Kursk (by popular demand!)

The Red Army had a huge tank army at the time in reserves as well...

Just look at the losses after Zitadelle in the Orel sector alone:

when employed in its AT role Ferdinand proved to be a powerful defensive platform, capable of knocking out a T-34 on a 4,710 meters range. A Wehrmacht communicate on August 6th told that the two battalions had been credited for the destruction of 502 enemy tanks in the Orel sector!


http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/elefant/elefant.htm

And according to the book I mentioned above the Germans credited an enemy tank destroyed only if it was in flames by 1943!

 

Frankson/Zetterling "Kursk" facts:

All in all the battle in Kursk meant for both sides 2-3% losses of all the losses in 1943 battles.

In the southern sector of Zitadelle on 4th July the Germans had 330,000 men and 1,500 tanks. The Russians had over 625,000 men and 1,700 tanks. During the German offensive phase the Red Army got 300,000 men and 1,200 tanks more and altogether Red Army had over 900,000 men and 2,900 tanks against the southern pincer...

 

Now I have spent a little more time reading this long thread. Question about this statement:

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.

[ 21. November 2003, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: KnightMove ]

 

Quite right KnightMove, the Kursk battle was without a doubt the turning point in the East and the Germans also suffered heavy casualties, though considerable less then for example at Stalingrad, but then again the battle didn't last that long.

As for the Russian tank reserves all except one or two corps were already engaged in the south and north.

Cheers
Doppelkopf

 

I have read in recent years that John Cairncross passed vital information to the Soviets which assisted the Kursk victory - I believe this included German aircraft disposition info helping Russians attack German aircraft on the ground prior to the battle.

I searched the internet for info to support this and found the following book review which may be of interest:


SERVING THE KGB

By Shale Dworan, Reply by Noel Annan

In response to The Fabulous Five (January 12, 1995)

To the Editors:

In his anecdotically fascinating review of three books on the life of Kim Philby and the Cambridge University spy ring ["The Fabulous Five," NYR, January 12] Noel Annan leaves the impression that if it were not for John Cairncross (one of the "faithful servants" of the KGB) and his access to Ultra at Bletchley, England, the "rout" of German tanks by the Russians at Kursk could have gone the other way. According to Annan, it was Cairncross who supplied the Russians with "two pieces of information that enabled them to win the decisive battle of the war."

Without meaning to detract one iota from John Cairncross's achievements as a spy for the Russians, long before his Ultra information was in their hands a distinguished anti-Nazi German journalist, Rudolf Roessler, had been supplying the Russians with volumes of detailed intelligence as to the strengths and dispositions of all the major Wermacht units and their attack plans even prior to their invasion of the Soviet Union. These included even the number of Tiger tanks (about 2000) that would be engaged in the Kursk salient, as it came to be called by historians of the battle.

As early as the late 1930s, Rudolf Roessler had been cultivating a cadre of young, mostly of aristocratic background officers in the Abwehr (Germany's intelligence department) who were to have unrestricted access to Hitler's top-secret plans for his invasion of the Soviet Union. From his cover as a rare book and documents dealer in Lucerne, Switzerland (with the code name Lucy) Roessler and his Swiss radio operator used a constantly moving van in the transmissions by wireless of the virtual tons of intelligence that he received from Berlin prior to, and throughout the war. Had Stalin not initially rejected Roessler's reams of infallible intelligence on Hitler's blitzkrieg plans for the Ukraine (he distrusted and disdained spies who did not demand money) the German campaign in the early stages of the invasion could have turned out disastrously for Hitler long before Stalingrad. Rudolf Roessler is virtually unknown in the literature of anti-Nazi espionage. Yet he was the greatest spy of them all.

Shale Dworan
New York City

 

Well, I have not heard that much on Cairncross but I´ll have a look in the net later on. Roessler is well known and more on him in the "spies like us" thread. You can make a search with this thread name if you want to know more of him.

Maybe so but that was not a good day for Red army pilots. The Russians did try to surprise the Luftwaffe but Germans got their planes up early enough and really blasted the Russians out of the skies that day..I think there´s more of that in this thread.

 

Here's another go at keeping this thread alive It's too damned good to simply let it go!

I say, that seems an enormous number of kills for two batallions, even Ferdinands. Is this figure substantiated? Of the 90 Fs. built, how many were operational at Kursk, and how many returned from battle?

Per what I've been reading on this thread and elsewhere, it's beginning to appear to me that the general impression some people wish to leave is that Kursk was more of a German victory than otherwise. I'm surprised von Manstein wasn't taking his supper in the Kremlin after Prokhorovka when in fact what happened was something else entirely! In fact, by mid September the Russians had reached the Dniepr and by the end of same month were going across it.

Are we simply being too focused in one German success, while forgetting about the big picture? Was this a Lost Victory, not because Hitler decided not to pursue it, as V.Manstein says, but because what was happening around it was so momentous that this Lost Victory simply was of not as much consequence as some may have wished? Are we looking too close at a particular tree and forgetting the forest?

I am reminded of von Mellenthin's memories of his feats with Gen. Balck on the attempted relief of Stalingrad. They fought brilliantly, but at the same time were entirely oblivious of the general disaster occuring around them.

Cheers,

 

somebody has mentioned in another forum the following...before I reply him with a post full of lols what do you all think of this?

 

Za Rodina, Bratwurst..

this is just my opinion:

In Kursk and the plater phases of the Zitadelle battles we must think more of the Russian planning:

1. Stop the attack by defensive actions

2. Attack from both sides and drive the enemy away!

So for Germans the Zitadelle was main phase of all action, for Russians only the beginning...As Germans were losing momentum the Russians were starting their counter-attacks on both sides of the salient. So I´d really think that the attack was doomed to failure, only by not doing it the Germans could have gained more, or doing it by May 1943 when the Russians were not prepared by the huge forces.

I´d call it getting a grip of the tongue before the Bear´s mouth got a grip of the hand;the Prokhorovka.

 

Bratwurst,

I'd agree with the poster. Prokoravka was, at the least, a tactical German victory.

 

Ok I'll keep my mouth shut then, you guys are far more forgiving than the other forum.

What about the claim that the ramming was not true, or at the very least, made just for propaganda? Did any german tankers attest to this strategy ever being used?

 

Brat, just out of interest what Kursk book references do you have ? Just curious as this will give you a better light than visiting any forum

~E if I may recommend a book by George Nipe covering more of the German viewpoint.... "Decision in the Ukraine, summer 1943 II.SS Panzerkorps and III. Panzerkorps"

~E

 

I don't remember which book either but Have read about Russians "ramming" tanks.Women drivers,too.The T-34s got in close to mix it up with the Tigers etc. and with the dust and smoke,visibility was limited.So "ramming" could have been unintentional.I also heard one about snipers trying to shoot the "optics" off German tanks so'd they be blind.Don,t know if that is fact or fiction.FramerT.

 

Erich, very good point you bring up of references. I have sent all my books home to Australia (pending a move soon) so I think the book is called Panzer Offensive or something like that by Pan/Ballentine.

I've also seen some BBC documentaries which have stated this, but would not rely on them as the best source.

 

On some book or site on Wittman I read that in Kursk the only ramming incident would have happened to Wittman´s tank, but Wittman could free his tank and continue the battle. Don´t know what happened to the T-34 though.

But like said, I only recall this and cannot be too sure. But the ramming in masses I don´t think it happened as the huge battle clash itself never took place either.

 

Speaking of Wittman...was it ever concluded wether his Tiger, in France, was blown apart by a Sherman or a rocket from a Typhoon??? Hard to see how a Sherman could cause a Tiger's turret to be blown off the hull...how concievable is the Typhoon??? What would you say was the ratio in which Tiger's lost their turrets as compared to Sherman's, Cromwell's and T-34's??????????

 

Framert- I've read that Russian anti-tank rifles were indeed solely used to destroy the optics of German tanks rendering them blind...

 

go through the old postings and you will find this has been debated, and even more so on www.missing-lynx.com with some interesting first hand accounts.

by the way it was not a Sherman.

~E

 

Two possible views on the tactical level...

The view from the German side is the large number of kills racked up by the Waffen-SS and the shattering of the 5th Guards Tank Army. Certainly an impressive feat, and if we go by kills a clearcut German tactical victory on the scene.

From the Soviet side, one can also argue a victory. Sure, the Germans inflicted heavy casualties, but tactical actions do not happen in a void. They have clearcut objectives, and the German tactical objective was to seize Prokhorovka, making it possible to round the Psel towards Oboyan and beyond. This was stopped, hence a Soviet victory.

 

Yes,

Heartland, but I cannot imagine very many countries that could lose as many tanks and equipment in order to achive such victory.
Russia could and...WOULD...

Every time I go through the Russian losses I just shake my head...