Talk:Battle of Madagascar

Pacific war

I deleted the shortcut to the Pacific War article, which was located in the battle box. I think we can all agree that Madagascar is in the Indian Ocean, not the Pacific Ocean

Campaign length of six months plus one day

I remember hearing a story, for which I can cite no source, that the Madagascar campaign lasted for one day more than six months, because French military pensions got bigger if you had been in combat more than six months. This does sound suspiciously plausible. If anyone could provide confirmation and/or a source to go with this story, I think it would provide an interesting addition to the article. KiwiBiggles 10:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If it is true they may have been disappointed, since I believe Annet at least was convicted of treason by the post-war French gov't. Grant | Talk 11:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

'Rhodesia' Flag

The flag shown for Rhodesia was not the flag in use during WW2. That flag was used between 1968-79. The Blue Ensign was used (with the colonial arms in the fly) and the name of the colony back then was 'Southern Rhodesia' and not 'Rhodesia'.

http://www.fotw.net/flags/zw-sr.html http://www.fotw.net/flags/zw-hist.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.214.97 (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:WW2InfoBox

For those of you not aware, there's an important discussion mentioning this article at Template talk:WW2InfoBox, where input is welcome. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Order of Battle table

Sorry I haven't been active on wikipedia for quite some time and have no clue how to ammend that table without creating alignement problems. Could an active editor please take on that task? Following are the entries I'd recommend editing

29th Infantry Brigade (independent) should be 29th Infantry Brigade Group (independant.

that brigade also had the following additional combat units under command; "B" SS Squadron RAC (note: I assume SS stands for Sharpshooters, but not sure so unless someone knows for sure just the abreviation), 236th Field Company RE

British 17th Infantry Brigade Group (of 5th Division) should be 17th Infantry Brigade (of 5th Infantry Divisions) (note: this was not a Brigade Group even though it had some support units attached temporarily, also no need to include British, but need to include Infantry in correct designation of Division)

British 13th Infantry Brigade (of 5th Division) should be 13th Infantry Brigade (of 5th Infantry Division)

additional unit under command are 91st Field Regimnt RA and 252nd Field Company RE

East African Brigade Group should be 22nd (East Africa) Infantry Brigade Group

arrival date in Madagascar is June 8

the brigade group was composed of 5th Kings African Rifles, 1/1st Kings African Rifles, 1/6th Kings African Rifles, 9th Field Artillery RA, 56th (Uganda) Field Battery and 60th (East Africa) Field Company

South African 7th Motorised Brigade should be 7th South African Motorised Brigade

arrival date 24 June

composed of 1st City Regiment, The Pretoria Regiment and Pretoria Highlanders

Rhodesian 27th Infantry Brigade should be 27th (Northern Rhodesia) Infantry Brigade Group (note: no link to anything South Rhodesian, that is the wrong country)

composition changed as follows, remove 57th (East African) Field Battery (which replaced 55th in December 42) and add 59th (East Africa) Field Company

Sources for these ammendments are Joslen (p. 276-277 for 29th, 259-260 for 17th, 251-252 for 13th, 421-422 for 22nd (EA) and 425-426 for 27th (NR)) and Stone & Stone for the South Africans. Thanks--Caranorn (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Note, I just realised that the original source (Stone & Stone) had some of the data I listed above correct, which must have been mis-entred into the table at some point. If need be I can also look up in one of S&S's other sources (he used Joslen like me, but also the 2nd Volume of The War Against Japan which I also own a copy of (had I remembered that covered the campaign I wouldn't even have looked into the wikipedia article for a quick overview :-) ).--Caranorn (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Caption

"A Grumman Martlet of the Fleet Air Arm operating from HMS Formidable, seen flying over HMS Warspite while circling to land during Madagascar operations".
These words are used to caption the penultimate image, but I can find no mention of HMS Warspite in the article, only Ramilles. Is Warspite being mixed-up with Ramilles ?
I can't tell the difference between the two ships; does anyone know ? RASAM (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The ship in the picture is definitely Warspite and she was in the area at the time. I'll look for a source confirming that she was involved in the operations.Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Submarines

Are we 100% sure that Japanese Submarines had a range 3 times the diameter of the earth? It is under Background > Axis

I quote: "Japanese submarines had the longest range of any at the time — more than 10,000 miles (16,000 km) in some cases. Were these vessels able to utilise bases on Madagascar, Allied lines of communications would be affected across a region stretching from the Pacific and Australia, to the Middle East and as far as the South Atlantic."

--Stathisdjs (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The range of submarines depends more on the endurance of the crew and the food supplies than the amount of fuel in the tanks. My brother was captain of a nuclear submarine, which in theory had almost unlimited fuel to cruise the world; but after about 90 days, the food ran out, and the morale of the crew deteriorated. Generally speaking, about 70 days was the sensible limit in peacetime. Mechanical failure limits the endurance. Nuclear submarines had a large capacity to repair themselves without recourse to a dockyard, with advanced machine tools available on board. WW2 submarines could themselves do only moderate repairs. The enormous ranges (10,000+ miles) are purely theoretical.Ballenstedter (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Native names of the cities

104.244.198.229 changed all the names of localities to "native names". Since Madagascar was a colony in 1942, shouldn't this page use "colonial names"?--Le Petit Chat (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Someone seems to have changed some of the name before, though. There's a distinct lack of "Diego-Suarez".—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

questionable sentence

I have no idea what this sentence means:

General de Gaulle was infuriated[43] and get closer to Bogomolov, russian ambassador in London.

I imagine the "get" should be "got" but I still don't know what exactly General de Gaulle was infuriated about or why; or what the Russian ambassador had to do with it. The sentence should be removed or clarified.

Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Why de Gaulle wasn't involved ?

An interesting question who need a serious developpment Crazy defender 2 (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)