Talk:Battle of Kursk/Archive 4

Anti-tank barriers
Exactly what kind of anti-tank barriers is Kurowski talking about? And what's his source for the figure for Soviet mines?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Frieser etc.
After some reading I came to a conclusion that, although the Frieser's book meets all formal RS criteria, we cannot rely upon it too much for neutrality reasons. According to some sources, it represents a German point of view that has been characterised as follows:
 * "It is fairly well established that the effectiveness of the Blitzkrieg has been exaggerated by commentators who remain excessively under the spell cast by the sheer shock and drama of the German offensives, and have therefore overrated the impact on war of military methods which represented more of an improvisation than the fruition of a coherent doctrine. The potential of motorised internal combustion engine-based weaponry and logistics was less fully grasped than talk of Blitzkrieg might suggest. Aside from this analytical issue, there is also a question whether the fighting quality of the Wehrmacht has in fact been exagger- ated. Both were to become apparent with Operation Barbarossa. On the German side, there is still a tendency to regard their defeat as due to being beaten in "the production battle in the factories,"(K.-H. Frieser, "Kursk-Turning Point of the War?" RUSI Journal 148, no. 5 (October 2003): 80). and to minimise or ignore the extent to which they were outfought. All-too-much of the work on the German side is based on postwar analyses of their own campaigns by German commanders and staff officers. This places the responsibility for defeat on resource issues, the size and climate of the Soviet Union, and, above all, Hitler's interventions, leading to a situation in which "the quasimythical level of excellence attributed to German operational and tactical planning" persists in the face of extensive archival evidence that highlights battlefield mistakes by German commanders.(Steven H. Newton, ed., Kursk: The German View. Eyewitness Reports of Operation Citadel by the German Commanders)"
 * Source: Jeremy Black. War Stories The Journal of Military History, Vol. 69, No. 3 (Jul., 2005), pp. 827-832
 * It is also interesting to read the Newton's opinion anout Zetterling & Frankson's "Kursk 1943: A statistical analysis." In his book (Steven H. Newton, ed., Kursk: The German View. Eyewitness Reports of Operation Citadel by the German Commanders (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer- sity Press, 2002)) Newton notes that quality and reliability of the sources used for "Kursk 1943:..." varies widely, with some records being reproduced from memory or poorly translated (p. xii). Since these materials are being extensivelly used as a sources for EF studies, that significantly skewed the Western views of Kursk (p.xiii).
 * On the page 410 on Newton analyses Zetterling & Frankson's conclusions and argues that they "downplay" German losses, e.g. by mixing ration and operational strength of German units. For instance, ccording to him, the losses of Ninth Army and Second Panzer Army, amounted 56% of their combat strength in July.

In my opinion, the Newton's book should be analysed more carefully, because the possibolity exists that the article in its present form provided somewhat skewed view of the events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * quote " On the German side, there is still a tendency to regard their defeat as due to being beaten in "the production battle in the factories". This is not a tendency that is fact. That the defeat came by production is no theory but fact. To what degree is the question. Facts by krivo : Soviet tank and assault gun losses 96000, aircraft losses 120000. German losses far less. Logic : beaten at the factories > total war.


 * When i read the text by Newton i see many copies of glantz words. Dont know his book but sounds nothing new or special. In my opinion people should avoid switiching to heavy pro soviet books after using too pro german books . A balanced view would be fine. Blablaaa (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure where you found 120,000 air losses in Krivosheev. According to the link on the article page, it is 88,300 total losses from all causes. At the same time Krivosheev claims germany lost 56,800 aircraft and her allies 2,100 on the Eastern front. Unless Krivosheev is heavily exaggerating that does seem like far less losses for the germans (especially if you take into account the enormous material losses of the first month of war). The Germans did lose much less tanks and SPA that Soviets (3 times)


 * World War was sometimes called the "War of Industries", and Germany did not make use of their industrial potential to full extent. But this has nothing to do with Luftwaffe claims and Soviet air losses at Kursk. D2306 (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * pretty sure about the +120.000 aircraft. dont forget non combar like transport and rec Blablaaa (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * [|This is the link on article page], it says 88,600. I am pretty sure that transport and rec aircraft are also included, but in any case there were not that transport and dedicated rec planes in the USSR before the war.D2306 (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Equipment losses in World War II Blablaaa (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That is still less than the 120,000 you claimed. But I reread the source admit I made a mistake too and misread the it. Total aircraft losses were 106,400 aircraft of all types from all causes. D2306 (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * i wrote it by my mind. i messed something up seeming. Nevertheless.... Blablaaa (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And please dont forget that the article at the moment is heavly sourced with glantz and not frieser. i own both and in my opinion they describe pretty the same with focusion on different aspects. Frieser more at tactics and glantz more on operations and planning. And also both support the fact that the number were a major factor, for frieser the major factor and for glantz a major factor Blablaaa (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I would like to bring this discussion alive again, since I noticed it has died with Igor's edit wars. I still stand by my earlier points about the air losses claims. Paul Siebert did suggest that Blablaaa provides some quotes to make the discussion more manageable (20:48, 26 June 2010) If possibe could we restart from that? The two numbers at the moment are so different, that one of them is clearly very wrong. D2306 (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * i quoted already frieser who simply says krivosheevs number regarding aircraft are "absulutly unreliable" because this numbers are incomplete even krivosheev says this. Bergstrom supports this indirectlyBlablaaa (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The quotes that Paul suggested were:


 * 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.

You have provided the first one (although I would still like to see the full original quote with book and page number). We still need the other ones. we need 2 because if there is a conflict between reliable sources, we need a third reliable source to confirm one of the points. 3 and 4 are very important as from what I know, all wartime air kills claims were exaggerated, the luftwaffe not being an exception, and we need to see a reliable source that states otherwise. D2306 (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * i wonder why i shall back up a reliable historian with such amount of information. Blablaaa (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bergstrom gives more than 1100 aircraft losses for citadel. Krivosheev gives less than 500. Blablaaa (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bergstrom also says other units records are incomplete and cant be known with certainy. What translated mean there are no informations about these losses.Blablaaa (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We have already been through this before. Both Frieser and Krivosheev are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. They appear to be seriously contradictory. So we need a quote from Frieser where he states that the Soviet data are unreliable. We also need an independent source to confirm that Frieser's assertion (about unreliability of Soviet data), that contradicts to another reliable source, Krivosheev, is correct.


 * Since we know that generally wartime air kill claims were very exaggerated, including the Luftwaffe claims, we need a quote from other reliable sources that state that no reliable figures (besides German reports) on Soviet plane losses exist and an quote from Frieser who states that German reports are more reliable than other existing sources. I am not asking for anything unnecessary.


 * With regards to Bergstorm, I would like to know where he gets the 1100 number from. If it is German claims again, it really raises the same point as Frieser. D2306 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

i followed all question and request. But now i fell a bit puzzeled. Krivosheev is in the box so is frieser. Nobody wants to exclude Krivosheev. I cant see your problem. Both Frieser and Bergstrom show clearly that krivo is way to lwo because incomplete data. Krivosheevs works relay on soviet archives if they are incomplete then his work is too. I already gave the exact quote of Frieser where he claims krivo in this particular case is unreliable. Bergstrom indirectly supports this. And to be honest you dont need to know where bergstrom has his numbers from. Frieser and Bergstrom are the historians and we the editors at wiki. I also wonder that you are so interessted in the aircraft numbers, they are seem pretty reasonable in my opinion. I understand that editors ( including me ) tend to argue about weird numbers but the aircraft losses are not even out of range or something like this. Blablaaa (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In short, I was concerned that the numbers given for air losses show so different (from 1600 total losses to 4000+ air kills only). There is no such huge difference in other losses. I have no problems with Frieser, but from what I see Frieser does not say anywhere that he believes the Luftwaffe claims, he merely states what they are, while noting that Krivosheev's data is incomplete here. By analogy we should add in the Soviet Airforce kill claims in the German air losses, which of course would be silly as we know that wartime kill claims are very exaggerated.


 * We have both already talked about whether the German claims are "reasonable" or not. It is further up in the discussion. I find it difficult to believe that over a third of all 1943 Soviet air losses were over Kursk. There were many other big battles in 1943. Since you disagree and we are not convincing each other, we could leave that part of the discussion for now until a third party can say something. D2306 (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that just about everybody inflated kill claims, it seems to me that the best thing to do is to go with each side's admitted losses and not worry too much about claims. IIRC that's pretty much what Bergstrom does when he's not trying to reconcile individual engagements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Summarize for all who dont know the fact regarding kursk. Soviets had multiple airdivisions and armies engageged including various "fernkampf" units. There are no full figures regarding their losses. Krivosheev does not conceal this, bergstrom explains this and Frieser says krivosheevs numbers are "useless" regarding the incompletness. Frieser then simply tries to establish a figure which is 4000. How he gets this numbers is pretty irrelevant. He says this number is somewhere the truth. So i sourced 4000 with Frieser. Really i could understand this concern if the 4000 themself sound unrealistic but they sound very reasonable, doesnt they? For german losses we have accurate numbers so they are used. Loss ration would be 5:1 then. Now look statement by Bergstrom:


 * "in the first three days of fighting over the northern flank, Luftflotte 6 lost a total of 39 aircraft against Soviet losses of 386."

only northern flank


 * "the Soviets lost approximately 90 machines on this date, while the Luftwaffe suffered 11 losses, mostly Ju 87s."

only 1 day in the south


 * "However the German fighter units destroyed 90 Soviet aircraft on that date, for 12 losses. 1. Fliegerdivision had carried out 1,693 sorties that day"

Now please tell me that you still think 4.000 soviet and 720 german sound not realistic.Blablaaa (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's go through this one last time.


 * Luftwaffe claims were exaggerated throughout the war. They were not alone, everyone exaggerated enemy casualties throughout the war. I can not see why Kursk would be an exception.
 * If you believe the 4,200 kill claims, this suggests that with non-combat and ground fire losses the Soviet Air losses were much higher, near 10,000 or more. Since the Soviets lost 106,000 aircraft thoughout the war of which 26,700 in 1943, that claim is clearly ridiculous.
 * It is relevant where frieser and berstorm get their numbers from. If an author takes data from a clearly unreliable source and accepts it, then clearly something is not right. Krivosheev may be incomplete in the air losses, but how is choosing a clearly wrong source any better.
 * Individual engagements quotes from Berstorm are meaningless. I would still like to know where he gets his numbers from, since I suspect it is also Luftwaffe claims. Overall we know that throughout the war the Soviet Union lost 106k aircraft while German and her allies lost 58.9k on the Eastern Front. That is less than 2:1 ratio including the huge 1941 losses for the Soviet Union. So while some german air units did very well, others did not do so well.
 * Even if Bergstorm's quotes are true, small scale engagements are mean nothing. For example, small tank battles between Germans and Allies during the battle of Normandy could be ridiculously in germans' favour (see Michael Wittmann). But overall for the battle of Normandy the casualty ratios were not so bad and Germany still lost many tanks. D2306 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1 Dont see the relevance
 * I do not understand how I could put it into words better. If all Luftwaffe claims were exaggerated, why would Kursk be an exception?
 * 2 I believe soviet lost around 4000 aircraft compared to 720 german, yes. Sounds reasonable and it is sourced
 * Can you see the difference between 4000 aircraft lost and 4000 "confirmed air-to-air kills". The original source is the Luftwaffe claims.
 * 3 Nope generally not. Thats why they are historians and we not. At least no with peer reviewed books :-)
 * It is important. Peer reviewed historians are only as reliable as their sources. If you can say that parts of Krivosheev are incorrect, so can parts of Frieser. Furthermore I still cannot see a Frieser quote that states he believe the luftwaffe claim to be true.
 * 4 The loss of 400 aircraft in one engagements already exceeds krivos numbers for citadelle ^^ and many minor engagements together draw a significant picture. Your normandy example is bad choosen, studies revealed that there were not so much tank vs tank battles.
 * If Bergstorm also used Luftwaffe claims for these numbers, this would make sense. I gave you the total air losses throughout the war. The ratio is less than 1:2. This is the significant picture. The myth about very favourable casualty ratios for luftwaffe comes from trying to present individual engagements as general rule, rather than exceptional performance.
 * 5 My summarize of your position: you want to discuss are reasonable number by an historian because you dont like his way how he established this numbers, but meanwhile you accept a figure which is given by historian who admits that his numbers are incomplete. Hard for me to understand your aims. Blablaaa (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "summary" is incorrect. Please read the points I made without adding claims I did not make.No I want to discuss numbers that come from a clearly biased original source. I do understand Krivosheev's numbers for air losses are currently incomplete and I have never said that I believe the soviet air losses were 1,500. However the 4000 claim is much worse.

I ask now one important question. Please answer straight. You think 700 to 4000 is reasonable ? Blablaaa (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Short answer: no. You have read my earlier comments. You know my opinion. I think that the Luftwaffe claim is 2-3 higher than real, as it has always been throughout the war. I could believe 4,000 total losses including ground fire and non-combat losses, though I am not sure the German 700 includes accidents as well. D2306 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I have thought of a solution. We leave the numbers as they are, but have a nb section that explains that:


 * The exact Soviet air losses during the Battle of Kursk are uncertain
 * The 1,600 figure is from Krivosheev and it is incomplete due to many air units that participated at different stages of the battle.
 * The 4,000 is the Luftwaffe wartime air claims, that were throughout much higher than actual losses.
 * With lack of other sources, Frieser suggests that the total soviet air losses from all causes are around 4,000

This should be OK? D2306 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me throw out a few related issues.
 * I really don't want to mix claims and losses when describing this set of battles since we know that fighter pilots always overclaimed.
 * Krovosheev's admitted loss numbers cannot be reconciled with Bergstrom's quotes of Soviet losses. Krivosheev says 429 aircraft were lost during the entire Kursk Defensive Operation from 5-23 July. On p. 121 Bergstrom quotes as the losses of only 2 VA from 5-18 July as 41 lost in aerial combat, 31 lost to flak and 515 unknown. Of this total of 587, only 372 were irrecoverable. So are we to believe that the other two air armies involved only lost 54 irrecoverable aircraft during this same period? Now the situation is complicated by the start of Kutuzov on 12 July so 16 VA's losses after that date are credited to the 1014 aircraft lost during the Orel Counteroffensive. On p. 120 Bergstrom quotes 2 VA's losses, not irrecoverable losses, all losses, between 5-8 July as 283. And 439 total between 5 and 12 July. If we take the same 37% ratio between total and irrecoverable losses that would translate into 104 permanent losses in only 4 days of combat or 162 during the pre-Kutuzov period. Which leaves the for 17 VA in the far south losses. Bergstrom estimates 185 aircraft lost by 17 VA during the first 4 days, but nothing for the rest of the month. So, using the ratio as before that gives us 68 irrecoverable losses. So the _minimum_ grand total of irrecoverable losses using Bergstrom's data is 162+68+372=602. Not exactly Krivosheev's 429 is it? And that's without 17 VA's during 9-23 July accounted for. So I think that Krivosheev is unreliable regarding Soviet air losses, but otherwise reliable.
 * I think that we need to explain this stuff in the casualty section, with notes covering the more detailed analyses like I did above so people can follow the math.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We cant do OR on Wikipedia. It is enough to state that there are reliable sources that point out that krivosheev numbers for individual operations air losses are incomplete. Blablaaa says he has a quote from Krivosheev himself saying that. I also got very confused by the numbers you gave. 515 unknown is a lot, that's half of the 2 VA, compared with only 72 known causes. And how can we have unknown, but recoverable losses? D2306 (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * @d2306 you remember that i told you that soviets listed all aircraft which didnt came back as "unknown"? Blablaaa (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When a group of soviet fighters was engaged by german and every soviet aircraft was downed no aircraft came back. They were listed as unknown and irrecoverable because nobody witnessed how they were downed. Blablaaa (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so it's the air equivalent of MIA. I guess the unknown recoverable losses were aircraft that landed in the field or remote airfields. I got that. Coming back to my ealier suggestion about leaving the numbers and have a nb section, do you agree? If you do then we have finally reached a consensus. D2306 (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

yesBlablaaa (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

=
 * Thank you for your contribution. However, the talk page of a Wikipedia article is the place to discuss improvements to the article, not to discuss the subject of the article or to post essays. I am collapsing this thread. -- Diannaa (Talk) 18:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)|Expository thread has been collapsed}}

all I can say is that anywhere the name Krivosheev appears, there is debate about the credibility of the numbers hes giving. it is allmost common knowledge that the russians suffered horrible losses, hence the cover-up of many statistics on the russian side.

the problem is that due to stalins propaganda machinery, the soviet archives are heavily incomplete. one can be shure that the soviets suffered even heavier losses--62.154.195.115 (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Kursk: Soviet Defenses and German Tactical Level actions.
Suggested Reference sources on the Battle of Kursk: Martin Caiden - The Tigers are Burning(picture of Soviet RPG 43. Reference of Soviet use of Dragons Teeth PG 119 Paul Carrell - Scorched Earth                                                                              PG 123 Mellenthin F W - Panzer Battles Zetterling N - Kursk  1943 Glantz David Studies -  Kursk- (Stumbling Colossus - Colossus Reborn - Weapons Production by year) Punishment Strike - Drabkin (Soviet Tactics) Beyond Kursk According to the information presented in these studies,  Soviet Anti Tank Defenses were placed across the entire frontage, and to determine effectively what Barrier Kurowski was referring would require information as to where this barrier was located. According to the References mention above, Soviet Anti Tank Defenses consisted of Minefields and Minebelts, According to Mellenthin F W - after penetrating 12 Miles into the Russian Defenses , German Engineers were still lifting mines so the Panzers could advance, the engineers performed this task under Russian MG and Mortar or artillery fire. Other Anti Tank Defenses consisted of- Hundreds of miles of Trenches, as well as Anti Tank Ditches, Infantry Trenches were placed consecutively one behind the other, as German Infantry Discovered, after clearing one Trench came under fire from the next series of Trenches, Anti Tank Ditches in some instances were placed to prevent German Tanks from Flanking Nests of Soviet Anti Tank Guns, that contained several Guns to concentrate fire on lead heavy German Tanks. Between these Trenches and AT Ditches, there were slashings, of narrow slit trenches , Russian Tank destroyer teams could use  to disable German Tanks , with whatever was available. The RPG 43 Anti Tank Grenade for ex. According to the Above mentioned sources, other "Barriers" were  the River Pena, as well as  flooded or swampy areas, that the Newly Arrived Panther Brigade became bogged in, on the 2nd day of the Offensive. Many Noted Authors state that there is still Archival Information on the Battle of Kursk that has not yet been divulged. In any event as information becomes avail, by comparing numerous accounts, the basis for determining one authors description can be determined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unravel2010 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Censorship by Diannaa to remove relevant Postings on Kursk battle
Mea Culpa! I made the mistake of posting my understanding of the Kursk battle for discussion? If that is the purpose of this forum. My post was according to information published by noted Authors information such as David Glantz, Paul Carrell, F W Von Mellenthin, Albert Seaton, John Erickson, and many other Historians and German First Hand accounts. If the Forum is for "Discussion", relevant postings concerning this battle and the overall Strategic and operational importance can only be "IMPROVED" if the topic is discussed. My posting was based on the information published by respected Historians and their years of study concerning Kursk as well as the entire German Soviet WWII Campaigns on the Eastern Front. Of course no one is interested in what they have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.164.2 (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be better to post specific comments and critiques of the article rather than the material you did post.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note I did not remove the post but put it in a collapse box. The material was removed with | this edit.  Sorry if I hurt your feelings, 156.108.164.2.   -- Diannaa  (Talk) 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just want to give a more detailed explanation. Your comments, while interesting and well thought out, constitute original research and thus are not suitable for inclusion in the Wikipedia article. I would like to point out that there are no editors on this page who have not heard of Glanz and the others, and discussed, sometimes in excruciating detail, what the contents of the article should be. Your post did not give any suggestions for improving the Wikipedia article, or quote any sources. That is the purpose of the talk page, not as a venue for expository text and analysis. You will find, also, that succinct posts that suggest specific improvements and quote specific sources will get the attention of the editors much more readily than posting an unsourced wall of text. Again my apologies for any offense. Regards, -- Diannaa (Talk) 00:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Soviet and German Strenght?
In Opposing forces section i counted total 76 Soviet division and 54 German division. Regarding the fact that in that period both German and Soviet divisions was much smaller in man's and equipment becouse losses ...there just can't be 2,7 milion of soldier on battlefield. Especialy is overnumbered Soviet side. Ok, i understand that wiki using sources for data even if those sources are not good...but this "numerology" with strenght is just redicilous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.12.169 (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

'Page needed' tags in Infobox
I'm really sorry to raise such a trivial matter on this serious talk page, but the "Page needed" flags in the Infobox are quite distracting (and they cause wrapping). Could they possibly be tidied out of the way by putting them inside the citations, say? Or even looked up and sorted out, of course... I only mention this because the article was otherwise so extremely readable, it was a pity to be brought up short with that particular Wiki-ism. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, Chiswick Chap. I have a book about Kursk sitting here and I was hoping to get the information properly cited, but I am still busy with the Hitler thing. I hope to get to this in the next week or so, and in the meantime will remove the tags (the sfn-ref system does not lend itself to tagging inside the ref). I can check back in History to see where the tags were. --Dianna (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, thankyou, that was a clever bit of tag-nesting. Looks great! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Soviet Order of Battle
38th Army has been omitted from the Voronezh Front OoB (though it is on the map). The Steppe Front OoB is missing 27th, 47th and 53rd Armies. Max Payload (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Dead link(s)
The source link to the graphic "Battle of Kursk" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Kursk_(map).jpg) a map at www.dean.usma.edu does not work. The link suggest a redirect to the West Point USMC site and as far as I can see the map is buried somewhere there if it does exist. I couldn't find it.

Not sure how or what to do to fix it. TDurden1937 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)TDurden1937

Glantz.....right....
{{Hidden |header=Unproductive, refactored, WP:NOTAFORUM|headerstyle=background:#ccccff| Just look at your "great" page :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_and_overclaiming_of_aerial_victories_during_World_War_II And now imagine, what prevents someone during war to further "improve" the performance ratio, especially if you lose the fight? And after the war, when the opponents are defeated or dead, or are isolated (N. Korea-a US division was encircled and annihilated to the last man, but somehow, the US know that they killed at least 10.000 communists. And why should someone consider official reports as accurate? "Wars prove not who is right, but who is left", is all I have to say. During my life, I have encountered countless bizarre claims, from every single side of the war. This article might as well earn a spot in TOP 10 list. The repeated quoting of authors of dubious quality makes you no less right. This is almost as absurd as quoting Bible on Earth's age wiki page. I especially like the age and education of your favourite authors, Glantz and Frieser. This article appears to me as if it is written by a frozen-in-time Nazism supporter, or Cold War era McCarthy fanatic. I have no personal interest in it, but I might ask have you ever given it a thought how this Glantz guy interprets another guys interpretations and always gets ever bigger death toll of Soviets? Is it an inner rage because of unmaterialised dreams of world-domination and hate for opposing ideology, that these guys write about imaginary losses and inflict additional casualties on paper? I am especially interested in the explanation of how did the Wehrmacht, according to "military geniuses" Glantz and Frieser, manage to inflict multiple times greater losses on a well entrenched, pre-deployed, multi-layered elastic defense system supported with anti-tank strongpoints, artillery and airsupport, that knew exactly when and where they will strike, while being several times less numerous? I can' imagine a worse attacking scenario. I don't get it how did they manage to lose the war then? Oh yes, the arsenal of democracy intervened.... How could I have forgotten......
 * content=Have you ever heard of propaganda?

To wiki moderators, how can someone even tolerate such low-rating and low-quality article? What is the point? The world condemned the Ubermensch ideology, while it obviously lingers on in the minds of some, because the feats quoted couldn't have been and weren't obtained by men. Are you unfamiliar with propaganda works? Why are we even regarding US Army or Western German Army historians as relevant authors, on the issue of their ideological enemy's war? Were they present? Are they indifferent, neutral? Did they conduct research with survivors of the battle of both sides? I personally have no stake in it, but posting such information somehow justifies the supremacy views of certain people, in the same way as the Hollywood promotes the inferiority of US's enemies.

PS: I like the "objectivity". You did present the "other side" "Red Hordes": a single sentence in the end.

"According to Soviets claims the Red Army smashed thirty German divisions, inflicting the following casualties between 5 July and 23 August 1943: 500,000 dead, wounded, and captured soldiers; 1,500 tanks and 3,700 planes destroyed." The rounded numbers to imply how innacurate and untruthful they are when compared to single digit accuracy of mighty Glantz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.118.37 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Glantz nd Frieser are very high rated, respected and reliable scholars. And no they are not of "dubious quality". Glantz is even a bit pro-Soviet (he digs heavily in Soviet sources) and a German historian who would just make the slightest appearence to be "dubious" would never get his hands on something like Germany and the Second World War. Soviet heavy losses throughout the war are confirmed by Russian historians like Krivosheyev. Other modern Russian historians like e.g. Zamulin confirm that the Soviet 60s propaganda version of the events at Kursk and especially Prokhorovka was just a pure fantasy. StoneProphet (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's really interesting, because I might ask you where did he, as an US Army employee(! he "digs" Soviets !), get access to official Soviet records in the '80s? I would have liked that, too. And who was talking about Prokhorovka, the complete tactical blunder of attacking through a narrow valley between a railroad and an impassable ravine on a predeployed anti-tank and tank positions? The heavy losses sustained by the Soviet tank corps are logical there, but somehow the Wehrmacht, attacking a far longer prepared and deeper defences, managed to inflict even worse casualties upon the defender. Just answer me, please, how did they manage to do that? I've already mentioned the adverse conditions they were meeting. Or even better, quote the respectable military genius of the desk, Glantz, a dauntless hero battling evil Soviet empire with his mighty pen from afar.
 * I can only ask you, how many and how diverse are these authors he "quotes"? I personally have never even came close to such numbers, and I certainly wont name the records and statistics I went through, because this is a Wikipedia discussion, not a WW 2 history class. I just want to ask you, have you read through operation planning and defence layouts of the Soviet defenses? And the artillery barrage the morning the Wehrmacht was about to attack? And the minefields deployed on their already known attack routes? Just answer how can the Soviets attacking a one-day long entrenchment suffer, but on the other hand, the Wehrmacht, whilst facing far sturdier and absolutely meticulously planned defences, not. Just make my day, prophet, and show me the truth.
 * P.S.: Quoting German generals and officers is highly undesirable, because they would often blame the enemies vast numerical superiority for their failure. (von Manstein's memoirs named as a source)
 * P.P.S.: The rating of the article is lowest possible (obviously I am not the only one, but it has suddenly increased in recent days, hmmm). What I mean by that is, the article is insulting to me, and probably every other man with experience in the field, who has absolutely no connection to USSR, Russia or Germany; and far from consistent and objective. Just imagine someone writing a completely opposite one based on the Soviet movies and propaganda newsreels, general's debriefing and personal claims by soldiers filmed, and attention-grabbing "new discovery" authors. Just reveal from which country you are, but be honest, so I can make a point, because it seems you are the author of the wiki-article.
 * P.P.P.S.: Just look at the sources and references. They are pathetic, really, and in no way appropriate for a supposedly objective and neutral multi-sided approach every "hot subject" should receive. Many writers (some of them shouldn't be called historians) from various countries, somehow most of them openly or ideologically hostile to former USSR. And if you are trying to promote Krivosheev, Grigoriy, to a recognized Russian historian, well, you are lost. Sometimes, the losses he claims are even higher than the official reported by WEHRMACHT. Yes, even after decreasing the frontline troops claims by at least 50%, sometimes by 100% (see German tank aces and aircraft claims to get the real picture, and Battle of Britain overclaiming by both sides) they were propagandist in their nature, released during a losing time and lack of success in combat, to bolster morale in the field.
 * Well . . . although I wouldn't get quite as excited as the above person, there seems to be something very wrong with the figures in the loses box.
 * The Russians lost over four times the number of men lost by the Germans? AND over eight times the number of tanks and artillery pieces? Even with the disregard that Russian commanders threw men into battle . . . this is highly improbably.
 * I also looked at some of the sources and they are very old one being 1943!?!!!!
 * TDurden1937 (talk)TDurden1937 —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, could you please format your posts properly? I have done that for you (for the first time), and by sticking with that style you will both obey our guidelines and show respect to your vis-a-vis.
 * Secondly, all of that are just your speculations, and Wikipedia is not a good place for presenting one's own ideas. We are limited with available sources, Western sources are full of anti-Soviet stereotypes and affected by German viewpoint (simply because German materials were more available for researchers during Cold war), Soviet sources are full of propaganda and are frequently inaccurate, new Russian sources are affected by new nationalism. In this situation, Glantz seems to be one of the most balanced sources.
 * To demonstrate that, let's dissect your last sentence. You write:
 * "The Russians lost over four times the number of men lost by the Germans? AND over eight times the number of tanks and artillery pieces? Even with the disregard that Russian commanders threw men into battle . . . this is highly improbably."
 * I see no paradox here. It is well known (from Krivosheev's data, which are in full accordance with the data obtained independently by such notable western authors as Ellman and Maksudov) that the USSR sustained ca 8.5 million KIA/MIA. The Axis losses in the East are also known, about 4 million KIA/MIA. It is also well known that the Soviet losses gradually decreased during the war (in relative figures), whereas for Germany the trend was opposite, so the 1 to 4 ratio seems quite reasonable for that 1943 battle. Regarding tanks, you should have remembered that by that moment T-34-76 had become an obsolete weapon, and Tigers and Panthers were far superior (in terms of armour, main gun, optics, etc.). Since the Germans made a stress on small amount of technologically advanced vehicles, they took every effort to evacuate damaged tanks from the battlefield and to repair them. By contrast, for the Soviets it was easier to trow a damaged tank away and to produce a new one. Therefore, Soviets counted both damaged and irrecoverable lost tanks as losses, whereas the Germans did not consider damaged tanks as losses if they were able to transport it to a repair shop.
 * Yes the Soviet tank losses were terrible, the killed ratio was 4:1, but the battle was an overwhelming Soviet success. Why? Glantz explains, that the Battle of Kursk was the first WWII battle when the German blizkrieg failed before they broke through enemy's defence. Before Kursk, the Germans offensives (both in east and west) were always successful, and the fact that the Red Army appeared to be able to stop them was a great achievement. And I think this Glantz conclusion is quite objective, and by no means it diminishes the achievements of the Red Army.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting even better, I actually don't know how to reply so many wrong facts. The first time a German offensive was stopped? Hello, the year was mid-1943, the Axis sun was already past its zenith. History lesson(s) needed. I have already stressed out that that my point on this subject is the nature of German attack and the tremendous difficulties they met. Their secret attack was revealed, their plans known to Soviet commander, the defence layout was brilliant, and planned to every detail. Yet the Germans managed to storm these lines and obviously devastate them (losses inflicted vs. losses sustained), yet somehow they didn't break through, especially in the northern sector. Why is no one willing to articulate the way they managed to do this, without air superiority or tremendous preparatory bombardment? Furthermore, I have already explained how (ir)relevant is it to quote many Western (hostile) authors and a single, yet highly disputed, Russian author. My complaints go to the entire Eastern front section on Wikipedia, because even on Operation Bagration, the worst German defeat, which was a complete tactical and strategic surprise, and overwhelming Soviet victory, the losses were again unbelievable. I can only laugh about tank losses mentioned in the wiki-article. How did they manage to advance so rapidly then? With such heavy resistance (read from your numbers), they couldn't have done it. By the way, Operation Zitadelle failed because it WASN'T a Blitzkrieg, the Germans were expecting to outmanouevre the Soviet salient and attack the flanks. But the flanks were the strongpoints! Instead it turned into a slow slugging-out and creeping through defences. What you said of Tigers and Panthers is another wrong fact. Of all Panzers, Jagdpanzers and StuGs at Kursk, they comprised less than 10%. A vast majority of German Panzers were advanced ausfuhrungs of Pz. III and IV, for which T-34 proved atleast equal (superior in some aspects). The true difference in tank warfare is the crew. The Tigers were revered not because of their design (it wasn't very good actually, ineffective armour and turret layout, slow turret traverse, highly vulnerable to fires, suspension prone to damage, complexity) but because only experienced crew and commanders were awarded. On the Panthers, don't get me started on their debacle. They were expected to turn the tide, 200 dispatched. At the end of the operation, less than 40 were in German hands, of which only 9 operational. CLAIMED kills 267, losses ADMITTED: around 160. They were actually to blame upon the delay, allowing additional preparations. And what is it with this Soviet commanders wasting men and material? Please tell me that you can recognize wartime Nazi propaganda and Cold war-era US one. The point of it was to show that the USSR was an evil empire bent on conquest and enslavement of the "free world", ready to employ Macchiavelistic approach to accomplish its goals. The commanders at Kursk were skilled, displayed great commanding skills on many occasions. In addition, Soviet command was quick to sack inefficient commanders, and very unforgiving. If you don't agree, fine. Have it your way. Just answer how could the Germans, whilst attacking a well-prepared and entrenched enemy at time and locations known to the enemy, devastate Soviets, whilst the Soviets, even when achieving complete tactical and strategic surprise, overwhelming force concentration on an unsuspecting enemy, take again devastating losses? (According to wiki article on Operation Bagration) I am waiting.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.119.40 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You merged my previous comment with someone elses, thank you very much for that109.60.119.40 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Original long poster


 * One thing to consider, is that casualties ratios will always be a big argument. Mainly becasue there are so many different of counting casualties. For example:
 * a) if a tank took minor damage is it recorded as "lost"? Probably not.
 * b) What if the same tank could not be evacuated and the other side took control of the field?
 * c) What if you managed to evacuate the tank, but had to abandon it doe to a hasty retreat?
 * It is very easy to see that "tanks lost", just like "men lost" could easily be turned one way or the other. As strange as it sounds the side which score more "frags" may well have greater (and even much greater) losses. Which leads to very amusing and paradoxal articles on the wiki, which can summarised as: "germans lose 5% of their strength, soviets lose 55% of their strength. Result: decisive soviet victory, hundred mile retreats for germans...".D2306 (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "a". IMHO, a German tank evacuated to the repair shop was not considered as lost independently on the degree of damage.
 * Re "b". In that case, the tank was considered as lost.
 * Re "c". In that case it was considered as lost, but it was not a battle loss.
 * I am not sure that was done deliberately, the Germans simply had different approach to calculation of losses. As a result, direct comparison of the German and the Soviet data may be somewhat misleading. Of course, their tank losses were somewhat higher, the Soviet losses (if someone calculated them according to the German scheme) would be somewhat lower, however, that does not change the main fact: Soviet tank losses were doomed to be much higher simply because the Germans had much better tanks, the losses among tank crews were much smaller, and that had somewhat autocatalytic effect: the longer is the crew's lifetime, the more experienced it is, the more experienced it is the better survival. The situation was gradually changing with time, and by the end of the war quality of Soviet tanks increased dramatically, and Soviet losses decreased, and Kursk became a turning point.
 * One more thing. Soviet tank losses were high (at Kursk and everywhere) simply by virtue of Soviet tactics: mass usage of highly mobile light tanks (T-34 was light based on German standards) increased of selective usage of few advanced machines. The Germans could not lose many tanks simply because they didn't have them. However, even if few Tigers were able to knock down a whole tank division of T-34's, they could stop their advance only in few places, whereas in other direction T-34s dealt with German infantry lacking any tank support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Because the Soviet, German and Allied ways of recording casualties were quite different (as was the organisation their armed forces), it is always very difficult to to present them in a neutral way. Either way you get accused of propaganda. Fundamentally both sides could be telling the truth (slighly embellished as such was war). The germans could say: "we destroyed X tanks and lost only Y". The soviets would say "X/2 tanks are back in service within a week we destroyed Y and we also captured Z tanks in enemy repair workshops, abandoned on the road etc.". Both accounts would be truthful but will give very different ratios (though soviet losses would still be higher).
 * Near the end of the war the actual combat performance of vehicles was overshadowed by their reliability, ease of repair, engine hours. The late war german vehicles, for all their brilliant firepower and armour lacked in that.D2306 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, I am ready to give up on this simply because of ignorance showed in your replies, PAUL SIEBERT. I have already posted the performance of the first batch of Panthers. Moreover, I have already posted that your "better quality tanks" made less than 10% of German Panzers, Jagdpanzers and StuGs at Kursk. Why aren't you paying attention? You are obviously clueless on the subject of German armour, really. The mainstay of Panzer formations at Kursk were later marks/series/ausfuhrungs of Pz. III and IV. WHICH WERE OF INFERIOR DESIGN TO T-34 (non-sloped armour, lower mobility, weaker suspension, thin side armour, weaker main armament (Pz. III)), except the Pz. IV F2/G onwards (L/40 or 48 StuK), which was comparable (read through technical analysis done by Germans following the capture of T-34). . The Pz. V Panther was a result of competition between a heavier version of T-34 (later Panther) by MAN, and a virtual copy submitted by Daimler. The Germans decided to go one better, hence the MAN got it. The Panther had the most compact complex engine and engine layout possible. Several cought fire while disembarking off the train at the front. Look, in retrospective, Guderian was prophetic. The emphasis on producing complex and low-numbered hevies was detrimental to Blitzkrieg tactics. I am willing to inform you that Poland and France were conquered by tankettes (Pz. I) and training tanks (Pz. II) and less than 100 Pz. III and IV during Fall Gelb, and divisions constisting entirely of captured Czech tanks (models 35 and 38). The Pz II was used on Eastern front until mid-1942 in front combat role. During that time, those Panzer divisions encountered and defeated much better equipment (Char B1/bis, Matildas, T-34s, KVs) because of coordinated and well executed use of massed tanks attacking at a Schwerpunkt, using the better mobility (tactical and strategic) to cut off and surround enemy forces, making the elimination of enemy pockets much easier than in frontal assault.

Your view on military operations is obviously based on rock-paper-scissor games and fiction. After continually replying with false information and irrelevant speculations, your knowledge of the subject has been exposed as very limited, so don't spam this serious subject any more. Your view of ideal tank warfare as "selective usage of few advanced machines" is something anyone possesing even the slightest idea of the subject can only laugh at.

On the casualty and losses notification: A loss for the Germans was: A)a total writeoff in their possession, B)a damaged one NOT in their possession anymore, C)an abandoned perfectly operational one NOT in their possession anymore. Guess what, the same goes for the Soviets! Magic, isn't it? Yet, the Germans were the attacking/retreating afterwards ones that time, so when you say losses for the Soviets, they were left with the battlefield, therefore implying that those weren't the damaged ones. For example, Soviet losses of KVs and T-34 in the opening of Barbarossa were almost total, yet German troops didn't even claim many destroyed. They broke down, were abandoned, blown up after being cut off, ran out of fuel or ammunition. A fraction were destroyed in direct combat

The numbers Glantz gives are sometimes HIGHER than numbers CLAIMED by German front lines (especially tankers and pilots, because they were perfect propaganda tools), which were so notouriously overclaiming everything, that for the purpose of propaganda, those numbers were reduced by between 50% and 100% (Otto Carius, need I say more), as not even the propaganda department could afford such lies, after nasty surprises during Battle of Britain.

Have you read my statements? You shouldn't reply without reading through. To prove you have a valid point, PAUL SIEBERT or STONE PROPHET, you might try to answer just one of the questions I asked, or address any of the statements I made. To make it easy, try answering any of these: Answer how could the Germans, whilst attacking a well-prepared and entrenched enemy at time and locations known to the enemy, devastate Soviets, whilst the Soviets, even when achieving complete tactical and strategic surprise, overwhelming force concentration on an unsuspecting enemy, take again devastating losses?

How could the Germans attack a several month entenchment worth of defences (with anti-tank emplacements, tank ditches, minefields, pillboxes etc.), without air superiority, or preparatory artillery bombardment to soften the defences, while possessing fewer men, guns, planes and tanks (of which only less than 10% were your beloved Pathers and Tigers, the rest were at most comparable to T-34), at a time known to the Soviets, along routes known to the Soviets and thoroughly mined, and still inflict multiple times heavier losses than sustained? I personally can't imagine a worse attacking scenario. If you can't answer, I suggest you refrain from further embarassing replies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.119.40 (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 109.60.119.40 (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Original poster
 * If all what you say can be found in reliable sources, please, provide them.
 * Re my clueless...
 * You write that Pz. IV weaknesses were non-sloped armour, lower mobility, weaker suspension, thin side armour, weaker main armament (Pz. III)), except the Pz. IV F2/G onwards (L/40 or 48 StuK). Let's is if you are right.
 * T-34's sloped armour became ineffective after new generation projectiles with metalloceramical heads had been introduced. New projectiles were not reflected from the sloped armour, so 45mm frontal armour of T-34 provided little support against anti-tank weapon. In contrast, Pz IV had 80 mm frontal armour, which is more than 45·(1+1/√2)
 * In 1942-43, the main modifications of Pz IV were G and H, both with 7.5 cm KwK 40 main gun, which was superior to the short barrel T-34-76 gun.
 * Re thin side armour, Panthers had the same problem, however, they were formidable opponents during frontal attacks.
 * Re other disadvantages, you forgot to mention numerous advantages: excellent optics (in contrast to the 1943 version of T-34, which was almost blind), long range main gun, good conditions for the tank's crew and the presence of the fifth crew member (which improved crew's performance), much better opportunities for crew's evacuation (which made crew survival more probable, thereby preserving well trained personnel), and so on, and so forth.
 * I do not want to comment on your other points because this page is not a forum. If you have good sources to discuss, feel free to do that, otherwise I see no reason in continuation of the discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You continually make wrong statements, provide false information, and misrepresent my statements. When corrected, you keep looking for some potential errors in my posts. You might want to stop doing that. If you read carefully I already expressed that from F2 onwards the Pz. IV obivously had some rather big advantages over T-34, because I noted some of it's weaknesses and still claimed to be a match in terms of performance, with a slight superiority after G. That is only on technical grounds, not including other variables(deployment, leadership, crew). In my first post I explained that the armor match-up is actually of lesser importance than the ability to fire and hit something first. The crew is the weapon. I point out relatively thin side armour, you come up with front armor thickness. Oh and another thing. Only a relatively small area ( of Pz. IV G/H/I/J had 80 mm plate (glacis plate only), the rest was less, including the turret (liability late war). The T-34 original model 1940 had 45-47 mm hull armor (front, similar/less side and rear). The later models 1941, 1942, 1943 (not official designations actually) had more, no including field modifications of applique armor. Moreover, battlefield analysis identified the turret as the most struck part, so the later ones had improved turret protection, since most of the hits ended there. The benefits of sloped armor is that for the almost flat trajectory projectiles (kinetic AP penetrators), it provides increased armor protection and improved chances of ricochetting, for the same armor thickness (you got it right with the formula actually) than boxy hulls of earlier German tanks. The capped rounds you pointed out defeated face-hardened armour, negating the advantage of it, not the sloped (that's why the Germans discontinued its use after 1943). If the sloped armor is useless, then why did the Germans so readily embrace it afterwards? It was more difficult to make, yet every single of their later designs had sloped armor. (Hetzer, Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdpanther, Pz. VI ausf. B, Pz. V, various E prototypes) The "short barreled T-34 gun" was prototype armament for the 1940 model (L-11 gun, found troublesome immediately), and was replaced with F-34 even before it was authorised. Many were retrofitted. The F-34 is less effective than the 75 mm KwK 40, but not that much (KwK 40 length 48*75 mm, F-34 42.5*76.2mm, worse penetration because of lower propellant content/lower velocity [I've found conflicting information on wiki-article about Pz. IV, and a separate on it's gun, the one on Pz. IV posted wrong technical data on PzGr. 39 and KwK 40 L/43 and wrong penetration figures]. The model T-34 1943 was the best one (of the 76.2 mm family), with revised hexagonal turret, stronger armor, better hatches, and improved commander vision. The T-34 was a heavier design than Pz. IV, maintaning around 8 tonnes bigger weight. Overall, the mobility and protection (as a whole) were on the T-34's side, while the offensive systems and ergonomic layout were in favour of Pz.IV's. But all of this is secondary to someone finally answering my questions above. Try this one instead. Were the Germans retarded then? Your US army employee self-proclaimed "Soviet expert" Glantz gives us his interpretations of another mans interpretations of Soviet records (which by the way, you could pay to receive practically everything you are particularly interested in and have a look at yourself), that the Germans outperformed even the succes of Barbarossa in terms of casualty exchange rate, bled enemy reserves dry, yet somehow they retreated and fell back, proclaimed a defeat, and Guderian wrote in his memoirs that: "never will the Wehrmacht have the initiative again". Far worse scores and results were proclaimed victories, but not Zitadelle, which was immediately realised as a disaster by Wehrmacht generals. But no, according to Glantz, they just should have continued, and in a weeks time, there would be no Red Army at all. Glantz ouperformed Goebbels' propaganda by a fair margin, trust me.

The entire section of Eastern Front on Wikipedia is very bad, heavily biased, not even attempting to be objective, almost as if a ministry of propaganda bulletin, either intentionally(I hope not) or just because of pure ignorance and laziness. I would certainly point out the articles on Finlands performance, especially the airforce. Try reading the wiki articles on Winter and "Continuation war" and you will suddenly realise why are the Finns a laughing stock in military historian circles. Someone might even wonder why didn't the Finns replace the Spartans as warrior ethos society afer reading through their claims.

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121953, read the posts by actual historians cross-checking statistics and archives of both sides, and a Finnish nationalist in his blind, moronnic fanaticism. I personally can confirm that the translations the man posted are true, and exist in declassified Soviet records. I mean really, German kill-death ratio reducing to 1.5:1 in 1944, Finns in the horrible, probably worst US fighter plane, F2A Buffalo 26:1 versus fighters designed 8 years later. Again, why did everyone (USMC, US Army, RAAF) discard their Buffaloes, when it could obviously outperform Spitfires V and IX, LaGG-3, La-5, Yak-9, Yak-3 (and obviously Bf-109F/G/K and FW-190A which the Germans reported to be well matched with the opposite fighers). C'mon people, drop the fairytales and do some cross-examination! Why are the books given such privileged status? People lie and write down their lies, too. The retarded Finnish claimed shooting down P-38 Lightings on more than one occasion, which was not even supplied to the USSR under Lend-lease, Otto Carius bragged taking out an entire regiment of IS-1 on a single day singlehandendly, of which none were even deployed in his area, British coastal AA batteries outperformed the inland ones by 300%, Germans overclaimed Battle of Britain 200%, British around 150% (during the war, rectified later). PEOPLE LIE!

And, by the way, I do read both Russian and German-I decided that I did not trust German and Western accounts of the fighting in the USSR, and was determined to read the Russian language accounts to check them against the German, and later on, "interpreted" Western. Even before the Soviet archives opened up (Glantz wrote much of his work before they did, so I was wondering was he a secret operative?), this turned out to be a good idea, and to this day, if I come across a book that claims to be history of the war between Germany and the Soviet Union (Glantz), yet doesn't specifically state where that information is located in the archives or records, but instead "is based on personal interpretations of someone else's personal interpretations of the records", I can immediately tell you, it isn't even remotely close to truth. What is it there to "interpret" about numbers and figures? I had no similar problems doing my researches.

By now I have identified the education and mentality of people using the Wikipedia as a fertile ground for these articles, and the absence of answers to my logically asked questions and remarks fits perfectly. The narrow-minded views, dogmatic beliefs, single-sided accounts are not the way of academic articles and works, but are obviously the way to go for modern brainwashing propaganda. What is even worse, is that there are mentally impaired (retarded) people claiming that Glantz is lying and is actually pro-Soviet meaning that he is reducing casualties (never enough blood for fanatics), and some books and shows like "Zitadelle-stolen German victory" (?!!!!) published and released in the West are simply, fiction. Wikipedia credibility won't be questioned by uninformed, uneducated or clueless readers. They will read it, possibly even memorise it, afterwards quote it, furthering the vicious cycle, if they are presented with the wrong facts. Don't even bother replying. The windmills have proven to be a tough adversary. 94.253.150.112 (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Don Quixote

Not a forum; no personal attacks
}}
 * This page is not a forum on history. Please do not use it as such; and kindly do not use it to attack Wikipedia editors. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ideology of the Leadership of the Combatants
The current opening line of the article is "The Battle of Kursk took place when German and Soviet forces confronted each other[...]"

Shouldn't it be either "Nazi and Soviet forces" or "German and Russian forces"? Why is it that the essentially Russian forces are labeled as "Soviets" while the Germans are just "Germans" and not "Nazis"?

The Wikipedia article for The Battle of Stalingrad says "Nazi Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union"

Should there not be some consistency? Anarchaos (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In Russian, "Soviet" means Council, and refers to some variant of democracy. "Soviet" had no direct relation to Communism, and first Soviets were created not by Communists (and were lead not by Communists). To emphasise ideological opposition, one has to write "Nazi and Communist forces". To show citizenship, one has to write "German and Soviet". "German and Russian" is incorrect because only 50% of Soviet personnel at Kursk were ethnic Russians. "Nazi and Soviet" is incorrect because the opponents of the Red Army were not only SS troops, but Wehrmacht also.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all Nazi-commanded were German, either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_non-Germans_in_the_German_armed_forces_during_World_War_II Also, not every member of the Red Army was a member of or participated in a Soviet. So, all of the combatants on the Nazi-commanded side were neither all Nazis, nor all Germans. All of the combatants on the Soviet-commanded side were neither all Russian, nor all Soviet. Anarchaos (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The official name of Germany at the time was Deutsches Reich, which can be translated into English as the German Empire or the German State. In 1944 German postage stamps used the name Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Empire).  Its official name name was never Nazi Germany.
 * The official name of the USSR was Союз Советских Социалистических Республик (Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik), which in English is rendered either the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the Soviet Union.  The Russian Soviet Socialist Republic was part of the USSR.
 * It seems perfectly reasonable to refer to the German armed forces as the Germans, even though some of them were foreign citizens. It is not reasonable to refer to German allies serving in their own national armies as Germans.
 * I cannot see any objections to referring to the Red Army as Soviet troops; the country was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soviet
 * 1. Pertaining to or resembling a soviet (council).
 * 2. Relating to the ideology, culture or politics of the Soviet Union.
 * I can find no article that suggests that all members of the Red Army participated in Soviet Councils, as per definition 1. Therefore the term "Soviet Forces" as per definition #2 would tacitly suggest that all members of the Red Army approved of or believed in or supported the ideology, culture or politics of the Soviet Union. I'm just thinking that were I a dissident citizen of the USSR, I would not want to be labeled a "soviet" if I did not believe in the Soviet ideology. I see this issue as a parallel to the objection that some members of the German armed forces would have to being referred to as Nazis, when that was the ideology of their leadership, and not themselves personally. Anarchaos (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The country was called the Soviet Union.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The occupied territory of Poland became incorporated into the Greater German Reich. The name of country which had previously been "Poland" then became "Greater German Reich". It would be inappropriate to call Polish citizens of the Greater German Reich "Germans", even tho the country was called the Greater German Reich. The name or ideology of your ruler or leader or state does not automatically grant to its citizens or members qualities that they don't actually have simply by the act of a name change. Conquered Poles were not German, German soldiers are not necessarily Nazis, and citizens of the USSR who don't believe in Communism should not be considered "Soviets".Anarchaos (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Only some part of western Poland was incorporated into the Reich (the center became a General Governorship, a kind of protectorate); the incorporation was not recognized (neither de facto nor de jure) by most world states; German citizenship was not granted to the overwhelming majority of Polish citizens. Therefore, it is simply incorrect to call them "Germans".--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with the wording of "German" and "Soviet". Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How is calling all Soviet-commanded forces "Soviets" different from calling all Nazi-commanded forces "Nazis"?Anarchaos (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I already explained that. The word "German" refers not to ethnicity, but to citizenship: even most German Jews saw themselves as "Germans of Moses law". In contrast, the word "Russian" referred to ethnicity only, and the word "Soviet" was used for citizenship. Starting from 1940s, the word "Soviet" (in contrast to "Nazi") had no direct relation to ideology (the word "Communist" was used for that), therefore the ideological counterpart of the word "Nazi" should be "Communist" (although that is not completely correct: thus, Communist Party had no its own military units, similar to SS, labor camps in the USSR were not subordinated to some SS-like structure).
 * To summarise, the word "Soviet" (among other meanings) is an umbrella term all citizens of the USSR irrespective to their ethnicity, and, in that sense, it is close to contemporary meaning of the words "French", "German", etc. By contrast, "Russians" as a jargon, used mostly in the West as a synonym of "Soviet". It is simply inaccurate.
 * Similarly, only few military units at Kursk were Nazi commanded: Das Reich, Totenkopf and some other divisions. Other units were ordinary Wechrmacht divisions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The "ethnicity" of "French" can be thought to include, among other ethnicities; Basques, Swiss, Belgian, Luxembourgian, Dutch, Briton, etc etc, depending on the context. The "German" ethnicity, depending on the historical and territorial contexts, can include any territory that a German-led army had conquered. As I explained, Poles would technically become "Germans", as per Paul Siebert's definition, because German/Nazi leaders once occupied Polish territory. I am not Polish, but I would object to being labeled "German" because at some point in history, German-led armies conquered the territory in which I was originally born/raised.
 * As to Mr. Siebert's assertion that Wehrmacht units should not be considered "Nazi-commanded", who ultimately commanded them, if not Nazis? Was Hitler and the Nazi Party not ultimately responsable for the actions of the forces under their control? If the Nazis did not command the forces at the Battle of Kursk, who ultimately commanded them? Anarchaos (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anarchaos. You seem to have completely missed the point.  The official name of one country (in English) was the Germany (or the German Empire).  The official name (in English) of the other country was the Soviet Union (or the Union of Soviet Social Republics).  The armed forces were the national armed forces of these countries.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the point that you think the official name of the state that commands the combatants should label all of the subordinate combatants with the same label as the leadership. I disagree. The official name of the state of a portion of the Congo is "Democratic Republic of the Congo". Should we consider all citizens of the Congolese State "democratic" because their state included that term? Should we call all citizens of East Germany "Democratic Republicans" because those words existed in the title of "The German Democratic Republic"? Anarchaos (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re Poles, you do not understand a legal aspects of occupation: occupying powers are deemed as foreign, so occupation does not change a citizenship status. The example is wrong.
 * Re Nazi forces, etc, this is a general question that affects many articles. We have already had a similar discussion elsewhere, however, if you want to renew it, maybe, you should go to the Milhist project page?
 * Re Congo and GDR, in both cases, the pointer to ethnicity is present in the countrie's name, so "Congolese" and "(East) Germans" is correct. In contrast, no reference to some specific ethnicity exists in the name of the USSR, so to call all Soviet peoples "Russians" would be totally incorrect. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Mr Siebert, I am unclear as to some of your positions. Would you call a member of the Stasi a member of the "Democratic Republican" intelligence agency? If North Korea were to invade South Korea, would you say "Democratic Korean Forces invade South Korea"? As for the example of Germans occupying Poland and its legal aspects, does the victor of a war not ultimately decide any official "legal aspects of occupation"? As an encyclopedia, should we use the rhetoric and words of a military hierarchy, or should we simply describe the events and circumstances as they happened? As of yet, you have not answered my assertion that not all members of the Red Army subscribed to Soviet ideology, and thus should not be considered "Soviet". To be honest, I have not read the Milhist project page, but would you not agree that caling all German and allied soldiers "Nazis" is analogous to calling all Red Army (and air force, navy, intel etc) "Soviets"?Anarchaos (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see any need to change our style of nomenclature to deprecate the use of "Soviet" to refer to forces of the USSR. Thanks for bringing up your concern, but it does not have the support of other editors here. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Anarchaos. Re Stasi, it was either (East) German intelligence agency, or the intelligence agency of German Democratic Republic (the later name is more official). A situation with North Korea is the same. By writing "Democratic" in both cases we just refer to the official names of those countries.
 * Re Poland, your knowledge is obsolete. The victor cannot decide legal aspects of occupation, because starting from the beginning of XX century they are regulated by Hague (and later by Geneva) conventions, so the rights of the occupying states are strictly limited. The citizenship of population of occupied territories is no affected by the fact of occupation.
 * Re "Soviet ideology", I am not sure such ideology existed. You cannot say, for example that such thing as "democratic ideology" (as some specific form of ideology) exist. It would be more correct to speak about "Communist ideology". In that sense, a twin of the word "Nazi" would be "Communist". With regard to "German", that word has a double meaning: it refers to both citizenship and ethnicity. I can say: "this Chinese is German" (i.e. this person of Chinese origin is a German citizen), however, I could not say about some ethnic Ukrainian citizen of the USSR: "this Ukrainian is Russian". (Moreover, it is incorrect even now: in Russian, two different words exist to describe ethnicity and citizenship "Russkii" and "Rossiyanin", the first one denotes ethnicity, and the second one denotes citizenship).
 * In summary, "Nazi vs Communist" is correct, "German vs Soviet" is correct when we speak about German and Soviet armies, governments, commanders, etc, "German vs Russian" is correct when we speak about ethnic groups. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

German victory?
Based on the logic exhibited in the talk page of the Battle of Jutland article, Kursk should be described as a German victory.

After all, their losses were fewer and they quit the battlefield.

Sauce for the goose...:-) 89.207.1.20 (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We go by what the vast majority of Reliable Sources say, not someone's Original Research 'opinion.' HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

706 vs 760 tanks lost
In the box there is the number 760 of german tanks lost while in the citation (source 15) there is talk about 706 tanks lost. Someone with the source should check which of those numbers is correct and fix the other one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.222.80 (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No one will ever know which is correct or even what "correct" would mean. Once you dig into the details of how tank losses are actually tracked, you see that it makes no sense to quibble over relatively small discrepancies. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * while it is true, that tank losses will never be known correct, i think, that a wikipedia article should be consistent, especially if a number is given and in its explanation a source is linked with another number given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.250.93 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In the cited book, the figure of 760 is given, so i corrected it. Obviously someone made a typo when writing this. StoneProphet (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

numbers
An editor wrote this in the body of the article, in the area regarding the size of the opposing forces. I'm moving it here: http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm - the numbers quoted below are not supported by current research. Herostratus (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Quotation not found as is in citation
The quote below doesn't exist, as quoted below, in the cited source:

"According to the situation of the Soviet-German front, the enemy will attempt to cut off the Kursk salient, encircle and destroy the Soviet forces of Central Front and Voronezh Front deployed here. At the moment, both fronts only have 15 tank divisions, meanwhile the German forces at Belgorod – Kharkov direction have alreadly gathered 17 tank divisions, most of them include the new types of tanks such as Tiger I, improvised Panther, Jagdpanzer IV and some kinds of tank destroyers such as Marder II, Marder III."

It's easy to locate where in the text it was lifted from. The overall message matches that from the Google translation of the text, but some of the numbers and names are completely manufactured, or at least nonexistent in the translation. EyeTruth (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I translated it using several online translators, to at least get a good idea of what it was saying, and also identified the relevant portion of it. I then checked Google Books for any English version of Zhukov's memoirs. I searched for "Belgorod-Kharkov " which is the one phrase in the relevant portion that would remain the same in any English rendition of the original text. I got what was needed.EyeTruth (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

More is not better
We continue to have problems with this article expanding. It is growing to the point of becoming unreadable. A number of style problems are creeping in as well. Wiki links should be limited to the first mention of the person or topic. A second link would be acceptable if there was a significant space between the two mentions, and with an article now at 164 kilobytes I suppose that is a distinct possibility. We also should be more guarded in the language we are using. However the primary problem in this article, from my perspective, is that it is trying to include too much, and needs to be substantially paired back. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The readable prose is around 95 KB, which is still within the tolerable range, albeit barely. Once the walls of essay for the three Operations are exported to their new articles, the size of this article will drop enormously. Besides, half of the recent edits was just addition of more citations, which doesn't noticeably affect readability. Also, two of the three subsections of the "Background" were virtually stubs, and one of those two subsections yet remains a stub. Any recent edits that involved addition of new info has been strictly restricted to the "Background" and "Prelude" sections, which are the sections that would stay intact during the splitting, and hence it makes sense to flesh out the stubs. Also the "Prelude" section and "Soviet preparation" subsections have outlined almost every essential information, so those shouldn't significantly expand further in the near future. EyeTruth (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: the German preparation subsection has outlined most of the essential information. EyeTruth (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In your last major addition to German plans and preparations, you wiki linked to Walther Model three times in the space of 1,000 kilobytes. Why did you do that? Gunbirddriver (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I link a term only once in a paragraph, preferably in its first occurrence, unless for a short paragraph for which a wikilink of the term already appears in the preceding paragraph; any thing else is a mistake. Besides, that issue actually has less to do with readability and more to do with article size. Going back through our past discussions, I've come to understand that you are wrongfully equating the article size to the readability of the article. Citations, wikilinks and footnotes/endnotes have very negligible effect on readability, and tables or pictures even enhance it. And as for article size, wikipedia can handle whatever you've got unless it messes with readability or causes technical issues. EyeTruth (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The standard for linking is once in the infobox and once in the main body with perhaps once in the lede. Once per paragraph is ludicrous. Yes, Gunbirddriver was getting mixed up between total article length and prose length, which was about 65K before any text was split off, IIRC. Long, but acceptable as the 100k standard is for prose length.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Not just simply once per paragraph, but more like once per long paragraph. When I do it right, it should amount to once per section most of the times. But I often get carried away when doing the initial typing, as it can be onerous to keep track of it. I come around some times to do some cleanup, and by all means, anyone can help in the cleanup if they wish. EyeTruth (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * EyeTruth, I appreciate your reading, your enthusiasm for the topic, and your desire to improve the article, but you were just advised what the wikipedia standards are for wiki links, and your response is "Not just simply once per paragraph, but more like once per long paragraph. When I do it right, it should amount to once per section most of the times." When you do it right?  EyeTruth, you are not doing it right.  That is what is being said.  At 20:09 you wiki linked to rasputitsa for the third time.  That is, after I mentioned that we had a problem with multiple wiki links, and Sturmvogel at 19:03 clarified for you what the standard was, you still went ahead and wiki linked rasputitsa for the third time.  I am having a hard time understanding that, and I have to say it makes it challenging to be having this much trouble communicating. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if the wikilink for rasputitsa caused a problem. It was a new section and it made sense to link it again since it is not uncommon for a reader to just read a section of interest in an article and move on. Do you disagree? But as for doing the linking right, IIRC, the rule for linking in English Wikipedia has always been that the link should be helpful to the reader and not get in the way or cause confusion, which is fairly subjective. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that because I know that was the standing consensus among editors when I first started editing on here, before taking some break. EyeTruth (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

PS. I think you're the only one having much trouble communicating, although I can't exactly speak for Sturmvogel 66. I think I'm reasonably considerate when it comes to accommodating the opinions of others, and I'm often more than willing to compromise if they are sensible. EyeTruth (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's step back a bit; what we have here is not a failure to communicate (cue Cool Hand Luke reference), but rather, I think, a difference in standards. Gunbirddriver and I prefer to minimize links, lest we see an ocean of blue in the text, and also, at least for me, as I tend to see it as kind of insulting as it implies that I can't remember what I just referenced 5 minutes ago. I understand that's my idiosyncratic reaction, and certainly not intended to be read as such by editors who have a different philosophy about links. At any rate, here's the policy from WP:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I've found this script useful to identify overlinking during my GANs and FACs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, thanks for your input which is a lot more helpful. I think I've read that article you linked above (or probably another similar one) some time ago, and that has since guided my approach to linking, even after my recent return to Wikipedia-editing. I'm certain in the past the consensus was something along the lines of one wikilink for a term in one section, although I currently can't see any guideline like that in the article. But don't you think it makes sense to link a term again in a new section since it is not uncommon for a reader to just read a section of interest in an article and move on? EyeTruth (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I read the article carefully, and found the thing about linking in new sections. It is apparently still the same old guidelines, and there is nothing wrong with linking a term again in a new section. But yes, it seems I'm short of the standards in a few ways. I will tighten up. EyeTruth (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but you seem to be defining section very literally. I could see multiple linking if one usage was at the very beginning of the article and 60K later it's used again, but many of the sections here are not very big. I'm sure some readers do dip in and out of articles only reading sections that interest them or strike their fancy, but I'm not sure that's true of even most readers. I've seen some things that suggest most readers only read the lede and maybe the rest of their first screen before moving on. I'd like to get this article into shape for a good article nomination over the summer and that means that we'll have to meet MOS standards like the one that I referenced above. Same thing with converting measurements, standardizing our cite formats, etc.
 * I hope that you'll be in the mood to write about Rumyantsev sometime soon as I'd like to get a better idea of where we stand with the main article. 80K+ is still bigger than ideal so we may need to break out some of those subarticles like north and south offensives, etc., sooner than I'd expected.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Beautiful. My unspoken intention has always been to get this article (and possibly all three subarticles) to A-class, in addition to being very informative and still readable, by the end of this summer. I'm happy to know that another active editor shares my intention. Yes, as I already stated above, I need to tighten up on linking, and I will soon get to work on Rumyantsev. EyeTruth (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why stop at A class? If it's good enough for that, it's only a little step further to FAC! I'm glad to hear that this is also a goal of yours as well as it will make more tolerable the tedious business bring every little thing up to MOS standards. I'd prefer to have the article about half this size whenever we decide to go for a GAN and further as that would be much more manageable. I'm also rethinking about moving this article to Operation Citadel as Battle of Kursk is the more common name.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

One step at a time, and it is only a matter of time to get the article to that class. Operation Citadel is the Battle of Kursk, and so is Kutuzov and Rumyantsev. This is just akin to Blue and Stalindrad. IIRC, initially Operation Blue redirected to the Battle of Stalingrad article, until it made enough sense to editors that the redirection was fundamentally flawed although reasonable. I would support splitting Citadel from this article, but as I already stated earlier, I wouldn't push for it yet (or never) as the current redirection is with a good reason (although flawed). EyeTruth (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Time to split?
This article is at 65K of text already and still has significant lacunae. Perhaps it's time to split the article along traditional western historiography of the Battle of Kursk, the Orel counter-attack (whatever its Soviet codename was) and 4th Kharkov covering the battle for that city in August. Thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article is getting pretty bulky.  We are currently at 154 kilobytes of text.  The intention is that articles should be readable in a single sitting, which the administrators believe is probably 35 to 50 kilobytes in length, with a strong indication to split if the article surpasses 100 kilobytes of text.  We could trim down a bit of the supposition, quotes of questionable value (do we really need to know that Stavka wanted to bleed 'em dry?) and general verbage, but a split is needed if we are to get back into the article guidelines. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * PS Should Stavka be italicised in every mention, or ever? And does it seem the article makes excessive use of wiki-links?  Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think "Stavka" is now popularly recognized by WWII history audience. Many WWII history books published in the past 7 years don't italicize the term anymore. The same goes for "Wehrmacht". EyeTruth (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sturmvogel 66's suggestion. I think Citadel should just be summarized in this article, just like Kutuzov and Commander Rumyantsev. The Battle of Kursk can then focus on all the preparations made for all three campaigns with a good summary of the campaigns. Then a new article focusing on just the battles of Citadel will be created (articles for Kutuzov and Commander Rumyantsev already exist). Everything from the beginning of the Prelude section up to the end of the Termination of Operation Citadel section in the Battle of Kursk article would be exported to the new article. This would not only help the size issue, but will also help establish a very neutral perspective of the Battle of Kursk (Citadel ended long before the fighting in the Kursk sector ended). Then the Battle of Kursk article can reduced as shown below. Any thought?

EyeTruth (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the Battle of Kursk article as you outlined it is really necessary as that's mostly only relevant to Citadel and much less so to the other two subsequent operations, especially Rumyantsev which doesn't even happen until August. (There's a reason that the Germans call it 4th Kharkov.) Each of the subsequent operation articles would need their own lengthy introductory paragraphs to set the stage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that the Battle of Kursk article should only briefly summarize the three operations that constitute the battle. Then any detailed exposition of the combat phase of the operations should go in their own unique articles. Currently the Battle of Kursk article is almost only relevant to Citadel, but it shouldn't be. Although it seems majority of the editors have more interest in the German perspective, that is not the case with many credible books on the battle out there. Also, the background section of the articles for each of the operations don't need to be another wall of words (Operation Typhoon article is a good example). Also, the operations could all be introduced as "part of the battle of Kursk.... starting XX Month 1943" to point the reader back to Battle of Kursk for a complete view of the big picture if needed. Or we can simply do this to help keep the backgrounds short: EyeTruth (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Operation Citadel currently redirects to this page, with the disambiguation page stating Operation Citadel refers to The Battle of Kursk, July and August 1943 (World War II). I believe most understand Operation Citadel and the Battle of Kursk to be interchangeably referring to the German summer offensive of 1943, but do not include the Russian offensive and the Russian capture of Kharkov that followed. I believe this page should focus on the German offensive, and the following Russian offensive should be moved off to its own article and briefly summarized here.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "I believe most understand Operation Citadel and the Battle of Kursk to be [interchangeable]... but do not include the Russian offensive and the Russian capture of Kharkov that followed." Many authors will not completely agree with you. Kutuzov  and Commander Rumyantsev, just like Uranus and Little Saturn in literature on the battle of Stalingrad, are usually covered as part of the battle of Kursk; or at least, as the payoff of the battle. In some books, the number of pages devoted to the Soviet counteroffensives can be as much as a third of that devoted to Citadel. After all, Kutuzov started before Citadel was called off and was directed against the rear of the 9th Army. But indeed many associate the battle more with Citadel than with Kutuzov or Commander Rumyantsev. I see the sense in leaving Operation Citadel to redirect to this article.
 * Then maybe we can make new articles that each cover the two sectors of the Citadel offensives. Check the revised sample structure for this article above. That should cut off many paragraphs from the Battle of Kursk article. I don't know if you guys have any other ideas that can significantly slash the size of this article. EyeTruth (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. Since the battle of Kursk was won by the Soviets, it is more correct to use Soviet name and Soviet time frame. However, it is true that many Cold war era western sources, which were written based on easily available German data, and, therefore, viewed the events mostly from the German perspective, preferred to use Zitadelle, not "Battle of Kursk". Fortunately, now we have an opportunity to fix this bias.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The victor is irrelevant, the name belongs to the side that started the offensive, just like Case Blue. I'm still going to use Operation Goodwood, even it was a British defeat.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is currently just over 158 kilobytes. I do not believe it is helpful to be thinking the article should cover everything, as that is an impossibility.  As editors we need to improve the article, and in this instance that means picking and choosing what should be included to cover the event adequately and still have a readable article.  References are provided, and they both show where the information came from and allow the reader to search further if they so choose.  As stated above, we are way over the guidelines for length.  Sturmvogel 66's recommendation at the top of this thread was a good one, but that was given back when the article was at some 66 kilobytes.  Someone is going to have to go in and do a lot of editing (cutting) of what is in this article if it is to approach the goal.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Sturmvogel 66's suggestion. The article still has significant lacunae; as in very plenty. Even if all the aspects that are yet to be covered are stripped of all secondary details and then added, this article will still hit 150 K.

There are just so many crucial aspects that have not yet been covered or even mentioned. Nothing has been mentioned about the severe lack of infantry in the Wehrmacht (besides the brief mention in Zhukov's quote) and Model's ceaseless call for "more infantry", and its subsequent decisive effects (like having to divert mechanized and armoured formations to screen flanks simply because there weren't enough infantry formations to spare for the job); nor anything on the Luftwaffe's intentional plan to maintain air superiority by forming an air wall over there ground forces instead of trying to destroy the Red Air Force on the ground at the start of the campaign just like in their past offensives; nor is there any mention of Operation Habicht and Operation Panther; nor is there any mention of the effects the several postponements had on the Soviet commanders and forces, and the temptation (and serious plans) to attack in June. The air war over the salient has barely been touched. Nothing has been mentioned about the massive battles that played out on the far right flank of Manstein's main force (4th Panzer Army), which was one of the factors that turned Prokhorovka into a useless German victory (if it is even worth calling a victory). Everyone of these are covered by at least two of the four books I've digested on Kursk. And these are just some of the major topics not yet covered that are essential to providing the complete picture of the Battle of Kursk. And yes, even if lacking extensive details, a complete picture of the battle is the ultimate goal of this article. EyeTruth (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not going to be workable. See: Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A rule of thumb
 * Readability issues

That is why I said it must be divided. Also, as I already pointed out, this article as it is quite unbalanced. The battle of Kursk goes from 4/5 June to 23 July, and for some, as far as 23 August. But Citadel, for all practicality, ended on 12 July (the extra four days was just for jokes). Yet this article is virtually just Operation Citadel. I understand that is the way it is popularly understood, so I'm not gonna push against it yet. Anyways, as for the major issue at hand, this article has to be sliced up, as that is the primary step in reducing the size of this article. Once that is done, then this article can be succinctly summarized. We should start thinking of how the article will be cut up, and the subsequent trimming. (I feel like we are all saying the same thing but for some reason can't get the thing moving). EyeTruth (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not saying the same thing, though there are some things that we agree on. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the goal of the article is to give a complete picture of the battle, and after going from 66K to 158K, you have added perhaps half of what you think should be added in order to give what you believe would be the complete picture.  I am saying that completeness is not the goal.  It is intended to be an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive treatise.  Therefore care must be used in deciding what should be said and what should be left out.  For example, in the section on Termination of Operation Citadel, which should be a brief statement on the German decision to halt, we now have a section titled Reasons for the failure of Citadel, with five experts listed, each of whom are used to provide multiple reasons for the failure of the operation, for a total of 6,770 bytes of text.  That information should not be under the heading Termination of Operation Citadel, but would be better placed in a summary on the battle.  Furthermore, the information should be reduced in size greatly, with the sources provided, of course, as a reference and guide to further reading.
 * I do not want to just go back and forth. I perceive we have a significant difference in view in what should be included, and I think we need other editors involved to provide some balance as to how best to improve the article. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This article should give a complete picture but not necessarily with exhaustive exposition. And by complete picture, I don't mean "an exhaustive treatise" (don't put words in my mouth) nor should it have everything that is associated with the battle. Rather, any factor, aspect, or event that is crucial to the development and outcome of the battle should be a candidate for inclusion. To summarize my view on this: I'm confident that simply cutting off whole passages or paragraphs will leave nothing but a half-baked article and will not even reduce the size significantly compared to slicing it up into new articles. And here is why.

As of 16 April 2013, before I started expanding the article, it was at ~108 kB (~105 KB) and was virtually an empty chest. Even Sturmvogel 66 recognized that, and since then it has only improved slightly and now stands at ~158 kB (~155 KB). A rough estimate of my net addition would be 25-30 KB, and that accounts for at least 5 KB of false (and uncited) material I cleaned out. And most of my edits, except for the Operation at the southern face section, was simply adding citation to already existing text and polishing it to mirror the message of the cited source (and you can attest to that as we've disputed over whether strictly preserving the message of the source matters or not). Currently, only a few sections (and subsections) are decently in order: 1.2, 2, 4, 8, 9; and I've never edited the last two. The rest are in an abysmal state, cluttered with uncited material, misinformation, false data, lacunae and poor prose. So go figure.

But I must confess that the Operation at the southern face section is very large and maybe too detailed for this article, all thanks to my edits. The whole section amounts to ~32 kB (and my edit will be estimated at 15-20 kB) and that is the reason I paused with adding or removing anything until a decision is reached regarding how to resolve the size issue. Sincerely, my intentions for this article is to fill in all notable lacunae, preserve adherence to the source and make it readable. I don't think it deserves to be antagonized, and I believe it can be accomplished. I also want to size down the article to make it readable just as much as you want to. What we need right now is to get more people, more ideas and work on it. EyeTruth (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. We'll wait for further comments. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. But we should actually work to get this rolling, and not sit back and watch. We won't be waiting for eternity. EyeTruth (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That would mean I should start reducing the size of the article by cutting down the text. I am ready to begin the project, but it would seem best to wait, otherwise there will certainly be an editing conflict. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm also ready to start slicing up the article into new articles, and also join you in reducing the size of the current article by cutting down the text. But more importantly, we should actually work to get this rolling; as in, get more people and ideas involved. EyeTruth (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

PS. I will follow up with Sturmvogel 66. I'm guessing you brought in Paul Siebert; follow up too. EyeTruth (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What I suggest is that we split the article into three parts now, Kursk, Kutuzov, and Rumyantsev, and see how it looks, saving the cutting of text until we've got a better handle on sizes, etc. We have plenty of time to further split these core three articles further as needed. I'd envision that each of the main three can be semi-standardized as EyeTruth outlined his concept above for the main Battle of Kursk article with preparations and opposing forces sections, etc. That will hardest to do with Kutuzov, but there we can talk about Soviet committment of their reserves, German lack thereof after Model's failure, etc. Thoughts?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So, we would write a brief summary of the section to be moved off, then request an administrator to split the article, or just go ahead and make the split? Do we not need to show some consensus on the decision to split up the article? What is our best first step for the reduction? Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends what's currently at the destination articles, I think. If they're redirects then it shouldn't be any problem to copy past over the redirect, AFAIK. If there's something else then we'd have to call in an admin. Let's wait for comments from EyeTruth and Paul Siebert as we've got a consensus that something needs to be done, but still have differences about article titles, etc. My preferences are Operation Citadel, Operation Kutuzov and Operation Rumyantsev and I don't see any need as of yet for an overarching article as EyeTruth seems to prefer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good. I took the liberty of doing a clean up of the Operation Kutuzov article in preparation for the transfer.  I could write a summary paragraph for consideration, then we could shift the material over. These events are the key events in the East during the summer of 43, but I agree that they are fine as stand alone articles with summaries and links to show how they tie together.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your decisions: Operation Citadel, Operation Kutuzov and Operation Rumyantsev. On a side note, I'm not aiming for an exhaustive exposition of every aspect of the battle, instead a brief summary of every important aspect of the campaign will suffice. Each point would be no bigger than a paragraph of about two to three sentences. But if such a far-reaching summary still stretches the size of the various articles, then by all means they will need to be cut down. EyeTruth (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've pinged Paul Siebert to see if he has any concerns about the split. There are existing articles on Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev, Belgorod-Khar'kov Offensive Operation and Operation Kutuzov as well as the redirect from Operation Citadel. I can merge the second article into the first one without any problems and don't see any other significant issues. So I propose that we do this is several steps once we've gotten agreement that this is a workable plan. If Paul doesn't comment in a couple of days then we can proceed without him.
 * I'll merge the two articles as mentioned above.
 * You guys copy and integrate the appropriate text from this article into those articles without removing anything from this article, yet.
 * Draft and post here brief summaries of those two operations for comments.

Summaries for subsequent offensives
Here is the summary for Operation Kutsov:
 * The Soviets had offensive operations of their own planned for the summer of 1943, one of which, Operation Kutusov, was launched 12 July against the German forces in the Orel salient north of Kursk. This offensive was launched against the German Army Group Center, and pushed off before the German attack on Kursk had concluded.  Two Soviet Fronts, the Bryansk Front under the command of Markian Popov and the Western Front commanded by Vasily Sokolovsky, attacked the eastern and northern faces of the Orel salient respectively, which was defended by the 2nd Panzer Army. The southern face of the salient was also attacked, and German forces were withdrawn from the Kursk offensive to meet Operation Kutuzov. 


 * Operation Kutuzov was successful in diverting German reserves earmarked for Operation Citadel. In addition, the Soviets reduced the Orel salient and inflicted substantial losses on the German army, setting the stage for the liberation of Smolensk. Though Soviet losses in the operation were heavy, they were better able to replace them. Operation Kutuzov allowed the Soviets to seize the strategic initiative, which they held through the remainder of the war. 

I may have gotten ahead of myself, as I earlier parked the summary at the top of the subsection on Operation Kutusov. The remainder of that subsection could be exported to the main article on Operation Kutusov if the summary above looks acceptable. Comments? Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Just be sure to transfer the appropriate books from the bibliography as well so the notes make sense to readers. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Once people have had a chance to comment on those summaries, replace the existing text on those operations with the summaries.
 * Pause to see what shape/size this article is before moving it to Operation Citadel over the redirect, which shouldn't be a problem.
 * There's no need to rush or feel any sense of urgency about this so let's take our time and give people a chance to respond/react, although I'll probably do the merge shortly since there's been a outstanding merge request for the last two years. Thoughts, comments?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just looked over the Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev article and it has two out of three subarticles, covering the individual phases of the battle, already written, albeit badly. It's a brief stub right now, but perhaps we should expand it with the general material from the Battle of Kursk article rather than merge the sub articles back into it. I'm content with the existing structure, although it and its sub articles need a lot of TLC. What do y'all think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should flesh out the subarticles for Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev with the material from Battle of Kursk instead of merging anything. I agree with every other point Gunbirddriver and Sturmvogel 66 has raised. EyeTruth (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, why don't you write up a summary of Rumyantsev and post it here before continuing to expand the current 84K of prose?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. I will do that soon, once I'm in the mood to write on a Soviet offensive. EyeTruth (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev:

''After the heavy losses sustained by the Voronezh Front during Operation Citadel, the Soviets needed time to regroup and refit and therefore could not launch Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev until 3 August. The operation was intended to be the major Soviet summer offensive with the aim of destroying the 4th Panzer Army and Army Detachment Kempf and eventually the southern wing of Army Group South as well. Before the operation was launched, however, the Soviets launched diversionary attacks across the Donets and Mius Rivers into the Donets Basin using the Southern and the Southwestern Fronts on 17 July. These attacks, intentionally designed to be spotted by the Germans, achieved their desired effect of diverting the few German reserves and some of the forces that took part in Citadel. These redeployed German forces successfully defeated the attacking Soviet armies by the end of July, but at the expense of weakening the defenses in the path of the main blow. The main offensive, which was primarily directed against Army Group South's northern wing, was initiated by the Voronezh and Steppe Fronts. On 5 August the Soviets took Belgorod and by the 12th had reached Kharkov, which eventually fell on 23 August at the end of the Fourth Battle of Kharkov.''

Thoughts? EyeTruth (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it has promise. If Operation Rumyantsev was intended as the major Soviet offensive for 1943 than that is what I would say first, then I would comment that it began later than hoped for due to the need to replace losses.  Less info on the diversion efforts would be better in this summary, as that would be covered best in the main article on Rumyantsev, and then details on the counterattack by Das Reich and Totenkopf seems appropriate, as I believe that was central to bringing the offensive to an end. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Rewrote it a bit. The SS divisions were still fighting along the Mius on 15 August, so that offensive took quite a while to defeat, although that's not really pertinent here. The names of the armies involved aren't really pertinent here either. Do we want to use the name of 4th Kharkov as opposed to saying that it simply fell on 23 August?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You have a good point Gunbirddriver. The simple format I followed was: condition of attacking forces; the diversionary attack that eventually made Rumyantsev far more successful than it would have ever been; the attacking forces; and final outcome. You can rework it as needed. Frankly, for now I have little enthusiasm for the Soviet offensives. Those have their days. For the paragraph I did, I pretty much squeezed it out from these two pages: (1) http://postimg.org/image/9n7yvb8m1/ (2) the link below. Those can be condensed and reworded in a thousand ways.

Sturmvogel 66, if the II SS Panzer Corps was still fighting along the Mius on 15 August it would be only elements from its divisions, because by 9 August the bulk of Das Reich and Totenkpf had returned to face off the Rumyantsev offensive. The Soviet offensives on Izium and Mius Front ended on 27 July and 3 August respectively, long after they had actually crumpled. Here is a fair-use excerpt http://postimg.org/image/nfmdqxzdl/ (Glantz & House, 2004) EyeTruth (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're half right. Totenkopf was still down on the Mius throughout August while Das Reich returns to the Kharkov area. I'll think over the summary some more and possibly tweak it some more as it sounds like you're done with it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Elements of Totenkopf were fighting near Kharkov on 12-13 August (if it was also at Mius, it would have only been a portion of it). http://postimg.org/image/fyngm81d9/ (hopefully this one more won't take a bite from Glantz's pocket :p) EyeTruth (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I saw maps showing both battalions of the panzer regiment and the reconnaissance battalion down on the Mius. I'll further into it to see where the rest of the division is. I have two or more histories of the division, I just need to spend a little time looking through them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If possible, check to see where the Assault Gun Battalion and the Panzergrenadier Regiments were. Those are formidable units that can leave a presence. Glantz never really clarified if the whole division returned or not, in fact it sounds a lot like he was saying only part of the division was fighting near Kharkov. EyeTruth (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I should have time tomorrow. Shouldn't be hard, possibly just time consuming. There isn't squat on either of these diversionary offensives. I should look to see if they're actually recognized offensives with names.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, EyeTruth, all of Totenkopf went north; I misread the area that the maps were showing. Made some more tweaks to Eyetruth's proposal, incorporating some of Gunbirddriver's ideas.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I might word it something like this:
 * Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev was intended as the main Soviet offensive for the summer of 1943. It's aim was to degrade the German 4th Panzer Army and cut off the extended southern portion of Army Group South. After the heavy losses sustained by the Voronezh Front during Operation Citadel, the Soviets needed time to regroup and refit, delaying the start of the offensive until 3 August. Diversionary attacks launched two weeks earlier across the Donets and Mius Rivers into the Donets Basin diverted German reserves and thinned the defending forces in the path of the main blow. The offensive was initiated by the Voronezh Front and Steppe Fronts against the northern wing of Army Group South.  They drove through the German positions and made broad, deep penetrations past their lines.  By 5 August the Soviets took Belgorod, and by the 12th had reached the outskirts of Kharkov. The advance was finally checked by a counter attack on 12 August by the 2nd SS "Das Reich" and 3rd SS  "Totenkopf" divisions.  In the ensuing tank battles the Soviet armies were checked, suffering heavy losses in their armor.  After this setback the Soviet troops focused on Kharkov and captured it after heavy fighting on 23 August. The battle is usually referred to as the Fourth Battle of Kharkov by the Germans and the Belgorod–Kharkov offensive operation by the Soviets.

I'm certainly not in love with it, so carve away or disregard as you wish. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is much better. I'm in love with it. EyeTruth (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * They're both fine. What do you think, Sturmvogel 66, this one or the one above?  Either one is good with me. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I little rewording. Reworded: "German reserves and weakened the defenders in..." to "German reserves and thinned the defending forces in..." EyeTruth (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's good EyeTruth. Sturmvogel 66 is an editor in high demand.  Let's go with it, and we can always change it if he has objections.  Meanwhile, I will move off the excess material and scrub it for transfer to the Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev article.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)