*"He keeps inflating Soviet casualties; 400k lost in one particular battle, despite the source quoted providing a very detailed breakdown of losses, which were not 400,000, but 112k killed and 300k wounded."

huh? this are my orignal words "The battle in the Orel-sweep, which is the German name for this battle, was the bloodiest of the three major operations during the Battle of Kursk. German losses were 86,064 men,[145] the Red Army lost 429,890 men" this is exactly the same . for german the losses without breakdown and for russians the same. now the real story. dapi marked the russian casualties with dubios, than he checked his sources and found out that this numbers are exact krivosheev, then he splited the number in wounded and killed, to tarnish that he simply did a mistake with marking this number as dubios. u must note that the german numbers is still simply 86,00 men ^^

"Well, this one. He quotes two selected words and the rest completely out of context, in effect ignoring that Glantz writes the Mius operations were successful and achieving their objective of diverting German mobile forces from Kharkov. "

dapi provided a source by glantz claiming the russian units diverted german units, this is not disputed by me but i added that the divertion operation himself was a disaster, where is the problem ??? the first sentence explained that the operation was succesful and i added that militaryoperation himself was unsuccesful. dapi wanted only the good of the operation... . but i admit the version now is better

"He also claimed that this information was on p. 230 of Glantz; it was not."

lol thats called failurer, and i admited already to hohum, funny is that while u provided faked sources for prokhorovka i see no excuse of u, nothing. u dont respond, u did a failure but u dont comment. i comment everything if people ask me... 

again i can provide sources and everything to support my opinion, i would appreciate if dapi does the same and we discuss here who was wrong