Comments on: Battle of Kursk: Germany's Lost Victory in World War II

By: ANIYAH

ANIYAH — Tue, 14 May 2013 15:17:02 +0000

THIS IS HELFULL FOR MY TEST….IM NOT GOING TO CHEAT IM GOING TO STUDY….THANKS INTERNET

By: CrackshotCrossbow

CrackshotCrossbow — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 17:29:19 +0000

True, if Hitler had listened to Manstein in March and attacked from then, Kursk would have been a monumentous victory for Germany. Then, after encircling all those troops west of Kursk, the Red Army would have been crippled. By the next spring, the Wehrmacht would most likely have taken Stalingrad, Leningrad, and possibly Moscow.

By: aldol

aldol — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:12:57 +0000

I know a thing or two about battles.
It is apparent that hitler was an incompetent in matters of war. The fact that he encountered success in the first 5 months of 1941, really means nothing.
it is easy for an attacker to break through when the defenders are not ready.
most of the readers here fail to realize that after december 1941 Germany achieved territorial gains but no strategic objectives.
they had lost the war, hitler knew but his enormous ego would let him face the reality of the situation.
kursk was a waste of resources that Germany could no longer afford.

By: VicOnline

VicOnline — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 05:09:38 +0000

Dear KeithTillman:
I do appreciate your comments above and below as well as obsession with Robert Leckie's book Delivered From Evil . I went over that book as well as Dr. Robert Leckie's web-page at University of Northern Iowa. With do all respect, however, I have serious reservations about his work. You see, Keith, Dr. Leckie is not a historian. In contrary (please have a look in his web-page based CV), he got his undergraduate and graduate education in Political Sciences (no offense, but political science in my opinion and experience, goes really bad with fact-based historical observations). He is (associate) professor and vice-chancellor at third-rate undergraduate-only university in US. Being familiar with US academic system, I have strong reservations that he has enough resources to conduct very accurate, beyond what is available in US and a few European libraries SCIENCE-based investigation on what indeed happen in July 1943… Of course I could be wrong, but I truly believe that there is no such a thing as completely unbiased book writer, especially if he/she writes outside of their field of specialization on historical matter… That being said, and being in agreement with discussed above military losses, I argue you to think about two things:
1. Which country/countries won the WWII? As far as I remember, it wasn't Germany…
2. If German army was so effective (and yes, they were more efficient and better trained than the Soviet Army at least until late 1943 – beginning 1944 – no question about this) why overall military-based causalities are estimated by European sources are close to 1:2 or 1:2.5? If each German soldier can easily kill 30-40 Soviet troops as is was mentioned above based on individual interview given by German soldier, wouldn't you expect military-based casualties be closer to at least 1:10 if not 1:30?
Just think about this for the moment…

By: ChuckS

ChuckS — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:15:13 +0000

Churchill did not surrender because he knew Hitler had to attack the Soviets before he ran out of oil or Stalin would attack first leaving the nazis's nowhere. The german generals collaborated with Hitler because if germany had to fight anyway this would be there best chance. Downside is if they would succeed, everybody had to be f***** nazi's!

By: KeithTillman

KeithTillman — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 04:02:55 +0000

Interesting Allan how you question everyone else's \facts\ but never offer any of your own. Your responses are just statements of your opinion. I even refer to a previous post where I refer to Robert Leckie's book \Delivered From Evil\ and here is the key words you missed in your narrow viewed haste to contradict..\as a starter.\ John Ellis' \Brute Force\ would be a good next stop for you as well as the Books by Michael Reynolds or any number of accounts of the individual panzer divisions engaged in the battle. Try to get it from mixed sources though. Another good place are the studies by Trevor Dupuy on German vs Soviet combat effectiveness. In summary, despite your best wishes, the allies, and especially the Soviets, generally defeated the Germans by overwhelming numbers and attrition. The spy rings, ULTRA, and certain areas of allied advantage- like single seat fighters in the West, certainly helped tip that even more in the allies favor but Kursk will always remain at best a Pyhirric victory for the Soviets ( 177,000 casualties for Operation Citadel alone) and more likely a near tactical success and missed German opportunity due to Hitler halting the attack in the South which gave the Soviets the break they needed to recover. It was a big battle, try not to capture its flavor in a sound bite…do you work for FOX News ?

By: José de Sá

José de Sá — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 12:04:58 +0000

I forgot to add: of course german crews were well aware of the lateral weakness of the Tiger, and they counter it by trying to allways face their enemies fire. That was easier if they could progress in formation, with other tanks protecting their sides, but that could not allways be done, of course, and still there were the problems with the mines and the air strikes. Michael Wittman ace was a master in keeping its Tiger facing the enemy fire, for example, and yet in the end it was killed by an ambushed Sherman which hit it in the left side…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittmann#Death

By: José de Sá

José de Sá — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:47:24 +0000

Your story agrees with many others, Rainman, and there is no doubt that the Tiger was a fine piece of engineering! It is known that after capturing their first Tiger tanks near S. Petersbourg (then Leningrad), the russians themselves reach the conclusion that the tank could not be pierced by artillery on the front, after analysing it carefully. But it had some weak spots too…
First, its shielding was much weaker on the sides, from which resulted the russian tactics to let it penetrate the lines and then shoot it on the sides. T34 too used to attract it to some decoys or even some of them, to let others to appoximate enough by the sides to shoot it there. Second, its tracks could be destroyd by mines, and third its top was vulnerable to air strikes, which was the weakness most exploited in the Western front.
In the endl, it was not invincible, and it was won.

By: Rainman

Rainman — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 20:32:29 +0000

I don't know if this is relevant or not, but there is a Normandy veteran who lives on my street that had some amazing experiences fighting the Tiger & King Tiger tanks. He told us that a large group of his Shermans ganged up on a King Tiger and a couple Panzers. He told us that his group fired on that King Tiger until they all only had a few shells left between them. He said they fired over 100 shells on it and never did manage to kill the crew inside. He said everyone couldn't believe their eyes when it simply drove off after they stopped firing on it. He told us that the next day his tank was hit by what he thinks was a Tiger. Apparently the shell that hit them had something wrong with it because it made a clean hole right through the front of his sherman and exited out the back with another clean hole, just like sticking a pencil through 2 pieces of paper. He said it was a miracle that no one was killed and he still wonders how his Sherman was not blown into a million bits.
Good, better, best, or worst I am pretty sure I would rather be in the tank that the opposing tanks can possibly run out of ammo before you drive around the next hedge row. The other option does not seem like it would be very pleasant, imagine driving along knowing it only takes one shell from your opponent for your tank to be blown to smithereens and you are taking a "dirt nap". My motto is every day above ground is a good day!

By: AllanS

AllanS — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:08:34 +0000

XXXTanker, just where should I start with you? You go on (like so many) about the Tiger tanks. Sure, they usually overawed their opponents in battle, when they weren't broken down of course. But they were over-machined, over-complicated and just took up far too many resources to be an effective STRATEGIC weapon. Oh, and the Tiger 1 had a 21 pound shell, not an 8 pd. shell as you stated. Hitler lost at Kursk because it was an ill-conceived plan from the start. Yeah, let's build up our armies for THREE MONTHS right in front of the Russians and then ATTACK them with only a 1:1 ratio in men, armor and planes. And those multiple divisions you speak of to the north-west of Kharkov, they had to remain in-situ because they still had half of the Central Front directly in their way. Nope, sorry tanker, the Nazis never had a chance of beating the Soviet Union.