Talk:Battle of Moscow

older entries

Combatant strength states approx. 100,000 on either side, yet the losses of the Soviet Union are listed as 650,000. Huh? -- 80.145.164.29 22:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see the figures have been adjusted, but there is of course a general problem with these boxes. Eastern Front battles were not one-day events, but sequences of operations extending over weeks and months, and involving at times major reinforcements. The boxes can thus anyway only give a rough impression about the scale of battles. --Kolt 16:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think there is also some suspicion that the casualty figures for the German offensives of 1941 & 1942, usually derived from German wartime reports, may be exaggerated to a greater or lesser degree. However, I've never run across any proposed 'corrected' numbers. — B.Bryant 04:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge

I think it would be a good idea to merge the Operation Typhoon page here and redirect it. There isn't much content on the other page beyond background and after-effects, so it's mostly redundant with this page already. — B.Bryant 04:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A bit too late to oppose (4 years!), IMHO instead of merging Operation Typhoon it should have been expanded. I intend to re-create that wikiarticle with better, comprehensive content and no redundancy, as the topic is notable per se to have a dedicated article. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

removed an irrelevant line

I removed the following line "In present-day Russia the ruined hulk of a German panzer rusts away outside Moscow, a silent reminder of how far the Germans moved." From my opinion that is an irrelevant fact , while I believe that it is true , it adds nothing of specific information to the article . (1)Where in Russia first of all? Didn't the person mean Moscow? (2)There is a fault with it : where in Moscow then does this panzer tank is ? Street , boulevard , neighbourhood ? It should be at least stated in detail or left out - it contributes nothing to the article - Babur

Manfred von Richtofen

The article asserts that there was a commander named "Manfred von Richtofen" at the Battle of Moscow, and links to the article about the famous pilot commonly known as the "Red Baron". I don't want to remove this right away since it has a citation (which unfortunately I don't have available to check), but it seems dubious to me. This edit has been in the article for a *long* time, so I don't want to delete it right away, but it should definitely be looked at I think. It also makes me question if other parts of the article have been tampered with. 134.50.7.201 21:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, it is Wolfram von Richthofen, who was a feldmarshall by that time. Obviously, since Manfred died in 1918, he would not be able to take part in the battle. :)

Thank you very much for pointing that one out! Cheers, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. ^^ Thank you for your *very* quick response! I looked at your other contributions and you're a real benefit to Wikipedia. I just fix typos and stuff. ^^;; Maybe i should get around to getting a real account. >.>; However thanks to you I'll forever have an image of the Red Baron proudly serving the Reich, throwing his men against the gates of Moscow and Stalingrad, while a grizzled hammer-and-sickle-bedecked Snoopy returns sniper fire from within. ^^ 134.50.7.201 23:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Defenders of Moscow: Illustration

I am working on a project regarding Andrey Andreyevich Vlasov. As you will see, he played a part in the defence of Moscow, and his picture was printed along with other officers in Pravda. I have seen this illustration somewhere on the web, but I lost it.
Does anyone know where it is?
My e-mail address is in my profile.
--Mjjohansen 20:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's Decision to Hold Ground at All Costs This has been a highly debated topic among historians: was this decision Hitler's only great military feat or was it as mistaken as the many other times he made this order? Some believe allowing any retreat would have led to a complete German collapse and that the Nazi forces avoided this largely to Hitler's steadfast refusal to listen to any of his Generals. Others, like von Rundstent, note they would not have been in such a position if not for Hitler's criminal overconfidence in the first place.

Anyway, when I get some time I will put in a little section on this. I guess I have to register first.

Hitler's Decision to Hold Ground at All Costs

It was one of Hitlers head long rush into a risky bet which lucky for him (and the German Army) paid off. During that time many if not all of the Generals were screaming to OKH to allow withdrawal, but many of the equipment and men were in no state to move. Had the withdrawl order be issued, the retreat most likely would be a blood bath - Am not using the word collapse here because the russians were also not in a position in terms of mobility and reserves to exploit any successes completely - see December / January 1942 offensive. OKH could not decide and Hitler stepped in.

--Moscow the Primary Objective?-- In the first paragraph it states that Hitler saw the capture of Moscow as the primary objective. This was not the case Hitler always saw the capture of Leningrad (Birthplace of Bolshevism) as the primary objective with Moscow second. He changed his mind again on the 8th july 1941 putting the priority of the the Ukraine over Moscow.

--Moscow the Primary Objective?-- Refer Hitler's Directive No.21, IIIA - Red Army to be destroyed first is the Primary Objective. Only then to deal with Leningrad - he isnt too keen in occupying it because that will mean he had to deal with the population - better to just lay seige and let them die off. See Siege of Leningrad - Hitler's directive on 7 October, signed by Alfred Jodl to the Army not to accept capitulation of the city.

Disambig

We should have disambig for the battles of Moscow from the Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618), and possibly for the French invasion of Russia (1812) (although the latter was not really a battle). As most refs are to the WWII battle, the article should stay where it is, but battle of Moscow (disambiguation) should be created and linked from the top of this articles. Comments?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How does this link [1] constitute SPAM?

   Dfl92

Winter counteroffensive

It looks like the counteroffensive involved a lot more then just Moscow, shouldn't there be a separate article for it? Oberiko 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is due for a major rewrite and restructuring. I think it was a mistake to merge Typhoon into this article because it now represents one German and one Soviet strategic offensives, and one Soviet strategic defensive operations--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Operation Typhoon is just a part of the Battle of Moscow, so it deserves its own article. IMHO, it's like redirecting Operation Barbarossa to Eastern Front (World War II). Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Name translations

The article states that the Russian and German names are "(Russian: Битва под Москвой, Romanized: Bitva za Moskvu, German: Schlacht um Moskau)" in the opening line.

The Romanization however, does not match the Russian Cyrillic. Is the most common Russian name 'Битва под Москвой - Bitva pod Moskvoy' or 'Битва за Москву - Bitva za Moskvu'. There needs to be consistency here. D Boland (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right.

In Russian the standard usage is Битва под Москвой 1941 - 1942 (Bitva pod Moskvoy 1941 - 1942), which translates to (literally) Battle under Moscow to mean "in vicinity of". Since this sounds implausible in English, usually it is translated as Battle for Moscow 1941 - 1942 although it is technically incorrect since no battle for Moscow ever occurred. Wikipedia.ru decided to avoid the entire issue by using the term used in the Great Patriotic War encyclopaedia, Московская битва (1941—1942) and including Битва за Москву, Битва под Москвой in brackets! However, "Moscow battle" usage in English is also going to be opposed by some editors who insist on inventing new names for Soviet operations as it is with Battle of West Ukraine (1944), Soviet invasion of Manchuria, or the numbered "battles" of Kharkov among others. I do intend to bring up this introduction of original research at the Village Pump in the near future--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

German Planning section

I believe this section needs to be relooked at, it goes from discussing the plan of attack to summerising what happened and anyalsing the battle; surely that should be left for latter sections. I would attempt to do this myself however i just dont have the time.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Moscow encyclopedy

Moscow encyclopedy is available online [2] and it does not do any casualties estimates. It gives only Soviet and German official numbers of casualties. So I see no purpose for citing Moscow encyclopedy rather than official data from Wehrmacht and Soviet sources (wehrmacht data btw does not include casualties of SS and Germany's allies).--Dojarca (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

-50 C in early December?

I quote:

By early December, the temperatures, so far relatively mild by Russian standards,[53] dropped as low as twenty to fifty degrees Celsius below zero, freezing German troops, who still had no winter clothing, and German vehicles, which were not designed for such severe weather.

- I think the -50C number needs a strong reference. Maybe it is the "-30C" misspelled? --CopperKettle 13:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I quote from Boris Shaposhnikov's "Battle for Moscow":

  Средняя температура для Московского района: ноябрь – 3°, декабрь – 8°, январь – 11° ниже нуля. Однако зима 1941/42 года была очень суровой, с большим снежным покровом. Средняя температура зимой 1941/42 года была следующей: в ноябре – 5°, в декабре – 12°, в январе – 19° ниже нуля. В отдельные периоды морозы в январе доходили до минус 35 – минус 40°. Толщина снежного покрова достигала 50–65 см.

  --

  The mean temperature in the Moscow Region are for November: -3, for December: -8, for January: -11 C. However, the winter season of 1941/1942 was very harsh, with ample show covering. Mean temperatures for 1941/42 winter were as follows: -5 C in November, -12 C in December, -19 C in January. The temperatures at some time periods fell as low as -35 - -40 C. Snow cover reached 50-65 cm in depth.

• A book on Rokossovsky gives the -31C number as the lowest point for December 1941. --CopperKettle 13:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• For example: I lived in Noyabrsk for 10+ years, and January temperatures there fell to -40C and little below that, but I do not remember -50C. --CopperKettle 13:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Death tool

Although it is difficult but is their any death tool available for both Germans and Russians ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, a death tool? --CopperKettle 16:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Temperature unit

I am missing a unit in:

"... the temperatures,[54] dropped as low as twenty to fifty below zero."

--Mortense (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• did you know that the coordinates at the top of the Battle of Moscow point to a corner of the Rocket Force Academy building?

Does a battle that spanned hundreds of kilometers in width and depth need coordinates, at all? East of Borschov 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Astounding claim

Despite the defeat near Aleksino, the Wehrmacht still possessed an overall superiority in manpower and land forces over the Red Army. The German divisions committed to the final assault on Moscow numbered 1,943,000 men, 1,500 tanks, while Soviet forces were reduced to a shadow of their former selves, with barely 500,000 men, 890 tanks.

The only source given for this is the Russian encyclopedia, which basically rehashes Soviet-era propaganda regarding German strength. The 1,943,000 figure counts every single person in Army Group center, including air force personnel. In addition, it ignores the reinforcements available to the Red Army during the battle.

Soviet postwar accounts treat the strengths of both sides' forces on the eve of the counterattack as a matter of outstanding historical significance. They emphasize that, as of 5 December, German forces outnumbered Soviet in the Moscow sector. However, the figures they employ vary and in the aggregate do not substantiate the existence of an actual Soviet numerical inferiority. The latest, hence presumably most authoritative figures, those given in the History of the Second World War, are 1,708,000 German and 1,100,000 Soviet troops on the approaches to Moscow.73 The numbers used in earlier Soviet works were 800,000 or "more than 800,000" German and between 719,000 and 760,000 Soviet troops.74 The German strength as it appears in the History of the Second World War comprises all personnel assigned to Army Group Center including air force troops.75 The Soviet strength is that of the forces assigned to the counterattack.76 The strengths given in the other works are said to be those of the divisions and brigades in Army Group Center and those of the Soviet fronts, in other words, the combat strengths for the two sides.77 None of the Soviet strengths given include the eight armies still in the Stavka reserve, a total of about eight hundred thousand men.

It is clear that, even without the reserve armies, the Soviet forces opposing Army Group Center were relatively stronger on 5 December than they had been in October when Operation TAIFUN began. While Army Group Center had not been able to replace its losses in troops and equipment, the Soviet armies in the Moscow sector had acquired a third more rifle divisions, five times more cavalry divisions, twice as many artillery regiments, and two-and-a-half times as many tank brigades by 5 December than they had had on 2 October.78

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-EF-Decision/USA-EF-Decision-3.html

24.210.144.187 (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes thats right, thats a bad comparision. I changed it. StoneProphet (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)