Talk:Desert warfare

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Deserts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Deserts 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.DesertsWikipedia:WikiProject DesertsTemplate:WikiProject DesertsDeserts articles

Military history: Technology

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

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 met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Mine discussion

I think the landmine discussion is out of place here. Surely landmines can be mentioned here, but other discussion should not be under Desert warfare.

A little bit of a rant on landmines, if someone can divide this up into what sections we should have, it shouldn't be so hard to clean up Drunken Pirate 23:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of formatting is killing my brain cells. Methinks the grammar also needs some serious work, but I'm not a warfare expert so I don't want to accidentally screw up any factual information when editing.

I also think that having all of desert warfare focus on little more than snipers and mines leaves the page incomplete -- there is obviously more to desert warfare than armies wandering around in the sand being sniped by unknown enemies and blown up by hidden explosive devices.

A discussion of Rommel would be appreciated from whoever knows enough to address him appropriately in this section. Whitty 03:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sentance needs modifying

Mobility is essential to a successful desert war. This explains the heavy use of armor in battles such as El Alamein in the Second World War

Well its just wrong, there was no mobility in the El Alamein battles - they were head on assualts through minefields and field fortifications. The sea and the depression 40ish miles to the south meant either side could not use there mobility.

A much better example would be Operation Compass - small number of British tanks out manovered the Italian 10th Army and forced there surrender, or the German attack agaisnt the Gazala line were they outflanked it and nearly destroyed the Eighth Army.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the medieval era desert warfare?

In fact, the Crusades were fought over the desert, where heavily armoured knights roasted below the sun while being defeated easily by armorless camel warriors. There's also a whole desert warfare concept on the medieval era also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.67.255.186 (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

I'm sorry but this was such a mess - pure WP:OR, uncited and irrecoverable, that I've boldly emptied out the text and marked it as a stub. And added a reflist. At least like this it doesn't mislead, and anyone feeling like having a go can start again cleanly, with references this time please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Desert warfare. 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/20060927053550/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Toppe/toppe.asp to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Toppe/toppe.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]