Quote:
|
Why do you think it is overrated? It was not the turning point in a sense that before the Germans might have won, after they were lost. But at least it was the turning point that the Wehrmacht never got the initiative again in the east... and it meant that the Russians would achieve their victory even without western help, sooner or later, which before Kursk was not sure at all.
|
Sorry for the delayed response. [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]
It is an overrated battle. It was not the turning point of the war. The initiative passed entirely to the Red Army, yes. But after the disaster at Stalingrad, the Germans, with initiative or not could not win the war. The 3rd battle of Khárkov was no where close to break the backbone of the Red Army. Those limited victories - as Hitler believed - were not going to halt the Soviet growing in strenght and their fighting power. If the Germans had not attacked at Kursk in 1943, a mighty Red Army would have stilled performed large winter-offensives all over the front, smashing the German lines again. WIth reserves or no reserves, with Panthers or no Panthers. Kursk WAS NOT the turning point of the war. Kursk didn't see the very best of the German Army - veterans from Poland, France and 'Barbarossa' - annihilated, Stalingrad and 'Little Saturn' did.
Quote:
|
Prokoravka was, at the least, a tactical German victory.
|
Indeed it was. But the whole German strategy was collapsing.
