Talk:Kurt Knispel

Comment

I have read that Knispel was denied access to the Knight's Cross due to an "Unnnational Socialistic Attitude" and frequent run-ins with military police authorities. It is documented that he severely beat and injured an einstatzgruppen man whom he thought was mishandling POW's in 44 and also was arrested for looting a wrecked supply train (german). Though looking for materials for his vehicle he ended up with food and booze which was shared with his platoon of tigers. Intervention of company and battalion commanders sved him from severe punishments but it was decided that he would NEVER receive the Knights Cross

What is the medal on his breast pocket in the photo? Geeman (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be the Iron Cross, not sure if its the first or second class but probably the former.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the first class. Second class was worn in medal form only on the day of presentation, and only as a ribbon afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.211.224 (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How did he die? Was he killed in action? --Darth Borehd (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How he died

it says the date but not how : ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.93.100 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, he was injured and died 3 days later in the hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.233.250.7 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Kurowski

Kurowski is not a WP:RS source for military stats per WP:MILMOS, as he's not a reputable historian (see below). Further, WP:Extraordinary applies for the claims of Knispel being the most successful tank commander of WWII.

• Franz Kurowski, a veteran of the Eastern front, saw his two major works released in the U.S. in 1992 (Panzer Aces) and 1994 (Infantry Aces). Smelser & Davis write: "Kurowski gives the readers an almost heroic version of the German soldier, guiltless of any war crimes, actually incapable of such behavior... Sacrifice and humility are his hallmarks. Their actions win them medals, badges and promotions, yet they remain indifferent to these awards." Kurowski's accounts are "laudatory texts that cast the German soldier in an extraordinarily favorable light", they conclude.

References

Same for "assaulting an SS Einsatzgruppen officer" -- also an extraordinary claim.

I will adjust the article where WP:MILMOS would apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Smelser & Davis challenge to Kurowski was w/o a proof and thus unscientific. They were skeptical based on their "gut feeling" expressing nothing else than their (personal) opinion that thus does not represent an argument in any legitimate discussion. Writing military or any fiction does not preclude basing it on legitimate data. But Kurowski wrote also a non-fictional and thus legitimate bio of Knispel. So his number of a 168 tank kills is valid unless someone finds otherwise that would not be easy, as everyone else agrees w/ Kurowski, incl. Guinness World Records, which is famous for being diligent, unlike Wikipedia's editors.--98.113.209.140 (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Kurowski is especially hazardous because his fictional assertions are heavily employed alongside factual authorship, all without a proper bibliography to independently assess his claims. Try reading the Knispel bio in Panzer Aces II for yourself, it is a hot mess that sacrifices historicity in favor of memorializing Kurowski's personal heroes. Kurowski has readership, not legitimacy. He does not get the prize of being able to rewrite history in his image because he managed to fool a few amateur historians. Also, Guinness World Records is not a reliable source, and their page on Knispel and Carius cite no sources whatsoever. Mewnst (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mewnst: You do not argue properly. Your sentence "Kurowski is especially hazardous because his fictional assertions are heavily employed alongside factual authorship, all without a proper bibliography to independently assess his claims" describes (personal) opinion and does not prove anything, esp. that Kurowski did not use the primary sources. You do not know that. The way how facts are presented is irrelevant. Kurowski might not have wanted to quote Nazi original sources for publishing or other reasons. You do not know that and you did not researched that, neither Smelser & Davis. Guinness World Records is famous for its credibility, esp. their inspectors verifying everything. When they claim something, it is understood that they saw that. They do not cite.--98.113.209.140 (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You should try reading the bibliography in Panzer Aces II before making a judgement here. And, it bears repeating that Guinness World Records is not a reliable source. Mewnst (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I made a cruel joke earlier, as Panzer Aces II does not have a bibliography, as with most works of fiction, so checking it would be an impossible task. Mewnst (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Casting slurs on Wikipedia editors does not help your own arguments: just because someone wrote an alleged non-fictional book does not make it legitimate. Kurowski is now well known to have taken considerable liberties in writing his "non-fiction" books, exaggerating and distorting events to portray the subject in a positive light. His work and his falsities were embedded in mainstream military history for many years due to being repeated by credible historians including, I suspect, the likes of George Forty who took them on face value without appreciating or understanding Kurowski's agenda. You should read Myth of the clean Wehrmacht to gain some insight. Furthermore, your statement Guinness World Records is famous for its credibility, esp. their inspectors verifying everything. When they claim something, it is understood that they saw that. They do not cite. beggars belief in the context of Knispel's alleged 168 tank kills...someone from Guinness World Records was on the Eastern Front to verify these kills? Zawed (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Zawed: Which part of what I wrote was a slur, i.e. "an offensive term"? FYI, an offensive term is not that, which causes one to feel offended, but that, which is considered offensive by dictionaries, as de gustibus non est disputandum. Your trivializing makes opinions worthless and indicates discussing in bad faith. There are official German war records, as primery sources, to be seen by anyone, incl. Guinness inspectors and Kurowski. He might not have wanted to cite them to not be suspected of Nazi sympathy and wrote fiction maybe even only available for the topic at that time. I would have done the same facing: fictionalizing or nothing. Undeniable Wehrmacht atrocities have nothing to do with factual panzer achievements of both them and SS. You do not have to throw into the discussion everything, but the kitchen sink, as it discredits what you are saying. Forty's sons confirmed their father diligence. His younger, Adam, wrote to me: All I can say regarding this is that Dad took a great deal of time researching his books and did have a large number of contacts in Germany. He works for the Royal Signals Museum. His older, Simon wrote: Dad was pretty careful with his sources.

There was not so well known Battle of Herrlisheim where just 2 Panthers destroyed the whole American tank batalion w/o a loss, i.e. w/ the ratio of kill greater that 1:9 of the well known Battle of Prokhorovka. Pavel Rotmistrov lied to Joseph Stalin that his 5th Guards Tank Army destroyed 350-400 German tanks, otherwise his head could have been chopped off for loosing the whole army, while the Germans had only 294 to begin with, of which up to 48 were lost, i.e. mostly damaged and later recovered. We have aerial photos now in American archives to confirm that. You have virtually nothing for a valid argument or an unsubstantiated doubt of 2 American historians. Historians were minimizing or even laying about American military incompetence for decades. The last example is Afganistan. Before that was Vietnam. Before that was Korea. A single word from the Soviets and now also Russians in not worth a penny. The only reliable sources are German military records, as Germans did not lie in their records, but everybody else did, and you have nothing to disprove them, incl. Kurowski and Forty. Nothing... but the kitchen sink!--98.113.209.140 (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I should have been nicer in my judgements of George Forty, as the error here is 1 claim, repeated by many sources in the early 2000s following Kurowski's fabrication, which would add a reputable veneer to Kurowski's falsehood. He could have made the inclusion without ever consulting Kurowski, as multiple sources after him have used his number. Kurowski's Wehrmacht mythologies have permeated the works of several WWII historians, which has formed a useful foundation for the erasure of Wehrmacht crimes in an obscene Der Landser fashion.

It shouldn't be necessary to explain why the Wehrmacht is not a reliable source. Even Otto Carius himself doubted the Wehrmacht claims of his own tank kills, and of Knispel's. As the war journalist Chris Hedges has lamented, truth is the first casualty of war. It is natural for history to be lost with the lives that are taken. It doesn't excuse making things up to memorialize them, as Kurowski admitted to doing. Mewnst (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mewnst: Yes, you should, as there is no evidence that George Forty was wrong or not diligent, but to the contrary. That alone should be enough to deem him reliable. I fixed the confusing intro of Wehrmacht Propaganda Troops. You meant WPr, as the troops were just soldiers collecting materials and not deciding on their use in the hands of the dept and later office group. "Cleaning" Wehrmacht begun by skewed memoirs of Gen. Franz Halder and Erich von Manstein. It has nothing to do with actual tank kill. Why do you mix up unrelated matters? You discredit your arguments and turn into propaganda. It does not make any sense. The same pertains to Otto Carius's and anybody else's opinions. Opinions and feelings are irrelevant, including yours. Only reliable sources count. And George Forty's is one of them, unless you find reliable sources to the contrary. But you have none.--98.113.209.140 (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"Opinions and feelings are irrelevant, including yours. Only reliable sources count." Mewnst (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

""Cleaning" Wehrmacht begun by skewed memoirs of Gen. Franz Halder and Erich von Manstein. It has nothing to do with actual tank kill. Why do you mix up unrelated matters?" Not unrelated actually: the whole point is that Kurowski is skewed as well. If you can't or won't get this, then this discussion is pointless. I won't be engaging any further. BTW, telling editors they don't argue properly or implying editors aren't diligent is casting slurs. Zawed (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Zawed: You did not provide a single (proper) argument. Argument is "1 or more reasons to show that something is true or correct". You do not employ verifiable reasons. E.g. your sentence "the whole point is that Kurowski is skewed as well" is unfounded, as there is no evidence that Kurowski is skewed. His writing fiction does not prove that his data is inaccurate. Existence of 1 think does not prove or disprove existence of unrelated another, e.g. existence of fries (fiction) does not prove or disprove existence of a drink (data), as you order them separately. It stems from formal logic. Your statements are not supported by it.

Telling anybody that he/she do argue properly or does not have skills is not casting a slur, but stating inability od doing something. Again, "slur" means "an offensive term used deliberately...". I do not use offensive terms. No word (term) used by me was offensive. The other meaning of "slur" is "an unfair remark about somebody/something that may damage other people’s opinion of them". My remarks are fair, as supported by evidence, and directed to you and nobody else. Implying is not casting a slur, as a slur has to be explicit.

Again, you do not argue properly. You do not support your statements by formal logic. You just state your (personal) opinions without providing a rational or verifiable reason (justification). Just what you feel. That is not arguing, I am sorry, but misrepresenting damaging WP's articles. I withdrawing from discussing anything here, as it is pointless.--98.113.209.140 (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a total aside, but I think perhaps 'you do not argue properly' is not a good way to get your point over. I agree that it isn't a 'slur', but it is a little awkwardly phrased (I assume English is not your first language?), and does read rather as a judgement on somebody's general ability to argue/debate, rather than a specific criticism of the argument they are currently putting forward.

Something more like 'your/that argument is flawed/fallacious because [...]' is probably more what you are trying to convey.

(Also, you need to sign up for an account my dude, because talking to an IP address is just fuckin' weird...)

-Joey- (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Why Kurowski would have exaggerated Knispel's or anybody else's tank kills when they were so spectacular that any actual numbers were supporting the high achievements of German tankers no matter what they were. So why skewing them, like their war roles by Gen. Franz Halder and Erich von Manstein who wanted to sanitize their faults and responsibilities? Kurowski had no reason to lie about or skew tank kill numbers whatsoever! Nobody had, as they were spectacular anyway.--98.113.209.140 (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This is kinda a bad argument, because if you are writing a series of books that are centred around people who are exceptionally good at some thing, you are inherently incentivised to exaggerate their achievements. This isn't to say that such authors do that, because to do so would be ethically questionable at best, but the incentive to sensationalise is very much inherently there. Whether they have or haven't actually done so has to be judged based on other available evidence.

-Joey- (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

A heads-up to page/discussion followers, this strangely aggressive IP has been indeffed for antisemitism and harassment. Mewnst (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Notability

To address the tag on this article, according to de.wikipedia, Knispel was credited with a total of 168 enemy tanks destroyed, of which he was a gunner for 126, and a tank commander for 42. Another 30 victories remained unconfirmed. In effect, he is notable for being the "tank ace" with the most kills. I'd add this to the lead paragraph, except that the German article lacks a source; I'd expect these figures were taken from the official military records, & someone with the necessary experience could find the relevant record, verify the number, & add it to the article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC) I've added a reference for this. He is widely known as the most successful tank ace of all time - a fact like that should be noted in anyone's page! Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The subject of Knispel and the material provided about him is always a hot button for flame wars and arguments. The most recent and perhaps best living source on this is Dr. Roman Töppel. He discussed Knispel with several German Panzer commanders who knew him. The general consensus is that the vast majority of the stories about him are simply not true. In fact it's almost an axiom that the more "official" the source, the less reliable it is.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmilK8D0_Y&t=627s

Dr. Töppel has also written about one of the main sources for popular myth about Knispel, Franz Kurowski

https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=pfmilK8D0_Y&event=video_description&redir_token=SR5FNMg4muWgCD9xhDqq7YSuUPZ8MTU4OTEyMjQ1OEAxNTg5MDM2MDU4&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.academia.edu%2F37429738%2FThe_War_One_Great_Adventure_The_Writer_and_Historian_Franz_Kurowski_2018_

The hardest bit is getting past popular myth. Flanker235 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As relates to notability though, somebody can be notable for a thing which is bullshit, no? If there is a popular notion that somebody can do/has done a thing, no matter how preposterous, the fact there is a popular notion that they have/can is notability in and of itself is it not? Obviously for an 'authoritative' source like wikipedia the presentation should be handled very differently between 'x is true' and 'x is commonly believed to be true', but the actual veracity of the information is rather irrelevant is it not? (very specifically as relates to notability)

-Joey- (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit

Recently added content is not cited to reliable sources (worldwartwo.filminspector.com & warhistory.com). WP:RS offers suggestions on what sources are considered reliable. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

What happened to all the content ?

There used to be a lot of information here about his military career, unconventional attitude to military discipline etc... why has it been deleted ? Rcbutcher (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

I think it's hard to get RS on his life. The Kurowski bio info is a bit dubious. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC).

This article explains what happened. A zealous WP editor https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/?src=via-twitter. I think for the neutrality of history, war heroes of different camps (no matter the camp) should be given similar length and details when available. The equivalent American soldiers' page is 4 times longer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafayette_G._Pool— Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.191.82.109 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The key word is "when available." The vast majority of the claims originally made about him were from historical fiction. Hi529 (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment

The stories about Knispel being a rebel are all over the internet but are almost entirely unsupportable. They credit him with everything short of X-ray vision and Daniel Boone shooting prowess. They also describe his as standing up for the little guy, lack of respect for authority, disobedience and seem geared towards creating a folk hero out of him. They even talk of him having a tattoo around his neck - clearly a mis-translation and referring to his identity disc. These articles seem to have been written largely by people with little interest or understanding of tank tactics and more interest in romantic idealism. Knispel must have had a pretty good idea of tactics to have achieved what he did. His goatee beard, seen in several photographs, would have singled him out too. Some of the stories might be true...or they might not. The truth is, we know very little about him. I have yet to read anything credible which backs these claims up and I'm pleased to see they have not made it into this article. Flanker235 (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

bizarrely short article

Its very strange to me that the entire article about this extraordinary man is a mere 4 sentences, despite many of his actions and whereabouts for much of his life being known and written about.

Because, as discussed earlier in this talk page, most of the original material comes from Franz Kurowski, who does not meet WP:RS standards. In fact, he's regarded as a historical novelist or even a fantasist. Almost everything we thought we knew about Knispel has basically been debunked. Without being critical of Knispel, his own colleagues were in total disagreement with Kurowski, who claimed to have inside sources on much of what he wrote but never produced it. In the end Kurowski's hagiography did the man a disservice. Flanker235 (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced material

The material was restored in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations, a core Wikipedia policy. I'm preserving this material here by providing this link. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@DbivansMCMLXXXVI: Please see above. I do not believe that reliable sources for Kurt Knispel exist; the one source to have written about him -- Franz Kurowski in his Panzer Aces series -- is a known fabulist. His account is historical fiction, pretty much; please see sample. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

K.e.coffman I agree that Kurt Knispel is one of these mythologized axis soldiers, so i checked out his article page. What i noticed is that none of the sources use anything from the german Bundesarchiv sources nor the american NARA archive sources. So far i had one person tell me that using Bundesarchiv and NARA archives as sources is considered reliable, but again, before i add anything, can those be used? The documents i gathered on Kurt Knispel lower his number a bit but also add much more information on this man. While he was outstanding, he wasn't as outstanding as presented on his page. Thanks in advance ChartreuxCat (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Now cited to Franz Kurowski

Originally posted to my Talk page with this diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added references to the article on Kurt Knispel. In the future please simply request references instead of mass culling of entire articles. We cannot provide sources if the section in question is completely removed along with the tags.

Also, its often easier to do a quick google books search and find a reliable source than it is to delete the information. Google books often allows free access to highly regarded sources.DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@DbivansMCMLXXXVI: Citations in this diff are to Franz Kurowski. His Panzer Aces series (which the article is currently citing) is historical fiction, pretty much; please see sample. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Roman Töppel article about Kurowski: https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=pfmilK8D0_Y&event=video_description&redir_token=SR5FNMg4muWgCD9xhDqq7YSuUPZ8MTU4OTEyMjQ1OEAxNTg5MDM2MDU4&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.academia.edu%2F37429738%2FThe_War_One_Great_Adventure_The_Writer_and_Historian_Franz_Kurowski_2018_ Flanker235 (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced material, take 2

Preserving here by providing this link; pls see edit summary for rationale. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

^ "Remains of Kurt Knispel located .." War History Online. 2014-12-19. Retrieved 2017-01-28.

How come then, that the Volksbund page (http://www.volksbund.de/graebersuche/detailansicht.html?tx_igverlustsuche_pi2%5Bgid%5D=9859af90f691820f6bd35f4d5e54ffbb&cHash=ac2bdeec7a3e1810e8b4871400e3cc7e) shows for him that there is still no grave for him??? (Kurt Knispel wurde noch nicht auf einen vom Volksbund errichteten Soldatenfriedhof überführt.) 80.151.9.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Edited language, included Kurowski reference as explicitly historical fiction

It seems that Knispel is largely only as notable as his posthumous relation to the Panzer Aces series is notable, so I thought it was a good idea to explicitly tie this article to the prominent historical fiction literature. I feel referencing historical fiction is acceptable as long as it's clearly stated in the article to be fiction. Checking online, it seems that the most popular aspect of Knispel is this fabrication of having 168 kills, so the fabrication is notable enough to include in unambiguous language. Previous versions of this article have failed to communicate where the 168 number came from, and I hope it's sufficiently explained now. Mewnst (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mewnst: WP does not require verifying secondary sources. But that number is supported, when applying mathematical extrapolation, by:

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation of Wehrmacht report
25 April 1944	Der Unteroffizier Knispel in einer schweren Panzerabteilung im Osten schoß in der Zeit von Juli 1942 und März 1944 101 Panzer ab.	The non-commissioned officer Knispel in a heavy tank detachment in the east destroyed 101 tanks in the timeframe from July 1942 and March 1944.

• Die Wehrmachtberichte 1939-1945 Band 3, 1. Januar 1944 bis 9. Mai 1945 [The Wehrmacht Reports 1939–1945 Volume 3, 1 January 1944 to 9 May 1945] (in German). München, Germany: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH & Co. KG. 1985. ISBN 978-3-423-05944-2.

--98.113.209.140 (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Wehrmachtbericht was a mass propaganda outlet personally overseen by Joseph Goebbels. It, in fact, defied Goebbels' wishes by being far more triumphalist and unrealistic in its reports than desired by the Nazi Party's propaganda efforts. Kallis, Aristotle A., Nazi Propaganda and the Second World War, 2005, page 113 Mewnst (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Comparison with content on German wikipedia.

It is abundantly clear that the German wiki entry for Kurt Knispel is vastly superior to the current edit. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Knispel (It does not contain any of the problematic material and its content is well sourced. Most of it is drawn from his service record in the Bundesarchiv!) The article should be updated to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgeworthy (talk • contribs) 14:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. The corresponding wiki in German references an armored war historian's book which was published in 2004, 4 years after the popular Kurowski fabrication. Unless the corresponding work can be demonstrated to use a source for that claim that does not include Kurowski, or if it has no relevant sourcing for Knispel in its bibliography, it is best to assume that it is yet another unspectacular mishap on the part of a historian that should have checked a source. George Forty wouldn't be the first person to have made that mistake. Thanks for pointing out the error on the German wiki, even if inadvertent. Mewnst (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in Wikipedia being concerned about the source of information but here. If a reputable historian points it out then it's the job of Wikipedia to present it so not to do a critical assessment of the accuracy of it or its sources. The same way, for many of these articles, Wikipedia uses Steven Zaloga's work which is being criticized as biased yet I don't see the same level of scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:5635:E185:4293:C4C0 (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Where is Zaloga being criticised, exactly? (Hohum ^@) 14:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Reputable historians tend to acknowledge that the fog of war is real, and don't bother trying to invent information out of nothing. Kurowski is not a credible historian, and should not be referenced as authoritative. He's referenced here as what he is: a historical fiction author. His errors don't magically get cleaned up when they're reissued in another Stackpole book. The scrutiny is deserved. Mewnst (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Sourced Material no longer in article.

While checking the wikipedia reversion history for this page, I noticed that this old version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Knispel&oldid=695246192 had a referenced citation:

Reference in the Wehrmachtbericht

Date	Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording	Direct English translation of Wehrmacht report
25 April 1944	Der Unteroffizier Knispel in einer schweren Panzerabteilung im Osten schoß in der Zeit von Juli 1942 und März 1944 101 Panzer ab.	The non-commissioned officer Knispel in a heavy tank detachment in the east destroyed 101 tanks in the timeframe from July 1942 and March 1944.

• Die Wehrmachtberichte 1939-1945 Band 3, 1. Januar 1944 bis 9. Mai 1945 [The Wehrmacht Reports 1939–1945 Volume 3, 1 January 1944 to 9 May 1945] (in German). München, Germany: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH & Co. KG. 1985. ISBN 978-3-423-05944-2.

I probably screwed up the formatting in my copy and paste; but it should be a relatively simple matter to locate a copy of this 1985 book and see if the citation above is correct of him destroying 101 tanks over 20~ months. AlternateWars (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! The source you found is a collection of Wehrmacht and Nazi wartime propaganda. It would not be a credible resource by which to verify the claims about Knispel, as the propagandists of the Third Reich are definitionally ill-suited for the task. The intense glorification of "aces" played a significant part in German propaganda at the time. On top of that conflict of interest, documentation within the Wehrmacht of battlefield events was notoriously ill-performed for even internal purposes.

If this source indeed covers Knispel, it may be notable only for its evidence of Knispel being an object of Wehrmacht propaganda, and not at all a verification of the tank kills. This source does, however, offer up a potential explanation for how Kurowski arrived at embellishing Knispel of all people. Nice find! Mewnst (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Let us examine the Wehrmachtberichte report on Mr Knispel. It claims that from July 1942 to March 1944, a period of 609 days (roughly), Kurt destroyed 101 tanks. That works out to about 1 tank every 6 days.

The highest scoring US tank Ace:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafayette_G._Pool

Achieved 12 tank kills over 81 days of action from 27 June to 19 September 1944 (and about 246 more vehicle kills in addition to his tank kills).

The math for Mr Pool works out to about 1 tank kill every 6.75 days of combat; very close in time/space to Mr. Knispel.

Meanwhile, the supposedly highest scoring Soviet Tank ace:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Lavrinenko

"Lavrinenko participated in 28 engagements in 2.5 months [75 days] and has 52 confirmed kills."

This works out to about 0.69 tanks every *day* for Lavrinenko; though to be fair, he did kill seven German tanks with seven rounds (supposedly) on 19 November 1941, according to this Ukrainian website (http://armor.kiev.ua/Battle/WWII/lavrinenko)

Honestly, Knurt Knispel achieving 100+ tank kills is credible; given how long he was deployed to the East Front (he participated in Operation Barbarossa in 1941!). AlternateWars (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This is an explanation of plausibility; it does not resolve the credibility issues with the Wehrmachtberichte. Also, it's a mistake to be fixated on tank kills as some form of objective statistic, as it is exceptionally difficult to accurately record battlefield events down to the singular people involved. Germany was already ill-suited for the task of getting broader events reliably accounted for and explained due to the unchecked promotion chasing all through the ranks of the Wehrmacht. Mewnst (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mewnst: There was never an issue of accuracy of Wehrmachtberichte or Eng. "Wehrmacht reports" written by regular Wehrmacht officers. Wehrmacht propaganda was perpetrated by Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW) or Eng. "Armed Forces High Command", which was an equivalent of ministry of defense or Ministry of the Reichswehr joint with the armed forces in militarized Nazi Germany. Thus the propaganda was by Nazi government or OKW in its civilian-equivalent capacity and not by regular military. Military reports or Wehrmachtberichte were accurate though reported successes were obviously used for propaganda purposes, like everywhere else.

But Soviets were lying notoriously and their reports are not worth a penny. That pertains to Dmitry Lavrinenko unless confirmed by German Wehrmachtberichte.--98.113.209.140 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The Wehrmachtberichte is far from credible, consult my other comment or even its wiki page, a "good article" itself. Mewnst (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

---

You realise that such things as staff officers exist, Mewnst?

It's quite possible to keep track somewhat accurately of who is destroying the most enemy materiel, because sometimes, the only sub-unit in action that day for that unit may be a specific tank platoon.

You can reconstruct events accurately from:

1.) Crew after action interviews conducted after the battle while memories are fresh

2.) Basic ammunition resupply statistics -- for logistical purposes you need to keep track of rounds of ammunition expended so that resupply can be pulled from higher echelons.

and most importantly...

3.) If you control the battlefield immediately afterwards, your staff people can walk and count the # of destroyed vehicles.

Where things *do* get messy is double/triple shot claiming -- for example, if a pair of Tigers are deployed along a ridgeline and both take a shot at the same tank; both commanders/gunners will say (plausibly) "I saw an enemy tank and destroyed it."

I've recently conducted a survey of Kurowski's profile of Knispel, and here is the rather short run down of his career:

Panzer Replacement Training Battalion: 15 May 1940 to 30 September 1940

12th Panzer Division, 29th Panzer Regiment, I Battalion, 3rd Company: 1 October 1940 to May 1942.

From October 1940 to late August 1941, Knispel was assigned as a loader in a Pz IV crew until the tank's gunner was wounded; leading to Knispel replacing him. Shortly after that (late August 1941), Knispel scored his first tank kill.

On December 16, 1940, he was awarded the Iron Cross, 2nd Class following the destruction of an attacking Soviet tank group by 3rd Company.

On 11 January 1942, he was assigned to a Panzer IV (Long) as a gunner following reshuffling of crews.

During forest fighting near Leningrad sometime around 17 April 1942, he got his first (ad hoc) experience as a tank commander due to heavy casualties.

On 17 May 1942, his unit, the 12th Panzer Division; was relieved of duty and he returned to Germany.

13th Panzer Division, 4th Panzer Regiment, III Battalion, 9th Company -- July 1942 to Approximately December 1942.

At this point in his career, he was still a gunner, albeit in a unit now almost completely equipped with Pz IV (Longs); and took part in the fighting around the Caucasus during the Summer-Winter of 1942, specifically around the Mosdok Bridgehead, before his unit managed to escape the Soviet encirclements post-Stalingrad.

By the time his unit (9th Company) was sent home, Knispel had been

A.) Awarded the Panzerkampfabzeichen for 25 tank assaults.

B.) Destroyed 12 enemy tanks.

A final point must be made about the Panzerkampfabzeichen -- due to Heer regulations, in order for a day of fighting to be recognized as a panzer combat day by battalion command (and thus eligible for credit towards the Panzerkampfabzeichen), at least one of the battalion's companies had to be engaged.

A lone engagement by a few tanks against a single enemy tank wouldn't trigger a panzer combat day, and thus wouldn't count towards the Panzerkampfabzeichen.

503rd schwere Panzerabteilung, 1st Company -- January 1943 to his death on 29 April 1945

After arriving back home in Germany and celebrating New Years' 1943, Knipel was assigned to the 503rd and began training on the Tiger I as a gunner; this training continued until spring 1943, when 1st Company was entrained around 10-14 April 1943 to a point south of Kharkov.

Knipel and his 1st Company apparently experienced no combat until 5 July 1943, when they were assigned to be 7th Panzer Division's support during ZITADELLE.

On the fourth day of ZITADELLE (9 July 1943), he destroyed seven enemy tanks that day; and by the end of the major German offensive operations around the twelfth day (17 July 1943); Knipel's total score for ZITADELLE was 27 enemy tanks (39 total tank kills).

For these accomplishments during ZITADELLE, he was awarded the Iron Cross, 1st Class.

Kurowski's book is a bit sketchy on dates for some of this; but here are my guesstimates:

Mid-August 1943 (Retreat from Kursk): 50> total tank kills and awarded the next (second) grade of Panzerkampfabzeichen.

October 1943 (Retreat across the Dneipr River): 60> total tank kills and awarded the next (third) grade of Panzerkampfabzeichen.

In the fall and winter of 1943-44, he participated in the fighting around Kiev and the Cherkassy Pocket.

At this point in his career, he now had permission to fire at gunner's discretion without receiving confirmation from his tank commander (something Michael Wittman's gunner, Balthasar Woll also had).

Following the Cherkassy Pocket actions, on 23 February 1944, Walter Scherf, commander of the 503rd was awarded the Knight's Cross; and Scherf recommended Knispel for the Knight's Cross as well, since he now had about "twice as many kills as required for a tank gunner to receive the decoration."

It appears that his listing in the Wehrmachtbericht on 25 April 1944 was a "consolation prize" for not getting the Ritterkreuz.

"Der Unteroffizier Knispel in einer schweren Panzerabteilung im Osten schoß in der Zeit von Juli 1942 und März 1944 101 Panzer ab."

"The non-commissioned officer Knispel in a heavy tank detachment in the east destroyed 101 tanks in the timeframe from July 1942 and March 1944."

To put some context behind that, only 832 Heer members were named in the Wehrmachtbericht during the entire war.

At this point, the 503rd was withdrawn for rest and refitting, arriving in Germany on 9 May 1944; receiving its first Tiger IIs on 14 May 1944.

Shortly afterwards, Knispel was awarded the German Cross in Gold, becoming the third member of the 503rd schwere Panzerabteilung to receive it on 20 May 1944. This may also have been a "consolation prize" for the earlier denial of the Knight's Cross.

Also around this time, he was promoted to Feldwebel. (all prior promotions given by Kurowski are in my view unreliable, as Kurowski got ranks mixed up a lot).

Following the D-Day invasion, the 503rd was transferred to the Western Front, going into position near Caen around 8 to 10 July 1944.

Knispel survived the near destruction of the 503rd around Caen, returning to Germany at the end of August 1944, along with the remnants of the unit. Supposedly out of the entire battalion, only Knispel and one other man remained unwounded.

After receiving a full complement of 45 new Tiger IIs in September 1944, the 503rd entrained for Hungary, arriving in October 1944.

During the fighting for Hungary, he destroyed his 126th enemy tank and another application for the Knight's Cross was submitted to Panzer Corps Feldherrnhalle, since Knispel had now destroyed about 42 tanks while commanding a Tiger II (presumably he was also a tank commander in Normandy as well).

As we move towards the close of his story; we run into a specific incident -- on 21 April 1945, Knipel destroyed four enemy tanks and three anti-tank guns.

How do we know he was pretty much responsible for those victories?

Because on 21 April 1945, the 503rd was only able to field five operational Tiger IIs; ergo Knipel was 1/5 of the entire operational capability of the 503rd schwere Panzerabteilung.

About a week and a half later, on 29 April 1945 he was killed very shortly after destroying his 168th and final enemy tank, according to his surviving crew members.

This is where I have to differ.

I would classify his final "official score" as 160-165 enemy tanks; because in his final action, the other tank that tried to move to his aid was also knocked out, killing it's commander as well.

Ergo, we can conclude that the battlefield did not remain under German control long enough to "count coup".

BASIC ANALYSIS OF HIS CAREER

Panzer IV Short/Long Gunner: 12 kills

Total Tiger I/II: 148~ kills arrived at by subtracting 12 from 160

---Tiger I Gunner: 100> (or more?) kills??

---Tiger II Commander: 40> (or more?) kills??

From looking at the "box score", you can see that the majority of his kills came during that brief period where the Tiger was massively superior in gunpower and armor against Soviet tanks -- the IS-1/IS-2 series didn't really reach service in large numbers until January 1944.

Likewise, the "top Soviet Tank Ace" of the War -- Dmitry Lavrinenko, whom I have previously mentioned, earned his 52 tank kills while commanding a T-34/76 in Operation Barbarossa -- during an engagement on 6 October 1941 near Perviy Voin, Lavrinenko's tank platoon of four T-34's destroyed about fifteen German tanks with no losses, with Lavrinenko getting four alone.

AlternateWars (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

---

AlternateWars: Do you have sources with this information that do not lead back to Kurowski's 2000/2002 historical fiction book Panzer Aces II? It's important to keep in mind that much of the modern popularity of Knispel comes back to that, and most modern sources are tainted with Kurowski's blatant fabrications. Mewnst (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Mewnst, Kurowski also wrote a full length study "Feldwebel Kurt Knispel" in 2007, in addition to the chapter he wrote in Panzer Aces II back in 2000 or thereabouts.

Anyway, German Wikipedia (and other pages) have copies of a letter written to the "Office for the notification of the next of kin of those killed in action in the former German armed forces" by a researcher on 19 October 2004.

The researcher (Mr. Burmeister) received a reply from them on 15 March 2005 stating that Knispel's personal papers were not available, but other documents on file allowed his basic profile to be reconstructed.

Born: 20 Sep 1921

Assignments:

4th Company Panzer-Ersatzteilung 15 (this was on his dog tags when he died)

3rd Company, Panzer Regiment 29 (from 30 November 1940)

9th Company Panzer Regiment 29 (from 15 August 1941)

1st Company, Schwere Pz Abt 503 (from 15 April 1943)

Deployments:

July-August 1941 Minsk, Smolensk

September-December 1941 Leningrad, Tikhvin;

January 1942 Estonia;

February-April 1942 Volkhov;

May-September 1942 Ladoga;

October / November 1942 Newel

...

January / February 1945 Hungary

March-April 1945 Slovakia

On 19 November 1942, he stayed at Maltschik field hospital - due to illness

Ranks:

Obergefreiter (reported on 19 Nov 1942)

Feldwebel (reported on 28 April 1945)

Many other people have written about Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503.

One book written jointly by Dr. Franz-Wilhelm Lochmann, Richard Freiherr von Rosen and Alfred Rubbel is titled "The Combat History of German Tiger Tank Battalion 503 in World War II" (Stackpole Books).

On page 247 hardcover, there is this line:

Knispel was the most successful gunner of the Wehrmacht. In March 1945, the battalion reported his 162nd kill to Panzer Corps "Feldherrnhalle."

A source NOT by Kurowski and authored by:

Franz-Wilhelm Lochmann (panzer crewman in same company as Knispel; 1st Company)

Richard Freiherr von Rosen (Company Commander in 3rd Company)

Alfred Rubbel (Knispel's commander during 1941-1942 in a Pz IV)

Also in "The Combat History of German Tiger Tank Battalion 503 in World War II" (Stackpole Books), is a chapter titled: "The Final Hours of the Battalion" by Dr. Nordewin von Diest-Koerber and Others, which states on page 399:

as unusually quiet at Socherl, where the battalion staff remained until 7 May. In spite of ongoing skirmishes in which they repulsed local Soviet attacks, our three battle groups also finally got a bit of a breather. Unfortunately, my friend, Kurt Knispel of the 503's 1st Company was killed during that period. He had been my gunner at Leningrad in 1941 and was probably the most successful tanker in the Wehrmacht, with 162 kills. Feldwebel Skoda of the 3rd Company was also killed.

The tone of that line makes it clear that Rubbel authored that section.

I'd say that's a bit higher than Kurowski in reliability. I will continue my search of other sources. AlternateWars (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The letter you bring up seems to lay out some uncontested details about Knispel, but it makes no claims about Knispel's "kills" (which seems to be the entire purpose to this exercise).

The critical thing is to find a source that does not at all circle back to Kurowski (who, no matter if it was a "full length study" or a book, never ceased to make things up). The unfortunate reality is that Kurowski has been taken for gospel by many historians who would otherwise be credible, and simply having different sources on Knispel coming from more-reliable people is not enough. Keep in mind that the literature on Knispel is very scant up until Kurowski's popular fictional account of Knispel. Search the bibliographies of those works you brought up. If there is no bibliography (which is the case in many of Kurowski's own works, including Panzer Aces II), it's not a seriously researched work. If the bibliography makes some uncritical mention of Kurowski, it is tainted. As of yet, nothing concerning this fabled over-a-hundred-kills has been shown to be reliably sourced on that claim.

I've already done some of that work. The book The Combat History of German Tiger Tank Battalion 503 in World War II that you mention was published in 2008, by the same publishers as Kurowski's 2002 Panzer Aces II, and entirely lacks a bibliography. It mentions no source for the 162 kills claim, as it has no sources other than the collection of oral history from former members of the 503rd Heavy Panzer Battalion. The author of the passage you parsed out can't even be ascertained (even though it's likely Rubbel, the book is ambiguous). Where they got that number, and how they justify it, is simply impossible to tell since the book is far into the realm of being an unreliable source for that claim. Not to mention that a personal friend of Knispel may be interested in reading literature on their late friend, who just so happened to have been extensively profiled in a popular Stackpole book 6 years prior. Kurowski strikes again, yet another "new" source on Knispel is found to be insufficient on the facts, and something more is needed. Mewnst (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Just beacause something is 'Nazi propaganda' does not make it true or false.Look at the history of Katyn massacre.It was dismmised as a Nazi Propaganda for a long time. Isn't it prejudice to assume everything you call 'Nazi Propaganda' a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya72918 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You're arguing to knowingly and uncritically cite propaganda. That's simply not encyclopedic. Mewnst (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources. A source that says true things now and then, such as Nazi propaganda, is not reliable by any meaningful definition of the word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I know,but it's still a kind of generalisation.By blindly following the rule of only 'reliable source' wikipedia has officially become the biggest propaganda mouthpiece of these 'reliable sources'.What happens when these 'reliable sources' are compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya72918 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a propaganda problem, with many extravagant articles with terrible sources on heroes killing a bajillion people in glorious combat. Good sourcing curbs the nonsense, and keeps people from blindly following the most charismatic voice in the room. The issues you bring up are more relevant for media criticism, and not the topic matter of Knispel. Mewnst (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a propaganda problem, with many short articles with 'reliable' sources ,ignoring the soldiers who defended their nation from bajillion enemies in a horrible war. 'Reliable' sourcing curbs what they define as 'nonsense', and makes people blindly following the ONLY voice in the room. Since wikipedia cites media religiously,why shouldn't we talk about it.

Wikipedia editors operates under the assumption that all 'propaganda' are unreliable or lies.According to Edward Bernays, "Propaganda in its proper meaning is a perfectly wholesome word, of honest parentage, and with an honorable history. The fact that it should to-day be carrying a sinister meaning merely shows how much of the child remains in the average adult". Most people fail to recognize that every so called 'propaganda statements' can be inverted perfectly,the only thing matters is who has the LOUDEST VOICE in the room.--Katya72918 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please keep on the topic of Knispel. More general complaints and comments on Wikipedia's referencing guidelines can be made in those respective policy talk pages. Mewnst (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the reliable sources rule, you should either try to get the rule changed (little chance of that) or go somewhere else. Ignoring it and using crap sources instead will just get you banned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What? You say bullshit. Knispel did it. 91.151.136.76 (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

---

References

Final Battle and Death writeup by Peko Publishing

https://www.facebook.com/PeKoPublishing/posts/feldwebel-kurt-knispels-last-combat-missionkurt-knispel-was-born-on-20-september/1851800738242970/

"Up until now, we have had only a little hard evidence about the circumstances of his death. This is a brief summary of the tactical circumstances surrounding his very last combat mission.

Schwere Panzer-Abteilung „Feldherrnhalle” (the ex-503) was alerted on 26 April 1945. At 0730 hours, following a 30-minute artillery preparation, the elements of the 27th Guards Rifle Corps of the Soviet 7th Guards Army, together with the 27th Separate Guards Tank Brigade, launched an attack in the southern foreground of Brno, from the area of Musov, via Vlasatice, in a northwesterly direction.

According to data as at 0700 hours that day, the 27th Separate Guards Tank Brigade had the following serviceable AFV-strength: one IS-2 heavy tank, eight T-34/85 tanks, plus one SU-76M, one SU-85 and four ISU-122 self-propelled guns. Under the command of the Soviet Tank Brigade, the combined company of the Romanian 2nd Tank Regiment also participated in the fighting with three German Panzer IVs and two Panzer IIIs, and also with two R-35 and four R-1 tanks.

The Soviet 409th Rifle Division captured Pasohlávky. At the same time, Hill 222, which was of tactical importance, 2km east of Pasohlávky, was taken by the 72nd Guards Rifle Division, in cooperation with the 27th Separate Guards Tank Brigade. The Soviets ran into German AFVs and infantry 700m west of the hill. In the fighting that ensued, the Soviet tank brigade lost one T-34/85 tank (burnt out), and two knocked-out ISU-122 self-propelled guns (one of them burned out). An officer and three NCOs were killed and four NCOs were wounded in action. According to their own report, the Soviet tankers destroyed three guns, eight machine-guns and four cars, and killed 80 German soldier there. By 2200 hours, the Soviet AFVs with elements of the 72nd Guards Rifle Division, were closing on the road junction east of Vlasatice (from where the road runs northwards to Nova Ves). However, right before the junction – 2km northwest of Hill 222 – they had already run into the defense put up by the German Panzer-Division “Feldherrnhalle 2” as early as 1400 hours that day.

At that time, some – probably two – Tiger B tanks of the schwere Panzer-Abteilung “Feldherrnhalle 2” were stationed in the area, and knocked out one of the attacking Soviet AFVs as early as 26 April.

On the night 26/27 April, seven tanks and 10 APCs from the Kampfgruppe of Panzer-Division “Feldherrnhalle 2” – at least two of which were Tiger B heavy tanks, including Feldwebel Knispel’s AFV with the turret number “132” – succeeded in halting the Soviet attack. Afterwards, at 0445 hours, they launched a counterthrust and in a mere 15 minutes they pushed back the elements of the 27th Guards Rifle Corps and the 27th Separate Guards Tank Brigade in a southeasterly direction.

Shortly after 0500 hours on 27 April, the Soviet AFVs, divided into two groups, set up defences on Hill 222. Six combat vehicles took up firing positions on the northeastern slopes of the hill in order to close the road running from Nová Ves towards Musov. Another 10 tanks and self-propelled guns established an ambush position on the southwestern slopes to cut off the eastward route of the Germans, who, in the meantime, succeeded to retake Pasohlávky.

By 1000 hours, the Soviets had parried three German counterthrusts in the area of Hill 222. In so doing, they managed to stop the Germans, who retreated, leaving six knocked out AFVs behind (according to the war diary of the 72nd Guards Rifle Division two of them burned out; however, in the war diary of the Soviet tankers, five of the knocked out German AFVs burnt out). According to their own report, the Soviet AFVs captured an APC, took 18 prisoners (mainly from Panzer-Division “Feldherrnhalle 2”) and killed 80 soldiers in combat. The 27th Separate Guards Tank Brigade lost two knocked out T-34/85 tanks (one of them burnt out) in the combat fought on the morning of 27 April.

The Tiger B heavy tanks reported, that they had knocked out a total of six Soviet AFVs during the fighting on 26-27 April. Five of these knockouts are also confirmed by the Soviet archival sources. At least two of these AFVs were knocked out by Knispel according to Franz Kurowski. These were the Feldwebel’s 167th and 168th confirmed tank kills, the latter being his last knockout.

This time, however, Feldwebel Knispel didn’t come through the fighting unscathed. According to a surviving crew member, a shell, fired from the gun of a Soviet T-34/85 tank from 3rd Tank Battalion of 27th Separate Guards Tank Brigade, impacted on the ground next to their Tiger B, and a shell fragment lodged itself in Knispel’s head. Contrary to what Franz Kurowski maintains, the heavy tank itself didn’t take a penetrating hit, and didn’t catch fire, either. The commander of the other tank, Feldwebel Skoda, instantly hurried to the seriously wounded tank commander’s rescue, but his Tiger B was also hit, and Feldwebel Skoda killed in action.

In our view, Knispel was wounded on 27 April 1945 in the pre-dawn hours or in the morning. The injury that proved lethal, was due to the fact that Knispel, ignoring safety precautions, fought with his turret hatch open and without wearing his helmet, his head poking out of the open hatch, in order to be able to orient himself in the darkness and facilitate communication with the Panzer-Grenadiere who were riding on his vehicle. Soviet archival data also confirms that the accompanying Panzer-Grenadiere were riding on the German AFVs that attacked from the direction of Nové Ves towards Hill 222 that night.

Feldwebel Knispel was promptly transported to a military hospital but he died, on 28 April 1945, of his head injury, in Vrbovec, Moravia. He was buried there in a mass grave (according to other sources he was interred in an individual grave) together with his identification tag. "

https://www.facebook.com/PeKoPublishing/photos/pcb.1851800738242970/1851800568242987 Link to Soviet Military map of that final engagement. AlternateWars (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

At least two of these AFVs were knocked out by Knispel according to Franz Kurowski.: This indicates Kurowski is a source for Peko Publishing. Kurowski is well known for his historical fabrications and anything that cites his work as a source shouldn't be considered reliable/credible. Zawed (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Zawed, go read the actual links, specifically this one (https://www.facebook.com/PeKoPublishing/photos/pcb.1851800738242970/1851800568242987) where they post a close up of an actual Russian military sketch map of that engagement. You fixate on "Kurowski" and ignore the other sources, i.e. the Germans claim 6 killed Russian tanks; and Russian sources confirm 5 killed. More to the point, Russian unit return strengths are available, letting us know the composition of armored forces that were assaulting Hill 222. AlternateWars (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Two things, firstly, find a source that isn't on Facebook. Secondly, extensive details about Knispel's death are not necessarily notable enough to include if there isn't much of an established notability about Knispel other than his being the object of Wehrmacht propaganda coupled with Kurowski's imagination. Mewnst (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This fabulation was erroneously repeated by several credible historians

Why is wikipedia evaluating the errors or not of credible historians? Wikipedia should just cite credible historians, not pretend to know better than them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:2CAA:1001:43C4:F6F6 (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

You may be right. The errors of those historians aren't particularly notable, so it's likely not worth mentioning in the article. Mewnst (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The point is that if a credible historian (by RS) says it, it should be pointed out by Wikipedia. It's not the job of Wikipedia to asses where the historian sources come from or if they are accurate or not. If those historians afterwards correct the so called mistakes or other reputable sources point those out then there's a point on excluding the information but it's not the job of Wikipedians to do this process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:5635:E185:4293:C4C0 (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It is the job of Wikipedia to use credible sources, actually. Mewnst (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but not to decide if a credible source is right or wrong which is being done if what is said by a RS source is being questioned because of another source they used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:5635:E185:4293:C4C0 (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Making context for anyone reading, this specific IP has already been banned within a day of activity for racist statements in a talk page related to the "white genocide" conspiracy theory. Fair to say they haven't engaged in this talk page in good faith. Mewnst (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Kurt Knispel Death

Why did they remove from Kurt Knispel's article that the reason for his death was mortar fragments? The text is so badly edited that it looks like he was killed by Soviet tanks. You can check with the very people who dug up Kurt Knispel that the reason for his death was a mortar and not a tank. 2804:7374:4000:1130:90D4:A0EE:D6D0:44D5 (talk) 06:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Notability issues

The currently article does not present anything that makes Knispel worth keeping as a separate article. The only statement that's out of the ordinary from hundreds of thousands of German WW II soldiers is being featured in a historical fiction book series.

Either Knispel did something remarkable or the coverage and debate about him is remarkable. If neither of those are presented, the article should in my view be deleted. Peter ^Isotalo 07:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

K.e.coffman raised the same issue. Mentioned elsewhere in the talk page, Knispel was profiled in Wehrmacht propaganda reports, and the historical fiction writer Franz Kurowski resuscitated his manufactured image as a model soldier. His myth is bolstered by the fantastical claim of 168 tank kills, which was either invented by Kurowski or borrowed by Wehrmacht propaganda reports and popularized by Kurowski. There is a similar issue to all wiki pages related to various "aces" in the Wehrmacht. Their notability, if present, comes from German war propaganda laundered through dubious writers, permeating the community of German and English-language war history nerds. Wikipedia's content favors the input of such obsessives, and it leads to articles like this. The primary reason this page still exists is because misled war nerds still believe Knispel was the best tank operator ever, bringing an average of over 200 pageviews per day for the past few years. For the average inclusionist wiki editor, that kind of attention alone is reason enough to keep the article around.

I do concur that the article should ideally be deleted, as this myth is his only notability. Knispel should drift off to the realm of legend in the community that now owns him rather than being crudely inserted into an encyclopedia's account of tank combat history. Mewnst (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you know if there are sources about the meta-aspects of Knispel? Could there be enough to make Knispel notable primarily as a vehicle of wartime propaganda? Peter ^Isotalo 15:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

A good source on the meta-aspects of Knispel being exploited for propaganda may be this 2018 paper, "The War, One Great Adventure: The Writer and 'Historian' Franz Kurowski". It's a more general study on Kurowski, but it brings up Knispel. This paper reveals that Alfred Rubbel, who was Knispel's superior officer during the war, called Kurowski's work on Knispel "a sheer outrage. What he wrote in there, it is all made up. Alone the quotes he puts in my mouth. It is all completely untrue.” This source was brought forth three years ago by another editor in this talk page. Since Knispel the myth is the only plausibly notable iteration of Knispel, it may be deserving of inclusion should the article avoid the more reasonable fate of deletion. Mewnst (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Been trying to deal with the problems in the German-language article and I'm getting some very unreasonable pushback. I'm leaning towards favoring nominating this for deletion. We shouldn't keep biographies that seems to be primarily based on Nazi wartime propaganda. Peter ^Isotalo 16:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll go through the sources here, and see how much they help this article meet WP:BASIC:

1. www.volksbund.de gives a small amount of pre-formatted info on Knispel and his grave (birthplace, DoB, DoD etc.). Looking up the description of the gravesite (in case there are other individuals buried there to contrast against), I see one other result.
   • Knispel is the only person I can see named online at that gravesite, out of 7,889.
   • However, he is not notable enough to be named as one of the buried on the page for the gravesite itself.
   • This source doesn't give enough information to make the man notable – at least not on its own.
2. Die Welt mentions Knispel's dog tag, then mentions his 168 tank kills (presumably relying on Kurowski for this assertion).
   • Knispel is pretty much incidental to this article about German war graves.
   • Since the article mentions his 168 tank kills, which (presumably) ultimately comes from Kurowski, it may not be a WP:RS for Knispel.
   • Though I'm relying on online translation, I'm confident this doesn't back up the claim it's supposed to in the article.
3. www.ceskatelevize.cz gives a lot of biographical information, citing "Archaeologist Vlastimil Schildberger" and www.kurt-knispel.webnode.cz.
   • This could count towards the "multiple ... sources" part of WP:BASIC.
   • However, the only notable claims are his 168 tank kills, his awards (or lack of them) and his standing up for a Russian prisoner against an SS member. Obviously, this all needs verifying.
4. www.warhistoryonline.com may not be a WP:RS: at first look, it's hard to distinguish from a blog with multiple contributors. The article is written by a Jack Beckett, who is both author and editor of the publication. I've not found anything written by the man which is not either in warhistoryonline or WP:SPS. Moreover, the article cites no sources.
   • I recommend dropping this citation.
5. www.vets.cz is another source about his grave. Besides this, it mentions his 168 tank kills, citing kurt-knispel.webnode.cz/zivotopis
   • N.B kurt-knispel.webnode.cz is the same source used by www.ceskatelevize.cz.
6. www.mzm.cz is yet another source about his grave. It calls his "the greatest tank ace of the Second World War", but doesn't go into specifics.
   • There is not enough biographical information here to contribute to WP:BASIC.
7. Roman Töppel talks about how Knispel's biography by Kurowski is fiction.
8. Also Roman Töppel (see above).
9. Das Deutsche Kreuz is not online; however, it is not used to support biographical information beyond an award he received.

In conclusion, www.ceskatelevize.cz is doing a lot of heavy lifting for this article's notability. I recommend investigating the sources it uses in case they lead back to Kurowski. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so it looks like www.kurt-knispel.webnode.cz (cited by www.ceskatelevize.cz and www.vets.cz) is also a WP:SPS. Webnode is a freemium web-hosting business, so the author does not own the URL, and I doubt their work underwent editorial review. The website does not name its author (which would let us verify whether they have published anything elsewhere). An email address is provided, but the only search results I see for it are also Webnode pages providing no further information. As for citing sources, though it was a pain to find any, I did find a list when I searched for "kurowski". This page says information on Knispel relies on Kurowski, but it also cites Dr Franz-Wilhelm Lochmann's The Combat History of schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503 – which I believe is discussed here ("...by the same publishers as Kurowski's 2002 Panzer Aces II, and entirely lacks a bibliography."). Another Lochmann source – Erinnerung an die Tiger-Abteilung 503 – I can only find in German, and I do not have access to. Till we can review it on its own merit, we might have to assume it is as dubious a source as The Combat History of schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503. Finally, the page cites Didier Lodieu (whose work I can't find much about) and Alfred Rubbel (the man who "challenged Kurowski's retelling of Knispel's alleged tank kills and awards" according to the article as it stands). —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There is more reason to expect that Vlastimil Schildberger may be a reliable source: he was employed by the Moravian Museum, and is cited by both www.ceskatelevize.cz and El País. Tangentially, that El País article mentions Efraín Herrera Marchena's Kurt Knispel, la biografía as the main source on Knispel other than Kurowski (whose work is labelled "pulp" in the article). That book includes some of Schildberger's stories about Knispel mentioned by www.ceskatelevize.cz, and does have a bibliography – though I can't check what's included since I don't have a copy, and the article calls Herrera's work "hagiographic".

Overall, though, this article looks like it depends on Kurowski to make Knispel notable. If we can't find a better source, perhaps we should redirect this page to Kurowski's page and include the Rubbel quote there. Ideally, though, we should take a look at Herrera's work and see whether that meets the bar for reliability. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE detailed and new information for Kurt Knipsel with reference images of the tanks he used. Mostly translated from the more detailed more accurate German Page about Kurt Knipsel.