Talk:Battle of Monte Castello

Italy Mid‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brazil: History Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the History of Brazil task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: European / German 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

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 and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force

Grammar

This article's English is so poor that to change it to something more acceptable would change the meaning, (that's if the original meaning was known)! In its present form, it should not pass B-class grammar-wise. RASAM (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It feels as if it was simply translated from the portuguese original. Maybe a partial re-write can improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.108.191.11 (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Error

I call attention to a recurring error in the article over the years: On the number of total casualties (killed in action + wounded + prisoners taken by enemy) on both sides in this battle. So far, the most well-known references on the subject are the memoirs of the commander of the Brazilian Expeditionary Division and the author cited in the article (Donato, 1996). And in quoted reference, in the pages related to the battle in question, the arithmetical sum of casualties on both sides occurred on the dates of the 3 main fightings of this battle:

November, 29. 1944
December, 12. 1944 &
February, 21. 1945

Shows a Total of: 425 casualties on the Brazilian side, and 70 casualties on the German side. Thus, unless One come with a reliable book or journal reference (preferably that can be checked online, as the present one), to update such historical data, I ask to anybody avoid "guessing" any data that is not verifiable.

PS:
For those unfamiliar with military affairs, and therefore perhaps the disparity of casualties between the two sides; I remind you that one of the characteristics of Mountain combat is the innumerable advantages that the defending side has in relation to the attacker one. These advantages usually result in disparities of this type, especially in frontal attacks such as the first two (of the main) fightings of Monte Castello. An example (and not even a mountainous terrain) was the Battle of Rapido River between US and German forces between 20 and 22 January 1944, when the 2:1 attacking forces suffered 2100 casualties, against only 243 of the defensing Ones. A difference of almost 9 (NINE):1.
In the Battle of Monte Cassino, which in this sense (a clear advantage for the defending side in terms of topography), is considered a battle of "balanced proportions" between casualties on both sides, occurred a almost 3:1 more casualties among the allied attacking troops than their enemy Nazi-fascist troops.
Thus, the disparity between Brazilian casualties and the Germans who defended Monte Castello - quoted in the present book reference of the article, around 6:1 - is pretty into the statistical average of frontal attacks against positions of this type. 179.111.28.91 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion with the Battle of Mount Belvedere

This article suggests that the later Battle of Mount Belvedere was part of this battle, despite the fact that (1) there was a lengthy pause between the BEF's attempts to seize Belvedere & the 10th Mountain's assault, (2) the two actions followed different battle plans developed by different individuals (while I assume Gen. Mascarenhas de Morais was in charge of the first battle, I know based on reliable sources Gen. George Hays drew up the plans & directed the actions of the second), & (3) the name of the second battle is more familiar than the first -- at least amongst Americans. As soon as I finish writing an article on the battle for Mt Belvedere, I plan to remove that misplaced information from this article. -- llywrch (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]