Talk:Operation Fustian

message: I believe the Google Earth map reference is too far west. The Prima Sole bridge crosses the Simeto River about 1-2 kilometers inland from the coast. I do not believe the bridge in the site marked on google earth is the rigth bridge over the Simeto.
* Nov 11, 2007 JE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.94.7 (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Google EarthMap reference is too far west 

message: Hey there. See you're adding content to the article. Would you like some help? I have a number of books I can use to help expand the article if you wouldn't mind the help - including the official histories of the British airborne forces. Skinny87 (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is open to all - more the merrier; this article could definitely use some expansion. I just added a few things off the top of my head, but if you have detailed order of battle, background, stuff like that, I'd say go for it! Looking forward to seeing your contributions.139.48.25.60 (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hullo there, I.P! 

message: The British forces section, describes the 6-pounders as "the Brigade's only anti-armour weapons". However, PIAT describes the PIAT having been first used in the invasion of Sicily (without being more specific). Is there any evidence that PIATs were carried by the brigade in Operation Fustian; and if so, do we need to re-phrase this? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed wording to anti-tank guns. Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query about 6pdr versus PIAT 

message: How is the result in the infobox disputed ? How can this operation be claimed to be an Axis victory (or British failure) when they had been forced to relinquish the bridge in the end? ChristiaandeWet (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was certainly not a clear victory, since the attacking forces neither held and retained the bridge (their objective), nor gained the planned advantages from (eventually) gaining the bridge. Jim? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The bridge was captured in the end despite the small force that attempted to take it military doctrine dictates that this would conclude a success whatever the difficulties involved in trying to take it. The victory is not clear cut but it certainly isn't an Axis victory. I have a few sources that mention that Operation Fustian as either being a 'marginal', 'muddled', 'costly' success and even the turning up of 50th Division 'turning near failure into victory'. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The objective of the operation was to capture the bridge and hold it for the advancing Eighth Army. They failed so it was an Axis victory. The bridge was recaptured within days, but that was not part of this operation. Hope that helps. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As an operation it was not an Axis victory and should be classed as an operational failure. Since however there are no sources that claim it was an axis victory I shall therefore request to put in the infobox a referenced result. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

text: It's referenced in the article so does not need one in the inf box -  Brigadier Lathbury made the decision to relinquish control of the bridge to the Germans  - The Axis forces defeated the British, therefore an Axis victory.  Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes since the bridge was recpatured and you do mention 50th Division in infobox, it is the most extraordinary axis victory I have ever seen. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The operation was the capture of the bridge by the 1st Parachute Brigade and hold it for the advancing Eighth Army. The German counter attacked and  forced them to withdrew, so the operation was a failure. The counter attack an Axis victory. When the Eighth Army (50th Division) arrived they had to assault and capture the bridge themselves. But that was not part of the airborne operation. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the problem with the article; 50th division should be taken out of the infobox & the recapture of the bridge with members of that division should be placed in the aftermath section. Also the dates used should only indicate the role of the airborne forces from when they captured the bridge and then lost it. Do you see where I am getting at? In that case the result would be an axis victory? ChristiaandeWet (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

text: No I think they should remain as they were the relieving force. However I have changed the result to Operation failed and the bridge was eventually taken by the advancing Eighth Army Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on that and hats off.. thank you for the contributions you have made. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed result