Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nikopol–Krivoi Rog Offensive edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

This article is about a Soviet offensive in 1944 on the Eastern Front and passed a GAN several months ago. Kges1901 (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I'll work on this over a few days, but will make a start now.

Lead

"the area of manganese ore mines of crucial importance to Hitler" could do with a bit of generalisation, in terms perhaps of the German war effort, with Hitler taking a particular interest in its protection?

Rephrased.

worth pointing out that the German bridgehead was part of a salient centred on Apostolovo, and link Salient (military)

Done

worth mentioning that the 3rd UF was on the north of the salient and the 4th UF on the south of it

Done.

should mention that the German IV Corps was located in the cut-off section of the salient near Nikopol

Done.

in general, the lead needs to better explain what German formations were across the Dnieper in the bridgehead
point out that Krivoi Rog was in the north of the salient

Rephrased to northwest for accuracy.

perhaps summarise that this offensive resulted in the pinching off of a significant part of the salient and mention losses on both sides in terms of casualties in men and tanks

Hard to put in casualties as the Soviets don't have reliable and complete casualty figures, while the German casualty figures are likely incomplete though Soviet reports of German casualties are demonstrably exaggerated.

what was the "subsequent offensive"?

One that there is no actual article on, the Bereznegovatoye–Snigeryovka offensive. Rephrased.

I might have more for this section once I've gone through the article

Break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Background

In general, linking of ranks is needed, Generaloberst for Hollidt etc

Done

link bridgehead

Done

add something here about the salient, which parts each Front had, and link salient

As I understand it, the salient is the same thing as the bridgehead - the Soviets did not have a substantial salient into the German line at this time. Added the front attack sectors (general information).

The German position was a salient into the Soviet line, the furthest extent of which was a bridgehead across the Dnieper. A salient and a bridgehead are two distinct things, and in this case the latter is part of the former. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that after I wrote my last comment on it and rephrased accordingly. Feel free to read over it and correct my phrasing if needed. Kges1901 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "since being captured by the Germans in 1941, these deposits had been used by Germany..."

Rephrased. Could you kindly read over it to see if it makes sense?

Hitler should be Adolf Hitler at first mention, Hitler thereafter

Done

the Hitler quote, should that read "the end of the war"?

Done

rank for Manstein

Done

link a few terms, Trench warfare, Land mine

Done

the use of Lieutenant general for Generalleutnant isn't right, they weren't equivalent ranks in WWII. Some editors use the German ranks for this reason (Generalmajor was also not equivalent to Major general).

Fixed. And not only that, but Russian General-leytenant is also not equivalent to American LTG either as it is a two star rank. Should I create a stub on the Russian/Soviet LTG rank? Kges1901 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I do is use the native rank with notes providing U.S. Army rank equivalents. Take a look at 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) for an example. I'm not saying you have to adopt this approach, but anglicising rank equivalents jars with me, especially when what appears to be the case on face value actually turns out not to be the equivalent. I wasn't aware of the Soviet General-leytenant issue, but I think it just underlines the importance of a consistent and clear approach to non-Anglo ranks. You could create a stub, but also have a look at Comparative officer ranks of World War II to check whether it is correct. I use Niehorster (an accepted reliable source at FA) to cite equivalents, the Soviet page is here which notes that in the cases of General-major and the former Kombrig they are more indicative of hierarchy than firm equivalents. I'm sure you could fashion a note to that effect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added notes following the format for the Yugoslavs. Kges1901 (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the sequence is out here, it should start with the transfer of command on 1 Jan, then what Manstein tried to do on 4 Jan, it currently doesn't make sense as to why Manstein was going to Hitler about Nikopol before he took command of 6th Army

Done

for Bolshaya Lepetikha link Velyka Lepetykha? They appear to be roughly in the same area

Corrected, they are the same place. Good catch.

link Apostolovo

Done

suggest "which meant that if Soviet troops could capture Apostolovo they would have effectively cut off the German forces in the bridgehead"

Break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Resolved

Prelude

In general, this section needs more information on the German side. When Red Army dispositions are detailed, they should be accompanied by German dispositions, in terms of what corps were located opposite each Front

Done.

when were the 3rd UF and elements of the 4th UF tasked?

Done

suggest explaining what Stavka was

Explained and rephrased.

Vasilevsky's conclusion doesn't make sense. If the 3rd and 4th UF were already tasked with destroying German forces in the area, how was his 29 December 1943 conclusion any different?

My understanding is that Vasilevsky was accelerating the schedule for the attacks.

suggest reconsidering→reconsideration

Done

again, no German information regarding the prelim attacks in terms of the opposition or losses

Added opposition and losses (see below).

XXX Army Corps is redlinked twice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Done. Kges1901 (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A very Soviet-centric perspective is being created here. Perhaps stubborn German resistance was also a factor in the lack of success by Soviet attacks, along with lack of ammo and tanks?

Added details. Ziemke lines up surprisingly well with the combat journals of the Soviet fronts, which admit that the Germans put up strong resistance. Kges1901 (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what were the German casualties in the prelim attacks?

Added. Note that the 10 day reports include delayed reporting, so not all casualties may be in the period that the reports were made in.

On what same day did Vasilevsky submit a new plan? 20 Jan?

17 Jan, rephrased.

suggest "Vasilevsky submitted a new plan to Stavka for an attack to begin on 30 January."

Done

suggest consistency between Supreme High Command and Stavka

Done. Stavka would be common name.

I'm in the middle of this, but break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

were there any German formation or unit transfers, equipment replacements etc to note during the Prelude?

Added from Ziemke, moved 24th Panzer info up.

put the planned diversionary attacks ahead of the main attacks, as they were to precede the latter

Done

against which German corps were the attacks to be launched, and who commanded them?

Done, except commander of the LVII Panzerkorps is unknown as its regular commander, Friedrich Kirchner was on leave at the time.

I strongly suspect it was Generalleutnant Hans-Karl Freiherr von Esebeck, but a quick look failed to find a RS for that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that too, and found that Esebeck was actually with LVIII Panzerkorps in France at the time, no evidence exists that he was sent to the Eastern Front at the time. If Kirchner was on leave I suspect that the chief of staff may have commanded it, but no RS. Perhaps Hinze can illuminate that when my interlibrary loan arrives in a couple of weeks. Kges1901 (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given we have two 6th Army's, you need to preface each one with Soviet or German, otherwise it has potential to get confusing

Done in cases where I did not believe it was obvious.

Has this section of comments been resolved to your satisfaction @Peacemaker67:? Kges1901 (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Comparison of forces

Manstein and AG South are overlinked

Done

A breakdown of the German 6th Army by corps and then by divisions is needed, otherwise we have no idea who is up against whom. An order of battle table would probably be best.

If you like I can also add a detailed Soviet order of battle as well, and have them next to each other. Thanks to Tessin there is an equal amount of information available for both sides on the same day - 1 February. Kges1901 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding ranks and linking corps commanders in the ORBAT table, also Brandenberger is incorrectly spelled. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good catch. Kges1901 (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

where you talk about 24th Panzer Division, suggest "significantly reducing the armoured forces available to the Germans"

Done

is there a breakdown between the 3rd and 4th UFs in terms of men, guns, vehicles etc?

Break. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: - I found a breakdown of the 4th UF in its combat journal, but the figure is not comparable because the 705k figure likely includes rear units, while the combat journal breakdown is only artillery and other combat units. Kges1901 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Offensive

in general, this section needs more context throughout, such as in which geographical sector each attack was being made and in what direction, and against which German formation. It is rather hard to follow.

@Peacemaker67: I have attempted to address this through the expansion from Hinze's information. Does this satisfy your concerns on this point?

the 24th Panzer Division reappears, but hadn't it been sent elsewhere?

Typo in Russian source, should have been 23rd Panzer Division. Location matches up with the counterattack map in the divisional history of the 23rd Panzer Division. Kges1901 (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

rank for Kleist

Done

local resistants? were these partisans?

Going over the source, it said 'local residents' and I misread it as resistants. Kges1901 (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

which formations of the 6th Army were in which area?

@Peacemaker67: I have extensively expanded the battle section from Hinze with added details from the German perspective, and attempted to correlate Hinze with the Russian/Soviet sources. Does the article address this now? Kges1901 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are great improvements/additions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what were the casualties suffered by 3rd UF 30 Jan to 5 Feb?
it isn't clear if Soviet formations were leapfrogging each other, or attacking in parallel, and on what flank. It would be valuable to state things like "On the right flank of the XXth Army, the XV Army attacked the German XC Corps" etc

At least initially, the Soviets attacked in parallel, but the advances of some units outpaced others, for example 8th Guards Army outpaced 37th Army during the initial drive towards Apostolovo.

Did the Soviets not attack between 2 and 8 Feb in the 4th UF sector, or were attacks continuing?

I'm pretty sure that the attacks continued; I will probably incorporate information from the 4th UF combat journal to expand this section - either the actions in this period were overshadowed by those of the 3rd Ukrainian Front, or they did not reflect well on the Soviets. There is little mention in Hinze of this sector.

@Peacemaker67: I have finished adding the information from the combat journal and added a PD Soviet situation map to better show the 4th Ukrainian Front's advances, as from reading Hinze and the combat journal I think the Soviets knew very well what German units they were facing in this sector. This appears to be the last outstanding point; could you please indicate any further comments if necessary? Kges1901 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the 24th Panzer is mentioned again, but now we learn it has been called back. Its movements should be clarified

Resolved by above.

IV Army Corps is overlinked

Done

Reserve of the Supreme High Command is overlinked

Done

which German corps was holding Krivoi Rog?

Done

Resolved

Aftermath

the Soviet estimate of the German casualties is so obviously inflated as to be useless, and I would dispense with it. Suggest using Soviet figures for their own casualties and German ones for theirs. Same goes for aircraft shot down, which seems excessive, but with no German information to compare it to, it is hard to know.
the lack of Soviet casualty figures is a significant gap in coverage. From what I can see, there are only Soviet figures for 1-10 Feb for 4th UF. It is hard to properly assess the full outcomes of the offensive without this sort of information. Is there an equivalent of Tarasov for 3rd UF?

This results from the Soviets not (publicly) revealing their casualties. The Russian official history does state that about 20,000 irretrievable losses occurred during the offensive, but that figure is cited to a work that doesn't support the number, that provides figures for the entire Dnieper–Carpathian strategic offensive. So I don't want to include it given that it looks like guesswork. As for the combat journals of the 3rd Ukrainian Front, unlike the 4th Ukrainian Front, they do not have totals for 10 day periods – each daily entry in the front combat journal gives only enemy losses, never their own losses (for the ground units). However, the daily aircraft losses of the 17th Air Army are given, but no totals, so even though I could theoretically make an estimate of the air losses by adding up the daily reports, I would prefer not to perform OR there. Kges1901 (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have also dispensed with the Soviet estimate of German casualties as I agree with the reasons you stated. Kges1901 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

General

Glantz points out that the Korsun fighting drew reserves from this sector, this should be made clearer, and what reserves were withdrawn should be identified if possible. Was it only the 24th Panzer? Or other forces as well? What about the role of deception?

I think the above has already been covered thanks to previous improvements. As for deception, Glantz states that the 3rd UF's diversionary attack was the deception involved. Kges1901 (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if Crucible of Combat: Germany's Defensive Battles in the Ukraine, 1943-44 by Rolf Hinze should be used here, as I am sure it would have useful details regarding the German side, which are currently a bit thin. I've requested a review of it from WP:RX just to check on its reliability.

The review makes the point that the book is written almost solely from the German point-of-view and lacks footnotes, but it apparently contains a good level of detail on the German side, which would greatly enhance this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to request a review, PM. I will look into it, as Glantz wrote in When Titans Clashed that it is the "most thorough" German perspective work, though apparently not the "most unbiased". Kges1901 (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hinze was a German soldier in WWII, so some bias is to be expected. Send me an email and I'll send you the review if you want to have a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Well done so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Moving to support, as all my comments have been addressed. For FAC (assuming this is going there), I suggest a bit more emphasis on context in the Operations section, such as in which geographical sector each attack was being made and in what direction, mentioning flanks, and stating against which German formation each attack was made. This has been partially addressed with additions from Hinze, but could do with a bit more work for FAC. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Soviet_truck_with_soldiers_in_Nikopol_1944.jpg: which of the rationales in the Russian tag is believed to apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, not PD, replaced with a file from mil.ru. Kges1901 (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7 edit

Suggest moving the map out of the infobox and putting it somewhere enlarged. It's hard to follow the article without the map.

Where specifically would you like it for reader convenience, as the article body is long?

Remove the hard-coded image sizes

Done

It's not clear to the reader where Army Group A is in relation to Army Group South (although it's on the map)

Tried to clarify

There seems to be some blanks lines after the first paragraph in the 3rd Ukrainian Front operations, 30 January–5 February section

Fixed.

I hate the equivalent ranks. First, it assumes that the reader understands the US Army's ranks, which I can assure you most don't. The rank of brigadier general usually confuses, because they don't have it in Britain and Australia, and brigadier really isn't the same thing. Secondly, while you can source it, you should be aware that it has repeatedly been attacked by historians in the US and Germany, and should be regarded as controversial. Thirdly, it refers to the modern-day US Army, not the World War II version. Until March-April 1945, when there was a wave of promotions, you could count the the four-star generals in the US Army on the fingers of one hand. Bradley and Devers, army group commanders, were only lieutenant generals. Thomas Blamey wrote a whole paper on the subject of rank comparison between the US and Australian armies during the war. There was a host of anomalies. The links to the articles do the job much better.

Other reviewer perspective here. WWII equivalents ARE used by a number of historians, such as Stein (Waffen-SS) who includes one as an appendix to his book. The ones from Niehorster ARE WWII equivalents, not modern ones, otherwise he would have Generalmajor as a two-star rank, whereas in WWII it was a one-star rank. I agree that a link to an specific article for a foreign rank is best, but in the absence of that, some sort of note about equivalence is useful, and direct translations are often misleading. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I will point out that these are not the equivalents cited in wartime manuals, where major general is considered equivalent to generalmajor, and brigadier general is listed as "no equivalent". Which is fair enough; with the brigades abolished the brigadier generals in the US Army in WWII were mostly deputy division commanders, but other armies didn't have this position. And we'll leave it at that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the Soviet air units but not the Luftwaffe (well, there is one line)

@Hawkeye7: I have added information about Soviet air superiority, which explains why the Luftwaffe was not around. I would note that both Soviet and German accounts mention Soviet bombing, but the German accounts do not mention the Luftwaffe. Despite this, the war diaries of the Soviet air units involved include claims of shooting down large numbers of German aircraft, and their own losses in turn. Kges1901 (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"roadbuilding" -> "road building" ?

Done

What are "unfavorable weather conditions" ?

Clarified, though there could probably be a better way of stating it.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66 edit

Krivosheev's casualty data doesn't cover this battle? (in the infobox)

Unfortunately not; he only has figures for the entire Dnieper–Carpathian Strategic Offensive. Kges1901 (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a result, the bridgehead was heavily fortified, with three lines of trenches in its first defensive line, strengthened by barbed wire belts and minefields. All heights and settlements immediately behind the front were turned into fortified strongpoints.[10] These positions were what remained of the fortified German Dnieper line. It's unclear to me what the relationship is between the Dneiper Line and the fortifications in the salient as the latter was east of the Dneipr and the former west of the river, as I understand things.

Ziemke says that the Group Schorner frontline, which is east of the Dnieper, was what was left of the original Dnieper line. Per File:Map of dnieper battle grand.jpg, the Panther-Wotan line, which is what I think Ziemke is referring to here, actually curves away from the Dnieper at Nikopol.

OK

hard surfaced roads Needs a hyphen between the first two words. Watch for other compound adjectives that need hyphens.

Done

two one-lane pontoon bridges Pontoon bridges should be linked. And I suggest rewording to "a pair of one-lane..." to avoid using spelled out numbers in close conjunction.

Done

Link barbed wire, floodplain

Done

spearheaded by tanks estimated at 80 by German reports awkward

Rephrased.

attacked in a sector of 21 kilometers suggest "were to attack on a 21-kilometer frontage"

Done

Be sure to convert all measurements on first use.

Done

The German redeployment section does not reference 23rd Panzer Div, which apparently was also pulled back into reserve.

Per Ziemke, 23rd Panzer wasn't in reserve until 31 January. The OOB chart I used for AOK 6 is for 1 February because that is what Tessin provides. The redeployments cover the redeployments before 31 January.

Down to Offensive, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
managing to create a small foothold in the line of XVII Army Corps suggest "managing to carve a small foothold in the defenses of XVII Army Corps" or somesuch

Done

several divisions missing their entire complement of heavy weaponry suggest "several divisions having lost their entire complement of heavy weapons"

Done

against Tok nearly destroyed elements of the 3rd Mountain Division, despite being halted Perhaps "against Tok was stopped after nearly destroying elements..."?

Done

In addition, the previous fighting had caused a lack of pioneers and bridging equipment, vehicles, guns, infantry ammunition, and tanks. Awkward, rephrase

Slightly rephrased.

The troops of IV and XVII Army Corps held their positions at Marinskoye and on 15 February the 97th Jäger and 24th Panzer Divisions, the latter returned from its abortive march to the Korsun Pocket, attacked to the west of Bolshaya Kostromka to link up with LVII Panzer Corps, erasing a Soviet penetration and reporting the capture of 221 guns, 66 anti-tank guns, and 62 machine guns. Too complicated. Split and reword

Done

Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Put Erickson in title case

Done

The rest of the bibliography and citations are consistently formatted
Erickson, Frieser, Glantz, Tessin and Ziemke are known to me as highly reliable. Hinze is a perhaps a bit biased, but is used appropriately in the article. AGF on the Russian-language sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.