Talk:Battle of Kursk/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Blitzkrieg – establishing consensus for the wordings

Is there a reason why the discussion is cordoned off in collapsible sections? Should the discussion not be open and freely viewed? Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Irondome thinks it is a good idea, and I think it is as well. But if you think it isn't, then sure, it can be undone. Normally, I wouldn't mind if the discussion paralyzes the poll as it is now. But I just think it would be fair to let the poll remain fully vibrant through its duration. But if you don't think so, then I will be more than happy undo it. EyeTruth (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let us allow the editors to see the discussion. Please remove the collapsible sections. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. EyeTruth (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It was a space issue, might freak other new eds out from contributing. If you want it undone, ive no probs with that GBD. I am trying to take a different path on the wording of V1 BTW. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

EyeTruth, I would like to see a version of V1 incorporating my proposed extra sentence (see hatted V1 comments for detail.) I believe it adds to it, and leads more logically to the debate on blitzkrieg linked in the notes. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The biggest issues with Version 1 are the weasel phrases and original interpretation of sources. As for your proposal, the sentence takes "blitzkrieg" too seriously, as if it were a formally/officially structured system. "Blitzkrieg", in a way, is not too different from saying stuff like "guerrilla warfare" or "armoured warfare" or any other term in such class, in that these are just nebulous terms that would carry very slightly different specific meanings from one author to another. Yet, there is a generally accepted concept at the core of each term. Blitzkrieg is not like Deep Battle which is acutely precise. Even my own wording for V2 may still need some more improvement. It still sounds a tiny bit awkward to my ears. Saying, for example, "Citadel envisioned an armoured warfare", to my ears make it as if armoured warfare is some formally structured and well-defined system that Citadel was striving to follow. I've been thinking of even a better wording for it. P.S, or maybe it is only in my head that the word "envision" sounds awkward.EyeTruth (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It might be better to phrase your statement "The main problems I have with Version 1 ..." Less presumptive, and allows the other editors to make their own assessment. Now I did query you some eight days ago and am still awaiting a response: Are you saying you think the text in the body of the article is original synthesis, or are you referring to the wording in the notation? Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The statement above in the body of the text is descriptive of the events. There is not a whit of original synthesis. Accusing it of being such is baseless, and should be disregarded by the other editors. The text simply describes events as they were planned.

As to the footnote, it opens the door into the question of whether or not the action should be characterized as a blitzkrieg. I believe it is far too complex to describe this question adequately in the footnote, but it gets you in the door. The fact that Guderian strongly opposed the operation is significant. If the mind that shaped the ideas that became blitzkrieg warfare opposed the plan, it indicates he did not see this fitting the pattern that generated Germany’s earlier successes, and in fact in examining the plan we can see that is just so. Guderian would never propose using the armoured forces to attack a fortified salient, especially if it were known months in advance that the attack was coming. And an envelopment leading to the annihilation of the defenders in a Battle of Cannae? This was the type of battle plan favored by Adolf Hitler and some of the traditionalists in the German General Staff, but was not the style of plan that won Germany her early victories, where the panzer forces strove for deep penetration striking at the command and communication centers to disrupt the defense, moving faster than the ability of the defender to react, causing general panic in the defenders and paralysis in the opponents command. Equating the two is to confuse the issue. Here is Ron Lewin touching on the matter:

Those military critics who are inclined to be contemptuous of the performance of the French in the summer of 1940 might well consider how the British response to Rommel’s attack in the spring of 1941 provides a classic case of what can happen when inexperienced troops are unexpectedly exposed to a Blitzkrieg. A chain reaction occurs. Surprise breeds shock, shock breeds disorganization and loss of morale; these breed unnecessary errors and the sum is a disaster.

With no surprise there is no psychological element and no blitzkrieg. Guderian knew this well. The term should not be used in the section describing the German plans, which hoped to overpower and envelope, rather than surprise and strike deep. A better place to use the term blitzkrieg would be in a discussion section at the end of the article, where these contrasts can be laid out and the reader could learn of the differences. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Version 1

Content

The plan was code named Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel). The operation was to feature a double envelopment with pincers originating from the bases of the salient and directed at Kursk which would surround the majority of the Soviet defenders and seal off the salient.

The notes and references for the above excerpt:

Comments for Version 1

• Comment for:

This is a cleaner version. It describes the plan succinctly, and nothing more is needed in the seciton titled "German plans and preparations". If a discussion of whether or not the plan was intended to recreate the "blitzkrieg" offensives of the early war is desired, this can easily be done later in the article in a discussion section at the end. Here early in the article we are attempting to get the reader up to speed as to what the German military was attempting. Throwing in a vague term like blitzkrieg muddles the picture and is best avoided at this stage of the article.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment against:

While this version1 is indeed two sentences shorter, it denies the reader the knowledge of a perspective supported by several well-reputed WWII historians like David Glantz and Niklas Zetterling, among others. Although these historians may not necessarily be correct, yet withholding such information insinuates that they are considered to be on the fringe by the history community, which is not the case. Also this version1 makes frequent use of weasel words and phrases like "most commentators" or "a great number of military historians", etc. Granted, there are sources that make no mention of blitzkrieg with regards to Citadel, but this version1 attempts to give an original interpretation to this silence of several sources on the issue. Any such interpretation by editors is tantamount to original synthesis, irrespective of how likely correct it may be. EyeTruth (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In addition, one of Guderian's work cited as a source was written 6 years before Citadel. This source does not mention, describe, or even talk about blitzkrieg, yet it is being used to originally synthesize information directly associated with blitzkrieg. EyeTruth (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying you think the text in the body of the article is original synthesis, or are you referring to the wording in the notation? Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral Comment

The main problem that I have with this version is that it does not clearly state that many historians do not characterize in any way, but implies that they do not think that it is a blitzkrieg, which isn't quite right. And the Guderian cites don't work properly. How can he say it violates his principle for the use of armor before the war even started? I understand that that cite is for the actual principle, but that's not how it reads. I don't even think that you need to cite that, just his general statement as per the following cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well then, can we re-write it to address those issues? Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 Incorporated:Okay, well I see changes being made by other editors, so I assume we can address issues the editors bring out to improve the wording. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Additional wording suggestion

I suggest "There is no historical consensus as to the terminology of the offensive tactics employed by the German forces"(a) be placed at the end of the version. I think it is actually more precise. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That won't be quite right. Among sources presented, there is no dispute as of yet. Although that doesn't mean the historians claiming a blitzkrieg are necessarily correct. Nevertheless, the "dispute" is primarily among WP editors. EyeTruth (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Try the MK 2 version above. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Much more better... except that the Germans never really had any standard operational offensive doctrine. Hence the reason why the term blitzkrieg is still alive. Any operation the Wehrmacht conducted that involved concentration of armour, air force, emphasis on manoeuvre or speed, and envisioned encirclement, irrespective of how distinct the detailed methods of these operations might have been gets labelled blitzkrieg. EyeTruth (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Precisely the problem in a nutshell. My only issue with the above is encirclement. I am not convinced that is part of bk, whatever the hell bk actually is.. Try MK 3 :) I would like to see some kind of addition to V1 along these lines. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Better than before. Although that doesn't help the bigger issues with Version 1. Frieser, Barbier and Clark, all include encirclement in their definitions. (What do you think of putting all comments in a collapsible to keep the interface cleaner and make the poll less repulsive to the many voters who don't fancy long convo. A collapsible with the most basic format that is easy to navigate). EyeTruth (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be a great idea. We dont want to discourage participation. I think there is the "classic" grand bk strategic encirclement, such as the trapping of the French, Belgium and British armies in N France in may 40, and tactical encirclements as a by-product, such as Kiev, Smolensk. In that they were not designed as terminal knockout thrusts of themselves. If the amputation of an entire wing of a front and terminal disruption caused as in 40, then I would agree that encirclement is part of "grand blitzkrieg". But unsure what the above historians defs are. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A while ago, I posted a bunch of stuff from Frieser (page 1-10, I think) in a green collapsible above. His definition is there. It's too much work writing the others now (maybe later). Both Frieser and Clark mentioned decisive effects in their definition and Barbier mentioned of destructive effects. Minsk, Smolensk and Kiev were all decisive, operationally. EyeTruth (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Tactically maybe, but they didnt win the campaign. If anything, Guderian seems to be asserting in parts of PL that the encirclements were a diversion of armoured resources and actually helped thwart the succesful drive to Moscow, that and Hs constant shifting of priorities.Irondome (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Guderian has nothing to do with any definition of blitzkrieg. EyeTruth (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not the definition, but the reality of success. Blitzkrieg appears to have been improvised from the lower levels. the Wehrmacht plans for Yellow were very conventional. It was Manstein, and divisional commanders like G and Rommel who implemented it that created the myth. Interesting exchange. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Except that Guderian rarely ever got exactly what he wanted. He considered deep penetration and speed more important than using tanks to complete encirclements. But this is not how things played out, thanks to Hitler and some others. In France 1940, the tanks ended up completing an encirclement. The Balkans campaigns weren't too different. Barbarossa featured one battle of encirclement after another, much to Guderian's chagrin. Summer of 1942 wasn't too different either.EyeTruth (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Guderian has nothing to do with any definition of blitzkrieg"?! The term blitzkrieg attempts to describe the "new" method of attack employed by the German army in the early part of the war that resulted in their stunning successes (Poland, France, Greece, and even in Russia). Guderian was central to those successes. Here is Erwin Rommel on the subject. "In Germany, thanks largely to the efforts of Guderian, the first traces of modern leadership in tank warfare began to crystallise in theory before the war. This resulted in the training and organization of tank units on modern lines.(quoted in Rommel the Desert Fox Desmond Young, 1950, p.254) He does not mention Hitler, and in fact Hitler repeatedly checked the advance of the armour in France and in Russia, as he did not understand what they were doing or why. It was Hitler, not the British, that stopped Guderian from reaching Dunkirk. The result was the BEF escaped.(The Second World War, Liddell Hart, 1970) Hitler claimed credit, certainly. He claimed Manstein's plan was his. But it was not. No offense, but thinking that the techniques developed by Germany's military men to use mobility, speed and surprise to defeat much larger forces decisively should be attributed to Hitler is nonsense. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are replying to. It is certainly not a reply to my post that precedes it, considering that what my post talks about has nothing to do with your reply. Who said the British stopped Guderian? Did anyone say Hitler deserves credit for the fall of France in 1940?. EyeTruth (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am replying to you. The first sentence in the reply, followed by a question mark and an exclamation point, is a quote from you just a few lines above. The rest is a response to that statement, and it shows the folly of trying to separate Guderian from "blitzkrieg". You would not have the one without the other. Really, EyeTruth, this sort of practiced obtuseness does not make for a compelling retort. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to try to get the wording of the new sentence additional V1 right. I want to capture the idea of "Terminology" instead of using the term bk. The notes accompanying V1 serve to explore the lack of consensus well. I dont see the need to mention bk explicitly. It just adds to its layered intrinsic meaninglessness in this context. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Version 2

Content

The plan was code named Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel). According to some contemporary military historians, the operation envisioned a blitzkrieg, but some other military historians and many of the German participants, including von Manstein, made no mention of blitzkrieg in their characterization of the operation. The plan for the operation consisted of a double envelopment that was directed at Kursk to surround the majority of the Soviet defenders and seal off the salient.

The notes and references for the above excerpt:

Comments for Version 2

• Comment for:

This version conspicuously alerts the reader to the different views on the issue. This version completely avoids the use of weasel words like "most", "vast majority", etc. It also avoids original synthesis by not interpreting the silence of several sources on the issue to mean their opposition for the operation being characterized as a blitzkrieg, irrespective of how likely correct such an interpretation may be. This version assumes that original interpretations are best left to the reader. EyeTruth (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment against:

In describing the German plan of attack, this version takes the reader on a mini tour of the controversy over what should and what should not be characterized as a "blitzkrieg". It assumes there is a single understanding of the meaning of the term that all historians and miliary theorists agree upon, which is clearly not the case. In the notation section it gives its own mini pole, with various historians placed in one group or another, not defining what each means by this characterization. In doing so it avoids going to a straight description of the plans and meanders into matters off topic that do not increase the readers comprehension or understanding. In doing so it begs the question as to why such a discussion would be necessary in the main body of the description of the German plans. Whether or not the plan was an effort at a blitzkrieg, what that term might mean, how the attack differed from the offensives of 1939, 1940 and 1942, why it might be that the officers who created the great successes of the early going of the war were opposed to this particular offensive and what that might mean to the understanding of whether or not this attack should be considered in either its planning or its execution a blitzkrieg attack could all be handled better in a summary section discussing the battle, not in an opening section attempting to describe the plan. In placing the "They were planning to do a blitzkrieg" group first, it seems to weight this view as being the correct view. Clarity and brevity are preferred over obtuseness and circumlocution, and as such this version is less helpful to the reader. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment:@GBD. I believe this subject is developing into an entirely seperate short article. There is masses of info that we have now collated that would populate a useful piece. We could find a place to accomodate it, (dont know if there is a WW2 controversies section or similar). I would advocate that this is properly explored and it is linked to the Kursk piece. I would say we go with V2 for a period until such a piece can be created, which would be much more analytical and detailed. It may also be linked with the blitzkrieg article, it would ensure a good improvement in all these linked pieces I would say. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral comment

And this one also has the same problem with the Guderian quote. I gotta say that Pinkus and Moorhouse don't bring much to the table and I think that they should be deleted entirely. I'm fine with Barbier, Brand, Kasdorf and Willmott, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

 Incorporated: Guderian's quote was only included to satisfy the opposition. Moorhouse and Pinkus were added just for the sake of it and not because they are considered reputable. Moorhouse has more accolade under his belt than Pinkus. I totally agree with you on Pinkus, he shouldn't belong. EyeTruth (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well let us incorporate all the above suggestions. Does it make sense to list the Glantz/House book of 2004 and then list every page where the authors mentioned the term? Seems to be unnecessary. In the same way, to mention Glantz in the Glantz/House book, and then mention House separately, and again the pages where the term is used is repetitive. There were two authors, and they chose to use the term. Why belabor the point and be repetitious? Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Votes

(Vote on which version is preferable. Keep it simple and to the point. Big details can go in the comments above. Cheers)

I vote for Version 2. It's better. Caden ^cool 16:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Version 2. More direct, correct weight, NPOV. (Hohum ^@) 17:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Version 1 It merely describes the plan without wandering off into "blitzkrieg" territory, which V2 mentions twice in a few words. The linked notes to V1 is perfectly sufficient for our readers to make their own determination if they wish to explore the "blitzkrieg no blitzkrieg" discussion. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Version 2. It captures the various views fairly. No weasel words, no original synthesis, unlike the other version. EyeTruth (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Version 1. It is cleaner in terms of explaining the German plan and avoids a vague term which has no universally understood meaning. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Version 1. This version (1) emphasizes historical fidelity and presents German plans as the Germans themselves would've presented them, relegating any mention of the ill-defined, potentially-misleading term blitzkrieg to a note that, nevertheless, remains immediately accessible to the reader. I don't think including blitzkrieg in the main body is explanatory or informative as much as it is trivial, and confusing, when the goal of that section should be to faithfully present the German plans, without the addition of pseudo-descriptive terms that the planners and high-level participants themselves did not use. Azx2 09:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bias detected in the radar.  Resolved

Before anyone else votes, EyeTruth, I'd like to respectfully ask that you provide, above, a neutral comment for option #1 that explains what it is or why it may be preferable like you have for #2, or at least summarizes it such that there's not an obvious bias b/w how the two options are presented. I'm assuming you prepared the poll (correct me if I'm wrong), and while I don't at all think you intentionally set it up like this (w/ a glowing recommendation for one option, and a literally blank comment for the other!!), I don't think the poll as currently established allows for a fair, neutral sampling of opinion b/c one of the two options is being presented and described in a manner that makes it seem preferable. Thanks for your attention to this. Thanks. Azx2 20:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Quick comment. V2 manages to reflect the ambiguity in some RS usage of the term blitzkrieg. Thus it provokes a discussion on the accuracy of the term, and cites additional material for interested readers to explore. Ive always been uncomfortable with repeated use of BK in mainspace for reasons I gave upthread. This version allays my concerns to a good extent. I originally argued for 1 mainspace mention with balancing notes. This is as good a deal as we can get. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Azx2, sorry but I will decline that offer. I intentionally left it blank, given that I'm almost certain that Gunbirddriver will dislike any assessment I make in his place (I could be wrong). If it were an intended bias, then there would be no conspicuously blank space left for the comment. Frankly, anyone can go ahead and provide a comment there. But for the meantime, "pending" or anything else anyone prefers can go there. EyeTruth (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the quick reply, EyeTruth, here and on my TP. I understand your rationale, and it's no longer an issue since "Pending..." notation has been added. Now how do I strike-through that text above? Hmmm...lol. Cheers. Azx2 23:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC) It's all good, Azx2. You could just go ahead and add a comment for version 1. (I had a very honestly supportive comment for it but I can't be the writer). I will see how easy it will be to collapse this discussion so as to keep the interface simple for voters. (Some editors will flee from long discussion or its baby, and being a dude that thrives in verbosity I find collapsed text with a "succulent" heading to be a very effective solution). If you think it doesn't work well for this one, then please undo. (late signature) EyeTruth (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Version 2. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Version 2. It's common for people to think Tanks+WWII+Germans=Blitzkrieg, so some mention is needed; this doesn't go overly deep into the issue that Blitzkrieg isn't actually easy to define, yet doesn't mislead by avoiding it either, perhaps implying to some that it didn't have Tanks+WWII+Germans. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Consensus 07 September 2013 was agreed as the due date of the poll. The result above further reinforces the (result) summary of the DRN discussion. The editor consensus is clear. Three votes for version 1 and six for version 2. EyeTruth (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually the previous discussion was closed as "Unresolved". I notice Binksternet and Sturmvogels reservations in that as to your pet thesis, but seemed to want a quiet life. This resolves nothing. Rather I see a chilling effect on eds who may have potentially contributed over the past week, due to other circumstances. Kursk was not a blitzkrieg, either attempted or failed. I see a 6 to 3 vote. I see no consensus. I do see an attempt to rewrite the history of this, a behaviour which I had not consciously noticed in you before. Irondome (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I wrote "result of the DRN discussion" and not that of the case. Never mind, if changing the word to "summary" helps you, then fine. Five of the seven editors that contributed in DRN voiced their supported for something along the lines of version 2. Granted, one of the five only reluctantly agreed to support it. In the above poll, six of nine editors that voted are in support of version 2. There is abundant editor-support; it certifies WP:NPOV and any other WP policy or guideline; it is thoroughly referenced with secondary and primary sources without any original synthesis. What else do you have against it? (If you just say that "Kursk was not a blitzkrieg, either attempted or failed", then that is precisely your own opinion). EyeTruth (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As the proposer of the cut-off date, I hereby withdraw my deadline, and would like to see this continue. Much has happened in that period. I see haste in your attempt to shut this debate down. Irondome (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Haste in my part? I even let it tally to a complete 14 days by adding 3 extra days to the deadline you set earlier. And now you are suggesting that it should go on indefinitely because it didn't turn out the way you wanted it to. EyeTruth (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

BS. I note an increasingly waspish and petulant tone, which I am also registering for the first time. I suggest you checlk article Battle of the Bulge. Now that was a blitzkrieg. Unlike Kursk Yet nowhere in the lede does the term arise. I wonder why? It is discussed much further down, with the 2 operational plans weighted in mainspace. It comes to the conclusion that plan 1, which I also assume you would consider BK, is found by sources not in fact to fit that description. Irondome (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-bs historians have said what they have to say. I'm not going to argue all this thing again. The version with the most vote gave a voice to each POV. Every criteria has been met: wikipedia policies & guidelines, references, sources and editor-support are all checked. Let's be frank, past this point, this dispute will only become a messy regurgitation. Nick-D please, if you can, get other admins into this. EyeTruth (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, I withdraw my timelimit proposal. Therefore, it is null and void. You appear to be attempting to control the agenda here. Are you baablaa? I expect a LOL any minute. Irondome (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's alright. Your time-limit has always had a substitute. In case you forgot, I never withdrew my support for a deadline of 03 September, and I'm sure that date has come and gone. In fact all the time limit (either by GDB, Irondome or EyeTruth) has come and gone. You say "Baablaa"? That tickles . EyeTruth (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Voting is still open. Much has happened since my original voting propsal, which I tabled directly to admin, was accepted. I withdraw it. It really is not your proposal to tinker with, to be frank. Irondome (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

So why is there not a parallel argument om the Battle of the Bulge talkpage for BK to be included in the lede, in a much more clear cut case? I would suggest they did not have a POV pushing editor with a BK fetish. Irondome (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

After two weeks of discussions, there are three editors in favour of version 1 and five in favour of version 2. The rationales given for these preferences as part of the vote or in earlier discussions are all reasonable, so there's no grounds for any of these votes to be discounted. This isn't a consensus either way, so I'd suggest that the options are to a) go with version 2 if the people who favoured version 1 are happy enough with that (or vice-versa, of course) or b) continue the discussion but seek additional views by advertising it more broadly by posting neutrally-worded invitations on relevant project pages. For what it's worth, option a) seems better to me given that this has been discussed to death and it's unlikely that many more editors would comment (to be frank, the often bitter discussion about would be rather offputting), but I don't have any ability to impose this as a solution. What do other editors think? Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, it is actually six editors for V2, not five. BTW, what happens if the few in support of V1 continue to wage a war, what then? I think a new DRN may be helpful if those in support of V1 are willing to submit one. Although that may not even be able to change much. After all, the last DRN ended with 5 of the 7 editors that contributed voicing their support for something along the lines of version 2, yet a handful of editors singlehandedly warred the suggested solution to death. And here again after full two weeks of polling, a handful are bent on crippling the solution supported by the majority. So what if this trend continues, what then? How can it be resolved? EyeTruth (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, for now I will go along with something along the lines of option b. I already did lots of advertising for this in the past, others are encouraged to do some more. Let the poll run for a full five weeks which is till the end of the month. Whatever the result is, so be it and let everyone hold their peace. EyeTruth (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen. I propose that this be closed with the consensus of all. I for one, accept the expressed preferences of the community. However, if new and relevant RSS emerge in the future which have any impact on the above issue, I believe it is legitimate to revisit this. Regards. Irondome (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference Problems

Some of the sources mentioned in the references aren't in the list of references. For example, reference 286 as of today (2013-12-08) to "Glantz 1991" or the references to "Zaloga 1989".

This is a general weakness in the ref list system, and Wikipedia needs to address it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.4.195.188 (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Article length and scope

This issue has already been discussed at length and a consensus arrived at here. The article is about the Battle of Kursk, not the Soviet counteroffensives. Adding information in from those battles will continue to expand the size of the article. The goal was 60 to 100 kilobytes of readable text. The article now stands at about 120,000 bytes of readable text. I am going to revert the additional information away from the article. Perhaps you could clear that material out of the infobox for us. Also, please respond here for further discussion rather than reverting. You made a bold edit, I reverted it out of the article, now we are supposed to discuss it here before further reverting is to go on. That is the method preferred to avoid edit warring. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been working on Joachim Peiper recently, but, having observed previously these discussions, i wanted to express agreement with Gunbirddriver that this article is about the Battle of Kursk, not the Soviet counteroffensives. Furthermore, here it's agreed to focus on the German offensive, while the following Russian offensive was moved off to its own article and briefly summarized. MiG29VN, from a quick look at your talk page, I see that you've already established a history of disruptive editing and failure to respect the project norm that mediated content dispute resolution processes require thorough talk page discussion occur first - hence why GBD and I have both commented here. Your interest in contributing to the project is welcome, but collaboration and consensus are necessary for success. I think it would be a welcome gesture on your part to clear the material in question out of the infobox for us...Thanks. JDanek007^Talk 06:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Just want to clarify that I'm not accusing MiG29VN of being disruptive in the context of the edits that Gbdriver had to revert. Rather just noted that I saw he'd been blocked for such behavior recently, and so to avoid disrupting the effort here, discussing bold but ultimately misdirected edits here would be better than making them and then seeing them reverted. JDanek007^Talk 06:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

German casualties in Soviet archives

The article notes that the Soviets seized German unit records at the end of the war and declined to confirm they had done so. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of the archives, surely this information is now available? If so, this sentence should be amended to reflect this.204.116.217.18 (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Records from the 9th Army conducting the northern assault were lost when the army was destroyed and the command elements captured during Operation Bagration. These are still not available for review, nor have they been used as source material as far as I am aware. Materials from the 4th Panzer Army are available through the US National Archives. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

German casualties report

Please see: ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec43.html.

Total German casualties = Army Group centre + Army Group south. Yundra counted only one Army Group, but he always revert edit113.190.46.130 (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Total German losses:2 armies from group South plus 2 armies from group Center, not whole army groups! you even do not know what the German armies took part in the battle!Yura2404 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk_order_of_battle. 4 armies from group South plus 3 armies from group Center (not incluld Luftwaffe), and the other Army (which you didn't count) also joined in later phases (when Soviet counter-attack)113.190.46.130 (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

your link: 3 armies of army group center and two armies from army group south. their losses 198,000. and any other german armies was not in battle. And: you are blocked MiG29VN :-)Yura2404 (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, you didn't count Army Group Reserve42.113.98.85 (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because losses of Army Group Reserve including at losses of German armies. Therefore there are no losses of Army Group Reserve in the German reports on this site:ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec43.html. You can write something like: Soviet estimate German losses 500,000. These data I will not delete. That is, put two figures: According to German data 198000, according to Soviet data 500,000. Yura2404 (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

OK1.55.244.204 (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Content and Rating

  Perseus 71 ^talkAfter recently reading the book "Armor and Blood: The Battle of Kursk: The Turning Point of World War II" By Dennis E. Showalter, I came to this page to see how much of the information has made it in this article. That book is a comprehensive account citing first hand information from Memoirs of the Belligerents from this conflict. I understand the scope of this article is about Operation Citadel the German Offensive and does not / should not cover the Counter Offensive. Based on the discussion I see above, it seems Editors are /were working on this article. If such is the case, I will let them utilize the reference and continue. (I have added the reference partly). Otherwise I'll be happy to add from the book since I still have it. My intention is to get it beyond the C-Class.

I've read some of that and though there were aspects that I thought were helpful, in general I did not have tremendous confidence in it as a reference. I did use him as a reference a couple of times for the Battle of Prokhorovka page. Anyway, that doesn't really matter. If you have something you think should be added go ahead. If you can support it with a reference all the better. People may change it if they do not agree. Then we would want to discuss the issue here on the talk page (Bold Edit - Revert - Discuss). The first part is Bold Edit, so by all means. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, would you care to elaborate on why you think this book isn't a good reference ? I thought the troop movements and Orders of Battle were pretty detailed in that book. Admitted, due to deeply divided nature of Waffen SS coverage here on Wiki, those details would have to be in moderation.

Honestly speaking, my specialty is on Luftwaffe and particularly western front. But JG 51 drew me to the book and here.

In response, an example would be this discussion of the German situation in the spring of 1943. Showalter writes (p. 51):

Hitler obsessively saw himself as working against time. In contrast with Marxist-based radicalism, which ultimately understood itself to be on the side of history, Hitler's clock was always at five minutes to midnight. That in turn reflected Hitler's increasing sense of his own mortality, combined with the self-fulfilling paradox that Hitler's self-defined role had no place for a genuine successor. But the reflexive compulsion to action was in this case arguably balanced by Model's photographs.

It makes for an interesting read. And though I believe many of the suppositions made above are close to being true, they are nevertheless the author's conjecture. Statements about Hitler's state of mind are not supported with any reference, and in all truth how could they possibly be? The work simply is not written in an academic style. The narrative is interesting and engaging, but I personally would not be citing anything from above as being authoratative on what compelled Hitler to make the decisions he did. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  Perseus 71 ^talk 13:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Thank you. Valid point. Guess I kind of glossed over that one. But the part I liked was the explicit details on Order of Battle that's backed with Quoted German Documents. While on the subject, I'd like to know what you'd think of John Mosier's Deathride Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front ? Too Revisionistic/controversial ? BTW my Speciality is Luftwaffe as well. But curousity regarding the huge Luftwaffe claims on Eastern front brought me to those two books.

In this case I must confess I have not read it, but looking at a review of the work by Joseph Bishop we see:(http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2010/volume_2/number_4/deathride.php)

Mosier points out that in nearly all cases, Hitler was right in his decisions while his generals were wrong. The German officer caste was trained to seize major cities and especially capitals, but Hitler understood that modern wars were more economic in nature—conflicts to seize resources both to deny the enemy the ability to wage war while at the same time increasing one's own ability to do so. The author states that Hitler's generals simply could not comprehend this view. One of Hitler's accurate complaints about his generals was they understood nothing about 'the economic aspects of warfare'; the generalization could be extended into areas outside of economics. "The army commanders from the very first had envisioned the objective of a war with Russia in a traditional way: destruction of the armies and occupations of the old and new capitals, especially Moscow.", Mosier citing from Heinz Guderian's Panzer Leader: "[Hitler] said that the raw materials and agriculture of Ukraine were vitally necessary for the future prosecution of the war. He spoke once again of the need of neutralizing the Crimea, 'the Soviet aircraft carrier for attacking the Rumanian oilfields.' For the first time I heard him use the phrase: 'My generals know nothing about the economic aspects of war.'"

There is some truth to what he says, and this was partly due to Seeckt's construction of the General Staff and even more so due to the intent of Adolf Hitler. Hitler was insecure and sought to dominate the politics of the German people. He routinely placed one party in conflict with another, making it difficult for an individual or group to attain the power and means to compete with him. As to the war effort, with his generals he purposely kept them in the dark on many issues. For instance, he told them Germany could not continue in the war if they could not secure the Caucasus oil fields to fuel her war effort. In making that case he justified his insistence on advancing the German army far beyond its means of support. His claim was false, for those oil fields never produced fuel for Germany, and yet Germany continued the fight for another three years. Furthermore, the effort to achieve them cost the 6th Army at Stalingrad and nearly cost the 1st Panzer Army and 17th Army as well. The Geo-political solution to the war the German generals assumed was a goal Hitler would steer Germany towards was never one Hitler would consider. Thus it was never in the cards for Germany. Hitler preferred fighting to utter destruction. If the German people could not produce the great triumph he insisted on, than it was best that Germany be destroyed. This was unknown to the German generals until the last year of the war. The result was Hitler got pretty close to the result he insisted upon.

In summary, it looks interesting to me but I do not believe the broad conclusions are supported by the record. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Result Info Box

The current Result Infobox is a little lengthy, not in alignment with Wikipedia guidelines (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict), and reads a little like a personal commentary/assessment of the results: "Despite greater losses of men and materiel, a decisive Soviet victory Germany's offensive power on the Eastern Front is crippled"

I suggest changing it to "Strategic Soviet Victory". "Strategic" implies that it was not tactical (to account for the stalemate and greater loss of material) and addresses what I think is the main concern of the current description (i.e. to get across the point that the Soviet Union won but with heavier losses). Also leaves any debate as to the extent to which German offensive power was "crippled" to the more detailed discussions in the article itself.

Any objections? 159.18.26.96 (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It Was Bletchley Wot Won It Honest To Goodness It Was

Sir Harry Hinsley, who worked at Bletchley Park during the war and is a professional historian, has noted the following:

Information decrypted by Ultra was given to the Soviets, which helped them prepare for the offensive. The Soviets had a spy at Bletchley Park (John Cairncross), who gave them decrypts of German military communications. Hinsley speculates that without Ultra, Germany would have won at Kursk, and "Hitler could have carved up Russia".[309]

The reference is link not substantiated. Regardless, is it necessary for Britain to claim the victory of Kursk for itself and have the last word on the matter in what has become the foremost public archive or record. I suggest a rewrite so that victory is not ascribed to a non-combatant in the last words of the article. Even if the statement "Hitler could have carved up Russia" could in any way be verified (it can not ) I would argue that their spy is a product of their military actions thus it is a self-refuting arguement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.163 (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not necessary nor correct to end the article with a British claim for credit for the victory. The last section you are referring to is an "analysis" section which essentially quotes the opinions of a number of authors, somewhat unusual for an article and in my opinion both woefully incomplete and entirely unnecessary. Generally, Wikipedia makes a statement and then the source that supports it is cited. In this case the Wikipedia article goes straight to the source, unvarnished, and quotes three of them. The article would be better off if the section were removed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are being a tad over-sensitive here. It is not giving the "last word", merely the last of an extensive list of various aspects of the battle. In my experience, coming last in a list of this nature reflects on its importance. I would say keep. I am assuming we are discussing the BP former operative. If there are others scattered in the list i've missed, apologies. I hear yer GBD however. Irondome (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

But if Hinsley's own words are red into properly - he does not actually state that in a way of personal speculation - he attributes said speculation to a "Russian counter-factual historian would say that if we didn't have the Ultra which we got in various ways, then we wouldn't have been able to win the battle of Kursk and Hitler would have been able to carve up Russia. This is perhaps another case . . ." - this is taken from the source cited within the article as the basis for the "carve up Russia" phrase - what Hinsley is saying here is quite different from speculation and an assertion he therefore makes is the one to the effect of "It is counter-factual to say that without Ultra decrypts Russia would have lost the battle and the war". I hope this understanding can be somehow better reflected within the article.

So can someone explain to me why "Sir Harry Hinsley, who worked at Bletchley Park during the war" gives him any credentials? If you check his bio here on Wiki, you find that he worked in traffic analysis. That would most likely not give access to actual decrypt content and certainly not to content analysis. Further, the kind of traffic that went via Enigma, i.e., Ultra intelligence, was at the low to medium level. This would reveal say some troop dispositions ... which were already evident to the Soviets from regular recon and their own sources apart from the obviousness of the benefit of removing the salient. Strategic intentions would only come from Tunny whose distribution was very restricted ... unlikely that a traffic analyst would be given access.kovesp (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are so many pictures from the German side?

There seems to be an over representation of images from the German side (eg. showing "exhausted German soldiers"). Is the reason simply that there was not Russian images of the battle so it is necessary to use Nazi Government images?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be more German images of the battle on Wikimedia than the Soviet ones, probably because there are more German images in the public domain. Nevertheless, Soviet pictures of the battle are available. The other reason is that most English speakers/readers tend to understand the battle from the German perspective, because there are more books in English that approach the Battle from a German perspective (but that doesn't mean biased) than from the Soviet perspective. This is because Western historians who wanted to paint an accurate picture of the battle couldn't do it from the Soviet perspective until the 1990s when Soviet archives started becoming available to the public. But even so, many Western historian still have to rely on Russian historians and a handful of Western historians to summarize Soviet archival data, because they can't access it themselves due to language and bureaucratic barriers. EyeTruth (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand that Russian material may be difficult to acquire but I'm just asking about images and there are only around a dozen on this page so it shouldn't be hard to find 4 Russian ones to make it an even NPOV. In the meantime I'm going to change unsubstantiated captions like "exhausted German soldiers" to something supported by facts.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:Monopoly31121993 I have been removing "romanticised" German photo captions from both the Kursk and Prokhorovka articles for some time now. The photo balance in the Kursk article seems about right now, maybe the inclusion of a couple more soviet ones would be useful. Irondome (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Monopoly31121993, I somehow missed your reply. Yes, you have a good point. Like I said above, Soviet pictures are available from Russian photo archives (some of which are easily accessible online), so you can look into uploading the pictures if you're interested. At this webpage you can search for photos in the Krasnogorsk Archive. Also, I believe you intended for this discussion to be on the talkpage of the "Battle of Kursk" article and not on its GA review page. If so, you may want to move this discussion to the article's talkpage (or I could do it), where it would get the attention of other editors that are watching the article. (P.S. I moved it). EyeTruth (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi EyeTruth and Irondome. Thank you both for this. I really appreciate it and all of your work to make Wikipedia a better source for neutral information.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Reads like German revisionist history

As with so many YouTube videos on the Nazi invasion of the USSR, this entry also has the stench of Nazi revisionism within its paragraphs. The closet neo-Nazis are very busy, whitewashing their war with Russia. Take for example the passages with glowingly talk of German commanders "knocking out 30 T-34s and getting the Iron cross". The tendency to heroize the Nazi invasion is throughout this amateurish, biased 'history' of Kursk. The Russian perspective is missing or deliberately minimized: the Russians are barbarians who should not have won, they only won because of sheer numbers against the heroic Nazi war machine. This is how this crap article reads! Rubbish articl written by closet-neo nazis. We see the same crap with Timothy Snyder, neo nazi 'historian for the US State Department in their effort to whitewash the new regime of post-Maidan Ukraine. Face it: the Nazis lost. No amount of 'would have/could have/should have' will change this fact, written in stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.29.7 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a specific RS or multiple-RS material that you would like to use to help improve the article? 98.67.1.188 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Right answer :) GAB^Hello! 22:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

German Casualties source serious Problems

Starting with source nr 14. German medical records. These are not the original german records as they are translated into English, when reading the original german ones also given on the same site some really interesting things can be noted. The source for the german casualties are only the regular army heer and completely disregards waffen SS casualties as far as i can tell. There is a section for Heer, luftwaffe and kriegmarine losses, but none for SS. No SS groups, divisions or corps are listed in the 10 daily reports either.

Next, the reports lists suicides, sickness, dead in hospital by wounds. However these german casualties are not counted, only KIA WIA and MIA are counted, while the russian section by kirosheev does count death by suicide, sickness and died of wounds later.

Same site, also notes that there were several hundred thousand wounded in hospital in august 1943. If not a single person came out of hospital healthy, was send home or died betwen 31. of July and 31. of August, the increased amount of wounded in the hospital would still be more than 100,000. And that no one got healthy, was send home or died during this period is obviously completely unrealistic. Therefor the amount of wounded must be significantly higher than that.

Finally the way the casualties are intepretated all together is in this source is very questionable, the KIA document as referenced earlier, read: "Im Ganzen vom 22.6.41 bis 31.8.43" Which means between 22. 6. 1941 to 31. 8. 1943, it states only about half a million had died. This source, is also the same source the Russians captured from the OKW in 1945 it seems, on the german losses in ww2 wikipage, it says that this source was critiqued by historian Krivosheev as being contradictionary and unreliable.

In conclusion The source used for german casualties, claims that the german ww2 casualties overall, was less than they were, the infobox disregards SS casualties, deaths in hospitals and possibly foreigners fighting for the german army. I recommend that the german casualties is thoroughly revised, or that someone explains how exactly they read these documents to give such low numbers from a source that makes such low claims.

CarlGGHamilton (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for bad English.

Why do you think that the Soviet losses in the Krivosheev's book reliable? we can not in any way to test them. In open sources, Soviet 10-day reports of Soviet military losses are not published. why do we have to change the German losses and not to change the Soviet? where is the evidence that the Soviet losses correct?

The only reason why you find contradictions in the German papers - in the public domain is a lot of different documents on the German losses. And anyone can analyze and compare them. As for the Soviet losses, we know only one source (Krivosheev). how to check his numbers? who have seen and checked the documents on which Krivosheev counted the Soviet losses?

German losses in the Battle of Kursk in accordance Zetterling, Kursk 1943, from 5.07 to 23.08.43 203 000 KIA, MIA, WIA (p. 116). Zetterling is reliable source.Yura2404 (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say i consider Krivosheev's book reliable, I didn't make him the source, someone else did. Krivosheev is the source for nearly all soviet casualties on every battle on wikipedia involving soviets. I did not make this. But other articles on wikipedia disputes the source that is the kursk german casualties source, including the wiki article of german casualties in world war 2.

Also what makes Zetterling a good source and Krivosheev a bad one? CarlGGHamilton (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"Krivosheev is the source for nearly all soviet casualties on every battle on wikipedia involving sovets" for only one reason - we do not have other sources of information on Soviet losses. Why Soviet losses in Kursk battle 863 000 soldiers, and not for example 2 000 000 ??? who checked numbers of Krivosheev?

For German losses Zetterling is reliable source. Respected military historians did not deny his numbers.Yura2404 (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand you don't like Kirosheev, but my objection about this article isn't about him anyway. And it's good that the historians you like doesn't dislike Zetterling. But this doesn't address any issues i originally raised anyway. CarlGGHamilton (talk) 19:01, 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.Yura2404 (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Tank losses and strength skewed

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.

CarlGGHamilton (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

References

Citation errors

Hi all. I have corrected some citation errors of one type, but there's several citation errors that remain.

• There's no book "Healy 2008"
  • Corrected to 2010. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• There's no book "Brand 2000"
  • 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)
• There's no book "Nipe 2012"
  • Corrected to 2010.Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• There's no book "Zamulin Britton 2011"
  • Stuart Britton was the translator. This listing error was corrected.Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• There's no book "Brand 1983"
  • This is an article by Dieter Brand. Date corrected to 2003. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• The book Carell, Paul; Osers, Ewald (1966–1971). Hitler's War on Russia is not used.
• The book Glantz, David M. (1990). The Role of Intelligence in Soviet Military Strategy in World War II is not used.
• The source Hinley, Sir Harry (1996). "The Influence of ULTRA in the Second World War" is not used.
• The book Keegan, John, ed. (2006). Atlas of World War II is not used.
• The book Restayn, Jean; Moller, N. (2002). Operation "Citadel" is not used.
• The source Töppel, Roman (2001). "Die Offensive gegen Kursk 1943 – Legenden, Mythen, Propaganda" is not used.
• The book Weingartner, James (1991). Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler: A Military History, 1933–45 is not used.
• The book Pinkus, Oscar (2005). The war aims and strategies of Adolf Hitler is not used.
  • These books were removed from the Reference section, a Further reading section was added and these books were placed in this new section. Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

These Harvard citation errors were identified using the script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. -- Diannaa (talk)

I will look more into these problems later today. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 13:21, 25 October 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? 98.67.1.188 (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)

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)

Slow down

K.e., please stop editing like a bull in a china shop, :) and allow time for comments in the relevant T/P sections. Please remember WP:CONSENSUS. Please take this in the collaborative spirit in which it is meant. I have had a wikibreak, and we worked positively on the SS formations articles crap removal. we are now entering the territory of less outrageous articles and I think we should discuss more subtle points more. There is no WP:DEADLINE remember! Regards, Simon Irondome (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, will do! I was thinking the article was overdue for a revamp, but I can definitely wait for a consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Photo collection

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)

Agree with the above. To help with the balance (in view of the lack of available Soviet photos), how about placing either "Soviet KV-1 heavy tanks" or "Memorial "Teplovsky's Hills"" into the infobox? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gunbirddriver: @DMorpheus2: What do you guys think of my suggestion? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I was just thinking of this; we should definitely seek to add more Soviet photos. The imbalance is very noticeable. GAB^Hello! 23:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I commented out a few images and and also swapped out the lead image as discussed above. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that we restore the original infobox image of the Tiger and SS foot soldiers. It is a sinister picture, and displays the reality of the summer of 1943. The nazi war machine was mauled, but still highly dangerous. The war was still far from decisively won, and the image illustrates the formidable force that the Red Army soldier had to face. I have some facsimile newspapers from Britain that I collected that were reprinted here. The July editions reflect a tense uncertainty as to the early stages of Kursk. Overall I think the picture balance is now correct. I would suggest the elegant memorial building picture be put in the losses/aftermath section. Cheers all. Simon Irondome (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe you are right. I put something else back in, but the Tiger and infantry image was a good one, the look of uncertainty on the panzergrenadier's face. Thumbs up to switching it back. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Would like to hear what others have to say. I find the article already heavy on Werhmacht's POV, see for example part of the table of contents:

• 4 Operation along the southern face
  • 4.1 XLVIII Panzer Corps
  • 4.2 II SS Panzer Corps
  • 4.5 Army Detachment Kempf
  • 4.4 Further German progress
  • 4.5 Battle of Prokhorovka

There are no comparative sections for the Soviet armies operating on the southern face. If the section "Operation along the southern face" did not have the above subsections (similar to the current treatment of the northern face), then I would be okay with your suggestion. Otherwise, I feel that the "new" image counter balances somewhat the heavy weighing that the German narrative gets (and it was a Soviet victory after all). In any case, that was my rationale. I would like to hear more opinions on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In general, operations are described from the attacking forces point of view. Thus, it is Operation Citadel we speak of, not the Soviet defensive battle of the Kursk salient. The article attempts to discuss the difficult advance of the German forces and the Soviet measures taken to make it so. The Soviet counteroffensives are described briefly, and links provided to their articles. In those articles the Soviets are given the front billing, and the action is described more from the Soviet perspective. Operation Goodwood is an example. It was the classic successful defense against a massed armour attack. After the war the British Ministry of Defense made instructive movies about it, but the article here is described from the attacker's perspective.

As to images, we should show what we have. Our limit in Soviet images should not mean we forgo showing the images that are available. A similar situation exists in the Western Desert campaign. Of wrecked and burning German tanks there are about 30 images in the various articles. Damaged or burning British tanks there are I believe 2 images. It is not that the Germans did not create wrecked British tanks, or did not take pictures of them, but the Bundesarchive does not share those images, and the British took very few. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily always from the attacking side's perspective. Compare to Winter War: even though the Soviet Union attacked Finland (and eventually won), the infobox picture depicts Finnish soldiers. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Having raised this in the first place, I still feel the photo selection, and to a lesser extent the writing, is very heavily tilted towards a German POV. Also: it was not simply a German offensive operation, it was the most important land campaign of 1943, for which both sides prepared for many months, and which included very large-scale offensive operations on both sides. With respect, I think we should work on rebalancing this. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DMorpheus2, having mentioned this before. Here's a POV statement I picked up: while accurate, it seems to imply that the opponents somehow had it easy, while Germans "worked in 'boiling' tanks, in sweltering weather conditions, and frequently suffered from heat exhaustion". K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is down to a lack of suitable Red army images, pure and simple. Irondome (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I commented out a few images -- the sections were too crowded. Please let me know if that's a problem.

Separately, I'd like to revising putting the memorial photo in the infobox. It was a major defeat of the Wehrmacht and a big victory for the Red Army, so I think putting the pic of the "winning side" is appropriate. Please let me know what you guys think. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Army Detachment Kempf

This section should either be condensed or other sources added; otherwise too much weight is given to Clark's narrative (Clark, Lloyd (2012). Kursk: The Greatest Battle: Eastern Front 1943). The section also quotes participants (via Clark), including a battalion commander, which is not notable for this level of an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I plan to significantly condense this section in the next few days. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it reads better now. I will work on the other unit sections in the next couple of days. They could also use a trim. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I plan to condense the other sub-sections in the same section (Operations on the southern flank). Please let me know if there are any concerns with this plan or the work that's been done so far. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

1948 source

I question the use of Liddell Hart's 1948 book as a source for the article, while many excellent contemporary sources exist. Here are the statements sourced to LH that could potentially be improved upon by using current sources:

Liddell-Hart was a contemporary, had the opportunity to interview a number of the participants. He provides us with a number of valuable insights. Unless you can argue that what he has offered is incorrect in some manner than there is no reason to expunge his insights from the article. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hitler's belief in his own strategic infallibility as the deciding factor in the conflict resulted in German forces being left tied down in a rigid defence that did not permit them the liberty to move.

This appears to put all of the blame for the Wehrmacht's failings on Hitler; recent historiography suggests OKH and OKW actively participated in planning and directing of operations.

recent historiography suggests OKH and OKW actively participated in planning and directing of operations.' No kidding. Of course OKH planned the operation. It was an army operation. Who else would plan it? The question is who was making the decisions when the plans are presented. The answer is Hitler. Many sources would agree with that, but Liddell Hart puts it more succinctly than most.

• Hitler's policy of holding at all costs may have averted a general collapse in the winter of 1941-42, but thereafter it consistently resulted in forces holding ground until their position became cut off, resulting in their inevitable destruction.
• On 18 February, Hitler arrived at Army Group South headquarters, at Zaporizhia, hours before the Soviets liberated Kharkov. Hitler's distrust of the General Staff and traditional officer corps, and of Manstein in particular, put him at odds with the high command of the Wehrmacht.

Same as above; especially not while Zeitzler was in command.

Same answer as to the source. Zeitzler was not in command. He was the Chief of the General Staff. Are you suggesting Hitler did not distrust the General Staff of the German Army? Why did he create OKW? It is an odd assertion. Many would attest to the conflict, but Liddell Hart has been cited and its fine to leave it as such. Certainly it would not be acceptable to remove the statement without troubling yourself to find another source to cite the statement. That is a practice you have commonly employed in the past and it is a poor practice, as it removes the information from the reader for no valid reason. In fact for no reason at all except to skeletonize the narrative. But as I say, no other source is needed. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• The talented, resourceful Kurt Zeitzler, the OKH Chief of Staff, provided the logistical planning for the operation.

"Talented" is LH's opinion (he had written a book about Hiter's generals, and interviewed them for this book). Megargee (Inside Hitler's High Command) describes Zeitzler as "confident and energetic, to the point of impulsiveness". Megargee further writes: During the first meeting as Chief of Staff, he declared that organization, improvisation, and faith in the Fuehrer will be the key to victory. He also sent a directive that included this statement: "I demand that the General Staff officer be the truest and most reliable assistant -- I emphasize the word 'assistant' -- to his Fuehrer", showing an overt allegiance to Hitler. Megargee also writes: Perhaps more important, his impulsiveness and passion for speed and brevity sometimes encouraged inexact and incomplete work. Several more pages on Zeitzler.

Right. So you are conceding now that Hitler was the key man in charge of strategy and operations, and that Zeitzler viewed himself as someone assisting Hitler. That is correct, but it is not clear from what you have offered why Zeitzler ever got the job in the first place. Quite a few officers of higher seniority were skipped over when Halder was replaced. How did he even come to Hitler's attention? Certainly not for being "inexact and incomplete". How did he get the job? Does Megargee offer us a reason? Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Though the location, plan of attack, and timing were determined by Hitler, he blamed the defeat on his General Staff. Unlike Stalin, who gave his commanding generals the liberty to make important command decisions, Hitler's interference in German military matters progressively increased while his attention to the political aspects of the war decreased.

I'm not sure what is meant by "[Hitler's] attention to the political aspects of the war decreased".

References

The commanders in the field were looking for Hitler to provide a political solution to the war. They wanted to execute operations and wanted Hitler to be active in the political sphere to attain some solution that would leave Germany intact. Along this line an effort was made to make peace with the Soviets during the lull in the fighting during the rainy spring season. This was a possibility the Western Allies were quite concerned with, but in the event no compromise was reached, and in fact it was not pursued with much interest on the part of either Hitler or Stalin. As the war went on Hitler's involvement in finding political solutions became less, and his involvement in the military operations became more pronounced. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Would be there any objections if I replace this source with a contemporary one? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I object to such removals as unneccessary and unhelpful. Unless you can show what is asserted is false they should not be removed.Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Give it till over the weekend for comments to develop K.e.c. Irondome (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree w/ the original suggestion that this source be treated with caution and replaced, where possible, by newer and better sources. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with user DMorpheus2 (talk) on this. See B.H. Liddell Hart#Role in "Rommell myth" for treating this source with a little caution in addition to age of BHL as source

Great, thank you. I've began replacing BLH -- improvements welcome.

You are confusing being treated with caution with removing him entirely. I see in the edits you made you did not replace Liddell Hart as a supporting citation, you removed the statements made altogether. This is not what DMorpheus2 was suggesting. Worse, you have mis-characterized what you are doing. In this edit you justify your edit by stating "This passage, sourced to BLH, does not seem to be needed; the narrative transitions well into the one that now immediately follows”

Hitler's belief in his own strategic infallibility as the deciding factor in the conflict resulted in German forces being left tied down in a rigid defence that did not permit them the liberty to move.{{sfn|Liddell Hart|1948|p=189}}{{sfn|Healy|2010|p=26}} Since December 1942 Field Marshal [[Erich von Manstein]] had been strongly requesting "unrestricted operational freedom" to allow him to use his forces in a fluid manner.{{sfn|Healy|2010|p=27}} Hitler's policy of holding at all costs may have averted a general collapse in the winter of 1941-42, but thereafter it consistently resulted in forces holding ground until their position became cut off, resulting in their inevitable destruction.{{sfn|Liddell Hart|1948|p= 210}} The 6th Army isolated in the Stalingrad pocket surrendered on 2 February.

The passage removed was supported by four citations, two from Liddell Hart and two from Healy. You are removing content that is sourced. You are not looking for other ways to source it. This is the same practice I have seen from you elsewhere. How do you defend the deletion, and how do you justify mis-characterizing your actions in the edit summary? Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The question on any source or any statement in the article is whether or not the assertion is true or false. An assertion is not false simply because a particular historian has said it. If you are unable to show the statements are false, or even probably false, then it is not valid to remove the citation. The comments and citations should stand. The same would be true for any other source. The fact that someone makes an assertion in 2016 does not make it more valid or insightful than another one made in 1948. Removing content on the basis that it is coming from a particular source, or trying to remove all comments by that source from the article, while giving no thought to whether or not the assertions made are true or false does not improve the article. In fact it degrades the article. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the Talk page with other editors participating and no objections raised following my edit. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)