Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:43, 10 July 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Kursk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / Russian & Soviet / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (July 2003–Sept 2009) /Archive 2 /Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by Diannaa, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on April 10, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Soviet Casualties

The section of Soviet casualties lists 863,303 - 1.677,000 men (KIA/WIA?). How is that possible considered that the total no. of German + Russian casualties would amount to over 2000,000 men? Consider Stalingrad as the most bloody battle in history. Moreover, the page on List of battles by casualties only states 257,125–388,000 combined casualties for Kursk. I think this part has been maliciously vandalized. Assassin3577 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Casualties section is a disaster. It is easy to verify, for example, that Germans destroyed practically all Soviet tanks while losing very few of their own, same happened with men. One wonders why did German army not only retreat after such an apparently decisive victory, but was unable to mount a strategic offensive ever again. The problem is clearly with selective quoting of obviously erroneous but technically authoritative sources. Dimawik (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Large sections of the battle description have now been rewritten to sneak this same data into the main text of the article, where it's likely to get overlooked. Not only that, but in the process the text has been made largely unreadable because of the poor English skills of the person doing it. As far as I can tell the data being used is a combination of cherry-picked sources and old German propaganda, and the author seems to be a German (linguistic constructs like 'defensivpositions' litter the text, this is typically German) and presumably doing this for nationalistic reasons. According to the battle description each phase of what's regarded as a failed offensive apparently had German men and tanks killing an order of magnitude (two in some places!) more than they lost. No wonder the generals thought Hitler was crazy to retreat, it was a Rambo movie and they had hundreds of Rambo! There needs to be some recognition that just because it can be cited to SOME source doesn't make it good historical material, and probably a total rewrite from a modern meta-analysis of archival data (written by pros) should be preferred ahead of 'authoritative' random history books. 76.68.27.226 (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The number of 1,677,000 were taken from Sokolov's book. This writer (philologist and amateur historian) is known to give exaggerated numbers for Soviet losses. Thus, according to his data, obtained by extrapolation, during WWII Soviet military losses were ~40-50 millions. Obviously, the numbers are unreliable. With regards to Krivosheev, his numbers for Kursk/Zitadelle (defensive phase) are 70330 irrecoverable and 177847 total, for two counter-offensives 112529/429890 and 71611/255566, accordingly. This gives 863303 KIA/MIA/WIA/POW.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations for this section are a mess. The idea of the citation is so that one can look up the source material.

Citation 7(German Zitadelle losses):"German sources, excluding 2. Army". Which german sources? Why is the 2nd army excluded?

Citation 8(German low tank losses estimate):"OKW sources". Which ones?

Citation 15(Soviet high men estimate):"Boris Vadimovich Sokolov". No book or page specified.

Citation 16(Soviet low tank losses estimate):"Russian sources. Likely to low". Again no particular source. What does "likely to low" mean in this context?

Citation 20(total Kursk Soviet tank losses):"Russian sources". Same as above

Citation 21(total Kursk Soviet tank losses):"Only confirmed kills by Luftwaffe pilots, so likely higher. Russian sources for aircraft losses are historically irrelevant.". How is this even a citation? There is only a random claim with no source.

With regard to citation 20 and 21. The appropriate wikipedia pages list total Soviet 1943 tank and aircraft production are 24 000 and 35 000 respectively. The figures given for the Soviet tank and air losses for the total battle, in combination with the lack of sources seem very dubious. D2306 (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the references in case the citation numbers change. Hopefully someone with some relevant sources can provide them.

Edit: I didn't just replace them with fact tags, just in case the sparse information is enough to remind the editor who added them. Hohum (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Having prodded around the article a bit more, it may be that the sources being referred to as "German" and "Russian" are those currently noted in Footnotes and , but this is far from clear. Hohum (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cit. 14 (Grif sekretnoski snajt.) is the G. F. Krivosheev study (Rossiya i SSSR voynakh XX veka : poteri vooruzhennykh sil : statisticheskoe issledovanie / pod obshchey redaktsiey G. F. Krivosheeva, Moskva, OLMA-Press, 2001, ISBN 5224015154), the most reliable source on soviet and russian military casualties that I know. No idea why whoever tagged it "likely to low". I just checked and the number is correct, although not split by type of casualties. The casualties are for 5-23 July incisively and are: 70330 irrecoverable (dead died of wounds, or missing) and 107517 sanitary (wounded, ill, frostbite (which in this battle is irrelevant)), total 177847.

Footnotes 3 and 5 do not seem to mention casualties. Also they do not give anything more than the location of the archive so it is hard to verify. Overall, it seems odd, that after so much controversy and editing on the article page in the Casualties section, it is currently dubious figures with dubious sources. D2306 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Having reread the current article. I noticed some inconsistence about about how the German and soviet casualties are looked at. As I mentioned earlier, German Zitadelle exclude the 2nd army according to the citation itself. But the whole Battle of Kursk seem to miss out the casualties sustained by German armies which did not participate in Zitadelle, but were routed in the 2 Soviet counteroffensives. The armies are the 2nd Panzer army and the AG Kempf. To a smaller extent The First panzer Army and the Fourth army were also involved. Krivosheev gives the Soviet casualties for the couteroffensives, but while the Zitadelle phase involved only 77 divisions and 9 tank and mechanized corps, the counteroffensives involved 132 divisions and 19 tank and mechanized corps over a much wider front, involving more German units sustaining casualties. D2306 (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified and directly linked and to the Krivosheev website, but more work needs to be done to sort this out, obviously. Hohum (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"likly to low" becaus many buried russian soldiers were not even enlisted men, krivoshev lists only enlisted men thats why his overall casualtiesfigures for ww2 are to low, there are at least 1 million men missing .FACT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it now so that you have the correct geographical area and time frame on both side, the 800K for the USSR includes several more operations and a longer time frame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadstepsff (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

U didnt fix something u added wrong numbers which are disputed by nearly everybody. When u want to add other numbers then give the source for it. U cant delete cited numbers. If u have further question regarding citing of sources then u may search for a mentor Blablaaa (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My numbers are correct, here let me explain.

There is a difference in what was the battle of Kursk.

The main difference is the amount of time, day months etc etc

And in the geographical area.

When you quote Kiroshev you are quoting not only the battle of Kursk as the Germans saw it but also a much larger area and Several more operations that were in different geographical areas and during different time frames.

Including the area down to the Crimea.

But Kiroshev does give a number which is the same as is given for the same area and time fram as has been written for the axis, which is a splash over 200K

I took that area and time period that is appropriate to the Battle of Kursk as the text is written. Then you get those numbers

For the Germans there is a problem because when you include German claims you get a great, even massive overestimate, the easiest example is the Battle of Britain now you know exactly how many planes the British lost there, but if you look at the German claims you get a huge number which is clearly wrong.

That is a big problem, since often you have overlapping USSR battles vs small Axis battles, so the same soldiers gets killed several times over for the USSR and the same tank gets blown up several times.

Also some common sense, The USSR could not have lost over 6000 tanks vs 500 and the same goes for airplanes, and Soldiers 170K VS 883K. Losing 1 million in 2 months would be a gigantic loss it is totally way out there. When you get such a huge difference you must start asking yourself perhaps the same areas are not covered, perhaps it is a different time frame. Roadstepsff (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Argh!!! we cite Glantz and Frieser and Zetterling and Bergstrom and and and. They are indeed able to understand the scope of the battle. I have glantz and frieser and both agree about that numbers and both compare russian and german numbers and they will not compare them with different time frames. None of this historian use german claims for tanks losses or men losses for the soviets. This a soviet numbers. Blablaaa (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I admit that sometime its worth to question the opinion of historians but if all of the recent works about this confirm this number then u are wrong. The crimea area is not included!!!! And please rethink your logic regarding general losses. Blablaaa (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not round the Soviet casualties up to a round trillion. That is a far more realistic estimate isn't it? I'm almost positive it must have taken a million Russians to kill a single German, and there is no chance in Hell they could ever destroy one of the invincible German tanks. Come to think of it, did the Russians even win the war? Maybe Germany did in fact occupy Moscow? THE FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE ARE LUDICROUS!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.172.119 (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

because u say so ? Do u have some hard facts or are u simply upset about correct figures? Blablaaa (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammar, spelling, presentation.

While understanding that, for some editors, English is not their first language (and also noting that their skills with it are far beyond my ability in anything other than English); The quality of this article is being damaged by very poor copy editing.

German, Russian, Red Army are all names, and should be capitalised; as should all month names. The manual of style for date formatting suggests that articles keep a consistent style. In this article, it is 18 July 1943, not the 18th July, 1943.

References, by convention, go after commas, and periods.

Please take the time to preview your edits before saving them. Spelling mistakes have often been of words that are correctly spelled elsewhere in the same edit.

I have just spent some time cleaning up several dozens of avoidable issues. Some edits are so riddled with issues that I'll start reverting them entirely instead of repairing them, as they damage the article more than they improve it.

Do not feel that your contributions are not valued, but it is primarily the responsibility of the contributing editor to ensure their additions are of the quality required. Hohum 05:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

noticed! Blablaaa (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I must agree that quite a bit of work is necessary on this article to clean it up grammatically (I won't even begin to go into the numerous POV issues - this is something the editors and peer-review will have to address-I just hope no student uses it in its current state for some school report). There are problems with even the opening paragraph as of Memorial Day 2010. Please set aside all pro-German and pro-Russian bias, and work towards a balanced, believable and GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT article. This is the English Wiki and must conform to well-written English. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

The destruction of the Prokhorovka Myth

This myth is one of the biggest of the entire war and historians like overy and glantz were punked.

- please resist the urge to use slang such as 'punked' as it reduces your value as an editor in others' eyes.

I note at one point you were also using foul language - this avails you nothing.

Enthusiasm is admirable but neutrality is essential. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

All historians which used only russian sources are totally useless. Overy simple cited rotmistrovs fantasy number of 350. the number of 350 german tank losses was introduced by rotmistrov himself. Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Band 6 has an complete chapter about the fantasy stories of rotmistrov and how lazy and unskilled historians like overy are coping this statements. The best example is glantz who is cited with using the 350 ^^ and is cited for 343 overall german tank losses ^^. Thats why its better to name the secondary source and the used primary source so we can avoid that users like dapi search historians which got punked by one primary ( which is allready descredited even by russian historians)and present them like many different historians with the same opinion.... . no source which cites rotmistrov for numbers ( some other things are ok ) should be allowed for wiki. also this sources can not be used for the outcome tactical stalemate , lol ? Blablaaa (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

dapi please take your books and tell me which source is cited for the 350 german tanks. Blablaaa (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by dapi

User dapi did several edits which look for me kinda strange or even bias

• the infobox

some weeks ago i created the infobox with good reliable data, mostly zetterling koltunov frieser. i created notes so that everyone can check fast which units had how much men/tanks. this numbers were near perfect now dapi changed into the numbers of glantz, who seems to be a bit dubios . glantz was earlier convicted for using russian extrem propaganda like rotmistrov, his books cited rotmistrov and used faked sources.

what was changed? the infbox now has lower numbers for men, this is explained fast and easy. The menpower before was the so called Verpflegungsstärke , iam missing the english word but this means the strengh was every listed personnel in this units so auxillary units were included. i decided to take this number becuse most articles use this number. but the russian number dropped by 900.000. this is explained easily too. glantz/dapi ( i dont know if glantz really uses this number ) didnt count the entire steppe front ^^ i explain this "trick" with tanks:

the tanks: we can see perfectly on the tanks. before dapis edit, the infbox showed 4.900 russian AFV but now only 3,155. i looked my sources and find 1,607 tanks for the central 1,699 voronez that makes 3,306( this is glantz numbers plus some tanks), this number is already higher than glantz "numbers" but now it comes, he totally forgot the steppefront with 1,632 tanks, the same steppefront which used many of his armies to support the southern wing. to exclude the steppefront is nothing less than russian bias and vandalizm . during operaiton zitadelle the westernfront and the brijansk front started attacking the german units both fronts together fielded another 3,200 tanks lol . but this troops are no included. i dit not include this troops too because i was aware that this will be reverted but to be honest all participating russian fronts fielded ~8,000 tanks ^^( to compare please take zetterling who wrote a book about the numbers of kursk ) but glantz achieve a much lesser number with excluding entire fronts. alone rotmistrovs 5th Guards Tank Army fielded 800 tanks and attacked mansteins tropps^^. so the russian numbers are simply selective, if a front took part or dont doesnt madder... .but why are the german tanks so high now?

while glantz is excluding entire russian fronts he brings a strange number for german tanks, when i check the sources i found 3,534 tanks ( zetterling/frankson wrote a book only about the numbers behind kursk, frieser and the german ministry for militarystudy support with primary data) for the eastern front. glantz brings 3,155 tanks . lol . i dont know were this numbers came from but this would mean that the 3 german armies had 90% of all tanks in this 3 armies ( one is only armygroup ). this is bullshit we have a list for all german units and tanks, glantz number is wrong. the joke is while he excludes the entire steppe front brijansk and westernfront he dont excludes all the german reserves which werent used like the tankcorps around the 5th SS wiking this units werent used. but the used russian units are excluded . heavy bias.... . i can support my points with sources . i would suggest dapi does the same and we discuss the book of glantz. please tell me what glantz says why he excludes the other fronts.... . to avoid such bias i created notes so that every reader can click and see immediate which army/front had how much tanks, that was good i think....

dapi comments his changes with "removing unreliable ed" ] he calls frieser ( and the Militärgeschichtliche Forschungsamt Deutschland and his 5 co-autors ) zetterling/frankson ( they made a book only about the numbers of kursk ) and koltunov unreliable even krivosheev becomes "dubios" for user dapi ]. while he uses glantz who was punked by blatant propaganda] and seems to fake numbers to support his fact that red army didnt need numerical superiority. a interesting example is that dapi uses glantz to cite 350 tank losses for prokhorovka ( the mythbattle) and the same book is used to cite 340 losses for the complete "zitadellecampaign" :-) . here it must be noted that user dapi89 is a big fan of frieser, he is citing him always when talks about blitzkrieg and to revert edits on the blitzkrieg- page. so his opinions is not straight...

• other edits which elimanted every negativ words about the read army

dapi eliminated many negativ comments about the red army and positiv about the wehrmacht. why?

friesers opinion about models good retreat, where model inflicted more than 5 times higher casualties( some historians think inflicting heavy casualties is a form "skill") against his enemie, was deleted.

he deleted the statement of a soviet marshall about the problems of the t-34 because dapi pushed the opinion that the t-34( look dicussionpage and the reason for failures ) was the superior tanks, and when a soviet marshall explains the problems, he delets this.

• ....

here dapi delets my tags ] , while i edited this article many editors made tags and asked for explanation or cites, are always improved this problems fast as possible. look hohum edits for example, i always tried to clarify or improve than i make such tags because dapi edited something dubios and useless, but he simply deletes this tags. i made a section on the discussionpage and asked for explanation he dont replies he only delets

the critic ] .

here he deletes operation roland ] . maybe this section is unneeded and it is correct do delete but why dont ask or discuss? i made so much section on the discusspage, i explained every change nobody responded, dapis comes and simply erases my edits without discussing...

here ] he deletes the cited statement that the russian counterattack was destroyed in the very beginning. he tarnish his edits with removing a statement about the ferdinands. why deleting this statement? it was cited and relevant and indeed totally true!!! in the same edit he deletes a statement about orders of german generals

here ] he deletes friesers statement with the comment "unsoured" , i said here that all this statements are exactly friesers opinion, so they are cited. he simply removed his opinion after he explained that he dont accepts his opinion. ( while accepting his competence to explain military tactics in "blitzkrieg legende many years earlier )

• who is bias ?

dapi did several changes ( deleted my edits and used "pro russian" ) to support a "pro russian" opinion. here ] he splits the russian casualties and calls this misleading edits, while above the same is done for germans, before this edit he was moaning about the too high russian numbers now after he checked the sources and sees everything correct he edits this figures to present them "correct", same done in the rumanjantzev section, where he adds the word "uncertain" casualties !!! , why uncertain? this are krivos numbers they arent "uncertain". btw dapi thinks russian numbers are "faked" and exclude lightly wounded while soviet dont do this, so there must be a discrepancy. but when we look the sources we find this german casualties for attack 54182 (kia/mia 12.000) makes KIA|WIA ratio of 4,5. russian casualties for kutuzov ( attack ) are 112,529 killed and 317,361 wounded ( ~3) so we see that german even had bigger proportions of wounded , so your thesis now looks "untenable".

here ] he deletes a picture of destroyed t-34 ( not mine edit ) , why? looks a bit strange...

here he deletes friesers and russian marshalls opinions about kutuzov. he calls "overwhelming soviet success"] after i asked for explantion why overwhelming why deleting my text ( discussionpage) no respond...

• rumanjantzev , from and mostly neutral german POV to pro russian

here ] he totally deleted my text with many many cited statements of different historians . he wrote a new text viewing the russian side and surly highlighting the russian skill.

my text : "On the 12th July two of the three newly arrived SS Pz.Divs launched an counterattack. Within the following moving battles (Bewegungsgefecht) several part of the two advancing russian armies were trapped and annihilated. This two armies, which started with 1,112 tanks, were reduced to 234 tanks one day after the German counter-attack. " this statement of two german division attacking 2 russian tank armies is transformed into "For the first time a major German counter offensive had failed to destroy a Soviet exploitation force" , a soviet victory and a example of the coolness. lol ? dapi also deleted that statement of the 800 lost russian tanks which is from the same book, so he decided to take this book to cite everything positiv but deleting the quote about the russian losses... . this statements are on the same page, why cheerypick ?

after this he deleted the german casualties. its obvious that he deleted more than one time german cited numbers which were postioned next to the russian for comparision. i see no reason to delete the german numbers. above called the too low and wrong, while he is completly citing the book of glantz^^ .

after i wrote my texted, aware of german pov, i asked here for somebody bringing the russian POV to neutralize the article ( u can see above) nobody responded. insteadt of mixing german statements and russian dapi deleted my text and wrote pro russian variant which emphazises russian tactics againg. no reason

• reasons for zitadelle become moronic

to support the russian POV ( superior red army despite numerical advantage of 2-3:1 and losses 4-5:1 ) he brings zaloga glantz and overy. now when we look this sources we see that both, overy and glantz are citing the old nasty prokhorovka myth to support the russian tanker skills, they take the totally wrong sources of prokhorovka .... lol . its a disgrace that a book like Steelguards is cited here on wiki i explained my concerns above but nobody responed , i asked for primary source of this books to proof they a wrong, nobody responded.

it must be noted that dapi added 2! bias marks to the article before he started the above listed edits, iam not sure if wanted to announce that he starts biasing the article.(just a joke...)

When i look dapis page i see he had done many many good contributions, i like his articles about german pilots very much . i hope that the admins now dont become influenced by dapis good edits before he started his crusade here. i dont know what to do now so i think we should get some neutral admins in to discuss the problems. please dont hesitat do ask me for more explanation or sources to support my points. iam ready to discuss the sources and what to do now, u can look above i plan to improve this article. i hope my older edits show this

u can contact via talk page too i will respond to every question.... Blablaaa (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anyone has the patience to read this enormous wall of text, especially since it's grammar is rather poor. Your English is doubtless far better than my best second language, but it is difficult to read, especially if you don't take the care to make it as clear as possible. However, even if it was perfect English, you'd need to be far more concise to keep people's attention. This is no doubt unfair, but no less true.

One point I will make is that Blablaaa has been willing to discuss his changes, while Dapi largely has not - instead taking the opportunity of Blablaaa's short ban to make many changes without discussion on the talk page.

I believe both editors have been uncivil, and I reject excuses from either for this. Blablaa is clearly enthusiastic, but I would caution him to take more time to perfect his article-edits, fix issues with previous article-edits before forging ahead with new ones, listen to advice, and take more time considering what he wants to say on a talk page before blurting it out.

Dapi, conversely, could be more communicative on the talk page, and less dismissive of other editors. A single proven mistake in interpretation doesn't give free reign to revert many other edits which use reliable sources, without showing that they are incorrect as well.

Musical interlude to distract you from the length of this post

This criticism is intended to be constructive, please take it that way. Choosing between enthusiastic+careless or knowledgeable+surly, I prefer neither.

Unless a source has been deemed specifically unreliable, there isn't a good reason to exclude its information. If you can't agree on a source for numbers, use both/all/a representative range. Misplaced Pages is not about you think is true (your POV), it's about including what reliable secondary sources say.

So, now, instead of talking about each other, could we talk about how to include useful information in the article? Hohum 20:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

noticed!!! btw i see myself as "knowledgeable" too ^^.... Blablaaa (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hohum said: "I doubt anyone has the patience to read this enormous wall of text"...well guess what? I read it all. I want to point out that I very much agree with Blablaa's concerns over Dapi. How did Dapi get away with so many reverts, so many deletions of reliably well sourced content? That's not productive at all and deeply concerning to me. The many edits of Dapi was not NPOV at all. It showed a biased POV to me. Hohum did you deal with this matter with Dapi? I realize this occured two months ago but I would like to know nevertheless. Thanks Caden 11:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The dapi issue is complicated i will raise it if new problems evolve. Please take a look in this 2 edits, after reviewing everything is clear. ] , here he adds the propaganda numbers for german tank losses. while he here uses the new also to high but better numbers ]. So he added the number from glantz old book( which had soviet propaganda numbers) while he has his new books which not uses this wrong numbers again. but he edited them after getting furios after i added friesers opinion of german superior tank tactics. this both edits are undisputable. one reason of my blocks from nick was that i claimed dapi is breaking wiki rules and editing wrong numbers. funny, isnt it? but i will not raise issue again. but please take a look .... Blablaaa (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Blablaaa for those two diffs. It's exactly what I thought. Hmmm..Glantz..Soviet BS numbers..looks deliberate to me. He should of been blocked for that. Since this was two months ago nothing can be done now. Caden 12:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

From the lack of replies in the last 2 months, you are clearly in the minority - I was advising being concise at is far more effective at getting a point across.

It's better to concentrate on the article rather than editors on this talk page, there are more relevant venues to do the latter. Reopening whatever issues I may have with editors will only be a distraction. (Hohum ) 11:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree but it's difficult to focus on the article if there's editors who are not following policy. Regardless of this, too much time has passed. Thanks. Caden 12:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The user is offline at the moment so i see no reason to push for block or sanctions, even if he would be actice now it would be no good idea if he not continues with this edits. I prepared my "defence" and found this edits, but my talk page abilities were blocked so i could not publish them. after the block expired i thought no need to create more problems. Interessting and funny is that many of the reasons for my block were "wrong" accusations against dapi. I presented the facts to nick but he ignored them completly. It was kinda strange. Only off topic. Blablaaa (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Although you both "agree" and "will not raise issue again", you clearly are bringing it up again - this page isn't the venue to complain about editors, call for blocks, or make accusations - this is an unnecessary distraction. Please redact your comments and concentrate on the article. (Hohum ) 12:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hohum, please drop it okay? The discussion has ended already. But do have a nice day. Caden 12:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

T34's 76mm tubes?

Can anybody explain what the words: "The T-34 model (only a few of which were equipped with 76 mm tubes), was out-ranged by German Tiger and Panther tanks but was faster and more manoeuvrable." mean? Did I understand correct that "76 mm tubes" mean the T34 main gun, and if that is the case, what gun other T34 were equipped with?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that 'tube' is an American usage for 'gun'. Keith-264 (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

sounds like a "mistake". 76 mm gun was standart at this time, wasnt it? Blablaaa (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I mean. I remove this wrong statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Strength and casualties again

I am somewhat bemused with the infobox figures. Although German strength and casualties are clamed to be taken from Frieser, they are in direct contradiction with the numbers provided by one of Frieser's co-authors, Chris Bellamy. He speaks about ~70 German divisions involved in the Battle of Kursk, and about more than a half a million killed, seriously wounded, captured or missing, with overall German-Soviet ratio of 1 to 1.5. ("Absolute war", p. 594). In addition, the number of troops contradicts to what Glantz says (he speaks about a million of German troops.) Although the way the infobox is organized now is definitely a progress, the numbers need to be fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

i have Glantz(2005) and Frieser( 2007) both have relative consense about strenghtes and casualties. soviet casualties were enormous compared to german , in men, in tanks, in guns and in aircraft, their is no dispute about this. the 500.000 nonsense is soviet propaganda often used. for the losses archivs of both side are used. when u find a book which uses 500.000 german casualties for zitadelle+kutuzov+rumjantzev then u can put it away ( only my off topic advice ). Blablaaa (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

regarding the strenghts. the problem is that some authors use complete strenghtes and some only combat units. if u use full strenghtes ( like glantz) than u use a number which is in favor for soviets. German percentage of combat units was lower. Full strenght also includes wounded and hiwis and so on ( for german side ) . Blablaaa (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Full strenght also includes wounded and hiwis and so on" Auxiliary units existed in all armies. Obviously, only a part of troops participate in actual hostilities. However, such a play with numbers is hardly correct. I see no reason to trust Frieser (and his German published volume) and not to trust Bellamy's "Absolute war", who is British (not German and not Russian) scholar. Under a pretext of avoiding Soviet propaganda (btw, the USSR had dissolved 19 years ago, what Soviet propaganda are you talking about?) you are trying to introduce German views, that may be equally biased (although towards the opposite side). The references to Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg should be complemented with other sources. The same approach should be applied to other EF articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Like i said above both Frieser and Glantz have the same numbers. Frieser gives only combat units but says what full strenghtes were. There is no POV he mentions both numbers and explains that german percentage of auxillary units was much higher. They had no battle value so he likes to compare this numbers. Glantz wrote exclusivly a book about Kursk and Frieser has in his Book the major Part about Kursk. Both have the same numbers!!! With german and soviet archives. And sovit units of 43 did not include their wounded in strenghtsnumbers btw. And such "play with numbers" is a bit irrelevant because its changed nothing and both are mentioned Glantz and Frieser. I researched about Bellamy his book is written primary of soviet sources. So even soivet sources for german losses. and now when we look of soviet propanda wartime figures for german losses : 500.000 men!! if u want to include them in the article then do it , but i think it would be better to do it in the casualties section. than u should also include that bellamy printed the soviet wartime figures so the reader knows what happended. Glantz and Frieser( frieser mainly is copieng guys with soviet data ) used archiv data of both, soviets and german. Blablaaa (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Look i created the tables: The choise of combat units brings only 0.3 % difference. The table clearly shows how this discrepancy evoled i hope. If u think Frieser is to german POV than i can switch Frieser and Glantz so Glantz is the first. Blablaaa (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox, i did not write the strenghtesBlablaaa (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To avoid a conflict about pushing POV ( i dont want problems) please stop ignoring that i told u that i use the numbers of GLantz and Frieser! Thank u.... Blablaaa (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Zetterling/Frankson who wrote a book only about kursk and statistics, have the same casualties numbers... Blablaaa (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul i added the detailed casualties figures from dapis sandbox. i think its ok so? what do u think ?

Sorry for not responding earlier, I am somewhat busy now, so if you don't mind, I'll respond in details later. I am not sure if everything is ok now, but the figures seem to be more reasonable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Result section

The section now is unsourced. Maybe we write a new one or update the recent with some citiations. Frieser has the opinion that Kursk can not be seen as a "turning point" and sees the strategic significanse as limited. He also explains that the situation before and after kursk were no really different. I think its worth to mention this. So i would appreciate help.Blablaaa (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe we need to re-write it. It looks fine. However, it lacks sources in the first part. In regards to Frieser's opinion, I don't know. Maybe other editors can weigh in on that. If it's worth mentioning, then so be it. I'm interested in what others have to say on this. Caden 00:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

K we will wait. I can write here on the discussion page a little text summarizing Friesers statement. Then others can decide if its worth to mention. In my opinion ( iam not new with warfare ) his conclusion is logic and his arguments are strong. But last wait for some input of other editors. Blablaaa (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with you writing a little text here on the talk page. If his arguments are strong then go for it. Others can weigh in on this and we can all discuss it right here. It's a good idea. Caden 10:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Frieser's opinion here contradicts practically anyone else's and thus is marginal. As such, can be mentioned (but with clear indication of its contrarian nature). Dimawik (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dont mix "turningpoint" with "strategic important". But iam not sure how much sources support which point. Many pre90 ( soviet archives ) call Kursk a turning point but more recent maybe not. Frieser disputes it Glantz ( not sure here have to look again ) doesnt says much about this issue. Blablaaa (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Can u provide some sources? Anyway iam only able to write something about frieser or glantz. Blablaaa (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dimawik. Isn't the contradiction worth noting? Could it be mentioned briefly? Blablaaa can you tell me what Glantz says specifically? Caden 06:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Opposing forces

We should expand this section, with a little comparison of the armor and the airforces. Blablaaa (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

German casualities

According to http://ww2stats.com/index.html losses of German forces (KIA+WIA+MIA) on Eastern Front during May-June 1943 are 7891+30375+3049+6682+28047+837=76881. Losses during July-August 1943 are 34874+147053+14674+33962+134263+20272=385098. The difference is ~310 thousand, almost twice higher than stated in current article (170k).

http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_tow43.html

Combined losses of Army Groups South and Center during July-August 1943 are 325 thousand (KIA+WIA+MIA).

http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec43.html

Olvegg (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of Kursk wasn't the only combat taking place on the Eastern Front? (Hohum ) 22:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

]Blablaaa (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

order of battle

on the german wiki i try to include the participating armies in the text. i think we can do the same here. can anyone take a look on the german version and give an opinion . i think it looks better and the reader can see it faster. Blablaaa (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It does look better. You should include here. Caden 18:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the Battle of Kursk order of battle article? It already includes much of that content and is a better place for it given the level of detail. It could do with some expansion, formatting and referencing. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes i saw the order of battle article. It has 25 view per day . I think its maybe a good idea to include this informations in the article. When this boxes are hidden they are very small so the dont inflate the article i guess. Maybe i include them and then all can take a look and give an opinion. If there is consense against them i will remove them Blablaaa (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the order of battle for the Wehrmacht. If u like it, i will do the same for the red army. I think it looks good.... Blablaaa (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job Blablaaa! It looks awesome! Caden 20:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i hope nick gives an opinion too, then i will do the same for the red army. Blablaaa (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure other opinions are cool but Nick doesn't decide what goes in or not. He's welcome of course but consensus is what decides. Anyway, you should include the same for the Red Army. It's awesome for the readers and easy to read. Caden 21:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have simplified the presentation so that it's easier to maintain. (Hohum ) 22:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice job Hohum :) Caden 23:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the OOB is unnecessary clutter given that there's a dedicated article (whose small number of views suggest that this isn't a topic of interest to many readers), but whatever - I personally like orbats but generally write them as text in the article and have a separate OOB article. It would be helpful if the German terms were translated into their common English-language terms (eg, 'Panzergrenadierdivision' is normally referred to as 'Panzer Grenadier Division' and 'Panzerdivision' 'Panzer Division' - I presume that 'Heeresgruppenreserve' is 'Army Group Reserve' and it should be translated as such to prevent readers from thinking that this was a single unit rather than a group of units). Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What?? Unnecessary clutter? I completely disagree. The boxes are hidden and do not clutter the article. The order of battle has a place in this article, is informative to the readers and is on topic. The dedicated article on the order of battle you mention is clearly of no interest to readers since it's had very few views. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged into this article. In regards to German terms being translated into English, I have done that for you so I hope that you are content with that. If I forgot any I'm sure another editor will grant your request. Caden 21:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Casualty figure sources

I try to make it short: Igors figures ( actually this are the immediate wartime propaganda numbers published by the soviets) are 7 times !!! higher than the accepted figures of Glatz Frieser Zetterling Frankson and and and. This is nothing else than an extraordinary claim, such a claim needs heavy reference. User igor brings russian website with glorious battle descriptions. Most of his sides are fanboysites. Nothing more than forums. I explained this issue to user Igor , he is not understanding the problem. I will revert every edit of him which includes extraordinary claims without extraordinary reference. Regarding the issue, the numbers a--Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)re indeed absolute nonsense, for the battle of kursk they exceed the number of german troops participating. I write this to make sure that my reverts are no edit warring, i only delete blatant vandalism. Blablaaa (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You can not say "fanboyssites" or "forums". Can you prove it ?

According to soviet information the germans lost from 5 untill 23 July 1943 in the Kursk Defence Operation 70.000 soldiers dead, 2.900 tanks and 1.392 planes.

http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/37833-diplomatiya-antigitlerovskoj-koalicii-cel-odna.html

http://www.soldat.ru/doc/vgk/1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Piryazev (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

> http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/37833-diplomatiya-antigitlerovskoj-koalicii-cel-odna.htm doesn;t look reliable. The Soldat.ru site is Krivosheev, which is reliable. Please pick out any numbers derived from the first site and remove it as a reference. (Hohum ) 21:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Also:

Assume good faith, and don't immediately accuse of vandalism.

Only use WP:RELIABLE sources. (Hohum ) 21:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesnt madder if its krivosheve. Iam fimilar with Krivo, in his works he simply publishes the wartime "estimations" of red army, he also arks them as this. I had a similar situation on normandy, a reliable historian who simply prints figures and doesnt say thats what he thinks, dont makes this figures reliable. i repeat myself it is 7Times!!!!!!! higher figure than establiseh by all recent reliable historians. Blablaaa (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume "vandalism" to protect myself against the wrong accusation of edit warring. An exception of edit warring is reverting of vandalism. I explained the issue. I dont want igor problems, i tried to explain him. Iam not interessted in a prolonged discussion Blablaaa (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To igor. I can read your sites. And iam not blind. A simple text hosted on any website is no reliable source! Blablaaa (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• To Igor: my advice is to add the data from the KOSAVE (see the link and strength numbers in the Russian article). The numbers there are different from Frieser & Co., but as a product of the United States Department of Defense cannot be simply dismissed as some "soviet propaganda". Dimawik (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

They are still soviet propaganda. Frieser also prints this numbers in his book but marks them as nonsense propaganda.

Blablaaa (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This statement of yours sounds a bit strange, in my humble opinion. Are really trying to declare the data by experts working for the US Department of Defense in 1998 (long after the fall of communism) who did have access to both Nazi and Soviet archives to be the "soviet propaganda"? Dimawik (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked the two sources again. The fun is over now. The first website is citing another website, where a simple text is published without any note regarding participatin of any historians. The second seems to be kind of wartime letter or somethingelse with date of 23 july 43 . Guys are u serious????? For me: the discussion is over i will start to go to admin board cause of vandalism for any new inapt source. The issue is explained if somebody brings another website for the claims he tries to disrupt wiki. This is not the kindergarden. We are on Wiki and we use the best possible source for claims. My job is not to check every new website which is brought by igor, because hes simply googling. There are tons of websites which quote other websites. He can continue this game very long. Iam out of the game. I will revert the vandalism and go to the administration board if neccessary. Rediculious.... Blablaaa (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I plan to insert the data from both the US DoD and Russian MoD into the article. We can try to find a WP:RS explaining the difference or just list these different data together (I plan for the latter). We cannot, however, simply dismiss any numbers not matching the current ones from Frieser as "propaganda", quoting only Frieser himself as a proof. Note that in 1943 even German propaganda did not dare to declare a "victory" at Kursk (there were precedents declaring a victory after defeat, see, for example British propaganda after the Dunkirk evacuation). We should not assign modern historians trying today to outdo the Nazi propaganda of 1943 too much WP:WEIGHT. Dimawik (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Read what is written above and than read whats written in the article about reliable sources. Until u have done this please consider not editing the article Blablaaa (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I also want to highlight that u obviously didnt read the discussion. The recent numbers are no numbers of "Frieser", this are the accepted numbers of nearly every real historians. Glantz Zetterling Frankson Frieser ( + rest of mgfa ) i guess Bergstroem too. This numbers are the most accurate numbers which are avaible. I try to make the issue clear again the 70000 german DEAD ( not wounded !!!) is seven times higher than the established figures. This numbers are bollocks. The numbers were created during the war by stavka. Thus the numbers are Propaganda. Iam pretty sure that u are able to find a us websites which "prints" this numbers but its high likly that the site makrs them as wartime estimation. Blablaaa (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

if u look the article, u will see that Glantz ( most respected pro soviet author imho ) gives lower german casualties than frieser. Blablaaa (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article shall contain the numbers from both US DoD and Russian MoD, clearly identified as such (Russian article uses a table). The fact that the KOSAVE data does not match the data from the "new history" books does not invalidate the former; more likely it suggests something is wrong with the latter. Your argument that anything but the "new history" data is "Soviet propaganda" sounds very strange considering the KOSAVE source. The simple fact that the Germans were not able to mount any large-scale offensive in the aftermath of Kursk (which is so far undisputed even by the "new historians" - although some (Evans) already declared that Kursk did not end with Soviet victory) clearly shows that the German Kursk losses were not minor. This said, we are not here to find the discrepancies, we are here to report them, if the discrepancies are between reputable sources, which is clearly the case here. Dimawik (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

please stop change my words. i say soviet propaganda is soviet propaganda. 70000 dead germans during zitadelle are soviet wartime propaganda, totally irrelevant which website prints this numbers, they are still propaganda numbers, is this so hard to understand? u brought no reputable sources.... Blablaaa (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Accepting the premise of the good faith of historians, your thesis that older research is more accurate than recent, contradicts every logic...

Sooo now i took a look on your KOSAVE, iam not sure why u broad this up but the study contradicts u and supports me:

"""(3) Differences in Casualties. From 5-18 July, Soviet casualties were much greater than German. Relative to initial onhand, total casualties amounted to 23 percent of the Soviet force and 12 percent of the German force. The greatest differences were in KIA and CMIA. Overall, the Soviets lost (KIA) nearly 5 men killed for every German killed and 24 CMIA for every German CMIA.

(4) Daily Casualty Rates. If daily average combat casualty rates are averaged over the 5 July-18 July period, the overall Soviet rate was 4 times the German rate.

(6) Fractional Exchange Ratios. Soviet/German FER results computed in favor of Germans, based on both KCMIA casualties and on combat casualties, show that the Germans almost always had an advantage (FER >1). The KCMIA FER exceeds 4.00 on 9 days. However, the historical battle outcome suggests that this was not enough to achieve a decisive victory."""

the study also contains some data regarding the prokohorovka myth:

"""Tank Losses. Total Soviet tank losses (204) are over 20 times German (9). The vast majority of today’s tank conflicts are near Prokhorovka, where the counterattacking Soviet 29 Tank Corps, 18 Tank Corps, and 2 Gds Tank Corps lose a total of 144 tanks against �Leibstandarte SS, Totenkopf SS, and Das Reich, which lose a total of 6 tanks (4 Pz III and 5 Pz IV). Highest Soviet tank losses (88) are in 29 Tank Corps, which loses 60 T-34s and 28 T-70s. Highest German tank losses (four) are in Leibstandarte SS. Most of the Soviet losses are T-34s (119), T-70 (61), and MK-4 Churchill (13). Recorded as damaged in action today are 89 German tanks and 210 Soviet tanks."""

this are the naked numbers for the big legendary victory of the red army at prokhorovka (where the red army stoped the german offensive and destroyed the fighting power of the SS divisions) . Blablaaa (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy that after explaining for some time why KOSAVE should not be used, you finally actually started reading it. I do not understand how do you think that KOSAVE can contradict me, as I am the one suggesting to use it :-) You apparently assume some intentions on my part that I do not have; a bit of WP:AGF on your part will definitely help. Once again, I have no idea who is right and who is wrong. There are many contradictory sets of numbers. You assume this is due to some kind of global deception, organized by some "Soviet propaganda". I apply common sense and think that these discrepancies are due to different definitions of the scope of the battle used by different authors. I therefore think that we need to list all data from WP:RS. Both US DoD and Russian MoD are reputable sources - you and I are not really equipped to judge their intentions, but in any case presuming them both to knowingly lie on the subject of the battle that happened 65+ years ago is ridiculous. I am therefore planning to add lines to the table that reflect the position of experts from both US DoD and Russian MoD. If you have RS that argue that the data I will list are wrong, feel free to add this information - but please do not delete the data. Once again, there seems to be bona fide discrepancy in data, we should reflect it instead of censoring it as in the current text of the article.

I am not equipped to discuss the tank kill ratios in particular engagements. However, as a dose of common sense for you, I would point out that the USSR in 1943 produced about 3 times more tanks than the Nazis, so (since during the war there is no long-term tank storage) we can be 100% sure that the approximate kill ratio throughout 1943 was about 3:1 (well, a little bit higher due to tank losses on other German fronts). As for immediate loss reports providing, as you correctly state, much higher ratio, this IMHO simply indicates that Germans were way too optimistic in judging which of their tanks can be easily fixed. Dimawik (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

91.000 prisoners in Stalingrad are also propaganda ?

http://9may.ru/04.02.1943/inform/m3913

There are many views of Prokhorovka. By Rotmistrov the Germans lost only on 12 July 1943 against his army 10.000 dead soldiers and 350 tanks.

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/rotmistrov2/04.html (see "Только за 12 июля в боях с 5-й гвардейской танковой армией противник лишился свыше 350 танков и потерял более 10 тысяч человек убитыми") In Misplaced Pages must be ALL POINTS OF VIEW. igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Igor if u want to add links to talk page it doesnt bother me. But dont add this numbers to articles. Thank you Blablaaa (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

But you are not a king of wikipedia. You can not improove your opinion with references.

soviet point of view 5-23 july (http://bdsa.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2119&Itemid=29)

german 5-13 july

There are still 10 days. igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

losses are given for both from 5 till 20 july. Everything is fineBlablaaa (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

But you must PROOVE IT. I have references and I dont must proove you that soviet infos are wright.

igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

U dont understood WP:RS. U are a new editor so maybe u should consider searching for guidence Blablaaa (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/37833-diplomatiya-antigitlerovskoj-koalicii-cel-odna.html Doesn't look like a WP:RELIABLE source.

http://www.soldat.ru/doc/vgk/1.html shows an uninterpreted WP:PRIMARY source.

Neither are usable. (Hohum ) 19:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Does not look" is not proof. And this references ? Also propaganda ?

http://www.tankobzor.org/glava7part2.html (see "За время боев с 5 по 23 июля немецко-фашистская армия потеряла 2900 танков, 195 самоходно-артиллерийских установок, 1392 самолета, свыше 5000 автомобилей.")

http://wwii-soldat.narod.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm (see: "Идем дальше. Уже давно и довольно хорошо известно, во всяком случае людям, знакомым не понаслышке с военным делом, что наступающая на подготовленную оборону противника сторона несет значительно большие потери по сравнению с обороняющимися. Дело в том, что находящийся в обороне солдат сидит в укрытии (окоп, траншея, блиндаж и т. п.), а наступающий на него солдат лишен такого преимущества, он должен передвигаться по открытой местности под огнем противника. Так у кого же больше вероятности уцелеть в бою? Оставляем вопрос открытым, пусть читатель сам на него отвечает. А этот факт очернители нашего боевого прошлого почему-то не хотят принимать во внимание. А ведь это – аксиома, не требующая доказательств. В этой связи позволительно спросить такого рода «историков», принимающих на веру домыслы наших бывших противников, а почему же тогда наступающая сторона понесла вдвое меньшие потери, нежели сторона обороняющаяся? Тем более, что ни в танках, ни в артиллерии наступающий превосходства не имел, да и господство в воздухе в ходе сражения немецкая авиация утратила.

Теперь посмотрим на проблему с другой стороны. Сами немцы признают, что их танковые и моторизованные дивизии понесли большие потери в танках. Не помогла им и новая техника, на которую они возлагали такие надежды. Так, их танковые корпуса, составлявшие основу ударных группировок, которые должны были сокрушить советскую оборону, во время наступления на Курской дуге потеряли от 60 до 80 % своих танков. Вследствие этого почти половина немецких танковых и моторизованных дивизий утратили свою боеспособность. А ведь танк уничтожить несравнимо сложнее, нежели человека. Так вот в отношении потерь немецко-фашистских войск в ходе их наступательной операции на Курской дуге, поскольку точные данные о немецких потерях отсутствуют (и это, несмотря на знаменитую немецкую педантичность!), мы предлагаем читателю сделать выводы самому. И наконец, в заключение следует сказать – немецко-фашистское командование отлично осознавало (об этом свидетельствуют многочисленные документы и другие источники), что провал операции «Цитадель» и переход советских войск в контрнаступление означали коренной перелом в войне с Советским Союзом и окончательный переход стратегической инициативы к советской стороне. ") igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• A minor request to Blablaa: would you mind starting to use the proper English spelling "you" when addressing the other participants? The "u" spelling you seem to prefer is hard to read and does not feel friendly. Dimawik (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Blablaaa (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, really appreciated! This is indeed minor, but we both know how small annoyances tend to cloud judgment in Misplaced Pages. Dimawik (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Igor. It is up to you to prove the sources you are providing are reliable, not the other way around. Read WP:RS.

http://www.tankobzor.org/ looks decidedly self published.

http://wwii-soldat.narod.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm seems to be a pastiche of Primary sources, opinion by people who have unknown credentials, and some repetition from reliable secondary sources (where it would be better to use the secondary source directly instead). It doesn't appear to be a reliable source in itself - unless you are able to point us to its credentials. (Hohum ) 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

But I can confirm: theyare normal. I dont say "the germans lost 70.000 dead" I say "According to sovit information..." Must I give still 100 references ? igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You have done nothing to show them as reliable sources per WP:RS. Who are the authors and/or publishers, what are their credentials? Your personal assurances are insufficient. (Hohum ) 21:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

But I dont must do it. There are soviet/russian infos. I dont must talk about every reference and proove you, that they are in order. Let it be. The readers must not believe them. There are reliable sources and if you say "no" you must PROOVE it. I dont have a time for such games. Every source could be "unreliable". Frieser is so for me, but i dont delete them. igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:Operation_Iskra)There were several repeated attempts to add in the casualties as they were claimed by Sovinformburo during the war. I cannot believe the editor thinks they are OK for the infobox. WP:MILMOS#SOURCES clearly states that sources should be "secondary works by reputable historians".

It is common sense, that any wartime broadcast, whether it is German, Soviet, Allied or any other, cannot be accurate due to very incomplete information available at the time of the publication. In addition any wartime public broadcast will very likely to exaggerate enemy losses. D2306 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I know it, but also allied sources are false. Read Montgomery. 300.000 german losses in Normandy were also WARTIME estimation and today there are already 400.000 losses. I say it still one time: RUSSIAN HISTORIANS BELIEVE INFORMBÜRO ALSO TODAY. There are 2 examples:

1) Korsun pocket

infos of 1944: 55.000 dead and 18.200 captured. (http://9may.ru/19.02.1944/inform/m4596)

today also 55.000 dead and 18.000 captured (http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1944.html#5)

2) Stalingrad 91.000 prisoners. It is topically also today. (http://9may.ru/05.02.1943/inform/m3913)

And there are a lot of such examples. igor piryazev--Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And still 2 examples:

3) Vienna Operation 1945

1945: 32 divisions smashed and 130.000 prisoners (http://9may.ru/15.04.1945/inform/m4233)

today also (http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1945.html#14)

4) Debrecen Operation

1944: 42.000 prisoners (http://9may.ru/30.11.1944/inform/m2804)

also today: (http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1944.html#49)

I hope this is enough. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that all wartime sources and immediate postwar memoirs are very flawed. By "losses in Normandy", what do you mean? The landings, one of the operations or something else? Your Korsun numbers exceed the number of troops in the pocket. With Stalingrad, prisoners, and trophies could be reliably counted, unlike other casualties which could only be estimated. There are several examples of Sovinforburo vastly exaggerating enemy casualties throughout the war. A couple of examples are on the Russian Misplaced Pages page.

On another note. I noticed that the soviet aircraft casualties for the entire battle have the upper estimate of 4,209 with the note (nb 10) "Luftwaffe claims until 24th autumn, note: this excludes accidents and aircraft losses due to anti air". For the same reasons my earlier comment, the number is nonsense (I also think there is a typo and should say 24th August). According to Krivosheev (see citeation 16 in the article), total soviet air casualties from all causes for all of 1943 are 26,700 (of which only 11,700 were claimed to be combat casualties). The first number directly leads to the number of available aircraft available in 1944, so is quite reliable and not disputed. The luftwaffe claim sounds silly and I do not think it should be in the infobox. D2306 (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There are TWO VERSIONS: GERMAN AND RUSSIAN. You can not speak about russian infos with german point of view. Certyinly the are different. Readers must deside whom believe. But this reference is no wartime:

http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/37833-diplomatiya-antigitlerovskoj-koalicii-cel-odna.html

I mean the whole battle of Normandy untill 25 August 1944. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

regarding soviet aircraft losses. Krivosheev says that the recorded losses are incomplete so frieser used german claims to estimate a number. In his opinion the figure is likly to be next to truth. So frieser backs this claims. I know my personal opinion isnt important but with my knowledge of eastern front the russian aircraft losses seem reasonalbe for me. German had ~ 700 losses during citadel, kutuzov and rumyantzev . Bergstrom gives 1000 soviet for citadel. Bergstrom also explains that some unit casualties are unknown. Frieser is aware of the difficult source situation but supports the ~4000 Blablaaa (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

@d2306 some additional informations for u: soviet aircraft which were not reported as lost in combat were listed as missing or unknown. That means every aircraft which was downed by german aircraft and not witnessed by another soviet aircraft was not listed as "lost in combat". If 5 soviet aircraft engage german aircraft and become destroyed they are maybe listed as "unknown causes". I read this somewhere... Blablaaa (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the casualties reported per operation (of which some could be not reported, though this applies to Germans too), and total year-by-year casualties. If check Krivosheev total year-by year-casualties, you will see it is a simple table with:

a.Start of the year available aircraft/b.total aircraft received throughout the year/c.losses. a+b-c= availiable aircraft for next year. There is no way these numbers can be misinterpreted. 26,700 is the total Soviet air casualties from all causes (combat, accident, missing etc) for all of 1943.

The number 11,700 combat losses (from these 26,700) may be challenged, but the high accident rate in the Soviet Airforce during the war is well known, with many reasons from rushed manufacturing to very short pilot training. So I doubt the combat losses are much different from the number claimed.

The Luftwaffe claim that it inflicted over 4,000 casualties in 50 days, without counting losses from AAA and non-combat losses and only in the Kursk sector sounds like a joke at best. It is no better that the sources provided by the new editor. I would like to see the exact quote from Frieser where he says that he thinks the 4,000 air-air kills only is close to truth. D2306 (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

i will take a look and translate itBlablaaa (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Frieser: "the biggest puzzel is the number of soviet aircraft losses. The numbers give bei krivosheev are totally unreliable. ... Soviet data regarding the own aircraft losses are academical useless so we only have the claims of german pilots. It was pretty hard to get a kill approved ... Germans claimed 4209 in the kursk area... Blablaaa (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"It was pretty hard to get a kill approved..." Maybe so, have you ever looked at luftwaffe claims for Battle of Britain, or during allied bombing raids? They vastly exceed the real allied losses. German pilot claims are hardly less "academically useless" than Krivosheev. Your quote does not say anywhere that the german claim is close to truth.

Bergstrom gives 1100 soviet losses for the first 12 days!! and then 4000 for 50 days sound like a joke for u? dont forget that far more air units were involded in the time of counterattack. For me this dont sounds like a joke ... Blablaaa (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the source Bergstorm uses? Pilot claims again? The first twelve days saw the most intensive fighting. There were many other big battles in 1943 (Air battles over Kuban, Kharkov, Dnieper crossings etc). Claims of 4,000 air-to-air kills, excluding ground fire losses, is nonsense from a common sense point of view. Even 4,000 total casualties seems dubious.D2306 (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

now both, frieser and bergstrom, sound dubios for u ? u said it sounds like a joke. but looking the numbers we see that 1100 in 12 day and 4000 in 50 days dont look dubios but statistical reasonable. Soviet air losses are hard to establish. The numbers are sourced. I think we can stop discussing them. But dont for get that 3 Fronts more participated in the counterattackes and also rethink your wrong statement: "The first twelve days saw the most intensive fighting". when u look german aircraft losses u see that they lost only 159 in the first 12 days and 681 in 50 days . When u do a bit math, u will recognize that the ratios are nearly exact the same, for german and soviet. So the 4000 sound very reasonable. Nevertheless the numbers are sourced and we dont have exact losses from soviet sources, so what do u think should we do? Do u have a suggestion ? Blablaaa (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote you gave never said that Frieser agrees with the german claims. I have yet to see the exact Bergstorm quote from you. The luftwaffe claims are just as much propaganda as any other wartime claims by Soviets or Allies. Read about the Battle of Britain, or the bombing raids on Germany. Typically there was a 2-3 fold difference between the numbers between claimed and actual losses. Don't forget that when you try to say the german claim is close to real, you are in fact suggesting the soviet air losses were near 10,000 (taking into account ant air artillery and accidents). Hopefully you see that this is too high.D2306 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Scould we cut&paste this discussion into a new section? The walls of text inserted by the other editor make it difficult to follow.

There is a number in the text based on archives (1600). How Frieser manages to talk it up to 4000 with no supporting material other than wartime German reports, beats me. The 1600 number is in the article already, my suggestion is to drop 4000 nonsense or at least relegate it to marginal opinions clearly stating that it is based only on German wartime reports. Dimawik (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read carefully. The 1600 are incomplete numbers with full units missing. ITs already written. U ignore other editors Blablaaa (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

U also revealed your intention totally. While u explained all numbers are possible u want to include soviet wartime propaganda but u suggest to delete german estimations which look to high for u . Busted.... Blablaaa (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the name of the editor before coming out with "busted" claims. I am not the same person as Dimawik. I do think that suggesting the soviets lost 10k aircraft over Kursk is nonsense. D2306 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read this (http://www.novoemnenie.ru/rassl/14p.html)

ПОТЕРИ ВЕРМАХТА И ВОЙСК СС

К настоящему времени не существует достаточно надежных цифр потерь немецкой армии, полученных прямым статистическим подсчетом. Объясняется это отсутствием по разным причинам достоверных исходных статистических материалов о немецких потерях.

Более или менее ясна картина относительно числа военнопленных вермахта на советско-германском фронте. По российским источникам советскими войсками было пленено 3172300 солдат вермахта, из них в лагерях НКВД находилось 2388443 немца. По подсчетам немецких историков, в советских лагерях военнопленных только немецких военнослужащих было около 3,1 млн. Расхождение, как видите, примерно в 0,7 млн. чел. Объясняется это расхождение различиями в оценке числа погибших в плену немцев: по российским архивным документам, в советском плену погибло 356700 немцев, а по оценке немецких исследователей — примерно 1,1 млн. чел. Представляется, что более достоверной является российская цифра погибших в плену немцев, а недостающие 0,7 млн. пропавших без вести и не вернувшихся из плена немцев на самом деле погибли не в плену, а на поле боя.

Что касается погибших солдат вермахта и войск СС на советско-германском фронте, то тут положение гораздо хуже.

Абсолютное большинство публикаций, посвященных расчетам боевых демографических потерь вермахта и войск СС, опираются на данные центрального бюро (отдела) учета потерь личного состава вооруженных сил, входящего в Генеральный штаб верховного главнокомандования. «Чрезмерщики» оценивают эти данные как абсолютно достоверные. Но при ближайшем рассмотрении оказалось, что мнение о высокой достоверности сведений этого отдела сильно преувеличено. Так, немецкий историк Р. Оверманс в статье «Человеческие жертвы Второй мировой войны в Германии» пришел к выводу, что «... каналы поступления информации в вермахте не обнаруживают той степени достоверности, которую приписывают им некоторые авторы». В качестве примера он сообщает, что «одно служебное заключение отдела потерь в штабе вермахта, относящееся к 1944 году, документально подтвердило, что потери, которые были понесены в ходе польской, французской и норвежской кампаний и выявление которых не представляло никаких технических трудностей, были почти вдвое выше, чем первоначально сообщалось».

Нужно сказать, что недостоверность немецких сообщений о потерях была очевидна еще во время войны. Несколько примеров занижения немцами своих потерь приводит в своей книге «Войны и народонаселение Европы» Б. Урланис. В частности, он пишет, что 11 декабря 1941 г. Гитлер в рейхстаге заявил, что с 22 июня по 1 декабря 1941г. германская армия потеряла 195648 убитыми и пропавшими без вести, что ненамного меньше, чем зафиксировано в отделе учета потерь штаба вермахта (257900 убитых и пропавших без вести). «Новый международный ежегодник» за 1941 г. назвал эти цифры «крайне фантастическими» и привел при этом исчисление американских военных наблюдателей, по которому на 11 декабря 1941 г. потери немцев убитыми определялись в 1300 тыс. чел., что более чем в 5 раз превышает данные вермахта. Даже в Германии никто не верил официальным данным о потерях германской армии. Б. Урланис приводит выдержку из статьи в шведском журнале «Векку-журнален», опубликованной в апреле 1943 г. и в которой отмечалось: «Каждый немец думает, что если бы официальные цифры о размерах потерь были бы верными, то борьба против СССР уже давно была бы закончена».

Явное недоверие вызывают сведения отдела потерь о числе погибших немецких солдат в ходе разгрома армий группы «Центр» Красной Армией под Москвой: цифры потерь вермахта за декабрь 1941 года и за январь 1942 года почти в полтора раза меньше, чем в июле и августе 1941 года, когда вермахт почти беспрепятственно двигался по советской земле.

И еще один пример. По данным отдела потерь вермахта в январе 1943 года погибло 37 тыс. немецких солдат, а непосредственный участник Сталинградской битвы, занимавший в то время высокие посты в немецких войсках, в том числе начальника штаба 17-го армейского корпуса, генерал-майор Г. Дерр в книге «Поход на Сталинград» (сборник «Роковые решения») пишет, что «только за период с 24 января по 2 февраля 1943 г. погибло более 100 тыс. человек». Кроме того, в эти же дни была прорвана блокада Ленинграда, и в ходе боев погибла не одна тысяча солдат вермахта.

В целом сведения отдела потерь вермахта не могут служить исходными данными для расчета потерь вооруженных сил Германии в Великой Отечественной войне.

Существует другая статистика потерь — статистика захоронений солдат вермахта. Согласно приложению к закону ФРГ «О сохранении мест захоронения» общее число немецких солдат, находящихся в зафиксированных захоронениях на территории Советского Союза и восточноевропейских стран, составляет 3 млн. 226 тыс. чел. Эта цифра может быть принята в качестве исходной для расчета демографических потерь вермахта, однако она нуждается в корректировке.

Во-первых, эта цифра учитывает только захоронения немцев, а в составе вермахта воевало большое число солдат других национальностей: австрийцы (из них погибло 270 тыс. чел.), судетские немцы и эльзасцы (погибло 230 тыс. чел.) и представители других национальностей и государств (погибло 357 тыс. чел.). Из общего числа погибших солдат вермахта не немецкой национальности на долю советско-германского фронта приходится 75—80%, т. е. 0,6—0,7 млн. чел.

Во-вторых, эта цифра относится к началу 90-х годов прошлого столетия. За прошедшее с той поры время поиск немецких захоронений в России, странах СНГ и странах Восточной Европы продолжался. А появлявшиеся на эту тему сообщения были недостаточно информативны. Так, например, российская ассоциация военных мемориалов, созданная в 1992 году, сообщила, что за 10 лет своего существования передала Немецкому союзу по уходу за воинскими захоронениями сведения о захоронениях 400 тыс. солдат вермахта. Однако были ли это вновь обнаруженные захоронения или они уже учтены в цифре 3 млн. 226 тыс. — не ясно. К сожалению, обобщенной статистики вновь обнаруженных захоронений солдат вермахта найти не удалось. Ориентировочно можно принять, что число вновь обнаруженных за последние 10 лет захоронений солдат вермахта находится в пределах 0,2—0,4 млн. чел.

В-третьих, многие захоронения погибших солдат вермахта на советской земле исчезли. Например, участник войны Александр Лебединцев в книге «Отцы-командиры» приводит рассказ одного из местных жителей, что сил на захоронение немецких трупов после боев не было, поэтому труппы сбрасывали в глубокую промоину и, обрушив стенку промоины, засыпали их. В период весеннего половодья промоину размыло, и остатки немецких захоронений унесли в реку талые воды. Кроме того, как отметил Похлебкин В.В. в книге «Великая война и несостоявшийся мир», в лесах и болотах Новгородчины, Литвы и Полесья до сих пор существуют сотни тысяч безымянных могил немецких солдат, погибших в боях с Красной Армией, особенно во время весеннего наступления советских войск в 1944 г. Ориентировочно в таких исчезнувших и безымянных могилах могло быть захоронено 0,4—0,6 млн. солдат вермахта.

В-четвертых, в эти данные не включены захоронения немецких солдат, убитых в боях с советскими войсками на территории Германии и западноевропейских стран. По данным Р. Оверманса, только за последние три весенних месяца войны погибло порядка 1 млн. чел. В целом на германской земле и в западноевропейских странах в боях с Красной Армией погибло примерно 1,2—1,5 млн. солдат вермахта.

Наконец, в-пятых, в число захороненных вошли и солдаты вермахта, умершие «естественной» смертью (0,1—0,2 млн. чел.).

В целом демографические потери вермахта на советско-германском фронте составляют 5,4 ... 6,3 млн. чел., из них 0,4 млн. погибли в плену.

Эта оценка согласуется с цифрами, приведенными Гитлером 16 марта 1945 года в рейхстаге: Германия в войне потеряла 12,5 млн. чел., из них половина убитыми. Учитывая, что по данным немецких историков потери немецкого гражданского населения погибшими к тому времени составляли около 400 тыс. чел, а на Западном фронте было убито около 300 тыс. немецких солдат, то, выходит, что к 16 марта 1945 г. на советско-германском фронте погибло примерно 5,5 млн. немецких солдат.

--Igor Piryazev (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I translate with "Promt"

LOSSES ВЕРМАХТА AND ARMIES СС

By this time there are no enough the reliable figures of losses of German army received by direct statistical calculation. It speaks absence for various reasons authentic initial statistical materials about German losses.

More or the picture concerning number of prisoners of war вермахта on the Soviet-German front is less clear. On the Russian sources the Soviet armies had been captivated 3172300 soldiers вермахта, from them in camps of People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs there were 2388443 Germans. By estimates of German historians, in the Soviet prisoner-of-war camps only German military men there was about 3,1 million Divergence, as you can see, approximately in 0,7 million people this divergence distinctions in a death-roll estimation in a captivity of Germans Speaks: under the Russian archival documents, in Soviet to a captivity 356700 Germans were lost, and according to German researchers — about 1,1 million people It is represented that more authentic is the Russian figure of victims in a captivity of Germans, and missing 0,7 million Germans who have missing and not come back from a captivity actually were lost not in a captivity, and in the field of fight.

As to the lost soldiers вермахта and armies СС on the Soviet-German front then position is much worse.

Overwhelming majority of the publications devoted to calculations of fighting demographic losses вермахта and armies СС, lean against the data of the central bureau (department) of the account of losses of staff of the armed forces entering into the Joint Staff of general headquarters.« Чрезмерщики »estimate this data as absolutely authentic. But it has on closer examination appeared that the opinion on high reliability of data of this department is strongly exaggerated. So, the German historian R.Overmans in article« Human a victim of the Second World War in Germany »has come to a conclusion that«... Channels of receipt of the information in вермахте do not find out that degree of reliability which is attributed it by some authors ». As an example he informs that« one office conclusion of department of losses in a staff вермахта, concerning by 1944, has documentary confirmed that losses which have been suffered during the Polish, French and Norwegian campaigns and which revealing did not represent any technical difficulties, were almost twice above, than was originally informed ».

It is necessary to tell that unauthenticity of German messages on losses was obvious even during war. Some examples of understating by Germans of the losses result in the book «Wars and the population of Europe» B.Urlanis. In particular, he writes that on December, 11th, 1941 Hitler in рейхстаге has declared that from June, 22nd till December, 1st 1941г. The German army has lost 195648 killed and missing persons that ненамного, than is fixed in department of the account of losses of a staff вермахта (257900 killed and missing persons). «The new international year-book» for 1941 named these figures "extremely fantastic" and has resulted thus calculation of the American military observers on which for December, 11th, 1941 of loss of Germans by the killed were defined in 1300 That more than in 5 times exceeds the data вермахта. Even in Germany nobody trusted the official data about losses of the German army. B.Urlanis results endurance from article in the Swedish magazine "Vekku-zhurnalen", published in April, 1943 and in which it was marked: «Each German thinks that if official figures about the sizes of losses would be true struggle against the USSR would be finished for a long time already».

Obvious mistrust is caused by data of department of losses on a death-roll of German soldiers during defeat of armies of group "Center" by Red Army near Moscow: вермахта for December, 1941 and for January, 1942 almost in one and a half time it is less than figure of losses, than in July and August, 1941 when вермахт almost free moved on the Soviet earth.

And one more example. According to department of losses вермахта in January, 1943 was lost 37 thousand German soldiers, and the direct participant of Stalingradsky fight holding at that time high posts in German armies, including the chief of a staff of 17th army case, the major general G.Derr in the book «the Campaign on Stalingrad» (the collection «Fatal decisions») writes that «only from January, 24th on February, 2nd, 1943 was lost more than 100 thousand persons». Besides, the same days blockade of Leningrad has been broken through, and during fights one thousand soldiers вермахта was lost not.

As a whole data of department of losses вермахта cannot serve as the initial data for calculation of losses of armed forces of Germany in the Great Patriotic War.

There is other statistics of losses — statistics of burial places of soldiers вермахта. According to the appendix to the law of Germany «About preservation of places of a burial place» total number of the German soldiers who are in fixed burial places in territory of Soviet Union and the East Europe countries, makes 3 million 226 thousand people This figure can be accepted as initial for calculation of demographic losses вермахта, however it requires updating.

First, this figure considers only burial places of Germans, and in structure вермахта the great number of soldiers of other nationalities was at war: the Austrians (from them was lost 270 thousand people), судетские Germans and эльзасцы (was lost 230 thousand people) and representatives of other nationalities and the states (was lost 357 thousand people). From total number of the lost soldiers вермахта not on a share of the Soviet-German front 75—80 % are necessary a German nationality, i.e. 0,6-0,7 million people

Secondly, this figure concerns the beginning of 90th years of last century. For the past since then time search of German burial places in Russia, the CIS countries and countries of Eastern Europe proceeded. And messages appearing on this theme were insufficiently informative. So, for example, the Russian association of military memorials created in 1992, has informed that for 10 years of the existence has transferred to the German union on care of military burial places of data on burial places of 400 thousand soldiers вермахта. Whether However there were it again found out burial places or they are already considered in million 226 thousand figure 3 — not clearly. Unfortunately, the generalised statistics of again found out burial places of soldiers вермахта it was not possible to find. It is roughly possible to accept that the number of burial places of soldiers again found out over the last 10 years вермахта is in limits of 0,2-0,4 million people

Thirdly, many burial places of the lost soldiers вермахта on the Soviet earth have disappeared. For example, the participant of war Alexander Lebedintsev in the book "Fathers-commanders" results the story of one of local residents that forces on a burial place of German corpses after fights were not, therefore troupes dumped in a deep gully and, having brought down a gully wall, fell asleep them. In a spring high water a gully has washed away, and the rests of German burial places have carried away thawed snow in the river. Besides, as has noted Pohlebkin V.V. in the book «Great war and not taken place world», in woods and bogs of Novgorodchiny, Lithuania and Polesye till now exist hundred thousand anonymous tombs of the German soldiers who were lost in fights with Red Army, especially during spring approach of the Soviet armies in 1944 Roughly in such disappeared and anonymous tombs could be buried 0,4-0,6 million soldiers вермахта.

Fourthly, burial places of the German soldiers killed in fights with the Soviet armies in territory of Germany and the West European countries are not included in this data. According to R.Overmansa, only for last three spring months of war was lost an order of 1 million people As a whole on the German earth and in the West European countries in fights with Red Army was lost about 1,2-1,5 million soldiers вермахта.

At last, fifthly, the number of the buried included also soldiers вермахта, died "natural" death (0,1-0,2 million people).

As a whole demographic losses вермахта on the Soviet-German front make 5,4... 6,3 million people, from them 0,4 million were lost in a captivity.

This estimation will be co-ordinated with the figures resulted by Hitler on March, 16th, 1945 in рейхстаге: Germany in war has lost 12,5 million people, from them half killed. Considering that according to German historians of loss of German civilians victims by then made about 400 thousand foreheads, and on the Western front that has been killed about 300 thousand German soldiers, leaves that by March, 16th, 1945 on the Soviet-German front was lost about 5,5 million German soldiers. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"But I dont must do it. There are soviet/russian infos. I dont must talk about every reference and proove you, that they are in order."-Igor Piryazev

Yes you do. It's how wikipedia works. I have told you the relevant wikipedia policies. WP:V, WP:RELIABLE, WP:PROVEIT. Stop deluging us with quotes from unreliable sources, it's a waste of time, and becoming disruptive. (Hohum ) 16:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is RELIABEL SOURCE (http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/37833-diplomatiya-antigitlerovskoj-koalicii-cel-odna.html)

This book war written AFTER 1981 (http://goga-hidoyatov.narod.ru/soderj.html)

is it enough ? and you can not delete my references. I and Dimowik against you and Balablaa. 2 aganist 2. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

No, it is not enough. Your personal assurances are not sufficient. What are the credentials of the sites, publishers or authors? They don't appear to be credible historians, news sources, or the other requirements per WP:V, WP:RELIABLE or WP:PROVEIT. Read these policies and understand them, and stop disrupting the article talk page, and the article itself. (Hohum ) 16:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe Igor should familiarise himself with what is considered a reliable source according to WP policy. that will allow him to build stronger arguments for future editings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted Igor again. His last edit comment was "it can be true. you must say why (talkpage))". I have explained clearly why the sources you are using are not reliable, and you have done nothing to show that they are. Please stop disrupting the article. (Hohum ) 16:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I think, he simply is unaware of WP:BURDEN: when someone inserts some text, the burden of proof lies on him. Anyway, if Igor believe his sources are reliable I would recommend him to go to WP:RSN and to discuss the issue there. If consensus will be that the sources are reliable, he may try to re-insert these data again. With regard to me, I think that if these data are reliable then they probably have been reproduced by some scholars (Russian or Western), and, therefore, can be found in some scientific articles or books (not non-peer-reviewed web sites). Igor should try to find such articles or books, and after that we can speak about these data seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

unliklyBlablaaa (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Very funny. You can find this infos in EVERY russian book and on EVERY internet page. Must I giive you still 10 references ? In my source you can read the literature (1970-1980). Can you read it ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And your Frieser is unreliable. He will ctiticed even by german historians. His infos are funny even fpr german propaganda. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Or are this sources also wartime propaganda?

http://www.biograph-soldat.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm

http://kursk-battle.narod.ru/

http://otvoyna.ru/kursk.htm

http://www.calend.ru/holidays/0/0/530/

--Igor Piryazev (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

who critizises Frieser, can u give source for that? Blablaaa (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/2010-1-132

Den Kämpfen 1943-1944 in der Sowjetunion, dem Hauptthema des Bandes, widmet Karl-Heinz Frieser fast 500 Seiten. Vor allem seine Darstellungen provozieren eine Fülle von kritischen Fragen. Frieser konfrontiert den Leser mit längst überkommen geglaubten Weisen der Militärgeschichtsschreibung. Aus der reinen Binnensicht der Militärs werden hier Kriegswerkzeuge einander gegenüber gestellt, die dann „fechten“. In immer gleichem Schema bemüht sich Frieser, die jeweiligen Kräfteverhältnisse vor einer Schlacht zu erläutern, die Taktiken zu erklären, die Verläufe gerafft zu schildern und die Ergebnisse zu fixieren. Er blendet aber fast den gesamten Kontext der Kriegführung aus. Man erfährt kaum etwas über die Logistik und die Versorgungsfragen der jeweiligen gigantischen Armeen, nichts über die konkreten Besatzungsräume, in denen sie agierten. Kaum ein Wort wird über die Rückzugsverbrechen der Wehrmacht und ihren Kontext verloren. Die millionenhafte Vertreibung, Zwangsevakuierung und Aushungerung der sowjetischen Zivilbevölkerung und die planmäßige Verwüstung ganzer Regionen bleibt außerhalb des von ihm gezeichneten Bildes. Nur Wegner skizziert einige Grundlinien (S. 256-268). Frieser charakterisiert die deutsche Wehrmacht als professionell geführte Truppe, die schließlich nicht nur der Roten Armee, sondern vor allem Hitler zum Opfer gefallen sei. Er bezeichnet diese Situation gar als Zweifrontenkrieg (S. 565). Frieser schreibt fast ausschließlich aus der Nachkriegsperspektive deutscher Generäle, insbesondere des von ihm offensichtlich hoch verehrten Erich von Mansteins. Ihrer militärischen ‚Vernunft‘ wird immer wieder der ‚irrationale‘ Hitler gegenüber gestellt. Es bedarf der Lektüre der Abschnitte von Wegner, um dieses Zerrbild wesentlich zu differenzieren. Frieser kritisiert sowjetische Quellen scharf, deutsche hingegen kaum. Manche seiner Zahlenangaben erscheinen daher zweifelhaft. Zwar korrigiert Frieser einige Legenden, die sich um wesentliche Schlachten ranken, und das Ausmaß der Kämpfe erscheint schier unglaublich mit Millionen gefallener Soldaten. Aber der Versuch, den Anteil der deutschen Generalität an der verbrecherischen Kriegführung zu minimieren, kann nicht überzeugen. Die salvatorische Klausel, dass wirtschafts- und besatzungspolitische Fragestellungen in anderen Bänden der Reihe untersucht würden (S. XIV), vermag dieses Manko nicht wett zu machen, zumal es für die Jahre 1943 und 1944 in den Bänden des MGFA auch nicht umgesetzt wurde.

By german infos the Germans lost in the Battle of Kursk 360.000 and not 140.000. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I read your text and i see somebody who maybe doenst like friesers book but not more. I dont see critics on his conclusion and i dont see a general critic on his numbers. Wheres your point igor what u print is a review. Friesers work doesnt talk about the context because frieser dont want to talk about the context, he is the military expert an focuses on battles and tactics.Blablaaa (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

360.000 even by Boris sokolov (http://militera.lib.ru/research/sokolov1/03.html)

Таким образом, германские людские потери в Курской битве можно оценить примерно в 360 000 убитых, пропавших без вести, раненых и больных, но никак не в 500 000. Потери люфтваффе тоже были гораздо ниже. В июле и августе 1943 г., согласно данным источников из Германского военного архива во Фрайбурге, потери на Востоке составили только 1030 самолетов, и даже на всех театрах общие потери достигали не более чем 3213 боевых машин.{33} Таким образом, советская версия в 3700 самолетов противника, уничтоженных в Курской битве, совершенно абсурдна. Эта цифра основывается на донесениях советских авиационных командиров военного времени,{34} где потери противника преувеличивались в несколько раз. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I translate Sokolov.

Official figures of the Soviet human losses and losses in tanks and planes in Kursk fight have been published only in 1993 {30} the German losses have been exaggerated by the Soviet historians several times long before that. By their estimation, German losses have made about 500 thousand soldiers and officers, 1500 tanks and assault tools and more than 3700 planes. {31} these figures are very far from the validity. German losses in a manpower on all East front, according to the information given to the Supreme command вермахта (ОКВ), in July and August, 1943 have made 68 800 killed, 34 800 missing persons both 434 000 wounded men and patients. {32} German losses on the Kursk arch can be estimated in 2/3 from losses on East front as during this period fierce fights occurred also in Donetsk pool, around Smolensk and on northern sector of the front (in area Mgi). Thus, the German human losses in Kursk fight can be estimated approximately in 360 000 killed, missing persons, wounded men and patients, but in any way in 500 000. Losses люфтваффе too were much more low. In July and August, 1943, it agree to the data of sources from the German military archive in Freiburg, losses in the east have made only 1030 planes, and even on all theatres the general losses reached no more than 3213 fighting vehicles. {33} thus, the Soviet version in 3700 planes of the opponent destroyed in Kursk fight, is absolutely absurd. This figure is based on reports of the Soviet aviation commanders of a wartime, {34} where losses of the opponent were exaggerated several times. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Igor, if you manage to understand one thing, please let it be that I am not questioning the quantity of sources your are deluging this page with, but their reliability. You have still done absolutely nothing to provide their credentials. (Hohum ) 20:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You can see it. http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1943.html#14

literature from 1960-1980

Лит.: История второй мировой войны 1939-1945, т. 7, М., 1976; История Вел. Отечеств. войны Сов. Союза. 1941-1945, т. 3, М., 1964; Битва на Курской дуге, М., 1975; Колтунов Г. А, Соловьев Б. Г., Курская битва, М., 1983; Курская битва. Воспоминания, статьи, 3 изд., Воронеж, 1982; Курская битва в цифрах, "ВИЖ", 1968, № 6-7. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the same passage has been reinserted, still with unreliable references, I have reverted them. The user has yet to even attempt to prove their reliability. (Hohum ) 22:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The user has yet to even attempt to prove their reliability. Excuse me Hohum? You're very wrong. Igor has done his absolute best to try to explain to the best of his knowledge. I believe that Igor may not understand that what me need is either a historian's name or perhaps a book that supports his edits. In regards to you, I have asked you often to please show some type of human compassion. Once again, Igor is Russian. English is not his first language. Once again, he is doing his best. Now please, if you cannot show human compassion towards others, then please leave this discussion. Thanks. Caden 15:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

??? You can see it. http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1943.html#14

literature from 1960-1980

Лит.: История второй мировой войны 1939-1945, т. 7, М., 1976; История Вел. Отечеств. войны Сов. Союза. 1941-1945, т. 3, М., 1964; Битва на Курской дуге, М., 1975; Колтунов Г. А, Соловьев Б. Г., Курская битва, М., 1983; Курская битва. Воспоминания, статьи, 3 изд., Воронеж, 1982; Курская битва в цифрах, "ВИЖ", 1968, № 6-7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Piryazev (talk • contribs) 09:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi igor. The problem here is not the exact time when the text was made, the problem is: who wrote this text and is he reliable? Espcially in history we try to use only reliable or very reliable historians. When i check your links i cant find the name of historians or anything else which indicated scientific standards. Can u please explain us why u think your text fulfill the requirements for being reliable secondy literature according to wikipedia guidelines. Thats everything we want, show us that your sources are reliable and then we talk about. That u have to prove that they are reliable is called WP:BURDEN. But dont forget, the simple fact that u say they are reliable is not enough. This applies for all not only for u or me. So please take some time and show us who is the historian or institute and why are they reliable according to wikipedia guidelines. And when u write something on a talk page, then please make 4x ~ and the end of your post to sign it. thanks Blablaaa (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to partially agree with Blablaaa, because editing Misplaced Pages implies doing some serious work, namely, to provide good refs (book's author, book's title, year, ISBN, page). It is desirable to provide the most recent source, and if some old source is used, some explanation is needed why this source is not outdated and can be considered reliable. Just mention the book's name (or even a web site's name is not enough). Let me remind you, Igor, that, whereas Hohum initially opposed to using "Grif secretnosti snyat" in the article, after he has been explained that this is an online version of the commonly accepted Krivosheev's book, he withdrew all objections.

I am convinced that if the data and facts from the sources used by Igor are true, they can be found in more recent books and, probably, even in the English written sources. For instance, the information about 30 smashed German divisions can be found on p.594 of Bellamy's "Absolute war" (the full ref is in the article). On the same page Bellamy noted that German to Soviet loss ratio was equal to 1:1.5.

However, I cannot agree with Blablaaa's attempt to give too much weight to the books derived from German sources. That creates some disbalance, because these data (by contrast to the Soviet ones) were widely available to Western scholars since the end of WWII, so all Western historiography has been significantly affected by German POV. In addition, as I already noted elsewhere, some of German sources (e.g. Zetterling & Frankson) have only a visibility of meticulous analysis and are misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No offense Paul but i think this is not correct. Glantz wrote a book with all necessary sources about this battle, soviet archives german archives etc. Frieser same , he studied this battle and wrote studies about it, published in multiple works. Bellamy wrote one book about the entire war, and exclusivly with soviet data. Bellamy has done NONE studies about the battles he wrots a summarize about the second world war with soviet pov, he even says it is from the soviet side. Bellamy has done no research about any battles covered in his book. The fact alone that every expert for kursk will contradict bellamys numbers ( which are actually soviet war time numbers, he prints the same phrases ) is enough to show that bellamy is a minor view and should be handled as minor view. If u want such numbers in the text then bring it to the casualties section and mark them as wartime numbers. Paul i respect your input but your concerns about the used source are scientific baseless. You think Glantz Zetterling Frieser are overweighted in this article, but in return u mention a book which has done no reaseach or battle analyse. Bellamys book is a WW2 overview and you think its more relevant than the recent works by glantz or Frieser. Cant understand this sorry. You raise concerns about german archives but u want soviet archives for german casualties? Thats not scientific. I ask you a question. Why does nobody found this numbers in a recent book done about Kursk ? Everytime somebody brings this numbers they are printed somewhere in the www or are copied in books which are not even written about Kursk. Blablaaa (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Caden, in a similar answer to the threats and accusations you made on my talk page; Misplaced Pages is here to create a high quality repository of information, it has been explained to Igor politely, and clearly, multiple times, what he is doing wrong, and how to correct it. If his grasp of English is insufficient to do so, he shouldn't be editing here.

I don't spend my time here to make friends with disruptive users, and I think very little of your opinions based on your hypocritical behaviour. (Hohum ) 19:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets try again

The sources provided by igor are not good enough according to wiki policies. Its up to him to prove the opposite. At the moment i dont see that he has done this. So the only possibility to bring this numbers to the article is supporting them with reliable sources. Putting this numbers to the article without the sources is not ok. And i guess it happens no up to ten times. So i ask. How to solve this issue? When i revert the edit i follow wiki policies. In my honest opinion i think igor understood the problem and is kinde "disruptive" with reinserting the stuff. I didnt flag this , i did not told any admin i did nothing to bring him problems. What shall i do, accepting that he is persistent and let him edit? The edits are not ok... Blablaaa (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Igor's sources are good enough and in line with wiki policy, his sources are supported by a published book, as Paul mentioned. Wiki is not about truth, it's about reliable sources. Books are just that. Bellamy's "Absolute War" is therefore a reliable source since it's a published book whether you and Hohum like it or not. It supports Igor's edits. I take offense to both you and Hohum's unfounded allegations in regards to Igor. Both of you have treated him badly and attacked his edits as "vandalism" in both your edit summaries. That sort of behavior is unacceptable I'm sorry. Please stop with the bad faith allegations. I see nothing wrong with his edits. Caden 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What words of paul tell us that bellamy supports 70000 dead german soldiers within 14 days? can u give me the quote ? not evne to mention that paul dont own this books and have the sentence from google books. And if u think bad online sources are ok when they have some words in them which are maybe published somewhere then u are wrong especially on warfare articles. If you read reliable source u will find that particulary military history should be only cited with really good sources. Blablaaa (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion, we put the numbers in the casualties section but mark them as wartime numbers ( thats what they are ). the casualties section also explains the origin of all other numbers. So the reader sees that this numbers were published during the war for propagand proposes. I guess thats more space than this numbers actually deserve. Not to mention that no one ever tried to insert german propaganda numbers into articles. Blablaaa (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I agree with that. Put it in the casualties section for now and mark them. Caden 18:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

500.000 dead, captured and wounded german soldiers in the Battle of Kursk are NOT war time estimation. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

70.000 dead german soldiers between 5 and 23 July (17 days) are NORMAL. Kursk was one of the importaint battles in this war. It was not El-Alamein with 50.000 casualties. Their infos about 12.000 dead Germans are funny. In this operation "Zitadelle" were involved at least 30 german divisions. 12.000 / 30 = 400. Every division lost only 400 dead soldiers in 8 days of active battles ! It can be true. The Red Army lost also 70.000 dead and missing soldiers. It can be true that Red Army lost 70.000 and the Germans 12.000. It can be true for 1941, but not for 1943. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It were 38 german divisions. 12.000 / 38 = 315 dead soldiers in every division ! It is unbelieveble. This source speaks about 70.000 dead and missing russian soldiers.

http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_10_1.html#5_10_23 --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I will try it one time with logic and math. Lets put the sources by side and talk like mature . I dont want to do OR or something like this i have sources but i will try to explain the mistake. Igor u assume 70.000 dead soldiers during 17 day are normal. According to german archives the loss WIA/KIA was about 5:1 , this is pretty normal for attack i guess . This ratio is "correct", german archives cant hide dead soldiers maybe they can hide wounded but not dead so its at least 5:1. If we take this "empiric" ratio for your 70.000 dead we get = 420.000 WIA/KIA, captured are not even included. So soviet numbers imply german lost 420.000 soliders within 2 weeks, this is not only funny is it impossible , this means wehrmacht lost 70% of their combat personnel within 2 weeks, this is not possible. But now we look at the overall numbers for kursk the soviets give 500.000. How can this happen? during the mighty counterattacks, orel and kutuzov, the germans suffered "only" 80.000 casualties? The soviet numbers are contradicting themself because they are nonsense they claim impossible casualties so that at the next battle where even higher casualties are claimed not enough german left ^^. Everyone knows that if u add soviet claims for german casualties; at 1942 no more german soldier would live. I dont want to sound insulting but if somebody, after he considering all facts, really believes this , then iam wondering... . I also want to address pauls concerns. Always if somebody questiones german archives i smile, because for soviet casualties we all accept krivosheev which is exactly the same with soviet archives. It is a well known fact that the red army drafted people into their army without listing them so we know for sure that soviet archives dont list all people who fought for the red army. Germans didnt speed draft like soviet. But always people try to claim german archivs were flawed? how can they be flawed? they had to count their losses to know their strenght, to assume german archvies at 43 are more flawed than russian is unscientific and baseless. And its pretty strange if people try to discredit works which are based on german archives but take soviet archives as truth.... . The conclusion is that numbers added by igor are more away from truth than everything else. But we dont search truth , do we? Correct we dont search truth, but fortunatly no recent historian which have done research about this battle, supports these numbers. Blablaaa (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedias policies, which have been repeatedly explained to Igor, and are available via multiple links on this page for Caden to read, do not suggest allowing badly sourced, challenged material to stay in an article while everyone argues. They should be removed until they are proven to be reliable. Personal assurances are not enough. The current edit warring is disruptive to the article, wastes the time of serious editors, and drives knowledgeable people away from editong the article. Please stop this nonsense, remove the unreliable sources until they are proved reliable, assuming that is possible.

Caden, you giving a personal assurance that the citations are reliable is not enough. Who is the reliable author or publisher? Since you didn't even add the disputed information, it seems unlikely that you have any supportable reason to reinclude them. (Hohum ) 22:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "What words of paul tell us that bellamy supports 70000 dead german soldiers within 14 days?" I didn't claim that. I wrote that Bellamy confirms some of these data, namely, about 30 smashed divisions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

1) 500.000 casualties between 5 July and 23 August are NOT wartime informations.

2) 70.000 dead * 3 = 210.000 losses. During this battle the Germans had also OTHER divisions

3) Kursk was NOT El-Alamein. With Moscow and Stalingrad it was very importaint battle. I believe soviet infos and you can believe german infos, but it must be in article. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

4) Frieser and Manstein use the same infos. Thisis also wartime estimations for german losses. Read Zhukov and in this book you can find infos about 500.000 losses. But not only Zhukov.

5) 1:5 ration was maybe in 1941, but NOT 1943 and not in this battle. The russians lost 886.000 and Germany even by boris sokolov 360.000. 1:2.5. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

6) You must understand, that Germany is NOT Luxemburg or Belgium or Monaco. The had 80 millions people with Austria. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"but it must be in article." It can be. If you ever provide WP:RELIABLE sources. Otherwise it's never going to stay. Stop avoiding this and prove it. (Hohum ) 17:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

igor u dont understand what i write so i dont see the value of further disucssion. and soloko gives 1.8 million for soviet losses !!! that u bring solokov but give a wrong soviet numbers of him is a cheattry but i know solokov... . you also claim wrong things like 3:1 ratio in attack thats wrong , frieser and manstein use same numbers, sure they use german archives same like we use soviet archives. your persistent believe in soviet sources is weird for me, when u get facts which destroy these numbers u ignore it , for me this indicates your intention. I think u understand us but u ignore this so u are disruptive. u understood what reliable data is but you always introduce your not reliable data again. I guess caden is correct, new not nativ speakers have to get more care then others but i dont believe that u want to bring valuable information. Blablaaa (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

u not even understand that 3:1 WIA /KIA means that 70000 dead means 280.000 WIA & KIA Blablaaa (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

so i remove both sources now i guess all agree that these two www pages are no reliable sources. The reinserting of them should be considered vandalism, i will warn igor if he reinserts this numbers. I know iam the bad guy then but i guess after 30 reverts its time to get new sources or stop editing. Blablaaa (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

hm i saw now that hohum edited the statement already, so i dont want to revert him. i reverted myself... Blablaaa (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Manstein is reliable and Zhukov not ?

2) 500.000 losses between 5 july and 23 august and 70.000 dead between 5 and 23 july are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. 500.000 are not wartime estimation.

3) Yes I believe soviet information more then german, but it is my personal opinion.

4) "German Krivosheev" dont exist. Their losses are still not ready. Even Overmans says it. And Krivosheev is ready.

5) Why 280.000 ? one dead soldier and 2 wounded. ok it can be also 1 dead and 3 wounded. 900.000 - 280.000 = still 620.000 Germans. It the Battle of Kursk (untill 23 august) were only 20-25.000 german prisoners. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it also not reliable ?

http://funnytogo.com/stories/Battle-of-Kursk1943.htm

http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943 --Igor Piryazev (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Igor nobody uses manstien for soviet casualties and yes his book is more reliable, soviet memoires were written under pressur of the regime, books of zhukov and so on are full of incorrect statements which are proven wrong already. zhukov for example is excluding all his major defeats in his books, but thats off topic. i dont search for your math. please give us now the historians or authors of your numbers and meanwhile show their credentials. Please. thank you. 1 dead and 2 wounded in attack ? thats nonsense sorry.... . yes they are 2 different things both are estimations which massivly contradicting themself and show how bad such numbers are. So igor please show us who supports this numbers, which historian or military expert or what ever... Blablaaa (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Dont you have any literature at home about this battle ? This 500.000 you can find EVERYWHERE. I gave already 6 russian sources (Zhukov 7) and 2 english. Is it enough ? Must I give you still 500 sources in 20 languages ? You can find it also by Vassilevski. Manstein wrote his book during the cold war. And ? Are all soviet infos propaganda, because you think so ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

u have two sources. please give the names of the authors and their credentials. thats everything we want. show us your 2 sources are reliable Blablaaa (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

if u cant prove us that your two sources are reliable we have to delete them. And regarding your : "you can find it everywhere". i didt saw it any reliable literatur. Blablaaa (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Solokov gives 1.8 million soviet casualties, can i add it to the infobox igor? i can give page number. Blablaaa (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Sokolov uses always highest soviet losses and lowest german losses. 360.000 is very low. I sayd also "even by sokolov". And what is with 2 english sources ?--Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.biograph-soldat.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm

http://kursk-battle.narod.ru/

http://otvoyna.ru/kursk.htm

http://www.calend.ru/holidays/0/0/530/

and still two are in the article. What is with this english sources ?

http://funnytogo.com/stories/Battle-of-Kursk1943.htm

http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943

Dont forget Zhukov and Vassilevski. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

http://die-cast-army.over-blog.com/article-3459995.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-kursk --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

no igor u dont understand what i want. please give the name of historians who published the 2 sources which are used by u at the article. please give names and credentials. Blablaaa (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I can do it, but I dont want do it for EVERY revert from me (i want work in wiki always). TWELVE DIFFERENT SOURCES MUST BE ENOUGH. I can give you this names, but you will always say "not reliable". Frieser with 140.000 losses (!!!) is 100% not reliable. 140.000 for such big and importaint battle are more then funny. it were AT LEAST 360.000. even by german infos. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We speak here about Battle of Kursk. Do you understand this ? KURSK. even in the Normandy the Germans lost 400.000 soldiers. Even in the battle of the bulge dyed 20.000 german soldiers. It was the last big german offensive in World War 2 --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I can do it, but I dont want do it for EVERY revert from me (i want work in wiki always). TWELVE DIFFERENT SOURCES MUST BE ENOUGH. I can give you this names, but you will always say "not reliable". Frieser with 140.000 losses (!!!) is 100% not reliable. 140.000 for such big and importaint battle are more then funny. it were AT LEAST 360.000. even by german infos. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TWELVE DIFFERENT SOURCES MUST BE ENOUGH even 100 unreliable sources are not enough. And the recent numbers are not frieser, this numbers are Frieser Glantz Zetterling and and and. Blablaaa (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We speak here about Battle of Kursk. Do you understand this ? KURSK. even in the Normandy the Germans lost 400.000 soldiers. Even in the battle of the bulge dyed 20.000 german soldiers. It was the last big german offensive in World War 2 --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

can i ask u personnel question ? if the most recent historians like glantz think this numbers are correct. what do u think why shoudl he say this? glantz is pro soviet why should he take too low german numbers? why do all the experts for kursk think this numbers are correct ? Blablaaa (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And what says Glantz for this battle between 5 July and 23 August ? Also 140.000 ? I speak now about russian historians and not german, american or british. Even if they are pro soviet. This 500.000 are ven not soviet infos.

В ходе 50-дневных боев наши войска разгромили 30 немецких дивизий, в том числе 7 танковых. Даже по преуменьшенным данным гитлеровского командования, общие потери немецко-фашистских войск составили убитыми, тяжелоранеными, пропавшими без вести более 500 тыс. солдат и офицеров, до 1,5 тыс. танков, 3 тыс. орудий и более 3,7 тыс. самолетов. (http://militera.lib.ru/h/koltunov_solovyev/07.html) --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I translate with promt.

During 50-day fights our armies have crushed 30 German divisions, including 7 tank. Even under the underestimated data of Hitlerite command, the general losses of fascist armies have made killed, the critically wounded patients who were missing more of 500 thousand of the soldier and officers, to 1,5 thousand tanks, 3 thousand tools and more than 3,7 thousand planes.

Do you want to say that Zhukov and Vassilevski are not reliable ? It can not be true. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Igor. Read this carefully. Stop spewing sources (blogs and "funnytogo", seriously?), and read the relevant wikipedia policies until you understand them. This isn't about the NUMBER of sources, or whether we can SEE them, it's about their reliability according to wikipedia rules. Stop wasting everyones time, including your own.

Please don't just post another 20 comments. Read the policies until you understand them, then give us only the sources needed, with information supporting the reliability of the author, or the publisher.

Again, you are wasting everyone's time, including your own, if you don't do this. I have explained this clearly, and politely, many times. If you continue to make edits which disregard the requirements, it will be clear what your intentions are.

Zhukov is a Primary source, and largely discredited anyway, so no, not appropriate. Aleksandr Vasilevsky is also a primary source.(Hohum ) 20:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hohum nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you against your will to be a part of this discussion. If all you want to do is bitch and complain then please just leave. You are being disruptive with your non-stop complaints!. We are NOT FORCING YOU to be here. Leave, you are not helping okay and I'm fed up with you and your bitching. Caden 07:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Soviet estimations are other. 70.000 dead Germans in the Kursk defense operation and 90.000 dead in Orel operation. (http://wwii-soldat.narod.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm) I dont know it about Belgorod Charkov operation but it must be at least 50.000 dead. There are already 210.000 dead and 20.000 captured. Soviet infos can be estimated in 600.000 Germans. (in Russia the Wehrmacht lost not no much wounded soldiers like in France, because the Red Army was too fast and german soldiers had not give up like in Western Front) --Igor Piryazev (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"read the relevant wikipedia policies until you understand them." What part of WP:RELIABLE don't you understand? Stop arguing based on sources that aren't accepted. It is a waste of everyone's time. (Hohum ) 20:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

igor please revert your edit on the article. And after this, proof that this 2 sources are reliable according to wp:reliable. But please do not delete tags added by hohum or other editors until the issue is resolved. Blablaaa (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but what is with Glantz ? What did he say about the whole battel of Kursk ? 140.000 ? 360.000 ? 500.000 ? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Glantz gives no figures for kutuzov because german archives dont give numbers for soviet time periods same for rumjantzev. Glantz gives numbers for zitadelle which are lower then friesers. You can read this in the casualties section Blablaaa (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

koltunov & solovyev

Since Igor seems not to understand what he is being asked for, I'll try to do part of his job. The source used by Igor ( http://militera.lib.ru/h/koltunov_solovyev/07.html ) is a book written by two Soviet scholars, G. Koltunov and B. Sovolvyev which was published in 1970 by Voenizdat (Military publisher) publishing house. I found one mention of this book in a review written by a reputable historian John Erickson (The Journal of Military History, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 586-587 ) In his review of Glantz's "The Battle of Kursk, 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study." He writes:

"The battle of Kursk in 1943 has been as frequently mispronounced ("Kersk") as it has been mythologized, exaggerated, and misinterpreted. With respect to Soviet historiography, a paradoxical situation has long prevailed: an abundance of dramatic narrative but a paucity of authentic operational exactitude, only partially compensated for by deliberately discreet analysis such as that found in Koltunov and Solov'ev, Kurskaia bitva (Voenizdat 1970, 1983)."

In his review, Erickson contraposes the Koltunov & Solovyev's potboiler and another Soviet source, because the Galntz's book is in actuality a translation of the materials provided and prepared by the Soviet General Staff. My conclusion is that Koltunov & Solovyev is definitely not reliable source, whereas not only Glantz's "The Battle of Kursk, 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study." is reliable, but it is presents the Soviet point of view, although somewhat critically reinterpreted during translation.
I am also a little bit surprised by Igor's choice of the sources. Militara.ru is a collection of history books and memoirs, and some of these sources are rather new and seem to be reliable. For instance, Zamulin's "Kursk turn" http://militera.lib.ru/h/zamulin_vn/index.html contains numerous data, and provide a very detailed and adequate description of the Zitadelle's course.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Iam bit frank now but i guess the fact alone that a historian claims the 500000 for german losses are true, is enough to question the reliabilty. Assumed the work was written in the past few years. Iam pretty sure no historian who has done research for this battle will support igors figures. Blablaaa (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Zamulin speaks only abot Zitadelle, but not about whole battle of Kursk. Is it enough ?

Лит.: История второй мировой войны 1939-1945, т. 7, М., 1976;

История Вел. Отечеств. войны Сов. Союза. 1941-1945, т. 3, М., 1964;

Битва на Курской дуге, М., 1975; Колтунов Г. А, Соловьев Б. Г., Курская битва, М., 1983;

Курская битва. Воспоминания, статьи, 3 изд., Воронеж, 1982; Курская битва в цифрах, "ВИЖ", 1968, № 6-7. (http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1943.html#14)

There are already 4 sources: 1976, 1964, 1983 and 1968. Or are ALL soviet sources unreliable ? Give in russian internet "Курская битва 1943" and you will find still a lot of pages. Or is ALL russian internet unreliable too ?

Is famous soviet historian Alexandr Samsonov also unreliable ?

http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2/11.html

There are SOVIET infos and they can not be the same as german sources. It must be clear. And Frieser can also say that the Russians lost 2 million people and Germans 10.000 soldiers. I dont care about it.

In 1943 the Russians lost 2.300.000 soldiers dead and missing (Krivosheev) and the Germans 700.000 dead (Overmans ) and at least 200.000 captured. The ratio in 1943 was 1 : 2.5. But in Kursk Red Army was defense and the losses were lower then 1:2.5. Even by german infos Kursk was one "fortress". --Igor Piryazev (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Zhukov and Vassilevski are not primary sources. They wrote their books not in 1943. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

i have problems to follow you. When u cite something in the article then use reliable source. Please explain why your sources are reliable. At the moment u bring more sources that is maybe correct but please try to show us exactly the sources you want to use for the article. You added 2 sources to the article. Both sources are found not appropriate for the article. I exclude myself from this "conclusion" but 2 other editors said this. So do you have reliable source for the figures. Please give 1 + author + credentials. Sorry but i get puzzled when u print many sources + your conclusion. Lets try to do it more clearly , ok ?Blablaaa (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And what is with this 2 english sources ? Why is this unreliable ?

http://funnytogo.com/stories/Battle-of-Kursk1943.htm

http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943

OK. Alexandr Samsonov "Crash of fascist aggression" (http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2/11.html) The book was publishe in 1975. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

here the first sentence of the first source: The Tiger, King Tiger and Panther tanks were introduced... i stoped reading after this....Blablaaa (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Where ??? You can not say that Koltunov and Solovjev are unreliable because of Erickson. Soviet historians say that western historians are unreliable and laught about them. There are 2 point of view in this war and we will never know the truth Is it so difficult to understand ? But is is UNFAIR when we use only german sources (americans and british use also only german sources). Is it really so difficult to understand ??? --Igor Piryazev (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true nobody knows the truth. But why is there such resistance here to include Soviet sources? If its proven to be reliable then why not add more to balance the article out? Of course we will need American sources that back it up. Caden 09:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, King Tiger is certaily false, but is not soviet source. --Igor Piryazev (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Soviet aircraft by Frieser

On another note. I noticed that the soviet aircraft casualties for the entire battle have the upper estimate of 4,209 with the note (nb 10) "Luftwaffe claims until 24th autumn, note: this excludes accidents and aircraft losses due to anti air". For the same reasons my earlier comment, the number is nonsense (I also think there is a typo and should say 24th August). According to Krivosheev (see citeation 16 in the article), total soviet air casualties from all causes for all of 1943 are 26,700 (of which only 11,700 were claimed to be combat casualties). The first number directly leads to the number of available aircraft available in 1944, so is quite reliable and not disputed. The luftwaffe claim sounds silly and I do not think it should be in the infobox. D2306 (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

regarding soviet aircraft losses. Krivosheev says that the recorded losses are incomplete so frieser used german claims to estimate a number. In his opinion the figure is likly to be next to truth. So frieser backs this claims. I know my personal opinion isnt important but with my knowledge of eastern front the russian aircraft losses seem reasonalbe for me. German had ~ 700 losses during citadel, kutuzov and rumyantzev . Bergstrom gives 1000 soviet for citadel. Bergstrom also explains that some unit casualties are unknown. Frieser is aware of the difficult source situation but supports the ~4000 Blablaaa (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

@d2306 some additional informations for u: soviet aircraft which were not reported as lost in combat were listed as missing or unknown. That means every aircraft which was downed by german aircraft and not witnessed by another soviet aircraft was not listed as "lost in combat". If 5 soviet aircraft engage german aircraft and become destroyed they are maybe listed as "unknown causes". I read this somewhere... Blablaaa (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the casualties reported per operation (of which some could be not reported, though this applies to Germans too), and total year-by-year casualties. If check Krivosheev total year-by year-casualties, you will see it is a simple table with:

a.Start of the year available aircraft/b.total aircraft received throughout the year/c.losses. a+b-c= availiable aircraft for next year. There is no way these numbers can be misinterpreted. 26,700 is the total Soviet air casualties from all causes (combat, accident, missing etc) for all of 1943.

The number 11,700 combat losses (from these 26,700) may be challenged, but the high accident rate in the Soviet Airforce during the war is well known, with many reasons from rushed manufacturing to very short pilot training. So I doubt the combat losses are much different from the number claimed.

The Luftwaffe claim that it inflicted over 4,000 casualties in 50 days, without counting losses from AAA and non-combat losses and only in the Kursk sector sounds like a joke at best. It is no better that the sources provided by the new editor. I would like to see the exact quote from Frieser where he says that he thinks the 4,000 air-air kills only is close to truth. D2306 (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

i will take a look and translate itBlablaaa (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Frieser: "the biggest puzzel is the number of soviet aircraft losses. The numbers give bei krivosheev are totally unreliable. ... Soviet data regarding the own aircraft losses are academical useless so we only have the claims of german pilots. It was pretty hard to get a kill approved ... Germans claimed 4209 in the kursk area... Blablaaa (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"It was pretty hard to get a kill approved..." Maybe so, have you ever looked at luftwaffe claims for Battle of Britain, or during allied bombing raids? They vastly exceed the real allied losses. German pilot claims are hardly less "academically useless" than Krivosheev. Your quote does not say anywhere that the german claim is close to truth.

Bergstrom gives 1100 soviet losses for the first 12 days!! and then 4000 for 50 days sound like a joke for u? dont forget that far more air units were involded in the time of counterattack. For me this dont sounds like a joke ... Blablaaa (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the source Bergstorm uses? Pilot claims again? The first twelve days saw the most intensive fighting. There were many other big battles in 1943 (Air battles over Kuban, Kharkov, Dnieper crossings etc). Claims of 4,000 air-to-air kills, excluding ground fire losses, is nonsense from a common sense point of view. Even 4,000 total casualties seems dubious.D2306 (talk) 08:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

now both, frieser and bergstrom, sound dubios for u ? u said it sounds like a joke. but looking the numbers we see that 1100 in 12 day and 4000 in 50 days dont look dubios but statistical reasonable. Soviet air losses are hard to establish. The numbers are sourced. I think we can stop discussing them. But dont for get that 3 Fronts more participated in the counterattackes and also rethink your wrong statement: "The first twelve days saw the most intensive fighting". when u look german aircraft losses u see that they lost only 159 in the first 12 days and 681 in 50 days . When u do a bit math, u will recognize that the ratios are nearly exact the same, for german and soviet. So the 4000 sound very reasonable. Nevertheless the numbers are sourced and we dont have exact losses from soviet sources, so what do u think should we do? Do u have a suggestion ? Blablaaa (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The quote you gave never said that Frieser agrees with the german claims. I have yet to see the exact Bergstorm quote from you. The luftwaffe claims are just as much propaganda as any other wartime claims by Soviets or Allies. Read about the Battle of Britain, or the bombing raids on Germany. Typically there was a 2-3 fold difference between the numbers between claimed and actual losses. Don't forget that when you try to say the german claim is close to real, you are in fact suggesting the soviet air losses were near 10,000 (taking into account ant air artillery and accidents). Hopefully you see that this is too high.D2306 (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Frieser is supporting this claim. I shortend the text. He explains that german claims are pretty reliable. Regarding the battle of britian dont be confused with claims of pilots and published claims. Frieser talks about the claims of pilots which were approved by superios, he dont talks about any propaganda numbers published by germany. I wasnt there i dont know how much soviet lost. When i only look german losses then soviet ones sound resonable for me. When we assume same loss ratios for citadel and counter attacks we get the 4000. so it sounds ok. What do u suggest ? Blablaaa (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if German claims are used for Soviet losses, then Soviet claims should be used for the German ones. However, that is directly opposite to what people usually do. With regard to "Soviet propaganda", the stories about strategically, technically and tactically superior Germans that were defeated only because they were badly outnumbered is a part of German post-war propaganda (which, by contrast to Soviet propaganda, affected many English-writing scholars). I already presented the quote from some western history journal that state that, the quote with source should be somewhere in the talk page archive. In addition, a brief look in books.google demonstrate that many recent sources agree that German (and, probably the Soviet one) data are "incomplete".--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The soviet aircraft losses are a special problem. No complete soviet figures are avaiable so frieser used another source in this particular case. Again i ask for anthoer source. i have none Blablaaa (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it would be easier to follow the discussion if every party provided the quotes form the sources they cite that demonstrate their point. In particular, I would like to see:

1. A quote from Frieser where he states that the Soviet data are unreliable;
2. A quote from other reliable sources that state the same;
3. A quote from other reliable sources that state that no reliable figures (besides German reports) on Soviet plane losses exist;
4. A quote from Frieser who states that German reports are more reliable than other existing sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Iam not at home. Frieser says exactly that soviet data ( krivoshoeev ) is unreliable in this particular case. My word is enoguh i hope Blablaaa (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Nobody doubts in your good faith (I believe), however, your interpretation could be (although not necessarily is) not completely correct. In addition, you missed my point: we need an independent source to confirm that Frieser's assertion (about unreliability of Soviet data), that contradicts to another reliable source, Krivosheev, is correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Frieser etc.

After some reading I came to a conclusion that, although the Frieser's book meets all formal RS criteria, we cannot rely upon it too much for neutrality reasons. According to some sources, it represents a German point of view that has been characterised as follows:

"It is fairly well established that the effectiveness of the Blitzkrieg has been exaggerated by commentators who remain excessively under the spell cast by the sheer shock and drama of the German offensives, and have therefore overrated the impact on war of military methods which represented more of an improvisation than the fruition of a coherent doctrine. The potential of motorised internal combustion engine-based weaponry and logistics was less fully grasped than talk of Blitzkrieg might suggest. Aside from this analytical issue, there is also a question whether the fighting quality of the Wehrmacht has in fact been exagger- ated. Both were to become apparent with Operation Barbarossa. On the German side, there is still a tendency to regard their defeat as due to being beaten in "the production battle in the factories,"(K.-H. Frieser, "Kursk-Turning Point of the War?" RUSI Journal 148, no. 5 (October 2003): 80). and to minimise or ignore the extent to which they were outfought. All-too-much of the work on the German side is based on postwar analyses of their own campaigns by German commanders and staff officers. This places the responsibility for defeat on resource issues, the size and climate of the Soviet Union, and, above all, Hitler's interventions, leading to a situation in which "the quasimythical level of excellence attributed to German operational and tactical planning" persists in the face of extensive archival evidence that highlights battlefield mistakes by German commanders.(Steven H. Newton, ed., Kursk: The German View. Eyewitness Reports of Operation Citadel by the German Commanders)"

Source: Jeremy Black. War Stories The Journal of Military History, Vol. 69, No. 3 (Jul., 2005), pp. 827-832

It is also interesting to read the Newton's opinion anout Zetterling & Frankson's "Kursk 1943: A statistical analysis." In his book (Steven H. Newton, ed., Kursk: The German View. Eyewitness Reports of Operation Citadel by the German Commanders (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer- sity Press, 2002)) Newton notes that quality and reliability of the sources used for "Kursk 1943:..." varies widely, with some records being reproduced from memory or poorly translated (p. xii). Since these materials are being extensivelly used as a sources for EF studies, that significantly skewed the Western views of Kursk (p.xiii).

On the page 410 on Newton analyses Zetterling & Frankson's conclusions and argues that they "downplay" German losses, e.g. by mixing ration and operational strength of German units. For instance, ccording to him, the losses of Ninth Army and Second Panzer Army, amounted 56% of their combat strength in July.

In my opinion, the Newton's book should be analysed more carefully, because the possibolity exists that the article in its present form provided somewhat skewed view of the events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

quote " On the German side, there is still a tendency to regard their defeat as due to being beaten in "the production battle in the factories". This is not a tendency that is fact. That the defeat came by production is no theory but fact. To what degree is the question. Facts by krivo : Soviet tank and assault gun losses 96000 , aircraft losses 120000. German losses far less. Logic : beaten at the factories ----> total war.

When i read the text by Newton i see many copies of glantz words. Dont know his book but sounds nothing new or special. In my opinion people should avoid switiching to heavy pro soviet books after using too pro german books . A balanced view would be fine. Blablaaa (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure where you found 120,000 air losses in Krivosheev. According to the link on the article page, it is 88,300 total losses from all causes. At the same time Krivosheev claims germany lost 56,800 aircraft and her allies 2,100 on the Eastern front. Unless Krivosheev is heavily exaggerating that does seem like far less losses for the germans (especially if you take into account the enormous material losses of the first month of war). The Germans did lose much less tanks and SPA that Soviets (3 times)

World War was sometimes called the "War of Industries", and Germany did not make use of their industrial potential to full extent. But this has nothing to do with Luftwaffe claims and Soviet air losses at Kursk. D2306 (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

pretty sure about the +120.000 aircraft. dont forget non combar like transport and rec Blablaaa (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

, it says 88,600. I am pretty sure that transport and rec aircraft are also included, but in any case there were not that transport and dedicated rec planes in the USSR before the war.D2306 (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Equipment losses in World War II Blablaaa (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That is still less than the 120,000 you claimed. But I reread the source admit I made a mistake too and misread the it. Total aircraft losses were 106,400 aircraft of all types from all causes. D2306 (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

i wrote it by my mind. i messed something up seeming. Nevertheless.... Blablaaa (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And please dont forget that the article at the moment is heavly sourced with glantz and not frieser. i own both and in my opinion they describe pretty the same with focusion on different aspects. Frieser more at tactics and glantz more on operations and planning. And also both support the fact that the number were a major factor, for frieser the major factor and for glantz a major factor Blablaaa (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Sutov/Ramanicev
2. Glantz p426

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• C-Class weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• C-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors