Talk:Battle of Kursk/Archive 3

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)
 * []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. [ [[User:Blablaaa|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 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)


 * 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)


 * P.S. Scould we cut&paste this discussion into a new section? The walls of text inserted by the other editor make it difficult to follow.


 * There is a number in the text based on archives (1600). How Frieser manages to talk it up to 4000 with no supporting material other than wartime German reports, beats me. The 1600 number is in the article already, my suggestion is to drop 4000 nonsense or at least relegate it to marginal opinions clearly stating that it is based only on German wartime reports. Dimawik (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read carefully. The 1600 are incomplete numbers with full units missing. ITs already written. U ignore other editors Blablaaa (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * U also revealed your intention totally. While u explained all numbers are possible u want to include soviet wartime propaganda but u suggest to delete german estimations which look to high for u . Busted.... Blablaaa (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please look at the name of the editor before coming out with "busted" claims. I am not the same person as Dimawik. I do think that suggesting the soviets lost 10k aircraft over Kursk is nonsense. D2306 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read this (http://www.novoemnenie.ru/rassl/14p.html)

ПОТЕРИ ВЕРМАХТА И ВОЙСК СС

К настоящему времени не существует достаточно надежных цифр потерь немецкой армии, полученных прямым статистическим подсчетом. Объясняется это отсутствием по разным причинам достоверных исходных статистических материалов о немецких потерях.

Более или менее ясна картина относительно числа военнопленных вермахта на советско-германском фронте. По российским источникам советскими войсками было пленено 3172300 солдат вермахта, из них в лагерях НКВД находилось 2388443 немца. По подсчетам немецких историков, в советских лагерях военнопленных только немецких военнослужащих было около 3,1 млн. Расхождение, как видите, примерно в 0,7 млн. чел. Объясняется это расхождение различиями в оценке числа погибших в плену немцев: по российским архивным документам, в советском плену погибло 356700 немцев, а по оценке немецких исследователей — примерно 1,1 млн. чел. Представляется, что более достоверной является российская цифра погибших в плену немцев, а недостающие 0,7 млн. пропавших без вести и не вернувшихся из плена немцев на самом деле погибли не в плену, а на поле боя.

Что касается погибших солдат вермахта и войск СС на советско-германском фронте, то тут положение гораздо хуже.

Абсолютное большинство публикаций, посвященных расчетам боевых демографических потерь вермахта и войск СС, опираются на данные центрального бюро (отдела) учета потерь личного состава вооруженных сил, входящего в Генеральный штаб верховного главнокомандования. «Чрезмерщики» оценивают эти данные как абсолютно достоверные. Но при ближайшем рассмотрении оказалось, что мнение о высокой достоверности сведений этого отдела сильно преувеличено. Так, немецкий историк Р. Оверманс в статье «Человеческие жертвы Второй мировой войны в Германии» пришел к выводу, что «... каналы поступления информации в вермахте не обнаруживают той степени достоверности, которую приписывают им некоторые авторы». В качестве примера он сообщает, что «одно служебное заключение отдела потерь в штабе вермахта, относящееся к 1944 году, документально подтвердило, что потери, которые были понесены в ходе польской, французской и норвежской кампаний и выявление которых не представляло никаких технических трудностей, были почти вдвое выше, чем первоначально сообщалось».

Нужно сказать, что недостоверность немецких сообщений о потерях была очевидна еще во время войны. Несколько примеров занижения немцами своих потерь приводит в своей книге «Войны и народонаселение Европы» Б. Урланис. В частности, он пишет, что 11 декабря 1941 г. Гитлер в рейхстаге заявил, что с 22 июня по 1 декабря 1941г. германская армия потеряла 195648 убитыми и пропавшими без вести, что ненамного меньше, чем зафиксировано в отделе учета потерь штаба вермахта (257900 убитых и пропавших без вести). «Новый международный ежегодник» за 1941 г. назвал эти цифры «крайне фантастическими» и привел при этом исчисление американских военных наблюдателей, по которому на 11 декабря 1941 г. потери немцев убитыми определялись в 1300 тыс. чел., что более чем в 5 раз превышает данные вермахта. Даже в Германии никто не верил официальным данным о потерях германской армии. Б. Урланис приводит выдержку из статьи в шведском журнале «Векку-журнален», опубликованной в апреле 1943 г. и в которой отмечалось: «Каждый немец думает, что если бы официальные цифры о размерах потерь были бы верными, то борьба против СССР уже давно была бы закончена».

Явное недоверие вызывают сведения отдела потерь о числе погибших немецких солдат в ходе разгрома армий группы «Центр» Красной Армией под Москвой: цифры потерь вермахта за декабрь 1941 года и за январь 1942 года почти в полтора раза меньше, чем в июле и августе 1941 года, когда вермахт почти беспрепятственно двигался по советской земле.

И еще один пример. По данным отдела потерь вермахта в январе 1943 года погибло 37 тыс. немецких солдат, а непосредственный участник Сталинградской битвы, занимавший в то время высокие посты в немецких войсках, в том числе начальника штаба 17-го армейского корпуса, генерал-майор Г. Дерр в книге «Поход на Сталинград» (сборник «Роковые решения») пишет, что «только за период с 24 января по 2 февраля 1943 г. погибло более 100 тыс. человек». Кроме того, в эти же дни была прорвана блокада Ленинграда, и в ходе боев погибла не одна тысяча солдат вермахта.

В целом сведения отдела потерь вермахта не могут служить исходными данными для расчета потерь вооруженных сил Германии в Великой Отечественной войне.

Существует другая статистика потерь — статистика захоронений солдат вермахта. Согласно приложению к закону ФРГ «О сохранении мест захоронения» общее число немецких солдат, находящихся в зафиксированных захоронениях на территории Советского Союза и восточноевропейских стран, составляет 3 млн. 226 тыс. чел. Эта цифра может быть принята в качестве исходной для расчета демографических потерь вермахта, однако она нуждается в корректировке.

Во-первых, эта цифра учитывает только захоронения немцев, а в составе вермахта воевало большое число солдат других национальностей: австрийцы (из них погибло 270 тыс. чел.), судетские немцы и эльзасцы (погибло 230 тыс. чел.) и представители других национальностей и государств (погибло 357 тыс. чел.). Из общего числа погибших солдат вермахта не немецкой национальности на долю советско-германского фронта приходится 75—80%, т. е. 0,6—0,7 млн. чел.

Во-вторых, эта цифра относится к началу 90-х годов прошлого столетия. За прошедшее с той поры время поиск немецких захоронений в России, странах СНГ и странах Восточной Европы продолжался. А появлявшиеся на эту тему сообщения были недостаточно информативны. Так, например, российская ассоциация военных мемориалов, созданная в 1992 году, сообщила, что за 10 лет своего существования передала Немецкому союзу по уходу за воинскими захоронениями сведения о захоронениях 400 тыс. солдат вермахта. Однако были ли это вновь обнаруженные захоронения или они уже учтены в цифре 3 млн. 226 тыс. — не ясно. К сожалению, обобщенной статистики вновь обнаруженных захоронений солдат вермахта найти не удалось. Ориентировочно можно принять, что число вновь обнаруженных за последние 10 лет захоронений солдат вермахта находится в пределах 0,2—0,4 млн. чел.

В-третьих, многие захоронения погибших солдат вермахта на советской земле исчезли. Например, участник войны Александр Лебединцев в книге «Отцы-командиры» приводит рассказ одного из местных жителей, что сил на захоронение немецких трупов после боев не было, поэтому труппы сбрасывали в глубокую промоину и, обрушив стенку промоины, засыпали их. В период весеннего половодья промоину размыло, и остатки немецких захоронений унесли в реку талые воды. Кроме того, как отметил Похлебкин В.В. в книге «Великая война и несостоявшийся мир», в лесах и болотах Новгородчины, Литвы и Полесья до сих пор существуют сотни тысяч безымянных могил немецких солдат, погибших в боях с Красной Армией, особенно во время весеннего наступления советских войск в 1944 г. Ориентировочно в таких исчезнувших и безымянных могилах могло быть захоронено 0,4—0,6 млн. солдат вермахта.

В-четвертых, в эти данные не включены захоронения немецких солдат, убитых в боях с советскими войсками на территории Германии и западноевропейских стран. По данным Р. Оверманса, только за последние три весенних месяца войны погибло порядка 1 млн. чел. В целом на германской земле и в западноевропейских странах в боях с Красной Армией погибло примерно 1,2—1,5 млн. солдат вермахта.

Наконец, в-пятых, в число захороненных вошли и солдаты вермахта, умершие «естественной» смертью (0,1—0,2 млн. чел.).

В целом демографические потери вермахта на советско-германском фронте составляют 5,4 ... 6,3 млн. чел., из них 0,4 млн. погибли в плену.

Эта оценка согласуется с цифрами, приведенными Гитлером 16 марта 1945 года в рейхстаге: Германия в войне потеряла 12,5 млн. чел., из них половина убитыми. Учитывая, что по данным немецких историков потери немецкого гражданского населения погибшими к тому времени составляли около 400 тыс. чел, а на Западном фронте было убито около 300 тыс. немецких солдат, то, выходит, что к 16 марта 1945 г. на советско-германском фронте погибло примерно 5,5 млн. немецких солдат.

--Igor Piryazev (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I translate with "Promt"

LOSSES ВЕРМАХТА AND ARMIES СС

By this time there are no enough the reliable figures of losses of German army received by direct statistical calculation. It speaks absence for various reasons authentic initial statistical materials about German losses.

More or the picture concerning number of prisoners of war вермахта on the Soviet-German front is less clear. On the Russian sources the Soviet armies had been captivated 3172300 soldiers вермахта, from them in camps of People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs there were 2388443 Germans. By estimates of German historians, in the Soviet prisoner-of-war camps only German military men there was about 3,1 million Divergence, as you can see, approximately in 0,7 million people this divergence distinctions in a death-roll estimation in a captivity of Germans Speaks: under the Russian archival documents, in Soviet to a captivity 356700 Germans were lost, and according to German researchers — about 1,1 million people It is represented that more authentic is the Russian figure of victims in a captivity of Germans, and missing 0,7 million Germans who have missing and not come back from a captivity actually were lost not in a captivity, and in the field of fight.

As to the lost soldiers вермахта and armies СС on the Soviet-German front then position is much worse.

Overwhelming majority of the publications devoted to calculations of fighting demographic losses вермахта and armies СС, lean against the data of the central bureau (department) of the account of losses of staff of the armed forces entering into the Joint Staff of general headquarters.« Чрезмерщики »estimate this data as absolutely authentic. But it has on closer examination appeared that the opinion on high reliability of data of this department is strongly exaggerated. So, the German historian R.Overmans in article« Human a victim of the Second World War in Germany »has come to a conclusion that«... Channels of receipt of the information in вермахте do not find out that degree of reliability which is attributed it by some authors ». As an example he informs that« one office conclusion of department of losses in a staff вермахта, concerning by 1944, has documentary confirmed that losses which have been suffered during the Polish, French and Norwegian campaigns and which revealing did not represent any technical difficulties, were almost twice above, than was originally informed ».

It is necessary to tell that unauthenticity of German messages on losses was obvious even during war. Some examples of understating by Germans of the losses result in the book «Wars and the population of Europe» B.Urlanis. In particular, he writes that on December, 11th, 1941 Hitler in рейхстаге has declared that from June, 22nd till December, 1st 1941г. The German army has lost 195648 killed and missing persons that ненамного, than is fixed in department of the account of losses of a staff вермахта (257900 killed and missing persons). «The new international year-book» for 1941 named these figures "extremely fantastic" and has resulted thus calculation of the American military observers on which for December, 11th, 1941 of loss of Germans by the killed were defined in 1300 That more than in 5 times exceeds the data вермахта. Even in Germany nobody trusted the official data about losses of the German army. B.Urlanis results endurance from article in the Swedish magazine "Vekku-zhurnalen", published in April, 1943 and in which it was marked: «Each German thinks that if official figures about the sizes of losses would be true struggle against the USSR would be finished for a long time already».

Obvious mistrust is caused by data of department of losses on a death-roll of German soldiers during defeat of armies of group "Center" by Red Army near Moscow: вермахта for December, 1941 and for January, 1942 almost in one and a half time it is less than figure of losses, than in July and August, 1941 when вермахт almost free moved on the Soviet earth.

And one more example. According to department of losses вермахта in January, 1943 was lost 37 thousand German soldiers, and the direct participant of Stalingradsky fight holding at that time high posts in German armies, including the chief of a staff of 17th army case, the major general G.Derr in the book «the Campaign on Stalingrad» (the collection «Fatal decisions») writes that «only from January, 24th on February, 2nd, 1943 was lost more than 100 thousand persons». Besides, the same days blockade of Leningrad has been broken through, and during fights one thousand soldiers вермахта was lost not.

As a whole data of department of losses вермахта cannot serve as the initial data for calculation of losses of armed forces of Germany in the Great Patriotic War.

There is other statistics of losses — statistics of burial places of soldiers вермахта. According to the appendix to the law of Germany «About preservation of places of a burial place» total number of the German soldiers who are in fixed burial places in territory of Soviet Union and the East Europe countries, makes 3 million 226 thousand people This figure can be accepted as initial for calculation of demographic losses вермахта, however it requires updating.

First, this figure considers only burial places of Germans, and in structure вермахта the great number of soldiers of other nationalities was at war: the Austrians (from them was lost 270 thousand people), судетские Germans and эльзасцы (was lost 230 thousand people) and representatives of other nationalities and the states (was lost 357 thousand people). From total number of the lost soldiers вермахта not on a share of the Soviet-German front 75—80 % are necessary a German nationality, i.e. 0,6-0,7 million people

Secondly, this figure concerns the beginning of 90th years of last century. For the past since then time search of German burial places in Russia, the CIS countries and countries of Eastern Europe proceeded. And messages appearing on this theme were insufficiently informative. So, for example, the Russian association of military memorials created in 1992, has informed that for 10 years of the existence has transferred to the German union on care of military burial places of data on burial places of 400 thousand soldiers вермахта. Whether However there were it again found out burial places or they are already considered in million 226 thousand figure 3 — not clearly. Unfortunately, the generalised statistics of again found out burial places of soldiers вермахта it was not possible to find. It is roughly possible to accept that the number of burial places of soldiers again found out over the last 10 years вермахта is in limits of 0,2-0,4 million people

Thirdly, many burial places of the lost soldiers вермахта on the Soviet earth have disappeared. For example, the participant of war Alexander Lebedintsev in the book "Fathers-commanders" results the story of one of local residents that forces on a burial place of German corpses after fights were not, therefore troupes dumped in a deep gully and, having brought down a gully wall, fell asleep them. In a spring high water a gully has washed away, and the rests of German burial places have carried away thawed snow in the river. Besides, as has noted Pohlebkin V.V. in the book «Great war and not taken place world», in woods and bogs of Novgorodchiny, Lithuania and Polesye till now exist hundred thousand anonymous tombs of the German soldiers who were lost in fights with Red Army, especially during spring approach of the Soviet armies in 1944 Roughly in such disappeared and anonymous tombs could be buried 0,4-0,6 million soldiers вермахта.

Fourthly, burial places of the German soldiers killed in fights with the Soviet armies in territory of Germany and the West European countries are not included in this data. According to R.Overmansa, only for last three spring months of war was lost an order of 1 million people As a whole on the German earth and in the West European countries in fights with Red Army was lost about 1,2-1,5 million soldiers вермахта.

At last, fifthly, the number of the buried included also soldiers вермахта, died "natural" death (0,1-0,2 million people).

As a whole demographic losses вермахта on the Soviet-German front make 5,4... 6,3 million people, from them 0,4 million were lost in a captivity.

This estimation will be co-ordinated with the figures resulted by Hitler on March, 16th, 1945 in рейхстаге: Germany in war has lost 12,5 million people, from them half killed. Considering that according to German historians of loss of German civilians victims by then made about 400 thousand foreheads, and on the Western front that has been killed about 300 thousand German soldiers, leaves that by March, 16th, 1945 on the Soviet-German front was lost about 5,5 million German soldiers. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 15:55, 26 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."-Igor Piryazev
 * Yes you do. It's how wikipedia works. I have told you the relevant wikipedia policies. WP:V, WP:RELIABLE, WP:PROVEIT. Stop deluging us with quotes from unreliable sources, it's a waste of time, and becoming disruptive. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is RELIABEL SOURCE (http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/37833-diplomatiya-antigitlerovskoj-koalicii-cel-odna.html)

This book war written AFTER 1981 (http://goga-hidoyatov.narod.ru/soderj.html)

is it enough ? and you can not delete my references. I and Dimowik against you and Balablaa. 2 aganist 2. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * No, it is not enough. Your personal assurances are not sufficient. What are the credentials of the sites, publishers or authors? They don't appear to be credible historians, news sources, or the other requirements per WP:V, WP:RELIABLE or WP:PROVEIT. Read these policies and understand them, and stop disrupting the article talk page, and the article itself. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Igor should familiarise himself with what is considered a reliable source according to WP policy. that will allow him to build stronger arguments for future editings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted Igor again. His last edit comment was "it can be true. you must say why (talkpage))". I have explained clearly why the sources you are using are not reliable, and you have done nothing to show that they are. Please stop disrupting the article. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. I think, he simply is unaware of WP:BURDEN: when someone inserts some text, the burden of proof lies on him. Anyway, if Igor believe his sources are reliable I would recommend him to go to WP:RSN and to discuss the issue there. If consensus will be that the sources are reliable, he may try to re-insert these data again. With regard to me, I think that if these data are reliable then they probably have been reproduced by some scholars (Russian or Western), and, therefore, can be found in some scientific articles or books (not non-peer-reviewed web sites). Igor should try to find such articles or books, and after that we can speak about these data seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * unliklyBlablaaa (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Very funny. You can find this infos in EVERY russian book and on EVERY internet page. Must I giive you still 10 references ? In my source you can read the literature (1970-1980). Can you read it ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And your Frieser is unreliable. He will ctiticed even by german historians. His infos are funny even fpr german propaganda. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Or are this sources also wartime propaganda?

http://www.biograph-soldat.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm

http://kursk-battle.narod.ru/

http://otvoyna.ru/kursk.htm

http://www.calend.ru/holidays/0/0/530/

--Igor Piryazev (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * who critizises Frieser, can u give source for that? Blablaaa (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/2010-1-132

Den Kämpfen 1943-1944 in der Sowjetunion, dem Hauptthema des Bandes, widmet Karl-Heinz Frieser fast 500 Seiten. Vor allem seine Darstellungen provozieren eine Fülle von kritischen Fragen. Frieser konfrontiert den Leser mit längst überkommen geglaubten Weisen der Militärgeschichtsschreibung. Aus der reinen Binnensicht der Militärs werden hier Kriegswerkzeuge einander gegenüber gestellt, die dann „fechten“. In immer gleichem Schema bemüht sich Frieser, die jeweiligen Kräfteverhältnisse vor einer Schlacht zu erläutern, die Taktiken zu erklären, die Verläufe gerafft zu schildern und die Ergebnisse zu fixieren. Er blendet aber fast den gesamten Kontext der Kriegführung aus. Man erfährt kaum etwas über die Logistik und die Versorgungsfragen der jeweiligen gigantischen Armeen, nichts über die konkreten Besatzungsräume, in denen sie agierten. Kaum ein Wort wird über die Rückzugsverbrechen der Wehrmacht und ihren Kontext verloren. Die millionenhafte Vertreibung, Zwangsevakuierung und Aushungerung der sowjetischen Zivilbevölkerung und die planmäßige Verwüstung ganzer Regionen bleibt außerhalb des von ihm gezeichneten Bildes. Nur Wegner skizziert einige Grundlinien (S. 256-268). Frieser charakterisiert die deutsche Wehrmacht als professionell geführte Truppe, die schließlich nicht nur der Roten Armee, sondern vor allem Hitler zum Opfer gefallen sei. Er bezeichnet diese Situation gar als Zweifrontenkrieg (S. 565). Frieser schreibt fast ausschließlich aus der Nachkriegsperspektive deutscher Generäle, insbesondere des von ihm offensichtlich hoch verehrten Erich von Mansteins. Ihrer militärischen ‚Vernunft‘ wird immer wieder der ‚irrationale‘ Hitler gegenüber gestellt. Es bedarf der Lektüre der Abschnitte von Wegner, um dieses Zerrbild wesentlich zu differenzieren. Frieser kritisiert sowjetische Quellen scharf, deutsche hingegen kaum. Manche seiner Zahlenangaben erscheinen daher zweifelhaft.[1] Zwar korrigiert Frieser einige Legenden, die sich um wesentliche Schlachten ranken, und das Ausmaß der Kämpfe erscheint schier unglaublich mit Millionen gefallener Soldaten. Aber der Versuch, den Anteil der deutschen Generalität an der verbrecherischen Kriegführung zu minimieren, kann nicht überzeugen. Die salvatorische Klausel, dass wirtschafts- und besatzungspolitische Fragestellungen in anderen Bänden der Reihe untersucht würden (S. XIV), vermag dieses Manko nicht wett zu machen, zumal es für die Jahre 1943 und 1944 in den Bänden des MGFA auch nicht umgesetzt wurde.

By german infos the Germans lost in the Battle of Kursk 360.000 and not 140.000. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I read your text and i see somebody who maybe doenst like friesers book but not more. I dont see critics on his conclusion and i dont see a general critic on his numbers. Wheres your point igor what u print is a review. Friesers work doesnt talk about the context because frieser dont want to talk about the context, he is the military expert an focuses on battles and tactics.Blablaaa (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

360.000 even by Boris sokolov (http://militera.lib.ru/research/sokolov1/03.html)

Таким образом, германские людские потери в Курской битве можно оценить примерно в 360 000 убитых, пропавших без вести, раненых и больных, но никак не в 500 000. Потери люфтваффе тоже были гораздо ниже. В июле и августе 1943 г., согласно данным источников из Германского военного архива во Фрайбурге, потери на Востоке составили только 1030 самолетов, и даже на всех театрах общие потери достигали не более чем 3213 боевых машин.{33} Таким образом, советская версия в 3700 самолетов противника, уничтоженных в Курской битве, совершенно абсурдна. Эта цифра основывается на донесениях советских авиационных командиров военного времени,{34} где потери противника преувеличивались в несколько раз. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I translate Sokolov.

Official figures of the Soviet human losses and losses in tanks and planes in Kursk fight have been published only in 1993 {30} the German losses have been exaggerated by the Soviet historians several times long before that. By their estimation, German losses have made about 500 thousand soldiers and officers, 1500 tanks and assault tools and more than 3700 planes. {31} these figures are very far from the validity. German losses in a manpower on all East front, according to the information given to the Supreme command вермахта (ОКВ), in July and August, 1943 have made 68 800 killed, 34 800 missing persons both 434 000 wounded men and patients. {32} German losses on the Kursk arch can be estimated in 2/3 from losses on East front as during this period fierce fights occurred also in Donetsk pool, around Smolensk and on northern sector of the front (in area Mgi). Thus, the German human losses in Kursk fight can be estimated approximately in 360 000 killed, missing persons, wounded men and patients, but in any way in 500 000. Losses люфтваффе too were much more low. In July and August, 1943, it agree to the data of sources from the German military archive in Freiburg, losses in the east have made only 1030 planes, and even on all theatres the general losses reached no more than 3213 fighting vehicles. {33} thus, the Soviet version in 3700 planes of the opponent destroyed in Kursk fight, is absolutely absurd. This figure is based on reports of the Soviet aviation commanders of a wartime, {34} where losses of the opponent were exaggerated several times. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Igor, if you manage to understand one thing, please let it be that I am not questioning the quantity of sources your are deluging this page with, but their reliability. You have still done absolutely nothing to provide their credentials. ( Hohum  @ ) 20:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You can see it. http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1943.html#14

literature from 1960-1980

Лит.: История второй мировой войны 1939-1945, т. 7, М., 1976; История Вел. Отечеств. войны Сов. Союза. 1941-1945, т. 3, М., 1964; Битва на Курской дуге, М., 1975; Колтунов Г. А, Соловьев Б. Г., Курская битва, М., 1983; Курская битва. Воспоминания, статьи, 3 изд., Воронеж, 1982; Курская битва в цифрах, "ВИЖ", 1968, № 6-7. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the same passage has been reinserted, still with unreliable references, I have reverted them. The user has yet to even attempt to prove their reliability. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The user has yet to even attempt to prove their reliability. Excuse me Hohum? You're very wrong. Igor has done his absolute best to try to explain to the best of his knowledge. I believe that Igor may not understand that what me need is either a historian's name or perhaps a book that supports his edits. In regards to you, I have asked you often to please show some type of human compassion. Once again, Igor is Russian. English is not his first language. Once again, he is doing his best. Now please, if you cannot show human compassion towards others, then please leave this discussion. Thanks.  Caden  cool  15:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

??? You can see it. http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1943.html#14

literature from 1960-1980

Лит.: История второй мировой войны 1939-1945, т. 7, М., 1976; История Вел. Отечеств. войны Сов. Союза. 1941-1945, т. 3, М., 1964; Битва на Курской дуге, М., 1975; Колтунов Г. А, Соловьев Б. Г., Курская битва, М., 1983; Курская битва. Воспоминания, статьи, 3 изд., Воронеж, 1982; Курская битва в цифрах, "ВИЖ", 1968, № 6-7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Piryazev (talk • contribs) 09:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi igor. The problem here is not the exact time when the text was made, the problem is: who wrote this text and is he reliable? Espcially in history we try to use only reliable or very reliable historians. When i check your links i cant find the name of historians or anything else which indicated scientific standards. Can u please explain us why u think your text fulfill the requirements for being reliable secondy literature according to wikipedia guidelines. Thats everything we want, show us that your sources are reliable and then we talk about. That u have to prove that they are reliable is called WP:BURDEN. But dont forget, the simple fact that u say they are reliable is not enough. This applies for all not only for u or me. So please take some time and show us who is the historian or institute and why are they reliable according to wikipedia guidelines. And when u write something on a talk page, then please make 4x ~ and the end of your post to sign it. thanks Blablaaa (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to partially agree with Blablaaa, because editing Wikipedia implies doing some serious work, namely, to provide good refs (book's author, book's title, year, ISBN, page). It is desirable to provide the most recent source, and if some old source is used, some explanation is needed why this source is not outdated and can be considered reliable. Just mention the book's name (or even a web site's name is not enough). Let me remind you, Igor, that, whereas Hohum initially opposed to using "Grif secretnosti snyat" in the article, after he has been explained that this is an online version of the commonly accepted Krivosheev's book, he withdrew all objections.
 * I am convinced that if the data and facts from the sources used by Igor are true, they can be found in more recent books and, probably, even in the English written sources. For instance, the information about 30 smashed German divisions can be found on p.594 of Bellamy's "Absolute war" (the full ref is in the article). On the same page Bellamy noted that German to Soviet loss ratio was equal to 1:1.5.
 * However, I cannot agree with Blablaaa's attempt to give too much weight to the books derived from German sources. That creates some disbalance, because these data (by contrast to the Soviet ones) were widely available to Western scholars since the end of WWII, so all Western historiography has been significantly affected by German POV. In addition, as I already noted elsewhere, some of German sources (e.g. Zetterling & Frankson) have only a visibility of meticulous analysis and are misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No offense Paul but i think this is not correct. Glantz wrote a book with all necessary sources about this battle, soviet archives german archives etc. Frieser same, he studied this battle and wrote studies about it, published in multiple works. Bellamy wrote one book about the entire war, and exclusivly with soviet data. Bellamy has done NONE studies about the battles he wrots a summarize about the second world war with soviet pov, he even says it is from the soviet side. Bellamy has done no research about any battles covered in his book. The fact alone that every expert for kursk will contradict bellamys numbers ( which are actually soviet war time numbers, he prints the same phrases ) is enough to show that bellamy is a minor view and should be handled as minor view. If u want such numbers in the text then bring it to the casualties section and mark them as wartime numbers. Paul i respect your input but your concerns about the used source are scientific baseless. You think Glantz Zetterling Frieser are overweighted in this article, but in return u mention a book which has done no reaseach or battle analyse. Bellamys book is a WW2 overview and you think its more relevant than the recent works by glantz or Frieser. Cant understand this sorry. You raise concerns about german archives but u want soviet archives for german casualties? Thats not scientific. I ask you a question. Why does nobody found this numbers in a recent book done about Kursk ? Everytime somebody brings this numbers they are printed somewhere in the www or are copied in books which are not even written about Kursk. Blablaaa (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Caden, in a similar answer to the threats and accusations you made on my talk page; Wikipedia is here to create a high quality repository of information, it has been explained to Igor politely, and clearly, multiple times, what he is doing wrong, and how to correct it. If his grasp of English is insufficient to do so, he shouldn't be editing here.
 * I don't spend my time here to make friends with disruptive users, and I think very little of your opinions based on your hypocritical behaviour. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets try again
The sources provided by igor are not good enough according to wiki policies. Its up to him to prove the opposite. At the moment i dont see that he has done this. So the only possibility to bring this numbers to the article is supporting them with reliable sources. Putting this numbers to the article without the sources is not ok. And i guess it happens no up to ten times. So i ask. How to solve this issue? When i revert the edit i follow wiki policies. In my honest opinion i think igor understood the problem and is kinde "disruptive" with reinserting the stuff. I didnt flag this, i did not told any admin i did nothing to bring him problems. What shall i do, accepting that he is persistent and let him edit? The edits are not ok... Blablaaa (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Igor's sources are good enough and in line with wiki policy, his sources are supported by a published book, as Paul mentioned. Wiki is not about truth, it's about reliable sources. Books are just that. Bellamy's "Absolute War" is therefore a reliable source since it's a published book whether you and Hohum like it or not. It supports Igor's edits. I take offense to both you and Hohum's unfounded allegations in regards to Igor. Both of you have treated him badly and attacked his edits as "vandalism" in both your edit summaries. That sort of behavior is unacceptable I'm sorry. Please stop with the bad faith allegations. I see nothing wrong with his edits.  Caden  cool  16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What words of paul tell us that bellamy supports 70000 dead german soldiers within 14 days? can u give me the quote ? not evne to mention that paul dont own this books and have the sentence from google books. And if u think bad online sources are ok when they have some words in them which are maybe published somewhere then u are wrong especially on warfare articles. If you read reliable source u will find that particulary military history should be only cited with really good sources. Blablaaa (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My suggestion, we put the numbers in the casualties section but mark them as wartime numbers ( thats what they are ). the casualties section also explains the origin of all other numbers. So the reader sees that this numbers were published during the war for propagand proposes. I guess thats more space than this numbers actually deserve. Not to mention that no one ever tried to insert german propaganda numbers into articles. Blablaaa (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I agree with that. Put it in the casualties section for now and mark them.  Caden  cool  18:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

500.000 dead, captured and wounded german soldiers in the Battle of Kursk are NOT war time estimation. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

70.000 dead german soldiers between 5 and 23 July (17 days) are NORMAL. Kursk was one of the importaint battles in this war. It was not El-Alamein with 50.000 casualties. Their infos about 12.000 dead Germans are funny. In this operation "Zitadelle" were involved at least 30 german divisions. 12.000 / 30 = 400. Every division lost only 400 dead soldiers in 8 days of active battles ! It can be true. The Red Army lost also 70.000 dead and missing soldiers. It can be true that Red Army lost 70.000 and the Germans 12.000. It can be true for 1941, but not for 1943. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It were 38 german divisions. 12.000 / 38 = 315 dead soldiers in every division ! It is unbelieveble. This source speaks about 70.000 dead and missing russian soldiers.

http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_10_1.html#5_10_23 --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I will try it one time with logic and math. Lets put the sources by side and talk like mature . I dont want to do OR or something like this i have sources but i will try to explain the mistake. Igor u assume 70.000 dead soldiers during 17 day are normal. According to german archives the loss WIA/KIA was about 5:1, this is pretty normal for attack i guess . This ratio is "correct", german archives cant hide dead soldiers maybe they can hide wounded but not dead so its at least 5:1. If we take this "empiric" ratio for your 70.000 dead we get = 420.000 WIA/KIA, captured are not even included. So soviet numbers imply german lost 420.000 soliders within 2 weeks, this is not only funny is it impossible , this means wehrmacht lost 70% of their combat personnel within 2 weeks, this is not possible. But now we look at the overall numbers for kursk the soviets give 500.000. How can this happen? during the mighty counterattacks, orel and kutuzov, the germans suffered "only" 80.000 casualties?  The soviet numbers are contradicting themself because they are nonsense they claim impossible casualties so that at the next battle where even higher casualties are claimed not enough german left ^^. Everyone knows that if u add soviet claims for german casualties; at 1942 no more german soldier would live. I dont want to sound insulting but if somebody, after he considering all facts, really believes this , then iam wondering... .  I also want to address pauls concerns. Always if somebody questiones german archives i smile, because for soviet casualties we all accept krivosheev which is exactly the same with soviet archives. It is a well known fact that the red army drafted people into their army without listing them so we know for sure that soviet archives dont list all people who fought for the red army. Germans didnt speed draft like soviet. But always people try to claim german archivs were flawed? how can they be flawed? they had to count their losses to know their strenght, to assume german archvies at 43 are more flawed than russian is unscientific and baseless. And its pretty strange if people try to discredit works which are based on german archives but take soviet archives as truth.... . The conclusion is that numbers added by igor are more away from truth than everything else. But we dont search truth , do we? Correct we dont search truth, but fortunatly no recent historian which have done research about this battle, supports these numbers. Blablaaa (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedias policies, which have been repeatedly explained to Igor, and are available via multiple links on this page for Caden to read, do not suggest allowing badly sourced, challenged material to stay in an article while everyone argues. They should be removed until they are proven to be reliable. Personal assurances are not enough. The current edit warring is disruptive to the article, wastes the time of serious editors, and drives knowledgeable people away from editong the article. Please stop this nonsense, remove the unreliable sources until they are proved reliable, assuming that is possible.
 * Caden, you giving a personal assurance that the citations are reliable is not enough. Who is the reliable author or publisher? Since you didn't even add the disputed information, it seems unlikely that you have any supportable reason to reinclude them. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "What words of paul tell us that bellamy supports 70000 dead german soldiers within 14 days?" I didn't claim that. I wrote that Bellamy confirms some of these data, namely, about 30 smashed divisions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

1) 500.000 casualties between 5 July and 23 August are NOT wartime informations.

2) 70.000 dead * 3 = 210.000 losses. During this battle the Germans had also OTHER divisions

3) Kursk was NOT El-Alamein. With Moscow and Stalingrad it was very importaint battle. I believe soviet infos and you can believe german infos, but it must be in article. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

4) Frieser and Manstein use the same infos. Thisis also wartime estimations for german losses. Read Zhukov and in this book you can find infos about 500.000 losses. But not only Zhukov.

5) 1:5 ration was maybe in 1941, but NOT 1943 and not in this battle. The russians lost 886.000 and Germany even by boris sokolov 360.000. 1:2.5. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

6) You must understand, that Germany is NOT Luxemburg or Belgium or Monaco. The had 80 millions people with Austria. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "but it must be in article." It can be. If you ever provide WP:RELIABLE sources. Otherwise it's never going to stay. Stop avoiding this and prove it. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * igor u dont understand what i write so i dont see the value of further disucssion. and soloko gives 1.8 million for soviet losses !!! that u bring solokov but give a wrong soviet numbers of him is a cheattry but i know solokov... . you also claim wrong things like 3:1 ratio in attack thats wrong, frieser and manstein use same numbers, sure they use german archives same like we use soviet archives. your persistent believe in soviet sources is weird for me, when u get facts which destroy these numbers u ignore it , for me this indicates your intention. I think u understand us but u ignore this so u are disruptive. u understood what reliable data is but you always introduce your not reliable data again. I guess caden is correct, new not nativ speakers have to get more care then others but i dont believe that u want to bring valuable information. Blablaaa (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * u not even understand that 3:1 WIA /KIA means that 70000 dead means 280.000 WIA & KIA Blablaaa (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * so i remove both sources now i guess all agree that these two www pages are no reliable sources. The reinserting of them should be considered vandalism, i will warn igor if he reinserts this numbers. I know iam the bad guy then but i guess after 30 reverts its time to get new sources or stop editing. Blablaaa (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * hm i saw now that hohum edited the statement already, so i dont want to revert him. i reverted myself... Blablaaa (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Manstein is reliable and Zhukov not ?

2) 500.000 losses between 5 july and 23 august and 70.000 dead between 5 and 23 july are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. 500.000 are not wartime estimation.

3) Yes I believe soviet information more then german, but it is my personal opinion.

4) "German Krivosheev" dont exist. Their losses are still not ready. Even Overmans says it. And Krivosheev is ready.

5) Why 280.000 ? one dead soldier and 2 wounded. ok it can be also 1 dead and 3 wounded. 900.000 - 280.000 = still 620.000 Germans. It the Battle of Kursk (untill 23 august) were only 20-25.000 german prisoners. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it also not reliable ?

http://funnytogo.com/stories/Battle-of-Kursk1943.htm

http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943 --Igor Piryazev (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Igor nobody uses manstien for soviet casualties and yes his book is more reliable, soviet memoires were written under pressur of the regime, books of zhukov and so on are full of incorrect statements which are proven wrong already. zhukov for example is excluding all his major defeats in his books, but thats off topic. i dont search for your math. please give us now the historians or authors of your numbers and meanwhile show their credentials. Please. thank you. 1 dead and 2 wounded in attack ? thats nonsense sorry.... . yes they are 2 different things both are estimations which massivly contradicting themself and show how bad such numbers are. So igor please show us who supports this numbers, which historian or military expert or what ever... Blablaaa (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Dont you have any literature at home about this battle ? This 500.000 you can find EVERYWHERE. I gave already 6 russian sources (Zhukov 7) and 2 english. Is it enough ? Must I give you still 500 sources in 20 languages ? You can find it also by Vassilevski. Manstein wrote his book during the cold war. And ? Are all soviet infos propaganda, because you think so ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * u have two sources. please give the names of the authors and their credentials. thats everything we want. show us your 2 sources are reliable Blablaaa (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * if u cant prove us that your two sources are reliable we have to delete them. And regarding your : "you can find it everywhere". i didt saw it any reliable literatur. Blablaaa (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Solokov gives 1.8 million soviet casualties, can i add it to the infobox igor? i can give page number. Blablaaa (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Sokolov uses always highest soviet losses and lowest german losses. 360.000 is very low. I sayd also "even by sokolov". And what is with 2 english sources ?--Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.biograph-soldat.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm

http://kursk-battle.narod.ru/

http://otvoyna.ru/kursk.htm

http://www.calend.ru/holidays/0/0/530/

and still two are in the article. What is with this english sources ?

http://funnytogo.com/stories/Battle-of-Kursk1943.htm

http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943

Dont forget Zhukov and Vassilevski. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

http://die-cast-army.over-blog.com/article-3459995.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-kursk --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * no igor u dont understand what i want. please give the name of historians who published the 2 sources which are used by u at the article. please give names and credentials. Blablaaa (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I can do it, but I dont want do it for EVERY revert from me (i want work in wiki always). TWELVE DIFFERENT SOURCES MUST BE ENOUGH. I can give you this names, but you will always say "not reliable". Frieser with 140.000 losses (!!!) is 100% not reliable. 140.000 for such big and importaint battle are more then funny. it were AT LEAST 360.000. even by german infos. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We speak here about Battle of Kursk. Do you understand this ? KURSK. even in the Normandy the Germans lost 400.000 soldiers. Even in the battle of the bulge dyed 20.000 german soldiers. It was the last big german offensive in World War 2 --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I can do it, but I dont want do it for EVERY revert from me (i want work in wiki always). TWELVE DIFFERENT SOURCES MUST BE ENOUGH. I can give you this names, but you will always say "not reliable". Frieser with 140.000 losses (!!!) is 100% not reliable. 140.000 for such big and importaint battle are more then funny. it were AT LEAST 360.000. even by german infos. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * TWELVE DIFFERENT SOURCES MUST BE ENOUGH even 100 unreliable sources are not enough. And the recent numbers are not frieser, this numbers are Frieser Glantz Zetterling and and and. Blablaaa (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We speak here about Battle of Kursk. Do you understand this ? KURSK. even in the Normandy the Germans lost 400.000 soldiers. Even in the battle of the bulge dyed 20.000 german soldiers. It was the last big german offensive in World War 2 --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * can i ask u personnel question ? if the most recent historians like glantz think this numbers are correct. what do u think why shoudl he say this? glantz is pro soviet why should he take too low german numbers? why do all the experts for kursk think this numbers are correct ? Blablaaa (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And what says Glantz for this battle between 5 July and 23 August ? Also 140.000 ? I speak now about russian historians and not german, american or british. Even if they are pro soviet. This 500.000 are ven not soviet infos.

В ходе 50-дневных боев наши войска разгромили 30 немецких дивизий, в том числе 7 танковых. Даже по преуменьшенным данным гитлеровского командования, общие потери немецко-фашистских войск составили убитыми, тяжелоранеными, пропавшими без вести более 500 тыс. солдат и офицеров, до 1,5 тыс. танков, 3 тыс. орудий и более 3,7 тыс. самолетов. (http://militera.lib.ru/h/koltunov_solovyev/07.html) --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I translate with promt.

During 50-day fights our armies have crushed 30 German divisions, including 7 tank. Even under the underestimated data of Hitlerite command, the general losses of fascist armies have made killed, the critically wounded patients who were missing more of 500 thousand of the soldier and officers, to 1,5 thousand tanks, 3 thousand tools and more than 3,7 thousand planes.

Do you want to say that Zhukov and Vassilevski are not reliable ? It can not be true. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Igor. Read this carefully. Stop spewing sources (blogs and "funnytogo", seriously?), and read the relevant wikipedia policies until you understand them. This isn't about the NUMBER of sources, or whether we can SEE them, it's about their reliability according to wikipedia rules. Stop wasting everyones time, including your own.
 * Please don't just post another 20 comments. Read the policies until you understand them, then give us only the sources needed, with information supporting the reliability of the author, or the publisher.
 * Again, you are wasting everyone's time, including your own, if you don't do this. I have explained this clearly, and politely, many times. If you continue to make edits which disregard the requirements, it will be clear what your intentions are.
 * Zhukov is a Primary source, and largely discredited anyway, so no, not appropriate. Aleksandr Vasilevsky is also a primary source.( Hohum  @ ) 20:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hohum nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you against your will to be a part of this discussion. If all you want to do is bitch and complain then please just leave. You are being disruptive with your non-stop complaints!. We are NOT FORCING YOU to be here. Leave, you are not helping okay and I'm fed up with you and your bitching.  Caden  cool  07:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Soviet estimations are other. 70.000 dead Germans in the Kursk defense operation and 90.000 dead in Orel operation. (http://wwii-soldat.narod.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm) I dont know it about Belgorod Charkov operation but it must be at least 50.000 dead. There are already 210.000 dead and 20.000 captured. Soviet infos can be estimated in 600.000 Germans. (in Russia the Wehrmacht lost not no much wounded soldiers like in France, because the Red Army was too fast and german soldiers had not give up like in Western Front) --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "read the relevant wikipedia policies until you understand them." What part of WP:RELIABLE don't you understand? Stop arguing based on sources that aren't accepted. It is a waste of everyone's time. ( Hohum  @ ) 20:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of complaing as usual about your precious time being wasted why don't you leave? Nobody is forcing you to be here Hohum. No gun is pointed at your head. I'm not interested in your bitching. You are not helping you're making things worse.  Caden  cool  10:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * igor please revert your edit on the article. And after this, proof that this 2 sources are reliable according to wp:reliable. But please do not delete tags added by hohum or other editors until the issue is resolved. Blablaaa (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but what is with Glantz ? What did he say about the whole battel of Kursk ? 140.000 ? 360.000 ? 500.000 ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Glantz gives no figures for kutuzov because german archives dont give numbers for soviet time periods same for rumjantzev. Glantz gives numbers for zitadelle which are lower then friesers. You can read this in the casualties section Blablaaa (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Caden, I am asking for wikipedia policies to be followed. Please stop attacking me personally. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

koltunov & solovyev
Since Igor seems not to understand what he is being asked for, I'll try to do part of his job. The source used by Igor ( http://militera.lib.ru/h/koltunov_solovyev/07.html ) is a book written by two Soviet scholars, G. Koltunov and B. Sovolvyev which was published in 1970 by Voenizdat (Military publisher) publishing house. I found one mention of this book in a review written by a reputable historian John Erickson (The Journal of Military History, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 586-587 ) In his review of Glantz's "The Battle of Kursk, 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study." He writes:
 * "The battle of Kursk in 1943 has been as frequently mispronounced ("Kersk") as it has been mythologized, exaggerated, and misinterpreted. With respect to Soviet historiography, a paradoxical situation has long prevailed: an abundance of dramatic narrative but a paucity of authentic operational exactitude, only partially compensated for by deliberately discreet analysis such as that found in Koltunov and Solov'ev, Kurskaia bitva (Voenizdat 1970, 1983)."

In his review, Erickson contraposes the Koltunov & Solovyev's potboiler and another Soviet source, because the Galntz's book is in actuality a translation of the materials provided and prepared by the Soviet General Staff. My conclusion is that Koltunov & Solovyev is definitely not reliable source, whereas not only Glantz's "The Battle of Kursk, 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study." is reliable, but it is presents the Soviet point of view, although somewhat critically reinterpreted during translation.

I am also a little bit surprised by Igor's choice of the sources. Militara.ru is a collection of history books and memoirs, and some of these sources are rather new and seem to be reliable. For instance, Zamulin's "Kursk turn" http://militera.lib.ru/h/zamulin_vn/index.html contains numerous data, and provide a very detailed and adequate description of the Zitadelle's course.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Iam bit frank now but i guess the fact alone that a historian claims the 500000 for german losses are true, is enough to question the reliabilty. Assumed the work was written in the past few years. Iam pretty sure no historian who has done research for this battle will support igors figures.  Blablaaa (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Zamulin speaks only abot Zitadelle, but not about whole battle of Kursk. Is it enough ?

Лит.: История второй мировой войны 1939-1945, т. 7, М., 1976;

История Вел. Отечеств. войны Сов. Союза. 1941-1945, т. 3, М., 1964;

Битва на Курской дуге, М., 1975; Колтунов Г. А, Соловьев Б. Г., Курская битва, М., 1983;

Курская битва. Воспоминания, статьи, 3 изд., Воронеж, 1982; Курская битва в цифрах, "ВИЖ", 1968, № 6-7. (http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1943.html#14)

There are already 4 sources: 1976, 1964, 1983 and 1968. Or are ALL soviet sources unreliable ? Give in russian internet "Курская битва 1943" and you will find still a lot of pages. Or is ALL russian internet unreliable too ?

Is famous soviet historian Alexandr Samsonov also unreliable ?

http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2/11.html

There are SOVIET infos and they can not be the same as german sources. It must be clear. And Frieser can also say that the Russians lost 2 million people and Germans 10.000 soldiers. I dont care about it.

In 1943 the Russians lost 2.300.000 soldiers dead and missing (Krivosheev) and the Germans 700.000 dead (Overmans ) and at least 200.000 captured. The ratio in 1943 was 1 : 2.5. But in Kursk Red Army was defense and the losses were lower then 1:2.5. Even by german infos Kursk was one "fortress". --Igor Piryazev (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Zhukov and Vassilevski are not primary sources. They wrote their books not in 1943. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * i have problems to follow you. When u cite something in the article then use reliable source. Please explain why your sources are reliable. At the moment u bring more sources that is maybe correct but please try to show us exactly the sources you want to use for the article. You added 2 sources to the article. Both sources are found not appropriate for the article. I exclude myself from this "conclusion" but 2 other editors said this. So do you have reliable source for the figures. Please give 1 + author + credentials. Sorry but i get puzzled when u print many sources + your conclusion. Lets try to do it more clearly, ok ?Blablaaa (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And what is with this 2 english sources ? Why is this unreliable ?

http://funnytogo.com/stories/Battle-of-Kursk1943.htm

http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943

OK. Alexandr Samsonov "Crash of fascist aggression" (http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2/11.html) The book was publishe in 1975. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * here the first sentence of the first source: The Tiger, King Tiger and Panther tanks were introduced... i stoped reading after this....Blablaaa (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Where ??? You can not say that Koltunov and Solovjev are unreliable because of Erickson. Soviet historians say that western historians are unreliable and laught about them. There are 2 point of view in this war and we will never know the truth Is it so difficult to understand ? But is is UNFAIR when we use only german sources (americans and british use also only german sources). Is it really so difficult to understand ??? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's true nobody knows the truth. But why is there such resistance here to include Soviet sources? If its proven to be reliable then why not add more to balance the article out? Of course we will need American sources that back it up.  Caden  cool  09:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, King Tiger is certaily false, but is not soviet source. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * no but it shows the value of sources which publish the 500.000, same sources claim king tiger took part in the battle of kursk.... Blablaaa (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And what is with Samsonov ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Or this ?

http://die-cast-army.over-blog.com/article-3459995.html

http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943

Is for you all sources, which i give unreliable ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Other question: do you know other soviet sources for this battle ? Which are reliable ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "die-cast-army.over-blog.com": Blogs are not considered reliable sources per WP:RELIABLE, which I have asked you to read. Please do so.
 * "www.soviethistory.org" may have some merit, but it's up to you to show it's reliable. However, so you can figure out how to do it yourself - this is the sort of thing we are looking for:
 * The project was directed and created by James von Geldern (Macalester College) and Lewis Siegelbaum (Michigan State University) per.
 * James Von Geldern, the author of the page you just specified, is the Chair of Russian Studies at Macalester College per . Those are pretty good bona fides.
 * This is the sort of research you need to do every time, before trying to insert information into articles. If you don't, they will likely be challenged and removed. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * [] geldern has written none book about warfare or any military related tópic. here what he says about himself My primary interests are in Russian and Soviet popular culture and cultural history;

comparative studies in revolutions and commemoration; international law and legal frameworks; cultural studies--> not suitable for contradicting glantz and all the other guys. Btw hohum i like your green quote style, i copied it :-) Blablaaa (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Re Geldern: I think it's just about enough for his opinion to be included, given consensus to do so, but certainly not to overturn the opinions of Military historians.
 * Re Samsonov, Aleksandr Mikhailovich. I can't find much to support credentials. Seems to have written a couple of books, but I can't find reviews, or his personal bona fides. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Samsonov, Aleksandr Mikhailovich. Additional. From the same source as Igor is trying to include:
 * Официальная советская история Второй Мировой войны могла быть только коллективным трудом. А перед вами авторизированная история Второй Мировой войны. Это академик Самсонов по заданию партии и правительства, а также по велению сердца, решил дать ответ разнообразным типпельскирхам с лиддел гартами — как реваншистам, так и подстрекающим их ревизионистам. Несмотря на всю ангажированность сего труда, он. что называется, must be, как всякое фундаментальное исследование на интересующую всех нас тему.
 * Google translation may have mangled it, but the essence seems that it's an "Authorized history at the behest of the party and government of Russia before the cold war ended. So pretty unreliable.
 * "The official Soviet history of World War II could only be a collective effort. And before you The authorized history of the Second World War. This academic Samsonov on the instructions of the party and government, as well as the dictates of his heart, decided to answer a variety of Tippelskirch with Liddell Hart - as revenge-seekers, and incite them to revisionists. that is, must be, like all fundamental research on the topic that interests all of us."
 * ( Hohum  @ ) 22:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree regarding geldern. He is studying soviet cultures and made a collection of soviet moments, one of them is kursk where he copied soviet text about kursk without doing any research, the text is a 200 word summarize and a pure copy of soviet sources. This men never did any warfare related works. Why sould he get a place in the wiki article for kursk? Being pointy is not allowed but i could bring u 15 sources claiming soviet lost 1.677.000 men ( solokov ) within 30 minutes. Why should this not come to the article? Same reason why 500.000 german casualties have no space in the article. So you think we should let the 500.000 in the article with source "james von geldern" who wrote the following books : "Entertaining Tsarist Russia: Tales, Songs, Plays, Movies, Jokes, Ads, and Images From Russian Urban Life, 1779-1917 " and "Mass Culture in Soviet Russia: Tales, Poems, Songs, Movies, Plays, and Folklore, 1917-1953. " and finally his third and last book " Bolshevik Festivals, 1917-1920. Bolshevik Festivals, 1917-1920. " Blablaaa (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I was probably too impressed by finding that it wasn't a blog on a hobby site. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * :D this is one of the moments when i miss smilies on wiki. Really i laughed a bit ^^ . Blablaaa (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And what is with Samsonov ? Also unreliable ? My 12 sources are different and Sokolow is one source. Sokolov says that Red Army lost 27.000.000 dead soldiers and this is unreliable. I say it still one time: 500.000 losses are german sources. Really soviet sources are higher. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Samsonov source appears to be a cold war government sponsored book, so I have deep reservations about its reliability, which I have already said. Again, the NUMBER of sources isn't relevant to their reliability. I have asked you to read the policies so many times that I have lost count, yet you still don't seem to understand them, have you read them? A shotgun approach of spraying as many sources as you can find, is not going to work. Find reliable ones. ( Hohum  @ ) 14:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My sources are reliable. Are all soviet sources unreliable ? It was soviet-german war and we must use also soviet sources and not only german, american and english. 2 questions:

1) Can you find fpr me other soviet sources for this battle ?

2) How can I proove that they are reliable ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Samsonov now suddenly unreliable ? Ok, my sources are in article and this is good. You are ill because og western propaganda and I can not help. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You have been given links to the relevant pages on reliability, you have been given examples of how to give evidence on the reliability of sources, it is up to you to find sources and prove their reliability. Making personal accusations against other editors is not going to distract from this. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Igor did u realize that we always use krivosheev ( a russian source ) for soviet casualties? There we have the reliable russion source which is used here Blablaaa (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

1) You are not historians and can not say "unreliable".

2) I can also say that Frieser is unreliable. His infos are wartime estimations. See a book of Manstein. He said that Germany lost in south 20.000 soldiers.

And he speaks about russian war crimes, but not about german.

3) All sources use wartime infos and this is normal. But 500.000 are not wartime numers.

4) Is 500.000 for such big and importaint battle really so incredible ??? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Далее о потерях. Немецкий генерал Шмидт, командир 19-й танковой дивизии, жаловался своему командованию, что 5 июля при устройстве переправы для танков через Северский Донец от Белгорода на Михайловский плацдарм под огнем русских «катюш» погибло более 5 тысяч человек. А всего потери немцев при форсировании Северского Донца в течение 5-го и 6-го июля составили не менее 15 тысяч человек (в основном инженерные войска и экипажи танков, в меньшей степени пехота).

Далее. В ходе боев за Хохлово, Киселево и Сабынино - деревни на восточном берегу Северского Донца к северу от Белгорода - 19-я танковая дивизия вообще прекратила свое существование из-за почти стопроцентной убыли своего личного состава.

Далее. Пленные, захваченные уже к концу Прохоровского сражения, в один голос утверждали, что боевые части всех трех немецких танковых корпусов имели на тот момент менее 40% своего личного состава. Эсэсовский корпус, например, имел в своем составе в начале сражения около 86 тысяч человек. Значит, к концу сражения в нем оставалось около 34 тысяч. Потери должны были составить 52 тысячи. Во многих батальонах, по утверждению пленных, осталось по 60-80 человек. На танки, выходившие из ремонта, невозможно было найти экипажи, и они стояли недвижимыми.

И наконец, бойцами 96-й танковой бригады уже 14 июля под деревней Александровка были взяты пять пленных, включая одного офицера, с документами, указывающими, что вояки принадлежали 24-му танковому корпусу, который, по утверждению Манштейна, был в резерве и находился в Харькове и который якобы Гитлер запретил ему трогать. Советская же разведка зафиксировала участие ряда частей этого корпуса еще 7-го июля. Сразу возникает мысль, что, скрывая от истории участие частей 24-го танкового корпуса в Прохоровском сражении, Манштейн пытается значительно приуменьшить свои потери, так как потери этого корпуса, понесенные под Прохоровкой, были списаны на другие бои. (http://duel.ru/200829/?29_6_1)

Further about losses. German general Schmidt, the commander of 19th tank division, complained to the command that on July, 5th at the device of a crossing for tanks through Severski Donets from Belgorod on Mihajlovsky base under fire of Russian "katyushas" was lost more than 5 thousand persons. And losses of Germans at speeding up of Severski Donets during 5th and have made on 6th of July all not less than 15 thousand persons (basically engineering armies and crews of tanks, to a lesser degree infantry).

Further. During fights for Hohlovo, Kiselevo and Sabynino - villages on east coast of Severski Donets to the north from Belgorod - 19th tank division in general has stopped the existence because of almost absolute decrease of the staff.

Further. Captured, grasped already by the end of Prohorovsky battle, unanimously asserted that fighting parts of all three German tank cases had at that point in time less than 40 % of the staff. The Esesovsky case, for example, incorporated in the beginning of battle about 86 thousand persons. Means, by the battle end in it remains about 34 thousand. Losses should make 52 thousand. In many battalions, under the statement captured, there was till 60-80 a person. On the tanks leaving repair, it was impossible to find crews, and they stood the immovable.

And at last, fighters of 96th tank brigade already on July, 14th under village Aleksandrovka were five are taken captured, including one officer, with the documents specifying that fighters belonged to 24 tank case which, under the statement of Manshtejna, was in a reserve and was in Kharkov and which ostensibly Hitler has forbidden it to touch. The Soviet investigation has fixed participation of some parts of this case still on 7th of July. At once there is a thought that, hiding from history participation of parts of 24th tank case in Prohorovsky battle, Manshtejn tries to diminish considerably the losses as the losses of this case suffered under Prohorovkoj, have been written off on other fights. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Igor, read this carefully. Spamming large extracts does not do anything to prove reliability. We do not need to be historians to require YOU to prove the reliability of the sources you are trying to present. Your personal assurance is not enough - you need to provide evidence of the sources reliability. You unequivocally need to understand WP:RELIABLE, it is a policy that wikipedia requires you to obey. If you say "but they are reliable", or "prove they are unreliable" again, you will only show that you do not understand, either because you cannot, or won't. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Koltunov and Samsonov are more then reliable and you know it. With this sources I want only to show that this battle is not so easy. Can you proove me that Frieser is reliable ? I wait. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Igor I agree that this battle is not so easy. I really respect your passion for this topic and I also admire all the work you have put in regarding the many sources you have brought to the table. I strongly disagree with Hohum that you are spamming. What I see here is a passionate soul who goes out of his way to discuss sources and historians etc in order to resolve issues being brought up. Good job on your part Igor. Of course none of us can personally prove which authors, historians and so on, are reliable or not. None of us can prove what is true or what is not. None of us were there during WWII. None of us are able to do that. All we can do is provide reliable sources according to WP policy. It's all we can do. Igor, I'm asking you to please just read WP:RELIABLE. Remember that wiki is not about the truth. Wiki does not care for numbers unless they can be sourced but that does not mean that numbers are right or wrong. Only that they can be sourced.  Caden  cool  21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "If you say "but they are reliable", or "prove they are unreliable" again, you will only show that you do not understand, either because you cannot, or won't."
 * No, I don't know if Koltunov and Samsonov are reliable, but I suspect not, you need to prove that they are. I didn't introduce Frieser. Please stop prevaricating and follow wikiepedia requirements instead of unsuccessfully evading, ignoring and attempting to distract. ( Hohum  @ ) 21:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've decided to humour you regarding Frieser, so that you can see what kind of references show some reliability. Here's an opinion of Frieser by Dr. Samuel J. Newland, a professor of military education in the Department of Distance Education, US Army War College. He holds M.Phil. and Ph.D. degrees in history from the University of Kansas, as well as an M.A. in history from Pittsburg (Kans.) State University.
 * "Frieser, an accomplished historian as well as a Bundeswehr officer, originally had this seminal book published in 1995. Titled The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West ... The book is the German Army’s official history of the 1940 German campaign against France and the Low Countries. ... Frieser invested a tremendous amount of research in writing this book, as evidenced by its 44-page bibliography."


 * http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/06autumn/newland.pdf
 * I found this in seconds of research. Now find some evidence for the reliability of a source you want to include. ( Hohum  @ ) 21:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

But I dont believe Frieser. This is the worst western propaganda I ever seen. This is a world record in lying. Ok, i proove you his unreliability.

1) By Overmans in July and August 1943 in Russia dyed 120.000 german soldiers. Only 40.000 in the Battle of Kursk ? But it must be at least (see Sokolov) 66%, but not 33%. It cant be true.

2) By Frieser the Germans lost in Prokhorovka only 3-5 tanks. Russians lost according to soviet sources 400 tanks. 1:80 ??? It cant be true.

3) Russians lost in this battle 886.000 soldiers and germans by Frieser 170.000. 1:5 ? In 1943 it was 1:2.5. But Kursk was soviet victory and in July Red army was much stronger then in January or February 1943. It cant be true.

4) By Frieser 14.000 dead Germans in Orel Operation. By Krivosheev 112.000 dead and missing Russians. 1:8 ? It cant be true.

I think this is enough.

You can not say that Koltunov is unreliable because of Erickson. And Samsonov because of his government. Very "good" proofs. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You have been told 10 times now that Frieser Zetterling and Glantz all give the same german casualties. Really i said this so often and you still respnd with "but i dont believe Frieser". Its not even irrelevant if you believe Frieser/glantz/zetterling, we already understood that you want to believe in the highest german casualties which were created during the war, but nevertheless use reliable sources please. Regarding your it cant be true: yes it can.... Blablaaa (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Glantz did not say that Germany lost in Prohorovka 5 tanks or in the whole battle only 170.000 soldiers. Answer my 4 questions. PROOVE me his reliability. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Frieser, Glantz, Zetterling, Krivosheev, are all already accepted as reliable sources on wikipedia. Again, stop trying to distract from your complete failure to provide any evidence of the reliability of the sources you are trying to add. It isn't working.
 * If you say "but they are reliable", or "prove they are unreliable" again, you will only show that you don't understand WP:RELIABLE and WP:PROVEIT, either because you cannot, or won't. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Frieser is unreliable. Germany lost even by Sokolov who uses german informations 360.000 soldiers, but not 170.000. Or are even german sources also unreliable ? Is it so difficult to understand ? 360.000 are much more then 170.000. Do you understand this fact ? My infos are already in article and I dont want to speak abou it. I speak now about Frieser. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * you can try to discuss the reliablity of Frieser and "Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg" at the board for such issues. But i think you will not achieve what you want. This books are workds done by multiple experts and is published by the MGFA. Blablaaa (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I citate Sokolov:

''Official figures of the Soviet human losses and losses in tanks and planes in Kursk fight have been published only in 1993 {30} the German losses have been exaggerated by the Soviet historians several times long before that. By their estimation, German losses have made about 500 thousand soldiers and officers, 1500 tanks and assault tools and more than 3700 planes. {31} these figures are very far from the validity. German losses in a manpower on all East front, according to the information given to the Supreme command вермахта (ОКВ), in July and August, 1943 have made 68 800 killed, 34 800 missing persons both 434 000 wounded men and patients. {32} German losses on the Kursk arch can be estimated in 2/3 from losses on East front as during this period fierce fights occurred also in Donetsk pool, around Smolensk and on northern sector of the front (in area Mgi). Thus, the German human losses in Kursk fight can be estimated approximately in 360 000 killed, missing persons, wounded men and patients, but in any way in 500 000.''

But is is also false. By Overmans in July and August 1943 dyed 123.000 german soldiers and not 103.600. There are still 20.000 dead german soldiers. And at least 13.000 from them must dye in the Battle of Kursk. Or are Sokolov and Overmans also unreliable ? 360.000 losses in the whole Battle of Kursk are really the LOWEST NUMBER. My proove is perfect and the proovs of Hohum against Samsonov and Koltunov are nothing. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Upps I was wrong. By Overmans it were 130.429 dead Germans. There are still 27.000 dead Germans and at least 17.000 were killed in the Kursk Battle --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So we should include solokovs claim that red army lost 1.677.00 men and 8000 tanks ? Blablaaa (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You can do it. But Sokolov is antisoviet historian. He takes always LOWEST german losses and highest soviet losses (not highest they are incredible). I say "Even by sokolov" because he is still worst that german historians. When Sokolov says 360.000 it were AT LEAST 360.000.

Do you understand because i dont believe german sources ? There are still 27.000 dead Germans. Their losses in Russia grow and grow. Today there are 130.429 dead in July and august but 2020 it will be already 170.000, 2040 200.000 and so on. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please dont add the figures for july/august for the entire eastern front. There were many different operations during july/august at the eastern front.Blablaaa (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break
I notice that discussion has been abandoned, and edit warring is going on. I believe Igor is editing against consensus, and caution both Blablaaa and Igor that they are approaching a bright-line rule: WP:3RR. ( Hohum  @ )


 * then i have misunderstood the WP:3RR. I apologize...Blablaaa (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If reversions are accepted as undoing obvious vandalism, then they are exempt from 3RR, however I think this would be classed as a content dispute. I advise all parties to attempt to reach consensus. ( Hohum  @ ) 21:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Our defintion of contentdispute vary, nevertheless i will do no further reverts. But i also see less room for "reaching consense". Time will tell Blablaaa (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the addition of Samsonov cited material, the same site that it comes from, http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2 seems to say that is is soviet cold war, state sponsored, biased, and hence unreliable. ( Hohum  @ ) 23:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that i read very thoroughly all of your discussions and in some casses it was very......interesting....at least....But some issues are quite astonishing i must say...As a young historian, i admit, i can't believe what i read in few occasions. First of all, can someone of you explaine to me why are all Soviet sources all propaganda? Why is Manstein relevant and Zhukov not? Why is Koltunov as a direct participant irrelevant, or unreliable, and Manstein is reliable?By what criteria? In some casses Igor has a point. He gave you a reliable sources,Russian MoD, the works of Russian academics...and that all is Soviet propaganda?I don't get it. Gentleman with nick BLABLA likes the term Soviet propaganda, all is Soviet propaganda...and very very much likes to quote Glantz, Bergström, Frieser, etc...And what they say is a Holy Bible.THE SOURCE... But the same Glanz  is perhaps most associated with the thesis that World War II Soviet military history has been prejudiced in the West by its over-reliance on German oral and printed sources, without being balanced by a similar examination of Soviet source material- end quote. From this encyclopedia...WITHOUT BEING BALANCED BY A SIMILAR EXAMINATION OF SOVIET SOURCE MATERIAL!!!! Which are of course all Soviet propaganda...according to some ... ;) You realise that i'm little bit confused about all this. I openly question the objectivity of the earlier menchend editor, and not just him. His line from month june, about 3-5 destroyed german tanks, and a vast number of Soviet...and his commentary after...Everything is on the page...And not just that...I thought that the first criteria of being editor of encyclopedia is objectivity.GENTLEMEN, there is no O of objectivity in your disscusions, or articles. This is simple outrageous. Every decent professor at any University in the world will tell you the same.No wonder people are laughing at Wikipedia--Sarcasticone (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * can you please exactly show which source you considere reliable ? Regarding "propaganda", i use this word for propaganda. Numbers which were created during the war and "changed" for propaganda purpose can be called propaganda numbers. If you want a response of me than please be specific and tell me which source you mean Blablaaa (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sarcasticone, I don't think all Soviet sources are propaganda. However, any source used needs evidence to show it's reliability - the bona fides of the author - is he an accredited, peer reviewed historian, reviews of their books, and/or the bona fides of those that choose to publish them. Krivosheev, for example, is largely reliable, and well reviewed, and used, by other reliable historians.
 * Igor, at no point, showed the bona fides of any of his sources, and discussion on the the reliable sources noticeboard hasn't given them much credence either.
 * Direct participants are WP:Primary sources, and wikipedia requires these to only be used when interpreted by reliable secondary sources, or when they have been widely published - and then with great care.
 * So, I don't think you realise the rigor that is being attempted here to ensure that wikipedia articles are of high quality, and not based on the personal assurances of every editor with an opinion. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Krivosheev is reliable, there is no question about it.I'm aware of wiki-policy about sources, reliability...ect. But Igor was on good lead, although failed to name appropriate references.Not defending him, some of his claims are pretty much for laughing…But regarding Aleksandr Mikhailovic Samsonov: 1)   Krakh fashistskoi agressii : 1939-1945 : istoricheskii ocherk / A. M.       Samsonov.  Moskva : Nauka, 1975. 2) Krakh fashistskoi agressii, 1939-1945 : istoricheskii ocherk / A.M.   Samsonov. Izd. 2-e, ispr. i dop. Moskva : Izd-vo "Nauka," 1980. 3) Vtoraia Mirovaia voina, 1939-1945 : ocherk vazhneishikh sobytii / A.M.  Samsonov.  Moskva : Izd-vo "Nauka", 1985. 4) Vtoraia Mirovaia voina, 1939-1945 : ocherk vazhneishikh sobytii / A.M.   Samsonov. Izd. 4., ispr., dop. Moskva : "Nauka", 1990.

Official publisher is Soviet/Russian Academy of science.Well, he's a member of Academy of sciences, and as we know, not every professor can become a member, only one whith high research background.I'm aware of ideological burden though....Regarding German sources: many recent sources agree that German data are incomplete.Some of it is destroyed, some lost, some captured by a various Alied sides. Frieser is questionable. Only 3-5 tanks lost at Prokhorovka...C'mon Blablaaa. Your knowledge is huge, no question about it.But the numbers....Let's for the momment do a little bit of theory. Let's say Germans have 800.000 men for the offensive,(indulge me :) ) let's say they have approximately 3000 tanks...In the battle of such magnitude and with losses less then 10% of men and material, why retreating? We know already that in other battles the casualty rattio was far higher then that, and they still kept fighting. Alied invasion of Sicily is bad excuse...So again,why retreating? And quote:” Heinz Guderian wrote in his diary With the failure of Zitadelle we have suffered a decisive defeat. The armoured formations, reformed and re-equipped with so much effort, had lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come. It was problematical whether they could be rehabilitated in time to defend the Eastern Front... Needless to say the Russians exploited their victory to the full. There were to be no more periods of quiet on the Eastern Front. From now on, the enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative……” My question is where are those men and equipment? According to some of historians you are very fond of, Germans should won the battle. But…Soviets remain in possession of the battlefield after the battle .And the phrase “assanation of the field”… You know what it means. Counting dead and wounded, berried them, clearing wreckages of destroyed/abandoned equipment, and COUNTING…  ect …Of course, Soviet estimates of German KIA/MIA/WIA are probably too high, but the number of destroyed tanks is by all logic correct, or at least nearly correct. So, Frieser estimates of the Germans losses at Prokhorovka just 3-5 tanks...ridiculous…  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticone (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC) --Sarcasticone (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hohum explained already his thoughts regarding samsonov. Regarding prokhorovka. There are two problems. First of all the scope. For frieser prokhorovka was fought between LSAH and 5th guards mainly only 12 july. 3 are the writes of there are some more damaged tanks. The article says destroyed + damaged. there are other sources which include more units they come to 7-9 destroyed ( sorry but this is the common point of view of newer research ). All the sources who claim 60-70 destroyed/damaged include more actions. Zetterling covers a bigger timeframe so does Glantz. All who cover bigger timeframe have higher numbers. But please note the tank losses for other soviet units are unknown for the bigger timeframe.

Regarding the outcome of the battle i think you want to hear my honest opinion, so i will try to give you. People always forget that the german attacked kursk because the soviet allowed them this. People think before this battle was launched, germans had the iniative. They had not. The soviets were able to attack at every point some weeks after charkov. The losses sustained at kursk were pretty irrelevant for the war. even if the germans would have inflicted 1.2 million casualties. That the german exhausted themself at zitadelle is kinda incorrect the soviets simply unleashed several armies which started to push against the entire front. Multiple units had were rushed to other fronts like south and so on. In my opinion frieser has the best study regarding this. Please read it when you have time. People try to search for "turning points" and so on. When there was a turning point then it was early 42 when soviets brought more ressources to the front than german were able to destroy ( sounds weird but thats it ). After the soviets defeated the wehrmacht at moscow eastern front became a battle of attrition. This doesnt sound so cool like "oh the turning point, now the tide turned". Regarding Guderian, you should note that guderian was one of the people who heavily argued against zitadelle before. I dont discredit guderian ( i like him ^^ ) but you should take this into account if you want to base your opinion on the wartime comment of a general who got overruled. But when you bring a General then i also bring one, manstein said literally after prokhorovka "omg what a victory now we have destroyed all the reserve tank lets finish them", german commanders were so overwhelmed by the battle at prokhorovka. Well i never base my opinion on wartime comments, but if you hear manstein then you will question the soviet version of prokhorvka. And finally it was debunked. Are you able to read german i can give you a link to a study which deals only with prokhorovka. Blablaaa (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding overall tank losses. Zetterling shows clearly that german tank losses were pretty low, they base their work at operational tanks. Some weeks after kursk german had more tanks then before but they were more splitted over the front. During kursk nearly all german tanks were there positioned. The primary data doesnt lie, german tank formations reported their tanks for military prupose. A divisional commander doesnt report more tank than he posses. This data can be "incomplete" even if reports of destroyed tanks are incomplete the reports of operational tanks cant be to high. Sometimes i think when people think german reports were incomplete this means they doesnt lost 1000 tanks they lost 5000. Yes german data can be incomplete same like soviet date. Soviet datas doesnt cover 1.5 million dead conscripts and that is known for fact. But if german data is incomplete then maybe its 5% too low or whatever but not 150%. Blablaaa (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed something. Frieser does not "estimate" german tank losses. He says what archives says. The LAH reported 3 tanks lost. Other sources like kosave ( availabe online ) give 7 or 9 tanks but they include some more units but they agree in 3 LAH losses. Addionally, they reported that they have more tanks operational after the battle. Here the same: they dont lie. They dont report more tanks operational than they have this would be not helpful they would get less reinforcements for example. Also they would damage their tactical handling because strength reports are for planing and not propaganda prupose. The data ( i know the data ) shows clearly that the LAH had more tanks after the battle than before. They simply lost not many tanks... And my simple opinion to that. Germans were in defence, they took position before soviet tanks arrived. Soviets attacked were unclever and were hindered by anti tank ditch. The LAH at this moment was one of the strongest combat formations at the war ( no fanboy... ) . Panzer IV were hard to knock out with frontal attack . Some tigers ( 4 ) joined the battle. Summarize: German were in good defensivepositions. Soviets were hindered by enviroment and had really bad orders. Soviet units were tactically bad handled. German had the better equipement. Soviet attack strong point of a formidable unit. Soviet couldnt recover their tanks. My opinion: outcome sounds reasonable. Blablaaa (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you guys of something. The German losses tallied are the _permanent_ losses, not all tank losses. Just like the Soviets, the Germans suffered many more temporary losses than irrecoverable ones. I haven't seen Friesner, but I regard the KOSAVE data as the most reliable for the southern flank, not least because I know the authors and what sources they accessed to compile their data for both sides. I only wish that it covered the northern flank as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm the losses are "written off" and damaged. Kosave and Friser support each other AFAIK. Not sure but KOSAVE gives 20:1 tank loss ratio at prokhorovka. correct?Blablaaa (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Haven't looked up the numbers in KOSAVE, but, yes, written-off means irrecoverable loss. One reason why the numbers in the south are so low is that the Germans retained the battlefield and were able to recover their tanks; something they weren't able to do in the north, which is where the bulk of their tank losses occurred.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Before the north retreated the losses there were actually lower than the losses in the south. I guess this can be explained with models hesitation to go all in. It is explained in the article aswell. After the red army pushed forward you are correct. Losing ground is bad for your tank strenght especially if you lose ground pretty fastBlablaaa (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough…I have read Frieser. German speaking sources are no problem. Russias are, unfortunately. We need both. Objectivity issue…Less then a year ago we were doing research about war time propaganda. Of course no better examples then one in WW2. And we have come on something. On the youtube, (those miracle of modern technology… :) ) we find a loot of German and Soviet newsreels. Some about regarding the battle of Kursk. Also, we stumble upon on some kind of archival film. Number of what it seems to be an abandoned German tanks on some field. At first we thought that was from Stallingrad. It wasn’t. We where doing some counting. Approximately 100-120 of them. Mostly panzers3,4 but there were some Panthers also. No visible battle damage could be seen. In few cases only. . We contact the user asking about the origin of film. I’m afraid we where over-enthusiastic because only thing we learn is that is from some episode of Battlefield serial from Discovery and Millitary channel regarding  Kursk. We contact them also but unfortunately got no reply. But most interesting was that in one German newsreel we collect the exact number of destroyed  Soviet tanks and planes that Frieser gives. About 4000 planes… One more thing. There were a lot of German  panzers divisions which borrowed their tanks to other divisions depending of their role and operational risks and tasks. That might explain why LAH had a larger number of tanks after the battle then before.--Sarcasticone (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * unlikly. LAH reported no reinforcements. if they got lend tanks would have been marked. Regarding the german tanks. Panzerbrigade 10 had the highest losses ( the panther unit ) so its high likly that you saw tanks of them.Blablaaa (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Frieser gives krivosheev for soviet tank losses. Exception are little skirmishes which are not covered by krivo, he uses their koltunov ( i guess ) and rotmistrov for prokhorvka. Frieser did no archival research regarding soviet losses, he always cites other sources for this.Blablaaa (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but what we saw was not the aftermath of the battle. And not about  Prokhorovka. No smoking wreckages, like I said, just few of them where obviously damaged. it’s look like a vehicle repair depot, or some sort of storage yard, field maintenance depot probably, captured by the Soviets. Bad thing is that film last about 8 sec. And is cut of after. But in background there are more. We counted as much as i said earlier. In the Battlefield Series, film is long about 12-15 sec, depends of version. There are much more. Panthers and assault guns. This is the reason why we wrote to them, to find somehow real origin of film and its actual length. And of course, the source…Well,  Ok, source is certainly  Soviet side. As I said, no reply. It’s frustrating a bit. Concerning Frieser, it’s strange that his claims or his sources claims are the same as in German newsreels…Which is de facto propaganda. “LAH reported no reinforcements”. Well, it’s possible and likely. In the midst of battle, all that mayhem and carnage around ,confusion and so on, you don’t have the time to fill the proper papers, or worry about procedure. I was in the army, in peace time, of course, and I’m familiar a bit how things works. Nearby unit have equipment you need, call them and there is your reinforcement…One more thing, At that period, Elephant tanks were among Soviet soldiers known as a “ KING TIGER”, I just remembered your talk from earlier in discussion when I was not the participant. --Sarcasticone (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Didnt know that with the king tiger, very interessting. Iam bit confused now, can you say exactly which claim by frieser you consider german propaganda ? Blablaaa (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

About King Tiger… Yes, regular Tiger saw action at the eastern front in winter 1942/1943, Leningrad operational area. At that time hi didn’t prove itself, mostly because of mechanical breakdowns. So the Soviets where very well aware of it. Elephant was s surprise. I read a Soviet veteran confession about battle. At some point he started to talk about “King Tiger”. My reaction was like…what is he talking about? Then he explained. That was heavy tank, fixed turret, but without machinegun. He stated that they later find out that tank name was Elephant/Ferdinand…Concerning Frieser…first, planes. Second Frieser himself. He quote sources that wiki claims are unreliable. Koltunov and Rotmistrov. How source which is “state” reliable, could still be reliable if he’s quoting unreliable sources. That doesn’t make any sense. You catch my drift?--Sarcasticone (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Aren't Koltunov and Rotmistrov Primary sources? Wikipedia relies on secondary sources written by reliable historians to interpret them. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your concerns are partly correct but you have to notice that he uses them to evaluate soviet casualties. He is the historian he can decide if their explanation for soviet losses is good. Even if koltunovs book is crap ( dont know his book ), frieser can think that his archival research regarding soviet losses during minor engagements is good. No problem at all in my opinion. But can you explain me now which particulary numbers you are talking about?Blablaaa (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To Blablaa. Sorry but I mast address like this.I’m under fire by both of you. :) Regarding Frieser. I’m aware that he uses them to evaluate. But the fact he is using “unreliable” sources for evaluation and then decides are they goad or not without thoroughly research other potential Soviet sources concerning the matter is scandal par excellence!!! The numbers that bother me are Luftwaffe claims regarding Aircraft losses Blablaaa. 4000 Is simply rubbish. And find in german newsreel as I told you before. And he estimates. Who is he to estimate without proper sources or most important proper methodology (which is the first thing in any scientific work that matters) His methodology is dubious and questionable. His estimates are based on what? “Unreliable” sources that hi enterprets as he finds convenient,  methodology which is none  existent…He GUESS!!! Regarding  Samsonov.  Hohum claims  doesn’t hold water. In the period when Samsonov began his work, Soviets openly denounce Stalin. In fact, all that post Stalin Soviet era is indeed quite different then what it was before. Of course, ideological burden is still present but in much less scale. About claims that Samsonovs work is government sponsored and published, yes, that is correct. But think of something. There were no private enterprises in Eastern block. No one else could publish or do anything about the matter if there is no state support. We cant dismissed Samsonov just because his work is sponsored by state. There is no other instance who instead of state will publish it. And something else. Samsonov research background is over 30 years long, with open access to Soviet archives. Ok, there is still ideological burden, like I said in discussion earlier,in much lesser scale and when you dismiss that, data seems to be pretty reliable. His references are very goad. Member Of Academy of Science. Not just books published, many other science works published. The fact that there is no review, or at list we didn’t find any satisfactory, is not enough for the claim that hi must be treated as a relict of a Cold War. And there is language barrier unfortunately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticone (talk • contribs) 10:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry about signature--Sarcasticone (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * historians are doing estimations all the time. they are historians... . Like i said before, if Frieser thinks that a overall unreliable source has a point then he uses this. What he uses pro soviet sources to evalute casualties of minor engagements, i think this fine. Regarding aircraft, yes hm yes hm. What should i say i wasnt there. When frieser says that fighters destroyed 4000 ( which implicates the losses were higher ) than he is high likly incorrect in this point. But when he says 4000, what he is actually doing then i think he is correct. But he states that its difficult because no data exists. Please sign your comments. Maybe you should start editing if you find something inbalanced then change it, but with reliable sources!! Blablaaa (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I must explain methodology issue further more. Methodology requires comparing sources. We can’t se that at Frieser. Second, it requires explanation of method which is used to get conclusions. Step by step. We can’t see that either. Out from nowhere he jumps with conclusions and numbers. How he has got that numbers we don’t have a clue. He offers no evidence to support his claims, He offers no method or explanation what kind of methodological work is being done to support his statements.It can be summarized as  “I think”. Well, “I think” is not credible at this point. And precisely that is the weakness of Frieser.--Sarcasticone (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * thats the weakness of him ? he has hundrets of notes and for this books there are more than hundret books used for citiations. He says there are no sources which give numbers for aircraft. And then he explains that he thinks 4000 sound reasonable. He is the historian he certainly is able to give estimations. And if we take empiric evalutation into consieration his 4000 sound reasonable. While you dont like this little tiny point you think samsonov who claimed germans lost half a million men at kursk is reliable ? :-) . Like i said previously the aircraft case is special case its the only case where frieser estimated enemy casualties without using soviet sources. Do you have another figure by a reliable source? Blablaaa (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sarcasticone, even the site linked for that specific Samsonov source questions its reliability, as far as I can tell via google translation - which rather undermines it. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To Hohum @. Maybe it seems I’m begrudging it. And if the people think I’m hater because of that then :_( … I’m just here to celebrate, worship and adore. :)  We have the 12 principles and the 9  things, wiki policy and whole darn thing… But, if you have a little time and if I’m not asking to much of you, please send me the link to the specific site. As you said before, maybe I don’t realise the rigor that is being attempted here to ensure that wikipedia articles are of high quality, and not based on the personal assurances of every editor with an opinion. I suppose the site is http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2. Is it? Blablaa you don’t understand methodology issue here. You may have a million notes, it’s no goad without proper way of interpreting them. Method is the key. There is no sources for aircraft…and then he explains that he thinks…He explains without proper analysis, source, method…I’m amazed that historian with such background can show such ignorance about basic matters.--Sarcasticone (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2 is the source previously provided. ( Hohum  @ ) 15:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hohum which specific part undermines Samsonov at that site? It is published under patron Of Academy of science and used as the official book for military academy and even for high school education. He research the subject with access at Soviet military archives. I explained why there is no other publishing source earlier. Take a look back into discussion. Maybe, just maybe google translation confused you. Context is rather strange when you use this gizmo. Blablaaa, Frieser uses strange criteria in his work, as I said before. Koltunov and Rotmistrov are reliable in some cases but in others they are not? Well, there is no such thing as the semi-reliable source. Source is reliable at full, or it’s unreliable completely. Half- reliable sources aren’t sources.I will no repeat my self concerning methodology. We all accept the claim that suicidal charge and ramming of german tanks at Prokhorovka were propaganda, yes? Pay attention at the “special guest star” of the show Blablaaa  http://victory1945.rt.com/films/kursk-burning-bulge-1943/   Don’t worry it’s in English. After you see this, please explain how Frieser could still be reliable?--Sarcasticone (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is quite obvious at top of the page linked, which I have previously cut and paste into this thread, with a google translation. Your assurances of what it is used for aren't enough, provide some evidence of the reliability - how to do this has been posted or linked to over a dozen times. Koltunov and Rotmistrov appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources, which has also been noted, repeatedly.
 * Please check to see if something has already been covered before rehashing it. ( Hohum  @ ) 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * where is your problem with this video ?Blablaaa (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I really try to be objective and not support any “side” but to support scientific method of finding out the truth. I don’t now how much you are acquainted with the fact that being a member of Academy of Science of any serious state (and I do hope we agree that previous USSR as well as Russia today, as USA, Germany, France, etc are serious states whether you like them or not) means that in every research you must use proper, adequate, reliable, and at last but not the least important, objective scientific methods. Such kind of methods are universal, nevertheless are supported from Communist or Capitalist state, private or any other non-private or non- governmental  organization, because something is science or it is not at all. Therefore I’m more confident in reliability of Samsonov then of Frieser because he has had just one truth. One fact really supports my point of view because I was able to see as well as to listen the performance of the other scientist (Frieser) on western and on the eastern media. I was astonished seeing that it has been quite different, obviously adapted to the needs, attitudes and “official” history of the referring side. Suicidal ramming of German tanks is proven propaganda, but on the film showed at Russia Today TV Channel, Frieser said that it is real fact that it had happened, and in fact that is not propaganda. On the other side, for western audience it was, according to the same author, proven propaganda. I’m really not able to understand two scientific truths, from the same author. Are you?--Sarcasticone (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly I think that all Cold War-era Soviet sources are unreliable for German losses, etc. and may be unreliable for their own losses as well, but the latter case must be judged carefully as individual sections may be reliable or not. Samsonov was forced to slant his writings to suit the needs of the Communist Party. He may well have begun during the Khrushev era when they became a bit more honest about what happened during the war, but that doesn't mean that he's reliable, just less inclined to magnify German losses and minimize Soviet losses. I talked to Glantz one time about the whole reliability issue of Cold War-era sources one time and he said that at tactical levels the division-level histories and below were quite honest, but sometimes left out embarrassing details like losses. Operational accounts, like army-level histories were less reliable as many commanders who achieved higher ranks after the war could not be permitted to look foolish or incompetent. Strategic accounts, as well as those of major battles, were very unreliable because the senior commanders couldn't look bad, plus the fighting qualities of the Soviet soldiers and equipment could not be shown as inferior to the Germans. So your notion that sources are either fully reliable or not at all is naive and foolish. History is often a puzzle and individual authors or sources usually provide individual pieces. If Samsonov, for example says something and I can confirm it with Western sources, then that statement is reliable and vice-versa. I'm not going to throw out all of Krivosheev's loss data just because his aircraft loss data for Kursk is not supported by other Soviet sources, much less German sources.
 * I watched the video link you provided and did not see Friesner say anything about ramming and remain unsure why you recommended it as relevant to this discussion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Frieser said something about sacrifiese i guess, but he said this in his book 2 but not because of ramming... . He simply honored the soviet soldiers at prokhorovka for their will. Nevertheless nothing about ramming. Sturmvogel how was the meeting did you talked about something else? Blablaaa (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Time framme regarding ramming 20.min 04.sec. Russian historian speaking.Confirmattion Frieser. time frame 20 min 19.sec quote: Yes and produce strong psyhological pressure on Germans. The soviet tank crews went to their death honorably....--Sarcasticone (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC) --Sarcasticone (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Kurs was the largest tank battle of World War Two. The result was a tactical draw, but Hitler called off the attack. From this point on Germany found itself on the strategic defensive, while Moscow began an offensive push that would culminate in the seizure of Berlin. Most historians acknowledge Kursk as the swan song of German armored warfare. There are three reasons for this shared notion. The first is that CITADEL was the last time the Germans held the strategic initiative on the Eastern Front. Secondly, Soviet diplomats no longer demanded a second front from their Anglo-American Allies with the same vehemence as they had prior to the Battle of Kursk. Finally, the German panzer divisions never regained the relative or absolute strength they had enjoyed before the Battle of Kursk. Aside from this,historical interpretations of Kursk diverge sharply. The interpretations of the Battle of Kursk fall into five schools of thought: the German, the Soviet, the Western prior to Ultra declassification, the modern mainstream, and the modern revisionist. Those who fought on the Eastern Front or were either ardent Nazis or Cold War Communists belong to the first two schools of thought. The last three schools formed as time elapsed after World War Two and as information became declassified and therefore available to historians. The German school consists of individuals who believe that German failure at Kursk was not inevitable. For example, Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, stated that Hitler had stopped the attack too soon, a decision that he described as "tantamount to throwing away a victory." On the contrary, research shows that the German forces could not have achieved Operation CITADEL’s goal of a massive encirclement, let alone reduced the Soviet forces that would have remained in this encirclement. The evidence does indicate, however, that Hitler placed too many restrictions on his subordinates and withdrew the best armored formations too soon. Von Manstein’s statement is a perfect example of the German school of thought's inherent problem—rationalization and blame obfuscation. The basis for the German view is a tendency of defeated people to rationalize when looking back at the previous war, instead of examining objectively the reasons for their failure whether personal or national. The German school of thought often tries to place the point of Germany's downfall during World War II on Adolf Hitler's shoulders because of his “meddling” in the conduct of the war. Although there is some merit to certain points of this argument, its exponents seem to be trying to exonerate themselves and to deflect the blame from the rest of the German people, the German officer corps, the German armed forces, indeed, even Germany itself. In other words, this viewpoint attempts to romanticize and rationalize away the German reverse at Kursk and the destruction of the Third Reich in general. Out of the German school of thought come many works on the crucial battle at Kursk and the earlier Battle of Stalingrad. Representative defenders of the German viewpoint are Erich von Manstein, Martin Caidin, Paul Carrell, and F. W. von Mellenthin, among others. Because of their personal biases and outright attempts to pass on the blame for the failure of CITADEL and the war, their arguments and their information require cautious reading. They do make two valid points. First, Hitler waited far too long to execute Operation CITADEL, and, second, von Manstein's desire to keep attacking when Hitler ordered the end of the attack was the correct one, as German armored forces could have completed the destruction of the Soviet armored reserves. What von Manstein and the other proponents of this school do not adequately explain is how this feat of arms would have been achieved, nor do they explore the strategic-operational ramifications of continued attack while the Soviet counteroffensives that were occurring in the Orel bulge and along the Mius River. The Soviet view lies at the other end of the spectrum—the Germans were doomed to fail at Kursk from the beginning. These historians, for regime's political purposes, in some cases edited the writings of Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky, Marshal Sergei Shtemenko, Major General Pavel Rotmistrov, Marshal Georgi Zhukov, and other wartime leaders. Zhukov, in fact, found himself completely written out of official Soviet history, redeemed, and then again ignored as his political fortunes waxed and waned during the decades following World War. Buuuuut, in the end, we had instead of swastika over the Kremlin, cicle and hammer over the Reichstag…And that is a fact!--Sarcasticone (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Frieser clip. A film editor putting Frieser's comment just after another person saying something about ramming doesn't mean Frieser is endorsing it. That he says in print that it didn't happen only tends to confirm it's film editing.
 * A 5,000 character wall of text? Seriously? That fact that's it's a verbatim cut and paste from 'Revisiting A "Lost Victory" At Kursk"' by Jonathan P. Klug, without attribution, just makes it worse. ( Hohum   @ ) 18:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Sturmvogel. Naive and foolish? Ohh, I tried so hard to sound intelligent…  :_(  But I’ll do my best now. Your continuous repeating that history is „puzzle“  has been a little bit tiresome because You have been „knocking at the opened door“. You have problem of having general overview that „puzzle approach“is not the exclusive right of the history as the science but of the all sciences because of the universal scientific principles. All of them have to obey such principles to be – a science. The main problem is the source of data (their reliability) that made the elements of that puzzle, and I think is the only thing we fully agree. I do hope that we also agree that evidence based science is the only real science. What is the main problem than? - Obviously the source of the evidence as the elements of the „puzzle“. Let us start with that. What are the sources of data of the author whose point of view you support? It seems from someone that was closely related with the events on the filed, may be witnesses’ or directs participants of the battle. It could be sources from the archives of Wermacht, Nacinalsocialists or similar. It is well known that both of these sources had excellent archives although it not sure how much of it had been destroyed or left behind. What is also well known that Nacionalsocialists have had the very good propaganda, not considering at the moment the level of the trust of the information for the public. Just from the professional point of view, it was in fact, excellent. Despite the trust or ethical aspect it had been so good that made the contribution to the development of some communication skills that we nowadays call as public relations. There is no doubt that at time it had been the best propaganda that had never be seen or used before. Why do you think that Soviet communist even and especially under Stalin „iron hand“, had had the better propaganda skills? Such opinion is to use your words - just foolish. But even if you think so, you have all the rights in the world to think different as I have too. The question is about the evidence related to the reliability of data – the elements of the puzzle that gives the advantage to one side – Your side. What are the evidence that the real data and not propaganda came from the masters of the war propaganda? I really do my best trying to explain my point of view that history is evidenced based puzzle, as the other scientific fields, so any further discussions about the subject above is just useless. RE HOHUM: Re Frieser clip. You obviously have the serious problem with your perception.....And, yes that text earlier was from 'Revisiting A "Lost Victory" At Kursk"' by Jonathan P. Klug, whose menthor was Glantz.--Sarcasticone (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, regarding claim that Soviets didn’t want to admit tech superiority of their adversary falls because at first Victory parade in Moscow after the war Zhukov at his speech admit that. You can find full film at the YouTube  with eng subtitles. And it’s remastered, in colour… :)--Sarcasticone (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

To my astonishment I find this discussion resurfaces across WiKipedia, whenever and whereever Soviet and by extension Russian battles and wars are concerned. There is a tendency from russian contributors to downplay russian casualties, wounded and to portray many battles who are internationally and by a consensus in academia regarded as Soviet/russian losses and defeats into the exact opposite and at best as draw or variations thereof. It is something that is disturbing and annoying and if not handled properly, will cast into doubt every article in which Russia/Soviet union is a part. This was the case with the article on the Winter war where Russians tried to establish completely irrational and unrealistic low casualty rates for the Red Army. It is the case in the Article on the war in Afghanistan 1979-89, where russians are trying to establish the contrefactual and revisionist claim that it was not an invasion as well as posting completely unrealistic low casualty rates as well. The same can be seem across the articles with revisionist and sometimes pure pre-1991 Soviet propaganda finds its way into the articles. This includes allusion to the wild claim that the fall of the Soviet union was a conspiracy by NATO in general and USA in particular.

As a writer it annoys me, but as a historian it deeply troubles me. The last time I saw a similar conserted effort to rewrite the facts to fit a specific political agenda was when Hitler and NSDAP rewrote the story of WW I to establish the myth of 1) german military invincibility and 2) Dolchstoßlegende ("dagger-stab legend") which claimed that the army, "undefeated in the field," had been "stabbed in the back" by civilian leaders and Marxists back on the home front.

Now I am not looking for a fight or undue polemic debate - but it is a generic problem which is also very clearly here.

And on a final note: Krivosheev is NOT infallible - he has produced much of the volume of his impressive work of figures previously confidential and from the Red Army. But that does not mean its accurate - by a long shot. Therefore the same procedures and techniques which any historical event should be subjected to so be applied liberally here. Which means that it is not the number of sources but rather their validity and international acceptance that should define their worth.Nick-bang (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I’m almost certain the last time You saw a similar conserted effort to rewrite the facts to fit a specific political agenda was before invasion of Iraq.--Sarcasticone (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed - and thank you for underscoring my point with an good example like that. However as the invasion of Iraq are beginning to recede into the annals of history, then you will be hardpressed to find anyone who will actually defend the wild claims made by Bush jr. and Donald Rumsfeld. Therefore the influx of lies and contrefactual spin onm that particular historic event are receding, whereas the the attempts of russians to adjust the historical perceptions of events regardning Russia/CCCP(SSSR) is an ongoing project. WiKipedia should not be a battleground between historians seeking a neutral and unbiased treatment of historical facts and nationalists who use history as a tool for propaganda...Nick-bang (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "There is a tendency from russian contributors to downplay russian casualties..." By saying that you imply that actual casualties are known. However, the same fact can be represented in another way, namely that "there is a tendency from German contributors to inflate Russian casualties" Taking into account that during Cold war the Western version of the Eastern Front history was being written mostly based on materials obtained from Germany (Soviet archives were unavailable for Western historians) and based on memoirs of Wehrmacht generals, I would say that German POV is overrepresented in the Western historiography and some attempts of Russian contributor to bring more balance are quite justified. In addition, please, don't forget that two types of propaganda existed before 1991: Soviet and anti-Soviet propaganda. I agree that Cold War myths must be eradicated, but let's eradicate all of them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Krivosheev. His work has been examined by Western scholars, e.g. Ellman and Maksudov, who came to a conclusion that in general his figures are correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually no, what I attempted to do - and obviously failed in - was to point out a methodological problem and by calm, rational, academic and kulturnyi debate adress it. So I am NOT somehow trying to fix an "western" or german wiev of WW 2, nor am I trying to downplay russian or soviet achievements. Rather I am trying to establish as common ground that DIALOGUE and DEBATE based on VERIFIABLE facts should be the basis of consensus and by extensikon the WiKipedia articles.


 * Regarding the specifics, then its hardly ONLY german sources that make up the "western" academic consensus. It also includes sources from non-affiliated countries (like Sweden and Switzerland), organizations(like the Papal states), independent sources (scholars, newspapers) as well as Prima Facit evidence (like exhuming massgraves). The fact that you actually believe that this is a conflict between 2 (and only 2) views sums up some of the challenges in this debate, as you thereby completely disregard all other sources.


 * The battle of Kursk has become a battleground again - this time in a war ords, and I am not going stick my hand into that hornets nest yet.


 * Instead my point was more general, namely that its ALL conflicts present and past as well as problematic events (like the utterly and completely bungled and failed russian attempts of hostage rescue in Beslan, Moscow theater etc.), which seems to be under constant pressure to present a somehow more pretty and succesfull version than is generally - and by generally I mean globally except Russia - accepted. A good example of that being the article on the Winter War.


 * Please understand that I do NOT write this to inflame russian anger, to provoke or to insult anyone. But personal and NATIONAL feelings have no place in an academic article. At all.


 * Therefore with all due respect to everyone, then its not enough to namedrop two unvalidated scholars and on the basis of those claim that ALL his figures are correct. Thats circular logic and nonsense in any sense. History is not and should not be dogmatic and static. That leads to biased and faulty representations of historical facts. Therefore its imperative to have a constant dialogue: in this case both a general discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of Krivosheev and specifically about events that could lead to inaccuracies in a work like his, which by any standard IS impressive.


 * So summing up, then my general concern is not as much the specifics of a single battle but rather the general trend. And that is where I see a clear analogy to the doctored history in Germany before and during WW 2. Without any other comparisons being made (allthough the opression of free speech in present day Russia is alarming when coupled with this) Nick-bang (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: " The fact that you actually believe that this is a conflict between 2 (and only 2) views" Incorrect. I do not state that only two views exist. I am writing about Western views (which are neither German nor Soviet), and I conclude that these views have been more affected by German rather than Soviet/Russian POV (obviously, that doesn't mean that German POV absolutely dominates). In this situation, the attempt to compensate such a bias is quite natural and understandable. And, please, restrict the discussion with the article's subject, because the references to present-days Russia are absolutely irrelevant.
 * Re: "then its not enough to namedrop two unvalidated scholars and on the basis of those claim that ALL his figures are correct. " You misinterpreted my words. Firstly, these two unvalidated scholars are reputable Western experts who published their article in the scientific journal (Soviet deaths in the Great Patriotic War: A Note. M Ellman, S Maksudov - Europe-Asia Studies, 1994). Secondly, I never stated all Krivosheev's figures are correct, I wrote they are quite plausible, and we need some ground to question them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)