Citadel Offensive

[Lt. Wittmann]

In June of 1943 the Germans launched their last great offensive on the Eastern Front: Operation Citadel. It was a last ditch effort to thwart the ever- growing threat posed by the Soviet Military. Everything about it was massive, and it culminated in the largest tank battle ever, that of Prokhorovka. Many consider this the death knell of the German army on the Eastern Front and I am just curious as to what others think.

[Canuck Farrier]

I think they would have done better using all of the men and equiptment defensivley It was such a waste of good veteran troops and good equiptment there was a large representation of good waffen ss troops and regular army The Luftwaffe was also present in force with good planes and pilots.The Russians could more easily replace equiptment losses than Germany could.It is easy for us to look back at how things unfolded but in their times things were uncertain and they believed they could be victorious.I think the Russian campaign was useless alltogether they should have used all the extra men and equiptment in North Africa and to defend the rest of their occupied Europe.Not that i wanted them to win.It would have been smarter on their part not to invade Russia.

[gaijinsamurai]

I agree with canuck farrier. Basically, the war was lost for Germany once Hitler decided to invade the USSR. Of course, there were hundreds of other decisions which made matters worse for Germany (letting Goring screw over the 6th Army at Stalingrad, waiting until June '41 to launch Barbarossa, treating potential allies in the Ukraine/Beylorussia, etc. as "untermensch, micro-managing his generals and field marshals, etc., etc., etc.,)

[TR1]

It is easy to say now that the offensive should never have been launched....but it was the Wermacht's last chance to deliver a crushing victory over the Red Army which would actually have some strategic meaning. The Kursk salient was a juicy target...and the German high command had trouble believing that the Red Army had improved so much over the past year and had been to very succesfully replace tank and gun losses. To summerize, I think the operation was a fairly realistic courseof action given the then current events, although ofcourse the sever numer of men, tanks and airplanes lost could have been used to slow down the soviet offensives for Kharkov and Orel.

[TR1]

elephantsv at Kursk....scary!

[duck]

Manstein had actually been planning a "backhand" offensive instead of a head-on clash. This would have included major German withdrawals to lure the Russian armor forward and then pinning them against the Sea of Azov.

[Ea$y-8]

I will just wait for Kitsune (our greatest WWII expert) to find this thread.

[Lt. Wittmann]

Originally Posted by duck

Manstein had actually been planning a "backhand" offensive instead of a head-on clash. This would have included major German withdrawals to lure the Russian armor forward and then pinning them against the Sea of Azov.

True, Manstein did have a good understanding of fluid battle tactics as the Blitzkrieg demanded, and he was also pushing for withdrawals so he could pull another Kharkov, but those defensive tactics would have just hampered the Germans more in the long run. The retreat and counter-attck method would have boiled down into a war of attrition which would have been won by the numerically superior Russians. What Germany needed was a decisive victory like those they had on the West Front Early in the war. That would give them the momentum they needed to march right to moscow (again) and attept to take it again. They should have just launched the attack when it was first scheduled they still had the tactical superiority to take on the Russians and win.

[Lokos]

I will just wait for Kitsune (our greatest WWII expert) to find this thread.

Maybe our greatest German WW2 expert.

Lokos

[duck]

I don't know if I can agree fully with you. While Kursk was purely war of attrition the offensive Manstein was planning would have separated the Russian infantry and mobile units just like at Kharkov.

Manstein orginally wanted to attack Kursk as part of the Kharkov operation before the spring thaw. I think that was the only chance the Germans ever had of taking Kursk in 1943.

Originally Posted by Lt. Wittmann

True, Manstein did have a good understanding of fluid battle tactics as the Blitzkrieg demanded, and he was also pushing for withdrawals so he could pull another Kharkov, but those defensive tactics would have just hampered the Germans more in the long run. The retreat and counter-attck method would have boiled down into a war of attrition which would have been won by the numerically superior Russians. What Germany needed was a decisive victory like those they had on the West Front Early in the war. That would give them the momentum they needed to march right to moscow (again) and attept to take it again. They should have just launched the attack when it was first scheduled they still had the tactical superiority to take on the Russians and win.

[Pvt.Anderson]

Originally Posted by Lokos

Maybe our greatest German WW2 expert.

Lokos

Well Lokos and you're surely the biggest smartass of the forum

[Lokos]

Nothing like that. I just know for a fact that there are several people on this forum with better knowledge of Soviet, British and American experiences in the Second World War. Kitsune is very capable in the German sphere, though.

Lokos

[Crassus]

Personally I think that von Manstein´s "backhand" tactic would not have worked. Soviets simply had too good intelligence network, secondly soviets probably wouldn´t have done same mistake twice (Kharkov spring 1943) by overextending their thrust.

Best policy for Germans would have been to do nothing i.e. cancel Citadel and divert some forces to Italy, clear the Donest and Mius area. This could have been possible only if Hitler had been willing to give up ground in order to exhaust Soviet forces. This ofcourse was not an option to Hitler whose strategy was "not an inch back".
To give Hitler some credit, it must be said that after Citadel failed his "intuition" was right when he suspected that Stalin had laid his eyes on Kharkov (fourth battle).
So it would have been better for Germans to let Soviets bleed themselves white while taking Kharkov as Model did in the Orel area. Kharkov would have been a "mini-Stalingrad" if von Manstein had not pull all six division back at the time. This ofcourse made Hitler angry and Manstein paid the price later.

Even if Germans had chosen defensive strategy with limited counterattacks instead Citadel, I would say that the end of 1943 they would have been forced to retreat behind Dnper. Germany was doom anyway even without Citadel but Citadel made a victory lot easier for Soviets in the eastern front.

[Lt. Wittmann]

Originally Posted by Crassus

Personally I think that von Manstein´s "backhand" tactic would not have worked. Soviets simply had too good intelligence network, secondly soviets probably wouldn´t have done same mistake twice (Kharkov spring 1943) by overextending their thrust.

Best policy for Germans would have been to do nothing i.e. cancel Citadel and divert some forces to Italy, clear the Donest and Mius area. This could have been possible only if Hitler had been willing to give up ground in order to exhaust Soviet forces. This ofcourse was not an option to Hitler whose strategy was "not an inch back".
To give Hitler some credit, it must be said that after Citadel failed his "intuition" was right when he suspected that Stalin had laid his eyes on Kharkov (fourth battle).
So it would have been better for Germans to let Soviets bleed themselves white while taking Kharkov as Model did in the Orel area. Kharkov would have been a "mini-Stalingrad" if von Manstein had not pull all six division back at the time. This ofcourse made Hitler angry and Manstein paid the price later.

Even if Germans had chosen defensive strategy with limited counterattacks instead Citadel, I would say that the end of 1943 they would have been forced to retreat behind Dnper. Germany was doom anyway even without Citadel but Citadel made a victory lot easier for Soviets in the eastern front.

Russians would have made the same mistake they did at Kharkov, almost immediately after Kursk the Soviets launched the Bagration Offensive and did so until they were exhausted and overextended, if the Germans had waited and pulled back they could have produced another Kharkov they just did not have sufficient numbers to stem the Soviet offensive after Kursk. Even before Kursk was planned the Russians were preparing for Bagration and the destruction of Army Group Centre which is why the Kursk defense was so important once the Russians knew about it. If the Germans had attacked at the original time they would have surprise on their side and would have managed to hamper the Bagration plans. In 1943 the Germans were not doomed yet, they still had the tactical edge over there Soviet counterparts. They were forced to retreat because of Bagration which could have been prevented by one of two pheasable ways: 1. The withdrawal and limited counter- attack method, and 2. The offensive on the Kursk Salient. The latter would have been more effective since it would allow the Germans the offensive edge and ability to mantain momentum after they destroyed the Kursk defenses. The former would have been effective, but not to the extent of the Kursk offensive because it would not allow for as much of an offensive push and the Russians would have sufficient time to prepare defenses as the German attack petered out.

[Canuck Farrier]

ya i guess your right you made some good points