Talk:Battle of Rzhev, summer 1942

Page name change

The renaming of this page is inconsistent with the general description of battle names used in English Wikipedia. Most articles do not take the Russian operational name, some examples Battle of Voronezh (1942), Operation Mars, Second Battle of Kharkov, Battle of the Seelow Heights. Also page visitor numbers are very much down indicating an unfamiliarity with the new naming convention. The page name should be reverted.Christwelfwww (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Casualties

The figures appear to be the wrong way around, I'm swapping them Pluke (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Rzhev, Summer 1942/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 03:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, please let me know any changes that need to be made Christwelfwww (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• No DABs, external links OK.
• File:Walter Model April 1943.jpg has a bad license. The uploader didn't take the picture himself; most likely a German photo from WW2. Either fix the license or replace it. Other images OK.
• Starting with the infobox:
  • If the battle lasts until 1 October, why does the article end before GD's counterattack?
  • Why is it indecisive or German tactical victory (pick one or the other)? With the Soviets failing to make any significant advances and losing 4-5 times as many men as the Germans, it's pretty clearly a German victory, although I don't think that it's necessary to characterise the type of victory.
  • The article on von Vietinghoff says that he was in France from 1 Dec 1941 so how is he involved?
  • I'd suggest finding another picture for the infobox, preferably one of Soviet troops or tanks attacking. And, in general, I think that any other pictures showing heavy mud are misleading since this battle took place during the summer and should be replaced as well.
• Add File:Rzhev salient 1941-1942.JPG so that readers can see the fishhook shape of the German salient.
• You've got a general problem with capitalizations: Battle of Moscow and similar useages are proper nouns and should be capitalized. Similarly so should 5th Tank Corps, 3rd Panzer Army, 16th Infantry Division, etc. Corps is both singular and plural. And be consistent on how you designate units if you're not spelling out their full name, and be sure to put the short name in parentheses on first use, forex 14th Motorised Infantry Division (14th MID). It doesn't really matter how you shorten them, but you need to be consistent.
• Coverage in English for this battle is scanty, so I'm very glad to see you using both German- and Russian-language sources. I'd strongly suggest that you consult Grossdeutschland's unit history for some useful information that unit's actions and opponents as well as those of the other divisions that participated like 6th ID.
• There are a lot of minor issues with the article that can be fixed by a good copyedit. I suggest that you contact the Guild of copyeditors for assistance. I would recommend User:Diannaa as a an experienced copyeditor who is very familiar with the Eastern Front. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on a full-scale copyedit of the page to fix whatever errors I didn't catch months ago. GAB (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• DABs = Disambiguation?
  • Yes.
• Please confirm re Model picture. Its used on Walter Model which is a featured article

The photo is actually in the Bundesarchiv here, possibly it will be formally uploaded to Commons:Bundesarchiv in the near future. Ian (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

So what license is appropriate?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Being in the Bundesarchiv does not automatically garentee usage. I had a picture which was open source from them, but they did not want it in the wiki, due to wiki abuses, they said. If the liecence cannot be sorted out, there is one or two, less good and less appropriate, but can be used instead.Christwelfwww (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Then you'll need to use one of them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Infobox
  • You are correct, the GD actions should be expanded upon.
  • Result, if I had to choose I would stick with indecisive. Although the Soviets lost many more casualties, they had many more replacements than the Germans had of veteran soldiers, which they were losing. Niether side really gained any advantage from the fighting, so indecisive.
    • I don't buy that; victory should be measured against the goals of the attackers. Did the Soviets do what they planned in this case? No, not at all. Did they at least manage to inflict heavy casualties that greatly weakened the Germans? Not at all. While the Germans lost experienced men, don't magnify the impact of that on the Germans while ignoring the scale of the Soviet losses. Losing 4-5 men for each German casualty is not a viable exchange ratio and hurt the Soviets more. I could understand your argument for a draw if the Soviets had exchanged at about 2:1, but not like they did here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Maybe, but its very hard to characterise this as a German victory. It tied down German forces and prevented AGC from doing what it wanted to do, which was to use what offensive forces it had in Seydlitz style operation's to shape the front into a more efficient defensive line whilst chewing up Soviet Armies. The loss ratio was not good, but I would stick to the argument that the Soviet s could afford 300000 men more than the Germans could afford 60-70,000, Defensively the Germans routinely held to a 3-1 casualty ratio whist losing battles and being forced back into Germany. Christwelfwww (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
        • While this offensive didn't have the lopsided exchange ratio of Mars, they did inflict 4-5:1 here, not just 3:1. As far as I'm concerned this is Mars writ small. But that's my opinion, what do post-Cold War sources say?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Result

Grossmann (unequivical)
The result of the battle. Russian lost: 380,000 killed and wounded, 13,770 prisoners, 2,956 tanks (destroyed or damaged), 45 guns, 101 anti-tank and anti-aircraft cannon, 227 mortars, 781 machine gun and 870 aircraft, including 59 shot down infantry.

Isaev limited success (for Russian) (Russian did learn some lessons)

Ziemke Army Group Centre had held its own through the summer - barely

Svetlana Gerasimova To paraphrase 'difficult to say'

Quoted in 'Through the mealstrom, a quote from Stalin 'Comrade Antonov' asked the supreme Commander, 'have you ever wondered why many of our offensive operation in 1942 were not completed?,' Take for example the Rzhev Viazma operation of two fronts... How do you explain these failures'

Participants, such as Boris Gorbachevsky in Thrugh the Mealstom and Petr Mikhin in Guns against the Riech both analyse the battle and come up with it was a tragic and costly failure.

Given the above Grossman seems correct in that Russia Lost, therefore I guess the result must be a Victory for Germany, even if it was a qualified one. What do you suggest, revert to Tactical German Victory?

• Thanks for looking these up. I think it best that we not characterize the level of victory for the Germans as that can get pretty contentious as people fuss over the meaning of "tactical" or "operational".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• • von Vietinghoff article is wrong. Transplated from http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Personenregister/V/VietinghoffHv-R.htm From 10 June 1942 he was for the wounded Colonel General Walter Model Deputy Supreme Commander of the 9th Army . He then took over on 1 December 1942, the leadership of the 15th Army in occupied France.I'll try and find a book reference and fix it.
  • Mud was a feature of the battle and one of the reasosn the Soviets failed. The rains were unseasonably heavy. The picture was taken in Oct 42, and is illustrative of the issues the Russian had moving their heavy artilery around which is why the could use it to breakthrough the line, but not to continue the attack. Unfortunatly I could find no images of tank attacks from 1942, I did look.
    • OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• I used File:Rschew 1942.jpg which shows the formation of the salient. Thereis only room for 1 map here, you think I should replace it?
  • I'd replace the railyard photo with this map. The map on the formation of the salient is useful for the background section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Looking at Rzhev salient 1941-1942.JPG, the time period is wrong, it only covers up to Feb 42. The shape of the front had changed by summer and the dispositions of the Armies were different. If you think a General map is useful, I could make one perhaps.Christwelfwww (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm a bit more concerned about the difference in the army locations than in minor changes in the front lines, but a map is absolutely necessary, so I'd suggest that you make one to your standards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks Ill look at the caps issue and the unit name issues and try to tidy up
  • Better, but still some left and other minor issues, forex: German 256 Infantry Division Should be 256th Infantry Division, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• There are quite a few unit histories that are appropriate, 6ID is covered by Horst Großmann, in his book Rshew, Eckpfeiler der Ostfront, as he was its units commander. I tried to pick the representative divisions who were at the critical points, such as 256, and 5PD and 36mot. But Ill add some extra detail at the ened as you suggest.
• Although I try, I do admit that my phasing can be clumsy. I will contact the user you have suggested, although I will say the meaning and emphases in the text is considered.

Christwelfwww (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• User:Ian Lancaster has gone through and updated your cites and helped out with the capitalization. However, he's reformatted your cites to sfn format and changed everything to British English. I don't know if you're OK with this or not, but if you are, you need to conform to the same cite format and language variant.

Does this require that references each have page numbers? Some sources are electronic format, and some are articles and don't have page numbers.Christwelfwww (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• • In general yes. If no page numbers are available then use chapter (.epub) or location (.azw3). Most articles have page numbers, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Kalinin Front, not Karalin
  • Ekk, done Christwelfwww (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• The terrain was in places low and prone to swamp swampiness--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, changedChristwelfwww (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Where are we on this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, since I don't have the same volume of sources, I'm essentially relegated to copyediting. I can certainly do this, though. GAB (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be great. Don't be surprised though if I fail this for non-responsiveness if the nominator doesn't update me on his intentions in the next few days. I'd hope that you'd continue on with your copyedit regardless as it's definitely needed by the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Most of it I did months ago, so what's here now is still better than it was before. GAB (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please can you be more specific on outstanding issues. I have to expand the final narative, and produce a genral map, but that takes a bit of time to do. Christwelfwww (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What's the progress on the map?

• known in Soviet history of World War II as the First Rzhev–Sychyovka Offensive Operation rephrase as "known by the Soviets as"...
• Convert all measurements/distances etc. into appropriate metric measurements Rzhev lies 140 miles west
• Tell the reader when the Soviet counterattack occurred.
• apogee of a salient that protruded from the front lines, pointing in the general direction of Moscow. This is a bit misleading since the Rzhev-specific part of the salient points north, not at Moscow, so it's not at the apogee at all since it's not anywhere near the closest point to Moscow.
• and strike a blow against the German Army Group Center forces that would push them away from Moscow. Too wordy, condense into "push the German Army Group Center away from Moscow"
• to the whole Army group. De-capitalize army. This still needs more copy-editing. I strongly suggest that you contact Diannaa and request her assistance before we proceed any further. I'll give you a week to respond to these latest comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, map in progress, i'll tackle all your points this week end Christwelfwww (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Still have to address my comments about the language in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Failed for lack of progress.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Forgotten Battles of the German-Soviet War Vol. III

Is this a Glantz paper of self-published book? I can't find any book with that name and there is no ISBN provided, which makes verification difficult. There is a brief paper here: http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/failures.htm. If need be, it looks like most of what it cited can be supported by other sources. Ian (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

These books are publish on demand, and self published. You can find out details here, http://www.glantzbooks.com/index.html#III._SPECIAL_STUDIES_S-series. Christwelfwww (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

questionable material

By October, the strategic balance in the centre of the Eastern Front remained essentially unchanged; the German army had suffered grievous losses,[8] and whilst their defence was tactically successful, they had achieved little more than maintaining the status quo.[7] Although the offensive had failed, Zhukov was given another chance to crush the Rzhev salient soon afterwards.[9]

You are probably right, that thesen statements should be more qualified and fit better into a section on the aftermarth. I will work though your points 1 by 1 and welcome your answers.Christwelfwww (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

All these statements are highly questionable. To credit the defense as being "tactically successful" when the Soviet plan failed to meet any of its objectives is very strange. The characterization of losses of 70,000 as "grievous" is very questionable especially when the Soviet Losses are characterized differently. As far as the "status quo", that is even more strange. It implies that no action other than a German Offensive toward Moscow in the summer of 1942 could be considered a success. The last sentence is even more troubling in that one would not know from reading it that it was (as well) a total failure. There is also (overall) a lack of diversity in the sources consulted in the article. They all tend to be telling the story from the same viewpoint.

The article is also entirely lacking any sort of true coverage of the aftermath of the operation. What calls itself an "aftermath" section is really just a place to list out casualties. The aftermath should at least cover the Soviet and German reactions in the aftermath of the battle. Especially in the context of the planning for Operation Mars. 75.17.127.253 (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

when the Soviet plan failed to meet any of its objectives

Actually the soviet attack met many of its objectives, as laid out in the Stavka directive of 16 July 1942, including breaking through the German front line, capture of Zubstov, Karmanovo, and Pogoreloe Gorodishche, the clearing of the Enemy to the banks of the Vazuza river and to dig forces in there. It partially succeeded in reaching the Volga banks but failed to clear all and to capture Rzhev.

This directive can be found in Glantz Forgotten battles Vol 3. But I see the details of the directive are missing from the article and should be included.Christwelfwww (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

In terms of numbers, as the Soviets replaced men in a ratio of 3-1 or 4 -1 over the Germans the effect of casualties were different, and the German side relied much more heavily on the high training and experience of their soldiers to compensate for the numeracal deficite. I guess grevious could be debated, but meaning serious I would still use the word. Christwelfwww (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Re tactical success. The German Army Group Centre had a long list of potential operations it would have like to carry out, but had to cancel because of the Russian attack, see Ziemke which lists them. These were very much less than the capture of Moscow and could have been regarded as some kind of operational success, as the did have with Operation Syglith. For example Operation Wirlewind was attempted but failed, partly due to its northern component being committed at Rshev. Also the considerable German reinforcements had to be committed defensibly, to fill gaps rather than mounting an effective counter attack which the Germans would have no doubt preferred.Christwelfwww (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The article sources draw on those from German, Soviet and English origins, what other diversity would you be looking for. The only other sources I know of that have not been much used are Soviet official histories that cast the operation is a much more positive light. Christwelfwww (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Unit conversions and comparative ranks

The GA review requests all measurements to be given in miles and km. This has been done, but most of the conversions are part of the text. Is it necessary or preferable for GA status to use the {{convert}} template instead? I could do the change but I don't want to do so if it is unwanted. There was one unconverted distance, "limiting further Russian advance to 2 miles", and I added "(3.2 km)" without using the template.

Another minor change: [[Panzer IV|Pzkw Mark IV]] to PzKpfw IV, thinking it best not to include "Mark" if the German abbreviation is used, and using "PzKpfw" for "Panzerkampfwagen", which is the abbreviation in the article.

About ranks: Konev's rank of General-colonel is the same level as General der Panzertruppe, but the German rank of Colonel general, Generaloberst, is one rank higher. Will that be clear to most readers? It appears that the photos are all from around 1942; a specific date would be interesting, since Zhukov and Konev would have vastly more decorations by 1944-45. Roches (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Rzhev, Summer 1942. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151228032412/http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec42.html to http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec42.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151228032412/http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec42.html to http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec42.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Start class article

The decision not to grant the article Good article status was fine, and acceptable, it needed added improvement. However to set its level as Start was one I disagreed with, and was probably one of the main reasons I ceased to be a contributor to Wikipedia. I have not changed its status, but would like to point out that I did a lot of reading on Wiki polices, ethos, and grading criteria, and endeavored to follow these rules as closely as possible as the main contributor to this article. It has extensive and accurate coverage on the topic, drawn from all usable sources. Also all statements are referenced and there is an extensive bibliography and external resource section. I would say therefore this article should have a B class assessment. Christwelfwww (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The mere fact that not every paragraph is cited means that it fails criteria B1 so it could only be a C class at best.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, lets make it a C then. Also what about coverage and accuracy?Christwelfwww (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Just like to point out that I have ceased to contribute to Wikipeadia because of the discouraging attitude of the more experienced users who I would hope are trying to be more helpful to contributors. I do think this behavior is a shame, as without mass contribution the wiki will struggle to remain accurate and relevant. Christwelfwww (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)