Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Kursk (by popular demand!)

Discussion in 'Eastern Europe February 1943 to End of War' started by CrazyD, Aug 8, 2002.

Tags:
  1. Tamino

    Tamino Doc - The Deplorable

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,561
    Likes Received:
    293
    Location:
    Untersteiermark
    First, welcome aboard arminiuss! :)

    Citadel would have been feasible in 1941 but not in 1943. Until summer 1943 Red Army has evolved while the Germans attempted to achieve a final victory based on Blitzkrieg strategy. Here is a snippet from Glanz's study "CSI Report No. 11 Soviet Defensive Tactics at Kursk, July 1943" explaining the reasons for the German failure:

    … the development of strategic and operational defenses depended directly on the Soviet ability to stop German offensive action at the tactical level. Soviet development of effective tactical defenses was a long and difficult process. It involved changing the offensive mind-set of Soviet officers. It also entailed the training of a generation of officers capable of ably controlling forces at the tactical level and the fielding of equipment of the type and in the numbers necessary to conduct successful combined arms defense. Development of tactical defense concepts involved a process of education that began in June 1941 and continued throughout the war. The fruits of that education were apparent at Kursk.

    Complete study is HERE.

    PS: Defense at Kursk wasn't just digging trenches and piling-up of weapons and ammunition. The Red Army has adopted completely new doctrine at tactical level. It was just the initial stage of offensive actions which have started shortly after the beginning of "Citadel".
     
  2. arminiuss

    arminiuss New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Long Island NY
    I completely agree. That is why I think citadel was doomed from the start. It was a complete misuse and waste of all the panzer forces that Guderian had managed to build up and for what? As Guderian stated to Hitler, nobody cares about Kursk or who holds it. So why lose all that they had built up for nothing? They violated some of the principles of armored warfare, there was no surprise of where and when, the attack was against heavily fortified terrain and the strategic objective was not worth the cost.

    Also, as steverodgers801 stated above, the soviet defense of Kursk only works if the Germans attack exactly where they expected them to. Even the inadequate German intelligence services had noticed that the shoulders of the bulge were being fortified. So why do what was expected? There are far better uses for the results of Guderian's panzer build up than throwing them away for a victory for prestige.

    At that time I doubt any offensive by the Germans would have had a significant enough result to warrent the wasting of the forces that were built up. They needed a far more intelligent operation than beating their heads against a Russian steel wall.
     
  3. Fred Wilson

    Fred Wilson "The" Rogue of Rogues

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    326
    Location:
    Vernon BC Canada
    Operation Citadel II July 21, 1943 Newsreel

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcfehHxkxpI
     
  4. Fred Wilson

    Fred Wilson "The" Rogue of Rogues

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    326
    Location:
    Vernon BC Canada
    Enjoying a good lecture on Kurst right now.

    Start at the 26 minute mark, for the second speaker: Jonathan Parshall
    Tank Production: A Comparative Study of output in Germany, the US and the USSR

    - First class presentation, eh?
    See his presentation notes at: http://www.combinedfleet.com/ParshallTankProduction.pdf

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ
     
    green slime likes this.
  5. Nordwind511

    Nordwind511 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    34
    I don´t know if the question is answered: the Heeresgruppe North had 45 Tigers I for operation "Zitadelle". These Tigers were part of 21. Armored Brigade.
     
  6. Nordwind511

    Nordwind511 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    34
    Completely (during the period from 5th till 20th of July 1943) were only 13 (!) Tigers been lost in the fightings of Zitadelle.

    Ressource: Jentz, Thomas Tiger I + II Fight and Tactics
     
  7. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    Norwinds, as has been debated, lost is a relative turn. are we talking completely destroyed or damaged and out of service for repair. Plus a unit retreating is more likely to lose equipment that is damaged, but recoverable if they are not able to move
     
  8. Nordwind511

    Nordwind511 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    Messages:
    188
    Likes Received:
    34
    I am talking about Tigers which been lost completely - not been damaged but recoverable.
     
  9. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    21,941
    Likes Received:
    991
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    One must remember that early in war the Germans sent tanks that needed repair all the way to Germany later on they developed local repair units.

    About winning Kursk Hitler believed he would at least reach a tie. Then it would be 1944 to have new units and armor etc.

    If the Red Army was sure Germans could not win why sent the fifth guards tank unit to face the SS panzer corps? The fifth was a reserve unit.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2018

Share This Page