This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Brevity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Operation Brevity is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"If Rommel permitted his opponents to hold the high ground at Halfaya, his forces outside Tobruk would be left vulnerable to attack from the rear. Equally important, Halfaya represented the principal passage fo armor in either direction across the 500-foot-high escarpment separating the Egyption coastal plain and Libya's desert plateau. Thus, in typical fashion, on the night of May 26, Rommel again sent Colonol Hans Cramer's 8th Panzer Regiment and its support elements in a deep loop around the pass and attacked from the southwest, while a battalion of the 104th Infantry Regiment staged a frontal assault from the northeast. The foot soldiers, under the inspiring command of Captain Wilhelm Bach, a fifty-year-old Evangelical minister from Mannheim, charged up the serpentine road and engaged the defedenders in hand-to-hand combat. A few hours later, the reached the top of the pass and linked up with the panzers thrusting from the opposite direction." --Afrikakorps, Time-Life books, Pg. 41
The article before the last edit was pure fantasy!
The 4th Indian Division did not take part in the Operation it only leant trucks to the Guards.
There was no where near 200+ allied tanks ready for use when the operation began and no way 20 000 men took part! (The Tiger convoy had only just unloaded its cargo, these tanks would need to be prepared like all British tanks for service in the desert (filters would have to be changed etc) and were to rebuild the 7th armour divison)
The Axis forces listed made it seem that there was half the German and Italian army facing the British, there was elements of a few divisions since the majoirty where invested in the encirclement of Tobruk.
The Operation was 2 days long instead of somewhere in the region of a fornight as originally stated.
The information posted is from using the British Official History and Rommels account, via The Rommel Papers - his diary ... and not copy and pasted off some website ... which is also wrong.
The summary of why the operation failed, which included things like not using all our armour together was fantasy it was due to a increase in Germand and Italian units, there stiff resistance in places, positions of British units by the end of the day and orders not to get the entire force wiped out .... nothing to do with concetration.
Tobruk was not an objective, Wavell cites that the force was to exploit in that direction if possible and as far as supply allowed. The garrison wasnt even ordered to brakeout...
British losses originally cited large quanties of equipement and stores as well thousands dead ... pure fantasy.
I think people are confusing the original retreat across the country and Operation Battleaxe with this Operation.
So on and so on.
Please i implore you, add to this article as best as possible but not post pure fantasy which contridicts British orders as well as what happened.
The biggest reason I rated this as a Start class article is its like of footnotes and references. It needs a lot more footnotes to even be considered for B-class or higher. Cromdog 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Question about the footnotes, they have been simplifed down to only the authors names. Should this not have been to the book titles incase there is a moment now or in the future that multiple books from the same author are used as source material? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
New question about this for you now, how come you are placing "name=" infront of the referances? Does doing that cut the referances down to: ^ a b c d e f g h i Playfair, pg. 162 etc ? -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks allot!-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 19:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The only bit of the article which i can see which now needs to be improved is the above.
Ive exhausted all publihsed material that i have, as well as nosing all over the net for the casualties substained by the Scots Guard and Rifle Brigade not to mention the Italians. The Commando Supermo website puts the Italian losses at around 500 and the Germans the same iirc so they appear to be inaccurate.
Am unsure what to do in this respect so for the moment i have listed the Scots and Rifle Brigade in the Casualties section and stuck some question marks next to them.--
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk) 14:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that in a couple of places British and German flags have been replaced with a cross and the British Army flag. This is not the convention used in any of the other WWII articles and I wondered if there had been an agreed change in convention? If not, I suggest the current form is confusing and should be changed back. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 14:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Lol, i wasnt suggesting that, i was suggesting that not all German troops were part of the Nazi party but point taken. -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and award B-class status to the article, although I would recommend expanding the lead a little to better cover the topic, one paragraph is sort of slim in this respect. Otherwise, it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks allot for the reassessment :) Will do as suggested. -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for the copyedit, ive been meaning to change the intro and move bits of it into the main article in fact i did write up a draft in work last (yea i have that much to do lol) and emailed myself but looks like i deleleted it so never got around to it. Oh well.never mind found it.
As for the Aussies, they did take part in the battle so i will be reverting a few things you deleted sorry. There divisional cavalry regiment as well as some AT companies/battalions took part - some out on the desert flank and some accompanying the Rifle Brigade.
Dont worry i plan on expanding portions of the article so this will all be added in.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 19:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a full OOB available for each side to include? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sort of...
Allied OOB If you click that link and scroll down you will find an Order of Battle posted for the Allied forces during Operation Brevity.
However i dont know if the authors where aware of this or not, they have posted what appears to be a full list of formations on the border then actual formations which took part. I.e. the Kings Rifle Corp did not, the Coldstream Guards sort of didnt (they followed the attack up on the 15th and took up positions on Halfaya Pass) etc
Aussie units accompanied the Rifle Brigaed (source is Hastings book) and the Divisional Cavalry accompanied the 7th Armour Brigade (source Jentz). Am sure that the Aussie OH also gives this information, but i need to reread that anyhoo.
As for an Axis OOB, i have bits and bobs - am still working on who was actually on the border area. Jentz and Rommel have this information if am not completly mistaken so i should be able to post a decent Axis OOB in this dicussion area later in the week once ive reread both books and checked some other sources.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I know i wrote this and during all the edits noone really changed the wording however am not too sure on this sentance:
"the Australian 6th Infantry Division was sent to join in the Battle of Greece"
Its not grammatically correct is it?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Aye that sounds allot better, ill add it in. Cheers :) -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok other then the probable copyedits which will have to be made to this section to spruce it up, is there anything which anyone feels is missing from it?
At the momment it covers what Operation Compass achieved, the German reaction, the reasons why the Allied forces were so weak and the Axis counterattack leading us right up to the "present day" where the planning section takes over.
I don't think it has missed anything major?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 14:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Other then an update which needs to be made to the info box i was thinking should we also do something like this, so that the strength and losses for both operations are covered but at the time seperated so to avoid confusion. A little something like so:-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 14:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Operation Brevity | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Casualties and losses | |||
Operation Brevity |
Operation Brevity |
Working on that one, i have a good idea where the Rifle Brigade losses are kept however i dont have access to that paticlar book at the mo (will post book title later)... Italian ones are a little harder to come by but ive built up a decent ish picture but dont think i have a slap bang on the money total as of yet.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Aye i was thinking it needed to be cut down. Don't worry ill be giving it a good going over pretty soon :)-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 07:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
References
As per requests here is what i understand to be the complete order of battle for each side and the information surrounding the losses incurred during the operation.
Order of Battle has been transferred to Operation Brevity order of battle. The below order of battle contains a few errors which i have removed in the one on the above page as well as translating all German and Italian unit names into English.
Axis Forces
On the border
Reinforcements
Out of all of them, what was engaged or who engaged the British forces is a different story. The above, as far as i can tell from several sources is the correct order of battle for the Axis forces on the border.
British Forces
At the moment, no other information is available that i am aware of which indicates any of the other units were invovled. As far as i can tell, this is the correct order of battle for British units which actually attacked. The 3rd Hussars history glosses over this battle, but its possible that there D Squadron actually did take part. The 8th Field Regt, RA may infact be only D Battery, 3rd Royal Horse Arty.
Durham Light Infantry
Playfair claims 160 losses Faithful: the Story of the Durham Light Infantry what the DLI website calls an excellent comprehensive history of Regiment, places there losses at 196 (11 officers and 185 Other ranks).
Scots Guards
Only book which i have seen information regarding losses given is Erksines book which places them at 1 dead and 4 wounded. He was also the one which mentioned the damaged carrier which i will remove in a moment.
Rifle Brigade
The book by Major Hasting lists no losses in it for this operation, however i guess the losses would most likely be mentioned in "The Rifle Brigade, 1939-1945: volume 1 & 2" by the Rifle Brigade Club, 1946. Although thats pretty hard to come by.
2RTR
no losses to tanks or personnal, two tanks abandoned due to brakedown but later recovered - Jentz
Other units
Bar the loss of planes and tanks as already cited from Playfair, the manpower losses from those regiments are not mentioned.
German losses
Latimer (and i think Playfair) claim losses as 12 dead, 61 wounded and 185 missing (captured). Jentz states these figures come from the war diary of the DAK. The Italian official history also confirms 258 losses (never read the book or know what its called, the figures were provided to me when requested on a forum)
Seems all sources seem to agree it was only 3 tanks which were complete right offs.
Italian losses
Italian offical history claims 395 losses, however Andreas the guy over on Axis History forum who told me, states the history also contains errors on Brevity so it may not be 100% accurate.
Scots Guards claim 320 prisoners, half of which were Italians from one camp and a "few other prisoners taken later on". Rifle Brigade claim 130 prisoners, have not seen the claim by the DLI which would bring us a total of at least 265 Italian prisoners taken.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Just checking, what is the best way to show citation.
For example, is it more correct to have one citation per page ala the top few sections so you have a several citations at the end of paragraphs etc
For like the way i have done them for the recently edited sections, where each citation contains several different books etc-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Having come across the peer review notice for this article, I've completed a 1st pass copyedit down to and including the 1st para of the plans section. I'll carry on as and when I have the opportunity, though there are precious few of them these days. I have tried to be careful to refer to the allied side as "British and Commonwealth" where appropriate, using only "British" when the subject is the command, or where British forces were the only (or perhaps substantial) elements involved. I must though leave it to those with access to the sources to ensure that such nomenclature is correctly applied. -- FactotEm ( talk) 17:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
All forces taking part in Operation Brevity bar a few Anti Tank platoons and 28 light tanks of the divisional cavalry were Australian, hence most of the time ive used the term "British" it is literally because they are British forces.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 18:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The 2nd para of the "Opening moves" section is a tad confusing... "The remainder of the battalion and C Squadron pushed on towards their second objective..." Presumably the battalion referred to here is the Scots Guards. Correct? "Soon after, the men of the Scots Guards were back in there trucks and heading for there objective. The battalion was able to rapidly capture these two positions..." What was the objective? What were the two positions? "Although, two men were wounded when ‘F’ Company ran into eight German tanks but these soon withdrew." Small point, but does this level of detail really need to be included? -- FactotEm ( talk) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And again in the 3rd para... "As the Matilda tanks closed in on the fort they lost contact with C Company 1DLI, the company tasked with capturing the fort. Facing “vigorous” opposition, the men dismounted from their trucks and went straight into the assault and “intense” fighting ensured." The 2nd sentence just doesn't follow on logically from the first. What happened to C/1DLI? Who were the men who dismounted - were they C/1DLI?
"With the support from ‘A’ and ‘B’ Companies and repeated attacks from the 4RTR, at the cost of another tank, the fort was eventually captured by 1145 hours." A and B Coy's of what regiment? DLI or Scots? -- FactotEm ( talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
sorry about the confusion....
Regarding 2nd para:
Regarding 3rd para:
Again sorry about the confusion, hope that has cleared up the situation for you.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Another one. "At 0200 hours on his own initiative, after waiting for five hours for a response to withdraw, Brigadier Gott ordered the 22nd Guards Brigade Group to withdraw to Halfaya Pass..." The meaning here is not clear to me. Is it that Gott had requested from his superiors permission to withdraw and, having not received a response, did so on his own initiative? -- FactotEm ( talk) 03:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct, Gott requested permission to withdraw from XIII Corps CO, who did not get back to him till about five hours later and iirc (not in front of source atm, am in work) told him to hold his positions - by which time, Gott had already issued the order to pull back to the pass.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 08:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice article. I've done all the copyediting I feel is necessary now. Is there any chance of getting more images to illustrate the narrative? You might be able to pick some up in Commons. Also, I know that the separate OOB looks comprehensive, but this article explains well the British forces involved, but tends to leave one guessing as to the opposing forces involved. Is it worth adding a short para to the plans section summarising the Axis forces to balance out the detail given for the British? -- FactotEm ( talk) 09:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What sort of information did you have in mind for this extra paragraph?
The information in the article stating they were to act agressivly is about all the information i have found in regards to the Axis orders etc. Precise information on what units were garrisoning which paticular area is also a bit sketchy in some places so i, personally, would not be able to detail which unit held what location etc.
Extra images was one of the things i had in mind to add. Am going to do a bit of a hunt for photos of Fort Capuzzo and Halfaya Pass and possibly add a few photos of the tanks invovled.
Btw thanks for all the help on this article! :D-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 10:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just so am on the same page here and not confused what you have meant, the new strucutre would look like so:
1 Background
2 Plans (i think this needs renaming)
3 The battle
3.1 Opening moves (possibly this section too)
3.2 German Reaction
3.3 Afternoon [fighting]
3.3 16 May (or May 16)
4 Aftermath
4.1 Tiger Convoy
4.2 Operation Skorpion (still need to work on this section, if there is enough information i will start a new article and link to Skorpion in the Aftermath section)
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
8 Footnotes
To respond to one of your copyedit summarys:
CE - difficult sentence as not sure if Luftwaffe units were part of Afrika Korps, and no indication of how many
Luftwaffe units - fighter and bomber squadrons and there ground crews were not part of the Afrika Korp as far i understand it, however they were deployed over to North Africa at around abouts the same time. I think there deployment also falls under Operation Sunflower but i cant be too sure of that at the moment while am in work.
Btw on re-reading the section regarding no Allied attempt to retake the pass or Axis attempt to carry on the advance - you are correct there should be no "an" there, my mistake.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 12:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you've had this conversation somewhere before Enigma, but I'm always inclined to keep the infobox information brief, and never like having numbers there referenced. You have extensive details on casualties which I think could be simply summarised totals (men and materiel losses), with the referenced details that are currently displayed being being transferred to the narrative in the aftermath section. Just throwing this up for consideration. -- FactotEm ( talk) 15:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
"
- AFAIK, one of the most important results of Brevity was that it pointed out to Rommel the weaknesses in his front-line. It was because of this that he heavily fortified his positions, which in turn led to the severe mauling the Commonwealth took during Battleaxe.
- I would recommend changing the names of the battle sub-headings to reflect what was actually occurring rather then the date/time it took place.
- I don't know what WP policy on footnotes is, but I think I'd avoid having multiple references within one <ref> tag, probably better to make several separate ones.
- Quite good overall though, a drastic improvement over the last time I was at this page. Oberiko ( talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
"
(Outdent) I'd tend to agree with Oberiko - prefer separate refs. -- FactotEm ( talk) 19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The arrival at Alexandria on the 12 May of this convoy reinforced the British XIII Corps ... etc
To me it doesnt seem to read right. Am also not in the right frame of mind to make it make sence, any help?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"...the 22nd Guards Brigade Group, along with the 4RTR and presumably the Coast Group, had completed their retreat to the pass..." (my italics) Is this presumption taken from the sources? The last we hear of the Coast Group prior to this statement is their capture of the lower pass the previous evening. If they were already at the pass they surely cannot have retreated there? -- FactotEm ( talk) 12:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Again this another area where information is a little hazy and were i have made a bit of a presumption.
2nd Rifle Brigades next objective was the town of Sollum, the OH nor a book about there actions (not the regimental OH) do not mention what they did next. Jentz iirc mentions that the Afrika Korps retook the town without a fight but i dont recall him mentioning the town being captured. However it was late in the day when took there first objejective - did they even push on to take Sollum?
The mention of Gott ordering the men back to the pass is only in regards to the 22nd Guards Brigade group (Scots Guards and Durham Light Infantry) and the tanks.
I would agree, it should be removed as far as we know they never pushed on following the capture of the lower areas of the pass.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 12:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review as stated that the lead is an area, which is paticularly weak, as its currently too detailed but at the same time doesnt provide enough. These is a quick mess about with the lead i have made in work, anyone have any input on it - better, worse?
Operation Brevity was a limited attack launched during the Western Desert Campaign of World War II. It was conducted by elements of the British XIII Corps against elements of the German Afrika Korps and small Italian infantry formations between 15-16 May 1941.
Following the successful advance of the Afrika Korps during March and April 1941, which recaptured all territory gained during Operation Compass excluding the town of Tobuk now under siege, the British launched Operation Brevity as a limited attack to dislodge the Axis forces from the area around the towns of Bardia, Sollum and Capuzzo to secure more ground from which a major attack could later be launched. A secondary objective was to exploit a breakthrough towards Tobruk as far as supply would allow, again without risking the force committed. [1]
The operation started with mixed results, encountering pockets of stiff resistance from German and Italian forces, which were not overcome until the afternoon. Following the arrival of German armoured reinforcements, allied forces were ordered to retire and the operation was called off the next day. [2]
The operation failed to meet any of its objectives other than the capture of the Halfaya Pass, which in turn was lost to a German counterattack on 27 May during Operation Skorpion.
-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 12:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to follow up the comments made by Dhatfield in the peer review re: scope and context, but this goes beyond copyedits so I want to make sure I don't step on any toes by discussing here first.
To my mind the simplest fix for the scope issue is to implement section headers in the British advance section (specifically "Centre column", "Desert column", and "Coastal column").
The only issue that I see with this is that it will introduce a short "Coastal column" section, and short sections are often criticised in reviews/assessments.
In terms of content...
Ok we have edited this article quite a bit over the last few weeks getting the grammar into shape, adding new material and images etc, so what is left to do?
From the peer review:
Other then that, scanning over the article here in work i dont think there is anything else, but well i may be wrong. Any input?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 12:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Just making a note for myself: what does Erskine say Scots Guards objectives where - double check what playfiar says Rifles and Scots objectives where.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 10:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok the sources conflict but at the same time agree. Erskine and Playfair state that the 2nd Rifle Brigade was to Sollum and the Barracks (as well as the lower portion of Halfaya Pass). However he states that "Left Force", 2nd Scots Guards (a company name in place of 'A', 'B' etc) was tasked to mop up and consolidate eastwards towards the barracks.
One would presume the plan was essentially to pincer the town. While the Rifles took the town and headed for the barracks, the Scots Guards compant would be there to halt any Axis retreat and at the same time assist in taking the barracks.
Scots Guards p. 78, Playfair p. 160 -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
After reading through Rommels diary (The Rommel Papers) again, it looks like this process only started once Halfaya Pass had been recaptured thus anything to do with this subject should be in an aftermath section of the Skorpian article not this one.
With that said, am now putting the article forth for reevaluation since i believe it is now compelete.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi all,
A fact tag has been added to the lead following this sentance:
The attack was launched on May 15 and proceeded against stiff resistance, with mixed results.
Well am not sure if it is relevent as the rest of the paragraph expands on what this sentance states and has approbirate citations.
Any advice on what to do?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 08:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
4RTR is mentioned supporting 1DLI but by German reactions section they are not present and no reason why is given - need to add what happened to them.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with stating "... kampfgruppe..." without explaining what one is, thats what the link is for isnt it? I mean by the same logic wouldnt we then have to explain what practically everything else is - will a layman of military history know what a division, company, battalion, Middle East Command, siege, counterattack, Afrika Korps, Panzer, Luftwaffe, Bersaglieri, hull down etc etc etc
I could go on. I just dont get it?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The last sentence in the first para is awkward. It does not flow on from the preceding statements well. It also provides some of the scarce information we have about German dispositions from a British perspective, which doesn't help the balance of this section (which is always going to be somewhat unbalanced given the nature of the operation - all the more reason to snap up any opportunity to address this).
What would work really well is to move that sentence down to the last para, after all the British plans have been dealt with, and beef it up if poss. We know of the 30-50 tanks, but the infobox only says 'elements of several battalions'. Can we get a bit more info? The OOB seems to give it (under Kampfgruppe von Herff). Was that the state at the start of the battle? Don't suppose we know roughly how many troops? Specific units pop up in the subsequent battle narrative (Italians defending the foot of Halfaya, Bersaglieri company and an A-T batt at the top, Pz Regt 5 in action at both Capuzzo and out in the desert), so there must be some info around. -- FactotEm ( talk) 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Jentz, pp.128-129
The Italian units that Rommel had left to guard the border were V battaglione bersagliere autoportato (Montemurro) with two companies, a batteria cannoni 75/27, and a sezione c.a. 2cm along with the II gruppo 24 reggimento artiglieria (Frongia) with 12 105/28 cannoni. The II battaglione 62 reggimento fanterie (minus one company) with a batteria c.c. 47/32 and a batteria c.a. 2 cm, was the only unit manning the defences around Bardia.
...
... In reaction to the increased activity of enemy...Gruppe Herff was reinforced by another battalion from "Trento"...
Everything in bold is how it is displayed in the book. My Italian is non-existant but if i understand it correctly there is two companies from a 5th Motorised infantry battalion and i would assume they were probably the guys.
Information posted on a forum, stating it was created from Italian and German sources backed up by British ones to fill in the gaps would suggest that this was not the battalion and it was another. However they did not show there source and i would not feel comfortable posting the information here as i asked it for personal understanding and didnt say i would then rip them off for the wiki sake.
It would seem people with access to Italian and German sources would be able to answer all your questions.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 18:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
As originally written, the narrative gives the impression that after Halfaya Pass, C 4RTR and the Scots Guards advanced to the Bir Wair/Musaid road separately from the A 4RTR/1DLI advance to Capuzzo. The map, however, shows that the route to Capuzzo goes via the road. Is it accurate therefore to say that, after Halfaya, the Brigade group, rather than C 4RTR/SG, advanced to the road, that C 4RTR/SG were the lead element until Bir Wir & Musaid were taken, and that A 4RTR/1DLI then continued on to Capuzzo? Also, am I right in thinking that the Coldstream Guards were left behind to defend the Pass? -- FactotEm ( talk) 10:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
[Scots and C sqn 4RTR take Halfaya]. The remainder [the Scots], after a pause for the infantry to consolidate, moved on to the second objective Musaid which was taken over without opposition.<sic>
A squadron formed a defensive flank while the action took place at Halfaya. As soon as the area had been taken over, the Squadron (nine tanks) followed by H.Q. moved forward to attack Fort Capuzzo.
We hear that 7th Arm Bde grp was ordered to hold their existing positions when 22nd Gds Bde grp was ordered to withdraw. Then we hear only of 2RTR holding Kampfgruppe von Herff, and subsequently withdrawing that night. What happened to the rest of 7th Arm Bde grp? Was the 2RTR withdrawal actually the 7th Arm Bde grp withdrawal? What do the sources say? -- FactotEm ( talk) 15:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have done a 1st pass of all but the Aftermath section, which I will get round to soon. I have some content issues in this section, which I am seeking consensus for first.
Once I have completed this section, my intention is to leave it a week or so, and then do a 2nd pass, to tidy up all the tiny details of prose. After that, the article will stand a much better chance at the next FAC attempt if it is peer reviewed first. Any problems with any of the above? -- FactotEm ( talk) 09:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
So he should be criticised like Monty for not capturing Caen on D+1? [;-) Keith-264 ( talk) 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Further copyedit underway (finally!). Not much to do, given the attention the article's had already. However, there are some questions below. EyeSerene talk 14:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
"Slowly ...[the battalion]... were compelled to pull back, aided by a certain amount of dust, which blew up, as luck would have it, at the right momment."
-- KP Botany ( talk) 06:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This FA is quite good. But I note that in the article only one mention of the Luftwaffe, RA is made while the RAF DAF is not mentioned at all. It explains that repeated requests were made for air support, by the Axis land forces, yet it does not describe the help it got at all or how it may or may not have helped. Does anyone mind if insert this into this article? Dapi89 ( talk) 10:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
@ Dicklyon: Which sources? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 05:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@ DuncanHill: Whats the difference between sfn and sfnref? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Brevity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Operation Brevity is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"If Rommel permitted his opponents to hold the high ground at Halfaya, his forces outside Tobruk would be left vulnerable to attack from the rear. Equally important, Halfaya represented the principal passage fo armor in either direction across the 500-foot-high escarpment separating the Egyption coastal plain and Libya's desert plateau. Thus, in typical fashion, on the night of May 26, Rommel again sent Colonol Hans Cramer's 8th Panzer Regiment and its support elements in a deep loop around the pass and attacked from the southwest, while a battalion of the 104th Infantry Regiment staged a frontal assault from the northeast. The foot soldiers, under the inspiring command of Captain Wilhelm Bach, a fifty-year-old Evangelical minister from Mannheim, charged up the serpentine road and engaged the defedenders in hand-to-hand combat. A few hours later, the reached the top of the pass and linked up with the panzers thrusting from the opposite direction." --Afrikakorps, Time-Life books, Pg. 41
The article before the last edit was pure fantasy!
The 4th Indian Division did not take part in the Operation it only leant trucks to the Guards.
There was no where near 200+ allied tanks ready for use when the operation began and no way 20 000 men took part! (The Tiger convoy had only just unloaded its cargo, these tanks would need to be prepared like all British tanks for service in the desert (filters would have to be changed etc) and were to rebuild the 7th armour divison)
The Axis forces listed made it seem that there was half the German and Italian army facing the British, there was elements of a few divisions since the majoirty where invested in the encirclement of Tobruk.
The Operation was 2 days long instead of somewhere in the region of a fornight as originally stated.
The information posted is from using the British Official History and Rommels account, via The Rommel Papers - his diary ... and not copy and pasted off some website ... which is also wrong.
The summary of why the operation failed, which included things like not using all our armour together was fantasy it was due to a increase in Germand and Italian units, there stiff resistance in places, positions of British units by the end of the day and orders not to get the entire force wiped out .... nothing to do with concetration.
Tobruk was not an objective, Wavell cites that the force was to exploit in that direction if possible and as far as supply allowed. The garrison wasnt even ordered to brakeout...
British losses originally cited large quanties of equipement and stores as well thousands dead ... pure fantasy.
I think people are confusing the original retreat across the country and Operation Battleaxe with this Operation.
So on and so on.
Please i implore you, add to this article as best as possible but not post pure fantasy which contridicts British orders as well as what happened.
The biggest reason I rated this as a Start class article is its like of footnotes and references. It needs a lot more footnotes to even be considered for B-class or higher. Cromdog 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Question about the footnotes, they have been simplifed down to only the authors names. Should this not have been to the book titles incase there is a moment now or in the future that multiple books from the same author are used as source material? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Regards Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
New question about this for you now, how come you are placing "name=" infront of the referances? Does doing that cut the referances down to: ^ a b c d e f g h i Playfair, pg. 162 etc ? -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks allot!-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 19:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The only bit of the article which i can see which now needs to be improved is the above.
Ive exhausted all publihsed material that i have, as well as nosing all over the net for the casualties substained by the Scots Guard and Rifle Brigade not to mention the Italians. The Commando Supermo website puts the Italian losses at around 500 and the Germans the same iirc so they appear to be inaccurate.
Am unsure what to do in this respect so for the moment i have listed the Scots and Rifle Brigade in the Casualties section and stuck some question marks next to them.--
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk) 14:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that in a couple of places British and German flags have been replaced with a cross and the British Army flag. This is not the convention used in any of the other WWII articles and I wondered if there had been an agreed change in convention? If not, I suggest the current form is confusing and should be changed back. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 14:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Lol, i wasnt suggesting that, i was suggesting that not all German troops were part of the Nazi party but point taken. -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and award B-class status to the article, although I would recommend expanding the lead a little to better cover the topic, one paragraph is sort of slim in this respect. Otherwise, it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks allot for the reassessment :) Will do as suggested. -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for the copyedit, ive been meaning to change the intro and move bits of it into the main article in fact i did write up a draft in work last (yea i have that much to do lol) and emailed myself but looks like i deleleted it so never got around to it. Oh well.never mind found it.
As for the Aussies, they did take part in the battle so i will be reverting a few things you deleted sorry. There divisional cavalry regiment as well as some AT companies/battalions took part - some out on the desert flank and some accompanying the Rifle Brigade.
Dont worry i plan on expanding portions of the article so this will all be added in.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 19:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a full OOB available for each side to include? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sort of...
Allied OOB If you click that link and scroll down you will find an Order of Battle posted for the Allied forces during Operation Brevity.
However i dont know if the authors where aware of this or not, they have posted what appears to be a full list of formations on the border then actual formations which took part. I.e. the Kings Rifle Corp did not, the Coldstream Guards sort of didnt (they followed the attack up on the 15th and took up positions on Halfaya Pass) etc
Aussie units accompanied the Rifle Brigaed (source is Hastings book) and the Divisional Cavalry accompanied the 7th Armour Brigade (source Jentz). Am sure that the Aussie OH also gives this information, but i need to reread that anyhoo.
As for an Axis OOB, i have bits and bobs - am still working on who was actually on the border area. Jentz and Rommel have this information if am not completly mistaken so i should be able to post a decent Axis OOB in this dicussion area later in the week once ive reread both books and checked some other sources.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I know i wrote this and during all the edits noone really changed the wording however am not too sure on this sentance:
"the Australian 6th Infantry Division was sent to join in the Battle of Greece"
Its not grammatically correct is it?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Aye that sounds allot better, ill add it in. Cheers :) -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok other then the probable copyedits which will have to be made to this section to spruce it up, is there anything which anyone feels is missing from it?
At the momment it covers what Operation Compass achieved, the German reaction, the reasons why the Allied forces were so weak and the Axis counterattack leading us right up to the "present day" where the planning section takes over.
I don't think it has missed anything major?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 14:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Other then an update which needs to be made to the info box i was thinking should we also do something like this, so that the strength and losses for both operations are covered but at the time seperated so to avoid confusion. A little something like so:-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 14:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Operation Brevity | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Casualties and losses | |||
Operation Brevity |
Operation Brevity |
Working on that one, i have a good idea where the Rifle Brigade losses are kept however i dont have access to that paticlar book at the mo (will post book title later)... Italian ones are a little harder to come by but ive built up a decent ish picture but dont think i have a slap bang on the money total as of yet.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Aye i was thinking it needed to be cut down. Don't worry ill be giving it a good going over pretty soon :)-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 07:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
References
As per requests here is what i understand to be the complete order of battle for each side and the information surrounding the losses incurred during the operation.
Order of Battle has been transferred to Operation Brevity order of battle. The below order of battle contains a few errors which i have removed in the one on the above page as well as translating all German and Italian unit names into English.
Axis Forces
On the border
Reinforcements
Out of all of them, what was engaged or who engaged the British forces is a different story. The above, as far as i can tell from several sources is the correct order of battle for the Axis forces on the border.
British Forces
At the moment, no other information is available that i am aware of which indicates any of the other units were invovled. As far as i can tell, this is the correct order of battle for British units which actually attacked. The 3rd Hussars history glosses over this battle, but its possible that there D Squadron actually did take part. The 8th Field Regt, RA may infact be only D Battery, 3rd Royal Horse Arty.
Durham Light Infantry
Playfair claims 160 losses Faithful: the Story of the Durham Light Infantry what the DLI website calls an excellent comprehensive history of Regiment, places there losses at 196 (11 officers and 185 Other ranks).
Scots Guards
Only book which i have seen information regarding losses given is Erksines book which places them at 1 dead and 4 wounded. He was also the one which mentioned the damaged carrier which i will remove in a moment.
Rifle Brigade
The book by Major Hasting lists no losses in it for this operation, however i guess the losses would most likely be mentioned in "The Rifle Brigade, 1939-1945: volume 1 & 2" by the Rifle Brigade Club, 1946. Although thats pretty hard to come by.
2RTR
no losses to tanks or personnal, two tanks abandoned due to brakedown but later recovered - Jentz
Other units
Bar the loss of planes and tanks as already cited from Playfair, the manpower losses from those regiments are not mentioned.
German losses
Latimer (and i think Playfair) claim losses as 12 dead, 61 wounded and 185 missing (captured). Jentz states these figures come from the war diary of the DAK. The Italian official history also confirms 258 losses (never read the book or know what its called, the figures were provided to me when requested on a forum)
Seems all sources seem to agree it was only 3 tanks which were complete right offs.
Italian losses
Italian offical history claims 395 losses, however Andreas the guy over on Axis History forum who told me, states the history also contains errors on Brevity so it may not be 100% accurate.
Scots Guards claim 320 prisoners, half of which were Italians from one camp and a "few other prisoners taken later on". Rifle Brigade claim 130 prisoners, have not seen the claim by the DLI which would bring us a total of at least 265 Italian prisoners taken.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Just checking, what is the best way to show citation.
For example, is it more correct to have one citation per page ala the top few sections so you have a several citations at the end of paragraphs etc
For like the way i have done them for the recently edited sections, where each citation contains several different books etc-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Having come across the peer review notice for this article, I've completed a 1st pass copyedit down to and including the 1st para of the plans section. I'll carry on as and when I have the opportunity, though there are precious few of them these days. I have tried to be careful to refer to the allied side as "British and Commonwealth" where appropriate, using only "British" when the subject is the command, or where British forces were the only (or perhaps substantial) elements involved. I must though leave it to those with access to the sources to ensure that such nomenclature is correctly applied. -- FactotEm ( talk) 17:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
All forces taking part in Operation Brevity bar a few Anti Tank platoons and 28 light tanks of the divisional cavalry were Australian, hence most of the time ive used the term "British" it is literally because they are British forces.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 18:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The 2nd para of the "Opening moves" section is a tad confusing... "The remainder of the battalion and C Squadron pushed on towards their second objective..." Presumably the battalion referred to here is the Scots Guards. Correct? "Soon after, the men of the Scots Guards were back in there trucks and heading for there objective. The battalion was able to rapidly capture these two positions..." What was the objective? What were the two positions? "Although, two men were wounded when ‘F’ Company ran into eight German tanks but these soon withdrew." Small point, but does this level of detail really need to be included? -- FactotEm ( talk) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And again in the 3rd para... "As the Matilda tanks closed in on the fort they lost contact with C Company 1DLI, the company tasked with capturing the fort. Facing “vigorous” opposition, the men dismounted from their trucks and went straight into the assault and “intense” fighting ensured." The 2nd sentence just doesn't follow on logically from the first. What happened to C/1DLI? Who were the men who dismounted - were they C/1DLI?
"With the support from ‘A’ and ‘B’ Companies and repeated attacks from the 4RTR, at the cost of another tank, the fort was eventually captured by 1145 hours." A and B Coy's of what regiment? DLI or Scots? -- FactotEm ( talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
sorry about the confusion....
Regarding 2nd para:
Regarding 3rd para:
Again sorry about the confusion, hope that has cleared up the situation for you.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Another one. "At 0200 hours on his own initiative, after waiting for five hours for a response to withdraw, Brigadier Gott ordered the 22nd Guards Brigade Group to withdraw to Halfaya Pass..." The meaning here is not clear to me. Is it that Gott had requested from his superiors permission to withdraw and, having not received a response, did so on his own initiative? -- FactotEm ( talk) 03:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct, Gott requested permission to withdraw from XIII Corps CO, who did not get back to him till about five hours later and iirc (not in front of source atm, am in work) told him to hold his positions - by which time, Gott had already issued the order to pull back to the pass.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 08:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice article. I've done all the copyediting I feel is necessary now. Is there any chance of getting more images to illustrate the narrative? You might be able to pick some up in Commons. Also, I know that the separate OOB looks comprehensive, but this article explains well the British forces involved, but tends to leave one guessing as to the opposing forces involved. Is it worth adding a short para to the plans section summarising the Axis forces to balance out the detail given for the British? -- FactotEm ( talk) 09:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
What sort of information did you have in mind for this extra paragraph?
The information in the article stating they were to act agressivly is about all the information i have found in regards to the Axis orders etc. Precise information on what units were garrisoning which paticular area is also a bit sketchy in some places so i, personally, would not be able to detail which unit held what location etc.
Extra images was one of the things i had in mind to add. Am going to do a bit of a hunt for photos of Fort Capuzzo and Halfaya Pass and possibly add a few photos of the tanks invovled.
Btw thanks for all the help on this article! :D-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 10:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just so am on the same page here and not confused what you have meant, the new strucutre would look like so:
1 Background
2 Plans (i think this needs renaming)
3 The battle
3.1 Opening moves (possibly this section too)
3.2 German Reaction
3.3 Afternoon [fighting]
3.3 16 May (or May 16)
4 Aftermath
4.1 Tiger Convoy
4.2 Operation Skorpion (still need to work on this section, if there is enough information i will start a new article and link to Skorpion in the Aftermath section)
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
8 Footnotes
To respond to one of your copyedit summarys:
CE - difficult sentence as not sure if Luftwaffe units were part of Afrika Korps, and no indication of how many
Luftwaffe units - fighter and bomber squadrons and there ground crews were not part of the Afrika Korp as far i understand it, however they were deployed over to North Africa at around abouts the same time. I think there deployment also falls under Operation Sunflower but i cant be too sure of that at the moment while am in work.
Btw on re-reading the section regarding no Allied attempt to retake the pass or Axis attempt to carry on the advance - you are correct there should be no "an" there, my mistake.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 12:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you've had this conversation somewhere before Enigma, but I'm always inclined to keep the infobox information brief, and never like having numbers there referenced. You have extensive details on casualties which I think could be simply summarised totals (men and materiel losses), with the referenced details that are currently displayed being being transferred to the narrative in the aftermath section. Just throwing this up for consideration. -- FactotEm ( talk) 15:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
"
- AFAIK, one of the most important results of Brevity was that it pointed out to Rommel the weaknesses in his front-line. It was because of this that he heavily fortified his positions, which in turn led to the severe mauling the Commonwealth took during Battleaxe.
- I would recommend changing the names of the battle sub-headings to reflect what was actually occurring rather then the date/time it took place.
- I don't know what WP policy on footnotes is, but I think I'd avoid having multiple references within one <ref> tag, probably better to make several separate ones.
- Quite good overall though, a drastic improvement over the last time I was at this page. Oberiko ( talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
"
(Outdent) I'd tend to agree with Oberiko - prefer separate refs. -- FactotEm ( talk) 19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The arrival at Alexandria on the 12 May of this convoy reinforced the British XIII Corps ... etc
To me it doesnt seem to read right. Am also not in the right frame of mind to make it make sence, any help?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 00:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"...the 22nd Guards Brigade Group, along with the 4RTR and presumably the Coast Group, had completed their retreat to the pass..." (my italics) Is this presumption taken from the sources? The last we hear of the Coast Group prior to this statement is their capture of the lower pass the previous evening. If they were already at the pass they surely cannot have retreated there? -- FactotEm ( talk) 12:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Again this another area where information is a little hazy and were i have made a bit of a presumption.
2nd Rifle Brigades next objective was the town of Sollum, the OH nor a book about there actions (not the regimental OH) do not mention what they did next. Jentz iirc mentions that the Afrika Korps retook the town without a fight but i dont recall him mentioning the town being captured. However it was late in the day when took there first objejective - did they even push on to take Sollum?
The mention of Gott ordering the men back to the pass is only in regards to the 22nd Guards Brigade group (Scots Guards and Durham Light Infantry) and the tanks.
I would agree, it should be removed as far as we know they never pushed on following the capture of the lower areas of the pass.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 12:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The peer review as stated that the lead is an area, which is paticularly weak, as its currently too detailed but at the same time doesnt provide enough. These is a quick mess about with the lead i have made in work, anyone have any input on it - better, worse?
Operation Brevity was a limited attack launched during the Western Desert Campaign of World War II. It was conducted by elements of the British XIII Corps against elements of the German Afrika Korps and small Italian infantry formations between 15-16 May 1941.
Following the successful advance of the Afrika Korps during March and April 1941, which recaptured all territory gained during Operation Compass excluding the town of Tobuk now under siege, the British launched Operation Brevity as a limited attack to dislodge the Axis forces from the area around the towns of Bardia, Sollum and Capuzzo to secure more ground from which a major attack could later be launched. A secondary objective was to exploit a breakthrough towards Tobruk as far as supply would allow, again without risking the force committed. [1]
The operation started with mixed results, encountering pockets of stiff resistance from German and Italian forces, which were not overcome until the afternoon. Following the arrival of German armoured reinforcements, allied forces were ordered to retire and the operation was called off the next day. [2]
The operation failed to meet any of its objectives other than the capture of the Halfaya Pass, which in turn was lost to a German counterattack on 27 May during Operation Skorpion.
-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 12:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to follow up the comments made by Dhatfield in the peer review re: scope and context, but this goes beyond copyedits so I want to make sure I don't step on any toes by discussing here first.
To my mind the simplest fix for the scope issue is to implement section headers in the British advance section (specifically "Centre column", "Desert column", and "Coastal column").
The only issue that I see with this is that it will introduce a short "Coastal column" section, and short sections are often criticised in reviews/assessments.
In terms of content...
Ok we have edited this article quite a bit over the last few weeks getting the grammar into shape, adding new material and images etc, so what is left to do?
From the peer review:
Other then that, scanning over the article here in work i dont think there is anything else, but well i may be wrong. Any input?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 12:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Just making a note for myself: what does Erskine say Scots Guards objectives where - double check what playfiar says Rifles and Scots objectives where.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 10:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok the sources conflict but at the same time agree. Erskine and Playfair state that the 2nd Rifle Brigade was to Sollum and the Barracks (as well as the lower portion of Halfaya Pass). However he states that "Left Force", 2nd Scots Guards (a company name in place of 'A', 'B' etc) was tasked to mop up and consolidate eastwards towards the barracks.
One would presume the plan was essentially to pincer the town. While the Rifles took the town and headed for the barracks, the Scots Guards compant would be there to halt any Axis retreat and at the same time assist in taking the barracks.
Scots Guards p. 78, Playfair p. 160 -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
After reading through Rommels diary (The Rommel Papers) again, it looks like this process only started once Halfaya Pass had been recaptured thus anything to do with this subject should be in an aftermath section of the Skorpian article not this one.
With that said, am now putting the article forth for reevaluation since i believe it is now compelete.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi all,
A fact tag has been added to the lead following this sentance:
The attack was launched on May 15 and proceeded against stiff resistance, with mixed results.
Well am not sure if it is relevent as the rest of the paragraph expands on what this sentance states and has approbirate citations.
Any advice on what to do?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 08:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
4RTR is mentioned supporting 1DLI but by German reactions section they are not present and no reason why is given - need to add what happened to them.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with stating "... kampfgruppe..." without explaining what one is, thats what the link is for isnt it? I mean by the same logic wouldnt we then have to explain what practically everything else is - will a layman of military history know what a division, company, battalion, Middle East Command, siege, counterattack, Afrika Korps, Panzer, Luftwaffe, Bersaglieri, hull down etc etc etc
I could go on. I just dont get it?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The last sentence in the first para is awkward. It does not flow on from the preceding statements well. It also provides some of the scarce information we have about German dispositions from a British perspective, which doesn't help the balance of this section (which is always going to be somewhat unbalanced given the nature of the operation - all the more reason to snap up any opportunity to address this).
What would work really well is to move that sentence down to the last para, after all the British plans have been dealt with, and beef it up if poss. We know of the 30-50 tanks, but the infobox only says 'elements of several battalions'. Can we get a bit more info? The OOB seems to give it (under Kampfgruppe von Herff). Was that the state at the start of the battle? Don't suppose we know roughly how many troops? Specific units pop up in the subsequent battle narrative (Italians defending the foot of Halfaya, Bersaglieri company and an A-T batt at the top, Pz Regt 5 in action at both Capuzzo and out in the desert), so there must be some info around. -- FactotEm ( talk) 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Jentz, pp.128-129
The Italian units that Rommel had left to guard the border were V battaglione bersagliere autoportato (Montemurro) with two companies, a batteria cannoni 75/27, and a sezione c.a. 2cm along with the II gruppo 24 reggimento artiglieria (Frongia) with 12 105/28 cannoni. The II battaglione 62 reggimento fanterie (minus one company) with a batteria c.c. 47/32 and a batteria c.a. 2 cm, was the only unit manning the defences around Bardia.
...
... In reaction to the increased activity of enemy...Gruppe Herff was reinforced by another battalion from "Trento"...
Everything in bold is how it is displayed in the book. My Italian is non-existant but if i understand it correctly there is two companies from a 5th Motorised infantry battalion and i would assume they were probably the guys.
Information posted on a forum, stating it was created from Italian and German sources backed up by British ones to fill in the gaps would suggest that this was not the battalion and it was another. However they did not show there source and i would not feel comfortable posting the information here as i asked it for personal understanding and didnt say i would then rip them off for the wiki sake.
It would seem people with access to Italian and German sources would be able to answer all your questions.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 18:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
As originally written, the narrative gives the impression that after Halfaya Pass, C 4RTR and the Scots Guards advanced to the Bir Wair/Musaid road separately from the A 4RTR/1DLI advance to Capuzzo. The map, however, shows that the route to Capuzzo goes via the road. Is it accurate therefore to say that, after Halfaya, the Brigade group, rather than C 4RTR/SG, advanced to the road, that C 4RTR/SG were the lead element until Bir Wir & Musaid were taken, and that A 4RTR/1DLI then continued on to Capuzzo? Also, am I right in thinking that the Coldstream Guards were left behind to defend the Pass? -- FactotEm ( talk) 10:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
[Scots and C sqn 4RTR take Halfaya]. The remainder [the Scots], after a pause for the infantry to consolidate, moved on to the second objective Musaid which was taken over without opposition.<sic>
A squadron formed a defensive flank while the action took place at Halfaya. As soon as the area had been taken over, the Squadron (nine tanks) followed by H.Q. moved forward to attack Fort Capuzzo.
We hear that 7th Arm Bde grp was ordered to hold their existing positions when 22nd Gds Bde grp was ordered to withdraw. Then we hear only of 2RTR holding Kampfgruppe von Herff, and subsequently withdrawing that night. What happened to the rest of 7th Arm Bde grp? Was the 2RTR withdrawal actually the 7th Arm Bde grp withdrawal? What do the sources say? -- FactotEm ( talk) 15:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have done a 1st pass of all but the Aftermath section, which I will get round to soon. I have some content issues in this section, which I am seeking consensus for first.
Once I have completed this section, my intention is to leave it a week or so, and then do a 2nd pass, to tidy up all the tiny details of prose. After that, the article will stand a much better chance at the next FAC attempt if it is peer reviewed first. Any problems with any of the above? -- FactotEm ( talk) 09:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
So he should be criticised like Monty for not capturing Caen on D+1? [;-) Keith-264 ( talk) 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Further copyedit underway (finally!). Not much to do, given the attention the article's had already. However, there are some questions below. EyeSerene talk 14:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
"Slowly ...[the battalion]... were compelled to pull back, aided by a certain amount of dust, which blew up, as luck would have it, at the right momment."
-- KP Botany ( talk) 06:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This FA is quite good. But I note that in the article only one mention of the Luftwaffe, RA is made while the RAF DAF is not mentioned at all. It explains that repeated requests were made for air support, by the Axis land forces, yet it does not describe the help it got at all or how it may or may not have helped. Does anyone mind if insert this into this article? Dapi89 ( talk) 10:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
@ Dicklyon: Which sources? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 05:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@ DuncanHill: Whats the difference between sfn and sfnref? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)