Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

what was the secret of the battle of kusk

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Sleepywalter (U11142180) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008

  i think that the soviet won the battle of kursk by knowing the german plan before the battle start they had an undercover agent in hitler's q.g code named verner who gave the battle plan to nkvd as confirm it paul carrel a german menber of wehrmacht after the war my question is if some historian write about that matter

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Volgadon (U10843893) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008

  Do you mean, are there any books about Verner being Paul Carrel?

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 26th February 2008

  Sleepy walter,
  
  I think you are being far too simplistic in the view of a Soviet Victory.
  
  I would suggest that the outcome was a Tactical German Victory, a Strategic victory for the Soviets.

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 27th February 2008

  hi mani
  nice to see u back
  
  kursk to me seems a battle of nerves - to the poison dwarf a salient was unnacceptable - as he still thought the ussr war could be won
  
  to his generals - kursk was somewhere they wanted - they wanted the ussr to attack and somewhere they could with defensive tactics have destroyed the red army piecemeal
  
  to stalin the preparations made for a german attack meant he could destroy a great deal of german power - which is how it panned out
  
  st
  
  

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Northern_Andy (U2943874) on Friday, 25th April 2008

  How was Kursk a tactical victory for the Germans?
  They didn't break through the Russian line in the North or South; the Russians - though badly beaten - were able to mount counter-attacks, and the Germans finally had to abandon the attack after the Russian counter attacks at Orel and the Allied invasion of Sicily.
  
  At the end of the battle the Germans had lost countless troops and armoured vehicles they could ill-afford to lose, and hadn't affected the war in the East in their favour in any way.
  
  So I don't think that the Germans won a tactical victory at all - whereas the Russians had definitely won a strategic victory.
  
  Kursk was the last throw of the dice in the East for the Germans - and they lost.
  
  Read the book 'Barbarossa' by Alan Clark.

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by JB (U569100) on Friday, 25th April 2008

  And here we are 40 years on from Enoch's little old lady who had dog-pooh pushed through her letter-box, excpet it turns out she never existed.
  
  Enoch made another speech before that complaining about a school where one girl was the only white child in her class, and the assembled local press couldn't find her either.
  
  We had the "Holocaust banned" thread a few days ago which was an honest mistake, but there are some people who make it their business to push this stuff out, and so I challenge the poster to name the school or forever hold their peace.
  
  

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 25th April 2008

  Meant to comment on this when it was first posted.
  
  The British Lt Gen Giffard Le Q Martel, who was one of the original British tank pioneers and in 1943 was Head of the British Military Mission in Moscow, claimed that the Stavka showed him the original Red Army plan for Kursk, and that he suggested amendments that led to the final, successful, plan.
  
  The Russians are hardly going to admit Kursk was down to a British officer, and Martel was not popular with the RTR mafia (he was a sapper originally), so his claim has never been given much credence.
  

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 25th April 2008

  J B. I think you have posted on the wrong subject.
  
  G F

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Saturday, 26th April 2008

  Northern
  
  What Mani did mean with a tactical german victory.Is probably if you read the the losses,the germans did lose 280 tanks to 1600-1900 tanks for the soviets,the ratio of manpower loses is about the same.especialy was von Mannstein in the south succesfull.
  
  It was undoubtly a soviet strategic victory since it was the first time that they kept the field in a major tank battle and it ended the german hope for a victory in the east.
  
  Hasse

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Saturday, 26th April 2008

  Just a few points in response to earlier posts.
  
  Whilst the 9th Armee in the North advanced only about 10 miles, von Mansteins forces in the South advanced about 25-30 miles and they certainly broke through the first lines.
  
  A lot of modern historians and some of the German Generals involved wanted to continue the attack in the South as they felt/feel that they were on the verge of breaking through, by the 12th July the Voronezh Front was in dire straits and was having to call on the other Fronts for help.
  
  German total losses in tanks and assault guns were approx 267, Soviet losses were in the region of 1640.
  
  Just a quick point to note is that Gen Guderian, amongst others, wanted to stay on the defensive in 1943 and rebuild the armoured forces, it was Hitler who insisted on the annual German Summer offensive.

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 28th April 2008

  Hi Northern_Andy,
  
  How can it be anything other than a German Tactical victory, the casualty lists alone speak for themselves…
  
  At the end of the battle the Germans had lost countless troops and armoured vehicles they could ill-afford to lose Β 
  
  They didn’t loose countless, the numbers can and were counted. It was a fraction of that lost by the Soviets, hence a tactical victory.
  
  and hadn't affected the war in the East in their favour in any way. Β 
  
  
  That contributes to a Strategic Victory, not a tactical one.
  
  Read the book 'Barbarossa' by Alan ClarkΒ 
  

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 28th April 2008

  sorry, re Alan Clark,
  
  Have done – a Good read, although many areas showed a certain naivety regarding military matters, but as a history piece, outstanding.

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Northern_Andy (U2943874) on Monday, 28th April 2008

  I take your point, but if you take into account the reserves the Russians had compared to the Germans, then the Germans lost a far greater % of their total armoured forces and men.
  
  Also, the battle of Kursk showed the Russians displaying a new maturity on the battlefield in terms of keeping their nerve and how they handled the battle.
  
  If you review the respective outcomes for the Germans and Russians, then I can not see how the Germans won any form of victory, be it tactical or otherwise.
  
  Regards.

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 28th April 2008

  Hi Northern Andy.
  
  I think I get what mani is saying.
  
  If you compare Kursk to Jutland. Both battles can be classed as a german victory in terms of losses they inflicted.
  
  But both destroy the German abilty to mount an offensive action afterwards.

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Monday, 28th April 2008

  Hi Andy,
  
  Again, the % losses I would suggest contributes to a strategic analysis, the pure figures of loses to the tactical. The German's destroyed far more than the soviets...
  
  Also, the battle of Kursk showed the Russians displaying a new maturity on the battlefield in terms of keeping their nerve and how they handled the battle. Β 
  
  Indeed, their commanders came of age at last. The actually learned from their previous mistakes of being encircled and applied some military common sense at last. Uncle Joe's purges took till Kursk to turn around.
  
  If you review the respective outcomes for the Germans and Russians, then I can not see how the Germans won any form of victory, be it tactical or otherwise.Β 
  
  The outcome is the strategic game - the sovets won it. The impact of the battle favoured the soviets.
  
  The actual battle itself can't be anything other than a tactical victory for the Germans. The fact that their losses couldn't be replaced, the societs heavier losses could be is the difference between tactical and strategic victory.
  
  If one side destroys three times more manpower, five times more hardware, there is one tactical winner.

  Link to this forum: what was the secret of the battle of kusk

  Report message15

Back to top