Clash of Steel

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

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.

Oberon · 07-12-13, 08:48 AM

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.

07-12-13, 05:33 AM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,831 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.

07-12-13, 08:13 AM	#2
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 191,574 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Point taken Sky but the real truth is the fact Russia could absorb and replenish their losses where the Germans couldn't. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

07-12-13, 08:48 AM	#3
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	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.