Kursk (by popular demand!)

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".

 

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.

 

Operation Citadel II July 21, 1943 Newsreel

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

I am talking about Tigers which been lost completely - not been damaged but recoverable.

 

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.

 

Check this. Kursk was Hitler's gamble. He considered even if it failed he would have time to 1944 for another big battle. How wrong he was.

 

Kursk turned out to be one big scrapyard of heavy metal.

 

I'm reading some books on this battle, among which SH Newton's Kursk. The German View. It seems to me that, all considering, the Germans did as good as they could, and I cannot see any alternative decisions that could have radically changed the course of the battle. Of course one can consider the alternative of skipping Operation Zitadelle altogether and carry out a more limited offensive in another sector, like Operation Panther. It would have given less dividends in case of victory, but I think it would have had better prospects of success, especially if it had been launched in May.

 

It is interesting that initially Stalin wanted to launch a major offensive in the summer of 1943 but Zhukov made him change his mind to create a 5-belt defensive section in Kursk to exhaust the German forces first. And then attack. Which they did.

Hitler considered that the battles would exhaust the Red Army as much as their own Wehrmacht forces and Stalin would have to prepare his army for the offensive in the summer of 1944 by which time the new German weapons would be ready for them. Hitler saw no danger in creating Zitadelle. Win or lose, he would buy time to fight the Red Army anyway.if he did not destroy the Kursk pocket.

 

Do you have suggestions on books/sources about Kursk? I'm reading The Battle of Kursk.The German View, Glantz's The Battle for Kursk.The Soviet General Stuff Study. Manstein's Lost Victories, Robin Cross' The Battle of Kursk, Glantz's From the Don to the Dnepr.

I think if Hitler hoped to worn down the Soviet with a preemptive offensive he made a mistake to wait until July, because the balance of forces was gradually shifting to the Soviets advantage. I think Hitler relied too much on the new weapons, like the Tiger and the Panther, and probably he would have done better to launch his offensive earlier.

 

Cheers Brutal truth,
I think you got a load of the most important books on the subject. Not sure if I copied the article on the Ferdinañds and Panthers and the Soviet defensive measures here.
When Hitler decided Zitadelle was over, the Soviets were just starting to attack. Manstein demanded Hitler just before the end of Zitadelle extra time to destroy two Soviet panzer corps but I am not sure how true it is or was it possible. The fact is that the five belts were enough and during the climax the Soviet 5th Guards panzers were sent to stop the Germans. Hitler even sent the LAH to Italy when he heard of the Sicily invasion in the middle of the operation.
The wonder weapons failed, there was not enough infantry, and in the northern sector the operations were stopped when clear marks of a major Soviet counter attack were imminent.
I check my library if I can suggest other books but I think your List is quite complete.

 

Kippis!

Of course I also download articles and read stuff from the web, like Mystics and Statistics. There are several interesting posts on Kursk, for instance: Armor Exchange Ratios at Kursk
Comparative Tank Exchange Ratios at Kursk

 

If you like Mystics and Statistics you should get Chris' take on the battle. The slightly abridged version is available from Stackpole. https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Prokh...e329d&pd_rd_wg=XwcpJ&pd_rd_i=0811738078&psc=1 Or you can go the money is no object and get the unabridged version. https://www.amazon.com/Kursk-Battle-Prokhorovka-Christopher-Lawrence/dp/0971385254

 

What I found from my library plus the books you mentioned :

Will Fowler: Kursk the vital 24 hrs
David Porter: Das Reich at Kursk
Christer Bergström: Kursk, the air battle July 1943
Didier Lodieu: III Pz Corps at Kursk
Frankson Anders and Niklas Zetterling: Finnish version Battle of Kursk

Hope this helps......

 

Thank you guys!

Christopher point of view about tank losses and damage is very interesting.

I have read Fowler's book, it has nice photos but I found it a bit superficial. And of course I read Zetterling and Frankson statistical analysis on Kursk. Not their previous book on the battle, but I think the essential stuff is in the statistical analysis.

 

Also " Thunder at prokhorovka " By David Schranck " just found it from my book pile.