Talk:Operation Crusader

Untitled

How can Axis lose 850 aircraft if they had only 320 of them in the beginning? And all but 28 of their tanks? Should those be Allied casualties?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Latre (Talk:contribs) 12:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Latre,

Your question is answered by the following passage:

"Rommel seeing an opportunity (together with a need to relieve pressure on the wavering Italians) gathered his Panzer divisions and counter-attacked, with reinforced air support from the Luftwaffe, over the Egyptian frontier into the British rear areas."

So the DAK started out with only 320 planes avalable, but were later reinforced to over 800. Perhaps the battlebox should be edited to reflect this. As for the tanks, those ARE Axis casualties. It was not unusual for Rommel to lose most or nearly all of his tanks. The Italian tanks were all but useless and virtually DoA. What few Panzers he had, had to always face more and more heavily armoured British tanks as well as the rigors of the desert climate. Keeping his paucity of panzers as operational and effective as he did was, IMO, a military accomplishment on par with Hannibal's crossing of the Alps.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

XXX Corps

Where does that Ritchie as XXX Corps commander come from? Desert Generals, Rommel Papers and Liddell Hart's History of Second World War state that it was Norrie who commanded XXX Corps in the Operation Crusader. --Ekeb 20:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I will recheck those sources. Meanwhile Norrie is restored to command:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My source, the Biographical Dictionary of British Generals of The Second World War, says Norrie was appointed to XXX Corps in November '41 "as a result of the death of Pope". I presume this refers to Vyvyan Pope, rather than the pontiff, who had little to no influence on British field postings at that time. Leithp 21:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I rechecked too..it was, indeed Norrie. He is now restored as a general, if not a Prince of The Church.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

N.Z.Official History versus Italian communiques concerning the fighting at El Gazala

Military writers from Britain, Australia and New Zealand almost unanimously discount the achievement of the Italian infantry and armoured divisions in the fighting at El Gazala. Thus the New Zealand History of the Second World War sums it up:

After false reports of success at Point 204 (held by 1 Buffs), which Rommel regarded as a vital link in the chain of defences, it became evident that the Italian operations to regain this area were not promising....

The N.Z. Official History writers maintain that the Germans were the enemy involved in the action in which The Buffs lost 531 men and only 71 escaped capture. However the Italian Military High Command in a communique that appeared in The New York Times on 16 December 1941 says that "Enemy pressure continued at El Gazala and met with vigorous Italian resistance. Italians passed to counter-attack along the whole line"[1] The Italian military communique that was printed in the New York Times on 17 December 1941 states that "Italian motorized and armored divisions with the support of large German units fought with extreme tenacity and inflicted heavy losses on the enemy. Many armored units were set on fire and destroyed. Prisoners were numerous and included a brigade commander"[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse (talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading the various texts it is clear to me that the Italian High Command communique refers to the fighting on the north of the Gazala line where Italian X and XXI Corps were fighting the attack by the New Zealanders and Poles. Alem Hamza was defended by the remains of the Italian Moobile Corps (Trieste and Ariete) but the action at Point 204 was fought by elements the Afrika Korps (remaining tanks plus 115th Infantry Regiment). Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kirrages, reading the N.Z. Official History in a more detailed manner brought me to the same conclusion. It's a pity though that the N.Z. account doesn't recognize that the Italians captured the British field artillery unit nor that the Italians captured a Commonwealth field hospital with 200 soldiers (guards?) and 700 enemy wounded that were on their way to a complete recovery (they all went into the bag). I still stand by my claim that the N.Z. and Australian Official Histories of the Second World War deliberately omit Italian successes on the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd put a lot more faith in the Australian and NZ official histories, which were written by independent historians well after the events using the best available information, than in the press releases of the Italian government during the war. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Rightly so. The Italians by the way did not capture the field hospital. It was captured by the Germans, and handed over to the Italians. I also wonder what kind of a feat of arms capturing an undefended field hospital is???? 193.128.202.131 (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

B-class?

This is a good article that, so far as I can tell, lacks only one minor citation (order of battle), that someone should be able to provide. I would finish the checklist but for the fact that I don't know the history well enough to be able to judge the completeness of the article. If some knowledgeable person will assure me that it is complete, I will be glad to give it B status. (Better: just edit the checklist, and say that I gave permission.) PKKloeppel (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

After waiting for more than two months for a reply to the above, I have decided to take a new default position: this article (more than) satisfies the B-class criteria in my opinion, so I will rate it thus unless someone more knowledgeable than I objects. By the way, can't anyone supply a reference for that OOB thing? PKKloeppel (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

With large sections without citations i dont think at the moment this is B Class.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article is anywhere near B class at present. 193.128.202.131 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Axis air losses

Playfair states the following:

"From 18th November to 20th January the Germans in Libya lost, according to their own records, at least 232 aircraft from all causes, and the Italians at least 100. The totals must in fact must have been higher, for on the airfields and landing-grounds from Gambut to Benina no fewer than 228 German and as many Italian aircraft were found abandoned in various states of disrepair..." etc etc

-Playfair, V.III, p. 99

I've had a busy day so i may be misinterputing this; are we looking at a total of 332 axis aircraft losses or something like 560 (the previous 332 losses and the confirmed German abanonded or are these included in the losses?) - ~700 (332 losses, 228 German abandonded and roughly 200 Italian abandoned)?

For now am throwing the latter two figures into the article but the source info is above if you want to discuss.

Somewhere inbetween, since not all destroyed Axis planes would have been on airfields. Bu Playfair is using a sleight of hand here. There is no reason to assume that any destroyed plane found on an airfield was actually destroyed during the operation, and not before. 193.128.202.131 (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

British or Allied

A few notes regarding the use of terminology after the few back and forth edits between editors.

From the article on Dominions:

"Dominion status was officially defined in the Balfour Declaration (1926) and in the Statute of Westminster (1931), which recognized these territories as "autonomous Communities within the British Empire," establishing these states as equals to the United Kingdom, making them essentially independent members of the Commonwealth of Nations."

The two key points in regards to Dominions of the Empire being, they were considered equels to the UK itself and were essentially independent members of the Commonwealth. Thus if they are equal and basically independent from the UK in many respects how can a victory achieved by the efforts of all forces then be imparted upon the United Kingdom implying that British forces (i.e. Britons, i.e. Englishmen, Welshmen, Scotsmen and Irishmen) soley achieved said victory?

What one will see in many books is that "British this that and the other" is usually shorthand for British and allied forces etc In this case we know that there was more than just British forces taking part in this battle and we have noted that even Polish forces took part in Crusader thus how could only men from the United Kingdom have won this battle?

The South African history (Orpen, War in the Desert) has a picture of Major-General de Villiers taking Generalleutnant Schmitt's surrender at Bardia, calling him a "British General". So 'British', or maybe 'Commonwealth' is the term I would use. Certainly not Allied. 193.128.202.131 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The first victory

"It was the first victory over the Germans by British lead forces in the Second World War."

The above is what the article currently states, it previously stated something along the lines of the first British victory of the war over the Germans - or something to that effect.

To be more accurate, shouldnt this sentance read more like:

"Operation Crusader was the first victory over German led forces by the Western Allies"?

Maybe also include the word "offensive" between "first" and "victory" as there had been several defensive victorys i.e. Tobruk.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically they were not German-led, since Bastico was nominal commander in chief in North Africa, and Rommel subordinated to him.

To be precise, I would write:

"It was the first operational victory over German forces by British-led forces in the Second World War."

There had been tactical victories before. Tobruk I'd call a stalemate on the operational level. 193.128.202.131 (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is more like a series of battles, some won by the allies and others by the axis. :A "stalemate" is a better description. Wallie (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wallie do not start this again - provide evidence. Operation Crusader did to the Axis forces what Rommel's first German-Italian advance did to the Allied forces.

Look at any sources, you will not see any that call it anything other than a victory.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Losses, Language etc.

At present I think the article is not really using appropriate language (hardened veterans, gallant but exhausted), so I removed that. Also, there are some serious issues about the numbers of planes and losses. For losses from the records see e.g. Playfair, or the Italian official history. Panzergruppe records count ca. 35,060 Axis losses including 20,300 Italian. Playfair 38,300. The Italian official history (Montanari "Tobruk") gives 42,185 for the Italians alone, and this remains inexplicable to me. Playfair gives 17,700 as Commonwealth losses. See http://crusaderproject.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/so-how-many-men-were-lost-in-the-battle/ 193.128.202.131 (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Alex Clifford as a source

Those are great books, but:

a) he was a journalist, not a historian (e.g. his account of the surrender of General Schmidt at Bardia has been called into question in the South African official history), and b) he wrote during wartime without corroborating sources

Clifford should really be used very very sparingly in this article, and certainly not as proof for any numbers. 193.128.202.131 (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You should really check before reverting and calling legitimate edits "vandalism". That's what the Talk page is there for.

You removed material from the article that has a verifiable source backing them up - because you dont agree with them - and added in figures that are not sourced at all; which goes agaisnt pretty much all the guidelines that surround this project.

While i agree that there are questions to be raised regarding how much of his work should be taken for granted i dont feel it is right to remove figures based on your reasons above unless they are called into question by other sources. I dont agree with Max Hasting because of reason A however that doesnt stop other people from using him as a source and even myself. Even reason B doesnt rule out the information being of use i.e. war time memoirs, news reports etc

To discuss your edit: You replaced a figure presented within the article with "37,000 (15,000 German and 22,000 Italians casualties) up to 38,300 casualties depending on source" which has no supporting material. In fact the reference you left in place contridicts this: "14,600 German casualties broken down as follows: 1,100 killed, 3,400 wounded and 10,100 missing. 23,700 Italian casualties broken down as follows: 1,200 killed, 2,700 wounded and 19,800 missing. Casualties have been rounded by source due to underlying flaws with primary source data but cover all the serious fighting of November, December and the first half of January".

Hence the label applied to your edit. Unless you are going to provide evidence to back up the figures you have added to the article i will once again remove them. You may not agree with Clifford but you dont really have a case agaisnt Playfair - post war work that had access to practically everything ontop of which is used as a secondary source for figures by quite a number of other works.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you even try to understand what I wrote? I have no issue with Playfair. The 38,300 is from the British OH. It is Clifford that is the issue with his far too low (and not based on any source material 24,900. 79.74.113.219 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No i didnt try to understand thats why i happened to write a reply explaining why i reverted your edit...

I understand you have no issue with playfair and that the latter figure comes from his work, what i have addressed is that you have added in the following: "37,000 (15,000 German and 22,000 Italians casualties)" which is not from Playfair nor Clifford - this is what am addressing, there is no supporting material for these.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There is, actually (check the link I provided), but it is OR, so not eligible for Wikipedia. I would be happy to simply delete the lower figure and stick to Playfair, especially given that there is almost no difference. But I do not think it is appropriate to use the Clifford figure, since it is i) clearly wrong, as shown by the OR source and ii) not in line with Wiki standards for source reliability. 79.74.113.219 (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough about not sticking in the figure by Clifford but considering the new figures put into the infobox have no inline citation next to them i think we should remove them.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. 79.74.113.219 (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Number of Commonwealth planes

The number of 1,000 planes for the Desert Air Force is not sourced, and it is likely to be the number of planes in theatre. Commonwealth planning was to have about 550 planes operational on 17 November (check the biography of Coningham). It would be useful if somebody had sourced information. A lot of these numbers seem to be copied out of Osprey's 8th Army book, where they are also not sourced. 193.128.202.131 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You will note there is sourced material in regards to both sides air strength in the info box.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

But none showing 1,000 Commonwealth planes, or did I miss that? 79.74.113.219 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, there doesnt appear to be supporting material for the 1,000 plane figure however there are plane figures that are supported in the info box ;)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and those are the ones I entered into the text. 79.74.113.219 (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

damaged tanks

why no damaged tanks in the infobox. the source says there are many damaged tanks, so its cited. that german damaged tanks are no available doesnt madder... ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.148.136 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainly because there is no figure and you of all people should know, after all the things you have said over the past two months, that entering vauge information like that doesnt help anyone, is bais and to quote you "BS". Regards --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

the quote says there were many damaged tanks, so i think the sentence "several damaged tanks" is ok, isnt it? my problem with "vague" is when it points in a specific direction. your arguement is my opionion ? u are always against my opinion^^

an honest question u invest much time in this project and u own many books, do u not have a collection of divisional papers? i wonder that there are no figures for damaged tanks for such battle? arent there really non ? strenghtreports and this stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that he REME kept a very accurate record of the numbers of tanks put out of action; infact they used a rather simple system of three catergories and that information would most likely be in the archives. Said information i do not have. Said type of information i have only really seen being used in more modern works - Jentz comes to mind. Even if i had access to said information by the rules of this project it would still not be admissable; such information in some instances paints a different light on German losses in certain operations showing them to not be as low as some sources hint etc

Am not always agaisnt your opinion, am agaisnt your attitue and think your a hypocrite; in one breath you scream about vauge statements that cast a bad light on the Germans, which has never been our intention, but in the next you add them to articles to prove a point. What point is being made here? Why does that line need to be added when we have no figure for it - its out there somewhere and if i come across it in a secondary source i will add it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why does that line need to be added when we have no figure for it

the british "losses" look relativ low , but the were not. so in my opinion the box draws a wrong picture. but when u have no numbers i cant change it. to the issue with german tank losses, in general the german reporting system shows often to low figures for battles like kursk . but the german have the highest rate of non battle losses and captured vehicles so this both problems eliminate each other a bit ( only for the eyes of guy without knowledge ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In german wiki they remove all the boxes . Here u like them but when u use them u should try to make them realistic. the people who look such boxes only want to see who was "better", thats a fact. the boxes are only for such readers. no real historianfan will give a shit about the box because hes interessted in the tactical background... . Thats why the box should show the "performance" . Its said but until u remove all the boxes your aim is to entertain these readers "correctly" . thats why my focus is on infoboxes..

I totally agree, while they provide a nice overview they do not present the real facts. However since you want to show that Allied losses were higher, note that your intention to show these as being higher does highlight the POV question, go hunt down some sources and add them.

The book i have by Jentz stops short of Crusader, i dont recall the British OH mentioning tank losses (but can check at another point) leaving only Rommel's dairy and the editorial comment providing information.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• "I totally agree, while they provide a nice overview they do not present the real facts"

some think this way. some think its a useless opinion-formin because its too oversimplified

• "However since you want to show that Allied losses were higher..."

the british losses werent higher as u can see on box, they only "lost" more tanks during the combat... . perfect would be damaged for both then we would have a good picture. british have sustained higher lost+damaged thats what describes the performance. german withdrew so all damaged tanks will be lightly damaged... . not even to mention that africa figures always include intalian casualties, but that another issue

this infobox is a good example of misleading the reader. not because u made it...

the Strenght section is the most moronic... medieval battlefield : ok. ww2 battles lasting for more than one day: mostly useless maybe the english wiki should think about removing the boxes and making analysis section...

PS my POV :i would be really really stupid when i try pushing german POV in the english wiki in articles dealing with english armies. Every edit is "checked" within hours. So iam always smiling when u and others raise the POV arguement when i try to change infoboxes.

T

You smile at the pov argument? You complain mostly about problems you find with allied information but near enough never about the Axis ones. Case example: Tunisian campaign, a good faith edit on my part had not included pervious information from the source so not giving the full picture. You moaned about the Allied losses not being wrong ... however the German ones inherrently wernt either yet you said nothing about that....

So who are all the people talking about the infoboxes?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

correct, there is no reason for me to talk about to high allied casualties because iam really sure that one of u will watch that they are good only when iam sure they a wrong i will edit. and yes i smile because its not possible to establish german POV in western front articles... .

• "Case example: Tunisian campaign, a good faith edit on my part had not included pervious information from the source so not giving the full picture"

i saw the numbers and because i have a bit knowledge about some JG i told u the numbers are wrong... where is the problem ? i was correct ...

btw to your example, i remember i explained so simple to u that the numbers are obvious wrong but it took very long until u changed... maybe u look the discusion page again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

to explain my point, i look english wiki and try to remove POV against germany , the rest is not important to me. and its ok when i only do this...

now my example: the 12 SS; the moronic statement about the 300 guys is so stupid, it was in so many articles every normandy article highlighted this sentence because it looks so impressive. every editor with knowledge should see in 1 second that its is not even possible that a german division which does not surrender or encircled can be reduced to 300 men. this statement was so obvious wrong but no one of the enlgish editors fixed it, all read it but nobody will fix. this statement is in your FA articles.... . its simply POV and misleading. it took me so fucking long to remove such bullshit because u and others didnt support. iam sure i will not find such POV against british because u and others take care

Why did it take so long? Because i dont jump to your tune; you dont order us around, we are not your administration assisstants! Why did it take so long because you were having a rant and would not provide a little thing called evidence....

The example was that you bitched and moaned about how the Allied losses were wrong because you have a "bit knowledge about some JG" - so with this bit of knowledge surely you also must have been aware than there losses were higher than that was recorded otherwise you didnt have a "bit knowledge about some JG"...

Now the 300 figure, did at any time - other than vandalising the articles and ranting away on the talk pages did you provide evidence? Did you provide a book, a page number? Hmmm i wonder why it took so long? Now is it POV, is it misleading? Who knows but the fact is - historians have used it!

You really need to expand your horizons, learn the rules that we have to work with, and learn how to co-operate--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

PS every German second world war article i have looked at have an infobox.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• "so with this bit of knowledge surely you also must have been aware than there losses were higher than that was recorded otherwise you didnt have a "bit knowledge about some JG"..."

wrong ^^ the axis losses include italians and i only know the pilot losses not the caputred aircraft, the pilot losses were very low...

i showed u the pages of the JG there dapi cited all numbers with books about this units, everyone can read the discussionpage....

first u were arguing against my numbers instead of thinking about your mistake ...

in my opinion your big failure is that u think i have to come around with evidence that u put wrong numbers in the box u have to bring evidence that your numbers are correct and your numbers were not correct, so iam wondering that u want to talk about this issue now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Why did it take so long? Because i dont jump to your tune"

in this particular case u maybe should because this were your incorrect numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So you obviously didnt take my final points on did you; one of the wiki rules is called assume good faith.

My failure is to think you have evidence? Thats not a failure thats an observation - you moan about near enough everything but do not ever provide anything to support your ramblings....--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC

when i see wrong numbers i tell u... maybe u should try to relax and dont take it personal... its better that i moan about wrong numbers than accepting them...

i support most of my "ramblings" with logic, like the obivous mistake on your tunisianumbers. like the obvious mistake with 300 SS guys and so on. u need a book to see that aerial battle over africa were more intense like your numbers, me not. u need a book to understand that 12 were never encirled or something else , me not.

i only can repeat myself, i tell u were i see problems. than u can analyse the facts or not... . everyone can do much as he want... . but if u bring numbers like tunsia u have to JUMP when somebody like me tells u did something wrong..

so now its enough, i will moan about everything whats wrong in my opinion i would do not some stupid statements more would exist in your "FA" articles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.153.219 (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

'Marginal' victory?

According to the infobox, the axis lost twice as many men and almost all their tanks and aircraft. Is that really a 'marginal' victory? Sure, the axis managed to just about avoid being totally encircled and destroyed. But it seems like a pretty catastrophic defeat for them nonetheless. 94.193.35.68 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft and tanks

I changed those numbers. One cant add up the confirmed lost aircraft with a bogus number of destroyed aircraft later found on captured airfields. Those aircraft could have been already in the Axis recordings (and probably were) and also could have lying around already before the start of Crusader. The problem with the tanks was, that there were British destroyed tanks (exclucing damaged tanks) compared with Axis destroyed and damaged tanks. So i changed it to have comparable numbers in the infobox. StoneProphet (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

you have changed and inputted a number not supported by the sources, where is your source for 800 British tanks destroyed or damanged? That figure is not supported by Playfair, p. 100 In fact Playfair states 600 as a cumulative total by 1 Jan not 800 so i have replaced your figure on tanks. Dont know what happened with the aircraft figure so agree with your change. However your additional comment in the German tank loss section is entirely inapprobirate: it is not in the sourcce, and it is unsported speculation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh well, i have 2 sources who say its 600 "cruiser tanks"/"tanks" + another 200 "infantry tanks"/"close-support tanks". One is "Operation Crusader" by Ken Ford p. 92. The other one is "Das deutsche Reich und der 2. Weltkrieg"/"Germany and the Second World war" Vol III p. 750/680. The latter has an explicit reference to Playfair p. 100 + "Francis Hinsley British Intelligence III p. 336" for that. Thats why i added 800 tanks pointing to Playfair p. 100. StoneProphet (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Applogies, in my haste yesterday i did not scan down further than the table provided by Playfair on page 100. You are quite correct he notes 600 tanks to do with the 7th Armour, then states underneath (not in the table but in the text) "just over 200" I tanks.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, you have the German official histories?! A source i have always been intrested in, how would you comment on them?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I dont own them, but after i read the book about Crusader in the book mentioned above, i was confused because of the big difference given in the losses. So i looked it up in "Das deutsche Reich und der 2. Weltkrieg". The library here has some some copies of it. I did that on some occasions previously too. I havnt read that much in them until now, but they seem to be thoroughly researched and very detailed, always putting everything into "the big picture". So there is also a large focus on economic and political aspects. They also seem to be quite critical regarding command decisions and such things (e.g. Rommels decisions before and during Crusader). However the more interesting parts are anyway the books about the eastern front, as this period had not been covered very extensively by neutral sources (with the exception of some well known battles like Stalingrad etc.) to date. StoneProphet (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! The next question for this article should be British tank numbers I think. The information given is clearly for the start of the operation however tank losses for cruisers and infantry tanks outnumber the ones that entered the field. Is there a source that covers replacement machines?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the British certainly received large numbers of reinforcements during the fighting. E.g. units of the 1st Armoured Division arrived during the fighting and there were also a number of tanks in reserve units behind the front not counted in those 738 tanks (thats what at least Das deutsche Reich und der 2. Weltkrieg says). The same happened at Gazala too, where they also lost more tanks than they had at the beginning. But i guess if there are some concrete numbers, then they are probably in Playfairs book? StoneProphet (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Headers-CE

Shrank the headers as they looked to have sprawled over the page, pls revert if preferred.Keith-264 (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved several quotations to notes and ce'd a couple of sections. Keith-264 (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section, as I found it, is not a proper summary of the article. This was a long and complicated battle, with many facets and developments – most of which were not being mentioned in the lead at all.

The Manual of Style, at WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length states that "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs. The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway."

It goes on to suggest that an article longer than 30,000 characters should have a lead section of three or four paragraphs. This article is longer than 82,000 characters. A summary of four paragraphs is not excessive at all.

Wdford (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the words, yours were otiose. Keith-264 (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, I was summarizing the content of the article - as per WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. Wdford (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding detail is a slippery slope and you disappeared down it. Try writing a version of the lead that you prefer here and let the rest of us join in. Keith-264 (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Your edits were long, useless and overdone. Keith-264 (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The lede is now far too long this needs to be in the main body at least. This is already repeated in the article as well on respective dates. I will remove once more. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wdford: Pls remember WP:3RR. Keith-264 (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Keith-264: I see your style hasn't changed – you totally ignore wikipolicy, refuse to engage on the merits of the edits, respond with reams of insults , then edit-war. Still pathetic.

@Eastfarthingan: I don't understand why you are insisting that we keep the lead to 2 paragraphs and 180 words, when this fails to adequately summarise the article, just for the sake of brevity. I am asking for a lead of 4 paragraphs and 309 words. Compare this to similar military articles – Battle of Gazala 4 paragraphs and 395 words, Battle of Monte Cassino 4 paragraphs and 347 words, Battle of Dien Bien Phu 4 paragraphs and 474 words, Battle of the Nile 5 paragraphs and 577 words etc. You had no issue with the longer leads in those articles – why is my lead here considered to be too long?

The Manual of Style, at WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length states that the lead should provide a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. Your version fails dramatically to adhere to this policy, in that:

• You fail completely to mention the lifting of the siege, which was supposedly the main objective of the operation.

• You mention the British 7th Armoured Division being defeated at Sidi Rezegh, but you fail completely to mention the subsequent action of the South African artillery, which inflicted heavy casualties on the German armour which the English general Norrie said "resulted in the turning point of the battle, giving the Allies the upper hand in North Africa at that time."

• You fail completely to mention the capture of the Axis fortresses at Bardia, Sollum and Halfaya, which accounted for about a third of the total Axis casualties of the entire operation.

These are key issues of this extended battle, and you choose to delete all of them in order to keep the lead artificially small – in defiance of wikipolicy. Why, please? Wdford (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Come off it Wd, look at the comments, you overstuffed the lead, lost the confidence of two editors and started mud slinging. Poor, very poor. Keith-264 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I concur, as I've said what you've written; you might as well put the whole of the body itself in the lede section. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

As you have both flatly refused to comply with wikipolicy, without any rational explanation, and have made it clear that you have no intention of discussing the facts and the issues, perhaps we should ask for objective editors to assist? Wdford (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing isn't a good idea. Keith-264 (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You are unbelievable. Wikipolicy at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Introduction specifically says that "Template messages may be added to articles needing a cleanup. Their purposes are to foster improvement of the encyclopedia by alerting editors to changes that need to be made." Your willingness to ignore wikipolicy is a matter for concern. Wdford (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Here you booby, here. Keith-264 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope. To quote from Wikipolicy, at Help:Maintenance_template_removal: "It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first." Also, it says that templates may be removed only by "any user without a conflict of interest". Once again, you have totally ignored Wikipolicy. I fail to understand why you are so adamant about not following policy in this article as well. I have boiled down my summary of the lead even further, but still including all the main points of the article, as required by Wikipolicy. Wdford (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

These provisions do not allow intransigence from an editor who puts the template up for polemical purposes. I have re-edited the lead. See what everyone makes of it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"Polemical" is a very confrontational and POV term, which completely fails to WP:AGF. This is why the policy calls for users "without a conflict of interest". Wdford (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Dates

OH MME vol III (Playfair) has Ch II The Winter Battle, The First Encounters (18 November), Pursuit to Benghazi 16–24 Dec Reduction of the Frontier Defences 16 Dec to 17 Jan after The Air Situation at the End of the Year. The German unofficial OH vol III has "The Italo-German Retreat from Cyrenaica 8 December 1941 – 10 January 1942. The retirement to Gazala is treated separately p 750. Keith-264 (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Uh huh. So the Allied source says the operation went up to 17 Jan (including the taking of Halfaya), and the Axis source goes up to 10 Jan (for some unclear reason seemingly including Bardia but not Sollum or Halfaya), and yet you choose arbitrarily to use 30 Dec. WHY, FFS???

The casualties recorded in the infobox specifically include the first half of January as well.

Unless you have a clear reason to record the operation as ending at 30 Dec, we surely should follow the sources (and common sense) and include the operations up to 17 Jan as well?

PS: There is nothing "minor" about randomly changing a date to depart from the sources. Wdford (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

In addition to all of the above, Richard Humble has produced a work called "Crusader: Eighth Army's Forgotten Victory, November 1941-January 1942". [3]

There really is no reason to arbitrarily choose 31 Dec as a conclusion. However, if you are going to continue this tendentiousness for your own amusement, then the casualty figures listed in the infobox will have to be revised, as Playfair specifically included casualties on both sides for the first half of January as well.

Wdford (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You've offered a source, well done, I'll list a few more. Keith-264 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

CE

Did some tidying, homogenised notes to efn, Playfair to sfn cites are still a bit of a mess and some are rather limited as to RS. Keith-264 (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Layout

The layout here is a bit confusing; we have main sections marked "Battle", and "27 November", with numerous subsections. I would suggest, first of all, that there were actually three main phases of the fighting: The opening moves (18-23 Nov) centring on the battle at Sidi Rezegh; the dash to the wire (24-27 Nov) which caused chaos in the Allied rear, but allowed XXX Corps to recover and link up with the Tobruk garrison; and an attritional phase (27Nov – 15 Dec), with the Axis giving ground until they had to break off and quit Cyrenaica altogether. So can I suggest we re-label the main sections (by a title, or by date; though I suggest not a mixture of both) along those lines? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's got the look of an article by divers hands using different citation styles etc and is a bit of a mess. If the RS divide it into phases I'd follow that. I can have a look in the OH but these days I feel the lack of Italian sources doesn't help. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I've seen phases as 2nd level headers and dates as 3rd level, which look all right. Keith-264 (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The OH has words and dates

• The Winter Battle, 1941 'Crusader'—I
  • The conditions
  • The first encounters (18-19 November)
  • The DAK moves east (20 November)
  • Sidi Rezegh and the sortie from Tobruk (21-23 November)
  • Rommel's dash to the frontier (24 November)
  • The fighting south-east of Tobruk (25-26 Nov) and return of the DAK
  • Sidi Rezegh, El Duda, Belhamed (28 Nov - 1 December)
  • The stage reached by 1 Dec
• The Winter Battle II
  • The fighting at Bir el Gubi and the relief of Tobruk
  • The enemy's stand at Gazala (1-16 Dec 1942)
  • et cetera
• The map headings are
  • The opening moves 18-21 Nov
  • The first battle for Sidi Rezegh.... 21-26 Nov
  • Renewed fighting around Sidi Rezegh 27 Nov - 1 Dec
    • Attempts to turn the Gazala position 15-16 Dec

Does the periodisation of the maps correspond to your three phases?

DRZW Vol III has VI. Operation Crusader pp. 725 -755 with no sub headings

Pitt The Crucible.... Vol II has

• Crusader: The Clash of Armour
• Crusader: The Infantry Take Over

• Haven't got a copy of the Italian OH Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Well: spoiled for choice!

To throw a couple more in, Delaforce ( Churchill's Desert Rats: 7th Armoured Division's campaigns 1940-43) just has one chapter (of 12 pages) on Crusader, while Osprey's Operation Crusader by Ken Ford (with about 40 pages on the action itself) has five:

• The British attack (covering 18-20 Nov)
• Clash of armour (21-23 Nov)
• Rommel drives east (24-25 Nov)
• Infantry battle (26 Nov -2 Dec)
• Rommel in retreat (3 Dec onwards)

I don't know offhand how many pages the OH devotes to the action (my impression is there are headings on each facing page), but Pitt has over a 100 pages in only the two chapters. We won't be writing 100 odd pages here, so we shouldn't need as many section/sub-section headings anyway.

I think that Winter Battle probably wouldn't be a good section title, seeing as it's the name the Germans gave to their (cancelled) operation against Tobruk: Maybe we could use Pitt's two chapter headings for the two main sections we have at the moment. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

PS: I'm thinking I really need a source for my contention that the dash to the wire was the turning point; I've read it somewhere, but the reference is elusive. Ah well... Xyl 54 (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

apparently Rommel thought so....Keith-264 (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

:) Xyl 54 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

So, how about renaming the two main sections "Battle: The clash of armour" and "Battle: The infantry takes over"? Or, "The clash of armour (18-26 November)" and "The infantry takes over (27 November -16 December)"? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't use titles like that, Pitt being OK but not a first rate RS in my view. I think that the chronology in the OH looks right for 3rd level headings and your first suggestion of three phases makes sense for 2nd level headers, which is similar to the 3rd Ypres page and a few others, not being entirely relatable to RS. (as yet). The OH sections don't all have to be headers, each header could be a date range with 2 or 3 sections covered. Keith-264 (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm tempted to suggest that there are 3 phases equivalent to

• First phase==

Contains The opening moves 18-21 Nov

• 'Second phase==

Contains The first battle for Sidi Rezegh.... 21-26 Nov

• Third phase==

Contains Renewed fighting around Sidi Rezegh 27 Nov - 1 Dec

the rest in the (2nd level) Aftermath then (3rd level) analysis, casualties, subsequent operations Keith-264 (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Keith-264: Sorry for not replying; I was going to say, do what you think best, but I seem to have been overtaken by events. It may actually be for the best, as it resolves the how many sections shall we have and what shall we call them dilemma. Anyway, do what you think best. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

PS: I've taken the liberty of changing the format here, as the second level headings were messing up the layout: Hope you don't mind... Xyl 54 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It still needs 2nd level headers but the narrative is such a mess it's hard to relate it to layout. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Phases

Something like this? Keith-264 (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

These men died for freedom - they have earned more respect than to be lumped as just "Dominions" or "other"

This is blatant POV pushing. Keith-264 (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Havsjö: Wiki isn't a reliable source. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

LAF

@GraemeLeggett: I found some reference to the Libyan Arab Force in Rodd, F. (1970) [1948]. British Military Administration of Occupied Territories in Africa during the Years 1941–1947 (repr. Greenwood Press, CT ed.). London: HMSO. OCLC 1056143039. but not for this early in the campaign. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like they might need credit in the general campaign but not this specific operation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

CE

Someone has split paragraphs and forgotten to cite them, paragraphs restored. It appears that the definite article ("the") has been excised and unit names abbreviated unnecessarily. The citations are split between sfns and ref-refs, some progress made in homogenising cites to sfns. Some references are lightweight and others rather passé. The article needs a spring clean. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Been spring cleaning, replaced some old references with newer ones, most cites now sfn; repairing bonkers paragraphs. Chunks of text copy-edited but the complicated nature of the fighting has led to some confused passages and a start has been made to get them re-edited. Much more to do. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

poor article

At the beginning it should say where the British started from and ended up, and how many km that was. To get some idea of what this was about reading reams of text is needed. 140.228.51.46 (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)