Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

Signifacance of the Battle of Kursk

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove advertisement.
Post 06 Nov 2005, 21:12
After the victory at Stalingrad the Red Army embarked on an enormous offensive that culminated creation of a giant salient being created at Kursk and in a decisive counter attack spearheaded by the SS panzer core. That retook Karkov.

With this huge salient the Germans planned to Pincer it off at the edges. But the Germans delayed and delayed their attack on the salient. Which resulted in the soviet being well prepared for the attack because Soviets knew of this plan and fortified the Kursk salient with bunkers, trenches, mines, and A-T weapons. Because of the time they had to fortify the salient with defenses they were even able to grow corn over the mine fields.

The result was that when the German attack came the soviets were able repulse the German attacks and inflict heavy casualty and counter attack capturing many disabled German tanks witch could have still been recovered.

I was wondering what you all thought about the significance of the battle of Kursk.
Post 06 Nov 2005, 21:39
The massive German casualties were nothing but Soviet propaganda.

The Soviets claimed that the Germans sufferred more than 500000 killed and wounded. This again has proven mere Soviet propaganda.

In reality, Germany lost around 56000 men killed. The Soviet casualty figures did not emerge until after the end of the communist regime, and comprised about 250000 killed and 600000 wounded, 1500 tanks and 1000 aircraft

Germans losses were about 200510 dead, wounded, and captured, 500 tanks and 200 aircraft.

Germans however were not able achieve their objective and the Soviet counter offensive drove them back.
Last edited by Carius on 07 Nov 2005, 06:43, edited 1 time in total.
Post 07 Nov 2005, 00:19
So the plan was success to Soviets. Small strategic victory and a huge propaganda victory.
Post 07 Nov 2005, 00:32
"The massive German casualties were nothing but Soviet propaganda."

Perhaps the Soviet estimates were exaggerated but Kursk still was an important victory for the Red Army and the Germans took more casualty's than they could afford at that stage of the war. It proved that the Germans could be beaten in the summer and that the panzers were not unstoppable and the weaknesses of tanks against artillary and infatry. It also caused the Germans to lose the strategic initiative. After Kursk their were no more large German offenses with any stratigic objectives (though thier were counter attackes all the way to the end of the war).
Post 07 Nov 2005, 09:57
Quote:
The Soviets claimed that the Germans sufferred more than 500000 killed and wounded. This again has proven mere Soviet propaganda.


Quote:
In reality, Germany lost around 56000 men killed. The Soviet casualty figures did not emerge until after the end of the communist regime, and comprised about 250000 killed and 600000 wounded, 1500 tanks and 1000 aircraft


Quote:
Germans losses were about 200510 dead, wounded, and captured, 500 tanks and 200 aircraft.


==Can you please stop playing around with number to make it look as if the Germans had won the war.

==To the Soviets, the battle of Kursk involved the battle of Kharkov and and the counter attack in Orel and toward Kharkov at the end of July, thus, the Soviet casualty 250000 killed and 600000 wounded and 1500 tanks and 1000 aircraft destryed are actually figures that included all three stages of the campaign from Feburary 1943 until the end of August.

==To the Germans, the battle of Kursk is only includes the operations surrounding the Kursk salient, so the German loss of 200510 dead, wounded, and captured and 500 tanks and 200 aircraft lost is just the casualty between the 8 days from the 5th to the 12th of July.
Post 07 Nov 2005, 10:34
Quote:
to make it look as if the Germans had won the war


Unfortunately, no one has tried to do so.

Quote:
Kursk their were no more large German offenses with any stratigic objectives


Operation Frülingserwachen was the last major German offensive on Eastern Front, not Zitadelle.
Post 07 Nov 2005, 14:34
The German lost before the battle started.

If they won than they would have to send troops to Sicily and Italy were the allies were invading, deal with the Red Army which would get new recruits, and continue to fortify France and Norway. They already bit off more than they could chew.

And we all know what happen when the Germans lost.

It was not significant because the Germans were fighting for a lost cause. Still it was an impressive battle.
Post 07 Nov 2005, 15:59
Quote:
The German lost before the battle started.


Unless you have personally talked with God, and he told you that Germans did not have any chance, please, don't be so sure.

Quote:
they would have to send troops to Sicily and Italy


And what makes you think they would have to send more units than historically, or that battles in Italy could not have difrent endings than historically.

Quote:
and continue to fortify France and Norway


Of course they will continue the building of Atlantic Wall. Without Atlantic Wall there is no way to repulse upcoming Allied invasion.

Quote:
It was not significant


The battle was significant. The German offensive was halted and they were driven back quite a way by the Soviet counter offensive.
Post 07 Nov 2005, 22:40
[/quote]Unless you have personally talked with God, and he told you that Germans did not have any chance, please, don't be so sure.[/quote]

The Germans were losing, but they had not lost. I believe if they had been able defeat the allies at D-Day and sent everything to the east they could made a draw on the eastern front. Only after Bagration and D-Day was the war truly lost.

[/quote]Unfortunately, no one has tried to do so.[/quote]

Do you with Hitler had won the war?
Post 07 Nov 2005, 22:55
Assuming Overlord was repulsed and Germans would be able to keep Eastern Front more or less stable, the best thing Germany might achieve is negotiated peace.

Quote:
Do you with Hitler had won the war?


Pardon? I have not claimed that Hitler or Germany won the war.
Post 08 Nov 2005, 00:07
Quote:
Unless you have personally talked with God, and he told you that Germans did not have any chance, please, don't be so sure.


==The Germans never had any chance, the Russians were very well aware of Germans intentions, they had numerical superiority in the area, the Russians had three months to prepare their defences, and Manstein severely underestimated the strength of Russians.
Post 08 Nov 2005, 05:16
I don't think Germany ever stood a chance to have negotiated peace, at least not in the USSR. After what they did on the Eastern Front, the Soviets would never sign some sort of peace with them, apart from unconditional surrender.

Imagine a murder/robber breaks into your house, murders your children and your wife, a fight ensues, you're both exhausted, and then he says "lets make peace." No matter how exhausted you are, you're not going to make peace with him because of what he did to you and your family. You will want justice, and won't stop until you have it.
Post 08 Nov 2005, 19:58
Quote:
And what makes you think they would have to send more units than historically, or that battles in Italy could not have difrent endings than historically.


Because troops from the Eastern front were sent to Sicily and Italy.
Source: The Last Citadel by David L. Robbins

Quote:
The battle was significant. The German offensive was halted and they were driven back quite a way by the Soviet counter offensive.


You misunderstood me. There was little significance to changing the course of the war. It was significant because it was a huge battle.
Post 08 Sep 2006, 20:32
History is not religion and it follows that if the facts disagree with the 'holy' archives then it is probably the archives that are wrong.

The ever sillier revisions of Kursk history is a good example of worshipping the archives.

It's true that the German archives do not record large military losses at Kursk but this does not mean that they did not suffer massive losses there. It only means that the losses were not recorded until later if they were ever properly recorded at all. Surely, no one wanted to be first to tell Hitler that half of Germany's best tanks were destroyed at Kursk.

German archives contradict themselves because also record that StuG production was diverted from the infantry to armoured in early '43. This is strong indication that massive losses were being suffered during the Stalingrad-Kursk period.

What actually happened at Kursk (not just Kursk itself but battles in the surrounding areas as well) was far different than most modern historians would have us believe. First of all, the KV-85 was in service by the time of Kursk just as Sir John Keegan wrote that they were. There is even a picture of Keegan's KVs on this site. See <http://www.soviet-empire.com/arsenal/army/tanks/kv1/kv85_001.gif>. The T34/85 was also there just as Ivor Matanle wrote. (The T34/85-I was a KV-1S/85 turret on a T34 hull) According to the WWII veteran "Joscha" there were hundreds of them at Kursk. Clearly, the Red Army fielded massive amounts of modern armour at Kursk.

The Germans also fielded a massive number of modern tanks there. About half of their vehicles carried "88"s, long "75"s or the long "50" all of which could penetrate the heaviest Soviet armour at range. (600 yards for the long "50" and 1000 yards or better for the other guns that were mentioned.

A gigantic tank battle ensued with massive losses on both sides. When it was over the Germans began a long withdrawal that would eventually end with their surrender. Germany simply could not repair the damage inflicted on their forces at Kursk.

These battles centred on the Kursk Salient in mid-1943 are important because they mark the time after which a German victory is not possible.
Post 08 Sep 2006, 21:12
Quote:
It's true that the German archives do not record large military losses at Kursk


I beg to differ.

Quote:
half of Germany's best tanks were destroyed at Kursk.


Half of Germany's armoured forces were not destroyed.

Quote:
StuG production was diverted from the infantry to armoured in early '43.


What is this supposed to mean?

Quote:
there were hundreds of them at Kursk


Perhaps you would like to tell more about this.

Quote:
A gigantic tank battle ensued.


There was no "gigantic battle".

The typical claim is that the battle at Prokhorovka was massive, involving two thousand tanks. While a significant battle, it was nowhere near as large as the myth supposes. One way people arrive at inflated numbers is to assume that all three SS Panzergrenadier divisions participated. In fact, only one, the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler (LSSAH) fought this battle.

The other two were on the flanks of the LSSAH (Totenkopf on the left, and largely across the Psel River, and Das Reich on the right) and were fighting their own separate battles. At the time of the battle, LSSAH had already been in combat for about a week and was not in full strenght. By July 11th and 12th, the two main days of the battle, LSSAH was down to about 100 tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers.

The Soviet units that participated in the battle at Prokhorovka were the 18th and 29th Tank Corps, along with a separate detachment under General Trufanov. These units combined were able to field about 421 tanks, assault guns, and tank destroyers. So, contrary to the popular claims of "thousands" of tanks fighting it out in front of Prokhorovka, we have about 517.
Post 08 Sep 2006, 21:57
Why does the moderator argue with an opinion? Do you doubt that what I wrote is actually my opinion?

You must be quite young to defend the modern revisionist view with such zeal. Have you read Keegan, Matanle, Lidell-Hart, or even Zhukov? It is historians that contradict the revisionists and not I.

I'm sorry that I contradict certain view of things but what can I do, it is not the truth!?
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron
[ Top ]