Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: BofH

ORIGINAL: map66

That said, anyone read Barbarossa Derailed Volume 2 yet? I haven't tried ordering it yet after so many false release dates, but it appears like it it actually published.

I saw today that it's actually in stock. What did you think of Volume 1?

It wouldn't be the first time that it was "in stock." I think Amazon actually had it as "shipping soon" to me last June. So I won't hold my breath til I see the book on a shelf somewhere, or hear from someone who actually his it in his hands...

Volume 1 though was a real game changer for me on my understanding of '41 and the importance and ferocity of the battles around Smolensk. I think it rather definitively settles such questions as whether the Germans could have taken Moscow if they had only not diverted south to Kiev, and for that matter shines a rather interesting light in WiTE terms on the various debates on a Soviet running away versus forward defense strategy. Still, all I said above on the frustrations of Glantz stands especially for that book, and I find baffling his decision to include "para-phrasings" of the various Soviet order and situational reports, especially as in many cases I was uncertain whether I was reading a direct quote or Glantz's research notes. Still, though, volume 1 is one of the absolute key revisionist books on the period.

ORIGINAL: map66

That said, anyone read Barbarossa Derailed Volume 2 yet? I haven't tried ordering it yet after so many false release dates, but it appears like it it actually published.

Yes, it has been out for several weeks-months and I have it. Not read though, waiting for the companion maps [:)]
On the Kursk book, it's actually one of his better readable books.

The conclusion isn't that the Germans won the battle. It's rather they haven't lost it as badly as the Soviet version after the war would have it.
and the Germans didn't cause tank losses in the order of 3:2, it's more like 6:1. 1943 was really bad for the Russians in tank versus tank combat. By then all of the German tanks could kill a T34-76mm while Panthers and especially Tigers outmatched anything the Russians had at that point of the war.

The Soviet Tank armies that were committed during the battle suffered heavy losses but were rebuild very quickly, to be depleted once again during the Kharkov counter attack and so on. The fact that they were rebuilt quickly doesn't mean they didn't suffer losses, rather, the Soviets could afford them, while the Germans couldn't. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The Germans inflicted AFV losses on a 3:2 ratio in Prokorovkha or so, yes. But it was they who quit the field, not the Sovs, and the Sovs still had uncommitted reserves.

When looking at the ratio you've mentioned it's obvious you have not read the books that have come out for the past 3-4 years about this battle. It's actually been there all the time in the official unit histories about Leibstandarte and so on. But people rather belived Soviet crap than the Waffen SS records of that battle and I can honestly understand that given the attitude towards anything SS after the war.

U2, we can quibble about the tank losses all we want, but it really doesn't matter. Let's say it was as high as 5:1 in the German favor.

So what? They still lost. Kursk was an operational fiasco. Model's pincer stalled. Manstein couldn't chop off the salient all by himself. The losses he was suffering were not trivial. The Soviets still had massive reserves available.

The entire operational concept of Citadel depended on a quick, cheap win to chop the whole salient off and consume it. Instead, it had turned into a grinding materielschlacht. Pressing it further was just throwing good money after bad.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

U2, we can quibble about the tank losses all we want, but it really doesn't matter. Let's say it was as high as 5:1 in the German favor.

So what? They still lost. Kursk was an operational fiasco. Model's pincer stalled. Manstein couldn't chop off the salient all by himself. The losses he was suffering were not trivial. The Soviets still had massive reserves available.

The entire operational concept of Citadel depended on a quick, cheap win to chop the whole salient off and consume it. Instead, it had turned into a grinding materielschlacht. Pressing it further was just throwing good money after bad.

I was not talking about Kursk. I was talking about Prokorovkha. What you write about Kursk as a battle I agree with 100%.

It was really immaterial what happened at Prokhorovka, as the German flanks were about to cave in ayway. Saying that the Germans won at Kursk is a little like saying that the Romans won at Cannae because their center initially inflicted 3:2 losses on the Carthaginian center.
 
Besides, normal losses on the Eastern Front in tanks was something like 8:1 in tanks in the Germans favor IIRC, and even then they couldn't win, so 3:2 must be seen as an unmitigated failure. The Germans couldn't afford to fight at that exchange rate.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: map66

If you're looking for something specifically on Kursk, the Zamulin book I mentioned above is a very good read despite it mass of technical data:

http://www.amazon.com/Demolishing-Myth- ... 856&sr=8-1

It's not whiz bang Paul Carrel/Stephen Ambrose kind of stuff, but it is a rock solid piece of scholarship that raises the bar (and then rips the bar out and throws it away) on what tactical scholarship on the East Front can accomplish with virtually unlimited access to the Red Army archives. (The author is director of the national battlefield at Prokhorovka, which must have helped.)

Most excellent book - wholeheartedly recommended! [:)]


And yes, as many already wrote here - the Soviet communist post WWII Prokhorovka myth about T-34's ramming SS Tigers and Panthers is busted for some years now... the battle was not as many had thought for decades (i.e. largest tank battle that ever was)...

But although the German looses were much much lower than previous thought (and Soviet looses much much higher) and that actual number of German tanks involved there was rather low - the end game was the same - the Germans had to leave the ground and whole operation Citadel (i.e. Kursk battle as a whole) was a failure (and costly failure)!


Leo "Apollo11"

http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm

Good read! [:)]

BTW, I have two of the books mentioned in it:

The Battle of Kursk (1999)
by David Glantz and Jonathan House

Kursk: A Statistical Analysis (2000)
by Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson


BTW, at the time of the writing of the article in the link above (2004) the

Demolishing the Myth: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk, July 1943: An Operational Narrative (2005)
by Valeriy Zamulin

was not yet published...



Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: Apollo11



BTW, I have two of the books mentioned in it:

The Battle of Kursk (1999)
by David Glantz and Jonathan House

Kursk: A Statistical Analysis (2000)
by Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson


BTW, at the time of the writing of the article in the link above (2004) the

Demolishing the Myth: The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk, July 1943: An Operational Narrative (2005)
by Valeriy Zamulin

was not yet published...



Leo "Apollo11"

Those are the next three books on the list. (I promisde myself to buy no more until I finish all the ones I bought when Borders was going under.)

I find the Glantz/House books are easier to read than Glantz alone.

Strategy & Tactics #253 covered Kursk, and has a 4 page article on the Prokhorovka Myth.

Like how Rotmistrov destroyed 70 Tiger tanks out of the 5 that fought there.

So I guess I shouldn't use "Greatest Tank Battles" as my source for all information related to Kursk? [;)]

ORIGINAL: usersatch

So I guess I shouldn't use "Greatest Tank Battles" as my source for all information related to Kursk? [;)]

Personally I find the History Channel documentaries on the Nazis and UFOs and the occult slightly more reliable then "Greatest Tank Battles"... After all, where else did German Panzer corps develop their muling technology from? But that said, "Greatest Tank Battles" circa 2000 computer game graphic recreations definitely do it for me, especially how the tanks drive straight at each other over open fields and then exchange fire from approximately 30 feet away in every other scene, and how each tank when hit nicely explodes in a fireball straight up...

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm

http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm

Aurelian, interesting link, thanks.

I went to the Prokhovka battlefield last year and checked it out. There is a huge memorial with lots of Sov tanks and a decent little museum. I don't know enough about the battle to know if the museum is very accurate, but I do recall that in front of the museum there is a giant statue of Sov tanks ramming tigers. Really... [:)]

There are also several engraved tablets with the names of all of the Sov soldiers awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union medal based on the Kursk battle--several dozen.

ORIGINAL: map66
Nazis and UFOs and the occult...

LOL! Cool grouping of subjects [:D]

I would highly recommend that anyone who is interested in the German side of army group south's attack at Kursk should read George Nipe's work: BLOOD, STEEL, AND MYTH: The II.SS-Panzer-Korps and the Road to Prochorowka. It is the perfect companion to Zamulin's study of the Soviet side of the battle. Nipe makes extensive use of primary source documentation in his work.

In general it is very dangerous to take anything Glantz says with regards to the German army at face value because he does not use primary source documentation and relies heavily on Soviet era general staff studies and intelligence estimates for German strength and loss figures.

ORIGINAL: Panzer Meyer

I would highly recommend that anyone who is interested in the German side of army group south's attack at Kursk should read George Nipe's work: BLOOD, STEEL, AND MYTH: The II.SS-Panzer-Korps and the Road to Prochorowka. It is the perfect companion to Zamulin's study of the Soviet side of the battle. Nipe makes extensive use of primary source documentation in his work.

In general it is very dangerous to take anything Glantz says with regards to the German army at face value because he does not use primary source documentation and relies heavily on Soviet era general staff studies and intelligence estimates for German strength and loss figures.

The problem some people have with Glantz is that he does not use pre 1991 Cold War influenced sources for anything about the Soviets.

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: Panzer Meyer

I would highly recommend that anyone who is interested in the German side of army group south's attack at Kursk should read George Nipe's work: BLOOD, STEEL, AND MYTH: The II.SS-Panzer-Korps and the Road to Prochorowka. It is the perfect companion to Zamulin's study of the Soviet side of the battle. Nipe makes extensive use of primary source documentation in his work.

In general it is very dangerous to take anything Glantz says with regards to the German army at face value because he does not use primary source documentation and relies heavily on Soviet era general staff studies and intelligence estimates for German strength and loss figures.

The problem some people have with Glantz is that he does not use pre 1991 Cold War influenced sources for anything about the Soviets.

Did you intend that to mean he doesn't use sources that weren't influenced by the cold war. If so, then I definitely agree with you.