Kursk anniversary: 68 years

[Karl Heidenreich]

On July 12th the famous combat at Prochokova will be 68 years old. The grestest tank battle ever!

[alecsandros]

Where ther russians got their asses kicked but nevertheless proclaimed victory. By the way, did you know they claimed 70 tigers destroyed in Prochorowka ?
Out of the 42 available to the GErmans

[Karl Heidenreich]

Well, the soviets and the yanks liked to exagerate with their Tiger kills. It's more or less what also happened at the Bulge.

[lwd]

The Germans exagerated thier kills as well. As for victory at Kursk it was a very clear Soviet victory all but a costly one. The Germans failed to achieve their objectives and effectivly lost their operational reserve insuring the Soviet attacks that took place elsewhere would succeed.

[alecsandros]

The Germans exagerated thier kills as well. As for victory at Kursk it was a very clear Soviet victory all but a costly one. The Germans failed to achieve their objectives and effectivly lost their operational reserve insuring the Soviet attacks that took place elsewhere would succeed.

I guess you should read more about the battle ?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Glantz offered and excelent account on the battle; lots of maps and detailed information from the soviet side. A battle like no other in WWII.

[lwd]

The Germans exagerated thier kills as well. As for victory at Kursk it was a very clear Soviet victory all but a costly one. The Germans failed to achieve their objectives and effectivly lost their operational reserve insuring the Soviet attacks that took place elsewhere would succeed.

I guess you should read more about the battle ?

Why? What did I say that isn't correct?

[alecsandros]

Why? What did I say that isn't correct?

Everything except the first statement.

[lwd]

Why? What did I say that isn't correct?

Everything except the first statement.

???? You think it was a German victory?!!?
Did they cut off the Kursk saliant?
Were they able to successfully defend against the Soviet offences that followed?
What did their mobile reserve look like afterward?

Let's take a look at what some sites have to say about it:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ba ... _kursk.htm

... battle resulted in a severe crisis for Nazi Germany’s war machine in Russia.
...
By July 10th, the German IX Army had lost 2/3rds of its tanks.
...
By July 23rd, the Germans had been pushed back to where they had stated their attack. The initiative now lay with the Russians ...
On July 12th, the Russians launched another counter-offensive in the north of the salient in an effort to relieve Orel. ... Unable to call in reinforcements from their men fighting in the south, the Germans were unable to hold off the Russian offensive. By July 19th, the Russians had pushed forward 45 miles. ... The German Army in and around Orel pulled back 60 miles in an effort to regroup. ....
A similar situation occurred in the southern sector of the salient. .... Their counter-offensive in this sector started on August 3rd and two days later Russian forces entered Belgorod.
...
The Battle of Kursk was to have major consequences for the Germans. It was the last major offensive they launched in Russia. Now, their forces only faced retreat and attempting to stop the onslaught of the Red Army. The material damage done to the German Army was massive - 500,000 men were killed, wounded or missing; vast amounts of armour had been lost.

http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm

Thus, the German offensive was contained and stalled....
As it was, the Soviet attacks still forced the Germans out of the Ukraine, even with the use of Panzer forces on the defensive.
...
It is certain that CITADEL failed and in no way were the Germans positioned to even score a partial victory...

http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/battle ... skursk.htm

Operation Citadel was a catastrophe for German forces on the eastern front. ...
The cream of the German panzer force, so carefully husbanded prior to the operation, was exhausted and the Russian's had undeniably and completely gained the initiative on the eastern front. The campaign in the east would now consist of a series of German retreats and Russian successes.

Doesn't sound like I'm wrong to me. Even Wiki agrees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk#Results

The campaign was a decisive Soviet success. For the first time, a major German offensive had been stopped before achieving a breakthrough.

and note the following qutoe from them:

“ With the failure of Zitadelle we have suffered a decisive defeat. The armoured formations, reformed and re-equipped with so much effort, had lost heavily in both men and equipment and would now be unemployable for a long time to come. It was problematical whether they could be rehabilitated in time to defend the Eastern Front... Needless to say the Russians exploited their victory to the full. There were to be no more periods of quiet on the Eastern Front. From now on, the enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative.[134] ”
—Heinz Guderian

[alecsandros]

Lee, you are away with the fairies.

The battle of Prochorowka is different from operation zitadelle, which is different from the battle of Kursk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prokhorovka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk [see the casualties table for differences between Kursk/Zitadelle]

I did not say Prochorowka was a German victory. I said you are wrong in saying it was a soviet victory. In fact, neither side achieved its objectives that day.
As for the "loss of the operational reserves", it was the soviets who commited their tank reserve earlier than desired. The reserve was cut to shreds by Tigers and Pz-IVs of Totenkopf and Das Reich divisions, heavily sustained by Ju-87's.

[lwd]

Lee, you are away with the fairies.

Well it is typical IME when to see one who has a weak arguement attack the poster rather than the post as you do here.

The battle of Prochorowka is different from operation zitadelle, which is different from the battle of Kursk.

Indeed Prochorowka was part of the battle of Kursk was it not? And Zitadelle and Kursk are used essentially as synonyms. It's also worth noteing that my statements which you are challenging refred to the more general context of Kursk which is of course the title of this thread. It's also still relevant to the Battle of Prokjorovka.

Let's see you point to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prokhorovka

and it states:

This was the pivotal battle of the German offensive to encircle Soviet forces in the Kursk salient. Its culmination and outcome are a matter of contention. The German assault failed to achieve its objective. The Soviets succeeded in winning a series of defensive engagements and prevented the German formations breaking through their lines, but Soviet attacks against German positions were repulsed. By the end of the battle both sides had suffered heavy losses. The Soviet losses were much higher, but larger operational and strategic manpower and materiel reserves enabled the Red Army to retain the strategic and operational initiative.

Sounds an awful lot like a Soviet strategic victory to me.

I did not say Prochorowka was a German victory. I said you are wrong in saying it was a soviet victory. In fact, neither side achieved its objectives that day.

The tactical fighting that day may have been a draw but it left the Soviets with a strategic advantage which they utilized in their attacks both north and south of the Kursk Salient.

As for the "loss of the operational reserves", it was the soviets who commited their tank reserve earlier than desired. The reserve was cut to shreds by Tigers and Pz-IVs of Totenkopf and Das Reich divisions, heavily sustained by Ju-87's.

Indeed but the Soviets were able to rebuild their operational reserves the Germans were never able to rebuild theirs to the extent that they could launch another successful attack in the East.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Alex:

Lee, you are away with the fairies.

The battle of Prochorowka is different from operation zitadelle, which is different from the battle of Kursk.

Alex, you are correct and lwd is not reading properly, as usual. The Prochorowka combat, on July 12th, left the field full of burning T34s. The field was in German hands. Of course this is the main combat that people relate as the Kusk battle as a whole. Which is what lwd do NOT understand or do not want to understand.

The Battle of Kusk divide itself in two phases:

1. Citadelle
2. Soviet Offensive

Prochorowka is part of the Citadelle part. It ocurred in the Southern Pinzer under Paul "Papa" Hauser group of 3 Waffen Pz Divisions who was also under Hoth's. At the northen pinzer was Model, who since Day 1 failed miserably. Hoth and Model were under Manstein.

The battle was, much as Manstein called it, a failed victory. After the Prochorowka combat, that was very succesfull for the Germans, Manstein could have exploit the victory, because the 5th Tank Guard Army was, basically, anhilitated. However Hitler himself called off the whole operation because the Northen Pinzer was a failure and, predominantly, because of the western allied landing in Italy.

Prochorowka alone was a much major and violent combat than any that happened in the western theatre and Citadelle a greater offensive than any attempted in the Strategic Diversion from June 6th 1944 to May 8thth 1945. This can be easiy checked here:


http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publicatio ... r41-45.pdf

Of course this has been said zillion of times and supported before. We are just "reiterating" in order to please the argumentative sickness of some.

[lwd]

I'm not reading what I wrote properly? Excuse me if I suspect I have a better command of what I intended to write and indeed English in general than you do. I will admit that I didn't realize that you were restricting your two were restricting your comments to that particular days battle. However I stand by my comments especially as I was referring to the larger battle of which it was a part.

Command of the field means little when the objective of the particular battle was to break through which they didn't and when the objective of the larger operation was to cut off the salient which had already failed due to the lack of success in the North. Especially when one considers that the Germans were unable to contain the Soviet offenses that followed it is clear that the Soviets could afford the costs of Kursk in general and Prochorowka in particular where the Germans could not. A position that is well supported by the pdf by Glantz that you linked by the way.

[lwd]

Let's take a look at some more details:

Alex:
...
The battle was, much as Manstein called it, a failed victory. After the Prochorowka combat, that was very succesfull for the Germans, Manstein could have exploit the victory, because the 5th Tank Guard Army was, basically, anhilitated.

Not according to: http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm

Myth #8: The Germans almost won, or they could have won. ... As armored units were pulled out of CITADEL, they too were committed in a defensive role along the Mius. Had CITADEL been continued with the commitment of the XXIV Panzer Corps, the German lines along the Mius would almost certainly have been decisively penetrated, leading to operational disaster for the Germans. As it was, the Soviet attacks still forced the Germans out of the Ukraine, even with the use of Panzer forces on the defensive.

The ellipses indicate several short paragraphs that go into it in detail.

However Hitler himself called off the whole operation because the Northen Pinzer was a failure and, predominantly, because of the western allied landing in Italy.

The above goes on to say this in reference to the above which it refers to as another myth:

Myth #7: Hitler called off CITADEL because the Americans and British landed on Sicily and the Germans needed to shift forces to the western front. This component of the overall myth of Kursk is undoubtedly due to western authors trying to increase the otherwise paltry contributions of the western allies in 1943. In actual fact, the German units on the southern face of the Kursk salient received new orders to renew their attacks several days after the landing on Sicily. Hitler called off CITADEL not because a couple of British and American divisions were attacking a strategically insignificant island in the Mediterranean, but because the Soviets had (1) blunted and stalled the German CITADEL offensive, and (2) launched their own massive offensives on the flanks of the German attack. These attacks soaked up reserves the Germans had planned on using to complete the destruction of the Kursk salient. Without them, the Germans were too weak to continue CITADEL and they began withdrawing their units.

Prochorowka alone was a much major and violent combat than any that happened in the western theatre and Citadelle a greater offensive than any attempted in the Strategic Diversion from June 6th 1944 to May 8thth 1945. This can be easiy checked here:

When compared to D-day it hardly looks to be "a much major and violent combat than any that happened in the western theatre". Furthermore if we compare Overlord to Citadel using the wiki pages let's see what the numbers look like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord
Operation Zitadelle - Total troops ~2,700,000, Casualties ~232,000 men 2,000-2,400 tanks and assault guns, 600-2,200 aircraft
Operation Overlord - Total troops ~3,000,000, Casualties ~430,000 - ~675,000 men, ~6,600 tanks and assault guns, 6,000+ planes

Your statement does not look well founded based on the above. Referring to allied operations in Western Europe as a "Strategic Diversion" is both inaccurate and insulting.

[Karl Heidenreich]

It is good that you admit how the US forces had numerical superiority over the Germans. 3 million: good!

But on Kursk many have been written already here from a lot of people. It is nothing what you can add to out knowledge of it, at least mine. Anyway: in the first post I wrote this:

On July 12th the famous combat at Prochokova will be 68 years old. The grestest tank battle ever!