View Full Version : Clash of Steel
Yes as we all know tomorrow will mark the 70th Anniversary of The Battle of Kursk.
http://www.vectorsite.net/twsnow_10.html
Unlike Moscow and Stalingrad this one took place in summer and as we know looking back this was a wast of German Armour. So why did Hitler attack after the defeat in North Africa and Stalingrad?
Surly it was clear that 1943 on the eastern front they had no choice but to go over to the defensive, was citadel a crazy desperate act to regain the upper hand?
Schroeder
07-04-13, 03:18 PM
So why did Hitler attack after the defeat in North Africa and Stalingrad?
Because he was a moron who had little understanding of what went on around him?:hmm2:
;)
Jimbuna
07-04-13, 03:32 PM
In the Battle of Kursk most of the control and planning was given to the Generals. Basically it was a last ditch attempt to defeat the Soviets and regain the initiative on the Eastern Front. Hitler's delays to the operation did give the Soviets more time to build up their defences, and the Allied landings in Italy drew attention away from the Eastern Front.
The Blitzkrieg in each of the pincers quickly fizzled out against the weight of so much Soviet tanks and infantry. The Germans had no reserves, while the Soviets had tons. They had no choice but to stop the operation.
Spiced_Rum
07-04-13, 03:43 PM
The Soviets had better intelligence on German dispositions and movements. Their pre-emptive air attacks on German airfields destroyed much of the Luftwaffe strength and the loss of aircraft denied the ground forces much needed air support.
Should Hitler had gone with Manstein's plan to snip out the corners instead? I think this was a safer idea unlike the full blown pincer movement as this was so clear to the Russians knowing full well Germans liked pincer movements.
For the Russians they saw it coming, with the info from Bletchley and their own info. The only thing they got wrong was the stronger German pincer was in the south and not the north.
Wolferz
07-04-13, 08:32 PM
Hitler' arrogance was to blame. Opening too many fronts was daft and his generals warned him of the mistake.
I think it would have been very hard for the Axis to make any further offensives in the East come 1943 that would have had any significant strategic outcome to the war. The men and material could certainly have been better used in fighting a defensive retreat, but in the end the outcome would have been the same, just in a different year. The only time that Germany could have possibly beaten the Soviet Union was in 1941, and perhaps very early 1942, after that the clock was ticking to the endgame.
The BBC have a nice article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23137492
Stealhead
07-04-13, 09:01 PM
I think it would have been very hard for the Axis to make any further offensives in the East come 1943 that would have had any significant strategic outcome to the war. The men and material could certainly have been better used in fighting a defensive retreat, but in the end the outcome would have been the same, just in a different year. The only time that Germany could have possibly beaten the Soviet Union was in 1941, and perhaps very early 1942, after that the clock was ticking to the endgame.
The BBC have a nice article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23137492
Aye that.Kursk was the last attempt by the Germans to advance into Soviet territory and it failed miserably though it was very close a moments the Soviets had the advantage.
I love seeing Hitler fanboys holler how Kursk was a tactical victory for the Germans because they suffered lower causalities.Hogwash they may have suffered lower casualties but they could ill afford to replace them.
Even a fully defensive campaign as you said would have failed only in the end slowing the Soviet Juggernaut down but in no way tiring him.
The Germans got blinded by their early success and became over confident.They also assumed that the Soviet people would collapse under the pressure when they in fact rose to the occasion though they did have dips here and there.
Given the situation early in the war the Soviet military did do a good job of delaying the Germans all things considered.And the campaigns over the Crimea though the Germans did win them took much longer than planned and cost the Germans men a material that could have been used elsewhere.
Their only real chance was in 1941 just miles away from Moscow.
The German two front war also added the allies in a very important but often over looked way;the Luftwaffe it was never large enough to cover all fronts effectively they had to always shuffle units around where they where most needed by 1943 the need was on every front to their misfortune and to the allies benefit.
A really good book on Kursk which I have been reading off and on for some time is "The Battle of Kursk" by Kansas University press it goes into great detail and has a very neutral point of view.
donna52522
07-05-13, 12:45 AM
I read a book called 'Citadel'. It was amazing that with the Russians knowing all about it from it's conception and their huge defensive build up in the area, that Hitler continued it....even when he expressed doubts about it himself.
Guderian even asked Hitler. "Why would you even want to attack in the East this year?" Hitler replied "I don't want to, the thought of it turns my stomach, but we have to do something."
Jimbuna
07-05-13, 04:37 AM
I read a book called 'Citadel'. It was amazing that with the Russians knowing all about it from it's conception and their huge defensive build up in the area, that Hitler continued it....even when he expressed doubts about it himself.
Guderian even asked Hitler. "Why would you even want to attack in the East this year?" Hitler replied "I don't want to, the thought of it turns my stomach, but we have to do something."
Possible you meant 'Last Citadel' but either way a great read :cool:
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0553583123
Feuer Frei!
07-05-13, 04:47 AM
Possible you meant 'Last Citadel' but either way a great read :cool:
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0553583123
That be the one.
Although some of the reviewers repeated some myths about it.
But, it is a fiction book.
The Tigers are Burning, a book which started the whole plethora of myths surrounding the battle of Kursk.
Propaganda at its best.
Jimbuna
07-05-13, 05:40 AM
That be the one.
Although some of the reviewers repeated some myths about it.
But, it is a fiction book.
The Tigers are Burning, a book which started the whole plethora of myths surrounding the battle of Kursk.
Propaganda at its best.
Rgr that....I'll stick this one on my to read list :cool:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tigers-Are-Burning-Martin-Caidin/dp/0523418167
BossMark
07-05-13, 05:50 AM
If Hitler had the sense to listen to his generals then the outcome of this battle may have been a little different :hmm2:
Feuer Frei!
07-05-13, 06:44 AM
If Hitler had the sense to listen to his generals then the outcome of this battle may have been a little different :hmm2:
Possible.
But unfortunately it would have done nothing to avert the inevitable
outcome: the entire collapse of the Eastern Front.
The battle of Kursk was purely an operational battle.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Had Germany, best case scenario, achieved total victory at Kursk, it wouldn't have made a iota of difference.
In the grander scale of things.
Waste of time. And man power.
A delay to the Red advance was achievable.
Skybird
07-05-13, 06:51 AM
Kursk is a monument illustrating how endless hesitation and delay can cost you the battle and makes your enemy strong. That Hitler delayed and delayed and delayed the attack, probbaly undert the imrpession of Stalingrad, imo is the display of one of the biggest tactical mistakes he ever made. To not allow corrections at Stalingrad while there still was time, and to let the Brits escape at Dunkirk are the other two super-big biggies, imo. Imagine: Britian could have been taken out of the war at Dunkirk already. Now that would have changed things dramatically. Maybe we all should be happy that he made that mistake.
But of course, the whole war was a mistake.
Jimbuna
07-05-13, 07:01 AM
Dire staraits indeed had the Brits totally capitulated at Dunkirk but there would still have been the RN and RAF to deal with.
All hypothetical I agree.
Feuer Frei!
07-05-13, 07:18 AM
biggest tactical mistakes he ever made
Never mind about the tactical mistakes.
Biggest mistake made was that he didn't let his Generals command the Battles as they stood.
That, was the biggest mistake he made.
Constant interfering, had he let the Stars do the job, Germany would have had much better control of the various Theaters of War.
Controlling a battle from the table and map is one thing.
Controlling the battle on the ground, at the front is another.
I recall from one book a rather odd statement, After the fall of North Africa and the lost of the elite 6th Army at Stalingrad, Hitler felt weak and open to being toppled. This may have been a reason for this attack but even so after the defeat Hitler would have been far more open to being toppled after Kursk. I just can not see who, as all below Hitler needed Hitler and without him they were nothing.
The delays were without question plain stupid allowing the Soviets to construct a vast defensive belts. Rushing in the Panther was to prove a bloody reckless move as they lost more Panthers to engine troubles than too the Russians. As for the Ferdinand/Elefant with no machine gun left it wide open to attack by troops.
I have read these books on Kursk..
Kursk, 1943: The Tide Turns in the East, Mark Healy (Osprey Military Campaign)
Kursk: The Air Battle, Christer Bergstrom
The Battle of Kursk, David M. Glantz and Jonathan M House
The Battle for Kursk, 1943: The Soviet General Staff Study (Soviet Russian Study of War) David M. Glantz & Harold S. Orenstein
Aye, the Panther, my favourite German WWII tank, but Guderians problem child alright. The Ausf G was the best version IMHO. :yep:
Feld Grau
07-05-13, 11:22 PM
From what I understood from V. Mansteins memoirs,the German offensive in '43 (whether a fronthand or backhand attack) was purely meant to delay the Red Army. Destroying the units in the Kursk salient( estimated to be 20% of the Red Army) would be a large enough setback to allow the Panther-Wotan line to be completed. Shortening the front and using the Dniepr river as a barrier,the Germans hoped to stall the Soviets long enough for them to sue for peace or to regain the initiative.
Whether or not the last part is feasible is beyond me. But it is interesting to speculate how the Germans would've handled the war if this situation had occurred instead of the huge defeat that was Kursk.
Feuer Frei!
07-06-13, 03:30 AM
From what I understood from V. Mansteins memoirs,the German offensive in '43 (whether a fronthand or backhand attack) was purely meant to delay the Red Army. Believable. At best delaying was achievable. the Germans hoped to stall the Soviets long enough for them to sue for peace or to regain the initiative.
Neither is feasable or believable.
speculate how the Germans would've handled the war if this situation had occurred instead of the huge defeat that was Kursk.Speculating on the myths created is one thing.
Researching facts and concluding the inevitable is another.
Backhand was part of Manstein's operation to retake Kharkov, this was to be the final part of the operation which was canceled due to Hitler wanting a Kursk battle.
One documentary as I recall said after Stalingrad Mussolini said the Russian campaign is over we should make peace. How true is that I don't know, if true then clearly Mussolini wanted Hitler to move south to bail him out yet again.
Feuer Frei!
07-06-13, 06:46 AM
Hitler surrendering to Stalin?
:haha:
Feld Grau
07-06-13, 10:31 AM
Neither is feasable or believable.
But the casualties the Soviets took crossing the Dniepr were enormous,estimates lay around 1.5 million. And that was with a weakened German defense. Had the line been properly prepared and manned, that number would most certainly have been higher. Even the Soviets could not sustain such losses for a prolonged period,and that was the motive behind the construction of the Panther line,to bleed the Red Army and buy time.
donna52522
07-07-13, 12:24 AM
Possible you meant 'Last Citadel' but either way a great read :cool:
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0553583123
That's very possible. It was a library book I read a few years ago, so I don't have it here on a shelf for reference.
Skybird
07-12-13, 05:33 AM
http://www.welt.de/geschichte/zweiter-weltkrieg/article117976280/Legenden-um-die-groesste-Panzerschlacht-aller-Zeiten.html
The article says that only few events in war have been distorted by lies and myths that tremendously, like the battle at Kursk. This is because the socalled standard works on this story were written by Wetsenr historians who blindly trusted in and based on the stories told by the Russians commanders. And they not only told fairy tales of single fights that never happened, but also exaggerated German losses, it seems. The huge number of Panthers and Tigers destroyed could not be true, because such huge quantities of Tiger and Panthers did not even participate, according to latest German historians research from over just the past couple of years - they simply were not available at that part of the front in that numbers. Modern versions of the Panzer IV were mistaken by the Russians for Tigers, and since they thought they could not hurt them from a distance, they raced towards these inferior tanks in the open, got shot into pieces or ran into their own anti-tank trenches.
The Russian general said that the heart of the German tank army had been ripped out at Kursk, and this statement has influences generations of historians later - but it seems to be an exaggerated boasting, it seems, when you look at the loss numbers as reconstructed by German historians in the past years:
the Germans lost 252 tanks, the Russians lost 1956. The Lermans lost 54200 men, the Russians over 300,000. 160 lost German planes are faced by 1960 lost Russian planes.
A decisive victory looks differently, the article concludes laconically.
After the initial Russian counteroffensive stalled due to Russian incompetence on behalf of Stawka, the army was forced to go onto the offensive, having faced terribly high losses in the opening phase already - with German units sometimes reporting, despite the fights, growing numbers of vehicle ready for action: they were still able to continue repair units with the battle already waging.
If a force of dramatical numerical inferiority is able to bring such loss ratios upon its opponent, then this illustrated a quantum difference in quality and competence between both sides. Quality cannot compensate any quantitative disadvantage, yes: but at least about Kursk any historian's "truths" should be taken with healthy scepticism. It seems the real story is very much hidden, distorted and changed by modern mythology.
But as they say: history is written by the victors. And the Russian victors were gifted in narrative talents, it seems.
The article loosely bases on volume 8 of the Bundeswehr's own historic analysis of the war, volume 8 was published just in 2012:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_and_the_Second_World_War
Jimbuna
07-12-13, 08:13 AM
Point taken Sky but the real truth is the fact Russia could absorb and replenish their losses where the Germans couldn't.
I think that it's generally acknowledged that in most battles involving Germany and the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union took far greater casualties than Germany...but the Soviet Union could afford to.
Quantity has a quality of its own, as the saying goes.
If there is one thing I always dread doing whenever I play a WWII strategy game as Germany, it's invading the Soviet Union, I've only ever done it successfully once...and then Hungary broke it due to bad game mechanics.
I do question, to be honest, whether the Soviets would have sued for peace even if Germany had taken Moscow.
We'll never know.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.