Talk:Battle of Halbe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Halbe is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Three lines

"The most astonishing part of the story is not the numbers who died or were forced to surrender but the 25,000 soldiers and several thousand civilians who succeeded it getting through three lines of Soviet troops

In the above quote Beevor mentions "three lines of soviet troops". But his text is a bit hazy as to what they were, I would guess that the ran along the three of the four main north south roads which he shows on as a map in his book on page xxv the first two of which he mentions in passing with the fighting in the text:

  1. Berlin-Dresden autobahn
  2. Strasse 96, between Zossen and Mark
  3. Strasse 101, North of Lucenwalde
  4. Strasse 2, between Elsholz and Beelitz

Can anyone else confirm from another source where these soviet lines were. I would guess he meant the first three roads but I do not want to put a guess into the article :-) Secondly his text does not mention what happened around Strasse 101 which would be a nice to have in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Strasse 101, according to le Tissier there was a Soviet blocking position there, where troops attempting to break out had to run a gauntlet of fire (is that the correct expression). But it does not appear that a pitched battle occurred there. Andreas 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More sources needed

I think the article could benefit from a better structure with more sub-headers, and the use of additional sources. I will go and do some of this myself (and try to answer Philip's question in the process, but it will take some time. Andreas 13:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Numbers of units

Should not the unit numbers be switched to the more common and coloqial style of say 9th Army instead of Roman numerals? --Gbinal 08:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Just done that. I preserved all your edits, even though we edited concurrently. Andreas 09:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

See also discussion here. But continue discussion on this page. Andreas 12:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than argue this further today I intend to edit the rest of the article and once we have that stabalized then we can discuss this further. Philip Baird Shearer

The article now seems to be stable so I intend to re-insert the Roman numerals for German Armies because:

  • I think it makes it easier to identify the which side the army belongs, in the text.
  • The convention of using Roman Numerals for the German Army is quite common in English books.
  • The actual proposed guideline recommends using words as in German Ninth Army so there is no particular reason to use 12th over XII, other than familiarity for some editors.
  • If we were dealing with German Armies which had Roman numerals which were not easy to translate or looked clumsy eg XXXXVIII, then rejecting them on practical grounds or esthetics would make more sense but IX and XII are numbers on a clock face and familiar to most.
  • In this article we are using Arabic numerals for Soviet corps while the guidelines recommend using Roman numerals for corps. I approve of this as it helps to distinguish them from German Corps, in the same way as XII and IX help to distinguish German and Soviet armies.

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Could we not better use the device that Ziemke is using in 'Moscow to Stalingrad', namely to Italicise the Soviet (or German) Army numbers, or to write them out? Having Roman numerals for German armies is really grating on my eyes, and it makes it much more difficult to distinguish between Armies and Corps. Finally I know of nobody who is using this device in the serious military history literature - if you do, please provide the information. So I am quite against it. Andreas 13:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You preference is to use "12. Armee" so how can "XII Army" be any more grating than "12th Army" for you? Also are you suggesting that we should designate all Soviet corps with Roman numerals? If not why not? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

12. Armee is the correct German term, and since I am a German native speaker it is not looking wrong to me, even if it is part of an English text. I do understand and accept it is different for English speakers, and will change the way I number German armies to reflect that. XII Army looks wrong (grates) because Roman numerals are for Corps, not Armies. I have no strong feelings about the use of Roman numerals for Soviet Corps. I usually prefer to use the correct historical designation, and to use formatting to ensure that the difference can be seen. But as I said, I would be happy either way for the Soviet corps. If a Russian military expert came along giving reasons why that was totally wrong I may change my mind. I also would like to find an acceptable solution here that can be applied across a range of articles, not just this one. Andreas 14:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

  • last days -- depends what you think the battle of Halbe was but I take it to be the breakout. It's begining is clear but the end of the battle is not described in detail in Beevor, if you have another source which states when the breakout ended, then we can use that.
I am using le Tissier, according to him it ended on the 1 May. This is confirmed both by German eyewitness accounts, and by the 1st UF report to Moscow. After 1 May the question for the escapees was on how to get to the Elbe.
Good then lets use it and reference it. Philip Baird Shearer
Sure. Page 206. Andreas 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Not here! in the text! Philip Baird Shearer
I know ;-) I wrote this when you were editing, so I did not want to get in the way. Andreas 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't need the "son of" in the link name as it is not included in the page name.
Not sure what you mean, but feel free to edit.
The Russian middle name is "son of Andreas" or whatever. Philip Baird Shearer
Ah! Maybe a Russian native speaker should weigh in on this one - it is my understanding that the convention is to refer to the Russian names with both first names shortened. I am happy either way, but it should be the correct Russian way, as far as I am concerned. Andreas 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Three Soviet fronts did not attack on the 16th only 2 did, I don't think all the detail is necessary, also 1UF attacked over the Neisse.
2nd BF attacked on either the 19th (Glantz) or 20th (le Tissier), and was part of the Berlin Operation, so I would leave them in the entry para. You are right about the attack across the Neisse, my mistake.
  • I think it is best to translate Generaloberst as General. Colonel-General if you must but it sounds like something out of a B movie about the Cold War.
Colonel-General then - the problem is that 'General' was a separate rank (as in 'General der Infanterie') below Generaloberst.
But the rank does not exist in the English speaking world so IMHO translating it as General is better than translating it into a rank that does not exist. Philip Baird Shearer
That leaves us with a wrong rank. I am not very happy about that. Ziemke (IIRC) and Glantz, as well as many others, use Colonel-General, although Glantz is a bit more variable about it. So I think it is fair to argue that while not existing in the English-speaking world, the rank is being translated quite regularly in works on WW2. Andreas 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok then put it in with the first one linked to Colonel General so native speakers will be able to follow the link to see what the rank is. Philip Baird Shearer
Will do. Andreas 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. Andreas 09:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that town of before every town is neccessry that is what links are for. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Just did that for clarification, feel free to delete. Andreas 14:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Andreas Where did you get the number of 14 king tigers from (Beevor definatly said 10)? I suspect it depends on which day they took the count! --Philip Baird Shearer 15:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that originally came from me, if it did it was le Tissier. I'll check that again. They had 14 Panther tanks, that much I am sure of. Andreas 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a more detailed tank count and a note on where it comes from, including a short discussion on the likely number of King Tigers. Andreas 16:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Recent addition on this is MUCH BETTER Philip Baird Shearer
Thanks. Andreas 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Had a look at your reversion. Maybe it is better we talk it through first?
    • Kindersoldaten - it is a German word, a noun, it has to be capitalised.
      • We have had this debate before (over autobahn). I don't like it and don't see why one would expect to use German grammar rules in an English text. However if you are attached to it I will not revert it if you chage it again. Philip Baird Shearer
        • I am not going to die in a ditch over it. Just looks as wrong to me in non-caps as it does to you in caps. Since this is English-language Wiki, happy to leave it. Andreas 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Changing Generaloberst to General gives a wrong rank. It's left in for the Russians, why not the Germans?
      • Which Russian in this article?
        • In the formation list.Andreas 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The date range is 21 April to 1 May.
      • Ended 1st of May ok, but the start was not until April 24 or 25th that the battle of Halbe started. (Either with Wenck's XX Corps attacking eastwards on the 24th or better the 25th when Busse was given authority "to decide for himself the best direction of attack".
        • Okay. Andreas 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A lot of the links to German towns do not work - maybe better to leave 'town of' in front of those.

Andreas 15:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

      • It just that I think it makes the text stilted and in time the town links will be stubbed or better. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Hope springs eternal. But you are right. Andreas 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IX Guns

From the Battle of the Seelow Heights the page

9th Army had: 14 divisions, 512 tanks, 344 artillery pieces and 300 to 400 anti-aircraft guns

Source: Page 76, Ziemke, Earl F. Battle For Berlin: End Of The Third Reich, NY:Ballantine Books, London:Macdomald & Co, 1969.

From this article:

The 9th Army at this stage had already suffered heavy losses in the Battle of the Seelow Heights. It is estimated that it had less than 1,000 guns, 79 tanks and probably a total of 150-200 combat-ready armoured fighting vehicles left.

Seems to me that it could not have had more than 744 guns to start with. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You have to add V Corps guns, but I think that it is unlikely to reach 1,000 guns. You have to remember though that the 1,000 includes mortars above 76mm if counted by the Soviet method (which I think it was), but the 744 by Ziemke probably won't include that. Oh, and it is 9th guns. ;-) Andreas 20:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Ziemke was a better historian than that because the numbers on the page I quoted are comparing the relative strengths of the opposing sides at the start of the campaign. --20:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with historian quality, but simply with the sources. Ziemke does not give his, but it is likely he uses German army records. I'll check what le Tissier is using later. It is my understanding that the Soviets simply count differently. Andreas 06:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Checked, le Tissier is counting guns and mortars, for both sides, so it should stay like that to have the correct comparison. Andreas 09:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V Corps and where the losses were suffered

V Corps, which was a part of 9th Army by the time of the Battle of Halbe, suffered its losses during the Neisse battles, so it maybe best to say something like 'losses suffered during the opening stages of the Battle of Berlin', or sumfink. What do you think? Andreas 20:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The IX was chewed up on the Seelow Heights, V Corps was not so badly damaged. V Corps was north of the main 1UF attack. That it still existed as a Corps is evidence of that! This complication is mentioned in the text but there is to date no mention of what the IX was doing before the start of the Battle of Halbe. For this reason I think the text should include the Seelow Heights where most of the IX had been concentrated and destroyed by Zukov, rather than a bolt on Corps who's arrival is already explained in this text.Philip Baird Shearer 20:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I'll include a para on 9th Army's actions before the encirclement in the prelude, based on Ziemke. Andreas 06:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air Supply

I would prefer to leave the original sentence in, since according to le Tissier the air supply was attempted (i.e. supplies were loaded onto planes and the planes took off). It failed because they could not locate the drop point and no supply from the planes to the ground could be established. It was therefore not complete fantasy at this stage of the war. There are also reports of air attacks by German planes on Soviet formations during the battle. Andreas 14:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If the Germans did not have the air-transport to support the 6th Army during the Battle of Stalingrad. They sure did not have anything like the air-transport capability needed to support an Army Group in the last few days of the war. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The two battles and the aim of the air supply are not comparable. In 9th army's case it was to bring them some minor supplied to help them to break out, in 6th Army it was to allow them to stay put and survive the winter. Andreas 16:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said when I removed it, it is misleading. What possible supplies could the transports have delivered which would have made any difference to the outcome of the breakout? It implies that the Germans still had enough air transport and specialised materiel to make a difference. They did not. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the interesting point that warrants inclusion is that they actually attempted it, less than three weeks before the war ended, and that it did not fail because of enemy interference. I thought that was quite astonishing, and I know many people have a view that the Luftwaffe had ceased to exist at that point in the war. Andreas 07:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting a bit fed up here

Philip

Would you mind explaining why you deleted all this?


STARTS In the area to the west of the encirclement, Soviet forces were already positioned in depth, with (from the north) Soviet 28th Army's 128th Rifle Corps in the area Mittenwalde and Matzen; 3rd Guards Rifle Corps in the area Tornow, Radeland, Baruth, Golssen; 3rd Guards Army's 120th Rifle Corps south of Halbe; 21st Rifle Corps along the Berlin to Dresden autobahn to the west of Lübben; 13th Army's 102nd Rifle Corps with 117th Guards Rifle Division stood near Luckenwalde, while 27th Rifle Corps 280th Rifle Division stood at Jüterbog, where the Wehrmacht's main artillery school was located. In terms of mechanized formations, 3rd Guards Tank Army's 9th Mechanised Corps had its 71st Mechanized Brigade between Teupitz and Neuhof; 4th Guards Tank Army's 68th Guards Tank Brigade stood near Kummersdorf Gut; and 3rd Guards Army's 25th Tank Corps near Duben. Both 3rd Guards Army and 13th Army were to be heavily reinforced throughout the battle, as they were to be in the line of the German break-out. A reinforcment of particular note was the deployment of 1st Guards Breakthrough Artillery Division[1] under command of 3rd Guards Army in the sector Teurow to Briesen [2][3] ENDS

?

I mean, it is not as if this is the greatest article written in terms of its information, and I made a bit of an effort in adding to it. To just remove it all without any reason, yet leave the highly informative bit about Hitler's tearful rage in strikes me as an odd choice of priorities. Andreas 15:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete it, as I said as a comment this was needed, I reformatted it to:
In the area to the west of the encirclement, Soviet forces were already positioned in depth, with (from the north) Soviet 28th Army's 128th Rifle Corps in the area Mittenwalde and Matzen;

  • 3rd Guards Rifle Corps in the area Tornow, Radeland, Baruth, Golssen;
  • 3rd Guards Army's 120th Rifle Corps south of Halbe;
  • 21st Rifle Corps along the Berlin to Dresden autobahn to the west of Lübben;
  • 13th Army's 102nd Rifle Corps with 117th Guards Rifle Division stood near Luckenwalde,
  • while 27th Rifle Corps's 280th Rifle Division stood at Jüterbog, where the Wehrmacht's main artillery school was located.

In terms of mechanized formations, 3rd Guards Tank Army's 9th Mechanised Corps had its 71st Mechanized Brigade between Teupitz and Neuhof; 4th Guards Tank Army's 68th Guards Tank Brigade stood near Kummersdorf Gut; and 3rd Guards Army's 25th Tank Corps near Duben. Both 3rd Guards Army and 13th Army were to be heavily reinforced throughout the battle, as they were to be in the line of the German break-out. A reinforcment of particular note was the deployment of 1st Guards Breakthrough Artillery Division[4] under command of 3rd Guards Army in the sector Teurow to Briesen.

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


My sincere apologies - brain failure on my part when looking at the article. No idea how that happened. Andreas 16:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

I have changed the structure a bit, to allow for a more natural flow of the narrative:

1) Prelude, Dispositions, strength of forces involved
2) Chronological account of the battle
3) Aftermath
4) Detail of formations involved
5) Sources etc.

I hope this helps readability a bit. Andreas 10:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the additional heading were necessary, but they do no harm. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

At this stage it is mostly to help me find my way through the article, and focus on particular sections I can add a bit too. Andreas 12:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C&C

I don't think that the commands issued by Hitler are particularly relevent. Like the idea that there was going to be an airdrop to support the army group, it mixes up wishful thinking by the German high command with the reality of the situation. I think both tend to muddy this article rather than clarify it by giving the illusion that the Germans were more in control of events than they were. However if you think it important I won't remove it.

It maybe easiest to just drop all Hitler related info into a paragraph in the intro, stating that throughout the battle the aims of the German high command and the 12th and 9th Armies were diverging, and that high command could not exercise any control over them. Thereafter leave any reference to Berlin out. Andreas 14:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought that we already had that with the paragraph which starts "Although in Hitler's mind the 12th Army..." Philip Baird Shearer 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"General Busse has been accused of failing to exercise effective command and control of the encircled arm" is a weasel worded phrase It must have an attribution with specific names. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you only select the entry sentence, yes. But the following sentences in the paragraph outline in what way he is supposed to have failed, and the paragraph is sourced. But I shall elaborate on this in a footnote. Andreas 14:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
As you will see I have explicitly named Le Tissier in the text, I think that when a POV is expressed that it is better that the author of the POV is named. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I agree your version is better than the first. Andreas 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The spearhead for the 9th Army breakout plan on 29 April was to be 502nd SS heavy Panzer battalion with remaining elements is the date 29 April correct? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I have corrected it to 28. Good catch. Andreas 08:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OKW or OKH

Did Heinrici as commander of "Army Group Vistula" report to the OKW or directly to Hitler in his capacity of C-in-C OKH? Which Army Group was XII Army in and what was its chain of command? --Philip Baird Shearer

OKH was no longer functional, following the move north by Rybalko's tank army that overran Zossen. All reports were made directly to the Fuehrerbunker (not OKW). 12th Army was under Army Group Vistula, so while it had contact it reported to Heinrici, who then reported to the Fuehrerbunker. C&C had become de-institutionalised in those final days. Andreas 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

Either one of the other numbers is wrong or the 25,000 is wrong or there are 10,000 missing in action. If there were 80,000 in the pocket, it is sourced that 20,000 killed and 25,000 escaped, so that would leave 35,000 unaccounted for, presumably POWs, so were does the 25,000 POWs come from which has been inserted into the war box? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuhrerbunker

Away from the map room in the Berlin Führerbunker with its fantasy attacks of phantom divisions, the Soviets were getting on with winning the war.

This not only seems POV, but it appears to have little to do with what the article is discussing at that point. --DMAJohnson 03:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant for the day, the Armies High Commands and the Army Group and Front involved in the Battle of Halbe. On the 21st Hitler ordered the 9th Army group to be prepared to attack north and south as parts of two pincer movements! The next day he is ordering the 9th to attack in a completely different direction (north west) to relieve Berlin. If it is an unbisased point of view what else would you call Hitler's orders to Steiner on the 21st and what else were the Soviets doing? Please can you tell me what the alterntive point of view is? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The article never goes though the trouble of pointing this out, however. Instead, whether intended or not, it simply paints a picture of senile Nazis playing war while the genius Russians march on forward. It also does this in an ackward place, between two paragraphs that are discussing the German's strategy. The same point can be made, I think, by moving it slightly further down in the article, and with rewording, along with proper context. --DMAJohnson 20:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The context is there. All that I have written above is in the preceding paragraph of the article (The command of the V Corps trapped ...). I think what you are doing is looking at the heading which was retrofitted onto the paragraphs after they were written.
The Germans had lost the war, only Hitler and his acolytes in their troglodyte world seem not to have understood this. They were playing war games while the Soviets followed their own war winning strategy. The point of the sentence is that despite the German High Command's attempt to gain control they were mealy reacting to Soviet initiatives, and there was no strategy open to the German High Command to turn the battle around, despite this up until the 22nd and then again afterwards Hitler was issuing orders as if the Germans could regain the strategic initiative. By this stage of the offensive, the Germans could possibly win small tactical victories to fend of the inevitable, but all that did was to cost even more lives and probably not extend the war by one day. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I am taking the entire article into account, not just the headings. Yes, Hitler and friends locked away in their bunker are unable to grasp what is going on around them, but besides that single sentance the article never gets around to pointing out to the reader why there was a problem with the strategy--It just explains what the general strategy was. In fact, from the way the article describes it, the plan would seem perfectly logical until the ackward mention of "phantom divisions" and the novel-esque "getting on with winning the war" line.

There are, I believe, better ways to get the point across in the article. --DMAJohnson 17:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Down to what level are we listing forces

The reason I ask this is that I did this article German_275th_Infantry_Division and noticed Halbe pocket and this were the same place. I believe the 275th was part of the 9th Army. Mark1800 05:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critique

  1. The lead is nowhere near being an adequate summation of the article.
  2. The article is very detailed in what happened, but doesn't really say why. Why was it worth such fighting to be able to surrender to the Western allies and not the Soviets? (I can imagine the answer, but it would be nice if the article told me, probably in the Prelude section. --kingboyk 20:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Halbe_0e06.html"