The Battle of Kursk
Read the article this discussion is about
- Snead
- Dean_Williams
- Snead
- rkewin
- bojamer
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» Snead - Late
Sorry it took so long to get over here, but I have been busy. I have been very impressed with this battle for a long time. I believe the Russians defeated Hitler and we defeated Japan at Midway. It is amazing how much punishment was absorbed and dished out in this theatre and this particular tank battle. I will try to do more study in the future.What do you think England and the US let Stalin know concerning enigma? One documentary suggested they decided it might be compromised if he were allowed to fully participate. What was the Lucy ring?
-- posted by Snead
» Dean_Williams - The battle of Kursk was, after Stalingrad, the most decisive bat
The battle of Kursk was, after Stalingrad, the most decisive battle ow the war. After Manstein's victory at Kharkov, a stable front was the need of the hour for Germany. The Russian bulge around Kursk would have had to have been snipped in order to facilitate such stability.The Russians, however, were given far too much time to create formidable defenses in the salient. This was largely due to the fact that Hitler himslef began to have doubts about an assault of this magnitude, hence the wait for newer, more powerful, albeit inexperienced Panzer forces.
Manstein and Kluge who had wanted to start in early May, had to make do with a launch date delayed until Mid-July. Model's Northern pincer ran aground early, while Hoth's Souther pincer, though it did make strong progress early on got embroiled in protracrted, and eventually disasterous slugging match with the Russian Tank armies.
Kursk, due mainly to its delayed start, and limited shock-value, not only depleted a large part of Germany's Panzer forces -- which could have been used to repulse the invasion in the West -- but boosted morale considerably amongst the Russians
-- posted by Dean_Williams
» Snead - Stalingrad
Sieges and bad weather always seem to take the luster off of a win. Kursk just has that classic wide open strategic slugfest aspect that means the difference between eventual victory and defeat. Stalingrad must have had long term effect on victory and defeat. The counterattack could be looked at in both lights. It probably doesn't last as long if it goes the other way, although that could be argued. The Russians were not too interested in giving up, regardless. Tactics just get neutralized in a siege and it ends up being a process of starving, slow torture and attrition until it gives way.-- posted by Snead
» rkewin - Battle of Kursk article by Ralph Zuljan
Ralph does a good job at setting up the circumstances before the battle - well done. However he states that nowhere did the Germans break through at Kursk - this is true for the northern attack, but the SS Panzer Korps in the southern attack not only broke through, but made significant gains toward the center of the Kursk bulge. This prompted the Russians to commit the 5th Guards Tank Army in reserve earlier than they wanted to. Finally Mr. Zuljan leaves out what most people and historians do - that this SS breakthrough was not stopped by heavy losses, but by Hitler's order to withdraw, due to the Western Allies landing in Sicily and threatening the entire southern front. In fact, the SS units were ready to continue attacking, caused very heavy losses to the inept Russian tank force, and did not suffer undue casualties themselves. For details see http://www.thehistorynet.com/WorldWarII/...-- posted by rkewin
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.