Talk:Anti-tank dog

Depiction

Curzio Malaparte's Caputt may be added as literary depiction of this phenomenon. He devotes one chapter to it in very readable form. Pavel Vozenilek 16:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit

Yes, this is just folklore. No sources, no links, no nothing. Yes, it's a funny story, but bullshit none the less.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.83.54 (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hundeminen and anti-tank dogs

• Is Anti-tank dogs, and dog mines the same thing? the picture depics an anti-tank dog, but what would a dog mine do? stay put with a vest of explosives, and wag its tail to the passing tanks? I dont think that dogs can be trained to stay put or sit for a very long time.

• and second, wouldnt the tank commander see the dog, i mean the vest isnt really that camouflaged with the dogs' fur color. Couldnt he take his pitol ( or a gun he would certainly have with him, or a machine gun on the tank, and start shooting the poor dog, instead or running away at 25 km/h?

I dont want to be of a negative tone to this article ( its been very useful to be and I appreciate the person who wrote it), but I just dont think that a anti-tank dog would have been the cleaverlest idea to be used in WW2. and what surprises me, is that both sides used it.

I guess its like the US that start shooting at every car that just comes too close to their Humvee or sumthin like that ( i read it in the newspaper - its like a comfort zone). But coming back to WW2, I believe that if the tank crew spotted anyone (not allied soldiers inparticular, or really just anything hostile) advancing towards their tanks, they would shoot him/her. So why wouldnt they shhot the dogs?lol. And now we can see the evolution about the unknown, that we are mistaking some lunch bag for a bomb. Always fun to see it on the news and have the robot shoot a few of those water rockets into it...

I'll do abit of research, and I'll try to add to this article paat 21:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Err, I really don't understand your comments.

• Is Anti-tank dogs, and dog mines the same thing? -> first line of article: "Anti-tank dogs, also known as dog mines..."

• Couldnt he take his pitol ( or a gun he would certainly have with him, or a machine gun on the tank, and start shooting the poor dog, -> "...and on the Eastern Front dogs were shot on sight ...". If you talk about the picture, it's from an exercise.
• I just dont think that a anti-tank dog would have been the cleaverlest idea to be used in WW2. -> ??? Who said it was clever? (or cleaverlest?)
• and what surprises me, is that both sides used it. -> This surprises me as well, since the article mentions only Soviet use.
• So why wouldnt they shhot the dogs?lol -> They did: "...and on the Eastern Front dogs were shot on sight... Dogs became scarce as a result..." - Alureiter 22:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

oops. sory thanks for the reality check. I dont know how i missed all of that. I understood that the German learned how to use them too. paat 01:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• The dogs were probably kept in trenches with their handlers, until a tank got close. Then released. Incase you werent aware, a tank cant shoot straight down. often times, at close range, you cant even hit a human with the coaxial machine gun on a tank. The dogs normally used for this sort of detail were short, runty dogs, not a pure bred german shepard. That said, a dog could be anywhere from 1.5 to 2.5 feet tall probably. A tank probably cant hit a target this small if its 50 feet or closer. Maybe the machinegunner next to the driver could, but he doesnt have the best visibility in the world. Even if a tank could hit the dog, i think they would be more preoccupied with a t34, or a anti tank gun, as they make more noise, and are kinda bit and noticible. Not to mention, a tank might damage its self if it shoots reall close to its self.

• And to address getting out of the tank to shoot the dog, yeah, right, try that in the middle of a battle. A piece of shrapnel, a sniper, a machine gun, or an infantry man will take you down the second they get a bead on you. You'd have to be a crack shot with a pistol to hit a dog in the head, while the dog is running at you, and you are ontop of a moving tank, in the middle of a tank battle, and you probably have adrenaline pumping through your system (not the best thing for keeping a steady hand). The chance of hitting the dog is very little, and if you do, he might not even stop from the first shot. Yes, a Mp40 or liberated ppsh41 might rid you of the dog, but youll still probably get shot in the neck by some one like Vasily Zaitsev.--Ryan 07:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow! 225 kills = 11 snipers, my good, how can u survive that long without being sniped urself by ur movement, ur shots beeing traced or the light refleting off your scope? paat 13:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

---

• I have no clue of the etiquette of Wiki and such so I apologize in advance. I have read upon this subject in Paul Carrell's Hitler Moves East (a disputable book/author). The dogs were trained mostly with the use of tractors, not T-34 tanks or for that matter, any other Soviet armour; however, later on in the war its more then plausible. This is due mainly to the point that when trained, the Soviet Union couldn't exactly afford the allocation of resources to a menial project. During training the dogs food were put under the tracks of a running tractor. After initially scared, the dogs would eventually become used to eating under the loud tractors. I point out the use of tractors because the difference between tank and tractor engines is very noticeable; the latter being much louder so when used some of the dogs were afraid of the tanks and ran.

The basic premise of the mine dog was once under the tank and ridden over a rod in the mechanism would snap do to the weight and then explode. Initial reports by the Germans thought the dogs as messenger dogs (do to the sack worn) and cared very little of them. That is of course before they became aware of what they were and the first casualties reported. The dogs although initially semi-successful became less so when the Germans became aware. The numbers presented in the article seem a little high. Contrary to the above poster said, the dogs were easier to handled at such ranges. Of course that is not to say that all of the dogs were dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockawayG24 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

---

http://www.soviet-empire.com/arsenal/army/anti-tank/dog_mine/dog_mine_001.php - this site states: "A soviet dog mine in training, or so it would appear. What is interesting about this picture is that although the training tank does not have a real gun, its turret appears to be that of the T-34/85. The T-34/85 was not introduced until 1944, yet dog mines were supposed to have been withdrawn in 1942!" - this goes with the picture seen on the article page paat 18:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speculation

Paat's edit [1] states "but there has been speculation that this method was still being used . . .". I'll remove this "weasel-word" sentence, unless someone can indicate where there has been such speculation, preferably with a verifiable reference. —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 16:46 Z

I found it on a web site. I can give you the link, if you want: http://community-2.webtv.net/Hahn-50thAP-K9/K9History9/ paat 19:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That web page contains as much patriotism as facts, and it cites no references. I don't think it qualifies as a verifiable source. —Michael Z. 2006-03-18 19:10 Z

your forgetting, this is wikipedia, having sources is irrelevent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.165.218 (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Smell of fuel.

I remember reading that one problem was that Russian tanks used diesel while german tanks used Petrol (or maybe it was the other way around?). The Dogs tended to go for the Russian tanks since they had the right smell. No ref sorry. - SimonLyall 01:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The german tanks were using BMW and Mercedes (i'm not the best speller) aircraft engines, which ran on Gas (petrol). No sources, but an interesting fact. 4.247.143.84 01:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All german tanks ran on petrol, while soviets had mixture of two types (newer tanks having diesel engines, older ones using petrol) 195.218.11.45 (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits of 25 May 06

1. Changed 'tipped' to tripped'.

2. Deleted 'bomb', inserted 'explosive charge'. In the context of WW II, a bomb was a weapon dropped from an aircraft.

3. Deleted 'no armor'. inserted 'less armour'. Most armoured vehicles have their armour distributed thus: front - thickest, sides - lots, rear - some, underneath - least(but there is still some).

4. Changed 'climb under' - to my knowledge, dogs don't climb anywhere, neither up nor down !

5.Changed 'pulled' to 'withdrawn', I think it is better English.

84.130.117.18 19:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Many breeds of dog are quite accomplished at climbing trees, fences, etc. Although I agree changing the wording was appropriate.

The North Korean tank dogs

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqlEtjYwNYk

See it and believe it. -- Toytoy 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange, see 3.46 minute of this video either way it could be a bluff, these dogs are running under maquets of tanks (they seem happy so it might be just a game for them), it would be much harder to convince them during a battle to happily run under a tank that they are seeing for the first time. Mieciu K 17:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Dog catchers

I'll bite. Why didn't they just make tanks with cow-catchers? Er, I mean dog-catchers. Seems like that would have put a screeching halt to the use of anti-tank dogs as weapons. --M.Neko 09:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Because tanks don't drive on a nice smooth track and road bed like locomotives. A few minutes of cross-country driving would knock such a thing off of the tank. Antitank dogs would probably have been rare enough that it wouldn't make sense to add such equipment when only, say, 1% or less of tanks would ever need it anyway. —Michael Z. 2006-11-11 22:09 Z

... And The Dogs?

Should'nt this article be more clear about the fact that the dog DIES in the process of triggering the mine? The way the article is read seems to imply that a dog can survive having an anti-tank bomb explode off its back! Should'nt there be some sort of section for the humanity of the practice, especally if it was carried on into 1996? Or am I just really f**cking confused? 69.250.130.215 21:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it fairly obvious the dog would not survive? --Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not. -- 69.250.130.215 22:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, anyone who can read can tell the dog dies. It doesn't need to be pointed out, just like the French Fry page doesn't point out potato's died. It's obvious. If you wanna make a stink about it and hug a tree...it really doesn't belong in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.4.72.141 (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

acually, it does. 69.250.130.215 21:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Dog runs under tank, dog explodes, Tank go broke. And the dog? Well thankfully the Russians invented small portable force fields which at the moment of explosion surrounded the dog and caused him to suffer no harm! Or better yet those tricky Soviets used StarTrek Technology they stole from Time-traveling Occultic Nazi's to 'Beam' the dogs out of there right at the moment of the explosion! Yes I can see how you would be confused. Thankfully no one else is, so rather than make this Article make sense to people with IQ's of 8.6, we can just ignore you and move on to more pressing matters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.58.37.168 (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Pressing matters? you only wrote that long ass paragraph because you were BORED. At any rate, it dosnt matter, the issue has already been taken care of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.250.130.215 (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

It does belong, and although it may appear obvious I agree it should still be mentioned that the dog is killed. It's not necessary to go into extended exposition on it, but adding a simple, "killing the dog in the process" is sufficient, as it clarifies the matter succinctly. Although it is implicit that the dog would die, when first reading the article I too found it odd that this detail was omitted.

Just include in the damn article that the dog dies in the process. The fact that people are asking to begin with points to the need to clarify the issue. --Studio Ghibli (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen in russian sources that initially dogs were trained to drop their package under the tank and run away just seconds before an explosion. But this practice was abandoned as it was considered too costly and time-consuming to train dogs that way, with no guaranteed result. Also, some soviet memoirs state same dogs were succesfully used twice or more, but very rarely. 195.218.11.45 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

they do die but this ww2 136.228.52.10 (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

hoax?

I added the hoax tag some days ago thinking it would obvious why. The whole concept, as described in the article, sounds extremely far-fetched. A google search for "hundeminen" results in 243 hits, and all but a few go to Wikipedia or sites citing Wikipedia. The more formal "panzerabwehrhund" has 334 hits, about as many as a "anti-tank dog" in English. All the sites i find in English seem to contain the same text and they all reference the "entire Soviet tank division" that supposedly was forced to retreat. Nowhere can I find a source for this. Finally, the Russian "Противотанковая собака" has a mere 60 google search results. So, has anyone actually read a book that mentions anti-tank dogs and the use thereof? Of course this could all be accurate and simply obscure, in which case I apologize.

Its world war II, sonny. many events that happened during WWII have very little documentation left after the war.202.12.94.13 09:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture Caption?

The picture labels the T-34 as an 85 model, but that gun looks far smaller and shorter than even the 70+mm gun. Anyone have any insight into this?

That was discussed earlier, but I can't find a link to the archive. We speculate that it is a retired training tank, with a dummy gun in the turret. —Michael Z. 2007-06-04 14:22 Z

explanation ?

---Training of anti-tank dogs continued until at least June 1996 (Zaloga et al 1997:72)---.
what does that last part mean ? Tyriel 07:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what's known as a reference, specifically a Harvard reference. —GrimRevenant 10:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Exploding organisms

Template:Exploding organisms has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I believe this page is a copyright violation, specifically of http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=504 . It is identical almost word for word, and nothing leads me to believe the author of the original article has contributed to this one. Can anyone verify its copyright status? -Cronium 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty blatant. The DI page is dated April 11th, 2006 and links here. The April 10, 2006 version was fine, the edit on April 15, 2006 added the suspected text. I've reverted the page to the April 10 version per WP:CV. --Mrwojo (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Who gives a shit? It's about dogs that fucking explode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.69.128 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hundeminen

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerabwehrhund —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.99.42 (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Limited geographic scope

I added the tag {{limitedgeographicscope}} because the article talks only about the use of dogs in the Soviet Union, while anti-tank dogs were also used at least in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. I can provide further details about use in the KoY, but I have no idea what are all the countries they were used in. Nikola (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Victuals?

Who in their right mind would use the word 'victuals' in a modern article about anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.218.24 (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone whose vocabulary isn't entirely derived from words they heard on MTV? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

The cited references for this article range from self published to a publication mostly intended as humour. While it seems likely that some dogs were trained, claims of them destroying 300 German tanks are particularly extraordinary and need solid references. Hohum (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed Templates: 10 March 2009

Have removed templates as I believe they are no longer applicable; if they are restored please post an explanation here identifying problems or issues. (I didn't want to believe this article; now that I do, I want it to be accurate)

• It is missing citations or footnotes. Please help improve it by adding inline citations. Tagged since November 2008.

Regrettably (due to the subject matter) I found references for much of the story, and as such have provided inline citations when possible; likewise that information for which I have found no corroboration, i.e. a claim of 300 tanks destroyed, I have deleted.

• It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since November 2008.
• Although Wikipedia accepts sources in any language, the use of non-English language sources may...

These remain in the External Links section only because I've focused on verifying the subject & story and not moved on to evaluating these yet. All current inline citations are of english-language sources.

• It may not present a worldwide view of the subject. Tagged since November 2008.

I find there is no relevant "world view" of this subject. While dogs may be used in many aspects of warfare, I have found no legitimate references to dogs being used as a delivery system for anti-tank munitions anywhere other than by Russia and only for a period of about 2 years during World War II. Please, if you have references proving otherwise I'd love to see them included here; for now however this seems a moot point.

Began pursuing deletion of this article believing it to be a total hoax and thus damaging to the Wikipedia concept; sadly instead moved on to trying to improve the article. Thanks...Snozzwanger (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This makes me wonder how many other articles that have suffered deletion due to untimely termination where the presence of purpose to Wikipedia exists(not a matter of where, but when). Glad to see one article saved from oblivion. Murakumo-Elite (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

gas vs diesel mixup

Hello I corrected the statement about the German tanks being diesel powered. Not a single German tank in WWII used diesel engines. They all used high performance gasoline engines. The source cited was mistaken in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.235.96 (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dog mine counter?

I remember when this used to be discussed on alt.folklore.urban on Usenet; there was a persistent belief that some early board wargame, probably PanzerBlitz or something like that, having a dog mine counter in some edition (supposedly quickly removed after negative reaction). Is this something anybody's come across? Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Pre-GA Review Comments

This seems quite comprehensive in terms of sources, but at the moment it badly needs a copy-edit for grammar and prose, which is not upto GA standards at the moment. I can certainly have a go at it for the nominating editor, or an outside copy-editor can be found, but it needs to be done before a GA review can go ahead - I don't want to fail it. Skinny87 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go at copy editing it, hopefully it reads better now. Miyagawa (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A bit better, yes, but it still needs work. I'll go over the article today sometime before I start the review. Skinny87 (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anti-tank dog/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for a review. I was not the nominator, but wrote most of this article and felt to reply below, just going through the comments and trying to address some for the sake of the article. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   'They were actively trained by the Soviet and Russian military forces between 1930–1996 and used in 1941–1942 against German tanks in World War II.' - How do you 'actively' train something, and the move backwards and forwards chronologically is awkward; I'd suggest splitting into pre-war, war and post-war periods.

   "intensively" Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'Although the original dog training routine was to leave the bomb and retreat so that the bomb would be detonated by the timer' - What timer? This hasn't been introduced as of yet.

   A timer is a basic part of many bomb designs. The lead of this article does not have to explain that. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'this routine failed and was replaced by the impact detonation procedure which killed the dog in the process' - replace 'the' with 'a'

   Replaced. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   wl Iraqi Insurgents

   Linked. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'In 1924, the Revolutionary Military Council of the Soviet Union approved the use of dogs for military purposes, which included a wide range of tasks such as rescue, delivery of first aid, communication, tracking mines and people, assisting in combat, transporting food, medicine and injured soldiers on sledges, and detonation of enemy targets.' - Run-on sentence to a massive degree, needs to be split up.

   'The bomb was fastened on the dog and detonated upon contact with the target together with the animal' - Badly worded, sounds like the animal detonated seperately, or had a seperate bomb.

   Reworded. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'Dogs were trained by being kept hungry and their food was placed under tanks, which very quickly taught the dogs to get under them.' - 'Get under them' seems quite awkardly worded.

   Reworded. There were several copyedits of this article that mixed up some sentences. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'The use of anti-tank dogs was escalated during 1941–1942, when every effort was made by the Soviet Army to stop the German advance at the Eastern Front of World War II.' - Eastern Front of World War II' is a very awkard phrase.

   Raise this at talk:Eastern Front (World War II) which is the core article for the event - I am fine with any term for it. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'About 40,000 dogs were deployed for various tasks in the Soviet Army at the Western, South-West, North-West, North, South and Baltic Fronts' - You could probably just say it was used on almost every front, instead of listing them all.

   Sure. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'The first group of anti-tank dogs arrived at the frontline at the end of the summer of 1941 and included 30 dogs and 40 trainers. Their deployment revealed some serious problems.' - Okay, so where and when were they deployed?

   Upon arrival. I guess this was phrased to avoid repetition. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'In the field, the dogs refused to dive under moving tanks. Some persistent dogs ran near the tanks, waiting for them to stop but were shot in the process. Gunfire from the tanks scared away many of the dogs.' - Quite staccato writing here, could flow a lot better.

   'A captured German officer later reported that they learned of the anti-tank dog design from the collected killed animals' - 'Collected killed animals' is another odd phrase.

   Rmv collected. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'A massive German propaganda campaign sought to discredit the Soviet Army' - How big is 'massive', as its a vague term.

   Rmv massive. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   The small paragraph about the diesel engines needs to be integrated into the previous section.

   'For example, at the front of the 160th Infantry Division near Glukhov, six dogs had damaged five German tanks; near the airport of Stalingrad, anti-tank dogs destroyed 13 tanks.' - Please either use 'dogs' or 'anti-tank' dogs.

   The article focuses specifically on 'anti-tank' dogs, but repeating the term is awkward. Obviously, usual dogs won't damage tanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'An armored vehicles top-mounted machine gun proved ineffective due to the relatively small size of the attackers as the dogs were too low to the ground and because of the dog's speed and the difficulty in spotting them' - Run-on sentence.

   'The Japanese Army received about 25,000 dogs from their ally Germany' - Rewording needed here.

   'However, training of anti-tank dogs continued until June 1996' - Running after the previous sentence, this makes it seem as if the war continued until June 1996, please rewrite.

   Most readers won't think that WWII lasted till 1996. Nevertheless, clarified. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'Another program was suggested by a Swiss citizen living in Santa Fe, New Mexico. William A. Prestre proposed using large dogs to kill Japanese soldiers.' - Two awkward sentences should be rewritten so his name comes first.

   Reworded (this surprising bit was added by someone, but was verifiable). Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'One of the biggest problems encountered was getting Japanese soldiers to train the dogs with as few Japanese soldiers were being captured.' - 'With as few' is a typo and needs to be corrected.

   Corrected. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'This caused protests among Iraqis, even though dogs are treated as an "unclean" animal in the Muslim world, in Islam it is considered sinful to kill animals for reasons other than food.' - This sentence is a run-on, and also is unclear and confused as to what it is saying.

   Fixed wrong punctuation. Yes, it can be rewritten in many ways. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   'The idea of using dogs as mobile mines was developed in the 1930s, together with the dog-fitting mine design' - This needs expanding upon - who developed the ideas, and why? As the Soviet Union wasn't at war, why was it developed?

   There were a few names in some sources, but they are not known even in USSR. Weapons development goes at its own pace, no matter the wars, and Stalin was preparing for wars. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'German Shepherd Dogs were favored for the program' - Any particular reason?

   Strong, easy to train. Added. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'In 1935, anti-mine dog units were officially included in the Soviet Army' - Very vague, and confusing. What are 'anti-mine dog units' exactly? How did they operate

   Dogs and their instructors. Obviously, they included miners, and cooks had experience with dogs. It was extremely difficult to scrap reliable information on this topic, thus there maybe 1000 questions with no or speculative answers. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'Several leading animal scientists were also involved' - Such as?

   Again, there were a few names, but not Googleable to anything. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'The original idea was for a dog to carry a bomb strapped to its body, and reach a specific static target' - Again, who developed this original idea, this is too vague.

   No information here at all. We know this all only because some bits were declassified. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'A group of dogs practiced for this for six months, but the reports show that no dogs could master the task.' - Where was this, and which reports?

   Same answer. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'This claim was questioned by the Soviets themselves as propaganda, trying to justify the dog training program.' - How could the Soviets have questioned their own sources? You need to be more specific.

   Clarified. It meant modern historians. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'Some went so far as to say that the army did not stop with sacrificing people to the war and went on to slaughter dogs too; those who openly criticised the program were prosecuted by the military police' - Who are these 'some'? And how exactly were they prosecuted?

   It is based on a few accounts of complaining soldiers. They were quickly removed by the military police with no details given. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'Their deployment had little success, mostly due to poor training' - Can you be more specific, why was the training poor?

   This refers to the mentioned in the article tank-related problems (wrong tanks used in training and insufficient preparation for the scary fire of a real battle) Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   'After millions of dollars were spent, the program was abandoned.' - Can you be more specific on the amount?

   No. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

   Unhappy with the reliability of the majority of the Russian websites, as although I cannot read Russian, the web addresses do not give me confidence that they are reliable sources. To give a few examples, citations 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11 and 15 seem unreliable, especially since at least one (Soviet Empire] is completely uncited for the given webpage.

   Yeah, sourcing is a problem. There should be no doubt on ref. 8 though - it is an internet copy of a book written by professionals, both in military and historical fields. Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm afraid that I am going to have to fail this article at this point. There are a lot of prose problems that needs a heavy copy-edit and rewrite, and much of the writing for specific events and incidents is vague and lacking in detail. I am also unhappy with the sourcing, as the majority of the article is sourced to websites that are either uncited or have urls that seem unreliable due to their titles. This article needs more reliable sourcing, which I reckon exists given the oddness of the subject, and I suspect there could be more information on German counter-measures. Most importantly, apart from better sourcing, is the need to be less vague and give more specific details. If you have any questions, please ask me on my talkpage. Skinny87 (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Over 60,000 dogs were used in WW2

Viktor Suvorov - Spetsnaz: The Inside Story of the Soviet Special Forces, page 103

60,000 dogs in combat+an unknown number for transport and other duties — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRIK OF MAN (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Viktor Suvorov was criticized for the veracity of his facts and is not a reliable source. We need the sources which he used. Materialscientist (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that possible, does the story site sources?Beefcake6412 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There were many discussions of his books, in which he might mention the sources. Materialscientist (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-tank dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198637,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-tank dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021200611/http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu:80/displaydata.aspx?OrDataId=5609 to http://ordatamines.maic.jmu.edu/displaydata.aspx?OrDataId=5609
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905041258/http://community-2.webtv.net/Hahn-50thAP-K9/K9History21 to http://community-2.webtv.net/Hahn-50thAP-K9/K9History21/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amyat.narod.ru/theory/birukov_borba_s_tankami/birukov_borba_s_tankami.txt
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://liveweb.archive.org/http:/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)