Talk:Kampfgeschwader 2

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Military history: Aviation / European / German / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force

Kampf%0Ageschwader - Google Translate:fight%0AsquadronXb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coffman has added Neitzel's Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing and Dying in an attempt to show that KG 2 lost more men in 1943 than is quoted in de Zeng and Co for the entire war. Firstly, de Zeng uses archival material from the remaining records and is a specialist source on the topic. What material does this generalist source from Neitzel use? Dapi89 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a fight, K.e.Coffman, do it here. Dapi89 (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've undid restoration of uncited material: diff. Please see: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations. In addition, Neitzel & Welzer are RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And de Zeng & co are not? They use archives. Your source does not. Dapi89 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate how this is an inferior source:

• Neitzel, Sönke; Welzer, Harald (2012). Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing and Dying. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-84983-949-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Sönke Neitzel is a military historian. Are you not familiar with his work? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And so what? It doesn't automatically make him right. What archival source does he use? Dapi89 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a personal opinion; if, in the opinion of the editor, this source is not RS, suggest taking it to WP:RSN.

Re this latest revert: diff, it has also restored uncited material. Please see: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations:

• "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

Please consider self reverting. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whaaaaaaaaaaat!? The information has been cited to the article for several years! 'BY A SOURCE. Explain how that is an opinion?

What is an opinion, amounts to a Wikipedia editor deciding to delete information he doesn't agree with - from specialist source - and then preceding to add a none specialist source. All the while, refusing to say what source his academic hero uses for his information.

Prove de Zeng and co as unreliable. And you can't, unless your argument is the archives are unreliable too. Dapi89 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please review the edit: diff. Does it show that uncited material, which had previously challenged, was reintroduced? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very confusing response. If it is sources you are asking for, then fine. I am happy to provide them.

The three researchers have used what remains of German wartime material and British and American sources (intel sources in the case of the latter two). What archive material does Sonke use? Dapi89 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating two issues: (1) casualties; (2) reintroduction of uncited material that was done by your edit: diff.

On the casualties, what academic credentials does de Zeng have? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've kept both Zeng and Neitzel for now, and removed uncited material previously challenged: diff. On the uncited material, please see WP:BURDEN. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll settle for that at the moment. There is still 'no indication as to how Neitzel arrives at those figures.

The three researchers that you refer to, use archival material. It doesn't require a PhD to look at them. It certainly doesn't require a PhD to copy statistics either.

Moreover, you seem to think a PhD makes somebody an expert on everything and grants them some sort of special status. It doesn't. It doesn't make them infallible either. From April 1942 KG 2 served on the West Front exclusively (save from a brief period in Northern Russia). In 1943 it undertook a small number of operations over Italy and England, as is evidenced in de Zeng and Co's research. To imagine these small operations cost them 3000+ casualties (amounting to 600 bomber crews) is ludicrous. Dapi89 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus: See Nigel Parker's Luftwaffe Crash Archive Volume 10, covering 1st January to 31 December 1943. No-where near the required losses to allow for this kind of mortality rate. Dapi89 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a drive by comment; Neitzel is referring to Ulf Balke, "Der Luftkrieg in Europa 1941–1945" p. 524, and Balke himself break down the casualties and losses as follow: 1,228 killed, 688 missing, 656 wounded and with 214 captured, for a total of 2,786. Materiel losses are: 769 aircraft destroyed, 158 severely damaged (damage consideration over 50%) while 859 aircraft were slightly damaged (damage consideration below 50%). Balke notes that he included casualties and materiel damage from combat and non combat, such as accidents, training and pilot errors. However, how Neitzel came up with "losing 2,631 men, of whom 507 were killed in 1943 alone" is not supported by Ulf Balke, probably making his own estimates for combat losses based on Ulf Balke provided archival sources. Hope that helps. Cheers! PrivateParker (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is footnoted to Ulf Balke; direct quotation from Neitzel et al: "Luftwaffe Bomber Wing 2... The wing suffered heavily in their attempt to take aerial warfare to enemy territory, losing 2,631 men, of whom 507 were killed in 1943 alone". Neitzel is RS in my view, so if there are concerns about the validity of his statistics, suggest taking this to WP:RSN. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm not questioning Neitzel, I just find it a little odd how he arrived at those, as the number of casualties differs considerably in one or another point to the original reference. The total casualties seem to be too low (2,631 vs 2,786), while the personnel killed in 1943 (507 vs 483) little too high. If Neitzel excluded non combat casualties, why then the number for 1943 is higher then with the included non combat casualties? Since Neitzel does not provide his own detailed statistics on the matter, I would suggest that we should take directly Ulf Blake's numbers for the total and detailed list of the casualties, as he is himself a renowned aviation historian here in Germany. Cheers! PrivateParker (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parker, thank you. As I suspected, Neitzel has created the issue with a poorly formed sentence. The first figure is not for 1943. I have got a copy of the Neitzel book and it is quite clear the 2,631 figure is for total losses during the war. With 508 killed in 1943 "alone". Dapi89 (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, yes the first figure (2,631) is for total losses during the war. However, maybe some nuances got lost in translation? I don't know. Cheers! PrivateParker (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]