• Announcements

    • SNIPER62

      64-bit is LIVE   03/27/2020

      CHIMM: 64-bit client is now LIVE and Campaign 172 continues!  
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mgallun

Interesting Read

9 posts in this topic

This seems to be very accurate... i think that Kursk was mainly an infantry battle, and i also believe in the tactical facts exposed...

He gives you some authors as reference, will be great to take a look to those books:

  1. Glantz, David, and Jonathan House. 1999. The Battle of Kursk. University Press of Kansas.
  2. Newton, Steven. 2003. Kursk: The German View. DaCapo Press.
  3. Zetterling, Niklas, and Anders Frankson. 2000. Kursk: A Statistical Analysis. Frank Cass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zetterling, Niklas, and Anders Frankson. 2000. Kursk: A Statistical Analysis. Frank Cass.

Can recommend that one since I've read it.

Very thorough and good set up, even if it can be somewhat confusing at times when the battles are described if you're not used to that kind of jumping from scene to scene and don't keep track of where the different units where placed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given these numbers, it is not likely that the battle at Prokhorovka was the "largest tank battle in history". In fact, it is smaller than a battle that took place between the French and the Germans in 1940. In front of Gembloux on May 14-15, two full-strength Panzer divisions (each with about 300 tanks) squared off with two full-strength French Light Mechanized Divisions (each with about 260 tanks).

Gembloux a bigger tank battle than Kursk? Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hmmmmmmmm... so ya, Kursk seems to have about 100 different stories about it what to believe?

http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm

I was about to start yaking about "history and distortions".

What the hell, better to quote Mgallun!

Right, Zac74! The people must have publications to qualify for a PhD so they type!

Lets "decompose" the battle to research it properly and forget to mention anything that won't fit the author's "shocking" discovery.

I know that the German tank troops lost their ability to move forward and were pushed back as a result of "Prokhorovka".

I have a great idea! There was no "Kursk" battle at all! The battle never came anywhere near that city.

By the way, only the troops stationed in El-Alamein itself or on the property of its residents must count as the participants of that great battle.

Of course, the battle of El-Alamein was great counting the strategic outcome.

Let's see, what if I count only the grand total of the troops and subtract the Italian divisions as poorly equipped and motivated? I got a dwarf of a battle, barely an engagement. And yes, that proves that the british troops fought poorly too! Now compare that dwarf I created to Stalingrad.

Heh, I qualify to become a Soviet historian, they did exactly as I described.

But the Soviet propaganda we all resented and laughed at was right about one thing, there were and still are the same "methods" on the "outside".

They always were and will be, the 300 Spartans held a 3 million strong army. There was actually 11:1 K/D F-86/MiG-15 in Korea. I won't mention anything newer, too emotional to many.

Sure only one invincible and indestructible panzer division must count as a battle participant.

Hell, I yaked anyway and got pathetically emotional myself!

The battle got tons of yarns about it and was "hollywoodicised" Soviet-style. Sure tank ramming is a legend, close engagements between tanks on the move is not.

You see, Uncle Jimbo and his friend Ned destroyed the entire Vietcong army; (to all the savages who are not familiar: in "South Park", the US-made cartoon series). Charge and sword them, the galloping steed attached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.