Clash of Steel

[STEED]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hitler' arrogance was to blame. Opening too many fronts was daft and his generals warned him of the mistake.

[Oberon]

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]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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]

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]

Originally Posted by donna52522

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

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0553583123

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Possible you meant 'Last Citadel' but either way a great read

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]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

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

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tigers-Are-B.../dp/0523418167

[BossMark]

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

[Feuer Frei!]

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]

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.