Talk:Operation Steinbock

Rewrite?

Even though it exceeds Wikipedia standards, could someone who understands the English language please rewrite this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.14.6.135 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

German night fighter operations

These had nothing to with Steinbock. The German intruder operations were defending German air space by offensively attackng Allied bombers over Britain. This was a defensive operation and had nothing to do with Steinbock. Dapi89 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And KG 51 is not listed on the order of battle, as written in the Orbat section. That in itslef tells the story. Dapi89 (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous references to 'Beale 2005' and a page number without the actual book referenced being named. Which book is it?--Paulthorgan (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

references

There are numerous references to 'Beale 2005' and a page number without the actual book referenced being named. Which book is it?--Paulthorgan (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Article name

I can't say that I've ever seen this, or any other German operation, refereed to as an 'Unternehmen' (which I assume is the German word for 'operation'). As this is the English-language Wikipedia we need to use the common English language name for things. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending the provision of sources which demonstrate that 'Unternehmen Steinbock' is the common English-language name for these attacks, I've moved the article back to 'Operation Steinbock'. I actually suspect that 'Baby Blitz' is the common English-language name. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose the use of "Baby Blitz". Wikipedia does too much dumbing down (Operation Cerberus to Channel Dash). I prefer to have Unternehmen as per E.R. Hooton's books. He never calls it Operation, always Unternehmen Steinbock or Steinbock. There are for or five references to him using the full German name. Dapi89 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Common name is the wikipedia policy and failing that a passable translation. You wouldn't care for a book called "The Last Blitz" subtitled "Operation Steinbock, the Luftwaffe's Last Blitz on Britain - January to May 1944" then? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have it yet. It isn't out until November. It is quite possible that Ron Mackay refers to it consistently as "Unternehmen", as he does in his book "Heinkel He 111" when referring to Unternehmen Paula. Dapi89 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Using the rather imperfect means of a Google search, "Operation Steinbock" gets about 35,000 hits while "Unternehmen Steinbock" gets only 278 hits. "Baby Blitz" gets about 2500 hits. "Baby Blitz" gets about 488 hits in Google book search, while "Operation Steinbock" gets about 124 and "Unternehmen Steinbock" gets only 6. Notably, the English translation of the recent German semi-official history Germany and the Second World War: Volume VII: The Strategic Air War in Europe and the War in the West and East Asia, 1943-1944/5 uses "Baby Blitz" as its title for the section on the raids and refers to the operation as "Operation Steinbock". As such, it would seem that "Unternehmen Steinbock" is the least-common of the three options in English-language websites and books. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We've yet to see what Ron Mackay's book has to say. Hooton calls it Unternehemen all the way through. A google search will direct someone to Wikipedia's page regardless of how its named re: Steinbock. I still oppose any notion of it being called "Baby Blitz". Dapi89 (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the results of the Google book search, Hooton is one of one two authors of English-language books to use 'Unternehemen' versus dozens using 'Operation' (many of which are recent). Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Questionable language

In the aftermath section it says "...the Nazi leadership, still bent on revenge...". The phrase "bent on revenge" feels much too emotive and is simply unnecessary. I've removed it and just opened this to explain.

Questionable language

In the aftermath section it says "...the Nazi leadership, still bent on revenge...". The phrase "bent on revenge" feels much too emotive and is simply unnecessary. I've removed it and just opened this to explain. Rottint (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Noticed User:Irondome thinks that the statement in the lead that the Germans did not prepare for air defence in any appreciable degree is "bollocks". It is a fact, easily verified. I will add sources but it concerning there seems to be a total misunderstanding of German doctrine and level of preparedness in that edit summary. Dapi89 (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the statement that Germany had "not needed to invest in air defence" until the major British attacks commenced: while it's true that there weren't any significant attacks prior to this time, the relatively limited investment of resources meant that the German military was left playing catch up. Moreover, this wording implies that Germany had the luxury of picking and choosing where it "invested", when in reality the difficulties in determining priorities for Germany's over-stretched capacities meant that air defence ended up being accorded relatively low levels of resources. The same was also true in many other countries. To cut a long story short, I'd suggest omitting this from the lead as it isn't necessary. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Both are true; they didn't prepare and as it turned out, didn't need to until mid-way through the war. In fact, picking and choosing when to develop air defence seems to be precisely what they did (which is why Murray refers to it as Strategy for Defeat, a dearth of forward thinking). The OKL had to be persuaded the Americans presented a daylight threat as 1942 turned into 1943! Jeschonnek and Goring were equally culpable. Until Cologne the Germans deemed Bomber Command incapable (not an unreasonable view). The issue on resources was more of an internal problem in the Luftwaffe, failings in doctrine, procurement, domination of the bomber etc. In any case, perhaps excessive for the lead. Dapi89 (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Source problem

"Wragg 2007" is mentioned in the notes but not in the sources. What work is this supposed to reference? 104.254.11.181 (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It will be the article isn't finished yet. Dapi89 (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

That is an odd defence for a missing reference. But I am glad to see it is there now. 104.254.11.181 (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This article might still be unfinished, if so {{Underconstruction}} might help, which appears as:

Regards Shire Lord (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead too long

With seven paras, the lead is too long. Generally, four paragraphs are preferable. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead actually isn't that long - it's just composed of lots of short, bitty, paragraphs.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a lot that could be taken out and it does need to be shortened.Shire Lord (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Nigel. And in a long article it needs to be comprehensive. Dapi89 (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Big Week

No doubt Big Week happened simultaneously with Steinbock, but the latter started before Big Week and it was not the cause of the German offensive. Dapi89 (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy editing

@Dapi89: I did some copy editing to check if all the sources are correctly aligned. I had trouble finding references for the following citations.

• Parker 1998, p. 22.
• Parker 1998, p. 23.
• Heck 1990, p. 248.

If you see this, please check and add the references. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

peilgerät 6 code name

" Peilgerät (PeilG) 6 (codenamed "Alex Sniatkowski" " can anybody have a look and confirm that codename? It seems an odd choice for a codename and I cannot find mention of it googling peilgerat 6. 46.15.141.74 (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Question, there is only only mention of England however RAF Vallley is in Wales 85.10.117.114 (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

German losses deleated - here's why

I deleted this list in the "Aftermath"-section

German losses:
270 Junkers Ju 88s
121 Dornier Do 217s
35 Junkers Ju 188s
46 Heinkel He 177As
27 Messerschmitt Me 410s
25 Focke-Wulf Fw 190s

These are not the German losses, these are the German aircraft used: 524. The losses amounted to 329 aircraft. For sources, just check the very same article 91.49.25.91 (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand the above, and the figures are cited to an excellent source. I've just restored this as a result. Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The source is not the problem. The problem is that the source is misquoted.

If you look at the numbers above in the box, you see "Strength 524 bombers", "Casualties and losses aircraft 329".

This also uses Boog, Krebs, Vogel 2001 Das Deutsche Reich in der Defensive. Strategischer Luftkrieg in Europa, Krieg im Westen und in Ostasien 1943–1944/45 as the list I have deleted, which lists 524 aircraft as lost.

The German article claims 547 aircraft used, 329 lost,

the Italian Wikipedia-article: Forze attaccanti 524 aerei, Perdite attaccanti 329 aerei

the French article claims 522 Bombardiers, 25 chasseurs–bombardiers, Pertes 329 Bombardiers

Interestingly, all of them cite the same source! So whoever made that list missquoted the source 91.49.25.91 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)