KursK

[lundin]

Kursk, germany vs. russia in probably the biggest tank battle ever. so much has been written about it, and so much of it is wrong. for the longest time historians thought that it was a complete german disaster, when in really the germans where on the verge of victory when hitler called of the offensive to send troops to italy. any thoughts or insight onto this particular battle?

 

[godofthunder9010]

Personally, I believe that the advice of Heinz Guderian ought to have been considered when he said that the offensive that lead to the Battle of Kursk should have simply been called off and the years primary offensive focussed elsewhere. Funny how poorly the German High Command was at listening to their best people.

Also (don't have the numbers handy) the numbers for Kursk are inflated by the Soviet version. There was also numerous problems with mechanical failure with Panthers, Elephant tanks and other new designs inflated the actual totals of German tank losses.

I think that Kursk is not a Soviet victory so much as it is probably the last chance that Germany had to seize the initiative and exploit it. After Kursk, Soviet production and numbers and a better and better led Red Army in quietly yet definitely handed over the initiative to the Soviet Union.

 

[Hegario]

If an offensive to destroy the Kursk salient had to be made, it should've been made earlier. Instead the offensive was postponed time and time again because Hitler wanted the new Panthers & Elephants on the field. Meanwhile, the Soviets had been able to fortify the salient heavily.

Kursk was not a Soviet victory in the sense of casualty rates but the Soviet warmachine was able to replenish those losses quickly, OTHO the Wehrmacht lost a lot of its newest weaponry. In the beginning it was the greatest concentration of German fighting force ever but in the end it was an army that had lost a lot of its edge.

 

[godofthunder9010]

Funny how delays cost the Germans so much in the war. Had it been launched earlier (as planned) Barbarossa would have been more successful than it was.

Had the attack on the Kursk salient occurred earlier, the operation stood to better the German position ... difficult to say how well it would have gone had it been successful.

 

[Doppleganger]

Funny how delays cost the Germans so much in the war. Had it been launched earlier (as planned) Barbarossa would have been more successful than it was.

Had the attack on the Kursk salient occurred earlier, the operation stood to better the German position ... difficult to say how well it would have gone had it been successful.

Had Operation Zitadelle (Kursk) been launched as originally planned on the 4th May 1943, the chances are that it would have been reasonably successful. It was in essence a sound plan to begin with and would have destroyed a number of Soviet armies amounting to a 5th of the Red Army's available manpower, shortened the German defensive line and have captured Kursk itself, a useful railroad hub. Trouble was Hitler delayed it time and time again because he wanted the new Panther and Elefant tanks to be involved, a fatal error as it allowed the Soviets to build up their own defences, which they did and then some.

To clear up some misconceptions about the Battle of Prokhorovka, which was long heralded as the largest tank battle in history. Unfortunately this was Soviet propaganda at work and in reality the Wehrmacht tank losses were only 20% of the Red Army's. The German panzers for the most part were able to pick of the Soviet tanks at long range, and there were only a few point-blank range engagements.

I've heard the argument that the Germans were near victory and indeed Manstein himself furiously argued with Hitler not to call off the attack. For once I actually agree with Hitler for calling it off and with the Allies landing in Sicily there was a need to divert some units to Italy.

There was an alternative plan to Kursk commonly known as Manstein's 'backhand' plan. This plan would have utilized the best elements of the German Army, namely their vastly superior tactical ability and mobility. IMO this plan would have resulted in catastrophic casualties for the Red Army, collapsing the entire southern Soviet line, possibly rolling the Soviets all the way back to Stalingrad and beyond.

 

[MadeInChina]

Had Operation Zitadelle (Kursk) been launched as originally planned on the 4th May 1943, the chances are that it would have been reasonably successful. It was in essence a sound plan to begin with and would have destroyed a number of Soviet armies amounting to a 5th of the Red Army's available manpower, shortened the German defensive line and have captured Kursk itself, a useful railroad hub. Trouble was Hitler delayed it time and time again because he wanted the new Panther and Elefant tanks to be involved, a fatal error as it allowed the Soviets to build up their own defences, which they did and then some.

To clear up some misconceptions about the Battle of Prokhorovka, which was long heralded as the largest tank battle in history. Unfortunately this was Soviet propaganda at work and in reality the Wehrmacht tank losses were only 20% of the Red Army's. The German panzers for the most part were able to pick of the Soviet tanks at long range, and there were only a few point-blank range engagements.

I've heard the argument that the Germans were near victory and indeed Manstein himself furiously argued with Hitler not to call off the attack. For once I actually agree with Hitler for calling it off and with the Allies landing in Sicily there was a need to divert some units to Italy.

There was an alternative plan to Kursk commonly known as Manstein's 'backhand' plan. This plan would have utilized the best elements of the German Army, namely their vastly superior tactical ability and mobility. IMO this plan would have resulted in catastrophic casualties for the Red Army, collapsing the entire southern Soviet line, possibly rolling the Soviets all the way back to Stalingrad and beyond.

That is also biased, how german tanks were able to pick off russian tanks from long range and no close battles happened. THis is waht happened: the soviet 5th guards tank army( some sources say its being caleld the 2nd guards tank army) had to counter attack the 4th panzerarmee because of the breech in provhovka. the soviets launched the attack without artillery support, which is a surprise for the germans also coming towards provhovka, it was indeed a close-ranged battle, however, the russians lost 50% of their tank strength in this battle, the soviets also had the help of infantry tank hunters whom destroyed some 20% of german tanks deployed at provhovka. THe german losses actually mounted to 300,000 and more than 600 tanks because they are not allowed to retreat.. In the end, another counter-offensive finished the battle

 

[Doppleganger]

Had Operation Zitadelle (Kursk) been launched as originally planned on the 4th May 1943, the chances are that it would have been reasonably successful. It was in essence a sound plan to begin with and would have destroyed a number of Soviet armies amounting to a 5th of the Red Army's available manpower, shortened the German defensive line and have captured Kursk itself, a useful railroad hub. Trouble was Hitler delayed it time and time again because he wanted the new Panther and Elefant tanks to be involved, a fatal error as it allowed the Soviets to build up their own defences, which they did and then some.

To clear up some misconceptions about the Battle of Prokhorovka, which was long heralded as the largest tank battle in history. Unfortunately this was Soviet propaganda at work and in reality the Wehrmacht tank losses were only 20% of the Red Army's. The German panzers for the most part were able to pick of the Soviet tanks at long range, and there were only a few point-blank range engagements.

I've heard the argument that the Germans were near victory and indeed Manstein himself furiously argued with Hitler not to call off the attack. For once I actually agree with Hitler for calling it off and with the Allies landing in Sicily there was a need to divert some units to Italy.

There was an alternative plan to Kursk commonly known as Manstein's 'backhand' plan. This plan would have utilized the best elements of the German Army, namely their vastly superior tactical ability and mobility. IMO this plan would have resulted in catastrophic casualties for the Red Army, collapsing the entire southern Soviet line, possibly rolling the Soviets all the way back to Stalingrad and beyond.

That is also biased, how german tanks were able to pick off russian tanks from long range and no close battles happened. THis is waht happened: the soviet 5th guards tank army( some sources say its being caleld the 2nd guards tank army) had to counter attack the 4th panzerarmee because of the breech in provhovka. the soviets launched the attack without artillery support, which is a surprise for the germans also coming towards provhovka, it was indeed a close-ranged battle, however, the russians lost 50% of their tank strength in this battle, the soviets also had the help of infantry tank hunters whom destroyed some 20% of german tanks deployed at provhovka. THe german losses actually mounted to 300,000 and more than 600 tanks because they are not allowed to retreat.. In the end, another counter-offensive finished the battle

If you look at this link it states that the total German losses at Kursk were 56,000 men killed and 1000 tanks destroyed, compared with Soviet losses of 177, 847 men killed and 1,600 tanks destroyed. The link lists reliable reference sources so I happen to believe it's accurate:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Battle of Kursk

 

[godofthunder9010]

"Official" Soviet sources have shown themselves to be as reliable as a corvette with an engine made completely out of wood. Very, very rarely does it offer any real facts. More often than not, it retells history from a purely propagandist viewpoint. German losses are exaggerated. Soviet losses are misreported as being far fewer than they were. Real life stalemates are told as overwhelming Soviet victories. I don't doubt that the people of the former Soviet Union will continue their endeavors to find and publish more reliable information. Not telling the facts as they truly occured amounts to a betrayal of the people who fought, suffered and died against the Germans on the Eastern Front.

 

[david_the_positive]

"Official" Soviet sources have shown themselves to be as reliable as a corvette with an engine made completely out of wood. Very, very rarely does it offer any real facts. More often than not, it retells history from a purely propagandist viewpoint. German losses are exaggerated. Soviet losses are misreported as being far fewer than they were. Real life stalemates are told as overwhelming Soviet victories. I don't doubt that the people of the former Soviet Union will continue their endeavors to find and publish more reliable information. Not telling the facts as they truly occured amounts to a betrayal of the people who fought, suffered and died against the Germans on the Eastern Front.

So are you going to support this with something or leave it as your opinion only? Perhaps you can give some examples that tie to a particular publication.

By the way, the only place I have seen full, unedited documents on german losses as reported within the German military system was in soviet books, circa 1960-1970s.

 

[godofthunder9010]

I can offer an excellent example -- Operation Mars. It was going on during the same time as the Battle of Stalingrad. It was the main Soviet opperation that year and it was a complete catastrophe, so they wrote it out of history. Nevermind 500,000 Soviet casualties (or the 40,000 German). It offically never happened, etc. I'll go dig up the link if you need one.

 

[Doppleganger]

I can offer an excellent example -- Operation Mars. It was going on during the same time as the Battle of Stalingrad. It was the main Soviet opperation that year and it was a complete catastrophe, so they wrote it out of history. Nevermind 500,000 Soviet casualties (or the 40,000 German). It offically never happened, etc. I'll go dig up the link if you need one.

I can do that for you God (I was bored!).

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/battles/battle12_04.html

This was written by David Glantz so I'm sure it's quite accurate.

 

[godofthunder9010]

Thanks.

 

[MadeInChina]

ive read somewehre that zhukov, though stated as the marshal of soviet union: the best commander) he was really stupid in real life, all hes good at is pincer attacks that even a child could draw out:

his main advantage over germans is his desire to fight: he once told montegomerty that before an offensive he send a first wave of troops into the open with their own artillery pounding, thereby eliminating any mines around, then the offensive begins>

in berlin, he sent armor units into the city, which was owned by flak towers

 

[david_the_positive]

I can offer an excellent example -- Operation Mars. It was going on during the same time as the Battle of Stalingrad. It was the main Soviet opperation that year and it was a complete catastrophe, so they wrote it out of history. Nevermind 500,000 Soviet casualties (or the 40,000 German). It offically never happened, etc. I'll go dig up the link if you need one.

I appreciate your reply, however this was not the question asked. Question was about a Soviet source that misrepresent information. To talk about Soviet misrepresentation, a Soviet source in question should be analyzed. I will be happy to look at something and talk about it with you.

Since you touched up on operation "Mars" let me share my observations. I looked carefully at Mr. Glantz's essay. He says there was a Rzhev-Vyasma area strategic offensive in november-december 1942 - operations "Mars" as well as plans for big offensives afterwards.

Overall, it raised a lot of interesting questions which I hope to answer through primary sources.

Mr. Glantz also has interesting approach to what he calls operation "Jupiter". The way he used it, in my opinion, is not a strong case for trusting the reader with the information.

On the casuality figures:
For German casualties he quotes two sources:
1) Anton Detlev von Plato, Die Geschichte der 5. Panzerdivision 1938 bis 1945, (Regensburg: Walhalla u. Praetoria Verlg KG Geog Zwickenpflug, 1978), 256.
2) Rolf O. G. Stoves, 1. Panzer-Division 1935-1945, (Bad Nauheim: Verlag Hans-Henning Podzun, 1961), 408

For soviet losses which you quote, he gives some examples from the archive, but overall 500,000 losses are uncredited. For me this is important as I try to study, not judge history. Assuming that he's in the ballpark, does not have a good historical precedent.

In Soviet losses he adds up kia,mia, wounded. In German losses - no data is given by Mr. Glantz.

Overall, a place to investigate and study, not a case closed or a display of unquestionable facts and figures.

After I finished writing I picked up another interesting detail:
This is an excerpt of an exserpt of David Glantz's translation of a Soviet document.

"Eliminate squads and platoons made up of "nationals" [ethnic non-Russians] by dividing them up among sub-units. For camouflage purposes, whitewash all guns and transporters.... "

Interesting choice of words. "Eliminate" when the meaning is breakup. " "nationals" [ethnic non-russians]" when [non-russian] nationalities would be representative.

I found that document very interesting. Too bad he did not print it whole.

 

[david_the_positive]

ive read somewehre that zhukov, though stated as the marshal of soviet union: the best commander) he was really stupid in real life, all hes good at is pincer attacks that even a child could draw out:

his main advantage over germans is his desire to fight: he once told montegomerty that before an offensive he send a first wave of troops into the open with their own artillery pounding, thereby eliminating any mines around, then the offensive begins>

in berlin, he sent armor units into the city, which was owned by flak towers

I see that more went into the pincer arrows than drawing them. I read many directives and transcripts (minutes) of telephone conversations he had with other commanders.

I have a similar question about the tanks in Berlin, as AT weapons appear to have been advanced enough to disable them.

Mystery quotes are not a good source of information. I saw variations of this particular one in a number of publications. It did not correspond to wartime data on pentalty battalions, penalty regiments, or imprisoned men sent to the army.