Talk:Operation Crusader orders of battle

Military history: British / European / German / Italian / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
	World War II task force

Ranks

I do not know the conventions for converting ranks, but I do notice that a straightforward conversion to British or US ranks is highly confusing, and inappropriate (a British Brigadier in WW2 was not the same as a US Brigadier, since it was not a general rank, and should consequently be demoted to Colonel if everything here is to follow the US system). If the rules here are to insist on this highly confusing practice, I suggest posting a comparison table, or at the very least a link to one. 193.128.202.131 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so confusing. Although British brigadiers were technically not generals while US brigadier generals were, it doesn't really matter because they did the same job: commanding brigades. If you want a comparison table you will find one here. The real confusion comes in converting German ranks because a generalmajor is a brigadier, and generalleutnant a major-general. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly confusing, because the German 'brigadiers' did not command brigades, they commanded divisions. Also, A Generalmajor is just that, a Generalmajor. He is certainly higher in rank than a British Brigadier, which was not a general.193.128.202.131 (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert - just looking at Comparative military ranks of World War II which gives Generalmajor as equivalent to major general (as does the Oxford Companion to World War II). It doesn't matter really what they commanded, if there is an established equivalence (as there clearly is) then translating it into a UK/US rank should not confuse. The only reason why a specific rank commanded a specific formation in the UK was that when given a command you assumed the acting rank - there were endless officers with substantive ranks way below their acting rank. Take Lashmer Whistler who took over 3rd Infantry Division in June 44 as an acting major-general. He was actually a substantive major at the time (promoted Lt. Col. in Jan 45). Also note that the US Corps commanders in Italy were major generals. So whiile there is rank equivalence, the jobs are not always the same. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply do not see what purpose is served by a translation into a rank structure that did not apply, instead of using the original, especially when the rank structure is clearly not comparable, in a table where you are using the term both for the British and the German officers (and that is the critical issue here). I do not think these translations are appropriate, since they are shoehorning things into a generic structure that did not exist at the time. A WW2 Brigadier in the British army commanded a Brigade (equivalent to a regiment in the Wehrmacht), and was not a general officer rank (and that is the crucial difference), while a German Generalmajor commanded a division, and was a general officer rank. Why not simply making a footnote saying "equivalent to a 1-star general" when the rank is first mentioned, to avoid this? I am aware of acting/temporary ranks and appointments, but this has nothing to do with it. 193.128.202.131 (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this (adding to my post of 16:40 from another IP), I have read dozens of English-language histories on WW2. None of them is translating the German ranks into English equivalents. General (and in my view good) practice is to give the ranks as they were. 79.73.127.78 (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take this up on the Military History Project page to get a consensus (it's clearly not an issue for this article alone). Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 23:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really interested in getting involved deeply in Wikipedia discussions again. I think it is quite obvious what is the right approach (i.e. one that follows established conventions in military history), and I have no intention to get involved in big discussions over it. My interest is quite specific relating to Operation CRUSADER, nothing else, at this point. 193.128.202.131 (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flags?

Should we add some of their flags, like the Union Jack, the South African flag, the German flag, etc.? Invmog (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) and given that the Commonwealth forces were under a single command, I would so no as it would be pointless. I can see their use in a table of competitors for a sporting event, or of comparing the GDP of countries but not here. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]