Talk:Anglo–Iraqi War/Archive 1

Archive 1

the treaty and the battle at the airbase

This page should not contain a one-sided view of the military treaty between the British and Iraq. Large parts of the world know how these treaties were negotiated and what they were for. Anyone who writes material about wars to uphold the sacred nature of British Treaties is creating nationalist nonsense material. They would have invaded with or without the military treaty. If anyone doesn't think so, look at the case of Iran. There was no treaty there and not any true legal justification at all. But the British not only went in with the USSR, they overthrew the government. Their actions can be justified reasonably by wartime necessity, but defending the military treaty and using it as a justification is wrong and has always played into the hands of nationalists.

That the British attacked first and deliberately without warning at the battle is well established historical fact. Its possible to argue a justification for their actions, but its not possible to pretend that it didn't happen that way. The Iraqi point of view must also at least be represented.

The strength of the British at the airbase has been consistantly misrepresented in British materials so as to make the defenders seem much more threatened than they actually were.

Its also silly to accept the offical British line that Iraq wasn't under military occupation during the war. When the British have large numbers of troops deployed across the entire country for years after there was any military need, that is military occupation. Most sources consider the occupation as lasting until October 26, 1947 when the all the troops aside from those at the airbases left. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.133.154.10 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC).

I think that we both agree that the treaty was dictated by the British and was put in place to give them a at least the cover of a legal treaty to justify subsequent intervention in Iraq. I also agree that without it, the British would still have acted to protect their strategic and oil interests, as they did in Iran. That is what I am trying to say. Denying the existence of the treaty is nonsense. It existed regardless of its fairness or acceptance by iraqi nationalists.

To be surprised by an attack from a military force which you have threatened and made demands on seems to me to be either stupidity or arrogance. If you think the Iraqi forces were stupid by not expecting an attack then why not say so instead of complaining of British tactics? As for the weakness of the base's forces I have not challenged your assessment but tried to demonstrate the improvised nature of some of the defences.

I have tried to suggest that the British forces stayed in the country to maintain control, but they did this by supporting the pro-British government (and maybe by dictating policies) not by a formal military occupation with a British ruler. Unlike German occupied territories in Western Europe, nominally at least, the Iraqi monarchists were the government not a British military governor. Dabbler 17:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

- I dont think the intent is to deny the existance of the treaty, but to put sufficient language in to avoid the old problem of the British covering over their real intentions by using the sanctity of treaties.

- It is nonsense to claim that the British were not in military occupation of Iraq. They appointed "Town Majors" every town of signficance in the country including Baghdad, Kut, Habbaniya, Mussaiyib, Mosul... Every town had a military garrison watching over it. The troops in Iraq were deployed to control the entire country, not to guard any particular area like the oilfields.

- The fact that needs to be presented is that the British fired first. There were a whole series of provocations on both sides leading to the opening of hostilities which was by the British. When the British landed at Basra without permission, the Iraqis did not open fire. And I'm certain that if they had, they would find themselves denounced as aggressors for having opened fire first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.13 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC).

The treaty issue is well covered in the article's current incarnation, it is obvious that it was imposed and used as a figleaf.

There was fighting between Iraqis and the British Indian troops landed in Basra. No one is demeaning the Iraqis for being aggressors, but I believe that you are demeaning the Iraqi forces by this insistence that they were too stupid to realise that the British might attack them if they threatened their base at Habbaniya. I am curious why you have such a low opinion of the Iraqis?Dabbler 11:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"That the British attacked first and deliberately without warning at the battle is well established historical fact"

Sorry It isn't. Current reasearch on this campaign shows that the first military action was taken by Iraqi forces loyal to the Nationalist Government who struck first against British teams working on the new Amman - Baghdad Road. Secondly, the armed response by the forces at Habbaniya occured only after an ultimatum had been issued. Yes there a number of sources which say there was no warning, but in fact as is now verfied, AVM Smart did issue an ultimatum to the forces surrounding his base.

"The strength of the British at the airbase has been consistantly misrepresented in British materials so as to make the defenders seem much more threatened than they actually were. "

This is nonsense. The nature and number of the aircraft and other military resources within the Habbaniya compound is well established, so is the overwhelming superiority of the Iraqi army forces established on the plateau and around the perimeter of the base, and the Iraqi airforce resources within minutes flying time of Habbaniya.

"To be surprised by an attack from a military force which you have threatened and made demands on seems to me to be either stupidity or arrogance."

The actual situation seems to be that only the higher ranks of the Iraqi armed forces were aware of the purpose of their manoeuvres in and around Habbaniya. When the RAF attacked, many of the Iraqi PBI were genuinely surprised. The junior ranks in the RIAF air bases in and around Badghdad were also genuinely surprised when the RAF took their attacks there. Dudgeon reports correspondence from an Iraqi pilot to this effect.

"I have tried to suggest that the British forces stayed in the country to maintain control, but they did this by supporting the pro-British government"

Churchill's whole purpose in Iraq was to create a huge supply base from which American supplies could be forwarded into the USSR keeping them in the war. This given, Churchill was uninterested in the domestic policy of the Iraqi Government.

PDFM 1st October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

year of war?

infobox says 1940, article says 1941 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stmoose (talk • contribs) 03:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

1941 Dabbler 03:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Which base did the iraqis approach?

Hi, I can't tell from the article where the initial battle took place, Basra or Habbaniya? The text says "twelve days after the initial British landings in Basra, the Iraqi Army established itself on the high ground to the south of the base." Which seems to indicate the basra base, but later text made me think Habbaiya. Could somebody who knows please mod the above quote to make it clear. Thanks Steven jones 09:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV page

This page is biased and wrong. The page is almost entirely written from the British point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.127.0.51 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree and will be making changes. Fluffy999 02:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The above unsigned comment is more than a year old. Please review the changes since then and I would ask you to discuss your proposed changes here on the Talk Page before making major changes. Thanks Dabbler 19:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me check... nope only 1 minor change since my reading of the article and subsequent post. Fluffy999 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"This page is biased and wrong"

Please specify what is biased and what is wrong. PDFM 1st October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdfm (talk • contribs) 12:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It uses "to secure", "compliant Iraqi government" and "to protect British interests" which could be phrased in another POV as "to occupy", "puppet regime" and "to rob oil". Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Those phrases might seem equally biased. Please specify "unbiased language" that might meet requirements. 78.151.174.105 (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)PDFM 17th September 2007

On the relation with WWII

Why is this conflict considered separate form the rest of World War 2? Repdetect117 May 24, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.144.136 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question. I think it should be included in the general framework and not treated seperately. The Iraqis wanted German assistance and support - and got it. 129.69.160.219 16:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They also got assistance from the Italians and the Vichy French, and diplomatic recognition from the USSR, which had not yet been invaded by the Germans, and had not come into the war against the Axis. 78.151.175.44 (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)PDFM 16th September 2008

Losses.

During the Anglo-Iraqi war Germany lost 23 planes, Italy 7 planes. Great Britain 28. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.150.125 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Virtually the whole small contingent sent by the Luftwaffe was a right-off except the transport planes. Some of the Italian CR42s manged to get out. The small but useful Iraqi airforce was essentially put out of action by RAF bombing 78.151.175.44 (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)PDFM 16th September 2008

Battle for Fallujah

File:Http://files.boardgamegeek.com/bggimages/pic162922.jpg With Baghdad the target and the road network limited, the easiest and most practicable plan was to seize the Iron Bridge over the Euphrates River at Falluja. An elaborate plan was created and carried out without a loss. Iraqi resistance was non-existent. With the town in British hands, the attacking force was dispersed elsewhere. The British did not think the Iraqis would counterattack. On May 22, in the early morning, the Iraqi 6th Brigade\3rd Division (800 men) with CV33 tankettes attacked. Iraqi artillery pulverized the two British companies holding the town in their trenches surrounding it. They were forced to pull back into the town. The three Iraqi battalions with tanks were as good as the British by accounts in combat but for one thing: steady morale. From 3 a.m. to 10 a.m., the two British companies held but were nearing their end in this urban type combat. Luckily, the Luftwaffe had failed to support this attack (although they did the following day!). At 10 a.m., the tables began to turn when two additional British companies arrived. The battle did not stop but raged onward until the Iraqis gave up at 6 p.m. The road to Baghdad was now open. It had been a near thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.226.40 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If the above is correct, it should be added into the article. Are there any references for German and Italian military involvement? What were their numbers? Folks at 137 21:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The Iraqi counter-attack on Fallujah followed the plan used in practice manoeuvers the previous year.

The counter-counterattack at Fallujah turned when the RAF forces from Habbaniya attacked the defending forces who had no air support of their own. The RIAF was all but destroyed by this point, the Luftwaffe contingent at Mosul seemed unaware of the importance and urgency of the battle, and the Italians had yet to arrive. PDFM 1st October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdfm (talk • contribs) 12:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

End of war June 1st?

How do we know for sure may 31th was the day? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.220.162 (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I've found a reference to the date in a book and cited it Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi strength

According to the British official history the Iraqi Army was only 4 divisions in strength Playfair, Volume II, p. 182: "two if the four divisions of th eIraqi Army were normanlly stationed near Baghdad...."--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

start of the war

Following the coup, which is what i believe the start date is showing, the British started to reinforce there positions etc but hositlities appear to have only started on 30th April not earlier in the month.

...at 3 a.m. on 30th April came news from the [British] Embassy that large bodies of [Iraqi] troops were moving out westwards from the city[Baghdad]..... At 6 a.m. an Iraqi officer presented a message from his Commander demanding that all flying should cease and that non one should leave the cantonment. The Air Officer Commanding replied that any interference with the normal trianing carried out at Habbaniya would be treated as an act of war. The [British] Ambassador (with whom there was wireless communitcations) fully supported this action.... At 11.30 the IRaqi envoy paid a second visit, this time accusing the British of violating the treat [the 1930 something one?]....The British Ambassador signalled to the Foreign Office that he regarded the Iraqi threat to Habbaniya as an act of war....the reply came on 1st May... giving the Ambassador full authority to take any steps necessary....Before Daenon 2nd May all the available aircradt at Habbaniya were flying over the enemy's positions ...and at 5a.m....began their attack.

Playfair, Volume II, pp. 182-183--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Temp area

Iraqforce consisted of the Indian 10th Infantry Division commanded by Major-General William Fraser who commanded land operations until the arrival of Quinan on 7 May.

Major-General William "Bill" Slim, who was Quinan's chief staff officer, took command of the division in on 15 May when Fraser fell ill. The division's final brigade (Indian 25th Infantry Brigade) arrived on 30 May.

There were two main British military bases in Iraq: RAF Shaibah near Basra, and RAF Habbaniya, the large Royal Air Force (RAF) base at Lake Habbaniya. The latter base was just downstream from Ramadi on the Euphrates River and about 55 miles (89 km) west of Baghdad. flooding the countryside around Habbaniya and preventing further reinforcement by Indian 20th Infantry Brigade, which was moving north from Basra.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mackenzie, pp. 93–94

What exactly does Mackenzie say as it would appear from the text, under the Iraqi moves section, he is implying the British warned the Iraqis - which Playfair claims they launched there attack without any form of warning.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

All Mackenzie has to say is that after rejecting the Iraqi requirement not to interrupt the "training exercise" on the plateau, the AOC asked the Air Ministry for instructions. Churchill replied personally on 1 May "If you have to strike, strike hard. Use all necessary force". Bombing commenced next morning (implication: no British ultimatum). Also on p.95 he says Longmore's air reinforcements were 9 Wellingtons and 6 Gladiators although, in the event, only 1 Wellington and 6 Gladiators went (followed later by 3 more "time-expired Gladiators"). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 15:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes this needs to mentioned - these arroved on 19 April at Habbaniya - a different set of reinforcements to the ones already mentioned.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oil interests

These bases had a dual role: protecting Britain's oil interests and maintaining a link in the air route between Egypt and India.

Sure this is from Playfair V. II - cant see anything on that page about this.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly too much seasonal celebration. It's from V. I. I've fixed it now. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, how dare you enjoy yourself :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New Question

Colonel Ouvry Lindfield Roberts, the senior staff officer (GSO1) of 10th Indian Division, was flown in to command the Habbaniya ground forces. Two World War I howitzers that had been decorating the entrance of the officers' mess were put in working order by some British gunners.

Is the section regarding Roberts also covered by Mackenzie? As for the howitzers, does Mackenzie give a date for when they were put into use?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Mackenzie says:

For four days the air battle against superior numbers continued, the aerodrome under shell fire all the while. On the fifth day Colonel Ouvry Roberts, GSO1 of the 10th Indian Division who had been flown in to take brilliant command of the ground troops, ordered a sortie. On May 6th the King's Own supported by the Assyrian companies of the Iraqi levies, some armoured cars, and two 4.5 howitzers, survivors of the First World war which had been decorating the entrance of the officers' mess and had been put in order by some British gunners, reached the plateau to find the enemy still there but badly shaken and waiting for reinforcements. He was badly shaken by those old howitzers which he supposed to have reached Habbaniya from Basra. After some hard fighting the Iraqis quitted the plateau before their relief arrived, and it was at once occupied by the King's Own. Then news came that large enemy reinforcements with guns and armoured cars were moving towards the plateau from Falluja. The advancing and retreating forces met on the road about five miles east of Habbaniya just as every available aircraft available arrived to attack the advancing column. When the bombs fell on the first vehicles the rest instead of dispersing closed up and stopped head to tail. The attack lasted nearly two hours and the road was a sheet of flame with exploding ammunition and burning cars. That day 408 prisoners were taken by the King's Own and the casualties of the enemy were over a thousand. The Assyrian levies fought splendidly.

Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 14:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent info, nice one and a nasty sounding engagement! Sounds sorta like the Gulf War.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Allied and Axis strength

While we know the Iraqi army had 4 divisions; did they all take part in the rebellion? Do we have a citation to support that?

The allied strength, while the 10th Indian Division landed in Basra; did it actually take part in the fighting? If not, should it be included in the Allied strength?

From the information currently in the article it appears that only two "Brigade groups" took part. i.e. Habforce: 1 Brigade plus some extra resources and an extra infantry battalion as one "Brigade group". The 1 infantry battalion and iraqi levies, plus additional bits and bobs at teh RAF base as another brigade group.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the citation at the moment, but there was fighting in the Basra area which isn't really discussed in the article at the moment. Dabbler (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I do need to add in that the 10th Indian took over numerous key positions throughout Basra in responce to the Iraqi moves up north but didnt realise there was actualy combat between them and Iraqi forces. This will be an excellent addition.

That would bring the Allied strength to what? 2 brigades and 2 brigade groups?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter that 20 & 21 bdes were not in combat - by the same argument you would exclude 1st Airborne Div from the Allied OOB for the invasion of Italy because Operation Slapstick was unopposed. 10 Ind Div conducted a military operation in landing at and securing Basra which was part of the campaign. Mackanzie states that when the 2 brigades occupied Ashara, the business quarter of Basra, on 7/8 May there was some opposition (snipers etc) but it was deterred when M-Gen Fraser threatened an artillery bombardment. On a more anal note, because the divisional HQ was present with ancillary troops, it should be described as a division rather than 2 brigades, even though the division was light one brigade until the very end. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the original position was made due to my, then, understanding was that combat operations took place in the north and there arrival was prelimanry and not part of the campaign - a position, which is of course invalid with the information available: the 10th Indian taking over Basra in responce to the Iraqi's, being involved in combat etc

I would'nt exlucde 1st AB, i was looking at this event as being 2 parts - the actual campaign to put down the rebellion and a seperate move to estalbish a pressance in the south of the country. Its not important and your right anyway - i wasnt thinking clearly before.

Excellent point regarind the division, if we changed the strength to 1 division and 2 brigade groups; would you believe that to be more accurate?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that only one German aircraft was lost and this to ground fire, both Andrew Thomas in 'Gloster Gladiator Aces', Osprey 2002 and Robert Lyman 'Iraq 1941', Osprey 2006, state that two BF110s were shot down by RAF Gladiators on 17th May, and a Heinkel on the 16th (p.80-81 in Thomas and p.68 in Lyman). I do not know the authors' original sources for these statements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bchristo (talk • contribs) 12:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that in air combat experience shows that combat victories claimed were always hopelessly optimistic. Generally aircraft loss figures are more reliable if taken from sources of the side incurring rather than inflicting the losses. The figure of one aircraft quoted here appears to be from a German official diary - I don't have access to a copy so can't confirm it but generally one can say that there is no reason for "internal" figures included in such a document to be falsified. Again, I don't have a copy of the Osprey books but without a clear reference to the original sources the point is moot - it could just as easily have been an ambitious claim by overexcited Gladiator pilots which were accepted by the squadron intelligence officer without the corroboration of an identifiable crashed aircraft. I'm afraid that Osprey books generally are good for a quick overview but in my opinion quite often fall down when one tries to nail down a rock-solid source. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 22:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Italian Involvement as Direct Belligerents?

Can someone please direct me to references that detail the Italian involvement here? I ask because I was under the impression that Italian units were not involved in any direct fighting in Iraq and so was supprised that Italy has been included as a belligerent. I am aware that the Italians bombed Manama, Bahrain, using planes that took off from Rhodes, but am not aware of them being involved in IRAQ. Cheers, Romaioi (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So I guess that if there is no response in the near future I can safely remove the The Kingdom of Italy from the belligerents list?Romaioi (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

12 CR42s arrived at Mosul on 27th May, 4 were lost in action. (playfair (1956), p. 196)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Thats interesting to know. Just one more question, as I do not have that source, were they piloted by Italian airforce personnel? I'm guessing yes, but would like to double check. Cheers Romaioi (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Playfair is the author of the British governments/military official history for the fighting in and around the Med. He states they were Italian planes but makes no mention on the crew. Playfair does state early on in the chapter about Iraqi air activity then later on talks about the Germans and Italians so he does seperate the three forces.

A further source, the RAF, notes how Italian built planes that were part of the Iraqi air force and piloted by Iraqis were also used agaisnt the British.

So i do presume they were Italians piloting the Italian air force planes, ill double check later what else Playfair says about them.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your efforts to help me learn something new here. Cheers Romaioi (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC).

Sorry i forgot about this, ill try and do it tonight for you :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Playfair states that in late May the Germans suggested that some Italian aircraft would be welcome to operate in Iraq under German command. Accordingly 12 CR42's arrived at Mosul on the 27th. He does state that more aircraft, presumably Italian and German, were requested to reinforce Mosul however, rather ironically, the order was countermannded due to lack of fuel in Iraq. Thats all he really has to say on the matter. If one was to speculate, it could be suggested that within the timeframe mentioned that the planes were serviced by Iraqi air force personnel and/or Luftwaffe personnel but it does seem clear that they were deffintely piloted by the Germans and Italians.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Thomas in 'gloster Gladiator Aces' mentions on p.81 an account of a combat on 29th May in which Wg CDr Wightman shot down a CR42 in IAF markings bchristo (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Regatta and Regulta

The current text has 20th and 21st Brigades heading up the Tigris, by implication, in late April. Mackenzie has them still in Basra on 7/8 May and when Quinan arrived in Basra from India on 7 May he decided that because of the flooding, he would secure his base in Basra and "not contemplate any move northward for three months". In the event, because of the successful engagements at Habbaniya and the subsequent move by Kingcol on Baghdad, 20th Brigade left Shaiba (near Basra) on 27 May for Ur, some 80 miles away. Two columns were then formed to head for Baghdad. The first column, from 20th Brigade, traveled along the line of the (disabled) railway line and the second, from 21st Brigade, went by boat on the Tigris. Mackenzie doesn't mention the names of the Operations but I presume they are Regatta and Regulta. From Mackenzie they appear to take place in June: "20th Brigade left Ur on June 10th and reaching Baghdad two days later relieved Habforce from further operations in Iraq".... "[21st Brigade] embarked at Maqil on June 11th and reached Kut on June 17th......By June 17th the 10th Indian Division (less the 25th Brigade) was concentrated in the area around Baghdad. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 14:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked out The Encyclopedia of WW2 codenames yesterday and did not see anything in there on these operations. The only google hits comes from a lone website which talks about them but does not provide any sources.

The British Empire and the Second World War, which i have used to confirm what Sabine is appears to not mention these two operations: http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=xTKtPPEDTtQC&dq=The+British+Empire+and+the+Second+World+War&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=-x19GrLQ-g&sig=9WuXUkfAy9S7DNmycmfPZG79lg4&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA153,M1 p.148 onwards

Am scanning through Playfair - other than the arrival of these forces and the KORR moving to the RAF base it appears Habforce did the rest. I dont see further mention of the Indian brigades.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Information can be found here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3XFOu9NG9pwC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=Operation+Regatta+Iraq&source=bl&ots=_AMbN13bUK&sig=uRazYbmLcVH5citNuLGV7acPcOk&hl=en&ei=RB04SqecKtHBtwe3o8HUDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA69,M1

The units moved north from Basra after combat operations had been completed. The operations were named Regatta and Regulta.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

Does anyones sources provide statistics on the number of casualties inflicted on both sides during the war?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt this is what you are looking for, but Lyman writes extensively on the German AIRCRAFT losses. He does make two or three references to HUMAN casualties, but they are for specific units. I will write these "snippettes" up and let you determine if they are of any value. Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, when we get near a more final version of the last section this might go nicely there. If you have alternative aircraft loss figures we can also use them - the more the better.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

KORR in Habbaniya

Mackenzie says they were flown in on the 24 April. The current text says 27-30 April and cited to Playfair (which I don't have a copy of). Any insights? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 13:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just doubled checked the text:

Between 27th and 30th April about 300 of the 1st King's Own Royal Regiment were flown from Shaibah to Habbaniya, where command of the land forces was assumed on 1st MAy by Colonel O.L. Roberts.

Playfair, Vol II, p. 182

Prehaps MacKenzie means the first flight took place on the 24th and Playfair means the main body flew between those days?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It says "The only reinforcement Habbaniya had received was the 1st KORR which had been flown there on April 24th". It's a mystery - the fog of war? Frankly it's not that important. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 14:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we can change this safely to "the end of the month" :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not that it matters ("the end of the month" is perfect), but Lyman says that 364 officers and men arrived in Habbaniya on April 29th (page 40). Lyman says the same 364 arrived from Karachi at Shaibah on April 17th following a four-day journey via Trucial Oman and via Bahrain that was the "first ever strategic airlift by British forces in a war" (page 29). Enjoy! Mkpumphrey (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(By the way, Lyman includes Playfair in his Bibliography ... but not Mackenzie.)

Churchill (The Grand Alliance) indicates April 29th too. I suspect that is where Lyman may have gotten the date ( ... Churchill is ALSO listed in his Bibliography). Mkpumphrey (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did the Gurkha's come from?

In the week following the end of the Iraqi investment of the garrison at Habbaniya, Roberts formed what became known as the "Habbaniya Brigade." Roberts formed the brigade by grouping infantry reinforcements from Basra (2/4th battalion Gurkha rifles) and from Kingcol (1st battalion the Essex Regiment).[63]

This is the first time the Gurkha's are mentioned in the article, when did they arrive at RAF Habbaniya?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I am looking ... but, based on what Lyman writes, it appears that "reinforements" from Basra were flown in regularly. Did any of the three Indian brigades landed in Basra have Gurkhas? Mkpumphrey (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Most likely. Am reading through Playfair and it seems they just "pop" up in Habbayina. I have another read through later and see what else he states.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

2/4th Gurkhas were part of Indian 21st Infantry Brigade. Mackenzie says that "some of 2/4th" were flown to Mosul on 3 June to join the KORR. No previous mention of them except in the context of 21st Brigade's arrival at Basra "during the tense days of fighting in Habbaniya" - maybe implying they flew from Basra? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 14:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

On page 86 Lyman writes: "Mosul was occupied on 3 June and Kirkuk a few days later following an airlift of troops from 2/4 Gurkha Rifles and the King's Own from Habbaniya ... " Another Gurkha sighting ... on page 89, he writes: "The 2/8 Gurkha Rifles guarded Haditha, Rutha, and Fallujah and Weld's 21 Indian Brigade was at Kut." Mkpumphrey (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

2/7 and 2/8 Gurkhas were part of Indian 20th Brigade which arrived in Iraq before 21st Brigade. 92.24.129.106 (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to point out the lack of information in this article concerning the largest non-Iraqi unit participating in this war. the 10th Indian Infantry Division. Mkpumphrey (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I finally got around to reading the back and forth above under "Allied and Axis strength" and I see the Indian division is not a new topic. By the way, Kirrages is absolutely correct about recording all participants. I would add to the points already made (which are more than adequate without my addition) that we really do not know the level of involvement of all four Iraqi divisions ... and yet we list them all. I believe that a force of a brigade (+/-) was in the hills above Habbaniya during the siege. Other brigades are mentioned in the Basra, Fallujah, and Baghdad fighting. But, in the end, it appears that the bulk of the Iraqi Army melted away and was never committed. Mkpumphrey (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Turkey

next day the first trainload of supplies, from Syria, arrived in Mosul via Turkey

Just to confirm, are we sure the train went through Turkey? I have just read in Playfair's book and he makes the point that the Turks did not support the uprising nor could they be appraoched by the Germans for passage of arms. Its also talked about in the various volumes that the Turks were pretty close to the Brits and essentially sided with them.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I will check the text again tonight, but I believe Lyman has the train pass through Turkey. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

On page 64 Lyman indicates that the train was routed through Turkey.Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I just added an "External link" to a Time Magaine article ("With Roosevelt in Iraq"). I added it because on Page 2 there is mention of Turkey giving in to German demands to transport materials through Turkey. There is also an interesting (amusing?) part about the remnants of the Iraqi army and some German paratroops holding out around Mosul. Enjoy! Mkpumphrey (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

British counterattack

The Iraqis took up positions in the hills over-looking RAF Habbaniya. Smart ordered a pre-emptive air strike to drive the Iraqis off ... which worked. Smart also managed to destroy the Iraqi Air Force. Elements of the German Air Force arrived and attempted to bomb RAF Habbaniya and any reinforcements (Habforce) with limited results.

How is it a "counter-attack" when the British ground forces in Habbaniya then attack towards Fallujah and Baghdad? Mkpumphrey (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As the Iraqis had been on the offensive and now the Brits were striking back; although i agree the name could be changed. Suggestions?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How about the "Battles for Fallujah and Baghdad"? Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably would be better, i think the latter could replace the Iraqi collaspe section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Now you are reading my mind. I added a bit about Slim (BTW, no problem with his removal up top) and noticed that the "British Counterattack" section is the "Battle for Fallujah." As you indicate, the "Iraqi Collapse" section could be better titled the "Battle for Baghdad (and Iraqi Collapse?)". There is some good stuff in Lyman about the units outside of Baghdad not going in because they did not want the Iraqis to figure out the real size of the attacking force.

In a related thought, do you think this subject could support separate articles about the "Siege of Habbaniya," the "Battle for Basra," the "Battle for Fallujah," the "Battle for Baghdad," etc.? Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I dont know about a seperate article on the Siege of Habbaniya, all the info i have on it has been placed in the article. I would say if we have tons of info on the other battles and seperate strength/casualty info we could start up new articles for them and summerise them here.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I should focus on the links already needing articles (the article on Sharp comes to mind). Have fun! Mkpumphrey (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sonderkommando Junck?

The following is from the article:

"However, the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) now intervened. At the direction of German Colonel General Hans Jeschonnek, the Luftwaffe sent Sonderkommando Junck under the command of Oberst Werner Junck to Iraq."

Is there a source for "Sonderkommando Junck"? According to Robert Lyman, the German air unit was called Fliegersfuhrer Irak and this sounds more probable. Comments? Mkpumphrey (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have free rein to edit it as the only ref is this "Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht" that i dont think any of us can check up on. On top of that Playfair p. 195 also backs up Lymann - i would suggest adding both refs to support this. Playfair, on the same page, also notes the CO was one Colonel Werner Junck.

PS wernt the SS-Sonderkommando's, death squads?! --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope you do not mind, but I went ahead and added Fliegersfuhrer Irak (replacing Sonderkommando Junck) ... and a few other items. And, yes, "Sonderkommandos" were death squads at the camps.

Looks like a MisterBee1966 added Sonderkommando Junck on 10 March 1008. He/she/it may know the source. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The following is from the article: "The Luftwaffes force, under the direction of Colonel General Hans Jeschonnek, was named "Flyer Command Iraq" (Fliegerführer Irak) and was under the tactical command of Colonel Werner Junck. Junck's unit consisted of between 21 and 29 aircraft all painted with Royal Iraqi Air Force markings." I am proposing that the Italian aircraft be referenced here: "The Luftwaffes force, under the direction of Colonel General Hans Jeschonnek, was named "Flyer Command Iraq" (Fliegerführer Irak) and was under the tactical command of Colonel Werner Junck. Junck's unit consisted of between 21 and 29 German and Italian aircraft all painted with Royal Iraqi Air Force markings." Lyman supports the Italian aircraft being part of Fliegerführer Irak. Anyone have an issue with this?

I do :p But only because the figure doesnt support the Italian aircraft. I was going to add the Italian bits and bobs in tonight, and also when i got to that page in the book but also slot it in to the section chronologically. Is the mention of the Italian planes being part of the same unit and painted in Iraqi colours on the same page already referenced? Also how many planes does Lymann state the Italians sent and model types - so i can compare with Playfair and mix and match.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the RIrAF included some Italian aircraft prior to the outbreak of hostilities. However, in addition to these aircraft, Lyman indicates that more Italian aircraft were flown in towards the end which specifically became part of Fliegerführer Irak. I think it was four fighters, but I will get you numbers and dates tonight. Unfortunately I do not think Lyman says anything specific about the pilots. HOWEVER, there is a comment about German AND Italian POWs and I will include that too. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, from what i have read, it appears that the Air Force consisted of British and Italian planes (see mention of an Italian built bomber attacking the air base) however the Italians sent their own detachment to Iraq - are these the guys Lyman states were under the command of Fliegerführer Irak?

The Italian aircraft which became part of Fliegerführer Irak (according to Lyman pp 26-27) are: The Fiat CR-42s ... which were not part of the RIrAF ( ... Lyman identifies the CR-42s as Italian). The RIrAF had 4 x Savoia 79s and 8 x Breda 65s (4 in reserve). In addition, the RIrAF had 9 x Hawker Nosrs (Audax with Pegasus engine), 9 x Audax (unassigned), 7 x Gladiators, 10 x Northrop 8A (5 in reserve), 12 x Tiger Moths (trainers), 7 x Vincent, Dragon, and Dragonfly (all general purpose), and 10 x unidentified aircraft in reserve.

I added in the bit about the Italian planes last night, where the 12 CR-42s marked up as Iraqi aircraft like the German ones?

I suggest you add the rest of that information, maybe in a more simplifed form i.e. x no. of bombers, x no. of fighters etc, to the article.

Does Lyman provide a figure for the number of British craft available for the war?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Concerning markings on the Italian CR-42s, Lyman offers very little elaboration on this group of fighters or on the markings used. I will add the aircraft information per your description to the RIrAF section later. As you can see, I already set up a link for Fliegerführer Irak and all the various aircraft that be better detailed there. My attention has been on Smart, Gurkhas, and three additional flying columns as of late (Gocol, Mercol, etc.). Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more of those "As seen on the Internet ... " type "references": CR-42 in Iraqi markings and Iraqi Air Force Mkpumphrey (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but I finally have a response concerning "Does Lyman provide a figure for the number of British craft available for the war?" question. Yes, Lyman list each type of plane and then lists the squadrons (with aircraft type indicated). I will have to get to getting you this later. However, my favorite listing is of "3 old Gladiator biplane fighters, used as officers' runabouts." Mkpumphrey (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Plan A: There is a listing (of a sort) in the the RAF Habbaniya article and I thought that I could just confirm what it says. That did not work and so ... Plan B: 3 old Gladiator biplane fighters, used as officers' runabouts; 6 Gladiator biplanes which arrived from Egypt on 10 April 1941; 30 Hawker Audaxes, which could carry eight 20 lb bombs (12 Audaxes were modified to carry two 250 lb bombs); 7 Fairey Gordon biplane bombers, each could carry two 250 lb bombs; 27 twin-engine Oxfords, converted from carrying smoke bombs to carrying eight 20 lb bombs; 28 Hawker Harts, the "bomber" version of the Hawker Audax which could carry two 250 lb bombs; 20 Hart trainers, no weaponry; 1 Blenheim Mk 1 "which left for good on 3 May"; and 4 Blenheim Mk IVs of 203 Squadron from 4 May. There was also an "RAF Iraq Communications Flight" at Habbaniya - 3 Vickers Valentia bombers. At RAF Shaibah there was the No. 244 Bomber Squadron (Vincents ... number not indicated); No. 31 Transport Squadron RAF from 17 April (Valentias, DC-2s, and Atlantas); No 314 Squadron Royal Navy Air Service from the HMS Hermes (Fairey Swordfish); No. 37 Squadron RAF from 1 to 12 May (Wellingtons); and No 70 Squadron RAF from 1 to 12 May (Wellingtons). At H4 in Transjordan were a detachment of No. 84 Squadron RAF (5 Blenheim IVs) and a detachment of 208 Squadron RAF (2 Blenheim IVs).

I will give the book a looking over to see if other British aircraft arrivals (or departures) are noted. The information above was on pp. 22-23. Hoping this helps. Mkpumphrey (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

H. G. Smart

Does anyone know of a source of information on commander Herman George Smart? I am looking for early life and history other than during the Anglo-Iraqi War. Thanks in advance. Mkpumphrey (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you searched the London Gazette? It returns nothing for Herman George Smart but for H G Smart and George Smart you get (in no particular order):

[1] (Retirement) [2] (Amendment to effective date of previous notice) [3] (Commissioned into RAF) [4] (Acting AVM) [5] (Appointed flying officer in RFC) [6] (Temp. Capt.) [7] (OBE) [8] (Sq Ldr) [9] (CBE) [10] (Air Cdre) [11] (Acting AVM (unpaid) to Acting AVM (paid)!!) [12] (AFC) [13] (Relinquish act. AVM) [14] (Gp Capt) [15] (Wing Commander) [16] (Sq Leader) [17] (AVM (unpaid)) [18] (End of secondment to Australian Air Force) [19] (Royal Order of the Phoenix, Grand Officer (Greece)) [20] (Seconded to Australian Air Force) [21] (DFC and citation)
Interesting (but unsurprising) to note that there is never any reference to the rather Germanic Herman, only Harry! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I hope you have been well. Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder where I ever did get "Herman" from? Oh well, please see Harry George Smart. Mkpumphrey (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious "friendly fire" claim

Concerning the making as a "friendly fire" claim as dubious, there is a mention of something like this by Robert Lyman. I will check it out and see if it supports the claim. Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Its the current source that is dubious, but if someone else supports it thats ok - if so replace the current one with Lyman if thats the case. Although what also seems dubious is that only one aircraft was lost, Playfair states a good deal of the force was lost.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On page 68, Lyman describes two Bf.110Cs attemptingg to take of from Rashid Airfield and being destroyed by two Gladiators. That questions the single "friendly fire" casualty. Still looking for the reference to a German pilot being shot through the eye by Iraqi fire while landing. Mkpumphrey (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

On page 65, Lyman indicates that Luftwaffe Major Axel von Blomberg was shot and killed by Iraqi fire when his He.111 cruised to close to some soldiers guarding a bridge in Baghdad. According to Lyman, the Iraqis did not recognize the silouette of his aircraft. (BTW, not sure where I came up with the "German pilot being shot through the eye" detail.) Mkpumphrey (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Axel von Blomberg was related to Werner von Blomberg. Anybody know for sure one way or the other? Mkpumphrey (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

He is, Playfair supports this. I ommitted it as i couldnt think how to word it in yesterday. You can throw it in, it is supported by the citation already in place.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been looking for books with anything about (the NON-musician) Axel von Blomberg and found this: Book Review. Long story short, this person is implying the poor fuel at Mosul was caused by infigting among the Nazis. The other implications I will not touch. : ) Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Brigadiers

Brigadier Donald Powell commanded the 20th Indian Infantry Brigade and Major-General William Fraser, the commanding officer of the 10th Indian Infantry Division, then assumed control ...

The way this is now this implies that Powell was in joint command with Fraser, is this the case and if so supported by whom? If not, i would suggest adding this piece of information to the following sentance:

On 18 April the 20th Indian Infantry Brigade, the personnel of the Royal Artillery's 3rd Field Regiment;[7] but without their guns,[34] and the headquarters of the 10th Indian Infantry Division landed at Basra.

Secondly

21st Infantry Brigade under Brigadier C. J. Weld,

Do we have a source for this--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)?

Will add inline sources for all brigadiers and see what I can do to clarify Powell/Fraser. Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Added inline sources for all brigadiers ( ... and added last two brigade arrivals in June). Mkpumphrey (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

elaboration

On 3 May German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop persuaded German dictator Adolf Hitler that Dr. Fritz Grobba be secretly returned to Iraq to head up a mission to channel support to the Rashid Ali regime.[55]

Can this be elaborated on, who was Grobba and why was he so important? Did he get back to Iraq and did he suceede?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Lyman, Grobba was a German diplomat who was in charge of the German mission in Iraq. He even had an alias and, when Baghdad fell, he escaped through Vichy-held Syria with a British column on his tail (which apparently entered Syria illegally ... but still missed him) I will quote some items about Grobba later and you can see if you would like to add any of it to the article. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fritz Grobba is completed ... for now. Mkpumphrey (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Iraqforce

Do we know for certain that the forces based within Iraq and Habforce were all placed under the label of "Iraqforce"? I dont believe Playfair uses the term so i think we will need to add an additional inline citation to the end of the paragraph:

Lieutenant-General Edward Quinan arrived from India to replace Fraser as overall commander of the land forces in Iraq, now known as Iraqforce. Quinan's immediate task was to secure Basra as a base. He was ordered by Wavell not to advance north until the co-operation of the local tribes was full assured. Quinan could also not contemplate any move north for three months on account of the flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates.[6][59]

To support that name.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I will need to look up details on the formation of Iraqforce. Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Iraqforce now makes sense ... but the changes were primarily made to the Iraqforce article. I also added a quick Gocol write-up. Mkpumphrey (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)