msn@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Mike Newsome) (09/07/89)
From: msn@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Mike Newsome)
I have recently observed numerous articles concerning
the Battle of Kursk in relation to the death of mobile
war. This may be of interest to some of you - There
exists an excellent book detailing the major armor
battles of WWII. Its written more as a study of tactics
than as history. (I.E. Stratagy, movement, unit locations,
Panzer Corp, Panzer Gren. Units. use of 88mm AA weapons
against ground units etc. )
Panzer Battles by Maj. Gen. F. W. Von Mellenthin.
[Yes, this is one of the classics! Definitely recommended. --CDR ]
From the Cauldron in N. Afrika to Apr 45 in Germany.
Dooka yoroshiku onegaishimasu,
________ __ __ ______
/ ____//__ msn@beach.cis.ufl.edu / / / / / ____/
/ // // Michael S. Newsome / / / / / /__
GUNDAM 3632 NW 46th Pl. / / / / / ___/
// // Gainesville, Fl. / /_/ / / /
//__//___/ 32605-1046. /_____/ /_/
//______/ U.S.A. The University of Florida
Watashino hatano motoni watashiwa jiyuuni ikirumajor@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) (09/11/89)
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) > From: msn@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Mike Newsome) > Panzer Battles by Maj. Gen. F. W. Von Mellenthin. > From the Cauldron in N. Afrika to Apr 45 in Germany. I would add for your library: "The Tigers Are Burning" - Martin Caidin Devoted solely to the Battle of Kursk, the author tries to bring the human side and emotions of the battle and of the decision making by the Wehrmacht generals and the Red Army generals. The title comes from the first message received in Moscow after German forces struck the Russian defenses. One can argue as to the impact of the results of the Battle of Kursk. But, I don't believe anyone will argue that this was the greatest single land-and-air combat engagement in military history. Caidin states that the battle broke the back of the German Army - and changed the entire course of World War II. (BTW: I'm in the process of reading "Lost Battles" by von Manstein. I'll see what he has to say about Kursk.) major
hhm@ihlpy.att.com (Herschel H Mayo) (09/12/89)
From: hhm@ihlpy.att.com (Herschel H Mayo) In article <27189@amdcad.AMD.COM>, ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) writes: > I would add for your library: > "The Tigers Are Burning" - Martin Caidin I can not agree. This book is awful and filled with major errors. Caidin is incapable of distinguishing the difference between a Tiger I and a Porsche Elephant which he constantly Identifies as a Tiger. This would not be so bad, except that he presumes that none of the German tank types carried secondary machine guns, and expounds on this at length. At another point he assures the reader that the Germans were still using the 3,7 mm pak by the time of Kursk. With the exception of a hollow bomb retrofit, no Germans in their right mind were still using these against T34s. While he does attempt to give credit where credit is due, his pro Russian bias is obvious. > (BTW: I'm in the process of reading "Lost Battles" by von Manstein. > I'll see what he has to say about Kursk.) He states that the Germans were at the point of no return in the battle. In spite of the fact that the attack was slowed, the Germans were making steady gains, and had as much to loose by withdrawing as continuing the battle. Hitler evidently didn't see it that way and decided to withdraw vital forces to the south. He implies that the idea of the attack was to draw out and destroy the Soviet reserves in a single battle rather that territorial gain, a point which many students of the battle seem to miss. In a personal note. I interviewed two German survivors of the battle of Kursk. They stated that Soviet losses in the counter attack must have been worse that the initial battle itself. Both stated that they had never seen such destruction of men and machinery on such a scale as they saw and participated in. They were astounded that the Russians could recover from such losses. While such observations may be open to debate. I get an uneasy feeling that the true picture of the battle of Kursk lies somewhere between the recollections of the veterans and the claims of the Soviets. Maybe the true story will never be told. Larry Mayo
major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) (09/17/89)
From: ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) In article <27207@amdcad.AMD.COM>, hhm@ihlpy.att.com (Herschel H Mayo) writes: > In a personal note. I interviewed two German survivors of the battle of > Kursk. They stated that Soviet losses in the counter attack must have > been worse that the initial battle itself. Both stated that they had > never seen such destruction of men and machinery on such a scale as they > saw and participated in. They were astounded that the Russians could > recover from such losses. While such observations may be open to debate. > I get an uneasy feeling that the true picture of the battle of Kursk > lies somewhere between the recollections of the veterans and the claims > of the Soviets. Maybe the true story will never be told. > > Larry Mayo Very true. The TRUE STORY of any battle is only what each individual observer sees, senses, is aware of. In 1968, while stationed in Germany, AFN Radio had a series of broadcasts with Cornelius Ryan interviewing Marshal Konev (or Chuikov - I don't remember) - discussing the The Great Patriotic War from the Russian Army perspective. Obviously, the Marshal put forth the Soviet claims of 'decisive victory' during Kursk - that both sides suffered terrible losses - but that Russia was better able to absorb the losses. major
zenon@chopin.llnl.gov (Maciej Zenon Pindera) (09/19/89)
From: zenon@chopin.llnl.gov (Maciej Zenon Pindera) In article <27303@amdcad.AMD.COM> ssc-vax!shuksan!major@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mike Schmitt) writes: > >AFN Radio had a series of broadcasts with Cornelius Ryan interviewing >Marshal Konev (or Chuikov - I don't remember) - discussing the The Great >Patriotic War from the Russian Army perspective. Obviously, the Marshal >put forth the Soviet claims of 'decisive victory' during Kursk - that >both sides suffered terrible losses - but that Russia was better able to >absorb the losses. Harrison Salisbury indicates that Zukov had running feuds both with Konev and Chuikov. So their remarks of him may not be totally complimentary. I don't know whether the true figures for the Soviet side have ever been published. We may never know the total cost. However the one thing that we do know, is that Zukov was never timid when it came to exhanging human life for some objective. For example, when attacking across a mine field his soldiers would proceed as if the mines did not exist, the rationale being that the casualties would be about the same if the area was protected with machine gun emplacements and not mines. I guess that the side "better able to absorb the losses" wins. maciej