Greatest tank battle of WW2 (Russia, near Kursk, 1943)

[Kingpin]

Venik rules as usual. He posted near 500 photos about those days.

Look at http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_003/page_01.htm

Connection usually is VERY slow but photos are great.

Here are some examples

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_003/kursk_148.jpg



http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_003/kursk_154.jpg



http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_003/kursk_151.jpg



http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_003/kursk_198.jpg



http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_003/kursk_205.jpg



http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_003/kursk_232.jpg



http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_003/kursk_298.jpg

[mustamato]

It´s too slow :(

Would like to save all of them in to a zip-file, but can´t even see one of them.

[Uninen]

Connection usually is VERY slow but photos are great.

Do you know why the conniction is uber slow?

It because of people like you that link the god damn images directly from that site to other sites..

:fork:

(Thinks of having a word with Venik so he would disable the direct linking feature..)

[hank]

Those are some great pics. Some of them are definitely not from Kursk though. Looking through I saw some with snow on the ground. Regardless, though, they are good. Thanks for the link. I connected fast, go figure.

hank

[UkrainianSpetsnaz]

WOW COOL BEANS!

[hank]

Those are great pics. I've downloaded a bunch and seeing a couple made me think of something funny.

The U.S. lend/leased a bunch of Grants to the russians in 1942/43 and there are a few pictures of Grants in this gallery. The Russians were glad to have them but the Grant crews hated the way they performed. The Russians nicknamed the Grant a "Coffin for Seven brothers". Anyway, I just thought that was funny.

hank

[bison]

amazing photos...

[Operation Ivy]

the Tiger is sexy ;)

[Skaman]

I like that Sturmgaschutz.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Very interesting pictures, most of which I haven't seen before. In particular pictures from the russian side.

But why are they all called Kursk. This one looks like Kharkov in the winter.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_003/kursk_35.jpg

[Luxembourger]

They call it the battle of Kursk because of the "Kursker Bogen
damn how to translate Bogen now in english .....anyway
the German called it operation citadelle and they started the offensive on the well entrenched Russians who had at least more than 3 defending lines ( mines ,artilery, ****y traps etc....) the Germans were outnumbered and so defeated . The german tanks like the Panther or the Elefant were to heavy and not so qucik then the T-34

They say that Stalingrad was the defeat of the german moral
while the Kursk battle were the material defeat
If the German had not started this offensive with all their stuff on to the entrenched Russians may and so kept all their tanks and units..the war would have been lasted longer ,,,,who knows

correct me if I was wronf because I stated all this from my knowledge without checking now a link on the internet---

[Javehn]

Bogen is bulge on English . Kursk is bulge , as you can see it clearly from the map .
Here is the map of battle . The X inside the thingie is infantry force , and O is armored force . X above is brigade , so the XXXX thinge is army force , and the XXX thingie is corps .

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/vy75/maps/kskmap01.gif

Edit : Different languages, different translations ...

[Skaman]

Bogen is bulge on English . Kursk is bulge , as you can see it clearly from the map .
Here is the map of battle . The X inside the thingie is infantry force , and O is armored force . X above if i recall corect is battalion , so the whole one thinge is Brigade force .

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/vy75/maps/kskmap01.gif

wow.

[hank]

Luxembourger - all those are good points. Historians tend to disagree about the different signifigances of Stalingrad and Kursk. Both crushing defeats of the Germans to be sure.

One thing about Stalingrad is certain. The Germans lost an entire Army Group at Stalingrad. Von Paulus surrendered and the Germans lost around 600,000 men and accompanying equipment. Immediately after Stalingrad, however, the Germans managed to stage effective offensive operations throughout early Winter 1943 and actually inflicted serious losses on the Soviet forces that encircled Stalingrad.

After Kursk German offensive operations ground to a halt. From Summer 1943, right after Kursk, until the end of the war the Germans were in retreat. They managed to retreat well and through local and limited counterattacks they held the Russians off for 2 years. But Kursk was for sure the turning point of the war no matter how great the loss at Stalingrad. Relative to the material losses of Stalingrad invloved fewer men and fewer material losses were lost at Kursk. However, the bigger and more important loss at Kursk was the loss of momentum and the ability to go on the offensive.

Mr. Nielsen - I agree. Some of those pictures look like Kharkov. One picture shows a Pz IVD - short barrel and the early road wheels. It is hard to say definitievly but it is unlikley that any IVD's made it past the summer of 1942 at the latest. Also there were several pictures of what looked like late war Panthers. Some Panthers did see action at Kursk, but not many. Still, though, great pictures no matter where they were taken.

One other thing about these pictures that caught my eye. Notice that all the destroyed tanks are German? From looking at these pictures you'd think the German tanks than the Russians. Actually, the Germans lost only about c. 350 tanks while the Russians lost in excess of 1000. I just thought that was funny. If these pictures had come instead from the German War archives that ratio would have been the opposite probably

hank

[Mr. Nielsen]

. X above if i recall corect is battalion , so the whole one thinge is Brigade force .

For the germans I believe it's like this:

III = bataljon
x = brigade
xx= division
xxx=corps
xxxx= army
xxxxx = army group

I'm not sure about soviet organisation.

[Javehn]

Corrected that allready , guy . My mistake .Wasn't shure about the translation of structure powers (brigades , coprs , and those thingies) .
But now i am cool .I am a MF in the maps p-)
As far as i know , there were total of 6000 tanks , and more then 1.5 million troops combined . It can by summed by map .

You can see that the forces divided by 3 main groops , and the middle is smallest one , the consentration of forces is on flanks , towards the Kursk . You can see the bulge clearly .

[Mr. Nielsen]

However, the bigger and more important loss at Kursk was the loss of momentum and the ability to go on the offensive.

Yes. Very much like missing with the one and only round left in your gun.

[Skaman]

How long did that battle of Kursk last?

[oldsoak]

F**king ages to those who took part ! July 4th to 13th 1943 - All accounts I 've read make it sound like a knife fight in a phone booth. Top marks to both sides for effort.

[hank]

Knife fight in a phone booth - that is great.

If any of you ever like to play military board games try - East Front by Talonsoft. I don't think you can get it anymore but it is really good. No action - just like a board game except on your computer. Anyway - there is one game that details a few days of Paul Hausser's SS Panzer Army against the stiffest of the Russian defenses and it is absolutely overwhelming how outmatched the Germans were. I never get anywhere near the number of points you need to win, let alone breakthrough the 3 layered defenses. If anybody is interested in playing, pm me and I'll burn you a copy and mail it out.

Talk about missing with the only bullet left. This is a quote from Matthew Cooper's history of the German Army in WWII: "Of the 2,269 tanks and 997 assault guns then in service in the east [for the Germans], 1,850 tanks and 530 assault-guns were committed in the slogging match that became known as the 'deqath ride of hte panzers."

That is something like 80% of all the tanks Germany had in Russia being committed in this one little area. Sad part is, for the Germans, what the hell would they really have been able to do had they ever gottne their breakthrough? They were stretched so thin that it really did not matter.

Has anybody here ever been to the Kursk battlefields? There is a site around somewhere that has pictures from around Oboygan (sp?) that are cool. Someday . . .

hank

[Marmot1]

Knife fight in a phone booth - that is great.

If any of you ever like to play military board games try - East Front by Talonsoft. I don't think you can get it anymore but it is really good. No action - just like a board game except on your computer. Anyway - there is one game that details a few days of Paul Hausser's SS Panzer Army against the stiffest of the Russian defenses and it is absolutely overwhelming how outmatched the Germans were. I never get anywhere near the number of points you need to win, let alone breakthrough the 3 layered defenses. If anybody is interested in playing, pm me and I'll burn you a copy and mail it out.

Talk about missing with the only bullet left. This is a quote from Matthew Cooper's history of the German Army in WWII: "Of the 2,269 tanks and 997 assault guns then in service in the east [for the Germans], 1,850 tanks and 530 assault-guns were committed in the slogging match that became known as the 'deqath ride of hte panzers."

That is something like 80% of all the tanks Germany had in Russia being committed in this one little area. Sad part is, for the Germans, what the hell would they really have been able to do had they ever gottne their breakthrough? They were stretched so thin that it really did not matter.

Has anybody here ever been to the Kursk battlefields? There is a site around somewhere that has pictures from around Oboygan (sp?) that are cool. Someday . . .

hank
What is the full name of this game and when it was published....???

BTW any of you played Hearts of Iron ??? verry cool too

[Russian Texan]

The general view of the most russian and german historians is that Hitler lost the war the moment his tanks crossed USSR border.
After the battle of Moscow germans started having doubts and second thoughts about Eastern Front.
After the Stalingrad germans knew that they will loose.
And after Kursk they simply had no army left.

Hank are you sure about your loss figures and numbers in general? I recommend you to visit
http://www.battlefield.ru/
and its forum in particular to get more accurate info.

One thing has to be noted about T 34s: it was a common thing to see "killed" tanks to be put back into service. T 34s did not burn too well and quite frequently dead crews or their remains were removed, tank was patched up/repaired and be back in action with a new crew.

P.S. Guys, please stop learning history from the computer games :cantbeli:

[Marmot1]

The general view of the most russian and german historians is that Hitler lost the war the moment his tanks crossed USSR border.
After the battle of Moscow germans started having doubts and second thoughts about Eastern Front.
After the Stalingrad germans knew that they will loose.
And after Kursk they simply had no army left.

Hank are you sure about your loss figures and numbers in general? I recommend you to visit
http://www.battlefield.ru/
and its forum in particular to get more accurate info.

One thing has to be noted about T 34s: it was a common thing to see "killed" tanks to be put back into service. T 34s did not burn too well and quite frequently dead crews or their remains were removed, tank was patched up/repaired and be back in action with a new crew.

P.S. Guys, please stop learning history from the computer games :cantbeli:
Well sometimes games can learm you something useful... and military exercises are also games...

[hank]

I'm not sure about those numbers of Soviet losses. The point was that the Germans lost far fewer tanks than the Russians and it did not matter becasue they were so inferior in numbers.

My reference to 350 tanks lost for the germans was the # of tanks lost by the 4th Panzer Army - the Army that made the most headway during the offensive. The reference came from a well-known history of the German Army written by a British Historian - not from a video game.

The numbers in reference to the percentage of German tanks and AGs committed to Kursk I am sure about. I just double-checked them in a book I have on a shelf at my house.

I only mentioned the game because it really gives you a feel for how crowded that battlefield must have been and how impossible the task for the Germans was. The vast number of tanks versus the small number sqaure miles of the battlefield yielded a very dense encounter. That's why the phone booth comment was so good, I thought. Thanks for the tip on how to learn my history. You might do well to heed your own advice and learn yours from books and not from Russian history sites. I'll be glad to pass on the ISBN number of Cooper's book if you need it.

You are right though about Hitler losing the minute he invaded. No way Germany ever conquers Russia. Hitler ultimately siffered the same fate as Napolean before him. Still, Hitler got awfully close to Moscow in 41, a lot closer than Stalin ever thought he would, I bet.

Your comment about t-34s is well-taken. Of course, it is true for any tank that does not burn - assuming you are on the advance. Pretty hard to fix up a knocked out tank, regardless of its condition, if the enemy is between you and the disabled tank.

Marmot1 - The name of game is East Front and the publisher was Talonsoft. my understanding is that Talonsoft does not exist and you cannot buy the game new. If you know differently I'd appreciate any details you have. There is a site called theblitz.org where you can find out more. If I remember right they refer to it as the Campaign Series. I don't even have the games in front of me right now to be able to give you more about them. I'll try to remember to get my hands on the CD tomorrow and get back to you.

[GazB]

"You are right though about Hitler losing the minute he invaded. No way Germany ever conquers Russia. Hitler ultimately siffered the same fate as Napolean before him'

I disagree for two reasons. First if Hitler hadn't attacked the Soviet Union the Soviet Union would have finished rebuilding its army along new WWII lines and attacked Germany. Second if Hitler had a different ideology and had sent his troops in with orders to treat the occupied areas well then the Ukrainians and Russian people might have seen the germans as freeing them from Communism. As it turned out they showed themselves to be worse than the communists... yet even then a few still helped them. He lost the war because he underestimated the Russians. He probably believed his own propaganda that all he had to do was kick the door and teh whole house would collapse.

[Uninen]

He probably believed his own propaganda that all he had to do was kick the door and teh whole house would collapse.

Well,

That seemed to be true at the wake of Winter War..

Father Steel however had been after that busy upgrading his forces..

Like by killing most of the armys officers..

rofl

But he did have some good things also underway.. like T-34 (lots of them) and katyushas..

;)

Even army of apes could have won the war against the Germany or any other nation to that matter with that large numbers of so field proof equipment..

;)

[Uninen]

Oh btw,

About the Topic..

Its not 'Battle near of Kursk'..

Its The Battle of Kursk (aka Operation Citadel..) and it is the largest battle ever..

In both, men and armor..

;)

[Russian Texan]

I think you misunderstood me a little.
I am just pointing to the very common mistake regarding losses number circulating on the internet.

The number 350 (actually it was 300) is the number Germans lost near Prokhorovka only . Russian losses number sounds about right but that was over the period of July 5 - 23rd.

The Battle of Kursk was the largest "set-piece" battle of World War II. At the same time, it was one of the most decisive battles of the war. The forces involved on both sides were extremely large. The Germans committed some 50 divisions (16 of them Panzer or Panzer Grenadier), more than 900,000 men, 10,000 artillery pieces, and 2700 tanks. On the Russian side, some 100 divisions, more than 1,300,000 men, 20,000 guns, and 3,500 tanks and self-propelled artillery pieces were involved during the initial phase of the operation, and the entry of the forces of the Steppe Front into the battle added another 573,000 men and 1,551 tanks to the total. The fighting took place over an area half the size of England or of Alabama. The Kursk salient itself measured about 165 miles from north to south and 75 miles from east to west.
It was also the largest air battle ever also with about 5000 airplanes participating from both sides.

Regarding puting tanks back into action

Dunn Walter S. Kursk p.189
One reason for the high Soviet tank losses in the South was the Germans retained the battlefield, so even minor damaged Soviet tanks were lost while German tanks were recovered & repaired. This changed when the Soviets went on the offensive, & German tank losses climb accordingly while the Soviets retain the battlefield, and are able to recover & repair their AFVs while the Germans cant.

Dunn puts forth that the most severe Soviet losses were incurred in counter attacks to buy time for the next defensive belt to be reinforced, while the Germans suffered most of their losses breaking through or attempting to break thru, Soviet defensive belts.

As for www.battlefield.ru, that website is run and visited by people who specialize in war history research and have access to documents that
many don't...

[Russian Texan]

I disagree for two reasons. First if Hitler hadn't attacked the Soviet Union the Soviet Union would have finished rebuilding its army along new WWII lines and attacked Germany. Second if Hitler had a different ideology and had sent his troops in with orders to treat the occupied areas well then the Ukrainians and Russian people might have seen the germans as freeing them from Communism. As it turned out they showed themselves to be worse than the communists... yet even then a few still helped them. He lost the war because he underestimated the Russians. He probably believed his own propaganda that all he had to do was kick the door and teh whole house would collapse.

The first reason is purely hypothetical although I do agree that Stalin would probably attack Germany at some later point.
The second reason is not valid because it is also hypothetical and no one will never know: "What if...?"
The remark about Hitler losing the war the moment his tanks crossed USSR border simply means that in the attrition war - larger nation wins, and by saying larger I mean natural, as well as human resources and territory. germany simply bitten on a larger peace that it could swallow.

[Sergei]

I'm not sure about those numbers of Soviet losses. The point was that the Germans lost far fewer tanks than the Russians and it did not matter becasue they were so inferior in numbers.

My reference to 350 tanks lost for the germans was the # of tanks lost by the 4th Panzer Army - the Army that made the most headway during the offensive. The reference came from a well-known history of the German Army written by a British Historian - not from a video game.


That's quite an inaccurate analysis. The battleground remained in russian hands, so that means that all that armor lost by germans was lost for good. Meanwhile the russians were able to repair and mend their equipment back into service.

For example 5th Guards Tank army which took the heaviest losses, an estimated of 600 tanks, put some 300 tanks back into service in less then 3 weeks thus ensuring the fighting capability of the unit. On the other hand, Tigers and Panthers were a maintenance nightmare, in order to change the damaged roadwheels of Panthers one had to disassemble the whole transmission part. In the field conditions that was nearly impossible.
Therefore after Prokhorovka, where both sides suffered heavy casualties, the question of tanks was not "how many did you kill yesterday?", but "how many of those that were killed yesterday can be put back into service fast?" And Soviets were brilliant at that.

As for numbers, half of soviet tank brigades consisted of T-70 light tanks which were a little better protected than armored cars. If we count them against the 60-ton Tigers, then, yes Tigers killed many more of the them for sure. But quantity over quality does not do much good. In the end German panzers lost their punching capability and were reduced in size so much as Hitler decided to call off the attack after July 13th knowing he can't succeed.

[hank]

I quote not from the internet but from a highly respected history of the German Army during 1933-1945. ISBN 0-8128-8519-8. Author Matthew Cooper - British Historian and author. Among his sources for the text are interviews with Halder, Jodl, Lyddell Hart, captured German Documents, etc. This is not idle internet talk or info from video games. Why do you keep questioning the validity of this information? I have several other books about Kursk and the German Army during WWII but they are boxed up and in storage. I have never gotten information about WWII from video games or the internet for exactly the reasons you highlight - it often is very innacurate.

"No fewer than forty-three divisions, of which seventeen were armored, two tank brigades, and a number of independent assault-gun battalions, were ranged against the Kursk salient in two armies - 9th and 4th Panzer. Of the 2,269 tanks and 997 assault guns then in service in the east, 1,850 tanks and 530 assault-guns were committed in the slogging match that becase known as the 'death ride of the panzers'. They were launched on 5 July in the, by then, predictable pincer movement against a salient 100 mile wide and 150 miles deep which had been turned in a defensive system the very purpose of which was to wear down an armored-led attack. The Soviet line consisted of six defended belts composed of anti-tank posts, thick mine-fields, and 3,500 miles of trenches backed by 3,306 tanks and 20,220 guns." p. 458.

". . . 4th Panzer Army had advanced 25 miles at a cost of 350 armored vehicles and 10,00 men . . ."

Remeber - those passaages above are quotes from a book - not from memory or anything else. Granted, you may have more accurate info on Soviet strengths, but Cooper got his info from captured German Intelligence and from Halder and Jodl after the war - even some fom Hart who interviewed other German Generals for years after the war.

If you take issue with that then call Cooper in England and discuss the matter. I really don't care about minor details, becuase the point of all these posts is that it was a really big battle, fought in an area of relatively small proportions. That is not to say that the battlefield was small, merely that in relation to the forces employed the sizeof the battlefield/# of vehicles and units = a very dense engagement. The practical difference between what you have taken issue with and what I have posted is of little importance when you take into account the point. I bet the people of lower Alabama would think that roughly 6,300 armored vehicles parading around and shooting at each other was lot compared to the size of lower Alabama.

When you consider that the original idea behind Blitzkrieg was to avoid "set-piece" battles and to create fluidity and depth in a battlefield, you'd have to say the attacking at Kursk in 1943 did not make a lot of sense.

Don't get too caught up in the Panther/Tiger v. T-34 idea. That conflict occured at Kursk to be sure but the vast majority of the German armored vehicles used were PZ III, IV and StuG III's. VERY few Panthers saw action and Tigers made up a very small percentage of Germany's tank strength throughout the entire war. Germany only produced 1300 odd Tiger Is during the whole war - compared to around 10,000 PZ IV - I don't have the total number of PZ IV's in front of me but the point is that Tigers = a small percentage of availabel tanks at Kursk.

There really is no reason to quibble about any of this. We are inb agreement about Kursk. Why RussianTexan feels the need to correct ever detail and question the validity of this info is beyoned me. Maybe it is just his nature, whatever.

Anyway, thanks to Kingpin for posting this link to great pictures.

hank

[duck]

I've read that von Manstein orginally wanted to enclose Kursk during the Kharkov counteroffensive but was afraid to do so because of the spring thaw. Manstein also suggested a repetition of the 42/43 Winter tactics by falling back and shortening the front and then counterattacking with a strong pincer against the Black Sea instead of the frontal attack on Kursk.

[ExtraT]

That seemed to be true at the wake of Winter War..


Do you know anything about Winter War to let off statements like that? Have you ever concidered why is it called "Winter War"?



Father Steel however had been after that busy upgrading his forces..

Like by killing most of the armys officers..


That is a myth. Not that many officers were executed - most of them for incompetetence, and most of them BEFORE the Winter War. And a lot of imprisoned officers were released and reinstated before German invasion. A good example of that would be Rokossovski.



But he did have some good things also underway.. like T-34 (lots of them) and katyushas..


"Under way"??? What are you, nuts?

[hank]

Duck - Cooper writes a lot about Manstein. Manstein did disagree with Citadel and his warnings were not heeded and ended up being born out.

As you say, Manstein had had success in that 42/43 winter during and after Stalingrad and had averted losing his army like von Paulus had at Stalingrad. He must have been a really tough and unfazed SOB, b/c depending on whose avccount you read, he disobeyed direct orders from Hitler to stand firm several times during his career. Hard to say for sure now, all these years later if that ever REALLY happened. Manstein was a great tactical retreater who understood, unlike Hitler, that always standaing your gournd even when you are at a disadvantage is not always a good idea.

hank

[Loco]

Even army of apes could have won the war against the Germany or any other nation to that matter with that large numbers of so field proof equipment..

;)
I think it´s a risky statement, being me not risky. In IWW germanies defeated Russia with the objetive conditions being quite similar to the ones of IIWW, even I´d say soviets were in a worst position in IIWW since they were surprised, contrary to the the Great War where russians(and everybody) got enough time for being ready for fighting. And even more, yet the enormous size of Russia is an unbeatable argument for victory almost always, if soviets had field proof equipment(in IWW too), one thing they did well was being able of breaking and sending to far east many military factories under terrific conditions, and this isn´t a merit of mother nature but of human will...
And congratulations to all you because the new sites, maps and this old photos you publish here, this is the thing I like more of this site, the sorrow is the photos are many and my time is few!

[GazB]

"That seemed to be true at the wake of Winter War.."

The winter war got far more attention in Europe and around the world than the operations in the east before WWII. In the winter war it was shown that poorly lead troops are vulnerable to guerilla activity in wooded areas in an enemies home ground. The only ominous thing it did show was a willingness to sacrifice men and equipment to achieve goals.
As shown in the east, well led and well equipped the Russians were formidible and able to fight with skill and cunning.

"But he did have some good things also underway.. like T-34 (lots of them) and katyushas.. "

The KV-1 was seriously underrated during WWII. During the winter war none were lost and during the war with Germany they had heavy tank protection for medium tank weight. All they lacked was a heavy tanks gun.

Initially lots of inferior material was quickly used up. Light tanks, multiturreted tanks, Polikarpov fighters etc etc.

"Even army of apes could have won the war against the Germany or any other nation to that matter with that large numbers of so field proof equipment.."

Plenty of so called superior armies in Europe were overwhelmed by the germans new tactics. It wasn't just T-34s that beat the Germans. The Germans lost the war in the cities of Stalingrad and Leningrad.

"The remark about Hitler losing the war the moment his tanks crossed USSR border simply means that in the attrition war - larger nation wins, and by saying larger I mean natural, as well as human resources and territory. germany simply bitten on a larger peace that it could swallow."

But before nazi boots set foot on Soviet soil Germany already had captured and occupied a greater area of land and a larger population than Germany itself. the people of europe didn't rise up because the majority weren't being treated like animals and summarily slaughtered for no reason.

"On the other hand, Tigers and Panthers were a maintenance nightmare, in order to change the damaged roadwheels of Panthers one had to disassemble the whole transmission part. In the field conditions that was nearly impossible. "

The attack was delayed several times to make sure the Panthers and Tigers were ready. During the whole war only about 6,500 Panthers and about 2,500 Tigers were made. At one point there were more T-34s made per month than tigers made during the whole war. The later T-34/85 was every bit as good as a panther.

"If we count them against the 60-ton Tigers, then, yes Tigers killed many more of the them for sure. But quantity over quality does not do much good."

Basically the Russians could afford the losses... the Germans couldn't.

"In IWW germanies defeated Russia with the objetive conditions being quite similar to the ones of IIWW"

The situation was rather different in WWI than WWII. For a start Russia entered WWI because France asked it to open a second front. Secondly armaments had been so badly neglected that units entered combat completely unarmed and told to pick up weapons from the battlefield... usually they were just conscripted and sent to the front without any training whatsoever. At the time it imported most of its weapons and of course when the war started those exporting nations either were now an enemy or had their own needs to meet and couldn't supply Russia. In comparison in WWII at least the Russians were self sufficient in small arms. ( The boll0cks in Enemy at the Gate was just that... only penal battalions were sent into combat not fully armed with NKVD behind them with machineguns to make them move forward... they didn't have that many NKVD to do that for every unit obviously...)

[Russian Texan]

GazB, as always lots of good points.


But before nazi boots set foot on Soviet soil Germany already had captured and occupied a greater area of land and a larger population than Germany itself. the people of europe didn't rise up because the majority weren't being treated like animals and summarily slaughtered for no reason.
That is absolutely true but there were couple of more things that made a difference.

"Blitzkreig" is a mobile type of warfare. Russia presented a much bigger challange than Europe in that sense:
1. Quality of roads or rather their absence in Russia
2. Russian climate translates into lots of mud everywhere
3. Winter and inability of germans (both man and equipment) to deal with it.

"Blitzkreig" calls for concentration of forces in order to reach certain strategic goals/locations.
That is where the sheer size of the USSR came into play, germans simply became overstretched.
Another major factor was the soviet industrial strengths and German inability to affect it (lack of heavy long range bomber that could reach beyond Ural mountains).

Hank
I think that you are misenterpreting the tone of my voice, I am by no means trying to have an arguement or offend anyone. I am just saying that 300 tanks were lost at Prohorovka only, granted it was the place of the heaviest fighting but there were 160+ miles of front.
Think about it: there are 7000+ tanks, tens of thousands of guns, 150+ divisions, 5000 aircraft slugging at each other for approximately two weeks (including German retreat) plus numerous minefiels and 9, some sources say 12, echelons of defensive fortifications (trenches, bunkers, etc.) And after all of that only "350 kills"? Not to mention the fact of Germany's inability to mount any significant offense and being on a constant retreat after the Kursk. The difference was USSR being able to replace its losses and Germany not... Do you really think that if the losses were only at 350 tanks that would have such a crippling effect on German war machine?

[PsihoKeke]

Yes Germans lost 350 tanks and sp guns on the main axis. But during the batle, temporary losses were several times higher. Minfields and anti-tank guns played havoc among german armor. Altough most of this lost armor was repaired, only part of it was in the time for the battle.
As for inability of Germans to launch new offensive, keep in mind that they had to fight on western front as well.

[Sergei]

As for inability of Germans to launch new offensive, keep in mind that they had to fight on western front as well.

Western front? When? In july 1943? I bet those german soldiers in France had nothing more to do than play cards, get drunk and take some cheap french whores with them. One hack of a fighting indeed.
rofl rofl rofl

[Marmot1]

Hey remember 1943 lot of air forces and air defence was involvd on west and also fights were in africa and then in itally also lot of soldiers manned atlantic wall secured italy jugoslavia greece etc....

[Kingpin]

Hey remember 1943 lot of air forces and air defence was involvd on west and also fights were in africa and then in itally also lot of soldiers manned atlantic wall secured italy jugoslavia greece etc....

Don't forget that a lot of countries fought on Germany side. Italy, Hungary, Bolgary etc. Japan also.

[Russian Texan]

Hey remember 1943 lot of air forces and air defence was involvd on west and also fights were in africa and then in itally also lot of soldiers manned atlantic wall secured italy jugoslavia greece etc....

How many divisions?
How many aircraft?
Field guns?
antitank guns?

In May 1942 the Germans had adopted a policy that gave the Russian Front first priority for troops and garrisoned the west with those who, because of wounds or other disabilities, were unable to endure the rigors imposed by that theater. Over the year that followed, twenty-two infantry and six armored divisions left France for the Eastern Front, along with the best equipment and men from the divisions that stayed behind. They were replaced by soldiers who were over-age or convalescing from wounds and by units composed of Russian, Italian, and Polish defectors. A few first-line units were present on the Western Front, but most of the rest had been shattered in the east and required replacements and refitting. The weapons they used were often leftovers. The artillery, for example, consisted of more than twenty types of guns, many of Czech or French rather than German manufacture. Training lagged because the men were frequently employed in crash efforts to build fortifications rather than in exercises to sharpen their combat skills.

[hank]

Russiantexan - no offense taken I just don't understand why you keep quibbling with those numbers that I post. I qualified the 350 number as relating only to the 4th Panzer Army and you responded with a comment about the quality of the source of that.

As for ther accuracy of your claim - Who had 7000+ tanks? Both sides together certainly had at least that many, but 7000 overall for the Germans? The Germans never had 7000 tanks at any given time from 1942-1945 on the entire Eastern Front.

The loss of 350 tanks in one engagement for the 4th Panzer Army was huge to the Germans - it represented more than 10% of their available tanks for the whole front. Check out this quote:

This quote is in regards to the Crisis of 1943 for the Germans - "As a result, total stocks [of tanks] available to the Germans declined from 5,436 on 1 February[, 1943], to 3,643 on 1 May[, 1943] - the lowest for more than two years - while those [tanks] classified as 'front-line' fell from 4,621 to 2,504. Captured foreign tanks, which had always played their part in equipping the Reich's armoured force, were still in use - by 31 May 1943 a total of 822 on all fronts, of which 126 were in the East. . . . By mid-1943 this improvement was beginning to reveal itself; on 1 July for example there were 3,452 front-line tanks, almost 1,000 more than at theworst point of hte crisis."

So to answer your question, asssuming that I had said that Germany had only lost 350 tanks total at Kursk, which I did not, that loss was monumental for Germany. It amounted to 10% of the total tank force available to the Germans. The point to all of that is that Hitler did gamble everything at Kursk. He put all new tank production from the winter and spring of 1943 into the units that attacked at Kursk. When they got ground up by the Soviets the result was that Germany no longer had the resources to hold groun or even counterattack on a tactical level b/c theri supply of effective armour was too low.

What is the total number of tanks lost by the Germans at Kursk for both the 9th and 4th Panzer Armies? Everything I have says that the Germans lost around 700 tanks + AGs overall. At any rate the Russians lost far more in sheer numbers b/c everyone agrees that the number of tanks lost by the Russians is not know for certain but is far in excess of 1000. The sheer number is irrelevant b/c of the relative strenght in numbers the Russians enjoyed. Quite simply the Russians could afford to lose a lot of tanks and the Germans could not. The website you gave only discusses the numbers at Prokhorovka - here is a quote from your site:

"All these battles called as "Battle at Prokhorovka" just because of main direction of the German's blow and late the main direction of Soviet counter-offensive. The battles countinues from 11 to 14 July. Total German's casualties were over 300 tanks. The 5th Guard Tank Army also had heavy losses."

In fact - the site you listed says that BOTH sides gathered 7000 tanks and AGs - here is that quote:

"Both Russians and Germans began building up their forces at the salient. There were no battles before comparable in terms of armor concentration. The opposing sides gathered there about 7000 tanks and self-propelled guns. In some places the density of tanks was about one tank for every 10 metres (100 tanks per kilometer of the front). On the northern part of the salient the concentration of tanks was one for every 30 metres. And on the southern part Germans put nine their best divisions! Wehrmacht planned to engage about a million soldiers for the Kursk offensive (named as operation "Citadel" or "Zitadelle"). "

Anyway, I'm not offended but you brought up accuracy of information.

hank

[Russian Texan]

Hank, your last post clarifies everything.
I guess the initial confusion started because I percieved that computer game was the source of your numbers. After that it appeared to me that you thought that Germans lost 350 tanks during entire "Citadel". Basically one missunderstanding have led to another.
When I provided numbers, including 7000 tanks, I was referring to combined numbers from both sides plus reinforcements by the "Step Front"
My numbers are: 723 for Germans and 1261 for Russians.
And you are right: Russian losses did not mean anything because they were building tanks faster than Germans were destroying them.

[PsihoKeke]

Not only that. Knocked out T-34 was much easier to repair than knocked out Panther or Tiger. So Soviet tanks could reenter the battle quickly, while German tanks took a lot of time or were even abandoned on the battlefield. Same goes for the mechanical breakdowns. Soviet tank crews could handle most of the problems becouse tanks were simple, while German tanks required maintainence workshops for all but simplest failures, thus cutting down number of tanks actually in combat.
As for the Western front, while the Kursk battle raged allies landed in Italy so imediatley after fighting at Prohorovka ended Hitler sent part of the forces comitted there to Italy. Not to mention armored divisions waiting for the invasion in france.

[khukuri]

Hey remember 1943 lot of air forces and air defence was involvd on west and also fights were in africa and then in itally also lot of soldiers manned atlantic wall secured italy jugoslavia greece etc....

Don't forget that a lot of countries fought on Germany side. Italy, Hungary, Bolgary etc. Japan also.

Rumanian and austrian forces aswell, and do not forget the about 2-300 000 "hiwis". Russian soilders that fought on the german side. Often called non russians by the russians ;).

[Marmot1]

Hey remember 1943 lot of air forces and air defence was involvd on west and also fights were in africa and then in itally also lot of soldiers manned atlantic wall secured italy jugoslavia greece etc....

How many divisions?
How many aircraft?
Field guns?
antitank guns?

In May 1942 the Germans had adopted a policy that gave the Russian Front first priority for troops and garrisoned the west with those who, because of wounds or other disabilities, were unable to endure the rigors imposed by that theater. Over the year that followed, twenty-two infantry and six armored divisions left France for the Eastern Front, along with the best equipment and men from the divisions that stayed behind. They were replaced by soldiers who were over-age or convalescing from wounds and by units composed of Russian, Italian, and Polish defectors. A few first-line units were present on the Western Front, but most of the rest had been shattered in the east and required replacements and refitting. The weapons they used were often leftovers. The artillery, for example, consisted of more than twenty types of guns, many of Czech or French rather than German manufacture. Training lagged because the men were frequently employed in crash efforts to build fortifications rather than in exercises to sharpen their combat skills.

You pissed me off... name at least one unit that was composed from polish defectors...


there ware some poles in wermacht but mostly they were forced to do this... and on first occasion they deserted or joined polish forces i.e in N.africa, Italy, france, but NEVER there was any unit composed of polish defectors nor in wermacht nor in Wafen SS there were units from almost all occupied countries in europe there was even a british waffen SS company but there was never even one platoon composed of poles...

[Marmot1]

One more map...

http://dws.ozone.pl/maps/27big.jpg

[Russian Texan]

And?

[ArtofPain]

Those are great pics. I've downloaded a bunch and seeing a couple made me think of something funny.

The U.S. lend/leased a bunch of Grants to the russians in 1942/43 and there are a few pictures of Grants in this gallery. The Russians were glad to have them but the Grant crews hated the way they performed. The Russians nicknamed the Grant a "Coffin for Seven brothers". Anyway, I just thought that was funny.

hank
It's nice you know this Grants nickname. I've got a trial drive on Grant and Sherman tanks in Kubinka Museum so Sherman looks tiny in comparison with Grant!

[hank]

Those are great pics. I've downloaded a bunch and seeing a couple made me think of something funny.

The U.S. lend/leased a bunch of Grants to the russians in 1942/43 and there are a few pictures of Grants in this gallery. The Russians were glad to have them but the Grant crews hated the way they performed. The Russians nicknamed the Grant a "Coffin for Seven brothers". Anyway, I just thought that was funny.

hank
It's nice you know this Grants nickname. I've got a trial drive on Grant and Sherman tanks in Kubinka Museum so Sherman looks tiny in comparison with Grant!

That is awesome. I really want to go to Kubinka someday. Awesome collection there, really impressive. Is it as impressive in person as the pictures?

I have also seen footage of them actually running some of them. How many actually run? Fort Knox supposedly has a few German models and many American models taht run and on July 4th they dress up and put on a show. I've not seen it but I'd sure like to.

hank

[ArtofPain]

It's nice you know this Grants nickname. I've got a trial drive on Grant and Sherman tanks in Kubinka Museum so Sherman looks tiny in comparison with Grant!

That is awesome. I really want to go to Kubinka someday. Awesome collection there, really impressive. Is it as impressive in person as the pictures?

I have also seen footage of them actually running some of them. How many actually run? Fort Knox supposedly has a few German models and many American models taht run and on July 4th they dress up and put on a show. I've not seen it but I'd sure like to.

hank[/quote]
Kubinka is GREAT! I was there many times! I was there about 2 years ago when I do some consultations for "Blitzkrieg" and "Silent Storm" game-designers team to refresh my knowlages!

[hank]

Congrats on that Art of Pain, I am envious.

hank

[Abbyy]

Kubinka is GREAT! I was there many times! I was there about 2 years ago when I do some consultations for "Blitzkrieg" and "Silent Storm" game-designers team to refresh my knowlages!

Great games. Great job. My respect to Nival. My guess - if i'll dig up inside Game.EXE magazines i'll find your real name :)

PS. - Hey look, somebody found my o-o-old post :)

[ArtofPain]

Great games. Great job. My respect to Nival. My guess - if i'll dig up inside Game.EXE magazines i'll find your real name :):)
NO there is no my name! But you can find it in "Special Thanks" section on DVD :lol:

[Durandal]

The german tanks like the Panther or the Elefant were to heavy and not so qucik then the T-34

Not to bitch, but the Panther WAS quick and the Elephant was a self propelled gun...and heavy. Using those two in the same sentence as an example of heavy slow armor is like placing the T-34/85 in the same category with the JSIII or T-10. :)

[ArtofPain]

The german tanks like the Panther or the Elefant were to heavy and not so qucik then the T-34

Not to bitch, but the Panther WAS quick and the Elephant was a self propelled gun...and heavy. Using those two in the same sentence as an example of heavy slow armor is like placing the T-34/85 in the same category with the JSIII or T-10. :)

T-34/85 saw the battle in 1944

[Durandal]

[T-34/85 saw the battle in 1944

The point is not when they saw battle but comparisons of size and weight. The Panther while fairly large was pretty damn quick and lethal.

[hank]

[T-34/85 saw the battle in 1944

The point is not when they saw battle but comparisons of size and weight. The Panther while fairly large was pretty damn quick and lethal.

Durandal my good friend, I'm afraid you are operating under an incorrect assumption. You incorrectly assume the ArtofPain actually understands the meaning in your words. We all might as well type gibberish because these Russians just don't understand.

Your point is well taken about Panther/Elephant. Anyway, there were so few Panthers at Kursk as to be insignificant.

This is a tired argument. Russins kicked the crap out of Germans at Kursk. Kursk was the last gasp of the Germans and the Russians bled them to death. Really quite simple.

hank

[RomanS]

[T-34/85 saw the battle in 1944

The point is not when they saw battle but comparisons of size and weight. The Panther while fairly large was pretty damn quick and lethal.

Durandal my good friend, I'm afraid you are operating under an incorrect assumption. You incorrectly assume the ArtofPain actually understands the meaning in your words. We all might as well type gibberish because these Russians just don't understand.

Your point is well taken about Panther/Elephant. Anyway, there were so few Panthers at Kursk as to be insignificant.

This is a tired argument. Russins kicked the crap out of Germans at Kursk. Kursk was the last gasp of the Germans and the Russians bled them to death. Really quite simple.

hank

oh there is a difference between understanding a group of friends, and understanding an individiual like you.

I have a lot of American friends here, and I perfectly understand them, and they perfectly understand me.

Its just the little group of assholes that is hard to get.

[hank]

[T-34/85 saw the battle in 1944

The point is not when they saw battle but comparisons of size and weight. The Panther while fairly large was pretty damn quick and lethal.

Durandal my good friend, I'm afraid you are operating under an incorrect assumption. You incorrectly assume the ArtofPain actually understands the meaning in your words. We all might as well type gibberish because these Russians just don't understand.

Your point is well taken about Panther/Elephant. Anyway, there were so few Panthers at Kursk as to be insignificant.

This is a tired argument. Russins kicked the crap out of Germans at Kursk. Kursk was the last gasp of the Germans and the Russians bled them to death. Really quite simple.

hank

oh there is a difference between understanding a group of friends, and understanding an individiual like you.

I have a lot of American friends here, and I perfectly understand them, and they perfectly understand me.

Its just the little group of assholes that is hard to get.

Permii when are you going to get it. The only thing I take issue with you about is your flaming of Deut and your inability to admit that Stalin, not every Russian, made a mistake with the POWs. You are as stupid as you are stubborn.

One more time, let people express opinions contrary to yours and you'll never hear a word from me. I don't like you, but I'll stay away. Continue to flame people for contrary opinions and it will never end.

Last time - I don't disagree with you about any of this, just the childish and retarded flaming.

Simple enough?

hank

[Durandal]

Russians kicked the crap out of Germans at Kursk.

Never said they didn't.

Kursk was a HORRIBLE waste for the Germans. If they hadn't have wasted so many resources in a single event, maybeEastern Europe would have been liberated rather than selling out most it to that butcher, Stalin.

:)

[hank]

Russians kicked the crap out of Germans at Kursk.

Never said they didn't.

Kursk was a HORRIBLE waste for the Germans. If they hadn't have wasted so many resources in a single event, maybeEastern Europe would have been liberated rather than selling out most it to that butcher, Stalin.

:)

I'm with you on that. I was referring to the t-34/85 comment. The fact that it did not come out until 1944 was irrelevant to the point you were making. I simply meant that ArtofPain understands enough of the words you typed to disagree with the letters but not the point. Sorry I was unclear about that.

The Kursk defeat comment was directed at the original point of this whole discussion. I should have been more clear on that.

hank

[Durandal]

No problem man.

[ArtofPain]

[T-34/85 saw the battle in 1944

The point is not when they saw battle but comparisons of size and weight. The Panther while fairly large was pretty damn quick and lethal.
Man, I understand ALL your writings. I just corrected you!
And I KNOW difference between T-34 and T-10.
To hank: "Anyway, there were so few Panthers at Kursk as to be insignificant. "
If you count 200 Panthers of German Panther Brigade as "FEW" - you are brave. Or you not know much about it.

[hank]

[T-34/85 saw the battle in 1944

The point is not when they saw battle but comparisons of size and weight. The Panther while fairly large was pretty damn quick and lethal.
Man, I understand ALL your writings. I just corrected you!
And I KNOW difference between T-34 and T-10.
To hank: "Anyway, there were so few Panthers at Kursk as to be insignificant. "
If you count 200 Panthers of German Panther Brigade as "FEW" - you are brave. Or you not know much about it.

Dear God not this again. Yes, there were 200 hundred Panthers in Russia at the beginning of Citadel, although some more recent authors are beginning to question this number as a projection and not reality. My point was, and remains, that very few Panthers actually saw action. Most were lost to mechanical diffiulties on day one of Citadel. Here is a quote from a website, I'm just too tired to haul out books after my huge POW post:


The new tanks had turned out a very disappointing show with most of the Mk V Panthers breaking down on the first day due to problems with the complex electrical cooling systems (from a total of 200 only forty were in running order at the end of the first day). The Elefant tanks although a formidable machine with their 88mm gun had also proved a disappointment with Russian infantry simply attacking the 73 ton monsters with satchel charges and Molotov cocktails when they were separated from the infantry with relative ease due to the absence of a hull machine gun as a secondary defenses.

If all 200 had been operational you would indeed be correct, but they were not. The other problem is that the units making the most headway, the SS PG Divisions of the 4th Panzer Army had no Panthers at all. Neither Das Reich nor Totenkopf got their Panthers until after Kursk. The only units that had received them was 51 and 52 Panzer Battalions. Both of thes units were regular Heer and 52, I think, was attached to Grossdeutschland. At any rate, those 40 that worked had no outcome on Kursk. Even if 200 had worked the outcome would have been the same. USSR had such an overwhelming numerical superiority in the pocket that Germany's efforst wre simply doomed from the start.

Here is another about Das Reich:


On July 4th, Das Reich had 48 Pz. III's, 30 Pz. IV's (1/4 with short barrels), 12 Tigers, 8 Pz. III command tanks, 18 T-34's, 33 StuG's, and 10 Marders combat ready.

Another:


Its [Das Reich's]Panther battalion first saw combat on the [August]22nd,

Kursk was well and over by August and the Germans were reeling from the counterattack.

So, again, you get the words but not the meaning. I'm really not trying to disagree. We are saying the same thing.

hank

[hank]

To hank: "Anyway, there were so few Panthers at Kursk as to be insignificant. "
If you count 200 Panthers of German Panther Brigade as "FEW" - you are brave. Or you not know much about it.

Oh, I just caught that about Brigade. There are no Panther Brigades at Kursk in Summer 1943. As I previously posted, there were only two battalions, 51 and 52, and they did not operate together. These contained the total of all Panthers in Russia at the time and by July 5th only 40 were operational.

There were two Panzer brigades in the German OOB, but they had Pz IIIs and IVs and not full strength of those either.

Why don't we just resolve to be friends? I'm willing. I mean does it really matter? In the grand scheme of things does it matter if there were 200 or 2000 or only 2 Panthers at Kursk? The good news is that USSR won that battle and turned the tide on Hitler and started pushing Hitler's legions back to Germany beginning on the steppes around Oboyon and Prokhorovka. Isn't that what is important? Because that was my point originally. What was yours?

hank

[Abbyy]

Man, I understand ALL your writings. I just corrected you!
And I KNOW difference between T-34 and T-10.
To hank: "Anyway, there were so few Panthers at Kursk as to be insignificant. "
If you count 200 Panthers of German Panther Brigade as "FEW" - you are brave. Or you not know much about it.

Добрый совет - спорить бесполезно. Во-первых, книжек у них практически на любую военную тему издано значительно больше и качество их выше.

Во-вторых, они каким-то магическим образом успевают в них копаться в споре. :)

Ну нафик. Я Пермского матюги не одобряю конечно, но с другой стороны зачастую единственный способ хоть что-то ответить.

Ихняя книжка фактическим материалом в споре считается. А наша - нет. Поэтому иногда проще сразу послать и не связываться.

[ArtofPain]

To hank: "Anyway, there were so few Panthers at Kursk as to be insignificant. "
If you count 200 Panthers of German Panther Brigade as "FEW" - you are brave. Or you not know much about it.

Oh, I just caught that about Brigade. There are no Panther Brigades at Kursk in Summer 1943. As I previously posted, there were only two battalions, 51 and 52, and they did not operate together. These contained the total of all Panthers in Russia at the time and by July 5th only 40 were operational.

There were two Panzer brigades in the German OOB, but they had Pz IIIs and IVs and not full strength of those either.

Why don't we just resolve to be friends? I'm willing. I mean does it really matter? In the grand scheme of things does it matter if there were 200 or 2000 or only 2 Panthers at Kursk? The good news is that USSR won that battle and turned the tide on Hitler and started pushing Hitler's legions back to Germany beginning on the steppes around Oboyon and Prokhorovka. Isn't that what is important? Because that was my point originally. What was yours?

hank
From source I've read 51 and 52 Panzer Battalions were joined in Panther-Brigade 10 to make their actions more efficient. Till the @Citadel@ operation began 196 Panthers were delivered to Kursk region. About 150 were out due tech problems. Soviet trophy teams got 127 Panthers from battlefiels after the end of the "Citadel"

[ArtofPain]

Добрый совет - спорить бесполезно. Во-первых, книжек у них практически на любую военную тему издано значительно больше и качество их выше.

Во-вторых, они каким-то магическим образом успевают в них копаться в споре. :)

Ну нафик. Я Пермского матюги не одобряю конечно, но с другой стороны зачастую единственный способ хоть что-то ответить.

Ихняя книжка фактическим материалом в споре считается. А наша - нет. Поэтому иногда проще сразу послать и не связываться.
Я ведь не только книжками на русском пользуюсь! ;) Но и ещё на 3-х языках + архивные материалы.

[Abbyy]

Добрый совет - спорить бесполезно. Во-первых, книжек у них практически на любую военную тему издано значительно больше и качество их выше.

Во-вторых, они каким-то магическим образом успевают в них копаться в споре. :)

Ну нафик. Я Пермского матюги не одобряю конечно, но с другой стороны зачастую единственный способ хоть что-то ответить.

Ихняя книжка фактическим материалом в споре считается. А наша - нет. Поэтому иногда проще сразу послать и не связываться.
Я ведь не только книжками на русском пользуюсь! ;) Но и ещё на 3-х языках + архивные материалы.

Ну тогда вам и карты в руки :)

Умный вопрос:
кто сколько кого сбил в Корее в 50-х? А то, знаете ли расхождения имеют место быть на порядок. Что ЦАМО говорит по этому поводу? :)

[RomanS]

Man, I understand ALL your writings. I just corrected you!
And I KNOW difference between T-34 and T-10.
To hank: "Anyway, there were so few Panthers at Kursk as to be insignificant. "
If you count 200 Panthers of German Panther Brigade as "FEW" - you are brave. Or you not know much about it.

Добрый совет - спорить бесполезно. Во-первых, книжек у них практически на любую военную тему издано значительно больше и качество их выше.

Во-вторых, они каким-то магическим образом успевают в них копаться в споре. :)

Ну нафик. Я Пермского матюги не одобряю конечно, но с другой стороны зачастую единственный способ хоть что-то ответить.

Ихняя книжка фактическим материалом в споре считается. А наша - нет. Поэтому иногда проще сразу послать и не связываться.

Братаны,

Россию нашу матушку оскарбляют они уже не в первый раз. Им по хуй из спецназа ты или простой Русский паренек. Как видят или слышат что мы из России то сразу твари начинают хвост поджимать, но чтобы это не показывать то сразу пидоры начинают историей своей блевать.

Не хуй с ними спорить. Как они с нами, так и мы с ними. Да ёще и добавки дадим.
Где бы мы не были, интернет или на поле боя. РОССИЯ НАША ЗЕМЛЯ. И все кто против пошли на хуй.

http://www.bratishka.ru/images/album/Pokaz/Sold/ed.jpg

[ArtofPain]

Ну тогда вам и карты в руки :)

Умный вопрос:
кто сколько кого сбил в Корее в 50-х? А то, знаете ли расхождения имеют место быть на порядок. Что ЦАМО говорит по этому поводу? :)
Это у Кудишина спросить надо, или у Бакурского. Они по авиации спецы, вон даже журнал издают! ;)

[Abbyy]

Ну тогда вам и карты в руки :)

Умный вопрос:
кто сколько кого сбил в Корее в 50-х? А то, знаете ли расхождения имеют место быть на порядок. Что ЦАМО говорит по этому поводу? :)
Это у Кудишина спросить надо, или у Бакурского. Они по авиации спецы, вон даже журнал издают! ;)

А где спрашивать то? :)

[hank]

From source I've read 51 and 52 Panzer Battalions were joined in Panther-Brigade 10 to make their actions more efficient. Till the @Citadel@ operation began 196 Panthers were delivered to Kursk region. About 150 were out due tech problems. Soviet trophy teams got 127 Panthers from battlefiels after the end of the "Citadel"

What is the source? I have here Cooper's History of the German Army. He puts all the Fourth Panzer Army's Panthers in GD. He also includes 2 Panzer Brigades in the Kursk German OOB, but does not says they were equipped with Panthers.

You are probably right, but I have never heard of Panther Brigade at Kursk. In all serisousness I'd like to hear some info about that, because it is new to me. The 127 figure captured after Citadel certainly sounds reasonable since Germans didn't get to keep much real estate and only 40 worked after day 1!

I had not heard that that many were captured. Were most intact or destroyed?

Who knows and I really don't care any more except that if you have info on that Panther Brigade I'd liketo look at it.

hank

[hank]

What's up with all the cyrillic? For Christ's sake as much mud as we've slung the last two days you don't have to worry about hurting my feelings or anything.

hank

[ArtofPain]

What is the source? I have here Cooper's History of the German Army. He puts all the Fourth Panzer Army's Panthers in GD. He also includes 2 Panzer Brigades in the Kursk German OOB, but does not says they were equipped with Panthers.

You are probably right, but I have never heard of Panther Brigade at Kursk. In all serisousness I'd like to hear some info about that, because it is new to me. The 127 figure captured after Citadel certainly sounds reasonable since Germans didn't get to keep much real estate and only 40 worked after day 1!

I had not heard that that many were captured. Were most intact or destroyed?

Who knows and I really don't care any more except that if you have info on that Panther Brigade I'd liketo look at it.

hank
Sorry it's only in Russian http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/PzV/duga.htm
The man who write this working in Central Museum of Soviet Army.
"Panther-Brigade" isn't an official name. Panzer-Abteilung 51 und 52 were a parts of 39 Tank Regiment (Maj. von Luhert), but there were too many Panthers for an "ordinary" regiment (196) it was often called "Brigade"!
Brigade-Stab 10 (commander Col. Dekker) was created to make connection between Panzer-Abteilung 51 und 52 and Tank Regiment of "GD" Division.
+ some info from - Thomas L.Jents. Panzertruppen 1933—1945, Part 2. Schiffer Military History Book, 1997.

[hank]

Sorry it's only in Russian http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/PzV/duga.htm
The man who write this working in Central Museum of Soviet Army.
"Panther-Brigade" isn't an official name. Panzer-Abteilung 51 und 52 were a parts of 39 Tank Regiment (Maj. von Luhert), but there were too many Panthers for an "ordinary" regiment (196) it was often called "Brigade"!
Brigade-Stab 10 (commander Col. Dekker) was created to make connection between Panzer-Abteilung 51 und 52 and Tank Regiment of "GD" Division.

That makes perfect sense. Pz Rgt is a part of GD in many 1943-1944 GD TOEs I have seen, but I've never seen 2 battalions of Panthers in 39. I always see one PZ IV and one Panther.

Thanks for offering that. I just misunderstood what you meant by Brigade. Did this 39 PZ Rgt/BDE have any other units in it? Sometimes I see a Panzer Brigade TOE with an organic infantry unit, or maybe an organic recon unit. Does PZ Rgt/BDE 39 have this in your info? My info on PZ Rgt 39 does not, but mine is obviously not as accurate as yours.

hank

[ArtofPain]

Sorry I'm at office now so I haven't proper books here. As I remember 39 Pz Rg haven't any infantry units. It was created SPECIALLY for Panther Battalions. And one of this Battalions was trained with Pantheras but other - on PzIV.
There was a conflict between commanders of Pz Brig 10 and GD Pz Reg. I've got report about it but becouse of cross-translation (German-English or Russian-English) I can place it here later.
And Panthers never fought near Prokhorovka, they were about 30 kms away.

[hank]

Sorry I'm at office now so I haven't proper books here. As I remember 39 Pz Rg haven't any infantry units. It was created SPECIALLY for Panther Battalions. And one of this Battalions was trained with Pantheras but other - on PzIV.
There was a conflict between commanders of Pz Brig 10 and GD Pz Reg. I've got report about it but becouse of cross-translation (German-English or Russian-English) I can place it here later.

I appreciate that. It was translation problem, it was just my translation problem that was screweing the deal up.

hank

[hank]

And Panthers never fought near Prokhorovka, they were about 30 kms away.

Right. I assume you've been there? I've seen pictures on the internet of it as it stands today and I've seen the pictures from books of 1943.

Must have been quite a spectacle.

All of my material has the SS Pz/PG Divisions not getting Panthers until later into the summer of 1943, some not up to strenght until Fall. Is this consistent with your info?

Also, am I right in thinking that your info also says that regardless of the Rgt/BDE distinction that all the Panthers at Kursk were with GD? That point is often debated here in the states. Sometimes I'll see someone say that Das Reich or Totenkpf got Panthers before Kursk, but I've often doubted this. Certainly by November 1943 Das Reich had them, but that is nearly 6 months later. I mean, in July 43 they were still SS PZ Gr divisions equipped to that point with Pz IIIs/IVs of varying ages. It has always made more sense to me that the SS Pz Gr divisions would have gotten all or none.

hank

[Operation Ivy]

panther was the **** :D (i guess i came in to late)

[ArtofPain]

http://armor.kiev.ua/cgi-bin/imgshow.cgi.PzV_32.jpg
Thomas L.Jents in his books (Thomas L.Jents. Der Pantera. PODZUN-PALLAS, 1997. Thomas L.Jents. Panzertruppen 1933—1945, Part 2. Schiffer Military History Book, 1997. ) said PzRg 39 with GD PzReg were ONLY units with Panthers. PzBd-10 was made by direct Huderian's order.
And Russian Tank Experts Team Report.
"Обследование производилось с 20 по 28 июля 1943 года на участке прорыва нашего фронта немецкими войсками вдоль шоссе Белгород — Обоянь шириной 30 и глубиной 35 километров. Всего был осмотрен 31 танк «Пантера». На основании этих материалов был составлен отчет «Борьба с немецкими тяжелыми танками «Пантера». Он интересен тем, что это первый документ

такого рода и содержит некоторые интересные статистические выкладки.

Так, из 31 осмотренной «Пантеры», было подбито артиллерией 22 танка (71%), из них:

в лобовую часть корпуса — 0 (0%);
в башню —4(18%);
в борт корпуса — 13 (59%);
в корму корпуса — 5 (23%).
Кроме того, подорвалось на минах — три танка (10%), разбит прямым попаданием авиабомбы— один танк (3%), застрял на стрелковом окопе — один танк (3%), вышло из строя по техническим причинам четыре танка (13%). "


Как видно, наибольшее количество попаданий (47) приходится на борт, башню и корму танков, что показывает на правильность действия противотанковых средств Красной армии и быстрое освоение ими способов борьбы с новыми танками «Пантера». "
The research was made from 20th till 28 June of 1943 near Belgorod-Obojan Road where some German troops broke our lines. 31 "Panther" tank had been cheked.
Panthers shooted out by artillery - 22 (71%);
in the front hall - 0 (0%);
in the turret - 4(18%);
in the side of main body — 13 (59%);
in the back of main body — 5 (23%).
On anty-tank mines - 3 (10%);
Direct air bomb hit - 1 (3%);
out by technical problems and leaved at the battlefield - 4 (13%)

[hank]

I appreciate that. I have often seen the BDE in a TOE and wondered what the story was with that and also often wondered about only GD getting Panthers in time for Kursk. That totally clears that up.

When you use that word "artillery" do you mean like an antitank gun, a direct fire artillery piece? I figure that is it.

Thanks again.

hank

[ArtofPain]

When you use that word "artillery" do you mean like an antitank gun, a direct fire artillery piece? I figure that is it.
Not only AT-guns but ALL artillery. This research was done AFTER the battle (a couple of days as I suppose)