Talk:Allied invasion of Sicily

British Indian Army?

The flag icon on the article indicates that British Indian forces participated in the campaign, but there is no mention of their contribution, casualties, etc. Can anyone add info on this?

there were no Indians or Australians. Only British and Canadian units in the 8th Army at this time. The Indians arrived for the campaign on the mainland. I'll adjust the warbox accordingly. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

O Canada?

Why is there no mention of the Canadian contribution? One would think they weren't even there.

See Operation Husky order of battle, they are listed there. Or you can add more details. Beanbatch 22:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

largest amphibious assault?

See also Talk:Invasion of Normandy#Was D-Day really the largest seaborne invasion ever? and Talk:Operation Overlord#Largest?

I do not beleive that this one was larger than Normandy. Will try to prove it. Beanbatch 22:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Operation Husky was the largest amphibious assault of the war including Normandy. In some ways it can be considered to be the largest amphibious assault ever launched all at once as Gallipoli, while larger, it was done over a series of weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.202.148.60 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 January 2006

H. P. Willmott, When men lost faith in reason: reflections on war and society in the twentieth century, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002, ISBN 0275976653, 9780275976651. pp. 86,89 disputes the assertion that Operation Husky was the largest amphibious assault of the war including Normandy.

Willmott argues that on the first day of Operation Neptune the Allies put ashore five divisions of some 174,320 troops, with some three divisions consisting of 23,000 airborne troops during the night before the invasion.

Operation Husky put ashore over the first three days of the invasion seven divisions to Neptune's five on the first, but by 1944 amphibious assault divisions were larger than the 1943 divisions and in 1944 the British 50th Infantry Division alone numbered 38,000 men.

He concludes that "At best, it would seem that perhaps as many of 160,000 men were embarked for the Sicily landings, and upwards of 102,000 troop were landed on the first three day of the operation". Which is far less than were landed over the same period over the Normandy beaches. For example this source says "In the first six days of the invasion the Allies managed to land a third of a million men on French soil." --PBS (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Overlord" required around 4,000 ships, plus the facilities of these; Mulberry harbour, and this; Operation PLUTO. No other seaborne invasion even comes close to it.

Exaggerated German casualties

Where do the numbers come from that support the following claim: "casualties on the Axis side totalled 29,000, with 140,000 captured". According to [1] total German KIAs and MIAs were 57,800 + 18,300 for July 1943 and 58,000 + 26,400 for August 1943, including the battles of Kursk and Kharkov and all other fighting on the eastern front, that is 44,700 MIA on all fronts combined. 140,000 captured on Sicily would mean how many Italians? 143,000? Yes, I can see that they are quoted from [2] but that site does not claim what source it used in it's turn.

Also, the impact on the battle of Kursk was not that big. It might be worth mentioning that there is a big discussion concerning these issues on the talk page for that battle.

--itpastorn 15:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes i agree too, i have been adding all the casualties from the german campaings acording to wikipedia battlebox operations and the total summ is more than the overall german causalties on WW2!!!.(maybe come soldiers where casualties more than one time but is still to difficult to believe) From any way or another, dont trust the casualties box in the internet. Trust official figures from each combatant thats better, trusting in a official casualties report in one side and the aproximtions of the other is a POV. That should be avoided.

The Italians in Sicily were 230,000 (with the fascist Militia). The Fallen of the Axis were 4,278 Italians and 4,325 Germans. Alexander said "we have taken 132,000 prisoners." (Eddy Bauer, "Storia controversa della Seconda Guerra Mondiale"). Most of the Italian soldiers were Sicilians.

Official Account, Reading List and Campaign Streamer

I posted the official US Army Center for Military History account of the campaign, and their reading list. You may want to consolidate the two accounts to conserve space. I also added the Campaign Streamer.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

---

There is a project in place to coordinate all of the Military articles so that duplication of efforts, and better utilization of collaberative efforts ca be achieved. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Comment on airborne forces by DMorpheus

This was recently added into the "lessons learned" para regarding Allied interoperability: "Indeed, a few months later, Montgomery's initial assessment of the Operation Overlord plan included a request for four Airborne Divisions."

I'm wondering why this was included? It seems to suggest Sicily was the reason for having paratroopers in Overlord, but they had been used many times before - North Africa and at least one Commando raid. They had also been in the original plan for Dieppe (which Montgomery had a hand in), so if the suggestion is that Sicily proved a need for paratroopers to be in on D-Day, I'd suggest Allied planners knew full well about the capabilities of parachute troops long before that. Comments? The sentence seems out of place as is.Michael Dorosh 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The original sentence prior to my edit was unclear and perhaps inaccurate (its hard to say how inaccurate because I am not sure what meaning was intended). The point is simply this: Despite significant problems with the Airborne operations in Sicily, Montgomery wanted four Airborne Divisions for Overlord (he got three). I don't see how you can claim that Allied planners knew full well about the capabilities of Airborne troops prior to this. Crete was of course mis-read. They had not been used "many times" before. They had been used for very small-scale operations a few times; even in Sicily the largest drop was a Regiment. In North Africa one US Regiment made a non-combat jump, and the Commando raid was less than a battalion. Sicily was the first large combat jump, and Normandy was the first time Divisional-sized drops were made.

I am not attempting to say that Airborne forces were used in Normandy *only* because of Sicily, and the edit does not say or suggest that. It says Montgomery wanted a huge Airborne component for Overlord. Keep in mind that he also wanted a five-Division beach assault; much has been made of that fact, but less attention has been paid to the big Airborne component he wanted. DMorpheus 14:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to take a look at the planned Operation Giant II if you really believe Allied planners understood what Airborne forces could and could not accomplish prior to June 1944.DMorpheus 16:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that connection needs to be made in the article rather than in the talk page, though - on its own, as I indicated, the sentence seems to come out of nowhere. Can you expand it in the article and connect the dots for the reader?Michael Dorosh 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

BATTLES IN SICILY

In the text I don`t see a word about the German-Italian counter-offensive of Gela (July 11) of the German armoured division "Hermann Göring" and of the Italian division "Livorno". 600 soldiers of the "Livorno" started a frontal attack and were destroyed. It was the last offensive of the Italian Army during the war 1940-43. Moreover I don`t see a word about the battle of Valledolmo against the division "Assietta" (July 21)(sources are Attilio Tamaro and Eddy Bauer). The important role played by the Italo-American mafia and by the sicilian separatist who corroded the Italian units made up by Sicilians and "prepared" the Sicilian population isn`t to be undervalued.

If there is content you think should be added please do so. DMorpheus 14:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I add that on July 12, 1943 the US-Air Force destroyed the H.Q. of the Italian 6th Army in Piazza Armerina and this was important because the 6th Army, practically didn`t get regular orders any more.

DMorpeheus, now I guess I have understood what you meant. No, thanks, my English is too rudimental. You can improve the article better than me!

Commanders in the infobox

Is there a convention for commanders in the infobox? On the Allied side we currently have the army group commander (fair enough) then the two army commanders (ditto) but then one Corps commander (Bradley) out of a possible four. Then one divisional commander (Simonds) out of a possible 12 (or more if you include replacements) Then Andrew McNaughton is included although he wasn't in the chain of command for this operation (any more than the members of say the US or British chiefs of staff). On the Axis side we have Hitler and Mussolini - why? After all we don't have Churchill or Roosevelt in the box. We have the army commander Guzzoni (fine) and Corps commander Hube but not Corps commanders of the Italian XII and XVI Corps. Also, the German troops in Sicily, although under Guzzoni, actually took their orders from Kesselring and von Senger und Etterling (the German liaison officer to Guzzoni), so there is an argument to include them. Unless this provokes a howl of protest, I am proposing to remove in a couple of days evryone except the army / army group commanders - all the other names can be found in the order of battle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kirrages (talk • contribs) 17:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

In the absence of further comment I am executing the aboveStephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Importance of Malta during Operation Husky

Can anyone write somthing about the preparations that where done in Malta for Operation Husky? The information I have states that the operation was coordinated from Malta in the Lascaris tunnels in Valletta and the landing ships gathered in Malta. Also on Gozo an emergency landing strip was done in a few days time. Also during the invasion the naval dockyard in Malta was used for emergency repairs on allies ships. Malteseman1983 15:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

garbled intro

Seems the intro became garbled at some point. Part of it currently reads The invasion of the island was codenamed Operation Husky and it launched the Italian Campaign amphibious operation of World War II in terms of men landed on the beaches and of frontage. I hadn't followed the article before so I have no clue how the intro read before and the change doesn't seem to be recent. Maybe it should be changed to something like The invasion of the island was codenamed Operation Husky and it launched the Italian Campaign. It was the largest amphibious operation of World War II in terms of men landed on the beaches and of frontage. But something else might also have been deleted so I'd prefer it if someone more experienced with this article took a look first.--Caranorn 16:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've now tried to correct that problem, largely as I proposed above.--Caranorn 20:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect data for Canadian casualties

There is an error in the number of Canadian casualties from this part of the Italian Campaign. The Canadian casualties were not in the range of over 2,300. In fact, with POWs et al, subtract 1,000. Considering the original author provides the link to wwii.ca/page25.html, such an error is inexcusable, even if it was only mathematic. These can be further verified at http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=feature/italy2004/italy_educators/italyinfosheet . I have also corrected the total casualties list in the boxed info. Wikig39 14:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Naval participation?

Anyone have information on the naval participation in this operation? Oberiko (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

An old friend of mine, who has since passed away, served on the lead ship - HMS Hilary (he told me the hold was filled completely with tens of thousands of sealed barrels; to keep the ship afloat if holed). He described the naval participation as involving thousands of ships; as 'far as he could see'. I don't know how accurate that is; his memory may have exagerated it over the years, but it warrants more than just 5 lines in the article. Obscurasky (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Contributions from User 151.213.150.167

I have rolled back some dubious edits from this anonymous user. If anyone can cite or otherwise confirm this information, please do so. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag order

Hi all. I was bold, and rearranged the belligerents' flags in the infobox in alphabetical order. Seems to me this should be the preferred order for all such battles, and seems less denigrating to the "lesser" allies without taking anything away from the "bigger" allies. Comments are, or course, welcome. Esseh (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

At second glance, the numbers of Allied personnel in the infobox should be broken down by country, as it is for the Axis powers. Anyone have estimates or exact numbers? Esseh (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Map of landings

Hi all. The map of the Allied landings needs some re-working. The Allied part is OK, as far as I can see, but the Axis part is labeled "German counteroffensives", or some such. However, of the three Axis Divisions shown, only the Hermann Goering Division is German - the other two are Italian! Should be "Axis defenders" or whatever! Esseh (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK more serious problems with the "Allied Landings" section: There is mention of 2 Brit, 2 Canadian and 1 Australian parachute groups, but none are shown on the map! If the Brit formations were the glider troops, the whole sentence (section) should be labelled "airborne" drops, not "parachute drops", as in the text. And where are the Cdn and Aus airborne drops?.

Second, "The Cdns met the "207th Coastal Div. and were pushed back to the beaches..." and needed help, yet (1) no 207th Div is shown on the map, and (2), if the lines for the map are correct, the Cdns and the Yanks on their left flank made the furthest inroads on the first day. What gives? Either the map is seriously in error, and/or the text is seriously mistaken! Any help with this? Esseh (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

One more criticism of this section - the counterattack on Gela. The text mentions heavy counterattacks by the (Italian) "Livorno Division", but the map shows counterattacks by both the Livorno and the (German) Hermann Goering Divisions. Need to reconcile the map with the text, again. (Sorry for the criticism - it is intended in the best spirit of improving the article.) Esseh (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Parachute Landings

The text says there were four parachute drops - two British, two American, one Canadian and one Australian (which adds to six!!). Also there are no Canadian or Australian airborn troops listed in the Operation Husky order of battle. Any idea what is going on here? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kirrages. Good work on the changes you made. I am certainly no expert, but I was unaware of any Cdn or Oz airborne landings in Sicily. That's probably what intrigued me, and got me to wondering where they were on the map. Keep hunting. I suspect you found an error in your source. Cheers Esseh (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Axis Forces in Sicily

I see that a recent edit has changed the number of Italian and German troops in Sicily from 190,000 and 40,000 (cited from Jowett) to 275,000 and 75,000 (cited from Dickson - unless the citation refers only to the aircraft numbers). Hoyt has 200,000 + 30,000. As far as I'm aware the Germans had only two divisions in Sicily so 75,000 looks over-cooked. Any thoughts out there? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 22:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Eisenhower in Crusade in Europe, citing Alexander's despatches, gives an Axis total of 350,000. Looking at Alexander's despatches he gives the numbers as 315,000 Italians, 50,000 Germans rising to 90,000 as a result of reinforcements sent after the attack. So, completely different from any of the above figures - although Alexander instances the opinion of a captured Italian general that the Allied pre-invasion estimate of the Axis OOB was ..."superior to the official document in his posession"! Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's Alexander's assessment. Note the difference in numbers after reinforcement [3]. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't find any troop strength numbers in that article though I didn't read it through entirely. W

hat exact page are you refering to?

Sorry not to respond sooner, I've been away a couple of days. Follow the link and the figures are given in in the right hand column in the paragraph before the heading "Capture of Pantelleria". Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Note also, above you mention two German Divisions in Sicily, I assume you mean at the start of the campaign. At least four were employed in the campaign though I'd have to look up my notes to identify them with certitude (15th PGD, 90th PGD, HG PD and one Parachute D (1 or 2)). Without looking through my notes and sources I can't participate in the discussion about raw troop strength.--Caranorn (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The two German Divisions there at the start were the HG Pz and the 15th PzG. The Operation Husky order of battle article has 29PzG and 1st Parachute Div there as well. It looks like 29PzG arrived in the last week of July. Not sure about 1st Para but I have found descriptions of engagements involving them in the first half of August. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Two Sides of The Coin:Italo-German strength in Sicily

The book FROM THE NORMANDY BEACHES TO THE BALTIC SEA states that "The Axis garrison of 200,000 Italians and 30,000 Germans had no prospect of actually holding the island; but General Alaxander, commanding the 15th Army Group, exerted little control, and his army commanders, Patton and Montgomery, hammered out a course of action of their own [4]." The book THE ITALIAN ARMY 1940-1945: ITALY 1943-1945 says "The Axis forces defending Sicily, nominally under the command of General Guzzoni, consisted of 230,000 men including 40,000 German troops; these latter included elite units such as Gen Paul Conrath's Panzer Division 'Hermann Goring', north of Gela, and the 15th Panzer Grenadier Division[5]." And the book AERIAL INTERDICTION reports that "The German infantry numbered 32,000; the Italians 200,000[6]" and you would have to be simple-minded to conclude that the author is referring solely to foot-sloggers. And yes the author quotes Carlo D'Este when claiming the Germans shipped reinforcements to Sicily but where is there an online account or book of pilots straffing reinforcements heading to the island??? And what was the composition of these reinforcements???Now going back to the Axis numbers, the authors of the book SEA POWER:A NAVAL HISTORY report that "There were in Sicily two German and four Italian combat divisions, amounting to about 255,000 troops[7]." And the book WORLD WAR II GLIDER PILOTS claims that "Ten Italian and two German combat divisions totalling over 200,000 troops were waiting for the Allies in Sicily[8]." Even the ordinary soldiers of the Invasion force, like Hollis Stabler in the book NO ONE EVER ASKED ME report only about half the ridiculous figure now approximating 400,000 "Gozzoni's total resources by the end of June 1943 included six coastal divisions, two coastal brigades, one coastal regiment, four mobile divisions (a total of 200,000 men), and two mobile German divisions[9]. Another book, At The Water's Edge that goes into some detail says "The Italian Sixth Army, commanded by General d' Armata Alfredo Guzzoni, was responsible for the defense of the island. Before the arrival of German reinforcements in June, the Sixth Army consisted of two corps headquarters, five static coastal divisions, four mobile divisions, two coastal brigades, and other miscellaneous units for a total of two hundred thousand men[10]."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylikeadodo (talk • contribs) 01:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I already explained above that four German Divisions took part in the campaign. Though I seem to have mixed up two Panzergrenadier-Divisions. According to Mitcham and Stauffenberg: Hermann Göring Panzer-Division, 15. Panzergrenadier-Division, 29. Panzergrenadier-Division and the 1. Fallschirmjäger-Division. Of the Italians, five Coastal and four Infantry Divisions are clearly identified (202, 206, 207, 208 and 213 CD, 4, 26, 28 and 54 ID), also a large number of non divisional units. By the way, not only the simple-minded consider Infantry to mean just that, Infantry, excluding Armour, Artillery, Train etc.--Caranorn (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

Does anyone have/know somewhere where specific casualties for the German and Italian forces can be found? Such as captured and wounded because those are currently missing. Red4tribe (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

lacks the free french (as usual)

checked the order of battle article and the Free Fench were there, high command was british but the french fought there so you have to add the Free French flag in the combattants list. Cliché Online (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, although the OOB article shows just one Tabor (equivalent to a battalion) of goumiers. However, before making a change I would prefer to see a citation that the OOB is correct and that the tabor actually landed and fought in Sicily. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahah, right, and how did the French troops help? Ahhh, but they were Moroccan goumiers... Guess the most fighting they did was to undress and rape some local children. --95.235.233.39 (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Date

How can the allied invasion of Scilily come before the second battle of El Alamein? 86.15.144.198 (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It didn't. Where are you seeing this in Wikipedia? Student7 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah sorry, I misread the dates 86.15.144.198 (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Took Sicily from Fascism

Don't understand why the changes from Italian Fascism to Kingdom of Italy, an ally both in WWI and for the last year of WW II. The allies were fighting Germans and some Italians in Sicily. It seems to me that Mussolini, a fascist, dutifully declared an unpopular war against the US. Student7 (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Canadian participation

The Canadian participation section unbalances the article, giving undue prominence to the presence of a single formation. Most of the section is not about planning, which it should be, given the article's structure. I propose therefore to move this content to the 1st Canadian Infantry Division article which is more appropriate. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Coming back to this, I feel it totally inappropriate to have a special Canadian participation section. Much of it has nothing to do with Sicily and the rest is unbalanced (with respect to the rest of the article) and somewhat POV. I have moved some up to the Land forces section and the rest I have cut and am pasting here so it is not lost. It's better it should appear in a Canadian-specific article (say the 1st Canadian Division or Canada in the Second World War) but I leave that to someone else.Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Canadian participation

Canadians in Sicily: Troops of The Loyal Edmonton Regiment enter Modica.

The 1st Canadian Infantry Division was included in the Allied invasion of Sicily at the insistence of the Canadian Prime Minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, and the Canadian Military Headquarters in the UK. This request was granted by the British, displacing the veteran British 3rd Infantry Division. The change was not finalized until 27 April 1943, when General Andrew McNaughton, the commander of the First Canadian Army, deemed Husky to be a viable military undertaking and agreed to the detachment of both 1st Canadian Infantry Division and 1st Canadian Tank Brigade. The "Red Patch Division" was added to British XXX Corps to become part of the Eighth Army.

The Canadian forces were initially commanded by Major General H. L. N. Salmon, who died in an airplane accident in the early days of planning. He was succeeded by Major General Guy Simonds, whose lack of experience was offset by an impressive career and a formidable military intellect. The Canadians had served in the United Kingdom for a number of years, and before the Sicilian Campaign, considered themselves no more than "a sort of adjunct to the British Homeguard." They had, with some exceptions (like the Dieppe raid by the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division), not served under fire so far. Sicily would be the first divisional-scale combat operation in World War II for the Canadian Army. The Dieppe Raid had done nothing to still the voices in Canada clamouring about the inactivity of Canadian troops thus far into the war. The Canadian participation in this campaign quieted the uproar of the Canadian home front.

The 1st Canadian Division was always categorized as a branch of the British Army, despite its differences and individuality as an independent force. The Canadians, unlike the rest of 15th Army Group, had not yet served in the Mediterranean, and had not become acclimatized to its searing temperatures. That reality, combined with a shortage of transport caused by losses at sea, resulted in 1st Canadian Division and its tank brigade being halted just days into the operation, for a much needed rest until they became used to the climate conditions. The losses at sea included three supply ships carrying 500 vehicles. This left the infantrymen no alternative but to march through the shadeless, waterless, increasingly hilly terrain in temperatures above 40 °C (104 °F). Despite these conditions, the Canadian casualties were low, morale was high and success came easily and swiftly.

On the morning of 6 August, the Canadians' active participation in the Sicilian Campaign was brought to an end when the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Regiment took Monte Seggio. From here the Canadians played no further part in the battle for Sicily, which went on for another ten days, and were withdrawn into reserve for a well-earned rest. The Canadians had made a contribution to the campaign out of all proportion to their numbers. Their arduous 120 miles (190 km) trek from Pachino to the Simeto had taken them further than any other British division, and they had borne the brunt of the Eighth Army’s battle in the two hard weeks of fighting from Leonforte to the doorstep of Adrano. This earned them high praise from their Eighth Army commanders and comrades. The Canadians even impressed the Germans who stated they were "good soldier material" and even reported that "Canadians [are] harder in attack than Americans. In general fair ways of fighting. In fieldcraft superior to our own troops. Very mobile at night, surprise break-ins, clever infiltrations at night with small groups between our strong points." Most importantly, from a national perspective, they had also won Canada’s first victories of World War II. Mcnaughton responded with "Canada will be very pleased at your achievement [in Sicily]."

Overall, the Sicilian Campaign was a notably strong beginning to a string of various Canadian victories throughout the rest of World War II.

References

Edit war in the making?

I hope not. I have Undid revision 529951802 by Nirvana77 for as Wikipedians we are taught to "Assume Good Faith". As far as I can tell "Odds And Sods" has done his homework and consulted in the main "Allied" books, except for one or two "Italian" books to get some balance, and has provided the full name of the author, and the relevant book and page for us wikipedians to consult.--199.245.56.11 (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia page also reports that 116.681 Italians were captured and says that the Italians lost 4325 killed and 32.500 wounded. The page also claims that 4678 Germans were killed, 13.500 were wounded and 5532 captured. ODDSANDSODDS got it mixed up (the number of Italian dead with the actual number of German dead). I will make a few corrections regarding German casualties in the next few minutes.--178.18.250.167 (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Airborne Landings

I believe there is some confusion in this section's lead paragraph regarding the American drops. The article begins by describing the 505th's D-Day assault drop objectives, then confuses the narrative by describing the fratricide events involving the 504th's reinforcing drop 48 hours later - without noting the difference in unit, time, place, etc. It seems that whoever wrote this (or subsequently edited it?) mashed up the two events into a single episode. These were two separate drops involving two separate regiments, spaced 48 hours apart. 98.255.89.22 (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are talking about. Tried to unmerge the one report on the 505th and merge 504th with the report below. Probably needs more work. Student7 (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Language

I see no justification for the sudden addition of the American English banner. Until the recent change, all the words where there is a difference have been in British English (armour, defence, words ending in -ise, date formats etc) except in the use of proper names (eg 2nd Armored Division). It dpesn't matter who started the page, in accordance with WP:RETAIN it should remain in the form it has habitually been i.e. Br Eng. so I'm reverting the recent change. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'll leave the -ize words because it is a permitted alternative spelling in Br. Eng. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The originator of the article was User:PaulinSaudi on 27 June 2003. He is demonstrably an American. While I am also an American, I have before reverted articles to Brit Dialect, based on the same sort of analysis. (See, for example, [11]).

Actually this invasion one is one of the clearest I've found.

Once we reach "consensus", I think a dialect template should be placed to avoid further confusion. I think we can agree that American or Brit would have equal reason to presume their dialect, based on participation in the event (see WP:TIES).

Quote from policy: "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default."Student7 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a dogma fight on this, but I'd make the point that consensus was de facto reached a long time ago: the only use of American spelling currently is the -ize which is also allowable in Brit English. Going back over the last three years and further the spelling and date format used has consistently been British (except for proper names - X U.S. Armored Division) and so for whatever reasonthe use of British English in this article if firmly established. Your quotations of policy do not therefore pertain because an English variety has been established - and for a for a long time. As a result, the policy that rules should be the preceding paragraph: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change." We agree there is no strong national tie and there is no consensus or "valid reason" to change to American English. Therefore the article should not be changed. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 23:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really expect you to explore edits back to year zero, but you've provided analysis of three years out of ten. My basis is solely with the initiating editor, an American.

The dual use of -ize is a bit ironic since I find myself most often reverting well-meaning American editors to what I imagine is good British with -ise. Ah, well. Student7 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Most Brits would use -ise (as I would normally do) and some may be less relaxed about it. All I can say is that the Oxford English Dictionary actually favours -ize so there can be no justification in my view for getting into a s**tfight over this issue as long as -ise or -ize is used consistently throughout the article! Having said that, Wikipedia policy on English types focuses on whether "consistent usage has been established" in an article so my study of the last three years was to determine that a consensus for British English had been established during this period. Policy states that only if no consistent usage exists should one examine "the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety". My contention is that it was the former rather than the latter which applies in this case. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 08:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the allied attack in Sicily - origin not certain

I found this other page (see link hereunder) where the same picture is used to represent the bombardment of Bari. Can someone please verify if the picture is from Sicily or Bari?

http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/ships/id305.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.249.123 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Friendly Fire Losses

~300 American paratroopers were killed or wounded when an American naval squadron opened fire on them en route to their drop at 600 feet. I guess that is extraneous information, but I think it is very important. It is morale sapping and has a tinge of stupidity implied in the wrongful-firing forces, when the stupidity implied lies with the implementers lack of completeness and thus competence- a vastly far more dangerous implication as it concerns a component of the very command structure itself rather than a score of apparently poorly reigned gunners.

And double so on archival information meant to benefit i.e.: put this topic not only in the context of such material but of course into the awareness of everyone reading it, especially a young person accessing it who is pursuing a military career and studies made by this person in the past may save lives in the future.

Once again, it should be addressed as part of each such documentation/study/war collage to allow human-beings to encompass a complete thus competent ability to dot "every i and cross every t", so to speak. An "orientation" on such a topic is almost useless and while it is known as the current manner of addressing this topic of several branches of the American military services, it is also known that during World War II "when the British fire, the Germans duck, when the Germans fire, the allies duck, when the Americans fire, everyone ducks".

For What It's Worth: Should be not only included, but also be known as a component of the primary results data (a implementation indicator, and implementation makes, impairs or breaks any plan) on after action reports tendered to command. This puts it again in the thought-order of the human-beings that comprise (a/the) command. The highest command will be especially attentive. Their "plan" was ingenious perhaps, but in an aspect(logistic awareness in this case) was poorly executed by one or a few of those that comprise their staff, other secretaries, adjuncts and liaisons- what else is not being thought through by those that "also serve" that may end up in a failed operation in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.238.33.2 (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Peak Strength, Initial Strength?

De facto, the number of allied soldiers reached nearly the amount of 500,000 in Sicily. It is quite weird the way it has been made the distinction between the initial and the peak strength. it is really misleading!! Magnagr (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction in the fate of the USS Maddox

This article states the Maddox was sunk by Italian Stukas but it's own article states it was sunk by a German Ju 88. Both claims are sourced.

Could someone clear this up please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.114.6 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is only available in snippets; from what I can see on Google Books it only mentions an unidentified bomber. According to [12] and [13] it was a specific German JU-88. The Italian article also says German aircraft. Ian Lancaster (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Allied invasion of Sicily. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503114041/http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part16.htm to http://www.remuseum.org.uk/corpshistory/rem_corps_part16.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060115105230/http://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries/sr.php to http://www.abmc.gov/cemeteries/cemeteries/sr.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Allied invasion of Sicily. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040826005615/http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/operations/sicilianitalian_e.html to http://warmuseum.ca/cwm/newspapers/operations/sicilianitalian_e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311125937/http://www.provincia.ct.it/Il_Territorio/La_Rete_Museale/Museo_dello_sbarco_in_Sicilia/indexEng.asp to http://www.provincia.ct.it/Il_Territorio/La_Rete_Museale/Museo_dello_sbarco_in_Sicilia/indexEng.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Occorrerebbe dire che da parte degli Stati Maggiori delle Forze Armate italiane e e dei Comandi tedeschi in Italia l’operazione di sbarco degli in Sicilia era attesa e, contrariamente a quanto troppo spesso viene affermato con troppa enfasi, non generò alcuna sorpresa nei comandi dell’Asse, dal momento che non servirono ad ingannarli i vari espedienti realizzati dagli Alleati. Il più famoso fu quello del cadavere di un uomo deceduto in Inghilterra di polmonite e che, sotto il nome fittizio di “maggiore Martin” e per simularne la morte per annegamento, fu mollato in mare dal sommergibile Serap e fatto arenare sulle coste spagnole di Cadice, con lettere contraffatte di alti ufficiali britannici che indicavano la Grecia quale obiettivo dello sbarco. Nessuna forza tedesca, com’è stato sostenuto per vantare il presunto successo dell’Operazione “Martin”, lasciò la Sicilia che, anzi, fu per quanto possibile rinforzata. In definitiva, e con buona pace per chi ci crede, l’Operazione “Martin” non servì a nulla.

Francesco Mattesini

Roma, 18 Gennaio 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.233.224 (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Strangely pro-Italian/Axis slant to whole article

As a non-expert reading this article for the first time, it's striking how odd the general tone is. It gives the overall impression that the Italians/Axis won the battle for Sicily. Every single action is described in terms of Italian forces "fighting off", "pushing back", "breaking through" various Allied units. It's extremely strange. Perhaps a concerted (and perhaps justified?) effort to highlight the brave resistance of many Axis troops has gone too far. There are more descriptions of Italians winning actions than losing, which surely, considering the end result, cannot be an accurate description of the campaign. 2001:B07:2E2:DFDC:B4A3:3B06:DC25:7A78 (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

For the better part of 80 years, most popular sources have portrayed the Italian Army as totally inept, and what we may call "pushovers" and "surrender monkeys". If that's not really the case, and they had tactical successes, then that information should be recorded. History is history.

If you ever watched the movie Patton, that script made it sound like only the Germans (Hermann Goering Division) put up stiff resistance. Didn't mention the Italian Army at all during the scenes concerning the actual combat during Operation Husky, which is in itself propaganda as the Italians made up the majority of Sicily's defending forces. In a previous scene leading up to the invasion, it is mentioned that Eisenhower felt the Italians would put up stiff resistance since they were defending Italian territory, but the viewer is led to believe that it was a bloody campaign because of the Germans and that the Italians were nowhere to be found. I mention a movie, because it's Hollywood where most people get their history from. If they want more accurate information, they should be able to find it through reputable, scholarly sources such as those used on Wikipedia.

Both sides suffered horrendous combat losses (for a western theater campaign). It wasn't all due to just the Germans fighting the Allies.

Was the Italian military the best out there? No, I think most could agree on that. But, they had their moments and some units were better trained and motivated than others. In the final analysis, the Allies won due to sheer numbers. They had to keep dumping more troops into that meat grinder in order to win. RRskaReb talk 03:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)