Jump to content

Talk:Pointe du Hoc

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

The Guns of Navarone is set in the Greek Islands (the natives being a major plot point), is set around an evacuation rather than an invasion, on a mission that lasts several days rather than just an hour or so, and the guns are destroyed instead of being found missing. I don't think the few similarities left are with the mention. DJ Clayworth 14:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

[edit]

Can anyone provide an accurate pronunciation? The first two words in the name are standard French; so they're easy enough, but how is "Hoc" pronounced? Does it rhyme with "bloc" or with "beau"? I've been able to gather very little from the Internet, but there does seem to be some suggestion that the C is not pronounced, although I think that would be rather unusual for French. Anyway, if anyone knows for sure, here are the two possible IPA pronunciations:

/pwε̃t dy ɔk/ (rhyming with "bloc")

/pwε̃t dy o/ (rhyming with "beau")

One of those may be transferred into the article. Kelisi 00:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, the final C in tabac is not pronounced; so perhaps I can risk inserting the second of those two. If anyone finds out it's the other one, don't hesitate to change it. I'll try asking at French Wikipedia. Kelisi 00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had an answer. According to Noplay over on fr.wikipedia, the C is pronounced; so it's /pwε̃t dy ɔk/. So I'll change it again. Kelisi 16:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoc is pronunced like the French words "bloc", "choc" (shock) and "roc" (rock), final C is clearly accentuated, so [ɔk] in French and the old Norman pronunciation [χɔc] is no more in use. Nortmannus (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Boy reference

[edit]

I've got a lead on the citation which is needed for the section "The Target" which states "several bombardments, which consisted of more total firepower than the bomb Little Boy": http://www.worldwar2history.info/D-Day/Pointe-Du-Hoc.html is a synopsis of the Pointe du Hoc engagement based on Ch. 8 of "The Victors: Eisenhower and His Boys: The Men of World War II" by Stephen E. Ambrose, and it states that "Pointe-du-Hoc got hit by more than ten kilotons of high explosives, the equivalent of the explosive power of the atomic bomb used at Hiroshima". If someone could look up the actual page reference from that book, we could have a full bibliographic citation. --Country Wife 15:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take that with a large pinch of salt - Ambrose describes the cliff that the rangers climbed as variously 200,
100 and 40 metres. In fact it's about 24 metres (80 feet) at the point the rangers scaled it, and a heap of :debris from the bombing effectively reduced that by nearly half, as photographs taken at the time show. :I've :found a reference that suggests that around 700 tons of bombs were dropped there in the 24 hours :preceding the assault. That would imply at least 14 raids of that size - I can't find any reference to :suggest any more than 6 raids, and they almost certainly would have been of smaller tonnage.. --Rambler24 (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is a bit...uncool.

[edit]

The battle looks, however, much cooler in the video game than in real life as many of the Rangers are killed in spectacular fashion at the base of the cliff.


Maybe delete it in whole? I'll leave it up to you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantyla (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were the cannon useless?

[edit]

The article states: "The new battery location inland was sited solely for Utah beach." but in his book "Alarm i Atlanvallen (Kungliga Krigsvetenskapsakademien 1953), Bertil Stjernfelt states (p87) "That these clumsy 14-tonne cannon were very difficult to bring about even on the purposebuilt concrete foundations was ("väl omvittnat",approx translation: "Well known according to testimony from")the german troops. How much more difficult then would it not have been to traverse them when the cannon were grouped along a narrow country road, flanked by dense hedges, with the cannon close together their wheels in a deep ditch...?" this, since the cannon were grouped pointing NW would indicate that Omaha was not a target anymore. And so far this is consistent with the statement in the article, however:

On the same page Stjernfelt claims that the available traverse for the guns in their positions did not permit them to fire even at Utah beach, only across the Vire bay farther north.

This would seem to indicate that the battery was useless during the invasion except for the staggeringly unlikely event that an unaimed round would fall on a ship in transit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.165.157 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of completed Casemates

[edit]

Only two casements were actually completed out of 6 planned. I don't have a reference, but I did count them when I visited the site in 2008. I have not edited the main page to make the correction as I don't have a reference to cite, but this does need to be fixed. Nfgusedautoparts (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of 155 mm cannons

[edit]

On the map we can see 6 emplacements for 155 mm cannons, according to several sources, there were only 5 cannons. Nortmannus (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there were only 5 guns, but 6 emplacements. The 6th gun had been destroyed by an allied air bombing, that may be explains why they had been removed before D-Day. Nortmannus (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alternate Pointe Du Hoc View.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Alternate Pointe Du Hoc View.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boys of Pointe du Hoc

[edit]

Reagan gave a noted speech which featured comments on this particular part of the battle and is commonly known at "The Boys of Pointe du Hoc" Seems like it might be notable enough to be worth some comment, though I'm not sure the section titled Media is right for it. Here is the reference from the Reagan archives http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1984/60684a.htm Phil (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Commando presence

[edit]

In the Osprey book on the raid, it has an artwork scene with a British commando visible. The caption states that there was at least one commando as a liaison with the Rangers. Presumably this is based on fact? Were there any British commandos on the Pointe Du Hoc? I'm not doubting it, as the book was written by a reputable historian (not Ambrose!), but any additional information would be interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.20.167.135 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A British Lt. Col Tom Trevor was there as liaison officer ( http://www.humanitiestexas.org/news/articles/first-night) GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One can see a photo of him, with a bandage around his head at the bottom right corner, here--Timtak (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben My Chree

[edit]

The article claims that the Ranger command was aboard the HMS Ben-my-Chree. However, the only Ben-my-chree I can find any information was this one that was sunk in 1917. She was later floated and broken up for scrap in 1923. The reference provided in this article does not point to useful information, and fails to back up the claim. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TSS Ben-my-Chree (1927) is the ship in question. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Graeme! Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes

[edit]

Was the "number of French civilians...executed" investigated as a war crime?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pointe du Hoc. 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:

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) 19:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Action

[edit]

While I agree that the criticism of the action by amateur historian Gary Sterne is potentially valid, I do not agree that the 'findings' of one researcher, otherwise not widely supported, are valid enough that his opinion should be included in the introduction to the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darktalesblog (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under Prelude

[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a reference for the assertion that "Recently released documents in the US Archives show that Rudder knew prior to landing that the casemates were unfinished and only two were actually structurally close to being ready." A link to those documents would be nice rather than taking the author's word for it..John Simpson54 (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

[edit]

Re: "77 of the 225 soldiers that had landed at the Pointe had been killed, with another 152 wounded". How is this possible? 77 + 152 = 229. Maybe some of those counted as wounded later got counted as killed?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pointe_du_Hoc&oldid=1228607645"