Talk:Panzer ace/Archive 1

Untitled
unit names are inconsistent

Hello, i suggest the following changes and new entries in the list: (see Will Fey, Armor battles of the Waffen-SS). Oberfaehnrich Rondorf and Feldwebel Gaertner of Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503 ("Feldherrnhalle") with respectively 106 and 100+ kills; Oberfeldwebel Erich Litzke of Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 509 with 76 kills; Oberleutnant Wilhelm Knauth of Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 505 with 68 kills. Federico Bussone, Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.125.233.3 (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Walter Kniep can not be credited with 129 kills, because this is just the score of his whole unit of Sturmgeschuetzen in a period of time in between 1943 and 1944 (see his Wikipedia's biography).
 * Oberfeldwebel Albert Kerscher of Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502 (511) must be credited with 100+ kills (see Wolfgang Schneider, Tigers in combat I-II; and Otto Carius, Tigers in the mud).
 * SS-Oberscharfuehrer Will Fey of SS-Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 102 (502) must be credited with 68+ kills
 * Wolfgang Schneider gives more top scorers, for example:
 * oke, I would say add these panzer aces also. By the way führer is dots on the u, not eu.--Maddriver371 (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Arno Giesen?
Why is Arno Giesen of Das Reich (2nd SS Panzer Div.)not included. I have heard him credited with 111 tank kills, which would put him at number 7 on this list. Other lists I've seen, such as those at Axis History Forum http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=70406 have him at number 8.173.21.98.51 (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, i'm going to delete SS-Untersturmfuehrer Martin Schroif from the top list. In Normandy (with the SS-Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 102) and then, in April 45, east of Berlin (with the SS-Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502) he was able to destroy a number of tanks and antitank-guns, however the number of 161 enemy tanks does not find any evidence, moreover in this case he would have been awarded the Ritterkreuz. In his unit the top scorer was SS-Obersturmfuehrer Paul Egger with 113 tanks. Federico Bussone, Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.125.233.7 (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Credited vehicles
I would like to remove the column Vehicles destroyed as the numbers are unsourced. Paul Egger credits (the only ones cited) are sourced to non WP:RS website http://www.military-art.com/mall/profiles.php?SigID=1527.

Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Since there appears to be no objections, I will go ahead and remove per WP:MILMOS. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * At least be rigorous and remove the the row of the supposed Vehicles destroyed. Piep. Milhosz (talk) 04:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've restored prior material (with some c/e). I also accommodated the request to be rigorous and have removed the empty column. The material included is reliably cited, if you have objections -- please discuss here.


 * Also, when the edits were made to citations, it also changed the meaning of what these sources said. Please do not alter citations.


 * If there's a disagreement about the neutrality of the sources, please introduce other WP:RS sources the criticize them, or present a counter-balancing point of view. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article page should be merely a list. Period. Your rambling about how invicible the Tigre is or some authors opinions how they view tanks versus tanks engagements is irrelevant to the section.


 * Removed and reduced to simplicity, also consistently to other similar "Lists of -whatever- "aces". Examples: List of World War II aces from the United States, List of World War II aces from the United Kingdom, List of World War II aces from the Soviet Union. Milhosz (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Panzer ace" is a controversial concept, as was reflected in the article. It's not a term that is used by WP:RS sources that I have seen. Could you please present the sources that deal with this concept? I list by Kurowski is not sufficient.


 * Also, per WP:BRD, after a revert, editors are expected to discuss on the talk page, not re-implement their contested changes. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I restored deleted material. For comparison, please see the link that was included at the bottom of the page: a similar article on the Russian wiki discusses the kill tracking and presents opinions from historians on what a "panzer ace" is and is not.

Also please see List of German World War II jet aces -- there's a background section that discusses the concept. I will change the section name to "Background" to match.

Separately, I provided expanded citation on what a guru is, and more info on Kurowski. So far, he's the only source I've seen that uses the term "panzer ace" non ironically. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The background section is almost the same as on Michael Wittman, why? If i wanted to read their assessment as tank commander, their "heroic" battlefield bravery, and how Bake supposely desroyed 32 tanks, I do it so at their article page, not here.


 * Instead, you completely missed the most obviously issues behind "panzer ace", which needed to be displayed first and formost. Those supposed "panzer aces" took part of the nazis propaganda machinery, that their carrier were heavly inflicted by propaganda purposes, and that those "kills" were nothing as grossly extragated claims. Yet, it seems that you are making a flimsy excuse, that those "kills" supposed to be only happen in "ambush", with that oh so invicible Tiger I. Milhosz (talk) 14:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have not had a chance to research the propaganda part yet -- it's a very valid point. Some of it is covered in Battle of Villers-Bocage, as pertaining to Wittmann, but generally applicable to all "aces".


 * The background sets the context for the list; some of it repeats what's covered in Wittmann's article, but it's entirely appropriate to copy within Wikipedia. Please see WP:COPYWITHIN. Wittmann, Krispel and Bake are one of the most famous "aces", so it's pertinent to highlight them here. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggested move
I suggest moving this article to Panzer ace, as the concept is what's mostly being discussed. As the term has its origins in Nazi propaganda, which then took root in popular history, the "list" concept is not applicable here. The names and the units can be kept in bullet form. I believe this is appropriate. Any objections? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible to me Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems that "Panzer aces from Germany" or "German Panzer Aces" might be better. Since the concept and listed personnel are German only. Kierzek (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the article is using the word "panzer" in the title, it seems it limits it to the personnel of the German armed forces, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but I try to put myself in the shoes of general readers. Kierzek (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The "list" will be grandfathered in; it's almost pointless anyway since reliable criteria for ranking does not exist, with "panzer ace" being a propaganda legend. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The above were suggestions to consider. I don't feel strongly about it. Kierzek (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the topic is better served taking a different approach. I want to suggest that an entirely new and different article were to be created dealing with the term "tank ace" first. A first google book search revealed "a 'tank ace' is not necessarily always a tank commander who has knocked out large numbers of enemy tanks. In some cases, merely by his presence and example on the battlefield..." (George Forty, Tank Aces: From Blitzkrieg to the Gulf War). The term "tank ace" can be found in context of other nations soldiers as well, example "Sgt. Lafayette Poole, the top tank ace of the 3rd Armored Division." (Steven J. Zaloga, Modelling the US Army M4 (76mm) Sherman Medium Tank), "[Zinoviy] Kolobanov's feat made him the second highest ranking Soviet tank ace of the war" (Steven J. Zaloga, ‎Jim Kinnear, KV-1 and 2 Heavy Tanks 1939-45) or "During 1941 he [ Dmitry Lavrinenko ] showed what could be achieved with the T34/76 when it was used properly and he became the highestscoring Allied tank ace of the war."(Anthony Tucker-Jones, T-34: The Red Army's Legendary Medium Tank). The information pertaining to the use and evolution of the term "Panzer ace" should be a subsection in the new article "tank ace". Once established, this particular article/list should be renamed to "List of World War II tank aces from Germany". Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In light of the above, it is clear that even though the term may have originated with Nazi Germany, it has been used by other nations. So to say it is just a Nazi propaganda legend is not correct. A move to just "Panzer Ace" is not what should be done; since this is English Wikipedia, how about: "German Tank Aces" (being distinguished) with a redirect of "Panzer Ace" and "German Panzer Aces", for general reader consideration. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good course of action. Suggest using "German tank aces" as the main article (no capitallisation for "tank"), and "Panzer ace" and "German Panzer aces" / "German panzer aces" as redirects. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's okay with me. Kierzek (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * since you also participated in the discussion. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Added destroyed/Credited vehicles
Guys, I noted that the vehicles destroyed were removed before because they weren't references, so I have reinserted them, and added references where I could find them. This keeps this page in lines with the various other "Ace" listings, that also have the credited kills - Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Cross referencing the order, the order by number of tanks destroyed actually agreed with my sources, excpet for one - Hans Sandrock - who seems to have 123 kills but is a bit lower down the list. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Added in more authoritative references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

More attuned
I copy edited this sentence but it does not read quite right to me:


 * While not prevalent in World War II within the Wehrmacht, it was more common in the Waffen-SS to reward its successful personnel, as the SS organisation was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of Nazi Germany.

Original copy:
 * While it was not prevalent in World War II even within the Wehrmacht, it was most common in the Waffen-SS wich was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of Nazi Germany.

Wehrmacht was very much "attuned", so I'm not sure if it's appropriate to make this comparison. From what I recall, Waffen-SS brass wanted to make sure that its members were recognized for their combat performance. So there was a certain element of rivalry involved. The present day "Panzer aces" come from both Heer and the Waffen-SS. I suggest this sentence be reworked, or simply remove. I think the opening para would would read fine without it.

Lead without the sentence:


 * "Panzer ace" ("tank ace") is a contemporary term used in English-speaking popular culture to describe highly-decorated German Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS tank commanders during World War II. These commanders were credited in Nazi propaganda with the destruction of large numbers of tanks and other armoured vehicles. The Allied armies did not recognise any of their tank commanders for "tank kills", though some were responsible for destroying a large number of enemy tanks.

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I would say that a clear distinction and emphasis is necessary. The concept was by far more common in the Waffen SS and especially common regarding the Tiger battalions. Other panzer units in the Heer did not receive or attracted the same notice. 217.146.13.19 (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Kubovsky (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion below: Talk:"Panzer_ace"_in_popular_culture. The "concept" did not exist during World War II at all. It's a recent invention. Is there evidence to the contrary? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a recent invention, still, we should not make a general statement. As the Wehrmacht's ground force, did not attracted the same notice for tank kills, as did the Tiger commanders of the Waffen SS. Zaloga makes it pretty clear:


 * "The concept of "tank aces" was not praticularly prevalent in Word War II, even in the Wehrmacht. It was most common in the Waffen-SS, wich was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of the Nazi state. It was especially common regarding the Tiger battalions, wich enjoyed an envelope of invulnerability for one year, from summer 1943 to summer 1944, until the Allies finally fielded tanks, such as the T-34-85 and Sherman Firefly that could defeat them. In Heer panzer units, the concept was not widespread and military awards focused on mission performance, not arbitary metric like tank kills. Panther aces were fa less common in German propaganda than Tiger aces as the Panther was far more vulnerable and had much mor troubled existence in its first year of service than did the Tiger. 217.146.13.19 (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Kubovsky (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Kurt Knispel and Otto Carius, widely considered to be foremost "Panzer aces", fought with the Wehrmacht. How did they become "aces"? And how does Mr. Zaloga come to the conclusion that the Waffen-SS "was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of the Nazi state"? That's quite a bold statement. I haven't read anything like that in a study of Nazi war propaganda so far. Did all the foreign volunteers of the Waffen-SS (among them Ukrainans since July 1943) fit into the Nazi racial theory? And did the Wehrmachtbericht not follow the imperatives of the Nazi state? Besides, as historian Daniel Uziel noted, since July 1943 the SS propaganda reported about army units as well. (The Propaganda Warriors, 2008, p. 173). So you may want to bolster your claim, which reminds me of the Clean Wehrmacht, with some more RS. And btw, "Panzer ace" Ernst Barkmann commanded a Panther as did Rudolf von Ribbentrop. The Tiger was less vulnerable on its sides, but the Panther got improved frontal armor. The Panther initially suffered from mechanical problems, but as early as the last half of 1943 the average reliability of Panther and Tiger was about equal. The Panther had been very much improved in 1944 making it the "most formidable tank on the battlefield, east or west". That's according to Steven Zaloga own: Armored Champion. The Top Tanks of World War II. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole, 2015, p. 202, 221. Detailed information on those tanks can also be found in the book by Zetterling and Frankson, Kursk 1943 (2000). It should be most interesting to look into it whose interest the Tiger commanders of the Waffen-SS actually attracted.--Assayer (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Sir. That's entirely a "POV forking" issue on your side. It has been repeatedly explained to you, why Zaloga is considered RS, despite that one "bold" statement; when you tried to shoot down the article as a fringe theory. Time to call for an admin intervention. Hi, could you please come over here? Thanks! Kubovsky (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Admins have no special authority over content issues. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, there seems to be a content issue. However, the article builds upon a source, (Zaloga, Panther vs Sherman : Battle of the Bulge p. 38) whose content is fundamental for the article, as well as for the lead and the "wartime percetions" section. It's clear from above, that the statement ("The concept of "tank aces" was not particularly prevalent in Word War II, even in the Wehrmacht. It was most common in the Waffen-SS, which was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of the Nazi state.") cause much discomfort to some user, notabene, because it does not fit their POV. We should not allow "cherry picking", which would not only mislead casual readers, but also misrepresent a factual to what Zaloga's academic reputation and research stands.


 * If we can't manage a neutral POV, then we might remove the source as a whole, which why I made the recent revert. Kubovsky (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Zaloga is RS for the "WWII tank combat" subject and (possibly) for "WWII tank combat in contemporary culture" but he has not studied Nazi propaganda. I've searched two sources that cover the topic specifically: Nazi Propaganda and the Second World War & The Propaganda Warriors: The Wehrmacht and the Consolidation of the German Home Front. Neither contains a mention of panzer ace or a tank ace. I believe that Assayer has made a convincing case that this term / concept was not used in the German-language historiography either. My suggestion that the more neutral version of the lead be restored (diff. Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you proof that? He certainly have studied the daily OKW communiques to make out the exaggerations in tank kills and any other shenanigans made during a offensive, battle etc. To say that he might be ill informed is a baseless accusation, your suggestion is not neutral. If those two books can not support the concept, the article might be better deleted. Kubovsky (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As it happens, I've studied the Wehrmachtbericht transcripts myself; in fact, I have a "Best of..." section of sorts on my user page: OKW press releases. :-)

This attests that the Wehrmacht was very much attuned to the Nazi propaganda imperatives. The Propaganda Warriors linked above discusses how Waffen-SS propaganda companies worked closely with the armed forces propaganda arm under the overall direction of the OKW, and they were getting more integrated starting around 1943. Based on the source that specifically studied the propaganda aspects of the German war effort, I'd say that making a broad statements on "Waffen-SS propaganda vs Wehrmacht propaganda" seems uncalled for. Is there another source that discusses this relative "attunement" between the two propaganda arms? Or am I missing something? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Since there's been no response, I restored my edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been busy, so I couldn't reply to you earlier this week. Can I restore back?
 * However, were are not in agreement, and you should know by now, that bold phrases like "I've studied" - "this attests" carries little weight, as Wikipedia aims to citations from reliable works and historians or reputable authors, and not by your own personal beliefs. From what I could gather by reviewing the linked snipping views to the books; None of the both dealing with the controversial statement that the Wehrmacht's Ground Force was equally affected by propaganda in their selection criteria and nomination process of crews and commanders, as it was overwhelming present in the Waffen SS.


 * I'm still in doubt that Zaloga is ill-informed as you are trying to make out. Maybe I'm missing some context, but form what I could gather, the Wehrmachtsberichte had nothing to do with the nomination to award crews and commanders, or the cult of "hero worshiping" as it was present in the Waffen SS. It was mainly a propaganda tool to broadcast their fake achievements on the battleground and to take influence on peoples mind. Please, do me a favor and write down the full quote in your next reply, so that removal of the controversial statement by Zaloga was valid and well supported. So, we can finally end this discussion.Kubovsky (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Retitle to "Tank Aces"
I created a "Tank Aces" article - because from the rather odd title for this article, I assumed this page was *not* specifically about Tank aces, but about German panzer aces in literature. Unfortunately, I think the title is rather obscure.

The tank aces article is up for AfD (Discussion here - ) and will most likely be deleted (or merged with this), which I am fine with. However I would suggest this article be broadened and have more focus on tank aces from other countries. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to address some of the issues in the current AfD....what do people think of retitling this to "Tank Aces"? Are there any objections? Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

If anyone has any objections to retitling this page to "Tank Aces", let me know. Cheers..and Panzer Vor! :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As was discussed at the first AfD (linked above), the concept "Tank Ace" does not exist in professional historiography. I thus do not support the move to a new page name. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman (talk) This appears to be incorrect....the term "Tank Ace" *does* appears in a number of books on the topic, all of which qualify as a RS under WP:RS... for example...."Tank Action: An Armoured Troop Commander's War 1944–45", Kershaw's "Tank Men" Sheppard's "The Tank Commander Pocket Manual: 1939-1945" Skarup's ""Ironsides": Canadian Armoured Fighting Vehicle Museums and Monuments" Salecker's "Rolling Thunder Against the Rising Sun: The Combat History of U.S. Army Tank". They all refer to the term, and are all legitimate references complying with Wikipedia policy... you can check them on a Google Books search (I don't have them all in paper). Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not sure if Robert Kershaw is the best source for this article. Is he a trained historian? Here's what I was able to find:


 * Robert Kershaw, who until recently held a senior position within NATO, joined the Parachute Regiment in 1973 and has served actively in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and the first Gulf War, for which he was awarded the US Bronze Star. He has written four books of military history, starred in numerous TV documentaries and has contributed to the Daily Mail, The Times, the Sunday Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph.


 * K.e.coffman (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * K.e.coffman (talk)Hi - is there a particular reason why it doesn't meet WP:RS? I've got a copy and read it, it seems fine, and I certainly haven't seen it discredited. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there anything which supports the notion that Kershaw's work is reliable, e.g., academic reviews or citations in other people's works, preferrably works which meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?--Assayer (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know him, but I looked him up. He has a military background and has been quite a prolific author. I cannot give an opinion on his work. He has a website: robertjkershaw, if you gentlemen want to have a look. Kierzek (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The book in question here is published by a large firm with a reputation for quality control, so it's a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The current title is awful. It is unclear what the scare quotes are for and it is odd to find an "in pop culture" article with no main article about the thing whose depiction in pop culutre is supposedly being isolated. Srnec (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, it seems completely at odds with Wikipedia article titling convention. It's either an article about tank aces, or not. Worst of all, it's probably just confusing the users who aren't sure what the page is about. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Panzer ace" is used in Zaloga's book in quotation marks, and the article reflects that. Compare with "Polish death camp" controversy -- quotation marks are used to indicate that such entities did not exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing problems
Although the original article has been kept and moved, this article is still seriously and inherently flawed. By definition it is claimed that "Panzer ace" is a contemporary term that was most common in the Waffen-SS to reward its successful personnel, as the SS organisation was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of Nazi Germany. Well, how can a contemporary English term become common in the Waffen-SS? The "concept", so it is also claimed, was mainly advanced by the Waffen-SS as part of its contributions to Nazi Germany's propaganda campaigns. Was it really? So far I have never read the term "Panzer ace" ("Panzerass" in German) in any primary sources by and related to the Waffen-SS. When SS-propaganda writer Herbert Reinecker wrote about Michael Wittmann in the SS-newspaper Das Schwarze Korps, for example, he called him "Panzertöter" (Panzer killer), not "Panzerass". ("Michael Wittmann, der Panzertöter," in Das Schwarze Korps 3 August 1944, pp. 6-7.) One should keep in mind that the term "ace" became popular with sports and implied chivalry. But in order to excell in sports and chivalry you have to have a worthy opponent, something which the "Bolshewists" weren't in Nazi propaganda. So "killer" is certainly more appropriate. (It's also an obvious allusion to the "Drachentöter", i.e. Siegfried, btw.) As to whether tank commanders were credited with the destruction of large numbers of tanks - that was part of the propaganda, as it was in the US, e.g. Lafayette G. Pool was credited "with 258 vehicles destroyed, 250 German prisoners of war taken, and over 1,000 dead before the guns of his Sherman tank, IN THE MOOD." (Frank Woolner: "The Texas Tanker"," in: Yank. The Army Weekly, 1945) But that doesn't mean that the "Panzer ace" was anything like a concept.

German tank crews and commanders did not receive awards for tank kills. Individual soldiers could earn the Tank Destruction Badge. The Panzer Badge was awarded for a certain number of engagements, not kills. Tank crews or commanders, however, were considered for a Knight's Cross for a single deed which was supposed to have significantly influenced the outcome of combat and been carried out "on one's own initiative" ("aus eigenem Entschluss"). Kurt Knispel, arguably the most "successful" "German tank ace", for example, never received a Knight's Cross. (Roman Töppel, "Das Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes und der Kampfwert militärischer Verbände," in: Ztschr. f. Heereskunde 76 (2012), pp. 180-190, here pp. 180-1.)

Thus it's not really surprisng that the references of the article are thin. Only one source, namely Steven Zaloga's Panther vs Sherman: Battle of the Bulge, 1944. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2008, has to carry the weight of proof. Zaloga himself does not provide any references. His work is a non-peer-reviewed 80pp. brochure designed for the special interest book market. If the term or the concept "Panzer ace" was at any rate common in the Waffen-SS, well, then it should be no problem to provide further references which cite primary sorces. Sönke Neitzel does not conclude that "Panzer ace" is is a romantisation of reality, as it is misleadingly suggested, because he does not deal with "Panzer aces" as such, nor does he use the term. I will add some more information to the article about what German officers and the OKH thought how reliable the numbers of destroyed enemy vehicles given by tank crews were. If the consensus is that both "term" and "concept" have received sufficient attention in popular culture, however, be it by amateur military historiography, be it by various internet forums or be it by computer games, that's fine. But don't mistake a flawed reworkig of wartime propaganda for an actual concept.--Assayer (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My reading of it is that the Germans held up "Panzer Aces" like Wittman as hero type figures for morale building/propaganda purposes, and highlighted their achvievments, even if they didn't actually use the german term "Panzerass" for it. So while it's arguable to say they may not have used the term, it's also arguable to say they supported the concept, in a similiar way to which flying aces would have previously been used. Similiarly, it's also fair to say the Russians did the same with their tank aces, who were similiarly acknowledged - even if they didn't use the translated Russian term.
 * I've done historical newspaper searches, there is little use of the term in British newspapers during the war. The term "tank ace" has largely been used post war, in the discussion of tank v tank engagements, in a similiar sense to flying ace, in that The few aces among combat aviators(in this case, tank commanders) have historically accounted for the majority of victories in their form of combat, in military history.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How can you support a "Panzer Ace"-concept, when you don't adhere to the term? There were no German military "aces" before some time after WW II, even no "Fliegerasse". (Those were called "experts" and the like.) Of course both Soviets and Germans singled out individual soldiers to style them as heroes by propaganda. So by the same token you could argue that they supported the "concept" of, say, infantry aces. And sure enough that term exists within certain literature and in computer games. But that does not make it a historically valid term, let alone a "concept". There is a certain meaning to the term "ace" within military contexts and I would have preferred an article on that rather than on "Panzer aces". I have named some scholarship dealing with the origins of the "aces"-terminology in the AfD.--Assayer (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, the concept of the "tank ace" has thin reference during the war. My main references are post war acknowledgement and discussion of the concept. Either way, it's a concept that is recognised and discussed in the literature... even if it is post war. Even to the point that Wittman is referred to as "The Black Baron" in reference to WW1 Flying Ace Richtoven's "Red Baron". Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Ribbentrop & Kurowski
I re-reverted the removal; Ribbentrop as one of Kurowski's "panzer aces" is covered in Smelser & Davies, and is cited as such. Since this article is about "'Panzer aces' in popular culture", and Kurowski is part of popular culture, then its entirely appropriate to have this article on the list. This is also why Ribbentrop's page looked like this a year ago, and was almost entirely cited to Kurowski's Panzer Aces. Hope this clarifies; please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspect
I find the following statement a bit suspect:

Is it possible to write down the exact context? Pavel Rotmistrov, former chief marshal of the armored troops wrote once in his book, "Vremia i tanki" that propaganda and hero worshiping in the Red Army were of prime importance, to inspire their fellow comrades in heroism and courage, even thought it would distort realities. His work is cited among historians like David M. Glantz.

However, while it does not reject that thesis, it made one think clear; that they would use individual accounts of heroism to their advantage, to create an image of bravery, courage and loyalty.

Vitaliy Zhilin a former General, had collected and portrayed a few hundred "heroic tankers" in his two volume work "Tankisty-geroi 1941-1942" and "Tankisty-geroi 1943-1945" from 2008. Many thousands were awarded, 17 of them twice. It contains unaltered accounts, such as exaggerated kill claims and the nominations of tank commanders made at the time.

On Peter Samsonov's Archive Awareness, #Hero of the Soviet Union, one can find exactly those translated award nominations as seen in the book, example: Stankevich, Gamen Mikhailovich

To say that the Red Army did not "regarded destroying tanks as not being an act of particular heroism" is simply not true at all. Many were exclusively nominated because they destroyed a large number of equipment and tanks, or inflicted heavy casualties. Kubovsky (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems that the Red Army awarded its soldiers for "bravery and courage demonstrated in battle with fascist invaders" rather than "he destroyed 50 tanks to date, he's now eligible for the award". That said, I'm okay with the content staying out as it's tangential to the discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Than you certainly don't mind to post the full quote, so I can recheck it's validity? In case you don't know, Ivan Yakubovsky did received a second nomination because he was credited with the "killings of over 500 enemy soldiers, and the destruction of 30 tanks and 50 vehicles, in just one day." Kubovsky (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to Forty; I did not add the content. But even above Yakubovsky's nomination states that he destroyed 50 tanks in one day which is certainly a heroic deed. It's not like they were tallying his tank kills day by day, and bingo! -- you get HSU when you hit 50.


 * What would be interesting to know if Soviet tankers received monetary compensation for tank kills. I believe that the Soviet fighter pilots were paid for planes shot down and I wonder if the tankers did as well. Anything on this in Russian language literature? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ofc not, but they certainly kept a track record. Ah, I see, any idea who could have added it? Yes, as far as I can say, there was a monetary compensation for tank kills. A crew would receive a minimum of 500 rubles per destroyed tank, if my memory serves me right. Kubovsky (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Although, in a interview with Dmitriy Loza, he told that he "received 1000 rubles for each destroyed AFV." Kubovsky (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just restored this material, as it's supported by a reliable source (I added it based on a preview of the book in Google Books, which unfortunately is no longer viewable but I'm confident that the material reflected the statement in the book). If you have reliable secondary sources which state otherwise, please add them as well to indicate that there are differing views of this issue. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will have a look on my way to the library next week. However, in the material you restored, you also removed a very valid statement by Zaloga:
 * As seen in the diff:
 * I wonder why you haven't spoken in defence of Zaloga back then? diff And told so to K.e.coffman and Assayer, that if their sources state otherwise, they should "add and indicate that there are differing views" instead to contest and remove the statement; this would have considerable shorten the discussion (More attuned) on that alleged "content dispute". Kubovsky (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed: that was a mistake on my part. I don't understand the point you're trying to make on previous discussions. Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to prove somebody wrong on something that does not exist. I have provided sources which discuss the meaning of "Ace" in military contexts and primary sources which show that there was propaganda, but no "Panzer Ace"-concept, let alone the term. As I see it there is military non-fiction, non-academic, but written for the popular market and military pulp literature, that embrace the admittedly quiet catchy idea of "tank aces". Somebody like Zaloga, who works in the field of militaria, takes a more critical approach and discusses the whole thing. But as long as the "tank ace"-thing is not taken seriously outside the militaria camp, there will be no other sources discarding it. That there are no other sources speaks for the limited relevance of term and "concept". --Assayer (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Panzer Aces is rarer, Tank Aces certainly more common, even if the exact meaning of the concept is not discussed in depth, it seems to be a fairly well used term. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to prove somebody wrong on something that does not exist. I have provided sources which discuss the meaning of "Ace" in military contexts and primary sources which show that there was propaganda, but no "Panzer Ace"-concept, let alone the term. As I see it there is military non-fiction, non-academic, but written for the popular market and military pulp literature, that embrace the admittedly quiet catchy idea of "tank aces". Somebody like Zaloga, who works in the field of militaria, takes a more critical approach and discusses the whole thing. But as long as the "tank ace"-thing is not taken seriously outside the militaria camp, there will be no other sources discarding it. That there are no other sources speaks for the limited relevance of term and "concept". --Assayer (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Panzer Aces is rarer, Tank Aces certainly more common, even if the exact meaning of the concept is not discussed in depth, it seems to be a fairly well used term. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

To follow up on the earlier discussed point, I feel that the information presented by editor Kubovsky is consistent with the reference to "tank kills" as not being particular acts of heroism. The destroyed enemy tanks were tracked and rewarded by monetary means, but to get the HSU one needed to perform an act above and beyond this, as in destroying 50 tanks in a single day or showing exemplary bravery in action (which may or may have not resulted in the destruction of enemy tanks). K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Contemporary and Modern use of the term in Newspapers
Just a note for those interested, I've done newspaper searches on all the commercial historical databases covering the WW2 period (luckily get access as I'm a University librarian)... there's very little use of the term "tank ace" during the war. One of the few uses of it is for the Chinese Tank commmander, General Hoo. "CHINESE TANK ACE IN CAIRO: General Hoo to Study Training of Americans and British (New York Times (1923-Current file) [New York, N.Y] 30 Mar 1943: 8.) and a use for it for Guderian ("BELGIUM AND DUNKERQUE" The Washington Post (1923-1954) [Washington, D.C] 21 Oct 1945) I've checked Australia, British and US newspapers. The term in newspapers seems to start getting used after 2000, mainly in relation to Wittman, Poole and a few others. There is obvious comparisons in media between flying aces and tank aces, largely in a comparison of Baron Von Richtoffen (the red baron) vs Michael Wittman (who is called the Black Baron).... interestingly comparing the fact that there is a dispute of who can claim to have "downed" between various allied units and individuals. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC) There are quite a few references to this comparison, so it seems worthwhile to add a reference to the article, let me know if any issues. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, since I have challenged the notion that Michael Wittmann was nicknamed "The Black Baron", who exactly called him so in the media and when?--Assayer (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC) As I glanced over your references: Are these newspapers by chance referring to Brian Reid's book No Holding Back. Operation Totalize, Normandy, August 1944. (2005)?--Assayer (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC) As you reinserted the "black baron"-tale into the article, would you mind answering the question, if this newspaper coverage can be traced to Brian Reid?--Assayer (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to say that none of the sources I've seen state that Wittmann had such a nickname. The sources given are newspapers. Searching Google Books for "Black Baron" Wittmann returns only two low-quality sources. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Assayer Nick-D Hi everyone, sorry I missed this query about the Black Baron. The newspapers (and some websites) refer to him as the Black Baron, as a parrallel to the Red Baron. I've added in 7 different newspaper references to this, so it's not just one odd reference, including Canadian and British Newspapers. At some point, he was given this nickname, which seems to be somewhat popular for people to use, no idea of the origins. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, he's referred to as the Black Baron in Brian.A Reid's book "NO HOLDING BACK: Operation TOTALIZE, Normandy, August 1944"..which does meet WK:RS Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have argued elsewhere, why I think that Michael Wittmann was not called "the black baron" by anyone except Brian Reid in 2005. I might add that Waffen-SS soldiers didn't wear black, but camouflage. That's why I asked, if the newspapers refer to Reid who discusses the question: Who killed Michael Wittmann? At least Chris Wattie's "Canadians, not British, clipped Nazi: 'Black Baron': New book says British historians got it wrong" National Post 26 April 2005, clearly refers to Brian Reid's book. Other references also appear to be of April/May 2005. Thus it is misleading to claim that newspapers and Reid refer to Wittmann as "the Black Baron". It's a single source, and the newspapers are not the most prolific, to say the least.--Assayer (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to leave out the reference to Reid if was the person who coined the term, but apart from that, - This individual has been given the nickname, "The Black Baron" and certainly Reid was not the only person to use it - various newspapers and other sources (in German and English) have decided to use it - People asked me for references, and I have spent some hours searching for them and provided them. If there was some conspiracy amongst pro Nazis in the newspapers, that would be worth mentioning, but apart from that, it would seem to be a name that has been used by various sources, and relevant in an article about tank aces, particularly in popular culture. To leave it out seems to be some form of obfuscation of information, and a possible WP:Bal issue. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Any references from before 2005? I have not found any high quality sources that use that "nickname". Some of the sources on the "schwarzer Baron/black baron"-thing even refer to Kurt Knispel as the one. That's what makes it duboius, but I agree with you that this would eventually be relevant for an article about "tank aces" in popular culture. SS-Propaganda writer Herbert Reinecker described how he met Wittmann in Baron while Wittmann was wearing a black leather vest. But if that fed into idea of a nickname, I don't know. Anyway, we have to avoid circular reporting.--Assayer (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Zetterling
copied and pasted from my talk page. --Assayer (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

1) The OKW does not make any intelligence works, that is entirely done by the Abteilung Fremde Heere.

2) The 42% mentioned by Zetterling, is only related to assess the "Cost of the Battle" in 1943, not to make an overall assessment for each year.(p.126)

3) Zaloga on the other hand, has reviewed each year.

Capter 5, p.134: "One reason for the German complacency about the need to match Soviet tank strength was a tendency in the early years of the war to exaggerate Soviet tank losses and underestimate Soviet productive capacity. The Wehrmacht tended to overestimate the number of tanks it had destroyed or captured in combat. To their credit, the army’s Russian Front intelligence agency, the Fremde Heere Ost (FHO), usually made allowances for the exaggeration in their assessments. This resulted in reasonably accurate tallies of actual Soviet tank losses."[32]

Note 32, p.309: "For example, in 1942 various Wehrmacht troop reports claimed Soviet tank losses as 21,367, which FHO downgraded to 16,200. The actual Soviet losses were 15,000, of which more than half were due to mechanical breakdowns and accidents. Wehrmacht claims in 1943 were 34,659, which FHO downgraded to 17,330; actual losses were 22,400. FHO report, 26 January 1944, “Feindliche Panzer Verluste 1941–43,” NARA II, RG 242, T-78, R552."

Capter 7, p.197: "As mentioned earlier, the German FHO intelligence organization regularly discounted claims due to the problems of double-counting, especially in long-range engagements. Furthermore, German claims of Soviet tank kills covered any Soviet tank knocked out in combat, whether it was a total loss or later recovered and put back into action, while German Tiger losses included only total losses and no temporary losses."[23]

Note 23, p.311: "In a 26 January 1944 report on Soviet tank losses, Fremde Heere Ost discounted German tactical claims by 50 percent due to double-counting and Soviet recovery and repair of temporary battlefield losses. For example, German tank claims in July 1943 of 7,300 Soviet tanks destroyed was reduced to 3,650 in the FHO assessment. “Feindliche Panzer Verluste 1941–1943,” NARA RG 242, T-78, R-552."

Capter 8, p.227:

Table: German Kill Claims Against Soviet Tanks and AFVS, 1944 [17]

Note 17, p.312: "The German Eastern Front intelligence agency, Fremde Heere Ost, adjusted the claims to account for double counting and recovered tanks. They reduced army claims by 30 percent, except for 50 percent in July–August. They reduced all Luftwaffe claims by 50 percent due to the prevalence of overcounting. Panzer und Sturmgeschütz-Verluste 1944, Fremde Heere Ost (IIc), NARA RG 242, T-78, R552."

Kindleberger (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC) end of copy and paste.--Assayer (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I c&p Kindleberger's remarks to this talk page, because I think it is to be discussed in the context of this article. For background: I added this to the article. Nick-D cut the primary sources, and although I do not really agree with the argument in his edit summary, that's fine. The primary source were an extra, so to speak. Kindleberger edited the paragraph which I reverted, because I did not see a reason to substitute reliable information and references with other information and references, all the more since Steven Zaloga's research is mentioned in the next paragraph anyway. Now to the points raised by Kindleberger:
 * 1.) No one claimed that the OKW did intelligence work by themselves. So I don't see a reason to bring that up. It is important to note, however, that the OKH had their own statistics. It is reasonable to assume that they based their statistics on intelligence work carried out by the Fremde Heere Ost, but they also received reports by field commanders (e.g. the primary source I had taken from Toeppel's article). Therefore I consider their assessment to be significant.
 * 2.) Correct, but once again, the figure of 42% has never been introduced into the article.
 * 3.) What I did introduce into the article, was the informtation that the German high command routinely reduced the reported number of Soviet tanks being destroyed by 50 per cent since December 1942, which means, it was a common practice well before the battle of 1943. That information cannot be found with Zetterling/Frankson, but surely with Roman Toeppel's article, published in the de:Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, which is one of the leading German academic journals in the field. Toeppel backs up this information with archival records and Bernd Wegner's contribution to vol 8 of Germany and the Second World War. It seems as if vol. 8 is the last one of the series to be published in English translation. Anyway, although it might be nice to knock down a straw man here and there, there is no reason to pit Zaloga's research against Toeppel's. They used different sources and argued different things.
 * So why exactly do you insist on removing this particular information and the Toeppel-article as its reference, or, rather, on substituting it with Steven Zaloga's recently published Armored Champions? It's not, because Toeppel's piece is in German, is it? Because if that's the problem, there are not only numerous articles which need to be cleaned up (Dörr, Fellgiebel, Scherzer, Brütting - all in German), I will also go at lengths to get hold of the Wegner piece in English.--Assayer (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) You gave the impression in your revert, that you don't know the differences: "... with some review by Zaloga and research on something else, namely Fremde Heere Ost instead of the OKH"


 * The documents Zetterling have cited were prepared by the FHO e.g."Panzerverlust OST seit 1.Juli 1943 (BA-MA RH 10/77). Why we can't name the child by its name just as Zaloga does?


 * 2) The statement that "Recent research suggests that the numbers of destroyed enemy tanks as reported by the German combat troops were about 40 per cent too high." is completely deceptive.


 * The percentage reduction of "about 40%" applies only for the periodic analyses of 1 July to 31 August, and is only related to assessing the "Cost of the Battle", not to make a critical assessment to the year 1943, or to the forthcoming years. (see p.126) In 1944, the FHO reduced the claims every month by 30%, except for 50% in July to August. Even in 1945, tactical claims were reduced by 30%, except for January and April, before the confirmation system broke down altogether.


 * 3) Again, Zetterlings assessment is limited to a certain timeframe, the "about 40%" percentage change in question cannot be applied for a broad statement. Therefore, further acknowledge from Zetterling that German tactical claims were reduced by 50% is superfluous, as Zetterlings work is superseded by Zalogas recent research; that assess the tactical claims per each month and during the complete course of the war.


 * 4) If Toeppel's work is also used to source that blatant misinterpretation as explained in point 2, then I consider it as unreliable and a consciously distorted attempt to push fringe views.Kindleberger (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You speak of Fremde Heere Ost as "the Wehrmacht's intelligence agency",. That is misleading, because FHO was  "the army’s Russian Front intelligence agency" (see Zaloga above). The Wehrmacht's intelligence agency was the Abwehr, whereas FHO was a department of the OKH (12. Abteilung Generalstab des Heeres) - as was Fremde Heere West (3. Abteilung Generalstab des Heeres). Thus it is correct to speak, as Töppel does, of "the statistics of the OKH" (den Statistiken des OKH) and of "tables compiled by the OKH" (vom OKH angefertigten Aufstellungen) 1943/1944 (BA-MA, RH 10/77 K1, K2, K4 u. K 18) on the one hand and of the "combat troop reports" (Truppenmeldungen) on the other. As to the 40%, Töppel does indeed (with Zetterling/Frankson) refer to the summer of 1943. So the blame is on me for not citing him correctly. But I do not see Zetterling/Frankson's or Töppel's work as being "superseded by Zaloga's recent research". This article is not about the tank war as such, but about "Panzer aces" in popular culture, and hardly  anything captivates the minds of "Panzer Ace"-buffs so much as the Battle of Kursk. (Btw., Töppel criticizes the high estimates of Soviet losses by Karl-Heinz Frieser.) Moreover, Steven Zaloga's opinions are laid out in more detail in the next paragraph. So I will specify the text, but reintroduce Töppel and Zetterling/Frankson. --Assayer (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not, David Childs regularly describes it as "Wehrmacht's foreign auxiliaries" [Fremde Heere]. However, it has been changed accordingly "the army’s Russian Front intelligence agency". Again, the 40% only accounts for 2 months (1 July - 31 August), and have therefore, no statistical significance; neither does it contribute to the concept of "Panzer Ace" in popular culture. It is also unacceptable for a broad statement. Kindleberger (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * One thing more, the FHO did their "Bewertung der Feindlage" since the beginning of Nazi Germany's "Vernichtungskrieg" against the SU.(Zaloga p.134) To mention that "From December 1942 [onwards ...] " is also redundant. Kindleberger (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly "it is not"? A department of the OKH? It seems as if you translate Fremde Heere as "Wehrmacht's foreign auxiliaries" based upon a single sentence by Childs and Richard Popplewell in their book The Stasi (1996) about Richard Gehlen which reads: General Richard Gehlen was German general who had been in charge of the intelligence operations of the Wehrmacht's foreign auxiliaries, "Fremde Heere Ost" (Foreign Armies East), on the Eastern Front. (p. 42). That's both a careless translation and a grossly wrong interpretation. The Abteilung Fremde Heere was founded by the German General Staff in 1917. After its forced dissolution under the Versailles Treaty it continued to work informally a department of the Truppenamt and under the fake name Heeresstatistische Abteilung. In 1931 it became again the Abteilung Fremde Heere. In 1938 it was split in Fremde Heere Ost and Fremde Heere West. Gehlen led the FHO in the OKH from April 1942 to December 1944. For a detailed history of the FHO see Magnus Pahl: Fremde Heere Ost (Berlin 2012), English edition Hitler's Fremde Heere Ost (2016).
 * The 40% do have a historical significance, because the Battle of Kursk figures as "the greatest tank battle" of all times and is shrouded in myths. The whole paragraph is there to debunk the "Panzer ace"-myth.
 * I began to think that you were interested in factual accuracy, but now it seems that I am dealing with a single-purpose account whose only object is to keep these few sentences together with the reference out of the article. It's easier to engage into edit warring and risk an editor's block with such an account, isn't it? Is it, because it was me who added the information? Did I irk you with what I have previously said about Steven Zaloga's credentials? Because what you said about Töppel in your second last posting here reads like a tit-for-tat response.--Assayer (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to invoke here? Wrong book, look for "Germany in the Twentieth Century" but whatever. Keep rolling your weak accusations. Ah, now the concept of "Panzer Ace" tie up with the Battle of Kursk. Funny enough, you were the one who vehemently opposed Deathlibrarian's add: "that's simply wrong; please consult the references". Needless to say, it does include the Battle of Kursk and the Soviet counteroffensives (Kutuzov, Rumyantsev), but instead to correct it accordingly you simply rejected the idea. As for Toeppel and Zetterling, you did indeed have blatantly misinterpreted their statement, which why I said "If Toeppel's work is also used to source", but I guess you already forgot that you have admitted your blatant error: "Töppel does indeed (with Zetterling/Frankson) refer to the summer of 1943. So the blame is on me for not citing him correctly." Surely you are "interested in factual accuracy". Don't make me laugh. Kindleberger (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As for your question on Zaloga's credentials; well buddy, your previous agenda-driven drivel speaks volume.Kindleberger (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Frankly speaking, I'm tired, you are simply grasping at straws. I'm not going to respond you further. If you still insist to include the periodic analysis of 1 July to 31 August, please open up a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Cheers Kindleberger (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I reinserted the statement, as it indeed says: "during the Summer of 1943". I would also suggest refraining from personal attacks, i.e. "your previous agenda-driven drivel". K.e.coffman (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not up to you to decide coff, I suggested to take it over at the DRN. Also, the correction appeared only after Assayer acknowledged his blatant misinterpretation. Damaging the academic reputation of an historian, by calling his work on the subject as a "fringe theory" and "not sufficiently notable", is a serious immoral act. Kindleberger (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like I'm arguing against windmills, so I'd like to introduce the following changes to resolve the content disput: -- "The military historian Steven Zaloga has noted that "tank kill claims during World War II on all sides should be taken with a grain of salt" as multiple crews often claimed to have destroyed the same tank. The Wehrmacht's intelligence service on the Eastern Front, the Fremde Heere Ost (FHO), routinely reduced the reported number of Soviet tanks being destroyed by 30 to 50 per cent in their own statistics to make up for double counting and repairable vehicles. This resulted in reasonably accurate tallies of actual Soviet tank losses."

"As of December 1942, the German high command routinely reduced the reported number of Soviet tanks being destroyed by 50 per cent in their own statistics. At the time of the Operation Citadel and during the subsequent Soviet counteroffensives in the Summer of 1943, German combat units claimed 16,250 tanks and assault guns to be destroyed. According to Zetterling, the high command was a little too drastic with its 50% reduction, and the reducing by about 40% would have been more accurate to assess the cost of the fighting." -- From Zetterling p.126: "The German high command did reduce this by 50 percent to compensate for double counting and repairable vehicles and accordingly settled for a total of 15,334 tanks and assault guns destroyed. Compared with the figures presented above the German high command was a little too drastic in its reduction of claims, Instead of reducing by 50 percent, 42 per cent would have been more accurate. For the period of 1 July to 31 August the claims of the combat units were 16,250 tanks and assault guns, which accordingly were reduced to 8,125 by the high command. If the 42 per cent reduction is applied, it would indicate 9,400 tanks and assault guns destroyed."

Any concerns? Kindleberger (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to note that the editor has been reverting against consensus. The comments "Not up to you to decide coff" etc have the appearance of being personal attacks. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have taken notice. Which consensus? You don't have participated in the discussion, you simply left one comment, and went directly to reinsert the previous version. That's not nice either. diff Kindleberger (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any other objections to the upcoming changes? Kindleberger (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * How can I damage "the academic reputation of an historian" by calling the subject with which he deals (and not his work), namely the idea of a "concept" of "German tank aces, fringe theory? I assess WP:FRINGELEVEL by peer-reviewed sources, and no one has been able to provide such sources. I found no such review  of Zaloga's Armored-series or of Panther vs. Sherman, either. But it seems as if this is not about reviews, but about morality and retaliation, and it seems as if things turn from bad to worse when I acknowledge a mistake. So this is the version you insisted on.  And now you suggest to add that the German high command [OKH] also had routinely reduced..., although the dispute evolved, because you were keen to "name the child by its name", and although it has been pointed out to you that the FHO was a department of the OKH. It's no improvement to make them appear as being completely different entities ("also"). Furthermore you removed the reference to Roman Töppel's article, which provides the date and more sources and is more recent research, which initially had been so important to you, too. (Btw, Dennis Showalter calls Töppel's work "perceptive and comprehensive" on the subject of myth and history.) Finally you want to add more statistical detail provided by Zetterling which you have called "misleading" and of "no statistical significance" and which is only part of the parcel I instisted on. For example I would like to state Zaloga's opinions as to what are "reasonably accurate tallies" as opinions and not as facts. So how exactly do "the upcoming changes" resolve the content dispute? --Assayer (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Listen this has taken far too long, and I'm not longer interested to argue with you in-depth. Zetterlings assessment has therefore no statistical significance because it's limited to a certain event, and I'm speaking regarding to the wider context of the German tactical kill claim throughout the course of the war, as it was reviewed by Zaloga's recent book, Armored Champion.I did not call it misleading, I called your vague description: "Recent research suggests that the numbers of destroyed enemy tanks as reported by the German combat troops were about 40 per cent too high." as a misinterpretation, because without further context one might think that during the entire year of 1943, every German tactical kill claim were about 40% too high. You wanted to have it included, because you think the "Batlle of Kursk" is shrouded in myths and would fit the concept of "Panzer Ace", yet, you don't provide any sources regarding the conjunction, nor do you have it clarified.(diff) So, tell me, how I'm supposed to see the conjunction and relevance of Zetterlings assessment for this article? Naturally, I hesitated. As for Toeppel, he can be used to cite: "As of December 1942, the German high command routinely had reduced the reported number of Soviet tanks being destroyed by 50 per cent" - "Dementsprechend wurden  seit  Dezember  1942  in  den  Statistiken  des  OKH  über  sowjetische  Panzerverluste  grundsätzlich  50  Prozent  der gemeldeten Abschüsse abgezogen" But for other statement, I don't think its necessary to source it with Toppel, as he does refer back to Zetterling, "Vgl. Zetterling/Frankson, Kursk 1943, S. 126". "Neuere Forschungen haben allerdings gezeigt, dass ein Abzug von 50 Prozent zu weit griff und die Truppenmeldungen im Sommer 1943 tatsächlich „nur“ ca. 40 Prozent über der Wirklichkeit lagen" Well, how about that:

"The military historian Steven Zaloga has noted that "tank kill claims during World War II on all sides should be taken with a grain of salt" as multiple crews often claimed to have destroyed the same tank. The Wehrmacht's intelligence service on the Eastern Front, the Fremde Heere Ost (FHO), routinely reduced the reported number of Soviet tanks being destroyed by 30 to 50 per cent in their own statistics to make up for double counting and repairable vehicles. Zaloga considers these numbers to be reasonably accurate tallies of actual Soviet tank losses."

"As of December 1942, the German high command routinely reduced the reported number of Soviet tanks being destroyed by 50 per cent in their own statistics. At the time of the Operation Citadel and during the subsequent Soviet counteroffensives in the Summer of 1943, German combat units claimed 16,250 tanks and assault guns to be destroyed. According to Zetterling, the high command was a little too drastic with its 50% reduction, and the reducing by 42% would have been more accurate to assess the cost of the fighting."

And than clarify why you decided to make the conjunction: "German kill claims in the Operation Citadel, are therefore important to mention, because German propaganda shrouded it as decisive victory and further triumph over the subhuman and thus creating myths and helped to raise the cult of hero worshiping." Something like that, and don't forget to source it. Kindleberger (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You are chasing ghosts by bringing up outdated diff-links. That was my latest version of 5 November: (diff) I consider it more concise, in chronological order (Zaloga quotes FHO reports from 1944) and it does clarify that the number of 40% refers to the summer of 1943, encompassing the Battle of Kursk. You deemed it necessary to undo that version thrice, claiming once the 40% has no statistical significance.--Assayer (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So did K. e. Coffman, he has not even participated in our discussion, yet made three reverts. I explained above, why I was hesitated to use it, because you don't have provided any source so far, that could support a conjecture between the Battle of Kursk and the concept of "Panzer Ace". Without an explanation why the Battle of Kursk is so important for the article, I consider the 40% as an irrelevant fact, that has no statistical significance in the wider context of German tactical kill claims, when reviewing the years of 1941 to 1945.


 * No, Zaloga quotes FHO report from 1941 to 1943, (p.134) then mark the year 1944 in a table and stating: "The German Eastern Front intelligence agency, Fremde Heere Ost, adjusted the claims to account for double counting and recovered tanks. They reduced army claims by 30 percent, except for 50 percent in July–August" For 1945, Zaloga makes note that the data is incomplete as the confirmation system broke down.(see previous response). So the chronological order is correct when putting Zaloga ahead of Zetterling and Toeppel. As Toeppel, states: ""Dementsprechend wurden seit Dezember 1942 in den Statistiken des OKH gemeldeten Abschüsse abgezogen" - Which indicates that the OKH did not reduce claims by 50% prior Decemeber 1942.

--
 * "As of December 1942, the German high command routinely reduced the reported number of Soviet tanks being destroyed by 50 per cent in their own statistics. At the time of the Operation Citadel and during the subsequent Soviet counteroffensives in the Summer of 1943, German combat units claimed 16,250 tanks and assault guns to be destroyed. According to Zetterling, the high command was a little too drastic with its 50% reduction, and the reducing by 42% would have been more accurate to assess the cost of the fighting."


 * I take that you have no other objection to this change. Now lets introduce another sentence that follows the reasoning behind it, why its so important for the article so other readers can get behind the idea. Something like: "German kill claims in the Operation Citadel, is therefore important to mention, because German propaganda shrouded it as decisive victory... helped to create myths and raised the awareness of the hero worshiping in popular culture". Kindleberger (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If you quoted Zaloga correctly, he refers to an FHO report from 26 January 1944 that covers the years 1941 to 1943. FHO was reorganized and professionalized by Gehlen in 1942. Gehlen also intensified cooperation with Fremde Luftwaffen Ost, FHO's counterpart in the General Staff of the Luftwaffe (Luftwaffenführungsstab Ic). Thus chronology as to when reports were prepared does matter. The whole section is about analysis of "tank kill"-claims and I consider mentioning the Battle of Kursk relevant, because later on Zaloga is quoted adressing Wittmann's credits on the Eastern Front during 1943. As to the myths, I have in mind prose like that by Mark Healy in Zitadelle (2008): "Foremost among the Tiger 'experten' at Kursk was Michael Wittman whose exploits during the offensive have become an unforgettable chapter in the battle story." But I think the article does not need more references of that kind. You'll find that book used for the "good" Wikipedia article on the Battle of Kursk and, yes, Healy calls Wittmann also a German panzer ace. I do not insist, however, on any intricate details provided by Zetterling. Anything else has been suggested by you. --Assayer (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That's the one. Well, that doesn't mean that the report didn't existed in separate FHO preparations, before being summarized altogether on 26 January 1944. It has to be assumed that the collected tank kill claims by the FHO at time and during the e.g. 1941 "Feldzug" were reduced accordingly, to account for double counting and recovered tanks.


 * However, as Toeppel mentioned, in the statistics from the OKH, claims were not reduced prior December 1942. So it's likely that the report he is referring too, was only prepared for a recap at much later date, probably not even before 1945: "Vgl. dazu die vom OKH angefertigten Aufstellungen der deutschen und sowjetischen Panzerverluste 1943/44, in: BA-MA, RH 10/77 K 1, K 2, K 4 u. K 18 (letztere auch abgedruckt in: Fritz Hahn, Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933–1945, Bonn 21992, Bd. 2, S. 241" However, they certainly kept an detailed record per year.


 * And for Zetterling, who refers to the report of 1. July 1943 "Panzerverluste Ost seit 1. July 1943 (BA-MA RH 10/77) was also not prepared before 1944, as I do hold an orginal copy of it. The given date is also somewhat vage, as the report (found at NARA II), refers only to the period of 5.7 July - 31. 8.August.


 * The "chronology as to when reports were prepared does matter" is therefore fine, when putting Zaloga ahead of the two. I also have it supplemented with a further statement by Steven H. Newton, Kursk - The German view. See reinserted proposal [diff].


 * He provide a peer review (p.407-415) on Zetterling and Frankson's study, remarks their analysis is filled with "circular logic", being even "somewhat misleading" at times, and that they would "downplay" German casualties as "quite small" or "categorizing them as merely a fraction" which giving a "distorted picture", etc. The book can be found here. Kindleberger (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no need to delve into speculation. It has been documented that FHO's reporting generally improved through Gehlen's reforms. As to the German leadership's early scepticism in regard to their own combat troops reporting, Töppel clearly refers to Bernd Wegner's chapter Von Stalingrad nach Kursk in the DRZW, vol. 8. I don't have that at hand, so I cannot tell you, what Wegner's sources are. But such in-depth analysis is not necessary to make the point. I do not see a particular need to put Zaloga ahead. Rather I would keep his analysis together. Newton criticizes Zetterling/Frankson on a certain issue, namely their assessment of German losses. Otherwise he calls their study "an important (one is tempted to say definitive) reference work". (p. 407) My concern was to back up Neitzel's statement with Töppel's more specific sources. His paper is also about Kursk. I only referred to Zetterling/Frankson, because their book is in English. Thus I do not deem it necessary to discuss the controversies surrounding Kursk in so much detail here. But that's my 2 cents and I'll leave it for other editors to decide.--Assayer (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ace (military)
FYI on the new article: Ace (military). Since article is specifically about "Panzer aces", I move content relating to Allied "tank aces" there. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

More attuned
I copy edited this sentence but it does not read quite right to me:


 * While not prevalent in World War II within the Wehrmacht, it was more common in the Waffen-SS to reward its successful personnel, as the SS organisation was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of Nazi Germany.

Original copy:
 * While it was not prevalent in World War II even within the Wehrmacht, it was most common in the Waffen-SS wich was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of Nazi Germany.

Wehrmacht was very much "attuned", so I'm not sure if it's appropriate to make this comparison. From what I recall, Waffen-SS brass wanted to make sure that its members were recognized for their combat performance. So there was a certain element of rivalry involved. The present day "Panzer aces" come from both Heer and the Waffen-SS. I suggest this sentence be reworked, or simply remove. I think the opening para would would read fine without it.

Lead without the sentence:


 * "Panzer ace" ("tank ace") is a contemporary term used in English-speaking popular culture to describe highly-decorated German Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS tank commanders during World War II. These commanders were credited in Nazi propaganda with the destruction of large numbers of tanks and other armoured vehicles. The Allied armies did not recognise any of their tank commanders for "tank kills", though some were responsible for destroying a large number of enemy tanks.

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. I would say that a clear distinction and emphasis is necessary. The concept was by far more common in the Waffen SS and especially common regarding the Tiger battalions. Other panzer units in the Heer did not receive or attracted the same notice. 217.146.13.19 (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Kubovsky (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion below: Talk:"Panzer_ace"_in_popular_culture. The "concept" did not exist during World War II at all. It's a recent invention. Is there evidence to the contrary? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a recent invention, still, we should not make a general statement. As the Wehrmacht's ground force, did not attracted the same notice for tank kills, as did the Tiger commanders of the Waffen SS. Zaloga makes it pretty clear:


 * "The concept of "tank aces" was not praticularly prevalent in Word War II, even in the Wehrmacht. It was most common in the Waffen-SS, wich was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of the Nazi state. It was especially common regarding the Tiger battalions, wich enjoyed an envelope of invulnerability for one year, from summer 1943 to summer 1944, until the Allies finally fielded tanks, such as the T-34-85 and Sherman Firefly that could defeat them. In Heer panzer units, the concept was not widespread and military awards focused on mission performance, not arbitary metric like tank kills. Panther aces were fa less common in German propaganda than Tiger aces as the Panther was far more vulnerable and had much mor troubled existence in its first year of service than did the Tiger. 217.146.13.19 (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC) Kubovsky (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Kurt Knispel and Otto Carius, widely considered to be foremost "Panzer aces", fought with the Wehrmacht. How did they become "aces"? And how does Mr. Zaloga come to the conclusion that the Waffen-SS "was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of the Nazi state"? That's quite a bold statement. I haven't read anything like that in a study of Nazi war propaganda so far. Did all the foreign volunteers of the Waffen-SS (among them Ukrainans since July 1943) fit into the Nazi racial theory? And did the Wehrmachtbericht not follow the imperatives of the Nazi state? Besides, as historian Daniel Uziel noted, since July 1943 the SS propaganda reported about army units as well. (The Propaganda Warriors, 2008, p. 173). So you may want to bolster your claim, which reminds me of the Clean Wehrmacht, with some more RS. And btw, "Panzer ace" Ernst Barkmann commanded a Panther as did Rudolf von Ribbentrop. The Tiger was less vulnerable on its sides, but the Panther got improved frontal armor. The Panther initially suffered from mechanical problems, but as early as the last half of 1943 the average reliability of Panther and Tiger was about equal. The Panther had been very much improved in 1944 making it the "most formidable tank on the battlefield, east or west". That's according to Steven Zaloga own: Armored Champion. The Top Tanks of World War II. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole, 2015, p. 202, 221. Detailed information on those tanks can also be found in the book by Zetterling and Frankson, Kursk 1943 (2000). It should be most interesting to look into it whose interest the Tiger commanders of the Waffen-SS actually attracted.--Assayer (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Sir. That's entirely a "POV forking" issue on your side. It has been repeatedly explained to you, why Zaloga is considered RS, despite that one "bold" statement; when you tried to shoot down the article as a fringe theory. Time to call for an admin intervention. Hi, could you please come over here? Thanks! Kubovsky (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Admins have no special authority over content issues. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, there seems to be a content issue. However, the article builds upon a source, (Zaloga, Panther vs Sherman : Battle of the Bulge p. 38) whose content is fundamental for the article, as well as for the lead and the "wartime percetions" section. It's clear from above, that the statement ("The concept of "tank aces" was not particularly prevalent in Word War II, even in the Wehrmacht. It was most common in the Waffen-SS, which was far more attuned to the propaganda imperatives of the Nazi state.") cause much discomfort to some user, notabene, because it does not fit their POV. We should not allow "cherry picking", which would not only mislead casual readers, but also misrepresent a factual to what Zaloga's academic reputation and research stands.


 * If we can't manage a neutral POV, then we might remove the source as a whole, which why I made the recent revert. Kubovsky (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Zaloga is RS for the "WWII tank combat" subject and (possibly) for "WWII tank combat in contemporary culture" but he has not studied Nazi propaganda. I've searched two sources that cover the topic specifically: Nazi Propaganda and the Second World War & The Propaganda Warriors: The Wehrmacht and the Consolidation of the German Home Front. Neither contains a mention of panzer ace or a tank ace. I believe that Assayer has made a convincing case that this term / concept was not used in the German-language historiography either. My suggestion that the more neutral version of the lead be restored (diff. Please let me know of any feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you proof that? He certainly have studied the daily OKW communiques to make out the exaggerations in tank kills and any other shenanigans made during a offensive, battle etc. To say that he might be ill informed is a baseless accusation, your suggestion is not neutral. If those two books can not support the concept, the article might be better deleted. Kubovsky (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As it happens, I've studied the Wehrmachtbericht transcripts myself; in fact, I have a "Best of..." section of sorts on my user page: OKW press releases. :-)

This attests that the Wehrmacht was very much attuned to the Nazi propaganda imperatives. The Propaganda Warriors linked above discusses how Waffen-SS propaganda companies worked closely with the armed forces propaganda arm under the overall direction of the OKW, and they were getting more integrated starting around 1943. Based on the source that specifically studied the propaganda aspects of the German war effort, I'd say that making a broad statements on "Waffen-SS propaganda vs Wehrmacht propaganda" seems uncalled for. Is there another source that discusses this relative "attunement" between the two propaganda arms? Or am I missing something? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Since there's been no response, I restored my edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been busy, so I couldn't reply to you earlier this week. Can I restore back?
 * However, were are not in agreement, and you should know by now, that bold phrases like "I've studied" - "this attests" carries little weight, as Wikipedia aims to citations from reliable works and historians or reputable authors, and not by your own personal beliefs. From what I could gather by reviewing the linked snipping views to the books; None of the both dealing with the controversial statement that the Wehrmacht's Ground Force was equally affected by propaganda in their selection criteria and nomination process of crews and commanders, as it was overwhelming present in the Waffen SS.


 * I'm still in doubt that Zaloga is ill-informed as you are trying to make out. Maybe I'm missing some context, but form what I could gather, the Wehrmachtsberichte had nothing to do with the nomination to award crews and commanders, or the cult of "hero worshiping" as it was present in the Waffen SS. It was mainly a propaganda tool to broadcast their fake achievements on the battleground and to take influence on peoples mind. Please, do me a favor and write down the full quote in your next reply, so that removal of the controversial statement by Zaloga was valid and well supported. So, we can finally end this discussion.Kubovsky (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Taking the discussion back from archive, as it seems still relevant, and as the assertions continues to claim that Zaloga's expertise on the subject might be obscure: diff. K.e.coffman failed to provide a substantial and source backed response to my last reply in October 2016. It seems that he/she deliberately tried to outlast a consensus, - until the discussion was archived unanswered - to start over again and to dismiss Zaloga's statement once again. Kubovsky (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit
I undid this addition: diff. Citations do not go into the section headings, and Bob Carruthers's books appear to be a part of popular culture that this article is about: Author profile on Amazon. For background, please see Articles for deletion/German tank aces. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I undid the changes (diff); please see Articles for deletion/German tank aces and discuss the proposed changes on the Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there: I object to your continually reverting my edits to "Panzer ace" in popular culture which originally seemed to me to give prominence to Michael Wittmann and the Waffen-SS.  Particularly as Wittmann was not the highest-scoring "Tiger Ace". The highest scoring "Tiger Ace" was Kurt Knispel of the Heer and the highest-scoring Waffen SS ace was Martin Schroif not Wittmann.  As far as I know Bob Carruther’s book "Tiger I in Combat" is a respectable source for the list of "Tiger Aces". Hugo999 (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The preceding comment was originally posted on my Talk page diff.
 * The article is not about Tiger Aces, but about "Panzer ace" in popular culture. I did not find Carruthers to be a suitable source; hence I made the edit. Please also review the discussion at Articles for deletion/German tank aces; it gives background on why the article is in the form that it is now. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)