Talk:Nevsky Pyatachok

Military history: European / German / Russian & Soviet / World War II

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	World War II task force

Soviet Union Low‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

300 000 killed

I consider this claim dubious because the lotal killed and missing of Leningrad AND Volkhov fronts were only about 170 000. --Whiskey (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The period initially was not all that well defined, but the offensive operations there went on for much of two years, and it was an area of very heavy fighting. The casualties you quote are actually for the Germans and not the Red Army, although Glantz gives 160K.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book returns to library at April 20, so I don't have reference available right now. But it seems I really have to add the warning to the Mil Hist TF page a warning about the strength and casualty numbers in general, as the way how those are counted differs enormously between battles, wars, etc. Does Glantz define "casualties" as KIA, KIA+MIA, KIA+MIA+WIA or KIA+MIA+WIA+Medical, as I have seen all of those in different sources? --Whiskey (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glantz mostly uses Soviet form, which is non-returnable, returnable and sanitary (meaning non-ambulatory). Usually he only provides the first figure, which is the case here. 300,000 earlier claim is the upper limit claim I found elsewhere, but I tend to trust Glantz because of he sources he cites, and because that seems to be a consensus although I did not feel inspired to add more sources on this occasion. Keep in mind this figure covers almost 2.5 years of the war with a good dozen operations conducted in the area. He provides figures for some smaller operations in the area, but I will save these for Operation Iskra which will need to be VERY substantially expanded, as well as other smaller ops I don't even have on my list yet because they were tactical really--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't insert references!

These belong to the last three paragraphs of the WWII section, but each time I insert these, the rest of the page is truncated.

pp.128-129, Glantz

p.149, Glantz

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

close siege after Spark

Whiskey, with all due respect for your edits, you just can't edit a referenced sentence without a new reference! I'll have to go back to Glantz--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just returned the sentence how it was before Jim's edit. IIRC the Glantz reference was to the casualties, for not closing the siege one can use for example Carell as a source.--Whiskey (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That page is a synopsis of the operation, and not just casualties, but as it happens it also covers the edits that you replaced, so can leave it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this page about?

I'm confused. The more I read about the issue, the more I become uncertain what are we writing in this page. Nevsky Pyatachok, or five-copeck-coin of Neva, was a small Soviet bridgehead on the left bank of Neva near the place where Neva turns westwards after it has flown southwards from Schlüsselburg. This article has morphed to the general issue about Operation Spark, and I fear also the numbers are more valid for Spark than the bridgehead. Could someone clarify the issue to me? --Whiskey (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about Whiskey?! I had rewritten the article from a stub so I thought it makse sense, and the bit "Nevsky Pyatachok, or five-copeck-coin of Neva, was a small Soviet bridgehead on the left bank of Neva near the place where Neva turns westwards after it has flown southwards from Schlüsselburg." is not there any more.

Yes, his was the staging area for the 8th Army part in the Iskra offensive. It had been fought over since the siege begun, so had seen a lot of carnage on a small piece of property.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Iskra, the main thrust which opened the corridor happened to cross Neva at Marino, half-way between Nevsky Pyatachok and Lake Ladoga. The forces from Nevsky Pyatachok didn't manage to break through German lines, and German base at Gorodok prevented them to connect with the main thrust until 17 February. --Whiskey (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]