Stormhouse

Hehe, on the site is says that Wittmann was killed by Poles. The Americans say he was killed by a air man with direct missile hit to his engine. Anybody got a good site with research done on this?

For once speaking polish gives me a advantage .

Since I feel this is directed at me... Seriously, have you seen anyone in this thread argue that Zitadelle was a German success? I thought we were talking about the reasons why the offensive failed to achieve its objectives. That and some (in my opinion) interesting what ifs.</font>

That's why this discussion is moving at cross purposes. There are at least three levels under discussion: tactics, operations and strategy. The German performanced varies depending on which level we're looking at. 1. Tactics: Germans are still excellent here in July '43, and arguably superior to the Soviets. 2. Operations: This is debatable. I'd give the edge to the Soviets, but I am guessing an argument can be made for the Germans. 3. Strategy: Clearly the Soviets have the edge here, both because their plan was better and more realistic and because they actually won: they achieved many of their strategic goals while the Germans achieved none. I would suggest that there's a fourth level, grand strategy, which would involve providing the materials of war for the armies to fight with and coordinating with their allies on a world-wide level to achieve an effective global strategy. Here again, the Soviets have the clear edge. They massed materials of war in the right place to an extent that the German army could not overcome them, and the Allied attack on Sicily threw off the timing of the German offensive in a way that was probably not decisive but which nontheless aided the Soviet goals. Thereafter, the German army would consistently suffer from a one-two punch as the US/UK and Soviet armies alternately launched offensives. So, as I see the battle, only on the tactical level did the Germans have a definable edge. They were losing ground to the Russians operationally by 1943 and had arguably already lost the war on the levels of strategy and, particularly, grand strategy.</font>

Ok so what are we looking at then, some people are talking about Tactical level and others are talking about Operation level successes. One person points out the operational level and another starts arguing about the tactical level... No i didnt mean this to become a tiger vs other tanks discussion.

I really get the feeling that some posters on this board attribute all Russian success's to there superior numbers and to the weather. It has been mentioned many times on the board how good Russian intelligence was about the enemy as oppose to the Germans. How good Russians were at fooling Germans about where they were going to attack. Yet it is never acknowledge by some people that are only interested in pointing out how one German guy took out 10 Russian tanks in his Tiger... Russians had tank ace’s too, how come we never hear about them??? Also I think we should look at and no body ever does at the cost of producing a Tiger and the cost of producing a T-34 and as to how many could be fielded. A Cadillac (meaning Tiger) is great but if you can only have one for 10 km of the front and you can have 10 t-34 for the same length of the front which tank is really better. Too many people get into this Tank vs Tank thing. It’s a bit more complicated then that, look at the production costs... Also too many people are always ready to point the Tigers strong points never its weakness’. Russian were getting really good at waging war in the second half of the war, I’m sure a lot of it had to do with the defeats they suffered at first. They were willing to learn and leave nothing to chance. As for the Germans all they had was victories and any set back was always attributed to bad weather or superior Russian numbers. No new lessons were drone up after a defeat. I say this because I have read numerous German point of view memoirs.

I'm not entirely sure about the obsession of what II ss panzer division was doing. The conversation is about kursk not what the II ss division was doing are how well. This is some wishful thinking that if the Division was still moving a few more days would have turned into victory. Here is the link I promised, about the russian defence doctrine. http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp

Im not arguing that the Germans won at Kursk, that would be as pointless as arguing that the Germans (somehow) won ww2. Interesting question you raise about II SS Panzer (corps) however. I suppose it is because Kursk primarely is known for the tank battle outside Prokhorovka, and the only German unit involved in that one is II SS Panzer Corps. Another reason why it might be valuable to take a closer look at the results of the southern pincer is because many hold up Kursk as the definitive end to the Blitzkrieg. That the Soviets had managed to contain and control a dedicated blitzkrieg-type offensive. The truth might be more complex than that.</font>

This is always funny, The Germans lost but not really you see.... Your also only looking at II SS panzer division how accurate is that??? I've seen some documentaries about Kursk, yes it’s not the same as reading a book about it but i have also read a number or articles about this battle. If I just read the beginning about the German concentration and preparation before the battle i too would have attacked if I was German. There was really no reason to worry, but if you look at a map and the small dents that the offensives made, it really was a failure. Don’t tell me how far they went in, you might want to look at how much further they had to go to close the circle.

This is not a book and it has been posted before but it's a excellent link that you might enjoy. http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp

I didn't like the movie at all, the fight scenes where good but the rest made it really bad. Like the scenes where the young soldier with the pregnant wife is carrying a wounded friend back to his lines and gets shot in the back. I thought it was a cheap way to get emotions out of the audience. And there where many more instances like that one.

I remember a few weeks or months ago a guy wrote on this forum a essay about the blitz. He made a very good and convincing point, the armor was not what won the war in france. Many german tanks where stuck in colums moving up to the front. He also had some numbers as to how many tanks where avaible at the front and that number was really small. What did win the war and what made a huge difference was communications. Every tank had two way radios and also some special ground troops had a direct conneciton to the planes above. Now communication does not sound as sexy as thousands of tanks rolling and crushing the enemy. But his essay did convice me that he's onto something. Also Guederian did start out as a signal officer so he had a very good understanding as to how important communication was. Here is a question, how could the german army have zero intellegiance on russia. Not just the military formation but the climat and people. The russian have a word for the muddy season called rasputin, yet the german army talked about it like it was natural disaster that only happens once every 100 years?

Search for "Russian brides." The game doesn't ship with anti-tank ditches, but each (non-CDV) copy of CMBB will ship with with 5,000 Russian women to dig anti-tank ditches.</font>

Where is gold version of the demo, i just downloaded the beta again.

I think that does SS divisions would have been lost if the attack continued. The Russians counter attack in the south and north and would have surrounded does division. Even if there Elite division there tanks still need fuel and ammo to fight. The battle was suppose to be a surprise attack by the Germans but it wasn't. The Russian did everything to use this attack to there advantage. Basically this battle should have been called off.