"Russians miffed by revisionist study on Kursk" Topic

link

The Prokhorovka was not an easy battle on the Soviet side. They are quite a few recent studies, even Russian that tend to show that Kursk actually achieved very little at the cost of important losses on the soviet side and zero gain on the German side. The level of losses for Germany is debated anew and some historians would say they were not as important as initially thought.

Nevertheless, Kursk was not a German victory and ultimately, Soviet boots were the ones to march in Berlin.

I love the way, in typical BBC fashion, the article about a 1943 battle is illustrated by photos of 1944 tanks.

To be fair, news outlets seldom get it right.

I love the way, in typical BBC fashion, the article about a 1943 battle is illustrated by photos of 1944 tanks.

What's typically BBC about that? I now expect you to post here about every documentary or news item that shows anachronistic footage. There's a lot of them so you'll be quite busy.

Yes, generally the media rarely gets it right. Especially with history and historical footage. To them a tank is a tank. E.g. I've seen footage of Tiger tanks when the topic was the France '40 campaign.

And T34s when the topic was the Battle of the Bulge.

Who knew ?!?!?!?

To be fair, news outlets seldom get it right.

Why is that fair? Just sloppy journalism.

Why is that fair? Just sloppy journalism.

It was fair because there is no particular reason given to single out the BBC. They are no worse, nor no better, at this than any other news org., or a whole host of so-called historical documentary makers. If this one small news item bothers you then you're in for a rough ride throughout the rest of your life.

Not sure why a reanalysis of the battle and discovery that the losses were lopsided would fuel a demand that the memorial to the heroism of the Soviet tank crews be demolished.

If the memorial cites incorrect numbers for the losses that could be amended.

This is also supported by Zetterlings book on Kursk. Many of my gaming friends thought I was nuts when I quoted some of his data. Live and learn!

+1 Deephorse!

As noted in the article, Kursk involved two million soldiers fighting for weeks, rather than just one day at Prochorovoka and ended with the Germans in headlong retreat unable to mount a major offensive in the East ever again.

So they may have exaggerated German losses on one day, big deal, they still thrashed the panzerwaffe.

Uh no. They didn't thrash the Panzers that's the whole point. The followup Russian offensive was successful due to many factors from superior numbers to improved tanks, tactics and leadership to German forces being withdrawn to face the Allies in the West. It wasn't due to a Thrashing at Kursk. Modern numbers and research bear that out. The scales and initiative had tipped by the end of Stalingrad. A decisive win at Kursk would have delayed the inevitable for perhaps a few months. As it was Kursk was tactically more of a draw rather than a Thrashing. And with the Russians manufacturing momentum kicked intmo high gear by mid 1943 a draw wasn't going to cut it. Cheers!

I'm not surprised the Russians are a bit miffed as one of the quoted sources is a German Historian.

I find other things annoying in the Article like the German Army are called Nazi's but the Luftwaffe are called Germans.

Also.

Anatoly told his nephew that sometimes a skilled Soviet sniper could stop a Tiger by shooting the driver through the tank's vision slit. The crew would then clamber out. Hardly anything else could stop a Tiger.

The story of the great victory in the Prokhorov field is truly Soviet propaganda. That particular fight was a failure. Soviet tanks launched an offensive in an extremely unfortunate situation, the terrain conditions did not allow Soviet tanks to realize their advantage in mobility and quantity. Tanks were forced to attack on a narrow front, devoid of any maneuver. German tankers and gunners shot them, as in a shooting range, having the advantage in armor and weapon power. By the way, almost a third of the Soviet tanks in this field were T-70s, who had no chance at all in this fight.
But Prokhorov's field is just an episode of a gigantic battle in which the USSR won. This is the last attempt of the strategic offensive of Hitler on the Eastern Front. Failed attempt. After the Battle of Kursk, Operation Bagration began – the defeat of Germany became inevitable.

And, by the way, the largest tank battles were in 1941.

A shockingly poor 'rate of exchange' between Soviet and German tanks at Prokhorovska is revealed by these studies. The Royal Armoured Corps assault of the Bourgebous ridge during Op Goodwood looks rather good by comparison!
EC

I am not sure why this is such a big surprise to the Russians the result of the battle at Prokhorovka has been known for sometime. I could see why the would be miffed at suggestions to demolish the monument though. No questioning the bravery of the Soviet tankers in that battle!

Well, still need to take into account that the battlefield left for the Germans. They must have repaired or evacuated some of their damaged tanks in the past few days. The Soviets were deprived of this opportunity. But in any case, the losses of the Soviet side in this battle were extremely high.

Glantz's book on "Kursk" is a good English language reference source, as the author had access to hitherto secret/sequestered Soviet archives which were opened up to researchers after "The Wall" came down in the early '90s. From what I recollect, the German army still possessed a very efficient AFV recovery and repair system at that time.

B