The Battle of Kursk - Biggest clash of armor.

Njaco · Dec 16, 2008

If tank losses and strengths weren't what they were why have history books continued to call this the Greatest Tank Battle?

Vassili Zaitzev · Dec 16, 2008

Njaco said:
If tank losses and strengths weren't what they were why have history books continued to call this the Greatest Tank Battle?

A general embellishment of the after action reports?

Amsel · Dec 16, 2008

m kenny said:
The Soviet losses are given as 80,000 dead and 280,000 sick and wounded.
Thats what happened when they decided to take Berlin regardless of costs. I would venture it is more a result of political objectives overiding military prudence.
In the new book 'Bloody Streets, The Soviet Assault On Berlin April 1945' there is a map

showing the position of the 400 Divisions that surrendered on May 12.
Without the removal of Berlin (i.e.Hitler) it is unlikely this surrender would have happened.

The losses would have been much higher for the Soviets had Hitler let the 30 divisions in Courland be redeployed to Prussia and the SS Panzerdivisons in the Ardennes and Hungary also.
The Soviets had about 6 million troops spread along the entire front but a concentrated defense at the Vistula and East Prusssia could have put a sizable dent in those numbers. The main problem was the denial amongst the Nazi party of an iminment threat and lack of a sizable amount of fuel and ammo.

The Battle of Kursk - Biggest clash of armor.

More options

Njaco

The Pop-Tart Whisperer

Vassili Zaitzev

Master Sergeant

Amsel

Tech Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads