Talk:Battle of El Guettar

Italian role in defence of important hill being disputed

"The enemy positions seemed impregnable, and, in fact, the Italians manning them held out for three days ... Rommel, in a last desperate effort replaced the Italians with crack German troops. Hand-to-hand fighting followed, but the enemy, finally fell back into the ravine, leaving many dead behind." (Source: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19430401&id=zjRAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TVkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2804,4830439)

I have requested a proper explanation to confirm if this French report belongs to the action taking place in the Mareth Line or not. The French war correspondent claims that Italians had vigorously defended the "El Hamma" position.--100menonmars (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, I had confused Hamra Ridge in US sector with Hamma Ridge in British sector.--100menonmars (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies should have put this here first rather than reverted it. The El Hamma position lies near the Mareth Line and was attacked by the British 1st armoured division and the Free French (as mentioned by the newspaper) during their attempt to encircle the retreating Axis forces. El Hamma is nowhere near where the US attacked Hill 772 & Hill 369 during last stage of the battle where the Italians held them up. Shire Lord 21:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No problems & thank you. Shire Lord 21:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of El Guettar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610013744/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/nightcom.pdf to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/nightcom.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a US victory

Banned User:HarveyCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The US did not win, the battle was inconclusive. Patton lost as many men and as much material as was lost at Kasserine Pass, and this was against a severely depleted Axis army. 86.148.205.39 (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC) If you can provide sources that the battle was inconclusive please change the article to reflect. I have looked and can't find any, including the cited reference. Jackfork (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Correct it was not a US victory. They performed poorly. An allied victory yes, as the British Eight Army came up the Axis rear forcing them to turn 180 degrees away from US forces. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

“Battle” section full of irrelevant information

Most of the information provided in the “battle” section has nothing to do with El Guettar. What Eighth Army were doing further south had little bearing on the battle, and II Corps and Eighth Army didn’t link up until after the 6th April. It also fails to mention units from BR First Army following up the retreating German forces when II Corps halted.Enderwigginau (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Enderwigginau My dad was the 22 yrs old Italian second lieutenant in charge of hill 290. Such hill is cited in several books - ie An Army at Dawn and the official history of the US Division employed in the Battle - but not in this wikipedia article. incidentally, the Americans had attacked it mistaking it for the Hill 369 cited here . Fabrizio Formica 93.44.184.12 (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

put the article right. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No troop numbers given

The troop numbers on each side have not been given. Important information. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)