Talk:Battle of Kursk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Casualties missing

For Kursk Op it just says "Men" under the Soviet casualty side and lists no casualties for these men. JohnHistory (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHIstory

Preliminaries - Aviation

Just to point out to the editor who prefers to put sections in order of "importance", chronological is more relevant for a historical article, and also prevents POV arguments relying on opinions about importance. As such, I have reverted the placement of the Aviation subsection to the start of the Preliminaries section, again. Hohum (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reported him. Every edit he has made, bar one, has been reverted. He's a disruptive personality, and he needs kicking off this page for a start. 21:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hohum's ordering (following his last revert of my edit [[1]]) is acceptable to me. Cheers, Steel2009 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hohum's ordering" was to restore my intial restoration. So thank you. Dapi89 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

tanks

the battle of kursk marked the beginning of an phase of very superior german tanks. with the introduction of phanter tiger and some variants the problem of soviet tank force became obvious: no improvements. maybe a little section about the differents of the tanks, so the reader knows red army not only lost this much tanks because tactic or training. the t-34/76 started well but lacked neccessary improvements, even the upgunned panzer IV was now a seroius threat. i would try to write the section. any suggestions ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 02:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Panther's performance at Kursk was poor, since it was still having teething problems, and the Tiger had already been available for almost a year. So neither of them are very good examples of the start of a phase - once the Panthers bugs were ironed out, yes - but that wasn't at Kursk, it was after. Because of this, I'm not sure that it fits into an article about Kursk itself. However, it is true that the Soviets saw the writing on the wall, and started to push for improvements for the T-34. So something relevant can be included.Hohum 19:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

i have read that the performance of panthers in the battle were good, i mean only gunfights, their overall performance was low yes. the new ferdinand had good kills i think, the tiger saw very limited action before kursk. if staudegger really drove a tiger it would be a good example for my point, i can provide a source that russian tanks got mauled so hard in the first days that they started digging them in to use them as hidden anti tank guns(very bad for crews...). i think it would be fair to explain this issue so the reader understands that the high soviet tanks losses dont resulst exclusive from lack of tactic. the battle of kursk was the major battle with the biggest difference in tank quality so i think a little section would be ok. i can provide penetrationnumbers of ferdinand and so on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Try not to over-concentrate on gun/kill performance. Both Ferdinands and Panthers had terrible reliability problems at Kursk - which is an important factor in their effectiveness. An AFV which takes 50% mobility kills within a few days is performing very poorly. However, a balanced, concise, well referenced, fact filled paragraph on the subject would probably add to this article. Hohum 23:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg

Intersting article but I was suprised to see uncritical use of the term. Bewegungskrieg would have been better with perhaps a debunking of 'Blitzkrieg' like that of K H Frieser in http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blitzkrieg-Legend-Campaign-West-1940/dp/1591142946/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265837158&sr=1-1.Keith-264 (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Keith, I agree, but at this point the Germans had adopted the use of the term. I have the Frieser book, and there are plenty that do the same! The article on the subject is much better now. Bewegungskrieg is appropriate but confusing to lay readers. Dapi89 (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Dapi, fancy meeting you here. Do we write to indulge peoples' ignorance or to inform them? Since Barbarossa was the only military campaign which the Germans fought in anything like a Blitzkrieg manner (incorporating strategic, demographic and economic calculations as well as military ones) by trying to institutionalise the mixture of bewegungskrieg, chance and insubordination which led to the triumph in the west, its calamitous consequences in July-August 1941 cannot be overemphasised. Failure then condemned Germany to a war of attrition in Russia that Barbarossa had been intended to avoid. That the Germans attacked at Kursk with at best a hope of an operational success was a sign of how beaten they were.Keith-264 (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PS which of the Frieser books do you have?Keith-264 (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with pratically everything you have said. I have argued these points strongly in the Blitzkrieg article. But how do you get it onto this article without taking up space and avoiding others removing it? ('cause it is not exactly relevant).

Just two things: I believe you are in danger of repeating the mistake with Bewegungskrieg which was another buzzword (although one used officially - unlike Blitzkrieg). You might refer to it as a modernised form of BGK, but stress that this word was never used by this generation of Germans either. It gets confusing dun' it! Second, the use of the word 'strategic'; if a plan that relies on overruning an area as quickly as possible, destroying as many enemy formations as it can, and just hoping the enemy system collapses can be called a strategic principle, "call me meier!".

The Blitzkrieg Legend. Dapi89 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I found Frieser's claim that the word Blitzkrieg hardly occurred in German writing before the war when BWK was all over the place quite enlightening. It seems to me that the term strategic related to the catalytic effect of the invasion although as it went wrong in July-August strategic objectives were chosen to replace this assumption. I think that BWK can stand criticism far better than BK since as you mention it existed in German official literature.Keith-264 (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

i have used the term blitzkrieg, because everybody uses it, and so its the best for the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 19:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

BWK did not appear in German literature in 33-39, hence I said that the Wehrmacht generation did not use it all. BWK is used by historians retrospectively to describe German methods in 39-44, as was Blitzkrieg. The only difference is, BWK was used officially, but only up until the 1920s. There was a marked shift away from the lightning war as has been explained by Richard Overy, Frieser himslef, and Adam Tooze in their thesis' - exposing the myth of Blitzkieg strategy and economics. Dapi89 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

BWK 'manoeuvre warfare' was the traditional German war making concept. The arrival of the new technologies of the C20th led to its adapation to incorporate motor vehicles, wireless and aircraft to reinforce the firepower of the infantry at the decisive point so as to negate the defensive firepower of an opponent. Overy, Frieser and Tooze explain that the Germans wanted to comprehensively rearm the German army (somewhat in the manner of the British, US and Red Armies after they had rearmed) but were ever constrained by shortages of raw materials, labour and industrial capacity. The attack on the USSR was intended to remedy these limits and avoid a war of attrition there so as to prepare for the looming Anglo-American air and sea war. Does BWK not appear in German literature (particuarly in training manuals) after 1933? I'm sceptical, considering it was the foundation of the Reichswehr's reforms. How often does BK appear? Keith-264 (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're getting lost in tactics. BWK by nature is a 'way in war' or national characteristic, more than a science in this sense. In 1933-38 German military thinking was moving away from the quick manoeuvre war. They had learned in 1914 that 'quick' wars were no longer viable and total preparation should be sought prior to hostilities.

Beck was opposed to BWK. He despised the 'obsolete' war of movement. He planned for the German army to be capable of all out wars of atttrition in the industrial age and set piece offensives for strategic objectives to be carried out over months at a time, not a total victory in weeks. His contribution as CGS in 33-38 shaped the German Army for this purpose and his legacy continued until 1939. Things changed then, to ad hoc and increasingly radical solutions (as it suited Hitler) to military problems. It reverted to type; using old methods with new technology. But before then, the German Army was devoid of any BWK spirit. This can be seen in the development of the Luftwaffe under Wever, the KM under the Z-plan and certainly the army under Beck - who wanted a total mobilisation of civilian militia to support the army. Beck's ideas were more similar to the Soviet way.

Overy does not say that, but Tooze does. Overy explains that the key road to 'short' wars was foreign policy being pushed too far before rearmament. Hence Hitler found himself at war before rearmament was completed. He had hoped to consume mittel europa without a fight in order to consume their resources ready for his next phase of rearmament; total war on multiple fronts, some time in the late 40s/early 50s. Unfortunately he was forced to go to war with a military that was only capable of conflict in short bursts (which was originally taksed with knocking over his neighbours without a general war). Hitler invaded the USSR through his own choice and belief in destiny and military superiority. To assume it was outside factors is to assume the functionalist side in the Functionalism versus intentionalism debate about Hitler. Dapi89 (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgot: Just an addition on the adoption of Reichswehr principles; these were principles that would be factored into an attritonal war. They were not meant to serve as the basis for a future strategic war of movement in the future. Most of them were developed by Beck, who intended them to be of use in his attritional operations. The irony is they ended up being tools of the kind of war he hated, the 'Blitzkrieg'. Dapi89 (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not lost and suggest you try to avoid jumping to conclusions, it smacks of defensiveness. What did doodles by individual Germans do compared to the requirements in army manuals? This seems like cherry picking. German comprehensive rearmament plans were utopian as Tooze demonsrates rather wittily and so can't be used as a substitute for what could be done and the settled means for doing it. Beck's thinking (in Truppenfuhrung it is rather conventional in the BWK tadition) made no difference to the Wehrmacht's procurement choices since the economic constraints Germany couldn't evade had far more influence. I'm surprised at your claims about Overy because he was the first writer I found who emphasised the intent to have a comprehensively modern army, coupled to the lack of means. Rearmament couldn't be completed so Hitler escaped forward before the arms race he'd triggered left him standing. Hitler went for the USSR because British belligerence kept Germany out of the overseas markets that Europe was dependent on leaving him dependent on appeasement by the USSR. This was bound to work to Germany's disadvantage since Russian commodities were being swapped for industrial goods. Hitler's ideological and geopolitical thinking made war with the USSR inevitable but the decision to go in 1941 was entirely materialist. I don't really think that the functionalist-intentionalist paradigm is all that helpful since it's a post hoc heuristic for analysis not description. If BWK isn't satisfactory, how about vernichtungsgedanke? Apropos what do you make of Matthew Cooper's views?Keith-264 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are. And I'm not defensive.

I have Overy's book War and Economy in the Third Reich, so I can quote directly. Overy does not say anything about losing an arms race. Had it not been for Britain and France' declaration of war, Hitler would have continued his program. Tooze assumes (and he is not a military historian in the strict sense of the word) that Hitler chose to go to war, or risk it owing to the fact he could not win this arms race. This is controversial since a huge amount of evidence suggests that Hitler made the decision because he wanted materials and believed the west would not act[sources?]*. In essense, Hitler didn't think he was risking war. Nevertheless, he took precautions.

The bottom line here is intent; there was no BWK strategy or mentality until the defeat of the French. Check out Frieser. Your deductions about Hitler's reasons about invading the Soviet Union are shocking. It was made based on the triangle of trinity (Clausewitz), deduced to ideological-economic-military; ideology being the driving factor. The debate is more than helpful. Since when is analysis not important? Its a means of understanding 'description'.

I'm tiring of this. We are not getting anywhere and it has little to do with Kursk. Dapi89 (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed but not surprised at you reply, BWK was the foundation of German military thinking and warmaking theory. Beck most certainly did not want a war of attrition, he wanted an army equipped to fight manoeuvre warfare with heavy weapons well forward on vehicles. "23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)I'm surprised at your claims about Overy because he was the first writer I found who emphasised the intent to have a comprehensively modern army, coupled to the lack of means.23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)", try not to misquote me, it was Tooze who used the language of arms race. That the west would not act is a somewhat controversial claim which may have been a hope in Hitler's mind but was hardly one to bank on. It certainly needs several sources to be tenable. After the French gig, Hitler did try to fight a war in Russia before it was too late (when it already was) in which military operations would be a catalyst, which is why insanely optimistic assumptions were made, particularly about supply. Description is something which comes before analysis which is to 'examine and break information into parts by identifying motives or causes. Make inferences and find evidence to support generalizations'. Clearly description comes before this and is one of the sources from which analysis flows, even if you don't agree with Bloom's taxonomy. You may be right that this has little to do with Kursk but until the matter is resolved the article has little to do with it either. *Keith-264 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Beck most certainly did not want to enact manoeuvre warfare. This is misleading people into believing he planned for a pure movement war. This not the case. Movement within wars of attirition naturally, to be on a style much like the Red Army, not strategic BWK. I am not misquoting. I've been clear. Tooze offers the explanation of going to war for lack of materials, Overy does not. Armamanet-foreign policy was out of step, this is his explanation, and always has been. Anyway, perhaps if this is to be continued it should be move to our talk page. I think this is boring everyone else. Dapi89 (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the purpose of manoeuvre? In this case it was to destroy the Red Army west of the Dvina-Dnieper. Clearly this failed, lumbering Germany with the long war in Russia it couldn't afford to fight once the attempt to pull off the Moscow gig failed. Armaments and foreign policy were always contradictory because the economic constraints on comprehensive rearmament were inescapable. This pushed Hitler into ever more dramatic expedients with ever more short-lived alleviations of the constraints. Whether you go for Mason's 'flight forward' or Overy's 'grab forward' you can't deny that both were referring to the alleviation of economic shortages.Keith-264 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I can. or else there would not be a Functionalism versus intentionalism debate. Dapi89 (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

dubios markings

• "When Zitadelle started, the Red Army knew the direction of the German movement and even the exact date"

who disputes this, its well known that plan and date of attack were known. take any historian who wrotes about this battle and take his book as reference

• "The uncreative attack: German forces attacked the strongpoints of the enemy"

what is dubios here? the plan was clear; a pince attack from north and south to cut the kursk bulge . this areas were the most fortified...

• "instead of using the tactical superiority of the German tank-units"

i think this is clear..., take any historian writing about tank warfare, if u want ref for this

• "According to the German historian Karl-Heinz Frieser there are five main reasons for the failure of Operation Zitadelle"

this is the introduction, so everything in this section is cited , this is friesers opinion not mine.

so the first what u should do is bringing another source which contratics this. Blablaaa (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

nearly all phanters suffered from mechanical problems but the few remaining panthers claimed 269 tanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

did u read the article before u marked the sentences?

• "The attack sector had been correctly anticipated by the Red Army Central Front. Attacking on a 45-kilometre-wide front, the Germans found themselves trapped in the huge defensive minefields,"
• "The Central Front under Marshal Rokossovskiy had correctly anticipated the likely areas of German attack and had fortified those areas very heavily, holding other areas more thinly." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 02:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

All Wikipedia content should be referenced to reliable sources (with the reference containing sufficient detail to easily allow readers to find the material in the source), and much of the above would only be known to readers who are already familiar with this topic. Moreover, if it's well known, it should be easy to find citations for. Please see the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Moreover, it is a long-standing convention that citation required tags are taken at good faith and only be replaced with citations. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I second Nick-D. The wording was distinctly pov regardless. I seriously dispute the claim made about 'German tactical superiority' and a lack of German fighters owing to the Defence of the Reich Campaign. In July 1943, there were more JGs @ the front, not the Home Front. Secondly, what do you mean by 'tactical superiority'? This could mean anything. I dispute any notion that the Gemrans had complete tactical superiority. Soviet tactics proved far more effective at set-piece and mobile battles after Third Kharkov. Thirdly, The Germans were in no position to attack in May, which is why Manstein was told to shut up. There is also a distinct 'it was all Hitler's fault'- centric attitude. Manstein was still in favour of first strike in June and July, none of the major personalties questioned the decision strongly. Nevermind what they said after the war. Dapi89 (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

tactical superiority means they were completly superior in encounters on the battle field. on the tactical level the russian tanks had simply no chance at this battle. reasons for this, first of all better equipment second: better crew training third: better cooperation... . i have learned on wiki that we have to provide sources, i provide a reliable one , now its your turn. good luck searching it will take a long time Blablaaa (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

regarding the german aircraft. here iam not so sure and u are maybe correct, so the word "most" is possibly wrong. nevertheless the germans had to divides their aircraft to multiple battles so his statement is correct. maybe we change the words so everybody is happy

Firstly, kill the attitude. Second, that's nonsense. And I can offer several sources to this effect if I so choose. The use of one historian to offer such controversial remarks (which are not explained, are ambiguous, and in an area where there is no overriding consensus) is not appropriate. Equipment was not 'better'. Panthers were crap at Kursk, and the Tigers were slower, not as manoeuvrable as T-34s. The Soviet tanks were more efficient mechanically and industrially and just as capable of taking on German armour in one-on-one combat. Neither was 'training superior'. Soviet crews were just as thoroughly trained as German crews at this time. Dapi89 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ok then i adapt your oponion of the "better" russian tanks. the russian got the better tanks and more of them. the russian had extremly high casualties compared to the germans which lost a big part of their tanks in minefield. how du explain this ? tactical superiority maybe? i wait eagerly Blablaaa (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Tigers were slower, not as manoeuvrable as T-34"

who the fuck cares, nearly every duels between t-34s and tigers were won by tiger. t-34 got mauled. i ask again who the fuck cares if the t-34 was faster? he came fast to the battlefield and got destroyed. maybe the t-34 will win a race against the tiger but this doesnt help, i guess Blablaaa (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Using language like this is liable to get you blocked. Ask again nicely and I might consider responding Dapi89 (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

i await your sources. Blablaaa (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• "just as capable of taking on German armour in one-on-one combat"

simply wrong

• "Neither was 'training superior'. Soviet crews were just as thoroughly trained as German crews at this time."

wrong...

i will delete the markings and put a ref in, i will change the aircraft statement so its correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Two German Heavy Tank Battalions participated in Zitadelle, 503 and 505.

503: 2nd company. 13 out of 14 Tigers disabled in minefield. 503 went on to break through, destroying 72 Soviet tanks on 14 July, losing 4 Tigers. Maintained 57% Tigers operational over 10 days of continuous offensive combat.

505: Breaks through, destroys 46 tanks out of 50 in opposing Soviet tank brigade in "a matter of minutes", plus another 23 in a supporting brigade. during offensive operations in Zitadelle, 505 destroyed 110 enemy tanks, when on the defensive, it destroyed another 54. Over the same period, it lost 5 Tigers to enemy fire, 3 on the offense, 2 on defense. It managed 45% tanks operational.

Both battalions were quickly reduced to low numbers of operational tanks, through reliability issues, not enemy fire. The attacks were failures at an operational level, but not due to the Tiger battalions, which achieved the breakthroughs they were designed for.

Wilbeck, Christopher (2004). Sledgehammers. Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II. The Aberjona Press. pp. 66–74. ISBN 9780971765023.

Hohum 22:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

12th july, 15 tigers of SS Pz.Corps claim 120 tanks knocked out. ref: Kleine/Kühn Blablaaa (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Meaningless.

Another German source. Hohum, you now better than that. German tanks claimed x amount. That does not make it so. More to the point; this individual is trying to make a sweeping generalisation using one source. No mention is made of the superiority of Soviet defensive operations.

The source confirms the mechanical inferiority and reliablity of Tiger's (no mention of Panther's I see) I shall be correcting it with better sources. Does it mention training? Superiority of tactics? Does it mention losses of all German tank types? . Does it address 'tactical-tank' superiority? Perhaps its worth pointing out that Soviet tactical units contained more firepower? All this doesn't add any clarification to the other issues. Dapi89 (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Rokossovskiy: "the tank units suffered so much casualties against the tiger that i was forced to dig them in" Blablaaa (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

staudegger knocks out 22 tanks in a single encounter Blablaaa (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ferdinands claimed 320 tanks knocked out

krivo states 1,600 "superior tanks" with "superior tactical skills" lost within 17 days —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't make any sense. The way you wrote it suggests Kirov regards Soviet tanks as "superior" with "superior tactical skills". Even if you meant the opposite (I suspect you did) its shear twaddle. Soviet defensive tactics won out! Don't you get that? Defence in depth exhausted the spearhead so as they were about to breakthrough into the operational zone of the Red Army they got clobbered. Classic deep battle defence. For all this supposed tactical 'superiority' they were outthought by Soviet defensive tactics. Dapi89 (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

no russian throw in their gigantic reserves when the southern pincer adavanced too fast, enormous reservers were neccessary to stop germans, superior numbers won, with equal numbers russians had lost even with their defensiv system, thats all... Blablaaa (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Meaningless" is not an argument. A reliable source (American) drawing on several other reliable sources. Please don't whine about its scope, just add your own additional sourced information. I wasn't attempting to settle every aspect being argued. Editors should try to improve the article, not compare the amount of testosterone they have. Panthers had a poor start at Kursk, which I think I already stated on this talk page. Hohum 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why add it knowing the contentious issues of claims and losses. Huge overclaiming took place. I agree with your point about comparisons; this section should be deleted as it is too controversial. Its just chest-beating. It was always bound to cause trouble. Dapi89 (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Adding information from reliable sources is what wikipedia is all about. What I just noted was etirely relevant to the performance of Tigers in Zitadelle, from a book about the performance of Heavy tank battalions, written by a military expert, who drew on other reliable sources. Additionally, wikipedia doesn't shy from controversy. It relies entirely on reliable sources, even if they disagree. However, I'm not sure if you're actually commenting on the way it is being presented, which shouldn't be editor POV, conclusions, OR etc. That is why the information I just stated was neutrally phrased as a simple summary of Wilbecks section about Tiger effectiveness in Zitadelle. Hohum 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

nearly all phanters suffered from mechanical problems but the few remaining panthers claimed 269 tanks Blablaaa (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Another ridiculous claim. Dapi89 (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• How about you stop opining and either have the references being presented vetted as unreliable (although that seems unlikely to succeed), or present sources which present less "ridiculous" numbers so both can be considered. Hohum 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

frieser.... , why ridiculous? look reaction of soviets, they were impressed by phanters and decided to counter them with new tech, why should they do this when phanters didnt destroy tanks? source for your opinion ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Blablaa. Please take the time to copyedit what you say here, and more especially, on the article itself. You are clearly capable of managing it. It will help editors understand what you are saying, and makes a better impression. Hohum 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

zetterling/frankson, Kursk: rotmistrov ( 5thGTA) admits to stalin that the t-34 powerless against phanters. Blablaaa (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

dunn calls the tiger " king of the battlefield " in his book: Kursk Blablaaa (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

the russian tanks had not even the chance to be as effectiv like the german with their commander/gunner, massiv tactical disadvantage... Blablaaa (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

german tanks had a better first-hit rate due to their high velocity guns and zeiss optics ...Blablaaa (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

frieser: "concerning the different tactical level [of the tank units] kursk brought no trend reversal or even a draw" zetterling/frankson: "skill superiority"Blablaaa (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Source quality.

When you are adding information, please make the source as clear as possible so that it can be verified. The following need some work:

• Y "Luftwaffe claims; does not include ground fire and accidents" tagged - this needs a verifiable source.
• N Partly done "Guderian, Achtung-Panzer!", needs book and page number.
• Y (deleted) "Clausewitz", needs book and page number.
• "archiv Ministry of Defence of russia." Needs more source information."
  • Y (Frieser) "CAMO(ministry of defence of russian)" Still almost useless as a reference.
•  Not done "Carell", page needed.
• Y "AOK9 german military archives" Needs more source information.
• Y (Frieser) "KTB AOK9 9th July" Needs more source information.
• N Too vague "figures from German archives. Bundesarchiv-Militararchiv, Freiburg; Luftfahrtmuseum, Hannover-Laatzen; WASt Deutsche Dienststelle, Berlin" It's in an enormous collection in a museum? Needs article number, page number, or something more specific.

Hohum 13:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

better now? Blablaaa (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Better, but still needs improvement. Hohum 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• camo: i cited frieser i only added the primary source its ok, delete camo if u want
• achtung panzer: this book is about this issue....
• the last : isnt mine edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.133.21 (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

An entire book isn't about The cancellation of the attack brought a changing of the german plans, Model accepted that his forces had not enough power to advance directly through the russian strongpoints. He decided to bypasse the heights of Ol'chovatka and shift the schwerpunkt to XXXXVI Panzercorps, he also decided to use the uncommited 12th Pz.Div. The first time in the northern sector a heavy concentration of tanks was planned. Models hesitation to use the concept of concentration, which is described as decisive element of an armoured attack

Provide the reference specific to the particular phrase that it is supposed to be supporting.

the ref is for "concentration of force" , u want a ref for the rest? achtung panzer is about use of tanks and his main point is "nich kleckern, klotzen" is entire book is aref for this sentence :-) Blablaaa (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Every main point needs to have a reference. To maintain the article at B class (in the hope of improving it beyond that) the guideline is at least one reference per paragraph. Also, there are plenty of passages in Achtung Panzer! that can be used to support the concentration phrase, pick one. Hohum 22:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• N There are also a bunch of references to Zaloga and Zagola, the latter, I presume to be a typo, but other than saying 1989, they don't give a book, and there isn't one in the reference list that I can see. Hohum 02:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• N"Rotmistrov, The Role of Armoured Forces", Need more information. I can't find this on Worldcat or Google. Hohum 03:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

i tried to check i think his books are not translated because they are crap, but funny is that he gives the number of 350 destroyed german tanks on phroko, which is cited by dapi LOLBlablaaa (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

lol after i was searching the book i found this statement of an user "As usual, books by Russophile authors such as Richard Overy (Russia's War), John Erickson (Road to Berlin), Alexander Werth (Russia at War) had been taken in with the notions that the Soviets achieved massive victory at Battle of Kursk (most notably at Prokhorovka) where the Soviets destroyed hundreds of Panthers and Tigers." Blablaaa (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• N "John called Ponyri "the new Douaumont"" "John p. 72" - Who? What book? John Keegan?
  • Perhaps Antonius John (1993), Kursk '43 : Szenen einer Entscheidungsschlacht, H&H Konzept Verlag, OCLC 35817291 ?

Hohum 04:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

correct Blablaaa (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

northern sector

i brought some informations about german decisions, can somebody bring the same for the russians, so we can balance the article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Prokhorovka

i would suggest we trim this section, because there is an article about this battle Blablaaa (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have stripped out you edits there. Your source did not support your claims. I've added neutral sources from exceptionally good historians. They do not enterain the idea this battle was 'Soviet failure' or any sort of 'German victory'. Its a joke. I know you are trying your best to push an agenda, but at least make it sound believable. P' was a German failure in every conceivable way. Dapi89 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

lol dapi. i gave u one day to revert your edits. your source is totally descredited and if u let stay it there i will post here why. lol men ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Laughable coming from you. Your posts demonstrate nothing but your own ignorance. Reverting well-sighted information is considered vandalism. Don't do it. Dapi89 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

i question your comptence hardly u are really citing a source which thinks germans attacked at porko your source is complete citing russian sources i see the numbers which are used in the fantasy books^^ i see all the lies of rotmistrov^^ please change or i will discret u here :-), Blablaaa (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Pft. There's no truth in any of that. Further demosntration of your ingorance is criticising a source which you hav'nt seen and accussing it of basing its material of Soviet sources - which it does not. Dapi89 (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

no i dont know your source, but i know the book which is used , and i now many historians destroying this view because it is one of the greatest myths of eastern front. again i gave u time until tomorrow to check your sources and revert. everybody sometimes uses a bad sources so dont worry Blablaaa (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

he cool the 320 german tanks, HELLO ROTMISTROV ^^ Blablaaa (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

its really nice to see that even glantz used the russian sources for this, thats very good for discrediting his reliabilty , isnt it? Blablaaa (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

btw their were only minor battles with totenkopf but one of rotmistrovs lies was to predate the battles on 12 july, they took place at the 13th ^^ overy is totally using rotmistrovs fantasy book^^ Blablaaa (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

thats the big problem of guys like u,u read your books and dont look which primary sources were used. if u would look the primary sources which are not acceptable for the article but ok for the discussion i think, u would see the numbers. one example manstein is quoted( on the evening of 12 july) with saying "oustanding victory", why should he lie here? primary sources dear dapi, and not overy who uses such bullshit book... Blablaaa (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comply with WP:CIVIL. This page isn't for insults or snide comments. It's for discussing how to improve the article, politely. No excuses, no exceptions. Be better. If you can't agree on reliability of sources, you can take it to WP:RSN. Hohum 03:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

hohum no offense u act like a wikiroboter :-) , so much rules.... Blablaaa (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Luftwaffe operations in the Orel Bulge, 16–31 July

this section is kutuzov. we should move this in the article of kutuzov. or we rearrange the article and include the counterstrikes direct in northern and southern sector. Blablaaa (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

operation kutuzov

i expanded this section. maybe somebody can bring some informations about russian orders. the section now is mostly german POV Blablaaa (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No kidding. Its biased. Its been edited. It was not a failure, so please stop trying to stamp this article with a bias German perspective. Dapi89 (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

russian lost 2400 tanks and the germans withdrawn to the hagenstellung. u ever so picture of the hagenstellung? its the shortest line. u think is was a great victory to let the germans retreat and suffer so much casualties. model here is the genereal with achievements he managed a good withdrawl against a superior enemy. where is the big breakthrough, no encirclements nothing. model achieved a good retreat without getting trapped and inflicted enormous casualties were is russian new tactics ? where? using mass panzer to achieve a breakthrough? germans did years ago and advance hundresds of miles within weeks. u talk about pushing POV u cited historians which cited rotmistrovs stealguards. your cites are discredited as wrong and lies. u only say mine are bias without evidence, did u find any wrong reference or something else? no... .

the russian task was destroying the german armies they didnt achieved their objectives like in every battle until bagration they achieved never their objectivs they only steamrolled the germans slowly back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also noticed you have been using sources from other articles that you have not seen to cite figures here. This not acceptable. Also it is cheeky to use the citations in Frieser's book to 'double up' the cite references and make it seem if the figures are more thoroughly researched than they are. Besides, the figures need clarifying. German loss reports were notorius for including only the dead and seriously wounded. The figures for Soviet have been artificially inflated while the opposite is true for the German casualties. Clarification is needed. Dapi89 (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

yes german losses were wrong, always wrong. where do i double up the sources? u took two primary sources citing the wrong primary source lol. do u become nervous u dont answer any of my questions? Blablaaa (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

btw where did i cite sources from other articles? i only see u pushing a russian POV with hardcore propaganda books like Steelguards, thats not acceptableBlablaaa (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

can u explain the overwhelming success which justifiyed the loss of 400,000 men and 2,400 tanks, or how does glantz explain ?Blablaaa (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• "completly elimenatiing the german bulge..."

lol exact to the hagenstellung, i thought glantz is a military expert but a complete straight line is only good for the defender ^^ when the attacker pushes the defender on an straight line than this is called noobish broadfront attack ^^ first year military tactics :-) Blablaaa (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Glantz is currently considered a reliable source, as are the others used in this article (where it is possible to find the source from the citation). If you have doubts about a sources reliability, then you can seek to have it vetted at WP:RSN. If multiple reliable sources differ, we include both/all/a representative range.

Your argumentation so far does nothing to suggest to me that Glantz is unreliable or forwarding fringe theories. It will take several very good, peer reviewed sources that contradict him to change that. Hohum 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

i dont say glantz is unreliable. i want an explantion why kutuzov was a overwhelming success. and than i will add this to the text because the reader should know that the russians had a overwhelming success, but now we have: germans retreating in good order to the hagenstellung ( straight line very effectiv for defense ) and russian with enormous casualties in men and tank. dapis edits are vague, he cites glantz with cool breakthroughs and so on but where were these breakthroughs which german units were encricled and destroyed. when i bring such statements then with the invold units and the outcome. i dont know what glantz wrote but dapis quotes only blablablabla-----> no value for the reader. even a good historian can fail, glantz already totally failed with quoting rotmistrov and other hardcore propaganda guys. glantz is a victim of russian sources, his conclusions sometimes show that he didnt look german primary sources.... Blablaaa (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

maybe dapi writes a tet like he did for rumjantzev, then we can mix german and russian view. this time dont delete my text please Blablaaa (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

reasons for failure

the section now becomes a bit moronic. zalogubogo says the tactical skill made the difference but on the tactical level russian werent impressiv and much lessons had to be learnd , huh ? the tank skill was nearly even ? that means germans were better !!! glantz says russian improved and so on he dont says they were superior. this section is about THE FAILURE OF ZITADELLE none of your sources is talking about this really , frieser points out his opinion . even frieser says russian improved but i dont see that one of dapis historians disputes that german tank units were superior? and i dont see the other guys saying the numbers werent significant, the only say they see other major reason. so you are simply misquoting the historians. do they have particular opinions about zitadelle ? if yes bring them.Blablaaa (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

rumanyantze

please tell me the primary source that manstein sended his troops away because he thought nothing well happen, the primary source please. mansteins panzer units were sended to the north to support the units their, within days they were back and anhilated the russian spearheads. again my question were is the skill ? Blablaaa (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to wikipedia editors to decide which primary sources are valid. Wikipedia mainly relies on reliable secondary sources, because their authors are considered to have the skills to determine which primary sources should be used. Read WP:PRIMARY. Hohum 15:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

i think dapi misquoted glantz so i want to read the sources. i this false? and fact is that german units were back soon an started pounding russian units so i think dapi highlighted something which is not as cool as he thinks. value for the reader.... Blablaaa (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be you who has misquoted Glantz. Hohum 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

i now mixed the text of me and dapis to achieve a neutral points if view. dapis text only covered the first phase of the attack ( the impressive one ) the encrilements in the south west isnt explained by dapi so we have here only german accounts. same for the battle of kharkov Blablaaa (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding quotes not supported by the book

I have When Titans clash and Galntz says no such thing about the "operation failing". Dapi89 (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

p 230Blablaaa (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check which editions you are looking at. The University Press of Kansas, 1995 edition describes an attack on 17 July as "spectacularly unsuccessful" on page 352. Hohum 15:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

iam sorry, my fault the edition is not the problem.... Blablaaa (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

featured article

what has to be done to get a featured article ? Blablaaa (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A great deal of hard work. The criteria are here: WP:WIAFA. It certainly won't achieve it with the current level of conflict about its contents.

Currently, the article is teetering on the edge of B class. Lets get that fixed first, get WPMILHIST to review for B, and then peer review it, see what they say, then shoot for A or GA as a step toward FA. Hohum 15:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

in 2 weeks its a featured article Blablaaa (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that is an unrealistic time scale (actually impossible, waiting for the review process takes longer than that, never mind the improvements that it will need - or more likely; sadly - instantly failed).

The article may not currently keep B if reviewed - reference issues, an ongoing dispute, lack of maps showing each phase, article too long, meandering focus.

If you truly are committed to improving the article and taking the advice of other experienced military history focused editors, you could ask for a peer review from the Military History Project at WP:MHR. Hohum 16:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

it was a joke. i tried already to create maps for the russian counterattacks but failed.... Blablaaa (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Selective editing

Glantz mkes it perfectly clear that the operations across the Mius was a successful diversion operation. Tactical operations were unsuccessful, but they were never meant to be. The Red Army was not given much material for these operations because of those facts. Manipulating sources is unacceptable. Dapi89 (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide specific examples to support this serious claim? Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, this one. He quotes two selected words and the rest completely out of context, in effect ignoring that Glantz writes the Mius operations were successful and achieving their objective of diverting German mobile forces from Kharkov.

He keeps inflating Soviet casualties; 400k lost in one particular battle, despite the source quoted providing a very detailed breakdown of losses, which were not 400,000, but 112k killed and 300k wounded. He is hyperinflating Soviet losses while doing the opposite with German ones. They are misleading. He also claimed that this information was on p. 230 of Glantz; it was not. Further, I've noticed he's being 'doubling up' citations. He's using citations in the back of Glantz' book as well as Glantz himself to make it appear as if the information is more widely supported than it is. And then their is the unsupported fanboy tankophile stuff (Check the diffs, I have killed alot of it). The article is going nowhere while people like that edit in this way. Dapi89 (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• "He keeps inflating Soviet casualties; 400k lost in one particular battle, despite the source quoted providing a very detailed breakdown of losses, which were not 400,000, but 112k killed and 300k wounded."

huh? this are my orignal words :"The battle in the Orel-sweep, which is the German name for this battle, was the bloodiest of the three major operations during the Battle of Kursk. German losses were 86,064 men,[145] the Red Army lost 429,890 men" this is exactly the same . for german the losses without breakdown and for russians the same. now the real story. dapi marked the russian casualties with dubios, than he checked his sources and found out that this numbers are exact krivosheev, then he splited the number in wounded and killed, to tarnish that he simply did a mistake with marking this number as dubios. u must note that the german numbers is still simply 86,00 men ^^

• "Well, this one. He quotes two selected words and the rest completely out of context, in effect ignoring that Glantz writes the Mius operations were successful and achieving their objective of diverting German mobile forces from Kharkov. "

dapi provided a source by glantz claiming the russian units diverted german units, this is not disputed by me but i added that the divertion operation himself was a disaster, where is the problem ??? the first sentence explained that the operation was succesful and i added that militaryoperation himself was unsuccesful. dapi wanted only the good of the operation... . but i admit the version now is better

• "He also claimed that this information was on p. 230 of Glantz; it was not."

lol thats called failurer, and i admited already to hohum, funny is that while u provided faked sources for prokhorovka i see no excuse of u, nothing. u dont respond, u did a failure but u dont comment. i comment everything if people ask me...

again i can provide sources and everything to support my opinion, i would appreciate if dapi does the same and we discuss here who was wrong Blablaaa (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to dignify this with a long response other than to say this:

The losses (429,000) were over a Six month period, March to August. You misrepresented the source to imply these were losses in July to August only as well as not providing a break down of losses and labelling of 429,000 as 'lost', as to imply killed. This is not acceptable. I have neither the time, energy or patience to argue on this talk page any further. If you continue to carry on, your edits will be qualified or deleted depending how much they are taken out of context. This article is not a wartime propaganda newsreel. Dapi89 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

the losses are NOT for six months. and i implied nothing because in the second sentence i wrote german causalites without breakdown too, u are lieing, nothing else. instead of admiting your failure u are blaming me for using wrong sources. u marked as dubios then u saw u failed and then u tarnished your motivs. krivosheev give for battle of kursk 800,000 with a breakdown for defence kutuvo and rumjantzev. u are wrong without knowing or you lie.... . Blablaaa (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

the numbers cant be for six months thats impossible because the participating fronts are already listed in the kursk defence operation , lol... Blablaaa (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• "This article is not a wartime propaganda newsreel. "

this from the guy pushing the prokhorvka myth lol. but i forgot u didnt answered the questions regarding this myth. u answered no questions.... u avoid all question... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issue(s)

First, do we really need two neutrality tags?

Second, please identify the specific neutrality problems so they can be worked on. Hohum 21:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

can u name the section were iam not neutral ? Blablaaa (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the editor who added the tag hasn't articulated what the neutrality issue is, I guess it can be removed. If there is still a problem, it can be re-added, and the problems brought up here. Hohum 19:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

then i would now question the neutrality of dapis edits, examples are listed Blablaaa (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Air ops

I'm guilty for imputting most of this stuff. perhaps advantage should be taken of the Orbat section, which lists air superiority ops as worthy of a separate article. Dapi89 (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

infobox strenght

glantz numbers dont include the steppe front i explained earlier. so i think the latest version of the box is the best. consense? is there something else wrong with the box? Blablaaa (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

subversive bias

Soviet casualties are uncertain. Between 1 March and 23 August 1943, 71,611 Soviet soldiers were killed and 183,955 wounded in the Belgorod-Kharkov sector. A further 1,864 tanks were lost in this sector during this time, while a further 423 artillery guns were also lost.

statements like this are fine cheeky form of bias. "between 1 march and 23 august" lol . glantz is here doing a funny little trick to tarnish the casualties. glantz looks more and more suspicious Blablaaa (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted. If you continue to behave in this way, I will not bother to respond. I have restored Glantz' figures since your edits cannot be trusted to be correct. Dapi89 (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

u are more than annoying I ONLY GIVE KRIVOSHEEV FOR RUSSIAN LOSSES Blablaaa (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing Krivosheev, Zetterling (or Glantz) citations, provided their numbers have been given correctly (per the author), is unacceptable, they are all reliable sources with military historical expertise, with access to national records. Hohum 23:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

i deleted nothing i only wrote here that i doubt the timeframe and that its misleading... Blablaaa (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO Krivosheev/Zetterling figures should be included, as long as they are per the source cited. Hohum 00:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Glantz: Titans vs Glantz :Kursk

for the infobox a user cited "when titan clashed", i explained that this numbers are "faked" and zetterling frankson frieser and so on are better for the infobox. But glantz wrote a book about kursk some years later what is Glantz saying in this book ? is there somebody who owns this book ? Blablaaa (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

update: i bought the book no help needed ... Blablaaa (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

maps

i added a map for the southern sector. i will make some maps for northern sector and prokhorvka/12july. mabye some gifs. if there is anything wrong with the map then tell me here. i can make better maps if the quality is not good enough for this propose Blablaaa (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you give a link to the map for review, before including it in the article. Also cite the sources that you have used to create it on the image's page. Hohum 23:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

review? u mean u look at the map or must i give it to an admin before including in the article? the map[[2]]Blablaaa (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean informally look at it, so editors can compare it to war maps from their own sources. Hohum 00:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

the map is correct but iam not sure if the quality is enough. u looked at it ? Blablaaa (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just taken a look. Not bad. The units appear to be in the right places according to my sources. You might consider using the standard colour scheme (like on the right) per Project_Mapmaking_Wiki_Standards. You don't need to keep uploading new copies to new names. Just overwrite the current one with a new one - there is a link on commons pages called "Upload a new version of this file". Hohum 00:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

what do u think about this one[[3]] for the planing section? Blablaaa (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to check it right now, but it looks promising. Again, standard colours may be an improvement, and consistent unit colours and styles for each map. Hohum 00:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

sure, when i make more maps than consistent design. btw the second one is not "mine", another user on german wiki created Blablaaa (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

german onslaught southern sector

a big problem is the different timeframe give for the prokhorovka battle. rotmistrovs fanatsy book "steelguards" created the picture of an intense battle which only took place on the 12 july. i think its the best this section is divided in 5-11 july 12 july and 13-16. then we can explain the battle between 5th GTA and LAH and Das Reich. the 12 july battle was very intense so it should get a own section. but we should rethink the name "battle of prohkorovka" because this battle lasted for more than this day. german units pushed for prokh before the 12 and the arrival of the 5th GTA doesnt mark the beginning of the actions only the culmination. the casualties for this particular battle are a problem too. the tanks losses given by zetterling/frankson cover a bigger timeframe this should be explained in the text. romistrovs and the historians who got punked by him, had created a wrong picture of the battle. the article now covers truth and myths we should rewrite it complete.

• my advice

spliting the section in the 3 timeframes. rewriting prokhorovka. i can provide a map for the 12 julyBlablaaa (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

panther pictures

The SS runes on "kragenspiegel" show this panzercommander is SS. all 200 panther tanks were accumulated in the Panzerbrigade 10 , this unit was attached to Großdeutschland i think. so this picture cant be zitadelle. iam not sure but its possible that SS units were reinforced with panthers. but iam pretty sure this picture is not zitadelle, maybe soviet counterattack... . any expert here? Blablaaa (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Jentz (Panzertruppen 2, pp. 62, 76, 82, 87, 95) all 200 initial Panthers were in stab.Pz.Rgt.39(8 Pz.V), Pz.Abt.51(96 Pz.V) & Pz.Abt.52(96 Pz.V) as Panther-Regiment von Lauchert attached to Grossdeutschland, in XLVIII.Pamzer-Korps of 4.Panzer=Armee, Heergoup-Sued. 12 replacement Pz.Vs arrived in July. In early August, after the losses in the main Kursk engagements, Pz.Abt.51 gave its remaining Panthers to Pz.Abt.52, received 96 new Panthers and then remained in action with Grossdeutschland.

The image credits admit that the text may contain mistakes. It seems very unlikely to be an image of Das Reich Panthers leading at attack during Zitadelle, which is what the caption in the article currently says, as reliable sources say Das Reich didn't have Panthers at this point. It might be another engagement - no clues to tell, or maybe an SS Grossdeutschland tank commander hopped into a Panther during Zitadelle see what they were like.

Either way, we should probably remove the image. Hohum 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Panzerbrigade 10 was PzAbt51&52. hm the picture is not taken during zitadelle... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

but there are good other pictures [[4]] [[5]] Blablaaa (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Those links don't work. I believe the entire Bundesarchiv collection is already on Commons. If you have the "bild" image number, you should be able to search for it there. Also:

Media related to Battle of Kursk at Wikimedia Commons

Hohum 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

the panther pictures is made by Merz who made fotos of Totenkopf. u know when totenkopf got panthers? Blablaaa (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Grif sekretnoski snajt

"Grif sekretnoski snajt" ("de-classified") is a name of one of the editions of the Krivosheev's book. It is available online in Russian ([6]) and is considered reliable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh. Thanks, Krivosheev is fine. I'll edit the citation so that it's clearer. Hohum (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Air losses in defensive phase is cited [14](chapter on manpower losses), but I think it should be [15](chapter on equipment losses). The number given in the article (1000+) is also incorrect. It is given as 459 in the source (+1014+153=1626 for the whole battle with soviet counteroffensives). D2306 (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any reliable sources on the German part of the casualties section? There is currenly only the citation to Glatz which is properly given. There are several citations leading to "Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg" (12, 16 and 17). While this is a good book, it was written in 1979 and therefore has no work with any of the archives that were opened since then. Ideally I think a more recent book should be cited. D2306 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. From my browser, [14] is the current citation for manpower losses(177,847), and [15] for tank losses (1,614), so surely they match what they link to. Hohum (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is correct. The incorrect part is the Aircraft losses, which are currently also cited [14], but should be [15], and the combat aircraft losses are given as 459 in the source for 5-23 July, not "1000+" as currently in the article. D2306 (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix it, my eyes have crossed from trying to translate the source. Hohum (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made the edit. I have also added a line to the description of citation 6, clarifying that Soviet losses are for the period 5-23 July, since German losses are given for the period of 4-16 July. Sorry forgot to sign the post. D2306 (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

das deutsche reich und der zweite weltkrieg BAND 8!!! was published in 2007 i guess, there are 10 books ... its up to date —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The English name for this book is The German Reich and the Second World War and relevant English cites should be used on the English version of Wikipedia as I understand it. Is it possible for you to find the appropriate citations in the English version, please? 76.68.27.226 (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

i dont owe the english version sorry Blablaaa (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for failure of zitadelle

i will rewrite this section with most recent comments of frieser and glantz. glantz who can be called pro soviet and frieser as pro german. so it should be neutral then Blablaaa (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My advice is to be cautious using Frieser. Common sense suggests that there should be some reason why Germans were forced to retreat on the Eastern front in the aftermath of Kursk. In my opinion, Frieser provides no reasonable explanation of this undisputed fact and thus shall be not be considered very mainstream. Dimawik (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

friesers opinion is simple i guess. kursk was no turning point, german were on retreat before and after. i think hes correct. russians had more personnel before and after they improved their skill ( glantz ) this in combination forced germans to retreat only. the losses were not the problem, after the battle of kursk the tanks and infantry strenghts were more in favor for germans then before... , some weeks after kursk german tank strenghters were higher than before kursk ( zetterling )Blablaaa (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

dont have friesers words in my head but my opinion: before kursk german were able to compensate beeing outnumbered after kursk not because soviets improved. the attacks on broad front did not allow to group for offensives... . however manstein for example pushed multiple times for offensive to destroy some soviet armies while retreating, some time he was allowed, but hitler gave the primary directive about the defensiv.... Blablaaa (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

i trimmed glantz and added what he really said. i removed the other two because they say nothing about kursk. frieser and glantz now two experts for german and soviet warfare a included. glantz is maybe to short i will add more for him. but please dont add 50 examples of what soviet improved. i removed also that glantz disputes frieser which is wrong and was supported with misquoting. both see the same factors like improved soviet command numerical superiority but they have different opinions about the significant. frieser thinks numbers were very important glantzs dont dispute this he only emphasises something else. looking the casualties of both men and equipment everybody sees how significant the numbers were.... Blablaaa (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Frieser contradicts practically every other source, including people who actually were in charge of the German army. Say, Huderian's words, The armoured formations, reformed and re-equipped with so much effort, had lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come directly contradict your assertion that some weeks after kursk german tank strenghters were higher than before kursk. The idea of giving an equal time to a single marginal source and all other sources combined does not sound good to me. As is, it is even worse: Frieser now gets something like 70% of the space in the "Reasons for the failure" section. Please bring the common sense and mainstream estimates back in. It will be also helpful to list mainstream opinion first, and correctly identify Frieser as an outlier. Dimawik (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

that german tank strenghtes were higher than before is from zetterling and not frieser. Blablaaa (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• I tend to trust Huderian on this particular issue more than Z&F and Frieser combined. He was in charge of actually rebuilding the armoured divisions. If there was nothing damaged to rebuilt in the first place, he would not have used the words above - this is not an event one tends to forget. Frieser can play with the numbers any way he wants, but if the Germans were relatively better off on July 13th (or on August 1st) than on July 5th, then why were they not been able to finish the job? Soviet army did not get better tanks, soldiers, or commanders in the meantime. Dimawik (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

u should not do this, u dont know why or when guderian said this, maybe he was angry because he was against this operation maybe he was "pointy", so many people are quoting this statement. but its only one statement. the okh tables show what tanks were operational. they were not able to finish the job because the hadnt the ressources. thats why .

i have to update my statement: in november german had more tanks than before kursk .Blablaaa (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

i will expand glantz statement, but i wont bring the others because they are not addressing zitadelle Blablaaa (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

the strategic significanse of kursk is overexagarated, historians like overy created the myth of a "entscheidungsschlacht" frieser simply disputes this. and his statement together with the casualties are logic. all the guys who think kursk was such significant event cant answer your question logical while looking the casualties. Frieser can.... Blablaaa (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

@dapi , i see no reason to explain u everything what i do. but here a short summerarize. u misquoted glantz . glantz is not disputing frieser he thinkgs numercial superiority is a major factor. Glantz updat3ed his opinions he is not any longer claiming the germans lost 320 in proko. Glantz is not anylonger claiming german soviet had 1:1 in tanks. i complete friesers statement. my version is not perfect but its better of the actual. so dapi please discuss here that we improve. first of all i think its not good to write 20 examples what the soviets improved, 1 oder 2 are enough. i delete zaloga and overy because they are irrelevant. they say nothing about kursk in generel , the section is called Reasons for failure of Zitadelle. if they are addressing Zitadelle then lets incude them. we have now two experts glantz and frieser thats ok i think. so pelase respond here. i will respond fast Blablaaa (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No I have not. Glantz (as others) make it clear numerical superiority was not the only factor! How many more times? This is what I have said all along! As others have said: if 20 authors say different things it is our obligation to cite them. It is not up to you to delete sources as you see fit. If you edit the sandbox, we can clear up all this as we go along.

By the way, I now have the German official history. Dapi89 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

this is your statement this your version of glantz words . first of all u say that glantz disputes frieser U SAY THIS NOT GLANTZ : "Glantz asserts the German defeat at Kursk did not come about by the "Often-exaggerated numerical superiority" of the Soviet armed forces" GLANTZ DEFINETLY SAYS THE VICTORY COME BY NUMBERS AND OTHER FACTORS, u implying numbers were irrelevant. glantz not even longer claims 320 tanks destroyed at proko , why cant i delet this, why cant i delete your failures without coming in and edit war? and now u go bed so that your wrong version is the last? why u deleted my table damn ? Blablaaa (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

PS that u have the book now is ok for me because i never misquoted frieser like u did with glantz... Blablaaa (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

added tables

i added tables , numbers from Frieser and Glantz, they have nearly the same numbers. glantz gives no combat troops for the counterattacks. frieser gives higher tanks. glantz includes the second tank army in his figure. Both get their numbers for soviets from krivosheev i think. For german numbers they use zetterling. their difference in tanks i abit strange , i think its a problem of counting operational or something else.on the next page glantz goes into detail with tank strenghts and than has only ~2,500 tanks what is next to frieser and zetterling. both authors give ratios, should i add the ratios? Blablaaa (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of your references are broken. Furthermore, it makes sense to add (significantly different) numbers from Russian Ministry of Defense and KOSAVE performed by the US DoD. My suggestion is to go the way Russian Wikipedia went and have tables with columns for assets and lines for sources, as different sources will provide different numbers. Dimawik (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

i checked the russian page, and without offense, this are simple "tricks". for german there are all armies included with total manpower, for russian not all armies with only combat strenght. Blablaaa (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

update: two of the sources do this not all. the other soucres dont differ much so no reason to include many different sources or? Blablaaa (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

but we can do this like the russian wiki with a table, with glantz numbers and frieser seperate than everything is finde i guess. Blablaaa (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Russian MoD is definitely a WP:RS on the subject, its data based on the recent Krivosheev's research (which is what Z&F's as well as Frieser's research is based on also), and shall be included. US DoD in KOSAVE also used similar numbers, not the ones from Z&F. We can't just ignore these. Dimawik (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

sooo , i changed it now with different historians. ok now ? Blablaaa (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

regarding the other sources. experts call this soviet bias. i explained above, they use combatstrength of russian units but total manpower for germans while they count even german armies which not participated. they have the same numbers like glantz frieser and zetterling but they presenting them in soviet bias style. glantz and frieser have similar ratios thats no fluke........ Blablaaa (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Soviet bias"? USSR does not even exist anymore :-) Ignoring data from both Russian MoD and US DoD does not seem to be a right move. I will add the data to the tables once I have time. Dimawik (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

your data will exlude the steppefront while steppe front saw action like the others suffered same losses like other, if u think this is no bias than ok go on and add this "figures". when u add this u will mislead the leader and u will support soviet POV which denies a whole front. i think than to show the difference of sources i will include solokov. solokov gives 1,677,000 soviet losses, this would be fair than. Blablaaa (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

infobox

combat strenghts or total manpower? operational tanks or total tanks? if prefere combat and operational. if nobody is against i will edit soon.Blablaaa (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think, total is safer, as it is less controversial. Please don't put all of Steppe front into Zitadelle, as a big chunk of it did not get engaged before the end of Zitadelle. Unlike Germans, Soviet kept ample reserves uncommitted by the end of Zitadelle, which was the decisive factor in the end. Dimawik (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry, germans did not use many of there troops either, to start excluding this troops would be difficult, germans in the south didnt used the reserve tank corps in the north did many tankdivision see no action until kutuzov. and i think its normal procedere to include all participating formations. Blablaaa (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

according to glantz 66% of steppe saw action, i think this is more than the proportion of german reserves. the steppe front suffered 70,000 casualties during zitadelle, this is same like voronez ...... . rumanyantzev was so delayed because the "reserve" lost so much men and tanks.Blablaaa (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

soviet aircraft losses

statement by frieser(my translation): "according to "grif..." the red army lost only 459 aircraft, this is even less than the number published by the standart sovjet history book "history of great partrioctic war", which states 1,000 aircraft losses. losses due to anti air or accidents are missing completly. regarding this unsatisfying numbers we have to look at german claims...."

if u look through the recent article u will find following statements made by bergström

• "in the first three days of fighting over the northern flank, Luftflotte 6 lost a total of 39 aircraft against Soviet losses of 386."

only northern flank

• "the Soviets lost approximately 90 machines on this date, while the Luftwaffe suffered 11 losses, mostly Ju 87s."

only 1 day in the south

• "However the German fighter units destroyed 90 Soviet aircraft on that date, for 12 losses. 1. Fliegerdivision had carried out 1,693 sorties that day"

the first statement is for three days only north, the other two only for the period of 24 hours only over one battlefield. the numbers here already exceede krivosheev numbers...

krivosheevs numbers for aircraft a wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Krivosheev is a WP:RELIABLE source. When reliable sources differ, both/all/a representative range should be included. That is what the article currently does. Your synthesis is WP:OR. Hohum 21:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

hm, only that i understand; we use this number for the article even when we know the number is wrong because guys like bergström who studied the airbattles, counted other numbers? even when historians like frieser explain why this numbers are wrong. and taking three numbers and using "+" is orgianal research ? krivosheev is a reliable source for most battles but not for this. in this battle his number is not reliable. he cant be reliable because he dont uses accidents and ground fire, so its impossible that hes reliable, and that he ist not reliable is cited by secondary source. so we have multiple sources saying more aircraft downed, and one source which explizit discredits krivosheevs reliable in this particulary case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires more than your personal assurances. Hohum 00:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

yes wiki need bergström who is specialized on this battle, bringing other numbers. and frieser saying krivo is wrong. not enough ? maybe one with glantz book can help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Historians disagreeing is nothing new. Krivosheev has made one of the most detailed analyses of Soviet casualties ever undertaken, and had excellent access to official records, probably far better than the other sources. When reliable sources disagree, we include both/all/a representative range. You appear to misunderstand the meaning of WP:RELIABLE in a wikipedia context. Krivosheev, Bergstrom, Frieser, Glantz, are all reliable sources, even if they disagree, even if some specifically think Krivosheev is wrong. Hohum 00:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

i see the outcome of this conversation,the 450 stay in the box... . frieser and in generall all historians of german militarystudy institute cite always krivo for sovjet casualties but in this case they say hes wrong, than bergström brings the numbers showing krivo is hard wrong. than frieser brings the explanation for this. the most ironic is that the propaganda book "the great patriotic war" ( the sowjet version) list a 2 time higher figure. and i bet if u would ask krivo himself he would say the numbers are wrong. but i have to wait until a kongress of 100 historians writes a book called "krivosheevs wrong aircraft numbers for zitadelle" . Blablaaa (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Soviet aicraft losses may be not above that assists in action. According Common sense I remarked outright lie. It's seems by side, that exists the special industry to misrepresent flow and results of WWII.
Вut all soviet aicrafts exсеpt Su-2 was enduring enough. Datas of Central Archive of Defense Ministry of Russia (TSAMO): on 1 july 1943 each soviet fighter was repaired 7 times at the average. Figters more frequently damaged by fighters, than other aircrafts. Luftwaffe fighters has auto-photo these aircrafts when fired, but very often these aircrafts really was not shooting down. It is known many thousands occurs when luftwaffe pilot claimed victory, but soviet plane in some days again flied with combat mission. Soviet claiming system was directly opposite. It needs the table with werke number of the aircraft or written evidence from the ground or maritime units with the certain crashing place. Therefore many axis aircrafts which was falling beyond front line or in the water doesn't reckon among soviet air victory. It is known seldom occurs when ground units gave no evidence.
Therefore, luftwaffe claiming system caused too many pilots-liars for propaganda instead combat pilots.--IstrV (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

About Kursk battle and Soviet WWII operation on the whole

Now it's appears very many amateurs in an all countries to re-write flow and results of WWII. Losers not know rest to explane why they losed. Relatively Western Front all the same for Slavianians.
But!
Any narrations about Eastern Front without an opinion of the Soviet side is nonsense. Therefore, opinions of the officiers and fellows who prepared and implemented Soviet victory operations is preferably anyway. For others, it's exists very many different wars and themes for tricks, slantings and fantasies. Yours forefathers either not fighted on the Eastern Front or losed in this war, therefore your posts is too preconceived.
MAIN FACTS of WWII common sense: overwhelming majority of the Axis divisions was destroyed on the Eastern Front. And overwhelming majority of the Soviet losses is a civilians. Best regards, from Moscow.--IstrV (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by dapi

User dapi did several edits which look for me kinda strange or even bias

• the infobox

some weeks ago i created the infobox with good reliable data, mostly zetterling koltunov frieser. i created notes so that everyone can check fast which units had how much men/tanks. this numbers were near perfect now dapi changed into the numbers of glantz, who seems to be a bit dubios . glantz was earlier convicted for using russian extrem propaganda like rotmistrov, his books cited rotmistrov and used faked sources.

what was changed? the infbox now has lower numbers for men, this is explained fast and easy. The menpower before was the so called Verpflegungsstärke , iam missing the english word but this means the strengh was every listed personnel in this units so auxillary units were included. i decided to take this number becuse most articles use this number. but the russian number dropped by 900.000. this is explained easily too. glantz/dapi ( i dont know if glantz really uses this number ) didnt count the entire steppe front ^^ i explain this "trick" with tanks:

the tanks: we can see perfectly on the tanks. before dapis edit, the infbox showed 4.900 russian AFV but now only 3,155. i looked my sources and find 1,607 tanks for the central 1,699 voronez that makes 3,306( this is glantz numbers plus some tanks), this number is already higher than glantz "numbers" but now it comes, he totally forgot the steppefront with 1,632 tanks, the same steppefront which used many of his armies to support the southern wing. to exclude the steppefront is nothing less than russian bias and vandalizm . during operaiton zitadelle the westernfront and the brijansk front started attacking the german units both fronts together fielded another 3,200 tanks lol . but this troops are no included. i dit not include this troops too because i was aware that this will be reverted but to be honest all participating russian fronts fielded ~8,000 tanks ^^( to compare please take zetterling who wrote a book about the numbers of kursk ) but glantz achieve a much lesser number with excluding entire fronts. alone rotmistrovs 5th Guards Tank Army fielded 800 tanks and attacked mansteins tropps^^. so the russian numbers are simply selective, if a front took part or dont doesnt madder... .but why are the german tanks so high now?

while glantz is excluding entire russian fronts he brings a strange number for german tanks, when i check the sources i found 3,534 tanks ( zetterling/frankson wrote a book only about the numbers behind kursk, frieser and the german ministry for militarystudy support with primary data) for the eastern front. glantz brings 3,155 tanks . lol . i dont know were this numbers came from but this would mean that the 3 german armies had 90% of all tanks in this 3 armies ( one is only armygroup ). this is bullshit we have a list for all german units and tanks, glantz number is wrong. the joke is while he excludes the entire steppe front brijansk and westernfront he dont excludes all the german reserves which werent used like the tankcorps around the 5th SS wiking this units werent used. but the used russian units are excluded . heavy bias.... . i can support my points with sources . i would suggest dapi does the same and we discuss the book of glantz. please tell me what glantz says why he excludes the other fronts.... . to avoid such bias i created notes so that every reader can click and see immediate which army/front had how much tanks, that was good i think....

dapi comments his changes with "removing unreliable ed" [[7]] he calls frieser ( and the Militärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt Deutschland and his 5 co-autors ) zetterling/frankson ( they made a book only about the numbers of kursk ) and koltunov unreliable even krivosheev becomes "dubios" for user dapi [[8]]. while he uses glantz who was punked by blatant propaganda[[9]] and seems to fake numbers to support his fact that red army didnt need numerical superiority. a interesting example is that dapi uses glantz to cite 350 tank losses for prokhorovka ( the mythbattle) and the same book is used to cite 340 losses for the complete "zitadellecampaign" :-) . here it must be noted that user dapi89 is a big fan of frieser, he is citing him always when talks about blitzkrieg and to revert edits on the blitzkrieg- page. so his opinions is not straight...

• other edits which elimanted every negativ words about the read army

dapi eliminated many negativ comments about the red army and positiv about the wehrmacht. why?

friesers opinion about models good retreat, where model inflicted more than 5 times higher casualties( some historians think inflicting heavy casualties is a form "skill") against his enemie, was deleted.

he deleted the statement of a soviet marshall about the problems of the t-34 because dapi pushed the opinion that the t-34( look dicussionpage and the reason for failures ) was the superior tanks, and when a soviet marshall explains the problems, he delets this.

• ....

here dapi delets my tags [[10]] , while i edited this article many editors made tags and asked for explanation or cites, are always improved this problems fast as possible. look hohum edits for example, i always tried to clarify or improve than i make such tags because dapi edited something dubios and useless, but he simply deletes this tags. i made a section on the discussionpage and asked for explanation he dont replies he only delets

the critic [[11]] .

here he deletes operation roland [[12]] . maybe this section is unneeded and it is correct do delete but why dont ask or discuss? i made so much section on the discusspage, i explained every change nobody responded, dapis comes and simply erases my edits without discussing...

here [[13]] he deletes the cited statement that the russian counterattack was destroyed in the very beginning. he tarnish his edits with removing a statement about the ferdinands. why deleting this statement? it was cited and relevant and indeed totally true!!! in the same edit he deletes a statement about orders of german generals

here [[14]] he deletes friesers statement with the comment "unsoured" , i said here that all this statements are exactly friesers opinion, so they are cited. he simply removed his opinion after he explained that he dont accepts his opinion. ( while accepting his competence to explain military tactics in "blitzkrieg legende many years earlier )

• who is bias ?

dapi did several changes ( deleted my edits and used "pro russian" ) to support a "pro russian" opinion. here [[15]] he splits the russian casualties and calls this misleading edits, while above the same is done for germans, before this edit he was moaning about the too high russian numbers now after he checked the sources and sees everything correct he edits this figures to present them "correct", same done in the rumanjantzev section, where he adds the word "uncertain" casualties !!! , why uncertain? this are krivos numbers they arent "uncertain". btw dapi thinks russian numbers are "faked" and exclude lightly wounded while soviet dont do this, so there must be a discrepancy. but when we look the sources we find this german casualties for attack 54182 (kia/mia 12.000) makes KIA|WIA ratio of 4,5. russian casualties for kutuzov ( attack ) are 112,529 killed and 317,361 wounded ( ~3) so we see that german even had bigger proportions of wounded , so your thesis now looks "untenable".

here [[16]] he deletes a picture of destroyed t-34 ( not mine edit ) , why? looks a bit strange...

here he deletes friesers and russian marshalls opinions about kutuzov. he calls "overwhelming soviet success"[[17]] after i asked for explantion why overwhelming why deleting my text ( discussionpage) no respond...

• rumanjantzev , from and mostly neutral german POV to pro russian

here [[18]] he totally deleted my text with many many cited statements of different historians . he wrote a new text viewing the russian side and surly highlighting the russian skill.

my text : "On the 12th July two of the three newly arrived SS Pz.Divs launched an counterattack. Within the following moving battles (Bewegungsgefecht) several part of the two advancing russian armies were trapped and annihilated. This two armies, which started with 1,112 tanks, were reduced to 234 tanks one day after the German counter-attack. " this statement of two german division attacking 2 russian tank armies is transformed into "For the first time a major German counter offensive had failed to destroy a Soviet exploitation force" , a soviet victory and a example of the coolness. lol ? dapi also deleted that statement of the 800 lost russian tanks which is from the same book, so he decided to take this book to cite everything positiv but deleting the quote about the russian losses... . this statements are on the same page, why cheerypick ?

after this he deleted the german casualties. its obvious that he deleted more than one time german cited numbers which were postioned next to the russian for comparision. i see no reason to delete the german numbers. above called the too low and wrong, while he is completly citing the book of glantz^^ .

after i wrote my texted, aware of german pov, i asked here for somebody bringing the russian POV to neutralize the article ( u can see above) nobody responded. insteadt of mixing german statements and russian dapi deleted my text and wrote pro russian variant which emphazises russian tactics againg. no reason

• reasons for zitadelle become moronic

to support the russian POV ( superior red army despite numerical advantage of 2-3:1 and losses 4-5:1 ) he brings zaloga glantz and overy. now when we look this sources we see that both, overy and glantz are citing the old nasty prokhorovka myth to support the russian tanker skills, they take the totally wrong sources of prokhorovka .... lol . its a disgrace that a book like Steelguards is cited here on wiki i explained my concerns above but nobody responed , i asked for primary source of this books to proof they a wrong, nobody responded.

it must be noted that dapi added 2! bias marks to the article before he started the above listed edits, iam not sure if wanted to announce that he starts biasing the article.(just a joke...)

When i look dapis page i see he had done many many good contributions, i like his articles about german pilots very much . i hope that the admins now dont become influenced by dapis good edits before he started his crusade here. i dont know what to do now so i think we should get some neutral admins in to discuss the problems. please dont hesitat do ask me for more explanation or sources to support my points. iam ready to discuss the sources and what to do now, u can look above i plan to improve this article. i hope my older edits show this

u can contact via talk page too i will respond to every question.... Blablaaa (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anyone has the patience to read this enormous wall of text, especially since it's grammar is rather poor. Your English is doubtless far better than my best second language, but it is difficult to read, especially if you don't take the care to make it as clear as possible. However, even if it was perfect English, you'd need to be far more concise to keep people's attention. This is no doubt unfair, but no less true.

One point I will make is that Blablaaa has been willing to discuss his changes, while Dapi largely has not - instead taking the opportunity of Blablaaa's short ban to make many changes without discussion on the talk page.

I believe both editors have been uncivil, and I reject excuses from either for this. Blablaa is clearly enthusiastic, but I would caution him to take more time to perfect his article-edits, fix issues with previous article-edits before forging ahead with new ones, listen to advice, and take more time considering what he wants to say on a talk page before blurting it out.

Dapi, conversely, could be more communicative on the talk page, and less dismissive of other editors. A single proven mistake in interpretation doesn't give free reign to revert many other edits which use reliable sources, without showing that they are incorrect as well.

Musical interlude to distract you from the length of this post

This criticism is intended to be constructive, please take it that way. Choosing between enthusiastic+careless or knowledgeable+surly, I prefer neither.

Unless a source has been deemed specifically unreliable, there isn't a good reason to exclude its information. If you can't agree on a source for numbers, use both/all/a representative range. Wikipedia is not about you think is true (your POV), it's about including what reliable secondary sources say.

So, now, instead of talking about each other, could we talk about how to include useful information in the article? Hohum 20:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

noticed!!! btw i see myself as "knowledgeable" too ^^.... Blablaaa (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hohum said: "I doubt anyone has the patience to read this enormous wall of text"...well guess what? I read it all. I want to point out that I very much agree with Blablaa's concerns over Dapi. How did Dapi get away with so many reverts, so many deletions of reliably well sourced content? That's not productive at all and deeply concerning to me. The many edits of Dapi was not NPOV at all. It showed a biased POV to me. Hohum did you deal with this matter with Dapi? I realize this occured two months ago but I would like to know nevertheless. Thanks Caden ^cool 11:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The dapi issue is complicated i will raise it if new problems evolve. Please take a look in this 2 edits, after reviewing everything is clear. [[19]] , here he adds the propaganda numbers for german tank losses. while he here uses the new also to high but better numbers [[20]]. So he added the number from glantz old book( which had soviet propaganda numbers) while he has his new books which not uses this wrong numbers again. but he edited them after getting furios after i added friesers opinion of german superior tank tactics. this both edits are undisputable. one reason of my blocks from nick was that i claimed dapi is breaking wiki rules and editing wrong numbers. funny, isnt it? but i will not raise issue again. but please take a look .... Blablaaa (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Blablaaa for those two diffs. It's exactly what I thought. Hmmm..Glantz..Soviet BS numbers..looks deliberate to me. He should of been blocked for that. Since this was two months ago nothing can be done now. Caden ^cool 12:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

From the lack of replies in the last 2 months, you are clearly in the minority - I was advising being concise at is far more effective at getting a point across.

It's better to concentrate on the article rather than editors on this talk page, there are more relevant venues to do the latter. Reopening whatever issues I may have with editors will only be a distraction. (Hohum ^@) 11:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree but it's difficult to focus on the article if there's editors who are not following policy. Regardless of this, too much time has passed. Thanks. Caden ^cool 12:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The user is offline at the moment so i see no reason to push for block or sanctions, even if he would be actice now it would be no good idea if he not continues with this edits. I prepared my "defence" and found this edits, but my talk page abilities were blocked so i could not publish them. after the block expired i thought no need to create more problems. Interessting and funny is that many of the reasons for my block were "wrong" accusations against dapi. I presented the facts to nick but he ignored them completly. It was kinda strange. Only off topic. Blablaaa (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Although you both "agree" and "will not raise [the] issue again", you clearly are bringing it up again - this page isn't the venue to complain about editors, call for blocks, or make accusations - this is an unnecessary distraction. Please redact your comments and concentrate on the article. (Hohum ^@) 12:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hohum, please drop it okay? The discussion has ended already. But do have a nice day. Caden ^cool 12:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)