Talk:Battle of Kursk

8/23/23 - Why is this a GA?

The lede is a bloated 550-word, 4-paragraph mess that doesn't meet WP:GA standards. J. Harrington Inchworm III (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Red Army armour strength

The paragraph regarding Red Army armour strength alleges that the Soviets fielded an IS-3 prototype, but the source cited does not support this. The IS-3 was not developed until the following year. It's possible that an IS-2 prototype participated (and an IS-2 is displayed at the diorama of the battle in Belgorod), but the source does not appear to specify this. 24.16.132.126 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote

@Hohum: I do not think any source is referring to a battle of Kursk (region) that is happening now, am I wrong? Mellk (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

People are extremely likely to type "battle of Kursk" into Wikipedia at the moment, they will be sent directly to this page, a hatnote allows them go to the page they intended. (Pageviews for this article has increased twentyfold in the last few days). (Hohum ^@) 20:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"The single largest battle in the history of warfare"

This is definitely not true and the citations are two random book authors stating it, it's basically their opinion at best.

Quite an absurd statement, if you seriously defend this remaining in the article I think you are extremely silly. 73.194.226.137 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That is not an argument, you're basing it off your personal opinion. They're not two "random books", they're both by well-cited scholars, if you have anything that actually refutes Frieser et al., and Töppel, then you should bring it up instead of saying that editors are "extremely silly", as you have brought no argument forth, nor citations. Reaper1945 (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Casualties

Random IPs, no registered editors, are repeatedly reverting edits, on the basis that Sokolov's numbers are inflated, however, both the scholars Töppel and Frieser et al. cite his numbers, and despite Glantz speculating that the numbers may be inflated, he still cites them and acknowledges them as an upper bound. Nowhere is it being stated that the numbers are true, they're an upper bound supported by Frieser and other German scholars as part of their history volumes, and Töppel as well. Glantz is the only scholar who questions it to some degree but acknowledges the upper bounds. IP reverted another editor again without talking. Reaper1945 (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Töppel states that "Russian historians critical of the official report estimate losses ranging from 910,000 to 2.3 million men. Adding another 40 percent to the official casualty statistics (as with the estimates of losses during the defensive phase above), the casualty rate amounts to 1.2 million soldiers – and this is a cautious estimate. Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, who offered some fairly accurate calculations of Soviet losses, reckons that as many as 999,300 Red Army soldiers were killed during the Battle of Kursk." Again, Töppel finds Sokolov's estimates to be fairly accurate, and 1.2 million to be supported by Russian historians critical of official estimates. Reaper1945 (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Frieser et al., states "During that short period of time the Red Army, according to Russian sources, lost 863,303 men, of whom 254,470 dead or missing. These figures, however, appear to be clearly understated. Boris V. Sokolov demonstrates a number of contradictions in the official account and estimates the losses at 1,677,000 men." The official data from Soviets is clearly contradictory and understated, as acknowledged by Frieser et al, and Sokolov demonstrates his casualty total. Again, IPs have not provided any reasoning besides "Glantz said they're inflated", which is only half the truth, as Glantz acknowledges and cites Sokolov's casualty estimates, and says they MIGHT be inflated, not that they actually are, which the IP fails to mention. Reaper1945 (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)