Talk:Battle of Kursk

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)

Phrases like "you are very stupid" are used by Russian trolls who work for a salary. They are paid by the Russian government to falsify, among other things, the English-language Wikipedia, to edit all the figures in Russia's favor, making references to stupid Russian-language sources.--Vaclaw1990 (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2025 (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)

You are absolutely right that the Soviet losses are greatly underestimated. Just as an example: the minimum estimate of the USSR losses in World War II is 27,000,000 people, including 20,000,000 men and 7,000,000 women. But Russian/Soviet sources claim that the Red Army losses are less than 9,000,000 killed, died of wounds and died in captivity. That is, if you believe the Russians (and naive people do) 11,000,000 Soviet men died not at the front in 1941-1945! At the same time, 14,000,000 Soviet men aged 18 to 40 died in 1941-1945 above the normal mortality rate calculated for peacetime. The Russians falsify their losses, understating Soviet losses and exaggerating German ones in every possible way. Victory on the Eastern Front in 1941-1945 is their only pride. Russia was completely defeated by Germany in World War I, and the Western Allies saved Russia from German slavery. The USA, Britain and France defeated Germany in 1918, and forced the German army to leave the defeated and occupied Russia. If it were not for the Entente, Russia would have been a German colony since 1918, like India for Britain.--Vaclaw1990 (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)