Talk:Operation Rösselsprung (1944)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 05:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll get started on this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• This doesn't make sense: The unit was part of the Brandenburg Division, and was staffed by ethnic Germans who spoke local languages, had many contacts with the Chetniks and Ustaše militia, and had been tracking Tito since October 1943. Leutnant (Lieutenant) Kirchner of the unit had again tracked Tito,

• rewrote this bit, have a look and see if it makes more sense now? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Don't think that Rybka is actually notable unless he earned the Knight's Cross.

• good point, only a battalion commander. delinked. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Use a en dash between number ranges, including page numbers in your notes.

• Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• You misunderstood me. The en dash is only for page ranges (numbers); the hyphen is still used for words like co-located, etc. Fix that and we'll be done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Doh. I think they are all fixed now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Missed 3, but I fixed them for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Link to 500th SS Parachute Battalion

• It was already in the lead, have linked first mention in body as well. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• This amount of detail is excessive Luftwaffe Air Command Croatia when only Luftwaffe aircraft is necessary.

• removed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Don't think section headers are really necessary when each section is only a single paragraph long.

• have done some combining of related subsections to group paragraphs together. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• While the level of coverage is fine for a GA-class article, you'll need to add quite a bit more information if you want to take this to ACR. Munoz's book Forgotten Legions had the best tactical account I've ever seen of the battle and you should consult the unit histories of the supporting units as well. Kumm's history of Prinz Eugen supposedly has a number of comments of the general planning and conduct of the battle from his perspective.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• OK. I thought there might be some questions about the publisher for Munoz (Paladin Press) and the fact that Kumm was a participant and his neutrality would be questioned. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• English-language sources are pretty limited for everything involving anti-partisan operations and you'll need to evaluate them critically for POV issues. Kumm tends to elide the brutality of his troops and sometimes glides over their failures, but is pretty good about their activities in general. He's particularly good on this battle, IIRC, because he's upset about the failures of his allies and the other German units involved and criticizes the plan, its execution and the performance of the other troops involved. I don't recall how harshly he judges his own unit or if he gives credit to the partisan defense, you'll have to judge for yourself.
• I have a lot of Munoz's books because he was the only guy in English to cover Axis-collaborationist units and activities in the Balkans, Poland, and Russia. He's also done a lot on the German security forces and documents many of the massacres committed by those units, so I think that it's safe to say that he's not a neo-Nazi. And since he often provides archival sources for his info, I tend to think that he's a fairly reliable source historically. From our perspective, he is problematic because he published a lot of his stuff through his own company and that conflicts with WP:RS. But I think that WP:RS is a pretty broad rule that tends to ignore guys like him who are doing academic-level work on topics in which the broader academic community had/has no interest. Nowadays, his stuff would fall under Holocaust studies and would probably be published by academic presses. But that's only come about in the last 15 years or so and guys like Ben Sheperd couldn't have published their books back then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• OK, they looked interesting but I wasn't sure about the scholarly aspect of Kumm and Munoz. I'll seek them out if I take it to ACR. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I have some sources on both the Croat and German air units involved as well as Western Allied air support. I noticed the contribution of the RAF and USAAF has not been acknowledged. I can add them if the nominator and reviewer agree. Dapi89 (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I expect that SG 151 was the primary Luftwaffe unit involved and I have no objections to adding this info provided that it's all sourced well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Luftwaffe's operations were confined to small-unit actions. Only 13 Staffel SG 151 was involved from that unit, most of them were NSGr's (Nachtschlachtgruppen). Dapi89 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Go right ahead. BTW, the Balkan Air Force is credited in the infobox and in the Aftermath section. I'm not sure if it is unnecessary detail, but Eyre states that the glider force was towed by 1st and 2nd Squadrons of Towing Group 1, and the gliders were from 2nd and 3rd Battalions of Air Landing Group 1, all with 10-passenger DFS 230 gliders and towed by either Hs 126 or Ju 87 (Stukas in a towing role) aircraft. He also states 2nd Battalion of Transport Group 4 (2nd Gruppe of Transportgeschwader 4), with about 40 Ju 52 transports, delivered the paras. Greentree says 1st Gruppe of Stukageschwader 2, 2nd Gruppe of Jagdgeschwader 51 and 4th Gruppe of Jagdgeschwader 27 were all involved. He also mentions FW 190's, Ju-87's, Caproni 314's, Heinkel 46's and Fiat Cr 42s. I assume the Italian aircraft were flown by the NDH airforce. Just not sure why we would be adding this info? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a general pet peeve of mine that most editors have a tendency to ignore the air element. I believe all articles should include them on their order of battle regardless of their contribution. In this case Axis aviation did enormous material damage so their impact was considerable.

I believe your sources have mislead you on the size of the forces involved. The above units you have mentioned did take part. But they were not in Gruppe strength, only a number of their Staffel actually saw action. I'll check my sources and get back to you; most of them are specialist among them Peter Smith's, Manfred Griehl's work on the Ju 87 and de Zeng and co's work on the Ground and Bomber units of the Luftwaffe. Ciglic and Savic include some info on the BAF and RAF, USAAF ops.

I don't want to hold you up, so its best you guys carry on and I'll try and get beck to you asap. Dapi89 (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In general I'd like to see more detail on the aviation units that participated in a battle or campaign, but you've got to strike a balance. And that will depend on the appropriate level of detail for the article. This one is fine as is for a GA, but should have more info added for A-class, if you decide to take it there. Even then, it should probably be limited to a summary section or so covering the units, their aircraft types, and their general activities. Something like DFS 230 gliders delivered by I/TG 4 while Ju 87s of 13./SG 151 provided air support. Or P-39Qs of the 14th Fighter Group attacked elements of Prinz Eugen as they moved towards Drava.

I'm a little bit dubious about the extent of Luftwaffe participation as mentioned by Greentree although I suppose they could have been fighting the Balkan Air Force units attempting to support the Partisans. I'd really want confirmation from other sources before I added that info to the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the guidance. I'll re-visit if I look at ACR. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)