Talk:4th Panzer Army

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / German / 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
	World War II task force

No 4. Panzer Armee in France..

There were no "Panzer Armies" in France, I believe the original author may be confusing the 4. Panzer Armee with von Kluge's 4. Armee. The VIII. Corps was part of von Kluge's forces. The other 2 corps listed as being under control of the unit didn't even exist in 1940. The listed commander, Hoepner, commanded the XVI. Armeekorps in the Battle of France. The LVI. Corps wasn't activated until Feb. 1941 (which is around the time Panzergruppe 4 was activated.) If no one has anything to add to this, most importantly, a source for it, I'm going to totally remove that section. The comments even say that it was the primary armored thrust for the Battle of France. This isn't true in the least, as Panzergruppe Kleist "led the way", and it consisted of Guderian's XIX. Corps, Hoth's XV. Corps, and (IIRC) Reinhardt's XXXXI. Corps. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.37.145 (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Moscow s2.2

This section looks like a regurgitation of Stahel, as evidenced by references 19-31 all being from Stahels book! A lot from one source. Furthermore, Stahel is not the only historian to cover operation typhoon and he's far from the best, or most recognised and it is unfortunate that his style of making tendentious assertions instead of examining the actual history is repeated in this section of the article. Are readers interested in 'could have, would have, should have' speculations? Probably they want a factual account of historical events.