kursk was the last attempt by the germans to rest the initative back form the red army on the eastern front...once the offensive was broken it was obvious that the german army no longer had the abiltity to contain the ever growing strength of the russians...this was also the point when tactically the germans were no longer able to out manouvre in large scale battles..the russians had learnt the lessons of 1941 and 42 and were now beginning to put the what ahd been learnt into effect.
The battle of Kursk was a defining point that is for sure, however, it would be interesting if both the Russian and Geran armies regrouping in the area did not stumble upon each other, but, infact have had their battle formations completed and battle orders completed?
Battle Of Britain was the turning point.Losing many good pilots Luftwaffe was weakened.This allowed aerial bombing,D-Day paratroop landing,...
euhm, we're talking about the eastern front in this topic :-? anyway, BoB in general is idd the turning point, making hitler to fight on two fronts
I am sorry,i didn't read old posts.Anyway for me,Battle For Stalingrad was the turning point.Germans never got that far after defeat.
North Africa is really small. The Germans never had more than a few divisions engaged there (the Deutsches Afrika Korps was really an Army Corps).
An Army Corps is an organizational unit introduced by Napoleon and consisting, in general, of three divisions. In the field an Army Corps is a small army, capable of operating independently because it has its own headquarters and support units of every kind (recon, engineers, artillery, anti-tank, supply, signals, and so on). On the "real" fronts of WW2, armies were gathered in Army Groups each consisting of several Armies of several Army Corps each. Hence in the context of this particular war, one Army Corps is a pretty small entity to carry an entire front.
quite a bit. Especially for Germany, who had two armoured divisions (the 15th and 7th i believe) against an entire army. On the Russian front, which i know quite a bit about, there are five decisive battles. These are them, in chronological order: 1.Smolensk: As Army Group Centre surged east, they left the two Army Groups on either flank way behind, leaving them very vulnerable to a possible pincer movement by new divisions from Siberia, thus forcing Hitler to halt the armies of the Group and sending some to the North and South Groups to aid in their battles. This stalled the offensive on Moscow. 2.Siege of Leningrad: This was the battle that really shifted everything. With at least two armies surrounding the second largest city in the Soviet Union, the Germans reduced their striking power for more vital purposes, like the capture of Murmansk (allied aid) or Moscow (incredible propaganda value, not to mention a vast demoralization of the Russians, especially so if Stalin is killed). 3.Moscow: This was, as everyone knows, the battle that proved to Hitler that numbers can be victorious over tactics if used in large enough quantities, as the Russians did. It also proved, as mentioned countless times above, that the blitzkreig tactics would not always be successful, though the Germans did not learn that lesson until after Kursk. 4.Stalingrad: This one is obvious. Although I stated above that Moscow proved that blitzkreig was no longer the 'closing pitcher' (sorry for mentioning baseball terms) it was made out to be, the Germans used their tactical ability to overcome the numerically superior and very demoralized Russians. Stalingrad changed all that for good. 5.Kursk: Let me put it this way; 6,000 tanks, 2,000 aircraft, 2 million men. Doesn't get much larger than that. One side loses everything, the other gains everything. That was the whole point of Zitadelle, wiping out everything the Russians had built up in the Kursk salient (nine armies). Completely backfired. :kill: :smok: