Rommel at Kursk

What if Rommel was at Kursk? What units do you think he would be commanding, how would the outcome of the battle been affected,etc. Tell me what you think.

 

I think the outcome would have been the same thanks to Hitlers stupid policies.

 

I agree with you Carl. But, taking that variable out I would say that I would have to say that he may have commanded one of the pincers more than likely the southern one. The outcome? Probably the same. It is difficult to gauge how Rommel would have performed due to the fact that the Russians had totally different tactics than those of the Brits. I must say that Rommel would have loved not having control of the skies to be solely on the allied side. It seems that Rommel performs well as a tactical commander since he preferred to command from the front and move around alot. I do not think he would have commanded the whole operation because of von Manstein.

 

I totally agree with you as well PzJgr. Rommel would have been forced to have different tactics with the russians and because of the terrein involved.

 

Rommel at Kursk? I think he could have won.

My reasons for this are the following:

1. Rommel liked to press an attack against all opposition, and would do so until he ran out of fuel.

2. Rommel was very good at countering directives from Berlin.

I believe that these two factors would have caused a German victory at Kursk, although this could have been a merely tactical one. However, depending on the number of the captured or incapacitated Soviet troops, it could have meant a serious setback for the Soviets and could have lead to a stalemate or ultimately a seperate peace.

 

I think the outcome would most likely be the same, but the advance would be much much more deeper. When I get a book back from a friend I'll be able to give a more complete response.

 

Good point Andreas! The only trouble I have with that is at that time--Hitler had already had such a "hold" over the military and I dont see the High Command having enough "guts" to back up Rommel--though your way of thinking would be our way of wishing something like that would have happened.

 

It would be interesting to hear exactly how Rommel would have done any better. Facing a continuous layered defence, manouever was not an option, his only strength.

Depending upon his position in the army at the time, he may have achieved some local advantage as a small unit commander but otherwise, no.

 

That is a valid point Richard. In the desert, Rommel had the space to outfox the enemy. In Russia, there may have been space but there was a continuous line of Russians unlike that in the desert.

 

I agree with you guys, it definitely helped Rommel's prestige that he never had to fight the "Rompin'Stompin'Red Army". The Brits in the desert fought differently and too often made the mistake of trying to outwit a military genius.
After the disasters of '41 and early '42 the Russians had learned not to try and outsmart the senior German Generals too often, they relied heavily on numbers and material to make up for often lacking leadership. "Zitadelle" was doomed almost from the start and I believe that no german commander could have spared the Germans from that once the battle had started. The Russians knew what was coming, when it was coming and where it was coming and they had put up a hell of a roadblock to stop it from going anywhere. Zitadelle was decided before it ever happened, the only surprise was that one of the pincers (von Manstein's southern advance) managed to grind its way so deep into the layers of defense put up by the Soviets.

 

I do agree that "Zitadelle" was doomed from the very beginning. Heinz Guderian had asked Hitler to stop the attack because there was not going to be any surprise, any mobility. Any of the things he had said in "Achtung...Panzer!" that were necessary for victory.

Erwin Rommel was a tactician who followed most of Guderian's points and was an ace in armoured warfare. But, as many of you say, Rommel's tactics and strategy were very special. he had troubles in North Africa trying to destroy filthy tanks like the Grant & Lee, Shermans and Valentines with his mark III and IV. Facing monsters like KV-1 and T-34 would have been a problem for him, who was not used to it. And I do not think that his tactics like the "Papperdivision" would have worked with the Russians... He was very capable and he was good enough to do the things very good wherever and whenever needed, even if he was not used to that enemy. But Kursk was heavily defended and it was going to be a frontal battle anyway, where the Russians had many, many advantages: the numbers, knowing exactly what the Germans were up to...

 

I think we are missing the most important element in this topic. What if Rommel was at Kursk with all his veteran panzer crews from Afrika? Guderian himself wanted Hitler to evacuate the cream of the panzer crews in N. Africa specifically for their use in "Zittadel". I think with these veteran tank crews armed with Tiger tanks and Rommel in command, the outcome may have been quite different!

I think Rommel would have felt out the Russian defenses better in depth, and he would have sent his main panzer thrust much deeper towards the eastern flank of the Soviet defences. The main question would be, would the center of the German lines hold out long enough for the main panzer pincer to crush the Russians from the rear? I think they could have since the Russians had no plans of a frontal attack on the center.

I'm not saying he would have won, but I think it could have swung either way. Which ever way it did swing, that side would win huge!

Matt

 

In order for him to avoid the minefields and drive deeper as you say, this would cause him to over expose his flanks. Bad move. You are correct in that the Russians had no plans to attack. So, all they had to do was to wait for the Germans to make their move and focus on that attack. They knew the Germans were already stretched thin and where ever the attack was, that would be the only focal point.

 

Attacking in 1943 was a mistake. It was a worse mistake to attack at Kursk. And it was the worst mistake to attack the way the Germans did.

If I had been in command in 1943, I would have noted the following things:

1. I am facing a largely entrenched front from Murmansk to the Black Sea.

2. My troops do not excel in trench warfare.

3. To get things moving I must either attack decisively with all my mechanised forces and air force at one point or I must plan a trap for the Russians.

The latter is what Manstein did at Kharkov, and what I would have tried to do. It would be a gamble of course. But what isn't.

So I would tear open a huge hole in the front, ready my tanks on the flanks, and some at the end of the hole to hold up the Russian advance. Let the Russians come, and close the trap. The gains might not be huge, but at least it would be a German victory, possibly wiping out a large part of Soviet armour, and then the path would be open to counter-attack through a weakened defensive line with all armour concentrated.

That could have produced a significant victory in 1943.

As for the Soviets, they did the best thing possible in 1943. Held on to their gains in the summer and attacked again in the autumn and winter. There is nothing to be improved in their strategy.

 

Kursk was a trap. Rommel in charge, pressing the attack even harder, would have simply been sticking the Wehrmacht's head further into the trap. Look how he over-extended himself at El Alamein - the same approach to Kursk would have only made matters worse. Committing more of the flank covering forces to the stagnating hopeless offensive would have played right into Zhukov's hands.

And don't let's resort to that tired old "Blame it All on Hitler" ploy. After Stalingrad, Hitler was chastised by his failure and gave the army commanders, especially Manstein, more strategic decision power than they'd had in a long time, and more than they ever would have again. Hitler gave his generals a lot of rope for Zitadel, and they hung themselves with it.

 

Most certainly Rommel would have been in charge of in the least--a Panzer Korps. I can see Andreas reasoning behind what he said and that Rommle might actually win. Also with what Matt said about having all his veteral Panzer crews from the D.A.K. available--how could he lose? speaking as a what if? only.

 

I don't think Rommel was present at El Alamein. AFAIK he was in Berlin at the time of the battle. But I'm not very sure about this.

 

You are correct Andreas. He was not there for the battle but I do believe he planned the attack. The situation was not idea for his way of fighting since he could not outflank the Brits. He had to attack head on which would not work with the limited resources typical of the DAK

 

I love starting these topics and se where they go.

 

I don't think Rommel was present at El Alamein. AFAIK he was in Berlin at the time of the battle. But I'm not very sure about this.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, how did the DAK get to El Alamein?

Rommel put his army out on a limb. He kept pressing his offensive - as you say - until he ran out of gas.

Real smart.