This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Might this article (especially the Background..Afika Corp section) read a bit better were the English translations of German unit designations to be used--as is typical of most such articles? Giving the German designation parenthetically (if desired) would be more consistent.
Juan Riley (
talk)
17:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Probably but I'd put translations in parentheses on the first use of a German term like an abbreviation. I've experimented with permutations of using German/Italian/French terms about German/Italian/French units and code names etc, using them in parentheses as illumination and local colour, doing them first in German/Italian/French sections and other methods and never been really satisfied with the result.
Keith-264 (
talk)
17:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Not complaining...but things like this: "5. leichte-Division 's (mot)" don't scan well for me as an American English reader. I don't think I have run across such in other WWII articles. But who knows. I do like the extra info if added as parenthetical once. I will live with it one way or another. :)
Juan Riley (
talk) 17:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC) PS. Damn..no prickly pear in that picture.
Juan Riley (
talk)
17:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. ;O) I only stumbled on this article when I was having a rest from the Western Front 1915-1917 and don't have that many sources for the technical details. Unfortunately, work has got in the way so I'm only bitting and bobbing. No cacti on the UiC allotments ;O)
Keith-264 (
talk)
17:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Added more material but it needs a ce when it's finished, particularly the periodisation.
Keith-264 (
talk) 11:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Got most of the narrative done, need to do the Aftermath section.
Keith-264 (
talk)
13:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Clarifications
The background section needs some expansion. British victory over whom? When? How? Just a summary and perhaps a link to the appropriate article establishing why Directive 22 was created.
Formation of the Afrika Korps (change subheading?)
I cannot find Mersa Brega (and others) on your map.
distances between some of these locations? Part of the problem DAK faced was the distance, and how far their units were stretched.
Hello auntie, thanks for replying. I don't think it's good, hence the C grade request but I can expand the background and add to the Directive easily enough.
The Afrika Korps section was already there but I can adapt it accordingly
I can look for a better map but am limited to what's in commons
I thought that Skorpion was in far worse shape than this but I see what you mean about it still being a bit of a dog's dinner. Regards
Keith-264 (
talk)
23:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Are Rommel's actions on the ground described in the "Battle" section really part of Sonnenblume? I thought that was merely the codename of the troop transfer.
Srnec (
talk)
22:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
In this article it just says "British Empire". This is not the way commonwealth and Indian participation is called out in the infobox of other similar articles. E.g., second battle of El Alamein.
Juan Riley (
talk)
00:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)reply
So
Keith-264 we should re-visit the infoboxes of all the other articles of WWII and replace UK with British empire and save a lot of ink by deleting Canada, Australia, .....?
Juan Riley (
talk)
19:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)reply
German tank losses
"103–107 German tanks were knocked out but many were recovered later and repaired.[50]"
Should this more accurate reflect they were damaged, largely through wear and tear; rather than knocked out. Jentz for example, notes that the German records show a mere 3 knocked out during the period, several more damaged. Other sources indicate the large mechanical losses from their dash through the desert.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
18:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Just to follow this up: Jentz, p.82: 1 or 2 tanks knokced out on mines; p.101: 3 knocked out from British action, and an unknown number damaged; pp. 101-102: 83 in the workshops from mechanical issues.
EnigmaMcmxc (
talk)
18:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply