Military Review

“Germans defeated near Prokhorovka”: British historian denied the victory of the Soviet army

310
“Germans defeated near Prokhorovka”: British historian denied the victory of the Soviet army

Statements by Soviet and Russian historians about the battle of Prokhorovka when two elite were destroyed tank German Army divisions are a lie. This conclusion was made by the British military historian, writes The Times.


According to the author of an article published in a British publication, a military historian from Great Britain, having done a great job, traced the fate of every German combat vehicle that took part in the battle of Prokhorovka. He "destroyed the myth" that "the Russians destroyed two elite SS tank divisions", in fact, German tankers irretrievably lost only five tanks.

Archival evidence proves that all but five German tanks survived and were destroyed only in the following months

- says the British historian.

This study is supported by another British specialist in modern stories by the name of Adam Ace, who also claims that about 200 tanks of the German army "inflicted tremendous damage" on the Russian tank army. It is alleged that the Russian forces exceeded the German three times.

Thus, British historians, relying on a detailed analysis of the documents of the German army captured by the Americans during the war, refute Russian and Soviet studies, which claimed that two German tank divisions were practically destroyed in the battles near Prokhorovka.

Wehrmacht logistics officers kept detailed documentation for each tank, self-propelled artillery mount and anti-tank gun, which could be identified by chassis numbers, which allowed (...) to restore the "fate" of every German combat vehicle from 1943 to beginning of 1944

- writes the edition.

This article caused a mixed reaction in Britain itself. Here are a few comments from readers:

Mrs m
What? Does a socialist government deceive its own people and the whole world? How is this possible?


Sixg

The losses and victims of Russia in World War II were huge. They are rightly proud and remember it as the Great Patriotic War. They don’t need to falsify history, the truth speaks for itself. But it was Stalinist communist Russia, and this regime was characterized by falsehood and distortion of reality. And still - under Putin

Maximus

Lying to the Russian authorities is a way of life, as in China

Simon hewitt

Winners always write history!


Philip maidens

The Soviet Union, with all its shortcomings, suffered huge casualties during World War II, when more than 20 million people died. Cases of Soviet propaganda, such as this tank battle, are possible, but one cannot ignore the fact that they defeated the most powerful army in history and reached Berlin, ending the war. Without this sacrifice, and sometimes without brilliant tactics, the war in the West would have gone on much longer and with greater human casualties

Roy greenwood

Thank you for clarifying the historical information. I always had the impression that the largest tank battle in history was near Kursk, when 2000 Soviet and German tanks took part. The Soviets won, in part thanks to intelligence provided by the British. Apparently, these data were so accurate that the commanders of the Soviet tank armies knew about the German plan earlier than the commanders of the German tank armies

Simon Adams

Thank God England and the Allies won the war, otherwise Germany would rule Europe ...
Photos used:
https://www.culture.ru/
310 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Tank hard
    Tank hard 16 June 2020 09: 58 New
    41
    What different dimensions do we live in. request
    1. Malyuta
      Malyuta 16 June 2020 10: 01 New
      41
      Near Kursk, the Red Army suffered heavy losses, but still broke the ridge of the Nazis.
      1. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 16 June 2020 11: 05 New
        17
        The Germans won many battles. In 1941, 1942 and even in 1943, BUT! ... The Germans lost the war!
        1. Pereira
          Pereira 16 June 2020 11: 31 New
          27
          This has long been disputed. Since the late 80s. Then the foremen of perestroika, then their children, the liberals, now Kolya from Urengoy.
          1. KAV
            KAV 16 June 2020 12: 18 New
            27
            Thank God England and the Allies won the war, otherwise Germany would rule Europe ...

            England won the war ??? Yes, they started it! The hypocrites are unfinished!
            How they lifted up to appropriate other people's victories! England did not suit the winners! The main thing is also formulated as well - England is ahead of the victory! I have no words!
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 16 June 2020 12: 50 New
              +8
              The British elites organized it ...
              1. hydrox
                hydrox 16 June 2020 20: 15 New
                +5
                Liberda is so happy about this article, as if it was she who entered Moscow on the armor of Hitler’s tanks.
                What are you enjoying, liberdians?
                This is because the Soviet army finally broke the ridge of the armored forces of the Wehrmacht and this EXCLUDED all possible abilities to go over to the Nazis in a counterattack, which the Germans could not do until the very end of the war.
                1. umah
                  umah 17 June 2020 10: 06 New
                  +3
                  The closer any date of memorable events or events dedicated to this date, the more "jam" gets out about these events in the media. It would be nice for the "partners" to have such bright dates: For example, the Independence Day of the SGA: This is a victory of some British over others, the Americans have nothing to do with it (because the Americans are Indians oppressed by the Europeans). About Britain, too, you can dig up a lot and dump them in the media. And so it should be on every date, every year!
                  1. hydrox
                    hydrox 17 June 2020 10: 28 New
                    -1
                    Yes it would not hurt ...
                    And since there are SUCH Russophobes of fifty under Russia’s barrel, in principle, even a small bureau for this business would not have caused the denyushka to be not the largest, but so that the pension a week after retirement does not feel completely impoverished.
          2. Pravodel
            Pravodel 18 June 2020 07: 00 New
            0
            As Field Marshal Prince Kutuzov asked in the film "Kutuzov" by Barclay de Tolly: who do you think won the battle, we or the French? ... And he answers: well, we certainly did not lose ....
            The French believe that not Russians won near Borodino, but they. So what? Let them consider what they want, even let Mars or Venus defeat ... France has lost the war, and this is a fact that Napoleon recognized and the French recognize. Not the French marched on the Champs Elysees, but ours, the Russian troops.
        2. hydrox
          hydrox 16 June 2020 20: 21 New
          +2
          A battle won is not a WAR, but PIRROVA VICTORY is by no means always VICTORY, such victories are often the forerunners of defeats - when there is simply NEVER anyone to fight!
          1. YOUR
            YOUR 17 June 2020 05: 13 New
            +1
            We would give them another battle from the series if they had caught up with us
            1. hydrox
              hydrox 17 June 2020 06: 16 New
              +2
              So did you run away from them?
              Then it’s clear why you don’t have an iconostasis - and the heroes of the Second World War had an iconostasis, as a rule ...
              My father had 2 edemas and 2 Cr. Stars, not counting "For Courage" and "For Military Merit," and what happened after the war - so no one considered it.
              1. hydrox
                hydrox 17 June 2020 10: 10 New
                +1
                Well, now the scoundrel-liberdian and my father have mined for military merits.
                Where do you creatures come from?
                1. major147
                  major147 17 June 2020 14: 44 New
                  -1
                  Quote: hydrox
                  Where do you creatures come from?

                  From Urengoy ....
            2. Sergey M. Karasev
              Sergey M. Karasev 17 June 2020 16: 29 New
              -6
              Quote: YOUR
              We would give them another battle from the series if they had caught up with us

              Do you mean that the battle was won by the GERMANS? If so, then I agree. hi
              1. hydrox
                hydrox 17 June 2020 16: 45 New
                +2
                You use a quote to me from someone else’s comment - is it not clear that I am NOT a Liberdian?
                1. Sergey M. Karasev
                  Sergey M. Karasev 17 June 2020 17: 49 New
                  -4
                  Sorry, I was mistaken in a hurry by the addressee.
              2. DMB_95
                DMB_95 17 June 2020 20: 42 New
                +1
                After the battle near Prokhorovka, the parties remained in positions held before the battle. The next day, the Germans began to withdraw troops due to the disastrous results of their tank attacks on the Kursk ledge as a whole. The battle near Prokhorovka did not allow the Germans to advance further on the southern front, and they did not have a second chance.
              3. Krasnoyarsk
                Krasnoyarsk 17 June 2020 22: 34 New
                +1
                Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev

                Do you mean that the battle was won by the GERMANS? If so, then I agree.

                A battle is considered to be won when the goals are achieved.
                What are the goals of the Germans? The defeat of Soviet troops near Kursk and the seizure of a strategic initiative on the eastern front. Are the goals achieved? - No!
                The objectives of the Soviet command - to defeat the main forces of the armies of the South and the Center and go on the offensive at the front from Smolensk to the Black Sea. The goal is achieved!
                So who won the battle of Kursk?
                1. Sergey M. Karasev
                  Sergey M. Karasev 18 June 2020 01: 50 New
                  -1
                  It remains to explain this to the British "historians".
                2. ager1751
                  ager1751 18 June 2020 17: 53 New
                  +1
                  The British do not question the outcome of the Battle of Kursk. It's about the battle of Pokhorovka.
                  1. good
                    good 20 June 2020 04: 25 New
                    0
                    They do not take into account what tasks the troops faced.
                    The Red Army was still defending at that time, it was a defensive operation for the Red Army, and our tank units counterattacked and repelled the Germans all desire to continue their offensive operation.
                    The result is that the Red Army remained in place and was not slaughtered in this area.
                    Yes, we had great losses, but the task was completed which cannot be said about the Germans.
                    And they could not break through and had to fall down.
              4. YOUR
                YOUR 19 June 2020 07: 08 New
                0
                And how else can you comment on this nonsense that the Germans won?
        3. Proxima
          Proxima 17 June 2020 09: 52 New
          +7
          The English author also forgot to remind about the famous bike, they say a handful of German armored vehicles have almost finished off hordes of red tanks, but it’s bad luck, the Allied offensive in Italy! The Panzerwaffe left the enemy who was almost defeated and let’s load into the echelons to plug the gap on the Apennine Peninsula! So in this way, our valiant allies saved the Red Army from a catastrophe, not only near Prokhorovka, but in the entire battle on the Kursk Bulge! Glory to them!
          1. major147
            major147 17 June 2020 14: 46 New
            +2
            Quote: Proxima
            English author still forgot to remind

            How is it that the Americans who "won" in 2 MV did not show up in the "Battle of Kursk"?
      2. Vol4ara
        Vol4ara 16 June 2020 12: 30 New
        +4
        Quote: Malyuta
        Near Kursk, the Red Army suffered heavy losses, but still broke the ridge of the Nazis.

        Stupid journalists are being poured from empty to empty, the strategic tasks set by the Germans to cut off the Kursk ledge were not fulfilled by them, therefore strategically this is the defeat of the Germans. Tactically, in almost all tank encounters, the Germans won, but the game was far from the same goal, so in the end, heavy losses put an end to the whole operation.
      3. seregatara1969
        seregatara1969 17 June 2020 09: 47 New
        0
        And in order to precisely lose at Kursk, the Russians also lost at Rzhev. And after that, the Germans in the German army began to quickly end for some reason. Yes, and in Germany, too. Many people ground that mill. These were people, and no matter what nation.
        1. DMB_95
          DMB_95 17 June 2020 20: 51 New
          0
          Important . It’s very important to me. I am generally not tolerant in principle.
      4. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 19 June 2020 06: 00 New
        0
        Quote: Malyuta
        Near Kursk, the Red Army suffered heavy losses, but still broke the ridge of the Nazis.
        those. figuratively (but for sure(!)...), it can be argued (Considering the video of the historian on the YouTube channel, given below in the discussion) that both sides won in tank battles and in battles near Prokhorovka (!) .... Well, to be more precise, in fact ....?! what That one side defeated the other, in terms of technology /quality (counting direct losses in tanks, guns and manpower of opponents) .... (!). But the second, in spite of some technological lags, overcame /outplayed quantitatively and strategically (which in the near future, gave her an emotionally psychological advantage over the enemy (!).....). yes
    2. Bashkirkhan
      Bashkirkhan 16 June 2020 10: 03 New
      17
      Under Prokhorovka, the battlefield remained behind the Wehrmacht. The losses were 5 to 1 for tanks from the Soviet tank armies. Well, following the results of the Battle of Kursk, we generally lost more. However, the Wehrmacht was outplayed strategically, the Germans were no longer able to recover from the Battle of Kursk.
      1. svp67
        svp67 16 June 2020 10: 06 New
        25
        Quote: Bashkirkhan
        Under Prokhorovka, the battlefield remained behind the Wehrmacht.

        Yes, but they did not fulfill their mission, Kursk remained behind us, although the Germans did the almost impossible by breaking through the main lines of our defense and that’s all ...
        But Prokhorovka is only one of many places where there were fierce battles and where the Germans achieved maximum success, in all others they were stopped earlier.
        1. Bashkirkhan
          Bashkirkhan 16 June 2020 10: 13 New
          -7
          Quote: svp67
          the Germans did the almost impossible by breaking through the main lines of our defense and all ...

          The Germans put the entire tank elite on the Kursk Bulge. But specifically under Prokhorovka, they all succeeded.
          1. svp67
            svp67 16 June 2020 10: 14 New
            19
            Quote: Bashkirkhan
            But specifically under Prokhorovka, they all succeeded.

            They would have succeeded if they had gone to Kursk, but no ... Before Kursk they had nothing left, they broke through all the main lines of defense and they really won such a victory, which the Englishman writes about, nothing kept them on the road to Kursk.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 16 June 2020 10: 25 New
              15
              Quote: svp67
              They would have succeeded if they had come to Kursk, but no ...

              Battle of Kursk. Here it definitely defeated the USSR.

              But the battle near Prokhorovka, there is less and less clear. There is an opinion that the Soviet side did not fulfill its tasks near Prokhorovka.
              1. svp67
                svp67 16 June 2020 10: 31 New
                12
                Quote: Spade
                There is an opinion that the Soviet side did not fulfill its tasks near Prokhorovka.

                The Soviet side has not completed the main task by introducing the 5th Panzer and 5th Combined Arms Armies at this line, they were prepared for another ...
              2. novel66
                novel66 16 June 2020 10: 33 New
                13
                the Soviet side did not fulfill its tasks near Prokhorovka
                very softly said .. to drive a tank army into a prepared anti-tank defense ..
              3. Bashkirkhan
                Bashkirkhan 16 June 2020 10: 36 New
                +6
                Quote: Spade
                But the battle near Prokhorovka, there is less and less clear. There is an opinion that the Soviet side did not fulfill its tasks near Prokhorovka.
                Still, 18 and 29 tank corps ran into a well-prepared defense of the Germans and suffered huge losses. There was insufficient familiarization of the commanders with the battlefield. So the presence of an anti-tank ditch, some learned only by access to it. Absolutely inappropriate terrain for the use of tanks in the direction of the main strike - because of the beams, the entry of 18 and 29 tank corps into the battle was not just a team, but battalion + the absence of any data on the enemy’s defense. The result of the loss is 1 to 5.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 16 June 2020 10: 53 New
                  +6
                  Quote: Bashkirkhan
                  Took place

                  Poorly organized reconnaissance, our tank corps had to attack from another frontier, they were informed that the enemy was further away ...
                  For the Germans, this battle was also unexpected, but they stopped and prepared to repel our counterattack, but they did not expect that it would be of such a force ... the Germans learned about the approach of a huge mass of Soviet troops from air reconnaissance in a matter of hours, the very presence in our rear two Germans could not open armies before
                2. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 16 June 2020 11: 43 New
                  +6
                  Quote: Bashkirkhan
                  . There was insufficient familiarization of the commanders with the battlefield.

                  Rather, there was some gagging - everyone already understood that the operating situation had changed, but did not cancel the operation ... Although Katukov refused and his tanks did not participate there ...
                3. good
                  good 20 June 2020 07: 48 New
                  0
                  There is nothing documented about German casualties. Where does the figure 1: 5 come from?
                  They have the only info on the number of tanks until the 12th and after. But during the battle of the 12th, additional units were introduced, plus up to half to the existing ones. Yes, and dragged from the field for repair are not taken into account anywhere. How many German cars were actually hit on the battlefield is still unknown.
                  That's why they are talking about these 5 tanks against the lost 500 Soviet ones.
                  We only know about losses on our part, and tanks restored after the battle are not taken into account.

                  In general, the Prokhorov battle went on in this direction for a whole week and not one day during our tank counterattack
                  1. Bashkirkhan
                    Bashkirkhan 20 June 2020 12: 00 New
                    0
                    Quote: d0bry
                    Where does the figure 1: 5 come from?

                    1 to 5 confirm Zamulin V.N. and Khodarenok M.M. They have reasoned arguments; I have no reason not to trust them.
              4. Hagen
                Hagen 16 June 2020 12: 32 New
                13
                Quote: Spade
                Quote: svp67
                They would have succeeded if they had come to Kursk, but no ...

                Battle of Kursk. Here it definitely defeated the USSR.

                But the battle near Prokhorovka, there is less and less clear. There is an opinion that the Soviet side did not fulfill its tasks near Prokhorovka.

                I think that the main thing is that the German army did not fulfill its goal. Instead of the Soviet 5A and 5GVTA that did not fulfill their tasks, others came and carried out their task along with their remnants. But no one came for Manstein near Kursk, and already on August 24 he was already on the Dnieper. I think you should not start cancer for a stone. Victory is ours...
                In essence, I would like to note that it is not the first time that "British scientists" have tried to question any achievement of the USSR / Russia. Unfortunately, in our country, I do not know everything about the subtleties of the Kursk defensive battle. And in the exposition of the museum that is in the photograph, it is very difficult to understand what exactly happened near Prokhorovka. But in theory, this museum should have an educational function, among others. But local museum workers, apparently, themselves have little idea of ​​what they should show visitors. Although their fellow countryman and former deputy director for science, V.N. Zamulin, is today one of the most authoritative experts on this topic in Russia.
                1. alexmach
                  alexmach 16 June 2020 17: 46 New
                  +2
                  In essence, I would like to note that "British scientists" are not the first time trying to question any achievement of the USSR / Russia

                  Ever since the days of "Ivan the Horrible".
              5. alexmach
                alexmach 16 June 2020 17: 43 New
                +2
                But the battle near Prokhorovka, there is less and less clear. There is an opinion that the Soviet side did not fulfill its tasks near Prokhorovka

                Like the Germans. Which overall is very similar to a draw.
                About the same situation was for example in the Battle of Borodino.
                1. ager1751
                  ager1751 18 June 2020 17: 57 New
                  0
                  Neither under Borodino, nor under Prokhorovka there was a draw.
                  1. alexmach
                    alexmach 18 June 2020 17: 58 New
                    0
                    How to say. None of the parties achieved their main goals.
                    1. ager1751
                      ager1751 18 June 2020 18: 15 New
                      0
                      We are talking about specific battles. In the first case, the path to Mosca was open. Secondly, the Germans remained on the battlefield, and with such a ratio of losses, a truly faithful patriot can call a battle a draw.
                      1. alexmach
                        alexmach 18 June 2020 23: 00 New
                        0
                        only a truly faithful patriot can call a fight a draw.

                        Oh, what are you talking about? I thought you were going to tell me about the victory of Russian weapons and blame them for insufficient patriotism.
                        You are not right.
                        Borodino - 100% draw. Kutuzov left the field after the battle, while maintaining a legally capable army, he intentionally opened the road to Moscow. If they had been given free rein they would not have given a general battle, but would have fought a Pratisan war, but there was a political necessity. In this battle, they survived and were not defeated than partially achieved their goals. Napoleon, of course, wasn’t defeated, but they didn’t really.

                        But about Prokhorovka one can agree. Indeed, the losses are huge, and the Germans left the field. Well, the reason to talk about a draw - they still stopped the German offensive. How convincing .. well, here you can certainly argue, as a whole I am ready to admit your innocence.
                      2. ager1751
                        ager1751 19 June 2020 10: 27 New
                        -1
                        During Napoleon’s time, the outcome of the Battle of Borodino was clearly interpreted as Napoleon’s victory. Moreover, according to Napolen himself is not the hardest victory. He did not even use his main strike reserve, his guard. And if Kutuzov had not left, he would have been defeated on the second day. Yes, the army was saved, not defeated, but the outcome of the battle was Moscow’s retreat and surrender. In those days, I repeat, the battle was considered to be won by Napoleon. Another thing is that we, due to our patriotic religiosity. Will always find arguments in favor of a draw, but with a military the point of view of that time is our loss.
                      3. alexmach
                        alexmach 19 June 2020 11: 20 New
                        0
                        During Napoleon’s time, the outcome of the Battle of Borodino was clearly interpreted as Napoleon’s victory. Moreover, according to Napolen himself is not the hardest victory.

                        Who are the French? So in my opinion it is still considered. In any case, at the monument to Napoleon, he is ranked among the victories.
                        He didn’t even use his main strike reserve - his guard

                        Just like Kutuzov did not use reserves.
                        And if Kutuzov had not left, he would have been defeated on the second day

                        Maybe he would, maybe he would not, or maybe Napoleon would leave, maybe ...
                        Kutuzov was not defeated on the first day and was able to calmly orderly move away and continue the company. Therefore, a draw. Interestingly, how would you rate Barclay’s previous actions?
                        It’s another matter that, due to our patriotic religiosity, we will always find arguments in favor of a draw,

                        As far as I understand, this attitude to the result is not new at all, and contemporaries took it the same way.
                        but from the military point of view of that time, this is our loss.

                        And with the military-political? Napoleon was waiting for the defeat of the Russian army, the keys to Moscow and the completion of the company. He received none of this as a result of Borodin. Leaving the field after a day of battle is a trifle in comparison with this. As for me there is a solid draw, and nothing
                      4. ager1751
                        ager1751 19 June 2020 17: 44 New
                        -1
                        In military-political terms, after the battle the first Russian capital was left. This was the result of the battle. Not necessarily the army should be defeated by the outcome of the battle. Enough and lowering its fighting ability, its inability to fight for territory. They didn’t just leave Moscow, they understood that the army was not able to defend it. If they tried, they would lose both the army and the capital. It would be a draw if they met, got into a fight and went in different directions. And here, one side prudently retreated.
                      5. alexmach
                        alexmach 19 June 2020 23: 21 New
                        0
                        Not necessarily the army should be defeated by the outcome of the battle. Enough and lowering its combat effectiveness, its inability to fight for territory

                        But they did continue the struggle for territory either.
                        Moscow was not just left, they understood that the army was not able to defend it.

                        and they didn’t start preparing Moscow for surrender before the battle by chance? (I probably don’t know, I ask)
    3. eklmn
      eklmn 17 June 2020 04: 14 New
      -7
      “Before Kursk they had nothing left, they broke through all the main lines of defense and they really won such a victory, which the Englishman writes about, then nothing held them back on the road to Kursk.”
      You are right - the Germans broke through, but neither they, the Germans, nor the Red Army could win a victory from July 9 to 11 - the forces were equal. But on July 9, coalition troops landed in Sicily and on July 11 Hitler gave the order to retreat - his war began on two fronts.
      1. good
        good 20 June 2020 07: 51 New
        0
        They would have been stopped in any case, only the losses would have been even greater, and therefore they tried to keep them in the third lane.
        1. eklmn
          eklmn 20 June 2020 16: 07 New
          -1
          The losses of the Red Army were many times greater than the German, because The T-34 had a 76mm gun with a range of 1,2km, and the Tigers 88mm with a range of 2km. The Tigers burned T-34s in dozens, but the Red Army's superiority in tanks was enormous. Due to the advantage, a “draw” was formed.
          I advise you to watch the documentary film “Tanks” (in English). The Battle of Kursk is already devoted to 2 films (8-9), each for an hour. It is very interesting to tell / show from different angles and with interviews of participants. It was from this film that I learned about Hitler’s order on July 11 to retreat due to a landing in Sicily.
  2. figwam
    figwam 16 June 2020 11: 28 New
    +1
    Quote: Bashkirkhan
    But specifically under Prokhorovka, they all succeeded.

    What did they do? Having failed to fulfill the task, the 1st Life Division division could no longer suffer losses, transferring the remnants of equipment to neighbors, the personnel was sent to France for reformation.
  3. Albert1988
    Albert1988 16 June 2020 11: 42 New
    +5
    Quote: Bashkirkhan
    The Germans put the entire tank elite on the Kursk Bulge. But specifically under Prokhorovka, they all succeeded.

    But how could it fail? When part of the field is blocked by a ravine, and the other by an anti-tank moat, behind which there are a bunch of German anti-tank guns that shot well at the terrain, when our tanks are not in a single avalanche, but in waves ...
    Read Isaev on this topic - he gives a good analysis ...
    1. Bashkirkhan
      Bashkirkhan 16 June 2020 18: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: Albert1988
      when our tanks go not in a single avalanche, but in waves ...

      That's it. If these two tank corps deployed, as planned, two or three echelons and at the same time hit the Leibstandart division, the Germans would not be able to restrain them. But these corps were not able to use their power, strength. They did not take into account the terrain. Two corps suffered, especially the 29th corps, suffered enormous losses and advanced, actually advanced, conquered the territory of about 2-2,5 km.
      1. Albert1988
        Albert1988 16 June 2020 21: 31 New
        +1
        Quote: Bashkirkhan
        That's it. If these two tank corps deployed, as planned, two or three echelons and simultaneously hit the Leibstandart division,

        Then they would simply crush the Germans, and the losses would not be so serious from our side, but alas ...
        1. Bashkirkhan
          Bashkirkhan 16 June 2020 21: 42 New
          -1
          Now this is a story that will soon be 80 years old. I suspect for young people the memory of these events before the lantern.
  4. avg
    avg 16 June 2020 12: 04 New
    +7
    But specifically under Prokhorovka, they all succeeded.

    Rather, at Prokhorovka it did not work for us. Thrown into battle TA from the march on the enemy who took advantageous positions. After all, everyone knew that the T-34 loses to the Tigers and Panthers in an open field, and the PzIV modified to F2 and G with a long-barreled gun pierced 75 mm of armor at 1200-1500m. According to the concept of the operation, German tanks were to be destroyed by mines, artillery and aviation with new cumulative bombs PTAB-2,5-1,5, and they did it. And in this case, this is a classic operational-tactical error of the command, caused by stress, fear of German breakthroughs in the front, and the desire to quickly shut up this breakthrough at any cost. And we must pay tribute to the command, this mistake was understood and corrected, but, as always, the soldiers pay a "bitter price" for the commanders' mistakes.
    1. Bashkirkhan
      Bashkirkhan 16 June 2020 12: 28 New
      +4
      Quote: avg
      Rather, under Prokhorovka we did not succeed. TA was thrown into battle from the march to the enemy, who had taken advantageous positions. After all, everyone knew that the T-34 was losing to the Tigers and Panthers in an open field, and PzIV modified to F2 and G with a long-barreled gun pierced 75 mm of armor for 1200-1500 m.

      Yes, there was no "Panther". At Prokhorovka, the Wehrmacht had 15 "tigers", "treshki" and "fours", and most of the "fours" were "kurtz" -versions - with a 50 / L42 cannon.
      1. avg
        avg 16 June 2020 12: 41 New
        +3
        Here I write a little more broadly and do not write about our (kids) T-70 which was almost half, nor do I write about the fact that the Tigers, in fact, became the center of a strong point that was protected by sappers and infantry and self-propelled guns. I write about a command error in assessing the enemy and the current situation, and the resulting incorrect actions.
        1. Bashkirkhan
          Bashkirkhan 16 June 2020 13: 09 New
          +1
          Quote: avg
          I write about the command error in evaluating the enemy and the current situation, and the resulting incorrect actions.

          Clear.
      2. Paranoid50
        Paranoid50 16 June 2020 13: 53 New
        +2
        Quote: Bashkirkhan
        most of the "fours" were "kurtz" versions - with a 50 / L42 cannon.

        In 1943, the "cigarette butts" had already moved from "fours" to "three", and the result was the PzIII Ausf N.
      3. Albert1988
        Albert1988 16 June 2020 14: 12 New
        +1
        The question is even raised - were there tigers at all! But the fact that they were breezy there is a fact and a bunch of artillery anti-aircraft, both self-propelled and towed ...
    2. good
      good 20 June 2020 07: 58 New
      0
      Do not write correctly. Under Prokhorovka, everything worked out for us! They could not break into the Prokhorovka station for a week and had to blame.
      Prokhorovka is not only a tank counterattack, but a week-long combined arms battle of several armies and corps.
  • Insurgent
    Insurgent 16 June 2020 10: 47 New
    +9
    According to the author of an article published in a British publication, a military historian from Great Britain, having done a great job, traced the fate of every German combat vehicle that took part in the battle of Prokhorovka. He "destroyed the myth" that "the Russians destroyed two elite SS tank divisions", in fact, German tankers irretrievably lost only five tanks.


    Well then, "non-broken SS tank divisions"rushed to the West so that in fact they were able to come to their senses only on the Dnieper, and even then not for long?
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 16 June 2020 11: 51 New
      +3
      Quote: Insurgent
      And what then, "not broken SS tank divisions" rushed to the West so that in fact they were able to come to their senses only on the Dnieper, and even then not for long?

      Well, the battle went not only near Prokhorovka - the Kursk Bulge was a very intense battle, including for the German tank units, which had to break through our echeloned defense.
      1. Insurgent
        Insurgent 16 June 2020 11: 56 New
        +9
        Quote: Albert1988
        Well, the battle went not only near Prokhorovka - the Kursk Bulge was a very intense battle, including for the German tank units, which had to break through our echeloned defense.

        True, the Battle of Kursk is a "particular" which "the Wehrmacht did not lose" (according to "British historian"), but bad luck what ... the German front, then, whole rolled to the West ...
        1. Hagen
          Hagen 16 June 2020 13: 45 New
          +6
          Quote: Insurgent
          True, the Battle of Kursk is a "particular" which "the Wehrmacht did not lose" (according to the "British historian"), but bad luck ... The German front, then, all rolled to the West ...

          In place of the Germans, it would probably be worth offending. What kind of army did they have such that after minor losses they surrendered their capital? The French, too, must wonder what invaders they left Paris for ?! And why shaves in Dunkirk jumped from the English Channel pants ..... ???! wassat
        2. Albert1988
          Albert1988 16 June 2020 14: 13 New
          +2
          Quote: Insurgent
          True, the Battle of Kursk is a "particular" which "the Wehrmacht did not lose" (according to the "British historian"), but bad luck ... The German front, then, all rolled to the West ...

          It seemed to me that the "British scientist" was just talking about Prokhorovka ... Which, by the way, has long been analyzed by Russian historians up and down ...
    2. zenion
      zenion 17 June 2020 14: 01 New
      0
      All Germans managed to give a fight, and five tanks got lost in the bushes. They took Berlin already, and they couldn’t leave the bushes for another six months. And all this happened for the reason that the rabbis had spoiled the German tanks and they got lost. Fornication attacked them. They already drank all the shells, drank the tracks from the tanks, drank the motors that they put on the tractor. Then they drank the trunks that went to the water pumps. Already cut the tanks into gates to the fence, but they still could not leave the bushes. They were saved by a British historian who knew all the tanks by numbers, and all the tankers by sight and by ausweis. But the tanks could not be saved. And all because of the rabbis and the Jew, who pretended to be Russian, but they did not guess to take off their shirts and see. He told them - I will show you such a road through which in a couple of minutes you will find yourself in Germany and lead them into the bushes, and he himself will disappear.
  • Alekseev
    Alekseev 16 June 2020 12: 39 New
    +4
    Quote: svp67
    Prokhorovka is only one of many places where there were fierce battles

    hi
    That's right!
    Not only individual British historians are now ranting about the loss of troops, but also simply, not lazy enough inhabitants.
    They seek various reports and reports on the Internet when they correspond to reality, when they don’t ...
    At the same time, they forget that victories are won not by "exterminated" troops over those who almost did not suffer losses, quite the opposite.
    I’m not saying that the losses of the 5th Guards TA during the counterattack near Prokhorovka were not great, but to the fact that the Germans also suffered serious losses during the whole battle, we were able to compensate our losses, but the Germans did not. And that is why the front rolled west, Kharkov, Belgorod, Oryol, etc. were taken. up to the Dnieper, before the capture of Kiev. If the Wehrmacht and SS troops lost, in a battle, figuratively speaking, 5 tanks, 3 aircraft and several dozen soldiers, then nothing like this could have happened.
  • sanya
    sanya 16 June 2020 13: 32 New
    -7
    Manstein wrote that Hitler stopped them
    If they passed all the lines of defense, then who stopped them?
    Under Prokhorovka, they definitely lost on all counts and in losses and the battlefield remained with the Germans
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 16 June 2020 14: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: sanya
      Manstein wrote that Hitler stopped them

      Why?
      Quote: sanya
      If they passed all the lines of defense, then who stopped them?

      They "all lines" passed only on one of the faces of the arc and then on the tyute area ... And most importantly - the breakthrough still needs to be developed, but they already had no strength ... Actually, ours took advantage of this and went into a counteroffensive from which successful Operation Rumyantsev - just on the southern face of the arc - where Prokhorovka is, and Kutuzov - on the northern one.
      1. sanya
        sanya 17 June 2020 12: 09 New
        -3
        Allies wanted to drive out of Italy
  • Florian geyer
    Florian geyer 17 June 2020 16: 26 New
    0
    The episode under Prokhorov has long been disassembled to the smallest detail. Yes, the counterattack failed. 5 tank actually sprayed, not so much the Germans, how many Rotmistrov. In general, it is surprising that he remained in command of the army, and did not go to the rear to command the Suvorov School.
    It is much more interesting to study the actions of Katukov in the neighborhood with the same Prokhorovka.
  • kjhg
    kjhg 16 June 2020 10: 12 New
    +9
    Quote: Bashkirkhan
    Under Prokhorovka, the battlefield remained behind the Wehrmacht. The losses were 5 to 1 for tanks from the Soviet tank armies.

    But the main German military operation of 1943 to encircle and destroy large Soviet groups on the Kursk ledge was not achieved. The battlefield remained behind them, but they did not have the strength to continue the offensive and therefore they had to move back to level the front line and go on the defensive.
  • Tank hard
    Tank hard 16 June 2020 10: 15 New
    +7
    Quote: Bashkirkhan
    Under Prokhorovka, the battlefield remained behind the Wehrmacht.

    I do not agree with you. Prokhorovka was only part of the battles on the Kursk, how did the battle on the Kursk end?
    By Prokhorovka:
    Neither side was able to achieve the goals set for July 12: the German troops failed to capture Prokhorovka, break through the defenses of the Soviet troops and enter the operational space, and the Soviet troops failed to encircle the enemy group.

    We conclude:
    Nevertheless, the German offensive ended in failure, and the Germans did not launch such large-scale attacks near Kursk.

    having disabled a quarter of the enemy’s tanks (and given the qualitative balance of forces of the parties and the surprise of the strike it was extremely difficult), Soviet tankers forced him to stop and, ultimately, abandon the offensive.

    The 2nd Panzer Corps of Paul Hausser (in fact, only as part of the Leibstandart division without the remnants of tanks and heavy materiel left at the front) was transferred to Italy.

    Soviet armies were forced to go on the defensive. After the organized withdrawal of German troops, Soviet troops returned to their previously abandoned positions.

  • letinant
    letinant 16 June 2020 10: 40 New
    +3
    Quote: Bashkirkhan
    Under Prokhorovka, the battlefield remained behind the Wehrmacht. The losses were 5 to 1 for tanks from the Soviet tank armies. Well, following the results of the Battle of Kursk, we generally lost more. However, the Wehrmacht was outplayed strategically, the Germans were no longer able to recover from the Battle of Kursk.

    Are you completely off the cuckoo !? The Battle of Kursk was over after the front was straightened in the area of ​​the Kursk salient. As a result of this battle, the enemy not only failed to achieve the intended plans, but also lost the territory he occupied.
    Stop faking the story!
    1. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. 16 June 2020 11: 44 New
      +6
      Quote: letinant
      Stop faking the story!


      It is necessary to separate the tactical battle near Prokhorovka (on this day, the battlefield remained with the enemy - which is a tactical defeat) and the subsequent counteroffensive: the Oryol operation ("Kutuzov") and the Belgorod-Kharkov (operation "commander Rumyantsev").

      But strategically, it was this battle that was a turning point in a strategic position and became the starting point of a turning point in the war.
      1. letinant
        letinant 16 June 2020 12: 16 New
        +4
        Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
        Quote: letinant
        Stop faking the story!


        It is necessary to separate the tactical battle near Prokhorovka (on this day, the battlefield remained with the enemy - which is a tactical defeat) and the subsequent counteroffensive: the Oryol operation ("Kutuzov") and the Belgorod-Kharkov (operation "commander Rumyantsev").

        But strategically, it was this battle that was a turning point in a strategic position and became the starting point of a turning point in the war.

        Do you want bread and butter? Here's your bread, it's tactical. And then the butter, when the strategy comes. The Battle of Kursk is under consideration! Then let's look at the defense of each battalion separately. After all, these are different tactical battles. And then the offensive of each battalion in its sector. The Britons say the Germans lost 5 tanks during the entire battle. I then have a question, why did they not continue the offensive, why did they leave their positions and retreat, if they have such low losses?
        1. Dmitry V.
          Dmitry V. 16 June 2020 12: 28 New
          +6
          Quote: letinant
          if they have such low losses?


          About losses is written below
          Soviet losses near Prokhorovka amounted to 340 tanks and 17 self-propelled guns. Of these, 194 tanks were burned, that is, they were completely destroyed and could not be restored, and 146 were destroyed, that is, they could be repaired. As for the Germans, they lost 108 tanks. Of these, 49 were in need of major repairs, and 45 on average.


          Given the fact that the Germans left the battlefield, they evacuated most of their wrecked tanks, while undermining part of the Soviet wrecked tanks.

          The battle of Prokhorovka is an example of unsuccessful command and control. Without reconnaissance, without revealing anti-aircraft weapons, in an open, defense-friendly space. The logical result is the large losses of the attacking side (Rotmistrova - he also read his memoirs, where he justified himself for the losses as best he could)
          Whether he made a turning point in the course of the Battle of Kursk is beyond doubt. A damaged tank requires "medium" or "overhaul" repair - it does not participate in hostilities.
          More than a hundred wrecked German tanks per day - this is very, very good.
          1. letinant
            letinant 16 June 2020 13: 16 New
            +1
            Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
            Given the fact that the Germans left the battlefield, they evacuated most of their wrecked tanks, while undermining part of the Soviet wrecked tanks.

            The battle of Prokhorovka is an example of unsuccessful command and control. Without reconnaissance, without revealing anti-aircraft weapons, in an open, defense-friendly space. The logical result is the large losses of the attacking side (Rotmistrova - he also read his memoirs, where he justified himself for the losses as best he could)
            Whether he made a turning point in the course of the Battle of Kursk is beyond doubt. A damaged tank requires "medium" or "overhaul" repair - it does not participate in hostilities.
            More than a hundred wrecked German tanks per day - this is very, very good.

            Where are the German self-propelled guns? You've got it all out there, Rotmistrov, the Soviet command, etc. Where are the statistics on German self-propelled guns?
            You are linking to the Deutsche Valley article by Karl-Heinz Frieser. I found another source and based on my experience with the service, I consider it more realistic:
            The irretrievable losses of the army group advancing on the southern front of the South from July 5 to 17 amounted to 290 vehicles. The Germans often at first gave the wrecked armored vehicles the status of "requires major repairs", and wrote off them to scrap only later. A.S. Tomzov personally studied the archives of Germany and German documents.
            1. Dmitry V.
              Dmitry V. 16 June 2020 13: 19 New
              +3
              Quote: letinant
              Where are the German self-propelled guns? You've got it all out there, Rotmistrov, the Soviet command, etc. Where are the statistics on German self-propelled guns?
              You are linking to the Deutsche Valley article by Karl-Heinz Frieser.


              In October 2018, the website of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation published data confirming that the "defeat" of the German troops near Prokhorovka was a myth.

              According to Valery Makovsky, a leading researcher at the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces of the Research Institute (Military History), the loss of armored vehicles of the 5th Guards Tank Army under the command of General Pavel Rotmistrov in one day on July 12, 1943 amounted to about 75%, and the losses of the second SS Panzer Corps - about 20%.

              The Red Army in a counterattack near Prokhorovka lost 470 tanks (out of 670). The Germans lost only 50 tanks (out of 490).

              As for the losses in personnel, in the battle near Prokhorovka they amounted to 35 thousand Red Army soldiers or 24% of the total losses of the Voronezh Front. Among them - 6,5 thousand killed and 9,5 thousand missing.

              The second SS Panzer Corps lost 7,7 thousand people in this battle.


              Do not believe me - here is a link to the website of the Russian Ministry of Defense https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/[email protected]
              1. Torak
                Torak 16 June 2020 17: 12 New
                +4
                Here is the opinion of a specific researcher and no more. But the numbers are more than muddy. What do you mean 9,5 thousand missing, and even on the battlefield? What is it like? But only 50 wrecked tanks, a familiar figure. The Americans began to steam them to us from the mid 90s, I remember that very well.
                1. Dmitry V.
                  Dmitry V. 17 June 2020 09: 45 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Torak
                  Here is the opinion of a specific researcher and no more.


                  This is not just a "researcher" - this is a LEADING EMPLOYEE OF THE ACADEMY OF THE GENERAL STAFF - those who teach the officers of the general staff - future marshals, if you like.
                  That is, higher in knowledge of military science, military art - there is nobody.
                  Thank God, the academy is taught not by myths, but sorted out specific miscalculations and successful decisions of the commanders.
                  At the General Staff Academy, the battle of Prokhorovka is considered a SAMPLE of an unsuccessful offensive operation.
              2. forpost
                forpost 17 June 2020 21: 48 New
                0
                There - “As for the calculation of losses - both personnel and equipment, there are still no exact numbers. For example, the Germans do not take into account the losses of missing or who died in hospitals from injuries, they consider only front-line losses ”
            2. Florian geyer
              Florian geyer 17 June 2020 16: 30 New
              0
              This is not the merit of the 5th tank, which in fact ceased to exist as a combat-capable unification after an unsuccessful counterattack near Prokhorovka, and the 1st TA of Katukov, who acted much more efficiently and as a result suffered much smaller losses
          2. forpost
            forpost 17 June 2020 21: 43 New
            0
            What kind of Germans? "Neither side managed to achieve the goals set for July 12: German troops failed to capture Prokhorovka, break through the defenses of the Soviet troops and enter the operational space, and Soviet troops failed to encircle the enemy grouping."
        2. ZAV69
          ZAV69 16 June 2020 12: 51 New
          +2
          Quote: letinant
          the Britons say that during the whole battle the Germans lost 5 tanks.

          Well, it's shaving ...... My deceased grandfather talked about such an episode: German intelligence slept through a swampy meadow and the Germans burst into it in 50 tanks. As a result, all the tanks sat on their belly and ours covered this meadow with a Katyusha regiment. Grandfather said there for three days everything was smoking. I have more faith in my grandfather, who walked from Stalingrad to Poltava, where he got a splinter and spent a year in hospital, than he sorted out some pieces of paper for a British silkoper.
          1. Albert1988
            Albert1988 16 June 2020 14: 28 New
            +3
            And this was all too often, it was that they were there among 75 panthers in the "Great Germany" division ineptly in a very short time ...
            So the Germans are far from idealizing. And the operation "Citadel" itself was very ineptly planned ...
          2. forpost
            forpost 17 June 2020 21: 43 New
            0
            second belingscat?
      2. poquello
        poquello 16 June 2020 12: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
        It is necessary to divide the tactical battle near Prokhorovka (on this day, the battlefield remained with the enemy - which is a tactical defeat) and the subsequent counterattack:

        what a tactical defeat? the task at Prokhorovka was to stop the enemy's maneuver, the score, in principle, does not matter, but to the historically stupid Englishman the question arises - if only 5 were knocked out, where did the rest of the "winners" go?
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 16 June 2020 14: 32 New
          +2
          Quote: poquello
          what tactical defeat? the task under Prokhorovka was to stop the enemy’s maneuver,

          The task was to make a large tank fist counterattack from a certain bridgehead, not from Prokhorovka initially. But the Germans captured this bridgehead themselves on the eve. The operation needed to be canceled = good, but they didn’t cancel it and didn’t even change it especially, as a result, they had to attack Prokhorovka, where it was inconvenient, the tanks could not be concentrated normally, intelligence did not have time to collect. Vatutin, by the way, refused to send his tanks to this operation, since he foresaw a failure.
          1. poquello
            poquello 16 June 2020 15: 52 New
            0
            Quote: Albert1988
            make a large tank fist counterattack from a specific bridgehead

            here below is from YouTube there is a good description of what is there and how it is there, and corresponds to the words of the participants of the battle on the Kursk Bulge
            1. Torak
              Torak 16 June 2020 17: 14 New
              0
              Give me a link please.
              1. poquello
                poquello 16 June 2020 18: 12 New
                0
                Quote: Torak
                Give me a link please.

                10 posts scroll down
            2. Albert1988
              Albert1988 16 June 2020 21: 33 New
              0
              Quote: poquello
              here below is from YouTube there is a good description of what is there and how it is there, and corresponds to the words of the participants of the battle on the Kursk Bulge

              It depends on who the movie’s affter is ...
              1. poquello
                poquello 16 June 2020 23: 03 New
                +2
                https://youtu.be/iVTdFgtzxmU?t=284
                everything is written correctly here, the German tried to bypass through Prokhorovka, he was also stopped there, the arguments about the Germans victory there are akin to the arguments about the victory of the German pillbox over Matrosov, insanity
  • RUSS
    RUSS 16 June 2020 11: 05 New
    -1
    Quote: Bashkirkhan
    Under Prokhorovka, the battlefield remained behind the Wehrmacht. The losses were 5 to 1 for tanks from the Soviet tank armies. Well, following the results of the Battle of Kursk, we generally lost more. However, the Wehrmacht was outplayed strategically, the Germans were no longer able to recover from the Battle of Kursk.

    Some analogies with the battle of Borodino
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 16 June 2020 11: 25 New
    +3
    Quote: Bashkirkhan
    However, the Wehrmacht was outplayed strategically, the Germans were no longer able to recover from the Battle of Kursk.

    And what was AFTER the Kursk Bulge? Reich approached Moscow again? Or maybe after the Kursk Bulge the Germans were able to recover after Moscow and Stalingrad?
    The Red Army fulfilled the main task by bleeding the armored units of the Wehrmacht, after which the Germans only retreated.
  • Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 16 June 2020 13: 20 New
    +4
    The Germans themselves admit that they failed to fulfill the TACTICAL task assigned to them - to take Prokhorovka (note not to take the field, but the settlement), and ours performed the TACTICAL task - not to allow the SETTLEMENT POINT OF PROCUREMENT to be captured by the enemy, and the field can be large, as in song: FIELD - RUSSIAN FIELD ...
    1. Albert1988
      Albert1988 16 June 2020 14: 32 New
      0
      But the main task - to develop a powerful tank counter-strike - also failed to implement ...
      1. Vitaly Tsymbal
        Vitaly Tsymbal 16 June 2020 15: 58 New
        +1
        To understand the task, you need to understand the situation, and the situation near Prokhorovka by July 12 was in favor of the Germans, only two main types of hostilities are indicated in the charter - offensive and defense. When conducting defensive actions, such a maneuver as a counter-strike is used. At that time, the Soviet troops did not receive an order to go on the offensive, because the German shock groups were not exhausted, the counter-strike involves not the task of attacking, but stopping the enemy and not allowing him to enter the operational space, which was done near Prokhorovka. The concept of "powerful" blow "was introduced into those events by historians far from the army and from the war not on the basis of a" boring "charter, but on" incendiary "propaganda slogans !!!!
        1. Albert1988
          Albert1988 16 June 2020 21: 35 New
          -2
          Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
          The Soviet troops did not receive an order to go on the offensive at that time, because the German strike groups were not worn out, the counter-strike does not imply the task of attacking, but stopping the enemy and not allowing him to enter the operational space

          The problem was that the Germans had already reached those bridgeheads. which ours planned not to give them, inflicting a significant tank counter-strike. So it was urgent to change plans, but they didn’t do it - it turned out badly ...
          1. Vitaly Tsymbal
            Vitaly Tsymbal 16 June 2020 22: 32 New
            +2
            Eugene, what turned out badly and for whom? Is it bad that we took Berlin? Or is it bad that the Germans have lost the ability to conduct strategic offensive operations? You really decide on the BAD)))) In a real battle, plans change every minute and life, unlike computer "tanks" there for money can not buy. And by the way from history: the Soviet command decided to conduct a defensive battle, wear down the enemy troops and inflict defeat on them, having carried out counterattacks on the attackers at a critical moment. For this purpose, a deep echeloned defense was created on both faces of the Kursk salient. In total, 8 defensive lines were created. 8 frontiers, not bridgeheads !!!! How many of these lines were the Germans broken through? Look, for development, how the bridgehead differs from the milestone. Do you have a military education?
            1. Florian geyer
              Florian geyer 17 June 2020 16: 33 New
              -2
              The bad thing is that, due to the stupidity of the Rotmistres, they sprayed a brand new tank army with a needle, which would have brought much more benefit in a counterattack
              1. Vitaly Tsymbal
                Vitaly Tsymbal 17 June 2020 17: 19 New
                +1
                To begin with, before talking about stupidity, you have to be in Rotmistrov's shoes ... it's good to judge when "many years have passed" and many facts have become known, and at 43 it was necessary to fight, not think ...
                1. Albert1988
                  Albert1988 18 June 2020 12: 43 New
                  0
                  Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
                  To begin with, before talking about stupidity, you have to be in Rotmistrov's shoes ... it's good to judge when "many years have passed" and many facts have become known, and at 43 it was necessary to fight, not think ...

                  In general, Rotmistrov later wrote in his memoirs that Prokhorovka was a de facto failure ...
                  1. Vitaly Tsymbal
                    Vitaly Tsymbal 18 June 2020 20: 54 New
                    0
                    Actually, in the memoirs you can talk about your personal failures ... I also had "failures" in life ... For example, there was a senior columnist in Afghanistan, he allowed me to stop at a spring, get some water ... We stopped, especially never before did not shoot, but here "bang" ... One shot, but one wounded driver for whom I was the commander and he stopped by my order ... So tell me - my decision will stop and fill the flasks with water was successful or not? ??? There were no more shots .... we didn't even know which hill they fired from ... Can you imagine the scale of the tank army and its commander.
                  2. Albert1988
                    Albert1988 18 June 2020 21: 03 New
                    0
                    Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
                    And you imagine the scale of the tank army and its commander.

                    Exactly! The commander of the tank army bears great responsibility for the people and equipment, as well as for the position of entire fronts, so it should act as carefully as possible. Here, in the first place, there was a rush - they did not want to change old plans, although the situation changed, on the other hand, they did not try to update intelligence, which was critical. Vatutin, incidentally, refused to participate in this operation, since he understood its poor preparedness ...
                    So the consequences came from the decision of specific people ...
          2. Albert1988
            Albert1988 18 June 2020 12: 42 New
            0
            Quote: Vitaly Tsymbal
            Eugene, what happened badly and for whom? Is it bad that we took Berlin? Or is it bad that the Germans lost their ability to conduct strategic offensive operations?

            What are you talking about now? About the Battle of Kursk - a colossal operation that culminated in a magnificent victory of the Red Army and after which Germany had already actually lost?

            Or about the battle on Prokhorovka - a noticeable, but still separate episode of the Kursk Bulge, when as a result of command mistakes we suffered serious losses that could have been avoided?
  • tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 16 June 2020 10: 11 New
    +8
    Quote: Tank Hard
    What different dimensions do we live in. request

    The dimensions are rather the same, but human ingratitude is in different dimensions. I write all the time what needs to be done with Europe in 1945.
    1. Crane
      Crane 16 June 2020 10: 16 New
      +3
      Proposal for the return of the sword for Stalingrad. Let him shove it deeper.
      1. Insurgent
        Insurgent 16 June 2020 10: 51 New
        +2
        Quote: Crane
        Proposal for the return of the sword for Stalingrad. Let him shove it deeper.

        But shish them, not a sword ...

  • JackTheRipper
    JackTheRipper 16 June 2020 11: 02 New
    +2
    I liked this video about Prokhorovka, short (10 minutes), but everything is explained schematically exactly:
    https://youtu.be/iVTdFgtzxmU?t=284
    1. poquello
      poquello 16 June 2020 13: 05 New
      +2
      Quote: JackTheRipper
      I liked this video about Prokhorovka, short (10 minutes), but everything is explained schematically exactly:
      https://youtu.be/iVTdFgtzxmU?t=284

      good analysis +
  • halpat
    halpat 16 June 2020 12: 55 New
    +4
    Quote: Tank Hard
    What different dimensions do we live in. request

    Exactly.
    I have an English edition of The Military History of World War II
    Great beautiful illustrated edition.
    I will give only. statistics on the contents of the aforementioned book.
    Pages total - 312
    There are 32 pages about the war on the Eastern Front, including the Barbarossa plan.
    And specifically about the Battle of Kursk - 2 pages (one spread), 8 photos of which are 1! (one) depicts the work of calculating the Soviet anti-tank gun, and the remaining 7! (seven) photographs of the SS troops and 2 (two) of them wrecked Soviet tanks, which are inspected by German soldiers.
    So it goes. The book was published in 1994, and reprinted in 1998.
    The author, as it were, is not, but the company owner of the copyright and the publisher are indicated. Everything is London.
    The rest of the contents (you can not say otherwise) of this book is devoted exclusively to Great Britain, the USA, a little French and Germany, Japan, Italy.
    For example, only “desert racing” from / for / with Rommel is dedicated to 24! (twenty-four) p. and so on.
    So the story is being written, dear colleagues / readers.

    I suspect that the author of this book about the Battle of Kursk is William Fowler. I had this book too. It leaves an ugly impression. Now, I didn’t find it right on the shelves right away.
    1. ZAV69
      ZAV69 16 June 2020 16: 26 New
      +2
      The only normal English book about the Great Patriotic War is Alexander Vert "Russia in the War". Published as if not in the 60s or 70s. There is no such shit, there are, of course, differences from Soviet sources, but insignificant. I think so at that time the course of rewriting history was not yet set.
      By the way, here she is
      http://www.belousenko.com/books/memoirs/werth/werth_war.htm
      1. Florian geyer
        Florian geyer 17 June 2020 16: 37 New
        0
        Here is also a normal book - Risen from the Ashes. How the 1941 Red Army turned into the Victory Army
        Glanz David

        Good overall analysis of the Red Army during WWII
    2. yehat2
      yehat2 16 June 2020 18: 11 New
      +1
      do not underestimate the Anglo-Saxons. They have 2 different stories - for cattle and for those who have money for a good education and now they often get versions of history that are close to authentic.
      And they read normal books, and they feed the cattle what is described here.
      1. Dart
        Dart 16 June 2020 18: 54 New
        0
        Thank God, we have not come to this, and will not reach ... They are being prepared again for the "drangnahosten" campaign, and there is no need for meat to know what happened to the previous "hikers" in truth ... But we must always remember as the father remembered, both the grandfather and the ancestors.
  • Sergey S.
    Sergey S. 16 June 2020 20: 40 New
    +2
    Quote: Tank Hard
    What different dimensions do we live in. request

    These are not different dimensions, and not the stupidity of half-educated people.
    This is already a war.
    Our war.
    Our war for grandfathers, for Russian weapons, for the honor of the Soviet Union, for the future of children and grandchildren!
    Today we are already somewhere in the blockade, somewhere with bare hands, someone is already in the partisans.

    Their blitzkrieg failed in the 1990s.
    As always, the weighty heroes took a hit on themselves. At the cost of deprivation and ruined lives of their own, they retained the hope of a revival of the Patriotic Army, despite the power grabbers in power, they saved the children from enemies, and the time came when the Immortal Regiment rose from the depths of Russian land.
    Russian spring was our first offensive!
    Glory to the Heroes of Sevastopol and Donbas!
    The enemy will be defeated.
    Victory will be ours!
    This is my FAITH.
    1. Tank hard
      Tank hard 16 June 2020 21: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: Sergey S.
      This is already a war.
      Our war.
      Our war for grandfathers, for Russian weapons, for the honor of the Soviet Union, for the future of children and grandchildren!
      Today we are already somewhere in the blockade, somewhere with bare hands, someone is already in the partisans.

      Their blitzkrieg failed in the 1990s.
      As always, the weighty heroes took a hit on themselves. At the cost of deprivation and ruined lives of their own, they retained the hope of a revival of the Patriotic Army, despite the power grabbers in power, they saved the children from enemies, and the time came when the Immortal Regiment rose from the depths of Russian land.
      Russian spring was our first offensive!
      Glory to the Heroes of Sevastopol and Donbas!
      The enemy will be defeated.
      Victory will be ours!
      This is my FAITH

      We remember this, we educate our children, our armored train on the siding, we keep it in order, we are. hi
  • svp67
    svp67 16 June 2020 10: 01 New
    13
    «
    Germans defeated near Prokhorovka ”: a British historian denied the victory of the Soviet army
    Yes, they WIN, but just like the English under Dunkirk ...
    1. hohol95
      hohol95 17 June 2020 16: 43 New
      +1
      They would be reminded of the fighting for the Kasserin Pass in Tunisia!
      The Germans defeated both the British and the Americans. But then they gave up!
      Silki then ran out ...
  • WILL
    WILL 16 June 2020 10: 01 New
    10
    Alternative Reality ... They won so straight that they could no longer carry out a single strategic offensive operation! Everywhere we switched to Defense!
    No words ... British Tantrum!
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 16 June 2020 10: 21 New
      +4
      Quote: ANIMAL
      Everywhere we switched to Defense!

      And it is better to say in Russian, "We started to skimp!"
    2. Sky strike fighter
      Sky strike fighter 16 June 2020 10: 40 New
      +4
      “Germans defeated near Prokhorovka”: British historian denied the victory of the Soviet army

      But what about Prokhorovka? The Germans took Moscow. To lie is to lie. Why print nonsense of all sorts of British pseudo-historians and then discuss something? And if this British "expert" says that the Earth is flat, this will also become a reason for discussion?
      1. mig29mks
        mig29mks 16 June 2020 11: 22 New
        +5
        Better to study how Romel shaved the Britons in the desert !!!
  • sevtrash
    sevtrash 16 June 2020 10: 03 New
    +3
    Somehow too much. Probably considered only the Tigers and only one modification.
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 16 June 2020 10: 26 New
      +2
      Quote: sevtrash
      Somehow too much. Probably considered only the Tigers and only one modification.

      Let's make it easier, like in boxing. You entered the ring, and no matter how strong the opponent, and how many blows you hit and what, it does not bother anyone, the main thing is that as a result the referee raised your hand.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 June 2020 12: 30 New
      +3
      Quote: sevtrash
      Somehow too much. Probably considered only the Tigers and only one modification.

      No, they just took the official German documents and rewrote the number of tanks irretrievably lost in a day, tactfully forgetting about the peculiarities of German statistics (juggling with percentages of "damage" of armored vehicles and "smearing" losses, sometimes for whole months).
  • Angrybeard
    Angrybeard 16 June 2020 10: 05 New
    +5
    Somehow he got out a little late after dozens of local "gystoryk" trampled over Prokhorovka. Rybakov himself also mentioned that he was expecting an arrest as a result. But one thing bothers all historians. They rip out one critical abscess from the epic battle of all times and peoples, when the fate of the war was again balancing, when they had to plug them in the conditions that were unprofitable, but forced, and they suck it from all sides, forgetting that some time later, festive events thundered over the country. salutes of the liberation of the cities to the west .. and about the tanks, not for months. There are documentary sources that they simply did not have time to repair them. Much was lost during the retreat of the Germans from Kursk.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 16 June 2020 10: 06 New
    +3
    There was a film on NTV about 10 years ago. With interviews of still living participants from both sides. it says that the forces were 1 to 2 and losses were also 1 to 2. But the Germans evacuated a lot of equipment, but ours could not. But on the whole, the Germans were unable to recover from such "victories", while the Soviet industry was able ... In general, as Comrade. Khodarenok on Vesti FM documents on these operations have not yet been declassified, and after such operations a document with an album and conclusions should have been drawn up ... so it is also classified.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 16 June 2020 10: 06 New
    +7
    “Germans defeated near Prokhorovka”: British historian denied the victory of the Soviet army

    The British historian ... i.e., the British scientist! and what, then there is something to discuss?
    1. Pete mitchell
      Pete mitchell 16 June 2020 10: 16 New
      +4
      Quote: rocket757
      “Germans defeated near Prokhorovka”: British historian denied the victory of the Soviet army

      The British historian ... i.e., the British scientist! and what, then there is something to discuss?
      I’ll venture to suggest that discovery will be connected in the future and in a couple of years it will become 'real story.' These kids know how to work for a long time and this must be reckoned with.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 16 June 2020 10: 22 New
        +2
        Quote: Pete Mitchell
        These kids know how to work for a long time and this must be reckoned with.

        We have long had a unified, true story to draw up and never back down from it .... but it is, dreams, because they distort it in favor of the current government, which makes it possible for foreigners to make their destructive contribution.
        Bad, there are no prospects in this matter.
        1. Dmitry V.
          Dmitry V. 16 June 2020 12: 06 New
          -2
          Quote: rocket757
          We have long had a unified, true story to draw up and never back down from it .... but it is, dreams, because they distort it in favor of the current government, which makes it possible for foreigners to make their destructive contribution.
          Bad, there are no prospects in this matter.


          Not all documents we have are part of German documents in the American archives.
          In the USSR, the history of the Second World War was significantly mythologized, since they did not have accurate data on losses, the reports of the troops were very high, they did not think that someone would thoroughly check.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 16 June 2020 12: 49 New
            +2
            Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich
            Not all documents are with us

            Yes, the work is great, but it is NECESSARY to do that!
      2. novel66
        novel66 16 June 2020 10: 37 New
        +4
        that is, does the discarian form the true story ?? Burning tramp! hi
        1. Pete mitchell
          Pete mitchell 16 June 2020 11: 23 New
          +3
          Novel hi , to my displeasure, this is my personal experience: but discovery says that you lived there anyway .... More than once I had to talk and 'bring to the horizon' - they believe discovery, bbc, cnn ..., everyone else lies. I agree with a colleague
          Quote: rocket757
          We have long had a unified, true history to draw up and not back down.

          And I would add - strictly follow the selected line
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 16 June 2020 16: 21 New
          +2
          Quote: novel xnumx
          that is, does the discarian form the true story ?? Burning tramp! hi

          Unfortunately, the "real mass history" (in the sense - the story that most people know or have heard about) is formed by such channels as Discovery, History Channel and others.
          Few people read the works of historians. Therefore "mass story"quietly crawls into"real story".
          1. novel66
            novel66 16 June 2020 17: 21 New
            0
            sad what to say ... we have no chance
            1. Pete mitchell
              Pete mitchell 16 June 2020 22: 40 New
              +1
              Roman, it all depends on us - how to raise children: it will be so
              1. novel66
                novel66 16 June 2020 22: 46 New
                +3
                yeah! and they will watch the discovery!
                1. Pete mitchell
                  Pete mitchell 16 June 2020 22: 47 New
                  +2
                  If you do not look after them, they will certainly be. Everything depends on us.
    2. zadorin1974
      zadorin1974 16 June 2020 10: 31 New
      +6
      "This study is supported by another British contemporary history scholar named Adam Tuz."
      Yes, I'm belittling you Viktor. The names of these "Britons" don't tell you anything or what? In a few months, articles about the "victory" at Westerplatte and the "capture" of Berlin by the Polish army will be published under the same author. A tail with ears just sticks out.
    3. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 16 June 2020 10: 33 New
      +3
      Quote: rocket757
      The British historian ... i.e., the British scientist! and what, then there is something to discuss?

      That's it British even though there is a historian, scientist, writer, or even the British homeless, for them Britain is above all, it is invincible, it is always right. And suddenly the USSR claims to be superior, of course they won’t allow it, let Hitler win, but if only the USSR and not Russia. The mentality of Sumera.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 16 June 2020 11: 10 New
        0
        Quote: tihonmarine
        The mentality of Sumera.

        Ha, ha, they now have a fun inside rushed !!! war with monuments !!! somehow it’s for us, and some in the neighborhood are very familiar !!! if they don’t have someone who can give a real SIT command, prove that he is ALPHA and ready to PROVE it !!! they also have the monuments of kings, ministers and other historical figures revered before, they will fly, they will fly and not to museums, it seems !!!
        It's just BOOMERANG! although it seems to me that he paid attention to them, he paid a visit to the northern fur animal!
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 16 June 2020 11: 27 New
          0
          Quote: rocket757
          Ha, ha, they now have fun inside rushed !!! war with monuments !!! somehow it’s for us, and some in the neighborhood are very familiar !!!

          So I’m talking about something, a new virus has appeared. And in the states, already before the blacks, the police began to jump.
  • Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 16 June 2020 10: 06 New
    +4
    As far as I remember, it was written in school textbooks that “technically” the Germans won under Prokhorovka. But for the further offensive they have exhausted the possibilities. Well this is a kind of long-known fact, a strange article
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 16 June 2020 10: 25 New
      +1
      Everything is more interesting than you could imagine.
      Recall Narva, Borodino and more .... victory puts everything as it should.
      You can win the battle, but lose the war, this happened more than once in world history.
      1. novel66
        novel66 16 June 2020 10: 38 New
        +2
        by the way, Vitya, yes, a comparison with Borodino is more than appropriate! Hi hi
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 16 June 2020 11: 17 New
          0
          Hello Roman soldier
          I like the song of my fellow countryman Rasteryaev, "Russian Road" ... everything is exactly the same as he sang in life!
          And so, the final assessment is important, TOTAL!
          In our case, VICTORY !!! And she was conquered by our army, like that!
      2. edmed
        edmed 16 June 2020 10: 45 New
        +3
        Quote: rocket757
        You can win the battle, but lose the war, this happened more than once in world history.

        Once King Pyrrhus exclaimed "One more such victory and I will have no troops left." Well, this is for world history. The defeated Soviet troops near Prokhorovka somehow ended up in Berlin, How so what .
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 16 June 2020 11: 21 New
          +1
          Quote: edmed
          How so .

          Now they will use small, private examples to "prove" which ones are them, and which ones we are. So, pfe, we know the TRUTH, if only the infection like boyskolaye does not spread here !!! that is their goal, otherwise we will not win ... but at the very least what they turn into, straight, straight. before our eyes .... ba e e fool
          1. edmed
            edmed 16 June 2020 11: 38 New
            0
            Quote: rocket757
            here you wouldn’t get an infection like boys

            Well, here, We, It is We who are responsible, hammering with a good word and a belt into the heads of descendants what and how it was, what would not be
            Quote: rocket757
            boys
            Well, these are thoughts aloud.
            1. rocket757
              rocket757 16 June 2020 12: 47 New
              +1
              Quote: edmed
              We are responsible by hammering with a good word and a belt into the heads of descendants what and how it was, what would not be

              Schaub "good science" to instill in descendants, no money is not a pity !!!
              1. edmed
                edmed 16 June 2020 12: 50 New
                0
                Quote: rocket757
                Schaub "good science" to instill in descendants, no money is not a pity !!!

                What can I say, "Yes!" good laughing
        2. novel66
          novel66 16 June 2020 11: 27 New
          0
          and patamuchto! The Battle of Kursk marked a radical change. Germans stupidly ran out of reserves, their industry under bombing had already failed, and ours, evacuated, had already unfolded in full force. And with the mob reserve the Germans were no longer so hot
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 16 June 2020 10: 07 New
    +9
    Maybe stop throwing such topics on the VO? The topic is provocative ... Rotmitstrov got a lot of it there, but not so much ... But in their way, and so everything is sorted out in shelves. It is clear to the blind man that the British and French won the war tongue They were allowed into West Berlin?
    Share it with us. You can never retreat from anywhere. They left Eastern Europe - now they are not winners ... am
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 16 June 2020 10: 55 New
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Share it with us. You can never retreat from anywhere. They left Eastern Europe - now they are not winners ..

      That's right, now does anyone remember that the Soviet troops were in occupied Austria? The older generation remembers something, the younger does not. So in 20 years no one will remember that we liberated Europe, that we were in Germany. But the Americans will be remembered, for they will be in Germany.
      1. FIR FIR
        FIR FIR 16 June 2020 16: 20 New
        +2
        That's right, now does anyone remember that the Soviet troops were in occupied Austria?

        Remembers! And the subhuman Khrushchev merged our positions in Austria. And then there was a bloody massacre in Hungary ....
    2. NordUral
      NordUral 16 June 2020 10: 58 New
      +2
      Share it with us. You can never retreat from anywhere. They left Eastern Europe - now they are not winners ...

      It’s our own fault, it’s time to start starting to think about how to correct the mistake.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 16 June 2020 10: 09 New
    +3
    What else to expect from arrogant sax? Pathologically lying bastards! No wonder Engels called Britain a prostitute in Europe!
  • Sentinel-vs
    Sentinel-vs 16 June 2020 10: 14 New
    +6
    More and more amazed at the possibilities of distorting history. The events were very recent. But they are turning in the direction that the USSR All battles lost, and the British won the battle for England, the Americans won the battle for the Atlantic, so the Germans lost the Second World War. A couple of dozen years will pass and they will confidently claim that the Allies won the war and saved the unlucky USSR from defeat. A couple of generations will pass and declare that the Allies defeated the Nazis and Communists, who vilely attacked Europe and each other. What can we say about the history of the 15-17th centuries or even earlier. It is distorted so that the devil himself will no longer make out, as it was in reality.
    1. Pavel57
      Pavel57 16 June 2020 11: 02 New
      +1
      Events are not quite recent, there are practically no living witnesses. Soviet historiography battles near Prokhorovka were also biased.
      And the Commander-in-Chief was dissatisfied with the result, a commission was appointed to investigate the actions of the command.
      As a result, Rotmistrov’s actions remained without consequences, but in his memoirs he exaggerated his role and the role of the battles near Prokhorovka as a whole in the Battle of Kursk.
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 16 June 2020 11: 03 New
      -1
      Quote: Sentinel-vs
      What can we say about the history of the 15-17th centuries or even earlier. It is distorted so that the devil himself will no longer make out, as it was in reality.

      Here you are right, try to prove that this was not. Now prove that the ancient Ukrainians did not dig the Black Sea.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    3. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 16 June 2020 11: 32 New
      +1
      Quote: Sentinel-vs
      and the British won the battle for England, the Americans won the battle for the Atlantic, so the Germans lost the Second World War.

      Well, yes, the Germans saw such formidable and powerful Anglo-Saxons, and with a fright surrendered Berlin to the Russians.
      1. Sentinel-vs
        Sentinel-vs 16 June 2020 11: 45 New
        +1
        In the West, it is not a trend today to enslave the free flight of thought and self-realization with some kind of totalitarian framework of logic. So none of the inhabitants there is going to build cause-and-effect relationships. There are specialists for this in their direction. And we saw the opinion of such a "specialist" in the article.
  • Archivist Vasya
    Archivist Vasya 16 June 2020 10: 15 New
    +2
    This British historian is apparently a good friend of British scientists, you know ...
  • Rostislav
    Rostislav 16 June 2020 10: 15 New
    +3
    Everything is itching to them. Recently, such "studies" have become more frequent, and the war on monuments fits in here. Erase memories
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 16 June 2020 11: 11 New
      0
      Quote: Rostislav
      Everything is itching to them. Recently, such "studies" have become more frequent, and the war on monuments fits in here.

      It seems that Britain entered the camp of the winners, won the battles in Africa and near the Ardennes, and especially in 1940 near Dunkirk, all of them are few, so they also swung at Prokhorovka. I understand the whole of democratic Europe, which licked German boots to shine, but Britain ???
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 16 June 2020 10: 18 New
    0
    Near Prokhorovka 5 tanks of irrecoverable losses? What then is the criterion for irrecoverable loss? Complete evaporation? A pile of metal trash instead of a tank is not an irrecoverable loss? Anything that can be melted is not an irrecoverable loss? According to this logic, "Bismarck" "Huda" is not irretrievably sunk? You can also pick up and restore.
    1. Avior
      Avior 16 June 2020 10: 38 New
      -2
      What then is the criterion of irretrievable loss?

      What cannot be repaired is an irretrievable loss.
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 16 June 2020 11: 37 New
        -1
        Quote: Avior
        What cannot be repaired is an irretrievable loss.

        And this is return loss, or irretrievable ???
        1. Pechkin
          Pechkin 16 June 2020 12: 42 New
          0
          I agree that they already got to write about the hordes of Russians. They would have written right away 1k10 and the Germans simply ran out of shells and the tanks had their trunks melted from overheating, lost only 2 tanks and then on mines. But the captured German tanks in the photo on April 14, 1943 of the year.
          1. tihonmarine
            tihonmarine 16 June 2020 12: 50 New
            0
            Quote: Pechkin
            But in the photo captured German tanks near Stalingrad on April 14, 1943.

            And where are these from?

            1. Pechkin
              Pechkin 16 June 2020 13: 05 New
              +1
              These yes like this sad fascist.
        2. Avior
          Avior 18 June 2020 04: 33 New
          -4
          Can they return to the troops after repairs? If not, then irrevocable.
      2. Glory1974
        Glory1974 16 June 2020 11: 44 New
        0
        What cannot be repaired is an irretrievable loss.

        Only this issue was solved at the tank factories in the rear. That is, the Germans those tanks that could not be repaired in army workshops were sent to the rear to the factory. And there they already decided whether it could be repaired or not.
        It turns out that the army team does not lie when they say that they have 5 tanks lost. Because they sent the rest for repair. If you count at the factory, the figure will probably be different.
        1. Avior
          Avior 18 June 2020 04: 35 New
          -4
          I think for the vast majority of cases they decided on the spot.
    2. BAI
      BAI 16 June 2020 12: 00 New
      +1
      The Germans had a category of destruction - as a percentage. Even 95% destroyed, a tank was not considered destroyed. One skating rink went into action - the tank was not destroyed. Therefore, so to speak, the archival documents "do not lie".
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 16 June 2020 14: 08 New
        0
        Quote: BAI
        One skating rink went into action - the tank was not destroyed. Therefore, so to speak, the archival documents "do not lie".

        These are the tanks that remained on the battlefield left behind by the Germans, but on the battlefield the remaining German tanks were all considered irretrievably lost. And there were not 5 and not 25, other people's losses are increasing, as the Germans and we are, and they are reducing them.
  • Cottodraton
    Cottodraton 16 June 2020 10: 20 New
    +6
    That the memorial "British scientists", that the same "British historians" ... the heroes of the laughing panorama
  • tralmaster
    tralmaster 16 June 2020 10: 28 New
    +1
    There’s nothing to say. They do not need our evidence, they are convinced of this and all. If there are already some kind of sniffed Bulgarians whom we pulled out of shit twice, consider us dense. They are trying to turn the whole story under themselves. And the longer it will be from the war, the pressure will be stronger. And the main thing is to delete us from the countries of the winners. If it doesn’t work out, the UN will be deleted.
  • Threaded screw
    Threaded screw 16 June 2020 10: 30 New
    +2
    British scientist proved ...
  • Andy
    Andy 16 June 2020 10: 46 New
    +1
    it's funnier, and / or dumber than British scientists. Why retreat after losing 5 tanks and defeating the enemy?
  • Molot1979
    Molot1979 16 June 2020 10: 49 New
    +1
    British historian. After these words it is impossible to read, rzhach interferes.
  • shoroh
    shoroh 16 June 2020 10: 51 New
    +1
    The Western media will use any excuse to defame the USSR, and make us losers, deceivers, etc. Western media are conducting comprehensive propaganda on exposing Russia as an evil empire, justifying any methods against it. What to be surprised at? At all levels, there are attempts to denigrate our country. And in sports and in films and in the media. What are the people of Europe preparing for? That's right - to a new war with Russia.
  • unhappy
    unhappy 16 June 2020 10: 53 New
    -5
    To the crazy minusers - our tankers had one of the commands - "for the crew to leave the car".
    The commander of our tank said this when he discovered that the "Tiger" was near and ready to open fire.
    Information from the memoirs of our tankers, author Artyom Drabakin.
    Who did not know - on the Kursk Bulge, two-thirds of the tanks were light, and the rest could only spoil the tiger paint (with few exceptions). I do not trust the Anglo-Saxons, but I need to think.
    1. Tamer
      Tamer 16 June 2020 11: 44 New
      0
      Quote: unhappy
      two thirds of the tanks were light

      rather a third
      1. unhappy
        unhappy 16 June 2020 12: 33 New
        -3
        5 tank
        roughly 450 t34
        360 t70, plotted and weak sau
        Purely in theory, the 34rd T43 could penetrate the side of the "Tiger" at close range and not the first time. As in a joke - "he can, but who will give it to him!"
        T70 also, in theory, knocked down the caterpillars and once punctured the trunk of the "tiger". Our tanks were thrown into the forehead of the elite units of the Germans (I mean our brilliant generals) and were ground!
        1. unhappy
          unhappy 16 June 2020 14: 12 New
          -3
          Another minus to me.
          "Tiger" is recognized (in terms of the totality of parameters as t34) the best heavy tank of the world war.
          Controversial statement, yes. Read the memoirs of our tankers, the Tiger was a moving machine, although the tower was slowly turning. Probably the best gun, unlike the IS quick-fire. There were no complaints about the reservation. Observation and communication - our only on the American Lend-Lease have only seen.
          Really tenacious and dangerous tank.
          1. Cottodraton
            Cottodraton 22 June 2020 05: 31 New
            0
            "The memoirs of our tankers" can probably be found in Google or even in the wiki?
            1. unhappy
              unhappy 22 June 2020 09: 00 New
              0
              For you, "Soviet edition" means truth. I read this, read and re-checked that the book was from a series about military memoirs. For example, I learned about the battle in Lyu Bay in the Baltic in 1941, how our torpedo boats sank a German cruiser (let it be a torpedo hit). Memories of a veteran under Brezhnev however.
              I want to see the truth, let it be unpleasant and bitter. And you, like a drug addict, read about the pleasant.
              Mikhail Baryatinsky - monograph "Tiger", quotes the words of veterans in autumn 1943 (about mobility), the tank did not crawl across the battlefield (like KV), it quickly approached and began the battle.
              Artyom Drabakin (I have a series of memoirs of veterans collected by the author) - the command "the crew to leave the car" was a reality! There you can learn a lot about what is unpleasant for the "addict".
  • NordUral
    NordUral 16 June 2020 10: 53 New
    +1
    Yes, mathematics with the geometry of law, parallel worlds never intersect. We are fooled by the head, but we are far from the Western saggy.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 16 June 2020 10: 55 New
    +6
    In the Battle of Prokhorovka, 672 Soviet tanks and self-propelled guns and 329 German ones took part. Soviet losses were higher than German ones. And if we count by the number of knocked out armored vehicles, then the Germans won. But who thinks so? The Germans have definitely lost! They exhausted all their main forces, the objectives of the operation were not achieved, the losses for the German tank formations were simply catastrophic, there were no reserves to hold positions and even the front. All this points to the complete defeat of the Germans. As for the losses, as Stalin said: "There is no war without losses."
    1. edmed
      edmed 16 June 2020 11: 54 New
      -1
      Quote: Doccor18
      In the battle of Prokhorovka participated 672 Soviet tanks and self-propelled guns

      They threw into the battle what was at hand, right up to the T-60-70, hence the loss.
      1. FIR FIR
        FIR FIR 16 June 2020 16: 24 New
        0
        The losses were large due to the inability of the command to comprehensively solve combat missions. Aviation, tanks, infantry and artillery must work in close conjunction. And in Soviet tanks, the radio was only in the tank of the company commander and above. But the Germans had a walkie-talkie in every tank ... Hence the losses.
  • ZaharoFF
    ZaharoFF 16 June 2020 10: 57 New
    +1
    The British military historian came to this conclusion.

    Apparently with British scientists.
    You can not read further.
  • Tatyana Sementsova
    Tatyana Sementsova 16 June 2020 11: 02 New
    +3
    Interestingly, but according to the Anglo-Saxons, Adolf attacked the USSR in general? Or did Stalin attack Germany?
  • Arnaut
    Arnaut 16 June 2020 11: 02 New
    +3
    The big problem of the USSR is the low quality of the work of historians and journalists. Including during the Great Patriotic War.
    With massive heroism, journalists and political workers often turned up dubious episodes.
    Instead of climbing the advanced trenches, talking with fighters, sorting through mountains of award documents, checking, checking and checking again, the journalist came to the army headquarters, drank some tea, listened to a story not from the participant, wrote an article on his knee, where- he smoothed it, exaggerated somewhere, then the editor added something and the topic of 28 Panfilov’s people appeared. And away we go. A bunch of people added their bit. But no one went to the archive, didn’t talk to the special officers, did not find direct participants. And then the enemies find that there were not so many tanks there, and there were defectors and Vlasovites. And on the basis of this, they conclude that there was no mass heroism. And who is to blame? Enemies? So they are enemies. Or did their hacks who ate satisfyingly slept sweetly, did not see real feats and sculpted agitation from Mr. ... and sticks?
    Similarly for large-scale operations-operations. Stalin and the General Staff understood what happened under Prokhorovka. I understood all the monstrous mistakes that were made there, but also understood that it was a straw that broke Hitler’s back. Therefore, there were no executions. And later, someone for a career-nomenclature war needed to create a myth. And away we go. Snowball. Each next did not check, but only prettified the previous one. And now the enemy takes out documents from the archive and ...
    Who is to blame?

    Why do enthusiasts like Alexei Isaev do more to remember the war than GlavPur, specialized academies and research institutes?

    Moreover, that was a lot of excellent operations. About which I have heard little.
    As an example, the defense of Poltava in 1941. Kiev cauldron, there is no front, the enemy is advancing from two sides. 10 tank regiment of the newly created 10 tank brigade arrives in Poltava. There are very few infantry - a battalion of Poltava police and firefighters comes to the rescue. Consolidated detachment of the Poltava Tractor School. And that’s all ... And now they have been defending for several days. And not just hold. All according to the charters. Counterattacks, ambushes, false positions. Hit, walked away, hit from the side, walked away, made a swing, and hit from the other side. They made the Germans stop, pull up the rear, form a fist, etc. And then, BY ORDER, (because the Germans were already completing the encirclement from Kiev), they reached Chutovo on a forced night. Losses for several days of battles 10% of tanks. Despite the fact that there was one more zoo. From BT and T-60 to HF. They went out and became on a new line of defense.
    So what? Does anyone know about this?
    1. BAI
      BAI 16 June 2020 11: 46 New
      +1
      From BT and T-60 to HF.

      There could be a T-60 near Poltava. The battles there ended on September 18, the T-60 was just adopted and began to produce in September. Even if they managed to do something, these tanks went to the main direction, and not to the secondary sector of the front.
      1. Arnaut
        Arnaut 16 June 2020 11: 55 New
        -2
        A vivid illustration of what I wrote.
        Is it hard to double-check?
        https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2-60
        1. BAI
          BAI 16 June 2020 13: 04 New
          0
          Is it hard to double-check?

          Easy. Just not a Wiki source, but more or less normal (http://tankfront.ru/ussr/tbr/tbr010.html).
          10TBr:
          The number of members:

          date association Personnel Tank types Total Note
          16.09.1941 SWF 1 767 1 KV, 28 T-34, 21 BT, 14 T-26 64 TsAMO RF. f. 38, op. 11373, d.150
          08.03.1942/38/11 34 A 25 T-26, 9 T-7, 11 BT-5, 7 BT-2 and 62 BT-XNUMX XNUMX Red Army in victories and defeats
          25.08.1942/66/1 048 A StlF 21 10 2 KV, 10 MK-70, 41 T-38 11373 TsAMO of the Russian Federation. f. 150, op. XNUMX, d.XNUMX

          Do you understand the difference between the T-26 and T-60?
          IT WASN'T IN THE COMPOSITION 10Tbr T-60 NEVER. Moreover, according to the presented link to VIKI, in September 1941 only 10 (TEN) T-60s were manufactured.
    2. Tamer
      Tamer 16 June 2020 11: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: Arnaut
      ... 10 tank regiment ... Despite the fact that there was still one zoo. From BT and T-60 to HF.
      So what? Does anyone know about this?

      T-60? maybe T-26? And at the expense of 10% loss there are questions
      1. Arnaut
        Arnaut 16 June 2020 12: 10 New
        -1
        There were T-26s. Read the description of the battles.
        1. Tamer
          Tamer 16 June 2020 12: 14 New
          0
          T-60 from where?
          1. Arnaut
            Arnaut 16 June 2020 12: 33 New
            -2
            Above gave a link to the Russian Wiki. I read in other sources.
          2. Arnaut
            Arnaut 16 June 2020 12: 38 New
            -1
            http://voenspez.ru/index.php?topic=28097.0;wap2
      2. BAI
        BAI 16 June 2020 13: 06 New
        0
        T-60? maybe T-26?

        T-26. T-60 in 10 Tbr was not during Poltava, nor after.
  • Ngauro
    Ngauro 16 June 2020 11: 04 New
    0
    at the time of the battle of Kursk, the lag behind the tanks of the Red Army from the Germans was the maximum for the entire war.
  • Fedorovich
    Fedorovich 16 June 2020 11: 10 New
    0
    Ah, well then, the British defeated near Arnhem ...
  • The son of Kuzkin’s mother
    The son of Kuzkin’s mother 16 June 2020 11: 24 New
    +2
    It remained unclear why the Germans failed to complete the Citadel. It is even more incomprehensible why, having knocked down Russian tanks on July 12, 2 TK stalled in place until July 17, and then rushed to retreat altogether. By the way, the neighbors of the 5th such on July 12 threw the Germans well, the total balance is not very much in favor of the Germans. As one historian rightly said: "If you take a completely unfamiliar with the topic, but a qualified historian and let him study the Kursk battle, then the day of July 12 will not be singled out against the background of the battle at all." As Karl our von Clausewitz teaches us "Strategic defeat cannot be compensated for by tactical successes"
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 16 June 2020 11: 25 New
    0
    The battlefield remained behind the enemy — he evacuated his wrecked tanks, and the Soviet wrecked tanks — undermined.
    Tactically, the battle near Prokhorovka was a defeat, strategically - from this moment the enemy was forced to stop strategic offensive operations - in strategic terms, this is a crucial battle of the war.

    Soviet losses near Prokhorovka amounted to 340 tanks and 17 self-propelled guns. Of these, 194 tanks were burned, that is, they were completely destroyed and could not be restored, and 146 were destroyed, that is, they could be repaired. As for the Germans, they lost 108 tanks. Of these, 49 were in need of major repairs, and 45 on average.
  • Operator
    Operator 16 June 2020 11: 31 New
    +1
    British scientists are a brand (see "application" of a paralytic substance with dilated pupils in alleged victims).

    What the hell did they post their wet dreams of losing the Red Army in the Battle of Kursk [with the subsequent capture of Moscow] and the victory of the Anglo-Saxons over Germany in 1945?

    Over 2000 German tanks and self-propelled guns were destroyed on the battlefield and captured at repair bases during the offensive phase of the Battle of Kursk during the Kutuzov (near Orel) and Rumyantsev (near Belgorod and Kharkov) operations.
    1. BAI
      BAI 16 June 2020 11: 39 New
      0
      captured at repair bases

      According to German documents, a tank under repair is not considered destroyed. And since the Germans left the battlefield, they dragged all the tanks for repair, i.e. they are considered alive (according to German documents).
      1. Operator
        Operator 16 June 2020 11: 58 New
        +1
        I do not care what is considered according to German documents and the opinions of British scientists - the Battle of Kursk, which includes the defensive and offensive phase, is not reduced to the only battle near Prokhorovka.

        The Germans near Kursk and Orel screwed up in full - pulling their wrecked tanks to the rear, they handed them on a silver platter to the Red Army units that had gone over to the counteroffensive, which was provided for by our plan, and not by the German one (from which the British scientists were wet).
  • BAI
    BAI 16 June 2020 11: 37 New
    -1
    1.
    Statements by Soviet and Russian historians about the battle of Prokhorovka when two elite armored divisions of the army of Nazi Germany were destroyed are a lie.

    This, indeed, is so - not destroyed.
    2.
    Archival evidence proves that all but five German tanks survived and were destroyed only in the following months

    But this is a lie.
    The whole problem is that the true picture of the battles in the military district, on the Kursk Bulge in general and near Prokhorovka in particular, is not shown to us. Hence a wide field for maneuver when one fact is pulled out and generalized to the whole picture.
  • strannik1985
    strannik1985 16 June 2020 11: 51 New
    -3
    The strange wording of the article, according to the text, the British do not claim that the Germans won at Prokhorovka. We are talking about the defeat of two tank divisions. Only it is not clear who claimed this, whom they refute?
    We have long ago dismantled the battle of Prokhorovka, at least Zamulin
    https://yandex.ru/turbo/s/echo.msk.ru/programs/victory/2268132-echo/
    1. Operator
      Operator 16 June 2020 12: 05 New
      -1
      Quote: strannik1985
      We have long been dismantled the battle of Prokhorovka ... echo.msk

      You have not yet been dismantled on Echo of Israel laughing
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 16 June 2020 12: 09 New
        -3
        It's funny. Valery Zamulin is a Russian historian, leading N.S. SWSU, was the deputy director of the museum - reserve "Prokhorovskoe Pole" wink
        1. Operator
          Operator 16 June 2020 12: 25 New
          +1
          Valery Zamukhin, “Prokhorovka. Unknown battle of the Great War ”, M., 2017:

          "You can try to compare the total losses of the sides in tanks in one day - July 12. The 5th Guards TA [Rotmistrov] lost all, according to researchers from the Institute of Military History, about 500 tanks. They do not indicate the source of this information. Perhaps this number is included 420 damaged combat vehicles of the repair fund, with the exception of 112 tanks repaired in the shortest possible time (203 + 308 = 511). In this case, [Soviet] losses in tanks and self-propelled guns on the "tank field" are related to 2,5: 1 in the enemy's favor. "

          Those. Zamukhin estimates the losses of the Germans in the battle near Prokhorovka in 200 tanks and self-propelled guns.

          So what did the Echo of Israel propagate there? laughing
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 16 June 2020 12: 34 New
            0
            https://worldoftanks.ru/ru/news/history/prokhorovka_interview_zamulin/
            Losses of the CC CC for July 12, 155-163 vehicles of which 20-30 are irretrievable.
            The corps was not defeated.
            Anything besides ernichnost will be?
            1. Operator
              Operator 16 June 2020 12: 36 New
              +2
              And why not just the super-duper Zamulin, but the game site worldoftanks - the next will be the site of cutting and sewing? laughing
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 16 June 2020 12: 37 New
                -1
                And you follow the link laughing
                1. Operator
                  Operator 16 June 2020 12: 38 New
                  +1
                  On a fig when there is a book in paper and electronic form? laughing
                  1. strannik1985
                    strannik1985 16 June 2020 12: 46 New
                    -1
                    So read, what's the problem? laughing
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 16 June 2020 12: 48 New
                      +1
                      I not only read the book, but also quoted you.

                      If you read the game site, then even according to his information, the loss of only one SS Panzer Corps and only "irrecoverable" losses have already exceeded the data of the British scientist six times - bravo, Echo of Israel laughing
                      1. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 16 June 2020 12: 54 New
                        -1
                        AND? It is written in black and white - TK is not defeated.
                        They are driving about irreparable losses, artificially opposing tanks to tanks, although the basis of the German anti-aircraft defense was artillery, they pulled everything for direct fire, including anti-aircraft guns, bringing the density of 42,5 guns per km of front. The British are manipulating, but those who submit the article too.
                      2. Operator
                        Operator 16 June 2020 12: 58 New
                        +1
                        And who wrote that one or two CC SSs were defeated near Prokhorovka - Rotmistrov, Malenkov, Stalin?

                        Or is it Mehlis, a compatriot of staff propagandists from the Echo of Israel?
                      3. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 16 June 2020 13: 06 New
                        -1
                        You still ask whom the British refute. Is there even a word about this in the article?
                      4. Operator
                        Operator 16 June 2020 16: 15 New
                        0
                        Not the British, but one British - while he limited himself to quantifying the losses of German armored vehicles on the battlefield near Prokhorovka on July 12, 1943. This British scientist used (God forgive me) the official records of the Wehrmacht and the SS.

                        The British miracle in feathers is clearly not aware that smart-ass German generals in WWII recorded their one-time losses with a stretch for several days - so as not to injure their superiors, obviously. This is where 5 tanks from the "British scientist" (C) originate.

                        Zamulin’s quantitative data, based on Soviet military sources with the calculation of captured equipment both on the battlefield (30 units not subject to restoration) and on German rear repair bases (200 units with the possibility of restoration) captured before the repair was made, clearly allow talking about the defeat of the SS tank corps.

                        Again - we are talking about two phases of the Battle of Kursk: defensive and offensive.

                        But I am sure that British scientists will continue their hard work and will soon surprise the world with a counting of German losses from 0 to 4 a.m. on July 12, 1943 in the western outskirts of the village of Prokhorovka laughing
                      5. strannik1985
                        strannik1985 17 June 2020 07: 52 New
                        -1
                        Zamulin quantitative data

                        Why, instead of some myths, produce others? He clearly writes 155-163 armored vehicles for July 12, the TK is battered, but not defeated.
  • BAI
    BAI 16 June 2020 13: 10 New
    0
    Valery Zamukhin

    Zamulin, with your permission.
    1. Operator
      Operator 16 June 2020 15: 55 New
      0
      Sorry, Zamulin.
  • BAI
    BAI 16 June 2020 11: 52 New
    +4
    Reading a collection of memoirs of the participants of the battle on the Kursk Bulge, I saw one story (or an article - how to do it right?) That the T-70 failed the Tiger. Well, the fact that the T-70 managed to fill up several Panthers a little later is well known, there is a good photo. And here is the Tiger! And nowhere else have I seen confirmation of this information. And now I’m lucky - I found documentary evidence: the T-70 on the Kursk Bulge failed the Tiger.

    There is no award, but according to the story it was like this:
    For some reason, the tiger turned out to be alone. And the T-70 circled around him, taking advantage of the fact that the Tiger’s tower rotates slowly, constantly holding on to the back of the tower, and molded shells into its stern.
  • Rostislav
    Rostislav 16 June 2020 11: 54 New
    +1
    They follow the old rule - the more monstrous a lie, the faster they will believe in it.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 16 June 2020 11: 59 New
    0
    Now VO began to cite comments from social networks as "experts".

    And according to Prokhorovka, he sought, everyone interprets it in his own way.
  • iouris
    iouris 16 June 2020 12: 03 New
    0
    A bastard and bastard - start over: Britain rules the world.
  • Cyril G ...
    Cyril G ... 16 June 2020 12: 05 New
    +2
    I have one question, but what does the editorial board of VO lack materials with military analytics, for example, and other things, that it posts inadequate stuffing?
    1. iouris
      iouris 16 June 2020 15: 58 New
      0
      Essno. I don’t feel like writing about modernity! For UTB can fly.
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 16 June 2020 12: 13 New
    0
    According to declassified Soviet documents and captured sources, on the morning of July 12, 5 Guards. The TA, which was subordinated to all tank formations at the approaches to the station, consisted of 951 tanks and 54 self-propelled guns (self-propelled guns), but some of them were in transit and under repair. In total, on this day, in two districts near Prokhorovka, which were separated by about 18 km, the Soviet side brought 672 armored units into battle: 514 Soviet tanks and self-propelled guns operated against 210 tanks and assault guns of the SS corps on the now famous tank field south of the station, and south of Prokhorovka - 158 tanks and self-propelled guns versus 119. In total, in two areas, at different times, 1001 armored vehicles took part on both sides: 672 Soviet and 329 German.


    During the hostilities on July 12, 1943, the troops of the Voronezh Front failed to fulfill their assigned tasks - to defeat the enemy and launch a counteroffensive, and its shock formation - the Rotmistrov army - lost more than 10% of the equipment put into battle in about 11-50 hours. By the end of the defensive operation on July 16, 1943, it was drained of blood: 334 armored units burned down, more than 200 were under repair. To find out the reasons for the large losses from Moscow, a special commission arrived under the chairmanship of a member of the State Defense Committee (GKO), secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) Georgy Malenkov (hereinafter a detailed report of the commission with an analysis of the tactics and strategy of the leadership of the Soviet army during the Battle of Kursk, especially near Prokhorovka , was classified, it is stored in the Archives of the President of the Russian Federation, the secrecy label has not yet been removed, but the general conclusion of the commission is known: the fighting of the 5th Guards Tank Army under the command of Rotmistrov near Prokhorovka is "a sample of an unsuccessful operation" - ed. ).


    Captured German documents found in the Central AMO RF prove that on the evening of July 11, at 2 and 3 SS tanks, only 373 tanks and assault guns were in service. But directly to repel the blow of the 5th Guards. The TA command of the SS corps used 206 tanks and assault guns: all armored vehicles of the SS motorized division "Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler" (77 units) and Das Reich (95), and from the motorized SS division "Death's Head" - only 34 units out of 122. The rest were in the band of the neighboring 5th Guards. army. On July 24, 1943, Lieutenant General Nikita Khrushchev, a member of the front military council, included the intelligence department's data in his report, addressed personally to Joseph Stalin, confirming their reliability.

    The investigation of "Malenkov's commission" lasted two weeks, then its conclusions went to Stalin's table. The question was raised about the removal of Rotmistrov from office and bringing him to trial. His fate hung in the balance until the end of July, when, through the efforts of the Chief of the General Staff, Marshal Alexander Vasilevsky, the anger of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief was extinguished, and at the end of August 1943, the general was awarded the Order of Kutuzov, 1st class for his contribution to the victory in the Battle of Kursk. Thus, the question of how to assess the events near Prokhorovka was actually decided: to consider the battle victorious, not to focus on losses.

    https://maxpark.com/community/4765/content/6809454
  • synodontis
    synodontis 16 June 2020 12: 15 New
    +1
    Ms Rolling called the population of Britain "Muggles". I think she knew the correct name, known throughout Russia - "impudent", but she was afraid to include it, so as not to be known as an agent of Moscow
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 16 June 2020 12: 18 New
    +1
    In the "Report on the hostilities of the 5th Guards. TA for the period from 7 to 24 July 1943", approved by the commander of the 5th Guards Tank Army, Lieutenant-General Pavel Rotmistrov, it was stated: at the Prokhorovka station "an unusual tank a battle in which more than 1500 tanks participated on both sides ... ". This figure is based on the version that the Germans concentrated at Prokhorovka only nine tank, four infantry and two motorized divisions with up to 1000 tanks, and directly against the 5th Guards. TA - six tank divisions, 700-800 combat vehicles.

    In reality, this was not the case. The army headquarters included the 48th and 24th Panzer Corps in the group "concentrated for an attack on Prokhorovka," although the 48th was advancing not on Prokhorovka, but in a different direction, and the 24th at that time was generally in reserve. The same happened with the formations immediately before the 5th Guards. TA - for example, the army headquarters indicated the participation of the Great Germany motorized division in the battle, although it was 35 km from the station. These mistakes were made due to poor knowledge of the situation and deliberate distortion of facts: the work of Soviet army intelligence at that time was ineffective, the professional training of officers was low, and the leadership showed a tendency to overestimate the enemy's forces. The intelligence department of the 5th Guards also suffered from this. TA.

    But it was these figures that went down in the history of the Battle of Kursk and formed the basis of the myth about Prokhorovka. Since the accounting documents of the armies were considered a priori truthful, on their basis and with these figures in 1944 a large article was published about those events in the General Staff's "Collection of War Experience Generalization". The lack of a filter to filter out fables has become one of the main reasons for the promotion of the myth of 1500 tanks in the scientific community and the media. In addition, after 1945, all documents of the Red Army were classified.

    Published in 1960, the book of Rotmistrov's memoirs about the battles at Prokhorovka consolidated the legend about the number of armored vehicles and about the "greatest tank battle", stimulating its distribution.

    https://maxpark.com/community/4765/content/6809454
  • Dmitry V.
    Dmitry V. 16 June 2020 12: 32 New
    -1
    Later, Rotmistrov himself tried to correct these incorrect numbers. In an interview with Voenno-Istoricheskiy Zhurnal, he argued that south-west of Prokhorovka, the enemy had brought in a little more than 500, and the first echelon of the 5th Guards. The TA had up to 700 tanks, so 1200 combat vehicles participated in the oncoming battle. But at the same time, in order not to refute the established figure, he put forward a new legend: another 300 combat vehicles of his army were sent to eliminate the threat of an enemy breakthrough south of Prokhorovka (although in his own report it was indicated that only 92 tanks went there, that is, 200 tanks where something "lost").

    After that, the literature and the press began to use an estimate of 1200 cars, but paradoxically, no one officially refuted 1500. It was no longer possible to ignore the data conflict. Therefore, the ideological bodies decided to "modernize" the myth of Prokhorovka: without rejecting both figures, somehow explaining them. Military historian Colonel Georgy Koltunov was assigned to solve this difficult task. In a book about the Battle of Kursk, written jointly with the historian Boris Solovyov and published in 1970, he tried to find a compromise between the versions, dividing the enemy force of 700 tanks, indicated by Rotmistrov, into two regions. Allegedly, this was the total number of enemy tanks in the area of ​​the station: up to 500 - in 2 military corps, southwest, and up to 200 - in 3 military corps, to the south. At the same time, Koltunov was forced to note that up to 1200 armored units took part in the battles south-west of Prokhorovka on both sides, and another 300, in total - 1500 to the south. This version received official approval, so a "updated" version of the myth about Prokhorovka arose. living to this day.


    As the candidate of historical sciences Valery Zamulin notes, there are several reasons for the survivability of the myth of Prokhorovka. At the end of the twentieth century, it was not possible to prepare new qualified specialists capable of moving forward, relying on the best traditions of their predecessors. The development of historical science involves the search and input into the scientific circulation of new sources. But working in archives is a very laborious and expensive business, so some authors comment on the old data without using new materials, fitting them to their vision of the problem. It’s more convenient: there is less work and danger to get the unflattering title from the boss of the deceit of the people’s feat from the authorities. Thus, new legends and myths of the Arc of Fire are created.

    https://maxpark.com/community/4765/content/6809454
  • Alexander Zima
    Alexander Zima 16 June 2020 12: 41 New
    0
    Under the Prokhorovka Germans won .. having lost five tanks ... and the rest ??? and the rest, since the Germans left the battlefield .. dragged for repair to Germany ... and since the Germans didn’t have a single TIGER on the go ... then there was nothing to bite the Russians .. because we decided to sho ... ... having lost 400t of 2000t, the Russians decided it was time to soak this EU of Hitler .. as it turned out there was something .... Glory to all the peoples of the USSR who smashed this democracy ... but they didn’t see it clear .. now they are taking revenge.
  • srha
    srha 16 June 2020 12: 46 New
    +1
    Kutuzov did not win a single major battle against Napoleon - but defeated him. Just thinking is tactical, but it is strategic.
    By the way, we should ask those historians, where did the "not broken" tank divisions go? At least from such "allies" I heard that they continued to consistently "win" in Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Hungary and then surrendered to the allies (except, it seems, one).
    By the way, it would be nice to ask how many Nazi soldiers and officers (and not the entire population, including the burnt Dresden) were destroyed by the allies, and how you start counting from their battles - and 10% is not recruited from the SA.
  • vavilon
    vavilon 16 June 2020 12: 49 New
    +1
    I am not interested in their opinion. I know that we are a winner.
    And under Prokhorovka, as in other battles, the victory was ours.
  • pexotinec
    pexotinec 16 June 2020 13: 03 New
    0
    Trying to justify your shame?
  • Vitaly Tsymbal
    Vitaly Tsymbal 16 June 2020 13: 09 New
    +1
    Again, English scientists ... I am always amazed by the one-sidedness and "understatement" of modern historians (our modern-homegrown ones), sometimes it seems that for them the main thing is not truth, but glory ... the glory gained not by the creation of a classical scientific historical work, but by very fakes similar to the truth. You can argue for a long time who inflicted how many losses on the enemy, but not to say that the feat of the Soviet tankers was that they did not chicken out and realizing that they could die, on light and medium tanks they took a battle with the enemy having a strong pre-prepared anti-tank "fist" and a heavy armored technique. Later, the "English scientists" will be sitting on a soft sofa to argue - who won, and our grandfathers went to their deaths, already understanding and knowing what would happen to their families if fascists Germans, Romanians, Spaniards, Italians, Slovaks came to their homes, Czechs, French, Dutch, Belgians, Croats and other Western "civilized" trash, for whom Hitler was a "dear father". The memory of the tank battle near Prokhorovka is not the memory of "an abstract victory, from supposedly propagandistic scientists", it is MEMORY AND PRIDE OF THE HEROISM OF SIMPLE SOVIET TANKISTS.
  • APASUS
    APASUS 16 June 2020 13: 16 New
    +1
    Therefore, half of the world lives on the type of dissemination of information, and even the younger generation of Japan believes that the USSR dropped nuclear charges on Japan!
    Propaganda of lies - as state policy ................
  • rotfuks
    rotfuks 16 June 2020 13: 20 New
    0
    At present, it is difficult to talk about tank battles and tanks. After the massive introduction of computer games like Tank Force or World of Tanks into the fragile minds, millions of strategists, couch experts and couch experts in tanks divorced, who move whole tank divisions with the movement of a computer mouse. Apparently, British researchers grew up on such games and arguing with them is useless. It was not in vain when the German Admiral Doenitz, signing the act of surrender, saw the French delegation as a member of the delegation, exclaimed, “Did they defeat us too?” And we had to ask the same about the British.
  • yfast
    yfast 16 June 2020 13: 24 New
    -1
    British scientists, they are such Elton Jones.