To add to the growing list of hypothetical what-ifs on this forum, and as a extension to the topic discussing the most influential battles of WW2, I would like to know: could the Germans have won at Kursk? How, and to what effect? Could it actually have turned the tide of the war? Because if not, we need to place the most influential battle of WW2 much earlier. This may have many implications and influences on other topics!
My Opinion: The Germans could win the Battle at Kursk.... If THe Germans didn't wait so long to prepare this attack (so that the Russians could prepare themselfs as well) they should have won....this giving some hope for a new German offensive wich in the end would/could have changed the tide at the eastern front. The only thing the Germans should have done was listen to Heinz Guderian and they would have won the war......
The Germans may have been able to win at Kursk if, as Ome says, they had attacked in May, the mud permitting. They would then have been able to shorten the line and provide for a reserve. Then they could have utilized the "shield and sword" tactics adovacted by Manstein/Guederian to blunt Soviet attacks and inflict unacceptable casualties (did the Soviets have that concept in their operational manuals?). By mid-1943 the Germans could only hope to outlast the Soviets and force some kind of armistice with them before the western allies could land in Europe.
From what I know, terrain still was very muddy in may, so a german attack would have known difficulties. Also an attack in may would have been much different from what it was in july, much fewer forces would have been involved on both sides, so I do not see how a german victory at Kursk in may could have been decisive. All they would have won was to conquer some destroyed land, shorten their front and destroy some soviet divisions. Nothing decisive there. Also the soviets would have known of the attack in may, because their spy organisation in Switzerland called "Rote Kapelle" kept them informed. Many officer of the Wehrmacht were against Zitadelle to be undertaken, and I think they were right.Hitler should have understood that defensive was his only option in the east after Stalingrad.
I do not believe that Zitadelle could have turned the tide of the war, because: - Soviet arms production was was so much higher than the german one, and the gap was even widening.Stalin had understood that this was a total war, Hitler not yet. -After Stalingrad, every german hope to see the soviet system crumble vanished.Stalingrad was an incredible boost to soviet morale.If you read about russian accounts of WW2, the yalways see an "pre Stalingrad" and a "post Stalingrad". As I always said, Stalingrad is THE decisive land battle of the war in Europe.
The way I see it the main thing about the battle of Kursk is the army the Russians still had in reserve, behind their 3 lines of defence; the Germans broke those lines but could not break the reserve. When did the Soviets assemble the reserve? I think that before this moment the Germans had a good chance of winning the offensive. The effect of it would have been a few Russian armies destroyed, a little bit of ground taken and, more importantly, a large part of the myth of German invincibility restored much more effectively than it was with the March battles around Kharkov.
Of course the russians would have been considerabily weaker in may than in july, but the same goes for the germans. A battle of Kursk in may would not have had much in common with what it was in july. (At least not if one considers the numbers of troops + material involved.)
Which is why I ask, could the Germans have won? I'm afraid I know too little about the OOB to judge the forces at any point before or during the battle.
Well, I *think* that an earlier start date would have seem a troop ratio a bit more in favour of the Germans. However, the Germans would be without their new Panthers, Ferdinands/Elefants, and probably with less Tiger Is. However, being as there only were 89 Elefants (see Christian - 89 Elefants! ), and ~70% of the Panthers broke down before getting into combat... An earlier start may well have helped the Germans, but could they have won? The Soviets always had more reserves to throw in. What would probably have happened would be a similar battle to reality, with the Germans taking a bit more ground, but Soviet attacks on the flanks would force a withdrawl. As happened.
another thing is the fact that soviet intelligent manage to get the information on the nazis plan on invading kursk...
It was a logical move anyway, even without definite intelligence proof the Russians would have hugely fortified the area. It was a projecting bulge in the front line, right at the point where the Germans were strongest. Anyway, in this discussion I believe the fact that the Russians knew the offensive was coming is taken for granted...
Even if they scored a decisive victory in Kursk how long would the Germans have been able to sustain their momentum? If only Speer had been put in charge of the German economy when it mattered...
Little better, I think, since Rommel too would have been faced with overwhelmingly numerous enemies, thick lines of defence and rigid orders from above in which he was not free to exploit his own tactical genius. It was what lost him the fight in Normandy.
Agreed. Changing german commanders at Kursk wouldn't have changed anything. Their task was simply impossible, given soviet numerical superiority.
The Germans could have won at Kursk, but, not if Hitler couldnt stick his ugly nose out of the Strategy-table !!! (The battle for Prokhorovka serves to show this) The Russians Offcourse had some advantages, as they had built up a massive AT-defence, and knew exactly wich date the Germans would attack. So there would be a massive task ahead of the German's to overcome, but it was far from impossible... KBO
I have to disagree. The only way for the Germans to have won at Kursk is for the Red Army to have totally and suddenly collapsed. The odds, as the others have said, were simply too great for there to be any realistic hope of a German victory there. Especially since the Russians deployed their forces skilfully, in such a way as to greatly magnify their effectiveness.
The vital words in corp's post are "simply too great". Indeed at Kursk the germans did not just face a numerically superior enemy, but they faced an enemy that would in the end always have more of everything than they would have. These are not odds you can beat even with the most talented leaders, the best trained men and the best equipment in the world, and the Germans no longer had the best trained men; the men in charge were not the best leaders; and overall the "new wonderweapons" were quite a disappointment at Kursk...
