Misplaced Pages

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) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent talkpage comments

Sorry Nick, i shall try to keep it more civil from now on.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

current conversation

dont block please, i dont want to disrupte wiki or something else, i didnt edited the article, i tried to explain my future edits before. same on kursk. Blablaaa (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

problem

i dont want to sound like a kid but before i do anything wrong. whats your advice at this situation. i know u read my conversations so u have an opinion. conversation is fruitless. what now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Conversation is not fruitless. Stay calm, and discuss the issue on the article's talk page, keeping an open mind at all times. It would be helpful if you didn't create large numbers of discussions at the same time. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

okBlablaaa (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

and now?Blablaaa (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

to the conversation. Blablaaa (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea which of the several conversations you currently have going which you're referring to here or what the issue is. Please stop wasting my time. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

when i insisted on correct casualties figures before than editors explained me that all range of reliable historians should be included, now on normandy article another editor explains me that one figure is correct before more historians support this . i changed my "style" and wanted to establish this reliable range for charnwood... see my talk page Blablaaa (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The book by Wood appears to be a collection of wartime German reports in which British casualties could have only been estimated, and as such is basically a primary source. Per WP:PSTS Misplaced Pages articles generally shouldn't use primary sources, particularly when reliable secondary sources are available, as is clearly the case here. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ok. Blablaaa (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

i can copy the pages and upload on a imagehoster for a short while showing that glantz did not mean this. i see no other possibility my words are simply not enough i guess :-( Blablaaa (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

hello. again i dont want to sound like a child but i dont want to make it false. i reverted somebody who reverted me, i gave detailed information why. i also gave information for my first edit. this was not noticed. the version which i reverted includes misquoting for example so i think its correct. i hope this was ok, when it will reverted again i will not revert to avoid edit warring. Blablaaa (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

please tell me if i waste your time, i was reverted again and dont want to edit war now. what can i do i explained on talk page and on the user talk page. i can give exact statement which show the statement is a misquote. i added a cited table with strenght numbers which is deleted two. what shall i do now. Blablaaa (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss it, of course. You should know this by now. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah sure i discussed it so often i explained it so often. i copied text from books to show whats wrong. but everything is reverted. i added a table with sourced numbers but its deleted, and now i have to wait until he says its ok ? he misquoted an historians, when he accused me of doing this u asked for example, so now i say the same, are u interessted in explanation? i didnt want to bring him problems i told no admin... Blablaaa (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

it costs me more time to explain my edits and search for help than editing the article. i ordered the newst book of glantz had have his newstes numbers here and the old numbers are wrong but i cant add because i get a edit war then. u losing time too. i see exactly that the article now dont says what glantz says but i can edit even after i explaind 7 times with hundreds of words and quotes .... Blablaaa (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I own When Titans Clashed and Kursk by David Glantz and Jonathon Houses, and the references appear accurate, though some of the material cited to pp. 175–176 of When Titans Clashed refers to the entire second half of 1943 (including Kursk) rather than just the Battle of Kursk. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

yes ok and i have his newest kursk which has a chapter for the fialure of zitadelle and hes saying numerical superiority. and by the way i never disputed glantz says "often exaggerated numerical superiority" , but taking this out of a greater context and saying he disputes frieser is misquoting because glantz never says without superior numbers soviet had won. he grabed a statement of glantz and formed an opinion which is contradting his newest book and with his final exact statement so the reader can jugde himself.. even before i was blocked for a week i explained this on his page he did not respond , i repeat myself over and over. . and his book when titan clash is not perfectly up to date he didnt count steppe front now he does. so whats now i explained this glantz never says numbers werent improtant but the text now tries to imply. i dont even mention that glantz updates his 320 lost tanks on prokorovka. now i have to wait that he acceptes my changed regardless i have the most recent literatur and explained everything. can i rebuild the table without doing edit warring is this ok for u ? Blablaaa (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to adjudicate your dispute or approve your edits one by one. Why don't you use the sandbox version of the article like you said you would? Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

because when i edited the sandbox he told me what i have to edit first what i have to do, i didnt knew that i have to follow somebody, nevertheless i did and it was disappointing result for me, u can check if u want. and yes it sounds odd when i ask if i can edit the table, but i dont want to be blocked again because somebody says then this is 3RR. i have the book in front of me and see misquoting and wrong statement and cant changed because i need the permission to edit, by the same user who did the "misquoting". that zaloga and overy are not even talking about kursk ( like i explained, like i explained everything ) doesnt madder i see. misquoting too... that frieser points 3,4 and 5 are deleted while sources doesnt madder too. all my edits are reverted and the user has gone to bed i cant edit because i will get blocked than. nice move of him, his last edit is a complete revert of me. maybe u remember , its not the first that i got maximum reverted regardless what edits were done. and now i ask u as admin again can i make the table to improve the article battle of kursk without getting blocked for breaching 3RR ? by the way its unpleasent for me to stalk your talk page and annoy u with such unimprotant **** but my options are limited, sorry.... Blablaaa (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• ":I'm not going to adjudicate your dispute or approve your edits one by one. Why don't you use the sandbox version of the article like you said you would? "

i think there is no real dispute. the article is quoting an opinion of an historian but not correct, thats no content dispute this is false and not allowed on wiki i guess. i think even a email of mister glantz himself would be not enought argument... :-) Blablaaa (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline for working on Misplaced Pages articles. As I and several other editors have suggested to you previously; slow down, stop creating large numbers of discussions, acknowledge that different reliable sources reach different conclusions and work with other editors. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

i create discussions to explain myself and solve disputes , other editors dont do this. i create discussion before edtis so that everyone can check why i do this. and no in this particular case the sources dont differ somebody misquoted. he avoids the discussion for every neutral reader its obvious why he avoids answering the question. i didnt want to accuse him but here it comes.

the battle of kursk article quotes Glantz with saying this:

• "On 11 August, the 1st Tank Army engaged Waffen SS units near Bogodukhov....The 5th Guards Army sent reinforcements, and between 13 and 17 August the Germans were fought to a stalemate. For the first time a major German counter offensive had failed to destroy a Soviet exploitation force"( i added big letters)

and no look of glantz exact words Page 249:

• "Finally, on 16-17 august the III panzercorps succeeded in pushing the 6th Guards and the remnants of the 1st Tank Army back to Merchik River stabilizing the frontline and destroying the offensive power of both red armies"

this is the same what i have written before and sourced with Frieser, he deleted and put "his" version in it. hes citing glantz but glantz is not saying anything like this. arcoding to losses, the soviet armies lost hundred of tanks against the 2 SS Divisions. i explained this more than one time but i will be reverted when i change this in the article. its the same editor . Blablaaa (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

only as addition here glantz final statement about the whole battle of kursk, its the end of book:

• "Red Army was rapidly developing the skills to match its enormous numbers. The resulting combination proved fatal to blitzkrieg and, ultimately, lethal to Germany"

regarding the number issue. i told this dapi before he ignored... Blablaaa (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my above comment about not adjudicating your dispute. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

ok i understand. i dont want to be the guy who annoys all. i will let the issue of his misquoting. iam not sure how wiki normally deals with people who cite reliable historians and creat their own statements which are not supported by this historian . i explainded here on an admin page and its archived. i will no longer edit against this misquoting to avoide problems. i thank your for taking time to respond. Guten Tag Blablaaa (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the text, and page 170 of When Titans Clashed says exactly what the article text referenced to it states (the page number had been entered as page 70 rather than 170), so your claim that the source has been misrepresented is clearly baseless. The subsequent pages of The Battle of Kursk also describe how Soviet units eventually pushed the Germans away from Kharkov and liberated the city, so it would appear that you're cherry picking sections of the book. Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

nonsense iam not cherry picking i can copy the book page. nevertheless his most recent book says what i wrote, do u want a picture of the site? when this really is there that its only a good proof for my concerns about the reliabilty of "when titans clashed" u can look the board for reliable sources. everything i disputed is not longer in his newer book. funny is that i already expressed my concers about this book weeks ago and this exampls only highlights how glantz changed his sources. and i really doubt that glantz in his older book not even mentions that the two soviet armies were destroyed. Blablaaa (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

and i repeat myself, i claim the text now doesnt fit with Glantz opinion of his newest book. and when i see that the articles says something totally different than its high likly that the user misquotes rather the historian changes his opinion180 degree. this is not my fault. Blablaaa (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

page 249: "MEETING ENGAGEMENT AT BOGODUKHOV

• "On 12-13 august , three combar groups of Totenkopf were finally able to conduct a oncerted attack against the by now overextended forward detachments of the 1st Tank Army, which had severed German rail communications with Kharkov. Katukov lost 100 tanks when three of his forward detachments were sourounded , although some of the soviet troops escaped on foot. Yet unlike previous german counterattacks, this success did not cause the red units to collaps and withdraw. Instead, the 6th Guards army, reinforced by the 5th guards mechanized corps of the 5th Tank army, counterattacked totenkopf on the 13th, penetrating to vysokopole, another small village located on the key Kharkov- Poltava rail line, along which vital german reserves were moving to reinforce the Kharkov defense. At the same time, elements of Das reich and wiking launched a concerted attack on the weakend elements of of the 1st tank army south of bogodukhov, reaching almost to the town itself. Rotmistrov committed the remaining two tank corps of his 5th guards tank army to extricate Katukov. for three days the opposing forces maneuvered around bododukhov, while tank strenght of both Katukov and Rotmistrov declined alarmingly .( here he puts a note, the two tank armies lost about 800 tanks , only my opinion, interesting who the red army can lose so much tanks against some ss battlegroupds constinng of less than 100 tanks. ) Finally, on 16-17 august the III panzercorps succeeded in pushing the 6th Guards and the remnants of the 1st Tank Army back to Merchik River stabilizing the frontline and destroying the offensive power of both red armies. ( here break new block )

• "While burning german and soviet tanks( my opinion: nice who the author not mentions that german lost some tanks and soviet hundreds) littered the landscape around bododukhov, the soviet advance on kharkov continued inexorable..." now he explains kharkov. u can take a map and look were these both towns are, to different settings. this is everything he says about the battle around bogodukhov, i hope u see now. Blablaaa (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D and Blablaaa, excuse me for butting in. I wonder if this is a case where a note (nb type) could be added to the article pointing out differing sourced viewpoints (perhaps even from the same historian) regarding the engagement in question? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa is nit-picking as usual. Selectively quoting and exaggerating the scale of minute engagements. The last point he refers to was a brief engagement (counter attack) that restored the line for two days. No mention is made of the German Generals in the back of the book, all of whom say Kursk was a German disaster. It is typical of someone who hasn't read the book and is combing it through looking for information is support preconceived opinions. Dapi89 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

no problem another opinion is good. the older statement is out of a book which deals with a much larger time frame. ten years later he wrote a new book especially dealing with kursk, so the statement now is much more detailed and maybe he changed is opinion. if u are interessted u can check the reliable soure board. i explained my concerns about "when titans clashed" then i bought glantz most recent book and see everything what i doubted is changed. for example numbers. so i cant see a reason to include his older views which are obvious more influenced by semi good primary sources. and his newer books is much more like Friesers work. Blablaaa (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa is nit-picking as usual. Selectively quoting and exaggerating the scale of minute engagements. The last point he refers to was a brief engagement (counter attack) that restored the line for two days. No mention is made of the German Generals in the back of the book, all of whom say Kursk was a German disaster. It is typical of someone who hasn't read the book and is combing it through looking for information is support preconceived opinions. Dapi89 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Try this, p. 252:

Although Soviet forces failed to destroy the German Fourth Panzer Army and Army Detachment Kempf in the Belgorod-Khar'kov operation, they added insult to German Citadel injuries and subjected the Wehrmacht to a blood-letting that it could no longer withstand. German infantry divisions eroded to mere shadows of their former selves. The 255th and 57th Infatry Divisions emerged from the operation with 3,336 and 1,791 mean respectively. The 322nd was reduced to 322 men. One regiment from the 112th Infantry Divison had one officer and 45 men.

• 11 Panzer Divison reduced to 820 Panzer Grenadiers, 15 tanks and 4 assault guns.
• 19 panzer Division - 760 and just 7 tanks

The SS Panzer grenadier divisions fared somewhat better but were heavily damaged. By 25 August Das Reich and Totenkopf fielded 55 and 61 tanks and assault guns.

That, I believe puts things into better perspective. Blablaaa mentions none of that - just 3 pages down the line. Dapi89 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

omg dapi u call the destruction of hundreds of russian tanks a minute engagement, a brief engegament ^^. your knowledge of this battle is based on a 15 years old book which has so many errors that even the author updated it multiple times. why should i mention the german generals when i talk about this counterattack. what a nonsense. and to support the picking argument i copied the whole text lol. and while u talk about cherrypicking u bring a german division which was heavly mauled ....... Blablaaa (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• "By 25 August Das Reich and Totenkopf fielded 55 and 61 tanks and assault guns." lol this division banged two soviet Tank ARMIES and had 116 afv'S left. ^^Blablaaa (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

u list casualties of single germna divisions, while all know soviet suffered always much heavier losses, 7:1 tanks and 4:1 in men . where is your logic dapi, where? Blablaaa (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for getting in, but 7:1 loss ratio was simply not possible in 1943. No matter how hard it tried, in 1943 USSR made only 3 times more tanks than Germany, so unless the source explains the common sense discrepancy here (did Red Army advanced tankless for the rest of the year? was there in 1943 another major battle with the opposite tank loss ratio to offset Kursk?), the 7:1 ratio mentioned simply indicates to me different approaches of counting losses for both sides. Dimawik (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

glantz says at least 5:1 ratio, frieser says 8:1. the different counting of losses is not the reason in 43 the tanks losses proportions were very high on the whole front. germans maybe counted losses in a battle a bit strange but not over months, and the statistics for months show very high tank loss ratio in 43. dont forget in 43 tiger started to have major impact. Soviet lost 6000 tanks on kursk thats 3 times the german tank strenght on the entire front.....And german did no only build tanks for eastern front....

Concur. I've made comments to this effect before, but casualty and loss figures for many battles are notoriously disputed. What if one side knocks out a tank but happens to be the side that retired from the battlefield? They chalk up one enemy loss. The other side, meanwhile, may recover the tank and have it back in fighting order in several days -- a common enough occurrence in the Second World War. Those of us who are students of military history understand this, but casual readers probably will not. How many of the vehicle losses figures for any armored battles account for recovery and repair -- I'd bet most use period reports, and that the better estimates attempt to locate accurate inventories of a unit's vehicles just before and after a given battle as a check on the unit's reports. One approach is to select what appears to be an overall solid source for a loss citation, but to include other loss citations as information notes to the article. To my way of thinking, this is probably the best way to inform casual readers of how loosey-goosey these figures can be. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

my simple opinion about this: The wehrmacht had 50,000 tanks and assault guns and self propelled artillery. this includes tanks I and II, this tanks were not even destroyed in battle thousand were pulled out of the line. same with panzer38. multiple 1000 tanks of germany were staying around at the end of the war. so the lost in combat is maybe 40.000 ???. than we see that heavy tank battalions( all tigers I and tiger II) had up to 50% mobility kills and panther examintions on western front showed that more than 50% of this tanks were destroyed by crew or abandoned. if we say 40$ mobility kills ( only as example ) , than we have ~25,000 german combat losses. soviet lost 100.000 ( not alle combat losses ) and western allied 15´.000-20.000 ( ?). so we see the german combat ratio was extremly high, and on 43 the german were able to recover most of the light damaged tanks so there were only combat losses. and when we think that in 43 the red army had no counter for tiger, the 6:1 or 7:1 or maybe 5:1 fits perfect.Dimawik u should not forget that germany, even when they didnt used them, had thousands tanks in western europe italy and so on. according to archivs of both armies the germans lost 1,331 tanks in july and august ( this is the overall figure and so their is no "strange" counting , all damaged which were abonded while retreat are already included) , soviets reported show 9,294 tanks lost for this two months, makes 7:1. but all tiger and other heavy machienes were in the kursk sector, so the ratio here is propably higher... Blablaaa (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

maybe we start now improving the article and discussing valid points ?Blablaaa (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I have blocked Blablaaa (talk · contribs) for a month for reasons explained on their talk page. I'd appreciate it if discussions of the Battle of Kursk article could be continued on that article's talk page rather than here. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Nick-D's Day!

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Achoo~! I know, I know... but its just my nose being sensitive here... anyway, happy your day~! ;P --Dave 03:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Morotai

Since I am just working from sources, I admit that I may have been in error regarding Pitoe Airdrome. Or it may be a matter of semantics (not to be Clintonesque, but it might boil down to a definition of "began construction"). However, my source was photostats of orders to the 38th Bomb Group, which had a mission of spraying Pitoe with DDT on the first two days of the operation. The Frag Order issued by V Bomber Command at 2100 of 9-14-44 to its groups read in part:TWO ROGERS CALL BATMAN SPRAY PITOE AIRDROME AREA TOT 1100/I, followed at 2240 by the Field Order:TWO SQ, 12 B-25 (38TH BG) CONDUCT SPRAY MISSION PITOE AIRDROME AREA 15 SEPTEMBER. The final mission report of the 38BG S-2 sent 1519 on 9-15-44 reported: PITOE STRIP IS OVERGROWN WITH NEW BRUSH TO A HEIGHT OF 4 TO 6 FEET., and on the second mission on 9-16: EQUIPMENT ON SOUTHWEST END OF PITOE STRIP BUT WORK HAD NOT YET BEGUN. TWO NEW ROADS FROM RED BEACH TO PITOE STRIP. I drew the conclusion that Pitoe had been begun by the Japanese quite some time before the landings, cleared to some extent, but that work on the strip had been suspended for some time. The 38th itself moved into Pitoe on or about October 15 and flew its first combat mission from there on October 19. Cheers.--Reedmalloy (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources I found (and used in the article) stated that while the Allies originally intended to complete the abandoned Japanese airstrip, this didn't go ahead as it's flight paths would have caused problems with the airstrips which were built from scratch and designated Pitoe and Wama dromes. I'd guess that the 'Pitoe Strip' referred to in the records you've found was the uncompleted Japanese air strip as the sources I've found didn't mention any other attempts to build an airstrip on the island prior to the Allied invasion and the pilots' description of its status is in line with how its described in the works I consulted. The Allied Pitoe Drome was opened on about 17 October, so it's probably the one the 38th Bomb Group flew from. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TFA/R

Hi Nick, given your comments about getting good sources recently, and recentism as well, could you look at the last entry on that page. You could probably explain the recentism thing more rigorously than I could YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at WP:TFA/R. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Iraqi security forces

Would you mind reviewing the last few edits to this page, and giving me your view on (a) whether the tags at the top are warranted, (b) if so, what should I do about it, (c) suggestions on further improvements, and (d) after looking at the talk page, what do you think about the correct name of the page? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for this. I am considering trying to upgrade the page to match the model of Australian Defence Force. Would you mind giving it a small peer review? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure; I'll to this over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines

Made major cuts per WP:Recentism on . The history section is currently 3,988 words. 2,160 of them deal with 1942-1969 and 1,820 of them deal with 1969-2009. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hey,

I was considering running for Coordinator for the Military History WikiProject, but I am not sure. I was very busy in the "real world" during the last elections and did not think I was prepared to devote the time to the WikiProject that it truly deserves. I'm back now and I have started getting involved again. I've always respected your opinion, especially after we served together as coordinators in Tranche VII. I would really appreciate your advice on this. Thanks and Have a Great day! Lord Oliver 22:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think that you have time for it, I don't see why you shouldn't run. Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dutch 1913 BB

Hey Nick, I finally got to uploading the line drawings and adding in the table from my sandbox. Think it's ready for FAC? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)