Strategic Options After Kursk

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Post Reply
fuser
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: 22 Mar 2011, 10:11

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#121

Post by fuser » 09 Oct 2014, 11:18

1. Why is Kurst viewd as a russian "succes" hailing russian strategistits?
Russian High command new where Germany would attack for months, they could prepare their defense in perfection.
Nevertheless they managed to lose much more material and men than Germany. So where is the so called "perfect russian strategy"? Even in a defense position, even with much more soldiers and mateiral, even with more strategic reserve. The russian losses between july and septembe 43 were horrifying compared to german losses, althoug germany couldnt recovr their losses and russia could
Because war is not a sport where victor or losers are decided based upon final score i.e. how many goals or how many runs a team scored and in this case how many men they killed. Kursk is an obvious soviet victory (I don't think if its even debatable) as in all Germans failed in all of their objectives while Soviets succesfully defended the Salient and dispelled the attackers in later counter attacks, the fact that they suffered more casuality than Germans is irrelevant.

Oh and agree with hindsight, nothing could had been done militarily to save German situation now.

Hauptmannnenkel
Banned
Posts: 48
Joined: 04 Oct 2014, 10:44

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#122

Post by Hauptmannnenkel » 09 Oct 2014, 15:54

of course it was a russian succes, nevettheless i dont understand why some1 is saying that it is a great succes for russian-strategists. as i posted, no real strategy only being in defense position, knowing for month where the enemy will attack, preparing defense in perfection.

so in fact managing to lose more than germany is not a strategic succes. its just a succes of having much more resources, tanks, material, artellary, soldiers and strategic reserves.

thats all i said. of course it was from a military point of view a succes.


Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#123

Post by Michael Kenny » 09 Oct 2014, 16:39

By any definition a situation depicted in the first map where the German 'advances are the small grey humps


Image



that end up like the second map where Soviet ground gains are huge

Image

is a comprehensive and undeniable victory.

steinmetz
Banned
Posts: 183
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 06:16

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#124

Post by steinmetz » 09 Oct 2014, 17:33

Hauptmannnenkel wrote:servus all,

few questions:

1. Why is Kurst viewd as a russian "succes" hailing russian strategistits?
Russian High command new where Germany would attack for months, they could prepare their defense in perfection.
Nevertheless they managed to lose much more material and men than Germany. So where is the so called "perfect russian strategy"? Even in a defense position, even with much more soldiers and mateiral, even with more strategic reserve. The russian losses between july and septembe 43 were horrifying compared to german losses, althoug germany couldnt recovr their losses and russia could.
In the defense against Zitadelle the red army certainly did not perform well for the reasons you indicated.

steinmetz
Banned
Posts: 183
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 06:16

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#125

Post by steinmetz » 09 Oct 2014, 17:36

fuser wrote:
1. Why is Kurst viewd as a russian "succes" hailing russian strategistits?
Russian High command new where Germany would attack for months, they could prepare their defense in perfection.
Nevertheless they managed to lose much more material and men than Germany. So where is the so called "perfect russian strategy"? Even in a defense position, even with much more soldiers and mateiral, even with more strategic reserve. The russian losses between july and septembe 43 were horrifying compared to german losses, althoug germany couldnt recovr their losses and russia could
Because war is not a sport where victor or losers are decided based upon final score i.e. how many goals or how many runs a team scored and in this case how many men they killed. Kursk is an obvious soviet victory (I don't think if its even debatable) as in all Germans failed in all of their objectives while Soviets succesfully defended the Salient and dispelled the attackers in later counter attacks, the fact that they suffered more casuality than Germans is irrelevant.
But it may still be pointed out that the red army performed less well than you could expect given the circonstances.

fuser
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: 22 Mar 2011, 10:11

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#126

Post by fuser » 09 Oct 2014, 17:38

of course it was a russian succes, nevettheless i dont understand why some1 is saying that it is a great succes for russian-strategists. as i posted, no real strategy only being in defense position, knowing for month where the enemy will attack, preparing defense in perfection.

so in fact managing to lose more than germany is not a strategic succes. its just a succes of having much more resources, tanks, material, artellary, soldiers and strategic reserves.

thats all i said. of course it was from a military point of view a succes.
Of course it was a great success and it happened precisely because of the planning that went into it (without this preparation, they might have lost this battle), one can argue that casualities could had been minimized but saying that it was not a big success is ridiculous, just look at the map Kenny posted.

steinmetz
Banned
Posts: 183
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 06:16

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#127

Post by steinmetz » 09 Oct 2014, 17:55

fuser wrote:
of course it was a russian succes, nevettheless i dont understand why some1 is saying that it is a great succes for russian-strategists. as i posted, no real strategy only being in defense position, knowing for month where the enemy will attack, preparing defense in perfection.

so in fact managing to lose more than germany is not a strategic succes. its just a succes of having much more resources, tanks, material, artellary, soldiers and strategic reserves.

thats all i said. of course it was from a military point of view a succes.
Of course it was a great success and it happened precisely because of the planning that went into it (without this preparation, they might have lost this battle), one can argue that casualities could had been minimized but saying that it was not a big success is ridiculous, just look at the map Kenny posted.
The defense against Zitadelle was certainly not a 'great' sucess. Clear mistakes were made which lead to very high casualties.

fuser
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: 22 Mar 2011, 10:11

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#128

Post by fuser » 09 Oct 2014, 18:12

Silly me for thinking that succesfully repelling an attack and then recovering large areas in counter offensive = great success. :roll:

Yes, casualities could had been minimized but militarily it was indeed a great success, losses suffered by RKAA was not crippling in any sense as to change the directions of her future endevors i.e. in grand scheme of things it was irrelevant.

steinmetz
Banned
Posts: 183
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 06:16

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#129

Post by steinmetz » 09 Oct 2014, 21:07

fuser wrote:Silly me for thinking that succesfully repelling an attack and then recovering large areas in counter offensive = great success. :roll:

Yes, casualities could had been minimized but militarily it was indeed a great success, losses suffered by RKAA was not crippling in any sense as to change the directions of her future endevors i.e. in grand scheme of things it was irrelevant.
You are completely wrong as the red army summer offensive would have happened with or without Zitadelle. The red army summer offensive was no counter offensive. Zitadelle did achieve a partial success by drawing in part of the red army reserves.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#130

Post by Michael Kenny » 09 Oct 2014, 21:19

steinmetz wrote:
You are completely wrong as the red army summer offensive would have happened with or without Zitadelle. The red army summer offensive was no counter offensive. Zitadelle did achieve a partial success by drawing in part of the red army reserves.
The Soviets met and blunted the carefully prepared wunder-panzer led German attack. This German offensive was not intended to blunt or wear down to but to destroy. It failed in all respects and the Soviet Offensive completely shattered the German front.

I realise that trying to get this point across to serial identity man General G in his latest incarnation is a waste of time.

Hauptmannnenkel
Banned
Posts: 48
Joined: 04 Oct 2014, 10:44

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#131

Post by Hauptmannnenkel » 09 Oct 2014, 21:21

steinmetz wrote:
fuser wrote:Silly me for thinking that succesfully repelling an attack and then recovering large areas in counter offensive = great success. :roll:

Yes, casualities could had been minimized but militarily it was indeed a great success, losses suffered by RKAA was not crippling in any sense as to change the directions of her future endevors i.e. in grand scheme of things it was irrelevant.
You are completely wrong as the red army summer offensive would have happened with or without Zitadelle. The red army summer offensive was no counter offensive. Zitadelle did achieve a partial success by drawing in part of the red army reserves.
exactly. from an ex-post view, germany destryed so many tanks , material soldiers form july 43 to septembre 43 that they - without really knowing it- had weaken russian forces in an extremly way.

Hauptmannnenkel
Banned
Posts: 48
Joined: 04 Oct 2014, 10:44

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#132

Post by Hauptmannnenkel » 09 Oct 2014, 21:30

Michael Kenny wrote:
steinmetz wrote:
You are completely wrong as the red army summer offensive would have happened with or without Zitadelle. The red army summer offensive was no counter offensive. Zitadelle did achieve a partial success by drawing in part of the red army reserves.
The Soviets met and blunted the carefully prepared wunder-panzer led German attack. This German offensive was not intended to blunt or wear down to but to destroy. It failed in all respects and the Soviet Offensive completely shattered the German front.

I realise that trying to get this point across to serial identity man General G in his latest incarnation is a waste of time.
stength germany:

912,460 men
2,928 tanks
9,966 guns and mortars
2,110 aircraft

strength russia:
1,910,361 men
5,128 tanks
25,013 guns and mortars
3,549 aircraft

losses germany operation zitadelle:
54,182 men
323 tanks and assault guns destroyed,and ~600 tanks and assault guns damaged
159 aircraft
~500 guns

losses russia operation zitadelle:

177,847 men
1,956 tanks and assault guns destroyed
459 aircraft
3,929 guns


losses germany battle of kursk at whole

Approximately 198,000 MIA, KIA, & WIA
Estimate 760 tanks and assault guns destroyed,

losses russia battle of kurs at wole:

254,470 killed, missing or captured
608,833 wounded or sick
6,064 tanks and assault guns destroyed
1,961 aircraft
5,244 guns
681 aircraft


looking at these numbers with the knowledge that russia knew for months where germany would attack so they could prepare their defense in perfection, only being in the defensive position, having much more material, sldiers, reserve. i just dont think its a "genious strategic" win.
just a win by having much moe material, supply and reserves.

and russian losses are probably much higher. even Guido Knopp, admits that russian losses between july and spetembre 43 are probably way higher then thought.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#133

Post by Michael Kenny » 09 Oct 2014, 21:33

Hauptmannnenkel wrote: germany destryed so many tanks , material soldiers form july 43 to septembre 43 that they - without really knowing it- had weaken russian forces in an extremly way.

Yes they really blunted the Soviet Offensive.............

Image

The list of excuses for failure never stop. The Germans showed their backs at Kursk and that was the view of the Soviet Soldier right up to Berlin

I suspect Kiev is a due a name-check

Hauptmannnenkel
Banned
Posts: 48
Joined: 04 Oct 2014, 10:44

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#134

Post by Hauptmannnenkel » 09 Oct 2014, 21:38

Michael Kenny wrote:
Hauptmannnenkel wrote: germany destryed so many tanks , material soldiers form july 43 to septembre 43 that they - without really knowing it- had weaken russian forces in an extremly way.

Yes they really blunted the Soviet Offensive.............

Image

The list of excuses for failure never stop. The Germans showed their backs at Kursk and that was the view of the Soviet Soldier right up to Berlin

I suspect Kiev is a due a name-check
keiner zieht sich so schnell zurück wie englische Regimenter =)

btw: reported your comment

btw: "list of excuses nevers tops?" looking at the rleation between strength and losses of wehrmacht and russia....how anyone could speak of excuses for failure is an unsolved mystery.

AJFFM
Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 21:37

Re: Strategic Options After Kursk

#135

Post by AJFFM » 09 Oct 2014, 23:04

First of all the maps above are misleading, the striped section is the Soviet part of Kursk (until 23rd of August), the grey shaded areas are part of the Lower Dnieper offensives which are a continuation of Kursk (until around middle of Oct.).

Kursk is seen as a strategic victory not because it stopped the German offensive, even the Germans knew it was a failed attack before it started (it was delayed by two months with no significant troop additions). It is what happened after it that counts and is demonstrated by the maps above (by the way Konotop fell on September 6ths well after the official end of Soviet Kursk and thus part of the Dnieper battles).

The Red army planned Kursk to be a trap, to suck the combat power out of the German army and especially the Luftwaffe through a defensive action by minimal troops taking as much losses as can be taken while stacking up reserves in the rear so that once the German offensive stops and Panzer corps are withdrawn to the German rear or even out of the eastern front (as what happened to the II SS Panzer Corps) a counter offensive spearheaded by 5 Tank armies (the 3 original ones plus 2 in the reserves behind the Steppe and Voronezh Fronts). It was this counter offensive that destroyed the German forces east of the Dnieper beyond repair.

The stacking up of massive reserves in the Kursk area helped the Red army quickly replenish whatever losses it suffered and launch with fury and fervour the massive Dnieper campaign which included the Chernigov-Poltava Strategic offensive and the Lower Dnieper Offensive both of which would have never had the success they had without the massive concentration of reserves and the stavka restraints on using them during the Zitadel part of Kursk.

Post Reply

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”