Talk:Operation Overlord

I have changed the map of the break-out in July-August, from this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Normandybreakout.jpg

-to this one:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Normandy_Breakout_Map,_operations_25_July_to_15_August_1944.svg

This map is based on the first, but in better resolution, in .svg and also with a slightly longer time period (start with the break-out on 25 July), it also has explanations for most used symbols. I want to add that is is made on my request, paid for me, by a contributor that has helped me with various maps before. If anyone feel that they would prefer to keep the old map, they may revert my change. Ulflarsen (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Operation Overlord was the codename for the Battle of Normandy? Operation Overlord was the codename for the plan for the Normandy invasion during the planning phase. Other pages (I came from Sherman Firefly, but up above we see somebody coming from Tiger II) reference Battle of Normandy, but getting here where the narrative starts with the fall of France and Dunkirk(!!) feels a bit like a rug pull, at least from that perspective. Battle of Normandy deserves its own page, about the battle, like all other pages titled "Battle of ..." 98.7.197.219 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

As per the current lede, it's the codename for the battle. However, I don't think there should be any page called "Operation Overlord", since the average person has no clue what that is. There should be an RfC for renaming this page back to "Battle of Normandy" or "Invasion of Normandy". natemup (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I strongly agree Nate aesurias (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I have searched for the supplied quotes in the the citations provided, and have been unable to locate them. Even if the quotes were present, the quotes don't adequately support the added content.

Links checked were:

• https://books.google.com.sb/books?id=mYWa91OD0r8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
• https://ia801605.us.archive.org/32/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.86784/2015.86784.The-War-Department-Strategic-Planning-For-Coalition-Warfare.pdf
• https://history.army.mil/portals/143/Images/Publications/catalog/1-3.pdf

Also, seven citations are overkill. One or two good citations that fully support the added prose are adequate. I can check the Ford/Zaloga book tomorrow and verify the material currently in the article ("Churchill favoured making the main Allied thrust into Germany from the Mediterranean theatre, but the Americans, who were providing the bulk of the men and equipment, over-ruled him.").— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m looking at the Summary Table after the opening paragraph for the article.

In the Casualties/Losses/Deaths section, everything looks fine—except for one item.

In the left column, we see the expected layout (consistent font face, font size, bullet points, country flag icons). But then there’s a strange departure from the normal, which reads:

” 16,714 Allied airmen killed (8,536 members of the USAAF, and 8,178 flying under the command of the RAF)”

If you have knowledge of what this means or is meant to mean, please chime in. If we’re OK deleting that phrase entirely, I support that too: As it’s illogical, it doesn’t add value.

Gobucks821 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)