i dont say is glantz is unreliable. i want an explantion why kutuzov was a overwhelming success. and than i will this to the text because the reader should know that the russians had a overwhelming success, but now we have: germans retreating in good order to the hagenstellung ( straight line very effectiv for defense ) and russian with enormous casualties in men and tank. dapis edits are vague, he cites glantz with cool breakthroughs and so on but where were these breakthroughs which german units were encricled and destroyed. when i bring such statements then with the invold units and the outcome. i dont know what glantz wrote but dapis quotes only blablablabla-> no value for the reader. even a good historian can fail, glantz already totally failed with quoting rotmistrov and other hardcore propaganda guys. glantz is a victim of russian sources, his conclusions sometimes show that he didnt look german primary sources....