Talk:Battle of Stalingrad

File:Stalingrad battle for the factory.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Stalingrad battle for the factory.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

SPAIN DIDN´T PARTICIPATE 1. Spain was a NON-BELLIGERANT country in WWII. 2. Spanish troops were integrated in the 250th Division of the Whermacht. 3. Spanish troops didn´t participate in the Stalingrad Battle. They were in the Leningrad Front.--79.150.40.98 (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Who is who?

According to the caption of the photo of Paulus surrendering, general Schmidt is on the right and col Adam in the middle. However on the german wiki and german photo caption it is stated that general schmidt is in the middle and col Adam on the right. what is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchdoc (talk • contribs) 13:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The EN caption is incorrect - Adam is on the right and Schmidt in the centre. See this photo of Adam in Stalingrad. I have changed the caption. Farawayman (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct Name: "Friedrich Paulus"

I think its time to do a global search and replace in the article, changing " Friedrich Paulus" to Friedrich von Paulus - as this was his correct name. I will gladly provide citations if required. Any objections? Farawayman (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You must provide good references to do such a change. It seems that the correct name is without any "von". KjellG (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Modern Russian Estimate

In the infobox, under casualties and losses (on the Soviet Union side), it states,"Total: 1,129,619 casualties". Under this, it then states: "--- modern russian estimate: 643 000". I find it strange that this statement (modern Russian estimate) reduces the number of Soviet casualties by over 500,000 and also seems to conflict with the casualties section of the article which does not mention this modern estimate and uses the aforementioned 1,129,619 casualties figure. Could someone note which citation/source this modern Russian estimate is derived from if it is even sourced/verified? Junedragon (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The person who wrote this was reading the source without any attention. The 643 842 losses are until Nov 18 only, as Russian historiography separates the battle into a defensive and offensive stage. There were further 485 777 losses during the offensive stage. Axis losses are exaggerated because the 91 000 captured are part of the 750 000 overall Axis losses and shouldn't be added to it. Going to fix it. Tvoi Ded (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As always Soviet losses are inflated and axis are deflated. The USSR lost 750k in the city and 1.2 in the region. The axis lost 850k in the city and 1.5 million in the region. But as always people compare apples and oranges in the axis favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitchtold12 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your theory, Axis casualty reports as filed by military units support the 750 000 number... As for the 1.5 million that you claim - do you have a citation, or is it simply what you feel based on an article by a historically illiterate journalist?Tvoi Ded (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

HA, this talk page right now already you have slashed the axis from 850k to 750k and such is the story of wikipedia. The axis always get smaller losses, smaller geographical area, smaller time frame, the red army how ever always gets a larger geographical area and a longer time frame compared.Pitchtold12 (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Still not a source for the 1.5 mil axis losses? Than you have no case. PS axis losses were indeed smaller than that of the Soviets in most, if not all major operations. That is because the German army was a more proficient fighting force than the Red Army. Stalingrad's casualty ratio (1:1.5) favors the Soviets more than many other battles. For example, Kiev cost the RKKA ~700 000 casualties versus ~80 000 (1:8.8), Kursk ~860 000 versus ~220 000 (1:3.9), Bagration - ~765 000 and ~400 000 respectively (1:1.9). Tvoi Ded (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect image

Soviet Katyusha rocket launchers firing at the enemy during the battle of Stalingrad in October 1942.

This almost certainly wasn't taken anywhere near Stalingrad. Look at the mountains in the background! Will someone please come forward to tell us about the mountainous areas within Katyusha range of Stalingrad?

If not, this image should be removed from the article, or an explanation, something along the lines of "Katyusha rockets similar to those housed in the Volga caves at Stalingrad" substituted for the incorrect description. In addition, the description given for the image itself should be changed, perhaps simply edited to take out the reference to Stalingrad.

This is too big a change to make on my own; but I SINCERELY hope there will be discussion about it, as it is an OBVIOUS error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.123.148 (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

after the Red Army had suffered losses of 259% of their initial strength in 1941

"losses of 259%"???

Somebody can't count, and it isn't me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.129.31 (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's you. After the Germans invaded, the Soviet government ordered mobilization and millions of men joined the armed forces. While not counted in the "initial strength", their losses are calculated. Tvoi Ded (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

poor article

This is a very poorly written article that should be extensively revised:

A) The article lacks proper scope. It sometimes seems to be trying to cover the entire 1942 German offensive in South Russia and some of the soviet offensive toward the end of the year. It lacks even a map of the fighting in the actual battle of Stalingrad.

B) The strength and casualty figures are an inconsistant mess. "the battle of Stalingrad" seems to grow and shrink in different places in the article.

C) The article's citations are often very poor. Books are quoted without titles by year and author.

To me, the battle of Stalingrad is about the fighting in the region around the city itself. The greater operations going on along the Don and in the Caucusus should be covered far more briefly than they are.

70.234.240.186 (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)