![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
For Kursk Op it just says "Men" under the Soviet casualty side and lists no casualties for these men. JohnHistory ( talk) 04:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHIstory
Just to point out to the editor who prefers to put sections in order of "importance", chronological is more relevant for a historical article, and also prevents POV arguments relying on opinions about importance. As such, I have reverted the placement of the Aviation subsection to the start of the Preliminaries section, again. Hohum ( talk) 18:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
the battle of kursk marked the beginning of an phase of very superior german tanks. with the introduction of phanter tiger and some variants the problem of soviet tank force became obvious: no improvements. maybe a little section about the differents of the tanks, so the reader knows red army not only lost this much tanks because tactic or training. the t-34/76 started well but lacked neccessary improvements, even the upgunned panzer IV was now a seroius threat. i would try to write the section. any suggestions ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
i have read that the performance of panthers in the battle were good, i mean only gunfights, their overall performance was low yes. the new ferdinand had good kills i think, the tiger saw very limited action before kursk. if staudegger really drove a tiger it would be a good example for my point, i can provide a source that russian tanks got mauled so hard in the first days that they started digging them in to use them as hidden anti tank guns(very bad for crews...). i think it would be fair to explain this issue so the reader understands that the high soviet tanks losses dont resulst exclusive from lack of tactic. the battle of kursk was the major battle with the biggest difference in tank quality so i think a little section would be ok. i can provide penetrationnumbers of ferdinand and so on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Intersting article but I was suprised to see uncritical use of the term. Bewegungskrieg would have been better with perhaps a debunking of 'Blitzkrieg' like that of K H Frieser in http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blitzkrieg-Legend-Campaign-West-1940/dp/1591142946/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265837158&sr=1-1. Keith-264 ( talk) 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
i have used the term blitzkrieg, because everybody uses it, and so its the best for the reader. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Blablaaa (
talk •
contribs)
19:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
BWK did not appear in German literature in 33-39, hence I said that the Wehrmacht generation did not use it all. BWK is used by historians retrospectively to describe German methods in 39-44, as was Blitzkrieg. The only difference is, BWK was used officially, but only up until the 1920s. There was a marked shift away from the lightning war as has been explained by Richard Overy, Frieser himslef, and Adam Tooze in their thesis' - exposing the myth of Blitzkieg strategy and economics. Dapi89 ( talk) 19:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Beck most certainly did not want to enact manoeuvre warfare. This is misleading people into believing he planned for a pure movement war. This not the case. Movement within wars of attirition naturally, to be on a style much like the Red Army, not strategic BWK. I am not misquoting. I've been clear. Tooze offers the explanation of going to war for lack of materials, Overy does not. Armamanet-foreign policy was out of step, this is his explanation, and always has been. Anyway, perhaps if this is to be continued it should be move to our talk page. I think this is boring everyone else. Dapi89 ( talk) 11:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
who disputes this, its well known that plan and date of attack were known. take any historian who wrotes about this battle and take his book as reference
what is dubios here? the plan was clear; a pince attack from north and south to cut the kursk bulge . this areas were the most fortified...
i think this is clear..., take any historian writing about tank warfare, if u want ref for this
this is the introduction, so everything in this section is cited , this is friesers opinion not mine.
so the first what u should do is bringing another source which contratics this. Blablaaa ( talk) 02:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
nearly all phanters suffered from mechanical problems but the few remaining panthers claimed 269 tanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
did u read the article before u marked the sentences?
tactical superiority means they were completly superior in encounters on the battle field. on the tactical level the russian tanks had simply no chance at this battle. reasons for this, first of all better equipment second: better crew training third: better cooperation... . i have learned on wiki that we have to provide sources, i provide a reliable one , now its your turn. good luck searching it will take a long time Blablaaa ( talk) 19:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
regarding the german aircraft. here iam not so sure and u are maybe correct, so the word "most" is possibly wrong. nevertheless the germans had to divides their aircraft to multiple battles so his statement is correct. maybe we change the words so everybody is happy
Firstly, kill the attitude. Second, that's nonsense. And I can offer several sources to this effect if I so choose. The use of one historian to offer such controversial remarks (which are not explained, are ambiguous, and in an area where there is no overriding consensus) is not appropriate. Equipment was not 'better'. Panthers were crap at Kursk, and the Tigers were slower, not as manoeuvrable as T-34s. The Soviet tanks were more efficient mechanically and industrially and just as capable of taking on German armour in one-on-one combat. Neither was 'training superior'. Soviet crews were just as thoroughly trained as German crews at this time. Dapi89 ( talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
ok then i adapt your oponion of the "better" russian tanks. the russian got the better tanks and more of them. the russian had extremly high casualties compared to the germans which lost a big part of their tanks in minefield. how du explain this ? tactical superiority maybe? i wait eagerly Blablaaa ( talk) 20:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
who the fuck cares, nearly every duels between t-34s and tigers were won by tiger. t-34 got mauled. i ask again who the fuck cares if the t-34 was faster? he came fast to the battlefield and got destroyed. maybe the t-34 will win a race against the tiger but this doesnt help, i guess Blablaaa ( talk) 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
i await your sources. Blablaaa ( talk) 21:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
simply wrong
wrong...
i will delete the markings and put a ref in, i will change the aircraft statement so its correct. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Blablaaa (
talk •
contribs)
21:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
12th july, 15 tigers of SS Pz.Corps claim 120 tanks knocked out. ref: Kleine/Kühn Blablaaa ( talk) 22:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The source confirms the mechanical inferiority and reliablity of Tiger's (no mention of Panther's I see) I shall be correcting it with better sources. Does it mention training? Superiority of tactics? Does it mention losses of all German tank types? . Does it address 'tactical-tank' superiority? Perhaps its worth pointing out that Soviet tactical units contained more firepower? All this doesn't add any clarification to the other issues. Dapi89 ( talk) 22:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Rokossovskiy: "the tank units suffered so much casualties against the tiger that i was forced to dig them in" Blablaaa ( talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
staudegger knocks out 22 tanks in a single encounter Blablaaa ( talk) 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
ferdinands claimed 320 tanks knocked out
krivo states 1,600 "superior tanks" with "superior tactical skills" lost within 17 days —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
no russian throw in their gigantic reserves when the southern pincer adavanced too fast, enormous reservers were neccessary to stop germans, superior numbers won, with equal numbers russians had lost even with their defensiv system, thats all... Blablaaa ( talk) 21:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Then why add it knowing the contentious issues of claims and losses. Huge overclaiming took place. I agree with your point about comparisons; this section should be deleted as it is too controversial. Its just chest-beating. It was always bound to cause trouble. Dapi89 ( talk) 23:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
nearly all phanters suffered from mechanical problems but the few remaining panthers claimed 269 tanks Blablaaa ( talk) 22:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Another ridiculous claim. Dapi89 ( talk) 23:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
frieser.... , why ridiculous? look reaction of soviets, they were impressed by phanters and decided to counter them with new tech, why should they do this when phanters didnt destroy tanks? source for your opinion ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
zetterling/frankson, Kursk: rotmistrov ( 5thGTA) admits to stalin that the t-34 powerless against phanters.
Blablaaa (
talk)
23:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
the russian tanks had not even the chance to be as effectiv like the german with their commander/gunner, massiv tactical disadvantage... Blablaaa ( talk) 10:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
german tanks had a better first-hit rate due to their high velocity guns and zeiss optics ... Blablaaa ( talk) 10:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
frieser: "concerning the different tactical level [of the tank units] kursk brought no trend reversal or even a draw"
zetterling/frankson: "skill superiority"
Blablaaa (
talk)
10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
When you are adding information, please make the source as clear as possible so that it can be verified. The following need some work:
Hohum 13:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
the ref is for "concentration of force" , u want a ref for the rest? achtung panzer is about use of tanks and his main point is "nich kleckern, klotzen" is entire book is aref for this sentence :-) Blablaaa ( talk) 21:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
i tried to check i think his books are not translated because they are crap, but funny is that he gives the number of 350 destroyed german tanks on phroko, which is cited by dapi LOL Blablaaa ( talk) 03:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
lol after i was searching the book i found this statement of an user "As usual, books by Russophile authors such as Richard Overy (Russia's War), John Erickson (Road to Berlin), Alexander Werth (Russia at War) had been taken in with the notions that the Soviets achieved massive victory at Battle of Kursk (most notably at Prokhorovka) where the Soviets destroyed hundreds of Panthers and Tigers."
Blablaaa (
talk)
03:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hohum 04:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
correct
Blablaaa (
talk)
05:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
i brought some informations about german decisions, can somebody bring the same for the russians, so we can balance the article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
i would suggest we trim this section, because there is an article about this battle Blablaaa ( talk) 03:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
lol dapi. i gave u one day to revert your edits. your source is totally descredited and if u let stay it there i will post here why. lol men ^^ Blablaaa ( talk) 02:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
i question your comptence hardly u are really citing a source which thinks germans attacked at porko your source is complete citing russian sources i see the numbers which are used in the fantasy books^^ i see all the lies of rotmistrov^^ please change or i will discret u here :-), Blablaaa ( talk) 02:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
no i dont know your source, but i know the book which is used , and i now many historians destroying this view because it is one of the greatest myths of eastern front. again i gave u time until tomorrow to check your sources and revert. everybody sometimes uses a bad sources so dont worry Blablaaa ( talk) 02:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
he cool the 320 german tanks, HELLO ROTMISTROV ^^ Blablaaa ( talk) 02:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
its really nice to see that even glantz used the russian sources for this, thats very good for discrediting his reliabilty , isnt it? Blablaaa ( talk) 02:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
btw their were only minor battles with totenkopf but one of rotmistrovs lies was to predate the battles on 12 july, they took place at the 13th ^^ overy is totally using rotmistrovs fantasy book^^ Blablaaa ( talk) 03:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thats the big problem of guys like u,u read your books and dont look which primary sources were used. if u would look the primary sources which are not acceptable for the article but ok for the discussion i think, u would see the numbers. one example manstein is quoted( on the evening of 12 july) with saying "oustanding victory", why should he lie here? primary sources dear dapi, and not overy who uses such bullshit book... Blablaaa ( talk) 03:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
hohum no offense u act like a wikiroboter :-) , so much rules.... Blablaaa ( talk) 03:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
this section is kutuzov. we should move this in the article of kutuzov. or we rearrange the article and include the counterstrikes direct in northern and southern sector. Blablaaa ( talk) 09:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
i expanded this section. maybe somebody can bring some informations about russian orders. the section now is mostly german POV Blablaaa ( talk) 03:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
russian lost 2400 tanks and the germans withdrawn to the hagenstellung. u ever so picture of the hagenstellung? its the shortest line. u think is was a great victory to let the germans retreat and suffer so much casualties. model here is the genereal with achievements he managed a good withdrawl against a superior enemy. where is the big breakthrough, no encirclements nothing. model achieved a good retreat without getting trapped and inflicted enormous casualties were is russian new tactics ? where? using mass panzer to achieve a breakthrough? germans did years ago and advance hundresds of miles within weeks. u talk about pushing POV u cited historians which cited rotmistrovs stealguards. your cites are discredited as wrong and lies. u only say mine are bias without evidence, did u find any wrong reference or something else? no... .
the russian task was destroying the german armies they didnt achieved their objectives like in every battle until bagration they achieved never their objectivs they only steamrolled the germans slowly back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
yes german losses were wrong, always wrong. where do i double up the sources? u took two primary sources citing the wrong primary source lol. do u become nervous u dont answer any of my questions? Blablaaa ( talk) 14:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
btw where did i cite sources from other articles? i only see u pushing a russian POV with hardcore propaganda books like Steelguards, thats not acceptable Blablaaa ( talk) 14:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
lol exact to the hagenstellung, i thought glantz is a military expert but a complete straight line is only good for the defender ^^ when the attacker pushes the defender on an straight line than this is called noobish broadfront attack ^^ first year military tactics :-) Blablaaa ( talk) 15:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
i dont say glantz is unreliable. i want an explantion why kutuzov was a overwhelming success. and than i will add this to the text because the reader should know that the russians had a overwhelming success, but now we have: germans retreating in good order to the hagenstellung ( straight line very effectiv for defense ) and russian with enormous casualties in men and tank. dapis edits are vague, he cites glantz with cool breakthroughs and so on but where were these breakthroughs which german units were encricled and destroyed. when i bring such statements then with the invold units and the outcome. i dont know what glantz wrote but dapis quotes only blablablabla-----> no value for the reader. even a good historian can fail, glantz already totally failed with quoting rotmistrov and other hardcore propaganda guys. glantz is a victim of russian sources, his conclusions sometimes show that he didnt look german primary sources.... Blablaaa ( talk) 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
the section now becomes a bit moronic. zalogubogo says the tactical skill made the difference but on the tactical level russian werent impressiv and much lessons had to be learnd , huh ? the tank skill was nearly even ? that means germans were better !!! glantz says russian improved and so on he dont says they were superior. this section is about THE FAILURE OF ZITADELLE none of your sources is talking about this really , frieser points out his opinion . even frieser says russian improved but i dont see that one of dapis historians disputes that german tank units were superior? and i dont see the other guys saying the numbers werent significant, the only say they see other major reason. so you are simply misquoting the historians. do they have particular opinions about zitadelle ? if yes bring them. Blablaaa ( talk) 03:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
please tell me the primary source that manstein sended his troops away because he thought nothing well happen, the primary source please. mansteins panzer units were sended to the north to support the units their, within days they were back and anhilated the russian spearheads. again my question were is the skill ? Blablaaa ( talk) 14:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
i think dapi misquoted glantz so i want to read the sources. i this false? and fact is that german units were back soon an started pounding russian units so i think dapi highlighted something which is not as cool as he thinks. value for the reader.... Blablaaa ( talk) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
i now mixed the text of me and dapis to achieve a neutral points if view. dapis text only covered the first phase of the attack ( the impressive one ) the encrilements in the south west isnt explained by dapi so we have here only german accounts. same for the battle of kharkov Blablaaa ( talk) 11:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have When Titans clash and Galntz says no such thing about the "operation failing". Dapi89 ( talk) 15:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
p 230 Blablaaa ( talk) 15:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
iam sorry, my fault the edition is not the problem....
Blablaaa (
talk)
15:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
what has to be done to get a featured article ? Blablaaa ( talk) 15:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
in 2 weeks its a featured article Blablaaa ( talk) 16:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
it was a joke. i tried already to create maps for the russian counterattacks but failed.... Blablaaa ( talk) 16:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Glantz mkes it perfectly clear that the operations across the Mius was a successful diversion operation. Tactical operations were unsuccessful, but they were never meant to be. The Red Army was not given much material for these operations because of those facts. Manipulating sources is unacceptable. Dapi89 ( talk) 12:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
huh? this are my orignal words :"The battle in the Orel-sweep, which is the German name for this battle, was the bloodiest of the three major operations during the Battle of Kursk. German losses were 86,064 men,[145] the Red Army lost 429,890 men" this is exactly the same . for german the losses without breakdown and for russians the same. now the real story. dapi marked the russian casualties with dubios, than he checked his sources and found out that this numbers are exact krivosheev, then he splited the number in wounded and killed, to tarnish that he simply did a mistake with marking this number as dubios. u must note that the german numbers is still simply 86,00 men ^^
dapi provided a source by glantz claiming the russian units diverted german units, this is not disputed by me but i added that the divertion operation himself was a disaster, where is the problem ??? the first sentence explained that the operation was succesful and i added that militaryoperation himself was unsuccesful. dapi wanted only the good of the operation... . but i admit the version now is better
lol thats called failurer, and i admited already to hohum, funny is that while u provided faked sources for prokhorovka i see no excuse of u, nothing. u dont respond, u did a failure but u dont comment. i comment everything if people ask me...
again i can provide sources and everything to support my opinion, i would appreciate if dapi does the same and we discuss here who was wrong
Blablaaa (
talk)
14:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to dignify this with a long response other than to say this:
The losses (429,000) were over a Six month period, March to August. You misrepresented the source to imply these were losses in July to August only as well as not providing a break down of losses and labelling of 429,000 as 'lost', as to imply killed. This is not acceptable. I have neither the time, energy or patience to argue on this talk page any further. If you continue to carry on, your edits will be qualified or deleted depending how much they are taken out of context. This article is not a wartime propaganda newsreel. Dapi89 ( talk) 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
the losses are NOT for six months. and i implied nothing because in the second sentence i wrote german causalites without breakdown too, u are lieing, nothing else. instead of admiting your failure u are blaming me for using wrong sources. u marked as dubios then u saw u failed and then u tarnished your motivs. krivosheev give for battle of kursk 800,000 with a breakdown for defence kutuvo and rumjantzev. u are wrong without knowing or you lie.... . Blablaaa ( talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
the numbers cant be for six months thats impossible because the participating fronts are already listed in the kursk defence operation , lol... Blablaaa ( talk) 18:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
this from the guy pushing the prokhorvka myth lol. but i forgot u didnt answered the questions regarding this myth. u answered no questions.... u avoid all question... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
First, do we really need two neutrality tags?
Second, please identify the specific neutrality problems so they can be worked on. Hohum 21:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
then i would now question the neutrality of dapis edits, examples are listed Blablaaa ( talk) 19:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm guilty for imputting most of this stuff. perhaps advantage should be taken of the Orbat section, which lists air superiority ops as worthy of a separate article. Dapi89 ( talk) 11:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
glantz numbers dont include the steppe front i explained earlier. so i think the latest version of the box is the best. consense? is there something else wrong with the box? Blablaaa ( talk) 20:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Soviet casualties are uncertain. Between 1 March and 23 August 1943, 71,611 Soviet soldiers were killed and 183,955 wounded in the Belgorod-Kharkov sector. A further 1,864 tanks were lost in this sector during this time, while a further 423 artillery guns were also lost. [1]
statements like this are fine cheeky form of bias. "between 1 march and 23 august" lol . glantz is here doing a funny little trick to tarnish the casualties. glantz looks more and more suspicious Blablaaa ( talk) 11:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
u are more than annoying I ONLY GIVE KRIVOSHEEV FOR RUSSIAN LOSSES Blablaaa ( talk) 12:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
i deleted nothing i only wrote here that i doubt the timeframe and that its misleading... Blablaaa ( talk) 23:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
for the infobox a user cited "when titan clashed", i explained that this numbers are "faked" and zetterling frankson frieser and so on are better for the infobox. But glantz wrote a book about kursk some years later what is Glantz saying in this book ? is there somebody who owns this book ? Blablaaa ( talk) 12:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
update: i bought the book no help needed ... Blablaaa ( talk) 01:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
i added a map for the southern sector. i will make some maps for northern sector and prokhorvka/12july. mabye some gifs. if there is anything wrong with the map then tell me here. i can make better maps if the quality is not good enough for this propose Blablaaa ( talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
review? u mean u look at the map or must i give it to an admin before including in the article? the map[ [2]] Blablaaa ( talk) 23:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
the map is correct but iam not sure if the quality is enough. u looked at it ? Blablaaa ( talk) 00:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
what do u think about this one[ [3]] for the planing section? Blablaaa ( talk) 00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
sure, when i make more maps than consistent design. btw the second one is not "mine", another user on german wiki created Blablaaa ( talk) 01:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
a big problem is the different timeframe give for the prokhorovka battle. rotmistrovs fanatsy book "steelguards" created the picture of an intense battle which only took place on the 12 july. i think its the best this section is divided in 5-11 july 12 july and 13-16. then we can explain the battle between 5th GTA and LAH and Das Reich. the 12 july battle was very intense so it should get a own section. but we should rethink the name "battle of prohkorovka" because this battle lasted for more than this day. german units pushed for prokh before the 12 and the arrival of the 5th GTA doesnt mark the beginning of the actions only the culmination. the casualties for this particular battle are a problem too. the tanks losses given by zetterling/frankson cover a bigger timeframe this should be explained in the text. romistrovs and the historians who got punked by him, had created a wrong picture of the battle. the article now covers truth and myths we should rewrite it complete.
spliting the section in the 3 timeframes. rewriting prokhorovka. i can provide a map for the 12 july Blablaaa ( talk) 15:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The SS runes on "kragenspiegel" show this panzercommander is SS. all 200 panther tanks were accumulated in the Panzerbrigade 10 , this unit was attached to Großdeutschland i think. so this picture cant be zitadelle. iam not sure but its possible that SS units were reinforced with panthers. but iam pretty sure this picture is not zitadelle, maybe soviet counterattack... . any expert here? Blablaaa ( talk) 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Panzerbrigade 10 was PzAbt51&52. hm the picture is not taken during zitadelle... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
but there are good other pictures [ [4]] [ [5]] Blablaaa ( talk) 00:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
the panther pictures is made by Merz who made fotos of Totenkopf. u know when totenkopf got panthers? Blablaaa ( talk) 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
"Grif sekretnoski snajt" ("de-classified") is a name of one of the editions of the Krivosheev's book. It is available online in Russian ( [6]) and is considered reliable.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 03:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
das deutsche reich und der zweite weltkrieg BAND 8!!! was published in 2007 i guess, there are 10 books ... its up to date —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 07:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
i dont owe the english version sorry
Blablaaa (
talk)
21:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
i will rewrite this section with most recent comments of frieser and glantz. glantz who can be called pro soviet and frieser as pro german. so it should be neutral then Blablaaa ( talk) 22:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
friesers opinion is simple i guess. kursk was no turning point, german were on retreat before and after. i think hes correct. russians had more personnel before and after they improved their skill ( glantz ) this in combination forced germans to retreat only. the losses were not the problem, after the battle of kursk the tanks and infantry strenghts were more in favor for germans then before... , some weeks after kursk german tank strenghters were higher than before kursk ( zetterling ) Blablaaa ( talk) 00:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
i trimmed glantz and added what he really said. i removed the other two because they say nothing about kursk. frieser and glantz now two experts for german and soviet warfare a included. glantz is maybe to short i will add more for him. but please dont add 50 examples of what soviet improved. i removed also that glantz disputes frieser which is wrong and was supported with misquoting. both see the same factors like improved soviet command numerical superiority but they have different opinions about the significant. frieser thinks numbers were very important glantzs dont dispute this he only emphasises something else. looking the casualties of both men and equipment everybody sees how significant the numbers were....
Blablaaa (
talk)
04:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
that german tank strenghtes were higher than before is from zetterling and not frieser. Blablaaa ( talk) 08:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
u should not do this, u dont know why or when guderian said this, maybe he was angry because he was against this operation maybe he was "pointy", so many people are quoting this statement. but its only one statement. the okh tables show what tanks were operational. they were not able to finish the job because the hadnt the ressources. thats why .
i have to update my statement: in november german had more tanks than before kursk . Blablaaa ( talk) 09:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
the strategic significanse of kursk is overexagarated, historians like overy created the myth of a "entscheidungsschlacht" frieser simply disputes this. and his statement together with the casualties are logic. all the guys who think kursk was such significant event cant answer your question logical while looking the casualties. Frieser can....
Blablaaa (
talk)
09:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
@dapi , i see no reason to explain u everything what i do. but here a short summerarize. u misquoted glantz . glantz is not disputing frieser he thinkgs numercial superiority is a major factor. Glantz updat3ed his opinions he is not any longer claiming the germans lost 320 in proko. Glantz is not anylonger claiming german soviet had 1:1 in tanks. i complete friesers statement. my version is not perfect but its better of the actual. so dapi please discuss here that we improve. first of all i think its not good to write 20 examples what the soviets improved, 1 oder 2 are enough. i delete zaloga and overy because they are irrelevant. they say nothing about kursk in generel , the section is called Reasons for failure of Zitadelle. if they are addressing Zitadelle then lets incude them. we have now two experts glantz and frieser thats ok i think. so pelase respond here. i will respond fast
Blablaaa (
talk)
22:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
this is your statement this your version of glantz words . first of all u say that glantz disputes frieser U SAY THIS NOT GLANTZ : "Glantz asserts the German defeat at Kursk did not come about by the "Often-exaggerated numerical superiority" of the Soviet armed forces" GLANTZ DEFINETLY SAYS THE VICTORY COME BY NUMBERS AND OTHER FACTORS, u implying numbers were irrelevant. glantz not even longer claims 320 tanks destroyed at proko , why cant i delet this, why cant i delete your failures without coming in and edit war? and now u go bed so that your wrong version is the last? why u deleted my table damn ?
Blablaaa (
talk)
23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
PS that u have the book now is ok for me because i never misquoted frieser like u did with glantz... Blablaaa ( talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
i added tables , numbers from Frieser and Glantz, they have nearly the same numbers. glantz gives no combat troops for the counterattacks. frieser gives higher tanks. glantz includes the second tank army in his figure. Both get their numbers for soviets from krivosheev i think. For german numbers they use zetterling. their difference in tanks i abit strange , i think its a problem of counting operational or something else.on the next page glantz goes into detail with tank strenghts and than has only ~2,500 tanks what is next to frieser and zetterling. both authors give ratios, should i add the ratios? Blablaaa ( talk) 09:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
i checked the russian page, and without offense, this are simple "tricks". for german there are all armies included with total manpower, for russian not all armies with only combat strenght. Blablaaa ( talk) 10:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
but we can do this like the russian wiki with a table, with glantz numbers and frieser seperate than everything is finde i guess. Blablaaa ( talk) 10:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
sooo , i changed it now with different historians. ok now ? Blablaaa ( talk) 10:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
regarding the other sources. experts call this soviet bias. i explained above, they use combatstrength of russian units but total manpower for germans while they count even german armies which not participated. they have the same numbers like glantz frieser and zetterling but they presenting them in soviet bias style. glantz and frieser have similar ratios thats no fluke........
Blablaaa (
talk)
10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
your data will exlude the steppefront while steppe front saw action like the others suffered same losses like other, if u think this is no bias than ok go on and add this "figures". when u add this u will mislead the leader and u will support soviet POV which denies a whole front. i think than to show the difference of sources i will include solokov. solokov gives 1,677,000 soviet losses, this would be fair than. Blablaaa ( talk) 05:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
combat strenghts or total manpower? operational tanks or total tanks? if prefere combat and operational. if nobody is against i will edit soon. Blablaaa ( talk) 11:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
sorry, germans did not use many of there troops either, to start excluding this troops would be difficult, germans in the south didnt used the reserve tank corps in the north did many tankdivision see no action until kutuzov. and i think its normal procedere to include all participating formations. Blablaaa ( talk) 05:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
according to glantz 66% of steppe saw action, i think this is more than the proportion of german reserves. the steppe front suffered 70,000 casualties during zitadelle, this is same like voronez ...... . rumanyantzev was so delayed because the "reserve" lost so much men and tanks.
Blablaaa (
talk)
05:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
statement by frieser(my translation): "according to "grif..." the red army lost only 459 aircraft, this is even less than the number published by the standart sovjet history book "history of great partrioctic war", which states 1,000 aircraft losses. losses due to anti air or accidents are missing completly. regarding this unsatisfying numbers we have to look at german claims...."
if u look through the recent article u will find following statements made by bergström
only northern flank
only 1 day in the south
the first statement is for three days only north, the other two only for the period of 24 hours only over one battlefield. the numbers here already exceede krivosheev numbers...
krivosheevs numbers for aircraft a wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
hm, only that i understand; we use this number for the article even when we know the number is wrong because guys like bergström who studied the airbattles, counted other numbers? even when historians like frieser explain why this numbers are wrong. and taking three numbers and using "+" is orgianal research ?
krivosheev is a reliable source for most battles but not for this. in this battle his number is not reliable. he cant be reliable because he dont uses accidents and ground fire, so its impossible that hes reliable, and that he ist not reliable is cited by secondary source. so we have multiple sources saying more aircraft downed, and one source which explizit discredits krivosheevs reliable in this particulary case. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Blablaaa (
talk •
contribs)
23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
yes wiki need bergström who is specialized on this battle, bringing other numbers. and frieser saying krivo is wrong. not enough ? maybe one with glantz book can help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
i see the outcome of this conversation,the 450 stay in the box... . frieser and in generall all historians of german militarystudy institute cite always krivo for sovjet casualties but in this case they say hes wrong, than bergström brings the numbers showing krivo is hard wrong. than frieser brings the explanation for this. the most ironic is that the propaganda book "the great patriotic war" ( the sowjet version) list a 2 time higher figure. and i bet if u would ask krivo himself he would say the numbers are wrong. but i have to wait until a kongress of 100 historians writes a book called "krivosheevs wrong aircraft numbers for zitadelle" . Blablaaa ( talk) 01:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Soviet aicraft losses may be not above that assists in action. According
Common sense I remarked outright lie. It's seems by side, that exists the special industry to misrepresent flow and results of WWII.
Вut all soviet aicrafts exсеpt Su-2 was enduring enough. Datas of Central Archive of Defense Ministry of Russia (TSAMO): on 1 july 1943 each soviet fighter was repaired 7 times at the average. Figters more frequently damaged by fighters, than other aircrafts. Luftwaffe fighters has auto-photo these aircrafts when fired, but very often these aircrafts really was not shooting down. It is known many thousands occurs when luftwaffe pilot claimed victory, but soviet plane in some days again flied with combat mission. Soviet claiming system was directly opposite. It needs the table with werke number of the aircraft or written evidence from the ground or maritime units with the certain crashing place. Therefore many axis aircrafts which was falling beyond front line or in the water doesn't reckon among soviet air victory. It is known seldom occurs when ground units gave no evidence.
Therefore, luftwaffe claiming system caused too many pilots-liars for propaganda instead combat pilots.--
IstrV (
talk)
20:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Now it's appears very many amateurs in an all countries to re-write flow and results of WWII. Losers not know rest to explane why they losed. Relatively Western Front all the same for Slavianians.
But!
Any narrations about Eastern Front without an opinion of the Soviet side is nonsense. Therefore, opinions of the officiers and fellows who prepared and implemented Soviet victory operations is preferably anyway. For others, it's exists very many different wars and themes for tricks, slantings and fantasies. Yours forefathers either not fighted on the Eastern Front or losed in this war, therefore your posts is too preconceived.
MAIN FACTS of WWII
common sense: overwhelming majority of the Axis divisions was destroyed on the Eastern Front. And overwhelming majority of the Soviet losses is a civilians. Best regards, from Moscow.--
IstrV (
talk)
21:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
User dapi did several edits which look for me kinda strange or even bias
some weeks ago i created the infobox with good reliable data, mostly zetterling koltunov frieser. i created notes so that everyone can check fast which units had how much men/tanks. this numbers were near perfect now dapi changed into the numbers of glantz, who seems to be a bit dubios . glantz was earlier convicted for using russian extrem propaganda like rotmistrov, his books cited rotmistrov and used faked sources.
what was changed? the infbox now has lower numbers for men, this is explained fast and easy. The menpower before was the so called Verpflegungsstärke , iam missing the english word but this means the strengh was every listed personnel in this units so auxillary units were included. i decided to take this number becuse most articles use this number. but the russian number dropped by 900.000. this is explained easily too. glantz/dapi ( i dont know if glantz really uses this number ) didnt count the entire steppe front ^^ i explain this "trick" with tanks:
the tanks: we can see perfectly on the tanks. before dapis edit, the infbox showed 4.900 russian AFV but now only 3,155. i looked my sources and find 1,607 tanks for the central 1,699 voronez that makes 3,306( this is glantz numbers plus some tanks), this number is already higher than glantz "numbers" but now it comes, he totally forgot the steppefront with 1,632 tanks, the same steppefront which used many of his armies to support the southern wing. to exclude the steppefront is nothing less than russian bias and vandalizm . during operaiton zitadelle the westernfront and the brijansk front started attacking the german units both fronts together fielded another 3,200 tanks lol . but this troops are no included. i dit not include this troops too because i was aware that this will be reverted but to be honest all participating russian fronts fielded ~8,000 tanks ^^( to compare please take zetterling who wrote a book about the numbers of kursk ) but glantz achieve a much lesser number with excluding entire fronts. alone rotmistrovs 5th Guards Tank Army fielded 800 tanks and attacked mansteins tropps^^. so the russian numbers are simply selective, if a front took part or dont doesnt madder... .but why are the german tanks so high now?
while glantz is excluding entire russian fronts he brings a strange number for german tanks, when i check the sources i found 3,534 tanks ( zetterling/frankson wrote a book only about the numbers behind kursk, frieser and the german ministry for militarystudy support with primary data) for the eastern front. glantz brings 3,155 tanks . lol . i dont know were this numbers came from but this would mean that the 3 german armies had 90% of all tanks in this 3 armies ( one is only armygroup ). this is bullshit we have a list for all german units and tanks, glantz number is wrong. the joke is while he excludes the entire steppe front brijansk and westernfront he dont excludes all the german reserves which werent used like the tankcorps around the 5th SS wiking this units werent used. but the used russian units are excluded . heavy bias.... . i can support my points with sources . i would suggest dapi does the same and we discuss the book of glantz. please tell me what glantz says why he excludes the other fronts.... . to avoid such bias i created notes so that every reader can click and see immediate which army/front had how much tanks, that was good i think....
dapi comments his changes with "removing unreliable ed" [ [7]] he calls frieser ( and the Militärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt Deutschland and his 5 co-autors ) zetterling/frankson ( they made a book only about the numbers of kursk ) and koltunov unreliable even krivosheev becomes "dubios" for user dapi [ [8]]. while he uses glantz who was punked by blatant propaganda[ [9]] and seems to fake numbers to support his fact that red army didnt need numerical superiority. a interesting example is that dapi uses glantz to cite 350 tank losses for prokhorovka ( the mythbattle) and the same book is used to cite 340 losses for the complete "zitadellecampaign" :-) . here it must be noted that user dapi89 is a big fan of frieser, he is citing him always when talks about blitzkrieg and to revert edits on the blitzkrieg- page. so his opinions is not straight...
dapi eliminated many negativ comments about the red army and positiv about the wehrmacht. why?
friesers opinion about models good retreat, where model inflicted more than 5 times higher casualties( some historians think inflicting heavy casualties is a form "skill") against his enemie, was deleted.
he deleted the statement of a soviet marshall about the problems of the t-34 because dapi pushed the opinion that the t-34( look dicussionpage and the reason for failures ) was the superior tanks, and when a soviet marshall explains the problems, he delets this.
here dapi delets my tags [ [10]] , while i edited this article many editors made tags and asked for explanation or cites, are always improved this problems fast as possible. look hohum edits for example, i always tried to clarify or improve than i make such tags because dapi edited something dubios and useless, but he simply deletes this tags. i made a section on the discussionpage and asked for explanation he dont replies he only delets
the critic [ [11]] .
here he deletes operation roland [ [12]] . maybe this section is unneeded and it is correct do delete but why dont ask or discuss? i made so much section on the discusspage, i explained every change nobody responded, dapis comes and simply erases my edits without discussing...
here [ [13]] he deletes the cited statement that the russian counterattack was destroyed in the very beginning. he tarnish his edits with removing a statement about the ferdinands. why deleting this statement? it was cited and relevant and indeed totally true!!! in the same edit he deletes a statement about orders of german generals
here [ [14]] he deletes friesers statement with the comment "unsoured" , i said here that all this statements are exactly friesers opinion, so they are cited. he simply removed his opinion after he explained that he dont accepts his opinion. ( while accepting his competence to explain military tactics in "blitzkrieg legende many years earlier )
dapi did several changes ( deleted my edits and used "pro russian" ) to support a "pro russian" opinion. here [ [15]] he splits the russian casualties and calls this misleading edits, while above the same is done for germans, before this edit he was moaning about the too high russian numbers now after he checked the sources and sees everything correct he edits this figures to present them "correct", same done in the rumanjantzev section, where he adds the word "uncertain" casualties !!! , why uncertain? this are krivos numbers they arent "uncertain". btw dapi thinks russian numbers are "faked" and exclude lightly wounded while soviet dont do this, so there must be a discrepancy. but when we look the sources we find this german casualties for attack 54182 (kia/mia 12.000) makes KIA|WIA ratio of 4,5. russian casualties for kutuzov ( attack ) are 112,529 killed and 317,361 wounded ( ~3) so we see that german even had bigger proportions of wounded , so your thesis now looks "untenable".
here [ [16]] he deletes a picture of destroyed t-34 ( not mine edit ) , why? looks a bit strange...
here he deletes friesers and russian marshalls opinions about kutuzov. he calls "overwhelming soviet success"[ [17]] after i asked for explantion why overwhelming why deleting my text ( discussionpage) no respond...
here [ [18]] he totally deleted my text with many many cited statements of different historians . he wrote a new text viewing the russian side and surly highlighting the russian skill.
my text : "On the 12th July two of the three newly arrived SS Pz.Divs launched an counterattack. Within the following moving battles (Bewegungsgefecht) several part of the two advancing russian
armies were trapped and annihilated. This two armies, which started with 1,112 tanks,
[2] were reduced to 234 tanks
[3] one day after the German
counter-attack. " this statement of two german division attacking 2 russian tank armies is transformed into "For the first time a major German counter offensive had failed to destroy a Soviet
exploitation force" , a soviet victory and a example of the coolness. lol ? dapi also deleted that statement of the 800 lost russian tanks which is from the same book, so he decided to take
this book to cite everything positiv but deleting the quote about the russian losses... . this statements are on the same page, why cheerypick ?
after this he deleted the german casualties. its obvious that he deleted more than one time german cited numbers which were postioned next to the russian for comparision. i see no reason to delete the german numbers. above called the too low and wrong, while he is completly citing the book of glantz^^ .
after i wrote my texted, aware of german pov, i asked here for somebody bringing the russian POV to neutralize the article ( u can see above) nobody responded. insteadt of mixing german statements and russian dapi deleted my text and wrote pro russian variant which emphazises russian tactics againg. no reason
to support the russian POV ( superior red army despite numerical advantage of 2-3:1 and losses 4-5:1 ) he brings zaloga glantz and overy. now when we look this sources we see that both, overy and glantz are citing the old nasty prokhorovka myth to support the russian tanker skills, they take the totally wrong sources of prokhorovka .... lol . its a disgrace that a book like Steelguards is cited here on wiki i explained my concerns above but nobody responed , i asked for primary source of this books to proof they a wrong, nobody responded.
it must be noted that dapi added 2! bias marks to the article before he started the above listed edits, iam not sure if wanted to announce that he starts biasing the article.(just a joke...)
When i look dapis page i see he had done many many good contributions, i like his articles about german pilots very much . i hope that the admins now dont become influenced by dapis good edits before he started his crusade here. i dont know what to do now so i think we should get some neutral admins in to discuss the problems. please dont hesitat do ask me for more explanation or sources to support my points. iam ready to discuss the sources and what to do now, u can look above i plan to improve this article. i hope my older edits show this
u can contact via talk page too i will respond to every question.... Blablaaa ( talk) 14:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
noticed!!! btw i see myself as "knowledgeable" too ^^.... Blablaaa ( talk) 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
For Kursk Op it just says "Men" under the Soviet casualty side and lists no casualties for these men. JohnHistory ( talk) 04:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHIstory
Just to point out to the editor who prefers to put sections in order of "importance", chronological is more relevant for a historical article, and also prevents POV arguments relying on opinions about importance. As such, I have reverted the placement of the Aviation subsection to the start of the Preliminaries section, again. Hohum ( talk) 18:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
the battle of kursk marked the beginning of an phase of very superior german tanks. with the introduction of phanter tiger and some variants the problem of soviet tank force became obvious: no improvements. maybe a little section about the differents of the tanks, so the reader knows red army not only lost this much tanks because tactic or training. the t-34/76 started well but lacked neccessary improvements, even the upgunned panzer IV was now a seroius threat. i would try to write the section. any suggestions ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
i have read that the performance of panthers in the battle were good, i mean only gunfights, their overall performance was low yes. the new ferdinand had good kills i think, the tiger saw very limited action before kursk. if staudegger really drove a tiger it would be a good example for my point, i can provide a source that russian tanks got mauled so hard in the first days that they started digging them in to use them as hidden anti tank guns(very bad for crews...). i think it would be fair to explain this issue so the reader understands that the high soviet tanks losses dont resulst exclusive from lack of tactic. the battle of kursk was the major battle with the biggest difference in tank quality so i think a little section would be ok. i can provide penetrationnumbers of ferdinand and so on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Intersting article but I was suprised to see uncritical use of the term. Bewegungskrieg would have been better with perhaps a debunking of 'Blitzkrieg' like that of K H Frieser in http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blitzkrieg-Legend-Campaign-West-1940/dp/1591142946/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265837158&sr=1-1. Keith-264 ( talk) 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
i have used the term blitzkrieg, because everybody uses it, and so its the best for the reader. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Blablaaa (
talk •
contribs)
19:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
BWK did not appear in German literature in 33-39, hence I said that the Wehrmacht generation did not use it all. BWK is used by historians retrospectively to describe German methods in 39-44, as was Blitzkrieg. The only difference is, BWK was used officially, but only up until the 1920s. There was a marked shift away from the lightning war as has been explained by Richard Overy, Frieser himslef, and Adam Tooze in their thesis' - exposing the myth of Blitzkieg strategy and economics. Dapi89 ( talk) 19:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Beck most certainly did not want to enact manoeuvre warfare. This is misleading people into believing he planned for a pure movement war. This not the case. Movement within wars of attirition naturally, to be on a style much like the Red Army, not strategic BWK. I am not misquoting. I've been clear. Tooze offers the explanation of going to war for lack of materials, Overy does not. Armamanet-foreign policy was out of step, this is his explanation, and always has been. Anyway, perhaps if this is to be continued it should be move to our talk page. I think this is boring everyone else. Dapi89 ( talk) 11:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
who disputes this, its well known that plan and date of attack were known. take any historian who wrotes about this battle and take his book as reference
what is dubios here? the plan was clear; a pince attack from north and south to cut the kursk bulge . this areas were the most fortified...
i think this is clear..., take any historian writing about tank warfare, if u want ref for this
this is the introduction, so everything in this section is cited , this is friesers opinion not mine.
so the first what u should do is bringing another source which contratics this. Blablaaa ( talk) 02:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
nearly all phanters suffered from mechanical problems but the few remaining panthers claimed 269 tanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
did u read the article before u marked the sentences?
tactical superiority means they were completly superior in encounters on the battle field. on the tactical level the russian tanks had simply no chance at this battle. reasons for this, first of all better equipment second: better crew training third: better cooperation... . i have learned on wiki that we have to provide sources, i provide a reliable one , now its your turn. good luck searching it will take a long time Blablaaa ( talk) 19:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
regarding the german aircraft. here iam not so sure and u are maybe correct, so the word "most" is possibly wrong. nevertheless the germans had to divides their aircraft to multiple battles so his statement is correct. maybe we change the words so everybody is happy
Firstly, kill the attitude. Second, that's nonsense. And I can offer several sources to this effect if I so choose. The use of one historian to offer such controversial remarks (which are not explained, are ambiguous, and in an area where there is no overriding consensus) is not appropriate. Equipment was not 'better'. Panthers were crap at Kursk, and the Tigers were slower, not as manoeuvrable as T-34s. The Soviet tanks were more efficient mechanically and industrially and just as capable of taking on German armour in one-on-one combat. Neither was 'training superior'. Soviet crews were just as thoroughly trained as German crews at this time. Dapi89 ( talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
ok then i adapt your oponion of the "better" russian tanks. the russian got the better tanks and more of them. the russian had extremly high casualties compared to the germans which lost a big part of their tanks in minefield. how du explain this ? tactical superiority maybe? i wait eagerly Blablaaa ( talk) 20:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
who the fuck cares, nearly every duels between t-34s and tigers were won by tiger. t-34 got mauled. i ask again who the fuck cares if the t-34 was faster? he came fast to the battlefield and got destroyed. maybe the t-34 will win a race against the tiger but this doesnt help, i guess Blablaaa ( talk) 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
i await your sources. Blablaaa ( talk) 21:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
simply wrong
wrong...
i will delete the markings and put a ref in, i will change the aircraft statement so its correct. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Blablaaa (
talk •
contribs)
21:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
12th july, 15 tigers of SS Pz.Corps claim 120 tanks knocked out. ref: Kleine/Kühn Blablaaa ( talk) 22:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The source confirms the mechanical inferiority and reliablity of Tiger's (no mention of Panther's I see) I shall be correcting it with better sources. Does it mention training? Superiority of tactics? Does it mention losses of all German tank types? . Does it address 'tactical-tank' superiority? Perhaps its worth pointing out that Soviet tactical units contained more firepower? All this doesn't add any clarification to the other issues. Dapi89 ( talk) 22:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Rokossovskiy: "the tank units suffered so much casualties against the tiger that i was forced to dig them in" Blablaaa ( talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
staudegger knocks out 22 tanks in a single encounter Blablaaa ( talk) 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
ferdinands claimed 320 tanks knocked out
krivo states 1,600 "superior tanks" with "superior tactical skills" lost within 17 days —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
no russian throw in their gigantic reserves when the southern pincer adavanced too fast, enormous reservers were neccessary to stop germans, superior numbers won, with equal numbers russians had lost even with their defensiv system, thats all... Blablaaa ( talk) 21:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Then why add it knowing the contentious issues of claims and losses. Huge overclaiming took place. I agree with your point about comparisons; this section should be deleted as it is too controversial. Its just chest-beating. It was always bound to cause trouble. Dapi89 ( talk) 23:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
nearly all phanters suffered from mechanical problems but the few remaining panthers claimed 269 tanks Blablaaa ( talk) 22:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Another ridiculous claim. Dapi89 ( talk) 23:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
frieser.... , why ridiculous? look reaction of soviets, they were impressed by phanters and decided to counter them with new tech, why should they do this when phanters didnt destroy tanks? source for your opinion ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
zetterling/frankson, Kursk: rotmistrov ( 5thGTA) admits to stalin that the t-34 powerless against phanters.
Blablaaa (
talk)
23:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
the russian tanks had not even the chance to be as effectiv like the german with their commander/gunner, massiv tactical disadvantage... Blablaaa ( talk) 10:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
german tanks had a better first-hit rate due to their high velocity guns and zeiss optics ... Blablaaa ( talk) 10:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
frieser: "concerning the different tactical level [of the tank units] kursk brought no trend reversal or even a draw"
zetterling/frankson: "skill superiority"
Blablaaa (
talk)
10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
When you are adding information, please make the source as clear as possible so that it can be verified. The following need some work:
Hohum 13:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
the ref is for "concentration of force" , u want a ref for the rest? achtung panzer is about use of tanks and his main point is "nich kleckern, klotzen" is entire book is aref for this sentence :-) Blablaaa ( talk) 21:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
i tried to check i think his books are not translated because they are crap, but funny is that he gives the number of 350 destroyed german tanks on phroko, which is cited by dapi LOL Blablaaa ( talk) 03:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
lol after i was searching the book i found this statement of an user "As usual, books by Russophile authors such as Richard Overy (Russia's War), John Erickson (Road to Berlin), Alexander Werth (Russia at War) had been taken in with the notions that the Soviets achieved massive victory at Battle of Kursk (most notably at Prokhorovka) where the Soviets destroyed hundreds of Panthers and Tigers."
Blablaaa (
talk)
03:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hohum 04:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
correct
Blablaaa (
talk)
05:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
i brought some informations about german decisions, can somebody bring the same for the russians, so we can balance the article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
i would suggest we trim this section, because there is an article about this battle Blablaaa ( talk) 03:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
lol dapi. i gave u one day to revert your edits. your source is totally descredited and if u let stay it there i will post here why. lol men ^^ Blablaaa ( talk) 02:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
i question your comptence hardly u are really citing a source which thinks germans attacked at porko your source is complete citing russian sources i see the numbers which are used in the fantasy books^^ i see all the lies of rotmistrov^^ please change or i will discret u here :-), Blablaaa ( talk) 02:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
no i dont know your source, but i know the book which is used , and i now many historians destroying this view because it is one of the greatest myths of eastern front. again i gave u time until tomorrow to check your sources and revert. everybody sometimes uses a bad sources so dont worry Blablaaa ( talk) 02:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
he cool the 320 german tanks, HELLO ROTMISTROV ^^ Blablaaa ( talk) 02:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
its really nice to see that even glantz used the russian sources for this, thats very good for discrediting his reliabilty , isnt it? Blablaaa ( talk) 02:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
btw their were only minor battles with totenkopf but one of rotmistrovs lies was to predate the battles on 12 july, they took place at the 13th ^^ overy is totally using rotmistrovs fantasy book^^ Blablaaa ( talk) 03:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thats the big problem of guys like u,u read your books and dont look which primary sources were used. if u would look the primary sources which are not acceptable for the article but ok for the discussion i think, u would see the numbers. one example manstein is quoted( on the evening of 12 july) with saying "oustanding victory", why should he lie here? primary sources dear dapi, and not overy who uses such bullshit book... Blablaaa ( talk) 03:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
hohum no offense u act like a wikiroboter :-) , so much rules.... Blablaaa ( talk) 03:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
this section is kutuzov. we should move this in the article of kutuzov. or we rearrange the article and include the counterstrikes direct in northern and southern sector. Blablaaa ( talk) 09:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
i expanded this section. maybe somebody can bring some informations about russian orders. the section now is mostly german POV Blablaaa ( talk) 03:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
russian lost 2400 tanks and the germans withdrawn to the hagenstellung. u ever so picture of the hagenstellung? its the shortest line. u think is was a great victory to let the germans retreat and suffer so much casualties. model here is the genereal with achievements he managed a good withdrawl against a superior enemy. where is the big breakthrough, no encirclements nothing. model achieved a good retreat without getting trapped and inflicted enormous casualties were is russian new tactics ? where? using mass panzer to achieve a breakthrough? germans did years ago and advance hundresds of miles within weeks. u talk about pushing POV u cited historians which cited rotmistrovs stealguards. your cites are discredited as wrong and lies. u only say mine are bias without evidence, did u find any wrong reference or something else? no... .
the russian task was destroying the german armies they didnt achieved their objectives like in every battle until bagration they achieved never their objectivs they only steamrolled the germans slowly back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
yes german losses were wrong, always wrong. where do i double up the sources? u took two primary sources citing the wrong primary source lol. do u become nervous u dont answer any of my questions? Blablaaa ( talk) 14:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
btw where did i cite sources from other articles? i only see u pushing a russian POV with hardcore propaganda books like Steelguards, thats not acceptable Blablaaa ( talk) 14:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
lol exact to the hagenstellung, i thought glantz is a military expert but a complete straight line is only good for the defender ^^ when the attacker pushes the defender on an straight line than this is called noobish broadfront attack ^^ first year military tactics :-) Blablaaa ( talk) 15:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
i dont say glantz is unreliable. i want an explantion why kutuzov was a overwhelming success. and than i will add this to the text because the reader should know that the russians had a overwhelming success, but now we have: germans retreating in good order to the hagenstellung ( straight line very effectiv for defense ) and russian with enormous casualties in men and tank. dapis edits are vague, he cites glantz with cool breakthroughs and so on but where were these breakthroughs which german units were encricled and destroyed. when i bring such statements then with the invold units and the outcome. i dont know what glantz wrote but dapis quotes only blablablabla-----> no value for the reader. even a good historian can fail, glantz already totally failed with quoting rotmistrov and other hardcore propaganda guys. glantz is a victim of russian sources, his conclusions sometimes show that he didnt look german primary sources.... Blablaaa ( talk) 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
the section now becomes a bit moronic. zalogubogo says the tactical skill made the difference but on the tactical level russian werent impressiv and much lessons had to be learnd , huh ? the tank skill was nearly even ? that means germans were better !!! glantz says russian improved and so on he dont says they were superior. this section is about THE FAILURE OF ZITADELLE none of your sources is talking about this really , frieser points out his opinion . even frieser says russian improved but i dont see that one of dapis historians disputes that german tank units were superior? and i dont see the other guys saying the numbers werent significant, the only say they see other major reason. so you are simply misquoting the historians. do they have particular opinions about zitadelle ? if yes bring them. Blablaaa ( talk) 03:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
please tell me the primary source that manstein sended his troops away because he thought nothing well happen, the primary source please. mansteins panzer units were sended to the north to support the units their, within days they were back and anhilated the russian spearheads. again my question were is the skill ? Blablaaa ( talk) 14:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
i think dapi misquoted glantz so i want to read the sources. i this false? and fact is that german units were back soon an started pounding russian units so i think dapi highlighted something which is not as cool as he thinks. value for the reader.... Blablaaa ( talk) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
i now mixed the text of me and dapis to achieve a neutral points if view. dapis text only covered the first phase of the attack ( the impressive one ) the encrilements in the south west isnt explained by dapi so we have here only german accounts. same for the battle of kharkov Blablaaa ( talk) 11:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have When Titans clash and Galntz says no such thing about the "operation failing". Dapi89 ( talk) 15:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
p 230 Blablaaa ( talk) 15:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
iam sorry, my fault the edition is not the problem....
Blablaaa (
talk)
15:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
what has to be done to get a featured article ? Blablaaa ( talk) 15:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
in 2 weeks its a featured article Blablaaa ( talk) 16:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
it was a joke. i tried already to create maps for the russian counterattacks but failed.... Blablaaa ( talk) 16:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Glantz mkes it perfectly clear that the operations across the Mius was a successful diversion operation. Tactical operations were unsuccessful, but they were never meant to be. The Red Army was not given much material for these operations because of those facts. Manipulating sources is unacceptable. Dapi89 ( talk) 12:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
huh? this are my orignal words :"The battle in the Orel-sweep, which is the German name for this battle, was the bloodiest of the three major operations during the Battle of Kursk. German losses were 86,064 men,[145] the Red Army lost 429,890 men" this is exactly the same . for german the losses without breakdown and for russians the same. now the real story. dapi marked the russian casualties with dubios, than he checked his sources and found out that this numbers are exact krivosheev, then he splited the number in wounded and killed, to tarnish that he simply did a mistake with marking this number as dubios. u must note that the german numbers is still simply 86,00 men ^^
dapi provided a source by glantz claiming the russian units diverted german units, this is not disputed by me but i added that the divertion operation himself was a disaster, where is the problem ??? the first sentence explained that the operation was succesful and i added that militaryoperation himself was unsuccesful. dapi wanted only the good of the operation... . but i admit the version now is better
lol thats called failurer, and i admited already to hohum, funny is that while u provided faked sources for prokhorovka i see no excuse of u, nothing. u dont respond, u did a failure but u dont comment. i comment everything if people ask me...
again i can provide sources and everything to support my opinion, i would appreciate if dapi does the same and we discuss here who was wrong
Blablaaa (
talk)
14:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to dignify this with a long response other than to say this:
The losses (429,000) were over a Six month period, March to August. You misrepresented the source to imply these were losses in July to August only as well as not providing a break down of losses and labelling of 429,000 as 'lost', as to imply killed. This is not acceptable. I have neither the time, energy or patience to argue on this talk page any further. If you continue to carry on, your edits will be qualified or deleted depending how much they are taken out of context. This article is not a wartime propaganda newsreel. Dapi89 ( talk) 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
the losses are NOT for six months. and i implied nothing because in the second sentence i wrote german causalites without breakdown too, u are lieing, nothing else. instead of admiting your failure u are blaming me for using wrong sources. u marked as dubios then u saw u failed and then u tarnished your motivs. krivosheev give for battle of kursk 800,000 with a breakdown for defence kutuvo and rumjantzev. u are wrong without knowing or you lie.... . Blablaaa ( talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
the numbers cant be for six months thats impossible because the participating fronts are already listed in the kursk defence operation , lol... Blablaaa ( talk) 18:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
this from the guy pushing the prokhorvka myth lol. but i forgot u didnt answered the questions regarding this myth. u answered no questions.... u avoid all question... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
First, do we really need two neutrality tags?
Second, please identify the specific neutrality problems so they can be worked on. Hohum 21:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
then i would now question the neutrality of dapis edits, examples are listed Blablaaa ( talk) 19:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm guilty for imputting most of this stuff. perhaps advantage should be taken of the Orbat section, which lists air superiority ops as worthy of a separate article. Dapi89 ( talk) 11:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
glantz numbers dont include the steppe front i explained earlier. so i think the latest version of the box is the best. consense? is there something else wrong with the box? Blablaaa ( talk) 20:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Soviet casualties are uncertain. Between 1 March and 23 August 1943, 71,611 Soviet soldiers were killed and 183,955 wounded in the Belgorod-Kharkov sector. A further 1,864 tanks were lost in this sector during this time, while a further 423 artillery guns were also lost. [1]
statements like this are fine cheeky form of bias. "between 1 march and 23 august" lol . glantz is here doing a funny little trick to tarnish the casualties. glantz looks more and more suspicious Blablaaa ( talk) 11:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
u are more than annoying I ONLY GIVE KRIVOSHEEV FOR RUSSIAN LOSSES Blablaaa ( talk) 12:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
i deleted nothing i only wrote here that i doubt the timeframe and that its misleading... Blablaaa ( talk) 23:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
for the infobox a user cited "when titan clashed", i explained that this numbers are "faked" and zetterling frankson frieser and so on are better for the infobox. But glantz wrote a book about kursk some years later what is Glantz saying in this book ? is there somebody who owns this book ? Blablaaa ( talk) 12:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
update: i bought the book no help needed ... Blablaaa ( talk) 01:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
i added a map for the southern sector. i will make some maps for northern sector and prokhorvka/12july. mabye some gifs. if there is anything wrong with the map then tell me here. i can make better maps if the quality is not good enough for this propose Blablaaa ( talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
review? u mean u look at the map or must i give it to an admin before including in the article? the map[ [2]] Blablaaa ( talk) 23:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
the map is correct but iam not sure if the quality is enough. u looked at it ? Blablaaa ( talk) 00:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
what do u think about this one[ [3]] for the planing section? Blablaaa ( talk) 00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
sure, when i make more maps than consistent design. btw the second one is not "mine", another user on german wiki created Blablaaa ( talk) 01:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
a big problem is the different timeframe give for the prokhorovka battle. rotmistrovs fanatsy book "steelguards" created the picture of an intense battle which only took place on the 12 july. i think its the best this section is divided in 5-11 july 12 july and 13-16. then we can explain the battle between 5th GTA and LAH and Das Reich. the 12 july battle was very intense so it should get a own section. but we should rethink the name "battle of prohkorovka" because this battle lasted for more than this day. german units pushed for prokh before the 12 and the arrival of the 5th GTA doesnt mark the beginning of the actions only the culmination. the casualties for this particular battle are a problem too. the tanks losses given by zetterling/frankson cover a bigger timeframe this should be explained in the text. romistrovs and the historians who got punked by him, had created a wrong picture of the battle. the article now covers truth and myths we should rewrite it complete.
spliting the section in the 3 timeframes. rewriting prokhorovka. i can provide a map for the 12 july Blablaaa ( talk) 15:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The SS runes on "kragenspiegel" show this panzercommander is SS. all 200 panther tanks were accumulated in the Panzerbrigade 10 , this unit was attached to Großdeutschland i think. so this picture cant be zitadelle. iam not sure but its possible that SS units were reinforced with panthers. but iam pretty sure this picture is not zitadelle, maybe soviet counterattack... . any expert here? Blablaaa ( talk) 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Panzerbrigade 10 was PzAbt51&52. hm the picture is not taken during zitadelle... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
but there are good other pictures [ [4]] [ [5]] Blablaaa ( talk) 00:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
the panther pictures is made by Merz who made fotos of Totenkopf. u know when totenkopf got panthers? Blablaaa ( talk) 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
"Grif sekretnoski snajt" ("de-classified") is a name of one of the editions of the Krivosheev's book. It is available online in Russian ( [6]) and is considered reliable.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 03:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
das deutsche reich und der zweite weltkrieg BAND 8!!! was published in 2007 i guess, there are 10 books ... its up to date —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 ( talk) 07:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
i dont owe the english version sorry
Blablaaa (
talk)
21:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
i will rewrite this section with most recent comments of frieser and glantz. glantz who can be called pro soviet and frieser as pro german. so it should be neutral then Blablaaa ( talk) 22:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
friesers opinion is simple i guess. kursk was no turning point, german were on retreat before and after. i think hes correct. russians had more personnel before and after they improved their skill ( glantz ) this in combination forced germans to retreat only. the losses were not the problem, after the battle of kursk the tanks and infantry strenghts were more in favor for germans then before... , some weeks after kursk german tank strenghters were higher than before kursk ( zetterling ) Blablaaa ( talk) 00:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
i trimmed glantz and added what he really said. i removed the other two because they say nothing about kursk. frieser and glantz now two experts for german and soviet warfare a included. glantz is maybe to short i will add more for him. but please dont add 50 examples of what soviet improved. i removed also that glantz disputes frieser which is wrong and was supported with misquoting. both see the same factors like improved soviet command numerical superiority but they have different opinions about the significant. frieser thinks numbers were very important glantzs dont dispute this he only emphasises something else. looking the casualties of both men and equipment everybody sees how significant the numbers were....
Blablaaa (
talk)
04:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
that german tank strenghtes were higher than before is from zetterling and not frieser. Blablaaa ( talk) 08:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
u should not do this, u dont know why or when guderian said this, maybe he was angry because he was against this operation maybe he was "pointy", so many people are quoting this statement. but its only one statement. the okh tables show what tanks were operational. they were not able to finish the job because the hadnt the ressources. thats why .
i have to update my statement: in november german had more tanks than before kursk . Blablaaa ( talk) 09:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
the strategic significanse of kursk is overexagarated, historians like overy created the myth of a "entscheidungsschlacht" frieser simply disputes this. and his statement together with the casualties are logic. all the guys who think kursk was such significant event cant answer your question logical while looking the casualties. Frieser can....
Blablaaa (
talk)
09:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
@dapi , i see no reason to explain u everything what i do. but here a short summerarize. u misquoted glantz . glantz is not disputing frieser he thinkgs numercial superiority is a major factor. Glantz updat3ed his opinions he is not any longer claiming the germans lost 320 in proko. Glantz is not anylonger claiming german soviet had 1:1 in tanks. i complete friesers statement. my version is not perfect but its better of the actual. so dapi please discuss here that we improve. first of all i think its not good to write 20 examples what the soviets improved, 1 oder 2 are enough. i delete zaloga and overy because they are irrelevant. they say nothing about kursk in generel , the section is called Reasons for failure of Zitadelle. if they are addressing Zitadelle then lets incude them. we have now two experts glantz and frieser thats ok i think. so pelase respond here. i will respond fast
Blablaaa (
talk)
22:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
this is your statement this your version of glantz words . first of all u say that glantz disputes frieser U SAY THIS NOT GLANTZ : "Glantz asserts the German defeat at Kursk did not come about by the "Often-exaggerated numerical superiority" of the Soviet armed forces" GLANTZ DEFINETLY SAYS THE VICTORY COME BY NUMBERS AND OTHER FACTORS, u implying numbers were irrelevant. glantz not even longer claims 320 tanks destroyed at proko , why cant i delet this, why cant i delete your failures without coming in and edit war? and now u go bed so that your wrong version is the last? why u deleted my table damn ?
Blablaaa (
talk)
23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
PS that u have the book now is ok for me because i never misquoted frieser like u did with glantz... Blablaaa ( talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
i added tables , numbers from Frieser and Glantz, they have nearly the same numbers. glantz gives no combat troops for the counterattacks. frieser gives higher tanks. glantz includes the second tank army in his figure. Both get their numbers for soviets from krivosheev i think. For german numbers they use zetterling. their difference in tanks i abit strange , i think its a problem of counting operational or something else.on the next page glantz goes into detail with tank strenghts and than has only ~2,500 tanks what is next to frieser and zetterling. both authors give ratios, should i add the ratios? Blablaaa ( talk) 09:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
i checked the russian page, and without offense, this are simple "tricks". for german there are all armies included with total manpower, for russian not all armies with only combat strenght. Blablaaa ( talk) 10:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
but we can do this like the russian wiki with a table, with glantz numbers and frieser seperate than everything is finde i guess. Blablaaa ( talk) 10:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
sooo , i changed it now with different historians. ok now ? Blablaaa ( talk) 10:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
regarding the other sources. experts call this soviet bias. i explained above, they use combatstrength of russian units but total manpower for germans while they count even german armies which not participated. they have the same numbers like glantz frieser and zetterling but they presenting them in soviet bias style. glantz and frieser have similar ratios thats no fluke........
Blablaaa (
talk)
10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
your data will exlude the steppefront while steppe front saw action like the others suffered same losses like other, if u think this is no bias than ok go on and add this "figures". when u add this u will mislead the leader and u will support soviet POV which denies a whole front. i think than to show the difference of sources i will include solokov. solokov gives 1,677,000 soviet losses, this would be fair than. Blablaaa ( talk) 05:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
combat strenghts or total manpower? operational tanks or total tanks? if prefere combat and operational. if nobody is against i will edit soon. Blablaaa ( talk) 11:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
sorry, germans did not use many of there troops either, to start excluding this troops would be difficult, germans in the south didnt used the reserve tank corps in the north did many tankdivision see no action until kutuzov. and i think its normal procedere to include all participating formations. Blablaaa ( talk) 05:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
according to glantz 66% of steppe saw action, i think this is more than the proportion of german reserves. the steppe front suffered 70,000 casualties during zitadelle, this is same like voronez ...... . rumanyantzev was so delayed because the "reserve" lost so much men and tanks.
Blablaaa (
talk)
05:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
statement by frieser(my translation): "according to "grif..." the red army lost only 459 aircraft, this is even less than the number published by the standart sovjet history book "history of great partrioctic war", which states 1,000 aircraft losses. losses due to anti air or accidents are missing completly. regarding this unsatisfying numbers we have to look at german claims...."
if u look through the recent article u will find following statements made by bergström
only northern flank
only 1 day in the south
the first statement is for three days only north, the other two only for the period of 24 hours only over one battlefield. the numbers here already exceede krivosheev numbers...
krivosheevs numbers for aircraft a wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
hm, only that i understand; we use this number for the article even when we know the number is wrong because guys like bergström who studied the airbattles, counted other numbers? even when historians like frieser explain why this numbers are wrong. and taking three numbers and using "+" is orgianal research ?
krivosheev is a reliable source for most battles but not for this. in this battle his number is not reliable. he cant be reliable because he dont uses accidents and ground fire, so its impossible that hes reliable, and that he ist not reliable is cited by secondary source. so we have multiple sources saying more aircraft downed, and one source which explizit discredits krivosheevs reliable in this particulary case. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Blablaaa (
talk •
contribs)
23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
yes wiki need bergström who is specialized on this battle, bringing other numbers. and frieser saying krivo is wrong. not enough ? maybe one with glantz book can help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
i see the outcome of this conversation,the 450 stay in the box... . frieser and in generall all historians of german militarystudy institute cite always krivo for sovjet casualties but in this case they say hes wrong, than bergström brings the numbers showing krivo is hard wrong. than frieser brings the explanation for this. the most ironic is that the propaganda book "the great patriotic war" ( the sowjet version) list a 2 time higher figure. and i bet if u would ask krivo himself he would say the numbers are wrong. but i have to wait until a kongress of 100 historians writes a book called "krivosheevs wrong aircraft numbers for zitadelle" . Blablaaa ( talk) 01:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Soviet aicraft losses may be not above that assists in action. According
Common sense I remarked outright lie. It's seems by side, that exists the special industry to misrepresent flow and results of WWII.
Вut all soviet aicrafts exсеpt Su-2 was enduring enough. Datas of Central Archive of Defense Ministry of Russia (TSAMO): on 1 july 1943 each soviet fighter was repaired 7 times at the average. Figters more frequently damaged by fighters, than other aircrafts. Luftwaffe fighters has auto-photo these aircrafts when fired, but very often these aircrafts really was not shooting down. It is known many thousands occurs when luftwaffe pilot claimed victory, but soviet plane in some days again flied with combat mission. Soviet claiming system was directly opposite. It needs the table with werke number of the aircraft or written evidence from the ground or maritime units with the certain crashing place. Therefore many axis aircrafts which was falling beyond front line or in the water doesn't reckon among soviet air victory. It is known seldom occurs when ground units gave no evidence.
Therefore, luftwaffe claiming system caused too many pilots-liars for propaganda instead combat pilots.--
IstrV (
talk)
20:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Now it's appears very many amateurs in an all countries to re-write flow and results of WWII. Losers not know rest to explane why they losed. Relatively Western Front all the same for Slavianians.
But!
Any narrations about Eastern Front without an opinion of the Soviet side is nonsense. Therefore, opinions of the officiers and fellows who prepared and implemented Soviet victory operations is preferably anyway. For others, it's exists very many different wars and themes for tricks, slantings and fantasies. Yours forefathers either not fighted on the Eastern Front or losed in this war, therefore your posts is too preconceived.
MAIN FACTS of WWII
common sense: overwhelming majority of the Axis divisions was destroyed on the Eastern Front. And overwhelming majority of the Soviet losses is a civilians. Best regards, from Moscow.--
IstrV (
talk)
21:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
User dapi did several edits which look for me kinda strange or even bias
some weeks ago i created the infobox with good reliable data, mostly zetterling koltunov frieser. i created notes so that everyone can check fast which units had how much men/tanks. this numbers were near perfect now dapi changed into the numbers of glantz, who seems to be a bit dubios . glantz was earlier convicted for using russian extrem propaganda like rotmistrov, his books cited rotmistrov and used faked sources.
what was changed? the infbox now has lower numbers for men, this is explained fast and easy. The menpower before was the so called Verpflegungsstärke , iam missing the english word but this means the strengh was every listed personnel in this units so auxillary units were included. i decided to take this number becuse most articles use this number. but the russian number dropped by 900.000. this is explained easily too. glantz/dapi ( i dont know if glantz really uses this number ) didnt count the entire steppe front ^^ i explain this "trick" with tanks:
the tanks: we can see perfectly on the tanks. before dapis edit, the infbox showed 4.900 russian AFV but now only 3,155. i looked my sources and find 1,607 tanks for the central 1,699 voronez that makes 3,306( this is glantz numbers plus some tanks), this number is already higher than glantz "numbers" but now it comes, he totally forgot the steppefront with 1,632 tanks, the same steppefront which used many of his armies to support the southern wing. to exclude the steppefront is nothing less than russian bias and vandalizm . during operaiton zitadelle the westernfront and the brijansk front started attacking the german units both fronts together fielded another 3,200 tanks lol . but this troops are no included. i dit not include this troops too because i was aware that this will be reverted but to be honest all participating russian fronts fielded ~8,000 tanks ^^( to compare please take zetterling who wrote a book about the numbers of kursk ) but glantz achieve a much lesser number with excluding entire fronts. alone rotmistrovs 5th Guards Tank Army fielded 800 tanks and attacked mansteins tropps^^. so the russian numbers are simply selective, if a front took part or dont doesnt madder... .but why are the german tanks so high now?
while glantz is excluding entire russian fronts he brings a strange number for german tanks, when i check the sources i found 3,534 tanks ( zetterling/frankson wrote a book only about the numbers behind kursk, frieser and the german ministry for militarystudy support with primary data) for the eastern front. glantz brings 3,155 tanks . lol . i dont know were this numbers came from but this would mean that the 3 german armies had 90% of all tanks in this 3 armies ( one is only armygroup ). this is bullshit we have a list for all german units and tanks, glantz number is wrong. the joke is while he excludes the entire steppe front brijansk and westernfront he dont excludes all the german reserves which werent used like the tankcorps around the 5th SS wiking this units werent used. but the used russian units are excluded . heavy bias.... . i can support my points with sources . i would suggest dapi does the same and we discuss the book of glantz. please tell me what glantz says why he excludes the other fronts.... . to avoid such bias i created notes so that every reader can click and see immediate which army/front had how much tanks, that was good i think....
dapi comments his changes with "removing unreliable ed" [ [7]] he calls frieser ( and the Militärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt Deutschland and his 5 co-autors ) zetterling/frankson ( they made a book only about the numbers of kursk ) and koltunov unreliable even krivosheev becomes "dubios" for user dapi [ [8]]. while he uses glantz who was punked by blatant propaganda[ [9]] and seems to fake numbers to support his fact that red army didnt need numerical superiority. a interesting example is that dapi uses glantz to cite 350 tank losses for prokhorovka ( the mythbattle) and the same book is used to cite 340 losses for the complete "zitadellecampaign" :-) . here it must be noted that user dapi89 is a big fan of frieser, he is citing him always when talks about blitzkrieg and to revert edits on the blitzkrieg- page. so his opinions is not straight...
dapi eliminated many negativ comments about the red army and positiv about the wehrmacht. why?
friesers opinion about models good retreat, where model inflicted more than 5 times higher casualties( some historians think inflicting heavy casualties is a form "skill") against his enemie, was deleted.
he deleted the statement of a soviet marshall about the problems of the t-34 because dapi pushed the opinion that the t-34( look dicussionpage and the reason for failures ) was the superior tanks, and when a soviet marshall explains the problems, he delets this.
here dapi delets my tags [ [10]] , while i edited this article many editors made tags and asked for explanation or cites, are always improved this problems fast as possible. look hohum edits for example, i always tried to clarify or improve than i make such tags because dapi edited something dubios and useless, but he simply deletes this tags. i made a section on the discussionpage and asked for explanation he dont replies he only delets
the critic [ [11]] .
here he deletes operation roland [ [12]] . maybe this section is unneeded and it is correct do delete but why dont ask or discuss? i made so much section on the discusspage, i explained every change nobody responded, dapis comes and simply erases my edits without discussing...
here [ [13]] he deletes the cited statement that the russian counterattack was destroyed in the very beginning. he tarnish his edits with removing a statement about the ferdinands. why deleting this statement? it was cited and relevant and indeed totally true!!! in the same edit he deletes a statement about orders of german generals
here [ [14]] he deletes friesers statement with the comment "unsoured" , i said here that all this statements are exactly friesers opinion, so they are cited. he simply removed his opinion after he explained that he dont accepts his opinion. ( while accepting his competence to explain military tactics in "blitzkrieg legende many years earlier )
dapi did several changes ( deleted my edits and used "pro russian" ) to support a "pro russian" opinion. here [ [15]] he splits the russian casualties and calls this misleading edits, while above the same is done for germans, before this edit he was moaning about the too high russian numbers now after he checked the sources and sees everything correct he edits this figures to present them "correct", same done in the rumanjantzev section, where he adds the word "uncertain" casualties !!! , why uncertain? this are krivos numbers they arent "uncertain". btw dapi thinks russian numbers are "faked" and exclude lightly wounded while soviet dont do this, so there must be a discrepancy. but when we look the sources we find this german casualties for attack 54182 (kia/mia 12.000) makes KIA|WIA ratio of 4,5. russian casualties for kutuzov ( attack ) are 112,529 killed and 317,361 wounded ( ~3) so we see that german even had bigger proportions of wounded , so your thesis now looks "untenable".
here [ [16]] he deletes a picture of destroyed t-34 ( not mine edit ) , why? looks a bit strange...
here he deletes friesers and russian marshalls opinions about kutuzov. he calls "overwhelming soviet success"[ [17]] after i asked for explantion why overwhelming why deleting my text ( discussionpage) no respond...
here [ [18]] he totally deleted my text with many many cited statements of different historians . he wrote a new text viewing the russian side and surly highlighting the russian skill.
my text : "On the 12th July two of the three newly arrived SS Pz.Divs launched an counterattack. Within the following moving battles (Bewegungsgefecht) several part of the two advancing russian
armies were trapped and annihilated. This two armies, which started with 1,112 tanks,
[2] were reduced to 234 tanks
[3] one day after the German
counter-attack. " this statement of two german division attacking 2 russian tank armies is transformed into "For the first time a major German counter offensive had failed to destroy a Soviet
exploitation force" , a soviet victory and a example of the coolness. lol ? dapi also deleted that statement of the 800 lost russian tanks which is from the same book, so he decided to take
this book to cite everything positiv but deleting the quote about the russian losses... . this statements are on the same page, why cheerypick ?
after this he deleted the german casualties. its obvious that he deleted more than one time german cited numbers which were postioned next to the russian for comparision. i see no reason to delete the german numbers. above called the too low and wrong, while he is completly citing the book of glantz^^ .
after i wrote my texted, aware of german pov, i asked here for somebody bringing the russian POV to neutralize the article ( u can see above) nobody responded. insteadt of mixing german statements and russian dapi deleted my text and wrote pro russian variant which emphazises russian tactics againg. no reason
to support the russian POV ( superior red army despite numerical advantage of 2-3:1 and losses 4-5:1 ) he brings zaloga glantz and overy. now when we look this sources we see that both, overy and glantz are citing the old nasty prokhorovka myth to support the russian tanker skills, they take the totally wrong sources of prokhorovka .... lol . its a disgrace that a book like Steelguards is cited here on wiki i explained my concerns above but nobody responed , i asked for primary source of this books to proof they a wrong, nobody responded.
it must be noted that dapi added 2! bias marks to the article before he started the above listed edits, iam not sure if wanted to announce that he starts biasing the article.(just a joke...)
When i look dapis page i see he had done many many good contributions, i like his articles about german pilots very much . i hope that the admins now dont become influenced by dapis good edits before he started his crusade here. i dont know what to do now so i think we should get some neutral admins in to discuss the problems. please dont hesitat do ask me for more explanation or sources to support my points. iam ready to discuss the sources and what to do now, u can look above i plan to improve this article. i hope my older edits show this
u can contact via talk page too i will respond to every question.... Blablaaa ( talk) 14:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
noticed!!! btw i see myself as "knowledgeable" too ^^.... Blablaaa ( talk) 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)