Talk:Battle of Crete

The use of "British" throughout the article is misleading. Many of the "British" forces on Crete - particularly the largest intact organic formations - were Australian and New Zealand. When I have time, I'll do an edit to change "British" to "Commonwealth" with an appropriate preamble. Ultimately though, it would be better to recognise the respective national forces in the article - e.g.Kiwis at Retimo, Aussies at Heraklion. These Units paid for the battle honours with their blood - let's recognise them. Fallingwithstyle 08:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Right, and wasn't Freyberg a kiwi? The article says he was British. DMorpheus 18:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've always read that he was a Kiwi, although the article on him says he was born in England, and many of his officers saw him as more of a pom, rather than one of their own. I've changed it anyway. --BadSeed 21:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The section on the British & Commonwealth Armour is contradictory here. It says in one para that there were no Bren Carriers, and then later says there were Universal Carriers - they are the same thing Likewise there is a para which states there were 15 Cruiser Mk 1s, the next that there were 22 Mark VIbs, and 8 Matilda IIs

I agree the section on armor is weak. The Bren carrier is not precisely the same thing as a Universal carrier, although most people use the terms interchangably. The "Universal" carrier was a wartime design intended to replace several specialist-type carriers (thus the name 'universal') including the very similar Bren carrier, Scout carrier, and some of the Dragon carriers that were really light artillery tractors. At a glance it is pretty hard to tell them all apart, but they are slightly different vehicles. I admit though, most people call all of them 'Bren carriers'. DMorpheus 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

The last paragraph and the table of casualties contain a number of ambiguities

• British losses were the following, 1,751 dead and an equal number wounded, although a enormous number were captured, 12,254 and 5,255 Greeks. There were also 1,828 dead and 183 were wounded among the Navy.

It's not clear whether the "British losses" in the first sentence includes Greeks. Looking at the table I think perhaps it does but I can't be sure. Why aren't the navy losses included with "British losses"? Does that mean the first sentence refers only to ground and possibly air forces? --LeeHunter 14:59, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, I've decided that the "British losses" must refer to the allies (to make the numbers add up) so I've made that change. I've also removed the table because it contains less information than the body text. --LeeHunter 15:20, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/Gallery/crete/casual-ties.htm Suggests that the figures do not include:

• Royal Navy shore establishments
• Greek Army (Cypriots and Palestinians are included) -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone at 217.225.66.80 added these notes on casualties; I moved them here because this is an English-language article. — B.Bryant 01:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wer auch immer diese Zahlen hier angegeben hat, diese sind einfach Falsch. Während den 10 tägigen Kämpfen um Kreta -Battle of Crete- im Rahmen des Unternehmens "Merkur" sind folgende Zahlen richtig:

Englische Verluste:

Royal Navy 2.196 Tote und Vermißte 430 Verwundete

Creforce Command 1.711 Tote 1.738 Verwundete

(Gefangene 12.254 Mann ohne griechische Einheiten und Freischärler)

Deutsche Verluste:

VIII.Fliegerkorps 29 Tote 43Vermißte 78 Verwundete

Luftwaffe/Geb.Jäger 3.329 Tote Vermißte 1.802 Verwundete

(Sturmregiment,Fallschirmeinheiten,Gebirgsjäger lt.Liste des :Kriegsgräberbundes, die bei den Kämpfen um Kreta starben und hier beerdigt sind. Die restlichen ca.1.100 Toten auf den Friedhof Maleme starben von Juni 1941 bis zum Kriegsende, durch Partisanenanschläge oder im Kampf mit Partisanen oder durch Unfälle auf Kreta)

Are the 16,000 german casualities a bit over the top? The Lost Battle book I have (see references at foot of page) hotly disputes them and says Churchill repeated figures like these after the war to whitewash the command cock-ups/fruitlessness of it all. -max rspct 23:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, there seems to be no evindence that supports British claims of massive German casualties. --Ekeb 09:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. British causalties are official and documented. Wikieditors have acepted that info and added it to the infobox. So i guees the german official casualties should be taken in the article, not Churchill whitewash trash.

I actually believe the heavy German casualties may have some truth to them. If you listen to eyewitness accounts they would describe a massive slaughter of parachutists, and if the Germans only lost less than 7,000 men why would they consider Crete such a setback. Hitler forbid further airborne operations because of the disastrous casualties and General Kurt Student was contemplating suicide during the battle. I think German casualties may have been and probably were much higher than what they admitted. Just look at the evidence and use common sense.

Those eyewitness reports also states that Allied troops buried hundreds of Germans. That is very curious, when elsewhere is stated that those troops did not even had enough shovels to dig trenches for themselves. --Ekeb 17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read from various sources that 1250 germans were buried at Heraklio and 900 were buried at Rethimno during the course of the battle because the stench of the bodies was too much to bear. But if the heavy casualty figure is not true than why would the Germans consider Crete such a setback and why would Winston Churchill argue casualty figures were heavier than admitted when the war was already over and when he was already considered the greatest Prime Minister in British history? ~~66.53.98.122

Further Reading

I've added several books to this listing, some of which were acquired in translated paperback edition while in Greece and therefore may be difficult for some readers to acquire. Altho grammatical and spelling errors are common in them, they nevertheless have important information that can contribute significantly to a better understanding of the Battle of Crete. - MHO 01:04, 04 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Refined publication info on Greek issued references. - MHO 23:24, 04 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Crete (comment)

Per The Oxford Companion to World War II, Dear, I.C.B. and M.R.D. Foote, eds, Oxford University Press, 1995, Crete, battle for, table p.277, as excerpted from Freyberg, P., Bernard Freyberg VC, London, 1991, the German forces who landed on Crete 20-23 May 1941, were as follows: May 20 Maleme, Galatas, Suda Bay: 6,030; Retimo: 1,500; Heraklion: 2,000; Total: 9530 May 21 Maleme, Galatas, Suda Bay: 1,880; Retimo: 0; Heraklion: 120; Total 2,000 May 22 Maleme, Galatas, Suda Bay: 1,950; Retimo: 0; Heraklion: 0; Total 1,950 May 23 Maleme, Galatas, Suda Bay: 3,650; Retimo: 0; Heraklion: 400; Total 4,050 Totals: Maleme, Galatas, Suda Bay: 13,510; Retimo: 1,500; Heraklion: 2,520; Total: 17,530 --65.177.81.71 23:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Naval aspect

It has been pointed out at the Greek version of the page that the campaign is widely considered part of the land-based Balkans Campaign; however, I think the case can also be made for including it in the Battle of the Mediterranean. Is it possible to have two campaign boxes in one battlebox? --Jpbrenna 15:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we may have to have a custom job to do it, but I don't see it being a big technical issue. Oberiko 00:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

British Forces

While most of the troops in Crete were the Germans, the New Zealanders were in the main defending the island. My father and three uncles were all fight the Germans at Crete, all the males on both sides. I can assure you that the British were there too. But navy men. All four men were able to leave becuase of the British. My father and one of my uncles had to swim out to HMS Ajax (1934), although the ship is not placed as being in Crete in the article. I can assure you that it was there, and could have been lost that day. The whole affair was a disaster. My father said that British planes dropped leaflets for the men to evacuate, even though they were holding their own. The men had to find their way down to the coast, and marshalls told them to swim out to the British Warships, which picked them up by nets slung over the aide and at full battle speed. It then dumped the men off in Egypt for more excitment (fighting). My father was badly wounded at Point 175, in the Battle of Crusader (I think). Two of my uncles died in the Battle of Crusader (not mentioned in wikipedia) and the Battle of El Alamein. Desertgold 13:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Try Operation Crusader -max rspct 11:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Weapons

1. This section mentions a 20mm Bofors. Is rhis right ? I only know of a 40mm gun.
2. It also mentions a Matilda tank being "loaded with the wrong ammunition, 15mm not 40mm." Surely someone would have noticed. Wouldn't it rattle around in the gun a bit ?

The Bofors article says they made both a 40mm & a 37mm that was used in World War II; I believe my source said the 20mm's in question were Bofors as well, but I will check.

I did not write the whole section about the Matildas, I just edited it. Given the context, I believe the author's intention was to say "supplied with the wrong ammunition. Obviously, even a raw recruit would notice something amiss when he went to load a 15mm shell into the chamber of a 40mm piece. Someone must have put cases filled with the wrong size ammunition into the tanks without checking inside them. --Jpbrenna 14:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The 20mm would have been an Oerlikon or Hispano gun, or possibly a captured Italian piece, but not a Bofors. The 40mm gun on British tanks such as the Matilda did not routinely have any HE round provided, on Crete or elsewhere. It's inconceivable that a Matilda would have been loaded with 15mm ammunition - for one thing there would be nowhere to put it. Tanks have ammo racks into which individual rounds are stowed. Normally the crews load up their own ammo so, raw recruits or not, they would have noticed long before combat that they had the wrong ammo. DMorpheus 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a reference to Antill if you want to look it up.--Jpbrenna 06:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

"Commander Freyberg's fears of an ocean attack and his lack of intelligence on the ground of a major defensive line, became an initial airborn massacre of an estimated 2,000 German paratroopers before they obtained control of airfields".

'Commander' Freyberg ? I know he was in the naval brigade in WW 1; or is this a new way of indicating that he was Creforce commander ? And what is all this about "an ocean attack" ? The last time I looked at an atlas, Crete was in a sea.

I would suggest deleting the entire paragraph.It does not make sense. As it stands it adds nothing to the article.

84.130.94.236 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

British orthography & usage

I noticed when making a small edit the spelling seabourne, where I - a native speaker of American English, educated in the States - would have used seaborn. That got me to thinking: a number of Kiwi, Aussie, Limey and Yank contributors have worked on this article. There have also been some German and Greek contributors. All of these except the Americans would likely have used Commonwealth English; however, I added a lot of material to the article, and I would hazard a guess that it is at least forty percent Yankee-edited. That means we have two different English spelling systems in use, and Wikipedia policy is to standardize them throughout an article.

Since all of the English-speaking combatants on Crete came from places where they had regimental colours, not colors and used bootblack, not shoe polish, I think it only fitting that we use the Commonwealth spelling and terminology here. My only problem is that I don't have time to comb through the article right now. If anyone else cares to, I will not object, and in future I will try to remember to my -ours etc. when modifying this article. --Jpbrenna 18:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so good- Thanks

This article is simply incorrect. It places a great emphasis on British troops, who were not the main echelon. The Kiwis were, and the Aussies second. To use the term "Commonwelath" is plain insulting. The locals Cretes were defending the island too. The British Navy was certainly involved, and this should be mentioned, but the army to minimal part. I know all this for a fact, as I have spoken at length to a number of men who took part in the battle. Two themes are constant, when relaying their experiences, that terrible swim out to sea to get rescued, and hiding behind rocks when the paratroops were coming down. Also they mention their leader Kippenberger, who is not even refered to in this article. Wallie 13:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think original research is frowned on as much as POV, WP:NOR. Would love to read your contribution if you can find citable sources for it though. Fluffy999 14:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I will change "British and Commonwealth" to "New Zealand, Australian and British", as the British army only had a small role. The article implies that the British did most of the fighting. Wallie 15:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Having read the article I wouldn't have said that was the case. It clearly shows that NZ and others were ther ein large numbers. That said British is often used as shorthand for British Empire or British and Commonwealth. In the context of a single section headline it seems appropiate. GraemeLeggett 16:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems odd that this seems only to apply to cetain countries. The Canadians are not usually refered to as "Commonwealth" and neither is Australia if the Australians are the main force in an action. This term seems mainly to apply to Indian (incl now Pakistan), New Zealand and South African troops. The individual countries should be specified. After all they lost troops too. Wallie 21:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Not so good - Thanks

The article does not imply that at all that the British did all the fighting - obviously Wallie has failed to read the article carefully. It is demonstrably false that "...the British Army had only a small role." Royal Army units (along with Greek troops, and, at Souda Bay, Royal Marines) were mixed in with NZ and Australian troops and fought in every major engagement of the battle. The Northumberland Hussars, 1st Ranger Battalion and the Royal Welch Fusiliers formed the Force Reserve which - surrounded by five German regiments - guarded the retreat of the 5th New Zealand Brigade from Chania: of the approximately 1,250 men in the force, only 250 were able to break through and join the evacuation; the rest were killed or captured What about Layforce, and the Royal Army artillerymen who stood with them even when ordered to evacuate? It is simply a slander upon the dead to say that the Royal Army played a small role!

Kippenberger was a field-grade officer (Lt. Col. at the time of the battle), not one of the New Zealand general officers who commanded a sector on Crete. His 10th New Zealand Infantry Brigade was an ad hoc unit comprised of the New Zealand Division Divisional Cavalry, the NZ Composite Battalion (sappers and other combat support troops organized to fight as infantry), and the 6th and 8th Greek regiments. This was the smallest unit in the NZ Division during the battle. Kippenberger was decorated in WWI and led his brigade through the rest of the war, but he was still a relatively low-ranking officer. Until shortly before the battle, he was the commander of an infantry battalion. The reason he is not mentioned here is that the article has not reached a sufficient level of detail to include him. He should eventually be included, because although he was not as important at the strategic decision-making level, Kippenberger did win the DSO for his actions on Crete. I prioritize him lower than some of the other New Zealand officers; you are free to disagree and contribute on him.

There is no conspiracy to leave out New Zealanders, I assure you; if this were the case, I would not have written up Capt. Royal & the Maoris. Some relatively low-ranking Germans have gotten a mention because they had famous family members (Richtofen), were celebrities for non-military reasons (Schmelling) or had a particularly noteworthy role in the battle. Many New Zealanders who fit this description (like Freyberg, who was a champion swimmer) are of high rank and have already been mentioned - or will be as the portions regarding the battle in various sectors are updated. Instead of leaving these emotional posts, you should Assume good faith and start filling in the gaps. --Jpbrenna 01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)