rules can differ everywhere, I suggest that if you want to travel while pregnant, ask your airline company and airport about rules and advice. – b_jonas 13:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. You can try to ask on our sister project: v:Wikivoyage:Tourist_Office. – b_jonas 13:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks b_jonas, but did you read all the treat? It is not a real situation. I am not pregnan, I cannot travel anywhere and I cannot access v:Wikivoyage:Tourist_Office due to my Internet access problems :) Miss Bono^[zootalk] 12:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can still read the homepages of of airports and airlines are ask them about information. That you're not pregnant and it's for a book doesn't change anything. – b_jonas 09:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And again b_jonas, for the 100th I have no internet access. Everything is blocked at work except Wikipedia.