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)
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? 220.127.116.11 (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)
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  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.
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)
Bergström 2010 - possible typo or missing book from reference list?
Gday. There are a couple of inline citations labeled "Bergström 2010"; however, there is no work with this author and year in the "References" section so its unclear what book this refers to. There are works written in 2007 and 2008 by this author listed so I'm wondering if it is one of these? Or is it another book written in 2010 that has been omitted from the reference list? Is someone with more knowledge of the sources able to clear this one up? Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This article is striking in the set of photos used; almost all are German. Should we consider replacing some of the photos of Germans with Red Army personnel or equipment? It should be, minimally, 50/50, considering the Red Army won.
Of the 32 photos, 20 are German subjects while only 9 are Soviet (and 3 I am not sure how to count). There are no less than 6 separate photos showing Tiger tanks; granted, Tigers were used at Kursk in unprecendented numbers for that point in the war, but still.....almost 20% of the photos? There are only 2 photos of T-34s and one of those is a wreck.
I just want to bring this up for discussion; I'd like to bring this into balance but without offending anyone. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It has been difficult to find images in wikicommons from the Soviet perspective. We tried to put in what was available, but if you can find others great! As to the image deleted, it was of German soldiers walking past a famous church in Orel (The Church of the Intercession), and it was there in juxtoposition of an image at the bottom of the article, taken a few months later of Soveit soldiers standing before the very same famous church in Orel. I though it was useful as it visually highlighted the fact that Orel had changed hands. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)