User talk:DMorpheus

Please stay off my webpage, and I will stay off of yours

You cannot expect me to honor your request to stay off of your webpage so long as you persist in putting unwanted comments on my page. Please stop. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 14thArmored 1000 Hours 27 November 2006

ROTFLMAO, but OK.

Interests

I enjoy contributing to articles related to military history, especially WW2 and the Soviet-German conflict. I also do some contributions to articles on tactics and weapons. I hope folks find my contributions useful.

“…what impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence.” – George Orwell

SS Division Nordland

I would prefer you do not continue to insist on your 'addition' to the article, I am in the midst of a major addition to it, to improve qaulity as it is a division I am quite knowledgable with. As I said on the discussion page there, if you want to keep reverting my removal, I will bring an admin into this, because if it is on that division's page, according to your logic it should be on the 1.SS, 2.SS, and so on. If you'd want to add it to a division who WAS implicated in war crimes, you could add it but I would state it differently. user:ratzinger81

yeah, I'll continue to insist.

T-34 nomenclature

I've tried to explain the nomenclature at T-34#Variants. Please look over this note. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 08:11 Z

Nice edit. I think this is pretty good. The only improvement I can suggest is that the "Model 43" is still used as the designation for the hexagonal turret. That should be "Model 42", if we are going to use the latest info available from old Soviet records. So:

Model 40: L-11 gun Model 41: All narrow-turret (that is, turrets with one large hatch) variants, regardless of other detail changes Model 42: All hexagonal-turret variants

I recognize that the designation 'model 43' is still in *very* common use in the west, but you've done a good job of introducing the problem in the text, so it should be OK. DMorpheus 19:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: AIV request - user dengXiaoPeng

I haven't looked closely at the article, but if there is a short term edit war, where opposing sides rapidly revert to their preferred versions, WP:3RR policy applies. For a longer term dispute, and talk page discussion proves fruitless, then it goes to WP:RFC. Essentially an RFC is an appeal to the wider Wikipedia community to form a consensus. I'm not a mediator, but there are some good ones who may have some potential solutions for you. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 19:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Front

Whew, good to see Im not alone- if only Deng changed his tone. I tried discussing in a civilised way the changes he's made, but all he does is accuse me of vandalism. Not only does he push his pro-Soviet, anti-German POV, but also throws in disputed numbers, writes in an amateurish way, and duplicates redundant text, as if trying to emphasise his POV. His "Soviet Turncoat numbers" are totally contradictory with the ones on World War II casualties, which are really well referenced. Anyway, I dont know what to do, Im relatively new here and all Ive done is put up a request for arbitration. We'll see how it goes. I want to incorporate some of the info Deng gives, but some of it doesnt fit the article. Cheers. Ksenon 20:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Who invaded who?

Deng, please don't write nonsense on my talk page. Thanks. DMorpheus 13:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Did the Soviets invade the germans or was it the other way around [clip] Deng 19 Jan 2006 01:00 CET

Could you do me a favor?

Could you comment on the protection request page entry for Eastern Front? Deng has a request for unprotect up. I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Link is fixed now. It should go to the right place. Just find the Eastern Front entry under the unprotect request section, which is towards the bottom. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page. I have a feeling he just doesn't understand how we do things here. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am still monitoring the page. My patience with Deng is running very thin. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Meltiukhov

I googled (the form Meltiukhov is often used):

the publishers annotation: [1]

A review by my compatriot

A full-length review of the book 8and other similar studies): [2] Constanz - Talk 16:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this link. While I think Suvorov is easily dismissed (his work is obvious nonsense), I can't tell much about Meltiukov without reading it myself. I followed the link you helpfully provided. It is glaringly obvious this "Institute" is an anti-semitic site of questionable validity - I see they have some David Irving content along with other offensive and ahistorical material. I would like to think the political bias of a site would be separable from their historical work, but in reading the review I don't think so. The review is largely political, highly illogical, and has little real military information. If the best evidence for a Soviet invasion plan is a plan written on May 15, 1941, the evidence look spretty flimsy to me. I hope to see the book in english to form a better judgment on it. DMorpheus 17:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the so-called insitute: yes, I used it only for the simple reason that no other English reviews could be found. The things concerning that May proposal look complicated for 'traditial theory' supporters: Russian historians (incl those mentioned by 'institute' article) and specifically Meltyukhov in his op. cit. bring forth evidence, that this particular memorandum by Zhukov was no exception in the direction of Soviet stategical planning, on the contrary: M.M states Soviet military planning in yrs 1939-41 included first and foremost offensive planning; there were at least five different versions of the strategical military plan (from November 39 to May 1941), which provided offensive operations.

BTW I've found a study by Albert L.Weeks covering Soviet offensive strategy [3]. Constanz - Talk 15:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Montgomery POV

Hi. The more I read about Monty, the less black and white he appears, ditto his contemporaries. I've got 2 books on the go just now: The Battle for the Rhine 1944 by Robin Neillands and Armageddon by Max Hastings. Neilland defends Monty's tactical actions over Battle of the Bulge (but not his diplomatic skills), while being critical particularly of Bradley and less so of Eisenhower. I'm surprised: I'd always thought of Ike as the great diplomat and commander and Bradley as a reasoning, careful commander. Hastings is less critical but details the failings of the troops at the schwerepunkt of the German assault. I find interesting how the American commanders were looking over their shoulders at the politicos in DC.

The divergence of US & UK war methods is interesting as is the personal differences that arose thereby. Please let me know your thoughts on my NPOV additions to Monty. The talk page is interesting and suggests that opinions are rather "dug-in". Folks at 137 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I find it impossible to find anything very 'neutral' (that's a poor term but I can't think of a better one right now) about Montgomery. The partisanship is very strong and unfortunately, in my opinion 90% of it is ill-informed on both sides. You really need to weigh it yourself. It is very hard to get anyone to move on their opinions either. We all have our biases. I dropped a few comments on your talk page.

I don't find too much fault with his operations in the Bulge, certainly nothing major. He could have moved faster but you can say that about most of the Allied commanders. I wrote much of the content on the page about the conduct of operations in Normandy, as well as the Villers-Bocage page. There's a lot to criticize there; less so in the Ardennes.

I've seen Hastings' Armageddon in the bookstores but haven't picked it up yet. I loved his Normandy book - Overlord. I look forward to Armageddon at some point soon. DMorpheus 21:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've applied your suggestions/ corrections throughout. I would however like to comment further:

"Recent historians also point out that Allied armies were drawn from populations that were less militaristic than the Germans and this difference repeatedly showed up in German skill and determination in critical situations." Added to highlight the difference in performance and thereby Monty's lack of success in Normandy - also applicable to Hurtgen, Italy, etc.

"Allied victory - if recovery from an avoidable defeat can be so described - at the Battle of the Bulge" Removed it, but I still think it's fair comment and it explains Bradley's heightened sensitivity to criticism. Eisenhower had commented to Bradley that the area was lightly defended, frontline US troops were not properly dug-in or supported and Bradley's reaction and leadership has been reported as slow and unprepared. Evidence of German preparation was discounted. That's the "avoidable" bit: I don't think that restoring the status quo ante is a victory, anymore than Dunkirk, it's a recovery.

I've amended the bit about Patton (still got a soft spot for the old rogue) and the Scheldt error was an error - Thanks.

I may be out of circulation soon - major domestic errands and holiday - not deliberate rudeness. Folks at 137 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop posting in the middle of my posts

You implied that no equipment ever changed hands during the war, which is an absolut lie so why should i even waste time in looking up your so called source when it is clear that you do nothing but lie and missinform. Stop posting in the middle of my posts. And to answer your very idotic question how one side recovered the other sides tanks for the field. The answer is very simple the same way they recovered their own. Stop posting in the middle of my posts. Stop posting in the middle of my posts. Stop posting in the middle of my posts.

Deng 08-02-06 12.40 CET

You attacked me you posted

"Please tell me what good it is to capture an expensive howitzer only to find the crew destroyed the sights before running away. Please tell us how many hours of mainteance per day it takes to keep a tank battalion operational. I guess the effort both sides spent on providing ordnance units, recovery tractors, repair units, and so forth was wasted. You don't have the slightest notion what you are writing about."

But ofcurse you do not see your own faults you only see what you want to see.

And I will say it again they recover enemy equipment the same way they recover their own.

Deng 10-02-06 01.45 CET

Not so. Posing a question is not an attack. I have asked you to explain some of your posts which, on their face, are not credible. You, on the other hand, have made personal accusations against me and other editors. You are being reverted over and over by virtually every active editor. Thus there is some tendency, from many of those editors, to question your edits.

DMorpheus 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted by every editor is wrong. The only ones who revert me are Ksenon and he has been blocked for deleting to much in other articles and you. Now if Ksenon is beeing blocked in other articles for deleting to much information couldnt it also be possible that he deletes to much in the eastern front article?

All my facts are correct and 100% proveable whilst Ksenon, who is the main deleter, dosent give any sources he just deletes.

And your statements are personal attacks even if "you" dont think so. Also I have proven without any doubt what so ever that equipment did change hands.

(Deng 11:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

Nevezhin V.A

I know the author, he has Candidate of history degree and is scholar at the Institute of Russian History. As for the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, I remember I recently tried to find some articles in English (most probably by the very Nevezhin): what I managed to find was table of contents of a magazine, I'm quit sure it's the same journal. Of course it would be of utter interest to have a look on it.

I've found some interesting articles on internet by Nevezhin in Russian. Right now, I am too busy to try to translate them (you might try babelfish i.e [4], sometimes the babel translation is OK). BTW, if you take deeper interest in the subject, I may send you my translation of a chapter of Meltyukhov's work. Constanz - Talk 12:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Victory Day / Victory Army

I'll watch the edits. I'm not sure it's a sock. Could be. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

To check for socks

Go to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser and request an IP check. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits in history of the tank

A while back you added some considerable information to the section /*Between the Wars*/, which was more in its place in the Tanks (1919-1939) article. I've moved/merged this information into the latter article and would appreciate it if you could look over both articles to see if nothing has been lost or inadvertely been duplicated? --Martin Wisse 15:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a few edits to it. I also removed a few small items that were correct, but not 'between the wars' info. DMorpheus 15:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Superdeng warned

User:SuperDeng has been reminded on their talk page regarding personal attacks and civility. Please report them to the personal attacks intervention list if they begin again, though I am also monitoring their contributions as of now. Thanks! --Syrthiss 14:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This and that

Firstly, I edited a chapter of my Meltyukhov translation a couple of days ago, but lamentably after my last save the Word annaounced that the file was 'corrupt'. Problems emerged while I was trying to send it via mail, as the copy of text I tried to add from recovered version of this 'corrupt' file was declared to 'contain no data'. The same thing occured, as I tried to post the whole text into my wikipage. I don't know what to do about it, I actually need this text for preparing an article in wikipedia as well (rough notes on my page) .

Secondly, (another unpleasant news) 'our mutual friend' Deng has become active again! See his changes to WW2 Eastern front proposal page.

(Is it necessary to add, that he is obviously trying to revive the old story of 'bad Germanns and goodd Soviets'? He replaced a paragraph on Vlasov etc with his version of the events (a rather belletristic 'improvement', BTW), and usual English with his understanding of the English grammar...) Constanz - Talk 13:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a debate going on in Eastern front talk page, whether to use the current proposed page and unlock. I suggest you express your opinion there. --Constanz - Talk 15:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Nevezhin's article? What were his points?--Constanz - Talk 15:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

For your kind words. --Molobo 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Phillipsbourg

I have blocked him for 24 hours for the 3RR violations here. I have asked for advice from a more experienced admin on whether you deserve a 3RR block as well. My gut feeling is that you do not, but I'm still a fairly green admin, and so would like to be safe rather than sorry. So I have asked on WP:ANI for a more experienced admin to take a look at the situation. - TexasAndroid 21:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

If you think I could help you with some topic, feel free to ask. --Molobo 17:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

German v Allied soldiers

A while back, we exchanged views on Montgomery. At one point I'd written "Recent historians also point out that Allied armies were drawn from populations that were less militaristic than the Germans and this difference repeatedly showed up in German skill and determination in critical situations." and you said: "This is a pretty broad statement that is bound to generate discussion, but its not really necessary to the article anyway, IMO."

At the time I couldn't find the reference to pusue the point - now I have. Professor Sir Michael Howard (a military historian and WWII veteran) said: Until a very late stage of the war the commanders of British and American ground forces knew all too well that, in a confrontation with the German troops on anything approaching equal terms , their own men were likely to be soundly defeated. They were better than we were: that cannot be stressed too often. Every Allied soldier involved in fighting the Germans knew that this was so, and did not regard it as in any way humiliating. We were amateurs ... drawn from peaceful industrial societies with a deep cultural bias against all things military ... We blasted our way into Europe with a minimum of finesse and a maximum of high explosive. Time and again, Howard's point is re-made. It's quoted in Max Hasting's Armageddon, chapter 5.

Well, as a statement in wikipedia about what a historian thinks, that's perfectly fine. But it is simply repeating an author's opinion/judgement, it contains no actual data about the social militarism of any society. I don't even know how we would measure something like that. I am sorry if I am splitting hairs, but saying "Author X says Germans are better soldiers or more militaristic" is different from saying "Germans are better soldiers or come from a more militaristic society". The first is a valid thing to put in wikipedia but the second is impssible to know for the period in question. DMorpheus 13:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Phillipsbourg's talk page

Would you two please just stay off of each other's talk pages? You two apparently do not wat to hear what each other want to say, and it's reaching ther point where either of you posting on the other's talk page only serves to antagonize the other. And repeating *that*, will approach trolling. Nether of you is wanted on the other's page, so please, just stay away from each other's talk pages. - TexasAndroid 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Deng

The problem is that my hands are kind of tied. I've blocked him a few times but tht raised the ire of people. We tried to bring up the "war" on AN and AN/I but it was mostly ignored. Just don't know what else I can do. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Arnhem

I see you've been busy in the Arnhem page. An intrest of mine as well. I like your recent addition to the Legacy sectin. See you around!

Motorfix 19:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Operation Dragoon

Thanks for the compliment! Wholly undeserved! I asked the prvious contributor (User talk:71.112.113.62) to support his/her assertions about the oil supplies - do you have any thoughts? I doubt they're correct but I don't what to discourage a new editor by being too heavy-handed, too quickly. Folks at 137 19:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Omar Bradley

I've made changes to the page on Bradley. If you have time and the inclination, I would value your comments. I thought that the original was a bit POV and I don't want to err myself. Folks at 137 22:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll post a few comments on your page.

Deng

Well, this last one was ridiculous. Here is the edit. He reverted Kurt 4 times over this and it's not even vandalism. At all. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well no one argued against the 72 hour block, so I'm hopeful. I mean last time it was 40 reverts in 3 hours...now it's a 3RR vio. His 3rd in just over 2 months. I don't see anyone objecting to a block over that. But. We'll see. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Goodwood / Normandy

You added to the article on Operation Goodwood:

"Post-invasion buildup plans thus provided the Second Army with more armoured units than the First Army, since the breakout would be expected on the Second Army's front."

Buildup plans were constrained by the shortage of British infantry reinforcements at this stage of the war. One division (59th) had to be broken up in Normandy to keep the other units up to strength, and others later.

The dispute over where Monty expected or intended the breakout to occur is a complicated and contentious one. However, I do not think that the provision and type of units in the buildup can be used to support any particular point of view. (It should also be noted that at the time of Goodwood, there were three British and four American armoured divisions ashore.)

HLGallon 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The book Eisenhower's Lieutenants makes precisely this point - that the far greater number of tanks in the Second Army is, along with much other information, evidence that the armored breakout was expected on the eastern flank.

Simply counting Armored Divisions overlooks the very strong British Tank Brigades, which had no equivalent in the US Army. If you look up the tank strength, Second Army had more.

Five British or Canadian armoured brigades in the bridgehead. On the other hand, there were lots of independent tank battalions attached to US infantry divisions.

Weren't Canadian/British tank brigades three battalions strong? i.e. in the neighborhood of 150 tanks each? Didn't they sometimes include mech infantry also? US tank battalions were 54 tanks strong, and had no Infantry element. Typically, each leg Infantry Division got one bat each. Airborne Divisions didn't get any.

I tend to go with Chester Wilmot (Struggle for Europe) on most questions of allied strategy or policy. (As an Australian, he is neutral in Anglo-American disputes). I don't recall reading Eisenhower's Lieutenants; I'll do so as soon as possible. HLGallon 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Wlmot, while a valuable resource, is both dated and quite biased. Not that I am claiming any other source is *unbiased* - they simply have different biases. IIRC Eisenhower's Lieutenants has a bit of a critique of Wilmot on this issue of the breakout plan. Makes for interesting reading.I am a big D'Este fan also.

On a slightly different topic, while we're talking, have you happened to notice the artillery ammunition expenditure info on wikipedia for El Alamein? It's in the neighborhood of 600-700,000 rounds for the initial barrage. I find that hard to believe but I have no sources on it other than the wiki article. It much more than the opening barrages for Cobra or Goodwood.

Good discussion here ;)

Deng

I'll request a CheckUser. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits at History of the tank

OMFG! An article on tanks that doesn't use the word Blitzkrieg or Panzer!!!11!!!11 Whatever will the world do...(!) Seriously though, let's hope it stays that way. Thanks.Michael Dorosh 02:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Badger and M4M Deletions?

Hello. What are the sources for Zaloga being wrong about M4M (someone cited Zaloga 1984: 217) and Hunnicutt being wrong about Sherman Badger (1994: 420-421)?Wikist 18:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Zaloga's work is excellent but dated. Nothing he's written since the fall of the USSR has this statement in it; no photo has ever turned up. Lots of things we used to "know" about WW2 have changed over time. The Badger was on the Ram. Unless you call a Ram a Sherman, the Badger is a Ram-based vehicle. DMorpheus 19:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, since we lack any sources to refute these variants (which have at least 1 published source for the M4M and at least 2 published sources for the Sherman Badger), I will restore them. Please let me know if you turn up any published refutations. Thank you. PS: Thank you for expanding the Lend-Lease service histories. Wikist 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Bernard Montgomery

Hi, I thought I should explain why I reverted your recent edit. According to Hamilton in his DNB entry, Montgomery's strategy for Normandy as presented at St Paul's School in April and May was for the British and Canadian armies to form a left shoulder and the American armies to wheel round on the right. Clearly alot of improvisation was necessary, not least because of the resistance before Caen, but the original basic strategy seems to have been followed. MAG1 18:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you want to read Carlo D'Este, Decision In Normandy, and then we can discuss further. At minimum both views should be stated, since they are in reputable, published sources. DMorpheus 18:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but it would be nice to know what D'Este thinks Montgomery's strategy actually was supposed to be and how he knows that rather than just an assertion that it somehow all went wrong. These presentations were big things, and I should think that Hamilton (who was Montgomery's biographer) would not be able to make it up. MAG1 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton was also an admirer. Please give D'Este a try, it's a terrific book even if you had no interest in Montgomery. I added a bunch of quotes to the talk page.

Essentially D'Este uses the notes of officers present at the St Paul's briefings (including Dempsey), plus other materials, to show that Montgomery planned an *offensive* strategy around and well beyond Caen. The idea was to attack with armor on the east flank, and not to let a static front develop. No one planned anything remotely resembling 'Cobra' before the landings. Another source, Russel Weigley's Eisenhower's Lieutenants, shows that the buildup of armored units in 2nd Army was done at a faster pace than for 1st Army, which backs the notion that the original plan did not assign 2nd Army a 'holding' or non-mobile role.

Will do. I think all biographers are into their subjects, otherwise why spend so long with them. I was careful to try to stick to the facts from Hamilton's article rather than the commentary. The point is that he will have read the evidnce.

Now the next bit is interesting stuff, and worth including, though possibly in the Battle of Normandy page. It is not clear how it should affect Montgomery unless you want to talk about reputations (I don't like to do that- see the article's talk page), and even then it is not clear how as he managed to adapt to the failure and win the campaign. Interestingly enough, it militates against the 'material' criticism.

Not so keen on the second bit- looks like using a single piece of indirect evidence to back a theory. MAG1 20:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, read it in context. You don't send lots of armor units to an area that is expected to hold a defensive front. Armor units use up precious shipping space and have enormous logisitical demands compared to Infantry units. If a breakout was always planned for the 1st Army front, the armor units would have been sent there first. In fact they were front loaded much more heavily towards 2nd Army. Much of this is already in the Battle of Normandy page.

I don't think it is against wiki policy to add *published* points of view/reputations/assesments. Adding several enriches the article.

He won the campaign by opportunistic improvisation - nothing wrong with that. Part of that included an attritional battle on the 2nd Army front, which in D'Este's view was *not* planned but was the outcome anyway. DMorpheus 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference for T-34 nomunclature

Hi. As you may have noticed, T-34 is on the way to FA status. I've identified a few passages which absolutely need supporting references. Please have a look at talk:T-34#Drive for Featured Article quality, and see if you can provide any sources, most importantly for the Soviet naming. Thanks, Michael Z. 2006-07-08 16:32 Z

Likely sock puppet

It has been added by Alex Bakharev - Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SuperDeng. This style - uncapitalised first letters, some grammar peculiarities etc - Deng has in his writings, both on talk pages and in the articles, is so distinctive that hardly can it be anything else than just another re-incarnation of Deng.--Constanz - Talk 15:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has been fixed. And some other sock puppets have been found! Deng's way of handling makes sometimes really laugh. --Constanz - Talk 13:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What's even more jolly -- the signature format 'Bob' added on your talk page is let inside brackets like usually Deng's signatures are: (BobShoe 23:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)). Appearantly, none of these very different users have found the way to use the signature with timestamp from the upper wikipedia toolbar:D.--Constanz - Talk 14:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Deng's been blocked already some time ago [5]. That's why he needs some other 'friends' here!

Indeed, I can't understand why one needs to go that far - I do represent minority POV in many subjects, including WW2, but have managed to do without being constantly blocked for revert wars, uncivility, roggery etc. Enough is enough, probably Deng and his 'associate accounts' will be dealt more harhly from now on.--Constanz - Talk 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

World War II Revisited

Hi, you once read an article from Journal of Slavic Military Studies. I've found something similar, if you're still interested in the subject. Sokolov, B.V: World War II Revisited: Did Stalin Intend to Attack Hitler?- In: Journal of Slavic Military Studies 11 (1998), H. 2, S. 113-141. Anyway, if you really happen to read it, please tell me about it.--Constanz - Talk 17:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was especialy happy when I found an English source covering the pre-war topic. I was myself sketching an article a while ago, and the problem was exactly the lack of researches/translations in English. I hope to read the available sources one day.--Constanz - Talk 13:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hurtgen Forest

Re: your comments about laying flat under artillery fire. My understanding (no personal experience, thank God) was that mortar and artillery rounds detonated in the Hurtgen tree canopy, showering those below with shell fragments. Reports from those who were there say that lying flat was less effective than solid cover or being next to a tree. Folks at 137 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

US Army stats show that troops standing in the open will take something like 90% casualties under accurate artillery fire; just laying down drops that to, IIRC, something like 50%. Staying in a foxhole drops it to 10%. DMorpheus 13:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't argue with stats, also sounds like common sense! But my point was specific to the conditions in Hurtgen - do those stats relate to air- or tree-bursts? Folks at 137 22:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Normandy &tc

Hi, You have probably already seen this, but if not, the U.S. Military History is really a very good read [6]. It is old, but lots of primary material, and looks a nice piece of scholarship. Incidentally, its line on Goodwood is that Montgomery planned a limited offensive, and this is what he ordered downwards, but he deliberately misled SHAEF into thinking that it was a breakout attempt (to obtain air support and to placate Eisenhower and therefore secure resources); hence, coupled with an enthusiastic news conference (which may or may not have been deliberate or possibly both), controversy ever since. MAG1 12:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Monte Cassino

Thx for the grammar and spell check. Your amendments are good. The paragraph appears significant (=short) and neutrally composed. (213.70.74.165 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Why is it a personal attack if someone suggests you should do some more reading on certain subjects?

Because, Phillipsbourg, the discussion should be about edits, not editors. Your edits are filled with personal attacks. DMorpheus 16:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It sort of makes sense that those who edit should know what they are talking about before editing, doesn't it? That would imply they should do some reading on given subjects before actually editing pages devoted to those subject, wouldn't it? Wait. Are you saying that it is OK for editors who are uniformed about a subject or subjects to edit pages relating to those subjects? How odd. 14thArmored 26 October 2006 16:15 Hours

Wiki Stalker

To the user stalking me - We aren't here for your entertainment, but to create something of value. Think about why you are trying so hard to establish this close emotional bond with me ;) What reaction are you looking for? I'm not biting. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users.

Please see wikipedia:troll

Is there a club, barnstar or Purple Heart for stalkees?Wikist 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

1. I think that the user's bad faith is clear enough to spread the word about a "Do not feed the troll" policy.

2. I think that the user's recent rants on his userpage and elsewhere strengthen the sockpuppet case (the April 2006 user and later IP)--imagine how tidy the talk pages would be without those users.

3. I have information about the user's content and source unreliability that I can provide if it will lead to official action.

I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's discipline procedures.

Thank you.Wikist 03:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, the club would be bigger if the case includes the pevious IP/aliases but you might know the better way to proceed. I will be available to support an official action. Thank you.Wikist 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Deng

Well I blocked Rocketlauncherman. Very obvious. Not so sure about the other one you told me about. I'll monitor that one for awhile. Thanks for the heads up. He hits so many articles that it's hard for me to keep up at times. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Kursk

Thanks for providing the source (Glantz) for the paragraph I had removed from the Battle of Kursk. I have added to the discussion on the talk page. JS 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your talk discussion with Anonymous on the Waffen-SS page

Mr. DMorpheus,

  Your discussion with the Anonymous on the Waffen-SS page who lost

an Uncle in the W-SS, is very interesting, and from my understanding quite correct, i.e. that the Waffen-SS was not a part of the Wehrmacht.

You might know this already, but during the German invasion of Poland, two members of the Waffen-SS shot and killed 50 Jews in a synagogue. The local Wehrmacht commander wanted to court martial them, and the prosecution demanded the death penalty. Because of this issue, on October 17, 1939, a change was institued called "Decree relating to a Special Jurisdiction in Penal Matters for members of the SS and for Members of Police Groups on Special Tasks" The effect of this was to remove the W-SS from normal military law. Members of any SS unit could only be judged by SS courts.

I have been interested in this decree for some time, but have not tracked it to ground. I have wondered if the reputation of the W-SS for insubordination arises because they were immune to Heer military law.

Your posts are very much right on as far as I can tell.

Folcwine

M3A1 Scout cars used by the U.S.M.C.

Hi,

If I read the change log correctly for the M3 Scout Car, you were the one who added "A few M3A1s were used by the US Marine Corps in the Pacific theatre, but none saw combat."
I am especially interested in where you got his infomation. I was told by a USMC museum curator that the cars were issued to the 2nd Recon Battalion and we're taken everywhere they went, including combat, in order to evaluate the vehicle's capabilities and shortcomings.
Do you have information that contradicts this?

Thank You. M3A1Scout

I do, but I'm not going to claim that my information is better than yours. Oscar E. ("Ed") Gilbert has written several books and articles on USMC vehicle usage in WW2. One of his articles, in the magazine "Boresight", said that the M3A1 was sent overseas in small numbers but not used in combat. IIRC they were left behind in Australia or New Zealand. Gilbert is a pretty well-known authority on Pacific theatre vehicles. But, again, I've never seen or heard anything to contradict him before your note. I don't know who is correct.

DMorpheus 13:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Dred Scott

You say in your recent contributions to the Dred Scott article: "This decision [by the Missouri Supreme Court] was inconsistent with the Court's own precedents. Missouri courts had consistently ruled that slaves taken into free states were automatically free." I think it would be useful to have a citation for that, if you could provide one. Thanks. Theleek 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's in the Wilentz book I added as a reference. DMorpheus 03:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Deng sock

I was just about to ask you about that. :) He's been blocked. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. That one is Deng too. Blocked. I wish he'd get a hobby. This is beyond ridiculous. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 17:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

T-100

Just a question: did the T-100 actually lack anti-infantry weaponry? The table says it has a 76.2mm gun and a 45mm gun, but does not mention typical anti-infantry weaponry. Darth Sidious 03:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no hull MG. It appears to my eye that there was a coax MG in the 45mm turret but I can't find any documentation of that. The 76.2mm gun turret had arear-mounted DShK. DMorpheus 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

T-34

Hi; I was wondering what the multiple errors were that you referred to on my talk page? I've gone over my edits, and can't find anything. (And BTW, I'm also aware that a number of editors think we have to reference every line of every article, down to the color of the sky.) MisfitToys 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not one of "those" editors. I think the fact-tagging done by others on Feb 5 2007 amounts to vandalism of the article. It's overkill.

Second, I think the vast majority of your edits improved the article. The errors have to do with gun designations. On Feb 4 you wrote that the D-10 was an 85mm gun; the D-10 is a 100mm gun. The 85mm guns on the T-34 were the D-5T, the ZiS-53, and the ZiS-S-53. The KwK 42 75mm gun did not appear in combat in 1942; the KwK 42 is the gun on the Panther, and would not have been seen before july 1943. I imagine you meant the KwK 40, which is the gun on the Pzkw-IV G, and would indeed have been deployed in combat by mid-1942. Finally the KwK 43 was the L/71 gun found on the Tiger II and Jagdpanther. The context of the article is clear that the Tiger I's gun is intended, and that is a KwK 36.

Hope this helps improve the article. DMorpheus 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you were one of those editors, just sympathizing. And again, I didn't say that the D-10 was an 85mm gun, but linked to the article only because it included the background history of the 85 (that's why I linked to the subsection). MisfitToys 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Joachim Hoffmann

Could you please take a look at this? you'd surely be a neutral observer. Seems to be a case of POV-pushing, resulting in deliberate slander. E.g compared with the article in German Wikipedia, an IP has turned Joachim Hoffmann article here into a hate page. I know the general tendencies in de.wiki and those are very left-wing, so... I presume we don't have POV-pushing (whitewashing) there. Constanz - Talk 11:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)