|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- I think you have a point as Operation Uranus is under the heading Operation Uranus. I vote to change it around so Second Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive redirects to operation Mars, best wait for some more comments though --Pluke 02:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, user:Gdr did the opposite move quite recently: 15:28, 22 Mar 2005 without talking much. Mikkalai 04:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, you additionaly have my vote to move it back. Oberiko 11:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is an example of an article where two Wikipedia principles are in opposition. The principle of placing the article under the most common name would indeed put it at Operation Mars. But the principle of neutrality says that, where possible, we should choose names that reflect the experience of both sides in a conflict. An operation name for a battle gives primacy to one side's planning; a geographical name is more neutral. Also, the geographical name gives the reader a clue to where the battle took place, whereas the codename merely obfuscates (as it was, of course, designed to do).
- I have to agree with gdr.One thing is an overwhelmingly and widely known name, such as "Operation Barbarossa". Other thing is an operation known to relatively few specialists, and relatively recently, too. With rare exceptions local battles are named by geographical locations; just look into any battle/war subcategory. Codenames are used mostly for major far-reaching plans. Mikkalai 19:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Gdr, I see your point and there doesn't seem to be a universally adopted system with code names used for Operation Barbarossa and Operation Torch, while geographic names used for such events as Battle of Normandy aka operation overlord. An argument for calling it Operation Mars is that such an event as 'Operation Overlord' is often interchanged in literature with the 'Battle of Normandy', whilst something like Operation Mars, though rarely mentioned in literature, to the best of my knowledge is rarely interchanged with its geographical name. Whatever we decide we need to settle a naming regeime for Operation Uranus, Operation Mars and Operation_Saturn. Which at the moment is two to one for naming it after the operations. Can we wait a while so everyone can get their opinions down then take a vote in a few days time. I recommend placing notices on the other pages as well about this vote. --Pluke 19:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It was actually Gdr who stated that we shouldn't use Operation names on the battle page. Kind of circular logic. Oberiko 01:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Forgive the intrusion, but political correctness regarding privileging one viewpoint over another ... doesn't it make sense to do so in the case of offensives, since one side's viewpoint WAS privileged? In this case, it was the Soviets who launched an operation, and thus the objectives are theirs. What the Germans did in response should be included, of course, but the association of a geographic location obfuscates the INTENT and INITIATIVE of the operation. It's referred to commonly, methinks, as Operation MARS because that locates it within the Soviet "grand strategy" or "operational art" as one of a series of SOVIET initiatives. It's hardly a matter of what is "better known"; it has to do with who is doing what. Where the Germans launch an offensive (TYPHOON, etc.), analyses generally "privilege" their point of view for these reasons. This doesn't seem to be at all a case of "victors (re)writing history" as at Tannenberg, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you guys consider the Velikiye Luki encirclement and siege to be part of this offensive? It was undertaken by the northern wing of the Kalinin Front, but it seems to have been an attack in a tangential direction. &mdas; B.Bryant 02:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could you make some smaller sections with titles? Wandalstouring 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
While, as a rule, I find that in articles concerned with battles of the Nazi-Soviet theatre of WW2, Soviet losses are exaggerated, here the opposite is true. Glantz puts Soviet losses at 100,000 dead and 300,000 wounded. Why this deflation to a mere 70,000 and on what basis?. There is a reason that he calles this battle "the red army's epic disaster".
- The reason for it is marketing. A book with such a title would sell better... The 70 thousand number is from Krivosheev, who is quite a reliable source. However, 70 373 are KIA/MIA while 145 301 are wounded/sick, which gives us a total of approx. 215 thousand casualties... With respect, Ko Soi IX 04:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
glantz deals with krivosheevs numbers and he write that he thinks they are to low. glantz studied this battle for his book and he got other casualties than krivosheev with his look in russian archivs. glantz numbers are more reliable for me. because he knews the numbers and krivosheevs and worked with them but got other numbers after deeper research. --HROThomas (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how Glantz counted this numbers because i never saw his research. Also Krivosheev gives numbers of total irrecoverable losses for units not only figures which units gave itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm rather confused - this article says this Operation was part of an operation taking place from January to April 1942, then goes on to say it occurred in November-December 1942. That makes little sense to me. john k (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
When was this?
This article only show Glantz's view about the strategic objectives of this operation, but not other different viewpoints. Glantz is a respectable and prestigious historian, however we should provide other viewpoints. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- From my understanding Operation Mars took place prior to the encirclement of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad (Operation Uranus), so circa December 42. I would also hesitate to state it as an outright German victory as it pulled German resources away from the Stalingrad/Don front, which had they been present might of led to a different outcome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- This article might indeed use more detail. Operation Mars began after the encirclement at Stalingrad (the troops officially linked up on the 24th November, though the complete encirclement was achieved a couple of days later). Indeed, the offensive near Rzhev locked up all the armoured and motorised units of AG Centre in a WW1-ish positional struggle, rather than them being used to help Manstein beak through to Stalingrad. However, Operation Mars was far too big to be a mere diversionary action. Glantz and Isayev both explain this in the following way:
- Stavka Planned a decisive result in winter 1942.
- Accordingly, they planned very ambitious operations. In particular, this applies to Zhukov, who planned and oversaw operations Uranus->Saturn, Mars and Polar Star, which had the objectives of decisively defeating respectively AG South, Centre and North
- The fact that it would be highly unlikely that all operations would succeed was accepted
- As long as one of the operations succeeded, the other sections of the eastern front would be weakened as Germans redeploy troops
Edited First Part Of Article
I moved approximately the bottom half of the first part of the article under the title header. It read like a summary as if one would have read the basis of the article, while then getting a summary of the outcome of its basis. I felt moving this into a summary section made the article relevant to orderly reading. Any objections, feel free to place it back into its original form.
There was no reply to this query, so I've gone ahead and resolved it as best I can. This operation took place in November-December 1942, according to the Russian article, so it is superfluous (not to say confusing!) to be referring to operations in January and February 42 in the introduction. So I've deleted all that stuff; I trust that's OK with everyone. The information is still at Battles of Rzhev, anyway, and it make s more sense to keep it there. Xyl 54 (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
German losses (9 Models army) in Mars 40000 killed and 100 000 wounded. Soviet losses 70 000 killed and 145 000 losses (scientific information). Glanz is non-scientific. Mars - USSR victory, though he lost more — Preceding unsigned comment added by S225n (talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please provide reference for your information, so that it can be included in the article. Please parvide a reference who considers Glanz non-scientific. You can see in the article how references are provided. - Altenmann >t 07:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- This source does not list german losses and does not say it was soviet victory.- Altenmann >t 05:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)