Originally Posted by GuyontheRight

It's a misconception fuelled by Soviet propaganda that the Wehrmacht was severely mauled during Zitadelle - it wasn't. Truth is, average panzer division operational status was the highest it had been for some months even after Zitadelle had officially ended.

It was a waste in effort and operational capability. Alot more could have been accomplished for alot less. Keep in mind the Wehrmacht sacrificed tanks that could of been used to save Italy.

Of course it was. But again realise that they didn't really lose all that many tanks. Most of their losses were not in combat but due to mechanical failures as we know that the Panther and Elephant tanks were rushed into combat way too soon.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...e%20of%20Kursk

Allow me to quote from this link:

Prokhorovka

"On 12 July the Luftwaffe and artillery units bombed the Soviet positions as the SS divisions formed up. Traditionally this battle has been described like this: The German advance started and they were astonished to see masses of Soviet armor advancing towards them. What followed was the largest tank engagement ever, with over 1,500 tanks in close contact. The air forces of both countries flew overhead, but they were unable to see anything through the dust and smoke pouring out from destroyed tanks. On the ground, commanders were unable to keep track of developments and the battle rapidly degenerated into an immense number of confused and bitter small-unit actions, often at close quarters. The fighting raged on all day, and by evening the last shots were being fired as the two sides disengaged. German losses amounted to over 300 tanks with the Soviets losing a similar number.

However, this description of the battle of Prokhorovka has been proven to be the invention of Soviet propaganda. It has been depicted among other things on large mural paintings. It was a Soviet victory only in one sense, the German attack was halted. Most Soviet tanks were destroyed by the Germans at long range, and relatively few were involved in short range exchanges of fire. German losses were actually relatively few and for most of the day they were fighting in good order. The Soviet losses were 322 tanks, of which more than half beyond repair, more than 1000 dead and an additional 2500 missing or wounded. German losses were less than 20% of that. The Germans had however planned to be on the offensive that day, and because of the Red Army attack their advance had been halted."

They *really* should have listened to Manstein and adopted his backhand plan. IMO it would have worked as it utlized the Wehrmacht's greatest strengths, that being of mobility and far greater tactical skill. Manstein was nothing short of a genius and probably the best Field Marshall in modern warfare.

Hey Dopplegagner, this may be a little off topic, but have you read Alan Clarke Barbarossa? This is really the only account of the eastern Front Ive had, and of course it was written in '65, so Ive been worried it's been plaugued by Propiganda (For instance, their is no mention of the Operation Mars).

Originally Posted by GuyontheRight

Hey Dopplegagner, this may be a little off topic, but have you read Alan Clarke Barbarossa? This is really the only account of the eastern Front Ive had, and of course it was written in '65, so Ive been worried it's been plaugued by Propiganda (For instance, their is no mention of the Operation Mars).

I haven't but I suspect being written back then it will have some inaccuracies. I don't think there's any one book that gives an absolute objective view of Barbarossa. Operation Mars tends to be 'forgotten' by any official Soviet accounts and by sympathetic authors. It was a massive defeat for the Red Army and IMO tarnishes the legacy of Zhukov. This is quite a good link about here:

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/ba...ttle12_04.html

I haven't but I suspect being written back then it will have some inaccuracies. I don't think there's any one book that gives an absolute objective view of Barbarossa. Operation Mars tends to be 'forgotten' by any official Soviet accounts and by sympathetic authors. It was a massive defeat for the Red Army and IMO tarnishes the legacy of Zhukov.

Yea Ive also read Zhukov's Greatest Defeat by Mr. David M. Glantz and it really opened my eyes to the "unknown" hisotry of the Eastern Front.

Its so sad really. The war was won or lost on the Eastern Front, in fact, that was where the REAL World War II WAS .... but there is so little credibility in any Soviet account that you're left only knowing one thing for certain: The Red Army won in the end.

I never have judged Zukov to be the Superman that he is often made out to be. In the end, virtually every battle seemed to kill more Russians than Germans, all he had to win with was superior numbers. Based on the proportion of his losses compared to opposing German forces, if Zukov was a brilliant leader, then Ulyssus S Grant (while fighting Lee) was an unparalleled genius by comparison. Still, the man and his fellows did what nobody before them seemed capable of doing: Stopping the Germans.

Luckily, the German accounts of the whole affair somehow seem to be a bit more reliable source for statistics, kills etc, at least for those details where an accurate count could be gotten by the Germans. Yeah, Barbarossa is an excellent example of the Soviets modifying their losses. German tallies were a minimum of 15,000 Russian tanks killed and at least 12,000 Russian combat aircraft destroyed. I believe it was approximately 9 million Russian soldiers taken prisoner that year. Considering that because there was Russian Army, tanks and aircraft left over, and that Germany invaded with tiny fractions of those numbers, we quickly learn how frighteningly one-sided Barbarossa really was, and how enormous the Red Army really was. We also can see why the Soviet Union would never dare admit their actual losses.

The turning point of the war is when germany attacked the USSR (operation barbarossa).
I think so because:
If the USSR would have joind Germany than the UK and USA won't stand a chance against the Axis powers.
(Germany=large army with the most advanced technology for that time and a large airforce+ USSR=The most powerful nation with the biggest army that will fight till the last man and good techology and a large airforce+ Italy=a pretty big army with good techology+ Japan=great naval power, good techology and a large army that will fight till the last man, even make suiced attacks and a large airforce vs UK=large army with good techology and great naval power+ USA=large army with good techology and the biggest naval power and a large airforce+ China=very large army with good technology).
these are the main military powers in ww2 (i know that there are more: astralia and countries that where under axises controll like: poland and france)
and even if USSR would reimain nutrall, the allies would still have a very hard time defeting Germany, because thn Germany could focus it's military on the western front.
Thanks god the Allies won!

Italy=a pretty big army with good techology

As much as it pains me to say this (I have alot of Italian pride) Iralians cant fight for anything. The Army of Mussolini was horribly motivated and usless. Furhtermore their capacity to manufacture weapons was extremly limited. The only reason italy joined Germany was because Mussolini was scared of being knocked off the world stage.

Originally Posted by GuyontheRight

Italy=a pretty big army with good techology

As much as it pains me to say this (I have alot of Italian pride) Iralians cant fight for anything. The Army of Mussolini was horribly motivated and usless. Furhtermore their capacity to manufacture weapons was extremly limited. The only reason italy joined Germany was because Mussolini was scared of being knocked off the world stage.

Italy got a lot of weapons from germany, thats why I said they had good techology.

They didn't have a large army but a pretty big army.
and even without Italy USA and UK won't be able to stand a chance agains Germany, Japan and USSR (if USSR joined the axis).
Any way what i ment to say is that the turning point of the war was when the USSR started pushing the German army back to Berlin.

Alright I am back LOL. I finally got electronic rights back so I can post again. I completed basic training in July and I am currently in AIT at Ft Huachua.......


Anyway on the subject of WW2, I believe the US and UK could have brought a Berlin, Moscow, & Tokyo axis to their knees. American Industrial production exceeding that of total of these 3 countries combined. America had more staying power plus 2 oceans protecting the heartland.

Welcome back panzer