Talk:Operation Crusader

message: 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)
replies: text: I will recheck those sources. Meanwhile Norrie is restored to command:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My source, the Biographical Dictionary of British Generals of The Second World War, says Norrie was appointed to XXX Corps in November '41 "as a result of the death of Pope". I presume this refers to Vyvyan Pope, rather than the pontiff, who had little to no influence on British field postings at that time. Leithp 21:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rechecked too..it was, indeed Norrie. He is now restored as a general, if not a Prince of The Church.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: XXX Corps

message: 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" 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"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse (talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put a lot more faith in the Australian and NZ official histories, which were written by independent historians well after the events using the best available information, than in the press releases of the Italian government during the war. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rightly so. The Italians by the way did not capture the field hospital. It was captured by the Germans, and handed over to the Italians.  I also wonder what kind of a feat of arms capturing an undefended field hospital is???? 193.128.202.131 (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: N.Z.Official History versus Italian communiques concerning the fighting at El Gazala

message: 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)
replies: text: After waiting for more than two months for a reply to the above, I have decided to take a new default position: this article (more than) satisfies the B-class criteria in my opinion, so I will rate it thus unless someone more knowledgeable than I objects. By the way, can't anyone supply a reference for that OOB thing? PKKloeppel (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With large sections without citations i dont think at the moment this is B Class.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this article is anywhere near B class at present. 193.128.202.131 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class?

message: 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.
:Somewhere inbetween, since not all destroyed Axis planes would have been on airfields. Bu Playfair is using a sleight of hand here. There is no reason to assume that any destroyed plane found on an airfield was actually destroyed during the operation, and not before. 193.128.202.131 (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axis air losses 

message: 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?
:The South African history (Orpen, War in the Desert) has a picture of Major-General de Villiers taking Generalleutnant Schmitt's surrender at Bardia, calling him a "British General". So 'British', or maybe 'Commonwealth' is the term I would use. Certainly not Allied. 193.128.202.131 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  British or Allied 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Losses, Language etc. 

message: 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)
replies: text: You will note there is sourced material in regards to both sides air strength in the info box.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But none showing 1,000 Commonwealth planes, or did I miss that? 79.74.113.219 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, there doesnt appear to be supporting material for the 1,000 plane figure however there are plane figures that are supported in the info box ;)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and those are the ones I entered into the text. 79.74.113.219 (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Commonwealth planes 

message: 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)
thread_title: 'Marginal' victory?

message: 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)
replies: text: you have changed and inputted a number not supported by the sources, where is your source for 800 British tanks destroyed or damanged? That figure is not supported by Playfair, p. 100 In fact Playfair states 600 as a cumulative total by 1 Jan not 800 so i have replaced your figure on tanks. Dont know what happened with the aircraft figure so agree with your change. However your additional comment in the German tank loss section is entirely inapprobirate: it is not in the sourcce, and it is unsported speculation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh well, i have 2 sources who say its 600 "cruiser tanks"/"tanks" + another 200 "infantry tanks"/"close-support tanks". One is "Operation Crusader" by Ken Ford p. 92. The other one is "Das deutsche Reich und der 2. Weltkrieg"/"Germany and the Second World war" Vol III p. 750/680. The latter has an explicit reference to Playfair p. 100 + "Francis Hinsley British Intelligence III p. 336" for that. Thats why i added 800 tanks pointing to Playfair p. 100. StoneProphet (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Applogies, in my haste yesterday i did not scan down further than the table provided by Playfair on page 100. You are quite correct he notes 600 tanks to do with the 7th Armour, then states underneath (not in the table but in the text) "just over 200" I tanks.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

text: On a side note, you have the German official histories?! A source i have always been intrested in, how would you comment on them?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I dont own them, but after i read the book about Crusader in the book mentioned above, i was confused because of the big difference given in the losses. So i looked it up in "Das deutsche Reich und der 2. Weltkrieg". The library here has some some copies of it. I did that on some occasions previously too. I havnt read that much in them until now, but they seem to be thoroughly researched and very detailed, always putting everything into "the big picture". So there is also a large focus on economic and political aspects. They also seem to be quite critical regarding command decisions and such things (e.g. Rommels decisions before and during Crusader). However the more interesting parts are anyway the books about the eastern front, as this period had not been covered very extensively by neutral sources (with the exception of some well known battles like Stalingrad etc.) to date. StoneProphet (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info! The next question for this article should be British tank numbers I think. The information given is clearly for the start of the operation however tank losses for cruisers and infantry tanks outnumber the ones that entered the field. Is there a source that covers replacement machines?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well the British certainly received large numbers of reinforcements during the fighting. E.g. units of the 1st Armoured Division arrived during the fighting and there were also a number of tanks in reserve units behind the front not counted in those 738 tanks (thats what at least Das deutsche Reich und der 2. Weltkrieg says). The same happened at Gazala too, where they also lost more tanks than they had at the beginning. But i guess if there are some concrete numbers, then they are probably in Playfairs book? StoneProphet (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft and tanks 

message: 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)
replies: text: Moved several quotations to notes and ce'd a couple of sections. Keith-264 (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headers-CE 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Something like this? Keith-264 (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phases 

message: This is blatant POV pushing. Keith-264 (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  These men died for freedom - they have earned more respect than to be lumped as just "Dominions" or "other" 

message: Wiki isn't a reliable source. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds like they might need credit in the general campaign but not this specific operation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  LAF 

message: 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)
replies: text: Been spring cleaning, replaced some old references with newer ones, most cites now sfn; repairing bonkers paragraphs. Chunks of text copy-edited but the complicated nature of the fighting has led to some confused passages and a start has been made to get them re-edited. Much more to do. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: 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)
thread_title:  poor article