Anti-tank dog was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 6, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in combat areas of the
Eastern Front of World War II,
German soldiers were ordered to shoot any dog because it might be an
anti-tank dog? |
Curzio Malaparte's Caputt may be added as literary depiction of this phenomenon. He devotes one chapter to it in very readable form. Pavel Vozenilek 16:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this is just folklore. No sources, no links, no nothing. Yes, it's a funny story, but bullshit none the less.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.83.54 ( talk) 02:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I dont want to be of a negative tone to this article ( its been very useful to be and I appreciate the person who wrote it), but I just dont think that a anti-tank dog would have been the cleaverlest idea to be used in WW2. and what surprises me, is that both sides used it.
I guess its like the US that start shooting at every car that just comes too close to their Humvee or sumthin like that ( i read it in the newspaper - its like a comfort zone). But coming back to WW2, I believe that if the tank crew spotted anyone (not allied soldiers inparticular, or really just anything hostile) advancing towards their tanks, they would shoot him/her. So why wouldnt they shhot the dogs?lol. And now we can see the evolution about the unknown, that we are mistaking some lunch bag for a bomb. Always fun to see it on the news and have the robot shoot a few of those water rockets into it...
I'll do abit of research, and I'll try to add to this article paat 21:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The basic premise of the mine dog was once under the tank and ridden over a rod in the mechanism would snap do to the weight and then explode. Initial reports by the Germans thought the dogs as messenger dogs (do to the sack worn) and cared very little of them. That is of course before they became aware of what they were and the first casualties reported. The dogs although initially semi-successful became less so when the Germans became aware. The numbers presented in the article seem a little high. Contrary to the above poster said, the dogs were easier to handled at such ranges. Of course that is not to say that all of the dogs were dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockawayG24 ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.soviet-empire.com/arsenal/army/anti-tank/dog_mine/dog_mine_001.php - this site states: "A soviet dog mine in training, or so it would appear. What is interesting about this picture is that although the training tank does not have a real gun, its turret appears to be that of the T-34/85. The T-34/85 was not introduced until 1944, yet dog mines were supposed to have been withdrawn in 1942!" - this goes with the picture seen on the article page paat 18:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Paat's edit [1] states "but there has been speculation that this method was still being used . . .". I'll remove this " weasel-word" sentence, unless someone can indicate where there has been such speculation, preferably with a verifiable reference. — Michael Z. 2006-01-23 16:46 Z
your forgetting, this is wikipedia, having sources is irrelevent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.165.218 ( talk) 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I remember reading that one problem was that Russian tanks used diesel while german tanks used Petrol (or maybe it was the other way around?). The Dogs tended to go for the Russian tanks since they had the right smell. No ref sorry. - SimonLyall 01:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
1. Changed 'tipped' to tripped'.
2. Deleted 'bomb', inserted 'explosive charge'. In the context of WW II, a bomb was a weapon dropped from an aircraft.
3. Deleted 'no armor'. inserted 'less armour'. Most armoured vehicles have their armour distributed thus: front - thickest, sides - lots, rear - some, underneath - least(but there is still some).
4. Changed 'climb under' - to my knowledge, dogs don't climb anywhere, neither up nor down !
5.Changed 'pulled' to 'withdrawn', I think it is better English.
84.130.117.18 19:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
See it and believe it. -- Toytoy 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll bite. Why didn't they just make tanks with cow-catchers? Er, I mean dog-catchers. Seems like that would have put a screeching halt to the use of anti-tank dogs as weapons. -- M.Neko 09:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Should'nt this article be more clear about the fact that the dog DIES in the process of triggering the mine? The way the article is read seems to imply that a dog can survive having an anti-tank bomb explode off its back! Should'nt there be some sort of section for the humanity of the practice, especally if it was carried on into 1996? Or am I just really f**cking confused? 69.250.130.215 21:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I added the hoax tag some days ago thinking it would obvious why. The whole concept, as described in the article, sounds extremely far-fetched. A google search for "hundeminen" results in 243 hits, and all but a few go to Wikipedia or sites citing Wikipedia. The more formal "panzerabwehrhund" has 334 hits, about as many as a "anti-tank dog" in English. All the sites i find in English seem to contain the same text and they all reference the "entire Soviet tank division" that supposedly was forced to retreat. Nowhere can I find a source for this. Finally, the Russian "Противотанковая собака" has a mere 60 google search results. So, has anyone actually read a book that mentions anti-tank dogs and the use thereof? Of course this could all be accurate and simply obscure, in which case I apologize.
Its world war II, sonny. many events that happened during WWII have very little documentation left after the war. 202.12.94.13 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The picture labels the T-34 as an 85 model, but that gun looks far smaller and shorter than even the 70+mm gun. Anyone have any insight into this?
---Training of anti-tank dogs continued until at least June 1996 (Zaloga et al 1997:72)---.
what does that last part mean ?
Tyriel 07:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Template:Exploding organisms has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — DropDeadGorgias ( talk) 20:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe this page is a copyright violation, specifically of http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=504 . It is identical almost word for word, and nothing leads me to believe the author of the original article has contributed to this one. Can anyone verify its copyright status? - Cronium 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Who gives a shit? It's about dogs that fucking explode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.69.128 ( talk) 15:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerabwehrhund —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.99.42 ( talk) 15:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I added the tag {{limitedgeographicscope}} because the article talks only about the use of dogs in the Soviet Union, while anti-tank dogs were also used at least in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. I can provide further details about use in the KoY, but I have no idea what are all the countries they were used in. Nikola ( talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Who in their right mind would use the word 'victuals' in a modern article about anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.218.24 ( talk) 04:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The cited references for this article range from self published to a publication mostly intended as humour. While it seems likely that some dogs were trained, claims of them destroying 300 German tanks are particularly extraordinary and need solid references. Hohum ( talk) 21:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Have removed templates as I believe they are no longer applicable; if they are restored please post an explanation here identifying problems or issues. (I didn't want to believe this article; now that I do, I want it to be accurate)
Began pursuing deletion of this article believing it to be a total hoax and thus damaging to the Wikipedia concept; sadly instead moved on to trying to improve the article. Thanks... Snozzwanger ( talk) 17:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello I corrected the statement about the German tanks being diesel powered. Not a single German tank in WWII used diesel engines. They all used high performance gasoline engines. The source cited was mistaken in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.235.96 ( talk) 04:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I remember when this used to be discussed on alt.folklore.urban on Usenet; there was a persistent belief that some early board wargame, probably PanzerBlitz or something like that, having a dog mine counter in some edition (supposedly quickly removed after negative reaction). Is this something anybody's come across? Daniel Case ( talk) 04:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This seems quite comprehensive in terms of sources, but at the moment it badly needs a copy-edit for grammar and prose, which is not upto GA standards at the moment. I can certainly have a go at it for the nominating editor, or an outside copy-editor can be found, but it needs to be done before a GA review can go ahead - I don't want to fail it. Skinny87 ( talk) 17:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Skinny87 ( talk) 17:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I am going to have to fail this article at this point. There are a lot of prose problems that needs a heavy copy-edit and rewrite, and much of the writing for specific events and incidents is vague and lacking in detail. I am also unhappy with the sourcing, as the majority of the article is sourced to websites that are either uncited or have urls that seem unreliable due to their titles. This article needs more reliable sourcing, which I reckon exists given the oddness of the subject, and I suspect there could be more information on German counter-measures. Most importantly, apart from better sourcing, is the need to be less vague and give more specific details. If you have any questions, please ask me on my talkpage. Skinny87 ( talk) 17:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Viktor Suvorov - Spetsnaz: The Inside Story of the Soviet Special Forces, page 103
60,000 dogs in combat+an unknown number for transport and other duties — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRIK OF MAN ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Anti-tank dog. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-tank dog. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://liveweb.archive.org/http:/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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Anti-tank dog was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 6, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in combat areas of the
Eastern Front of World War II,
German soldiers were ordered to shoot any dog because it might be an
anti-tank dog? |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Curzio Malaparte's Caputt may be added as literary depiction of this phenomenon. He devotes one chapter to it in very readable form. Pavel Vozenilek 16:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this is just folklore. No sources, no links, no nothing. Yes, it's a funny story, but bullshit none the less.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.83.54 ( talk) 02:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I dont want to be of a negative tone to this article ( its been very useful to be and I appreciate the person who wrote it), but I just dont think that a anti-tank dog would have been the cleaverlest idea to be used in WW2. and what surprises me, is that both sides used it.
I guess its like the US that start shooting at every car that just comes too close to their Humvee or sumthin like that ( i read it in the newspaper - its like a comfort zone). But coming back to WW2, I believe that if the tank crew spotted anyone (not allied soldiers inparticular, or really just anything hostile) advancing towards their tanks, they would shoot him/her. So why wouldnt they shhot the dogs?lol. And now we can see the evolution about the unknown, that we are mistaking some lunch bag for a bomb. Always fun to see it on the news and have the robot shoot a few of those water rockets into it...
I'll do abit of research, and I'll try to add to this article paat 21:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The basic premise of the mine dog was once under the tank and ridden over a rod in the mechanism would snap do to the weight and then explode. Initial reports by the Germans thought the dogs as messenger dogs (do to the sack worn) and cared very little of them. That is of course before they became aware of what they were and the first casualties reported. The dogs although initially semi-successful became less so when the Germans became aware. The numbers presented in the article seem a little high. Contrary to the above poster said, the dogs were easier to handled at such ranges. Of course that is not to say that all of the dogs were dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockawayG24 ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.soviet-empire.com/arsenal/army/anti-tank/dog_mine/dog_mine_001.php - this site states: "A soviet dog mine in training, or so it would appear. What is interesting about this picture is that although the training tank does not have a real gun, its turret appears to be that of the T-34/85. The T-34/85 was not introduced until 1944, yet dog mines were supposed to have been withdrawn in 1942!" - this goes with the picture seen on the article page paat 18:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Paat's edit [1] states "but there has been speculation that this method was still being used . . .". I'll remove this " weasel-word" sentence, unless someone can indicate where there has been such speculation, preferably with a verifiable reference. — Michael Z. 2006-01-23 16:46 Z
your forgetting, this is wikipedia, having sources is irrelevent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.165.218 ( talk) 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I remember reading that one problem was that Russian tanks used diesel while german tanks used Petrol (or maybe it was the other way around?). The Dogs tended to go for the Russian tanks since they had the right smell. No ref sorry. - SimonLyall 01:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
1. Changed 'tipped' to tripped'.
2. Deleted 'bomb', inserted 'explosive charge'. In the context of WW II, a bomb was a weapon dropped from an aircraft.
3. Deleted 'no armor'. inserted 'less armour'. Most armoured vehicles have their armour distributed thus: front - thickest, sides - lots, rear - some, underneath - least(but there is still some).
4. Changed 'climb under' - to my knowledge, dogs don't climb anywhere, neither up nor down !
5.Changed 'pulled' to 'withdrawn', I think it is better English.
84.130.117.18 19:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
See it and believe it. -- Toytoy 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll bite. Why didn't they just make tanks with cow-catchers? Er, I mean dog-catchers. Seems like that would have put a screeching halt to the use of anti-tank dogs as weapons. -- M.Neko 09:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Should'nt this article be more clear about the fact that the dog DIES in the process of triggering the mine? The way the article is read seems to imply that a dog can survive having an anti-tank bomb explode off its back! Should'nt there be some sort of section for the humanity of the practice, especally if it was carried on into 1996? Or am I just really f**cking confused? 69.250.130.215 21:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I added the hoax tag some days ago thinking it would obvious why. The whole concept, as described in the article, sounds extremely far-fetched. A google search for "hundeminen" results in 243 hits, and all but a few go to Wikipedia or sites citing Wikipedia. The more formal "panzerabwehrhund" has 334 hits, about as many as a "anti-tank dog" in English. All the sites i find in English seem to contain the same text and they all reference the "entire Soviet tank division" that supposedly was forced to retreat. Nowhere can I find a source for this. Finally, the Russian "Противотанковая собака" has a mere 60 google search results. So, has anyone actually read a book that mentions anti-tank dogs and the use thereof? Of course this could all be accurate and simply obscure, in which case I apologize.
Its world war II, sonny. many events that happened during WWII have very little documentation left after the war. 202.12.94.13 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The picture labels the T-34 as an 85 model, but that gun looks far smaller and shorter than even the 70+mm gun. Anyone have any insight into this?
---Training of anti-tank dogs continued until at least June 1996 (Zaloga et al 1997:72)---.
what does that last part mean ?
Tyriel 07:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Template:Exploding organisms has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — DropDeadGorgias ( talk) 20:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe this page is a copyright violation, specifically of http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=504 . It is identical almost word for word, and nothing leads me to believe the author of the original article has contributed to this one. Can anyone verify its copyright status? - Cronium 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Who gives a shit? It's about dogs that fucking explode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.69.128 ( talk) 15:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerabwehrhund —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.99.42 ( talk) 15:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I added the tag {{limitedgeographicscope}} because the article talks only about the use of dogs in the Soviet Union, while anti-tank dogs were also used at least in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. I can provide further details about use in the KoY, but I have no idea what are all the countries they were used in. Nikola ( talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Who in their right mind would use the word 'victuals' in a modern article about anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.218.24 ( talk) 04:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The cited references for this article range from self published to a publication mostly intended as humour. While it seems likely that some dogs were trained, claims of them destroying 300 German tanks are particularly extraordinary and need solid references. Hohum ( talk) 21:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Have removed templates as I believe they are no longer applicable; if they are restored please post an explanation here identifying problems or issues. (I didn't want to believe this article; now that I do, I want it to be accurate)
Began pursuing deletion of this article believing it to be a total hoax and thus damaging to the Wikipedia concept; sadly instead moved on to trying to improve the article. Thanks... Snozzwanger ( talk) 17:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello I corrected the statement about the German tanks being diesel powered. Not a single German tank in WWII used diesel engines. They all used high performance gasoline engines. The source cited was mistaken in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.235.96 ( talk) 04:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I remember when this used to be discussed on alt.folklore.urban on Usenet; there was a persistent belief that some early board wargame, probably PanzerBlitz or something like that, having a dog mine counter in some edition (supposedly quickly removed after negative reaction). Is this something anybody's come across? Daniel Case ( talk) 04:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This seems quite comprehensive in terms of sources, but at the moment it badly needs a copy-edit for grammar and prose, which is not upto GA standards at the moment. I can certainly have a go at it for the nominating editor, or an outside copy-editor can be found, but it needs to be done before a GA review can go ahead - I don't want to fail it. Skinny87 ( talk) 17:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: Skinny87 ( talk) 17:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I am going to have to fail this article at this point. There are a lot of prose problems that needs a heavy copy-edit and rewrite, and much of the writing for specific events and incidents is vague and lacking in detail. I am also unhappy with the sourcing, as the majority of the article is sourced to websites that are either uncited or have urls that seem unreliable due to their titles. This article needs more reliable sourcing, which I reckon exists given the oddness of the subject, and I suspect there could be more information on German counter-measures. Most importantly, apart from better sourcing, is the need to be less vague and give more specific details. If you have any questions, please ask me on my talkpage. Skinny87 ( talk) 17:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Viktor Suvorov - Spetsnaz: The Inside Story of the Soviet Special Forces, page 103
60,000 dogs in combat+an unknown number for transport and other duties — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRIK OF MAN ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Anti-tank dog. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-tank dog. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://liveweb.archive.org/http:/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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)