# Talk:Operation Pedestal

try to add a battlebox to understand better the aftermatch
Agreed a very good article, just needs some details about the supplies delivered and lost to make it excellent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.141.29 (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC) 

Hi, I expanded this article, added a battlebox and I uploaded a series of images for this article. Contact me for ay improvement. Reuv 17:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a good article but I only have the power to upgrade it to B class. However, I sugest that you nominate it for GAC and later on A-class review at WPMILHIST. Good luck! Kyriakos 00:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs clean-up before A-class review. Good comprehensive detail, but at times it reads more like a copy of an official report - a bit verbose. Some sections could do with sub-division and there are some formatting issues - I'll have a crack as a demo, without changing the substance. IMO, the detail is fine, but it can put off the casual reader - I'm never sure how to resolve the conundrum. BTW, what exactly was the US involvement (see tags)? If it was just the Ohio, then it needs discussion, we haven't previously added a tag for every nationality in a convoy. Folks at 137 05:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the Ohio was 'american'-built, but it was under british ownership. There were also two other American ships in the convoy, the  SS Santa Elisa and the SS Almeria Lykes. For services during this operation President Roosevelt  presented the Merchant Marine Distinguished Service Medal to Frederick August Larsen, Jr., Junior Third Officer and to Francis A. Dales, Cadet-Midshipman, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, for "Heroism Beyond the Call of duty". I assumed that such American involvement ought to be noted, even if it was indeed marginal. Reuv 08:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, no problem for me. I had assumed that the Ohio was US owned, registered and crewed - must check. Adding the US ensign to the "combatant" part of the box (this is not the tag I referred to) implied to me that there were US warships, which I doubted, unlike a later operation which involved a US carrier. It may be interesting to add the merchant ships' details. The awards you mention should be in the article (if they're not already), and there were some UK awards as well, eg, Syfret was knighted for his part. Folks at 137 17:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I did contribute to the wikipedia SS Ohio article as well, and it seems that the tanker was registered in the British Eagle Oil list as soon as her involvement in the convoy was confirmed....i think Lend-Lease or some big-wig discussion had something to do with it. What I'm certain of is that her crew during the initial operation was British...however, two American seamen (the ones that got the awards) were involved with the latter stages of the convoy. They were survivors from the american freighters (one of them from the Almeria Lykes) and they volunteered to man the Oerlikons on the Ohio as it approached Malta. I did not know of Syfret's knighthood or that it was linked with this convoy....there was a George Cross for the captain of the Ohio too now that i remember!! Reuv 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The battle should be marked as success and victory for the Allies. It should be noted that there was no fuel and spareparts left for airplanes,the gunners had a ration how much shells should they fire, and food left for the population was just for a few days more (some sources say about 10 days was the maximum). By food here we mean the basic needs, such as flour and potatoes not other commodities. The convoy brought these necessary supplies for Malta to fight till the next convoy can be despatched.88.203.76.186 (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Re the infobox and the post-nominal initials of one of the British commanders: CB means Companion of the Bath (see blue link above.) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I think this is a very good article, on a series of events which are often forgotten or not taken into account when the Allied victory in the western desert is evaluated.  
Secondly, permit me some comments:

It seems as if the link Sta Marija Convoy Surviving Crewmen for Malta Reunion [usmm.org] appears to be broken;
There is a paragraph which states that the “Ohio eventually broke her back” and was abandoned by the crew.  However, the in the following paragraphs she is limping and being towed, supported by ships on either side, into Malta.  To me, a non-nautical person, if a ship breaks her back it means she broke into two.  Perhaps the terms used in this section to describe her damage should be re-visited. Alternatively, to describe how she was re-manned and nursed to continue her voyage.  I think this is important as Ohio was the determinant of the overall success or failure of Operation Pedestal.
I read somewhere in some wiki guideline that one should steer away from naming an article after a military operation as different sides often had different names for the same chain of events. I don’t know what would be a better title, but I mention it for your consideration.
I think the following paragraphs require citations:
Operation Pedestal, though tactically disastrous, was turned into a strategic victory in that it served as a great uplift to the besieged island's morale
The amount of supplies which reached Malta as a consequence of the convoy;
The number of tons of shipping and fuel sunk / denied to Rommel.
I made some minor changes to the article, refer the history section for those.
Farawayman (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Interview with a german stuka pilot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk6QHXdRBUo&feature=relmfu
Rainer E. 84.150.23.175 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

In this section it mentions Vice-Admiral Syfret was knighted (KCB) for his "bravery and dauntless resolution in fighting an important Convoy through to Malta in the face of relentless attacks by day and night from enemy submarines, aircraft, and surface forces."
I think this is incorrect and that it was my grandfather, Rear Admiral Sir Harold Martin Burrough.  He commanded the close escort from his flagshp HMS Nigeria and when she was torpedoed (the ship listed sharply, sailors looked up expectantly and Admiral Burrough said "don't worry, she'll hold, lets have a cigarette" and the tension passed) he transferred his flag to HMS Ashanti.  I know Admiral Burrough won his KCB for this action (I still have the book "Malta Convoy" signed by him).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles boyall (talk • contribs) 22:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC) 

Burrough's KCB was not gazetted till 8 June 1944 (https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/36544/supplement/2567/data.pdf), so was presumably not related to Pedestal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.70.208 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@ Damwiki: Is the Hooton book 2010 or 2001? Keith-264 (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I assumed 2010 as per the cite in Siege of Malta. The staging of fighters is covered in other works as well, for example. Damwiki1 (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

We can't use wiki as a source.Keith-264 (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure the fighters were being staged and not bombers? Malta is a long way from Egypt.Keith-264 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I confirmed the cite from other sources which you'll see if you click on the provided (for example) hyperlink above. Shores et all also cover this as does many other sources. Yes, hundreds of carrier delivered fighters were staged through Malta and they could reach DAF bases during times when the 8th Army held Cyrenica, consequently only a proprotion  of fighters that landed on Malta from carriers were used for Malta's defense.  The wording "19 costly and dangerous"  is not NPOV. The 19 carrier ferry runs, resulted in the loss of one carrier (Ark Royal) from a submarine attack only a few miles from Gibraltar. In a relative sense, looking at all carrier losses ( 8 Allied fleet carriers lost from 1939-42) and operations up to the end of 1942, Malta ferry runs were actually quite safe. All Convoy operations, in any theatre of operations involved modern merchant ships and warships and all involved costly delays and there was nothing unique about Malta in this respect. In any event an article about a week long operation doesn't need to do more than summarize past operations and set the stage for the topic at hand.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Come off it, the best ships were concentrated on the most dangerous runs and the point is from Roskill, a fairly good quality source. Losses of aircraft carriers is one criterion but what about the efforts made to preserve them? Do you (and more importantly, your sources) call the club runs a doddle? Keith-264 (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Most of the runs to ferry aircraft to Malta were "milk runs" and very few involved losses of any kind (look it up - most are covered by wiki). Roskill is guilty of exaggeration and the bulk of sources do not support that the Malta Ferry runs were dangerous. Malta Convoys in 1942 were dangerous, but not really prior to then (one carrier damaged and several cruisers and destroyers lost in 1940-41).  The Convoys to Russia were arguably more dangerous but, as I've stated, all convoys involve risk and delays.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
That's a platitude when the source is on about more risk and delay.Keith-264 (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Apropos, is the Austin book the commercial version of the thesis in Further reading? Keith-264 (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I expect so but don't know for certain.  Damwiki1 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
You cite Roskill 1957 but I don't see an entry for that year in the bibliography.

It's volume I 1954, 4th impression 1957.Keith-264 (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The last time this came up it was the year of printing of the edition, for example I cite Playfair after volume I (1954) as 2004, despite them being facsimile reprints. Keith-264 (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It is a bit confusing. I added a link to a 3 part article that lists all aircraft ferry operations to Malta and gives all warship losses. The only loss, AFAIK, in all ferry operations was Ark Royal.Damwiki1 (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
How many damaged and out of action? Keith-264 (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, none.Damwiki1 (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
How risky was it thought at the time and does modern opinion use hindsight? Most of the sources I used were written quite a while ago and some of yours seem much later - Shores et al., so I'm in favour of your revisions to the article from them as long as any difference between how it seemed at the time (perhaps having been given more prominence in the OH volumes) and what we know now, particularly the nitty-gritty details of the Axis counter-operation, are signposted carefully. I've only got the abridged volume of the Ultra OH and found it sparse, although Vego added plenty about what the management knew and thought they knew, that I assume is in the full version. I think your interest in the page is a great asset by the way.Keith-264 (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Anytime a carrier force goes to sea there was risk, but the ferry operations were inherently low risk (hence low warship losses) because the ferried aircraft, being flown one way, could be launched well outside Axis fighter cover and at extreme range for Axis bombers. I'm certain that the admirals in command didn't view them as particularly hazardous - certainly not on the same scale as actually covering a convoy to Malta. I probably can't do much more now until after new years.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Ferrying operations at that time demanded that the RAF fighter aircraft being ferried were flown off at the maximum range to the land airfields as permissible, as the aircraft to be ferried occupied the flight deck and so prevented the operation of the carrier's normal air defence fighters. As the ferried aircraft did not possess arrester hooks, once flown off they could not then re-land on the carrier but must instead land on a land airfield. They could not therefore be used for the carrier's own air defence unless they were in range of Malta, and could land there afterwards.
So unless another carrier in the convoy was allocated solely for air defence (which would have reduced the ultimate number of aircraft that could be ferried), until the aircraft being ferried were flown off, the carriers had no air defence other than the ship's guns.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.233 (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Operation Pedestal/CommentsTalk:Operation Pedestal/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 20:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC).
Substituted at 01:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Obtained Greene and Massignani which has been a great help in rationalising the patchwork from other sources and clarifying the chronology, it also contains a much better account of Axis operations than the previous sources.Keith-264 (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Continued the revision using the new source.Keith-264 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This has the sense of a thing done but supply is continuous so being revitalised isn't enough; I toyed with re-victualled but it has the same problem.Keith-264 (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@LostandCatatonic: Thanks for the edit, do you have the page numbers handy pls Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xyl 54: Greetings, curious why you removed commanders under NPOV since some were axis and others Allied. I named the ones I could cite. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Keith: To answer this first, I took them out because (to be even-handed) if we name-check one ship's commander, we ought to name them all. It seems a bit biased to name, say, the commander of U-83 but not the captain of Eagle; or the pilot of an Italian plane but not the guy who shot him down. And we don't normally add commander's names unless they are in some way relevant to the narrative. Rosenbaum is named on the U-83 page; that ought to be enough, I think. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I notice you changed a couple of edits I made here.
In the Allied Plan section the text previously stated that the convoy designation ( I don't know what else to call it!) was WS.5.21.S, and that this was 'bogus', as 'genuine Winston Specials were troop convoys..' the source for that was Vego. I changed that, as Hague (who probably ought to know) gives it as a run-of-the-mill WS convoy, numbered 21S. Now, the article has Vego's phrasing, but supported by the Hague reference; which is just eccentric. Vego seems to have got his information from a book by Carauna (ref 41, p116), but Hague is clear enough; the Malta ops were all run from the UK as WS convoys (the 5 ships for Tiger sailed with WS 8A, Substance was WS 9C, Halberd was WS 11X and Harpoon was WS 19Z) so Pedestal was nothing out of the ordinary in this. At the least, the wording and the source need to match.
The other change was in Casualties; if you don't like the term 'heavy', the section still needs a preamble. If it is discussing Allied and Axis casualties, then they should be prefaced to say who was who. Don't you reckon?
Also, prefacing a sentence with 'However': Why not? The two statements (we're saying both sides have it as a success/were successful) are being contrasted, so some sort of controversion is needed (On the other hand? Contrariwise? But?) Xyl 54 (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
PS: I've changed the sources round, and labelled the "bogus" description as dubious, just to clarify it. What would you like to do about the claim itself? How about 'the so-called 'Winston's Specials'? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I can't complain about the Hague source but I don't have it hence using Vigo. If it's more than just eccentric US writing I'll put it back to your edit (minus designated which is too elaborate when named or called will do. Starting a sentence with a word like however or meanwhile contradicts the full stop at the end of the previous sentence. Heavy is a bad term to use since it is a measure of weight not quantity and is vague. A preamble is an unnecessary and circumlocutory way of not getting to the point. Let the words do the talking by conveying meaning with the fewest, most apposite words in the simplest sentence and leave the foreshadowing, slang, metaphors, similes, figures of speech and hackwork to journalists, it's what they're for. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I've gone back to your edit based on Hague for the WS passage. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Francesco Mattesini
LA BATTAGLIA AERONAVALE DI MEZZO AGOSTO :Il contrasto delle forze italo-tedesche all’operazione britannica «Pedestal» (10 - 15 Agosto 1942) RiStampa Edizioni
The book, with a book price of 48 Euros, consists of 675 pages, richly illustrated with maps and photographs, and printed in very white coated paper.
The first copies were delivered today to the ARES Library in Rome, Via Lorenzo il Magnifico, 46 - tel. 06 56547201.
And also at the Veterland Library - Alberto Manca (library, vaterland @ gmail.com), Via Azuni 21 09077 Solarussa (OR) - Tel. 0783374730, cell. 3292289495.
If you wish, you can contact the Editor, my brother, architect Silvano Mattesini, passionate and writer of Ancient Roman History, to take orders to be honored by bank transfer, and related shipping costs (15 Euros):

Banca Popolare di Spoleto, Seat of Rieti, Banco di Desio Via Giovanni Falcone n. 2,
IBAN: IT48 HO57 0414 6000 0000 0159 600
BIC swift BDSPIT3S
mattesini@armatureromane.com
with regard
Francesco Mattesini  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.230.149 (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC) 

I've condensed this, as it was taking up too much space; I've also put it it it's own section, as it isn't part of the previous discussion. It probably qualifies as SPAM; on the other hand the book probably qualifies as a reliable source. It's an ethical minefield…  Xyl 54 (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
PS: The Italian WP has extracts on the corresponding article's talk page, if anyone wishes to check them out... Xyl 54 (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

British historian Sir Max Hastings has published a major new book on this battle titled Operation Pedestal. I would think any article without it would be incomplete at best and possibly outdated in certain areas. -- GreenC 21:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you advertising? As for Hastings, he's a hack not a historian. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
In his acknowledgements, Sir Max particularly commends Brian Crabb's Operation Pedestal (2014 -- "exhaustive... especially valuable for its appendices, detailing a mass of factual data"), Peter C. Smith's Pedestal: The Convoy That Saved Malta (1970, repr.1999) and Sam Moses' At All Costs: How A Crippled Ship and Two American Merchant Mariners Turned the Tide of World War II (2006). Of these, only Smith appears in the article's bibliography at present. Hastings also uses some quite interesting Italian and German sources. So his book may include things that could usefully be added to the article. On the other hand, the article is quite long already and Hastings mainly (and intentionally) deals in anecdotal history. Khamba Tendal (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
So he's a tertiary source. Keith-264 (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
No, since most of his references are to primary sources in the National Archives and the IWM.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.70.208 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The addition of a brief sentence on pilfering from convoy supplies has made me look at the background section again. While it mentions the dire situation that Malta was in terms of being able to continue as a military resource and some of the emergency measures considered to stave off starvation I don't think it provides sufficient information on how desparate the situation was. Perhaps some more context could be provided from the general article on the siege. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Made a start on putting the OOB into tables. Keith-264 (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Have moved the OOB to a new article Operation Pedestal orders of battle as it's far too big and unbalancing this one. Keith-264 (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: How do you know what the reader knows? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
It's not normal to say an image cam be enlarged, and it's true of all of the images, not just that one. And the image that had the note saying it was enlargable was nearly the last image in a well-illstrated article. Like, when pretty much every image on Wikipedia can be enlarged, why say it about one - not even the first (it's second from last), not even the largest (it's only 800 × 792 px) - in this artcle? I'd get it if it was something which was incomprehensible at thumbnail size, like a very detailed map, but... what's so special about this image to be the only one to have such a note? It's a nice image, but... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 02:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I think that in that series of articles, maps had (click to enlarge) but someone objected as we aren't supposed to tell readers what to do and I tried 'enlargeable', which had not been criticised until now. There are a few more (usually maps) in the Western Desert articles but if you want them gone, I'll take them out as and when. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
The thing is, it wasn't a map. It was File:SS-Ohio supported.jpg. I wouldn't mind so much on a map, but... if that image is the only one labelled expandable, given where in the article it is, it implies all the other images aren't (per the doctrine of exception proves the rule), but that isn't the case. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 12:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed, thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Aye. I don't really object to saying things are expandable as a general ruke, but, y'know, should be some logic to why that one and not others. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 12:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Copied the lead, analysis and casualties sections from this article to the new OOB page, Keith-264 (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)