These were two very similar and pivotal battles fought by the Germans (Alamein and Kursk). In one the Germans were defending and in the other they were attacking. In both cases the end result was a German loss.
The question here is what could the Germans have learned from Alamein and applied to Kursk to improve their chances of success at the later battle? Some other questions that might be posed:

What made the British successful at Alamein against a similar (but less deep) set of defenses as those at Kursk while at the later battle German methods failed?

Were German methods at either or both battles a cause of failure or was it simply a material issue?
The obverse would be were British and or Russian methods primarily responsible for their successes or was it, again, just a matter of material superiority?

The success of the British was due to the fact that Rommel was already attacking (july 42)first,unsuccessfully though. This was the First Battle of El Alamein. The last skirmish was the Battle of Alam Halfa in August 42 which cost the Germans dearly up to his point. Rommel reluctantly settled back to refit. The next phase, the Second Battle of El Alamein took effect with the attack by the reinforced Eighth Army under the command of Monty. In true form, the British attacked an already weakened and supply starved Afrika Korps.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

I don't see see much relation between the two battles, as in Alamein II the Germans were very weak and had to put all they had in the front window, whereas at Kursk the Russians had had the oportunity to make a massive buildup, had several lines and a large reserve up their sleeve.

Perhaps the Germans would benefit with better intelligence, reconnaissance in depth, stronger engineer element and much stronger artillery to come up to par with Alamein.

__________________

One thing was the influence of the Lucy spy ring, giving over the complete German plans of the Kursk Offensive, while Rommel was trapped is a manner of sorts his usual tactic of wide sweeping flanking pincers could not work in El- Alamein because of the geography working against him.

Rommel could never keep enough armor on the field.But they fought to take over the Middle East.

There was plenty of armor at Kursk,but it was squandered using it for no real reason.
There was never any hope in some miracle,Russia would give up.
JMHO

__________________

I can not see what the Germans learned from Alamein to be used at Kursk, you got different terrain for a start and the British would had different tactics to the Russians.

__________________
Man of the Year 1942

Regards, Richard

Rommel mentioned something about concentration of artillerry & tanks at strategic points as how things could be done differently on eastern front. Apparrently he did things a little differently than his east front comrades.

Will try & find his exact quote.