who won certain campaigns/battles question

[BDV]

However, the historical Weserubung and Marita developments are intimately and critically linked to the way the Germano-Italian Axis was doing business at the time.

An German - Italian Axis that does not engage in Weserubung and Marita, which solves Malta before attacking Egypt, tightly cooperates in Naval matters, even more tightly cooperates in arms production and development, and who attacks Egypt with a modern mobile force, etc etc etc, is PHYSICALLY possible, but requires close to impossible changes in the thinking of the Nazional Sozialist and Fascist leaderships.

[Tamino]

...
Not only a defeat but a great defeat. It was Germany's last roll of the strategic dice - Germany's last chance to win any sort of strategic victory, be that a stalemate or victory or peace on equal terms.

Germany lost all strategic initiative and it was all down hill from there, just a matter of time.

This is entirely valid view.

There are different views on the battle of Kursk, but the battle itself was staggering defeat the Germans. In the broad and in narrow sense, considering just the Citadel. Even if we limit our consideration just to operations near Prokhorovka – it was a defeat too.

Clear explanation to this question can be found in the final chapter of "Kursk – The German view". The author compares the results by using the German losses as change of Ration Strength vs. Combat Strength.

Good example is 9th Army with ration strength of 335,000 on 5th July. At that time its combat strength was just 75,713. In five days its combat strength declined to 55,931. The most of losses occurred in infantry units. Thus even though the overall casualty rate of the army was "just" 6.6 percent, the casualty rate among the combat troops was a staggering 26.1 percent! Seventh Infantry Division has suffered 55% losses just between 4 and 9 July 1943. After Kursk, the Germans have never recovered enough to stop the Russian advance towards the West. The Germans haven't just lost just the battle at Kursk – they have lost the war there.

[Jumin121]

...
Not only a defeat but a great defeat. It was Germany's last roll of the strategic dice - Germany's last chance to win any sort of strategic victory, be that a stalemate or victory or peace on equal terms.

Germany lost all strategic initiative and it was all down hill from there, just a matter of time.

This is entirely valid view.

There are different views on the battle of Kursk, but the battle itself was staggering defeat the Germans. In the broad and in narrow sense, considering just the Citadel. Even if we limit our consideration just to operations near Prokhorovka – it was a defeat too.

Clear explanation to this question can be found in the final chapter of "Kursk – The German view". The author compares the results by using the German losses as change of Ration Strength vs. Combat Strength.

Good example is 9th Army with ration strength of 335,000 on 5th July. At that time its combat strength was just 75,713. In five days its combat strength declined to 55,931. The most of losses occurred in infantry units. Thus even though the overall casualty rate of the army was "just" 6.6 percent, the casualty rate among the combat troops was a staggering 26.1 percent! Seventh Infantry Division has suffered 55% losses just between 4 and 9 July 1943. After Kursk, the Germans have never recovered enough to stop the Russian advance towards the West. The Germans haven't just lost just the battle at Kursk – they have lost the war there.

I disagree that they lost the war right there, i find that as completely false, it contributed im sure, but i highly doubt that it decided the war

[flakbait]

Which can be more rapidly replaced: combat equipment or TRAINED combat veterans to man and/ or use said equipment ? Same thing with the Luftwaffe losses from very late 1943 to the end of the war; German industry produced the most fighters she would ever field in this time, but with the flight hour experience and more telling the average COMBAT experience of their pilots plummeted to where the average pilot survived less than 2 missions, period by January 1945, generally no matter what they flew. The exact problem faced even SS units...troops admittedly not much better than raw recruits with the best equipment, thrown into ever more desperate combat situations, even when fuel was available and under expert veteran leadership was simply ground up almost as fast as they could be organized and barely half trained...combat is a very harsh school and dumb luck often decided what few survived even as long as they did manage to...Kursk was effectively the swan song of the majority of the VETERAN German Army that attacked, especially in the infantry units. If remember from "The Tigers are Burning" German infantry officer and senior NCO losses were particularly heavy...

[steverodgers801]

Germany lost the war from the star because they didn't win it. The only chance they had to win was if the did not supply Britain with the goods they did and if the Soviet Union utterly collapsed at the start. Pay no attention to the Manstein and Guderian claims that the generals were perfect and it was all Hitlers fault.

[Graeme Sydney]

I disagree that they lost the war right there, i find that as completely false, it contributed im sure, but i highly doubt that it decided the war

The book tell you otherwise, your teacher tells you otherwise, everyone here tells you otherwise, but not only do you disagree but you " find that as completely false" and all done without one reason given.

Gee, you have some cheek kid .

[Graeme Sydney]

Which can be more rapidly replaced: combat equipment or TRAINED combat veterans to man and/ or use said equipment ? Same thing with the Luftwaffe losses from very late 1943 to the end of the war; German industry produced the most fighters she would ever field in this time, but with the flight hour experience and more telling the average COMBAT experience of their pilots plummeted to where the average pilot survived less than 2 missions, period by January 1945, generally no matter what they flew. The exact problem faced even SS units...troops admittedly not much better than raw recruits with the best equipment, thrown into ever more desperate combat situations, even when fuel was available and under expert veteran leadership was simply ground up almost as fast as they could be organized and barely half trained...combat is a very harsh school and dumb luck often decided what few survived even as long as they did manage to...Kursk was effectively the swan song of the majority of the VETERAN German Army that attacked, especially in the infantry units. If remember from "The Tigers are Burning" German infantry officer and senior NCO losses were particularly heavy...

And the the exact opposite was happening to its opposition.

After Kursk the allies were growing stronger and stronger in everything from production to manpower to expertise to experience to resolve. Morally and strategically they were getting strong and with even greater potential still waiting to be harvested and focused, and Germany was at the exact opposite end of the war making scale.

[Jumin121]

I disagree that they lost the war right there, i find that as completely false, it contributed im sure, but i highly doubt that it decided the war

The book tell you otherwise, your teacher tells you otherwise, everyone here tells you otherwise, but not only do you disagree but you " find that as completely false" and all done without one reason given.

Gee, you have some cheek kid .

well my teacher has no idea they just listen to whatever the book tells them, she admitted this, not only that but the book also gives no reasons as to why it is a soviet victory, therfore i assumed from my own knowledge that it was indecisive, and yes im very stubborn

[flakbait]

Am not saying EVERY German veteran officer and senior NCO was lost at Kursk, can`t remember the exact title but a detailed breakdown from Army Group Central back to the German High Command within the wk reported overall losses of 30% and 45% respectively, in JUST the committed infantry units. This does NOT reflect the significant total panzer unit personnel losses, or support troops; I do remember reading the overall engineer unit losses in these 2 categories were utterly horrific; above 50% in each. To put this in perspective, in most military assessments, a unit that losses 20% of it`s TOTAL personnel is generally considered at 1/2 `strength` for further combat use in general, although it can be less depending upon the type of unit. A unit suffering 50% casualties is considered for all practical purposes as `destroyed` at least as far as any further immediate offensive action is concerned. Even in defense, they are rated at 25% or less...Operation Citiadel was a disaster the Soviet Army carefully prepared and lured the German forces into and once committed, simply turned on their crude and mercilessly inhumane military meat grinder, spewing out both mangled and dead German and Russian casualties by the tens of thousands; the best of both armies seeking to once and for all achieve a decisive decision in a hellish battle based upon cunningly concealed ring upon ring of defenses, leading into even MORE well defended further rings clogged with ready troops and tanks and artillery and supplies and for the 1st time amply supported by Red Air Force planes. The legend of a Soviet Commissar ordering an entire Red Army Infantry Regiment to attack 1 of the lead Panzer companies who were achieving 1 of the few immediate advances the 2cnd day and the resulting absolutely horrific slaughter resulting with many men literally ground up in the tank trends while enduring their own artillery shelling is a sickeningly apt image of exactly the type of fight that Kursk became, with little to no mercy asked and little given. The fact that the almost completely to a man wiped out Soviet infantry Regiment DID at least slow the advancing panzers enabling other Red Army units to destroy them showed the stubborn determination of the Red Army to WIN this battle at ANY cost in men or machines. The almost immediate Red Army counter attacks stunned the Germans to their core...

[j keenan]

Kursk
German Losses
56,827 killed wounded m.i.a.
Tanks including Assault Guns 300
Russian Losses
177,847 killed wounded m.i.a
Source Kursk 1943 A Statistical Analysis
Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson

[Jumin121]

Kursk
German Losses
56,827 killed wounded m.i.a.
Tanks including Assault Guns 300
Russian Losses
177,847 killed wounded m.i.a
Source Kursk 1943 A Statistical Analysis
Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson

and thats why i think it was undecided, the soviets took triple the casualties, and im aware that is almost consistent through out the war but still triple the casualties

[ljadw]

Casualties have nothing to do with the outcome of a battle : Citadelle was a German failure and Kursk (continuation of Citadelle) was a Soviet victory .

[flakbait]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but almost as soon as the dust settled the Red Army launched several offensives including directly into the remnants of the German Army Group Central exactly as the Germans were attempting to prepare in depth defenses against the Russian attacks they knew were coming. Army Group Central briefly folded like carboard, then stopped the 1st of the now never ending Russian steamroller attacks. The instructions from the Kremlin were to press the attack completely uncaringly of losses of men or machines, both would rapidly be replaced, to be ground up again and again while killing even a few more Germans each time. With al but unlimited man power and certain that the vicious Nazi `supermen` could in fact be killed and their still fearsome army could be repeatedly defeated, it simply became a numbers game, and the numbers had never been on the German`s side. Their harsh brutal treatment of the Russian people who initially greeted them as saviors would now be repaid to them in FULL...

[steverodgers801]

As soon as the northern offense stalled the Soviets started their offense, while the southern wing was still attacking. It is one reason why Manstein is wrong when he says he could still win in the south. Staying where he was probably would have resulted in the Soviets hitting Mansteins flanks and tying to pocket him

[Marcus]

As this thread is just becoming a new place to discuss what is already being discussed in several other threads, I'm locking it.

Two related threads:
At what point did Germany lose WW2? - http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=7982
Germany winning on the Eastern Front - http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6&t=198948

/Marcus