Talk:Battle of Tabsor

Blitzkrieg
A search in Woodward "Hell in the Holy Land World War I in the Middle East" does not contain the word blitzkrieg. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If this was a Google search then, I'm not surprised. In this instance its a book see page 191 of the 2006 edition and you will find the reference. --Rskp (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved the "dubious tag" to the talk page in order to discuss it. The tag stated "That Allenby planned blitzkrieg warfare as the term was unknown and his tanks had been returned to the western front." The term was used in 2006 by Woodward, not by Allenby in 1918. --Rskp (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The term was used in 2006 by Woodward, not by Allenby in 1918 - Therefore Allenby could not have planed blitzkrieg warfare. Jim Sweeney (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You acknowledge that the citation is correct. I'm sorry, your point escapes me. --Rskp (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No I have not acknowledged its correct on checking Woodward p.191 the term blitzkrieg is not used. You cannot say Allenby planned Blitzkrieg warfare if he did not. It is only Woodwards or your interpretation, text amended.Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Jim Sweeney the exact quote from Woodward 2006 p. 191 reads: "Concentration, surprise, and speed were key elements in the blitzkrieg warfare planned by Allenby. … This gave his army at the point of attack a 4.4–to–1 advantage in infantry, or 5.5–to–1 when mounted troops were included. He also had three times the enemy's artillery." Woodward quotes his source as "David L. Bullock, Allenby's War: The Palestine–Arabian Campaigns, 1916–1918 (London: Blandford Press, 1988), 127." --Rskp (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed this to a direct quote which should solve all problems. --Rskp (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Jim Sweeney should retract and apologise for, the assertion he made on 2 Auagust, that my citation of Woodward 2006 p. 191 "does not contain the word blitzkrieg." --Rskp (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See above Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Jim, if you check Amazon and search there, you'll find the search places the phrase listed on page 191, just where RoslynSKP said it was. I'm uninvolved and know pretty much nothing about this topic, but I can check a source for a word. While Google Books search does not, for me, return that result, you'll note that it also doesn't show page 191, and in my experience adding sources to unreferenced bios I find that Google Books (and the OCR results associated with them) often contain errors.  Alternatively, if you have a paper copy, perhaps the page numbers changed with editions.  I'm sure it's something like that.  Please, folks, let's assume good faith and move on.  --j⚛e deckertalk 05:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Joe Decker. Very much appreciated. --Rskp (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggested minor edit
During this edit  "At 08:40, the 7th (Meerut) Division had advanced to a position to allow the 4th Cavalry Division to advance." was changed to "At 08:40, the 7th (Meerut) Division had advanced to a position to allow the 4th Cavalry Division to advance." If "to capture Afulah and Beisan" was added at the end of the sentence, readers would know where the 4th Cavalry Division went. --Rskp (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be more clear. I've made the change here . Anotherclown (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. --Rskp (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)