User talk:MWAK

94.30.47.170 (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Welcome![reply]

hello, i noticed you changed back my changes i made to the pantserwagen m39 page. may i ask why? i received historic file's stating the facts as i added them so i dont see what's wrong. Revenger2111 (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, using archive data counts as a forbidden WP:OR. So, you're not supposed to insert those data unless they have been mentioned in some independent book or articles. These secondary sources in this case happen to contradict each other sometimes, probably because they based themselves on differing data or judged them differently. This is at times reflected by the footnotes. Your changes therefore also caused some inconsistency.

By the way , you're also supposed to put such questions at the end of this page, so in the near future I'll move it there :o).

Greetings, MWAK (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MWAK, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Alai 00:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I've been here quite a while as an anonymous.

--MWAK 05:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on Oil pastel it looks and sounds a lot better, I was going to get to it but I was busy for a while so thanks! Also if you know of any of the places where the information was used from that would help out the article a lot also! Thanks again. Graxe 21:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honoured by your praise. Some useful links might be: http://www.art.hyogo-u.ac.jp/fukumo/InSEAinJapan/History%20JAE.html for some background about Japanese art education; http://www.gellyroll.com/company/craypas_history.html for what Sakura itself has to say about it; http://www.michaels.com/art/online/displayArticle?articleNum=ae0051 for a slightly different account; http://www.sennelier.fr/fr/08visiteguidee/visite43.htm for some production pictures and http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/waac/wn/wn19/wn19-3/wn19-308.html for a very useful overview of waxy media. --MWAK 09:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MWAK if you could tell me how to get a copy of the second reference you put on Oil pastel itd be cool becuase Id like to read it, it sounds interesting. Also 2 other things 1) if you want you should join the wikipedia IRC channel at #wikipedia on freenode so we can talk sometime and 2) If you want I should show you some of my paintings sometime in Oil pastel though really Im still learning a lot and am hoping to get a lot better. TTYL Graxe 22:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graxe! Sorry for answering so late; somehow I didn't notice your questions until now. As regards the book, I think it's no longer in print; but it's quite possible the Institute for Fine Arts has still some copies in store, so contacting them might, with some luck, still get you one. I must admit I hadn't activated my e-mail connection and I will do so soon. I think contributing with his own artwork is the best thing any Wikipedian can do to improve the number of images. At least that way there are no copyright problems ;o). So I'm looking forward to them. And you don't merely have to hope to get better: you can ensure it by investing thirty minutes to intense pastel drawing twice a week. Practice makes perfect! :o)--MWAK 06:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My watchlist shows that you were interested enough to work on a military-topic article, so I wanted to make sure you were aware of the new Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units) project, in case you didn't see any of the announcements. — B.Bryant 22:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I in fact wasn't aware of the project, but having read the guidelines I believe I've probably always applied them. I hope :o).

--MWAK 06:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You added to the article: "As Limburgish gradually fades into more eastern dialects, it's in Germany typically combined with these in a so-called Limburgisch-Bergisch group, from which then most often the dialects spoken in The Netherlands and Belgium are again excluded." I don't understand the second part of the sentence (from which ... excluded); it seems to say that Limburgisch-Bergisch contains only the dialects speaken in Germany, in which case it should be called Bergisch, shouldn't it? Or is there also a part of Germany called Limburg? Thanks, and sorry for my ignorance (I had to look up where das Bergisches Land is, even though I'm originally from quite nearby). Jitse Niesen 14:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I was ignorant too, for I said to user Sarcelles that the town of Limburg (the origin of the name for the region) was in Germany, while it's in fact located south of Dutch Limburg in Belgium. However, the original duchy of Limburg extended into present Germany. So, yes, there is a German Limburg. The deeper reason for the German usage is a lack of consistency though: they first construct a higher level group including the "Dutch" dialects and then limit their scope to the "German" part only, while keeping the more inclusive name, using history as a pretext to avoid difficult questions about the relationship between the two standard languages, like: Why are there two standard languages for the same dialect continuum in the first place?; Are the Dutch really German?; Are Germans really Dutch? and If I don't like the way German culture has developed in the past centuries, can I switch sides and become Dutch? (The Dutch in 1945 seriously proposed to the Allies to "dutchify" large parts of Germany this way!) etc. ;o)--MWAK 07:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are so right, I ll update it as soon as I have time, but did not know all the borders for other languages then Limburgisch. i.e. the border between West and East-Flanders is not the language border Jorgenpfhartogs 13:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I do not. In the common language, Calais is a Channel port. You note the Chunnel, but also the Channel Ferries use Calais.

This is because the Strait of Dover is considered part of the Channel. Read our article, which correctly notes this. The Channel is the entire waterway that joins the North Sea to the Atlantic. Note if you will the list of ports we give in that article. Grace Note 02:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of judgement whether the spider is an insect. The definition of insect precludes it. The definition of insect is also what is commonly used. When the two clash, one must prevail. It is still the common parlance that we use, not some particularly restricted or specialised idea of spider.

However, it is a question of judgement whether Calais lies on the Channel or it does not. Why can the whole of the strait not be included in the Channel? Certainly that is what is commonly done. The Channel Tunnel goes under it; the Channel ferries cross it. They have never felt they must divert to the other side of Cap Gris Nez to avoid a solecism in their name.

Do you have a source for your contention that the North Sea stretches to Cap Gris Nez? Do you have one for your belief that seaways must be one thing or another and cannot overlap? If you will provide good sources for your belief, I'll join you in correcting the articles for the English Channel, Strait of Dover and others.

We'll need to correct the erroneous beliefs about Channel crossings (some firsts were made between Dover and Calais), the erroneous notion of the Channel ferries, the Channel Tunnel will need to mention that it doesn't go under the Channel at all and should be called the, erm, North Sea Tunnel because Sangatte is also east of Cap Gris Nez.Grace Note 08:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all North Sea Treaties since 1908 used the line Cape Gris-Nez - South Foreland as boundary. :o) But that's beside the point. It's a simple matter of conceptual coherency. Certainly seaways can overlap: and the Strait of Dover, being the connection between The Channel and the North Sea indeed overlaps both. The part south of the smallest point (i.e. south of Cape Gris-Nez) belongs to The Channel and the part north of it belongs to the North Sea. This is simply what it means to be a connection. And you wouldn't deny that the North Sea is connected to The Channel by the Strait of Dover, would you? But I have to admit topography is so conventional in nature these first principles might have to cede to common usage anyway, utterly silly as it might be. So it is my better judgement to cease defending the cause of conceptual clarity against the entrenched forces of British tradition...;o)

--MWAK 10:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you picked me right. Us Brits don't like conceptual clarity half as much as a good old-fashioned muddle ;-) Grace Note 07:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps we should start a new tradition of calling Calais a North Sea Channel port :o)--MWAK 13:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honoured!--MWAK 12:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you seem to be familliar with the Limburgish language. I've commented on its talk page on the article's questionable use of the term tonal language, mentioning that I've written a draft new version of the article pitch accent at User:Alarm/Pitch accent. Since this article mentions Limburgish as an example, I would really value any input from people familliar with it. If you have the time and energy to take a look, I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions for expansion. / Alarm 13:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see whether I have any meaningful contributions to make - but even before having looked at that talk page I think I know what the problem is ;o).

--MWAK 09:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! Gdr 13:37, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Thank you! :o)--MWAK 16:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo there MWAK excellent contributions you made.You requested battle of the Sound info a Dutch list of ships can be found at http://www.kentishknock.com/a-d-wars3.htm perhaps you can ask the webmaster for info on the Swedish fleet (which I don't have).

CatsClaw 16:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment and the excellent advice!--MWAK 17:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MWAK! Just a couple of comments: (i) I've had a go at using Wiki Commons, but I just don't understand how to post images there; if you like, I'm perfectly happy for you to copy the Flying Elephant photos and post them there yourself, it would be much quicker than waiting for me to learn how to; and (ii) thank you to whoever tidied up the FE page (thumbnailing the photos, and adding extra links)! McTodd 21:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MWAK. I think I may have just about used-up all the WW 1 British tank images I have but I should be uploading some from other countries over the next few days. Regards, Ian Dunster 20:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to them :o)--MWAK 05:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, could you take your discussion with Tellar26 somewhere other than the Pim Fortuyn page, for instance on one of your user pages? Thanks. Junes 15:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MWAK. I came across Battle of France when browsing random articles and was very impressed. I'm considering nominating it as a featured article, but I thought I should first ask you, as one of the leading contributors to the article (and as someone with much more knowledge of the topic than me) whether you think it's ready to be featured. Is there more that needs doing before it can represent Wikipedia's best work? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like the article, but I would strongly advise against nomitating it at present. It really needs to be reworked as it still contains many details that are rather imprecise. Also it lacks a certain coherency. I hope to bring it to a higher level in future myself, but I can't make any promisses as to when this shall happen...--MWAK 09:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll leave it for now - thanks for all the work that you've done on it so far. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks are needed! :O)--MWAK 10:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Thanks for your comments, However I can not find Frieser in English and sadly know no other language. Is it available in translation?KAM 18:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only in a French translation, so it would be of no use to you :o(. Mosier's The Myth of Blitzkrieg leans heavily on Frieser, but that book is simply too silly to have the power to convince anyone. But you could read this abstract from Doughty: http://web.mit.edu/ssp/fall98/doughty.htm, which unsurprisingly has the same title. The abstract quoted in full (to save it for posterity ;o):

The 1940 German campaign against France and the concept of blitzkrieg have exerted a powerful influence over modern perceptions of warfare. The 1940 campaign is frequently cited in discussions of strategy and operations and in publications about the "Revolution in Military Affairs" (RMA). Proponents of the RMA have argued that blitzkrieg was the product of technological and conceptual advances during the interwar period. They have also claimed that the 1940 campaign demonstrates how such advances can quickly change the conduct of warfare.

Many of the concepts associated with blitzkrieg are actually myths. This is a consequence of poor military history and the preponderance of popular accounts of the 1940 campaign. For example, German doctrinal innovation was due more to the unfavorable situation Germany faced rather than to any "revolution" in technology or concepts of warfare. Their planning the 1940 campaign did not expect a swift, easy defeat of France nor was its success solely attributable to technology, specifically tanks and airpower. Rather, the campaign had modest objectives, German strategy and tactics were extremely important, and the infantry played a critical role in its success

The concept of blitzkrieg as it is now understood was not developed by Hitler and the German General Staff. Rather, it was formulated for public consumption. The term appeared occasionally in the literature between 1936 and 1940 and was the subject of a Time magazine article after France’s defeat. At this time, blitzkrieg simply meant a knockout blow in contrast to the trench warfare of World War I. The Germans, for example, employed the term to refer to a short war. No theorist used it to refer to a combined offensive by armored forces and aircraft to deliver a knockout blow against an adversary.

Rather than a revolution, mobile warfare represented a natural evolution in the conduct of war. The development of methods and equipment necessary for mobile warfare was informed by the experience of World War I. Yet, the evolution of technology and strategy was the subject of considerable debate in Germany. There was a lively discussion in the literature about the proper role of tanks and airpower. The development of mechanized forces was retarded by Hitler’s military and economic policies. The best strategy for the 1940 campaign was not immediately evident to the German high command. Hitler dabbled with strategy and inquired about the possibility of an offensive through the Ardennes before Manstein devised his plan. The German strategy for the attack against France was a desperate operational act ultimately chosen for its risky strategic possibilities.

The German advance in the 1940 campaign is widely perceived to have been a rapid "jaunt" through France with armor and airpower playing the dominant roles in the offensive. This notion is unsubstantiated. Rough terrain hindered the progress of the XIX Panzer Corps. The crossing of the Meuse River was also very difficult and its outcome might have been different were it not for some remarkable successes by a few German forces. The movement of armored units across the river was far slower than anticipated and German commanders submitted false reports about their progress and the vulnerability of the bridgehead. Moreover, infantry played a key role on both sides. German armored forces were led across the Meuse by antitank and engineer units. At the beginning of the campaign German forces encountered stiff resistance from Belgian infantry mounted on bicycles. A single rifle company turned back an assault by a German tank division. Furthermore, a German infantry batallion played a pivotal role in the eventual defeat of this company.

Airpower was important in the 1940 campaign and German ground forces would not have been successful without the air support provided by the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe achieved air superiority, established a protective umbrella over advancing German columns, and facilitated the crossing of the Meuse by German forces. German air attacks also confused French commanders about the location of advancing forces and contributed to the collapse of the French 55th Division defending the Meuse. However, German airpower accounted for little of the destruction on the ground nor did its use in the 1940 campaign mark the advent of a fundamentally new way of warfare.

Neither Hitler nor the German high command expected a rapid, easy victory over the French in 1940. They expressed serious concerns about the prospects for success on May 13th and 14th. However, the German forces were victorious because of luck, better leadership, skill and training, superior concentration of forces, and French weaknesses in strategy and tactics. German leaders considered the outcome of the 1940 campaign to be a miracle. Yet, this was soon forgotten as they fell victim to their own propaganda. Seeing themselves in newsreels and movies, the German officer corps became convinced that the myth of blitzkrieg was reality. Confident that blitzkrieg would enable Germany to achieve a swift, easy victory over the Soviet Union, Hitler initiated the invasion of the Soviet Union almost immediately after the 1940 campaign.

Continued British resistance and the expectation that Soviet forces would quickly be defeated led Hitler to pursue an offensive against the Soviet Union in 1941. The British rejected Hitler’s peace overtures following the defeat of France and a German Navy study concluded that an invasion of Great Britain would be extremely difficult. Meanwhile, military options on the eastern front were evaluated. An offensive would seek to crush the Soviet army before it could retreat and to seize enough territory in the east to prevent Soviet air strikes against Germany. Both Hitler and Halder believed that blitzkrieg would enable German forces to deliver such a knockout blow against the Soviet Union. A campaign against the Soviet Union was also expected to be far easier than the invasion of France. With the defeat of the Soviet Union, any remaining British hope of successfully resisting German domination of Europe would be eliminated.

Hitler therefore directed the German army to prepare to crush the Soviet military prior to the defeat of the United Kingdom. The Germans thus sought a "Super Cannae" against the Soviet Union. The invasion of the Soviet Union was widely anticipated to be a short campaign and military planning reflected this expectation. The German high command believed that 80-100 German divisions would easily be able to defeat the 50-75 top Russian divisions. The German economy was not mobilized for the invasion, stockpiles were not accumulated, and the long distances involved in transporting supplies to advancing German forces were ignored. Operation Barbarossa was based to an unprecedented degree on myths and hopes stemming from the successful invasion of France. Intoxicated by the success of the 1940 campaign, Hitler and Halder even envisaged the use of blitzkrieg operations to secure German domination of the Mediterranean and Asia. Such confidence contrasts sharply with the German high command’s far more sober analysis of the successful 1939 attack on Poland, which generated substantial pessimism among military leaders because of the many deficiencies that it had revealed. Instead, concluding that they had devised blitzkrieg to defeat the French, Hitler and the German high command believed it could also be used successfully against the Soviet Union. In the end, such arrogance and poor intelligence led to German failure in the east.

And of course you could read the excellent books by Robert Allen Doughty on this subject: The Seeds of Disaster: The Development of French Army Doctrine, 1919-1939, and The Breaking Point: Sedan and the Fall of France, 1940. I can't say I'm in full agreement with the first book: the doctrine of the French Army wasn't too bad; many writers have been deceived by Gaullist myth-building.

The main thing to keep in mind is that there simply was no such thing as a German Blitzkrieg doctrine before the summer of 1940. To quote Frieser: "Vain is the search for the Blitzkrieg doctrine". It is nowhere to be found. The German Army was completely dominated by the Infantry and the full doctrine and organisation were centered on that Weapon. More money was spent on fortifications than on tanks. After the first three Panzerdivisionen were formed — mainly for political reasons: Germany had been forbidden to possess any tanks, so now it would have its own Tank Corps — only independent armoured brigades were added for infantry support. The situation improved somewhat in 1938, but still the Panzerwaffe was seen as a specialised tool for exploitation, a mechanised cavalry. To spare the expensive tanks, armoured units were forbidden to take part in breakthrough operations. In Poland an exception was made for the embarrassing reason that there wasn't enough trained infantry available. In May 1940 things went back to normal: the crossings of the river Meuse were carried out by motorised infantry and the bridgeheads were to be enlarged by the tank units — and consolidated so that the "Mass of the Army" could position itself for the decisive battle. But the armour field commanders weren't content with such a subordinated role. They disobeyed, exploited a bit more and then the "miracle" happened. And afterwards the Germans looked at each other and said: "Gee, did you see what we just did? We executed a strategic armoured penetration and the enemy simply collapsed! Wow!". And Liddell Hart said: "I told you so! Glad...ah, sorry you listened". And thus the Myth of Blitzkrieg was born.

--MWAK 09:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remarks, I read them with great interest. I appreciate you taking the time. Blitzkrieg, = Bewegungskrieg + assumption of collapse-- very good point and well made....."your operations always hang by a thread."-Kluge, Guderian superior.... Also, Robert Doughty, The Seeds of Disaster. is on my reading list the rest is here: http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_archive.htm ( #72 and #73) Perhaps the Blitzkrieg article needs a "myth" section... again thanks KAM 18:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment! Keep in mind that Lind's distinction between Second and Third Generation Warfare is a bit of a caricature — or at least too ideal. He favours a very risky variant of manoeuvre warfare. Later modelling showed that his tactics had a small, but very real, chance of NATO defeat, whereas the "static" forms he was so critical of, were practically foolproof...

Concerning the article: it really needs to be rebuilt entirely. Not that it's likely to happen :o). In the Dutch Wikipedia I've completely rewritten the original page — but there my reputation is better ;o).

--MWAK 14:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I make a request? could you please vote for my FAC, Dinosaur here:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dinosaur? I know how we had discussions involving dinosaurs, so thought you'd be interested? It would mean so much to me & I would definitely return the favour if you need anything voted on. I've come so far, but I just want to make sure as voting can turn sour at any moment? Don't feel pressured, but thanks anyway... Spawn Man 02:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your effort to improve the article. Such effort is however the only benefit derived from the system of tagging some articles as "excellent". It has many dangers, the greatest of which is that we were are tempted to lock the article because it has presumedly reached its ideal form. The present tendency to somehow protect Wikipedia from the public — the very body that created it — should be resisted. So, opposing FA's in general, the only time I ever vote on them is when trying to prevent an article that is substandard from attaining the status. As Dinosaur is pretty good, I won't vote :o).--MWAK 09:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was counting on you! One of my main reasons is to get it to the main page so it can actually get publicity! I wrote dinosaur articles, didn't get an editors to it. Got dinosaur on the article improvement drive, got a little attention for a week. Got it to FAC, gets little publicity, but Im still the main one doing work! Hopefully if it goes to the main page it will be better still! Plus, I've heard of FA going on peer review! You could always give a vote of weak support or neutral.... No article is ever perfect.... Thanks anyway... Spawn Man 22:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, such publicity is always short-lived. In this field Wikipedia has to compete with two of the best sites on any subject of popular science: the Dinosauricon and DinoData. That's very tough. All that "peer review" is rather silly: what peers? :o)--MWAK 08:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've changed 'offensive artillery' for 'mechanised'. If that's the term, then well done, I myself tried to translate it from Russian and literally translating it was 'offensive'. It presumably stands for cannons that are mainly used in offensive operations. Constanz - Talk 11:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The military jargon can be very confusing :o). Did the original indeed use the term НАСТУПАТЕЛЬНЫЙ? ~:o\ What was in any case was meant was штурм: it is a reference to assault artillery, i.c. the German Panzerjäger and Sturmgeschütze. This term is derived from the French artillerie d'assaut. It strictly refers to mechanised guns (although most confusingly artillerie d'assaut in the beginning referred to vehicles that we traditionally call "tanks", such as the Schneider CA). So the category is much more limited than the literal translation would suggest. This also explains why they are lumped together with tanks: they are what the layman would call as such, only they lack a turret — and they would be very dangerous adversaries to most Soviet tanks in June 1941...

And now I will change "mechanised artillery" to "mechanised guns" because I myself got confused :o).

--MWAK 15:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term in Russian was штурмовые (Танки и штурмовые орудия)

See: [1] Chapter: 'Место "Восточного похода" в стратегии Германии 1940—1941 гг. и силы сторон к началу операции "Барбаросса"' Таблица 47

May-be 'assault artillery' then? That explains why they were included in tank numbers: both are similarily used as 'assault weapons' ?

Constanz - Talk 16:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the closest correct translation would be "assault artillery". However this term is today uncommon in English: the present technical word for the weapons indicated is "self-propelled guns". The point is that the term most confusingly refers to systems that are precisely not real (indirect fire) artillery pieces but self-propelled guns (i.e. tracked AFV's) equipped with direct fire cannons, just as tanks. The lack of a turret is the only relevant distinction. The term "self-propelled gun" avoids as much confusion as possible — though it is still somewhat ambiguous. Furthermore штурмовые орудия is simply the literal translation of German Sturmgeschütze, "assault guns" — which term can't be used because any American reading it would think an assault rifle was meant, though we do have an article assault gun :o). And now I will change "mechanised" into "self-propelled", if someone didn't beat me to it.

Very useful link BTW!--MWAK 19:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And after perusing the relevant tables first I see that the Panzerjäger are subsumed under Противотанковые орудия на самоходных лафетах, so Sturmgeschütze is the correct translation only. Which saves me from changing it again :o). --MWAK 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The study by M.I.Meltyukhov is really interesting, so in case you're a Russian speaker, it would be worthy of using this new material in wikiarticles such as Operation Barbarossa. Constanz - Talk 13:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I speak Dutch — and with great effort I can read a bit of Russian. I used to be better at it in the Cold War days, but I've lost that competence over the years by lack of practice. Peace doesn't only bring dividends...But Meltyukhov hasn't found a pre-emptive attack order by Stalin, has he? :o) In any case you're right in that the article still gives too much the "Liddell Hart" version of events. I'll give my opinion on the talk page of Operation Barbarossa.--MWAK 14:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see: "стремлением упредить своих противников в развертывании вооруженных сил для нанесения первых ударов более крупными силами и захвата стратегической инициативы с самого начала военных действий" has rendered the predictable confusion :o).--MWAK 11:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babelfish: 'by the tendency to forestall its enemies in the development of armed forces for putting first impacts by larger forces and the seizure of strategic initiative from the very beginning of military actions. See link on Viktor Suvorov page for review of Meltyukhov's book. As for my opinion on then WW2 matter, I've made some comments on Suvorov discussion page. BTW, Meltyukhov's study includes document by Soviet Army leadership, suggesting (immediate) Soviet offensive.

It should be noted, that for obvious rerasons the possibility of finding a detailed invasion plan or a similar document is next to zero -- the successive Soviet authorities were hardly interested in maintaining such documents. For plans, see section Список фотографий и схем Constanz - Talk 15:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll give my two cents there too :o).--MWAK 08:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created article on Stalin's Missed Chance. Constanz - Talk 11:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bad grammar. Me Dutch and sometimes making much mistakes. Andries 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me Brabant. Me make big heap bad heap time.--MWAK 08:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've putt some work in Battle of the Netherlands today, and I just think we're coming closer and closer to that featured article status  :-)

But you said you wanted it to be expanded.What are you thinking of? (maybe I can help)

Sandertje 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort. But why not just try to make a good article :o)? Personally I don't care whether it's "featured" or not, as long as I am happy with it. And trying to make it featured brings little benefit yet much danger. Are featured articles more often read? I doubt it. But their claim to excellence annoys the semi-literate who then in his spite tries to demolish them ;o).

As to the expansion: I've really been waiting for a copy of a new edition of a certain book, to make sure my edits reflected the latest data. But I might as well write it at once and emend later; that's my favourite method and it's more fun :o)

Greetings, --MWAK 14:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (whose ego, by the way, is so big you shouldn't worry about it being hurt ;o)[reply]

The Featured thing is just a matter of feeding my ego. :-) and more people will read it ...

Anyway I'm not in a hurry on that ..

Sandertje 15:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I fear any article is read by surprisingly few people :>/ That's why there is no hit counter ;o)--MWAK 16:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I was wondering why the price previously mentioned was so low... 190,000 francs is roughly 5000 1939 US dollars. At the same time the 7TP had the price of 43,500 US dollars (1939, armed), the Vickers E was sold to Finland for 21,000 dollars each (unarmed)... Even the tiny TKS tankette had the price of roughly 9000 dollars (1939). I doubt the French tank could be that cheap.

As for sources, there is a pretty page devoted to tanks at http://derela.republika.pl/. Check their prices page for details. Halibutt 16:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this interesting information! The 190,000 FF price (for the complete hull only: the turret added another 100,000) is exact and comparable to many similar prices in other French tank contracts. Of course in 1935 there had been for many years a strong deflation of the dollar, making it very strong against the FF. This was from 1936 worsened by a deliberate French policy of devaluation (see: http://www.indiainfoline.com/mony/twen.html) until the FF was fixed against the dollar on 9 September 1939 at 43.8 to 1. These exchange rates didn't reflect internal value though: they were an artificial instrument to stimulate French exports. This explains how the French were able to produce the entire R 35 at about 500,000 FF in 1939: the real value of the materials and labour used was about $30,000, not $12,000. The FF was undervalued about 2.5 times! This seems incredible by today's standards but was sustainable because the French could obtain raw materials from their empire at production costs, not market prices. As your data shows they did demand a realistic price from the Poles, in this case export stimulation apparently being of secondary concern :o). A sad consideration is that Germany, not having colonies, couldn't devaluate comparably, making Hitler anxious to find a foreign military solution to his domestic economic problems. --MWAK 20:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That solves the riddle ;). I took the liberty to transform your comment at my talk page into a note, just in case anyone wondered why the price was 10 times lower. Halibutt 22:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent changes! However I am still a bit puzzled by the fact the site you referred to seems to give a price of 1,400,000 FF for the entire tank. It also says "updated" behind the R 35 entry: could it be the 1,900,000 for the hull only is from an earlier version you read?--MWAK 10:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, previously it claimed the price was 1,900,000 (after Jeleń&Szubański's work, obviously). Could you correct that? Halibutt 15:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so :o).--MWAK 07:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, you added "in March 1936 twelve were ordered by China and four a few months later by the Yuan province administration" to the article of AMR 35. I'm doing some clean up on yuan because it can mean a number of things. I don't think there's any Chinese provinces called Yuan. Can you verify please? --Chochopk 01:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right: it was a typo for "Yunan" :oS. Thank you for pointing it out!--MWAK 08:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huge apologies, mea culpa. I'd found amends by 71.146.153.48 to the casualty figures that looked nonsense (as did this editor's amends to other articles); I thought I'd just reverted that. Not sure what went wrong, unless we were editing at the same time. I'll do the repairs, serve me right. Folks at 137 16:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it all :o). Thank you for your effort — especially in guarding against vandalism!--MWAK 16:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to our recent chat on who was the victor of the battle I thought you might appreciate this:

"IN THE summer of 1939 von Ribbentrop told Churchill, "If there’s war, the Italians will fight on Germany’s side." After a pause Churchill replied, "That’s fair; we had them last time."[2]

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly true that in both wars they were more of a liability than an asset :o). But is it a true story?--MWAK 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work MWAK! Oberiko 03:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the honour and I'll do my best!--MWAK 06:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard 2 since A4 at least features tungsten (though I don't know for sure in what form) in its turret armor. It also features ceramic inserts in the hull and turret. Therefore it would not be incorrect to state that the armor configuration includes both tungsten and ceramic materials. Of course, if we want to keep it less detailed not knowing the specifics or what other materials the armor may or may not include, we could simply state that the armor is "composite". Exel 07:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the point is those "ceramic inserts" aren't ceramic tiles, whereas most people would assume they are.--MWAK 07:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't go into the specifics of the armor layout, but what people assume is largely irrelevant to the point. The fact is that Leopard 2 has ceramics as one component of its armor configuration, and thus it is not wrong to say that it indeed includes ceramics. Exel 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what people assume is far from irrelevant: this is an encyclopedia and readers shouldn't be deceived by ambivalent wording.--MWAK 05:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MWAK,

I'm planning on starting an article about 'Dutch millitary history' and because our battle of the Netherlands worked out so well (me rough sketches, you -very much-details and refining) I was hoping you'd help me again. Sander 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, of course! However, I must warn you that my knowledge about events earlier than the 20th century is rather limited. But I should be able to contribute something worthwile about more recent developments.--MWAK 13:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Here's the link.I believe your 'vakgebied' is waiting for you ;-) Military history of the Netherlands Sander 14:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its certainly an inclusive article so far! :o). When your narrative has reached the year 1900 I'll kick in ;o)--MWAK 14:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see you then! Sander 14:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said you'd join in when the article reaches the 20th century, and I have a question that could affect the article in the future.

I'm pretty sure you're expertise is most present in the area covering the second world war, of course you'll know that this war wasn't limited to the Netherlands, but also happened in it's colonies...most notably the Dutch indies.

What would you advise? Trying to fitt in all colonial happenings throughout the article, or create a separate section within the article concerning all colonial affairs? Sander 20:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to fit them in, especially as colonial rivalry was at the heart of most conflicts the Dutch had between 1610 and 1940, 1941 to 1945 and again between 1945 and 1962 :o).--MWAK 06:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hit the 20th century ;-) Sander 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made "my" article much better. I was the lazy one... I practically copied it out of a book on tanks. You basically rewrote it. User:ATK102587 20:24, 12, April 2006

Well, I too basically copy material, just rephrasing it a bit, so we're no different ;o). But, as I said, I 'm glad I have been slowly able to make accessible to the larger public some of the newer information available in the latest published French sources. It's very bizarre how general books on tanks simply keep repeating outdated information, sometimes parotting mistakes of over seventy years old! --MWAK 07:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I have made a request for comment on Kurt Leyman and I need people to sign the request and also to sign on the specific page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kurt_Leyman

(Deng 03:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I have to admit Kurt can be at times a bit troublesome and he certainly has a limited ability to engage in rational discussion. However I am convinced his edits do not constitute vandalism because he sincerely believes they are correct. Indeed it is his obstinacy combined with a lack of good judgement that makes him such a bother. But a selective memory, inability to judge the value of sources, poor background knowledge and incoherency of thought are not enough to exclude someone. These things are relative and none of us is free from these defects. I've often noticed that after some careful explanation he slowly begins to understand he might have been wrong. And some of his edits are simply correct. The name of the aggressor in WWII was not "Nazi Germany"; it was just Germany that did it, not some special entity where all the dirt of history can safely be locked away. And Italy did attack France and Slovakia did participate in Fall Weisz. So as the work of Kurt is not completely detrimental, I think we ought to overcome his deficiencies in the direct way, by the bothersome process of correcting mistakes — which is the essence of Wikipedia.--MWAK 09:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MWAK, I've noticed lately you've contributed to a lot of the WP articles on dinosaurs. Thanks! If you're interested, you could sign on to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs -- we are in need of good editors such as yourself. Well, I hope you will consider it. And keep those contributions coming! Thanks again, --Firsfron 07:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

I'll do my best! :o). Most of the edits have their origin in the Dutch wikipedia, where I add all new species and slowly build up all the relevant clade concepts. Sadly I really don't have the time to join the Wikiproject in a more formal way.

Greetings, --MWAK 06:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's nice, though, to see someone working quite well 'behind the scenes', so to speak. Keep it up! :) --Firsfron 16:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Working behind the scenes" is the story of my life :o).--MWAK 06:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons are descendants of dinosaurs, not birds. That's democracy, the most popular belief prevails over the most articulated... It might that it turns good though... Idiocracy of creationists might not be as bad as Stalinism (where the "theory" of evolution leads due to creationists). Have a nice day and convert for your sins or you shall burn in Hell (or if you are an atheist, as your unedjucated belief in the heratic "theory" of evolution indicates, you shall be simply burnt on a stake by righteous God-fearing people). Working behind the scenes is the method of the one who must not be named (and I do not mean Sauron), shame on you tool of the you know who! --Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are the creationists in Greece that bad? :o) But seriously: evolutionism can easily turn as malicious as even the worst creationist and indeed did: racism between 1870 and 1945 was largely founded upon it. Both the creationist and the materialist are mistaken: the fact of evolution has few implications for metaphysics. And as one working behind the scenes I see many an evil entity lurking there also ;o)--MWAK (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MWAK, I posted a few questions on the Char B-1 discussion page and would be grateful if you could reply. I admit the questions are rather obscure but if anyone knows the answers, you will. Thank you DMorpheus 18:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best :o).--MWAK 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the reply. So, since you're the expert, what tank do you think is the best of all the modern MBTs? I feel as though the M1A2 is getting out-dated, and that the people behind it are not thinking outside of the box. Instead, they just add more armor and nothing like laser jamming or laser blinding optics like the Type 99. So... what's your thoughts? Please reply to my talk page.--Hellogoodsir 15:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I make no claim as to being an expert :o). For a rich country the Leopard 2 is probably the most efficient tank. The individual M1A2 is a bit more effective. The US-Army has more or less made public it has an (semi)active defence package to update the M1 in case of war with a high-tech opponent. We may assume this at the very least includes the features you mentioned. A similar package is available for the Leopard 2. Personally I think what the M1 needs, certainly when fighting the Iraqi guerilla, is in fact even more armour to protect the lower hull sides.--MWAK 07:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you could, what order you would list all modern tanks in performance or K/D ratio from top to bottom, generally speaking. Might want to leave the Merkava out since it is designed more to safety in urban environment. I'm not sure how well it would mend in field warfare with tanks.

In my opinion, I would rather be in a T-90. Would you consider it's turret design superior? Do the angles deflect/disintegrate KE rounds well? Also, what would it's radar jamming system be effective against, beside tows and small AT rockets by infantry? I don't know much about radar jamming :(

I've got a few questions still though. Is the Type 98/99 a superior match for the M1 or any European MBT? Do fire control system vary much, or are they practically the same? I know some tanks have a few more sensors or different one that others, but they shouldn't vary in performance right?

If you don't want to reply, you don't have to.--Hellogoodsir 23:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether my answers will be very informative, but I'll do my best:

1. Making lists is basically meaningless. I would lose all credibility if started to do that :o). Not that there aren't scientific models, but even these are dubious. However I can state that the Merkava would be a very dangerous opponent. That it in all probability isn't fitted with Chobham armour doesn't mean much.
2. The high opinion many have of the protection of the T-90 stems from a severe underestimation of the armour protection of the Leopard 2 and the MA1. It is true though that the T-90 has an excellent armour-inner space ratio. But it has a dangerous weak spot around the mantlet, which happens to be the spot most likely to be hit. Its forms are not optimised for deflection — modern penetrators don't deflect easily — and the inner armour structure is unsophisticated by western standards. Its protection strongly depends on the ERA. Radar jamming would have no effect on TOWs or RPGs at all (the former use by definition an optical system ;o). Jamming, in its various forms, would be most useful to defeat an integrated battlefield management system. But preventing a lock-on by large radarguided missiles can be handy too.
3. We can only speculate about the Type 98 and 99 but I doubt it would be superior. Indeed it would be quite a feat to make it equal.
4. Fire control systems vary strongly in their performance. Why else keep improving them? :o) It is not just a matter of reaction speed in a single typical engagement, but of course also of accounting for many variables as movement, weather conditions and system conditions, not to mention the tactical conditions.--MWAK 06:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the reply! So like all tanks, they have their draw backs. After reading some of your stuff, I think I'd be comfy in the L2A6. Someone really needs to link thay keyword to the Leopard 2 article. I play Battlefield 2, and there is a booster pack that added the Leapord 2 tank. It's called the L2A6 ingame, so I'm used to that. Best tank in the game IMO. I read somewhere were you explained perforated armor, and that was helpful.

I'm wondering, with the current design of the M1A2, if any composite armor could be modified to improve armor strength. Adding depleted uranium in the armor didn't seem to do much. Thanks for your reply though.--Hellogoodsir 08:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever tried playing Steel Panthers? It is excellent in giving a very good impression of the tactical abilities of tanks. And it's great fun :o). Regarding the armour of the M1, it should be emphasized that the DU modules enormously improved the protection level. The first Burlington package of the original M1 apparently consisted of alumina and seems to have been designed with the steel penetrators of the T-62 in mind. Replacing half of it with a feet of DU mesh should have more than doubled the protection. The newer silicon carbide tiles are of course optimised to defeat HEAT — and very good at it — but they also have a much improved toughness and special resistance to KE-penetrators due to their being under constant compression by their titanium matrix. Given the volume of the M1 and a weight constraint of about 64 metric tons it should be possible to make the front of the turret immune to all presently used KE-rounds. And there's still room for improvement, e.g. by adding carbon nanotubes to the composite material.--MWAK 11:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're my hero! When it comes to tanks at least. Anyways, you're a really nice guy. Thanks for the info and helpful insight. So how large of a mortar would you need to penetrate the top turret of the many modern MBTs? I read somewhere that a few Merkavas were damaged/disabled by mortars, which I'm not sure as I skimmed his post and was not sure how reliable the person was.

So I play Battlefield 2, and I was playing the booster pack Euro Forces (a while back, like in late 05?). They included two tanks into the game: L2A6 and the Challenger 2. Well, not knowing much about tanks (never seen a MBT up close in real life except this M1 but they had Marines around it and they scared me because of them trying to recruit). So I had nothing to compare it to except other tanks in the game. But, when I first saw the L2A6, I was impressed by it's size (bigger than the M1 in the game, not sure in real life). Then, I saw the Challenger 2 and wow, it was HUGE! It was like self-propelled howitzer. I didn't think of it much, nor looked into it (and not like I could visualize it or confirm it's authenticity to it's real life counter-part), and just played.

I decided to actually look into it, and yea, the wikipedia measurements as listed show the L2 to be slightly larger than the Challenger 2, but in the game, it was more than "a little" bigger than the L2. So, I took some in-game pics: http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c42/Phrozenbot/screen036.png L2A6 next to the Challenger 2 http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c42/Phrozenbot/screen037.png Another, except from the back http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c42/Phrozenbot/screen042.png T-90 next to the Challenger 2 http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c42/Phrozenbot/screen046.png Same, but different angle

So anyways, as being out of proportion, you think the tanks are done fairly well? I have no idea why the tanks are so dark. Even though the ground is like chocolate brown on that map, they didn't have to make it so dark because the sun is already dim. On one map, the L2A6 almost looks black under some shadows. I think these people need to be mugged! Do you agree with me MWAK? :p--Hellogoodsir 06:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the compliments! They make me feel a little embarrassed... To answer your questions: the roof of tanks is protected to HE shells up to about 122 mm calibre. So you would need a pretty large mortar, e.g. the 160 mm, to crack the top armour. The Merkava is better protected than most tanks against such top attack, because it has the engine in the front under the sloped main armour. Indeed the Challenger is out of proportion — or perhaps the other tanks are too small :o). The dark colour might reflect the fact that in wartime MBT's would be painted as dull as possible, with special radiation absorbing coatings. They wouldn't look like the Greek tanks seen here: http://greekmilitary.net/greekmbtanks.htm (you have to scroll down a bit to see the really gaudy examples). This pattern is decribed as "including a sienna earth colour, adapted to the mediterranean landscape". Most people I've met consider it to be just orange :o).--MWAK 07:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that was a quick reply. Are you from Europe? Just wondering.

About them tanks. Well, I couldn't really tell because I know the T-90 is small (it's smaller than the M1 and about the same size as the Type 98), but didn't know how small. Besides the EU tanks, they are all bright and reflect light proportionally (show darker with less light, show brighter with more light). Even on one of the brighter maps, which only features the Challenger 2, it's still kinda dark but looks a lot better then on this map. But that makes sense, except they didn't do it to the other tanks unless they don't have them. I really like that orange camo though!

Do you know much about attack helicopters? Just wondering, because they are interesting too. I like the Tiger HAP and Mi-28 Havoc.--Hellogoodsir 09:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm Dutch :o). I don't know a lot about attack helicopters, just that people tend to overrate their importance. They form a serious potential danger to tanks, but are themselves rather vulnerable. And very expensive.--MWAK 10:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. I know a few Dutch people; very friendly.

You're right, but I think if they execute their mobility better and strike at longer ranges, they wouldn't be as vulnerable. I've read about how apaches did get scuffed up by small arms and 50 cals in Afghanistan, and the Apache is no light attack helo. Attack jets with close air support like the A-10 have done wonders against enemy tanks, but we have yet to see one being blown up against a tank like the L2A6 or the M1A2. Both can hit, or supposedly, helicopters and low flying (and slow of course) aircraft. I just wonder what the success rate would be.

Anyways, I like you but I don't want to bug you. So, talk to you some other time.--Hellogoodsir 10:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the expansion of this article! It is one of the few articles where I put in significant effort in the initial versions, but I was always interested in seeing if people had anything else interesting to add to it (as well as explaining some things like Teddiman's rejection of the fort's offer and so). I am delighted to see your improvements to it. Thanks! Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks! I based the new edits largely on Warnsinck's short article De Slag in de baai van Bergen, but he has written a whole book on the subject, which I haven't read yet. So perhaps in the future there will be some more expansion. Frederick also seems to have made some very complicated diplomatic moves which I'd like to analyse.--MWAK 06:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MWAK,

In middle Dutch there most certainly was "het".However, not in all variants, I believe the (though I'd have to check) Brabantian and limburgian variants (as it was not a unified language) had no "het" but a variant on "da(s/t)" instead. In Hollandic and West Flemish/Zealandic however it was most certainly present, most likely a Frisian influence.So, the way I see it, we're both right ;-) I propose we keep it though, otherwise we, in all fairness, would have to make the 5 different tabs of pronouns. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 09:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm Brabantian so that explains it all ;o)--MWAK 12:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Let me guess, you live east of Breda? Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 15:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.--MWAK 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you did. You see, most (nearly all really) Brabantian dialects east of Breda (de harde H varianten) don't have a het form natively.

Which only seems to corroborate the old suspicion the h was only put there as a hypercorrection ;o).--MWAK 07:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, (to avoid confusion ;-) with "harde H" I wasn't pointing at a variant of "het" but on the pronounciation of "houdoe", East of Breda the "H" is clearly noticable, while in the West of Brabant they say something more like "auwdoe". Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 07:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering my question about the timeline at the end of the Battle of France and so forth, and for editing the articles that had it wrong. I also had some questions about de Gaulle's Appeal of June 18; maybe you know the answer to that as well? In particular there is a discrepancy between the English and French versions of the article. See Talk:Appeal of June 18#Time zone and fr:Discuter:Appel du 18 Juin#Quel fuseau horaire?. --Mathew5000 08:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the appeal was made at 18:00 local time, 19:00 French time. So the French article is apparently simply wrong in giving a time of 22:00. I've not been able to find out which British ministers opposed for what reasons — though they were probably the obvious ones ;o).--MWAK 06:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently trying to get a Dutch military task force started, would you join us? From what I've seen on the Battle of the Netherlands article, you could most certainly provide a (more than) worthy contribution.

If you're interested, and I hope you are, please drop a note at this talk page Cheers,  Rex  16:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, but I simply lack the time to commit myself to anything.--MWAK 09:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really sure? Because the level of commitment isn't that high, and I don't think anything will be done in a hurry.  Rex  12:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure :o).--MWAK 06:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently made an article, German declaration of war against the Netherlands (May 10 1940), and I was wondering if you might want to take a look at it, maybe you can spot errors I didn't see. Rex 14:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to contribute if possible.--MWAK 07:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MWAK,

please comment on my behaviour at

[3]

Kind regards, Sarcelles 19:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have always found you to be an intelligent and constructive contributor. However I have no experience with you on the German wiki, so I don't feel qualified to judge your behavior there.--MWAK 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for contributing so much to Glorious Revolution BillMasen 14:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Being Dutch I just considered it appropriate to highlight the Dutch involvement. For some reason this aspect is often somewhat neglected ;o).--MWAK 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Add my thanks to the above - your consistent efforts are admirable on that wikipage. Cheers! Raymondwinn (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm honoured by your praise...--MWAK (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King of Germany and Rex Romanorum are really the same thing: i.e.: the emperor-elect of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The title changed over time; early on it was "King of Germany", later on "King of the Romans". I think it had to do with the fact that the King of France also clained the title "King of the Romans"; after all: Both were successors of Charlemagne who got the title from the pope in the first place. But at some point in time those sensitivities were brushed aside, and the title "King of the Romans" became the sole attribute of the Holy Roman Empire. In Holland Willem is always called Rooms Koning, the title Koning van Duitsland is never used. JdH 10:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, within a 13th century context the two concepts seem to be identical. I was mistaken in not noticing this. Thanks for the info!--MWAK 11:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MWAK. I've been greatly expanding the Munsell color system article, but I have for now commented out your couple of paragraphs of "criticism," given that they don't really seem supported by the sources, and give a very misleading impression to the reader (without balancing information explaining Munsell's tremendous influence). I think it would be worth splitting "influence" into its own section, and discussing the problems with the Munsell system's perceptual uniformity which later models tried to solve, as well as problems introduced by those later models. And it would be worth comparing Munsell to, e.g. CIECAM02. But I don't really have the expertise to do this full justice; maybe I'll try to enlist some professional color scientists to help out. Anyway, I responded to your comments on the Talk:Munsell color system page. Maybe you'd like toe have a look. --jacobolus (t) 00:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing it to my attention! I'll try to answer these issues on the talk page.--MWAK 06:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert this link back: *Article on DSTL/QinetiQ Chertsey and Longcross Test Track (Chobham Tank Research Centre) ? It doesn't look like a reliable source to me? --BozMo talk 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I reverted some vandalism and your edit went with it. But, regarding the wisdom of that edit, the info in the linked site seems quite accurate; also it isn't as such a "source" in relation to the article but simply something that might be of sufficient interest to the reader and relevant to the article subject. Such a link is not some sort of endorsement of the content of a site; each reader might judge for himself its validity — as you did :o).--MWAK 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MWAK, you are the only person I know who may know this: Can you help me with the deployment of the UE in French Infantry Regiments in 1940? I have the following: "Le RI normal dispose de 9 chenillettes : 6 à la C.H.R., 3 à la CRE (*). "

I take it this means each Infantry Regiment had 9 UEs, of which 6 were employed in the CHR (Resupply company?) and 3 in the CRE - what is a CRE please? Repair company perhaps?

Also: " Les RI motorisés disposent de 18 chenillettes ; 2 par CA mortiers), 6 à la CE (1 par canon de 25), 6 à la CHR."

So Mechanized Infantry Regiments had 18 UEs, but what are the sub-units? Two in a mortar platoon? 6 towing 25mm AT guns? 6 CHR (again is that a supply company) ?

Thanks a lot DMorpheus 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, DMorpheus! Why, of course I am perfectly acquainted with such basic knowledge — but for some strange reason had to look it up nevertheless ;o). It transpires that CHR means Compagnie Hors Rang, CRE Compagnie Régimentaire d'Engins and CA Compagnie d'Accompagnement. See here for further details: http://alain.adam.perso.cegetel.net/R%E9giment%20type%20NE.pdf ; the site this is part of, http://alain.adam.perso.cegetel.net/fran%E7ais4.html#bataillon_inf, will answer all conceivable questions about French army organisation in 1940 (and then some) — but beware: despite all efforts it still contains some errors, so I can't guarantee the answers given are correct :o)

Greetings, --MWAK 20:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot DMorpheus 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back from my vacation, I have started work on origin of birds again. I've rewritten the history section and I think it's now very complete. Mind critiquing it? I'm wondering in particular if it should be broken up by subheadings. Sheep81 00:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've done an excellent job! I'll add some little details ;o). Most people would probably prefer to have subheadings in a text of this length, though this doesn't conform to my personal taste.--MWAK 06:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those little tidbits, I had no idea what Heilmann's work was titled in Danish! I've added some subheadings to kind of break up the text a little bit. Had to split one paragraph to make it work. Dinoguy2 suggested adding some more information on other authors who supported the thecodont hypothesis pre-Ostrom. Does that book you referenced happen to have any examples (I'm thinking major guys like Romer, Simpson, etc.) You can let me know or just add it in if it does. Thanks!! Sheep81 07:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book doesn't cover these subjects. It's only a work of popular science — but for that very reason useful as a higher level reference. The issue is as such very important, because the fact that researchers between 1926 and 1973 described the likely bird ancestors as "thecodonts" is misleading. It should be remembered that the Dinosauria were at the time considered to be a paraphyletic group and (or: because) many thought birds were more closely related to the Saurischia than to the Ornithischia. This means that in modern cladistic terms they considered birds to be the sistergroup of Eusaurischia, as "basal" saurischian dinosaurs! I'll try to find some good references. --MWAK 06:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble with this user on the Battle of france page. I see you have had trouble with him yourself. Can we do something about him?Dapi89 21:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate this "maybe we can down him together" effort of your's, especially because you say, "I see you have had trouble with him yourself.", while I cannot think of such, a conclusion to which I came upon checking his edit history for this year. The only problem in the article which involves you and me at the moment is that you persist with your view. The fact that Italy as a country could have been better prepeared for World War II is irrelevant to this case. The reason for the Italian invasion of southern France not getting far is because the Italian Army Group West (as a side note, even if Italy's economy and so on would have been prepeared for the war, it would not have helped in this case if time is not given for your army, which is supposed to invade another country, to organize and plan properly for this particular invasion.) had very little time to prepeare for the invasion. Mussolini quite literally ordered it to attack without warning time, givng very little time for wider planning and organizing. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 04:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but obviously if the general Italian preparedness had been better, the short preparation time would have been less detrimental — and indeed the Italian army was in a low state of operational readiness just because the commanders didn't expect to make a short effort given the general poor preparedness. So there are clear causal connections between the two, pointed out by several writers.--MWAK 04:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree fully. In any case one would have to give at least some time for the invading army for an invasion, not Mussolini's time when he decided to invade southern France. Even if Mussolini had noted earlier (do not take the form very seriously) "Hey, peeps! I have a feeling that I might declare a war in short time, so get ready!", you would not get an army that would be prepeared for particular invasion. Thefore, if Mussolini had given time for the army, the invasion could have gone better, even with Italy's situation in June 1940. This is why I belive that the current version; "Adding to this grave situation, Italy declared war on France and Britain on 10 June, but made little impact during the fighting's last twelve days as the Italian army in Northern Italy did not have enough time to prepeare for the attack before being ordered to advance by Mussolini. Mussolini was aware of this and sought to profit from the Germans successes" is better. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 04:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt, No way. I have never POV pushed. This is not Pov it was sourced. Its impossible to have a POV on this situation as it is an accepted fact that the Italians were unprepared. The sentence you suggest is a mouth full and the one you replaced is short and to the point. The arguement is not about whether the Italians were unprepared or not. Unless your prepared to go into great detail, which I am, on the page about the state of the armed forces, a very short discription is all that needs to be there.

Secondly this user has discussed you before - check this talk page under Hello check this out heading. Dapi89 09:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Firstly, let me emphasize what I said under that heading was meant to support Kurt, even though my analysis of the way he functions on Wikipedia may seem very harsh. I hope he can understand I was at the time using rhetoric to make my point more clear: that however negatively we may think of him, his shortcomings are simply those shared by everyone. As regards the issue at hand, perhaps it's good to realise that the Italian army was given a certain preparation time, as there was a gap of over nine days between the declaration of war and the actual beginning of the offensive. Also there is a simple solution to the problem: simply mentioning both aspects!--MWAK 11:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your great work on the Tjerk Hiddes de Vries-article; you greatly improved it! 84.87.138.105 10:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :o).--MWAK 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, wie du sehen kannst habe ich eine englische Version der Karte eingestellt. Die andere Karte war absolut ungeeignet, weil darauf die mordernen Staatsgrenzen eingezeichnet sind. Der deutsche Artikel dazu kandidiert übrigens seit gestern als Exzellenter Artikel. Vielleicht möchtest du dort auch stimmen. Bis später, --Memnon335bc 21:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adapting your map! But I don't think the other map is unsuitable: it has the advantage of showing the Bergen site also and providing a more general geographical context. For us the location is of course at once obvious; for someone in China it might well not be. Why not use both maps? The more maps the merrier :o)!--MWAK 07:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is hardly to follow. The map also doesn't show the African theatre as well as the West Indies or the far East, althrough there were fighting, too. But what it does show is the wrong borders of the states, for they are after WW2. (someone from China might not relise that ...) If it had shown Europe in 1665 I'd not complained, but the way, it was, it was simply wrong. And we don't want an article to provide wrong information, do we? --Memnon335bc 08:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memnon335bc (talk • contribs)

Indeed: a map of the entire world would be even better. But as long as we don't have one, this one is still quite useful. That the modern borders are shown, is a minor imperfection. He who knows of it, might be annoyed; but the ignorant will be mainly interested in the naval battles.--MWAK 11:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made a change from Pepys' to Pepys's on the Medway raid article. I am interested to know why you made this choice - The City of Rochester Society publication is consistent in using Pepys' while the Magdelen college Camb site uses Pepys's. The Wikipedia article on Samual Pepys uses both. ClemRutter 23:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply applied the convention that s' is reserved for the plural genitive and s's is used for the singular genitive. Wouldn't it also be pronounced as "Peepses"?--MWAK 07:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only grammar book Thompson and Martinet, A Practical English Grammar- OUP 1960 ISBN 0 19 431323 9, is not conclusive. On page 9 para 10.2 Possessive case it says:

A simple apostrophe (') is used with plural naouns ending in s: the girls' school

Classical names ending in s and also some less common English names add only the apostrophe: Archimedes' Law, Hercules' Club, Keats' Poetry

So there we have it- decisively inconclusive.

on the pronunciation issue- I do say "Peeps" not "Peepses" but that is hardly a good test- round here in the land of the "Glo'al Stop" near "Landn" it would be "Pee's". —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, should we not not reason like this: "As a general rule for the singular s's is used. There are however some exceptions, such as classical and some uncommon names. We are uncertain whether "Pepys" qualifies as such an uncommon name. Therefore the general rule applies and "Pepys's" is correct"?--MWAK 11:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, no. There is a description on Apostrophe 1.1.2 that makes interesting reading- but when it comes down to it the Guardian jumps one way and the Independant the other. The case that of St James'Park (London) and St James's Park (Newcastle) which do have established spellings, is cited while in the States with 3 exceptions all geographical names ommit the case ending and would be St James park. In Medway we do have a road Pepys Way. Jesus's name is spelt that way in the King James's Bible but, it is Jesus' name that is used in the New English Bible. So I use the WP:Life's too short principle.ClemRutter 11:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we are forced to make a real choice. Then perhaps we would best honour Pepys by considering his name as sufficiently exceptional to warrant Pepys' :o).--MWAK 13:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a fantastic editing session- I enjoyed reading it. Do you have the citation, could you add the <.ref> <./ref>.ClemRutter 11:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't ended yet; I merely took a break to fulfil my religious and alimentary duties :o). I'll also give a reference.--MWAK 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I, Major Bonkers hereby award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for your excellent work on Holmes's Bonfire.

--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll (tirelessly :o) expand it somewhat further.--MWAK 09:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This must be the greatest ever naval victory, in terms of number of ships sunk and/or economic loss caused(?), especially when viewed against the negligable English losses. Interestingly, when I was at school, we were all taught that the Second Anglo-Dutch war was a stalemate which ended in the humiliation of the Medway Raid. However, I believe that there is a good case for saying that the war itself, largely due to this action, was an English victory. The four Anglo-Dutch wars were primarily aimed at degrading/ destroying Dutch commercial maritime supremacy, and in this they succeeded. My background is insurance, and even today a loss like this would be catastrophic: I suspect that this raid had equally catastrophic results, possibly/ probably even pushing the Dutch economy into a recession.--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I presume some sea battles in Antiquity exceeded this event in scope. In The Netherlands children are taught the "Second English War" was a great Dutch victory :o). It all depends on the criteria. Their short-term war aims were not attained, so in this respect the English lost. It is certainly true the war grievously hurt the Dutch economy. But then it hurt the English even more — apart from the Plague and the Fire, they lost more merchantmen in absolute terms to privateering, while having a much smaller fleet — and the Dutch economy soon recovered. Losses to the Dutch mercantile fleet combined with loss of trade profits amounted to about fifty million guilders; export of fish and home-made goods also sharply declined; 42 million guilders were spent on the Navy. British naval expenses were about the same, perhaps slightly more, depending on the estimate of the exchange ratio between the respective currencies. Their economic losses were more severe in absolute terms at about twenty million pounds (120-170 million guilders); then again, having a larger agricultural base, they were less vulnerable to trade losses. Whether the wars had any long-term effects is a hotly contested topic among historians. The truth is, we simply do not have sufficient data to decide these issues. It has been argued that English maritime ascendancy was caused by those shoals; Dutch merchantmen could not be made large enough to remain competitive in the 18th century :o).--MWAK 08:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of my academic interests used to be in the 'insurance cycle' and correlating it to the stock market cycle (of boom and bust). By and large there was no correlation (in fact, a negative correlation) until you got extraordinarily destructive catastrophes (such as the Great Storm of 1987 and the Collapse of the World Trade Center) where the extent of the loss requires insurers to sell their assets (invested in the stock market) into a declining market (thus driving it lower in an ever-intensifying spiral). I very much suspect that you might have seen something similar with this loss; it would have been so disastrous as to bring down the economy with it. Regarding battles, both Salamis (allegedly) and Lepanto had greater loss of ships - Lepanto costing the Turks 137 vessels - so Holmes's Bonfire must be up there in the Lepanto class! However, these ships were, of course, battle vessels as opposed to trading vessels. Vessels such as the Batavia were extremely well constructed, and, therefore, expensive. The other problem was replacing them: when the British fired the Toulon dockyards in the Napoleonic Wars, the major casualty was not the loss of shipping but the loss of raw materials (primarily oak), which took years to replace.

In short, I expect that the loss of this shipping caused a wider stock-market crash and brought down various traders, insurers, etc. who were over-exposed. Replacing the shipping lost might have taken - say - 25 years. Given that the Dutch were in a race with the English for commercial shipping, this loss would have put them on the back foot to such an extent that they were never practically able to recover. Alas, this is all 'original research' and not allowed to be included in the article!

Incidentally, on the assumption that you are Dutch, this picture (right) was recently on show in London at the National Gallery - mention was made in the catalogue of the exhibition to the frame, which was not brought over, and apparently is a masterpiece of rococco design, featuring anchors and other naval motifs. Any chance of being able to upload a picture?!--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Holmes's Bonfire, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm Dutch :o). Six exemplars of the painting were originally made by Bol, one for each of the six Admiralty offices (in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Middelburg, Harlingen, Enkhuizen en Hoorn, the Northern Quarter having two offices due to a rivalry between the last two cities). Three are still extant in The Netherlands, in the Mauritshuis, in Hoorn and in Amsterdam; one is at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich. The baroque frames are indeed gorgeous; alas, it is forbidden to use flashlights to photograph them! I'll see what I can do with a high sensitive mode on a digital camera...

As regards the effects of the raid on the Dutch economy, it's hard to say whether it had a long-term impact. Certainly it wouldn't as such have taken 25 years to replace the ships lost. The loss represented less than a quarter of merchantmen losses during the war — and these were less than 10% of the mercantile fleet, which of course was huge. And again, relative British losses were higher. Most writers seem to assume the Dutch economy had fully recovered by the time of the next war in 1672.--MWAK 09:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your 'DYK' success! I've looked up the picture in my catalogue of the show, and there (p.77) is a full-page photograph of the picture with frame! I'll try to scan and upload it later. According to the catalogue, only the Mauritshuis picture retains its original frame. You are aware that the ship portrait in the background, De Zeven Provinciën, is by Willem van de Velde the Younger?

I'm not sure quite how long it took to build a sailing vessel - certainly not shorter than two years, I'd have thought, and probably up to five. The raw materials were sourced from all over Europe (which is why, 150 years later, the British went to war with the Danes). Indeed, the English word 'spruce' (which was used for masts) derives from the Polish 'z Prus' (literally: 'from Prussia').--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your rhetorical question. Yes thats about right. HMS Valiant (1759) which is featured in the Chatham Historic Dockyard Wooden Walls exhibition took 26 months from ordering to launch. While HMS Montagu (1779) took a month from launch to sea ready. Chatham was quick when it needed to be- I suspect that a repeat order, that could use the same moulds could shave a couple of months off of that time- making it posssible to have a sea ready vessel in under twenty four months. ClemRutter 11:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but one of the reasons for Dutch maritime dominance in the 17th century was that their wharfs were a lot more efficient than those of the competition. De Ruyter's flagship De Zeven Provinciën was built in less than eight months (ordered 11 December 1664, launched 29 July 1665), despite the fact that 47 other capital ships were under construction at the same time. Due to a severe winter the real work was only commenced in March and the States-General were much displeased by what they saw as a slow delivery. An average fluyt would be built in less than three months. Sometimes ships would be lost because the oak hadn't sufficiently dried and warped at full sea...--MWAK 13:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Van de Velde background used the theme of this drawing by Van de Velde the Elder: ; but we now know this drawing was originally of the Vrijheid and then changed and renamed. Sometimes painters use pre-fab parts too, just as Dutch wharfs :o).--MWAK 13:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! My scanner (an A4 model) is just marginally too small to fit the image on! I'll have to go to a copy shop to get an A3 image. In the meantime... .--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can from the version history see that you are one of the main contributors to the Char 2C article. The text mentions some "tank scandals" that this tank was involved with, also, there are references to some similar scandal in the United States in 1944. What scandals are these? --MoRsE (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the American scandal was the fact that the Sherman hadn't been replaced with a more powerful tank, alternatively been upgraded sufficiently, in time for the Invasion, so that American tankers had to fight Panther and Tiger undergunned and underarmoured. Big row about it in Congress.

The nature of the British scandal of that time can be understood from the content of David Fletcher's work Great Tank Scandal: it has the entire British WWII tank development as its subject...--MWAK (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for clarifying to me. :) --MoRsE (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya — I noticed your edit uses the abbreviation ZH, with which I'm unfamiliar — could you please clue me up? DBD 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In full it is the Dutch phrase Zijne Hoogheid, "His Highness". This was the familiar honorific for the Princes of Orange. It might be spelled in many variants in teh 17th century, e.g. Syne Hooghheit was also possible. For females it would be Hare Hoogheid.--MWAK (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in an English article, we use translated/transliterated forms, in this case, His Highness, abbreviated to HH, as it was before you changed it, so I hope you won't mind if I revert — P.S. it's more usual to reply on the other user's talk page DBD 18:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had overlooked the title was given in English :oS. And it is indeed more usual — but also making it much more difficult to reread the discussion!--MWAK (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would like your input on the article structure I have developed for the series of articles dealing with Eastern Front operations. I am particularly concerned with the introduction section vs the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph is supposed to be a brief summary of the entire article, but I have found way too much information inserted in them in other articles, duplicating information in 'campaign boxes' and repeated in the introductions that follow Contents.

Below is a suggested standard structure for article taxonomy based more on the military terminology, and incorporating a way of describing an event that follows a more military event structure.

• ‘’’Introductory briefing’’’ (unnamed) – a short, one paragraph of no more then seven average length sentences, description of the article addressing the question when, where, who, why, larger context, significance, and outcome.) Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Describing conflicts would be helpful here.

+Contents (here)

• Role in the conflict – describes role of the event in the larger conflict. A war also has a context in a larger conflict since it usually evolves from non-armed forms of conflict such as social, cultural, political and economic conflicts.

• • Campaign situation – this describes the event in terms of a war's theatre campaign.
  • Strategic situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the campaign where an operation is the event
  • Operation situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the operation where a battle is the event
  • Battle situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the battle where an event describes a part of a tactical battle

• Decision making – after assessment of the situation comes the decision-making process that seeks to change the existing situation through securing of initiative by offensive action.

• • Goal of the operation – to change the situation one needs a situational change goal
  • Objective of the battle – at the tactical level the goal is called an objective
  • Side A intelligence – the first step is to gather understanding by the attacked (A) of the defender’s (D) capacity to resist
  • Side D intelligence – usually anyone suspicious of an attack will also gather intelligence on the likelihood of an impending attack

• Planning – after the intelligence is gathered, planning starts

• • Side A – description of planning should begin with a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
    • Forces involved – organisation of forces and their structural description (in modern times described as tables of equipment of organisation and equipment) need to be given
  • Side D
    • Forces involved

• Description of the Campaign/Strategic operation/operation/battle – this is the core part of the article. All military events have phased sequence that can be divided into:

• • Initial attack – describes initial execution of the plan
  • Progress of the offensive – describes success or failure of the plan
  • Decisive action – describes the instance when the plan has the greatest chance of success or failure, or the attempt to correct the divergence from the plan
  • Final commitment – any attempts to secure success or prevent failure of the plan
  • Outcomes – comparison of end result with the planned result of the event plan

• Consequences – the impact of the outcomes on events that follow, but which are not part of the above-described plan

• • Immediate effects – immediate effects that include changes in a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
  • Effects on future planning – describe effects on the planning in the larger scope of events

• Myths – often popular rendition or beliefs about the event that are either partly or completely false, or presented for the purpose of propaganda
• Memorials – a means of post event commemoration of the event
• Popular culture – depiction of the event in popular culture and media
• References – page reference in an authoritative source used to research the article content
• Footnotes – explanatory notes for points made in the article
• Bibliography – sources used for the compilation of research on the article
• See also – other Wikipedia articles related to the event
• Online resources – other online sites that relate to the event or its larger context
• Further reading – other sources not used for the research of the article but recommended to the reader

The purpose of the article structure suggested above is not to straight-jacket the authors and editors, but to enhance consistency of presentation throughout the project’s assortment of articles to the reader, and to enable the future editors to be more focused in the editing process by providing more focused sections in the article structure. Thank you--mrg3105mrg3105 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly many a user would have enhanced the quality of his contributions, had he but been guided by these rules :o). As long as they are indeed applied as guidelines and not as strict prescripts, they should work just fine. As regards the lead sections: yes, they are sometimes too long, containing too much information. However, the lead sections serve as abstracts of the main text, allowing the reader to be informed of the essence of the subject. If that subject is complicated, it might be necessary to make them quite a bit longer than seven sentences. The battleboxes are a mere extra — to be frank, their main purpose of being is esthetic. Ideally most of the information shown there should also be present in the main text.

There are a few points in which, I believe, your proposed structure is still wanting:

1. The structure is strictly hierarchical. That might make it too rigid. For example, you rightly indicate that wars take place within a sociopolitical context. However, this context will have its influences on all levels. Someone writing according to these guidelines might be tempted to mention the political aspects in a single sentence and then limit himself to more technical military aspects on a lower level. This might make it impossible to render the subject with the correct coherency. Especially on the Eastern Front decision-making was highly politicised, Hitler of course being infamous for micromanaging even the smallest units.
2. The way you present the military process is highly normative: one has goals, gathers the intelligence, makes decisions and plans accordingly. Now it is indeed a useful tool to analyse any actual event along this normative structure, but it should be kept in mind that these phases are mere idealisations. In reality all these processes take place synchronously and writing along normative lines might prevent a correct descriptive account — or worse, lead to improper value judgements (though there are also proper value judgments to make :o).
3. A final point I've pointed out to you before: it is not desirable to limit ourselves to the goals, intelligence, decisions, planning and operational action of the attacker. The defender too aspires, gathers information, resolves, prepares and handles his forces in action and his side of events is not in some way made less important by the mere fact that he will not start the battle. Now I'm not sure whether your structure does contain such a limitation, but I couldn't help noticing the Side A rules are a lot longer then those to be implemented for Side D ;o).

Greetings,--MWAK (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings indeed MWAK :o)

How's the wife and kids?

In any case, thank you for your comments. I may be unjustifiably strict, but I think that the author must exercise discipline in the introduction section and leave something for the reader to want to read on to. In the age of short attention span, learning everything from the introduction section of the article is not what encyclopedia writing is about IMHO :o)

I appreciate point 1. Also, I can not tell the authors or editors what to write! If the event warrants describing issues other then military, and at strategic level most did, then they need to research and incorporate that as part of the event article. Example, Hitler removes a field officer from command as a result of a reverse in fortunes. I can not force the author to elaborate on the sub-event, but I hope that some enterprising editor will do so eventually.

Point 2 is actually an issue of article format and not structure. It seems to me that use of columns to show the simultaneity of the various processes would be an advantage in understanding. The structure need not be hierarchical, or normative, but it simply asks the writer to conform to the general look-and-feel of the rest of the subject area and keep the reader in mind who may have interests outside of 'their' article.

The 'rules' for A are only explanations what I think should go there as a must, and is obviously not exhaustive to leave as much freedom for the author as possible (some minimum parameters are required in any design). I was too lazy to paste them for D with the expected understanding that same applies to both. Maybe I should have pasted after all. The only reason A's perspective comes first is because of the all-important initiative, and the factor of surprise, a factor that defined Eastern Front from start to finish (see Glantz, Soviet military deception in the Second World War). Of course this part is almost completely neglected, and is non-existent in most extant articles, which is maybe why you have this impression of impropriety of the attacker POV. In time my friend I hope that I will be able to bring out this factor to the fore in the articles, and it will become obvious that initiative in war is everything. I remain adamant that the baseline for article narrative perspective must be from the POV of the attacker. This is quite different from the WP:NPOV concept, and is probably closer to the literary concept of character creation, and indeed there are more 'characters' in a military operation then A and D. However, some baseline for narration has to be adopted by the author. If no consistent baseline is available then there is a distinct possibility for a WP:NPOV occurring, and this has already occurred in several articles, such as my most recent 'battle' to rename the Yassy-Kishinev operation.

In any case, I will see what others have to say, and try to reach consensus. I strongly believe that an encyclopaedia needs to have a consistent approach to content presentation. How that content is written is of course up to the editors :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 09:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Wikipedians are all one happy family. Never noticed this ;o)? My main objection against writing from the point of view of the attacker is not that it is POV (though it might well be for a particular case) but that it is simply inadequate. Of course, when the attacker manages to hold the strategic initiative, any correct description will naturally take the form of a series of actions by the attacker and reactions by the defender. And in the end we may judge whether the results have lived up to the expectations. But suppose, mirabile dictu, that the Soviet defence plan had worked in 1941. The German armoured spearheads cut off and destroyed, Army Group South obliterated, the Soviet left wing swinging through Poland to crush the blocked Army Groups North and Centre. Should we still give primacy to the point of view of the attacker? Or should we perhaps say: "Wait a minute. Things have gone seriously wrong here. This is no longer Operation Barbarossa"? No: it would still be an Operation Barbarossa but one in which it would be natural to describe most of the events as a series of actions by the original defender and reactions by the original attacker. And in the end we may judge whether the results have lived up to the expectations. Of both sides of course, just as in the first case.--MWAK (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't look in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Describing conflicts, did you? :o) I accept that the outcomes of a campaign, operation or a battle, and indeed the entire war could be in complete opposite to attacker's plans. Never the less, the perspective would still remain that of the attacker as the initiator of the conflict. I just see no other way to have an NPOV in narration that can be consistently applied to the entire series of articles.--mrg3105mrg3105 12:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had already noticed such an outcome could be described as an "utter failure" from the perspective of the attacker :o) (although I'm uncertain what real meaning the percentages could have) but such cases demand even more that the perspective of the defender is given too. This is simply a matter of completeness and adequacy. Unless "taking the perpective of the attacker" simply means we give the attacker the rôle of the attacker, but that is trivial. We cannot describe the defender's actions as if they were mere obstacles to the attainment of the attacker's goals: the defender has goals too. They need to be described. They cannot be adequately described unless their effect on the battle is given. That effect is the result of the defender's strategic, operational and tactical handling of the campaign (his "perspective"), the same kind of goal-directed process the attacker is involved in. The outcome of the campaign is the result of the interaction of both processes.--MWAK (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it seems to me that you misunderstood the point here (is it possible?!). The structure is only a guide. The guide simply attempts to imbue the articles with some degree of impartiality given the prevalence of POV I have found throughout the Eastern Front articles. By forcing the author/editor to always contribute from the POV of the attacker the author/editor has no choice but to adopt a POV independent of the personal POV. This approach simply creates either a "level-field", or a very sloped one if the author chooses to write from attacker's POV completely, as you fear. If this happens, it becomes very obvious, as for example with the Battle of Narva articles which Mr.Wilson is hopefully going to rewrite. I can't think of any other way to force the author's editors to present a NPOV account of the event. What is your suggestion?--mrg3105mrg3105 09:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might the prejudiced editor not be simply confirmed in his bias — without this leading to an extreme exaggeration? My alternative is to have a baseline enforcing a balanced view directly. Of course, many contributions do not conform to this norm. The fundamental Wikipedian mechanism, that other potential editors will then get irritated and tempted to correct the bias, will have to do. Using a systematic error as the default position, seems a bit drastic :o). But I feel that your choice is influenced by the, as such understandable, desire to structure the text along an analysis of a single process, for reasons of elegance and coherency. And the attacker's enterprise then presents itself as the most logical candidate. However, history is not quite so tidy...--MWAK (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I must admit that logic had not served me well in the past. However others are making great strides in 'tidying' history. I am actually unable to find an entire town in Hungary! I can only agree that it does not take much to get editors irritated. Even aesthetics are a cause, so structure and logic have no hope whats-so ever :o) Are you working on any articles?--mrg3105mrg3105 13:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to choose such obscure subjects that nobody cares :o).--MWAK (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you may enjoy this. Soviet commanders may have had a sense of humour even in war, and perpetuated this for decades. There was a minor offensive operation in Hungary called in Russian Надьканиже-Кермендская. I had a hell of a time looking up the area because I could not find the first town. Eventually I realised that this is in fact Nagykanizsa. By changing the 'g' to a 'd', the name became Nad'kanizhe in Russian. If one says it slowly, and breaks it up, it become Nad'ka Nizhe, which in Russian means Nad'ka (a variant of the female name Nadya from Nadezhda (En-Hope)) + nizhe, en-lower. This has all sorts of funny connotations, but the funniest is that every version of the official operation maps for the Vienna offensive from Soviet times has this spelling and no one has corrected it!:o)--mrg3105mrg3105 13:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting myself to the linguistic side I would say that дь is a reasonable approximation of Magyar "gy". Not limiting myself I might add that we Dutch would never have condoned such humour; in 2003 a Calvinist broadcasting organisation carefully avoided the English transcription of a certain Iraqi city.--MWAK (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that my recent edits to the ARL 44 article have for the most part been reverted, sorry if these edits appear to be perverse, however reading the article as it now stands gives the impression of at times being very chatty and informal as if a friend was relating a tale to you rather than an article in an encyclopedia, my editing was an attempt to make it read less like a monologue and more like an article. For example the line 'Only a wooden mock-up had been completed by engineer Lavirotte' was amended because we are not told who Lavirotte was, what his relationship with the project was and there is no link to enlighten us. Think of it this way, a couple of paragraphs earlier DEFA was introduced into the article, you wouldn't dream of doing so without explaining what DEFA is, and its relationship to the project, the same should apply with Lavirotte, who appears and disappears from the article without an introduction. Another matter is that in English, unlike on the continent it is not usual to use engineer as an honorific (uncivilised as that may sound) if he or she is important enough to be named, than the name will suffice, if he's not important to be named than something like 'the engineers' or the 'engineering team' is used. For example you would never introduce someone as Engineer (insert surname) like one would Doctor (insert surname). Although I still think the article needs to become less chatty, I respect the work the ongoing editors have put into the article and I'll try and be more circumspect in my edits. Thanks for your understanding. KTo288 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even an encyclopedic article in fact is a narrative: it tells you what the state of affairs is for a given subject. If that subject is of a historical nature, the article informs you of what has happened. And if that is done in a coherent way (as it should) and if the relevant contextual setting is also related (very desirable) the text will approach normal human communicative language. Which is not such a bad thing as this is a quite effective way of information transfer. And that is what Wikipedia is all about. You should ask yourself: If the article were less coherent and contextually rich would the reader then understand the subject better after reading it? Or worse? And in fact the language is not really all that informal. I predict that on any readability index applied, it would be labelled "difficult". The "chatty" aspect — that it is quite rhetorical — is just an instrument allowing more information, ordered in more complex relations, to be absorbed.

Now the case of Mr Lavirotte shows how important context is: we like to know his full name and the precise relation he had with the project. Alas, my sources as yet have not informed me on these points (if only they had been more chatty :o). You're right in that the sentence is now, though not strictly ungrammatical, rather awkward. I'll improve it.--MWAK (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little search in my own private library made a book Maurice Lavirotte had written show up :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I write you via this way for I believe you check this account more regulary then its counter part in the German Wikipedia. I wrote a new article on about the battle. I'd like to ask you wether you could add some additional information on the topic. For example the birth year af de Bitter of de Bitter as well as the one of his death. I am also interested, if there is some Dutch account of the firefight. I could also not find any source to verify the Danish casualties or the civilian losses. I look forward to hear from you, --Memnon335bc 19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. The article is supposed to candidate soon, so please use references :-)

Ah, well, it so happens that a new Dutch book about the battle has just been published. I hadn't had the time yet to insert all the information to be found there into the article, the main reason being that it would force a very major rewrite. The present account is apparently still rather simplistic and all kinds of juicy details have to be added. Perhaps it is best to wait a bit longer with that candidacy ;o). But I'll have a look.

By the way, it's not surprsing you couldn't find the birth date of De Bitter, as it is simply unknown; but he died aboard the Hollandsche Tuyn on 15 June 1666, again on his way to the Indies.--MWAK (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I guess the article in the German Wikipedia is ready for candidate. But there are some things you may still be able to help me with. In the artice there is a table with the English ships, their captains, canon, crew and casualties. I'd like to add a similar table for the dutch ships, but a lack the names of the captains and the number of crews at least. Do you have this information in your new book? Second: I'm going to make a map of the battle (for the commons) this weekend. If you have one in your book or other material, please e-mail it to me (you get an English version in return) ([email protected]). Third: I bellieve we should provide at least some small articles about the admirals. I will do that for Teddiman, but concerning Bitter, your way better informed. Would you write some sentences about him, just the basics ? Thanks a lot, --Memnon335bc 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memnon335bc (talk • contribs)

The book contains the names of the captains, but not the crew numbers. Regarding the articles: it seems best if I'll write one of De Bitter in English, from which you can use information for a German one. My German is so bad you would need to rewrite it anyway, so...:o).--MWAK (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you could tell me the captain's names of the ships. It is better then nothing. And is there a map? I'll do the Teddiman article this weekend. --Memnon335bc 20:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memnon335bc (talk • contribs)

I've added the captains to the list in the English article. There is a map but I won't be able to send it to you; I'm suffering from rather severe technical limitations at the moment :>(. Good luck with the Teddiman article! If possible I'll write the De Bitter one today.--MWAK (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I introduced the Pieter de Bitter article in the German Wikipedia. Now, you can alsofind there an article about Sir Thomas Teddeman as well as a Map of the action of Bergen in the article itself. It would take only minutes to convert it into an English version in case you want to work over the Vagen article here, too. Cheers, --Memnon335bc 07:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memnon335bc (talk • contribs)

Yes, an English version of the map would be most welcome. I'll translate the Teddiman article.--MWAK (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here I got something for you. I started the candidature of the Bergen article in the German Wikipedia. Unfortunately our topic is not among the most populare there, so it would be fine if you could lend some support by voting for it :-) See you later, next map will be about the St. James's Day Fight. --Memnon335bc 10:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent map — and the map in the book is no better...I'll add it to the English article.--MWAK (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see the tanks at the Lugansk memorial are labeled Mk IV in the photographs at Commons, and you have described them as Mk V in the Tank Mk I talk page. Can you give evidence of why they are Mk V, so I can correct the Commons pages if necessary ? Thanks. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beter still, I have a source for it: David Fletcher, 2001, The British Tanks 1915 - 19, p. 175 states that they are Mark Vs. Couldn't have been otherwise as only Mark Vs were sent to Russia. But it's also easy to see the difference: the Mark V had ventilation grilles in the hull sides and a much larger secondary turret ("cab"). From behind the presence of a rear machine-gun is a good identification mark.--MWAK (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I've updated the Lugansk tank image pages. Another one : This image of a tank at Aberdeen Proving Ground, USA is described as a Mk V on the Tank info page (Mark_I_tank#Mark_V_2). According to you this should be described as Mk IV ? In fact the image is indeed categorised under Mk IV.

Indeed, it is a Mark IV! When the list was added, the mistake escaped me. But I remember becoming suspicious when seeing the picture — but I didn't act on it...I'll remedy.--MWAK (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another question : the nl Mk V page describes the views of the Lugansk tanks as a single hermaphrodite, shown from left and right. But the photos clearly show 2 different tanks. ??!Rcbutcher (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you learn Dutch? ;o). Yes, that is an old mistake, now one by myself. Time to correct it.--MWAK (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I learnt Afrikaans at school in South Africa, it's a dialect of Dutch plus some German - it enables me to read Dutch but I can't speak it.Rcbutcher (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[4] William Ortiz (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is Architecture of the Netherlands ;o). And Floating House. Or perhaps Flood control in the Netherl