Talk:Battle of Kursk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Battle of Kursk has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 4, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Russia / History / Military (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Diannaa, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on April 10, 2010. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Reads like German revisionist history[edit]

As with so many YouTube videos on the Nazi invasion of the USSR, this entry also has the stench of Nazi revisionism within its paragraphs. The closet neo-Nazis are very busy, whitewashing their war with Russia. Take for example the passages with glowingly talk of German commanders "knocking out 30 T-34s and getting the Iron cross". The tendency to heroize the Nazi invasion is throughout this amateurish, biased 'history' of Kursk. The Russian perspective is missing or deliberately minimized: the Russians are barbarians who should not have won, they only won because of sheer numbers against the heroic Nazi war machine. This is how this crap article reads! Rubbish articl written by closet-neo nazis. We see the same crap with Timothy Snyder, neo nazi 'historian for the US State Department in their effort to whitewash the new regime of post-Maidan Ukraine. Face it: the Nazis lost. No amount of 'would have/could have/should have' will change this fact, written in stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific RS or multiple-RS material that you would like to use to help improve the article? (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Right answer :) GABHello! 22:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation errors[edit]

Hi all. I have corrected some citation errors of one type, but there's several citation errors that remain.

  • There's no book "Healy 2008"
  • There's no book "Brand 2000"
    • This is an article by Dieter Brand. Date corrected to 2003. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There's no book "Glantz House 1999"
    • The book "The Battle of Kursk" by Glantz and House was originally published in 1999, and then apparently published again in 2004. These entries were changed to reflect the 2004 publishing date.Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There's no book "Murray 1983"
    • Reformatted the reference listing to match Harvard citation format Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There's no book "Nipe 2012"
  • There's no book "Zamulin Britton 2011"
    • Stuart Britton was the translator. This listing error was corrected.Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There's no book "Brand 1983"
    • This is an article by Dieter Brand. Date corrected to 2003. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The book Carell, Paul; Osers, Ewald (1966–1971). Hitler's War on Russia is not used.
  • The book Glantz, David M. (1990). The Role of Intelligence in Soviet Military Strategy in World War II is not used.
  • The source Hinley, Sir Harry (1996). "The Influence of ULTRA in the Second World War" is not used.
  • The book Keegan, John, ed. (2006). Atlas of World War II is not used.
  • The book Restayn, Jean; Moller, N. (2002). Operation "Citadel" is not used.
  • The source Töppel, Roman (2001). "Die Offensive gegen Kursk 1943 – Legenden, Mythen, Propaganda" is not used.
  • The book Weingartner, James (1991). Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler: A Military History, 1933–45 is not used.
  • The book Pinkus, Oscar (2005). The war aims and strategies of Adolf Hitler is not used.
    • These books were removed from the Reference section, a Further reading section was added and these books were placed in this new section. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

These Harvard citation errors were identified using the script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. -- Diannaa (talk)

I will look more into these problems later today. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 13:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how did you determine that some of the sources were not used? Did you read the cited page, and what was in the article is not reflected? (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
These Harvard citation errors were identified using the script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. Books I listed as not currently used do not appear as citations for any of the footnotes shown in the "References" section. These books could be moved from the "Sources" section to a "Further reading" section. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

German Casualties source serious Problems[edit]

Starting with source nr 14. German medical records. These are not the original german records as they are translated into English, when reading the original german ones also given on the same site some really interesting things can be noted. The source for the german casualties are only the regular army heer and completely disregards waffen SS casualties as far as i can tell. There is a section for Heer, luftwaffe and kriegmarine losses, but none for SS. No SS groups, divisions or corps are listed in the 10 daily reports either.

Next, the reports lists suicides, sickness, dead in hospital by wounds. However these german casualties are not counted, only KIA WIA and MIA are counted, while the russian section by kirosheev does count death by suicide, sickness and died of wounds later. [1]

Same site, also notes that there were several hundred thousand wounded in hospital in august 1943. If not a single person came out of hospital healthy, was send home or died betwen 31. of July and 31. of August, the increased amount of wounded in the hospital would still be more than 100,000. And that no one got healthy, was send home or died during this period is obviously completely unrealistic. Therefor the amount of wounded must be significantly higher than that. [2]

Finally the way the casualties are intepretated all together is in this source is very questionable, the KIA document as referenced earlier, read: "Im Ganzen vom 22.6.41 bis 31.8.43" Which means between 22. 6. 1941 to 31. 8. 1943, it states only about half a million had died. This source, is also the same source the Russians captured from the OKW in 1945 it seems, on the german losses in ww2 wikipage, it says that this source was critiqued by historian Krivosheev as being contradictionary and unreliable.

In conclusion The source used for german casualties, claims that the german ww2 casualties overall, was less than they were, the infobox disregards SS casualties, deaths in hospitals and possibly foreigners fighting for the german army. I recommend that the german casualties is thoroughly revised, or that someone explains how exactly they read these documents to give such low numbers from a source that makes such low claims.

CarlGGHamilton (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for bad English.
Why do you think that the Soviet losses in the Krivosheev's book reliable? we can not in any way to test them. In open sources, Soviet 10-day reports of Soviet military losses are not published. why do we have to change the German losses and not to change the Soviet? where is the evidence that the Soviet losses correct?
The only reason why you find contradictions in the German papers - in the public domain is a lot of different documents on the German losses. And anyone can analyze and compare them. As for the Soviet losses, we know only one source (Krivosheev). how to check his numbers? who have seen and checked the documents on which Krivosheev counted the Soviet losses?
German losses in the Battle of Kursk in accordance Zetterling, Kursk 1943, from 5.07 to 23.08.43 203 000 KIA, MIA, WIA (p. 116). Zetterling is reliable source.Yura2404 (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say i consider Krivosheev's book reliable, I didn't make him the source, someone else did. Krivosheev is the source for nearly all soviet casualties on every battle on wikipedia involving soviets. I did not make this. But other articles on wikipedia disputes the source that is the kursk german casualties source, including the wiki article of german casualties in world war 2.
Also what makes Zetterling a good source and Krivosheev a bad one? CarlGGHamilton (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
"Krivosheev is the source for nearly all soviet casualties on every battle on wikipedia involving sovets" for only one reason - we do not have other sources of information on Soviet losses. Why Soviet losses in Kursk battle 863 000 soldiers, and not for example 2 000 000 ??? who checked numbers of Krivosheev?
For German losses Zetterling is reliable source. Respected military historians did not deny his numbers.Yura2404 (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand you don't like Kirosheev, but my objection about this article isn't about him anyway. And it's good that the historians you like doesn't dislike Zetterling. But this doesn't address any issues i originally raised anyway. CarlGGHamilton (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
All the questions which you have raised - have already discussed many years ago in many forums on military history. read them.Yura2404 (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Tank losses and strength skewed[edit]

The info for the tank losses and strength is very misleading. The way "tanks" has been counted for example is not consistant. The Russian overall losses I am convinced comes from the the word Armour. So in the original source it would read "Armour losses". In their statistics they group all armour together unlike the germans. For example 18th Tank Corps included [3] BA-64 (Armored Car clearly not a tank) T-60 (Tankette or Light tank) T-70 (Light tank) BTR (Armored Personal Carrier, probably american provided M3 halftracks) These are counted as armour by russians. And they all had their german equivilants, like the "Leichter Panzerspähwagen 222" which is essentially the german T-60. However the Spähwagens are never counted as tanks, but as armored cars, because that's how the germans wrote it in their statistics in ww2. Just like their half tracks aren't. This is equivilant of only count the T-34 and Churchill tanks of the 18th Tank corps. If you count their strength the russian way, they had 187 "tanks" but if you count it the german way, they had only 124 "tanks". Also this makes the soviet tank losses seem higher than they might really have been.

The source used for soviet tank casualties, also does not take into account that many tanks that were reported "lost" wasn't actually destroyed, but disabled, any many were evacuated and repaired. The 18th Tank corps, had 51 losses, but 21 of them were recoverable. This is a big difference, if this was the ratio for all tank units, that 41% were recoverable, the soviet tank losses should read aproximately 3570, even if you count light tanks, tankettes, half tracks and armored cars as tanks. If you don't count tankeetes, half tracks and armored cars as tanks, the losses would probably be closser to 2000 or so.

The german sources for tank losses, isn't based on the reality of kursk, a more accurate source is needed, the avaliable equipment to the armies should be avaliable somewhere, unfortunately i don't own the book "The Battle of Kursk in numbers " by G. Koltunov. But if anyone does I would be glad to know what it says.

CarlGGHamilton (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Which book Soviet tank losses determined in 2000 or 3000? who is the author of this book? the distinguished historian or an amateur? 2,000 tanks - it's your speculation. Speculation should be published on the military-historical discussion forums, not in Wikipedia.Yura2404 (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I was going to give him/her a detailed reply on why his assumptions and claims above are problematic, but I stop bothering when I saw that he thinks the Soviet-era historian Grigoriy Koltunov is a better source for German losses. EyeTruth (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand, G Koltunov, may or may not be a better source, but currently the german figures is a complete guess though, which is no source at all, I request ANY source that gives a better account of the detailed losses of Kursk losses by vehicle type, Koltunov allegedly did that. Even if some historian wrote the german tank losses guess, it's still a guess it even says so in the footnote for the source. Other than that, i haven't tried to make any assumptions, I am trying to critique what i consider problematic lack of information, 2000 or 3000 number comes from the calculation that i explained in detail, I am not saying that is the actual losses, You ignored part of what i wrote, i advise you to real it carefully, before slandering me, that seems pretty unfair. It was a hypothetical scenario, that i constructed to show the lack of information that the infobox is based on. CarlGGHamilton (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I repeat, in the books of respected historians are not numbers 2000 or 3000 but there is a figure of 6000. I believe there is nothing to discuss. it should be discussed at the forum about military history.Yura2404 (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
No disrespect, but I don't think your English is good enough to understand what am i telling you, i have no idea what to say, i already explained this carefully twice. You just don't understand. CarlGGHamilton (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
All the questions which you have raised - have already discussed many years ago in many forums on military history. read them.
Wikipedia is not the place to discuss your suggestions.Yura2404 (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)