MarkN wrote:
Wrong.
Your opinion and I respect it.
MarkN wrote:
From a strategic point of view (that's what you've chosen to post about) Fall Gelb and Rot couldn't be more different to Citadel if you tried.
Fall Rot has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The Netherlands-Belgium-Northern France battles are all part of Fall Gelb.
MarkN wrote:
For starters, the objective of Citadel was to grab back a bit of fairly insignificant territory that had recently been lost to shorten the front line. Just another tactical offensive in a long list of tactical offensives.
40k sq kms are not "insignificant". Kursk, in addition to being a springboard for future offensives against German position to the west, was the central hub of Soviet logistics and combat support for the battle of the Dnieper. Taking it while destroying the nearly 500k troops protecting it would have been a strategic blow to the Red Army not just because of the losses but also because it would free dozens of German divisions otherwise occupied in holding the bulge instead of fighting somewhere else.
The way to defeat the Red Army was, as in Fall Gelb, to create a strategic breakthrough behind the Soviet defensive echelon into its combat support echelon,which is least protective, and fan-out. In Fall Gelb it was the exact same thing. The thing was the existence of Soviet reserves meant the breakthrough was tactical while the absence of them in Fall Gelb made the breakthrough strategic. Hence the "Tactical Victory Strategic Defeat" Oxymoron.
MarkN wrote:
Fall Gelb and Rot's objectives were to conquor and occupy four separate countries and to eliminate the land army of a fifth. Ie. Knock them permanently out if the war. Two of whom were major competitors/threats.
Again your mixing your battles and mixing Political objectives with military action. Only one county was slated for occupation, The Netherlands. Belgium in Fall Gelb was to be the seen of the feigned German offensive as well as the main battle aimed at distracting the Allied command of the real objective, outflanking the allied through the strategic breakthrough into the French rear at Sedan. The dash to the sea was not part of the battle plan.
Again, the same objective as Kursk.
MarkN wrote:
If you have a different understanding of what strategic means, then perhaps it would help if you defined it first in order to at least give us an opportunity to understand what you mean even if we disagree with the terminology.
The difference is not in understanding, it is in description. Combat on Army Group level that decisively alters the course of a war even for a short period of time (without affecting the general outcome) is what "Strategic" is all about in a military sense. Strategy in a political sense is totally different.
In this discussion Kursk and France while two different campaigns shared one strategic objective, outflanking the enemy to breakout into its rear areas. The breakthroughs were quite similar up to a certain number of days into the campaign. What differed is that the French had no reserves while the Red Army did. This is why one breakthrough with smaller forces, Sedan, was strategic and while the Breakthroughs in Kursk were Tactical.