Talk:Siege of Tobruk

message: The article on Mustafa_Kemal says that he participated in the Defense of Tobruk. Where is he?
:Mustafa Kemal died in 1938 so he can't have participated in this battle. Besides Turkey was neutral in :WWII. Raoulduke47 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mustafa Kemal (1881-1938) defended Tobruk in 1911 war. --ja_62 (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mustafa Kemal 

message: I first found out about it by reading Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story by Paolo Caccia-Dominioni in a page where he describes the circumstances leading to the death of the commanding officer of the unit (a sister unit for Caccia-Dominioni was CO of the 31st Combat Sappers Battalion). Paolo Caccia-Dominioni would have no reason to lie about the achievements of this unit for he has written about about his unit experiences during the battles of Alamein and his book has survived for decades with its reputation intact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian 32nd Combat Sappers Battalion takes part in the capture of 3 bunkered platoons

message: Brevity was not an attempt to lift the siege of Tobruk. I have removed referance to this once before and have just done so again since it is now back within the article.
The main objective of the attack was to clear the Libyan-Egyptian border so Operation Battleaxe could be launched from a better position.
--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the correct action. I did that, my bad58.165.235.188 (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd keep a mention of it though.  Reaching Tobruk was sort of a "blue skies" objective of Brevity, especially since the British believed (due to intercepting Paulus' report) that the Axis forces were pretty much ready to fall apart. Oberiko (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it can probably be rolled into the subsection on Operation Battleaxe. Or perhaps it can have its own subsection, after all it is only a sub section...58.165.235.188 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It looks like about the same information I have then.  Personally, I think it warrants a minor note (a sentance or two), especially since, for some reason, most history books which don't cover Brevity in detail erroneously describe the operation as solely an attempt to lift the siege.  Oberiko (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Brevity 

message: Am finding this section to be extermly weak, as discussed above it pushes one point of view of the Italian soldiers without highlighting the fact some did fight well or explain why the men who didnt fight, didnt. It jumps all over the place, for instance what does the 9th Infantry Division have to do with the initial capture of the fortress, it doesnt.
On top of that, the "They also found that the Italians had constructed some impressive defences, including a perimeter of concrete pits." seems some what silly.
After reading the British Official History on the subject(am sure the aussie one will confirm with this outlook), they highlight the Aussie commander personally reconning the Tobruk defences before the attack and the assualt plan involved capturing 5 iirc of these concrete defence pits, therefore they cant have only found out about them after the battle as the article currently suggests.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems rather odd to even have a section dedicated to Compass here.  The background can surely be more concise. Oberiko (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm certainly in favour of making the background more precise.  On the impressive defences, after Tobruk was captured an appreciation of the available defences revealed that the were very well engineered.  So this sentence is intended to mean that the impressiveness of the defences (which included the perimeter) was discovered) were discovered. On the 9th division, I got that confused with the 6th division. The article does jump over the place, it did before and I tried to fix it up a bit. It is just a mess really.58.165.235.188 (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Compass 

message: I've been away for a few weeks and see that during my absence there has been some activity on this article. Two things strike me. The intro has been re-written in a rather Australian POV way. I imagine this is probably because the current text focuses on the fighting up to and over Easter and then covers the rest of the siege in a very cursory manner - not that I have a problem with that per se because the later fighting at Tobruk is covered in the Operation Crusader article. However, the article is supposed to cover the whole siege which lasted until November so the non-Australian force held Tobruk for some 70-80 days. I've re-written the intro to try and reflect the full period. 
Secondly I am confused by the role of 15 Pz Div. The original text said that Rommell only commanded 5 Light Div because 15 Pz had not yet arrived in Libya (this coincides with the Sonnenblume article which says, with reference quoted, 15 Pz tanks arrived in Africa between 25 April and 6 May and the division was not fully concentrated until end May). The current text ascribes quite a lot of activity to 15 Pz during mid-April and I have added "elements of" to the text, assuming that perhaps the non-tank elements of 15 Pz were available to Rommell during April, until I can go to some references to sort out what was really going on. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure of the original role of 15 Pz., but I do know (and have referenced on the Operation Battleaxe page I believe) that they were in charge of the frontier defense following Brevity. Oberiko (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. The Operation Brevity article has 8 Pz Reg (the tanks of 15 Pz Div) arriving at Sidi Azeiz on 16 May which fits fine with the idea that they arrived in N Africa between 25 April and 6 May. The question is what part of 15 Pz Div, if any, was involved at Tobruk in mid April, as described in the Siege of Tobruk article?Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 22:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The problematic bit is the para in "1.2 Rommel takes the initiative" which currently reads  This happened after the defeat of 2 Armoured Div on 8 April but before 11 April when the article goes on to say  ....but 15 Pz Divs tanks didn't start arriving until 25 April at earliest. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but the OOB you list is that for 30th April or 30th May? I guess it must be 30 May because it includes elements of 1st Komp of 8 Pz Reg which didn't arrive in Africa until 25 April and wasn't at the front until 9 May. The mystery still remains as to what exactly was going on when on or about 9 or 10 April Rommell "ordered [elements of] 15th Panzer Division commanded by General Heinrich von Prittwitz und Gaffron to attack Tobruk from the West, directly down the Derna Road". The Jentz info above suggests that only the Panzer Jaeger 33 anti tank unit of 15 Pz Div could have been at Tobruk at the time (it is unlikely the motorcycle battalion would have reached there having arrived in Tripoli only on the 10 April). The official record shows von Esebeck taking over 15 Pz on 13 April so the account of von Prittwitz's death is credible (but unreferenced!).  So the question remains: what units was von Prittwitz leading when his staff car got blown up on the Tobruk front Line?! It certainly is misleading to say (as the article did originally) that 15 Pz were ordered to advance and attack Tobruk along the Dena road when most of the division had yet to arrive! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 22:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrific work! Three battalions. Need to think how to reflect this in the text without getting bogged down in superfluous detail. No, it's not a typo but his full name. A number of generals had similar names (von Senger und Etterlin, von Vietinghof genannt Scheel - the name is usualy given in full but then shortened to von XXX in subsequent repetition). Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 15 Panzer Div

message: Having a quick read through the Aussie's official history of its forces in the second world war it is quite clear that the Australians lost on the night attack of 1 May R.3, R.4, R.5, R.6 and R.7 to Italian troops. There were a number of Australian attempts to recover these positions and it was the Polish Carpathian Brigade that finally recovered these positions and Medauar Hill and Acroma in December 1941.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkgeneral (talk • contribs) 04:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 7th Bersaglieri versus Australian Diggers

message: I'm getting a bit fussed about the quality of some of the supporting references being included in this article. Books are one thing but links to websites which do not identify what the site is, the author and context have no value whatsoever. Here's an extreme but not untypical example: . It's written in an encyclopaedic style but there is no identification as to its source (and therefore credibility) - even though the page claims copyrite for the (un-named) author! It doesn't help credibility that if you click on this link you get bombarded with all sorts of pop-ups to undesirable sites (even sex-related!). Please may we have better quality control, epecially on the weblinks! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Like so . It should display like so:
--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. Grible (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The title says 'Siege of Tobruk' but the infox title say 'Battle of Tobruk'.....which one is it?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.60.232.192 (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiltle 

message: Why are all the photos from the Allied side? And none of German, or British, tanks? Sca (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are many - simply search for Tobruk.  All of these photo's are also available via WikiMedia.  Add as considered necessary!  Farawayman (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Pix

message: This photo, as used in the article is dated June 1942 and does not correctly relate to the initial battle and siege of Tobruk.  It depicts POW's captured by the German forces after the Battle of Gazala when Rommel re-captured Tobruk on 20 June 1942.  I suspect the POW's in the photo are from either the 2/5 Mahratta Light Infantry or the 2/7 Ghurka Rifles.  Farawayman (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And on a similar note, why is the photo "Italian officers overseeing the surrender of British forces at Tobruk, 20 June 1942" included here? Perhaps I've missed something but it seems to have no relevance?Nickm57 (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo: Allied P.O.Ws June 1942

message: If there is a number for the casualties it should be added with a reliable source, otherwise it is pointless to have this unverifiable numbers in the article, which have been added when the article was still a 2 sentence stub without sources. StoneProphet (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review

message: Would be good if there was an OOB to indicate which units / formations were involved in the siege.  The infobox shows Australian, Czech, Polish, UK and Indian involvement.  Who were these units?  Farawayman (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Siege_of_Tobruk#All_change_in_the_Tobruk_defences The Banner talk 11:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of battle

message: I have just removed this  which you have recently addeed. My reasons were listed in the edit summary; however, I will elaborate here so that further discussion can occur if need be. Essentially the edit stated that the instances of self inflicted wounds in the 9th Division were due "the capture of the Australian strongpoints and resulting casualties... [which] affected morale in the 9th Division...") yet this is not supported by the source you provided which no where states that it was the loss of these strongpoints or casualties caused by the Italians that resulted in this occurring. In fact it states: "Poor personnel selection, the activities of undesirables, the strain of the seige and a shortage of officers in some battalions weakened discipline... More disturbing was the large number of self-inflicted wound (SIW) cases. During a single week in May the division reported thirty SIW cases.". The source can be accessed here . Pls be careful not to editorialise and add your assumptions. We need to stick to the facts provided by the sources used. Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self inflicted wounds - recently removed edit 

message: Changed the citations to sfn so as to find the citations without a reference and vice versa, found some references to suit orphan citations. Will look for citations for the unreferenced sections presently. Hope no-one minds but the banners have been there a while. Keith-264 (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the re-edit on but the Sonnenblume and Crusader sections are unfinished, I hope to manage them tomorrow. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, a new job has put a spoke into my editing so I'll try again this weekend. Recent edits have done something to alleviate the anglo-centric narrative and there should be something about mutual code-breaking to go with the air and sea sections. Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Still snowed under with work but I'm still trying.Keith-264 (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good, happy with the citations & image placements. Shire Lord  (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I need to finish Sonnenblume and then it'll be fit for a B class review, instead I've been building fences and mowing lawns in the tropical English sun (being Hull it rained this morning). I haven't seen any mad dogs yet....Keith-264 (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep tropical Yorkshire who would have thought.. I digress. Look forward to it. Shire Lord  (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

text: 'Tis doneKeith-264 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Rolled back recent edits en masse as the editor appears to be our serial impostor. Keith-264 (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that seems quite likely to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor 120.155.133.157  

message: 300px is the standard size for infobox pics.Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Got there in the end, isbn 13'd the references, minor ce, rm dupe wikilinks; weights and measures inconsistent so put them in imperial for convenience, happy to discuss. Keith-264 (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Per Template:Infobox_military_conflict, I've put the list of belligerents in order of importance to the conflict, as best I understand the chain of command and military contribution. Factotem (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of belligerents 

message: The history of Tobruk City Saied Mousa (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tobruk 

message: Hi can this article be renamed to the 2nd siege of Tobruk, as a few history sources mention including yourselves, in January 1941 then Italian held Tobruk was surrounded by British and Australian troops of the XIII corps, this "Blockade" or Siege carried on for 2 months thus i think should be classified as a siege or at least mentioned in this article as a first pharse of the siege. Infomanfromearth (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm not doing it now because i think i might get banned for doing so. thus me checking first. Infomanfromearth (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I've created a more detailed version of the siege on this page but still i want the name changed please. Infomanfromearth (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-Name