Talk:Battle of Monte Castello

message: This article's English is so poor that to change it to something more acceptable would change the meaning, (that's if the original meaning was known)! In its present form, it should not pass B-class grammar-wise.  RASAM (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: I call attention to a recurring error in the article over the years: On the number of total casualties (killed in action + wounded + prisoners taken by enemy) on both sides in this battle. So far, the most well-known references on the subject are the memoirs of the commander of the Brazilian Expeditionary Division and the author cited in the article (Donato, 1996). And in quoted reference, in the pages related to the battle in question, the arithmetical sum of casualties on both sides occurred on the dates of the 3 main fightings of this battle:
* November, 29. 1944
* December, 12. 1944 &
* February, 21. 1945
Shows a Total of: 425 casualties on the Brazilian side, and 70 casualties on the German side. Thus, unless One come with a reliable book or journal reference (preferably that can be checked online, as the present one), to update such historical data, I ask to anybody avoid "guessing" any data that is not verifiable.
PS:
For those unfamiliar with military affairs, and therefore perhaps the disparity of casualties between the two sides; I remind you that one of the characteristics of Mountain combat is the innumerable advantages that the defending side has in relation to the attacker one. These advantages usually result in disparities of this type, especially in frontal attacks such as the first two (of the main) fightings of Monte Castello. An example (and not even a mountainous terrain) was the Battle of Rapido River between US and German forces between 20 and 22 January 1944, when the 2:1 attacking forces suffered 2100 casualties, against only 243 of the defensing Ones. A difference of almost 9 (NINE):1.
In the Battle of Monte Cassino, which in this sense (a clear advantage for the defending side in terms of topography), is considered a battle of "balanced proportions" between casualties on both sides, occurred a almost 3:1 more casualties among the allied attacking troops than their enemy Nazi-fascist troops.
Thus, the disparity between Brazilian casualties and the Germans who defended Monte Castello - quoted in the present book reference of the article, around 6:1 - is pretty into the statistical average of frontal attacks against positions of this type. 179.111.28.91 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Recurring Error

message: This article suggests that the later Battle of Mount Belvedere was part of this battle, despite the fact that (1) there was a lengthy pause between the BEF's attempts to seize Belvedere & the 10th Mountain's assault, (2) the two actions followed different battle plans developed by different individuals (while I assume Gen. Mascarenhas de Morais was in charge of the first battle, I know based on reliable sources Gen. George Hays drew up the plans & directed the actions of the second), & (3) the name of the second battle is more familiar than the first -- at least amongst Americans. As soon as I finish writing an article on the battle for Mt Belvedere, I plan to remove that misplaced information from this article. -- llywrch (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion with the Battle of Mount Belvedere