Talk:First Battle of Sirte

message: I’ve re-written some of this, particularly the Background and Prelude sections, in order to give a fuller picture of the events surrounding this action.
I’ve also given some sources from the British side, for perspective.
There were a couple of mistakes: the position in the Western desert was different than previously described; also, it supposes the Malta Strike Force was called Force K, which is incorrect. There were several groups of warships based at Malta during the campaign; Force K was one of them, though arguably the most famous.
And it didn’t ‘cease to exist ‘ in the minefield off Tripoli, though the incident was bad enough; the 2 ships lost were from Force B. Xyl 54 16:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write

message: “Among the defensive forces was a battleship, meaning that a total of three British battleships were believed to be in the general area. In fact, the ships in question were actually escorting a British convoy to Malta, and the battleship was later discovered to be a tanker, the Breconshire, disguised with painted-on guns."
I’ve lifted this bit out, as it seems dubious.
The RN used a dummy battleship (HMS Centurion) during Operation Vigorous, but not this one, so far as I know, and I can’t find any reference of Breconshire being tricked out this way. 
It seems unlikely, anyway; Breconshire was the most valuable ship in the convoy; it wouldn’t make sense to disguise her as a ship of similar value. Xyl 54 13:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious

message: I came back today to fix a few things, the result amongst them, but its been done already. ( That was  quick!). But I’ve changed the contents of the infobox to fit the battle of Sirte alone, as not all the ships in the order of battle were present, and very few of the casualties in these various actions occurred then. Xyl 54 14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: I've stated in the conclusion why this battle, and the series of engagements as a whole, are regarded as inconclusive. If anyone, paricularly anyone who wants to describe this as an Italian victory, disagrees, can I have your reasoning here, please? Xyl 54 12:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconclusive

message: This:
“The battle itself was relatively uneventful, but has come to describe a week of clashes which illustrate well the cut and thrust of naval warfare in the Mediterranean at the time.”
Was replaced by this:
”Although the damage inflicted during the battle between the convoy's escorts was light - both forces being able to complete their delivery missions - limiting the battle to tactical Italian victory; during an action following the battle, which was caused directly by the convoy battle, the Royal Navy's Force K ran into an Italian minefield, and ceased to exist as an effective unit. This, by itself, was a major setback for the Allies.”
Without discussion here.
I’ve reverted this because:
1)The introduction explains the First Battle of Sirte was a series of related engagements and gives an overview; to mention one engagement ("Force K"  ) gives it undue weight, to give the impression of a victory.
2)The mention of Force K is inaccurate; the ships lost in the minefield were from Force B
3)The battle of Sirte section shows it was inconclusive, and there is ample discussion above  on whether or not it was a tactical victory or not.
4)The conclusion shows the whole series were inconclusive, some won and some lost, with honours even. I think that is the fairest evaluation of these events.
Xyl 54 (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to Introduction

message: I note that this issue has been partially discussed several times before (see above), but it seems this needs to be revisited. IP 208 has recently changed the infobox outcome from "Inconclusive" to "Italian victory" . However, as no references have been provided to support this change I have reverted them. Of cse if there are reliable sources which support this assertion then I have no issue with any editor making this change (with an inline citation), but pls do not simply keep changing this based only on your opinion / reasoning of the outcome (please see WP:PROVEIT for our policy on verifiability and the referencing etc). Anotherclown (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent infobox change to "Italian victory" (again) - March 2016 

message: Tidied refs and citations, auto-edded, dupe wl scan. Keith-264 (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE