This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tunisian campaign 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 ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
|
"Actions then settled for a time, and both sides studied the results of recent battles. Rommel remained convinced that the U.S. forces posed little threat, while the British were his equal. He held this opinion for far too long, and it would prove very costly in the future. The U.S. likewise studied the battle, and decided a complete overhaul of their forces was required. Tanks were upgraded to the Sherman as soon as they arrived, new communications rules were installed to allow artillery batteries to combine fire across commands and some commanders were replaced. On 6 March command of the II Corps passed from Fredendall to George Patton, with Omar N. Bradley as assistant Corps Commander. "
I edited out portions of this, which were then restored. Here's why: 1. "A complete overhaul" of US forces obviously was not required nor was it carried out, so I thought that was a poor choice of words. Nothing changed in US Infantry Division organization, for example. Indeed US Inf Div organization remained essentially unchanged for the rest of the war. US armored divisions were re-organized in 1942-43, but not as a result of anything in Tunisia. Indeed the 1st Armored Div was already using Combat Commands in place of Brigade or regimental HQs during the battle. Artillery, the most effective US combat arms branch, was very effective. The weapons and procedures of the 1930s were confirmed and improved. Most Division commanders remained. The main changes were a new Corps commander and new 1st Armored Div commander, and the reminder to commanders to keep large units concentrated. This had the (long intended) effect of centralizing the artillery fire control system as it had been designed, so that fires could be massed. There were some "lessons learned" publications, but that hardly justifies the term "complete overhaul". 2. In terms of equipment changes, the objective had alwasy been to make the Sherman the major/sole US medium tank. The M-3 was a interim design. The plan was always to replace it with the M-4 series and this had nothing to do with Tunisia. if there had been no fighting at all in Tunisia the M-3s still would have been phased out. Likewise the M-3 TDs were shown to be ineffective, but they were also a stopgap design and the M-10 was already in production and in the field in the spring of 1943.
I thought the new edit was actually *more* specific and accurate than the vague content that preceeded it. Please let me know if you agree. DMorpheus 17:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the phrase, "He held this opinion for far too long, and it would prove very costly in the future." a bit vague? I mean which campaign does it refer to? Rommel left Africa shortly afterwards, so it must be Normandy, but the big breakouts there only occurred after he had been removed from command through injury. 82.2.81.253 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed reference to "M3 Patton". I don't think it existed: the Patton was M46, etc; the M3 was a precursor of the M4. I linked it to the M3 Lee artivle - is this correct? Folks at 137 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You should love British nomenclature since it was the Brits who first put US General's names to US tanks like the Lee, Sherman and Stuart. It caught on and the US army continued the idea. Brocky44 03:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed "Nazi Germany" to "Germany" and "Fascist Italy" to "Italy". The point has been debated elsewhere and, since there were no other German or Italian states, the adjectives are unnecessary - the German Nazis and Italian Fascists formed the legitimate governments. Also, I changed "Free France" to "France". This is more interesting. By the time of this campaign, French forces formerly loyal to Vichy had rejoined the allies (including the French XIX Corps). French law is clear: only forces that fought with the allies before August 1 1942 may be called "Free French", after that date it's the "Forces of Liberation". Folks at 137 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed at one point in the article regarding some questionable figures. I quote: "Allfrey was still concerned over the vulnerability of his force and ordered a further withdrawal west so that by the end of 10 December Allied units held a defensive line just east of Medjez el Bab. This string of Allied defeats in December cost them dearly; over men 62,000 missing (prisoners of war), 173 tanks, 432 other vehicles, and 170 artillery pieces lost." I read the book "An Army at Dawn," and I'm pretty sure the figures for material losses are correct, but 62,000 Allied POWS doesn't seem right to me, as that would constitute a disastrous defeat by anyone's definition. I'm almost positive that this figure is actually total Allied casualties through the entire Tunisian campaign, though I may be wrong. Can I get some verification on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.67.199 ( talk) 03:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC) As I haven't received any verification, I'm deleting the 62,000 POWS figure and just adding "thousand s of casualties", as that at least is indisputably correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.180 ( talk) 05:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
What were the casualties for all sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.163.248 ( talk) 12:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Ive just added them all in :)-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Free French definition from the article about them:
Historically, an individual became Free French after he enlisted in de Gaulle's Free French organisation located in London. Free French units are units formed by these people. De Gaulle's organisation stopped accepting members in mid-1943 as Free French forces were merging with the French forces in North Africa, and the Comité français de libération nationale (CFLN) was set up in Algiers.
Postwar, to settle disputes over the Free French heritage, the French government issued an official definition of the term. Under this "ministerial instruction of July 1953" (instruction ministérielle du 29 juillet 1953), only those who served with the Allies after the Franco-German armistice in 1940 and before 1 August 1943 may correctly be called "Free French".
French forces after July 1943 are therefore correctly designated as the "forces of Liberation".
Hence up to July 1943, there Free French, post July CFLN.
According to the article on Vichy France:
Vichy France, or the Vichy regime are the common terms used to describe the government of France from July 1940 to August 1944.
To my understanding, there is still two French entities here. One also should note it appears that it appears some colonies were still under Vichy control at this time and had not sided with the "Free French". Simply stating they were French troops fighting in Tunisia is just avoiding the, at that moment in time, split - Vichy and Frenchmen fighting on the allied side - the "Free French" -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 11:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
According to the French government, as stated on the Free French article and quoted above:
"only those who served with the Allies after the Franco-German armistice in 1940 and before 1 August 1943 may correctly be called "Free French"."
From what ive seen, colonies across the world sided with the "Free French" as opposed to the "Vichy French" - they didnt literally go and sign up in London with De Gaulle.
In common English, from what i have seen - "Free French" is the same as the term sometimes used for the Poles still fighting- "Free Poles" etc - exiles fighting for there country.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 12:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry i should not have said they sided with De Gaulle, however one by one the French Colonies stop siding with the Vichy government, either of there own free will or due to invasion.
This from the article on France, sums up what you and I have just said pretty well...
Germans established a puppet regime under Marshal Philippe Pétain known as Vichy France, which pursued a policy of collaboration with Nazi Germany. The regime's opponents formed the Free French Forces outside of France and the French Resistance inside.
With the Free French Forces with the 8th Army fighting under one flag and the Free French forces with 1st Army fighting under another, how do we accuratly represent them? -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 13:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Am not infront of any of my sources at the moment, as am in work, but i just noticed that South Africa is not mentioned in the info box - did none of there forces take part in this Campaign?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 09:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I've created a new page for this operation and put it in the Campaignbox. I'll now trim down the main Tunisia Campaign article so that its coverage of the Run is at summary level. May not be able to do it today. I also intend to look at the British official history to add more detail to the new article. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
JG 77 is claiming 333 aircraft over tunisia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 05:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
II/JG2 is claiming another 150 over tunisia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 05:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I./JG 53 at least 34 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 05:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
II./JG 51 claims some 121 aircraft destroyed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 06:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
well known fact of overclaiming? this are confirmed kills. german overall confirmed kill match very good with overall allied lost statistics. the geschwader articles are written by dapi i guess, he will have sources , if there are 700 confirmed german downings ( not included anti air and accidents ) then 155 are likly wrong. please name the exact sentence , i guess u own this book so u can do easily... .
german pilots claim a kill then they got him confirmed or not, and this confirmed kills are relativ accurate. the 700 is number for british downed aircraft only by german fighters. u write a figure for two months in the infobox of a battle lasting a half year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 13:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
by the way i got reverted before u wrote your text , i said already that 155 aircraft are to less for 6 months... . and that this should be obvious for somebody with knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 13:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
first off all stop puting wrong figures in the box when u are know that they are wrong ( a partial figure without markings is wrong), thats really.... .
nobody said 100% and u know this so please stop this shit too...
i will ask dapi
even 1 is a part of 700. every number lower than the exact number is a part of the number... . your partial arguement is moronic. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
188.192.121.123 (
talk)
20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
849 allied aircraft losses . german claimed 700 ( like i said at the beginning ) rest is anti air and accidents. fits very good. but simple logic is not enough to remove bullshit figures from english articles, we have to go buy books to provide a source, until we have no source people can put "partial" figures in the infobox. no u should check your book about el alemein i guess your author counts german aircraft in greece and italy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 20:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
the claims of jg53 include only 2 pilots!!! ... . why we count bombers and planes outside of north africa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 21:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
There was a regiment of (light ?) tanks attached to the 78th division from the 6th Armoured Brigade. Did they play any role in the campaign? Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I see that they have been added to the beligerents. I can't find any references to either in Tunisia (although both were at the siege of Tobruk). I thought the Independent Carpathian Rifle Brigade left the Western Desert in March 42 for Palestine where they were disbanded to be reformed into a larger 3rd Carpathian Rifle Division and later Polish II Corps. The Polish force did not see action again until the Italian Campaign. Not sure about the Czechs. They only had a single battalion in the desert. Either way, unless some firm citations are available, I think they should both come out of the infobox. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a very interesting article. However, as a layman, although it is plain which are allied and which are axis forces, I have no idea over which divisions/regiments/corps belong to which paticular nationality. In some cases it is done, but as it has been written by someone who has detailed knowledge of the battles, there is an assumption that laymen will know who was who. Would someone be able to identify them please ie the British 1st Army, the French so and so division, the German this and that corps? Thank you. Brixtonboy ( talk) 22:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This text has been extensively copied from At the Front in North Africa with the U.S. Army Part 3, 1943. The same text is noted at other internet locations. Plagiarism is against Wikipedia policy: see WP:PLAGIARISM. Text derived from official government sources is not a copyright violation, but should be clearly identified in the citations. Fconaway ( talk) 02:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I have once again changed "well-held" to "strongly-held." The former sounds rather awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoruku ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I think there are too many which cramp the margin but some sections of the article are sketchy and when expanded will make more room. I tried shrinking a few but it doesn't look any better. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The photograph which begins: "A British Crusader III tank crosses a ditch at Mersa Matruh, Libya..." falls into the 'fewer is better' category as noted above. Both the original and the article captions have the same content.
Mersa Matruh is at least 1,000 miles from Tunisia.
It is arguably not really connected to the Tunisia campaign.
Its deletion would be no loss.
(Were the 8th Army still using Crusaders when Tunisia fell?)
RASAM ( talk) 15:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Tunisia Campaign → Tunisian Campaign – The adjectival form is more popular (and makes more sense). It is, for example, in the title of at least two books: Exit Rommel: The Tunisian Campaign, 1942–43 and Birth of an Army: The Story of the Tunisian Campaign. Srnec ( talk) 21:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.I must say I protest at the way my 1978 Eng Lang O level is being so cavalierly shunted aside, in favour of mere "historians" who have been "published". Pah! ;o)) Keith-264 ( talk) 12:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tunisian Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Most editors believe the lowercase word "campaign" would be most compliant with MOS:CAPS. ( non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 09:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
– Case fix per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_article_titles, since these are not proper names, and are by far more often lowercase in sources. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
In the fact-box under 'Tunisian Campaign', shouldn't Enfidaville be included? Valetude ( talk) 18:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
should vichy france be included among the combatants as the Légion impériale was a vichy french unit under german command? Capt Jim ( talk) 17:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Text reads something on the lines of "... to see Hitler at his headquarters in Ukraine" (Source for that?, or just someone's trolling?) 80.71.142.55 ( talk) 14:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tunisian campaign 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 ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
|
"Actions then settled for a time, and both sides studied the results of recent battles. Rommel remained convinced that the U.S. forces posed little threat, while the British were his equal. He held this opinion for far too long, and it would prove very costly in the future. The U.S. likewise studied the battle, and decided a complete overhaul of their forces was required. Tanks were upgraded to the Sherman as soon as they arrived, new communications rules were installed to allow artillery batteries to combine fire across commands and some commanders were replaced. On 6 March command of the II Corps passed from Fredendall to George Patton, with Omar N. Bradley as assistant Corps Commander. "
I edited out portions of this, which were then restored. Here's why: 1. "A complete overhaul" of US forces obviously was not required nor was it carried out, so I thought that was a poor choice of words. Nothing changed in US Infantry Division organization, for example. Indeed US Inf Div organization remained essentially unchanged for the rest of the war. US armored divisions were re-organized in 1942-43, but not as a result of anything in Tunisia. Indeed the 1st Armored Div was already using Combat Commands in place of Brigade or regimental HQs during the battle. Artillery, the most effective US combat arms branch, was very effective. The weapons and procedures of the 1930s were confirmed and improved. Most Division commanders remained. The main changes were a new Corps commander and new 1st Armored Div commander, and the reminder to commanders to keep large units concentrated. This had the (long intended) effect of centralizing the artillery fire control system as it had been designed, so that fires could be massed. There were some "lessons learned" publications, but that hardly justifies the term "complete overhaul". 2. In terms of equipment changes, the objective had alwasy been to make the Sherman the major/sole US medium tank. The M-3 was a interim design. The plan was always to replace it with the M-4 series and this had nothing to do with Tunisia. if there had been no fighting at all in Tunisia the M-3s still would have been phased out. Likewise the M-3 TDs were shown to be ineffective, but they were also a stopgap design and the M-10 was already in production and in the field in the spring of 1943.
I thought the new edit was actually *more* specific and accurate than the vague content that preceeded it. Please let me know if you agree. DMorpheus 17:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the phrase, "He held this opinion for far too long, and it would prove very costly in the future." a bit vague? I mean which campaign does it refer to? Rommel left Africa shortly afterwards, so it must be Normandy, but the big breakouts there only occurred after he had been removed from command through injury. 82.2.81.253 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed reference to "M3 Patton". I don't think it existed: the Patton was M46, etc; the M3 was a precursor of the M4. I linked it to the M3 Lee artivle - is this correct? Folks at 137 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You should love British nomenclature since it was the Brits who first put US General's names to US tanks like the Lee, Sherman and Stuart. It caught on and the US army continued the idea. Brocky44 03:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed "Nazi Germany" to "Germany" and "Fascist Italy" to "Italy". The point has been debated elsewhere and, since there were no other German or Italian states, the adjectives are unnecessary - the German Nazis and Italian Fascists formed the legitimate governments. Also, I changed "Free France" to "France". This is more interesting. By the time of this campaign, French forces formerly loyal to Vichy had rejoined the allies (including the French XIX Corps). French law is clear: only forces that fought with the allies before August 1 1942 may be called "Free French", after that date it's the "Forces of Liberation". Folks at 137 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed at one point in the article regarding some questionable figures. I quote: "Allfrey was still concerned over the vulnerability of his force and ordered a further withdrawal west so that by the end of 10 December Allied units held a defensive line just east of Medjez el Bab. This string of Allied defeats in December cost them dearly; over men 62,000 missing (prisoners of war), 173 tanks, 432 other vehicles, and 170 artillery pieces lost." I read the book "An Army at Dawn," and I'm pretty sure the figures for material losses are correct, but 62,000 Allied POWS doesn't seem right to me, as that would constitute a disastrous defeat by anyone's definition. I'm almost positive that this figure is actually total Allied casualties through the entire Tunisian campaign, though I may be wrong. Can I get some verification on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.67.199 ( talk) 03:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC) As I haven't received any verification, I'm deleting the 62,000 POWS figure and just adding "thousand s of casualties", as that at least is indisputably correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.180 ( talk) 05:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
What were the casualties for all sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.163.248 ( talk) 12:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Ive just added them all in :)-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Free French definition from the article about them:
Historically, an individual became Free French after he enlisted in de Gaulle's Free French organisation located in London. Free French units are units formed by these people. De Gaulle's organisation stopped accepting members in mid-1943 as Free French forces were merging with the French forces in North Africa, and the Comité français de libération nationale (CFLN) was set up in Algiers.
Postwar, to settle disputes over the Free French heritage, the French government issued an official definition of the term. Under this "ministerial instruction of July 1953" (instruction ministérielle du 29 juillet 1953), only those who served with the Allies after the Franco-German armistice in 1940 and before 1 August 1943 may correctly be called "Free French".
French forces after July 1943 are therefore correctly designated as the "forces of Liberation".
Hence up to July 1943, there Free French, post July CFLN.
According to the article on Vichy France:
Vichy France, or the Vichy regime are the common terms used to describe the government of France from July 1940 to August 1944.
To my understanding, there is still two French entities here. One also should note it appears that it appears some colonies were still under Vichy control at this time and had not sided with the "Free French". Simply stating they were French troops fighting in Tunisia is just avoiding the, at that moment in time, split - Vichy and Frenchmen fighting on the allied side - the "Free French" -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 11:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
According to the French government, as stated on the Free French article and quoted above:
"only those who served with the Allies after the Franco-German armistice in 1940 and before 1 August 1943 may correctly be called "Free French"."
From what ive seen, colonies across the world sided with the "Free French" as opposed to the "Vichy French" - they didnt literally go and sign up in London with De Gaulle.
In common English, from what i have seen - "Free French" is the same as the term sometimes used for the Poles still fighting- "Free Poles" etc - exiles fighting for there country.-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 12:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry i should not have said they sided with De Gaulle, however one by one the French Colonies stop siding with the Vichy government, either of there own free will or due to invasion.
This from the article on France, sums up what you and I have just said pretty well...
Germans established a puppet regime under Marshal Philippe Pétain known as Vichy France, which pursued a policy of collaboration with Nazi Germany. The regime's opponents formed the Free French Forces outside of France and the French Resistance inside.
With the Free French Forces with the 8th Army fighting under one flag and the Free French forces with 1st Army fighting under another, how do we accuratly represent them? -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 13:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Am not infront of any of my sources at the moment, as am in work, but i just noticed that South Africa is not mentioned in the info box - did none of there forces take part in this Campaign?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 09:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I've created a new page for this operation and put it in the Campaignbox. I'll now trim down the main Tunisia Campaign article so that its coverage of the Run is at summary level. May not be able to do it today. I also intend to look at the British official history to add more detail to the new article. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
JG 77 is claiming 333 aircraft over tunisia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 05:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
II/JG2 is claiming another 150 over tunisia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 05:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I./JG 53 at least 34 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 05:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
II./JG 51 claims some 121 aircraft destroyed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 06:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
well known fact of overclaiming? this are confirmed kills. german overall confirmed kill match very good with overall allied lost statistics. the geschwader articles are written by dapi i guess, he will have sources , if there are 700 confirmed german downings ( not included anti air and accidents ) then 155 are likly wrong. please name the exact sentence , i guess u own this book so u can do easily... .
german pilots claim a kill then they got him confirmed or not, and this confirmed kills are relativ accurate. the 700 is number for british downed aircraft only by german fighters. u write a figure for two months in the infobox of a battle lasting a half year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 13:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
by the way i got reverted before u wrote your text , i said already that 155 aircraft are to less for 6 months... . and that this should be obvious for somebody with knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 13:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
first off all stop puting wrong figures in the box when u are know that they are wrong ( a partial figure without markings is wrong), thats really.... .
nobody said 100% and u know this so please stop this shit too...
i will ask dapi
even 1 is a part of 700. every number lower than the exact number is a part of the number... . your partial arguement is moronic. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
188.192.121.123 (
talk)
20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
849 allied aircraft losses . german claimed 700 ( like i said at the beginning ) rest is anti air and accidents. fits very good. but simple logic is not enough to remove bullshit figures from english articles, we have to go buy books to provide a source, until we have no source people can put "partial" figures in the infobox. no u should check your book about el alemein i guess your author counts german aircraft in greece and italy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 20:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
the claims of jg53 include only 2 pilots!!! ... . why we count bombers and planes outside of north africa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 21:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
There was a regiment of (light ?) tanks attached to the 78th division from the 6th Armoured Brigade. Did they play any role in the campaign? Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I see that they have been added to the beligerents. I can't find any references to either in Tunisia (although both were at the siege of Tobruk). I thought the Independent Carpathian Rifle Brigade left the Western Desert in March 42 for Palestine where they were disbanded to be reformed into a larger 3rd Carpathian Rifle Division and later Polish II Corps. The Polish force did not see action again until the Italian Campaign. Not sure about the Czechs. They only had a single battalion in the desert. Either way, unless some firm citations are available, I think they should both come out of the infobox. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a very interesting article. However, as a layman, although it is plain which are allied and which are axis forces, I have no idea over which divisions/regiments/corps belong to which paticular nationality. In some cases it is done, but as it has been written by someone who has detailed knowledge of the battles, there is an assumption that laymen will know who was who. Would someone be able to identify them please ie the British 1st Army, the French so and so division, the German this and that corps? Thank you. Brixtonboy ( talk) 22:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This text has been extensively copied from At the Front in North Africa with the U.S. Army Part 3, 1943. The same text is noted at other internet locations. Plagiarism is against Wikipedia policy: see WP:PLAGIARISM. Text derived from official government sources is not a copyright violation, but should be clearly identified in the citations. Fconaway ( talk) 02:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I have once again changed "well-held" to "strongly-held." The former sounds rather awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoruku ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I think there are too many which cramp the margin but some sections of the article are sketchy and when expanded will make more room. I tried shrinking a few but it doesn't look any better. Keith-264 ( talk) 16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The photograph which begins: "A British Crusader III tank crosses a ditch at Mersa Matruh, Libya..." falls into the 'fewer is better' category as noted above. Both the original and the article captions have the same content.
Mersa Matruh is at least 1,000 miles from Tunisia.
It is arguably not really connected to the Tunisia campaign.
Its deletion would be no loss.
(Were the 8th Army still using Crusaders when Tunisia fell?)
RASAM ( talk) 15:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Tunisia Campaign → Tunisian Campaign – The adjectival form is more popular (and makes more sense). It is, for example, in the title of at least two books: Exit Rommel: The Tunisian Campaign, 1942–43 and Birth of an Army: The Story of the Tunisian Campaign. Srnec ( talk) 21:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.I must say I protest at the way my 1978 Eng Lang O level is being so cavalierly shunted aside, in favour of mere "historians" who have been "published". Pah! ;o)) Keith-264 ( talk) 12:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tunisian Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Most editors believe the lowercase word "campaign" would be most compliant with MOS:CAPS. ( non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 09:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
– Case fix per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_article_titles, since these are not proper names, and are by far more often lowercase in sources. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
In the fact-box under 'Tunisian Campaign', shouldn't Enfidaville be included? Valetude ( talk) 18:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
should vichy france be included among the combatants as the Légion impériale was a vichy french unit under german command? Capt Jim ( talk) 17:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Text reads something on the lines of "... to see Hitler at his headquarters in Ukraine" (Source for that?, or just someone's trolling?) 80.71.142.55 ( talk) 14:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)