Talk:Operation Battleaxe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Random information[edit]

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/pdf/m-6mineban.pdf

THE MILITARY CONSEQUENCES OF A COMPLETE LANDMINE BAN

pg. 15

"Other anecdotal accounts of the use of antitank mines in World War II exist. One of the earliest occurred at Halfaya Pass in Egypt, during Operation BATTLEAXE (15-17 June 1941). In that engagement the British lost four of 18 Infantry tanks to antitank mines, while 11 were lost to AT guns and enemy tanks."

[1]

Operation Battleaxe went badly for the British. The Germans used anti-tank guns to kill tanks while using tanks against infantry and trucks. The British had thought that you needed to use your tanks to kill other tanks. They had the disadvantage of having a small tank gun (the 40mm 2pdr). The Germans had a very small number of 88mm FlAK36 guns that were used in the anti-tank role. During Battleaxe, there were about 5 at Halfaya Pass, 4 "at Hafid ridge", and 4 operating with one panzer regiment (the 8th). After the battle, the British assumed that the Germans must have tanks that had a better gun than they did, and that accounted for their many tank losses. In fact, it seems that they were mostly killed by anti-tank guns. The Germans also had the advantage of good tank recovery equipment and organization. The British had almost none. When the British were forced to withdraw, they left behind knocked tanks that were repairable, because they had no way to recover them.


Doesnt this second part take away from the fact the 2 pounder was quite effective and how the British used there tanks and decent repair serive which was in place and constently being updated----

Google books[edit]

Discrepancies[edit]

  • British artillery at Halfaya?
    • Didn't fire since artillery was bogged down in soft sand - The Crucible of War
    • Did fire, but had no effect as the garrison was bunkered down at the time - Afrika Korps - Time-Life
    • Did fire, but the concentration of fire missed, "falling in the empty wadi between the Third and the FlaK", the garrison also bunkered down - Panzer Aces II: Battle Stories of German Tank Commanders of WWII

Initial strength[edit]

Losses[edit]

Minor change[edit]

Hi, I've just changed the sentence stating that v. Brauchitsch was commander of the Wehrmacht into a more accurate form. v. Brauchitsch was only C--i-C of the Heer, or ground forces, a separate branch of the Wehrmacht as a whole. C-i-C of the Wehrmacht was Hitler himself, although he assumed Brauchitsch's position in late 1941 when he blamed the Field Marshal for the failure of Operation Typhoon. 217.247.250.221 19:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things to resolve[edit]

  • When did the operations name get changed from "Bruiser" to "Battleaxe"? Why did it change?
  • Where all Italian forces part of the Trento Division?
  • What of the attack on Bardia (supposedly defended by Leutnant Tocki)
  • Need to get reliability figures for each of the authors used
    • Was Messervy's headquarters really attacked three times during the operation?

Oberiko 20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

images[edit]

A Matilda tank in the "hull-down" position at the front lines just prior to the start of Battleaxe

Prelude[edit]

"These tanks arrived with many mechanical faults (including a lack of sand filters for the engines) on arrival and required extensive servicing.[8] They were scheduled for use in rebuilding the 7th Armoured Division (the Desert Rats), which had been previously dissolved, with the cruiser tanks going to the 7th Armoured Brigade and the infantry tanks going to the 4th Armoured Brigade."


Ok question about this, i was under the impression that this wasnt an actualy problem and that most equipment shipped out of North Africa was made desert worthy once it got there, not before it left for Africa.

Also am confused by the last point, 4th and 7th Armoured brigade were part of the Division at this time. 7th Armoured had not been shipped off to Burma by this point and the 4th Brigade had not been detached from the division as it was later in the war.

Stating that the division was disolved and the tanks were sent to these two brigades makes no sence so am delting it for now. The truth is by the end of Operation compass most tanks were in repair shops or non repairable and thats why the division was out of action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "RAF"[edit]

124.169.28.37 is me. Regarding the recent dispute, use of "RAF" in regard to the North African Campaign is a little like the ever-popular and always erroneous use of "British" as shorthand for Commonwealth forces, or references to the "British Eighth Army". In the first place, note that the Desert Air Force article actually covers preceding "RAF" formations, which is only proper as there was continuity in terms of command and mission. Second, the air forces of the Dominions were separate and controlled by sovereign countries. I haven't checked the numbers, but it is likely that South African Air Force (SAAF), Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), RCAF and RNZAF personnel, including many in distinct SAAF and RAAF units, would have vastly outnumbered UK air force personnel in North Africa, at all stages of the campaign. At the very least they were highly significant. Grant 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont see the point of brining up the Eighth Army or why there should be any discussion on referring to as the British Eighth Army or even just the Eighth Army. It was a British formation, subordanite to it was of course many different nationalities but that doesnt mean it wasnt "British".
For example, the 1st Canadian Army, which had a Polish division and a British Corp under its command but the army is still Canadian. American Armies with French divisions under its command or Soviet Armies which had Polish forces making them up etc
To my understanding if these allied forces were operating under a R.A.F. HQ, the term would be correct. Although i dont know if this is the case at this point during the Desert War.

--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobruk 1941: Rommel's Opening Move, pg 26 gives the Order of Battle for Battleaxe as being "202 Group RAF" and "204 Group RAF". It also specifically shows some RAAF and SAAF units as being parts of those groups. Do you have a source which shows otherwise? Oberiko (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If i remember correctly that books main source was the official history, which am pretty sure would have put the correct tactical formations such as RAF Groups etc.

Which again boils down to, even though it had other national squadrons making up the Group it was still a RAF Group and not say an Australian or south African.

Although stating all that, theres no harm in highlighting a paticular nations squadron within the article and am not attempting to imply in any of these replies that the efforts made by the other nations other then the British contribution was less.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I've done is had 204 Group RAF linked to Desert Air Force since that was the unit which was basically transformed into the latter. Oberiko (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EnigmaMcmxc, this is an old chestnut; it was always known simply as the "Eighth Army" to those involved. The name "British Eighth Army" stems from non-Commonwealth (e.g. US and German) news reports and historiography. (I am resigned to the current article being called "Eighth Army (United Kingdom)" but that is a poor compromise IMO, compared to say Eighth Army (Allied).)

Oberiko, see the relevant RAAF official history John Herington, Second World War Volume III – Air War Against Germany and Italy, 1939–1943 (1st edition, 1954), in which those units are referred to simply as "202 Group" and "204 Group". There was also 201 Group, which had responsibility for maritime patrols.

This all goes back to the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, which was essentially a defence co-operation treaty between sovereign countries. The fact that this relationship was unusually close and cohesive for separate air forces is mostly a result of previous historical ties, but these make them no less separate. As with the Commonwealth Article XV squadrons and No. 6 Group RCAF, the numbers of squadrons/wings/groups in North Africa were chosen to avoid confusion with RAF and other Commonwealth units, not because they were "RAF" units. Similarly, "233 Wing", which was always made up entirely of South African squadrons (although these featured personnel from other Commonwealth air forces), later changed its name to the unambiguous "No. 7 Wing SAAF".

I haven't even touched on the not-insignificant role of Polish, Free French and other European aviators in the Allied squadrons.

That is why "Allied air forces" is more accurate than "RAF", with "British Commonwealth air forces" a distant second. Grant 15:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, must say I'm a little confused. Is "204 Group RAF" a correct term? And if so, is there both a "204 Group" (not officially part of the RAF) and a "204 Group RAF"? Oberiko (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a disjuncture in terminology between two countries which had a stake in said units. Not quite as bad as WW1, when the British military used names (67, 68, 69 and 71 Sqn), for Australian Flying Corps squadrons, which were not used or recognised by those squadrons (actually 1-4 Sqn AFC). But I digress.  ;-) Grant 16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I have this, the U.K. referred to these groups as "204 Group RAF", while other Commonwealth nations simply referred to it as "204 Group". Oberiko (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"EnigmaMcmxc, this is an old chestnut; it was always known simply as the "Eighth Army" to those involved."
Well of course it has been, that doesnt stop the fact that it was in fact a "British" Army. If i had belong to it, from whatever nation i wouldnt be standing shouting i belong to the British 8th Army, but simply the 8th Army. The British official history even calls it just that, the 8th army. However since we are not in said army and are writing about it, it seems appropriate at least once on its first mention to call it as it is the British Eighth Army.

Again talking about simlars, the British 1st Army was also multinational but was still the British First Army, however to keep mentioning throughout an article unless there was two first armies in action would seem redundent. i.e. the American and Canadian first armies in Normandy would require you to keep stating it to avoid confusion while once established the British Second Army would not.


"Hmm, must say I'm a little confused. Is "204 Group RAF" a correct term? And if so, is there both a "204 Group" (not officially part of the RAF) and a "204 Group RAF"? "

It was only a RAF Group, however they were made up of multinational forces.

Correct title based off how it is indexed in the Official History would be:

Royal Air Force in the Middle East: Group 201, Group 204, Group 205

When writing about them however in the official history they are simpley noted by there Group names without RAF infront of them.

For an example, from Pg385 from Volume III "Behind them No.205 Group had ....."

Squadrons however appear to be singled out with there respective arm after the squadron name i.e. 1st Squadron R.A.F., 1st Squadron F.A.A., 1st Squadron R.A.A.F. etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say "that doesnt stop the fact that it was in fact a 'British' Army". According to whom? There is no doubt that many sources (even some official ones) refer to it as such. That is simply a reflection of lazy language, and in itself does not make the name technically or factually correct. However, the Imperial War Museum generally refers to it simply as the "Eighth Army". Many of us from other Commonwealth countries object strongly to the use of "British" as shorthand for things which were not officially called that at the time (the British Pacific Fleet is an exception, because that really was its name) and have little to with the UK. Consider that many, perhaps most, of the Commonwealth personnel who were in North Africa did not set foot in the UK in their entire lives. The issue is exactly the same as that of the air force Wings and Groups.
The RAF was rather selective, if/when it specified which air force a squadron belonged to. It tended to refer to Article XV squadrons as (e.g.) "No. 400 Squadron" or "No. 488 Squadron" (i.e. omitting the technically correct "RCAF" and "RNZAF"). All of the Article XV squadrons were in the "400-series", but a lay person would not necessarily know that. Conversely, the RAF was forced to use qualifiers when mentioning the SAAF squadrons (and No. 3 Squadron RAAF) because they were not part of Article XV and could be confused with similarly-numbered RAF squadrons, due to the lack of a "4-" at the start of their name.
As an aside, the correct style is "No. 1 Squadron...." (not "1st Squadron....") and "No. 1 Group" (not "Group 1") however it may appear in some publications. Conversely, some Commonwealth official histories insist on referring to "No. 1 Squadron USAAF" (etc) when the correct style for US units was "1st Fighter Squadron USAAF", "1st Bomber Squadron USAAF" etc, depending on their role.
Grant 09:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the typo, I wasn’t questioning the style UK or CW Squadrons etc should be written in.

As for the Eighth Army, you will note am not objecting to calling it that within the article. What am objecting about is calling it some i.e. allied etc You will also note I stated that even the Official History simply refers to it as the Eighth Army, ala the war museum as you have mentioned and as we know the people who made it up. If I was writing a book on the subject this would be how I would refer to the army too.

However, regarding: “According to whom?”

How many Orders of Battles will you find an Eighth Army on? Which Order of Battle did this Eighth Army appear on? It was a British Field Army, it wasn’t an Australian, Canadian, French, Greek, New Zealand, Indian one or any other nationaility which made it up.

Am not trying to downplay there role, am an avid desert war “fan” for lack of a better word at the moment and I know how much they all played there part, but as you mentioned regarding making laymen aware …. Do you not think they should be made appear that this was a British Field Army at least once, to state anything else would be incorrect and misinformation.

It’s the same about the RAF Groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 10:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my point and I won't debate this any longer.
The facts remain: these units were never "British"/"RAF" according to their official names and they included significant numbers of non-British Army/non-RAF personnel; it is absolutely correct to refer to them as "Allied" units and; by calling them "British", we misrepresent thousands of people, who died fighting for countries other than the UK.
Over and out. (PS Perhaps the number "Eighth" makes some people think it a British field army; I have already mentioned that there were no RAF squadrons numbered 400-99. Likewise there was no "No. 6 Group RAF" during the war because No. 6 Group RCAF was a major part of Bomber Command... I hope I never live to see Desert Air Force (United Kingdom).) Grant 12:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, hangon Grant. No. 6 Group was indeed active at times before being Canadian-ised. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 09:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealanders didn't get separate citizenship until 1949. For Australians it was 1948. Canadians were still British until 1946.
So "British" is technically correct for all citizens of the British Empire at the time, excepting the protectorates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italian contribution during Operation Battleaxe[edit]

A new defense tactic employed by the Germans proved the undoing of Wavell's forces. Use of the 88mm anti-aircraft gun as an anti-tank gun would prove murderously successful. Hafid Ridge and Halfaya Pass held all 13 of Rommel's 88mm. They waited until the British armor were within one thousand yards, then opened fire from concealed positions, laying waste to British armor and infantry, and holding the pass. The above paragraph has been extracted from [5]

I have pointed out in the main wiki page about OPERATION BATTLEAXE that Major Leopoldo Pardi was in command of six of the Italian-manned anti aircraft guns that caused so much havoc among the British tank crews and have included the following online source[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse (talk • contribs) 05:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Forces[edit]

This is a bit confusing; if the Coast Force attacked Halfaya, on the escarpment, did the Escarpment Force attack Capuzzo from along the coast? Are these forces the right way round? An idea of where they started from would be helpful. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Order of Battle[edit]

This section states that "Both the 4th Indian Infantry Division and 7th Armoured Division were understrength". There appears to be an element of double-counting here - 7th Armoured was present in full strength - 7th Armoured Brigade, 4th Armoured Brigade and 7th Support Group were all present - just that 4th Armoured Brigade was seconded to the understrength 4th Indian Division for the battle. Or am I missing something? Scartboy (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine tanks?[edit]

Hello,

Just thought I'd point out that this article includes a mention of the Valentine tank which didn't see field duty until after Battleaxe.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.115.151 (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CE[edit]

Altered some refs which had red on.Keith-264 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous sentence[edit]

After reading most of the article, I can not understand that paraphrase at all: "The 11th Infantry Brigade renewed their attack on Halfaya Pass, but met with same failure as the day prior. Bach′s forces—though outnumbered and running low on supplies—were now totally surrounded, and thus could not retreat even if they were inclined to do so..." So, may anyone explain the meaning of that paraphrase through identifying who Bach is, and what is the contrast between being outnumbered and being encircled? Regards.Ti2008 (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicons Comment[edit]

Icons Avoid flag icons in infoboxes Shortcuts: 

   WP:INFOBOXFLAG
   MOS:INFOBOXFLAG

Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.

Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions include military conflict infobox templates and infoboxes that include international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The documentation of a number of common infoboxes (e.g. Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox Weapon) have long explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons.

The use of ship registry flags and International Code of Signals flags in infoboxes of ship articles is appropriate.

As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality", "sport nationality" or equivalent field: they may give undue prominence to one field over others. However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport.

Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes; however, physical geographic articles – for example, islands, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, swamps, etc. – should not. Where a single article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g. Manhattan, which covers both the borough of New York City and the island of the same name), or where the status of the territory is subject to a political dispute, the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not.Keith-264 (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CE[edit]

Found missing citations or rm uncited sentences, one having waited since 2012....Keith-264 (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Battleaxe&oldid=1216272614"