"Some Nagging Questions about WWII. " Topic

Oh wise Magi of TMP:
I have several questions which have been nagging me for the last little while and for which I can find no clear answers. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
1) Was the Flak 43 cruciform 88 mm gun issued to regular German army units or as a flak gun was it issues to only Luftwaffe troops in Flak units?
2) Did the Germans mix Pz IV F's and Pz IV F2's together in medium tank companies c. 1942-3 or were the F's limited to the Support (Heavy) Company and the F2's in the Medium Companies?
3) Was the battle of Kursk really the largest tank battle in history as is commonly claimed, or was it several battles in regional proximity – thus making the Battle of Brody-Dubra/Dubro in June 1941 the largest tank Battle in history? The answer to this last question could cost me beers on a bet, so please be careful with your answers.
Many thanks and have a great weekend. Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

1 – I don't think there was such a thing as an 88mm Flak 43. There was the 88mm Pak 43, which, as the name implies, was a purpose-built AT gun. The Flak 43 was a 37mm.

2. Yes, they mixed them, as F2s became available. There were still a couple of F1s at Kursk.

3. A good question I don't have time to delve into. I personally think your interpretation has merit, but I have to go interview a guy…

Mserafin:
1) You are right of course. So was the cruciform PaK 43 (not the one on a standard set of gun trails) a duel purpose gun (AA, AT) or purely an anti-tank weapon. If purely an anti-tank weapon why did the designers put it on a cruciform mount like an anti-aircraft gun?
2) Thanks!
3) I hope it's a good horse.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Cruciform platform gave quick 360 degree traverse. The mount used on the Pak 43 also had the gun located much closer to the ground than on the AA cruciforms. Pak 43 could not be elevated to high angles for AA use.

The Pak 43 was on a standard AT gun trail mount. The cruciform '88' you're thinking of is the Flak 18 (later, improved versions were the Flak 36 and Flak 37).

Pak 43 had 2 different mountings, cruciform and split trail. link

It was Kursk, it's the one battle and not several unrelated fights.

It was Kursk, it's the one battle and not several unrelated fights.

Yes, but so is the Brody-Dubra battle. It's essentially a massive Soviet counter-attack against the Schwerpunkt of Army Group South. Not as coordinated as the German attack at Kursk, but then they didn't have several months to plan it and coordinate it. They didn't have the upper-level staff to properly coordinate it either, but certainly they were trying.

I think Kursk gets singled out because it was pretty much the Main Show in 1943*, whereas Brody-Dubra gets subsumed into the whole of Barbarrossa. But due to the geography of the area (isolated from AGC by the Pripyet marshes) and the German plan (the rest of AGS attacked a bit later than the Panzer Group), it can very much be taken as its own battle, rather than a part of the bigger campaign. In size and scope it is very comparable to Kursk, and if the number of tanks there exceeded what was at Kursk, then I think Mr. Robertson should collect his beer.

* and there were Panthers and Tigers!

Thanks to Mr. Robertson for bringing this up, it's an interesting question that makes me look at things differently, which is always good for the brain.

I think someone is getting their dun mesignations guddled.

The FlaK 41 was a "long" 88 made by Rheinmetall on a rather natty cruciform mounting, lower-slung than the FlaK 18, 36 or 37 (although some 13 FlaK 41 barrels were mated with FlaK 37 mountings to form the FlaK 37/41). The FlaK 41 could engage air or surface targets.

The PaK 43 was a "long" 88, made by Krupp and capable of engaging surface targets only, firing a different cartridge from the FlaK 41. It could be mounted in a cruciform carriage, with a rather simpler shield than that on the FlaK 41, or, as an interim measure pending the availability of carriages, on a split-trail conventional carriage as the "barn door".

All the best,

John.

Yes I think he means the Flak 41.

That is definitely a Flak gun, but has a lower mounting than the Flak 36, presumably for dual AA/AT work.
I would assume issued to Luftwaffe units and Heer Flak Abteilung as a direct replacement for the Flak 36.

There's a beast of an AA gun behind it in the photo too, mounted on the Gotha tank trailer. 128mm or bigger?

The 'big' tank battle of Kursk was actually the Battle of Prokhorovka, but yes, it was one single engagement and has clearly been accepted by both Russian and German recent historians as the largest ever tank battle.

Etranger, that big gun in the background is a twin 128mm Flak gun. It's mounted on a carriage for short term movement. I can't recall if it was intended to be fired from that carriage.

The piece was generally used as positional 'heavy' flak for defending high value static targets. You'd find them on 'flak towers' defending the Fatherland from marauding hordes of heavy bombers.

The 'big' tank battle of Kursk was actually the Battle of Prokhorovka, but yes, it was one single engagement and has clearly been accepted by both Russian and German recent historians as the largest ever tank battle.

Well, certainly that's the "received wisdom." However, sometimes the received wisdom is wrong (e.g., how many people used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe?). The OP may or may not be right, but he does raise an interesting point that's worth looking into. If objective analysis proves he's right, that means all those German and Russian historians aren't, regardless of how many there may be.

If objective analysis proves he's right, that means all those German and Russian historians aren't, regardless of how many there may be.

Is this a circular way of saying if he's right, he's right?

Anyway, no doubt there are many subjective ways of defining the size of a tank battle, but the one that works for me is the density of tanks engaged. Call me a bluff old traditionalist if you will…

And this received wisdom at which you scoff comes from respected historians Valeriy Zamulin and George M Nipe. These are no 'flat earthers' but two historians who have set out to unearth the truth about Kursk, and, in my view, succeeded brilliantly!

If you are seriously comparing the Soviet counter attack of 26th June 1941 around Dubno, assuming all tanks were runners, which I seriously doubt from the Russian perspective at least, then you are looking at over 2,000 tanks. But these tanks fought over a front of 42 miles separated by the city of Dubno. A single battle perhaps, but one engagement? (Op. Barabarossa, David M Glantz, London 2011, p.43)

Whereas at Prokhorovka, the same official number of tanks, when the Russians were more mechanically and logistically proficient and thus presumably had a higher proportion of runners, fought over the 'tank field' of a few square kilometres…definitely a single engagement.

G Dog, now that you point it out I see the twin barrels, they're almost superimposed!. I'm familiar with the twin 128mm. It was a transport mount only.

Several years ago Col Glantz gave a talk on Kursk at Historicon. At that time he stated that his research, especially in the Russian archives, showed that the numbers engaged at Prokhorovka were exaggerated and counted vehicles not involved in the battle and in some cases used order of battle and not necessarily operational vehicles. As to the actual battle he claimed is was smaller than conventional research showed and several other engagements during the war were larger.

If you mean the older 88, it was issued to the Heer (Army) as well as the LW. In '41 (Barbarossa) there were a few independent panzerjager companies (actually detached from a battalion) assigned to various corps. By '43 or '44 there was a flak battalion in each panzer division, which included a battery or two of 88s. Don't know about in between. Nor do I know if they started using the newer versions of the 88 at some point.

Taking from Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis. London: Frank Cass, 2000

Depending on how one prefers to define the battle at Prokhorovka, it involved from 294 German (II SS-Panzer Corps) and 616 Soviet AFV (those engaging II SS-Panzer Corps) up to a maximum of 429 German and 870 Soviet AFV

So is it the Kursk campain, or just the battle of Prokhorovka?

So is it the Kursk campain, or just the battle of Prokhorovka?

Well I think were into an apples and oranges situation here. Define a 'battle'! Are we comparing campaigns with 'engagements'?

If you compare the overall Operation ZITADELLE with the overall 1941 Dobra battle either side of that city, then, in official numbers counting non runners, then you could claim parity in numbers, at around 2,000 over the whole theatre.

But I'm pretty sure the 1,500 operational AFV's which the latest scholarship identifies, were involved on the Prokhorovka 'Tank Field', as the Russians now honour that small area, saw the most intense concentration of armour fighting anywhere, ever.

And this received wisdom at which you scoff comes from respected historians Valeriy Zamulin and George M Nipe. These are no 'flat earthers' but two historians who have set out to unearth the truth about Kursk, and, in my view, succeeded brilliantly!

I am in no way scoffing at the received wisdom, I'm simply saying that our interpretation of historical events should be open to modification given new data or analyses. If no one has considered the size and scope of the Brody-Dubra battle in comparison to Kursk, then it is possible that we need to change our view on what was actually the "biggest tank battle in history*."

But these tanks fought over a front of 42 miles separated by the city of Dubno. A single battle perhaps, but one engagement? (Op. Barabarossa, David M Glantz, London 2011, p.43)

And here we get into semantics, specifically the difference between a "battle" and an "engagement." The OP asked if the "Battle, of Kursk" was the largest tank battle of the war. Considering the distance between the German attacks at Kursk was nearly 200 miles (according to my measurements of the maps in Glantz & House), separated by the city of Kursk, I think Brody-Dubno can also be counted as one "battle." In that case, a straight-up comparison of the number of machines involved in each battle is totally legitimate, and new data may force us change out minds. I've not compared the numbers yet, so I don't know. But I remain open to the possibility that the 1941 battle may have involved more AFVs than the 1943 one.

If I read you correctly, you are saying that Prokhorovka was the largest tank "engagement" in history, and "engagements" are things that occur during "battles." So the Engagement at Prokhorovka occurred during the Battle of Kursk. In which case, I have no problem believing it was the largest tank "engagement" of the war (unless someone shows be better data).

But what is usually put forward, as by the OP, is that the "Battle of Kursk" was the largest tank battle of the war. Maybe this is just sloppy English, and they really mean Prokhorovka. But I can only interpret the phrase "Battle of Kursk" the way I know it, which is the series of engagements that occurred around the Kursk salient in Juluy of 1943. So the comparison to Brody-Dubra is valid, IMHO.

* – not that this is an important fact, it only impresses the Guinness records folks. "Most important tank battle in history" is really of more interest, and open to even more interpretation.

"But I'm pretty sure the 1,500 operational AFV's which the latest scholarship identifies, were involved on the Prokhorovka 'Tank Field', as the Russians now honour that small area, saw the most intense concentration of armour fighting anywhere, ever."

Taking 'Kursk' to be 'Prochorovka', then it does probably qualify as the largest tank battle/engagement.

However in terms on tank density, that particular honour goes to Goodwood, with a tank density of 300 per km (on the VII Corps front) in a battle of comparable size to Proch. Total vehicles engaged on the VII Corps front only being around 1,200 though (excluding the Canadian Corps and its associated armour).

Partly the congested nature of the Normandy battlefields of course, compared to somewhat greater elbow room in the Ukraine.

after looking up battle

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle

Kursk is the campain and Prochorovka is an engagement of the battle of the southern flank.

1) I meant to write FlaK 41 but a Friday brain meltdown got the better of me. What was the difference between the FlaK 41 and the cruciform PaK 43 in appearance?
2) Mixed. Good! Now I have to reorganise my companies and platoons.
3) The Battle of Prochorovka had about 300 German tanks and assault guns and about 850 Soviet tanks and assault guns. The June 1941 Battle of Brody- Dubro had about 800 German tanks and between 2000 – 2500 Soviet tanks. Now how many of those Soviet tanks were functional by the time they reached the battlefield can be debated, but Brody-Dubro had very large numbers of tanks on both sides. The whole "Battle" of Kursk had more tanks but I maintain that Kursk was a series of battles stung out over hundreds of miles of front while Brody- Dubro was one discreet battle.
Rod Robertson

So below is the PaK 43 and further down is the FlaK 41.

Were FlaK 41's only issued to Luftwaffe FlaK batteries or were they more widely used? I assume that PaK 43 were issued to regular army troops but at what level?
Rod Robertson

This link should help you with the PaK 43 question.
sturmvogel.orbat.com/pzjgabt.htm
The information you need is in the lower part of the page.

From my reading not that many Flak 41s were made and they were for A.A. use. Someone may know better.

I assume that PaK 43 were issued to regular army troops but at what level?

Independent Heavy AT battalions, which would be assigned at corps/army level. Battalions 661 through 668 seem to have had them, all served on the Eastern Front.

This is according to Frank Chadwick.

Thanks deephorse and Mserafin.
Rod Robertson.

They weren't all on the eastern front

link

PaK 43 (of both types) were also found in the divisional AT Bns of a number of Infantry Divisions and 21st Panzer Division in Normandy.

Curiously, a number of Infantry Divisions in Normandy also had one of their artillery battalions filled with PaK 43 as dual-role AT/Arty.

Number4: Thanks for the photos. They are all PaK 43's "Barn-doors" with split trails which I knew we're in Western Europe. What I am after is information about the PaK 43 mounted on the cruciform platform.
R.M.D.: Welcome back! Your comment makes it clear but Just to clarify, are you saying that cruciform PaK 43's were in service in Western Europe? I don't mean to cause you unnecessary work, but could you point me in the direction of a good source for the presence of cruciform PaK 43's in Normandy. That they were there is news to me! Good news mind you, since I am just finishing up a pair of models and I would like to use them in western scenarios.
Cheers gents and thank you for your help!
Rod Robertson

Here y'are – taken at Cagny on 18th July 44. I don't know if this one actually belonged to Panzerjaeger-Abteilung 200 (21. Panzer-Division) or if it belonged to a supporting Army Pak-Abteilung:

I've also got a photo here somewhere of one I photographed outside the Canadian Royal Military Academy at Kingston. It had been captured by the Canucks somewhere in NW Europe.

Here's another one – also taken at Cagny and almost certainly from the same battery:

Looks like the two in your first photo are being used against their former owners, Mark.

The one in the background is actually a 17pdr! :)

I think the blokes in the foreground are just taking cover.

It is a posed shot and the film of the same incident was shot by a Canadian cameramam because I can not find a description in the IWM film database. I suspect it is either the left or right flanks of Goodwood.

The film can be viewed here, guns at at 1:40.

YouTube link

This Pathe clip is several smaller reels spliced together with no regard as to location. Other than it was shot during Goodwood nothing else is known for sure. The section following the gun sequence of the M10 turning on a road is the main road through Cagny and is the same area where the Welsh Guards were photographed at some another time.

RMD and mkenney:
Thank you so much for your help. All I really wanted was a reference but you have done my homework for me! More time to paint!
Cheers and thanks once more.
Rod Robertson.