Talk:Operation Brevity

Operation Skorpion

"If Rommel permitted his opponents to hold the high ground at Halfaya, his forces outside Tobruk would be left vulnerable to attack from the rear. Equally important, Halfaya represented the principal passage fo armor in either direction across the 500-foot-high escarpment separating the Egyption coastal plain and Libya's desert plateau. Thus, in typical fashion, on the night of May 26, Rommel again sent Colonol Hans Cramer's 8th Panzer Regiment and its support elements in a deep loop around the pass and attacked from the southwest, while a battalion of the 104th Infantry Regiment staged a frontal assault from the northeast. The foot soldiers, under the inspiring command of Captain Wilhelm Bach, a fifty-year-old Evangelical minister from Mannheim, charged up the serpentine road and engaged the defedenders in hand-to-hand combat. A few hours later, the reached the top of the pass and linked up with the panzers thrusting from the opposite direction." --Afrikakorps, Time-Life books, Pg. 41

Lastest Changes

The article before the last edit was pure fantasy!

The 4th Indian Division did not take part in the Operation it only leant trucks to the Guards.

There was no where near 200+ allied tanks ready for use when the operation began and no way 20 000 men took part! (The Tiger convoy had only just unloaded its cargo, these tanks would need to be prepared like all British tanks for service in the desert (filters would have to be changed etc) and were to rebuild the 7th armour divison)

The Axis forces listed made it seem that there was half the German and Italian army facing the British, there was elements of a few divisions since the majoirty where invested in the encirclement of Tobruk.

The Operation was 2 days long instead of somewhere in the region of a fornight as originally stated.

The information posted is from using the British Official History and Rommels account, via The Rommel Papers - his diary ... and not copy and pasted off some website ... which is also wrong.

The summary of why the operation failed, which included things like not using all our armour together was fantasy it was due to a increase in Germand and Italian units, there stiff resistance in places, positions of British units by the end of the day and orders not to get the entire force wiped out .... nothing to do with concetration.

Tobruk was not an objective, Wavell cites that the force was to exploit in that direction if possible and as far as supply allowed. The garrison wasnt even ordered to brakeout...

British losses originally cited large quanties of equipement and stores as well thousands dead ... pure fantasy.

I think people are confusing the original retreat across the country and Operation Battleaxe with this Operation.

So on and so on.

Please i implore you, add to this article as best as possible but not post pure fantasy which contridicts British orders as well as what happened.

Start class

The biggest reason I rated this as a Start class article is its like of footnotes and references. It needs a lot more footnotes to even be considered for B-class or higher.Cromdog 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Question about the footnotes, they have been simplifed down to only the authors names. Should this not have been to the book titles incase there is a moment now or in the future that multiple books from the same author are used as source material? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 13:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The way this is normally done is to have author and publication date (because authors rarely have more than one book a year, thus "Author (2005), p.22". . The Harvard system, however, allows for more than one book a year by inserting a, b, c etc thus the full book reference would be say

• Author, A. (2005a). Harvard Referencing, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-899235-74-4
• Author, A. (2005b). More Harvard Referencing, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-899235-74-4

and the footnotes would be

"Author (2005a), p 22" and Author (2005b), p 22"

Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for the explanation--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

New question about this for you now, how come you are placing "name=" infront of the referances? Does doing that cut the referances down to: ^ a b c d e f g h i Playfair, pg. 162 etc ? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes. When you have several footnotes that are identical you can name one and then repeat it every time it recurrs so that instead of it appearing several times in the footnotes it only appears once but with the various instances identified by the abcde links. If you are interested, it's all explained if you follow this link. Regards Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks allot!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

The only bit of the article which i can see which now needs to be improved is the above.

Ive exhausted all publihsed material that i have, as well as nosing all over the net for the casualties substained by the Scots Guard and Rifle Brigade not to mention the Italians. The Commando Supermo website puts the Italian losses at around 500 and the Germans the same iirc so they appear to be inaccurate.

Am unsure what to do in this respect so for the moment i have listed the Scots and Rifle Brigade in the Casualties section and stuck some question marks next to them.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Flags

I see that in a couple of places British and German flags have been replaced with a cross and the British Army flag. This is not the convention used in any of the other WWII articles and I wondered if there had been an agreed change in convention? If not, I suggest the current form is confusing and should be changed back. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 14:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Flags are denoting branch of service, i have seen this in other articles with Waffen-SS icon replacing the Heer cross etc It at the time seemed appropriate since for example the Afrika Korp was not Nazi's they were Heer soldiers.

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh Please!! And Rommel was a liberal democrat! These flags are supposed to indicate national allegiance (i.e. tie up with the flags in the combatatant section of the box) not indicate political preference (which we have no idea of anyway). In this way we can identify a general or unit as coming from a particular country by comparing the flags by each. In the current format you have to know already for instance what the British Army flag is. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Oh Please!! And Rommel was a liberal democrat"

Lol, i wasnt suggesting that, i was suggesting that not all German troops were part of the Nazi party but point taken. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment

I went ahead and award B-class status to the article, although I would recommend expanding the lead a little to better cover the topic, one paragraph is sort of slim in this respect. Otherwise, it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 21:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks allot for the reassessment :) Will do as suggested. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Couple of things

Cheers for the copyedit, ive been meaning to change the intro and move bits of it into the main article in fact i did write up a draft in work last (yea i have that much to do lol) and emailed myself but looks like i deleleted it so never got around to it. Oh well.never mind found it.

As for the Aussies, they did take part in the battle so i will be reverting a few things you deleted sorry. There divisional cavalry regiment as well as some AT companies/battalions took part - some out on the desert flank and some accompanying the Rifle Brigade.

Dont worry i plan on expanding portions of the article so this will all be added in.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a full OOB available for each side to include? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 20:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sort of...

Allied OOB If you click that link and scroll down you will find an Order of Battle posted for the Allied forces during Operation Brevity.

However i dont know if the authors where aware of this or not, they have posted what appears to be a full list of formations on the border then actual formations which took part. I.e. the Kings Rifle Corp did not, the Coldstream Guards sort of didnt (they followed the attack up on the 15th and took up positions on Halfaya Pass) etc

Aussie units accompanied the Rifle Brigaed (source is Hastings book) and the Divisional Cavalry accompanied the 7th Armour Brigade (source Jentz). Am sure that the Aussie OH also gives this information, but i need to reread that anyhoo.

As for an Axis OOB, i have bits and bobs - am still working on who was actually on the border area. Jentz and Rommel have this information if am not completly mistaken so i should be able to post a decent Axis OOB in this dicussion area later in the week once ive reread both books and checked some other sources.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Background section

I know i wrote this and during all the edits noone really changed the wording however am not too sure on this sentance:

"the Australian 6th Infantry Division was sent to join in the Battle of Greece"

Its not grammatically correct is it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's a bit inelegant. What about "...was withdrawn from the Western Desert to join the Commonwealth expeditionary force commanded by Lieutenant-General Wilson being shipped to Greece." Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye that sounds allot better, ill add it in. Cheers :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok other then the probable copyedits which will have to be made to this section to spruce it up, is there anything which anyone feels is missing from it?

At the momment it covers what Operation Compass achieved, the German reaction, the reasons why the Allied forces were so weak and the Axis counterattack leading us right up to the "present day" where the planning section takes over.

I don't think it has missed anything major?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Other then an update which needs to be made to the info box i was thinking should we also do something like this, so that the strength and losses for both operations are covered but at the time seperated so to avoid confusion. A little something like so:--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Brevity
Location {{{place}}}
Casualties and losses
Operation Brevity German: 12 Dead 61 Wounded 185 Missing Total: 258 3 tanks Unknown number of Italian casualties Operation Skorpion: blah blah	Operation Brevity 1st DLI: 196 casualties 2nd Rifle Brigade: Currently unknown 2nd Scots Guards: 1 dead, 4 wounded Total: 201 5 tanks lost, 13 damaged 2 Armoured cars 1 damaged Carrier 6 Planes Operation Skorpion: blah blah

I don't feel that strongly but it seems a bit anal - way too much detail, especially when quite a lot of the detail is at present not available. I'd be happier if we could find referenced overall casualty figures for each side. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Working on that one, i have a good idea where the Rifle Brigade losses are kept however i dont have access to that paticlar book at the mo (will post book title later)... Italian ones are a little harder to come by but ive built up a decent ish picture but dont think i have a slap bang on the money total as of yet.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just keep it as the summary figures (x casualties, y tanks etc.) and then, if this much detail is available, put the actual figures into the aftermath or analysis section. Oberiko (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye i was thinking it needed to be cut down. Don't worry ill be giving it a good going over pretty soon :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Order of Battle and Losses

As per requests here is what i understand to be the complete order of battle for each side and the information surrounding the losses incurred during the operation.

Order of battle

Order of Battle has been transferred to Operation Brevity order of battle. The below order of battle contains a few errors which i have removed in the one on the above page as well as translating all German and Italian unit names into English.

Axis Forces

On the border

• Italian Forces
  • 2 companies, V Battaglione bersagliere autoportato (motorised inantry Battalion)
  • 75/27 Field Gun Battery
  • 47/32 AT Battery
  • a sezione c.a. 2cm (Anti Air gun??)
  • 12 105/28 Field Guns, II Gruppo 24 reggimento artiglieria

• Gruppe Herff
  • Aufklaerung-Abteilung 3 (Recon Battalion)
  • Aufklaerung-Abteilung 33 (Recon Battalion) positioned near Bardia?
  • 2.Kompanie, Kradschuetzen-Bataillon 15 (motorcycle Battalion) - source is a little confusing and it might be the entire battalion was in the border area for Brevity
  • 1x Battalion from the Trento Division, presumably another Bersaglieri battalion
  • Panzer-Abteilung Hohmann (II. Abteiling Panzer Regiment 5 (Tank Company))-
  • 1 88mm Flak Battery
  • platoon of 2cm AA Guns
  • platoon of 2CM AT guns
  • 2 105mm le FH Howitzer
  • 4.7cm Pak Sfl (whatever that is :S)

• Defending Bardia
  • II Battaglione 62 regimento fanterie, minus one company (Infantry Regiment)
  • 47/32 AT Battery
  • batteria c.a. 2cm (AT or AA guns??)

Reinforcements

• Lt-Col Krammer's forces which were ordered to reinforce the border
  • I.Abteilung, Panzer Regiment 8 (Tank Company)
  • Flak battery (presumably 88's)

• Kampfgrppe von Esebeck, Jentz notes this Kampgruppe was ordered late on the 15th to move to the border to assist the above forces. Currently am guessing that did not engage anyone.
  • a Schuetzen Battalion
  • a Mittlere Panzer Kompanie (minus one platoon) (light tank companie if i remember correctly, presumably MKIIs etc)
  • I.Abteilung, Panzer Regiment 5
  • A Panzer Jaeger Kompanie (anti tank Coy, presumably SPAT guns)
  • Artillerie Abteilng (minus one battery)

Out of all of them, what was engaged or who engaged the British forces is a different story. The above, as far as i can tell from several sources is the correct order of battle for the Axis forces on the border.

British Forces

• Coast Group
  • 2nd Rifle Brigade (minus one company)
  • Mortar Company, 3rd Coldstream Guards
  • 5th Australian Anti-tank Battery, 2/2nd Australian Anti-Tank Rgt
  • 8th Field Regiment, RA
• Centre
  • 1st Durham Light Infantry
  • 2nd Battalion Scots Guards
  • 4th Royal Tank Regiment
  • 3rd Coldstream Guards (Follow up force to take up positions in Halfaya Pass once it was captured, did not take any other part in Brevity)
  • 1 troop, 12th Anti-Tank Battery, 2/3rd Australian Anti-tank Rgt
• Desert Flank
  • 2nd Royal Tank Regiment
  • A Company, 2nd Rifle Brigade
  • 6th Australian Divisional Cavalry
  • 11th Hussars (way out on the flank and according to there history sort of behind the Axis positions, mostly in a recon role and did not engage anything - covered the withdrawal)
  • 1 troop, 12th Anti-Tank Battery, 2/3rd Australian Anti-tank Rgt

At the moment, no other information is available that i am aware of which indicates any of the other units were invovled. As far as i can tell, this is the correct order of battle for British units which actually attacked. The 3rd Hussars history glosses over this battle, but its possible that there D Squadron actually did take part. The 8th Field Regt, RA may infact be only D Battery, 3rd Royal Horse Arty.

Lossses

Durham Light Infantry

Playfair claims 160 losses Faithful: the Story of the Durham Light Infantry what the DLI website calls an excellent comprehensive history of Regiment, places there losses at 196 (11 officers and 185 Other ranks).

Scots Guards

Only book which i have seen information regarding losses given is Erksines book which places them at 1 dead and 4 wounded. He was also the one which mentioned the damaged carrier which i will remove in a moment.

Rifle Brigade

The book by Major Hasting lists no losses in it for this operation, however i guess the losses would most likely be mentioned in "The Rifle Brigade, 1939-1945: volume 1 & 2" by the Rifle Brigade Club, 1946. Although thats pretty hard to come by.

2RTR

no losses to tanks or personnal, two tanks abandoned due to brakedown but later recovered - Jentz

Other units

Bar the loss of planes and tanks as already cited from Playfair, the manpower losses from those regiments are not mentioned.

German losses

Latimer (and i think Playfair) claim losses as 12 dead, 61 wounded and 185 missing (captured). Jentz states these figures come from the war diary of the DAK. The Italian official history also confirms 258 losses (never read the book or know what its called, the figures were provided to me when requested on a forum)

Seems all sources seem to agree it was only 3 tanks which were complete right offs.

Italian losses

Italian offical history claims 395 losses, however Andreas the guy over on Axis History forum who told me, states the history also contains errors on Brevity so it may not be 100% accurate.

Scots Guards claim 320 prisoners, half of which were Italians from one camp and a "few other prisoners taken later on". Rifle Brigade claim 130 prisoners, have not seen the claim by the DLI which would bring us a total of at least 265 Italian prisoners taken.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation question

Just checking, what is the best way to show citation.

For example, is it more correct to have one citation per page ala the top few sections so you have a several citations at the end of paragraphs etc

For like the way i have done them for the recently edited sections, where each citation contains several different books etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

British?

Having come across the peer review notice for this article, I've completed a 1st pass copyedit down to and including the 1st para of the plans section. I'll carry on as and when I have the opportunity, though there are precious few of them these days. I have tried to be careful to refer to the allied side as "British and Commonwealth" where appropriate, using only "British" when the subject is the command, or where British forces were the only (or perhaps substantial) elements involved. I must though leave it to those with access to the sources to ensure that such nomenclature is correctly applied. --FactotEm (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

All forces taking part in Operation Brevity bar a few Anti Tank platoons and 28 light tanks of the divisional cavalry were Australian, hence most of the time ive used the term "British" it is literally because they are British forces.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair enough. I just wanted to be sure that when discussing the wider context, such as the general retreat and the actions around Tobruk, the more appropriate "British and Commonwealth" moniker is applied. --FactotEm (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the second para above should have read "All forces taking part in Operation Brevity were British bar a few Anti Tank platoons and 28 light tanks of the divisional cavalry which were Australian. No? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 00:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve you are correct, my mistake there :)

The general retreat, yes correct stating British and Commonwealth etc is correct as it was a mix bag of Aussies and Brits.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Confused

The 2nd para of the "Opening moves" section is a tad confusing... "The remainder of the battalion and C Squadron pushed on towards their second objective..." Presumably the battalion referred to here is the Scots Guards. Correct? "Soon after, the men of the Scots Guards were back in there trucks and heading for there objective. The battalion was able to rapidly capture these two positions..." What was the objective? What were the two positions? "Although, two men were wounded when ‘F’ Company ran into eight German tanks but these soon withdrew." Small point, but does this level of detail really need to be included? --FactotEm (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And again in the 3rd para... "As the Matilda tanks closed in on the fort they lost contact with C Company 1DLI, the company tasked with capturing the fort. Facing “vigorous” opposition, the men dismounted from their trucks and went straight into the assault and “intense” fighting ensured." The 2nd sentence just doesn't follow on logically from the first. What happened to C/1DLI? Who were the men who dismounted - were they C/1DLI?

"With the support from ‘A’ and ‘B’ Companies and repeated attacks from the 4RTR, at the cost of another tank, the fort was eventually captured by 1145 hours." A and B Coy's of what regiment? DLI or Scots? --FactotEm (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry about the confusion....

Regarding 2nd para:

• C Squadron, 4RTR and G Coy, 2nd Scots Guards were tasked to take the pass.
• Once the pass was captured, A Squadron, 4RTR and the 2nd Scots Guards (minus G coy) moved out to capture there second objectives - Bir Wair and Mussaid
• The battalion stops en route to these two places as they come across an axis camp, which they quickly take without much fighting and are then back in the trucks heading for the above two positions.
• I dont know, to be honest, if such detail is needed - my original decission was to put everything i had about the fighting into the article and then see if people thought if it was too much or not.

Regarding 3rd para:

• The men who dismounted from the trucks are Coy, 1DLI
• What happened to them, there official history states once off the trucks they assaulted the fort, then finally with support from A and B companies (who were operating on the flanks) they captured the fort by 1145.
• A and B Coy, 1DLI
• Just to note, there official history states it was “intense” fighting agaisnt “vigorous” opposition - hence the inverted commas.
• Scots Guards are to the east of the DLI and do not take part in attempting to capture the fort. However the armoured regiment does.

Again sorry about the confusion, hope that has cleared up the situation for you.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No apologies necessary - I know how difficult it can be to step back from one's own work and try and see it with uneducated eyes. All perfectly clear now, thanks. I hope this is now reflected in the copyedits I made to these sections. One other thing though, the use of inverted commas to quote the source exactly probably needs those quotes to be referenced. --FactotEm (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Another one. "At 0200 hours on his own initiative, after waiting for five hours for a response to withdraw, Brigadier Gott ordered the 22nd Guards Brigade Group to withdraw to Halfaya Pass..." The meaning here is not clear to me. Is it that Gott had requested from his superiors permission to withdraw and, having not received a response, did so on his own initiative? --FactotEm (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Gott requested permission to withdraw from XIII Corps CO, who did not get back to him till about five hours later and iirc (not in front of source atm, am in work) told him to hold his positions - by which time, Gott had already issued the order to pull back to the pass.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Nice article. I've done all the copyediting I feel is necessary now. Is there any chance of getting more images to illustrate the narrative? You might be able to pick some up in Commons. Also, I know that the separate OOB looks comprehensive, but this article explains well the British forces involved, but tends to leave one guessing as to the opposing forces involved. Is it worth adding a short para to the plans section summarising the Axis forces to balance out the detail given for the British? --FactotEm (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What sort of information did you have in mind for this extra paragraph?
The information in the article stating they were to act agressivly is about all the information i have found in regards to the Axis orders etc. Precise information on what units were garrisoning which paticular area is also a bit sketchy in some places so i, personally, would not be able to detail which unit held what location etc.

Extra images was one of the things i had in mind to add. Am going to do a bit of a hunt for photos of Fort Capuzzo and Halfaya Pass and possibly add a few photos of the tanks invovled.

Btw thanks for all the help on this article! :D--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hope my efforts do the article justice. Not sure what information is available in the sources about the Axis side, but there is a fairly obvious weight given in the article to the level of detail provided for the British side that is not evident when it comes to the Axis side. For example, the types of tanks operated by the British regiments is really quite detailed. Compare this with the information provided in the article about the German tank units. It tends I think to lead to subtle POV traps which makes the article come across as the British view of events, instead of a more balanced narrative which lends equal weight to all protagonists. Not at all easy to handle I realise, but worth pursuing to make a promising article one of the very best. --FactotEm (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

One way to handle this might be to re-organise the "Afternoon" section. Insert a new section there called "German reactions", comprising the 1st and 3rd para's of the current "Afternoon" section. The remaining para's would remain in the "Afternoon" section which would follow the "German reactions" section. What do you think? --FactotEm (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just so am on the same page here and not confused what you have meant, the new strucutre would look like so:

1 Background
2 Plans (i think this needs renaming)
3 The battle
3.1 Opening moves (possibly this section too)
3.2 German Reaction
3.3 Afternoon [fighting]
3.3 16 May (or May 16)
4 Aftermath
4.1 Tiger Convoy
4.2 Operation Skorpion (still need to work on this section, if there is enough information i will start a new article and link to Skorpion in the Aftermath section)
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
8 Footnotes

To respond to one of your copyedit summarys:

CE - difficult sentence as not sure if Luftwaffe units were part of Afrika Korps, and no indication of how many

Luftwaffe units - fighter and bomber squadrons and there ground crews were not part of the Afrika Korp as far i understand it, however they were deployed over to North Africa at around abouts the same time. I think there deployment also falls under Operation Sunflower but i cant be too sure of that at the moment while am in work.

Btw on re-reading the section regarding no Allied attempt to retake the pass or Axis attempt to carry on the advance - you are correct there should be no "an" there, my mistake.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: structure - yes. The main change would be the German reactions section. I have thought that "Plans" might be better named, but I don't think it's that bad as a section title now. I wonder what similar articles use. The Luftwaffe thing is largely semantics - trying to come up with elegant prose that does not introduce a factual inaccuracy. I am also wondering whether the Tiger convoy and Skorpion information actually need their own sections. Currently they are short sections and I don't think anything would be lost by removing the section headers and having a single homogenous aftermath section. What do you think? --FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would hang fire on removing the Skorpian section just for now, there is several sources i need to consult and am hoping to expand that section. The Tiger convoy, the section is currently there as the convoy is referanced but there is no information available on the wiki at the moment on it. If it could be reworded into the aftermath section proper then yes i would agree to removing the section header.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear - I am not talking about removing the information. I'm only suggesting that the section headers go. You OK with me implementing the "German reactions" section now, or do you have any reservations about this change? --FactotEm (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's ok i understood what you meant regarding the aftermath section. Yes, implementing the new section is fine with me and makes sence :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox details

I think you've had this conversation somewhere before Enigma, but I'm always inclined to keep the infobox information brief, and never like having numbers there referenced. You have extensive details on casualties which I think could be simply summarised totals (men and materiel losses), with the referenced details that are currently displayed being being transferred to the narrative in the aftermath section. Just throwing this up for consideration. --FactotEm (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking this after looking at another article were the total losses were mentioned and the specifics was mentioned elsewhere. I still think they should be referanced however. Anyhoo done it--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks a lot better. As for the references, I can't see that if it is referenced in the narrative we also need to reference it in the infobox. It's redundant there and, whilst I have seen it in other articles, entireley pointless.

Are you planning to put this article up for a MilHist A-Class review. I don't know if there is much left to do (the lead probably needs a bit more work) but it's looking pretty good now and might benefit from a more rigorous vetting than a peer review normally provides. --FactotEm (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I will be, there is still a few things to do. From the peer review:

"

• AFAIK, one of the most important results of Brevity was that it pointed out to Rommel the weaknesses in his front-line. It was because of this that he heavily fortified his positions, which in turn led to the severe mauling the Commonwealth took during Battleaxe.
• I would recommend changing the names of the battle sub-headings to reflect what was actually occurring rather then the date/time it took place.
• I don't know what WP policy on footnotes is, but I think I'd avoid having multiple references within one <ref> tag, probably better to make several separate ones.

Quite good overall though, a drastic improvement over the last time I was at this page. Oberiko (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"

Any input on the citations?

(Outdent) I'd tend to agree with Oberiko - prefer separate refs. --FactotEm (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

problomatic sentance?

The arrival at Alexandria on the 12 May of this convoy reinforced the British XIII Corps ... etc

To me it doesnt seem to read right. Am also not in the right frame of mind to make it make sence, any help?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a little oddly phrased, but perfectly acceptable to me. Nevertheless, I've re-jigged it slightly. Better? --FactotEm (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was a little drunk last night :p Yea it does fine look but i it better the way you done it now.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal of the Coast Group?

"...the 22nd Guards Brigade Group, along with the 4RTR and presumably the Coast Group, had completed their retreat to the pass..." (my italics) Is this presumption taken from the sources? The last we hear of the Coast Group prior to this statement is their capture of the lower pass the previous evening. If they were already at the pass they surely cannot have retreated there? --FactotEm (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Again this another area where information is a little hazy and were i have made a bit of a presumption.

2nd Rifle Brigades next objective was the town of Sollum, the OH nor a book about there actions (not the regimental OH) do not mention what they did next. Jentz iirc mentions that the Afrika Korps retook the town without a fight but i dont recall him mentioning the town being captured. However it was late in the day when took there first objejective - did they even push on to take Sollum?

The mention of Gott ordering the men back to the pass is only in regards to the 22nd Guards Brigade group (Scots Guards and Durham Light Infantry) and the tanks.

I would agree, it should be removed as far as we know they never pushed on following the capture of the lower areas of the pass.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed presumption. --FactotEm (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The peer review as stated that the lead is an area, which is paticularly weak, as its currently too detailed but at the same time doesnt provide enough. These is a quick mess about with the lead i have made in work, anyone have any input on it - better, worse?

Operation Brevity was a limited attack launched during the Western Desert Campaign of World War II. It was conducted by elements of the British XIII Corps against elements of the German Afrika Korps and small Italian infantry formations between 15-16 May 1941.

Following the successful advance of the Afrika Korps during March and April 1941, which recaptured all territory gained during Operation Compass excluding the town of Tobuk now under siege, the British launched Operation Brevity as a limited attack to dislodge the Axis forces from the area around the towns of Bardia, Sollum and Capuzzo to secure more ground from which a major attack could later be launched. A secondary objective was to exploit a breakthrough towards Tobruk as far as supply would allow, again without risking the force committed.

The operation started with mixed results, encountering pockets of stiff resistance from German and Italian forces, which were not overcome until the afternoon. Following the arrival of German armoured reinforcements, allied forces were ordered to retire and the operation was called off the next day.

The operation failed to meet any of its objectives other than the capture of the Halfaya Pass, which in turn was lost to a German counterattack on 27 May during Operation Skorpion.

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Leads are simple in theory, and surprisingly difficult in practise. I've had a go at User:Factotem/Sandbox. --FactotEm (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Comments arising from peer review

I would like to follow up the comments made by Dhatfield in the peer review re: scope and context, but this goes beyond copyedits so I want to make sure I don't step on any toes by discussing here first.

To my mind the simplest fix for the scope issue is to implement section headers in the British advance section (specifically "Centre column", "Desert column", and "Coastal column").

• The "Plans" section can be edited to support this, by ensuring that any reference to units is done in the context of the column they are assigned to (Thus "Gott’s plan for Brevity was to advance in three parallel columns.", "On the southern, desert flank the Allied column consisted of...", etc)
• This would require the afternoon action by the 2nd Scots Guards company to be moved up one para., but now that the chronology is not part of the structure I'm not sure that this would be a problem.
• It would also make sense to move 2RTR's recce out of the "German reactions" section and into the proposed "Desert column" section in order to present the British actions consistently.

The only issue that I see with this is that it will introduce a short "Coastal column" section, and short sections are often criticised in reviews/assessments.

I was going to suggest possibly just deleting referance to the groups and leaving that for the order of battle page, instead sticking to just the battalion names etc.

However you idea sounds better. Yea the costal section would probably be critisied, but with no more information at hand and wanting to make the article as easy to read for the readers i think its a critaism the article will have to take and put up with.

In terms of content...

• The afternoon action of the 2nd Scots Guards company needs to be clarified - was this company advancing towards Sollum, as indicated in the "Plans" section, or Sollum Barracks, as indicated in the "British advance" section. What specifically was the objective that they were fighting over, as the narrative currently gives the impression that it was Sollum Barracks, yet the "advance continued" afterwards.

Will get back to you on that one tonight

• Dhatfield raises a good point about the background section. It is very detailed and rivals the main subject it is supposed to support in terms of size. I'm wondering whether it can be pruned and limited to the salient points that set the scene for Brevity? How vital is it to our understanding of Brevity, for example, to know that 2nd NZ Div was in reserve, lacking it's 3rd brigade, or that 11th Hussars lost 7 armoured cars and 16 men? --FactotEm (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, i have just removed the bracketed information regarding the New Zealand division. The information on the Hussars was to illustrate that the pretty picture painted in the OH was'nt that pretty and this information on Axis dispositions was known, when it was paid in blood.

I've pruned the background section extensively in my sandbox. What do you think? --FactotEm (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it, allot of the details you have taken out to be honest did not really need to be in there. I would hold fire until later before adding it in as i need to double check the information regarding Kampfgruppe Herff. They were reinforced and i cant remember if the units you have noted were all initially with them.

I think the action by the Hussars, while rightly removed from the background, probably does deserve to be in the Plans section to show an example of how some of this information was gained.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wilco. If it's a problem we can introduce the 30-50 tanks intel some other way. Let me know when you want to proceed (or simply paste the sandbox over yourself when you're happy). Fair enough on the 11th Hussars, but can I caution against too much detail in the main narrative as exists at the moment? I think it tends to betray undue weight in favour of a British POV, and is anyway not relevant to the point being made. If you really want to include this level of detail, perhaps place it in the footnotes? --FactotEm (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! :)

Sorry didnt get back to you yesterday, am at home atm so ill double check what Jentz says about von Herffs men when they captured the pass - make sure whats in the text matches up and copy n paste it over.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

To Do

Ok we have edited this article quite a bit over the last few weeks getting the grammar into shape, adding new material and images etc, so what is left to do?

From the peer review:

• Update the map(s)

Other then that, scanning over the article here in work i dont think there is anything else, but well i may be wrong. Any input?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also...

• Sort out the inconsistencies between plans and advance. Who was tasked with taking Sollum and Sollum Barracks, and clarify the objective of the company of Scots Guards (Sgt Riley et al) and what they were fighting for.
• Expand the detail in the Aftermath section on Rommel's subsequent fortifications.

I can do the second of these tomorrow if you want, but the first needs access to the sources which I don't have. --FactotEm (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Just making a note for myself: what does Erskine say Scots Guards objectives where - double check what playfiar says Rifles and Scots objectives where.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok the sources conflict but at the same time agree. Erskine and Playfair state that the 2nd Rifle Brigade was to Sollum and the Barracks (as well as the lower portion of Halfaya Pass). However he states that "Left Force", 2nd Scots Guards (a company name in place of 'A', 'B' etc) was tasked to mop up and consolidate eastwards towards the barracks.

One would presume the plan was essentially to pincer the town. While the Rifles took the town and headed for the barracks, the Scots Guards compant would be there to halt any Axis retreat and at the same time assist in taking the barracks.

Scots Guards p. 78, Playfair p. 160 --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

German fortifications on the frontier

After reading through Rommels diary (The Rommel Papers) again, it looks like this process only started once Halfaya Pass had been recaptured thus anything to do with this subject should be in an aftermath section of the Skorpian article not this one.

With that said, am now putting the article forth for reevaluation since i believe it is now compelete.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation request in lead

Hi all,

A fact tag has been added to the lead following this sentance:

The attack was launched on May 15 and proceeded against stiff resistance, with mixed results.

Well am not sure if it is relevent as the rest of the paragraph expands on what this sentance states and has approbirate citations.

Any advice on what to do?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the lead should briefly summarise the article's contents, it should need no references at all (assuming the main body of the article is suitably referenced). However, it should be a brief statement of the facts and so I would argue that " and proceeded against stiff resistance, with mixed results" is superfluous. Take it out and leave in "The attack was launched on May 15." It reads fine like that. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 11:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that input, i have made the change as dicussed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tend to disagree. The sentence is now very short and the beginning of the paragraph does not flow well, especially as there are now two sentences beginning with "The...". To a certain extent, I think you have made rod for your own back here. As pointed out above, the lead should summarise the article and, unless there is a strong challenge, does not require referencing at all. If it were me, I would re-instate the rest of the sentence and remove all referencing from the lead. I don't see how anyone can challenge that statement, given the main, fully referenced content.--FactotEm (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I like short sentences. If you dislike the the's then replace the first with "Gott's". The words taken out add nothing that is not already in the rest of the paragraph. The lead is too long already and has too much detail for a summary. Actually I wouldn't mind adding back the deleted words because then it would be appropriate to delete the rest of the paragraph except "By late on 16 May the operation had been called off. Halfaya Pass, the only gain arising from it was recaptured by a German counterattack eleven days later."! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD, the lead should briefly summarise an article "...in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" and "...must not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." I think the lead before the citation tag remedy was fine, and good enough to pass ACR without comment. Doesn't sound like we'll be agreeing on this one. I see that EnigmaMcmxc is planning on taking this to FAC at some stage, so I'm sure it will get dissected during the pre-FAC copyedit the article needs, or failing that during FAC itself, if not before. --FactotEm (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I just don't feel strongly enough about it to argue! As you say; it'll all get picked up in the process. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 15:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Note for self

4RTR is mentioned supporting 1DLI but by German reactions section they are not present and no reason why is given - need to add what happened to them.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Easter Egg" Links

What exactly is wrong with stating "... kampfgruppe..." without explaining what one is, thats what the link is for isnt it? I mean by the same logic wouldnt we then have to explain what practically everything else is - will a layman of military history know what a division, company, battalion, Middle East Command, siege, counterattack, Afrika Korps, Panzer, Luftwaffe, Bersaglieri, hull down etc etc etc

I could go on. I just dont get it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the short answer is, if it gets challenged, it needs to be explained. This one was challenged. To challenge part of your statement, if this article was aimed at the 'layman of military history', then we might be more able to assume some knowledge of military terminology, but it needs to appeal to the lay reader, who does not necessarily have a grasp of miltary terms. Further, terms like division, battalion, company etc are common throughout most armies, so can get by with just a link (not to mention the sheer impracticality, as you allude to, of having to explain every individual term). Kampfgruppe is a foreign term, specific to the German army, and thus I can see why it warrants some explanation if it is not to trip up the lay reader. At the end of the day, it's a case of balance, which is not always going to be obvious to the likes of you and me. I am still surprised by the challenges to 'exploit' and 'invest', but I've read military histories and understand these terms. It takes a lay reader to point out to us that these trip up the narrative. Don't fully understand it myself, but that's wikipedia for you. --FactotEm (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Halfaya Pass

Just to take on a bit of an advisory role during the copyediting stage: the pass was called both Strategically and Tactically important by whatever source you look at. I guess it’s a case of picking whatever one fits the context.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, though you are the expert here, so I'll follow your advice. I chose tactical because 'strategic' didn't seem to fit the scale of operations at this stage of the campaign. --FactotEm (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For example if it was in the aftermath section where we havea quote of Rommel talking about it needed for logistics that would be strategic. However in the section were you made the edit i think you have made the right choice.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Preparations for battle - German perspectives

The last sentence in the first para is awkward. It does not flow on from the preceding statements well. It also provides some of the scarce information we have about German dispositions from a British perspective, which doesn't help the balance of this section (which is always going to be somewhat unbalanced given the nature of the operation - all the more reason to snap up any opportunity to address this).

What would work really well is to move that sentence down to the last para, after all the British plans have been dealt with, and beef it up if poss. We know of the 30-50 tanks, but the infobox only says 'elements of several battalions'. Can we get a bit more info? The OOB seems to give it (under Kampfgruppe von Herff). Was that the state at the start of the battle? Don't suppose we know roughly how many troops? Specific units pop up in the subsequent battle narrative (Italians defending the foot of Halfaya, Bersaglieri company and an A-T batt at the top, Pz Regt 5 in action at both Capuzzo and out in the desert), so there must be some info around. --FactotEm (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

From the sources i have accessed to get this article to where it is today i can tell you that the information around on this paticular operation is very limited.

However i may be able to answer what parent unit the Italians at Halfaya came from:

Jentz, pp.128-129

The Italian units that Rommel had left to guard the border were V battaglione bersagliere autoportato (Montemurro) with two companies, a batteria cannoni 75/27, and a sezione c.a. 2cm along with the II gruppo 24 reggimento artiglieria (Frongia) with 12 105/28 cannoni. The II battaglione 62 reggimento fanterie (minus one company) with a batteria c.c. 47/32 and a batteria c.a. 2 cm, was the only unit manning the defences around Bardia.
...
... In reaction to the increased activity of enemy...Gruppe Herff was reinforced by another battalion from "Trento"...

Everything in bold is how it is displayed in the book. My Italian is non-existant but if i understand it correctly there is two companies from a 5th Motorised infantry battalion and i would assume they were probably the guys.

Information posted on a forum, stating it was created from Italian and German sources backed up by British ones to fill in the gaps would suggest that this was not the battalion and it was another. However they did not show there source and i would not feel comfortable posting the information here as i asked it for personal understanding and didnt say i would then rip them off for the wiki sake.

It would seem people with access to Italian and German sources would be able to answer all your questions.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks. Coming at it after a bit of an absence, and trying to be hyper-critical of what is there, I'm finding this whole section hard work. I've copyedited the first para., which I'm mostly happy with now (are you?), but I'm going to take the rest to my sandbox. I think the main themes that we need to convey succinctly, with as much balance as we can, whilst still making it engaging to read, are:

• What forces were available to each side;
• How they were organised (for the Allies, what battalions/supporting arms belonged to which (brigade) groups; for the Axis, what forces were positioned where (as best we can));
• Gott's three column plan.

If you want to put User:Factotem/Sandbox on your watchlist, you can check on progress and jump in when you want. Also I'll let you know when I think I'm done, and give you the chance to approve/amend/veto as you see fit, before I take it to the article.

P.S. No point in using the forum info anyway, we'd have to reference it, and it would never survive a reliable source check at FAC. --FactotEm (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

22nd Guards Brigade group advance

As originally written, the narrative gives the impression that after Halfaya Pass, C 4RTR and the Scots Guards advanced to the Bir Wair/Musaid road separately from the A 4RTR/1DLI advance to Capuzzo. The map, however, shows that the route to Capuzzo goes via the road. Is it accurate therefore to say that, after Halfaya, the Brigade group, rather than C 4RTR/SG, advanced to the road, that C 4RTR/SG were the lead element until Bir Wir & Musaid were taken, and that A 4RTR/1DLI then continued on to Capuzzo? Also, am I right in thinking that the Coldstream Guards were left behind to defend the Pass? --FactotEm (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Coldstreamers did not advance at the start of the day and moved up some time after the pther 2 battalions did to take pocession of the Pass from elements of the Scots Guards - i have photocopies at home of the pages within the Coldstreamers regimental history so i can provide better details later regarding them.

As for the route the battalions took, from what i have read they are made out as being seperate actions but will look over the photocopies of the Scots Guards description of the move (havent got any copies of the DLI account).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it would appear that i binned by photocopies of the Scots Guards book once i was done using them and the copies of the Coldstreamers states the 22nd Guards Brigade went on the attack etc etc and they withdrew to Halfaya Pass were the 3rd battalion is all of a sudden position on. No mention of when they arrived however.

The impression one gains from the text which Jentz provides is that both battalions and boh squadrons advanced at the same time towards there respected onjectives and probably didnt use the road.:

[Scots and C sqn 4RTR take Halfaya]. The remainder [the Scots], after a pause for the infantry to consolidate, moved on to the second objective Musaid which was taken over without opposition.<sic>
A squadron formed a defensive flank while the action took place at Halfaya. As soon as the area had been taken over, the Squadron (nine tanks) followed by H.Q. moved forward to attack Fort Capuzzo.

The camp is reported taken by the Scots who provided it on there map (edited version seen within article) while the DLI do not. I would suggest it entirely possible that the Scots advanced across the desert to Bir Wier, taking the camp in the process, and along a track (shown on p.131 in Jentz book) to Mussaid.

Since the DLI dont mention the camp, one would presume them to be further out on the flank in the desert in which case they could also use another track present which would lead them into the area of Pt. 206 and to the appraoch Capuzzo from the south.

see portion of map pervious mentioned, showing tracks etc

I think it is accurate to say that the 22nd Guards Brigade group advanced towards the Bir Wair - Mussaid area, that the Scots Guards and C Sdn took the camp, and then Bir Wair and Mussaid, and that the DLI and A Sqn continued on to Capuzzo. Agree? --FactotEm (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I shall copyedit that part accordingly. --FactotEm (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

British withdrawal

We hear that 7th Arm Bde grp was ordered to hold their existing positions when 22nd Gds Bde grp was ordered to withdraw. Then we hear only of 2RTR holding Kampfgruppe von Herff, and subsequently withdrawing that night. What happened to the rest of 7th Arm Bde grp? Was the 2RTR withdrawal actually the 7th Arm Bde grp withdrawal? What do the sources say? --FactotEm (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources tell us that 22nd Guards withdrew to Halfaya Pass during the night (now held by the coldstreamers) while the 7th Armoured Brigade group stayed out. The next day as noted further in the article the RTR engaged German armour before withdrawing. There is extremly little info on the jock columns of the Support Group or Aussie Divisional Cav, so i personally do not know what happened with them. Likewise the 11th stayed out during the morning to cover other forces and then withdrew to a plateau 20 mile from Sheferzen. (11 @ war, p.170)

Copyedit update

I have done a 1st pass of all but the Aftermath section, which I will get round to soon. I have some content issues in this section, which I am seeking consensus for first.

• I find the extensive list of casualties too detailed. Any objection if I just state the headline figures (along the lines of British = 206, most of which from 1DLI, & 5 tanks lost, Germans 258 & 3 tanks, Italians unknown but Allied reports ...)? The detailed figures (kia, mia, pow, types of tanks lost, tanks damaged, casualty list by British regiment, etc) are better placed in the footnotes, it anywhere.
• Likewise, do we really need to bog down the main narrative with a breakdown of the specific tanks delivered in the Tiger convoy? Any objection to just stating the total, and removing the detail to the footnotes?
• As mentioned in the ACR, I think you have to make some sort of statement about what some sources say concerning the objective of Brevity. I have Robin Neillands "The Desert Rats" which states (p.71) the objectives as (my emphasis added) "...to push Rommel back from the frontier and relieve Tobruk." I have seen this echoed on a couple of web sites as well. If there is a definitive statement that can be made refuting this, great. If not, I think it's enough to simply record somewhere – either as a footnote to the statement on objectives in the Preparations section, or as an Aftermath statement about subsequent historical analysis – that such a view exists.

Once I have completed this section, my intention is to leave it a week or so, and then do a 2nd pass, to tidy up all the tiny details of prose. After that, the article will stand a much better chance at the next FAC attempt if it is peer reviewed first. Any problems with any of the above? --FactotEm (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is something i have started doing with other articles now - that is moving the actual casualty brakedown to a footnote. However there would appear to be little jusitifcation in repeating the information just stated within the infobox if we did would there?

As for the objective of the operation, while some sources state it was to relieve Tobruk that was only a secondary goal and there are several sources (the most prominent being the campaign official history as compiled by Major-General Playfair) which back this position up. To record is somewhere within the article seems fine as long as whatever way it is done does not lead to confusion.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So the gist of it is, Wavell planned to exploit towards Tobruk, and relieve it, so long as it did not cost him too much in doing so, and that this was all secondary to pushing the Germans back from the Sollum area. Correct? --FactotEm (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Bingo, clear them out there first as a prelude to Battleaxe and if possible attempt to relieve the fortress as long as it didnt cost to much. One should note at this point in the war he was literally throwing in all tanks he had, the rest were in workshops etc - trucks had to be borrowed etc

So he should be criticised like Monty for not capturing Caen on D+1? [;-)Keith-264 (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional copyedit questions

Further copyedit underway (finally!). Not much to do, given the attention the article's had already. However, there are some questions below. EyeSerene^talk 14:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Do we have a date for von Herff's counterattack to retake Fort Capuzzo?
• "...under cover of a dust cloud" Caused by...?

1. Counterattack agaisnt DLI in and around Fort Capuzzo - this was launched on 15 May
2. Dust:

"Slowly ...[the battalion]... were compelled to pull back, aided by a certain amount of dust, which blew up, as luck would have it, at the right momment."

No indication of what caused it, maybe it just got windy?

Rissick does go on to say that further members of the battalion and some wounded were extracted during evening and after the German tanks pulled back.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

FA comments

1. References -- Which Playfair? You use two of his British military histories of WWII, and then link them to just Playfair. Which one? I added the co-authors. Official military histories usually have co-authors, and they're credited variously, however, these books are officially credited as by the authors with their ranks and full set of initials, but the books are by Major-General I.S.O. Playfair with the list of co-authors. Butler was a famous British military historian who was the series editor.

--KP Botany (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The only time Volume I has been used as been clearly marked and the rest is Volume II, although i do agree it is not too clear that. I will address that today by adding in the year to each ref.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, to note on one point but there has been a bit of a hoo har on other articles about using the authors ranks hence why they were not added previosuly.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, bu a reader cannot know that you used Vol I, except for, or whatever, so year is fine, thanks.

Yeah, I know there would be a broohawhaw about rank, but, since you're using this style, you can put ranks in the bibliography, and just use Playfair and year. For an official military history only, it adds a level of detail that isn't there without the ranks, namely, you know this history was written by army/navy/air forces. So, my suggestion is, to fight tooth and nail to include this level of detail in the biblio, since this is an article with a lot of information obtained from an important and official military history. We should have an article on Stitt, also. --KP Botany (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Air battles

This FA is quite good. But I note that in the article only one mention of the Luftwaffe, RA is made while the RAF DAF is not mentioned at all. It explains that repeated requests were made for air support, by the Axis land forces, yet it does not describe the help it got at all or how it may or may not have helped. Does anyone mind if insert this into this article? Dapi89 (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Dicklyon: Which sources? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

For lowercase siege of Tobruk, see e.g. the cited sources Clarke The Eleventh at War: Being the Story of the XIth Hussars (Prince Albert's Own) Through the Years 1934-1945 p. 179, or Latimer Tobruk 1941: Rommel's Opening Move p.63. But there are many. Dicklyon (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

En Grams again? Keith-264 (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Citations

@DuncanHill: Whats the difference between sfn and sfnref? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Keith-264: You use Template:SfnRef in the ref= section of the citation template to generate a landing point for Template:Sfn used in the text, when the citation template (eg Template:Cite book) doesn't automatically generate one. So in this article we use |ref={{SfnRef|11thH|1941}} to generate a landing point for {{sfn|11thH|1941|loc=War diary, 15 May 1941}}. We could also use |ref={{sfnref|11th Hussars (Prince Albert's Own)|1941}} to generate a landing point for {{sfn|11th Hussars (Prince Albert's Own)|1941|loc=War diary entry for 15 May 1941}}. Either will work, the only difference in appearance is that the first appears as "11thH 1941, War diary, 15 May 1941" in the numbered list of references, the second as "11th Hussars (Prince Albert's Own) 1941, War diary entry for 15 May 1941". DuncanHill (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it occasionally but never thought to ask. Nice to see you around. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't it risk the paradox of a long 'short' reference? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)