4th Cuirassier | 24 Mar 2014 5:55 a.m. PST |
what's a good up to date read on Kursk, preferably including orbat information? |
Stosstruppen | 24 Mar 2014 6:09 a.m. PST |
The Battle of Kursk by Glantz and House may be what you are looking for. |
mysteron | 24 Mar 2014 6:14 a.m. PST |
"Demolishing the Myth" printed by Hellion. Examines some of the myths that have cropped up and is written from a Russian angle of things More of a tome than a book . |
Martin Rapier | 24 Mar 2014 6:41 a.m. PST |
Glantz's 'Kursk' is also something of a tome. The relevant chapters in Niepes 'Decision in the Ukraine' were also very interesting, albeit very much focused on the southern wing and the SS Panzer Corps in particular. The revisionist/counter revisionist/counter counter revisionist thing will run and run and basically comes down to panzer and/or SS fanboys chiming in with the same old stuff over and over. Not helped by Sov propoganda of course. Sometimes it reminds me of recurrent the 'Napoleon wasn't short' threads over on the Napoleonic boards. |
Centurion9046 | 24 Mar 2014 6:42 a.m. PST |
Blood, Steel, and Myth (by Nipe); and Demolishing the Myth (by Zamulin)
a tome indeed. |
PiersBrand | 24 Mar 2014 6:56 a.m. PST |
Kursk – A Statistical Analysis by Zetterling. An interesting selection of research when read with the others above. |
21eRegt | 24 Mar 2014 7:08 a.m. PST |
Another endorsement for Glantz. Totally changed my thinking about the battle. |
Mserafin | 24 Mar 2014 8:26 a.m. PST |
I just read Showalter's Armor and Blood and was quite pleased with it. It incorporates a lot of the newest research, including that found in Zamulin's Demolishing the Myth. Not as detailed as that book or Glantz's, but a much easier read. link |
redbanner4145 | 24 Mar 2014 2:12 p.m. PST |
Glantz & House's Kursk is Glantz's most readable book in my opinion. Much better than the stuff of his that is almost impossible to wade through. |
UshCha | 24 Mar 2014 2:30 p.m. PST |
If you can find where the US army has hid their books my link seems to have failed they have some good studies including minefield data. |
Mserafin | 24 Mar 2014 2:55 p.m. PST |
Glantz & House's Kursk is Glantz's most readable book in my opinion I completely agree. But it's still denser reading than Showlater's book. Which is better depends on what one is looking for, lots of detail or a readable overview.. |
donlowry | 24 Mar 2014 3:47 p.m. PST |
I also recently read Armor and Blood by Dennis E. Showalter. It's informative and readable. Around 300 pages. |
Milites | 24 Mar 2014 4:51 p.m. PST |
Don't read the Osprey book, normally they are quite good at setting an overview, but its full of errors. As for revisionist historians I'm reminded about the Richard the III debate, and their 'no hump' thesis being totally disproved by the evidence. Have not got a copy of Zetterling , but I've started reading his book on the Korsun Pocket and am getting fed up with the constant reiteration of how good the Germans were. Sure, mention it, but not two times a page, and some myths about the quality of Russian troops are also repeated as fact. I might buy Armour and Blood, now TMPers have vouched for it, but the title and cover put me off. Anyone read the Healy book? From my reading of some of it, it seemed a regurgitation of other books. |
Sparker | 24 Mar 2014 6:31 p.m. PST |
Blood, Steel, and Myth (by Nipe) Demolishing the Myth (by Zamulin) Armor and Blood by Dennis E. Showalter. FWIW completely agree with the 3 recommends above. I'd start with the excellent easy to read, but thought provoking overview by Showalter and then tackle the two heavyweights. All good! I got the latter two on Showalter's recommendation by the way
|
Mserafin | 24 Mar 2014 6:53 p.m. PST |
If you're going to read Showalter (and you should) you might think about finding better maps than what is provided. I read it with Glantz open next to me when I could. The ones in the book aren't bad, but there are a lot of places mentioned in the text that aren't on the maps. I understand the reservations about the cover, but I don't think the authors generally have much say in that department. Don't judge a book and all that
|
4th Cuirassier | 25 Mar 2014 2:49 a.m. PST |
Thanks all, I will now go shopping. |
Arrigo | 25 Mar 2014 7:33 a.m. PST |
define revisionist please
and no, the Richard III discovery was not such a definitive proof
the DNA test was weak and well, prove me that someone with the spine in the condition found (used to prove the 'yes hump' condition) was able to ride an horse in full plate
actually some of the archaeologist involved commented that probably the folded spine was a consequence of the way the skeleton has been found
As Kursk revisionism
well both original versions were completely wrong and more a product of both sides propaganda. But this has been agreed upon long time ago (Zamulin indeed demolish very little that had not been demolished before). A good overview (and quite up to date) is Mark Healy 'Zitadelle'. It has a very good discussion of grand strategy, German plans, post war revisions of German plans, and also operations. I have found it quite balanced, well written. It is not detailed on the actual battle has Glantz, but has probably one of the best discussion of the various options available and a balanced view on what German staff discussion produced. He is harsh on rotmistrov and the 5th Guards Tank Army, but I tend to agree with him that Rotmistrov performed poorly. It is also balanced in his final judgement (Zittadelle itself looks more as a marginal German success, but it was simply too little too late). anyway I also recommend Zetterling, Glantz, and Showalter. I was utterly unimpressed by Zamulin
|