User talk:Dapi89/Archive 2

Luftwaffe Eagle
Hi, I'm not sure what you are looking for but have you looked here? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Luftwaffe revamp
I will have a look at the article and let you know what I think. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a first look: Some initial comments about the article History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) I think the article is proceeding very nicely and I like the overall structure and breakdown. You will have to fix the dashing between dates. What I think is missing or lacking emphasis is how Hitler throughout the war was more pro bomber and didn’t understand the necessity of a strong aerial defence. You could also write about how Göring started accusing his fighter pilots for the omissions and failures in command (Fighter Pilots Conspiracy) even though the pilots had the highest casualty rates in the German Wehrmacht (even higher than U-boat crews). On the other hand some German pilots were the most highly decorated German soldiers of the war. Maybe some statistics could be added on production, aerial victories, losses. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Passchendaele
Greetings D89, I question your amendment. I'd say tactical and operational British success, strategically inconclusive and add something about post-war German testimony (from Kuhl etc) that German losses at 3rd Ypres contributed to the failure of 1918.Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's intent of course and Haig appears to have been as disingenuous as Monty when it came to getting his way but it seems to me that his target was the German army and that the talk about submarine bases (and the decrepit state of the French army) was for political consumption. What did the campaign achieve? Tactically the British overwhelmed the Germans, their advances were inexorable. The German effort to defend the salient forced them to accept battle under circumstances where they couldn't avoid huge losses which they couldn't afford (which to me is an operational defeat) and which deprived the Germans of the means to exploit the weakness of the French (however much gilding the lily Petain indulged in, clearly the French army after the Nivelle Offensive was less battleworthy than before) which is a strategic effect. If Rupprecht was right that the only thing that saved the Germans in Flanders from worse was the weather, then the Germans were lucky rather than successful. There's argument of course but there is a case for the view that the losses of late 1917 doomed the Germans' last throw in early 1918 as mentioned above. There was no breakthrough but the war was on in more places than Flanders so not all of its effects can be found there. Did the Germans have the ability to avoid defeat by the British through the operations of corps and armies in Flanders? Eventually, I suppose but for me the success is in the price the Germans had to pay even as they were rescued by the weather. The price Haig paid was in being starved of troops and undermined by Ll-G but the Germans rescued him from that:O)Keith-264 (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm surprised at your definition of 'operational success' though because I don't know of a breakthrough in any Great War battle (except perhaps for the Brusilov Offensive).Keith-264 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you make of this, "....the clash of two modern armies [is] one huge battle spread over space and time, in which the smaller battles fought by the army corps...[would] form the tactical encounters of traditional battles. These large numbers of battles that would take place far away from one another as the individual corps or groups of corps came into contact with the enemy would be welded together by the commander-in-chief into a 'complete battle'. The individual [smaller] battles would be given significance by the commander-in-chief's plan. Just as a commander of old gave units particular goals on the battlefields of days past, a modern commander-in-chief would give specific goals to his army corps. Each would play a part in the overall plan. 'The success of battle today depends more upon conceptual coherence than on territorial proximity. Thus, one battle might be fought in order to secure victory on another battlefield." 'German Strategy and the path to Verdun, Erich von Falkenhayn and the development of attrition, 1870-1916' by Robert Foley, P. 66. Most of it is a paraphrase by Foley with some quotation of Alfie Schlieffen taken from 'War Today' in another Foley effort 'Schlieffen's Military Writings', pp 198-201.

I have the impression that the 'operational space' in the Great War was rather narrow, being the thin line where corps could manoeuvre under covering fire from artillery and machine guns, either side of no-man's land (until one army was too weak to contain its opponent). The German 'elastic' method after linear defence was overwhelmed by the Entente's material superiority was intended to create an encounter battle, with the Germans having home advantage, yet the British confounded it once Plumer got his way. Motorisation, wireless, aircraft etc in the 30s and 40s widened the operational space, at times to several hundred miles rather than several hundred yards but then again much of the fighting (and most of the decisive fighting) in WWII took place over the same distances as in WWI.Keith-264 (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Since Enigma is interested, my reply to your reply to my reply is on my talk page.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Erich Hartmann
Have you seen this Talk:Erich Hartmann? Absurd MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

german aircraft
your source gives losses for a time frame until 29th. zitadelle ended 20th... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 19:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

kursk
the mythos of the numerical superiority : the red army lost more men than the german employed for their attack, more than 4 times more casualties, but the numercial superiority was less signifcant: lol ^^. but i think its ok to bring more than one opinion. maybe u are interessted in improving my terrible english ? Blablaaa (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

what will happen when two armies with equal numbers fight and on loses 4 time more man, please answer simple and short. Blablaaa (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * losses are irrelvant ^^ lol yes when u have numerical superiorty they are irrlevant, brain dapi brain ? without numerical superiority losses are not irrelevant again brain ? that u dont answer the question says absolutly everything Blablaaa (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

i see the big picture, the germans inflicted higher casualties in everything. when the german had the same numbers they had won, simple math!!!! russian suffered 4 times higher casualties in men in one of the "coolest"( all pro russian historian explain how great the defense was ) fortified positions. yes the suffered huge losses in the defence... so the big picturs shows numbers were significant. and again i ask u "what will happen when two armies with equal numbers fight and on loses 4 time more man, please answer simple and short." , can u answer this question now? Blablaaa (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

sure u are done because u cant answer this question. but i understand your point, the red army was brilliant in thinking but bad in fighting. and they could lose huge numbers of men and material but didnt need it to win^^, slapped.... but i love your theoretical thinking. Blablaaa (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

yes the arrogant historians who are able to do mathematics ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent comments
Hi Dapi, I recognise that User:Blablaaa has been provoking you with their highly uncivil comments, but it would be best if you didn't respond in kind. Please note that I have warned them for their comments and they will be blocked if they continue. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

prokhorovka
he defend your sources or delete them Blablaaa (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

kursk
kursk-defence; 177,847 ,orel-counter; 429,890 ,belgorod-counter; 255,566, this are the official russian numbers and they are too LOW, because not enlisted men arent counted  Blablaaa (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

u dispute that krivo give 800,000 for the battle of kursk, answer yes or noBlablaaa (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

admin
ok i will search for an admin. you delete krivosheev which is one of the most reliable sources for russian casualties... Blablaaa (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * the rules are i have to warn u... done please dont remove krivosheev numbers this is considered vandalism Blablaaa (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Idea
Hello. Seing as our GAN of Battle of Belgium went very well and since you have already got Battle of Fort Eben-Emael to GA status, that leaves Battle of Hannut left for a GA. If we can get this article to GA status as well, then you and I can nominate the whole battle for a WP:GTC. It meets all the requirements. We just need to get this last article to GA status. So what do you think? I've taken a look at the article a few times. Pretty good job at writeing it. You covered all of the major aspects and it's fairly sourced. It only needs a few more citations (of which I can put in) and maybe a bit of copy-editing and it will pass a GAN. Are you up for it?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  17:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers
Please don't think that all Germans are as lame headed as this user appears. Your point about being outthought at Kursk is self evident. The fact that the Soviets were able to setup a defensive system in depth proves this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed you have improved :-) It's another reason why I'm here and not on the German Wiki. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Data Point
For the sake of interest I looked up who Blablaaa is citing and it seems that author Karl-Heinz Frieser is a former employee (now retired) of the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office. So this guy had access to German primary sources and as it seems a reliable source as well. So I wouldn't assume that his opinion is totally absurd after all. Maybe this should be consider after all? 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

sandbox
i thought i should comment this because its not ok... Blablaaa (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

what should i do now and where? Blablaaa (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * iam so confused ^^, in the real article ? in the sandbox article , in the sandbox discussion article? :-) Blablaaa (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

more complete? in the note u have casualties for the armies and a breakdown MIA WIA KIA, in addition i can gave breakdown for zitadelle and the counters. all in the note Blablaaa (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * refs done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 11:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

i dont have krivos book, i will not cite frieser when he cites krivo. so i let u do this. i think this brings the big problem of wiki, citing a secondary source which cites a secondary sources. frieser is reliable so when he says on p 188 krivo says this, then krivo says this on p. 188, but when its not allowed to cite this then i wont do it. Blablaaa (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * its more likly that i do a mistake with interpreting the source than frieser ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

looks a bit much but good, what is the figure for the whole battle of kursk ? krivo gives 8xx.xxx ? Blablaaa (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Bellamy
Thanks, and yes, it is :) I couldn't see it in the reflist and I thought his approach was slightly different so might be worth mentioning - might have guessed someone else would have it too. It attracted me because I remember him reporting on TV and was surprised to learn he's now a prof at my old alma mater. EyeSerene talk 11:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

proko
we have to find consense here. i will dispute against everything that lets the actions look like a cool decision of the soviets. we can highlight the bravery of russian soldiers. i can provide cites, frieser writes about waffen SS soldiers which respected the bravery of the russin foes. i disputed against anything created by rotmistrov like the ramming quote. the section must tell the reader that soviets suffered enorm and waffen SS was repelling every attack under low casualties. if u want u can explain that it has the good effect that german didnt advance further. but the german units were depleted is, again, a lie by rotmistrov dont cite them. mfg blablaaaBlablaaa (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

proko casualties
u give wrong estimated casualties for the entire coprs for more than 5 days, while including the damaged, but only the complete destroyed 300 for the russians of only one army ^^ .... Blablaaa (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

strategic
even thinking that a army which conductes broadfront attacks can be called skilled .... Blablaaa (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"but operational art and strategy" u see that the red army neede 2 years after Kursk to win the war against an outnumbered enemy which fought on 3 fronts. so u cant be correct here or the red army wasnt superior on the operational level. simple conclusion... Blablaaa (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ok but i think different. and its ok when we think different. but i dont like when wiki presents desasters like proko as soviet clever decisions.. if this was a clever decision for soviets thant the red army was one of the worst armies ever.... . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 18:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

glantz proko
my book is delayed and i will get monday, until this i will not edit your proko text. if i find that glantz is citing rotmistrov or any other sources affected by rotmistrov, than i will delete everything of him. i see that u quote rotmistrov indirectly and that u let the sovietpropaganda alive, until i cant proof i will not edit. u are not responding to my questions if rotmistrov is cited, thats sad. maybe we should do something else first. the german advance from 5 july... Blablaaa (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ok now i ask u patiently and honest. if glantz cites rotmistrov u want to include him in the article. yes or no? Blablaaa (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

so if a unreliable source ( rotmistrov is indeed the perfect example of unreliable ) is cited by a reliable, the unreliable source becomes reliable regardless how much this unreliable source was destroyed even if the reliable source quotes the unreliable sources before newer research shows how unreliable the source is ? Blablaaa (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * he we would simply take german archives for german losses and russian archives for soviet losses than everything would be fine but u are only using historians which used soviet numbers for german losses thats so disgusting . iam sad :-( just a joke Blablaaa (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

lol dapi that he dont says his numbers but has the same numbers like zetterling who did a research is not obivous for u ? lol, zetterling included all units and a bigger time frame. where are the laugh smilies????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * dapi i will not respect your sources, your sources about prokhorovak are bad that not my opinion thats a well known fact u have very very bad sources about this battle. thats not your fault but its fact... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 13:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * update : no offense Blablaaa (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * update 2: i respect that glantz has a very detailed account about the rest of kursk. maybe prokhorovka should be made last because its most controversial —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 13:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

killing the myth
while most of my sources are in german i tried to search text in english for u. so u maybe can rethink your opinion about proko
 * licari []

there are numerus forums which discuss the myth u will find many of your sentences, maybe u take a lookBlablaaa (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * i will give u statements of frieser later Blablaaa (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

yes sorry i was reading the book of glantz. when u come online tommorrow u will have all citiation u need. Blablaaa (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * can u mark the statements ? then i will give the refs for the statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 00:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

review Joachim Helbig
Would you mind leaving your opinion about the article here? The article is not attracting many reviewers and I fear the review may close before a consensus is achieved. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. Right now I don't think I that I need to take action on you comments. See the review page MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Belgium is not explicitly mentioned. LG 1 chronicles by Peter Taghon hardly (not to say at all) mention Helbig in the early phase of WW2. Helbig gets more coverage with the move down to the Mediterranean theatre. The stuff I took from Kurowski seems anecdotal at best, well you know his style of writing from his book on Marseille. Peter Taghon's book mentions a Helbig collection, which presumably he was preparing for a book of his own. Unfortunately Helbig died in that car accident. To my knowledge the book was never released. I am fairly confident that given the sources I have, maybe I could scrape one or two little facts but they wouldn't change the overall picture of Helbig. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please have a final look at the article and give an assessment indicating whether you approve or disapprove? I believe to have addressed your issue regarding I. Gruppe association. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

orsa
are your books covering the russian attacks on armygroup center winter 43? Blablaaa (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * who was responsible. what were their plans. who much troops how much tanks. what did they wrong. maybe the judgement of glantz. Blablaaa (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

no, i talk about the battles which happend after smolensk. against army group center. october till march. Blablaaa (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * i have read a text of frieser about this battle. the soviet casualties seem to be incredible compared to the germans. is glantz really saing this were only diverting actions? whats your opion ? can i copy your text to the "battle of orsa" ? Blablaaa (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"The numerical advantage enjoyed on the battlefield was a result of concentrating forces in the area rather than overall superiority."

thats simply wrong, isnt it? statistics show this cleary, they had superior number everywhere... . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * if they had problems to fill their ranks? i dont know. but they had more men than the germans . they had more men in the north, they had more man in the middel and they had more men in the south. due to high concentration of forces they maybe achieved higher ratios in this areas... . to believe something differend is strange. winterbattles against armygroup center: the actions were "simple" supporting actions according to glantz? i need some informations . there is very less text about this battles around vitebsk and orsha. is glantz giving strenghtes? frieser has only figures from the beginning...Blablaaa (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks, its this i guess: Byelorussian Strategic Offensive. frieser explains that this action were so "fucking" unsuccessful that soviet history did not speak about, i hoped glantz did but he seems to do not. i have nothing about soviet intentions... Blablaaa (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * october too. they led to bagration? enormous casualties with little ground gained are good because after this a good operation came? they all didnt achieve thei objectivesBlablaaa (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

casualties and german arichves tele a different story, but frieser mentioned already that soviet history and pro soviet historians dont cover this actions. against the 4th army the russian lost 500.000 casualties.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * all this operation listed under "Byelorussian Strategic Offensive (1943)" .... but even glantz dont covers this battles. but if u try to draw a picture of a "superior" red army this battles are maybe no good examples so its better to exclude them :-) . if u find material then tell me pleaseBlablaaa (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Byelorussian Strategic Offensive (1943) 3 October 1943 - 31 December 1943!!! my glantz book arrived. horrible ref system, isnt it? Blablaaa (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * when is something marish ? when it was unsuccessull ? Blablaaa (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

yes but were is the military skill? the achievement ? when u have so much troops that u can lose 500,000 men for deception? deception means using less ressources with big impact and not using 600.000 men and lose 500.000 for nothing :-). i have kursk here now, do u have something what should be refed? and i want a table for strenghts it looks nice i think, can i have?^^ Blablaaa (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Glantz Kursk
in his recent book about kursk he is counting the steppe front as part of citadelle. we take his numbers than, i cross checked its nearly the same like frieser only tank strenght of german vary Blablaaa (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinion of Luftwaffe over Guernica
Someone asked me a question about what were the opinions of Luftwaffe fighter pilots on Guernica Bombing ? Especially since very few of the future aces actually were in Condor legion in 1937.

I couldn't effectively speculate but thought may be you could. So when you get a chance do let me know what you think may have been the opinion of the aces for or against that bombing. Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. Here's the thing. We were talking about Walter Oesau. The question first came was where he stood in terms of Guernica. Did he participate and did he support it ? Then it became a bigger question in the discussion. If Luftwaffe officially rejected the terror bombing doctrine later in Weaver years, what did the fighters thought about it and so on. Hope this clarifies. Do let me know your thoughts. Perseus71 (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had my years jumbled up around Wever death. What I meant to say was that, the doctrine Luftwaffe had during Wever era, outright rejected terror bombing. Having said that, I am not focused on weather it was or wasn't civilian targeted. All I want to know is what the pilots thought of it. Now if you say that even the Luftwaffe pilots in retrospect were under the effect of the myth ? So the Luftwaffe pilot may have thought that it was a terror bombing ? Please do clarify. Thanks. Perseus71 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

icq or sometihng else
is there a better way of communication than talk pages? Blablaaa (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

aerial warfare
do u have an idea how much german aircrafts were destroyed in combat and how much allied, especially in the west.Blablaaa (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)