User talk:/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Bagration discussion 2 Article structure 3 Question? 4 Stalingrad 5 Source 6 Re: Yassy-Kishinev requested move 7 Soviet Navy 8 RM is not a vote 9 Order of the Bath 10 Appeal of Digwuren General Editing Restriction 11 Soviet official history in German and Battle of Narva articles 12 On the Battle of Leningrad and such 13 Semantics 14 Battle of Borodino 15 Battle of Velikiye Luki 16 proposed article structure 17 Bagration, again 18 British Armies 19 Re: Can we bring it back 20 Re:Eastern Front 21 Finance 22 Can you explain what you are doing?

[edit] Bagration discussion

Moving to Bagration talk--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 22:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

I would like to use this structure for all articles on the Eastern Front to give it a consistency:

I agree that a consistent structure is a good idea in principle - particularly for OOBs, planning, strategic objectives, and the like; however I feel it might not be possible in all cases to be that programmatic as regards the narration of the battle itself. Readability should also be an issue.

On the whole, though, it should work. Perhaps in the case of Bagration it would be an idea to have a summary on the main article, for those users of Wikpedia who don't want to go into the detail of divisional-level actions, and a note that a greater level of detail can be found on the sub-articles regarding the individual offensives.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not forcing a particular style of writing on the author or editor, only where it is written, and how far in detail they go into in any particular case. Consider the case of Bagration. Someone reads about a particular action involving an armoured battalion. They want to contribute this to Wikipedia. They would go into Bagration main article, and find the operational sector of the operation's AO and go into that article and find the tactical area of the particular division, and only then would be able to contribute, possibly by creating a new article because the article that covers activities of the division did not go into the detail of the fighting demanded by the description of the battalion action. How much the author then writes, and how well, is entirely up to him/her. What I have done is provided a structure that funnels the reader tot he level of activity within the event that the reader wants to go into, or stop. I have also provided a taxonomy of the event that is easy to follow in terms of a process and chronology, in 'chunks' that can easily be 'digested' rather then sections running into several pages with confused description of multiple and sometimes unrelated pases of the event all rolled into one. As a chef I used to know always told me, cooking is partly about portions, and knowing when to stop serving :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also see my comments lower in my talk page to Mr.Wilson.--mrg3105mrg3105 23:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question?

Ahem... what were you saying on my talk page? I don't know any Romanian, unfortunately. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well then, you'll never read any articles with Rumanian titles in Wikipidia. Your loss, I'm sure.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Si animadverteris prohibitum esse uuicipediano in vestibus arachnanthropi senatum Berolinensem scandere, bene erit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the page is incorrectly named. Since Reichstag is in Berlin, it needs to be titled Kein Klettern des Reichstag gekleidet als Spider-Man. However, there is always an exception to the rule, even of the esteemed Cabal. One may climb the Reichstag when dressed as http://www.rg.ru/2007/04/26/znamya-pobedy.html :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Only if you also move Wikipedia:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. to Wikipedia:Ja sagense ma, Sie da ohm, wat machensen da, dat jibbet ja woll nich, kommense sofort da runter!. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so what is your practical suggestion based on your prior experience in such disputes aside from telling me to calm down (which I am). The essence of the outcome now is that there will be no outcome. The article will remain titled as it is, and anyone looking for it will be redirected when typing in Yassy-Kishinev because 80% of the military history sources by reputed specialists in the Eastern Front use that standard. In essence if someone can get enough voices in the 'poll' they can disregard almost anything, including renaming of historical events. History by Internet anyone? This approach will give Wikipedia bad name eventually when more people will realise this possibility. Note that all discussion has stopped despite me not participating, so a status quo, but this is the preferred outcome of the 'party' that arbitrarily renamed the article with no discussion in the first place. In my book this is called "damned if you do and damned if you don't" --mrg3105mrg3105 23:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Talk:Shatt al-Arab would be one example of a case where a policy-conforming naming decision was finally made, after a long struggle, against the determined resistance of local national interests. You could have a look how it worked there. I'm afraid though, that with all the heat and confusion that's been caused over sidelined debates, and for which you largely seem to bear the responsibility (etymology of "Romania" and the like), you are now at a somewhat disadvantaged position in tackling this. By the way, since I haven't looked at the literature, I am making no judgment at present as to whether your position is right in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It was my fault entirely. If you look a the proposal for the move, you will see that it assumed good faith and logic based arguments would prevail. As for being right on Rumania, if you look up Klein's dictionary for 'Rome', you will see the suggested Etruscan origin, so regardless of the arguments I was STILL right :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 07:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stalingrad

I can sort of see your point. But technically this is incorrect. It would not be be an overexaggeration as the Germans did conquer the Ukraine. To alter this because of the time in which they held the Ukraine would be wrong I feel. You wouldn't say the same for Belgium or France for example, they were liberated in the end, but do we say "well it was only 4 years, so in reality they only advanced through western europe"?. Regards Dapi89 (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points. In the first place, how does one define 'conquest'? The contribution in Wikipedia suggests that "Conquest and military occupation

In the post-Napoleonic era, the disposition of territory acquired under the principle of conquest must be conducted according to the laws of war. Put simply, this will mean military occupation followed by a peace settlement. If there is a territorial cession, then there must be a formal peace treaty." Given there was no peace settlement and no territorial cession, with Ukraine remaining a part fo Soviet Union, in the strict sense of the word there was no German conquest fo the territory, though there was certainly occupation. I note that the articles in Wikipedia point to long periods of occupation that completely reshaped the occupied societies as conquests:
Spanish conquest of Yucatán
Conquest of North America by Spain's Hernando de Soto
Conquest of South America by Francisco Pizarro and Hernando de Soto
Norman conquest of England
As it happens the occupation of Belgium and France was a culmination of several weeks of fighting that ended with a surrended of both, something that did not take place in Ukraine. Besides that I believe tha the terms of occupation in the West and the East were quite different.
In any case, what I was trying to say is that the word 'conquest' carries an implied meaning of relative permanence, and the advance, and later retreat, of German forces over the territory of Ukraine was not at all permanent, particularly when the behind the lines resistance is considered (which was also present in Belgium and France).--mrg3105mrg3105 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

True. I suppose we tend to think of the Ukraine as a independent autonomous country even when we refer to it in the Soviet era. Though the majority of Ukrainians initialy hailed the Wehrmacht as liberators and there was a high degree of collaboration. Had it not been for Hitler's insistence that Nazi ideology dictated the Ukrainians treatment, there might have been a chance of an Axis satellite state, or at the least military assistance. Would the Ukrainians have been considered conquered in that case? Puppets of Nazi Germany? Perhaps it would be better to say overran the Ukraine rather than conquered? Dapi89 (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine's case is a bit more complex then portrayed in most Western history books. Most of the collaboration came from Western Ukraine who were a part of Poland before the (1939) war. Much of the Eastern Ukraine is Russian speaking still, as was Crimea (devoid of the Tartars). The Don Ukranians were not particularly pro-German, but all Ukranians were very much anti-Rumanian. In any case, I'll be happy with overran which is actually a bettr word then advance.--mrg3105mrg3105 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the article: As with the Barbarossa page it lacks a huge amount of inline citations. Could you help fill in the blanks where needed? Regards Dapi89 (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Decisive! Ha! I'm sure you don not need a dictionary, your English seems good enough to understand its meaning!!

In seriousness, how could this battle not be so? Despite the Kursk battle, after Stalingrad the war on the eastern front was never in doubt. German strength never recovered after that. There was absolutely no chance of a German victory at Kursk or anytime after Stalingrad. In my, and many prominent historians opinion, this qualifies as decisive.

By the way please see my comments on Bergstrom and your request on the talk page. His Kursk book is out now, I shall be getting that soon, I have no doubt it will be another superb aviation book! Dapi89 (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The question was, how do you define Decisive victory. Come to think of it, which campaign was the Battle for Stalingrad a part of? :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It ticks all the right boxes. Decisive doesn't have to completely decide the outcome then and there. Stalingrad, as with Leningrad and Moscow, was an important victory for the Red Army, there can be more than one decisive victory in a campaign. Reading the link I am still conviced this is correct. I can find hundreds of good sources to agree. Dapi89 (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok Dapi89, I am going to be far more patient then your professors. I asked you two questions, and they seem to be fairly simple since you went and changed 'strategic' to 'decisive'; the assumption being that you knew the difference when you did that. What do you define as a 'decisive' victory, and which campaign was the battle for Stalingrad a part of?--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 00:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not appreciating the patronising tone, and I don't feel the need to satisfy to you my knowledge on the subject. I am surprised that you didn't discern the answer to these questions from my last answer. Descisive this battle is, it decided the outcome of the 1942 campaign (Fall Blau and the Eastern Front - if I must). Decisive I would term, as I believe the Oxford dictionary does, as an event "that decides an issue" and is conclusive. Now correct me if I am wrong, but Stalingrad conclusively decided the outcome of Fall Blau, which decided the fate of the caucasus, its oil fields, and 80 percent of Soviet oil production, thus the Soviet Union. As I have said German offensive power never recovered. From this point on a Soviet Victory was just a matter of time. Dapi89 (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Patronising nothing, I asked a question and you failed to answer it the time and again. As an aspiring history Masters candidate you should be more forthcoming in answering questions, particularly where you obviously hold an opinion.

I may have asked you to provide a source for your change, but I know full well that there are far too many books that were written by people who were writers in the literary rather then analytical sense of the word.

As it happens Fall Blau had two goals and these were assigned to separate Army Groups, B and A. I'm sure you knew this. Yes the goal of AG A was to reach Baku. However AG B also had a role, which was to breach the Volga defensive line and sever the waterway as a logistic route, and unhinge the southern "front" of the Soviet defenses by advancing north on the eastern bank of the Volga. Stalingrad was a personal goal of Hitler. It was assigned to AG D formed mostly form one Army, the 6th (unmentioned in the article). It had neither strategic significance, nor was a part of the larger strategic campaign design, but was intended to plug a gap between A and B. Much of the industrial infrastructure had been evacuated from Stalingrad, as was most of its population, which OKH knew. Stalin did not even imagine that a city which was renamed after him would prove such a 'magnet' for Hitler, and argued at Stavka that Germany's next offensive would be against Moscow. Least of all OKH did not expect a Red Army counteroffensive (and a pincer one) on a strategic scale that would result in the first loss of an entire German Army (Stavka didn't expect it either). Was Stalingrad decisive? It was the first sizable German defeat in terms of actual prisoners surrendered, so it was decisive for Soviet and even Allied morale. Could the Red Army exploit it? Not really. It took four months for the Transcaucasus Front to follow up on the German retreat through the Kuban country. Wehrmacht was bloodied, but not defeated. 1st Panzer Army had to pull out of the Kuban steppe, but its progress through the Caucasus mountains was always doubtful. Did it halt German offensives in the East? It did not. In the summer Citadel was delivered, if poorly executed. In hind-sight the defeat was decisive, but only for the southern part of the theatre, and not the entire progress of the war. Could the Germans renewed the offensive in the south, probably. Given that military planners think in terms of strategy (at this level), at the time the Stavka realised they had scored a strategic victory. How decisive it was was unknown. Even when the Red Army reported the number of prisoners taken Stalin could not believe it, and though the numbers were elevated for his benefit. Essentially the success was in posing a strategic threat to the flanks of the two strategic AGs pursuing their strategic goals. When I inserted 'strategic' I wanted to give the reader some idea of the scale and perspective. If the reader wanted to know what strategic means, they could look it up in Wikipedia. If the readers looks up decisive victory they will see words 'battle', 'campaign' and conflict, and references to two naval actions, and a list of articles as dissimilar as they can be in terms of helping to understand the decisiveness of Stalingrad. If the article was properly structured, this issue would have been dealt with earlier on, and not half-way down the section 'Beginning of the battle' "For both Stalin and Hitler, the battle of Stalingrad became a prestige issue, on top of the actual strategic significance of the battle." The answer is that when the battle FOR Stalingrad begun, it had no strategic significance. It was a really big tactical battle in the sense that the resources of an entire Army were over committed to what was essentially a large number of tactical battles. It was an afterthought for OKH, and was completely unexpected by Stavka. Fighting for cities was not a part of doctrine for either army. Stalin emptied the camps to supply Chuykov's 62nd Army with troops for a meat-grinder everyone in Moscow knew it was going to be. Only since the Red Army was able to orchestrate a surprise series of offensives and trap the 6th Army (due entirely to Hitler's idiocy) did it become significant, but not even in strategic terms. It was however a huge propaganda victory for the Allies. There were people toasting the Red Army in London and Washington! So, in my humble opinion the battle FOR Stalingrad was not decisive. The two operations that followed (Uranus and Little Saturn) were strategic victories, and they were only possible because Stalingrad's 62nd Army was able to fix the 6th Army (of fixate Hitler) long enough to allow Stavka to develop and execute a strategic offensive plan. Therefore battle for Stalingrad was a strategic victory...eventually. --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Firstly you knew what I meant by decisive, so there was no need to answer your set questions (I did not want to get drawn into a lengthy debate- just a quick Blitz-debate!). As I made perfectly clear in my previous answers, this is not my opinion, but the consensus of opinion in those circles which matter. Surley all ameteur historians view points are not their own, but shaped by others? The lengthy explanations were not required. I am aware of what forces had been alloted to which objectives - but this is irrelevent. The point is, did the Battle of Stalingrad end the chance of a German victory on the Soviet-German front? The answer is yes. Citadel served only to further blunt the Wehrmacht further, it could not have achieved is objectives then. It really doesn't matter how the result was arrived at (even if genuinely surprised the Soviets and they failed to realise the extent of it), or even the time in which it took the Red Army to exploit it or begin to initiative offensives along the entire front. The fact is it turned the tide. I share your grievences against the structure of the article, but I still do not agree that strategic is an appropriate result that conveys the reality of the outcome. I should also add that I don't wish to become involved in an edit conflict. I tend to care more about the aviation articles. If you decide to change it back thats fine. Dapi89 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no wish to get into an edit war either. My point is rather simple. Did Hitler see the loss of 6th Army and the need to retreat from Caucasus as the end of German initiative in the East? To me the answer is clearly no. From this decisive has to be seen to mean a campaign rather then a Theatre event, and it was a strategic campaign.

Speaking of aircraft, I have the Soviet era data on PVO for Stalingrad, so maybe we can collaborate on integrating that. I don't have Burgstrom's books, and they are bloody expensive here, so will have to rely on you to supply that end of the data.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 10:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source

Sorry, I was referring to the assertion that Stalin had direct and sole command forces. --Strothra (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Reserve+of+the+Supreme+High+Command

http://books.google.com/books?id=pX1AAvE64poC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=reserve+supreme+high+command&source=web&ots=eg5MVV3zQm&sig=MC6m0E35r9O3JMTVxhwyJwQPaTQ

This is the best I can do for now since I am not at home. However in Russian the name translates as Reserve of the Supreme High Commander, and that was Stalin.--mrg3105mrg3105 03:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Yassy-Kishinev requested move

The usual rule of thumb is 2/3 support as a minimum; but admins have fairly wide discretion to judge consensus. You should ask the closing administrator if you want more details on the reasoning behind his decision. Kirill 05:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

is the 66% support as a minimum an actual policy somewhere? I assume I get a supporting vote as the proposer? I have asked the administrator.--mrg3105mrg3105 05:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mrg, just knock it off for a couple of weeks will you? Concentrate on more productive stuff. We can try again later. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Navy

See how small this article is, in comparison with Red Army? You don't need to create a separate article for WW2, merely much-expand the WW2 section in the main article (with references) and create, when there's lots of information there on the smaller flotillas around the country, individual articles for them - along the lines of the Arctic Sea Flotilla article. When it reaches 80-90-100 kb them we can start thinking about doing subarticles. A template would be a good idea - only navy formations really. But also take a look at ru:Шаблон:Вооружённые силы СССР в ВОВ for ideas/alternatives. Finally, looking at the Baltic Fleet page, I believe it is still called today the Twice Red Banner Baltic Fleet - correct? Not just during Soviet times? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The ru template is massive!. I really think that Corps should be separated, but that's another story. The existing articles are (Russian). The Soviet Navy, when completed, would be massive, trust me. Look at the competitor USN. But ok, I am not prepared to bite off more then I can chew right now. Thanks--mrg3105mrg3105 11:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RM is not a vote

But thanks anyway. - Francis Tyers · 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the Bath

Thanks for adding the new info to Order fo the Bath. However, could you excersize a little more caution in adding new info to already referenced information. The way you added Zhukov's name made it look as if he was awarded the decoration at the same time as Eisenhower and Macarthur, wehras in fact it was two eyars later and so need citing separately. i know you weren't deliberately tryign to mislead, but it could have had that effect. David Underdown (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of this, sorry. I made a note to find out the date of award as I could not verify it immediately. Thank you for fixing that. Cheers --mrg3105mrg3105 11:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal of Digwuren General Editing Restriction

Please make this request at WP:AE as it will likely get a broader set of eyes on it sooner. I don't know how often the talk page for that case is looked at, but it would seem that you may get a better response from WP:AE. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I moved the appeal to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Appeals_and_requests_for_clarification. The Arbitrators generally do not watch closed cases. Thatcher 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh neat, I didn't know we had a separate place for that. I figured it would have just been handled at AE. My bad; thanks for the info, Thatcher. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, since I didn't know WP:AE was there. No one informed me it was a "closed case" either. I would like my name cleared if only a user name as a matter of principle, even if it does detract from my participation in Wikipedia as a whole.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet official history in German and Battle of Narva articles

Hi Mrg3105, the German set is 12 volumes plus the translated set of maps. Yeah, I just list Grechko rather than putting the whole litany of names for the citation. In the case of the Narva article, I think the Soviet official history is a useful counterpoint to the obvious heavily-SS-influenced sources the original author of the article used. Hell, if Wiki is going to be used to remind the world of the acts of certain members of the SS it might as well remind the world that the "other side" was also made up of individual humans who also won high awards for their actions. Frankly, I'd rather take all the propaganda out of those articles, but I always try to keep as much as the original article structure intact as I can when I edit.
On your comment regarding the inapplicability of the text about the operations south of Leningrad, this was a case where the original article already mentioned this but coyly forgot to describe Soviet successes. The problem here is with article structure. As you point out, the article is about a bit more than the Battle of Narva itself, but the Battle of Leningrad article also skims over this period of time. The actions of the 2nd Shock Army and the 42nd Army may better belong in the Battle of Leningrad article, but I'd rather fix one article at a time, and frankly again, the Battle of Leningrad edits will be a great deal hotter than these (or so I assume). I will say bluntly, though, the conclusion of the Narva articles that these were "German victories" is errant nonsense, and when I have documented enough of the Soviet accomplishments to disprove this thesis, I intend to change the battle outcome as listed in the battle box. Would be interested in knowing what you think of this. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Wilson (btw, every time I write to you I get the mental picture of Mr. Watson :o)).

I largely agree with you. The only reason I commented is because I am not so much a writer of history as a student of the "art of war" by virtue of my long time RUSI [1] membership, so I look a the narrative from the way a CoS would look at it, i.e. what was the objective, what forces were committed, how was the objective to be achieved, obstacles, intelligence, input from Arms and Services, etc. The part you added was the culmination of the last phase of the previous operational advance within the scope of the strategic operation (Leningrad-Novgorod) as a whole, so please don't think I was criticising you style of writing. It really needs to be renamed as part of the "strategic setting" section for the Narva bridgeehead. When I quote Glantz, it is not because of the reading I have done, but because of the understanding of what he wrote (his job was to educate US Army officers and not just to write history). I used to wargame his chapters so I understood who did what, and where there were "white spots" in his writings. Necessarily due to publisher's restrictions not everything can be included in the books. The "art of war symposiums" (do you have these?) were printed by the US Army and each run to 450-800 A4 pages, or about double the Slaughterhouse size which I see as a reference work only. Its a problem of collaborative online writing in that I have no idea of the scope and depth of knowledge other have on any given subject, or the access to the sources they have. I tend to assume nothing. The objective in the case of Narva (both river and the city) for the purpose of the actual operation I stated in the article was to secure the Narva bridgehead during the winter months (due to frozen rivers). Meretzkov well realised that he had no capacity to conduct two operations back to back AND take a fortified city. BTW, he was a very interesting officer. The only 'artilleryman' Marshal he was extremely calculating. Where the SS claim that they 'stopped' the Red Army was actually the extent of the planned Soviet advance (including the bridgehead) that allowed to establishing staging areas for further operations. You will note, the current article does not state the size of the bridgehead. A bridgehead is just a term, but needs to be qualified. It can be the initial battalion size, an expanded brigade size, or an advanced Corps size. The Soviet Narva bridgehead was an Army sized bridgehead. So far as Meretzkov was concerned the operation was wildly successful given the terrain, the exhaustion of the troops, and the time of year (temp. was -20 C at times). BTW if you look to the Estonians in WW2 article, you will find the implied reference to the Estonian battle where a single Estonian battalion stopped 20 Soviet division :o). Everyone wants a 'piece' of the Soviet Union now its no longer around. :o)

I have drown up a standard article structure layout for my operations project. I see the necessity for this is to present the reader with a consistent format as they jump from article to article, and force subsequent editors to stay focused on the section's purpose when adding (hopefully referenced) data. Here it is below (undo zip):<br /> == Introduction ==<br /> === Campain situation === (general context)<br /> === Strategic situation === (context) <br /> === Goal of the operation === (operational)<br /> === Objective of the battle === (tactical)<br /> === German intelligence ===<br /> === Soviet intelligence ===<br /> == Forces involved == (NOT OOB, but a quantitative and qualitative analysis; OOB goes to OOB category as a separate redirect)<br /> == Planning ==<br /> === Soviet ===<br /> === Axis ===<br /> == Description of the Campaign/Strategic operation/operation/battle ==<br /> === Initial attack ===<br /> === Progress of the camapign/offensive/operation/battle === (planning vs achieved)<br /> === Decisive action === (every action has its decisive moment or 'turning point'; inability to find it and describe it means the writer did not understand the subject of the article)<br /> === Final commitment === (the reserves are thrown in...or not)<br /> == Outcomes == (was intended goal achieved or objective secured?)<br /> == Consequences == (impact of the battle outcome on the operation, or operation outcome on the campaign, or campaign outcome on the war; editor must analyze and present the reader with something to think about rather then serve "raw steak")<br /> === Immediate effects ===<br /> === Effects on future planning === <br /> == References ==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> == Bibliography == (I prefer this old fashioned word to 'sources')<br /> == See also == (other Wikipedia articles related to subject)<br /> == Online resources ==<br /> == Recommended reading == (books that are no used as sources, but are recommended for background, or focus on secondary issues such as biographies of commanders)<br /> :The structure would be modified depending on the initiator (attacker being listed first), and where only Wehrmacht troops were used, 'Axis' would be replaced. I also intend to make much use of the new templates Kirill designed, and there will be a selector box like Colin is using for the Armies at the bottom (working on it now). If you can add to this, or think the structure needs to be changed in any way, suggestions are welcome. The reason I would like more sections is because it aids in focusing edits.<br /> :I have discussed the Siege of Leningrad article with Kirill off Wiki (funny since he is from there and a namesake of Meretzkov). We agree that the story of the civilians has to be told. Although there is a significant scope for editing of the current article, it in no adequate way describes the military aspects of the siege. What I proposed, and Kirill agreed, is that articles with other names be created to reflect the many military operations that were included in the history of the defence and lifting of the siege, and the [[Siege of Leningrad]] used only as a link to inform of the effects on civilian population. The links to articles on military operations will be inserted into the Siege of Leningrad in appropriate places to aid the readers. I don't want to fight another 'battle', particularly where there are alternative solutions.<br /> :My current problem is in synchronisation of Soviet and German timeliness based on Eastern Front campaigns, operations, and battles. Please see my guidelines that I posted in the essays section of the MilHist Project do define which is which. German sources tend to call everything 'battle' which is not helpful. Besides that all the operations tend to refer to a major city, and of course what the Wehrmacht thought was central to an operation was not necessarily what Soviets thought was important. I have asked another friend in Adelaide to have a look at this issue, but he is a bit ill recently (war wounds/psych). I may have to use the German convention for referring to operations by the city name and 'invent' these despite WP:OR since I do not have access to Wehrmacht operational planing original documents. There is another user who expressed interest in working on "Bagration", and I hope I have not scarred him off when I pointed out its actually an 'umbrella' strategic operation for eight smaller operational operations (never mind the many battles).<br /> :On the subject of propaganda, I would like to eliminate it from articles altogether if possible. Of course this is not entirely possible since it played a part in motivating troops, but so far as possible anyway. Sorry for the long post, and thank you for your assistance yet again--~~~~

[edit] On the Battle of Leningrad and such

Mrg3105, A standard article structure would be useful. There are many articles that will never have it, but I'd be willing to use such a structure if the MilHist project were to agree on one.

Agree on your comments regarding the Siege of Leningrad, there are many aspects to it and they can only be addressed with multiple articles.

No, I don't have the 'Art of War' symposiums although I've heard of them and assume, as Glantz products, they're probably pretty good.

I don't have a problem with the 2nd Shock/42nd Army material being moved to another article but I'd prefer the destination article be a real project or currently exist before the material is removed from its current location.

The Narva articles themselves are not as propagandistic as some of the (in my opinion, scarcely notable subjects) they link to. I think the articles would benefit by moving the "honorifics" of individual actions (Sgt X did this, thus saving the day etc.) to footnotes for those who enjoy reading what are basically the text for award citations. But the articles are obviously written from one POV only and that can be cleaned up while preserving much of the original text.

On a related topic, I'm beginning to wonder how truly notable individual winners of high awards are, whether it be the VC, the Ritterkreuz, the Medal of Honor, etc. I can see people like Audie Murphy having an article as the highest decorated soldier of an army in an war is something that can be argued as being historically notable. But every guy who won a high medal, hmm, I'm not so sure. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You want the MilHist project to agree on something? That means a committee, right? I have already had one such experience as a result of which I was banned for 24 hours. "If you want to kill any idea in the world today, get a committee working on it." Author: Charles F. Kettering

All my articles will come with a consistent structure, and I will re-edit existing articles to that shape. If I get opposition, I will solve that problem when I get to it.

Art of war notes were produced by the Army. They are photocopied reams of paper with two staples designed to punch through two inches of paper through them. The maps are the best there are, but very rough taken from Glantz's overhead projections (if you remember them before digital presentation software :o). One of the three in my library has now split from use, but printers would charge something exorbitant to rebind a work that size. One of the more valuable parts are the comments by the German wartime officers on the Glantz lectures, the questions from the audience, and contributions by Adair (why he hasn't published more is anyone's guess).

Yes, currently your section in Narva has no true 'home' :O) When I am done with the "sync and org" o the operations, I will create them all together, and then there will be a place for it. Until now it can stay where it is.

Speaking of 'Shock' I will have the 3rd Shock Army article ready soon, and hope to have it quite large, so hope for your editing input :o)

I knew that I have seen the Narva content somewhere before, and I did some digging. Do you have "Hitler's Army: The Evolution and Structure of the German Forces, 1933-1945" by the editors of Command Magazine? [2] in 1996, and there is a new edition, it has a chapter on Narva by Pat McTaggart which is completely unreferenced and unsourced. You will find most of this content there, as well as the correlation of forces and German OOBs

I have strong opinions on some issues :o) I think that details of actions by individuals have no place in narration of formations and units of above battalion in size. They should all be removed.

So far as notability of decorated individuals, I don't know about Audie Murphy's decorations, but I just added a partial list of decorations for Marshal Zhukov :o). The Heroes of Soviet Union have their own site [3] So far there are 8498 of them, and I can assure you these were not handed out for political reasons in most cases.

What makes a military individual notable for an article? Here Petre Dumitrescu is listed (Rumania is my favourite subject this year :o)), and he was an Army commander. I therefore assume that all officers of at least Army command echelon or higher should be listed ;o) Am I correct in this assumption? ;o) This is confirmed by George S. Patton being there, and he only commanded an Army. Raymond A. Spruance has a page, so given he commanded a TF, flotilla commanders are also eligible for pages? On the other hand Władysław Anders was only a Corps commander, so do all Corps commanders qualify also? Of course it probably depends on the place of birth. Greek colonels and even corporals are obviously of higher notability then Army and Corps commanders of other armies :o) Then this raises the question of listing leaders of resistance groups like this one and the above mentioned Greeks. I can fairly well provide names of several hundred Soviet partisan officers or those fulfilling the roles who were leaders of partisan units and formations upto and including divisions. This is because the STAVKA as you probably know had a separate Staff for coordinating and directing this as a separate branch of Armed Forces :o) Where does one draw the line? Mascarenhas de Morais commanded a division. You know as well as I do how many Soviet officers would have to be listed if this was the qualification for notability of an officer, thousands. However Colin would be justifiably outraged if Bernard Freyberg was thought to be a person that did not deserve a page (and I would agree with him). Harold MacMichael is listed as a British 'leader', but none of the British divisional commanders are here. What qualifies one as a leader? I'd say that commanding a division is a far greater qualification for this criteria then being a king in exile. So you see, I share your dilemma.--mrg3105mrg3105 08:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Difficulties with obtaining group consensus aside, I'd say, yes, a project approved article format would be a useful thing. If realistically that isn't going to happen, then I'd have to say your personal format works and will at the least represent a slight decrease in the article-space entropy.

Curious - are you saying there is copyright violation in the Narva articles? If so, it should be cleaned up quickly or at least significantly rewritten with proper credit being given to the book author(s). If you let me know where it is in the article, I'll give it priority for rewriting.

On notability. In my arbitrary world, no one who wasn't at least a corps commander should be included (in terms of military biographies). If the Greeks or whoever wanted to have articles about colonels because colonels are significant in a small army, well, then that is what the Greek Wiki is for. BTW, in my scheme, Freyberg would be included because he was a corps commander, and in any case, as a former gov.-gen. of New Zealand he should have an article. On the other hand, I really don't care about individuals who are presented a high award. Awards systems for me mostly only point out how arbitrary those systems are, in my contrary way of thinking, I'm more interested in the people who acted bravely and were -not- recognized for it... But then, the question of notability is prevalent in Wiki; I have no doubt there are many sports and entertainment biography articles that are really no more notable than some of the soldiers noted in awards articles.

Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I did analysis on the articles in the Campaigns and operations category, and sent a spreadsheet to Kirill to see his reaction. I was trying to match my structure to what others had done. No such luck. I can send one to Colin if you like and he can forward to you since all inputs are welcome (I can't see your email link). I had modified the previous version somewhat by incorporating ideas from other articles.

• Introduction
  
• Role in the conflict
  
  • Campain situation
    
  • Strategic situation
    
• Decision making
  
  • Goal of the operation
    
  • Objective of the battle
    
  • Side A intelligence
    
  • Side D intelligence
    
• Planning
  
  • Side A
    
    • Forces involved
      
  • Side D
    
    • Forces involved
      
• Description of the Campaign/Strategic operation/operation/battle
  
  • Initial attack
    
  • Progress of the offensive
    
  • Decisive action
    
  • Final cimmittment
    
  • Outcomes
    
• Consequences
  
  • Immediate effects
    
  • Effects on future planning
    
• Myths
  
• References
  
• Footnotes
  
• Bibliography
  
• See also
  
• Online resources
  
• Recommended reading
  

The difficulty with the Narva article is that the book I quoted has no references, and the article doesn't reference the sources it quotes. In all likelihood both are committing plagiarism by the definition I was taught at university. So far the only references are those added by you and myself. Just so you know, I on principle have no sources on the Waffen-SS in my library, and choose only to know the bare minimum required in specific cases. I have on purpose not read of any specific individuals that served in that branch, so will not be of much help to you in that respect.

I have thought about notability in the strictly military history sense. One of the reasons I wrote the guide (in essays) is so that authors and editors can contextualise their pieces. In a significant battle where a battalion participated (or even less like Rorke's Drift) specific individuals should be included in the article. However in regards to individuals who deserve their own pages I would define the qualifications that the individual has to be notable not only during the conflict of their 'fame' but also at least either before, or after the conflict. That is, notability = continuity.

In Russia they have a saying "alone in the field is not a fighter". Based on this I would limit the number of individuals that have their own pages based solely on number of awards received. Aurdrey Murphy was also an actor after the service I think. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 13:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semantics

Mrg, you seem wholely concerned about bunches of semantics of not great importance. Can't you focus on adding good solid content instead of arguing over exact titles? Your points. I use 'Separate' as a literal translation usually when the article already uses separate. I understand the meaning, it's just a question of changing every other reference in what can be a very long article! Motor Rifle Divisions - I completely disagree with you on this, and I don't think you will find a wikipedia article apart from your own writing that follows your convention. I have in front of me The Army Field Manual Volume II Part 2 Soviet Operations, 1986, Army Code 71357, 'prepared under the direction of the Chief of the General Staff' - British Army - which uses 'Motor Rifle Division' throughout. Every US, British, or any other source capitalises M R D, as indeed they capitalise Motorised Infantry Division (or Infantry Division (Mechanised)). 3 UK Div is 3 UK Mechanised Division, as you will see at the British Army site. I have never seen anyone except from you not capitalise these titles. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have that particular British manual, but from a purely English usage point of view, motor-rifle seems to be concerned with the same rule as operational-level, all-purpose, post-war, battle-group, main-force, and sub-units, all derived from a random page of the Red Armour by Richard Simpkin, a former (deceased) brigadier in the British Army. Of course he also kept calling combined arms "all-arms", and motor-rifle, "mechanised infantry" after the Birish Army convention. In any case it seems that I am used to certain use of hyphenation, acronym and initialism use, and would find it difficult to change as I write. I'll leave it to others to edit in accordance with Wiki Manual of Style. I find semantics important as building blocks of ideas.--mrg3105mrg3105 03:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Motorized Rifle Divison is generally capitalized in US Army documents also. It is *not* akin to 'sub-unit', it is a proper name, as with "82nd Airborne Division" for example. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be so, but the proper name of the "82nd Airborne Division" is '82nd'. Airborne refers to its branch in the infantry Arm, and 'division' to its formation echelon. airborne and division are just adjectives to the '82nd' which is why many (most) US divisions have a semi-official 'name' such as "Screaming Eagles" which is a proper name of the division, or a second name if you will. However if Motorized Rifle Division has become accepted I am not going to go around changing it given there are so many other things to do. For example someone decided to spell out all the Wehrmacht unit numerals which was not a practice at any echelon of command that I'm aware of and just adds to typing--mrg3105mrg3105 01:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Borodino

As for the battle itself there can't be much argument that the French won. They won Ligny too. In the battle of Borodino they won the right to starve and die in droves so that about 22,000 out of 285,000 crossed the Berezina and survived but on that day they won. I have absolutely no problem saying that in the article but they won the battle. Tirronan (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it depends what you consider to be the objective of the battle to have been. Looking at the statements made by Napoleon during the campaign before the battle, the objective was neither a tactical or a Grand-tactical, so the battle was a loss for the French. Outcome of any military event can only be viewed from the perspective of the initial intention (goal/objective) for which forces were committed.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Velikiye Luki

Can you please insert sources for your new OOBs for this battle? On 3rd Shock, I'll look through my notes - I may have some divisional level data, though I cannot promise regimental level data. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I will, I'm kind of half-way through with it. I didn't intend to do the article editing now; just looked at it because of the 3rd Shock Army article. The first thing that struck me was that the original OOBs were far too large for a relatively small city at the time. The original OOB turns out to be the OOB for the Wehrmacht defensive actions to stop the larger Soviet offensive, but the description largely focused on the encirclement of the city itself. I will use Glantz yet again (Zhukov's greatest defeat) with some Russian sources ("Liberation of cities" and such), and will dig out the Army Group North book (by Schieffer, can't remember the author just now). The narration was also a bit messy. Thank you on the 3rd Shock Army help. No need to go lower then divisional level (do you mean WW2?). I'm too lazy to go looking for the correct German spelling of the cities, but if you don't have them, leave it and I'll ask someone from de-Wiki to pay a visit. Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 06:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the Germans spelt it "Welikije Luki".Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The German placenames in the the 3rd Shock Army article are cleaned up--W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all Vs are replaced with Ws in German spelling. Thank you Mr. Wilson. However I have not yet begun to write :o) Much of the narrative is in the combat history and I have to re-read that, a big job.--mrg3105mrg3105 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] proposed article structure

Mrg3105, as long as the structure you propose is a flexible one, it should work well for a variety of articles. There may be some cases in which the chaotic developments of battle will not work with the structure but the editors will just have to sort out the situations and present them in the clearest manner possible. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had thought of that already :o). I am trying to figure out how to split the sections in two or three columns so simultaneous actions occuring within the same event phase can be nerrated side by side. This would also be good for the opposing forces sections, and intelligence, so the reader can see how different from reality ideas about the enemy and commander perceptions of the enemy can be in warfare.

The structure is just (seems to me) akin to a street full of buildings where they are all known to have walls, doors, windows, roofs, etc. What the appearance of these building features are, never mind internal features, I leave completely to the article authors/editors. However I think it would be nice if all operations were accompanied by maps that are also consistent in design.--mrg3105mrg3105 05:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your proposed framework could be very useful. My only comment is that the outcome of any battle/campaign ought to have a section on 'strategic effects' - even though in some cases the strategic effects are negligible. This also provides symmetry, since you have a section on the strategic situation prior to the beginning of a battle/campaign. The point of initiating battle is to affect the strategic situation, so it must be part of the conclusion. Too many wikipedia editors seem to get caught up in debates about losses, which is a side issue unless the purpose of the battle was specifically to attrit the enemy.

Thank you for taking this on, I commend you. DMorpheus (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I was in two minds when I put the structure together on how the completing sections should be done. Ultimately I decided not to create strategic, operational or tactical sections, but to have the sections as they are now

• Consequences – the impact of the outcomes on events that follow, but which are not part of the above-described plan
  • Immediate effects – immediate effects that include changes in a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
    
  • Effects on future planning – describe effects on the planning in the larger scope of events
    

The immediate effects are intended to illustrate that strategic plans sometimes yield tactical benefits, and visa versa sometimes tactical successes can have strategic repercussions on future planning. However I decided to leave this to the authors/editors. I would prefer that casualty debates are kept in perspective of the whole outcome since they rarely reflect the outcome, or planning success or failure, in their own right. If the author/editors have correctly identified the level of event they are describing, they shoudl have no problems in coming to these conclusions IMHO.--mrg3105mrg3105 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mrg, I must say I really admire your initiative in taking this on. Wikipedia articles really could use a good consistency reassessment. My only grievance would be the 'Myths' and 'Popular culture' sections. From what I understand, trivia sections are looked down on. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bogdan. I appreciate your comments, but it seems that other articles in the Second World War project have the 'Myths' and 'Popular culture' sections. In nay case I seem to agree in including them in the Eastern Front because there were/are so many myths about the war in the East, and because the Great Patriotic War did have a significant place in the popular culture of the Soviet Union if not the West (although that also applies IMHO). Quite frankly I did not fully appreciate the extent of the undertaking when I decided on it as I do now. For example I had to completely reorganise the Theatres and Campaigns in the Wehrmacht article where the original author seemed to have been unaware of the subject and the differing roles of OHW during the war. --mrg3105mrg3105 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bagration, again

Hi Mrg3105, before we start some work on redoing this I wondered if you could take some time to clarify the following from your sources, mainly so I can work out where the material I've already done will fit in. I really want to work out how the Soviet offensive operations you list relate to the Western historiography, which tends to treat most of Bagration as one large encirclement operation:

• Mogilev Offensive Operation (Russian: Могилевская наступательная)

Am I correct in thinking that this action invoves the 2nd Belorussian Front (and specifically Grishin's 49th Army)'s actions against Martinek's XXXIX Panzer Corps east of Mogilev? At what point does this action stop, and does it also include the operations of 11th Guards Army against Voelckers' XXVII Corps at Orsha to the north?

• Bobruysk Offensive Operation (Russian: Бобруйская наступательная)

This covers, I assume, the 3rd Belorussian Front's operations against Ninth Army and effectively closes with the liberation of Bobruisk on 29th June?

• Polotsk Offensive Operation (Russian: Полоцкая наступательная)

Is this just the operations of 6th Guards Army and 43rd Army against IX Corps, or does it also include the encirclement of LIII Corps in Vitebsk by 39th Army and the destruction of VI Corps around Bogushevsk?

• Minsk Offensive Operation (Russian: Минская наступательная)

This is clearly 'phase 2' of the strategic offensive, but at what point does it * start?Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the sequence and composition

Hope this helps--mrg3105mrg3105 02:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is very helpful, thankyou. I think this means that the existing material can be broken up as follows:

Vitebsk-Orsha Offensive Operation: Most of existing sections on 'first phase' at Vitebsk ('northern sector') and at Orsha ('central sector')
Mogilev Offensive Operation: The remainder of the existing 'central sector' section
Bobruysk Offensive Operation: Pretty much the whole of the existing 'southern sector' section
Polotsk Offensive Operation: This action is covered a little by the existing article, but the material needs a lot of expansion.
Minsk Offensive Operation: Covers the existing 'second phase' section of the Bagration article
Schyaulyai Offensive Operation: Needs to be done from scratch
Vilnus Offensive Operation: We have Battle of Vilnius (1944), which can be adapted.
Belostock Offensive Operation: Needs to be done from scratch
Kaunas Offensive Operation: As above
Lublin-Brest Offensive Operation: There is already an article on this, but it needs expanding
Osovets Offensive Operation: Needs to be done from scratch

As you can see, there's a fair bit to be done, but the framework is there, and once more detail is added for Soviet deployments to match the existing level of detail regarding German deployments, we should have a fairly informative set of articles.

My proposal for the main Operation Bagration article would be (after the sections on strategic planning, objectives and the like), to have a link to the main article on each offensive operation along with a brief summary of its course and outcome, for those readers who want a broader overview of the strategic offensive.Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me. You have my assistance when you need it :o) Be warned that it seems the Wehrmacht units are not as complete as I had hoped. --mrg3105mrg3105 10:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm creating draft/test versions of the pages under my user area, and copying material across from the existing article for editing into shape over the next few weeks (starting with Vitebsk-Orsha). Once they're all reasonably complete I'll start on the main article, finally copy everything across to the 'live' area. Might take a while...Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it might --mrg3105mrg3105 12:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Armies

Everybody but the Soviet Union spelt on their army designations, like Tenth Army (United Kingdom), only the USSR did things like 35th Army (Soviet Union). However doublecheck the Chinese - they may have followed Soviet conventions, and certainly do now. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think the Wehrmacht spelled their Armies out either--mrg3105mrg3105 08:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, they didn't - Third Panzer Army, for example, was written 3. Panzerarmee. I've noticed that there is a convention in many English-language sources, though, to (correctly) use numbers in Soviet army designations, but to spell out the German armies (and use roman numerals for corps, just to complicate matters).Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just picked up Niepold's Battle for White Russia by Brassey's and there is nowhere in it a spelled out name of the German Army, including section headings in chapters. Haupt also uses numerical Army IDs--mrg3105mrg3105 09:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

German convention was 1. Panzer-Armee, or less commonly Pz. AOK 1 which may refer to the army headquarters only and not the full contingent of troops assigned under the army's command. Likewise I. Armeekorps, 1. Skijäger-Division, etc. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So do you know the history of why the Wehrmacht numbered formations are spelled out? I found an archived Style Guide which mentions that Armies should be spelled out, but that is not the current practice. I'll have to find out if anyone is actively editing Wehrmacht articles.--mrg3105mrg3105 21:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No idea. BTW, the French also used numbers, i.e. 7^e Armée. French also used Roman numerals for their corps. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wehrmacht Corps already use Roman numerals in Wiki, but it seems to me the thing to do is to renumber the Armies. Hopefully no-one will object. Should the Nth Armee or the N. Armee style be used? Cheers--mrg3105mrg3105 05:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

One note. All my sources, including period references to Napoleonic army corps and Anthony Clayton's 'France, Soldiers, and Africa,' seem to indicate the French actually used Arabic numerals for Corps - thus eg '1er Corps d'Armee Colonial', Clayton, 1988, p.317. See Fr-wiki's list of French army corps. That's why I created 4th Army Corps (France) rather than following the existing pattern. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Can we bring it back

Please feel free to carry over any useful points to the WWII task force page (although I doubt there's much there that's useful); but there's no need to try and work directly with the mess of the old draft for that. Just make sure whatever you move over is compliant with the new guideline.

(I'm not sure what suggestion you're talking about, incidentally. WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME says nothing about spelling out army names versus not doing so; you're free to follow whichever style the armed forces in question prefer.) Kirill 11:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to compare the versions. Maybe I'll just stick tot he separate windows--mrg3105mrg3105 11:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Eastern Front

Where is it being discussed? My interests in the subject are centered around Poland and Polish forces involvement in those fights.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not being discussed anywhere central as yet, although there are several discussions, some heated (see Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive title) that have taken place in various talk pages. I only became aware of your participation recently when trying to figure out the scope of operations that took place in Poland (and surrounds) during 1944.

There is a lot to do from my perspective because most of the Red Army operations are not documented, or are heavily relying on German accounts. Most Eastern Front articles are incomplete and are poorly structured, sometimes too big for trying to fit too many operations into one article, and sometimes too small because of lack of sources.

Given my experience with the Romanians, I am somewhat reticent to ask for your help because it is my conviction that military operations should be named after their historical names and transliterated into English, and not given contemporary national names of cities or city names as they are known now. However because of all the name changes I feel that I will need help in authoring/editing articles that took place on territory which was part of Germany and is now part of Poland, or where the Polish place names have changed. I can also use help on the Polish sources.

So far I have encountered several issues such as articles in wrong categories, inappropriate categories, ahistorical/incorrect English article titles, inconsistent article structure throughout the Eastern Front or even Second World War articles, and inconsistent event description (I posed a guide in the project essays section)

I have sent this (below) out to several other people a few days ago (Kirill including), and overall have received favourable replies so far, with some provisos.

Your input on the article structure I have developed would be appreciated. It is intended for the series of articles dealing with Eastern Front operations. I am particularly concerned with the introduction section vs the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph is supposed to be a brief summary of the entire article, but :I have found way too much information inserted in them in other articles, duplicating information in 'campaign boxes' and repeated in the introductions that follow Contents.

Below is a suggested standard structure for article taxonomy based more on the military terminology, and incorporating a way of describing an event that follows a more military event structure.

• ‘’’Introductory briefing’’’ (unnamed) – a short, one paragraph of no more then seven average length sentences, description of the article addressing the question when, where, who, why, larger context, significance, and outcome.) Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Describing conflicts would be helpful here.

+Contents (here)

• Role in the conflict – describes role of the event in the larger conflict. A war also has a context in a larger conflict since it usually evolves from non-armed forms of conflict such as social, cultural, political and economic conflicts.

• • Campaign situation – this describes the event in terms of a war's theatre campaign.
  • Strategic situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the campaign where an operation is the event
  • Operation situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the operation where a battle is the event
  • Battle situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the battle where an event describes a part of a tactical battle

• Decision making – after assessment of the situation comes the decision-making process that seeks to change the existing situation through securing of initiative by offensive action.

• • Goal of the operation – to change the situation one needs a situational change goal
  • Objective of the battle – at the tactical level the goal is called an objective
  • Side A intelligence – the first step is to gather understanding by the attacked (A) of the defender’s (D) capacity to resist
  • Side D intelligence – usually anyone suspicious of an attack will also gather intelligence on the likelihood of an impending attack

• Planning – after the intelligence is gathered, planning starts

• • Side A – description of planning should begin with a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
    • Forces involved – organisation of forces and their structural description (in modern times described as tables of equipment of organisation and equipment) need to be given
  • Side D
    • Forces involved

• Description of the Campaign/Strategic operation/operation/battle – this is the core part of the article. All military events have phased sequence that can be divided into:

• • Initial attack – describes initial execution of the plan
  • Progress of the offensive – describes success or failure of the plan
  • Decisive action – describes the instance when the plan has the greatest chance of success or failure, or the attempt to correct the divergence from the plan
  • Final commitment – any attempts to secure success or prevent failure of the plan
  • Outcomes – comparison of end result with the planned result of the event plan

• Consequences – the impact of the outcomes on events that follow, but which are not part of the above-described plan

• • Immediate effects – immediate effects that include changes in a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
  • Effects on future planning – describe effects on the planning in the larger scope of events

• Myths – often popular rendition or beliefs about the event that are either partly or completely false, or presented for the purpose of propaganda
• Memorials – a means of post event commemoration of the event
• Popular culture – depiction of the event in popular culture and media
• References – page reference in an authoritative source used to research the article content
• Footnotes – explanatory notes for points made in the article
• Bibliography – sources used for the compilation of research on the article
• See also – other Wikipedia articles related to the event
• Online resources – other online sites that relate to the event or its larger context
• Further reading – other sources not used for the research of the article but recommended to the reader

The purpose of the article structure suggested above is not to straight-jacket the authors and editors, but to enhance consistency of presentation throughout the project’s assortment of articles to the reader, and to enable the future editors to be more focused in the editing process by providing more focused sections in the article structure.

Thank you--mrg3105mrg3105 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also revamped structure of the Wehrmacht Heer and would like to do same for the Red Army and other armies involved on the Eastern Front. I'm not sure if you will feel that the Polish armed forces serving as part of the Red Army will need to be expanded because I think the current article Ludowe Wojsko Polskie is probably inadequate, as are the 1st and the 2nd Polish Armies articles. However that is some time in the future issue.--mrg3105mrg3105 02:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Finance

[ [ Category:Military occupations ] ]

It reads as irony, but something be I could missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaizzilla (talk • contribs) 00:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Finance is a class of military occupations that include everything from budgeting to renumeration. Militaries are large organisations that also manage money, regardless of how well that may be perceived by the outside world. As of 2000 there were 15,000 accounting professionals employed by the US DoD, which is about the strength of an infantry division, so its not an insubstantial number. Besides that the distribution in spending of military budgets has a small but important function in the global financial markets, and those of national financial management.--mrg3105mrg3105 00:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can you explain what you are doing?

Both Ceriy and I have had to revert you after you've created a redlink for a '97th Mechanised Brigade (Soviet Union)'. There was never any such unit, and any reading of the information at the entry should have made that clear. The unit in question was a Rifle Division, became 97th Guards Rifle Division, and after the fall of the Soviet Union, became a Ukrainian unit, and was later retitled as Mechanised rather than Motor Rifle, and reduced to the size of a brigade. Why did you create a redlink for a unit that never existed? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the article is List_of_Soviet_Union_divisions. If Ukraine choses to have a 97th Mechanised Brigade, then what possible link does it have with the Soviet units other then using the legacy equipment? Different armed force, different state. I'm curious you reverted.--mrg3105mrg3105 00:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the unit article. How does the Ukrainian unit 'acquire' the history of the Soviet unit? The name and awards of the Soviet unit were decreed by the authority of a state that is no longer extent, and none of which are recognised by the Ukrainian Consititution. And this is reflected on the patch which only has Poltava in it. Poltava is of course a city in Ukraine, and it is a common practice to name units after cities. If this is adopted as a convention, then would you add to the the Soviet divisions sections of their Imperial Russian division numerical equivalents added? There were at least three Guards divisions before the revolution, never mind the rest.--mrg3105mrg3105 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's the same damn' unit! Didn't change base, didn't change equipment, didn't change personnel (well, only in the normal round of conscripts etc), and only changed its name some five years after the fall of the Soviet Union! Poltava? Doesn't it strike you as likely that that's a Soviet battle honour? Furthermore, you may have explained why you wanted to create 97th Guards Motor Rifle Division, but that doesn't explain why you created a redlink for 97th Mechanised Brigade (Soviet Union). Buckshot06 (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The unit may be 'damned', but it most certainly is not the same. The base was renamed. The equipment was to some degree changed and continues to change, particularly in terms of communications to conform to NATO standards. The personnel changed substantially almost immediately on the collapse of the Soviet Union when many 'ethnic' officers and soldiers left, including Russian officers since they had to choose their source of passport, and it is against the Ukrainian Constitution to conscript citizens of another country. Yes, Poltava was awarded to the Soviet division, but how is it related to the formation of the Republic of Ukraine? The award was signed by Stalin! The creation of the brigade redlink was a mistake. I could not imagine that anyone would link histories of Soviet and Ukrainian units, so didn't see the brigade (was still early morning). I would caution you against participating in this 'linking' of unit histories. In case you don't know the political situation in Ukraine (I think you do), there is a constant political battle between those who side with closer ties to Russian Federation and those that side with the a move towards NATO. Symbols such as designation of units are also tools in this political tug-of-war, and I for one would not want to perpetuate it in Wikipedia. In any case, I would certainly not contribute to military history of a Ukrainian unit by adding to it from a period before existence of Ukraine as a state. I don't know about New Zealand, but in Australia on Federation all state forces were renamed and renumbered to conform to the Federal model, the uniforms were changed, and in some cases depots had to be amalgamated. Many British officers refused to serve in the new Australian Army (and Navy) although the Head of State was retained as the King of England! This happens routinely in military history.--mrg3105mrg3105 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not intending to start a pedantic discussion over whether NZ units in South Africa were entitled to formal Battle Honours. When I wrote 'battle honours' there, I meant more unit history; what the Americans might call campaign credit. The point was NZ military units served there and retained that service as part of the history until well after NZ finally decided to accept the UK's offer of independence in the Statute of Westminster in '48. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You will not be surprised that I have been accused of being pedantic before. I wear this label as other may wear a thousand WP barn stars. --mrg3105mrg3105 07:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)