Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
- T. A. Gardner
- Member
- Posts: 3546
- Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
- Location: Arizona
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
It probably would have made sense to do this for the Germans. Spend the time straightening out their lines and improving their defensive posture with an eye to being able to conduct serious but local counterattacks to keep the Soviets from making a breakthrough. Given how the Red Army did at Kursk, their losses against a far more prepared German line backed by reasonably well-equipped mobile forces might have caused a stalemate into 1944 much deeper in Russia.
Sure, eventually the Russians are going to gain the forces necessary to make a crushing breakthrough like Bagration, but until then the Germans would be in a better position than they were with the collapse of their offensive at Kursk.
Sure, eventually the Russians are going to gain the forces necessary to make a crushing breakthrough like Bagration, but until then the Germans would be in a better position than they were with the collapse of their offensive at Kursk.
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
Given how much they relied on manpower conscripted from liberated territories I don't think this is a given if there is a stalemate as a result of this POD.T. A. Gardner wrote: ↑28 Nov 2021, 17:30Sure, eventually the Russians are going to gain the forces necessary to make a crushing breakthrough like Bagration, but until then the Germans would be in a better position than they were with the collapse of their offensive at Kursk.
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
If Citadel was cancelled in late June, what would happen with the Citadel divisions ?T. A. Gardner wrote: ↑28 Nov 2021, 17:30It probably would have made sense to do this for the Germans. Spend the time straightening out their lines and improving their defensive posture with an eye to being able to conduct serious but local counterattacks to keep the Soviets from making a breakthrough. Given how the Red Army did at Kursk, their losses against a far more prepared German line backed by reasonably well-equipped mobile forces might have caused a stalemate into 1944 much deeper in Russia.
Sure, eventually the Russians are going to gain the forces necessary to make a crushing breakthrough like Bagration, but until then the Germans would be in a better position than they were with the collapse of their offensive at Kursk.
If they remained in the East, they would be needed to stop Kutuzov, but meanwhile The Soviets would advance in the South to Romania .
If they left the East, who would stop Kutuzov ?
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
Divisions stay where they are preparing to counterpunch the Soviet offensives that everyone knew were coming. 2nd/9th armies had plenty in their sector to defend Orel while Manstein's forces were plenty to defend Ukraine.ljadw wrote: ↑28 Nov 2021, 19:14If Citadel was cancelled in late June, what would happen with the Citadel divisions ?
If they remained in the East, they would be needed to stop Kutuzov, but meanwhile The Soviets would advance in the South to Romania .
If they left the East, who would stop Kutuzov ?
- T. A. Gardner
- Member
- Posts: 3546
- Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
- Location: Arizona
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
I thought about that earlier too. That could be a big problem by 1944 in the Red Army is stuck in place and has suffered heavy casualties trying to gain ground.stg 44 wrote: ↑28 Nov 2021, 18:53Given how much they relied on manpower conscripted from liberated territories I don't think this is a given if there is a stalemate as a result of this POD.T. A. Gardner wrote: ↑28 Nov 2021, 17:30Sure, eventually the Russians are going to gain the forces necessary to make a crushing breakthrough like Bagration, but until then the Germans would be in a better position than they were with the collapse of their offensive at Kursk.
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
Manstein's forces were unable to defend Ukraine .stg 44 wrote: ↑28 Nov 2021, 20:14Divisions stay where they are preparing to counterpunch the Soviet offensives that everyone knew were coming. 2nd/9th armies had plenty in their sector to defend Orel while Manstein's forces were plenty to defend Ukraine.ljadw wrote: ↑28 Nov 2021, 19:14If Citadel was cancelled in late June, what would happen with the Citadel divisions ?
If they remained in the East, they would be needed to stop Kutuzov, but meanwhile The Soviets would advance in the South to Romania .
If they left the East, who would stop Kutuzov ?
And, without the strategic reserves,the average East Front division could not stop a Soviet attack.
Already before Citadel,the Soviets were attacking,successfully .From Leningrad to the Black sea the Germans were retreating .And every month the Germans became weaker and the Soviets stronger .Look at the situation immediately before Bagration .
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
This is incorrect. During the period of Soviet offensive operations (11/42 - 3/43), the RKKA was weakening in relation to the Ostheer. This is largely why the Soviets suffered reverses in February / March 1943.
The Soviets grew relatively stronger in the later April - June period, largely on account of the sporadic fighting and, therefore, of the low casualties they suffered.
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
The result of the Mius Front battle (strong German defense vs strong Soviet offense) is a model of something that would more often occur.
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
Citadel was cost inefficient in the North but rather "profitable" in the South if you only look at the personnell losses inflicted on the Soviets. It was something like 1 German for 1.5 Soviet in the North and 1 German for 4.5 Soviet in the South. It was so costly in the North that I doubt that it can be considered a worthwhile fixing attack.
It was also costly in ammunition, air support, fuel, and spare parts. The air attacks were concentrated on the forward edges of the defenses, and in the breakthrough areas. I imagine that the same air support would be more profitably expended on attacking Soviet forces that weren't so well dug-in and protected by minefields.
The same thing with the artillery support. Without a Citadel something like a replay of Kharkov II could have been possible, a large encirclement with hundreds of thousands of prisoners.
It was also costly in ammunition, air support, fuel, and spare parts. The air attacks were concentrated on the forward edges of the defenses, and in the breakthrough areas. I imagine that the same air support would be more profitably expended on attacking Soviet forces that weren't so well dug-in and protected by minefields.
The same thing with the artillery support. Without a Citadel something like a replay of Kharkov II could have been possible, a large encirclement with hundreds of thousands of prisoners.
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
The air support expended at the 2nd Battle of Kharkov was over 7,000 tons of bombs dropped.
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
The encirclement of Leningrad was broken in January 1943.KDF33 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2021, 08:38This is incorrect. During the period of Soviet offensive operations (11/42 - 3/43), the RKKA was weakening in relation to the Ostheer. This is largely why the Soviets suffered reverses in February / March 1943.
The Soviets grew relatively stronger in the later April - June period, largely on account of the sporadic fighting and, therefore, of the low casualties they suffered.
And the small Soviet reverses in February/March 1943 were not caused by a decrease of the RKKA .
What a lot of people fail to understand is that
1 loss ratios are irrelevant
2 that total strength comparisons are also meaningless .
Why ?
Because the attacker needs to have superiority only where he attacks,while the defender needs to be strong everywhere .
The Germans were in the situation of the French in May 1940 : they had to defend a long front line with insufficient forces,while the Soviets were in the position of the Germans of May 1940 : they could chose the point of attack .
While 6th Army tried to conquer Stalingrad,the Soviets attacked AGC and the losses of AGC were bigger than those of 6th Army before the encirclement .
On 1 November 1942 the strength of the Soviet operational forces (without Stavka reserves ) was 6,6 million men with 7567 tanks,artillery 45000 (without mortars ) and 11610 aircraft.
On 1 July 1943 it was 6,6 million men,10321 tanks,artillery 61000 and 16657 aircraft .
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
These personnel losses are meaningless : it was Manstein who had to retreat to the Romanian border, Kluge did not retreat to Poland .Cult Icon wrote: ↑29 Nov 2021, 09:06Citadel was cost inefficient in the North but rather "profitable" in the South if you only look at the personnell losses inflicted on the Soviets. It was something like 1 German for 1.5 Soviet in the North and 1 German for 4.5 Soviet in the South. It was so costly in the North that I doubt that it can be considered a worthwhile fixing attack.
It was also costly in ammunition, air support, fuel, and spare parts. The air attacks were concentrated on the forward edges of the defenses, and in the breakthrough areas. I imagine that the same air support would be more profitably expended on attacking Soviet forces that weren't so well dug-in and protected by minefields.
The same thing with the artillery support. Without a Citadel something like a replay of Kharkov II could have been possible, a large encirclement with hundreds of thousands of prisoners.
Citadel failed in July because the Soviets were too strong, it would have failed also earlier,because before July the Germans were to weak .
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
Boris Sokolov, confirmed by Toppel and others, including the authors of the GSWW series, has found evidence that the Soviets hid a lot of their losses in official reports during Citadel and official stats undercount Soviet losses by at least 25%.Cult Icon wrote: ↑29 Nov 2021, 09:06Citadel was cost inefficient in the North but rather "profitable" in the South if you only look at the personnell losses inflicted on the Soviets. It was something like 1 German for 1.5 Soviet in the North and 1 German for 4.5 Soviet in the South. It was so costly in the North that I doubt that it can be considered a worthwhile fixing attack.
Otherwise I agree with the rest of what you said.
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
The details of that I don't know (to what extent there is an undercount). Obviously the most famous on is the 5th Guards Tank Army hoax at Kursk.stg 44 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2021, 16:34Boris Sokolov, confirmed by Toppel and others, including the authors of the GSWW series, has found evidence that the Soviets hid a lot of their losses in official reports during Citadel and official stats undercount Soviet losses by at least 25%.
Otherwise I agree with the rest of what you said.
The losses of the 9th Army were high and effected how well Model could defend the Orel Salient. They were higher than those of 4th Panzer Army and A.A Kempf, and fell on divisions that began the attack understrength anyway.
Last edited by Cult Icon on 29 Nov 2021, 16:42, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Operation Citadel cancelled in late June
Historically no because they were worn out from Citadel and were not in their pre-Citadel defensive positions when the Soviets launched their counter offensives. At Belgorod the worn out infantry left without armor support were in scratch trenches well forward of their pre-offensive heavy defensive positions, as Hitler wanted to hold some of the ground taken in the Citadel offensive; that meant the Soviets were able to roll over them quite easily once they rebuilt.
If you're only fixated on individual divisions rather than the entire capabilities of army groups backed by air support no wonder you're not understanding how the war actually was fought.
The front was largely quiet April 1943 to July after the Soviet defeat in 3rd Kharkov. Both sides were preparing for the massive campaigns of summer 1943. The Soviets were not advancing much around Leningrad and the Germans weren't retreating from March 1943 until September 1943 in Ukraine. Bagration was nearly 12 months after Citadel by the way. Your internal conception of the timeline of events seems to be extremely skewed.