What if Germany won at Kursk?

Rommel8 · Post by **Rommel8** » 23 Jun 2003 00:26

Well...what if? How do you think the war would have changed, if in anyway.

I personally believed there was a chance for german victory.

Eightball · Post by **Eightball** » 23 Jun 2003 06:06

By the time of Kursk, the tide had already changed for the German warmachine. Even if they had won, they would only have succeeded in straightening the front for a certain period of time before the Soviets had reorganized from the loss and then, attacked in force.

Major Linden · Post by **Major Linden** » 23 Jun 2003 10:37

Eightball wrote:By the time of Kursk, the tide had already changed for the German warmachine.

I`ll have to second Eightball on this one. The German losses (particularly in manpower) were just too staggering for a nation of a mere 80 million to recover from in such a short period of time.

Add to this the fact that the Red Army had evolved into an extremely tough fighting force, (like a lump of coal into a diamond via the heat of battle), and you have a pretty fair indication that the game was up; no matter the result at Kursk.

Qvist · Post by **Qvist** » 23 Jun 2003 17:26

My 2 cents

Even a maximally favourable result at Kursk from the German point of view would have allowed no more than the opportunity to maintain a more stable front in 1943. At this point, the Red Army was simply an opponent that was too superior in resources, certainly far too strong for the German army to defeat consistently.

cheers

Rommel8 · Post by **Rommel8** » 23 Jun 2003 18:47

Good points

But many historians (from what I have gathered from books and documentaries) think that if there was a ring around all those soviet armies, could have they forced a soviet surrender all together?

davethelight · Post by **davethelight** » 24 Jun 2003 13:07

The answer to this question I think really hinges on what Germany would have been able to do immediately after such a victory, weather they would have been able to exploit it by opening a wider offensive and then persuing any retreating Russian forces and recapturing some of the territory they had lost in the preceeding months.
The Soviets invested massive resources in the defence of Kursk.
If by some twist of fortune the Germans had been able to capture or destroy most of the Soviet forces and equipment around Kursk it would have been an enormous blow to the Russians. I would say that the Germans would probably at the very least have bought themselves at least three months breathing space, time enough to stabilise and reinforce the front, possibly for the rest of the year.
I think this would have been quite possible.
If they would have been able to follow the victory with a new large scale offensive then it's anybody's guess what could have happened in the short term.
Long term, unless some form of political upheaval befell the Russians, the war would probably only be prolonged by an extra six months or so.
Germany would still loose in the end.

TIBERIVS · Post by **TIBERIVS** » 27 Jun 2003 22:15

Totally agree, USSR was an industrial giant with millions of men to throw at the Germans.factories were producing tanks and planes undesturbed from German bombers throught most of the war.Though they lost hundreds of thousands if not millions in the great incirclements of Barbarossa,they still had more then enough replacements.For example in 1945 the Russians had millions around Berlin, not exactly sure how many but according to Anthony Beevors "Fall of Berlin" they had 1,030,494 men transfered from the Gulags alone.Though untrained, a million men is a sledgehammer of an assault on a single city.This shows us just how big the Soviet juggernaut was.

Now the Kursk offensive was originallyset to begin in the Spring of 43,April i believe.However Hitler postponed it until June because he wanted the new powerful Tiger tanks to take part in the battle.The message was intercepted by the allies and given to the Soviets, giving them enought time to build the defences around Kursk. I think a better question is what if the Germans had atttacked in April without the Tigers, and gotten the Soviets by surprise?

~Tib~

Eightball · Post by **Eightball** » 28 Jun 2003 15:50

TIBERIVS wrote:Totally agree, USSR was an industrial giant with millions of men to throw at the Germans.factories were producing tanks and planes undesturbed from German bombers throught most of the war.Though they lost hundreds of thousands if not millions in the great incirclements of Barbarossa,they still had more then enough replacements.For example in 1945 the Russians had millions around Berlin, not exactly sure how many but according to Anthony Beevors "Fall of Berlin" they had 1,030,494 men transfered from the Gulags alone.Though untrained, a million men is a sledgehammer of an assault on a single city.This shows us just how big the Soviet juggernaut was.

Now the Kursk offensive was originallyset to begin in the Spring of 43,April i believe.However Hitler postponed it until June because he wanted the new powerful Tiger tanks to take part in the battle.The message was intercepted by the allies and given to the Soviets, giving them enought time to build the defences around Kursk. I think a better question is what if the Germans had atttacked in April without the Tigers, and gotten the Soviets by surprise?

~Tib~

I believe it was supposed to be launched in May, but was posponed till July because Hitler wanted the new Panther tanks to complete. Now, if they *had* indeed attacked in May, without the Panthers maybe they would have had a better shot at it, though I still believe Soviet-Russia would have won.

Feldmarshall Erwin Rommel · Post by **Feldmarshall Erwin Rommel** » 03 Jul 2003 00:03

The losses at Kurks (even after a German victory) could be easily replaced by the Russians, and very hard by the Germans. The whole operation wasn't worth the casualties, because the Germans we're not capable of taking advantage of a victory.

The best thing the Germans could have done was start less risky operations. Like the one Von Manstein suggested instead of Citadelle: The Germans would withdraw at the south of the front dragging the Sovjet's behind them to the point were their supply lines would be stretched too far. A powerful German panzer force would then outflank them and advance to the Black Sea and cut of the Russian forces.

This would open the front for the Germans. But that would just the best option for that moment, they would have to do a lot more to switch the balance to their side again.

Sokol · Post by **Sokol** » 07 Jul 2003 17:29

Oh ye military geniuses, how exactly were the Germans supposed to *win* at Kursk? Did someone find Aladdin's lamp and simply wish all those Soviet Armies away?

If you're going to put forward a "What if?" at least make it a plausible one.

Regards,
Sokol

Tim Smith · Post by **Tim Smith** » 07 Jul 2003 19:48

A German victory at Kursk is plausible, but only if the Soviet commander makes a serious mistake, such as counterattacking too soon and in the wrong direction, into the teeth of the German guns.

The USSR had many incompetent generals as well as good ones like Zhukov, and Stalin tended to select generals on grounds of 'political reliability', so the prospect of an poor Soviet general directing the Battle of Kursk is not beyond the realms of possibility.

Sokol wrote:Oh ye military geniuses, how exactly were the Germans supposed to *win* at Kursk? Did someone find Aladdin's lamp and simply wish all those Soviet Armies away?

If you're going to put forward a "What if?" at least make it a plausible one.

Regards,
Sokol

Sokol · Post by **Sokol** » 08 Jul 2003 11:59

I have to apologise, I was just venting. All I meant to say was; give us some details on how the Germans won! Provide some alternate history! Then let us extrapolate possible outcomes. That's why the "What If" section is fun.

Regards,
Sokol

Qvist · Post by **Qvist** » 18 Jul 2003 13:18

A German victory at Kursk is plausible, but only if the Soviet commander makes a serious mistake, such as counterattacking too soon and in the wrong direction, into the teeth of the German guns.

Sounds like a pretty good description of Prokhorovka actually.

Rotmistrov rushed his army into the attack more or less straight off the march, attacked, if not in the wrong direction then certainly into the teeth of two of the strongest formations in the German army and using unusual tactics that were both costly and ineffective, resulting in an entire Guards Tank Army shooting it's bolt and suffering crippling casualties in a single day.

cheers

Tim Smith · Post by **Tim Smith** » 18 Jul 2003 14:22

To sum up then:

The Germans couldn't win the Battle of Kursk no matter what tactics they used - as long as the Soviets didn't do anything stupid, and their soldiers' morale held up, they were bound to win through sheer numbers and firepower.

But the Soviets could LOSE the battle, by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory - so the outcome of Kursk depends on Soviet tactics, not German.

lisset · Post by **lisset** » 18 Jul 2003 17:15

I would agree with Tim.
A stalemate was the best germany could hope for at Kursk , to destroy as much as they couldm of the Soviet Army / its reserves.
In time the Russian losses would be made good , from now on time was on their side , Germany could not afford the losses of men and equipment and did not have the luxury of time to play with.
Victory at kursk would not ensure anything more than a few more months to Hitler , without sufficent reserves and supplies to exploit any success at Kursk the win on the day would sooner rather than later be meaningless , just as it had at Kiev , Minsk , Smolensk , Kharkov etc.