Talk:Panther–Wotan line

Narva article
This should really be linked to the work Mr Wilson did on the Narva--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 11:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Done

Renaming
On reflection this probably needs to be renamed to Defence of the Panther-Wotan Line--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Attrition Warfare
The text says "With the Panther-Wotan Line, Hitler indicated a desire to return to attrition warfare ..." Was attrition warfare a viable plan at that time? Fconaway (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Large parts of the article were garbage. After the Germans no longer had the strength to go on the offensive in 1943 (after Kursk), they shifted over to the defensive. The hope was that the Soviets could be held behind the natural barrier of the Dneiper river and that other parts of the front could establish strong positions around natural formations. There was no plan for "attrition warfare" as such. The plan was generally to avoid fighting the soviets on the open steppe and to stabilize the the front in the south which had been falling back since Stalingrad. It wasn't a bad plan in general. But the need to defend the Crimea led them to try and hold a line away from the river and that failed.


 * The ultimate failure of the line was the inability to resist Soviet attempts to cross the river. Once the Soviets were over the river and dug in, it proved almost impossible to drive them out. The river was so long, it wasn't possible to stop them crossing somewhere.


 * They were not trying to re-create trench warfare or do "attrition" or any of the other nonsense people say. If they had not defended the lines, they probably would have been rolled up and destroyed on the open steppe. 75.106.146.89 (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this a real name?
The name was added to Wikipedia in mid-2000s by an anonymous editor, but I can't find this used in "reliable" English sources (books/academic articles) until 2014. Maybe there's something in German sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You might not consider "Fortress Third Reich" by Kaufmann (2003) to be a reliable source, but it does state, on page 282: "General Kuchler, before being releived of command of Army Group North, was so concerned that such names as 'Panther Line' would make the troops place too much confidence in the strength of the positions, that he forbade the use of the name on his front in January 1944, two months before actually occupying the line". There are referenced texts listed in the bibliography, but the source for the above isn't stated.
 * On page 275 it says: "In the sectors along the front of Army Group North and Army Group Center this line was given the name of the Panther Line"
 * On page 326 there is a map showing the major fortifications on the Eastern Front, the north of the East Wall is called the Panther Line, whilst the south is called the Wotan Line
 * The US military/gov map included on the page also lists it as Panther-Woltan, I imagine that map pre-dates 2003Pluke (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)