User talk:Tempsperdue

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Tempsperdue! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 16:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

references[edit]

Use references. This is an encyclopedia, so remember to include references listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information.Moxy (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawker Typhoon[edit]

While I have no problems with some of your additions - although one or two examples of over-claiming are sufficient, not several - could you please make more of an effort to use the proper format for citations and add referenced books to the bibliography? Thanks ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 01:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well I think it is important that for every number of kills claimed that is in the article a verifiable source be used. And this is what I did for Goodwood and Mortain. I also added the overall numbers, as best as I could find, for the Normandy Campaign to put all the claimed kills in perspective.

Part of the problem with air attacks is that they simply weren't that effective in ww2 using fighter bombers and unguided munitions against armoured or dug in targets!

Your use of references also need to be improved as it causes a lot of additional cleanup. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This is an article about the Hawker Typhoon, not a specialised opinion piece on the effectiveness of aerial GA during WW 2 - as Thomas notes there were two sides to the story; sure, the the Typhoon pilots overclaimed on the numbers of AFVs actually destroyed, but the effects of the GA sorties against "soft skins", open topped AP carriers and horse drawn vehicles used by the German armed forces was devastating, and was enough to halt the attack at Mortain with tanks and other AFVs being abandoned because of the attacks or because they ran out of fuel and ammunition. Fact is the Typhoon attacks were effective, as witnessed by all those who saw the battlefields afterwards. "A referenced discussion of the above is warranted for combat effectiveness." Not in an article such as this, because all that will happen is that it will become a long, tedious debate which will never end as other editors add their referenced opinions. One or two examples of AFV casualty figures v Typhoon claims is enough to make a point. Once again, when adding references could you please stick to the format used throughout the article and, when adding books to the Bibliography, as you should have done, please ensure you again follow the correct format, not forgettto add the ISBN No where applicable - why should others have to spend so much time cleaning up after you? ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 10:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, apologies about the citations/references, I have tried to clean them up/reference them properly. Secondly, where possible in the data I referenced I specifically looked for tanks and or AFVS and stated such. I did not try to create further confusion regarding soft skinned vehicles,or the effectiveness of the typhoon against them, etc...all this is clearly stated in the article. I was merely countering the claims of tanks destroyed and that ww2 fighter-bombers were effective against fully track AFVS (aka tanks). Otherwise the reader is left with the impression that the Typhoon suffered NO casualties and was effective against all forms of ground attack, when it and other fighter bombers clearly had difficulty against moving armoured or dug in AA defended targets! And as such I believe that a section is needed on the difficulty of ANY FIGHT-BOMBER (FW 190, typhoon, P47, Il-2) to hit an armoured moving target with unguided munitions in ww2!Tempsperdue (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T-34[edit]

Please read the article talk page for the reasons why I removed the section of text which you have just re-added. Reply there. (Hohum ^@) 16:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded in talk and also removed the offending conjecture.Tempsperdue (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T-34 again[edit]

Hi. I see a problem with providing the stats such as "the Soviets lost an average of X tanks for every Y German tanks lost" for the early time of the war. I'm worried that a less-knowledgeable reader would immediately infer that it is historically relevant. Even worse, the reader would start to imagine that Barbarossa was some giant tank-to-tank operation, where X tanks charged Y tanks, and vice versa. Don't you think the reality was something more closer to: "in the time Soviets lost X tanks abandoned during rapid maneuvers or lost to German infantry's ATGs, in the exact same time span, statistically, Germans lost one tank to Soviet infantry's ATGs".

Well, still, is this ratio relevant at all? Why? If Soviet side was falling back at a constant alarming speed, does it matter how many tanks they lost in various counter-offensive attempts or in mechanical breakdowns or in movements? Let's have an extreme thought experiment. If the metric would be zero Soviet tanks lost per one German tank lost, which is mathematically "phenomenally good", how would it change your picture of the 1941? Or how would it change the opinion on T-34? Would it mean the Soviets were doing "better" at large? Or "worse"? After all, they were losing their land, their industry, their people, so how they would do "better" because they lost zero tanks?

What I'm trying to say, if there is a boxing match, it doesn't matter how many knuckles of each player were hurt. It doesn't say anything relevant about the match, does it? --Kubanczyk (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]