Kursk (by popular demand!)

Sorry for the delayed response.

It is an overrated battle. It was not the turning point of the war. The initiative passed entirely to the Red Army, yes. But after the disaster at Stalingrad, the Germans, with initiative or not could not win the war. The 3rd battle of Khárkov was no where close to break the backbone of the Red Army. Those limited victories - as Hitler believed - were not going to halt the Soviet growing in strenght and their fighting power. If the Germans had not attacked at Kursk in 1943, a mighty Red Army would have stilled performed large winter-offensives all over the front, smashing the German lines again. WIth reserves or no reserves, with Panthers or no Panthers. Kursk WAS NOT the turning point of the war. Kursk didn't see the very best of the German Army - veterans from Poland, France and 'Barbarossa' - annihilated, Stalingrad and 'Little Saturn' did.

Indeed it was. But the whole German strategy was collapsing.

 

Bravo!General! Kursk was nothing more than an attempt at "keeping face" with Hitler's allies so they would'nt "bail out".To send all this new tanks,men into battle to shorten the front lines a hundred miles was a waste.Simply put,Hitler knew that to keep Italy,Romania etc, from quitting,he had to start winning.To think he could just encircle that little bulge in his lines would bring stability to the line.Was his intelligence that bad or did he choose not to believe it?That the Russians were getting ready to unload on the Germans.He was a believer in his "super weapons"though.FramerT.

 

Indeed Hitler needed a victory to show Wehrmacht was still in command in summer 1943. The new weapons were meant to lead the army to victory.

I think Hitler had been adviced on the Kursk situation but he only thought it had to be done.
Anyway, Hitler believed also that even if the attack would not make it, it would drain the Red Army as much as Wehrmacht and would stop the Russians from making any attempts of attacking for 6 months or more. Here´s where Hitler was totally wrong as the Russians had strong reserves to make their counter attacks and new offensives during or rigth after Zitadelle.

 

Then again, somthing shows up. Hitler was seriously considering not to attack Kursk. He was taking advices from some frontline generals and colonel general Guderian back then that it was not a suitable spot or situation to deploy unreplaceable forces.

But there were many other generals and adjuntants who convinced Hitler that the new weapons and so many tanks would make a difference and that a victory was needed for maorale and political reasons. The main advocate of 'Zitadelle' was colonel general Kurt Zeitzler.

Incredibly, 'Zitadelle' shows many faces of Hitler as War Lord; positive and bad. He DID take advices and listen to what sub-ordinates had to say, he DID take into account the strategic flaws of his Army and he clearly saw that it wasn't strong enough to attack in March as well as he DID consider many other things; political and military aspects.

The Hitler-screwed-it-all-up myth is over.

 

Do you mean just Zitadelle or a longer period of the war, Friedrich?

 

There's no doubt that many of Hitler's decisions indeed screwed the German war effort.

But after the war the German generals blamed Hitler for everything. One of the main examples they used was 'Zitadelle'. Now we know that even if Hitler made the ultimate decision himself, he didn't decide by his own considerations and discernment and made the choice with complete oposition of his generals.

 

Why in fact did Hitler need another victory so desperately? The victories of Manstein to stabilize the southern front in early '43 after Stalingrad were impressive, weren't they?

 

Yes,

the victories at Kharkov were truly remarkable but one must remember that the Germans retreated several hundred miles from the lines they had in Nov 1942 and this did not look good. As well Stalingrad was for Russians a huge propaganda victory even though their losses were enormous to achieve this. ( Like you see all remember Stalingrad but how many remember Kharkov?)

It also seems that Kursk became some kinda obsession to Hitler with all its Red Army forces inside it.

 

I wish that would be true, but I'm afraid the myth still works well.

Cheers,

 

Erich von Manstein did not achieve a victory at Khárkov. He prevented a catastrophic defeat, which is very different. His performance was impressive and he prevented the Wehrmacht's backbone to be broken, saving Army Group 'South' from total annihilation.

However, the Germans lost 350.000 men at Stalingrad, plus another 600.000 Germans and Allies. Khárkov only gave not even 40.000 Russians captured. The Red Army could easily replace its half a million casualties of the offensive and the Wehrmacht could not.

That's why Hitler needed a real victory: breaking the backbone of the Red Army. Which, of course was impossible at the time.

 

Hitler had to choose.
From a retreat and a slow ending for war, or a offense to change the initiative. He choose a offense and lost, but the war was lost anyway.

 

For Kursk facts read this thread....



Great battle view:

 

From Frankson-Zetterling: Kursk

When Hoth´s 4th Panzer Army started the attack again on the 7th July again, the danger of mines was considered to be minimal as the most heavily mined areas were passed. The exception were the bad-luck Panthers. Now these tanks ( some 30 ) were under von Strachwitz´s command, and he was not careful enough as his troops closed in on Dubrova.

The shape of the ground was special while there was a ridge shaped as a half moon.As well the Panthers were facing the morning sun as they came closer. Suddenly they drove into a mine field and several tanks stopped.The Germans tried to drive in reverse from the mine field as several T-34´s and AT guns started shooting at them.Some twenty tanks were left in the mine field.

The other Panthers came back into the battle with their own terms . They moved ahead showing their frontal armor that was virtually unbreakable, and used the reach of their 75 mm cannons. They managed to destroy the T-34´s and AT guns and won the battle of the crest destroying some 30 Russian tanks and many AT guns.
However due to the loss of many Panthers the victory did not taste so sweet.

 

This is something I fully don't understand.The Russians mined the battlefield so German tanks/infantry would hit them.Yet,when the T-34's counter-attacked would'nt they have to go through the same mine field? Or did they have their "penal"battalions go first?

 

Minefields are not continuous, there are planned open lanes among them, of course designed so they are not really obvious to the other guy...

Besides, minefields can be laid on varying density, depending on requirements.

In any case the Russians estimated that crossing a minefiel for practical purposes would be the same as crossing an artillery impact zone, so... bang, oops, another instant hero!

Cheers,

 

Fact or fiction? When the Germans retreated they'd booby trap the runways of airports with mines. When the Russians discovered this, they'd march German POWs up and down the runway as mine detecters.

 

Probably all of the latter reviews being correct.


-----


The idea being that the Germans were over ther worst mine fields after the first day. *** happened after that...




[ 07. April 2004, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]

 

"Fact or fiction? When the Germans retreated... "

I never heard of this one, but it seems entirely in carachter

 

According to my book, that "procedure" was stopped as soon as the Germans found out about their POWs.Yet another reason to save the last bullet for yourself.

 

Kursk 1943....



Just start from the beginnig of the thread...