Talk:Battle of Kasserine Pass

See Awkward|date=August 2015 tag.

slit trenches vs. foxholes
from this article (version of 14:19, 2 June 2012‎), in the section Faïd, second paragraph: "[...]the American habit of digging shallow slit trenches instead of foxholes ..." Since I didn't know either of these terms, I had to look them up. However, this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slit_trench suggests that both terms mean the same. I don't know which article should be corrected (I'm not a native speaker). Thanks for efforts, StuartRedmann (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I had the same issue. My (limited) understanding is that a slit trench is just British parlance for a foxhole. The IWM has several photos of such, depicting British and German positions of varying shape and size. Since this is still in the article, it would nice if someone could clarify in the article what was going on.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I changed 'slit trenches' to 'shell scrapes'. Slit trench is indeed simply the British term for what the US Army calls a foxhole, so the article made no sense there. Per the linked article 'Defensive fighting position', what was actually meant was that the Americans were only digging shallow shell scrapes. Khamba Tendal (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

US Terminology
In US usage the term "Nth Infantry" or "Nth Armored" refers to a regiment, not a division. So "9th Infantry" would be the 9th Infantry Regiment, not the 9th Infantry Division. This can cause some confusion so I added the term 'Division' where appropriate.


 * Please sign your comments with four Tildes after your comments.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

North African Campaign
There is no such campaign as the North African Campaign. North Africa was a Sub-Theater of the europe-Africa-Middle East Theater of war in World War II. The Tunisian Campaign was just that. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * May be true from a strict sense in the language you are used to, but I would hate to throw away the North African Campaign article. Perhaps that should be renamed, but I'd like to keep a link. John (Jwy) 23:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. We don't always go by official campaign names here (otherwise we'd be in a heap of problems with conflicting terms, overlap, country-specific names etc.).  The NAC is certainly a prevelant enough name for the actions that the article describes. Oberiko 23:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Correction: North Africa
1935 Hours, 12 April 2006

Corneliusseon is mistaken. Here are the US Army's relevant campaigns.

Egypt-Libya 11 June 1942-12 February 1943 Algeria-French Morocco 8-11 November 1942 Tunisia 17 November 1942-13 May 1943

During the fighting the theater was officially termed the North African Theater of Operations (NATO). It was subordinated to the Mediterranean Theater of Operation (MTO), but never repeat never was a subordinate theater of war to the European Theater of Operations (ETO). After the war, the Army found it more convenient to issue a single campaign ribbon to cover the ETO, MTO, NATO, etc.

Philippsbourg

"Aftermath"
I think the |recent changes just reverted are not questionable - what is the specific issue? John (Jwy) 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There being no explanation, I plan to re-insert this information later in the week. Please let me know if I should not (and why not).  Let's collaborate here. John (Jwy) 22:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the West Point Military History Series: Europe and the Mediterranian. has to say in support of the (currently removed) edit:

1. "American armor was employed piecemeal, not in mass..."

2. "The II Corps commander....had proved to be indecisive in crisis."

3. "Initial dispositions had been too dispersed, thereby sacrificing an entire RCT."

4. "The Army Air Force had been ineffectively coordinated."

5. "Units had been haphazardly mixed."

6. "Patton had assumed command of the II Corps after Kasserine, and had immediately begun to rebuild its confidence and strength."

7. "Patton turned the II Corps over to...Bradley".

And here is Johnathan House in Combined Arms Warfare in the Twentieth Century:

1. "...a variety of factors, including inexperience, led American commanders to scatter their forces in regimental or smaller units, thereby depriving them of the advantages of the U.S. centralized fire-control system."

2. "In the crisis of Kasserine Pass, however, the artillery of the 1st and 9th Infantry Divisions was finally able to operate on an organized basis, with devastating effects on the Germans."

3. "Similar problems arose in the Southwest Pacific, where the ...32nd Division learned at great cost the need to coordinate artillery and air support with the infantry."

4. "Six months before the Normandy invasion, for example, thirty-three U.S. Divisions in England had experienced no joint air-ground training..."

5. "In 1943 the AAF changed the radios in fighter-bombers to a frequency that was incompatible with ground radios."

6. "In short, air and ground units went overseas with little understanding of the tactics and capabilites of their counterparts."

7. "...by early 1944 [in Italy] the British and Americans had improvised a close air support system."

This backs up much of the original edit. The Fredendall quotes were correct also. DMorpheus 01:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

On Fredendall, here is Army magazine from March 2003:

1. "He was not a man who worked easily with others, either senior or junior to him."

2. "After several visits, Maj. Gen. Lucian Truscott, Deputy Chief of Staff and Eisenhower's personal representative in Tunisia, painted an unflattering portrait: Small in stature, loud and rough in speech, he was outspoken in his opinions and critical of superiors and subordinates alike. He was inclined to jump to conclusions which were not always well founded. He rarely left his command post for personal visits and reconnaissance, yet he was impatient with the recommendations of subordinates more familiar with the terrain and other conditions than he.

3. "His outspoken antipathy for our allies, especially the British, was more than reciprocated. Anderson, his immediate superior, thought him incompetent."

4. "In a coalition command where allied cooperation was viewed as crucial to victory, Fredendall's open antagonism to the British was a serious management problem for Eisenhower. "

5. "Complicating his command relationships was his habit of speaking in a kind of shorthand slang, giving rise to confusion about what he actually meant. This sloppiness of speech and use of obscure, barely decipherable phrases occasionally caused serious problems, especially when he was issuing orders during battle."

6. "He had an openly hostile relationship with Maj. Gen. Orlando Ward, commanding general, 1st Armored Division, described by Truscott as "an antipathy most unusual." Ward was a quiet, intelligent, decorated combat veteran of World War I, respected throughout the Army. "

7. "The other division commanders, Maj. Gen. Terry Alien of the 1st Infantry, Maj. Gen. Charles (Doc) Ryder of the 34th, and Maj. Gen. Troy Middleton of the 9th, as well as many staff members, were also dissatisfied with Fredendall's leadership. Lt. Col. Hamilton Howze, Ward's operations officer (G-3) and later a four-star general, developed "such a detestation for Fredendall that it was hard to control, simply because of the way he treated Gen. Ward.""

8. "...his disposition of forces appeared piecemeal and sloppy. "

9. "Ike was especially shocked by the dug-in, well-fortified and inaccessible command post (CP) so far from the front -more than 70 miles-and Fredendall's unwillingness to leave it for front-line visits. Located deep in a ravine that was accessible by a narrow road constructed by II Corps engineers, Speedy Valley as it was called, took three weeks to build and absorbed the efforts of a full company of men working day and night blasting elaborate shelters for the headquarters. It was, in Omar Bradley's words, "an embarrassment to every American soldier" and was contemptuouslytuously referred to as "Lloyd's very last resort" and "Shangri-la, a million miles from nowhere."" (Note: my edit had wrongly said an engineer battalion was committed to this effort. My bad.)

10. "The troop dispositions were disappointing, with infantry, tank and artillery units intermixed and based on widely separated hills unable to support each other. It was exactly the "penny packet" formations that had led to British defeats in the early phase of the Desert War. Eisenhower's original idea was to maintain the 1st Armored as a fully massed and mobile reaction force able to intervene decisively wherever needed. Now it was scattered all over the field. Even more troubling, Ike learned that Fredendall had never visited the front and that the deployments were based on maps hanging in his underground headquarters."

11. "Eisenhower: "What do you think of the command here?" Bradley: ''"It's pretty bad. I've talked to all the division commanders. To a man they've lost confidence in Fredendall as the corps commander.""'' March 5 1943 at II Corps HQ.

Eisenhower then relieved Frednedall. On Mar 6 Patton took command.

12. "The institutional politics that kept him in a position for which he was totally unsuited-long after it was painfully obvious-were never openly subjected to examination or criticism. " DMorpheus 01:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

2140 Hours 13 April, 2006

It looks like you have done your homework, but I question why you left out the most significant observation made about the subject on page 175 of The West Point Military History Series: Europe and the Mediterranian. I have no objection to the material in question being restored, although I reserve the possiblity that it might require some minor editing.

Now that we have this out of the way, it would be very nice if you would go to the Sherman page and restore, not revert, the material you reverted previously. (Remember, I provided the sources you requested.)

Philippsbourg


 * Thank you, Philippsbourg. If I had known it was citations you were looking for, I could have done the same. John (Jwy) 05:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well call me puzzled. Phillipsbourg already had this reference and now has no problem with the edit he reverted. Why then was it ever reverted if he knew it was a valid edit? Why was the edit labeled "questionable"?

P.S. The after-action reports from 1st Armored Div, as well as Harmon's report on "Lessons Learned" lend further support and additional detail to the original edit. DMorpheus 13:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

1010 Hours 13 April 2006

YOUR ANSWER

It would be very nice if you would go to the Sherman page and restore, not revert, the material you reverted previously. (Remember, I provided the sources you requested.) You made a mistake, and you should correct it.

Philippsbourg


 * I don't know the details, but would suggest that it might be more of a disagreement over appropriate content than a "mistake." In any event, the information you entered is available by selecting the appropriate entry on the history tab of the page in question.  I encourage you to recover what you think appropriate, just as we will "recover" what information we can from the history here.  John (Jwy) 18:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am puzzled as well, but at this point it is a moot point (or will be when we properly incorporate the changes). I would be interested in the answer, but let's let this one go and deal any issues that might come up in the future. John (Jwy) 14:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Commander reorganization

 * Who did the reorganization of the commanders? Eisenhower, Alexander ?GraemeLeggett 09:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The relief of Fredendall was Eisenhower's decision. The appointment of Alexander was a decision that had been made earlier at Casablanca. Source is the West Point Military History Series: Europe and the Mediterranian. DMorpheus 00:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

USACMH AME THEATER MAP
I added the USACMH's map of the Africa, Mdit, European Theater SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 04:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

REsult
The result says German victory, which is true of the first stage but the pass is then retaken - so how come "German victory"? GraemeLeggett 11:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The battle box's "DECISIVE German victory" certainly makes no sense. Also, please see the casualty question below.Wikist 13:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Casualties
The casualty figures look questionable; perhaps people mixed different geographic or time scales. Compare the battle box to this forum post (the poster identifies himself as from the Dupuy Institute which specializes in statistical analysis of casualties):


 * "Actual US tank losses from 14 to 20 February were 98 medium and 2 light tanks. Of those, 46 medium and 2 light tanks were lost 14 February at Sidi Bou Zid and 48 medium tanks were lost in the US counterattack at Sidi Bou Zid on 15 February. The remaining 4 medium tanks were lost 16-20 February, most likely in the operations near Kasserine Pass itself.


 * "The battle casualties are somewhat more confused, but hardly approached the levels suggested, especially in killed. Total battle casualties to US Army forces engaged in the battle (1st AD and elements of the 1st and 34th ID), for the entire campaign (8 November 1942-13 May 1943) included just 1,625 KIA, 5,757 WIA and 3,990 MIA and CAP. And for February, total theater casualties to the US Army, including Air Corps, were 431 KIA, 1,014 WIA and 3,355 MIA and CAP.


 * "As far as the fragmentary battle casualty reports for the engagements go, it may be estimated that from 14-20 February losses were 45-46 KIA, 130-176 WIA and 2,138-2,378 MIA."


 * http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=81776&sid=569b9b7a5011b452e52f163a4a67d5fa

I suggest that the casualty figures be confirmed or amended or removed. Thank you. Wikist 13:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you go look at the external resource list on the task force page, you will find a link to the official list of casualties that are posted over on the CMH website. This list has official casualties from every US Conflict from the Revolution to the modern day. These are based on the records created at the time the bodies were discovered and interred. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't see anything that provides Kasserine Pass figures.Wikist 14:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A month has passed with no corroboration so I removed the losses numbers from the battle box. The box dated 2/19-25 combined with the text on Faid 2/14-19 claimed that the US lost 418 tanks and 986 vehicles in 12 days. Sources seem to agree that most losses occurred before 2/21 and the Army lists II Corp's entire losses for the entire month 1/21-2/21 at 183 tanks and 828 other vehicles (Mayo 1991 p. 138). Wikist 20:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone posted new anonymous figures in the battle box that claim that Fredendall's troops lost 10,000 dead and wounded in 12 days, while another source claims that the primary US units lost only 7,400 dead and wounded in all the entire 6 months of North African combat.Wikist 18:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

i I guess americans Americans cant can't addmit admit a defeat. strange Strange peapol people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.195 (talk • contribs). and spelling, etc. corrected by John (Jwy) 18:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because there aren't enough dead Americans in the casualty count to please you doesn't mean we don't admit defeat. The article says we were beat. You call us strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.127.104 (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. Please post in a relevant topic.  This topic is not about victory or defeat, it is about accurate casualty figures.  You might have meant to put this comment in the "Result" topic above, where, by the way, the person who questioned German victory is NOT American.  Thank you.Wikist 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Is British!! lol

THIS ARTICLE START TO STINK!! YES !!!
ALl day navigating throught the wikipedia gives me a big headache.Is really bad and shamefull to see all military articles with rampaging vandalism. Especially because it have info that doesnt fit in some retarded people. It really makes me get angry. PEOPLE LOVE TO CHANGE TITLES AND CASUALTIES TO PRO AMERICAN ENDS!!! Is everywhere. But i must recognise there are many German vandalisers in this pages. Use sources ,and good sources not especulations of famous personalities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.230.138.210 (talk • contribs).


 * I would suggest you remove the all but the last sentence of this post, the rest is not useful and steps on several Wikipedia policies. Perhaps add more specifics about what you are upset about, sign up with a Wikipedia id and cooperate in trying to make things better.  Otherwise, save yourself some headaches and stop navigating through wikipedia. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that this article bothers you 201.230.138.210, but throwing a tantrum like an angry child about it isn't going to solve anything. Please specify where you see these so-called inaccuracies and provide your sources which present differently. Oberiko 17:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are some: Regarding the German Casualties: http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=81776&sid=569b9b7a5011b452e52f163a4a67d5fa That can be checked by this website: http://www.europa1939.com/ww2/1943/kasserine.html Other source: http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/kasserine.htm http://www.olive-drab.com/od_history_ww2_ops_battles_1943tunisia.php For more complete information buy the book: Kasserine Pass 1943: Rommel's last victory


 * AFAIK, we don't accept forum postings as official sources, as the poster is almost always anonymous and not properly verified. Published materials, on the other hand, are quite acceptable.


 * If you have casualty figures with sources to back them up, there's no problem with changing them. Just be sure to make note of your source (and page if possible) in a reference beside the figures.  Should someone else have other published materials which list different figures, then both will be expressed as a range. Oberiko 18:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I will post the info of the book, try to buy it so you can check it personaly, if i post the spanish information some people will not believe it and the other source have a sourced aproximation. so it will tak e some time.Thanks. Sorry for the bad mood. bye


 * The Casualty Article is possibly wrong!As well as the Term Pyyrical Axis Victory!

It was a Tactical German Victory to be precise and the casualtys ratio was:

Germany 352 Casualties 258 Captured 34 Tanks lost

USA 6 254 Casualties 3 700 Captured 315 Tanks lost 706 Vehicle.s Lost —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.94 (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above casualty figures are useless for the purposes of this article unless there is a verified, published book that can be cited to support them. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 11:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange placement of [Edit] link for "Background" section
For me, using Firefox 2 on Win XP, the [Edit] link for the "Background" section is in a strange place, overlapping some of the body text in that section. Who knows how to fix this problem? Andrew Moylan 12:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Westgate
I haven't looked carefully - and will when I get more time - but we should make sure the 1944 book is not depended upon too much as there was information not in the public domain (ULTRA) and information from the German side would have been a bit difficult to come by. Not saying not to use it, but need to make sure we use it wisely. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For US perspective, Howe’s book (which is based on operational documents for US and German’s sides) to be used: https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-MTO-NWA/USA-MTO-NWA-20.html
 * Additionally, “easily pushed back” in reference to French defenders is questionable. Pfeiffer’s center group (1st Bn of 104th Panzer Grenadier Regiment) reports encountering stiff resistance and were not able to punch through in one day. T5 replacement battalion commander got in trouble for being unable to encircle the defenders in time https://www.jstor.org/stable/26298812?seq=15
 * in general, I would suggest to “trim the fat” here ArkadiyN (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Help
I tried to change the outcome back to "Pyrrhic Axis victory" and i had a reference for it, but now the entire table is completely screwed up. Is there anyone who can fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonafan39 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Result of the Battle
There seems to be some back-and-forth here. I don't know if "German victory" is an appropriate summary but I just find it difficult to accept the description "German defeat" in a battle where the Axis made considerable ground but chose to withdraw back to their original starting point (to shorten their front and allow units to be sent south to face 8th Army) and where they had by far the best of it in terms of casualties, prisoners and tank losses. I would suggest that it was a tactical victory which failed to achieve its strategic aims. Saying that Rommel's plans were defeated equates to a defeat in battle is somewhat disingenuous. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 12:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is definitely not considered as an Allied/American victory, but since in the big picture his overall plan did not worked, its at best a tactical success for the Germans/an Allied tactical defeat.StoneProphet (talk) 05:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't be called a Pyrrhic allied victory, because they quickly replaced their losses after the axis were driven off. Hcobb (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The first line of the article states that "The Battle of Kasserine Pass was a series of battles of the Tunisian campaign of World War II that took place in February 1943 at Kasserine Pass". I would agree with this view.
 * However in contradiction, the article then seems to consider that "The Battle" was just the portion that started on 19 February, with initial successes by the Axis, although the Axis failed to make a decisive break in the Allied line, and by 23 February the Axis were retreating under heavy air attack, and all the positions were retaken by the US. Ultimately this would then be a defeated Axis attack, albeit with heavy losses to the Allies. In order to make sense of this, we would need to make it more clear that the Axis victory was a small part of a larger process, which was shortly followed by an Axis retreat a few days later.
 * Second, the article makes much mention of British assistance, but does not list British casualties in the infobox. The British Gore-force was defeated repeatedly in the initial withdrawal, losing all its tanks and presumably suffered losses in personnel as well.
 * Wdford (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Weather
The factor of weather has received no attention in the article. During the Kasserine phase of the battle (February 19-22) four days of heavy rain shut down all Allied air operations for two days and permitted only 2 sorties on the third. On the 22nd XII ASC flew 23 missions and 114 sorties but the pass itself was still socked in, preventing three of five missions by heavy bombers given to Coningham's control from dropping their bombs. The weather did not become favorable for airpower until late on the 23rd, by which time US artillery had begun to register the pass. Much is made in the article of a lack of air-ground coordination, but in fact when Coningham took command of NAAF on the 18th, he informed the ground force commanders that henceforth air cover for ground troops was not going to be conducted except by specific authorization of NATAF headquarters. Hence the weather factor was significant during the high point of the Axis advance.--Reedmalloy (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Battle of the Kasserine Pass → Battle of Kasserine Pass – I have no idea why there is a "the" before Kasserine Pass. In absolutely no source concerning this battle is it referred to as "the Kasserine Pass." For some reason it won't allow me to move it to "Battle of Kasserine Pass" as it should be Italia2006 (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Gbookhits: "the battle of the Kasserine Pass": 2580, "the battle of Kasserine Pass" 7560. Ngram view of battle of Kasserine Pass,battle of the Kasserine Pass,the battle of Kasserine Pass,the battle of the Kasserine Pass. walk victor falktalk 07:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 00:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The most common. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not Authentic Photo of M3 Lee Tank
The photo of the M3 tank cannot have been taken in North Africa; shown is a cactus growing which is native only to North America. Perhaps the original photo was mislabeled - one suspects it was actually shot during a training exercise. I don't know whether to relabel the caption, remove the photo, or go find another, since this topic isn't my bailiwick. But I do know: there is only one kind of cactus that grows at all in North Africa, and that isn't it.

Indeed, I believe it is an opuntia chlorotica, aka a pancake prickly cactus; native to the American southwest only. I strongly suspect this photo was taken at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opuntia_chlorotica — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaMitchell (talk • contribs) 02:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cactus for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaMitchell (talk • contribs) 02:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's a better picture which serves the purpose of illuminating the article, I'd substitute it, if not a label calling it a photo taken in the US resembling operations in NA might suffice....Keith-264 (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To quote from the Opuntia (what I call prickly pear) article: "They are also found in the Mediterranean region of Northern Africa, especially in Tunisia, where they grow all over the countryside, and arid southern Europe, especially on Malta, where they grow all over the islands, in the south-east of Spain, and can be found in enormous numbers in parts of South Africa, where it was introduced from South America." Juan Riley (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course the photo's authentic; it's the caption which is being questioned. Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition a number of pictures in other articles on the Tunisian campaign show prickly pear with British and German troops. E.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia_Campaign#/media/File:British_4.5_inch_gun_and_crew_Tunisia_1943_IWM_TR_1004.jpg and http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib//47/media-47147/large.jpg. Juan Riley (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor above was correct that prickly pear is native to the Americas; however, it rapidly spread to the Mediterranean littoral and as the other pictures show was in Tunisia in 1942. Thus this is not even evidence that the caption is wrong. Juan Riley (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am happy to leave the photo as is. Shire Lord (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Broken Lewin? refs
There are several cites to a "Lewin" page so and so in this article. There is no reference given. Anyone got an idea about the missing reference? Juan Riley (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a historian. First attempt to locate Lewin ref might..I say might...indicate that tho a published military historian..perhaps not quite mainstream. Up to people who know better than I tho..what to do with these refs..cite appropriately..or have cites deleted. Juan Riley (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Battle of Kasserine Pass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331110914/http://www.airdefenseartillery.com/online/2010/ADA%20In%20Action/WWII/WWII/Kasserine.pdf to http://www.airdefenseartillery.com/online/2010/ADA%20In%20Action/WWII/WWII/Kasserine.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030910054005/http://www.lbdb.com:80/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=116&WID=5 to http://www.lbdb.com/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=116&WID=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Commas
After I added commas to produce "The 1st Armored Division fell for a ruse which had been successful against British forces, and, when the panzers reached their old positions, with U.S. armor in hot pursuit, a screen of German anti-tank guns opened fire, destroying nearly all the American tanks.", User:Keith-264 removed the first two commas with the edit summary "rm Oxford commas". These are not Oxford commas. The first is absolutely necessary: it precedes a coordinating conjunction ("and"). The sentence could be split into two independent clauses: "The 1st Armored Division fell for a ruse which had been successful against British forces. When the panzers reached their old positions, with U.S. armor in hot pursuit, a screen of German anti-tank guns opened fire, destroying nearly all the American tanks.", but if they are combined into one sentence, the comma is necessary. The second comma, paired with the third, sets off the prepositional phrase "when the panzers reached their old positions". Two commas are necessary, just as the following prepositional phrase "with U.S. armor in hot pursuit" is set off by two commas. See Purdue Online Writing Lab points 1 and 3, or any good punctuation guide. If this is too complicated for some editors, then please hold your fire while I crawl in there and fix it. The punctuation is a mess throughout this article, and I thought I would fix it, but it's hard under these conditions. Chris the speller  yack  21:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No Chris, commas next to conjunctions are wrong.Keith-264 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That remark, for which you provide no support, shows that you do not know how to punctuate English sentences. That's fine; there are lots of editors who are not skilled at punctuation, and they usually allow other editors to fix the punctuation later. That's how the editing on Wikipedia is supposed to work. I undid your edits, leaving the changes to the infobox parameters. You had lowercased proper names and actually found and removed one Oxford comma, but it was in the quoted title of a work, so it should not have been changed. Please cooperate with other editors instead of interfering. Chris the speller   yack  03:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't revert in the middle of consensus building WP:BRD You made an appeal to authority on English usage and cited an American source of all things. I won't revert your revert, although I'm within my rights to. I suggest that you have been rather rude and that your comments about punctuation advert to your failings not mine. Conjunctions have the properties of punctuation marks as well as those of words which makes juxtaposed punctuation marks redundant; every schoolboy in the 1970s learnt this. Please abide by BRD, stop jumping to conclusions and stop making retrograde edits.Keith-264 (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, I suggest you both take a break from this for a moment. Punctuation is important, of course, but in reality it does not seem worth getting into an argument over. You both do great work in your own areas, so I would suggest focusing on different articles for a bit and letting things cool down. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings Oz, thanks for the suggestion but this isn't about the article; we can easily continue the discussion elsewhere. It could be worse, we could have disagreed about the placement of a colon in the middle of a sentence. Regards ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Kasserine Pass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212040409/http://www.europa1939.com/ww2/1943/kasserine.html to http://www.europa1939.com/ww2/1943/kasserine.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lbdb.com/TMDisplayBattle.cfm?BID=116&WID=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Casualty numbers
I reverted the casualty number change primarily because it screwed up the other places the original reference was used - but also think we should discuss such a drastic change in number. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

History in the Making!
In this case, the fake history that the US Glorious Army won Kasserine Pass.

Goodness, you don't even want to call it "indecisive". How pathetic can you be? 91.10.26.220 (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)