Talk:Hundred Days Offensive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

This article needs a serious edit, as to read it one would wonder where the Canadians are. Strikes me that was Arthur Currie and the CEF that was tne central story of the Hundred Days.

Is there someone who has a better grasp of this and the Battle of the Hindenburg Line who could do an edit?

139.142.75.220 04:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Kim Anderosn

Contents

[edit] "Somme Offensive"?

I could find no other sources that call this the "Hundred Days Offensive." I did find it named the "Somme Offensive", though. Perhaps someone could check it out? ([1]) I made the redirect, but if I'm in error then I hope someone will correct me. --DVirus101 19:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just been looking for a book which mentions it, but it is packed away in my attic and I can't lay my hands on it. However a google search [Haig "100 days" 1918 -wikipedia] returns "about 328 English pages for Haig "100 days" 1918 -wikipedia". It is a well known that the "100 days" won Haig his earldom (because the First Battle of the Somme defiantly did not), also I suspect it is to draw a parallel with Napoleon's last campaign which 100 years earlier is also known as Hundred Days. So I think the article should remain under its current name --Philip Baird Shearer 10:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. The name was deliberately chosen - I think it was by Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baron Rawlinson -- to draw a parallel with Wellington's defeat of Napoleon, which was more obvious at the time -- Hawkeye7 00:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Imperial Force

Seeing as the AIF was part of the British Expeditionary Force does it need to be included. If they are included we might as well include all of the seperate British units and French Units.

[edit] Tactics

I think that this article needs a section on tactics and how the Allies had learnt the lessons of stormtrooper infiltration tactics that were used againt them in the German offensive of 1918 (Operation Michael et al), and how the Allies used "combained arms" coupling the use of tanks with infantry and close air support which for the Germans who were on the on the recieving end was the initiator for the development of the ideas which led to blitzkrieg, and has influenced military thinking throughdesert storm to today. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's something of an oversimplification to say the allies learnt from the Germans. 'Stormtroop' tactics emerged well before 1918 and in both the British and French armies independently. IxK85 02:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[edit] Overall

This page seriously needs a re-edit. It's become so biased that it's of dubious worth.

Apart from 'a British division' it appears the war was actually won by the Canadians and an American unit! The sources give a clue, mostly being Canadian sources.

As Philip says above important details are completely missing making me question the knowledge of whoever wrote it originally.

A balanced, accurate article giving credit where it's due is seriously needed. If I have time I'll try to write a whole new, balanced, article for submission

Roger

83.67.126.86 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Somehow this article was written without any citations. Is this just because it is primarily a summary of other articles, or is a binge of fact tags needed?LeadSongDog 13:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)