Talk:First Battle of Sirte

Italian victory ?

I'm not sure it can be called an italian victory, the ships of Force K sunk because of naval mines, the day after the battle.--Moroboshi 18:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am reading those "mediterranian" articles and my eyes are opening wider and wider... ITALIAN VICTORIES?! One side has air support, battleships, heavy cruisers, destroyers, operates close to naval/air bases - the other only has light cruisers and destroyers. Despite this, convoy goes through and much weaker side achieves its tactical targets. Who is really victorious here?

Counting dead sailors, or ships sank after reaching the destination by aviation or on mines can't change the result, sorry.

Once again: if a light cruiser stops a battleship from achieving its operational target, even if the cruiser is sank afterwards, the battleship has lost. Capito? Doesn't matter that "782 sailors died on the cruiser". They died, but won.

Second battle of Sirte, for instance, is used as a handbook example of using light escort agains prevailing forces from the British side, and fatal unability to execute the advantage from the Italian side. Calling the British actions "defeat" is writing a new history.

Someone has really to look closer at this, and look for other sources than Regia Marina as well. EAJoe 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone? Xyl 54 16:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(Further discussion on this at "Inconclusive") Xyl 54 12:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Second battle of Sirte was a modest tactical victory for the Italian Navy which managed to rout the convoy and forcing it to be subjected by Air attack in Malta another day Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Re-write

I’ve re-written some of this, particularly the Background and Prelude sections, in order to give a fuller picture of the events surrounding this action. I’ve also given some sources from the British side, for perspective. There were a couple of mistakes: the position in the Western desert was different than previously described; also, it supposes the Malta Strike Force was called Force K, which is incorrect. There were several groups of warships based at Malta during the campaign; Force K was one of them, though arguably the most famous. And it didn’t ‘cease to exist ‘ in the minefield off Tripoli, though the incident was bad enough; the 2 ships lost were from Force B. Xyl 54 16:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

“Among the defensive forces was a battleship, meaning that a total of three British battleships were believed to be in the general area. In fact, the ships in question were actually escorting a British convoy to Malta, and the battleship was later discovered to be a tanker, the Breconshire, disguised with painted-on guns."
I’ve lifted this bit out, as it seems dubious.
The RN used a dummy battleship (HMS Centurion) during Operation Vigorous, but not this one, so far as I know, and I can’t find any reference of Breconshire being tricked out this way. It seems unlikely, anyway; Breconshire was the most valuable ship in the convoy; it wouldn’t make sense to disguise her as a ship of similar value. Xyl 54 13:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Result

I came back today to fix a few things, the result amongst them, but its been done already. ( That was quick!). But I’ve changed the contents of the infobox to fit the battle of Sirte alone, as not all the ships in the order of battle were present, and very few of the casualties in these various actions occurred then. Xyl 54 14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Inconclusive

I've stated in the conclusion why this battle, and the series of engagements as a whole, are regarded as inconclusive. If anyone, paricularly anyone who wants to describe this as an Italian victory, disagrees, can I have your reasoning here, please? Xyl 54 12:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Introduction

This:
“The battle itself was relatively uneventful, but has come to describe a week of clashes which illustrate well the cut and thrust of naval warfare in the Mediterranean at the time.”
Was replaced by this:
”Although the damage inflicted during the battle between the convoy's escorts was light - both forces being able to complete their delivery missions - limiting the battle to tactical Italian victory; during an action following the battle, which was caused directly by the convoy battle, the Royal Navy's Force K ran into an Italian minefield, and ceased to exist as an effective unit. This, by itself, was a major setback for the Allies.”
Without discussion here.
I’ve reverted this because:
1)The introduction explains the First Battle of Sirte was a series of related engagements and gives an overview; to mention one engagement ("Force K" ) gives it undue weight, to give the impression of a victory.
2)The mention of Force K is inaccurate; the ships lost in the minefield were from Force B
3)The battle of Sirte section shows it was inconclusive, and there is ample discussion above on whether or not it was a tactical victory or not.
4)The conclusion shows the whole series were inconclusive, some won and some lost, with honours even. I think that is the fairest evaluation of these events.
Xyl 54 (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Netherlands?

Why the Dutch flag? As far as I can see there no Dutch participation. And what about New Zealand? or is it a NZ/NL acronym slip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.40.24 (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Dutch ship Isaac Sweers was part of the "4th Destroyer Flotilla". It is in the 'Allies' section.

In the 'Tripoli's minefield' section mention is made of "... many of them New Zealanders from Neptune..." died when the ship was sunk.

So I would say the acronyms are kosher. RASAM (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent infobox change to "Italian victory" (again) - March 2016

I note that this issue has been partially discussed several times before (see above), but it seems this needs to be revisited. IP 208 has recently changed the infobox outcome from "Inconclusive" to "Italian victory" [1][2]. However, as no references have been provided to support this change I have reverted them. Of cse if there are reliable sources which support this assertion then I have no issue with any editor making this change (with an inline citation), but pls do not simply keep changing this based only on your opinion / reasoning of the outcome (please see WP:PROVEIT for our policy on verifiability and the referencing etc). Anotherclown (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Italian victory or Inconclusive?

In the page of the Battle of the Mediterranean. The First Battle of Sirte and The Raid on Alexandria in December 1941 was swung towards to the Axis Naval Forces. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources stating that First Sirte was an Italian victory. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Since all of them are Inconclusive that I found in some sources.The First Battle of Sirte is Truly Inconclusive. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You need to go to the Wikipedia page of the sources like The Battle of the Mediterranean and Military History of Italy In World War II, Do a research about those pages. 120.28.81.57 (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Since I found some sources that it was rather a Italian Success. And I've been researched to the Wikipedia page of your two sources and I found it was rather a Italian Success and, Yes you are right it was a Italian Success. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The First Battle of Sirte was just a good success for the Regia Marina but the Raid on Alexandria in December 19,1941 was more excellent attack by the Regia Marina to the Two British Battleships in Alexandria named HMS Valiant and HMS Queen Elizabeth. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You need to cite reliable sources, as I told you once before. That means find a book written by a reputable author, published by a reputable press. Pointing from one Wikipedia article (that you've edited) to justify edits elsewhere is simply not acceptable.

And by the way, if you think you're fooling anyone by logging out, posting a comment, and then logging back in to agree with yourself, you're wrong. Please stay logged in to comment in the same discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

To get the ball rolling:

1. The War for the Seas: A Maritime History of World War II: "The First Battle of Sirte was an inconclusive engagement fought in December 1941..."
2. British Battleship vs Italian Battleship: The Mediterranean 1940–41: "At the first battle of Sirte, the Italian battle fleet with Littorio, Giulio Cesare, and Andrea Doria fights an inconclusive engagement..."
3. Battle at Sea: "The First Battle of Sirte, on December 17, 1941, was an inconclusive fight..."
4. Mussolini's Navy: A Reference Guide to the Regia Marina, 1930–1945: "...inconclusive First Battle of Sirte between Italian warships and some British cruisers..." (and I'd point out that the author, Maurizio Brescia, is a noted Italian naval historian)
5. Victory at Sea: Tales of His Majesty's Coastal Forces: "This inconclusive engagement has been called the First Battle of Sirte."

There, plenty of sources describing the action as inconclusive. You need to find at least as many (and realistically, more than twice as many to show that your view is the preponderant one) that describe the battle as an Italian victory. Until then, your pro-Italy POV pushing will be reverted on sight. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright. To settle down the argument and confusion because some Wikipedia page tells it was rather An Italian Success. Im going to change some mistakes to rather Inconclusive. But thanks for the sources. Best Regards Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Force K went into a minefield Trap in Tripoli After the Battle. Even Italian Version of the Page says It was a Italian victory . Not all sources tells enough information . The First Battle Of Sirte was the Battle were Force K suffered Heavy damage to the mines and sinking 2 destoryers. If The Battle Never happened. The Force K would have never went to Tripoli. 120.28.81.42 (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The Italian Regia Marina also succesfully defended the Axis convoys reaching to Tripoli During the Battle. 120.28.81.32 (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Your thoughts on the matter are entirely irrelevant; you need to provide reliable sources that support your point. If you continue to try to edit the article to push your POV, I'll simply lock the page and/or block your IPs. Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I notice some other Wiki page sites in Italian , French and Czech that the Battle was a Italian victory . I don't know what to decide. Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

And also for Spanish Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

All of those are completely irrelevant. What do reliable sources say? That is literally the only consideration we have. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

CE

Tidied refs and citations, auto-edded, dupe wl scan. Keith-264 (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)