Clash of Steel

STEED · 07-04-13, 03:07 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEED

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?

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.

STEED · 07-04-13, 03:48 PM

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.

Oberon · 07-04-13, 08:44 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

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

Feuer Frei! · 07-05-13, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossMark

If Hitler had the sense to listen to his generals then the outcome of this battle may have been a little different

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.

Skybird · 07-12-13, 05:33 AM

http://www.welt.de/geschichte/zweite...er-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...cond_World_War

Feuer Frei! · 07-05-13, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

STEED · 07-05-13, 09:00 AM

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

07-04-13, 03:07 PM	#1
STEED Lucky Jack Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down Town UK Posts: 27,695 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 48	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? __________________ Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT!

07-04-13, 03:32 PM	#3
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,461 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	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. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

07-04-13, 03:43 PM	#4
Spiced_Rum Ace of the Deep Join Date: May 2013 Location: Enjoying a run ashore Posts: 1,129 Downloads: 69 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Spiced_Rum "The only rocks I want to see are in my glass, and covered with lashings of Spicey and Coke"

07-04-13, 03:48 PM	#5
STEED Lucky Jack Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down Town UK Posts: 27,695 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 48	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. __________________ Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT!

07-04-13, 08:32 PM	#6
Wolferz Navy Seal Join Date: May 2007 Location: On a mighty quest for the Stick of Truth Posts: 5,963 Downloads: 52 Uploads: 0	Hitler' arrogance was to blame. Opening too many fronts was daft and his generals warned him of the mistake. __________________ Tomorrow never comes

07-04-13, 08:44 PM	#7
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	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

07-05-13, 05:50 AM	#8
BossMark Fleet Admiral Join Date: May 2011 Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire Posts: 15,272 Downloads: 278 Uploads: 0	If Hitler had the sense to listen to his generals then the outcome of this battle may have been a little different __________________ Never trust the Tories look what Thatcher and Major did in the 80s and 90s and look what the wicked witch May is doing now doing now

07-05-13, 06:51 AM	#10
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

07-05-13, 07:01 AM	#11
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,461 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	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. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

07-12-13, 05:33 AM	#12
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	http://www.welt.de/geschichte/zweite...er-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...cond_World_War __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

07-05-13, 09:00 AM	#14
STEED Lucky Jack Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down Town UK Posts: 27,695 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 48	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 __________________ Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT!