![]() | 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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Exactly what kind of anti-tank barriers is Kurowski talking about? And what's his source for the figure for Soviet mines?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
After some reading I came to a conclusion that, although the Frieser's book meets all formal RS criteria, we cannot rely upon it too much for neutrality reasons. According to some sources, it represents a German point of view that has been characterised as follows:
In my opinion, the Newton's book should be analysed more carefully, because the possibolity exists that the article in its present form provided somewhat skewed view of the events.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
OK I would like to bring this discussion alive again, since I noticed it has died with Igor's edit wars. I still stand by my earlier points about the air losses claims. Paul Siebert did suggest that Blablaaa provides some quotes to make the discussion more manageable (20:48, 26 June 2010) If possibe could we restart from that? The two numbers at the moment are so different, that one of them is clearly very wrong.
D2306 (
talk) 18:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You have provided the first one (although I would still like to see the full original quote with book and page number). We still need the other ones. we need 2 because if there is a conflict between reliable sources, we need a third reliable source to confirm one of the points. 3 and 4 are very important as from what I know, all wartime air kills claims were exaggerated, the luftwaffe not being an exception, and we need to see a reliable source that states otherwise. D2306 ( talk) 08:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
i followed all question and request. But now i fell a bit puzzeled. Krivosheev is in the box so is frieser. Nobody wants to exclude Krivosheev. I cant see your problem. Both Frieser and Bergstrom show clearly that krivo is way to lwo because incomplete data. Krivosheevs works relay on soviet archives if they are incomplete then his work is too. I already gave the exact quote of Frieser where he claims krivo in this particular case is unreliable. Bergstrom indirectly supports this. And to be honest you dont need to know where bergstrom has his numbers from. Frieser and Bergstrom are the historians and we the editors at wiki. I also wonder that you are so interessted in the aircraft numbers, they are seem pretty reasonable in my opinion. I understand that editors ( including me ) tend to argue about weird numbers but the aircraft losses are not even out of range or something like this. Blablaaa ( talk) 13:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
only northern flank
only 1 day in the south
Now please tell me that you still think 4.000 soviet and 720 german sound not realistic. Blablaaa ( talk) 18:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's go through this one last time.
I ask now one important question. Please answer straight. You think 700 to 4000 is reasonable ? Blablaaa ( talk) 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
OK I have thought of a solution. We leave the numbers as they are, but have a nb section that explains that:
This should be OK? D2306 ( talk) 22:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
We cant do OR on Wikipedia. It is enough to state that there are reliable sources that point out that krivosheev numbers for individual operations air losses are incomplete. Blablaaa says he has a quote from Krivosheev himself saying that. I also got very confused by the numbers you gave. 515 unknown is a lot, that's half of the 2 VA, compared with only 72 known causes. And how can we have unknown, but recoverable losses? D2306 ( talk) 09:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
yes Blablaaa ( talk) 19:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
=
all I can say is that anywhere the name Krivosheev appears, there is debate about the credibility of the numbers hes giving. it is allmost common knowledge that the russians suffered horrible losses, hence the cover-up of many statistics on the russian side.
the problem is that due to stalins propaganda machinery, the soviet archives are heavily incomplete. one can be shure that the soviets suffered even heavier losses-- 62.154.195.115 ( talk) 12:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Suggested Reference sources on the Battle of Kursk: Martin Caiden - The Tigers are Burning(picture of Soviet RPG 43. Reference of Soviet use of Dragons Teeth PG 119 Paul Carrell - Scorched Earth PG 123 Mellenthin F W - Panzer Battles Zetterling N - Kursk 1943 Glantz David Studies - Kursk- (Stumbling Colossus - Colossus Reborn - Weapons Production by year) Punishment Strike - Drabkin (Soviet Tactics) Beyond Kursk According to the information presented in these studies , Soviet Anti Tank Defenses were placed across the entire frontage, and to determine effectively what Barrier Kurowski was referring would require information as to where this barrier was located. According to the References mention above, Soviet Anti Tank Defenses consisted of Minefields and Minebelts, According to Mellenthin F W - after penetrating 12 Miles into the Russian Defenses , German Engineers were still lifting mines so the Panzers could advance, the engineers performed this task under Russian MG and Mortar or artillery fire. Other Anti Tank Defenses consisted of- Hundreds of miles of Trenches, as well as Anti Tank Ditches , Infantry Trenches were placed consecutively one behind the other, as German Infantry Discovered, after clearing one Trench came under fire from the next series of Trenches, Anti Tank Ditches in some instances were placed to prevent German Tanks from Flanking Nests of Soviet Anti Tank Guns, that contained several Guns to concentrate fire on lead heavy German Tanks. Between these Trenches and AT Ditches , there were slashings, of narrow slit trenches , Russian Tank destroyer teams could use to disable German Tanks , with whatever was available. The RPG 43 Anti Tank Grenade for ex. According to the Above mentioned sources, other "Barriers" were the River Pena, as well as flooded or swampy areas, that the Newly Arrived Panther Brigade became bogged in, on the 2nd day of the Offensive. Many Noted Authors state that there is still Archival Information on the Battle of Kursk that has not yet been divulged. In any event as information becomes avail, by comparing numerous accounts, the basis for determining one authors description can be determined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unravel2010 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Mea Culpa! I made the mistake of posting my understanding of the Kursk battle for discussion? If that is the purpose of this forum. My post was according to information published by noted Authors information such as David Glantz, Paul Carrell, F W Von Mellenthin, Albert Seaton, John Erickson, and many other Historians and German First Hand accounts. If the Forum is for "Discussion" , relevant postings concerning this battle and the overall Strategic and operational importance can only be "IMPROVED" if the topic is discussed. My posting was based on the information published by respected Historians and their years of study concerning Kursk as well as the entire German Soviet WWII Campaigns on the Eastern Front. Of course no one is interested in what they have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.164.2 ( talk) 20:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
In Opposing forces section i counted total 76 Soviet division and 54 German division. Regarding the fact that in that period both German and Soviet divisions was much smaller in man's and equipment becouse losses ...there just can't be 2,7 milion of soldier on battlefield. Especialy is overnumbered Soviet side. Ok, i understand that wiki using sources for data even if those sources are not good...but this "numerology" with strenght is just redicilous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.12.169 ( talk) 12:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to raise such a trivial matter on this serious talk page, but the "Page needed" flags in the Infobox are quite distracting (and they cause wrapping). Could they possibly be tidied out of the way by putting them inside the citations, say? Or even looked up and sorted out, of course... I only mention this because the article was otherwise so extremely readable, it was a pity to be brought up short with that particular Wiki-ism. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
38th Army has been omitted from the Voronezh Front OoB (though it is on the map). The Steppe Front OoB is missing 27th, 47th and 53rd Armies. Max Payload ( talk) 11:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The source link to the graphic "Battle of Kursk" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Kursk_(map).jpg) a map at www.dean.usma.edu does not work. The link suggest a redirect to the West Point USMC site and as far as I can see the map is buried somewhere there if it does exist. I couldn't find it.
Not sure how or what to do to fix it. TDurden1937 ( talk) 17:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)TDurden1937
Have you ever heard of propaganda? Just look at your "great" page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_and_overclaiming_of_aerial_victories_during_World_War_II And now imagine, what prevents someone during war to further "improve" the performance ratio, especially if you lose the fight? And after the war, when the opponents are defeated or dead, or are isolated (N. Korea-a US division was encircled and annihilated to the last man, but somehow, the US know that they killed at least 10.000 communists. And why should someone consider official reports as accurate? "Wars prove not who is right, but who is left", is all I have to say. During my life, I have encountered countless bizarre claims, from every single side of the war.
This article might as well earn a spot in TOP 10 list. The repeated quoting of authors of dubious quality makes you no less right. This is almost as absurd as quoting Bible on Earth's age wiki page. I especially like the age and education of your favourite authors, Glantz and Frieser. This article appears to me as if it is written by a frozen-in-time Nazism supporter, or Cold War era McCarthy fanatic. I have no personal interest in it, but I might ask have you ever given it a thought how this Glantz guy interprets another guys interpretations and always gets ever bigger death toll of Soviets? Is it an inner rage because of unmaterialised dreams of world-domination and hate for opposing ideology, that these guys write about imaginary losses and inflict additional casualties on paper? I am especially interested in the explanation of how did the Wehrmacht, according to "military geniuses" Glantz and Frieser, manage to inflict multiple times greater losses on a well entrenched, pre-deployed, multi-layered elastic defense system supported with anti-tank strongpoints, artillery and airsupport, that knew exactly when and where they will strike, while being several times less numerous? I can' imagine a worse attacking scenario. I don't get it how did they manage to lose the war then? Oh yes, the arsenal of democracy intervened.... How could I have forgotten......
To wiki moderators, how can someone even tolerate such low-rating and low-quality article? What is the point? The world condemned the Ubermensch ideology, while it obviously lingers on in the minds of some, because the feats quoted couldn't have been and weren't obtained by men. Are you unfamiliar with propaganda works? Why are we even regarding US Army or Western German Army historians as relevant authors, on the issue of their ideological enemy's war? Were they present? Are they indifferent, neutral? Did they conduct research with survivors of the battle of both sides? I personally have no stake in it, but posting such information somehow justifies the supremacy views of certain people, in the same way as the Hollywood promotes the inferiority of US's enemies.
PS: I like the "objectivity". You did present the "other side" "Red Hordes": a single sentence in the end.
"According to Soviets claims the Red Army smashed thirty German divisions, inflicting the following casualties between 5 July and 23 August 1943: 500,000 dead, wounded, and captured soldiers; 1,500 tanks and 3,700 planes destroyed." The rounded numbers to imply how innacurate and untruthful they are when compared to single digit accuracy of mighty Glantz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.118.37 ( talk) 17:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
This is getting even better, I actually don't know how to reply so many wrong facts.
The first time a German offensive was stopped? Hello, the year was mid-1943, the Axis sun was already past its zenith. History lesson(s) needed.
I have already stressed out that that my point on this subject is the nature of German attack and the tremendous difficulties they met. Their secret attack was revealed, their plans known to Soviet commander, the defence layout was brilliant, and planned to every detail. Yet the Germans managed to storm these lines and obviously devastate them (losses inflicted vs. losses sustained), yet somehow they didn't break through, especially in the northern sector. Why is no one willing to articulate the way they managed to do this, without air superiority or tremendous preparatory bombardment?
Furthermore, I have already explained how (ir)relevant is it to quote many Western (hostile) authors and a single, yet highly disputed, Russian author. My complaints go to the entire Eastern front section on Wikipedia, because even on Operation Bagration, the worst German defeat, which was a complete tactical and strategic surprise, and overwhelming Soviet victory, the losses were again unbelievable. I can only laugh about tank losses mentioned in the wiki-article. How did they manage to advance so rapidly then? With such heavy resistance (read from your numbers), they couldn't have done it. By the way, Operation Zitadelle failed because it WASN'T a Blitzkrieg, the Germans were expecting to outmanouevre the Soviet salient and attack the flanks. But the flanks were the strongpoints! Instead it turned into a slow slugging-out and creeping through defences.
What you said of Tigers and Panthers is another wrong fact. Of all Panzers, Jagdpanzers and StuGs at Kursk, they comprised less than 10%. A vast majority of German Panzers were advanced ausfuhrungs of Pz. III and IV, for which T-34 proved atleast equal (superior in some aspects). The true difference in tank warfare is the crew. The Tigers were revered not because of their design (it wasn't very good actually, ineffective armour and turret layout, slow turret traverse, highly vulnerable to fires, suspension prone to damage, complexity) but because only experienced crew and commanders were awarded.
On the Panthers, don't get me started on their debacle. They were expected to turn the tide, 200 dispatched. At the end of the operation, less than 40 were in German hands, of which only 9 operational. CLAIMED kills 267, losses ADMITTED: around 160. They were actually to blame upon the delay, allowing additional preparations.
And what is it with this Soviet commanders wasting men and material? Please tell me that you can recognize wartime Nazi propaganda and Cold war-era US one. The point of it was to show that the USSR was an evil empire bent on conquest and enslavement of the "free world", ready to employ Macchiavelistic approach to accomplish its goals.
The commanders at Kursk were skilled, displayed great commanding skills on many occasions. In addition, Soviet command was quick to sack inefficient commanders, and very unforgiving.
If you don't agree, fine. Have it your way. Just answer how could the Germans, whilst attacking a well-prepared and entrenched enemy at time and locations known to the enemy, devastate Soviets, whilst the Soviets, even when achieving complete tactical and strategic surprise, overwhelming force concentration on an unsuspecting enemy, take again devastating losses? (According to wiki article on Operation Bagration) I am waiting.... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.60.119.40 (
talk) 20:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
You merged my previous comment with someone elses, thank you very much for that 109.60.119.40 ( talk) 21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Original long poster
Look, I am ready to give up on this simply because of ignorance showed in your replies, PAUL SIEBERT. I have already posted the performance of the first batch of Panthers. Moreover, I have already posted that your "better quality tanks" made less than 10% of German Panzers, Jagdpanzers and StuGs at Kursk. Why aren't you paying attention? You are obviously clueless on the subject of German armour, really. The mainstay of Panzer formations at Kursk were later marks/series/ausfuhrungs of Pz. III and IV. WHICH WERE OF INFERIOR DESIGN TO T-34 (non-sloped armour, lower mobility, weaker suspension, thin side armour, weaker main armament (Pz. III)), except the Pz. IV F2/G onwards (L/40 or 48 StuK), which was comparable (read through technical analysis done by Germans following the capture of T-34). . The Pz. V Panther was a result of competition between a heavier version of T-34 (later Panther) by MAN, and a virtual copy submitted by Daimler. The Germans decided to go one better, hence the MAN got it. The Panther had the most compact complex engine and engine layout possible. Several cought fire while disembarking off the train at the front. Look, in retrospective, Guderian was prophetic. The emphasis on producing complex and low-numbered hevies was detrimental to Blitzkrieg tactics. I am willing to inform you that Poland and France were conquered by tankettes (Pz. I) and training tanks (Pz. II) and less than 100 Pz. III and IV during Fall Gelb, and divisions constisting entirely of captured Czech tanks (models 35 and 38). The Pz II was used on Eastern front until mid-1942 in front combat role. During that time, those Panzer divisions encountered and defeated much better equipment (Char B1/bis, Matildas, T-34s, KVs) because of coordinated and well executed use of massed tanks attacking at a Schwerpunkt, using the better mobility (tactical and strategic) to cut off and surround enemy forces, making the elimination of enemy pockets much easier than in frontal assault.
Your view on military operations is obviously based on rock-paper-scissor games and fiction. After continually replying with false information and irrelevant speculations, your knowledge of the subject has been exposed as very limited, so don't spam this serious subject any more. Your view of ideal tank warfare as "selective usage of few advanced machines" is something anyone possesing even the slightest idea of the subject can only laugh at.
On the casualty and losses notification: A loss for the Germans was: A)a total writeoff in their possession, B)a damaged one NOT in their possession anymore, C)an abandoned perfectly operational one NOT in their possession anymore. Guess what, the same goes for the Soviets! Magic, isn't it? Yet, the Germans were the attacking/retreating afterwards ones that time, so when you say losses for the Soviets, they were left with the battlefield, therefore implying that those weren't the damaged ones. For example, Soviet losses of KVs and T-34 in the opening of Barbarossa were almost total, yet German troops didn't even claim many destroyed. They broke down, were abandoned, blown up after being cut off, ran out of fuel or ammunition. A fraction were destroyed in direct combat
The numbers Glantz gives are sometimes HIGHER than numbers CLAIMED by German front lines (especially tankers and pilots, because they were perfect propaganda tools), which were so notouriously overclaiming everything, that for the purpose of propaganda, those numbers were reduced by between 50% and 100% (Otto Carius, need I say more), as not even the propaganda department could afford such lies, after nasty surprises during Battle of Britain.
Have you read my statements? You shouldn't reply without reading through. To prove you have a valid point, PAUL SIEBERT or STONE PROPHET, you might try to answer just one of the questions I asked, or address any of the statements I made. To make it easy, try answering any of these: Answer how could the Germans, whilst attacking a well-prepared and entrenched enemy at time and locations known to the enemy, devastate Soviets, whilst the Soviets, even when achieving complete tactical and strategic surprise, overwhelming force concentration on an unsuspecting enemy, take again devastating losses?
How could the Germans attack a several month entenchment worth of defences (with anti-tank emplacements, tank ditches, minefields, pillboxes etc.) , without air superiority, or preparatory artillery bombardment to soften the defences, while possessing fewer men, guns, planes and tanks (of which only less than 10% were your beloved Pathers and Tigers, the rest were at most comparable to T-34), at a time known to the Soviets, along routes known to the Soviets and thoroughly mined, and still inflict multiple times heavier losses than sustained? I personally can't imagine a worse attacking scenario. If you can't answer, I suggest you refrain from further embarassing replies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.119.40 ( talk) 20:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 109.60.119.40 ( talk) 20:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Original poster
You continually make wrong statements, provide false information, and misrepresent my statements. When corrected, you keep looking for some potential errors in my posts. You might want to stop doing that.
If you read carefully I already expressed that from F2 onwards the Pz. IV obivously had some rather big advantages over T-34, because I noted some of it's weaknesses and still claimed to be a match in terms of performance, with a slight superiority after G. That is only on technical grounds, not including other variables(deployment, leadership, crew). In my first post I explained that the armor match-up is actually of lesser importance than the ability to fire and hit something first. The crew is the weapon.
I point out relatively thin side armour, you come up with front armor thickness.
Oh and another thing. Only a relatively small area ( of Pz. IV G/H/I/J had 80 mm plate (glacis plate only), the rest was less, including the turret (liability late war). The T-34 original model 1940 had 45-47 mm hull armor (front, similar/less side and rear). The later models 1941, 1942, 1943 (not official designations actually) had more, no including field modifications of applique armor. Moreover, battlefield analysis identified the turret as the most struck part, so the later ones had improved turret protection, since most of the hits ended there. The benefits of sloped armor is that for the almost flat trajectory projectiles (kinetic AP penetrators) , it provides increased armor protection and improved chances of ricochetting, for the same armor thickness (you got it right with the formula actually) than boxy hulls of earlier German tanks. The capped rounds you pointed out defeated face-hardened armour, negating the advantage of it, not the sloped (that's why the Germans discontinued its use after 1943). If the sloped armor is useless, then why did the Germans so readily embrace it afterwards? It was more difficult to make, yet every single of their later designs had sloped armor. (Hetzer, Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdpanther, Pz. VI ausf. B, Pz. V, various E prototypes)
The "short barreled T-34 gun" was prototype armament for the 1940 model (L-11 gun, found troublesome immediately), and was replaced with F-34 even before it was authorised. Many were retrofitted. The F-34 is less effective than the 75 mm KwK 40, but not that much (KwK 40 length 48*75 mm, F-34 42.5*76.2mm, worse penetration because of lower propellant content/lower velocity [I've found conflicting information on wiki-article about Pz. IV, and a separate on it's gun, the one on Pz. IV posted wrong technical data on PzGr. 39 and KwK 40 L/43 and wrong penetration figures]. The model T-34 1943 was the best one (of the 76.2 mm family), with revised hexagonal turret, stronger armor, better hatches, and improved commander vision. The T-34 was a heavier design than Pz. IV, maintaning around 8 tonnes bigger weight. Overall, the mobility and protection (as a whole) were on the T-34's side, while the offensive systems and ergonomic layout were in favour of Pz.IV's.
But all of this is secondary to someone finally answering my questions above.
Try this one instead. Were the Germans retarded then? Your US army employee self-proclaimed "Soviet expert" Glantz gives us his interpretations of another mans interpretations of Soviet records (which by the way, you could pay to receive practically everything you are particularly interested in and have a look at yourself), that the Germans outperformed even the succes of Barbarossa in terms of casualty exchange rate, bled enemy reserves dry, yet somehow they retreated and fell back, proclaimed a defeat, and Guderian wrote in his memoirs that: "never will the Wehrmacht have the initiative again". Far worse scores and results were proclaimed victories, but not Zitadelle, which was immediately realised as a disaster by Wehrmacht generals. But no, according to Glantz, they just should have continued, and in a weeks time, there would be no Red Army at all.
Glantz ouperformed Goebbels' propaganda by a fair margin, trust me.
The entire section of Eastern Front on Wikipedia is very bad, heavily biased, not even attempting to be objective, almost as if a ministry of propaganda bulletin, either intentionally(I hope not) or just because of pure ignorance and laziness. I would certainly point out the articles on Finlands performance, especially the airforce. Try reading the wiki articles on Winter and "Continuation war" and you will suddenly realise why are the Finns a laughing stock in military historian circles. Someone might even wonder why didn't the Finns replace the Spartans as warrior ethos society afer reading through their claims.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121953 , read the posts by actual historians cross-checking statistics and archives of both sides, and a Finnish nationalist in his blind, moronnic fanaticism. I personally can confirm that the translations the man posted are true, and exist in declassified Soviet records. I mean really, German kill-death ratio reducing to 1.5:1 in 1944, Finns in the horrible, probably worst US fighter plane, F2A Buffalo 26:1 versus fighters designed 8 years later. Again, why did everyone (USMC, US Army, RAAF) discard their Buffaloes, when it could obviously outperform Spitfires V and IX, LaGG-3, La-5, Yak-9, Yak-3 (and obviously Bf-109F/G/K and FW-190A which the Germans reported to be well matched with the opposite fighers). C'mon people, drop the fairytales and do some cross-examination! Why are the books given such privileged status? People lie and write down their lies, too. The retarded Finnish claimed shooting down P-38 Lightings on more than one occasion, which was not even supplied to the USSR under Lend-lease, Otto Carius bragged taking out an entire regiment of IS-1 on a single day singlehandendly, of which none were even deployed in his area, British coastal AA batteries outperformed the inland ones by 300%, Germans overclaimed Battle of Britain 200%, British around 150% (during the war, rectified later). PEOPLE LIE!
And, by the way, I do read both Russian and German-I decided that I did not trust German and Western accounts of the fighting in the USSR, and was determined to read the Russian language accounts to check them against the German, and later on, "interpreted" Western. Even before the Soviet archives opened up (Glantz wrote much of his work before they did, so I was wondering was he a secret operative?), this turned out to be a good idea, and to this day, if I come across a book that claims to be history of the war between Germany and the Soviet Union (Glantz), yet doesn't specifically state where that information is located in the archives or records, but instead "is based on personal interpretations of someone else's personal interpretations of the records", I can immediately tell you, it isn't even remotely close to truth. What is it there to "interpret" about numbers and figures? I had no similar problems doing my researches.
By now I have identified the education and mentality of people using the Wikipedia as a fertile ground for these articles, and the absence of answers to my logically asked questions and remarks fits perfectly. The narrow-minded views, dogmatic beliefs, single-sided accounts are not the way of academic articles and works, but are obviously the way to go for modern brainwashing propaganda. What is even worse, is that there are mentally impaired (retarded) people claiming that Glantz is lying and is actually pro-Soviet meaning that he is reducing casualties (never enough blood for fanatics), and some books and shows like "Zitadelle-stolen German victory" (?!!!!) published and released in the West are simply, fiction. Wikipedia credibility won't be questioned by uninformed, uneducated or clueless readers. They will read it, possibly even memorise it, afterwards quote it, furthering the vicious cycle, if they are presented with the wrong facts. Don't even bother replying. The windmills have proven to be a tough adversary. 94.253.150.112 ( talk) 16:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Don Quixote
The current opening line of the article is "The Battle of Kursk took place when German and Soviet forces confronted each other[...]"
Shouldn't it be either "Nazi and Soviet forces" or "German and Russian forces"? Why is it that the essentially Russian forces are labeled as "Soviets" while the Germans are just "Germans" and not "Nazis"?
The Wikipedia article for The Battle of Stalingrad says "Nazi Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union"
Should there not be some consistency? Anarchaos ( talk) 11:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_non-Germans_in_the_German_armed_forces_during_World_War_II Also, not every member of the Red Army was a member of or participated in a Soviet. So, all of the combatants on the Nazi-commanded side were neither all Nazis, nor all Germans. All of the combatants on the Soviet-commanded side were neither all Russian, nor all Soviet. Anarchaos ( talk) 20:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Mr Siebert, I am unclear as to some of your positions. Would you call a member of the Stasi a member of the "Democratic Republican" intelligence agency? If North Korea were to invade South Korea, would you say "Democratic Korean Forces invade South Korea"? As for the example of Germans occupying Poland and its legal aspects, does the victor of a war not ultimately decide any official "legal aspects of occupation"? As an encyclopedia, should we use the rhetoric and words of a military hierarchy, or should we simply describe the events and circumstances as they happened? As of yet, you have not answered my assertion that not all members of the Red Army subscribed to Soviet ideology, and thus should not be considered "Soviet". To be honest, I have not read the Milhist project page, but would you not agree that caling all German and allied soldiers "Nazis" is analogous to calling all Red Army (and air force, navy, intel etc) "Soviets"? Anarchaos ( talk) 09:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Based on the logic exhibited in the talk page of the Battle of Jutland article, Kursk should be described as a German victory.
After all, their losses were fewer and they quit the battlefield.
Sauce for the goose...:-) 89.207.1.20 ( talk) 12:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
In the box there is the number 760 of german tanks lost while in the citation (source 15) there is talk about 706 tanks lost. Someone with the source should check which of those numbers is correct and fix the other one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.222.80 ( talk) 00:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
An editor wrote this in the body of the article, in the area regarding the size of the opposing forces. I'm moving it here: http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm - the numbers quoted below are not supported by current research. Herostratus ( talk) 05:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The quote below doesn't exist, as quoted below, in the cited source:
According to the situation of the Soviet-German front, the enemy will attempt to cut off the Kursk salient, encircle and destroy the Soviet forces of Central Front and Voronezh Front deployed here. At the moment, both fronts only have 15 tank divisions, meanwhile the German forces at Belgorod – Kharkov direction have alreadly gathered 17 tank divisions, most of them include the new types of tanks such as Tiger I, improvised Panther, Jagdpanzer IV and some kinds of tank destroyers such as Marder II, Marder III. [1]
It's easy to locate where in the text it was lifted from. The overall message matches that from the Google translation of the text, but some of the numbers and names are completely manufactured, or at least nonexistent in the translation. EyeTruth ( talk) 05:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
We continue to have problems with this article expanding. It is growing to the point of becoming unreadable. A number of style problems are creeping in as well. Wiki links should be limited to the first mention of the person or topic. A second link would be acceptable if there was a significant space between the two mentions, and with an article now at 164 kilobytes I suppose that is a distinct possibility. We also should be more guarded in the language we are using. However the primary problem in this article, from my perspective, is that it is trying to include too much, and needs to be substantially paired back. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 16:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The readable prose is around 95 KB, which is still within the tolerable range, albeit barely. Once the walls of essay for the three Operations are exported to their new articles, the size of this article will drop enormously. Besides, half of the recent edits was just addition of more citations, which doesn't noticeably affect readability. Also, two of the three subsections of the "Background" were virtually stubs, and one of those two subsections yet remains a stub. Any recent edits that involved addition of new info has been strictly restricted to the "Background" and "Prelude" sections, which are the sections that would stay intact during the splitting, and hence it makes sense to flesh out the stubs. Also the "Prelude" section and "Soviet preparation" subsections have outlined almost every essential information, so those shouldn't significantly expand further in the near future. EyeTruth ( talk) 18:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Update: the German preparation subsection has outlined most of the essential information. EyeTruth ( talk) 09:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I link a term only once in a paragraph, preferably in its first occurrence, unless for a short paragraph for which a wikilink of the term already appears in the preceding paragraph; any thing else is a mistake. Besides, that issue actually has less to do with readability and more to do with article size. Going back through our past discussions, I've come to understand that you are wrongfully equating the article size to the readability of the article. Citations, wikilinks and footnotes/endnotes have very negligible effect on readability, and tables or pictures even enhance it. And as for article size, wikipedia can handle whatever you've got unless it messes with readability or causes technical issues. EyeTruth ( talk) 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Not just simply once per paragraph, but more like once per long paragraph. When I do it right, it should amount to once per section most of the times. But I often get carried away when doing the initial typing, as it can be onerous to keep track of it. I come around some times to do some cleanup, and by all means, anyone can help in the cleanup if they wish. EyeTruth ( talk) 19:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if the wikilink for rasputitsa caused a problem. It was a new section and it made sense to link it again since it is not uncommon for a reader to just read a section of interest in an article and move on. Do you disagree? But as for doing the linking right, IIRC, the rule for linking in English Wikipedia has always been that the link should be helpful to the reader and not get in the way or cause confusion, which is fairly subjective. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that because I know that was the standing consensus among editors when I first started editing on here, before taking some break. EyeTruth ( talk) 23:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
PS. I think you're the only one having much trouble communicating, although I can't exactly speak for Sturmvogel 66. I think I'm reasonably considerate when it comes to accommodating the opinions of others, and I'm often more than willing to compromise if they are sensible. EyeTruth ( talk) 00:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66, thanks for your input which is a lot more helpful. I think I've read that article you linked above (or probably another similar one) some time ago, and that has since guided my approach to linking, even after my recent return to Wikipedia-editing. I'm certain in the past the consensus was something along the lines of one wikilink for a term in one section, although I currently can't see any guideline like that in the article. But don't you think it makes sense to link a term again in a new section since it is not uncommon for a reader to just read a section of interest in an article and move on? EyeTruth ( talk) 02:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Never mind. I read the article carefully, and found the thing about linking in new sections. It is apparently still the same old guidelines, and there is nothing wrong with linking a term again in a new section. But yes, it seems I'm short of the standards in a few ways. I will tighten up. EyeTruth ( talk) 02:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Beautiful. My unspoken intention has always been to get this article (and possibly all three subarticles) to A-class, in addition to being very informative and still readable, by the end of this summer. I'm happy to know that another active editor shares my intention. Yes, as I already stated above, I need to tighten up on linking, and I will soon get to work on Rumyantsev. EyeTruth ( talk) 02:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
One step at a time, and it is only a matter of time to get the article to that class. Operation Citadel is the Battle of Kursk, and so is Kutuzov and Rumyantsev. This is just akin to Blue and Stalindrad. IIRC, initially Operation Blue redirected to the Battle of Stalingrad article, until it made enough sense to editors that the redirection was fundamentally flawed although reasonable. I would support splitting Citadel from this article, but as I already stated earlier, I wouldn't push for it yet (or never) as the current redirection is with a good reason (although flawed). EyeTruth ( talk) 20:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is at 65K of text already and still has significant lacunae. Perhaps it's time to split the article along traditional western historiography of the Battle of Kursk, the Orel counter-attack (whatever its Soviet codename was) and 4th Kharkov covering the battle for that city in August. Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I think "Stavka" is now popularly recognized by WWII history audience. Many WWII history books published in the past 7 years don't italicize the term anymore. The same goes for "Wehrmacht". EyeTruth ( talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Sturmvogel 66's suggestion. I think Citadel should just be summarized in this article, just like Kutuzov and Commander Rumyantsev. The Battle of Kursk can then focus on all the preparations made for all three campaigns with a good summary of the campaigns. Then a new article focusing on just the battles of Citadel will be created (articles for Kutuzov and Commander Rumyantsev already exist). Everything from the beginning of the Prelude section up to the end of the Termination of Operation Citadel section in the Battle of Kursk article would be exported to the new article. This would not only help the size issue, but will also help establish a very neutral perspective of the Battle of Kursk (Citadel ended long before the fighting in the Kursk sector ended). Then the Battle of Kursk article can reduced as shown below. Any thought?
Battle of Kursk (changing)
|
---|
Intro and Background
|
EyeTruth (
talk) 19:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is that the Battle of Kursk article should only briefly summarize the three operations that constitute the battle. Then any detailed exposition of the combat phase of the operations should go in their own unique articles. Currently the Battle of Kursk article is almost only relevant to Citadel, but it shouldn't be. Although it seems majority of the editors have more interest in the German perspective, that is not the case with many credible books on the battle out there. Also, the background section of the articles for each of the operations don't need to be another wall of words ( Operation Typhoon article is a good example). Also, the operations could all be introduced as "part of the battle of Kursk.... starting XX Month 1943" to point the reader back to Battle of Kursk for a complete view of the big picture if needed. Or we can simply do this to help keep the backgrounds short:
EyeTruth ( talk) 07:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with Sturmvogel 66's suggestion. The article still has significant lacunae; as in very plenty. Even if all the aspects that are yet to be covered are stripped of all secondary details and then added, this article will still hit 150 K.
There are just so many crucial aspects that have not yet been covered or even mentioned. Nothing has been mentioned about the severe lack of infantry in the Wehrmacht (besides the brief mention in Zhukov's quote) and Model's ceaseless call for "more infantry", and its subsequent decisive effects (like having to divert mechanized and armoured formations to screen flanks simply because there weren't enough infantry formations to spare for the job); nor anything on the Luftwaffe's intentional plan to maintain air superiority by forming an air wall over there ground forces instead of trying to destroy the Red Air Force on the ground at the start of the campaign just like in their past offensives; nor is there any mention of Operation Habicht and Operation Panther; nor is there any mention of the effects the several postponements had on the Soviet commanders and forces, and the temptation (and serious plans) to attack in June. The air war over the salient has barely been touched. Nothing has been mentioned about the massive battles that played out on the far right flank of Manstein's main force (4th Panzer Army), which was one of the factors that turned Prokhorovka into a useless German victory (if it is even worth calling a victory). Everyone of these are covered by at least two of the four books I've digested on Kursk. And these are just some of the major topics not yet covered that are essential to providing the complete picture of the Battle of Kursk. And yes, even if lacking extensive details, a complete picture of the battle is the ultimate goal of this article. EyeTruth ( talk) 02:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
That's not going to be workable.
See:
Gunbirddriver ( talk) 19:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
That is why I said it must be divided. Also, as I already pointed out, this article as it is quite unbalanced. The battle of Kursk goes from 4/5 June to 23 July, and for some, as far as 23 August. But Citadel, for all practicality, ended on 12 July (the extra four days was just for jokes). Yet this article is virtually just Operation Citadel. I understand that is the way it is popularly understood, so I'm not gonna push against it yet. Anyways, as for the major issue at hand, this article has to be sliced up, as that is the primary step in reducing the size of this article. Once that is done, then this article can be succinctly summarized. We should start thinking of how the article will be cut up, and the subsequent trimming. (I feel like we are all saying the same thing but for some reason can't get the thing moving). EyeTruth ( talk) 22:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
This article should give a complete picture but not necessarily with exhaustive exposition. And by complete picture, I don't mean "an exhaustive treatise" (don't put words in my mouth) nor should it have everything that is associated with the battle. Rather, any factor, aspect, or event that is crucial to the development and outcome of the battle should be a candidate for inclusion. To summarize my view on this: I'm confident that simply cutting off whole passages or paragraphs will leave nothing but a half-baked article and will not even reduce the size significantly compared to slicing it up into new articles. And here is why.
As of 16 April 2013, before I started expanding the article, it was at ~108 kB (~105 KB) and was virtually an empty chest. Even Sturmvogel 66 recognized that, and since then it has only improved slightly and now stands at ~158 kB (~155 KB). A rough estimate of my net addition would be 25-30 KB, and that accounts for at least 5 KB of false (and uncited) material I cleaned out. And most of my edits, except for the Operation at the southern face section, was simply adding citation to already existing text and polishing it to mirror the message of the cited source (and you can attest to that as we've disputed over whether strictly preserving the message of the source matters or not). Currently, only a few sections (and subsections) are decently in order: 1.2, 2, 4, 8, 9; and I've never edited the last two. The rest are in an abysmal state, cluttered with uncited material, misinformation, false data, lacunae and poor prose. So go figure.
But I must confess that the Operation at the southern face section is very large and maybe too detailed for this article, all thanks to my edits. The whole section amounts to ~32 kB (and my edit will be estimated at 15-20 kB) and that is the reason I paused with adding or removing anything until a decision is reached regarding how to resolve the size issue. Sincerely, my intentions for this article is to fill in all notable lacunae, preserve adherence to the source and make it readable. I don't think it deserves to be antagonized, and I believe it can be accomplished. I also want to size down the article to make it readable just as much as you want to. What we need right now is to get more people, more ideas and work on it. EyeTruth ( talk) 02:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure. But we should actually work to get this rolling, and not sit back and watch. We won't be waiting for eternity. EyeTruth ( talk) 05:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm also ready to start slicing up the article into new articles, and also join you in reducing the size of the current article by cutting down the text. But more importantly, we should actually work to get this rolling; as in, get more people and ideas involved. EyeTruth ( talk) 23:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
PS. I will follow up with Sturmvogel 66. I'm guessing you brought in Paul Siebert; follow up too. EyeTruth ( talk) 23:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I've pinged Paul Siebert to see if he has any concerns about the split. There are existing articles on Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev, Belgorod-Khar'kov Offensive Operation and Operation Kutuzov as well as the redirect from Operation Citadel. I can merge the second article into the first one without any problems and don't see any other significant issues. So I propose that we do this is several steps once we've gotten agreement that this is a workable plan. If Paul doesn't comment in a couple of days then we can proceed without him.
Here is the summary for Operation Kutsov:
I may have gotten ahead of myself, as I earlier parked the summary at the top of the subsection on Operation Kutusov. The remainder of that subsection could be exported to the main article on Operation Kutusov if the summary above looks acceptable. Comments? Gunbirddriver ( talk) 20:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we should flesh out the subarticles for Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev with the material from Battle of Kursk instead of merging anything. I agree with every other point Gunbirddriver and Sturmvogel 66 has raised. EyeTruth ( talk) 21:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha. I will do that soon, once I'm in the mood to write on a Soviet offensive. EyeTruth ( talk) 22:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev:
After the heavy losses sustained by the Voronezh Front during Operation Citadel, the Soviets needed time to regroup and refit and therefore could not launch Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev until 3 August. The operation was intended to be the major Soviet summer offensive with the aim of destroying the 4th Panzer Army and Army Detachment Kempf and eventually the southern wing of Army Group South as well. [1] Before the operation was launched, however, the Soviets launched diversionary attacks across the Donets and Mius Rivers into the Donets Basin using the Southern and the Southwestern Fronts on 17 July. These attacks, intentionally designed to be spotted by the Germans, achieved their desired effect of diverting the few German reserves and some of the forces that took part in Citadel. These redeployed German forces successfully defeated the attacking Soviet armies by the end of July, but at the expense of weakening the defenses in the path of the main blow. [2] The main offensive, which was primarily directed against Army Group South's northern wing, was initiated by the Voronezh and Steppe Fronts. On 5 August the Soviets took Belgorod and by the 12th had reached Kharkov, which eventually fell on 23 August at the end of the Fourth Battle of Kharkov.
Thoughts? EyeTruth ( talk) 20:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
You have a good point Gunbirddriver. The simple format I followed was: condition of attacking forces; the diversionary attack that eventually made Rumyantsev far more successful than it would have ever been; the attacking forces; and final outcome. You can rework it as needed. Frankly, for now I have little enthusiasm for the Soviet offensives. Those have their days. For the paragraph I did, I pretty much squeezed it out from these two pages: (1) http://postimg.org/image/9n7yvb8m1/ (2) the link below. Those can be condensed and reworded in a thousand ways.
Sturmvogel 66, if the II SS Panzer Corps was still fighting along the Mius on 15 August it would be only elements from its divisions, because by 9 August the bulk of Das Reich and Totenkpf had returned to face off the Rumyantsev offensive. The Soviet offensives on Izium and Mius Front ended on 27 July and 3 August respectively, long after they had actually crumpled. Here is a fair-use excerpt http://postimg.org/image/nfmdqxzdl/ (Glantz & House, 2004) EyeTruth ( talk) 03:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Elements of Totenkopf were fighting near Kharkov on 12-13 August (if it was also at Mius, it would have only been a portion of it). http://postimg.org/image/fyngm81d9/ (hopefully this one more won't take a bite from Glantz's pocket :p) EyeTruth ( talk) 06:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
If possible, check to see where the Assault Gun Battalion and the Panzergrenadier Regiments were. Those are formidable units that can leave a presence. Glantz never really clarified if the whole division returned or not, in fact it sounds a lot like he was saying only part of the division was fighting near Kharkov. EyeTruth ( talk) 07:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I might word it something like this:
I'm certainly not in love with it, so carve away or disregard as you wish. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 19:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This is much better. I'm in love with it. love
EyeTruth ( talk) 00:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I little rewording. Reworded: "German reserves and weakened the defenders in..." to "German reserves and thinned the defending forces in..." EyeTruth ( talk) 06:10, 5 June 2013 (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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Exactly what kind of anti-tank barriers is Kurowski talking about? And what's his source for the figure for Soviet mines?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 21:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
After some reading I came to a conclusion that, although the Frieser's book meets all formal RS criteria, we cannot rely upon it too much for neutrality reasons. According to some sources, it represents a German point of view that has been characterised as follows:
In my opinion, the Newton's book should be analysed more carefully, because the possibolity exists that the article in its present form provided somewhat skewed view of the events.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
OK I would like to bring this discussion alive again, since I noticed it has died with Igor's edit wars. I still stand by my earlier points about the air losses claims. Paul Siebert did suggest that Blablaaa provides some quotes to make the discussion more manageable (20:48, 26 June 2010) If possibe could we restart from that? The two numbers at the moment are so different, that one of them is clearly very wrong.
D2306 (
talk) 18:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You have provided the first one (although I would still like to see the full original quote with book and page number). We still need the other ones. we need 2 because if there is a conflict between reliable sources, we need a third reliable source to confirm one of the points. 3 and 4 are very important as from what I know, all wartime air kills claims were exaggerated, the luftwaffe not being an exception, and we need to see a reliable source that states otherwise. D2306 ( talk) 08:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
i followed all question and request. But now i fell a bit puzzeled. Krivosheev is in the box so is frieser. Nobody wants to exclude Krivosheev. I cant see your problem. Both Frieser and Bergstrom show clearly that krivo is way to lwo because incomplete data. Krivosheevs works relay on soviet archives if they are incomplete then his work is too. I already gave the exact quote of Frieser where he claims krivo in this particular case is unreliable. Bergstrom indirectly supports this. And to be honest you dont need to know where bergstrom has his numbers from. Frieser and Bergstrom are the historians and we the editors at wiki. I also wonder that you are so interessted in the aircraft numbers, they are seem pretty reasonable in my opinion. I understand that editors ( including me ) tend to argue about weird numbers but the aircraft losses are not even out of range or something like this. Blablaaa ( talk) 13:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
only northern flank
only 1 day in the south
Now please tell me that you still think 4.000 soviet and 720 german sound not realistic. Blablaaa ( talk) 18:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's go through this one last time.
I ask now one important question. Please answer straight. You think 700 to 4000 is reasonable ? Blablaaa ( talk) 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
OK I have thought of a solution. We leave the numbers as they are, but have a nb section that explains that:
This should be OK? D2306 ( talk) 22:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
We cant do OR on Wikipedia. It is enough to state that there are reliable sources that point out that krivosheev numbers for individual operations air losses are incomplete. Blablaaa says he has a quote from Krivosheev himself saying that. I also got very confused by the numbers you gave. 515 unknown is a lot, that's half of the 2 VA, compared with only 72 known causes. And how can we have unknown, but recoverable losses? D2306 ( talk) 09:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
yes Blablaaa ( talk) 19:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
=
all I can say is that anywhere the name Krivosheev appears, there is debate about the credibility of the numbers hes giving. it is allmost common knowledge that the russians suffered horrible losses, hence the cover-up of many statistics on the russian side.
the problem is that due to stalins propaganda machinery, the soviet archives are heavily incomplete. one can be shure that the soviets suffered even heavier losses-- 62.154.195.115 ( talk) 12:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Suggested Reference sources on the Battle of Kursk: Martin Caiden - The Tigers are Burning(picture of Soviet RPG 43. Reference of Soviet use of Dragons Teeth PG 119 Paul Carrell - Scorched Earth PG 123 Mellenthin F W - Panzer Battles Zetterling N - Kursk 1943 Glantz David Studies - Kursk- (Stumbling Colossus - Colossus Reborn - Weapons Production by year) Punishment Strike - Drabkin (Soviet Tactics) Beyond Kursk According to the information presented in these studies , Soviet Anti Tank Defenses were placed across the entire frontage, and to determine effectively what Barrier Kurowski was referring would require information as to where this barrier was located. According to the References mention above, Soviet Anti Tank Defenses consisted of Minefields and Minebelts, According to Mellenthin F W - after penetrating 12 Miles into the Russian Defenses , German Engineers were still lifting mines so the Panzers could advance, the engineers performed this task under Russian MG and Mortar or artillery fire. Other Anti Tank Defenses consisted of- Hundreds of miles of Trenches, as well as Anti Tank Ditches , Infantry Trenches were placed consecutively one behind the other, as German Infantry Discovered, after clearing one Trench came under fire from the next series of Trenches, Anti Tank Ditches in some instances were placed to prevent German Tanks from Flanking Nests of Soviet Anti Tank Guns, that contained several Guns to concentrate fire on lead heavy German Tanks. Between these Trenches and AT Ditches , there were slashings, of narrow slit trenches , Russian Tank destroyer teams could use to disable German Tanks , with whatever was available. The RPG 43 Anti Tank Grenade for ex. According to the Above mentioned sources, other "Barriers" were the River Pena, as well as flooded or swampy areas, that the Newly Arrived Panther Brigade became bogged in, on the 2nd day of the Offensive. Many Noted Authors state that there is still Archival Information on the Battle of Kursk that has not yet been divulged. In any event as information becomes avail, by comparing numerous accounts, the basis for determining one authors description can be determined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unravel2010 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Mea Culpa! I made the mistake of posting my understanding of the Kursk battle for discussion? If that is the purpose of this forum. My post was according to information published by noted Authors information such as David Glantz, Paul Carrell, F W Von Mellenthin, Albert Seaton, John Erickson, and many other Historians and German First Hand accounts. If the Forum is for "Discussion" , relevant postings concerning this battle and the overall Strategic and operational importance can only be "IMPROVED" if the topic is discussed. My posting was based on the information published by respected Historians and their years of study concerning Kursk as well as the entire German Soviet WWII Campaigns on the Eastern Front. Of course no one is interested in what they have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.164.2 ( talk) 20:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
In Opposing forces section i counted total 76 Soviet division and 54 German division. Regarding the fact that in that period both German and Soviet divisions was much smaller in man's and equipment becouse losses ...there just can't be 2,7 milion of soldier on battlefield. Especialy is overnumbered Soviet side. Ok, i understand that wiki using sources for data even if those sources are not good...but this "numerology" with strenght is just redicilous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.12.169 ( talk) 12:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to raise such a trivial matter on this serious talk page, but the "Page needed" flags in the Infobox are quite distracting (and they cause wrapping). Could they possibly be tidied out of the way by putting them inside the citations, say? Or even looked up and sorted out, of course... I only mention this because the article was otherwise so extremely readable, it was a pity to be brought up short with that particular Wiki-ism. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
38th Army has been omitted from the Voronezh Front OoB (though it is on the map). The Steppe Front OoB is missing 27th, 47th and 53rd Armies. Max Payload ( talk) 11:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The source link to the graphic "Battle of Kursk" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Kursk_(map).jpg) a map at www.dean.usma.edu does not work. The link suggest a redirect to the West Point USMC site and as far as I can see the map is buried somewhere there if it does exist. I couldn't find it.
Not sure how or what to do to fix it. TDurden1937 ( talk) 17:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)TDurden1937
Have you ever heard of propaganda? Just look at your "great" page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_and_overclaiming_of_aerial_victories_during_World_War_II And now imagine, what prevents someone during war to further "improve" the performance ratio, especially if you lose the fight? And after the war, when the opponents are defeated or dead, or are isolated (N. Korea-a US division was encircled and annihilated to the last man, but somehow, the US know that they killed at least 10.000 communists. And why should someone consider official reports as accurate? "Wars prove not who is right, but who is left", is all I have to say. During my life, I have encountered countless bizarre claims, from every single side of the war.
This article might as well earn a spot in TOP 10 list. The repeated quoting of authors of dubious quality makes you no less right. This is almost as absurd as quoting Bible on Earth's age wiki page. I especially like the age and education of your favourite authors, Glantz and Frieser. This article appears to me as if it is written by a frozen-in-time Nazism supporter, or Cold War era McCarthy fanatic. I have no personal interest in it, but I might ask have you ever given it a thought how this Glantz guy interprets another guys interpretations and always gets ever bigger death toll of Soviets? Is it an inner rage because of unmaterialised dreams of world-domination and hate for opposing ideology, that these guys write about imaginary losses and inflict additional casualties on paper? I am especially interested in the explanation of how did the Wehrmacht, according to "military geniuses" Glantz and Frieser, manage to inflict multiple times greater losses on a well entrenched, pre-deployed, multi-layered elastic defense system supported with anti-tank strongpoints, artillery and airsupport, that knew exactly when and where they will strike, while being several times less numerous? I can' imagine a worse attacking scenario. I don't get it how did they manage to lose the war then? Oh yes, the arsenal of democracy intervened.... How could I have forgotten......
To wiki moderators, how can someone even tolerate such low-rating and low-quality article? What is the point? The world condemned the Ubermensch ideology, while it obviously lingers on in the minds of some, because the feats quoted couldn't have been and weren't obtained by men. Are you unfamiliar with propaganda works? Why are we even regarding US Army or Western German Army historians as relevant authors, on the issue of their ideological enemy's war? Were they present? Are they indifferent, neutral? Did they conduct research with survivors of the battle of both sides? I personally have no stake in it, but posting such information somehow justifies the supremacy views of certain people, in the same way as the Hollywood promotes the inferiority of US's enemies.
PS: I like the "objectivity". You did present the "other side" "Red Hordes": a single sentence in the end.
"According to Soviets claims the Red Army smashed thirty German divisions, inflicting the following casualties between 5 July and 23 August 1943: 500,000 dead, wounded, and captured soldiers; 1,500 tanks and 3,700 planes destroyed." The rounded numbers to imply how innacurate and untruthful they are when compared to single digit accuracy of mighty Glantz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.118.37 ( talk) 17:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
This is getting even better, I actually don't know how to reply so many wrong facts.
The first time a German offensive was stopped? Hello, the year was mid-1943, the Axis sun was already past its zenith. History lesson(s) needed.
I have already stressed out that that my point on this subject is the nature of German attack and the tremendous difficulties they met. Their secret attack was revealed, their plans known to Soviet commander, the defence layout was brilliant, and planned to every detail. Yet the Germans managed to storm these lines and obviously devastate them (losses inflicted vs. losses sustained), yet somehow they didn't break through, especially in the northern sector. Why is no one willing to articulate the way they managed to do this, without air superiority or tremendous preparatory bombardment?
Furthermore, I have already explained how (ir)relevant is it to quote many Western (hostile) authors and a single, yet highly disputed, Russian author. My complaints go to the entire Eastern front section on Wikipedia, because even on Operation Bagration, the worst German defeat, which was a complete tactical and strategic surprise, and overwhelming Soviet victory, the losses were again unbelievable. I can only laugh about tank losses mentioned in the wiki-article. How did they manage to advance so rapidly then? With such heavy resistance (read from your numbers), they couldn't have done it. By the way, Operation Zitadelle failed because it WASN'T a Blitzkrieg, the Germans were expecting to outmanouevre the Soviet salient and attack the flanks. But the flanks were the strongpoints! Instead it turned into a slow slugging-out and creeping through defences.
What you said of Tigers and Panthers is another wrong fact. Of all Panzers, Jagdpanzers and StuGs at Kursk, they comprised less than 10%. A vast majority of German Panzers were advanced ausfuhrungs of Pz. III and IV, for which T-34 proved atleast equal (superior in some aspects). The true difference in tank warfare is the crew. The Tigers were revered not because of their design (it wasn't very good actually, ineffective armour and turret layout, slow turret traverse, highly vulnerable to fires, suspension prone to damage, complexity) but because only experienced crew and commanders were awarded.
On the Panthers, don't get me started on their debacle. They were expected to turn the tide, 200 dispatched. At the end of the operation, less than 40 were in German hands, of which only 9 operational. CLAIMED kills 267, losses ADMITTED: around 160. They were actually to blame upon the delay, allowing additional preparations.
And what is it with this Soviet commanders wasting men and material? Please tell me that you can recognize wartime Nazi propaganda and Cold war-era US one. The point of it was to show that the USSR was an evil empire bent on conquest and enslavement of the "free world", ready to employ Macchiavelistic approach to accomplish its goals.
The commanders at Kursk were skilled, displayed great commanding skills on many occasions. In addition, Soviet command was quick to sack inefficient commanders, and very unforgiving.
If you don't agree, fine. Have it your way. Just answer how could the Germans, whilst attacking a well-prepared and entrenched enemy at time and locations known to the enemy, devastate Soviets, whilst the Soviets, even when achieving complete tactical and strategic surprise, overwhelming force concentration on an unsuspecting enemy, take again devastating losses? (According to wiki article on Operation Bagration) I am waiting.... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
109.60.119.40 (
talk) 20:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
You merged my previous comment with someone elses, thank you very much for that 109.60.119.40 ( talk) 21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Original long poster
Look, I am ready to give up on this simply because of ignorance showed in your replies, PAUL SIEBERT. I have already posted the performance of the first batch of Panthers. Moreover, I have already posted that your "better quality tanks" made less than 10% of German Panzers, Jagdpanzers and StuGs at Kursk. Why aren't you paying attention? You are obviously clueless on the subject of German armour, really. The mainstay of Panzer formations at Kursk were later marks/series/ausfuhrungs of Pz. III and IV. WHICH WERE OF INFERIOR DESIGN TO T-34 (non-sloped armour, lower mobility, weaker suspension, thin side armour, weaker main armament (Pz. III)), except the Pz. IV F2/G onwards (L/40 or 48 StuK), which was comparable (read through technical analysis done by Germans following the capture of T-34). . The Pz. V Panther was a result of competition between a heavier version of T-34 (later Panther) by MAN, and a virtual copy submitted by Daimler. The Germans decided to go one better, hence the MAN got it. The Panther had the most compact complex engine and engine layout possible. Several cought fire while disembarking off the train at the front. Look, in retrospective, Guderian was prophetic. The emphasis on producing complex and low-numbered hevies was detrimental to Blitzkrieg tactics. I am willing to inform you that Poland and France were conquered by tankettes (Pz. I) and training tanks (Pz. II) and less than 100 Pz. III and IV during Fall Gelb, and divisions constisting entirely of captured Czech tanks (models 35 and 38). The Pz II was used on Eastern front until mid-1942 in front combat role. During that time, those Panzer divisions encountered and defeated much better equipment (Char B1/bis, Matildas, T-34s, KVs) because of coordinated and well executed use of massed tanks attacking at a Schwerpunkt, using the better mobility (tactical and strategic) to cut off and surround enemy forces, making the elimination of enemy pockets much easier than in frontal assault.
Your view on military operations is obviously based on rock-paper-scissor games and fiction. After continually replying with false information and irrelevant speculations, your knowledge of the subject has been exposed as very limited, so don't spam this serious subject any more. Your view of ideal tank warfare as "selective usage of few advanced machines" is something anyone possesing even the slightest idea of the subject can only laugh at.
On the casualty and losses notification: A loss for the Germans was: A)a total writeoff in their possession, B)a damaged one NOT in their possession anymore, C)an abandoned perfectly operational one NOT in their possession anymore. Guess what, the same goes for the Soviets! Magic, isn't it? Yet, the Germans were the attacking/retreating afterwards ones that time, so when you say losses for the Soviets, they were left with the battlefield, therefore implying that those weren't the damaged ones. For example, Soviet losses of KVs and T-34 in the opening of Barbarossa were almost total, yet German troops didn't even claim many destroyed. They broke down, were abandoned, blown up after being cut off, ran out of fuel or ammunition. A fraction were destroyed in direct combat
The numbers Glantz gives are sometimes HIGHER than numbers CLAIMED by German front lines (especially tankers and pilots, because they were perfect propaganda tools), which were so notouriously overclaiming everything, that for the purpose of propaganda, those numbers were reduced by between 50% and 100% (Otto Carius, need I say more), as not even the propaganda department could afford such lies, after nasty surprises during Battle of Britain.
Have you read my statements? You shouldn't reply without reading through. To prove you have a valid point, PAUL SIEBERT or STONE PROPHET, you might try to answer just one of the questions I asked, or address any of the statements I made. To make it easy, try answering any of these: Answer how could the Germans, whilst attacking a well-prepared and entrenched enemy at time and locations known to the enemy, devastate Soviets, whilst the Soviets, even when achieving complete tactical and strategic surprise, overwhelming force concentration on an unsuspecting enemy, take again devastating losses?
How could the Germans attack a several month entenchment worth of defences (with anti-tank emplacements, tank ditches, minefields, pillboxes etc.) , without air superiority, or preparatory artillery bombardment to soften the defences, while possessing fewer men, guns, planes and tanks (of which only less than 10% were your beloved Pathers and Tigers, the rest were at most comparable to T-34), at a time known to the Soviets, along routes known to the Soviets and thoroughly mined, and still inflict multiple times heavier losses than sustained? I personally can't imagine a worse attacking scenario. If you can't answer, I suggest you refrain from further embarassing replies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.119.40 ( talk) 20:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 109.60.119.40 ( talk) 20:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Original poster
You continually make wrong statements, provide false information, and misrepresent my statements. When corrected, you keep looking for some potential errors in my posts. You might want to stop doing that.
If you read carefully I already expressed that from F2 onwards the Pz. IV obivously had some rather big advantages over T-34, because I noted some of it's weaknesses and still claimed to be a match in terms of performance, with a slight superiority after G. That is only on technical grounds, not including other variables(deployment, leadership, crew). In my first post I explained that the armor match-up is actually of lesser importance than the ability to fire and hit something first. The crew is the weapon.
I point out relatively thin side armour, you come up with front armor thickness.
Oh and another thing. Only a relatively small area ( of Pz. IV G/H/I/J had 80 mm plate (glacis plate only), the rest was less, including the turret (liability late war). The T-34 original model 1940 had 45-47 mm hull armor (front, similar/less side and rear). The later models 1941, 1942, 1943 (not official designations actually) had more, no including field modifications of applique armor. Moreover, battlefield analysis identified the turret as the most struck part, so the later ones had improved turret protection, since most of the hits ended there. The benefits of sloped armor is that for the almost flat trajectory projectiles (kinetic AP penetrators) , it provides increased armor protection and improved chances of ricochetting, for the same armor thickness (you got it right with the formula actually) than boxy hulls of earlier German tanks. The capped rounds you pointed out defeated face-hardened armour, negating the advantage of it, not the sloped (that's why the Germans discontinued its use after 1943). If the sloped armor is useless, then why did the Germans so readily embrace it afterwards? It was more difficult to make, yet every single of their later designs had sloped armor. (Hetzer, Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdpanther, Pz. VI ausf. B, Pz. V, various E prototypes)
The "short barreled T-34 gun" was prototype armament for the 1940 model (L-11 gun, found troublesome immediately), and was replaced with F-34 even before it was authorised. Many were retrofitted. The F-34 is less effective than the 75 mm KwK 40, but not that much (KwK 40 length 48*75 mm, F-34 42.5*76.2mm, worse penetration because of lower propellant content/lower velocity [I've found conflicting information on wiki-article about Pz. IV, and a separate on it's gun, the one on Pz. IV posted wrong technical data on PzGr. 39 and KwK 40 L/43 and wrong penetration figures]. The model T-34 1943 was the best one (of the 76.2 mm family), with revised hexagonal turret, stronger armor, better hatches, and improved commander vision. The T-34 was a heavier design than Pz. IV, maintaning around 8 tonnes bigger weight. Overall, the mobility and protection (as a whole) were on the T-34's side, while the offensive systems and ergonomic layout were in favour of Pz.IV's.
But all of this is secondary to someone finally answering my questions above.
Try this one instead. Were the Germans retarded then? Your US army employee self-proclaimed "Soviet expert" Glantz gives us his interpretations of another mans interpretations of Soviet records (which by the way, you could pay to receive practically everything you are particularly interested in and have a look at yourself), that the Germans outperformed even the succes of Barbarossa in terms of casualty exchange rate, bled enemy reserves dry, yet somehow they retreated and fell back, proclaimed a defeat, and Guderian wrote in his memoirs that: "never will the Wehrmacht have the initiative again". Far worse scores and results were proclaimed victories, but not Zitadelle, which was immediately realised as a disaster by Wehrmacht generals. But no, according to Glantz, they just should have continued, and in a weeks time, there would be no Red Army at all.
Glantz ouperformed Goebbels' propaganda by a fair margin, trust me.
The entire section of Eastern Front on Wikipedia is very bad, heavily biased, not even attempting to be objective, almost as if a ministry of propaganda bulletin, either intentionally(I hope not) or just because of pure ignorance and laziness. I would certainly point out the articles on Finlands performance, especially the airforce. Try reading the wiki articles on Winter and "Continuation war" and you will suddenly realise why are the Finns a laughing stock in military historian circles. Someone might even wonder why didn't the Finns replace the Spartans as warrior ethos society afer reading through their claims.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121953 , read the posts by actual historians cross-checking statistics and archives of both sides, and a Finnish nationalist in his blind, moronnic fanaticism. I personally can confirm that the translations the man posted are true, and exist in declassified Soviet records. I mean really, German kill-death ratio reducing to 1.5:1 in 1944, Finns in the horrible, probably worst US fighter plane, F2A Buffalo 26:1 versus fighters designed 8 years later. Again, why did everyone (USMC, US Army, RAAF) discard their Buffaloes, when it could obviously outperform Spitfires V and IX, LaGG-3, La-5, Yak-9, Yak-3 (and obviously Bf-109F/G/K and FW-190A which the Germans reported to be well matched with the opposite fighers). C'mon people, drop the fairytales and do some cross-examination! Why are the books given such privileged status? People lie and write down their lies, too. The retarded Finnish claimed shooting down P-38 Lightings on more than one occasion, which was not even supplied to the USSR under Lend-lease, Otto Carius bragged taking out an entire regiment of IS-1 on a single day singlehandendly, of which none were even deployed in his area, British coastal AA batteries outperformed the inland ones by 300%, Germans overclaimed Battle of Britain 200%, British around 150% (during the war, rectified later). PEOPLE LIE!
And, by the way, I do read both Russian and German-I decided that I did not trust German and Western accounts of the fighting in the USSR, and was determined to read the Russian language accounts to check them against the German, and later on, "interpreted" Western. Even before the Soviet archives opened up (Glantz wrote much of his work before they did, so I was wondering was he a secret operative?), this turned out to be a good idea, and to this day, if I come across a book that claims to be history of the war between Germany and the Soviet Union (Glantz), yet doesn't specifically state where that information is located in the archives or records, but instead "is based on personal interpretations of someone else's personal interpretations of the records", I can immediately tell you, it isn't even remotely close to truth. What is it there to "interpret" about numbers and figures? I had no similar problems doing my researches.
By now I have identified the education and mentality of people using the Wikipedia as a fertile ground for these articles, and the absence of answers to my logically asked questions and remarks fits perfectly. The narrow-minded views, dogmatic beliefs, single-sided accounts are not the way of academic articles and works, but are obviously the way to go for modern brainwashing propaganda. What is even worse, is that there are mentally impaired (retarded) people claiming that Glantz is lying and is actually pro-Soviet meaning that he is reducing casualties (never enough blood for fanatics), and some books and shows like "Zitadelle-stolen German victory" (?!!!!) published and released in the West are simply, fiction. Wikipedia credibility won't be questioned by uninformed, uneducated or clueless readers. They will read it, possibly even memorise it, afterwards quote it, furthering the vicious cycle, if they are presented with the wrong facts. Don't even bother replying. The windmills have proven to be a tough adversary. 94.253.150.112 ( talk) 16:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Don Quixote
The current opening line of the article is "The Battle of Kursk took place when German and Soviet forces confronted each other[...]"
Shouldn't it be either "Nazi and Soviet forces" or "German and Russian forces"? Why is it that the essentially Russian forces are labeled as "Soviets" while the Germans are just "Germans" and not "Nazis"?
The Wikipedia article for The Battle of Stalingrad says "Nazi Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union"
Should there not be some consistency? Anarchaos ( talk) 11:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_non-Germans_in_the_German_armed_forces_during_World_War_II Also, not every member of the Red Army was a member of or participated in a Soviet. So, all of the combatants on the Nazi-commanded side were neither all Nazis, nor all Germans. All of the combatants on the Soviet-commanded side were neither all Russian, nor all Soviet. Anarchaos ( talk) 20:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Mr Siebert, I am unclear as to some of your positions. Would you call a member of the Stasi a member of the "Democratic Republican" intelligence agency? If North Korea were to invade South Korea, would you say "Democratic Korean Forces invade South Korea"? As for the example of Germans occupying Poland and its legal aspects, does the victor of a war not ultimately decide any official "legal aspects of occupation"? As an encyclopedia, should we use the rhetoric and words of a military hierarchy, or should we simply describe the events and circumstances as they happened? As of yet, you have not answered my assertion that not all members of the Red Army subscribed to Soviet ideology, and thus should not be considered "Soviet". To be honest, I have not read the Milhist project page, but would you not agree that caling all German and allied soldiers "Nazis" is analogous to calling all Red Army (and air force, navy, intel etc) "Soviets"? Anarchaos ( talk) 09:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Based on the logic exhibited in the talk page of the Battle of Jutland article, Kursk should be described as a German victory.
After all, their losses were fewer and they quit the battlefield.
Sauce for the goose...:-) 89.207.1.20 ( talk) 12:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
In the box there is the number 760 of german tanks lost while in the citation (source 15) there is talk about 706 tanks lost. Someone with the source should check which of those numbers is correct and fix the other one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.222.80 ( talk) 00:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
An editor wrote this in the body of the article, in the area regarding the size of the opposing forces. I'm moving it here: http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm - the numbers quoted below are not supported by current research. Herostratus ( talk) 05:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The quote below doesn't exist, as quoted below, in the cited source:
According to the situation of the Soviet-German front, the enemy will attempt to cut off the Kursk salient, encircle and destroy the Soviet forces of Central Front and Voronezh Front deployed here. At the moment, both fronts only have 15 tank divisions, meanwhile the German forces at Belgorod – Kharkov direction have alreadly gathered 17 tank divisions, most of them include the new types of tanks such as Tiger I, improvised Panther, Jagdpanzer IV and some kinds of tank destroyers such as Marder II, Marder III. [1]
It's easy to locate where in the text it was lifted from. The overall message matches that from the Google translation of the text, but some of the numbers and names are completely manufactured, or at least nonexistent in the translation. EyeTruth ( talk) 05:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
We continue to have problems with this article expanding. It is growing to the point of becoming unreadable. A number of style problems are creeping in as well. Wiki links should be limited to the first mention of the person or topic. A second link would be acceptable if there was a significant space between the two mentions, and with an article now at 164 kilobytes I suppose that is a distinct possibility. We also should be more guarded in the language we are using. However the primary problem in this article, from my perspective, is that it is trying to include too much, and needs to be substantially paired back. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 16:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The readable prose is around 95 KB, which is still within the tolerable range, albeit barely. Once the walls of essay for the three Operations are exported to their new articles, the size of this article will drop enormously. Besides, half of the recent edits was just addition of more citations, which doesn't noticeably affect readability. Also, two of the three subsections of the "Background" were virtually stubs, and one of those two subsections yet remains a stub. Any recent edits that involved addition of new info has been strictly restricted to the "Background" and "Prelude" sections, which are the sections that would stay intact during the splitting, and hence it makes sense to flesh out the stubs. Also the "Prelude" section and "Soviet preparation" subsections have outlined almost every essential information, so those shouldn't significantly expand further in the near future. EyeTruth ( talk) 18:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Update: the German preparation subsection has outlined most of the essential information. EyeTruth ( talk) 09:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I link a term only once in a paragraph, preferably in its first occurrence, unless for a short paragraph for which a wikilink of the term already appears in the preceding paragraph; any thing else is a mistake. Besides, that issue actually has less to do with readability and more to do with article size. Going back through our past discussions, I've come to understand that you are wrongfully equating the article size to the readability of the article. Citations, wikilinks and footnotes/endnotes have very negligible effect on readability, and tables or pictures even enhance it. And as for article size, wikipedia can handle whatever you've got unless it messes with readability or causes technical issues. EyeTruth ( talk) 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Not just simply once per paragraph, but more like once per long paragraph. When I do it right, it should amount to once per section most of the times. But I often get carried away when doing the initial typing, as it can be onerous to keep track of it. I come around some times to do some cleanup, and by all means, anyone can help in the cleanup if they wish. EyeTruth ( talk) 19:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if the wikilink for rasputitsa caused a problem. It was a new section and it made sense to link it again since it is not uncommon for a reader to just read a section of interest in an article and move on. Do you disagree? But as for doing the linking right, IIRC, the rule for linking in English Wikipedia has always been that the link should be helpful to the reader and not get in the way or cause confusion, which is fairly subjective. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that because I know that was the standing consensus among editors when I first started editing on here, before taking some break. EyeTruth ( talk) 23:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
PS. I think you're the only one having much trouble communicating, although I can't exactly speak for Sturmvogel 66. I think I'm reasonably considerate when it comes to accommodating the opinions of others, and I'm often more than willing to compromise if they are sensible. EyeTruth ( talk) 00:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66, thanks for your input which is a lot more helpful. I think I've read that article you linked above (or probably another similar one) some time ago, and that has since guided my approach to linking, even after my recent return to Wikipedia-editing. I'm certain in the past the consensus was something along the lines of one wikilink for a term in one section, although I currently can't see any guideline like that in the article. But don't you think it makes sense to link a term again in a new section since it is not uncommon for a reader to just read a section of interest in an article and move on? EyeTruth ( talk) 02:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Never mind. I read the article carefully, and found the thing about linking in new sections. It is apparently still the same old guidelines, and there is nothing wrong with linking a term again in a new section. But yes, it seems I'm short of the standards in a few ways. I will tighten up. EyeTruth ( talk) 02:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Beautiful. My unspoken intention has always been to get this article (and possibly all three subarticles) to A-class, in addition to being very informative and still readable, by the end of this summer. I'm happy to know that another active editor shares my intention. Yes, as I already stated above, I need to tighten up on linking, and I will soon get to work on Rumyantsev. EyeTruth ( talk) 02:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
One step at a time, and it is only a matter of time to get the article to that class. Operation Citadel is the Battle of Kursk, and so is Kutuzov and Rumyantsev. This is just akin to Blue and Stalindrad. IIRC, initially Operation Blue redirected to the Battle of Stalingrad article, until it made enough sense to editors that the redirection was fundamentally flawed although reasonable. I would support splitting Citadel from this article, but as I already stated earlier, I wouldn't push for it yet (or never) as the current redirection is with a good reason (although flawed). EyeTruth ( talk) 20:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is at 65K of text already and still has significant lacunae. Perhaps it's time to split the article along traditional western historiography of the Battle of Kursk, the Orel counter-attack (whatever its Soviet codename was) and 4th Kharkov covering the battle for that city in August. Thoughts?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I think "Stavka" is now popularly recognized by WWII history audience. Many WWII history books published in the past 7 years don't italicize the term anymore. The same goes for "Wehrmacht". EyeTruth ( talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Sturmvogel 66's suggestion. I think Citadel should just be summarized in this article, just like Kutuzov and Commander Rumyantsev. The Battle of Kursk can then focus on all the preparations made for all three campaigns with a good summary of the campaigns. Then a new article focusing on just the battles of Citadel will be created (articles for Kutuzov and Commander Rumyantsev already exist). Everything from the beginning of the Prelude section up to the end of the Termination of Operation Citadel section in the Battle of Kursk article would be exported to the new article. This would not only help the size issue, but will also help establish a very neutral perspective of the Battle of Kursk (Citadel ended long before the fighting in the Kursk sector ended). Then the Battle of Kursk article can reduced as shown below. Any thought?
Battle of Kursk (changing)
|
---|
Intro and Background
|
EyeTruth (
talk) 19:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is that the Battle of Kursk article should only briefly summarize the three operations that constitute the battle. Then any detailed exposition of the combat phase of the operations should go in their own unique articles. Currently the Battle of Kursk article is almost only relevant to Citadel, but it shouldn't be. Although it seems majority of the editors have more interest in the German perspective, that is not the case with many credible books on the battle out there. Also, the background section of the articles for each of the operations don't need to be another wall of words ( Operation Typhoon article is a good example). Also, the operations could all be introduced as "part of the battle of Kursk.... starting XX Month 1943" to point the reader back to Battle of Kursk for a complete view of the big picture if needed. Or we can simply do this to help keep the backgrounds short:
EyeTruth ( talk) 07:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with Sturmvogel 66's suggestion. The article still has significant lacunae; as in very plenty. Even if all the aspects that are yet to be covered are stripped of all secondary details and then added, this article will still hit 150 K.
There are just so many crucial aspects that have not yet been covered or even mentioned. Nothing has been mentioned about the severe lack of infantry in the Wehrmacht (besides the brief mention in Zhukov's quote) and Model's ceaseless call for "more infantry", and its subsequent decisive effects (like having to divert mechanized and armoured formations to screen flanks simply because there weren't enough infantry formations to spare for the job); nor anything on the Luftwaffe's intentional plan to maintain air superiority by forming an air wall over there ground forces instead of trying to destroy the Red Air Force on the ground at the start of the campaign just like in their past offensives; nor is there any mention of Operation Habicht and Operation Panther; nor is there any mention of the effects the several postponements had on the Soviet commanders and forces, and the temptation (and serious plans) to attack in June. The air war over the salient has barely been touched. Nothing has been mentioned about the massive battles that played out on the far right flank of Manstein's main force (4th Panzer Army), which was one of the factors that turned Prokhorovka into a useless German victory (if it is even worth calling a victory). Everyone of these are covered by at least two of the four books I've digested on Kursk. And these are just some of the major topics not yet covered that are essential to providing the complete picture of the Battle of Kursk. And yes, even if lacking extensive details, a complete picture of the battle is the ultimate goal of this article. EyeTruth ( talk) 02:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
That's not going to be workable.
See:
Gunbirddriver ( talk) 19:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
That is why I said it must be divided. Also, as I already pointed out, this article as it is quite unbalanced. The battle of Kursk goes from 4/5 June to 23 July, and for some, as far as 23 August. But Citadel, for all practicality, ended on 12 July (the extra four days was just for jokes). Yet this article is virtually just Operation Citadel. I understand that is the way it is popularly understood, so I'm not gonna push against it yet. Anyways, as for the major issue at hand, this article has to be sliced up, as that is the primary step in reducing the size of this article. Once that is done, then this article can be succinctly summarized. We should start thinking of how the article will be cut up, and the subsequent trimming. (I feel like we are all saying the same thing but for some reason can't get the thing moving). EyeTruth ( talk) 22:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
This article should give a complete picture but not necessarily with exhaustive exposition. And by complete picture, I don't mean "an exhaustive treatise" (don't put words in my mouth) nor should it have everything that is associated with the battle. Rather, any factor, aspect, or event that is crucial to the development and outcome of the battle should be a candidate for inclusion. To summarize my view on this: I'm confident that simply cutting off whole passages or paragraphs will leave nothing but a half-baked article and will not even reduce the size significantly compared to slicing it up into new articles. And here is why.
As of 16 April 2013, before I started expanding the article, it was at ~108 kB (~105 KB) and was virtually an empty chest. Even Sturmvogel 66 recognized that, and since then it has only improved slightly and now stands at ~158 kB (~155 KB). A rough estimate of my net addition would be 25-30 KB, and that accounts for at least 5 KB of false (and uncited) material I cleaned out. And most of my edits, except for the Operation at the southern face section, was simply adding citation to already existing text and polishing it to mirror the message of the cited source (and you can attest to that as we've disputed over whether strictly preserving the message of the source matters or not). Currently, only a few sections (and subsections) are decently in order: 1.2, 2, 4, 8, 9; and I've never edited the last two. The rest are in an abysmal state, cluttered with uncited material, misinformation, false data, lacunae and poor prose. So go figure.
But I must confess that the Operation at the southern face section is very large and maybe too detailed for this article, all thanks to my edits. The whole section amounts to ~32 kB (and my edit will be estimated at 15-20 kB) and that is the reason I paused with adding or removing anything until a decision is reached regarding how to resolve the size issue. Sincerely, my intentions for this article is to fill in all notable lacunae, preserve adherence to the source and make it readable. I don't think it deserves to be antagonized, and I believe it can be accomplished. I also want to size down the article to make it readable just as much as you want to. What we need right now is to get more people, more ideas and work on it. EyeTruth ( talk) 02:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure. But we should actually work to get this rolling, and not sit back and watch. We won't be waiting for eternity. EyeTruth ( talk) 05:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm also ready to start slicing up the article into new articles, and also join you in reducing the size of the current article by cutting down the text. But more importantly, we should actually work to get this rolling; as in, get more people and ideas involved. EyeTruth ( talk) 23:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
PS. I will follow up with Sturmvogel 66. I'm guessing you brought in Paul Siebert; follow up too. EyeTruth ( talk) 23:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I've pinged Paul Siebert to see if he has any concerns about the split. There are existing articles on Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev, Belgorod-Khar'kov Offensive Operation and Operation Kutuzov as well as the redirect from Operation Citadel. I can merge the second article into the first one without any problems and don't see any other significant issues. So I propose that we do this is several steps once we've gotten agreement that this is a workable plan. If Paul doesn't comment in a couple of days then we can proceed without him.
Here is the summary for Operation Kutsov:
I may have gotten ahead of myself, as I earlier parked the summary at the top of the subsection on Operation Kutusov. The remainder of that subsection could be exported to the main article on Operation Kutusov if the summary above looks acceptable. Comments? Gunbirddriver ( talk) 20:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we should flesh out the subarticles for Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev with the material from Battle of Kursk instead of merging anything. I agree with every other point Gunbirddriver and Sturmvogel 66 has raised. EyeTruth ( talk) 21:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha. I will do that soon, once I'm in the mood to write on a Soviet offensive. EyeTruth ( talk) 22:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev:
After the heavy losses sustained by the Voronezh Front during Operation Citadel, the Soviets needed time to regroup and refit and therefore could not launch Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev until 3 August. The operation was intended to be the major Soviet summer offensive with the aim of destroying the 4th Panzer Army and Army Detachment Kempf and eventually the southern wing of Army Group South as well. [1] Before the operation was launched, however, the Soviets launched diversionary attacks across the Donets and Mius Rivers into the Donets Basin using the Southern and the Southwestern Fronts on 17 July. These attacks, intentionally designed to be spotted by the Germans, achieved their desired effect of diverting the few German reserves and some of the forces that took part in Citadel. These redeployed German forces successfully defeated the attacking Soviet armies by the end of July, but at the expense of weakening the defenses in the path of the main blow. [2] The main offensive, which was primarily directed against Army Group South's northern wing, was initiated by the Voronezh and Steppe Fronts. On 5 August the Soviets took Belgorod and by the 12th had reached Kharkov, which eventually fell on 23 August at the end of the Fourth Battle of Kharkov.
Thoughts? EyeTruth ( talk) 20:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
You have a good point Gunbirddriver. The simple format I followed was: condition of attacking forces; the diversionary attack that eventually made Rumyantsev far more successful than it would have ever been; the attacking forces; and final outcome. You can rework it as needed. Frankly, for now I have little enthusiasm for the Soviet offensives. Those have their days. For the paragraph I did, I pretty much squeezed it out from these two pages: (1) http://postimg.org/image/9n7yvb8m1/ (2) the link below. Those can be condensed and reworded in a thousand ways.
Sturmvogel 66, if the II SS Panzer Corps was still fighting along the Mius on 15 August it would be only elements from its divisions, because by 9 August the bulk of Das Reich and Totenkpf had returned to face off the Rumyantsev offensive. The Soviet offensives on Izium and Mius Front ended on 27 July and 3 August respectively, long after they had actually crumpled. Here is a fair-use excerpt http://postimg.org/image/nfmdqxzdl/ (Glantz & House, 2004) EyeTruth ( talk) 03:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Elements of Totenkopf were fighting near Kharkov on 12-13 August (if it was also at Mius, it would have only been a portion of it). http://postimg.org/image/fyngm81d9/ (hopefully this one more won't take a bite from Glantz's pocket :p) EyeTruth ( talk) 06:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
If possible, check to see where the Assault Gun Battalion and the Panzergrenadier Regiments were. Those are formidable units that can leave a presence. Glantz never really clarified if the whole division returned or not, in fact it sounds a lot like he was saying only part of the division was fighting near Kharkov. EyeTruth ( talk) 07:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I might word it something like this:
I'm certainly not in love with it, so carve away or disregard as you wish. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 19:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This is much better. I'm in love with it. love
EyeTruth ( talk) 00:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I little rewording. Reworded: "German reserves and weakened the defenders in..." to "German reserves and thinned the defending forces in..." EyeTruth ( talk) 06:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)