Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Rethymno

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Rethymno[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of Rethymno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The second in my Battle of Crete ACR nominations. Another very hard fought battle in which both sides lost. Battle of Heraklion turned out to be in need of a lot of work, so feel entirely free to point out the doubtless many areas where this article could be improved. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source reviews—pass
Amitchell125 (who is the drafter of the, in my opinion, rather splendid map) would it be possible to add the source of the contours to the Commons file? If so, perhaps for the Heraklion one as well? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done that. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, note that I have added two new images - "Alfred Sturm" and "Allied soldiers surrendering on Crete". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the first one, replaced the second with the non-recolored version. The licenses of both are OK though. (t · c) buidhe 08:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look acceptable reliability.
  • I don't think "Whitehall History" is a publisher. Is it?
WorldCat thinks it is - [1] or [2].
Fixed.
  • Long
    • "The Australians totalled 1,270 experienced veterans, with various attached units bringing the Commonwealth strength up to about 1,500" Can't find it in the cited source
Umm. It all seems to be there to me. To reinforce it I have added an extra page from Long and doubled up on most of the information with further cites. If you could tell me just which bits of the sentence are troubling you, I will tell you what I am relying on for it. Or I could put the cites through the sentence - but other reviewers seem to dislike that, and in this case it would be messy, but it may be easiest.
OK, if you're sure. I wasn't seeing it but maybe I was missing something. (t · c) buidhe 08:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The parachute drop was scheduled to take place at 14:00"... relevant content in Long is actually on p. 258
Apologies. Thank you. Corrected.
    • "This force was approximately 1,700 strong" I believe Long actually says "about 1,500 men in all". Either give both figures or drop Long if you think the other source is more accurate.
Long is dropped, I shouldn't have included it. (In passing, I don't see a discrepancy. Long writes "He carried his orders with him, and from these it was learnt that the plan had been to land one battalion of his regiment east and one west of the airfield, about 1,500 men in all." Entirely correct. But then add (MacDonald) "HQ staff and a reinforced rifle company" dropping between them to "act as a regimental reserve".)
    • " They flew parallel to the coast on their drop runs, in easy sight and range of the Allied troops on the ridge" Actually, the flight pattern is explained on p. 258 which should be cited as well
I seem to have had a mental block over that page! Thank you again and corrected.

(t · c) buidhe 06:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Well, better than some I have done, but still putting you to a lot of work. I need to recover the knack for this. Whatever, many thanks for going through, and for the ping to remind me that you hand. Your points all now addressed. (I hope.)

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in great shape, and I have only minor comments:

  • "The Australians totalled 1,270 experienced veterans, with various attached units bringing the Commonwealth strength up to about 1,500" - what condition were the Australian units in? Am I right in thinking that they'd been evacuated from Greece not long before? (which suggests that they would have been under-strength, short of equipment and generally a bit bashed up)
They had both fought in Greece. The 2/1 Battalion lost 67 men killed and captured and had 17 wounded. It was 620 strong at Rethymno. The 2/11 lost 69 killed and captured and had 37 wounded. It was 650 strong. To put the strengths in perspective, a "fresh" battalion was landed on the south coast on the 19th, the 1st Battalion of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders; it was 655 strong. The official history describes the two Australian battalions as "adequately equipped with small arms [although] ammunition for them was limited". I have already mentioned "the acute lack of heavy weapons, equipment, supplies and communication facilities" and that of the arrivals from Greece "many lacking any equipment other than their personal weapons, or not even those". I have added to the text that both battalions were recent arrivals from Greece and enumerated their losses there.
  • "2/1st Battalion (Australia) Battalion (2/1st) ... The 2/11th Battalion (Australia) Battalion (2/11th)" - this is rather untidy. The usual naming convention is to refer to initially these as the 'Australian 2/1st Battalion' and similar, then the 2/1st Battalion, etc.
  • I'd suggest moving the first two paras of the 'Germans' section to the end of this section to improve how this material flows
Done.
  • Can more be said about the mess-up which led to the loss of the two Australian battalions? This cost Australia two of its 36 AIF infantry battalions.
I really don't think that i can add much to what I already have.
Long goes into quite a bit of detail here, so I do think this could be expanded (e.g. by describing the Australian force's attempts to regain contact and be evacuated) Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added further detail, although I personally think that some of it is over the "does not go into unnecessary detail" threshold. I am sympathetic to the desire to wanting a full explanation of what "cost Australia two of its 36 AIF infantry battalions" but it seems to me that the fine detail of this would be more appropriate in the articles on the two units. Any hoo, the changes are here, see what you think.
That looks good. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could also be noted that both battalions were later re-formed as part of the rebuilding of the 6th Division.
Mentioned.
    • G'day, the Australian battalions had to be rebuilt in Palestine to the detriment of others such as the 2/2nd and 2/3rd (my grandfather was transferred to the 2/11th but went AWOL to prove a point and stayed with the 2/3rd for the fighting Syria. Cost him 28 days but ultimately he stayed with his mates): [3], [4], [5] and [6]. Might be worth adding to the Aftermath (the rebuilding part, not the bit about Ted). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)f[reply]
  • In case it's helpful, the Australian official history by Gavin Long is now PD, and any maps in it can be used in Wikipedia.
That might be handy. Thanks. Where can I refer source reviewers to, to establish this?
File:Fighting on Labuan 10-21 June 1945.jpg is an example of how I've sourced a map from this series at Commons. The series was funded by the Australian Government and published by the Australian War Memorial, which is an Australian Government organisation, so is out of copyright after 50 years. The ORTS record noted in the Australian Crown Copyright tag provides confirmation of this (from memory, from the National Archives of Australia).
That's great, thanks Nick.

Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick-D, that is much appreciated. Your various comments all addressed above, Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, no worries; it's not as if Wikipedia is going anywhere. Your comment addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, I have the following suggestions/comments, in addition to my suggestion above in Nick's section: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead "between 20 and 29 May 1941" sounds like it refers to the fighting around Rethymno, but I think we mean for it to refer the whole campaign
No, I mean just the fighting around Rethymno. If that is how you read it, then I have communicated successfully. (The Battle of Crete lasted 20 May - 1 June.)
  • "One stick landed in a cane break": is there a link to explain the term "stick" here as the lay reader might not understand that it refers to a group of paratroopers
Indeed, far too jargony. Changed to "group".
  • "The allies had available" --> "Allies"
Done.
  • "1,270 experienced veterans" (body) v. "1,300 Australian infantry" (infobox) -- seems inconsitent? I think Long supports 1,270 infantrymen, but he also mentions specifically 90 artillerymen and indistinct numbers of combat support and service support personnel. I couldn't find where he specifically mentions the figure of 1,500, though? Is this an extrapolation based on the OMD of a standard section/coy/det?
It is. Some of the specific units Long lists are given numbers by Davin. Now I look at it again it starts to seem a bit of a synthesis. Do you think that I should lose it? Perhaps specifying the actual units in a footnote? (Infobox corrected.)
Yes, a footnote could explain that there were a few minor combat support and service support sub units, including 90 artillerymen, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • However, Hitler was concerned: full name on first mention?
Done.
  • from their targets. and after fierce: errant full stop
Gone.
  • taken prisoner more than 500 Germans perhaps mention that these were later released
Well obviously they were, but I can't find a source for it! Or I would have put it in at the end. Let me relook, someone must mention it.
G'day, Long p. 316 (footnote) mentions that most were released, except for 17 officers that were taken to Egypt: [7]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. (I had read that, but the 17 had stuck in my memory, not the released bit.) Not of the Rethymno prisoners would have been taken off Crete so I have amended accordingly.
  • This resulted in unfounded: not sure what "this" refers to here -- Beevor's reporting, or the actual acts? If the latter, was it truely unfounded?
Fair points. Both clarified.
  • When the war ended in May 1945 the commander of the German garrison signed the capitulation of Crete in Heraklion: suggest naming this individual if known
Added.
  • But Campbell did not possess a code, and Freyberg could not alert the Germans: probably need to explain that the code was necessary for authentication or decoding. Suggest also changing "coud not" to "did not want to risk alerting"
Good point. Done.
Thanks once again AustralianRupert. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding German casualties, all I've found is Long p. 275 and Clark p. 175 which both provide "550...buried", although you have largely covered that with "more than 400 bodies in front of the Allied positions". AustralianRupert (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly inclined to leave it as it is, unless you differ.
Yes, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


AustralianRupert, thank you again for your fulsome support with this. I think that that is everything addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

To echo NickD, this is in pretty good shape. A few things that caught my eye:

Infobox

  • only the start date for the battle is given.
Oops. Done.
  • You could populate the casualties field for the Allies but obviously Greek losses are unknown
I could give the casualties for the two Australian battalions, but not for the 300+ support troops, the Greeks, nor the Germans. I have tried just putting in the former, but it is so hedged with caveats as to look odd. Happy to do it anyway if you think that it would help rather than hinder a reader.

Background

  • ...about the idea of seizing Crete by... Crete is already used earlier in this sentence, may I suggest "about the idea of seizing the island by"
Good point. Done.

Opposing forces

  • In the lead, you have a note about the various spellings for the name Rethymno. Shouldn't the spelling of the name here match what is in the title? Actually, I now notice it seems to be spelt one of two ways throughout the article, including the lead. Stick with one spelling for consistency.
Good catch - no idea how I repeatedly read past that. Standardised as Rethymno.
  • "Lieutenant Colonel Ian Campbell": shouldn't the rank be treated similarly to Major-general Freyberg? If so, it should be changed in the lead as well as here.
They should. Done.
  • "Lieutenant General Kurt Student": should the German ranks be treated similarly. Ditto for "Lieutenant Colonel August Wittmann" and "Major General Hans-Georg Benthack" in the Aftermath section.
Standardised.

Surrender

  • evacuated. But Campbell shouldn't that be a comma?
No. Happy to consider alternatives, but it's not a typo. But it would have been if I had put a full stop instead of the first comma here. But the last two full stops demonstrate what I was doing/trying to do in the article.
  • possess a code,... maybe for clarity "possess a code book for deciphering encrypted radio messages"?
The sources don't indicate if a "book" was involved, but the rest inserted and it now reads much better.

Aftermath

  • Almost 200 Ju 52s were deadlined. Deadlined? You mean destroyed or taken out of service?
I do. Changed to 'were put out of action'. Revert if I have misunderstood what you intended.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zawed, that was good of you. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zawed, how's it looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Rethymno&oldid=1006597993"