Talk:Panzer ace

What happened to this poor article?

I an seriously considering tagging this article for POV problems but before pulling the trigger I went back and read it in its entirety. This poor thing has become worse than before! What happened? It has just become a halfhearted impotent attempt to make sure anybody who wants to know something about WW2 panzer aces finds out from Wikipedia that A: They didn't really exist and B: If they did exist they were instruments of Nazi propaganda. If I'm on the internet and I look up "Panzer Ace" I would expect to find out at least who these men were and what the context was of what they did. The Wikipedia article seeks to erase history- "panzer ace" is a "contemporary" term and such men didn't really exist. This is false. There WERE German tankers who racked up high kill numbers in the context of the cooperative nature of tank warfare. The scores of these German commanders were much higher than anyone's before or after in that same context. Wikipedia now denies me a look at that list even though the numbers aren't really disputed but because of a pro-Western, neocon POV. So I ask- can we have the list back? That at least is a counterweight to the editorial part (90%) of the article.Makumbe (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "pro-Western, neocon POV"? Elucidate please. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Makumbe Its already tagged for Undue weight, for pretty much the reason you were speaking of WP:bal. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm Reporting this talk page to Kiwi Farms

Again I must say Aufwiedersehen

Please take any behavioral concerns to WP:ANI if you feel you cannot adequately address them with Drmies on his talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Aufwiedersehen my fellow editors on this Panzer Ace Wikipedia page. I can't stay because again when involved in this page I find myself threatened by a fellow editor- Mr. Drmies: "But by all means, argue that I'm "politicizing" Wikipedia. Now, I just left you a warning about discretionary sanctions on your talk page for a BLP violation you dropped here: you just be very mindful. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)". If you Western Allies POV dupes must win at any cost then so be it- have fun debasing this page and making it absolutely useless. As I have said before- a few of you could care less about improving this online encyclopedia but rather it has become for you an online chat room to win arguments. Have fun! Online Chat Room example Here's what passes for civil discourse on this Talk Page written about me by Mr. Drmies: Yeah, those Germans were awesome, weren't they. I am sure you enjoyed looking at it, with all the little Nazi flags. And you are still picking the wrong fights: I am not arguing that your "amazing" wonderful leather-clad Nazis were absolute bad-ass motherfuckers when it came to killing people and blowing up tanks, and that they may well have been better at it than those "pathetic" Americans, "incompetent and slow" as they were. I do have a POV, of course, in this respect: I'm happy that those Allied wimps won. But by all means, argue that I'm "politicizing" Wikipedia. Now, I just left you a warning about discretionary sanctions on your talk page for a BLP violation you dropped here: you just be very mindful. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Threats and swearing- but I'm the bad guy...Makumbe (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Neither the insinuations of Nazi sympathies or the personalization of the content is constructive. If you have an issue with the conduct of another editor there are places to take that up. Discourse here has not been at the level we should expect and don't think the sniping and mocking of people, such as yourself, is going unnoticed. On the other hand, taking a break is sometimes the best remedy to conflict. The page isn't going anywhere and this sort of thing pretty much never helped anyone. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks LargelyRecyclable. I will take a break as I said in my previous section. Good luck to you and all of you in cleaning up this article. Happy New Year!Makumbe (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Another from Mr. Drmies to me This is appropriate on Wikipedia? From Mr. Drmies Talk Page to me: "I don't give a good goddamn if you edit that article or not--you violated the BLP (on the talk page, not in the article, as far as I know) and I warned you not to do so again. Also, it's Dr. Neitzel. Again, your very first sentence just reveals the stunning depth of your ignorance. Note that I never said or implied you're a Nazi--the real Nazis are dead. You seem to be a sympathizer, which in some ways is worse cause you should know better. I'm not sure what you're implying about me (where do I come from?), and I really don't give a damn about that either, since it's neither here nor there. If your ignorance impedes your neutrality and objectivity, as it seems to do, you shouldn't be editing here. Now go away so you can pretend in some other place that you got bullied by some big bad administrator with his MEAN MEAN cudgel who didn't like Nazis. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)" As much hatred as I've ever encountered on ANY online chat room or forum. What gives?Makumbe (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Makumbe, if you have behavioral issues with Drmies, please take them to WP:ANI or the arbitration committee (and I wouldn't suggest the committee as this is far too low a dispute so they'd likely reject it, but it is an option as he is an admin and functionary). This talk page is for discussing the article, not editor actions. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC) I thought it appropriate for editors to see what we're dealing with in this weird article and its talk page. I was pinged to give an opinion- I haven't edited Panzer Ace for months. I immediately get into a chat room style flame war with a strange person- a Wikipedia bully?. I don't want anything to do with this article again.Makumbe (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC) That said, I'd ask that @TonyBallioni: hat this and the preceding two sections as not being related to the article content. @Makumbe:, you're more than welcome to reach out to me, or I'm sure Toni, for any information on the best manner in which to proceed with any issues you feel need to be addressed with another editor's conduct toward you, or in general. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Concerning neutrality

1. Policy does not require an article be neutral, only that it be as neutral as the majority sources - bar a few exceptions for using some words instead of others (WP:SAY). For example, articles on the biological theory of evolution discuss it as a scientific fact, even if technically there is a small number of sources supporting fringe theories which claim to discredit it.
2. Given the point above, one should not voluntarily try to influence an article's POV by ignoring sources which disagree with their own personal POVs.
3. Therefore (sorry if this starts being a bit legalese), unless there is overwhelming consensus (and even then) that a given viewpoint is not valid or it can be shown that sources usually reject it, the subject matter should be presented objectively, using neutral language, without making judgement of it or it's validity - an example of this is the article on Fascism : although it is generally viewed as a bad thing, the lead gives an objective description in which the main characteristics of the subject are mentioned. There is no "judgement" mad of it in any kind - a short allusion to it being viewed in a negative light is only made in the last paragraph of the lead. If it is possible to do that with controversial political topics, surely it is possible to do it with a rather uncontroversial (even if somehow disputed) topic.
4. This articles focuses too much on the German (propaganda) use of the term, neglecting for example occurrences of the term to describe soldiers from the US. The book by Zaloka, which makes an interesting point about "tank aces" not being usually credited for kills simply because nobody bothered to keep count and because it was seen as a team effort, is merely used to say that the concept was "rejected" by the US Army, despite the author's more nuanced point of view.
5. The article could be moved to "Tank ace" to reflect a more global point of view.
6. It is possible to neutrally describe a subject and then spend a good part of the article criticizing it - this article in it's current state could well be titled "Criticism of the concept of Panzer Ace", since it barely describes the subject of "Panzer Ace" beyond the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. As example, again, use Fascism: of the article's 175 thousand bytes, only 13 thousand (a subsection about the term being pejorative and then a proper "criticism section") are used to openly criticize it, while the rest is used to describe it.
7. What's up with the "quotes" each time Panzer Ace is used? The term is disputed and it might not be a real thing, but using quotes around it is simply not necessary - this is explicitly stated in MOS:QUOTE - "Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms [I think we can extend this to terms in general] can often seem to imply something doubtful" - if there is doubt about the term, that is usually already written, with letters and words, in the article, without requiring us making an impression on the reader's subjective mind as well.
I think this is enough for today - back to less contentious matters. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• All of this proposes that the concept of "Panzer ace" exists outside of the glorifying material discredited by many editors, citing reliable sources, on this very talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if there were no "successful" tank commanders, yet the article does not talk of that at all (to offer a balanced POV), rather it solely criticizes Nazi propaganda. Care must be taken, even when criticizing subjects, to balance criticism with possible counter-arguments, if such have been noted in sources (and in this case, they have - there were undeniably "successful" (in terms of enemies destroyed or whatever other measure) tank commanders). Deconstructing the propaganda myth is necessary, yes, and a section (or even almost the whole article) could be used for such purpose, but currently it gives no substantial matter to criticize except the fact that "tank aces" were propaganda material - a proposition which by itself is negative. Sorry if this sounds repetitive, but I'm sure there's a way to add in a paragraph or two (more than what there is now, which gives an impression of an unbalanced article) about the nuances of "successful" tank commanders and how it's not solely a "propaganda" thing. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with Drmies - the only people who have discredited the material supporting the Panzer ace viewpoint are people of the opposing viewpoint (thus a NPOV conflict of interest). There are plenty of editors here who are happy with the material remaining here, and were happy with the article in its previous stable form as it was for a while. As per the above poster, "Given the point above, one should not voluntarily try to influence an article's POV by ignoring sources which disagree with their own personal POVs."Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Not all viewpoints are equal, Deathlibrarian. The viewpoint that "Panzer ace" is a romanticizing blah blah (I hate being repetitive) is well-established by academic and reliable sources. What would be the opposing viewpoint? That there existed successful tank commanders? That is not doubted by anyone, though the extent to which they were successful and the reasons why is under discussion by scholars--but the "Panzer ace" designation as an objective or even quantifiable term for a successful tank commander is not yet proven by reliable sources, setting aside the popular literature, which is precisely the subject matter of contemporary war studies cited in the article. Do you not find it odd that the usually quite comprehensive German wiki has no corresponding article? That the corresponding Dutch article has a completely different kind of title? (Why don't you translate "Lijst van Duitse tankcommandanten en -schutters in de Tweede Wereldoorlog" neutrally and put your list of Germans there?) Drmies (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The Dutch article has as title "List of German tank commanders and gunners in the Second World War" , and a notice at the bottom states it is a translation of an earlier version of this article... 135.23.202.24 (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Drmies "Not all viewpoints are equal" certainly not - but by the same token, that's no excuse for removing a viewpoint, so the article only shows one side of an arguement. If a percieved a viewpoint is more strongly represented in literature, then it may have more weight, as per WP:RSUW...but all sides should still be represented. Given this, will you support the re-inclusion of the opposing viewpoints? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy for the article to be moved to "tank ace". There is no article covering Non german tank aces (like lafayette Poole) - and may be it would take the heat out of the anti nazi/German discussions that seem to happen here, which IMHO just are not helpful. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

" (Why don't you translate "Lijst van Duitse tankcommandanten en -schutters in de Tweede Wereldoorlog" neutrally and put your list of Germans there?)Drmies " Great minds think alike I guess. This is what I proposed so long ago when I first visited this article. Sorry for negating my Aufwiedersehen- after this I really will go away.Makumbe (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Please don't insult me with such comparisons. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I have no clue as to what is between you and Makumbe, but thinking he insulted you is clearly not WP:AGF. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

IP, I know AGF. I don't know why you think I'm new to this place. Makumbe sympathizes with Nazis, I don't, so I don't see how their mind is in any way like mine. May I suggest that if you don't have a clue you acquire one before you start lecturing others? Drmies (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: To be honest, I agree with this IP account, whoever they are. I think you labelling Makumbe as a nazi sympathiser was unnecessary.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't ping me, Deathlibrarian--I am not interested in your observations on someone who complained that American historians see Nazis as BAD, BAD people. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

"... giving the WW2 German military any credit because they were BAD BAD Nazis..." is actually what I said. I never complained about American historians calling Nazis bad. Of course they would! My point with this statement is that the neocon wave in History touts American triumphalism looking not only forward (now at the End of History) but also backwards in actual history. Thus we have Max Boots and V.D. Hansens explaining how great we have always been militarily. Anything which disturbs this American triumphalist view must be countered somehow. So we end up with a Steven Zaloga saying with a straight face that the German Panzer commanders had high scores because the Eastern front was easier! Hah! The Nazism of the Wehrmacht takes nothing away from the fact that they were a superior military, and it took those crazy Russians to beat 'em on the ground; the biggest contribution of the Western Allies being the defeat of the Luftwaffe. As Max hastings has said (I'm paraphrasing) "...the soldiers of the Western Allies were no Panzergrenadiers..." Mr. Drmies' solution would be to just have a neutral list like in Dutch Wikipedia- I agree!Makumbe (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It would also help to remember that the original "Nazi Fan Boys" were in the U.S. military. John Mearsheimer calls it "Wehrmacht Penis Envy" and describes how ex Wehrmacht officers in the Bundeswehr were treated like rock stars by their American cohorts. No one did more to clean up the Wehrmacht's history than our government- not gamers or crazy Leibstandarte reenactors. So called Panzer aces were simply soldiers on the losing side- I don't see much hand-wringing or tags like uncritical portrayal of the US Seventh Cavalry or "Analysis" in Wikipedia articles on the U.S Cavalry and its role in the extermination of Native Americans- they won- our extermination was successful.Makumbe (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Attribution needed

The statement "The Soviet Red Army regarded destroying tanks as not being an act of particular heroism for its tank commanders, as the main role of its armoured units was to support infantry" needs attribution, and should be taken as a opinion, not a fact. I suggest it to be rephrased. I will add the statement of Russian military historian Mikhail Polikarpov, he notes:

"Замечено, что германская и советская пропагандистская модели принципиально отличались. В основе немецкой модели стоял "идеальный воин", уничтожающий врагов в больших количествах. Виттман был идеальным танкистом, Рудель был супергероем для бомбардировочной авиации, Хартман (и еще целая группа асов) - для авиации истребительной. Успех воина измеряется в сбитых истребителях, сожженных танках. Каждый боец должен был равняться на "идеального воина".

"It is noted that the German and Soviet propaganda models were fundamentally different. At the heart of the German model was the "ideal warrior", destroying enemies in large numbers. Wittmann was an ideal tankman, Rudel was a superhero for bomber aviation, Hartman (and a whole group of Aces) - for fighter pilots. The success of a soldier is measured in downed fighters, destroyed tanks. Each soldier had to be equal to the "ideal warrior".

"В советской пропагандистской модели главное место было отведено именно теме подвига (Космодемьянская, Матросов, Гастелло). Превозносился героический поступок какого-то из бойцов в отдельно взятом - часто неравном - бою, причем зачастую закончившимся гибелью этого бойца. Реальность и обстоятельства некоторых из хрестоматийных подвигов советских солдат, совершенных в боях Великой Отечественной, в последнее время также оспариваются."

"In the Soviet propaganda model, the concept was based to the theme of achievement (Kosmodemyanskaya, Matrosov, Gastello). The heroic deed of the soldier was extolled in a specific - often unequal - battle, often ending with the death of this soldier. The reality and circumstances of some of the textbook exploits of Soviet soldiers committed in the battles of the Great Patriotic War have also recently been disputed."

Milhail Plikarov means similiar accounts just like those of tank commander Fadin Alexander Mikhailovich, in example. Which was aslo criticized heavily by military historian Robert Forczyk in reviewing the book "T-34 in Action" by Artem Dradkin.

One or two of the accounts are a bit suspect, particularly one by a Lieutenant Fadin, who is clearly a liar. Fadin makes one preposterous claim after another, such as shooting down a German fighter with his tank cannon, killing a German general, destroying multiple Tiger tanks, hitting targets at long-range while moving, etc - this is the type of Soviet account we used to read 25 -30 years ago. I had doubts by the end of Fadin's chapter whether he had ever actually even served in a tank unit. On the other hand, the real combat vets are quite reticent to brag about their accomplishments, noting occasionally enemy tanks destroyed or troops killed, but with exaggeration. I was also surprised that several accounts mentioned Soviet troops murdering civilians in Germany and Romania - clearly the suppression of such unpleasant truths has eased up a bit. Overall, this book is excellent and offers one of the best looks yet at the men who really won the Second World War, Soviet tankers.

Unfortunately, such propaganda accounts finds their way uncritical in western academic books:

The soldiers of all army formations and units displayed exceptional courage and heroism during the penetration of the enemy's defense on 26 and 27 January, but the soldiers who operated along the external encirclement front of the enemy Korsun'-Shevchenkovskii grouping especially distinguished themselves... While repelling an enemy attack attempting to assist the encricled grouping, a tank crew from the 22d Guards Tank Brigade under the command of Communist Lieutenant A.M.Fadin showed exceptional steadfastness, resourcefulness, and initiative. While fighting in the region of Lysianka, the tankists of that crew destroyed three facist tanks, crushed a six-barreled mortar [a Nebelwerfer], two machinegun with their crews, and several vehicles, and captured 18 soldiers. The also destroyed a German-facist transport aircraf which was trying to take off after landing by mistake in the combat area.

But back to the track. As we know the heroic deeds were widely popularised, (newspaper, radio, leaflets) there was scant attention to the use of propaganda as an instrument. This was certainly true also for tank crews and their commanders, as war-time Soviet adward orders show:

A most brave and energetic gunner. During an enemy counterattack between July 17th, 1944 and July 23rd, 1944, during the destruction of the Brody group, he destroyed 5 enemy heavy tanks, 4 anti-tank guns, 10 machine gun nests, and up to 100 soldiers and officers of the enemy, demonstrating skill, courage, and bravery in battle. When his tank was damaged on July 25th, 1944, comrade Arslanov did not leave his tank, and destroyed 2 enemy SPGs, even though the enemy did not stop firing at his tank. Only when he was wounded and the tank was engulfed in flames did he leave the tank. For the damage done to the enemy and demonstration of courage and bravery in battle, he is worthy of the highest award of this government, the Hero of the Soviet Union.

Duskinvo (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for giving people merely a vague hint of a place to look for further evidence and sources, however I wish to mention my memory of reading an account, probably on Wikipedia and probably backed by solid sources, that one of the Soviet Union's top tank aces did not regard destroying other tanks as the sign of a tanker's skill, because tanks were easy to see and therefore easy to hit -- instead he regarded destroying anti-tank guns as his most important achievement, because anti-tank guns are normally camouflaged and emplaced and therefore so much more difficult to see and so much more dangerous. MPS1992 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not mixing it up with the statement of Otto Carius in Tiger's in the Mud? Anyway, Otto Carius kill claims were still exploited by German propaganda, even thought he did it not regarded als a major archivement. Dmitriy Loza, "Fighting for the Soviet Motherland: Recollections from the Eastern Front: Hero of the Soviet Union." p 205 notes:

The procedure for recommending a soldier or commander for a combat decoration in our 6th Guards Tank Army began with the assembling of an award package by the battalion headquarters. Included in it was a brief description of the heroic act or deed (the number of enemy tropps the soldier had destroyed, the number of enemy firing positions suppressed, and so on) [which include tank kills] and the specific decoration being recommended. By statute, certain quantifiable standards applied to each medal or order, both concerning the enemy personnel or equipment destoryed and the rank or position of the recipient.

In our tank forces, higher commanders sometimes authorized these immediate decorations by radio. Because of the way our radio communications were set up, all the subordinates learned about such an award immediately. Headqurters assembled the appropiate documentation and signature for these awards later. This method made a significant contribution to troops' morale, and inspiered in them a greater respect for their (tank) commanders.

Looking again above to the brief description of comrade Arslanov achivement, we can see how that settled and what their comrades heard from the award recipient in the radio, later published in the Army Newspaper and so on. Duskinvo (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Just an observation – while the Russian’s seem to focus on the achievments of their Tank commanders, rather than “kill numbers” they are still holding them up

as hero’s in a similar way German Tank Aces were. Though no Panzer Ace ever shot a plane out of the sky with his tank cannon! :-) Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was that the content is repetitive. In addition, it uncritically presents the concept of a "tank ace" as if it were a real phenomenon. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi K.e.coffman - I completely agree on it being repetitive, I think parts of it repeat what was in the previous section, so you may notice, I've removed those parts, I hope that's a good compromise. However, other parts of the section aren't dealt with in the rest of the article, and I think they add to the article overall. I dissagree that the section should be deleted as you had done previously. It discusses reasons why some tank commanders were successful and some weren't, and that's with references. Clearly some tank commanders were better than others based on proven historical records of how many tanks they destroyed - that's documented. The reasons for that are referenced to various RS writing about tank commanders. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Should this article have a list of Tank aces?

Previously, for a long time, this article had a list of tank aces. This was quite a good list, with some interesting content - you can see it here and it was removed for some reason. I don't remember why but I was involved in adding content to it (and admittedly, I had used non-confirmed sourcing for a couple of them, but that shouldn't be a reason to remove the whole list!). Recently, Panzerrene50 has tried to add this content back in, but it was removed. Considering that it is convenient information for the user, I would advocate this list is put back in. Are there any objections to this? Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, honestly, I made a mistake, taking an old reference link and updating the "OLD-ID". Was not careful enough, sorry for that. But I agree that the list is informative enough to put it back, so I support your viewpoint. Panzerrene50 (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, because it has not been established that a "panzer ace" is a legit concept. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • That would appear to be your POV. "Tank Ace" (or Panzer Ace) is a commonly used term appearing in many articles discussing people (not just German tank commanders) like Israeli tank ace Zvika Greengold, Laffayette Poole, Otto Carius and Wittman relating to the large number of tanks they destroyed. If you want to say the term isn't valid and isn't used, I've not seen that proven anywhere..and there is certainly proof of its use to the contrary. The view that "there is no such thing as Tank Aces" is certainly not something that has consensus. In any case, the number of tanks these tank commanders destroyed is on record. It happened - attempts at blocking and deleting historical, referenced and relevant information from wikipedia (otherwise relevant to this article) IMHO appear to be against what Wikipedia is about - that is to provide information relevant to an article for the user, as long as it is referenced from a proper RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Referencing the question about Arno Giesen at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Panzer_ace/Archive_1&oldformat=true#Arno_Giesen?
There is additional new information here indicating that he may have been a fraud.
http://fathercodersoldierspy.com/?page_id=9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.75.165 (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)