| Revision as of 21:16, 6 March 2010 editBlablaaa (talk | contribs)2,430 edits →Kursk: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:10, 7 March 2010 edit undoBlablaaa (talk | contribs)2,430 edits →KurskNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| i see u are not longe rinteressted in editing kursk. i will start editing the article then. its a pity that u deleted the tables which i created, so i have to do them again ] (]) 21:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC) | i see u are not longe rinteressted in editing kursk. i will start editing the article then. its a pity that u deleted the tables which i created, so i have to do them again ] (]) 21:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :: iam not longer interessted of waiting that u allow me to edit the article i will edit the battle of kursk. please discuss on the discusion page if u see a problem ] (]) 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:10, 7 March 2010
Dapi89 is very busy in real life and may not respond quickly
 Archives |
about the numbers
i studied glantz book a bit . iam not sure if he updated his opinion and u may have a older version but his really last sentence is: "...red army was rapidly developing the skills to match its enormous numbers. The resulting combination proved fatal to blitzkrieg and, ultimately, lethal to Germany" end of book. for me glantz dont thinks numbers werent significant he emphasisez the usage of the armies but he didnt denie that they had mass more. he also explains the pwnage of tigers with saying "only 10 were lost due enemy ... and destroyed several hundred soviet tanks". he also gives the steppe front as part of zitadelle like i said. he also gives the same numbers for soviet losses like frieser without limitation. your older comments dont match with glantz a bit Blablaaa (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Glantz final statement regarding failure of zitadelle:"When the worst came, Soviet numerical superiority, the stubborn tenacity of sobiet soldiers, the improved combat skill of commanders and the soviets ability to sustain staggering losses spelled doom for Citadelle" . can u explain the difference between this and your quotes of the same historianBlablaaa (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
regarding the SS counterattack during rumyantzev . u described as soviet victory while citing glantz but glantz says :"finally on 16-17 july the iii panzercorps succeeded in pushing the .... back and destroying the offensive power of both red armies" huh????? Blablaaa (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Defence of the Reich
Yes I will have a look at the article again. I haven't read the article in a while but my last impression was a very positive indeed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Tanks ramming at Prochorovka -- Frieser's statement
Not sure if you ever got the reference you were asking about on Blablaaa's talk page. It is from Volume 8, p. 124 of the German official history titled Das Deutche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg. Printed 2007 by the Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt in Munich. There are several contributors to the work, but Karl-Heinz Frieser was the chief editor as well as the author of the chapter on the fighting at Kursk. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Gembloux gap
Nice job. I was planning on expanding that article myself (after stuff got clarified) but I see you're quicker on the draw.radek (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI
I am just getting started on revamping Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945). Its been a while since I had promised to take this on. Anyways, as I remember, you had some thoughts about it that you had shared. Keeping those in mind, for now, I have just restructured the Contents of this article. I have also added some basic content in each section to give you an idea of what will be going there. Do you want to take a look when you get a chance ? Let me know. Thanks for the time. Perseus71 (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer. Anything around Stragtegic Organization would be greatly appreciated. How's the article structure looking like ? Perseus71 (talk)
Hello
Hi. Just to let you know, you added in the ref here with only the year and last name. The rest of the ref isn't in the article, so you may want to fill it in at the bibliography section or something. Cheers, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
René Prioux
Thank you! If you have more information on Prioux, please contribute to the article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Kursk
i see u are not longe rinteressted in editing kursk. i will start editing the article then. its a pity that u deleted the tables which i created, so i have to do them again Blablaaa (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- iam not longer interessted of waiting that u allow me to edit the article i will edit the battle of kursk. please discuss on the discusion page if u see a problem Blablaaa (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)