Military Review

Kursk battle. Glance from Germany

143
Translator's note.
A small lecture by the historian Roman Töppel, Kursk 1943, is published on the YouTube channel of the German Tank Museum in Münster. tank battle of World War II? ” In it, the historian summarizes history The Battle of Kursk and related legends. There are no special revelations in the lecture, but it is interesting because it reflects the modern view of the new generation of German historians on this event.

I present a text translation of this lecture.
As illustrations used images from the video.
Slug_BDMP.




Most of those who came to our lecture do not need to explain what the Battle of Kursk is. You know that this was the last major German offensive on the Eastern Front. Surely you know that it was the largest tank battle of the 2 World War II. You also know that this battle marked the beginning of a series of large retreats of the Wehrmacht and that he finally lost the initiative in the east. Yes, the very definition of “The Battle of Kursk” is puzzling to many, since most of the books on this topic are about the “German attack on Kursk in July 1943.” This attack, known as Operation Citadel, was only a prologue to Kursk. the battle. The German side did not speak about the “Battle of Kursk”. German propaganda called these events of the summer of 1943 "the battle between Orel and Belgorod." Many German veterans, whom I asked if they were near Kursk, answered in the negative. They say that in the summer of 43, they participated in the Belgorod Offensive, meaning Operation Citadel - that is, beginning of the Kursk battle.

Initially, the definition of "Battle of Kursk" appeared in the Soviet Union. Soviet historiography divides this event into three phases:
1. Defensive (5.7 - 23.7.1943) - a reflection of the German attack "Citadel";
2. Counter Eagle (12.7 - 18.8.1943) - operation "Kutuzov";
3. Counteroffensive near Kharkov (3.8 - 23.8.1943) - the operation “Commander Rumyantsev”.

Thus, the Soviet side considers the moment of the start of the Kursk Battle of 5 July 1943, and its completion - August 23 - the capture of Kharkov. Naturally, the winner chooses a name, and it was included in international use. The battle lasted 50 days and ended with the defeat of the Wehrmacht. None of the tasks set by the German command was solved.

What were these tasks?
1. German troops were to break through the Soviet defenses in the Kursk area and surround the Soviet troops there. It failed.
2. By cutting off the Kursk bulge, the Germans would have been able to reduce the front line and free up reserves for other sectors of the front. It also failed.
3. The German victory at Kursk was, according to Hitler, a signal to opponents and allies that the German troops in the east could not be defeated in a military way. This hope is also not justified.
4. The Wehrmacht intended to take as many prisoners as possible, which could be used as labor for the German economy. In the battles of 1941, near Kiev, as well as near Bryansk and Vyazma, the Wehrmacht managed to take about 665 thousands of prisoners. In July, 1943 near Kursk was taken only about 40 thousands. This was certainly not enough to make up for the shortage of labor in the Reich.
5. To reduce the offensive potential of the Soviet troops and thus get a breather until the end of the year. This was also not done. Although the Soviet troops suffered huge losses, but the Soviet military resources were so huge that, despite these losses, the Soviet side was able, starting in July 1943, to carry out more and more new attacks along the entire length of the Soviet-German front.

Let's return to the theater of operations. This is the famous "Kursk Bulge", which you, of course, are familiar with.


The German side intended to attack the Kursk with a strike from the north and south for several days to break through the deeply echeloned Soviet defenses, cut off this arc and surround the Soviet troops in this area. The actions of the second phase of the battle unfolded in the direction of Orel - this is the top of the map.
The third phase - the Soviet attack on Kharkov - the lower part of the map.

I will not devote my lecture not to the actual battles, but to numerous, still existing legends associated with this battle. The source of many of these legends are memoirs of warlords. Although historical science for many decades trying to deal with them, nevertheless, these legends are firmly rooted. Many authors do not pay attention to the latest research, but continue to draw information from memoirs. In my short speech, I can’t touch all the misconceptions about the Battle of Kursk and concentrate on six of them, the falsity of which is absolutely proven. I will present only abstracts, and those who are interested more deeply will be redirected to my own publications, which I will mention at the end.

Legend one.

After the war, almost all the German military claimed that the attack on Kursk was the idea of ​​Hitler. The majority refused to participate, which is understandable - the operation failed. In fact, the plan did not belong to Hitler. The idea belonged to the general, whose name is least associated with this event, Colonel-General Rudolf Schmidt.

Kursk battle. Glance from Germany


In March, 1943, he served as commander of the 2-th tank army. He succeeded in capturing with his idea - at the beginning of 43 of the year, cutting off the Kursk Bulge - Field Marshal-General H.G., commander of the Army Group “Center”. von Kluge. Until the very end, Kluge remained the most ardent supporter of the Kursk salient encirclement plan. Schmidt, Kluge and other generals managed to convince Hitler that the attack on the Kursk Bulge, Operation Citadel, was the best option for the summer offensive. Hitler agreed, but he doubted to the last. This is indicated by his own, alternative plans. For him, the Panther plan was preferable - an attack on Kupyansk.



Thus, Hitler wanted to ensure the preservation of the Donets Basin, which he considered strategically important. But the command of Army Group South and its commander, Field Marshal E. von Manstein, were against the Panther plan and convinced Hitler to attack Kursk first. Yes, and the idea of ​​attacking from the north and south, Hitler did not share. He proposed to advance from the west and south. But the command of the army groups "South" and "Center" was against and dissuaded Hitler.

Legend Two.

Until now, some have argued that the operation "Citadel" could have been a success, it would start in May 1943. In fact, Hitler did not want to start the operation in May, since in the middle of May the group of armies Africa was capitulated. He feared that Italy would leave the Axis and the allies would attack in Italy or Greece. In addition, the commander of the 9 th army, which was supposed to attack from the north, Colonel-General Model explained that the army did not have sufficient forces for this. These arguments were enough. But even if Hitler wanted to attack the 43 in May, it would be impossible. I will remind you of the reason that is usually overlooked - weather conditions.



When conducting such a large-scale operation, the troops need good weather, which is clearly confirmed by the above photo. Any prolonged rain turns the paths of movement in Russia into an impassable swamp, and this is exactly what happened in May of the 43. Heavy rains in the first half of the month led to difficulties in traveling in the GA “Yug”. In the second half of May, it poured almost continuously in the “Center” GA band, and practically any movement was impossible. Any offensive during this period was simply not feasible.

Legend three.

New tanks and self-propelled guns did not justify the hopes placed on them. First of all, they mean the tank "Panther" and the self-propelled gun "Ferdinand".




By the way, at the beginning of 43, Ferdinands were considered assault guns. Indeed, the first use of "Panther" was disappointing. The vehicles suffered a mass of “childhood diseases”, and many tanks failed for technical reasons. But the great losses of "Panther" can not be explained only by the imperfection of technology. Much more important was the tactically incorrect use of tanks, leading to unnecessarily large losses. The situation with Ferdinands looks very different. Many sources speak of them disparagingly, including in Guderian’s memoirs. They say that this car did not meet expectations. Reports from the parts suggest otherwise. The troops admired the "Ferdinand". Crews considered these machines practically "a guarantee of survival." The traffic police of the 9 Army notes 09.07.43: “... It should be noted the success of the 41 tank corps, which is largely due to Ferdinands ...”. You can read other similar statements in my book, coming out in 2017 year.

The fourth legend.

According to this legend, the Germans “gave themselves up” to the outlined victory at Kursk. (Translator's note: the word “verschenken” is used in the original - literally “give away” and I did not pick up another translation as “give it myself.” Slug_BDMP). Allegedly, Hitler gave a premature order to stop the offensive due to the landing of the Allies in Sicily. This statement is first found in Manstein. Many still stubbornly adhere to it, which is fundamentally wrong. First, Hitler stopped the attack on Kursk not due to the landing on Sicily. To the north of Kursk, the offensive was interrupted due to the Soviet offensive on the Eagle, which began on 12.07.43, which on the first day led to breakthroughs. On the southern arc of the arc, the offensive was stopped on July 16. The reason for this was the Soviet offensive on the Donets Basin, scheduled for 17 on the 10th.

This offensive, which is still ignored, was the beginning of a grand battle for the Donets Basin, in which the Soviet Army engaged almost 2000 tanks and SPGs.



The map shows a Soviet plan that failed. This offensive ended for the Soviet side with a heavy defeat. But the reason for this was the fact that Manstein was forced to use the tank formations that participated in the offensive in the Belgorod area, including the very strong SS 2 tank corps, to repel it. In addition, it should be noted that the operation "Citadel" and without the withdrawal of troops to other sectors of the front could not end successfully. The commander of the 4 Tank Army, Colonel-General Got, on the evening of July 13, declared to Manstein that it was impossible to continue the offensive. It failed in the south and north, and it was clear to all participants.

The fifth legend.

The Wehrmacht suffered unacceptable casualties near Kursk, which the German side could have confined to in the summer of 43 in the defense. This is also not true. Firstly, the Wehrmacht did not have the opportunity to remain on the defensive and to maintain strength. Even if the Wehrmacht remained on the defensive, the Red Army would still conduct its offensive, and heavy fighting would be inevitable.

Secondly, although the Wehrmacht’s casualties in the Citadel offensive were higher than in subsequent defensive battles (this is because the troops were forced to leave the shelters and break through the deeply echeloned Soviet defenses), but the tank losses were higher in the defense phase battles This is because the attacker can usually take out the damaged equipment, and during the retreat he is forced to throw it.



If we compare the losses in Operation Citadel with other battles on the Eastern Front, then the losses do not look too big. In any case, not as they are.

The sixth legend.

The Battle of Kursk is presented by the Soviet side as the third decisive battle of the Second World War. Moscow-Stalingrad-Kursk. Even in many recent Russian studies, this statement is repeated. And many Germans with whom I had to communicate, declare that Kursk was the turning point of the war. And he was not. There were events that had a much greater impact on the course of the war. This includes the US entry into the war, the failure of the two German attacks on the Eastern Front in 1941 and 1942, and the Battle of Midway, as a result of which the initiative in the Pacific theater passed to the Americans. Kursk was a turning point in the sense that it became clear to everyone that the war in the east had finally rolled back. After the failure of the summer offensive, not only Hitler, but also many Germans, it became clear that it was impossible to win the war in the east, while Germany was forced to wage war on several fronts.

At the end R.Töppel presents his new book: “Kursk 1943: Die größte Schlacht des Zweiten Weltkriegs“ (Kursk 1943: The Greatest Battle of the Second World War “), which is due out in 2017 year.
Author:
Photos used:
Roman Töppel
143 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. midshipman
    midshipman 3 November 2017 06: 40
    74
    The Red Army broke the ridge of the Nazis. These geeks left us orphans. He was in very good relations with Air Marshal A. Efimov. I had to work with him, starting in 1978 (he headed the 6th Main Directorate of the MCI of the USSR). Marshal flew on the Il-2 attack aircraft. He was the first to use cluster bombs against fascist tanks. The effect was beautiful. A.N. Efimov after this battle became the Hero of the Soviet Union. And my father died on the Leningrad Front on December 27, 1941.
    Thank you fathers for the victory, and the shame that we gave tagged and drunk to destroy the country that you defended. I have the honor.
    1. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ 3 November 2017 09: 20
      +9
      This offensive, which is still not given importance, was the beginning of a grand battle for the Donetsk basin, in which the Soviet Army deployed nearly 2000 tanks and self-propelled guns. - "Donbass offensive operation" - from an article

      Honestly, I have never heard of such an offensive operation - "Donbass Offensive Operation" - "the Soviet plan that failed."
      Another white spot of World War II? Or did she stay in the historical “shadow” of the Battle of Kursk?
      1. Ryazan87
        Ryazan87 3 November 2017 10: 30
        11
        This is obviously about the Miuss offensive operation (July 17 - August 2, 1943). Nobody made secrets from her, but there was nothing to boast of. Here is the Soviet officialdom:
        "... On Aug. 2, the troops of the southern fr., Under the onslaught of superior forces of the pr-ka, were forced to withdraw to their original position. Despite the incompleteness of the army, its goal was largely achieved. The southern fr. he forged a large group of troops in the Donbass by actions, preventing him from transferring a single division from here to Kursk. Steppe fr. "
        The total losses of the Soviet troops amounted to 61 070 people, of which 15 303 - irrecoverable, 45 767 people - sanitary (if you believe Krivoshein). The Germans claim to take 17-18 thousand prisoners.
      2. Curious
        Curious 3 November 2017 10: 58
        +7
        There is no white spot. It’s just that the Donbass offensive operation has always been considered in a series of large offensive operations in the western and southwestern strategic directions aimed at liberating the left-bank Ukraine, Donbass and forcing the Dnieper. See "The history of the Second World War: In 12 t. M 1973-1979. T. 7. S. 193".
      3. Aleksey1982
        Aleksey1982 3 November 2017 23: 05
        +4
        Near Lysychansk (Privoljansky bridgehead), they could not break through the defenses, heavy losses in tanks, graves in the Saur area, too, but there the "Dead Head" lost a lot of equipment and went to Italy "light"
  2. Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 3 November 2017 06: 43
    36
    85% loss of the Wehrmacht in WWII caused the Red Army. Why is the Battle of Kursk not a turning point in the war that the Russians won on the battlefield?
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 3 November 2017 09: 03
      16
      the war went for the loot, only the Soviet peasants did not know this and fought for our and their freedom.

      Because the "entry into the US war" (apparently in Africa landed and the amers themselves to trade with Germ under the bullets was not ice), the banking community was forced to break ties with German and Swiss banks (or cut) - the pump does not pump the loot and there is no point fight for free (owl in the famous cartoon --- "no pay").
      after another 10 years they will say "we ourselves left the impoverished Russia. TAKE WHAT COULD BE TAKE. AND LEAVE THEM IN MORDOR"
      "THEY AHRESSORS FOREVER !!!
      COME TO BERLIN FOR NO REASON "
      These will continue to show 5 watches at Kantaria (“Russian killers”) and justify the seizure of the Kryvyi Rih-Donets basin - “effective managers have come”
      1. avt
        avt 3 November 2017 12: 20
        15
        Quote: antivirus
        "THEY AHRESSORS FOREVER !!!
        COME TO BERLIN FOR NO REASON "

        Forgot to add - AND COME TO SUICIDE OF THE MODERN AUSTRIAN ARTIST AQUARIELE! Accidentally stopped by, well, living at that time in Berlin. request
    2. avt
      avt 3 November 2017 10: 22
      22
      Quote: Krasnodar
      Why is the Battle of Kursk not a turning point in the war that the Russians won on the battlefield?

      Well here! The author does explain
      But he was not. There were events that had a much greater impact on the course of the war. This is the entry into the US war, and the failure of two German offensives on the Eastern Front in 1941 and 1942, and the Battle of Midway, as a result of which the initiative in the Pacific Theater passed to the Americans.
      And there was only .....
      Kursk was a turning point in the sense that it became clear to everyone that the war in the east had finally rolled back. After the failure of the summer offensive, not only to Hitler, but to many Germans it became clear that it was impossible to win the war in the east, while Germany was forced to wage war on several fronts.
      bully And the author can indicate -What offensive operations did the Wehrmacht carry out within the framework of the “not lost initiative” after the “moment” of Kursk? Let me guess, yes the author has it
      war in the east finally rolled back
      bullythat’s EVERYTHING .... Entirely on the Eastern Front, where almost all the troops had them. But to recognize this fact as our Grandfathers felt, they received from the inferior Slavs, from the horde well, not comme il faut, but from the arrogant Saxons - even as an honor. bully Well, type from their own, sort of like a home disassembly.
  3. svp67
    svp67 3 November 2017 06: 47
    12
    The Wehrmacht intended to take as many prisoners as possible, which could be used as labor for the German economy.
    In fact, the main task of the Wehrmacht was the defeat of the Red Army on the battlefield, and prisoners, this is a side effect of this process and the Wehrmacht was responsible for them at the first stage.
    Yes, and the author forgot to make out "Legend number seven" that in the battle of Kursk and Oryol got the Red Army ....
    1. Zug
      Zug 3 November 2017 21: 10
      +3
      from an interview with our soldier who was at the front line in the trenches after Prokhorovka at night: at first we heard the noise of engines on the field — it was left for the Germans — for some reason no one gave the order to shoot, and no one shot — the Germans, to our amazement, evacuated the wrecked tanks to themselves to the rear and no one bothered them! -but the most interesting thing started later! -Our damaged tanks the Germans mined and blew up !!! all this happened in front of the witness! in the morning we heard the roar of engines, we thought that the Germans were starting and preparing for the last battle but .... the Germans only loaded the tanks onto the platforms on the railway. (Diving?) The battle was over ...
    2. NIKNN
      NIKNN 4 November 2017 13: 04
      +2
      Quote: svp67
      In fact, the main task of the Wehrmacht was the defeat of the Red Army on the battlefield, and prisoners, this is a side effect of this process and the Wehrmacht was responsible for them at the first stage.

      Well, here the author is not right:
      2. By cutting off the Kursk bulge, the Germans would have been able to reduce the front line and free up reserves for other sectors of the front. It also failed.
      Well, how did it fail? Actually, the front line then leveled off and contracted as it were. smile
      1. svp67
        svp67 4 November 2017 13: 19
        +4
        Quote: NIKNN
        Well, how did it fail? In general, the front line then leveled out and decreased as if

        Yes ... to move away, but in perfect order, yes over many hundreds of kilometers, but over a wide water barrier, is this not an indicator of the mastery of the German command. And all for the sake of leveling the front line, oh well done. It is a pity that only this happened in 1943, and not earlier. Well here is the fault of the Red Army, she could not advance so quickly even at that time ...
        1. NIKNN
          NIKNN 4 November 2017 13: 21
          +8
          Well, for that we reduced the front line to a minimum at 45m, I don’t want to defend smile
          1. svp67
            svp67 4 November 2017 13: 32
            +2
            Quote: NIKNN
            Well, for that we reduced the front line to a minimum at 45m, I don’t want to defend myself

            That's what you don’t understand, not only the FORMALIST ... 45 ... it's almost fifty.
  4. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 3 November 2017 06: 49
    43
    It is always interesting to know the opinion of opponents smile
    Of course, the Midway of the 42nd had a tremendous influence on the entire course of the war on the Soviet-German front laughing Yes, it is that Kursk on the 43rd looked like a battle of local importance wassat Stunning logic .... Just no words
    1. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 3 November 2017 06: 53
      28
      request
      Quote: Rurikovich
      It is always interesting to know the opinion of opponents smile
      Of course, the Midway of the 42nd had a tremendous influence on the entire course of the war on the Soviet-German front laughing Yes, it is that Kursk on the 43rd looked like a battle of local importance wassat



      Yes, near Midway they knocked out the color of the German armored forces. American submarines.))))
      1. figwam
        figwam 3 November 2017 10: 40
        23
        This young German ESTORIC would have looked at the loss at Midway. the Yankees lost 307 people, the Japanese 2500, the BIGGEST BATTLE ...
        1. verner1967
          verner1967 3 November 2017 15: 10
          +4
          Quote: figvam
          the Yankees lost 307 people, the Japanese 2500, the BIGGEST BATTLE ...

          Is the meaning of the battle in the number of losses?
        2. Black5Raven
          Black5Raven 3 November 2017 18: 19
          +5
          Do you understand that there is a DIFFERENCE between battles on land and sea? The Japanese lost:
          4 aircraft carriers
          1 heavy cruiser sunk
          1 heavy cruiser is seriously damaged
          What can be considered even a million dead on land, the power of the Japanese fleet was undermined and the outcome of WWII on the Pacific Front was already predetermined and the outcome of this battle is no less important for WWII than Kursk.
          1. figwam
            figwam 3 November 2017 20: 03
            11
            verner1967

            I have outlined the scale of this battle, just a minor skirmish compared to the war in Europe.
            Black5Raven

            After Midway, Japan still had aircraft carriers and battleships and cruisers and destroyers, as a sea power it continued to exist, and the Yankees simply removed the threat from the Hawaiian islands. But after the storm of Okinawa, the FSA faced a real war, after three months of fighting, they lost 75 thousand killed and wounded, 10 thousand were demobilized for health. The fleet lost 36 ships, 368 damaged and incapacitated. After that, they realized that they could not take mainland Japan, and there they were already waiting for 4.5 million the Japanese army that would cause unacceptable damage and only the defeat by our troops of the millionth Kwantung army and the inhuman nuclear attacks of the FSU on the cities of Japan accelerated surrender.
            1. Krasnodar
              Krasnodar 3 November 2017 21: 49
              +7
              Quote: figvam
              verner1967

              I have outlined the scale of this battle, just a minor skirmish compared to the war in Europe.
              Black5Raven

              After Midway, Japan still had aircraft carriers and battleships and cruisers and destroyers, as a sea power it continued to exist, and the Yankees simply removed the threat from the Hawaiian islands. But after the storm of Okinawa, the FSA faced a real war, after three months of fighting, they lost 75 thousand killed and wounded, 10 thousand were demobilized for health. The fleet lost 36 ships, 368 damaged and incapacitated. After that, they realized that they could not take mainland Japan, and there they were already waiting for 4.5 million the Japanese army that would cause unacceptable damage and only the defeat by our troops of the millionth Kwantung army and the inhuman nuclear attacks of the FSU on the cities of Japan accelerated surrender.

              Nuclear strikes, like Tokyo's napalm bombing, did not affect the Japanese decision to surrender. In any case, they would have lured the amers to the islands, after which, inflicting unacceptable losses on the Yankees, they would begin to bargain for peace on conditions acceptable to them. That is the beginning of hostilities on the part of the USSR led them to a quick surrender, because in the event of an invasion of the Red Army, Hirohito would have simply been hanged, and Japan (at best for them) would have been divided into the YNDR and the Republic of Japan. :)
            2. Black5Raven
              Black5Raven 3 November 2017 21: 51
              +4
              It’s as if I’m talking to the wall, I’ll repeat again - the midway is NOT a minor skirmish, do you understand the difference in the war on land and at sea? It is impossible to equally try to compare the results of the operation on land and at sea, and even less the number of losses. One aircraft carrier destroyed means more than a hundred thousand dead soldiers by value, and especially when there are not too many of them. With one blow, the ability of the Japanese to act away from their shores was eliminated, there are no aircraft carriers - there are no resources from the mainland, there is no possibility to carry out operations - a nail in the lid of the coffin of the Japanese Empire. . The remaining number of aircraft carriers was no longer able to compete on equal terms and statement

              Quote: figvam
              Japan still had aircraft carriers and battleships and cruisers and destroyers, as a sea power it continued to exist,

              Read about Yamato, following your logic, he should have turned the enemy’s fleet into dust, but without the carrier umbrella he turned into a huge target.


              Quote: figvam
              But after the storm of Okinawa, the FSA faced a real war, after three months of fighting they lost 75 thousand killed and wounded,

              The storm of Okinawa - 12 dead, not 373. The second - no matter how you feel about the states, distorting the name of a country does not make you any better.
              Quote: figvam
              The fleet lost 36 ships, 368 damaged and incapacitated.

              And how many of the lost were truly valuable ships, whose replacement took a year or more? Not as many as you would clearly like. The aircraft carriers practically did not hurt.
              Quote: figvam
              Then they realized that they can’t take the mainland of Japan

              They would have taken and did not frown. Unless they could lose up to a million / two according to preliminary estimates.

              Quote: figvam
              and only the defeat by our troops of the millionth Kwantung army

              Modesty does not hold. Approximated - yes, the only reason - no, the most significant - no.
              Quote: figvam
              and inhuman fsh nuclear strikes

              Was the Soviet bombing of Finnish cities very human? Or in their own cities before the offensive? An example of philanthropy, og. Why is nuclear weapons worse than ordinary bombing? But nuclear weapons in destruction do not reach the leaders of the list, not even in the top three. Everyone has a snout in the cannon and one cannot say "your bombing is inhuman, and our human" as it is happening now.
              1. chenia
                chenia 3 November 2017 22: 24
                +8
                Quote: Black5Raven
                They would have taken and did not frown. Unless they could lose up to a million / two according to preliminary estimates.


                Of course, in three years, with millions of losses. And the inconsistent partisan war (if the emperor would not be a coward, but Japan was not lucky here).
                Although such losses, the states would not have suffered.
                But bombing, you won’t win the war (Korea, Vietnam)
                1. Al Bychkov
                  Al Bychkov 5 November 2017 01: 52
                  +2
                  I agree, given the advance of the Allies on the second front or fuss in Africa, those are still warriors
                2. Antares
                  Antares 6 November 2017 09: 54
                  +2
                  Quote: chenia
                  But bombing, you won’t win the war (Korea, Vietnam)

                  In 1921, Giulio Douai's book, Dominance in the Air, was published. Duet believed that aviation should play a leading role in the war, and airstrikes on the state and economic centers of the enemy could lead to victory.
                  Later, until his death in 1930, Douai developed his theory, defending its position in disputes with critics.
                  The Nuremberg Tribunal conferred legal legitimacy on such methods.
                  If you want to win the war, you will bomb, and if there is something you will bomb for a long time until the enemy is exhausted and economically defeated. Without infrastructure and material bases, a full-fledged war is impossible.
              2. figwam
                figwam 3 November 2017 22: 40
                +8
                I’m surprised to see you, I’m talking about this and that it’s not correct to compare the scale of the battles in the USSR and the Midway battle. In one case, millions died, the state lost its territory, population, resources, and it was a question of the life or death of a nation, and you told me about "With one blow, the ability of the Japanese to act away from their shores was eliminated." Therefore, the significance of Midway, was important only to the Japanese and Yankees, it was their brawl, the struggle for influence in the Pacific Ocean. And if you want to prove something, then first stop using Wikipedia, it's just ridiculous.
              3. faiver
                faiver 4 November 2017 07: 22
                +4
                another Finnish defender drew, I wonder at you ... i.e. You can’t bombard enemy military facilities?
              4. akims
                akims 4 November 2017 13: 56
                +6
                Was the Soviet bombing of Finnish cities very human? Or in their own cities before the offensive?

                LYING! No one bombed the cities, neither Finnish, nor, especially, their own.
                Infrastructure objects, factories, warehouses and a railway station were targeted.
                1. verner1967
                  verner1967 4 November 2017 16: 39
                  +1
                  Quote: akims
                  Infrastructure objects, factories, warehouses and a railway station were targeted.

                  Maybe they wanted it so, but it went to a peaceful man, on the chronicle of those years it is clearly visible
                  1. faiver
                    faiver 4 November 2017 17: 17
                    +6
                    Yes, and civilians got it, but civilian objects were not goals, for example, Dresden or Tokyo ...
                    1. verner1967
                      verner1967 4 November 2017 17: 32
                      +1
                      Quote: faiver
                      civilian objects were not targets, such as Dresden or Tokyo ...

                      and only peaceful houses were bombed in Tokyo? In Tokyo, there were no elements of infrastructure, military factories, military units?
                      1. faiver
                        faiver 4 November 2017 19: 38
                        +8
                        Tokyo was burned intentionally, just like Dresden
              5. papas-57
                papas-57 5 November 2017 00: 48
                +5
                '' Or in their own cities before the offensive? ''. Evidence please. Without them, you just BALABOL in the letter P.
              6. your1970
                your1970 9 November 2017 09: 28
                +1
                Quote: Black5Raven
                With one blow, the ability of the Japanese to act away from their shores was eliminated, there are no aircraft carriers - there are no resources from the mainland, there is no possibility to carry out operations - a nail in the lid of the coffin of the Japanese Empire. .
                -Therefore, the United States planned to wage war for 1946-47, apparently the nails were "of the wrong system !!" © BSP
            3. verner1967
              verner1967 4 November 2017 20: 00
              +1
              Quote: figvam
              I have outlined the scale of this battle, just a minor skirmish

              You can arrange a grand battle with a huge number of dead and wounded, burned equipment from both sides, but it will not give anything on its own, since the potential of the warring parties will decrease equally. What happened on the Oryol-Kursk arch. Yes, we won a local victory, but lost as many troops and equipment, and according to some historians, even more than the Germans. The defeat did not work. But in the general context of the Second World War, against the backdrop of the victories of the British in Africa, the states in the Pacific theater of operations experienced a turning point during the Second World War. But at the same time, each victory, in itself, did not matter much.
              1. chenia
                chenia 4 November 2017 21: 17
                +8
                Quote: verner1967
                The defeat did not work.


                Four months later, Zhytomyr was taken 520 km from Kursk (it was true that I had to leave later), and on average 400 km to the West.

                And the Germans were preparing offensive operation in a strategic direction (which means in this place they concentrated much more forces and means than is necessary for defense.

                And suddenly rolling back to the Dnieper, the Germans not enough forces to maintain an extremely advantageous defensive line, moreover, they rolled even further.

                [b] Question- where did they lose reserves (collected after all for an offensive operation)?

                And after that the German suddenly began to scoop up (1944) in full.

                The defeat was terrible, the Germans' losses were enormous and irreparable (ours, despite the losses of 1941-42, in the future, made the army stronger) with the most powerful and elite forces (then they will say "the German went wrong").
                1. verner1967
                  verner1967 4 November 2017 22: 08
                  +1
                  Quote: chenia
                  And after that the German suddenly began to scoop up (1944) in full.

                  look at the successes on other military theater at the same time, and even as the bombing of the Reich intensified at the same time, the Lend-Lease gained full speed, well, an amazing coincidence, right?
                  Quote: chenia
                  Zhytomyr was taken 520 km from Kursk (it was true that I had to leave later)
                  and how many more were such kickbacks?
                  and how much they took already blocked Koenigsberg, what did Poland cost us, and how much did Budapest take, and at what cost .... a strong ridge, even a broken one, right?
                  1. chenia
                    chenia 5 November 2017 00: 07
                    +4
                    Quote: verner1967
                    look at success on other theater


                    Specify what was comparable to the Battle of Kursk.
                    There is no need to sing about Italy.

                    Quote: verner1967
                    and how many more were such kickbacks?


                    Naturally, the inertia of the offensive is at the end of the forces.


                    Quote: verner1967
                    and how much they took already blocked Koenigsberg, what did Poland cost us, and how much did Budapest take, and at what cost .... a strong ridge, even a broken one, right?


                    After, in the main direction, three strategic operations - Belorusskaya, Vistula-Oder, and Berlin.

                    The Germans snapped really cool.
                    This is the Wehrmacht, and in 1944 they would have rolled out the allies when landing, if they decided to fight like us. And so the generals have already chosen whom to give up (our thoughts have led them to such reflections).

                    Why their generals were so stupid in June 1944 during the landing of the Allies in Normandy, it became clear after 1,5 months.

                    While Hitler cleared sedition, it was too late to win in the Ardennes.
                    1. verner1967
                      verner1967 5 November 2017 00: 09
                      +1
                      Quote: chenia
                      Specify what was comparable to the Battle of Kursk.

                      So they ask you, by what criteria do you measure? By the number of soldiers laid in the ground?
                      1. chenia
                        chenia 5 November 2017 09: 27
                        +6
                        Quote: verner1967
                        By the number of soldiers laid in the ground?


                        Yes, actually this is the main criterion. The enemy suffered terrible damage in manpower and equipment, as a result of which he could no longer take strategic offensive actions.

                        Hitler after Kursk stated that the main thing was the western front (only there could be a landslide victory), and only on the eastern one (until the prodigy appeared.)
                  2. Yeah
                    Yeah 9 November 2017 14: 30
                    0
                    Quote: chenia
                    And after that the German suddenly began to scoop up (1944) in full.
                    look at the successes on other military theater at the same time, and even as the bombing of the Reich intensified at the same time, the Lend-Lease gained full speed, well, an amazing coincidence, right? This is you about the success of the coalition under Arden mean ???
          2. Cossack 471
            Cossack 471 3 November 2017 21: 07
            11
            Congratulations . citizen. lied. You really listen to the main battles of WWII is El Alamein and others like that. Soros because he wrote to us during the EBN and our children learn this
          3. Krasnodar
            Krasnodar 3 November 2017 21: 41
            0
            Quote: Black5Raven
            Do you understand that there is a DIFFERENCE between battles on land and sea? The Japanese lost:
            4 aircraft carriers
            1 heavy cruiser sunk
            1 heavy cruiser is seriously damaged
            What can be considered even a million dead on land, the power of the Japanese fleet was undermined and the outcome of WWII on the Pacific Front was already predetermined and the outcome of this battle is no less important for WWII than Kursk.

            Not quite.
            This would be of equal importance only if the Japanese were ready immediately after the battle to abandon their entire Pacific program and attack the USSR. But this was not even planned, and the Americans are not the people who would give the Japanese a quiet life in the territories they conquered.
            1. verner1967
              verner1967 4 November 2017 16: 41
              +1
              Quote: Krasnodar
              This would be of equal importance only if the Japanese were ready immediately after the battle to abandon their entire Pacific program and attack the USSR.

              Yes? And what Germany after Kursk rushed to conquer Britain?
          4. The comment was deleted.
      2. antivirus
        antivirus 3 November 2017 17: 48
        +6
        30 years ago I read "Tue World War" Lead. Garta- procrastinated to the company "Ah Alamein, ah El Alamein" and others the great battles of the "partners" and the battle of 3 million soldiers near Stalingrad in 10 pages.
        this historian wrote more pages for a report on the Battle of Kursk. . does not have a hedgehog
    2. Ryazan87
      Ryazan87 3 November 2017 10: 33
      10
      Do not distort. The author spoke about the influence on the general course of the Second World War: "The Battle of Kursk is presented by the Soviet side as the third decisive battle of the Second World War."
      In the context of the general course of the war, Midway is one of the decisive battles in the Pacific Theater.
      1. Reklastik
        Reklastik 3 November 2017 11: 59
        14
        You probably forgot about the battle of El Alamein, after which Churchill announced its decisive importance for defeating Germany and ordered you to ring bells throughout Britain .... This is a very important point that German and Soviet historians forget! It was a very important battle ... Like Midway, it had a huge impact on the course of the war! And Kursk - this is so ... they built defense lines there, they shoveled the earth ... Sales were almost not useful! But Midway - this is the open space, it is important laughing
        1. verner1967
          verner1967 3 November 2017 15: 20
          +2
          Quote: Reklastik
          But Midway - this is the open space, it is important

          You vainly scoff
          After the battle at Midway Atoll, Imperial Japan lost initiative in the war and was forced to move to defensive action.
          Irreversible changes have occurred in the strategy and tactics of war at sea.
          On the Pacific Theater, Midway was like Stalingrad and Kursk combined in importance for the warring parties. The same can be said about the battle of El Alamein, then the African front collapsed. All this brought a common contribution to the treasury of the victory over the Nazis. It’s stupid to argue what was more important.
        2. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 3 November 2017 21: 55
          +2
          Quote: Reklastik
          You probably forgot about the battle of El Alamein, after which Churchill announced its decisive importance for defeating Germany and ordered you to ring bells throughout Britain .... This is a very important point that German and Soviet historians forget! It was a very important battle ... Like Midway, it had a huge impact on the course of the war! And Kursk - this is so ... they built defense lines there, they shoveled the earth ... Sales were almost not useful! But Midway - this is the open space, it is important laughing

          El Alamein did not allow the Germans to break through to the Nazi-supporting Syrian and Iraqi Arabs, as well as cut the Suez. In this case, Turkey would most likely attack the Caucasus, and we would have another front, because Soviet and British troops in Iran would have to fight with the Turks, the Germans and the Arabs.
          When the Persians are not very loyal to them.
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 3 November 2017 22: 02
            +5
            About half a million soldiers, 2000 tanks and 1500 aircraft participated on both sides of the battle of El Alaiman, a major battle from any point of view.
    3. kig
      kig 3 November 2017 10: 37
      +7
      The answer is here:

      After the failure of the summer offensive, not only to Hitler, but to many Germans it became clear that it was impossible to win the war in the east, while Germany was forced to wage war on several fronts.

      Forced, you know.
      1. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar 3 November 2017 11: 51
        +2
        Quote: kig
        The answer is here:

        [i] After the failure of the summer offensive, not only to Hitler, but to many Germans it became clear that it was impossible to win the war in the east

        Forced, you know.

        It became clear to them already near Moscow
    4. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 3 November 2017 13: 25
      0
      Damn, the author forgot the "greatest of the great" battle near El Alamein ????
      How so?
    5. Zug
      Zug 3 November 2017 21: 12
      0
      he didn’t say this — and then everything was interconnected — in general, the Americans landed in Sicily and it is known for sure that the tank crews were transferred there whether we want to or not, but that is, fact-tanks all remained in Russia
  5. Shurale
    Shurale 3 November 2017 06: 50
    10
    4. The Wehrmacht intended to take as many prisoners as possible, which could be used as labor for the German economy.

    Strange phrase. But what about the more than three million annihilated captured Red Army soldiers who died in captivity? These do not need beat the Germans in the form of labor? It seems that someone lied ...
    1. Paul Atreides
      Paul Atreides 3 November 2017 21: 10
      +2
      By that time, the attitude towards prisoners had changed a little.
  6. populist
    populist 3 November 2017 06: 51
    15
    Western perverts negative pervert everything in the world, but first of all the story. am In the Battle of Kursk, the Wehrmacht suffered irreparable losses and forever lost its strategic initiative.
  7. inkass_98
    inkass_98 3 November 2017 07: 25
    19
    As the opinion of the losing side, the analysis is quite interesting.
    But the Battle of Kursk is considered to be a turning point in the Great Patriotic War, and the German dragged a turning point in the WWII here by the ears. It’s a shame to believe that the general people were given some kind of lapotniki snot, that’s where the events of the war between the Americans and the Japanese draw in sideways. And how could the events in Sicily radically affect the outcome of the war? The operation was quite minor. With the same success, one can consider for truth the statement of the Americans that the greatest tank battle took place near El Alamein.
    For them - yes, I agree, but for the whole world war.
    1. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 3 November 2017 07: 56
      0
      Quote: inkass_98
      As the opinion of the losing side, the analysis is quite interesting.
      But the Battle of Kursk is considered to be a turning point in the Great Patriotic War, and the German dragged a turning point in the WWII here by the ears. It’s a shame to believe that the general people were given some kind of lapotniki snot, that’s where the events of the war between the Americans and the Japanese draw in sideways. And how could the events in Sicily radically affect the outcome of the war? The operation was quite minor. With the same success, one can consider for truth the statement of the Americans that the greatest tank battle took place near El Alamein.
      For them - yes, I agree, but for the whole world war.

      Hitler had his phobias about the landing of Americans in Europe, because in WWI, it led to the fall of Germany.
      1. inkass_98
        inkass_98 3 November 2017 09: 20
        11
        Well, completely different processes led to the fall of Germany, for example, the war on two fronts, which depleted the country's resources, and the Americans arrived very successfully, almost to the division of the pie. The statistics of losses quite eloquently reflects this. Compare at least the godly Wikipedia, so as not to dig: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_in_First_world
        war
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 3 November 2017 09: 45
          +2
          Quote: inkass_98
          Well, completely different processes led to the fall of Germany, for example, the war on two fronts, which depleted the country's resources, and the Americans arrived very successfully, almost to the division of the pie. The statistics of losses quite eloquently reflects this. Compare at least the godly Wikipedia, so as not to dig: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_in_First_world
          war

          And the British blockade of Germany.
          However, according to Europeans, without amers, the first world war would have ended later on other conditions (which, perhaps, would have prevented the second world war)
  8. soldier
    soldier 3 November 2017 07: 36
    29
    In my opinion, the very formulation of approaches and points of view is interesting.
    And the point is not even the losses - but the fact that for the first time on the Eastern Front the enemy was defeated during the SUMMER campaign. He suffered a STRATEGIC defeat.
    And always the Battle of Stalingrad will remain a fundamental turning point in the Second World War.
    And the Battle of Kursk - a radical turn in the Second World War. The Red Army went west - to liberate the temporarily occupied lands of the USSR and Europe from the brown beast.
    The battle proved, among other things, higher tactical training of soldiers and junior command personnel and higher operational training of the senior command staff of the Red Army over the enemy
  9. Olgovich
    Olgovich 3 November 2017 07: 37
    10
    The German said nothing new and sensational, except for the "epoch-making" battle on Midway lol It, of course, “strongly” influenced the European theater lol
    1. soldier
      soldier 3 November 2017 07: 44
      26
      That's right.
      You are right.
      Thank God that even the Germans remember the "Citadel". And if they remember, then the fact does not give rest. But it doesn’t give rest - because they pressed on the necks and drove to Berlin.
    2. Curious
      Curious 3 November 2017 11: 21
      +8
      Here sdes, dear Olgovich, I completely agree with you. Moreover, the version that the operation "Citadel" belongs to Rudolf Schmidt is doubtful. It is enough to look at Operational Order No. 5 (the Directive on the conduct of hostilities in the near future) of the Wehrmacht’s rate of 13.3.43, from which it is clear that the Germans began to formulate goals for their troops for the summer period at that time. But General Schmidt at that time was not up to the creation of strategic plans. At this time, a spy scandal broke out with his brother Hans-Tilo Schmidt, who was selling secrets about the German Enigma encryption machine to the French. In light of this, on April 10, 1943, General Schmidt was removed from command and expelled to the Führer’s reserve, after his repeated skeptical and vocal remarks about National Socialism and the Führer in correspondence with his brother. Arrested and sent for psychiatric examination, by a military court declared insane. September 30, 1943 ahead of schedule at the age of 57 years retired.
      As for the Panther plan, about which the author speaks, this is one of two auxiliary attacks, together with Operation Hawk, which the Germans planned with certain actions to achieve certain results and provide more favorable conditions for the attack on Kursk. They are not a secret either.
      So the author did not dispel any myths due to the lack thereof.
  10. parusnik
    parusnik 3 November 2017 07: 49
    12
    battle of Midway
    .... It turns out where the Germans broke the ridge, and not near Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk ...
  11. Cxnumx
    Cxnumx 3 November 2017 07: 55
    +6
    This is the entry into the US war.
    if they had opened a second front before 1943, that would have been
    There were events that had a much greater impact on the course of the war.
    and so, they opened it in 1944 - an awesome difference. and their floundering with pathetic bits of German troops in Africa is funny for me, because the forces of the axis countries on the eastern front and all other fronts (except the Pacific and Japan) are simply not comparable. in the Atlantic, the same Britain had an advantage over Germany in the fleet.
    and so for the article +
    1. Konstantin Yu
      Konstantin Yu 3 November 2017 13: 32
      +6
      [quote = 0] [quote]
      and so for the article + [/ quote]
      And for what +? What new have you learned? What Hitler was he wow if he had not been persuaded, and hopes not sent? That Ferdinad as a self-propelled gun is a tough nut.? What are the pro stories alive in Germany: if not for the USA? Another brainwashing of lazy students and housewives.
      1. sibiryouk
        sibiryouk 3 November 2017 19: 36
        +4
        And Ferdinandov was in the Orel region only 2 battalions! Of these, about 10 were blown up by mines! And what was the big effect of their use?
        1. faiver
          faiver 4 November 2017 07: 29
          0
          so they were made in all 90pcs. on the chassis of the tiger Porsche ...
      2. Cxnumx
        Cxnumx 4 November 2017 05: 36
        0
        Quote: Konstantin Yu.
        And for what +? What new have you learned?

        I’m nothing, but the fact that there are such articles where, from a different point of view, and crooked, in my opinion, the facts are presented, but appear in Europe, in which not USA or even France took Berlin and almost broke it near Moscow Germans are already good. because many Germans believe that they were released guess who. That's right, Americans, then allies (only people aged remember about the USSR), even the French released them. about the USSR, one of 5 recalls and then, if you kick the brains. so plus per article.
    2. Yeah
      Yeah 9 November 2017 14: 47
      0
      not their victory at Arden, here is the GREAT battle of the coalition, and they won all at once !!
  12. Sinbad
    Sinbad 3 November 2017 08: 26
    13
    An interesting look at the events. But ... Another attempt to belittle the role of the Red Army and the Soviet Union in the defeat of fascism. Africa, Midway, Allies; African battles can be compared with local clashes on the eastern front; Midway - what would happen to the United States if Japan did not hold a millionth Kwantung army in the east, but threw it into the states. Allied landing - came to the pie section, grab a piece fatter. And the Wehrmacht grind the Workers 'and Peasants' Red Army!
  13. XII Legion
    XII Legion 3 November 2017 08: 28
    21
    Hitler did not want to start the operation in May, as in mid-May the Army Group Africa capitulated. He feared that Italy would leave the Axis and the allies would attack in Italy or Greece.

    He also waited for the concentration of new technology
    Correctly named - "Legends"
    The fact is immutable - and he is that the ridge of the beast was broken - a dangerous bloodthirsty beast.
    and on August 5, 1943, after the liberation of Orel and Belgorod, the First Salute sounded
  14. corporal
    corporal 3 November 2017 08: 40
    +1
    In July 1943, only about 40 thousand were taken near Kursk.

    "Only about," fuck. Three divisions in a month! what
    “Hurry up, let’s surrender” (c) ???
  15. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 3 November 2017 09: 28
    +7
    the situation with Ferdinand looks very different. Many sources speak of them derogatoryly, including in the memoirs of Guderian. They say that this car did not live up to expectations. Papers from the parts suggest otherwise. The troops admired the Ferdinand.

    Ferdinand was a very serious opponent for tankers - Fadin’s memoirs:
    “There were only about three kilometers to the city, which we easily overcame. At dusk, watching the guns at high speed, I burst into the street. No one is visible. This is a bad sign - it means that there is an ambush somewhere. I see an intersection ahead, but at that moment a woman runs out of one house and waves her hand. I stop the tank, lean out of the hatch and shout to her, but I can’t hear her answer when the engine roars. I get out of the tank and ask: "What's the matter?" She screams that in front of them, about three hundred meters away, there are German tanks. I thank her and head to my tank. At that moment, the company commander Vladimir Karabut who jumped out of the tank next to me, learning from me about the enemy, said: Dean, you are already a Hero of the Soviet Union, so I’ll be the first to go "- and began to go around my tank. Jumping into the tank, I shout to Pyotr Tyurin:" Follow him as soon as they fit him, immediately jump out of him and go! ” Tyurin is behind him. And so it happened. After about a hundred meters, the Karabut tank receives a shell in the forehead and lights up. I go around it and, shooting nowhere, I pulled ahead. Only then I saw in front, a hundred meters, a heavy self-propelled Ferdinand installation, which, resting its stern against a small stone structure, controlled the intersection. Seeing the Ferdinand and hitting him in the forehead with an armor-piercing shell, I gave Tyurin a command to ram it. Tyurin approached, hit the Ferdinand and began to crush him. The crew tried to jump out, but fell under the machine gun loader’s fire. Four of them remained lying dead on the roof of the hull, but one German managed to escape ... "
    Artem Drabkin
    I fought on the T-34
    1. Poppy
      Poppy 3 November 2017 11: 57
      +4
      Our tankers called any self-propelled guns ferdinands. T-34 ram Ferdinand could not do anything special.
      1. creak
        creak 3 November 2017 12: 09
        +5
        Quote: Poppy
        Our tankers called any self-propelled guns ferdinandy

        That's right, since Ferdinand was released total 90 pcs.
        1. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 7 November 2017 14: 01
          0
          Quote: ranger
          Quote: Poppy
          Our tankers called any self-propelled guns ferdinandy

          That's right, since Ferdinand was released total 90 pcs.


          Those. tanker - the hero of the Soviet Union, could not distinguish the self-propelled guns Ferdinand from Stug or Nashorn?
          At what he came out victorious in the battle and could see the self-propelled guns point-blank.
          Bad you are opinions about the hero of the tank ...
          Who then to believe? To the loafers?
          1. creak
            creak 7 November 2017 16: 50
            +1
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            Who then to believe? To the loafers?

            We need to believe in documents and facts - after the Kursk Bulge and battles in the Nikopol region, all those remaining in the ranks of Ferdinand in January 1944 were transferred to Italy and did not take more part in the hostilities on the Eastern Front ..
            And as far as faith is concerned, it’s not in VO, but in the Russian Orthodox Church ... There is no need to replace military history with loud words and slogans about heroism ....
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 7 November 2017 13: 47
        +1
        Quote: Poppy
        Our tankers called any self-propelled guns ferdinands. T-34 ram Ferdinand could not do anything special.


        T-34 ram, will not allow to turn the gun, will not allow to turn around in place, but because The self-propelled guns are pressed to the stone structure - it cannot be handed back - in general, self-propelled guns are doomed, so the crew abandoned it.
        Fadin calculated everything correctly, even though the armor-piercing one wouldn’t pierce his forehead, but he would stun the crew and give a few seconds to get closer.
        The crew of self-propelled guns in the city, lost their main advantage - a huge range of aimed shots and the battle came down to ram. I don’t think that Fadin could not distinguish the same “Shtug” from “Fedi” - this is a matter of tanker survival. This is not your infantry

        Reading such memories is awesome. What kind of people - instantly navigate the atmosphere and ram!
        1. your1970
          your1970 9 November 2017 10: 21
          0
          pressed?65 tons? A tank of 30 tons in weight and 400 operational passport horses versus 2 * 265 German? "started to push "(!!!)3 meter fool (body length, mm 8140 Width, mm 3380 Height, mm 2970) having a body length of 5,9 meters (with a gun!)? I do not at all beg Fadin’s merits - well, here he is clearly lying ...
          Ferdinand could crush any small stone structure, and a 34-ku would easily budge
          -that they Ferdinand evacuate only four together

          A good article was:
          https://topwar.ru/11940-ferdinand-samaya-strashna
          ya-sau.html
          8 hits in the barrel - suggests that wildly dense fire was conducted on German tanks / self-propelled guns
    2. faiver
      faiver 4 November 2017 07: 35
      +2
      oil painting - 30tonny T-34 crushes 65tonny ferdinand ....
      Hans Christians Andersen is resting ....
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 7 November 2017 13: 53
        +1
        Quote: faiver
        oil painting - 30tonny T-34 crushes 65tonny ferdinand ....
        Hans Christians Andersen is resting ....


        On one side, Ferdinand has a wall on the other T-34 — neither forward nor backward — the crew cannot hit the T-34, because it stands close, at Ferdinand the gun does not rotate so much as to hit the T-34. The crew could not stand the nerves.
        This manifests the genius of Fadin as a tanker - an instant miscalculation of the situation and the only way out.
        1. faiver
          faiver 7 November 2017 15: 22
          0
          Sorry, do not speculate for someone, the 65 ton machine may well crush a small stone building and move 34 to one side ...
  16. hohol95
    hohol95 3 November 2017 10: 57
    +1
    The battle of Kursk is presented by the Soviet side as the third decisive battle of the Second World War. Moscow-Stalingrad-Kursk. Even in many recent Russian studies this statement is repeated. And many Germans with whom I had to communicate claim that Kursk was a turning point in the war. But he was not. There were events that had a much greater impact on the course of the war. This is the entry into the US war, and the failure of two German offensives on the Eastern Front in 1941 and 1942, and the Battle of Midway, as a result of which the initiative in the Pacific Theater passed to the Americans.

    Well, the BATTLE at the Midway Atoll is of course a TURNING POINT ...
    And for us - the Kursk Arch - one of the turning points of the Great Patriotic War !!!
  17. Nicholas C.
    Nicholas C. 3 November 2017 11: 20
    +6
    Quote: vladimirZ
    "Soviet plan that failed."

    Töppel wouldn’t be Töppel if he hadn’t lost a little.
    Here it is. And who has their plans failed?
    1. Slug_BDMP
      4 November 2017 11: 24
      +3
      When I posted this translation, I used screenshots from the video as illustrations, but VO editors replaced them with their own. Unfortunately, some of them do not quite fit the text.
      The plan of the Soviet offensive with the encirclement of the German troops in the Donbass which really did not succeed

      For some reason, this picture was replaced by a map of real combat operations in the area. Therefore, the phrase was not clear: "The map shows the Soviet plan that failed", to which you and many other commentators paid attention
      1. Nicholas C.
        Nicholas C. 4 November 2017 13: 07
        +2
        This picture is even more lies. Let you and Töppel not be confused in terms. Donbass operation in which the liberation of Donbass was plannedIt began on August 13 and ended on September 22, 1943.
        July 17 1943 The Miuss operation of the Southern front of Tolbukhin and the Izyum-Barvenkov operation of the South-Western front of Malinovsky began. Coordinated these fronts Vasilevsky.
        V. Chuikov: “The Supreme Command High Command’s Plan envisaged, as soon as the Battle of Kursk unfolding, the advance of several neighboring fronts so that the Hitler command could not strengthen the troops in the Kursk direction. The South-Western Front was to launch an attack on Barvenkovo; The Southern Front - from the Matveev Kurgan region to the west, to Stalin and further to Melitopol; the Bryansk front to Oryol; the Western front to Karachev. In this situation, the German command was deprived of any opportunity to maneuver reserves. "
        In what did the plans of the Soviet command fail, if it was not only able to hold down the reserves of the Nazis (this was the task), but also forced Hitler to withdraw the elite units, including and from the Kursk, to these local blows? Including these actions ensured the success of the Belgorod-Kharkov strategic offensive operation "Rumyantsev" (August 3 - 23, 1943).
        1. Slug_BDMP
          4 November 2017 13: 44
          +1
          Quote: Nikolay S.
          This picture is an even bigger lie. Let's you with Teppel will not be confused in terms. .


          What's wrong with the card?
          On the instructions of the General Headquarters, the troops of the South-Western and Southern fronts on July 7 began to prepare for an offensive operation. They were to deliver a concentric blow from Izyum to Krasnoarmeisk with the forces of the South-Western Front and from Kuibyshev to Stalin with the forces of the Southern Front in order to defeat the enemy grouping and free the Donbass ... "

          Just like on the map. The inscriptions on the picture are almost not read, watch the video on 14.25. I do not understand your outrage. Planning to cover strikes from the north and east in order to encircle the entire southern wing of the front? Planned. Happened? Not.
          ... For ten days of fierce fighting, the troops of the front forced the Seversky Donets region in the Izyum area and expanded the bridgehead on the right bank of the river along the front on 36 km and in depth on 3 – 5 km.
          ... The limited success of the troops of the South-Western Front is due primarily to the fact that they had to attack in extremely difficult conditions. It was necessary to force the river, the width of which in the front line in some areas reached 125 m and depth to 9 m, besides breaking through the previously prepared and heavily fortified defense, the first trenches of which passed along the high (dominant) and mostly steep right bank of the river. The presence of trenches stretching along the coast and connected with strong points and resistance centers, partly located in trenches, and partly directly by the river, made it easier to observe the floodplain left bank ...

          Pull the German forces from Kursk? Ottyanuli.
  18. Poppy
    Poppy 3 November 2017 11: 55
    +3
    The most interesting thing is that in terms of the number of tanks involved, the largest battles were in the 41st, and not in the 43rd
    1. creak
      creak 3 November 2017 12: 12
      +5
      Quote: Poppy
      in terms of the number of tanks involved, the largest battles were in the 41st, and not in the 43rd

      For example, a counter tank battle, little mentioned in military history, in the area of ​​Lutsk, Brody, Rovno in the summer of 1941
  19. Barcid
    Barcid 3 November 2017 12: 54
    16
    Interesting. Thank.
  20. Svyatoslav
    Svyatoslav 3 November 2017 13: 43
    +4
    In the photo is not Ferdinant, but Elephant., And not Panther Ausf.D, but Panther Ausf.A. Neither vehicle participated in the Battle of Kursk for a simple reason: at that time, the Wehrmacht and the SS were not in service. If this photo is from a German book - this is one thing, if this is an editorial initiative, then this is incompetence. By the way, this is the same Panther, which was exhibited in Kubinka, on the go, but squandered the entire trench tool and “body kit”, and the staff and managers of this unique museum lacked diligence, desire and orderliness. Shame on you!
    1. Paul Atreides
      Paul Atreides 3 November 2017 21: 13
      +3
      "Elephant" - this is the same "Ferdinand" after a little modernization, so that the machine depicted at one time participated in the Battle of Kursk.
      1. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 9 November 2017 14: 49
        0
        Quote: Paul Atreides
        "Elephant" - this is the same "Ferdinand" after a little modernization, so that the machine depicted at one time participated in the Battle of Kursk.

        Yes, with a firing point of a radio operator arrow. The rest is Ferdinand in its purest form.
  21. Alex_59
    Alex_59 3 November 2017 14: 05
    +1
    many Germans with whom I had to communicate claim that Kursk was a turning point in the war. But he was not.

    Kursk was a turning point in the sense that it became clear to everyone that the war in the east had finally rolled back.

    Mutually exclusive paragraphs. He was not, but he was.
  22. Slug_BDMP
    3 November 2017 14: 35
    +6
    When I posted this translation, I used screenshots from the video as illustrations, but VO editors replaced them with their own. Unfortunately, some of them do not quite fit the text.
    Alternative German Offensive Plans:

    In the section on weather conditions was this photo.

    It is the passage that refers to it "... When carrying out such a large-scale operation, the troops need good weather, which is clearly confirmed by the above photo ..."
    The plan of the Soviet offensive with the encirclement of the German troops in the Donbass which really did not succeed

    For some reason, this picture was replaced by a map of real combat operations in the area. Therefore, the phrase was not clear: "The map shows the Soviet plan that failed", to which many commentators paid attention.
  23. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 3 November 2017 15: 48
    12
    But the great losses of the Panthers cannot be explained only by the imperfection of technology. Of much greater importance was the tactically incorrect use of tanks, which led to unreasonably large losses.

    Incorrect tactical use of the Panther ... what a cautious definition. In fact, the first Panther fight is more easily described as "a fire in a brothel during a flood." And the Germans made every possible effort to make the battle so.
    No, well, actually: at first the Germans brought 200 brand new raw Panthers into a two-battalion tank regiment. Not in a full-fledged division with motorized infantry, artillery, rear and normal repair - but in a regiment. Then, apparently realizing that you can’t fight with naked tanks, this regiment was subordinated to GD. But they did it so ugly that they aggravated the situation even more: the regiment was subordinated not directly to the division, but through the hastily created superstructure - the 10th tank brigade. Which subjugated the “panthers” and the TD regiment of GD itself. Moreover, the headquarters of the brigade was formed literally before the start of the offensive - and did not have a regular number of officers and equipment.
    The decision to form a brigade was made literally in the last days before the Citadel. The officers appointed to the headquarters of the 10th Tank Brigade did not even have time to arrive at the front before the offensive, there was also no necessary equipment, which was vital for the normal functioning of the headquarters. Several vehicles were "borrowed" from the "panther" battalions and one of the Great Germany was shared by one mittlerer Kommandopanzerwagen (a mobile command post based on the Sd. Kfz.251 armored personnel carrier).

    The result was not long in coming.
    On the first day of the offensive, the Panthers caught up with the GD tanks after 5 hours - only to face the swampy PT-moat. The march and overcoming the moat cost the Germans 25 "panthers": artillery strikes, mines, dirt, breakdowns along the way. Even before entering the battle with our units!
    Then the losses grew (the “panthers” managed to enter the 27th Iptabr and infantry guns under the flanking fire) - and by the beginning of the next day, from 50 to 80 combat-ready vehicles remained in the “panther” regiment. How much exactly is unknown, since the only channel of communication with the "panther" regiment - the headquarters of the 10th brigade - lost control due to its small size and technical under-equipment. The Panther regiment for the GD headquarters has virtually disappeared.
    In the book of negotiations of the headquarters of the 48th shopping mall after mentioning that at about 05:00 “Panthers” are near Yarki farm, only complaints about the lack of communication follow. Could not establish contact with the "headquarters" of Decker and formally subordinate to him von Strachwitz. In fact, communication with the 39th Tank Regiment disappeared and was not restored until the afternoon.

    That is, the Panthers went into battle blindly. With a predictable result: tanks solemnly entered ... under the flanking fire of 27 iptabr (yes, yes, yes, again!). The commander of the 52th battalion panicked and lost control. Oberleutnant Erdmann Gabriel, who took command, soon received a shell aboard his Panther. In short, the Germans intensely cosplayed the BTV Red Army June 1941 - with the same result.
    Only in the evening in GD were able to reconnect with the attached "panthers". The division was not pleased with the information received:
    the number of combat tanks of the 39th continued to decline, by the evening of July 6, there were about 40 of them in service, and by the evening of July 7 - only 10. And although in the future, due to the operational commissioning of the mine-damaged and faulty tanks, the German repairmen managed to maintain the number of Panthers at the level of 20–40 vehicles; they could achieve only tactical successes.

    That is, tactical use was only a consequence. The cause of the failed battle was the imperfect OSH, exacerbated by the haste of the formation of structures and the lack of personnel and equipment in the management link.
    All quotes are from: Tomzov / Ulanov. Panther Debut
    1. LeonidL
      LeonidL 5 November 2017 03: 41
      0
      By the way, the Battle of Kursk and German tankers describe something like this. In the United States, whole series were published devoted to the Waffen SS, especially to tankmen, where they described in detail and fairly honestly the collapse near Kursk.
    2. Yeah
      Yeah 9 November 2017 15: 00
      0
      Yes, it’s all RUSSIANs to blame, they came with a clear conscience to speak for life, and they are in the face, in the impudent red face !!!!!
  24. Cadet
    Cadet 3 November 2017 18: 29
    +9
    They try this way and that and it’s not possible to distort the past, they don’t succeed, they think in the size of the territories of European countries but they cannot understand that the war was from Murmansk to the Black Sea. But what, in the historian’s opinion, could German veterans tell him how they destroyed the local population, scoffed and killed prisoners? they destroyed cities and villages, to put it simply, they destroyed everything they saw. Yes, okay, they are well-educated Europeans, they are infallible in this world, and then take Vanka and break their spine, so they cheated on their cheeks and they know that they can once again get rid of it on occasion. I recalled an incident at work that occurred seven years ago, a security worker (he graduated from a military school at sunset in the USSR, originally from the west of Ukraine) while talking with the company’s employees, said this phrase, it’s a pity that the Germans lost, mine lived well with them, we would now live have been living. It was immediately cooled by his own colleagues, now he is silent and does not even remember his relatives, he knows what he’ll make.
    1. LeonidL
      LeonidL 5 November 2017 03: 38
      0
      A great method of educating historical justice! Full endorsements!
  25. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 3 November 2017 19: 34
    +5
    And why are they making excuses, got the “lyuley" for the most I do not want, admit and be silent. No, they begin to come up with reasons, put forward arguments. All in vain! After Kursk, the Germans were no longer able to organize a single major victorious offensive on the Soviet-German front. Now everyone is trying to pour dirt on the victories of the Red Army, and our historians are more silent, or even simply glorify, “the victories of the Allies, it’s a shame! Yes, and more why in the school curriculum so little attention is paid to the Second World War, where the Ministry of Education and Culture is looking at? Dermocrats are bashfully trying to lead into the shadow of the victory of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, just to get better in front of the Western "partners", that's right where they are going to live, crap!
  26. Earnest
    Earnest 3 November 2017 21: 46
    0
    Quote: Krasnodar
    85% loss of the Wehrmacht in WWII caused the Red Army. Why is the Battle of Kursk not a turning point in the war that the Russians won on the battlefield?

    The author admitted that such moments even earlier were the failure of the German offensives in the 1941 and 1942 years
  27. Serge72
    Serge72 3 November 2017 22: 59
    16
    R. Töppel presents his new book: “Kursk 1943: Die größte Schlacht des Zweiten Weltkriegs” (Kursk 1943: The Greatest Battle of the Second World War “), which should be withdrawn in 2017

    I hope to take into account the results of today's discussion wink
    1. LeonidL
      LeonidL 5 November 2017 03: 36
      +1
      And do not expect! These people are incorrigible!
  28. kunstkammer
    kunstkammer 4 November 2017 02: 02
    +3
    Is this lehtor a sick person?
    Speaks first
    And many Germans with whom I had to communicate claim that Kursk was a turning point in the war. But he was not.

    A little lower
    Kursk was a turning point in the sense that it became clear to everyone that the war in the east had finally rolled back

    So it is - A TURN IN THE WAR in any sense!
    And of course, everything is according to the laws of the genre - American lackey could not keep silent about the great role of Americans. And Midway came here. Of course, America won the Battle of Kursk! How else?
    Unfinished hovnyuki!
    Maybe Stalin should have listened to Churchill’s proposal for the eternal destruction of this aspen nest?
    1. Yeah
      Yeah 9 November 2017 16: 25
      0
      from F. Roosevelt and W. Churchill evasive and vague answers. Moreover, in March 1943, the United States and Great Britain, under the pretext of ensuring the safety of convoys with merchant ships, again decided to stop the delivery of military goods to the USSR via the northern route, the most important. An anti-Soviet campaign was launched in conservative circles in the United States with the goal of creating new difficulties in the implementation of Lend-Lease deliveries. US Secretary of State D. Acheson publicly opposed the conclusion of a new Lend-Lease Protocol, although Lend-Lease supplies enriched American monopolies and helped strengthen the US military potential. The Russian Front was of great importance to the security of the United States itself.

      At a conference in Washington on May 12-15, 1943, the leaders of the United States and Great Britain decided to postpone once again the opening of a second front in Western Europe, but now for a whole year - in the spring of 1944. It is difficult to say what it was: either a provocation, or a challenge to an ally in a coalition. In a message dated June 24, 1943, I.V. Stalin wrote: “There is nothing to say that the Soviet Government cannot reconcile itself with such a disregard for the fundamental interests of the Soviet Union in the war against a common enemy ... The point here is not just about the disappointment of the Soviet Government, but about maintaining its confidence in the allies, which is undergoing difficult trials ... forget that we are talking about saving millions of lives in the occupied regions of Western Europe and Russia and about reducing the colossal victims of the Soviet armies, in comparison with which the victims of the Anglo-American troops are small. ”

      In the USA and England, there were influential forces ready to clash with Hitler and turn weapons against the USSR. About the mood prevailing in the ruling circles of England after our victory in the Battle of Stalingrad, said in a telegram from the Ambassador of the USSR I.M. Maisky, sent from London to the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs on February 13, 1943: “The reaction of the British ruling classes to our military successes is even more complicated. Two souls live in their chest at once. On the one hand, it is very good that the Russians beat the Germans so hard - it will be easier for us, the British ... Once again we use our eternal method - to fight with the wrong hands. But, on the other hand, we, the British, are scared, and aren’t the Bolsheviks becoming too strong as a result? Will the chances of “communism” in Europe increase too much? These two conflicting feelings are now reflected in the two main groups of the British ruling class, which for brevity can be baptized as “Churchill” and “Chemberlena”. The first gives a roll towards satisfaction with our victories, the second already now gives a roll towards fright before our successes. Incidentally, this last mood is quite clearly felt in the leading apparatus of the military department. But now the Red Army is only on the approaches to Rostov and Kharkov. It will be hard to say what the feeling of the “Churchill” group will be when the Red Army is on the outskirts of Berlin. Different unpleasant surprises are not excluded ...

      From what has just been said, the telegram of the Soviet ambassador further said, the position of the local ruling elite on the question of the second front also follows. Again, there is a split in this matter. On the one hand, the British government would like to postpone the creation of a second front for a longer period in order to wait until the Red Army does all the main work and breaks the backbone of the German military machine. Then the British, together with the Americans, would be able to "comfortably" land in France and without a great loss to make their way to Berlin ... And they would simply ride on an express train to Berlin - before the Russians. But, on the other hand, if the British (and Americans), in pursuit of their “comfort”, too delayed the creation of a second front in the West, they can miss the moment and allow the Red Army to come to Berlin before the allies. The British and Americans are terribly afraid of this. Still: no matter how the USSR did not “Bolshevize” Europe. Therefore, in the question of when exactly to create a second front, it becomes the main question for the British government, and in its decision the main role was played and played not so much by the military as political considerations. From the point of view of the British and American governments, the second front should be arranged not too early and not too late, but just “on time”. But when exactly? Judging by the decisions in Casablanca, the British and Americans seem to think that they still have enough time before the necessary moment for action arrives. A lot, however, will depend on events on our front, as well as on our military-political maneuvering. ”

      In April 1943, in North Africa, against the Anglo-American forces there were only 14 and a half German and Italian divisions. But against the Soviet Union, Hitler could concentrate the maximum possible forces. By July 1943, 196 German divisions operated against the USSR, including 26 armored and motorized divisions, and 232 divisions together with satellites. The Soviet Union continued to fight Germany and its continental Europe alone. However, the general preponderance of forces on the Soviet-German front was now on the side of the Red Army. It surpassed the enemy in personnel by 1,2 times, in guns and mortars - by 1,9 times, in tanks and self-propelled guns - by 1,7 times, in combat aircraft - by 3,4 times. The Soviet economy finally determined the military superiority of the USSR over Germany and all of Hitler's Europe. Who helped Hitler? Europe in the war against the Soviet Union
      Kirsanov Nikolay Andreevich
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. Valentine Deineka
    Valentine Deineka 4 November 2017 16: 13
    +3
    Of course, the battle of Midway had a much greater significance on the course of World War II than any battle of Kursk. 2 people, 3057 aircraft and 248 ships lost by the Japanese are much more important than 5 thousand soldiers, 500 tanks and about 1500 aircraft lost by the Germans. These arithmetic findings are especially admired by the fact that the author is German. Strange as it may seem, for him, 1700 foreigners are far more important than half a million compatriots ...
  31. verner1967
    verner1967 4 November 2017 19: 54
    0
    Quote: faiver
    Tokyo burned intentionally
    Well, it’s so natural, the capital of an enemy state and the center of infrastructure, industry and defense
  32. Operator
    Operator 5 November 2017 01: 41
    +3
    The Battle of Kursk in the full sense is a turning point in WWII - after it the Wehrmacht began to move west, not east.

    Midway and El Alamein are pot-bellied trifles in comparison with Kursk for a simple reason: Germany considered Kursk to be the main front in Europe, not Africa, and did not even hear about atolls in the Pacific Ocean.

    The landing of US-British troops in Europe on Sicily is a consequence of the Battle of Kursk (which required the concentration of the Wehrmacht’s greatest forces on the Eastern Front), and not vice versa. Otherwise, the Germans would have rolled allies into the asphalt.
    1. LeonidL
      LeonidL 5 November 2017 03: 30
      +2
      You are absolutely right - this is an attempt to dissolve the results and results of the Second World War as such. Incidentally, I wrote about this in articles in the Red Star. This is now a common western trend. If before the collapse of the USSR in stores in the West one could buy completely objective English books about WWII with respect for an ally - the USSR, now it comes to "laughter" - the Red Army’s participation in the token encyclopedia ... is limited only to Zhukov’s photo, photo of Stalingrad, Soviet prisoners (this is necessary) and ... hoisting the Banner of Victory over the Reichstag! As it turned out there, the compilers do not even try to explain. However, the well-known Gavrila Popov outdid everyone in reproaching the Battle of Kursk, who published more than a stupid little book ... but very well executed and well-published, alas. However, Russophobia always succeeds in this way. An example is the "historical" and other opuses of B Akunin. But his main "hero" Fandorin is none other than von Dorn! Von Dorn save Russia ... Russian drunk and mediocre. The historical opuses published by him in Italy are a chain of events where the historical nodes of Russian history are represented in the most negative form. However, read carefully yourself - you will understand. If Dimochka Bykov is just a very productive graphomaniac, then B Akunin is much more dangerous. He is really talented and truly a master of his craft. Unfortunately, many people swallow it without realizing what kind of bait they ate.
  33. Al Bychkov
    Al Bychkov 5 November 2017 01: 57
    +1
    Quote: faiver
    another Finnish defender drew, I wonder at you ... i.e. You can’t bombard enemy military facilities?

    I agree, in war as in war, the more clearly now the tactics of the United States with its high-precision weapons
  34. LeonidL
    LeonidL 5 November 2017 03: 22
    +5
    The German is cheating, very little. The proportions of losses are completely different, if you do not take into account sly German statistics. For example about tanks. The Red Army captured hundreds of tanks damaged and disabled during the Kursk battle at tank repair plants and in trains in Kharkov and Belgorod, but by the cunning gradation of losses, these tanks were not included in the number of those lost in the Kursk battle. How tanks didn’t enter (in fact scrap metal) that they managed to send to Germany. The Wehrmacht’s combat losses did not include such categories as repairmen, police units, SS, SD employees, drivers of transport convoys, Todd units, orderlies and doctors of hospitals, units of “native troops” (for example, two Georgian battalions), SS volunteers, Khivis, and female personnel etc. At the same time, the Red Army took into account the losses of the rear and service units - all categories of military personnel. Statistics were also crafty in the Luftwaffe. Losses of the Waffen SS were a separate line and it is unclear whether their author took into account.
    1. chenia
      chenia 5 November 2017 09: 38
      +3
      Definitely, I’d like to ask, why, with such miserable losses, did the Wehrmacht fly far beyond the Dnieper (to Zhitomir)?
    2. Kurasava
      Kurasava 5 November 2017 12: 09
      +2
      Yes, by the way, I also wanted to make the same comment. Right! This scale of losses is generally sucked from a finger. Relying apparently on the flare idea that Russians should always suffer huge losses ..... by default .... why? Well, it's Russian laughing
  35. verner1967
    verner1967 5 November 2017 10: 22
    0
    Quote: chenia
    Yes, actually this is the main criterion. The enemy suffered terrible damage

    terrible, but not critical, and the fact is that the enemy caused us no less damage
    1. chenia
      chenia 5 November 2017 11: 12
      +4
      Quote: verner1967
      scary but not critical


      Just critical. After Moscow (when ours considered that they had made a German), I had to roll back to Stalingrad.
      After Stalingrad, the Germans were still able to maintain their positions in other areas (they failed in only one).
      After Kursk, the entire eastern front rained down (despite the fact that he began to organize supply and it was easier, the supply shoulder was reduced).
      The Germans began to lose both in operational and tactical terms (and in strategic they lost long ago).
      The German became "not that."
      1. verner1967
        verner1967 5 November 2017 15: 20
        0
        Quote: chenia
        After Kursk, the entire eastern front rained down

        and in what did he "sprinkle"? Example of how
        Quote: chenia
        showered .... front
        it is in the 41st from the border to Moscow, or in the 42nd from Kharkov to Stalingrad. On the eastern front, the Germans stopped conducting offensive operations on the entire front as in the 41st, but this is not only the merit of the Battle of Kursk
        1. chenia
          chenia 5 November 2017 16: 22
          +2
          Quote: verner1967
          it’s 41 from the border to Moscow,


          Yes, but the Germans opposed our divisions without sufficient b / p and combat coordination. As soon as divisions appeared with 2-4 months training, the Germans began to slow down and were driven back from Moscow.

          Quote: verner1967
          or 42nd from Kharkov to Stalingrad.


          The failures of 1942 are largely the result of unsuccessful offensive actions of the Red Army (Leningrad, Rzhev, Crimea, Kharkov)


          Quote: verner1967
          but this is not only the merit of the Battle of Kursk


          Naturally.
          BUT, for this battle we expected much more from the Germans (for that concentration of forces and means of the Germans). 9 (nine) were created !!! defensive lines to a depth of 300 km (about how the Germans were respected).

          And as a result, half the line was taken in the north, almost two in the south-- and all the Germans' reserves ran out.
          And they ended up so much (or rather were knocked out) that they flew far beyond the Dnieper (Vostochny Val - the ideal line of defense was taken by the former Voronezh, newly made 1 Ukrainian Vatutin (and he panicked during Kursk, it was the case).
          Kursk is a psychological moment, the Germans were depressed ability to win.

          Well, further, starting in January 1944, an avalanche began on all fronts, and almost nowhere the Germans could not resist.
          1. verner1967
            verner1967 5 November 2017 20: 43
            0
            Quote: chenia
            Kursk is a psychological moment, the Germans were depressed ability to win.

            Of course, coupled with the failure in Africa, the defeat of an ally in the Far East theater. You evaluate the Germans from our modern point of view, but they closely monitored the state of affairs on other theater and for them the defeat at Kursk was designated as “straightening the front line”, unlike Stalingrad, when they celebrated three days of mourning.
            1. chenia
              chenia 5 November 2017 23: 32
              +2
              Quote: verner1967
              Of course, coupled with the failure in Africa, the defeat of an ally in the Far East theater.


              Yes, the Germans would spit on these little thingsif they had succeeded near Kursk.

              And there (Kursk) is worse than nothing. Complete collapse.

              The main thing was that they did not succeed in a planned, prepared (several months) strategic operation. But it turned out a miserable sight, the complete inability of the most selective forces to complete the task, and at least to scanty results.
              And this with such incredible attempts.
              The Battle of Moscow, Stalingrad - the Germans justified them by certain circumstances, accidents, bad luck and some other crap.

              And after Kursk, it became clear that the Wehrmacht is worse than the Red Army in all aspects.
              1. verner1967
                verner1967 6 November 2017 08: 28
                0
                Quote: chenia
                if they had succeeded near Kursk.

                and what would happen? Little success on one sector of the front with the same losses? In the 41st and 42nd, everything was much worse for the USSR, but they got out. And in the 43rd already, Soviet industry earned at full strength and Lend-Lease went, and Stavka had reserves. And you didn’t ask yourself, “what if they had succeeded under El Alamein and Midway?” Now, if you were to study the Second World War not according to the Great Patriotic War, as we taught in schools, but on the whole, then you would immediately understand that Germans with the Japs closed the Asian-Pacific crescent and it would become very difficult for us. As a rockfall begins with a small stone, the British Middle East and Mediterranean theater would shower. The Egyptians rose, the Arabs of the Middle East, Iraq, followed by Turkey, the Mediterranean Sea would have turned into an Italian-German lake, the krigsmarin entered the Black Sea through the Bosphorus, and the Caspian was cut off. As a result, the Germans have inexhaustible oil reserves, and we are cut off from supplies under Lend-Lease and without Caspian oil, but with a victory near Kursk, so what? How many without fuel, food and cars will you fight, especially during offensive operations?
                1. chenia
                  chenia 6 November 2017 10: 19
                  +1
                  Quote: verner1967
                  Now, if we were to study the Second World War not according to the Great Patriotic War, as we were taught in schools, but in general,


                  Well, that’s understandable, you have Soros as a teacher.

                  In Romel, in principle, nothing could work out, he was imprisoned for something else (although the British could give him a present). Initially, it was the help of Italians and Germans of Romel’s army was 1/3.
                  And if this section was decisive, the troops would be sent there more selectively and the commander of the Potalantleevs (Romel is a genius for the Britons, but for the Germans he has an upstart; and Hitler’s lackey, whom he later betrayed.).

                  Well, it distracted attention from the European theater of war for quite some time (well, the merit of the shaving is more here).

                  And after Japan attacked the states (and not the USSR), Midway for Hitler was up to one place.
                  1. verner1967
                    verner1967 6 November 2017 12: 06
                    0
                    Quote: chenia
                    you have soros in teachers

                    Do not hide your ignorance behind ernism. When the German-Japanese plans for war were being imposed, Soros still walked under the table. A one-sided study of the history of real knowledge has not yet brought anyone.
                    Quote: chenia
                    Well, it distracted attention from the European theater of war for quite some time (well, the merit of the shaving is more here).
                    And after Japan attacked the states (and not the USSR), Midway for Hitler was up to one place.

                    however, this is clear from your "thoughtful" conclusions
                    1. chenia
                      chenia 6 November 2017 13: 57
                      +1
                      Quote: verner1967
                      Soros still walked under the table.


                      It's right. But you know why the winner Churchill British thrown out of the prime ministers immediately after the war? Strange, yes.

                      Because contemporaries and eyewitnesses saw wretched Britain's role in common victory. You can’t tell them tales.

                      But time passed and now you can hang noodles on your ears. here Soros (the newly-minted "historians" on his grants) fit in.

                      Quote: verner1967
                      however, this is clear from your "thoughtful" conclusions


                      Easier for you academies not finished and you can fantasize without limit.
                      Was Romel able to hold onto the entire African coast? With the help of the Italian fleet (they could not organize the normal supply of the African corps)?
                      I won’t even argue, not that level.

                      Yes only wonderful "abilities" the British army was allowed so long "tormented" by Romel.

                      Even the capture of Italy was not critical for the Germans. The Alps blocked this direction (the Germans held on there with small forces until April 1945) ..

                      Quote: verner1967
                      When the German-Japanese war plans were imposed


                      After Pearl Harbor, the Germans immediately declared war on the states hoping for reciprocity of the Japanese (just near Moscow they could distract a couple of our divisions).
                      And in 1943 the Germans, even in their wildest fantasies, could not imagine possible help from Japan (therefore, Midway was to one place).
                      1. verner1967
                        verner1967 6 November 2017 14: 16
                        0
                        Quote: chenia
                        But you know why the British won the Churchill winner

                        Churchill was not thrown out, but his party, but not for the war
                        Towards the end of the war, economic problems came to the fore, the British economy suffered heavy losses, foreign debt grew, relations with overseas colonies became more complicated. The lack of a clear economic program and unsuccessful tactical moves during the election campaign (Churchill stated in one of his speeches that “when the Laborites come to power they will act like the Gestapo”) led to the defeat of conservatives in the elections
                        Quote: chenia
                        And in 1943 the Germans, even in their wildest fantasies, could not imagine any possible help from Japan.

                        how narrowly you think, exactly
                        Quote: chenia
                        academies did not finish

                        so that it’s useless not to argue, you’ll find and read about Axis’s plans for the Second World War, why the Germans climbed into Africa, what the Japanese sought when fighting in Burma and find out that not everything revolved around the USSR.
                  2. verner1967
                    verner1967 6 November 2017 12: 58
                    0
                    Quote: chenia
                    And if this section was decisive, the troops would be sent there more selectively and the commander of the Potalantleevs (Romel is a genius at the Britons, and for the Germans he’s an upstart; and Hitler’s lackey, whom he later betrayed.)

                    selectable how is it? That is, all the same, they were perfect, just had to be sent even more selectively? laughing And the boss is more talented how is it? Rommel, as you rightly noted, was imprisoned for this task, it was necessary to defeat the Britons in a blitzkrieg, with which he coped. It crouched during the organization of defense in Normandy, and so he was a genius not only for the British, but also for Hitler, where much better?
                    Quote: chenia
                    Well, it distracted attention from the European theater of war and for a long time

                    yes, distracting, you're right
                    By the end of the first week of the Battle of Kursk, German aviation became increasingly less likely to fly due to combat losses and lack of fuel. The Soviets, meanwhile, were stepping up the air rush. Von Manstein, the commander on the southern flank, constantly requested reinforcements from the command, but two months earlier, the Allied forces in Tunisia captured a quarter of a million German soldiers, and the reinforcements did not arrive.
  36. Kurasava
    Kurasava 5 November 2017 12: 06
    +2
    Oh, these "our" Fritz. laughing Well, of course, of course. That's all, but NOT the Russians defeated us. Americans, aliens, reptilians, the weather is bad, the cowards are narrow, the shoes were stinging hard EVERYTHING anything ..... just not these "lapotniki" .... - WHO? US??? Superman !!! Nine! Never! Typisch deutsch drinks And if you put aside the irony, then in Germany such "opinions" are quite popular, there is (or was) even one historian who claimed that the irretrievable loss of equipment near Kursk made up ONE tank, ONE CARL !!! To a reasonable question - And how are you then about .... whether? The answer was no less "wonderfully" (great-blind) - And you didn’t honestly believe ........ So here are the grandfathers, one "not fair" mines placed near "Stalingrad" German tanks and the other "not fair" I’ve taken “intelligence” in the Courland cauldron, I’ve taken languages.
  37. Peter Ivanov
    Peter Ivanov 5 November 2017 13: 23
    0
    The Kursk balcony is the collapse of the Wehrmacht as an offensive vehicle! Now, the Initiative and power of Combined Strike has finally passed to the Red Army! And there is nothing to slander the story! It was on the fields of Russia that the fate of World War II was decided!
    Glory and Great Memory to the Soldiers of the Soviet Armed Forces, who defended the Soviet Fatherland and broke the backbone of world fascism!
    I will never forget this feat!
  38. chenia
    chenia 6 November 2017 15: 25
    +1
    verner1967,
    Quote: verner1967
    Churchill was not thrown out, but his party, but not for the war


    Well, okay. for the immoral behavior of members of the conservative party (I did not know that the British layman was so aware of the political documents of political parties).
    And the party leader has nothing to do with?
    But Chamberlain for what, and the party did not change?

    Quote: verner1967
    you find and read about the Axis plans for the second world,


    Read the program documents of the 22nd Congress of the CPSU. Do not find a common?
    When the Barbarossa failed, the Germans left all their fantasies for later. And life made them think and act narrowly. The Japanese, by the way, too.

    The victory of the Germans at Kursk (and there would hardly have been anything big broken off) allowed the latter, without losing their face, to first level the front, even with the surrender of Kharkov, and then even retreat beyond the Dnieper (and not drag the Red Army on their shoulders, like this really was).
    Like near Rzhev.
    Depart to well-prepared and strengthened lines (and not to occupy hastily, with knocking out and forming bridgeheads), holding back the Red Army.
    Here the psychological moment is completely different. You have confidence, and the enemy is shy and overly careful.
    Next, wait for the allies to land in Europe (France) in order to defeat the latter and ensure several years of quiet life on the western front. Well, hope for a miracle weapon.
    Shorter time as much as possible.
  39. mariusdeayeraleone
    mariusdeayeraleone 8 November 2017 06: 46
    +2
    It doesn’t say anything about UFO KTR disabling the transmission of German tanks. Those tanks were finished off by Soviet tanks within an hour.
  40. Yeah
    Yeah 9 November 2017 16: 01
    0
    Dear forum users, here I read legends here, there are fairy tales, but ALL the same, why exactly was the turning point near Kursk? In April 1943, in North Africa, against the Anglo-American forces there were only 14 and a half German and Italian divisions. But against the Soviet Union, Hitler could concentrate the maximum possible forces. By July 1943, 196 German divisions operated against the USSR, including 26 armored and motorized divisions, and 232 divisions together with satellites. The Soviet Union continued to fight Germany and its continental Europe alone. However, the general preponderance of forces on the Soviet-German front was now on the side of the Red Army. It surpassed the enemy in personnel by 1,2 times, in guns and mortars - by 1,9 times, in tanks and self-propelled guns - by 1,7 times, in combat aircraft - by 3,4 times. The Soviet economy finally determined the military superiority of the USSR over Germany and all of Hitler's Europe.

    The day of the further course of the Great Patriotic and World War II as a whole was of the Battle of Kursk (July 5 - August 23, 1943). On both sides, more than 4 million people, over 69 thousand guns and mortars, more than 13 thousand tanks and self-propelled guns, up to 12 thousand combat aircraft took part in it. The brilliant victory in the Battle of Kursk completed a fundamental turning point in the Great Patriotic and World War II, revealed the increased strength and power of the Red Army, the skill and heroism of its soldiers, the superiority of Soviet military art. The balance of power on the Soviet-German front has finally changed in favor of the Soviet Union.

    The authority of the Soviet Union as a decisive force of the anti-Hitler coalition has grown. In the days of the Battle of Kursk, August 6, 1943, US President F. Roosevelt in a message to I.V. He wrote to Stalin: “During a month of gigantic battles, your armed forces, with their skill, your courage, your dedication and your tenacity, not only stopped the long-planned German offensive, but also launched a successful counterattack that has far-reaching consequences ... The Soviet Union can rightly be proud of its heroic victories ".

    High appreciation of the victory of the Red Army in the Battle of Kursk was also followed by the British Prime Minister W. Churchill. In the message of I.V. He wrote to Stalin on August 12: “Your telegram dated August 9 gives me the opportunity to express my sincere congratulations to you on recent very significant victories near Orel and Belgorod, paving the way for your further advance in the direction of Bryansk and Kharkov. The defeat of the German army on this front are milestones on the road to our final victory. ”

    In the summer and autumn of 1943, the Wehrmacht troops, together with the Allies, suffered huge losses in people and equipment. To make up for them, dozens of divisions withdrawn from the western borders were transferred to the Soviet-German front. This happened due to the lack of a second front.

    Throughout the next period of 2 years and 3 months, from the defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad to the end of the war, the Wehrmacht did not achieve a single victory. In all theaters of operations, he switched to strategic defense. Anglo-American troops in North Africa and especially in Italy had a weakened enemy in front of them. On September 3, Italians signed a ceasefire with Great Britain and the USA, and, having capitulated, Italy declared war on Germany on October 13 And now let's see why it was a collapse for Germany - everyone knows about the strong rear — what is the rear in the initial sense? This is what is protected by the front, on the one hand, and what provides the front with functionality, on the other. The rear is the maintenance of the front in a viable form - feeding, uniforms, medicine, all that. The rear strength is the reliability of these functions.

    When everything is in order, the armor is strong, and our tanks are fast, the interaction of the front and the rear is not really visible. The rear feels safe, the front regularly receives “from nowhere” everything necessary and sends everything mined in battles back, the rear is strong or not - it is now invisible and not important now. The rear strength is manifested in emergency, force majeure situations. There can be two such situations: a lack of resources from the rear, and a weak front (for example, in conditions of superior enemy forces). Both that, and another demands from both endurance and resourcefulness. The motto is “Everything for the front, everything for the victory!” was proclaimed (July 3, 1941) and was relevant during almost the entire war in just such a situation - all was missing. People sent to the front everything that was: personal weapons, clothes, food. Now we will see what the Germans had !! Total mobilization in Germany

    The unprecedented scale of losses on the Soviet-German front, suffered in the summer and autumn of 1942, and especially near Stalingrad from November 1942 to February 1943, freed part of the German people and part of the people in allied, occupied and neutral countries from the illusions of a quick and easy victory over Soviet Union. The threat of defeat and its consequences penetrated into the consciousness of peoples more and more. But they have not yet reached the understanding that their direct and indirect participation in Nazi aggression is incompatible with their vital interests.

    The losses on the Soviet-German front and the general unfavorable situation in other theaters of military operations forced the German leadership to look for new ways to replenish the Wehrmacht and develop military production with a view to a "final victory."

    To withstand the protracted war and achieve decisive strategic successes in the summer of 1943, on January 13, 1943, Hitler introduced the total mobilization of all Germans. It meant a new tension of forces, to a certain extent to make up for losses and satisfy the needs of the Wehrmacht.

    It was a system of emergency measures to ensure the complete transfer of the resources of Germany, the allied and occupied countries to continue the war. The requirements for the economy were revised. A program was mobilized to mobilize all human and material forces. The German leadership tried to accustom the Germans to the idea that the war would be a long and fierce "battle for existence", requiring new victims and efforts. It was supposed to form new divisions instead of those destroyed near Stalingrad, to mobilize hundreds of thousands of people into the armed forces, including those removed from military enterprises. To replace him were sent people from non-military sectors of the economy, men aged 16 to 65 and women from 17 to 45 years old, suitable for use in military work. The Germans who lived in the occupied countries of Europe were called up to the Wehrmacht. However, by the summer of 1943 it was not possible to completely make up for the losses and to ensure the increased needs of the Wehrmacht in people and equipment. That is, at the Battle of Kursk, EVERYTHING was at stake, so the death of the Wehrmacht army near Kursk HAS BEEN INCORRECTLY HARM OF Germany! In the publication I used materials from the book Who helped Hitler? Europe in the war against the Soviet Union
    Kirsanov Nikolay Andreevich And now I remember the Battle of Kursk (July 5 - August 23, 1943; also known as the Battle of the Kursk Bulge) in terms of scale, forces and means, tension, results and military-political consequences is one of the key battles of World War II War and World War II. That is, all the reserves of Germany and their allies were WASTE after this operation, not to mention the death of the TRAINED, SELECTED FRAMES of the Wehrmacht!
  41. vindigo
    vindigo 4 March 2018 10: 27
    +1
    Lord, well, and the loss. As if the Red Army was not on the defensive in previously prepared positions, but on the offensive.