Well, I will first focus on the whole strategic situation, OK?

As we have discussed. The annhilation battle "Kesselschlacht" tactic is a very good, but difficult one, because it has to be done very, very quickly with Blitkrieg tactics as it happened in Minsk, Kiev, etc. However, this kind of battles, always lethal to the enemy are very expensive. Specially, with a tough adversary as the Russians.

Kursk was a bad try of a Kesselschlacht, because it was supposely to reduce the bulge, encircle the Soviet forces there and destroy them with two armoured pincers and an "infantry-sweeper". But to have a nice Kesselschlacht there most be mobility, surprise and disorganisation of the enemy forces. There was any of these factors in Kursk in 1943. Yo supossely have to encircle a disorganised enemy sorrounding him very quickly, not allowing him to escape. But in Kursk there was no disorganised and retreating enemy, but an enemy very well organised, very strong and confortable on his trenchers which is expecting you to attack. How could this succeed? It cannot. The armoured pincers would not attack disorganised flanks, but strong ones and the infantry-sweeper is not going to sweep anything, because the enemy has a lot of good deffensive positions. The only thing that "Zitadelle" had in common with the annhilation battles like Kiev is that is was indeed TOO expensive.

However, it could have succeed in a certain point, because the Germans were very expereinced and well equipped. And the German armour losses were not as high as it is known. There was a chance to succeed, at least the Southern pincer... A tactical engagement could have been won, at a very expensive cost and not achieve a strategic battle, which was what was needed.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun