Talk:Operation Battleaxe

message: * British artillery at Halfaya?
** Didn't fire since artillery was bogged down in soft sand - The Crucible of War
** Did fire, but had no effect as the garrison was bunkered down at the time - Afrika Korps - Time-Life
** Did fire, but the concentration of fire missed, "falling in the empty wadi between the Third and the FlaK", the garrison also bunkered down - Panzer Aces II: Battle Stories of German Tank Commanders of WWII
===Initial strength===
* British 
** 180 tanks, 7 AD; 19 tanks (from 4th AB) 4 IID - Rommel: Battles and Campaigns
** 300 tanks Rommel's Panzers: Rommel and the Panzer Forces of the Blitzkrieg 1940-1942
** 200 tanks - Rommels North Africa Campaign PB: September 1940 - November 1942
* German
** 70 tanks, 5 LD; 80 tanks, 15 PD - Rommel: Battles and Campaigns
** 200 tanks, 170 in frontier - Rommel's Panzers: Rommel and the Panzer Forces of the Blitzkrieg 1940-1942
** 100 tanks, 5LD, 85 tanks, 15 PD - Rommels North Africa Campaign PB: September 1940 - November 1942
===Losses===
* Axis
** Over 100 tanks, only 12 which couldn't be ultimately repaired - Panzerkampfwagen III Medium Tank 1936-44
** 12 tanks - Afrika Korps, 1941-43
** 25 tanks - Rommel: Battles and Campaigns
** 25 tanks and 700 dead  - Rommel's Panzers: Rommel and the Panzer Forces of the Blitzkrieg 1940-1942
** 592 Italians, 685 Germans, 12 tanks after repairs - Rommel's North Africa Campaign PB: September 1940 - November 1942
** 678 Germans (328 killed and missing) and the Italians lost a smaller though uncertain number. - The Tanks, pg. 92
** 93 dead and 235 missing Germans - Rommel's War in Africa, pg. 140
* Allies
** 91 tanks - Afrika Korps, 1941-43, Rommel: Battles and Campaigns
** Half their tanks and 900 men - Rommel's Panzers: Rommel and the Panzer Forces of the Blitzkrieg 1940-1942
** 969 casualties, 91 tanks (64 being Matilda's), 36 planes - Rommel's Panzers: Rommel and the Panzer Forces of the Blitzkrieg 1940-1942 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancies

message: * Axis
** Over 100 tanks, only 12 which couldn't be ultimately repaired - Panzerkampfwagen III Medium Tank 1936-44
** 12 tanks - Afrika Korps, 1941-43
** 25 tanks - Rommel: Battles and Campaigns
** 25 tanks and 700 dead  - Rommel's Panzers: Rommel and the Panzer Forces of the Blitzkrieg 1940-1942
** 592 Italians, 685 Germans, 12 tanks after repairs - Rommel's North Africa Campaign PB: September 1940 - November 1942
** 678 Germans (328 killed and missing) and the Italians lost a smaller though uncertain number. - The Tanks, pg. 92
** 93 dead and 235 missing Germans - Rommel's War in Africa, pg. 140
* Allies
** 91 tanks - Afrika Korps, 1941-43, Rommel: Battles and Campaigns
** Half their tanks and 900 men - Rommel's Panzers: Rommel and the Panzer Forces of the Blitzkrieg 1940-1942
** 969 casualties, 91 tanks (64 being Matilda's), 36 planes - Rommel's Panzers: Rommel and the Panzer Forces of the Blitzkrieg 1940-1942 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 02:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Losses

message: Hi, I've just changed the sentence stating that v. Brauchitsch was  commander of the Wehrmacht into a more accurate form. v. Brauchitsch was only C--i-C of the Heer, or ground forces, a separate branch of the Wehrmacht as a whole. C-i-C of the Wehrmacht was Hitler himself, although he assumed Brauchitsch's position in late 1941 when he blamed the Field Marshal for the failure of Operation Typhoon.
217.247.250.221 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor change 

message: * When did the operations name get changed from "Bruiser" to "Battleaxe"?  Why did it change?
* Where all Italian forces part of the Trento Division? 
* What of the attack on Bardia (supposedly defended by Leutnant Tocki)
* Need to get reliability figures for each of the authors used
** Was Messervy's headquarters really attacked three times during the operation? 
Oberiko 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Things to resolve

message: "These tanks arrived with many mechanical faults (including a lack of sand filters for the engines) on arrival and required extensive servicing.[8] They were scheduled for use in rebuilding the 7th Armoured Division (the Desert Rats), which had been previously dissolved, with the cruiser tanks going to the 7th Armoured Brigade and the infantry tanks going to the 4th Armoured Brigade."
Ok question about this, i was under the impression that this wasnt an actualy problem and that most equipment shipped out of North Africa was made desert worthy once it got there, not before it left for Africa.
Also am confused by the last point, 4th and 7th Armoured brigade were part of the Division at this time.  7th Armoured had not been shipped off to Burma by this point and the 4th Brigade had not been  detached from the division as it was later in the war.
Stating that the division was disolved and the tanks were sent to these two brigades makes no sence so am delting it for now.
The truth is by the end of Operation compass most tanks were in repair shops or non repairable and thats why the division was out of action.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prelude 

message: A new defense tactic employed by the Germans proved the undoing of Wavell's forces. Use of the 88mm anti-aircraft gun as an anti-tank gun would prove murderously successful. Hafid Ridge and Halfaya Pass held all 13 of Rommel's 88mm. They waited until the British armor were within one thousand yards, then opened fire from concealed positions, laying waste to British armor and infantry, and holding the pass.
The above paragraph has been extracted from 
I have pointed out in the main wiki page about OPERATION BATTLEAXE that Major Leopoldo Pardi was in command of six of the Italian-manned anti aircraft guns that caused so much havoc among the British tank crews and have included the following online source  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse (talk • contribs) 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian contribution during Operation Battleaxe

message: This is a bit confusing; if the Coast Force attacked Halfaya, on the escarpment, did the Escarpment Force attack Capuzzo from along the coast? Are these forces the right way round? An idea of where they started from would be helpful. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allied Forces 

message: This section states that "Both the 4th Indian Infantry Division and 7th Armoured Division were understrength". There appears to be an element of double-counting here - 7th Armoured was present in full strength - 7th Armoured Brigade, 4th Armoured Brigade and 7th Support Group were all present - just that 4th Armoured Brigade was seconded to the understrength 4th Indian Division for the battle. Or am I missing something? Scartboy (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Order of Battle 

message: Hello,
Just thought I'd point out that this article includes a mention of the Valentine tank which didn't see field duty until after Battleaxe.
Cheers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.115.151 (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valentine tanks? 

message: Altered some refs which had red on.Keith-264 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: After reading most of the article, I can not understand that paraphrase at all: "The 11th Infantry Brigade renewed their attack on Halfaya Pass, but met with same failure as the day prior. Bach′s forces—though outnumbered and running low on supplies—were now totally surrounded, and thus could not retreat even if they were inclined to do so..." So, may anyone explain the meaning of that paraphrase through identifying who Bach is, and what is the contrast between being outnumbered and being encircled? Regards.Ti2008 (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous sentence 

message: Icons
Avoid flag icons in infoboxes
Shortcuts:
    WP:INFOBOXFLAG
    MOS:INFOBOXFLAG
Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.
Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions include military conflict infobox templates and infoboxes that include international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The documentation of a number of common infoboxes (e.g. Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox Weapon) have long explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons.
The use of ship registry flags and International Code of Signals flags in infoboxes of ship articles is appropriate.
As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality", "sport nationality" or equivalent field: they may give undue prominence to one field over others. However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport.
Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes; however, physical geographic articles – for example, islands, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, swamps, etc. – should not. Where a single article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g. Manhattan, which covers both the borough of New York City and the island of the same name), or where the status of the territory is subject to a political dispute, the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not.Keith-264 (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagicons Comment 

message: Found missing citations or rm uncited sentences, one having waited since 2012....Keith-264 (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE