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

Kursk website

Discussion in 'The Library' started by KBO, Dec 27, 2004.

  1. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
  2. PanzerMeister

    PanzerMeister New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Great site, KBO!

    I heard info from some Soviet archives that in the first day of Zitadel Soviets destroyed 96 Tigers. There weren't so many Tigers in Kursk!
     
  3. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yeah, well thats the result of Russian propoganda :wink: Infact there were allmost no Tigers there, (only 4 in total...!) :eek:

    Also all the Panthers that according to Russian sources should have been there, broke down before even reaching the front.. :wink:
     
  4. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    This is one of the more interesting facts:

    Myth #4: Prokhorovka was the "death ride of the Panzers" because the Germans lost so many tanks.

    Traditional western sources, citing propagandized Soviet accounts, place tank losses at Prokhorovka for both sides at about 1200. Considering the fact that less than half that number even participated in the battle, this number is ridiculous. If it was anything, it was the death ride of the 29th Tank Corp, which experienced a 75% drop in its number of on-hand AFVs in one day. In fact, the Germans barely noticed the effects of the battle at Prokhorovka, while the Soviets had several units rendered ineffective in a matter of hours. Simply put, the Germans put a licking on the Red Army.

    This hardly reveals a "death ride" for the Panzers. The LSSAH permanently lost a grand total of 7 AFVs. A further 25 were damaged and sent to repair shops, only 1 of which was a Tiger (note that no Tigers were destroyed). The Soviets, on the other hand, permanently lost at least 134 AFVs, more than 19 times the losses of the Germans. A further 125 were temporarily lost due to damage. Therefore total AFV losses due to combat at Prokhorovka come out to 32 German against 259 Soviet. It is no wonder the Soviets had to inflate the size and losses of the German force; they were beaten badly.


    :wink:
     
  5. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Note that Prokhorovka was a small and indecisive part of the Battle of Kursk altogether, and that the majority of German tank losses were suffered in assaults on well-prepared positions (who wouldn't lose a lot when faced with such triple lines of defence), and not in head-on armour engagements like Prokhorovka.
     
  6. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ok, well here's another explanation of the battle for Prokhorovka:



    On 12 July the Luftwaffe and artillery units bombed the Soviet positions as the SS divisions formed up. Traditionally the description of this battle goes like this: The German advance started and they were astonished to see masses of Soviet armor advancing towards them. What followed was the largest tank engagement ever, with over 1,500 tanks in close contact. The air forces of both countries flew overhead, but they were unable to see anything through the dust and smoke pouring out from destroyed tanks. On the ground, commanders were unable to keep track of developments and the battle rapidly degenerated into an immense number of confused and bitter small-unit actions, often at close quarters. The fighting raged on all day, and by evening the last shots were being fired as the two sides disengaged. German losses amounted to over 300 tanks with the Soviets losing a similar number.

    However, subsequent information has proven that Soviet propaganda invented this description of the battle of Prokhorovka. Despite the depictions in large mural paintings and in other media, the Soviets won a victory only in one sense: the German attack halted. The Germans destroyed most Soviet tanks at long range, and relatively few became involved in short-range exchanges of fire. German units actually incurred relatively casualties, and for most of the day they fought in good order. The Soviets lost 322 tanks (more than half of them beyond repair), more than 1000 dead and an additional 2500 missing or wounded. German losses reached less than 20% of that. The Germans had however planned to attack that day, and because of the Red Army advance they lost their impetus.


    And yes Roel you are offcourse right about the whole battle for kursk, but, fact is Russian propoganda made it look like the Germans lost big time at Prokhorovka, but Really it was quite the opposite...:wink:

    But when were talking about the whole battle for kursk, then yes like you said, (Who wouldnt loose alot to well prepared AT defenses) :wink:

    KBO
     
  7. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    As one can see, the Germans prefered range-fighting, and whenever that accured, they allmost certainly would win, even when seriusly outnumbered..!

    KBO
     
  8. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    so we can say , that all that mambo jambo about the biggest tank battle is not true :eek:
     
  9. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yeah shocking isnt it...? :eek:

    Or is it ?? :wink:

    KBO
     
  10. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, it is true that at Kursk both sides had about 3000 tanks engaged and lost about 1500, right?

    Right? :(
     
  11. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    to tell you the truth, i do not know what is the truth or what is myth anymore, :cry: :cry:
     
  12. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The truth is WW2 was made up by Russian propoganda !! :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :grin:


    Anyway it was Russian propoganda, and they were the baddest overestimator's of them all...!! (seriusly!!)
    So we should have realised it a little sooner... :wink:

    KBO
     
  13. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    I think it wasn't that they were overestimating it more than others as that they lacked 'checks and balances' of their loss-counting systems; what the propaganda ministry publsihed wasn't ever criticized. The Western Allies would likely be less inclined to misguide their population and of course they'd have the free press watching them...
     
  14. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    We do know for a fact, that 13 Tigers were lost in total, out of about 150 employed (if reinforcements are included). I can't remember the exact number right now.
     
  15. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yeah but now your talking the whole operation Citadel, whilst in the battle for Prokhorovka only 4 in total were employed, and 1 damaged.

    KBO
     
  16. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    You dont think saying that the Germans lost over 300 tanks, while in reality it was only 32, is an Overestimation ?!

    KBO
     
  17. Bolo

    Bolo New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I really found that article interesting. Too bad the author is biased and IMO not as knowledgeable about the battle as even me. Caidins book is a pretty good one, packed with information and with reading of other sources this whole battle and its many interpretations come down to 4 things.

    The fog of war.

    The sources you use.

    The bias of those sources.

    The bias of the person writing whatever.

    This individual is biased and not very knowledgable about what he is writing.

    I know that Russians are lousy record keepers, not so much that they can't keep records it's the way that they make them and the fact that they don't do it in detail.

    To your average Russian bereaucrat a Stug IV was an Elefant, to the average soldier that put a 76mm round through a Stug IV it was better to tell his friends that it was an Elefant is it not?

    How's that for bias?

    He makes no reference to Mellenthins version of events, very believable in the fact that Mellenthin did 2 very human things. First he hid when the horde of Russian tanks came at them and 2 when he wrote his memoirs dolled it up to look like he didn't.

    My point here is there has been a lot of writing coming out these last few years from everybody and their long lost 3rd cousins uncles great grand father who translated this text from Russian to Farsi and into 5 different books by everybody but me.

    To mince this into small pieces and analize the battle of Kursk is pointless except in the big picture. No one has good solid information. One thing is clear though.

    The Russians stopped the Germans cold. For the rest of the war the Germans were pretty much getting their butts kicked all over the place.
     
  18. Bolo

    Bolo New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The Germans made a lot of poor judgements and estimates about Russia as did many others.

    The Germans lost a lot of tanks overall and a lot of good people.

    Ya Know what really matters? Who was occupying whos cities 2 years later. :kill:
     
  19. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    That depends on how you define getting ones ass kicked :wink:

    Btw did you read the last part:

    Some parts of this essay (maybe even all of it) may be at odds with what you have read or heard about the battle of Kursk. As a result, you may be skeptical of what I have written. I urge you to use this as an excuse to "dig deeper" into the history of the battle. As an aid, I suggest the following reading list:



    Glantz, David, and Jonathan House. 1999. The Battle of Kursk. University Press of Kansas.

    Newton, Steven. 2003. Kursk: The German View. DaCapo Press.

    Zetterling, Niklas, and Anders Frankson. 2000. Kursk: A Statistical Analysis. Frank Cass.



    For German and Soviet data on the south face, consult the Kursk Operation Simulation and Validation Exercise (KOSAVE) prepared by the U.S. Army Concepts Analysis Agency.
     
  20. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    German forces were beaten back over 1000 miles, the German capital was captured and sacked, three million German soldiers died. The Nazi regime fell, its leader shot himself along with most of his most important henchmen. Thereafter, Soviet Russia ruled supreme east of the Elbe.

    That's how I define getting one's butt kicked!
     

Share This Page