I've been reading one book which stuffs in a lot of side details about individuals in a way that can distract from the main direction of the prose. Since then I've found that I am having the instinct to include more information than is maybe strictly necessary as I write about Archers at the Marecchia and Rubicone rivers in Italy (September 1944). For instance, on September 20 I know some Archers were held in reserve for support for 2nd Armoured Brigade and around 1pm were sent to try to take shots at some Tigers (which they never spotted). I know this was the attack on Ceriano Ridge, and the Bays lost many tanks to enemy anti-tank guns. (Interestingly the British anti-tank war diary I have says they lost "many tanks" and then "many" is crossed and replaced with "some".) I am trying to provide enough context that the reader gets an idea about what the Archers were doing there but do I need to mention the attack was a failure? Or that the Bays lost a lot of tanks? Just a little later, on the night of the 22nd, 43rd Gurkha Lorried Infantry Brigade crossed the river, ended up in a salient with very fierce fighting. The Archers don't come into it until the morning of the 24th, when they made a night move and were in their gun positions by 0600. (To support against a counterattack, is my intuition.) So I wonder about whether I need a short decription of the fighting the Gurkhas went through or if I should gloss over it in a sentence. Anyway that's something I've been thinking about.