Prokhorov tragedy of the Soviet tankers. Part of 2

213
Prokhorov tragedy of the Soviet tankers. Part of 2


Counter strike tank Rotmistrov’s army in the Prokhorovka area, despite failures in the previous two days, was struck in the morning of July 12. Two tank attacks on the flanks were simultaneously launched: the Katukov tank army in the direction of the Oboyansk highway and from the other flank in the bend of the river Psel. These strikes require separate consideration.



Before applying counterattack at all, from the high command to the ordinary fighters, there was faith in his successful conduct. For the first time since the beginning of the war, such a powerful tank fist was concentrated, almost a thousand tanks in a narrow sector of the front. Everyone saw this power and rushed into battle.

In the tank army of Rotmistrov for many officers and fighters this was the first battle, they were ready to carry it out with dignity. In the first hours of the counter attack, they fell into a terrible meat grinder and were shocked by what was happening, but, recovering, fought bravely. There were more than enough examples of personal and mass heroism.

The counter-attack of the tank corps began in 8.30 immediately after the training, which did not fulfill its task of disrupting control in the enemy’s advanced units and suppressing its anti-tank weapons for successful actions of the first echelon tanks.

Due to the fact that the front edge of the enemy defense was formed only at night before the counterstrike, reconnaissance could not establish the presence and deployment of its fire weapons, therefore the effectiveness of the fire was low. Shooting was conducted on the squares and during the artillery preparation seriously disrupt the enemy's fire system and destroy its anti-tank weapons failed.

When planning a counterattack, the command focused on the rapid advance of tanks into the depths of the enemy’s defenses from the first minutes of the attack. The main blow was aimed at the state farm "October" and the height of 252.2, they had to get into the "fork" between the two advancing tank corps.

One tank corps attacked with two echelons along the railway, the second along the Psel river, its battle formation was built in three echelons. Thus, there were four brigades, one tank regiment, the entire 6 tank and the 234 SAU in the first attacking echelon of two corps in a strip about 19 km wide.

There was no continuous avalanche in the morning on July 12. If the 368 combat vehicles of the two corps actually attacked the Germans in this narrow area of ​​defense at the same time, they would surely break through. But the "armored avalanche" could not be organized.

The bridgehead, from which it was planned to launch a counterattack, the Germans captured the day before, and the initial positions of the brigades were moved several kilometers away from the forward position.

The considerable distance and the rugged terrain markedly increased the interval between the introduction of the first and second echelons of the corps into battle.

Tank battalions from the area of ​​concentration on the source moved in several columns and then through infantry positions and narrow passages in the minefields with company columns began to unfold into battle formation in front of the enemy. Thus, the enemy had the opportunity to observe the construction of a tank wedge and prepare to repel the blow.

The site in front of the state farm and the height, where tank units turned around and began attacking, was also very narrow, only around 900 m. Even a brigade, only a battalion, could not turn around. This led to serious complications from the first minutes of the attack.

First, the corps could not immediately throw a significant amount of armored vehicles into the battle, but introduced it in parts, with significant intervals between them. Secondly, it was also not possible to use the speed of tanks as one of the main elements of a breakthrough. Brigades went on the attack not by a broad front, but by crowded, large groups, in these conditions their crews found it difficult to maneuver.

The maximum force is always invested in the first strike, so it was extremely important at the beginning of the attack to observe the synchronism and continuity of entry into the battle, both of the battalions and brigades. The interval between the entry into battle of the battalions in the brigade was determined in 10 minutes, and the brigade - 30 minutes. But it was impossible to perform.

The significant distance from the place where the second echelon brigades were located to the front edge and the difficult terrain on their way led to an increase in the interval between the introduction of brigades not only into the first and second echelon, but also within the first echelon.

Thus, the corps connections were not a continuous wide stream, but waves, a brigade after a brigade, and the interval between them for a dynamic tank battle was significant, from 30 – 40 minutes to 1 – 1,2 hours. This enabled the enemy to destroy them in turn.

In this regard, in two directions along the railway and from the Petrovka region along the river, in two groups, not connected to each other, only two tank brigades and three SAU batteries with a total number of 115 tanks and SAU . That is, at the beginning of the main forces’s counterattack, it was simply impossible to organize an avalanche of tanks.

In addition to the unsuccessful choice of location for the entry of large tank forces, the command incorrectly assessed the power of the enemy’s anti-tank defense in this sector. It did not expect the enemy to create a stable defense for a short summer night, capable of stopping several hundred of our combat vehicles.

As soon as our tankers reached the enemy’s positions at a direct shot distance, they immediately flared up and smoked around two dozen cars of the first line. There was a feeling that the armored wedge of the brigade stopped abruptly in front of a large but invisible obstacle.

The combat structure was broken, the crews began to maneuver on the battlefield, crawling away, trying to use the terrain folds to get out of the disastrous fire. Much of the first line burned out in minutes. It immediately became clear that the shock wedge of both corps met a well-organized anti-tank defense.

Thus, the first decisive strike by two tank corps failed.

The enemy did not allow the first line of tanks to reach the distance from which the T-34, let alone the T-70, could conduct effective fire. The enemy simply shot the first line, and the rest of the tanks stopped and started firing from the spot.

The command understood that, drawing a frontal impact with two corps, no matter how cynical it sounds, was originally a cross in the first echelon brigades. Burnt out, they had to pave the way for the further movement of the second echelon tanks. The second echelon brigades were drawn into battle only when the first echelon brigades were stopped and half of their vehicles were already hit.

The tanks could not make their way between the railway and the state farm through the ridge of height 252.2, the enemy effectively used the capabilities of its anti-tank defense. As a result, the terrain in 1 km to the north and north-east of the height turned out to be a real cemetery for tank battalions, here at the beginning of the attack they suffered the greatest losses.

After the entry of the second and third echelons, the number of tanks in the direction of the main attack of the two corps increased almost twice, the enemy artillerymen and tankers could not stop the onslaught of our tankers. This helped the group of combat vehicles to break through to the crest of the height and to the state farm area.

From the first hour of the battle for the state farm "October" and the height of 252.2 resembled the surf. Four tank brigades, three SAU batteries and two rifle regiments swept over the area in waves, but, meeting the fierce resistance of the enemy, again retreated. This lasted for almost five hours, until the tankers knocked the enemy out of the area, suffering enormous losses.

It is difficult to understand the logic of command. Why such a long time significant armored forces rushed to a powerful anti-tank stronghold, if after the first hour of the battle it was clear - you need to change tactics?

In 10.30 – 11.00, the advance of four tank brigades was already stopped, and a heavy firefight began with a well-organized anti-tank defense. There was only a local breakthrough of our tankers to the depth of 5 km near the Komsomolets state farm, but the Germans were able to eliminate it. It was the most massive and deepest breakthrough of our tanks, but it turned out to be the last. For its development, the Soviet command no longer had any forces.

The version of the massive head-on collisions of Soviet and German tanks in this battle is not confirmed. There was no need to push German tanks towards the Soviet tanks, which were going at full speed. The Germans had a well-organized defense, their task was to repel the fire of all the available means of the advancing Soviet tanks, which they did.

There were only separate oncoming battles of Soviet and German tanks. Around the height of 252.2 there were several such battles between groups of combat vehicles, but this happened already in the second half of the day, when the Germans launched a counterattack. At this point, the initiative came from their tank divisions. The total number of tanks on both sides involved in such fights did not exceed 50 – 60 units.

With the support of the counter-offensive, our aviation. She was not able to fully provide cover for the counterattack group, and also to inflict sensitive damage to the enemy troops. Moreover, pilots, especially attack aircraft, systematically launched bombing and assault attacks on the troops of almost all the armies that went on the offensive.

Often, the pilots did not pay attention to the signals given by their troops. The matter came to the point that in some areas the infantry units did not specifically indicate the front line with missiles and panels, fearing to fall under their own bombs. Driven to despair, individual compounds "drove off" their planes with small-arms fire. weapons.

Thus, the shock wedge of the tank army, supported by two rifle divisions, despite all efforts, did not manage to overcome the stubborn resistance of the enemy. The main forces of our group, taking the height of 252.2, were still in its vicinity to the west and south-west from it.

After continuous attacks, the forces of both tank corps to 15.00 were running out. In brigades, 10 – 15 machines remained in service, and in some even fewer - in 5 – 7. But the counterattack continued, command at all levels received orders not to stop in any way, but to continue pressing on the enemy. But there was no strength, the possibility of connections melted away with each passing hour.

Already after noon it became obvious that the overall operational situation was developing far from what the command had expected. Although it has not lost hope of turning the tide in its favor. But the enemy offered stubborn resistance along the whole front. It became clear that the counterattack of the two Guards armies did not justify the hopes, and the troops suffered heavy losses.

The first strike of the brigades of the two Soviet corps, which looked like one single attack, lasted until about 11.00 and ended with the transition to defense after the liberation of the Oktyabrsky state farm, approximately 13.30 – 14.00. The state farm "October" and the height of 252,2 in the course of the battle several times passed from hand to hand, and only after 17.00 the enemy was last knocked out of the height of 252.2 for the last time and it remained for the Soviet troops.

Between the 14.00 and 14.30, the Germans almost completely halted the offensive of the tank corps and their brigades after the losses incurred and basically lost their combat capability. After 15.00, the Soviet command had no doubt that the counterstrike plan had failed. In addition, it became obvious that the enemy not only stopped the main grouping of troops, but also tries to thrust it. Combat operations between 20.00 and 21.00 were stopped, and rifle divisions occupied the line of defense.

Thus ended the counterattack of the Soviet tankists, on which so many hopes were pinned. Despite the colossal efforts of the high command, officers and ordinary fighters, the goal (breakthrough of the enemy defense) was not achieved. The offensive of the German troops was only stopped. For the sake of completeness, it is probably worth setting out how the German and Soviet sides evaluated the results of this battle and what losses the parties suffered.

The ending should ...
213 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +34
    13 July 2018 05: 28
    I hope that the author in the final part of his article can still explain ... Why, all the same, despite the complete defeat ... Our troops still won the battle of Prokhorovka ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. +42
        13 July 2018 06: 00
        The author did not "push", but described real events. In principle, there is nothing new in the articles. You, sir, before dirtying your forum with your comments, read historical literature. Reading is generally useful, intelligence develops ... In relation to the command, a trial was organized, why his army suffered such losses. Before Brezhnev came to power, there was no “prokhorov battle” in the history of the war.
        1. +16
          13 July 2018 11: 37
          The American historian M. Caydin in the book “Tigers Burn” describes the Battle of Kursk as “the greatest land battle that has ever taken place in history”, and does not agree with the opinion of many researchers in the West that it pursued limited, auxiliary ”goals. “History deeply doubts,” the author writes, “in German claims that they did not believe in the future. Everything was decided near Kursk. What happened there determined the future course of events. ” The same idea is reflected in the annotation to the book, where it is noted that the battle of Kursk “broke the back of the German army in 1943 and changed the whole course of the Second World War ... Few outside Russia understand the enormity of this stunning clash. In fact, even today, the Soviets are bitter, because they see how Western historians belittle the significance of the Russian triumph near Kursk. ”
          Quote: Andrey Sukharev
          Before Brezhnev came to power, there was no “prokhorov battle” in the history of the war.

          It wasn’t your opinion, but even the American thought it was. Yes, even under Brezhnev it was indicated that it was and even films were shot .. Liberation 1: The Arc of Fire (1968) of the USSR. Do not remember, 1968 is with or without Brezhnev?
          1. +10
            13 July 2018 15: 53
            Brezhnev in power since 1964.
            And about the history of the Battle of Kursk - read the books of Svirin. It describes in great detail all the movements of troops, their causes and results. Moreover, Svirin relied on documents from the archives of Moscow Region, and your American don’t know what ...
            1. +2
              13 July 2018 16: 49
              Typical liberalist historian
              1. +8
                13 July 2018 17: 13
                Quote: rbz05
                Typical liberalist historian

                Is it Svirin and the Colomian liberals? It’s a pity that Mikhail Nikolaevich didn’t live; he would have learned a lot from Andrei rbz05 about himself.
              2. +4
                13 July 2018 21: 34
                Quote: rbz05
                Typical liberalist historian

                Continue watching the programs of the first channel. Reality will shock you.
          2. +8
            13 July 2018 20: 00
            Swordsman, you did not carefully read Sukharev: “Before Brezhnev came to power, there was no“ prokhorov battle ”in the history of the war, ie until 1964, when Brezhnev came to power, they did not consider the battle on the Kursk Bulge as an exceptional battle. After the arrival of Brezhnev, they began to understand the significance of the Kursk Bulge.
            Even I remember: I came across some article on the most significant milestones in the Second World War: the Brest Fortress, the defense of Kiev in 1941, the battle of Moscow, the Battle of Stalingrad, and after Stalingrad (by the way, under Nikita it was “wrong” to use the Stalingrad battle, and put together “the battle on Volga ") and there was nothing particularly significant until Berlin itself. This article was written in 1962. Brezhnev "discovered": the Battle of Kursk and the "Lesser Land". Many comrades should remember how they immediately started talking about Novorossiysk
            Perhaps someone remembers the anecdote of that time: "We need to figure out what you did during the war: hiding in the trenches of Stalingrad or fought on Malaya Zemlya together with Brezhnev"
        2. +9
          14 July 2018 00: 31
          Quote: Andrey Sukharev
          The author did not "push", but described real events. In principle, there is nothing new in the articles.

          Of course, "real events" are just the events of couch experts. It is immediately obvious that neither the Author nor the Writers to which he refers did serve in the army, so many stupidities and contradictions are rarely found in one article on VO.
          .First, the aim of the German operation "Citadel" was to encircle Soviet troops concentrated in the Kursk ledge, so the blow was delivered by tank converging wedges at the base of the "ledge" in order to unite east of Kursk. Therefore, the goal of a counterattack by Katukov’s army was not at all a breakthrough in German defense, but to stop the German offensive, which had wedged into the Soviet defenses for 45 km by that time and broke through two defensive lines. One must be absolutely utter mediocrity in order to break through towards an attacking enemy.
          Secondly, for one July night it’s not possible to organize a stable anti-tank defense.This is necessary to organize positions, open fortifications, mask weapons and equipment, shoot positions, bring in a large amount of ammunition, establish communication and interaction between the units. Here Kolobanov’s case was just repeated when his KV1 “clicked” 22 German tanks simply because they couldn’t penetrate his armor, the Tigers frontal armor didn’t penetrate either our tanks or artillery and the Tigers shot like a dash from a long distance, ours needed to go from the side or the rear and then break through not from the first shell. So, that 38 Tigers could well inflict tangible damage on the offensive without any tales about the established anti-tank defense created in a few night hours.
          Thirdly, when in the first article I read the author’s fabrications about capturing a height of 252.2, it became clear that a person who does not own the topic writes. There, the Germans cleared the minefields in front of the defending battalion, and the sabotage group penetrated the location of the battalion, stole the "sleeping battalion commander" and simply cut the communication line (what is important is the communication line between the battalion commander and the company) and returned to their own soldiers and did not shoot at the enemy hoping for minefields on their way. And this is all in July, when only twilight lasts for 2 hours at night, and in the battalion you need to understand neither guarding nor sentries ...
          And there are more than one such pearl in the articles in each sample. It would be better if the author no longer wrote his sequels, his level is already understandable to everyone who served in the army.
          1. +3
            14 July 2018 07: 45
            And you, as I understand it, a direct participant in the battle?
            1. +5
              14 July 2018 14: 15
              Quote: Andrey Sukharev
              And you, as I understand it, a direct participant in the battle?

              No, I did not participate in the Great Patriotic War, but my military experience allows me to unequivocally state that the thing described in the article is complete nonsense and lies.
              Have you served in the army? Fought?
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. +5
      13 July 2018 05: 57
      Yes, they are doing very well with this. “Contrary to stupid generals” and “thanks to mass heroism” - it always works.
    3. +30
      13 July 2018 06: 02
      Quote: Vard
      Our troops still won the battle of Prokhorovka ...

      But he doesn’t have to explain it. We LOSED this fight. The field near Prokhorovka remained sn Germans. What they took full advantage of, German sappers destroyed ALL of our tanks remaining on it, that is, depriving us of the opportunity to restore them. But in the end, we won the Battle of Kursk
      1. +11
        13 July 2018 10: 12
        Quote: svp67
        The field near Prokhorovka remained sn Germans. What they took full advantage of, German sappers destroyed ALL of our tanks remaining on it

        Not all. Those that were subject to minor or medium repairs were repaired and used. Those that had serviceable weapons, but had no progress and could not be quickly restored, towed and used as fixed firing points in the trench.
      2. avt
        +18
        13 July 2018 13: 05
        Quote: svp67
        We LOSED this fight. The field near Prokhorovka remained sn Germans. What they took full advantage of, German sappers destroyed ALL of our tanks remaining on it, that is, depriving us of the opportunity to restore them.

        Actually this is a fact. The battle was lost, the battle was won. Prokhorovka clearly showed that Katukov was right, and not Khrushchev with Vatutin and Rotmistrov. Further, under the influence of a sum of factors, Manstein pulled Hausser’s corps back, on the left flank of which Katukov’s almost untouched army hung, and Rotmistrov quickly put his units in order. A huge role by the way was played by ... commandants who stopped the retreating and sent them to their units. What about the same Zamulin reports for himself on the work done by the guard commanders of the guard division.
        Quote: svp67
        But in the end, we won the Battle of Kursk

        Moreover, a remarkable fact - Oryol and Belgorod took it when the bloody Zhukov, at the instigation of no less than the bloody Stalin, drove the troops on the offensive. They successfully took advantage of the moment when most of the Nazi armored vehicles were under repair. Spend a week or two, and some say three days. The Germans would have met the offensive in exactly the same way as the Hausser units of Rotmistrov’s tanks near Prokhorovka - in deployed orders with an advantage in the range of artillery and not the fact that they would not have drowned in blood. first time for the war.
        1. +12
          13 July 2018 16: 58
          1TA Katukova. abandoned the tactics imposed by the front command and carried out active defense, using tanks from previously prepared positions. The result was not slow to wait. The German army suffered very significant losses. Vatutin, Khrushchev and Rotmistrov acted according to the patterns, looking back at how the bet would react. The value of the lives of tankers for them apparently was much less important. My father-in-law was in the army of Rotmistrov with a T-34 mechanized driver, in addition to the Kursk Bulge, he fought at the Sandomierz bridgehead, and ended the war at the Brandenburg Gate.
    4. +18
      13 July 2018 07: 35
      Quote: Vard
      I hope that the author in the final part of his article can still explain ... Why, all the same, despite the complete defeat ... Our troops still won the battle of Prokhorovka ...

      Not near Prokhorovka, but on the Kursk. With the extreme extreme bitterness of this tank battle, it is only a piece of the mosaic of the events that took place.
      1. +3
        13 July 2018 08: 36
        Not too lazy to see what and how ... It was under Prokhorovka ... If not laziness ... Google to help you ...
        1. +7
          13 July 2018 08: 41
          Quote: Vard
          Not too lazy to see what and how ... It was under Prokhorovka ... If not laziness ... Google to help you ...

          Well, I have a different look at this.
      2. +9
        13 July 2018 09: 32
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        Not near Prokhorovka, but on Kursk


        And not on the Kursk Bulge, but in this strategic direction - four months later, ours were in Zhytomyr (500 km to the west). The battle of Prokhorovka failed, definitely. Eh, if without fuss, it could have been very interesting.
        1. +17
          13 July 2018 10: 24
          I would like to say that, of course, there are different views on some particular events of the Second World War! Serious work of historians and military experts, if possible not politically biased, can claim credibility and objectivity. First of all, it is work in archives with primary sources. Any document of that time provides an opportunity not only to learn more about the decisions made, but also about the situation in which they were made. This is a very important point. The memories of the participants are also invaluable. I want to give you the words of Hero of the Soviet Union Grigory Penezhko - "... there was such a roar that the membranes crushed and blood flowed from the ears ... From the point-blank shots the towers were torn off and armor burst, tanks exploded ... Hatches and tank crews opened to get out ... we lost the sense of time, felt neither thirst, nor heat, nor even blows in the cramped cabin of the tank.One thought, one aspiration — while the enemy was still alive! Our tankmen, having got out of their wrecked vehicles, were looking for enemy crews on the field too those who were left without equipment and fired from pistols, grabbed into hand-to-hand combat ... "These are the words of the Russian soldier-winner! Without any pathos, I can say, such a soldier is invincible! I don’t know how the author will finish his work, but for now, thank you for returning us all for a while to that heroic time. We should recall this more often. We are the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who, burnt and wounded with a gun in their hands, left a burning tank with the only thought-to continue to destroy the enemy.
          1. +1
            14 July 2018 00: 17
            Igor. You are right. Reading this, I remembered Borodino, because it is also very ambiguous. How can you defeat retreating? But history does not have a reverse course, and each battle is not lost until its end. From the moment of the battle on the Kursk Bulge, and this is how I perceive it as a whole, there was a pearl in the war, albeit somewhat overestimated in results and underestimated in losses, but I think it was necessary in that case. This is exactly the case when the government must lie. Unlike the current one.
    5. +8
      13 July 2018 10: 19
      Under Prokhorovka we did not win, but we grind the most combat-ready tank units of the Wehrmacht. Despite the fact that they rebuilt part of their tanks, and our damaged ones blew up, the Wehrmacht lost most of its "elite" crews killed and wounded. And ours, as it sounds cynical, have lost, mainly, a poorly trained team with no experience. And experienced people in war are the main thing. Iron is a business. Throwing the "elite" into battle and going into the vabank, the Germans lost the most experienced personnel and, in the end, lost.
    6. +11
      13 July 2018 10: 21
      the prokhorov battle ended with the forces of both sides being exhausted
      both the Germans and the Red Army, but the Red Army suffered significantly greater losses.
      The Germans did not flee the battlefield and stayed there for a while, therefore they formally believe that they won, but in reality both sides retreated - the Red Army, because they couldn’t advance, and the Germans retreated because there wasn’t any forces and were afraid of flanking counterattacks.
      but no matter who "won" under Prokhorovka, the loss of our army can hardly be called a defeat
      well, and the last - the author speaks contemptuously about the T70, but this tank was not so armed - he could penetrate PzIV, stugIII, Pziii from 400-700 meters into the forehead, the marders even further, and there were a lot of these tanks near Kursk. Panther also shot into the board from afar.
      1. SOF
        +6
        13 July 2018 12: 47
        Quote: yehat
        he could punch PzIV, stugIII from 400-700 meters in the forehead
        .... ??? belay
        Quote: yehat
        Panther aboard also punched from afar
        ...... ??????? belay belay belay
        ..... forty-five? with a barrel length of twenty calibers ???
        .... it's only in the fantastic action movie WOT, and even then ... sub-caliber-chamber-explosive-high-explosive shells .....
        1. +2
          13 July 2018 13: 38
          t70 was not a magpie
          Yes, even in the chronicle from Prokhorovka it’s clear that another weapon
          1. SOF
            +5
            13 July 2018 14: 11
            Quote: yehat
            not a magpie

            ... and what if it's not a secret?
            ... this little one was let out, in such quantity, only because the front needed tanks .... any .... quote from Wiki:
            According to the results of the Battle of Kursk, the prevailing opinion was that the T-70 light tank was no longer needed by the Red Army, the emphasis shifted towards the release of self-propelled guns SU-76M at its base. Therefore, in October 1943, the production of the T-70 was officially completed, although for some time “seventies” were supplied to the troops due to the armored corps created earlier.
          2. avt
            +4
            13 July 2018 14: 19
            [
            Quote: yehat
            t70 was not a magpie
            Yes, even in the chronicle from Prokhorovka it’s clear that another weapon

            wassat bully Well, it’s only visible the chronicle, stupidly not wanting his own, the chronicles "check at least even on Wikipedia.
            1. +3
              13 July 2018 14: 48
              I saw a T70 with a long gun, I suspect that it is a VT-42 with a length of 68 calibers
              and now she could well penetrate PzIV in the forehead.
              1. +5
                13 July 2018 17: 19
                Quote: yehat
                I saw a T70 with a long gun, I suspect that it is a VT-42 with a length of 68 calibers

                I suspect that this is about
                https://topwar.ru/15821-otechestvennye-tankovye-o
                rudiya-znamenitaya-sorokapyatka.html

                No, the M-42 gun was not put on production cars. No, I would not recommend going with her against the four of the 43rd year.
          3. +2
            13 July 2018 17: 18
            Quote: yehat
            t70 was not a magpie
            Yes, even in the chronicle from Prokhorovka it’s clear that another weapon

            Young man, learn the materiel before writing such stupidity, let alone draw conclusions!
      2. 0
        14 July 2018 23: 34
        Quote: yehat
        the prokhorov battle ended with the forces of both sides being exhausted
        both the Germans and the Red Army, but the Red Army suffered significantly greater losses.
        The Germans did not flee the battlefield and stayed there for a while, therefore they formally believe that they won, but in reality both sides retreated - the Red Army, because they couldn’t advance, and the Germans retreated because there wasn’t any forces and were afraid of flanking counterattacks.
        but no matter who "won" under Prokhorovka, the loss of our army can hardly be called a defeat
        well, and the last one is armed, the author speaks contemptuously about the T70, the tank wasn’t so bad - it could penetrate PzIV, stugIII, Pziii from 400-700 meters into the forehead, the marders even further, and there were a lot of these tanks near Kursk . Panther also shot into the board from afar.
      3. 0
        14 July 2018 23: 45
        "but this tank was not so armed - it could penetrate PzIV, stugIII, Pziii from 400-700 meters into the forehead, the marders even further, but these tanks weren’t ...."
        Well, this is news, how he could punch his T-4 in the forehead with his forty-five, by the year 43 all T-4s had been modernized and had frontal armor 80 mm, which the 76 mm T-34 gun didn’t always take even at short range.
        1. 0
          15 July 2018 11: 10
          we are talking about the v2 model, the Pz IVh model was just starting to be produced.
          the t4 had differentiated armor and was not always 80mm everywhere, although a significant portion of the tank's forehead could easily withstand 45mm shells.
          I would say that the reservation went from 30 to 80 mm, plus the vulnerability of viewing devices, shoulder straps of the tower and other elements. The side armor was weak.
          If we compare the frontal protection with stug-IIIg, then the second frontal armor was a bit better in the upper part of the projection.
    7. +8
      13 July 2018 11: 45
      This battle is considered won only in our propaganda with pictures of the oncoming tank battle, -. Feel the difference between PPR and the actual battle. These days, the Allies landed in Sicily (which is silent constantly) and Hitler stopped the attack, and sent the most combat-ready tank divisions (with the Tigers) to the rear, then they moved to Italy ... The enemy did not suffer defeat, suspended the attack and, for strategic reasons, withdrew main forces. Our Red Army suffered a defeat, because in a draw, losses, as the main criterion, while the opponents retained their fighting ability, determine the loser ... The command "genius", the Zhukovsky model of command of the battles, presented itself with all its beauty - put everyone in a stupid pressure, "women still bear people" ...
      1. +27
        13 July 2018 12: 11
        Quote: Vladimir 5
        This battle is considered won only in our propaganda with pictures of the oncoming tank battle

        And your propaganda interprets that the Anglo-Saxon landing in Sicily changed something in the situation on the Eastern Front?
        Quote: Vladimir 5
        Hitler stopped the offensive, and sent the most combat-ready tank divisions (with the Tigers) to the rear, then they moved to Italy ..

        What a blatant lie.
        Guderian’s words testify to the real state of affairs in the Wehrmacht at that time: “As a result of the failure of the Citadel’s offensive, we were decisively defeated. The armored forces, replenished with such great difficulty, were incapacitated for a long time due to heavy losses in equipment ... Needless to say, the Russians hastened to use their success. And there were no calm days on the Eastern Front. The initiative has completely passed to the enemy. ” General of the German Army Walter Wenck cites the following data: as of July 7, 3 TD lost 67% of its tanks (Losses should be understood not only as vehicles destroyed and become unused, but also those that suffered repaired damage. These latter were either taken to the rear either repaired on site, tanks that were completely destroyed represented a 20% loss), 19 TDs — one third of their tanks and 7 TDs — almost all of their tanks, either destroyed or under repair. On July 12, 2 CC SS, which had 352 cars on July 5, completely lost 17; on July 13, it had 124 cars under repair and 20 cars completely lost, which represents 41% of “losses” in 7 days. As of July 13, 48 TCs “lost” 65.5% of their tanks, the Kempf group, which had 281 tanks on July 5 (including 40 Tigers) was able to withdraw only 123 (including 23 Tigers) 11 July. By July 13, Kempf "lost" 72% of its tanks. In turn, 4 TAs “lost” 700 tanks from July 5 to 12 (Francois de Lannoy “La bataille de Koursk”, “Editions Heimdal”, 1998, pp. 142-143.)
        In addition, you bring a word for word myth thrown by the notorious demoboltun-G.Popov, Gabriel Popov in the book "1941-1945. Notes on the war "writes:" By mid-July, Soviet troops in the Kursk region were in a semicircle ... Allies rushed to save Stalin from the repetition of the summer of 1942. July 10, 1943 - at a critical moment in the Battle of Kursk - Eisenhower launched a landing operation and landed on the island of Sicily ... July 13, 1943, Hitler urgently called Manstein and Kluge from the Kursk front and stated that he was forced to wind down Operation Citadel because of a much more important for him Italy ... the divisions "Reich", "Dead Head" ... without a pause were immediately sent to fight in Italy against the Allied landing. " In fairness, it is worth saying that Popov borrowed the thesis about Sicily from Western “scientific and educational” channels, such as Discovery, .. at the end of July 1943 the SS division “Leibstandart” came to Italy, though leaving the Eastern Front, “Leibstandart” handed over all his tanks and self-propelled artillery to the Das Reich division. http://fablewar.ru/2012/05/citadel/
        Quote: Vladimir 5
        The enemy did not suffer defeat, suspended the offensive and, for strategic reasons, withdrew the main forces.

        lies.
        Quote: Vladimir 5
        Our Red Army suffered a defeat, because in a draw, losses, as the main criterion, while the opponents remain fighting, determine the loser ..

        again insolent lies.
        The German lost.
        http://ruskline.ru/monitoring_smi/2006/04/22/cita
        del_naiznanku_ili_mif_o_tom_kak_amerikancy_spasli
        _russkih_proigravshih_bitvu_pod_kurskom
        1. -2
          13 July 2018 14: 22
          According to the first point, you understand the essence when every day the whole USSR demanded the opening of a second front in Europe ... If such are your statements, then the level of reasoning does not allow further discussion ...
          1. +18
            13 July 2018 15: 57
            Quote: Vladimir 5
            On the first point, you understand the point when every day the whole USSR demanded the opening of a second front in Europe

            Firstly, not the entire USSR, but the USSR in general, and the government of the USSR.
            The second opening of the 2 fronts was required since 1941 and not in Sicily and Africa, but in Europe.
            Quote: Vladimir 5
            If such are your statements, so the level of reasoning does not allow further discussion ...

            Do not write something that does not correspond to those realities.
            The West delayed by all means the opening of the Second Front. And you already lied, claiming that the tank units of the Germans supposedly went to repulse the Allied offensive in Sicily.
            What is clear to you at the end of July 1943, the SS Leibstandart division came to Italy, although leaving the Eastern Front, Leibstandart transferred all its tanks and self-propelled artillery units to the Das Reich division.
            What letters and font should I write to learn?
            1. 0
              13 July 2018 19: 35
              Quote: The Swordsman
              The SS division Leibstandart got into Italy, although leaving the Eastern Front, Leibstandart transferred all of its tanks and self-propelled artillery to the Das Reich division.

              And what did the tankers fall into the rifle chain? So I imagine, the elite of the army is fighting on foot. You yourself then think
              1. +9
                13 July 2018 20: 42
                Quote: Pilat2009
                tankers in the rifle chain lay down?

                You will laugh, but yes:
                At the end of July 1943, in view of the successful operations of the Allies in Sicily and the subsequent fall of the Mussolini regime, the Führer instructed the transfer of the SS Panzer Corps to Northern Italy. However, in view of the aggravation of the situation on the southern section of the Eastern Front, only the SS Adolf Hitler division was sent. Moreover, only the personnel of the division were assigned from the front, since all the equipment — tanks, artillery, transport — were transferred to the Das Reich divisions. Having arrived at the place of deployment, Leibstandart was placed at the disposal of Army Group B, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel. The main objectives of the connection were: ensuring control over strategic industrial facilities, the provision of garrison service, the disarmament of the Italian army, anti-partisan operations. In addition, Leibstandart units guarded the residence and ensured the personal safety of Mussolini and his family. At the end of October 1943, the division was renamed the 1st SS Panzer Division, which, however, did not affect its staffing. In a short period of time, the division received new equipment and restored combat readiness.
                1. +1
                  13 July 2018 20: 56
                  Quote: Paranoid50
                  In a short period of time, the division received new equipment and restored combat readiness.

                  Well, this is another matter, but then they left on foot .....
                  1. +4
                    13 July 2018 21: 10
                    Quote: Pilat2009
                    well that's another thing

                    Duc, three months "infantry", however.
              2. +6
                13 July 2018 22: 56
                Quote: Pilat2009
                And what did the tankmen fall into the rifle chain?


                They fell on the Italians. After the eastern front, only Italy was able to heal upset nerves in parts of the SS. The administration (a couple of generals and support units) of the SS tank corps also went there. Healed, and on the eastern front again.
          2. +3
            14 July 2018 23: 51
            Quote: Vladimir 5
            According to the first point, you understand the essence when every day the whole USSR demanded the opening of a second front in Europe ... If such are your statements, then the level of reasoning does not allow further discussion ...

            And what if "all of Russia demanded the opening of a second front ..."? Just why do you conclude that the battle of Kursk was lost by the red army? logic beyond the limits of common sense.
        2. 0
          15 July 2018 11: 21
          you are too excited - to decide whether or not to win is possible only on the basis of the criteria for this victory. If we take as a basis the conservation of the gopher population near Kursk, it is possible that the Germans and Russians lost, and the Greens won from Australia. And if you take other criteria, the Martians could win there. Therefore, you do not need to heat up in vain.
          The Red Army did not win on the battlefield near Kursk - it effectively used up Germany’s strategic reserve, which for a number of reasons the Germans could use more effectively for military operations. This is the main victory near Kursk.
          Only, it is worth remembering that this victory was obtained at a very high price - and not only on the fields of the Kursk arc, but also near Rzhev, and in a number of other places where local operations were carried out, and
          including because the most combat-ready personnel were transferred to Kursk.
          It is difficult to say if they could do better, for example, the role of Vatutin and a number of other commanders is not entirely clear to me.
      2. avt
        +10
        13 July 2018 14: 28
        Quote: Vladimir 5
        , and sent the most combat-ready tank divisions (with the Tigers) to the rear, then they moved to Italy ...

        Give me a reference, well, when the SS Panzer Corps, led by Hausser and in what form, pulled straight to Italy to Sicily. In the meantime, according to the Cord's testament, ,, ...... watch football. "Or take your time reading comments like
        at the end of July 1943, the SS division “Leibstandart” came to Italy, although leaving the Eastern Front, “Leibstandart” transferred all its tanks and self-propelled artillery units to the Das Reich division.
      3. +5
        13 July 2018 21: 13
        Quote: Vladimir 5
        Our Red Army suffered a defeat


        Think what you write. The number of casualties does not at all indicate the defeat of our troops. Having a numerical superiority including in tanks, our army forced the Germans to retreat and further developed its advantage until the final victory.
    8. +4
      13 July 2018 13: 09
      Quote: Vard
      Why, all the same, despite the complete defeat ... Our troops still won the battle of Prokhorovka ...

      Probably because the Germans decided to move away. And in fact, why bang your head against the iron wall if it’s clear that we have superiority. The Germans did not like to fool around and the General Staff ate bread for good reason
      1. +15
        13 July 2018 14: 20
        It was not in vain that the German General Staff ate bread in May 1945 laughing
        1. +5
          13 July 2018 15: 41
          The commander-in-chief and his party clique summed up, setting the task of fighting the whole world. here it is necessary to wonder how long the German General Staff kept and how it held ... The leaders and their party cliques never led to good, that’s the leaderism of one person in the Russian Federation ...
          1. +9
            13 July 2018 17: 51
            Quote: Vladimir 5
            Summed up the commander in chief and his party clique


            Fell on him, he has nothing to lose.

            Quote: Vladimir 5
            setting the task of fighting with the whole world


            Until May 1943, FIVE German divisions fought with the whole world (the fifth GG in incomplete composition, only half a year. Well, a couple of divisions (initially during the capture) of the airborne forces in all sorts of Crete.

            And the whole civilized world (the location has now been determined), without a small trace, fought on the side of Germany (and this was due to the possessed, and not the German General Staff - they were constantly frightened by the initiatives of the Führer.)
            1. 0
              13 July 2018 22: 05
              Quote: chenia
              And the whole civilized world (the location is now already determined), without a small war, fought on the side of Germany

              Who, where, when, with the strength of the pozhalst’s troops. And then the Comrade also wrote that everything except Switzerland. "A rare Albanian will sail to the middle of the Dnieper"))))
            2. 0
              13 July 2018 22: 07
              Quote: chenia
              until May 1943, FIVE German divisions fought

              In one Norway there was a 200 thousandth group that surrendered there
          2. +2
            14 July 2018 23: 56
            Quote: Vladimir 5
            The commander-in-chief and his party clique summed up, setting the task of fighting the whole world. here it is necessary to wonder how long the German General Staff kept and how it held ... The leaders and their party cliques never led to good, that’s the leaderism of one person in the Russian Federation ...

            Well, yes, he let down his valiant generals, and why didn’t Stalin and his “clique” let us down and ended the war in Berlin?
        2. +1
          13 July 2018 19: 16
          Quote: Operator
          It was not in vain that the German General Staff ate bread in May 1945

          Well, you can have a hangover. You calculate the aspect ratio. The Germans fought on 2 fronts. By the way, on the Kursk Bulge we had one and a half superiority according to the most conservative estimates
          1. +7
            13 July 2018 20: 29
            He counted - all of Europe fought against the USSR until July 1943 (except Sweden, Switzerland and Portugal).

            And now you count the population, capacity of the military-industrial complex and the gross domestic product of Europe and the USSR.
            1. +2
              13 July 2018 21: 27
              Quote: Operator
              Counted - all of Europe fought against the USSR until July 1943

              Oh, don’t put stamps here. It’s not about the population of Europe, but about the number of troops on a particular sector of the front, which includes everything from the Romanian convoy to the Hungarian guards. You can still calculate the US gross product
              1. +1
                13 July 2018 23: 33
                And what does the USA have to do with this until July 1943?
                1. 0
                  14 July 2018 10: 23
                  Quote: Operator
                  And what does the USA have to do with this until July 1943?

                  And what does the gross product of Europe have to do with it?
                  1. 0
                    16 July 2018 09: 06
                    Quote: Pilat2009
                    And what does the gross product of Europe have to do with it?

                    If you do not understand what, then why talk about everything else?
                    More than 70% of all combat-ready formations of Germany fought against us. There were enough satellites.
                    1. 0
                      16 July 2018 09: 32
                      Quote: The Swordsman
                      More than 70% of all combat-ready formations of Germany fought against us. There were enough satellites.

                      How much specifically. give the comparison of troops. Under Prokhorovka we had an advantage by a third.
                      1. +1
                        16 July 2018 10: 56
                        Quote: Pilat2009
                        How much specifically. give the comparison of troops. Under Prokhorovka we had an advantage by a third.

                        Are you weak in computer? Good ..
                        For Operation Barbarossa, of the 4 headquarters of the army groups in the Wehrmacht, 3 were deployed (North, Center, and South) (75%), out of 13 field army headquarters - 8 (61,5%), out of 46 headquarters of army corps - 34 (73,9%), out of 12 motorized corps - 11 (91,7%). In total, 73,5% of the total number of divisions in the Wehrmacht were allocated for the Eastern Campaign. The German Air Force deployed 60,8% of the flight units, 16,9% of the air defense forces and over 48% of the communications troops and other units to support the Barbarossa operation .... 767 people were deployed in the German allied forces there, 100 accounting divisions, 37 guns and mortars, 5502 tanks and 306 aircraft.
                        https://rg.ru/2016/06/16/rodina-sssr-germaniya.ht
                        ml
                        Able to understand what kind of power?
                        And this is for you as of 1943.
                        The length of the front or coastline Its length (km) The available forces of the Wehrmacht and its allies in this sector Wehrmacht soldiers per 1 km of the front or coastline
                        Eastern Front 2100 3,9 million 1860
                        Finland 1400 180 thousand 130
                        Norway 2500 315 thousand 130
                        Denmark 700 110 thousand 160
                        Western Europe 2600 1,3 million 530
                        Italy 1750 330 thousand 190
                        Southeast. Europe 4200 610 thousand 145
                        Total 15 250 million 6,8

                        All changes in the number of troops in Germany, probably came from the fact that the West bore the entire load of this war? No? Then, who brought the Wehrmacht to a critical state, except for the Red Army.
                        https://parmen-posokhov.livejournal.com/1791.html
                      2. 0
                        19 October 2018 20: 39
                        Quote: The Swordsman
                        All changes in the number of troops in Germany, probably came from the fact that the West bore the entire load of this war? No? Then who brought the Wehrmacht to a critical state, except for the Red Army

                        I am crying. You are not able to understand the essence of the issue? The fact that the USSR won is clear to everyone. Question at what cost
                      3. 0
                        19 October 2018 20: 55
                        Quote: The Swordsman
                        The German Air Force deployed 60,8% of the flight units to support Operation Barbarossa

                        In total, about 4000 German combat aircraft took part in the invasion of the USSR. Finland exhibited all 307 units of aviation equipment at its disposal, Romania - 623 out of 699 available, Hungary - 48 out of 269, and Italy, which soon joined the invasion, sent 70 aircraft out of 2416 to the Eastern Front. In total, in June 1941 there were about 4900 aircraft of Germany and its allies

                        At that time, in the western military districts of the USSR, the Air Forces of the Red Army had 7009 fighters and bombers, and there were 1333 aircraft in long-range aviation (collection “Combat structure of the Red Army Air Force on June 22, 1941”). Of these, there were 2748 new aircraft (Yak-1 - 399 pcs., Mig-3 - 1309 pcs., LaGG-3 - 322 pcs., Pe-2 - 460 pcs., IL-2 - 249 pcs. And TB-7 - 9 pcs.) (* TsGASA, f. 130, op. 25, d 199, pp. 4-5.). This did not include a large number of the naval aviation fleet of the Northern, Baltic and Black Sea fleets, which also had new brands, and which also entered the battle in the first minutes of the enemy attack.
              2. 0
                13 September 2018 11: 18
                Was the US led by the CPSU (B.)?
            2. +1
              13 July 2018 22: 45
              Quote: Operator
              He counted - all of Europe fought against the USSR until July 1943 (except Sweden, Switzerland and Portugal).
              And now you count the population, capacity of the military-industrial complex and the gross domestic product of Europe and the USSR.

              And please put the production capacities of Britain, the USA, Canada, LatAmerica on the side of the Allies, well, there are South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. And compare now objectively. Global war - it’s such a thing ...
              1. +4
                13 July 2018 23: 35
                Once again - where are the Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders and South Africans noted in Europe until July 1943?
                1. +2
                  14 July 2018 06: 00
                  Quote: Operator
                  Once again - where are the Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders and South Africans noted in Europe until July 1943?

                  Ok, they forgot about the fleet or, for example, about all the tungsten in the world bought by the Americans, which did not go to the sub-caliber from ISs. We consider the ground.
                  How many Soviet divisions were linked by all the allies of Germany, including Japan, for example, in the summer of 42? How many divisions did the Reich keep outside the Eastern Front?
                  What about aviation?
                  1. 0
                    13 September 2018 11: 22
                    But with aviation from the Allies, the help was real. 2/3 of the fascist fighters since the end of 43 years have been delayed to defend Germany from bombing.
                2. +1
                  14 July 2018 10: 20
                  Quote: Operator
                  Once again - where are the Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders and South Africans noted in Europe until July 1943?

                  And where were the Bulgarians with the Yugoslavs noted? Spaniards? Turks? Poles? And you are talking about the whole of Europe.
                  1. +2
                    15 July 2018 00: 07
                    The Bulgarians suppressed the partisans in Yugoslavia and supplied food to the Wehrmacht, the Spaniards sent a whole corps to the Eastern Front, the Poles sent thousands of recruits to the 600 front.

                    The Turks were only formally the European people, they were in reserve with Germany until the middle of the 1943 year and forced to divert the nth number of Red Army divisions.
                    1. +1
                      15 July 2018 01: 02
                      Quote: Operator
                      Bulgarians suppressed partisans in Yugoslavia

                      What do you care about Yugoslavia? Where is Yugoslavia and where is Kursk?
                      Speaking of the Bulgarians. Bulgaria never participated in the war with the USSR. What gives the actions of the 3rd Ukrainian a peculiar context.
                      Quote: Operator
                      supplied Wehrmacht products,

                      They didn’t forget to record Tuva in the allies of the USSR?
                      Quote: Operator
                      Spaniards sent an entire corps to the Eastern Front

                      And on both sides, for sure.
                      Quote: Operator
                      Poles sent 600 thousand recruits to the front.

                      40 Polish SS divisions? Great news!
                      Quote: Operator
                      forced to distract the n-th number of Red Army divisions.

                      Yeah. So they forced that in December of the 41st ZakF was transformed into ZakVO.
                      Quote: Operator
                      How much western equipment and equipment came to the USSR before July 1943?

                      Look for the composition of combat-ready tanks near Moscow in the winter of the 41st. By the way, since the food was remembered by the Bulgarians, it would not be difficult to indicate the sources of the Soviet
                      Sowing grain
                      Medication
                      Aluminum
                      Explosives
                      Radio stations
                      Antiknock additives
                      As of, for example, in the spring of the 42nd year?
                      1. +2
                        15 July 2018 12: 36
                        Yugoslavia is actually one of our allies in Europe (very small, but still delaying the attack on the USSR as much as a month), the Yugoslavs diverted the entire Bulgarian army, which otherwise would have been on the Eastern Front.

                        Remember, the spring of the 1942 of the year is before the termination of the Arctic convoys or after? laughing
                      2. 0
                        15 July 2018 12: 55
                        Quote: Operator
                        Yugoslavia is actually one of our allies in Europe

                        Pavel Karageorgievich would be very surprised to find out who his ally is.
                        Quote: Operator
                        which otherwise would have been on the Eastern Front.

                        Bulgaria did not declare war on the USSR.
                        Quote: Operator
                        Remember, the spring of the 1942 of the year is before the termination of the Arctic convoys or after?

                        Arctic convoys were discontinued on May 20, 1945 (JW-67). So up to.
                      3. +1
                        15 July 2018 21: 05
                        The supplies of material assistance to the Allies in the fall of 41 did not play a significant role, stable and massive supplies went only from 42, but it was near Moscow that the plan for a lightning war was foiled and Germany was drawn into a protracted war of attrition, in which it would inevitably be defeated. as it possessed less resources in comparison with the allies.
                        And in the Far East of the USSR, even after the transfer of the most combat-ready formations to Moscow, significant forces still remained, parts and formations of which were completed due to the assigned composition of older ages.
                      4. 0
                        15 July 2018 21: 47
                        Quote: Svidetel 45
                        but it was near Moscow that the plan for a lightning war was foiled

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Look for the composition of combat-ready tanks near Moscow in the winter of the 41st.

                        You looked, no?
                        Quote: Svidetel 45
                        Allied supplies of material assistance in the fall of 41 did not play a significant role

                        Fact itself Allied talk of help, especially the inclusion of the USSR in the LL, played a huge role. If the United States declared neutrality in the "German-Soviet war" before December 11, 41, mobilization in the USSR would take place completely otherwise. Given what was there in December 41st in real life, we can confidently assert that Averell Harriman did not surrender Moscow to Hitler.
                        Quote: Svidetel 45
                        There were German, one, two, and miscalculated, mainly Italians,

                        Do you consider only German divisions in Africa only, or in the East too?
                3. 0
                  14 July 2018 10: 22
                  Quote: Operator
                  Once again - where are the Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders and South Africans noted in Europe until July 1943?

                  You are told about the production of equipment and equipment a considerable part of which went to the USSR
                  1. +1
                    15 July 2018 00: 09
                    How much western equipment and equipment came to the USSR before July 1943? laughing
          2. +7
            14 July 2018 14: 49
            Quote: Pilat2009
            Well, you can have a hangover. You calculate the aspect ratio. The Germans fought on 2 fronts. By the way, on the Kursk Bulge we had one and a half superiority according to the most conservative estimates

            It’s actually funny, interesting, but where in 1943 was this very second front on which the Germans fought? It’s like you grappled with a bear, and the mosquito bit you and you say I would have flunked the bear easily, but I had to fight with the bear and the mosquito on two fronts.
            Incidentally, in Normandy, the Germans didn’t throw off the Americans with the British into the sea. The USSR helped out by launching the offensive ahead of schedule.
            So, with all due respect, presenting the second front as a decisive event in the Second World War, to put it mildly, is incompetent.
            1. +1
              14 July 2018 15: 22
              Quote: E_V_N
              Incidentally, in Normandy, the Germans didn’t throw the Americans and the British into the sea.

              that is, the three Volkssturm divisions nearly threw the Americans into the sea? This only happens in fairy tales or in propaganda that all the troops were on the Eastern Front
              1. +1
                14 July 2018 17: 57
                To be more precise, not the "three Volkssturm divisions", but:

                47, 48, 49, 243, 245, 319, 344, 347, 348, 709, 711, 712, 716, 719 infantry divisions.
                In total - 14.

                352nd Motorized Division.
                In total - 1.

                16, 17, 18 airfield division.
                In total - 3.

                165th reserve division.
                In total - 1.

                20th mobile brigade.
                10, 206 tank battalions.

                3rd air fleet.
                1. 0
                  14 July 2018 20: 22
                  Forgot the 12th tank SS "Hitler Youth" and the 21st tank.
                  1. 0
                    14 July 2018 20: 54
                    Quote: Rivares
                    Forgot the 12th tank SS "Hitler Youth" and the 21st tank.

                    As I understand it, the forces involved directly against the bridgehead are calculated. While the Allied factor influenced the entire coast, from Norway to the Aegean. And this pressure began not in May 45th, but from the first days of the war.
              2. 0
                15 July 2018 21: 08
                [quote = Pilat2009] [quote = E_V_N] By the way, in Normandy, the Germans didn’t dump the Americans with the British into the sea [/ quote]
                that is, the three Volkssturm divisions nearly threw the Americans into the sea? This only happens in fairy tales or in propaganda that all the troops were on the Eastern Front
                We only forgot to mention the 6th tank army of the Wehrmacht, well, this is such a trifle.
            2. 0
              14 July 2018 15: 23
              Quote: E_V_N
              So, with all due respect, presenting the second front as a decisive event in the Second World War, to put it mildly, is incompetent

              And who says that?
          3. +2
            14 July 2018 23: 59
            Quote: Pilat2009
            Quote: Operator
            It was not in vain that the German General Staff ate bread in May 1945

            Well, you can have a hangover. You calculate the aspect ratio. The Germans fought on 2 fronts. By the way, on the Kursk Bulge we had one and a half superiority according to the most conservative estimates

            Until the 43 year, it fought on almost the same front, the mouse fuss in Africa with the 50 thousand corps of Rommel cannot be compared to the 5-6 million group of the Wehrmacht and its allies on the Eastern Front.
            1. +1
              15 July 2018 10: 08
              Quote: Svidetel 45
              Until the 43 year, it fought on almost the same front, the mouse fuss in Africa with the 50 thousand corps of Rommel cannot be compared to the 5-6 million group of the Wehrmacht and its allies on the Eastern Front.

              Well, this is how to look - for example, in Tunisia, 250 thousand soldiers of Germany and Italy surrendered in the end, and this is more than in Stalingrad. And constant actions of pressure forced the Reich to keep in the West also strong forces - they already spoke about the same Norway with its 200 thousand.
              1. 0
                15 July 2018 21: 12
                Quote: Warrior2015
                Quote: Svidetel 45
                Until the 43 year, it fought on almost the same front, the mouse fuss in Africa with the 50 thousand corps of Rommel cannot be compared to the 5-6 million group of the Wehrmacht and its allies on the Eastern Front.

                Well, this is how to look - for example, in Tunisia, 250 thousand soldiers of Germany and Italy surrendered in the end, and this is more than in Stalingrad. And constant actions of pressure forced the Reich to keep in the West also strong forces - they already spoke about the same Norway with its 200 thousand.

                The Germans were there once, twice, and miscalculated, mainly Italians, who were not very eager for the sake of the conceited desires of Mussolini to revive the great Roman Empire to go under bullets and shells.
      2. +8
        13 July 2018 17: 30
        Quote: Pilat2009
        Probably because the Germans decided to move away. And in fact, why bang your head against the iron wall if it’s clear that we have superiority. The Germans did not like to fool around and the General Staff ate bread for good reason


        Well, we would have moved back to the initial ones, and so, without significant losses, flew off for 500 km (and the Dnieper did not help). And the defeated WF soon ceased to exist. And hell knows where 1 Ukrainian came from, flew right into Zhytomyr.

        Quote: Pilat2009
        The Germans did not like to fool around with a fool and the General Staff ate bread for good reason


        Definitely!

        Especially fully and successfully realized their plan in late April 1945.
        1. +1
          13 July 2018 19: 22
          Quote: chenia
          and without significant losses flew 500 km

          500 km across the USSR is not impressive. At the beginning of the war, we traveled in 2 days. Just look at the aspect ratio by 1943. By the way, we must also be able to withdraw the troops, in the Crimea we buried the army and the Germans took out the army
          By the way, as far as I know, when the Germans attacked, they had to force the Dnieper to the high bank whereas ours, on the contrary, when they attacked
          1. +2
            13 July 2018 20: 18
            The Dnieper has a right bank high, left-low
            1. 0
              13 July 2018 21: 35
              Quote: avaks111
              The Dnieper has a right bank high, left-low

              it if from where to look?
              1. +3
                13 July 2018 22: 49
                With the flow...
                Stand facing the direction of the river or position the map accordingly. All over the world it is accepted that the coast on your right is the right coast. Accordingly, on your left will be the left bank of the river.
          2. +3
            13 July 2018 23: 04
            Quote: Pilat2009
            . At the beginning of the war in 2 days passed.


            500 km ??? Oh well it happens

            .
            Quote: Pilat2009
            force the Dnieper to a high bank, while ours, respectively, when approaching, vice versa


            Quote: Pilat2009
            it if from where to look?


            And I realized today is Friday, there was also a chance. but I refused.
          3. +2
            14 July 2018 20: 23
            Quote: Pilat2009
            By the way, it is also necessary to be able to withdraw troops, in the Crimea we buried the army and the Germans took out the army

            Actually, the Germans also buried their divisions in Crimea.
            Quote: Pilat2009
            500 km across the USSR is not impressive. At the beginning of the war in 2 days

            On a European scale, too. At 44, a couple of days went even more fun ..
          4. +2
            15 July 2018 00: 01
            Quote: Pilat2009
            Quote: chenia
            and without significant losses flew 500 km

            500 km across the USSR is not impressive. At the beginning of the war, we traveled in 2 days. Just look at the aspect ratio by 1943. By the way, we must also be able to withdraw the troops, in the Crimea we buried the army and the Germans took out the army
            By the way, as far as I know, when the Germans attacked, they had to force the Dnieper to the high bank whereas ours, on the contrary, when they attacked

            You didn’t confuse the left bank with the right one for an hour, or is it just a fan of fairy tales to compose?
          5. +1
            16 July 2018 18: 00
            They took out "not very" successfully. During the evacuation to the sea, from 20 to 40 thousand Germans died.
    9. +3
      13 July 2018 17: 37
      I do not understand the meaning of these opuses. There are many documentary sources of participants in these events, where everything is described in detail. Military Review is turning into the haven of some sort of graphomaniacs writing for an illiterate public.
    10. 0
      14 July 2018 14: 00
      Mr. Apukhtin left all the brains in the cell!
    11. +1
      14 July 2018 14: 14
      And you should read this Vasilevsky’s report, they sent to the place as they say to figure out the reasons for such enormous losses in the tanks. Here’s his conclusion, the Kursk-Oryol operation was an example of its failure. These are the words of Vasilevsky in the report put to Stalin on the table.
    12. 0
      17 July 2018 17: 16
      because they put several of their best buildings in the ground, including those who survived in Stalingrad.
  2. +19
    13 July 2018 05: 55
    However, the result is more than obvious. The German offensive was stopped, and after a couple of days it completely rolled back. Somewhat annoying reasoning that "it was necessary to change tactics." Of course, if the author, so smart and well-read, and even with all the modern knowledge, got to the headquarters of Vatutin, he would easily show on the map where and when to strike and how to go to Berlin in a week. It is a pity that none of the Soviet generals had at hand two pairs of volumes on the history of the Great Patriotic War with maps. What is characteristic: the summer is 1943, but there are still problems with the ability to fight. Pilots do not recognize their own, artillery does not suppress enemy defenses. There are, of course, objective reasons for this: firstly, there is no reconnaissance, right from the wheels to the battle, and still not from the line from which it was planned. Where gunners simply don’t know where to shoot. Secondly, there are still not enough shells. The Germans still produce more "suitcases" across the Red Army than they get in return.
    1. +11
      13 July 2018 06: 21
      The author, I hope, will provide a letter from Rotmistrov to Zhukov in the future. Everything is written there, why the whole tank army died.
      1. +12
        13 July 2018 10: 07
        Quote: Andrey Sukharev
        The author, I hope, will provide a letter from Rotmistrov to Zhukov in the future. Everything is written there, why the whole tank army died.

        In general, Rotmistrov wrote correctly, but this does not in any way justify him in the fact that he killed the tank army in one day. Moreover, there were only a few dozen Tigers and Panthers near Prokhorovka.
        1. +1
          13 July 2018 15: 58
          In this I completely agree with you
        2. +2
          14 July 2018 00: 56
          Quote: Captain Pushkin
          Moreover, there were only a few dozen Tigers and Panthers near Prokhorovka.

          But it’s nothing that the tiger didn’t make its way to the T34, but it burned the T34 from a distance of 1 km, and now figure out how long it takes the T34 to go this 1 km over rough terrain.
    2. +4
      13 July 2018 10: 15
      But Bagration’s 44 operation was brilliant
      1. 0
        13 July 2018 17: 24
        Quote: daniel
        But Bagration’s 44 operation was brilliant

        Firstly, what does it mean?
        Secondly, the conversation about Bagration is long and complicated.
    3. +1
      13 July 2018 17: 17
      Almost until the very end of the war, the Germans had twice as many cartridges and artillery shots.
      1. 0
        13 July 2018 19: 40
        Quote: Bobrovsky
        Almost until the very end of the war, the Germans had twice as many cartridges and artillery shots.

        And here let me disagree. To begin with, with greater superiority in guns and other weapons, more ammunition is required. Further, after 1943 the problem with ammunition was solved in principle
  3. +4
    13 July 2018 05: 59
    It is difficult to understand the logic of command. Why such a long time significant armored forces rushed to a powerful anti-tank stronghold, if after the first hour of the battle it was clear - you need to change tactics?
    Everyone imagines himself a STRATEG ...
    1. +4
      13 July 2018 07: 38
      Quote: svp67
      It is difficult to understand the logic of command. Why such a long time significant armored forces rushed to a powerful anti-tank stronghold, if after the first hour of the battle it was clear - you need to change tactics?
      Everyone imagines himself a STRATEG ...

      And even at the company level. I remember what claims we presented in 2006 to our generals. And now, after 12 years have passed, it is clear that they have achieved something.
    2. +4
      13 July 2018 10: 19
      Quote: svp67
      It is difficult to understand the logic of command. Why such a long time significant armored forces rushed to a powerful anti-tank stronghold, if after the first hour of the battle it was clear - you need to change tactics?
      Everyone imagines himself a STRATEG ...

      Attempts to bypass the defense node were. On his own initiative, the forces to the battalion on the right and the same on the left. It was not possible to get around on the right, and on the left a tank battalion without infantry broke through to the rear of the Germans and took up a circular defense. But the Germans closed the breakthrough with self-propelled guns, and the erupted battalion was destroyed.
      This episode is described by Zamulin.
  4. +2
    13 July 2018 06: 08
    It is difficult to understand the logic of command. Why such a long time significant armored forces rushed to a powerful anti-tank stronghold, if after the first hour of the battle it was clear - you need to change tactics?

    It is possible that our command was really mistaken, did not show the necessary flexibility, etc. But then the author had to present his own version of the action, and justify it - what exactly, why, and how to do it. And just complain about the logic of command, and that’s all - in my opinion this is wrong.
    Yes, and in articles of this kind, all the same it is very desirable to use cards, and provide data on the balance of power.
    1. +3
      13 July 2018 10: 27
      Quote: rkkasa 81
      It is difficult to understand the logic of command. Why such a long time significant armored forces rushed to a powerful anti-tank stronghold, if after the first hour of the battle it was clear - you need to change tactics?

      It is possible that our command was really mistaken, did not show the necessary flexibility, etc. But then the author had to present his own version of the action, and justify it - what exactly, why, and how to do it. And just complain about the logic of command, and that’s all - in my opinion this is wrong.
      Yes, and in articles of this kind, all the same it is very desirable to use cards, and provide data on the balance of power.

      What is not clear here? The tactical situation did not allow for a successful massive tank attack near Prokhorovka. So you had to look for another plan.
      Manstein, when faced with a similar situation near Kharkov, then he retreated under the blows of our tank units, did not throw his tanks on the attackers forehead. He believed that they would simply perish without delaying the offensive.
      Manstein transferred his tanks to the flank of the advancing group and struck, with a sad result for the Red Army.
      1. 0
        13 July 2018 15: 24
        What does Manstein have to do with Kharkov? The author complained about the logic of our command near Prokhorovka.
        I repeat:
        It is possible that our command was really mistaken, did not show the necessary flexibility, etc. But then the author had to present his version of the action, and justify it - what exactly, why, and how to do it. And just complain about the logic of command, and that’s all - in my opinion this is wrong.
      2. avt
        +2
        13 July 2018 19: 42
        Quote: Captain Pushkin
        Manstein, when faced with a similar situation near Kharkov, then he retreated under the blows of our tank units, did not throw his tanks on the attackers forehead. He believed that they would simply perish without delaying the offensive.

        Not Manstein, but Hausser, removing SS-s from a practically finished boiler. For which Hitler nearly took his head off in a fit of rage.
  5. Cat
    +20
    13 July 2018 06: 10
    Question to the Author?
    And what would you do yourself, in place of the front commander, tank army commander, brigade commanders and rank-and-file tankmen? I understand perfectly well that playing “from the couch” and syllabic declension is one thing, but you will strain .......
    My personal opinion, having that amount of information, the management of all links did the right thing. Defense tactics on the southern front of the Kursk ledge crashed. Vatutin did not cope with the task, made a mistake m by choosing the main direction of the Nazi strike. The front was pushed to its depth.
    Did the leadership of the Steppe Front and the Supreme Headquarters have a choice? Was throwing tanks into the fire.
    Did they recognize the risk?
    Definitely - yes!
    They did what they had to do and ........ did !!!
    Prokhorovka is a classic fire bag that our command consciously hoped to push through. Happened? Contrary to your conclusions, I think so! A terrible price, but the offensive impulse of the Germans was shot down. Height and nodal points were taken. The enemy did not go further.
    If the Red Army continued to play on defense, then the Germans would begin to push in the other direction and bypassed the positions of our fifth armies.
    Conclusion "Prokhorovka" operation to wean the initiative from the enemy. Let the bloody but - this is our victory.
    Sincerely, Kitty!
    1. +6
      13 July 2018 06: 34
      I agree with you,
    2. +2
      13 July 2018 09: 50
      Quote: Kotischa
      My personal opinion, having that amount of information, the management of all links did the right thing. Defense tactics on the southern front of the Kursk ledge crashed. Vatutin did not cope with the task, made a mistake m by choosing the main direction of the Nazi strike. The front was pushed to its depth.


      What are you talking about? The third frontier was already taken. All anti-tank weapons were thrown from Moskalenko (where the Germans expected), Katukov buried tanks. The Germans got bogged down. Yes, our panicked (remembering the spring of 42).
      But all the significant reserves of the Germans were already knocked out by stubborn defense (and ours did not even know about it). They slowed down our subsequent offensive, but could not stop (in four months, 500 km. Ours advanced), even at such a line as the Dnieper. According to the results, our simple offensive operation did not look bad, but the Germans concentrated forces and means in this area much more than for defense.
    3. +1
      13 July 2018 10: 32
      Quote: Kotischa
      If the Red Army continued to play on defense, then the Germans would begin to push in the other direction and bypassed the positions of our fifth armies.

      If they had bypassed, they themselves would have received a blow to the flank. And that would be a completely different story.
      And so the Germans still three days after the counterattack continued their attempts to break through near Prokhorovka.
      1. Cat
        +5
        13 July 2018 10: 53
        In Isaev - this is called catching the "direction of impact." Absolutely useless activity.
        In 41 and 42, we repeatedly hit ticks on the flank or base, in five of seven cases it ended with boilers. Tanks could only be allowed into battle, only breaking through the front of the defensive infantry divisions. This has not been done. From defense, it was no longer possible to play. The enemy broke through the defense choosing the direction of the strike having a well-coordinated operational group.
        So the roll-over, it was just necessary to bring down. And they shot him down.
    4. avt
      +2
      13 July 2018 19: 51
      Quote: Kotischa
      Did the leadership of the Steppe Front and the Supreme Headquarters have a choice? Was throwing tanks into the fire.

      It was, BUT! For this it was necessary at least to get at least some kind of intelligence. The whole tragedy was that our attack with the tanks of Rotmistrov was ahead of the German preparing the same attack. They had already deployed the battle formation and had taken a strike while standing, and the qualitative superiority in artillery and armor gave such a result. I don’t like to replay on the principle of “if”, but indeed ANY delay in Rotmistrov’s advance would put the tankers in a position similar to Katukov’s army — our Germans would have met the deployed battle formations. request Khrushchev and Vatutin dug the earth in hot weather - forward and soon .... request Vasilevsky was also unable to assess the situation. And no wonder - it was painfully deftly and inexorably pushed the SS Hausser's tank corps. There was nothing to be afraid of. Manstein did not make a breach for the tanks, but broke down at once and got the result.
  6. +8
    13 July 2018 06: 12
    In such an article cards, schemes are very desirable. The illustrated material did not bother anyone.
    1. +14
      13 July 2018 06: 27
      Something tells me that with combat maps the article will begin to limp and lose its harmonious logic. Therefore, the perspicacious author and bypasses this question for two parts already undermined.
      1. +3
        13 July 2018 09: 36
        Quote: Wild_Grey_Wolf
        Something tells me that with combat maps the article will begin to limp and lose its harmonious logic.

        Perhaps you are right! The presence of diagrams and illustrations will “break” the article into parts and make it more difficult to understand ... although the illustrations would also be very useful ... but then you need to write a book! wink
        1. +3
          13 July 2018 10: 04
          The front of hostilities will be seen wider and the state of things in the article is not so unambiguous.
          I did not think that additional information in the form of graphs complicates the perception. Maybe for a certain circle of unique ones.
          1. +1
            13 July 2018 12: 19
            Quote: Wild_Grey_Wolf
            I did not think that additional information in the form of graphs complicates the perception. Maybe for a certain circle of unique ones.

            Of course ! If you are a unique of an indefinite circle, then you cannot understand the unique of a certain circle! !
            1. 0
              13 July 2018 12: 27
              Mutual statement.
        2. +3
          13 July 2018 10: 34
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Quote: Wild_Grey_Wolf
          Something tells me that with combat maps the article will begin to limp and lose its harmonious logic.

          Perhaps you are right! The presence of diagrams and illustrations will “break” the article into parts and make it more difficult to understand ... although the illustrations would also be very useful ... but then you need to write a book! wink

          The book is already written. It remains to read it. From the comments it is easy to determine who has already read it and who is not.
  7. +9
    13 July 2018 06: 46
    Purely formal, we can draw an analogy with Jutland. Two parties declared their victory. The Germans said that they won on points and inflicted more damage to the enemy than he did to them. The British said that despite the loss of the battlefield behind them .. So here. Some said they stopped the advance of the enemy despite casualties. Others said they tactically won the battle, inflicting significant losses on the enemy and foiling a counterattack.
    But the final result plays a key role in the debate - the one who won the war as a whole won.
    And the moral is that over time, we can only give an interpretation of the events of history, true, without myth-making; we can only call a spade a spade. We can’t change the result anymore.
    So the analysis of the Battle of Prokhorov is interesting, as it is an attempt to tell the truth, without slogans and ideological turns. With an eye on the end result smile hi
    Article plus
    1. +3
      13 July 2018 07: 49
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But the final result plays a key role in the debate - the one who won the war as a whole won.

      I don’t agree with this line ... For then, all the defeats of France in 1940 do not matter, since they ended the war as part of the winners ... By the way, this also applies to all the Balkans are strange (Yugoslavia and Greece were occupied, the rest were allies Germany) .... I would rather call it a Pyrrhic victory ...
      1. +8
        13 July 2018 08: 40
        I understood you correctly: do you call the Pyrrhic victory a victory in the Great Patriotic War?
        Those. won the French, Belgians, Danes and other Greeks, and we, the silver-winged, as always in the losers?
        Maybe you should ask the question who won what? The French, for example, won their croissants, the pristine Eiffel Tower and other nishtyaks for only one reason: Stalin wanted to see the frogs among the winners.
        The stakes of our country were immeasurably greater: the life of a whole nation. Socially, culturally and ideologically close Europeans did not have such a task. One way or another, there was no antagonism between them and Hitler.
        1. +1
          13 July 2018 08: 57
          Quote: Moore
          The stakes of our country were immeasurably greater: the life of a whole nation.

          That is, victory is that not everyone was killed, did I understand you correctly?
          Quote: Moore
          Those. won the French, Belgians, Danes and other Greeks

          And the Germans, Japanese, Italians.
          Quote: Moore
          are we self-styled, as always in losers?

          More balts, Eastern Europe, primarily Poland, China. Well, the GDR, of course.
        2. +1
          13 July 2018 10: 24
          In WWII, the French lost the French Empire (Algeria, Indochina, African colonies).

          Now France is a contingent country in Europe.
        3. +1
          13 July 2018 10: 39
          Quote: Moore
          The French, for example, won their croissants, the pristine Eiffel Tower and other nishtyaks for only one reason: Stalin wanted to see the frogs among the winners.

          From Stalin, it was a compromise. The French were sold by Churchill and Roosevelt - they wanted to pick up not two-thirds of Germany, but three-quarters under their zone of occupation.
          Without compromise on both sides, it would not have been possible to agree on anything.
        4. +5
          13 July 2018 10: 52
          Dear Andrey, before rushing to people in a fit of urapatriotic nonsense, read and think about what I wrote ...
          These are:
          1) I completely disagree with the expression that it doesn’t matter who won the battle, but only who won the war ... For the same French, Greeks and Yugoslavs blew almost all the battles with the Germans in WWII, but they are considered winners ... Those same Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, etc. generally fought on the side of Germany, but are also considered winners, because at the end of the war they were already on the other side of the conflict ...
          2) Under Prokhorovka there was essentially a draw, or rather a Pyrrhic victory for both sides (namely, Prokhorovka and not the entire arc), as the Germans broke through the defenses, gained a foothold, repelled the counterattack, but there was no more strength to move on! For our country, too, the Pyrrhic victory, because the Wehrmacht breakthrough section was not identified correctly, lost an entire tank army, but were able to stop ...
          3) Where is at least a phrase about our worthlessness? Maybe in your head, because apparently it is otherwise empty ...
          1. 0
            13 July 2018 11: 15
            Quote: parma
            There was essentially a draw near Prokhorovka, or rather a Pyrrhic victory for both sides (namely, Prokhorovka and not the entire arc), as the Germans broke through the defenses, gained a foothold, repelled a counterattack, but there was no more strength to move on! For our country, too, the Pyrrhic victory, because the Wehrmacht breakthrough section was not identified correctly, lost an entire tank army, but were able to stop ...

            Why lie so ornately? In the end. Who rolled west, retreating, are we or Germans? According to History, the Germans, who were never able to collect at least something similar to what they had near Kursk.
            Pyrrhic victory, at least you have studied what this means. So it means from history that King Pyrrh. Having won the next battle of the Romans, counting his losses, he said, is another such victory and I will be left without troops.
            Quote: parma
            For the same French, Greeks and Yugoslavs blew away almost all the battles with the Germans in WWII, but at the same time they are considered winners ... Those same Italians, Hungarians, Romanians and so on generally fought on the side of Germany, but are also considered winners, for at the end of the war they were already on the other side of the conflict ...

            Where are they listed among the winners? In the Act of Surrender, only we are recorded, and the Angles with Amrams. Yes, at the insistence of Stalin, francs, everything, more than there are no winners.
            1. 0
              13 July 2018 13: 58
              Quote: The Swordsman
              Why lie so floridly? In the end. Who rolled west, retreating, are we or the Germans? According to History, the Germans, who were never able to collect at least something similar to what they had near Kursk. Pyrrova victory, you at least learned what it means. and it means it’s from history that Tsar Pyrrh. having won the next battle of the Romans, having counted his losses, said one more such victory and I would be left without troops.

              I’m talking about Prokhorovka now ... There (NOT ON THE KURSK ARC !!!! as I wrote above) was a draw! Because no one fulfilled his goal in this battle! It’s just better nowhere to fit the definition of Pyrrhic victory ...
              Quote: The Swordsman
              Where are they listed among the winners? In the Act of Surrender, only we are recorded, and the Angles with Amrams. Yes, at the insistence of Stalin, francs, everything, more than there are no winners.

              Following WWII, there are 2 losers - Japan and Germany ... the rest are formally winners! At least, because no one paid for the repair (yes yes, WWII is a little broader concept than WWII)! If only the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and France won, in the UN Security Council does China as a permanent member?
              1. 0
                13 July 2018 15: 08
                Quote: parma
                It’s just better nowhere to fit the definition of Pyrrhic victory ...

                It doesn’t fit in any way. The Germans’ task to reach Kursk was not fulfilled at all. Our mission to frustrate the offensive, exhaust the enemy, and go on the offensive is complete.
                After the collapse of the Citadel, the Germans rolled west, so if you use the notion of Pyrrhic victory, then with respect to the German tank forces.
                Quote: parma
                Following WWII, there are 2 losers - Japan and Germany ... the rest are formally winners!

                There is no such thing as “formal” winners; there is a clearly defined circle of countries that can be considered winners in that war — the USSR, the USA, England, France, and China.
                Quote: parma
                At least, because no one paid for the repair (yes yes, WWII is a bit broader concept than WWII)

                The same Italy paid for the reparations. In the end, before declaring so loudly something. Although I would like to say something to Claudia. I asked for a search query, from where and how reparations were taken. Https: //w.histrf.ru/articles/article/ sh
                ow / rieparatsii_sovietskomu_soiuzu
    2. +3
      13 July 2018 08: 34
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But the final result plays a key role in the debate - the one who won the war as a whole won.

      You see, this is not just a lie, it is a criminal lie. With its help, there is an opinion, Glavpur and personally Comrade. Epishev scored many nails in the coffin of the Soviet army. There were other carpenters, of course, but these may have worked best.

      When parsing any operation, it does not matter who won, and even more so who won two years later. There are armies that always won, in every war, for decades. But every time they studied.
      It is necessary to establish what was done right, what was done wrong. Right and wrong exist. Of course, apart from victory.
      1. +1
        13 July 2018 10: 12
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        With its help, there is an opinion, Glavpur and personally Comrade. Epishev scored many nails in the coffin of the Soviet army.


        And what Epishev didn’t please you, it’s the state’s political guys. What, it affected the BP. And the Academy gave so much material (no one lied) and it was clear that ours screwed up under Prokhorovka.
        And the Germans, in the entire summer campaign of 1943.
        1. 0
          13 July 2018 17: 09
          Quote: chenia
          What, it affected the BP. And at the Academy they gave so much material (no one lied) and it was clear

          It was heard that it’s time to live like this, the public isn’t the time, the officers cannot. However, I didn’t study at the General Staff Academy in Soviet times, I won’t lie.

          Do you know a serious published analytics for the same Kursk of the Soviet era?
          1. +1
            13 July 2018 18: 12
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            that it’s time to live like this - time is public, officers aren’t time - you can’t


            Well, you give, in Soviet times, those who concerned it possessed relevant information (those who should draw conclusions, eliminate shortcomings and report on implementation). . And the rest of the public why upset. Well, is it interesting to know about all the reports of the Ministry of Internal Affairs? The current media will lay out everything - and what has become easier to live in, one disorder - how terrible is the world ?.
            And so more optimism and joy, which is what distinguished the Soviet man ..
            1. 0
              14 July 2018 06: 25
              Quote: chenia
              relevant information was available to those concerned

              Again.
              My statement about the role of Glavpur in suppressing the analysis of the operations of the Second World War is the opinion of third parties, moreover, persons of very definite views regarding any political officers (and members of the military council).
              What you write is IMHO or do you know for sure? If you know, can you give examples?
  8. +12
    13 July 2018 07: 43
    Quote: svp67
    Quote: Vard
    Our troops still won the battle of Prokhorovka ...

    But he doesn’t have to explain it. We LOSED this fight. The field near Prokhorovka remained sn Germans. But in the end, we won the Battle of Kursk.

    From a tactical point of view .., a draw. None of the parties completed their tasks. Neither 2 TC SS, nor the 5th Guards T.TA.
    But, this draw was a disaster for the Germans, because nowhere in three key areas (north, south and southeast) they could not achieve operational success. All of their “wedges” were rolled off, and there were no more reserves.
    And we still had some fresh forces left in the form of a slightly confused Steppe Front.
    So a tactical draw further resulted in a strategic victory.
    1. 0
      13 July 2018 09: 02
      100500+
      good
      I agree!
    2. 0
      13 July 2018 10: 42
      Quote: BigRiver
      This draw was a disaster for the Germans, because nowhere in three key areas (north, south and southeast) they could not achieve operational success. All of their “wedges” were rolled off, and there were no more reserves.
      And we still had some fresh forces left in the form of a slightly confused Steppe Front.

      The Germans had a tank corps in reserve, but Hitler refused to transfer it to Manstein. He understood that he would soon have to look for something to plug holes in.
  9. +3
    13 July 2018 07: 47
    We can scold the author, praise him, nothing will change from this, yes, at the cost of huge losses they won, we remember, we are proud, but we need to know the history and understand that there were valor and cowardice, courage and betrayal, there were successful operations and failing.
  10. +1
    13 July 2018 08: 45
    almost literal translation of the muddy Fritzevskaya agitation "Das Deutscher Panzer" of the year about 2000 ----
  11. +1
    13 July 2018 09: 11
    Where are the maps and battle patterns, where is the third time I ask? Write an article, give a complete picture of the battles, especially when pointing out the directions of strikes!
  12. +5
    13 July 2018 09: 26
    A year after the Battle of Kursk, P. Rotmistrov removed from the command of the 5th Guards TA for illiterate leadership. P.A. Rotmistrov was a good theorist, but a poor strategist. Questions to him arose throughout the war. Where he is - there are huge losses and often unfulfilled tasks. In 1948 he became deputy head of the department of the Higher Military Academy named after K.E. Voroshilova, not having a specialized education. He received it only in 1953 at the same academy. The losses near Prokhorovka were huge, but the task of covering the rear of the Voronezh Front was completed. Here they talk about the defeat of the Germans in the Kursk. Yes, they suffered losses ... and withdrew. The losses of the Red Army were much greater. Only after 3 weeks it was possible to deliver a crushing blow to the Germans. Near Belgorod 5 guards. the tank army stopped again, giving the Germans time to regroup. As a result, he suffered unjustified losses. Aviation ... Remember the epic Liberation of the war veteran Yu.N. Ozerova? Part of the Arc of Fire. About the pilots at least. There were cases of inconsistency with the ground units, as a result of which their own units were bombed. Affected by poor preparation. Whatever the fans of the Red Army strategists would say, the Germans managed to impose their conditions on the battle near Prokhorovka. They lost the battle, but retained the main strength.
    1. +1
      13 July 2018 09: 50
      Well, "Exemption" is not an argument for evaluating aviation performance. In all other parts, not only in the "Arc of Fire", there is little about aviation, to say nothing. hi
    2. +2
      13 July 2018 10: 33
      Quote: Pattern
      They lost the battle, but retained the main strength

      And so non-stop until unconditional surrender in Berlin laughing

      Do you even understand that the "main forces", i.e. almost all German prisoners of war (of the order of 10-15 million) should have been sentenced to mass punishment for the massive violation of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and another million 10 Germans - there for genocide?

      Logically, after WWII, Germany should have been erased from the map of Europe (see Churchill's proposal).
      1. +1
        13 July 2018 10: 37
        Quote: Operator
        Logically, after WWII, Germany should have been erased from the map of Europe (see Churchill's proposal).

        In this case, Hitler's Nazism is different from Anglo-Saxon Nazism? Even though the ancestors of Nazism are the British ..
        1. +2
          13 July 2018 10: 45
          It is necessary to distinguish crimes from retribution for crimes.
          1. 0
            13 July 2018 11: 03
            Quote: Operator
            It is necessary to distinguish crimes from retribution for crimes.

            Hitlers come and go. And Germany and the German people remain.
            Do you know who said that and why?
            But do you know that the ideas of Chechrchill were connected only with old desire? To hide the fact that the world massacre was organized not least by the filing of the English royal house and the ruling Anglo-Saxon ruling party in general?
            Roosevelt didn’t support the idea of ​​Churchill, what does this mean?
    3. +2
      13 July 2018 10: 38
      "They" (Red Army) the battle (Kursk) won. But did the Red Army lose Prokhorovsoe battle? The issue of achieving the goals facing the parties. Manstein went to Kursk? No. Destroyed to the end of the battle? No. Stopped? Yes. Are Manstein's goals fulfilled? No. Are Rotmistrov's goals fulfilled? Partially. Where is the loss and who?
    4. 0
      13 July 2018 17: 15
      They retained strength and began to retreat. Apparently with these very saved forces.
  13. +1
    13 July 2018 09: 45
    Both the Germans and our Prokhorov battle turned out to be a forced unpleasant surprise.
    For Manstein, a head-on meeting with Rotmistrov’s army instead of going to Kursk.
    For Rotmistrov, a head-on meeting instead of a blow to Manstein’s flank.
    They cannot be blamed for this surprise. Intelligence may not know everything.
    And when they clashed on the forehead ... Here, as in a short fight. Thresh until the enemy lies down. Breaking the distance is risky. The enemy may be faster.
    1. +1
      13 July 2018 17: 42
      Quote: Dooplet11
      Both the Germans and our Prokhorov battle turned out to be a forced unpleasant surprise.
      For Manstein, a head-on meeting with Rotmistrov’s army instead of going to Kursk.

      Not everything is so simple. At VIF2-NE at one time there were quotes from foreign works on the Kursk Bulge, based on German documents. And they claimed that Rotmistrov’s counterattack was predicted and expected even before the start of the Citadel.
      1. 0
        13 July 2018 22: 52
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Not everything is so simple. At VIF2-NE at one time there were quotes from foreign works on the Kursk Bulge, based on German documents. And they claimed that Rotmistrov’s counterattack was predicted and expected even before the start of the Citadel.

        By the way, yes. There everything as a whole was correctly calculated. And - we discover a small terrible military secret - from the German side there were not enough hopes for the tactical and operational success of the Citadel. In general, they did not hope to get a "beautiful ring" in the style of the summer of 41, the summer of 42. The Germans, as they claimed, by and large wanted to do something in the style of the “second Verdun” in order to grind the increased Soviet power ...
  14. +1
    13 July 2018 10: 14
    More like fiction.
  15. +1
    13 July 2018 10: 17
    In my opinion, the Battle of Kursk is without a doubt the greatest in history, in such a gigantic battle, of course, everything cannot be 100% perfect ... there were mistakes and miscalculations, but perhaps thanks to her, the practically perfect Bagration operation was born ...
    1. +1
      13 July 2018 15: 16
      Well, "Bagration" was the finest hour of Rokossovsky, whom I consider the most talented and successful of the commanders of the Red Army. If he was responsible for the Battle of Kursk, maybe the result was different
    2. +1
      13 July 2018 22: 53
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      In my opinion, the Battle of Kursk is without a doubt the greatest in history, in such a gigantic battle, of course, everything cannot be for all 100%

      The largest and most neglected tank masses were the great and forgotten 41 tank battle of the year in the Rivne-Lutsk-Brody region. But ... there the Red Army purely lost (speaking roughly, having 3000 tanks against German 800), and therefore they say nothing about it.
      1. 0
        14 July 2018 23: 52
        During the 40 days of the war, 41 our army lost 11000 tanks - this is the lack of fuel, spare parts and the entrance of the battles - destroyed and wrecked.
  16. 0
    13 July 2018 10: 36
    Quote: Captain Pushkin
    Quote: Andrey Sukharev
    The author, I hope, will provide a letter from Rotmistrov to Zhukov in the future. Everything is written there, why the whole tank army died.

    In general, Rotmistrov wrote correctly, but this does not in any way justify him in the fact that he killed the tank army in one day. Moreover, there were only a few dozen Tigers and Panthers near Prokhorovka.

    But were the Panthers there? In my opinion several tigers were transferred, but mostly the panthers were in another area, although I may be mistaken
    1. 0
      13 July 2018 11: 42
      Quote: Andrey VOV
      But were there the Panthers?

      On the southern front of the Kursk ledge as part of the German Army Group South, the 10th German brigade attacked, numbering 204 Panthers. The structure of one tank and four motorized divisions of the SS was 133 “Tigers”.
      On the northern front of the ledge in the Army Group Center, there were 21 Tigers in the 45st Tank Brigade. They were reinforced by 90 self-propelled units "Elephant", known here under the name "Ferdinand"
      http://www.xliby.ru/transport_i_aviacija/tehnika_
      i_vooruzhenie_1998_11_12 / p12.php
  17. +17
    13 July 2018 10: 37
    The state farm “Oktyabrsky” and altitude 252,2 during the battle changed hands several times and only after 17.00 the enemy was knocked out of the enemy for the last time from altitude 252.2 and it remained with the Soviet troops ... Between 14.00 and 14.30 the Germans almost completely stopped the attack tank corps and their brigade after losses incurred mainly lost their combat effectiveness. ... The German offensive was only stopped.

    1. The Soviet troops "lost" their combat effectiveness already at 14:30, but at 17:00 they drove the enemy out of the attack. The German troops did not suffer losses and beat the fighting, the Soviet lost their combat effectiveness, but the battlefield remained behind them? It’s not beating anything in life. The combat effectiveness of the troops is not measured only by the number of fighting tanks. If you lost a lot of tanks, but the infantry and artillery occupied and hold the object of attack, this is already a success.
    2. The offensive of the German troops beat "only 'stopped." Combatability "Soviet troops stopped the advance of the" combat-ready "enemy. To stop the only successful German offensive at this point, this is the failure of the German operation" Citadel ".
    3. It will be interesting to see how the author compares the losses of the two sides. I have a reasonable assumption that there will be a comparison of all the losses of Soviet tanks with some sort of calculation of only the irretrievable losses of German tanks in a very short period. During this period, the battlefield remained for the Soviet troops and in the next period the Germans also retreated, so that only part of the Soviet losses of tanks was irretrievable. On the other hand, part of the repairable German tanks, the Germans could not evacuate during the subsequent retreat. In addition, tanks are not the only and main loss in the battle. Even the notorious Carius in his memoirs, “Tigers in the Mud,” indicates that “the infantryman is more important than the Tiger.” He does not imagine any offensive or defense where his own infantry is retreating, defeat or not.
    1. +2
      13 July 2018 11: 24
      Tested it with pleasure!
    2. +2
      13 July 2018 17: 55
      Quote: Kostadinov
      It will be interesting to see how the author compares the losses of the two sides. I have a reasonable assumption that there will be a comparison of all the losses of Soviet tanks with some sort of calculation of only the irretrievable losses of German tanks in a very short period. During this period, the battlefield remained for the Soviet troops and in the next period the Germans also retreated, so that only part of the Soviet losses of tanks was irretrievable.

      By the way, yes. Tank irrevocability is determined by those who left the battlefield. It is the winner who gets all the remaining vehicles, and it is he who transfers all his damaged tanks to “repaired” ones (with their return to service), and damaged enemy tanks - to those destroyed or captured (that is, to irrevocability).
      If the battlefield remained behind us, the losses of 18 and 29 mk would not have been so huge, and the “Leibstandart” and “das Reich” would have had to smear the losses over a couple of months. smile
      By the way, a classic example of the importance of control over the battlefield is Stalingrad. In one of the sections of the northern front, the number of destroyed domestic tanks discovered by our trophies was almost 20 times higher than the number of detected German tanks. The reason is simple: every time our advancing infantry battalions were forced to roll back, the Germans returned to their trenches - and our damaged non-propelled tanks turned into destroyed ones. And the German were pulled back for repair, from which they again went out onto the battlefield.
      But in 1943 the situation changed - the same “panthers” after Kursk massively went into irrevocability, either remaining damaged on the battlefield left behind by us or abandoned on the side of the road due to the impossibility of evacuation before our forces approached.
  18. 0
    13 July 2018 10: 53
    "Our tank crews, having got out of their wrecked vehicles, looked for enemy crews who were also left without equipment on the field and fired from pistols, grabbed into melee ..."
    somehow suspicious.
    And, one of the "experts" wrote that the tigers and panthers were there, some that were not, did not have time.

    Who is in the know? What is the view of their participation now?
  19. +4
    13 July 2018 10: 56
    In the first part of the author, the term “defeated” appeared in relation to the corps of the 5-th tank army of Rotmistrov.
    Here is the 6-th army of Paulus was defeated. Ceased to exist. And the “defeated” 18 Corps took Budapest and Vienna.
    Like the little things with the wording. But how the perception of events is changing.
    1. +2
      13 July 2018 11: 13
      Well, taking into account those losses ... it’s just that these units were not disbanded, but were staffed again and continued fighting ... the same 20 army, it was of the first and second formation ..
      1. +1
        13 July 2018 11: 36
        I do not argue. Losses are big. But "big losses and recruitment for replenishment" is not equal to "rout". Part suffered losses. Not fully completed the combat mission. Yes. Allowed the enemy to fulfill his task and ceased to exist? No. Where is the rout?
      2. +3
        13 July 2018 11: 40
        Quote: Andrey VOV
        she was the first and second formation ..

        And?
        And what is it called then?
        "Of the 20 tank and motorized divisions that took part in the Battle of Kursk, 7 were defeated, and the rest suffered significant losses. The chief inspector of the Wehrmacht tank forces, General Guderian, was forced to admit:" As a result of the failure of the Citadel offensive, we were decisively defeated. Armored troops replenished with such great difficulty, because of the large losses in people and equipment for a long time were disabled ... The initiative finally passed to the Russians. "" http://www.pomnivoinu.ru/home/reports/
        1493 /
        This is a recognition of beaten Germans. Consequently, the battle on the Kursk Bulge was won by us as a turning point in the war.
        1. 0
          13 July 2018 20: 03
          Quote: The Swordsman
          And what is it called then?
          "Of the 20 tank and motorized divisions that took part in the Battle of Kursk, 7 were defeated, and the rest suffered significant losses

          That's right, the part may suffer losses in 70% of the equipment, for example- (by the way, in the same article Guderian gives a specific percentage), but the German forces were initially less, but the losses of the Red Army were greater. By the way, there was a decent T-4 x fleet in German units
  20. kig
    +1
    13 July 2018 11: 37
    Better take it and read the books of Zamulin themselves about the Battle of Kursk and Prokhorovka, a few of them. All the same, the author refers to it. Zamulin studied these events for almost his whole life, and delved into the archives, so that would be much more informative.
    1. 0
      13 July 2018 11: 49
      Of course, it is better to read the source than retelling it. But here is a retelling. We discuss it. Drawing on other sources. Not only on Zamulin.
    2. +1
      13 July 2018 11: 57
      In the next branch with the feather, part of the article cited from Zamulin:
      17.00 11 July in the operational subordination of P.A. Rotmistrov transferred 2-th mc and 2-th Guards. Ttk. As a result, the number of tank corps of his army increased to four, and the number of armored vehicles increased by more than 200 units and amounted to a total of 931 tank, 42 SU-76 and SU-122, as well as 12 SU-152, including 581 T- 34 (62,4%) and 314 T-70 (33,7%). Of this number, 797 tanks and 43 self-propelled guns were in service in the area where the main forces were concentrated (east of Prokhorovka), the rest were under repair and on the way. A few more cars came up in the morning, before the attack in the 5 Guards. TA on the go there were 808 tanks and 32 SU-76 and SU-122.
      Three tank corps - 18, 29 and 2 Guards. The commanders of the first echelon of the army’s strike group had on the morning of July 12 in the ranks of 538 tanks and 20 self-propelled guns. The main blow was to be delivered first by the compounds of Generals B.S. Bakharova and I.F. Kirichenko.
      In the morning before the attack, both corps had 368 tanks and 20 self-propelled guns in service, therefore, the density of armored vehicles on the 1 km of the front was originally supposed to reach almost 56 units. In fact, they were able to achieve even more - 60 tanks at 1 km, not including self-propelled guns. Therefore, the hopes of the Soviet command to split the 2 SS mall seemed quite reasonable. And given that then more than two hundred tanks of the second echelon (5th Guards ZMK - 158 Tanks and 2th Tank - 59 Tanks) were to join the battle together with the infantry of the 5 Guards. And, then the breakthrough on 30 km seemed to be a difficult business, but quite feasible.

      There are questions:
      1. In the first echelon of 538 + 20 (three enclosures, - 18,29,2 (s))
      2. Before the attack 368 + 20. (Suddenly already both buildings (c)) Where did 200 go and another case? In the second tier?
      3. In the second echelon (when and in what composition was he introduced into the battle?) 158 + 59 = 217
      If we add up 568 and 217, we get 785. doesn't match this:
      before the attack in the 5 guards. TA on the go there were 808 tanks and 32 SU-76 and SU-122.
      So how many tanks participated in the battle?
      Some kind of confusion with the numbers in the quoted quote of Zamulin. In any case, what figures do not take, if you do not subtract light tanks, the balance of forces 3: 1, stated by the author of the article, does not work. maximum (840 / 294) 2,85: 1. But, if the author takes into account light tanks in the balance, why not take into account armored personnel carriers and armored cars? Or anti-tank guns? How are full units in the calculation? Or well him, such a calculation of the balance of power and all the logical construction of evidence of "defeat and tragedy"?
      1. +1
        13 July 2018 18: 04
        Quote: Dooplet11
        There are questions:
        1. In the first echelon 538 + 20 (three buildings, - 18,29,2 (s))
        2. Before the attack, 368 + 20. (Suddenly both buildings (c)) Where did the 200 and one more case go? In the second tier?

        I already gave the answer. smile
        Of the three buildings of the first echelon, two - 18 and 29 mk - went in the direction of the main attack, against the “Leibstandart”. Another - 2 Guards. Ttk - advancing on the left flank of 5th Guards. TA, to the left of 2 TC (non-guards), against Das Reich .. This building is usually not even visible on maps - its offensive line goes under the lower edge.
        Quote: Dooplet11
        3. In the second echelon (when and in what composition was he introduced into the battle?) 158 + 59 = 217
        If we add 568 and 217, we get 785. it does not converge

        PMSM, in the number of buildings of the second echelon their self-propelled guns are not taken into account. Also not taken into account self-propelled guns army divisions. Here are the numbers and scattered. smile
        On entering the battle of the second echelon:
        2 mk just left the four-day battles, and not all - on July 11, one of his brigades continued to fight surrounded. Therefore, this corps was expended in reinforcing infantry in its defense zone.
        5 guards ZMK two brigades covered the flank of 5 Guards. TA, and two - served as Rotmistrov's only reserve. Commander 5 Guards The TA wanted to leave him to develop success at 10:45 on July 12 - but subsequent reports and a difficult situation with the neighbors of 5 A forced Rotmistrov to keep brigades of 5 guards. ZMK in reserve.
  21. +2
    13 July 2018 11: 58
    Quote: Rurikovich
    ...
    But the final result plays a key role in the debate - the one who won the war as a whole won.
    ...

    This is a true idea, but why present the failed Prokhorovka as part of the more global events that occurred later. So you can reduce all the defeats in WWII to the result of 45 years and say that there were victories in all of them - because in the end, they won. And look at the results of Prokhorovka as if we won as a result. However, if we look in the same way at the results of the victory of 45 over the fascists from the height of today, it is not clear who won whom? Today, under Europe lies the whole of Europe, France is only a little fluttering, and England is trying to escape from there. Well, they defeated them locally with weapons, which is obvious, but the Germans still captured everyone in Europe with the economy. So who defeated whom in 45? In fact, it turned out to be a local success.
    1. 0
      13 July 2018 12: 21
      So what is the “failure and defeat" of Prokhorovka? From the point of view and height of the commander of a front or army group? The points? Just do not appeal to losses. Losses are the price of victory or defeat. But not the "defeat" itself.
  22. 0
    13 July 2018 12: 32
    Quote: Captain Pushkin
    Quote: BigRiver
    ...... All of their "wedges" were rolled off, and there were no more reserves ....

    The Germans had a tank corps in reserve, but Hitler refused to transfer it to Manstein. He understood that he would soon have to look for something to plug holes in.

    On the 12th Kutuzov began in the north. Plus constant straining on the Mius front. So, these two divisions can be considered a reserve for the whole south-west, and not for the southern front.
    In addition, speaking generally in Kursk, I think, and not only me winked that it wasn’t not enough shock compounds, but viscous ones - infantry. Which would hold and expand breakthroughs, creating the prerequisites for further promotion of the TC.
  23. -1
    13 July 2018 14: 55
    It was necessary to deploy two Katyush divisions and roll the Nazis into the ground. And then to advance ... As I put on my belt, everything is dumb and dumb ... wassat
  24. +2
    13 July 2018 15: 18
    The main thing under Prokhorovka was done - the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS lost their offensive potential and the Eastern Front finally rolled to the West.
    It would probably not be entirely correct to call the battle of Prokhorovka “the tragedy of Soviet tankers”, it was the tragedy of tankers, artillerymen, foot soldiers, signalmen, pilots, etc. Moreover, both Soviet and German.
    1. 0
      13 July 2018 22: 57
      Quote: Cannonball
      The Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS lost their offensive potential and the Eastern Front finally rolled to the West.

      And what was there in the area of ​​Zhytomyr and Kiev then? aren't tank panzerwaffers counterattacks?
      And what was there in Normandy? aren't the German tank counterattacks ending in the Falezsky cauldron?
      But in the Ardennes, weren't German tanks hit our Anglo-American "partners"?
      And what about the Balaton operation, didn’t you hear at all?

      The enormity and globality of the confrontation gave an extremely complex scheme, and you should not simplify everything ...
      1. 0
        14 July 2018 12: 44
        You do not confuse offensive potential with counterattack capabilities. A sortie "out of the toilet" may well be a counterattack, but no way - an offensive. A counterattack is always a "number two game." And I'm talking about the ability to "dictate" the terms of the company. This is the opportunity the Nazis just lost. From mid-July 1943 they could only defend and retreat, holding back the enemy with counterattacks that only delayed the end of the Third Reich, but did not save him.
        To a large extent this was facilitated by the landing of the allied forces in Sicily, which forced the Wehrmacht to "disperse" forces and refuse to continue the operation "Citadel". However, if there hadn’t been a massacre near Kursk, near Prkhorovka, the allies who landed in Italy would have simply dared into the sea, having arranged a second Dunkirk. If there was anything to save at all.
        But even if there had been no Sicily, German tanks would have stopped anyway. Later, with heavy losses, but stopped, because the Wehrmacht had almost no reserves, and attacking without reserves was pure suicide.
        1. +1
          14 July 2018 14: 36
          Quote: Cannonball
          To a large extent this was facilitated by the landing of the allied forces in Sicily, which forced the Wehrmacht to "disperse" forces and refuse to continue the operation "Citadel". However, if there hadn’t been a massacre near Kursk, near Prkhorovka, the allies who landed in Italy would have simply dared into the sea, having arranged a second Dunkirk. If there was anything to save at all.

          Dear, have you ever seen maps?
          Firstly, Sicily is just an island, it is not possible to develop an offensive on the continent by definition.
          Secondly, in the Battle of Kursk from Germany more than a million soldiers were concentrated, and 40 Germans were in Sicily, which comparison can be discussed.
          Thirdly, the planned offensive operation is very difficult to stop, remember the artillery counter-training in the Kursk battle, the Germans still started the attack, although several hours later. The Kursk offensive ended not because of a landing in Sicily, but because the Germans' offensive potential was exhausted.
          Fourth, look where Sicily is and where Kursk is, and think about how long it takes to transfer any significant forces from under Kursk, it will take months.
          1. 0
            14 July 2018 18: 16
            Dear, but you do not seem to know the history of the 2nd World War. The Sicilian operation ended with the start of landing operations on mainland Italy, including from Sicily.

            About the influence of the Sicilian operation on the outcome of the operation "Citadel", explicit or possible, read this link:

            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%80%
            D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B2%
            D0% B0

            In part: "On the effect of the landing in Sicily on the continuation of Operation Citadel"

            The question of the need to transfer forces to Italy from the Eastern Front arose only after a political crisis erupted in Rome .... On July 25, the Duce was arrested. And Hitler decided that now he needed politically reliable parts in Italy. On July 26, he ordered the 3rd TGD to be promoted to the region of Rome and to transfer the 2nd SS Panzer Corps to Italy as soon as his divisions “could free themselves”. But the SS corps, despite Hitler’s decision, was left on the Eastern Front to eliminate numerous crises in the GA South zone. Only Italy was sent to Italy without tanks and other heavy weapons.

            At the same time, I completely agree with you that "the Kursk offensive did not stop because of the landing on Sicily, but because the offensive potential of the Germans was exhausted." What I wrote above.
          2. 0
            16 July 2018 10: 02
            Quote: E_V_N
            Firstly, Sicily is just an island, it is not possible to develop an offensive on the continent by definition.

            Montgomery with Eisenhower cried
  25. +5
    13 July 2018 15: 49
    Eternal memory and eternal glory to our grandfathers and great-grandfathers who survived this, did not lower their hands, squeezing the inhuman efforts of the enemy into his lair. Eternal glory to them.
  26. +3
    13 July 2018 16: 48
    Quote: The Swordsman
    The American historian M. Caydin in the book “Tigers Burn” describes the Battle of Kursk as “the greatest land battle that has ever taken place in history”, and does not agree with the opinion of many researchers in the West that it pursued limited, auxiliary ”goals.


    Here we are talking about the battle of Prokhorovka, and not about the Battle of Kursk as a whole.
    The American wrote about the Battle of Kursk.
    Naturally, the victory in the Battle of Kursk was a significant and turning point in the entire war.
    But the tank battle near Prokhorovka was local, and obviously not victorious for us.
    To the guise of a general victory in the Battle of Kursk, the result of the battle near Prokhorovka is greatly exaggerated.
    In fact, we stupidly lost an entire tank army there, without much damage to the Germans.
    This did not particularly affect the outcome of the entire Kursk battle, because we still had dofig of such armies there, and most importantly, other battles were more successful for us on other sectors of the front.
  27. +4
    13 July 2018 20: 16
    Quote: Vladimir 5
    This battle is considered won only in our propaganda with pictures of the oncoming tank battle, -. Feel the difference between PPR and the actual battle. These days, the Allies landed in Sicily (which is silent constantly) and Hitler stopped the attack, and sent the most combat-ready tank divisions (with the Tigers) to the rear, then they moved to Italy ... The enemy did not suffer defeat, suspended the attack and, for strategic reasons, withdrew main forces. Our Red Army suffered a defeat, because in a draw, losses, as the main criterion, while the opponents retained their fighting ability, determine the loser ... The command "genius", the Zhukovsky model of command of the battles, presented itself with all its beauty - put everyone in a stupid pressure, "women still bear people" ...

    Hello. Excuse me in advance when I didn’t swear, but for YOU the ignoramus the most important thing: “After the battle, the strategic initiative finally passed to the side of the Red Army, which continued to liberate the country from the German invaders and carried out mainly offensive operations until the end of the war. The Wehrmacht during the retreat from territory of the USSR pursued a policy of "scorched earth." "On the effect of landing in Sicily on the continuation of Operation Citadel. The operation would not be interrupted if it had the appearance of success. At the same time, the inability to continue the offensive by the army group Kluge ranks first among Hitler in the list of reasons that forced him to finally stop the operation ... But it was not the Allied landing on the island of Sicily that stopped the German attack near Kursk. He was stopped by Soviet soldiers and commanders. Too much effort and money was spent to stop everything. "Price" transfer of initiative into his own hands. From the author, I would also like his article on "Balaton Defensive Operation".
    1. -1
      16 July 2018 11: 09
      Quote: gray
      Sorry in advance when I did not swear but for YOU the ignoramus the most important thing

      Thank you. Only we ignorant people are talking about a specific battle and blah blah blah we ourselves know how
  28. +5
    13 July 2018 20: 35
    Judging by the author, the complete fiasco is in time for the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Kursk. One thing I forgot as soon as the Germans rushed to Prokhorovka on their right flank was 1TA Katukova, who, commanding a tank brigade, caused so much trouble to Guderian in the fall of 1941. Therefore, even after all that the author describes, the battle was lost in the operational sense by them. Going further, they more and more exposed their flank, exposing themselves to the impact of 1 TA. Therefore, they got out of there by doing the right thing, but they could not collect more of such forces. Therefore, Guderian and appreciated all this as a final loss.
  29. +1
    13 July 2018 21: 43
    A lot of literature on the Prokhorov battle. With excerpts from the documents. It is necessary to look at the battle path of the commander of Rotmistrov.
    After Prokhorovka, only the intercession of Vasilevsky saved Rotmistrov from the tribunal. According to rumors, Stalin called him to the carpet and said, “What are you a wise guy, he killed the army in one day and did nothing”. A commission was sent to the army under the leadership of Malenkov.
    In 1944, the army of Rotmistrov caused discontent from the General Headquarters during the Bagration operation. Again, due to the large losses during the capture of Minsk.
    Finally, Chernyakhovsky could not stand the confrontation. For the capture of Vilnius at the request of Chernyakhovsky, Rotmistrov was removed from command of the army. And Volsky was appointed in his place.
    On this, the combat activity of Rotmistrov ended.
    So the results of the Prokhorov battle are not an exception, but the style of Rotmistrov’s work. The man was not suitable for the post of commander.
  30. +6
    14 July 2018 07: 46
    Prokhorovskaya tragedy of Soviet tankmen.

    The title of the article immediately characterizes the position of the author. Another attempt to present historical facts, as a series of fatal miscalculations and mistakes of the Soviet army. That is the tragedy of the Soviet tankmen.
  31. 0
    14 July 2018 20: 40
    In the historical literature of 50 in the USSR, the events of this tank battle are described differently. Take in hand the book of the military publishing house of the USSR Ministry of Defense "World War II 1939 - 1945 years.", Edition 1958. The publishing house presents this book as a military historical essay. On page 460 it says: "The main events of 12 July unfolded in the Prokhorovka area, where the 5 Guards Tank Army units attacking with a counter-attack faced the SS tank corps and the 3 tank corps of the Germans. counter the tank battle was won by our troops. "Further it is written that after the attack of our troops the Germans went over to the defense. In the text of the article that I am reading now, the opposite is the case. The military publishing house marked its collection as" Officer's Library ". There is no mention in the collection about gigantic casualties from the Soviet troops, exalted "... skillful use of tank armies, anti-tank artillery formations and a significant increase in the number of aircraft." I do not detract from the results of the Battle of Kursk, it played its role in the war. But the distortion ist Orientalists from the side of Soviet historians are now striking. The editor-in-chief of the collection is Lieutenant-General Platonov S.P. Interestingly, he was a participant in those events, had all the materials at hand, and the memory should not fail me yet. I think the authors of the collection collected material for print under the "sensitive guidance" of his own party, which was not profitable at that time to show readers, especially the officers of the postwar Soviet Army, all the bitterness of the past war, exposing only beautiful victories in the history of this war. I call it disinformation. Thanks to the author for the article.
  32. 0
    14 July 2018 21: 50
    By the way, the photo in the title is hardly related to the events described in the article.
    Although “Google” and “Yandex” refer to it when searching for the Battle of Prokhorovka, however, looking more closely, I caught myself thinking that it depicts tanks very similar to the T-34-85, which were not under Prokhorovka.
    If I'm wrong, please correct.

    It would seem a similar photo, but what is the difference with the top shot.
    1. 0
      14 July 2018 23: 56
      T 34 - 85 has other towers. This is T 34 - 76.
    2. +2
      15 July 2018 01: 35
      Quote: Cannonball
      Although “Google” and “Yandex” refer to it when searching for the Battle of Prokhorovka, however, looking more closely, I caught myself thinking that it depicts tanks very similar to the T-34-85, which were not under Prokhorovka.

      By the way, yes. The title photo of the article in the foreground is exactly T-34-85. Although the gun masks are not visible, but Stirlitz issues a parachute behind T-34-85 issue two fan caps in the aft of the tower roof.
      At the T-34-76 with a nut and a sheath, the back of the tower is narrower - and only one fan climbed onto the roof.

      By the way, it looks like the photo is also mirrored - the trencher at T-34-76 and T-34-85 is located on the left in the direction of travel. And the saw on the case is also mounted on the left.
      And if we actually see the tank from the port side, then this is definitely not the T-34-76. Because he has a pear sticking out of a periscope as tall as the turret itself on the roof of the tower in front of the cutlery on this board. But the T-34-85 doesn’t have this “pear” in front of the cutlery, but there is an antenna input related to the very side of the tower. And he is also visible in the picture.
      1. 0
        15 July 2018 08: 27
        My eyes caught on the long barrel of the "thirty-four" gun, which is more suitable for the T-34-85, besides the barrel is raised, which is also characteristic of the T-34-85. Plus - the shape and location of the mounted tanks. And finally, the tower hangs a little over the hull of the tank. The T-34-76 has a smaller tower, so it does not advocate for the dimensions of the hull. Well, I agree that the photo is mirrored. And if you compare with the photo I posted, taken just on the Kursk, then other differences are also visible. Fighters flee without rolling coats, run strictly behind the tanks, and not from the side and, especially, in front of them. Tanks are going very closely, and not as in a training range in orderly rows. Well and most importantly - the smoke from the explosions. I very much doubt that in the oncoming tank battle, the opponents will come closer without firing up to a "pistol" shot. As a result, I get the impression that the top photo is generally a movie frame of the post-war staged pseudo-chronicle filmed for epic films such as "Liberation" and the like.

        T-34-76


        T-34-85
  33. 0
    16 July 2018 09: 34
    [quote = Pilat2009] [quote = Swordsman] More than 70% of all combat-ready formations of Germany fought against us. There were enough satellites. [/ quote]
    How much specifically. give comparison figures for troops. Under Prokhorovka we had a third advantage. Lost more than 2 times in tanks at least
    1. 0
      16 July 2018 10: 58
      Quote: Pilat2009
      .Lose more than 2 times at least tanks

      What did you want to say?
      Where did the front-west or east roll?
      Who went on the offensive immediately after the phase of the active struggle on the Kursk Bulge, we or the Germans?
      And this is about the losses of Germany.
      http://planet-today.ru/stati/vzglyad-na-istoriyu/
      item / 69109-velikaya-lozh-o-malenkikh-poteryakh-ge
      rmanii
      Learn the story.
      1. 0
        16 July 2018 11: 19
        Quote: The Swordsman
        What did you want to say?

        I wanted to say that during Prokhorovka the losses were greater with a third advantage. That's all. If it doesn’t reach you. And if you calculate the total losses in the war, then generally Achtung
        1. 0
          16 July 2018 11: 54
          Quote: Pilat2009
          And this is about the losses of Germany

          By the way, there you have no specific loss figures, but only blah blah blah.
          I can distribute links to you too:
          https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2011/06/22_a_367115
          7.shtml

          And most importantly:
          When assessing irretrievable losses, it is necessary to rely primarily on the results of the registration of fatalities lost on file cabinets in the IX and XI departments of the Central Archive of the Ministry of Defense (TsAMO) of the Russian Federation, says Kirill Alexandrov, Ph.D. (Hist.), Senior researcher (majoring in Russian History) encyclopedic department of philological faculty of St. Petersburg State University.

          “There are more than 2009 million such personal cards, as I said in a conversation with me in a conversation with me in March 15, over XNUMX million (along with officers and political workers).
          Against that, blah blah blah doesn't work
          1. 0
            22 July 2018 22: 01
            Quote: Pilat2009
            When assessing irretrievable losses, it is necessary to rely primarily on the results of the registration of fatalities lost on file cabinets in the IX and XI departments of the Central Archive of the Ministry of Defense (TsAMO) of the Russian Federation, says Kirill Alexandrov, Ph.D. (Hist.), Senior researcher (majoring in Russian History) encyclopedic department of philological faculty of St. Petersburg State University.
            “There are more than 2009 million such personal cards, as I said in a conversation with me in a conversation with me in March 15, over XNUMX million (along with officers and political workers).

            And also with duplicates and errors:
            The historical and archival search center "Fate" of the association "War Memorials" began an unprecedented study on the example of the analysis of the irretrievable losses of the 43rd and 2nd Shock armies. At the same time, they did not consider their entire military path, but a certain place of military operations, where units and subunits of these armies suffered the greatest losses. For the 43rd Army of the Western Front, such a place was the bridgehead of Krasnaya Gorka, where fierce battles were fought in the final period of the battle for Moscow. According to TsAMO, on a small patch of land measuring 3,5 km by 2,5 km from March 1942 to March 1943, 4 military personnel were killed.
            ... the Red Army soldier - Sinkin Yakov Ivanovich - was "killed" on April 12, 1942, five hundred meters east of the village of Bolshoy Ustye. The wife of the front-line soldier Olga Nikolaevna told the search engines that on the day when Jacob was considered dead, he was wounded. Arrow picked up another unit and sent to the hospital. After healing, he falls into a new part. During the war, she received two funerals at Jacob, and soon the mourned husband returned home.
            When we dealt with the first thousand of those who were considered dead on the bridgehead, it turned out that one in ten fell into this list by mistake. Fighters to all deaths in spite (and contrary to archival information) left the bridgehead alive, many came to Berlin, and some still live.
            In the course of the study, employees of the War Memorials Association found duplication of loss accounting in a completely different interpretation. Some of the dead officers are still listed in the 9th department of the TsAMO - in the file cabinet for loss accounting of ordinary and sergeant personnel, says the head of the Fate center Vadim Martynov. And, of course, in his 11th archive department, which kept personal files!

            And Mr. Aleksandrov himself is a famous person ...
            Thus, one of the prerequisites for the defeat of sixteen Soviet armies and the capture of 3,8 million soldiers of the Red Army in 1941, fermentation and self-determination among prisoners of war, military service of more than one million Soviet citizens on the enemy side in 1941-1945, the creation of the Eastern Wehrmacht other anti-Soviet formations and personnel, which served as a source for the officer corps of the Armed Forces of the Armed Forces, was largely a manifestation of mass discontent with the regime and its activities, which have been carried out since the mid-1920s
            © from the dissertation of K.M. Aleksandrova “Generals and officer cadres of the armed formations of the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia in 1943–1946”
            1. 0
              23 July 2018 12: 23
              Quote: Alexey RA
              And Mr. Aleksandrov himself is a famous person ...

              Well, firstly he is not alone
              And secondly, since 2007, the file cabinet is filtered from repeats ""
              In general, it’s not particularly difficult to calculate, a person is called from a specific military registration and enlistment office and has not returned back. Yes and surnames lend themselves to analysis
  34. 0
    29 July 2018 00: 39
    there is a book "tigers are burning," the author is American - Martin Caydin (if I'm not mistaken). It is dedicated just to the Battle of Kursk and its assessment. He studied Nazi documents and copies of interrogations of captured Germans by the American authorities. So - There are directly opposing opinions on what happened at night after a grandiose tank battle. Some insist that the Russians remained on the battlefield to evacuate damaged tanks and rescue surviving crews. Others say that Rotmistrov was unable to destroy German tanks, which was his goal [24] and that he withdrew troops from the field for regrouping. Strong arguments are made in support of each of these points of view, but in the long run this would not do anything to the Germans. They lost at least half of their tanks that day, and Goth now totaled only 350 vehicles, while Rotmistrov still had more than 500. If even Hausser actually received this terrible, scorched earth as a trophy, it still was it is useless for him, and soon the German tanks will leave this area permanently. The battle of August 12, no matter how many losses the Russians count in the future, crushed the Germans' ability to dictate where and when the next battle will take place.
    Enraged Hitler removed Hausser Hausser from command, and German tanks soon retreated to lick their wounds and solve new problems in the form of massive Russian attacks on all fronts of the Kursk Bulge. The offensive ability was snatched from the Germans, who would never play the first violin again.
    On July 12, a death knell rang over German tank troops over a narrow strip of land between the river and the railway embankment. On the same day, Russian armies on adjacent fronts launched powerful blows against the Germans. Three days later, the Red Army made progress to a depth of fifteen to thirty miles.
    Twelve days after the largest tank battle ever fought overnight, the Russians reclaimed every foot of land the Wehrmacht had captured since Operation Citadel began on 5 July. In the area of ​​Orel, Kursk and Belgorod, the Germans threw seventeen tank, two motorized and eighteen infantry divisions on the Russians, and to their despair, they lost about 70 people only killed, 000 tanks, 2900 self-propelled guns, 195 field guns, 844 aircraft and more than 1392 cars destroyed.
    But the battles that broke out on this day were only the beginning of the great destruction of the German armed forces. - I repeat, the author did not use Soviet sources. Maybe enough to throw shit at the ancestors? They certainly did not deserve it. But Zamulina was broadcast on the echo of Moscow - the price of victory
  35. 0
    9 September 2018 17: 07
    thousand tanks where is the document
  36. 0
    11 October 2018 01: 33
    The photo is wonderful for an article on it T 34-85 that appeared at the front in December 43 according to some sources and according to others in January 44. In short, there were none under Prokhorovka!