Talk:Third Battle of Kharkov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Source for/Verification of Casualty figures etc

The Soviet forces participating in this battle were operating at the end of very extended supply lines and were worn out after the long, quick march from Stalingrad. While the battle was a major German success, it is possible in the light of these facts that it has been exaggerated somewhat. Remember that FHO (Gehlen's Fremde Heere Ost) invariably overestimated Soviet strength, estimating their numerical superiority at 4:1 strategically and anywhere from 6:1 to 16:1 tactically during the later offensives. In reality, examination of the Soviet Archives by Glantz et al has proven that Soviet strategic superiority was only ever 1.5 - 2.5:1 and tactical superiority rarely exceeded 4 or 5:1. Also noteworthy is the fact that Soviet forces, as with the Wehrmacht, did not issue replacement personnel to units in the line so a 'Division' might sometimes be weaker than a regiment at full establishment.

The figures for the strengths of the combattants and the casualty figures need verification from material based on primary Soviet as well as German sources, or else to be removed entirely.Dduff442 18:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To an editor

On what sources are the statisitcs for the size of the armies based on?Would be nice to know...

[edit] First sentence

"and is considered to be among the most outstanding military accomplishments of the 20th century" - considered by who? By what criteria? I will remove this shortly. With respect, Ko Soi IX 11:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would assume the fact that this operation haltet the entire advance of the Red Army. In other words, even if the battle had small, some would say insignificant, impact on the red army and was rather local, it was never the less enough to halt the entire soviet fighting force in the eastern theatre - no small feat.

The halt of the russian advance also indicates that the defeat suffered there was more than insignificant, contrary to what's trying to be imposed on the article via the discussion here.--Nwinther 09:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"von Manstein's achievement in stabilizing the front must rank as one of the greatest (if not the greatest) achievements of World War II" despite which "the battle has been the subject of minimal post-war academic study." Indeed. 68.60.68.203 07:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Halting the Red Army before it reached the Dnieper WAS Germanys greatest military feat of the war. It sealed the reputation of von Manstein and the SS for good. Had the Soviets been successful the disaster at Stalingrad (1.5 months earlier) would have looked like nothing. The REASON this battle has not been studied in depth is that records of battles in the east in '43-'44 were largely destroyed or kept secret, not to mention that the vast majority of the battle's participants did not survive the war (all participating ss divisions wwere annihilated in Normandy the next year). Either way, Von Manstein himself recognizes this battle as his greatest tactical victory (see his book - Lost Victories), and as do many other historians (John Keegan, Liddell Hart). -

I don't think that the argument here is about the GREATEST military feat of the Reich, it's merely about the verifiability of the claim that this battle is among the most outstanding military accomplishments of the 20th century. So far, with all due respect to the German military abilities (which, btw, add glory to the Soviet victory), I am not convinced that it is considered as such by the majority of scholars. Perhaps, it is ok to mention that Manstein considered this battle as his greatest tactical victory (achievment?). With respect, Ko Soi IX 00:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Battle of Kharkov

A search for "Third Battle of Kharkov" on Google produced 4530 results, a search for "Kharkov offensive operation" produced 434 results, despite being a far more generic term. It seems obvious that the commonly held and understood name for this battle, in the English language, is "Third Battle of Kharkov". Please consider changing the title of the article to "Third Battle of Kharkov". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.35.28 (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

While it may get more hits, and is more often used in English, this as well as the other two enumerated battles of Kharkov are only mentioned in one source originally, Keitel's memoirs translated by David Irving. The "battle" does not exist in German records, and is in fact a Red Army operation, so the German operations were known as counterattacks by various formations and units. When I get to editing it, I will include these.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Having considered the debate at Second Battle of Kharkov, and the circumstances of the previous move, as well as the request above, I've made the move. Comments as always welcome. Buckshot06(prof) 09:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you what BUCKSHOT, these are going to be your very own projects, because I wash my hands of them. might as well revert the first one also, because that its content is also a load of crap. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, again! Here I am, as with the others, following the consensus and the general opinion. Why are you insulting me for so doing? Buckshot06(prof) 10:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)