Talk:Battle of Kursk

Total Casualties (killed and general casualties)

While I understand the worries that some may have about going off of the inconsistent sources we have on casualties, I really feel like most readers would not like to see a messy wall of text without any way of quickly skimming overall info from. Troopersho (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

It's also confusing when you compare to the total strength numbers. Do many historians really believe that half of the German participants were casualties? If this is a fringe view (or if it is always accompanied by higher strength estimates), it shouldn't be presented as an equally likely alternative. Ornilnas (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Russian liars write about German's loss of 400,000 people in the Battle of Kursk. It is strange that in the English-language Wikipedia the size of German losses on the basis of nationalist Russian-language sources.Vaclaw1990 (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a little bit since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. I also noticed that the article is over 13,000 words, far more than the recommended amount at WP:SS. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The lie about 26% of Soviet losses in the Battle of Kursk being sick

I couldn't find the book "Soviet Health Care and Military Medicine in the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945" by N. Ivanov, A. Georgievsky, and O. Lobastov anywhere on the internet in open access. An unknown forger, citing this book, indicated that the sanitary losses of Soviet troops in the Battle of Kursk were 26%. This book was published in 1985, at which time Soviet losses in the Battle of Kursk were classified. Therefore, this book simply cannot indicate 26% as sick in the Battle of Kursk Moreover, Soviet losses were first published in Krivosheev's book in 1993, and Soviet sanitary losses according Krivosheev for 1943 were 8-10%. Therefore, I consider the reference to a certain 1985 book, which no one has reviewed, to be simply a falsification, since we cannot verify what is actually written there. Moreover, it contradicts Krivosheev's later book.--Vaclaw1990 (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Battle of Kursk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Two weeks and the issues with this article remain. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Some uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Several sections are too long and detailed, making them hard to read on mobile. Typically I usually recommend 2-4 paragraphs before a section heading, and some of the longer sections would benefit from being summarised more effectively (especially because the article is very long, at over 13,000 words). Z1720 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the above assessment. I would consider spinning off the casualties section and using tighter summary style in other areas to keep it more concise. (t · c) buIdhe 02:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delist. While there was a large edit on March 21, there hasn't been a consistent effort or indication from editors that they hope to resolve concerns. Work seems to have stalled. Z1720 (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.