![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone needs to cite the source of a KV-2 being the type that held the 6th Panzer Division. The german sources who wrote the account only list it as a KV, they never specified if it was KV-1 or KV-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.164.137.2 ( talk) 03:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
How could the Germans use the Hafthohlladung (HHL) in 1941 when it wasn't introduced until 1942 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.81.90 ( talk) 20:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Did a drive-by ce and tided a few paragraphs, please revert or amend as desired. I thought the lone KV anecdote was rather good but that it would be better to expand the article around it lest it looks a bit too big. I regret that I couldn't add more citations but the Eastern Front isn't one of my areas. I think the article's coming along rather well though, well done everyone. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 18:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a well-written and informative article. However, in order to get a class B ranking, the entire narrative section must be cited. As of today's date, there is a lot of uncited material. The introduction paragraph does not need to be cited, except in unusual cases. Djmaschek ( talk) 23:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
In order to translate citations 20, 21 and 22, copy the entire text and paste it into Google Translate (The website, not the short version). It is in Russian. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 19:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Over the past day, I have removed several footnotes added by UNSC Luke 1021. Such footnotes include successive refs for note l to Raus, p. 13, and a Nafziger OOB for 28 June 1941, which do not support the information contained in note l (L). Footnotes were also added to Arad's Encyclopedia of the Holocaust and to "Mitcham, p. 54". p. 1690 of the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust is referenced by the Vilnius article as supporting the statement that the city was occupied on 24 June, and snippet view on google books seems to confirm that. However, the paragraph referenced with Arad was about the operations of Panzer Group 4 and the bombing of Vilnius, Kaunas, and other cities. "Mitcham, p. 54" is used on the 3rd Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) article, and in Mitcham's Panzer Legions page 54 does not contain information about Army Group North. Would it be possible for another editor with access to these books to check Colossus Reborn and Bishop's book to see if they support information in the statements they are used to reference in these revisions: Addition of refs to footnotes, Addition of ref to lead, refs added in main body, More main body refs. Kges1901 ( talk) 09:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
a David Glantz in 2010 wrote that the 3rd Mechanized Crops had 669 tanks, of which 101 were KV-1s and T-34s, 431 were BT-7s, and the remainder older model T-28 and T-26 tanks.
[2]
b Steven Zaloga in 2015 wrote that the 3rd Mechanized Crops had 672 tanks, of which were 50
T-34s and two divisions with 78 heavy
KV-1s.
[3]
c David Glantz in 1998, wrote that the 12th Mechanized Crops had 749 tanks available.
[1]
d Robert Forczyk in 2014, wrote that the 12th Mechanized Crops had 725 tanks available, of which were 483 T-26 and 242 BT's.
[4]
e Steven Zaloga in 2015, wrote that the 12th Mechanized Crops had 730 tanks available.
[3]
Website #1: http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/history/6thPzDiv1941.pdf
I found what is probably the closest reference we're going to get for the number of Nazi tanks present. It's a makeup of the forces in the invading force of the 6th Division on June 22nd, 1941, one day before the battle occurred. It states there were 239 tanks present, only 6 less than stated in the article. It may just be a rough estimate though. If I find any better sources I'll notify you, but for now this is the best we have. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 15:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Website #4: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/CGSC/CARL/nafziger/941RFCC.PDF
Does this belong anywhere? UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 12:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
http://gregpanzerblitz.com/russia41/russia/12thMechCorps.pdf
Putting this here, just so I can find other stuff UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 19:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Tidied prose, rm dupe wikilinks, rm short sentences and overdose of apostrophes. Keith-264 ( talk) 21:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
References
In this edit ( "Whole section is really speculative. With this much uncertainty should it even be retained in this form?"), the statement:
Was changed to:
References
However, the uncertainty comes from the source being cited: "by some accounts (...) while other accounts". Please see: Between Giants: The Battle for the Baltics in World War II, pg. 85.
If the content is indeed too speculative to include, then both parts of the sentence should have been removed. Otherwise, the material is not true to the source and states speculation as fact. I would suggest consulting the sources before making such changes.
I undid the change: diff; please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone needs to cite the source of a KV-2 being the type that held the 6th Panzer Division. The german sources who wrote the account only list it as a KV, they never specified if it was KV-1 or KV-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.164.137.2 ( talk) 03:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
How could the Germans use the Hafthohlladung (HHL) in 1941 when it wasn't introduced until 1942 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.81.90 ( talk) 20:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Did a drive-by ce and tided a few paragraphs, please revert or amend as desired. I thought the lone KV anecdote was rather good but that it would be better to expand the article around it lest it looks a bit too big. I regret that I couldn't add more citations but the Eastern Front isn't one of my areas. I think the article's coming along rather well though, well done everyone. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 18:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a well-written and informative article. However, in order to get a class B ranking, the entire narrative section must be cited. As of today's date, there is a lot of uncited material. The introduction paragraph does not need to be cited, except in unusual cases. Djmaschek ( talk) 23:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
In order to translate citations 20, 21 and 22, copy the entire text and paste it into Google Translate (The website, not the short version). It is in Russian. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 19:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Over the past day, I have removed several footnotes added by UNSC Luke 1021. Such footnotes include successive refs for note l to Raus, p. 13, and a Nafziger OOB for 28 June 1941, which do not support the information contained in note l (L). Footnotes were also added to Arad's Encyclopedia of the Holocaust and to "Mitcham, p. 54". p. 1690 of the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust is referenced by the Vilnius article as supporting the statement that the city was occupied on 24 June, and snippet view on google books seems to confirm that. However, the paragraph referenced with Arad was about the operations of Panzer Group 4 and the bombing of Vilnius, Kaunas, and other cities. "Mitcham, p. 54" is used on the 3rd Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) article, and in Mitcham's Panzer Legions page 54 does not contain information about Army Group North. Would it be possible for another editor with access to these books to check Colossus Reborn and Bishop's book to see if they support information in the statements they are used to reference in these revisions: Addition of refs to footnotes, Addition of ref to lead, refs added in main body, More main body refs. Kges1901 ( talk) 09:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
a David Glantz in 2010 wrote that the 3rd Mechanized Crops had 669 tanks, of which 101 were KV-1s and T-34s, 431 were BT-7s, and the remainder older model T-28 and T-26 tanks.
[2]
b Steven Zaloga in 2015 wrote that the 3rd Mechanized Crops had 672 tanks, of which were 50
T-34s and two divisions with 78 heavy
KV-1s.
[3]
c David Glantz in 1998, wrote that the 12th Mechanized Crops had 749 tanks available.
[1]
d Robert Forczyk in 2014, wrote that the 12th Mechanized Crops had 725 tanks available, of which were 483 T-26 and 242 BT's.
[4]
e Steven Zaloga in 2015, wrote that the 12th Mechanized Crops had 730 tanks available.
[3]
Website #1: http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/history/6thPzDiv1941.pdf
I found what is probably the closest reference we're going to get for the number of Nazi tanks present. It's a makeup of the forces in the invading force of the 6th Division on June 22nd, 1941, one day before the battle occurred. It states there were 239 tanks present, only 6 less than stated in the article. It may just be a rough estimate though. If I find any better sources I'll notify you, but for now this is the best we have. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 15:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Website #4: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/CGSC/CARL/nafziger/941RFCC.PDF
Does this belong anywhere? UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 12:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
http://gregpanzerblitz.com/russia41/russia/12thMechCorps.pdf
Putting this here, just so I can find other stuff UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 19:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Tidied prose, rm dupe wikilinks, rm short sentences and overdose of apostrophes. Keith-264 ( talk) 21:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
References
In this edit ( "Whole section is really speculative. With this much uncertainty should it even be retained in this form?"), the statement:
Was changed to:
References
However, the uncertainty comes from the source being cited: "by some accounts (...) while other accounts". Please see: Between Giants: The Battle for the Baltics in World War II, pg. 85.
If the content is indeed too speculative to include, then both parts of the sentence should have been removed. Otherwise, the material is not true to the source and states speculation as fact. I would suggest consulting the sources before making such changes.
I undid the change: diff; please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)