This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Compass 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 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 9, 2012, December 9, 2015, and December 9, 2020. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Operation Compass was copied or moved into British capture of Tobruk on 17:20, 27 November 2019. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
"men" in force strengths is opposed to guns or tanks or aircraft, not to women
"killed" in casualties, because total casualties are killed+wounded+captured+missing
"India" because there were forces of the (British) Indian Army - specifically 4th Indian Division - involved in this campaign.
Richard Gadsden 12:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Well..
What else can they be if they are not men?
"....there were forces of the (British) Indian Army - specifically 4th Indian Division - involved in this campaign."
That doesn't change the fact that India was part of the British Empire and did not exist as an independent country. Thousands Indians also fought with the Japanese during WWII, but I don't see any mentionings about that in the Japanese side of the battle boxes of the Asian battles.
And I did not mean to remove the word killed, sorry for that.
Both this article and the Beda Fomm ones are pretty short. I think that, for now at least, the Battle of Beda Fomm can be a section in the main Operation Compass page. Oberiko 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Forces for Italiens: 100K But somehow they got 130K captured. Did they spawn new soldiers during the battle by themselfs or is something hidden in the numbers? =) Zarkow 203.144.143.9 12:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Come on! How can be Italians lost more than 1000 planes in tha campaign, when the total amount of plane Italy could have displayed in Lybia could not exceed 542 (optimistic number)!! Who wrote that?? Also I do not see other stats which can put this battle into a different perspective than which seems stereotype; ie 35 Matildas out of 57 were lost by the English; 4/5 of motorized vehicles were damaged and could not prosecute offensive and – above all: did you notice that more or less 2000 casualties out of 36000 – I use your stats; the truth is English force was 31000 – means 1 out of 20 English soldiers were wounded in battle (very high rate)?...not so easy battle after all... Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.252.96.8 ( talk) 16:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
And 600 Italian Tanks?? Please... Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.252.96.8 ( talk) 16:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I checked the relalnumber of Italian planes lost: 77 due to fighting, 40 destroyed on ground, 91 destroyed during the retreat - 208 planes in total (please note that Italians had 594 planes TOTAL in 1940 - how can be that they lost more than 1000 in Lybia alone??) Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.252.96.10 ( talk) 07:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
has got to be rubbish!
"31,000 soldiers(december 1940 250,000)[1]"
Forces involved in Compass: 7th Armour and the 4th Indian plus iirc some small other units, in December the Indian division transferred to East Africa and the Aussies took there role for the rest of the campaign.
So total of 2 divisions active at any one time .... how does that add up to 250 000 men!
To my understanding, there was other Aussies Divisions in Palestine, other British units based near the suez canal and at the forward base. But including them which is the only thing i can see has happened is just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
infor removed: (December 1940 250,000) [1] -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 13:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Come on! How can be Italians lost more than 1000 planes in tha campaign, when the total amount of plane Italy could have displayed in Lybia could not exceed 542 (optimistic number)!! Who wrote that?? Also I do not see other stats which can put this battle into a different perspective than which seems stereotype; ie 35 Matildas out of 57 were lost by the English; 4/5 of motorized vehicles were damaged and could not prosecute offensive and – above all: did you notice that more or less 2000 casualties out of 36000 – I use your stats; the truth is English force was 31000 – means 1 out of 20 English soldiers were wounded in battle (very high rate)?...not so easy battle after all... Antonio
References
I question existance of the Brigata Corazzato Speciale (BCS) or " Special Armored Brigade." A description of this unit has shown up under "Derna." It is indicated that this unit had 50 M11/39 tanks. Where did they come from? There were about 100 M11 tanks manufactured. About 70 went to Libya and about 24 went to East Africa. Many of the M11 tanks represented "the armor" when Graziani invaded Egypt. A few were held back at places like Bardia. By the time the British were advancing on Derna, the M11 tanks in Libya were almost all captured or destroyed. At the Battle of Beda Fomm, some newly arrived M13/40 tanks were thrown against the anti-tank guns of the British forces blocking the Italian retreat. But this was about two battalions (approximatel 100 vehicles) of M13/40 tanks. As indicated, I have no idea where the Italians would have gotten an additional 50 M11/39 tanks. Also, Lieutenant-General "Valentino Babini" (the supposed leader of the Brigata Corazzato Speciale ) was the commanding officer of the "Sirte" 61st Infantry Division. In 1940, the Sirte Division was part of the Italian 5th Army in Libya which was on the border with French Tunisia. Mkpumphrey ( talk) 22:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is time to create some separate "battle articles" for this campaign. The Camps, Bardia, Tobruk, Derna, and Beda Fomm all seem like good candidates. This would allow "overviews" of each battle in this article and not the detailed sub-sections currently featured ( ... I may even be able to add a few more references here and there ... and add a little more about the air and sea aspects of the overall campaign). I may start by working the "Invasion of Egypt" section down to what is absolutely necessary and allow that article to stand on its own. Anyone mind if I get started? Mkpumphrey ( talk) 15:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
They were covered by the 7th Armoured Division (which included companies of Free French Forces), which ensured that the Bardia garrison could neither withdraw nor be reinforced.[40]
I cant seen mention of Free French forces being part of the 7th Armoured Division in the reference supplied. however Jon Latimer (p. 25) states that a Motor Marine Company was attached to the Western Desert Force as a Corps assesst. The only other mention of them is on p. 53 when he states a minor attack, where they were supporting 6RTR (4th Arm bde) was a failure on the attack on Bardia. Sgt Harry Kirkham "Found our allies reluctant to attack. I looked beind at the FF ifnatry and there was not a man in sight".
Playfair's only mention of Free French forces supporting the British Army was during the Italian invasion and then not a peep about them.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 18:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It was suggested last year that the various battles here should have their own articles, and the content here summarized.
I think it's a good idea; what does anybody else think?
Xyl 54 (
talk)
23:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an odd phrase in the article to my eyes: "Due praise went to Italian anti-tank and artillery gunners who managed to destroy eighteen British tanks but eventually, 237 artillery pieces, 73 light and medium tanks, and about 38,300 Italian and Libyan soldiers were destroyed or captured."
I think we should avoid phrases like "Due praise" - this feels like a biased piece of reporting promoting the Italian point of view. Also describing the soldiers as "destroyed or captured" is rather strange. Is this a translation from an unidentified source?
I have changed the text to a more neutral sentence
"73 Italian tanks and 237 artillery pieces were destroyed or captured and approximately 38,300 Italian and Libyan soldiers killed or captured. 18 British tanks were destroyed."
The next sentence then says that "dozens" of British tanks were destroyed. Some cleaning up of facts is required here. Were 18 British tanks destroyed, or dozens? (18 = 1.5 dozen).
-- mgaved ( talk) 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
How did the Italians lose 918 more planes than they initially possessed? The footnotes are no help in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.22.21.143 ( talk) 10:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The previous issue (Italians losing almost 4 times as many planes as they even had) is only the most obvious discrepancy.
The British had at least 20 more planes according to the note. (46 fighters + 116 bombers = 162, if the squadron lists are just a more specific breakdown of the 162. Otherwise they had even more.)
Once I start questioning, other items could use some backup.
For example, the British commanders are listed as Archibald Wavell, Henry Maitland Wilson, and Richard O'Connor, with 36000 soldiers and 275 tanks. It does not mention any naval support.
The main article, in contrast, under "Opposing Forces" claimed that Wavell was in charge of the whole Middle East Command, which had only 30,000 troops in Egypt. This section does not mention Henry Maitland Wilson, though the "Britsh Plans" section suggests that he was in charge of all Egypt (and thus of all 30000 or 36000 involved?) It does mention Lieutenant-General Richard O'Connor as commanding the Western Desert Force, but also Major-General Noel Beresford-Peirse (4th Indian Infantry Division) and Major-General Sir Michael O'Moore Creagh (7th Armoured Division, the "Desert Rats"), and Major-General Iven Mackay (6th Australian Infantry Division). Were these Major Generals reporting to O'Connor (in which case he had direct charge of the whole campaign)? Should they be in the summary box? I couldn't find tank or artillery counts within the article, but articles on the individual units suggests that this may have been an overestimate. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Armoured_Division_(United_Kingdom) says that "The unit was meant to be equipped with 220 tanks. However, at the outbreak of war the 'Mobile Force' had only 65.", and it isn't clear how many of the rest arrived before Operation Compass was completed. The "British plans" section does refer to the Royal Navy, and the "Battle of Marmarica/Battle of the Camps" section refers to a monitor and two gunboats -- each of which may be worth several tanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimJJewett ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
In both the Wikipedia pages for Italian Lieutenant General
Annibale Bergonzoli and
Military Figures' Nicknames the Italian "barba elettrica" is translated "Electric Whiskers", rather than "Electric Beard," as appears in both this page's section on
Bardia and on the page for the
Battle of Bardia. I suggest making this consistent among Wikipedia pages.
☺
Dick Kimball (
talk)
15:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It's some time since I looked at this article. It has become somewhat bloated with much too much detail for an article of this level and huge quotes have appeared in the citation list. I will work my way through,tidying up the citations and moving quotes (where relevant) into the Notes section. I will also make a start in tightening up and removing some extraneous detail but I suspect a full review will be needed in due course. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Will transfer to article once tidied Keith-264 ( talk) 11:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Keith-264's revision at 20:28, 5 April 2015 deleted two sizeable paragraphs without explanation, calling this a "minor" edit. As such, the narrative now leaps from 5 January to 21 January, with no explanation of what happened in between. As a reader, this is extremely confusing. I'll restore his previous version, pending some explanation of why this sizeable deletion was helpful. - Zulu Kane ( talk) 04:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Though brief, this section seemed somewhat disjointed. It also describes some events without dates or references and/or locations. I attempted to organize the existing text into a separate paragraph for each place/battle. - Zulu Kane ( talk) 05:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@100men, while I don't reject newspapers as reliable tout court, a censored paper during a war is difficult to represent as reliable, particularly against the OH which was written later and the intelligence report which summarised the number and places that pow's were taken. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as local colour and as a guide to what Australians were being told about the war, a paper seems to me to be reliable but as a repository of facts I think not, hence moving the recent edit to a note. What do you think? Keith-264 ( talk) 06:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@100Men I have corralled recent additions of contemporary news reports in notes, since they are of questionable reliability and done the same to lists of casualties, since they are contradictory and have no place in the narrative. Newspaper reports written under corporate and military censorship during a war are a curiosity not reliable sources. Adding a list of tertiary and quaternary sources about casualties is all very well but belongs in the casualties section where the discrepancies can be discussed. Breaking paragraphs and leaving sentences dangling without a citation is also a deplorable practice. If you must used newspapers as sources, I suggest you write an associated article where you can compare the contemporary disclosures of military censors to the press, what the press did with it and what subsequent revelations show about the censorship. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Please note that different numbers of casualties are endemic in articles like this and are best left to the separate casualties section rather than being strewn all over the narrative. Notice also that several of these sections are abstracts from a complete article where direpancies between sources should be discussed. This article is about Operation Compass and its sequel, the exploitation etc is covered in more detail in the individual articles, which are the right place for minutiae. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that accept different casualty figures to let the readers decide. Also plenty of Wikepedia articles accept newspapers reports as sources, but obviously that's a big no no here.-- 121.44.136.27 ( talk) 18:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is a British newsreel at the time saying the number of POWS at Bardia was 25,000 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0eb_1311123780, Churchill in his book claims the number was 45,000. Let the readers decide.-- 121.44.136.27 ( talk) 18:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, you're a gentleman. I'm adding the missing references to do with the lower figure claimed captured at Tobruk. I hope you can take the time to do the same with the page to do with the Battle of Little Big Horn, I tried years ago but got eaten alive.-- 121.44.136.27 ( talk) 20:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It's me, I forgot to log in in the morning, it was about 5am local time & I was half-asleep. Thanks you for creating a new section.-- 100menonmars ( talk) 00:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
leslie morshead and rob scobie not in time on operation compass (1940), you can read at leslie and scobie time line. LlIlIIpowderIIlIl ( talk) 17:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Per the Eric Dorman-Smith article:
"Dorman-Smith is credited by historian Correlli Barnett[33] with planning Operation Compass and with the discovery of a gap in the Italian lines south of Sidi Barrani.[34]"
33. Barnett p. 34 and 339, The Desert Generals 34. Greacen p. 162, Chink: A Biography
This seems worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetweaker2017 ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@ DePiep: Apols, that was me editing on Word and not adequately checking. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Havsjö: Filling the infobox when one side is a coalition and the other isn't unbalances the box, which is a summary not the article. Some of the Allied side were insignificant compared to the British and Empire forces and don't merit equal weight. British, Commonwealth and Allied is quite sufficient given that those interested can unroll the scroll. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@
Keith-264:The infobox with the hidden countries is 3 lines long, with showing the countries its 5 lines, thats a difference in infobox size of only two lines (or one since I also made the name of Annibale Bergonzoli not break). There is no "clutter" in the box when clearly laying out the countries compared to having to also open them to show them for the same amount of space (Which also doubles when opened). It also inarticulately doesn't show which are colonies are "tied" to which country.
The infobox should clearly show the participants at no cost of space--
Havsjö (
talk)
13:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Reaching consensus isn't a matter of voting. Keith-264 ( talk) 22:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Pls note that France dropped out of the alliance when it made a separate peace with Germany in June 1940. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 09:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
This is special pleading, pls refer to the RS. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 03:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Australia was a Dominion; depending on the definition it became independent in 1948 or 1984. Chant is a source but not necessarily reliable, you need to check what authors call it. do you have any books to refer to? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
References
A mass of Italian prisoners is hardly more representative of Operation Compass than the earlier pic. I'd put a map there instead. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Infomanfromearth: You will need to cite your addition. Please note that dates aren't the 6th of January but 6 January and if you do a link it helps to check if it has already been done up the page. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Compass 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 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 9, 2012, December 9, 2015, and December 9, 2020. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Operation Compass was copied or moved into British capture of Tobruk on 17:20, 27 November 2019. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
"men" in force strengths is opposed to guns or tanks or aircraft, not to women
"killed" in casualties, because total casualties are killed+wounded+captured+missing
"India" because there were forces of the (British) Indian Army - specifically 4th Indian Division - involved in this campaign.
Richard Gadsden 12:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Well..
What else can they be if they are not men?
"....there were forces of the (British) Indian Army - specifically 4th Indian Division - involved in this campaign."
That doesn't change the fact that India was part of the British Empire and did not exist as an independent country. Thousands Indians also fought with the Japanese during WWII, but I don't see any mentionings about that in the Japanese side of the battle boxes of the Asian battles.
And I did not mean to remove the word killed, sorry for that.
Both this article and the Beda Fomm ones are pretty short. I think that, for now at least, the Battle of Beda Fomm can be a section in the main Operation Compass page. Oberiko 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Forces for Italiens: 100K But somehow they got 130K captured. Did they spawn new soldiers during the battle by themselfs or is something hidden in the numbers? =) Zarkow 203.144.143.9 12:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Come on! How can be Italians lost more than 1000 planes in tha campaign, when the total amount of plane Italy could have displayed in Lybia could not exceed 542 (optimistic number)!! Who wrote that?? Also I do not see other stats which can put this battle into a different perspective than which seems stereotype; ie 35 Matildas out of 57 were lost by the English; 4/5 of motorized vehicles were damaged and could not prosecute offensive and – above all: did you notice that more or less 2000 casualties out of 36000 – I use your stats; the truth is English force was 31000 – means 1 out of 20 English soldiers were wounded in battle (very high rate)?...not so easy battle after all... Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.252.96.8 ( talk) 16:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
And 600 Italian Tanks?? Please... Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.252.96.8 ( talk) 16:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I checked the relalnumber of Italian planes lost: 77 due to fighting, 40 destroyed on ground, 91 destroyed during the retreat - 208 planes in total (please note that Italians had 594 planes TOTAL in 1940 - how can be that they lost more than 1000 in Lybia alone??) Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.252.96.10 ( talk) 07:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
has got to be rubbish!
"31,000 soldiers(december 1940 250,000)[1]"
Forces involved in Compass: 7th Armour and the 4th Indian plus iirc some small other units, in December the Indian division transferred to East Africa and the Aussies took there role for the rest of the campaign.
So total of 2 divisions active at any one time .... how does that add up to 250 000 men!
To my understanding, there was other Aussies Divisions in Palestine, other British units based near the suez canal and at the forward base. But including them which is the only thing i can see has happened is just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
infor removed: (December 1940 250,000) [1] -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 13:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Come on! How can be Italians lost more than 1000 planes in tha campaign, when the total amount of plane Italy could have displayed in Lybia could not exceed 542 (optimistic number)!! Who wrote that?? Also I do not see other stats which can put this battle into a different perspective than which seems stereotype; ie 35 Matildas out of 57 were lost by the English; 4/5 of motorized vehicles were damaged and could not prosecute offensive and – above all: did you notice that more or less 2000 casualties out of 36000 – I use your stats; the truth is English force was 31000 – means 1 out of 20 English soldiers were wounded in battle (very high rate)?...not so easy battle after all... Antonio
References
I question existance of the Brigata Corazzato Speciale (BCS) or " Special Armored Brigade." A description of this unit has shown up under "Derna." It is indicated that this unit had 50 M11/39 tanks. Where did they come from? There were about 100 M11 tanks manufactured. About 70 went to Libya and about 24 went to East Africa. Many of the M11 tanks represented "the armor" when Graziani invaded Egypt. A few were held back at places like Bardia. By the time the British were advancing on Derna, the M11 tanks in Libya were almost all captured or destroyed. At the Battle of Beda Fomm, some newly arrived M13/40 tanks were thrown against the anti-tank guns of the British forces blocking the Italian retreat. But this was about two battalions (approximatel 100 vehicles) of M13/40 tanks. As indicated, I have no idea where the Italians would have gotten an additional 50 M11/39 tanks. Also, Lieutenant-General "Valentino Babini" (the supposed leader of the Brigata Corazzato Speciale ) was the commanding officer of the "Sirte" 61st Infantry Division. In 1940, the Sirte Division was part of the Italian 5th Army in Libya which was on the border with French Tunisia. Mkpumphrey ( talk) 22:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is time to create some separate "battle articles" for this campaign. The Camps, Bardia, Tobruk, Derna, and Beda Fomm all seem like good candidates. This would allow "overviews" of each battle in this article and not the detailed sub-sections currently featured ( ... I may even be able to add a few more references here and there ... and add a little more about the air and sea aspects of the overall campaign). I may start by working the "Invasion of Egypt" section down to what is absolutely necessary and allow that article to stand on its own. Anyone mind if I get started? Mkpumphrey ( talk) 15:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
They were covered by the 7th Armoured Division (which included companies of Free French Forces), which ensured that the Bardia garrison could neither withdraw nor be reinforced.[40]
I cant seen mention of Free French forces being part of the 7th Armoured Division in the reference supplied. however Jon Latimer (p. 25) states that a Motor Marine Company was attached to the Western Desert Force as a Corps assesst. The only other mention of them is on p. 53 when he states a minor attack, where they were supporting 6RTR (4th Arm bde) was a failure on the attack on Bardia. Sgt Harry Kirkham "Found our allies reluctant to attack. I looked beind at the FF ifnatry and there was not a man in sight".
Playfair's only mention of Free French forces supporting the British Army was during the Italian invasion and then not a peep about them.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 18:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It was suggested last year that the various battles here should have their own articles, and the content here summarized.
I think it's a good idea; what does anybody else think?
Xyl 54 (
talk)
23:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an odd phrase in the article to my eyes: "Due praise went to Italian anti-tank and artillery gunners who managed to destroy eighteen British tanks but eventually, 237 artillery pieces, 73 light and medium tanks, and about 38,300 Italian and Libyan soldiers were destroyed or captured."
I think we should avoid phrases like "Due praise" - this feels like a biased piece of reporting promoting the Italian point of view. Also describing the soldiers as "destroyed or captured" is rather strange. Is this a translation from an unidentified source?
I have changed the text to a more neutral sentence
"73 Italian tanks and 237 artillery pieces were destroyed or captured and approximately 38,300 Italian and Libyan soldiers killed or captured. 18 British tanks were destroyed."
The next sentence then says that "dozens" of British tanks were destroyed. Some cleaning up of facts is required here. Were 18 British tanks destroyed, or dozens? (18 = 1.5 dozen).
-- mgaved ( talk) 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
How did the Italians lose 918 more planes than they initially possessed? The footnotes are no help in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.22.21.143 ( talk) 10:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The previous issue (Italians losing almost 4 times as many planes as they even had) is only the most obvious discrepancy.
The British had at least 20 more planes according to the note. (46 fighters + 116 bombers = 162, if the squadron lists are just a more specific breakdown of the 162. Otherwise they had even more.)
Once I start questioning, other items could use some backup.
For example, the British commanders are listed as Archibald Wavell, Henry Maitland Wilson, and Richard O'Connor, with 36000 soldiers and 275 tanks. It does not mention any naval support.
The main article, in contrast, under "Opposing Forces" claimed that Wavell was in charge of the whole Middle East Command, which had only 30,000 troops in Egypt. This section does not mention Henry Maitland Wilson, though the "Britsh Plans" section suggests that he was in charge of all Egypt (and thus of all 30000 or 36000 involved?) It does mention Lieutenant-General Richard O'Connor as commanding the Western Desert Force, but also Major-General Noel Beresford-Peirse (4th Indian Infantry Division) and Major-General Sir Michael O'Moore Creagh (7th Armoured Division, the "Desert Rats"), and Major-General Iven Mackay (6th Australian Infantry Division). Were these Major Generals reporting to O'Connor (in which case he had direct charge of the whole campaign)? Should they be in the summary box? I couldn't find tank or artillery counts within the article, but articles on the individual units suggests that this may have been an overestimate. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Armoured_Division_(United_Kingdom) says that "The unit was meant to be equipped with 220 tanks. However, at the outbreak of war the 'Mobile Force' had only 65.", and it isn't clear how many of the rest arrived before Operation Compass was completed. The "British plans" section does refer to the Royal Navy, and the "Battle of Marmarica/Battle of the Camps" section refers to a monitor and two gunboats -- each of which may be worth several tanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimJJewett ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
In both the Wikipedia pages for Italian Lieutenant General
Annibale Bergonzoli and
Military Figures' Nicknames the Italian "barba elettrica" is translated "Electric Whiskers", rather than "Electric Beard," as appears in both this page's section on
Bardia and on the page for the
Battle of Bardia. I suggest making this consistent among Wikipedia pages.
☺
Dick Kimball (
talk)
15:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It's some time since I looked at this article. It has become somewhat bloated with much too much detail for an article of this level and huge quotes have appeared in the citation list. I will work my way through,tidying up the citations and moving quotes (where relevant) into the Notes section. I will also make a start in tightening up and removing some extraneous detail but I suspect a full review will be needed in due course. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Will transfer to article once tidied Keith-264 ( talk) 11:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Keith-264's revision at 20:28, 5 April 2015 deleted two sizeable paragraphs without explanation, calling this a "minor" edit. As such, the narrative now leaps from 5 January to 21 January, with no explanation of what happened in between. As a reader, this is extremely confusing. I'll restore his previous version, pending some explanation of why this sizeable deletion was helpful. - Zulu Kane ( talk) 04:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Though brief, this section seemed somewhat disjointed. It also describes some events without dates or references and/or locations. I attempted to organize the existing text into a separate paragraph for each place/battle. - Zulu Kane ( talk) 05:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@100men, while I don't reject newspapers as reliable tout court, a censored paper during a war is difficult to represent as reliable, particularly against the OH which was written later and the intelligence report which summarised the number and places that pow's were taken. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as local colour and as a guide to what Australians were being told about the war, a paper seems to me to be reliable but as a repository of facts I think not, hence moving the recent edit to a note. What do you think? Keith-264 ( talk) 06:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@100Men I have corralled recent additions of contemporary news reports in notes, since they are of questionable reliability and done the same to lists of casualties, since they are contradictory and have no place in the narrative. Newspaper reports written under corporate and military censorship during a war are a curiosity not reliable sources. Adding a list of tertiary and quaternary sources about casualties is all very well but belongs in the casualties section where the discrepancies can be discussed. Breaking paragraphs and leaving sentences dangling without a citation is also a deplorable practice. If you must used newspapers as sources, I suggest you write an associated article where you can compare the contemporary disclosures of military censors to the press, what the press did with it and what subsequent revelations show about the censorship. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Please note that different numbers of casualties are endemic in articles like this and are best left to the separate casualties section rather than being strewn all over the narrative. Notice also that several of these sections are abstracts from a complete article where direpancies between sources should be discussed. This article is about Operation Compass and its sequel, the exploitation etc is covered in more detail in the individual articles, which are the right place for minutiae. Keith-264 ( talk) 18:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that accept different casualty figures to let the readers decide. Also plenty of Wikepedia articles accept newspapers reports as sources, but obviously that's a big no no here.-- 121.44.136.27 ( talk) 18:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is a British newsreel at the time saying the number of POWS at Bardia was 25,000 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0eb_1311123780, Churchill in his book claims the number was 45,000. Let the readers decide.-- 121.44.136.27 ( talk) 18:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, you're a gentleman. I'm adding the missing references to do with the lower figure claimed captured at Tobruk. I hope you can take the time to do the same with the page to do with the Battle of Little Big Horn, I tried years ago but got eaten alive.-- 121.44.136.27 ( talk) 20:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It's me, I forgot to log in in the morning, it was about 5am local time & I was half-asleep. Thanks you for creating a new section.-- 100menonmars ( talk) 00:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
leslie morshead and rob scobie not in time on operation compass (1940), you can read at leslie and scobie time line. LlIlIIpowderIIlIl ( talk) 17:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Per the Eric Dorman-Smith article:
"Dorman-Smith is credited by historian Correlli Barnett[33] with planning Operation Compass and with the discovery of a gap in the Italian lines south of Sidi Barrani.[34]"
33. Barnett p. 34 and 339, The Desert Generals 34. Greacen p. 162, Chink: A Biography
This seems worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetweaker2017 ( talk • contribs) 12:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@ DePiep: Apols, that was me editing on Word and not adequately checking. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Havsjö: Filling the infobox when one side is a coalition and the other isn't unbalances the box, which is a summary not the article. Some of the Allied side were insignificant compared to the British and Empire forces and don't merit equal weight. British, Commonwealth and Allied is quite sufficient given that those interested can unroll the scroll. Keith-264 ( talk) 13:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@
Keith-264:The infobox with the hidden countries is 3 lines long, with showing the countries its 5 lines, thats a difference in infobox size of only two lines (or one since I also made the name of Annibale Bergonzoli not break). There is no "clutter" in the box when clearly laying out the countries compared to having to also open them to show them for the same amount of space (Which also doubles when opened). It also inarticulately doesn't show which are colonies are "tied" to which country.
The infobox should clearly show the participants at no cost of space--
Havsjö (
talk)
13:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Reaching consensus isn't a matter of voting. Keith-264 ( talk) 22:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Pls note that France dropped out of the alliance when it made a separate peace with Germany in June 1940. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 09:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
This is special pleading, pls refer to the RS. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 03:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Australia was a Dominion; depending on the definition it became independent in 1948 or 1984. Chant is a source but not necessarily reliable, you need to check what authors call it. do you have any books to refer to? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
References
A mass of Italian prisoners is hardly more representative of Operation Compass than the earlier pic. I'd put a map there instead. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Infomanfromearth: You will need to cite your addition. Please note that dates aren't the 6th of January but 6 January and if you do a link it helps to check if it has already been done up the page. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 11:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)