No, what I meant was that the Germans weren't in their prime anymore, that their men had once been much better and that the cream of their generals as well as officers and NCOs was spent or absent at Kursk.
Ill have to disagree with you here Roel. The German soldiers of 43 were no worse than the ones who fought in 39-41, as many maby would have been in service from 39 up to 43. So they should actually be better, as they should have some more combat experience . However i do agree that the leaders werent allowed to use their full advantage, as Hitler wanted to control it all by himself.(And that wouldnt have changed, so yes maby they would have lost nomatter what then, but, not if Hitler hadnt controlled it all !. (But he wouldnt have been able to keep his nose out of it, so this is maby irrelevant) KBO
In early 1943 the Germans proclaimed total war; a large part of the army would have been made up of inexperienced conscripts by the time of Kursk.
I think the germans could have won at kursk if they gone for a different stratergy adopted and advocated by manstien and other generals and used by the red army. employ a counter strike against a forthcomiing russian summer offensive, rather than taking the offensive. i believe the germans chances of winning the war vanished at the gates of moscow in late 41. victory at Kursk would only delay their eventual defeat im afraid.
"But it would also be filled with Veterans !." It does not follow that the German formations at the time of Kursk must be filled with veterans, I admit this isn't exactly my specialist area but as far as I'm aware the German army by that time was much bigger than that of 1939, so it follows that in the intervening years the army must have been bulked up with raw recruits, some would have gained experienced, others would not have had the chance, also these would not have been afforded the luxury of the training given to pre-war recruits. Also by this point the German army had suffered grievous losses in the Battle of Moscow and Stalingrad, a very large portion of the skilled veterans who invaded in June 1941 were either dead or captured by this point. All in all I see no reason to assume that the German divisions must have been "Filled with Veterans", I'd say most likely the opposite would have been true.
I believe that the Germans couldn't have one. For one thing, their air force was a fragment of what it once was. Also the moral was very low for the Germans and very high for the Russians. If conditions were different, like if the German air force was in its prime, and they had more amour on there side, maybe things would have been different.
After 2-3 years war there would almost certainly be veterans, and although many were lost at Stalingrad, there were still alot left. Inexperienced grunts were also sent to stalinggrad, and some veterans were maby on a vacation/war-leave or whatever at home, until they were to be shipped back to the front. Also the training of troops in 42-43 was no worse than in the earlier stages ! As at this point the army would have learned alot of new techniques in warfare, and the officer-corp would be more experienced, and would know exactly what they were expecting of their men !. KBO
i would say at the time of kursk the luftwaffe on the eastern front was probably at its strongest at any point b4 or after. but the red airforce by this time had numerical superority but by no means total air superority.
Cheeky Monkey, it is generally believed that the cream of the Luftwaffe was either lost trying to supply 6th Army through the air when they were encircled around Stalingrad, or was fighting the intensifying bombing raids over Germany itself. I doubt many skilled pilots were available to support the operations at Kursk tactically. KBO: soldiers on leave will always be less numerous than soldiers engaged at the front, so the amount of veterans gained thus will be minimal. The soldiers at Kursk may have had more experience in actual war but their training is likely to have been worse than that of any soldier before them, and their morale was severely worse in any case than that of the invincible German soldier of 1941.
In terms of the battle of kursk it was a victory of sorts by the luftwaffe over the red airforce, but as with the armoured clashes on the ground althougth they came out on top in head to head battles their general losses were unserstainble in contrast to the russian air force. Yes the growing threat off allied bombing was beginning to take effect on the fighting capabilities of the luftwaffe on the eastern front. this was the last occasion that they were more than a match for the russians. Over 2000 aircraft were commited to the operation many being the newer model 109s and focke wolf fighters, neva b4 or after did the germans commit such a force in any one battle in such a small area!
Roel how can the training of men in 43 be worse than in 41 ? The German army had learned alot of new things about warefare in the 3-4 years of combat before Kursk !. So the Training couldnt have been worse, but it most likely would have been better !. In the arguement of the Morale of the individual soldier i agree with you, as it wasnt going to be higher than in 41. KBO
The knowledge given may have been better, but was there enough time spent on training, so the recruits were not as properly prepared.
I am sure that wasnt a very big problem, as the Germans showed in their fighting capabilities in 44-45 ! The problem was the increasingly younger men being used, plus older men in the very last stages.
Training of German troops declined since the very beginning of the war simply because new soldiers were needed ever faster. While the men who invaded Poland and Western Europe had been trained and prepared for these exact actions for years, the average German recruit of late 1944 had recieved about two weeks of training when he reached the front.
Training didnt decline !, maby it was shorter but it certainly wasnt worse !. Yes it is true that immense training and preparations was done before undertaking the task of attacking france and poland. It was practiced over and over again, however basic combat training would evolve from 41-45, only to be better. Well those two weeks must certainly have paid off then !, considdering how they made the allies suffer from June 6 and onwards !.
I told you before that it was largely due to other factors than training that the Germans held out so well against the Western Allies. In the east it's all due to the fact that it was a life or death struggle there, and any military theorist will tell you that the defender is worth five men if he has to fight to the death, with no alternative. This is why Sun Tzu tells his readers several times always to leave the enemy one road out when you have him encircled; that why he won't fight to the death. In the west: terrain favours the defender, German material favours the defender, weather often favours the defender (rains and fog keep the enemy air force on the ground); the German troops also showed a remarkable ability to regain coherence after being routed. This has little to do with training, however.
Training didnt decline !, maby it was shorter but it certainly wasnt worse !. With all due respect KBO, that simply doesn't make sense. There is a limit to the amount of new information any individual can absorb at a time, train an individual for months and they will become pretty proficient, train an individual for weeks and by comparison their skills will be lacking, simply because they have had less time to practice those skills. It doesn't make sense to say that the reduction of basic training from whatever it was pre-war (2 months or thereabouts seems a reasonable ballpark figure) down to 2 weeks does not represent a decline and that those troops were no worse prepared than their prewar counterparts. If you could make an effective infantry soldier in two weeks, why do armies spend up to 6 months training their infantrymen? Because they have huge training budgets to blow and can't think of anything better to do with the money? however basic combat training would evolve from 41-45, only to be better How? When it is being reduced in time and the army is being forced to accept younger and younger recruits? What is your basis for saying it was better? Taking the Luftwaffe as a benchmark, the standard of training for fighter pilot's in that time declined so badly that the typical fighter pilot leaving training went from being one of the best in the world in 1940/41 to being basically a danger to himself by late 44/45. I fail to see with the pressures on the training schools to produce more and more soldiers quicker and quicker and going from accepting or declining applicants to a mass draft of 17 year olds and over means that they were generating a higher standard of soldier. German troops also showed a remarkable ability to regain coherence after being routed. This has little to do with training, however. Agreed I'd say that was probably more down to national character traits (Particularly almost instinctive obedience to authority), and the leadership of the surviving veterans (NCOs and Junior officers) than two week's worth of training!
