Strategic Options After Kursk

[steverodgers801]

The Germans never again launched a successful offense after Kursk. The German excuse of it was only Soviet reserves or Hitler's fault is part of the post war campaign by Guderian et all to try to remove them selves from blame for the loss.

[AJFFM]

The Germans never launched another offensive because when the time came (Spring of 44) the Germans no longer had 80% of their forces in the east. The 2nd front was in full swing and the Germans could not afford an eastern offensive.

And part of that failure was Hitler's fault for refusing to reorganise the military situation in the east as early as 43 and probably even before (The Germans would have saved a lot of lives if Hitler conceded to withdrawing from Stalingrad earlier). Denying it is intellectual dishonesty in my opinion, just as dishonest as denying any Soviet achievement in the war.

[fuser]

And why couldn't they launch offensive before 44, when Kursk failed it was still summer. Why you think Germans were incapable of any offensive operation in non spring weather cnditions?

[AJFFM]

Seeing that ending Zitadelle was followed immediately by a Soviet Counter offensive and then immediately afterwards by two massive Offensives referred to in my earlier post that involved 6 fronts with roughly 3-3.5 million troops (with some 1 million in reserves committed by the time operantions ended) in total while at the same same time the Germans were withdrawing some troops to Italy, France and the Balkans from the east it was quite clear why the Germans did not attack.

By the time the front in the Ukraine stabilised in December of 43 the German army in the east was in effect a spent force threatened by another offensive against AGC (Liberation of Smolensk), a third massive offensive on AGN (relief of Leningrad). The Germans had the reserves but that would risk a western breakthrough in Italy and the Balkans and priority was to stabilise threatened sections of the front in the north.

There was a solution to restore stability overall, a withdrawal to more defensible positions to the west which would put more divisions per 100 kms of front and provide ability to manoeuvre as well as defence in depth, guess who refused to do so exposing the now severely weakened AGC to Bagration later on. Here is a hint, his name start with H.

[fuser]

So basically you agree that after massive failure at Kursk, Germans were forced on defensive posture by Red Army and they (Germans) failed to salvage the situation because of continuous offensives of Red Army long before allies were in France in 44. Obviously if there would had been a success at Kursk, the whole summer of 43 would had been fought by Red Army on defensive mode more or less, so yeah as originally said, Kursk did forced a major change in overall scenario in East.

Beside blaming everything on Hitler specially these days is simply laziness.

[Hauptmannnenkel]

Hello,

1.you forgot land-lease completly
2. I never said that Kurs didnt change everything in the east
3. with land lease and much higher war production in the Ural and Siberia and so much much much more material and soldiers, supply and reserves i just dont see why you consider the win as something special. Just a win by 3) main points: 1. only defensive position, 2. much more solders, mateiral, supply, reserves, 3.) knowing for months where the attack will happen and so preparing defense in perfection.
4. with this background to mange losing much more men, tanks, material, planes etc. you have rather to "praise" wehrmacht how they manage to inflict russia such losses
5. the silly "Haltebefehle" etc. by Hitler came to an end by febr 43, as he was at a Lagebesprechung in Winnizia. Saying like always not to move back, suddenly he could hear russian artellary and tank fire not far away from the headquarter. hitler immediatly flew away and gave for aproixmatly 2 month von Manstein and the OKH a "carte blanche".
consequence: von Manstein annihilated russian counterattack.
Unfortunatelly after the 2 month Hitler takes back the command and the disaster take its course.

[fuser]

you forgot land-lease completly

No.

I never said that Kurs didnt change everything in the east

No one said that you said so.

with land lease and much higher war production in the Ural and Siberia and so much much much more material and soldiers, supply and reserves i just dont see why you consider the win as something special. Just a win by 3) main points: 1. only defensive position, 2. much more solders, mateiral, supply, reserves, 3.) knowing for months where the attack will happen and so preparing defense in perfection.

So are you telling me that "victory" for Red Army was the only option and yet Nazi Germany foolishly attacked. Also, both side get time to prepare.

with this background to mange losing much more men, tanks, material, planes etc. you have rather to "praise" wehrmacht how they manage to inflict russia such losses

For what, a failed offensive and a long retreat afterwards?

the silly "Haltebefehle" etc. by Hitler came to an end by febr 43, as he was at a Lagebesprechung in Winnizia. Saying like always not to move back, suddenly he could hear russian artellary and tank fire not far away from the headquarter. hitler immediatly flew away and gave for aproixmatly 2 month von Manstein and the OKH a "carte blanche".
consequence: von Manstein annihilated russian counterattack.
Unfortunatelly after the 2 month Hitler takes back the command and the disaster take its course.

Ah, the age old "blame everything on Hitler" argument. :roll:

[steinmetz]

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..

The german offensive also intended to draw in red army reserves and succeeded in that when stupid frontal counterattacks were lauched by the red army whichl led to very heavy losses.

[Michael Kenny]

The german offensive also intended to draw in red army reserves and succeeded in that when stupid frontal counterattacks were lauched by the red army whichl led to very heavy losses.

Yes it crippled the resulting Soviet Offensives. Look how badly they did

[steinmetz]

So basically you agree that after massive failure at Kursk, Germans were forced on defensive posture by Red Army and they (Germans) failed to salvage the situation because of continuous offensives of Red Army long before allies were in France in 44. Obviously if there would had been a success at Kursk, the whole summer of 43 would had been fought by Red Army on defensive mode more or less, so yeah as originally said, Kursk did forced a major change in overall scenario in East.

Beside blaming everything on Hitler specially these days is simply laziness.

No, as even a German success would not have prevented the red army from going on the offensive. That was a given. And Hitler is responsable for what he decided. Real laziness is simply denying that without supporting by anything.

[Michael Kenny]

Misrepresenting is typical for germanhaters.

As it is for you the man formerly known as

tigerivan,
OLRIK,
decepticon,
maarten tromp,
ledom

Mellethin
westerhagen
lossov
jurgensen
berek
JBH1
butgen
General G
Golz
Guss
Spur
hvefsjbm
rendulic
Teske
julian23
apollo144
Brunchmuller
Grkarl
Neumann


http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... d#p1601070

[AJFFM]

So basically you agree that after massive failure at Kursk, Germans were forced on defensive posture by Red Army and they (Germans) failed to salvage the situation because of continuous offensives of Red Army long before allies were in France in 44. Obviously if there would had been a success at Kursk, the whole summer of 43 would had been fought by Red Army on defensive mode more or less, so yeah as originally said, Kursk did forced a major change in overall scenario in East.

Zitadelle was never going to work and even Hitler felt that about it. Instead of an offensive on the heels of Kharkov 3 the Germans allowed the Red army to not only entrench itself in the Kursk salient without any significant local offensive operations, it allowed the Red army to build reserves in the rear that everyone knew would be used for a counter offensive not the actual defence.

The German field commanders never thought an offensive east of the Dnieper was possible before 44 because that was the time it would take to build up enough reserves and trade space for time and conduct an orderly withdrawal while inflicting crippling losses on the Red army so when the time comes the offensive would have maximum effect.

This was the strategy that worked in 41-42 (the Germans reach Rostov before conducting a fighting withdrawal 200 kms behind and absorbing two massive Red Army offensives in Kharkov and Crimea at the same time) and lead to the initial success of Operation Blue and the fast fighting withdrawal from Stalingrad in 43 (500 kms this time) which resulted in a number of highly successful counterstrokes that would have had an even more serious effect had the Germans not lost so much in the dogged defence of Stalingrad and the Caucasus.

As for what is more significant from a strategic point of view? Stalingrad or to be more accurate Operations Uranus and Saturn. Kursk as many have said before was determined before it Started. Uranus was a gamble that paid well.

Beside blaming everything on Hitler specially these days is simply laziness.

Agree. One cannot blame Hitler for mistakes in Normandy or the way troops were dispersed in and around Stalingrad (putting the weakest forces on the wings). However when Hitler refuses to submit to a request by Generals only to agree with when it was too late (the best example is AGN which was left for dead in the Baltic states when its 1 million men could have been used in Poland and I could go on and on and on) then you have to assign him some blame.

[RichTO90]

As it is for you the man formerly known as

Rats! You noticed too! And it was so much fun for a while...I suppose you have reported him so he will shortly be added to the list as well...

[David Thompson]

Three posts by steinmetz containing offensive personal remarks and/or unsourced repartee were removed by this moderator pursuant to previous warnings at:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1898644 (sourcing)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1898645 (insults)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1898737 (sourcing)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1902114 (sourcing)

[David Thompson]

An off-topic post from steinmetz, which added nothing to the discussion of Strategic Options after Kursk, was removed by the moderator - DT.