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

[Zorch]

Who really 'won' Kursk?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48963295

Winning the biggest tank battle in history - against Nazi Germany at Kursk in 1943 - remains a great source of pride for Russians.

So it is not surprising that Russian officials have lashed out at Western historians for questioning the Red Army's mastery of the battlefield.

For decades Russians have seen no reason to doubt Soviet military historians, who portrayed the Battle of Prokhorovka on 12 July 1943 as a turning-point, where the Red Army seized the initiative, then rolled back the Nazi armour.

The wider Battle of Kursk - from 5 July to 23 August 1943 - was indeed a turning-point in World War Two. Soviet forces thwarted a huge Nazi counter-attack, after Adolf Hitler's troops had suffered a colossal defeat at Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-43.

But recently a British historian, Ben Wheatley, analysed German Luftwaffe aerial photos of the Prokhorovka battlefield, taken on 14-16 July, when the area was still in German hands. The photos were found in the US National Archives at College Park, Maryland.

Wheatley's assessment, backed by detailed study of battle reports and historical archives, is that on 12 July the Germans lost just five Panzer IV tanks at Prokhorovka, but decimated "kamikaze" Soviet tank formations, turning more than 200 Soviet tanks into smouldering wrecks.

He writes that dozens of Soviet T-34 tanks tumbled into an anti-tank ditch 4.5m (15ft) deep, dug by Soviet infantry, and when the Red Army realised its mistake other T-34s started queuing up to cross a bridge. German tanks were easily able to pick them off at the bridge.

Wheatley and a German military historian, Karl-Heinz Frieser, were cited in a feature in the German daily Die Welt, which hit a Russian raw nerve.

The writer, Sven Felix Kellerhoff, argued that the evidence of Soviet humiliation at Prokhorovka was so convincing that Russia ought to tear down its memorial there, which celebrates the heroism of Soviet tank crews on 12 July.

Russia's ambassador to Germany, Sergei Nechayev, said Kellerhoff's idea was "beyond comprehension".

"Attempts to rewrite immutable historical facts, falsify the events of those years, play down the decisive role of the Soviet people in defeating Nazism and freeing Europe from the 'brown plague', look unworthy and insulting," he said.

The head of Russia's Air Defence Museum, Yuri Knutov, called the German article "a blatant falsification" of history.

On 5 July 1943 German forces launched a massive surprise attack, aimed at encircling Soviet forces occupying a bulge that stretched 160km (100 miles) westward into German lines
The fighting involved about 6,000 tanks (2,700 of them German), two million troops and 4,000 aircraft
The German push was blocked by Soviet minefields and other anti-tank defences
Soviet airpower - now much improved - played a key role in stopping German armour
Soviet forces recaptured the cities of Oryol and Kharkov in August
Victory gave the Red Army the initiative on the Eastern Front
There were angry words for Die Welt too in the Russian parliament.

A defence specialist in the Duma (lower house), Alexander Sherin, called on the German authorities to prosecute Die Welt's editor.

The MP said the feature "obliterated the German nation's penance for what was done by Nazi Germany".

Soviet heroism in World War Two has become a theme of Vladimir Putin's presidency, as he strives to boost national pride.

But there is no doubt that Soviet forces suffered heavily at Prokhorovka, even though they were making progress in other sectors of the Kursk front.

Military historian Alexei Isayev told BBC Russian that Soviet losses at Prokhorovka tallied with Wheatley's assessment. Soviet accounts spoke of 237 Soviet tanks destroyed, along with 14 self-propelled guns, Isayev said.

But he also said the Germans could have withdrawn their own damaged tanks from the battlefield after 12 July but before the aerial photos were taken. In that case, they would not show up on the photos studied by Wheatley.

The rugged T-34 tank was no doubt an impressive Soviet invention, the backbone of the Red Army.

But Soviet troops were outgunned at Kursk by the heavy German Tiger tank, clad in 12cm-thick (4.7-inch) armour, and the new mobile Ferdinand artillery gun.

War photographer Anatoly Yegorov was in the thick of the fighting at Kursk. His nephew Mikhail Yegorov spoke to the daily Moskovsky Komsomolets, recalling what Anatoly told him about his work there.

"Most of those photos were not published. 'Do you know why no panoramic photos of the Prokhorovka battlefield were ever shown in our country?' my uncle asked me. 'Because for every burning Tiger there were 10 of our smashed up T-34s! How could you publish such photos in the papers?'"

Anatoly told his nephew that sometimes a skilled Soviet sniper could stop a Tiger by shooting the driver through the tank's vision slit. The crew would then clamber out. Hardly anything else could stop a Tiger.

The Prokhorovka controversy shows just how sensitive the war remains for Russians - a war that claimed more than 20 million Soviet lives.

[JWW]

I just read that a few minutes ago, was considering posting it here, and I was wondering, is this a political story? [;)]

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

I just read that a few minutes ago, was considering posting it here, and I was wondering, is this a political story? [;)]

Very. Especially for the Russians.

[RangerJoe]

My understanding of the problems with the Tiger and other heavy vehicles is that there were no special tank retriever vehicles that could tow them off the battlefield. It would take another heavy combat vehicle to tow it and that was not done right away during the battle.

I did not know about the Tiger and the driver's vision port. You would think that there would have vision blocks since open ports like that were a known vulnerability from the Italian tanks among others.

[warspite1]

Wow!

As said on a recent thread, I see nothing wrong with historians re-visiting historical events - in fact it is to be welcomed. There may well be a new perspective to be found on the battle and some of the 'known' detail may prove to be false...

...but.....

Who really 'won' at Kursk?

Well it was the Germans obviously, and that is why Citadel was such a success and the Germans not only halted the Soviet moves west, but forced the Soviets back, allowing Germany to win the war in the east.....

Oh wait....

The Soviets blunted the main German offensive in the east in 1943 - as a result the Germans never went on the offensive again. Whether the Soviets lost more men, more armour in doing so is entirely moot. The British lost more men and more ships at Jutland but they won the battle i.e. they had control of the North Sea the day after the battle, the High Seas Fleet rarely put to sea afterwards and indeed the Royal Navy was even stronger in comparison to the German Navy a few months after the battle than it had been in May.

After Kursk, the Germans were on the defensive, the Soviets grew stronger and the Red Army destroyed the Wehrmacht. If the Germans lost just 5 tanks at Prokharovka then where did the rest of the panzers go? The Germans lost them somewhere. And as for the Soviet losses 'Because for every burning Tiger there were 10 of our smashed up T-34s! Well change the name of the tanks and this Soviet gentleman could almost be talking about the Allied attempts to break out from the Normandy beachhead.

One of the reasons I am reluctant to compare Zhukov (for example) favourably (in skill) to some western generals is the Soviet use of sheer numbers - and an ability to throw men into battle accepting losses that could not be contemplated in the west. That said, general such as Zhukov wouldn't exactly be the first - the term meat grinder suits much of WWI and some of Napoleon's battles perfectly too. At the end of the day he got the job done and used the advantages he had to achieve victory.

The writer, Sven Felix Kellerhoff, argued that the evidence of Soviet humiliation at Prokhorovka was so convincing that Russia ought to tear down its memorial there, which celebrates the heroism of Soviet tank crews on 12 July.

I've not read Wheatley's work but let's say he is right about this one aspect of the battle. Even then why would that mean a memorial to the tank crews be torn down? The sacrifice of the Soviet tank crews was still made - and the German Army failed miserably in trying to achieve its objectives and was ultimately beaten.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: jwarrenw13

I just read that a few minutes ago, was considering posting it here, and I was wondering, is this a political story? [;)]

warspite1

No its a re-examination of an historical battle.

[RangerJoe]

One way to put it would be that it was a tactical victory but a strategic loss, much like the Japanese situation for the Coral Sea battle.

[Alan Sharif]

Totally agree with Warspite. The Soviets won at Kursk. The actual losses each side suffered are a moot point.

[bazjak]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing
These so called experts really amaze me
How they would have done this and that
In another artical a guy named Alan Zimm analyzes the Battle of the River Plate and is very critical of Commodore Harwood
The guy got the job done
The Soviets won at Kursk with out a doubt
You can analize any battle that has been fought throughout history and come to a differant outcome
What if------
The Carheginians deployed their troops in a diferant way Would they have beaten the Romans in that battle
What if ----
King Harald deployed his troops in anther way Would that have changed the outcome of the battle of Hastings in 1066
What if ---
What if the RN had lost a carrier during the Falklands war in 1982
The UK wouls have more than likely lost that battle being 8000 miles from home But they didnt
All of these outcome would have resulted in history being changed somewhat
(the world would still go on but a bit differantly)
So as i said before
"Hindsight is a wonderful thing " and really you dont need to be a so called Expert to say so

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: bazjak

Hindsight is a wonderful thing
These so called experts really amaze me
How they would have done this and that
In another artical a guy named Alan Zimm analyzes the Battle of the River Plate and is very critical of Commodore Harwood
The guy got the job done
The Soviets won at Kursk with out a doubt
You can analize any battle that has been fought throughout history and come to a differant outcome
What if------
The Carheginians deployed their troops in a diferant way Would they have beaten the Romans in that battle
What if ----
King Harald deployed his troops in anther way Would that have changed the outcome of the battle of Hastings in 1066
What if ---
What if the RN had lost a carrier during the Falklands war in 1982
The UK wouls have more than likely lost that battle being 8000 miles from home But they didnt
All of these outcome would have resulted in history being changed somewhat
(the world would still go on but a bit differantly)
So as i said before
"Hindsight is a wonderful thing " and really you dont need to be a so called Expert to say so

This is not about what if. This is about recon photos of a battle field. That would be under what did.

[MrsWargamer]

Some comments.

The Russians knew they were coming. The Germans knew the Russians knew, and they still attacked. Kinda dumb.

Yeah the tiger was awesome. Yeah the Allies lost get bundles of shermans fighting the tiger. The Germans still lost.

The Ferdinand was an impressive vehicle. Equally impressive was forgetting to put a simple machine gun on it. Kinda dumb.

Kursk likely would never happen in a wargame. Most wargamers are not dumb enough to do all the things prior to Kursk though. Stalingrad, immensely stupid on the part of Hitler. They should never have had to 'recover' the initiative to begin with. But consider this, just imagine how rough 1941 would have been on Germany, if Stalin hadn't been busy beheading his leadership?

A lot of WW2 was just one side benefiting from the stupidity of the otherside, and not so much the genius. Rommel became famous from not listening to his orders in North Africa. Lucky for us the Germans never took North Africa seriously. The Americans almost sacked Patton for slapping soldiers. The Germans thought Patton was so 'great' that he was able to convince the Germans he was attacking the Pas de Calais. Ironically, he even wanted to. Patton's only great feat (my opinion), was saving Bastogne.

Kursk was as big a bad idea for Germany, as was the Battle of the Bulge.

[Red2112]

It all depends on who´s telling the story, and if the historian is biased or not. That´s why history is so hard to pin down. Who knows the real truth, or are we being told the "real" truth". That´s the real question and not some arial photos (like the moon landing).

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Red2112

It all depends on who´s telling the story, and if the historian is biased or not. That´s why history is so hard to pin down. Who knows the real truth, or are we being told the "real" truth". That´s the real question and not some arial photos (like the moon landing).

Examination of damaged & destroyed German tanks has revealed that many had broken down on the move and destroyed by the crews. That overwrites original reports about destruction by aircraft. Incidentally, similar things has happened as recently as in Iraqi Freedom: news reported destruction of Iraqi tanks by aircraft inside a town, but in truth those were destroyed by ground forces, as reported by commander of tank company (took part in writing a book about it). Some truths can be confirmed.

[Lobster]

The Soviets were always afraid of the truth. Most of their worst losses were never learned of until after the Soviet collapse and there were a bunch of them. But then it seems most military leaders gloss over their mistakes and blunders.

[Red2112]

There was a difference between destroyed and unusable tanks (that were recoverd during the night for repairs), but plenty of reports that contradict stats among adversaries. Here´s an example without digging in to deep...
https://www.historynet.com/battle-of-kursk-germanys-lost-victory-in-world-war-ii.htm

It´s been awhile since I red anything on the batlle(s), and Iam getting old.

But yes, some data is legit Kuokkanen, but not as much as some folks think/belive, that´s what Iam saying.

--

[Red2112]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

The Soviets were always afraid of the truth. Most of their worst losses were never learned of until after the Soviet collapse and there were a bunch of them. But then it seems most military leaders gloss over their mistakes and blunders.

Yes but we know now that the Soviets were better at keeping track of things. Opposed to the Germans who destroyed most of there records before they were captured.

[AndySfromVA]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Wow!

As said on a recent thread, I see nothing wrong with historians re-visiting historical events - in fact it is to be welcomed. There may well be a new perspective to be found on the battle and some of the 'known' detail may prove to be false...

...but.....

Who really 'won' at Kursk?

Well it was the Germans obviously, and that is why Citadel was such a success and the Germans not only halted the Soviet moves west, but forced the Soviets back, allowing Germany to win the war in the east.....

Oh wait....

The Soviets blunted the main German offensive in the east in 1943 - as a result the Germans never went on the offensive again. Whether the Soviets lost more men, more armour in doing so is entirely moot. The British lost more men and more ships at Jutland but they won the battle i.e. they had control of the North Sea the day after the battle, the High Seas Fleet rarely put to sea afterwards and indeed the Royal Navy was even stronger in comparison to the German Navy a few months after the battle than it had been in May.

After Kursk, the Germans were on the defensive, the Soviets grew stronger and the Red Army destroyed the Wehrmacht. If the Germans lost just 5 tanks at Prokharovka then where did the rest of the panzers go? The Germans lost them somewhere. And as for the Soviet losses 'Because for every burning Tiger there were 10 of our smashed up T-34s! Well change the name of the tanks and this Soviet gentleman could almost be talking about the Allied attempts to break out from the Normandy beachhead.

One of the reasons I am reluctant to compare Zhukov (for example) favourably (in skill) to some western generals is the Soviet use of sheer numbers - and an ability to throw men into battle accepting losses that could not be contemplated in the west. That said, general such as Zhukov wouldn't exactly be the first - the term meat grinder suits much of WWI and some of Napoleon's battles perfectly too. At the end of the day he got the job done and used the advantages he had to achieve victory.

The writer, Sven Felix Kellerhoff, argued that the evidence of Soviet humiliation at Prokhorovka was so convincing that Russia ought to tear down its memorial there, which celebrates the heroism of Soviet tank crews on 12 July.

I've not read Wheatley's work but let's say he is right about this one aspect of the battle. Even then why would that mean a memorial to the tank crews be torn down? The sacrifice of the Soviet tank crews was still made - and the German Army failed miserably in trying to achieve its objectives and was ultimately beaten.

The Germans decisively won the battle at Kasserine Pass but it didn't make a bit of difference as they still lost Tunisia. In fact it taught the Americans some valuable lessons on how to beat the Germans, which they used in subsequent battles.

In the end it's all about winning the war. Germany had many successes but they ultimately failed - to the benefit of us all.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: AndySfromVA

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Wow!

As said on a recent thread, I see nothing wrong with historians re-visiting historical events - in fact it is to be welcomed. There may well be a new perspective to be found on the battle and some of the 'known' detail may prove to be false...

...but.....

Who really 'won' at Kursk?

Well it was the Germans obviously, and that is why Citadel was such a success and the Germans not only halted the Soviet moves west, but forced the Soviets back, allowing Germany to win the war in the east.....

Oh wait....

The Soviets blunted the main German offensive in the east in 1943 - as a result the Germans never went on the offensive again. Whether the Soviets lost more men, more armour in doing so is entirely moot. The British lost more men and more ships at Jutland but they won the battle i.e. they had control of the North Sea the day after the battle, the High Seas Fleet rarely put to sea afterwards and indeed the Royal Navy was even stronger in comparison to the German Navy a few months after the battle than it had been in May.

After Kursk, the Germans were on the defensive, the Soviets grew stronger and the Red Army destroyed the Wehrmacht. If the Germans lost just 5 tanks at Prokharovka then where did the rest of the panzers go? The Germans lost them somewhere. And as for the Soviet losses 'Because for every burning Tiger there were 10 of our smashed up T-34s! Well change the name of the tanks and this Soviet gentleman could almost be talking about the Allied attempts to break out from the Normandy beachhead.

One of the reasons I am reluctant to compare Zhukov (for example) favourably (in skill) to some western generals is the Soviet use of sheer numbers - and an ability to throw men into battle accepting losses that could not be contemplated in the west. That said, general such as Zhukov wouldn't exactly be the first - the term meat grinder suits much of WWI and some of Napoleon's battles perfectly too. At the end of the day he got the job done and used the advantages he had to achieve victory.

The writer, Sven Felix Kellerhoff, argued that the evidence of Soviet humiliation at Prokhorovka was so convincing that Russia ought to tear down its memorial there, which celebrates the heroism of Soviet tank crews on 12 July.

I've not read Wheatley's work but let's say he is right about this one aspect of the battle. Even then why would that mean a memorial to the tank crews be torn down? The sacrifice of the Soviet tank crews was still made - and the German Army failed miserably in trying to achieve its objectives and was ultimately beaten.

The Germans decisively won the battle at Kasserine Pass but it didn't make a bit of difference as they still lost Tunisia. In fact it taught the Americans some valuable lessons on how to beat the Germans, which they used in subsequent battles.

In the end it's all about winning the war. Germany had many successes but they ultimately failed - to the benefit of us all.

warspite1

But that is not the same situation. There is no dispute on either side about what happened at Kasserine.

From what I can make out from the blurb provided, this is about the Soviet version of events at Prokhorovka (historically the 'Death Ride of the 4th Panzer Army') now being rubbished.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Lucky for us the Germans never took North Africa seriously.

warspite1

Maybe, maybe not. Had Hitler turned south instead of East in 1941 everything changes. Such a move may have worked in their favour - but there was plenty that could have gone wrong too.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Lucky for us the Germans never took North Africa seriously.

warspite1

Maybe, maybe not. Had Hitler turned south instead of East in 1941 everything changes. Such a move may have worked in their favour - but there was plenty that could have gone wrong too.

Off topic but interesting anyway. If Germany had been able to close the Mediterranean Sea in 1940 or 1941, what would have happened? England would have always been there for sure...