Talk:Operation Crusader

How can Axis lose 850 aircraft if they had only 320 of them in the beginning? And all but 28 of their tanks? Should those be Allied casualties? Hello Latre, Your question is answered by the following passage:

"Rommel seeing an opportunity (together with a need to relieve pressure on the wavering Italians) gathered his Panzer divisions and counter-attacked, with reinforced air support from the Luftwaffe, over the Egyptian frontier into the British rear areas." So the DAK started out with only 320 planes avalable, but were later reinforced to over 800. Perhaps the battlebox should be edited to reflect this. As for the tanks, those ARE Axis casualties. It was not unusual for Rommel to lose most or nearly all of his tanks. The Italian tanks were all but useless and virtually DoA. What few Panzers he had, had to always face more and more heavily armoured British tanks as well as the rigors of the desert climate. Keeping his paucity of panzers as operational and effective as he did was, IMO, a military accomplishment on par with Hannibal's crossing of the Alps.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

XXX Corps

Where does that Ritchie as XXX Corps commander come from? Desert Generals, Rommel Papers and Liddell Hart's History of Second World War state that it was Norrie who commanded XXX Corps in the Operation Crusader. --Ekeb 20:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I will recheck those sources. Meanwhile Norrie is restored to command:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My source, the Biographical Dictionary of British Generals of The Second World War, says Norrie was appointed to XXX Corps in November '41 "as a result of the death of Pope". I presume this refers to Vyvyan Pope, rather than the pontiff, who had little to no influence on British field postings at that time. Leithp 21:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I rechecked too..it was, indeed Norrie. He is now restored as a general, if not a Prince of The Church.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

N.Z.Official History versus Italian communiques concerning the fighting at El Gazala

Military writers from Britain, Australia and New Zealand almost unanimously discount the achievement of the Italian infantry and armoured divisions in the fighting at El Gazala. Thus the New Zealand History of the Second World War sums it up:

After false reports of success at Point 204 (held by 1 Buffs), which Rommel regarded as a vital link in the chain of defences, it became evident that the Italian operations to regain this area were not promising....

The N.Z. Official History writers maintain that the Germans were the enemy involved in the action in which The Buffs lost 531 men and only 71 escaped capture. However the Italian Military High Command in a communique that appeared in The New York Times on 16 December 1941 says that "Enemy pressure continued at El Gazala and met with vigorous Italian resistance. Italians passed to counter-attack along the whole line"[1] The Italian military communique that was printed in the New York Times on 17 December 1941 states that "Italian motorized and armored divisions with the support of large German units fought with extreme tenacity and inflicted heavy losses on the enemy. Many armored units were set on fire and destroyed. Prisoners were numerous and included a brigade commander"[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmesse (talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)