Talk:First day on the Somme

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing Information[edit]

This article is heavily slanted towards the British side. There is very little mention of the German side or even the French side.


The above user beat me to that comment. It is indeed heavily one sided. Why only Victorian Cross winners? Why not Iron Cross winners aswell? -ColinMacDonald

I have put a header on this conversation, and I agree that information should be found about the German side of the battle and put up. It seems as if only the British even participated, simply fighting against nameless, faceless enemies who did nothing but sit there. If someone could find information from the German side and rewrite the whole article to provide information on both ends, it would vastly improve the article. I have no idea where to begin looking for such information, but if a Great War buff can see this and has such info, please, please please post this. 68.202.82.33 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victory[edit]

The infobox labels this battle as a decisive German victory, and I would like consensus approval to change this. Accepting that British casualties were very heavy as stated, so were German casualties; and the end result was the capture of trivial amounts of French territory by the attacking British. I would like to amend the box to read "An indecisive contest".--Anthony.bradbury 12:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of comment, I have now done so.--Anthony.bradbury 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I coundn't resist[edit]

The middle day of the middle year is a very well placed phrase in a well written section. Unfortunately 1916 was a leap year, so there was no middle day. Remove, if you like. It just struck me as funny. And I plead guilty to nitpicking. :-) Cheers Io (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation....[edit]

Could someone explain, the reasons why in the battle of the Somme the german casualties are stated at 450,000-600,000 while allied ones as 620,000, and after the 1st day german casualties resulted in 10,000 vs 64,000 allied losses. It is no sense, a 1 vs 6.4 ratio of losses for the Germans is a very good figure. For WW1 standards and for 2 armies well equipted and trained. However the article claims that the following battles were even more costly for the Allies.

How did the final ratio of the Battle ended in a nearly 1 vs 1.

There is something wrong here..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.146.249 (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the First Day was an almost total failure on most of the British sector - the bombardment went wrong and the attackers were slaughtered by German guns and machine guns, for negligible gain. Later on in the battle British artillery became more effective and endless German divisions were cycled into the battle to engage in counterattacks, bringing the casualties much nearer parity. This was true of other battles like Third Ypres as well. However, nobody really believes that total German Somme casualties were over 600,000 any more - probably somewhere in the 400,000 - 500,000 range, with the British taking around 2:1 losses and French losses nearer parity. See discussion on main article.Paulturtle (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a question of precisely what is meant by a "casualty" - different nations have different recording mechanisms, for example a British soldier suffering a minor wound which requires medical treatment but only removes the soldier from action for a few hours is classed as a casualty, whereas I remember reading somewhere that the German system marked a "casualty" as a serious injury which removed the soldier from action for a protracted period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.251.71 (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The British system worked well for a small professional army used to battles like M'boto Gorge so was impractical for the mass warfare of the Great War. The French and Germans uses an approximation system suitable for million man armies but after the war, the Germans followed up the Verlustliste with the Sanitatsbericht so its figures are comparable in accuracy to the British ones; the French started doing this in 1916 (see the aftermath section of the Battle of Verdun). Keith-264 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plan[edit]

Breakthrough? Really? The objective map demonstrates that the attack had limited objectives. The debate between Haig and Rawlinson was about the size of the bite, reflecting differing priorities rather than a "dispute". Anyone who can read a relief map can see the wisdom of wanting the spur that Serre guarded so trying for it was inevitable. I wonder if the narrative could benefit from more sources? Keith-264 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Added more narrative detail to the lead and a note on casualties.Keith-264 (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CE[edit]

Rearranged the page to integrate the Other Engagements list, ready for them being written.Keith-264 (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion and rewrite[edit]

Have redone the page from "battle" downwards,the sections above to follow. It needs a really good copy edit though.Keith-264 (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added more revised sections, ready for the Background and Prelude sections tomorrow.Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Needs some finishing touches and a copy edit and that's it.Keith-264 (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finished the rewrite and expansion and put it in for a B class review, needs a copy edit.Keith-264 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Air operations[edit]

I notice that I forgot to add this section, I'll do it as soon as I finish Albert.Keith-264 (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finished the section but didn't have much from the German point of view.Keith-264 (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9th Division[edit]

Did the 9th Division (Containing the South African Brigade, with a Southern Rhodesian contingent) participate in the operations of 1 July?Keith-264 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, it appears I misinterpreted the source; it said that the Rhodesians involved, a platoon in the 2nd Battalion, King's Royal Rifle Corps, were involved in the "big push" built around the Somme, and that there were 90 of them on 30 June and only 10 alive and unwounded after the push on the morning of 1 July, but it doesn't say they were actually at the Somme itself that day (apparently they were elsewhere on the line). Rhodesians were at Delville Wood a couple weeks later, with the South African Brigade, incidentally. I'm sorry for this, I'll put it back. If you're interested in reading more about the Rhodesians in WW1 we have an article on it here. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's all right, I do it all the time; they get a cameo in the OH and I assumed that you had referred to the SRs in the SA Brigade and that the 9th Division being in reserve on 1 July counted (I would treat the divisions in reserve as participants). I added a note next to the reference to the 9th Div to put it into the text so I'd leave the flag in the infobox. I had the UK flag at the bottom of the list because it was alphabetical.Keith-264 (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The KRRC were in the 1st Division which didn't participate on 1 July.Keith-264 (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well that settles it then. Thanks, sorry about the misunderstanding —Cliftonian (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least some bugger reads it.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox conclusion: Really an Anglo-French "success"?[edit]

"Anglo-French success" is what the recent sources conclude, particularly the ones which take any notice of what the Germans thought about it. Keith-264 (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would also chime in concerning this alleged "success". This German news article calls the First Day on the Somme "the worst in British military history." It otherwise deals with a new book by American author Adam Hochschild, so that it is not obvious whether this is the opinion of Süddeutsche Zeitung or a quotation from that work or another. In any case, the term "1 July 1916 was the worst day in the history of British Army" can be found at the Wikipedia article about the Battle of the Somme, unfortunately without a reference.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was also the best day for the French army since trench warfare began, the Sixth Army took the world record for the distance advanced in one day. Look at the sources.Keith-264 (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, all I wanted to point out is that calling the day an "Anglo-French success" does not seem obvious (because it's somewhat contradictory that it's also called "Britain's worst day"). For example, one might add a footnote that explains why it's nevertheless considered a success. (As a Wikipedia editor, I have zero experience with military articles, but I did something similar at Lufthansa: There, the question when the company was founded is a matter of definition and therefore has not that one, easy answer everyone is happy with).--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the analysis section with the myths and legends of the Great War in mind which is why it's a list of historians' verdicts, mostly recent ones; the analysis section is one long footnote. There's no doubt that the attack north of the Albert-Bapaume road was a disaster but the success south of it has only been emphasised in English sources comparatively recently.Keith-264 (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Depends which "sources" (or published books as most of us call them) you read. I remember reading about the French limited success and XIII and XV Corps's partial, non-exploited success, as a schoolboy, many decades ago. None of that makes the day as a whole an Allied success, especially relative either to what Haig was aiming (or hoping) to achieve (breakthrough in the north, Gough pushing through to Bapaume and thence to Arras) or to what could have been achieved had it been better planned, and nor does the fact that Falkenhayn shuffled some reserves around. The horrendously bloody fighting of later July, the worst month for British casualties in the war, and in which the Germans were never quite as near to defeat as the British generals believed, but which were also costly for the Germans and at least led to Verdun being wound down, is perhaps a different story and worthy of a degree of rehabilitation, but calling 1 July an out-and-out Allied "success" is going too far, and the books (sorry, "sources") do not say any such thing. Glad to see some sense has been restored to this conclusion since I last looked at it.Paulturtle (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on Newfoundland[edit]

The article currently reads that "for Newfoundland, the first day of battle changed the course of the island's history, ending any hope of independence." Could this be elaborated a bit more? How is the Somme battle connected to the independence of Newfoundland?--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was added before the big expansion and revision a few months ago, so it will need someone with better sources than me to address I'm afraid.Keith-264 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the source is here http://www.batteryradio.com/Pages/BHamel.html Keith-264 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. Harris & Artillery Dissipation[edit]

"Harris held Haig responsible for the extension of the objectives in the north to the German second position, which diluted the density of British artillery-fire, although because no study had been made of the details of the preliminary bombardment, caution must accompany a conclusion that bombardment of the closer objectives was unduly dissipated."

That's not quite what Paul Harris (pp.227, 235-6) is saying (or at any rate the article as written is unclear). At the risk of sounding legalistic, he does not dispute the fact that the attempt to take both German positions in in the north dissipated the strength of British artillery fire (i.e. he argues that the attack failed because it was both over too wide an area and attempting to penetrate too deeply in the vain hope of achieving a breakthrough within a few days), only that to some extent gunners may well have concentrated their fire on closer targets (and it is hard to say how far he is speculating as he often does or how far basing his thoughts on Christopher Duffy) and that in the absence of deeper research it is difficult to quantify the precise degree to which this was true and the precise effect that it had. Clearly, if the Germans had been subjected to more concentrated shelling, they would have suffered more - e.g the Germans in the northern sector were well equipped with artillery, which opened fire on VIII Corps with lethal effect even before zero hour on 1 July, but if Hunter-Weston had had more shell (Harris attributes it as much to quantity of shell and poor RFC spotting as to the number of guns, although the distribution of guns between wire-cutting, trench destruction and counter-battery can of course be found in Prior & Wilson for those who care to look) then clearly more German batteries would have been suppressed (and of course more attention should have been aid to patrol reports). Conversely, part of the reason for the relative success on the XIII and XV Corps sectors was that they were only intended to take the first German position (although Haig and Rawlinson, fixated on the north, were both at fault for not having reserves on standby in the south to reach the German second position, an especially culpable failing after the supposed non-release of the reserves in time at Loos had been used as the excuse to force Sir John French to walk the plank).Paulturtle (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He was criticising Prior and Wilson for facile reasoning. More shells did not make a better bombardment, when the inherent inaccuracy of artillery made hitting the target unlikely and the targets were invulnerable to most natures of artillery. At least he didn't convict Haig and Rawlinson of failure of hindsight. Notice that the British plans varied greatly before the offensive as knowledge of the readiness of the Germans, unreadiness of the French and deliveries of equipment from Britain (no tanks by 1 July) became known. Look at the Somme terrain and it's easy to see why the emphasis of the Germans and British was in the north and the Reserve Corps was near the Albert-Bapaume road. Oh and don't forget that the Germans had something to do with it.Keith-264 (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This is poor response to my flagging up a relatively minor misstatement of an author’s arguments. It is genuinely worrying how so much of what you write on these talk pages gives a superficial appearance of knowledge and cleverness and yet on closer inspection is poorly reasoned and bears little relation either to the facts or to published books.
He was criticising Prior and Wilson for facile reasoning.
Not so. He explicitly agrees with them. My comments above were largely a precis of what Harris actually says.
He writes: PP235-6 “this reinforces the arguments of historians who suggest that the greatest mistake … was Haig’s decision to double the extent of the penetration …” (then follows footnote 98 which refers to Prior & Wilson pp53 and 109-11) His caveat is that “while we can reasonably assume that Haig’s overruling of the original Fourth Army plan led to some significant dissipation of the bombardment, we cannot be certain of the degree of this dissipation.”
The article states at the moment that “caution must accompany a conclusion that bombardment of the closer objectives was unduly dissipated” which is not what he is saying at all. There is no doubt that the bombardment was dissipated - the question is how much.
Christopher Duffy (“The Somme through German Eyes” p127) says the same – he does not doubt that the “dissipation” of British shelling, too wide and too deep, was the main cause of the catastrophe which ensued – although he points out that even a “dissipated” bombardment was enough to demoralise quite a few dug out inhabitants (which, as an aside, is why one needs to be careful of the “taking account of the Germans” which one comes across in a certain kind of sillier British military history writing – obviously it would be absurd to extrapolate from these few examples of traumatised Germans that 1 July 1916 was a British “success”, but that doesn’t stop people doing it for other battles from a few cherry-picked quotes and examples, instead of conducting a proper macro-level cost benefit analysis).
More shells did not make a better bombardment, when the inherent inaccuracy of artillery made hitting the target unlikely …
Not so. I spelled this out to you, several times, on my talk page a few years back and it is disappointing that you still don’t seem to understand it.
The inaccuracy of bombardment was precisely why a lot of it was needed – if you spray three times as much shell at a target, the percentage which hits will probably stay much the same. The volume of shell which actually hits something will increase, if not necessarily in proportion to the volume fired. Of course other factors were sometimes important as well, but plenty of commentators at the time and since have noted how intensity of shelling was the single most important factor in whether an attack succeeded (Neuve Chapelle, 14 July 1916 and some of the later, more successful bits of the Somme) or failed (Aubers Ridge, Loos, 1 July 1916). Later on in the war shelling became more sophisticated and critical mass could be taken for granted, but this was not yet true by 1 July 1916.
… and the targets were invulnerable to most natures of artillery.
Not so. Shrapnel was surprisingly effective at cutting barbed wire, provided there was good observation and it detonated close enough – from memory some tests were done on a beach at Boulogne the previous winter. One of the things which famously went wrong prior to 1 July 1916 was that guns had to be diverted from counter-battery to wire cutting. Prior & Wilson give quite a few examples of wire being cut and dugouts being caved in in the southern sector, and less so in the north (I accept it is possible they may be cherry-picking examples, but whatever nonsense you may have got into your head they are respected academics, quoted with approval by other respected academics like Sheffield, Harris and Philpott, so this is perhaps unlikely). Clearly the terrain favoured the defenders more in the north, and some divisions at various points along the front tried creeping barrages. That does not mean that more shelling would not have helped in the north – the southern corps had much the same amount of artillery as the northern corps, albeit with better observation and some assistance from the French, but still managed to accomplish their tasks and even conduct effective counter-battery fire. As Harris points out, a large part of the southern success was because they were only trying to take the German first position and so were able to concentrate their efforts.
At least he didn't convict Haig and Rawlinson of failure of hindsight.
I’ve no idea what, if anything, that is supposed to mean.
Notice that the British plans varied greatly before the offensive as knowledge of the readiness of the Germans, unreadiness of the French and deliveries of equipment from Britain (no tanks by 1 July) became known.
We are straying off topic here, but the plans evolved a fair bit, not just the abortive plans for preliminary “wearing out” offensives and Haig’s hopes to strike the decisive blow in Flanders, but the abandonment of the original plan to advance south-east along the ridge to cover the left flank of a larger French offensive. In May the plans were damped down because Kitchener had expressed concern about loose talk of “breakthrough” at GHQ – according to Charteris the loose talk came from Haig himself, which may be why Charteris was still pretending to his wife on the eve of the attack that the plan was just to advance and seize the high ground.
One of the abiding mysteries of the Somme is why, with the French contribution dwindling, grandiose plans were then drawn up at the last minute to have Gough exploit to Bapaume and Arras (another mystery is how these plans, and the plans for exploitation in September, escaped the shredder after they were called off). Nowadays it is fashionable to attribute this to intelligence reports that Falkenhayn had redeployed reserves to the Brusilov sector (I’m pretty sure that I read this years ago and that it’s nowhere near the revelation that Beach would have us believe, but I can’t for the life of me remember where), but plenty of other explanations have been presented over the years, and it’s not necessary to rely on any of them. Haig (and other generals – as so often some of these things were features of the culture of the British Army of the time) had gone through a similar mental process before many of the offensives of the previous year.
Look at the Somme terrain and it's easy to see why the emphasis of the Germans and British was in the north and the Reserve Corps was near the Albert-Bapaume road.
Depends what you think Haig ought to have been seeking to achieve. A more cautious and realistic offensive in the southern sector might well have been able to reach Bazentin Ridge, which was eventually attained at such cost (to both sides) in the summer fighting. It’s not, of course, as simple as that – there were pressures from the French to launch as large an attack as possible – but nonetheless by trying to break through in the north Haig overreached, as a number of senior generals (Kitchener, Robertson, Rawlinson) privately worried at the time.
Oh and don't forget that the Germans had something to do with it.
Technically that is so, but it is ultimately a silly point. The attack failed because it was poorly planned – the bombardment went wrong, patrol reports were not acted upon, etc etc. Most of these mistakes (“Haig’s planning errors” as Philpott calls them) were avoidable and a better planned attack would have killed far fewer of the British attackers and might have gained more ground and killed more Germans. To pretend otherwise is plain silly.Paulturtle (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Civility Edit the page if you want to and I'll treat the edit as good faith and compare it with the sources.

PS the attack didn't fail, it caused a crisis in the 2nd Army which was exploited for the next fortnight. The French reached the vicinity of Peronne and the British recovered from the disaster in the northern third of the battlefield and advanced in the centre.Keith-264 (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wire not cut[edit]

  • It is well known that British forces attacking had been told that the German wire had been cut by the artillery fire, but they found much of the German wire still intact. This should be put into the text, and say when and where this happened. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the wire was cut south of the Albert–Bapaume road where the British and French succeeded, there's lots of detail here and in the main articles about the wire north of the road.Keith-264 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Underage soldiers[edit]

I have heard of documentaries that the British Army had a lot of soldiers who were under the legal age, and that a large number formed part of the 57,470 casualties on the first day of the Somme. It seems an interesting thing to point out, if anyone has a RS that discussed it.66.77.160.179 (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were combed out in 1915.Keith-264 (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Locations[edit]

 DoneKeith-264 (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!66.77.160.179 (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"iron ration"[edit]

Keith,

you reinserted this term, and noted that it is sourced from the official history. Okay, but what is an "iron ration"? If the term is to remain, and cannot just be lumped under the term "ration", then I feel that it needs to be explained; as to the layman, it makes no sense.66.77.160.179 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] see here.Keith-264 (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation needed[edit]

Autumn Battle  DoneKeith-264 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

  • "Simpson disagreed with Travers'"
Travers is not mentioned in the references. Who is he? Is the note even required any longer, as the preceding information details the extensive co-operation and discussion between all levels of command.Thetweaker2017 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It's there because Travers is a RS so I've added the biblio details etc.Keith-264 (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "assist Italy and Russia"
It is not established how the campaign was suppose to aid either country: weakened the German Army? Divert troops? etc Can this be clarified a little?Thetweaker2017 (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "St. Eloi close to Ypres"
Is this Saint-Éloi-de-Fourques?Thetweaker2017 (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneKeith-264 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Estrées"
Would that be Estrées-Deniécourt, Estrées-lès-Crecy, Estrées-Mons, Estrées-sur-Noye, or none of them?Thetweaker2017 (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneKeith-264 (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Keith. Additional points:

  • "drumfire"
What does this mean? It is used three times in the article without much explanation.Thetweaker2017 (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does it need explaining? PS it would help if you indicated where these phrases are in the article ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneKeith-264 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC) Trommelfeuer (a rate of fire so rapid that the sound of shell-explosions merged into a rumble) Keith-264 (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Bernafay and Trônes woods"
This article implies both were captured on the first day of the offensive. Capture of Trônes Wood states Bernafay Wood was not taken until 2 July, and Trônes not until the 14th. Did British troops capture these locations on the 1st? If so, why was there follow-up fighting?Thetweaker2017 (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneKeith-264 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The III Corps La Boisselle section
The two paragraphs seem like they discuss the same units and events, but somewhat duplicated and out of order. I have perhaps misunderstood the information. If not, could this not be compressed into a single paragraph?Thetweaker2017 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To expand upon this, the section states that the 34th Division suffered the worst casualties of the day; but from this section that is not obvious. Could we get a little extra detail on the attack, the losses etc? I.e. the Capture of La Boisselle article indicates a complete disaster for the first wave hidden by terrain, and an entire infantry brigade shot up before reaching the British front line to cross no-mans land (which raises the further question of why was the 103rd Brigade not deployed in the front line as their jumping off point; something I believe most readers will wonder considering the prevailing image of "going over the top"). A few sentences like that would really help the reader.Thetweaker2017 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneKeith-264 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much of these bits were lifted from the leads of their articles so can do with a bit of copy editing. Keith-264 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that the article doesn't have commas next to conjunctions.Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes and clarifications.
Thus far, this is an extremely detailed and insightful article that provides an amazing amount of information on the background of the battle and readily details the French participation in the battle (something, AFAIK, that is usually lacking). However, it does feel like the III Corps section needs the most work; not just in copyediting, but in detail. The preceding sections give a good snapshot of the fighting by other divisions, but in this sector it seems like a disaster struck and there is barely any info on it. I know you are busy with other projects, but I hope - if you have the sources - that this is an area you can work on. Kind regards, Thetweaker2017 (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a CE the other day but I'm working until Friday, after which I'll have more time. Keith-264 (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serre: This section states "No other gains were made and German counter-attacks recovered the position early on 2 July, by which time the [4th] division had suffered 4,700 casualties." This is followed up by "The 4th Division ended the day back at its start line, having suffered 3,600 casualties".

 DoneKeith-264 (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing. If the division ended up back at its start line by the end of the day, how was it that the Germans only retook the ground the 4th had captured the next day? Was there 1,100 casualties during the night while the Germans retook the position?Thetweaker2017 (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find the 4,700 in the OH so I don't know where it came from; found the true figure and added it along with a bit from Kingston 2006.Keith-264 (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CE[edit]

@JHunterJ: Thanks for your attention to the article. Can you point me towards a WP on when to use < br > and < br / > pls. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Line-break handling. <br /> is always best; a few others almost always work, but note the "As of April 2019" note there where <br> breaks some syntax highlighters. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, It's about time I learnt. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SI Primary[edit]

This article takes place in France, SI units should be primary per Wiki Manual of Style and consistent throughout the article. Avi8tor (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National exception. Keith-264 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing passage and citation[edit]

"in German and French writing, the first day of the Battle of the Somme has been little more than a footnote to the mass losses of 1914–1915 and the Battle of Verdun." Need to find the source (Philpott?) Keith-264 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit hyperbolic anyway. Suspect that more accurate to say that German and French historiography is more focussed on the Battle of Verdun. And why would French writers concern themselves as much with the British on the Somme when they were largely not involved, nor the Germans for whom it wasn't as significant as 100 days. Certainly not something for the lede GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical Developments section - British[edit]

The endnote says "Companies were arranged in columns of platoons, creating four platoon waves 70 yd (64 m) apart." is that distances between each platoon front to back or separation between columns? I'm assuming here that what's described is each company forms a single column from its four platoons (we prob shouldn't assume reader knows a company is four platoons and that there aren't any companies with 8 platoons formed into two columns). We might also mention where the HQ platoon goes in the sequence (leading from the front?) This is where a picture could help GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong French casualties.[edit]

The infobox or Battlebox wrongly says 7,000 French losses on 1 July 1916, however I have read the article content, and there is no mention of that number in the body. Only 1,590 losses. I'm fixing this.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it up, it probably comes from Whitehead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comma before a long coordinate clause[edit]

@Keith-264: Please note that the WP article comma says "Long coordinate clauses are nonetheless usually separated by commas". I don't think you should remove such a comma without a good reason. Chris the speller yack 16:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is not a source especially on matters of grammar and syntax, especially when Americans and English English lit grads can meddle. If you feel tempted to punctuate a conjunction then the sentence needs re-writing. My authority is Eng lang O level 1978. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German casualties[edit]

Hi @Keith-264:! According to the content of this article, there are 4,000 german soilders captured by french and 2000 german soilders captured by english.

I think Ralph Whitehead' s 6,300 german losses is incorrect. Waylon1104 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Keith-264 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To his number,if others source are true, which mean germans only suffered 300 casualties,but had 6,000 men being captured. Do you think this is reasonable?

I hope I won't offend you, because my English isn't well. Waylon1104 (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, thanks for asking. In Volume II of his book he added an appendix describing his research into German casualty records (the ones that weren't sacrificed to waste paper drives in the Second World War or destroyed by the Potsdam bombing in 1945). On page 476 he wrote

The lists represent 20,790 names of the men who most likely fought on the Somme in early July. Of these 6,226 can be identified as having been killed, wounded, injured or captured on 1 July 1916. An additional 1,912 can positively [be] identified as having become a casualty before or after this date. Of the remainder, 12,642 names, only time will tell if the details of their fate can be established.

— Ralph Whitehead, 2013 p. 476

He included a CD with the Verlustlisten he used. Keith-264 (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the passage in the article and put the quote in. Where authorities differ it is customary to use a range of lowest to highest rather than try to arbitrate between them. I think that Whitehead's research is sound but that is of no consequence to the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Waylon1104 (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

German POW[edit]

Hi @Keith-264:.It's me again. According to the 10 pages of William Philpott's book. He said french had captured 6,000 POW in the first assault. Does the assault only include the first day? Waylon1104 (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC) @Waylon1104: Hello, it must do for this article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_day_on_the_Somme&oldid=1207233802"