Talk:Operation Crusader

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Crusader article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	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.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): African military history task force Australian military history task force British military history task force German military history task force Indian military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) New Zealand military history task force Polish military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Portal	Operation Crusader is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

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? 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)