Talk:Battle of Kasserine Pass

message: from this article (version of 14:19, 2 June 2012‎), in the section Faïd, second paragraph:
"[...]the American habit of digging shallow slit trenches instead of foxholes ..."
Since I didn't know either of these terms, I had to look them up. However, this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slit_trench suggests that both terms mean the same. I don't know which article should be corrected (I'm not a native speaker). Thanks for efforts, StuartRedmann (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same issue. My (limited) understanding is that a slit trench is just British parlance for a foxhole. The IWM has several photos of such, depicting British and German positions of varying shape and size. Since this is still in the article, it would nice if someone could clarify in the article what was going on.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: slit trenches vs. foxholes

message: In US usage the term "Nth Infantry" or "Nth Armored" refers to a regiment, not a division. So "9th Infantry" would be the 9th Infantry Regiment, not the 9th Infantry Division. This can cause some confusion so I added the term 'Division' where appropriate.
:Please sign your comments with four Tildes after your comments.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US Terminology

message: There is no such campaign as the North African Campaign. North Africa was a Sub-Theater of the europe-Africa-Middle East Theater of war in World War II. The Tunisian Campaign was just that. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May be true from a strict sense in the language you are used to, but I would hate to throw away the North African Campaign article.  Perhaps that should be renamed, but I'd like to keep a link. John (Jwy) 23:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would disagree.  We don't always go by official campaign names here (otherwise we'd be in a heap of problems with conflicting terms, overlap, country-specific names etc.).  The NAC is certainly a prevelant enough name for the actions that the article describes. Oberiko 23:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: North African Campaign

message: I think the changes just reverted are not questionable - what is the specific issue? John (Jwy) 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There being no explanation, I plan to re-insert this information later in the week.  Please let me know if I should not (and why not).  Let's collaborate here. John (Jwy) 22:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Philippsbourg.  If I had known it was citations you were looking for, I could have done the same. John (Jwy) 05:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well call me puzzled. Phillipsbourg already had this reference and now has no problem with the edit he reverted. Why then was it ever reverted if he knew it was a valid edit? Why was the edit labeled "questionable"?
P.S. The after-action reports from 1st Armored Div, as well as Harmon's report on "Lessons Learned" lend further support and additional detail to the original edit. DMorpheus 13:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know the details, but would suggest that it might be more of a disagreement over appropriate content than a "mistake."  In any event, the information you entered is available by selecting the appropriate entry on the history tab of the page in question.  I encourage you to recover what you think appropriate, just as we will "recover" what information we can from the history here.  John (Jwy) 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am puzzled as well, but at this point it is a moot point (or will be when we properly incorporate the changes).  I would be interested in the answer, but let's let this one go and deal any issues that might come up in the future. John (Jwy) 14:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Aftermath"

message: :: Who did the reorganization of the commanders? Eisenhower, Alexander ?GraemeLeggett 09:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The relief of Fredendall was Eisenhower's decision. The appointment of Alexander was a decision that had been made earlier at Casablanca. Source is the West Point Military History Series: Europe and the Mediterranian. DMorpheus 00:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commander reorganization

message: I added the USACMH's map of the Africa, Mdit, European Theater SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 04:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: USACMH AME THEATER MAP

message: The result says German victory, which is true of the first stage but the pass is then retaken - so how come "German victory"? GraemeLeggett 11:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  REsult 

message: The casualty figures look questionable; perhaps people mixed different geographic or time scales.  Compare the battle box to this forum post (the poster identifies himself as from the Dupuy Institute which specializes in statistical analysis of casualties):
:"Actual US tank losses from 14 to 20 February were 98 medium and 2 light tanks. Of those, 46 medium and 2 light tanks were lost 14 February at Sidi Bou Zid and 48 medium tanks were lost in the US counterattack at Sidi Bou Zid on 15 February. The remaining 4 medium tanks were lost 16-20 February, most likely in the operations near Kasserine Pass itself.
:"The battle casualties are somewhat more confused, but hardly approached the levels suggested, especially in killed. Total battle casualties to US Army forces engaged in the battle (1st AD and elements of the 1st and 34th ID), for the entire campaign (8 November 1942-13 May 1943) included just 1,625 KIA, 5,757 WIA and 3,990 MIA and CAP. And for February, total theater casualties to the US Army, including Air Corps, were 431 KIA, 1,014 WIA and 3,355 MIA and CAP.
:"As far as the fragmentary battle casualty reports for the engagements go, it may be estimated that from 14-20 February losses were 45-46 KIA, 130-176 WIA and 2,138-2,378 MIA."
:http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=81776&sid=569b9b7a5011b452e52f163a4a67d5fa
I suggest that the casualty figures be confirmed or amended or removed.  Thank you. Wikist 13:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go look at the external resource list on the task force page, you will find a link to the official list of casualties that are posted over on the CMH website. This list has official casualties from every US Conflict from the Revolution to the modern day. These are based on the records created at the time the bodies were discovered and interred. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see anything that provides Kasserine Pass figures.Wikist 14:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello.  Please post in a relevant topic.  This topic is not about victory or defeat, it is about accurate casualty figures.  You might have meant to put this comment in the "Result" topic above, where, by the way, the person who questioned German victory is NOT American.  Thank you.Wikist 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: For me, using Firefox 2 on Win XP, the [Edit] link for the "Background" section is in a strange place, overlapping some of the body text in that section. Who knows how to fix this problem? Andrew Moylan 12:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange placement of [Edit] link for "Background" section 

message: I tried to change the outcome back to "Pyrrhic Axis victory" and i had a reference for it, but now the entire table is completely screwed up. Is there anyone who can fix this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonafan39 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: The factor of weather has received no attention in the article. During the Kasserine phase of the battle (February 19-22) four days of heavy rain shut down all Allied air operations for two days and permitted only 2 sorties on the third. On the 22nd XII ASC flew 23 missions and 114 sorties but the pass itself was still socked in, preventing three of five missions by heavy bombers given to Coningham's control from dropping their bombs. The weather did not become favorable for airpower until late on the 23rd, by which time US artillery had begun to register the pass. Much is made in the article of a lack of air-ground coordination, but in fact when Coningham took command of NAAF on the 18th, he informed the ground force commanders that henceforth air cover for ground troops was not going to be conducted except by specific authorization of NATAF headquarters. Hence the weather factor was significant during the high point of the Axis advance.--Reedmalloy (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weather 

message: The photo of the M3 tank cannot have been taken in North Africa; shown is a cactus growing which is native only to North America. Perhaps the original photo was mislabeled - one suspects it was actually shot during a training exercise. I don't know whether to relabel the caption, remove the photo, or go find another, since this topic isn't my bailiwick. But I do know: there is only one kind of cactus that grows at all in North Africa, and that isn't it.
Indeed, I believe it is an opuntia chlorotica, aka a pancake prickly cactus; native to the American southwest only. I strongly suspect this photo was taken at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opuntia_chlorotica  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaMitchell (talk • contribs) 02:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a better picture which serves the purpose of illuminating the article, I'd substitute it, if not a label calling it a photo taken in the US resembling operations in NA might suffice....Keith-264 (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  To quote from the Opuntia (what I call prickly pear) article: "They are also found in the Mediterranean region of Northern Africa, especially in Tunisia, where they grow all over the countryside, and arid southern Europe, especially on Malta, where they grow all over the islands, in the south-east of Spain, and can be found in enormous numbers in parts of South Africa, where it was introduced from South America." Juan Riley (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Of course the photo's authentic; it's the caption which is being questioned. Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition a number of pictures in other articles on the Tunisian campaign show prickly pear with British and German troops. E.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia_Campaign#/media/File:British_4.5_inch_gun_and_crew_Tunisia_1943_IWM_TR_1004.jpg and http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib//47/media-47147/large.jpg. Juan Riley (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor above was correct that prickly pear is native to the Americas; however, it rapidly spread to the Mediterranean littoral and as the other pictures show was in Tunisia in 1942. Thus this is not even evidence that the caption is wrong. Juan Riley (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to leave the photo as is. Shire Lord  (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Authentic Photo of M3 Lee Tank 

message: There are several cites to a "Lewin" page so and so in this article. There is no reference given. Anyone got an idea about the missing reference? Juan Riley  (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a historian. First attempt to locate Lewin ref might..I say might...indicate that tho a published military historian..perhaps not quite mainstream. Up to people who know better than I tho..what to do with these refs..cite appropriately..or have cites deleted. Juan Riley  (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Lewin? refs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Kasserine Pass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331110914/http://www.airdefenseartillery.com/online/2010/ADA%20In%20Action/WWII/WWII/Kasserine.pdf to http://www.airdefenseartillery.com/online/2010/ADA%20In%20Action/WWII/WWII/Kasserine.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030910054005/http://www.lbdb.com:80/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=116&WID=5 to http://www.lbdb.com/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=116&WID=5
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: After I added commas to produce "The 1st Armored Division fell for a ruse which had been successful against British forces, and, when the panzers reached their old positions, with U.S. armor in hot pursuit, a screen of German anti-tank guns opened fire, destroying nearly all the American tanks.", User:Keith-264 removed the first two commas with the edit summary "rm Oxford commas". These are not Oxford commas. The first is absolutely necessary: it precedes a coordinating conjunction ("and"). The sentence could be split into two independent clauses: "The 1st Armored Division fell for a ruse which had been successful against British forces. When the panzers reached their old positions, with U.S. armor in hot pursuit, a screen of German anti-tank guns opened fire, destroying nearly all the American tanks.", but if they are combined into one sentence, the comma is necessary. The second comma, paired with the third, sets off the prepositional phrase "when the panzers reached their old positions". Two commas are necessary, just as the following prepositional phrase "with U.S. armor in hot pursuit" is set off by two commas. See Purdue Online Writing Lab points 1 and 3, or any good punctuation guide. If this is too complicated for some editors, then please hold your fire while I crawl in there and fix it. The punctuation is a mess throughout this article, and I thought I would fix it, but it's hard under these conditions. Chris the speller yack 21:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No Chris, commas next to conjunctions are wrong.Keith-264 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That remark, for which you provide no support, shows that you do not know how to punctuate English sentences. That's fine; there are lots of editors who are not skilled at punctuation, and they usually allow other editors to fix the punctuation later. That's how the editing on Wikipedia is supposed to work. I undid your edits, leaving the changes to the infobox parameters. You had lowercased proper names and actually found and removed one Oxford comma, but it was in the quoted title of a work, so it should not have been changed. Please cooperate with other editors instead of interfering. Chris the speller yack 03:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

text: You shouldn't revert in the middle of consensus building WP:BRD You made an appeal to authority on English usage and cited an American source of all things. I won't revert your revert, although I'm within my rights to. I suggest that you have been rather rude and that your comments about punctuation advert to your failings not mine. Conjunctions have the properties of punctuation marks as well as those of words which makes juxtaposed punctuation marks redundant; every schoolboy in the 1970s learnt this. Please abide by BRD, stop jumping to conclusions and stop making retrograde edits.Keith-264 (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Gentlemen, I suggest you both take a break from this for a moment. Punctuation is important, of course, but in reality it does not seem worth getting into an argument over. You both do great work in your own areas, so I would suggest focusing on different articles for a bit and letting things cool down. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Greetings Oz, thanks for the suggestion but this isn't about the article; we can easily continue the discussion elsewhere. It could be worse, we could have disagreed about the placement of a colon in the middle of a sentence. Regards ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commas 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Kasserine Pass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212040409/http://www.europa1939.com/ww2/1943/kasserine.html to http://www.europa1939.com/ww2/1943/kasserine.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lbdb.com/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=116&WID=5
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I reverted the casualty number change primarily because it screwed up the other places the original reference was used - but also think we should discuss such a drastic change in number.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty numbers 

message: In this case, the fake history that the US Glorious Army won Kasserine Pass.
Goodness, you don't even want to call it "indecisive". How pathetic can you be? 91.10.26.220 (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  History in the Making!