Talk:Operation Whirlwind

Operation Whirlwind has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 15, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 13, 2023.

Military history: Balkan / European / Post-Cold War

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Croatia Low‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yugoslavia Low‑importance

	Operation Whirlwind is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on January 10, 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Not a "Serbian decisive victory"

Actually, Croatian foces did several advantages: taking several villages NW and NE of Glina. On NW sector, Croatian army retreated across the river Kupa, and sustained casualties mostly because of cold weather and damaged (sinking) boats. Serbs DID NOT took those villages back, these remained uninhabited and unoccupied in no-mans-zone until Operation Storm, which was favorable to Croats, as Serbs couldn't move their artillery more forward.

In the NE sector, all Croatian advantages were kept. So basically, offensive didn't meet it's goal, but it gain some advantage for Croats. It is definitely not Serbian "decisive victory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AurgelmirCro (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle

The sentence beginning "The principal force committed" is unclear. Was the 102nd deployed as the primary force or a reserve force? Folklore1 (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is confusing indeed. The unit was deployed to the Sisak AOR as a battlefield reserve. At some point during their transit from Zagreb to Sisak, the unit was reassigned to the Op Whirlwind offensive as the principal unit there. Sources are not entirely clear on exact decision making process behind this switch, and one of the sources (indicated in the aftermath analysis of the article) concluded that the deployment was likely unauthorised by the central command (Zagreb) and was likely ordered by Sisak Operational Group on its own. In short - it appears the 102nd Bde was sent by Zagreb to Sisak as a reserve and then pressed into an unauthorised deployment by Sisak OG once it crossed into their AOR. Such things were not entirely unheard of in the war, the Battle of the Miljevci Plateau was possibly another such deployment. Hope this helps.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]