Cross-Channel Attack¶
Harrison, G. A. (1951). Cross-Channel Attack.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Shaping Operation
- The degraded rail net measurably slowed the movement of Panzer and infantry reserves in the critical days after the landings.
SupportedVerified against the work's full text
“had been forced by continued severe air attacks on the railroads to make most of its march northward by road”
- The degraded rail net measurably slowed the movement of Panzer and infantry reserves in the critical days after the landings.
- Supporting Effort
- It is literal mechanism within this substrate because commander's intent, main effort, and the enemy-facing purposes (fix, distract, secure flanks) are the actual operative terms; the Normandy landings — the assault on the five beaches as main effort, Fortitude deception, flank airborne drops, naval bombardment, and the prefabricated Mulberry harbours as supporting efforts (the support re-tasked when the Omaha landing faltered was naval gunfire and follow-on forces) — is the canonical worked case.
This sourceOfficial U.S. Army history of the Normandy invasion covering the airborne assault, the naval gunfire support, and the prefabricated 'mulberry' ports towed across the Channel. Harrison's official history of the June 1944 cross-Channel Normandy invasion (Overlord).
Supported in partVerified against the source
- It is literal mechanism within this substrate because commander's intent, main effort, and the enemy-facing purposes (fix, distract, secure flanks) are the actual operative terms; the Normandy landings — the assault on the five beaches as main effort, Fortitude deception, flank airborne drops, naval bombardment, and the prefabricated Mulberry harbours as supporting efforts (the support re-tasked when the Omaha landing faltered was naval gunfire and follow-on forces) — is the canonical worked case.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 1 supported, 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:358bf6701a63 · see in the full table