Talk:Italian invasion of Egypt

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

Information[edit]

Does anyone know what the casualties were for the invasion?Red4tribe (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macksey's book only states that the Italian casualties were 120 killed and 410 wounded (page 40). Not a great source, but easy to look through quickly. Cheers! Mkpumphrey (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macksey also confirms the 40 British killed. Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page number requested[edit]

A page number has been requested for the reference from the following source: Titterton, G.A.; Brown, David. The Royal Navy and the Mediterranean. Great Britain Admiralty. I have been adding a few items to flesh this article out (the was NO link to the Western Desert Force), but that reference was in there when I started. Good luck! Mkpumphrey (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information removed from info box[edit]

British 36,000 troops/Playfair, p. 93/Playfair, Chapter XI/85 Tanks/Playfair, p. 206; Of the 85 cruiser tanks in Egypt, 15 were in workshops at the beginning of September/150 Guns<ref name="Operation Compass">http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/wwii1.htm</ref>/48 Fighters <ref name="Operation Compass">http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/wwii1.htm '''Italian''' 215,000/Black, p. 57/200 Tanks/Andrew, p. 9/400 Guns<ref name="Operation Compass">[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/wwii1.htm Operation Compass]/190 Fighters<ref name="Operation Compass">[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/wwii1.htm Operation Compass]

Going off other military articles and comments made for other article during reviews, this is too much information in the infobox and should be worked into the main body of the article instead. The information has been placed here for temp storage.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strength[edit]

Italian strength:
The citation reads: "The "Libyan Corps included the 1st Libyan Colonial Infantry Division, the 2nd Libyan Colonial Infantry Division, and the "Maletti Group" -- the other Italian units involved were the Cirene Infantry Division, the Marmarica Infantry Division, the 1st Blackshirt Infantry Division, and the 2nd Blackshirt Infantry Division (other than the 1st Blackshirt, the other three appear to have hung back)"
Is there an actual source which backs this position up?
As for the British strength, i dont believe showing that the Western Desert Force was made up of two divisions qualifies as a citation to prove the actual strength, considering i dont believe the 4th Indian Division was up to strength or in the desert to oppose the invasion.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning "Is there an actual source which backs this position up?" Yes, the "The Italian Army 1940-45 (2): Africa 1940-43" book by Osprey has a breakdown of the divisionns that initially made-up the 5th Army and 10th Army. Then, using the text of Kenneth Macksey's book "Beda Fomm: the classic victory," it is easy to determine which divisions from the 5th Army ended up in the 10th and which divisions were supposed to take part in the advance into Egypt. Because so much of the 5th Army was transferred to the 10th Army, many sources simply indicate that both armies advanced into Egypt. I have my doubts about much of this, but the "both armies" idea seems to be wrong. HOWEVER, as I indicate, three of the divisions in the invasion force are hardly mentioned anywhere and appear to have hung back (or maybe the 1st Blackshirt Division just gor an inordinate portion of the glory). The same units that appear to have "hung back" are also located towards the rear when Operation Compass is launched against the Italian camps in December. Maybe they got as far as they were supposed to go and stopped. Long story short, I know I have an Italian book in the attic of my garage that clearly sets all of this straight. But, until I get out there ... Cheers! Mkpumphrey (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the British strength, neither division in the WDF appears to have been up to strength. I think divisions were more uselful than the numbers that indicated that the British had 36,000 men in the whole theater of operation and the Italians had 250,000. IMHO, that was really useless as far as how many troops were involved in the invasion. Cheers! Mkpumphrey (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote #14[edit]

I now quote the text from page 47 word for word. Mkpumphrey (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is gone. Mkpumphrey (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote numbers will change when new citations are added or old ones are merged etc I cant see any mention within the entire article of page 47, are you sure you added the citation in?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Commanders[edit]

Ok before anyone else gets added i think we need to look at this the correct way. The invasion from the British perspective was a delaying action until they were in a position to counterattack at Mersa Matruh.

They delaying action fell to the 7th Armoured Division's, 7th Support Group - under the commander of Brigadier Gott. We have a citation for this.

For example, in the Operation Brevity article the commanders shown are Wavell (the theater commander, due to the operation being his idea) and Gott (the brigade commander in charge of the operation) - divisional and Corps commanders are missed out as they were irrelevent and did not take part. Now one is questioning why Wavell (again the theater commander) or O'Connor (the Corps commander) should be shown. Did they have any sort of active role in these 4 days? One would think the only other allied commander need to be shown would be the CO of the 7th Armoured division as Gotts superior - but then his he even relevent to the article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Kenneth Macksey, O'Connor was responsible for the plan. So I would include him. Wavell gets his mentions elsewhere ("Noth Africa Campaign" and "Western Desert Campaign" level) and his name need not be in the campaign box for this article. However, I would keep all three Italians. I have seen Mussolini included in a few campaign boxes, but luckily that is not the issue here. My two cents. 71.166.48.71 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the removal of the Indian and New Zeeland flags from the campaign box, no big deal. Seems to follow with what is indicated above. Howver, the official history for the 11th Hussars indicates that they had some "Rhodesians" in with them. But, since there was not Rhodesian unit (and because it is not mentioned whether they were Northern or Southern), I would leave that flag out too should it ever pop up. Cheers! 71.166.48.71 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inconclusive[edit]

Why was this changed to inconclusive? It may not have been very pretty, but it was an Italian victory. Red4tribe (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source which states that this was an Italian victory change it back and add the citation in. Although I can understand why it has been changed, considering the Italian army advanced only a short way into Egypt, did not complete there objectives and did not inflict any sort of defeat onto the allied force. But again i think there should be some sort of citation to back up that the result of this was inconclusive.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will add a citation for the "Inconclusive" indication. As pointed out above, the Italians fell short of their objectives and inflicted little damage. Realistically, it might be seen as more appropriate to indicate that the Italians achieved a "tactical victory" while the British achieved a "strategic victory." But the Italians achieved more of a "moral victory" if even that. I like the "inconclusive" indication. Had the Italians successfully continued on to Mersa Matruh, there might be an arguement for a victory. It was not just that this "invasion" was not "very pretty," it was not very meaningful either. My two cents. 71.166.48.71 (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's inconclusive because, except for a small British screening force, both sides simply never meet.134.2.246.105 (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "The goal of the offensive was to seize the Suez Canal" then the operation was an Italian defeat. They failed to even reach the Canal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The goal was Sidi Barrani; the next stage was interrupted by Compass. The Italian strategy failed but this article isn't about the strategy, it's about Operation E. Keith-264 (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After numerous delays, the scope of the offensive was reduced to an advance as far as Sidi Barrani, with attacks on British forces in the area.

Keith-264 (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Image[edit]

Italian tanks advancing across the desert
Italian tanks advancing across the desert

I've removed this image of Italian M13 tanks from the article; the image is dated 1941, while this campaign was in September 1940. Also, the M13 wasn't available in North Africa until December; the only Italian armour in this campaign were L3/35s and a few Fiat M11/39s.
It's a pity, because it's a good image, but it's completely anachronistic. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ce[edit]

Swapped to SFNs to make it easier to integrate new material and added generic sections from WDC article.Keith-264 (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oob question[edit]

Are jack-in-the-box oobs deprecated now? Keith-264 (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

@202.67.46.17: can you provide a citation for the oob edit pls? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kablammo: Thanks for the scrutiny it's much appreciated. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome Keith. I may tweak it a little more; feel free to edit my changes if you wish. Kablammo (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least someone reads it. :o) Keith-264 (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spring cleaned the article, moved a few links to first mention, repaired a few linguistic infelicities, typos and grammatical errors, anglicised some spellings. Auto Ed, Engvar B, checked for dupe wikilinks. Keith-264 (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties[edit]

@95.232.97.44: Have I got the British and Italian casualties the right way round? Keith-264 (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CE[edit]

Did a tidy up then changed my mind about some italicisation then tidied up several mistakes. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian victory[edit]

The Italian victory was not decisive, as they could not invade Egypt at all. They only controlled the city of Sidi Barani, and then the British and Egyptian forces carried out a counter operation called the Bursa operation, and after that they succeeded in incursions into Libya and overthrew Italian Libya in the Second Battle of El Alamein--Ahmed88z (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is not a reliable source. Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the article is 9 - 16 September. Within that scope, it was an Italian victory confirmed by the sources. MOS:MIL is quite explicit on permitted terms. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives as its scope: the Italian incursion into Egypt between 9 - 16 September 1940 that resulted in the occupation of Sidi Barrani. Keith-264, as you appear to be one who is on-top of the sources for this article, would you care to list those sources which explicitly or implicitly refer to this as an "Italian victory". If such sources cannot be viewed online, would you please quote sufficient to show the context of such statements. I would extend the same to any other editor. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on nights at the moment so it will have to wait until next week. regards Keith-264 (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found that other articles such as French, German, Spanish, Chinese article concludes this battle as "strategic victory for Allies" or "Indecisive". And I found there is no mention for "Operazione E" in other articles, even in Italian. So, I think there are two problems here. First is whether "Operazione E" is used in the same meaning as "Italian invasion of Egypt". And second is whether there is evidence that contradicts the decision of "Italy's decisive victory."

I already found the references that is against for "Italy's decisive victory", Kenneth Macksey, Beda Fomm: Classic Victory, p. 47. And it mentioned that Mussolini thought this battle was much beneficent to British than Italian. -- Wendylove (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

웬디러비, WP is not a source. We rely on what the reliable sources say and a consensus view of the sources. Further, other Wikis have different standards compared with En Wiki. Nobody is suggesting that the Italian victory was decisive. "Decisive" can have a variety of meanings, depending on the context. More importantly though, MOS:MIL gives quite explicit guidance wrt the result parameter, including that it is the immediate outcome of the event. There is no doubt that the Italian gains were limited and short lived (a matter of months) but this is not the immediate result. As to the absence of references you raise per "Operazione E", there are a number of reasonable explanations and the extent of sources relied upon stands out to me. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Operazione E was the Italian code name for the invasion of Egypt. If you want I will provide a source. Playfair describes the invasion but doesn't call it anything. I will continue delving but I'm at work again so tomorrow is the earliest I can put something here. PS it is "Italian victory" there's no "decisive" (i.e. war deciding) mentioned anywhere in the article. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

(for biblio details see article)

  • Macksey "But Graziani had gone both as far as he intended and dared, and only that distance because his gunners had kept the British at bay." p. 41
  • Raugh "After covering the 65 or so miles of barren desert to Sidi Barrani - where the metalled road into Egypt begins - in four days, Graziani halted unexpectedly, after suffering some 2,000 casualties, compared to less than fifty for the British. p. 85 Keith-264 (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRZW "...Mussolini, who felt his judgement had been vindicated by his Marshal's successful operation...Graziani had no intention whatever of continuing the offensive at once." p.276
  • Pitt "It gradually became evident that this was where they intended to stay." p. 54 Keith-264 (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

Due to ongoing edit warring, this article has been protected for 1 week. Please use this time to discuss and come to a consensus on what the article should say. Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 10 September 2021[edit]

Regarding the victory of Italy, Italy did not win this war decisively, as it advanced and took control of the city of Sidi Barani only and for a short time, after which the British forces attacked the Italian forces and captured a large number of them, and even occupied Cyrenaica in Libya and then Italian Libya fell Ahmed88z (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Will need discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent numbers[edit]

The number of casualties mentioned in the third paragraph of the introduction doesn't match the number of Casualties and Losses listed in the table in the right sidebar. Chuckc192000 (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number in the third paragraph is for Operation Compass, not the Italian invasion of Egypt. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

@DuncanHill: Commendably quick reactions Duncan, how now? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why put few flags?[edit]

Keith-274 Why put few flags . I mean Every Battle I saw in Wikipedia has a flag all of them.Can you tell me why? Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong IP . I mean [Keith-264]] Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Morning, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Infobox#What_should_an_infobox_not_contain?

Flags. Flag icons should generally 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. my bolding. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Italian_invasion_of_Egypt&oldid=1207756356"