What if Germany won at Kursk?

Doppleganger · Post by **Doppleganger** » 07 Jun 2005 12:30

Germany's best option would have been to never have launched Operation Zitadelle in the first place. It was an uninspired plan that was more reminiscent of WW1 style set-pieces than Blitzkrieg. Instead, they should have gone for Manstein's backhand strategy that had the concept of elastic or fluid defence as its cornerstone.

If Zitadelle 'had' to be launched then it should have ordered as early as possible. The longer it was delayed the less chance it had and by the time it was launched the Red Army was more than ready.

Lkefct · Post by **Lkefct** » 07 Jun 2005 18:25

At least according to Glantz the window may have been larger than many beleived. There is only a single railway into the Sailient. This made it very difficult for the soviets to move men and troops in. I don't rmemeber the #, but there is not a lot of decent roads availible either. The soviets buildup was fairly slow, more slow then the germans could have imagined, and more slowly then the Soviets cared for. the waiting until July was unblievable however., especially since the Panthers that they where waiting for played such a small role in the battle itself.

The only thing I can think that would favor the Germans any is if they had made Model's attack stronger in armor. but to do so, would have meant to decrease the amount on the southern arm, and that is not a good idea. They just did not have the force avaible to decide the issue. The second consideration is smashing your armor against deep defensive works a good idea when the soviets had such a hard time fighting mobile engagements?

Krakov · Post by **Krakov** » 07 Jun 2005 21:40

"The only thing I can think that would favor the Germans any is if they had made Model's attack stronger in armor"

Better yet, give someone else the command of the northern pincer. Model wasn't very enthusiastic, he problably deliberately flunked, becaus he didn't like the plan.

Germany's best option would have been to never have launched Operation Zitadelle in the first place. It was an uninspired plan that was more reminiscent of WW1 style set-pieces than Blitzkrieg. Instead, they should have gone for Manstein's backhand strategy that had the concept of elastic or fluid defence as its cornerstone.

How could they possibly do this with the allied landings in France the next year? They needed a huge victory in the east, then a separate peace with Stalin so they could fight off the western allies.

Doppleganger · Post by **Doppleganger** » 07 Jun 2005 23:10

Krakov wrote:
Germany's best option would have been to never have launched Operation Zitadelle in the first place. It was an uninspired plan that was more reminiscent of WW1 style set-pieces than Blitzkrieg. Instead, they should have gone for Manstein's backhand strategy that had the concept of elastic or fluid defence as its cornerstone.
How could they possibly do this with the allied landings in France the next year? They needed a huge victory in the east, then a separate peace with Stalin so they could fight off the western allies.

Well the thing is that 'Backhand' and not 'Zitadelle' IMO would have had a much better chance at forcing the Soviets to come to the table. Don't think upon elastic defence as simply retreat; it's a way of lulling the attacker to overextend himself, allowing a skilled defender to exploit with local counterattacks, exactly as Manstein did when he recaptured Khar'kov in early '43. The first such planned execution of this, if successful, would have trapped several Soviet Fronts against the Sea of Azov, resulting in very heavy Soviet casualties. Continued operations such as this one would have a good chance of bleeding the Soviet strategic reserve dry. The Wehrmacht ultimately had until June 1944 until they were warring on 3 fronts. By then, there was the possibilty of a far different situation in the East than the one history records.

The best chance for Zitadelle was for it to have gone ahead on the 4th May as originally planned. But IMO it never should have been launched in the first place.

Konig_pilsner · Post by **Konig_pilsner** » 07 Jun 2005 23:22

Would it have been possible to make a weak attack at Kursk from west, north an south. But more presisely, feign an attack, hoping to draw the Russian reserves into the kessel. Then at an oportune moment, commit a strong pincer attack from north and south to envelope the entire Red Army. Since the German attack was what the Russians were expecting, initially giving them what they wanted might blind them into committing their reserves too soon, giving the german a chance to out flank them.
KP

Krakov · Post by **Krakov** » 08 Jun 2005 09:26

Well the thing is that 'Backhand' and not 'Zitadelle' IMO would have had a much better chance at forcing the Soviets to come to the table.

Backhand would of been one in a series of strikes on the elastic front. Zitadelle could of been one huge attack, victory, peace.

Don't think upon elastic defence as simply retreat; it's a way of lulling the attacker to overextend himself, allowing a skilled defender to exploit with local counterattacks,

Manstein was the only one who wanted this. All of the other generals just waned to retreat. Would he really be given a whole front to command? And again, how long would it take for the russians to learn the rules of this new game?

The best chance for Zitadelle was for it to have gone ahead on the 4th May as originally planned.

Agreed, but the panthers and tigers could of given a devastating psychological hit (the germans won becaus of their new superweapons 8) )

Lkefct · Post by **Lkefct** » 09 Jun 2005 16:25

As of May, the Tigers are a proven weapon. But the Panthers are still struggling to get going. I have a hard time expecting the pantehr is going to be a decisive weapon as quickly as it had been developed.Remember, they where having troubles with them even before they went into action. The fact is that the PZ4 with the long 75 mm where still a very good tank at that time. Suplimneted by the Tiger, Elefant's, and NAshorns to give them some extra bite, German armored units where still at least a match for the t-34. Panthers would have been nice, but there are not enough of them, nor are they mechanically reliable enough unti the fall to make a decisive impact. If you deploy them in mass at that point, yes, they can probably be decisive. I just think the armor is up to strength enough, that as long as they can retreat, counterattack, and then occasionally overwhelm the soviets, they can wear the soviets down considerably.

Von Schadewald · Post by **Von Schadewald** » 12 Jun 2005 18:17

If the Germans had crushed the Soviets at Kursk, or gone round the salient, could Moscow have fallen in 1943?

Krakov · Post by **Krakov** » 12 Jun 2005 20:51

If the Germans had crushed the Soviets at Kursk, or gone round the salient, could Moscow have fallen in 1943?

No, it was even clear to Hitler, that total victory wasn't achievable.

Lkefct · Post by **Lkefct** » 13 Jun 2005 15:50

I don't know that it couldn't have happended, but realistically it would not have. The only way for the Germans to win the war in the east is to destroy the Soviet army. Pinching off Kursk is a good start, but it is going to take a lot more then that. the soviets have a large strategic reserve that they doll out sparingly. In addition, while that is going on, they are forming new units. So the german armor is going to have to destroy the soviets in chunks. Kursk is a nice start, but then it would take several more extremely large chunks to get the rest of the way. Unless the Soviets start blindly lauching attacks, I think it is very tough to eliminate the soviets during 1943. Into early 1944 I thin it oculd be possible (remember a lot of the men who fought in the red army late in the war where liberated from parts of western russia. So the soviets are likely to run out of men sooner then historically if they don't recapture the territory. The germans need to accelerate the process by pinching off large pockets of troops. This would also improve the # of AT guns and artillery for the west wall from captured material. In addition, the germans lost large #'s of guns and tanks during the retreats that occured in 1943-1944. If the rereasts are being initiated by the Germans and covered by tank concentrations, and followed by strong counter attacks, it implies that German losses woud not be as high since many of that equpiment would not be lost in the wake of the pockets formed when the soviets attacked.

Kurt_Steiner · Post by **Kurt_Steiner** » 14 Jun 2005 13:06

Krakov wrote:
If the Germans had crushed the Soviets at Kursk, or gone round the salient, could Moscow have fallen in 1943?
No, it was even clear to Hitler, that total victory wasn't achievable.

Add to that the Allied landing in Italy, which obliged Germany to send troops there. So, Zitadelle came too late, IMHO.

Krakov · Post by **Krakov** » 15 Jun 2005 13:06

Kurt_Steiner wrote:
Krakov wrote:
If the Germans had crushed the Soviets at Kursk, or gone round the salient, could Moscow have fallen in 1943?
No, it was even clear to Hitler, that total victory wasn't achievable.
Add to that the Allied landing in Italy, which obliged Germany to send troops there. So, Zitadelle came too late, IMHO.

Worse yet, Hitlers generals (besides Manstein) wanted to wait until '44 to attack...
And people say Germany would of won the war if he had listened to his generals

Doppleganger · Post by **Doppleganger** » 15 Jun 2005 15:04

Krakov wrote:
Kurt_Steiner wrote:
Krakov wrote:
If the Germans had crushed the Soviets at Kursk, or gone round the salient, could Moscow have fallen in 1943?
No, it was even clear to Hitler, that total victory wasn't achievable.
Add to that the Allied landing in Italy, which obliged Germany to send troops there. So, Zitadelle came too late, IMHO.
Worst yet, Hitlers generals (besides Manstein) wanted to wait until '44 to attack...
And people say Germany would of won the war if he had listened to his generals

I think it's better to say that Germany would have done much better had Hitler listened to those advisors who had primarily Germany's best interests, and not their own self interests, at heart. I mean, Hitler listened to and followed the Manstein Plan rather than Fall Gelb when attacking France. That was a good example of Hitler listening to opposing arguments from his Generals and choosing the correct plan. IMO, and the opinion of many others, was that Hitler listened to the wrong Generals when he gave the go-ahead for Zitadelle. Zitadelle, if it had been launched on 4th May had a reasonable chance of succeeding, but that does not mean to say it was the correct plan.

Panzer6 · Post by **Panzer6** » 15 Jun 2005 17:49

If Germany won the Battle of Kursk, then not just the East would change but the west. If Germany won, they would not have sent as many forces from the west to the East meaning that a way better chance of holding the allies at Normandy. If Normandy fails, another result would be the Germans could deplete the Soviets. Remember, before Kursk, Germany held a lot of Soviet territory with a lot of people. The Soviets could not replace soilders as easily if they don't capture more land. This means that the Soviet army did NOT have as much reserves as was thought.

Krakov · Post by **Krakov** » 17 Jun 2005 11:15

Doppleganger wrote:
Krakov wrote:
Kurt_Steiner wrote:
Krakov wrote:
If the Germans had crushed the Soviets at Kursk, or gone round the salient, could Moscow have fallen in 1943?
No, it was even clear to Hitler, that total victory wasn't achievable.
Add to that the Allied landing in Italy, which obliged Germany to send troops there. So, Zitadelle came too late, IMHO.
Worst yet, Hitlers generals (besides Manstein) wanted to wait until '44 to attack...
And people say Germany would of won the war if he had listened to his generals
I think it's better to say that Germany would have done much better had Hitler listened to those advisors who had primarily Germany's best interests, and not their own self interests, at heart. I mean, Hitler listened to and followed the Manstein Plan rather than Fall Gelb when attacking France. That was a good example of Hitler listening to opposing arguments from his Generals and choosing the correct plan. IMO, and the opinion of many others, was that Hitler listened to the wrong Generals when he gave the go-ahead for Zitadelle. Zitadelle, if it had been launched on 4th May had a reasonable chance of succeeding, but that does not mean to say it was the correct plan.

The majority prefered to give another whack at the Schliffen plan, instead of going through the Ardennes and the majority prefered Zitadelle over Backhand. Surely you don't believe they didn't care about Germany? They just didn't know any better. The opposition was always composed of an invidual or two- against everyone else. From what I've heard Hitler actively took part in the planning of Zitadelle, Manstein's Backhand and his following plans would all be against his big strategy.