Talk:Battle of Kursk/Archive 3

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 10

T34's 76mm tubes?

Can anybody explain what the words: "The T-34 model (only a few of which were equipped with 76 mm tubes), was out-ranged by German Tiger and Panther tanks but was faster and more manoeuvrable." mean? Did I understand correct that "76 mm tubes" mean the T34 main gun, and if that is the case, what gun other T34 were equipped with?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that 'tube' is an American usage for 'gun'. Keith-264 (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

sounds like a "mistake". 76 mm gun was standart at this time, wasnt it? Blablaaa (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I mean. I remove this wrong statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Strength and casualties again

I am somewhat bemused with the infobox figures. Although German strength and casualties are clamed to be taken from Frieser, they are in direct contradiction with the numbers provided by one of Frieser's co-authors, Chris Bellamy. He speaks about ~70 German divisions involved in the Battle of Kursk, and about more than a half a million killed, seriously wounded, captured or missing, with overall German-Soviet ratio of 1 to 1.5. ("Absolute war", p. 594). In addition, the number of troops contradicts to what Glantz says (he speaks about a million of German troops.) Although the way the infobox is organized now is definitely a progress, the numbers need to be fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

i have Glantz(2005) and Frieser( 2007) both have relative consense about strenghtes and casualties. soviet casualties were enormous compared to german , in men, in tanks, in guns and in aircraft, their is no dispute about this. the 500.000 nonsense is soviet propaganda often used. for the losses archivs of both side are used. when u find a book which uses 500.000 german casualties for zitadelle+kutuzov+rumjantzev then u can put it away ( only my off topic advice ). Blablaaa (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

regarding the strenghts. the problem is that some authors use complete strenghtes and some only combat units. if u use full strenghtes ( like glantz) than u use a number which is in favor for soviets. German percentage of combat units was lower. Full strenght also includes wounded and hiwis and so on ( for german side ) . Blablaaa (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Full strenght also includes wounded and hiwis and so on" Auxiliary units existed in all armies. Obviously, only a part of troops participate in actual hostilities. However, such a play with numbers is hardly correct. I see no reason to trust Frieser (and his German published volume) and not to trust Bellamy's "Absolute war", who is British (not German and not Russian) scholar. Under a pretext of avoiding Soviet propaganda (btw, the USSR had dissolved 19 years ago, what Soviet propaganda are you talking about?) you are trying to introduce German views, that may be equally biased (although towards the opposite side). The references to Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg should be complemented with other sources. The same approach should be applied to other EF articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Like i said above both Frieser and Glantz have the same numbers. Frieser gives only combat units but says what full strenghtes were. There is no POV he mentions both numbers and explains that german percentage of auxillary units was much higher. They had no battle value so he likes to compare this numbers. Glantz wrote exclusivly a book about Kursk and Frieser has in his Book the major Part about Kursk. Both have the same numbers!!! With german and soviet archives. And sovit units of 43 did not include their wounded in strenghtsnumbers btw. And such "play with numbers" is a bit irrelevant because its changed nothing and both are mentioned Glantz and Frieser. I researched about Bellamy his book is written primary of soviet sources. So even soivet sources for german losses. and now when we look of soviet propanda wartime figures for german losses : 500.000 men!! if u want to include them in the article then do it , but i think it would be better to do it in the casualties section. than u should also include that bellamy printed the soviet wartime figures so the reader knows what happended. Glantz and Frieser( frieser mainly is copieng guys with soviet data ) used archiv data of both, soviets and german. Blablaaa (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Look i created the tables: The choise of combat units brings only 0.3 % difference. The table clearly shows how this discrepancy evoled i hope. If u think Frieser is to german POV than i can switch Frieser and Glantz so Glantz is the first. Blablaaa (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox, i did not write the strenghtesBlablaaa (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To avoid a conflict about pushing POV ( i dont want problems) please stop ignoring that i told u that i use the numbers of GLantz and Frieser! Thank u.... Blablaaa (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Zetterling/Frankson who wrote a book only about kursk and statistics, have the same casualties numbers... Blablaaa (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul i added the detailed casualties figures from dapis sandbox. i think its ok so? what do u think ?

Sorry for not responding earlier, I am somewhat busy now, so if you don't mind, I'll respond in details later. I am not sure if everything is ok now, but the figures seem to be more reasonable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Result section

The section now is unsourced. Maybe we write a new one or update the recent with some citiations. Frieser has the opinion that Kursk can not be seen as a "turning point" and sees the strategic significanse as limited. He also explains that the situation before and after kursk were no really different. I think its worth to mention this. So i would appreciate help.Blablaaa (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe we need to re-write it. It looks fine. However, it lacks sources in the first part. In regards to Frieser's opinion, I don't know. Maybe other editors can weigh in on that. If it's worth mentioning, then so be it. I'm interested in what others have to say on this. Caden ^cool 00:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

K we will wait. I can write here on the discussion page a little text summarizing Friesers statement. Then others can decide if its worth to mention. In my opinion ( iam not new with warfare ) his conclusion is logic and his arguments are strong. But last wait for some input of other editors. Blablaaa (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with you writing a little text here on the talk page. If his arguments are strong then go for it. Others can weigh in on this and we can all discuss it right here. It's a good idea. Caden ^cool 10:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Frieser's opinion here contradicts practically anyone else's and thus is marginal. As such, can be mentioned (but with clear indication of its contrarian nature). Dimawik (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dont mix "turningpoint" with "strategic important". But iam not sure how much sources support which point. Many pre90 ( soviet archives ) call Kursk a turning point but more recent maybe not. Frieser disputes it Glantz ( not sure here have to look again ) doesnt says much about this issue. Blablaaa (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Can u provide some sources? Anyway iam only able to write something about frieser or glantz. Blablaaa (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dimawik. Isn't the contradiction worth noting? Could it be mentioned briefly? Blablaaa can you tell me what Glantz says specifically? Caden ^cool 06:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Opposing forces

We should expand this section, with a little comparison of the armor and the airforces. Blablaaa (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

German casualities

According to http://ww2stats.com/index.html losses of German forces (KIA+WIA+MIA) on Eastern Front during May-June 1943 are 7891+30375+3049+6682+28047+837=76881. Losses during July-August 1943 are 34874+147053+14674+33962+134263+20272=385098. The difference is ~310 thousand, almost twice higher than stated in current article (170k).

http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_tow43.html

Combined losses of Army Groups South and Center during July-August 1943 are 325 thousand (KIA+WIA+MIA).

http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec43.html

Olvegg (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of Kursk wasn't the only combat taking place on the Eastern Front? (Hohum ^@) 22:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

[[1]]Blablaaa (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Casualties

The section of Soviet casualties lists 863,303 - 1.677,000 men (KIA/WIA?). How is that possible considered that the total no. of German + Russian casualties would amount to over 2000,000 men? Consider Stalingrad as the most bloody battle in history. Moreover, the page on List of battles by casualties only states 257,125–388,000 combined casualties for Kursk. I think this part has been maliciously vandalized. Assassin3577 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Casualties section is a disaster. It is easy to verify, for example, that Germans destroyed practically all Soviet tanks while losing very few of their own, same happened with men. One wonders why did German army not only retreat after such an apparently decisive victory, but was unable to mount a strategic offensive ever again. The problem is clearly with selective quoting of obviously erroneous but technically authoritative sources. Dimawik (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Large sections of the battle description have now been rewritten to sneak this same data into the main text of the article, where it's likely to get overlooked. Not only that, but in the process the text has been made largely unreadable because of the poor English skills of the person doing it. As far as I can tell the data being used is a combination of cherry-picked sources and old German propaganda, and the author seems to be a German (linguistic constructs like 'defensivpositions' litter the text, this is typically German) and presumably doing this for nationalistic reasons. According to the battle description each phase of what's regarded as a failed offensive apparently had German men and tanks killing an order of magnitude (two in some places!) more than they lost. No wonder the generals thought Hitler was crazy to retreat, it was a Rambo movie and they had hundreds of Rambo! There needs to be some recognition that just because it can be cited to SOME source doesn't make it good historical material, and probably a total rewrite from a modern meta-analysis of archival data (written by pros) should be preferred ahead of 'authoritative' random history books. 76.68.27.226 (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The number of 1,677,000 were taken from Sokolov's book. This writer (philologist and amateur historian) is known to give exaggerated numbers for Soviet losses. Thus, according to his data, obtained by extrapolation, during WWII Soviet military losses were ~40-50 millions. Obviously, the numbers are unreliable. With regards to Krivosheev, his numbers for Kursk/Zitadelle (defensive phase) are 70330 irrecoverable and 177847 total, for two counter-offensives 112529/429890 and 71611/255566, accordingly. This gives 863303 KIA/MIA/WIA/POW.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations for this section are a mess. The idea of the citation is so that one can look up the source material.

Citation 7(German Zitadelle losses):"German sources, excluding 2. Army". Which german sources? Why is the 2nd army excluded?

Citation 8(German low tank losses estimate):"OKW sources". Which ones?

Citation 15(Soviet high men estimate):"Boris Vadimovich Sokolov". No book or page specified.

Citation 16(Soviet low tank losses estimate):"Russian sources. Likely to low". Again no particular source. What does "likely to low" mean in this context?

Citation 20(total Kursk Soviet tank losses):"Russian sources". Same as above

Citation 21(total Kursk Soviet tank losses):"Only confirmed kills by Luftwaffe pilots, so likely higher. Russian sources for aircraft losses are historically irrelevant.". How is this even a citation? There is only a random claim with no source.

With regard to citation 20 and 21. The appropriate wikipedia pages list total Soviet 1943 tank and aircraft production are 24 000 and 35 000 respectively. The figures given for the Soviet tank and air losses for the total battle, in combination with the lack of sources seem very dubious. D2306 (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the references in case the citation numbers change. Hopefully someone with some relevant sources can provide them.

Edit: I didn't just replace them with fact tags, just in case the sparse information is enough to remind the editor who added them. Hohum (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Having prodded around the article a bit more, it may be that the sources being referred to as "German" and "Russian" are those currently noted in Footnotes [nb 3] and [nb 5], but this is far from clear. Hohum (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cit. 14 (Grif sekretnoski snajt.) is the G. F. Krivosheev study (Rossiya i SSSR voynakh XX veka : poteri vooruzhennykh sil : statisticheskoe issledovanie / pod obshchey redaktsiey G. F. Krivosheeva, Moskva, OLMA-Press, 2001, ISBN 5224015154), the most reliable source on soviet and russian military casualties that I know. No idea why whoever tagged it "likely to low". I just checked and the number is correct, although not split by type of casualties. The casualties are for 5-23 July incisively and are: 70330 irrecoverable (dead died of wounds, or missing) and 107517 sanitary (wounded, ill, frostbite (which in this battle is irrelevant)), total 177847.

Footnotes 3 and 5 do not seem to mention casualties. Also they do not give anything more than the location of the archive so it is hard to verify. Overall, it seems odd, that after so much controversy and editing on the article page in the Casualties section, it is currently dubious figures with dubious sources. D2306 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Having reread the current article. I noticed some inconsistence about about how the German and soviet casualties are looked at. As I mentioned earlier, German Zitadelle exclude the 2nd army according to the citation itself. But the whole Battle of Kursk seem to miss out the casualties sustained by German armies which did not participate in Zitadelle, but were routed in the 2 Soviet counteroffensives. The armies are the 2nd Panzer army and the AG Kempf. To a smaller extent The First panzer Army and the Fourth army were also involved. Krivosheev gives the Soviet casualties for the couteroffensives, but while the Zitadelle phase involved only 77 divisions and 9 tank and mechanized corps, the counteroffensives involved 132 divisions and 19 tank and mechanized corps over a much wider front, involving more German units sustaining casualties. D2306 (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified and directly linked [14] and [15] to the Krivosheev website, but more work needs to be done to sort this out, obviously. Hohum (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"likly to low" becaus many buried russian soldiers were not even enlisted men, krivoshev lists only enlisted men thats why his overall casualtiesfigures for ww2 are to low, there are at least 1 million men missing .FACT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it now so that you have the correct geographical area and time frame on both side, the 800K for the USSR includes several more operations and a longer time frame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadstepsff (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

U didnt fix something u added wrong numbers which are disputed by nearly everybody. When u want to add other numbers then give the source for it. U cant delete cited numbers. If u have further question regarding citing of sources then u may search for a mentor Blablaaa (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My numbers are correct, here let me explain.

There is a difference in what was the battle of Kursk.

The main difference is the amount of time, day months etc etc

And in the geographical area.

When you quote Kiroshev you are quoting not only the battle of Kursk as the Germans saw it but also a much larger area and Several more operations that were in different geographical areas and during different time frames.

Including the area down to the Crimea.

But Kiroshev does give a number which is the same as is given for the same area and time fram as has been written for the axis, which is a splash over 200K

I took that area and time period that is appropriate to the Battle of Kursk as the text is written. Then you get those numbers

For the Germans there is a problem because when you include German claims you get a great, even massive overestimate, the easiest example is the Battle of Britain now you know exactly how many planes the British lost there, but if you look at the German claims you get a huge number which is clearly wrong.

That is a big problem, since often you have overlapping USSR battles vs small Axis battles, so the same soldiers gets killed several times over for the USSR and the same tank gets blown up several times.

Also some common sense, The USSR could not have lost over 6000 tanks vs 500 and the same goes for airplanes, and Soldiers 170K VS 883K. Losing 1 million in 2 months would be a gigantic loss it is totally way out there. When you get such a huge difference you must start asking yourself perhaps the same areas are not covered, perhaps it is a different time frame. Roadstepsff (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Argh!!! we cite Glantz and Frieser and Zetterling and Bergstrom and and and. They are indeed able to understand the scope of the battle. I have glantz and frieser and both agree about that numbers and both compare russian and german numbers and they will not compare them with different time frames. None of this historian use german claims for tanks losses or men losses for the soviets. This a soviet numbers. Blablaaa (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I admit that sometime its worth to question the opinion of historians but if all of the recent works about this confirm this number then u are wrong. The crimea area is not included!!!! And please rethink your logic regarding general losses. Blablaaa (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not round the Soviet casualties up to a round trillion. That is a far more realistic estimate isn't it? I'm almost positive it must have taken a million Russians to kill a single German, and there is no chance in Hell they could ever destroy one of the invincible German tanks. Come to think of it, did the Russians even win the war? Maybe Germany did in fact occupy Moscow? THE FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE ARE LUDICROUS!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.172.119 (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

because u say so ? Do u have some hard facts or are u simply upset about correct figures? Blablaaa (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammar, spelling, presentation.

While understanding that, for some editors, English is not their first language (and also noting that their skills with it are far beyond my ability in anything other than English); The quality of this article is being damaged by very poor copy editing.

German, Russian, Red Army are all names, and should be capitalised; as should all month names. The manual of style for date formatting suggests that articles keep a consistent style. In this article, it is 18 July 1943, not the 18th July, 1943.

References, by convention, go after commas, and periods.

Please take the time to preview your edits before saving them. Spelling mistakes have often been of words that are correctly spelled elsewhere in the same edit.

I have just spent some time cleaning up several dozens of avoidable issues. Some edits are so riddled with issues that I'll start reverting them entirely instead of repairing them, as they damage the article more than they improve it.

Do not feel that your contributions are not valued, but it is primarily the responsibility of the contributing editor to ensure their additions are of the quality required. Hohum 05:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

noticed! Blablaaa (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I must agree that quite a bit of work is necessary on this article to clean it up grammatically (I won't even begin to go into the numerous POV issues - this is something the editors and peer-review will have to address-I just hope no student uses it in its current state for some school report). There are problems with even the opening paragraph as of Memorial Day 2010. Please set aside all pro-German and pro-Russian bias, and work towards a balanced, believable and GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT article. This is the English Wiki and must conform to well-written English. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

The destruction of the Prokhorovka Myth

This myth is one of the biggest of the entire war and historians like overy and glantz were punked.

- please resist the urge to use slang such as 'punked' as it reduces your value as an editor in others' eyes.

I note at one point you were also using foul language - this avails you nothing.

Enthusiasm is admirable but neutrality is essential. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

All historians which used only russian sources are totally useless. Overy simple cited rotmistrovs fantasy number of 350. the number of 350 german tank losses was introduced by rotmistrov himself. Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Band 6 has an complete chapter about the fantasy stories of rotmistrov and how lazy and unskilled historians like overy are coping this statements. The best example is glantz who is cited with using the 350 ^^ and is cited for 343 overall german tank losses ^^. Thats why its better to name the secondary source and the used primary source so we can avoid that users like dapi search historians which got punked by one primary ( which is allready descredited even by russian historians)and present them like many different historians with the same opinion.... . no source which cites rotmistrov for numbers ( some other things are ok ) should be allowed for wiki. also this sources can not be used for the outcome tactical stalemate , lol ? Blablaaa (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

dapi please take your books and tell me which source is cited for the 350 german tanks. Blablaaa (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

order of battle

on the german wiki i try to include the participating armies in the text. i think we can do the same here. can anyone take a look on the german version and give an opinion . i think it looks better and the reader can see it faster. [[2] Blablaaa (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It does look better. You should include here. Caden ^cool 18:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the Battle of Kursk order of battle article? It already includes much of that content and is a better place for it given the level of detail. It could do with some expansion, formatting and referencing. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes i saw the order of battle article. It has 25 view per day . I think its maybe a good idea to include this informations in the article. When this boxes are hidden they are very small so the dont inflate the article i guess. Maybe i include them and then all can take a look and give an opinion. If there is consense against them i will remove them Blablaaa (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the order of battle for the Wehrmacht. If u like it, i will do the same for the red army. I think it looks good.... Blablaaa (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job Blablaaa! It looks awesome! Caden ^cool 20:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i hope nick gives an opinion too, then i will do the same for the red army. Blablaaa (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure other opinions are cool but Nick doesn't decide what goes in or not. He's welcome of course but consensus is what decides. Anyway, you should include the same for the Red Army. It's awesome for the readers and easy to read. Caden ^cool 21:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have simplified the presentation so that it's easier to maintain. (Hohum ^@) 22:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice job Hohum :) Caden ^cool 23:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the OOB is unnecessary clutter given that there's a dedicated article (whose small number of views suggest that this isn't a topic of interest to many readers), but whatever - I personally like orbats but generally write them as text in the article and have a separate OOB article. It would be helpful if the German terms were translated into their common English-language terms (eg, 'Panzergrenadierdivision' is normally referred to as 'Panzer Grenadier Division' and 'Panzerdivision' 'Panzer Division' - I presume that 'Heeresgruppenreserve' is 'Army Group Reserve' and it should be translated as such to prevent readers from thinking that this was a single unit rather than a group of units). Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What?? Unnecessary clutter? I completely disagree. The boxes are hidden and do not clutter the article. The order of battle has a place in this article, is informative to the readers and is on topic. The dedicated article on the order of battle you mention is clearly of no interest to readers since it's had very few views. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged into this article. In regards to German terms being translated into English, I have done that for you so I hope that you are content with that. If I forgot any I'm sure another editor will grant your request. Caden ^cool 21:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Soviet aircraft by Frieser

On another note. I noticed that the soviet aircraft casualties for the entire battle have the upper estimate of 4,209 with the note (nb 10) "Luftwaffe claims until 24th autumn, note: this excludes accidents and aircraft losses due to anti air". For the same reasons my earlier comment, the number is nonsense (I also think there is a typo and should say 24th August). According to Krivosheev (see citeation 16 in the article), total soviet air casualties from all causes for all of 1943 are 26,700 (of which only 11,700 were claimed to be combat casualties). The first number directly leads to the number of available aircraft available in 1944, so is quite reliable and not disputed. The luftwaffe claim sounds silly and I do not think it should be in the infobox. D2306 (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

regarding soviet aircraft losses. Krivosheev says that the recorded losses are incomplete so frieser used german claims to estimate a number. In his opinion the figure is likly to be next to truth. So frieser backs this claims. I know my personal opinion isnt important but with my knowledge of eastern front the russian aircraft losses seem reasonalbe for me. German had ~ 700 losses during citadel, kutuzov and rumyantzev . Bergstrom gives 1000 soviet for citadel. Bergstrom also explains that some unit casualties are unknown. Frieser is aware of the difficult source situation but supports the ~4000 Blablaaa (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

@d2306 some additional informations for u: soviet aircraft which were not reported as lost in combat were listed as missing or unknown. That means every aircraft which was downed by german aircraft and not witnessed by another soviet aircraft was not listed as "lost in combat". If 5 soviet aircraft engage german aircraft and become destroyed they are maybe listed as "unknown causes". I read this somewhere... Blablaaa (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the casualties reported per operation (of which some could be not reported, though this applies to Germans too), and total year-by-year casualties. If check Krivosheev total year-by year-casualties, you will see it is a simple table with:

a.Start of the year available aircraft/b.total aircraft received throughout the year/c.losses. a+b-c= availiable aircraft for next year. There is no way these numbers can be misinterpreted. 26,700 is the total Soviet air casualties from all causes (combat, accident, missing etc) for all of 1943.

The number 11,700 combat losses (from these 26,700) may be challenged, but the high accident rate in the Soviet Airforce during the war is well known, with many reasons from rushed manufacturing to very short pilot training. So I doubt the combat losses are much different from the number claimed.

The Luftwaffe claim that it inflicted over 4,000 casualties in 50 days, without counting losses from AAA and non-combat losses and only in the Kursk sector sounds like a joke at best. It is no better that the sources provided by the new editor. I would like to see the exact quote from Frieser where he says that he thinks the 4,000 air-air kills only is close to truth. D2306 (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

i will take a look and translate itBlablaaa (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Frieser: "the biggest puzzel is the number of soviet aircraft losses. The numbers give bei krivosheev are totally unreliable. ... Soviet data regarding the own aircraft losses are academical useless so we only have the claims of german pilots. It was pretty hard to get a kill approved ... Germans claimed 4209 in the kursk area... Blablaaa (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"It was pretty hard to get a kill approved..." Maybe so, have you ever looked at luftwaffe claims for Battle of Britain, or during allied bombing raids? They vastly exceed the real allied losses. German pilot claims are hardly less "academically useless" than Krivosheev. Your quote does not say anywhere that the german claim is close to truth.

Bergstrom gives 1100 soviet losses for the first 12 days!! and then 4000 for 50 days sound like a joke for u? dont forget that far more air units were involded in the time of counterattack. For me this dont sounds like a joke ... Blablaaa (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the source Bergstorm uses? Pilot claims again? The first twelve days saw the most intensive fighting. There were many other big battles in 1943 (Air battles over Kuban, Kharkov, Dnieper crossings etc). Claims of 4,000 air-to-air kills, excluding ground fire losses, is nonsense from a common sense point of view. Even 4,000 total casualties seems dubious.D2306 (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

now both, frieser and bergstrom, sound dubios for u ? u said it sounds like a joke. but looking the numbers we see that 1100 in 12 day and 4000 in 50 days dont look dubios but statistical reasonable. Soviet air losses are hard to establish. The numbers are sourced. I think we can stop discussing them. But dont for get that 3 Fronts more participated in the counterattackes and also rethink your wrong statement: "The first twelve days saw the most intensive fighting". when u look german aircraft losses u see that they lost only 159 in the first 12 days and 681 in 50 days . When u do a bit math, u will recognize that the ratios are nearly exact the same, for german and soviet. So the 4000 sound very reasonable. Nevertheless the numbers are sourced and we dont have exact losses from soviet sources, so what do u think should we do? Do u have a suggestion ? Blablaaa (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote you gave never said that Frieser agrees with the german claims. I have yet to see the exact Bergstorm quote from you. The luftwaffe claims are just as much propaganda as any other wartime claims by Soviets or Allies. Read about the Battle of Britain, or the bombing raids on Germany. Typically there was a 2-3 fold difference between the numbers between claimed and actual losses. Don't forget that when you try to say the german claim is close to real, you are in fact suggesting the soviet air losses were near 10,000 (taking into account ant air artillery and accidents). Hopefully you see that this is too high.D2306 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Frieser is supporting this claim. I shortend the text. He explains that german claims are pretty reliable. Regarding the battle of britian dont be confused with claims of pilots and published claims. Frieser talks about the claims of pilots which were approved by superios, he dont talks about any propaganda numbers published by germany. I wasnt there i dont know how much soviet lost. When i only look german losses then soviet ones sound resonable for me. When we assume same loss ratios for citadel and counter attacks we get the 4000. so it sounds ok. What do u suggest ? Blablaaa (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if German claims are used for Soviet losses, then Soviet claims should be used for the German ones. However, that is directly opposite to what people usually do. With regard to "Soviet propaganda", the stories about strategically, technically and tactically superior Germans that were defeated only because they were badly outnumbered is a part of German post-war propaganda (which, by contrast to Soviet propaganda, affected many English-writing scholars). I already presented the quote from some western history journal that state that, the quote with source should be somewhere in the talk page archive. In addition, a brief look in books.google demonstrate that many recent sources agree that German (and, probably the Soviet one) data are "incomplete".--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The soviet aircraft losses are a special problem. No complete soviet figures are avaiable so frieser used another source in this particular case. Again i ask for anthoer source. i have none Blablaaa (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it would be easier to follow the discussion if every party provided the quotes form the sources they cite that demonstrate their point. In particular, I would like to see:

A quote from Frieser where he states that the Soviet data are unreliable;
A quote from other reliable sources that state the same;
A quote from other reliable sources that state that no reliable figures (besides German reports) on Soviet plane losses exist;
A quote from Frieser who states that German reports are more reliable than other existing sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Iam not at home. Frieser says exactly that soviet data ( krivoshoeev ) is unreliable in this particular case. My word is enoguh i hope Blablaaa (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Nobody doubts in your good faith (I believe), however, your interpretation could be (although not necessarily is) not completely correct. In addition, you missed my point: we need an independent source to confirm that Frieser's assertion (about unreliability of Soviet data), that contradicts to another reliable source, Krivosheev, is correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Casualty figure sources

I try to make it short: Igors figures ( actually this are the immediate wartime propaganda numbers published by the soviets) are 7 times !!! higher than the accepted figures of Glatz Frieser Zetterling Frankson and and and. This is nothing else than an extraordinary claim, such a claim needs heavy reference. User igor brings russian website with glorious battle descriptions. Most of his sides are fanboysites. Nothing more than forums. I explained this issue to user Igor , he is not understanding the problem. I will revert every edit of him which includes extraordinary claims without extraordinary reference. Regarding the issue, the numbers a--Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)re indeed absolute nonsense, for the battle of kursk they exceed the number of german troops participating. I write this to make sure that my reverts are no edit warring, i only delete blatant vandalism. Blablaaa (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You can not say "fanboyssites" or "forums". Can you prove it ?

According to soviet information the germans lost from 5 untill 23 July 1943 in the Kursk Defence Operation 70.000 soldiers dead, 2.900 tanks and 1.392 planes.

http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/37833-diplomatiya-antigitlerovskoj-koalicii-cel-odna.html

http://www.soldat.ru/doc/vgk/1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Piryazev (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

> http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/37833-diplomatiya-antigitlerovskoj-koalicii-cel-odna.htm doesn;t look reliable. The Soldat.ru site is Krivosheev, which is reliable. Please pick out any numbers derived from the first site and remove it as a reference. (Hohum ^@) 21:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Also:

Assume good faith, and don't immediately accuse of vandalism.

Only use WP:RELIABLE sources. (Hohum ^@) 21:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesnt madder if its krivosheve. Iam fimilar with Krivo, in his works he simply publishes the wartime "estimations" of red army, he also arks them as this. I had a similar situation on normandy, a reliable historian who simply prints figures and doesnt say thats what he thinks, dont makes this figures reliable. i repeat myself it is 7Times!!!!!!! higher figure than establiseh by all recent reliable historians. Blablaaa (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume "vandalism" to protect myself against the wrong accusation of edit warring. An exception of edit warring is reverting of vandalism. I explained the issue. I dont want igor problems, i tried to explain him. Iam not interessted in a prolonged discussion Blablaaa (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To igor. I can read your sites. And iam not blind. A simple text hosted on any website is no reliable source! Blablaaa (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To Igor: my advice is to add the data from the KOSAVE (see the link and strength numbers in the Russian article). The numbers there are different from Frieser & Co., but as a product of the United States Department of Defense cannot be simply dismissed as some "soviet propaganda". Dimawik (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

They are still soviet propaganda. Frieser also prints this numbers in his book but marks them as nonsense propaganda.

Blablaaa (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This statement of yours sounds a bit strange, in my humble opinion. Are really trying to declare the data by experts working for the US Department of Defense in 1998 (long after the fall of communism) who did have access to both Nazi and Soviet archives to be the "soviet propaganda"? Dimawik (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked the two sources again. The fun is over now. The first website is citing another website, where a simple text is published without any note regarding participatin of any historians. The second seems to be kind of wartime letter or somethingelse with date of 23 july 43 . Guys are u serious????? For me: the discussion is over i will start to go to admin board cause of vandalism for any new inapt source. The issue is explained if somebody brings another website for the claims he tries to disrupt wiki. This is not the kindergarden. We are on Wiki and we use the best possible source for claims. My job is not to check every new website which is brought by igor, because hes simply googling. There are tons of websites which quote other websites. He can continue this game very long. Iam out of the game. I will revert the vandalism and go to the administration board if neccessary. Rediculious.... Blablaaa (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I plan to insert the data from both the US DoD and Russian MoD into the article. We can try to find a WP:RS explaining the difference or just list these different data together (I plan for the latter). We cannot, however, simply dismiss any numbers not matching the current ones from Frieser as "propaganda", quoting only Frieser himself as a proof. Note that in 1943 even German propaganda did not dare to declare a "victory" at Kursk (there were precedents declaring a victory after defeat, see, for example British propaganda after the Dunkirk evacuation). We should not assign modern historians trying today to outdo the Nazi propaganda of 1943 too much WP:WEIGHT. Dimawik (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Read what is written above and than read whats written in the article about reliable sources. Until u have done this please consider not editing the article Blablaaa (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I also want to highlight that u obviously didnt read the discussion. The recent numbers are no numbers of "Frieser", this are the accepted numbers of nearly every real historians. Glantz Zetterling Frankson Frieser ( + rest of mgfa ) i guess Bergstroem too. This numbers are the most accurate numbers which are avaible. I try to make the issue clear again the 70000 german DEAD ( not wounded !!!) is seven times higher than the established figures. This numbers are bollocks. The numbers were created during the war by stavka. Thus the numbers are Propaganda. Iam pretty sure that u are able to find a us websites which "prints" this numbers but its high likly that the site makrs them as wartime estimation. Blablaaa (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

if u look the article, u will see that Glantz ( most respected pro soviet author imho ) gives lower german casualties than frieser. Blablaaa (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article shall contain the numbers from both US DoD and Russian MoD, clearly identified as such (Russian article uses a table). The fact that the KOSAVE data does not match the data from the "new history" books does not invalidate the former; more likely it suggests something is wrong with the latter. Your argument that anything but the "new history" data is "Soviet propaganda" sounds very strange considering the KOSAVE source. The simple fact that the Germans were not able to mount any large-scale offensive in the aftermath of Kursk (which is so far undisputed even by the "new historians" - although some (Evans) already declared that Kursk did not end with Soviet victory) clearly shows that the German Kursk losses were not minor. This said, we are not here to find the discrepancies, we are here to report them, if the discrepancies are between reputable sources, which is clearly the case here. Dimawik (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

please stop change my words. i say soviet propaganda is soviet propaganda. 70000 dead germans during zitadelle are soviet wartime propaganda, totally irrelevant which website prints this numbers, they are still propaganda numbers, is this so hard to understand? u brought no reputable sources.... Blablaaa (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Accepting the premise of the good faith of historians, your thesis that older research is more accurate than recent, contradicts every logic...

Sooo now i took a look on your KOSAVE, iam not sure why u broad this up but the study contradicts u and supports me:

"""(3) Differences in Casualties. From 5-18 July, Soviet casualties were much greater than German. Relative to initial onhand, total casualties amounted to 23 percent of the Soviet force and 12 percent of the German force. The greatest differences were in KIA and CMIA. Overall, the Soviets lost (KIA) nearly 5 men killed for every German killed and 24 CMIA for every German CMIA.

(4) Daily Casualty Rates. If daily average combat casualty rates are averaged over the 5 July-18 July period, the overall Soviet rate was 4 times the German rate.

(6) Fractional Exchange Ratios. Soviet/German FER results computed in favor of Germans, based on both KCMIA casualties and on combat casualties, show that the Germans almost always had an advantage (FER >1). The KCMIA FER exceeds 4.00 on 9 days. However, the historical battle outcome suggests that this was not enough to achieve a decisive victory."""

the study also contains some data regarding the prokohorovka myth:

"""Tank Losses. Total Soviet tank losses (204) are over 20 times German (9). The vast majority of today’s tank conflicts are near Prokhorovka, where the counterattacking Soviet 29 Tank Corps, 18 Tank Corps, and 2 Gds Tank Corps lose a total of 144 tanks against �Leibstandarte SS, Totenkopf SS, and Das Reich, which lose a total of 6 tanks (4 Pz III and 5 Pz IV). Highest Soviet tank losses (88) are in 29 Tank Corps, which loses 60 T-34s and 28 T-70s. Highest German tank losses (four) are in Leibstandarte SS. Most of the Soviet losses are T-34s (119), T-70 (61), and MK-4 Churchill (13). Recorded as damaged in action today are 89 German tanks and 210 Soviet tanks."""

this are the naked numbers for the big legendary victory of the red army at prokhorovka (where the red army stoped the german offensive and destroyed the fighting power of the SS divisions) . Blablaaa (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy that after explaining for some time why KOSAVE should not be used, you finally actually started reading it. I do not understand how do you think that KOSAVE can contradict me, as I am the one suggesting to use it :-) You apparently assume some intentions on my part that I do not have; a bit of WP:AGF on your part will definitely help. Once again, I have no idea who is right and who is wrong. There are many contradictory sets of numbers. You assume this is due to some kind of global deception, organized by some "Soviet propaganda". I apply common sense and think that these discrepancies are due to different definitions of the scope of the battle used by different authors. I therefore think that we need to list all data from WP:RS. Both US DoD and Russian MoD are reputable sources - you and I are not really equipped to judge their intentions, but in any case presuming them both to knowingly lie on the subject of the battle that happened 65+ years ago is ridiculous. I am therefore planning to add lines to the table that reflect the position of experts from both US DoD and Russian MoD. If you have RS that argue that the data I will list are wrong, feel free to add this information - but please do not delete the data. Once again, there seems to be bona fide discrepancy in data, we should reflect it instead of censoring it as in the current text of the article.

I am not equipped to discuss the tank kill ratios in particular engagements. However, as a dose of common sense for you, I would point out that the USSR in 1943 produced about 3 times more tanks than the Nazis, so (since during the war there is no long-term tank storage) we can be 100% sure that the approximate kill ratio throughout 1943 was about 3:1 (well, a little bit higher due to tank losses on other German fronts). As for immediate loss reports providing, as you correctly state, much higher ratio, this IMHO simply indicates that Germans were way too optimistic in judging which of their tanks can be easily fixed. Dimawik (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

91.000 prisoners in Stalingrad are also propaganda ?

http://9may.ru/04.02.1943/inform/m3913

There are many views of Prokhorovka. By Rotmistrov the Germans lost only on 12 July 1943 against his army 10.000 dead soldiers and 350 tanks.

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/rotmistrov2/04.html (see "Только за 12 июля в боях с 5-й гвардейской танковой армией противник лишился свыше 350 танков и потерял более 10 тысяч человек убитыми") In Wikipedia must be ALL POINTS OF VIEW. igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Igor if u want to add links to talk page it doesnt bother me. But dont add this numbers to articles. Thank you Blablaaa (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

But you are not a king of wikipedia. You can not improove your opinion with references.

soviet point of view 5-23 july (http://bdsa.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2119&Itemid=29)

german 5-13 july

There are still 10 days. igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

losses are given for both from 5 till 20 july. Everything is fineBlablaaa (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

But you must PROOVE IT. I have references and I dont must proove you that soviet infos are wright.

igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

U dont understood WP:RS. U are a new editor so maybe u should consider searching for guidence Blablaaa (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/37833-diplomatiya-antigitlerovskoj-koalicii-cel-odna.html Doesn't look like a WP:RELIABLE source.

http://www.soldat.ru/doc/vgk/1.html shows an uninterpreted WP:PRIMARY source.

Neither are usable. (Hohum ^@) 19:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Does not look" is not proof. And this references ? Also propaganda ?

http://www.tankobzor.org/glava7part2.html (see "За время боев с 5 по 23 июля немецко-фашистская армия потеряла 2900 танков, 195 самоходно-артиллерийских установок, 1392 самолета, свыше 5000 автомобилей.")

http://wwii-soldat.narod.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm (see: "Идем дальше. Уже давно и довольно хорошо известно, во всяком случае людям, знакомым не понаслышке с военным делом, что наступающая на подготовленную оборону противника сторона несет значительно большие потери по сравнению с обороняющимися. Дело в том, что находящийся в обороне солдат сидит в укрытии (окоп, траншея, блиндаж и т. п.), а наступающий на него солдат лишен такого преимущества, он должен передвигаться по открытой местности под огнем противника. Так у кого же больше вероятности уцелеть в бою? Оставляем вопрос открытым, пусть читатель сам на него отвечает. А этот факт очернители нашего боевого прошлого почему-то не хотят принимать во внимание. А ведь это – аксиома, не требующая доказательств. В этой связи позволительно спросить такого рода «историков», принимающих на веру домыслы наших бывших противников, а почему же тогда наступающая сторона понесла вдвое меньшие потери, нежели сторона обороняющаяся? Тем более, что ни в танках, ни в артиллерии наступающий превосходства не имел, да и господство в воздухе в ходе сражения немецкая авиация утратила.

Теперь посмотрим на проблему с другой стороны. Сами немцы признают, что их танковые и моторизованные дивизии понесли большие потери в танках. Не помогла им и новая техника, на которую они возлагали такие надежды. Так, их танковые корпуса, составлявшие основу ударных группировок, которые должны были сокрушить советскую оборону, во время наступления на Курской дуге потеряли от 60 до 80 % своих танков. Вследствие этого почти половина немецких танковых и моторизованных дивизий утратили свою боеспособность. А ведь танк уничтожить несравнимо сложнее, нежели человека. Так вот в отношении потерь немецко-фашистских войск в ходе их наступательной операции на Курской дуге, поскольку точные данные о немецких потерях отсутствуют (и это, несмотря на знаменитую немецкую педантичность!), мы предлагаем читателю сделать выводы самому. И наконец, в заключение следует сказать – немецко-фашистское командование отлично осознавало (об этом свидетельствуют многочисленные документы и другие источники), что провал операции «Цитадель» и переход советских войск в контрнаступление означали коренной перелом в войне с Советским Союзом и окончательный переход стратегической инициативы к советской стороне. ") igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A minor request to Blablaa: would you mind starting to use the proper English spelling "you" when addressing the other participants? The "u" spelling you seem to prefer is hard to read and does not feel friendly. Dimawik (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Blablaaa (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, really appreciated! This is indeed minor, but we both know how small annoyances tend to cloud judgment in Wikipedia. Dimawik (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Igor. It is up to you to prove the sources you are providing are reliable, not the other way around. Read WP:RS.

http://www.tankobzor.org/ looks decidedly self published.

http://wwii-soldat.narod.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm seems to be a pastiche of Primary sources, opinion by people who have unknown credentials, and some repetition from reliable secondary sources (where it would be better to use the secondary source directly instead). It doesn't appear to be a reliable source in itself - unless you are able to point us to its credentials. (Hohum ^@) 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

But I can confirm: theyare normal. I dont say "the germans lost 70.000 dead" I say "According to sovit information..." Must I give still 100 references ? igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You have done nothing to show them as reliable sources per WP:RS. Who are the authors and/or publishers, what are their credentials? Your personal assurances are insufficient. (Hohum ^@) 21:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

But I dont must do it. There are soviet/russian infos. I dont must talk about every reference and proove you, that they are in order. Let it be. The readers must not believe them. There are reliable sources and if you say "no" you must PROOVE it. I dont have a time for such games. Every source could be "unreliable". Frieser is so for me, but i dont delete them. igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:Operation_Iskra)There were several repeated attempts to add in the casualties as they were claimed by Sovinformburo during the war. I cannot believe the editor thinks they are OK for the infobox. WP:MILMOS#SOURCES clearly states that sources should be "secondary works by reputable historians".

It is common sense, that any wartime broadcast, whether it is German, Soviet, Allied or any other, cannot be accurate due to very incomplete information available at the time of the publication. In addition any wartime public broadcast will very likely to exaggerate enemy losses. D2306 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I know it, but also allied sources are false. Read Montgomery. 300.000 german losses in Normandy were also WARTIME estimation and today there are already 400.000 losses. I say it still one time: RUSSIAN HISTORIANS BELIEVE INFORMBÜRO ALSO TODAY. There are 2 examples:

1) Korsun pocket

infos of 1944: 55.000 dead and 18.200 captured. (http://9may.ru/19.02.1944/inform/m4596)

today also 55.000 dead and 18.000 captured (http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1944.html#5)

2) Stalingrad 91.000 prisoners. It is topically also today. (http://9may.ru/05.02.1943/inform/m3913)

And there are a lot of such examples. igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And still 2 examples:

3) Vienna Operation 1945

1945: 32 divisions smashed and 130.000 prisoners (http://9may.ru/15.04.1945/inform/m4233)

today also (http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1945.html#14)

4) Debrecen Operation

1944: 42.000 prisoners (http://9may.ru/30.11.1944/inform/m2804)

also today: (http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1944.html#49)

I hope this is enough. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that all wartime sources and immediate postwar memoirs are very flawed. By "losses in Normandy", what do you mean? The landings, one of the operations or something else? Your Korsun numbers exceed the number of troops in the pocket. With Stalingrad, prisoners, and trophies could be reliably counted, unlike other casualties which could only be estimated. There are several examples of Sovinforburo vastly exaggerating enemy casualties throughout the war. A couple of examples are on the Russian Wikipedia page.

On another note. I noticed that the soviet aircraft casualties for the entire battle have the upper estimate of 4,209 with the note (nb 10) "Luftwaffe claims until 24th autumn, note: this excludes accidents and aircraft losses due to anti air". For the same reasons my earlier comment, the number is nonsense (I also think there is a typo and should say 24th August). According to Krivosheev (see citeation 16 in the article), total soviet air casualties from all causes for all of 1943 are 26,700 (of which only 11,700 were claimed to be combat casualties). The first number directly leads to the number of available aircraft available in 1944, so is quite reliable and not disputed. The luftwaffe claim sounds silly and I do not think it should be in the infobox. D2306 (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There are TWO VERSIONS: GERMAN AND RUSSIAN. You can not speak about russian infos with german point of view. Certyinly the are different. Readers must deside whom believe. But this reference is no wartime:

http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/37833-diplomatiya-antigitlerovskoj-koalicii-cel-odna.html

I mean the whole battle of Normandy untill 25 August 1944. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)