Talk:First Battle of Sirte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the First Battle of Sirte article.
Article policies
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Italian victory ?

I'm not sure it can be called an italian victory, the ships of Force K sunk because of naval mines, the day after the battle.--Moroboshi 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


I am reading those "mediterranian" articles and my eyes are opening wider and wider... ITALIAN VICTORIES?! One side has air support, battleships, heavy cruisers, destroyers, operates close to naval/air bases - the other only has light cruisers and destroyers. Despite this, convoy goes through and much weaker side achieves its tactical targets. Who is really victorious here?
Counting dead sailors, or ships sank after reaching the destination by aviation or on mines can't change the result, sorry.
Once again: if a light cruiser stops a battleship from achieving its operational target, even if the cruiser is sank afterwards, the battleship has lost. Capito? Doesn't matter that "782 sailors died on the cruiser". They died, but won.
Second battle of Sirte, for instance, is used as a handbook example of using light escort agains prevailing forces from the British side, and fatal unability to execute the advantage from the Italian side. Calling the British actions "defeat" is writing a new history.
Someone has really to look closer at this, and look for other sources than Regia Marina as well. EAJoe 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone? Xyl 54 16:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
(Further discussion on this at "Inconclusive") Xyl 54 12:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write

I’ve re-written some of this, particularly the Background and Prelude sections, in order to give a fuller picture of the events surrounding this action. I’ve also given some sources from the British side, for perspective. There were a couple of mistakes: the position in the Western desert was different than previously described; also, it supposes the Malta Strike Force was called Force K, which is incorrect. There were several groups of warships based at Malta during the campaign; Force K was one of them, though arguably the most famous. And it didn’t ‘cease to exist ‘ in the minefield off Tripoli, though the incident was bad enough; the 2 ships lost were from Force B. Xyl 54 16:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

“Among the defensive forces was a battleship, meaning that a total of three British battleships were believed to be in the general area. In fact, the ships in question were actually escorting a British convoy to Malta, and the battleship was later discovered to be a tanker, the Breconshire, disguised with painted-on guns."
I’ve lifted this bit out, as it seems dubious.
The RN used a dummy battleship (HMS Centurion) during Operation Vigorous, but not this one, so far as I know, and I can’t find any reference of Breconshire being tricked out this way. It seems unlikely, anyway; Breconshire was the most valuable ship in the convoy; it wouldn’t make sense to disguise her as a ship of similar value. Xyl 54 13:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Result

I came back today to fix a few things, the result amongst them, but its been done already. ( That was quick!). But I’ve changed the contents of the infobox to fit the battle of Sirte alone, as not all the ships in the order of battle were present, and very few of the casualties in these various actions occurred then. Xyl 54 14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Inconclusive

I've stated in the conclusion why this battle, and the series of engagements as a whole, are regarded as inconclusive. If anyone, paricularly anyone who wants to describe this as an Italian victory, disagrees, can I have your reasoning here, please? Xyl 54 12:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Introduction

This:
“The battle itself was relatively uneventful, but has come to describe a week of clashes which illustrate well the cut and thrust of naval warfare in the Mediterranean at the time.”
Was replaced by this:
”Although the damage inflicted during the battle between the convoy's escorts was light - both forces being able to complete their delivery missions - limiting the battle to tactical Italian victory; during an action following the battle, which was caused directly by the convoy battle, the Royal Navy's Force K ran into an Italian minefield, and ceased to exist as an effective unit. This, by itself, was a major setback for the Allies.”
Without discussion here.
I’ve reverted this because:
1)The introduction explains the First Battle of Sirte was a series of related engagements and gives an overview; to mention one engagement ("Force K" ) gives it undue weight, to give the impression of a victory.
2)The mention of Force K is inaccurate; the ships lost in the minefield were from Force B
3)The battle of Sirte section shows it was inconclusive, and there is ample discussion above on whether or not it was a tactical victory or not.
4)The conclusion shows the whole series were inconclusive, some won and some lost, with honours even. I think that is the fairest evaluation of these events.
Xyl 54 (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)