User talk:Dapi89/Archive 3

about the numbers
i studied glantz book a bit. iam not sure if he updated his opinion and u may have a older version but his really last sentence is: "...red army was rapidly developing the skills to match its enormous numbers. The resulting combination proved fatal to blitzkrieg and, ultimately, lethal to Germany" end of book. for me glantz dont thinks numbers werent significant he emphasisez the usage of the armies but he didnt denie that they had mass more. he also explains the pwnage of tigers with saying "only 10 were lost due enemy ... and destroyed several hundred soviet tanks". he also gives the steppe front as part of zitadelle like i said. he also gives the same numbers for soviet losses like frieser without limitation. your older comments dont match with glantz a bit Blablaaa (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Glantz final statement regarding failure of zitadelle:"When the worst came, Soviet numerical superiority, the stubborn tenacity of sobiet soldiers, the improved combat skill of commanders and the soviets ability to sustain staggering losses spelled doom for Citadelle" . can u explain the difference between this and your quotes of the same historianBlablaaa (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

regarding the SS counterattack during rumyantzev. u described as soviet victory while citing glantz but glantz says :"finally on 16-17 july the iii panzercorps succeeded in pushing the .... back and destroying the offensive power of both red armies" huh????? Blablaaa (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Defence of the Reich
Yes I will have a look at the article again. I haven't read the article in a while but my last impression was a very positive indeed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Tanks ramming at Prochorovka -- Frieser's statement
Not sure if you ever got the reference you were asking about on Blablaaa's talk page. It is from Volume 8, p. 124 of the German official history titled Das Deutche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg. Printed 2007 by the Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt in Munich. There are several contributors to the work, but Karl-Heinz Frieser was the chief editor as well as the author of the chapter on the fighting at Kursk. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Gembloux gap
Nice job. I was planning on expanding that article myself (after stuff got clarified) but I see you're quicker on the draw.radek (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 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) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I am just getting started on revamping Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945). Its been a while since I had promised to take this on. Anyways, as I remember, you had some thoughts about it that you had shared. Keeping those in mind, for now, I have just restructured the Contents of this article. I have also added some basic content in each section to give you an idea of what will be going there. Do you want to take a look when you get a chance ? Let me know. Thanks for the time. Perseus71 (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer. Anything around Stragtegic Organization would be greatly appreciated. How's the article structure looking like ? Perseus71 (talk)

Hello
Hi. Just to let you know, you added in the ref here with only the year and last name. The rest of the ref isn't in the article, so you may want to fill it in at the bibliography section or something. Cheers, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  16:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

René Prioux
Thank you! If you have more information on Prioux, please contribute to the article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Kursk
i see u are not longe rinteressted in editing kursk. i will start editing the article then. its a pity that u deleted the tables which i created, so i have to do them again Blablaaa (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * iam not longer interessted of waiting that u allow me to edit the article i will edit the battle of kursk. please discuss on the discusion page if u see a problem Blablaaa (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

the tables give no undue weight, i will check glantz and add him if he has other figures. ok ? Blablaaa (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

i checked Glantz. his tables on p 336 give nearly the same like frieser, the table their gives more mortars. he dont dos his failure with forgetting he steppefront again. Blablaaa (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

can u join the discusion on the Kursk page ? Blablaaa (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * he dapi u reverted me again, and deleted the table and other stuff. u misquoted glantz to support your opinion u used his words to create a statement u say hes saying the victory did not come by numerical superiority implying that it was not significant , glantz is in his newest book saying it was significant in his final statement he counts it as first. u also reverted wrong numbers which glantz him self updated in his new book, how can i work with u ? u misquote him and delete my table without discussiong what can i do ? Blablaaa (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

according to nick your sentence regarding the ss counterattack is no misquoting. so i revert my comment about this. glantz heavily updated his "wrong" opinion in his new book, u can read on nicks talk page Blablaaa (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

maybe interesting for u, when glantz talks about the tank losses he says the soviet are so high and german so less because german were good in recovering and had still tactical superiorityBlablaaa (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * which book of zaloga are u citing? can u add please to the article? Blablaaa (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Johann-Joachim Stever and Viktor von Schwedler
Let me see what I have on them. Viktor von Schwedler was a Knight's Cross recipient so I may have some info on him. Stever is not listed so it could be more difficult. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The German Wiki has an article on Viktor von Schwedler. I will translate it to English. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Hannut, and so forth....
Well I know that it will take a bit until you feel ready to submit it to GAN again. I just wanted tolet you know that if you ever need any help on it, just ping me and I'll be there. Once we (probably more you than me in "we") get that one to GA status, then that would only leave one more article in the Battle of Belgium series to be promoted to GA class and then we can submit the topic for a GTC. Once again, I'll be at your service if the need ever arises.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  02:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Jagdgeschwader 11
Hi Dapi,

I am afraid your statement is lost on me. Who were you referring to about the cite references ? Perseus71 (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. Do you feel Sturm understood the issue ? More importantly, what exactly I need to be doing to rectify this ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW

Congrats
well after reading over Battle of Belgium a few times, I know that is will pass an FAC. If you don;t mind, I'm going to nominate it. We did such a good job for it's GAN so I'm sure we can do it for an FA. If you feel diffrent then just tell me and I can remove the nom :)-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  04:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hi Dapi89, someone has opened an ANI thread about you regarding this edit and some similar reversions which he/she feels treads close to WP:OWN. FYI. SGGH ping! 10:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Do 217
Why don't you upload pictures and assume fair-use?? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately
I see our favourite editor may yet get another reprieve; another slap with a wet bus ticket? Pul-ease! Minorhistorian (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not too upset by PBS's viewpoint, despite the large amount of wishful thinking portrayed; I think other admins have done with nannying Kurfurst along in the hope that he will become a model editor, too much damage has been done. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems to be an established pattern with Kurfursthere, here, here, here: attack the blocking administrator, attack other editors and only in passing admit that some mistakes have been made, mainly when he was just a wet-behind-the-ears new editor. Oh, and when other editors make a sincere apology ignore it and bin it. So, same old same old...Minorhistorian (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945)
Hi Dapi,

I feel that this article, has matured from where it was. I am still not ready to submit for a review. But I would appreciate if you could take a look and let me know what area should I focus more on in terms of additional information. I know OKW/OKL is too short. What other areas need enhancement ? Thanks for the time. '  Perseus 71  talk 15:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Belgium
I wrote my "Clumsy edit" comment at 1935 on 25 March after seeing your reversion of something I had been working on for four days following my original "Battle of Belgium" edit. To say I was dismayed would be something of an understatment. Your 'going to self-revert' message was timed at 1653 the following day. My second article edit was made at 1751, also on 26 March; so there is clearly a bit of wire-crossing going on. Sorry if you were confused.

As for your "snide comments" remark, I asked, out of a sense of surprise more than anything else, about Hitler's suggestion on the type of assault on Fort Eben Emael and the hollow-charge statement. Hitler was not noted for his constructive input, especially in the latter stages of the war; indeed, he became something of a menace.

I still haven't been able to work-out if those names: "Dave" and so on, are forts or not. As you seem to be the main man/woman for this article, perhaps you can enlighten me/us? Or better still, change the article accordingly. RASAM (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JG27EMBL047.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:JG27EMBL047.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 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) 21:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

File:DSCF0049.JPG missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:DSCF0049.JPG is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Haruth (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also recommend a rename to something more descriptive. Best wishes --Haruth (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Organization of the Luftwaffe
I have since then added Descriptions to Fliegerkorps and Fliegerdivision. It does now connect more to the Parent Luftflotte. The Luftkreise, ancestor of the Luftflotte indeed was a Strategic unit. However from what I have discovered, Luftflotte became operational units at lest according to Jean, Denis; Lepage, G. G. (2009). Although I have my reservations about this author, I can't argue with Book by United States War Dept (1995). Both I cited. I have further expanded several sections. The article is in the middle of a GA review. You are welcome to take a look. P.S. You surprised me by staying away from this Discussion. '  Perseus 71  talk 00:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Chales de Beaulieu
Wondering about this sentence in Battle of Gembloux (1940), The French corps operations officer, Chales de Beaulieu -- Chales de Beaulieu (reference this page) was the name of two German officers who eventually became generals, thus I'm wondering if he was the French or German corps operations officer, especially as the sentence seems to be referring to the German XVI Motorized Corps. Also this seems to point to the individual in question being Walter Chales de Beaulieu, a German lieutenant-colonel at the time of the battle, although the site indicates he was the chief of staff, not the operations officer. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)
Hi Dapi,

I thought you were working on this article. Even with the extensive work, the article is B Class. I thought you might have nominated for GAN. Just my curiosity, what was the reason for not nominating it ? '  Perseus 71  talk 20:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 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) 19:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Red Baron

 * 80 kills were officially confirmed in Luftstreitkräfte records. Really don't know what is the point you are getting at. Other lower (and higher!) figures have been suggested by later historians working from official British loss records - this is covered by a separate section further down - and incidentally has nothing to do with "confirmation" in the sense we are talking about here. Not all sources agree - some websites and cheap paperbacks purvey the most incredible nonsense about the Red Baron. One is reminded of Mark Twain on the subject of Shakespeare "There are thousands of books about Shakespeare - nearly all of them mad". We stick to the best sources here, and avoid empty speculation. Please bring this up in discussion and aim for a consensus if you disagree rather than reverting.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since all you can do is repeat and revert, I can't do very much except repeat myself - the victories WERE "confirmed" by Luftstreitkräfte records!! - it is important to note this to distinuish them from "claimed". Of course this does not mean that the claims were 100% accurate - but then in this sense we haven't a "confirmed" victory total for anyone, have we? In the the interests of reconciliation and getting on to more important things we'll omit the word, but the other stuff you added to the lead is unnecessary here as it is (to once more repeat myself) covered further down the article. There is no "British" or "Allied" confirmation of anything in any sense, and this is not what I have been talking about. If "confirmation" of a kill from one's own side is doubtful - how ridiculous would one from the other side be - how would the British even know for sure if the Baron was even in the air - much less that he was responsible for a particular loss! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We have obviously been arguing about the precise meaning of "confirmed" - semantics strikes again! Confirmation (in your sense) by one's own side is doubtful, confirmation by the other side is totally absurd - I take it we're agreed about that? SO what word do we use to distinguish a fighter pilot's own "claims" from what he managed to convince his superiors he actually scored? On the whole German air force official confirmation of kills in WW1 weren't too far off (especially compared with WW2 figures!!) - they are often "confirmed" (in a totally different but still far from conclusive sense) by the usually full and accurate loss records kept by the British (but unfortunately for historians NOT by the Central Powers, nor, for that matter, the other Allies). It is certainly unfair to suggest that they could "only" accept the claims - since at least 30 of the Baron's claims were rejected! I suppose "officially credited" is neutral (in that it makes no assumption about accuracy) - my point was that "confirmed" in the usual sense of the word is pretty much synonymous anyway. Now that the dust has settled - I may have over reacted - attacks on accepted scores, however big a grain of salt we may be inclined to take them with, are bound to be speculation, and no subject for an objective encyclopedia. And this particular article gets attacked by one shot know-it-alls quite a lot, as the history reveals. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 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) 20:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hans-Joachim Marseille
Interesting! No, so far I missed that data point about his medals being stolen. If my memory doesn't fail me Tate has a picture in his book of Marseille's honour goblet which presumably now belongs to an anonymous person. Indeed this makes an interesting addition to the article. I have personally seen his tail rudder bearing the 158 victory marks which was given to his family after his death. This rudder is now on display in Berlin at the Luftwaffenmuseum. I was too stupid to take a picture back then. The museum also has the tail rudder of Werner Schröer's Bf 109 on display. Regarding the Bf 109 that you mentioned, do you happen to have the book about his 18 Bf 109 that he flew?


 * Kitchens, James H. III & Beaman, John R. Jr. (2007). Hans-Joachim Marseille — The Luftwaffe Ritterkreuztäger 1939–1945 — A Resource Guide to the Aces and their Aircraft. East Sussex, England: AirPower Editions. ISBN 978-0-9555977-0-1.

I think you tried pointing me to some internet based reference? I'm not 100% sure how to answer your question. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I own the book! I will see what relevant information can be derived from this book. Kitchens & Beaman went through a lot of research trying to find out what aircraft was flown by Marseille during his combat career. I don't have the book with me now, but I believe they have traced 18 different Bf 109 which can positively be attributed to Marseille. I would think if one of these aircraft indeed made its way to the US it would be mentioned. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What puzzles me a bit about the statement is that Wübbe (I believe) stated that the Diamonds were never presented to him or to his family. How can they have been stolen then? That seems a bit strange. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ypres
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythos_von_Langemarck

maybe use google translate. According to german wiki and some sources, the story of the young man dying in this battle is a myth. its very detailed explained. maybe u take a look .Blablaaa (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)