Once again, the work of concripts.
Alot of the Germans were highly trained though, and alot of the russian soldiers were just conscripted villagers and workmen that had no knowledge of Battles.
a big reason the kills were so large was that there were many tiger panzers in this battle: around 300. only 10 were lost!
and all the best elite panzer divisions were there:11th panzer, 2nd panzer, greater germany, das reich, totenkopf, lah. and this is before quality dropped in the fall of 1944. i believe the ss panzers were still all volunteer force at this time.
Strategic? Im not sure I agree with this, the Soviets held all the Aces at Kursk and far from losing they played an excellent strategic game. They firstly ground down the Germans and then threw them back. From this point the Soviets never went back.
Well the Germans where defiantly much more equipped and more expirienced then the average Russian Soldier.
Strategic? Im not sure I agree with this, the Soviets held all the Aces at Kursk and far from losing they played an excellent strategic game. They firstly ground down the Germans and then through them back. From this point the Soviets never went back.[/quote]
the kursk attack was a classic double envelopment blitzkrieg attack. it was very obvious, and “done before” attack.
as dr.glantz has pointed out, the germans weren’t really ground down.
their panzer strengths after july 14 were still pretty strong. the total losses were only 300 panzers.
its that constant armor battle for two weeks causes tanks to start having engine trouble. many were withdrawn from the field getting their engines fixed(especially the “heavies”).
the main thing was that the germans failed to connect the pincer move fast enough to avoid this, which gave time for the soviets to concentrate their surviving armor forces in the wedge, making a strong concentrated hedgehog position while the germans spread themselves thin.
by then, the allies invaded italy and hitler ordered several panzer divisions to pull out to change fronts to stop the allies from advancing too far in italy.
but a lot of the soviet strategic victory is due to the fact that the soviets could take their heavy losses due to supeior production and us lend lease. while the germans had many damaged panzers that took time to fix . ie, a lof of broken tank tracks thanks to minefields.
No Soviets have 1 300 000 soldiers ,3600 tanks ,20 000 artillery pieces and 2 400 aircraft.
Germans only have 900 000 man 2 700 tanks and 2000 aircraft.
In this battle i think germans cant win.
Strategic? Im not sure I agree with this, the Soviets held all the Aces at Kursk and far from losing they played an excellent strategic game. They firstly ground down the Germans and then through them back. From this point the Soviets never went back.[/quote]
the kursk attack was a classic double envelopment blitzkrieg attack. it was very obvious, and “done before” attack.
as dr.glantz has pointed out, the germans weren’t really ground down.
their panzer strengths after july 14 were still pretty strong. the total losses were only 300 panzers.
its that constant armor battle for two weeks causes tanks to start having engine trouble. many were withdrawn from the field getting their engines fixed(especially the “heavies”).
the main thing was that the germans failed to connect the pincer move fast enough to avoid this, which gave time for the soviets to concentrate their surviving armor forces in the wedge, making a strong concentrated hedgehog position while the germans spread themselves thin.
by then, the allies invaded italy and hitler ordered several panzer divisions to pull out to change fronts to stop the allies from advancing too far in italy.
but a lot of the soviet strategic victory is due to the fact that the soviets could take their heavy losses due to supeior production and us lend lease. while the germans had many damaged panzers that took time to fix . ie, a lot of broken tank tracks thanks to minefields. this gave the russians a window of opportunity which allowed them to counterattack against sparse opposition (few operational tanks, many in repair/engine overhaul)and regain lost territory.
Kursk was not blitzkreig. The blitzkreig failed in the first year of Barbarossa and was never tried again (on the Ostfront). Kursk used the armored wedge attack.
Kursk never had a chance. Zhukov had it all planned out. The germans were doomed the minute they organized the assualt. And waiting the extra weeks didn’t help them either.
And as for the German losses compared to Russian losses. This isn’t surprising, considering the Germans had much superior equipment, planes, and tanks. That didn’t effect the Russian defensive and strategic advantage, though. And then Zhukovs plan of operation Bagration immediately after Kursk finished the killing blow to the German’s possibility of a victory in Russia.
read “The Tigers Are Burning” by Martin Caiden. Very good book on Kursk.
i remember rommel has recommand hitler to test more of his tiger tank before deploying them to combat, but hitler just say no to that
You’re older than I thought FW !
You’re older than I thought FW !
[/quote]
:lol: :lol: Apparently!
“tigers are burning”… This may be an outdated book. Only 10 tigers were lost at kursk. Overall, this battle was executed well tactically by the germans but overall was part of a defunct strategy.
The Kursk offensive were exelantly thought of and executed almost perfectly but, the Germans were in to deep and the Russian army crushed the Germans because everything was in there faviour. Artilary, numbers of tanks, ground forces and airpower over Kursk was way better than that of the Germans. The problem with the Tiger tank and the Panther was that they did not function great in wet conditions, they got stuck. The Ferdinant, Elefant and most of the other mobile artilary did not have guns in front to fight off the Russian infantry from attacking the Panzers and thus made them efective.
The Tigers and Panthers were knocked out by the shear numbers of T-34’s and not by shitty armour. The T-34 did not matck the strenth of the German Tigers and Panthers were better thatn that of the Russian T-34 but, the T-34 were more reliable thatn the Tigers and the Panthers in the machanical feild.
The tactics that the Germans used was great but they did not have the numbers that the Russian army had and thus could not keep the offensive up and going.
Henk
I don’t doubt the precissness of the German’s tactics.
But they were in a hole too deep to crawl out of.
I think several author’s view on the Ferdinand may be the result of soviet propoganda.
This Tank destroyer was deployed in the overwatch role and not sent near enemy forces.
Its powerful cannon gave it massive range and accuracy and gave the ferdinand a 10 to 1 kill ratio over soviet armor.
Overall it was a success, but the germans perferred the Tiger panzer more, which had more roles.
You’re older than I thought FW !
[/quote]
:lol: :lol: Apparently![/quote]
lol to that :lol:
how old are you fw?
Kursk was simply an illustration of what Guderian had always maintained about armor- It makes no difference if your tank is worth 4 of the enemy’s when he has 5. That axiom held true ona all front throughout the war. Plain and simple.
