Stalingrad or Kursk?

[Mr. Shaboobies]

Hey there history buffs. I am taking a europe in the twentieth century class, and I have to write a term paper. The list of questions to base the paper is somewhat interesting, but then I saw near the end this question:

Was it the Battle of Stalingrad or the Battle of Kursk that broke the back of the German army in their Russian offensive?

In my opinion based on my limited knowledge of WW2, I would say that Stalingrad was the turning point of the war, but the German Army could still have turned things around. But after Kursk, they lost all chance at turning back the Soviet Steamroller and were doomed.

So what do you guys think? Was it the epic 6 month long battle in the streets of the city bearing Stalin's own name, or was it the Russian plains riddled with anti-tank defences? And if anyone has good references that I could use in my paper then they would be greatly appreciated.

 

[therussian]

Moscow.

 

[Morbius Sire]

Hey there history buffs. I am taking a europe in the twentieth century class, and I have to write a term paper. The list of questions to base the paper is somewhat interesting, but then I saw near the end this question:

Was it the Battle of Stalingrad or the Battle of Kursk that broke the back of the German army in their Russian offensive?

In my opinion based on my limited knowledge of WW2, I would say that Stalingrad was the turning point of the war, but the German Army could still have turned things around. But after Kursk, they lost all chance at turning back the Soviet Steamroller and were doomed.

So what do you guys think? Was it the epic 6 month long battle in the streets of the city bearing Stalin's own name, or was it the Russian plains riddled with anti-tank defences? And if anyone has good references that I could use in my paper then they would be greatly appreciated.

Correct me if i am wrong, I am doing this out of memory.

Stalingrad was one of the major battles where the German army was defeated early in the conflict. These battles[Stalingrad, El Alamein, and more] were significant in that they showed that the German army could be defeated. They did not break the Wermacht, but they signaled the arrival of better Soviet armies. [On the eastern front ofcourse]

Kursk on the other hand, the battle initiative was already in Soviet hands. The aftermath of Kursk was the loss of most armored units of the German army on the eastern front.[It was doomed from the start.]
Before Kursk, the Germans may have had a chance to counter attack the Russians, but that was a weak chance. Because no matter how many the Soviet lose, they can easily regroup and rebuild, due to their moved factories in the Urals.

To answer you question: The battle of Kursk was the clear signal/indication that German had completely lost the Russian offensive. Or it is possible to say the Battle of Kursk broke the back of the German army.

Also, By that time, the german army[including Luftwaffe] was depleted and exhausted. And even if Kursk hadn't occurred, the Germans still wouldn't have been able to counter the Soviet steamroller.

The Soviet were already out producing the Germans with tanks that were somewhat equal in quality. Not to mention manpower, and natural resources.




This thread can help you with some links
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=34861
[scroll down to WW2]

I hope this helped.

 

[Shiloh]

Stalingrad was certainly a major turning point. Wiki isn't always the best source but here are the basics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

 

[Floris V van Holland]

stalingrad broke the morale of the german army by losing a whole army.
on top of that it showed showed the absolute lunacy of hitler at that point to the generals.

this because of promises of fictional reinforcements of top of the already idiotic lack of supplies and even clothing the whole russian campaign had to deal with.
remember that at that point already a very good proportion of the wehrmacht had already needlessly been frozen to death.
reinforcements are comming. but all he did was create new units from troops pulled from other units.
decreasing cohesion and strength.
keeping up with this trent of lunacy he outfitted the fresh young new recruites out with the very best material available.
to send those in the veratable hotspots straight into their deaths with orders of never retreat.
any general on the eastern front would have known to place new recruites under the wings of the veterans.
and supply your veterans with the very best gear available.
but every new devision even if only 1/3 strengh was a full division in hiltlers fantasy at that point already probably.

kursk
for kursk the germans ammassed a great army. huge. nobody could emagine they would be capable of a formation so large anymore.
this to stemm the tide of retreates and defeats suffered ever since winter.
but they lost the initiative by not attacking immediately ( i think they were held up because a new tank was brought forward panthers)
they waited for two weeks or so while the russians informed by spies put up defencive line after defencive line , mined trenched everything.

the attack which wasn't wise to begin with but hitler was obsessed by the idea the army should always be on the offencive.
the attack proceded as ordered but while the southern pincer movement was moderately succesfull the northern was totally bogged down.
the pincer movement failed to close and the russians where continually being supplied.
stalemate.
but while the russians suffered far more losses maybe 3x as much but 65% of the german hardware was lost.
this broke the back of the army. which afterwards had to hastely retreat back to the motherland.

the armee if it would have used in the way the german generals where already very good at , that is tactical retreat could have probably pretty confidently held the advance up and maybe only giving in a few hundred kilometers in during the subsequent year.
but that wasn't an option anymore.
kursk won the war for the russians.

ohh and never forget that the wehrmacht had 70+ percent of its fighting power commited fighting the red devils. 10 - 13 % wher recuperating and only ever committed 17- 20 % of its force to all the western fronts.
important not to forget that.

 

[Mr. Shaboobies]

Moscow.

Well if we are going to be totally honest I would have to say June 22, 1941 then: The beginning of Operation Barbarossa. Stupidest plan that Hitler ever came up with. Hadn't he ever heard of the infamous General Winter and his uncanny ability to overcome invaders of Russia.

 

[shikaka]

Well if we are going to be totally honest I would have to say June 22, 1941 then: The beginning of Operation Barbarossa. Stupidest plan that Hitler ever came up with.

I think this is partly true.

After the horrendous losses of 41, they could only delay the inevitable. The SU managed to survive into 42, and from that time, they couldn't lose.

With different battle outcomes and without the involvement of the US, it is possible that the Soviets would have only won in 46 or later, but from 41, the german situation was hopeless.

Hadn't he ever heard of the infamous General Winter and his uncanny ability to overcome invaders of Russia.

For example mongols/lithuanians/polish didn't have problems with that

Actually there are/were some places which were impossible to pass in summer and spring, but were perfectly trespassable (is this a word?) winter time.

 

[OTZ]

Kursk didn't break the back of the German Army. It recovered it's strength quickly (lots of mythical perceptions about their entire armoured forces getting annhilated, etc). I'd almost argue that neither Stalingrad nor Kursk were the reasons the Germans lost. therussian is probaby closest with his post - Moscow. Personally, I think the campaign was lost earlier than that - maybe in August of '41 - everything after that was just another nail in the coffin.

 

[Ahlerich]

i ll have a stalingrad. bloody. with a baked potatoe and sour cream.

 

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Stalingrad. Little Saturn was the major turning point in the war. By Kursk and Bagration the war had already been decided.

 

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The day the operation started - it was waay delayed, and the original plan was that Moscow, Leningrad and Ukraine would be done for by winter, thus pretty much breaking the soviets.

2 months earlier and the war would either end much more quickly, or drag on for several more years.


But on Stalingrad/Kursk:
Stalingrad was pointless, and pretty much destroyed German chances of success in the south any time soon.

Kursk WAS NOT UNWINNABLE. The germans were already more than half-way through by the time they received the order to halt and withdraw. Seriously, here are the losses at Prokhorovka:
German:
522 men;
3-6 tanks destroyed;
41 - 89 tanks damaged.

Soviet:
~5500 men;
207 - 334 tanks destroyed;
420 tanks damaged.

Source: Wikipedia (Yes I know it's , but can give a general idea)

Do you really think Kursk was unwinnable?

 

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Definitely Stalingrad. More on the moral side, because even if the Germans won there, I doubt their ability to finish the campaign.
What was the possibility of the German army to achieve anything on the Eastern front had it won Kursk?
The Allies were already assaulting Sicily and Italy and were a few months away from the D-Day.
The Soviet army on the other hand had enormous reserves seeing from their ability to launch a huge offensive (Bagration) although it had suffered huge casualties on Kursk a few months earlier. Not counting the fact that the Germans had ammased all their forces in the area of Kursk and the other fronts were virtually unguarded and facing large Soviet formations.

 

[Entropy Judge]

Was it the Battle of Stalingrad or the Battle of Kursk that broke the back of the German army in their Russian offensive?

As phrased, I would think Stalingrad is the better answer. The question (again, as phrased) is asking which one was more vital in *stopping* the German offensive and removing its ability to continue the offensive. (Given that Leningrad and Moscow were more important ...) Stalingrad made a German victory effectively impossible; Kursk almost ensured German defeat.

 

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

What stopped them was that they didn't disable the russians quick enough, so they could prepare. End of discussion.

 

[Morbius Sire]

The day the operation started - it was waay delayed, and the original plan was that Moscow, Leningrad and Ukraine would be done for by winter, thus pretty much breaking the soviets.

2 months earlier and the war would either end much more quickly, or drag on for several more years.


But on Stalingrad/Kursk:
Stalingrad was pointless, and pretty much destroyed German chances of success in the south any time soon.

Kursk WAS NOT UNWINNABLE. The germans were already more than half-way through by the time they received the order to halt and withdraw. Seriously, here are the losses at Prokhorovka:
German:
522 men;
3-6 tanks destroyed;
41 - 89 tanks damaged.

Soviet:
~5500 men;
207 - 334 tanks destroyed;
420 tanks damaged.

Source: Wikipedia (Yes I know it's , but can give a general idea)

Do you really think Kursk was unwinnable?

I don't agree.
At Kursk: The northern attack wasn't making any real progress and was getting bogged down.
The Southern attack was doing well, but due to Soviet defences, their progress was slowing down the further they went.

Russian defences were well done due to the fact Hitler wanted to wait for the new tanks to come out.

As well, there was one thing that was in the Russian advantage, and that was army reserves.
The german generals were worried that if they commit all of their forces, the russians would unleash the reserves and close them in like what happened in stalingrad.


The Germans couldn't have won Kursk.

 

[HissingNewt]

I believe it was Stalingrad since the Russians encircled the Germany army operating in that area (6ht Army maybe?) and had it surrender. Massive loss of manpower and equipment after the months of fighting in the city itself.

 

[Stark of Winterfell]

Definitely Stalingrad. More on the moral side, because even if the Germans won there, I doubt their ability to finish the campaign.
What was the possibility of the German army to achieve anything on the Eastern front had it won Kursk?
The Allies were already assaulting Sicily and Italy and were a few months away from the D-Day.
The Soviet army on the other hand had enormous reserves seeing from their ability to launch a huge offensive (Bagration) although it had suffered huge casualties on Kursk a few months earlier. Not counting the fact that the Germans had ammased all their forces in the area of Kursk and the other fronts were virtually unguarded and facing large Soviet formations.

I think you're mixing 1943 and 1944 together. Summer 1943 saw Kursk and the invasion of Sicily. After the Russian victory they launched an offensive which culminated in the retaking of the Ukraine. Summer 1944, a year after Kursk, saw Bagration and D-Day.

On topic, I would say that Kursk broke the back of the German army, simply because even though it failed, it showed that the Germans could launch a major offensive. After Kursk, they could not. The tide turned at Stalingrad, and the prospects of German victory with it, but Kursk broke the back of the German army. Then a year later Bagration shattered it.

 

[Floris V van Holland]

i think you are right stark.
the morale broke in the winter of stalingrad plus insanity was introduced
kursk was the last time they could mount a real threat.




btw stark :
also excited about the rr martin upcomming tv series??
.

 

[Numenor]

Stalingrad, imo..

 

[Floris V van Holland]

Kursk WAS NOT UNWINNABLE.

Do you really think Kursk was unwinnable?

====
try this wiki instead of yours : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk#Casualties
i'm sure its much closer to the truth than the numbers you coughed up .
====

yes i do!
the russians had a multitude of numbers compaired to the germans.
about:
3-1 in men
4 -1 in guns
2/2,5 -1 in tanks

on top of this the russians were very very deeply entrenched. and extremely heavily mined.

-----Accordingly, the minefields at Kursk achieved densities of 1,700 antipersonnel mines and 1,500 antitank mines per kilometer of front.* ----- source : http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp

heavily mined means progression stalls till cleared leaving them wide open and exposed to the 4 - 1 artillery superiority. 31 000 pieces of them !!!

and i'm pretty sure the russians had on top of that all very sizeable strategic reserves of again a fourth of that.

that the germans managed to inflict 8 x more casualties than they suffered is almost a miracle.
it certainly tells us a lot about the sheer quality of the german soldiers and their brilliant generals.
.
.
edit :
also very strange in think is that they started on 22th of june instead of what they should have done start 2 months earlier at the end of april.
if they had done that they would have been able to keep the momentum going for 2 months more that very successful first summer.
moskow the railroad center or all russia would most certainly been overrun.

at that time almost all railroads were going from moscow to a destination with almost no interconnections between destinations.
i saw that railroad map once in a docu , very striking fact. taking of moscow would have effectively ended almost all resource transport between mines and factories.
.

 

[Stark of Winterfell]

i think you are right stark.
the morale broke in the winter of stalingrad plus insanity was introduced
kursk was the last time they could mount a real threat.




btw stark :
also excited about the rr martin upcomming tv series??
.

Yeah, the one-two punch of Stalingrad followed by a defeat in summer (for the first time, I think) at Kursk really must have been devastating for morale.

Also, I'm definitely excited for the tv series, and plan on seeing it/buying it for sure, to put alongside BoB and the Pacific. Now HBO just needs an Eastern Front miniseries, and it will be the best channel of all time.

 

[Lysimachus]

I think a few of things in this thread need to be cleared up, so i'll answer a few of the points made.

In my opinion based on my limited knowledge of WW2, I would say that Stalingrad was the turning point of the war, but the German Army could still have turned things around. But after Kursk, they lost all chance at turning back the Soviet Steamroller and were doomed.

The question here is how? It's easy to make an assumption that they could turn things around, but even at the apex of their military might the Germans couldn't defeat the Soviet Union? What makes you think after the failure to meet their goals in 1941 and then the destruction of an entire army from a war effort already desperately short of manpower that they could have turned things around post-Stalingrad? Personally I feel the end of a chance of German victory occurred following their inability to destroy the RAF (thus unable to invade Britain thus unable to cause them to submit which leaves one of their main enemies unconquerable), but i'm just questioning what made you state that Kursk was the final turning point.

Kursk didn't break the back of the German Army. It recovered it's strength quickly (lots of mythical perceptions about their entire armoured forces getting annhilated, etc). I'd almost argue that neither Stalingrad nor Kursk were the reasons the Germans lost. therussian is probaby closest with his post - Moscow. Personally, I think the campaign was lost earlier than that - maybe in August of '41 - everything after that was just another nail in the coffin.

Precisely. If you check here it states the following for German tank strength:

06/1941 - 5,639
03/1942 - 5,087
05/1942 - 5,847
11/1942 - 7,798
03/1943 - 5,625
08/1943 - 7,703 (post-Kursk, I don't see the German tank strength having been particularly diminished from March 1943's sum)
06/1944 - 9,148
09/1944 - 10,563
10/1944 - 11,005
11/1944 - 12,236
12/1944 - 13,175
01/1945 - 13,362

(figures exclude APCs and armoured cars)

Bearing in mind it took a few years for the Germans to gear in to their war-time economy (during the early years they were still producing domestic goods to give an aura of normality to the populace!), it's unsurprising their figures went up later on. The only credibility the "Kursk destroying the German armour" theory has is that Zitadelle would have resulted in the loss of a lot of seasoned troops, the tank crews being hit badly too; in the final stages of the war the Germans (having resorted to cheaper materials, alternative materials and speedier construction methods) definitely had more tanks than they could even provide fuel or crews for - the same applied for aircraft with many ME-262s being grounded due to a lack of fuel.

The day the operation started - it was waay delayed, and the original plan was that Moscow, Leningrad and Ukraine would be done for by winter, thus pretty much breaking the soviets.

2 months earlier and the war would either end much more quickly, or drag on for several more years.

The Germans needed the rasputiza to clear up first. It's a definite fact that the roads in Eastern Europe at the time were near-impossible for German tanks to traverse while it was wet and muddy. By October when it began the German advance had slowed to a crawl, and if the same occurred for the launching of Barbarossa (by not waiting for the weather to clear) the Soviets wouldn't have been as heavily mauled as they were since they would have had more time to prepare against a slow German advance. It's an interesting point to note that none of the main German eastern offensives took place before June. Barbarossa occurred on June 22, Operation Blue on June 28, and Operation Citadel on July 5 (originally planned for the second week of June however).

Kursk WAS NOT UNWINNABLE. The germans were already more than half-way through by the time they received the order to halt and withdraw.

Not really. Fourth Panzer Army had reached Oboyan (half way to Kursk) though Ninth Army had been bogged down quite quickly. The whole point of the operation was for the two pincers to link up and they weren't even close.

522 men;
3-6 tanks destroyed;
41 - 89 tanks damaged.

The Germans lost 6 tanks in the greatest tank battle in history? Riiiiiiiiight.

Soviet:
~5500 men;
207 - 334 tanks destroyed;
420 tanks damaged.

So you're saying the Soviets lost the strength of perhaps half a rifle division when they had perhaps ten armies in the Kursk salient. Hmmm.

Do you really think Kursk was unwinnable?

Yes, it was. Now if you actually knew what on earth you were talking about the hostile attitude would be more understandable, but when you have to be mauled in debates repeatedly (which I have done to you in the past too) you have no reason to be aggressive to anyone when you're constantly proved wrong.

What stopped them was that they didn't disable the russians quick enough, so they could prepare. End of discussion.

Woah, okay Mr. armchair mastermind.

---

While Stalingrad and Kursk did cripple German morale and manpower, they didn't cripple the number of German tanks available as their production figures simply went up to make up for these losses. The problem was lack of personnel to operate these vehicles and the reduced quality of their construction following the Allied blockade which resulted in the Germans having to use alternatives which for the mechanically unreliable German tanks meant they would be even more prone to breakdown. Personally i'm of the thought that the impossibility of defeating Britain and the United States made the war unwinnable (especially the US, I have no idea how they're meant to win World War 2 without being able to defeat the US) rather than specific battles but that's just me.

 

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Precisely. If you check here it states the following for German tank strength:

06/1941 - 5,639
03/1942 - 5,087
05/1942 - 5,847
11/1942 - 7,798
03/1943 - 5,625
08/1943 - 7,703 (post-Kursk, I don't see the German tank strength having been particularly diminished from March 1943's sum)
06/1944 - 9,148
09/1944 - 10,563
10/1944 - 11,005
11/1944 - 12,236
12/1944 - 13,175
01/1945 - 13,362

(figures exclude APCs and armoured cars)

Although we shouldn't forget that post-Kursk, those tanks had to be divided in several fronts, the Eastern, the Western and the Italian front. Many of the new tanks, Panthers and Tigers, were sent to Italy or Normandy.

 

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The Germans lost 6 tanks in the greatest tank battle in history? Riiiiiiiiight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prokhorovka

I was quoting that. And prokhorovka was the deciding engagement at Kursk.

 

[Lysimachus]

Although we shouldn't forget that post-Kursk, those tanks had to be divided in several fronts, the Eastern, the Western and the Italian front. Many of the new tanks, Panthers and Tigers, were sent to Italy or Normandy.

The point i'm trying to make is that from June 1941 to January 1945, German tank strength tripled. This does away with the Kursk myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prokhorovka

I'd like a better source than Wikipedia, since I find those figures impossible to believe. In fact, if you take a look here, David Glantz writes that on July 12 alone that the IISS Panzerkorps lost 60-70 tanks (figure excludes those repaired) and that 5th Guards Tank Army lost 400 tanks and self-propelled guns during the battle for Prokhorovka.

I was quoting that. And prokhorovka was the deciding engagement at Kursk.

Not really. If Ninth Army couldn't even link up with the Fourth Panzer Army at Kursk then there is no decisive battle for the Germans since none of them would have swayed the battle in their favour. All the Germans really achieved at Prokhorovka was destroying hundreds of Soviet tanks which were immediately replaced upon the end of the offensive along with even more vehicles.

 

[OTZ]

The entire II SS PzK didn't fight at Prokhorovka though, only LSSAH - and really, I think their tank losses were just a handful. You can probably find Nick Zetterling's figures to back that up...

 

[Khassaki]

Seeing as we are comparing Wiki sources, how about these two maps for comparison.

On this one the nazis are going one way
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Second_world_war_europe_1941-1942_map_en.png

On this one the nazis are going the other way.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Second_world_war_europe_1943-1945_map_en.png

Its easy to tell where Stalingrad and Moscow are, but Kursk is hardly noticeable.

 

[Holger Danske]

The Battle for Russia was lost the moment Hitler didn't listen to his generals. Especially Guderian's plan to utilize the panzerdivisions.
Also, Hitler's own personal problem with other humans didn't help him Russia. Early on a great part of the locals actually welcomed the Germans, but that was short-lived and only served to make resistance even more harsh... Just imagine if Hitler had not been such an inhumane douchebag. Stalin would have fallen from power quicker than France...

 

[Mr. Shaboobies]

Lysimachus:

What I'm wondering is the German strength after Stalingrad and then the German strength after Kursk. Unless I'm grossly underestimating German losses at Stalingrad, this battle was being fought by the north half of Army group south, correct? After Stalingrad was finished was there still not the other half of Army group South still located in the Caucasus? And what about the strength of Army group North and Army group Centre?

Who was fighting at Kursk? What percentage of the German troops remaining on the Entire Eastern front were lost when all was said and done compared to Stalingrad? These are figures I know not, and if anyone does know these figures than please bring them forth.

I'm not trying to make it seem like Stalingrad was a defeat that the Germans could just swallow and keep going. Rather, the one-two punch of Stalingrad and Kursk effectively destroyed ANY chances of German victory on the Eastern front. It just so happens that Kursk was after Stalingrad, and to me it seems the the final and largest nail in the German coffin.

 

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The point i'm trying to make is that from June 1941 to January 1945, German tank strength tripled. This does away with the Kursk myth.



I'd like a better source than Wikipedia, since I find those figures impossible to believe. In fact, if you take a look here, David Glantz writes that on July 12 alone that the IISS Panzerkorps lost 60-70 tanks (figure excludes those repaired) and that 5th Guards Tank Army lost 400 tanks and self-propelled guns during the battle for Prokhorovka.



Not really. If Ninth Army couldn't even link up with the Fourth Panzer Army at Kursk then there is no decisive battle for the Germans since none of them would have swayed the battle in their favour. All the Germans really achieved at Prokhorovka was destroying hundreds of Soviet tanks which were immediately replaced upon the end of the offensive along with even more vehicles.

If you bothered to read more closely, I myself said wikipedia is by no means reliable.