Talk:Dieppe Raid

The Dieppe raid did not impact the Normandy invasion

The common narrative of the aftermath of Dieppe is that it provided lessons for the Allies in their invasion of Normandy. All evidence points to the contrary and this narrative was pushed by the Dieppe planners in order to absolve themselves. What many people who push this myth do not seem to understand is that the Dieppe Landings was a raid not an invasion. Dieppe was meant to be taken by suprise so of course they are not going to bombard the port it was not because the planners were too stupid to come up with a preliminary bombardment that strategy has been around since gunpowder has been invented. Then there are the special tanks and once again Dieppe did not lead to their development. The Churchill tanks that landed at Dieppe actually did get off the beach and not get stuck by a few tiny pebbles. The reason why we see pictures of the Churchill tanks stranded on the beach is becoming when the tanks try to enter the town they were blocked by tank obstacles and since all the engineers were pinned down on the beach the tanks could not get through so they turned around back to the beach to act as cover for the infantry. As for the Mulberry Harbors being a product of Dieppe is also false as they were conceived by Winston Churchill months before Dieppe. Continual pushing that Dieppe taught the Allies valuable lessons also ignores the amphibious landings in the Pacific, Operations Torch, Husky and Avalanche which were all more instructive, especially in logistics, than anything that was produced out of the Dieppe Raid. Then there's the "lesson" or intelligence and not attacking a heavily defended port. These were also lessons that the Allies already knew just look at how the British got intelligence for Operation Biting which occurred in February 1942. And then there's the St. Nazaire Raid which happened in March 1942 and despite being successful saw the force almost wiped out so the Allies knew the German occupied ports were heavily defended. Even Allied ports were heavily defended so it was already common knowledge at this point. Again just like with the preliminary bombardment ports have been heavily defended since the creation of gunpowder. And not to mention during Operation Torch the Allies also launched Operations Reservist and Terminal which involved attack Vichy French ports and just like Dieppe they were failures so clearly this was never a learned lesson in the first place.

In conclusion the Dieppe Raid was nothing more than an over ambitious raid mired by internal military branch rivalries and planned by overconfident officiers that contributed little to nothing. ~2025-33169-22 (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. Got any sources to back your claims? NB what allied amphibious landings had taken place in the Pacific before Dieppe? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Tragedy at Dieppe by Mark Zuelke & One Day in August by David O'Keefe.

As for the Pacific the Battle of Guadalcanal happened on August 7 ~2025-33169-22 (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

So they are going to learn a lot of lessons from an action that started 12 days before and was still ongoing against a completely different enemy in completely different terrain. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm referring to the preliminary bombardment when it comes to Guadalcanal since one of the supposed lessons was that the Allies learned what preliminary bombardment was after Dieppe which is just false.

And as well I forgot to mention Operation Ironeclad which was the British invasion of Madagascar which happened in May 1942. ~2025-33169-22 (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hardly comparable and to be pointlessly pedantic, it's not in the Pacific. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not comparing Dieppe to the Pacific I'm talking about the preliminary bombardment, that's bombing the shoreline ahead of the landing force.

Since the Allies were already using preliminary bombardment at Guadalcanal and Madagascar then Dieppe did not teach this lesson because it was already being used that's my point. As well a bombardment is a bombardment no matter where it takes place.~2025-33169-22 (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

You still haven't come up with actual cites. If you have them, formulate a proper argument. Not just come in with the attitude that you know better than anybody else. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I already named two books. But if you mean the Guadalcanal Landings, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA556676.pdf~2025-33169-22 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

And I do not think I'm better than anyone else I just use updated sources. ~2025-33169-22 (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Naval artillery bombardment prior to an amphibious attack was not originated in World War II. It was used much earlier than that. An example would be the Siege of Nice in 1543. So we can all dispense with any argument on that point. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Madagascar: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/british-invasion-of-madagascar/

For Operations Torch, Husky and Avalanche: Rick Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy and James Holland's Sicily '43 and The Savage Storm~2025-33169-22 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Not interested in any of those. Have you a properly argued case for your proposition or not? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I already argued my case.

Not my fault you ignore my sources and attack my character instead of my argument. ~2025-33169-22 (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

you haven't argued any case. you made a series flat statements. You had to be prompted to mention the books you presumably used but you still haven't supplied chapter and verse. If you have a proper arguement, then by all means present it with the appropriate references. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

You could've just said that rather than attacking me but here:

From the after action report for the Landings at Guadalcanal on page 5 says "The plan provided for two fire support groups for ships gunfire in support of landing[...]"

From A Tragedy at Dieppe by Mark Zuelke, Epilogue page 369, paragraph 17, "[...]the claim that Dieppe led to the development of the artificial harbours [...] is untrue. Hugh-Hallett [...] himself said they were Churchill's idea, posed months before Dieppe."

Still in paragraph 17: "Already, initial planning for a major amphibious invasion [...] had concluded that the invasion must not occur at a port but fall upon beaches [...]"

paragraph 18: "The true dress rehearsal for D-Day happened on July 10, 1943 [...] onto the beaches of Sicily [...]" ~2025-33169-22 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

and you did not prompt me to put my sources this is just my first time using wiki talk and honestly I did not think anyone would actually respond to take part in a discussion because few people actually care about Canadian history. ~2025-33169-22 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Quite a few Canadians do…

as to prompts, Me: Got any sources to back your claims?

You: Tragedy at Dieppe by Mark Zuelke & One Day in August by David O'Keefe.

But no information about who said what, when and where. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you just skip the pages and paragraphs comment? ~2025-33169-22 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

You should've been more specific before when asking for my sources.

If you wanted me to say the chapters, paragraphs, verses and who said what and where instead of attacking my character then I would've in the first place. ~2025-33169-22 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:referencing for beginners Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you should take your own advice ~2025-33169-22 (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Healey quote about Mountbatten, and the framing of it

This seems very much at odds with how the events are dealt with on Mountbatten's own page. It should be noted that Healey was 17 years younger than Mountbatten, 24 at the time the Kelly was sunk, and he served in the army rather than the Royal Navy. Not sure why he would be an reliable authority. In fact, the whole paragraph smacks of a hit-job, including the claim that, "he lacked experience in terms of actual warfare," despite commanding Kelly in action. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Rangers

The presence of U.S. Rangers needs to be incorporated in the “Belligerents” and main article. They were present, they fought, and like the Polish contingent, should be included, regardless of the size of the force or whether they fought as a unit or dispersed. ~2026-24595-87 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

No it doesn't. This has already been discussed here - they were not a military formation, they were 50 observers spread between the assaulting units. They don't qualify for the infobox – including them would indicate a military formation took part when it didn't and would give them undue weight. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

First amphibious landing with tanks

The statement "It was the first use of tanks in an amphibious landing in history.[4]" was previously at the end of the first paragraph. The claim is supported by the reference.

It was removed by User talk:~2026-16610-35 on 28 May 2026 without stating a reason.

The sentence gave a significant attribute of the event described in this article, not only for the raid itself, Canadian history, or WWII, but also for military history in general. Therefore, I propose to restore it. If there are no objections here in Talk, I propose to do this from 5 June 2026. Phranosaur (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Tanks were landed during the Norwegian campaign, see LCM_1#The_Norwegian_campaign and Motor_landing_craft#Norwegian_Campaign. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That certainly invalidates the original statement as written (again, supported by the source, but indeed the source seems to be mistaken).

Nonetheless, the scale of the tank landing here, the scale of the defences, and the level of preparation on both sides is still notable.

It is also not clear to me from the very limited description of the Bjerkvik landings whether the landing of the tanks was actually opposed. The linked article explicitly states "opposed landing" but also states "a landing behind German lines", i.e. not an opposed landing but a landing of troops that then subsequently (if quickly) enter combat. The Japanese also landed tanks at Malaya but as their landing beaches were not opposed it can be considered a transport action rather than a military action in itself. As Dieppe was a directly opposed landing into fixed defences in the style of Normandy, one of the most significant military actions in history, the landing of tanks at Dieppe is also notable.

Suggested phrasing, "It was the largest use of tanks in an opposed amphibious assault before the Normandy landings." Phranosaur (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

If a statement like that can be found in a reliable source, include it. But unless that statement can be found, it's original research. Ranger Steve ^Talk 21:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The original claim that another user deleted was directly, almost verbatim, supported by a reliable source. It appears to have been removed in the first place on the basis of "original research"? Phranosaur (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Like others, I'm wary of the original sentence as worded. Operation Ironclad springs to mind, as does the Alhucemas landing (which I notice contains almost the same sentence). It's worth noting too that the word amphibious does not automatically mean opposed, so the supporting sentence in the source (which appears to be "it was the first time in history tanks were used in an amphibious landing") also seems flawed to me, and on that basis perhaps shouldn't be used. I prefer the suggested amendment (largest use of tanks in an opposed amphibious assault), but that too should be stated clearly in a relaible source. Ranger Steve ^Talk 08:01, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Criticism of the source itself by an editor on the basis of the editor's personal knowledge is original research by definition.

Having reviewed wikipedia's policies, the appropriate thing to do is to restore the original statement with its reliable, authoritative source.

If other editors wish to change the statement, the change must itself be supported by a more reliable and authoritative source. It is possible that such a statement can be found, but none has been given yet. Phranosaur (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

See this is why I don't bother with this place as much any more. A single editor decides that a statement that is clearly incorrect, and proven so by numerous other articles – and even you admit is in error – is allowed to remain because of their chosen reading of policy. Instead of just removing it, its actual deletion has to be sourced. Why even come here asking for consensus to restore it if even though all you got was opposition you'll do it anyway? Ranger Steve ^Talk 07:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Infobox image

The caption for the infobox image claims the vehicle is damaged? What evidence is there for that? Examining the image doesn't reveal any obvious damage other than the crew hatch is open. It is known that the Germans arranged the scenes for propaganda purposes. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Original archive gives it as "damaged". Perhaps "Daimler Dingo on beach after raid" would suffice? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)