Kursk anyone?

[PEB14]

On 5/13/2023 at 12:42 AM, Artkin said:

Lol just ordered mine today. Yippee. Now let's get it in CM.

That would be a nice module for CMRT. First step on the way back to Stalingrad…

Edited May 14, 2023 by PEB14

[Artkin]

Well thats the most incredible book ive bought. There are SO many maps and tables in this. 

[Artkin]

Has anyone else bought (and read) Zamulin's book Demolishing The Myth? How does it compare to Lawrences book? I own both of these books but have yet to get to either of them yet. 

How do either of these compare to Glantz's book?

There are so many books written about Prokhorovka and I dont want to buy the same thing twice. 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Artkin

[Amedeo]

On 5/20/2023 at 11:41 PM, Artkin said:

Well thats the most incredible book ive bought. There are SO many maps and tables in this. 

Yet, for all the years it took to be published, I expected a lot of custom-made maps to be included. Moreover, for all the tables it contains, there's still more detail in the KOSAVE study, from which the book itself originated.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great book and I do not regret buying it. But, give its size and scope, I expected it to be the definitive (i.e. containing all the available detail) book on the southern pincer of Operation Zitadelle.

On 5/28/2023 at 2:37 AM, Artkin said:

Has anyone else bought (and read) Zamulin's book Demolishing The Myth? How does it compare to Lawrences book? I own both of these books but have yet to get to either of them yet. 

How do either of these compare to Glantz's book?

There are so many books written about Prokhorovka and I dont want to buy the same thing twice. 

In my humble opinion. Glantz's book is good for a general overview of the entire operation, its origins and the strategic aftermath. Lawrence's book gives a detailed operational analysis of the actions in the southern part of the bulge, Zamulin's book is worth reading because, while accepting the fact that Rotmistrov's counterattack was a total disaster, it does try to explain why and how the Red Army managed to stop the German.

I think that the above mentioned books are complementary and are all worth buying and reading for an Eastern Front aficionado. After reading them, I came to the conclusion that:

1) The Germans were not fools in deciding to launch Operation Zitadelle 

2) The Soviet Army did indeed stop the Germans, although it didn't as it initially planned to 

3) The redeployment of some German élite divisions to the West was an effect of Zitadelle's failure, not a cause

Anyway, this is what I got from these readings. Your mileage may vary...

[Artkin]

2 hours ago, Amedeo said:

Yet, for all the years it took to be published, I expected a lot of custom-made maps to be included. Moreover, for all the tables it contains, there's still more detail in the KOSAVE study, from which the book itself originated.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great book and I do not regret buying it. But, give its size and scope, I expected it to be the definitive (i.e. containing all the available detail) book on the southern pincer of Operation Zitadelle.

In my humble opinion. Glantz's book is good for a general overview of the entire operation, its origins and the strategic aftermath. Lawrence's book gives a detailed operational analysis of the actions in the southern part of the bulge, Zamulin's book is worth reading because, while accepting the fact that Rotmistrov's counterattack was a total disaster, it does try to explain why and how the Red Army managed to stop the German.

I think that the above mentioned books are complementary and are all worth buying and reading for an Eastern Front aficionado. After reading them, I came to the conclusion that:

1) The Germans were not fools in deciding to launch Operation Zitadelle 

2) The Soviet Army did indeed stop the Germans, although it didn't as it initially planned to 

3) The redeployment of some German élite divisions to the West was an effect of Zitadelle's failure, not a cause

Anyway, this is what I got from these readings. Your mileage may vary...

Thanks a lot for that. I'm not sure when I'll get to these books still. 

I had figured Glantz's Kursk was more of an operational scale perspective. 

I knew Lawrence's and Zamulin's books focused on the southern side of the bulge, and I was curious as to why. In When Titans Clashed Glantz says that the Soviets captured Model's 9th Army records and they haven't been released in the archive yet. I wonder why? iirc they only advanced 8-12km before being stopped. 

I've yet to get to the kursk books, not sure if it will be soon as I've just upgraded my library. 

I'm not home so I can't type up a storm but again thank you. I'll check out that study, it will be essential to forming a campaign.

[Vacillator]

I think we discussed this a while ago and at the time I found the following papers and presentation made interesting reading/viewing for anyone focussing on German losses at Prokhorovka.  The gist is that 5 (yes, five!) German panzers were lost at Prokhorovka:

Ben Wheatley (2021): Citadel, Prokhorovka and Kharkov: The armoured losses of the II SS Panzer Korps Sonderverbände during the battle of Kursk, July-August 1943, Journal of Intelligence History, DOI: 10.1080/16161262.2021.1889278

Ben Wheatley (2020): Surviving Prokhorovka: German armoured
longevity on the Eastern Front in 1943–1944, Journal of Intelligence History, DOI:
10.1080/16161262.2020.1750841

Ben Wheatley (2019) A visual examination of the battle of Prokhorovka,
Journal of Intelligence History, 18:2, 115-163, DOI: 10.1080/16161262.2019.1606545

and

Roman Töppel (2017) Prokhorovka, 12 July 1943, The Myth Is Dead – Long Live the Myth!  I have his paper, but he also presents it here on Youtube:

Edited May 30, 2023 by Vacillator

[Artkin]

Thanks a lot, I'll give this a listen now while I'm working

Edit damn its in German. I'l wait until I'm home then.. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Artkin

[Vacillator]

23 minutes ago, Artkin said:

its in German. I'l wait until I'm home then

I'm sure you know aleady, but Youtube can be set up for translated sub-titles.  It's not ideal (I tried it) but it works.  The paper is in English and reads better than the sub-titles .

[Vacillator]

I thought I'd add that the above articles have not been well received everywhere.  For example:

WHO WON THE BATTLE OF PROKHOROVKA?  Paul Neumann, University Metropolitan Tirana (Albania)

In this article, the Wheatley and other offerings are criticised in a personal and often non-scientific way, and the old 'facts' are presented 'because they must be so'.  Anyone in doubt about this particular article should skip to its concluding paragraphs first, to get a gauge of the person writing it.

If you are interested you can find all of these articles and more on Google Scholar (and elsewhere) but you may have to log in via Google to access them fully.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Vacillator

[Artkin]

3 hours ago, Vacillator said:

I thought I'd add that the above articles have not been well received everywhere.  For example:

WHO WON THE BATTLE OF PROKHOROVKA?  Paul Neumann, University Metropolitan Tirana (Albania)

In this article, the Wheatley and other offerings are criticised in a personal and often non-scientific way, and the old 'facts' are presented 'because they must be so'.  Anyone in doubt about this particular article should skip to its concluding paragraphs first, to get a gauge of the person writing it.

If you are interested you can find all of these articles and more on Google Scholar (and elsewhere) but you may have to log in via Google to access them fully.

Yes indeed I know, I usually listen to something while I work so the subtitles were a no-go for me. I'll definitely get into your video when I sit down to eat

It seems as the years go by publications on the Eastern Front get better and better, I suppose because more information is being opened up to the public. I assume that's why When Titans Clashed has a new version (2015 as opposed to the original 1995 iirc). It might be why there's a new Stalingrad book too. I'm not sure how 1 book is better than 5.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Artkin

[Artkin]

@Amedeo I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the whole 9th army thing. Do you think thats why the Northern attack hasnt been documented as extensively?

[Amedeo]

On 5/31/2023 at 8:12 PM, Artkin said:

@Amedeo I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the whole 9th army thing. Do you think thats why the Northern attack hasnt been documented as extensively?

What are you referring to, exactly?
In my humble opinion, the idea that, to consider the whole operation successful, both the northern and southern pincers had to meet somewhere or, worse, had to penetrate the same depth, is flawed.

The Germans (Hoth, in primis) were by July convinced that the original idea to cut off the whole salient was not totally realistic. Yet, the operation was not senseless as its main (achievable) strategical objective, other than the political one, i.e. to show Germany's allies that the initiative was still in Hitler's hands, was to inflict a crippling attrition to Soviet strategic reserves. In this respect, the southern attack was paramount and the role of Model's 9th Army was almost a sideshow. The  relative allocation of AFVs to the two sectors speaks for itself.

[Artkin]

27 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

What are you referring to, exactly?
In my humble opinion, the idea that, to consider the whole operation successful, both the northern and southern pincers had to meet somewhere or, worse, had to penetrate the same depth, is flawed.

The Germans (Hoth, in primis) were by July convinced that the original idea to cut off the whole salient was not totally realistic. Yet, the operation was not senseless as its main (achievable) strategical objective, other than the political one, i.e. to show Germany's allies that the initiative was still in Hitler's hands, was to inflict a crippling attrition to Soviet strategic reserves. In this respect, the southern attack was paramount and the role of Model's 9th Army was almost a sideshow. The  relative allocation of AFVs to the two sectors speaks for itself.

I think you missed a section from one of my posts. In When Titans Clashed by David Glantz, it's said that when 9th Army's headquarters was eventually captured, their records fell into Soviet hands. These documents still have not been accessible in the Russian archive. 

So my question was - Do you think that's why there's a lack of information on the Northern Pincer? 

Also in the same book Glantz puts down 951 tanks and 4,570 guns/mortars/nebels between 9th and 2nd armies in the North Orel salient. 

In comparison, the southern Fourth Panzer Army and AG Kempf consisted of 1508 tanks with 3,600 guns/mortars. 

I assume the Orel salient had a higher composition of infantry divisions given that they had 445,000 troops compared to the South's 332,000. Both were pretty powerful formations. The North had at least a tiger battalion and two elephant battalions. The south had 2 tiger battalions and 200 panthers in 10th Panzer brigade. The South was definitely stronger, but both were crazy powerful formations, especially compared with the previous year's 1942 Blau offensive. 

Just refreshing my own memory I guess. 

Also the Soviet side listed over 1.3 million defenders between the Voronezh and Central Fronts. Quite a tasty target! Of course the Germans knew little to nothing about the Steppe Front forming in secret at the rear. 

Gratzie il mio amico for sharing info on all three books. I'll get Glantz's soon. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Artkin

[Amedeo]

21 hours ago, Artkin said:

I think you missed a section from one of my posts. In When Titans Clashed by David Glantz, it's said that when 9th Army's headquarters was eventually captured, their records fell into Soviet hands. These documents still have not been accessible in the Russian archive. 

So my question was - Do you think that's why there's a lack of information on the Northern Pincer? 

Ah, got it.

Well, yes it may be that the fact that there's no detailed and comprehensive study for the Northern pincer as, for example, the KOSAVE II study (see here https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA360311.pdf, might also be due to the fact that some archive records are missing.

But, in my humble opinion, the main reason is that the main show was in the South and, given limited time and resources, if one has to choose whether to study the Northern or Southern pincer, there's no contest. South was where the whole Operation was decided.

Interestingly, the most detailed book (in terms of maps: there's one every other page!) about a tactical operation in Zitadelle that I have ever seen is "Objective Ponyri!" by M. Nevshemal, that is about an action in the Northern sector! This to say that, if one really wants to write about the North, there seems to be no severe lack of information.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Amedeo

[Artkin]

5 hours ago, Amedeo said:

Ah, got it.

Well, yes it may be that the fact that there's no detailed and comprehensive study for the Northern pincer as, for example, the KOSAVE II study (see here https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA360311.pdf, might also be due to the fact that some archive records are missing.

But, in my humble opinion, the main reason is that the main show was in the South and, given limited time and resources, if one has to choose whether to study the Northern or Southern pincer, there's no contest. South was where the whole Operation was decided.

Interestingly, the most detailed book (in terms of maps: there's one every other page!) about a tactical operation in Zitadelle that I have ever seen is "Objective Ponyri!" by M. Nevshemal, that is about an action in the Northern sector! This to say that, if one really wants to write about the North, there seems to be no severe lack of information.

Thank you for direct linking me that study. I've saved it now.

I've also saved that book for purchase in the future. It's shaped the wrong way! But probably makes for good sized maps. I guess that book makes for a great companion to the two others already mentioned, and Glantz's book will put everything together. Man if I wasn't so invested in Stalingrad right now I would have bought all these today. Hopefully the budget will allow me to soon.

In short, thanks a lot. Asking about these books was a total shot in the dark. You should consider throwing your hand into a Kursk campaign.

[Amedeo]

On 6/3/2023 at 2:13 AM, Artkin said:

In short, thanks a lot. Asking about these books was a total shot in the dark. You should consider throwing your hand into a Kursk campaign.

You are welcome. For what concerns the Kursk campaign, well, I have not the knowledge nor the competence to promote, or even partecipate, in such a project. Anyway, I would warmly welcome any 1943 CMRT expansion.