Talk:Battle of Prokhorovka/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Localised temporary German tactical success" As outcome text. Consensus?

It covers all the bases in terms of caveats. It mollifies many of the reverts that this text is subject to. It also covers the broad areas of the senses of the cites given to support that outcome. Temporary and localised are reflected in sources and mainspace cites and capture the complexity of the ongoing debate. Arguably it reaches broad academic consensus on the "outcome". Thoughts people? Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think describing the battle as a draw might be best. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I reworded and shortened the long statement from "Localised temporary German tactical success at most, or tactically inconclusive" to "Localised, limited German tactical success". Hopefully that helped without altering the originally preferred message. EyeTruth (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for shortening without losing the spirit. It has been stable since I added that "compromise", and it had been a subject of frequent eds before. I assume the target stated above has been achieved. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Note. Re-added "temporary". Grounds: II SS Pzr Corps were withdrawn back to Belgorod by the 17th Aug. This means a holding of the forward positions achieved for less than 5 days. G&H 2004. pg 223. It will also stop terminal nit-pickers. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What about removing "localized" to still keep it brief? I think "limited" and "temporary" relay the message just fine. (In fact, anything to make it shorter). Of all the battles on Wikipedia, it has one of the most verbose infobox-result and this is coming from a dude that thrives in verbosity :p. EyeTruth (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

An interesting point. I was mulling that myself earlier. But I have been persuaded against it after some thought. And a beer. Reasons. Localised and limited are not really repetition. Localised in terms of geographic area and limited in terms of actual operational achievement. P was not captured and Soviet military formations in the encounter were not terminally disrupted or destroyed. In fact the pressure was unrelenting. I think it is attempting to cover two discrete "results of outcome". Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well the other infoboxes had better get more clued then innit? This is probably one of the most edit-warred outcome articles of any engagement on WP. If 5 extra words stop a dumb edit war using 5k lol so be it. As I said above to reason the longer wording. Celebrate your verbosity mate :) Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Still prefer a "draw" as neither side achieved their objectives for the day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I do see Zamulin's point and actually like his big-picture perspective of the outcome. But other authors love to break it down into operational and tactical levels of success or failure. Which of the two approaches is more popular among tertiary sources? EyeTruth (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Modern studies seem to be interpreting it on a much more tactical and multi-scenario level. It may be an unitended result of the post cold-war attempt to historically "de-mythologise" P on new evidence. It cuts both ways outcome wise, but draw is no longer sufficient, I would argue. Irondome (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

GBD likes draw too.But that was a couple of weeks ago and the section stability may have swayed him hopefully. But draw doesnt capture the reality on several levels. Its that ambiguuity that attracts the we won no we won dickheads. This has kept it stable for weeks. I bet draw would kick off a load of editing crap from nationalist freaks of whatever colour. This seems to shut em up. The notes linked also support it well. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My thinking on this has changed somewhat since reading further. The sources that comment tend to say the battle was "a tactical German victory, but..." July 12th was the day of the Soviet counteroffensive. In the north it went off as planned and is known as Operation Kutusov. In the south the 5th Tank Army took heavy losses against a panzer corps that was still very much intact. The fact that hundreds of Russian tanks were left burning on Hill 252.2 and that after attacking a single panzer division an entire Tank Army was placed onto the defensive would indicate the Germans had a better day than the Russians. The evidence is that it was the invasion of Sicily that shook the confidence of the German high command and brought the German offensive in the south to an end. The fact was that the Soviets were producing some 1500 T-34s a month, which was an astonishing number to the Germans. Thus the loss of 300, 400 or even 600 tanks was a loss that could be borne. Crew training was not as important to Stalin as it was to the German panzer forces. There was a callous disregard for human life in the Soviet command structure. The lifespan for a T-34 was a matter of two weeks, and this apparently did not trouble the Soviet command. During the quiet period that preceeded the battle replacement tanks had been stockpiled and the 5th Tank Army re-equipped back to full strength in a matter of three weeks. Thus for this battle I think giving both a tactical result and an operational result is important, and I believe it is most accurate to describe the day as belonging to the Germans, but that it did not change the overall situation. That is what we have now and the citations support those statements. If a source says "at best a German tactical victory" than one is compelled to call it such, or remove the citation and look for one that is more clear. Certainly you cannot claim such a citation indicates a draw, as the citation does not say it was a draw. It says it was a German tactical victory (at best). The author cited recognizes the events of the day resulted in heavy losses for the Soviets, but did not change the overall situation. The massive Soviet attack failed but prevented the Germans from advancing further that day. All things being equal the Germans would have resumed their drive. However, all things were not equal. The operation was called off when Hitler became nervous over events in the west, where he felt the vital battles would be fought. The infobox is intended to give a quick answer. To place a lot of qualifiers there is not helpful. The context is explained fully in the lead and at the end of the article. All is available to anyone who wants to know. The sources for the statements in the infobox are cited and quotations provided which make use of the very same words. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. I assume it was that earlier rubbish IP edit {inconclusive did he say?) that has got you thinking. I support the evolution of this aspect of the battle, to our present position. The only loss of my original definition has been "temporary", which on reflection I think was a problematic synthesis I was guilty of. Localised and tactical still hold true and are supported by sources. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an IP editor has been reverting Tactical victory and has been claiming original research is the explanation for claiming it so. I cannot see calling the battle a draw, but I can see how it might be difficult to sort out. The sources cited all state it was a tactical victory for the II SS Panzer Corps, but do so with qualifications. Overall, the Germans were looking for a breakthrough in the battle of Kursk, and this never occured, but it seems to me the events of the day should not be confused with the overall result. A victory won in a campaign lost is how I see it. The Cold Harbor of the Russo-German conflict. The Battle of Kursk was clearly a Soviet victory overall, no question, but they did not win it at the Battle of Prokhorovka. July 12 was just the next day in the offensive for the Germans. For the Russians it was the day they started the counteroffensive. To the north they rolled over the 2nd Panzer Army and immediately threatened 9th Army. To the south they ran into the II SS Panzer Corps and were thrown back onto the defensive. Liebenstandarte did not fall back, and Totenkopf did get across the road above Prokhorovka. With a loss ratio heavily in favor of the Germans I think you are compelled to say they won the day, but one day's events do not make the whole story for the Battle of Kursk. Dieter Brand claims it was a clear cut victory, but even he adds this caveat:

Da die deutsche Seite ihren Erfolg vor Prochorowka nicht durch weiteres Verfolgen ihrer ursprünglichen Absicht ausnutzen konnte - und zwar nicht wegen des begrenzt erzielten Ergebnisses, sondern weil eben die Kräfte, die die erkämpften Handlungsoptionen hätten nutzen können, nicht verfügbar gemacht wurden -, ist der am 12.7. zweifelsfrei errungene Sieg einer der von Manstein so treffend benannten "verlorenen Siege".

Which essentially says:

the German side could not take advantage of their success at Prokhorovka by further pursuing their original intent - not because of the limited achieved result, but because the forces that had won the action were not made available – thus the battle fought on July 12th was without doubt one of von Manstein’s aptly named "lost victories".

I think the word "local" may help. I must say I could be wrong and the IP right. The point is to communicate the ideas of what happened in a way that is concise. "Indecisive" is what he had, but if we called it "Inconclusive" would that more accurately reflect the events of the day? I think not, but I can see the position. If we did we would need a citation that said "Inconclusive" instead of tactical German victory with qualifiers. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Inconclusive" is the worst word to use in this context. A meaningless panacea term. Almost as lazy a term as "Blitzkreig" :) I would vehemently oppose its usage here. Irondome (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, oh... well... the word which must not be spoken! Okay. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(Moved down from above) I hope someone will ask editory Diannaa to stop inserting original research into this article. The cited sources do not say that Prokharovka was a German tactical victory. They say "at best" a tactical victory, or that Germans "could claim" it was a tactical victory, meaning there is doubt about whether it was. The third source doesn't call it a tactical victory at all. Wikipedia should stick to the language of the sources.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.213.248 (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion on this below. It is a difficult thing to describe succinctly. Our solution has been to give a tactical result and an operational result. Multiple sources state the battle was a tactical German victory on the basis of the loss ratio, but operationally neither the Germans nor the Soviets attained their objectives. Feel free to offer an opinion. Diannaa however is a librarian who is helping us to keep the article encyclopedic. Pretty much all I offer her is my sincere thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Even the cited sources show considerable disagreement as to whether it was a tactical victory or not. But lets assume that those who say it was a tactical victory were correct. Others claim that Prokharovka was a Russian operational victory. Showalter is emphatic that it was a Russian operational and a German tactical victory. And Showalter is cited as one of two sources who claim that Prokharovka was a German tactical victory. Therefore it is reasonable to cite him as a source for the claim that Prokharovka was a Russian operational victory and to reflect the article text to include that claim.

Since there is no consensus among historians about these matters, the article should reflect that lack of consensus. To do otherwise is to mislead the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.213.248 (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources cited supporting German tactical victory all say it was a German tactical victory, and they all say that overall it did not change the outcome for the Battle of Kursk. Brand points out that the reason the German success of 12 July was not followed up was due to events elsewhere. If you are writing about a battle and then make comments on the result based on events elsewhere you are bringing in a different topic. It is the difference between the Battle of Prokharovka and the Battle of Kursk. There is an article on the Battle of Kursk, and the article is clear on the outcome. The Soviets won a clear victory in the Battle of Kursk. However that was not due to the events at Prokharovka. Following the Battle of Prokharovka the offensive capabilities of the II SS Panzer Corps were still intact. The same cannot be said of the 5th Guards Tank Army. This article should reflect those facts. Gunbirddriver (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Major rewrite

Tried to reflect the more recent research, in particular Töppel (unpublished M.A. thesis). He has used German and Soviet unit records for the analysis, and his thesis was written to address the mythology of the battle, in particular Rotmistrov and Paul Carell. Andreas 09:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me have my doubts about the numbers. 700 / 800 is a more realistic figure provided by commanders. I'll try to dig out some numbers. But I don't trust this "modern research"... :( Grafikm_fr 09:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not 'modern research', it is going back to unit records. It also depends on what you define as 'Battle of Prokhorovka'. Andreas 10:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about an "unpublished M.A. thesis". While it is quite true that the traditional description of the battle is quite biased, it is not a single thesis that will contradict all the rest, including witnesses' statements (which were quite numerous). Grafikm_fr 18:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, but in actual fact I believe that if you go through the recent published literature, you will find similar facts (e.g. in Nipe). The thesis should be available through inter-library loan, and it is using primary sources for both sides (German strength returns and Red Army unit records). While eye-witness records are fine, it should be remembered that Rotmistrov is hardly an unbiased observer, while the Germans on the spot (e.g. von Ribbentrop) saw it as a German victory. So the thesis is not contradicting all eye-witness accounts. Andreas 18:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and 200 tanks on Soviet side as strength??? 8O Grafikm_fr 09:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

From my re-write: Together with the formations committed during the day, the total number of Soviet tanks in the battle probably reached 500. Andreas 10:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Then this figure should go in the infobox. I mean come on, if you stop 500 tanks with just 200 (or at least prevent them from advancing), one calls it a tactical success :) Grafikm_fr 18:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what it does at the moment. ;-) Andreas 20:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Then I'm lost. The strength is inverted or what? *scratches head* Grafikm_fr 21:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

500 Russian tanks attack, 200 German stop them, German tactical success. Andreas 21:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

One could just as easily argue that 200 German tanks were moving forward, 500 Soviet tanks stopped them, so it was a Soviet tactical success. DannyKalb (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Or 3 German tanks were destroyed at the cost of only 300 Soviet tanks, a Soviet tactical success. I don't find it particularly compelling, but one could always make the argument. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 500 RUSSIAN tanks attack, so why you list 500 under "Wehrmacht" and 200 under "Red Army"??? ^_^ Grafikm_fr 21:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Because I made a mistake. Andreas 07:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought so ^_^. Grafikm_fr 07:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and IIRC (have to dig up the figure), the Soviets lost something like 75% of their attack force (which kinda upset Stalin), so 350-400 tanks lost out of 500 make sense...

I think it was Rots crazy tactics which were a major factor in the high losses. Firing on the move, tilting at non-existent Tigers and elephants. A more cautious advance, picking shots acrefully, would have probably have lessened the absurd loss ratios. How many T 70s were involved in the advance? Do we have a figure for that. Irondome (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seemed to make sense when he was ordering it but it did not work out well. High speed caused decreased control of the tank units and decreased accuracy in their fire. Add to that the fact that the Russian tankers rode buttoned up, with the commander attempting to fire the gun while looking out the periscope at the same time to get a view of what was in front, and the fact that the 5th Tank Army tankers were new to the area and apparently were not made aware of the 15 foot tank ditch at the base of Hill 252.2 (not good), plus they could not communicate with each other (no radios in most tanks, and trouble with them working in tanks on the move for the platoon commander's tanks). All and all, the attack went very poorly. Rotmistrov likely would have been shot if Stalin knew what had happened. I believe that is why the story of the events came out as they did. The epic struggle, the triumph over the Hitlerites. About 1/3 of the tanks were T-70s, with Healy stating that 260 of 850 5th Tank Army tanks were T-70s.(p.171). Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"Soviet air-to-ground communication system failed...."

Just re this sentence. I dont have the supporting refs to hand. I assume this means that Soviet CAS radio or landline links supplied to Soviet V.V.S teams on the ground failed thus hampering effective and co-ordinated ground attack strikes? Cheers all Irondome (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made some edits on the air section, purely based on my best educated guess on this. Added Rudel too. Involved eds, please feel free to revert and/or trout. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Numbers?

If the German strength is 200 tanks, then how did they lose 350 tanks + 70 damaged? I'm assuming that they were not wiped out, so either they must have had a larger force or these casualty figures are inflated.

German field repair workshops were extremely efficient, tanks that were written off as destroyed were often recovered from the battlefield and refitted over time by stripping parts from other vehicles, thus available/destroyed vehicle figures vary considerably from day to day. vehicles counted as destroyed were often not deleted from casualty lists after refit. JH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.54.231 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Info Box tells us the Soviets loose up to 300 tanks and some 400 damaged (= max nearly 800). The text says there were up to 800 losses in the morning and about 300 in the afternoon (= max 1100) not dividet in losses and damaged. There is something wrong. In any case it were at least all tanks the soviets had or even more, according to what the article says.--WerWil (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Showalter says Prokharovka was a German tactical victory and a Russian operational victory. There is no logical reason to cite Showalter as a source for claim that Prokharovka was a tactical victoy, and ignore his asssertion on the same page that Prokharovka was a Russian operational victory. Therefore the best course is for the page to reflect both of his analyses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.213.248 (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The number of inoperable tanks on 13 July was much larger than the number of write-offs. Leaving this info out would raise the question of why the Totenkopf and Das Reich offensive failed the next day if the only German AFV losses were 3-5 write-offs.

DannyKalb (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed the edit mainly because you mistakenly changed the section header in the info box from "German losses" to "Soviet losses". The info is probably fine, but I have no way to check it, as there's no 2010 book by Glantz and House in the bibliography. You will need to provide more information about your source (title, publisher, ISBN please). Thanks -- Diannaa (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It is from the paperback edition of Glantz and House The Battle of Kursk, which has a publication date of 1999. Chapter 6, page 212 in the section entitled "Stalemate, 13 July", 4th paragraph. I will correct the citation. 16:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.16.63 (talk)

The Difference between net losses and total losses.

Healy 2008 pg 346 and Glantz and House 1999 pg. 212 agree precisely on the NET loss in operable AFVs suffered by the 3 SS divisions at Prokharovka between 12 July and 13 July. Healy says it was 43. I have no idea why, when citing Healy, another editor changed 43 to 40, and claimed that 40 was the total number damaged.DannyKalb (talk • contribs) 03:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That is because just above we had listed that the Germans had suffered 3 - 5 tanks destroyed. Tanks destroyed would be part of the net loss. Thus in adding that 43 tanks had been damaged and temporarily removed from service in addition to those already listed destroyed you had inadvertently counted those vehicles twice. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Healy writes there was "a differential of just 43 machines from the total of 294 available at dawn on the 12th". Differential means net. It means that the number of AFVs withdrawn from service MINUS the number returned to service was 43. Glantz and House agree. They provide figures for AFV strength in each of the three divisions which total 251, the exact same number and thus the exact same differential loss as Healy. There is no contradiction.

Glantz and House also state on pg. 212 that "Das Reich had repaired enough vehicles to rise to 83 tanks and 24 assault guns." Thus some vehicles were returned to service on July 13. Thus the total number of vehicles withdrawn from service must necessarily be larger than 43, since 43 was the net loss which equals total number removed from service minus total number returned to service, and the total number returned to service was larger than zero.

Since Glantz & House and Healy all provide the exact figure of a net loss of 43 AFVs, Healy would only contradict Glantz & House if the latter contradicted themselves. But they do not. They state "the Corps lost between 60 and 70 of its armored vehicles in combat on July 12." 60 or 70 is the total number, not the differential loss. It means that on July 13 between 17 and 27 vehicles were returned to service in the three SS divisions.

If the other editor has figures for the TOTAL number of vehicles withdrawn from service on July 12-13 that differ from Glantz and House's estimate then by all means let him state what those other estimates are. But it is simply false to say that Healy 2008 contradicts Glantz and House on this matter.

The other editor further volunteers that the German assaults on the 13 July did not fail due to AFVs withdrawn from service. That question is extraneous to the question of how many AFVs were withdrawn from service. It should be up to the reader to decide if the temporary loss of 60-70 AFVs out of 294 adversely impacted the fighting capabilities of the three SS divisions. Deciding on behalf of the reader that the number lost on 13 July didn't matter doesn't help a reader who, for whatever reason, may wish to know how many tanks were temporarily lost on 13 July. That reader has a right to know.DannyKalb (talk • contribs) 03:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that the German assaults on the 13 July did not fail due to AFVs withdrawn from service is extraneous to how many tanks were removed from service. This edit comment was not directed at the question you suppose, but was directed at your own earlier edit comment. The other editor you are speaking of noted that when you made this change you commented in your edit summary "The high number of inoperable German tanks sustained in was a major factor in failure of 13 July German offensive." This assertion is not supportable, as German tank strength was actually greater on 13 July than it was on 11 July. In noting this Brand states:

So ist z.B. der Bestand an einsatzbereiten Gefechtsfahrzeugen der beiden Divisionen LAH und R am Vorabend vor den Gefechten bei Prochorowka mit 186 Pz, StGsch und PzJg (Sfl) angegeben, und für den Tag danach, d.h. den 13.7., mit 190. Das heißt also, dass das II. SS Pz.K seine Kampfkraft trotz der "größten Panzerschlacht der Weltgeschichte" ungebrochen halten konnte.

To adjust the loss column by adding in total tanks damaged in all three divisions on the one side and contrasting them with only those tanks in a single unit utterly destroyed on the other side is an apples to oranges comparison. Such comparisons distort the event. If we are to start changing one set of numbers to be broader in what is being counted (destroyed tanks plus tanks that suffered damage), we have to count the opposite side in the same manner, and we should attempt to include all units involved, not just the 5th Guards Tank Army. The 5th Guards Tank Army came up against Leibstandarte, but Totenkopf had its on fight against the 10th Tank Corps and the remainder of the 1st Tank Army, and Das Reich had to battle the 2nd Tank Corps and the 2nd Guards Tank Corps. I have not noted editor DannyKalb consistent in regards to drilling down on this question. If we can get better numbers than I am all for it, but we cannot count equipment sent off to get wireless antennas repaired on the one side and then only count vehicles that were smouldering hulks on the other side and claim we have better illustrated what happened. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If the other editor can cite a source for total withdrawals from service which differs from the Glantz and House estimates then by all means he should state what those other sources are. But citing a figure (that Glantz and House themselves refer to) of 43 AFVs net loss to try and contradict a total loss of 60-70 on 13 July is comparing apples to oranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyKalb (talk • contribs) 03:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The other editor claims that both Brand and Frieser contradicts Glantz and House. That may be the case. Since their works are written in German and published in Germany there is no practical way to verify his claim. He should quote what both Brand and Frieser say. He doesn't need to translate it. I know a native German speaker. DannyKalb (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Were destoyed APCs considered to be AFVs in the German definition of destruction/damage? Simple point, but I just want it clarified. I assume no such ambiguity is in the sorces? Irondome (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

They had their own line on the damage reports so far as I know.

The books I read speak of tanks and assault guns.DannyKalb (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I tallied the reports as of 18:00 11 July and 12 July from the KOSAVE II study and came up with the totals of 6 tanks reported destroyed, 4 Pz IV from LSSAH and 2 Pz III from TK and 36 reported damaged, including attached assault guns. Coupled with the 19 vehicles reported repaired, the on-hand strengths add up exactly between the two days. Interestingly, the numbers under repair as of 18:00 12 July are generally much higher than the total of destroyed + damaged. I suspect that there's some double-counting going on between these two categories, but DR reports 51 tanks and assault guns under repair; LSSAH, 59; and TK, 42. That said I think that the differences between the two days' strengths is the most definitive number we've got since KOSAVE used the strength returns from each division and its attachments. BTW, Sd.Kfz. 250 and 251s were also lost or damaged in very small numbers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Nipe estimates 70-80 SS tanks rendered inoperable at Prokhorovka, similar to Glantz and House's estimate of 60-70 rendered inoperable. I added a citation for Nipe to the article and changed the estimated range to 60-80.

The differences between the two days strengths is by definition an underestimate of the number of AFVs rendered inoperable at Prokhorovka, because some AFVs were returned to service with Das Reich on July 13. Nipe speaks of other returns on that day as well. The total number of AFVs rendered inoperable on July 13 would have been 43 (the difference between the two days strengths) plus whatever the estimated number of returns was on July 13. As I mentioned, this could be anywhere from Glantz and House's low estimate of 17 returns to Nipe's high estimate of 37. DannyKalb (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Read what I wrote a little more carefully; I said nothing about the 13th. KOSAVE gives strength reports for the evening of the day of; I'm not sure where everybody else got their data or for what time it is. The difference between the report for the evenings of 11 July and 12 July is as I stated before. KOSAVE tracks returns from repair and, as far as I know, estimates nothing. During that same period returns were 8 Pz IIIs and a Tiger to DR and 10 StuGs to LSSAH's attached StuG Abteilung. I don't know off-hand when combat petered out on 12 July, it might have been continuing in some sectors past 18:00. Returns between the evenings of 12 and 13 July were 8 to DR and 0 to the other divisions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I get it. You say that on July 12 there were 19 returns. That would be consistent with Glantz's lower estimate. In other words, the difference between the number of AFVs available before the battle on the 12th and after it was 43. There were 19 returns on the 12 July. Thus the total losses on 12 July were 19 + 43 = 62, which is within Glantz & House's range of 60-70 SS AFV losses for Prokharovka. If somehow the 8 returns on the 13th came in soon enough to be counted in the days order of battle then perhaps the total losses might even have been 19 + 8 + 43 = 70. Thus I see your review of the KOSAVE data as consistent with Glantz's estimate. That is good because we are not supposed to do original research for Wikipedia. But it is clear that Glantz & House's estimate of 60-70 SS AFVs lost at Prokhorovka is not an outlier but rather is consistent with what others have found. In my view we should go with Glantz & House's estimate, barring any last minute additional analyses found by people who can read German. DannyKalb (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Where's the GA symbol?

According to the talk page, this article is a GA, yet I don't see the GA symbol in the upper right-hand corner. Is this due to a bot malfunction, or has the GA reviewer forgot to add the symbol? AmericanLemming (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Legobot usually adds it. Somehow this one got missed, so I have added it now. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Russian" is not the adjectival form of "The Soviet Union"

Please get it right, people. There were no more "Russian tanks" in Prokhorovka than there was an "English Air Force" during the battle of britain. Seriously. I continue to be underwhelmed by those of you who seem to care about the number of rivets on the inside of tanks but can't be bothered to get the identity of the combatants correct. Yes, it matters. And yes, "Russian" is 100% wrong just as "English Air Force" would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.245.96 (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Archive numbering

Currently the archive numbering starts at 5. It seems this is a glitch due to the first archive run. How about I renumber Talk:Battle of Prokhorovka/Archive 5 as Archive 1 and then renumber Archive 6 as Archive 2? Would anyone object? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No objection. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes

• Gunbirddriver, you're confusing Tank Armies with Tank Corps. There was no 2nd Gaurds Tank Army or 2nd Tank Army fighting II SS Panzer Coprs. 2nd Tank Corps and 2nd Guards Tank Corps, which both fought the II SS Panzer Corps, were part of the 5th Guards Tank Army. Therefore the historians Zetterling and Anderson are not crazy when they say that the 5th Guards Tank Army fought all three divisions of II SS Panzer Corps. And you're wrong to think that is false, unless you can provide sources that prove otherwise. But honestly, before you make changes, how about you find sources first before anything else. I have almost never made an addition to any article in Wikipedia without first having one or more notable references on hand. Stuff like that prevent unnecessary content-dispute. EyeTruth (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said, this is an apples to oranges comparison as you are looking at the tanks in the 5th Guards Tank Army, which essentially attacked the 1SS Panzer Division (see Healy p 327 Quote: "Allocated the task of confronting the Leibstandarte were the 18th and 29th Tank Corps of the 5th Guards Tank Army"; and also Nipe pp 316-317 asserts this to be true, as does Brand in his piece). The narrative you have inserted places these forces against the whole of the II SS Panzer Corps, but the reality was that the II SS Panzer Corp's two other divisions were both being attacked at the same time by other large Soviet formations. To the south of 1 SS was the 2nd SS Das Reich, and it was attacked by the 2nd Tank Corps and the 2nd Guards Tank Corps. (Glantz and House 1999 p. 180) These formations were not part of the 5th Guards Tank Army, and their tanks are not included in the number of Soviet tanks involved. In addition, to the north the 3rd SS was attacked by the 31st Tank Corps (1st Tank Army) and the 33rd Tank Corps (5th Guards Army). Neither of these formations are included in the number of tanks attacking the II SS Panzer Corps either (see here). Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Except that the 2nd Tank Corps and the 2nd Guards Tank Corps, in addition to 18th and 29th Tank Corps, were all part of 5th Guards Tank Army by 12 July (Glantz and House 2004 p. 318, 321). And Zetterling and Anderson recognized this fact (there is a reason their work has been described as phenomenal by both reviewers and other historians, look it up). Also, there was no 33rd Tank Corps in the southern salient (you really aren't familiar with the Soviet side of things). The 31st Tank Corp was the only major tank unit in the battle that didn't come from, or that wasn't subordinated, to the Steppe Front armies (i.e. the 5th Guards Tank Army and the 5th Guards Army). Sources first, opinions second. Besides, this info has always been there in the article's infobox; check it out. But for the sake of it, if you really insist on your opinion that LAH fought 5GTA alone, then provide a source that expressly says so. EyeTruth (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2nd Tank Corps and the 2nd Guards Tank Corps were units were in the area before the 5th Guards Tank Army arrived. Rotmistrov was given control for the duration of his counterattack to coordinate the forces involved. "2nd Guards Tank Corps, along with 2nd Tank Corps had been subordinated to Rotmistrov's command by Vatutin on 11 July" (Healy p. 328). That is to say, they were there fighting for days, and when the 5th Guards Tank Army arrived and was preparing a counterattack these units were placed under Rotmistrov's command. The point is to make the battle understandable. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In summary, the 2nd Tank Corps and 2nd Guards Tank Corps became part of 5GTA by 12 July. Good to see that you've finally realized that, or have you not? EyeTruth (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In summary, the 2nd Tank Corps and 2nd Guards Tank Corps were already at the battle site when the 5th Guards Tank Army moved up from reserve. They were placed under Rotmistrov's general command and were used to attack Das Reich on the sourthern aspect of the II SS Panzer Corps postion, while the 5th Guards Tank Corps came head on against Leibstandarte. If you don't express this then you are going to confuse people. Obviously the Germans were well aware of 2nd Tank Corps and 2nd Guards Tank Corps. Shifting their overall control to Rotimistrov to allow him to coordinate the attack can be mentioned, but the fact is the 5th Guards Tank Army arrived unobserved. You have to keep that idea intact, and if you nonchalantly say "The 5th Guards Tank Army was composed of blah blah blah...", and list units that the Germans were well aware of, you have muddled the story.

This is what we had there before ("we" being the editors that got the article to GA status):

The main Soviet armoured formation involved in the battle was the 5th Guards Tank Army. Prior to the engagement on 12 July, the 5th Guards Tank Army fielded 793 tanks and 37 to 57 self-propelled guns for a total of approximately 840 armoured fighting vehicles. About two-thirds of these tanks were the T-34, with about a third being the T-70 light tank, with some 35 Churchill heavy tanks as well.

This is what you have there now:

The main Soviet armoured formation involved in the battle was the 5th Guards Tank Army. Prior to the engagement on 12 July, the 5th Guards Tank Army fielded 793 tanks and 37 to 57 self-propelled guns for a total of approximately 840 armoured fighting vehicles. About two-thirds of these tanks were the T-34, with about a third being the T-70 light tank, with some 35 Churchill heavy tanks as well. Not all of the 5th Guards Tank Army was involved in the battle, as part of the formation was held in reserve and part had been sent south to check the advance of the III Panzer Corps. According to a study by the historians Zetterling and Frankson the Soviet armour of the 5th Guards Tank Army, which included the 2nd Guards and the 2nd Tank Corps, facing the II SS Panzer Corps on 12 July is estimated to be about 616 tanks and self-propelled guns. However, only Leibstandarte faced 5th Guards Tank Army on 12 July. Other formations, not part of the 5th Guards Tank Army, attacked Totenkopf to the north and Das Reich to the south.

Which do you suppose reads better? Which gets the idea across more quickly and accurately? Which is more meandering and mundane, with mentions of the names of historians who to the average reader are utterly unknown and uninteresting? Could they not just as easily look at the reference provided? Who in their right mind would place such thngs in the narrative? And which is factually more accurate? More detail is not necessarily better, and you have inserted statements that are blatantly false and which were not there in our earlier version. How do you defend that, and how does such actions move you forward toward your presumed goal of making this piece featured article status? Your version reads false. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to argue that Zetterling and Anderson are wrong, then provide sources that says that Leibstandarte alone faced the whole armour of 5th Guards Tank Army present at Prokhorovka, else it is just your words against their words. On 12 July 5th Guards Tank Army had five corps subordinated to it: the 2nd Guards, 2nd, 5th Guards Mechanized, 18th and 29th Tank Corps, altogether fielding around 850 tanks and self-propelled guns (Glantz & House 2004, p. 151; Zetterling & Anderson 2000, p. 48; Nipe 2012, p.39; all three sources agree). But you're constantly trying to divert attention away from the important matter here. Ok I agree, 2nd Guards and 2nd Tank Corps were already fighting in the southern salient before 12 July. Has that changed anything? Those two tank corps were still part of 5th Guards Army on 12 July. That info has always been in the article's infobox. However, the armour of 5th Guards Tank Army that faced the whole of II SS Panzer Corps on 12 July was only about 616 tanks, (Zetterling & Anderson 2000, p. 107; Clark 2012, p. 362) because some of the tank army's armour were sent to face III Panzer Corps and some others were held in reserve north of Prokhorovka (Zetterling & Anderson 2000, p. 107; Glantz & House 2004, p. 202; Nipe 2010, p. 315). To reiterate, it's your words against Zetterling and Anderson's, as well as the other historians'. EyeTruth (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the source quoted above? Here it is again: Quote "Allocated the task of confronting the Leibstandarte were the 18th and 29th Tank Corps of the 5th Guards Tank Army" Healy p 327. Also this is repeated by Nipe pp 316-317, as it is in Brand's piece. Those, EyeTruth, are three separate sources stating 5th Guards Tank Army primarily attacked the postions of Leibenstandarte. Here is Healy: Quote: "What has come to be known as 'the great tank battle at Prokhorovka was more specifically just one facet of the confrontation, albeit the largest, the clash of Leibenstandarte and the 18th and 29th Tank Corps between the River Psel and the Belgorod-Kursk railway line" (Healy p. 330) Why do you keep asking for sources, when you just ignore them when they are provided to you? Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking for sources that say Leibenstandarte fought the whole 5th Guards Tank Army alone as you insistently claim. The sources you provided rightly say that the 18th and 29th Tank Corps fought Leibenstandarte, but none of them say that the whole 5GTA fought Leibenstandarte. In fact none of them say that the whole 18th and 29th Tank Corps fought only Leibenstandarte, because that too would be false. 2nd Gaurds Tank Corps, which on 12 July was already part of 5GTA, fought Das Reich, and a portion of the 18th Tank Corp fought Totenkpf (Zetterling & Anderson 2000, p.107). The claim that the whole 5GTA fought Leibenstandarte, is purely your own invention, and it is very wrong. It only further shows that you need to brush up on your knowledge of the Soviet side of the battle.EyeTruth (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Where are you seeing the word "whole" in any edit I made or suggestion I made on the 5th Guards Tank Army? Neither I nor the several references I provided have stated the whole 5th Guards Tank Army. Some of the force was kept in reserve, some was sent south. You are aware of this, surely. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The armour of 5th Guards Tank Army, including the 2nd Guards and 2nd Tank Corps, facing the whole of II SS Panzer Corps on 12 July was about 616 tanks. So when you claimed earlier that only Leibenstandarte faced those 616 tanks, you were in effect claiming it faced the entire armour of 5th Guards Tank Army present at Prokhorovka. The armour of the whole 5th Guards Tank Army, however, was around 850 (something that Zetterling and Anderson also pointed out).EyeTruth (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not claim that only Leibenstandarte faced the 5th Guards Tank Army. I said primarily, which was the case.Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

About 200 of those 616 tanks face Das Reich and Totenkopf (Zetterling & Anderson 2000, p.107). EyeTruth (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

That's correct. Then say about 400 tanks were involved in the attack through the Psel corridor against Leibenstandarte. This is the focus of the narrative. (Healy p. 327) Gunbirddriver (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Vatutin's counterattack that resulted in this battle on 12 July was indeed coordinated to match Operation Kutuzov in the northern side of the salient. Again, before you make changes, confirm with sources first before anything else. You have a tendency to run along with your opinion before actually trying to see what sources got to say. It's fine to be BOLD, but sometimes care should be taken too. EyeTruth (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit to the article states "This counterattack was to be the southern element of the Soviet Operation Kutuzov"; whereas your comment in your edit summary states "This is actually correct. It wasn't part of Kutuzov, but it was coordinated to rhyme with it." Coordinated to rhyme with it. Okay, your edit summary comment contradicts the information you submitted in the edit, which underscores the fact that your edit has confused the narrative. This is to be avoided and was correctly removed until you re-inserted it.Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You changed it claiming that it has nothing to do with Kutuzov, and that is wrong. The thing is that Vatutin's counterattack, while nominally not part of Kutuzov, was in practical effect part of it. Glantz & House (2004, p.227), right after summarizing the Kutuzov counteroffensive of 12 July, adds that Vatutin's counterattack on 12 July "was but part of this larger Soviet offensive mosaic." The passage continues to elaborate on how premeditated and concerted those counterstrokes were, quoting and citing formerly classified Red Army General Staff documents. Hence that's why when I restored the mention of Kutuzov, I suggested that maybe we should consider a different wording that would better reflect the intended message. It's something that can be effortlessly rewritten by any of us. EyeTruth (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with Kutuzov. Kutusov was its own offensive. The Soviets went over to a general offensive on July 12th, with Operation Kutusov to the north and the offensive at Prokhorovka in the south. The best way to mention this in the article is to say "This counterattack was to be the southern element of a general Soviet offensive", which is what I had said. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The point here is that Kutusov and the counterattack at Prokhorovka were both planned and executed in concert; they were both related to each other. I will rewrite it so that it doesn't sound like they were the same thing in any way. EyeTruth (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As you should. Should have done it long ago, without all the name calling, projection and senseless bucking. Well, you've asked for a suggestion. Here it is: "This counterattack was to be the southern element of a general Soviet offensive". That expresses the idea perfectly. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• The two issues above, among other things including your editing record, strongly suggests that you're more concerned and more learned in the German side of the Eastern Front War. Hence it's totally understandable why you are comfortable with the mention of German units down to the battalion level, and occasionally platoon commanders, while mention of Soviet divisions looks out of place to you. But that doesn't need to be the case. You need to step out of your current mindset. FA assessment is not like GA. If one of the reviewers suspects that the article is too skewed to the German perspective, it could be failed. EyeTruth (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You mistake me if you think I would like to mention each German commander but none of the Soviet commanders. A sentence like this: "Group Trufanov consisted of the 26th Tank Brigade (of 2nd Guards Tank Corps), the 11th and 12th Guards Mechanized Brigades (of the 5th Guards Mechanized Corps) and the 53rd Guards Tank Regiment (a reserve unit of the 5th Guards Tank Army)" from one of your earlier edits reads very badly and should be avoided. It does not help that accurate detail is added. The narrative has become bogged down in details. This was one of the sentences that had to be cleared in the re-write to make GA. If anyone wanted to know such things they could look at one of the references we cited and find out exactly which units were sent with Trufanov to check the advance of the III Panzer Corps. That's one reason we provide them. The other issue you are having problems sorting out is one of scale. We are speaking of Soviet armys attacking German divisions. Thus though it would be significant to name the three German division commanders, it would be dizzing to mention the Soviet tank brigade and corps commanders. The result of adding such detail is that you have awkward sentences that read like a laundry list. This is not helpful to communicating the event to a reader. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You're addressing something that is utterly irrelevant to the current article. If we're mentioning key German platoons, then there is no reason not to mention key soviet divisions when necessary. Of course, it has to be readable; and I already started implementing changes to that effect. EyeTruth (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We are talking, or at least I am talking, about this edit here where you are adding unnecssary detail. The 183rd Division? Do we ever hear from it again? You are obscuring the narrative with this kind of unneccessary detail. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We can't just say infantry of 69th Army, as if we're talking of a whole army. We have German platoons mentioned, and never heard of again in the article. The article is filled with such identification of German units, which is fine, but it's only this one that turns your stomach. This makes me chuckle. EyeTruth (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly we can. The infantry in the attack was provided from the 69th Army. Truthful statement, and it does not bog down the narrative. But this is not the only one that turns my stomach. You made a huge swath of them before in the summer of 2013, and are certainly going to attempt to make more of the same in the future. See above in the discussion on Soviet forces. Too much detail: information available in referenced materials and info box anyway, narrative bogged down and outright boring. And much more of the same to come, to be sure. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You're dwelling on something utterly irrelevant to the current article. This is from the current article: "Obersturmfuhrer Rudolf von Ribbentrop of the 1st SS-Panzer Regiment's 2nd Battalion." And it was written by you, and it's not an isolated case. But to you, the "48th Rifle Corps' 183rd Division under the 69th Army" is the end of the world. EyeTruth (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Not the end of the world, just too wordy, too much detail in my opinion, as it bogs down the narrative flow. We do you think adding this in has to be fought over tooth and nail? My concern is in readabilty of the article. Why do you not respond to that concern? Gunbirddriver (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Making a broad reversion, which included corrections of typos and bad grammar, only strongly implies that you're already seeing this as your personal war. It doesn't help the article. EyeTruth (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Typos and bad grammer? The edit you are referring to shows me correcting the word 'travelling" to "traveling". Traveling is spelled with one "L". There is also a subject verb agreement problem that had been fixed. The subject "attack" in the sentence "The attack of these units was directed against Das Reich" is singular, and thus the verb should be "was", not "were". "The attack were directed" is grammitically incorrect. Both of these grammitcal corrections made by me were reverted by you back to the error. Grammar isn't that big a deal, but we should try to get it right. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Travelling is spelled with two "l", but also with one "l". I was aiming to change that sentence to, "The attacks of these units were directed against...", to reflect that it wasn't just a onetime assault that we're talk about. But what do you have to say about also reverting the hyphens corrected to en dashes, and the copyedit that shortened a sentence and made it read faster? You just overreacted. But seriously, there is no need to make this your personal war as you're already making it. It was your strong vibe of "personal war" that made me take this to AN3. It remimded me of this: A dozen sources against zero, WP:NPOV thoroughly achieved, all WP guidelines satisfied, but the content-dispute raged on just for the sake of sentiments and self. That's the vibe you gave, and I preferred not to repeat that quagmire all over again, so that's why I acted sharply. Sincere apologies for the heavy hand with the AN3 report. EyeTruth (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "American English adopted the one-l forms in the early 20th century." See Grammarist As to the sentence ""The attack of these units were directed against Das Reich", what you were aiming it is immaterial to the point being made. The point was that a grammatical error occured in that there was a problem with the subject not agreeing with the verb. This was corrected. You reverted it back to a grammitcally incorrect sentence, so regardless of what you were aiming at, what you chose to land on was a grammitcal error. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Both spellings are correct. I was still in the process of making a series of edits before you started making the changes; so that sentence was bound to be corrected. Besides, your reversion still undid a fix of bad grammar (or more correctly poor/confusing grammar), among many other things. The point here is, you don't need to make this your personal war and rage with broad reversions. I'm not here to try and make things difficult for you. EyeTruth (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, right, and you are writing in your preferred 19th century style, and it would all have been corrected anyway, so why Gunbirddriver do you insist on pointing out the error. Gee EyeTruth, could it be because you claimed, as you do here again, that the changes I was making inserted grammatical errors into the text, and that this was offered as proof, proof, that I was editing out of spite, when in fact I was simply correcting grammatical errors found in the text? Sheesh. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

So explain why you reverted the hyphens that were corrected to en dashes, and the copyedit that shortened a sentence and made it read faster, as well as undoing the fix of a confusing grammar. I don't even know what made you think "travelling" and that sentence that you've now dwelt so much on is what I'm referring to? There was no need to act out of spite. EyeTruth (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It's you that keep taking us back to errant "typo" corrections. The word "traveling" and the verb "was" were correct and should have been left alone, not reverted. The hyphens and end dashes were a big thing to you? Change them back, and my apologies. Gunbirddriver (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• The article has to be accessible to an average reader. If we simply throw in XX Division without any context whatsoever, a reader will likely make your kind of mistake mentioned in the first point above. The article will need clarity to get promoted. Fortunately, some how, almost all the German units in the article, even down to the battalion level, were already properly introduced. So half the job has already been done, probably by you, thanks. EyeTruth (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you know I did make an error in my response to your Administrators edit warring complaint, where I named the 2nd Guards Tank Corps as the 2nd Guards Tank Army and 2nd Tank Corps as 2nd Tank Army. I caught it the next day and would have fixed it, but the discussion had already closed. That is a typographical error. The more important point is that you have ignored both units and a number of others when you went about adding up tanks involved in the battle and losses suffered by each side. You are looking at total losses from the II SS Panzer Corps and contrasting them with total losses from the 5th Guards Tank Army, ignoring the many other Soviet armoured formations involved in the attacks on Totenkopf and Das Reich. This obscurs the reality of the event from the eyes of the average reader, who will never catch this error in presentation. If you wish to limit Soveit losses to the 5th Guards Tank Army (about 300 tanks destroyed), the appropriate opposite number would be total losses from Leibstandarte: 3 to 5 tanks lost. The fact that the Soviet losses were great and they still won the Battle of Kursk makes an important point to the reader. The Soviets could afford losses, the Germans could not. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you carefully consult your sources first. Either you're forgetting stuff or you're just not familiar with what happened on the Soviet side of the event. I could go into enormous details here, but it is easier if you just consult your sources, assuming they cover both sides of the battle in detail. EyeTruth (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Against what you think and recently claimed, I'm not here for a verbose retelling of the battle. Maybe some years ago, yes. Very recently, I contributed in getting two articles to GA, both of which cover a bigger scope than this article, and yet there are no verbose narrations. EyeTruth (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As we see from above you make the same kind of errors you did before, and are a very difficult editor to work with, but you have improved from two years ago. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We will get along very well if you stopped imagining that I'm out here just to make things difficult for you. I debated with also Irondome in the blitzkrieg content-dispute, and have since worked very closely with him without any issues. You know, you're absolutely the ONLY editor that keeps saying that they don't get along with me; think about that. Anyways, for almost any addition I make to an article, I ask myself, is it new information and is it notable compared to what's already in the article? Are there reliable sources on hand? I don't add stuff and then hope to eventually find sources. Sources comes first. Gunbirddriver, if sources back up your edits, how can I or anyone challenge them? It's really that super simple. EyeTruth (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I did't say I don't get along with you. It is you that keeps saying that, along with a lot of other things. Gunbirddriver (talk)

You did say you find it difficult working with me; same thing as "don't get along with". Or are you retracting that? EyeTruth (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I said you were difficult to work with. As a way to illustrate, here is what you said to EdJohnston on the Administrative page:

Yes EdJohnston, as I mentioned in my first comment there hasn't been a violation yet. But given Gunbirddriver's history of aggressive edit-warring, he is clearly trying to start an edit war that is completely pointless, just like the one that got him banned. The fact is still that presently, he is trying to enforce his own personal opinion above that of cited sources. He did not even try to deny any claim I made about his current edits in my first comment because it is simply true. His response above, in summary says: I know this is how it happened, so I changed the passage in the article without bothering to back it up with cited sources (besides, it will be completely impossible for him to find reliable sources because he is confusing Tank Armies with Tank Corps). There is also the fact that he was making broad reversions, which included corrections of typos and bad grammar. This clearly shows he is already seeing this as his personal war. He will continue his edit warring.(talk)

Capeesh? Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and it's all true. EyeTruth (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• By the way EyeTruth, it is Bold Edit, Revert, Discuss, not Bold Edit, Revert, Revert Back and then Discuss. This edit was your fourth insertion into the article of material that is subject to discussion. To show good faith you need to revert those changes until the discussion is concluded. Otherwise you are disrespecting the wikipedia policy and the other editors involved. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Although I already continued with general editing of the article, but YES I'm very willing to revert; however, the whole sentence about "LAH fighting 5GTA alone" rightly gets a cn tag until sources are provided, and the sourced information about "II SS Panzer Corps fighting 5GTA" gets presented in Zetterling and Anderson's voice to satisfy WP:NPOV until things are settled. Some other changes as part of the ongoing general editing would be to rephrase the Kutuzov sentence in order to best reflect the correct message; the hyphens will be corrected again to en dashes; the association of the 5th Gaurds Tank Army with the Steppe Front will be introduced properly in the lead; in addition, some other recently identified punctuation errors will be fixed, among other things. EyeTruth (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether you continued with general editing or not, you are obligated to stop reverting until the discussion has concluded. You have not done that, and seem quite content with your actions. The procedure is Bold Edit, Revert, Discuss. You re-reverted back to your edit and then looked to begin a discussion, and you take the postiion that the article will not be changed until you are convinced that it should be. I am not asking if you are ready and willing to revert. I am telling you that you are in violation of the procedure devised to limit edit warring. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As you wish, the reversion will be done, but I'm forced to do a manual reversion due to intermediate edits, yikes. BTW, you keep saying "Bold Edit, Revert, Discuss", but you were supposed to start a discussion, but I still ended up starting it for you. EyeTruth (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You've messed it up. See above. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything I can help with here? (eg, by providing a third-party check of sources?). Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Nick-D. The first bullet-point is the main content-dispute here. That line of argument is over this passage in the article: The Soviet armour of the 5th Guards Tank Army, which included the 2nd Guards and the 2nd Tank Corps, facing the II SS Panzer Corps on 12 July is estimated to be about 616 tanks and self-propelled guns. Gunbirddriver, against what the source Zetterling & Anderson (2000, p.107) says, believes it was only Leibstandarte that confronted the 5th Guards Tank Army. He cited sources that shows the 18th and 29th Tank Corps, both under 5th Guards Tank Army, fought Leibstandarte. That's the cause for that whole argument. EyeTruth (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I can access that book, but not until the weekend. Could you please provide diffs to the edits which concern you? Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

In the discussion of the first bullet-point, I laid out a series of sources. If Gunbirdriver doubts them, he is welcomed to ask for confirmation. Although I wonder if that will change anything, since he already asserted that Zetterling and Anderson's claim are blatantly false. EyeTruth (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources? It is about narrative, conveying meaning, clean writing style, not obscuring the text with useless information, allowing the reader to make use of the references provided. It is about editing a page. This is the same problem from two years ago. You need not describe everything available, who wrote the study, endless listings of inconseqential units, caveats on where a part of a formation not engaged in the battle was located at the time the main battle was fought and so forth. You have to make choices. You have to try to write well. Some weight should be placed on that. A second issue is just the manner EyeTruth attempts to resolve issues. Look at the tenor of his comments. And no, I am not the first editor he has had problems with, nor will I be the last.Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Gunbirddriver, so we should throw accuracy out the window and put your claims that are yet to be backed up by any sources. Well, you've succeeded in having me do exactly just that. Now we both have the opportunity to represent our POVs backed up with cited sources. It's now up to you to provide cited sources for your POV. Moreover, why do you keep bringing up points that are completely irrelevant to the current article, like "describe everything available", "caveats on where a part of a formation not engaged in the battle was located", etc. These have nothing to do with the current article. These filler-points only divert attention away from the main issues here, unless that's what you're going for. And then you're trying out your old scheme of vilifying me, ironically ignoring the snide remarks you've been throwing around. Plus you keep making up this fantasy of hordes of editors baring their angry faces at me, but these other editors understand that the blitzkrieg content-dispute didn't equate to a personal war. Hence, why I've been able to work seamlessly with them ever since. EyeTruth (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, you disappeared for a year or more after all that came to an end in August 2013. You had virtually no role in the article reaching GA status, as the article was put up for that at the end of August 2013, and made grade in December 2013. It was cut down from 104K to about 64K, and you did not participate in that effort. You are an editor that appeared out of nowhere with obvious extensive experience in editing. You could perform complex functions, and more significantly knew your way around the various administrative avenues far better than most, and yet you only began editing in February, 2013. According to the record available, your first interaction with Administrator's Notice Board and Dispute Resolution was in July 2013. It was apparent that you had already been editing and that you had come back under a different user name. My suppostion was that you had issues and wanted to start afresh. Every edit I have made is visible on the record. What I wanted to know in August 2013 and what I still want to know now is what your user name was prior to February 2013. That would just place us on an even footing. Gunbirddriver (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I checked the X!s Tool about two/three months ago, and I was still the number 1 content-contributor to the article. It was the huge overhaul I carried out on the article in the summer of 2013 that spurred the user Azx2 to nominate it for GA. But feel free to keep concocting your hollow conclusions. Moreover, how many times are you going to throw around this your old fabrication of me being a returning editor? You accused me of being user Blaah Blaah before too, and that was really and still very funny. In case you never knew, there is a help and template page for all those things you call "complex functions". And seriously, you're calling them "complex functions"? That makes me smile. A few weeks is enough time to learn all those basics. In my field, we learn far more complex stuff in a far shorter amount of time. Not to say that I've learned everything about wiki formatting and syntaxes, or that I've figured my way around here completely. Anyways, you should go easy with your fabrications, they sound ridiculous in a funny way. EyeTruth (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

EyeTruth's posts in the above discussion look pretty inoffensive to me, and your comments are more confrontational. Can you please provide diffs to the edits which concern you? Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Diffs in his edits to the page or diffs for his comments regarding me here and elsewhere? The narrative is being muddled, attempts to moderate the muddling are reverted, requests to leave the page for now and discuss are ignored, and instead he reverts to his wording and then looks to discuss, and he repeated impugns my character, implies motive where it does not exist, claims I am doing original research (basically making it up - when in fact it can all be sourced and has been sourced) and sends me to an Administrators page on edit warring after a single revert. Most recently he says "so we should throw accuracy out the window". Seems fine? I don't think so. I am not claiming we should throw accuracy out the window. I am saying we should describe what happened in a clear fashion. 2nd Guards Tank Corps and 2nd Tank Corps were already on site. These units did not surprise the German command. The units moving up from Steppe Front were unexpected. It could be handled with a simple sentence: "The 2nd Guards Tank Corps and 2nd Tank Corps which had already been engaged in the battle were placed under Rotmistrov's command on July 11th to help him coordinated their use in the attack." I am off for the weekend and will be back on Monday.Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The sentence you suggested above, of course, can be incorporated. But that wasn't what you were pushing for before. Earlier, you claimed and insisted that one single panzer division (the LSSAH) primarily faced off the whole 5th Guards Tank Army, which is not true, and for which you are yet to provide sources. The German divisions on the flanks of LSSAH faced about 200 tanks of the 5th Guards Tank Army (Zetterling & Anderson 2000, p. 107). The way you keep changing the focus of this whole argument, honestly, just makes it look like you're contending any thing I do in this article just for the sake of it. The article is undergoing A-Class review now, so other eyes will tell if the narrative has been muddled or not. EyeTruth (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Then do so. Gunbirddriver (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The presence of the 2nd Guards and 2nd Tank Corps before the battle is already evident in the article. But sure, the Soviet tank distribution can be mentioned briefly. (Also, please don't scatter my comment all over the page, while slapping the fragments with the wrong timestamps. If you absolutely need to move it around, move it as a whole with its neighbouring comments, thanks). EyeTruth (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are the diffs I think you were looking for Nick:

• Article revised here Revision as of 07:12, 10 July 2015 ET: No comment
• Returned text to original wording here GBD: "too much detail makes for an unreadable sentence. The idea brought across is that infantry support was available to the Soviets, which is in contrast to the German forces."
• Text reverted again here Revision as of 07:10, 11 July 2015 ET: "Th article conveniently goes a low as the battalion-level for German units. Division level for Soviet units should at least not be a taboo."
• Returned again here GBD: "These additions and changes in phrasing are reverted. Go to the talk page if you think these changes are not correct."
• Text reverted here Revision as of 20:58, 12 July 2015 "You cannot just make a BROAD reversion just because you don't agree with one or two things. So I should go on TalkP to get the permission to correct hyphens and dashes, add commanders and citations, and correct stuff that read contrary to their sources?"
• Returned again here GBD: "As per Administrators discussion (my comments being implied here), these edits do not improve the article. BE,R,TP; Please initiate comments on talk page to discuss further."
• Text reverted again here Revision as of 18:38, 13 July 2015 ET: "What Admin said the edits do not improve the article? You're good at twisting statements and situations. See talkpage"

At this point I discontinued attempts at returning the text to its original format and entered this talk page discussion leaving the text in the article as EyeTruth had worded it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC) As provided above previously:

• Healy p 327 Quote: "Allocated the task of confronting the Leibstandarte were the 18th and 29th Tank Corps of the 5th Guards Tank Army"
• Nipe pp 316-317 asserts this to be true in a lengthy description too long to quote here.
• Brand "Die 5. GdPzA blieb mit zwei TK vor einer deutschen Panzerabteilung, nämlich der II./Pz.Rgt. LAH." which translates to "The 5th Guard's Tank Army was stopped by two panzer companies of a German Panzer Division, namely the II. / Panzer Regiment of Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler.
• Healy p. 330 "What has come to be known as 'the great tank battle at Prokhorovka was more specifically just one facet of the confrontation, albeit the largest, the clash of Leibenstandarte and the 18th and 29th Tank Corps between the River Psel and the Belgorod-Kursk railway line"

To these citations you have given no response that I can see. You seem to ignore the fact that they have been cited. Now how about Totenkopf? Is it part of the II SS Panzer Corps? Was it attacked by the 5th Guard's Tank Army? Part of it was, the 6th SS Panzergrenadier Regiment "Eicke", but the largest part of the division was attacked by the 95th Guards Rifle Divisions supported by the remnants of the 31st Tank Corps. These units are not part of the 5th Guard's Tank Army, and you have not made that clear. The revision I made to your edit was helpful, and should have been left in. I suppose your "citation needed" marker is only intended for Das Reich? Add the sentence that the 2nd Tank Corps and the 2nd Guards Tank Corps were placed under Rotimistrov's command for the attack and your done with your "citation needed" marker.Gunbirddriver (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

EyeTruth (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC). The fact still remains that the whole 5th Guards Tank Army at Prokhorovka did not fight only Leibstandarte, unlike what you claimed with this edit. And none of the sources you listed above support your claim. And the 2nd Guards and 2nd Tank Corps were part of the 5th Guards tank army by 12 July. On 12 July, 5th Guards Tank Army had five corps subordinated to it: the 2nd Guards, 2nd, 5th Guards Mechanized, and the fresh 18th and 29th Tank Corps, altogether fielding around 850 tanks and self-propelled guns (Glantz & House 2004, p. 151; Zetterling & Anderson 2000, p. 48; Nipe 2012, p.39; all three sources agree with both the units and approximate numbers). When a corps is subordinated to an army, it means it is part of that army. For God's sake, this has been repeated a million times in this debate, but you always conveniently ignore it. At this stage I feel you're just relishing this. EyeTruth (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox figures

Currently, the infobox shows figures for the whole 5th Guards Tank Army (850 tanks) vs. the whole II SS-Panzer Corps (290), although only a part of the former took part in the engagement of 12 July. By the afternoon of 12 July, Rotmistrov had only about 610 tanks at his disposal. However only around 500 of those went into action against the II SS-Panzer Corps on 12 July. The 5th GTA's 5th Guards Mechanized Corps (about 113 tanks) was held as reserve and was only committed on 13 July against Totenkopf. From 12-17 July, the whole 5th Guards Tank Army (850 tanks on 12 July), along with other "non-tank" armies, fought both the II SS-Panzer Corps and the III Panzer Corps. All of these information have already been mentioned in the article, but the infobox still presents incongruent figures (i.e. 850 vs 290). The casualty section of the infobox also has a similar issue. I feel these need to be rectified. Opinions? EyeTruth (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I've gone head to implement some changes with this edit. EyeTruth (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Misconceptions

The misconceptions regarding this battle are quite very popular and thoroughly well-documented in literature. Since the article completely avoids any mention of these in its normal narrative, which is exactly how it's meant to be, there needs to be a section that specially discusses these misconceptions. With this new section, the article would essentially be "complete", as in it touches on all the major points of this topic. Opinions? EyeTruth (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

That is a very good observation. A brief overview of the historiographical coverage of the battle through the war, post war Soviet era, to 1989 and the partial opening of the achieves through to the present would be very useful. But it is such a potentially extensive subject in itself that it may merit it's own article. Irondome (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It can be started as just a section in the meantime. If it expands a lot in the future, then it can be moved into a new article. EyeTruth (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Agte

Agte is not a WP:RS source; pls see Talk:Joachim_Peiper#Agte.

I suggest removing these two sentences attributed to him:

• Four of the Panzer IVs under Ribbentrop were destroyed by the time their position was overrun.

• The three surviving tanks rode along with the advancing Soviet armour unnoticed, and they reported that they destroyed 14 Soviet tanks from close range.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed Agte as intricate detail cited to non RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

ww2.dk

These do not appear to be reliable sources:

• "VIII. Fliegerkorps". Archived from the original on 14 July 2015. Retrieved 11 July 2015.

• "17th Air Army". Archived from the original on 14 July 2015. Retrieved 11 July 2015.

I'm not sure if they are used for citations. Should they be removed? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

They are cited for the name of the commanders of those air units. The second one is not needed, since Glantz is co-cited (and I've verified the attribution). EyeTruth (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Media

Song and games.--Tuong lu kim (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

New image

I found File:Soviet troops and T-34 tanks counterattacking Kursk Voronezh Front July 1943.jpg on mil.ru, which is permitted on commons with attribution. This image apparently shows Voronezh Front Soviet troops counterattacking behind tanks at Prokhorovka, and was previously on commons before it was deleted for lack of proof of PD status. Kges1901 (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That will be a good addition. But it doesn't say anywhere in the mil.ru article that the image is from 12 July or Prokhorovka. There were other big tank battles between Voronehz Front and the 4th Panzer Army during Citadel, and countless number of other small tank engegements. Is the info on the location and day coming from elsewhere? Either way, it looks like a good addition to the article. EyeTruth (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The info is from the original EXIF image description that came with the mil.ru file. To be precise, it says (translated) "Soviet tank attack, Prokhorovka area, 12 July 1943" Kges1901 (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Kursk vs Operation Citadel

I'm not following -- why is Operation Citadel a redirect to the Battle of Kursk? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

No idea, it's not my work. However, the Kursk campaign is not simply the German offensive and the Soviet defense; it includes the long-planned Soviet counteroffensive operations that really concluded the campaign. I sincerely apologize for reverting. But this is important. Too many western accounts of this campaign seem to assume that the 'battle' ended when the Germans cancelled their offensive. In fact the Soviets made the decision in April 1943 to accept the German offensive and counterattack once they'd reached their high water mark. DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I partially re-reverted while leaving Battle of Kursk link where it was originally: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The different sides saw it differently. For the Axis, Kursk = Citadel; but for the Soviets, Kursk = Citadel + Kutuzov + Commander Rumyantsev. Soviet/Russian historiography consider Citadel as the Soviet defensive phase of the Battle of Kursk. Some years ago, I tried to get Citadel splitted out from Kursk into its own article, but Sturmgovel and Gunbird wouldn't budge. EyeTruth (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

This makes sense, actually (re: the split). "Operation Citadel" could cover the German plans, etc. In reality, Citadel unravelled almost from the start. With the immediate failure of the northern pincer, any success achieved in the southern sector would have been meaningless, as "operational freedom" there would mean pointless advance into the Soviet rear where the German forces would have been at risk of being cut off and destroyed. I would support a split of the Battle of Kursk article if it ever comes to that. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Result of the Battle: a summarizing outcome?

In the infobox, the result is deconstructed in terms of the various levels of warfare, which is an accurate representation of what's in literature. But most secondary sources also provide a general summary of the outcome, which usually is that both sides failed to accomplish their initial objectives for the battle. I'll go ahead and add this. Please feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Hiya EyeTruth What kind of wording were you thinking of? Maybe you could bung it down here initially so we can have a look and make suggestions etc. I would suggest we expand or redraft outcome section and move it down so it is the last section in the article, with a see aftermath note in infobox? Cheers! Simon Irondome (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Good that I waited a bit. I planned to add, "Both sides missed their goals", and drop "stalemate" from the Soviet line. And move around one or two of the citations. EyeTruth (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think these proposed changes will excite a need for the outcome section to be edited. We could expand or redraft, but it wouldn't be because of the proposed changes. EyeTruth (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Understood. We can expand or redraft anyway, a definitive outcome/aftermath section will add to the article obviously. There is always room for improvement. Irondome (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

End notes

Why does this article use parenthetical citations for the end notes rather than numbered citations like the rest of the article? Sizeofint (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Limitation of the sfn. It can't seem to handle nested referencing. EyeTruth (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Grammatical pedantry

To decimate is to decrease something by 10% (). I don't know what the losses of the 5th Guards Tank Army were, otherwise I would edit the main article, but I'm sure the author meant something more than 10%. 76.66.114.233 (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

That's the historical meaning, but the modern usage has gone well beyond that. Every current reputable English dictionary recognizes the broader usage. EyeTruth (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Out of about 800 Soviet tanks up to 356 were destroyed and 420 demaged. That means their armoured forces were nearly halved. Would be a better expression for what has happened than "decimated". --Andreas (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I dont disagree that there are better words. I didn't think that the more original meaning of "decimate" would dominate; I guess I was off. EyeTruth (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting support

I added an "in popular culture" section to this article that mentions the appearance of a Prokhorovka map in World of Tanks. Sources aren't exactly my department, so if anyone can help with that, it would be much appreciated! Also, if anyone knows of any other appearances of or references to the Battle of Prokhorovka in popular culture, feel free to add them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSquirrel42 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

That content has been deleted....rightly so IMO. DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Overdone detail: "Obstacles and postponements of Operation Citadel"

This section explores the postponement of Operation Citadel with a level of detail not befitting of the subject of this article. The postponements had no material impact on how the battle of Prokhorovka played out. The section should be transferred to Battle of Kursk. One or two sentences are enough to summarize this, just like it was before. EyeTruth (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@EyeTruth: Agree; I believe you are referring to this edit? That's excessive detail. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent research by Ben Wheatley

Ben Wheatley recently published a study A visual examination of the battle of Prokhorovka in the Journal of Intelligence History. Maybe someone more familiar with the topic could add this new research. 2A02:8108:1340:5E70:F89B:3F32:D95:8C5E (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The overall message from the study is already reflected in the article. One big difference is that he considers only Das Reich and Leibstandarte as part of the battle. There are other historians that consider only Leibstandarte, because in deed Leibstandarte did a lot of the fighting. But this article went with the whole II SS Panzer Corp, which is the more common portrayal in many secondary sources. How you slice then determines what numbers you get. EyeTruth (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)