Talk:Battle of Beersheba (1917)

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force British military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Ottoman military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force

Artillery

Quote " The Australian artillery opened fire with shrapnel from long range but it was ineffective against the widely spaced horsemen" shouldn't that be some other force's artillery???62.219.213.74 11:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC) It has been changed at some time to Austrian artillery. Is this correct? I wasn't aware of the Austrian's being involved there?

Cleanup required?

Reviewing this article as it stands, it doesn't seem to me to be encyclopaedic any longer. There is too much space devoted to rubbishing previous versions, too much detail irrelevant to the main narrative and too many references to maps not available under wikipedia WP:EGG HLGallon (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

After a quick read I think only the third paragraph of the prelude is really awry. The rest is mostly ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.16.143 (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with HLGallon, specifically relating to the long paragraph regarding what was the last successful cavalry charge. This is military fancruft, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Apart from the great problems of defining what was "successful" and what was a "cavalry charge", there's nothing to say a cavalry charge in the future couldn't be successful. Observing that something was "the last" without expounding a theory for why this was so leaves the reader without insight. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

My objections to the article as it stood on July 31, 2008 seem mostly to have been addressed. Someone had obviously done much research but the ridiculously detailed Turkish order of battle, which required a very large scale map to understand (and which I suggested was irrelevant to the main narrative) has now been moved to an endnote. The dismissal of the "Haversack Trick", which verged on POV, has also been removed. The drawback of presenting Turkish documents to prove that the Turkish had either good intelligence or excellent guesswork as to British intentions merely presents further questions as to how they managed to lose. Was there treachery, cowardice or incompetence ? It certainly appears that the Turks did not act upon their own appreciation; so its inclusion was perhaps another irrelevancy. Unless anyone has further objections to the tone of the article (perhaps on the grounds of the "last successful charge") I will remove the Personal Essay tag in the next few days. HLGallon (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bill Woerlee addressed the concern, which was, as HLGallon surmised, about the justification for an action as being the "last successful charge": I've removing my essay tag. I actually came back to the article to clarify what I was asking, but apparently my meaning came through, even the wording wasn't especially precise.

The Turkish intelligence question is intriguing: "treachery, cowardice or incompetence". An historical itch that is difficult to scratch. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Defensive Tactics

It's been awhile but I remember reading something about the tactics involved in this battle, I think maybe they should be included (if someone can find a reference) because they had an influence on the result.

Light Horse Infantry Tactics - Troopers would use their mounts to rapidly close the gap between them and their enemy, at a certain distance they would dismount, leaving their horses behind they would then fight the battle as traditional infantry.

Defensive Tactics v Light Horse - The tactics of the Light Horse were well known, as such the defenders would preset their sights to the approximate distance they would dismount, holding fire until they did. Dismounting took time, during this the troopers were vulnerable, easy targets (If memory serves this tactic led to heavy casualties in previous engagements in other conflicts)

Light Horse Tactics in this battle - Instead of dismounting as per normal, the troopers committed to a full charge, riding past where their opposition had sighted their weapons, this meant when they finally opened fire it was inaccurate allowing large numbers of the Australian to get to & past the Turkish lines - Significantly altering the outcome of the battle 125.237.102.11 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)