Kursk WW2: Why Russia is still fighting world's biggest tank battle

[RangerJoe]

The surprising thing (to me) is the 'dog that didn't bark in the night' - no Soviet leader had the guts to shoot Stalin and replace him in June/July 1941.

I read where a bunch of the Soviet leaders went to Stalin just after the German invasion. They wanted to know what he wanted to do and he thought that they were going to ask him to step down. One bullet would have done the trick nicely.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The surprising thing (to me) is the 'dog that didn't bark in the night' - no Soviet leader had the guts to shoot Stalin and replace him in June/July 1941.

I read where a bunch of the Soviet leaders went to Stalin just after the German invasion. They wanted to know what he wanted to do and he thought that they were going to ask him to step down. One bullet would have done the trick nicely.

+1

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Whether the Soviets lost more men, more armour in doing so is entirely moot.

You'd think so, but I think there's a move afoot to rewrite history to be as favorable to the victors (e.g., Russians/Soviets) as possible during the Great Patriotic War. Even if it means exaggerating the capabilities of the Russians upwards or exaggerating their casualties downwards (or the enemy casualties upwards). To the point that no one can question the official [revised] historical word of the Soviets...erm...Russians without engendering their anger. Also put 'downplaying the role of other Russian Allies' in here too.

I've heard of this in a handful of other reports. Most recently, "Tik" relied very heavily on 'official and newly released' Soviet archives provided just for him (and a Russian author's book from 2017) to dispute the Wehrmacht casualty figures and push an argument that the Russians lost many fewer men than originally thought. And that the Germans lost many more. So the military victory wasn't really just numerical superiority. Oh-and Stalin's purges really weren't all that bad for the Red Army before the war either. According to "Tik". You can't make this stuff up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7BE8CsM9ds

I agree with the others that say it doesn't make a whit of difference about the outcome of the war. The post-war historical records (particularly of casualties) were deliberately and willfully falsified and distorted in accordance with the Kremlin's political orders. Rewriting of history to suit the current autocratic government in power is a tried-and-true revisionist technique that has been done time and time again.

warspite1

Well I've just watched this. As a wise man once said, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. The guy had one or two interesting things to say but really? To break down the fighting on the Eastern Front to simply a numbers game? That's ridiculously simplistic. "The Germans had 53 more tanks than the Soviets in the battle of whenever, so how could they lose? It doesn't make sense" - Er well there are many, many factors that go into fighting a battle - you know, unimportant things like logistics, quality and experience of the troops, terrain, weather etc. etc. So no, playing a simple numbers game on its own is what makes no sense.

warspite1

I've just looked at another of TIK's videos "The Main Reason Why Germany Lost WW2". Nothing much wrong overall in this video - except what he's saying about the oil position and the number of German tanks (reported in the previous video) are actually contradictory.....

[Rosseau]

Big picture was the German delay at Kursk and the thought of attacking at all. Good thing Hitler made a big mistake, because a non-Kursk would have probably extended the war and the casualties in the East.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Rosseau

Big picture was the German delay at Kursk and the thought of attacking at all. Good thing Hitler made a big mistake, because a non-Kursk would have probably extended the war and the casualties in the East.

Bigger picture, the Allies had more of everything.

[Commanderski]

I'm pretty sure that it was in the book "Demolishing the Myth" that showed the German forces coming up from the South actually broke through all of the lines of Soviet defense but couldn't get enough reinforcements to continue to link up with the forces coming down from the North. The Soviets had used up all available reinforcements and couldn't have stopped them if the battle continued.

It was only after Hitler called off the battle (I think it was due to the invasion of Sicily) and withdrew that the Soviets were able to consolidate the remaining Kursk forces that they were able to mount a weak counterattack on the withdrawing German forces.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Commanderski

I'm pretty sure that it was in the book "Demolishing the Myth" that showed the German forces coming up from the South actually broke through all of the lines of Soviet defense but couldn't get enough reinforcements to continue to link up with the forces coming down from the North. The Soviets had used up all available reinforcements and couldn't have stopped them if the battle continued.

It was only after Hitler called off the battle (I think it was due to the invasion of Sicily) and withdrew that the Soviets were able to consolidate the remaining Kursk forces that they were able to mount a weak counterattack on the withdrawing German forces.

I was under the impression that the Soviet defensive lines were 300 km deep in most dangerous, critical sectors. And Kursk was one of them. The Germans advanced what? 20 km? ROFL Ergo, ridiculous statement.

You make it sound as if the Anglo-saxons saved the Red Army. Ridiculous too.

Some may look at the tactical side of things. I don't. As it's been already said, Kursk = first time a German summer offensive was stopped, after the '40, '41 and '42 European Tours.

In '44, Stavka's hordes literally annihilated Army Group Center. 60 divisions poof, gone, vanished. And let's not forget how they stuffed the Wehrmacht in Ukraine too.

[RangerJoe]

Yes, but only after forces were diverted into the West and the Mediterranean. Not to mention the airpower withdrawn to fight the Western Allies' onslaught.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Wikipedia has the following interesting article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tracer

Excerpts below:

Operation Tracer was a secret Second World War military operation in Gibraltar, a British colony and military base. The impetus for the plan was the 1940 scheme by Germany to capture Gibraltar, code-named Operation Felix. Operation Tracer was the brainchild of Rear Admiral John Henry Godfrey, the Director of the Naval Intelligence Division of the Admiralty.

In 1941, he decided to establish a covert observation post at Gibraltar, that would remain operational even if Gibraltar fell to the Axis powers. Movements of enemy vessels would be reported to the United Kingdom. Godfrey requested the assistance of several distinguished consultants to bring the plan to fruition. The plan was so secret that Godfrey held meetings with his consultants at his private residence rather than at Whitehall.

The decision was made to construct the post using the tunnel system for Lord Airey's Shelter, the underground military headquarters just north of Lord Airey's Battery. The artillery battery was located at the upper ridge of the Rock of Gibraltar, near the southern end of what is now the Upper Rock Nature Reserve.

Construction began in late 1941 and was complete by the late summer 1942. The chambers served as a dual observation post, with an observation slit overlooking the Bay of Gibraltar and a larger aperture over the Mediterranean Sea. Six men were selected for the operation, an executive officer as leader, two physicians and three wireless operators. The men had volunteered to be sealed inside the cave should Gibraltar fall to the Axis.

The men understood that they would remain sealed in the cave for about a year, although it could be much longer and provisions for a seven-year stay were stored. The plan was aborted and the Director of Naval Intelligence ordered that the provisions in the complex be distributed and the cave sealed. Rumours of a secret complex, eventually dubbed Stay Behind Cave, circulated for decades in Gibraltar, until discovery of the chambers in 1997 by the Gibraltar Caving Group. The authenticity of the site was confirmed by one of the builders in 1998 and a decade later by one of the physicians, the last surviving member of the Tracer team, who died in 2010.

They should have consulted Dr. Strangelove. [:D]

Nobody picked up on this.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Some may look at the tactical side of things. I don't.

Then you are sure to realize the Soviet offensives rolled on Allied wheels. [;)]

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Some may look at the tactical side of things. I don't.

Then you are sure to realize the Soviet offensives rolled on Allied wheels. [;)]

And their stomachs marched on Allied food.

[TulliusDetritus]

The bananas from Guatemala and the guano from Peru also saved US's a**es then. Fair enough [:D]

[TulliusDetritus]

I knew the truck argument would show up.

Critical thinking.

The Wehrmacht that managed to advance hundreds of kilometers, did not rely on trucks.

Except the panzer core, this was literally a WW1 army, soldiers marching and HORSES pulling supplies.

Ergo look what they accomplished WITHOUT trucks [:D]

[RangerJoe]

Critical thinking.

Without the trucks, the Soviets would attack with just the ammo, fuel, and supplies carried on their tanks. When that ran out, they had no immediate resupply. The Germans would counter attack, the Russians would have to abandon their tanks with empty fuel cells. With no ammo, the tanks couldn't even shoot back.

[TulliusDetritus]

You make it sound as if Soviet industry could not produce trucks. There are plenty of videos out there with pre 1941 Red Army... with trucks. They could produce them, that was not a problem. BUT if your ally says "I'm going to produce them for you", then you focus on let's say tanks, artillery etc etc. Seems reasonable to me.

Bananas from let's say Guatemala also meant US would need less manpower diverted to agriculture. And so on and so on...

In the end, allies helping each other.

[RangerJoe]

Yes, the Soviets could have built the trucks but at the expense of tanks. But in 1942 during their spring offensives, they did not have the trucks but plenty of tanks which they then lost which helped the Germans advance to Stalingrad. If Hitler would have let Paulus withdraw when he wanted to or if Paulus would have withdrawn on his own, no German debacle there and then think of the manpower and equipment that would then have been available.

As far as Allies helping each other, 3 million workers in the USA from a southern Ally help the US war industries a lot. That Ally had a fighter group equipped with US made P-47s in the Phillipines.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If Hitler would have let Paulus withdraw when he wanted to or if Paulus would have withdrawn on his own, no German debacle there and then think of the manpower and equipment that would then have been available.

warspite1

Stalingrad was a debacle as soon as Uranus was launched. The scale of that defeat then depended on what action the Germans took. Make no mistake, even if Hitler authorised a withdrawal quickly, the Germans (largely 6th Army but other elements too) would have had to fight their way south and east.

Yes manpower and equipment losses would have been less than those actually suffered, but make no mistake, no retreating army that has to fight its way through enemy lines, is going to manage to get all its heavy weapons, ammunition, wounded etc. out. In addition to fighting south and east, the German would have had to maintain forces around the entire perimeter. Heavy weapons would have to be sacrificed to keep the Soviets from infiltrating the perimeter and to assist the troops attacking to open up a corridor. And every day that decision was delayed, so the losses would only increase. So the manpower and equipment saved would likely not have been enough to make much of a difference.

The Germans needed the oil of the Caucasus. Yes, this was a debacle whatever the Germans did because they were effectively giving up the chance to take the oil.

The German advance to Stalingrad was helped by the Soviets learning how to take advantage of their position - and trade space for time. The deeper the Germans went, the longer their supply lines became and then, the longer the battle for Stalingrad took, the more reserves the Germans had to strip from the flanks, the more exposed the best German units (in Stalingrad itself) were to surrounding - and ultimately the weak Axis Allies on the Don collapsed in the face of a concentrated attack.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Yes, the Soviets could have built the trucks but at the expense of tanks. But in 1942 during their spring offensives, they did not have the trucks but plenty of tanks which they then lost which helped the Germans advance to Stalingrad.

I don't think the lack of trucks explain the catastrophic losses (seven armies) in spring 1942. That's overstretching the argument imo.

The lack of everything on the other hand: equipment, doctrine, personnel, lunatic commanders...

And anyway, this was a business thing too. The USSR and the UK had to pay eh [:D]

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

The bananas from Guatemala and the guano from Peru also saved US's a**es then. Fair enough [:D]

So you are saying the supplies that Stalin demanded the Allies send were useless and he did that just for kicks? This is a common line seen in Soviet circles. While it is true the Germans were defeated mostly in the Soviet space it is equally true it could not have been accomplished without the aid of the Soviet allies.

And it isn't just trucks. The raw and refined materials sent to the Soviets were critical to winning. If the Allies did not send aluminum to the Soviets where would it have come from? Soviet mines. Soviet smelters. Soviet mills. And who would run these mines and smelters and mills? The people freed up from those labors were on the front lines fighting the Germans or were in factories building tanks, artillery and aircraft. And that same Allies aluminum was used to build those Soviet aircraft. While you can pretend it made no difference and continue with lies and propaganda the facts still remain. Not to mention the Allies aviation fuel sent to fuel those aircraft allowed them greater range, less maintenance and less fuel usage because it was of a superior grade.

Food, leather goods, chemicals, wood, metals, atomic materials, oils, resins, fuels, lubricants, machines, tools, parts the list goes on and on for pages. If all of this were not sent to the Soviets then the Soviets would have had to use people who were doing other things to make it or not have it at all. So do the typical Soviet thing and deny. But even a fool can see the difference the Allies made in the East Front. https://archive.org/stream/1942LendLeas ... 9_djvu.txt

This is just a very small partial list:

ITEM Quantity Cost in Dollars


Thorium salts and compounds 25,352 $ 32,570 Brass & bronze blanks 32,760,542 lbs. $ 6,270,740.
Uranium nitrate 500 lbs. --- Brass & bronze plates & sheets 536,632,390 lbs. 99,376,514.
Uranium nitrate (U02) 220 lbs. --- Brass & bronze pipes & tubes l6,642,267 lbs. 5,126,324.
Uranium oxide 500 lbs. --- Copper alloys 660 lbs. 396.
Uranium, urano-uranic oxide (U308) 200 lbs. --- Insulated copper wire, n.e.s. 399,556,720 lbs. 97,637,534.
Copper maaufactures, n.e.s. --- 278,336.
METALS & METAL MANUFACTURES Copper rods 2,875,916 lbs. 553,042.
Aluminum & alloys, ingots, slabs, etc. 366,73S,204 lbs. 53,884,473. Copper wire, bare 28,235,738 lbs. 5,261,483.
Aluminum rods & bars 13,744,709 lbs. 3,285,014. Copper wire, rubber-covered 16,521,612 lbs. 3,965,050.
Aluminum plates, sheets, strips 124,052,618 lbs. 45,408,111. Copper wire, weather-proof 4,848,312 lbs. 1,261,789.
Aluminum foil 409,556 lbs. 205,231. Copper munitions, excl. rotat. bands 1,598,723 lbs. 2,102,024.
Aluminum kitchen, hospital utensils 310 lbs. 1,428. Copper refined ingots, bars, etc. 75,663,895 lbs. 9,041,122.
Aluminum powders & paste 219,736 lbs. 91,915. Copper pipes & tubes 38,913,403 lbs. 22,728,592.
Aluminum contr. valves 980 lbs. 10,122. Copper plates & sheets 26,432,417 lbs. 5,642,774.
Aluminum manufactures, n.e.s. --- 308,542. Nickel-chrome electric resistance wire 1,603,104 lbs. 2,121,121.
Brass &c bronze ingots 10,214,064 lbs. 1,283,755. Nickel ore, conc. & matts l55,604 lbs. 116,571.
Brass & bronze bars, rods, etc. 66,329,462 lbs. 12,502,080. Nickel alloys & scrap 1,944,796 lbs. 812,3ll.
Brass & bronze pipe fittings 14,097 lbs. 30,931. Nickel ingots, bars, rods, etc. 15,669,441 lbs. 6,560,7l9.
Brass & bronze valves, 4-in. & over 204,288 lbs. 189,623. Nickel manufactures, n.e.s. --- 2,216,294.
Brass goods, plumbers 8,598 lbs. 5,828. Tin & tin mfrs, tin foil 82,583 lbs. 44,353.
Brass or bronze wire l6,139,702 lbs. 3,734,169. Tin ingots, pigs, bars, etc. 30,620 lbs. 16,079.
Brass wood scrcws l,2l8 gross 453. Tin manufactures, n.e.s. --- 2.
Brass or bronze hardware --- 13,465. Lead foil and tin foil 26,880 lbs. 15,546.
Brass & bronze die stocks, etc. 8,739 lbs. 9,180. Lead, pigs & bars 801,234 lbs. l,913,769.
Brass & bronze munitions 21,824,376 lbs. 4,253,987. Lead sheets & pipes ?4,555 lbs, 6,720.
Brass & bronze window strips 65,924 lbs. 28,567. Lead, solder 378 Ibs. 76.
Brass & bronze, forgings 218 lbs. 249. Lead, cable 1,681,081 lbs. 314,308.
Brass & bronze circles 933,110 lbs. 194,447. Lead, plate or battery plate 1,122 lbs. 475.
Brass & bronze manufactures, n.e.s. --- 233,843. Lead, shot l8l,506 lbs. 17,646.

Lead, castings, circles, etc. 124,645 lbs. $ 40,569.
Lead manufactures, n.e.s. --- 105,421. Automotive wrenches & parts --- 25,736.
Carbonyl iron powder 27,050 lbs. 42,436. Wrenches & parts, excl. automotive --- 163,179.
Ferrochrome 7,820,3l3 lbs. 1,285,175. Drills, etc., metal cutting, power-driven 7,822,2l6 8,863,820.
Ferromolybdenum 5,357,500 lbs. 3,210,590. Drills, etc., excl. power-driven --- 9,062,215.
Ferrovanadium 1,074,190 lbs. 2,034,830. Hand-operated taps, etc., metal-working
Ferrophosphorus l9,229 lbs. 710. machines 593,278 1,091,423.
Ferrosilicon 16,187,318 lbs. 941,985. Hand-operated taps, etc., excL metal-
working machines --- 4,224,303.
Ferrotungsten 3,027,188 lbs. 4,715,335. Hand-operattd dies, etc., metal-work-
Ferro alloys, n.e.s. 88,900 lbs. 137,695.
Babbitt metal 604,569 lbs. 265,179. ing machines 35,538 32,346.
Quicksilver or mercury 10,590 lbs. 28,736. Hand-operated dies, etc., excl. metal-
Tungsten metal, etc. & alloy 279,449 lbs. 4,268,890. working machines --- 258,766.
Cerite or cerium ore 2,651 lbs. 8,978. Hand-operated metalcutting tools, n.e.s. --- 786,914.
Zirconium ore & concentrate 220 lbs. 2,420. Pliers, pincers, nippers, etc. 3,463 doz. 33,700.
Cesium metals & alloys 30,299 lbs. 78,61l. Drill pries, bit braces, etc. --- 217,288.
Chromium metal alloy scrap 23,924 lbs. 6,992. Planes, chisels & other cutting tools --- 121,833.
Manganese metal & alloys 359,006 lbs. ?9,259. Gauges for precision measure 38,348 1,562,938.
Molybdenum ore & concentrates 20,145,302 lbs. 10,841,501. Mechanic' hand tools, n.e.s. --- 5,272,573.
Magnesium metal primary form 17,798,206 lbs. 3,640,716. Tools with industrial diamonds 15 11l.
Molybdenum metal alloys, acrap 913,480 lbs. 466,602. Tool grinders, emery wheel dressers 15,650 lbs. 85,106.
Tantalum metal & alloys 6,513 lbs. 136,665. Hand tools & parts, n.e.a, --- 4,211,507.
Zirconium metal and alloy 193,450 lbs. 94,654. Padlock' of iron, steel, brass & bronze 146 521.
Magnesium powder 66 lbs. 75. Door locke of iron, steel, brass
Magnesium metal, n.e.s. 983,467 lbs. 208,475. bronze 5 doz. 55.
Molybdenum wire 396,527 lbs. 1,030,833. Wire bale ties 2,196,796 lbs. 103,900.
Ferromanganese 6,600 lbs. 1,272. Welding rods & wire, excl. electric 8,088,498 lbs. 1,487,802.
Vanadium ore & concentrate 5,395 lbs. 33,835. Wire on spools or coils, not cards 2,710,624 lbs. 270,830.
Metals & metal manufactures, n.e.s. --- 2,727,754. Wire, twisted 1,585

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Yes, the Soviets could have built the trucks but at the expense of tanks. But in 1942 during their spring offensives, they did not have the trucks but plenty of tanks which they then lost which helped the Germans advance to Stalingrad.

I don't think the lack of trucks explain the catastrophic losses (seven armies) in spring 1942. That's overstretching the argument imo.

The lack of everything on the other hand: equipment, doctrine, personnel, lunatic commanders...

And anyway, this was a business thing too. The USSR and the UK had to pay eh [:D]

Stalin's overconfidence in spring 1942 was the biggest problem. He didn't realize how superior the Germans still were.
At least he learned from his mistakes.