Talk:Operation Uranus

Good article

Hard to believe this wasn't covered already. Disagree with the notion that horse-drawn artillery was "obsolete equipment". The Germans used it for the entire war. You'll need a quote to back up that assertion. Seems to me most other nations outside of the British Commonwealth and U.S. also relied on horse-drawn artillery. Nothing "obsolete" about it in 1942 unless you have a reliable source stating that it was, indeed, Hitler's opinion that it was (the context of the comment I removed). "Obsolete" means that it is outmoded, but horse-drawn artillery was perfectly capable of doing the jobs expected of it. Indeed, in some types of Russian weather and terrain, it was superior to motor vehicles of the day.139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a reference to back up that assertion. The fact that the Germans used horse drawn artillery throughout the war doesn't make it any less obsolete, it just means that the Germans had a deficient supply system. The sentence didn't claim that Hitler thought it was unreliable, the sentence clearly states that Hitler was confidence in the ability of his allies to support the Sixth Army's flank (despite obvious deficiencies). OK, so the sentence is already cited (#25). Please also see Antony Beevor's Stalingrad, pages 13 and 14, where it criticizes the German Army's lack of motorization (over the majority of the Wehrmacht). Also, David M. Glantz When Titans Clashed, pp. 27–30. Please see just about every book written on the Eastern Front. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would you refer to the sentence without actually quoting it? Quote it now for us? I don't believe what you're saying - it seems very much out of context. The method of moving the guns seems irrelevant to the ability of the Axis minor allies to withstand a counter-attack. Hitler is comparing the worth of his allies to his own troops. How likely is it that he's going to say "look, they suck, their guns have horses" when 95% of his own guns are - - pulled by horses. It makes no sense, and it sends a false message. I think you're reading the sources wrong, but provide the source here for us all to see, and we can discuss further.139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on the army's lack of motorization as a whole are also completely being conflated with horse-drawn artillery batteries - they are two separate issues. One is under discussion here - the other is not.139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You are interpreting the sentence out of context; and please, stop removing the sentence (it is already cited). The sentence clearly states that Hitler thought that his allies were strong enough to hold Army Group B's flanks. The sentence then says that in reality this wasn't true because of their obsolete equipment, including horse drawn artillery. I don't understand we're you're getting that Hitler thought his allies had obsolete artillery, when the sentence doesn't say that at all. Because you don't believe me doesn't give you the right to take out cited material out of the article; or, can I go around articles deleting entire cited passages because I don't believe that that reference really makes that claim? Why don't you buy or check out the books, and see for yourself?

1. Glantz; "The vast majority of the German Army throughout WOrld War II consisted of foot-mobile infantry and horse-drawn artillery and supplies, sometimes forcing the mechanized and motorized spearheads to pause while their supporting units caught up by forced marches."
2. McTaggart; "The equipment in the three allied armies was mostly obsolete, some dating back to World War I. Much of the artillery was horse-drawn, and heavier caliber weapons were sorely lacking."
3. Beevor; "Yet the Wehrmacht, although famed for its Blitzkrieg, also depended on over 600,000 horses to tow guns, ambulances and ration wagons. With the vast majority of the infantry divisions on their feet, the overall speed of the advance was unlikely to be much faster than that of the Grande Armée in 1812."

The army's mobility, on a whole, was effected by the horse-drawn artillery, so it's very relevant. Please, so unless you have citations of your own, stop deleting that sentence. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My issue was, and is, your drawing of the wrong conclusions from the source material. The sentence at issue is this:

While Adolf Hilter expressed confidence in the ability of allied troops to protect German flanks,[24] in reality these units were issued largely obsolete equipment, including horse-drawn artillery,[25][26] while in many cases the poor treatment of enlisted personnel by officers caused poor morale

My objection is to the inclusion of "horse-drawn artillery" after "obsolete equipment". I still say you're drawing a conclusion not supported by the sentences you cite. McTaggart was talking about the small-calibre of the guns, the fact they were horse-drawn was incidental. Beevor's comment on horses was relative to the entire army. So was Glantz's.

An artillery regiment operates best when it is dug in and surveyed in, preferably to the theatre grid. This takes time. The ability to move by truck or horse is relatively inconsequential as the infantry moved by foot in the vast majority of the German Army (no point zipping around your guns by truck if your infantry is plodding forward at snail's pace). Incidentally this was true in the British Army too - no infantry battalion outside the handful of armoured divisions had its own troop carrying vehicles. And it was the same in the Russian, Japanese, French, etc. armies. The ability to move artillery batteries by truck was a nice to have, but in the armies of the day, not a need to have. Horse-drawn artillery simply wasn't "obsolete" but more importantly, none of the three sentences you are using as a "source" explicitly say that they were. You're simply not reading them properly.139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand we're you're getting that Hitler thought his allies had obsolete artillery, when the sentence doesn't say that at all. - this is the whole point of my objection, it does say that, so I've tried a rewording. Hopefully that will be less objectionable than deleting anything.139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's also important to consider why horse-drawn artillery can be considered obsolete, especially for Operation Uranus. Romanian artillery was targeted by Soviet batteries during the opening bombardment. While horse-drawn artillery may fare better on muddy roads (compared to German armored vehicles; this is not true when comparing to Soviet armored vehicles), they don't in regards to surviving and providing counter battery fire. While a self-propelled piece can "shoot-and-scoot", a horse-drawn artillery piece (which will inevitably be fixed in position) cannot. I'd like to point out that the Second World War was "revolutionary" for the Red Army in that regards; the Second World War turned the Red Army into one of the most mechanized armies in the world. Horses will never be completely obsolete, as mechanization will always have difficulty traversing terrain; but the notion that they are generally obsolete remains true. Cooper, in his book, has a lot on the supposed mechanization of the Wehrmacht and the disadvantages brought by horse-drawn artillery and the horse-based supply system, as well as the lack of motorization in most of Germany's infantry divisions. I would suggest buying the book; it's a very good source on the German Wehrmacht (even if better histories of German operations in the Soviet Union exist).

In regards to McTaggart, I think you are trying to isolate my quotation of his text and ignoring the fact that he specifically mentions horse-drawn artillery (before he even mentions the caliber of the guns). In any case, of all the armies you provide examples, none of those had modern armies prior to the end of the Second World War (and all armies rid themselves of horse-drawn artillery after the end of the Second World War). The German "decision" to have horse-drawn artillery was not based upon the fact that their infantry was largely unmotorized; well it was, but not for the reasons you state. There was just clearly a lack of trucks. Had the Germans had the trucks to motorize their entire army, then obviously they would have also motorized the infantry. I just think that you are taking things out of context. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit is fine, I guess, if we must compromise. The citations, however, are now worthless since they were describing the disadvantages in using horse-drawn artillery (as opposed to claiming that the Romanians were using horse-drawn artillery). JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the sentence doesn't say that. The sentence says that while Hitler expressed confidence in the Romanian troops, IN REALITY they were not as able as Hitler thought because of ... JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is perhaps the biggest waste of time argument I have seen in my time here. The sentence says HITLER THOUGHT they were strong allies, BUT IN REALITY they weren't...--Patton^t/c 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone understands what it said. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jon and Patton. Can't see what the fuss is about here. IP editor is selectively reading sources and complaining about nothing, essentially. Skinny87 (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that the sentence is fixed, there is nothing to complain about. :-) Glad I sorted out. You're welcome. 139.48.25.60 (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Austria??

Why is Austria shown as a separate country on the map, rather than as part of Germany? 68.113.166.243 (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still a country, and a nationality. SGGH ^ping! 09:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Term

Is there no Russian term for this operation that could go in the lead? SGGH ^ping! 09:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

There was an adult picture apparently from a sex related article posted as the article's main template. I changed it to another picture from this article as I didn't know what the original template was. I hope someone can sort this out. 193.6.150.66 (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)