Battle of Kursk: A Decisive Defeat or Germany's Lost Victory?

[@erab9514]

I'm tired of reading & hearing the battle started on the 5th. Very much appreciate you getting it right & saying it started on the 4th!! Thank you.

[@jayo3074]

There's something wrong with you if things like that frustrate you...

[@stuartburns8657]

@@jayo3074 History is all about dates? If everyone perpetually got your birthday wrong by a day I bet you'd be annoyed lol

[@Tommykey07]

I always assumed it was the 4th

[@edmundcowan9131]

Yes yes thanks

[@victorrtalluto225]

Major operations started on the 5th.

[@alansewell7810]

A couple other things to remember about Kursk: 1) The Soviets knew it was coming months in advance via their "Lucy" spy ring in the German high command. They constructed defenses in depth for 80 miles and piled up reserve armies behind those. Even if the Germans had broken through at Prokorovka, they would have been smothered by the Soviet Reserve front, which was loaded with men and armor and primed for a counterattack. The Soviets were completely aware of what the Germans were trying to do and were always a step ahead of them. 2) The northern pincer was shredded on the first days of the attack and made no progress whatsoever. It was not possible for the southern pincer to win the battle alone, even if it had performed perfectly. 3) After ten days of butting their heads against Soviets fighting from entrenched positions the way Ukrainians are fighting in today's war, the Germans were too bloodied and exhausted to continue the attack under any circumstances. Had they continued the battle, it would only have resulted in another "Stalingrad" on the steppes. For once, Hitler was prudent to call off a failed attack and begin the retreat several hundred miles westward to the Dnieper.

[@francispoldiak7948]

Half of what you are saying is simply incorrect. The southern wing of the German attack was aimed after July 12th in chewing up Russian armour as it arrived piecemeal....Soviet reserves, consisting of second rate troops and tank crews, would have been chewed up and spit out by Manstein's veterans.

[@alansewell7810]

@@francispoldiak7948 If "Manstein's veterans" were going to "chew up and spit out" the Soviets, then why did it take them SEVEN DAYS to go the 20 miles to get to Prokhorovka? The Kursk offensive started on July 5. Prokhorovka, the maximum penetration by Manstein's army, was fought on July 12. What is your theory to explain this one-week delay by men you think were "chewing up and spitting out" the Soviets? Fact is, "Manstein's veterans" hobbled into Pokhorovka, depleted, exhausted by seven days fighting without rest, with most of their tanks lost to enemy action or mechanical fatigue. They were met by fresh Soviet tank crews in newly manufactured tanks. As one of "Manstein's veterans" wrote: "In fact, we found ourselves taking on a seemingly inexhaustible mass of enemy armor --- never have I received such an overwhelming impression of Russian strength and numbers on that day." Does that sound to you like they were "chewing up and spitting out" the Soviet tank army that chased them off the battlefield?

[@alansewell7810]

@@francispoldiak7948 If the Russians wer ebeing "chewed up and spit out" by "Mainstein's veterans" then why did it take them seven days to get there? The Kursk offensive began on July 5th. The climactic tank battle was July 12. Seven days for "Manstein's veterans" to go 20 miles. Doesn't sound like they were battleworthy, does it? Maybe they were at the start of the battle, but after taking losses of men and material for seven days, they didn't have any fight left. The Russians pushed them off the battlefield then knocked them reeling back 300 miles to the Dnieper. None of the Germans who fought at Kursk thought it was anywhere close to being a winning battle for Germany.

[@francispoldiak7948]

@@alansewell7810 You have got it backwards. My comment was directed at the situation as of July 12th, following the big tank battle that knocked out so many Russian tanks...at that point, with their defense lines pierced, Russia would be forced to throw in armor as it arrived and by doing so would have continued to take enormous losses....you are simply repeating Soviet propaganda about this battle.

[@alansewell7810]

@@francispoldiak7948 The German tankmen who fought the battle did not experience it in accordance with your theory. One of them wrote: "In fact we found ourselves taking on a seemingly inexhaustible mass of enemy armor --- never have I received such an overwhelming impression of Russian strength and numbers as on that day." The Germans were pushed off the field. They did not go anywhere except back to their start line, and then retreated another 300 miles past that.

[@wisdom_hunter9036]

I'm in awe, everytime I see that guy hit the ground and that immediate explosion right in front of him on camera and he's still leading his crew. Awesome video bro. Im subscribed to over 200 channels on KZbin and yours is 1 of my favorites. God Bless my Friend

[@joeqmix]

Not sure about that specific shot, but a lot of the "newsreel" footage that documentaries of Kursk often use is actually lifted from movies. I know the shot of the t-34s charging over a hill at 3:07 is _definitely from a Soviet Movie called "Liberation" from 1967 kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4vVkoBjiduFjqM just turned into black and white to make it look authentic.

[@wisdom_hunter9036]

@@joeqmix agreed my friend. Ive only seen that particular one where the bomb blows up in front of him on documentary channels and videos. I watch A,B,C rated war movies all the time. But i have seen alot of what your talking about as well in those movies. Still kool with me tho. Keeps the context of what he's applying in words. Really like this channel

[@wazza33racer]

when you are the attacking force, you need surprise and/or your enemy to not have extensive time to dig in. Otherwise, the defenders have a strong advantage. Also, in a strategic situation, if one side is not able to match the material quantity of the other, it is better to defend and ambush, inflicting heavy losses while preserving its own strength. Citadell was, despite the huge losses of the Soviets, and idea that was over ambitious. Thanks again, for another video that gets the history correct.

[@finsfan90]

When you put it like that, Citadel is in the same vein as Operation Watch on the Rhine. Misguided offensives, that between the 2 of them, probably shortened the war by a year or more. Imagine if Hitler let his generals do their thing instead of constantly meddling.

[@jerryjeromehawkins1712]

The British had decoded German messages indicating the Kursk Salient was the objective of their next offensive... dates, etc. The British handed this intel over to the Soviets giving them months to prepare antitank ditches, traps, etc.

[@wazza33racer]

@@finsfan90 that is exactly correct.....both operations shortened the war. In the same vein that the V weapons projects wasted enormous resources and achieved almost nothing. Some estimates, are that the V1,V2 and V3 projects were equivalent to producing 20,000 fighter aircraft........ As always, its important to remember that from 1942 up to his death, Hitler had succumb to the arsenic based medication he was taking for stomach spasms which meant that his grip on reality deteriorated and then the plotters failed attempt on his life, only made things worse.

[@lordgarion514]

That's much of the reason why they say in attacking Force should have a three to one advantage in troop strength. Defensive positions are Force multipliers.

[@wazza33racer]

@@lordgarion514 correct....the quandry is that the defenders also need to spread out their forces to prevent the attackers getting through a hole or gap. Defenders never clump up for defense, that makes it too easy for the attackers to break through the flanks and encircle in a classic pincer move. However, its fascinating that in 1941, ALL of the Red Army were in large clumps, and ALL their air fields and fuel/ammo rail sidings were very close to the border with the Reich.........the complete,diametrical opposite of defensive positions, and there was no security pale whatsoever. In fact the 'Stalin line' that was built previously, had been demolished recently.

[@danielhurst8863]

The SS Panzer Corps could not continue the advance, not because of tank losses, but because constant Soviet counter attacks along the lines of he SS advanced sapped troop strength and strained logistics to the point where continued offensive attacks could not be supported. The Soviets lost hundreds of tanks in these counter attacks, but the their goal was not tactical victory, but to bleed strength from the main German attack, and in this they were successful. We've known about the actual German losses and Soviet losses for decades, but it is not general knowledge, so thank you for the video.

[@francispoldiak7948]

Manstein thought the battle could be continued and I will go with his judgement. Nothing personal.

[@machivellisucstwogo7103]

And the Russians never seemed to care about their men. And I hear that they didn’t even need to enter Berlin. It is said that many of the commanders were Judah and didn’t care about the non Judah enlisted men

[@coachhannah2403]

Daniel - No, the Soviets were definitely trying to destroy the Germans. Unfortunately, there was no coordination among the layers of management. 5th Army went into battle from the march in piecemeal packets without infantry support over rough ground against a competent tactical enemy after zero reconnaissance because of miscommunications and sheer stubbornness and fear. It was quite the cock-up, as the Brits say. I read the Russian account, and it was quite unflattering.

[@machivellisucstwogo7103]

@@wazza33racer over 80% of communist Russian revolution leadership was Jewish. The list of names are known

[@tonyclough9844]

Hitlers bottle went at the organising of Kursk offence, he admitted to a general it makes my stomach churn thinking about it. He should have left Manstien to do what he wanted, he had the best defenceive general in Italy to hold it.

[@KingOfYourMouth]

My grandfather at 19 years old during this operation served with the 12th panzer grenadiers. He always emphasized how the Russian hordes would never stop advancing regardless of insurmountable losses. He was part of the fighting retreat all the way back to the fatherland until their final defeat in 45'.

[@tonyg-2jz82]

He must have developed back problems from the weight of carrying those steel balls around. German Grenadiers in this battle all wrote out their last will and testaments before the battle knowing it was almost a suicide mission.

[@KingOfYourMouth]

@@tonyg-2jz82 He was a valiant man. He seldom spoke about his personal suffering during the war but there was always a painful glare in his eyes and voice whenever he did on rare occasions.

[@Vlad79500]

Your grandfather didn’t say, did the Germans come up with something new so as not to go to the enemy’s machine guns? What are German operations? This is the concentration of forces in a certain place - in a weak place with the aim of breaking through the enemy's defense line and further appropriate actions to achieve success. When thousands or tens of thousands of Germans went into battle in a certain place, what did their opponents see? Ask a Soviet soldier - they saw what the Germans saw later. "Hordes" is a German tactic. But I am pleased to read that your grandfather experienced in his own skin all the charm of their own tactics and for some reason did not complain when they used it first.

[@Дмитрий-х9з4г]

Что твой дедушка делал в России? Мой дедушка на Курске защищал свою родину от фашистких полчищь.Он только потом пришёл к твоему деду в Германию чтобы спросить с него за зверства которые он и фашисткие Орды совершили нав России.

[@kiriltzenev5955]

It's not a German victory, because after the battle the Germans retreated and the Russians advanced. You can call it "Pyric victory" for the USSR if you like but not a "German victory".

[@HenryDover-Porter]

German tactical victory and Russian strategic victory

[@shaunspence850]

@@HenryDover-Porter No, just a German defeat. Period. The Nazi apologists / history revisionists are hard at work….but when you turn and run and have to keep running, then you didn’t win anything. Sorry.

[@poderosoeuropeo3852]

​@@HenryDover-PorterExact

[@MiguelSanchez-uy4ir]

In the midst of the battle, Germany was forced to withdraw several SS Panzer divisions to send them to the new front in Sicily...

[@elemirhorvath1788]

Nemci vedeli ,že to u Rusov maju prehrate preto stiahli tanky a nasadili na Siciliu

[@mshahnazi7636]

Your opinion is well explained, however as General Hans Guderian had told the Arrogant and Delusional Austrian Corporal: “the best plan of action would be NOT to attack Kursk”. As many have pointed out in the comments, although Field Marshal Von Manstein’s army in the south was advancing and ultimately reaching Prokhorovka in Southern Salient, in the northern salient general Walter Model’s army took heavy losses and made a measly 9 kilometers advance before being stopped and thrown back. Even if Field Marshal Von Manstien’s army would have destroyed the Soviet guards’ tank armies it would have only delayed the inevitable results as the 3 elite SS tank divisions of LSSAH, Das Reich and Totenkamf were taking heavy losses and could not sustain the continuation of the operation.

[@Rohilla313]

Heinz Guderian. Totenkopf. Manstein. Don’t always believe self serving post war accounts by German generals.

[@peterlewerin4213]

The "Prokhorovka myth" was shattered when the archives were opened after the fall of USSR in 1991. This is nothing new. The battle was essentially unwinnable, as even if the Germans had managed to go through all the defensive lines, the Soviets were ready to launch counteroffensives north and south of Kursk at the Oryol and Belgorod salients, forcing the attacking forces to withdraw or be cut off. * Citadel had already failed when the battle of Prokhorovka started. Model realised that the Central front was trying to drag him in, so he first refused to keep attacking, and eventually he pulled back in time to take defensive positions against the Red Army's Operation Kutuzov. * It was a mistake by the Soviet high command to deploy the 5th Guards Tank Army, as no counterattack was necessary at that point and the 5GTA were forced to attack over open ground, a stretch which ended in a choke point and a tank ditch. The SS divisions (which were pretty much shoulder to shoulder south-west of Prokhorovka) had a turkey shoot. Rotmistrov was very nearly tried and shot for this, but eventually Stavka chose to write in the war diary that the German losses were proportional. The 5GTA was hit very hard, but a few weeks later it was part of Operation Rumyantsev, protecting the flank for the attacking forces, so it was not destroyed of even devastated. * Manstein had no reserves that he could deploy. The XXIV.Panzerkorps had only one "good" division with a reduced strength of 120 tanks and assault guns, and it was very far away and already set aside for the forces defending on the Mius. * Hitler made many mistakes during the war, but at Kursk he made the right call. Manstein still told his armoured corps to try breaching the closest Soviet defences, but had to face facts after two days of trying. Das Reich failed to penetrate the defences at Prokhorovka and had to withdraw after losing a lot of vehicles. Meanwhile, Totenkopf and LSSAH were on the defensive. XXXXVIII.Panzerkorps tried to go around to the west to reach Oboyan, but were also pushed back with significant losses. Both the XXXXVIII.Panzerkorps and SS-Panzerkorps were at this point estimated to be incapable of offensive operations. * Two battalions of Panther tanks participated in Manstein's southern thrust. About half of the 200 Panthers were lost, most of them on the way to or from the battlefield. The Germans towed away as many repairable tanks as they could, but most of them were still lost (had to be destroyed) in the retreats during the Soviet counteroffensive. I have checked most of these facts with Forczyk's "Kursk 1943: The Southern Front".

[@Rohilla313]

Thanks for raising the point about Manstein’s inability to deploy reserves. I think the myths propagated by his “Lost Victories” still die hard. Operation Husky is still being cited as the major factor in Hitler’s decision to call off “Citadel”, including in this video. The plain reason was German inability to follow up on the Prokhorovka victory, regardless of the Allied landing in Sicily on July 10.

[@GG-bw3uz]

thanks for this

[@Fuxerz]

The worst possible scenario is that there was traders in the German high command. The Russians knew they were coming months in advance. Had plenty of time to build defenses. It was a miracle the Germans got as far as they did. You can never forget that point because that is huge when somebody already knows your gameplan before you even do it.

[@averykoenig2095]

It is my understanding that the 24th Panzer Corps was moved up to Kharkov after Manstein requested that it be released to him. This is according to "Kursk: The German View" which is a translation of German military officers accounts of the fighting as part of the US historical study, supplemented by more contemporary research. Even if this weren't the case the 24th Panzer Corps was just in the Mius/Donets area before it moved up, as Hitler wanted it ready for a possible offensive. The distances to be covered here were comparable to those covered by the move of the 5th guards from the Steppe front. If Forczyk is saying they didn't have reserves at all he's just wrong. (Although they were still pathetically small and not enough to hold the Soviet armies even if they had encircled them. That said, 120 tanks was basically a full strength panzer division at that time, my impression is that panzer divisions at this point were lucky to have 100 tanks. Really must question the idea that 5th guards tank should not have moved up, they had to because the 1st tank army and the tanks of the Voronezh front in general had been gradually decimated over the previous days, the aggressive cavalry charge style tactics were dumb though. However, they needed to move the army up because the SS panzers were about to break into the open terrain, the alternative to deploying the tank army was deploying infantry to fight tanks in open field outside of fortified positions. (As the SS had gotten through) The remainder of the 1st tank army was entirely bogged down fighting the 48th panzer corps on the SS left. If the Steppe fronts reserves hadn't been deployed at all then a success at Kursk would've indeed been possible, as the SS could've flanked defenders in front of their neighboring panzer corps and then they could've launched an aggressive drive across open terrain towards kursk and even beyond, there was no reason they couldn't have made up for lost distance from model's failed drive. Except for one reason: The counter attacks from the 5th guards army and 5th guards tank army. Anyway Newton suggests, and I do agree, that it was a lack of infantry that doomed Kursk. Infantry normally clear fortifications and defend flanks, the Panzer divisions instead had to do it all and as a result, failed to advance rapidly enough. Then even though their tank losses were hardly catastrophic, their infantry losses were, and that was why the attack failed.

[@victorrtalluto225]

@@Rohilla313 Manstein didn't HAVE any reserves at Kursk. Therefore he couldn't deploy them. Was his "Backhand Blow" at Kharkov in March 43 also a myth?

[@MrSean03839]

The Russians had another front east of the salient that they never even engaged. The German's had little hope of closing the Kursk salient, especially in the north. Even if they had by miracle they did not have the additional forces to fend off the attack that would have come from the additional front to the east. As with the whole war in Russia the Germans lacked the forces to win. Once Barbarossa failed in 1941 the war was already lost.

[@nerminerminerminermi]

Soviets had also huge men shortiges i couldnt belive myself but you hear that more offen now

[@MrSean03839]

@@nerminerminerminermi The Soviets out numbered the German's virtually everywhere, so not sure where you are getting your information from.

[@nerminerminerminermi]

@@MrSean03839 i also read that they only lost about 1/5 of their strenght, they could afford 4.5 more barbarossas before crumbling and smashed to dust. But i think it was in a vid from "armchair historian" where they mentioned serois men shortiges for soviets in 1943. And they were Not that mighty as many think today

[@herptek]

​@@nerminerminerminermiThey lost huge proportion of all of the field armies that were mobilized and concentrated near the frontier at the beginning of the war. The Germans actually took millions of prisioners of war from the huge pockets that formed and surrendered. This means many whole armies with personnel and equipment lost.

[@nirnman]

A well-presented argument but it ignores the fact that the Russians like the western allies after the invasion could readily replace the tanks lost in action whereas the Germans couldn't. the decisive decider in this case was Hitller's decision to stop Operation Citadel when he learned of the allied invasion of Sicily

[@ivanbro1208]

The germans could and did, the problem was the massive lack of fuel

[@generalhorse493]

That and while the Russians pursued making their tanks easier to make and more functional in general combat, the germans pursued new vehicles that were increasingly expensive, resource intensive, unreliable, and whose advantages in armor and firepower could be easily contended with/circumvented by the Allied and Soviet tanks.

[@herptek]

The Germans used assault guns extensively, partly in order to reduce resource intensiveness.

[@josh09614]

​@@ivanbro1208Yeah, they badly need Oil that's why they launched Operation Case Blue to try and seize Oil in Caucasus, Groszny, Maikop and grain in Ukraine while also denying it to the Soviets.

[@yuppy1967]

Well, Germanys fate was sealed once the English and Americans started shipping supplies, volunteers and weapons to the communist. Kursk was just the climax of that effort. I remember one of my teachers from the 4 th grade in Germany speaking about it, he was in a panzer 4 and got shot out of his tank.

[@jasonbell6234]

You mad Nazis lost? Awww

[@dannybursace9151]

Yes! Great point…the US was concentrating their economy into the war effort…the US & the Brits assisting the USSR to an almost limitless source compared to Germany, helped win the war…there’s no way the USSR would’ve gotten thru without assistance from the Allies

[@dannybursace9151]

400,000 jeeps and trucks 14,000 airplanes 8,000 tractors 13,000 tanks More than 1.5 million blankets 15 million pairs of army boots 107,000 tons of cotton 2.7 million tons of petroleum products (to fuel airplanes, trucks, and tanks) 4.5 million tons of food

[@thomass1891]

still holding on to that cold war myth i see

[@g8ymw]

@@thomass1891 What cold war myth?

[@limonade7050]

Although I like ur point of view in this video, you completely disregard the events that happened in the northern sector during Citadel. On July 12th, the Soviets launched operation Kutuzov which forced the Germans in the north to go on defensive. A breakthrough in the south would've done little to aid the deteriorating situation in the north.

[@darklysm8345]

A breaktrough in the south would completely fuck up the main soviet lines supply system thus allowing the germans much more options

[@limonade7050]

@@darklysm8345 While you have a point there, Prokhorovka wasn't the final Soviet line of defence south of Kursk. The city of Kursk was still roughly 90km north so I doubt they would be able to penetrate far enough to cut Soviet supply lines. But I understand your point of view in the wider scope of the battle, because yes, a victory at Prokhorovka would definitely have some consequences for the battle as a whole. I just try to point out that the topic of this video, a "lost German victory at Kursk" was not solely dependent on what happened in the southern sector.

[@Tommykey07]

@@limonade7050 100%.

[@ssukhdeepkaur1783]

@@darklysm8345 There was never any breakthrough in the South .

[@jerryjeromehawkins1712]

The British had decoded encrypted German messages stating the Kursk salient was the objective of their next offensive. The British handed this intel to the Soviets giving them months to prepare antitank traps, gun emplacement, etc. Great video as always! 👍🏽

[@coachhannah2403]

Soviets already knew.

[@danielkurtovic9099]

As Coach Hannah said, soviets already knew from their spy net. Cheap attempt to downgrade soviet achivements by push up Brits, one of many.

[@elrjames7799]

@@coachhannah2403 Yep: the 'Lucy' Spy Ring.

[@jasonbell6234]

You can’t count on luck on eastern front.

[@ahmadmorsy1561]

Same British who flee France and wanted to attack the red army in Berlin? Soviets beat the wermacht and ended the war end of the story

[@cameronbrown9080]

It's the winner who gets to write the history of the battle

[@EdwinJanssen1991]

Agreed

[@joemiller9931]

Anyone can write the history.

[@shervintajik4245]

@@joemiller9931nope, only winners

[@noahleffze220]

It's remarkable how often manstein was right

[@justinreilly6619]

Thank-you for presenting such a well researched and presented revisionist account of this critical battle. 🙏

[@hanzzimmer1132]

The difference between Tactical victory and Strategic victory needs to be talked about.

[@joemiller9931]

Kursk: Tactical victory for the Germans, Strategic victory for the Russians.

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

everybody in the west focuses on the quick win.

[@thomasaquinas2600]

The baited trap was created by Hannibal at Cannae. Manstein brilliantly sprung it after Stalingrad, recapturing Kharkov and re-establishing a front. Now, he wanted to do the same thing, withdrawing from the north and entrapping the Soviet response, but Adolf didn't think soldier morale would be controllable during such an apparent retreat. That was the key for Hannibal and Manstein. Manstein only reluctantly agreed to the Case Zitadelle(Kursk) and was out-of-his-element throughout the battle. He even wanted to carry on the lost battle when Adolf, of all people, cut him off, sending some forces to N. Italy.

[@kevinbabu8919]

Beautiful video, FactBytes !!!!!! You really put a lot of work into this video !!!!!! I really enjoyed this !!!!!! 👏👏👏👏❤️❤️❤️👌

[@shaunspence850]

Other than the part where BullBytes makes up a video of pure nonsense. I suppose he is trying to make it interesting by offering his fantasy of how things might have been instead of studying the result -studying is obviously not his specialty. He is like a little kid making up his ideas of what might have been. He accuses others of fiction but that is all he is dealing in with this video.

[@geldoncupi1]

I have repeatedly wrote about Kursk myth, but I always had laughable replies. Love your channel! It deserves the name.

[@genenovak2717]

Wow this is interesting, why have we not heard this information before?

[@alexbowman7582]

Even a complete victory for the Germans would have resulted in a limited advantage for the Germans and a limited advance.

[@darth_elsa6681]

The thing is....even if the Germans "won" The Battle of Kursk...it would've at most added another year to the war. A "victory" at Kursk wouldn't have changed the defeats happening in the west or stopped the invasion of Italy.

[@darth_elsa6681]

@Albert Strauss while it's not inconceivable it was however unlikely. As stated even if they won the battle they would still have to divert troops to Italy....meaning they couldn't press on in Russia. If they can't push further into Russia....Stalin has no reason to want a separate peace and could wait to rebuild his forces.

[@darth_elsa6681]

@Albert Strauss Churchill was willing to fight to the end....whatever that end looked like. The Germans actually gave them a chance to surrender and keep their Empire after the fall of France and they refused.

[@darklysm8345]

@@darth_elsa6681 ever heard of the stockholm peace talks?

[@darth_elsa6681]

@@darklysm8345 you mean the talks that are now widely considered to be a ruse for Stalin to bide time to prepare his defense of Moscow. The same talks the that Hitler was never going to say to.....yes I've heard of it.

[@darklysm8345]

@@darth_elsa6681 stockholm talks lasted into 1943. What moscow are you talking about?

[@ericmansfield6609]

The truth is always hard to find great work guys

[@FactBytes]

Thank you!

[@herbertbarrera]

Great video, best footage as always!

[@mrpolsco6872]

No no…it’s because of the loss off the 6th Army at Stalingrad Hitler’s confidence was eroded as his Generals now second guessed him. Hitler gave his Generals the freedom for Citadel he was wracked with worry and tension, chronic misgivings to the plan the Russians knew months ahead of the impending attack and built three layers of trenches,fortifications, tank traps, massive anti tank gun emplacements etc The Germans obviously knew the Russians expected them due to aerial reconnaissance and photography, Hitler delayed to await arrival of the new Panthers, but no this was Hitler’s Generals blunder. Instead a massive feint would have been better locking down Soviet forces whilst instead building German fortifications along the Dnieper River would have been a far better idea to force a stalemate.

[@briankorbelik2873]

Von Manstein really wanted to do a second "backhand". He wanted to let the Soviets attack at Kursk and give them just enough rope once again.

[@funkervogt47]

12:05 - Um, no, the Germans could not have achieved a stalemate.

[@aaronrowell6943]

Good vid keep up the world War 2 history! Bagration was more significant, but everyone talks about this battle because it was the last time the Germans had a shot to get a major win on the east. It's all downhill from here. Only thing is you look at everything that's going on in the war up to that point yeah like even if let's just say the Germans hypothetically won at Kursk they would lose so much stuff I don't even know if it'll be worth it, and then what would they do go on to Moscow or something? Something I'm curious if anyone replies what would the Germans have actually done let's say they won this battle what's next? Hitler will refuse to give up the war in Russia, and the Soviets want revenge. The Russians are already counter-attacking in the north and there's millions of men to the South fresh off of the Stalingrad campaign, the Germans won't be able to march on Moscow in 1943 because millions of more soviets stand between them and the city, and the western allies are taking out Italy. What could Germany salvage? Is it a Pyrrhic victory?

[@erab9514]

The entire idea behind this battle was to eliminate the "bulge" in the German lines, plus surround & eliminate the troops in it. Straightening the line would make their line shorter, freeing up troops that could be used for reserves. That's it. Manstein was hoping to make a strong, elastic defense, create a stalemate & negotiate some sort of peace treaty. Illusions of victory only existed in what was left of Hitler's mind.

[@aaronrowell6943]

@@erab9514 Yes, at this point the Generals were starting to try to kidnap or assassinate big bad Uncle H. But yeah, at this point, I don't see any hope of a overall Axis victory. Something else I'm learning from the good video series from TIK and WW2 week by week is that the Axis have lost so many armies by this point especially the axis allies that it really is just Germany at this point

[@nerminerminerminermi]

Millions more? I hear more and more of critical men shortiges for soviets in 1943

[@Plimothrock]

Great info-Thank you for posting.

[@jamesmerkel9442]

It must just looks like chain link. But if u hve actual chain link spot welded on to the from but still flexible fre to move It would hve added a extra armor for cheap weight add esp against rocket propelled fists. Each flex droop of chain loop forces copper jet to fire early b4 reaching armor shell/skin for cheap weight penalty.

[@charleswheeler3689]

Illustrates also the connection between the western and eastern fronts.

[@abdulrahman1308]

There were no SS Panthers at Kursk. The Panthers were placed in 10 Panzer Brigade attached to the Großdeutschland Panzergrenadier Division.

[@victorrtalluto225]

And GD screwed using them. They ran into mud and minefields.

[@evilfingers4302]

I'm just wondering, is the narrator a computerized voice, because of its mispronunciation of von Manstein and Model?

[@mustangmanmustangman4596]

Yes IT is

[@12hairyjohn]

Why is there no mention of Operation Kutuzov on the north edge of the salient?

[@trygveskogsholm5963]

I can hear TIK in the back of my head whispering "our lord and savior manstien" and "madman hitler"

[@stephenobrien5909]

This was not a lost victory, not even the last throw of the dice. It was the refusal to face up to the fact that Germany had long since shot it's bolt, and without the oil it needed for mobile warfare, the war should have been ended.

[@thunberbolttwo3953]

Or steel to build tanks.

[@stephenobrien5909]

@@thunberbolttwo3953 no point in building tanks if you have no fuel for them. The Germans had tanks sitting in repair shops in Russia, and in Germany, but didn't have the spares to repair them, or the fuel to run them. Same with manpower. They didn't send the men because they could barely supply the ones in Russia without additional men.

[@thunberbolttwo3953]

@@stephenobrien5909 germany had so many tanks in repair shops not because of fuel. they were there because Germany did not have the spare part to repair them. Thats what happens when you have 5 tank types. And 2 assault gun types.

[@stephenobrien5909]

@@thunberbolttwo3953 read my comment. I said no spares or fuel. Yes the numbers were mad. The number of different trucks and cars they used were in the hundreds. Madness

[@thunberbolttwo3953]

@@stephenobrien5909 But not why germany was short of spare parts. Or why it was dificult suply problem of spare parts.

[@moistmike4150]

My God! That WW2 must've been terrifying! I'm just glad no one got hurt.

[@lucas82]

I hope both sides had fun

[@Bynk333]

So thats is the reason why Russians and Ukrainians today repeating that. :-) Its modern reconstruction....

[@brucesnyder690]

Well, the Ger.ans inflicted 4x1 losses in men and 6x1 in armor.

[@galapagos4154]

Ayrıntılı gerçek bilgiler için teşekkürler 🇹🇷👍👍

[@alansewell7810]

The Soviets considered Kursk a 90-day battle that destroyed the German mobile Panzer forces and killed 170,000 (according to the German's own records) of their best veteran soldiers. Plus resulting in another 400,000 captured or discharged from service with incapacitating wounds. During the subsequent retreat of several hundred miles, the Germans abandoned thousands of armored vehicles in their workshops, whereas the Soviets took their damaged vehicles in for repair and put them back on the field. The Germans simply could not replace these losses of men and material and never mounted another offensive against the Soviets. This singular undisputed fact tells the story of who won the decisive victory at the battle of the Kursk salient.

[@nutkanal3862]

Kursk battle slain german spirit alive

[@darklysm8345]

Lie more, what are these losses? You only read post war soviet propaganda? Lol

[@КириллПерваков-м4э]

@@darklysm8345 врешь только ты дебил

[@mustangmanmustangman4596]

​@@darklysm8345 dick LOL

[@danielkurtovic9099]

Decisive Soviet victory .

[@sabahtaha1746]

the main purpose of the kursk offensive was to take back the initiative on the eastern front not to stem the soviets tide

[@darrylcarpenter903]

Its refreshing to learn that "historical facts" are really not facts. Excellent and informative piece of work.

[@AmnesiaGm1]

Could have closed the gap a bit more, destroyed more Russian divisions, but not finish cleanly the operation. They had to not attack, and instead withdraw their two salients of Orel and Kharkov to shorten the front line, withdraw the group waiting in the Caucase to lock Kertch and withdraw from Leningrad back to lake Peipus the North Group. After many simulation these last 15 years on TOAW, this was the only positive scenario to apply.

[@jamesmerkel9442]

3/8 or 1/2"/even 5/8" holes chain spot welded lightly to stay on tank. Then a smaller chain to connect/weld it all together. It should move like chain mail absorbing the blows, way lighter then plate steel.

[@jayfelsberg1931]

Any Panthers in the battle were in Heer battalion, not the Waffen-SS

[@kniespel6243]

At Kursk for sure germans win , if we talking about losses . Russian losses was huge ! In tanks and men . But strategic the russian win . Like a german vet said ; " they was so many , wave after wave ! They falldown but others took place ! "

[@johngaffney2605]

All the endless ink spent on the hypotheticals of this incredibly complex and controversial battle. Was the German attack foredoomed to failure? When one considers the overall lack of an imaginative assault plan and the subsequent error plagued tactical conduct of the Wehrmacht, it's a wonder the Germans achieved any success at all. The Ninth Army stood NO chance of realizing even its limited objectives, a fact that all involved(Model, Zorn, Lemelsen and Harpe) understood fully. The Ninth Army was simply too weak, particularly in infantry, to penetrate and defeat Rokossovsky's overwhelmingly massive Central front. Models mission, in reality, was that of a diversionary force to tie down and prevent the transfer of substantial Russian reserves to the south. In this, the Ninth Army was successful. It was in the south, along the Voronezh Front, where the truly great battles, as the Wehrmacht intended all along, were fought. Unlike the Ninth Army, the Fourth Panzer Army and Gruppe Kempf had amassed sufficient strength and mobility to destroy not only the Voronezh Front, but also Konievs Steppe Front. However, sloppy assault planning, command inertia on the part of both Von Manstein and Kempf and the atrocious deployment/redeployment of the Third Panzer Corps on the 5th and 6th of July fatally compromised Fourth Panzer Army's and Gruppe Kempf's ability to maintain the required operational tempo that would have denied the Russian defenders of their own freedom to maneuver against the spearheads of the 2nd SS Panzer Corps.

[@mracreative9589]

So basically this guy is a massive Wehraboo.

[@abaj006]

I am quite sure the German loses must have been high, since once their offensive halted, they were pushed back and by the end of the week, they nearly had lost Orel. If they had minimal losses, then why were they pushed back to a point where they could not hold their original lines?

[@IronWarhorsesFun]

German repair crews were good thee is no denying it but you cannot repair what you cannot get to and when you retreat from a field you lose all salvage rights. also the Tigre especially was much heavier then any previous panzer and this ARVs needed to tow them simply didn't exist so any that couldn't move under their own power had to be cannibalized for whatever could be removed or or left behind entirely. Same goes for the panther and ESPECIALLY the terrible Ferdinand

[@playsgofficial]

A continuation of Manstein's offensive would have led to more tactical victories. But that would not have changed the operational situation let alone the strategic one. The 5 Guards was already destroyed. The SS Pz AK did not have sufficient manpower to encircle the remnants, hold the line and eliminate the pockets at the same time. More victories like the one at Prokhorovkha would have been achieved. But at what cost? The Russians would simply have reinforced their Kutusov offensive to the North. The only German pz reserves in the South would have been tied down in battles in the South that were totally never going to be decisive. Hitler and OKH decision to stop the offensive was correct.

[@thomass1891]

How do you know Manstein's offensive would have led to victory? Because he said so in his book?

[@playsgofficial]

@@thomass1891 because the Soviet local reserves facing III SS Pz A.K. were exhausted.

[@thomass1891]

@@playsgofficial were you a live correspondent ?

[@playsgofficial]

@@thomass1891 Yes, I was there with the Nachrichtenkompanie

[@mustangmanmustangman4596]

​@@playsgofficial no I was there with RNN Russian Nighly News with Ted Copelouski

[@markl4673]

3:19...new evidences reveal that the Germans were closer to victory at Kursk than previously believed... ahh, the never ending nostalgia of Germany almost pulling it off...

[@ericvonmanstein2112]

Just like only some km away from moscow Capturing 90 percent of stalingrad Almost forcing the British population to submission during blitz

[@mustangmanmustangman4596]

I almost was a millionaire but I lost the $5 to buy the ticket in a street dice game!

[@brucesnyder690]

Povoroka was a russkie disaster. I tbjnk more than 400 russkie tanks ran jnto to a giant trench. The russkirs were wiped out there.

[@jayfelsberg1931]

One reason for calling off the attack was the transfer of II SS-Pankerkorps in retaliation of issues in Italy. "#00 to 700" panzers is kinds vague, isn't it?

[@kevinbabu8919]

Can you make a video of the Battle of the Gothic Line in Italy, featuring the Canadians, FactBytes?

[@FactBytes]

Yes Kevin. Added this to my contents list. 👍

[@kevinbabu8919]

@@FactBytes Thank you. 🙏☺️❤️

[@enyawrebbuj9458]

German traitors belonging to the Lucy Ring also disclosed the Citadel attack plan to the Allies. And still the Germans did pretty well given that their plan was divulged. Great testimony to the German military prowess and tactical ability on the battlefield.

[@ericvonmanstein2112]

Exactly Germans lost most battles because of breaking of enigma codes which hampered German navy and army Otherwise Germans could have starved the British by end of 1943

[@ericvonmanstein2112]

The reason why battle of bulge was quite successful for Germans at first was because Germans didn't use enigma to transfer messages and allies were shocked Allies didn't win due to capability ,but luxury of resources and information

[@immagination16]

My sources say 3 to one, three Russians for every German and it was like the Movie "FURY" except it was a tiger tank story, typically that's what happened to the Tiger Tanks, the German Panzers often ran out of ammo in front of a burning wall of destroyed t-34's and that the battle was so bad for the Russians that they had to crash into the Tiger Tanks as a battlefield tactic. This is an example of a Pyric Victory, a Victory that was won at such a cost of life that could not be considered a Victory at all.

[@КириллПерваков-м4э]

y stupid source is germans propaganda i d i o t

[@mustangmanmustangman4596]

No tanks crashed into each other. But the Germans really did have a turkey shoot of the 5th guards due to terrain that funneled them in to a small area!

[@christopherfritz3840]

Its really quite remarkable how AH lost his nerve in TWO equally critical moments in the war against The Allies while on the Offensive and facing defeat. May 1940 he had the British public about ready to force Churchill from command in order to end the Blitz. Like this video suggests 'winning' was out of the question but once Barbarossa fizzled he KNEW his two front gamble was LOST! History shows that in the end he only had ONE strategy which was to split up the cooperative. And as suggested here Russia WAS.. in play! A Kursk "victory" (pyrrhic for Germany as well as Russia) added to the previous Karkov reversal REALLY would have rattled Stalin. Bottom line once the Sicilian front opened the looming invasion (long expected!) of the continent WAS the existential threat that HAD to be avoided. As the next year showed.. 'Game, Set, MATCH' 💀

[@PrivateWalker]

Certainly was no victory for the Germans! Model's 9th Army lost over 30,000 in 10 days & they didn't achieve any of their objectives. So how it's projected as any type of win is laughable. German armed forces were so much weaker when adolf cancelled it. Now if they'd hadn't of waited for the Panzer V & attacked much earlier.... possible victory?

[@lopezmt5]

Kursk was nothing but the last gasping breath of a “dying man”. Feeble and pointless.

[@jamesmerkel9442]

add a few spike rebar thru the chain to help hold it up/on tank.(slide rebar under in thru then spot weld it on).

[@jiritichy7967]

Regardles whether Germans were "victorious" at Kursk, umerous amalyses show that the industria, material, energy resources and manpower of Soviet Union would result in Germany'defeat

[@bazzakeegan2243]

Simply Excellent! 👍

[@rkurz9501]

the numbers of Russian and German tank numbers are not the first time , I have read these numbers and they are true according to unit histories from both sides histories . Could the Germans have won is still unsure .

[@zbigniewuramowski4031]

VIctory??? Russian losses: 3,5 times more solldiers, 5 times more tanks, 2times more planes, 4 times more of artillery!! Strategic victory but God save such winners!!

[@КириллПерваков-м4э]

польское отродье ври дальше у себя на хуторе

[@mustangmanmustangman4596]

But according to Stalin they were going to beat the West at the end of WW2 even if he had to sacrifice every citizen he had because " it was a price he was willing to pay"

[@vasilirikardsson]

Get over it. Manstein and Schicklgruber were total Uber-n00bs. The end result speaks for itself.

[@fbigtankloz9556]

So many bootlickers in the comments

[@boris1968-i8l]

And this is big Vistory ..150 000 german...1 300 000 russian...500 german tanks...3 50 rusian tanks..bi

[@mustangmanmustangman4596]

It was almost as big a victory as April 1, 1945

[@superchicken5285]

You can Monday morning quarterback this battle until the cows come home, the fact of the matter is still the same, the Russians won the battle of Krusk....period. lf the Germans had done X, Y, & Z, but they didn't, so whether you like the numbers or not, history still stands.

[@mustangmanmustangman4596]

You know what the worst thing is... none of them have seen real war!

[@bluemouse5039]

I would have thought that the German general staff would have seen the element of surprise was lost several months before their attack started just from their air reconnaissance of the Kursk area showing the Soviets digging miles of trenches around their objective plus massing of Soviet armor, troops and artillery and maybe come up with a alternative plan that would use the Russians continue to think the attack was in the Kursk area tying down their forces waiting for the Germans to attack, while the real attack was happening somewhere else

[@mostlygreen1]

Interesting, but misses what may be relatively new info that the Russians actually had far larger reserves than the Germans knew about, so the idea they were close to victory is now known to be false.

[@jamesmerkel9442]

49: it looks like a strong chain link was placed on to the front profile of some of the Russian tanks as a supplement flex armor

[@1014kerry]

Very good account of the 12th July tank battle, with much more accurate account on true losses. One should never take announced /claimed losses at face value, but the day by day returns really clear the air! Soviet propaganda can really get thick in some of their histories, later Russian histories usually have been much better.

[@chrisigoeb]

Im tired of hearing kursk was a 2nd Stalingrad or something. Thanks for this video

[@vasilirikardsson]

Good point dude. But you must agree that Berlin was a 3rd Stalingrad. Women, children and some senile men with panzerfausts almost turned the tide👍

[@MACtic1]

OK so according to this video the Soviet losses were so catastrophic that they caused the soviets to vin the Kursk battle and defeat the German war machine. Got it!

[@billyosullivan3192]

These idiots think war is a call of duty lobby where K/D determines the winner

[@francispoldiak7948]

Kursk was doomed (from the German standpoint) for several reasons. Had the weather held and Manstein could have continued his attacks in early March, the Germans would have probably reduced or even eliminated the salient. Hitler's delays gave the Soviets all the time in the world to prepare for the worse. German intelligence showed the depth of Russian defenses which so alarmed Manstein he suggested the Germans alter their tactics and instead of a flanking attack they hit the Russians from the front, which was not so heavily built up. Hitler dismissed this. Model's northern attack was based on infantry which is why it failed so quickly; he was trying to preserve his armor for after the infantry made a breakthrough but given the strength of the Soviet defenses, this was simply not going to happen. The best the Germans could have hoped for was to grind down the Soviet armor, which would have been possible only if Manstein's attack had been allowed to continued.

[@zionmarcelo]

so, the problem is hitler playing armchair general again

[@mt1885]

It was over in 1941 as Germany was in trouble already and then the winter set in.

[@feltwedge]

Total German write-off loses were 1 Tiger and 4 Mk 4s. Somewhere around 45 were damaged and recovered. Soviet tank losses were slightly less than 300. Regardless, the Germans were spent and the russians had plenty of additional reserves.

[@jandoernte3312]

5th Tank Army lost alot more tanks than only 300. More like double that. And that was only 5th Tank army. If Manstein was allowed to continue- he would have cut off and surrounded most ofntur Soviet forces to the west- certainly not the entire salient- but it would have been like Kharkov 1943.

[@attila7092]

@@jandoernte3312 Yes I too believe this is correct. Manstein could have made it to Kursk with the addition of the 24th panzer corp. All Soviet armor in the area was already committed to battle which meant they couldn't stop the Germans without giving up their part of the front. Probably many Russian would have escaped encirclement...but would have had to abandon all of their heavy equipment. Another long stalemate could have been achieved

[@mustangmanmustangman4596]

​@Attila709 all of the Russian armor was NOT committed! There was at least 2 but maybe as many as 5 tank armies held back by Stalin! Who refused even to tell the kusk commanders because he feared a possible breakthrough. Stalin was shown to be right as the 5th tank army was basically destroyed.

[@sebastianenoc5327]

limiting success?

[@andrewdgw6779]

Hitler knew this would fail.

[@joemiller9931]

Guderian : " I repeat my question, why do we want to attack in the East at all this year? " Hitler : " We must attack for political reasons. " Guderian : " How many people even know where Kursk is? " Hitler : " You're quite right every time I think of this attack my stomach turns over. "

[@attila7092]

70 - 100 Tigers? The 2nd SS panzer corp began Citadel with 15 tigers in each of it's 3 mechanized divisions.

[@MrPatrickworthington]

The German forces involved in the Battle of Prokhorovka were from the three Waffen-SS divisions of the II SS-Panzer Corps: Leibstandarte, Das Reich, and Totenkopf. On the evening of 11 July, the serviceable armor strength of the II SS-Panzer Corps was 294 tanks and assault guns, which included 15 Tigers. The armored strength of Leibstandarte, Das Reich, and Totenkopf were 77, 95, and 122 tanks and assault guns respectively. Ten of the Tigers were to the north of the Psel River with Totenkopf, four were with Leibstandarte, and Das Reich had just one

[@attila7092]

@@MrPatrickworthington Yes I know that. What does it have to do with my comment?

[@MrPatrickworthington]

@@attila7092 You said the 2nd SS panzer corp began Citadel with 15 tigers in each of it's 3 mechanized divisions. That would be a total of 45 tigers. It had a total of 15 tigers. But u may have just worded your comment ambiguously.

[@attila7092]

@@MrPatrickworthington I worded my comments according to what I've read. Isn't that what all of us are doing

[@MrPatrickworthington]

@@attila7092 Well, you read wrong. There were 15, not 45 tigers. Research it again.

[@valerysinitsine5949]

I have never heard of this "myth" you mentioned. You created a "straw man" just to take it down. All Russian sources I have seen say that Prokhorovka was a tie - Soviet tanks suffered terrible losses and could not dislodge the German armour, but prevented the latter from advancing.

[@paulboegel8009]

I'll save you 12 minutes of your life. Von Manstein said it could only succeed if done immediately after the recapture of Kharkov.

[@HateTheIRS]

Well. That’s true. But not, literally immediately after. The Germans couldn’t conduct offensive operation in March 1943 because the roads turned to mud. The Germans should’ve attacked on May 1, 1943. That was the original date. But Hitler kept postponing it.

[@paulboegel8009]

@@HateTheIRS Von Manstein was a brilliant general. Once the Soviets dug in, it was nearly impossible to move them(since they fought to the last man). May 1st would have made little difference since it was unachievable at that point.

[@HateTheIRS]

@@paulboegel8009 you realize most of the Soviet defenses were built, may-July 5. Attacking May 1 would have increased success dramatically.

[@paulboegel8009]

@@HateTheIRS That is because they(the Soviets) already had the plans of citadel in their possession, they knew they had time to build defenses. Again, Von Manstein had been on the Russian front since 1941, he knew the Soviet tactics and strategy. The Germans retook karkov because the Soviets didn't have enough time to resupply and dig in, There was no chance that the Germans would have the strength, or time to with draw all there forces from the front at Moscow, and redeploy them all for attack in 6 weeks. They would have been exhausted and needed refitting on their mobile equipment (since they would be moving it all in the mud of spring). Citadel was a giant waste of equipment and manpower. At that point, if the bomb would have exploded in the plane with hilter, the Germans would have been able to fight the Soviet red army to a stalemate. The bohemian corporal, did not allow for withdrawal, under most conditions, and army after army was destroyed by Soviet encirclements.

[@HateTheIRS]

@@paulboegel8009 sounds reasonable tbh

[@fdlman93092]

Microfilm? Revised narrative? Is this David Irving?

[@goldnsilverncopperore6116]

Kursk is a perfect example of Hitler interfering with his Generals, overruling them, resulting in a massive defeat that Germany never recovered from.

[@mustangmanmustangman4596]

Madman hitler

[@alexbowman7582]

It was a German win mostly although it cost Germany and Russia their best resources, which Germany couldn’t replace as easily as Russia could. After the offensive there was a stand off.

[@mustangmanmustangman4596]

Firstly there really is no such thing as mostly winning either you win,lose or draw! Secondly it seems to me that this narration was using mansteins book "lost victories" according to an actual expert who was able to look at both sides two key points came up 1st- the Russians had numerous tank army reserves 2nd even if they had been defeated the German southern attack did not have the strength to drive all the way to meet the north which was quite far away by this time. Also even if the the Russians were trapped in the pocket it would been a local victory because 1 the rest of that front was so huge that even the karkov wins did not mean a total win on the Russian front and 2 at this point in the war the Germans were fighting or needed troops in many countries at the same time which they could not do because of a man power shortage!

[@stephenmacdonald76]

i always thought they should not have attacked after all the delays

[@napraznicul]

An stategic mistake of Hitler.. which was paid with many lifes, a masquarade trial and even a "hunting season" for german officers after war :(

[@conan7496]

It was a smashing loss for Germany. History records that the Germans never again went on an offensive after this battle in the east, but only fought defensively. Why is that? Because they lost this battle and most of their new armour. Cia revised history, blame everthing on Hitler, he was no longer around to dispute anything. The German Generals were still around then. Who did they blame? Hitler, he was no longer around, but the German Generals were, and they were working for us by them. Cold war lies on the left and the right. We could have never beaten the Germans without the Soviets, who took on millions and millions of troops. We couldnt start D-day until after this battle.

[@daviddoran3673]

Agree completely. Look up Operation Bagration for scale...army group centre totally annihilated...the allies could only dream of that effectiveness!!! The West is continually attempting to rewrite history and reduce/eliminate Russia's part in it....D-Day followed Bagration....NOT the other way round..

[@adamstrange7884]

How can one battle like Dday, June 6, follow an operation like Bagration, June 22, you need to get your dates and order og battles correct.

[@markmccormack1796]

German FM Model and the 9th weren't going anywhere. The link up between the north and south closing the Kursk pocket had little to no chance of success due to the Soviet fight stopping Model. Model also had to defend against the Soviets attacking the rear of the 9th. Even if von Manstein took Prokhorokva, a great victory for his memoirs, it would not have changed the outcome of the war. The real war was being fought on the ground between Moscow and Berlin, as the Germans were to find out in 1944.

[@jamesmerkel9442]

Like chain mail for tanks light & flexible vs plate armor.

[@amitavachakrabarty8518]

Interesting to know there are still people interested about truth and not jumping on the bandwagon of propaganda.

[@Tommykey07]

It's weird hearing some of the same place names that we hear today in Putin's war (sorry, "special military operation") in Ukraine.

[@artanderson8827]

You left out the part of the Allies opening a second front, with the invasion of Sicily, in the same time frame. Hitler had very little confidence in the Italian military to hold off the Allies in Italy.

[@joemiller9931]

Which is completely understandable.

[@pinoypride9202]

Germany wins in numerical terms,but the outstanding manpower and resources of the soviet beats them

[@asafb1984]

This video is full of lies and half truths. 1. Tanks were not the only important aspect in the battle. There was also air battle and you can stop tanks with artillery and mines. 2. The soviets had multiple lines of defense so victory for the germans was not even close. 3. The madman hitler argument - the allies invaded italy and were bombing germany so kursk was not the only important need, and overall kursk was not great success for the germans. 4. Meinstein is known for his lies and selective memory. Not all the things he said were true. 5. When you fight soviets, killing ratio of tanks/aircraft/men is not sure sign if victory. Ask the nazies where the war ended.

[@joemiller9931]

Good points.. but learn to spell or whip out a dictionary.

[@mustangmanmustangman4596]

​@@joemiller9931 don't be an ass most people on this forum can't even get the points right!

[@fswatyahoocom]

Germans had no chance of winning as an attacking force. It did not have enough strength to continue moving forward.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

The only way that Germany could have won the battle of Kursk was to not fight it at all. The Soviets had the intel, they were dug in, they knew the Germans were coming and pretty much knew how they were going to attack. Disastrous delays for the not-ready Panther tank, too. The whole operation was doomed.

[@MetalDetroit]

99% of these videos start: “Following their disasterous defeat at Stalingrad”. 😜

[@dennispfeifer7788]

Napoleon captured Moscow, and it did not prove fatal to the Russians...learn your history...Napoleon invaded Russia with about 600,000 men, he escaped with only 20-30,000 men back to France...the other 570,000 were dead, or captured...your conclusion is highly in doubt.