lets do some pov analyse the text now says however on june the effective strength of the th ss panzer division was men and tanks by august it was reduced to weak infantry elements no tanks no artillery the editor claims the statement come from stacey colonel charles perry bond major c c j official history of the canadian army in the second world war volume iii the victory campaign the operations in north west europe what says the article of colonel stacey on and august army group b reported the state of its eight armoured divisions as follows th s s panzer division men tanks no artillery stacey says that the rest of the divisions were casualties no the ss suffered casualties and the rest was pulled out of the line the remaining men are a battle group lend to another division from the ss article the units in the division that were not fit for combat were ordered to pull back to germany on september leaving behind a small kampfgruppe attached to the nd ss panzer division das reich with citiation so what makes the editor here he takes a statement then he poved it a bit with the word reduced than he claims no tanks knowing it is wrong by the way the reported strenghts were grabenst rke the sense of this statement was to bring the reader some idea about german casualties on this battle by the way the ss not even participated the full battle eye thats what u call reliably sourced material maybe the editor should be banned for a short while he faked a quote to support his pov please tll me eye is this pov which encyclopedia would come to the moronic idea of using this statement when it his has no overall figures