This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Crusader 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How can Axis lose 850 aircraft if they had only 320 of them in the beginning? And all but 28 of their tanks? Should those be Allied casualties?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Latre ( Talk: contribs) 12:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Where does that Ritchie as XXX Corps commander come from? Desert Generals, Rommel Papers and Liddell Hart's History of Second World War state that it was Norrie who commanded XXX Corps in the Operation Crusader. -- Ekeb 20:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Military writers from Britain, Australia and New Zealand almost unanimously discount the achievement of the Italian infantry and armoured divisions in the fighting at El Gazala. Thus the New Zealand History of the Second World War sums it up:
After false reports of success at Point 204 (held by 1 Buffs), which Rommel regarded as a vital link in the chain of defences, it became evident that the Italian operations to regain this area were not promising....
The N.Z. Official History writers maintain that the Germans were the enemy involved in the action in which The Buffs lost 531 men and only 71 escaped capture. However the Italian Military High Command in a communique that appeared in The New York Times on 16 December 1941 says that "Enemy pressure continued at El Gazala and met with vigorous Italian resistance. Italians passed to counter-attack along the whole line" [1] The Italian military communique that was printed in the New York Times on 17 December 1941 states that "Italian motorized and armored divisions with the support of large German units fought with extreme tenacity and inflicted heavy losses on the enemy. Many armored units were set on fire and destroyed. Prisoners were numerous and included a brigade commander" [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Reading the various texts it is clear to me that the Italian High Command communique refers to the fighting on the north of the Gazala line where Italian X and XXI Corps were fighting the attack by the New Zealanders and Poles. Alem Hamza was defended by the remains of the Italian Moobile Corps (Trieste and Ariete) but the action at Point 204 was fought by elements the Afrika Korps (remaining tanks plus 115th Infantry Regiment). Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 12:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kirrages, reading the N.Z. Official History in a more detailed manner brought me to the same conclusion. It's a pity though that the N.Z. account doesn't recognize that the Italians captured the British field artillery unit nor that the Italians captured a Commonwealth field hospital with 200 soldiers (guards?) and 700 enemy wounded that were on their way to a complete recovery (they all went into the bag). I still stand by my claim that the N.Z. and Australian Official Histories of the Second World War deliberately omit Italian successes on the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a good article that, so far as I can tell, lacks only one minor citation (order of battle), that someone should be able to provide. I would finish the checklist but for the fact that I don't know the history well enough to be able to judge the completeness of the article. If some knowledgeable person will assure me that it is complete, I will be glad to give it B status. (Better: just edit the checklist, and say that I gave permission.) PKKloeppel ( talk) 18:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Playfair states the following:
"From 18th November to 20th January the Germans in Libya lost, according to their own records, at least 232 aircraft from all causes, and the Italians at least 100. The totals must in fact must have been higher, for on the airfields and landing-grounds from Gambut to Benina no fewer than 228 German and as many Italian aircraft were found abandoned in various states of disrepair..." etc etc
-Playfair, V.III, p. 99
I've had a busy day so i may be misinterputing this; are we looking at a total of 332 axis aircraft losses or something like 560 (the previous 332 losses and the confirmed German abanonded or are these included in the losses?) - ~700 (332 losses, 228 German abandonded and roughly 200 Italian abandoned)?
For now am throwing the latter two figures into the article but the source info is above if you want to discuss.
A few notes regarding the use of terminology after the few back and forth edits between editors.
From the article on Dominions:
"Dominion status was officially defined in the Balfour Declaration (1926) and in the Statute of Westminster (1931), which recognized these territories as "autonomous Communities within the British Empire," establishing these states as equals to the United Kingdom, making them essentially independent members of the Commonwealth of Nations."
The two key points in regards to Dominions of the Empire being, they were considered equels to the UK itself and were essentially independent members of the Commonwealth. Thus if they are equal and basically independent from the UK in many respects how can a victory achieved by the efforts of all forces then be imparted upon the United Kingdom implying that British forces (i.e. Britons, i.e. Englishmen, Welshmen, Scotsmen and Irishmen) soley achieved said victory?
What one will see in many books is that "British this that and the other" is usually shorthand for British and allied forces etc In this case we know that there was more than just British forces taking part in this battle and we have noted that even Polish forces took part in Crusader thus how could only men from the United Kingdom have won this battle?
"It was the first victory over the Germans by British lead forces in the Second World War."
The above is what the article currently states, it previously stated something along the lines of the first British victory of the war over the Germans - or something to that effect.
To be more accurate, shouldnt this sentance read more like:
"Operation Crusader was the first victory over German led forces by the Western Allies"?
Maybe also include the word "offensive" between "first" and "victory" as there had been several defensive victorys i.e. Tobruk.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 21:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
To be precise, I would write:
"It was the first operational victory over German forces by British-led forces in the Second World War."
There had been tactical victories before. Tobruk I'd call a stalemate on the operational level. 193.128.202.131 ( talk) 08:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It is more like a series of battles, some won by the allies and others by the axis. :A "stalemate" is a better description. Wallie ( talk) 16:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
At present I think the article is not really using appropriate language (hardened veterans, gallant but exhausted), so I removed that. Also, there are some serious issues about the numbers of planes and losses. For losses from the records see e.g. Playfair, or the Italian official history. Panzergruppe records count ca. 35,060 Axis losses including 20,300 Italian. Playfair 38,300. The Italian official history (Montanari "Tobruk") gives 42,185 for the Italians alone, and this remains inexplicable to me. Playfair gives 17,700 as Commonwealth losses. See http://crusaderproject.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/so-how-many-men-were-lost-in-the-battle/ 193.128.202.131 ( talk) 09:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Those are great books, but:
a) he was a journalist, not a historian (e.g. his account of the surrender of General Schmidt at Bardia has been called into question in the South African official history), and b) he wrote during wartime without corroborating sources
Clifford should really be used very very sparingly in this article, and certainly not as proof for any numbers. 193.128.202.131 ( talk) 09:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You should really check before reverting and calling legitimate edits "vandalism". That's what the Talk page is there for.
The number of 1,000 planes for the Desert Air Force is not sourced, and it is likely to be the number of planes in theatre. Commonwealth planning was to have about 550 planes operational on 17 November (check the biography of Coningham). It would be useful if somebody had sourced information. A lot of these numbers seem to be copied out of Osprey's 8th Army book, where they are also not sourced. 193.128.202.131 ( talk) 16:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
why no damaged tanks in the infobox. the source says there are many damaged tanks, so its cited. that german damaged tanks are no available doesnt madder... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.148.136 ( talk) 03:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
the quote says there were many damaged tanks, so i think the sentence "several damaged tanks" is ok, isnt it? my problem with "vague" is when it points in a specific direction. your arguement is my opionion ? u are always against my opinion^^
an honest question u invest much time in this project and u own many books, do u not have a collection of divisional papers? i wonder that there are no figures for damaged tanks for such battle? arent there really non ? strenghtreports and this stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 09:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
the british "losses" look relativ low , but the were not. so in my opinion the box draws a wrong picture. but when u have no numbers i cant change it. to the issue with german tank losses, in general the german reporting system shows often to low figures for battles like kursk . but the german have the highest rate of non battle losses and captured vehicles so this both problems eliminate each other a bit ( only for the eyes of guy without knowledge ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
In german wiki they remove all the boxes . Here u like them but when u use them u should try to make them realistic. the people who look such boxes only want to see who was "better", thats a fact. the boxes are only for such readers. no real historianfan will give a shit about the box because hes interessted in the tactical background... . Thats why the box should show the "performance" . Its said but until u remove all the boxes your aim is to entertain these readers "correctly" . thats why my focus is on infoboxes..
some think this way. some think its a useless opinion-formin because its too oversimplified
the british losses werent higher as u can see on box, they only "lost" more tanks during the combat... . perfect would be damaged for both then we would have a good picture. british have sustained higher lost+damaged thats what describes the performance. german withdrew so all damaged tanks will be lightly damaged... . not even to mention that africa figures always include intalian casualties, but that another issue
this infobox is a good example of misleading the reader. not because u made it...
the Strenght section is the most moronic... medieval battlefield : ok. ww2 battles lasting for more than one day: mostly useless maybe the english wiki should think about removing the boxes and making analysis section...
PS my POV :i would be really really stupid when i try pushing german POV in the english wiki in articles dealing with english armies. Every edit is "checked" within hours. So iam always smiling when u and others raise the POV arguement when i try to change infoboxes.
T
correct, there is no reason for me to talk about to high allied casualties because iam really sure that one of u will watch that they are good only when iam sure they a wrong i will edit. and yes i smile because its not possible to establish german POV in western front articles... .
i saw the numbers and because i have a bit knowledge about some JG i told u the numbers are wrong... where is the problem ? i was correct ...
btw to your example, i remember i explained so simple to u that the numbers are obvious wrong but it took very long until u changed... maybe u look the discusion page again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 08:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
to explain my point, i look english wiki and try to remove POV against germany , the rest is not important to me. and its ok when i only do this...
now my example: the 12 SS; the moronic statement about the 300 guys is so stupid, it was in so many articles every normandy article highlighted this sentence because it looks so impressive. every editor with knowledge should see in 1 second that its is not even possible that a german division which does not surrender or encircled can be reduced to 300 men. this statement was so obvious wrong but no one of the enlgish editors fixed it, all read it but nobody will fix. this statement is in your FA articles.... . its simply POV and misleading. it took me so fucking long to remove such bullshit because u and others didnt support. iam sure i will not find such POV against british because u and others take care
wrong ^^ the axis losses include italians and i only know the pilot losses not the caputred aircraft, the pilot losses were very low...
i showed u the pages of the JG there dapi cited all numbers with books about this units, everyone can read the discussionpage....
first u were arguing against my numbers instead of thinking about your mistake ...
in my opinion your big failure is that u think i have to come around with evidence that u put wrong numbers in the box u have to bring evidence that your numbers are correct and your numbers were not correct, so iam wondering that u want to talk about this issue now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 17:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
in this particular case u maybe should because this were your incorrect numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 17:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
when i see wrong numbers i tell u... maybe u should try to relax and dont take it personal... its better that i moan about wrong numbers than accepting them...
i support most of my "ramblings" with logic, like the obivous mistake on your tunisianumbers. like the obvious mistake with 300 SS guys and so on. u need a book to see that aerial battle over africa were more intense like your numbers, me not. u need a book to understand that 12 were never encirled or something else , me not.
i only can repeat myself, i tell u were i see problems. than u can analyse the facts or not... . everyone can do much as he want... . but if u bring numbers like tunsia u have to JUMP when somebody like me tells u did something wrong..
so now its enough, i will moan about everything whats wrong in my opinion i would do not some stupid statements more would exist in your "FA" articles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.153.219 ( talk) 22:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
According to the infobox, the axis lost twice as many men and almost all their tanks and aircraft. Is that really a 'marginal' victory? Sure, the axis managed to just about avoid being totally encircled and destroyed. But it seems like a pretty catastrophic defeat for them nonetheless. 94.193.35.68 ( talk) 15:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I changed those numbers. One cant add up the confirmed lost aircraft with a bogus number of destroyed aircraft later found on captured airfields. Those aircraft could have been already in the Axis recordings (and probably were) and also could have lying around already before the start of Crusader. The problem with the tanks was, that there were British destroyed tanks (exclucing damaged tanks) compared with Axis destroyed and damaged tanks. So i changed it to have comparable numbers in the infobox. StoneProphet ( talk) 05:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Shrank the headers as they looked to have sprawled over the page, pls revert if preferred. Keith-264 ( talk) 09:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The lead section, as I found it, is not a proper summary of the article. This was a long and complicated battle, with many facets and developments – most of which were not being mentioned in the lead at all.
The Manual of Style, at WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length states that "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs. The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway."
It goes on to suggest that an article longer than 30,000 characters should have a lead section of three or four paragraphs. This article is longer than 82,000 characters. A summary of four paragraphs is not excessive at all.
Wdford ( talk) 20:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
As you have both flatly refused to comply with wikipolicy, without any rational explanation, and have made it clear that you have no intention of discussing the facts and the issues, perhaps we should ask for objective editors to assist? Wdford ( talk) 13:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
These provisions do not allow intransigence from an editor who puts the template up for polemical purposes. I have re-edited the lead. See what everyone makes of it. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 14:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
OH MME vol III (Playfair) has Ch II The Winter Battle, The First Encounters (18 November), Pursuit to Benghazi 16–24 Dec Reduction of the Frontier Defences 16 Dec to 17 Jan after The Air Situation at the End of the Year. The German unofficial OH vol III has "The Italo-German Retreat from Cyrenaica 8 December 1941 – 10 January 1942. The retirement to Gazala is treated separately p 750. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You've offered a source, well done, I'll list a few more. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Did some tidying, homogenised notes to efn, Playfair to sfn cites are still a bit of a mess and some are rather limited as to RS. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The layout here is a bit confusing; we have main sections marked "Battle", and "27 November", with numerous subsections. I would suggest, first of all, that there were actually three main phases of the fighting: The opening moves (18-23 Nov) centring on the battle at Sidi Rezegh; the dash to the wire (24-27 Nov) which caused chaos in the Allied rear, but allowed XXX Corps to recover and link up with the Tobruk garrison; and an attritional phase (27Nov – 15 Dec), with the Axis giving ground until they had to break off and quit Cyrenaica altogether. So can I suggest we re-label the main sections (by a title, or by date; though I suggest not a mixture of both) along those lines? Xyl 54 ( talk) 21:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Does the periodisation of the maps correspond to your three phases?
DRZW Vol III has VI. Operation Crusader pp. 725 -755 with no sub headings
Pitt The Crucible.... Vol II has
I wouldn't use titles like that, Pitt being OK but not a first rate RS in my view. I think that the chronology in the OH looks right for 3rd level headings and your first suggestion of three phases makes sense for 2nd level headers, which is similar to the 3rd Ypres page and a few others, not being entirely relatable to RS. (as yet). The OH sections don't all have to be headers, each header could be a date range with 2 or 3 sections covered. Keith-264 ( talk) 00:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
It still needs 2nd level headers but the narrative is such a mess it's hard to relate it to layout. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 23:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Something like this? Keith-264 ( talk) 00:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
This is blatant POV pushing. Keith-264 ( talk) 12:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Havsjö: Wiki isn't a reliable source. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@ GraemeLeggett: I found some reference to the Libyan Arab Force in Rodd, F. (1970) [1948]. British Military Administration of Occupied Territories in Africa during the Years 1941–1947 (repr. Greenwood Press, CT ed.). London: HMSO. OCLC 1056143039. but not for this early in the campaign. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 21:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Someone has split paragraphs and forgotten to cite them, paragraphs restored. It appears that the definite article ("the") has been excised and unit names abbreviated unnecessarily. The citations are split between sfns and ref-refs, some progress made in homogenising cites to sfns. Some references are lightweight and others rather passé. The article needs a spring clean. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 07:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
At the beginning it should say where the British started from and ended up, and how many km that was. To get some idea of what this was about reading reams of text is needed. 140.228.51.46 ( talk) 12:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Crusader 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How can Axis lose 850 aircraft if they had only 320 of them in the beginning? And all but 28 of their tanks? Should those be Allied casualties?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Latre ( Talk: contribs) 12:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Where does that Ritchie as XXX Corps commander come from? Desert Generals, Rommel Papers and Liddell Hart's History of Second World War state that it was Norrie who commanded XXX Corps in the Operation Crusader. -- Ekeb 20:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Military writers from Britain, Australia and New Zealand almost unanimously discount the achievement of the Italian infantry and armoured divisions in the fighting at El Gazala. Thus the New Zealand History of the Second World War sums it up:
After false reports of success at Point 204 (held by 1 Buffs), which Rommel regarded as a vital link in the chain of defences, it became evident that the Italian operations to regain this area were not promising....
The N.Z. Official History writers maintain that the Germans were the enemy involved in the action in which The Buffs lost 531 men and only 71 escaped capture. However the Italian Military High Command in a communique that appeared in The New York Times on 16 December 1941 says that "Enemy pressure continued at El Gazala and met with vigorous Italian resistance. Italians passed to counter-attack along the whole line" [1] The Italian military communique that was printed in the New York Times on 17 December 1941 states that "Italian motorized and armored divisions with the support of large German units fought with extreme tenacity and inflicted heavy losses on the enemy. Many armored units were set on fire and destroyed. Prisoners were numerous and included a brigade commander" [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Reading the various texts it is clear to me that the Italian High Command communique refers to the fighting on the north of the Gazala line where Italian X and XXI Corps were fighting the attack by the New Zealanders and Poles. Alem Hamza was defended by the remains of the Italian Moobile Corps (Trieste and Ariete) but the action at Point 204 was fought by elements the Afrika Korps (remaining tanks plus 115th Infantry Regiment). Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 12:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kirrages, reading the N.Z. Official History in a more detailed manner brought me to the same conclusion. It's a pity though that the N.Z. account doesn't recognize that the Italians captured the British field artillery unit nor that the Italians captured a Commonwealth field hospital with 200 soldiers (guards?) and 700 enemy wounded that were on their way to a complete recovery (they all went into the bag). I still stand by my claim that the N.Z. and Australian Official Histories of the Second World War deliberately omit Italian successes on the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a good article that, so far as I can tell, lacks only one minor citation (order of battle), that someone should be able to provide. I would finish the checklist but for the fact that I don't know the history well enough to be able to judge the completeness of the article. If some knowledgeable person will assure me that it is complete, I will be glad to give it B status. (Better: just edit the checklist, and say that I gave permission.) PKKloeppel ( talk) 18:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Playfair states the following:
"From 18th November to 20th January the Germans in Libya lost, according to their own records, at least 232 aircraft from all causes, and the Italians at least 100. The totals must in fact must have been higher, for on the airfields and landing-grounds from Gambut to Benina no fewer than 228 German and as many Italian aircraft were found abandoned in various states of disrepair..." etc etc
-Playfair, V.III, p. 99
I've had a busy day so i may be misinterputing this; are we looking at a total of 332 axis aircraft losses or something like 560 (the previous 332 losses and the confirmed German abanonded or are these included in the losses?) - ~700 (332 losses, 228 German abandonded and roughly 200 Italian abandoned)?
For now am throwing the latter two figures into the article but the source info is above if you want to discuss.
A few notes regarding the use of terminology after the few back and forth edits between editors.
From the article on Dominions:
"Dominion status was officially defined in the Balfour Declaration (1926) and in the Statute of Westminster (1931), which recognized these territories as "autonomous Communities within the British Empire," establishing these states as equals to the United Kingdom, making them essentially independent members of the Commonwealth of Nations."
The two key points in regards to Dominions of the Empire being, they were considered equels to the UK itself and were essentially independent members of the Commonwealth. Thus if they are equal and basically independent from the UK in many respects how can a victory achieved by the efforts of all forces then be imparted upon the United Kingdom implying that British forces (i.e. Britons, i.e. Englishmen, Welshmen, Scotsmen and Irishmen) soley achieved said victory?
What one will see in many books is that "British this that and the other" is usually shorthand for British and allied forces etc In this case we know that there was more than just British forces taking part in this battle and we have noted that even Polish forces took part in Crusader thus how could only men from the United Kingdom have won this battle?
"It was the first victory over the Germans by British lead forces in the Second World War."
The above is what the article currently states, it previously stated something along the lines of the first British victory of the war over the Germans - or something to that effect.
To be more accurate, shouldnt this sentance read more like:
"Operation Crusader was the first victory over German led forces by the Western Allies"?
Maybe also include the word "offensive" between "first" and "victory" as there had been several defensive victorys i.e. Tobruk.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 21:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
To be precise, I would write:
"It was the first operational victory over German forces by British-led forces in the Second World War."
There had been tactical victories before. Tobruk I'd call a stalemate on the operational level. 193.128.202.131 ( talk) 08:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It is more like a series of battles, some won by the allies and others by the axis. :A "stalemate" is a better description. Wallie ( talk) 16:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
At present I think the article is not really using appropriate language (hardened veterans, gallant but exhausted), so I removed that. Also, there are some serious issues about the numbers of planes and losses. For losses from the records see e.g. Playfair, or the Italian official history. Panzergruppe records count ca. 35,060 Axis losses including 20,300 Italian. Playfair 38,300. The Italian official history (Montanari "Tobruk") gives 42,185 for the Italians alone, and this remains inexplicable to me. Playfair gives 17,700 as Commonwealth losses. See http://crusaderproject.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/so-how-many-men-were-lost-in-the-battle/ 193.128.202.131 ( talk) 09:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Those are great books, but:
a) he was a journalist, not a historian (e.g. his account of the surrender of General Schmidt at Bardia has been called into question in the South African official history), and b) he wrote during wartime without corroborating sources
Clifford should really be used very very sparingly in this article, and certainly not as proof for any numbers. 193.128.202.131 ( talk) 09:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You should really check before reverting and calling legitimate edits "vandalism". That's what the Talk page is there for.
The number of 1,000 planes for the Desert Air Force is not sourced, and it is likely to be the number of planes in theatre. Commonwealth planning was to have about 550 planes operational on 17 November (check the biography of Coningham). It would be useful if somebody had sourced information. A lot of these numbers seem to be copied out of Osprey's 8th Army book, where they are also not sourced. 193.128.202.131 ( talk) 16:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
why no damaged tanks in the infobox. the source says there are many damaged tanks, so its cited. that german damaged tanks are no available doesnt madder... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.148.136 ( talk) 03:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
the quote says there were many damaged tanks, so i think the sentence "several damaged tanks" is ok, isnt it? my problem with "vague" is when it points in a specific direction. your arguement is my opionion ? u are always against my opinion^^
an honest question u invest much time in this project and u own many books, do u not have a collection of divisional papers? i wonder that there are no figures for damaged tanks for such battle? arent there really non ? strenghtreports and this stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 09:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
the british "losses" look relativ low , but the were not. so in my opinion the box draws a wrong picture. but when u have no numbers i cant change it. to the issue with german tank losses, in general the german reporting system shows often to low figures for battles like kursk . but the german have the highest rate of non battle losses and captured vehicles so this both problems eliminate each other a bit ( only for the eyes of guy without knowledge ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
In german wiki they remove all the boxes . Here u like them but when u use them u should try to make them realistic. the people who look such boxes only want to see who was "better", thats a fact. the boxes are only for such readers. no real historianfan will give a shit about the box because hes interessted in the tactical background... . Thats why the box should show the "performance" . Its said but until u remove all the boxes your aim is to entertain these readers "correctly" . thats why my focus is on infoboxes..
some think this way. some think its a useless opinion-formin because its too oversimplified
the british losses werent higher as u can see on box, they only "lost" more tanks during the combat... . perfect would be damaged for both then we would have a good picture. british have sustained higher lost+damaged thats what describes the performance. german withdrew so all damaged tanks will be lightly damaged... . not even to mention that africa figures always include intalian casualties, but that another issue
this infobox is a good example of misleading the reader. not because u made it...
the Strenght section is the most moronic... medieval battlefield : ok. ww2 battles lasting for more than one day: mostly useless maybe the english wiki should think about removing the boxes and making analysis section...
PS my POV :i would be really really stupid when i try pushing german POV in the english wiki in articles dealing with english armies. Every edit is "checked" within hours. So iam always smiling when u and others raise the POV arguement when i try to change infoboxes.
T
correct, there is no reason for me to talk about to high allied casualties because iam really sure that one of u will watch that they are good only when iam sure they a wrong i will edit. and yes i smile because its not possible to establish german POV in western front articles... .
i saw the numbers and because i have a bit knowledge about some JG i told u the numbers are wrong... where is the problem ? i was correct ...
btw to your example, i remember i explained so simple to u that the numbers are obvious wrong but it took very long until u changed... maybe u look the discusion page again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 08:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
to explain my point, i look english wiki and try to remove POV against germany , the rest is not important to me. and its ok when i only do this...
now my example: the 12 SS; the moronic statement about the 300 guys is so stupid, it was in so many articles every normandy article highlighted this sentence because it looks so impressive. every editor with knowledge should see in 1 second that its is not even possible that a german division which does not surrender or encircled can be reduced to 300 men. this statement was so obvious wrong but no one of the enlgish editors fixed it, all read it but nobody will fix. this statement is in your FA articles.... . its simply POV and misleading. it took me so fucking long to remove such bullshit because u and others didnt support. iam sure i will not find such POV against british because u and others take care
wrong ^^ the axis losses include italians and i only know the pilot losses not the caputred aircraft, the pilot losses were very low...
i showed u the pages of the JG there dapi cited all numbers with books about this units, everyone can read the discussionpage....
first u were arguing against my numbers instead of thinking about your mistake ...
in my opinion your big failure is that u think i have to come around with evidence that u put wrong numbers in the box u have to bring evidence that your numbers are correct and your numbers were not correct, so iam wondering that u want to talk about this issue now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 17:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
in this particular case u maybe should because this were your incorrect numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 17:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
when i see wrong numbers i tell u... maybe u should try to relax and dont take it personal... its better that i moan about wrong numbers than accepting them...
i support most of my "ramblings" with logic, like the obivous mistake on your tunisianumbers. like the obvious mistake with 300 SS guys and so on. u need a book to see that aerial battle over africa were more intense like your numbers, me not. u need a book to understand that 12 were never encirled or something else , me not.
i only can repeat myself, i tell u were i see problems. than u can analyse the facts or not... . everyone can do much as he want... . but if u bring numbers like tunsia u have to JUMP when somebody like me tells u did something wrong..
so now its enough, i will moan about everything whats wrong in my opinion i would do not some stupid statements more would exist in your "FA" articles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.153.219 ( talk) 22:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
According to the infobox, the axis lost twice as many men and almost all their tanks and aircraft. Is that really a 'marginal' victory? Sure, the axis managed to just about avoid being totally encircled and destroyed. But it seems like a pretty catastrophic defeat for them nonetheless. 94.193.35.68 ( talk) 15:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I changed those numbers. One cant add up the confirmed lost aircraft with a bogus number of destroyed aircraft later found on captured airfields. Those aircraft could have been already in the Axis recordings (and probably were) and also could have lying around already before the start of Crusader. The problem with the tanks was, that there were British destroyed tanks (exclucing damaged tanks) compared with Axis destroyed and damaged tanks. So i changed it to have comparable numbers in the infobox. StoneProphet ( talk) 05:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Shrank the headers as they looked to have sprawled over the page, pls revert if preferred. Keith-264 ( talk) 09:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The lead section, as I found it, is not a proper summary of the article. This was a long and complicated battle, with many facets and developments – most of which were not being mentioned in the lead at all.
The Manual of Style, at WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length states that "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs. The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway."
It goes on to suggest that an article longer than 30,000 characters should have a lead section of three or four paragraphs. This article is longer than 82,000 characters. A summary of four paragraphs is not excessive at all.
Wdford ( talk) 20:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
As you have both flatly refused to comply with wikipolicy, without any rational explanation, and have made it clear that you have no intention of discussing the facts and the issues, perhaps we should ask for objective editors to assist? Wdford ( talk) 13:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
These provisions do not allow intransigence from an editor who puts the template up for polemical purposes. I have re-edited the lead. See what everyone makes of it. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 14:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
OH MME vol III (Playfair) has Ch II The Winter Battle, The First Encounters (18 November), Pursuit to Benghazi 16–24 Dec Reduction of the Frontier Defences 16 Dec to 17 Jan after The Air Situation at the End of the Year. The German unofficial OH vol III has "The Italo-German Retreat from Cyrenaica 8 December 1941 – 10 January 1942. The retirement to Gazala is treated separately p 750. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
You've offered a source, well done, I'll list a few more. Keith-264 ( talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Did some tidying, homogenised notes to efn, Playfair to sfn cites are still a bit of a mess and some are rather limited as to RS. Keith-264 ( talk) 11:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The layout here is a bit confusing; we have main sections marked "Battle", and "27 November", with numerous subsections. I would suggest, first of all, that there were actually three main phases of the fighting: The opening moves (18-23 Nov) centring on the battle at Sidi Rezegh; the dash to the wire (24-27 Nov) which caused chaos in the Allied rear, but allowed XXX Corps to recover and link up with the Tobruk garrison; and an attritional phase (27Nov – 15 Dec), with the Axis giving ground until they had to break off and quit Cyrenaica altogether. So can I suggest we re-label the main sections (by a title, or by date; though I suggest not a mixture of both) along those lines? Xyl 54 ( talk) 21:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Does the periodisation of the maps correspond to your three phases?
DRZW Vol III has VI. Operation Crusader pp. 725 -755 with no sub headings
Pitt The Crucible.... Vol II has
I wouldn't use titles like that, Pitt being OK but not a first rate RS in my view. I think that the chronology in the OH looks right for 3rd level headings and your first suggestion of three phases makes sense for 2nd level headers, which is similar to the 3rd Ypres page and a few others, not being entirely relatable to RS. (as yet). The OH sections don't all have to be headers, each header could be a date range with 2 or 3 sections covered. Keith-264 ( talk) 00:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
It still needs 2nd level headers but the narrative is such a mess it's hard to relate it to layout. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 23:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Something like this? Keith-264 ( talk) 00:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
This is blatant POV pushing. Keith-264 ( talk) 12:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Havsjö: Wiki isn't a reliable source. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 15:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@ GraemeLeggett: I found some reference to the Libyan Arab Force in Rodd, F. (1970) [1948]. British Military Administration of Occupied Territories in Africa during the Years 1941–1947 (repr. Greenwood Press, CT ed.). London: HMSO. OCLC 1056143039. but not for this early in the campaign. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 21:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Someone has split paragraphs and forgotten to cite them, paragraphs restored. It appears that the definite article ("the") has been excised and unit names abbreviated unnecessarily. The citations are split between sfns and ref-refs, some progress made in homogenising cites to sfns. Some references are lightweight and others rather passé. The article needs a spring clean. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 07:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
At the beginning it should say where the British started from and ended up, and how many km that was. To get some idea of what this was about reading reams of text is needed. 140.228.51.46 ( talk) 12:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)