Talk:Attack on Convoy BN 7

Partial
I think this battle was a "partial" British victory. This because even the British suffered a severely damaged Destroyer, that was out of service for some months as a consequence of the hits received. Furthermore "Italia Supermarina" reported that one Britsh merchant ship was hit during the battle and with difficulty was able to reach Allies port later, so the Italian attack was partially successful. Indeed the British Navy reported that The "Nullo" and "Sauro", along with the Leone and Pantera shelled the convoy and its escort, inflicting some damage to the leading transport ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.144.211 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, here's how I see it: the objective of the Italian destroyers was to attack the convoy, and sink the merchant ships. The Italians withdrew without causing any serious harm to the merchant ships, thereby failing their objective.  The British protected the convoy, succeeding in their primary objective.  And, well, comparing one out of action British destroyer to a completely destroyed Italian one, I would say the Italians got the worst of it. So, I would say "British victory" sums it up nicely, and there's no need to qualify it. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * P.s. thanks for the images. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if in a naval battle there are two ships damaged (the leading merchant ship and a british destroyer) and on the other side only one ship beached and later fully destroyed by air attacks the next day....well, to me it is a British victory -of course- but only "partial"....Anyway do as you want. I added an Italian reference as the Italian version of what has happened: survivors told that Borsini captain knew he was going to be destroyed and deliberately shot at the british ships pushing them to the Italian batteries and later preferred to die within his ship. Regards. BD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.144.211 (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dagos
Curious about your edit to the infobox. Why bother? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Keith, the number acts here as an indefinite article, "destroyer sunk" alone is suitable only for a news header. Cheers.--Darius (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant putting the items in line rather than column. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand now, it's obvious that I broke the infobox syntax unintentionally, visual editor is not working properly in the last few days. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't obvious to me, I thought it was some groovy thing by naval article specialists. ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Expansion
Added material gleaned from divers sources, some new, might revise the article to be a history of red sea convoy operations 1940-1941 any thoughts?Keith-264 (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Added some air war from Shores 1996.Keith-264 (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi good work from your part, as usual. IMHO, the latest adds (background, further convoy action) are fine, but a history of all Red Sea convoy operations is far beyond the scope of this article (by the way, you will find full details of each BN convoy on this site). Best Regards.---Darius (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, had I the material, I would do an article and take out some of the stuff here or move this one and rename it. Alas Convoyweb has the bare bones and no narrative. I'll keep looking. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)