Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Heraklion

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Heraklion

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Battle of Heraklion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


Crete, 1941; a brigade/regimental level combat. Fiercely fought, although ultimately it effected nothing. Both sides achieved/suffered Pyrrhic victories. Recently much expanded by me and put through GAN. Only my second WWII GAN, so I will be interested to see how reviewers consider it stacks up. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source reviews—pass

edit
  • Images are freely licensed.
  • Sources look OK.
  • Source checks TBD (t · c) buidhe 06:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Murfett: On the cited page he says various things about strategic importance of Crete, but harbors are not mentioned. Perhaps should be rephrased to more closely follow the source?
Murfett is back at the library, so I have gone with AR's suggestions below. It's not as if it is a controversial statement.
AustralianRupert, many thanks for that. Much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alan Clark The Fall of Crete pp. 18-19 also mentions the island's strategic importance, including its position on the "southern approaches to the Aegean", opportunities for airfield construction, control of sealanes, proximity to Ploesti. He describes Suda Bay as being "the finest anchorage in the Mediterranean". He also mentions lack of infrastructure, even at Suda, and discusses two other ports on the northern coast (Heraklion and Rethymno) being limited in capacity (destroyers at the first, small coasters at the second). He mentions that the fishing villages on the south coast couldn't be used due to lack of roads. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk)
Thanks AustralianRupert. Apart from the Heraklion port bit that will probably be useful if I ever get to Battle of Crete, but not, IMO, too useful here - obviously shout if you disagree. Anyway, I struggle to take Clarke too seriously and would try to use other sources; as almost everyone makes similar comments that would not be difficult.Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Donaldson
      • 212: most of it is supported but not the first sentence (no mention of Maleme in source).
No indeed. As you have identified, I completely failed to cite that sentence. Now done.
        • Coulthard-Clark p. 190 mentions the loss of Malame if you need a ref for that; he also mentions withdrawal east and south but not the loss of Cania. I wonder, though, if counterattack at Galatas by the New Zelanders should be mentioned? (Alan Clark pp. 143-157)? Probably wouldn't need more than a short sentence (counterattack was successful but not exploited). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AustralianRupert, there were quite a few battalion-sized or greater counter-attacks, including several which were "successful but not exploited". I am loath to pick one out (yes, I know, I know - but then we are off down the rabbit hole of explaining to a reader why it was the turning point). I am even more loath to get into the detail of a different battle happening 100 miles away. If you think it necessary, I can add in as much as you like, but I would rather save it for Battle of Maleme. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • 213, 218–219: these cites look OK.

(t · c) buidhe 13:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, thank you for the reviews and apologies for completely overlooking them, and AR's comments, until Zawed's review brought them to my attention. Your comments above addressed. Given the difficulties you have previously pointed out regarding my sourcing, if you would like to check further, I have electronic or print versions of most of hte sources which I could send you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary for A-class but I did find some other sources that appear to cover the battle in detail, adding them to further reading. Stubbs in particular gives more information on the airfield prior to the battle, and you can access the paper with WP:TWL. (t · c) buidhe 06:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe. I had already read a couple of these, including Stubbs, when researching the article. Stubbs in particular I found, and re-found, has little information on Heraklion and less not already included. Eg he mentions blast pens, but these are already in the article. (Cited to MacDonald.) Re-reading I did decide to include a mention of the radar station, which I had previously excluded, and have referenced that to Stubbs. Of the others, I only have Antil to finish; so far I have extracted a couple of useful snippets from him. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: G'day, Gog, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • the lead says Freyberg ordered the evacuation, but the body seems to say it was Wavell
Good point. Clarified.
Done.
  • No RAF units were based -- suggest spelling out Royal Air Force on first mention
Done.
  • in the Background, I think a sentence might be required to clarify that British and Commonwealth troops were also sent to the mainland Greece prior to the German invasion
OK. Done.
  • On 30 April 1941 Major-general Bernard Freyberg --> On 30 April 1941 Major-General Bernard Freyberg
Done.
  • with their weapons containers carried in the planes' external bomb racks -- in or on?
The source says "in".
Ok, you can only go with what the source says, although the wording seems counter-intuitive to me. Things would be carried in weapons containers, which would be carried on external bomb racks. Containers could, however, be carried in internal bomb bays, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. If the source had said "on" I would have assumed it was a typo. In the UK thinks go in racks. It would appear that other methods are available.
G'day, IMO a bomb rack on an aircraft is different to a normal sort of storage rack, though, i.e a flat rack on a truck in which something (even ordnance) could indeed be carried. A bomb is generally secured onto the bomb rack underneath a wing with pins etc. It isn't contained "inside" the rack, but secured on it or to it as the rack is generally narrower than the ordnance that is attached to it. A storage rack in the usual sense, though, would encompass the whole thing that is contained within it. Regardless, I'd suggest re-aiming the "bomb rack" link here to Hardpoint#Racks (which redirects from "bomb rack") rather than piping a link to bomb bay as they are different (bomb bays are internal; racks are largely external on wings or the fuselage). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am persuaded; changed, the source notwithstanding. And thanks for the hardpoint link. Sturmvogel, reviewing Battle of Rethymno, suggested that The German Fallschirmtruppe 1936-41 (Revised edition) would be a good source for the German PoV. I am on the verge of purchasing, but it is not cheap, and is only essential if this is to go to FAC. In an entirely non-binding wat, do you think that it might have the legs and/or quality for that. (Before I spend the money.)
Many years ago I had several extended conversations with someone who flew Ju 52s into Crete. I wish that he were still around to query om this point. (When I opined to him that flying into Malame had been a dangerous mission, he replied that he had also thought so, prior to Stalingrad.)
G'day, I think you've done a fantastic job, to be honest, and admire your dedication but I could never counsel spending large sums of money on this endeavour (editing Wikipedia, that is) -- have you tried Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange? I'm sorry for the negative waves (with apologies to Oddball from Kelly's Heroes). Strangely enough, my wife's maternal grandmother was German (came to Australia in the late 60s with her former British Army husband and my wife's mother as toddler) -- she lost four brothers at Stalingrad. Three were infantry and one was a Ju 52 pilot. I find the totality of the conflict that took place there (and elsewhere during the World Wars) hard to contemplate with my own conceptions of modern warfare. That said, I guess it is subjective. Ivan Southall once wrote that seventeen seconds can feel like a lifetime when one's life hangs on cutting the correct wire. Indeed, a single infinitesimal click can stay with one a lifetime when followed by a thunderclap that takes ones friends away... Anyway, I think I'd best get off the internet now. I've clearly had too much too drink and am clearly missing home and friends long past. Sorry. Take care. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • German commanders were informed unequivocally -- by whom?
Possibly an intelligence summary. I ducked this because the source is unclear "The Germans, during their period of seemingly unstoppable conquest, paid relatively little attention to the art of intelligence. Such over-confidence was revealed in the language of their summaries which phrased mere suppositions with the cast-iron confidence of undeniable truths. That of 19 May, on the eve of battle, categorically stated that the British garrison on Crete was no more than 5,000 strong, with only 400 men at Heraklion, and none at Rethymno."
G'day, based on the quote, I'd suggest reworking the sentence to "A few days before the attack, German intelligence summaries estimated that the total Allied force on Crete was 5,000 men and that the garrison of Heraklion was 400 strong". AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, more or less: "German intelligence summaries stated that the total Allied force on Crete consisted of 5,000 men and that". The "stated" is to reflect the source's "their summaries which phrased mere suppositions with the cast-iron confidence of undeniable truths".
  • The German attack was intended to provide Close air support --> lower case "close"
Done.
  • shot down by allied ground fire -- caps (Allied)
Done.
  • allied anti-aircraft guns -- as above
Done.
  • after being hit by allied ground fire -- as above
Done.
  • Flying straight and low they were sitting ducks: seems a bit colloquial
Changed to "easy targets".
Suggest maybe "vulnerable to" or something similar as "easy targets" is repeated now. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the second usage to "Even the Allied infantry were able to engage them."
  • aircraft deterred the British Navy --> "British Royal Navy" or "British navy"?
Changed.
  • The I/1 battalion landed successfully --> "I/1 Battalion"
  • reinforcements from the II/2 battalion --> as above "II/2 Battalion"
  • bombing the III/1 battalion --> as above "III/1
All done.
  • Bräuer landed with this unit and unable to make contact with his other battalions reported... --> "Bräuer landed with this unit and although he was unable to make contact with his other battalions reported..."?
D'oh! Done. Thanks.
  • and much of the divisions artillery: "division's"
Done.
  • were detected by the Allies by signals intelligence --> "were detected by Allied signals intelligence"?
Done.
  • until dawn. and then returned to the Mediterranean: punctuation seems out here; previous sentence seems a bit long also
Shortened and rejigged.
  • is there a consolidated casualty figure for both sides? If so, suggest adding it to the aftermath and infobox?
Only for Crete, not - that I am aware of - for Heraklion.
Ok, no worries, please see my comments below. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in terms of casualty figures, a quick look at some sources in my library provides a few glimpses (there are probably other sources out there also):
    • Coulthard-Clark Where Australians Fought (1998), p. 190 provides "over 1,000 killed" for the Germans on 20 May at Heraklion; three Australians killed (Coulthard-Clark p. 190) and nine wounded (Long p. 283)
    • Long p. 286 provides at least 950 Germans being buried in the British sector and 300 in the Greek sector by 22 May
    • Alan Clark The Fall of Crete 2000 edition (ISBN 0-304-35226-8 - Cassell & Co), p. 96 "by the evening of the third day the Heraklion garrison had buried over 1,300 Germans. Their own dead amounted to less than fifty" (only Australian and British units included in the "own dead" figures -- per note 2 on p. 96)
A reliable high-end total (Playfair) has fewer than 4,000 German KIA & MIA over the ten days, with paratroopers making up less than half of these. (MacDonald gives 1,653.) this give a total German loss of 3,774. I suspect that Clarke had been listening to old soldiers' tales. Coulthard-Clarke - over 1,000 killed on the first day at Heraklion alone; it just doesn't add up. Ditto Long. I'll put them in if you think they should be there, but I am then going to have to put in the overall figures, supress the urge to OR and let a reader wonder why the first set don't make sense. Or I could quote Davin "Reports of German casualties in British reports are in almost all cases exaggerated and are not accepted against the official contemporary German returns, prepared for normal purposes and not for propaganda." But I dislike wasting a reader's time by trotting out a variety of figures and then saying "now forget that, it was all nonsense". There are, IMO, no reliable estimates of German losses specifically at Heraklion. Mind, I would be delighted to be proved wrong.
Not really sure how to respond here, as I was uncomfortable offering an opinion on the topic in the first place given the past. My fault, though, no one else's (uppercut self administered). Anyway, I will say that I feel a little concerned with the decision to leave out sourced figures based on our own comparison with overall figures. If you feel the figures provided above are too high, then I do think it would be best to simply contrast them in the article (with Davin maybe). Currently, it says that German casualties were "high" but a reader never really gets a picture of what that actually equates to. Same with Allied casualties, is there a reason to ignore Clark's "less than fifty" figure? Currently, I think this represents a gap in the coverage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps different estimates could be discussed in a note? (t · c) buidhe 13:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would work from my perspective. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum, ok, I am persuaded that it needs addressing. Could be an interesting trick, as all of the more recent professionals have ducked it, I assume for the same reasons I did. I shall put sonmething together. Ideally for the main text, but let's see what I can produce.
  • You were absolutely correct that this needed addressing. Thank you for flagging it up.
  • I have no idea what your "... given the past" comment refers to. Should I?
  • No, just me being morose about past issues in the topic area and probably letting the stress of the past year get to me, I'm sorry (I have spent much of 2020 away from my family due to work and 2021 will be no different); I should have avoided it (the topic), to be honest, but my grandfather fought on Crete with the Australian 16th Brigade Composite Battalion, so I guess I felt the need to help out. Anyway, thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, I made a couple of tweaks to the sandbox draft -- feel free to revert as desired. I wonder if more in text attribution might be necessary, though, to say who provided each figure. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clark pp. 96-97 talks about the opportunity that was lost by the Allies to exploit their defence of Heraklion to clear the roads west or south to link up with Rethymno. He mentions that the comms issues and preoccupation of Creforce HQ hampered Allied decision making in this regard. He mentions that on the night of 26/27 May Chappel was able to get a message to Freyberg via Cairo requesting guidance about whether to "attack and open the road to the west or the south. But by that time the main issues had already been decided elsewhere" (p. 97). Might be worth mentioning
Personally I think Clark is armchair generalling. Other sources (MacDonald definitely, Beevor possibly - I haven't checked) specifically pooh-pooh the fighting through to Rethymno option. And if they had - so what? The battle was lost at Maleme on the 21st. Similarly re heading south. It took the A&SHs five days to move from the south coast to Heraklion without any opposition. Besides, I am not a fan of putting things into Wikipedia that didn't happen.
G'day, again I am a bit at a loss here. Surely this is analysis that the reader would be best served reading about in the article if historians have considered it and dismissed it, or am I missing something here? If there is a difference of opinion (e.g. Clark v MacDonald), it seems like it would be best to contrast it in the article rather than being silent about it. At least, I think it would be best to at include the radio communication on 26/27 May as currently it seems to imply that Chappel had no communications at all ("He continued to be out of radio communication with all higher headquarters"), which seems directly contradicted by Alan Clark's comment. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have gathered, I don't trust Clark. Unless collaborated elsewhere, as he all too often isn't. A good read, but dated and IMO not a RS. Any hoo. Radio communications: my understanding is that Creforce's comms with both Heraklion and Rethymno were by sea-borne messenger. But I have removed that if Clark states otherwise. I have included the plan to shuffle battalions along the coast, and referenced the message in Clark. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the sources, is there an ISSN (or similar number) for the ADF Journal (Bell and Pelvin entries)?
Added. Not sure why I couldn't find them before.
Thanks for that AustralianRupert. All good points. All addressed above, a couple with extended discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AustralianRupert, many thanks for your detailed attention to this, it is a much better article for it. And apologies for letting this completely slip off my radar - until prompted by Zawed's review. Your points all addressed, but please come back at me with anything you are not happy with - you raise very interesting questions. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Break
edit

@AustralianRupert: thank you for the edits on the casualties section. They all make sense and I have moved it to the aftermath section. A query: do you know if it would be accurate to describe Playfair's work as the official British history? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I reckon that is a fair assessment given it formed part of the History of the Second World War series, which was published by HMSO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AustralianRupert, worked into the in line attribution of the casualties section you suggested. There have been quite a few changes since I nominated this - most due to you, for which many thanks; the article is the better for them. They are summarised here, although as you have done some copy editing in the middle of them you are probably aware of most of them. The article is now, I think, in about as good a shape as I am likely to get it, and so I wonder if I could trouble you to cast your eye over it again? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, it looks pretty good to me -- made a couple of changes, but nothing major, IMO. Please check you are happy with those changes. The only thing I wasn't really sure of was the capitalisation "Major-general" when used at the start of a name. This looks very wrong to me, but I note you made it citing JOBTITLES. Maybe it is a hang up of RL but frankly it is making me itchy just looking at it... ;-) MOS:MILTERMS offers "For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general." I'd suggest changing it back to "Major-General Bernard..." (same same for Playfair in the sources) etc., but I won't die in a ditch over it as it is only very minor. Added my support above. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AustralianRupert. Your edits all look good to me. Thank you. And thanks for the work you have put into this.
Re caps. Well now. We both agree that "Major General" has two caps. But the MoS states "When hyphenated and capitalized ... the element after the hyphen is not capitalized." So "Major-general" only gets one cap. Not saying that I agree, just that them's the rules.
It's just me, but I'd get rid of the hyphen just to fix the caps. Anyway, we will leave it there as MOS points are lame. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see a couple of useful edits by you on Battle of Rethymno, thanks., might a review be following? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was thoughtless of me given your comments above. Please disregard. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good, I might have time on the weekend -- away from home at moment, so will probably be at a loose end on Saturday or Sunday. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

edit

WWII seems a bit of a change in pace for you Gog, so let's see what we can pick up here.

I needed a change to shake the brain cells up. And I already have one WWII FA.

Lead

  • commas after Brian Chappel, 7th Air Division?
Yes. Done.
  • no context for part of the second series. If I have interpreted what you are saying here correctly, I suggest something along the lines of "The attack on Heraklion was one four airborne assaults made on Crete on 20 May and followed on from attacks against Maleme airfield..."

I see your point. I have gone with "The attack on Heraklion during the afternoon of the 20th was one of four airborne assaults on Crete that day, following on from attacks against Maleme airfield and the main port of Chania in the west of Crete in the morning." Does that work?

  • link partisans?
Done.
  • The first and second sentences of the third paragraph seem out of place chronologically as they relate to Heraklion while the remainder of the third paragraph is about the evacuation.
I am not following you. All sentences are in chronological order. If one could be argued to be dodgy, it is the third. The first two are about the German naval effort, the third is about the general situation and the Germans winning the overall battle. The third starts with the overall situation and ends with how it applied to the troops at Heraklion. The fifth is some additional naval information.
If that's still not clear would it be possible to be a bit more precise about the issue(s)?

Cheers.

For me it is the usage of The fighting then settled into a stalemate. As I read the article, the seabourne element is substantially concurrent with day 1 and 2 of the battle, before things settled. My suggestion would be move that sentence to after mention of the seabourne aspect, with a tweak, perhaps: "In the meantime, the fighting at Heraklion settled into a stalemate." Zawed (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • The Italians were repulsed without the aid of the expeditionary force. As I understand it, they were repulsed before the expeditionary force even arrived, the Allied forces were more about dealing with the anticipated German invasion.
Yes. Correct. That isn't contradicted by what I say. Umm. Arguably. Probably more about getting a foothold on the continent and trying to get some of the Balkan nations onside - they succeeded with Yugoslavia. They were (over?) optimistic about their prospects with some other Balkan states.
Actually, I think my brain went for a stroll when I read that bit and made this comment - forget it. Zawed (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striking comment, it's embarrassing that I wasn't paying attention. Zawed (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing forces

  • was appointed commander-in-chief on Crete. worth mentioning Creforce here?
Why? I mean, I can, I don't care, but does a reader need to know the jargon name?
I guess I just want it to be clear that he was commander of all Allied forces on Crete. Zawed (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British forces had seven commanders in seven months. Do you mean the Crete garrison?
I am trying to avoid referring to the totality of the British forces on a land mass 150 miles long from all three arms as a "garrison". Eg see wikt:garrison.
  • The allies had available... Caps for allies?
Oops. Done.
  • the fuel store located outside the positions defending the airfield. if it doesn't heave too close to the source, may I suggest "the fuel store located outside the defensive perimeter of the airfield"?
I am now in danger of coming across as argumentative, which isn't like me. How is "outside the positions defending the airfield" not a reasonable paraphrase of "outside the defence perimeter [of the airfield]"? If you don't like it I would personally avoid your suggested text as I would consider "outside the defensive perimeter" too close a paraphrase of "outside the defence perimeter". Although obviously there is some subjectivity in this area.
  • 32,000 Commonwealth;[15] Major-general,... close repetition of Commonwealth, suggest rephrasing. Also no context for "within a week"
1, Done. 2. It doesn't need context, it just means what it says. I could change it to "within seven days", or "in the space of a week", "in a single week" or similar if you think that one of those is clearer.
just seeking some clarity, as "within a week" of what as there a few different dates mentioned - Freyberg's arrival, early April (when airfields ready)? Zawed (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We may be hitting a variants of English issue here. I now understand your point. But the source is written in British English and does not give a starting date, just that it happened in the space of seven days. As in ' The Battle of Hastings was all over within four hours' would not be invalid just because one could not specify the precise time at which the four hours began. I am at a bit of a loss as to how to address this. Would 'In a short space of time 27,000 men of the expeditionary force arrived from Greece' be OK by you? (Although it seems a shame to lose the precision.)
  • In addition to the 13 Italian guns... just to avoid repeating numbers, suggest "In addition to its Italian guns"
Done.
  • further 2 artillery pieces write out the 2
Not unless I am also writing out the 14: "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently."
  • It feels like the 3rd/4th paragraphs of the German section should be the 1st and 2nd. It hasn't been established that the airbourne attack involves paratroopers (for example, it could have been gliders). If you do this, some of the links may need to be moved so that they are still on the first mention (e.g. Junkers Ju 52).
Why might a reader think of gliders? They haven't been mentioned. Why not balloons or helicopters? I really don't want to switch these. First I specify what the troops are and how they fight, then I say how they were organised and how many of them there were. It doesn't seem to make sense to do it the other way round. If pressed really hard, I could sub-section the last two paragraphs.
I just find it abrupt that this section leaps into issues with how German parachutists enter combat.Zawed (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I start with "The design of the German parachutes and the mechanism for opening them imposed operational constraints on the paratroopers" to try and explain why I am bothering a reader with this. I could tweak to 'Operational constraints were imposed on the paratroopers by the design of the German parachutes and the mechanism for opening them' to make it clearer right from the start why it is relevant?
I have switched the paragraphs around as you suggested. It reads a little oddly to me now, but hopefully it works beter for you.
  • The entire assault on Crete was code named "Operation Mercury"... suggest "The German assault on Crete..."
Done.

Opposing plans

  • in Heraklion town and the open ground to the town's... suggest deleting the first town here so that it is only used once in the sentence.
Ah, good point. Done.
  • The artillery and the artillerymen... artillery used twice in close proximity, suggest replacing the first "artillery" with field guns.
Done.
  • ...well dug in and well camouflaged. suggest deleting second "well"
Done.

Battle

  • further drops at Rethymnon and Heraklion... In the Allies section of Opposing Forces, Rethymno is stated, I assume it is the same place as both are linked and go to the same destination.
Sorry, I had a change of mind when subsequently expanding Battle of Rethymno. I thought I had tidied them all up, but had missed that one. Good spot. Fixed.
  • The link on bombers here is a dupe
Thank you. Since nominating I have loaded the updated dup checker which seems to have fewer bugs. Fixed.
  • At around 17:30 the Ju 52's no need for the possessive here?
No idea. Expunged.
  • The I/1 Battalion landed successfully 5 mi (8.0 km) write out mi for consistency with usage elsewhere. Actually mi is used elsewhere as well so one or the other needs to be consistently used.
The template should default to miles. I am baffled. It is working some of the time. Ah, got it. Fixed.
  • The final sentence of the Seabourne contingent seems a little off tangent for this article as Force A is only ever mentioned here, although I note Rawlings is mentioned later.
Yeah, I wondered about just where to end this. I have rambled on too much. Last sentence removed.
  • III/1 Battalion attacked the shaken Greeks via the South and West Gates maybe mention these gates in the Allied defences section for greater context?
I wish I could, but this is their only mention in the sources. I would really like to write something like 'Part of the Greek force defended the town's old walls and its gates', as they pretty obviously did. But I can't support it.

Evacuation

  • There is a cite needed tag at the end of the first sentence of this section.
That was the source reviewer being assertive. Resolved.
  • ...and late that afternoon the Allies were heavily bombed for two hours. late is used earlier in this sentence, suggest deleting the second mention here.
Amended the first mention - "Shortly before noon on 28 May"
  • Perth is a dupe link
Thanks. Fixed.
  • As I understand it, the casualty info for the Allies only relates to the evacuation phase. It would be good to have casualties for the Battle of Heraklion itself, even if none are available for the Greek forces present (from AR's comments, it seems that the British/Aussie losses were around 50?)
Yeah. I am persuaded and will come up with something on casualties overall.

Aftermath

  • For greater context for Bräuer's war crimes, perhaps mention he was commander for part of the German occupation of Crete.
  • Slaps head* Of course. Done.

Hope this helps with getting this to A-Class. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zawed, it most certainly will and is much appreciated. Your comments above all addressed. Feel free to come back on anything you are not happy with; your comments were all thoughtful and I feel that this one could do with a good poke. Note that the section on casualties is still to come. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zawed, FYI I have added a bit on casualties - most of the first paragraph of "Aftermath" - and your thoughts on it would be appreciated. Otherwise the article is done and ready to receive reviewer judgement. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: Just a reminder that I am ready for your next instalment on this one. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking good, I have clarified a few points above. Zawed (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zawed, I have responded to them. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zawed, how's it looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy

edit
  • The "stick" in the lead caption seems a little jargony to me (and I say that as somebody with jump wings) - if we had a link, I think it'd be fine, but there isn't one as far as I'm aware.
Very good point. I get too close. Fixed.
  • Don't battle infoboxes give the units involved, numerical strength, casualties, etc.?
According to the template notes, those are optional.
  • "following on from attacks" - "following attacks" seems a bit tighter to me
True. Done.
  • Are we sure that the gerund is correct for "dropping" twice in the intro?
I am sure of few things in this life. They look fine to me, but I could readily change both to 'which dropped' if that ducks a perceived problem.
  • "A battalion of the 5th Mountain Division" - I can tell from context this is a German unit, but it should be clearer
Clarified.
  • I might expand the piped link to "invaded by Italy" - just piping it to "invaded" strikes me as a little WP:EGGy
True. Expanded.
  • Move the link to garrison to the first mention in the background section. Ditto for Ju 52 further down
You mean move the link to "garrisoned"? I am not too keen on that. Ju 52 sorted.
  • What kind of ships are Gloucester and Fiji?
Oops. Gone walkabout in a copy edit. Reinstated.
  • "Supporting the brigade were the 7th Battery...and a variety of other small anti-aircraft, support and ancillary units." - I find this sentence cumbersome and confusing. Were the captured Italian guns and the tanks operated by the 234th Battery? Or were these separate units?
Reorganised. Does that read better?
  • Luftlande-Sturm-Regiment needs the {{lang}} template
From the MoS "However, proper names ... in other languages are not usually italicized".
Ah, but wouldn't that also apply to OKH and the various Fliegerkorps? Parsecboy (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Consistency. I have gone with sticking a template around Luftlande-Sturm-Regiment.
  • HMS Naiad needs to be italicized
Done.
  • "Photograph taken by a German airman of a British warship sinking off the coast of Crete" - why not specify the ship? Also, the loss of Gloucester isn't mentioned in that section, so I wonder if it's a good image to use? If you want to replace it, this painting depicts the three cruisers scattering the 5th Mountain convoy off Crete, which seems more appropriate to me.
Well, as pretty much all of the photos showed the Allies going well or the Germans badly, I wanted something for balance. Originally the sinking of the Gloucester featured in passing in the article, so this seemed ideal. Then it was suggested above that I had gone a bit out of scope with my naval account - I agree, I had - so the text was cut. I still liked the picture though, so I kept it the new, non-specific caption. I could easily replace it as you suggest, but would you think that the images were then getting, collectively, a bit PoV?
I don't know that I see the German photos to be that negative; sure, there are a couple of Ju 52s shot down, but the Germans did lose quite a few of them during the battle (and arguably, the convoy carrying the withdrawing Commonwealth forces isn't a "good look", right?). And it's not exactly like you're juxtaposing photos of smiling British soldiers and dejected German POWs. I wouldn't be too worried about it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am persuaded. (And I had forgotten that I had already partially addressed this by moving two of the more negative images out to Battle of Rethymno.) Done. And thanks for finding that one.
  • "...withdrawn on the 24th. The same day four companies of paratroopers were dropped..." - which day were they dropped? The 23rd or 24th? I would assume the latter, but wanted to double check
You are correct, but it is not clear, so reworded.
  • " consisted of three cruisers – Orion, Perth, Ajax and Dido " - but that's four ships named ;)
*rolly eyes* Sometimes I despair of myself. Sorted.
Actually MacDonald contradicts himself and states that Perth was the cruiser which turned back (it was Ajax). The source was actually wrong. Amazing!
  • The math on Commonwealth forces and casualties doesn't add up; if we just count Commonwealth forces (i.e., including the Argylls and excluding the Greeks), you have around 5,250, but around 4,000 were evacuated. Where'd the other 1,250 go? The casualties list only 195 killed on Crete, and even if we assume all 244 of the wounded also happened on Crete and were evacuated before the 28th (which is unlikely), that's still a long way to get to 5,250. The figures for those killed during the evacuation, and the 400 captured, come almost completely from the lost of Hereford, so they'd come out of the 4,000 men evacuated. Where'd the other thousand or so men go?
Extremely good point. Originally I didn't have much on casualties as reliable figures are hard to come by. AR wanted them, so I added them, and didn't check against the original complement. The discrepancy is between two different official histories. I shall look into it.

Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. According to Davin, if you discount the Greeks and a few RAF personnel and add in all the Argylls, you have about 4,950 or more men at Heraklion at one time or another. I have clarified the situation regarding the Argylls in a footnote. It is known that some men were shipped out during the battle - "several tanks and some artillery pieces were sent by sea to the more active fighting in the Maleme area" (from the article). How many men this was, I don't know. One suspects that Freyberg would have transferred as many men west as his transport could handle, but that is OR. OK, cracked it, or part of it, despite several sources categorically stating that all of the Argylls were inside the perimeter by the end of the 25th, more than 300 never made it. Getting from the south coast over the hills with stray paratroopers all over the place just didn't work. Text amended.

So, ~8,000 less ~2,700 Greeks, some RAF personnel, whoever went to Sulva, "over 300" Argylls = ~4,600. Less 195 KIA, guesstimate as many again (or more?) too wounded to move, plus deliberately abandoned medical personnel and detachments left to cover the approaches - text amended to reflect this. The Germans certainly captured some Allied troops, although no source hazards a guess at the number. Say a total of 500 or more[?], giving approximately <4,100, which matches well enough with the estimates - and the sources stress that they are estimates - of the total evacuated.

Uncertainties during the evacuation include how many went down with the Imperial - a group of "drunken Australians" of unknown size refused to disembark - and how many evacuees were on the Hereward. I have rewritten the Allied casualties section to reflect all of this, including the uncertainties, as best I can. Now I know why several modern RSs don't touch these numbers. And why I didn't want to until AR twisted my arm. What a nightmare. I am never going to trust an official history again. I am never going to trust any RS again!

Any hoo Parsecboy, many thanks, I suppose, for spotting the discrepancy and forcing me into all of that research. It is now ready for you to cast your beady eye over it again. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that digging, Gog - I've run into similar issues even trying to account for the number of fatalities and survivors of individual warships, so I can only imagine how much more complicated something of this size could be! Parsecboy (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Heraklion&oldid=1005151106"