Talk:Allied invasion of Sicily

British Indian Army?

The flag icon on the article indicates that British Indian forces participated in the campaign, but there is no mention of their contribution, casualties, etc. Can anyone add info on this?

there were no Indians or Australians. Only British and Canadian units in the 8th Army at this time. The Indians arrived for the campaign on the mainland. I'll adjust the warbox accordingly. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 17:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

O Canada?

Why is there no mention of the Canadian contribution? One would think they weren't even there.

See Operation Husky order of battle, they are listed there. Or you can add more details. Beanbatch 22:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

largest amphibious assault?

I do not beleive that this one was larger than Normandy. Will try to prove it. Beanbatch 22:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Operation Husky was the largest amphibious assault of the war including Normandy. In some ways it can be considered to be the largest amphibious assault ever launched all at once as Gallipoli, while larger, it was done over a series of weeks.

Exaggerated German casualties

Where do the numbers come from that support the following claim: "casualties on the Axis side totalled 29,000, with 140,000 captured". According to [1] total German KIAs and MIAs were 57,800 + 18,300 for July 1943 and 58,000 + 26,400 for August 1943, including the battles of Kursk and Kharkov and all other fighting on the eastern front, that is 44,700 MIA on all fronts combined. 140,000 captured on Sicily would mean how many Italians? 143,000? Yes, I can see that they are quoted from [2] but that site does not claim what source it used in it's turn.

Also, the impact on the battle of Kursk was not that big. It might be worth mentioning that there is a big discussion concerning these issues on the talk page for that battle.

--itpastorn 15:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes i agree too, i have been adding all the casualties from the german campaings acording to wikipedia battlebox operations and the total summ is more than the overall german causalties on WW2!!!.(maybe come soldiers where casualties more than one time but is still to difficult to believe) From any way or another, dont trust the casualties box in the internet. Trust official figures from each combatant thats better, trusting in a official casualties report in one side and the aproximtions of the other is a POV. That should be avoided.

The Italians in Sicily were 230,000 (with the fascist Militia). The Fallen of the Axis were 4,278 Italians and 4,325 Germans. Alexander said "we have taken 132,000 prisoners." (Eddy Bauer, "Storia controversa della Seconda Guerra Mondiale"). Most of the Italian soldiers were Sicilians.

Official Account, Reading List and Campaign Streamer

I posted the official US Army Center for Military History account of the campaign, and their reading list. You may want to consolidate the two accounts to conserve space. I also added the Campaign Streamer.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

---

There is a project in place to coordinate all of the Military articles so that duplication of efforts, and better utilization of collaberative efforts ca be achieved. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Comment on airborne forces by DMorpheus

This was recently added into the "lessons learned" para regarding Allied interoperability: "Indeed, a few months later, Montgomery's initial assessment of the Operation Overlord plan included a request for four Airborne Divisions."

I'm wondering why this was included? It seems to suggest Sicily was the reason for having paratroopers in Overlord, but they had been used many times before - North Africa and at least one Commando raid. They had also been in the original plan for Dieppe (which Montgomery had a hand in), so if the suggestion is that Sicily proved a need for paratroopers to be in on D-Day, I'd suggest Allied planners knew full well about the capabilities of parachute troops long before that. Comments? The sentence seems out of place as is.Michael Dorosh 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The original sentence prior to my edit was unclear and perhaps inaccurate (its hard to say how inaccurate because I am not sure what meaning was intended). The point is simply this: Despite significant problems with the Airborne operations in Sicily, Montgomery wanted four Airborne Divisions for Overlord (he got three). I don't see how you can claim that Allied planners knew full well about the capabilities of Airborne troops prior to this. Crete was of course mis-read. They had not been used "many times" before. They had been used for very small-scale operations a few times; even in Sicily the largest drop was a Regiment. In North Africa one US Regiment made a non-combat jump, and the Commando raid was less than a battalion. Sicily was the first large combat jump, and Normandy was the first time Divisional-sized drops were made.

I am not attempting to say that Airborne forces were used in Normandy *only* because of Sicily, and the edit does not say or suggest that. It says Montgomery wanted a huge Airborne component for Overlord. Keep in mind that he also wanted a five-Division beach assault; much has been made of that fact, but less attention has been paid to the big Airborne component he wanted. DMorpheus 14:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to take a look at the planned Operation Giant II if you really believe Allied planners understood what Airborne forces could and could not accomplish prior to June 1944.DMorpheus 16:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that connection needs to be made in the article rather than in the talk page, though - on its own, as I indicated, the sentence seems to come out of nowhere. Can you expand it in the article and connect the dots for the reader?Michael Dorosh 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

BATTLES IN SICILY

In the text I don`t see a word about the German-Italian counter-offensive of Gela (July 11) of the German armoured division "Hermann Göring" and of the Italian division "Livorno". 600 soldiers of the "Livorno" started a frontal attack and were destroyed. It was the last offensive of the Italian Army during the war 1940-43. Moreover I don`t see a word about the battle of Valledolmo against the division "Assietta" (July 21)(sources are Attilio Tamaro and Eddy Bauer). The important role played by the Italo-American mafia and by the sicilian separatist who corroded the Italian units made up by Sicilians and "prepared" the Sicilian population isn`t to be undervalued.

If there is content you think should be added please do so. DMorpheus 14:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I add that on July 12, 1943 the US-Air Force destroyed the H.Q. of the Italian 6th Army in Piazza Armerina and this was important because the 6th Army, practically didn`t get regular orders any more.

DMorpeheus, now I guess I have understood what you meant. No, thanks, my English is too rudimental. You can improve the article better than me!

Commanders in the infobox

Is there a convention for commanders in the infobox? On the Allied side we currently have the army group commander (fair enough) then the two army commanders (ditto) but then one Corps commander (Bradley) out of a possible four. Then one divisional commander (Simonds) out of a possible 12 (or more if you include replacements) Then Andrew McNaughton is included although he wasn't in the chain of command for this operation (any more than the members of say the US or British chiefs of staff). On the Axis side we have Hitler and Mussolini - why? After all we don't have Churchill or Roosevelt in the box. We have the army commander Guzzoni (fine) and Corps commander Hube but not Corps commanders of the Italian XII and XVI Corps. Also, the German troops in Sicily, although under Guzzoni, actually took their orders from Kesselring and von Senger und Etterling (the German liaison officer to Guzzoni), so there is an argument to include them. Unless this provokes a howl of protest, I am proposing to remove in a couple of days evryone except the army / army group commanders - all the other names can be found in the order of battle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kirrages (talk • contribs) 17:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

In the absence of further comment I am executing the aboveStephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 12:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Importance of Malta during Operation Husky

Can anyone write somthing about the preparations that where done in Malta for Operation Husky? The information I have states that the operation was coordinated from Malta in the Lascaris tunnels in Valletta and the landing ships gathered in Malta. Also on Gozo an emergency landing strip was done in a few days time. Also during the invasion the naval dockyard in Malta was used for emergency repairs on allies ships. Malteseman1983 15:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

garbled intro

Seems the intro became garbled at some point. Part of it currently reads The invasion of the island was codenamed Operation Husky and it launched the Italian Campaign amphibious operation of World War II in terms of men landed on the beaches and of frontage. I hadn't followed the article before so I have no clue how the intro read before and the change doesn't seem to be recent. Maybe it should be changed to something like The invasion of the island was codenamed Operation Husky and it launched the Italian Campaign. It was the largest amphibious operation of World War II in terms of men landed on the beaches and of frontage. But something else might also have been deleted so I'd prefer it if someone more experienced with this article took a look first.--Caranorn 16:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've now tried to correct that problem, largely as I proposed above.--Caranorn 20:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect data for Canadian casualties

There is an error in the number of Canadian casualties from this part of the Italian Campaign. The Canadian casualties were not in the range of over 2,300. In fact, with POWs et al, subtract 1,000. Considering the original author provides the link to wwii.ca/page25.html, such an error is inexcusable, even if it was only mathematic. These can be further verified at http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=feature/italy2004/italy_educators/italyinfosheet . I have also corrected the total casualties list in the boxed info. Wikig39 14:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Naval participation?

Anyone have information on the naval participation in this operation? Oberiko (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Contributions from User 151.213.150.167

I have rolled back some dubious edits from this anonymous user. If anyone can cite or otherwise confirm this information, please do so. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag order.

Hi all. I was bold, and rearranged the belligerents' flags in the infobox in alphabetical order. Seems to me this should be the preferred order for all such battles, and seems less denigrating to the "lesser" allies without taking anything away from the "bigger" allies. Comments are, or course, welcome. Esseh (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

At second glance, the numbers of Allied personnel in the infobox should be broken down by country, as it is for the Axis powers. Anyone have estimates or exact numbers? Esseh (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Map of landings

Hi all. The map of the Allied landings needs some re-working. The Allied part is OK, as far as I can see, but the Axis part is labeled "German counteroffensives", or some such. However, of the three Axis Divisions shown, only the Hermann Goering Division is German - the other two are Italian! Should be "Axis defenders" or whatever! Esseh (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK more serious problems with the "Allied Landings" section: There is mention of 2 Brit, 2 Canadian and 1 Australian parachute groups, but none are shown on the map! If the Brit formations were the glider troops, the whole sentence (section) should be labelled "airborne" drops, not "parachute drops", as in the text. And where are the Cdn and Aus airborne drops?.

Second, "The Cdns met the "207th Coastal Div. and were pushed back to the beaches..." and needed help, yet (1) no 207th Div is shown on the map, and (2), if the lines for the map are correct, the Cdns and the Yanks on their left flank made the furthest inroads on the first day. What gives? Either the map is seriously in error, and/or the text is seriously mistaken! Any help with this? Esseh (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

One more criticism of this section - the counterattack on Gela. The text mentions heavy counterattacks by the (Italian) "Livorno Division", but the map shows counterattacks by both the Livorno and the (German) Hermann Goering Divisions. Need to reconcile the map with the text, again. (Sorry for the criticism - it is intended in the best spirit of improving the article.) Esseh (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Parachute Landings

The text says there were four parachute drops - two British, two American, one Canadian and one Australian (which adds to six!!). Also there are no Canadian or Australian airborn troops listed in the Operation Husky order of battle. Any idea what is going on here? Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 09:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kirrages. Good work on the changes you made. I am certainly no expert, but I was unaware of any Cdn or Oz airborne landings in Sicily. That's probably what intrigued me, and got me to wondering where they were on the map. Keep hunting. I suspect you found an error in your source. Cheers Esseh (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)