Talk:Tunisian campaign

"Complete overhaul" Sherman / equipment upgrade
"Actions then settled for a time, and both sides studied the results of recent battles. Rommel remained convinced that the U.S. forces posed little threat, while the British were his equal. He held this opinion for far too long, and it would prove very costly in the future. The U.S. likewise studied the battle, and decided a complete overhaul of their forces was required. Tanks were upgraded to the Sherman as soon as they arrived, new communications rules were installed to allow artillery batteries to combine fire across commands and some commanders were replaced. On 6 March command of the II Corps passed from Fredendall to George Patton, with Omar N. Bradley as assistant Corps Commander. "

I edited out portions of this, which were then restored. Here's why: 1. "A complete overhaul" of US forces obviously was not required nor was it carried out, so I thought that was a poor choice of words. Nothing changed in US Infantry Division organization, for example. Indeed US Inf Div organization remained essentially unchanged for the rest of the war. US armored divisions were re-organized in 1942-43, but not as a result of anything in Tunisia. Indeed the 1st Armored Div was already using Combat Commands in place of Brigade or regimental HQs during the battle. Artillery, the most effective US combat arms branch, was very effective. The weapons and procedures of the 1930s were confirmed and improved. Most Division commanders remained. The main changes were a new Corps commander and new 1st Armored Div commander, and the reminder to commanders to keep large units concentrated. This had the (long intended) effect of centralizing the artillery fire control system as it had been designed, so that fires could be massed. There were some "lessons learned" publications, but that hardly justifies the term "complete overhaul". 2. In terms of equipment changes, the objective had alwasy been to make the Sherman the major/sole US medium tank. The M-3 was a interim design. The plan was always to replace it with the M-4 series and this had nothing to do with Tunisia. if there had been no fighting at all in Tunisia the M-3s still would have been phased out. Likewise the M-3 TDs were shown to be ineffective, but they were also a stopgap design and the M-10 was already in production and in the field in the spring of 1943.

I thought the new edit was actually *more* specific and accurate than the vague content that preceeded it. Please let me know if you agree. DMorpheus 17:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I reverted it not out of complete disagreement, but that I didn't understand why it was done (your edit summary didn't mention it).  I think we should have some "lessons learned" stuff, but agree that as it is may be extreme.  I'm away from my references, but areas we might want to cover is 1) air coordination, 2) Divisional cohesion and (maybe) 3) something about the use of Ultra intelligence (I believe the head of intelligence in the theatre was relieved as well).  Feel free to revert my revert if you like and I will come back later to put a first pass in of a less extreme list of changes.  -- Ironic: the one division commander relieved (Orlando Ward) was involved in developing the successful artillery procedures! John (Jwy) 17:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Right you are, but Ward's work in artillery was done in the 1930s. I guess I didn't go into a lot of detail on US force changes because it would simply duplicate what I wrote in Battle of the Kasserine Pass and Lloyd Fredendall it seems more at home there somehow. Since the link exists already I figured this article could stay brief.DMorpheus 18:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the phrase, "He held this opinion for far too long, and it would prove very costly in the future." a bit vague? I mean which campaign does it refer to? Rommel left Africa shortly afterwards, so it must be Normandy, but the big breakouts there only occurred after he had been removed from command through injury. 82.2.81.253 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

M3 tank
Removed reference to "M3 Patton". I don't think it existed: the Patton was M46, etc; the M3 was a precursor of the M4. I linked it to the M3 Lee artivle - is this correct? Folks at 137 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, they were M3 Stuart light tanks, although there's no way you'd know that from the context given. Gotta love US Army nomenclature. DMorpheus 15:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You should love British nomenclature since it was the Brits who first put US General's names to US tanks like the Lee, Sherman and Stuart. It caught on and the US army continued the idea. Brocky44 03:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Combatants
I changed "Nazi Germany" to "Germany" and "Fascist Italy" to "Italy". The point has been debated elsewhere and, since there were no other German or Italian states, the adjectives are unnecessary - the German Nazis and Italian Fascists formed the legitimate governments. Also, I changed "Free France" to "France". This is more interesting. By the time of this campaign, French forces formerly loyal to Vichy had rejoined the allies (including the French XIX Corps). French law is clear: only forces that fought with the allies before August 1 1942 may be called "Free French", after that date it's the "Forces of Liberation". Folks at 137 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're off by a year. Between the liberation of Tunisia and the summer of 1943, many individuals, frustrated at the slow re-organization of French troops in North Africa, defected (from now Allied troops, right?) to join the Free French, which was still by then an independent, London-based organization. Giraud and De Gaulle eventually agreed to merge North African troops with the Forces françaises libres, which was effective August 1st, 1943. French military assets elsewhere sided with the new Algiers-based authority in the following months, including the fleet interned in Alexandria, the forces in Senegal, but with the exception of Indochina. But of course, former Vichy troops who had turned against the Axis in Tunisia in early 1943 were not part of the FFF - many of them probably still considered De Gaulle a traitor by then! PpPachy 21:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the "Free French Forces" back to "France" for the reason listed above, which other than the year off, is mostly correct. The Free French and French XIX Corps were different organizations, and only in common colloquially speech is the latter referred to as "Free French". The Algiers government under Admiral Darlan and then General Giraud was recognized by the allies as "France", while "Free France" under de Gaulle was still essentially a rebel organization (unless you take the word of the Gaullists that consider Free France to have been a continuation of sorts of the Third Republic). While the French XIX Corps was a part of the British First Army for the Tunisian Campaign, it was directly answerable to the Algiers government and considered among Allied sources as the "French Army", while the Free French (Leclerc Column and 1st Free French Brigade) were considered little more than volunteers in the British Eighth Army in the Allied high command. "France" and the "Free French" in this split sense would not be combined until June 1st 1943, when Giraud and de Gaulle merged to form the French Committee of National Liberation (by which time the Leclerc Column and Free French Brigade were merged to form the "First Free French Division"). Point is, from a political, legal, and military standpoint, the major third ally in the Tunisian Campaign was the re-allied French North Africa (officially recognized as "France" by even the Axis, which essentially considered France to be at war with them again, hence Case Anton and also hence why the mainland Vichy government, having lost its legitimacy and legality in aforementioned Case Anton occupation, became little more than a mouthpiece for Berlin post-November 1942), and not "Free French Forces". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.175.163 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, which France is this? The History of France recognizes it went Third Republic --> Vichy --> Provisional; of which none apply.  Considering that they certainly weren't under the command of Paris, I find the claim of the French forces in North Africa to represent "France" dubious. I would instead call them French North African, or just list both the Free French and the French XIX Corps. Oberiko (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * XIX corps was under the French authority in North Africa headed by Darlan and Giraud, which in 1943 became the French Committee of National Liberation and in 1944 the Provisional Government of the French Republic. But since France was at war with Germany and the armistice had practically been terminated, this question is not really significant. PpPachy (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The French Committee of National Liberation is irrelevant, it wasn't formed until after the Tunisia Campaign was over; just because they eventually succeeded and the organization retook France doesn't mean that at the time they were France. I think we'd be better of using French Army of Africa, as that leaves no ambiguity. Oberiko (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'Belligerents' paragraph lists nations, not specific military organizations. Besides, that would be too restrictive, because French units that were not part of the Armée d'Afrique (including squadrons of the Armée de l'Air) took part in the Tunisia campaign. PpPachy (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Many of our belligerents list specific organizations, especially in cases where a nation is far to vague. My argument is that "France" is far to broad, especially when multiple organizations claimed to be representative of France.  Who exactly did these squadrons report to?  Obviously, some of them were of the Free French Air Force, what were the others? Oberiko (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's a matter of nationality, not organization. Read any decent book about the Tunisia campaign (such as Atkinson's Army at dawn), they refer to French troops being just that, "French". Air units that took part in the Tunisia campaign were not Free French, though the article you linked to erroneously lists GC 2/7 as being a Free French unit. Like the Armée d'Afrique, these units reported to the French authorities in Algiers, not to the Free French authorities. PpPachy (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "French" is not equal to "France"; the Vichy were French, the French Algerian were French, the Free French were French etc.. It seems like French Algeria or French North Africa would be the best solution. Oberiko (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As I'm sure you know, none of the governments were at Paris. In short, there were three governments claiming to be France in November 1942: the Algiers government, still commonly referred to as "Vichy" and under Admiral Darlan (and then General Giraud), the mainland government located in Vichy, and the Free French. As I explained way back up there, only hardcore Gaullists who considered the Free French to have been a continuation of the Third Republic would see the Free French as "France" rather than (essentially rebel) volunteers to the Allied effort. On the other hand, the violation of the armistice via Case Anton and subsequent occupation of the Free Zone made the mainland Vichy government no longer legitimate or legal (the change in Vichy policies to become little more than a Berlin mouthpiece is evident post-Case Anton). Concerning the "History of France" article, you have to keep in mind that here we are not talking of France from a regional point of view ("metropolitan France", which is what "France" primarily comprises of today) but "France" from a legal, international, governmental point of view (this refers to the entirety of the French Empire and governments-in-exile). Concerning the legality of the Algiers government, it should be noted that the last communications before contact was cut between Vichy and Algiers had Laval and Petain appoint General Nogues as Admiral Darlan's replacement, but General Nogues submitted himself to Darlan's command (and the last communication from Vichy essentially stated that Darlan would be re-instated, on Nogues' recommendation). So for all intents and purposes, the Algiers government throughout the Tunisian Campaign was merely a legal continuation of the Vichy government (the Vichy mainland itself, under the occupation of an enemy state, no longer being legal). The Allies recognized this Darlan government as "France" (nevermind Britain's recognition of de Gaulle as leader of all Free Frenchmen), and indeed the Axis treated it as such; the trashing of the armistice meant that France was from a legal point of view, in active war again with Germany, and due to circumstances, only the Algiers government could do this. The primary reason to consider the CFLN under de Gaulle post-1943 to have been the government of said "France" is because of its combination with this Algiers government (although as you said, the CFLN has nothing to do with the Tunisian Campaign). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.183.217 (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Figures
I noticed at one point in the article regarding some questionable figures. I quote: "Allfrey was still concerned over the vulnerability of his force and ordered a further withdrawal west so that by the end of 10 December Allied units held a defensive line just east of Medjez el Bab. This string of Allied defeats in December cost them dearly; over men 62,000 missing (prisoners of war), 173 tanks, 432 other vehicles, and 170 artillery pieces lost." I read the book "An Army at Dawn," and I'm pretty sure the figures for material losses are correct, but 62,000 Allied POWS doesn't seem right to me, as that would constitute a disastrous defeat by anyone's definition. I'm almost positive that this figure is actually total Allied casualties through the entire Tunisian campaign, though I may be wrong. Can I get some verification on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.67.199 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC) As I haven't received any verification, I'm deleting the 62,000 POWS figure and just adding "thousand s of casualties", as that at least is indisputably correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.180 (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Casualties
What were the casualties for all sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.163.248 (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Ive just added them all in :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Free French
Free French definition from the article about them:

Historically, an individual became Free French after he enlisted in de Gaulle's Free French organisation located in London. Free French units are units formed by these people. De Gaulle's organisation stopped accepting members in mid-1943 as Free French forces were merging with the French forces in North Africa, and the Comité français de libération nationale (CFLN) was set up in Algiers.

'''Postwar, to settle disputes over the Free French heritage, the French government issued an official definition of the term. Under this "ministerial instruction of July 1953" (instruction ministérielle du 29 juillet 1953), only those who served with the Allies after the Franco-German armistice in 1940 and before 1 August 1943 may correctly be called "Free French".'''

French forces after July 1943 are therefore correctly designated as the "forces of Liberation".

Hence up to July 1943, there Free French, post July CFLN.

According to the article on Vichy France: Vichy France, or the Vichy regime are the common terms used to describe the government of France from July 1940 to August 1944.

To my understanding, there is still two French entities here. One also should note it appears that it appears some colonies were still under Vichy control at this time and had not sided with the "Free French". Simply stating they were French troops fighting in Tunisia is just avoiding the, at that moment in time, split - Vichy and Frenchmen fighting on the allied side - the "Free French" --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We've discussed the issue already higher on this page and elsewhere. In French, France Libre or français libres designated a specific London-based organization headed by De Gaulle. An individual could enlist in that organization, but being French and serving against the Axis after June 1940 did not make you a member of it. There were French individuals in the British forces, then after "Torch" whole French units on the Allied side, who were never part of the français libres. OTOH the English-language literature, including wartime sources, often calls "Free French" any Allied French after June 1940. We have to decide: either "Free French" is the translation of "français libre", or it has a different, broader meaning in English! PpPachy (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion above did not reach any agreement and it states several times that labeling all the Frenchmen - France is too broad and invalid.

According to the French government, as stated on the Free French article and quoted above:

"only those who served with the Allies after the Franco-German armistice in 1940 and before 1 August 1943 may correctly be called "Free French"."

From what ive seen, colonies across the world sided with the "Free French" as opposed to the "Vichy French" - they didnt literally go and sign up in London with De Gaulle.

In common English, from what i have seen - "Free French" is the same as the term sometimes used for the Poles still fighting- "Free Poles" etc - exiles fighting for there country.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, almost no French colonies sided with de Gaulle. They viewed the Vichy government as the lagal and continuing government of France and aligned with Vichy until such time as they were invaded and defeated (e.g. Syria / Lebanon) or when the Vichy territory in metropolitan France was occupied by the Germans at the time of Torch. Under the terms of the French decree of 1953 the forces fighting with First Army are clearly Free French. However, Wkipedia editors habitually associate Free French with the French flag with the cross of Lorraine (which was a de Gaulle construct). The ex-Vichy forces in Tunisia would not have fought under this flag (but the French force fighting with 8th Army, would have) and, as stated above, the politics was not really sorted out until mid 1943. So in summary, I guess that the XIX Corps troops were Free French but should not have the cross of Lorraine flag. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 13:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i should not have said they sided with De Gaulle, however one by one the French Colonies stop siding with the Vichy government, either of there own free will or due to invasion.

This from the article on France, sums up what you and I have just said pretty well... Germans established a puppet regime under Marshal Philippe Pétain known as Vichy France, which pursued a policy of collaboration with Nazi Germany. The regime's opponents formed the Free French Forces outside of France and the French Resistance inside.

With the Free French Forces with the 8th Army fighting under one flag and the Free French forces with 1st Army fighting under another, how do we accuratly represent them? --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the list of combatants needs to include both the Free French elements of 8th Army (cross of Lorraine flag) and the non-Free French of 1st Army (standard French flag). After all, they were completely separate entities at the time. PpPachy (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is where an additional level of confusion is coming in. Your referring to the Gaullist troops as "The Free French" and Frenchmen not collaborating but not signed up with de Gaulle, as not Free French fighters whereas it appears the rest of us and even France itself calls them all - weather or not they supported de Gaulle - Free French.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The confusion is not new, as it existed already during the war. Well-documented sources - for example Atkinson's an army at dawn, on the battle of Tunisia - do not refer as French forces formerly under Vichy - namely XIX corps - as being "Free French". An interesting non-French view on the "French vs. Free French" issue is R.W. Sampson's Spitfire offensive - the author was in command of 145 Wing RAF, that featured both Free (340, 341) and non-Free (345, 329) French squadrons. PpPachy (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to agree with EnigmaMcmxc here on using the official French definition; one certainly can't call it inaccurate or original research. We can explain the intricacies of "French" allegiances on the respective articles (Free French, Military history of France during World War II, Army of Africa (France), etc.). Oberiko (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, what EnigmaMcmxc quoted is not an official French definition, the Free French article needs to be corrected too :) PpPachy (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So if the articles on France and the Free French are both incorrect, what is correct term for Frenchmen who carried on the fight and did not collaborate? If the Free French article is also incorrect, what about the quote which has been shown above which attributed to the French govnt?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PpPachy is right. The definition is incorrect, and the term "Free French" strictly applies only to those who joined the London-based de Gaulle movement (correct up until the combination of the two military forces, hence the date of August 1943). The French government's official military history of the Tunisia Campaign, for example, is composed of two volumes. The first focuses on all the desert actions of the "Free French" in the Eighth Army and the Leclerc column, while the second is strictly on the Vichy North African Army during the Tunisia Campaign. The first is labeled "Free French" while the second volume does not at any point describe the Vichy forces as such. Quite frankly, the standards of all the Wikipedia articles concerning this confusion of political and military entities of France in the Second World War is rather low. The use of the term "Free French" to designate the re-Allied French of North Africa or, technically even the army of the liberation, is only colloquial. The proper designation of the French XIX Corps, is "France", as it was essentially recognized all around. Even the US-UK propaganda documentary "Tunisian Victory" on the Tunisia Campaign makes the clear distinction between the two French factions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.159.181 (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

South Africans
Am not infront of any of my sources at the moment, as am in work, but i just noticed that South Africa is not mentioned in the info box - did none of there forces take part in this Campaign?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some aircraft of the SAAF, but no ground forces. Ist South African Division was returned to South Africa after participating in the Second Battle of El Alamein, and was formally dispersed on January 1, 1943.
 * Oh right, i knew they returned home before the Italian campaign didnt realise it was so soon. Thanks for the info.
 * In the El-Alamein article this fact is not mentioned, nor in this article. I think it should but which article would be more appbriate?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Alamein article also covers the Eighth Army advance from Alamein to the Libyan border and the associated actions, so changes in Order of Battle such as the withdrawal of the SA Div should fit chronalogically there. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 16:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Run for Tunis
I've created a new page for this operation and put it in the Campaignbox. I'll now trim down the main Tunisia Campaign article so that its coverage of the Run is at summary level. May not be able to do it today. I also intend to look at the British official history to add more detail to the new article. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 09:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good but I am a little worried about using older histories (even official ones) in case there are key items (like ULTRA) that are missing. Not sure if that applies here. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * UK official histories were primarily published prior to the unveiling of Ultra however the hidden intel secret doesn’t really impact the details of politics, economics, military strategy (much) or the operational/tactical battles. At the same time quite allot of historians use the official histories as sources.
 * On top of that we usually do not rely solely on one source.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

allied aircraft
JG 77 is claiming 333 aircraft over tunisia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

II/JG2 is claiming another 150 over tunisia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I./JG 53 at least 34 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

II./JG 51 claims some 121 aircraft destroyed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Source? Primary source material such as as these squadrons log-books etc are not acceptable due to wiki regulations and also due to rather well known habbit of overclaiming; do you have a secondary source that provides the losses German aircraft inflicted, if so if you can provide those details am sure no one will have a problem with them being inputted.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

well known fact of overclaiming? this are confirmed kills. german overall confirmed kill match very good with overall allied lost statistics. the geschwader articles are written by dapi i guess, he will have sources, if there are 700 confirmed german downings ( not included anti air and accidents ) then 155 are likly wrong. please name the exact sentence, i guess u own this book so u can do easily... .


 * Please remember to sign your posts by adding ~ to the end. Thanks! - Drew Smith What I've done 03:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please explain to me how claims are all of a sudden confirmed kills? Also nothing in those articles are even cited!
 * I should confirm, and should have really added to the article, that the figures for both sides are only for the last two months of the fighting in Tunisia. No one has said anything about 700 German planes being downed, 600 planes were captured on the ground and the article clearly states this.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

german pilots claim a kill then they got him confirmed or not, and this confirmed kills are relativ accurate. the 700 is number for british downed aircraft only by german fighters. u write a figure for two months in the infobox of a battle lasting a half year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

by the way i got reverted before u wrote your text, i said already that 155 aircraft are to less for 6 months... . and that this should be obvious for somebody with knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, one more time ... where is the evidence; an article is not evidence unless it cites its material. Claims are not confirmed kills, the articles mentioned do not state the Germans 100% confirmed these. Where is the secondary source that provides the confirmed losses from both sides based off paperwork etc?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

first off all stop puting wrong figures in the box when u are know that they are wrong ( a partial figure without markings is wrong), thats really.... .

nobody said 100% and u know this so please stop this shit too...

i will ask dapi


 * Stop acting like a whiney bitch and weaving in and out of crap you start. If anything, this time your constant moaning as actually improved this article - as one was able to find the rest of the stats in the book showing both Allied and Axis losses being even higher.
 * Now what wrong figures do i keep putting in infoboxes? A partial figure is no wrong, it is exactly what it is says - partial. Now what is wrong is your current attitute on talkpages, your constant insults, and your history of vandalising articles with BS figures.
 * You have yet to positively contribute to this project so get off your high horse!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

even 1 is a part of 700. every number lower than the exact number is a part of the number... . your partial arguement is moronic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

849 allied aircraft losses. german claimed 700 ( like i said at the beginning ) rest is anti air and accidents. fits very good. but simple logic is not enough to remove bullshit figures from english articles, we have to go buy books to provide a source, until we have no source people can put "partial" figures in the infobox. no u should check your book about el alemein i guess your author counts german aircraft in greece and italy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course there are more problems, nothing is ever right is Thomas ... Have you even read the 2nd El Alamein information? It actually states 225 bombers were based outside of North Africa.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Btw 638 planes claimed, is no where near 700. ;)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

the claims of jg53 include only 2 pilots!!! ... . why we count bombers and planes outside of north africa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

78th Division attachments
There was a regiment of (light ?) tanks attached to the 78th division from the 6th Armoured Brigade. Did they play any role in the campaign? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that would be 17/21 Lancers which formed part of Blade Force. Their activities are described in the Run for Tunis article. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 23:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Poland and Greece
I see that they have been added to the beligerents. I can't find any references to either in Tunisia (although both were at the siege of Tobruk). I thought the Independent Carpathian Rifle Brigade left the Western Desert in March 42 for Palestine where they were disbanded to be reformed into a larger 3rd Carpathian Rifle Division and later Polish II Corps. The Polish force did not see action again until the Italian Campaign. Not sure about the Czechs. They only had a single battalion in the desert. Either way, unless some firm citations are available, I think they should both come out of the infobox. Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nationalities
This is a very interesting article. However, as a layman, although it is plain which are allied and which are axis forces, I have no idea over which divisions/regiments/corps belong to which paticular nationality. In some cases it is done, but as it has been written by someone who has detailed knowledge of the battles, there is an assumption that laymen will know who was who. Would someone be able to identify them please ie the British 1st Army, the French so and so division, the German this and that corps? Thank you. Brixtonboy (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Copying
This text has been extensively copied from  At the Front in North Africa with the U.S. Army Part 3, 1943. The same text is noted at other internet locations. Plagiarism is against Wikipedia policy: see WP:PLAGIARISM. Text derived from official government sources is not a copyright violation, but should be clearly identified in the citations.Fconaway (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd love to check this but the link you give comes up "The requested video could not be found or has been marked as private". Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 08:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"Well-held"?
I have once again changed "well-held" to "strongly-held." The former sounds rather awkward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoruku (talk • contribs) 19:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Photos and maps
I think there are too many which cramp the margin but some sections of the article are sketchy and when expanded will make more room. I tried shrinking a few but it doesn't look any better.Keith-264 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur; I placed some on the left margin as well as right to balance the look some time ago. When the expansion is in place then will add more. Shire Lord (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have fewer, better ones and keep to the right margin.Keith-264 (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will stick to that. Shire Lord (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Dodgy picture
The photograph which begins: "A British Crusader III tank crosses a ditch at Mersa Matruh, Libya..." falls into the 'fewer is better' category as noted above. Both the original and the article captions have the same content. Mersa Matruh is at least 1,000 miles from Tunisia. It is arguably not really connected to the Tunisia campaign.

Its deletion would be no loss.

(Were the 8th Army still using Crusaders when Tunisia fell?)

RASAM (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2016

 * The following is a closed 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. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Tunisia Campaign → Tunisian Campaign – The adjectival form is more popular (and makes more sense). It is, for example, in the title of at least two books: Exit Rommel: The Tunisian Campaign, 1942–43 and Birth of an Army: The Story of the Tunisian Campaign. Srnec (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose Tunisian connotes of or pertaining to Tunisia.... and Tunisia Campaign suggests campaign in Tunisia. Keith-264 (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The published authors above do not seem to agree with you. Srnec (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - JSTOR search "Tunisia Campaign" versus "Tunisian Campaign" returned a 3/129 advantage for "Tunisian Campaign" as the common name. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. I accept the more common usage of Tunisian per Mike Cline (in spite of Keith-264's linguistic arguments). Also note that in a straw poll of WWII WP article names which include "Campaign" the "-ian" usage is almost universal (see List of theaters and campaigns of World War II). Stephen Kirragetalk - contribs 10:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

I must say I protest at the way my 1978 Eng Lang O level is being so cavalierly shunted aside, in favour of mere "historians" who have been "published". Pah! ;o))Keith-264 (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2016 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tunisian Campaign. 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/20071117092602/http://www.greenhowards.org.uk/bill-cheall/cheall10.htm to http://www.greenhowards.org.uk/bill-cheall/cheall10.htm

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) 17:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 June 2019

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Most editors believe the lowercase word "campaign" would be most compliant with MOS:CAPS. (non-admin closure) —  Newslinger  talk   09:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

– Case fix per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history, since these are not proper names, and are by far more often lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tunisian Campaign → Tunisian campaign
 * Western Desert Campaign → Western Desert campaign
 * Italian Campaign (World War II) → Italian campaign (World War II)
 * Gallipoli Campaign → Gallipoli campaign
 * Perhaps a list of sources showing usage would help? Keith-264 (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * See summary stats of usage in sources, with links to books: Tunisian campaign, Western Desert campaign, Italian campaign (World War II), Gallipoli campaign. Dicklyon (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: Evidence appears conclusive for move IAW WP:TITLE and MOS:CAPS. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment / default oppose. I was the one who asked for a pause to these, but I'm interested in what the maintainer of the various articles that have been moved have to say - e.g. Guadalcanal Campaign is a Featured Article, etc. with nobody commenting on the capitalization during FAC.  Additionally, I'm skeptical of n-grams being able to handle this kind of case well; it's very possible that lowercase-c usage was for other contexts of a random campaign in Tunisia, but when referred to as a title or entity, it was almost always Tunisian Campaign for example.  I do agree with Dicklyon that generalist sources count more than specialist sources, but I've seen "Campaign" capitalized very frequently even in generalist sources, similar to how normal practice is to write Battle of Foo for a "named" battle.  I am willing to be convinced I'm wrong on a case-by-case basis not being a subject matter expert, but as said above, I'd like to see more evidence than just n-grams.  SnowFire (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a lot you can get from the n-grams, but it's not the whole story. The graph of usage versus time suggests that the WWII topic dominates, and you can click through to book hits such as these and look and see if there are many hits from the wrong context.  If you can't find any (which I don't see here), then probably that's a non-issue.  Also notice there that most of the capped uses are for titles and headings; if you don't count those, the usage is even more overwhelmingly lowercase.  Obviously, none of these come close to the threshold in MOS:CAPS of "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" if you believe that books are a reasonably proxy for such sources.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a no-brainer. Tony (talk)  00:08, 24 June 2019 (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.

Enfidaville?
In the fact-box under 'Tunisian Campaign', shouldn't Enfidaville be included? Valetude (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

vichy
should vichy france be included among the combatants as the Légion impériale was a vichy french unit under german command? Capt Jim (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Medenine
Text reads something on the lines of "... to see Hitler at his headquarters in Ukraine" (Source for that?, or just someone's trolling?) 80.71.142.55 (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There's a source for the paragraph, but I don't have it to see if it references the Ukraine, but the Ukraine mention has been in the article since early in its existence - and Hitler did have a Ukrainian HQ, so I don't doubt a source could be found. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)