Talk:Hans von Luck

Comment
I removed the reference in the North Africa section to PzIV H tanks. I am pretty sure this mark of Panzer IV never served in the desert - according to the 'Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two' (Auth: P Chamberlain and H Doyle) ISBN 1-85409-214-6, the Panzer IV H only entered production in April 1943. The whole N Africa campaign ended in May 1943 - so it would seem highly unlikely that enough Panzer IV H's could be built for a combat formation, the crews trained and shipped across to N Africa in the time available. At best there would be about 6 weeks to do this? Most reference books regarding WW2 German tanks/WW2 history only give credit to Panzer IV F2 models, being the most upto date version of this vehicle to serve in North Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.2.215 (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Date of Death
When did he died? 15 January or 1 August 1997? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.31.221 (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Month of date needs to be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stjoan1 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxons are naive and incompetent
Why else would they make such a fuss about this unknown guy who does not even have an article in the German wikipedia? Just because he happened to write a largely fictional autobiography in english language that no one takes serious in Germany? Dumb and dumber, Tommy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.246.254.132 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly, but that has nothing to do with why Hans von Luck might have a page on English Wikipedia. It is true, of all the German soldiers and officers that served in World War II, we know more about those that wrote autobiographies than those that did not. A fairly self-explanatory point hardly worth mentioning, but in the case of von Luck he would be known in the English speaking world even if he had not. Hans von Luck had the good fortune to both survive the war and survive a lengthy internment in a Soviet gulag. Years later, he was sought out by the military academys of various NATO nations to comment on the German defense against Operation Goodwood, the wiki page of which singles him out by name. It was not von Luck who looked to speak out about the war experience of the German army in Northern France or anywhere else for that matter, but it was he who was sought out repeatedly by the military schools to participate in teaching activities on these battles. They did so to gain a perspective from the German side of the battle. The fact that he was fluent in multiple languages added to his versatility as a speaker. From these talks he met some of his former adversaries and became friends with them, most notably Major John Howard. Through Howard he became acquainted with English military authors, who needed him as a source. From these associations he was encouraged to write an autobiography about his experiences, which he finally did in the 1980s, some forty years after the events. If you read it you will gain his insights into the struggle, from Poland and France, to the cold of Russia, to the heat of the North African desert, back to northern France and finally in the closing months of the war to Germany itself. You will hear of his anxiety to protect his girlfriend, not only from the Allied bombing campaign, but from the German authorities who sought to arrest people who happened to be Jewish. It is a look into a world which no longer exists.
 * No, von Luck was a man who could hardly avoid being mentioned on English Wikipedia. Whether or not a page on him exists on the Deutsch Wikipedia is neither here nor there. The German version of wiki does not dictate to the English version what is relevant and what is not, even when the subject had been a German officer. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just about everything written in Panzer Commander can be verified. And although Luck fought on the side of largely evil, you have to respect his fairness in battle and the awards he received. 2406:2D40:41F1:2900:E538:821:485C:67D5 (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced/poorly sourced material
Regarding the recent revert:


 * 3rd Panzer Group captured Vilnius in Lithuania before advancing on Minsk. Following the capture of Minsk the armored group continued east towards Vitebsk. -- this info is about Luck's Panzer Group, not about Luck. That was also unsourced.K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Luck was a participant, thus it tells us where he was and what the sequence was. To be more precise, he was at the northern flank of Army Group Center, and his unit attacked out of what was East Prussia into and through land recently taken by the Soviets. This is pertinent to time and place, and of interest to people interested in military history. Source provided. Note: Luck's memoir agreed perfectly with the secondary source. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ...the division's reconnaissance battalion commander was killed in action... -- unsourced and not notable.K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Certainly this is notable. He went from commander of the recon battalion (a field promotion to replace CO KIA), over to the headquarters staff, then back to command of the recon battalion. This is the second time this happened to Luck, the first time being in France. What a person interested in military history would gain from reading this is information relating to the nature of the reconnaissance work Luck's unit was doing. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Once the crisis of the Soviet counterattack had passed... -- is this Luck's interpretation of why he was transferred? If yes, should be presented as such, or omitted. But not as a statement of fact. Also "counterattack" is inaccurate; that was a counteroffensive.K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Citation provided.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Luck states he was later wounded in the hand as his reconnaissance battalion crossed the La Bassée canal near the city of Arras. -- minor wound is not notable; that was also unsourced although it appears to come from Luck's memoirs.K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You could have sourced this one. Sourcing takes time and is work. It is not solely up to me to source the article. If you are unwilling to read about the subject and help source the page it would be well for you to refrain from editing it.Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

From WP:Primary:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

From WP:MILMOS

"Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate, but care should be taken to use them correctly, without straying into original research." (emphasis with italics mine)Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. (emphasis mine)"

As of right now, this article does not meet the criteria "to a lesser extent on primary sources" above. With current 24 citations to Luck's memoirs (more than all other sources combined), perhaps his military career is not notable to a large extent? I believe he's best know for his association with Rommel and for the books he wrote after the war. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hans von Luck is best known for the Battle of Goodwood, where his battlegroup essentially successfully stopped three British armoured divisions from breaking through the German positions and into northern France. After his time imprisoned in a Soviet work camp he returned to Germany and attempted to resume a normal life. Because of his role at Goodwood he was sought out and repeatedly asked to speak at various military lectures, and for the British Staff college at their yearly June tour of Normandy. To borrow Wellington’s phrase, he presented a much valued view from “the other side of the hill”. All this information should be known by someone who is familiar with Luck. In fact, I have already mentioned this above, and it is in the text of the article we are speaking of. People reading this article are interested in military history, and want to know more about the people they are studying. We should provide them with the information that is available. That is what I have been doing.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BRD, could you outline your objections to the removal of the material outlined above? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the removals were unnecessary and unhelpful. The material removed cast light on who Hans von Luck was and what the details of his career were. Claiming that the sources used here are not adequate and the content they support should therefor be deleted from the article is not supported by wikipedia policy. When you first proposed doing a major revision on 4 February 2016 I said I was willing to help and asked you to also help by improving the sources and citations used in the article. Since then I have added nine reliable sources to the references, using them in creating multiple supporting citations to buttress the text. A month has gone by now and as far as I am aware you have yet to add a single source or made a single citation. In fact, you are asking me questions on Luck's career which indicate you are still completely unfamiliar with who he is. I fail to understand your interest in editing this article when you have made no effort to learn anything about the subject. Can you explain to me why you continue to wish to remove material from the page and apparently decline to take any action to attempt to learn about the subject and support the material herein? It is curious behavior and in my view is not helpful to improving wikipedia. Look at the discussion below. EnigmaMcmxc and Nug both clearly have an interest in the subject and have read on it. It makes sense to me that they would have an interest in the page. I am sorry to say I do not see the same from you. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Cagny
In regards to the incident at Cagny (not mentioned above, but in the article), I believe we should allow von Luck is say (considering how often it has been repeated). However, that should be complimented by a refutation by historians. For example, John Buckley pretty much states he made the whole event up: see here, p. 105. I have also read that Ian Daglish pretty much arrives at the same conclusion; I would have to dig my copy of his work out to check, however.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In the paragraph following Buckley's refutation of von Luck's account, Buckley describes how a large number of British tanks were destroyed suddenly as they advanced, so obviously something was hitting them. Stephen Napier in Armoured Campaign in Normandy June-August 1944 supports von Luck's account, after analysing time lines and other German artillery in the area at the time. --Nug (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well of course they were being hit, but most research I have thus far have seen has stated there was no Luftwaffe guns in Cagny. There was AT guns and the 21st Pnz Div's roaming SP-ATG battery that had been hitting the 11th Arm for six!
 * I am unable to see the page you linked to, unfortunately. Hopefully tonight I will be able to dig my copy of Daglish out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ian Daglish states the following: "On studying photographs of Cagny taken shortly after the supposed relocation of the battery, the author was surprised to find no obvious sign of its initial or final positions, nor any tracks indicating the movement of htese heavy guns and their associated equipment." Daglish poses the question of what happened to this battery when the Grenadier and Coldstream Guards passed Cagny. He also notes that there is "surprisingly little" evidence to even state the battery existed at all! He notes that all evidence of there existence traces back to von Luck, and that Becker and Pickert (the chap in charge or the Luftwaffe's guns in the area) make no mention of the battery in their memoirs or testimonies of the battle. Interestingly, Daglish sources the 12th SS's history and notes it claims this supposed battery only destroyed German tanks (two Tigers to be precise).(Daglish, Over the Battleground, Appendix IX)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Napier discusses these doubts as follows, quoting from Armoured Campaign in Normandy June-August 1944, pages 248-251:
 * "Some doubt has been expressed post-war as to the existence of the battery of 88mm flak guns in Gagny. Doubt has crept in as a result of von Luck's larger-than-life character and a tendency to enjoy telling the story of his part in the battle on post-war lecture tours. Other historians have not been able to find any photographic evidence of flak gun emplacements and so claim they did not exist."
 * "An 88mm Flak 36 gun deployed in anti-aircraft position takes a six-man crew 3.5 minutes to convert to the travelling position and two bogies and only 2.5 minutes to ready it for a ground fire role whilst still on its bogies in the travelling position. Therefore the 88mm flak battery would need only about 15 minutes to relocate a short distance. it is most likely that is was these 88mms that caused so many losses to the 2nd Fife and Forfar about 9300 hours. The only other possible unit is Becker's 4th Batterie in Le Mesnil Fremental. However, if this company did not move before 0930 hours, it would have been cut off when the leading tanks of the 29th Brigade crossed the railway. The 4th Batterie was able to relocate successfully to just south of Four where it was in fact for the rest of the day and so must have moved well before 0930 hours."
 * "As part of the III Flak Korps, German heavy anti-aircraft guns were located in the outlying villages of Caen as protection against the high-flying medium and heavy Allied bombers that had been bombing Caen. Photographic evidence of the Luftwaffe batteries in the area exists. Given the general hostility of the German army towards the Luftwaffe because of its continued absence from the Normandy battlefield, it is unlikely that the German army would credit the Luftwaffe for anything unnecessarily. The timeline from von Luck's confrontation with the Luftwaffe battery commander just after 0900 hours fits with the subsequent losses of the 2nd Fife and Forfar C Squadron at 0930 hours as it took this time to relocate the 88mm guns to new position to enfilade the advancing British tanks. The loss of the two Tigers moving southwards after engaging the Shermans from the 2nd Grenadier Guards by clean penetrations of the Tiger's frontal armour suggests the actions of an inexperienced Luftwaffe crew faced with large, unidentified tanks coming straight for them."
 * "With the later German decision to abandon Cagny, the 88mm flak guns were destroyed on von Luck's orders so only wreckage could be found after the battle. The Guards Division King's Infantry occupied Cagny late in the afternoon and found three 88mm anti-tank guns. An alternative explanation has been put forward that the self-propelled guns of Becker's 5th Batterie may have stopped to defend Cagny during their withdrawal from Le Prieure to Frenouvill. At 500m the 75mm Pak 40 was capable of penetrating 120mm of armour, so at 650m it could have just penetrated the Tiger's frontal armour of 100mm. However, these penetrations would not have been as clean as those from 88mm armour-piercing shells. Von Luck correctly attributed credit where it was due and his only sin is the assumption of a mantle previously worn by Rommel who stopped the British tank attack at Arras in 1940 by ordering the 88mm flak guns to engage the ground targets of the British tank forces. Usually located well behind the frontlines, 88mm anti-aircraft crews did not expect to become embroiled in fighting as per III Flak Korps policy, and their direct involvement occasionally took some persuasion."
 * --Nug (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To poke light, who are the King's Infantry? ;)
 * I note that Napier makes the claim that the 88mm flak guns were destroyed, and (presumably) the 1st Grenadier Guards later found 88mm anti-tank guns. Big difference, although we are not to quabble over what the sources say. Do you know what footnote 47 states the source is for this?
 * At any rate, I'll be back later with some thoughts on the subject.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Napier mentions on page 255:
 * "The 2nd Grenadier Guards were ordered to occupy Cagny and this was duly achieved in an hour at about 1800 hours with the tanks accompanying the King's Company of infantry from the 1st Battalion of Grenadier Guards"
 * so presumably these are the "King's Infantry" he is referring to. Well the 88mm Flak gun were acknowledged as having a dual anti-tank capability. Footnote 47 cites Ian Dalgish's book Goodwood, page 260. --Nug (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you for your input. Daglish notes that the heavy flak gun regiment was further south, and poses the question why was this detachment so far forward? He states some accounts suggest it was to protect Caen, or factories, from Allied low flying aircraft, yet he retorts this was not the job of 88mm flak guns. He also notes, in the main text, that a regiment of 88mm anti-tank guns were deployed to the Cagny area during the battle (and suffered heavy losses); so the comment that the infantry of the Guards Division captured destroyed 88mm guns does not immediately support von Luck.
 * Clearly, the solution is simple: follow WP guidelines. I would suggest something to the effect of improving what is already in the article: context of the operation; von Luck's account of what (he thinks) happened; and the historian's differing opinion (the exact wording, I would happy to discuss here before implementing or I could write something up - over the next few days - and add it to the article then you could amend? Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, that approach sounds okay to me, you can write something up and add to the article and any amendments can be made if at all necessary. --Nug (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not being able to make the edit suggested above. I would like to discuss the latest edit and invoking WP: Alleged. Despite von Luck's story being repeated in secondary sources; it is still just his word. Alleged may be too strong, but removing any descriptive reverts to the position that what he is saying is completely factual. I think, we should use some descriptive and source his story directly from his memoir.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Did I just waste my time typing out excerpts from Napier's book? I did so out of courtesy because you said "I am unable to see the page you linked to". Seems to me you are giving Daglish undue weight in light of Napier's analysis of the evidence and conclusion that Daglish's arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. --Nug (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, sorry for the late response. No, you did not waste your time typing out excerpts from Napier. I see your position in the same light: giving Napier undue weight, because he supports von Luck and does not address any of the questions Daglish raises i.e. where is the evidence the guns or von Luck was even there ... an anon officers recollection of a German officer, German friendly fire, ignoring the 88mm AT guns etc.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I finally added in the content, we both added, to the Goodwood article. To further note, I do not believe Napier actually makes a solid case. Since the two pages quoted are now available for preview on Google Books, I have read them; he relies an awful lot on circumstantial evidence. Destroyed 88s, located in Cagny, must have been the flak guns without specifying if they were flak or AT guns and ignores the arrival of the AT guns. This is a big assumption, so we are still left to wonder what the guardsmen actually found; not to mention where in Cagny they found them. The aerial photos of AA guns in outlying villages is suppose to support von Luck, but Napier does not specify if there is actually a photo of the guns in Cagny! The whole argument surrounding Becker relies on a big "if" (having not read much about the battle in a long time, I am not willing to state my opinion on this). Not to mention, the inference that some random officer in a uniform was Luck (there was no one else dressed up that day?). None of this pokes holes in the questions Daglish (and many amateur historians who have looked at the photos) asked years before (i.e. where is the evidence). There is nothing concrete there. However, everyone's point of view is now in the article for the readers to decide.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: Is Napier aware that the Germans used 88s (and other AT guns) to devastating effect during Operation Battleaxe, and later battles such as Second Alamien? Granted that these were other battles fought under the command of Rommel but it is not like the only time a German anti tank gun screen stopped British tanks was at Aras and around Cagny.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no particular reason to doubt von Luck's account. French grain crops in 1944 grew head-high, much taller than modern crops, and British tankers who served in Goodwood noted that you could see the torpedo-like wakes of German anti-tank rounds coming at you through the grain as the British armour passed Cagny. RAF air reconnaissance photos later showed the die-straight tracks left by these anti-tank rounds in the standing crops. So there certainly were German anti-tank guns firing from Cagny. The village was soon captured by the British, of course, and the only extant British photo of an intact German anti-tank gun in situ shows a PaK 43, the towed German army anti-tank version of the 88. (The PaK 43 was adapted as the KwK 43 for fitment to King Tiger -- also known as Tiger B -- tanks and Jagdpanther tank destroyers.) The Flak 36/37 used by Luftwaffe anti-aircraft units was a different, earlier form of the gun, which Rommel pressed into anti-tank service in North Africa because of its high muzzle velocity and which was adapted as the KwK 36 for the Tiger I tank (also known as Tiger E). There may be no certain proof that there was a Luftwaffe battery of Flak 36/37s in Cagny, but there's no proof that there wasn't either. https://rafoverlord.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-guns-of-cagny.html Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * A British Army documentary on Operation Goodwood with von Luck himself participating, here;  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.84 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The fighting had prevented the French farmers from harvesting the wheat, so it may have been unusually tall having been allowed to grow for a longer time than would normally have been the case.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that editors of this page may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk)

Article cleanup
I cleaned up the article a bit more by reducing uncited and / or non notable material cited to the subject's memoirs. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)