Kursk VS Dubno

OKW-73 · Post by **OKW-73** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 6:08 am

I noticed that LVMC claims that battle of Dubno was biggest tank-battle in history and several other sources claim that it was Kursk, so if anyone have ideas about this please feel free and write yours

OKW-73 · Post by **OKW-73** » Sat Jul 27, 2002 11:20 pm

I find it odd that no-one here have opinion about this....

CCB · Post by **CCB** » Sun Jul 28, 2002 3:12 am

I've heard that the largest tank battle in the world was between the Syrians and Israelis during the Yom Kippur war of 1973.

As far as WW2 is concerned IMO it was Prokhorovka (Operation Zitadelle, Kursk).

OKW-73 · Post by **OKW-73** » Sun Jul 28, 2002 4:46 pm

Yes, i have been looking several history books and other sources and they all claim it was Prokhorovka, Kursk, so wonder where did Matrix Games get their info about Dubno-Lutsk as they claim it was bigger panzer battle...

IronDuke_slith · Post by **IronDuke_slith** » Mon Jul 29, 2002 3:09 am

Have you got a link to where this claim is made? I presume the battle referred to is the armoured counterattack towards Dubno made on 26 June 41 by the South Western Front against Army Group South's Panzergruppe.

Erickson describes this battle as between several hundred tanks, and although the soviet formations committed look impressive, some appear to have been severely understrength.

Prokorovka is really only one part of a large tank battle on the southern Kursk front. At Prokhorovka, Glantz estimates 572 AFVs met, whilst there were somewhere around 2000 in that portion of the front.

I suppose it depends how big you judge the battlefield. Kursk may have been bigger, but Prokhorovka was only one part of that battle, albeit the most famous sector.

OKW-73 · Post by **OKW-73** » Mon Jul 29, 2002 4:38 am

to IronDuke,
If you mean Matrix Games claim about Dubno it was in LVMC (Lost Victories Mega Campaign) for SPWaW and i think its between 5th and 6th battle, but about Kursk/Prokhorovka claims i dont have any links cause i did use books and only some www pages which i didnt put them up to my favourite folder...why i find this so interesting is cause i couldnt find much info about this counter attack in Dubno on my books as some did just refer that there was heavy fighting and not much more...

Grenadier · Post by **Grenadier** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 2:04 am

The battle of Dubno took the course of 4 days in the area bwtween Luck, Rovno, and Dubno, about the same size as the area between Kursk and Belgorod. During the first week of Barbarossa in the Ukraine the Soviets lost 4381 tanks. The Soviets committed 6 Mechanized corps with 12 tank divisions with an average of 350 tanks per division, broken down as follows;

22 Mechanized Corps-682
9 Mechanized Corps-285
19 Mechanized Corps-291
15 Mechanized Corps-864
4 Mechanized Corps-1306
8 Mechanized Corps-1029

Total-4457

Opposing the Soiviets were 5 panzer divisions with a total of 793 tanks at the start of Barbarossa

The crux of the battle was June 26-27 when 4, 8, 15 and 19 Corps attempted to cut off the 11 and 16 Panzer Divisions east of Dubno while 9 and 22 Mechanized Corps attacked 13 and 14 Panzer divisions between Luck and Rovno. At no other time in history had so many armored formations come together in combat at one time. Over 2000 tanks were fighting on a 42 mile front. Not during Zitadelle or any other armored engagement did so many formations come together in such close quarters at one time. That is why I wrote that Dubno was the largest single tank battle in history.

My sources , in case Suvorov is reading this

are John Erickson-Road to Stalingrad pgs 163-166
David Glantz-When Titans Clashed-pgs 53-55
The Initial period of Operatiuons on the Eastern front-Pg 38, pgs 261-282
Barbarossa 1941- pgs 46-53

Supervisor · Post by **Supervisor** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 2:12 am

The man with all the answers, if Brent says it's so then I be darned someone is going to have to go to great lengths to disprove him. 2 points for the home team.

Kanda' · Post by **Kanda'** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 4:18 am

Greetings...

I find the 350 tanks average for a soviet 1941 tank division a bit unbelievable. I've read your reference, and others on the battle, and have always found the estimates of soviet armor way too high. Most people aren't aware that a 1941 soviet tank DIVISION was little more than the equivalent of a german panzer company of the time. A lot of the tanks are light model, machine gun models, or parts vehicles listed in the TOB but which couldn't ever see action. Prokorovka was the largest single meeting of armor in the same battle. I define battle as a 1-2 day engagment. Contrasted with the various donets basin series of battles which probably consumed more armor than all other areas in history...

Kanda'

Grenadier · Post by **Grenadier** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 1:01 am

None of the figues quoted are estimates, they are the actual numbers from the Soviet archives. They are in the David Glantz book,The Initial Period of Operations on the Eastern front-Pg 38.

This is the transcript of a symposium by the Soviet Studies Group of the US Army War College held in the fall of 1987. Questioning the credibility of this means you are questioning the authenticity of the Soviet archives the numbers came from. This book has the most detailed account of the 4 day battle.

The largest concentration of T-34's and KV tanks was in the Kiev Military District.

here is the breakdown

22 Mechanized Corps- 31
19 Mechanized Corps- 11
15 Mechanized Corps - 131
4 Mechanized Corps - 414
8 Mechanized Corps - 171

The mechanized corps of the Kiev MD were in the best state of readiness and preparedness for battle at an average of 80 % of combat TOE available on June 22nd, 1941. The tank divisions were far stronger than company sttrength and they were not primarliy machine gun tanks. The T-26 and BT tanks both had 45mm main guns.

The primary reason for the Soviets to fail at Dubno was lack of coordination at the tank batallion level making their attacks peicemeal and enabling the Germans to envelope and surround the formations individually.

One additional note. On June 27, the day that 2000 tanks were engaged at once, 4 Russian tank divisions were attacking between Luck and Dubno along the rollbahn while to the south and west of Dubno 3 more tank divisioins were attacking with the objective of cutting off 11 Panzer and 111 Infantry divisions. By the end of the day, 12 and 34 Tank Divisioins were isolated west of Dubno. 9th Panzer Division had not been engaged at this point of the battle but was behind the frontier waiting to exploit the breakthrough. Many of the Soviet tanks were lost to airstrikes and breakdowns and some were stuck in the marshes around Dubno.

IronDuke_slith · Post by **IronDuke_slith** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 3:58 am

Brent,
Thanks for your exellent pair of posts. Well argued and supplied with evidence and sources. In view of GMENFAN's words, I shall reply very carefully.

.

Firstly, I would tend to agree with Kanda re the numbers you've quoted. Within the sources you've listed, Glantz & House describe all the Russian forces at Dubno as not fully equipped (your second post lists them at 80% TOE pre Barbarossa, before any prior combat or transit losses manouevring into position).
Erickson goes further and suggests that 15th Mechanised committed only one understrength division which had suffered significant previous combat losses. He states 8th Mechanised fielded only 210 tanks between two of its tank divisons (the 12th & 34th you refer to) and that 4th Mechanised lost one Tank division before the battle that was driven into a swamp by it's commanding officer! This suggests Soviet actual strength was at least 1000 vehicles less (using your 350 tank strength as the guide). If the other formations were at 80% TOE and arrived in situ in that state, then that suggests around a maximum of 2500 vehicles. Assuming all German vehicles were engaged you get 3300. However, how many other Soviet vehicles were lost in transit, interdicted by the Luftwaffe etc?

I don't want to downplay Dubno, this was the only serious check to German arms for some weeks and delayed PanzerGruppe one by a week, it also (as you've noted) gave the Germans pause for thought when they met the T-34s and KVs. However, as you've further noted, this was a series of ill timed and hasty assaults which checked the German advance, but all of which were (by the 26th) comfortably beaten off.

On to Kursk, Re your second comment, about taking the aproximate distances to work out the approximate size of the battlefield. The distance Kursk to Belgorod was an intuitive one, Belgorod was right on the front line of Manstein's initial assaults at Kursk. If you draw a line between the two towns mentoned and then make the distance east-west rather than north-south, on my (very approximate) readings you have about the distance
between the boundary of second army (defending the German front line west of the Kursk salient) and the area in which Army Detachment Kempf attacked. We could, therefore, take this area to compare to the fighting at Dubno.

This isn't particularly scientific, but the ground covered by that distance contained five Panzer divisions 3rd, 11th, 6th, 7th, 19th and four PzGr divisions (GD, LSSAH, DR and T). Turning to Nafziger, he quotes the tank strength of one of those Panzer divisions (6th) as 117 vehicles at the start of Zitadelle (I include the more exotic elements like Flammpanzers) and the strength of the Leibstandarte as about 108 and Das Reich of 145. In Other words, the Panzergrenadier divisions carried tank strengths comparable to the Panzer divisions. Glantz & House quote a total of over 1500 tanks and assault guns in this sector of the AXIS front with another 112 in reserve in XXIV PZ Corp.

In front of them were the 1700 tanks and assault guns of the Voronezh front. This force received the 5th Guards Tank Army
(over 600 vehicles strong) just prior to Prokhorovka. These figures indicate over the course of the twelve days over
4000 vehicles were committed on this southern wing of the battle alone. All of these figures are fairly strong, in so much
as Glantz etc are quoting actual strengths, and all units engaged had been preparing for weeks if not months, and were well prepared for the battle. They would have turned up to fight with roughly what we've quoted. On sheer numbers, I think the southern wing of Kursk edges it.

In the end, this comes down to perception. I would argue for Kursk over and above the numbers game. At Dubno, there was a series of short, confused battles over the course of four days. At Kursk, there was the best the Wehrmacht had left charging headlong into arguably the thickest belt of defences the world has even seen for almost a fortnight. Whilst the paper strengths at Dubno are comparable, I suspect the actual strengths were not. Legend has partially obscured the reality of what went on at Prokhorovka, but it was only one aspect of a truly titanic struggle.

All of this doesn't take into account either, that a huge battle (albeit on a smaller scale) was being fought on the northern wing by Model. This does take the area covered by the battle to a size above that you quoted for Dubno, but I'd argue a battle draws it's own lines. Model was recognisably part of the same operation as Manstein, they both had the same ultimate objective in Kursk, and therefore you could argue the 2500 tanks arrayed in that sector of the fighting should be included in the figures.

My sources would be largely the same as yours, When titans clashed and The road to Stalingrad. I'd also add Glantz and House's quite exhaustive the Battle of Kursk. Nafziger was quoted from his orders of battle for Panzers and Artillery and the Waffen SS.

Regards,
IronDuke.

OKW-73 · Post by **OKW-73** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 4:51 am

Thanks everyone for great answers, this is exactly that kind of information i did want to know

and keep coming if you still got something to say

Grenadier · Post by **Grenadier** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 9:19 am

At no time during Zitadelle were there 2000 tanks engaged at the same time as happened on June 27 at Dubno. By the time of Prokhorovka on July 12, 9th Army had stopped and was switching panzer divisions to Bolkhov, leaving only the southern wing in action. By the time 5th Guards Tank Army arrived, 1st Tank Army had suffered very heavy losses as had 48 Panzer Korps which lost most of the 200 Panthers to breakdowns.

. Zitadelle was fought as 2 separate engagements as you have pointed ou, while Dubno was a large series of dogfights over a much smaller area to the north and south of the town. Glantz states in Barbarossa 1941 that 2000 tanks were engaged on June 27, mostly Soviet. By the end of the battle the mechanized corps had suffered up to 90% losses of their strength

Taking all of this into consideration and comparing July 12, 1943 to June 27, 1941, I believe the evidence points to a greater number of tanks in action on June 27, 1941.

I also believe that Zitadelle is 2 separaye engagements, one to the north and one to the south, while Dubno was a single engagement between Luck and Dubno and to the south of Dubno.

I have always thought of Kursk as being the ne plus ultra of tank battles, but as I researched for Lost Victories I have found the preponderance of evidence supports Dubno as being the largest of them all. It is true that the Luftwaffe was responsible for Soviet tank losses but they also killed an entire Soviet tank brigade during Zitadelle.

As to the issue of the tank division going into a swamp. Glantz states in The Initial period of Operatiuons on the Eastern front-Pg 38, pgs 261-282 that Erickson makes this statement based on Soviet era records and there is no evidence in the archives to show any division being destroyed in this manner. Instead, many smaller batallion and company size unit got stuck in the bogs and marshes around Dubno while avoiding the roads because of the Luftwaffe, but they did not come up to an entire division

Kevin E. Duguay · Post by **Kevin E. Duguay** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 9:45 pm

Great stuff Brent! If I ever need some well researched information I now know whom to ask!

Thank you!:D

OKW-73 · Post by **OKW-73** » Sat Aug 03, 2002 8:37 pm

Just did read "Maailma Palaa" (Memorial de la seconde guerre mondiale) ISBN 951-9078-25-8 / 1975 Reader's Digest and it states next figures about battle of Kursk, Operation Zitadelle -

Germans -

900 000 men
10 000 artillery/mortars
2700 panzers
2000 airplanes

Russia -

1 300 000 men
13 000 field artillery
6000 ATG's
3300 Tanks
2600 Airplanes

IronDuke_slith · Post by **IronDuke_slith** » Sat Aug 03, 2002 9:13 pm

Brent, OKW,
Thanks for the replies and the extra info. There are a couple of things I'd say in reply, though. Firstly, Brent, you are now zeroing in on the two days that defined the battles, the 27th June and 12th July rather than on Dubno V Kursk. I don't know where this leaves the first argument about overall tank numbers in the respective engagements. I suspect that depends on whether you accept the total of 4000 vehicles for the Southern wing of Zitadelle I quoted, and whether you stand by the figure you intially quoted for Dubno which was over 5000. I believe overall numbers favour Zitadelle, with or without the northern wing of the battle, (OKW's sources agree with my count of around 6000 for Kursk as a whole) because the actual total engaged at Dubno as a whole was well below the 5000 vehicles that theoretically made up the formations engaged. A brief note about the swamp,
I have not read the Soviet archives and wouldn't step inbetween two greats like Glantz and Erickson. I would only say re your comments on this matter, that you don't need to lose too many battalions and companies in order to lose a division's worth overall.

Concentrating on the days in question, and actual vehicles in combat, the formations you quote (1st Tank Army and 48 PZCorp) had indeed suffered heavy losses. You're correct to state most of the Panthers had fallen victim to mechanical failure (perhaps as many a three quarters of the 200 deployed).

However, Glantz, felt that the number of vehicles enaged along the southern wing of Zitadelle on 12th July was "probably fewer than 2000". He felt that around 570 would have engaged in and around Prokhorovka, that day's most famous place.

I think this effectively ends the numbers discussion because we can't do an individual count and the two figures are both close and approximates. Either one could be a few dozen vehicles one way or the other, we just can't be sure. We're both quoting Glantz so we can't argue about the sources, either. I'm sure you'd agree with me that Glantz and Erickson are both impeccable sources for the entire conflict in the east, so again, it all boils down to what you define as the battle and how you rate the two encounters.

Regarding the boundaries of the battle, I feel the boundaries are less important, in so much as more vehicles will naturally demand more room for units to properly deploy, and these battles were fought for operational reasons, which means the boundaries are set by the objectives and jumping off points etc.

Again, for myself, I side with Kursk because many of the vehicles would have been of the heavier T-34 and Mk IV varieties which were much rarer in 1941, and in addition, all around the tanks, countless infantry formations were being chewed up at the same time. At Dubno, the infantry divisions of at least two of the Soviet Corps did not engage because a lack of transport prevented them arriving on the battlefield. It's also clear that at times at Dubno, the terrain made it difficult for the Soviets to engage, Glantz seems to suggest the 15th mechanised was troubled by air power and terrain on 27th and achieved little.

Also, whatever the final count of vehicles fighting at Prokhorovka on 12th July, as an individual encounter, I think it's ferocity ranks with anything else seen during the war.

It's quite possible 20 or 30 more vehicles were looking for trouble on 27 June 1941 around Dubno, than were looking for trouble on 12th July 1943 around Prokhorovka, but I believe that the greater armoured mayhem was created at Kursk, because more of these vehicles found each other and opened fire on each other.

I probably need to read Glantz's book on the initial period on the eastern front. I presume you would thoroughly recommend it...

.

CCB · Post by **CCB** » Sun Aug 04, 2002 4:40 am

Dubno vs Kursk. You really have to do some digging to gather information about the Dubno battle. It generally gets thrown in with all the other Soviet fiascos of the Barbarossa campaign and usually ends up being described in a few sentences or one paragraph. Where as Kursk usually has entire books written about it.

Dubno may have the numbers of tanks that were involved at Kursk, but was it as much a war changing battle as Kursk? Did the world (or at least two European empires) hold their breath during Dubno as they did at Kursk?

OKW-73 · Post by **OKW-73** » Sun Aug 04, 2002 5:10 am

Originally posted by CCB
Dubno vs Kursk. You really have to do some digging to gather information about the Dubno battle. It generally gets thrown in with all the other Soviet fiascos of the Barbarossa campaign and usually ends up being described in a few sentences or one paragraph. Where as Kursk usually has entire books written about it.

Yes, i noticed that its very hard to find info about this battle after searching from several books and internet. As i said there before most books just refer it as a place that has some hard fighting.

Dubno may have the numbers of tanks that were involved at Kursk, but was it as much a war changing battle as Kursk? Did the world (or at least two European empires) hold their breath during Dubno as they did at Kursk?

Maybe it wasnt "war changing" but it is sure a interesting battle, main reason is that it is so "forgotten" in the smoke of other more famous battles.

Grenadier · Post by **Grenadier** » Mon Aug 05, 2002 9:02 am

There vis a lot about Dubno that is unknown in the West and is not revealed in the history books. Needless to say it must have been harrowing at times for the Germans with the KV-s and T-34's but then again, most references to the debut of these tanks is Rasenanai in Lithuania for the KV-1 and 2 and Orsha for the T-34. So somehow nearly 1000 of these tanks which first showed up at Radziechow on June 23 accoring to 11 Panzer Division's records have fallen into a black hole historically. !6 Panzer Division records attacks by T-34's and haing the 37mm Panzerjager section overrun and only stopping the tanks with direct fire artillery and 97 Jager Division records of a T-34 attack being beaten off to the south of Radziechow on June 28 along with some of the muliturreted t-35's but that is about all there is available form the english versions of the German archives.

The only other reference to T-34's in the south is when Michel Wittmann destroyed several at the beginning of July in his StuG III. It is hard to fathom that that many heavy tanks simply did not engage the Germans and either broke down or werew taken out by the Luftwaffe.

As for the impact Dubno had on the war. Hitler was very concerned about how slow Army Group South's progress was and began to pay close attention to the actions here. The weakness of a single panzer arm attempting an envelopment and the fact it was nearly sawn off at Dubno made Hitler very anxious about the fighting in the Ukraine.After Dubno, Kirponos was able to withdraw his mechanized corps, battared as they were, back to the Stalin Line while Potapov withdrew his 5th Army to the north of Korosten and Malin and began a long history of attacking the north flank of the Germans from the Pripet Marshes. This begat Directives 33 and 34 and eventually the battle of Kiev, permanently losing the war for Germany by failing to take Moscow before the winter. So Dubno had a much larger impact than is first realized until you look at the chain of events

Düncker · Post by **Düncker** » Tue Aug 06, 2002 4:51 pm

The Kursk battle has been rewritten quite recently due to more extensive research lately. One of my colleges has written several books on this issue. Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson in "Kursk 1943 - A Statistical Analysis" - London 2000. Generally one could say that all figures are greatly exaggregated in Kursk.
For instance the most famous battle is the one at Prochorovka, in which, in standard military history, several thousand tanks took part. However in reality it was only 70-75 tanks and Stugs form Leibstandarte that fought a Soviet/Russian armoured attack of 500-600 tanks. The Germans lost 4 tanks and Russia/Soviet lost 340-350 tanks. The Russian 5th Guardstankarmy and its losses on the 12 July is the worst throughout WW2 (on a single day and single battle).

The Soviet Red army general Pavel Rotmistrov succeeded to completely destroy the largest tank reserves of that time, even though he had the odds (7:1) on his side.

The real big figures of tanks is achieved by (as Russia does) count losses from all the battles the followed such as the bridgehead of Orel and Charkov, thereby reaching figures like 4 million men, 13 000 tanks, 12 000 aircrafts. However, to be able of counting all these you have to assume that the Kursk battle took more than a month.

Anyway I can recommend the book it is great.

Best regards
Düncker