Talk:Battle of Halbe

message: :"The most astonishing part of the story is not the numbers who died or were forced to surrender but the 25,000 soldiers and several thousand civilians who succeeded it getting through three lines of Soviet troops
In the above quote Beevor mentions "three lines of soviet troops". But his text is a bit hazy as to what they were, I would guess that the ran along the three of the four main north south roads which he shows on as a map in his book on page xxv the first two of which he mentions in passing with the fighting in the text:
# Berlin-Dresden autobahn
# Strasse 96, between Zossen and Mark
# Strasse 101, North of Lucenwalde
# Strasse 2, between Elsholz and Beelitz
Can anyone else confirm from another source where these soviet lines were. I would guess he meant the first three roads but I do not want to put a guess into the article :-) Secondly his text does not mention what happened around Strasse 101 which would be a nice to have in this article.
--Philip Baird Shearer 13:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Strasse 101, according to le Tissier there was a Soviet blocking position there, where troops attempting to break out had to run a gauntlet of fire (is that the correct expression). But it does not appear that a pitched battle occurred there.   Andreas 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Three lines

message: I think the article could benefit from a better structure with more sub-headers, and the use of additional sources.  I will go and do some of this myself (and try to answer Philip's question in the process, but it will take some time. Andreas 13:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More sources needed

message: Should not the unit numbers be switched to the more common and coloqial style of say 9th Army instead of Roman 
numerals?  --Gbinal 08:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just done that.  I preserved all your edits, even though we edited concurrently. Andreas 09:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Could we not better use the device that Ziemke is using in 'Moscow to Stalingrad', namely to Italicise the Soviet (or German) Army numbers, or to write them out?  Having Roman numerals for German armies is really grating on my eyes, and it makes it much more difficult to distinguish between Armies and Corps. Finally I know of nobody who is using this device in the serious military history literature - if you do, please provide the information. So I am quite against it. Andreas 13:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 12. Armee is the correct German term, and since I am a German native speaker it is not looking wrong to me, even if it is part of an English text. I do understand and accept it is different for English speakers, and will change the way I number German armies to reflect that.  XII Army looks wrong (grates) because Roman numerals are for Corps, not Armies.  I have no strong feelings about the use of Roman numerals for Soviet Corps.  I usually prefer to use the correct historical designation, and to use formatting to ensure that the difference can be seen. But as I said, I would be happy either way for the Soviet corps.  If a Russian military expert came along giving reasons why that was totally wrong I may change my mind.  I also would like to find an acceptable solution here that can be applied across a range of articles, not just this one. Andreas 14:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers of units

message: From the  Battle of the Seelow Heights  the page
:9th Army had: 14 divisions, 512 tanks, 344 artillery pieces and 300 to 400 anti-aircraft guns
Source:  Page 76, Ziemke, Earl F. Battle For Berlin: End Of The Third Reich, NY:Ballantine Books, London:Macdomald & Co, 1969.
From this article:
:The 9th Army at this stage had already suffered heavy losses in the Battle of the Seelow Heights. It is estimated that it had less than 1,000 guns, 79 tanks and probably a total of 150-200 combat-ready armoured fighting vehicles left.
Seems to me that it could not have had more than 744 guns to start with. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to add V Corps guns, but I think that it is unlikely to reach 1,000 guns.  You have to remember though that the 1,000 includes mortars above 76mm if counted by the Soviet method (which I think it was), but the 744 by Ziemke probably won't include that. Oh, and it is 9th guns. ;-) Andreas 20:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it has anything to do with historian quality, but simply with the sources.  Ziemke does not give his, but it is likely he uses German army records.  I'll check what le Tissier is using later. It is my understanding that the Soviets simply count differently. Andreas 06:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked, le Tissier is counting guns and mortars, for both sides, so it should stay like that to have the correct comparison. Andreas 09:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IX Guns

message: V Corps, which was a part of 9th Army by the time of the Battle of Halbe, suffered its losses during the Neisse battles, so it maybe best to say something like 'losses suffered during the opening stages of the Battle of Berlin', or sumfink. What do you think? Andreas 20:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IX was chewed up on the Seelow Heights, V Corps was not so badly damaged. V Corps was north of the main 1UF attack. That it still existed as a Corps is evidence of that! This complication is mentioned in the text but there is to date no mention of what the IX was doing before the start of the Battle of Halbe. For this reason I think the text should include the Seelow Heights where most of the IX had been concentrated and destroyed by Zukov, rather than a bolt on Corps who's arrival is already explained in this text.Philip Baird Shearer 20:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I'll include a para on 9th Army's actions before the encirclement in the prelude, based on Ziemke. Andreas 06:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: V Corps and where the losses were suffered

message: I would prefer to leave the original sentence in, since according to le Tissier the air supply was attempted (i.e. supplies were loaded onto planes and the planes took off). It failed because they could not locate the drop point and no supply from the planes to the ground could be established.  It was therefore not complete fantasy at this stage of the war.  There are also reports of air attacks by German planes on Soviet formations during the battle. Andreas 14:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Germans did not have the air-transport to support the 6th Army during the Battle of Stalingrad. They sure did not have anything like the air-transport capability needed to support an Army Group in the last few days of the war. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As I said when I removed it, it is misleading. What possible supplies could the transports have delivered which would have made any difference to the outcome of the breakout? It implies that the Germans still had enough air transport and specialised materiel to make a difference. They did not. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the interesting point that warrants inclusion is that they actually attempted it, less than three weeks before the war ended, and that it did not fail because of enemy interference.  I thought that was quite astonishing, and I know many people have a view that the Luftwaffe had ceased to exist at that point in the war. Andreas 07:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Air Supply

message: Philip
Would you mind explaining why you deleted all this?
STARTS
In the area to the west of the encirclement, Soviet forces were already positioned in depth, with (from the north) Soviet 28th Army's 128th Rifle Corps in the area Mittenwalde and Matzen; 3rd Guards Rifle Corps in the area Tornow, Radeland, Baruth, Golssen; 3rd Guards Army's 120th Rifle Corps south of Halbe; 21st Rifle Corps along the Berlin to Dresden autobahn to the west of Lübben; 13th Army's 102nd Rifle Corps with 117th Guards Rifle Division stood near Luckenwalde, while 27th Rifle Corps 280th Rifle Division stood at Jüterbog, where the Wehrmacht's main artillery school was located. In terms of mechanized formations, 3rd Guards Tank Army's 9th Mechanised Corps had its 71st Mechanized Brigade between Teupitz and Neuhof; 4th Guards Tank Army's 68th Guards Tank Brigade stood near Kummersdorf Gut; and 3rd Guards Army's 25th Tank Corps near Duben. Both 3rd Guards Army and 13th Army were to be heavily reinforced throughout the battle, as they were to be in the line of the German break-out. A reinforcment of particular note was the deployment of 1st Guards Breakthrough Artillery Division under command of 3rd Guards Army in the sector Teurow to Briesen 
ENDS
?
I mean, it is not as if this is the greatest article written in terms of its information, and I made a bit of an effort in adding to it.  To just remove it all without any reason, yet leave the highly informative bit about Hitler's tearful rage in strikes me as an odd choice of priorities. Andreas 15:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My sincere apologies - brain failure on my part when looking at the article.  No idea how that happened. Andreas 16:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting a bit fed up here

message: I have changed the structure a bit, to allow for a more natural flow of the narrative:
1) Prelude, Dispositions, strength of forces involved
2) Chronological account of the battle
3) Aftermath
4) Detail of formations involved
5) Sources etc.
I hope this helps readability a bit. Andreas 10:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this stage it is mostly to help me find my way through the article, and focus on particular sections I can add a bit too.  Andreas 12:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: I don't think that the commands issued by Hitler are particularly relevent. Like the idea that there was going to be an airdrop to support the army group, it mixes up wishful thinking by the German high command with the reality of the situation. I think both tend to muddy this article rather than clarify it by giving the illusion that the Germans were more in control of events than they were. However if you think it important I won't remove it.
:It maybe easiest to just drop all Hitler related info into a paragraph in the intro, stating that throughout the battle the aims of the German high command and the 12th and 9th Armies were diverging, and that high command could not exercise any control over them.  Thereafter leave any reference to Berlin out. Andreas 14:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that we already had that with the paragraph which starts "Although in Hitler's mind the 12th Army..." Philip Baird Shearer 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you only select the entry sentence, yes. But the following sentences in the paragraph outline in what way he is supposed to have failed, and the paragraph is sourced.  But I shall elaborate on this in a footnote. Andreas 14:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you will see I have explicitly named Le Tissier in the text, I think that when a POV is expressed that it is better that the author of the POV is named. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I agree your version is better than the first. Andreas 19:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I have corrected it to 28. Good catch. Andreas 08:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: C&C

message: Did Heinrici as commander of "Army Group Vistula" report to the OKW or directly to Hitler in his capacity of C-in-C OKH? Which Army Group was XII Army in and what was its chain of command? --Philip Baird Shearer
:OKH was no longer functional, following the move north by Rybalko's tank army that overran Zossen.  All reports were made directly to the Fuehrerbunker (not OKW).  12th Army was under Army Group Vistula, so while it had contact it reported to Heinrici, who then reported to the Fuehrerbunker. C&C had become de-institutionalised in those final days. Andreas 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OKW or OKH

message: Either one of the other numbers is wrong or the 25,000 is wrong or there are 10,000 missing in action. If there were 80,000 in the pocket, it is sourced that 20,000 killed and 25,000 escaped, so that would leave 35,000 unaccounted for, presumably POWs, so were does the 25,000 POWs come from which has been inserted into the war box? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: The reason I ask this is that I did this article German_275th_Infantry_Division and noticed Halbe pocket and this were the same place. I believe the 275th was part of the 9th Army. Mark1800 05:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Down to what level are we listing forces

message: #The lead is nowhere near being an adequate summation of the article.
#The article is very detailed in what happened, but doesn't really say why. Why was it worth such fighting to be able to surrender to the Western allies and not the Soviets? (I can imagine the answer, but it would be nice if the article told me, probably in the Prelude section. --kingboyk 20:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique

message: the number of soviet soldiers killed in the battle of halbe was much lower than 20,000. the 1st ukrainian front sufferd a total of 27,580 dead or missing (krivosheev) from april 16 to 8 may 1945. it's very unlikly that the front casualties during the battle of halbe were more then a third of it's total casualties in the berlin operation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by איש שלום (talk • contribs) 13:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualties number 

message: Hi! Can somebody please tell me where and when exactly was the German 9th Army encircled and by which Soviet units? I have read this and the Battle of Berlin article, but I still don't quite understand it. If I understood it well the 9th Army was encircled on 24 April (or earlier) in the forest area south-east of Berlin and west of Frankfurt by forces of both 1st Ukrainian and 1st Byelorussian Front? Is that correct or not? Thank you very much for help --81.233.145.252 (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about exact date and place of encirclement  

message: The Twelfth and Ninth Armies' remnants then fought a fighting retreat westwards towards the Elbe so that they could surrender to the Americans. Most of those that broke out were again surrounded west of Luckenwalde by the north-westerly thrust of the 4th Guards Tank Army, only 10 km away from German 12th Army troops, although unbeknown to them, the Ninth United States Army had already halted at Elbe.[citation needed]"
There are a number of confusing statements in this passage...
1) How is the Soviet 4th Guards 10 km away from the German 12th Army if they are surrounding them?
2) Unbeknownst to whom is the US 9th at the Elbe?
3) Why was this unknown if they were trying to reach the Elbe to meet them?
I believe this is trying to say something along the lines of...
The remains of the German 12th and 9th Armies then attempted to fight their way westward to the Elbe in order to link up with the US 9th Army. However, after having progressed only 10 km, they met units of the Soviet 4th Guards Tank Army, who had been moving north-west through the open areas south of the Heidehof-Golmberg. The 4th Guards surrounded the Germans once again west of Luckenwalde.
But I can't be sure of any of this. Perhaps the 10 km is the distance between the Germans and the US forces?
Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing passage