Talk:Battle of Rzhev, summer 1942

Page name change
The renaming of this page is inconsistent with the general description of battle names used in English Wikipedia. Most articles do not take the Russian operational name, some examples Battle of Voronezh (1942), Operation Mars, Second Battle of Kharkov, Battle of the Seelow Heights. Also page visitor numbers are very much down indicating an unfamiliarity with the new naming convention. The page name should be reverted.Christwelfwww (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Casualties
The figures appear to be the wrong way around, I'm swapping them Pluke (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Forgotten Battles of the German-Soviet War Vol. III
Is this a Glantz paper of self-published book? I can't find any book with that name and there is no ISBN provided, which makes verification difficult. There is a brief paper here: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/failures.htm. If need be, it looks like most of what it cited can be supported by other sources. Ian (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

These books are publish on demand, and self published. You can find out details here, http://www.glantzbooks.com/index.html#III._SPECIAL_STUDIES_S-series. Christwelfwww (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

questionable material

 * By October, the strategic balance in the centre of the Eastern Front remained essentially unchanged; the German army had suffered grievous losses,[8] and whilst their defence was tactically successful, they had achieved little more than maintaining the status quo.[7] Although the offensive had failed, Zhukov was given another chance to crush the Rzhev salient soon afterwards.[9]


 * You are probably right, that thesen statements should be more qualified and fit better into a section on the aftermarth. I will work though your points 1 by 1 and welcome your answers.Christwelfwww (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

All these statements are highly questionable. To credit the defense as being "tactically successful" when the Soviet plan failed to meet any of its objectives is very strange. The characterization of losses of 70,000 as "grievous" is very questionable especially when the Soviet Losses are characterized differently. As far as the "status quo", that is even more strange. It implies that no action other than a German Offensive toward Moscow in the summer of 1942 could be considered a success. The last sentence is even more troubling in that one would not know from reading it that it was (as well) a total failure. There is also (overall) a lack of diversity in the sources consulted in the article. They all tend to be telling the story from the same viewpoint.

The article is also entirely lacking any sort of true coverage of the aftermath of the operation. What calls itself an "aftermath" section is really just a place to list out casualties. The aftermath should at least cover the Soviet and German reactions in the aftermath of the battle. Especially in the context of the planning for Operation Mars. 75.17.127.253 (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * when the Soviet plan failed to meet any of its objectives
 * Actually the soviet attack met many of its objectives, as laid out in the Stavka directive of 16 July 1942, including breaking through the German front line, capture of Zubstov, Karmanovo, and Pogoreloe Gorodishche, the clearing of the Enemy to the banks of the Vazuza river and to dig forces in there. It partially succeeded in reaching the Volga banks but failed to clear all and to capture Rzhev.

This directive can be found in Glantz Forgotten battles Vol 3. But I see the details of the directive are missing from the article and should be included.Christwelfwww (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In terms of numbers, as the Soviets replaced men in a ratio of 3-1 or 4 -1 over the Germans the effect of casualties were different, and the German side relied much more heavily on the high training and experience of their soldiers to compensate for the numeracal deficite. I guess grevious could be debated, but meaning serious I would still use the word. Christwelfwww (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Re tactical success. The German Army Group Centre had a long list of potential operations it would have like to carry out, but had to cancel because of the Russian attack, see Ziemke which lists them. These were very much less than the capture of Moscow and could have been regarded as some kind of operational success, as the did have with Operation Syglith. For example Operation Wirlewind was attempted but failed, partly due to its northern component being committed at Rshev. Also the considerable German reinforcements had to be committed defensibly, to fill gaps rather than mounting an effective counter attack which the Germans would have no doubt preferred.Christwelfwww (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The article sources draw on those from German, Soviet and English origins, what other diversity would you be looking for. The only other sources I know of that have not been much used are Soviet official histories that cast the operation is a much more positive light. Christwelfwww (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Unit conversions and comparative ranks
The GA review requests all measurements to be given in miles and km. This has been done, but most of the conversions are part of the text. Is it necessary or preferable for GA status to use the undefined undefined template instead? I could do the change but I don't want to do so if it is unwanted. There was one unconverted distance, "limiting further Russian advance to 2 miles", and I added "(3.2 km)" without using the template.

Another minor change: Pzkw Mark IV to PzKpfw IV, thinking it best not to include "Mark" if the German abbreviation is used, and using "PzKpfw" for "Panzerkampfwagen", which is the abbreviation in the article.

About ranks: Konev's rank of General-colonel is the same level as General der Panzertruppe, but the German rank of Colonel general, Generaloberst, is one rank higher. Will that be clear to most readers? It appears that the photos are all from around 1942; a specific date would be interesting, since Zhukov and Konev would have vastly more decorations by 1944-45. Roches (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Rzhev, Summer 1942. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151228032412/http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec42.html to http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec42.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151228032412/http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec42.html to http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec42.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Start class article
The decision not to grant the article Good article status was fine, and acceptable, it needed added improvement. However to set its level as Start was one I disagreed with, and was probably one of the main reasons I ceased to be a contributor to Wikipedia. I have not changed its status, but would like to point out that I did a lot of reading on Wiki polices, ethos, and grading criteria, and endeavored to follow these rules as closely as possible as the main contributor to this article. It has extensive and accurate coverage on the topic, drawn from all usable sources. Also all statements are referenced and there is an extensive bibliography and external resource section. I would say therefore this article should have a B class assessment. Christwelfwww (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that not every paragraph is cited means that it fails criteria B1 so it could only be a C class at best.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, lets make it a C then. Also what about coverage and accuracy?Christwelfwww (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Just like to point out that I have ceased to contribute to Wikipeadia because of the discouraging attitude of the more experienced users who I would hope are trying to be more helpful to contributors. I do think this behavior is a shame, as without mass contribution the wiki will struggle to remain accurate and relevant. Christwelfwww (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)