Talk:Battle of Marsa Talamat

Spelling

What is the source of the English and Hebrew spelling for the location name? I can't find any English source or map that says anything about this location, but the first word should probably be Marsa. In Hebrew, one source I have says מארסה תלמאת. Not a big difference, but I hope someone introduces the Arabic spelling so we can judge for ourselves what is correct. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Omrim, who created this article, is the person to ask. Abraham Rabinovich spells it "Marse Telemat" and Chaim Herzog uses "Mersa Talamat". -- Nudve (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Each source I have spells it differently. I have sources with Mersa, Marsa, Talamat, Talemet, and T'lemet. So I must admit I am a little bit lost myself. Any suggestions? The current spelling is taken from Almog-Omrim (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for the help. I had in mind doing it in "one shot", but then real life intervened...--Omrim (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe redirect pages should be created for those alternatives. Are you now more or less done with writing it? -- Nudve (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I still have some details to add, but this is about it. Next to come The Battle of Budapest Outpost.--Omrim (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good now. Since this is a generic location-based title, I don't think the Hebrew name is relevant. Do you object to removing it? Asides from that, the article looks good, and was even rated B-Class. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree, the Hebrew name can be removed. --Omrim (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Ras Sudr is nearly 40 kilometers from the Suez. What I understand from the Yom Kippur War article is that the MIM-23 HAWK, the AA system used by the Israelis, had a range of 25 kilometers, and knowing that Egyptian commandos held the Ras Sudr Pass throughout the war (preventing Israeli units from advancing north). Now could it be explained how the Israelis managed to deprive the Egyptian Third Army of air support? Sherif9282 (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My answer is a logical one (not sourced). Assuming that the Israelis were indeed able to deploy HAWKS near Ras-Sudr, it would cover some of the area controlled by the 3rd army, as the 3rd army held areas to the south (considerably south) of the Suez latitude. That would put the southern parts of the army within range. I think. I'll look in some more sources and see what I can dig up.--Omrim (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The furthest south Third Army got was Uyun Musa. When an infantry brigade tried to advance further south, it left the protection of the SAM missiles, and was hit by the Israeli Air Force, forcing it to retreat. The thing is, Uyun Musa is still more than 30 kilometers away from Ras Sudr, which keeps it considerably out of Israeli SAM range. There must be a mistake with the information stated on the article.

Even if, somehow, some of the Third Army's southern units were under Israeli SAM range and hence deprived of air support, what about the rest of Third Army's units, some positioned more than a hundred kilometers north of Ras Sudr. If you do manage to prove that a portion of Third Army was deprived of air support as a result of Israeli SAMs, you have to be specific about the position of the Third Army units. Sherif9282 (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to "prove" anything, since that would be original research. I can only cite a source, and attach it with a proper preface (I specifically stated "According to Almog" - I didn't state it as a fact. Since your point seems to be a valid one, you should add to the article (using proper ref) that the southern most point reached by the 3rd army is Uyun Musa, and that it is more than 25km away from Ras-sudr, so it cast doubt about Almog's conclusion. We are here to present facts or arguments about facts, not to decide what the facts are.--Omrim (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC; BTW, according to this source[1], the HAWK's range is up to 40K.--Omrim (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Shazly is my reference. Goerge Gawrych says the same thing more or less, but I don't have the page number right now. How shall I include my point in the article? Sherif9282 (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You can add it after Almog's citation. How about something like... "the southern most point to which the 3rd army reached was... which is 30K from... and the range of the Hawk is... which cast doubt on Almogs conculsion that the Israeli navy had real part in denying aircover for the 3rd army. Somthing like that.--Omrim (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)BTW, as a fluent Arabic speaker (are you?), how would you suggest we title the article? each source I have (both in Hebrew and English) spells it differently.--Omrim (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of Arabic. The first part should read Marsa. Just replace the e for an a. As for the second part of the name, I'm not sure, I never heard of that place before, but I would go for Talamat. That's what I think it should be: Marsa Talamat. I'll make my own changes to the article later. Thanks. Sherif9282 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Marsa Talamat. 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/20090721082618/http://www1.idf.il:80/navy/site/templates/controller.asp?lang=HE&fid=44015&did=44841 to http://www1.idf.il/navy/site/templates/controller.asp?lang=HE&fid=44015&did=44841

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)