Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 2:47 pm
—
Hi all,

probably most of WW2 history fans here knows about the capital of the German East Prussia - Kenigsberg.
In 1945 that was a fortress city with 2 rings of late XIX century forts and modern field fortification in between them.
It was defended by approximately 53.000 WH men with 3.200 guns, 2.200 mortars, 380 armored vehicles and around 70.000 of varous ad-hoc units.

On April 6, 1945 they were attacked by the units of 11th GvA, 43rd A and 50th A, which had 106.578men in a total with 24.473men in rifle companies. Average rifle division in those armies had 3.600men and average Guards rifle division had 4.200men.
The assault was over on April 9th, 1945 with a surrender of Kenigsberg.

The German losses for those 3 days were:
41.915men (buried copses in uniform).
91.853men POW.
104 AVF destroyed.
89 AVF captured.
82 armored vehicles destroyed.
119 armored vehicles captured.
1.193 guns destroyed.
2.023 guns captured.
568 mortars destroyed.
1.652 mortars captured.

The Soviet losses were (actually a little bit less as these are the losses for a period of April 1st - 10th but before April 6th the units didn't have much combat):
3.506men KIA.
215men MIA.
13.177men WIA.
1.166men ill.

That contradicts a little with Soviet "human waves" common knowledge does not it?

#2: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 8:49 pm
—
The stats contradict nothing. The definition of human wave is pretty broad, especially when described from a first person point of view. How many times have you read or heard, "They just kept coming!" It could just me overwhelming numerical superiority, or human waves!

#3: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:19 pm
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

The stats contradict nothing. The definition of human wave is pretty broad, especially when described from a first person point of view. How many times have you read or heard, "They just kept coming!" It could just me overwhelming numerical superiority, or human waves!

"human waves" in my post is a broad termin describing that Soviets used huge numeral superiority to win according to the "common knowledge".
here you can see that by 1945 even having less men the RKKA could take strongpoints loosing much less than enemy. That was an experience learned with alot of blood.

#4: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: jakebullet70, Location: Washington State / Kherson Ukraine

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:12 pm
—
The German casualties quoted are from January to the surrender. Not in just the 3 days.

#5: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:18 pm
—

jakebullet70 wrote (View Post):

The German casualties quoted are from January to the surrender. Not in just the 3 days.

you are wrong.

#6: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 2:01 am
—
I find the stats hard to believe to. Usually you have sources Dima, where are they? Why no wounded for Germans? Why so little stats for Russians?

#7: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: dj,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:36 am
—
@Dima - yes Soviet Army was very efficient towards late war especially in '45 and did not have to rely on human wave attacks that were used in early war to end of Stalingrad. But I disagree with your stats. Krauts were dug-in and well prepared with their defensive positions. I highly doubt RA only suffered 3500 KIA. Interesting that Russia still maintains possession of this small territory surrounded by Baltic States.

And what ever happened to the Amber Room jewels that were allegedly taken to Koenigsberg? Now there is a recent rumour they were not destroyed in Koenigsberg after all , and that they ended up in Poland.

#8: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:37 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

I find the stats hard to believe to. Usually you have sources Dima, where are they? Why no wounded for Germans? Why so little stats for Russians?

German casualites - Reference for enemy casualties on 06 to 10th of April.
Soviet casualties - Reference for losses of 3rd Belorussian Front on 01 to 10th of April.
On 14th of April there were approximately 4.500 German wounded in the RKKA hospitals. Guess not many wounded survived the assault in first days. Well you believe in millions of raped in Germany but can't believe in lack of many wounded?

11th GA - 1.560 KIA, 156 MIA (looks like they just reported 10% of KIA), 5.764 WIA, 363 ill.
43rd A - 1.236 KIA, 59 MIA, 5.224 WIA, 566 ill.
50th A - 710 KIA, 2.198 WIA, 237 ill.

#9: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:42 am
—

dj wrote (View Post):

@Dima - yes Soviet Army was very efficient towards late war especially in '45 and did not have to rely on human wave attacks that were used in early war to end of Stalingrad. But I disagree with your stats. Krauts were dug-in and well prepared with their defensive positions. I highly doubt RA only suffered 3500 KIA.

you can disagree on whatever you want.
my stats are WW2 docs.

Quote:

Interesting that Russia still maintains possession of this small territory surrounded by Baltic States.

I live here Smile

#10: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:45 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

I find the stats hard to believe to. Usually you have sources Dima, where are they? Why no wounded for Germans? Why so little stats for Russians?

btw altogether there were approximately 5.500 corpses buried in RKKA uniform but they were collected all around Kenigsberg.
and Otto Lasch the the commander of the Kenigsberg defence reported 33,8K KIA on first intorregation right after surrender of the city.

#11: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:14 am
—
What WW2 docs? You reference the rapes? You usually present a pretty good argument. This is not. The casualty numbers you listed are so lopsided that supporting references would be useful.

#12: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:35 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

What WW2 docs?

The references of the RA units. 10 days casualty reports.
if you have other documents proving the numbers I use wrong, please provide.

Quote:

You reference the rapes? You usually present a pretty good argument. This is not. The casualty numbers you listed are so lopsided that supporting references would be useful.

I don't have the explanation of only 4.500 wounded so I think they didn't take much POWs in the first days of assault.

funny thing is that the Russian archives were mainly digitalized in last years so generally you can trace all the casualties.
https://www.obd-memorial.ru/html/index.html - not sure if it works in English but you can just search for Kenigsberg and find all the casualty reports (something like that https://www.obd-memorial.ru/html/info.htm?id=4253236).

In 1942 it was ok for the Germans to loose 20-30men killing hundreds of RA soldiers and taking hundreds as POW, In 1945 it was just opposite.

#13: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:07 am
—
The Wiki enumerates Soviet casualties as 60,000 and 3,700 for the final assault.

German casualties are reported at 50,000 casualties and 80,000 prisoners. Wiki notes Soviet sources say 42,000 casualties and 92,000 prisoners.

There are just a few references cited.

Battle of Königsberg

#14: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:44 am
—
From what I have been able to dig up through the internet, the 3500 number is for the final assault (April 6-9). To take these stats of 3500 Russian KIA and 42000 German KIA at face value and make a very simple conclusion from them is irresponsible. There is very little information on the net to corroborate the facts.

But you are saying the Russian casualty number is from 10 days. Which means during the final assault the Russians lost presumably less than 3500, while still holding to the fact the Germans lost 42,000 in 3-4 days. Not making complete sense Dima.

Did Otto Lasch say the 33,800 were lost in those three days? He was responsible for the cities defense and his units for quite awhile longer than four days, why would a general only count his men from those days? If he did, how could he get such accurate info in short notice while under assault to present so soon after surrender? That is very questionable. Maybe its in his book?

I am betting the German casualties you present are from a longer period of time.

Konigsberg is a city and fortress. Do we have any other examples of such lopsided victories on battlefields like this fortress?

#15: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:51 am
—
As someone else has alluded to, the Soviet army was a vastly different beast from the start of the Eastern war to 1945. Better leadership, better equipment and better trained soldiers. I'm not surprised that the figures would be the end result as the Germans cleverly tried by all means to evacuate as many other better Units from this region. Leaving under strength Divisions and the poorly armed to face the Offensive.

Once again be very careful of using Wiki...............it's as reliable as the current Iraqi Army - deserting in large numbers again.

#16: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Gunsche,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 5:12 pm
—
I want to see a mod of this battle or the battle for east prussia, it would contain a large number of different units.
It would sort of be a smaller version of the battle for Berlin.

Last edited by Gunsche on Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:51 pm; edited 2 times in total

#17: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 6:00 pm
—

Quote:

Once again be very careful of using Wiki...............it's as reliable as the current Iraqi Army - deserting in large numbers again.

I disagree.

Most Wiki articles will cite primary source references.

#18: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: jakebullet70, Location: Washington State / Kherson Ukraine

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:03 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

jakebullet70 wrote (View Post):

The German casualties quoted are from January to the surrender. Not in just the 3 days.

you are wrong.

Dima, could you please share your sources?

#19: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:52 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Quote:

Once again be very careful of using Wiki...............it's as reliable as the current Iraqi Army - deserting in large numbers again.

I disagree.

Most Wiki articles will cite primary source references.

........................ and added to or deleted details that change the result, meaning etc. It's not a full or precise study. Little better than a summary, often a unqualified personal one. Lke ours here if you like..........a discussion, certainly not a historical reference by any means. Harvard says it's not reliable for academic studies.

#20: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:06 am
—
Wikipedia is basically an encyclopedia, a secondary or tertiary source. So, in academia, how you use or cite wiki information may matter to your professor or institution.

In his 2007 Guide to Military History on the Internet, Simon Fowler rated Wikipedia as "the best general resource" for military history research, and stated that "the results are largely accurate and generally free of bias." When rating Wikipedia as the No. 1 military site he mentioned that "Wikipedia is often criticised for its inaccuracy and bias, but in my experience the military history articles are spot on."

Reliability of Wikipedia

Last edited by Stwa on Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:23 am; edited 2 times in total

#21: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: mooxe,

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:07 am
—
Wikipedia does present a lot of indisputable knowledge. But you always have to check your references, no matter what source you use.

casualties.png

Description:

If you don't check, you may end up quoting something as absurd as this!

Filesize:

6.89 KB

Viewed:

8116 Time(s)

#22: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:17 am
—
Mooxe, can you provide a link to the Wiki article screen shot you posted.

It looks very similar to the one in the Wiki Battle of Konigsberg article I linked to. Except my link shows 42,000 German casualties. And my article looked like this.

Also note citations [2] and [3]. Both sources are in Russian.

Battle of Königsberg

#23: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: mooxe,

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:59 am
—
It was the Konigsberg article. The edit has been fixed.

#24: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:54 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

It was the Konigsberg article. The edit has been fixed.

I didn't know you were a Wikipedia editor! Anyway here is citation/source [2] translated:

Doctor of historical sciences Gennady Kretinin sure that Soviet troops took the city with less than.

Read for a long time, that during the assault on Königsberg troop strength from both the hundred he was almost equal: 130 thousand people in the German grouping and 137 thousand 250 soldiers from the Red Army.

For the first time these figures appeared in a manuscript of the year 1945 "East Prussian operation of the third Belorussian Front. Abstract for the study, prepared by the Division for study and use the experience of war. Data are archived, they were used in subsequent our historians, experts and authors of textbooks. The figures were considered correct, their long time no one questioned.

But over the past few years appeared objective data that documented. In Kaliningrad released "Book", and included new information on the number of casualties on both sides and during the storming of Königsberg.

Finally, Kaliningrad historians studied archive documents and estimate how many people were actually on both sides.

Doctor of historical sciences, head of the Baltic information-analytical center of the Russian Institute for strategic studies Gennady Kretinin this trap from the beginning of 90-ies, works in the Central archive of the Ministry of defence, with documents that were once classified.

Here's what arguments he cites.

Soviet troops

-Actually in the storming of Königsberg by the Soviet troops participated in a number of 106.6 thousand instead of 137 with superfluous thousand, as stated earlier.

The first. In our and foreign literature, textbooks was privately convinced that the assault on the capital of Eastern Prussia, was drawn by four Army: 50-I, 43-I, 11-guards and 39-39 when this army acted outside of Königsberg, in support of the West side. It is not directly a party to the assault on Königsberg. These are the "extra" 30 thousand people. When this 39-army, like other army 3-th Belarusian front played a major role in the operation and it will not diminish.

The second. The remaining 106.6 thousand people from the three armies are not going to attack simultaneously and together. Attack of the first trains. I find in documents an interesting term, which I have not met anywhere. This "active fighters"-the personal composition of the rifle companies. On April 1, 1945 year numbered 24473 such fighters. These people were directly involved in the assault. Yes, the rest too involved fighting, provided support. But it is precisely these 24.5 thousand people with grenades and assault rifles went on the attack, taking fire. So they stormed Koenigsberg.

The German side

After the capitulation of Königsberg Commandant during Otto Lâš said: "we lost the entire 100-thousandth army under Withkrólewiec. The wounded has been up to 30 thousand people. Later, after returning from Soviet captivity, in which he spent nearly 10 years, Lâš writes in memoirs of 35-thousandth garrison. Those figures are questionable.

Actually in Königsberg in February 1945 year could be 130 thousand civilians. But in February the city circle was prorvano and the population fled at a noted, but from outside the city to get nobody could. So the number has decreased significantly.

Otto Lâš says: "population of about 130 thousand, of which 30 thousand-military. But here Lâš produces the substitution. Most likely, and the outcome of the assault later confirmed it was 30 thousand civilians and soldiers around 100 thousand.

Prisoners of war

-Summary of the Soviet Information Bureau reports 92 thousand prisoners of German soldiers and officers in Königsberg. Another 40 thousand died. This figure passes in all memoir high chiefs: Wasilewski, Bagramyan, Galician. This is a classic data.

(A) documents and reports in the town pleneno 70.5 thousand people! Why such a difference? The fact is that, taking city blocks, the Soviet troops was cleaned off the territory is cleaned from basements, all people from the ruins. Their concentrated at cantonment POWs, and there already who brainstormed a civilian and who is military. So, really captured over 90 thousand people. This figure and a summary of the Soviet Information Bureau. But from the crowd of about 25-30 thousand civilians.

"Learned how to fight"

-Official reports on casualties of the troops of the third Belorussian Front with 1 on April 10, 1945 onwards, and intense fighting during this period were carried out only when the storming of Königsberg, report: 3700 people were killed. This figure is the minimum losses somehow NIGD focuses not sounds. But this report drawn up immediately after the assault. Prettier or detract from was not meaningless. Today, the figures are distorted. Say 5 thousand, 10 thousand, but once I heard the figure of 22 thousand. It is a myth.

With the capture of Vilnius by the Soviet troops, killing more than 4 thousand people. Similar in size and strength, but in a fortified and prepared for the defense of Königsberg 3700 people were killed. Given the size of the opposing factions, such losses can be considered small-3%, the output of one learned to fight.

The storming of Königsberg Soviet party prepared very well. Knew what went. Reduced staff numbers of mortars, 45-milimetrovyh guns, replacing them with 76-milimetrovymi instruments: we had to fight with the enemy, not on open terrain, and in long-term shelters. Specially trained assault troops. Soldiers are taught to overcome obstacles, hurl grenades at window apertures, interact with tanks and artillery and so on.

The whole operation was prepared and carried out in accordance with one of the principles of science-not win suvorovskaya number and skill.

The Red Army:

Grouping-106 thousand

Field guns-2567 trunks

Heavy artillery-2358

Tanks and self-propelled-538

Airplanes-2174

The Germans:

Grouping-100 thousand people

Field guns-3216

Mortars-2220

Tanks and self-propelled-193

Airplanes-120

Trophies in Königsberg:

-Guns of different calibers-2023;

Tanks and self-propelled-89;

-Mortars-1652;

-Machine guns-4673;

-Armoured personnel carriers-119;

-Armored trains-2;

-Cars-8560;

-Tractors and tractors-137;

-Steam locomotives-774;

-Cars-8544;

Boats and barges-146;

-Warehouses with military equipment-441.

Learn more about the storming of Königsberg you can read in the article-a study of g. Cretinina, published in the journal "problems of national strategy", no. 2, 2012, ed. RISS, city of Moscow.

#25: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:16 am
—
Here is citation/source [3] translated.

Kenigsbergskaâ offensive operation, 6-9 April, 1945.

Map of operations

Nastupat. operation troops 3rd Belarusian. Fr. in collaboration with Balt. fleet, held 6-9 APR. during the East Prussian operation, 1945. After the Elimination of 13-29 March in southwest of Königsberg hejl?sbergskoj factions etc-Ka before the troops of 3-th Belarusian. Fr. (Marshal. Union and m. Vasilevsky) was to destroy the kenigsbergskuû grouping etc and take the city and fortress of Koenigsberg.

.-Faches. command prepared a fortress for the duration. resistance in complete isolation. In Königsberg had underground w, arsenals and warehouses. The defence system of the fortress with stood from the external. oboronit. outline to been overcome. troops in the January fighting, and three positions 1 position took place in 6-8 km from the city centre and included 2-7 lines of trenches with moves messages and barriers, as well as 15 old forts, etc. oboronit. buildings, 2 position, fitted on the outskirts of the city, consisted of a tailored to the defense of the barricades, stone buildings, pillboxes and minirovannyh stations, 3 position held on the old city limits and relied on 9 old forts built. In the Centre of the Citadel was calculated on the garrison in a variet. thousand people Koenigsberg defended 4 Peh. the Division offers. DTD. regiments and battalions of Volkssturm (total approx. 130 thousand person, OK 4 thousand guns and mortars, 108 tanks and assault guns, 170 planes).

To undertake to brought 11-I gvard., 39-I, 43-50 and I-I (a), 1-3 and I-I WA 3-th Belarusian. French connection, as well as 18th, 4-th and 15-th VA (total materiel OK. 5.2 thnd. guns and mortars, 538 tanks and SELF-PROPELLED GUNS, 2.4 thousand aircraft). Concept of owls. command provided rivalos? causing simultaneous. attacks on Kenigsbergu by s. and j. on a converging path, with the aim of encirclement and destruction factions etc. To pin down the enemy grouping zemlandskuû planned vspomogat. kick out of the district to the North of Königsberg on Noted. Force Of Balt. fleet (ADM. in f. Tributs) had to fire artillery and aviation strikes promote offensive troops.

Before the start of the assault on Königsberg artillery front and Balt. fleet during 4 days destroyed dolgovrem. construction of OL-Ka 6 APR. troops went on the offensive front. Despite the stubborn resistance of the OL-Ka, 39-I and by the end of the day wedged in the defenses of the enemy for 4 km and cut train Kenigsberg-Noted, 43-50, I-11 and I-I gvard and broke through the 1-th position and close to the city. Part 43-th and the first broke in Koenigsberg. By the end of the 8 Apr. owls. troops captured port and j.-d. host city, military-prom. objects and cut off the garrison of troops operating on the Zemlandskom peninsula. Owls. command on that day through the proposed negotiators; garrison to lay down their arms. However, the Nazis continued to resist. On the morning of 9 May. troops of the 5th and 43 thwarted attempts. parts of the garrison break z. failed and blow on the 5-th parts Koenigsberg tank. Division with the Zemlandskogo peninsula. After massir. strikes. artillery and Aviation (CA. 1.5 thousand aircraft) on surviving nodes resistance 11 troops of the 6th guards and attacked OL-Ka in the city centre and 9 APR. forced the garrison to surrender.

During the k. o. OK were destroyed. 42 thousand. the enemy soldiers and officers, taken prisoner by OK. 92 thousand. pers., incl. 1800 officers and 4 General, headed by the Commandant of the fortress of Gen. A. Lasham, captured 1652 mortar shells, 2023 and 128 aircraft. With the fall of Königsberg was destroyed the Citadel of the Prussian militarism. To commemorate the victory under Koenigsberg, the Bureau established a SUPREME COUNCIL of the USSR Medal "for the capture of Königsberg. 98 units and formations have received honorary Naim. "Koenigsberg's"; OK. 200 soldiers were awarded the title of Hero. Union.

Lit.: Storming of Königsberg, 3 ed., London, 1973; Storming Of Königsberg. Decree, literature, London, 1976. Cm. also lit. When art. East Prussia 1945.

#26: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: dj,

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:08 am
—
"...speculations about the Amber Room may well turn out to be a case of counting your chickens before they hatch. Unfortunately, there is a good chance the room – if it was indeed smuggled out of the burning Nazi city of Koenigsberg – has not survived, as amber is very fragile and needs proper climate control. Lacking this, the fine-crafted jewelry could easily have been damaged beyond repair."

https://www.rt.com/news/313855-nazi-train-amber-room/

#27: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:48 am
—
[quote="Stwa";p="83651"]Wikipedia is basically an encyclopedia, a secondary or tertiary source. So, in academia, how you use or cite wiki information may matter to your professor or institution.

Give Harvard an email or even check what they say about Wiki on the net - unreliable for academic use. So end of the day, use Wiki with that in mind at your own peril and don't rely upon it's accuracy. As it isn't recognized by academia. Maybe Wiki University - Wikiversity does but each to their own.

ps. I haven't read any history books yet that say they used Wiki for their reference..........lol. I guess that's the difference between history and comics.

#28: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:51 am
—
PC Pro (August 2007) cites the head of the European and American Collection at the British Library, Stephen Bury, as stating "Wikipedia is potentially a good thing—it provides a speedier response to new events, and to new evidence on old items." The article concludes: "For [Bury], the problem isn't so much the reliability of Wikipedia's content so much as the way in which it's used." "It's already become the first port of call for the researcher", Bury says, before noting that this is "not necessarily problematic except when they go no further." According to Bury, the trick to using Wikipedia is to understand that "just because it's in an encyclopedia (free, web or printed) doesn't mean it's true. Ask for evidence ... and contribute." - Wiki

Reliability of Wikipedia

#29: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:43 am
—
[quote="Stwa";p="83676"]PC Pro (August 2007) cites the head of the European and American Collection at the British Library, Stephen Bury, as stating "Wikipedia is potentially a good thing—it provides a speedier response to new events, and to new evidence on old items." The article concludes: "For [Bury], the problem isn't so much the reliability of Wikipedia's content so much as the way in which it's used." "It's already become the first port of call for the researcher", Bury says, before noting that this is "not necessarily problematic except when they go no further." According to Bury, the trick to using Wikipedia is to understand that "just because it's in an encyclopedia (free, web or printed) doesn't mean it's true. Ask for evidence ... and contribute." - Wiki

"Potentially a good thing " .........is potentially. It is good for a quick brief. Stats and dates are sometimes wrong and even locations aren't exact etc. One of the many reasons it's unreliable.

" Researchers " - that could be you and I, not historians or academia. It's all in the meaning of the words. I still use Wiki and often but not for anything serious.

#30: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:44 pm
—
Wiki errors. Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors. Hope this helps you Stwa. Also it's just one study / article of many.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html

#31: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:52 pm
—
Another study published in 2014 [Journal of the American Pharmacists Association] found that Wikipedia's information about pharmacology was 99.7% accurate when compared to a pharmacology textbook, and that the completeness of such information on Wikipedia was 83.8%. The study also determined that completeness of these Wikipedia articles was lowest (68%) in the category "pharmacokinetics" and highest (91.3%) in the category "indication". The authors concluded that "Wikipedia is an accurate and comprehensive source of drug-related information for undergraduate medical education."

Some academic journals do refer to Wikipedia articles, but are not elevating it to the same level as traditional references. For instance, Wikipedia articles have been referenced in "enhanced perspectives" provided on-line in the journal Science. The first of these perspectives to provide a hyperlink to Wikipedia was "A White Collar Protein Senses Blue Light",[72] and dozens of enhanced perspectives have provided such links since then. The publisher of Science states that these enhanced perspectives "include hypernotes—which link directly to websites of other relevant information available online—beyond the standard bibliographic references".

Reliability of Wikipedia

#32: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:22 pm
—
[quote="Stwa";p="83687"][color=red][i]Another study published in 2014 [Journal of the American Pharmacists Association] found that Wikipedia's information about pharmacology was 99.7% accurate when compared to a pharmacology textbook, and that the completeness of such information on Wikipedia was 83.8%. The study also determined that completeness of these Wikipedia articles was lowest (68%) in the category "pharmacokinetics" and highest (91.3%) in the category "indication". The authors concluded that "Wikipedia is an accurate and comprehensive source of drug-related information for undergraduate medical education."

For every so called Wiki accuracy there is several times that of inaccurate articles. You state one when there clearly is vastly more releases and studies giving examples and frequencies of Wiki being little more than opinions. Put it this way, if you are sick you go see a doctor. If your car needs to be repaired, you go to a mechanic. If you want history, you use history books not someones unqualified, unverified and often little better than a brief opinion. How many examples for research against the use of Wiki would you need to see before you could admit that you are wrong. Wiki is becoming less accurate and reliable, not better. The very nature of Wiki means that it is open to abuse and many incorrect Wiki articles once pointed out go unchanged.

It's just a case that you can't admit that you are totally wrong. The net is full to overflowing with articles giving examples of problems. Good Universities won't look at students use of Wiki other than to find credible citations as reports aren't reliable . But at the end of the day if you keep your mind closed no matter the evidence, nothing will change your opinion. I try to present mine on evidence not guess work. Lets hope your doctor doesn't use Wiki the next time you go to see him for help.

http://mobihealthnews.com/33566/study-finds-many-errors-on-wikipedia-articles-for-most-costly-diseases

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/wikipedia-s-medical-errors-and-one-doctor-s-fight-to-correct-them-1.2743268

#33: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:13 pm
—

Although Wikipedia is stated not to be a primary source, it has been used as evidence in legal cases. In January 2007, The New York Times reported that U.S. courts vary in their treatment of Wikipedia as a source of information, with over 100 judicial rulings having relied on the encyclopedia, including those involving taxes, narcotics, and civil issues such as personal injury and matrimonial issues.

In one notable case, the trademark of Formula One racing decision, the UK Intellectual Property Office considered both the reliability of Wikipedia, and its usefulness as a reliable source of evidence:

Wikipedia has sometimes suffered from the self-editing that is intrinsic to it, giving rise at times to potentially libellous statements. However, inherently, I cannot see that what is in Wikipedia is any less likely to be true than what is published in a book or on the websites of news organisations. [Formula One's lawyer] did not express any concerns about the Wikipedia evidence [presented by the plaintiff]. I consider that the evidence from Wikipedia can be taken at face value."

The case turned substantively upon evidence cited from Wikipedia in 2006 as to the usage and interpretation of the term Formula One.

Reliability of Wikipedia

#34: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 6:36 pm
—
From Encyclopedia Brtiannica;

Quote:

In World War II, however, it was virtually destroyed by the Red Army after a two-month siege ending in April 1945.

Would Otto Lasch's comment on casualties not been inclusive of atleast those two months? Why would he say 42,000 KIA in just those three days? With the total amount of men he had under his command surrounded in the pocket during the siege, if he lost 42,000 of them in three days and 92,000 surrendered on the 9th, it leaves very little room for casualties preceding the three day assault. Dima?

#35: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:00 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Wikipedia has sometimes suffered from the self-editing that is intrinsic to it, giving rise at times to potentially libellous statements. However, inherently, I cannot see that what is in Wikipedia is any less likely to be true than what is published in a book or on the websites of news organisations. [Formula One's lawyer] did not express any concerns about the Wikipedia evidence [presented by the plaintiff]. I consider that the evidence from Wikipedia can be taken at face value."

I believe it. Books can have errors to often with no reporting procedure and theres very little reason to have them fixed, unless its a school text book I suppose. Books can also have a political leaning just as any Wiki article has the potential to have. I am sure a search on errors in books will return many results. Wiki articles are living, subject to change on new evidence, new opinions and new theories.

#36: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: ke_mechial,

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:05 am
—
In 1945, I think, one should also consider the air superiority and support of russians, while Lutfwaffe was virtually wiped out.

#37: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:59 am
—
Up to 6 in 10 Wiki articles are incorrect. that says it all. Not even poorly written history books would be that low, although I see a few quoted by Stwa report to have written their book upon Wiki info.

Wiki issues are vast and well documented. For people to keep ignoring them is just ignorance on their behalf. Wiki is a good quick way to find out a brief on a topic but not for serious research. Harvard clearly warns against using Wiki - unreliable.

Some read comics for their fix of history.........others actual history books and literature - that can be electronic as well but not Wiki.

#38: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: mooxe,

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:59 am
—

sod98 wrote (View Post):

Up to 6 in 10 Wiki articles are incorrect. that says it all. Not even poorly written history books would be that low, although I see a few quoted by Stwa report to have written their book upon Wiki info.

Wiki issues are vast and well documented. For people to keep ignoring them is just ignorance on their behalf. Wiki is a good quick way to find out a brief on a topic but not for serious research. Harvard clearly warns against using Wiki - unreliable.

Some read comics for their fix of history.........others actual history books and literature - that can be electronic as well but not Wiki.

I don't disagree really. I would not quote a Wiki article. The quote can disappear for one thing. But to rule is out as strongly as you do I don't agree with.

Anyone doing any type of serious research will probably come upon Wiki sooner or later. I would assume one would consider the facts presented by a Wiki article as they would consider the facts from a book or other literature. Check the facts, the sources, the references etc etc. How unreliable is other electronic literature? What sources do they use? Wikipedia is probably the best source to bring you to other sources.

Am I wrong to assume that any information I see these days may be leaning one way or the other in an attempt to underscore the facts?

#39: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:58 am
—
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2016)

For every so called Wiki accuracy there is several times that of inaccurate articles. [citation needed]You state one when there clearly is vastly more releases and studies giving examples and frequencies of Wiki being little more than opinions.[citation needed] Put it this way, if you are sick you go see a doctor. [citation needed]If your car needs to be repaired, you go to a mechanic. If you want history, you use history books not someones unqualified, unverified and often little better than a brief opinion. How many examples for research against the use of Wiki would you need to see before you could admit that you are wrong. Wiki is becoming less accurate and reliable, not better. [citation needed]The very nature of Wiki means that it is open to abuse and many incorrect Wiki articles once pointed out go unchanged.

It's just a case that you can't admit that you are totally wrong.[citation needed] The net is full to overflowing with articles giving examples of problems.[citation needed] Good Universities won't look at students use of Wiki other than to find credible citations as reports aren't reliable. [citation needed]But at the end of the day if you keep your mind closed no matter the evidence, nothing will change your opinion. I try to present mine on evidence not guess work. [citation needed]Lets hope your doctor doesn't use Wiki the next time you go to see him for help. -Sod98

#40: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:59 am
—
Some read comics for their fix of history.........others actual history books and literature - that can be electronic as well but not Wiki. -Sod98

Encyclopedia Britannica - NO HITS - Question

#41: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:19 pm
—
Am I wrong to assume that any information I see these days may be leaning one way or the other in an attempt to underscore the facts?[/quote]

Totally agree

#42: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:20 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Some read comics for their fix of history.........others actual history books and literature - that can be electronic as well but not Wiki. -Sod98

Encyclopedia Britannica - NO HITS - Question

I wouldn't use Britannica either. Actually I never have.

#43: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:25 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2016)

I like it. However my statements are printed on Wiki. If you need verification of common sense then that leaves you in a very poor light. Keep up the good work Stwa.

#44: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 5:21 am
—
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2016)

I like it. However my statements are printed on Wiki. [citation needed] If you need verification of common sense then that leaves you in a very poor light. [citation needed] Keep up the good work Stwa. -sod98

#45: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:51 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2016)

More importantly, when are you going to admit to being wrong. Or is it a US thing never to admit wrong, but "Gott mit uns " . Man up.

#46: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 4:56 pm
—

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2016)
This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the authors' particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. (April 2016)
This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (April 2016)

More importantly, when are you going to admit to being wrong. Or is it a US thing never to admit wrong, but "Gott mit uns " . Man up. -sod98

#47: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 5:14 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2016)
This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the authors' particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. (April 2016)
This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (April 2016)

More importantly, when are you going to admit to being wrong. Or is it a US thing never to admit wrong, but "Gott mit uns " . Man up. -sod98

The above is just another way of side stepping the issue that Stwa can't admit that he was wrong yet again. That Wiki is not a reliable source for information due to it's inaccuracies. Instead he tries his hardest to divert attention away from his inability to face the truth.........that he is wrong. The moment you said Wiki is used for academic research was the moment you lost your argument...........the start. Prove me wrong on one thing and you destroy me, but you can't and haven't been up to the job for sometime.

I'm still awaiting your admission that you were wrong. Man up. Every day you fail to do so, you lose face a little further. It's not as though you being an American that you aren't use to losing as history shows - not Wiki.

#48: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: jakebullet70, Location: Washington State / Kherson Ukraine

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 7:15 pm
—

sod98 wrote (View Post):

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Man up? Being an American?
WOW!!!! Heck, I am wrong on lots of things and learn everyday. (2 x-wife's will tell you that)

We are here for fun and you make it like it is do or die and get personal? Man up... hehehe Still laughing at you for that... LOL aaahhh, the wife made some borche, time to eat.

#49: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:46 am
—
I'm still awaiting your admission that you were wrong. Man up. Every day you fail to do so, you lose face a little further. It's not as though you being an American that you aren't use to losing as history shows - not Wiki.[/quote]

Man up? Being an American?
WOW!!!! Heck, I am wrong on lots of things and learn everyday. (2 x-wife's will tell you that)

We are here for fun and you make it like it is do or die and get personal? Man up... hehehe Still laughing at you for that... LOL aaahhh, the wife made some borche, time to eat.[/quote

See how easy it is to say when you are wrong. Like you, I to often make mistakes. However our Stwa often likes to have a crack at people the same way. I'm just giving him his own back. The American thing is to force a reply from him. You are of course right..........it's a generalization..............massive generalization and totally incorrect. The man up part is right however. Trolling............a little, piss taking .............a lot.

ps I think you mean " borscht " and I can hear Stwa calling you that it's ready.

#50: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:43 pm
—

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2016)
This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the authors' particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. (April 2016)
This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (April 2016)

The above is just another way of side stepping the issue that Stwa can't admit that he was wrong yet again. That Wiki is not a reliable source for information due to it's inaccuracies. [citation needed] Instead he tries his hardest to divert attention away from his inability to face the truth.........that he is wrong. The moment you said Wiki is used for academic research was the moment you lost your argument...........the start. [citation needed] Prove me wrong on one thing and you destroy me, but you can't and haven't been up to the job for sometime. -sod98

#51: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:44 pm
—
Stwa - It must really hurt and annoy you to be that wrong to me, that you can't front up and admit to being wrong - Wiki is a unreliable source for information. Really it was pretty obvious to all be the under privileged when it comes to education. A decent Uni makes all the difference it appears. Please keep reading your historical comics.........lol.

#52: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:46 pm
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

From Encyclopedia Brtiannica;

Quote:

In World War II, however, it was virtually destroyed by the Red Army after a two-month siege ending in April 1945.

Hi Mooxe,

the active combat against the city of Kenigsberg ended in February 1944. After that the RKKA units were mainly clearing area north and south of it where the Germans lost even more than inside the city.
but all reports agree that before second half of April 7th the German command tried hard to keep communal services working, even factories were running so it's a good assumption that all the dead in those 2 months were burried well.

what I actually missed is that before the actual assault there was prelimentary artillery strikes for destruction for 4 days since April 1st:

1.169 guns (including 472 heavy - >152mm) in 39A for 8km of front.
1.289 guns (596 heavy) in 43A for 5km of front.
957 guns (471 heavy) in 50A for 5km of front.
1.584 guns (819 heavy) in 11GvA for 8km of front.

guess that led to a lot of casualties even before the actual assault on April 6th.

also the good portion of casualties could be inflicted by the Soviet aviation that started to bomb massively after the weather became good on the morning of April 7th:

Since 10:00 - 102 bombers with 338t of bombs dropped.
Since 13:00 - 506 bombers with 550t of bombs dropped.

altogether 1.248t of bombs on April 7th.

also on April 8th the garrison units got an order to break through to the west to connect with the German 4th army which was repulsed with huge German casualities by aviation and defending units of 39A.

So basically by April 8th there wasn't a solid defence in the city but mainly groups not connected to each other that were assaulted by assault groups with heavy artillery and tanks/SPGs.

Btw losses of AVFs were:

1) 43A:
T34 - 4 burned, 1 drove on landmine, 6 stuck.
ISU-122 - 2 burned, 2 drove on landmines, 1 stuck.
ISU-152 - 3 burned, 3 KO, 3 drove on landmines, 2 stuck.
SU-76 - 1 burned.

2) 50A:
T34 - 5 burned, 7 KO, 4 drove on landmine, 2 stuck.
ISU-122 - 3 burned, 2 KO.
ISU-152 - 5 KO.

3) 11GvA:
T34 - 5 burned, 3 KO, 10 stuck.
ISU-122 - 1 stuck.
ISU-152 - 3 burned, 11 KO, 7 stuck.
SU-76 - 11 burned, 4 KO, 1 drove on landmine, 1 stuck.

Doesn't look much either, does it?

#53: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:54 pm
—
Man up? Being an American?
WOW!!!! Heck, I am wrong on lots of things and learn everyday. (2 x-wife's will tell you that)

We are here for fun and you make it like it is do or die and get personal? Man up... hehehe Still laughing at you for that... LOL aaahhh, the wife made some borche, time to eat.[/quote]

You complain about something then you do the very same thing yourself. Now that is a very American thing.....being a hypocrite. Man up............lol.

#54: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:28 pm
—

jakebullet70 wrote (View Post):

Dima wrote (View Post):

jakebullet70 wrote (View Post):

The German casualties quoted are from January to the surrender. Not in just the 3 days.

you are wrong.

Dima, could you please share your sources?

mainly the Assault of Kenigsberg (January - April 1944) by E.Shilovsky and the G.Kretinin's research (posted by Stwa).

#55: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: jakebullet70, Location: Washington State / Kherson Ukraine

Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 11:39 pm
—

sod98 wrote (View Post):

You complain about something then you do the very same thing yourself. Now that is a very American thing.....being a hypocrite. Man up............lol.[/quote]

lol

#56: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: sod98,

Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 3:33 am
—
Good on ya.

#57: Re: Kenigsberg assault Author: Polemarchos, Location: Polemarchopolis

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:02 am
—
For Königsberg i recommend these books to cover the german details

General info:
Otto Lasch: So fiel Königsberg. Motorbuch Verlag,

Herbert Noé: Dem Tod voraus: Ostpreußen 1945. Rauterberg 2007

Also the war diaries (at least those that survived)
548th Volksgrenadier Div.
561st Volksgrenadier Div. (561st consisted of two regiments after Tilsit battle)
61st inf. Div (only battlegroup left)
69th inf. + 56th (merged)
367th Inf. Div (only 2 regiments + support)
75th Sec regiment

The size, casualties and POW seem high, but we have to take into consideration the numerous ad hoc, HJ, police, party, staff-SS, Volkssturm and Alarmeinheiten.

According to Lasch, however, I doubt he had more than 40.000 men at his disposal in the final assault (30k WH +10k Volkssturm + other) . The number of prisoners is that high cause the Soviets initially captured everybody in uniform, even railroad, foresters or public officials.

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1