Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:17 am Post subject: Re: Kenigsberg assault
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.
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.
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:16 am Post subject: Re: Kenigsberg assault
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.
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:08 am Post subject: Re: Kenigsberg assault
"...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."
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:48 am Post subject: Re: Kenigsberg assault
[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.
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:51 am Post subject: Re: Kenigsberg assault
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
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:43 am Post subject: Re: Kenigsberg assault
[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.
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".
[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.
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.
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?
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.
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:59 am Post subject: Re: Kenigsberg assault
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.
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?
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:58 am Post subject: Re: Kenigsberg assault
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
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
