Talk:Battle of Raseiniai

Untitled

Someone needs to cite the source of a KV-2 being the type that held the 6th Panzer Division. The german sources who wrote the account only list it as a KV, they never specified if it was KV-1 or KV-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.164.137.2 (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning of "Sticky Bomb"

How could the Germans use the Hafthohlladung (HHL) in 1941 when it wasn't introduced until 1942 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.81.90 (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

CE

Did a drive-by ce and tided a few paragraphs, please revert or amend as desired. I thought the lone KV anecdote was rather good but that it would be better to expand the article around it lest it looks a bit too big. I regret that I couldn't add more citations but the Eastern Front isn't one of my areas. I think the article's coming along rather well though, well done everyone. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! This is my first large-scale edit on an article and it actually feels really good to know that people are recognizing your work and improving on it! Quick question: What does 'CE' stand for? Other than that, thank you for the feedback and I'll try to add onto the article whenever I find something else to include. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it stands for copyedit. MPS1992 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Review

This is a well-written and informative article. However, in order to get a class B ranking, the entire narrative section must be cited. As of today's date, there is a lot of uncited material. The introduction paragraph does not need to be cited, except in unusual cases. Djmaschek (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! I (We?) will work on it. We've come a long way from the way it was when we started on it, and our work has been worthwhile! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Translation of Citations

In order to translate citations 20, 21 and 22, copy the entire text and paste it into Google Translate (The website, not the short version). It is in Russian. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

One more time, the provided reference do not match the portrayed account in the wiki article. Was it an KV1 or KV2 tank? Why the new reference note that the 150mm howitzer opened fire but the 105mm apparently not? Did the 88 mm hit the tank 12 or 24 times? et cetera.

3/4 of 'Lone Wolf' section is loosely based on the translated "World of Tanks" article promoted by "TankArchives"1, even after the removal you insisted to fulfill those with other unrelated reference, which a) do not cover the incident in such intricate detail or b) being self-published 2.

The reference to Raus 3 was arbitrary given, other statements are somewhat made up out of thin air:

"As German troops investigated, they noticed that despite being hit over 24 times, only two shells penetrated the hull,

Prit Buttar, describes the event on p. 85 as follow:

"A single tank - a KV1 in some accounts a KV2 in others - succeeded in penetrating deep into the German position, shooting up a column of German trucks in the process, and stopped on a road across soft ground. Four 50mm anti-tank guns from 6th Panzer Divison's anti-tank battalion engaged it, hitting it several times; the tank returned fire, knocking each gun in turn a heavy 88mm gun from the division's anti-aircraft battalion - the most potent anti-tank gun of its day - was laboriously manoeuvred behind the Soviet tanks. It opened fire at about 800 yards range, but before it could score a hit, the KV1 knocked it out.

Under cover of darkness, German combat engineers crept up to the tank with satchel charges, which failed to destroy it, though they may have damaged its tracks. As it grew light on 25 June, German tanks fired on the Soviet behemoth from nearby woodland, while a second 88mm gun was brought around to attack the KV-1 from behind. Several shots were fired, but only two penetrated the tank. As German infantry approached, the battered Soviet tank attempted to fight them off with machine-gun fire, but grenades thrown through its hatches finally brought its resistance to an end. In some accounts of the battle, the Germans showed their respect for such brave foe by burying the crew with full military honours while other accounts suggest that the crew escaped during the night after running out of ammunition."

It looks like you don't know what you are doing 4 and 5. Dircovic (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest to blow the 'Lone Wolf' section up and start over with reliable sources. Dircovic (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Information unsupported by sources

Over the past day, I have removed several footnotes added by UNSC Luke 1021. Such footnotes include successive refs for note l to Raus, p. 13, and a Nafziger OOB for 28 June 1941, which do not support the information contained in note l (L). Footnotes were also added to Arad's Encyclopedia of the Holocaust and to "Mitcham, p. 54". p. 1690 of the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust is referenced by the Vilnius article as supporting the statement that the city was occupied on 24 June, and snippet view on google books seems to confirm that. However, the paragraph referenced with Arad was about the operations of Panzer Group 4 and the bombing of Vilnius, Kaunas, and other cities. "Mitcham, p. 54" is used on the 3rd Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) article, and in Mitcham's Panzer Legions page 54 does not contain information about Army Group North. Would it be possible for another editor with access to these books to check Colossus Reborn and Bishop's book to see if they support information in the statements they are used to reference in these revisions: Addition of refs to footnotes, Addition of ref to lead, refs added in main body, More main body refs. Kges1901 (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't had time yet to recheck the sources. However, will take a look in the next days. Dircovic (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

There are some variations concerning the tank strengths in the Baltic Front, as of 22 June 1941. I corrected them according to Zaloga and a later Glantz publication. I would be glad if one could add the books to the bibliographic index:

1) Barbarossa Derailed: The Battles for Smolensk, July-August 1941 Volume 1: The German Advance, The Encirclement Battle, and the First and Second Soviet Counteroffensives, 10 July-24 August 1941, 2010, Chapter 1, p. 36 endnote: 21 - David M. Glantz  Done

2) Armored Champion: The Top Tanks of World War II, 2015, Chapter 4, p. 102 - Steven Zaloga  Done Dircovic (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

3) Robert Forczyk (Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front 1941-1942: Schwerpunkt p.30) list the actual strength for the 3rd and 12th Mechanized Crops as follow: 630 (51 KV's, 50 T-34's, 57 T-28, 41 T-26 and 431 BT's) and 725 (483 T-26, 242 BT's). Should it also be included? He seems to have rather conservative figures. Dircovic (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Forczyk 2014 should be included. I used Google Books Preview to check his source, which appears to be Yevgeny Drig's website mechcorps.rkka.ru, which means his figures might be newer than the earlier books because mechcorps.rkka.ru was updated until 2013. Kges1901 (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but Zaloga's work is newer, however, in order not to make it unnecessarily complicated, I suggest we should handle it with some footnotes. What you think? Improvements welcome!

Proposal: "A key part of Northwestern Front's defensive potential were the two mechanised corps deployed with it. On 22 June 1941, Major General Alexey Kurkin's 3rd Mechanised Corps had 31,975 men and 669^[a] – 672 tanks.^[b] The same day, the 12th Mechanized Corps, under Major General Nikolai Shestapolov had 28,832 men and 730^[e] – 749 tanks;^[c] only BT-7s and T-26 tanks were available.^[d]" Dircovic (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dircovic: Apologies for the late response, but yes that would be acceptable. Kges1901 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kges1901: No need to be sorry, was busy myself; alright, I will go ahead and be bold. Thanks! Dircovic (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Footnotes

^a David Glantz in 2010 wrote that the 3rd Mechanized Crops had 669 tanks, of which 101 were KV-1s and T-34s, 431 were BT-7s, and the remainder older model T-28 and T-26 tanks.
^b Steven Zaloga in 2015 wrote that the 3rd Mechanized Crops had 672 tanks, of which were 50 T-34s and two divisions with 78 heavy KV-1s.
^c David Glantz in 1998, wrote that the 12th Mechanized Crops had 749 tanks available.
^d Robert Forczyk in 2014, wrote that the 12th Mechanized Crops had 725 tanks available, of which were 483 T-26 and 242 BT's.
^e Steven Zaloga in 2015, wrote that the 12th Mechanized Crops had 730 tanks available.

More References for Page

Website #1: http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/history/6thPzDiv1941.pdf

I found what is probably the closest reference we're going to get for the number of Nazi tanks present. It's a makeup of the forces in the invading force of the 6th Division on June 22nd, 1941, one day before the battle occurred. It states there were 239 tanks present, only 6 less than stated in the article. It may just be a rough estimate though. If I find any better sources I'll notify you, but for now this is the best we have. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Website #2:http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/941GFAU.pdf

Just found this reference from another site, a count of forces from two days before the battle occurred, on June 21st, 1941. Once again, will notify if more are found. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Website #3:http://militera.lib.ru/db/0/pdf/halder_eng6.pdf

Newest and arguably most valuable firsthand source on the page. Please download the PDF if you want to look into it. I think this one is going to be very useful. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the third source is probably extremely useful for the entire Eastern Front Operationof WWII. Not many high ranking Nazi insider accounts exist, so this may be a gold mine for info. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this would be a primary source, not a WP:SECONDARY one. MPS1992 (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If anyone wants to use it, remember to take care as to not misuse it, because they are very easy to misuse. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

War diaries in general require critical examination, they might only be reliable to a certain degree, and might even contain revisionist tendencies. However, the first link appears somewhat useful, as it does list the attached organic units of the 6th Panzer Division. Dircovic (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Website #4: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/CGSC/CARL/nafziger/941RFCC.PDF

Does this belong anywhere? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

http://gregpanzerblitz.com/russia41/russia/12thMechCorps.pdf

Putting this here, just so I can find other stuff UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kges1901: Is this suitable for the last uncited area? Also, on an unrelated note, are you a bot? You seem to be online like ALL the time.

http://gregpanzerblitz.com/russia41/russia/12thMechCorps.pdf UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@UNSC Luke 1021: I have added a reference for that statement. I am not a bot but I don't frequently update my user status template. Have you verified that information that you have supported with those last sources you added is indeed supported by the sources that you added? Not using false citations is important for the reliability of Wikipedia. Kges1901 (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kges1901: I am about 98% sure that those last sources include information related to the cited work. I took most of them from other Wikipedia pages that go more in-depth on the topics glazed over in this article. Hope that helped! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@UNSC Luke 1021: I have removed the ref to Anušauskas p. 163 because if you took this from German occupation of Lithuania, it does not say that the German troops had light losses, only that the Soviet troops were heavily defeated. IMO the ref to page 162 in the same book is also dubious, because in German occupation of Lithuania it is used to reference the statement that "On June 22, 1941, the territory of the Lithuanian SSR was invaded by two advancing German army groups: Army Group North, which took over western and northern Lithuania, and Army Group Centre, which took over most of the Vilnius Region. The first attacks were carried out by the Luftwaffe against Lithuanian cities and claimed lives of some 4,000 civilians.", but in this article (Raseiniai) you are using it to prove this: "At the start of the battle, the German 4th Panzer Group advanced in two spearheads, led by the XLI Panzer Corps and LVI Panzer Corps. Their objective was to cross the Neman and Daugava, the most difficult natural obstacles in front of the Army Group North, and to drive towards Leningrad. German bombers destroyed many of the signals and communications centers, naval bases, and the Soviet aerodromes from Riga to Kronstadt. Šiauliai, Vilnius and Kaunas were also heavily bombed. Soviet aircraft had been on one-hour alert, but were held on their airfields after the first wave of German bombers passed."Kges1901 (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

CE

Tidied prose, rm dupe wikilinks, rm short sentences and overdose of apostrophes. Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Fate of the crew

In this edit ("Whole section is really speculative. With this much uncertainty should it even be retained in this form?"), the statement:

• According to some accounts, the crew was buried by the German soldiers with full military honors; in other accounts, the crew escaped during the night.

Was changed to:

• The crew was killed and then buried by the Germans, with full military honors.

References

However, the uncertainty comes from the source being cited: "by some accounts (...) while other accounts". Please see: Between Giants: The Battle for the Baltics in World War II, pg. 85.

If the content is indeed too speculative to include, then both parts of the sentence should have been removed. Otherwise, the material is not true to the source and states speculation as fact. I would suggest consulting the sources before making such changes.

I undid the change: diff; please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The preponderance of the sources indicate the crew was killed, making it the only viable assertion of the two possible. Nonetheless I've removed it pending more definitive sourcing. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the sourced content from Prit Buttar. In any case, Wikipedia aims a neutral point of view and presenting both sides of the argument is a must. Dircovic (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)